DANIEL 2 31-49 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance.

BARNES, "Thou, O king, sawest - Margin, “wast seeing.” The margin is in accordance with the Chaldee. The language is properly what denotes a prolonged or attentive observation. He was in an attitude favorable to vision, or was looking with intensity, and there appeared before him this remarkable image. Compare Dan_7:1-2, Dan_7:4, Dan_7:6. It was not a thing which appeared for a moment, and then vanished, but which remained so long that he could contemplate it with accuracy.

And, behold, a great image - Chaldee, “one image that was grand” - שגיא חד צלםtselēm chad s'agıy'. So the Vulgate - statua una grandis. So the Greek - εἰκὼν μία eikōnmia. The object seems to be to fix the attention on the fact that there was but “one” image, though composed of so different materials, and of materials that seemed to be so little fitted to be worked together into the same statue. The idea, by its being represented as “one,” is, that it was, in some respects, “the same kingdom” that he saw symbolized: that is, that it would extend over the same countries, and could be, in some sense, regarded as a prolongation of the same empire. There was so much of “identity,” though different in many respects, that it could be represented as “one.” The word rendered “image” (צלם tselem) denotes properly “a shade,” or “shadow,” and then anything that “shadows forth,” or that represents anything.

It is applied to man Gen_1:27 as shadowing forth, or representing God; that is, there was something in man when he was created which had so far a resemblance to God that he might be regarded as an “image” of him. The word is often used to denote idols - as supposed to be a “representation” of the gods, either in their forms, or as shadowing forth their character as majestic, stern, mild, severe, merciful, etc. Num_33:52; 1Sa_6:5; 2Ki_11:18; 2Ch_23:17; Eze_7:20; Eze_16:17; Eze_23:14; Amo_5:26. This image is not represented as an idol to be worshipped, nor in the use of the word is it to be supposed that there is an allusion, as Prof. Bush supposes, to the fact that these kingdoms would be idolatrous, but the word is used in its proper and primitive sense, to denote something which would “represent,” or “shadow forth,” the kingdoms which would exist. The exact “size” of the image is not mentioned. It is only suggested that it was great - a 1

proper characteristic to represent the “greatness” of the kingdoms to which it referred.This great image - The word here rendered “great” (רב rab) is different from that

used in the previous clause, though it is not easy to determine the exact difference between the words. Both denote that the image was of gigantic dimensions. It is well remarked by Prof. Bush, that “the monuments of antiquity sufficiently evince that the humor prevailed throughout the East, and still more in Egypt, of constructing enormous statues, which were usually dedicated to some of their deities, and connected with their worship. The object, therefore, now presented in the monarch’s dream was not, probably, entirely new to his thoughts.”Whose brightness was excellent - “Whose brightness “excelled,” or was unusual

and remarkable.” The word rendered brightness (זיו zıyv) is found only in Daniel. It is rendered “brightness” in Dan_2:31; Dan_4:36, and in the margin in Dan_5:6, Dan_5:9; and “countenance” in Dan_5:6 (text), and in Dan_2:9-10; Dan_7:28. From the places where it is found, particularly Dan_4:36, it is clear that it is used to denote a certain beauty, or majesty, shining forth in the countenance, which was fitted to impress the beholder with awe. The term here is to be understood not merely of the face of the image, but of its entire aspect, as having something in it signally splendid and imposing. We have only to conceive of a colossal statue whose head was burnished gold, and a large part of whose frame was polished silver, to see the force of this language.

Stood before thee - It stood over against him in full view. He had an opportunity of surveying it clearly and distinctly.And the form thereof was terrible - Vast, imposing, grand, fearful. The sudden appearance of such an object as this could not but fill the mind with terror. The design for which this representation was made to Nebuchadnezzar is clearly unfolded in the explanation which Daniel gives. It may be remarked here, in general, that such an appearance of a gigantic image was well adapted to represent successive kingdoms, and that the representation was in accordance with the spirit of ancient times. “In ancient coins and medals,” says the editor of the “Pictorial Bible,” “nothing is more common than to see cities and nations represented by human figures, male or female. According to the ideas which suggested such symbols, a vast image in the human figure was, therefore, a very fit emblem of sovereign power and dominion; while the materials of which it was composed did most significantly typify the character of the various empires, the succession of which was foreshown by this vision. This last idea, of expressing the condition of things by metallic symbols, was prevalent before the time of Daniel. Hesiod, who lived about two centuries before Daniel, characterizes the succession of ages (four) by the very same metals - gold, silver, brass, and iron.”

CLARKE, "A great image - Representing the four great monarchies.

GILL, "Thou, O king, sawest,.... Or, "wast seeing" (z); not with the eyes of his body, but in his fancy and imagination; as he was dreaming, he thought he saw such an appearance, so it seemed to him, as follows: and behold a great image; or, "one great image" (a); not painted, but a massive statue made of various metals, as is afterwards declared: such, though not so large as

2

this, as the king had been used to see, which he had in his garden and palace, and which he worshipped; but this was of a monstrous size, a perfect colossus, and but one, though it consisted of various parts; it was in the form of a great man, as Saadiah and Jacchiades observe; and represented each of the monarchies of this world governed by men; and these being expressed by an image, show how vain and delusory, how frail and transitory, are the kingdoms of the earth, and the glory of them: this great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee: right over against him, and near him, as he thought; so that he had a full view of it, and saw it at its full length and size, and its dazzling lustre, arising from the various metals of gold, silver, brass, and iron, it was made of; which was exceeding bright, and made it look very majestic: and the form thereof was terrible; either there was something in the countenance menacing and horrid; or the whole form, being so gigantic, struck the king with admiration, and was even terrible to him; and it may denote the terror that kings, especially arbitrary and despotic ones, strike their subjects with.

HENRY 31 F, "Daniel here gives full satisfaction to Nebuchadnezzar concerning his dream and the interpretation of it. That great prince had been kind to this poor prophet in his maintenance and education; he had been brought up at the king's cost, preferred at court, and the land of his captivity had hereby been made much easier to him than to others of his brethren. And now the king is abundantly repaid for all the expense he had been at upon him; and for receiving this prophet, though not in the name of a prophet, he had a prophet's reward, such a reward as a prophet only could give, and for which that wealthy mighty prince was now glad to be beholden to him. Here is,

I. The dream itself, Dan_2:31, Dan_2:45. Nebuchadnezzar perhaps 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, which might intimate to him what the images were which he bestowed so much cost upon, and paid such respect to; they were mere dreams. The creatures of fancy might do as well to please the fancy. By the power of imagination he might shut his eyes, and represent to himself what forms he thought fit, and beautify them at his pleasure, without the expense and trouble of sculpture. This was the image of a man erect: It stood before him,as a living man; and, because those monarchies which were designed to be represented by it were admirable in the eyes of their friends, the brightness of this image was excellent; and because they were formidable to their enemies, and dreaded by all about them, the form of this image is said to be terrible; both the features of the face and the postures of the body made it so. But that which was most remarkable in this image was the different metals of which it was composed - the head of gold (the richest and most durable metal), the breast and arms of silver (the next to it in worth), the belly and sides (or thighs) of brass, the legs of iron (still baser metals), and lastly the feet part of iron and part of clay. See what the things of this world are; the further we go in them the less valuable they appear. In the life of a man youth is a head of gold, but it grows less and less worthy of our esteem; and old age is half clay; a man is then as good as dead. It is so with the world; later ages degenerate. The first age of the Christian church, of the reformation, was a head of gold; but we live in an age that is iron and clay. Some allude to this in the description of a hypocrite, whose practice is not agreeable to his knowledge. He has a head of gold, but feet of iron and clay: he knows his duty, but does 3

it not. Some observe that in Daniel's visions the monarchies were represented by four beasts (ch. 7), for he looked upon that wisdom from beneath, by which they were turned to be earthly and sensual, and a tyrannical power, to have more in it of the beast than of the man, and so the vision agreed with his notions of the thing. But to Nebuchadnezzar, a heathen prince, they were represented by a gay and pompous image of a man, for he was an admirer of the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them. To him the sight was so charming that he was impatient to see it again. But what became of this image? The next part of the dream shows it to us calcined, and brought to nothing. He saw a stone cut out of the quarry by an unseen power, without hands, and this stone fell upon the feet of the image, that were of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces; and then the image must fall of course, and so the gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, were all broken to pieces together, and beaten so small that they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and there were not to be found any the least remains of them; but the stone cut out of the mountain became itself a great mountain, and filled the earth. See how God can bring about great effects by weak and unlikely causes; when he pleases a little one shall become a thousand. Perhaps the destruction of this image of gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, might be intended to signify the abolishing of idolatry out of the world in due time. The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, as this image was, and they shall perish from off the earth and from under these heavens, Jer_10:11.; Isa_2:18. And whatever power destroys idolatry is in the ready way to magnify and exalt itself, as this stone, when it had broken the image to pieces, became a great mountain.II. The interpretation of this dream. Let us now see what is the meaning of this. It was from God, and therefore from him it is fit that we take the explication of it. It should seem, Daniel had his fellows with him, and speaks for them as well as for himself, when he says, We will tell the interpretation, Dan_2:36. Now,1. This image represented the kingdoms of the earth that should successively bear rule among the nations and have influence on the affairs of the Jewish church. The four monarchies were not represented by four distinct statues, but by one image, because they were all of one and the same spirit and genius, and all more or less against the church. It was the same power, only lodged in four different nations, the two former lying eastward of Judea, the two latter westward. (1.) The head of gold signified the Chaldean monarchy, which was now in being (Dan_2:37, Dan_2:38): Thou, O king! art(or rather, shalt be) a king of kings, a universal monarch, to whom many kings and kingdoms shall be tributaries; or, Thou art the highest of kings on earth at this time (as a servant of servants is the meanest servant); thou dost outshine all other kings. But let him not attribute his elevation to his own politics or fortitude. No; it is the God of heaven that has given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory, a kingdom that exercises great authority, stands firmly, and shines brightly, acts by a puissant army with an arbitrary power. Note, The greatest of princes have no power but what is given them from above. The extent of his dominion is set forth (Dan_2:38), that wheresoever the children of men dwell, in all the nations of that part of the world, he was ruler over them all, over them and all that belonged to them, all their cattle, not only those which they had a property in, but those that were ferae naturae - wild, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven. He was lord of all the woods, forests, and chases, and none were allowed to hunt or fowl without his leave. Thus “thou art the head of gold; thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, for seventy years.” Compare this with Jer_25:9, Jer_25:11, especially Jer_27:5-7. There were other powerful kingdoms in the world at this time, as that of the Scythians; but it was the kingdom of Babylon that reigned over the Jews, and

4

that began the government which continued in the succession here described till Christ's time. It is called a head, for its wisdom, eminency, and absolute power, a head of gold for its wealth (Isa_14:4); it was a golden city. Some make this monarchy to begin in Nimrod, and so bring into it all the Assyrian kings, about fifty monarchs in all, and compute that it lasted above 1600 years. But it had not been so long a monarchy of such vast extent and power as is here described, nor any thing like it; therefore others make only Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, to belong to this head of gold; and a glorious high throne they had, and perhaps exercised a more despotic power than any of the kings that went before them. Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years current, Evil-merodach twenty-three years current, and Belshazzar three. Babylon was their metropolis, and Daniel was with them upon the spot during the seventy years. (2.) The breast and arms of silver signified the monarchy of the Medes and Persians, of which the king is told no more than this, There shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee(Dan_2:39), not so rich, powerful, or victorious. This kingdom was founded by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian, in alliance with each other, and therefore represented by two arms, meeting in the breast. Cyrus was himself a Persian by his father, a Mede by his mother. Some reckon that this second monarchy lasted 130 years, others 204 years. The former computation agrees best with the scripture chronology. (3.) The belly and thighs of brass signified the monarchy of the Grecians, founded by Alexander, who conquered Darius Codomannus, the last of the Persian emperors. This is the third kingdom, of brass, inferior in wealth and extent of dominion to the Persian monarchy, but in Alexander himself it shall by the power of the sword bear rule over all the earth;for Alexander boasted that he had conquered the world, and then sat down and wept because he had not another world to conquer. (4.) The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman monarchy. Some make this to signify 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; these they make the two legs and feet of this image: Grotius, and Junius, and Broughton, go this way. But it has been the more received opinion that it is the Roman monarchy that is here intended, because it was in the time of that monarchy, and when it was at its height, that the kingdom of Christ was set up in the world by the preaching of the everlasting gospel. The Roman kingdom was strong as iron (Dan_2:40), witness the prevalency of that kingdom against all that contended with it for many ages. That kingdom broke in piecesthe Grecian empire and afterwards quite destroyed the nation of the Jews. Towards the latter end of the Roman monarchy it grew very weak, and branched into ten kingdoms, which were as the toes of these feet. Some of these were weak as clay, others strong as iron, Dan_2:42. Endeavours were used to unite and cement them for the strengthening of the empire, but in vain: They shall not cleave one to another, Dan_2:43. This empire divided the government for a long time between the senate and the people, the nobles and the commons, but they did not entirely coalesce. There were civil wars between Marius and Sylla, Caesar and Pompey, whose parties were as iron and clay. Some refer this to the declining times of that empire, when, for the strengthening of the empire against the irruptions of the barbarous nations, the branches of the royal family intermarried; but the politics had not the desired effect, when the day of the fall of that empire came.2. The stone cut out without hands represented the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which should be set up in the world in the time of the Roman empire, and upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom in the kingdoms of the world. This is the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, for it should be neither raised nor supported by human power or policy;

5

no visible hand should act in the setting of it up, but it should be done invisibly the Spirit of the Lord of hosts. This was the stone which the builders refused, because it was not cut out by their hands, but it has now become the head-stone of the corner. (1.) The gospel-church is a kingdom, which Christ is the sole and sovereign monarch of, in which he rules by his word and Spirit, to which he gives protection and law, and from which he receives homage and tribute. It is a kingdom not of this world, and yet set up in it; it is the kingdom of God among men. (2.) The God of heaven was to set up this kingdom, to give authority to Christ to execute judgment, to set him as King upon his holy hill of Zion, and to bring into obedience to him a willing people. Being set up by the God of heaven, it is often in the New Testament called the kingdom of heaven, for its original is from above and its tendency is upwards. (3.) It was to be set up in the days of these kings, the kings of the fourth monarchy, of which particular notice is taken (Luk_2:1), That Christ was born when, by the decree of the emperor of Rome, all the world was taxed, which was a plain indication that that empire had become as universal as any earthly empire ever was. When these kings are contesting with each other, and in all the struggles each of the contending parties hopes to find its own account, God will do his own work and fulfil his own counsels. These kings are all enemies to Christ's kingdom, and yet it shall be set up in defiance of them. (4.) It is a kingdom that knows no decay, is in no danger of destruction, and will not admit any succession or revolution. It shall never be destroyed by any foreign force invading it, as many other kingdoms are; fire and sword cannot waste it; the combined powers of earth and hell cannot deprive either the subjects of their prince or the prince of his subjects; nor shall this kingdom be left to other people, as the kingdoms of the earth are. As Christ is a monarch that has no successor (for he himself shall reign for ever), so his kingdom is a monarchy that has no revolution. The kingdom of God was indeed taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles (Mat_21:43), but still it was Christianity that ruled, the kingdom of the Messiah. The Christian church is still the same; it is fixed on a rock, much fought against, but never to be prevailed against, by the gates of hell. (5.) It is a kingdom that shall be victorious over all opposition. It shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms, as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands broke in pieces the image, Dan_2:44, Dan_2:45. The kingdom of Christ shall wear out all other kingdoms, shall outlive them, and flourish when they are sunk with their own weight, and so wasted that their place knows them no more. All the kingdoms that appear against the kingdom of Christ shall be broken with a rod of iron, as a potter's vessel, Psa_2:9. And in the kingdoms that submit to the kingdom of Christ tyranny, and idolatry, and every thing that is their reproach, shall, as far as the gospel of Christ gets ground, be broken. The day is coming when Jesus Christ shall have put down all rule, principality, and power,and have made all his enemies his footstool; and then this prophecy will have its full accomplishment, and not till then, 1Co_15:24, 1Co_15:25. Our savior seems to refer to this (Mat_21:44), when, speaking of himself as the stone set at nought by the Jewish builders, he says, On whomsoever this stone shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (6.) It shall be an everlasting kingdom. Those kingdoms of the earth that had broken in pieces all about them at length came, in their turn, to be in like manner broken; but the kingdom of Christ shall break other kingdoms in pieces and shall itself stand for ever.His throne shall be as the days of heaven, his seed, his subjects, as the stars of heaven, not only so innumerable, but so immutable. Of the increase of Christ's government and peace there shall be no end. The Lord shall reign for ever, not only to the end of time, but when time and days shall be no more, and God shall be all in all to eternity.III. Daniel having thus interpreted the dream, to the satisfaction of Nebuchadnezzar,

6

who gave him no interruption, so full was the interpretation that he had no question to ask, and so plain that he had no objection to make, he closes all with a solemn assertion, 1. Of the divine original of this dream: The great God (so he calls him, to express his own high thoughts of him, and to beget the like in the mind of this great king) has made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter, which the gods of the magicians could not do. And thus a full confirmation was given to that great argument which Isaiah had long before urged against idolaters, and particularly the idolaters of Babylon, when he challenged the gods they worshipped to show things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods (Isa_41:23), and by this proved the God of Israel to be the true God, that he declares the end from the beginning, Isa_46:10. 2. Of the undoubted certainty of the things foretold by this dream. He who makes known these things is the same that has himself designed and determined them, and will by his providence effect them; and we are sure that his counsel shall stand, and cannot be altered, and therefore the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure. Note, Whatever God has made known we may depend upon.

JAMISON, "The world power in its totality appears as a colossal human form: Babylon the head of gold, Medo-Persia the breast and two arms of silver, Graeco-Macedonia the belly and two thighs of brass, and Rome, with its Germano-Slavonic offshoots, the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, the fourth still existing. Those kingdoms only are mentioned which stand in some relation to the kingdom of God; of these none is left out; the final establishment of that kingdom is the aim of His moral government of the world. The colossus of metal stands on weak feet, of clay. All man’s glory is as ephemeral and worthless as chaff (compare 1Pe_1:24). But the kingdom of God, small and unheeded as a “stone” on the ground is compact in its homogeneous unity; whereas the world power, in its heterogeneous constituents successively supplanting one another, contains the elements of decay. The relation of the stone to the mountain is that of the kingdom of the cross (Mat_16:23; Luk_24:26) to the kingdom of glory, the latter beginning, and the former ending when the kingdom of God breaks in pieces the kingdoms of the world (Rev_11:15). Christ’s contrast between the two kingdoms refers to this passage.

a great image — literally, “one image that was great.” Though the kingdoms were different, it was essentially one and the same world power under different phases, just as the image was one, though the parts were of different metals.

K&D 31-45, "Dan_2:31-45The Dream and Its Interpretation. - Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream a great

metallic image which was terrible to look upon. אלו (behold), which Daniel interchanges with אר, corresponds with the Hebrew words ראו ,ראה, or צלם .הנה is not an idol-image (Hitz.), but a statue, and, as is manifest from the following description, a statue in human form. חד is not the indefinite article (Ges., Win., Maur.), but the numeral. “The world-power is in all its phases one, therefore all these phases are united in the vision in one image” (Klief.). The words from צלמא to יתיר contain two parenthetical

7

expressions, introduced for the purpose of explaining the conception of שגיא (great). קאם is to be united with דכן .ואלו here and at Dan_7:20. is used by Daniel as a peculiar form of the demonstrative pronoun, for which Ezra uses ד. The appearance of the colossal image was terrible, not only on account of its greatness and its metallic splendour, but because it represented the world-power of fearful import to the people of God (Klief.).Dan_2:37-38

The interpretation begins with the golden head. מלכיא the usual title of the ,מלmonarchs of the Oriental world-kingdoms (vid., Eze_26:7), is not the predicate to אנתה, but stands in apposition to מלכא. The following relative passages, Dan_2:37 and Dan_2:38, are only further explications of the address King of Kings, in which אנתה is again taken up to bring back the predicate. בכל־די, wherever, everywhere. As to the form קאמין see the remarks under ,דארין at Dan_3:3. The description of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion over men, beasts, and birds, is formed after the words of Jer_27:6 and Jer_28:14; the mention of the breasts serves only for the strengthening of the thought that his dominion was that of a world-kingdom, and that God had subjected all things to him. Nebuchadnezzar' dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilised world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, “the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all world-powers” (Klief.). ראשה, stat. emphat.for ראשא; the reading ראשה defended by Hitz. is senseless. If Daniel called him (Nebuchadnezzar) the golden head, the designation cannot refer to his person, but to the world-kingdom founded by him and represented in his person, having all things placed under his sway by God. Hitzig's idea, that Nebuchadnezzar is the golden head as distinguished from his successors in the Babylonian kingdom, is opposed by Dan_2:39, where it is said that after him (not another king, but) “another kingdom” would arise. That “Daniel, in the words, 'Thou art the golden head,' speaks of the Babylonian kingdom as of Nebuchadnezzar personally, while on the contrary he speaks of the other world-kingdoms impersonally only as of kingdoms, has its foundation in this, that the Babylonian kingdom personified in Nebuchadnezzar stood before him, and therefore could be addressed by the word thou, while the other kingdoms could not” (Klief.).Dan_2:39

In this verse the second and third parts of the image are interpreted of the second and third world-kingdoms. Little is said of these kingdoms here, because they are more fully described in Daniel 7, 8 and 10. That the first clause of Dan_2:39 refers to the second, the silver part of the image, is apparent from the fact that Dan_2:38 refers to the golden head, and the second clause of Dan_2:39 to the belly of brass. According to this, the breast and arms of silver represent another kingdom which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., after the Babylonian kingdom. This kingdom will be מנ ,ארעאinferior to thee, i.e., to the kingdom of which thou art the representative. Instead of the adjective ארעא, here used adverbially, the Masoretes have substituted the adverbial form ארץ, in common use in later times, which Hitz. incorrectly interprets by the phrase “downwards from thee.” Since the other, i.e., the second kingdom, as we shall afterwards prove, is the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, the question arises, in how far was it inferior

8

to the Babylonian? In outward extent it was not less, but even greater than it. With reference to the circumstance that the parts of the image representing it were silver, and not gold as the head was, Calv., Aub., Kran., and others, are inclined to the opinion that the word “inferior” points to the moral condition of the kingdom. But if the successive deterioration of the inner moral condition of the four world-kingdoms is denoted by the succession of the metals, this cannot be expressed by מנ because in regard to the ,ארעאfollowing world-kingdoms, represented by copper and iron, such an intimation or declaration does not find a place, notwithstanding that copper and iron are far inferior to silver and gold. Klief., on the contrary, thinks that the Medo-Persian kingdom stands inferior to, or is smaller than, the Babylonian kingdom in respect of universality; for this element is exclusively referred to in the text, being not only attributed to the Babylonian kingdom, Dan_2:37, in the widest extent, but also to the third kingdom, Dan_2:39, and not less to the fourth, Dan_2:40. The universality belonging to a world-kingdom does not, however, require that it should rule over all the nations of the earth to its very end, nor that its territory should have a defined extent, but only that such a kingdom should unite in itself the οἰκουμένη, i.e., the civilised world, the whole of the historical nations of its time. And this was truly the case with the Babylonian, the Macedonia, and the Roman world-monarchies, but it was not so with the Medo-Persian, although perhaps it was more powerful and embraced a more extensive territory than the Babylonian, since Greece, which at the time of the Medo-Persia monarchy had already decidedly passed into the rank of the historical nations, as yet stood outside of the Medo-Persian rule. But if this view is correct, then would universality be wanting to the third, i.e., to the Graeco-Macedonian world-monarchy, which is predicated of it in the words “That shall bear rule over the whole earth,” since at the time of this monarchy Rome had certainly passed into the rank of historical nations, and yet it was not incorporated with the Macedonian empire.

The Medo-Persian world-kingdom is spoken of as “inferior” to the Babylonian perhaps only in this respect, that from its commencement it wanted inner unity, since the Medians and Persians did not form a united people, but contended with each other for the supremacy, which is intimated in the expression, Dan_7:5, that the bear “raised itself up on one side:” see under that passage. In the want of inward unity lay the weakness or the inferiority in strength of this kingdom, its inferiority as compared with the Babylonian. This originally divided or separated character of this kingdom appears in the image in the circumstance that it is represented by the breast and the arms. “Medes and Persians,” as Hofm. (Weiss. u. Ef. i. S. 279) well remarks, “are the two sides of the breast. The government of the Persian kingdom was not one and united as was that of the Chaldean nation and king, but it was twofold. The Magi belonged to a different race from Cyrus, and the Medes were regarded abroad as the people ruling with and beside the Persians.” This two-sidedness is plainly denoted in the two horns of the ram, Daniel 8.Dan_2:39

Dan_2:39 treats of the third world-kingdom, which by the expression אחרי, “another,” is plainly distinguished from the preceding; as to its quality, it is characterized by the predicate “of copper, brazen.” In this chapter it is said only of this kingdom that “it shall rule over the whole earth,” and thus be superior in point of extent and power to the preceding kingdoms. Cf. Dan_7:6, where it is distinctly mentioned that “power was given unto it.” Fuller particulars are communicated regarding the second and third world-kingdoms in Daniel 8 and Dan_10:1.

9

Dan_2:40-43The interpretation of the fourth component part of the image, the legs and feet, which represent a fourth world-kingdom, is more extended. That kingdom, corresponding to the legs of iron, shall be hard, firm like iron. Because iron breaks all things in pieces, so shall this kingdom, which is like to iron, break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms.

Dan_2:40-41Instead of רביציא, which is formed after the analogy of the Syriac language, the Keri

has the usual Chaldee form רביעאה, which shall correspond to the preceding תליתאה, Dan_2:39. See the same Keri Dan_3:25; Dan_7:7, Dan_7:23. די כל־קבל does not mean just as (Ges., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), but because, and the passage introduced by this particle contains the ground on which this kingdom is designated as hard like iron. חשל, breaks in pieces, in Syriac to forge, i.e., to break by the hammer, cf. חושלא, bruisedgrain, and thus separated from the husks. כל־אלין is referred by Kran., in conformity with the accents, to the relative clause, “because by its union with the following verbal idea a blending of the image with the thing indicated must first be assumed; also nowhere else, neither here nor in Daniel 7, does the non-natural meaning appear, e.g., that by the fourth kingdom only the first and second kingdoms shall be destroyed; and finally, in the similar expression, Dan_7:7, Dan_7:19, the הדק stands likewise without an object.” But all the three reasons do not prove much. A mixing of the figure with the thing signified does not lie in the passage: “the fourth (kingdom) shall, like crushing iron, crush to pieces all these” (kingdoms). But the “non-natural meaning,” that by the fourth kingdom not only the third, but also the second and the first, would be destroyed, is not set aside by our referring כל־אלין to the before-named metals, because the metals indeed characterize and represent kingdoms. Finally, the expressions in Dan_7:7, Dan_7:19 are not analogous to those before us. The words in question cannot indeed be so understood as if the fourth kingdom would find the three previous kingdoms existing together, and would dash them one against another; for, according to the text, the first kingdom is destroyed by the second, and the second by the third; but the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third. “The elements out of which the Babylonian world-kingdom was constituted, the countries, people, and civilisation comprehended in it, as its external form, would be destroyed by the Medo-Persia kingdom, and carried forward with it, so as to be constituted into a new external form. Such, too, was the relation between the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian world-kingdom, that the latter assumed the elements and component parts not only of the Medo-Persian, but also therewith at the same time of the Babylonian kingdom” (Klief.). In such a way shall the fourth world-kingdom crush “all these” past kingdoms as iron, i.e., will not assume the nations and civilisations comprehended in the earlier world-kingdoms as organized formations, but will destroy and break them to atoms with iron strength. Yet will this world-kingdom not throughout possess and manifest the iron hardness. Only the legs of the image are of iron (Dan_2:41), but the feet and toes which grow out of the legs are partly of clay and partly of iron.

Regarding ן חסף .see under Dan_2:33 ,מנה means clay, a piece of clay, then an earthly vessel, 2Sa_5:20. פחר in the Targums means potter, also potter's earth, potsherds. The פחר די serves to strengthen the חסף, as in the following the addition of

10

clay, in order the more to heighten the idea of brittleness. This twofold material ,טינאdenotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for פלג always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen_10:25; Psa_55:10; Job_38:25; and Levy, chald. Worterb. s. v. Notwithstanding this inner division, there will yet be in it the firmness of iron. נצבא, firmness, related to יצב, Pa. to make fast, but in Chald. generally plantatio, properly a slip, a plant.Dan_2:42-43

In Dan_2:42 the same is aid of the toes of the feet, and in Dan_2:43 the comparison to iron and clay is defined as the mixture of these two component parts. As the iron denotes the firmness of the kingdom, so the clay denotes its brittleness. The mixing of iron with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain. The mixing of themselves with the seed of men (Dan_2:43), most interpreters refer to the marriage politics of the princes. They who understand by the four kingdoms the monarchy of Alexander and his followers, think it refers to the marriages between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, of which indeed there is mention made in Dan_11:6 and Dan_11:17, but not here; while Hofm. thinks it relates to marriages, such as those of the German Kaiser Otto II and the Russian Grand-Duke Wladimir with the daughters of the Kaiser of Eastern Rome. But this interpretation is rightly rejected by Klief., as on all points inconsistent with the text. The subject to רבין מתע is not the kings, of whom mention is made neither in Dan_2:43nor previously. For the two feet as well as the ten toes denote not kings, but parts of the fourth kingdom; and even in Dan_2:44, by מלכיא, not kings in contradistinction to the kingdoms, but the representatives of the parts of the kingdom denoted by the feet and the toes as existing contemporaneously, are to be understood, from which it cannot rightly be concluded in any way that kings is the subject to מתערבין (shall mingle themselves).

As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent the material of these kingdoms, i.e., their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e., the national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them. If, then, the “mixing themselves with the seed of men” points to marriages, it is only of the mixing of different tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages as a means of amalgamating the diversified nationalities. But the expression is not to be limited to this, although התערב, Ezr_9:2, occurs of the mixing of the holy nation with the heathen by marriage. The peculiar expression אנששא זרע the seed of men, is not of the same import as ,זרע but is ,שכבתobviously chosen with reference to the following contrast to the divine Ruler, Dan_2:44., so as to place (Kran.) the vain human endeavour of the heathen rulers in contrast with the doings of the God of heaven; as in Jer_31:27 אדם זרע is occasioned by the contrast of בהמה The figure of mixing by seed is derived from the sowing of the field with .זרעmingled seed, and denotes all the means employed by the rulers to combine the different nationalities, among which the connubium is only spoken of as the most important and successful means.

11

But this mixing together will succeed just as little as will the effort to bind together into one firm coherent mass iron and clay. The parts mixed together will not cleave to each other. Regarding ן .see under Dan_2:20 ,להDan_2:44

The world-kingdom will be broken to pieces by the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up. “In the days of these kings,” i.e., of the kings of the world-kingdoms last described; at the time of the kingdoms denoted by the ten toes of the feet of the image into which the fourth world-monarchy extends itself; for the stone (Dan_2:34) rolling against the feet of the image, or rather against the toes of the feet, breaks and destroys it. This kingdom is not founded by the hands of man, but is erected by the God of heaven, and shall for ever remain immoveable, in contrast to the world-kingdoms, the one of which will be annihilated by the other. Its dominion will not be given to another people. מלכותה, his dominion, i.e., of the kingdom. This word needs not to be changed into .which is less suitable, since the mere status absol ,מלכותה would not be here in place. Among the world-kingdoms the dominion goes from one people to another, from the Babylonians to the Persians, etc. On the contrary, the kingdom of God comprehends always the same people, i.e., the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His own, only not the Israel κατὰ σάρκα, but the Israel of God (Gal_6:16). But the kingdom of God will not merely exist eternally without change of its dominion, along with the world-kingdoms, which are always changing and bringing one another to dissolution, it will also break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms (תסף, from סוף, to bring to an end, to make an end to them), but itself shall exist for ever. This is the meaning of the stone setting itself free without the hands of man, and breaking the image in pieces.

CALVIN, "Although Daniel here records the dream, and does not touch on its interpretation, yet we must not proceed farther without discoursing on the matter itself. When the interpretation is afterwards added, we shall confirm what we have previously said, and amplify as the context may guide us. Here Daniel records how Nebuchadnezzar saw an image consisting of gold, silver, brass, and iron, but its feet were mixed, partly of iron and portly of clay. We have already treated of the name of the “Vision,” but I briefly repeat again, — king Nebuchadnezzar did not see this image here mentioned, with his natural eyes, but it was a specimen of the revelation which he knew with certainty to have been divinely offered to him. Otherwise, he might have thrown off all care, and acted as he pleased; but God held him down in complete torment, until Daniel came as its interpreter.Nebuchadnezzar then saw an image. All writers endowed with a sound judgment and candidly desirous of explaining the Prophet’s meaning, understand this, without controversy, of the Four Monarchies, following each other in succession. The Jews, when pressed by this interpretation, confuse the Turkish with the Roman empire, but their ignorance and unfairness is easily proved. For when they wish to escape the confession of Christ having been exhibited to the world, they seek stale calumnies which do not require refutation; but still something must afterwards be said in its proper place. My assertion is perfectly correct, that interpreters of

12

moderate judgment and candor, all explain the passage of the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman monarchies, and Daniel himself afterwards shews this sufficiently by his own words. A question, however, arises, why God represented these four monarchies under this image? for it does not seem to correspond throughout, as the Romans had nothing in common with the Assyrians. History has fully informed us how the Medes and Persians succeeded the Chaldeans; how Babylon was besieged by the enemy; and how Cyrus, after obtaining the victory, transferred the empire to the Medes and Persians. It may, perhaps, seem absurd that one image only should be proposed. But it is probable — nay, it may be shewn — that God does not here regard any agreement between these four monarchies, for there was none at all, but the state of the world at large. God therefore wished, under this figure, to represent the future condition of the world till the advent of Christ. This is the reason why God joined these four empires together, although actually different; since the second sprang from the destruction of the first, and the third from that of the second. This is one point, and we may now inquire, secondly, why Daniel calls the kingdom of Babylon by the honorable term golden. For we know the extent of its tyranny and the character of the Assyrians, and their union with the Chaldeans. We are also aware of the destruction of Nineveh, and how the Chaldeans made Babylon their capital city, to preserve the seat of empire among themselves. If we consider the origin of that monarchy, we shall surely find the Assyrians like savage beasts, full of avarice, cruelty, and rapacity, and the Chaldeans superior to all these vices. Why, then, is that empire called the head — and why agolden head?As to the name, “head,” since that monarchy arose first, there is nothing surprising in Daniel’s assigning the highest place to it. And as to his passing by Nineveh, this is not surprising, because that city had been already cut off, and he is now treating of future events. The Chaldean empire, then, was first in the order of time, and is called “golden” by comparison; because the world grows worse as it becomes older; for the Persians and Medes who seized upon the whole East under the auspices of Cyrus, were worse than the Assyrians and Chaldeans. So profane poets invented fables about The Four Ages, the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron. They do not mention the clay, but without doubt they received this tradition from Daniel. If any one object, that Cyrus excelled in the noblest qualities, and was of a heroic disposition, and celebrated by historians for his prudence and perseverance, and other endowments, I reply, we must not look here at the character of any one man, but at the continued state of the Persian empire. This is sufficiently probable on comparing the empire of the Medes and Persians with that of the Babylonians, which is called “silver;” since their morals were deteriorated, as we have already said. Experience also demonstrates how the world always degenerates, and inclines by degrees to vices and corruptions.Then as to the Macedonian empire, it ought not to seem absurd to find it compared to brass, since we know the cruelty of Alexander’s disposition. It is frivolous to notice that politeness which has gained him favor with historians; since, if we reflect upon his natural character, he surely breathed cruelty from his very boyhood. Do

13

we not discern in him, when quite a boy, envy and emulation? When he saw his father victorious in war, and subduing by industry or depraved arts the cities of Greece, he wept with envy, because his father left him nothing to conquer. As he manifested such pride when a boy, we conclude him to have been more cruel than humane. And with what purpose and intention did he undertake the expedition by which he became king of kings, unless through being discontented not only with his own power, but with the possession of the whole worm? We know also how tie wept when he heard from that imaginative philosophy, that there were more worlds than this. “What, ” said he, “I do not possess even one world!” Since, then, one world did not suffice for a man who was small of stature, he must indeed put off all humanity, as he really appeared to do. He never spared the blood of any one; and wherever he burst forth, like a devouring tempest, he destroyed everything. Besides, what is here said of that monarchy ought not to be restricted to the person of Alexander, who was its chief and author, but is extended to all his successors. We know that they committed horrible cruelties, for before his empire was divided into four parts, constituting the kingdoms of Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Macedonia, how much blood was sited! God took away from Alexander all his offspring. He might have lived at home and begotten children, and thus his memory would have been noble and celebrated among all posterity; but God exterminated all his family from the world. His mother perished by the sword at the age of eighty years; also his wife and sons, as well as a brother of unsound mind. Finally, it was a horrible proof of God’s anger against Alexander’s offspring, for the purpose of impressing all ages with a sense of his displeasure at such cruelty. If then we extend the Macedonian empire to the period when Perseus was conquered, and Cleopatra and Ptolemy slain in Egypt., and Syria, Asia, and Egypt reduced under the sway of Rome — if we comprehend the whole of this period, we shall not wonder at the prophet Daniel calling the monarchy “brazen.”When he speaks of The Roman Empire as “iron,” we must always remember the reason I have noticed, which has reference to the world in general, and to the depraved nature of mankind; whence their vices and immoralities always increase till they arrive at a fearful height. If we consider how the Romans conducted themselves, and how cruelly they tyrannized over others, the reason why their dominion is called “iron ” by Daniel will immediately appear. Although they appear to have possessed some skill in political affairs, we are acquainted with their ambition, avarice, and cruelty. Scarcely any nation can be found which suffered like the Romans under those three diseases, and since they were so subject to these, as well as to others, it is not surprising that the Prophet detracts from their fame and prefers the Macedonians, Persians, Medes, and even Assyrians and Chaldeans to them. ELLICOTT, " (31) A great image.—Properly, one great image. This is one important feature in the vision. The image, though representing many things, was itself only “one.” (See Note on Daniel 2:1.) That the image was of human form is evident from the further descriptions of the various parts of the body given in Daniel 2:32-33; Daniel 2:42. The “greatness” of the image implies the magnificence

14

and size of it. As will be shortly seen, throughout the various parts it represented the many complex phases of the one history of the world.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness [was] excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof [was] terrible.Ver. 31. Thou, O king, sawest,] sc., By the force of thy fancy; for in sleep the reasonable soul cometh into the shop of fantasy, and there doth strange works, which are vented in our dreams.And behold a great image.] A fit representation, and in a dream especially, of worldly greatness. An image, saith Theodoret, is but the figure of a thing, and not the thing itself; and this image in the text, speciem habet gigantaeam, et prorsus Chimaericam, was a kind of chimera.

POOLE, " A great image; not a painted, superficial image, but a massy one, a statue in man’s shape, great, splendid, majestical: thus they were wont of old to represent great emperors and empires, and worshipped them as gods: called here an image, and in a dream, all which is in show and shadow rather than in substance, and therefore vanishing.Stood before thee, and that upright, of a prodigious height, noting the grandeur of those monarchies.The form thereof was terrible: government is to be feared, fear to whom fear, and honour to whom honour; also some had rather be feared than loved. Some say the image was so placed that the face looked toward the king, and thus it might trouble and terrify him.

BENSON, "Verse 31Daniel 2:31. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold, a great image — “It appears, from ancient coins and medals, that cities and people were often represented by figures of men and women. A great, terrible human figure was therefore a proper emblem of human power and dominion; and the various metals of which it was composed not unfitly typified the various kingdoms which should arise. It consisted of four different metals, gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, mixed with clay; and these four metals, according to Daniel’s own interpretation, mean so many kingdoms; and the order of their succession is clearly denoted by the order of the parts; the head and higher parts signify the earlier times, and the lower parts the latter times. Hesiod, who lived two hundred years before Daniel, spoke of the four ages of the world under the symbols of these metals; so that this image was formed according to

15

the commonly received notion, and the commonly received notion was not first propagated from hence.” — Bishop Newton. This image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee — This image, says Grotius, appeared with a glorious lustre in the imagination of Nebuchadnezzar, whose mind was wholly taken up with admiration of worldly pomp and splendour; but the same monarchies were represented to Daniel under the shape of fierce and wild beasts, chap. 7., as being the great supporters of idolatry and tyranny in the world. And the form thereof was terrible — The success which accompanied their arms made them feared and dreaded by all the world.

PETT, "Verses 31-35The Vision of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:31-35).“You, O king, saw, and behold a great image. This image which was mighty and whose brightness was spectacular, stood before you. And its aspect was dreadful. As for this image his head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. You saw until a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image on his feet which were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became chaff like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors, and the wind carried them away so that no place was found for them. And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”The account really needs no amplification. As he lay sleeping suddenly he envisioned a great image. Chapter 3 suggests that he would see it as an idol, one such as kings made to glorify themselves. In his waking life he had seen such images before, for multi-metalled images were no new thing. But in his dream this image was huge, dwarfing mankind. It was an impressive god indeed. Its splendour was in order to make him fear, but it was also to flatter Nebuchadnezzar, especially its head of gold. But its significant factor as he gazed at it was that what began at the top as gold slowly deteriorated section by section, to baser and baser metals, until it became metal and clay, and clearly unstable. Metal could make a sound foundation. Building clay could make a sound foundation. But the two together were incompatible. And then came the shattering end when a mighty boulder, cut out without hands, smashed the feet of the image, with the result that the whole image disintegrated, crashing down and turning to powder. Whereat not only its site, but also the whole earth, became filled by the boulder which became a great mountain.The picture is vividly described. And the result of the crashing stone was that the whole of the image from top to bottom was ‘broken in pieces together, and became chaff like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors, and the wind carried them away so that no place was found for them.’ It was as though all the materials from the gold downwards, were turned into chaff on the threshingfloor, what remained once

16

the good seed had been taken away, waiting to be blown away by the regular winds which cleared the threshing floor of its chaff. And there would be nothing left of them. They had nowhere to go.Notice carefully that no numbers are mentioned. If we start to introduce numbers we are not properly interpreting the vision. We are reading into it what is not there.

BI 31-33, "Thou, O King, sawest, and behold a great image.The Aggregation of EvilLook at evil as represented by this colossal image.I. IT IS A COMPOUND THING. The image was made up of various substances: gold, silver, brass, iron, clay. Evil does not often appear here in its naked simplicity, it is mixed up with other things. Errors in combination with truths, selfishness with benevolence, superstition with religion, infidelity with science, injustice with law and evil, too, is in combination with customs, systems, institutions. It is a huge conglomeration. Unmixed naked evil could not, perhaps, exist. Worldly souls so compound it as to make evil seem good.II. IT IS A BIG THING. This image was the biggest thing in the imagination of the monarch. Evil is the biggest thing in the world. The image represents here what Paul meant by the “world,” the mighty aggregation of evil. Alas, evil is the great image in the world’s mind.III. IT IS AN IMPERIAL THING. The various substances that composed the image, Daniel tells us, represent kingdoms—Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Evil here is imperial. The New Testament calls it “The kingdom of darkness.” It wears the purple, occupies the throne, and wields the sceptre of nations.IV. IT IS A HUMAN THING. The colossal image was a human figure—human head, breast, arms, legs, feet; and of human manufacture. All the errors of the world are the fabrications of the human brain; all the had passions of the world are the lusts of the human heart; all the wrong institutions of the world are the productions of human power. Evil is human, it thinks with the human brain; it speaks with the human tongue; it works with the human hand. Man is at once its creator, organ, and victim.V. IT IS A TOTTERING THING. On what does the figure stand? On marble, on iron, or brass? No, on clay; his feet part of iron and part of clay. Evil, big, grand, and imperial though it be, lacks standing power; it is not firm-footed. It has clay feet, and must one day tumble to pieces. (Homilist.)

Symbolical MetalsThe metals symbolical of the four kingdoms are placed after one another in the order of their value. First gold, then silver, then brass, then iron. There is a progressive deterioration in this arrangement of the metals. That which is accounted most precious is first; that which is of least value is last. To hold out the idea that the world is constantly growing worse, heathen fable represented it as passing through four ages,

17

which were also named from these four metals, the golden age, the age of silver, the age of brass, and the iron age. In each succeeding period the world became worse than it had been during that which preceded. From the fact of the metals in this image following one another in the order of their value, the most precious being first, and the least valuable being last, we are not to suppose that Scripture countenances this idea of heathen fiction, and that the world is really in a state of constant deterioration—becoming more base and worthless by every succeeding revolution. This idea is not correct in point of fact. It is true that every nation, after reaching a certain stage, has decayed and been dissolved by the corruption of manners, as the human body, after reaching a certain stage, gradually decays and is at length dissolved by death. But while every particular nation has in course of time deteriorated, the human race has been steadily progressing in the knowledge of art, science, legislation, and everything that is most conducive to the individual and social advancement of mankind. National progression may be compared to the incoming of the sea. Almost every wave advances farther than that by which it was preceded, and then falls back, leaving the sand bare which once was covered; but another and another wave follows, each succeeding one advancing nearer to the shore, until the sea covers all its sands, having reached the point at which the voice of the Almighty said to it, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no farther.” In regard to the four monarchies, it is not a fact that the condition of mankind became worse under every succeeding monarchy than it had been during the reign of that by which it was preceded. On the contrary, it could easily be shown that the iron monarchy, which on the other supposition should have been the worst, was more conducive to the welfare of mankind than any of the other three. From these statements it appears that the metals are not prophetic of the relative condition of the world under these monarchies, but are descriptive of the character of the monarchies themselves. Each of the metals represents the principal feature of the monarchy of which it is the symbol. As regards the order of their succession, it ought to be remembered that these metals have a real and a nominal value, and that their real value is in the inverse ratio of the nominal. Gold and silver possess the greatest nominal value, because in exchange for them everything else can be procured; but in themselves they are of less value than brass and iron. Keeping this universally recognised distinction in view, the succession of metals in the image may intimate that in these monarchies there would be a declension in outward splendour, and a progression in those things which were useful to mankind. Gold, the symbol of the first monarchy, intimates that sumptuous splendour would be its most striking feature. (J. White.)

The Dream RecoveredThe king’s inability to recollect the dream that caused him so much anxiety gave occasion to call for Daniel, and enabled him to prove the vast superiority of his God over the gods and magicians of Babylon. By being able to restore the lost dream, he proved at once that he was able to give its true interpretation. By restoring the dream and giving its interpretation, he revealed to the king two mysteries at once—a mystery from the past and a mystery of the future. A great image. It appears from ancient coins and medals that both cities and nations were represented by gigantic figures of men and women. The old writer Florus, in his history of Rome, represents the Roman empire under the form of a human being, in its different states from infancy to old age. The recently-discovered monuments of the Nile, and of Nineveh, and of Babylon, show that stupendous human figures were objects and emblems familiar to the ancients. Geographers, also, have used

18

similar representations. The Germanic empire has been represented by a map in the form of a man, different parts being pointed out by the head, breast, arms, etc., according to their geographical and political relation to the empire in general. The various metals of which Nebuchadnezzar’s image was composed represented the various kingdoms which should arise subsequent to the fall of his own empire. Their position in the body of the image clearly denoted the order of their succession. The different metals and their position also expressed different degrees of strength, riches, power, and durability. Clay, earth, and dust, of course, mean weakness, instability. (W. A. Scott, D.D.)

The Dream RecoveredWe see the hand of Providence in bringing Daniel and his friends forward at the Babylonish court at the time when it was the most proper they should be honoured. God never forsakes those that trust in Him.I. THE DREAM, ITS PREDICTIONS, AND THEIR FULFILMENT PROVE THE SUPREME AND PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE OF GOD, AND THEREBY ALSO SHOW THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE. Now this prediction of the future destinies of nations could not be without revelations from God, nor could it be unless God be both sovereign in providence and in nature. It is God only and alone who can foretell the distant changes of time and nations; and this He can do and has done as infallibly as He knows the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. God knows as perfectly and as certainly what the commotions of the people and the thousand passions of kings and statesmen will produce, as what the thousand attractions of the stars and their most distant courses will bring about in immensity. Astronomers give us beforehand the details of eclipses, because the Creator has impressed His will upon the universe as a code of physical laws. He rules mankind, who dwell on the earth, as well as the worlds which roll in infinite space. He stays the commotions of the people, as well as the billows of the sea. He holds in His hand the hearts of the rulers of the earth, as He counts the hosts of Heaven and calls them all by name.II. THE HISTORY OF NATIONS PRESENTS TWO ELEMENTS IN THEMSELVES PERFECTLY DISTINCT, AND YET ALWAYS MORE OR LESS UNITED, AND ALWAYS MORE OR LESS SUBJECTED TO MUTUAL AND RECIPROCAL INFLUENCES. I mean the political and religious history of a country. The religious habitudes of a people do of necessity deeply affect their morals, and their social and national characteristics. So palpable is the influence of religion upon a nation, that it has long been received as a canon of philosophical history, that the religion of a country being known, all the rest of that country’s history can be easily known. It is not essential to mere physical existence that we have comfortable houses to live in, and that they are adorned with the products of industry and filled with the comforts of commerce. We could live in tents. But certainly those who have once tasted the elegances of refined life will not desire to go back to semi-barbarism. So it is not essential for all pious people to be politicians, yet all the members of Christ’s Church are interested in the political interests of the world; and Christian young men should prepare themselves to take a part in the civil affairs of their country. If the administration of our laws and the outwork of our great institutions are left wholly in the hands of ungodly or unprincipled men, we cannot expect God’s blessing to rest upon us.

