Deeper Commentary

2:1 The Image of Daniel 2

Daniel chapter 2 begins the Aramaic section of the book. Although God can inspire and use who He wishes, it has been argued that Daniel would have known both Hebrew and Aramaic fluently. And God clearly used that. The section concerns the future of the Gentile nations with respect to Israel; the fact Daniel spoke or wrote it in Aramaic was because he wanted to witness to the world around him in their language. He wanted to tell them their destiny, with the implication that they should repent. Another reason for this Aramaic section may simply be to the as it were bind the two halves of Daniel together, as suggested by Collins in his commentary on Daniel (Collins, John J. (1984): Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature,  Eerdmans) p. 31:

PART I: Tales (chapters 1:1–6:29)

• 1: Introduction (1:1–21 – set in the Babylonian era, written in Hebrew)
• 2: Nebuchadnezzar's dream of four kingdoms (2:1–49 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 3: The fiery furnace (3:1–30 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 4: Nebuchadnezzar's madness (3:31–4:34 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 5: Belshazzar's feast (5:1–6:1 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)
• 6: Daniel in the lions' den (6:2–29 – Median era with mention of Persia; Aramaic)

PART II: Visions (chapters 7:1–12:13)

• 7: The beasts from the sea and the Son of Man (7:1–28 – Babylonian era: Aramaic)
• 8: The ram and the he-goat (8:1–27 – Babylonian era; Hebrew)
• 9: Interpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy weeks (9:1–27 – Median era; Hebrew)
• 10: The angel's revelation: kings of the north and south (10:1–12:13 – Persian era, mention of Greek era; Hebrew)

 

Daniel chapter 2 contains an outline of the powers who were to dominate the people of Israel within the land of Israel; that is the eretz / earth / land which is in view, not the whole planet. It begins with a head of gold (Babylon), then breast and arms of silver (Persia), thighs of brass (Greece), two legs of iron (the two halves of the Roman empire) and then feet part of iron, part of clay. Each part of the image corresponds in proportion to how long each empire dominated the land of Israel and the Jewish people- thus the legs were longest because the Romans dominated the land for longest. After AD70, the Jewish state ceased to be a nation. But now, it is once again, for the first time in nearly 2000 years. The final part of the image therefore represents a group of nations (perhaps divided into two groups, symbolized by the two feet) who will dominate Israel in the last days. A stone cut out of a mountain without hands (representing the Lord Jesus Christ) then hits the image on its feet, growing into a mountain which fills the earth. The interpretation is given, and it clearly refers to the second coming of Christ to destroy the kingdoms of men who have dominated His land and His people, and to establish God’s Kingdom on earth: “In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people; it shall crush to powder and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Dan. 2:44). The vision requires that the image stands complete in order to all be destroyed together. The latter day entity represented by the feet will also be headed up by a latter day Nebuchadnezzar, and will comprise elements of all the previous entities which have dominated God's people.

And yet there is another view possible. Bible prophecy is often conditional. At Daniel's time, there was the possibility that in some sense, a Messiah figure could have appeared and re-established Israel as God's Kingdom on earth. Many of the prophecies we understand as referring to the establishment of the Kingdom on earth at the Lord's return could have then been fulfilled. Ez. 40-48 is the clearest example; the returning exiles were intended to build a temple of the dimensions given, replete with a Messiah figure. But most remained in the soft life of Babylon, and those who did return were disobedient to the Kingdom potential, as prophets like Malachi, Haggai and Zechariah make clear. Daniel's prophecies likewise outline a possible scenario which could have led to the re-establishment of the Kingdom; but it didn't happen, because of men dropping the baton, missing the opportunities, refusing to use the potential of the Spirit.

 

Understanding Daniel 2 is programmatic to making sense of Bible prophecy about the last days. The beasts of Daniel 7 are clearly an extension and development of the four metals of the Daniel 2 image, and those beasts morph into the beasts of Revelation, where we find them presented with various aspects and with additional details. As to why the beasts morph over time, I would suggest that this is because Bible prophecy is conditional (see the Appendix ‘Conditional Prophecy in Daniel’). What could have come true e.g. in Daniel’s time, did not- because of the indolence of God’s people and the lack of repentance amongst the Gentiles. And so the prophecies morphed into another form, and then another, meaning that the essence of God’s prophetic word will still come true, even if the form of fulfilment is not that which was initially or ideally intended. Daniel 2-7 are written in Aramaic [Chaldee], not Hebrew. The section has a concentric structure, in which the visions of chapters 2 and 7 form the opening and concluding parts. They are clearly to be related to each other:
Daniel 2- Vision of empires
Daniel 3- Deliverance of three Jews from death
Daniel 4- God’s discipline of the king
Daniel 5- God’s discipline of the king
Daniel 6- Deliverance of Daniel from death
Daniel 7- Vision of empires

 

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was given a dream which Daniel interpreted. He saw an image comprised of various materials, in the form of a man. Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold, followed by the breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, two legs of iron, and finally two feet [10 toes] made from a brittle mixture of iron and clay. A stone cut out from a mountain without hands then struck the image on its brittle feet, and destroyed the gold, silver, brass, iron and clay. A whirlwind carried them all away, and the stone grew into a mountain which filled the earth and will never pass away as the previous kings and kingdoms passed away. This is interpreted as the establishment of God’s eternal Kingdom on earth (Dan. 2:44). The stone is a fairly common symbol of the Lord Jesus Christ (Ps. 118:22 cp. Mt. 21:42-44; Acts 4:11; Is. 8:14; 28:16; Rom. 9:32,33; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4,6-8), the Messiah of Israel (Gen. 49:24; Zech. 3:9; 4:7,10), the begotten Son of God, cut out without human hands.

Bible prophecy can be understood on a number of levels. It would be legitimate to see these four empires as referring to the succession of kingdoms which had dominion over “all the earth”. We must remember that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee. We read through the mask of translation. The Hebrew word and concept of eretz, translated “the earth”, can refer either to the whole planet, or specifically to the land promised to Abraham, between the Nile and the Euphrates. The word is used in modern Hebrew to refer to eretz Israel, the state of Israel. Clearly enough, the domination of “all the earth” (Dan. 2:39) doesn’t mean the entire planet. It surely refers to domination of the land promised to Abraham, and the people of that land, i.e. Israel. Likewise Babylon is described as being ruler over “wherever the children of men dwell” because they had been “given into your hand” (Dan. 2:38). This isn’t speaking of a literal dominion over every human being on the planet. The reference was to the way that Babylon had scattered the Jews amongst the various areas of the eretz [land promised to Abraham] under its control. The very same words for ‘give into the hand’ are used of how God would give the land and people of Judah / Israel “into the hand of” the king of Babylon (Ezra 5:12; Ps. 106:41; Jer. 20:4,5; 22:25; 32:3,28; 34:2,20,21; 44:30; Ez. 16:39; 39:23). Indeed, within the book of Daniel the point has been made; for the book opens with the statement that the king of Judah has been ‘given into the hand of’ the king of Babylon (Dan. 1:2). This is all quite some emphasis- the people ‘given into the hand’ of Nebuchadnezzar do not refer to all people on the planet, rather are they specifically the Jewish people. Likewise, the earth / land which is in view isn’t the whole planet, but rather the land promised to Abraham. Note too that ‘the earth’ [eretz] is often understood as the people of Israel within their land. Thus: “Concerning Samaria and Jerusalem… hear, all you people; hear, O earth [eretz] and all that therein is” (Mic. 1:2). Frequently, the physical land of Israel is addressed by the prophets, when clearly it is the people of the land which is in view. Ezekiel 6 is full of this: “Set your face toward the mountains of Israel, and prophesy against them, and say, You mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains and the hills, to the ravines and the valleys: Behold, I, even I, will bring a sword upon you, and I will destroy your high places...  I will cast down your slain before your idols… I will scatter your bones around your altars… your works wiped out… and you shall know that I am the LORD” (Ez. 6:2-7). Therefore the domination of the land / eretz can be understood specifically as the domination of the people of Israel within that land. This would explain why there is an apparent gap in fulfilment of the Daniel 2 and 7 visions- the historical fulfilment appears to stop once Rome was no longer dominating Israel, and then restarts in the very last days, in the period of the ten toes / horns. This would be because there was no land / state / people of Israel in their land to dominate.

After Babylon’s domination of the land, there followed the Medo-Persian empire (breast and arms of silver), then the Greeks (belly and thighs of brass), followed by the Roman empire, divided as it was into Western and Eastern parts, symbolized by the two iron legs. Out of this arose the two feet with their ten toes. But after the Roman empire, the people of Israel were exiled from their land, only becoming a nation again in 1948. The two feet with their ten toes would then represent a brief period of mixed domination of the land, under a confederacy of ten groups broadly divided into two camps. I say ‘brief’ because in proportion to the size of the image, the feet are not very large. The proportions of the different parts of the body match the length of time over which the various empires dominated Israel. Thus Babylon dominated Judah for 70 years, and they are represented by the head, which is not a large part of the human body.

The prophecy of Daniel goes further to provide more details of this series of empires. Daniel 7 describes the same succession in terms of four beasts, which also represent the same empires as the metals in the image of Daniel chapter 2. The fourth beast has ten horns, corresponding to the ten toes of Daniel’s image; and out of them, one particular horn is prominent. This beast becomes the prototype for the beasts we encounter in the book of Revelation, who likewise dominate God’s people and will be destroyed by Christ’s return.

Radical Islam and the Land Promised to Abraham

Radical Islam has a lot to say about the land promised to Abraham- what the Bible prophecies refer to as the eretz or land / earth. Radical Islamist groups such as The Islamic State and al-Nusra Front have spoken much about it; their definition of the Levant or Sham is pretty much that of the land promised to Abraham. ‘Nusra’ is an acronym standing for the Front for the Defense of the Levant. They claim to be fighting to prepare the way for the coming of the Mahdi to establish God’s Kingdom worldwide; they call the land promised to Abraham “Land of Malahim,” or “epic battles”, and they expect there to be the al-Malhamah al-Kubra, the “Great Battle of the last hour”, at Jerusalem. This is what the Bible calls Armageddon. When the true Jesus appears in Jerusalem, all nations in the earth / land will be gathered together to battle at Jerusalem. And the jihadist theology is preparing them for this. They consciously speak of their caliphate as being extended over the land promised to Abraham, and they are urging people to leave their native lands as Abraham left his, and journey to live in the caliphate, comprised as they wish it to be, of the territory promised to Abraham. They call their caliph or leader ‘Caliph Ibrahim / Abraham’, and urge migration or hijrah to the land promised to him. The pieces are all falling into place to fulfil the Biblical pictures of the last days. Jihadist theology makes much of ‘signs of the times’, leading up to the coming of the Mahdi and the final battle against the antiChrist. These ‘signs of the times’ they look for are often the same signs which are to be found in the Bible, e.g. the re-establishment of Israel as a nation before Armageddon. So as they apparently come true, Islamists are the more convinced that antiChrist [who they call Dajjal and understand to be a Jew] is about to appear in Jerusalem, and they must fight him in the last great battle, in order to enable the Mahdi to return. Who they consider to be the antichrist will in fact be the true Christ. They will rush to fight Him, believing Him to be the antichrist they are expecting. Their destruction by Him will presage the establishment of God’s true Kingdom on earth, the revived and restored kingdom of Israel. This would explain why many Biblical terms used about the very last days are also found in Jihadist theology. They speak of the events of the very last days before the Mahdi returns as being “the hour”; and yet Revelation speaks of how the kings of the earth / land will have power for “one hour” and be destroyed likewise in “one hour” (Rev. 17:12; 18:10,17,19). These similarities are unsurprising because Mohammed clearly plagiarized the Bible and Judaism for his teachings.

The changing of times and laws by the antichrist figure of Dan. 7:25 sounds like the radical Islamist desire to impose the Islamic calendar and sharia law in the land promised to Abraham, which they see as their caliphate; and for sure, if Israel becomes part of an Islamic state, then the keeping of the Jewish calendar will be outlawed. The implementation of sharia law and changing legal structures to reflect it, is a major theme in their program. It’s clear that the three and a half year domination of Jerusalem and changing of the Jewish law and calendar had an initial fulfilment in the abuses of Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple. There was a three and a half year period from the edict of Antiochus in June 168 BC to the rededication of the temple in December 165 BC.  The little horn of Daniel 8 comes out of the Greek kingdom, but the horn of Daniel 7 out of the fourth kingdom. I suggest that this is because the prophecy could have been fulfilled totally at the time of Antiochus- Messiah could have come and destroyed him. But the various required preconditions weren’t met, and so there was another possibility of it coming true out of the Roman kingdom [another possibility is that the four beasts and metals refer to Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece rather than Babylon-Medo Persia-Greece-Rome]. Revelation uses the same imagery to describe the antiChrist of the last days, who will incorporate some elements of the previous historical fulfilments of the little horn in men like Antiochus Epiphanes.

Issue number 3 of the Islamic State magazine Dabiq frequently talks of the call to follow Ibrahim [Abraham] in making hijrah [migration] to the land promised to him: “Islam in the end of times will be more manifest in Shām... So the best of the people on the earth in the end of times will be those who keep to the land of Ibrāhīm’s hijrah, which is Shām” [Majmū’ul-Fatāwā]. Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh) also said, “So he informed that the best of the people on the earth are those who keep to the land of Ibrāhīm’s hijrah, in contrast to those who pass through it or leave it. The land that Ibrāhīm made hijrah to is Shām... the land of Ibrāhīm’s hijrah... And the land of Ibrāhīm’s hijrah, has been made for us equal to the land of our Prophet’s hijrah. The best people on earth will be those who keep to the land of Ibrāhīm’s hijrah”. Note how the theology of these jihadists effectively replaces the land of Saudi Arabia and the city of Mecca with that of the Levant, the territory promised to Abraham; and Mecca is replaced in their focus by Jerusalem. With Saudi Arabia now supporting the Western coalition against radical Islam, such a shift in emphasis isn’t surprising. But it means that all is being prepared for the last days- for the Bible prophecies focus upon the domination of the land of Israel and Jerusalem in particular. It’s significant that the Caliph of the Islamic State Caliphate is referred to by his followers as Caliph Ibrahim / Abraham; the idea is that the faithful will follow him in migrating from their homelands to the land promised to him- which is the very same eretz which is the focus of the Bible’s latter day prophecies, and which is to be dominated by an antiChrist figure and his beast.

The Image Stands Complete in the Last Days
The image of Daniel 2 must stand complete in the last days- the whole image, not just the toes, are to be broken in pieces “together”. This feature of the prophecy is crucial to correct interpretation. Babylon, the head of gold, must therefore rule over the system which the image represents. The image is a man- let’s not forget that. The head is Nebuchadnezzar. The entity which will be destroyed by the Lord’s coming is therefore headed up in an individual; and there are other Bible themes and specific predictions which flesh out the picture of this anti-Christ of the last days.

According to the interpretation given in Dan. 2:38-40, the first kingdom (Babylon) was destroyed by the second (Medo-Persia), and the second was destroyed by the third (Greece); but we read that the iron (Roman) kingdom would break in pieces all the previous empires, not just the Greek empire: “iron breaks in pieces and subdues all [these]; and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush them” (Dan. 2:40). This was achieved in the sense that there were elements of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires in the Greek empire which Rome crushed; as Keil puts it in his commentary, “the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third”. And likewise there are elements of the iron in the last part of the image- for the feet are made of iron mixed with clay. On this basis we can conclude that the final part of the image, the feet of iron and clay, will incorporate elements of all the previous empires which dominated Israel.

Apart from the head of gold, all the metals / beasts have a strange feature in common- they subdue three previous powers. The second beast has three ribs in its mouth` (Dan. 7:5)- speaking of three powers subdued by the Persians. The third entity, Greece, subdued “three… even four” kings of Persia (Dan. 11:2). I suggest this is a Semitism which effectively means ‘three very great ones’- cp. “for three transgressions and for four” in Amos 1, “three things… even four” (Prov. 30:15,18,21,29). The fourth entity, the legs of iron (Dan. 2) and the terrible fourth beast (Dan. 7) devoured, broke in pieces and stamped upon the remnants of the preceding three beasts / powers (Dan. 7:19). The little horn roots up three of the ten horns [cp. the ten toes], meaning that “he shall subdue three kings” (Dan. 7:24). Clearly the final phase of the kingdoms of men will include this feature which was in all the preceding ones. We should look, therefore, for a system which subdues three other kings or kingdoms.

If you tried to build a replica of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, with human dimensions and the same metals, it would not stand up. The relative gravity of the materials is such that it would be pulled over by the weight of its head. Gold has a specific gravity of 19.6, and the other materials have progressively lower gravities- clay has only 1.8 [silver 11, brass 8.5, and iron7.8]. Specific gravity refers in layman’s terms to the tendency of the material to fall to the ground. The whole image is pulled down to the earth by the weight of the head of gold. The specific individual heading it up therefore has an overpowering effect upon the whole entity. This of itself indicates not only how fragile are the Kingdoms of men, but how a specific individual, the latter day head of gold, will bring the image down. The whole colossus of humanity is actually kept standing by God- because the image as it is described could not stand. God is in history, He was and ever shall be and will bring it all down at the appointed time. This of itself is great comfort, as we feel dwarfed by the seeming inexorability of historical event and the apparent colossus of human corporation and empire.