19

III. Observe HOW CAREFUL DANIEL WAS TO REMEMBER HIS FRIENDS IN PROSPERITY. Like Joseph, when exalted, he was not ashamed of his poor kin. At his request his three friends were promoted to high employments in the department over which he presided.IV. Throughout Daniel’s history we see in him, as in Joseph, A DISPOSITION TO HUMBLE HIMSELF AND EXALT HIS GOD. Without prevarication or hesitancy he shows his abhorrence of idolatry, and his deep and earnest conviction that the God whom he served was the only real and true God. He claims nothing for himself. When the king asks him if he is able to make known the dream and its interpretation, he reminds the king that there had been no power in the gods of his diviners which had enabled them to do this; but “there is a God in Heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.” And in the whole affair we hear him ascribing everything to God. And his object was in part attained. The king’s mind became so powerfully impressed with Daniel’s arguments and demonstrations, that he made the remarkable declaration: “Of a truth it is that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings.” (W.A. Scott, D.D.)

The Inconsistent Image“Behold this dreamer cometh” to us then, and says, “I saw in my dream” an image of a man, in which, whilst the head was of fine gold, the farther each part was from the head, the more inferior it appeared. And the least gifted of the wise men among us replies with modest demureness, for he has read the interpretation within himself a thousand times: Man’s knowledge may oft seem like fine gold, but his action is at best but silver, and often but iron and clay. It may even be that, in desire, he is of the noblest metal, yet in will and deed but of the baser sorts. The youth is fired by the electric spark of heroic emulation from the recital or vision of another’s glorious achievement, hope and noble ambition stir within him till he burns to be a hero in the strife; and in the absence of some great thing, he fails to fling his force so richly accumulated into the duty that is nearest to hand, and so to irradiate it as to make drudgery Divine. And as, at the day’s close, he recalls the longing that leaped that morning within his breast, and contrasts with it the cold commonplace achievement, life seems to him like a mocking travesty of a true man, with a head of fine gold, but its feet part of iron and part of clay; golden desires but deeds of clay. And the old man reads within himself the messages that tell of the coming dissolution. It is time, he says, that autumn touched my life to mellowness and maturity. Should not some of that excellent glory begin to be reflected from me, if so soon I am to enter those Everlasting Gates? And so there comes home to him the sense of space between his desire and his attainment, his ideal and his actual. What artist before his most finished work, what reformer after telling out all his scheme, what minister as he reviews his ministry, what child of God as he surveys his life, does not say to himself, softly and sorrowfully, “If the head was fine gold, the arms were but silver, the foot part of iron and part of clay?” Yes, and if any man rejoins that in his case achievement equalled, if it did not surpass, intention—the feet were equal to the head—we have no hesitation in replying, “Then the head was by no means ‘of fine gold.’” Full attainment means small attainments. Better a golden conception carried out by silver arms, incomplete as that must appear, than that both conception and execution be of no higher order than iron or clay, though it be then symmetrical. Better lofty standards and ideals imperfectly carried into action but honestly attempted, than low standards,

20

though completely realised. Let nothing, then, delude us into debasing the “head.” Though it make our ears tingle and our cheeks flame scarlet daily, ever above us and beyond us must be the prize of our high calling. To be satisfied, to stop, is to perish at the core. We are saved by honestly hoping, and we can only hope for the uuattained. Let him only who is honestly striving to make his life of one substance throughout, and that “fine gold,” take to himself the encouragement we have educed from the image. Let all others beware’ lest their baser metal, or incongruous compound, melt utterly in that day when the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. But can we think long of the spiritual life under the figure of a body, with its head and members, without St. Paul’s vivid and effectively practical use of the metaphor coming before our view? “Jesus Christ the head,” and “Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ?” And then as if some such grotesque and inconsistent image as this of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream loomed before his vision as more than a possibility, with a keen sense of unfitness amounting to horror that neither the King of Babylon nor the inspired seer of old ever felt, he asked: “Shall I, then, take the members of Christ and make them members of the clay and mire of lust and sin?” “As He is, so are we in this world,” so be “conformed in all things to our Head.” This, then, is the unending royal road along which the saints are called to journey. Our “Head” is “of fine gold.” All the choice virtues and fair excellences of the Divine human nature dwell in Him. Lovely beyond comparison, the sum of all perfections, the essence of all that is flagrant and fair, is our Head. And one thing only is wanting, that the Church which is His body becomes as its Head, having attained “unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness” of its Head; a glorious body, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” And “because we are members of His body,” to us is this word sent. “Ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof,” or “members each in his part.” (Marg. R.V.) What is our contribution to the visible Body? “Ye are My witnesses.” Do they who see our works glorify our Head which is in Heaven. Or is there a shocking incongruity, as in this image? Do not multitudes to-day honestly think—yes, honestly believe—that Jesus’ day is over, that He was not the imperishable fine gold, but if not simply “clay” that served its passing purpose, at the best “iron” or “brass,” because they have seen His “members,” and have concluded (and how shall we blame them in many instances?) that since the “members,” the “feet” and the “legs” and the “hands,” were so palpably baser metal, the “head” must be also? Shall our Divine Head be thus baffled in us His members! Let us labour and pray so to be , “changed into the same image” that as His feet we may run swiftly at His bidding; as His arms and hands we may work out fully His will, and our whole being show itself a “vessel unto honour, meet for the Master’s use.” (R. B. Shepherd, M.A.)

Deterioration in Successive NationsThe prophecies of Daniel (feinting to “the times of the Gentiles”) are marked by evolution, but it is downward, and not upward; rather, it is devolution! They are marked by progress, but it is progress in corruption; by development, but it is inferiority. This outline is given us in two parts. One from the human standpoint in Dan_2:1-49, where, under the figure of a man in stately proportion, they are seen in their succession by a man of the Gentiles; the other from the Divine standpoint in Dan_7:1-28; Dan_8:1-27, where, by a man of God, they are seen in their origin. The one, therefore, displays their outward appearance to the eye of a man of the world; the other reveals their moral character to the eye of the man of God. Nebuchadnezzar sees these nations and “times of

21

the Gentiles” under the outward aspect of glittering gold, shining silver, brilliant brass, and irresistible iron. Daniel sees them as wild beasts, ferocious in their nature, cruel in their career. Nebuchadnezzar sees them in a dream, as a stately man, in his palace. Daniel sees them in a vision of God, as wild beasts arising out of the waters. For, “man being in honour abideth not, he is like the beasts that perish” (Psa_49:12). And man apart from God, has ever gone, and must ever go down, down! Even the saint without Christ can do nothing. But man apart from God can do “only evil continually.” He goes down, as it is here shown, from gold to miry clay; and from the noble lion to the nondescript dragon! Yes, man has indeed a free will, but it is ever exercised in opposition to God’s will, it is “enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom_8:7). Man has ever destroyed himself, and his help is found only in God (Hos_13:9). Now look at the image. Look first at its values. All tend downwards, first gold, then silver, brass, iron, and clay. Look at its weight, its specific gravity. Gold is equivalent to 19.3; silver, 10.51; brass, 8.5; iron, 7.6; clay,1.9. Down, down front 19.3 to 1.9. The image is top-heavy, and the firstblow of the mighty stone upon the feet shall shatter its pottery, and bring it all down in pieces. So it is with the beasts, which are all emblazoned on the banners, and stamped on the coins of the Gentile nations. But they are wild beasts, and they run rapidly down from the lion to the bear, from the bear to the leopard, and from the leopard to the hybrid monstrosity. All is on the descending scale, all is seen to be growing worse and worse. Those who look for the world to improve and progress fill it developes into the Millennial kingdom, must account for this. We all agree that these things are figures, but they are figures of a reality, and that which is represented as an ever increasing descent, cannot possibly be the figure for a gradual ascent. At any rate, it was not so interpreted to Daniel by the Holy Ghost. He said to Nebuchadnezzar, “Thou art this head of gold, and after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee” (Dan_2:38-39). Yet, with all this advancing deterioration, there is a seeming advance in apparent greatness, but it is in reality only weakness. The first empire, Babylon, is seen as one; the second, the Medo-Persian, is seen as two; the third, Greece, becomes four (Macedonia, Thrace, Syria, Egypt); and the fourth, Rome, becomes ten. So that there is less and less of that unity which is strength, and more and more of that division and separation which is weakness. And as the image thus declines in all that is great, noble, and precious, so the beasts become more wild and ferocious. Government runs down, down! The first (Babylon) was an autocracy, “whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive” (Dan_5:19). The second was a parliament of princes, and the law of the Persian kingdom was stronger than the Persian king (Dan_6:1-14). The third, Greece, was a government of oligarchies; while in the fourth, Rome, we see the mingling of princely iron with the communistic clay; until, in our day, we see more and more of the clay and less and less of the iron, till good government is the one great want of the age all over the world. Man has been tried and found wanting. He cannot govern himself as an individual, apart from God. How, then, can he do it nationally? No! the descent is from God to the devil, from Christ to anti-Christ. (J. Bullinger.)

Nebuchadnezzar’s DreamThe passage here brought to our attention is only the first of several visions recorded in the book of Daniel treating of the same events. The dream of the great image as given in

22

this chapter, and the vision of the four beasts as recorded in the seventh chapter, unquestionably describe the same things. To a certain extent, the same thing is true of the vision of the ram and the he-goat in the eighth chapter, and of the statements in the eleventh chapter regarding the succession of kings. Daniel was first of all a devout worshipper of the true God; he was further a patriotic Few; and the combination of these peculiarities turned his thought intensely toward the promise of the coming Messiah. God uses men according to their fitness, and Daniel, by his predispositions, was eminently fitted for the Messianic prophecy. But Daniel had his speciality even in this. He was a statesman—the greatest of his age. From the beginning of manhood till the weight of years was heavy upon him he stood behind the throne, and in the reigns of four kings and during two dynasties he was the chief adviser of royalty, studying with the eye of a master the relation of nations and the development of history. His Messianic prophecies were shaped accordingly. He wrote, not as did Isaiah, of Christ the sufferer, but of Christ the king, and he viewed the future in its relations to the rise and fall of kingdoms, their influence on the coming kingdom of Christ, and the final triumph of that mysterious and mighty Messianic dominion which should cover the whole earth. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar, as interpreted by Daniel, describes the succession of four great world-kingdoms, each preparing the way for the kingdom which followed it, and the four leading to the last and most wonderful, a fifth, to fill the whole earth and last for ever. All interpreters agree that the last kingdom is that of Christ. The statement, also, is explicit that the first kingdom is the Babylonish. What are the three intervening? There is substantial agreement that the second and the third kingdoms are the Medo-Persian Empire and the Macedonian. The only serious division of interpretation is in regard to the fourth kingdom. What is meant by the legs of iron, with feet part of iron and part of clay? Until within about a hundred years there has been no question that by this was signified the Roman Empire. But after Luther’s day entered German rationalism, claiming that the book of Daniel was written by an uninspired pseudo-Daniel living in the times of the Maccabees. Such a man, of course, could write history, but would neither dare nor wish to prophesy another earthly dominion antagonistic to the Jews; and so these rationalists feel obliged to find some other kingdom than the Roman to represent the fourth. It is a similar prejudice against the supernatural which has led to much of the destructive criticism of the present day, and it was such prejudice which first suggested the substitution of the Syrian Empire for the Roman in the interpretation of this passage. It is enough for our present purpose that such scholars as Keil and Pusey advance satisfactory arguments that the fourth kingdom can be no other than the Roman. Why, then, are these great kingdoms introduced here? Because they prepared the way preeminently for the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on earth. Each world-kingdom represented certain ideas, and the downfall of that kingdom showed their inability to meet the needs of man. Each world-kingdom did a certain work in shaping human life, so that when Christ came the world was in better shape to receive Him. Let us briefly examine these great empires to see what they accomplished in these directions.1. In showing that certain prevailing ideas of excellence were inadequate to satisfy human wants, each one of these world-kingdoms played an important part. It has evidently been a part of God’s plan to let nations try, on a great scale, their theories of human advantage. Then, as one after another nations carrying out these theories have gone down into ignominy and ruin, the fallacy of their theories of happiness has been proved. Babylon represented the idea of sensuous and sensual pleasure. There money could purchase everything, and there the grossest delights of the flesh were

23

indulged in to the full. Its luxury was boundless. The wild and wanton feast of Belshazzar and his lords, as described in the book of Daniel, is a mild picture of the drinking habits, the profligacy and licentiousness of the Babylonians. No other nation ever illustrated so fully as they the idea that man cannot find satisfaction in material enjoyments. An Oriental people, of warm blood, living in a hot climate, with the greatest abundance about them, their very religion ministering to their ideas of pleasure, surely, they, if any in the world could do it, might find the end of life in luxury. But in this they were grievously disappointed. Their pleasure-loving was utterly demoralizing, and ended in their ruin. The Medo-Persian Empire comes next into view. This people had higher ideas of life than the Babylonian. They were monotheists, or at least dualists. They were not a luxurious people. They despised silver and gold, and when they made war upon Babylon they could not be bought off as other attacking armies. Hence Isaiah says, “Behold, I will stir up the Medea against them,”—that is, against the Babylonians—“which shall not regard silver, and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.” The controlling idea of the Medo-Persian Empire was glory. What they sought above all else was military renown. To them vastness of numbers and vastness of territory had a peculiar charm. At one time the empire covered an immense stretch of country, from the river Indus and the Hindoo-Koosh Mountains on the east to the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Sahara on the west. This was the empire which delighted in the most immense armies the world has ever known. Xerxes brought together against Greece two million and a half of men. But glory failed to satisfy, as had pleasure in the preceding kingdom. Presently this great empire, with its twenty satrapies, fell to pieces. The Macedonian Empire followed, bringing into view a wonderful civilization. Its days exalted intellect. Philosophy and art were the prominent forms of delight. Men sought refuge from the ills of life in the spacious groves of the academy, where Socrates and Plato and other great thinkers elaborated schemes of thought to explain all that troubles man and to provide a remedy. The faculties of man were at their highest, and in no age of the world has there been a finer development of literature and art. But it failed to meet the cravings of man, or to defend him against evil. The Macedonian Empire went down into speedy decay. With the death of Alexander it broke into two great fragments, the empires of the Ptolemies and the Selucidae, and presently another and greater world-empire swallowed up both of these. The Roman Empire was the last of these great world-kingdoms, and this set forth the idea of power. Rome, as no other nation before it, was thoroughly organized. The controlling ambition of Rome in its highest prosperity was to rule. It emphasized the ideas of law, of order, of force. It drew up a legal code that became the model for subsequent ages. Its mighty legions swept all lands, and nothing could stand before them. Lacking the grace and delicacy of Grecian civilization, caring less for fame and show than the Medo-Persian civilization, scorning in its best days the sybaritism of the Babylonian civilization, its fitting symbol was not the gold of Babylon, nor the silver of Persia, nor the bronze of Greece, but iron—hard, destructive, invincible iron. But law, though organized most thoroughly, and force, though developed into its highest forms, gave no guaranty of national permanence and secured no national happiness. Rome lapsed into weakness. The magnificent nation became permeated with vice, and easily fell a prey to the barbarians of the north. Its iron was mingled with clay.2. And as the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together and carried away by the wind, while the stone that smote them became a great mountain and filled the whole earth, it is well for us to see how these world-

24

kingdoms all contributed toward the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on earth before they disappeared. Babylon destroyed the tendency of the Jews to idolatry. Before they were carried away into captivity they had repeatedly gone after the false gods of the nations around them. But Babylon established them in the firmest opposition to the sin. Even Rome trembled before the fierceness of their hostility to idolatry, and at their wish removed from Jerusalem its military ensigns on which were images of Caesar. This intense monotheism was a necessary preparation for the coming of Christ. The Babylonish captivity likewise scattered the Jews everywhere. But few of them returned to Jerusalem. This dispersion of the Jews served an important purpose in making ready for the kingdom of Christ. It caused a general expectation of His coming throughout the world. It provided places for the preaching of the Gospel, for wherever a synagogue stood there Jewish Christians were at first able to speak for Christ. It secured an early presentation of the Gospel in all lands. The Jews converted at Pentecost went back into every land with the story of the Cross. The Jews in foreign lands were obliged to modify largely the ritual of their fathers. The Medo-Persian Empire broke down the scandalous Babylonish idolatry and destroyed a pestiferous influence in the ruling forces of the world. By its wide conquests it broke up the fallow ground of human thought, destroyed prejudices, and so opened the way for the Gospel. It re-established the Jewish worship in Jerusalem, and so kept the Divine fire of religious truth burning till Christ should come. The religious efforts inaugurated in the time of Cyrus and Darius and other Medo-Persian kings were permanent in their results. Not simply was the temple rebuilt, but the Scriptures were collected and copied and familiarized. And what did the Macedonian Empire do for Christ? It diffused the Greek language with Greek literature and Greek modes of thought. Intellects were wonderfully quickened the world over. The Old Testament was translated by Alexandrian scholars into Greek. Thus the Scriptures were made known to the world, thus language was fitted to express the lofty thoughts of the Gospel, and thus men were lifted up on a higher plane of thought, where they could appreciate and receive the preaching of the apostles. And Rome? The great Roman Empire established a universal dominion which facilitated the spread of the Gospel. It built good roads to all lands and policed them. It secured a fair measure of good order. In consequence the apostles could carry their Divine message all over the world. The Roman Empire also had an important bearing on Christ’s atonement. It was the official authority which put Him to death. Thus it joined Gentile and Jew as alike guilty before God, and alike needing the benefits of the great sacrifice. It furnished a legal, and, therefore, peculiarly incontrovertible testimony to His death. It proved His resurrection by stationing guards at the tomb, who would assuredly have been put to death if His body had been stolen by His disciples. And it ended the Jewish ritual, for shortly after Christ’s death Roman legions destroyed the temple, scattered the Jews, and made impossible the temple service. Can we doubt, even after this review, that Christ’s empire is superior to all that went before it, and that on their pulverized and widely scattered fragments it is built up? (Addison P. Foster.)

The Great ImageI. ALL WORLD-KINGDOMS DESTITUTE OF GOODNESS WILL END IN DUST. This is the doom of the great kingdoms of the world who are destitute of

25

sufficient morality to preserve themselves in existence.II. THE OLDER THE WORLD BECOMES THE LESS ENDURING AND THE MORE WORTHLESS ARE THE MERE WORLD-KINGDOMS. The longer anything that is dying lives, the less valuable it is. Those who are dying morally become of less and less worth in the world the longer they continue in it. So with all kingdoms founded on a mere worldly basis. Mere physical power becomes of less worth in proportion to the progress of the world by the development of moral force.III. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD AND THAT OF CHRIST, IN THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE IMAGE AND THE STONE. In relation to size, materials; in their origin, strength, place in human history, length of existence. Lessons:

1. God may instruct a saint through the brain of a sinner. Here Daniel is instructed by Nebuchadnezzar.2. That all the materials of the world may be used, and so consecrated, as means of illustrating Divine truth. The most common-place things can be ennobled by being the vehicles of moral teaching.3. We must judge, not according to appearances, but according to the inherent strength of things and persons.4. Sin will not resign its dominion unless it be smitten. We cannot drive out the devil of evil habits by gentle persuasion or long speeches.5. There can be no success against evil unless we are connected with the supernatural. There are virtuous people in the world who are not Christians. There have been some bright examples of such among heathen nations. But they could make no head against sin around them, even if they had no strong tendencies to gross or palpable sin within. Sin within us, or around us, can only be smitten through connection with a “stronger than the strong man armed,” who has himself smitten evil by a sinless life and an atoning death. (Outlines by a London Minister.)

The Church and the WorldThe general condition of the Church, in reference to the world, urges to the consideration of large and fundamental principles. There is in the prophetical image a very exact picture of the condition of the world in a Pagan state, and, to some extent, of what it is in every state, short of moral perfectness; and there is, in the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, an equally exact picture of the Christian Church working out the renovation of the world.I. THE IMAGE. We are not left to conjecture the meaning, either of the whole or of its separate parts (v. 36-43). The head of gold meant the Babylonish empire, especially during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (v. 37, 38). The breast and arms, which were of silver, are understood to mean the Medo-Persian empire (v. 39); the belly and thighs of brass, the Grecian, particularly under Alexander the Great (v. 39); and the legs and feet, these last being divided into ten toes, the Roman, in the different conditions of an empire and of the ten kingdoms into which it was afterwards divided (v. 40-43); all of this is commonly understood, and so generally allowed, as to warrant our omitting any special or detailed proof. It will also be observed that these different empires are

26

introduced as occurring in succession, and as bringing before us the condition of the world continuously, during a very long period. But there remaineth another characteristic of this vision. The object revealed is an image. The word translated image is indeed something employed to signify merely a figure or resemblance of something. But its more ordinary meaning, and that which the circumstances seem to require, is that of an idol. The object introduced is in the form of a man, the materials employed are like those of idols, and the greatness and strange mixture of the figure do also correspond. But the nations of the world, and especially those introduced, must in this way somehow or other be idolatrous; and the idolatry will require to be such as may be reached, as will afterwards appear, by the progress of Christianity. Thus far we are carried by the image itself; and now we are led to look around, and to ask whether the kingdoms of this world be really such as is here supposed—whether all Pagan nations are essentially idolatrous, and whether all others not yet perfect are in the sight of God chargeable with less or more of the same offence?1. Now, first of all, it will be recollected that the same corruption which exists in the individual affects society. Speaking of man as an individual, sin was first introduced into his heart; but out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, etc.; and thus the whole man becomes defiled. Then families made up of such individuals must also be impure; and this not merely as regards the conduct of particular members, but as respects domestic habits, and the authority of those who are heads of families. But families grow into tribes, and tribes have laws and law-givers exercising authority over them. But again, tribes become nations, and nations, whether by conquest or federal union, become empires; and in this state the evil is still worse. The contagion is greater, and the laws and customs, if supported by public opinion, are almost irresistible; and what now would the world itself be, if left to its own corruption, but one common though varied mass of moral evil.2. The reasoning employed in these remarks is fully borne out by facts. The sin originally introduced into the breasts of our first parents soon discovered itself in their offspring; Cain slew Abel, and because his own works were evil and his brother’s good. In the course of a few generations the Church had to be separated from the world on account of the prevalence of iniquity. The same thing again occurred after the flood. It occurred to such an extent that in the days of Abraham, who was only the tenth from Noah, special provision had again to be made for the preservation of religious truth. And we have, if possible, a still stronger proof in the description furnished by an Apostle, as applicable to the world at the fulness of time. This account contains an explanation also of the corrupting principles. In different countries there are different forms of superstition, different kinds of prevailing indulgences, and laws, and customs having different tendencies; but in all, the corruption of the human heart is seen festering in society, and pervading all its arrangements. It is not merely that there is the oozing forth of the corruption of the heart, and this as defiling all things, but that all the influence of power, all the authority of laws, and strong current of public opinion, are wholly impure, unrighteous, and irreligious. And what, in like manner, are the sympathies of such a people, but sympathies in favour of corruption, of immoral indulgences, and unrighteous laws.3. But there is another view of this subject, necessary to the filling up of our prophetical delineation. We understand the image to be representative of idolatry, and in correspondence with this we believe the world, in its unbelieving state, to be

27

essentially idolatrous. It will be generally admitted that Pagan nations are for the most part idolaters. The true history of man’s condition religiously is this: Religion is of God—is communicated by His Spirit to the individual inwardly; and to the world by the revelation of His will outwardly. It is itself pure in either way; but on coming into contact with the corruption of the human heart, and of a world lying in sin, it becomes impure, and if left alone would grow into corruption itself. Confining our illustration to the world collectively, the history of nations has only to be read that it may be seen. But this very tendency to corrupt, tends also to an ultimate annihilationof religion itself. The same alienation of mind from God, which veils in forms adapted to the human heart, leads to an utter forgetfulness of God, and distaste for everything proper to His worship. Even ancient Greece and Rome had almost reached this very condition, when Christianity stepped in and saved these nations from absolute infidelity. It will be observed that in all this we have spoken only of Paganism, but the same principle extends to corruptions of every form. The very same tendency of our corrupt nature, which converted the simple faith of the Patriarchs into Paganism, changed the doctrines and worship of the Apostles and first Christians into Mohammedanism, Popery, and other forms of error less generally known. In these residers, therefore, nearly all will admit that the nations of the world are for the must part idolaters. But there is another sense in which the nations of the world are fitly represented by the prophetical image; and although this is certainly the more abstract, it is nevertheless that which seems mainly intended. The head of gold directly pictured the King of Babylon and the glory of his reign (v. 37, 38), not the priests of Bel, or anything proper to the idolatry of Babylon; and so was it of the other parts of the image (v. 39-43). These were like the head, all severally descriptive of the nations they represented politically. And politically, therefore, must these nations be held as idolatrous. The principle arrived at in the other case will assist us. Idolatry is the giving of that honour and glory to any other which is due only to God. And so, when the flatterers of Herod shouted, “It is the voice of a god and not of a man, immediately the angel of the Lord smote him because he gave not God the glory!” (Act_12:22-23). And this was the very sin of the King of Babylon, and no doubt that which rendered the head of gold a part of the image (v. 28-30 and 34-37). And this is the master sin, first of the human heart, then of each family, and lastly of kingdoms and empires, including their laws and customs, and whatever else may direct or control society. And curious enough it is, that here also the corrupting tendency diverges into two separate currents, the one ending in an entire absence of everything like an acknowledgment of God, and the other in the embodying of interested and corrupt ends under the cover of Divine authority. The latter, as in forms of worship, is greatly more common than the other. Most nations embody their faith in their constitution, and some even allege the authority of the State to be Divine; nevertheless that it is in all its leading features opposed to the will of God, and essentially an organized form of oppression, and thus instrumental in promoting rather than restraining wickedness. This alliance nevertheless gives stability to such governments, and, on the principle already referred to, namely, that the ends so served are natural to man, and are sought by him. And the analogy holds equally good in the other branch, for what is a government, simply expressive of a nation’s will, and without any acknowledgment of God, or any observance of His laws, but infidel? Now, both of these tendencies, it will be observed, manifest themselves in Christian as well as Pagan nations. They are the concomitants of moral corruption, the one generally in circumstances of popular 28

ignorance and superstition, and the other in nations distinguished for intellectual attainments, or at least activity, with a less amount of practical religion. The rapid survey which we have thus taken of what may be called political idolatry, is perhaps enough to show the truth of the principle proceeded upon; and there is only one other element in this condition of the world which we shall stop to notice. It is the well ascertained fact that no nation has the power of reforming itself. No barbarous nation, for example, has ever been known to become civilized except through the interference of some other nation already in that state. All intellectual improvement originates with religion—with revealed truth. This at least may be proved, that the introduction of religion to any nation is ever followed by intellectual improvement. And it is all but proved that nothing but religion will so humanise the mind of any nation as to give it a taste for general knowledge. And so far as the lights of history guide us, we are farther induced to believe that the early improvement even of heathen nations, such as that of Greece, was brought about by the importation of knowledge from countries which had not yet wholly lost an acquaintance with Divine truth. The prophetical image was thus literally descriptive of the condition of the world. The head was of gold, and is passed downwards into silver, and brass, and iron mixed with clay; but still it was a piece of dead matter, undergoing indeed changes, but these were all downward. They were as nations themselves, still becoming more and more debased, and yet, in no stage of this progress, discovering aught of a redeeming tendency. This, be it observed, is the character under which all nations, unblessed with the Gospel, are to be seen, and in so far as any nation is wanting in moral and religious influence, it is under the same taint, and is subject to the same progress. This, therefore, is the aspect under which the world ought to be contemplated, apart from the effects of Gospel truths, or short of their full and transforming power.II. THE STONE CUT OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN WITHOUT HANDS. The cutting of this stone out of the mountain was not coeval with the commencement of the succession of kingdoms set forth in the image. “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out,” which is explained in the 44th verse thus: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom.” Then, as to the execution of the threatening that this stone should smite the image, it is said in the vision, “which smote the image upon his feet,” that is, during the continuance of the Roman empire; and yet, in doing this, it is added that not only the iron and clay, but also “the brass, the silver, and the gold” were to be broken to pieces together. This leads us at once to the time of the cutting out of the stone. It was to be looked forward to during the times of the Babylonish, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian Empires; but it was to occur under the Roman. And how is it then possible for anyone to doubt as regards the fulfilment? The explanatory description is, “In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.” The figure introduced is in many respects fitted to bring before us the leading characteristics of the Church as regards the world.

1. And first, as to its origin. Quarries were of old frequently in mountains, and there is nothing perhaps in this beyond a proper keeping with the imagery employed; but its being cut out of the mountain “without hands” was no doubt intended to point at the Divine origin of Christianity, and this as distinguishing, it from every other form of religion. It was literally of God. Its foundation stone was His own incarnate Son—its first propagaters were His inspired Apostles—the first Christian Church was born under the special power of Pentecostal influence. Such an institution is eminently of 29

God, and must, from its very nature, endure for ever.2. Another of its characteristics is set forth in the power of the stone to break the image. We all know that among the rude implements of ancient times employed in breaking any piece of carved work, a mass of stone was the most natural, and that which was most frequently used. Now, be it remembered, that the prophetical image has been explained as meaning not the abstract constitution and power of nations, but their idolatrous character—and this, whether it respects the moral condition of their superstitious and polluted worship, or their self-willed and unrighteous, if not also impious, governments. The thing to be broken, therefore, and reduced to powder, is not the ordinance of government, which is of God, but the idolatry of nations, which is wholly of man. And now it will be seen that Christianity, as taught by the Apostles, was eminently fitted to effect this—was so fitted as simply by its progress to carry out all that is here meant. But allow conscience to be once awakened—let the individual once feel himself restrained from wonted habits, and compelled to unwonted causes of conduct—and even he will be brought into collision with his fellow men. His own family will take offence, and his neighbours will eye him askance, and by and bye an arm of power will be lifted up against him. But allow the one to become a thousand, and the thousand to become many thousands, and now the cry will be raised of “turning the world upside down.” It will now become a matter of necessity, either that such parties shall be freed from sinful laws and customs, or that they shall be put down by the hand of power. What reason would thus pourtray, history narrates. The day of Pentecost was but as yesterday, when the doctrines of Peter and John gave offence, and they were called before the

Jewish Sanhedrim, and taught as they had been by the Master himself to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” they were nevertheless compelled to say to the High Priest and his Council, “whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Act_4:19-20); and on another occasion, “we ought to obey God rather than men” Act_5:29). This of itself affords proof as well as illustration; but the instructions of the Saviour, originally given to His Apostles, are more direct and certain. (Mat_10:16-18; Mat_10:34-36.) Nothing can more Clearly show that the Church was to be brought into collision with the idolatry of the world, and that it was in the first place to suffer.3. It may, however, be well to rest here for a little, so as to look at what is said of this smiting of the image even on the feet, that the whole image was thereby reduced to powder. In this we have just another proof of the principle on which we are proceeding. Suppose mere idolatry, as known under some particular form, to be meant by the image, then would the stone require to have been applied to the head of gold, as well as to the feet of iron and clay. But if the idolatry meant, be as we have been alleging, that alienation from God, and substitution of the corrupt will of the creature for the unerring will of the Creator, then will the idolatry brought before us be one as the prophetical image, no matter that the head and the other parts are of diverse materials. It will be thus seen that the kingdom of Satan is one, though of many successive ages, and that it remained in power down to the time of the first planting of Christianity. And it conveys to us this farther idea, which is of some practical importance, namely, that whatever remains of national alienation from God, is in reality a part of the kingdom of Satan, and such as ought to be kept under the power of the stone. And what would you more? it will be said. Would you have

30

her to do as she had been dealt by? Would you have her to persecute? By no means. And what would you then? Simply to carry forward the work in which she had been engaged, with all the advantages of her acquired power; not to rest, but to carry forward the work of Christ as regards Scriptural instruction, till, by the blessing of God, the remaining outfield be as the vineyard of the Lord; and not to rest as regards laws, and customs, and authority, till these be severally based on the Word, and imbued by a spirit of piety.4. But this carries us forward to another and most important branch of this subject; we mean the stone becoming the mountain and filling the whole earth. It is altogether too large to be received merely as one characteristic; and, therefore, we shall speak of it in parts. It will be observed, then, from the vision, that the pounding of the image and the enlargement of the stone, so as to become a mountain and to fill the earth, were not strictly consecutive, that is, the stone did not first become a mountain filling the earth, and then smote the image, neither that the stone first broke to pieces the image, and that when this was quite done it became a mountain, for the co-existence of the stone and the image for some considerable time is clearly implied (v. 44). The thing meant was, that the stone, when first cut out of the mountain, and when still portable, was employed in pounding the image, and that as this went on, so it grew, till by a diminution of the image and an enlargement of the stone the one took the place of the other. The one disappeared and the other became a mountain, filling the whole earth. And this we have in part seen. As Christianity grew, Paganism and Pagan rule decayed, and nominally at least, Christianity is even now seen as some lofty mountain towering over all human institutions, and as it grows applying its weight—its influence—to the demolition of another and another position of the fabric of Paganism.5. But we ought not, perhaps, to conclude this series of remarks without adverting to an interpretation of this and similar passages, which has, in different ages, been the cause of great social mischief, and which ought to be guarded against. When the Reformation in Germany had well-nigh reached a state of general diffusion, there broke out among the half-instructed people an opinion leading to revolution and bloodshed. Galled with the continuance of political grievances, they sought to obtain deliverance under the influence of religious motives. They fancied themselves entitled to revolutionise states and overturn governments, for the purpose of erecting in their room others more in accordance with what they believed to be the will of God. And the effect was, first a civil war, and afterwards the destruction of the parties engaged, and last of all the hindrance of religion, as regarded its progress and also its legitimate influence. On these accounts it may be well very distinctly to guard whatever is said on a subject of this kind. This is due to Society—it is due to as many as would be instructed and act on their belief; but it is due also to religion. And it is a matter of satisfaction that this may be done simply by pointing back to the doctrine of the vision. It is not, then, be it remarked, that the Church is to interfere with the affairs of the State, and far less that Church members are to draw the sword, and thus forcibly to alter the laws and constitution of kingdoms. The Church is spiritual, and it is to carry on its pounding process only by spiritual means. It is to shed abroad the light of the Gospel on society, and thus to dispose the nation to righteous laws and right government. (D. Macfarlan, D.D.)

31

The King’s DreamWhat was its meaning?I. THE GREAT EMBLEMED WORLD-EMPIRES.

1. The Babylonian monarchy was the head of gold. The head well emblemed it for its unity and intelligence. The sagacious and despotic will of the king bound the far-reaching kingdoms into one. Nebuchadnezzar’s victories were those of peace as well us of war.2. The Medo-Persian Empire. Emblemed by the breast and arms of silver. For two centuries it was the universal empire. But it lacked the unity of the kingdom it overthrew and was as inferior to it as silver, for value and solidity, is inferior to gold. Cyrus was its greatest ruler.3. The Empire of Greece was emblemed by the belly and thighs of brass. Its soldiers were known among the ancients as the brazen-coated Greeks. Its founder was Alexander, a swift, transcendent, military genius. He sought, with wise, philanthropic aim, to blend the nations of Asia and Europe into a brotherhood.4. The Roman Empire was emblemed by the legs of iron, with the feet part of iron and part of clay. The stern, if not savage, valour of Rome was well pictured by iron. The Romans, the ironsides, the iron hearts, vanquished the world to their power. But their power was mixed with weakness, for they gathered nations into their citizenship without inspiring them with their own hardy virtues. So Rome ended in being divided into many kingdoms. All the four powers became embodied in the Roman, which was the world-power when our Saviour was upon earth, and thus may all be deemed as broken with it.

II. CHRIST’S EMBLEMED KINGDOM. The stone cut from the mountain.1. Humble in its beginning was Christ’s kingdom.2. Heavenly in its origin. “Without hands” was the stone cut. God set up this kingdom. His strength is in it. It is from God, for it makes men Godlike3. It is destined to be universal. The stone grew till it filled the whole earth. So is Christ’s kingdom to grow. That kingdom is coming in the hearts and homes and lives of men.4. This kingdom is eternal. When many kingdoms have passed, this has survived the treachery of friends and the fierce assaults of foes. Its glory cannot be extinguished. It shall “endure for ever.” (G. T. Coster.)

32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 32

BARNES, "This image’s head was of fine gold - Chaldee, “good gold” - טב דהבdehab ṭâb - that is, fine, pure, unalloyed. The whole head of the figure, colossal as it was, appeared to be composed wholly of this. Had the “whole” image been made of gold, it would not have been so striking - for it was not uncommon to construct vast statues of this metal. Compare Dan_3:1. But the remarkable peculiarity of this image was, that it was composed of different materials, some of which were seldom or never used in such a structure, and all of which had a peculiar significancy. On the significancy of this part of the figure, and the resemblance between this head of gold and Nebuchadnezzar himself, see the notes at Dan_2:37-38.

His breast and his arms of silver - The word rendered “breast” (חדין chădıy) is in the plural number, in accordance with common usage in the Hebrew, by which several members of the human body are often expressed in the plural; as פנים pânıym - “faces,” etc. There is a foundation for such a usage in nature, in the two-fold form of many of the portions of the human body. The portion of the body which is here represented is obviously the upper portion of the front part - what is prominently visible when we look at the human frame. Next to the head it is the most important part, as it embraces most of the vital organs. Some degree of inferiority, as well as the idea of succession, would be naturally represented by this. “The inferior value of silver as compared with gold will naturally suggest some degree of decline or degeneracy in the character of the subject represented by the metal; and so in other members, as we proceed downward, as the material becomes continually baser, we naturally infer that the subject deteriorates, in some sense, in the like manner.” - Professor Bush, in loc. On the kingdom represented by this, and the propriety of this representation, see the notes at Dan_2:39.

His belly and his thighs of brass - Margin, “sides.” It is not necessary to enter minutely into an examination of the words here used. The word “belly” denotes, unquestionably, the regions of the abdomen as externally visible. The word rendered “thighs” in the text is rendered “sides” in the margin. It is, like the word “breast” in the previous verse, in the plural number and for the same reason. The Hebrew word (ירך yârêk) is commonly rendered “thigh” in the Scriptures (Gen_24:2, Gen_24:9; Gen_32:25 (26), 31, 32(32, 33), et al.), though it is also frequently rendered “side,” Exo_32:27; Exo_40:22, Exo_40:24; Lev_1:11; Num_3:29, et al. According to Gesenius, it denotes “the thick and double fleshy member which commences at the bottom of the spine, and extends to the lower legs.” It is that part on which the sword was formerly worn, Exo_32:27; Jdg_3:16, Jdg_3:21; Psa_45:3 (4). It is also that part which was smitten, as an expression of mourning or of indignation, Jer_31:19; Eze_21:12 (17). Compare Hom. Iliad xii. 162, xv. 397; Odyssey xiii. 198; Cic. 150: “Orat.” 80; “Quinc.” xi. 3. It is not improperly here rendered “thighs,” and the portion of the figure that was of brass was that between the breast and the lower legs, or extended from the breast to the knees. The word is elsewhere employed to denote the shaft or main trunk of the golden candlestick of the tabernacle, Exo_25:31; Exo_37:17; Num_8:4.

Of brass - An inferior metal, and denoting a kingdom of inferior power or excellence. 33

On the kingdom represented by this, see the notes at Dan_2:39.

CLARKE, "Head was of fine gold - The Babylonish empire, the first and greatest.Breast and his arms of silver - The Medo-Persian empire, under Cyrus, etc.His belly and his thighs of brass - The Macedonian empire, under Alexander the Great, and his successors.

GILL, "This image's head was of fine gold,.... The prophet begins with the superior part of this image, and descends to the lower, because of the order and condition of the monarchies it represents: this signifies the Babylonian monarchy, as afterwards explained; called the "head", being the first and chief of the monarchies; and compared to "fine gold", because of the glory, excellency, and duration of it: his breast and his arms of silver; its two arms, including its hands and its breast, to which they were joined, were of silver, a metal of less value than gold; designing the monarchy of the Medes and Persians, which are the two arms, and which centred in Cyrus, who was by his father a Persian, by his mother a Mede; and upon whom, after his uncle's death, the whole monarchy devolved: his belly and his thighs of brass; a baser metal still; this points at the Macedonian or Grecian monarchy, set up by Alexander, signified by the "belly", for intemperance and luxury; as the two "thighs" denote his principal successors, the Selucidae and Lagidae, the Syrian and Egyptian kings; and these of brass, because of the sounding fame of them, as Jerom.

JAMISON, "On ancient coins states are often represented by human figures. The head and higher parts signify the earlier times; the lower, the later times. The metals become successively baser and baser, implying the growing degeneracy from worse to worse. Hesiod, two hundred years before Daniel, had compared the four ages to the four metals in the same order; the idea is sanctioned here by Holy Writ. It was perhaps one of those fragments of revelation among the heathen derived from the tradition as to the fall of man. The metals lessen in specific gravity, as they downwards; silver is not so heavy as gold, brass not so heavy as silver, and iron not so heavy as brass, the weight thus being arranged in the reverse of stability [Tregelles]. Nebuchadnezzar derived his authority from God, not from man, nor as responsible to man. But the Persian king was so far dependent on others that he could not deliver Daniel from the princes (Dan_6:14, Dan_6:15); contrast Dan_5:18, Dan_5:19, as to Nebuchadnezzar’s power from God, “whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive” (compare Ezr_7:14; Est_1:13-16). Graeco-Macedonia betrays its deterioration in its divisions, not united as Babylon and Persia. Iron is stronger than brass, but inferior in other respects; so Rome hardy and strong to tread down the nations, but less kingly and showing its chief deterioration in its last state. Each successive kingdom incorporates its predecessor (compare Dan_5:28). Power that in Nebuchadnezzar’s hands was a God-derived (Dan_2:37, Dan_2:38) autocracy, in the Persian king’s was a rule resting on his nobility of person and birth, the nobles being his equals in rank, but not in office; in Greece, an aristocracy not of birth, but individual influence, in Rome, lowest of all, dependent

34

entirely on popular choice, the emperor being appointed by popular military election.

K&D, "Dan_2:32-36The description of the image according to its several parts is introduced with the

absolute צלמא הוא concerning this image, not: “this was the image.” The pronoun ,הואis made prominent, as דנה, Dan_4:15, and the Hebr. זה more frequently, e.g., Isa_23:13. הי חדין plural ,חד - its singular occurs only in the Targums - corresponding with the Hebr. חזה, the breast. מצין, the bowels, here the abdomen enclosing the bowels, the belly. ירכה, the thighs (hüfte) and upper part of the loins. Dan_2:33. שק, the leg, including the upper part of the thigh. ן מנה is partitive: part of it of iron. Instead of ן מנהthe Keri prefers the fem. מנהן here and at Dan_2:41 and Dan_2:42, with reference to this, that רגליו is usually the gen. fem., after the custom of nouns denoting members of the body that are double. The Kethiv unconditionally deserves the preference, although, as the apparently anomalous form, which appears with this suffix also in Dan_7:8, Dan_7:20, after substantives of seemingly feminine meaning, where the choice of the masculine form is to be explained from the undefined conception of the subjective idea apart from the sex; cf. Ewald's Lehr. d. hebr. Sp. §319.

The image appears divided as to its material into four or five parts - the head, the breast with the arms, the belly with the thighs, and the legs and feet. “Only the first part, the head, constitutes in itself a united whole; the second, with the arms, represents a division; the third runs into a division in the thighs; the fourth, bound into one at the top, divides itself in the two legs, but has also the power of moving in itself; the fifth is from the first divided in the legs, and finally in the ten toes runs out into a wider division. The material becomes inferior from the head downward - gold, silver, copper, iron, clay; so that, though on the whole metallic, it becomes inferior, and finally terminates in clay, losing itself in common earthly matter. Notwithstanding that the material becomes always the harder, till it is iron, yet then suddenly and at last it becomes weak and brittle clay.” - Klief. The fourth and fifth parts, the legs and the feet, are, it is true, externally separate from each other, but inwardly, through the unity of the material, iron, are bound together; so that we are to reckon only four parts, as afterwards is done in the interpretation. This image Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating (Dan_2:34), i.e., reflected upon with a look directed toward it, until a stone moved without human hands broke loose from a mountain, struck against the lowest part of the image, broke the whole of it into pieces, and ground to powder all its material from the head even to the feet, so that it was scattered like chaff of the summer thrashing-floor. בידין לא די does not mean: “which was not in the hands of any one” (Klief.), but the words are a prepositional expression for without; ב די not with = without, and ,לאexpressing the dependence of the word on the foregoing noun. Without hands, without human help, is a litotes for: by a higher, a divine providence; cf. Dan_8:25; Job_34:20; Lam_4:6. כחדה, as one = at once, with one stroke. דקו for דקו is not intransitive or passive, but with an indefinite plur. subject: they crushed, referring to the supernatural power by which the crushing was effected. The destruction of the statue is so described, that the image passes over into the matter of it. It is not said of the parts of the image, the head, the breast, the belly, and the thighs, that they were broken to pieces by the

35

stone, “for the forms of the world-power represented by these parts had long ago passed away, when the stone strikes against the last form of the world-power represented by the feet,” but only of the materials of which these parts consist, the silver and the gold, is the destruction replicated; “for the material, the combinations of the peoples, of which these earlier forms of the world-power consist, pass into the later forms of it, and thus are all destroyed when the stone destroys the last form of the world-power” (Klief.). But the stone which brought this destruction itself became a great mountain which filled the whole earth. To this Daniel added the interpretation which he announces in Dan_2:36. נאמר, we will tell, is “a generalizing form of expression” (Kran.) in harmony with Dan_2:30. Daniel associates himself with his companions in the faith, who worshipped the same God of revelation; cf. Dan_2:23.ELLICOTT, " (32) Breast . . .—It should be remarked that though many different parts of the body of the image are mentioned, Daniel regards the whole thing as made up of only four parts, each corresponding to one of the four metals. Similarly he shows the history of the world in its relation to God’s people, complicated though it may be and varied in its aspect, consists of no more than four principal parts. It will be noticed that by the additional matter mentioned Daniel 2:41-42, certain minor complications of history are intended, which, however, do not interfere with the fourfold division of which the outline is here given.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:32 This image’s head [was] of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,Ver. 32. The image’s head was of fine gold.] This is the first, and till now, altogether unheard of prophecy concerning the four monarchies of the world. Res plane digna quae memoriae tota commendetur, saith one; (a) a scripture worthy to be well remembered, because it briefly comprehendeth the history of all ages to the world’s end.His breast and his arms of silver.] The elder they are the baser; so is Rome papal, of which one of her sons, (b) over two hundred years since, complained, not without good cause, that she was become of gold, silver; of silver, iron; of iron, earth; superesse ut in stercus abiret, and that she would turn next into dung.

BENSON, "Verse 32-33Daniel 2:32-33. This image’s head was of fine gold — The Babylonian monarchy had arrived to the height of glory under Nebuchadnezzar, (see Daniel 2:37-38,) who likewise improved and adorned the city of Babylon to such a degree as to make it one of the wonders of the world; so that this empire might justly be compared to a head of gold. His breast and his arms of silver — The second monarchy, of Medes and Persians, would be inferior to the first: see note on Daniel 2:39. His belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron — These emblems denoted the strength of the

36

third and fourth monarchies, and the irresistible force with which they should subdue their adversaries. Iron and brass are the emblems of strength in the prophetical writings; and they were in other respects emblematical of these empires, as we shall see by and by. His feet part of iron and part of clay — By this was signified the Roman empire in its declining state, as will be shown presently.

WHEDON, "Verse 32-3332, 33. The dreamer dreams through the ages though he knows it not. In that sleep a thousand years were but as a watch in the night. “In the Parsee tradition Zoroaster was shown four trees, one of gold, another of silver, another of steel, and the fourth of iron, and he was told that these four trees represented four ages of the world (Bahman Yesht). Ovid sings of the ages of gold, silver, bronze, and iron (Metamorphoses); and though Hesiod (Works and Days) mentions five ages, he has for them only four metallic names — gold, silver, brass, and iron” (Terry). Compare also Dante, Inferno, 14:94, and Goethe, Das Mahrchen.

33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay.

BARNES, "His legs of iron - The portion of the lower limbs from the knees to the ankles. This is undoubtedly the usual meaning of the English word “legs,” and it as clearly appears to be the sense of the original word here. Iron was regarded as inferior to either of the other metals specified, and yet was well adapted to denote a kingdom of a particular kind - less noble in some respects, and yet hardy, powerful, and adapted to tread down the world by conquest. On the application of this, see the notes at Dan_2:40.