Some of the words used about the behaviours of the elements of the image are elsewhere used specifically about the persecution of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar, and indeed the other empires, are described as 'ruling' over the earth / land (Dan. 2:38 etc.), but the equivalent Hebrew word is used specifically about how the enemies of the Jews sought to rule over the Jewish people. The word is used of how Haman the Agagite [the man of Gog] sought to "have power over" [s.w.] the Jews (Esther 9:1). Likewise, the word used for how the iron would 'subdue' (Dan. 2:40) is only used elsewhere of how the Israelites were subdued or 'made feeble' by their Egyptian persecutors (Dt. 25:18). The iron would "break" all beneath it, and this word is used of Esau [forefather of the Arab Moslem peoples] 'hurting' Jacob (Gen. 31:7), the Egyptians breaking Israel in Egypt (Ex. 5:22,23; Num. 20:15; Dt. 26:6), the Assyrians 'breaking down' the land of Judah (Is. 24:19) and the Babylonians breaking down Jerusalem (Jer. 25:29; 31:28). God's Kingdom will "consume all those kingdoms" (Dan. 2:44), using the same word as used about the 'consuming' of all things upon the land of Israel, both Gentile dominators and the apostate within Israel (Zeph. 1:2,3). 

So much of God's prophetic word had some initial fulfilment and relevance to its first audience. But always we are left with the sense that the fulfilment was only partial. The prophecies of Israel's restoration from Babylon did indeed have a fulfilment in the return of the exiles, as did those of Babylon's judgments, but clearly the major and complete fulfilment is yet to come. And thus it will be in the last days and in the return of Christ to earth that the entire prophetic word has its complete fulfilment. The word will take on the full flesh of reality in a way it has never done previously. The fulfilments and applications of Revelation's prophecies about the beast over history are but a prelude to that which is yet to come. We are seriously mistaken if we think that because we can discern a historical application of these prophetic words, therefore there is no future fulfilment. The schema of the image in Daniel 2 visually demonstrates this; the sequence of empires which can be discerned is not the main fulfilment of the prophecy. Rather is the ultimate and main fulfilment in the way that the image stands complete in the last days and is destroyed by Christ's return to earth. Likewise all the beasts exist at the coming of Christ (Dan. 7:12). The arising of four beasts from the sea doesn’t mean they had to arise at different times; they are a parody of the four beasts representing God’s Angelic organization. John describes these in Rev. 4:7; clearly he saw them all at the same time: “The first creature was like a lion, the second creature like a calf, the third creature had the face of a man and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle”. Because the continuous historical application is true as far as it goes doesn't preclude the main fulfilment of the prophecy in a rather different way in the very last days. And thus the book of Revelation too can have discernible historical applications over history, but throughout the book there is the strong impression that the prophecies speak of situations immediately before Christ's return, appeals and judgments which are urgently poured out immediately prior to 'the end'- and in that sense He is spoken of as coming "soon" (Rev. 2:16; 3:11; 22:7,12,20), in that the ultimate message of the book is for the generation who will be alive at the Lord's coming.

The complete image will have elements within it of the previous entities who dominated God’s people in their land. But it’s also possible that for the image to stand erect there will be four entities dominating the eretz, represented by the four beasts and four metals, with one of them sprouting ten toes / horns and an antichrist figure. This scenario would explain how after the fourth beast is destroyed the other three beasts have their dominion taken away (Dan. 7:11,12).

The Head of Gold
Nebuchadnezzar was given a kingdom of power, strength and glory (Dan. 2:37 LXX). Biblically, this is God’s Kingdom, which at that time was Israel. The animals and birds given into his hand (Dan. 2:38) surely refer to those of the land promised to Abraham, rather than literally the whole planet. For in what sense were the birds of the Amazon or Australian kangaroos given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar? The phrase ‘beasts of the field and birds of Heaven’ is repeatedly used to represent the ‘wild’ nations living in eretz Israel, from the Euphrates to Egypt. It is they who were at one time protected by the great empires and then turned against them (Ez. 29:5; 31:6,13; 32:4); they are used as symbolic of the nations in the invasion of Ezekiel 38:20, and of Israel’s neighbouring enemies (Ps. 79:2; Hos. 2:18). It was these which were given into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand; and later in Daniel we read that the birds and beasts represent the nations dominated by Babylon (Dan. 4:2,21). Clearly Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion was not global, and I submit that the only other clearly definable domain for ‘the entire earth’ is the earth / land promised to Abraham. God is said to have ‘given’ the beasts and birds ‘into the hand’ of Nebuchadnezzar. This exact phrase is used of how God gave the people of Israel into his hand (Ezra 5:12). It is so often stated that God would give His people into Babylon’s hand (Jer. 20:4,5; 22:25; 32:3,28; 34:2,21). Clearly it is the Jewish people in their land who are in view. As Babylon reigned over them as the head of gold, so the succeeding empires likewise would reign over them, and the entire image would stand therefore upon the land and people of Israel in the last days. Nebuchadnezzar was “made ruler over all”; but the “all” requires definition. I suggest it means all the eretz promised to Abraham, and all God’s people within it. The same word is used of how the Persians wished to ruler over / have power over God’s people (Esther 9:1). The ‘all the earth’ over which these kings / kingdoms had power (Dan. 2:39) is not referring to the entire planet, but specifically to the land promised to Abraham and God’s people within it.

 

The whole intention of the vision was to "make known to the king what shall be in the latter days" (Dan. 2:28). Now that of course can simply mean 'in the future' ("hereafter", Dan. 2:29). But "the latter days" is a term often used in the Bible regarding 'the last days'- the period directly prior to the return of Christ to earth. So we are invited to see the entire prophecy of the image standing complete and being broken as speaking of events to happen directly prior to the Lord's return. This requires the image to stand complete, and for the entire prophecy to have a primarily latter day fulfilment. The form of the entire image was "terrible" (Dan. 2:31), and this is the language of the last beast which would exist at the time of Christ's return (Dan. 7:7,19 s.w.). That beast, which is the basis of the beasts we meet in Revelation, is a summary of all the components of the image.  The stone cut out without hands (Dan. 2:34) must be connected with the way in which the antiChrist figure of the very last days will stand up against the Prince of Princes [Christ] and be broken "without hand" (Dan. 8:25), just as the stone quarried without hands would 'break' the entire image. The individual of Dan. 8:25 is therefore the embodiment of the entire image of Daniel 2; the entity represented by the image will be incarnated in its individual leader, who will exist at the very time of the Lord's coming. And the language of Dan. 8:25 is clearly picked up in the prophecy of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2, who will challenge the Lord Jesus and be destroyed by the brightness of His second coming.

The Feet of Iron and Clay
The ten toes are split into two groups, represented by the two legs. This could refer to the deep division between Sunni & Shia Islam, or to the latter day entity having two foundations within the land of Israel- in the West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip. Imagine the image standing with its two legs standing on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem in the middle; if the image is facing East, it would be looking precisely towards Mecca, as if it is an observant Moslem. Or it could be that there will be ten leaders, or ten groups, within the land promised to Abraham. Another consideration is that the "emirate" of the IS claimed to be headed by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and his "cabinet" of ten "ministers.

The cementing together of the iron and clay recalls the words of the Koran in Surah 61:4: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure". And yet the prophecy requires that they will be mixed together, but will not cleave with each other. And this will be the basis of their destruction, just as the disunity between Israel’s historical enemies was the basis of their destruction. Ps. 60:8 and 108:9 predict that God will triumph over Philistia- literally, He will split, divide them. But their own internal divisions are effectively their own judgment. And this is how God so often works.

The military arm of Hamas is the Qassam Brigades; kassam in Arabic means ‘divider’, another allusion to the feet part of iron and part of clay, when the Kingdom of Israel’s oppressors shall be “divided” (Dan. 2:41). Hamas means ‘strong’, and the Gaza strip / Hamas controlled area will be part of the final strong / weak, iron / clay entity that briefly dominates the land according to Daniel 2. The uniting of the disparate elements in the ten toes is matched by the great emphasis in the Moslem world upon unity. We read of “King Hussein’s plan for the establishment of a so-called United Arab Kingdom” (Y. Harkabi, The Palestinian Covenant And Its Meaning (Totowa, N.J: Valentine, Mitchell & Co., 1979) p.135). This sounds exactly like the ‘uniting’ of the iron and clay in the entity of the last days which will dominate Israel. “The Palestinian National Authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries [i.e. “all nations around about” Israel- D.H.]… or a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity” – Political Programs of the P.L.O., Article 8. “The Arab ‘nation’ is made up of ‘peoples’ and the (one) Arab homeland comprises the national homeland of these peoples… the relationship of the people and the individual to the overall Arab homeland and nation is called in modern Arabic Qamwiyya (nationalism)… like the trunk of a tree that branches off into offshoots of local patriotism…the splitting up of the Arab region into separate states carved out by the colonial powers.  However, once Arab unity is achieved and the frontiers wiped out…” (Y. Harkabi, The Palestinian Covenant And Its Meaning (Totowa, N.J: Valentine, Mitchell & Co., 1979) p. 31).

There is a gap in historical fulfilment between the end of the iron legs, the Roman empire, and the brief time of the iron and clay [the feet are a small proportion of the image of a man]. This need not concern us unduly. It could be that this is because there was no nation dominating Israel in the land promised to Abraham, because the Jews were in dispersion from Roman times until the 20th century revival of the state of Israel. This period may be what Jesus had in mind when He spoke about “the times of the Gentiles” (Lk. 21:24). Or it may be that indeed the prophecy had a possible fulfilment in the first century, or even earlier, that didn’t happen- and so the fulfilment was delayed, resulting in this apparent gap in fulfilment. We encounter a similar gap at the end of Daniel 11, when the fulfilment jumps from the time of the Greek empire to the last days; likewise Daniel 8 makes the very same jump. And the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 seems to require a similar jump from the time of Jesus to the last days. Another possibility is that the entire thrust of the Daniel 2 prophecy is indeed, as Daniel said, to show what shall be in the last days. The fulfilment over history is not exact and is only a dim primary fulfilment of the vision.

Muslim Unity and Disunity
The entire image with all its component metals is "broken to pieces together" by the little stone (Dan. 2:35). The Chaldee word translated "together" is the equivalent of the Hebrew echad, one. The various metals, along with the feet or iron and clay, may not naturally cleave to each other and yet in another sense they are one. And this is exactly the scenario we see developing- bitter intra-Islamic rivalry, whilst united passionately. The only commonality they all have is their joint hatred of Israel and desire to destroy the Jewish people and dominate their land. The same word is found, almost untranslated, in Dan. 2:31, where we read that the king saw a great image. The "a" translates the same original word which is translated "together" in :35. The image was not just 'an' image, but a together, united image, "one" image. The different metals were united together in one form and person, as a conscious imitation of Nebuchadnezzar and ultimately, Mohammad, whom the IS and the jihadists claim to embody. Remember article 8 of the Hamas Covenant: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model”. Recall too that the IS developed out of the Tawhid wa al-Jihadi group, meaning 'Unity & Jihad'. Unity is such a major and recurrent theme in the founding documents of so many jihadist groups, not least the IS [ISIS] and Hamas.

The ‘Palestinians’ were historically destroyed not by Israel but by the king of the north: “Howl, gate! Cry, city! You are melted away, Philistia, all of you; for smoke comes out of the north, and there is no straggler in his ranks” (Is. 14:31). Historically, God seems to prefer to provoke division and confusion amongst Israel’s enemies so that they turn on themselves and self-destruct. The horns hate the whore riding the beast, and there are many other hints at such a scenario in the last days. The King of the North, a re-formed Babylon, or Assyria redivivus, will likely end up conflicting with Hamas, or the final rulers of Gaza, and likewise destroying them.

 

Intermarriage of the Clay and Iron?
But Biblically, the potters clay is Israel. They and the Arabs do not mix with each other. The strong iron, fragments and elements of the iron legs, the fourth beast system, will be mixed with them but they will not cleave to each other. Hamas / Gaza, the strong ones [‘Hamas’ and ‘Gaza’ both mean ‘strong’], will be mixed with a weak remnant of Israel within the land- and the whole entity will be destroyed by the Lord's coming. Iron and clay don't cleave or marry to each other (Dan. 2:43). The same word for "cleave" is used about marriage in Gen. 2:24. They are mixed with each other- and the Hebrew and Chaldee words arab are used here. Clay is a symbol for Israel (Is. 64:8; Jer. 18:6). The Jeremiah 18 reference is significant in that God says that Israel are as clay and He will break them in pieces because they didn't respond to His appeals. The very same image is used of the destruction of the feet of clay in Daniel 2. The clay is specifically "potter's clay" (Dan. 2:41). And that is really the key to the interpretation, because Jeremiah 18 speaks of Israel as the clay in the hands of the Divine potter. The iron in the toes is clearly to be connected with the iron of the legs, which corresponds to the terrible fourth beast with iron teeth (Dan. 7:7,19). The dominators of Israel in the last days will seek to cleave [in marriage] to the clay, Israel. The clay is called "the seed of men" (Dan. 2:43), recalling the descriptions of Israel as "the seed of the Jews" (Esther 6:13). Mingling with the men of the seed would certainly suggest marriage. Is this a reference to a future Islamic domination of Israel unsuccessfully forcing the remaining Jews to marry Moslems? The iron and clay are "mixed" with each other; and the same word is used in Ezra 9:2 of how the people of Judah "mingled themselves" in marriage to the peoples of the land. The suggestion is that the iron and clay 'marry' but do not cleave to each other in that relationship. This is a feature of radical Islamist domination of territories. In Tunisia and other areas brought under Moslem domination, the Jews there were either killed or, if they were women, forced to marry (polygamously) Moslem men. It would not be out of character with the IS if those they conquer [Israel in particular] were given the same choice.

Religious Hypocrisy
The image is clearly presented as an idol- this is how the word translated "image" is usually used in the Old Testament. The chief deity of Babylon was Marduk who was considered to be the “god of gold”. Herodotus described the image of Marduk as a golden statue seated upon a golden throne before a golden table and a golden altar. Pliny also notes that the robes of Marduk’s priests were interlaced with gold. The word used for the breaking in pieces of the image (Dan. 2:34) is that used frequently about the breaking in pieces of idols (Ex. 32:20; Dt. 9:21; 2 Kings 23:6,15; 2 Chron. 34:4).  The sequence of metals (gold, silver, brass and iron) is found again in Dan. 5:4,23 in describing the materials used by the Babylonian kings for their idols. It's as if they wanted to show that actually all the metals of the image were comprehended within their empire- and they would last for ever. The latter day entity will be distinctly religious, too. The IS, as Sunni Moslems, are passionately against any idols or memorials, hence their destruction of any Shia shrines they take control of. But in a turn of irony which can only be Divine, their religious system is of itself an idol, which is to be destroyed by the Lord's second coming. The entity represented by the image of Daniel 2, which I suggest refers to an Islamic state established in the land promised to Abraham, is destroyed by the return of Christ as of a stone cut out without hands. But the Kaaba stone, the black stone of Mecca which is the central point of the grand mosque in Mecca towards which Moslems pray, is believed by Moslems to have been cut out without human hands and to have come to earth from Heaven, and will reappear at judgment day (1). And yet this stone, which serves as the focal point of Islam, will be shown to be but a parody of the ultimately true stone cut without hands, the Lord Jesus, who will return from Heaven as the stone to smash the image.

We can likewise observe that the description of the beast in Rev. 17 is very un-Islamic- in fact, the very opposite. The beast is ridden by a prostitute who is drunk- both abominations to radical Islam. The woman has a golden cup- drinking from golden cups is specifically forbidden to Moslems by the Quran. The cup is full of idolatry- and Sunni Islam particularly is passionately against any idolatry or worship of anything apart from God. An image is set up to the beast and worshipped- also abomination for Moslems. The false prophet does miracles- whereas Moslems claim that Mohammed did no miracles and the Quran itself is the one supreme miracle of Islam. The gawdy decoration of the beast and whore of Rev. 17 is far from the sobriety of jihadist Islam. Why the apparent contradictions? The similarities with what Islam is not are so pronounced that a point is surely being made. The beast of Revelation is how God views the Islamic State and radical Islam. From His perspective, they are the very and exact opposite of all they are claiming. And as has often been observed, the supposed 'religion of peace' is responsible for huge destruction and mass murder. Another possibility is that the more opulent descriptions of the beast actually match well with the Islamic conception of Paradise- as defined, e.g., in the Encyclopedia of Islam (Article 'Jannah'): "One day in paradise is considered equal to a thousand years on earth. Palaces are made from bricks of gold, silver, pearls, among other things. Traditions also note the presence of horses and camels of "dazzling whiteness", along with other creatures. Large trees are described, mountains made of musk, between which rivers flow in valleys of pearl and ruby". It may be that the radical Islam will seek to portray their caliphate as paradise come on earth.

The Destruction of the Image
The 'breaking in pieces' of the colossus is described using the same word as is used about how Israel will break in pieces their latter day enemies (Is. 41:15; Mic. 4:13). Whilst God ultimately will do this, it may be that He uses the tiny, ragged, repentant remnant of natural Israel to do so in the last days, achieving the most humanly unlikely, David versus Goliath victory of all human history. For it is God's style to always work through some human mechanism in achieving His judgments. The destruction of the nations will be as the wind blowing away the chaff from the threshing floors at harvest time (Dan. 2:35). But God usually works through a mechanism. It is a repentant Israel who will be Yahweh's threshing instrument and who will trample their enemies to pieces and destroy them as chaff (Is. 41:15; Mic. 4:13- very much the language of the destruction of the image in Daniel 2). Thus again we have the picture of the tiny, now faithful remnant of Israel being mightily used by the Lord to destroy their oppressors. And yet unbelieving Israel are described as chaff (Is. 5:24; 33:11; Jer. 23:28; Hos. 13:3; Zeph. 2:2). Those Jews who come into covenant with the oppressors will be treated as them and share their judgment, just as those who do not come out of Babylon will share in her plagues, and the unfaithful Christian believers will be "condemned with the world" (1 Cor. 11:32). The work of the Elijah ministry will culminate in the Lord Jesus appearing on earth in order to destroy the chaff (Mt. 3:12). So we can infer that the work of the Elijah prophet in appealing for Israel's repentance occurs at the same time as Israel's domination by the oppressors. For both activities culminate in the Lord Jesus destroying the chaff. 