His feet part of iron and part of clay - As to his feet; or in respect to his feet, they were partly of iron and partly of clay - a mixture denoting great strength, united with what is fragile and weak. The word rendered “clay” in this place (חסף chăsaph) is found nowhere else except in this chapter, and is always rendered “clay,” Dan_2:33-35, Dan_2:41 (twice), 42, 43 (twice), 45. In some instances Dan_2:41, Dan_2:43, the epithet “miry” is applied to it. This would seem to imply that it was not “burnt or baked clay,” or

37

“earthenware,” as Professor Bush supposes, but clay in its natural state. The idea would seem to be, that the framework, so to speak, was iron, with clay worked in, or filling up the interstices, so as to furnish an image of strength combined with what is weak. That it would be well adapted represent a kingdom that had many elements of permanency in it, yet that was combined with things that made it weak - a mixture of what was powerful with what was liable to be crushed; capable of putting forth great efforts, and of sustaining great shocks, and yet having such elements of feebleness and decay as to make it liable to be overthrown. For the application of this, see the notes at Dan_2:41-43.

CLARKE, "His legs of iron - The Roman government.His feet part of iron and part of clay - The same, mixed with the barbaric nations, and divided into ten kingdoms. See at the end of the chapter.

GILL, "His legs of iron,.... A coarser metal than the former, but very strong; and designs the strong and potent monarchy of the Romans, the last of the four monarchies, governed chiefly by two consuls: and was divided, in the times of Theodosius, into the eastern and western empire, which may be signified by the two legs: his feet part of iron and part of clay (b); or some "of them of iron, and some of them of clay" that is, the ten toes of the feet, which represent the ten kingdoms the western empire was divided into, some of which were potent, others weak; for this cannot be understood of the same feet and toes being a mixture, composed partly of one, and partly of the other; since iron and clay will not mix together, Dan_2:43 and will not agree with the form of expression. Jerom interprets this part of the vision of the image to the same sense, who lived about the time when it was fulfilling; for in his days was the irruption of the barbarous nations into the empire; who often speaks of them in his writings (c), and of the Roman empire being in a weak and ruinous condition on the account of them. His comment on this text is this, "the fourth kingdom, which clearly belongs to the Romans, is the iron that breaks and subdues all things; but his feet and toes are partly iron, and partly clay, which is most manifestly verified at this time; for as in the beginning nothing was stronger and harder than the Roman empire, so in the end of things nothing weaker; when both in civil wars, and against divers nations, we stand in need of the help of other barbarous people.'' And whereas he had been blamed for giving this sense of the passage, he vindicates himself elsewhere by saying (d), "if, in the exposition of the image, and the difference of its feet and toes, I interpret the iron and clay of the Roman kingdom, which the Scripture foreshows should be first and then weak, let them not impute, it to me, but to the prophet; for so we must not flatter princes, as that the truth of the holy Scriptures should be neglected; nor is the general disputation of one person an injury;'' that is, of any great moment to the government.

38

JAMISON, "As the two arms of silver denote the kings of the Medes and Persians [Josephus]; and the two thighs of brass the Seleucidae of Syria and Lagidae of Egypt, the two leading sections into which Graeco-Macedonia parted, so the two legs of iron signify the two Roman consuls [Newton]. The clay, in Dan_2:41, “potter’s clay,” Dan_2:43, “miry clay,” means “earthenware,” hard but brittle (compare Psa_2:9; Rev_2:27, where the same image is used of the same event); the feet are stable while bearing only direct pressure, but easily broken to pieces by a blow (Dan_2:34), the iron intermixed not retarding, but hastening, such a result.

CALVIN, "When he says, the feet of the image were partly of iron and partly of clay, this ought to be referred to the ruin which occurred, when God dispersed and cut in pieces, so to speak, that monarchy. The Chaldean power fell first; then the Macedonians, after subduing the East, became the sole monarchs to whom the Medes and Persians were subservient. The same event happened to the Macedonians, who were at length subdued by the, Romans; and all their kings who succeeded Alexander were cut off. But there was another reason why God wished to overthrow the Roman monarchy. For it fell by itself according to the prediction of this prophecy. Since, then, without any external force it fell to pieces by itself, it easily appears that it was broken up by Christ, according to this dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. It is positively certain, that nothing was ever stable from the beginning of the world, and the assertion of Paul was always true — the fashion of this world passeth away. (1 Corinthians 7:31.) By the word “fashion” he means whatever is splendent in the world is also shadowy and evanescent, he adds, also, that all which our eyest gaze upon must vanish away. But, as I have said, the reason was different when God wished to destroy the empire of the Chaldees, the Persians, and the Macedonians; because this was more clearly shewn in the case of the Romans, how Christ by his advent took away whatever was splendid, and magnificent, and admirable in the world. This, therefore, is the reason why God assigns specially to the Romans feet of clay Thus much, then, with respect to the four empires.

POOLE, "By this we see the world is much worse and far declined, every age degenerating from what it was of old; as the poets, which borrowed their fancy from this image, have described the ages of the world from metals; the first was golden, and so, coming on coarser, it ended at last, as this image in the text, in dirt.

39

34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.

BARNES, "Thou sawest - Chaldee, “Thou wast seeing;” that is, thou didst continue to behold, implying that the vision was of somewhat long continuance. It did not appear and then suddenly vanish, but it remained so long that he had an opportunity of careful observation.

Till that a stone was cut out without hands - That is, from a mountain or hill, Dan_2:45. This idea is expressed in the Latin and the Greek version. The vision appears to have been that of a colossal image “standing on a plain” in the vicinity of a mountain, standing firm, until, by some unseen agency, and in an unaccountable manner, a stone became detached from the mountain, and was made to impinge against it. The margin here is, “which was not in his hands.” The more correct rendering of the Chaldee, however, is that in the text, literally, “a stone was cut out which was not by hands” -בידין bıydayın: or perhaps still more accurately, “a stone was cut out which was not in hands,” so that the fact that it was not in or by “hands” refers rather to its not being projected by hands than to the manner of its being detached from the mountain. The essential idea is, that the agency of hands did not appear at all in the case. The stone seemed to be self-moved. It became detached from the mountain, and, as if instinct with life, struck the image and demolished it. The word rendered “stone” ( אבן 'eben) determines nothing as to the “size” of the stone, but the whole statement would seem to imply that it was not of large dimensions. It struck upon “the feet” of the image, and it “became” itself a great mountain Dan_2:35 - all which would seem to imply that it was at first not large. What increased the astonishment of the monarch was, that a stone of such dimensions should have been adequate to overthrow so gigantic a statue, and to grind it to powder. The points on which it was clearly intended to fix the attention of the monarch, and which made the vision so significant and remarkable, were these:

(a) the colossal size and firmness of the image;(b) the fact that a stone, not of large size, should be seen to be selfdetached from the mountain, and to move against the image;(c) the fact that it should completely demolish and pulverize the colossal figure; and(d) the fact that then this stone of inconsiderable size should be itself mysteriously augmented until it filled the world.

It should be added, that the vision appears not to have been that of a stone detached from the side of a hill, and rolling down the mountain by the force of gravitation, but that of a stone detached, and then moving off toward the image as if it had been thrown from a hand, though the hand was unseen. This would very strikingly and appropriately 40

express the idea of something, apparently small in its origin, that was impelled by a cause that was unseen, and that bore with mighty force upon an object of colossal magnitude, by an agency that could not be explained by the causes that usually operate. For the application and pertinency of this, see the notes at Dan_2:44-45.Which smote the image upon his feet - The word here used (מחא mechâ') means,

to “strike,” to “smite,” without reference to the question whether it is a single blow, or whether the blow is often repeated. The Hebrew word (מחא mâchâ') is uniformly used as refering to “the clapping of the hands;” that is, smiting them together, Psa_98:8; Isa_55:12; Eze_25:6. The Chaldee word is used only here and in Dan_2:35, referring to the smiting of the image, and in Dan_4:35 (32), where it is rendered “stay” - “none can stay his hand.” The connection here, and the whole statement, would seem to demand the sense of a continued or prolonged smiting, or of repeated blows, rather than a single concussion. The great image was not only thrown down, but there was a subsequent process of “comminution,” independent of what would have been produced by the fall. A fall would only have broken it into large blocks or fragments; but this continued smiting reduced it to powder. This would imply, therefore, not only a single shock, or violent blow, but some cause continuing to operate until what had been overthrown was effectually destroyed, like a vast image reduced to impalpable powder. The “first concussion” on the feet made it certain that the colossal frame would fall; but there was a longer process necessary before the whole effect should be accomplished. Compare the notes at Dan_2:44-45.

And brake them to pieces - In Dan_2:35, the idea is, “they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors.” The meaning is not that the image was broken to “fragments,” but that it was “beaten fine” - reduced to powder - so that it might be scattered by the wind. This is the sense of the Chaldee word (דקק deqaq), and of the Hebrew word also (דקק dâqaq). See Exo_32:20 : “And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder.” Deu_9:21 : “and I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust.” Isa_41:15 : “thou shalt thresh the mountains and “beat them small,” and shalt make the hills as chaff.” 2Ki_23:15 : “he burnt the high place, and “stamped” it “small” to powder.” 2Ch_34:4 : “and they brake down the altars, etc., and “made dust” of them, and strewed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them.” Compare Exo_30:36; 2Ch_34:7; 2Ki_23:6. From these passages it is clear that the general meaning of the word is that of reducing anything to fine dust or powder, so that it may be easily blown about by the wind.

CLARKE, "A stone was cut out - The fifth monarchy; the spiritual kingdom of the Lord Jesus, which is to last for ever, and diffuse itself over the whole earth.

GILL, "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands,.... Or, "wast seeing" (e); the king continued looking upon the image that stood before him, as he thought, as long as he could see it, till he saw a "stone": an emblem of the Messiah, as it often is in Scripture, Gen_49:24, because of his strength, firmness, and duration; and so it is interpreted here by many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, as well as by

41

Christians; and also of his kingdom, or of him in his kingly office; see Dan_2:44. In an ancient book (f) of theirs, written by R. Simeon Ben Jochai, the author interprets this stone, cut out of the mountain without hands, to be the same with him who in Gen_49:24, is called the Shepherd and Stone of Israel; as it is by Saadiah Gaon, a later writer; and in another of their writings (g), reckoned by them very ancient, it is said, that the ninth king (for they speak of ten) shall be the King Messiah, who shall reign from one end of the world to the other, according to that passage, "the stone which smote the image", &c. Dan_2:35 and in one of their ancient Midrashes (h), or expositions, it is interpreted of the King Messiah: and so R. Abraham Seba (i), on those words, "from thence is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel", Gen_49:24; observes, the King Messiah does not come but by the worthiness of Jacob, as it is said, "thou sawest, till that stone cut out without hands, because of Jacob". This is said to be "cut out without hands"; that is, the hands of men, as Saadiah and Jacchiades explain it; not cut out by workmen, as stones usually are out of quarries; but was taken out by an unseen hand, and by invisible power, even purely divine: this may point at the wondrous incarnation of Christ, who was made of a woman, of a virgin, without the help of a man, by the power of God; see Heb_8:2, and at his kingdom, which was like a single stone at first, very small, and was cut out and separated from the world, and set up and maintained, not by human, but divine power, and being of a spiritual nature, 2Co_5:1, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces; this seems to represent this image as in a plain, when, from a mountain hanging over it, a stone is taken by an invisible hand, and rolled upon it; which falling on its feet, breaks them to pieces, and in course the whole statue falls, and is broken to shivers; this respects what is yet to be done in the latter day, when Christ will take to himself his great power, and reign, and subdue, and destroy the ten kings or kingdoms that are given to antichrist, and him himself, and the remainder of the several monarchies, and in which they will all end.

JAMISON, "stone — Messiah and His kingdom (Gen_49:24; Psa_118:22; Isa_28:16). In its relations to Israel, it is a “stone of stumbling” (Isa_8:14; Act_4:11; 1Pe_2:7, 1Pe_2:8) on which both houses of Israel are broken, not destroyed (Mat_21:32). In its relation to the Church, the same stone which destroys the image is the foundation of the Church (Eph_2:20). In its relation to the Gentile world power, the stone is its destroyer (Dan_2:35, Dan_2:44; compare Zec_12:3). Christ saith (Mat_21:44, referring to Isa_8:14, Isa_8:15), “Whosoever shall fall on this stone (that is, stumble, and be offended, at Him, as the Jews were, from whom, therefore, He says, ‘The kingdom shall be taken’) shall be broken; but (referring to Dan_2:34, Dan_2:35) on whomsoever it shall fall (referring to the world power which had been the instrument of breaking the Jews), it will (not merely break, but) grind him to powder” (1Co_15:24). The falling of the stone of the feet of the image cannot refer to Christ at His first advent, for the fourth kingdom was not then as yet divided - no toes were in existence (see on Dan_2:44).

cut out — namely, from “the mountain” (Dan_2:45); namely, Mount Zion (Isa_2:2), and antitypically, the heavenly mount of the Father’s glory, from whom Christ came.without hands — explained in Dan_2:44, “The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom,” as contrasted with the image which was made with hands of man. Messiah not created by human agency, but conceived by the Holy Ghost (Mat_1:20; Luk_1:35; compare Zec_4:6; Mar_14:58; Heb_9:11, Heb_9:24). So “not made with hands,” that is, heavenly, 2Co_5:1; spiritual, Col_2:11. The world kingdoms were reared by human

42

ambition: but this is the “kingdom of heaven”; “not of this world” (Joh_18:36). As the fourth kingdom, or Rome, was represented in a twofold state, first strong, with legs of iron, then weak, with toes part of iron, part of clay; so this fifth kingdom, that of Christ, is seen conversely, first insignificant as a “stone,” then as a “mountain” filling the whole earth. The ten toes are the ten lesser kingdoms into which the Roman kingdom was finally to be divided; this tenfold division here hinted at is not specified in detail till the seventh chapter. The fourth empire originally was bounded in Europe pretty nearly by the line of the Rhine and Danube; in Asia by the Euphrates. In Africa it possessed Egypt and the north coasts; South Britain and Dacia were afterwards added but were ultimately resigned. The ten kingdoms do not arise until a deterioration (by mixing clay with the iron) has taken place; they are in existence when Christ comes in glory, and then are broken in pieces. The ten have been sought for in the invading hosts of the fifth and sixth century. But though many provinces were then severed from Rome as independent kingdoms, the dignity of emperor still continued, and the imperial power was exercised over Rome itself for two centuries. So the tenfold divisions cannot be looked for before a.d. 731. But the East is not to be excluded, five toes being on each foot. Thus no point of time before the overthrow of the empire at the taking of Constantinople by the Turks (a.d. 1453) can be assigned for the division. It seems, therefore, that the definite ten will be the ultimate development of the Roman empire just before the rise of Antichrist, who shall overthrow three of the kings, and, after three and a half years, he himself be overthrown by Christ in person. Some of the ten kingdoms will, doubtless, be the same as some past and present divisions of the old Roman empire, which accounts for the continuity of the connection between the toes and legs, a gap of centuries not being interposed, as is objected by opponents of the futurist theory. The lists of the ten made by the latter differ from one another; and they are set aside by the fact that they include countries which were never Roman, and exclude one whole section of the empire, namely, the East [Tregelles].upon his feet — the last state of the Roman empire. Not “upon his legs.” Compare “in the days of these kings” (see on Dan_2:44).

CALVIN, "In the third place, it may be doubted why Christ is said to have broken this image from the mountains For if Christ is the eternal wisdom of God (Proverbs 8:15) by whom kings reign, this seems scarcely to accord with it; for how, by his advent, should he break up the political order which we; know God approves of, and has appointed and established by his power? I answer, — earthly empires are swallowed and broken up by Christ accidentally, as they say. (Psalms 2:9.) For if kings exercise their office honestly, clearly enough Christ’s kingdom is not contrary to their power. Whence, then, does it happen that Christ strikes kings with an iron scepter, and breaks, and ruins, and reduces them to nothing? Just because their pride is untamable, and they raise their heads to heaven, and wish, if possible, to draw down God from his throne. Hence they necessarily feel Christ’s hand opposed to them, because they cannot and will not subject themselves to God.But another question may be raised: — When Christ was made manifest, those monarchies had fallen long previously; for the Chaldean, the Persian, and that of the successors of Alexander, had passed away. The solution is at hand, if we

43

understand what I have previously mentioned — that under one image the whole state of the world is here depicted for us. Although all events did not occur at the same moment, yet we shall find the Prophet’s language essentially true, that Christ should destroy all monarchies. For when the seat of the empire of the East was changed, and Nineveh destroyed, and the Chaldeans had fixed the seat of empire among themselves, this happened by God’s just judgment, and Christ was already reigning as the king of the world. That monarchy was really broken up by his power, and the same may be said of the Persian empire. For when they degenerated from a life of austerity and sobriety into one of foul and infamous luxury; when they raged so cruelly against all mankind, and became so exceedingly rapacious, their empire necessarily passed away from them, and Alexander executed the judgment of God. The same occurred to Alexander and his successors. Hence the Prophet means, that before Christ appeared, he already possessed supreme power, both in heaven and earth, and thus broke up and annihilated the pride and violence of all men.But Daniel says — the image perished when the Roman empire was broken up, and yet we observe in the East and the neighboring regions the greatest monarchs still reigning with very formidable prowess. I reply, we must remember what we said yesterday — the dream was presented to King Nebuchadnezzar, that he might understand all future events to the renovation of the world. Hence God was not willing to instruct the king of Babylon further than to inform him of the four future monarchies which should possess the whole globe, and should obscure by their splendor all the powers of the world, and draw all eyes and all attention to itself; and afterwards Christ should come and overthrow those monarchies. God, therefore, wished to inform King Nebuchadnezzar of these events; and here we must notice the intention of the Holy Spirit. No mention is made of other kingdoms, because they had not yet emerged into importance sufficient to be compared to these four monarchies. While the Assyrians and Chaldeans reigned, there was no rivalry with their neighbors, for the whole of the East obeyed them. It was incredible that Cyrus, springing from a barbarous region, could so easily draw to himself such resources, and seize upon so many provinces in so short a time! For he was like a whirlwind which destroyed the whole East. The same may be said of the third monarchy; for if the successors of Alexander had been mutually united, there was then no empire in the world which could have increased their power. The Romans were fully occupied in struggling with their neighbors, and were not yet at rest on their own soil; and afterwards, when Italy, Greece, Asia, and Egypt were obedient to them, no other empire rivaled their fame; for all the power and glory of the world was at that period absorbed by their arms.We now understand why Daniel mentioned those four kingdoms, and why he places their close at the advent of Christ. When I speak of Daniel, this ought to be understood of the dream; for without doubt God wished to encourage the Jews not to despair, when first the brightness of the Chaldean monarchy, then that of the Persian, next the Macedonian, and lastly, the Romans overwhelmed the world. For what could they have determined by themselves at the time when Nebuchadnezzar dreamt about the four empires? The kingdom of Israel was then utterly destroyed,

44

the ten tribes were exiles, the kingdom of Judah was reduced to desolation. Although the city Jerusalem was yet. standing, still where was the kingdom? It was full of ignominy and disgrace; nay, the posterity of David then reigned precariously in the tribe of Judah, and even there over but a part of it; and afterwards, although their return was permitted, yet we know how miserably they were afflicted. And when Alexander, like a tempest, devastated the East, they suffered, as we know, the greatest distress; they were frequently ravaged. by his successors; their city was reduced almost to solitude, and the temple profaned; and when their condition was at the best, they were still tributary, as we, shall afterwards see. It was certainly necessary for their minds to be supported in so great and such confused perturbation. This, therefore, was the reason why God sent the, dream about those monarchies to the king of Babylon. It Daniel had dreamt, the faithful would not have had so remarkable a subject-matter for the confirmation of their faith; but when the king’s dream is spread abroad through almost the whole East, and when its interpretation is equally celebrated, the Jews might recover their spirits and revive their hopes at their own time, since they understood from the first that these four monarchies should not exist by any mere changes of fortune; for the same God who had foretold to King Nebuchadnezzar future events, determined also what he should do, and what he wished to take place.The Jews knew that; the Chaldeans were reigning only by the decree of heaven; and that another more destructive empire should afterwards arise; thirdly, that they must undergo a servitude under the Macedonians; lastly, that the Romans should be the conquerors and masters of the world — and all this by the decree of heaven. When they reflected on these things, and finally heard of the Redeemer, as, according to promise, a perpetual King, and all the monarchies, then so refulgent, as without any stability-all this would prove no common source of strength. Now, therefore, we understand with what intention God wished what had hitherto been hidden, to be everywhere promulgated; the Jews, too, would hand down to their sons and grandsons what they had heard from Daniel, and afterwards this prophecy would be extant, and become an admiration to them throughout all ages.When we come to the words, he says, one image was great and large, its splendor was precious, and its form terrible By this phrase, God wished to meet a doubt which might creep into the minds of the Jews, on perceiving each of those empires prosperous in its turn. When the Jews, captive and forlorn, saw the Chaldeans formidable throughout the whole world, and, consequently, highly esteemed and all but adored by the rest of mankind, what could they think of it? Why, they would have no hope of return, because God had raised their enemies to such great power that their avarice and cruelty were like a deep whirlpool. The Jews might thus conclude themselves to be drowned in a very deep abyss, whence they could not hope to escape. But when the empire was transferred to the Medes and Persians, although they were allowed the liberty of returning, still we know how small a number used this indulgence, and the rest were ungrateful. Whether or not this was so, few of the Jews, returned to their country; and these had to make war upon their neighbors, and were subject to continual molestation. As far as common sense would

45

guide them, it was easier for them not to stir a step from Chaldea, Assyria, and the other parts of the East, since their neighbors in their own country were all so hostile to them. As long as they were tributary and esteemed almost as serfs and slaves, and while their condition was so humiliating, the same temptation remained. For, if they were God’s people, why did he not care for them so far as to relieve them from that cruel tyranny? Wily did he not restore them to calmness, and render them free from such various inconveniences, and from so many injuries? When the Macedonian. empire succeeded, they were more miserable than before; they were daily exposed as a prey, and every species of cruelty was practiced towards them. Then, with regard to the Romans, we know how proudly they domineered over them. Although Pompey, at his first assault, did not spoil the temple, yet at length he became bolder, and Crassus shortly afterwards destroyed everything till the most horrible and prodigious slaughter followed. As the Jews must suffer these things, this consolation must, necessarily be offered to them — the Redeemer shall at length arrive, who shall break up all these empires.As to Christ being called the stone cut out without human, hands, and being pointed out by other phrases, I cannot explain them now. TRAPP, "Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet [that were] of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.Ver. 34. Which smote the image upon his feet, &c.] All the powers of the world are but a knock, soon gone. [Psalms 2:9]

BENSON, "Verse 34-35Daniel 2:34-35. Thou sawest till a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image, &c. — Here the whole image is represented as destroyed by a great stone falling upon its feet and breaking them to pieces, whereby the whole image was overset and broken. In like manner the kingdom of Christ, a kingdom of God’s own erecting, was to break to pieces and destroy the fourth and last empire, in which the remainder of the others was comprehended, and at length to put an end to all earthly rule, authority, and power, 1 Corinthians 15:24. The Jews, as well as Christians, agree that by the stone here is meant the Messiah, or his kingdom, and indeed it is a very apt description of it; for without any visible means, or adequate assistance of human power, it arose, prevailed mightily, and increased to a high degree of strength and greatness, and will still increase, until it become superior to, and swallow up, all the kingdoms of the earth. Then was the iron, the brass, &c., broken to pieces, and became like the chaff, &c. — There was no sign or remainder left of their former greatness. The same expression is used by Isaiah 41:15, where see the note. The expressions in both places allude to the thrashing-floors in the eastern countries, which were usually placed on the tops of hills. And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, &c. — This denotes the advancement and increase of Christ’s kingdom, that it should from small beginnings proceed to

46

fill the whole earth; as if a stone by degrees should grow to a mountain. Thus Christ is described as going forth conquering and to conquer, Revelation 6:2. Christ, the foundation of the church, is often described as a stone: see Isaiah 28:16; Zechariah 3:9, and the church in its flourishing state is represented as a mountain, Isaiah 2:2; Ezekiel 20:40; Revelation 21:10.

WHEDON, "34. The artificial monster of human workmanship crumbles before the natural, divinely created, agent of its destruction, which, not by human but by divine power, falls upon it at a providentially chosen moment, striking it at exactly the right point to utterly overthrow and destroy it. This rock, cut out from the solid cliff without hands, is the symbol of the new Messianic kingdom before which all other kingdoms must fall. There is no significance in the stone’s striking the feet, unless it is to imply “that the Gentile powers represented by the image are not contemporaneous, but follow one upon another — the destruction of the fourth empire involves the complete overthrow of the Gentile supremacy” (Bevan). Farrar brings out the profound symbolism of this vision and how well it expresses “the surface glare, the inward hollowness, the inherent weakness, the varying successions, the predestined transience of overgrown empires.”BI 34-49, "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands.The Dream Recovered and InterpretedThe vision suggests to us many interesting things concerning the Kingdom of Christ.

1. Its superhuman origin. The stone was “cut out” of the mountains without hands. There was no natural cause for its severance. So the foundation of Christ’s kingdom was the result of no development of human character, but rather of the bringing of a new spiritual and heavenly power into the world.2. The comparative feebleness of its beginning. The language of the vision indicates that the stone grew from a small size until it became a huge mountain. Frequently earthly kingdoms have had very insignificant beginnings. So with this Kingdom of Christ, which began with the meeting of a few Galilean peasants in an upper room.3. The gradualness of its progress. Not all at once was this development made. It was a work of time. And so in the kingdom which it symbolises advancement was by degrees. Beginning at Jerusalem, its first preachers sought their earliest converts among their fellow-countrymen; but, as the seed sloughs off its outer shell when it begins to grows the Christian Church very soon put off its Jewish restrictiveness and found a root in Gentile cities.4. Its universal extent. The mountains “filled the whole earth.” “The knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth.”5. The perpetual duration of this kingdom. “ It shall never be destroyed,” and “it shall not be left to other people.” This perpetuity is intimately associated with its character, and that again with its origin. (W. M. Taylor, D.D.)

47

Nebuchadnezzar’s DreamThe Jewish people and kingdom, to all human appearance and judgment, was, at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, hopelessly destroyed; for in the history of the world a nation which has been broken up as the Jewish nation then was, never reformed itself, its people becoming absorbed and incorporate with succeeding nations. But it was not to be so with this nation, apostate and broken though it was—and is. We see in the story of Daniel and his three friends the germ out of which is to spring the nation’s regeneration. In these young men the true principles of the Theocratic Kingdom survived; faith, obedience, and the spirit of prophecy. The first chapter has to do with the fact of this remnant and God’s special protection thrown around it. In the second chapter we begin to see the Spirit of God working in the heart of the ruler of the great world-power, disturbing it with dreams of things to come; and also we see the spirit of prophecy working in the head and heart of Daniel, to interpret the dream of the great heathen king, and to set forth the course of history among the nations until God should re-establish His own Theocratic Kingdom and give the world to the saints according to His original and eternal purpose.I. THE GREAT IMAGE. The general meaning of this dream is perfectly clear. It represents the succession of great world-powers which should rise in the world, to whom God had given, directly or indirectly, the sovereignty of the earth, until Christ himself should come and completely overthrown them, once for all, and take possession of the whole earth, and reign upon it for ever with and by His saints (Dan_7:18-27; Rev_5:9-10; Rev_11:15-17; Rev_19:6; Rev_20:4-6; Rev_22:5). In this image two things are particularly set forth: that the world-power tends to division, as seen in the legs, feet, and toes; and that it gradually deteriorates from the gold, down through silver, brass, and iron to potter’s clay. It is only when the world-power becomes a mixture of iron and clay, which cannot become permanently united, though having in it an element of strength, that it is finally overthrown. The attempt of Napoleon to establish a fifth universal monarchy was defeated and brought to naught by his two great reverses at Moscow and Waterloo. There shall be no other universal kingdom, that is, of a merely world-power. Man has come to the end of his strength in the matter of conquest. Russia may attempt to succeed to universal dominion, but will fail even as Napoleon.II. THE STONE CUT OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN. The prophet having described to the king the progress of the successive world-powers, through four universal kingdoms, now takes up the interpretation of that mysterious event which he saw in his dream: A stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which first smote the colossal image on its feet of clay and brake it in pieces, alike the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold, and then itself increased more and more until it filled the whole earth. This he declares to be the establishment of a universal kingdom upon the ruins of the great world-powers. This kingdom, however, is not a successor to the former in the sense in which the four kingdoms succeeded one another. This kingdom had no part in the image, but was different in its origin and in its method of power.

1. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands. The expression “cut out of the mountain without hands” clearly indicates the supernatural origin and character of this omnipotent power, which was to break in pieces all these world-kingdoms, take possession of all things, and establish a kingdom for itself.2. The universal and everlasting kingdom. The world-powers were never absolutely universal; but the Kingdom of Christ shall include and fill the whole earth.

48

3. The suddenness of the advent of the stone. There is no preliminary movement ascribed to the stone. It seems suddenly to rise up and smite the image with one mighty blow that shatters it to pieces. It is not a gradual, but an immediate conquest. There is no struggle for supremacy; no long conflict ending in final victory by the gradual rise of power and increase of might. This, therefore, cannot refer to the slow conquest of the world by the Gospel. The stone first smote the world-powers in pieces and scattered them like chaff from a summer threshing floor; then it went on and grew and filled the whole earth, and there was found no power to oppose it. This must refer to the sudden coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of man, in the clouds of Heaven (Dan_7:13; Rev_1:7; Rev_1:13; Rev_14:14; compare Mat_24:30; Mat_25:31; Mat_26:64). When Jesus comes again in the clouds of Heaven he will destroy all the organized powers of this world.III. THE EFFECT OF DANIEL’S INTERPRETATION. When Daniel had finished his interpretation of his dream, the king was so profoundly moved by its majestic truth that he fell upon his face, and having worshipped Daniel, caused that oblations should be offered to him. We have no record of what Daniel did when this act of worship was paid to him, but no doubt he rejected it, or at least fully understood that the act of worship was not meant for him, as it certainly was not, since he had already disclaimed any power of his own to interpret the dream or unfold the secrets of God (v. 27, 28). Moreover, the words of the king clearly intimated that he meant the worship to be for the God of Daniel, and not Daniel himself. “Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings.” This intimates a partial conversion of Nebuchadnezzar to the true God. The second result was that it brought to Daniel power and authority in the government of the kingdom, even as a similar revelation of secrets and interpretation of dreams brought to Joseph in Egypt great power, to be used in God’s service. Thus do we see how God takes possession, even in their day of power, of the kingdoms of the earth; so far at least as is necessary to carry out His purposes. The third effect was to lift the three friends of Daniel also into places of great eminence and usefulness. What a lesson is this for the encouragement of those who have purposed in their hearts to be true to God in the world where they are placed for a testimony! (G. F. Pentecost, D. D.)

The Evil and Good in Human HistoryHere is a remarkable fact—a Pagan ruler made the organ of a Divine revelation. The great Father of Spirits has access to the souls of every type. The deepest Paganism cannot exclude Him from contact with the spirits of men. There are two circumstances connected with the Divine communication to this monarch which in all likelihood are ever associated with “communications” from Heaven to depraved spirits. It came to the king entirely irrespective both of his choice and effort. And it had a most distressing influence upon his mind. Many great souls move about heathendom under the pressure of strange and soul-disturbing visions from eternity.I. THE GREAT ATAGONISTIC PRINCIPLES IN HUMAN HISTORY—GOOD AND EVIL. The huge image is the symbolization of evil, as existing everywhere in the kingdoms of men. The four great dynasties of the ancient world are here represented in one colossal human form in order to symbolize in its totality the moral evil that sways mankind at large. The image stands for evil, the stone stands for good.

49

II. THE VERY INTERESTING SCENE OF THE GOOD ENTIRELY DESTROYING THE EVIL. To this day the great portion of the world is under the dark reign of evil. It is enthroned on the heart of humanity. To see the good, therefore, rising, growing, battling with it everywhere, and finally overwhelming it in ruin, is a sight deeply interesting and refreshing, both on account of its novelty and soul-inspiring character. This is the glorious scene before us. The evil is entirely destroyed in the vision.1. The entire destruction of evil is effected by a supernatural manifestation of the good. There are circumstances connected with this stone which undoubtedly indicate its supernaturalness. Its origin, its self-motion, its world-wide expansion.

(1) Christianity is good in a supernatural form. Its founder had a supernatural history.(2) The good in this supernatural form is the good to effect the entire destruction of evil. Good in its natural forms would never master evil. It tried for ages. Tried in the devotions of religion, the beauties of poetry, the enactments of law, the teachings of philosophy, But the “world by wisdom knew not God.” In its supernatural forms of Christianity good becomes “mighty through God to the pulling down of the strongholds of sin.” In this form it is truth in its mightiest force—moral truth, a force to move the affections, the conscience, the entire soul.(3) The entire destruction of evil by the good is not what appearances would indicate. Evil, as a whole, stands before you as a vast Colossus. Every part of the figure is imperial. It stands from age to age on the vast field of human life the most commanding and the most splendid of objects. The supernatural form of good was to human eyes very mean. To the worldly there was nothing attractive or imposing about Jesus. Who would have thought that “the stone” would at the first touch shiver that huge figure? Yet it did so.(4) The entire destruction of evil by good involves a thorough change in the character of the world. Here is the removal from the world of its most conspicuous object. How complete the destruction! A large thing is removed from the world’s horizon, but a larger takes its place. The image was great, but the mountain was greater. Great as evil is, good is greater. A human thing is removed from the world’s horizon, but a Divine thing takes its place, Evil in this world is a human production. The good that is to fill the world will be Divine.

This subject supplies:1. A guide to a correct judgment. Judge not from appearances.2. A test of moral character. In order to be a Christian indeed evil must not only be smitten, the Divine thing must fill up thy nature.3. A warning to infidel opposition. All opposition is both useless and dangerous.4. Encouragement to Christian labour. The stone has smitten evil. The stone will roll on—nothing can stop it. The kingdom will be an “everlasting kingdom.” (Homilist.)

The statue and the StoneIn primitive times dreams were often used as the mediums of Divine intimations. “In slumberings upon the bed,” says Elihu, “God openeth the ears of teen, and sealeth their

50

instruction.”I. The first point of contrast is the ENORMOUS BULK of the statue as compared with the SMALLNESS of the stone. Man estimates the importance of things by their size and appearance. Vast proportions produce a feeling of awe; and primitive races strove to minister to this feeling by building gigantic structures which would exalt the idea of human genius in contrast with man’s personal insignificance. The idol which the Babylonish monarch saw in his dream was in harmony with the huge monoliths, temples, and human-headed bulls which formed the architectural ornaments of his capital. Its colossal size admirably represented the material power and extent of his kingdom. Mere bulk and physical massiveness were the characteristics of the great empires of antiquity. But God’s thoughts are not as man’s thoughts. In nature He accomplishes His mightiest operations by the most insignificant agencies. Large islands are created by the labours of tiny coral polyps. And as in nature, so in grace. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which is the least of all the seeds that be in the earth. What was Palestine but a very little country among the mighty continents of the earth? And what was Israel but an insignificant people in comparison with the great nations of antiquity? And was not Bethlehem where Jesus was born one of the least cities of the land, and the house of Joseph among the poorest and most obscure families in it?II. Another point of contrast is the HETEROGENEOUS CHARACTER of the statue as compared with the HOMOGENEOUS NATURE of the stone. The statue was composed of gold and silver, iron and clay; and these substances were moulded and held together in a human shape, not by a vital organisation, nor by chemical affinity, but by mere mechanical force. And in this respect the statue graphically represented the outward symmetry of the great world-kingdoms of antiquity, which was the result, not of a natural spontaneous association, but, of a forced union of discordant elements by human power. The might of the autocrats of Egypt, Assyria, and Rome blended together races and creeds that had no natural affinity or sympathy with each other into one form of government, one mode of political life, and one mould of religious profession. This hard mechanical uniformity was secured by crushing the instincts of human nature and the liberties of the individual. And hence there was a constant tendency in this compulsory unity towards disintegration. The kingdom of Satan is a kingdom divided against itself, and, therefore, cannot stand. Men who hate each other, and have nothing otherwise in common, will combine for some wicked purpose. But the unhallowed alliance has in it a principle of schism. But widely different was the stone, which symbolized the Kingdom of Heaven. It was a homogeneous substance. All its particles were of the same nature, and they were held together by the law of mutual cohesion and chemical affinity. The same force that united these particles into this compact form, changing the mud at the bottom of the ocean, or the sand on its shores, by pressure under massive rocks, or by the induration of volcanic outbursts into stone, still held these particles together because of their similarity, and resisted the processes of weathering to which they were exposed. The stone of the vision was no conglomerate or breccia in which pebbles or fragments of different minerals were held together by mechanical force, but in all likelihood, judging from the geological formation of the region where the vision occurred, a mass of limestone or marble, whose substance was homogeneous—composed of the same calcareous sediment, which fire and pressure had metamorphosed into this solid and enduring form. And how strikingly in this respect did it symbolize the City of God, which is compactly built together—the Kingdom of God, which is composed of those who are all one in Christ Jesus. Believers have a strong

51

family resemblance. Notwithstanding their individual peculiarities, and their varieties of character, culture, and circumstance, they are all essentially one, after the image of God’s unity, and consequently of His eternity. Their unity is not legal, but spiritual; not of dull uniformity, but of bright unanimity.III. Another point of contrast is the LIMITATION of the statue as compared with the ILLIMITABLE DEVELOPMENT of the stone. The statue was of gigantic size, but its human shape circumscribed its boundaries. Its outlines were rigidly determined. And this was the characteristic of the vast empires of antiquity, which, almost as soon as they were formed, became stereotyped and incapable of progress. Unassisted human nature had reached in the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Roman empires its utmost limits, and disclosed its fullest capacities; and we see how incapable it was of bringing anything to perfection—how stunted and stereotyped all its mightiest efforts were. China has lived for two thousand years upon the work of five centuries; it has never got beyond the doctrines of Confucius as explained and unfolded by Menucius. In striking contrast with the fixed limits and definite proportions of these human civilizations is the indefinite size and shape of the Kingdom of God. The stone is an appropriate symbol of it, the rough stone taken out of the quarry—the amorphous boulder lying on the moor, not the stone crystallized into the mathematical facets of the gem. The statue, moulded by human art, shares in the limitations of man’s own nature. Made by God, the stone shares in His infinitude. The mystic stone in the vision grew and expanded until it became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. The landscape consisted of itself and its shadow. It presented a different aspect from each new point of view. The uniform monotonous despotisms of antiquity were created by man for his own aggrandisement; they had, therefore, fixed bounds of space and duration beyond which they could not pass. But the Kingdom of god is the creation of Divine love and grace, and, therefore, it unfolds with the need of man, and develops new capacities of blessing him, and endures for ever. The image of the stone does not suitably convey this idea. Every stone, however rough, has a limit as fixed as the statue. But the idea of fixed shape is not so inherent in the stone as in the statue, A stone may be of any shape—may be weathered by the elements, or roughened by violent contact with other stones into the most varied forms; but a human statue must preserve the human shape and observe the fixed proportions of the human form. So, in like manner, the idea of development is not inherent in a stone. It is of a fixed size; it cannot become larger. But Scripture imparts the power of growth to it, and secures, by a combination of images, what one alone cannot effect. We see this in the union of ideas borrowed from the mineral and vegetable kingdoms—from architecture and plant life—in some of the images employed to designate the Christian Church and the Christian life. “In whom all the building framed together, groweth into an holy temple in the Lord”; “Rooted and grounded in love.” The grandeur of the Bible gives the grandeur of its own conceptions to every comparison it uses, expands its powers, and imparts to it qualities which it does not inherently possess, and thus makes it more elastic to represent the expansive force of the Kingdom of God. There is nothing fixed or stereotyped in this kingdom. It has a wonderful power of adjustment and assimilation. It expands its horizon as humanity progresses. It grows with human growth. The idea of growth is inherent in the Christian religion. It has created for itself a literature and an art in which progress is essential. The horizontalism and exact regularity of Greek and Assyrian architecture expressed the permanence and immutability of the religious system associated with it; while the verticalism and endless variety of the Gothic architecture embodied in a physical form the ideas of advancement, elevation, and progress contained in the Christian religion, which has chosen that style

52

of art for its own. The religious of the heathen keep man as he is—confined to the earth, limited and bounded on every side by the restrictions and incapacities of his faith; the religion of Jesus raises man from the ground, lifts up his nature to another world, arouses his intellect and lightens his cares, bursts the fetters of his flesh, sublimes his affections, fills the whole sphere of his vision with grand and aspiring spectacles, and embodies itself in structures which exhibit a similar analogy. The religion that will satisfy the soul is a religion that makes provision for its growth and expansion, that shares in the infinitude and indefinite progressiveness of man. The stone must destroy the statue.IV. Another point of contrast is the BRILLIANT APPEARANCE of the statue, and the VALUE of the materials of which it is composed, as compared with the MEANNESS and commonness of the stone, and the WORTHTLESSNESS of its substance. With the exception of the clay, out of which its extremities were partly moulded, all the other materials used in the composition of the statue were exceedingly valuable according to the human standard. These materials are the highest forms which the mineral kingdom assumes—the sublimation of the substance of the earth, and therefore they fitly represent all the pomp and circumstance of the proud kingdoms of the world—all that is strongest, most precious, and enduring in human sovereignty. On the other hand, the stone which smote the magnificent statue had no value or splendour. It was a rude aggregation and consolidation of the common sand or mud or dust of the earth. It was made up of the materials which are trodden under foot or employed only m the humblest uses. Who values a rough stone by the wayside? And in this respect it is a fit symbol of the Founder of the Heavenly Kingdom, who, while on earth, had no form or comeliness, and was despised and rejected of men. Christ in His life and death presents no attraction to the natural eye. His Church was the filth and offscouring of all things to the world. The subjects of His kingdom were the weak, the foolish, the ignorant, and the poor. The dream of the night has become the grandest fact of history; the vision of a heathen monarch has become the reality of Christendom; and every age will give the vision and the dream a grander and yet grander interpretation. (H. Macmillan, D.D.)

The Stone and the ImageOrdinarily there is nothing more unreal and flimsy than a dream. It is but a shadow, a freak of fancy, the effluence of a distempered body or an unquiet soul, the echo of sounds we heard, or the confused picture of sights we saw, on the previous day, a gossamer structure reared by the imagination, which the first breath of awaking reason will dissipate for ever. The great mass of dreams have all this unreality about them. They are as a shadow that declineth. They are more the creatures of the past than the prophets of the future. Their face is turned towards yesterday rather than to-morrow. And yet in the history of the world there can be no doubt they have played an important part, as they have been one of the ways in which God has communicated His will to man. And even the Apocalypse may not unfitly be viewed as a glorious dream. In fact, there is no dream recorded in Scripture which is destitute of meaning; and the meaning of the dream before us is fully expounded by Daniel. It was the dream of a pagan, of a wicked and cruel pagan. But all souls are God’s, and He has access to them all; and the narrative before us shows that, though Israel was God’s peculiar people, to whom He specially revealed Himself until the fulness of the times should come. He did not leave Himself without witness among the heathen. He was asleep upon his bed, when lo! the form of a

53

stupendous image loomed before him and filled his soul. Some men forget their dreams, forget even that they have dreamed. So did Nebuchadnezzar. He knew only that he had had a dream which greatly troubled him. In vain he tried to recover his dream. What was to be done? He had men, however, about him whose business it was, among other things, to interpret dreams. Let them be summoned and try their skill. They were staggered at the claim. They reminded him that no king, lord, or ruler had ever asked for such an extravagant and impossible thing before; and told him that what they could not do, no one could do except the “gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” This was true. No one but God could tell the dream and the interpretation thereof. But there was one in his court whom God knew well. Let us look at the vision and the interpretation. The vision, then, consisted of an image, a majestic image, not like some of those which at times appear in our dreams, monstrous and distorted, but symmetrical. It was in the form of a man. But its material was not uniform. Its head was resplendent gold; and not merely gold, but fine gold, gold that had been purified. Then came the breast and the arms, and these were composed of the metal next in preciousness—they were of silver. Below these were the thighs, which were of inferior metal still; and then came the legs of iron; and last of all came the feet, which were part of iron and part of clay. This was the vision, and doubtless as soon as Daniel had finished the description it would be recognised by Nebuchadnezzar as true, just as memory promptly verifies what we had for a moment forgotten, as soon as it is brought to our mind by another. Then comes the interpretation. It promised well at the beginning. It seemed to be very flattering to the king, for he was the head of gold. But the cup of comfort was dashed from his lips at the next sentence, for it speaks of a kingdom that should rise after him. Startling intelligence for the proud and powerful king that he was to pass away. So much for the head. But what of the silver breast and arms? This was the Medo-Persian dynasty, which was established during the life of Cyrus, who marched through the earth with resistless armies, melting the nations as the sun melts structures of snow, and subduing them to his sway. It was touching him that the handwriting on the wall gleamed forth Belshazzar’s fatal doom, “Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” But was even this to last? No; a few years only should elapse, and then a brazen kingdom should arise under the victorious sway of Philip and his son Alexander the Groat, the latter of whom, at the close of his sanguinary battles, finding himself the conqueror of the world, sat down and wept that nothing more was left for his ambition. Surely that kingdom will endure. Look at it. It is so vast. It comprises Macedonia—it comprises Greece—it comprises Persia—it comprises Media—it comprises Asia Minor—it comprises Egypt—it comprises Afghanistan and the Punjaub. Surely such a kingdom will endure. There is not a power in the world to resist him, to fight with him. Alexander is emperor of the earth. But at length he died, and another power arose which is set forth in the iron legs of the great image. Before the prowess of Rome the Greece-Macedonian empire succumbed like a pigmy in the grasp of a giant, a giant which extended its sway more widely than any previous kingdom. Its empire was about two thousand miles in breadth. Its length extended three thousand miles, from the Western Ocean to the Euphrates. It razed Carthage to the ground—it subdued Spain and Gaul—it attacked England and Scotland—it triumphed in Judaea—and to this day may be seen, in Rome, the stone from which the miles were measured throughout the enormous extent of its dominion. But the iron which broke in pieces all else was itself mixed with clay in the toes of the feet, signifying that the Roman empire should be partly weak and partly strong. This wonderful prediction, uttered six hundred years before the birth of Christ, was accomplished with the most literal exactness. It was the forestalling of a series of 54

events which no human sagacity could possibly infer from the condition of things at the time of Daniel. Nay, it was the declaration of what then seemed impossible. But the God to whom prophecy is history, who sees the end from the beginning, who causes weak things to confound the mighty, and things which are not to bring to nought things that are, displayed this wondrous succession of dynasties as in a panorama before the mind of Daniel. And there is one thing which we must very specially note. It is this—that the dream of Nebuchadnezzar did not represent the mere decay of one kingdom through successive stages of diminishing grandeur and power until it finally collapsed in its feet of clay and iron. This might have been in keeping with the general character of the image itself, and Daniel might have said, “Thy kingdom, which is now of gold, shall become at length silver, after that it shall degenerate into brass, then it shall be transformed into iron, and shall finish its course in iron mixed with clay.” This has been the history of some nations, but it was not to be the history of Babylon. It should perish in its grandeur. It should be smitten in its strength; so should the Persian, so should the Macedonian; while the Roman power, on the other hand, should, after centuries of imperial rule, sink Slowly into decay, being at length divided into ten minor monarchies. This was one part of the sublime and impressive vision by which the sleep of Nebuchadnezzar was troubled on that memorable night. Now we turn to look at another. The object at which we have been looking was an image at rest, a colossal monument standing, as it were, in solitary grandeur in the midst of an expanded plain. But yonder in the distance, on the edge of the horizon, is seen another object. It is not at rest. It moves. It moves, too, of its own accord: It comes nearer. And lo! it is a stone; a stone which bears no marks of the delver’s art and power. It does not bear the dint of hammer nor the scratch of crowbar. It has been out out of the mountain without hands. And this is not all. It grows as it rolls, unlike other stones, which, whether rolling in river or down the hill-side, lose something of their size from moment to moment, the very friction chipping them or wearing them away. This stone expanded as it moved, rose higher, spread wider, advanced with more terrible momentum. But what of the image? Was that left standing? No. Nebuchadnezzar saw the stone roll onwards in the direction of the image with silent and majestic force, like a very symbol of omnipotence, and it was not arrested by the colossal monument and driven back. The stone smote the image on the feet—that is, at its very foundations—and the heterogeneous mass fell down. But it did not lie prostrate in its completeness as when a hurricane wind upheaves a pine tree from its rooting and lays it like a giant on the ground. The stone rolled over it, and broke it in pieces, and ground it to dust, and the wind carried the particles away so that no place was found for them. And the stone ceased not, but rolled on, growing as it rolled, until it filled the whole earth.I. We see in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar THE GREAT FACT THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST, THE KINGDOM OF TRUTH, IS AT LENGTH TO BE SUPREME OVER ALL OTHER KINGDOMS. Other kingdoms have always hitherto represented ideas and forces of evil. From the beginning, even down to the present moment, there has not yet been one kingdom which has aimed supremely at the well-being of the world. All of them, without exception, have been selfish and aggressive, aiming at the accession of territory and the augmentation of power and wealth. There have been men who have aimed at blessing others without dreaming of any blessing for themselves. But there has never been any nation which has been inspired with such noble aspirations. There is not one now. England, as one of the great dynasties of the world, is not contemplating any such purpose. She is seeking trade, wealth, territory, dominion, as other powers have done before her. Nations look at

55

each other with jealousy and distrust and passion, as if they had only to fear danger from each other. But they do not take account of that invisible kingdom which is working behind and through them all, and which, by its secret and Divine power, can undermine their foundations. The image which Nebuchadnezzar saw did not fall of its own accord. It was not destroyed by a band of enemies. It did not crumble to pieces by natural decay. It was not upheaved by earthquake or consumed by fire. It was destroyed by miracle, by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. The same Divine power formed it that made the world, and it rolled along under the same invisible impulse which wheels the planets in their courses. The gospel is always represented as an exotic—a plant brought from Heaven to earth. It is not the offspring of humangenius, of human culture, or of human virtue. The grapes of the Gospel could not grow on the thorns of human nature. How little man could do in the way of elaborating a saving system of truth may be seen by what man did actually do in the most enlightened nation of the world. In his wisdom he knew not God. For thousands of years the problem of human redemption through the power of unaided human genius and virtue had a fair trial. But how did it succeed? Men became warriors, statesmen, scholars, philosophers, poets—but redeemers, never. Here and there sprang up in a few hearts the conviction that man was, somehow, far beneath what he should be, but no help came—no help could come unless it came from above. And it came in the incarnation of our Lord. He was the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Men have striven to account for Him without the acceptance of His Divine nature and mission. It is vain. They cannot account for Him. No man can rise above the essential conditions of the race to which be belongs. Christ was far above them—He was a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. All other men have been born in the ordinary way of succession. Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary. He was a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Of all the unnumbered millions that have trodden the earth there has not been one who, in virtue of his own power, could escape the stroke of death; but Christ possessed the prerogative of defying the assault of the universal foe, exclaiming, “No man taketh away My life from Me: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” He was the stone out out of the mountain without hands. We do not despise the stones which have been cut out of the mountain with hands; in other words, we despise no true thing, no human work which is beautiful, no human deed which is right, no human word which is noble, no human improvements which ameliorate the condition of the world. All hail inventions, laws, education, which enable the race to rise even by a single step out of its ignorance and degradation and misery; but the great image of evil will stand against them all, firm as the rocky headlands against wind and waves, and will fall only before the majestic movement, and the Divine force of the “stone which has been cut out of the mountain without hands.” Such is the origin of the stone. It is supernatural, and it is from Heaven.II. We notice THE APPARENT CONTRAST BETWEEN THE AGENT WHICH DESTROYS EVIL AND THE EVIL WHICH IS TO BE DESTROYED. A stupendous image—that is the evil; a stone, quite small at first, cut out of the mountain without hands—that is the good. That which is to destroy evil is at first little and despised; and men laugh at it, and treat it with mockery, even as David was treated when he stood forth as the foe of, the Philistine giant. What was Christ to all appearance, that He should assume the part of the destroyer of evil? He was as a root out of a dry ground. He had no form nor comeliness. He was but a rod out of the stem of Jesse. His cradle was a manger at His birth, and He had no settled home when He had entered on His ministry. Look at Him—this Galilean peasant—with few friends, with no favour from the great, with the hostility of kings and priests and rulers of the people, with a face of

56

sorrow and a heart of woe. He it is who claims to be the light of the world, and who, knowing that He would die on the accursed wood, said, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.” Is that the man who is destined to universal empire—an empire not won by force, but by love; not by wounding, but by healing; not by destruction, but by salvation? Ah! that stone cut out of the mountains without hands, does it not seem small, too small to smite anything, still less the kingdoms of this world? Look at Him when “He hangs lifeless on the cross, when He lies lifeless in the grave, dead as the stony sepulchre in which He is entombed! That stone seems harmless now against all evil, hemmed in by rock and seal and soldiery. From that day the stone has rolled on and on, and is rolling still. On the day that our Saviour rose from the dead there was not one man, perchance, in England who had ever heard of His name. Our fathers were then but savages, dwelling in trackless forests; now we are baptized in His name. This day is called after Him—the Lord’s day. Our monarchs are consecrated in His name. The symbol of that Cross on which He hung is seen surmounting our churches, and glittering on every side as an ornament of person and of home. The nations that believe in Him are rising, the nations that reject Him are sinking; for the kingdoms and the nations that will not serve Him shall perish. But why shall they perish? They shall perish because they have no life in them; because they lack that spiritual leaven which alone can preserve nations from their doom. But this is as true of men as of nations. Sadly should we fail to realise the full import of this dream if ere did not bring it home to our own hearts. (E. Mellor, D.D.)

The Stone Cut Out of the MountainWhat are we to understand by the stone? Many commentators expound it of Christ’s person. Others, with whom we agree, understand it not of Christ’s person, but of His Kingdom. We cannot conceive how it is possible, by any known law of exposition, to arrive at the conclusion that the stone means our Lord himself. How, for example, could our Lord be said to become a great mountain, and fill the whole earth? Christ himself cannot become more exalted. He has already ascended far above all heavens. The stone, therefore, must denote the visible Kingdom of Christ upon earth, which is inseparably connected with Christ, but which, at the same time, is neither His mediatorial person nor His mystical body. Let us ask the prophet himself what the stone means, and he gives us a plain, decisive answer. He tells us that the stone signifies a kingdom, which the God of Heaven was to set up, “In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.” And what is the kingdom which the Cod of Heaven was to erect? It is just the church under the New Testament dispensation. Hence, both John the Baptist and our Lord came proclaiming “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It is worthy of remark that the stone is altogether distinct and separate from the image. The metals in the image were all distinct from one another, but they were all parts of the same structure. Not so the stone. It was not only distinct from the various metals in the image, it was distinct from the image itself. It had a separate and independent existence. The stone and the image were contiguous to one another, they are represented as having comb into contact, but their contact was that of collision, and not of incorporation. In its nature, origin, and privileges, the Church of Christ is distinct from, and independent of, the kingdoms of this world. The existence of the church is contiguous to that of temporal states and kingdom They have many things in common. The same individuals may be the subjects of both. The glory of God, and the good of man, are the common ends of both. Conformity to the will of God is the common rule of

57

both. Notwithstanding all those points of agreement, the Church of Christ and the kingdoms of this world are so distinct from one another that they never can be incorporated, never can be blended into one society, nor subjected to one legislative head, without imminent danger to the best interests of man, and a total disregard of the authority of God. They differ in their origin. Earthly kingdoms derive their origin from God as the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world. The Kingdom of Christ derives its origin from God as the God of grace, having been instituted with the view of promoting the salvation of that chosen company whom Grid, from all eternity, purposed to call, justify, sanctify, and bring to eternal life. They differ in respect of their constitution. The supreme power of administration in earthly states is placed in human hands; the supreme power of administration in the church is placed in the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no Divinely-given code of civil law, and, therefore, every temporal state possesses a power of legislation. It has authority to make, repeal, and modify its laws; and in so doing it is limited only by the obligation of making them in all moral respects conformable to the will of God, so far as known. Neither is there a Divinely-given form of civil government. While the constitutions of other societies originate in human wisdom, and may lawfully be altered by the sagacity or the taste of man, the constitution of the church, having emanated from Christ’s will, and bearing on all its parts the impress of His authority, is unchangeable by man. Every alteration is a defection; every change of doctrine is an error; every deviation from the simplicity of instituted worship is a step towards superstition; every change in government and discipline is a movement either towards anarchy or despotism. The Kingdom of Christ also differs from all earthly kingdoms in the end for which it was erected. The special end of civil government is to promote the temporal welfare of men; the special end of the church is to promote their spiritual welfare. A second thing deserving of notice respecting the stone is the statement that it was “cut out of the mountain without hands.” To understand the meaning of this let us reflect that there is no principle more deeply laid in the human intellect than this, that every effect must have a cause. When, therefore, it is said that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, this intimates that the kingdom which the stone symbolizes was to be erected in the world by supernatural influence. This is the meaning attached to the symbol by Daniel himself. “In the days of those kings the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom.” This does not mean that the kingdom prefigured by the stone would be set up in the world altogether without the use of outward instrumentality, but simply that the mode of its erection would be such as to demonstrate “that the excellency of the power was of God, and not of man.” Go back to the days of the apostles and contemplate the mighty fabric of ancient heathenism. It was congenial in itself to corrupt nature, it was hallowed by the veneration of ages, its roots were struck through all the framework of society, it was ramparted around by the terror of authority and the pride of erudition, by the emperor’s sword and the philosopher’s pen. From the experience of all the ages that had gone before, the inference might have appeared to be warranted that this system would continue until it was subverted by some great political convulsion. “For, pass over the isles of Chittim and see; and send to Kedar, and consider diligently and see if there be such a thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods?” With Christianity, however, a new era dawned on the human race. The avowed design of it was to overthrow all the systems of religion then existing among mankind. Who that contemplated its apparent resources could have supposed that it would succeed. All power, all passions, all interests, all prejudices, all kindreds and classes of men, Jew and Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond and flee, were opposed to the spread of the gospel. To meet this formidable array it had nothing but 58

seeming weakness. Its author was publicly crucified as a malefactor, its apostles were fishermen, its adherents were poor, its doctrines were humbling, its precepts were at war with human corruption, its privileges were purely spiritual, its rewards lay beyond the present life. The entrance to such a religion was by the gate of self-denial. In this triumph of weakness over power, of persecuted truth over fondly cherished errors, in the grandeur of the result compared with the unlikeliness of the original instrument, we discern an effect, to produce which the seeming cause is inadequate, and, therefore, we must admit of apostolic Christianity, that it was “a stone cut out of the mountain without hands.” In like manner it could be shown that all the living spiritual churches of Christ upon the earth are like stones cut out of the mountain without hands. They have been placed in the situation they presently occupy by the leadings of Providence rather than by any pro, conceived plan or voluntary choice of their own. The stone that was out out of the mountain without hands is farther represented as coming into collision with the images though it is here predicted that the image will be subverted by the stone, we are not warranted from this to infer that Christ’s Kingdom is hostile to the kingdoms of this world. Our Lord, when on earth, yielded obedience to the Roman government, and hath commanded His disciples, after His own example, to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” We ought also to remember that Christ’s Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, and that “the weapons of her warfare are not carnal but spiritual.” Far be it, therefore, from us to suppose that the church will have recourse to violent means for the subversion of the civil governments now existing. The stone, as we have already seen, signifies the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ under the New Testament dispensation. But before the erection of Christ’s Kingdom, the Babylonian, the Persian, and the Macedonian empires had been already destroyed. Seeing these empires were overturned before the stone was in existence, it could have no direct and positive agency in their subversion. It can, therefore, only be said of these empires that they were destroyed by the stone, in the sense that they were destroyed for the stone—that they were subverted by an all-wise Providence in order to prepare the world for the erection of the church. This interpretation is further confirmed by the fact that all these empires are represented as being destroyed at once—whereas, nearly a thousand years intervened between the overthrow of Babylon and the overthrow of Rome. This shows that the subversion of these empires, though accomplished by various instruments, and in ages remote from one another, was done for the same end, was part of the same work. It shows that they were all overthrown to make way for the kingdom of the stone. Their overthrow took place at different times, but it was for the same end. It was for the church that each of them rose, and for the church that each of them fell. It gives us a striking view of the unity and harmony of Divine providence. It shows us that the world does not move at random. It shows us that God has a definite end in view in His government of the human race. That end is the erection of Messiah’s Kingdom. This is the centre in which all the lines of Providence meet. Having destroyed the image, the stone is represented as becoming a great mountain that filled the whole earth. Some commentators make a distinction between the empire of the stone and the empire of the mountain. When the Kingdom of Christ is spoken of as first a stone and then a great mountain, this conveys the same idea as the Saviour did when He compared it to “a little leaven” that in due time leavened the whole lump. It is also the same as the idea conveyed by the parable of the mustard seed which, from the smallest of seeds, gradually expanded into the mightiest of trees. And when the stone is said to become a mountain, and fill the whole earth, this clearly intimates that Christianity will yet be universally disseminated. This, however, is not all If a mountain were to fill the whole earth, this 59

would be like a new earth taking the place of the old. And Christianity will not only be universally diffused, she will become the predominating influence in our world. In no period, in no place, has Christianity been accounted the predominating power. Politics have always had the ascendancy of Christianity. We cannot point to an era in which the principles of the Bible were practically recognised as the supreme law of nations. But when the image of anti-Christian civil government has been destroyed, the stone will then take the place of the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron. Christianity will then be the predominating power. Politics will be subordinated to religion. When we think of the subversion of the present civil governments, and that in all likelihood this will be by violence, the prospect is gloomy, but there is brightness beyond. If the image be destroyed, it is because the stone is to fill the earth. This will be a great benefit to mankind—first, because it will be the end of anti-Christian governments; secondly, because it will be the means of abolishing tyranny, oppression, slavery, and war, by which the world has been scourged since the dawn of time; thirdly, because the triumph of Christianity will be the ruin of superstition. And the believers of that time will towen in spiritual stature above those of every former age. Religion will have that place that the world has now, for the stone will occupy the place of the image. And what saints will they be who are as devoted to God as we are to mammon—who are as concerned about the soul as we are about the body. ButChristians are required to make efforts for the extension of the church. The stone is here spoken of as possessing an inward principle of vitality by virtue of which it grew and became a great mountain. This principle of vitality is nothing else than the grace of God in the hearts of the true members of the church. This is an aggressive principle. No sooner is it implanted in the soul than it begins to war with corruption, and it will carry on that conflict until innate depravity shall be completely subdued. Fed by gracious supplies from above, and transmitted from one generation of the faithful to another, it will never cease to strive till the whole world is Christianised, and civilised, and saved. The want of this aggressive spirit has been the great sin of the church in past ages. Concerning this kingdom, it is farther said that “it shall never be left to another people, but shall endure for ever.” Other thrones may fall, but “to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Other crowns may be cast to the ground, but Immanuel’s crown will flourish. (J. White.)

The Stone and the ImageThe image was the type of great civilizations. The image has long since crumbled away, but the kingdom cut out by the God of Heaven shall stand for ever. The Divine must supplant the human. Christ supplants Satan; righteousness supplants sin. Christianity cannot be explained by pure reason. It is not the product of human thought and creation. It comes with the stamp of Divinity on it, a Divine, God-given religion. Notice the destructive and aggressive character of the religion of Christ. Christianity entered upon a spiritual warfare against giant errors. It met the world with new ideas of good, of morality, of purity, and political right. The history of the Christian Church is the history of the greatest miracle of the ages. Christianity reconstructed society. The final triumph of Christianity is prophesied in this text. To live in this age of grand opportunities is a most precious privilege. (Frank W. Bristol, D.D.)

The Stone that Smote the Image60

Revolutions among nations are insignificant parts of the vast and wonderful scheme of Divine Providence by which the Almighty is carrying out His own gracious purposes and plans. According to Daniel’s prophecy, before the four kingdoms had all passed away the God of Heaven was to set up His throne on earth, which could never be shaken nor removed. As a fact of history, the first part of this prediction was exactly accomplished; and the remainder is now in course of fulfilment. Our Saviour appeared in Judaea as the Babe of Bethlehem while Augustus ruled the Roman empire, and within fifty years His Gospel had been preached in all the world then known. How was this new kingdom to gain a foothold in the world, and how keep its influence and power? Surely not by force of arms, as other empires had been built up. Not by dealing with philosophical subtleties. The Eternal Son returned to the throne of His glory in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit came down to guide and bless the church until the final judgment shall close her toils and trials. The work went on so silently and gradually that its advance was scarcely noticed. From Jerusalem, as a common centre, Christianity went forth into the heart of a polished and learned world, and laid the wholesome restraints of its righteous laws upon a corrupt and self-indulgent age. By its meek and peaceful doctrines it gloriously triumphed over the force of habit, the craft of an impure religion, the policy of legislators, the genius of poets and philosophers, the charm of oracles and prodigies, the shafts of ridicule, and the fierceness of bloody persecution. Not only did the religion of Jesus spread throughout Asia and Europe, but the midnight gloom of Africa was brightened by its silver beams, and apostolic hands unfurled its banner on the distant shores of Britain. The Almighty has made no covenant that any human institution shall endure; but He has pledged His own word for the perpetuity of His Church. (John N Norton.)

Progressive MovementsHere is movement; more, here is advance; here is human history epitomized. Each age is a product and a producer. The ancient geological periods built foundations on which the human age could build. So intellectually and morally.

1. Time past is a progressive revelation of God and right and duty. Divine truth comes in ever widening circles, In the earlier Scripture it is the physical attributes of God and the temporal blessings of obedience which are the more prominently presented, but, as the generations pass, this gradually passes, until in the time of Christ it is the spiritual attributes and the eternal rewards which occupy a larger place in Jewish thoughts. Here is advance. The Bible itself is a progressive development of Christian truth. Nor was the advance movement restricted to one nation. History, in the large view, is a record of the enlightening and bettering of men. The progress is along three lines: the unfolding of religious truth, the comprehension and reception of it, and the order and movement of events.2. The cost of this progress. Every leader in a good cause has to suffer at the hands of those who have not accepted his advance ground. Heretics they are of yesterday, and canonized saints of to-day. But martyrdom means progress. (Martin Post.)

The Succession of KingdomsI. Daniel regarded the dream as a communication from God. It” was common for the

61

Almighty to communicate with men in this way (Job_33:15-17; Num_12:6). Most frequently “a dream cometh through the multitude of business” (Ecc_5:3); yet there are instances in which we have reason to believe that God does still interpose to instruct, warn, and admonish people through the agency of dreams. We are not to look for illumination in this way where we have the Holy Scriptures to guide us; neither are we to believe or follow our dreams in anything contrary to God’s written word. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar the dream was special, and from the Lord. And it is not incongruous that a universal monarch, in the highest glory of the world’s original kingdom, should be the veer of the course and end of all secular dominion, particularly when earnestly concerned about the matter.2. Daniel regarded this dream as very momentous. When it was made known to him he broke into exultant adoration, not so much because he was the honoured servant to whom it was revealed, as for what it signified. It showed such a majesty above all the majesty of earth, such a plan in the course of all human governments and dominions, and such a power to handle and order all the potencies of time, that his soul was ready to break away from him when the mighty showing flashed upon his understanding. It set every emotion and energy within him on fire.3. The dream gives an outline of the history and destiny of all earthly dominion, from Nebuchadnezzar to the end of the present world, and for ever. The several metals of which the great image was composed designated a succession of universal empires. The head was “fine gold,” and Nebuchadnezzar was this head of gold. Babylon was the first and greatest of kingdoms. The breast and shoulders and arms of this image were of silver. This represents the comparatively inferior empire of the Medes and Persians, which stood for about two hundred years. It is chiefly interesting for the personality of Cyrus, its founder. The abdomen and thighs of the image were of brass; this represented the Graeco-Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great. The image had legs, feet, and toes. These were of iron, except the toes. This represents the Roman power. Since the Roman there has been no universal empire.4. In this foreshowing of the succession of earthly administration there is a continuous deterioration from the beginning to the end. Political economists and statesmen claim that the world has been growing in wisdom and excellence through all the ages. And in some respects there has been growth. But with all, in God’s estimate, there has been a never-ceasing downwardness, depreciation, and tendency toward the earth out of which man was taken. It is the whole history of the world that is comprehended in this vision. When we find in this book the whole political and social history of our world grandly and truly sketched, just as it has turned out from that time to this living present, how can we construe it except upon the doctrine alleged by the prophet, that it was revealed to him from the Almighty and all-knowing One. Daniel tells us that God, the living God, the God who rules all kingdoms and all history, the God to whose omniscience all things are present, naked and open, the Almighty, revealed these things to him; and the seal to his assertion is inimitably stamped upon all the records of the succeeding ages. There is a God in history, and He hath prophets whom He hath sent to speak His word and will. These living oracles are verily from Him. (Joseph A. Seiss, D.D.)

62

35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

BARNES, "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor - The word rendered “together” (כצרה kachădâh) our translators would seem to have understood as referring to “time;” to its being done simultaneously. The more literal interpretation, however, is, “as one;” that is, “they were beaten small as one,” referring to identity of condition. They were all reduced to one indiscriminate mass; to such a mass that the original materials could no longer be distinguished, and would all be blown away together. The literal meaning of the word (חד chad used and chădâh) is, “one,” or “first.” Ezr_4:8, “wrote a letter;” Ezr_5:13, “in the first year of חדהCyrus;” Ezr_6:2, “a roll;” Dan_2:9; “there is but one decree for you;” Dan_3:19, “heat the furnace one seven times hotter,” etc. United with the preposition (כ k) it means “as one,” like the Hebrew כאחד ke'echâd) - Ecc_11:6; 2Ch_5:13; Ezr_2:64; Ezr_3:9; Isa_65:25. The phrase “chaff of the summer threshing-floors” refers to the mode of winnowing grain in the East. This was done in the open air, usually on an elevated place, by throwing the grain, when thrashed, into the air with a shovel, and the wind thus drove away the chaff. Such chaff, therefore, naturally became an emblem of anything that was light, and that would be easily dissipated. See the notes at Isa_30:24; Mat_3:12.

And the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them - They were entirely dissipated like chaff. As that seems to have no longer any place, but is carried we know not where, so the figure here would denote an entire annihilation of the power to which it refers.And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth - The vision which was before the mind of the king as here represented was, that the stone which was cut out of the mountain was at first small, and that while he contemplated it, it swelled to larger dimensions, until it became an

63

immense mountain - a mountain that filled the whole land. It was this which, perhaps more than anything else, excited his wonder, that a stone, at first of so small dimensions, should of itself so increase as to surpass the size of the mountain from which it was cut, until it occupied every place in view. Everything about it was so remarkable and unusual, that it was no wonder that he could not explain it. We have now gone over a description of the literal vision as it appeared to the mind of the monarch. Had it been left here, it is clear that it would have been of difficult interpretation, and possibly the true explanation might never have been suggested. We have, however, an exposition by Daniel, which leaves no doubt as to its design, and which was intended to carry the mind forward into some of the most important and remarkable events of history. A portion of his statement has been fulfilled; a part remains still unaccomplished, and a careful exposition of his account of the meaning of the vision will lead our thoughts to some of the most important historical events which have occurred in introducing the Christian dispensation, and to events still more important in the statement of what is yet to come.

CLARKE, "The stone - became a great mountain - There is the kingdom אבן eben, of the stone, and the kingdom of the mountain. See at the end at the chapter.

GILL, "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together,.... The feet, the basis of the image, being broken, the whole body of it fell, and with its own weight was broken to pieces; an emblem this of the utter dissolution of all the monarchies and kingdoms of the earth, signified by these several metals: and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; which is exceeding small and light: and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; for the several metals, and the monarchies signified by them, which were no more: the allusion is to the manner of winnowing corn in the eastern countries upon mountains, when the chaff was carried away by the wind, and seen no more: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the earth; Christ's kingdom, from small beginnings, has increased, and will more and more, until the whole earth is subject to it: this began to have its accomplishment in the first times of the Gospel, especially when the Roman empire, as Pagan, was destroyed by Constantine, and the kingdom of Christ was set up in it; and it received a further accomplishment at the time of the Reformation, when Rome Papal had a deadly blow given it, and the Gospel of Christ was spread in several nations and kingdoms; but it will receive its full accomplishment when both the eastern and western antichrists shall be destroyed, and the kingdoms of this world shall become the Lord's and his Christ's, Rev_11:15.

JAMISON, "broken ... together — excluding a contemporaneous existence of the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God (in its manifested, as distinguished from

64

its spiritual, phase). The latter is not gradually to wear away the former, but to destroy it at once, and utterly (2Th_1:7-10; 2Th_2:8). However, the Hebrew may be translated, “in one discriminate mass.”chaff — image of the ungodly, as they shall be dealt with in the judgment (Psa_1:4, Psa_1:5; Mat_3:12).summer threshing-floors — Grain was winnowed in the East on an elevated space in the open air, by throwing the grain into the air with a shovel, so that the wind might clear away the chaff.no place ... found for them — (Rev_20:11; compare Psa_37:10, Psa_37:36; Psa_103:16).became ... mountain — cut out of the mountain (Dan_2:45) originally, it ends in becoming a mountain. So the kingdom of God, coming from heaven originally, ends in heaven being established on earth (Rev_21:1-3).filled ... earth — (Isa_11:9; Hab_2:14). It is to do so in connection with Jerusalem as the mother Church (Psa_80:9; Isa_2:2, Isa_2:3).

ELLICOTT, " (35) Like the chaff.—This language recalls Psalms 1:4; Psalms 2:9. It is emblematic of Divine judgments, as Isaiah 41:15-16; Jeremiah 51:33, &c. Comp. with this the description of the Judgment, Daniel 7:9-14. Observe, however, that the stone did not crush the head, breast, or loins of the body. These became fragments by falling when the feet were broken. (Comp. Daniel 7:12.)

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.Ver. 35. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, &c.] Those four mighty monarchies had their times and their turns - their ruin as well as their rise.And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain.] The kingdom of Christ, little at first, increaseth wonderfully. Nec minor ab exordio, nec maior incrementis ulla, said Eutropius, (a) concerning Rome; may we better say concerning the Church, which shall stand when all other powers shall quite vanish and disappear for ever, seem they for present never so splendid and solid. Sic transit gloria mundi. So transitory is the glory of the world.

WHEDON, "Verse 3535. The little rock out of the mountain stirred by the invisible elemental forces hidden in the heart of nature is unseen, unnoticed, and absurdly unworthy of notice, as it begins to roll toward the vast and glorious image. But though coming silently

65

and unobserved it is moved by a power strong and irresistible as that of gravitation itself, and striking the point of weakness inevitable in every human creation, the monster totters, the iron legs crush down upon the feet of clay, and the proud image lies a hideous ruin, crushed and pulverized into dust, which the wind blows away like chaff (compare Job 21:18; Psalms 1:4; Psalms 35:5), while the stone, as if having life in itself, grows, enlarges at the base and towers in height, till like a mighty mountain it fills the whole horizon of the sleeper’s sight. (Compare Expositor, 9:448.)

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king.

BARNES, "This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king - Daniel here speaks in his own name, and in the name of his companions. Hence, he says, “we will tell the interpretation.” It was in answer to their united supplications Dan_2:18, that this meaning of the vision had been made known to him; and it would not only have been a violation of the rules of modesty, but an unjust assumption, if Daniel had claimed the whole credit of the revelation to himself. Though he was the only one who addressed the king, yet he seems to have desired that it might be understood that he was not alone in the honor which God had conferred, and that he wished that his companions should be had in just remembrance. Compare Dan_2:49.

GILL, "This is the dream,.... Which Nebuchadnezzar dreamed, but had forgot, and was now punctually and exactly made known to him; for the truth of which he is appealed unto; for, no doubt, by this account, the whole of his dream, and every circumstance of it, were brought to his mind: and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king; for though both the dream, and the interpretation of it, were only revealed to Daniel; yet he joins his companions with him, partly because they were now present, and chiefly because they were assisting to him in prayer for it.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:36 This [is] the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

66

Ver. 36. This is the dream.] By this time Nebuchadnezzar began much to admire Daniel, who modestly taketh in his associates, as Paul also doth Sylvanus and Timothy, when he saith, "And we will tell the interpretation thereof," sc., ουν Yεω, God assisting us.

BENSON, "Verses 36-38Daniel 2:36-38. This is the dream, and we will tell the interpretation — Here again Daniel shows his modesty, allowing his friends a share in the honour of interpreting the dream, because the interpretation was obtained by their joint prayers to God. Thou, O king, art a king of kings — So Nebuchadnezzar is styled Ezekiel 26:7, because he had divers kings for his vassals and tributaries. And Daniel here addresses him as if he were a very powerful king, and his empire very large and extensive. For the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, &c. — The monarch might perhaps think, like some of his predecessors, that his conquests were owing to his fortitude and prudence: see Isaiah 10:13. But the prophet assures him, that his success must be primarily imputed to the God of heaven. Though most of the ancient eastern histories are lost, yet some fragments remain which speak of this mighty conqueror, and his extended empire. Berosus informs us, that he held in subjection Egypt, Syria, Phenicia, Arabia, and surpassed all the Chaldeans and Babylonians who reigned before him. Josephus, Philostratus, Megasthenes, and Strabo, assert, that he surpassed even Hercules, proceeded as far as Hercules’ pillars, subdued Spain, and led his army into Thrace and Pontus. But his empire was of no long duration, for it ended in his grandson Belshazzar, not seventy years after the delivery of this prophecy, nor above twenty-three years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar; which may be the reason why Daniel speaks of him as the only king, the rest being to be considered as nothing; nor do we read of any thing good or great performed by them. — Bishop Newton: see notes on Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 25:11; Jeremiah 25:15-26; Jeremiah 27:6-8. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, hath he made thee ruler over them all — The great monarchies assumed to themselves the title of being lords of the world; see Daniel 6:25; Daniel 8:5; so the word οικουμενη, the world, commonly signifies the Roman empire, in the New Testament. Thou art this head of gold — Thou and thy family and thy representatives. The Babylonian therefore was the first of these kingdoms, and it was fitly represented by the head of fine gold, on account of its great riches, and the splendour and glory of its capital city, Babylon, which for the same reason was called the golden city, Isaiah 14:4, a golden cup, Jeremiah 51:7, and the lady of kingdoms, Isaiah 47:5; Isaiah 47:7, where see the notes. The Assyrian is usually said to be the first of the four great empires, and the name may be allowed to pass, if it be not taken too strictly: for the Assyrian empire, properly so called, was dissolved before this time, and the Babylonian was erected in its stead; but the Babylonians are sometimes called Assyrians in the best classic authors, as well as in the Holy Scriptures. — Bishop Newton.

67

PETT, "Verses 36-38The Interpretation of the Vision (Daniel 2:36-45).“This is the dream, and we will tell its interpretation before the king. You, O king, king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory. And wherever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven has he given into your hand, and has made you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold.”This was not just flattery. Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah had made clear that they saw Nebuchadnezzar as God’s chosen instrument for judgment in the world. And certainly at that moment in time no kingdom compared with that of Nebuchadnezzar. The ‘we’ refers to Daniel and his God. It was Daniel who was speaking, but it was God Who was standing there before this mighty king with his exaggerated ideas of his own importance, and telling him what the future held.The title ‘king of kings’, used here, was also used of Nebuchadnezzar by Ezekiel 26:7. There is thus no reason to doubt that it was a description used about Nebuchadnezzar, and ties in with his subsequent erection of a great image, which quite possibly represented himself. But if so he not only saw himself as a king of kings, but as something more. And that was unusual for Mesopotamian monarchs. But Daniel, greatly daring, reminds him that it is the God of heaven who has made him great. His greatness is not of himself, nor is it of Marduk, it is of God.‘The kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory.’ Words tumble over themselves to bring out how great he is. For this description compare Daniel 5:18; and especially Daniel 7:14, which is a reminder that although he is great, one day there will arise a king greater than he.The reference to the beast of the field and the birds of the air is again to stress his grandeur. By the authority of the God of heaven he not only rules man, but the whole world of nature. Indeed, as far as the world of that time was concerned he ruled over the known world.‘You are the head of gold.’ We need not argue whether this applies to Nebuchadnezzar or to his empire. At this point in time his empire was him. It included all that subsequently flowed from him, and his sons were but a continuation of himself. The gold represented the ultimate in splendour, but if we just split the image up into four metals we miss the point. And in the image we can see idolatry. All the kingdoms from top to bottom are based on idolatry.

68

37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory;

BARNES, "Thou, O King, art a king of kings - The phrase “king of kings” is a Hebraism, to denote a supreme monarch, or one who has other kings under him as tributary, Ezr_7:12; Eze_26:7. As such it is applied by way of eminence to the Son of God, in Rev_17:14; Rev_19:16. As here used, it means that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over tributary kings and princes, or that he was the most eminent of the kings of the earth. The scepter which he swayed was, in fact, extended over many nations that were once independent kingdoms, and the title here conferred on him was not one that was designed to flatter the monarch, but was a simple statement of what was an undoubted truth. Daniel would not withhold any title that was in accordance with reality, as he did not withhold any communication in accordance with reality that was adapted to humble the monarch.

For the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom ... - At the same time that Daniel gave him a title which might in itself have ministered to the pride of the monarch, he is careful to remind him that he held this title in virtue of no wisdom or power of his own. It was the true God who had conferred on him the sovereignty of these extensive realms, and it was one of the designs of this vision to show him that he held his power at his will, and that at his pleasure he could cause it to pass away. It was the forgetfulness of this, and the pride resulting from that forgetfulness, which led to the melancholy calamity which befel this haughty monarch, as recorded in Dan. 4.

CLARKE, "The God of heaven - Not given by thy own gods, nor acquired by thy own skill and prowess; it is a Divine gift.

Power - To rule this kingdom.And strength - To defend it against all foes.And glory - Great honor and dignity.

GILL, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings,.... Having many kings subject and tributary to him, or would have; as the kings of Judah, Ammon, Moab, and others, and who were even his captives and prisoners; see Jer_52:32. Jarchi and Saadiah join this with the next clause, "the God of heaven", and interpret it of him thus, thou, O King Nebuchadnezzar, "the King of kings, who is the God of heaven, hath given unto thee", &c.; so some in the Talmud understand it of God (k); but this is contrary to the accents:

69

for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory; that is, a very powerful, strong, and glorious kingdom, famous for its mighty armies, strong fortresses, and great riches, from all which the king had great honour and glory; and this he had not by his ancestors, or his own military skill and prowess, but by the favour and gift of God.

JAMISON, "Thou ... art a king of kings — The committal of power in fullest plenitude belongs to Nebuchadnezzar personally, as having made Babylon the mighty empire it was. In twenty-three years after him the empire was ended: with him its greatness is identified (Dan_4:30), his successors having done nothing notable. Not that he actually ruled every part of the globe, but that God granted him illimitable dominion in whatever direction his ambition led him, Egypt, Nineveh, Arabia, Syria, Tyre, and its Phoenician colonies (Jer_27:5-8). Compare as to Cyrus, Ezr_1:2.

ELLICOTT, "(37, 38) Interpretation of the vision. Nebuchadnezzar is the head; or, in other words, he is the first of the four kingdoms which are denoted by the image. His kingdom was the largest that the world had till then known; in fact, a writer cited by Josephus (Ap. i. 20), compares him to Hercules. We find a similar allusion to the beasts of the field as Nebuchadnezzar’s servants Jeremiah 27:6; Jeremiah 28:14. The title of “king of kings” is also ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 26:7). We are therefore left in no doubt as to what is meant by the first of the four empires. It is the Babylonian Empire, of which Nebuchadnezzar was in every sense the head, being the actual founder of it, and its mainstay during his long reign of forty-three years.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, [art] a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.Ver. 37. Thou, O king, art a king of kings.] And yet the whole Babylonian empire was but as a crust cast by God, the great housekeeper of the world, to his dogs, as Luther somewhere saith of the Turkish.

POOLE, " A king of kings; he means Nebuchadnezzar in person, together with his successors, Evil-merodach and Belshazzar. The prophet would not mind the king of any thing past, nor of any other governments but those with whom his church were then and to be concerned for the future, till the coming of the Messiah, by whose coming they should support and comfort themselves against all their sufferings by oppressors; and also God would have the prophet mind Nebuchadnezzar of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, growing and breaking in pieces all earthly power.The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom; it came not to thee by thy ancestors,

70

or by fortune, or by thy valour, but the great God of heaven hath the bestowing of those, and giveth them to whomsoever he will.Power, and strength, and glory; authority; victorious armies, with great prosperity.

38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

BARNES, "And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heavens, hath he given into thy hand - This is evidently general language, and is not to be pressed literally. It is designed to say that he ruled over the whole world; that is, the world as then known. This is common language applied in the Scriptures to the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman kingdoms. Thus in Dan_2:39, the third of these kingdoms, the Grecian, was to “bear rule over all the earth.” Compare Dan_8:5 : “And, as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth.” So of the Roman empire, in Dan_7:23 : “The fourth beast shall devour the whole earth.” The declaration that his kingdom embraced the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air is a strong expression, meaning that he reigned over the whole world. A somewhat similar description of the extent of the empire of the king of Babylon occurs in Jer_27:4-8 : “And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Thus shall ye say unto your masters; I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field I have given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.”

At the time referred to by Daniel, the scepter of Nebuchadnezzar a extended over all these realms, and the world was, in fact, placed substantially under one head. “All the 71

ancient Eastern histories,” says Bishop Newton, “almost are lost; but there are some fragments even of pagan historians yet preserved, which speak of this mighty conqueror and his extended empire. Berosus, in Josephus (Contra Apion, c. i. Section 19), says that he held in subjection Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Arabia, and by his exploits surpassed all the Chaldeans and Babylonians who reigned before him. Strabo asserts that this king among the Chaldeans was more celebrated than Hercules; that he proceeded as far as to the pillars of Hercules, and led his army out of Spain into Thrace and Pontus. But his empire, though of great extent, was not of long duration, for it ended in his grandson Belshazzar, not seventy years after the delivery of this prophecy, nor above twenty-three years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar.” - Newton on the “Prophecies,” pp. 186, 187.Thou art this head of gold - The head of gold seen in the image represents thee as the sovereign of a vast empire. Compared with the other monarchs who are to succeed thee, thou art like gold compared with silver, and brass, and iron; or, compared with thy kingdom, theirs shall be as silver, brass, and iron compared with gold. It was common, at an early period, to speak of different ages of the world as resembling different metals. Compare the notes at Dan_2:31. In reference to the expression before us, “Thou art this head of gold,” it should be observed, that it is not probably to be confined to the monarch himself, but is rather spoken of him as the head of the empire; as representing the state; as an impersonation of that dynasty. The meaning is, that the Babylonian empire, as it existed under him, in its relation to the kingdoms which should succeed, was like the head of gold seen in the image as compared with the inferior metals that made up the remaining portions of the image. Daniel, as an interpreter, did not state in what the resemblance consisted, nor in what respects his empire could be likened to gold as compared with those which should follow. In the scanty details which we now have of the life of that monarch, and of the events of his reign, it may not be possible to see as clearly as would be desirable in what that resemblance consisted, or the full propriety of the appellation given to him. So far as may now be seen, the resemblance appears to have been in the following things:(I) In respect to the empire itself of which he was the sovereign, as standing at the head of the others - the first in the line. This was not indeed the first kingdom, but the design here was not to give an account of all the empires on earth, but to take the world “as it was then,” and to trace the successive changes which would occur preparatory to the establishment of the kingdom which should finally spread over the earth. Viewed in reference to this design, it was undoubtedly proper to designate the empire of Babylon “as the head.” It not only stood before them in the order of time, but in such a relation that the others might be regarded as in some sort its successors; that is, “they would succeed it in swaying a general scepter over the world.” In this respect they would resemble also the Babylonian. At the time here referred to, the dominion over which Nebuchadnezzar swayed his scepter was at the head of the nations; was the central power of the Pagan world; was the only empire that could claim to be universal. For a long period the kingdom of Babylon had been dependent on that of Assyria; and while Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire, Babylon was the head of a kingdom, in general subordinate to that of Assyria, until Nabopolassar, the immediate predecessor of Nebuchadnezzar, rendered the kingdom of Babylon independent of the Assyrians, and transferred the seat of empire to Babylon. This was about the year 626 before the Christian era. See “Universal History,” vol. iii. pp. 412-415. Nebuchadnezzar, receiving this mighty kingdom, had carried his own arms to distant lands; had conquered India, Tyre, and Egypt; and, as would appear, all Northern Africa, as far as the pillars of Hercules, and, with quite unimportant exceptions, all the known world was subject to

72

him.(II) The appellation “head of gold” may have been given him on account of the splendor of his capital, and the magnificence of his court. In Isa_14:4, Babylon is called “the golden city.” See the note at that place. In Isa_13:19, it is called “the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency.” In Isa_47:5, it is called “the lady of kingdoms.” In Jer_51:13, it is spoken of as “abundant in treasures,” and in Jer_51:41, as “the praise of the whole earth.” So in profane writers, Babylon has similar appellations.

Thus, in Aesch. Per. 51, mention is made of Βαβυλὼν η πολύχρυσος Babulōn hē poluchrusos - “Babylon abounding in gold.” The conquests of Nebuchadnezzar enabled him to bring to his capital the spoils of nations, and to enrich his capital above any other city on the earth. Accordingly, he gave himself to the work of adorning a city that should be worthy to be the head of universal empire, and succeeded in making it so splendid as to be regarded as one of the wonders of the world. His great work in adorning and strengthening his capital consisted, first, of the building of the immense walls of the city; second, of the tower of Belus; and third, of the hanging gardens. For a full description of these, see Prideaux’s “Connections,” vol. i. p. 232, following.

(III) The appellation may have been given him by comparison with the kingdoms which were to succeed him. In some respects - in extent and power - some one or more of them, as the Roman, might surpass his; but the appellation which was appropriate to them was not gold, but they would be best denoted by the inferior metals. Thus the Medo-Persian kingdom was less splendid than that of Babylon, and would be better represented by silver; the Macedonian, though more distinguished by its conquests, was less magnificent, and would be better represented by brass; and the Roman, though ultimately still more extensive in its conquests, and still more mighty in power, was less remarkable for splendor than strength, and would be better represented by iron. In magnificence, if not in power, the Babylonian surpassed them all; and hence, the propriety of the appellation, “head of gold.”(IV) It is possible that in this appellation there then may have been some reference to the character of the monarch himself. In Jer_27:6, he is spoken of as the “servant of God,” and it is clear that it was designed that a splendid mission was to be accomplished by him as under the Divine control, and in the preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah. Though he was proud and haughty as a monarch, yet his own personal character would compare favorably with that of many who succeeded him in these advancing kingdoms. Though his conquests were numerous, yet his career as a conqueror was not marked with cruelty, like that of many other warriors. He was not a mere conqueror. He loved also the arts of peace. He sought to embellish his capital, and to make it in outward magnificence and in the talent which he concentrated there, truly the capital of the world. Even Jerusalem he did not utterly destroy; but having secured a conquest over it, and removed from it what he desired should embellish his own capital, he still intended that it should be the subordinate head of an important province of his dominions, and placed on the throne one who was closely allied to the king who reigned there when he took the city.But the appellation here, and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, are to be contemplated chiefly, like the kingdoms that succeeded, in their relation to redemption. It is in this aspect that the study of history becomes most interesting to a mind that regards all events as embraced in the eternal counsels of God, and it is undoubtedly with reference to this that the history of these kingdoms becomes in any way introduced into the inspired writings. All history may be contemplated under two aspects: in its secular

73

bearing; and in its relation to the redemption of the world. In the former aspect, it has great and important uses. As furnishing lessons to statesmen; as showing the progress of society; as illustrating the effects of vice and immorality, and the evils of anarchy, ambition, and war; as recording and preserving the inventions in the arts, and as showing what are the best methods of civil government, and what conduces most to the happiness of a people, its value cannot well be overestimated.But it is in its relations to the work of redeeming man that it acquires its chief value, and hence, the sacred volume is so much occupied with the histories of early nations. The rise and fall of every nation; the conquests and defeats which have occurred in past times, may all have had, and perhaps may yet be seen to have had, an important connection with the redemption of man - as being designed to put the world in a proper position for the coming of the Prince of Peace, or in some way to prepare the way for the final triumph of the gospel. This view gives a new and important aspect to history. It becomes an object in which all on earth who love the race and desire its redemption, and all in heaven, feel a deep concern. Every monarch; every warrior; every statesman; every man who, by his eloquence, bravery, or virtue, has contributed anything to the progress of the race, or who has in any way played an important part in the progress of the world’s affairs, becomes a being on whom we can look with intense emotion; and in reference to every man of this character, it would be an interesting inquiry what he has done that has contributed to prepare the way for the introduction of the Mediatorial scheme, or to facilitate its progress through the world. In reference to this point, the monarch whose character is now before us seems to have been raised up, under an overruling Providence, to accomplish the following things:(1) To inflict “punishment” on the revolted people of God for their numerous idolatries. See the book of Jeremiah, “passim.” Hence, he led his armies to the land of Palestine; he swept away the people, and bore them into captivity; he burned the temple, destroyed the capital, and laid the land waste.(2) He was the instrument, in the hand of God, of effectually purifying the Jewish nation from the sin of idolatry. It was for that sin eminently that they were carried away; and never in this world have the ends of punishment been better secured than in this instance. The chastisement was effectual. The Jewish nation has never since sunk into idolatry. If there have been individuals of that nation - of which, however, there is no certain evidence - who have become idolaters, yet as a people they have been preserved from it. More than two thousand five hundred years have since passed away; they have been wanderers and exiles in all lands; they have been persecuted, ridiculed, and oppressed on account of their religion; they have been placed under every possible inducement to conform to the religion around them, and yet, as professed worshippers of Jehovah, the God of their fathers, they have maintained their integrity, and neither promises nor threatenings, neither hopes nor fears, neither life nor death, have been sufficient to constrain the Hebrew people to bow the knee to an idol god.(3) Another object that seems to have been designed to be accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar in relation to Redemption was to gather the nations under one head preparatory to the coming of the Messiah. It will be seen in the remarks which will be made on the relation of the Roman empire to this work (see the notes at Dan_2:40-43), that there were important reasons why this should be done. Preparatory to that, a succession of such kingdoms each swayed the scepter over the whole world, and when the Messiah came, the way was prepared for the easy and rapid propagation of the new religion to the remotest parts of the earth.

74

CLARKE, "Thou art this head of gold - See on Dan_2:31-34 (note), and at the end.

GILL, "And wheresoever the children of men dwell,.... Not in every part of the habitable world, but in every part of his large dominion inhabited by men: the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand; all parks, chases, and forests (so that none might hunt or hawk without his permission), as well as the persons and habitations of men, were at his dispose; showing the despotic power and sovereign sway he had over his subjects: and hath made thee ruler over all: men, beasts, and fowl: he not only conquered the Egyptians, Tyrians, and Jews, and other nations about them; but, according to Megasthenes (l) he exceeded Hercules in strength, and conquered Lybia and Iberia, and carried colonies of them into Pontus; and, as Strabo (m) says, carried his arms as far as the pillars of Hercules: thou art this head of gold; or who was represented by the golden head of the image he had seen in his dream; not he personally only, but his successors Evilmerodach and Belshazzar, and the Babylonish monarchy, as possessed by them; for this refers not back to the Assyrian monarchy, from the time of Nimrod, but to its more flourishing condition in Nebuchadnezzar and his sons; called a "head", because the first of the monarchies; and golden, in comparison of other kingdoms then in being, and because of the riches of it, which the Babylonians were covetous of; hence Babylon is called the golden city, Isa_14:4 and it may be, because not so wicked and cruel to the Jews as the later monarchies were: from hence the poets have been thought by some to have taken their notion of the golden, silver, and iron ages, as growing worse and worse; but this distinction is observed by Hesiod, who lived many years before this vision was seen.

JAMISON, "men ... beasts ... fowls — the dominion originally designed for man (Gen_1:28; Gen_2:19, Gen_2:20), forfeited by sin; temporarily delegated to Nebuchadnezzar and the world powers; but, as they abuse the trust for self, instead of for God, to be taken from them by the Son of man, who will exercise it for God, restoring in His person to man the lost inheritance (Psa_8:4-6).

Thou art ... head of gold — alluding to the riches of Babylon, hence called “the golden city” (Isa_14:4; Jer_51:7; Rev_18:16).CALVIN, "Daniel here declares “ the golden head of the image “ to be the Babylonian kingdom. We know that the Assyrians were subdued before the monarchy was transferred to Babylon; but since they did not prevail sufficiently to be considered as supreme rulers in that eastern territory, the Babylonian empire is here mentioned first. It is also worthwhile to remark, that God was unwilling to refer here to what had already occurred, but he rather proposed that the people

75

should in future depend on this prophecy and rest upon it. Here it would have been superfluous to say anything about the Assyrians, since that empire had already passed away. But the Chaldeans were still to reign for some time — say seventy or at least sixty years. Hence God wished to hold the minds of his own servants in suspense till the end of that monarchy, and then to arouse them by fresh hopes, until the second monarchy should pass away, so that afterwards they might rest in patience under the third and fourth monarchies, and might perceive at length the time of Christ’s advent to be at hand. This is the reason why Daniel places the Chaldean monarchy here in the first rank and order. And in this matter there is no difficulty, because he states King Nebuchadnezzar to be the golden head of the image. We may gather the reason of his being called the golden head from the context, namely, because its integrity was then greater than under the empire of the Medes and Persians. It is very true that the Chaldeans were the most cruel robbers, and we know how Babylon was then detested by all the pious and sincere worshippers of God. Still, since things usually become worse by process of time, the state of the world was; as yet tolerable under that sovereignty. This is the reason why Nebuchadnezzar is called “the head of gold;” but this ought not to be referred to him personally, but rather extended to his whole kingdom, and all his successors, among whom Belshazzar was the most hateful despiser of God; and by comprehension he is said to form part of this head of gold. But Daniel shews that he did not flatter the king, since he assigns this reason for Nebuchadnezzar being the golden head — God had set him up above all the earth. But this seems to be common to all kings, since none of them reign without God’s permission — a sentiment which is partially true, but the Prophet implies that Nebuchadnezzar was raised up in an especial manner, because he excelled all other sovereigns. It now follows — TRAPP, "Daniel 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou [art] this head of gold.Ver. 38. Thou art this head of gold.] A "head" the Babylonian monarchy is called, because it was the first of the four; and "of gold," because administered with great wisdom, fortitude, justice, and other heroic virtues, because of the glory also and greatness of it in all manner of magnificence. See Isaiah 13:19; Isaiah 14:11, Jeremiah 27:6. Megasthenes and Strabo (a) say, that Nebuchadnezzar was the mightiest of all kings, and held of the Chaldeans to have exceeded Hercules in courage.