The image of threshing definitely connects with other prophecies describing the judgment process at the Lord's second coming as being a threshing. Mic. 4:11,12 predict that the nations will be gathered against Jerusalem in order that they may be threshed there. Jerusalem has been the attraction for these peoples- and Islam so strongly desires it. Those are threshed are the ten toes of the image of Daniel 2, the 10 horns of the beast of Daniel 7. These therefore represent nations who desire to take Jerusalem. It is Babylon who will be threshed in the last day (Jer. 51:33), so we can understand these collected together nations as all under the control of Babylon. Which is what the image requires, because it was what Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon effectively saw as it were in the mirror, it was him, with his face. Joel 3:2,12 envisages these nations being gathered into the valley of Jehoshaphat as a result of a holy / sanctified war which they have declared, a jihad (Joel 3:9), where God will first plead with them to repent (Joel 3:2) and then judge them at the harvest (Joel 3:12,13). The Joel 3 passage is developed in more detail in Revelation 16, where we read that once the Angels restraining the forces of evil at the Euphrates release them, the kings of the East will come charging towards God's people. And the hordes of Islamic fundamentalists are currently gathered at the Euphrates river. But this will in reality be a gathering of them together unto Armageddon, meaning a heap of sheaves in a valley. Still within this same metaphor, Daniel 2 describes the threshing process, resulting in the wind blowing away the ground up peoples like chaff.
The image of a nation being threshed into dust is used in 2 Kings 13:7 of how the Syrians did this to an apostate Israel- inviting us to see the feet of iron and clay as having at least some reference to Israel. "The precious sons of Zion" are likened to potters' clay being smashed by the Babylonian invasion (Lam. 4:2); and the toes are of potters' clay (Dan. 2:41). The imagery suggests the destruction of an apostate Israel by a latter day Syrian / Babylonian. The stone which does the destruction is the Lord Jesus, but it is He working through the enemies of Israel to do this, just as God did so many times in judging His people historically.

Notes

1. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh Some Religious Aspects of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1981) pp. 120–124.

 

Conditional Prophecy in Daniel

The Olivet prophecy quotes and alludes to various parts of Daniel's prophecy, and yet the Olivet prophecy's intended fulfilment in AD70 didn't happen as was potentially possible, and was rescheduled. This therefore implies that Daniel's prophecies, which are alluded to, are thereby capable of a similar more elastic fulfilment. And looking in more detail at Daniel, this does indeed seem to be the case. Daniel prophesied whilst Judah were in captivity, and the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are full of potential prophecies of how the Messianic Kingdom could have been established at Judah's return after 70 years in Babylon. Ezekiel's conditional prophecy of the temple system is a parade example, although this was more commandment than prediction. I have discussed this in great detail in The Exiles. I suggest that like the Olivet prophecy, the prophecies of Daniel were an outline of a potential schema of events that could have taken place, leading up to the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. But due to Judah's overall preference to remain in Babylon, and the lethargy of those who did return, that schema was rescheduled and was given a longer term application over history, culminating in the events of [our?] last days and the final, inexorable establishment of the Messianic Kingdom on earth.

As is well established, Daniel's prophecies are interrelated. The metals of the opening vision in Daniel 2 develop into the beasts of Daniel 7, and the other prophecies give more details of potential fulfilments and developments of the beast systems, culminating in the war between the Kings of the North and South and the final revelation of Israel's triumphant Messiah and the resurrection in Daniel 12. The sequence of metals in the image of Daniel 2 speak primarily of four kings, each having a king-dom, a dominion over which they reigned. And they all form part of the image of an individual man. Nebuchadnezzar personally, rather than the Babylonian empire, was represented by the head of gold (Dan. 2:38). The ten toes of the image represent “kings” (Dan. 2:44 “in the days of these kings”). The prophecy started to be fulfilled- for in Daniel’s lifetime, the head of gold, Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty, gave way to Darius the Mede (Dan. 5:31), and still in Daniel’s lifetime, to Cyrus the Persian (Dan. 6:31). Daniel immediately perceived that it was about a succession of kings, not kingdoms (Dan. 2:21). But even that sequence need not have happened the way it did if Nebuchadnezzar had repented more quickly; if he had, there would have been a “lengthening of your tranquility” (Dan. 4:27). If he had, perhaps the next metal of the image would have followed him directly, rather than following his son. The time period intended for him could have been changed. The same word translated “lengthening” occurs only again in Dan. 7:12, where we read that the beasts had their “lives prolonged for a season and time”. Their intended time periods were added to. The setting up of God’s Kingdom on the earth / land of Israel was exactly what had been prophesied in Jeremiah and Ezekiel as happening once the captivity in Babylon had ended; at that time, the stone could have hit the earth and destroyed the situation envisaged in the image of Daniel 2. But this intended sequence of four kings followed by ten kings didn’t come about as intended. Ezra lamented the intermarriage of the Jews with the surrounding peoples, but even that could have been the fulfilment of the iron and clay mingling themselves with the seed of men (Dan. 2:43); but still the Kingdom was not established. The attempted reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah and the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi didn't bear enough fruit; and the potential Messiah figures such as Joshua and Zerubbabel all failed.

The captivity was intended to last for 70 years, but in reality it lasted longer- hence Daniel’s confusion and pleading with God in Daniel 10 to do what He had promised. And yet his prayer of Daniel 9 suggests that he realized Judah’s sins were such, and their lack of real repentance in Babylon was such, that the restoration program had been delayed. His response to understanding the 70 year period is to pray to God admitting Israel have sinned and are still impenitent- as if he realized this was why the period had been extended (Dan. 9:2,3). In Dan. 9:19 he asks for God to forgive, to accept his repentance on Judah’s behalf, and therefore not to “defer” or delay any longer. Clearly he saw that the intended 70 year period had been extended, because Israel had not repented as required. It seems to me that this was the same reason for the ‘delay’ in Christ’s second coming; the bridegroom does indeed “delay”, the same word translated “tarried” (Mt. 24:48; 25:5). It didn’t happen in the first century as planned but was delayed, just as the coming of the Messianic Kingdom was delayed in Old Testament times.

The beasts of Daniel 7 are based upon the four metals of the image in Daniel 2, with the feet and ten toes of iron and clay matched by the horns upon the fourth beast. The first beast was given a man’s heart and stood up looking like a man, showing it represented a personal king (Dan. 7:4). Dan. 7:9 speaks of how “the thrones were cast down” and then the last judgment sat. The beasts are therefore kings or “thrones”; their casting down is the same as the smashing of the metals of the image. My point is that the beasts were initially intended to be seen as kings, individuals rather than empires. Dan. 7:17 is clear: “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth / land”. Likewise “the ten horns… are ten kings” (Dan. 7:24). We are so familiar with the rescheduled, long term application of the prophecies, rolling through the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, that we can overlook the simple fact that the intended fulfilment was in a swift succession of kings after Nebuchadnezzar which would conclude with the return from exile and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom upon the ruins of the Babylonian kings. When it became clear that there would be some delay, Daniel was given the vision of Daniel 8, in which another version of the horns on the fourth beast was given. In this vision, a ram with a great horn spawned four leaders, out of whom came another horn, which persecuted Israel and defiled the sanctuary for 2,300 days, placing the desolating abomination (Dan. 8:13). This time period has now obvious fulfilment. But this very verse is quoted by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet prophecy; and clearly it has the capacity for various potential fulfilments which can be rescheduled if human repentance and response is inadequate. Dan. 8:20-22 says that the two horns on the goat represented the kings of Media and Persia- both of whom Daniel served under (Dan. 5:31; 6:31). After them, four kings could have arisen, followed by a charismatic leader who would conflict with “the prince of princes” [Messiah] and be “broken without hand” (Dan. 8:25) just as the little stone cut out without hands would destroy the image of Daniel 2. Such a situation could have happened in Daniel’s time, or at least in the time of Alexander the Great. But it didn’t. Firstly, in Daniel 2, he saw a succession of four kings. But then, after the second king, he has a vision of another four kings needing to arise; in other words, another element has been added to the sequence, delaying the fulfilment somewhat. Daniel’s response was feeling depressed (Dan. 8:27)- because obviously he wanted the fulfilment as soon as possible.

In Daniel 9, Daniel pleads for the prophecy of restoration to be fulfilled, recognizing that the 70 year period had been extended; he is recorded as repenting on behalf of Judah, and asking that God will not further delay the fulfilment (Dan. 9:19). The answer is the prophecy of the 70 weeks. This could mean that 70 weeks were going to be added to the 70 years. This could have meant a literal 70 weeks from the time of Daniel’s prayer, or the seventy sevens could be a total of 490 day / years. Despite many ingenious attempts, there is no persuasive interpretation of the 70 weeks prophecy. It could be that it is a series of potential possibilities; seven literal weeks from the commandment to restore Jerusalem unto Messiah, and then 62 weeks from Messiah’s coming to His ‘cutting off’. But then the prophecy speaks of how the city and sanctuary would again be destroyed and the destroyer then himself destroyed. This would’ve been most discouraging for Daniel, who was expecting and hoping for the immediate restitution of the temple.

Then in Daniel 10, Daniel was told that the appointed time had been made longer (Dan. 10:1 Heb.). This was in the third year of Cyrus, when according to the earlier prophecies, Daniel was looking for a new king to arise (Daniel 2), or four kings (according to the sequence of Dan. 8). Seeing Daniel had lived through the reigns of at least three kings, he likely expected the reign of these kings to be very brief, so that he might see the coming of the restored Kingdom. But now he is told that the time period has been extended. No wonder Daniel mourned this vision for three weeks (Dan. 10:2). Daniel then symbolically dies and resurrects; the comfort being that he would ultimately be resurrected to the life eternal, but the sadness being that he must die because “the vision [i.e. its fulfilment] is still for many days” (Dan. 10:14). His praying and weeping for those three weeks had not brought about a reverting of the time period back to that originally planned- it was yet or still for many days. In the spirit of Moses, Daniel had tried to change God’s will. All we learn at least from this is that prophetic time periods are open to change. The Olivet prophecy speaks of how “the days”, and the context suggests the ‘days’ of Daniel’s prophecies were in view, will have to be shortened otherwise even the elect will fall away (Mt. 24:22). Dan. 11:2 went on to explain to Daniel that now another series of four kings was envisaged, this time all Persian kings, in contrast to the idea of four Greek kings arising in Daniel 8; and this would culminate in two leading kings, of the North and South, who would have a series of conflicts climaxing in the temple being captured again, and conflict with Messiah leading to the resurrection (Dan. 11:40-12:2). This scenario also didn’t happen- and it would explain why no very credible interpretation has been found for Daniel 11. When we read allusions to these prophecies in the Olivet prophecy, and perceive that the Lord had in mind fulfilling them in the first century but later rescheduled that, we must remember that those prophecies had already had various potential fulfilments which had not worked out because of the lack of repentance within Israel. This is the all important sign of fruit on the fig tree, and an encouragement to give highest priority to preaching to Israel.

Daniel’s response is to ask “How long to the end of these things?” (Dan. 12:8 Heb.). He’s given various time periods of days, but told that these do not concern him, for he is to fall asleep in death, and then stand again “at the end of the days” (Dan. 12:13), however many they were, whether shortened or extended, “the end” would come all the same, and he would be resurrected then. And this is the great comfort to all of us as we reflect whether we will live to see the Lord’s coming or not.

 

Dan 2:1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar-  The miserable critics point out that Daniel and his friends were tried for three years by Nebuchadnezzar when he was apparently already king (Dan. 1:18,19). In a book as subtle and carefully internally coherent as the Bible, it beggars belief that such an obvious mistake would be made by some conman author. I suggest the opposite is true; someone who was writing the truth and who had lived close to the situation would write things which may appear contradictory to those reading from a distance. The four Gospel records are another example. And so here, at the time of Dan. 1 Nebuchadnezzar ruled as regent or subordinate to his father, Nabopolassar; whereas "the second year" refers to Nebuchadnezzar's sole sovereignty. Jer. 25:1 likewise uses the idea of "the first year" of Nebuchadnezzar to refer to the first year of his sole reign. Or we can go with the alternative textual readings, which offer "the twelfth" for "the second year". Another option is to understand Daniel 1 as summarizing how Daniel and his friends came to be so highly acceptable to Nebuchadnezzar after three years; and the events of chapter 2 explain how that came about. This kind of literary device is common in the Bible.

Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him- There are so many similarities with the young, handsome, captive, faithful Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's dreams and getting rewarded; here the connection is with Gen. 41:8.

They are both described as good looking (Gen. 39:6; Dan. 1:4), given new names, taken into captivity as 'boys' (Gen. 37:30; Dan. 1:4) but are promoted to the helm of Gentile power after interpreting a king's dream. The parallels are particularly strong between Daniel 2 and Genesis 41. The records both begin with a two hyear period (Gen. 41:1; Dan. 2:1). Both times, the king is described as agitated (Gen. 41:8, Dan. 2:1) because neither he nor his assistants can interpret the dream (Gen. 41:8, Dan. 2:1-11). Both Joseph and Daniel have someone at court who presents them as a Hebrew to the Gentile king (the cupbearer in Gen. 41:9-13, Arioch in Dan. 2:25). They both say that the interpretation of dreams is with their God (Gen. 40:8; Dan. 2:28), not with them, and that God makes known the future and it is certain of fulfilment (Gen. 41:25,32; Dan. 2:28,45). The Gentile monarch is delighted with the message and rewards the Israelite by giving them gifts and promoting them. The similarities are such that we can assume that Daniel based his words upon those of Joseph, perceiving the similarity of situation. Just as we are to allow ourselves to see the parallels between our life situations and the essence of such situations in the lives of faithful Biblical characters; and act like them.

The parallels continue beyond Daniel 2. Thus in Dan. 4:8,9 the foreign monarch realizes that the spirit of God is in Daniel, just as Pharaoh did with Joseph. The reward for telling the vision is a gold chain in both Gen. 41:42 and Dan. 5:7,16,29. Daniel's words to Nebuchadnezzar are clearly inspired by Joseph's example. He perceived the similarities between his situation and that of a Biblical precedent- and spoke and acted accordingly. Truly a pattern for every Bible reader.

We note though that Daniel is presented as a greater than Joseph. He not only interprets but recalls the king's dream; the dream is of far greater and eternal moment than those which Joseph interpreted; and Daniel is presented as more prayerful and more eager to give glory to Israel's God for the interpretation. Indeed Joseph is never once recorded as praying. Moses and Daniel are presented as resisting assimilation, whereas Joseph assimilates into the Gentile world. Daniel states clearly and more bravely than Joseph, that this Gentile monarch is given his power by God alone. Daniel is repeatedly critical of the impotence of Gentile wisdom, unlike Joseph. And it could be argued that the Gentile king was finally converted to Israel's God by Daniel's interpretations, whereas that isn't said of Pharaoh.

Dan 2:2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams- Babylon was deeply religious; the real leaders were the religious leaders, and the sorcery for which Babylon was infamous was a large part of their religion. Hence "the Chaldeans" refers to Babylonians generally, as well as to this class of religious leaders. They were the quintessence of all Babylon was. For them to be exposed as fraudulent failures was therefore a blow to Babylon's entire religious structure, just as the dreams of Pharaoh and later the plagues struck at the very core of Egypt's religious beliefs.

So they came in and stood before the king- Perhaps in the middle of the night; see on :3.

Dan 2:3 The king said to them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream- The implication of :1 could be that the king couldn't get back to sleep, and so he called the magicians immediately, at night. It could even be that the king commanded them to be killed immediately (see on :5), and the executioner then went to the house of Daniel to kill him too. But that same night Daniel went to the king (:16) and assured him that he would find the interpretation; he returns to pray, goes to sleep [despite all the pressure and drama], and in a night vision, perhaps later that very same night, receives the answer (:19). If something like this scenario is correct, then time was of the essence. Daniel would have wanted an immediate answer from God; but he had to exercise faith in going to the king and asking for time for the answer to come. And he went to see the king that night knowing that he had a death penalty upon his head. The heads of his department [as it were] had just been condemned to death; and he the very junior underling now goes to the king to ask for more time. Then he comes home, chats with his friends and prayers with them about the matter and goes to sleep in peace; and that night, he gets a vision which is the answer. This is all typical of the deep faith and peace which we sense in Daniel.

Dan 2:4 Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, O king, live forever: tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation- The group are summarized as "the Chaldeans". As noted on :2, "the Chaldeans" refers to Babylonians generally, as well as to this class of religious leaders. They were the quintessence of all Babylon was. For them to be exposed as fraudulent failures was therefore a blow to Babylon's entire religious structure, just as the dreams of Pharaoh and later the plagues struck at the very core of Egypt's religious beliefs. That they spoke in Syrian may seem unsurprising, but perhaps the idea is that as this part of Daniel is written in Aramaic ["Syrian"], we are reading the very words they actually spoke.

Dan 2:5 The king answered the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me-

A case could be made that Nebuchadnezzar was paranoid that the Chaldees / magicians were seeking to overthrow him. Dan. 2:9 uses the word for 'conspiracy' about them: “For you have agreed together ['conspired'] to speak lying and corrupt words before me until the situation is changed”. For such rebellions led by this group were not unknown. His dream was a reflection of those fears. The text never says he forgot the dream- if we interpret :5 as meaning "The thing [command to kill you] is gone from me" unless you interpret the dream to me. This would make sense of his otherwise unreasonable demand, that they recall the dream as well as interpret it. He was seeking for an excuse to kill them.  This approach makes better sense of the otherwise strange statement: “Tell me the dream that I may know that you can declare to me its
interpretation” (Dan. 2:9 NASB). He knows the dream, but asks them to tell him what he dreamt, so that he can then trust their interpretation of it. And why would a king be worried silly about a dream he said he had forgotten? How do I know I had a terrible dream last night if I have forgotten it? The awfulness of the image would surely have remained in the king's mind; it is surely stating too much to claim he remembered absolutely zero about this dream. If he had indeed had a dream about his future, including his apparent destruction, he would be desperate to understand it. And that is exactly the scene we have. This would make sense of Daniel saying that he would make known to the king "the thoughts of your heart". And Nebuchadnezzar saying that “My spirit was troubled to know / understand the dream” (Dan. 2:3), as if it was the interpretation aspect which bothered him rather than the lack of recall.