POOLE, " Hath made thee ruler over them all, i.e. hath given thee absolute dominion of all creatures, men and beasts, within the bounds of thy vast kingdom, to hunt, catch, or kill far thy use and pleasure. God as Lord paramount allows thee, his vassal and tenant at will, all this. This was not universal over all the world, but only within his large territories, which yet were bounded.

76

Thou art this head of gold.1. Why head? Because he was first in order, as the head is before the other parts, and the vision began in him, and descended downwards to the other three monarchies.2. Why head of gold? Because of the vast riches wherein it abounded, and which the Chaldeans most coveted, and scraped from the spoils and tributes of all countries, Isaiah 10:13,14 Jer 51:41,44. Also this is called the golden head, because it stood longest, five hundred years, and was fortunate and flourishing to the last.

39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth.

BARNES, "And after thee - This must mean “subsequently” to the reign, but it does not mean that the kingdom here referred to would “immediately” succeed his own reign, for that would not be true. The Medo-Persian empire did not come into the ascendency until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, between whose reign and that of his grandfather there had intervened the reigns of Evil-merodach and Neriglissar; besides, as the remainder of the prophecy relating to the image refers to “kingdoms,” and not to individual monarchs, it is clear that this also relates not primarily to Nebuchadnezzar as an individual, but as the head of a kingdom. The meaning is, that a kingdom would succeed that over which he reigned, so far inferior that it might be represented by silver as compared with gold.

Shall arise another kingdom - Chaldee, “shall stand up (תקום teqûm) another kingdom.” This is language which would denote something different from a succession in the same dynasty, for that would be a mere “continuance of the same kingdom.” The reference is evidently to a change of empire; and the language implies that there would be some revolution or conquest by which the existing kingdom would pass away, and another would succeed. Still there would be so much of sameness in respect to its occupying essentially the same territory, that it would be symbolized in the same image

77

that appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. The kingdom here referred to was undoubtedly the Medo-Persian, established by Cyrus in the conquest of Babylon, which continued through the reigns of his successors until it was conquered by Alexander the Great. This kingdom succeeded that of Assyria or Babylon, 538 years b.c., to the overthrow of Darius Codomanus, 333 years b.c. It extended, of course, through the reigns of the Persian kings, who acted so important a part in the invasion of Greece, and whose defeats have given immortality to the names of Leonidas, Aristides, Miltiades, and Themistocles, and made the names of Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon, and Leuctra so celebrated. For a general account of Cyrus, and the founding of the Medo-Persian empire, the reader is referred to the notes at Isa_41:2.Inferior to thee - And therefore represented by silver as compared with gold. In what respects it would be inferior, Daniel does not specify, and this can only be learned from “the facts” which occurred in relation to that kingdom. All that is necessary to confirm the truth of the prophetic description is, that it was to be so far inferior as to make the appellation “silver” applicable to it in comparison with the kingdom of Babylon, represented by “gold.” The expression would denote that there was a general decline or degeneracy in the character of the monarchs, and the general condition of the empire. There have been different opinions as to the inferiority of this kingdom to the Babylonian. Calvin supposes that it refers to degeneracy. Geir supposes that it relates to the duration of the kingdom - this continuing not more than two hundred and forty years; while the other, including the Assyrian, embraced a period of one thousand five hundred years. Polanus supposes that the meaning is, that the Babylonian had more rest and tranquility; while Junius, Willett, and others understand it of a milder and more humane treatment of the Jews by the Babylonians than the Persians. Perhaps, however, none of these opinions meet the circumstances of the case, for they de not furnish as full an account of the reasons of this inferiority as is desirable. In regard to this, it may be observed,(a) that it is not to be supposed that this kingdom was to be in “all respects” inferior to the Babylonian, but only that it would have certain characteristics which would make it more appropriate to describe it as “silver” than as “gold.” In certain other respects it might be far superior, as the Roman, though in the same general line of succession, was in extent and power superior to either, though there was still a reason why that should be represented by “iron,” rather than by gold, by silver, or by brass.(b) The inferiority did not relate to the power, the riches, or the territorial extent of the Medo-Persian empire, for it embraced, so far as appears, all that was comprehended in the Babylonian empire, and all in addition which was added by the conquests of Cyrus. In his proclamation to rebuild the temple Ezr_1:2, Cyrus speaks of the extent of his empire in language strongly resembling what is applied to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” Thus also it is said of AhaAhasuerus or Astyages, king of Media - a kingdom that constituted a part of the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus and his successors, that he “reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces.” To the kingdom of Babylon, as he found it when he conquered it, Cyrus of course added the kingdoms of Media and Persia, to the crowns of which he was the heir (see the notes at Isa_41:2), and also the various provinces which he had conquered before he came to the throne; that is, Cappadocia, the kingdom of Lydia, and almost the whole of Asia Minor.(c) Nor can it be supposed that the kingdom was inferior in regard to “wealth,” for, in addition to all the wealth that Cyrus found in Babylon, he brought the spoils of his

78

victories; the treasures in the possession of the crowns of Persia and Media, and all the wealth of Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, of which he had become possessor by conquest. In considering the “inferiority” of this kingdom, which made it proper that it should be represented by silver rather than by gold, it is to be borne in mind that the representation should embrace “the whole kingdom” in all the successive reigns, and not merely the kingdom as it was under the administration of Cyrus. Thus regarded, it will comprehend the succession of Persian monarchs until the time of the invasion and conquest of the East by Alexander the Great. The reign of Cyrus was indeed splendid; and if “he” alone, or if the kingdom during his administration, were contemplated, it would be difficult to assign a reason why an appellation should have been given to it implying any inferiority to that of Nebuchadnezzar. The “inferiority” of the kingdom, or what made it proper to represent it by silver rather than by gold, as compared with the kingdom of Babylon, may have consisted in the following particulars:(1) In reference to the succession of kings who occupied the Persian throne. It is true that the character of Cyrus is worthy of the highest commendation, and that he was distinguished not only as a brave and successful conqueror, but as a mild, able, and upright civil ruler. Xenophon, who wished to draw the character of a model prince, made choice of Cyrus as the example; and though he has not improbably embellished his character by ascribing to him virtues drawn from his own fancy in some degree, yet there can be no doubt that in the main his description was drawn from the life. “The true reason,” says Prideaux (“Connections,” vol. i. p. 252, Ed. Charlestown, 1815), “why he chose the life of Cyrus before all others for the purpose above mentioned” (that of giving a description of what a worthy and just prince ought to be) “seemeth to be no other but that he found the true history of that excellent and gallant prince to be, above all others, the fittest for those maxims of right policy and true princely virtue to correspond with, which he grafted upon it.” But he was succeeded by a madman, Cambyses, and by a race of kings eminent among princes for folly and crime. “The kings of Persia,” says Prideaux, “were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire.”(2) The kingdom was inferior in reference to the remarkable “defeats” in the military campaigns which were undertaken. The Assyrian or Babylonian empire was distinguished for the victories by which it carried its arms around the then known world. The Medo-Persian empire, after the reign of Cyrus, was almost as remarkable for the succession of defeats which have made the period of the world during which the empire continued, so well known in history. It is probable that no kingdom ever undertook so many foolish projects in reference to the conquests of other nations - projects so unwisely planned, and that resulted in so signal failures. The successor of Cyrus, Cambyses, invaded Egypt, and his conduct there in carrying on the war was such as to make him be regarded as a madman. Enraged against the Ethiopians for an answer which they gave him when, under pretence of friendship, he sent spies to examine their country, he resolved to invade their territory.Having come to Thebes, in Upper Egypt, he detached from his army fifty thousand men to go against the Hammonians, with orders to destroy their country, and to burn the temple of Jupiter Hammon that stood in it. After marching a few days in the desert, they were overwhelmed in the sands by a strong south wind, and all perished. Meantime Cambyses marched with the rest of his army against the Ethiopians, though he wanted all the means of subsistence for his army, until, having devoured all their beasts of burden, they were constrained to designate every tenth man of the army to be killed and eaten. In these deplorable circumstances, Cambyses returned to Thebes, having lost a great part of his army in this wild expedition. - Prideaux’s “Con.” i. 328. It was also

79

during the continuance of this kingdom, that the ill-starred expeditions to Greece occurred, when Mardonius and Xerxes poured the million of Asia on the countries of Greece, and met such signal overthrows at Platea, Marathon, and Salamis. Such a series of disasters never before had occurred to invading armies, or made those who repelled invasion so illustrious. In this respect there was an evident propriety in speaking of this as an inferior or degenerate kingdom.(3) It was inferior in respect to the growing degeneracy and effeminacy of character and morals. From the time of Xerxes (479 b.c.) “symptoms of decay and corruption were manifest in the empire; the national character gradually degenerated; the citizens were corrupted and enfeebled by luxury; and confided more in mercenary troops than in native valor and fidelity. The kings submitted to the control of their wives, or the creatures whom they raised to posts of distinction; and the satraps, from being civil functionaries, began to usurp military authority.” - Lyman, “Hist. Chart.”(4) The kingdom was inferior by the gradual weakening of its power from internal causes. It was not only defeated in its attempts to invade others, and weakened by the degeneracy of the court and people, but, as a natural consequence, by the gradual lessening of the power of the central government, and the growing independence of the provinces. From the time of Darius Nothus (423 b.c.) - a weak, effeminate, and indolent prince - “the satraps of the distant provinces paid only a nominal obedience to the king. Many of them were, in fact, sovereigns over the countries over which they presided, and carried on wars against each other.” - Lyman. It was from causes such as these that the power of the kingdom became gradually weakened, and that the way was prepared for the easy conquests of Alexander the Great. Their successive defeats, and this gradual degeneracy and weakening of the kingdom, show the propriety of the description given of the kingdom in the vision and the interpretation - that it would be an “inferior kingdom,” a kingdom which, in comparison with that of Babylon, might be compared with silver as compared with gold.Still it sustained an important relation to the progress of events in regard to the history of religion in the world, and had an important bearing on the redemption of man. As this is the most important bearing of history, and as it was doubtless with reference to this that the mention of it is introduced into the sacred Scriptures, and as it is, in fact, often alluded to by Isaiah, and in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and some of the minor prophets, it may be proper, in the most summary way, to alude to some of those things which pertain to the bearing of this kingdom on the great events connected with redemption, or to what was done during the continuance of this kingdom for the promotion of the true religion. A full account may be found in Prideaux’s “Connections,” part 1, books iii-vii. Compare Edwards’ “History of Redemption,” Period I, part vi. The particular things which occurred in connection with this kingdom bearing on the progress of religion, and favorable to its advancement, were these:(a) The overthrow of Babylon, so long the formidable enemy of the ancient people of God.(b) The restoration of the exiles to their own land under the auspices of Cyrus, Ezr_1:1.(c) The rebuilding of the temple under the same auspices, and with the favor of the successors of Cyrus.(d) The preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah, in the agitations that took place during the continuance of the Persian monarchy; the invasion of Greece; the

80

defeats there; the preparation by these defeats for the coming of Him who was so long promised as the “desire of all nations.”Compare Hag_2:7 : “And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house” (the temple erected under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors) “with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.” There was a propriety, therefore, that this kingdom should receive a distinct notice in the sacred Scriptures, for some of the most important events connected with the history of true religion in the world occurred under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors, and perhaps at no period has there been more occasion to recognize the hand of God than in the influences exerted on the minds of those pagan princes, disposing them to be favorable to the long-oppressed children of God.And another third kingdom of brass - See the notes at Dan_2:32. The parts of the image which were of brass were the belly and thighs, denoting inferiority not only to the head, but to the part which immediately preceded it - the breast and the arms of silver. It is not, indeed, specified, as in the former case, that this kingdom would be inferior to the former, and it is only from the position assigned to it in the image, and the inferior quality of the metal by which it is represented, that it is implied that there would be any inferiority. There can be no reasonable doubt that by this third kingdom is denoted the empire founded by Alexander the Great - the Macedonian empire. It is known to all that he overthrew the Persian empire, and established a kingdom in the East, embracng substantially the same territory which had been occupied by the Medo-Persian and the Babylonian empire. While there can be no doubt that that kingdom is referred to, there can be as little that the reference is not merely to the empire during the reign of Alexander himself, but that it embraced the whole empire as founded and arranged by him, until it was succeeded by another universal empire - here denominated the fourth kingdom. The reasons for supposing that the Macedonian empire is referred to here are almost too obvious to require that they should be specified. They are such as these:(1) This kingdom actually succeeded that of Mede-Persia, covering the same territory, and, like that, was then understood to be a universal monarchy.(2) The empire of Alexander is elsewhere more than once referred to by Daniel in the same order, and in such a manner that the sense cannot be mistaken. Thus, in Dan_8:21 : “And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.” Dan_10:20 : “and now,” said the man that appeared in vision to Daniel Dan_2:5, “will I retram to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.” Dan_11:2-4 : “and now will I show thee the truth. Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to the kingdom that he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.” Since this kingdom is thus referred to elsewhere by Daniel in the same order, and as destined to act an important part in the affairs of the world, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a reference to it here.(3) It is a circumstance of some importance that the emblem here by which this kingdom is represented, “brass,” is one that is peculiarly appropriate to the Greeks, and

81

one that could not be applied to any other naion with equal propriety. The Greeks were distinguished for their “brazen armor,” and the appellation, the “brazen-coated Greeks” -χαλκοχιτώνες Ἀχαιοὶ chalkochitōnes Achaioi - is that by which they were designated most commonly by the ancients. - Iliad i. 371; ii. 47; Odyssey i. 286. In accordance with this, Josephus says (“Ant.” b. x. c. 10, Section 4), τὴν δὲ ἐκεὶνων ἕτερος τις ἀπὸ δύσεως καθαιρήσει χαλκὸν ἠμφιεσμένος tēn de ekeinōn heteros tis apo duseōs kathairēsei chalkonēmphiesmenos, - “their empire another shall come from the West, clothed with brass, shall destroy.” These considerations leave no doubt that the kingdom here referred to was that Grecian or Macedonian, which, under Alexander, obtained dominion over all the East.

Which shall bear rule over all the earth - In a sense similar to that of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Medo-Persian empire. This is the common description of the empire of Alexander. He himself commanded that he should be called “the king of all the world.” “Accepto deinde imperio, regem se terrarum omnium ac mundi appellari jussit” (Justin. l. 12, c. 16, Section 9) - “Having received the empire, he ordered himself to be called the king of all lands and of the world.” Diodorus Siculus says that he received ambassadors from all countries; κατὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἐξ ἀπάσης σχεδόν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἦκον πρέσβεις, κ.τ.λ. kata de touton ton chronon ex apasē; schedon tēsoikoumenēs ēkon presbeis, etc. - “At which time, legates came to him from almost the whole habitable world.” - L. 17, c. 113. So Arrian (Expedi. Alex. l. 7, c. 15) remarks, that “Alexander then appeared to himself, and to those around him, “to be lord of all the earth and of the sea” - γῆς τε ἁπάσης καὶ θαλάσσης κύριον gēs te hapasēs kai thalassēskurion.

The author of the book of Maccabees gives a similar account of the extent of this kingdom: “And it came to pass, after that Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, had overthrown Darius, the king of the Persian and Medes, he fought many battles, and took the strongholds of all, and slew the kings of the earth; and he went through even to the ends of the earth; and took the spoil of many nations; and the earth was quiet before him,” 1 Macc. 1:1-3. The propriety of saying that this “kingdom bore rule over all the earth” is, therefore, apparent. It embraced, of course, all that was anciently included in the Assyrian and Babylonian empires; all that had been added to that empire by the conquests of Cyrus, and also all that Alexander had added to it by his hereditary dominions, and by his conquests in other places. Nearly or quite all the known world, except what was then subject to the Romans, then just a rising power, was under the sway of Alexander. A question has been started whether this refers merely to the kingdom of Alexander during his own life, or whether it embraced also the succession of dynasties until the conquests of the Romans. That the latter is the correct opinion seems clear from the following considerations:(1) It was true, as we have seen, of the two previous kingdoms specified the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian - that they embraced, not merely the kingdom under any one reigning monarch, but during its entire continuance until it was overthrown by one that had also pretensions to a universal empire - the former by the Medo-Persian, and the latter by the Macedonian. It is to be presumed that the same principles of interpretation are to be applied also to the Macedonian kingdom itself - especially as that was also actually succeeded by one that in a still higher sense laid claim to universal empire.

82

(2) This was, in fact, one kingdom. It is true that, on the death of Alexander, the empire which he founded was divided among four of his generals, and also that from that sprung the two reigns, the Seleucidae in Syria, and of the Lagidae who reigned in Egypt; but, as Newton has remarked, “their kingdom was no more a different kingdom from that of Alexander, than the parts differ from the whole. It was the same government still continued. Those who governed were still Macedonians. All ancient authors spoke of the kingdom of Alexander and of his successors as one and the same kingdom The thing is implied in the very name by which they are usually called, the “successors of Alexander.” ‘Alexander being dead,’ says Josephus (Ant. b. xi. ch. 8, Section 7), ‘the empire was divided among his successors.’ ‘After the death of Alexander,’ says Justin (lib. xli. c. 4, Section 1), ‘the kingdoms of the East were divided among his successors;’ and he still denominates them Macedonians, and their empire the Macedonian.” - Newton “on the Prophecies,” pp. 189, 190.In regard to the point before adverted to in reference to the kingdoms of Babylon and of Medo-Persia - the relation which they sustained to religion, or the methods in which they were made to contribute to its progress in the world, making it proper that they should be noticed in the volume of inspiration, it may be remarked that the Macedonian kingdom was also designed, undoubtedly, under an overruling Providence, to contribute to the progress of the great work of human redemption, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah. A full statement of what was done under this reign in respect to religion - the most interesting aspect of history - may be seen in Edwards’ “History of Redemption,” pp. 271-275, and in Prideaux’s “Connections,” vol. ii. p. 279, “seq.” The kingdom here referred to - the Macedonian, represented here by the portion of the image that was of brass, and in the vision of the four beasts Dan. 7 by a leopard that had on its back the wings of a fowl, and in Dan_8:21, by the rough goat - continued from the overthrow of Darius Codomanus by Alexander (333 b.c.), to the conquest of Syria, and the East, by the Romans under Pompey, about sixty-six years before the birth of the Saviour. The principal events during this period affecting the interests of religion, and preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah, were the following:I. The extensive diffusion of the knowledge of the Greek language. The army of Alexander was mainly composed of Greeks. The Greek language was, of course, what was spoken by the court, and in the cities which he founded; the despatches were in Greek; that language would be extensively cultivated to gratify those in power; and the successors of Alexander were those who used the Greek tongue. The consequence was, that the Greek language was extensively spread over the countries which were subdued by Alexander, and which were governed by his successors. That language became the popular tongue; a sort of universal language understood by the great mass of the people, in a manner not unlike the French in Europe at the present day. The effect of this, in preparing for the introduction of the gospel, was seen in two respects:(a) In facilitating the “preaching” of the gospel. It is true that the apostles had the gift of tongues, and that there was, notwithstanding the prevalence of the Greek language, occasion for this. But there is no evidence that this was conferred on “all” the early preachers of the gospel, nor is it certain that those on whom it “was” conferred were able to make use of it on all occasions. It is not improbable that, in their ordinary labors, the apostles and others were left to rely on their natural endowments, and to use the language to which they had been most accustomed. As there was, therefore, a common language in most of the countries in which the gospel would be proclaimed, it is evident that the propagation of religion would be greatly facilitated by this, and there can be no doubt that it was “one” of the designs of Providence in permitting the Macedonian

83

conquest thus to prepare the way for the more easy and rapid diffusion of the new religion.(b) In like manner, this conquest prepared the way “for the permanent record” of the history of the Saviour’s life, and the doctrines of religion in the writings of the New Testament. It was evidently desirable, on many accounts, that the records should be made in one language rather than in many, and of all the languages then spoken on the earth, the “Greek” was the best adapted to such a purpose. It was not only the most polished and cultivated, but it was the most copious; and it was the best fitted to express abstract ideas, and accurate distinctions. Probably with all the improvements since made in the copious Arabic language, and in the languages of modern times, there never has been one that was so well fitted for the purposes of a Divine revelation as the Greek. It may have been one design of Providence, in the extensive and accurate cultivation of that language in Greece itself, as well as in its diffusion over the world, that there should be at the time of the introduction of the Christian revelation a medium of permanent record that should be as free from imperfection as language could be; a medium also in which there should be so much permanent and valuable literature that, even after it should cease to be a spoken language, it would be cultivated by the whole literary world, thus furnishing the means of an accurate knowledge of the meaning of the sacred writings.II. The translation of the Old Testament into the same language was another important event, which took place during the continuance of this kingdom, which greatly facilitated the introduction and spread of Christianity. The Hebrew language was understood by comparatively few. It ceased to be spoken in its purity after the time of the captivity. In that language the Scriptures of the Old Testament would have been but little diffused in the world. By their being translated, however, into Greek, they became extensively known, and furnished a ready and an intelligible ground of appeal to the preachers of the new religion when they referred to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and the recorded predictions of the Messiah. For a full account of the history of this version, the reader may consult Prideaux’s “Connections,” vol. iii. p. 53, following. It was made according to Archbishop Usher, about 277 b.c. The probability is, that it was made at different periods, and by different hands, as it is executed with very various degrees of ability. See Introduction to Isaiah, Section viii. I. (1), for a more extended account of this version and its value. There can be no doubt that it contributed much to the diffusion of the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and was an important instrument in preparing the world for the reception of the revelation that should be made by the Messiah.III. Events of great importance occurred dating the continuance of this kingdom in preserving the Jewish people in times of persecution, and saving their city and temple from ruin. and their nation from extinction.(a) The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was threatened by Alexander himself. After the siege and capture of Tyre, he became enraged at the Jews for refusing to furnish supplies for his army during the siege, under the plea that they were bound to show allegiance to Darius, and he marched to Jerusalem with an intention to take and destroy it. In order to appease him, it is said that Jaddua, the high priest, went out to meet him in his pontifical robes, at the head of a procession of priests, and accompanied by the people in white garments. Alexander was so impressed with the scene that, to the surprise of all, he spared the city and temple; and on being asked by Parmenio the reason of this clemency, said that he had seen this person in vision, who had directed him to lay aside all anxiety about his contemplated expedition to Asia, and that he had promised that God would give him the empire of the Persians. According to the story, Jaddua showed him the prophecies of Daniel, and confirmed him by those prophecies in

84

the confident expectation of conquering the East; and in view of this, Alexander offered sacrifices in the temple, and granted to the Hebrews the freedom of their country, and the exercise of their laws and religion. See Prideaux, vol. ii. p. 302, following; Josephus, “Ant.” b. xi. ch. 8. Whatever of fable there may be in this account, it is certain that this city and temple were not destroyed by Alexander, but that in his ravages in the East, he was led, by some cause, to deal with the capital of the Hebrew nation in a masher different from what he did with others.(b) A remarkable preservation of the Jewish people, of a somewhat similar character, and evincing the protection of God, occurred during the great persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the successors of Alexander, in the time of the Maccabees. See Prideaux, vol. iii. p. 230, and 2 Macc. 5:11-27. In the times of that celebrated persecution, multitudes of the Jews were slain by Antiochus himself; the city was taken, and the temple defiled. Three years after it was taken by Antiochus (168 b.c.), Apollonius was directed by him to march against the city to vent his wrath on the Jews; and when the people were assembled in their synagogues for worship, he let loose his forces on them, with a command to slay all the men, and to take all the women and children captives to be sold as slaves. After this, he plundered the city, demolished the houses, and pulled down the walls, and then with the ruins of the demolished city built a strong fortress on the top of an eminence in the city of David, in a place which overlooked the temple, and placed a strong garrison within. From this place attacks were made on all who went up to the temple to worship; and the temple was defiled with all manner of pollutions, until it was deserted, and the daily sacrifices ceased. From these calamities and persecutions, the city and the Jewish nation were delivered by the valor of Judas Maccabeus, in the manner detailed in the first book of Maccabees.

GILL, "And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee,.... This is the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the breasts and arms of silver, an inferior metal to gold; this rose up, not immediately after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, but after his successors, when Belshazzar his grandson was slain, and Babylon taken by Cyrus; now though this monarchy was as large at the first as the Babylonish monarchy, nay, larger, as it had Media and Persia added to it, new conquests made by Cyrus, and was as rich and as opulent in his times; yet in later kings it shrunk much, in its peace and prosperity, grandeur and glory, as in the times of Cambyses and the Magi; and especially in the reigns of Cyrus the younger, and of Artaxerxes Mnemon; and at last ceased in Darius Codomannus, conquered by Alexander; and was worse than the former monarchy, being more cruel under some of its princes to the people of the Jews: and another third kingdom of brass: this is the Grecian monarchy, which succeeded the Persian, and therefore called the third kingdom, and is signified by the belly and thighs of brass of the image See Gill on Dan_2:32; which shall bear rule over all the earth; not the land of Israel, as Saadiah restrains it, but the whole world, as Alexander did, at least in his own opinion; who thought he had conquered the whole world, and wept because there was not another to conquer; and it is certain he did subdue a great part of it. Justin (n) says, "that when he was returning to Babylon from the uttermost shores of the sea, it was told him that the embassies of the Carthaginians and other cities of Africa, and also of Spain,

85

Sicily, France, Sardinia, and some out of Italy, were waiting for his coming; the terror of his name so struck the whole world, that all nations complimented him as their king destined for them.'' And Pliny reports (o) of Macedonia, that "it formerly (that is, in the times of Alexander) governed the world; this (says he) passed over Asia, Armenia, Iberia, Albania, Cappadocia, Syria, Egypt, Taurus, and Caucasus; this ruled over the Bactrians, Medes, and Persians, possessing the whole east; this also was conqueror of India.''

JAMISON, "That Medo-Persia is the second kingdom appears from Dan_5:28 and Dan_8:20. Compare 2Ch_36:20; Isa_21:2.

inferior — “The kings of Persia were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire” [Prideaux]. Politically (which is the main point of view here) the power of the central government in which the nobles shared with the king, being weakened by the growing independence of the provinces, was inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose sole word was law throughout his empire.brass — The Greeks (the third empire, Dan_8:21; Dan_10:20; Dan_11:2-4) were celebrated for the brazen armor of their warriors. Jerome fancifully thinks that the brass, as being a clear-sounding metal, refers to the eloquence for which Greece was famed. The “belly,” in Dan_2:32, may refer to the drunkenness of Alexander and the luxury of the Ptolemies [Tirinus].over all the earth — Alexander commanded that he should be called “king of all the world” [Justin, 12. sec. 16.9; Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 7. sec. 15]. The four

successors (diadochi) who divided Alexander’s dominions at his death, of whom the Seleucidae in Syria and the Lagidae in Egypt were chief, held the same empire.CALVIN, "In this verse Daniel embraces the Second and Third Monarchies. He says the second should be inferior to the Chaldean in neither power nor wealth; for the Chaldean empire, although it spread so far and so wide, was added to that of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus subdued the Medes first; and although he made his father-in-law, Cyaxares, his ally in the sovereignty, yet he had expelled his maternal grandfather, and thus obtained peaceable possession of the kingdom throughout all Media. Then he afterwards conquered the Chaldeans and Assyrians, as well as the Lydians and the rest of the nations of Asia Minor. We see then that his kingdom is not called inferior through having less splendor or opulence in human estimation, but because the general condition of the world was worse under the second monarchy, as men’s vices and corruptions increase more and more. Cyrus was, it is true, a prudent prince, but yet sanguinary. Ambition and avarice carried him fiercely onwards, and he wandered in every direction, like a wild beast, forgetful of all humanity. And if we scan his disposition accurately, we shall discover it to be, as Isaiah says, very greedy of human blood. (Isaiah 13:18.) And here we may remark, that he does not treat only of the persons of kings, but of their counselors and of the whole people. Hence Daniel deservedly pronounces the second state of the kingdom inferior to the first; not because Nebuchadnezzar excelled in dignity, or wealth, or

86

power, but because the world had not degenerated so much as it afterwards did. For the more these monarchies extend themselves, the more licentiousness increases in the world, according to the teaching of experience. Whence the folly and madness of those who desire to have kings very powerful is apparent, just as if any one should desire a river to be most rapid, as Isaiah says when combating this folly. (Isaiah 8:7.) For the swifter, the deeper, and the wider a river flows on, the greater the destruction of its overflow to the whole neighborhood. Hence the insanity of those who desire the greatest monarchies, because some things will by positive necessity occur out of lawful order. when one man occupies so broad a space; and this did occur under the sway of the Medes and Persians.The description of the Third Monarchy now follows. It is called brazen, not so much from its hardness as from its being worse than the second. The Prophet teaches how the difference between the second and third monarchies is similar to that between silver and brass. The rabbis confound the two monarchies, through their desire to comprehend under the second what they call the kingdom of the Greeks; but they display the grossest ignorance and dishonesty. For they do not err, through simple ignorance, but they purposely desire to overthrow what Scripture here states clearly concerning the advent of Christ. Hence they are not ashamed to mingle and confuse history, and to pronounce carelessly on subjects unknown to them — unknown, I say, not because they escape men moderately versed hi history, but through their being brutal themselves, and discerning nothing. For instead of Alexander the son of Philip, they put Alexander the son of Mammea, who possessed the Roman empire, when half its provinces had been already separated from it. He was a spiritless boy, and was slain in his tent with the greatest ignominy by his own soldiers; besides that, he never really governed, but lived as a minor under the sway of his mother. And yet the Jews are not ashamed to distort and twist what relates to the king of Macedon to this Alexander the son of Mammea. But their wickedness and ignorance is easily refuted by the context, as we shall afterwards see. Here Daniel states shortly that there shall be a third monarchy, he does not describe its character, nor explain it fully; but we shall see in another place the meaning of his prophecy. He now interprets the dream of the king of Babylon, as the vision of the four empires had been offered to him. But the angel afterwards confirms the same to him by a vision, and very clearly, too, as will be seen in its own place. Without doubt this narrative of the brazen image relates to the Macedonian kingdom. How, then, is all doubt removed? By the description of the fourth empire, which is much fuller, and clearly indicates what we shall soon see, that the Roman empire was like the feet, partly of clay and partly of iron. He says, therefore, —ELLICOTT, " (39) Another kingdom.—These words make it clear that by “the king” in the last verse “kingdom” was meant; or, in other words, Nebuchadnezzar was identified with his kingdom (comp. Daniel 7:5; Daniel 8:3; Daniel 8:20). The second kingdom is the Medo-Persian (as appears more fully below, Exc. E). The inferiority is to be found in the divided character of that empire, as compared with the massive solidity of its predecessor. This is signified in the image, partly by the inferiority of the metal, silver instead of gold, and partly by the symbol of division,

87

the two breasts opposed to the one head. It must not be forgotten that in other respects, such as extent of territory and duration of empire, the Medo-Persian far exceeded the Babylonian kingdom.Another third.—The metal implies a certain inferiority, but the phrase “shall bear rule over the whole earth” speaks of an empire that extended further than the preceding. This is the Græco-Macedonian Empire (see Exc. E, and comp. Daniel 7:6; Daniel 8:5-7).TRAPP, "Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.Ver. 39. And after thee shall arise another kingdom,] (a) viz., That of the Persians, fitly set forth by silver, for their exceeding great wealth mentioned by many heathen authors. The two silver arms are the Medes and Persians, meeting both in Cyrus, as the two arms do in the breast; Cyrus also, by his great strength and much bodily labour all his life long, got this other empire.Inferior to thee,] sc., In fame and felicity. Chald., Humilius; quia durius et minus tolerabile, saith one.And another kingdom of brass.] This is the third monarchy, which is the Grecian, not the Carthaginian, as Orosius, and, out of him, Prosper, would have it; and it is fitly set forth by brass, which, as it is a metal strong and hard, so noisy and loud sounding. The belly noteth the beginning and greatness of this kingdom, saith one, (b) under Alexander the Great; the joints between the belly and thighs note the plucking up of this kingdom after Alexander’s death, to be divided into four, whereof the principal were two - the one of the Seleucidae, the other of the Lagidae, figured here by the two thighs of brass. See Daniel 11:4-5.

POOLE, " Another kingdom inferior to thee; this was that of the Medes and Persians, inferior in time and succession; in duration, it lasted not half so long as the Assyrian; and in prosperity and tranquillity, for the Persian was fuller of trouble; yet was this wonderfully rich and large for a time, Esther 1:1: this was the breast and arms of silver.Another third kingdom of brass; this was the Grecian monarchy, under Alexander the Great, who conquered the former, called "the city," because given so much to luxury; brass, because coarser than the other, and their armour was chiefly brass, calkocitonev.Which shall bear rule over all the earth; therefore this is also called a universal monarchy; for Alexander marched into the Indies, and conquered much of that, (by which he was said to conquer the world,) and wept that he had not another world to conquer: yet; his lasted not long, for he was soon overcome and killed by his worldly

88

lusts.

BENSON, "Verse 39Daniel 2:39. After thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee — “It is very well known, that the kingdom which arose after the Babylonian was the Medo-Persian. The two hands and the shoulders signify that the empire of the Babylonians should be destroyed by two kings. The two kings were the kings of the Medes and Persians, whose powers were united under Cyrus, who was son of one of the kings, and son-in-law of the other, and who besieged and took Babylon, put an end to that empire, and erected on its ruin the Medo-Persian, or the Persian, as it is more usually called, the Persians having soon gained ascendency over the Medes. The empire is said to be inferior, as being less than the former, according to the Vulgate translation, because neither Cyrus, nor any of his successors, ever carried their arms into Africa or Spain, so far as Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have done; or rather, as being worse, according to Castalio; for indeed it may be truly asserted, that the kings of Persia were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire. This empire, from its first establishment by Cyrus to the death of Darius Codomanus, lasted not much above two hundred years.” — Bishop Newton.And another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth — “The prophet,” says Jackson, in his Chronicles, vol. 1. p. 393, “having just mentioned this second kingdom, with great delicacy hastens to the third, because he would not tell the king that the second kingdom was to destroy his.” It is universally known that Alexander the Great subdued the Medes and Persians, and subverted their empire. This prince is said, by the author of the first book of Maccabees, “to be the first that reigned over Greece, after having smitten Darius the king of the Persians and Medes; to have made many wars, won many strong holds, and slain the kings of the earth; also to have gone through to the ends of the earth, and taken the spoils of many nations.” It is reported of this mighty conqueror, that “he built more than seventy cities, twelve of which, or, as Curtius intimates, eighteen, he named Alexandria; that his soldiers, though unarmed, were never afraid, while he was with them, of any armed forces. He engaged no enemy which he did not conquer, besieged no city which he did not take, and made attempts on no nation which he did not entirely subdue.” But all would not satisfy the vast cravings of his ambition, so that the Roman satirist with great justice observed of him,“Unus Pellæo juveni non sufficit orbis; Æstuat infelix augusto limite mundi.” — Juv. Sat. 10.One world does not satisfy the Macedonian youth: he chafes unhappy, cooped in the narrow compass of the globe: see Wintle. The kingdom, therefore, which succeeded to the Persian was the Macedonian, or Grecian; and this kingdom was fitly represented by brass, for the Greeks were famous for their brazen armour, their usual epithet being, χαλκοχιτωνες αχαιοι, The brazen-coated Greeks. This third

89

kingdom is said to bear rule over all the earth, by a figure usual in almost all authors. Alexander himself commanded that he should be called, The king of all the world; not that he really conquered the whole world, but that he had considerable dominions in Europe, Asia, and Africa, that is, in all the three parts of the world then known. Diodorus Siculus, and other writers, give an account of ambassadors coming from almost all the world, to congratulate him upon his success, or to submit to his empire: and then especially, as Arrian remarks, did Alexander appear to himself, and to those about him, to be master both of all the earth and all the sea. But this third kingdom must be considered as comprehending not only Alexander, but likewise the Macedonian princes who succeeded him. This will appear the more probable, because the former kingdoms comprehended all the succeeding princes of the same house and nation, even till the ruin of their empire, and its translation to the different prince and nation which succeeded to the sovereign power and dominion: see Bishop Newton, and Dr. Chandler’s Vindication of Daniel.

WHEDON, "Verse 3939. Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom shall be followed by a silver kingdom, inferior (or, literally, lower down; that is, nearer the ground) to that of the golden head, and it, in turn, by a brazen kingdom, to be followed by one of iron and miry clay (Daniel 2:40-41). Expositors of the greatest ability and spiritual insight have differed in their interpretation of these four kingdoms. That the first world-empire is the Babylonian and that another is the Greek (Daniel 8:21) all admit; but of the other two empires no explanation can be given which is free from difficulty. The best that can be done is to choose the view which does not positively contradict either the statements of Daniel or the acknowledged certainties of history. We will now consider the three leading positions.(1) The most attractive view to modern scholars is that the four empires are the Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek. In favor of this it is urged that, following the ordinary rules of historic interpretation, the description of the fourth empire — of iron, which was afterward broken, divided, and weak (Daniel 2:34-35) — and of the fourth beast, with the ten horns (namely, ten kings, Daniel 7:24) among which sprung up a “little horn” which made war with the saints and took away the daily sacrifice (chaps. 7, 8), is clearly a description of the Greek empire, and of the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes, whose reign of guilt is so elaborately set forth in chap. 11. It is also said that the second empire must necessarily be Median, since Daniel himself makes Darius the Mede king of an independent world-monarchy (Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6) and therefore whatever history may say, we must interpret these visions from the prophet’s standpoint.Against this it may be said that, allowing the argument that the fourth monarchy cannot be Roman, and that the “little horn” in each chapter represents Antiochus Epiphanes, it still does not necessitate our making the second empire Median; it may be Medo-Persian, and the fourth empire that of the successors of Alexander. That

90

Daniel did regard the Medes and Persians as a unit, so far as their kingdom is concerned, is clearly seen from the fact that the law of the kingdom, even under Darius the Mede, was the “law of the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15), while, as Dr. Terry himself admits, Daniel’s statement that the two-horned ram denotes “the kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20) does show that “Daniel himself recognized Medes and Persians as constituting one monarchy” (Hermeneutics, p. 352). It will not do to say that the standpoint here “is manifestly in the last period of the Persian rule” (Terry); for Daniel himself states that this vision occurred not, as Terry assumes, “long after the Median power in Babylon had ceased to exist,” but in the reign of King Belshazzar (Daniel 8:1) — and surely, as Dr. Terry says, we should study these visions from Daniel’s point of view and “in the light of his own explanations and historical statements.” Daniel never distinguishes between the empire of Media and that of Persia, but invariably speaks of these empires as one. Neither the Book of Daniel nor the facts of history warrant us in assuming the existence of a Median empire between the Babylonian and Persian empires. Indeed, as Kamphausen says, “There never really was a Median world-kingdom, either before or after the fall of Babylon.” This is acknowledged by all. Therefore, if Daniel did declare the Median to be the second empire, he made a mistake. So Kamphausen frankly acknowledges. But such mistake ought not to be charged against him unnecessarily, especially in the face of his own declaration in the same book that the law and monarchy of the Medes and Persians were a duality in unity.Daniel’s thought of the Medes and Persians as joint rulers of one kingdom is exactly that of the ancient writers, like Herodotus and Thucydides, who scarcely distinguished between these two peoples, and is also that of modern historians, who have before them all the facts of modern discovery. Maspero, without any thought of its bearing on a Bible statement, says: “The Median empire had fallen (549 B.C.), but it was a change of dynasty rather than a foreign conquest. Astyages and his predecessors had been kings of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus and his successors were kings of the Persians and Medes” (Histoire Ancienne, 1893, p. 564). Therefore, we are compelled by the facts of history, in perfect harmony with the words of Daniel himself, to make the second empire not Median, but Medo-Persian.(2) The view that the fourth empire was Roman took its rise before the Christian era (as is seen from 2 Esdras, etc.), and continued to be so universally accepted by the Christian Church that Luther could say, with only a little exaggeration, “In this interpretation and meaning all the world agree.”The most powerful argument in favor of this view is that from the days of Nebuchadnezzar until now there have been only four universal world-empires — the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, and the Roman. Many mighty emperors like Charlemagne and Napoleon have “hoped and plotted and warred and shed oceans of blood to form a fifth, but they have not succeeded; the fragments of the Roman empire still hold the field.” And this fourth empire corresponded exactly to the description of Daniel; for it was an Iron Empire, a beast with iron teeth,

91

diverse from all which had preceded it, devouring and treading down the whole earth (Daniel 7:7; Daniel 7:27). Besides, it was “in the days of these kings” (Daniel 2:44), during the Roman dominion, that the prophesied Messiah came, and St. John, in his Apocalypse, means Rome when he speaks of the beast with the seven heads and ten horns.However, in answer to this it may be said that the Bible writers are not concerned to lay out a map of the world’s history in which all future world-monarchies are mentioned, but (certainly in all other prophecies) confine themselves, so far as details are concerned, to the history which is near their own times and to the kings which have vital relations to Israel. It is entirely in accordance with this prophetic analogy that St. John, writing in the Roman period, should make very specific reference to the beastly Roman empire, but even if the seven-headed beast with ten horns which he describes (Revelation 13) be Rome, which is very doubtful (Milligan, Book of Revelation, 1895), that would by no means prove that the one-headed beast with ten horns which Daniel spoke of (Daniel 7:7; Daniel 7:19) referred to the same world-power. The same symbol is often used in Scripture of very different historic events (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 1891). Indeed there are several other considerations which indicate that Daniel’s fourth empire could not be Rome. It was not the immediate successor of Alexander’s empire; it arose and had its chief field of operations in a different country from that of the other empires of Daniel; it was not Rome, but Syria, which touched most closely the life and fate of the Jewish people at the close of the Greek domination; it is not Roman kings whose life and acts Daniel describes most minutely, but Syrian kings; while the description of this fourth empire of Daniel as iron and miry clay, that is, as “mixed, composite, brittle, inadhesive, not unified and consolidated into one firm power,” does not properly describe the Roman empire at the beginning of the Christian era. Daniel prophesied that the kingdom of heaven should appear on the earth at a time when a kingdom, once strong, had become weak and divided, and when its unkingly kings, like the clay toes of the great image, could easily be smitten (Daniel 2:42). This is not a picture of Augustus and the Roman empire which was at the apex of its glory when Christ was born. “It was three hundred years later than Christ’s coming when the Roman empire was divided, and much later still when broken in pieces and made to pass away. But the stone smote not the legs of iron, but the feet, which were partly of iron and partly of clay” (Terry). Daniel’s fourth empire was to be destroyed, broken to pieces, and swept away upon the rise of the Messianic kingdom (Daniel 2:35); but historically this was not true of Rome. If it be said in reply to this that the deathblow was really given to the Roman empire when the Messiah came, but that it took two thousand years for it to die, and that while the fragments of this empire still remain in the earth, and the “little horn” yet rages, all these enemies of the kingdom will be destroyed in the future, when the Son of man comes the second time in the clouds of heaven; we would answer, with Bruston, that it is incredible, and contrary to all prophetic analogy, that, without saying a word of the first coming of Christ, Daniel should describe here the struggles of the Christian Church through long ages, ending with this thrilling picture of our Lord’s second advent. Nowhere else in the Old Testament is the second advent referred to, and it ought not to be

92

read into this passage if it can be consistently interpreted, as it can, of his first coming.(3) The third position to which we are forced by the unsurmountable objections to other views is that Daniel’s four kingdoms are Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Syrian.While objections can be made to this, for example, that the Medo-Persian empire was not “inferior” to the Babylonian (Daniel 2:39); the Syriac kingdom did not break in pieces and subdue all things (Daniel 2:40); the kingdom of God did not strike and crush this Syrian kingdom (Daniel 2:34) which had disappeared before Christ was born — the Messianic kingdom appearing not “in” but “after” the days of those kings (Daniel 2:44) — yet, instead of being vital and fundamental objections, these are mostly verbal criticisms, such as lie against all rival views. These seeming contradictions to our position are mostly due to the fact that a symbol cannot go on all fours, and a picture cannot apply to every minute section of the reality. (See note Daniel 2:40.)Gutschmidt and other historians well see that “the fall of Perdiccas (321 B.C.) was really the end of the Perso-Macedonian empire founded by Alexander,” and that following this came the great empires of the Seleucidae and Ptolemies. The empire founded by Seleucus (who at least for a time became “arbiter of the world,” Mahaffy), was, together with the allied kingdom of Egypt (chap. xi), the fourth empire of Daniel. Not only was Seleucus a great king, and a terrible scourge upon the nations of the East, his very name meaning “conqueror,” but he was especially great and terrible to the Jews, and ruled over those very countries “which for nearly three hundred years had been the seat of empire for the three great prophetic dynasties before him” (Cowles).

PETT, "Verse 39“And another third kingdom of brass which will rule over all the earth.”As his gaze moved downwards the silver tailed off and became brass, but there was still evidence of plurality as he gazed at the belly and thighs. Once again we are not left to speculate as to who it represented, for the third kingdom is the kingdom of Greece (Daniel 8:5-8; Daniel 8:21-22). It would be inferior in outward splendour, represented by its being brass, but again what made it even more inferior was its substantial lack of unity. The quality of the kingdoms was deteriorating. We learn from chapter 8, that this lowering of quality also lay in its brittleness, for there it splits into four kingdoms. In the end brittleness and deterioration is what this image is all about. But it too was weakened by idolatry, for idolatry was part of the significance of the image.‘Will rule over all the earth.’ As ever in Scripture this must be seen discerningly.

93

Greece ruled as far as the thoughts of men went, over what men as a whole meant when they spoke of ‘the world’, that is, their own world. Compare 1 Kings 4:34; 2 Chronicles 9:23

40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.