We note that Nebuchadnezzar had only recently won the victory against the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish, whilst his father was still on the throne. This hugely extended Babylonian power and made Nebuchadnezzar some kind of a hero. And he naturally internally wondered what would be his future; and whether the forces of jealousy within Babylon would be his end. Jer. 46:2-12 had prophesied this battle and his victory, but stating that Nebuchadnezzar was merely Yahweh's agent. If Nebuchadnezzar was aware of that prophecy, he would naturally have wondered about his role and relationship with Yahweh.  His victory there was huge and he lost very few men compared to the complete destruction of massive Egyptian forces. He must have surely seen some higher hand at work. That was just two or three years previous to him having become king; for soon after the battle he became king on his father's death. And his reign began with rebellions in Media and Persia; and the growth of powerful competitors in Greece. Truly "uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" (Shakespeare, Henry IV). His dream and paranoia is absolutely psychologically credible.

 

It's unclear whether "the thing" refers to the dream, which had gone from him in the sense of forgetting it, "the thing" is the same word translated "matter" in :8,23; or whether the reference is to the decree which he intended sending out to kill the Chaldeans unless they recalled his dream for him and interpretted it. The same word for "thing" is translated "commandment" in Dan. 3:22,28 when the king again commands the death of his wise men. And it is translated "word" in Dan. 4:31; 6:12: “the word still (being) in the mouth of the king”, clearly referring to a command from the king. A similar phrase is “the commandment came forth” (Dan. 9:23). Surely the king would have referred to the dream as a "dream" and not a thing / word. I suggest that if the reconstruction of events offered on :3 is correct, then "the thing" refers to the command to kill the wise men unless the dream was retold an interpretted. The reasoning in :8 confirms this. The magicians wanted to "gain time" not because the dream had gone from Nebuchadnezzar, but because the decree to kill them had gone forth from him.

If you don’t make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a compost heap- The cutting in pieces is to be connected with how the stone was to break the image in pieces, including the head of gold which represented Nebuchadnezzar. He was to be taught that it was not for him to arrogate to himself such power of condemnation. For contrary to what he liked to imagine, he was not eternal, nor was he God. Rather, he was under Divine judgment.

Dan 2:6 But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore show me the dream and its interpretation- This is the language of a man who considers that he has the power to give any reward in his kingdom, which he considered to be the kingdom of a divine being, of God. The gifts and rewards given to Daniel were of political power within the kingdom. "Receive" is elsewhere used in Daniel of receiving the kingdom; and yet ultimately it is the people of God who would receive or "take" the Kingdom (Dan. 7:18 s.w.). "Great honour" is the word elsewhere translated "glory"; it was this glory which was so prideful and which led to Nebuchadnezzar's downfall (Dan. 4:30,36). The glory of the Kingdom was to be finally given for ever to God's people (Dan. 7:14 s.w.). So it was precisely the attitude Nebuchadnezzar had at this point, considering that all reward and glory in the Kingdom of God was his to distribute at will, which had to be taken away from him. He was playing God, and this is so unacceptable to Him.

Dan 2:7 They answered the second time and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation- Their humanity is being taught to both them and the king. The idea was that they had special dialogue with the gods which others didn't have, and therefore could give interpretations. But their limitations are apparent; it was God's attempt to teach all of them, and the king, that their religion was woefully weak and they should accept the one true God. The whole scene here parallels Joseph before Pharaoh, and that was also the intention then. We marvel that God would make such effort to convert the likes of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, the very types we would have passed over and ignored as unsuitable candidates for any evangelism attempt.

Dan 2:8 The king answered, I know of a certainty that you would gain time, because you see the thing is gone from me- The king is suspicious that they were not who they claimed to be, because they could not tell him what he had dreamt. The thing that went from him sounds like the command to kill them (see on :3,5). The king's sensitivity to any appeal for extra time therefore made Daniel's approach to request just that all the harder and more dangerous; although :16 could suggest Daniel as it were booked an appointment with the king, whilst as yet he had no answer. He was so sure that prayer would be answered and he would have an answer to give.

"To gain the time" meant they wanted time because they were going to try to flee and escape. This explains why the command to slay them was hastily executed, before they could escape. This makes Daniel's request for more time even more amazing, seeing the king wanted to kill the magicians quickly. It shows his trust in prayer, and shows that prayer isn't instantly answered. Surely here we have a prime case when immediate answer to prayer would've been appreciated. But that wasn't God's way. As it often isn't today.

Dan 2:9 But if you don’t tell me the dream, there is but one law for you; for you have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, until the time be changed- The magicians had presumably come out with some airy words and were begging for more time, in the hope that the death penalty would be lifted. "Words" is the same word as "matter" in :10; perhaps they had come up with some dream which was not the word or matter which the king had dreamed. But Nebuchadnezzar had to be taught that God alone can 'change the times'; Daniel uses the same phrase in :21. The lives of the magicians were held in his hand as if playthings; but he was to learn that his life was in God's hand in just the same way. It was God through His people who could change the king's word of command (Dan. 3:28), which was supposedly unchangeable.

"Until the time be changed" is the idea behind Daniel's later marvel in :21 that God changes times and seasons and sets up and removes rulers. The king appears paranoid that being in such a hopeless position, his magicians were now plotting a changed time, an overthrow of his kingdom. Subconsciously he was clearly worried about his future, as he later admits. There is irony yet again, for Daniel gives the interpretation that effectively, the king would be overthrown or pass from power; and is gloriously rewarded by the king for stating that which he feared.

Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation- He perceives that the dream and its interpretation cannot be separated; the magicians were making a difference between the two, but the king was not going to be fooled. If they truly had Divine powers, then they would know what he had dreamed. His test of them was to ask them to tell him what he had dreamed, and this would then confirm to him that their interpretation was correct. He knew what he had dreamed, or else this test had no power. Clearly he perceived from the dream that his time was limited, and he feared that the Chaldeans were behind this and would interpret the dream as meaning that he must lose or abdicate from power. If the idea was that the king had forgotten his dream, then the Chaldeans could presumably have made up any dream and interpreted it to him.

Dan 2:10 The Chaldeans answered before the king and said, There is not a man on the earth who can show the king’s matter, because no king, lord or ruler has asked such a thing of any magician, enchanter or Chaldean- By saying this they were admitting that they were merely men upon earth. They reasoned that there was no historical precedent for such a request. And yet they were setting themselves up to have to make an exception to all their received wisdom; the one true God could inspire one man upon the earth, and show the matter.

Dan 2:11 It is an unusual thing that the king requires, and there is no other who can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh- They were admitting that they were not in fact in contact with the gods, although this was what their profession was supposedly all about. And they were setting up an acceptance that therefore Daniel was God manifest in flesh.

Dan 2:12 Therefore the king was angry and very furious, and he commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed- As noted on :11, they had effectively admitted that they had no connection with the gods; they were fakes, and may as well be fired from their jobs and "destroyed". The same word is used of how the power of destruction is ultimately with God alone (Dan. 7:11,26). Again, the king is portrayed as playing God, and being educated as to his error.

Dan 2:13 So the decree went forth that all the wise men were to be slain; and they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain- I suggested on :3 that this all happened the same night. Perhaps the more prominent wise men were indeed slain, leaving their posts open for Daniel and his friends to replace them. Indeed we can translate to the effect “the decree went forth, “and” the wise men were slain”; the LXX supports this ["The decree went forth, and they began to slay the wise men; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to slay them"]. This is why Arioch, the chief of the executioners, was sent to the wise men. But circumstances again repeated. This servant of the king, like Melzar, 'for some reason' took pity upon Daniel and let him have a few hours respite in order to pray to God. We note God didn't give an instant answer, for Daniel surely prayed immediately about the matter. Momentary prayer isn't always what He seeks, but intense and extensive prayer lasting hours.

Dan 2:14 Then Daniel returned answer with counsel and prudence to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard, who was gone forth to kill the wise men of Babylon- We imagine Arioch coming to Daniel, sword in hand. "Arioch" may well be a title for the court executioner.

Dan 2:15 He answered Arioch the king’s captain, Why is the decree so urgent from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel- As suggested on :3, this may have been very late at night.

Dan 2:16 Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would appoint him a time, and he would show the king the interpretation- The king had made it clear that there was to be no playing for time. If they were indeed in contact with the gods, he expected an immediate answer. But Daniel asks for time because he has to contact the one true God and wait for an answer. But it could be that although Daniel had not received any revelation at this point, he was certain he would; and he made the appointment to see the king in absolute faith that it would be given to him. Again we sense the calmness and faith of Daniel, reasoning as if what he did not then have, he effectively did have. See on :25.

We know from the story of Esther that access to kings was not quickly nor easily given. I will suggest on :25 that actually Arioch never went to the king and asked for this extension of time- the king was clearly not in a mood to give it. If however we read the text on face value, that an extension of time was given, then this was remarkable. Perhaps [depending how we read the chronology here] the king recalled Daniel had great ability with dreams (Dan. 1:19,20). Or he was impressed that Daniel's offer was to recall and not just interpret the dream, reflecting thereby his extreme anxiety about the dream. But above all these things there would have been the influence of God's Spirit directly on the mind of this man.

Again we marvel that God did not immediately grant Daniel insight. Daniel's faith in intense prayer was being tested, and for all time we are taught that God doesn't always give instant answers to prayer on demand. For surely Daniel had tried momentarily begging God for the answer. In the age of instant access and impatience with delayed response, we have a powerful lesson.

Dan 2:17 Then Daniel went to his house, and told Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions- As suggested on :3, this was in the middle of the night. "Companions" suggests those he was joined to, through sharing covenant relationship with Yahweh. Perhaps there were no others amongst the young exiles whom he felt were abiding in the covenant. As noted on :30, this is why Daniel later says that the dream was revealed to him simply so that he and his three friends might be saved from death at that time.

Dan 2:18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; so that Daniel and his companions should not die with the rest of the wise men of Babylon- Daniel realized that his own prayers might not be enough, and so he awoke his friends late at night (see on :3) with the request that they join in prayer about the matter. "Mercies" is better "pity". Their motivation was admittedly to save their own skins. Daniel's request to his friends to pray for him as he went before the king (Dan. 2:17,18), so that they should not die, contrasts with Esther asking her friends to simply fast for her- with no reference to God (Esther 4:16).

Dan 2:19 Then was the secret revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven- Effectively, Daniel dreamed the same as Nebuchadnezzar did, making him effectively equal to the king who thought he had no equal. And because he remembered the dream and the interpretation, he was thereby declared greater than him. The night vision reflects the fact that Daniel could sleep under the threat of execution the next day, rather like Peter in prison, all reflects the depth of his faith. See on :3. Daniel's first response was to thank God for the answer, rather than to race off to the king.

Dan 2:20 Daniel responded, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever; for wisdom and might are His- Daniel had been shown that the Kingdom of God was to be on earth "for ever and ever", and he envisages praise to God for eternity. The required wisdom was of God, and not of Daniel; this is a major theme in Daniel's speech to the king, but it reflected how he felt within himself; for his spontaneous prayer of thanks recognizes it.  "For wisdom, and might are His" surely stresses the "His". Seeing Daniel had been trained in all the wisdom of Babylon and excelled at it.

Dan 2:21 He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings, and sets up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding- The whole prophecy of the image was to result in God's praise and glory (:20). The challenges of working out the symbolism and its correspondence to geopolitics should not lead us to forget that. Daniel was faced with a "time" and commandment for his own death, made by a despot who considered his own word unchangeable. But for God to change that was a small matter (:9 s.w. "changed"), for He changes the times and seasons of the world powers. "He gives wisdom to the wise" is not Daniel being self congratulatory. Rather he accepts that he and his friends had retained their spiritual wisdom and understanding of God's ways, and it was in response to that, that he had been given the required insight. The four beasts were "changed" from each other, AV "diverse one from another" (Dan. 7:3 s.w.). This is saying that the changes between the metals of the image and then the beasts of Dan. 7 were all orchestrated by God. Daniel understood the image as referring to a succession of kings, not kingdoms; as suggested on :1, this was the primary potential of the prophecy. There would have been a series of kings after Nebuchadnezzar, which would have ended with the mountain of Judah's kingdom being re-established on earth upon their ruins.

Daniel marvels that God "changes", not just coordinates, the "times and seasons". This could be a reference to the various potential fulfilments of the prophecy- in Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, in the Greek empire, in the first century Roman empire, and finally in our last days. The phrase "times and seasons" is used of the times relating to the Lord's return (Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1). We are to understand therefore that these times and seasons are variable, due to the conditional and potential nature of such prophecies.

Dan 2:22 He reveals the deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him- If as suggested on :3 all this happened in one night, then these allusions to light and darkness make the more sense. The future is "darkness" to us, but God reveals the essence- that the process of human history will climax in the establishment of His Kingdom.

Dan 2:23 I thank You, and praise You, You God of my fathers, who has given me wisdom and might, and has now made known to me what we desired of You; for You have made known to us the king’s matter- The reference to his "fathers" must be meshed with Ezekiel's observation that the exiles tended to blame their fathers for their predicament. Daniel instead sees that Yahweh had still been the God of his apostate fathers, even if they had denied that relationship. "Made known to us" reflects Daniel's solidarity with his friends. Daniel's praise is not that God has hereby saved his life by revealing the vision; but rather praise of God's wisdom and the glory of His workings amongst men.

Dan 2:24 Therefore Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon and said this: Don’t destroy the wise men of Babylon; bring me in before the king, and I will show to the king the interpretation- The command to kill them had been issued in the middle of the night (see on :3), and so we envisage Daniel walking or running through darkened streets to find Arioch. We note too that the wise men owed their lives to Daniel. And yet in Dan. 6 they sought to kill him. This is the power of jealousy; it so often develops from an arrogant refusal to be grateful to a person for the grace of God to us which was manifested through them.

Dan 2:25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said: I have found a man among the captives of Judah who will make known to the king the interpretation- this appears to conflict with the impression given on :16 that Daniel had gone in to the king; but it seems that :16 means that he made an appointment to see the king and tell him the dream, seeing it was now the dead of night. Arioch's reference to "the captives of Judah" heightens the sense that Babylonian religion and wisdom was being overturned. And Arioch himself seems confident that Daniel has really been given the answer.

"I have found a man..." definitely appears to contradict the apparent agreement from the king to give Daniel time to find the answer. See on :16. Perhaps Arioch had not in fact asked the king for the delay. And now Arioch takes the glory by claiming he is responsible for finding the answer. He has great faith Daniel really has got the answer, but wants to take credit for that. Again, what seems so bad- that Arioch never actually asked the king for more time- is turned to good under God's hand.

Dan 2:26 The king answered Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Are you able to make known to me the dream which I have seen, and its interpretation?- The king addressed Daniel as Belteshazzar, a reference to the god Bel. Daniel responds by saying immediately that it is the one God of heaven, not Bel of Babylon, who had provided the answers.

Dan 2:27 Daniel answered before the king, and said, The secret which the king has demanded can neither wise men, enchanters, magicians, nor soothsayers, show to the king- We would likely have answered the king's question by saying "Yes, sir!". But Daniel is so awed by Yahweh's majesty that he loses no chances to emphasize that this revelation from Yahweh was an effective trashing of all Babylon's religious leaders; for the "wise men" were the religious leaders. If I were Daniel I would have just blurted out the dream and the interpretation. But Daniel sought to convert Nebuchadnezzar and to bring glory to Yahweh. And so he begins by rubbishing all Babylonian wisdom. A brave thing to do before the king of Babylon. Daniel was effectively stating that all his knowledge and success in the wisdom of Babylonian dream interpretation was meaningless.

Dan 2:28 But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and He has made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head on your bed, are these- The Babylonians thought that their god Bel lived in Babylon. Daniel stresses therefore that His God is in Heaven. Cyrus later defines Yahweh as "Yahweh, the God of Heaven" (Ezra 1:2). The God of or in Heaven was therefore a known title for Israel's God. "The latter days" is a term which refers both to the final end time, when Messiah shall destroy the image as it stands complete in the last day; and also to the general 'future' immediate to Nebuchadnezzar.

Dan 2:29 As for you, O king, your thoughts came into your mind on your bed, what should happen in the future; and He who reveals secrets has made known to you what shall happen- 'Those who reveal secrets' were the magicians and wise men; but Daniel says that it is God alone who reveals secrets, through his agency. I would have been tempted to just blurt out the dream and its message, knowing that the king wary of the slightest attempt to delay, and had ordered my execution by Arioch, who was presumably standing next to Daniel at the time. Just one irritation of the despotic king could lead to Daniel's head being severed from his shoulders. But still he stresses the glory of Israel's God before he reveals the dream.

Dan 2:30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your heart- "But to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king" is AV "But for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king". Daniel wishes to connect his friends to himself in this matter. He is saying that he has been chosen to reveal the secret just so that Daniel and his friends would not be executed. And yet there were many other young exiles from Judah with them at the time; Daniel seems to count them as not really within the covenant (see on :17).

Dan 2:31 You, O king, saw, and behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty- The original states that the image was "one". And it was an image,  whose head was that of Nebuchadnezzar. It was united, "one", and thus the entire entity was destroyed at one time. The clear implication is that the whole image was Nebuchadnezzar. The obvious interpretation is that it refers to his dynasty, the three kings who followed him, all progressively weaker: Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus [who may or may not be the same as the Biblical Belshazzar]. These three rose and fell within just a few years after Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was initially succeeded by his son, Amel-Marduk, but Amel-Marduk's reign only lasted for two years before Neriglissar usurped the Babylonian throne and put him to death. Neriglissar ruled four years before dying and being succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk. The Uruk King List says Labashi-Marduk reigned only three months before being usurped by Nabonidus; and then killed either by Nabonidus or his son Belhsazzar. It's unclear if Nabonidus and Belshazzar were the same person. The later brief rulers of Babylon were seen as either legitimate or illegitimate according to whether they were married in to the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar or his wives. This would explain the allusion to marriage in :43 "the rulers of that empire will try to unite their families by intermarriage" (GNB).