BARNES, "And the fourth kingdom - Represented in the image by the legs of iron, and the feet “part of iron, and part of clay,” Dan_2:33. The first question which arises here is, what kingdom is referred to by this? In regard to this, there have been two leading opinions: one, that it refers to the Roman empire; the other, that it refers to the kingdoms or dynasties that immediately succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great; embracing the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, Syria, and Egypt - in the language of Prof. Stuart, who adopts this opinion, “that the legs and feet were symbols of that intermingled and confused empire which sprung up under the Grecian chiefs who finally succeeded him,” (Alexander the Great). - “Com. on Daniel,” p. 173. For the reasoning by which this opinion is supported, see Prof. Stuart, pp. 173-193. The common opinion has been, that the reference is to the Roman empire, and in support of this opinion the following conditions may be suggested:

(1) The obvious design of the image was to symbolize the succession of great monarchies, which would precede the setting up of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and which would have an important agency in preparing the world for that. The Roman empire was in itself too important, and performed too important an agency in preparing the world for that, to be omitted in such an enumeration.(2) The kingdom here referred to was to be in existence at the time symbolized by the cutting of the stone out of the mountain, for, during the continuance of that kingdom, or under it, “the God of heaven was to set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed,” Dan_2:44. But the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Lagidae - the “intermingled and confused empires that sprang up” after Alexander the Great - had ceased before that time, being superseded by the Roman.(3) Unless the Roman power be represented, the symmetry of the image is destroyed,

94

for it would make what was, in fact, one kingdom represented by two different metals -brass and iron. We have seen above that the Babylonian empire was represented appropriately by gold; the Medo-Persian by silver; and the Macedonian by brass. We have seen also, that in fact the empire founded by Alexander, and continued through his successors in Syria and Egypt, was in fact one kingdom, so spoken of by the ancients, and being in fact a “Greek” dynasty. If the appellation of “brass” belonged to that kingdom as a Greek kingdom, there is an obvious incongruity, and a departure from the method of interpreting the other portions of the image, in applying the term “iron” to any portion of that kingdom.(4) By the application of the term “iron,” it is evidently implied that the kingdom thus referred to would be distinguished for “strength” - strength greater than its predecessors - as iron surpasses brass, and silver, and gold, in that quality. But this was not true of the confused reigns that immediately followed Alexander. They were unitedly weaker than the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian, and weaker than the empire of Alexander. out of which they arose. Compare Dan_8:21-22. It was true, however, of the Roman power, that it was so much superior to all its predecessors in power, that it might well be represented by iron in comparison with brass, silver, and gold.(5) The fourth monarchy represented in Nebuchadnezzars dream is evidently the same which is represented by the fourth beast in Dan_7:7-8, Dan_7:23, Dan_7:25. But it will appear, from the exposition of that chapter, that the reference there is to the Roman empire. See the note at these passages. There can be no well-founded objection to this view on the ground that this kingdom was not properly a “succession” of the kingdom of Alexander, and did not occupy precisely the same territory. The same was true of each of the other kingdoms - the Medo-Persian and Macedonian. Yet while they were not, in the usual sense of the term, in the “successions,” they did, in fact, follow one after the other; and with such accessions as were derived from conquest, and from the hereditary dominions of the conquerors, they did occupy the same territory. The design seems to have been to give a representation of a series of great monarchies, which would be, in an important sense, universal monarchies, and which should follow each other before the advent of the Saviour. The Roman, in addition to what it possessed in the West, actually occupied in the East substantially the same territory as the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian, and, like them, it had all the claims which any ancient sovereignty had to the title of a universal monarchy; indeed no kingdom has ever existed to which this title could with more justice be applied.Shall be strong as iron - It is scarcely necessary to observe that this description is applicable to the Roman power. In nothing was it more remarkable than its “strength;” for that irresistible power before which all other nations were perfectly weak. This characteristic of the Roman power is thus noticed by Mr. Gibbon: “The arms of the Republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the “iron” monarchy of Rome.” - “Dec. and Fall,” p. 642, Lond. ed. 1830, as quoted by Prof. Bush.Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things - Iron is the metal which is used, and always has been used, for the purpose here suggested. In the form of hammers, sledges, and cannon-balls, and, in general, in reference to the accomplishment of any purpose, by beating or battering, this has been found to be the most valuable of the metals. It is heavy, is capable of being easily wrought into desired shapes; is abundant; is susceptible of being made hard so as not to be itself bruised, and

95

has therefore, all the properties which could be desired for purposes like this.And as iron that breaketh all these - That is, all these things; to wit, everything. Nothing is able to stand before it; there is nothing which it cannot reduce to powder. There is some repetition here, but it is for the sake of emphasis.Shall it break in pieces and bruise - Nothing could better characterize the Roman power than this. Everything was crushed before it. The nations which they conquered ceased to be kingdoms, and were reduced to provinces, and as kingdoms they were blotted out from the list of nations. This has been well described by Mr. Irving: “The Roman empire did beat down the constitution and establishment of all other kingdoms; abolishing their independence, and bringing them into the most entire subjection; humbling the pride, subjecting the will, using the property, and trampling upon the power and dignity of all other states. For by this was the Roman dominion distinguished from all the rest, that it was the work of almost as many centuries as those were of years; the fruit of a thousand battles in which million of men were slain. It made room for itself, as doth a battering-ram, by continual successive blows; and it ceased not to beat and bruise all nations, so long as they continued to offer any resistance.” - “Discourse on Daniel’s Visions,” p. 180.

GILL, "And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,.... This is not the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, the successors of Alexander, as some have thought; for these are designed by the thighs in the third kingdom; and, besides, the kingdom of Christ was to arise in the time of this fourth kingdom, which it did not in that; nor the kingdom of Gog, or the empire of the Turks, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi; but the Roman empire, which is compared to iron for its strength, firmness, and duration in itself; and for its power over other nations; and also for its cruelty to the Jews above all others, in utterly destroying their city, temple, and nation: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; so this kingdom has subdued and conquered all others; not the Jews only, but the Persians, Egyptians, Syrians, Africans, French, Germans, yea, all the world: and as iron that breaketh, or "even as iron breaketh all these", shall it break in pieces, and bruise; all nations and kingdoms; hence Rome has been called the mistress of the world, and its empire in Scripture is called the whole world, Luk_2:1.

JAMISON, "iron — This vision sets forth the character of the Roman power, rather than its territorial extent [Tregelles].

breaketh in pieces — So, in righteous retribution, itself will at last be broken in pieces (Dan_2:44) by the kingdom of God (Rev_13:10).CALVIN, "Here the Fourth Empire is described, which agrees only with the Roman, for we know that the four successors of Alexander were at length subdued. Philip was the first king of Macedon, and Antiochus the second; but yet Philip lost nothing from his own kingdom; he only yielded it to the free cities of Greece. It was,

96

therefore, hitherto, entire, except as it paid tribute to the Romans for some years on account of the expenses of the war. Antiochus, also, when compelled to adopt the conditions imposed by the conqueror, was driven beyond Mount Taurus; but Macedonia was reduced to a province when Perseus was overcome and captured. The kings of Syria and Asia suffered in the same way; and, lastly, Egypt was seized upon by Augustus. For their posterity had reigned up to that period, and Cleopatra was the last of that race, as is sufficiently known. When, therefore, the three monarchies were absorbed by the Romans, the language of the Prophet suits them well enough; for, as the sword diminishes, and destroys, and ruins all things, thus those three monarchies were bruised and broken up by the Roman empire. There is nothing surprising in his here enumerating that popular form of government, among “monarchies, ” since we know how few were rulers among this people, and how customary it was to call every kind of government among them an empire, and the people themselves the rulers of the whole world! But the Prophet compares them to “iron,” not only on account of its hardness, although this reason is clearly expressed, but also through another kind of similitude, — they were worse than all others, and surpassed in cruelty and barbarity both the Macedonians. and the Medo-Persians. Although they boast much in their own prowess, yet if any one exercises a sound judgment upon their actions, he will discover their tyranny to be far more cruel than all the rest; although they boast in their senators being as great as ordinary kings, yet we shall find them no better than robbers and tyrants, for scarcely one in a hundred of them shewed a grain of equity, either then sent into any province or when discharging any magistracy; and with regard to the body of the empire itself, it was all horrible pollution. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet says that monarchy was partly composed of iron, and partly of potter’s clay, since we know how they suffered under intestine disorders. The Prophet requires no other interpretation here, because, he says, this mixture of iron and clay, which unites so badly, is a sign of disunion, through their never mingling together.The kingdom, therefore, shall be divided, and he adds yet another mixture, —they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, that is., they shall be neighbors to others, and that mutual interchange which ought to promote true friendship, shall become utterly profitless. The opinion of those who introduce the alliance of Pompey and Caesar is farfetched, for the Prophet is speaking of a continued government. If stability is sought for in any kind of government, it surely ought to shine forth in a republic, or at least in an oligarchy in preference to a despotism; because, when all are slaves, the king cannot so confidently trust his subjects, through their constant fear for themselves. But when all unite in the government, and the very lowest receive some mutual advantage from their commonwealth, then, as I have said, superior stability ought to be conspicuous. But Daniel pronounces, that even if the superior power should reside in the senate and the people — for there is dignity in the senate, and majesty in the people yet that empire should fall. Besides, although they should be mutually united in neighborhood and kindred, yet this would not prevent them from contending with each other with savage enmity, even to the destruction of their empire. Here then the Prophet furnishes us with a vivid picture of the Roman empire, by saying that it was like iron, and also mingled

97

with clay, or mud, as they destroyed themselves by intestine discord after arriving at the highest pitch of fortune. Thus far concerning the four monarchies.We may now inquire why Daniel said, The stone which was to be cut out of the mountain should destroy all these empires; since it does not appear, at first sight, to suit the kingdom of Christ. The Babylonian monarchy had been previously abolished — the Medes and Persians had been utterly prostrated by Alexander — and after Alexander’s conquests, had been divided into four kingdoms; the Romans subdued all those lands; and then it is objected that the Prophet’s language is absurd, a stone shall come out of a mountain which shall break up all empires The solution, as I have said above is at hand. Daniel does not here state that; the events shall happen together, but simply wishes to teach how the empires of the world shall fail, and one kingdom shall be eternal. He does not regard, therefore, when or why the empire’s of the Chaldees and of the Persians fell, but he compares the kingdom of Christ with all those monarchies which have been mentioned. And we must always remember what I have touched upon, that the Prophet speaks for the captive people, and accommodates his style to the faithful, to whom he wished to stretch forth the hand, and to strengthen them in those most serious concussions which were at hand. And hence, when he speaks of all lands and nations, if any one objects — there were then. other empires in the world, the answer is easy, the Prophet is not here describing what should happen through all the ages of the world, but only what the Jews should see. For the Romans were the lords of many regions before they passed over into Greece; we know they had two provinces in Spain, and after the close of the second Punic war were masters of that upper sea, and held undisputed possession of all the islands, as well as of Cisalpine Gaul and other regions. No notice is taken of this empire, till it was made known to the Jews, as they might have given themselves up to, utter despair, when they could not perceive an end to those storms which almost ruined the world; and, meanwhile, they were the most miserable of all men, because the various and continual calamities of the world never ceased. We must remember this view of things, as otherwise the whole prophecy would be cold and profitless to us. I now return to the kingdom of Christ.The Kingdom or Christ is said to break up all the empires of the world, not directly, but only accidentally, as the phrase is. For Daniel here assumes a principle, sufficiently understood by the Jews; namely, those monarchies were opposed to Christ’s; kingdom. For the Chaldees had overthrown God’s temple, and had endeavored as far as possible to extinguish the whole of his worship, and to exterminate piety from the world. As far as concerns the Medes and Persians, although by their kindness a permission to return was granted to the people, yet very soon afterwards the kings of the Medes and Persians raged against that most miserable people, until the greater part of them preferred remaining; in exile to returning home. At length came the Macedonian fury; and although the Jews were spared for a short period, we know how impetuously the kings of Syria and Egypt overran Judea, how cruelly they treated the wretched people by rapine and plunder, and the shedding of innocent blood. Again, the extreme barbarity of Antiochus in

98

ordering all the Prophetic Books to be burned, and in all but exterminating the religion itself (1 Maccabees 1:59) is well ascertained.No wonder, then, that Daniel here opposes the reign of Christ to such monarchies! Next, as to the Romans, we know how thoroughly and proudly they despised the name of “Christian!” nay, they endeavored by all means to root out from the world the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation, as an abominable thing. With all this we are familiar. Hence, to inform the faithful of their future condition until Christ’s advent, Daniel shews how all the empires of the world should be adverse to God, and all its most powerful kings and sovereigns should be his very worst and most cruel enemies, and should use every means in their power to extinguish true piety. Thus he exhorts them to bear their cross, and never to yield to those wretched and sorrowful spectacles, but to proceed steadily in the course of their calling, until the promised Redeemer should appear. We stated this to be “accidental,” since all the kingdoms of this world are clearly founded on the power and beneficence of Christ; but a memorable proof of God’s anger ought to exist against them all, because they raised themselves against the Son of God, the Supreme King, with such extreme fury and hostility.Now, Christ is compared to a stone cut out of a mountain Some restrict this, unnecessarily, to the generation of Christ, because he was born of a virgin, out of the usual course of nature. Hence he says, as we have seen, that it was cut out of a mountain without the hand of man; that is, he was divinely sent, and his empire was separated from all earthly ones, since it was divine and heavenly. Now, therefore, we understand the reason of this simile.With respect to the word “stone, ” Christ is not here called a stone in the sense of the word in Psalms 118:22, and Isaiah 8:14, and Zechariah 9:15, and elsewhere. For there the name of a stone is applied to Christ, because his Church is founded on it. The perpetuity of his kingdom is denoted there as well as here; but, as I have already said, these phrases ought to be distinguished. It must now be added, — Christ is called a stone cut out without human hands, because he was from the beginning almost without form and comeliness, as far as human appearance goes. There is also a silent contrast between its magnitude, which the Prophet will soon mention, and this commencement. The stone cut out of the mountain shall descend, and it shall become a great mountain, and shall fill the whole earth. We see how the Prophet here predicts the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, as contemptible and abject before the world. It was not conspicuous for excellence, as it is said in Isaiah, A branch is sprung from the root of Jesse. (Isaiah 11:1.) When the posterity of David were deprived of all dignity, the royal name was utterly buried, and the diadem trodden under foot, as it is said in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 17:19.) Hence, Christ first appeared cast down and lowly; but the branch increased wonderfully and beyond all expectation and calculation, unto an immense size, till it filled the whole earth. We now perceive how appositely Daniel speaks of Christ’s kingdom but we must treat the rest to-morrow.

99

ELLICOTT, " (40) And the fourth.—It should be observed that the description of this kingdom is much fuller than those of the preceding empires. The same fact will be remarked in the later visions (Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:19-20).Breaketh all things.—Remembering that the comparison is between iron and the fourth empire, this portion of the vision implies that the Roman empire, which is here intended (see Exc. E), will crush out all traces that remain of preceding empires, just as iron is capable of breaking gold, silver, or copper. Of the second and third empires, each borrowed something from that which preceded it. The fourth empire introduces a new system, and a new civilisation.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all [things]: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.Ver. 40. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,] i.e., The Roman kingdom, fitly compared to iron for hardness and hardiness. (a) The two legs do note the division of the kingdom into the empire of the east and the empire of the west, first begun by Anthony and Augustus Caesar 40 B.C., afterwards established by Constantine, A.D. 330, and again more perfectly by Theodosius, A.D. 395.And as iron that breaketh all these.] Of the Roman greatness much is written by many authors, how they subdued and kept under other potent nations by their legions quartered among them, and by their publicans exacting tribute of them. (b)

POOLE, " The fourth kingdom is the kingdom of the Romans; and was to last not only to Christ’s first coming, but under antichrist to his second coming, but still going down as to pagan worship, and at last to antichristian and papal power; for in Daniel 2:28 Daniel tells the king that God made known to him that should be in the latter days; therefore he intended a general history to the end of the world, Daniel 2:44 Da 7, latter end; and Da 11, Da 12.It shall break in pieces and bruise: this did break in pieces all other kingdoms, being too strong for them, and was never in subjection to any, but brought all in subjection to it, till the stone fell upon it, of which afterward.

BENSON, "Verses 40-43Daniel 2:40-43. The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, &c. — This description agrees well with the Roman empire, and the event answered the prediction; for the Roman was vastly more strong and extensive than any of the preceding three. As iron breaketh and bruiseth all other metals, so this brake and subdued all the former kingdoms. The metal is here different, and consequently likewise the nation

100

must be different from the preceding. For the four metals must signify four different nations; and as the gold signified the Babylonians, the silver the Persians, and the brass the Macedonians, so the iron must necessarily denote some other nation: and it may safely be said, that there is not, and has not been, a nation upon earth, to which this description is applicable, but the Romans. The Romans succeeded to the Macedonians, and therefore, in course, were next to be mentioned. And as the two arms of silver denoted the two kings of the Medes and Persians, so the two legs of iron seem equally to have signified the two Roman consuls. The iron was mixed with clay; and the Romans were defiled with a mixture of barbarous nations. The Roman empire was at length divided into ten lesser kingdoms, answering to the ten toes of the image. These kingdoms retained much of the old Roman strength; so that the kingdom was partly strong and partly broken — It subdued Syria, and made the kingdom of the Seleucidæ a Roman province, in the year sixty- five before Christ; it subdued Egypt, and made the kingdom of the Lagidæ a Roman province, in the year thirty before Christ; and, in the fourth century after Christ, it began to be torn in pieces by the incursions of the barbarous nations. Mr. Mede, who was as able and consummate a judge as any in these matters, observes, “That the Roman empire was the fourth kingdom of Daniel, was believed by the church of Israel, both before and in our Saviour’s time; received by the disciples of the apostles, and the whole Christian Church, for the first three hundred years, without any known contradiction. And, I confess, having so good a ground in Scripture, it is with me tantum non articulus fidei, little less than an article of faith:” see his Works, book 4. Ephesians 6, p. 735, and Bishop Newton.Daniel seems to divide this kingdom into three periods. The first is its strongest and flourishing state, which seems to be denoted by the iron legs: the second is the same kingdom, weakened by civil wars and the divided state of the empire, denoted by the feet, which were part of potter’s clay, and part of iron; for which reason the prophet tells us the kingdom shall be divided, though there shall be in it something of the strength of iron, because the iron was mixed with the clay: the third is the same empire in a yet further state of declension, during which one part of it was to be absolutely destroyed, denoted by the toes, the extremity of the image, and of consequence the last period of this fourth empire. As the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken — That is, one part of this divided empire shall remain, and the other part be entirely destroyed. And as the last period of this kingdom is denoted by the toes, this evidently intimates that the remaining part, which was not broken, should be divided into ten distinct kingdoms or governments. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, &c. — The conjunction of the Romans with the conquered nations, and afterward with the Goths, Vandals, and other barbarians, who subverted the empire, seems to be here intended: in consequence of which these ten kingdoms became a medley of people, of different nations, laws, and customs. But they shall not cleave one to another — Although the kings of the several nations shall try to strengthen themselves by marriage alliances, yet reasons of state, the desire of empire, and the different interests which they pursue, will prove stronger than ties of blood, and often engage

101

them in contentions and wars with each other, and thereby weaken the common strength. As Tacitus observes, “Dominandi cupido cunctis affectibus flagrantior erit:” The lust of ruling will be more powerful than all the affections. “It is especially observable,” says Wintle, “that in the declining state of the Roman empire, intermarriages with the barbarians were frequent and distinguished, as may be learned from the histories of the times; but yet the cement would not hold so as to form any great kingdom, or even to prevent the impending fate of the empire.” But some explain the verse of the commotions and clashings that took place between the secular and ecclesiastical powers, after the kingdom was divided into ten parts, answerable to the ten toes of the image.WHEDON, " 40. This was true of the Syrian kingdom especially in its treatment of the Jews. I do not imagine the remark is of great importance, but iron in Egypt was closely connected with the evil god Set, and used in liturgies which had to do with black magic. Assurbanipal mentions statues made of gold, silver, bronze, and alabaster. Iron was not used for statues. This new kingdom was “diverse” from all others.

PETT, "Verses 40-43“And the fourth kingdom will be as strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things. And as iron that crushes all these, will it break in pieces and crush. And whereas you saw the feet and toes, part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it will be a diverse kingdom, but there will be in it the strength of iron, forasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom will be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they will mingle themselves with the seed of men. But they will not cleave one to another, even as iron does not mingle with clay.”But then Nebuchadnezzar’s gaze moved downward and he first saw iron as he gazed at its legs. He would immediately recognise both its strength and its inferiority to what had gone before. Armaments were made of iron. It was a picture of stark strength. But then he came to the feet, and the iron became a mixture of iron and clay, brittle and unstable. And the toes also were equally strange, part of clay and part of iron, a strange mixture of weakness and strength. Daniel’s interpretation makes clear that this all represents the fourth kingdom, otherwise we might have seen in the iron and clay a fifth kingdom. But it had all to be the final fourth kingdom because in his visions history was depicted in terms of four kingdoms (Daniel 7:3 and inferred in 8). And he also makes clear that the fourth kingdom is the kingdom that is there at the end of time. (The number four sums up the world).Four is the number of universalism, of the world as against Israel. Four rivers fed the world from Eden. The wind comes from the four quarters. The world is north, south, east and west. Thus the kingdoms are building up to the universal kingdom,

102

which contains within itself the essence of the other three kingdoms. It represents the whole. All are in the end part of that whole. The image still stands as one image, the image of empire, one being incorporated in the other.So this fourth kingdom specifically carries within it, and supports, the other three. At first it seems the strongest of all, but then it deteriorates until it is totally unstable. It has no strength. And when it crashes, all the kingdoms crash with it (Daniel 2:35). It is made up of them all. It represents world empires, weakened and diverse because by their nature such empires, based on false gods and false religion, carry within them the seeds of their own disintegration.We can make all kinds of speculation about it but Daniel nowhere tells us who the fourth kingdom represents (although see Daniel 11:30 which may be a hint and represent Rome). It is tempting, because of history, for us to see it as Rome, but many empires have arisen since Rome, as the legs became the feet, and the feet became the toes. Thus in a sense the fourth kingdom represents the idea of continuing world empire, of a world kingdom, it represents the spirit of kingdomship, seen in the first three kingdoms and now continuing on in the fourth. After Greece will come ‘the fourth kingdom’, the kingdom of the distant future, the apocalyptic kingdom, whatever that includes. His patterns of four required that this should be so.It will commence strongly. We may see in this the power of Rome. But then it will divide up into kingdoms of various strengths. This explains the brittle nature of the kingdom, it is made up of kingdomship, of many diverse kingdoms, and moves from being strong as iron to being totally brittle, and all part of that which represented false religion.We notice elsewhere the gradual growth, one kingdom, a twofold kingdom, a fourfold kingdom and then a manyfold kingdom (chapter 8). This idea is also included here, although not so precisely; a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, with the toes also very much in mind although not directly stressed (Daniel 2:42).‘The fourth kingdom will be as strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things. And as iron that crushes all these, will it break in pieces and crush.’ This fourth kingdom will be more terrible than them all. Certainly the contemporaries of Rome, with its iron clad legions, would have seen it like this. And for centuries it ruled the known world, and crushed all opposition with its mighty legions. And certainly it proved to be brittle (like all empires in the end). But all empires of man crush others, and all are brittle. Thus the fourth empire represents more than Rome. It represents man at his worst, determined to crush his fellowman. It represents onflowing empire. The ghosts of Babylon and of Rome continued through the ages. It is the apocalyptic empire, the empire of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39), and of the prophets (Isaiah 5:25-30; Isaiah 24; Isaiah 66:15-16; Joel 1:6-7; Joel 1:15; Joel 2:1-11; Joel 3:2-3; Zechariah 14:1-2). It is man against God

103

and His people.‘And whereas you saw the feet and toes, part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it will be a diverse (composite) kingdom, but there will be in it the strength of iron, forasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom will be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they will mingle themselves with the seed of men. But they will not cleave one to another, even as iron does not mingle with clay.’ Here is clearly represented the ‘diverse kingdom’. It is part iron and part clay. Iron is strong and clay is good for building with, but the two will not mix. Thus it is powerful and yet weak. It is strong and yet broken. It seeks alliances and yet it is divided. It is a world at war with itself. We might almost see in it the United Nations, and yet that would be to be too specific. It is many united nations and alliances through the ages, all part of what represents false religion and worship (compare chapter 3), at war against God and His people.‘They will mingle themselves with the seed of men.’ This probably refers to intermarriages between peoples, a desperate attempt to seek to cement some unity. But the point is that it will not work. All man’s attempts at unity will fail in the end.

41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay.

BARNES, "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay and part of iron - Dan_2:33. The Chaldee is, “of them clay of the potter, and of them iron;” that is, part was composed of one material and part of the other. The sense is, not that the feet were composed entirely of one, and the toes of the other, but that they were intermingled. There was no homogeneousness of material; nothing in one that would coalesce with the other, or that could be permanently united to it, as two metals might be fused or welded together and form one solid compound. Iron and clay cannot be welded;

104

and the idea here clearly is, that in the empire here referred to there would be two main elements which could never be made to blend.The kingdom shall be divided - That is, divided as the iron and clay were in the image. It does not necessarily mean that there would be an open rupture - an actual separation into two parts; but that there would be “such a diversity in the internal constitution” that, while there would be the element of great power, there would be also an element of weakness; there would be something which could never be blended with the element of strength, so as to produce one harmonious and homogeneous whole.But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay - The principal idea in this part of the description is, that there would be great “power;” that whatever elements of weakness there might be, yet the “power” of the empire would be apparent. No one can fail to perceive how this applies to the Roman empire; a mighty power which, through all its long history, was distinguished for the vigour with which it carried forward its plans, and pressed on to universal dominion. As to the element of “weakness” symbolized too by the clay, it may not be possible to determine, with absolute certainty, what is referred to. Any internal source of weakness; anything in the constitution of the state, whether originally existing and constituting heterogeneous material, or whether springing up in the empire itself, or whether arising from the intermingling of foreign elements that never amalgamated themselves with the state, any one of these suppositions would meet all that is fairly implied in this language.From Dan_2:43, “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men,” it would seem, however, that the reference is to some “foreign” admixture - like the intermingling of nations of other languages, laws, and customs, which were never truly amalgamated with the original materials, and which constantly tended to weaken and divide the kingdom. It is to be remarked, in the exposition of the passage, that in the previous three kingdoms there was comparative homogeneousness. In the fourth kingdom, there was to be something of a peculiar character in this respect by which it should be distinguished from the others. As a matter of fact, the other three kingdoms were comparatively homogeneous in their character. The predominant feature was “Oriental;” and though there were different nations and people intermingled in the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian kingdoms, yet there was the same general prevailing character in each; there was not such an intermingling of foreign nations as to produce disturbing elements, or to mar the symmetry and strength of the whole. It was not thus with Rome. In that empire there was the intermingling of all nations and tongues, and though the essential element of the empire remained always - “the Roman” - yet there was an intermingling of other influences under the same general government, which could be appropriately compared with clay united with iron, and which ultimately contributed to its fall (see the notes at Dan_2:43).

CLARKE 41-45, "A Discourse on Nebuchadnezzar’s DreamDan_2:41-45

I shall now consider this most important vision more at large, and connect it with a portion of the previous history of the Jewish people.The kingdoms of Israel and Judah after a series of the most unparalleled ingratitude and rebellion, against displays of mercy and benevolence, only equaled by their rebellions, were at last, according to repeated threatenings, given over into the hands of

105

their enemies. The inhabitants of the former country were subdued and carried away captives by the Assyrians; and those of the latter, by the Chaldeans.The people of Israel never recovered their ancient territories; and were so disposed of by their conquerors, that they either became amalgamated with the heathen nations, so as to be utterly undistinguishable; or they were transported to some foreign and recluse place of settlement, that the land of their residence, though repeatedly sought for and guessed at, has for more than two thousand years been totally unknown.Judah, after having been harassed by the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and others, was at last invaded by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon; Jerusalem besieged and taken; and Jehoiachin the king, who had before become tributary to the Babylonians, with his mother, wives, officers of state, and chief military commanders, princes, and mighty men of valor, to the amount of ten thousand; and all the artificers, smiths, etc., to the number of one thousand, with all that were fit for war, he carried captives to Babylon; leaving only the poorest of the people behind, under the government of Mattaniah, son of the late king Josiah, and uncle to Jehoiachin; and, having changed his name to Zedekiah, gave him a nominal authority as king over the wretched remains of the people. Zedekiah, after having reigned nine years, rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who, coming against Jerusalem with all his forces, besieged it; and having reduced it to the last extremity by famine, and made a breach in the walls, took the city, pillaged and destroyed the temple by fire, slew the sons of Zedekiah before his face, then put out his eyes, and carried him bound in brazen fetters to Babylon, 2 Kings, chap. 24 and 25. Thus, the temple of God, the most glorious building ever laid on the face of the earth, was profaned, pillaged, and burnt, with the king’s palace, and all the houses of the Jewish nobility, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, - the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, -the first of the forty-eight Olympiad, - the one hundred and sixtieth current year of the era of Nabonassar, - four hundred and twenty-four years, three months, and eight days from the time in which Solomon laid its foundation stone!In the same month in which the city was taken, and the temple burnt, Nebuzar-adan, commander in chief of the Babylonish forces, carried off the spoils of the temple, with the Jewish treasures, and the principal part of the residue of the people; and brought them also to Babylon. And thus Judah was carried away out of her own land, four hundred and sixty-eight years after David began to reign over it; from the division under Rehoboam, three hundred and eighty-eight years; from the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, one hundred and thirty-four years; in the year of the world, three thousand four hundred and sixteen; and before the nativity of our Lord, five hundred and eighty-eight.In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, A.M. 3397, b.c. 607, Nebuchadnezzar, having besieged Jerusalem, and made its king tributary, carried away a number of captives; and among them was the Prophet Daniel, then in his youth, who became, for his wisdom, and knowledge of future events, very eminent at Babylon; and, with some other Jewish captives, great favorites of Nebuchadnezzar the king; who made Daniel president of all the wise men of his city. It was in the second year of the reign of this king, that a circumstance occurred which, though at first it threatened the destruction of the prophet, finally issued in the increase of his reputation and celebrity.As prophecy is one of the strongest proofs of the authenticity of what professes to be a Divine revelation, God endued this man with a large portion of his Spirit, so that he clearly predicted some of the most astonishing political occurrences and changes which have ever taken place on the earth; no less than the rise, distinguishing characteristics,

106

and termination of the Four great monarchies or empires, which have been so celebrated in all the histories of the world. And as the Babylonian, under which he then lived, was one of these monarchies, and was shortly to be absorbed by the Medo-Persian, which was to succeed it, he made Nebuchadnezzar, the then reigning monarch, by means of a most singular dream, the particulars of which he had forgotten, the instrument that appeared to give birth to a prediction, in which the ruin of his own empire was foretold; as well as other mighty changes which should take place in the political state of the world, for at least the term of one thousand years next ensuing. Nor did the prophetic Spirit in this eminent man limit his predictions to these; but showed at the same time the origin and nature of that Fifth monarchy, which, under the great King of kings, should be administered and prevail to the end of time.The dream itself, with its interpretation, and the exact and impressive manner in which the predictions relative to the four great monarchies have been fulfilled, and those which regard the fifth monarchy are in the course of being accomplished, are the subjects to which I wish to call the reader’s most serious and deliberate attention.This image, so circumstantially described from the thirty-eighth to the forty-fourth verse, was, as we learn from the prophet’s general solution, intended to point out the rise and fall of four different empires and states; and the final prevalence and establishment of a fifth empire, that shall never have an end, and which shall commence in the last days, Dan_2:28; a phrase commonly used in the prophets to signify the times of the Messiah, and in the New Testament, his advent to judge the world.Before we proceed to particular parts, we may remark in general, that the whole account strongly indicates: -1. The especial providence of God in behalf of the Jews at that time. For, although suffering grievously because of their sins, being deprived of both their political and personal liberty, God shows them that he has not abandoned them; and the existence of a prophet among them is a proof of his fatherly care and unremitted attention to their eternal welfare.2. The particular interference of God to manifest the superiority of his truth, to wean an idolatrous nation from their vanity and superstition, and lead them to that God who is the fountain of truth, the revealer of secrets, and the governor of all things. And,3. The direct inspiration of God immediately teaching his servant things which could be known only to God himself, and thus showing the Babylonians that his prophets had spoken by an unerring Spirit; that the Jews were the depositaries of the true religion; that He was the only true God; and as he was omniscient, so he was omnipotent; and the things which his wisdom had predicted, his power could and would accomplish.The sum of the account given in this chapter is the following: -1. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the second year of his reign, about A.M. 3401, and b.c. 603, had a remarkable dream, which, although it made a deep impression on his mind, yet, on his awakening, he found it impossible to recollect; the general impression only remaining.2. He summoned his wise men, astrologers, etc., told them that he had a dream or vision, which he had forgotten; and commanded them to tell him the dream, and

107

give its interpretation.3. They request the king to tell them the dream; and promise, then, to make known the meaning. This he could not do, having forgotten it; yet he insists on their compliance on pain of death.4. To tell the king his dream they find impossible; and a decree for the destruction of the wise men of Babylon is issued, in which Daniel and his fellows are included.5. Daniel, hearing of it, speaks to Arioch, captain of the king’s guard or the royal executioner; desires to be brought before the king; and promises to tell the dream, etc.6. He is introduced; and immediately tells the king what he had dreamed, and shows him its interpretation.

The DreamA vast image, exceedingly luminous, of terrible form, and composed of different substances, appears in a night vision to the king, of which the following is the description: -I. Its head was of fine gold.II. Its breast and arms of silver.III. Its belly and thighs of brass.IV. Its legs of iron, and its feet and toes of iron and clay. While gazing on this image he sees: -V. A stone cut out of a mountain without hands, which smites the image on its feet, and dashes it all to pieces; and the gold, and silver, brass, iron, and clay become as small and as light as chaff.VI. A wind carries the whole away, so that no place is found for them.VII. The stone becomes a great mountain, and fills the earth.In order to explain this, certain Data must be laid down.1. This image is considered a political representation of as many different governments, as it was composed of materials; and as all these materials are successively inferior to each other, so are the governments in a descending ratio.2. The human figure has been used, both by historians and geographers, to represent the rise, progress, establishment, and decay of empires, as well as the relative situation and importance of the different parts of the government. Thus Florus, in the proaemium to his Roman history, represents the Romans under the form of a human being, in its different stages, from infancy to old age, viz.

Si quis ergo populum Romanum quasi hominem consideret, totamque ejus aetatem percenseat, ut Coeperit, utque Adoleverit, ut quasi ad quemdam Juventae florem pervenerit; ut postea velut Consenuerit, quatuor gradus progressusque ejus inveniet.1. Prima aetas sub Regibus fuit, prope ducentos quinquaginta per annos, quibus circum ipsam matrem suam cum finitimis luctatus est. Haec erit ejus Infantia.

108

2. Sequens a Bruto, Collatinoque consulibus, in Appium Claudium, Quinctiumque Fulvium consules, ducentos quinquaginta annos habet, quibus Italiam subegit. Hoc fuit tempus viris armisque exercitatissi mum! ideo quis Adolescentiam dixerit.3. Dehinc ad Caesarem Augustum, ducenti quinquaginta anni, quibus totum orbem pacavit. Hic jam ipsa Juventa Imperii, et quasi quaedam robusta Maturitas.4. A Caesare Augusto in saeculum, nostrum, sunt non multo minus anni ducenti, quibus inertia Caesarum quasi Consenuit atque Decoxit. L. An. Flori Prooem.1. Infancy; first stage - under Kings, from Romulus to Tarquinius Superbus; about two hundred and fifty years.2. Youth; second stage - under Consuls, from Brutus and Collatinus to Appius Claudius and M. Fulvius; about two hundred and fifty years.3. Manhood; third stage - the empire from the conquest of Italy to Caesar Augustus; about two hundred and fifty years.4. Old Age; fourth stage - from Augustus, through the twelve Caesars, down to a.d. 200; about two hundred years.

Geographers have made similar representations, The Germanic empire, in the totality of its dependent states, has been represented by a map in the form of a man; different parts being pointed out by head, breast, arm, belly, thighs, legs, feet, etc., according to their geographical and political relation to the empire in general.3. Different metals are used to express different degrees of political strength, excellence, durability, etc.4. Clay, earth, dust, are emblems of weakness, instability, etc.5. Mountains express, in Scripture, mighty empires, kingdoms, and states.6. Stone signifies Jesus Christ, Gen_49:24; “From thence” (of the posterity of Jacob) “is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel.” That our blessed Lord, “the good shepherd,” Joh_10:11-17, is here intended, will appear most plainly from the following passages; Isa_8:14 : “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a Stone Of stumbling and for a Rock of offense to both the houses of Israel.” Isa_28:16 : “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a Stone, a tried Stone, a precious corner Stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste.” 1Pe_2:4, 1Pe_2:6, 1Pe_2:8. Collate these with Psa_118:22 : “The Stone which the builders refused is become the head Stone of the corner.” Mat_21:42; Mar_12:10; Luk_20:17; Act_4:11; in which latter quotations the whole is positively applied to Christ; as also 1Pe_2:4-8 : “To whom coming as unto a living Stone,” etc.; who seems to have all the preceding passages in view. See also Isa_2:2 : “The mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains,” etc.7. This stone is said to be cut out without hands, Dan_2:34. Without hands signifies that which is spiritual. So 2Co_5:1, a house not made with hands means a spiritual building.

ExplanationThe Chaldean empire, called the Assyrian in its commencement, the Chaldean from the country, the Babylonish from its chief city.

109

I. Head of Gold. This was the first monarchy, begun by Nimrod, A.M. 1771, b.c. 2233, and ending with the death of Belshazzar, A.M. 3466, b.c. 538, after having lasted nearly seventeen hundred years. In the time of Nebuchadnezzar it extended over Chaldea, Assyria, Arabia, Syria, and Palestine. He, Nebuchadnezzar, was the head or gold.II. Breasts and Arms of Silver. The Medo-Persian empire; which properly began under Darius the Mede, allowing him to be the same with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, and uncle to Cyrus the great, son of Cambyses. He first fought under his uncle Cyaxares, defeated Neriglissar, king of the Assyrians, and Craesus, king of the Lydians; and, by the capture of Babylon, b.c. 538, terminated the Chaldean empire. On the death of his father Cambyses, and his uncle Cyaxares, b.c. 536, he became sole governor of the Medes and Persians, and thus established a potent empire on the ruins of that of the Chaldeans.III. Belly and Thighs of Brass. The Macedonian or Greek empire, founded by Alexander the Great. He subdued Greece, penetrated into Asia, took Tyre, reduced Egypt, overthrew Darius Codomanus at Arbela, Oct. 2, A.M. 3673, b.c. 331, and thus terminated the Persian monarchy. He crossed the Caucasus, subdued Hyrcania, and penetrated India as far as the Ganges; and having conquered all the countries that lay between the Adriatic sea and this river, the Ganges, he died A.M. 3681, b.c. 323; and after his death his empire became divided among his generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. Cassander had Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus had Thrace, and those parts of Asia which lay on the Hellespont and Bosphorus; Ptolemy had Egypt, Lybia, Arabia, Palestine, and Coelesyria; Seleucus had Babylon, Media, Susiana, Persia, Assyria, Bactria, Hyrcania, and all other provinces, even to the Ganges. Thus this empire, founded on the ruin of that of the Persians, “had rule over all the earth.”IV. Legs of Iron, and Feet and Toes of Iron and Clay. I think this means, in the first place, the kingdom of the Lagidae, in Egypt; and the kingdom of the Seleucidae, in Syria. And, secondly, the Roman empire, which was properly composed of them.

1. Ptolemy Lagus, one of Alexander’s generals, began the new kingdom of Egypt, A.M. 3692, b.c. 312, which was continued through a long race of sovereigns, till A.M. 3974, b.c. 30; when Octavius Caesar took Alexandria, having in the preceding year defeated Anthony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium, and so Egypt became a Roman province. Thus ended the kingdom of the Lagidae, after it had lasted two hundred and eighty-two years.2. Seleucus Nicator, another of Alexander’s generals, began the new kingdom of Syria, A.M. 3692, b.c. 312, which continued through a long race of sovereigns, till A.M. 3939, b.c. 65, when Pompey dethroned Antiochus Asiaticus, and Syria became a Roman province after it had lasted two hundred and forty-seven years.That the two legs of iron meant the kingdom of the Lagidae and that of the Seleucidae, seems strongly intimated by the characters given in the text. “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron. Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise,” Dan_2:40.

1. The iron here not only marks the strength of these kingdoms, but also their violence and cruelty towards the people of God. History is full of the miseries which the kings of Egypt and Syria inflicted on the Jews.110

2. It is said that these legs should break in pieces and bruise. How many generals and princes were destroyed by Seleucus Nicator, and by Ptolemy, son of Lagus! Seleucus, particularly, could not consider himself secure on his throne till he had destroyed Antigonus, Nicanor, and Demetrius; and Ptolemy endeavored to secure himself by the ruin of Perdiccas, and the rest of his enemies.3. The dividing of the kingdom, the iron and clayey mixture of the feet, point out the continual divisions which prevailed in those empires; and the mixture of the good and evil qualities which appeared in the successors of Seleucus and Ptolemy; none of them possessing the good qualities of the founders of those monarchies; neither their valor, wisdom, nor prudence.4. The efforts which these princes made to strengthen their respective governments by alliances, which all proved not only useless but injurious, are here pointed out by their mingling themselves with the seed of men. “But they shall not cleave one to another,” Dan_2:43. Antiochus Theos, king of Syria, married both Laodice and Berenice, daughters of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt. Antiochus Magnus, king of Syria, gave his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes, king of Egypt; but these marriages, instead of being the means of consolidating the union between those kingdoms, contributed more than any thing else to divide them, and excite the most bloody and destructive wars.

In Dan_7:7, the prophet, having the same subject in view, says, “I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it,” and in Dan_8:22 : “Now that being broken,” the horn of the rough goat, the Grecian monarchy, “whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.” These and other declarations point out those peculiar circumstances that distinctly mark the kingdom of the Seleucidae, and that of the Lagidae; both of which rose out of the Macedonian or Grecian empire, and both terminated in that of the Romans.3. These Two Legs of Iron became absorbed in the Roman government, which also partook of the iron nature; strong, military, and extensive in its victories; and by its various conquests united to and amalgamated with itself various nations, some strong, and some weak, so as to be fitly represented in the symbolical image by feet and toes, partly of iron and partly of clay. Thus, as the Lagidae and Seleucidae arose out of the wreck of the Grecian empire; so the Roman empire arose out of their ruin. But the empire became weakened by its conquests; and although, by mingling themselves with the seed of men, that is, by strong leagues, and matrimonial alliances, as mentioned above they endeavored to secure a perpetual sovereignty, yet they did not cleave to each other, and they also were swallowed up by the barbarous northern nations; and thus terminated those four most powerful monarchies.

V. “A stone cut out of the mountain without hands.”1. That Jesus Christ has been represented by a stone, we have already seen; but this stone refers chiefly to his Church, which is represented as a spiritual building which he supports as a foundation stone, connects and strengthens as a corner stone, and finishes and adorns as a top stone! He is called a stone also in

111

reference to the prejudice conceived against him by his countrymen. Because he did not come in worldly pomp they therefore refused to receive him; and to them he is represented as a stone of stumbling, and rock of offense.2. But here he is represented under another notion, viz., that of a stone projected from a catapult, or some military engine, which smote the image on its feet; that is, it smote the then existing government at its foundation, or principles of support; and by destroying these, brought the whole into ruin.3. By this stroke the clay, the iron, the brass, the silver, and the gold were broken to pieces, and became like chaff which the wind carried away. Now we have already seen that the Roman empire, which had absorbed the kingdoms of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, was represented by the legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay; but as we find that not only the iron and clay, but also the brass, silver, and gold were confounded and destroyed by that stroke, it follows that there was then remaining in and compacted with the Roman government, something of the distinguishing marks and principles of all the preceding empires; not only as to their territorial possessions, but also as to their distinctive characteristics. There were at the time here referred to in the Roman empire, the splendor of the Chaldeans, the riches of the Persians, the discipline of the Greeks, and the strength of the Egyptian and Syrian governments, mingled with the incoherence and imbecility of those empires, kingdoms, and states which the Romans had subdued. In short, with every political excellence, it contains the principles of its own destruction, and its persecution of the Church of Christ accelerated its ruin.4. As the stone represents Christ and his governing influence, it is here said to be a kingdom, that is, a state of prevailing rule and government; and was to arise in the days of those kings or kingdoms, Dan_2:44. And this is literally true; for its rise was when the Roman government, partaking of all the characteristics of the preceding empires, was at its zenith of imperial splendor, military glory, legislative authority, and literary eminence. It took place a few years after the battle of Actium, and when Rome was at peace with the whole world, September 2, b.c. 31.5. This stone or government was cut out of the mountain, arose in and under the Roman government, Judea being, at the time of the birth of Christ, a Roman province.6. It was cut out without hands; probably alluding to the miraculous birth of our Lord, but particularly to the spiritual nature of his kingdom and government, in which no worldly policy, human maxims, or military force were employed; for it was not by might nor power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts.Two things may be here distinguished:1. The government or kingdom of the Stone.2. The government or kingdom of the Mountain.

1. The kingdom of the Stone smites, breaks to pieces, and destroys all the other kingdoms, till no vestige of them remains, and till the whole earth is subdued by it.2. The kingdom of the Mountain fills, and continues to govern, all that has been thus subdued, maintaining endless peace and righteousness in the earth.First, The stone began to strike the image, when the apostles went out into every

112

part of the Roman empire, pulling down idolatry, and founding Christian Churches.Secondly, But the great blow was given to the heathen Roman empire by the conversion of Constantine, just at the time when it was an epitome of the four great monarchies, being under the government of Four Emperors at once, a.d. 308: Constantius, who governed Gaul, Spain, and Britain; Galerius, who had Illyricum, Thrace and Asia; Severus, who had Italy and Africa; and Maximin, who had the East and Egypt.

1. The conversion of Constantine took place while he was in Gaul, a.d. 312, by the appearance of a luminous cross in the sky above the sun, a little after noon-day, with this inscription, Εν τουτῳ νικα, “By this conquer;” Euseb. De Vit. Const. lib. 1 cap. 28. In a.d. 324 he totally defeated Licinius, who had shared the empire with him, and became sole emperor. He terminated the reign of idolatry in a.d. 331, by an edict ordering the destruction of all the heathen temples. This made Christianity the religion of the empire.

2. The stroke which thus destroyed idolatry in the Roman empire is continual in its effects; and must be so till idolatry be destroyed over the face of the earth, and the universe filled with the knowledge of Christ.3. This smiting has been continued by all the means which God in his providence and mercy has used for the dissemination of Christianity, from the time of Constantine to the present: and particularly now, by means of the British and Foreign Bible society, and its countless ramifications, and by the numerous missionaries sent by Christian societies to almost every part of the globe. Thus far the kingdom of the stone.

In Dan_2:44, the kingdom of the stone, grown into a great mountain and filling the whole earth, is particularly described by various characters.1. It is a kingdom which the God of heaven sets up. That this means the whole dispensation of the Gospel, and the moral effects produced by it in the souls of men and in the world, needs little proof; for our Lord, referring to this and other prophecies in this book, calls its influence and his Gospel the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven; showing thereby that it is a kingdom not of this world - not raised by human ambition, the lust of rule, or military conquest; but a spiritual kingdom, raised and maintained by the grace of God himself in which he himself lives and rules governing by his own laws, influencing and directing by his own Spirit; producing, not wars and contentions, but glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will among men.2. This is called the kingdom of heaven, because it is to be a counterpart of the kingdom of glory. The kingdom of God, says the apostle, is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, (Rom_14:17); righteousness, without any sin; peace, without inward disturbance; joy, without any mental unhappiness. An eternity of righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy constitutes Heaven; nor can we conceive in that state any thing higher or more excellent than these.3. This kingdom shall never be destroyed: it is the everlasting Gospel, and the work of the everlasting God. As it neither originates in nor is dependent on the passions of men, it cannot be destroyed. All other governments, from the imperfection of their nature, contain in them the seeds of their own destruction. Kings die, ministers change, subjects are not permanent; new relations arise,

113

and with them new measures, new passions, and new projects; and these produce political changes, and often political ruin. But this government, being the government of God, cannot be affected by the changes and chances to which mortal things are exposed.4. This kingdom shall not be left to other people. Every dispensation of God, prior to Christianity, supposed another by which it was to be succeeded.

1. Holy patriarchs and their families were the first people among whom the kingdom of God was found.2. Hebrews, in Egypt and in the wilderness, were the next.3. Jews, in the promised land, were a third denomination.4. And after the division of the kingdoms, captivity, and dispersion of the Jews, the Israel of God became a fourth denomination.5. Under the Gospel, Christian is the name of the people of this kingdom. Every thing in the construction of the Gospel system, as well as its own declarations, shows that it is not to be succeeded by any other dispensation: its name can never be changed; and Christian will be the only denomination of the people of God while sun and moon endure. All former empires have changed, and the very names of the people have changed with them. The Assyrians were lost in the Chaldeans and Babylonians; the Babylonians were lost in the Medes; the Medes in the Persians; the Persians in the Greeks; and the Greeks in the Syrians and Egyptians; these in the Romans; and the Romans in the Goths, and a variety of other nations. Nor does the name of those ancient governments, nor the people who lived under them, remain on the face of the earth in the present day! They are only found in the page of history. This spiritual kingdom shall never be transferred, and the name of its subjects shall never be changed.

5. It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms; that is, the preaching and influence of Christianity shall destroy idolatry universally. They did so in the Roman empire, which was the epitome of all the rest. But this was not done by the sword, nor by any secular influence. Christians wage no wars for the propagation of Christianity; for the religion of Christ breathes nothing but love to God, and peace and good will to all mankind. The sum of the Gospel is contained in these words of Christ: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life - for the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save.”For his own cause, God fights in the course of his providence. He depresses one, and exalts another; but permits not his own people to join with him in the infliction of judgments. It is by his own Spirit and energy that his kingdom is propagated and maintained in the world; and by the same his enemies are confounded. All false religions, as well as falsified and corrupted systems of Christianity, have had recourse to the sword, because they were conscious they had No God, no influence but what was merely human.

6. The kingdom of Christ breaks in pieces and consumes all other kingdoms; that is, it destroys every thing in every earthly government where it is received, that is opposed to the glory of God and the peace and happiness of men, and yet in such a way as to leave all political governments unchanged. No law or principle 114

in Christianity is directed against the political code of any country. Britain is Christian without the alteration of her Magna Charta or her constitution. All the other empires, kingdoms, and states on the face of the earth, may become Christian and preserve their characteristic forms of political government. If there be in them any thing hostile to Christianity, and the peace and happiness of the subject, the Wind of God - the Divine Spirit, will fan or winnow it away, so that no more place shall be found for it. But this he will do in the way of his ordinary providence; and by his influence on their hearts, dispose truly Christianized rulers to alter or abrogate whatever their laws contain inimical to the mild sway of the scepter of Christ.7. And it shall stand for ever. This is its final characteristic. It shall prevail over the whole world; it shall pervade every government; it shall be the basis of every code of laws; it shall be professed by every people of the earth: “The Gentiles shall come to its light, and kings to the brightness of its rising.” The whole earth shall be subdued by its influence, and the whole earth filled with its glory.8.The actual constitution, establishment, and maintenance of this kingdom belong to the Lord; yet he will use human means in the whole administration of his government. His Word must be distributed, and that word must be Preached. Hence, under God, Bibles and Missionaries are the grand means to be employed in things concerning his kingdom. Bibles must be printed, sent out, and dispersed; Missionaries, called of God to the work, and filled with the Divine Spirit, must be equipped, sent out, and maintained; therefore expenses must necessarily be incurred. Here the people now of the kingdom must be helpers. It is The duty, therefore, of every soul professing Christianity to lend a helping hand to send forth the Bible; and wherever the Bible is sent, to send a missionary, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, to enforce its truths.9. The duration of the kingdom of the mountain upon earth. The world has now lasted nearly six thousand years, and a very ancient tradition has predicted its termination at the close of that period. Its duration has been divided into three grand periods, each comprising two thousand years, which should be closed by a period without terminating limits; and these have been supposed to have their types in the six days’ work of the creation, and the seventh day, called Sabbath or rest.