In Dan. 4:10, Nebuchadnezzar sees himself as a tree that is felled. God was again trying to get Nebuchadnezzar to see the truth of the image prophecy of Daniel 2. For a tree was seen as symbolic of a man. "Trees have toe-like roots, arm-like branches and stand upright from root to crown, between earth and heaven". This confirms that the initial application of the image with Nebuchadnezzar's face was to Nebuchadnezzar himself and his immediate dynasty.

The parallel vision in Dan. 7 is clear and specific that the four beasts "are four kings [melek- individual human beings] which shall arise out of the earth" (Dan. 7:17). The "kingdoms" of Dan. 2 translate a word that can as well mean "kings". This interpretation didn't come about because the Jews refused to return and establish the Kingdom of God, precluding the fulfilment of the prophecies about them destroying Babylon and Persia in order to reestablish God's Kingdom. The image vision doesn't specifically mention that the feet had ten toes, whereas the fourth beast specifically has ten horns. Possibly the ten toes aren't mentioned because the initial possible scenario was within Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, and the simple point was that fourth generation after him would be very weak and divided, but with elements of the strength of the third generation in it.

Matthew Henry notes: “Nebuchadnezzar was an admirer of statues, and had his palace and gardens adorned with them; however, he was a worshipper of images, and now behold a great image is set before him in a dream”. He was being shown that all his worship of images was effectively a worship of himself. And so it can be with all religion; we can think we are doing God service when in reality we are merely using it as a channel for worshipping ourselves. The only other time we encounter the sequence of gold, silver, brass and iron in Daniel is when we read that the idols of the Babylonians were made of these very metals (Dan. 5:4,23), as are the idols of the latter day Babylon (Rev. 18:12). The image reflected back to Nebuchadnezzar how he saw himself.

And whose brightness was excellent, stood before you; and its aspect was awesome- The "brightness" of the entire image is the word used in Daniel of the glory of Babylon; "the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and brightness" (Dan. 4:36), and again of the brightness of the last king of Babylon being changed (Dan. 5:6,9). Again, the natural primary application is to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. "Stood before you" is a little detail added to show that the entire edifice was an "image" of Nebuchadnezzar.

“Brightness” was associated with the cherubim, symbols of God’s glory, which were to return from Babylon to Judah (Ez. 1:4,27,28); “brightness” was to be a feature of God’s restored Kingdom in Judah (Is. 59:9; 60:3,19; 62:1). It is very much the language of theophany (Ps. 18:12; Hab. 3:4) and the return of Christ (2 Thess. 2:8), and therefore the impression is given that this is a fake Kingdom of God, an anti-Christ, a system which appeared as the true when it was the false. As noted often so far in this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar was playing God. Daniel concludes with a picture of how the brightness of God’s people shall be eternal, as opposed to the fading brightness of the image (Dan. 12:3).

"Stood before you" implies ‘rose up before you’. It is the same word used of how God raises up kings (2:21), “another kingdom shall arise after you” (2:39), “the God of Heaven will set up a Kingdom” (2:44). The king was being enabled to see himself from outside himself. It is used eight times in Daniel 3 to describe how Nebuchadnezzar defied this revelation by  ‘setting up’ another image, purely of gold, as if to say that his kingdom would in fact be eternal; he refused to accept that others would ‘arise’ after him.

The face of the image is emphasized in Dan. 2:31. The AV reads "His brightness was excellent", but the Chaldee word translated "brightness" is the same word translated "face" in describing how the face of the ruler of Babylon was 'changed' as the sequence of empires had its fulfilment (Dan. 4:36; 5:6,9,10). The entity represented by the entire image is focused upon the face of the man heading it up. That face was notable and awesome, just as the fourth beast entity was "strong exceedingly" (Dan. 7:7,19 s.w. "excellent"). The entire image stood "before you", i.e. Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:31). The Hebrew idea of q'bel suggests that the image stood there opposite Nebuchadnezzar 'on his behalf', as a reflection of himself. The image is of course a person; the entity represented by it in its complete form is a reflection of a person, modelled after the king of Babylon. This all suggests that the entity which the image represents will be a personification of someone. That individual would be the caliph or prince which governs it, to whom the entity swears loyalty. And the Islamists insist that loyalty be sworn to their caliph, who in turn is seen as the incarnation of the [false] prophet Mohammed. It is this individual who is the antiChrist of the last days. The appearance of the image of the man was "terrible" (Dan. 2:31), it struck fear into the heart of the viewers. And this is the effect of the Islamic extremists on those beholding them. But we can expect more emphasis to be given to their leader, with greater prominence accorded to loyalty to him and an aura of fearfulness emanating from him. The same word translated "terrible" is used of how all nations "trembled and feared" before Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 5:19), and of how uniquely and unsurpassedly "terrible" was the fourth beast (Dan. 7:7,19) whose leader is an embodiment of it. The Chaldee word resh used for the "head" of the image is also translated 'the sum'. The head, the man whose face was on the image, was the sum of the image, he was the embodiment of it in a person.

The head was of "fine gold", and the equivalent Hebrew words are found in Gen. 2:12, where we read that "the gold of that land was good ['fine']". Which land? "Havilah", according to Gen. 2:11. Perhaps the leader of the entity will therefore be from Havilah. But there are various options in seeking to identify this area. Keil and Delitzsch in their commentary on Genesis opt for a location in the Caucasus mountains- and many of the Islamic fighters are from there, especially from Chechnaya. Other arguments would place it in Yemen or Saudi Arabia, which is where much of the financial and logistical support for the Islamic extremism is currently coming from, seeing they too are Sunni Moslems. Another line of enquiry is suggested by the way that "fine gold" is used to describe what was used in Yahweh's temple (2 Chron. 3:5,8; Lam. 4:1). And where did Solomon get that from? Solomon constructed the finer details of the temple from materials prepared by his father David (1 Chron. 22:14). And David received that fine gold as a present from Tou, king of Hamath (1 Chron. 18:9,10). Hamath is in Syria. Perhaps Syria is another possible source of origin for the head of the Islamic image. The true Christ will be "more precious than fine gold" (Is. 13:12); He will thus stand in opposition at the last day to the head of "fine gold" which heads up the latter day Islamic state. The manifestation of God in Christ is presented in visual form in Daniel 10:6 "His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude". This vision has outline similarities with the image of a man explained in Daniel 2. The two 'men' will face off against each other in the last days; and Jesus wins. That, in the end, is the simple message of all prophecy, especially the book of Revelation.  The "head" of the image uses the same equivalent Hebrew word rosh as we find in the Ezekiel 38 description of ten nations being lead against Israel by a rosh, a leader, a prince, what the Arabs would call a caliph. Again and again, we find a specific figure being identified as the leader of the latter day invaders. The interpretation that Nebuchadnezzar was a "king of kings" (Dan. 2:37) was surely understood by him to mean that he was in some sense king over the other kings which featured in the image. Perhaps God graciously inserted this element in order to preserve Daniel's life before the king. But it will come true in the final erection of the image upon earth, in that the component nations of the image will be headed up by an individual who is effectively a Nebuchadnezzar-like figure for them all, Babylon personified in a single man.

 

2:32 As for this image, its head- Literally, the rosh, the great leader, of the image, the same rosh spoken of in Ez. 38 as leading a latter day invasion of Israel. The image is of a man; a latter day Nebuchadnezzar. For he was the head of gold.
We note that the value of the metals decreases with distance from the head of gold. Dreams reveal our subconscious thoughts and value systems; Nebuchadnezzar saw himself as most important, and as he speculated about the future, those furthest from him in time seemed less important and valuable. But that illusion was shattered by the idea of the Jewish Messiah, the little stone, destroying the image and becoming an eternal mountain on earth. We need to learn the lesson, valuing the Kingdom perspective far above our immediate prospects. It’s worthy of note that the other empires, especially Medo-Persia and Rome, had far greater dominion and extent than Babylon ever had- both geographically and culturally. And yet from Nebuchadnezzar’s perspective, they were inferior and insignificant simply because they were far away from him in time. The dream was in a sense his dream, which is why the empires are described as “inferior” to him; this is how it was from his perspective. But the interpretation was from God, and the twist in the tail is that all these kingdoms of men are to become as nothing before the Kingdom of the God of Israel to be established on earth.

The increasing inferiority of the metals refers to how the power of the king / emperor decreased. Nebuchadnezzar was absolute, whereas as Daniel's history itself shows, the Medo-Persian kings couldn't even change their own laws and were bound by their courtiers. The Greek rulers over the land / eretz were weaker still, because the power of Alexander the great was shared between his four generals, who often controlled him. And the Romans delegated power to local governors, rather than the Caesar himself dominating the land of Palestine from Rome. This serves to demonstrate that the primary intention of the vision was to present a series of kings, rather than kingdoms, which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, climaxing in the re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom. But that potential was not realized, and so it was delayed and the fulfilment extended.

Was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass- The metals decrease in value. And there is progressive disunity; from one head, to two arms, two thighs, two legs, and then very divided feet. The Persian empire was more extensive than Babylon; the degeneration was perhaps in Nebuchadnezzar's own mind. And the image represented kings or kingdoms who dominated the eretz promised to Abraham. How extensive their dominion was elsewhere isn't therefore germane to the vision. It could be argued therefore that Babylon had the tightest control over the land; and the powers which followed had less control and allowed more autonomy.

Dan 2:33 Its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay- The legs of iron more comfortably represent the latter part of the Grecian monarchy, the two empires of Syria and Egypt, the former governed by the family of the Seleucidae, from Seleucus, the latter by that of the Lagidae, from Ptolemaeus Lagus . The idea that the two legs represent Eastern and Western Rome [centered in Constantinople and Rome] is problematic, in that these areas were not part of the land promised to Abraham. The image prophecy speaks specifically of kingdoms reigning over “the earth”, the land of Israel. Turkey [Constantinople] and Italy [Rome] were not part of that land. And they will have their revival in the last days in the form of the feet and ten toes- split between two groups, two entities which between them dominate the land promised to Abraham. As explained on :43 and :1, the prophecy had a number of potential fulfilments; one of which was that the Messiah figure could have re-established Israel's Kingdom during the time of the Greeks, or in the immediate aftermath of the conflict between the kings of the north and south described in Dan. 11. These two kings, the two sections of the Greek empire which affected Israel, were matched by the two legs of the image.

2:34 You saw until- The original here is quite complex; the GNB does well with "While you were looking at it...", and this forges the connection with Nebuchadnezzar's sudden fall as he looked at great Babylon which he had built, in pride and surety that it would stand for ever (Dan. 4:29-31). This was a primary fulfilment of the image being toppled; it was evidence even during the period contemporary with Daniel that the image prophecy would come true.

A stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces-

Literally, “a stone was cut out which was not in hands". The idea is that it was not thrown by hands but had its own energy and moved at its own impetus, or thrown by an unseen hand. The same unseen Divine hand that was to write upon the wall later. This would speak of the potential possible for the exiles to have been filled with the Spirit in order to overthrow the great mountain of Babylon. The grinding to powder uses the same word as in Is. 41:15: “thou shalt thresh the mountains [the one great mountain, of Babylon] and beat them small". But the Jews preferred to flunk the challenge and potential.

These words are quoted specifically about the final judgment of the Lord Jesus in Lk. 20:18: "Everyone who falls upon that stone will be broken in pieces;
but upon whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder". Although this doesn't preclude other earlier potential applications. The Lord Jesus surely alluded to this in saying that His resurrection would be a rebuilding of the temple “without hands” (Mk. 14:58). It could be that He perceived the possibility of the smiting of the image as being fulfilled in His resurrection. Thus the vision had several potential fulfilments which were not realized. This would explain the gap in fulfilment between the end of the iron leg domination of Israel and their land, and the latter day existence of the ten toes / horns. This apparent awkwardness in the symbology can be explained by Israel not being in their land from then until our last days; but it can also be understood in terms of a reworked fulfilment, after the earlier possible fulfilments were disallowed by Israel’s lack of response. The breaking in pieces of the feet appears to be separate to the breaking in pieces of the rest of the metals ["then...", :35]. This could speak of two stages of judgment at the Lord's return.

But as explained on :1, the initial, potential fulfilment was in the remnant of Judah who "broke lose" (GNB) from the mountain of Israel in Babylon, and who could have broken up the hotchpotch of nations then dominating the land, and re-established the Kingdom.

2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors- "To pieces… like the chaff" suggests a breaking up into fine parts. Combining the visual images of Daniel 2 with those of the beasts in Daniel 7, we see a progressive sense of breakup. Babylon was headed by one king, Medo-Persia is presented as a divided kingdom, split between the two arms of the Medes and Persians; then the third Kingdom is likened to a leopard with four heads, referring to the four states that came after Alexander the Great. The fourth empire was divided into two legs (in Daniel 2), and in Daniel 7, it has ten horns, who have conflicts with each other. These are the equivalent of the ten toes, which don’t mix with each other. Then, the entire image is ground to pieces and becomes like tiny pieces of chaff. And the ultimate unity of God’s Kingdom on earth is then established. We see in society generally, and especially in the territory of the land promised to Abraham, a progressive breaking up. And this will continue, until it is confirmed by the Lord’s return breaking into even smaller pieces. 

And the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them-

The Aramaic word for "place" is used in :39 "And after you", 'in your place'. Nebuchadnezzar too was not to have any "place". The various metals were all left with no "place"; but this is the very word repeatedly used in the Aramic section of Ezra to describe the "place" of the temple (Ezra 5:15 "the house of God built in its place"; Ezra 6:3,5,7). The focus of the image is therefore upon Jerusalem and the temple mount. We note too that an unhewn stone is an altar stone (Ex. 20:25); again the hint is that the stone becomes an altar, grows to be a temple, a Kingdom... and then fills the earth. The mountain of Yahweh's house will thus be established, as Isaiah had prophesid.

The idea is that there was no evidence for their existence in the place where they had once stood so proudly. And that is the end of man and all his power, science and achievement. Ultimately, it will disappear without a trace. Nobody and nothing will be remembered eternally for its greatness, erudition or achievement. All will be subsumed beneath God's Kingdom. This phrase is quoted in Rev. 20:11, where the "heavens and earth" at the time of the Lord's coming are likewise carried away and no place found for them. This means that the "heavens and earth" in view at the end of Revelation is the colossus of Daniel 2, the image represents the system which shall dominate the land promised to Abraham in the last days. Here conclusively we see that the main thrust of the prophecy is not some continuous historical account of world history, but rather a depiction of the latter day entity which will dominate the eretz / land promised to Abraham at the time of the Lord's return. The prophecy insists that the image stands complete when it is struck.

And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth- This is the picture of the "whole earth" / eretz / land of Israel being filled with God's Kingdom. This is the time of Is. 2:2,3; Hab. 2:14 and other Kingdom prophecies about the mountain of Yahweh being established on the temple mount and growing from there, not least Is. 11:8,9 which speaks of the earth / land being filled with Yahweh's glory at the time when His Kingdom, His "holy mountain", is established. But the rock / stone is laid by Yahweh in Zion, as a cornerstone upon which the returned exiles would build His temple (Is. 28:16,17). The LXX, quoted in the New Testament, speaks of this stone as a person ("He who believes in Him..."), and the NT applies it to the Lord Jesus. He is the rock / stone rejected by the builders etc. of Ps. 118:22. The stone from the mountain comes to the plain and destroys the image, and becomes a great mountain centered on and beginning from that point. The prophecy is about Babylon's dominion over God's land and specifically Jerusalem; it is as it were upon Jerusalem that the image stands, and the stone hits the image at that point. Zech. 3:8-10 is very clear about the connection between Messiah and the stone which is to be laid in Zion, the temple mount: "I will bring forth My servant, the Branch. For, behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes: behold, I will engrave its engraving’, says Yahweh of Armies, ‘and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day’, says Yahweh of Armies, ‘every man will invite his neighbour to come under his vine and under his fig tree’". The stone / rock is Messiah, the seven eyes which are the engraving may refer to the seven letters in the Hebrew "Holiness to Yahweh" which was inscribed upon the High Priestly mitre, and leads in the Messianic Kingdom when every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree.

The "great mountain" of God's Kingdom fills the whole earth, but the mountain initially begins at one point on the planet. Elsewhere in Daniel, the mountain is defined specifically as Jerusalem: "Your city Jerusalem, even Your holy mountain" (Dan. 9:16). The toes are therefore specifically dominating Jerusalem at the initial point of impact of the stone upon the land. And this is what we would expect from an Islamist confederacy dominating the land of Israel- Jerusalem is the key issue for them. And we know from Zechariah 14 that "the city shall be taken".

I suggest that the primary interpretation refers to the remnant of Judah, the mountain of God's Kingdom, which returned to the temple in Jerusalem at the time when it was dominated by a brief coalition of peoples sent there by the Babylonians, some strong and some weak. Being cut out without [human] hands means that it was of God; and Ezra and Nehemiah continually speak of how it was the hand of God which enabled the restoration. "The mountain" so often refers to the Kingdom of God in Israel ruled by a Davidic king, and particularly to the temple mount (Dt. 33:19; Ps. 30:17; 48:1; 78:54; Is. 2:2,3; 11:9; 25:6-10; 40:9; 56:7; 57:7,13; 65:11,25; 66:20; Jer. 31:23; Ez. 20:40; Zech. 8:3 etc.). The restoration prophecies are full of pictures of the restored Zion at the time of the restoration as a huge mountain dominating the eretz. The mountain of Babylon was to be burnt and replaced with the mountain of Yahweh's restored Kingdom (Jer. 51:25; Zech. 4:7). It was the returned remnant who were to destroy this mountain (Is. 41:15,16 "You will thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and will make the hills like chaff. You will winnow them, and the wind will carry them away"); they were to be the little stone. Having spoken of Babylon as a mountain to be destroyed, we then read that it was a little stone which was to bring Babylon down (Jer. 51:25,63 "Behold, I am against you, destroying mountain... I will make you a burnt mountain... when you have made an end of reading this book, that you shall bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates: and you shall say, Thus shall Babylon sink"). Restored Jerusalem was to become the stone (Zech. 12:3 "I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples"). That stone was to as it were grow, stone by stone, as the walls and temple were rebuilt (Hag. 2:15). This is the significance of the enigmatic little stone which was to bring about the restoration of the Kingdom at the time of Zech. 3:9; 4:7,10 ("the stone that I have set before Joshua... Who are you, great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you are a plain; and he will bring out the capstone [cp. the stone] with shouts of ‘Grace, grace, to it!’").. I have suggested that the command to rebuild the temple according to the specifications of Ez. 40-48 was a conditional prophecy of what the exiles could and ought to have achieved. The scenario there is all about a mountain (Ez. 40:2; 43:12). This is why Daniel prayed for the restoration of the mountain of Yahweh (Dan. 9:20)- i.e. for the vision of the mountain in Dan. 2 to come true in his time. But this was disallowed by the refusal of the exiles to follow the path of the Spirit, and all these prophecies of the mountain being established have been rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord's return (Rev. 21:10). Judah were not the little stone; the prophecy is to come true in the stone of the Lord Jesus, cut out without hands by God through the virgin birth. We are so familiar with this application that we can overlook the initially intended potential application to the Judah of Daniel's day.

Note that the stone was cut out of a mountain, but after hitting the image, it becomes a mountain, filling the whole earth. This second mountain is interpreted as the Kingdom of God coming on earth. Biblically, mountains represent people. The equivalent in Daniel 7 is that the kingdoms of the world are given to "the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan. 7:27). The first mountain likewise, therefore, refers to people. Out of the mountain of humanity, or perhaps the mountain of the Hebrew people (Ex. 15:17; Ps. 48:1; Is. 2:2 "the mountain of Yahweh's house / family / people will be exalted"), the Lord Jesus as the stone was cut out without human hands, born through the virgin birth. But the people of God will finally all become like Him. He as the stone becomes them, the mountain. We will finally manifest the Lord Jesus in totality, eternally. And if I am correct in understanding "the mountain" as specifically referring to God's people Israel, then the second mountain, the Kingdom of God on earth, is in fact the eternal and glorious re-establishment of the Kingdom of God as it was in the form of Israel. And this is indeed Bible teaching elsewhere (Ez. 21:25-27; Acts 1:7 and see more evidence in my Bible Basics chapter 5).

 

Dan 2:36 This is the dream; and we will tell its interpretation before the king- Again Daniel speaks of how "we" will give the interpretation. He was not only trying to get a good deal for his friends. He clearly saw that although he was the front man, the answer was given as a result of their prayers and he was intensely aware of this. He considered those who pray for something to be part and parcel of the fulfilment, and worthy of reward for the fulfilment. A great encouragement to those who pray but are not apparently in the front line of action. The "we" reflects how Daniel was eager to save his three friends. He had asked them for their prayers, and therefore although the answer was given specifically to him, he felt that it was effectively given to them all. Daniel has expressed in :23 that God "has now made known to me what we desired of You; for You have made known to us the king’s matter". This is the unity which prayer develops. It could be that the friends came with Daniel, and that this incident is what brought about the situation in Dan. 1:20,21, where Daniel and his friends are found far superior than others in the matter of interpreting dreams.

And yet there is another possibility. Daniel has emphasized how the words he is speaking are not from himself, but from God, who has given the interpretation through Daniel. The "we" could therefore refer to God and Daniel, reflecting the closeness Daniel felt to God.

Dan 2:37 You, O king, are a king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory- The dream of Daniel 2 ascribes to Nebuchadnezzar "the Kingdom, power, strength and glory" (Dan. 2:37), but this is exactly the language of God's kingdom. The emphasis of passages like 1 Chron. 29:11 is that Yours is the Kingdom, power, strength and glory (as in Ps. 145:11; Mt. 6:13). Nebuchadnezzar is thus presented as an anti-Christ and the Kingdoms of men as a fake imitation of God's Kingdom. By saying that God had given Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom, Daniel was bravely undercutting Nebuchadnezzar's idea that he had attained it by his gods and by his own strength. Until the time of Nebuchadnezzar's father, Babylon had been beneath Assyria. Babylon at this point, very early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, was not so widely powerful. But it was powerful over Israel, and that was the point and focus of the prophecy. And the proportions of the image are appropriate to the length of domination over Israel.

The head of gold specifically represented Nebuchadnezzar, whose empire ended 23 years later. But the Medo-Persian empire did not come into the ascendency until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This is an example of where the four empires approach doesn't fit as snugly as the idea of Babylonian kings. The subsequent kings or kingdoms were to be "inferior" to Babylon, and that fits best with the idea of the Babylonian kings after Nebuchadnezzar, and not with the four empires theory. The best 'snug fit' of the prophecy to interpretation would be if after three generations or kings from Nebuchadnezzar, the little stone of Israel destroyed their Gentile dominators and established God's Kingdom on earth, the mountain of Yahweh's house expanding ever outwards from Jerusalem. This would have been at the end of the 70 years prophesied for their exile. And Haggai and Zechariah definitely speak of the destruction of the mountain of Babylon by the exiles, and the subsequent re-establishment of God's Kingdom on earth.

Nebuchadnezzar was not the first king of Babylon; but he was the "head" / rosh of Gentile dominion over the land when Israel had been "removed" (cp. Jer. 15:4; 24:9; 29:18). The kingdoms all existed before the next one and overlapped with each other, becoming absorbed into the next one, But what is in view is their domination of the land and people of God and Jerusalem specifically, that was to become the great mountain. This fits most snugly with the dream being about the immediate dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar.

Dan 2:38 Wherever the children of men dwell, the animals of the field and the birds of the sky has He given into your hand, and has made you to rule over them all: you are the head of gold- The parallel vision of Nebuchadnezzar as a great tree in Dan. 4 states that the tree was in sight of "all the earth". Darius wrote to all the earth about the greatness of Daniel's God. But certainly not to New Zealand... All attempts to interpret the "earth" or sphere of domination as "the known world" or "world empires" have to fail here. "The known world" of course depends where on the planet you are standing! Clearly "the earth" is not planet earth, but a more local territory- and the land promised to Abraham is the obvious and Biblical answer. The allusion is to the Jeremiah passages which speak of Nebuchadnezzar as having been placed over the Jews and their land; they were given 'into his hand'. This confirms our thinking that the image is specifically about kings and kingdoms who dominate God's people and their land.

The allusion is clearly to Jer. 27:5-7: "I have made the earth [land- of Israel], the men and the animals that are on the surface of the earth / land, by My great power and by My outstretched arm; and I give it to whom it seems right to Me. Now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the animals of the field also have I given him to serve him. All the nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the time of his own land come". This prophecy foresaw Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty lasting another 2 generations. This would fit the idea of the image referring to his immediate dynasty. The same is found in Is. 14:22 where God says that He will "cut off from Babylon name and remnant and son and grandchild". And yet he himself failed to remain humble to the God of Israel, made an image entirely of gold in rebellion against the image prophecy, and was made like an animal rather than continuing to rule over the animals (Dan. 4:29,30). He like Adam was set up as ruler over the land and animals, but failed. He should have accepted that the image of Dan. 2 was himself, for it was common to represent a dynasty as an image of that nature. But he wanted it to be all about himself personally.

The animals and birds were even under Babylon's control, according to this; although as Babylon was the great first beast of Dan. 7, these lesser animals likely refer to the peoples of the land / eretz promised to Abraham. If Babylon reigned over "wherever the children of men dwell" it is clear that the "earth" and "children of men" have a limited, local definition; for Babylon didn't reign over all the earth. But it is the beasts and birds of the sky who later are prophesied as feasting upon Babylon (Rev. 19:17). This is the equivalent of the horns on the beast hating the whore of Babylon who rides it (Rev. 17:16); the destruction of the Babylon system will ultimately be more by Moslem infighting than direct bolts of destruction from God. Indeed, this was historically God's preferred method of destroying Israel's invaders in Old Testament times. The head or rosh of gold strictly referred to Nebuchadnezzar personally rather than the kingdom of Babylon; as explained earlier, the prophecy had a potential fulfilment in a series of kings who would arise, culminating in the restoration of Israel's kingdom under Messiah. But this fulfilment was deferred until the last days, when the image shall stand complete, headed up by an individual, a rosh, "the king of the north" of Dan. 11, the same rosh who leads the confederacy of ten nations against the Lord Jesus in Ez. 38.

The language here recalls what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 5:21; he was driven from "the children of men" instead of reigning over them, and became like the animals and birds he was intended to reign over. The idea would be that he had been "given" by God such dominion, but it was taken away from him even during his lifetime. This was an attempt to get him to realize that indeed his kingdom would pass from him to another, he was not immortal; but he was given a wonderful preview of this whilst he was still alive, so that he would repent and accept the import of this vision. We marvel at how God tries to save even people like him and Pharaoh, whom we would likely consider not worth even approaching with the Gospel of God's Kingdom.

"You are the head of gold" surely suggests that the king saw his own face in the head of gold. The whole image was him; but he had feet of clay, was top heavy, and was only standing upright by some other power- the God of Israel. Just as he was represented by the entire tree in Dan. 4:8 with all the animals beneath it (Dan. 4:9, just as in Dan. 2:39)- and the whole tree was chopped down, just as the whole image was shattered.

Dan 2:39 After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you; and then a third kingdom of brass, which shall rule over all the land- We should not assume that there are no other possibilities apart from the sequence Babylon- Medo-Persia- Greece- Rome. Each kingdom is to reign over the earth / land of Israel. The second and third kingdoms could refer to Media and Persia; and the fourth kingdom to the Greeks, split into the two parts of the empire which affected Israel- the kings of the north and south of Daniel 11, i.e. the Syrian [Seleucid] part of the Greek empire and the Egyptian [Ptolemaid] part of it. These potential possibilities are because God's purpose is relatively open ended; the Messiah and the restoration of Israel's Kingdom could have come at any point in the sequence, and the ideal initial scenario was that there would be a sequence of kings [not kingdoms] after Nebuchadnezzar which would climax in the Kingdom of God and Messiah's coming. All these potential fulfilments were disallowed by Israel's lack of repentance. The next kingdom was to be "inferior"; but Persia was greater than Babylon in territory and other ways. The inferiority may have been in that their rulership over the Jews was not as powerful as that of the Babylonians, even allowing the Jews to return and rebuild Jerusalem. However, the Chaldee for "inferior" is identical to the word used for "land" in this same verse. The idea is better that this second kingdom is a kingdom [a king having dominion over] the land [promised to Abraham]. The third kingdom rules over "all the land", perhaps paralleling the idea of the second kingdom being king over the land / eretz. Perhaps the idea was that the third kingdom would rule over all the territory promised to Abraham; from the Euphrates to the Nile. This would have been true of the Persian and Greek empires but not strictly of Babylon nor of Media. The Babylonians didn't rule the area of Arabia eastward from the Euphrates, but only the fertile crescent; whereas the Persians did. This would make the second kingdom Media, and the Persians the third with the Greeks as the legs of iron, the two legs representing the kings of north and south as explained in Dan. 11. But this is only in the continuous historical fulfilment, which is not that significant compared to the intended latter day fulfilment, when the entire image stands complete, to be destroyed by the Lord's return.

We also observe that the book of Daniel itself provides some history. It presents a sequence of three kingdoms: Babylon (Dan. 1–5; 7:1, 8:1), Media (Dan. 6:1; 9:1) and Persia (Dan. 6:29; 10:1). This sequence is presented after Dan. 2 (in Dan. 6:1,29), and also after the similar vision of the beasts in Dan. 7 (in Dan. 8:1; 9:1; 10:1). It is always preferable to match Bible prophecy against the history presented and contained within the Bible itself, rather than having to totally depend upon access to extra-Biblical history. The LXX has the chapters of Daniel in a slightly different order, but more clearly following this sequence of Babylon-Media-Persia: 1–4 about Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; 7–8 about Belshazzar of Babylon; 5 about the end of Belshazzar’s reign; 6,9 about Darius the Mede; 10–12 about the first year of Cyrus of Persia. A prophet was shown to be true if his predictions came true; therefore prophets had to have prophecies which fulfilled in some form in their lifetime. Daniel met this admirably. The sequence of empires would then be Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece. The divided state of the toes would then represent the confused situation after the death of Alexander the Great, and the two legs would represent the two halves of the Greek empire. In this case, the stone could have destroyed the image and established God's Kingdom in their time. The real possibility of fulfilment at the time of the Greeks would explain why the visions of Daniel are written in Aramaic, the language of the Greeks, and not Hebrew. It was primarily relevant for their time. It has been argued that Aramaic would not have been spoken in Babylon at Daniel's time, so this makes it all the more amazing. I have no problem in believing God could inspire Daniel to record visions in a language he didn't personally understand. The potential Messiah at the time may have been Judas Maccabaeus in his struggle against the Greek Antiochus IV. But he too failed to be the Messiah figure. But this didn't happen, even though the post exilic prophets [Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi] all definitely present this possibility, of the coming of Messiah and re-establishment of the Kingdom of God. But that scenario was then readjusted to the possibility of the sequence being Babylon-Medo Persia-Greece-Rome. But that also didn't work out; Messiah didn't come because the required preconditions weren't met. And so there are other scenarios possible, expanded upon by the transference of the metals of the image to the various beasts of Daniel 7, which are then developed further into other scenarios in Revelation.

The kingdom was to "arise", to 'stand up', to 'begin to exist'. The sudden existence of other kingdoms doesn't fit history, unless we interpret the dominion of the empires as being specifically Jerusalem or God's people or land. And yet the initial immediate possibility was that the metals were indeed literal "kings" who would follow Nebuchadnezzar, culminating in the appearance of a Messiah figure, the destruction of Babylon and the re-establishment of God's Kingdom. Just as spoken of in Haggai and Zechariah. This has the obvious advantage of Nebuchadnezzar heading up the image, as if the entire image is Babylon. If he is the head, then he has some relation to the rest of the image- it is logically his body politic, his dynasty of the next three or so generations. This makes more natural sense of the reference to "kings", even though the term can legitimately be understood as 'kingdoms'. If solely 'kingdoms' or empires were primarily in view, then a different word would have been used to "kings". And there were other kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar; the 'four empires' view requires that Medo-Persia came immediately after Nebuchadnezzar. He personally was the head of gold, not the empire of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar's successors were progressively inferior to him. This alone makes sense of the decreasing values of the metals in the image. And there was no very clear break between Babylon and Medo-Persia as required by the traditional view. Likewise there was still a Babylonian kingdom under the Greeks [Seleucids], paying lip service loyalty to the Seleucids. The little stone cut out without human hand is the very phrase used of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, who "shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand" (Dan. 8:25). Clearly there was a possible potential fulfilment of the Dan. 2 prophecy at his time. But again, it didn't happen and the prophecy was again reapplied and reinterpreted.

But the potential initial fulfilment didn't happen. The later possible fulfilments, and the final fulfilment in the last days, are all not ideal fits to the initial prophecy. We have to accept that the essence of the prophecy and not the details was fulfilled, with aspects of the initial prophecy being reworked and reapplied to the later potential fulfilments so that there is not a 'best fit' between the fulfilment and the original detail. This can be seen in so many other prophecies, especially those of the potentials possible for the return of the exiles and their re-establishment of God's Kingdom under a Messiah figure.

Dan 2:40 The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, because iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things; and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush- This was not the general attitude of the Romans to the earth / land of Israel, although it has some relevance to the Greeks under Antiochus (see on :39). Such a cruel destruction of the land looks ahead to some future, last day fulfilment, when the image stands complete upon the land promised to Abraham. "Crush" is the equivalent of the Hebrew raah, "evil"; this system was to be the embodiment of the evil determined against God's people, which is how "evil" is usually used in the prophets. The fourth kingdom, like the fourth beast of Dan. 7, is to break in pieces those on the earth / eretz promised to Abraham. But in turn, the little stone will "break in pieces and destroy" the fourth kingdom along with the entire image, represented by how the bones of Daniel's persecutors were broken to pieces[s.w.] by the lions. The connection demonstrates that the judgments paid out by the latter day abusers of God's people will in turn be given to them at the Lord's return. They will be judged by the Lord as they judged. This is a major theme of Revelation, which describes how the judgments upon the land poured out by the latter day beast are in turn meted out to the beast system in the same territory. This is all foreseen here in Daniel; those who break in pieces the land are to be broken in pieces.

John Drake has some interesting comments here: "If you take the time to look at the history of the middle east you will find that the empires that succeeded Greece and the division into the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires was not Rome but the Parthians, then the Sassanids and then Islam. It was Islam that overthrew the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium. Rome never fulfilled the requirements of Daniel 7:23 and Dan 2:40 in crushing breaking and trampling all the others. Rome was able to conquer less than 1/3 of the Seleucid Empire (have a look at history). The Roman Empire does not qualify as the Empire of Iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream because it did not successfully conquer and crush Babylon, Persia and Greece. It left Babylon untouched, could not conquer Persia, and its own culture was subservient to Greek culture and language. Rome did not crush any of other three empires. On the other hand Islam was “different from all the other kingdoms” Dan 7:23. It has one culture (Islam), a different language (Arabic and Farsi in Iran) and one religion. The other empires had multiple gods, cultures and language, as did Rome.