1. There have been two thousand years from the creation without any written revelation from God; this was called the patriarchal dispensation.2. There have been two thousand years under the law, where there has been a written revelation, a succession of prophets, and a Divine ecclesiastical establishment. This has been termed the Mosaic dispensation.3. One thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine years have passed since the true epoch of the nativity of our blessed Lord; and this is called the Gospel or Christian dispensation, which is now within one hundred and seventy-one years of closing its two thousand!

According to the ancient tradition there were,1. Two thousand years void; that is, without the law.2. Two thousand years under the law. And,

115

3. Two thousand years under the Messiah.And at the termination of the third the endless Sabbath should commence. The comments on this ancient tradition go on to state, that at the termination of each day’s work of the creation it was said, The evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day; but when the Sabbath is introduced, and God is said to rest from his work, and to have hallowed this day, there is no mention of the evening and the morning being the seventh day. That is left without termination; and therefore a proper type of the eternal Sabbath, that rest which remains for the people of God.And are we indeed so near that time when the elements of all things shall be dissolved by fervent heat; when the heavens shall be shrivelled up like a scroll, and the earth and all it contains be burned up? Is the fifth empire, the kingdom of the stone and the kingdom of the mountain, so near its termination? Are all vision and prophecy about to be sealed up, and the whole earth to be illuminated with the bright beams of the Sun of righteousness? Are the finally incorrigible and impenitent about to be swept off the face of the earth by the besom of destruction while the righteous shall be able to lift up their heads with ineffable joy, knowing their final redemption is at hand? Are we so near the eve of that period when “they who turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever?” What sort of persons should we then be in all holy conversation and godliness? Where is our zeal for God? Where the sounding of our bowels over the perishing nations who have not yet come under the yoke of the Gospel? Multitudes of whom are not under the yoke, because they have never heard of it; and they have not heard of it, because those who enjoy the blessings of the Gospel of Jesus have not felt (or have not obeyed the feeling) the imperious duty of dividing their heavenly bread with those who are famishing with hunger, and giving the water of life to those who are dying of thirst. How shall they appear in that great day when the conquests of the Lion of the tribe of Judah are ended; when the mediatorial kingdom is delivered up unto the Father, and the Judge of quick and dead sits on the great white throne, and to those on his left hand says, “I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink.” I say, How shall they appear who have made no exertions to tell the lost nations of the earth the necessity for preparing to meet their God; and showing them the means of doing it, by affording them the blessings of the Gospel of the grace of God? Let us beware lest the stone that struck the motley image, and dashed it to pieces, fall on us, and grind us to powder.Bibles are sent out by millions into heathen countries; but how shall they hear without a preacher; and how shall they understand the things which they read, unless those who know the things of God teach them? Let us haste, then, and send missionaries after the Bibles. God is mightily at work in the earth: let us be workers together with him, that we receive not the grace of God in vain. He that giveth to those poor (emphatically poor, for they are without God in the world, and consequently without the true riches) lendeth unto the Lord; and let him look what he layeth out, and it shall be paid unto him again. For “he that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins.” God does not call on us to shake hands with all secular, social, and family comfort, and bid farewell to the whole; and go to the heathen with the glad tidings of great joy: but he loudly calls on us to assist in sending those who, in the true spirit of sacrifice, the love of Christ constraining them, say, “Here are we! O Lord, send us.” Let these servants of God run to and fro; that by their ministry knowledge may be increased. Amen.

116

GILL, "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron,.... That is, some of the toes of the feet were of iron, and others of them of clay: these toes, which are ten, as the toes of men are, design the ten kings or kingdoms, into which the western Roman empire was divided, by the coming in of the Goths, and Hunns, and Vandals, into it; and are the same with the ten horns of the beast, and the ten kings which gave their kingdoms to it, Rev_13:1; see Gill on Rev_17:12, Rev_17:13, Rev_17:17, Dan_7:24, some of which were strong like iron, and continued long; others were like clay, and of a less duration: the kingdom shall be divided; which some understand of the division of it into the eastern and western empires; but rather it means the division of the latter into the ten kingdoms, set up in it by the barbarous nations. Abarbinel and Jacchiades interpret it of the Roman empire being divided into Mahometans and Christians, very wrongly: but there shall be in it of the strength the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay; notwithstanding this irruption and inundation of the northern nations into the empire; yet still retained, something of the strength and power of the old Romans, which were mingled among those barbarous nations, comparable to miry clay.

JAMISON 41-43, "feet ... toes ... part ... clay ... iron — explained presently, “the kingdom shall be partly strong, partly broken” (rather, “brittle,” as earthenware); and Dan_2:43, “they shall mingle ... with the seed of men,” that is, there will be power (in its deteriorated form, iron) mixed up with that which is wholly of man, and therefore brittle; power in the hands of the people having no internal stability, though something is left of the strength of the iron [Tregelles]. Newton, who understands the Roman empire to be parted into the ten kingdoms already (whereas Tregelles makes them future), explains the “clay” mixture as the blending of barbarous nations with Rome by intermarriages and alliances, in which there was no stable amalgamation, though the ten kingdoms retained much of Rome’s strength. The “mingling with the seed of men” (Dan_2:44) seems to refer to Gen_6:2, where the marriages of the seed of godly Seth with the daughters of ungodly Cain are described in similar words. The reference, therefore, seems to be to the blending of the Christianized Roman empire with the pagan nations, a deterioration being the result. Efforts have been often made to reunite the parts into one great empire, as by Charlemagne and Napoleon, but in vain. Christ alone shall effect that.ELLICOTT, "(41) Shall be divided.—The meaning seems to be, “notwithstanding that there will be inward divisions in this last empire, as is signified by the divisions, first into two legs, then into two feet, and lastly into ten toes, yet the outward character of it will be the strength of iron.”TRAPP, "Daniel 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.Ver. 41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, &c.] These

117

"feet and toes" are the Roman empire, yet continuing, but weaker than it was before, while it consisted of "legs of iron," being now but of "feet and toes." And this empire is divided as the feet and toes are. One part is the kingdom of the Pope in the West (he whom we call the emperor hath now little or nothing to do with the empire, which was of Rome); the other part is the Turk in the East, before whom three of the horns of the empire are rooted out. See Daniel 7:8.POOLE, "The kingdom shall be divided; partly strong and partly weak. The Roman kingdom was divided, partly, because tyranny followed aristocracy, and the government made up of both; partly, in their civil wars, when two competitors strove each for dominion, the common people against the senate, Sylla against Marius, Caesar against Pompey; also, partly, when conquered provinces and kingdoms cast off the Roman yoke, and set up kings of their own, and so the empire was divided into ten kingdoms or toes. The vision attributes two legs to the image, and to the fourth monarchy, because the Romans had sometimes duumvirs, two consuls, two emperors, one in the east, the other in the west.

42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.

BARNES, "And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken - Margin, “brittle.” The margin is the more correct rendering of the Chaldee word (תבירה tebıyrâh). It means “frail, fragile” - easily broken, but not necessarily that it was actually broken. That did not occur until the stone cut out of the mountain impinged on it. It has been commonly supposed (comp. Newton “on the Prophecies”), that the ten toes on the feet refer to the ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire was ultimately broken up, corresponding with the ten horns seen in the vision of Daniel, in Dan_7:7. In regard to the fact that the Roman empire was ultimately broken up into ten such kingdoms, see the extended notes at Dan_7:24. The thing which struck the monarch in the vision, and Daniel in the interpretation, as remarkable, was that the feet and toes “were composed partly of iron and partly of clay.”

In the upper portion of the image there had been uniformity in the different parts, and 118

had been no intermingling of metals. Here a new feature was seen - not only that a new metal was employed, but that there was intermingled with that, in the same portion of the image, a different substance, and one that had no affinity with the iron, and that could never be made to blend with it. In the latter part of this verse, the original word for “partly” is not the same in each clause. In the former it is מן־קצת min-qetsâth - properly “from the end,” sc., of the kingdom. Compare Dan_12:13, “At the end of the days;” Dan_1:15, “At the end of ten days;” and Dan_2:5, Dan_2:18. The word “might” be employed to denote the “end” or “extremity” of anything, e. g., in respect to “time,” and some have supposed that there is a reference here to the later periods of the Roman empire. See Poole’s “Synopsis.”

But the word is also used to denote “the sum,” or “the whole number;” and then the phrase is equivalent to “a part - as” e. g., in the phrase האלהים בית כלי miqetsât מקצתkelēy bēyth hâ'elohıym - from the sum of the vessels of the house of God” Dan_1:2; that is, a portion of the whole number, or a part. Compare Neh_7:70, “from the sum of the heads of the fathers;” that is, a part of them. In the latter part of the clause it is מנת mınnâh - “from it;” that is, a part of it; partly. The entire phrase means that one part of the whole would be strong, and one part would be fragile. The reference is not to the “time” when this would occur, but to the “fact” that it would be so. The idea in this verse does not vary materially from that in the former, except that in that, the prominent thought is, that there would be “strength” in the kingdom: in this, the idea is, that while there would be strength in the kingdom, there would be also the elements of weakness.

GILL, "And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay,.... Or some of them of iron, and so were strong and powerful, as some of these kingdoms were; and some of clay, and so were weak and easily crushed, and did not stand long: so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken; this is not unfitly interpreted by some of the two fold power which has prevailed in these ten kingdoms, through the policy of the pope of Rome, the secular and ecclesiastic power; the latter often encroaching upon and prevailing over the other, which has tended to the weakening of these states.ELLICOTT, "(42) So the kingdom.—This strength, however, is only apparent. There are certain discordant elements in the fourth empire. These are here represented by the iron and clay, which cannot be made to cohere.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.Ver. 42. So the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.] Or, Brittle. This we see daily fulfilled in the tottering kingdoms both of that of the Turk (which laboureth with nothing more than the weightiness of itself, and yet hath been soundly battered of late by the Venetians) and the other of the Pope, which declineth also apace, and shall do every day more and more, according to that old distitch:

119

“ Roma diu titubans, variis erroribus acta,Corruet, et mundi desinet esse caput. ”

43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

BARNES, "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men - Various explanations have been given of this verse, and it certainly is not of easy interpretation. The phrase “seed of men,” would properly denote something different from the original stock that was represented by iron; some foreign admixture that would be so unlike that, and that would so little amalgamate with it, as to be properly represented by clay as compared with iron. Prof. Stuart interprets this of matrimonial alliances, and supposes that the idea expressed is, that, “while the object of such alliances was union, or at least a design to bring about a peaceable state of things, that object was, in a peculiar manner, defeated.” The word rendered “men” (אנשא 'ănâshâ') is employed in Hebrew and in Chaldee to denote men of an inferior class - the lower orders, the common herd - in contradistinction from the more elevated and noble classes, represented by the word איש 'ıysh. See Isa_2:9; Isa_5:15; Pro_8:4.

The word here used also (from אנש 'ânash) - to be sick, ill at ease, incurable), would properly denote feebleness or inferiority, and would be aptly represented by clay as contrasted with iron. The expression “seed of men,” as here used, would therefore denote some intermingling of an inferior race with the original stock; some union or alliance under the one sovereignty, which would greatly weaken it as a whole, though the original strength still was great. The language would represent a race of mighty and powerful men, constituting the stamina - the bone and the sinew of the empire - mixed up with another race or other races, with whom, though they were associated in the government, they could never be blended; could never assimilate. This foreign admixture in the empire would be a constant source of weakness, and would constantly tend to division and faction, for such elements could never harmonize.

It is further to be remarked, that this would exist to a degree which would not be found in either of the three previous kingdoms. In fact, in these kingdoms there was no 120

such intermingling with foreign nations as to destroy the homogeneousness of the empire. They were, in the main, Orientals; with the language, the manners, the customs, the habits of Orientals; and in respect to energy and power - the point here under consideration - there was no marked distinction between the subjected provinces and the original materials of the monarchy. By the act of subjection, they became substantially one people, and readily blended together. This remark will certainly apply to the two first of these monarchies - the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian; and though with less force to the Macedonian, yet it was not true of that, that it became so intermingled with foreign people as to constitute heterogeneous elements as it was of the Roman. In that monarchy, the element of “strength” was “infused” by Alexander and his Greeks; all the elements of weakness were in the original materials of the empire.In the Roman, the element of strength - “the iron” - was in the original material of the empire; the weak, the heterogeneous element - “the clay” - was what was introduced from the foreign nations. This consideration may perhaps do something to show that the opinion of Grotius, Prof. Stuart, and others, that this fourth monarchy was what immediately succeeded Alexander is not well founded. The only question then is, whether, in the constitution of the Roman empire, at the time when it became the successor of the other three as a universal monarchy, there was such an intermingling of a foreign element, as to be properly represented by clay as contrasted with the original and stronger material “iron.” I say, “at the time when it became the successor of the other three as a universal monarchy,” because the only point of view in which Daniel contemplated it was that. He looked at this, as he did at the others, as already such a universal dominion, and not at what it was before, or at the steps by which it rose to power.Now, on looking at the Roman empire at that period, and during the time when it occupied the position of the universal monarchy, and during which the “stone cut out of the mountain” grew and filled the world, there is no difficulty in finding such an intermingling with other nations - “the seed of men” - as to be properly described by “iron and clay” in the same image that could never be blended, The allusion is, probably, to that intermingling with other nations which so remarkably characterized the Roman empire, and which arose partly from its conquests, and partly from the inroads of other people in the latter days of the empire, and in reference to both of which there was no proper amalgamation, leaving the original vigour of the empire substantially in its strength, but introducing other elements which never amalgamated with it, and which were like clay intermingled with iron.(1) From their conquests. Tacitus says, “Dominandi cupido cunctis affectibus flagrantior est” - the lust of ruling is more ardent than all other desires; and this was eminently true of the Romans. They aspired at the dominion of the world; and, in their strides at universal conquest, they brought nations under their subjection, and admitted them to the rights of citizenship, which had no affinity with the original material which composed the Roman power, and which never really amalgamated with it, anymore than clay does with iron.(2) This was true, also, in respect to the hordes that poured into the empire from other countries, and particularly from the Scandinavian regions, in the latter periods of the empire, and with which the Romans were compelled to form alliances, while, at the same time, they could not amalgamate with them. “In the reign of the emperor Caracalla,” says Mr. Gibbon, “an innumerable swarm of Suevi appeared on the banks of the Mein, and in the neighborhood of the Roman provinces, in quest of food, or plunder, or glory. The hasty army of volunteers gradually coalesced into a great and permanent nation, and as

121

it was composed of so many different tribes, assumed the name of Allemanni, or “allmen,” to denote their various lineage, and their common bravery.” No reader of the Roman history can be ignorant of the invasions of the Goths, the Huns, and the Vandals, or of the effects of these invasions on the empire.No one can be ignorant of the manner in which they became intermingled with the ancient Roman people, or of the attempts to form alliances with them, by intermarriages and otherwish, which were always like attempts to unite iron and clay. “Placidia, daughter of Theodosius the Great, was given in marriage to Adolphus, king of the Goths; the two daughters of Stilicho, the Vandal, were successively married to Honorius; and Genseric, another Vandal, gave Eudocia, a captive imperial princess, to his son to wife.” The effects of the intermingling of foreign people on the character and destiny of the empire cannot be stated perhaps in a more graphic manner than is done by Mr. Gibbon, in the summary review of the Roman History, with which he concludes his seventh chapter, and at the same time there could scarcely be a more clear or cxpressive commentary on this prophecy of Daniel. “During the four first ages,” says he, “the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government: by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind, and confounded with the million of servile provincials who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence.By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios. The limits of the Roman empire still extended from the Western Ocean to the Tigris, and from Mount Atlas to the Rhine and the Danube. To the undiscerning eye of the common, Philip appeared a monarch no less powerful than Hadrian or Augustus had formerly been. The form was still the same, but the animating health and rigor were fled. The industry of the people was discouraged and exhausted by a long series of oppression. The discipline of the legions, which alone, after the extinction of every other virtue, had propped the greatness of the state, was corrupted by the ambition, or relaxed by the weakness of the emperors. The strength of the frontiers, which had always consisted in arms rather than in fortifications, was insensibly undermined, and the fairest provinces were left exposed to the rapaciousness or ambition of the barbarians, who soon discovered the decline of the Roman empire.” - Vol. i. pp. 110, 111; Harper’s Edit. (N. Y.) 1829.Compare the notes at Rev_6:1-8. The agency of the Roman empire was so important in preparing the world for the advent of the Son of God, and in reference to the establishment of his kingdom, that there was an obvious proriety that it should be made a distinct subject of prophecy. We have seen that each of the other three kingdoms had an important influence in preparing the world for the introduction of Christianity, and was designed to accomplish an important part in the “History of Redemption.” The agency of the Roman empire was more direct and important than any one or all of these, for(a) that was the empire which had the supremacy when the Son of God appeared;

122

(b) that kingdom had performed a more direct and important work in preparing the world for his coming;(c) it was under authority derived from that sovereignty that the Son of God was put to death; and(d) it was by that, that the ancient dispensation was brought to an end; and(e) it was under that, that the new religion was spread through the world. It may be of use, therefore, in an exposition of this prophecy, to refer, with some particularity, to the things that were accomplished by this “fourth kingdom” in furthering the work of redemption, or in introducing and establishing the kingdom that was to be “set up, and which was never to be destroyed.” That agency related to the following points:(1) The establishment of a universal dominion; the fact that the world was brought under one scepter greatly favorcd the propagation of the Christian religion. We have seen, under the previous dynasties - the Babylonian, Persian, and macedonian - that such an universal empire was important in earlier ages to “prepare” the world for the advent of the Messiah. This was still more important when he was about actually to appear, and his religion was to be spread over the world. It greatly favored the diffusion of the new system that there was one empire; that the means of communication from one part of the world to another had been so extended by the Romans; and that one who was entitled to the privileges of citizenship could claim protection in nearly every part of the world.(2) The prevalence of universal peace. The world had become subject to the Roman power, and conquest was at an end. The world at last, after so long agitations and strifes, was at peace. The distant provinces quietly submitted to the Roman control; the civil dissensions which had reigned so long at the capital were hushed; Augustus, having triumphed over all his rivals, quietly occupied the imperial throne, and, as a symbol of the universal peace, the temple of Janus was closed. Rarely in their history had that temple been closed before; and yet there was an obvious propriety that when the “Prince of Peace” should come, the world should be at rest, and that the clangor of arms should cease. It was a beautiful emblem of the nature of his reign. A world that had been always in conflict before rested on its arms; the tumult of battle had died away; the banners of war were furled; the legions of Rome paused in their career of conquest, and the world tranquilly waited for the coming of the Son of God.(3) The Roman power accomplished an important agency in the great transaction which the Son of God came to perform in his making an atonement for the sins of the world. It was so arranged, in the Divine counsels, that he should be put to death, not by the hands of his own kindred and countrymen, but by the hands of foreigners, and under their authority. The necessity and the certainty of this was early predicted by the Saviour Mat_20:19; Mar_10:33; Luk_18:32, and it is clear that there were important reasons why it should be thus done; and doubtless one design of bringing Judea and the rest of the world under the Roman yoke was, that it might be accomplished in this way. Among the “reasons” for this may be suggested such as the following:(a) The pagan world, as well as the Jewish community, thus had a part in the great transaction. He died for the whole world - Jews and Gentiles - and it was important that, that fact should be referred to in the manner of his death, and that the two great divisions of the human family should be united in the great transaction. It thus became not a “Jewish” affair only; not an event in which Judea alone was interested, but an affair of the world; a transaction in which the representatives of the world took their part.(b) It was thus made a matter of publicity. The account of the death of the Saviour

123

would thus, of course, be transmitted to the capital, and would demand the attention of those who were in power. When the gospel was preached at Rome, it would be proper to allege that it was a thing in which Rome itself had had an important agency, from the fact that under the Roman authority the Messiah had been put to death.(c) The agency of the Romans, therefore, established the certainty of the death of Jesus, and consequently the certainty of his having risen from the dead. In order to demonstrate the latter, it was indispensable that the former should be made certain, and that all questions in regard to the reality of Iris death should be placed beyond a doubt. This was done by the agency of Pilate, a Roman governor. His death was certified to him, and he was satisfied of it. It became a matter of record; a point about which there could be no dispute. Accordingly, in all the questions that came up in reference to the religion of Christ, it was never made a matter of doubt that he had been really put to death under Pilate, the Roman governor, whatever question may have arisen about the fact of his resurrection.(d) Equally important was the agency of the Romans in establishing establishing the “innocence” of the Saviour. After patient and repeated trials before himself, Pilate was constrained to say that he was innocent of the charges alleged against him, and that no fault could be found in him. In proclaiming the gospel, it was of immense importance to be able to affirm this throughout the world. It could never be alleged against the gospel that its Author had violated the laws; that he deserved to be put to death as a malefactor, for the records of the Roman governor himself showed the contrary. The agency of the Romans, therefore, in the great work of the atonement, though undesigned on their part, was of inestimable importance in the establishment of the Christian religion; and it may be presumed that it was for this, in part at least, that the world was placed under their control, and that it was so ordered that the Messiah suffered under authority derived from them.(4) There was another important agency of the Romans in reference to the religion that was to fill the earth. It was in destroying the city of Jerusalem, and bringing to a final end the whole system of Hebrew rites and ceremonies. The ancient sacrifices lost their efficacy really when the atonement was made on the cross. Then there was no need of the temple, and the altar, and the ancient priesthood. It was necessary that the ancient rites should cease, and that, having now lost their efficacy, there should be no possibility of perpetuating them. Accordingly, within the space of about thirty years after the death of the Saviour, when there had been time to perceive the bearing of the atonement on their temple rites; when it was plain that they were no longer efficacious, significant, or necessary, the Romans were suffered to destroy the city, the altar, and the temple, and to bring the whole system to a perpetual end. The place where the ancient worship had been celebrated was tiaade a heap of ruins; the altar was overturned, never to be built again; and the pomp and splendor of the ancient ritual passed away forever. It was the design of God that that system should come to a perpetual end; and hence, by his providence, it was so arranged, that ruin should spread over the city where the Lord was crucified, and that the Jewish people should never build an altar or a temple there again. To this day it has never been in their power to kindle the fire of sacrifice there, or to cause the smoke of incense to ascend in a temple consecrated to the worship of the God of their fathers. The agency of this fourth kingdom, therefore, was exceedingly important in the introduction and establishment of that kingdom which was to be perpetual, and which was to fill the earth, and hence, the reference to it here, and the more extended reference in Dan. 7.

124

GILL, "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay,.... That is, iron among the clay; otherwise iron and clay will not mix and cement together, as is affirmed in the latter part of the verse; but as some of these toes were of iron, and others of clay, or some part of them were iron, and some part of them of clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; the Romans shall mix with people of other and many nations that shall come in among them, and unite in setting up kingdoms; or these kingdoms set up shall intermarry with each other, in order to strengthen their alliances, and support their interests: thus France, Spain, Portugal, and other nations; those of the royal families marry with each other, with such views: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay; and yet these ties of marriage and of blood shall not cause them to cleave to and abide by one another; but ambition and worldly interests will engage them to take part with each other's enemies, or to go to war with one another, to the weakening and hurting each other; and thus the potsherds of the earth will dash one another to pieces; and those who are more powerful, like the iron, will trample the weaker like miry clay under their feet.ELLICOTT, "(43) Seed of men.—The great obscurity of this verse is partially cleared by a reference to Jeremiah 31:27. Daniel appears to be contrasting what man is endeavouring to accomplish by his own efforts with that which the God of heaven (Daniel 2:44) will carry out. Man will form his plans for uniting the discordant parts of this empire, by encouraging marriages between the royal families that rule the various component kingdoms. (Comp. Daniel 11:6; Daniel 11:17, Notes.)

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.Ver. 43. They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men,] i.e., Endeavour by interchangeable marriages to reunite the divisions; but that can as little be as iron can be mixed with clay: cleave they might for a while together, but not incorporate.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, 125

nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

BARNES, "And in the days of these kings - Margin, “their.” The reading in the text “these kings” - is the more correct. The Vulgate renders this, “in the days of these kingdoms.” The natural and obvious sense of the passage is, that during the continuance of the kingdoms above-mentioned, or before they should finally pass away, that is, before the last one should become extinct, another kingdom would be established on the earth which would be perpetual. Before the succession of universal monarchies should have passed away, the new kingdom would be set up that would never be destroyed. Such language is not uncommon. “Thus, if we were to speak of anything taking place in the days of British kings, we should not of course understand it as running through all their reigns, but merely as occurring in some one of them.” - Prof. Bush. So it is said in Rth_1:1 : “It came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land;” that is, the famine occurred sometime under that general administration, or before it had passed away, evidently not meaning that there was a famine in the reign of each one. So it is said of Jephthah, that he was buried “in the cities of Gilead;” that is, some one of them. Josiah was buried in, “the sepulchres of his fathers;” that is, in some one of them.

Shall the God of heaven - The God, who rules in heaven; the true God. This is designed to show the Divine origin of this kingdom, and to distinguish it from all others. Though the others here referred to were under the Divine control, and were designed to act an important part in preparing the world for this, yet they are not represented as deriving their origin directly from heaven. They were founded in the usual manner of earthly monarchies, but this was to have a heavenly origin. In accordance with this, the kingdom which the Messiah came to establish is often called, in the New Testament, “the kingdom of heaven,” “the kingdom of God,” etc. Compare Mic_4:7; Luk_1:32-33.Set up a kingdom - “Shall cause to arise or stand up” - yeqıym. It shall not owe יקים

its origin to the usual causes by which empires are constituted on the earth by conquests; by human policy; by powerful alliances; by transmitted hereditary possession - but shall exist because God shall “appoint” and “constitute” it. There can be no reasonable doubt as to what kingdom is here intended, and nearly all expositors have supposed that it refers to the kingdom of the Messiah. Grotius, indeed, who made the fourth kingdom refer to the Seleucidse and Lagidse, was constrained by consistency to make this refer to the Roman power; but in this interpretation he stands almost, if not entirely, alone. Yet even he supposes it to refer not to “pagan” Rome only, but to Rome as the perpetual seat of power - the permanent kingdom - the seat of the church: “Imperium Romanum perpetuo mansurum, quod sedes erit ecclesice.” And although he maintains that he refers to Rome primarily, yet he is constrained to acknowledge that what is here said is true in a higher sense of the kingdom of Christ: Sensus sublimior, Christum finem impositurum omnibus. imperiis terrestribus. But there can be no real 126

doubt as to what kingdom is intended. Its distinctly declared Divine origin; the declaration that it shall never be destroyed; the assurance that it would absorb all other kingdoms, and that it would stand forever; and the entire accordance of these declarations with the account of the kingdom of the Messiah in the New Testament, show beyond a doubt that the kingdom of the Redeemer is intended.Which shall never be destroyed - The others would pass away. The Babylonian would be succeeded by the Medo-Persian, that by the Macedonian, that by the Roman, and that in its turn by the one which the God of heaven would set up. This would be perpetual. Nothing would have power to overthrow it. It would live in the revolutions of all other kingdoms, and would survive them all. Compare the notes at Dan_7:14; and the summary of the doctrines taught here at the close of the notes at Dan_2:45.And the kingdom shall not be left to other people - Margin, “thereof. Literally, “Its kingdom shall not be left to other people;” that is, the ruling power appropriate to this kingdom or dominion shall never pass away from its rightful possessor, and be transferred to other hands. In respect to other kingdoms, it often happens that their sovereigns are deposed, and that their power passes into the hands of usurpers. But this can never occur in this kingdom. The government will never change hands. The administration will be perpetual. No foreign power shall sway the scepter of this kingdom. There “may be” an allusion here to the fact that, in respect to each of the other kingdoms mentioned, the power over the same territory “did” pass into the hands of other people. Thus, on the same territory, the dominion passed from the hands of the Babylonian princes to the hands of Cyrus the Persian, and then to the hands of Alexander the Macedonian, and then to the hands of the Romans. But this would never occur in regard to the kingdom which the God of heaven would set up. In the region of empire appropriate to it, it would never change hands; and this promise of perpetuity made this kingdom wholly unlike all its predecessors.But it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms - As represented by the stone cut out of the mountains without hands, impinging on the image. See the notes at Dan_2:34-35.Two inquiries at once meet us here, of somewhat difficult solution. The first is, How, if this is designed to apply to the kingdom of the Messiah, can the description be true? The language here would seem to imply some violent action; some positive crushing force; something like what occurs in conquests when nations are subdued. Would it not appear from this that the kingdom here represented was to make its way by conquests in the same manner as the other kingdoms, rather than by a silent and peaceful influence? Is this language, in fact, applicable to the method in which the kingdom of Christ is to supplant all others? In reply to these questions, it may be remarked,(1) That the leading idea, as apparent in the prophecy, is not so much that of “violence” as that the kingdoms referred to would be “uttterly brought to an end;” that there would be, under this new kingdom, ultimately an entire cessation of the others; or that they would be removed or supplanted by this. This is represented Dan_2:35 by the fact that the materials composing the other kingdoms are represented before this as becoming like “the chaff of the summer threshing-floors;” and as “being carried away, so that no place was found for them.” The stone cut out of the mountain, small at first, was mysteriously enlarged, so that it occupied the place which they did, and ultimately filled the earth. A process of gradual demolition, acting on them by constant attrition, removing portions of them, and occupying their place until they should disappear, and until there should be a complete substitution of the new kingdom in their place, would

127

seem to correspond with all that is essential in the prophetic description, See the notes at Dan_2:34, on the expression, “which smote the image upon his feet.” But(2) This language is in accordance with what is commonly used in the predictions respecting the kingdom of the Messiah - language which is descriptive of the existence of “power” in subduing the nations, and bringing the opposing kingdoms of the world to an end. Thus in Psa_2:9, “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron: thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Isa_9:12, “for the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” So 1Co_15:24-25, “When he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet.” These expressions denote that there will be an entire subjection of other kingdoms to that of the Messiah, called in the New Testament “the kingdom of God.” They undoubtedly imply that there will be some kind of “force” employed - for this great work cannot be accomplished without the existence of “power;” but it may be remarked(a) That it does not necessarily mean that there will be “physical” force, or power like that by which kingdoms have been usually overturned. The kingdom of the Redeemer is a kingdom of “principles,” and those principles will subdue the nations, and bring them into subjection.(b) It does not necessarily mean that the effect here described will be accomplished “at once.” It may be by a gradual process, like a continual beating on the image, reducing it ultimately to powder.The other question which arises here is, How can it be said that the new kingdom which was to be set up would “break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms?” How could the destruction of the image in the Roman period be in fact the destruction of the “three” previous kingdoms, represented by gold, and silver, and brass? Would they not in fact have passed away before the Roman power came into existence? And yet, is not the representation in Dan_2:35, that the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together, and were all scattered like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor? Is it supposed that these kingdoms would be all in existence at the same time, and that the action of the symbolic “stone” was to be alike on all of them? To these questions, we may answer,(1) That the meaning is, undoubtedly, that three of these kingdoms would have passed away at the time of the action of the “stone” referred to. They were to be a “succession” of kingdoms, occupying, to a great extent, the same territory, and not contemporary monarchies occupying distinct territories.(2) The action of the “stone” was in fact, in a most important sense, to be on them all; that is, it was to be on what “constituted” these successive kingdoms of gold, silver, brass, and iron. Each was in its turn an universal monarchy. The same territory was substantially occupied by them all. The Medo-Persian scepter extended over the region under the Babylonian; the Macedonian over that; the Roman over that. There were indeed “accessions” in each successive monarchy, but still anything which affected the Roman empire affected what had “in fact” been the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian. A demolition of the image in the time of the Roman empire would be, therefore, in fact, a demolition of the whole.(3) This interpretation is necessary from the nature of the symbolic representation. The eye of the monarch in the dream was directed to the image as “a splendid whole.” It was necessary to the object in view that he should see it “all at a time,” that he might have a distinct conception of it. This purpose made it impossible to exhibit the kingdoms

128

“in succession,” but they all stood up before him at once. No one can doubt that there “might” have been a different representation, and that the kingdoms might have been made to pass before him in their order, but the representation would have been less grand and imposing. But this design made it necessary that the image should be kept “entire” before the mind until its demolition. It would have been unseemly to have represented the head as removed, and then the shoulders and breast, and then the belly and thighs, until nothing remained but the feet and toes. It was necessary to keep up the representation of “the image of colossal majesty and strength,” until a new power should arise which “would demolish it all.” Nebuchadnezzar is not represented as seeing the parts of the image successively appear or disappear. He does not at first see the golden head rising above the earth, and then the other parts in succession; nor the golden head disappearing, and then the other parts, until nothing was left but the feet and the toes. Such a representation would have destroyed the decorum and beauty of the whole figure; and as it cannot be argued that because Nebuchadnezzar saw the whole image at the outset standing in its complete form, that therefore, all these kingdoms must have been simultaneously in existence, so it cannot be argued because he saw the whole image standing when the stone smote upon it, that therefore, all these kingdoms must have had an existence then.(4) It may be added, that the destruction of the last was in fact the destruction of all the three predecessors. The whole power had become embodied in that, and the demolition affected the whole series.

CLARKE, "A kingdom which shall never be destroyed - The extensive and extending empire of Christ.Shall not be left to other people - All the preceding empires have swallowed up each other successively; but this shall remain to the end of the world.

GILL, "And in the days of these kings, &c. Not of the Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian kings; nor, indeed, of the old Roman kings, or emperors; but in the days of these ten kings, or kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is divided, signified by the ten toes, of different power and strength. Indeed the kingdom of Christ began to be set up in the times of Augustus Caesar, under whom Christ was born; and of Tiberius, under whom he was crucified; and was continued and increased in the reigns of others, until it obtained very much in the times of Constantine; and, after it suffered a diminution under the Papacy, was revived at the Reformation; but will not be set up in its glory until Christ has overcome the ten kings, or kingdoms, and put it into their hearts to hate and burn the antichristian whore; and when she and all the antichristian states will be destroyed by the pouring out of the vials: and then in their days shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; this is the kingdom of the Messiah, as is owned by both ancient and modern Jews: so it is said in an ancient book (p) of theirs, "in the time of the King Messiah, Israel shall be one nation in the earth, and one people to the holy blessed God; as it is written, in the days of these kings shall the God of

129

heaven set up a kingdom, &c.''; and in another of their writings (q), esteemed very ancient, it is said, "the Ishmaelites shall do fifteen things in the earth in the last days; the last of which mentioned is, they shall erect an edifice in the temple; at length two brothers shall rise up against them, and in their days shall spring up the branch of the Son of David; as it is said, in the days of these kings, &c.''; and both Jarchi and Aben Ezra interpret this kingdom of the kingdom of the Messiah; and so Jacchiades, a much later writer, says the last kingdom is that of the Messiah: and another modern Jewish writer says (r), in the time of the King Messiah there shall be but one kingdom, and but one King; and this the King, the true Messiah; but the rest of the kingdoms and their kings shall not subsist in his time; as it is written, "in the days of these kings &c."; which kingdom is no other than his church on earth, where he reigns; has his throne; holds forth his sceptre; gives out his laws, and is obeyed: and, though this is already in the world, yet it is not so visible, stable, and glorious, as it will be at the close of the fourth monarchy, which is meant by its being set up, confirmed, and established; and this will be done by the God of heaven, the Maker and possessor of it, and who dwells in it, and rules there, and over all the earth; and therefore Christ's church, or kingdom, is often called the kingdom of heaven; and when it is thus established, it will ever remain visible; its glory will be no more eclipsed; and much less subverted and overthrown, by all the powers of earth and hell. Christ was set up as King from everlasting, and the elect of God were appointed and given him as a kingdom as early; and in and over these he reigns by his Spirit and grace in time, when they are effectually called, and brought into subjection to him; these are governed by laws of his making: he is owned by them as their Lord and King, and they yield a ready and cheerful obedience to his commands, and he protects and defends them from their enemies; and such a kingdom Christ has always had from the beginning of the world: but there was a particular time in which it was to be set up in a more visible and glorious manner: it was set up in the days of his flesh on earth, though it came not with observation, or was attended with outward pomp and grandeur, it being spiritual, and not of this world; upon his ascension to heaven it appeared greater; he was made or declared Lord and Christ, and his Gospel was spread everywhere: in the times of Constantine it was still more glorious, being further extended, and enjoying great peace, liberty, and prosperity: in the times of Popish darkness, a stop was put to the progress of it, and it was reduced into a narrow compass; at the Reformation there was a fresh breaking of it out again, and it got ground in the world: in the spiritual reign it will be restored, and much more increased, through the Gospel being preached, and churches set up everywhere; and Christ's kingdom will then be more extensive; it will be from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth; it will be more peaceable and prosperous; there will be none to annoy and do hurt to the subjects of it; it will be no more subject to changes and revolutions, but will be in a firm and stable condition; it will be established upon the top of the mountains, and be more visible and glorious, which is here meant by its being "set up": especially this will be the case in the Millennium state, when Christ shall reign before his ancients gloriously and they shall reign with him; and this will never be destroyed, but shall issue in the ultimate glory; for now all enemies will be put under the feet of Christ and his church; the beast and false prophet will be no more; and Satan will be bound during this time, and after that cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, with all

130

the wicked angels and men: and the kingdom shall not be left to another people; as the Babylonian monarchy to the Medes and Persians; the Persian monarchy to the Greeks; and the Grecian monarchy to the Romans; but this shall not be left to a strange people, but shall be given to the saints of the most High; see Dan_7:27, but it shall break in pieces and subdue all these kingdoms; the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman; the three former in the latter, which has swallowed them up; besides, the rest of these monarchies, which are all signified by beasts in an after prophecy, are said still to live, though their dominion is taken away, Dan_7:12, the same nations are in being, though not as monarchies, and have not the same denomination, and are in other hands; now these, and whatsoever kingdoms shall exist, when this shall be set up, shall be either broke to pieces, and utterly destroyed, or become subject to it; see 1Co_15:24, and it shall stand for ever: throughout time in this world, and to all eternity in another; it will be an everlasting kingdom; which is interpreted by Irenaeus (s), an ancient Christian writer in the second century, of the resurrection of the just; his words are, "the great God hath signified by Daniel things to come, and he hath confirmed them by the Son; and Christ is the stone which is cut out without hands, who shall destroy temporal kingdoms, and bring in an everlasting one, which is the resurrection of the just; for he saith, the God of heaven shall raise up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed;'' this is the first resurrection, which brings on the personal reign, in which the righteous shall reign with him a thousand years; see Rev_20:5.

JAMISON, "in the days of these kings — in the days of these kingdoms, that is, of the last of the four. So Christianity was set up when Rome had become mistress of Judea and the world (Luk_2:1, etc.) [Newton]. Rather, “in the days of these kings,” answers to “upon his feet” (Dan_2:34); that is, the ten toes (Dan_2:42), or ten kings, the final state of the Roman empire. For “these kings” cannot mean the four successional monarchies, as they do not coexist as the holders of power; if the fourth had been meant, the singular, not the plural, would be used. The falling of the stone on the image must mean, destroying judgment on the fourth Gentile power, not gradual evangelization of it by grace; and the destroying judgment cannot be dealt by Christians, for they are taught to submit to the powers that be, so that it must be dealt by Christ Himself at His coming again. We live under the divisions of the Roman empire which began fourteen hundred years ago, and which at the time of His coming shall be definitely ten. All that had failed in the hand of man shall then pass away, and that which is kept in His own hand shall be introduced. Thus the second chapter is the alphabet of the subsequent prophetic statements in Daniel [Tregelles].

God of heaven ... kingdom — hence the phrase, “the kingdom of heaven” (Mat_3:2).not ... left to other people — as the Chaldees had been forced to leave their

131

kingdom to the Medo-Persians, and these to the Greeks, and these to the Romans (Mic_4:7; Luk_1:32, Luk_1:33).break ... all — (Isa_60:12; 1Co_15:24).

CALVIN, "The Jews agree with us in thinking this passage cannot be otherwise understood than of the perpetual reign of Christ, and willingly and eagerly ascribe to the glory of their own nation whatever is written everywhere throughout the Scriptures; nay, they often cry down many testimonies of Scripture for the purpose of boasting in their own privileges. They do not therefore deny the dream to have been sent to King Nebuchadnezzar concerning Christ’s kingdom; but they differ from us, in expecting a Christ of their own. Hence they are, compelled in many ways to corrupt this prophecy; because, if they grant that the fourth empire or monarchy was accomplished in the Romans, they must necessarily acquiesce in the Gospel, which testifies of the arrival of that Messiah who was promised in the Law. For Daniel here openly affirms that Messiah’s kingdom should arrive at the close of the fourth monarchy. Hence they fly to the miserable refuge that by the fourth monarchy should be understood the Turkish empire, which they call that of the Ishmaelites; and thus they confound the Roman with the Macedonian empire. But what pretense have they for making only one empire out of two such different ones? They say the Romans sprang from the Greeks; and if we grant this, whence did the Greeks spring? Did they not arise from the Caspian Mountains and Higher Asia? The Romans referred their origin to Troy, and at the time when the prophecy ought to be fulfilled, this had become utterly obscure — but what is this to the purpose when they had no reputation for a thousand years afterwards? But the Turks a long time afterwards, namely 600 years, suddenly burst forth like a deluge. In such a variety of circumstances, and at such a distance of time, how can they form one single kingdom? Then they shew no difference between themselves and the rest of the nations. For they recall us to the beginning of the world, and in this way make one kingdom out of two, and this mixture is altogether without reason, or any pretension to it. There is no doubt then, that Daniel intended the Romans by the fourth empire, since we yesterday saw, how in a manner contrary to nature, that empire ultimately perished by intestine discord. No single monarch reigned there, but only a democracy. All thought themselves to be equally kings, for they were all related. This; union ought to have been the firmest bond of perpetuity. But Daniel here witnesses beforehand, how, even if they were intimately related, that kingdom would not be social, but would perish by its own dissension’s. Finally, it is now sufficiently apparent that the Prophet’s words cannot be otherwise explained than of the Roman empire, nor can they be drawn aside, except by violence, to the Turkish empire.I shall now relate what our brother Anthony has suggested to me, from a certain Rabbi Barbinel, (163) who seems to excel others in acuteness. He endeavors to shew by six principal arguments, that the fifth kingdom cannot relate to our Christ — Jesus, the son of Mary. He first assumes this principle, since the four kingdoms were

132

earthly, the fifth cannot be compared with them, except its nature is the same. The comparison would be, he says, both inappropriate and absurd. As if Scripture does not always compare the celestial kingdom of God with those of earth! for it is neither necessary nor important for all points of a comparison to be precisely similar. Although God shewed to the king of Babylon the four earthly monarchies, it does not follow that the nature of the fifth was the same, since it might be very different. Nay, if we weigh all things rightly, it is necessary to mark some difference between those four and this. last one. The reasoning, therefore, of that rabbi is frivolous, when he infers that Christ’s kingdom ought to be visible, since it could not otherwise correspond with the other kingdoms. The second reason, by which he opposes us, is this, — if religion makes the difference between kingdoms, it follows that the Babylonian, and Persian, and Macedonian are all the same; for we know that all those nations worshipped idols, and were devoted to superstition! The answer to so weak an argument is easy enough, namely, these four kingdoms did not differ simply in religion, but God deprived the Babylonians of their power, and transfer-red the monarchy to the Medes and Persians; and by the same providence of God the Macedonians succeeded them; and then, when all these kingdoms were abolished, the Romans possessed the sway over the whole East. We have already explained the Prophet’s meaning. He wished simply to teach the Jews this, — they were not to despair through beholding the various agitation’s of the world, and its surprising and dreadful confusion; although those ages were subject to many changes, the promised king should at length arrive. Hence the Prophet wished to exhort the Jews to patience, and to hold them in suspense by the expectation of the Messiah. He does not distinguish these four monarchies through diversity of religion, but because God was turning the, world round like a wheel while one nation was expelling another, so that the Jews might apply all their minds and attention to that hope of redemption which had been promised through Messiah’s advent.The third argument which that rabbi brings forward may be refitted without the slightest trouble. He gathers from the words of the Prophet that the kingdom of our Christ, the son of Mary, cannot be the kingdom of which Daniel! speaks, since it is here clearly expressed that there should be no passing away or change of this kingdom,it shall not pass on to another or a strange people. But the Turks, says he, occupy a large portion of the world, and religion among Christians is divided, and many reject the doctrine of the Gospel. It follows, then, that Jesus, the son of Mary, is not, that king of whom Daniel prophesied — that is, about whom the dream which Daniel explained occurred to the king of Babylon. But he trifles very foolishly, because he assumes, what. we shall ever deny — that Christ’s kingdom is visible. For however the sons of God are dispersed, without any reputation among men, it is quite clear that Christ’s kingdom remains safe and sure, since hi its own nature it is not outward but invisible. Christ did not utter these words in vain, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36.) By this expression he wished to remove his kingdom from the ordinary forms of government. Although, therefore, the Turks have spread far and wide, and the world is filled with impious despisers. of God, and the Jews yet occupy a part of it, still Christ, kingdom exists and has not been

133

transferred to any others. Hence this reasoning is not only weak but puerile.A fourth argument follows: — It seems very absurd that Christ, who was born under Octavius or Augustus Caesar, should be the king of whom Daniel prophesied. For, says he, the beginning of the fourth and fifth monarchy was the same, which is absurd; for the fourth monarchy ought to endure for some time, and then the fifth should succeed it. But here he not only betrays his ignorance, but his utter stupidity, since God so blinded the whole people that they were like restive dogs. I have had much conversation with many Jews- I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness — nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew. But this fellow, who seems so sharp and ingenious, displays his own impudence to his great disgrace. For he thought the Roman monarchy began with Julius Caesar! as if the Macedonian empire was not abolished when the Romans took possession of Macedon and reduced it to a province, when also Antiochus was reduced into order by them — nay, when the third monarchy, namely, the Macedonian, began to decline, then the fourth, which is the Roman, succeeded it. Reason itself dictates to us to reckon hi this way, since unless we confess the fourth monarchy to have succeeded directly on the passing away of the third, how could the rest follow on? We must observe, also, that the Prophet does not look to the Caesars when he treats of these monarchies; nay, as we saw concerning the mingling of races, this cannot in any way suit the Caesars; for we shewed yesterday how those who restrict this passage to Pompey and Caesar are only trifling, and are utterly without judgment in this respect. For the Prophet speaks generally and continuously of a popular state, since they were, all mutually related, and yet the empire was not stable, through their consuming themselves internally by intestine warfare. Since this is the case, we conclude this rabbi to be very foolish and palpably absurd in asserting the Christ not to be the son of Mary who was born under Augustus, although I do not argue for the kingdom of Christ commencing at his nativity.His fifth argument is this: — Constantine and other Caesars professed the faith of Christ. If we receive, says he, Jesus the son of Mary as the fifth king, how will this suit? as the Roman Empire was still in existence under this king. For where rite religion of Christ flourishes, where he is worshipped and acknowledged as the only King, that kingdom ought not to be separated from his. When therefore Christ, under Constantine and his successors, obtained both glory and power among the Romans, his monarchy cannot be separated from theirs. But the solution of this is easy, as the Prophet here puts an end to the Roman Empire when it began to be torn in pieces. As to the time when Christ’s reign began, I have just said it ought not to be referred to the time of his birth, but to the preaching of the Gospel. From the time when the Gospel began to be promulgated, we know the Roman monarchy to have been dissipated and at length to vanish away. Hence the empire did not endure through Constantine or other emperors, since their state was different; and we know that neither Constantine nor the other Caesars were Romans. From the time of Trojan the empire began to be transferred to strangers, and foreigners reigned at Rome. We also know by what monsters God destroyed the ancient glory (164) of the Roman people! — for nothing could be more abandoned or disgraceful than the