The divided nature of Islam is very evident in the Sunni and Shia factions of Islam and fits well with the iron legs and the divided nature of the feet. They are one in purpose – the expansion of Islam to rule the world together with the destruction of Israel. The fourth beast of Daniel is the same beast that John sees in Revelation. It is made up of components of the first three beasts. It like a lion (Babylon), looked like a bear (Medes and Persians) and looked like a leopard (Greece). This surely indicates that the beast must be identified with the same geographical areas as those in Daniel and that was Mesopotamia. Bear in mind also that the vision of Dan. 2 was given to Nebuchadnezzar, not Daniel and not Israel. It was about Babylon and kingdoms that would arise in Mesopotamia.

The mountains upon which the harlot of Revelation sits represent seven kings. Five are fallen. One is and one is yet to come. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece fell before the time of John. The one that existed at the time of John was Rome and one was to come. The one that came was Islam and later the Ottoman Empire. Muslims worldwide and particularly Turkey now seek to revive the caliphate and this I believe is the eighth head of the beast represents the 7 previous empires and it will have dominion over the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece as represented by the leopard, bear and the lion".

The language used about the iron is exactly that used of the effect of the little stone: "Iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things; and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush", GNB "shatter and crush all the earlier empires" (:40); "It shall crush to powder and consume all these kingdoms... the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (:44,45). Note the repetition of "all these [kingdoms]". What are we to make of this obvious connection? The iron legs could have destroyed all the previous empires or kings, but they didn't; because the little stone does this, and also breaks the iron and crushes it to powder. Here is where the popular idea that the legs = Rome is hardly a snug fit interpretation. Because in what sense did Rome crush Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, who was represented by the head of gold? And why is it that the little stone does to the iron and all other metals what the iron was supposed to have done to them? We are surely fored to acept the idea of possible, potential fulfilments. And the iron, whatever it represents, didn't achieve what it could have done.    

The possibility of fulfilment at the time of the Greeks is specifically taught in the vision of Dan. 8, which is interpreted for us as referring to the Greeks and how the empire would be split between various "horns". One of them would be a "king of fierce appearance" who would persecute God's people and then be destroyed by the coming of Messiah- described in the very language of Dan. 2:44 about the stone without human hand: "he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand" (Dan. 8:25). These things, Daniel is told, are specifically about "the latter time... it concerns the appointed time of the end... the vision concerns the time of the end" (Dan. 8:17,19). But this "end" was envisaged as the Messianic destruction of the aggressive Greek horn, Antiochus Epiphanes. But that didn't happen. Not because prophecy failed, but because God's people failed to rise up their potential. And prophecy almost has to be like this, a conversation, a dialogue, between God and man, taking into account human freewill. For otherwise, the existence of prophecy [in the sense of prediction] would mean God's dominance of human freewill to make things work out as He predicted. Even the predictions concerning the Lord Jesus were of a potential nature- for He had freewill, and as we see in Gethsemane, was capable of disobedience and not going the Father's way. He did, and so the prophecies were in fact fulfilled in Him. But their fulfilment in Him was not totally certain, in that He had freewill and the possibility of failure and disobedience.

The two legs in their Greek application would refer to the kings of the north and south, the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, in Syria, and Egypt. We have their history recorded in detail in Dan. 11. The ten toes would then refer to the confused reigns that immediately followed Alexander. And Daniel 11 explains those weaknesses in detail.

The legs of iron are repeated in the vision of Daniel's fourth beast with ten horns. The fulfilment requires that there should have ten kings reigning either simultaneously or consecutively; three of them must be overthrown by an eleventh king, who is far greater than the other kings. This 11th king is to be cruel and blasphemous against the Jewish people, and will be destroyed by the coming of Messiah and direct conflict with Him. These requirements [except destruction by Messiah] simply don't fit the situation at the end of the Roman empire, unless we cherry pick the history. But it does fit the Greek empire, with the 11th cruel king clearly referring to Antiochus Epiphanes. And the vision of Daniel 8 is absolutely clear about this. Daniel 8 is a clear prophecy, with specific interpretation relating to Greece attached to it, which is much neglected by those who simply repeat the hackneyed interpretations of Daniel 2 and 7. Antiochus is clearly the "little horn" of Daniel 8, but this is the same little horn which arises from the fourth beast in Dan. 7. Consider the similarities: Dan. 7:8= Dan. 8:23; Dan. 7:20 = Dan. 8:9; Dan. 7:21,25 = Dan. 8:10; Dan. 7:25 = Dan. 8:11,25; Dan. 7:25 changing times and seasons = Dan. 8:11,12, and 1 Macc. 1:44-51 records how Antiochus forced the Jews to stop offering the daily sacrifice and Jewish feasts, and desecrated the altar with pigs' blood. The period in which the daily sacrifices were stopped is described as 2300 mornings and evenings (Dan. 8:13,14), that is 1150 days when the twice daily [morning and evening] sacrifices were stopped. This is the exact period between when Antiochus began forbidding the daily sacrifices in Autumn of BC167 to the day of his death in the spring of BC163. There is no other very compelling fulfilment of the 2300 mornings and evenings. Indeed we could argue that on some days, there were more daily offerings made, because of the feasts etc. And that would make 2300 evening-morning sacrifices come to about 1260 days, the figure elsewhere used for the period of domination by the fourth beast / little horn. Antiochus would be destroyed "without hand" (Dan. 8:25), the same language of the image being destroyed without human hand. Thus the fourth beast from which the horns come, i.e. the legs of iron, is clearly interpreted in Dan. 8 as Greece. Antiochus Epiphanes came from the northern half of the Greek empire i.e. the Seleucids. He displaced three Seleucid rulers: Heliodoris [driven out], Antiochus son of Seleucis [murdered] and Demetrius, whom he usurped. The other seven horns would then match the seven Seleucid kings: (1) Seleucus Nicator (312-280); (2) Antiochus I, Soter (279-261); (3) Antiochus II, Theos (260-246); (4) Seleucus II, Callinicus (245-226) ; (5) Seleucus III, Ceraunus (225-223); (6) Antiochus III, the Great (222-187); (7) Seleucus IV, Philopator (186-176). These ten horns of the beast are then the ten toes of the image, which are strangely described as being mixed / married with the seed of men; and indeed the weakness and strife amongst the Seleucid rulers was because they intermarried with the local population and were not pure Greeks.

The problem of course is how Antiochus and the final rulers of the Greek empire were destroyed by Messiah's coming. It could be argued that there is a gap between the toes / horns being developed, and the image being hit by the Jewish Messiah. Just as there is a gap in the fulfilment of the Lord's Olivet prophecy, jumping from the destruction of the temple in AD70 to His coming in the last days. Yet Daniel 11 outlines the conflict between the two halves of the Greek empire, and goes on in Daniel 12 to say that "Michael shall stand up" and destroy the king of the north, and then there will be the resurrection and eternal reward of the faithful Jews. This didn't happen. Nor was Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed by the Lord's coming, even though Daniel 8 is at pains to stress that this will be "the time of the end". Not just the general future, "the last days", but the specific "time of the end". I suggest that only the concept of conditional prophecy can explain this. A Messiah could have come at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Jews could have destroyed Babylon / Persia, the great mountain would have become a plain before Zerubbabel, and re-established God's Kingdom, replete with the Messianic temple of Ez. 40-48. But as Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi lament, they failed to live up to this potential. And so another potential was revealed; a Messiah could have arisen at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 8), destroyed the invasion of "the king of the north" and saved God's people, leading to the resurrection and re-establishment of the Kingdom (Dan. 11 and Dan. 12). But this too didn't happen. Likewise there are differences between Dan. 7 and Dan. 8 regarding the number of horns; thus the little horn of Dan. 8 does not uproot three horns as in Dan. 7.The little horn of Dan. 7:8 arises amongst three other horns already there, whilst the little horn of Dan. 8:9 arises from one of four horns. These may simply be different takes on the same situation, giving different aspects; or they may reflect various potential possible scenarios. The 2300 morning-evenings [i.e. 1150 days] of Dan. 8 differ from the 1260 days of Dan. 7; but that may be because we are being given the information that of the 1260 days persecution, 1150 days would involve the stopping of the daily sacrifices. Or perhaps the time periods were and are open to varying fulfilments in accordance with human freewill factors. Clearest of all, Dan. 8 envisages three empires before the coming of Messiah and final conflict with him at "the time of the end". Dan. 7 and Dan. 2 envisage four such empires. The language of the little horn from the fourth beast in Dan. 7:25 is applied to the little horn of the Greek empire, the third empire, in Dan. 8:13,14. We have here a kaleidoscope of images- because the three empire scenario could have worked out. But it didn't, because no Messiah figure arose, Israel were not obedient to their potential mission. And so the possibilities merged into a four empire scenario. And so even in the potential 'Antiochus' fulfilment, we see nuances of different possible potential fulfilments. The strong possibility [potentially] of fulfilment at the time of the Greeks is surely reflected by the fact this is the only part of the Old Testament written in Aramaic and not Hebrew. But all this failed, in that Judas Maccabeus was not a Messiah as God required. Just as Saul, Solomon, Hezekiah and others were set up as potential Messiahs but failed. And so the more familiar scenario became possible- that the metals of the image and their associated beasts refer to the nations who dominated Israel in their land, with the legs of iron / fourth beast representing Rome. But whilst Israel were out of their land, there was a great hiatus until the situation of the last days, when a 10 horned beast entity, developed further in the beast visions of Revelation, where it is shown as incorporating all the elements of the previous beasts, will again briefly dominate the land. And will be destroyed by the return of the Lord Jesus from Heaven, to establish God's Kingdom permanently on earth. But the latter day horns which are "from" the beast are hard to interpret if we see the beast as Rome. The fit is not very snug. But this is typical of how so many prophecies are reapplied and reinterpreted- because the initial intended fulfilment was precluded by human lack of response.

If the fourth beast is Greece, the belly and thighs of brass are the Persians, the third beast like a leopard, the ram with two unequal horns of Dan. 8. The "dominion given" to it (Dan. 7:6) clearly matches the language of God's giving dominion to Cyrus (Is. 41:1-4). The silver breast and arms then refers to the Medes, matching the bear with three ribs in its mouth (Dan. 7), the first and shorter horn on the ram of Dan. 8. Another possible sequence is Babylon- MedoPersia- Greece- The Seleucids- The divided state after the Seleucids.

The Roman application is always difficult in demonstrating that the ten horns arise out of the fourth beast of Rome. The relationship between the little horn and the three horns it uproots defies legitimate interpretation within the Roman context. And their 1260 days domination is impossible to persuasively demonstrate. Suggestions about the "temporal power of the papacy" all came to an end in the 19th century- and the Lord didn't return then. Likewise the "little horn" is an individual, not a kingdom. Attempts to apply it to "the pope" seem difficult because the obvious question is "Which pope?". Daniel's consternation at the radically different nature of the fourth beast also doesn't fit the Roman empire, which was not so totally different to the empires which preceded it. We note that the Romans didn't “crush and break” the previous three kingdoms (Dan. 2:40 “will crush and break all the others”)- but Greece did. Antiochus is a snug fit with the descriptions of the little horn abuser, and subdued three other horns—Heliodorus, Demetrius Soter and the junior Antiochus. There's no compelling figure in Roman history that matches this. The seven "heads" of the fourth beast are hard to interpret because it depends which Roman emperors are chosen to fit them. Those pushing the "Roman" view tend to just cherry pick the history, naming seven emperors but ignoring the others. Indeed Rome had no king at the time it took over from Greece, being a republic until 27 BC. Nor did Rome take over the areas of eastern Greece. It's just not true that 'Greece ruled over all the known world and then their territory was taken over by Rome'. The Greeks dominated Persia, Media, India and Babylon, whereas the Roman empire never took over all that vast territory. These territories turned into independent states rather than being conquered by Rome. The Greek approach means that any revived fourth empire should be looked for from the area of the Seleucid empire, the middle east, rather than from Europe where Rome was dominant.

Dan 2:41 Then you saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, that shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, because you saw the iron mixed with miry clay- The coming of Christ is described in Is. 41:25 as: “I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come; from the rising of the sun, one who calls on My name; and he shall come on princes as on mortar, and as the potter treads clay”. This connects with the "potters' clay" here. And Is. 41 was potentially about the restoration from Babylon. The “princes” are surely some of the ten kings represented by the ten toes (Dan. 2:44). Note that Israel’s latter day invader is described as one “from the north”; this person will be an imitation of Christ, the ultimate One from the north. His coming will be as “the rising of the sun” (Mal. 4:2), just as that of the antichrist will be. The coming of Christ upon princes who are as clay therefore connects directly with the language of Daniel 2. Habakkuk 2:6 speaks of the latter day Babylonian antichrist figure as one who “lades himself with thick clay”, to be destroyed by the Lord’s coming and the Kingdom of God, when “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord” (Hab. 2:14). The “clay” would then refer to the same more lowly components of the feet part of iron and clay.

However it is perhaps wrong to imagine bits of iron mixed with clay. It has been commented: "Ancient iron production was by subjecting the ore to intense heat and afterwards driving out the clay by beating. When the latter was done imperfectly the result was "slag" in which iron and clay was mixed". The idea is that the situation was brittle and not strong, even if it appeared strong as iron visually. This will be of great comfort to those persecuted by the ten toe / ten horn system; powerful as it will seem, it is actually very brittle and prone to sudden destruction.

The point is emphasized here and in :43 that the clay was not baked into earthenware but was muddy, soft, so weak and unable therefore to make the image stand. It was an incredibly weak foundation. The fragility of the two feet after the two iron legs is demonstrated for us in Daniel 11, describing all the tensions between the kings of the north and south- the two halves of the Greek empire, the north [Seleucids based in Syria] and the south [Ptolemies, based in Egypt]. The Greek kingdom was divided into satrapies, or provinces, governed by the Diadochi, Alexander’s generals, bodyguards, governors and friends. Fighting among the Diadochi would fulfil the divided situation of the image's feet. But the language of Dan. 11 has many connections with how that section of prophecy continues in Dan. 12. The language of "the time of the end", an abomination that makes desolate, the purifying of God's people etc. occurs throughout it, including the time clearly relevant to the conflicts between the Seleucids and Ptolemies (e.g. "At the end of years... he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years... the end shall be at the time appointed... the latter time... the time of the end... until the indignation be accomplished" (Dan. 11:6,13,27,29,35,36). And this is all picked up in Dan. 12, applying it to the time of resurrection and final judgment. Clearly "the time of the end" could have been at the end of the Greek empire, just as Dan. 8 clearly states. Up until Dan. 11:39, there is a clear fulfilment of all the details in the history of the interactions between the kings of the north and south. From Dan. 11:40, there is no fulfilment. Antiochus didn't meet his end “between the sea the beautiful holy mountain”. I suggest therefore that this was the potential possible for fulfilment, resulting in the king of the north taking Jerusalem and being destroyed by the Lord's coming and the resurrection of the dead. And that didn't happen, although the essence of it will come true in the final latter day fulfilment through a different "king of the north". The reason was that God's people were not sufficiently faithful. And so Dan. 11:14 explains that the vision was "not established": "the children of the violent among your people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall". The Lord says that "the abomination that makes desolate" spoken of by Daniel must come at some point after His words in the first century: "they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate" (Dan. 11:31). But the initial application of those words was to the time of the wars between the kings of north and south during the Greek empire. He reinterpreted and reapplied the prophecy in another context. Likewise the predictions concerning Antiochus in Dan. 8:25 are clearly applied to the events associated with the coming of the Messiah in Dan. 9:27 to stop the desecration of the temple mount. But that didn't happen- at that time. We note Daniel 8 ends with the comment that Daniel didn't understand that prophecy. That's understandable, because the references to the Greeks would have been very foreign to him, and extended the Divine program far beyond the 70 years' exile which he correctly understood to have been the precursor to the Kingdom's re-establishment. But as was explained to him, the program was delayed. And in fact, it was delayed even further, beyond the Greeks and Romans, until our last days.

Dan 2:42 As the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken- If the two legs correspond to the two parts of the Greek empire which were relevant to Israel, this divided kingdom would refer to the dismemberment of Alexander's empire. The ten toes of the image correspond to the ten horns on the beast, one of which was far stronger than the others, and uprooted some of the weaker ones. "Broken" is the same idea in the feet and the whole image being "broken to pieces"  by the Lord's return. The idea may be that some elements of the final stage of the colossus are already broken in judgment, by each other. The breaking in pieces of the former kingdoms by some of the later kingdoms, as explained in Dan. 8 and Dan. 11, was really a foretaste of the final judgment upon them all. The same word is used of how Cyrus of Persia would break in pieces Babylon (Is. 45:2). Isaiah 45 seems to be saying that it was God's intention that Cyrus would break Babylon in pieces, convert to Him and be Israel's salvation. Just as it was His intention to convert Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh. But this didn't happen, and so the prophecy was delayed in fulfilment until our last days. Revelation likewise presents the scenario of the warring factions of the last days destroying or judging each other, before the final destruction of them all by the Lord's coming.

Dan 2:43 Whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men- "Mingle themselves" is used of intermarriage at the time when the Kingdom could have been re-established (Ezra 9:2). If the two legs represent the Syrian and Egyptian sides of the Greek empire, then we see here a picture of the breakup of that situation; and Dan. 11:6,17 predicts the intermarriage between the Seleucids and Ptolemies which would not succeed and which would lead to its destruction. The GNB has it right: "This means that the rulers of that empire will try to unite their families by intermarriage, but they will not be able to, any more than iron can mix with clay". Antiochus Theos, king of the North [Syria], married both Laodice and Berenice, daughters of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of the South [Egypt]. Antiochus Magnus, king of the North [Syria], gave his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes, king of the south [Egypt]; but these marriages failed to achieve unity and only led to more disunity. Daniel 11 at various points describes the ending of the Greek kingdom in language appropriate to the Lord's return and the destruction of the image in Dan. 2 (Dan. 11:22,36,37). As noted on :1, the image prophecy had various potential fulfilments, and one of them was in the coming of a Messianic figure at the end of the Greek kings to re-establish God's Kingdom. But that too didn't happen, and the fulfilment was delayed.

The prophecy may also have had a potential fulfilment in the situation around AD70. The metals represent kings; the Caesars were partly strong and partly weak in the lead up to AD70, with three emperors in the year AD69 alone (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius). The Lord could have come in AD70 and established the Kingdom; but His coming to do so was delayed because of Israel's lack of repentance.

But they shall not cling to one another, even as iron does not mingle with clay- Who, then, are these nations who were represented by the feet partly of iron and partly of clay? Some will be strong, others weak. “Then you saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, that shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, because you saw the iron mixed with miry clay. As the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. Whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cling to one another, even as iron does not mingle with clay” (Dan. 2:41-43). One only has to look at the various groups currently fighting in the Middle East to see how deeply divided is the Islamist group. 

The situation could actually lead to a fragmentation of the established territories in the Middle East into groups of smaller states, all united under the Al-Sham concept and a desire to drive Jews out of Israel. The same is true for Iraq and other Muslim states bordering Israel. Writing on the Al Jazeera website in May 2013, Murtaza Hussain wrote a penetrating article "Iraq, Syria and the death of the modern Middle East". The following sounds exactly like the ten toes of Daniel's image, formed out of larger powers but now weak and yet united against Israel:

"The countries of Syria and Iraq, formerly unified Arab states formed after the defeat of their former Ottoman rulers, exist today only in name. In their place what appears most likely to come into existence - after the bloodshed subsides - are small, ethnically and religiously homogenous statelets: weak and easily manipulated, where their progenitors at their peaks were robustly independent powers".

We of course are reading the Bible through translation. But take a closer look at the original Hebrew and Chaldee translated “they shall mingle themselves” (Dan. 2:43). They were to be a mingled people- and that’s exactly who the nations of ‘Al Sham’ are. The original word translated ‘mingle’ is arab. One easy way to check that is to use an online concordance to poke under the surface of Dan. 2:43. And you will see it- Strong’s number H6151. Arab. Surely there is a reference here to the Arab peoples!

The ‘feet and toes’ section of the image is proportionally not a very long part of the body. The domination of Israel by this group will not be for long- perhaps the three and a half year period which occurs in several latter day prophecies.

Dan 2:44 In the days of those kings- "In the lifetime of those kings" suggests that the primary interpretation is of kings who will rule over God's land within their normal life spans. "Those kings" more naturally refers to the entire image than to the feet and toes. The phrase is parallel to the stone breaking in pieces "all these kingdoms" represented in the image. This suggests the kings / kingdoms all exist within the same lifetime and will be destroyed by the coming of the stone. The "stone" could have come and the Kingdom of God been established during the lifetimes of the kings of the image, if we interpret the metals as primarily referring to the kings who would rule over Jerusalem after Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel's own lifetime saw this progression of kings, so we again have the history provided within the book of Daniel. But the Jews didn't want to destroy the kingdoms of men; they didn't even want to all return to Jerusalem when encouraged by Cyrus. And so the [to us] more familiar extended interpretation came into play. But the further we get from the initial intended fulfilment, the less snug is the fit of the interpretation to the prophecy. The full existence of the image at the time it is hit by the stone is an example of this not so snug fit.

"The days of these kings" suggests they will all be in power at the same time and not consecutively. The "these kings" could  refer to the Seleucids [king of the north] and Ptolemies [king of the south]; they were the part of the image on which the stone fell (Dan. 2:34). The kings may refer to the ten toes; but it could equally refer to the situation when the image stands complete in the last days. And we would again see that the primary intention of the prophecy was to describe a sequence of individual kings, rather than kingdoms, which would follow Nebuchadnezzar and be brought to an end by the re-establishment of Judah's mountain or kingdom.

Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people; it shall crush to powder and consume all these kingdoms- The location of God's Kingdom is therefore going to be in the same arena as earthly political kingdoms, here on this earth. There is no reference therefore to any kingdom of God in heaven, nor any spiritual kingdom in human hearts. We note that the feet of the image are already divided into small parts, as iron and clay; the Lord's judgment only confirms their own situation by breaking them into pieces. Parts of the feet are already 'broken [to pieces]' [s.w. "crush to powder"] when the Lord's return hits them (:42); they have already experienced judgment.

The grinding to powder of the nations dominating Israel could have true in the time of the restoration, according to Hag. 2:7: “And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory". That never happened because the Jews didn't respond to the potential, as Haggai laments. Another restoration prophecy in Is. 60:17 uniquely repeats the sequence of gold-silver-brass-iron: "For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron". The initial allusion is to how the restored temple would replace the brass, iron, wood and stones of Solomon's destroyed temple with something far grander. And that is the initial possible fulfilment of the image in Daniel 2. A new image would be established, again with gold-silver-brass-iron. It would be a temple but in the form of a man, that would spread throughout the land promised to Abraham. A glorious man who is also a temple clearly speaks of Messiah.

And it shall stand forever- This is the same word used of how the entire image "stood" (:31), and of how Nebuchadnezzar blasphemously set or stood up another image all of gold, representing himself (Dan. 3:1,2,3,5,7,12,14,18), as if the image he saw would not have its fulfilment, but he would last for ever. The entire image therefore represents the kingdoms of men which are to become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15). The same word is used throughout Dan. 7 concerning how the various beasts all 'stand', as if on their legs as men, but are brought down to nothing.

Dan 2:45 As you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God has made known to the king what shall happen hereafter: and the dream is certain, and its interpretation sure-

The gold in the image represented Nebuchadnezzar personally. But Daniel was so very brave to give the interpretation- that the gold would be crushed and blown away (Dan. 2:45). Indeed the entire image would be destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar would not last for ever. His worst fears, which led to his dream, were justified. Daniel surely risked death by telling him this; and for all time is a great example of speaking God's word even when we know we risk our own lives, at least our social lives, and relationships. Nebuchadnezzar was known [as were other kings] for executing messengers who brought bad news. Yet he was deeply impressed that Daniel knew what he had dreamed, and rewarded him for that. His subsequent making an image entirely of gold reflects his subsequent reflection and deep dislike of the interpretation. Later, Daniel is fearful to tell Nebuchadnezzar an interpretation which means the kig's downfall; indeed he was visibly distressed by the prospect of having to do so, going into a panic attack: "The king answered, Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream, or the interpretation, trouble you. Belteshazzar answered, My lord, the dream is to the side of those who hate you, and its interpretation to your adversaries" (Dan. 4:19). Possibly he had lost some of his youthful faith and bravery by this point.

Note the order of the metals differs slightly from :32,33. Here the order is iron, brass, clay, silver, gold. This may reflect yet another possible potential fulfilment.

The things of God, of Heaven, the things done by Him, are those "not made with hands" (Job 34:20; Lam. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:24). "Stone" is also "rock", and there are so many connections between the rock and Messiah, the Lord Jesus. The connection between God and a rock cannot be doubted. The figure speaks of God's manifestation through His Messiah figure. This could have happened at various points in the various potential possible fulfilments of the prophecy.

The stone is taken from one mountain but then becomes another mountain. Mountains represent kingdoms. "The mountain of humanity" is not a Biblical figure. The initial application was to the exiles being miraculously taken out of the condemned mountain of Babylon, returning to their land and developing into God's re-established, eternal Kingdom. The parallel to the stone hitting the image is the final form of the beast system being destroyed, and the Kingdom being given to Israel: "judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom... the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan. 7:22,27). "The saints" initially refer to Israel, God's people; or possibly to the Angels who oversee Israel, who are thereby "the people of the saints" (Dt. 33:2; Zech. 14:5; Ps. 89:5-7 and consider how within Daniel, Michael is specifically called the Angel who stands for Israel in Dan. 9:21; 12:1). It is the people of Israel who were persecuted by the beast, who "shall wear down the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time" (Dan. 7:25).

Rom. 3:16 speaks in the Greek of ‘a dashing to pieces’ of the wicked, perhaps an allusion to how the stone of Messiah’s second coming would dash the kingdoms of men to pieces at His return (Dan. 2:45; Rev. 2:27). But sinners are going now in way of such destruction. Damnation begins now- in the way of life people chose to live.

The stone was cut out of a mountain and in turn becomes a mountain which fills the whole eretz, the territory promised to Abraham, where all the elements of the image had once dominated. This of itself suggests that the most natural interpretation of the metals refers to nations located within that territory- including Babylon, Media and Persia. We are so familiar with the interpretation which includes Greece and Rome that we can overlook this. Those four kings, not kingdoms, could have arisen and then been broken by the fragment of the mountain which comes into the territory and then becomes a mountain. I suggest that the primary interpretation refers to the remnant of Judah, the mountain of God's Kingdom, which returned to the temple in Jerusalem at the time when it was dominated by a brief coalition of peoples sent there by the Babylonians, some strong and some weak. Being cut out without [human] hands means that it was of God; and Ezra and Nehemiah continually speak of how it was the hand of God which enabled the restoration. "The mountain" so often refers to the Kingdom of God in Israel ruled by a Davidic king, and particularly to the temple mount (Dt. 33:19; Ps. 30:17; 48:1; 78:54; Is. 2:2,3; 11:9; 25:6-10; 40:9; 56:7; 57:7,13; 65:11,25; 66:20; Jer. 31:23; Ez. 20:40; Zech. 8:3 etc.). The restoration prophecies are full of pictures of the restored Zion at the time of the restoration as a huge mountain dominating the eretz. The mountain of Babylon was to be burnt and replaced with the mountain of Yahweh's restored Kingdom (Jer. 51:25; Zech. 4:7). It was the returned remnant who were to destroy this mountain (Is. 41:15); they were to be the little stone. Having spoken of Babylon as a mountain to be destroyed, we then read that it was a little stone which was to bring Babylon down (Jer. 51:25,63). We recall Moses speaking of God's relationship to Israel as "the Rock who became your father" (Dt. 32:18). They were quarried from the rock, which is a common symbol for God, and not humanity generally. Restored Jerusalem was to become the stone (Zech. 12:3). That stone was to as it were grow, stone by stone, as the walls and temple were rebuilt (Hag. 2:15). This is the significance of the enigmatic little stone which was to bring about the restoration of the Kingdom at the time of Zech. 3:9; 4:7,10. I have suggested that the command to rebuild the temple according to the specifications of Ez. 40-48 was a conditional prophecy of what the exiles could and ought to have achieved. The scenario there is all about a mountain (Ez. 40:2; 43:12). This is why Daniel prayed for the restoration of the mountain of Yahweh (Dan. 9:20)- i.e. for the vision of the mountain in Dan. 2 to come true in his time. But this was disallowed by the refusal of the exiles to follow the path of the Spirit, and all these prophecies of the mountain being established have been rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord's return (Rev. 21:10). Judah were not the little stone; the prophecy is to come true in the stone of the Lord Jesus, cut out without hands by God through the virgin birth. We are so familiar with this application that we can overlook the initially intended potential application to the Judah of Daniel's day.

Note that the stone was cut out of a mountain, but after hitting the image, it becomes a mountain, filling the whole earth. This second mountain is interpreted as the Kingdom of God coming on earth. Biblically, mountains represent people. The equivalent in Daniel 7 is that the kingdoms of the world are given to "the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan. 7:27). The first mountain likewise, therefore, refers to people. Out of the mountain of humanity, or perhaps the mountain of the Hebrew people (Ex. 15:17; Ps. 48:1; Is. 2:2 "the mountain of Yahweh's house / family / people will be exalted"), the Lord Jesus as the stone was cut out without human hands, born through the virgin birth. But the people of God will finally all become like Him. He as the stone becomes them, the mountain. We will finally manifest the Lord Jesus in totality, eternally. And if I am correct in understanding "the mountain" as specifically referring to God's people Israel, then the second mountain, the Kingdom of God on earth, is in fact the eternal and glorious re-establishment of the Kingdom of God as it was in the form of Israel. And this is indeed Bible teaching elsewhere (Ez. 21:25-27; Acts 1:7 and see more evidence in my Bible Basics chapter 5).

Dan 2:46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an offering and sweet incense to him- This involuntary falling down of Nebuchadnezzar was in fact a fulfilment of the prophecy, that ultimately he would fall before Israel's God. For surely he saw in the head of gold his own face. The image was in that sense his body. Daniel's Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, could have meant something like "Protect his life" or if Akkadian Balat-sarri-ussur, "Protect the life of the king". And here he was prophesying the fall of the king. Nebuchadnezzar surely reflected upon how he had collapsed at Daniel's feet... because in Dan. 3 he makes an image entirely of gold and forces everyone to bow before it. This was surely his way of hitting back at Daniel and the friends. Possibly Daniel foresaw this and resigned from his post, hence he is not found in Dan. 3. Again we marvel at Daniel's bravery in speaking forth God's word, surely guessing the consequences as he saw Nebuchadnezzar doing what that man had surely never done- groveling prostrate on the floor before one of his junior servants. As he watched the king before him, Daniel was surely thinking, correctly, "This isn't going to end well for me". Even though it was a fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies of the prostration of foreign rulers before the Jewish exiles (Is. 45:14; 49:7,23; 60:14). As noted on Dan. 3:1, this was the humility and repentance of a moment. Nebuchadnezzar tried to demonstrate through his golden image that this dream would not come true. He was then humbled again in Dan. 4. We too have moments of humility, before God's word or circumstances brought into our lives, and then our pride so often returns. The offering and incense were typically offered to a god or idol and not to a man (Ezra 6:10), but the king recognized the intense degree to which God was manifest in Daniel through Daniel's revelation of God's word. We too in our witness are the manifestation of God and His Son to men in a very intense identification. All people see of the Father and Son are what they see of us.

Dan 2:47 The king responded to Daniel and said, Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you have been able to reveal this secret- As noted on :46, there was a very intense association and identification between God and His servant Daniel who manifested Him through the preaching of His word. Daniel was likely expecting to die for having come out with this interpretation, which went so directly against the king's pride and obvious desire to endure for ever. Nebuchadnezzar's recognition that Yahweh was "Lord of kings" was effectively a recognition of Yahweh as his lord; although as we will see on Dan. 3:1, he failed to maintain this intensity of devotion. The "kings" he had in view were the kings of the vision; another indication that the primary potential fulfilment of it was in a series of kings rather than kingdoms which would terminate in the re-establishment of Israel's Kingdom as the eternal Kingdom of God. Inscriptions have been found using these very words about Marduk (Merodach), the idol of Nebuchadnezzar. For him to now apply these words to Yahweh was effectively a renunciation of Marduk. It's so sad that Nebuchadnezzar failed to maintain his commitment; and this is a disappointing feature of our lives, moments of devotion and realization, followed by a slump back into pride and the old and familiar patterns of thinking. Only the Spirit will empower us not to be like this.

However, I would suggest that these words imply that the king was simply amazed that Daniel had been able to recall his dream and reveal the mystery: "since you have been able to reveal this secret". He was more impressed with this, than with the content of the dream. Which according to his behaviour in Dan. 3, he came to strongly object to. He didn't retain his humility of that moment, just as we often don't. We thereby note Daniel's courage in stating God's word to the king, knowing the king wouldn't like it- and he didn't. Dream interpretation always involved a suggested course of action or magic to avoid the ill omen or consequence of the interpreted dream. Daniel offers no such remedy. And he was the braver for all the same telling the meaning of the dream. The king makes no comment about his predicted future loss of power, nor the evident failure of his gods and their servants to predict his future. Isaiah is full of criticisms of Babylon's gods, especially their inability to predict the future; Is. 41:23 is one of many: "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods”. The king at this point fails to engage with this. All those polemics of Isaiah against Babylon's gods surely allude to Daniel's powerful and correct prediction of Babylon's future, on behalf of Yahweh.

Dan 2:48 Then the king made Daniel great, and gave him many great gifts, and made him to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to be chief governor over all the wise men of Babylon- Comparing with :49, we sense that Daniel was exalted even higher than rulership over the province; he was in the king's gate, one of his close personal advisers. The word of 'making a great man' is used of how Nebuchadnezzar had been made a great man (Dan. 4:11,20,22), made by God a ruler. It is a classic piece of human psychology that now Nebuchadnezzar wants to do to another what he perceived had been done to him by God's grace. The Biblical record throughout has the ring of psychological and internal credibility in a way in which the uninspired histories of the time simply do not. We note that the "wise men" were effectively the political governors too. Religion and politics were totally connected in Babylon; for Daniel and his friends to be made governors, to be given political power when they had a different religion, was a radical thing for the king to do. And it set them up for the later conflicts we read of in Daniel. Like all of us, they were in an impossible situation. Daniel later rejected all such reward for telling dreams, but I will suggest on :49 that at this point, Daniel's motivation for accepting it and getting his Jewish friends into power was because he entertained the possibility that all Babylon might be brought to the true God. We too should set our sights high in our preaching work, not content with mere 'witnessing' for the sake of relieving our conscience, with no great hopes for conversions. The enduring legacy of Daniel is reflected in the fact that centuries later, it was magi, "wise men"  from the east, who came to worship the infant Jesus, realizing that his birth was the fulfilment of some of Daniel's prophecies.

Dan 2:49 Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel was in the gate of the king- Daniel clearly did this for the sake of ensuring a good deal for the Jews there, and perhaps also in line with the Divine intention that Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon repent and come to the true God. Just as Isaiah 45 seems to envisage the possibility of Cyrus king of Persia becoming Israel's saviour after coming personally to Israel's God. There was likewise an attempt to convert even Pharaoh. These ancient monarchs would have seemed to us not worth wasting effort with; but God did try. And we likewise should consider nobody as just not worth the effort when it comes to our work of witness.