134

conduct of many of the emperors. If any one will but run through their histories, he will discover immediately that no other people ever had such monsters for rulers as the Romans under Heliogabalus and others like him, — I omit Nero and Caligula, and speak only of foreigners. The Roman Empire was therefore abolished after the Gospel began to be promulgated and Christ became generally known throughout the world. Thus we observe the same ignorance in this argument of the rabbi as in the others.The last assertion is, — The Roman empire as yet partially survives, hence what is here said of the fifth monarchy cannot belong to the son of Mary; it is necessary for the fourth empire to be at an end, if the fifth king began to reign when Christ rose from the dead and was preached in the world. I reply, as I have said already, the Roman empire ceased, and was abolished when God transferred their whole power with shame and reproach to foreigners, who were not only barbarians, but horrible monsters! It would have been better for the Romans to suffer the utter blotting out of their name, rather than submit to such disgrace. We perceive how this sixth and last reason vanishes away. I wished to collect them together, to shew you how foolishly those Jewish reasoners make war with God, and furiously oppose the clear light of the Gospel.I now return to Daniel’s words. He says A kingdom shall come and destroy all other kingdoms I explained yesterday the sense in which Christ broke up those ancient monarchies, which had come to an end long before his advent. For Daniel does not wish to state precisely what Christ would do at any one moment, but what should happen from the time of the captivity till his appearance. If we attend to this intention, all difficulty will be removed from the passage. The conclusion, therefore, is this; the Jews should behold the most powerful empires, which should strike them with terror, and utterly astonish them, yet they should prove neither stable nor firm, through being opposed to the kingdom of the Son of God. But Isaiah denounces curses upon all the kingdoms which do not obey the Church of God. (Isaiah 60:12.) As all those monarchs erected their crests against the Son of God and true piety, with diabolical audacity, they must be utterly swept away, and God’s curse, as announced by the Prophet, must become conspicuous upon them. Thus Christ rooted up all the empires of the world. The Turkish empire, indeed, at this day, excels in wealth and power, and the multitude of nations under its sway; but. it was not God’s purpose to explain future events after the appearance of Christ. He only wished the Jews to be admonished, and prevented from sinking under the weight of their burden, since they would be in imminent danger through the rise of so many fresh tyrannies in the world, and the absence of all repose. God wished, therefore, to brace their minds by fortitude. One reason was this — to cause them to dwell upon the promised redemption, and to experience how evanescent and uncertain are all the empires of the world which are not founded in God, and not united to the kingdom of Christ. God, therefore, will set up the kingdoms of the heavens, which shall never be dissipated. It is here worthwhile to notice the sense in which Daniel uses the term “perpetuity ” It ought not to be restricted to the person of Christ, but belongs to all the pious and the whole body of the Church. Christ is indeed eternal

135

in himself, but he also communicates his eternity to us, because he preserves the Church in the world, and invites us by the hope of a better life than this, and begets us again by his Spirit to an incorruptible life. The perpetuity, then, of Christ’s reign, is twofold, without considering his person. First, in the whole body of believers; for though the Church is often dispersed and hidden from men’s eyes, yet it never entirely perishes; but God preserves it by his incomprehensible virtue, so that it shall survive till the end of the world. Then there is a second perpetuity in each believer, since each is born of incorruptible seed, and renewed by the Spirit of God. The sons of Adam are now not mortal only, but bear within them heavenly life; since the Spirit within them is life, as St. Paul says, in the Ephstle to the Romans. (Romans 8:10.) We hold, therefore, that whenever Scripture affirms Christ’s reign to be eternal, this is extended to the whole body of the Church, and need not be confined to his person. We see, then, how the kingdom from which the doctrine of the Gospel began to be promulgated, was eternal; for although the Church was in a certain sense buried, yet God gave life to his elect, even in the sepulcher. Whence, then, did it happen that the sons of the Church were buried, and a new people and a new creation required, as in Psalms 102:18 ? Hence it easily appears that God is served by a remnant, although they are not evident to human observation.He adds, This kingdom shall not pass away to another people. By this phrase the Prophet means that this sovereignty cannot be transferred, as in the other instances. Darius was conquered by Alexander, and his posterity was extinguished, till at length God destroyed that ill-fated Macedonian race, until no one survived who boasted himself to be sprung from that-family. With respect to the Romans, although they continued to exist, yet they were so disgracefully subjected to the tyranny of strangers and barbarians, as to be completely covered with shame and utterly disgraced. Then, as to the reign of Christ, he cannot be deprived of the empire conferred upon him, nor can we who are his members lose the kingdom of which he has made us partakers. Christ, therefore, both in himself and his members, reigns without any danger of change, because he always remains safe and secure in his own person. As to ourselves, since we are preserved by his grace, and he has received us under his own care and protection, we are beyond the reach of danger; and, as I have already said, our safety is ensured, for we cannot be deprived of the inheritance awaiting us in heaven. We, therefore, who are kept by his power through faith, as Peter says, may be secure and calm, (1 Peter 1:5,) because whatever Satan devises, and however the world attempts various plans for our destruction, we shall still remain safe in Christ. We thus see how the Prophet’s words ought to be understood, when he says that this fifth empire is not to be transferred and alienated to another people. The last clause of the sentence, which is this, it shall bruise and break all other kingdoms, and shall stand perpetually itself, does not require any long exposition. We have explained the manner in which Christ’s kingdom should destroy all the earthly kingdoms of which Daniel had previously spoken; since whatever is adverse to the only-begotten Son of God, must necessarily perish and utterly vanish away. A Prophet exhorts all the kings of the earth to kiss the Son. (Psalms 2:12.) Since neither the Babylonians, nor Persians, nor Macedonians, nor Romans, submitted themselves to Christ, nay, even used their

136

utmost efforts to oppose him, they were the enemies of piety, and ought to be extinguished by Christ’s kingdom; because, although the Persian empire was not in existence when Christ appeared in the world, yet its remembrance was cursed before God. For Daniel does not here touch only on those things which were visible to men, but raises our minds higher, assuring us most clearly that no true support on which we can rest can be found except in Christ alone. Hence he pronounces, that without Christ all the splendor, and power, opulence, and might of the world, is vain, and unstable, and worthless. He confirms the same sentiment in the following verse, where God shewed the king of Babylon what should happen in the last times, when he pointed out a stone cut out of the mountain without hands We stated Christ to be cut out of the mountain without hands, because he was divinely sent, so that men cannot claim anything for themselves in this respect, since God, when treating of the redemption of his own people, speaks thus, by Isaiah, — Since God saw no help in the world, he relied upon his own arm and his own power. (Isaiah 63:5.) As, therefore, Christ was sent only by his heavenly Father, he is said to be cut out without handsMeanwhile, we must consider what I have added in the second place, that the humble and abject origin of Christ is denoted, since it was like a rough and unpolished stone. With regard to the word “mountain”, I have no doubt Daniel here, wished to shew Christ’s reign to be sublime, and above the whole world. Hence the figure of the mountain means, in my opinion, — Christ should not spring out of the earth, but should come in the glory of his heavenly Father, as it is said in the Prophet. And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art the least among the divisions of Judah; yet out of thee shall a leader in Israel arise for me, and his reign shall be from the days of eternity. (Micah 5:2.) Daniel, then, here condescends to those gross imaginations to which our minds are subjected. Because, at the beginning, Christ’s dignity did not, appear so great as we discern it in the kings of the world, and to this day it seems to some obscured by the shame of the cross, many, alas! despise him, and do not acknowledge any dignity in him. Daniel, therefore, now raises aloft our eyes and senses, when he says this stone should be cut out of the mountain Meanwhile, if any one prefers taking the mountain for the elect people, I will not object to it, but this seems to me not in accordance with the genuine sense of the Prophet. At length he adds, And the dream is true, and its interpretation trustworthy Here Daniel securely and intrepidly asserts, that he does not bring forward doubtful conjectures, but explains faithfully to King Nebuchadnezzar what he has received from the Lord. Here he claims for himself the Prophetic authority, to induce the king of Babylon to acknowledge him a sure and faithful interpreter of God. We see how the prophets always spoke with this confidence, otherwise all their teaching would be useless. If our faith depended on man’s wisdom, or on anything of the kind, it would indeed be variable. Hence it is necessary to determine this foundation of truth, — Whatever the Prophets set before us proceeds from God; and the reason why they so constantly insist on this is, lest their doctrine should be supposed to be fabricated by men. Thus also in this place, Daniel first says, the dream is true; as if he said, the dream is not a common one, as the poets fable concerning a gate of horn; the dream is not confused, as men imagine when scarcely

137

sane, or stuffed with meat and drink, or through bodily constitution, either melancholy or choleric. He states, therefore, the king of Babylon’s dream to have been a true oracle; and adds, its interpretation is certain Where, as in the next clause, the Prophet again urges his own authority, lest Nebuchadnezzar should doubt his divine instructions to explain the truth of his dream. It now follows, —ELLICOTT, " (44) In the days of these kings.—Yet no kings have been mentioned hitherto. They must therefore correspond to the toes of the image. (Comp. Daniel 7:24.) It appears therefore that while this fourth kingdom still contrives to exist in some modified form, while its component parts are in a state of war and turmoil, the kingdom of God shall come. (Comp. Daniel 7:25-27.)God of heaven.—(See Daniel 2:18).

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.Ver. 44. And in the days of these kings,] i.e., Of this fourth monarchy; for the Roman emperors were kings, as Peter also calleth them, [1 Peter 2:17] though they, to avoid the hatred of the people, refused so to be styled. The Pope, by a like hypocrisy, calleth himself the servant of God’s servants, but yet stamps upon his coin, "That nation and country that will not serve thee, shall be rooted out."Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom.] The kingdom of his Son Christ. And here we have in few words the whole sum of the gospel, and that "truth which is according to godliness," [Titus 1:1] for the revealing whereof this whole dream was revealed to the king.But it shall break in pieces.] Christ shall reign, and all his foes be made his footstool.POOLE, " In the days of these kings, i.e. while the iron kingdom stood, (for Christ was born in the reign of Augustus Caesar, Luke 2:1)shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. Now see the difference of Christ’s kingdom from all other kingdoms in the world.1. In the rise of it, it was not by earthly succession, or arms, or policy.2. It is spiritual and heavenly in the laws and administration of it.3. Jesus Christ was not a mere man, but God-man, he is the King, the Son of God.4. It is stronger than all others, because it breaks them in pieces.

138

5. It is not bounded by any limits as worldly empires are, but truly universal.6. It shall be for ever, and never destroyed and given to others, as the rest were.

BENSON, "Verse 44-45Daniel 2:44-45. And in the days of these kings — That is, kingdoms, or during the succession of these four monarchies; and it must be during the time of the last of them, because they are reckoned four in succession, and consequently this must be the fifth kingdom. Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom — This can only be understood with propriety, as the ancients understood it, of the kingdom of Christ. Accordingly, his kingdom was set up during the days of the last of these kingdoms, that is, the Roman. The stone was totally a different thing from the image; and the kingdom of Christ is totally different from the kingdoms of this world. The stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, as our heavenly body is said (2 Corinthians 5:1) to be a building of God, a house not made with hands, that is, spiritual, as the phrase is used in other places. This the fathers generally apply to Christ himself, who was miraculously born of a virgin, without the concurrence of man: but it should be rather understood of the kingdom of Christ, which was formed out of the Roman empire, not by number of hands, or strength of armies, but without human means, and the virtue of second causes. This kingdom was set up by the God of heaven, and from hence the phrase of the kingdom of heaven came to signify the kingdom of the Messiah; and so it was used and understood by the Jews, and so it is applied by our Saviour in the New Testament. Other kingdoms were raised by human ambition and worldly power; but this was the work not of man, but of God: this was truly, as it is called, the kingdom of heaven, and (John 18:36) a kingdom not of this world; its laws, its powers were all divine. This kingdom was never to be destroyed, as the Babylonian, the Persian, and the Macedonian empires have been, and in a great measure also the Roman. This kingdom was not to be left to any other people; it was to be erected by God in a peculiar manner, to extend itself over all the nations, and still to consist of the same people, without any alteration or change of their name. What this people were to be, and by what name to be called, the prophet expressly declares Daniel 7:17-18; they were to be the saints of the Most High. Of such was this kingdom to consist, and never to depart from them; a character which expressly determines the nature of the kingdom, and by whom it was to be erected and governed. This kingdom was to break in pieces and consume all kingdoms — To spread and enlarge itself, so that it should comprehend within itself all the former kingdoms. This kingdom was to fill the whole earth, to become universal, and to stand for ever. As the fourth kingdom, or the Roman empire, was represented in different states, first strong and flourishing, with legs of iron, and then weakened and divided, with feet and toes part of iron and part of clay; so this fifth kingdom, or the kingdom of Christ, is described likewise in two states, which Mr. Mede rightly distinguishes by the names of regnum lapidis, the kingdom of the stone, and regnum montis, the kingdom of the mountain. The first

139

commenced when the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, while the statue continued on its feet, and the Roman empire was in its full strength, with legs of iron: the second, when the stone began to increase into a mountain, and to fill the earth, the Roman empire being in its last and weakest state. The image is still standing upon its feet and toes of iron and clay; and the kingdom of Christ is yet a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. But the stone will one day smite the image upon the feet and toes, and destroy it utterly, and will itself become a great mountain, and fill the whole earth: or, in other words, The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever. We have, therefore, seen the kingdom of the stone; but we have not yet seen the kingdom of the mountain. Some parts of this prophecy still remain to be fulfilled; but the exact completion of the other parts will not suffer us to doubt of the accomplishment of the rest also in due season: see Bishop Newton.WHEDON, "Verse 4444. In the days of these kings — That is, the kings of the fourth empire and, as all the symbols indicate, at the end of the empire and after the dividing process had greatly weakened it. At this period a new kingdom, like a mountain cliff, is to show itself for the first time and take the place of the artificially constructed kingdoms which had preceded it. This kingdom is to be an everlasting kingdom; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms. This cannot be taken literally. The Messianic kingdom did not literally break in pieces the Babylonian or the Medo-Persian or the Greek kingdom, for these had all been broken in pieces and destroyed ages before, as the book itself elsewhere states (Daniel 7:7; Daniel 7:11; Daniel 7:23; Daniel 11:4). These successive empires were not literally broken to pieces “together” (Daniel 2:35) but successively. This seeming discrepancy merely shows that symbols must not be pressed too far. The statue really represented successive and not contemporaneous empires, but when a statue, struck upon the feet, falls, it necessarily falls altogether. So, literally, the Messianic kingdom did not arise “in” the days of the Seleucid kings, but shortly after the dissolution of that empire (cir. B.C. 60). So, literally, it was not Christianity, but the power of Rome as the agent of Providence which smote the already crumbling toes of this image of successive world-empires. The emphasis, as is shown by the other symbols used, is not upon the direct assault of the new kingdom upon all these kingdoms (that is, the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Syrian), but upon the fact that it was to immediately follow these other world-empires from which the Jews had suffered so greatly, and to take their place. As Cowles says, the kingdom of Messiah was set up in the days of those kings “only in the sense of preparatory work done by the agencies of divine providence. The demolition of those kingdoms prepared the way for the formal, visible inauguration of Messiah’s kingdom. The visible inauguration and setting up followed this demolition, and was not strictly simultaneous. The language, which is very general, certainly admits this construction. The sense of the symbols seems to require it, and the genius of the entire vision sustains it.” Terry profoundly observes, “The truth is that in the overthrow of all those kingdoms — Babylon as well as Persia or Greece — the Most High God was setting up his

140

kingdom by preparing the way of his Messiah.”

PETT, "Verse 44-45“And in the days of those kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, nor will its sovereignty be left to another people. But it will break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it will stand for ever. Forasmuch as you saw that a 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 will come about hereafter. And the dream is certain and its interpretation sure.”‘In the days of those kings.’ This naturally refers back to the previous verse. The final empire is ruled by a number of kings, including kings of the empires described. But in their day a kingdom will be set up, a kingdom, which replaces theirs, which will never be destroyed. Nor will it make alliances with the other kingdoms, yielding its sovereignty to them. It will have total liberty and freedom. It will ‘strike’ all these empires, and by hitting their weakest point will bring them crashing down. Notice that all collapse, from the gold downwards. The whole basis of these empires, their might, their arrogance, their disunity, their representing false religion, all collapse at together. Truth will triumph. Faith in the God of heaven.Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar saw the stone as referring to his descendants (possibly hinted at in chapter 3). Daniel does not disillusion him. But there is no doubt what Daniel means, as he makes clear later on. This is the kingdom of the people of God, the kingdom of the Messiah, the everlasting kingdom set up in heaven before the throne of God, and yet making its decisive impact on earth as world empire is destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27). It will not be vulnerable. Its triumph is guaranteed. And it will finally shatter all the other kingdoms, and fill the whole earth (compare Matthew 13:31-33).‘Forasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands.’ ‘Cut out without hands’ refers to the activity of God (compare Mark 14:58. See also Isaiah 51:1). ‘The stone’ was a regular symbol of the Messianic idea, both as a foundation stone or cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16; Psalms 118:22), or as a stone that tripped men up and by which they were broken (Isaiah 8:14 compare Zechariah 12:3). It was not a far cry from that for the Messianic prince to become a destroying stone, demolishing the power of empire by striking at its foundations and making it topple (Daniel 7:26), once He had received the kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14). Isaiah 17:10; Isaiah 32:2 associate the Rock with God’s protection of His people, which was the second stage for ‘the stone’.Alternately we may see the stone as the Kingly Rule of God. But really the two go together. The King represents His Kingdom.

141

This working away at its weakest point, its roots of disunity and idolatry, until it toppled, was what the Kingly Rule of God and the Messiah accomplished for the Roman Empire. They smote its uncertainty, its dependence on idolatry, and it toppled and yielded, at least outwardly, to the Messiah. And this was what the stone accomplished in many kingdoms. They too were toppled and became outwardly God’s people. And in the end the world will topple, and Christ’s kingdom will become all in all. For its final fulfilment awaits His final triumph, when He comes in power and the kingdoms of the world finally collapse before Him, and what is outward is done away, and what is true shines through. Then will the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43), and all evil will be done away. The empires will have vanished like the chaff from the threshingfloor, and His people will be with him in the everlasting kingdom in the new heaven and the new earth.In the dream the smiting of the stone came almost instantaneously, for it was an apocalyptic vision. It was depicting the intervention in world history of God. But in the purposes of God it could happen over time. The collapse of empire would not necessarily come overnight. The arrival of the Kingly Rule of God was in one sense sudden. But the day of God, and the growth of the stone into a mountain, could take a thousand years or more (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8). That would be instantaneous to God.We can finally compare the idea here with the great millstone, picked up by the strong angel and cast into the sea, preparing for the destruction of Babylon, the great city, which itself represented empire (Revelation 18:21). There too such a stone was a symbol, but there it was of the judgment of God upon what was ungodly, for it was a millstone that ground things to powder, while this was a mighty rock hewn from the mountain of God (Isaiah 2:2-4).‘The great God has made known to the king what will come about hereafter. And the dream is certain and its interpretation sure.’ So Nebuchadnezzar was privileged by God to see the hopelessness of trusting to world empire. He could have found out what the stone represented. But his eyes were closed and instead he built a great image for men to worship. He had totally missed the point. And even though he was informed that the dream was certain, and that what it signified was true, he did not sufficiently seek its truth. The opportunity passed him by.

SIMEON, "Verse 44DISCOURSE: 1123THE STONE THAT BECAME A MOUNTAINDaniel 2:44. In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people,

142

but it shall break in. pieces, and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.THE various revolutions of kingdoms, how casual and contingent soever they may appear, all are fore-ordained in the inscrutable counsels of the Deity, and made subservient to the accomplishment of his eternal purpose; indeed they seem to be marked in Scripture solely in reference to the Church of God; as though the rise and fall of empires were scarcely worth a mention, except as they accelerate or retard the progress of true religion. In the time of the Babylonish captivity God gave to Nebuchadnezzar a very remarkable dream, and interpreted it to him by the Prophet Daniel. There appeared to him an image, whose head was of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, the legs of iron, the feet of iron and clay; on the feet of which a stone fell, that utterly demolished the whole. This foretold the succession of four great monarchies, and the erection of the Messiah’s kingdom upon the ruins of them all.For the elucidation of this subject, it will be proper to consider,I. The prophecy itself—In which we notice,1. The time and manner of its establishment—[The time of its establishment is here clearly marked. The Babylonish, Persian, and Grecian monarchies., were to rise in succession, each on the ruins of that which preceded it; and at last the Roman empire was to swallow up, as it were, and comprehend them all. And “in the time of the kings” belonging to this last kingdom, even while they should enjoy the utmost plenitude of their power, another kingdom was to arise, the kingdom of the Messiah. This was accurately accomplished; for Christ was born in the reign of Augustus Caesar, when the Roman empire was at the summit of its strength and grandeur: and, within the space of about fifty years from that time, his kingdom was spread, not only over Jud ζa, but over a great part of the known world.The manner of it is also plainly declared. It was foretold that a “stone which should he cut out without hands, should break in pieces this vast image;” that “the God of heaven should set up a kingdom” solely by his own power, without the intervention of human force or policy; or, to use the words of another prophet, “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.” This also was remarkably fulfilled in the establishment of Christ’s kingdom in the world. The persons who were his principal agents, were a few illiterate fishermen, alike untutored in philosophy, and unassisted by the authority of earthly magistrates. They were expressly forbidden to use the sword [Note: Matthew 26:52.]; and the most learned of all the apostles suppressed every thing that savoured of carnal wisdom, lest he should make the cross of Christ of none effect [Note: 1 Corinthians 1:17; 1

143

Corinthians 2:1.]. Yet, notwithstanding their weapons were not carnal, they were mighty through God to the pulling down of the strong holds of sin and Satan [Note: 2 Corinthians 10:4-5.]. And indeed the heavenly treasure was committed thus to earthen vessels, on purpose that the excellency of the power might more evidently appear to be of God [Note: 2 Corinthians 4:7.].]2. The extent and duration of its power—[It was to have the pre-eminence above all other kingdoms in respect of its extent. All the monarchies referred to by the prophet were great and powerful; but this far excelled them all. The stone cut out without hands fell upon the feet of the image which were of iron and clay, and broke the whole image in pieces; intimating that the kingdom of Christ should prevail over the Roman empire together with the other monarchies which were comprehended in it: all the powers of the world were to be as nothing before it. This was represented in the vision by “the stone becoming a mountain, and this mountain filling the earth.” Christianity is to prevail over the whole earth. The idolatries of Pagan Rome yielded to the sublimer principles of the Gospel; and the superstitions of antichrist, which for a long season obscured divine truth, have in a measure fallen, and shall in due time vanish before its light and influence. Nor shall the authority of Christ extend, like that of earthly monarchs, merely over the bodies of men: it shall reach unto their souls, and “bring into subjection the very thoughts and desires of their hearts.” There shall not be one disaffected subject in his whole empire: the happiness of all his people shall be bound up in their Prince, whose will shall be their only law, and whose honour their only aim.It was to excel all others also in its duration. All other kingdoms have fallen, and shall fall; nor can the best constituted governments maintain their stability beyond the time allotted them in the Divine counsels. But the kingdom of Christ “shall stand for ever;” his power shall “never be transferred to other hands;” nor shall any revolutions shake the foundations of his throne. “He shall put down all rule and all authority and power, and reign till all his enemies are become his footstool [Note: 1 Corinthians 15:24-25.].” The precise mode of administering his kingdom will indeed terminate when there shall be no more subjects upon earth to govern: but the kingdom itself will exist in heaven to all eternity, when it shall be delivered up into the Father’s hands, and God shall be all in all [Note: The perpetuity of this kingdom was afterwards revealed to Daniel, with some additional circumstances, in a vision similar to that before us. The four great monarchies appeared to him as four great beasts, the last of which had ten horns, corresponding with the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s image, and intimating that ten smaller powers should grow out of that fourth monarchy, all of which should in due season fall before the kingdom of Christ, which was then to become universal in its extent, and everlasting in its continuance. Daniel 7:3-7; Daniel 7:14.].]To improve this subject aright, we must distinctly mark,

144

II. The practical use of the prediction—Whilst it prepares us to expect the perfect triumph of Christianity, to the enemies of Christ’s kingdom it speaks terror—[Persons may be enemies of Christ’s kingdom either by denying the truth of Christianity, or by resisting its influence. But whether we be professed infidels or merely nominal Christians, the subject before us is highly proper for our consideration. Whence carne this marvellous correspondence between the predictions and the accomplishment of them, if Christianity be not of divine original? was it not established at the very time that was fixed in this prophecy? And has it not prevailed, not only without the aid of human authority, but in direct opposition to ali the power and policy of the confederate world? And if it have broken in pieces so many adverse powers, and “made them even as the chaff of the summer threshing-floors,” shall any of us withstand it with impunity? Our Lord, in reference to this very passage, has assured us, that “on whomsoever this stone shall fall it shall grind him to powder [Note: Matthew 21:43-44. See also Isaiah 60:12.].” But remember, it is not a feigned or forced sub-mission that is required of us: Christ reigns over a willing people, and must be enthroned in their hearts. Let such be his influence over you, my Brethren — — — Let “every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ be put down.” Let his law be your only rule, his honour your highest aim, and his service your supreme delight.]To the friends and subjects of Christ, on the other hand., it is replete with comfort—[As Christianity has not prevailed in the world without much opposition, so neither will it gain a complete ascendency over the heart without many conflicts. But should any one despond because his adversaries are mighty? We need only look at the prevalence of Christianity in the world, and we may see what shall be accomplished in our hearts. Are we destitute of any power in ourselves? Be it so: yet the stone which was cut out without hands, and became a great mountain, shall crush our enemies, and bring our inmost souls into subjection to Christ. If the gates of hell have not been able to prevail against the Church at large, neither shall they against the weakest member of it. If the greatest empires have yielded to the influence of the Gospel, so shall also the most inveterate lusts. Let Christians then lift up their heads with joy: their conflicts may be severe, but victory is assured to them by the promise and oath of an unchanging God [Note: Hebrews 6:17-18.].]

45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut 145

out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

BARNES, "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone ... - On the meaning of the language employed here, see the notes at Dan_2:34-35. The word “forasmuch” may be taken either in connection with what precedes, or with what follows. In the former method, there should be a period at the word “gold” in this verse; and then the sense is, “In those days shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, etc., “forasmuch,” or “because” thou sawest a stone,” etc., that is, that was a certain indication of it. According to the other method, the meaning is, “Forasmuch as thou sawest the stone cut out and demolish the image, the great God has made known the certainty of it;” that is, that is a certain indication that it will be done. The Vulgate is, “According to what thou sawest, that the stone was cut out without hands, and reduced the clay, etc., the great God has shown to the king what will be hereafter.” The difference in the interpretation is not very material.

Cut out of the mountain - This is not inserted in the statement in Dan_2:34. It seems, however, to be implied there, as there is mention of the stone as “cut out.” The representation is evidently that of a stone disengaged from its native bed, the side of a mountain, without any human agency, and then rolling down the side of it and impinging on the image.The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter - Margin, the same as the Chaldee, “after this.” The meaning is simply, in time to come; in some future period. Daniel claims none of the merit of this discovery to himself. but ascribes it all to God.And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure - That is, it is no vain and airy phantom; no mere working of the imagination. The dream was all that the monarch had supposed it to be - a representation of coming events, and his solicitude in regard to it was well-founded. Daniel speaks with the utmost assurance also as to its fulfillment. He knew that he had been led to this interpretation by no skill of his own; and his representation of it was such as to satisfy the monarch of its correctness. Two circumstances probably made it appear certain to the monarch, as we learn from the next verse it did: one, that Daniel had recalled the dream to his own recollection,

146

showing that he was under a Divine guidance; and the other, the plausibility - the verisimilitude - the evident truthfulness of the representation. It was such a manifest “explanation” of the dream that Nebuchadnezzar, in the same manner as Pharaoh had done before him when his dreams were explained by Joseph, at once admitted the correctness of the representation.Having now gone through with the “exposition” of this important passage respecting the stone cut from the mountain, it seems proper to make a few remarks in regard to the nature of the kingdom that would be set up, as represented by the stone which demolished the image, and which so marvelously increased as to fill the earth. That there is reference to the kingdom of the Messiah cannot be reasonably doubted. The points which are established in respect to that kingdom by the passage now under consideration are the following:I. Its superhuman origin. This is indicated in the representation of the stone cut out of the mountain “without hands;” that is, clearly not by human agency, or in the ordinary course of events. There was to be a superhuman power exerted in detaching it from the mountain, as well as in its future growth. What appeared so marvelous was, that it was cut from its orginal resting place by some invisible power, and moved forward to the consummation of its work without any human agency. That this was designed to be significant of something there can be no reasonable doubt, for the result is made to turn on this. I do not see that any special significancy is to be attached to the idea of its being cut from “a mountain,” nor that it is required of us to attempt to refine on that expression, and to ascertain whether the mountain means the Roman kingdom, out of which the gospel church was taken, as many suppose; or the Jewish nation, as Augustine supposed; or that “the origin of Christ was sublime and superior to the whole world,” as Calvin supposes; or to the mountainous country of Judea in which the Messiah was born, as many others have maintained; or to the tomb of Joseph, as a rock from which the Messiah sprang to life and victory, as others have imagined.All this belongs to a system of interpretatation that is trifling in the extreme. The representation of the mountain here is merely for the sake of verisimilitude, like the circumstances in a parable. If a stone was “cut out without hands,” it would be natural to speak of it as cut from the mountain or parent-rock to which it was attached. The eye is not here directed to the “mountain” as having anything significant or marvelous about it, but to the “stone” that so mysteriously left its bed, and rolled onward toward the image. The point of interest and of marvel, the mysterious thing that attracted the eye, was that there was no human agency employed; that no hands were seen at work; that none of the ordinary instrumentalities were seen by which great effects are accomplished among men. Now this would properly represent the idea that the kingdom of the Messiah would have a supernatural origin. Its beginnings would be unlike what is usually seen among men. How appropriately this applies to the kingdom of the Messiah, as having its origin not in human power, need not here be stated. Nothing is more apparent; nothing is more frequently dwelt on in the New Testament, than that it had a heavenly origin. It did not owe its beginning to human plans, counsels, or power.II. Its feebleness in its beginning, compared with its ultimate growth and power. At first it was a stone comparatively small, and that seemed utterly inadequate to the work of demolishing and pulverizing a colossal statue of gold, silver, brass, and iron. Ultimately it grew to be itself of mountain-size, and to fill the land. Now this representation would undoubtedly convey the fair impression that this new power, represented by the stone, would at first be comparatively small and feeble; that there would be comparative weakness in its origin as contrasted with what it would ultimately

147

attain to; and that it would seem to be utterly inadequate to the performance of what it finally accomplished. It is hardly necessary to say that this corresponds entirely with the origin of the Messiah’s kingdom. Everywhere it is represented as of feeble beginnings, and, as a system, to human view, entirely inadequate to so great a work as that of bringing other kingdoms to an end, and subduing it to itself. The complete fulfillment of the prophetic statement would be found in such circumstances as the following:(1) The humble origin of the head of this new power hlmself - the Messiah - the King of Sion. He was, in fact, of a decayed and dilapidated family; was ranked among the poor; was without powerful friends or political connections; possessed no uncommon advantages of learning, and was regarded with contempt and scorn by the great mass of his countrymen. No one would have supposed that the religion originated by one of so humble an origin would have power to change the destiny of the kingdoms of the earth.(2) The feebleness of the beginning of his kingdom. His few followers - the little band of fishermen; the slow progress at first made; these were circumstances strikingly in accordance with the representation in Daniel.(3) The absence in that band of all that seemed requisite to accomplish so great a work. They had no arms, no wealth, no political power. They had nothing of what has commonly been employed to overthrow kingdoms, and the band of fishermen sent forth to this work seemed as little adequate to the undertaking as the stone cut from the mountain did to demolish the colossal image.(4) All this feebleness in the beginning was wonderfully contrasted with the ultimate results, like the stone, when cut from the mountain, contrasted with its magnitude when it filled the earth. The Saviour himself often referred to the contrast between the feeble origin of his religion, and what it would grow to be. At first it was like a grain of mustard-seed, smallest among seeds; then it grew to be a tree so large that the fowls of the air lodged in the branches. At first it was like leaven, hidden in meal; ultimately it would diffuse itself through the mass, so that the whole would be leavened, Mat_13:31-33.III. It would supplant all other kingdoms. This was clearly indicated by the fact that the “stone” demolished the image, reducing it to powder, and filled the place which that occupied, and all the land. This has been explained (see the notes at Dan_2:34-35), as meaning that it would not be by sudden violence, but by a continued process of comminution. There would be such an action on the kingdoms of the earth represented by gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, that they would disappear, and the new power represented by the “stone” would finally take their place. As this new power was to be humble in its origin, and feeble to human view; as it had nothing which, to outward appearance, would seem adequate to the result, the reference would seem to be to the “principles” which would characterize it, and which, as elements of power, would gradually but ultimately secure the changes represented by the demolition of the colossal statue.The only question then would be, whether the principles in the kingdom of the Messiah had such originality and power as would gradually but certainly change the modes of government that existed in the world, and substitute another kind of reign; or, what is the influence which it will exert on the nations, causing new methods of government, in accordance with its principles, to prevail on the earth. Though apparently feeble, without arms, or wealth, or civil alliances, it has elements of “power” about it which will ultimately subdue all other principles of government, ard take their place. Its work was indeed to be a gradual work, and it is by no means accomplished, yet

148

its effect has been mighty already on the principles that rule among the nations and will still be more mighty until “the laws of the kingdom of the Messiah shall prevail in all the earth.” This seems to be the idea which it is designed to express by this prophetic image. If one were asked “in what respects” it is to be anticipated that these changes will be wrought, and “in what respects” we can discern the evidences of such changes already, we might say in such points as the following:(1) In regard to the methods in which governments are founded. Governments were formerly mostly the result of civil or foreign wars. Nearly all the governments of antiquity were originally founded in the “power” of some military leader, and then held by power. Christianity originated new views about wars and conquests; views that will ultimately prevail. In nothing are the opinions of mankind destined more entirely to be reversed than in regard to “war;” to its glory, its achievements, and the fame of those who have been most celebrated for bloody triumphs.(2) In regard to the rights of the people. A mighty principle was originated by Christianity in respect to the “rights” of men; the right of conscience; the right to the avails of their own labor; the right to life and liberty.(3) In regard to oppression. The history of the world has been, to a great extent, a history of oppression. But all this is to be changed by the principles of the true religion; and when the period shall arrive that there shall be no more occasion to use the word “oppression,” as descriptive of anything that shall have an actual existenee on earth, this will be a different world. Then the time will have come, appropriately designated by the demolition of the colossal statue - symbolic of all governments of oppression, and the substitution in its place of what was at first insignificant, but which had vital energy to supplant all that went before it.IV. This kingdom will be perpetual. This is asserted in the unequivocal statements that it “shall never be destroyed,” and that “it shall not be left to other people;” that is, shall never pass into other hands. There could not be a more positive declaration that the kingdom here referred to will continue through all coming time. Other kingdoms pass away, but this will not; and amidst all the revolutions of other empires this will remain. The lapse of eighteen hundred years since this kingdom was set up, has done not a little to confirm the truth of this prediction. Many other kingdoms during that time have disappeared from the earth, but this remains in its full vigour, and with extending power. It has, at this day, an extent of dominion which it never had before, and there are clearer indications that it will spread over all the earth than ever existed at any previous time. That this kingdom “will” be perpetual may be argued from the following considerations:(1) From the promises of God. These are absolute; and they are attested by Him who has all power, and who can, with infinite ease, accomplish all that he has spoken. So in Dan_7:14, “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” Luk_1:33, “and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Psa_45:6 (compare the notes at Heb_1:8), “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” In Heb_1:8, it is, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Isa_9:7, “of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth, even forever.”(2) It may be argued, from the fact that the efforts which have been made to destroy it have shown that this cannot be done by any human power. Eighteen hundred years have

149

now passed away - a period sufficiently long to test the question whether it can be destroyed by force and violence; by argument and ridicule. The experiment has been fairly made, and if it were possible that it should be destroyed by external force, it would have been done. It cannot be imagined that more favorable circumstances for such a purpose will ever occur. The church of Christ has met every form of opposition that we can conceive could be made against it, and has survived them all. Particularly it has survived the trial which has been made in the following respects:(a) The Roman power, the whole might of the Roman arms, that had subdued and crushed the world, was brought to bear upon the kingdom of Christ to crush and destroy it, but wholly failed. It cannot be supposed that a new power will ever arise that will be more formidable to Christianity than the Roman was.(b) The power of persecution. That has been tried in every way, and has failed. The most ingenious forms of torture have been devised to extinguish this religion, and have all failed. It has always been found that persecution has only contributed ultimately to the triumph of the cause which it was hoped to crush.(c) The power of philosophy. The ancient philosophers opposed it, and attempted to destroy it by argument. This was early done by Celsus and Porphyry; but it soon became apparent that the ancient philosophy had nothing that could extinguish the rising religion, and not a few of the prominent philosophers themselves were converted, and became the advocates of the faith.(d) The power of science. Christianity had its origin in an age when science had made comparatively little progress, and in a country where it was almost unknown. The sciences since have made vast advances; and each one in its turn has been appealed to by the enemies of religion, to furnish an argument against Christianity. Astronomy, history, the discoveries in Egypt, the asserted antiquity of the Hindoos, and geology, have all been employed to overthrow the claims of the Christian religion, and have all been compelled to abandon the field. See this admirably demonstrated in Dr. Wiseman’s “Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion.”(e) The power of ridicule. At one time it was held that “ridicule is the test of truth,” and this has been applied unsparingly to the Christian religion. But the religion still lives, and it cannot be supposed that there will be men endued with the power of sarcasm and wit superior to those who, with these weapons, have made war on Christianity, or that infidelity has any hope from that quarter. It may be inferred, therefore, that there is no “external” source of corruption and decay which will prevent its being perpetual. Other kingdoms usually have; and after a few centuries at most the internal corruption - the defect of the organization - developes itself, and the kingdom falls. But nothing of this kind occurs in the kingdom of Christ. It has lived now through eighteen hundred years, through periods of the world in which there have been constant changes in the arts, in the sciences, in manners, in philosophy, in forms of government. During that time many a system of philosophy has been superseded, and many a kingdom has fallen, but Christianity is as fresh and vigorous, as it meets each coming generation, as it ever was; and the past has demonstrated that the enemies of the gospel have no reason to hope that it will become weak by age, and will fall by its own decrepitude.V. A fifth characteristic of this kingdom is, that it will universally prevail. This was symbolized by the stone that “became a great mountain, and that filled the whole earth,” Dan_2:35. It is also implied, in the statement in Dan_2:44, that it “shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms.” They will cease, and this will occupy their places. The

150

“principles” of the kingdom of the Messiah, whatever may be the external forms of government that shall exist on the earth, will everywhere prevail. That this will occur may be argued from the following considerations:(1) The promises recorded in the Bible. Tlle passage before us is one. Of the same nature are the following: Psa_2:8, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the pagan for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Mal_1:11, “for from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering.” Isa_11:9, “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” Compare Hab_2:14; Isa_45:22, and Isa. 60.(2) The world in its progress “loses” nothing that is of value. Truth is eternal, and when once discovered, society will not let it go. It seizes upon great elements in human nature, and the world will not let it die. Thus it is with discoveries in science, inventions in the arts, and principles in morals. There is no evidence that anything that was known to the ancients which was of permanent value to mankind has been lost; and the few things that “were” lost have been succeeded by that which is better. All that was truly valuable in their science, their philosophy, their arts, their jurisprudence, their literature, we possess still, and the world will always retMn it. And what can ever obliterate from the memory oi man the printing-press, the steamengine, the cotton-gin, the telescope, the blow-pipe, the magnetic telegraph? Society accumulates from age to age all that is truly valuable in inventions, morals, and the arts, and travels with them down to the period when the world shall have reached the highest point of perfectability. This remark is true also of Christianity - the kingdom of Christ. There are “principles” in regard to the happiness and rights of man in that system which cannot be “detached” from society, but which go into its permanent structure, and which “the world will not let die.”(3) Society is thus making constant “advances.” A position gained in human progress is never ultimately lost. “The principles thus accumulated and incorporated into society become permanent. Each age adds something in this respect to the treasures accumulated by all preceding ages, and each one is, in some respects, an advance on its predecessors, and makes the final triumph of the principles of truth, and liberty, and pure religion more sure.”(4) Christianity, or the kingdom of Christ, is “aggressive.” It makes a steady war on the evil customs, habits, and laws of the world. It is in accordance with its nature to diffuse itself. Nothing can prevent its propagation; and, according to the laws of society, nothing is so certain philosophically in regard to the future, as the final prevalence of the religion of the Redeemer. It may meet with temporary and formidable obstructions. It may be retarded, or extinguished, in certain places. But its general course is onward - like the current of the mighty river toward the ocean. The only thing certain in the future is, that the Christian religion will yet spread all over the world; and there is enough in this to gratify the highest wishes of philanthropy, and enough to stimulate to the highest effort to secure so desirable an end.

CLARKE, "The dream is certain - It contains a just representation of things as they shall be.

And the interpretation thereof sure - The parts of the dream being truly

151

explained.GILL, "HENRY, "JAMISON, "K&D, "Dan_2:45

The word with which Daniel concludes his address, יציב, firm, sure, is the dream, and certain its interpretation, is not intended to assure the king of the truth of the dream, because the particulars of the dream had escaped him, and to certify to him the correctness of the interpretation (Kran.), but the importance of the dream should put him in mind to lay the matter to heart, and give honour to God who imparted to him these revelations; but at the same time also the word assures the readers of the book of the certainty of the fulfilment, since it lay far remote, and the visible course of things in the present and in the proximate future gave no indication or only a very faint prospect of the fulfilment. For other such assurances see Dan_8:26; Dan_10:21, Rev_19:9; Rev_21:5; Rev_22:6.

We shall defer a fuller consideration of the fulfilment of this dream or the historical references of the four world-kingdoms, in order to avoid repetition, till we have expounded the vision which Daniel received regarding it in Daniel 7.

Dan_2:45The מטורא before אתגזרת, which is wanting in Dan_2:34, and without doubt is here

used significantly, is to be observed, as in Dan_2:42 “the toes of the feet,” which in Dan_2:33 were also not mentioned. As it is evident that a stone, in order to its rolling without the movement of the human hand, must be set free from a mountain, so in the express mention of the mountain there can be only a reference to Mount Zion, where the God of heaven has founded His kingdom, which shall from thence spread out over the earth and shall destroy all the world-kingdoms. Cf. Psa_50:2; Isa_2:3; Mic_4:2.The first half of the 45th verse (down to ודהבא) gives the confirmation of that which

Daniel in Dan_2:44 said to the king regarding the setting up and the continuance of the kingdom of God, and essentially belongs to this verse. On the other hand, Hitz. (and Kran. follows him) wishes to unite this confirmatory passage with the following: “because thou hast been that the stone, setting itself free from the mountain, breaks in pieces the iron, etc., thus has God permitted thee a glimpse behind the veil that hides the future,” - in order that he may conclude from it that the writer, since he notes only the vision of the stone setting itself free as an announcement of the future, betrayed his real standpoint, i.e., the standpoint of the Maccabean Jew, for whom only this last catastrophe was as yet future, while all the rest was already past. This conclusion Kran. has rejected, but with the untenable argument that the expression, “what shall come to pass hereafter,” is to be taken in agreement with the words, “what should come to pass,” Dan_2:29, which occur at the beginning of the address. Though this may in itself be right, yet it cannot be maintained if the passage Dan_2:45 forms the antecedent to Dan_2:45. In this case דנה (this), in the phrase “after this” (= hereafter, Dan_2:45), can be referred only to the setting loose of the stone. But the reasons which Hitz. adduces for the uniting together of the passages as adopted by him are without any importance. Why

152

the long combined passage cannot suitably conclude with ורהבא there is no reason which can be understood; and that it does not round itself is also no proof, but merely a matter of taste, the baselessness of which is evident from Dan_2:10, where an altogether similar long passage, beginning with די כל־קבל (forasmuch as), ends in a similar manner, without formally rounding itself off. The further remark also, that the following new passage could not so unconnectedly and baldly begin with רב is no proof, but ,אלהa mere assertion, which is set aside as groundless by many passages in Daniel where the connection is wanting; cf. e.g., Dan_4:16, Dan_4:27>. The want of the copula before this passage is to be explained on the same ground on which Daniel uses רב אלה (stat. absol., i.e., without the article) instead of אלהא רב Ezr_5:8. For that ,רבא אלה means, not “a (undefined) great God,” but the great God in heaven, whom Daniel had already (Dan_2:28) announced to the king as the revealer of secrets, is obvious. Kran. has rightly remarked, that רב אלה may stand “in elevated discourse without the article, instead of the prosaic אלה Ezr_5:8.” The elevated discourse has occasioned also the ,רבabsence of the copula, which will not be missed if one only takes a pause at the end of the interpretation, after which Daniel then in conclusion further says to the king, “The great God has showed to the king what will be hereafter.” דנה after this ,אחרי which is now, does not mean “at some future time” (Hitz.), but after that which is at present, and it embraces the future denoted in the dream, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar till the setting up of the kingdom of God in the time of the Messiah.

ELLICOTT, " (45) The stone cut out of the mountain.—The mountain was not mentioned in Daniel 2:34. In the language of prophecy, it must mean Mount Zion, which appears in other passages to be closely connected with the Messiah and His Kingdom, e.g., Isaiah 2:2; Psalms 1:2. The stone is set free from this mountain, and as it rolls on in its destructive course, overthrows all the kingdoms of the world, and becomes a mountain which fills the whole earth. The Messiah is elsewhere spoken of under the figure of a stone (Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21:42). The phrase “cut without hands” refers to the supernatural agency by which the stone accomplishes its work. The stone is now rolling, as the kingdom of God spreads further and further day by day. The image is still standing, the stone has not yet fallen upon it. When that moment arrives, and not till then, “the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15).Throughout the vision we must notice one great contrast. There is on the one hand the image, which, of course, was weak, by reason of being formed of such incongruous elements, composed of the most precious metals at the top, while the lower parts ended in “miry clay “—in fact, the image was top-heavy. On the other hand, there is the stone, an emblem of strength and solidity, single, notwithstanding the countless atoms which unite in forming it, growing in strength, as it continues its historic course till it becomes a mountain, the type of all that is solid and indestructible. And one further point of contrast must be noted. While one earthly empire passes into another as insensibly as the head yields to the trunk of the body,

153

and as this passes into arms, legs, hands, and feet, without any discontinuity—that is, as empire after empire passes away, while the history of the world remains continuous—such is not the case with the stone. The work that it does is instantaneous. The moment it falls on the feet of the image the whole collapses, or, in other words, the history of the world comes to an end. Such is the relation in which the kingdom of God stands to the kingdoms of this world. They are all transient, in spite of their apparent strength, and their history will cease, as soon as the “stone shall fall and grind them to powder” (Matthew 21:44).TRAPP, "Daniel 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.Ver. 45. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain.] Christ is called a stone, (1.) For strength; (2.) For continuance; (3.) For refuge; (4.) For offence. He is piorum rupes, reorum scopulus, as Val. Max. saith of Lucius Cassius’s tribunal.Without hands,] i.e., Without man’s help.And that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold.] Broughton’s (a) note here is, Wisely Daniel telleth first how the last shall be destroyed, and not how Nebuchadnezzar’s house first should fall; so Daniel 7:11-12, where he showeth his care to please the cruel tyrant, and his own readiness of wit in the allusion that is in the Chaldee between chaspa and caespa, clay and silver; which they that observe not cannot know why Daniel brake the native order of speech for clay, iron, brass, silver, and gold. POOLE, " This verse notes,1. The small beginning of Christ’s kingdom visibly.2. The different rise of Christ from all other; his conception by the Holy Ghost, like as Melchizedek, without father and mother, respectively as to his two natures.Who shall declare his generation? His name shall be called Wonderful, Isaiah 9:6.3. This stone, as a heavy rock, tumbling down from the mountain, brake the image in pieces, which it could not be said any other did.4. Christ is a stone that grinds to powder those it falls on. He is the precious foundation and chief corner-stone of his church for ever.5. He is a growing stone, even to a mountain, mid therefore will fill the earth, 1 Corinthians 15:24. God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass

154

hereafter, i.e. the great God bath shown all this, who is above all the kings of the earth, and only knows, and decrees, and effects future things, who only doth great and wondrous things.The dream is certain, i.e. this dream is no ordinary dream, but an oracle of God; it is sent from heaven, and gives a perfect scheme and prophetical history of things to come, about the special providence of God in changing governors and governments, with particular regard to his church under them; and above all, about the kingdom of Christ, and the growth of it, maugre all the enterprises of pagan and antichristian Rome.The interpretation thereof sure; it is not a conjectural guess of the magicians and wise men of Babylon, who use to prepare lying words, because they have no knowledge of the true God, and therefore are; wholly unacquainted with his secrets, which he revealeth to his prophets by the Spirit of prophecy; which he hath now signally imparted to me; this I have faithfully made known unto thee, O King.

46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him.

BARNES, "Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face - This was the common method of signifying profound respect among the Orientals. Compare Gen_17:3; Gen_50:18; Lev_9:24; Num_14:5; Jos_5:14; Jdg_13:20; Rev_11:16.

And worshipped Daniel - The word rendered “worshipped” here (סגד segid), in the Chaldee portions of the Bible is uniformly rendered “worship,” Dan_2:26; Dan_3:5-7, Dan_3:10-12, Dan_3:14-15, Dan_3:18, Dan_3:28. It occurs nowhere else, and in every instance, except in the one before us, is employed with reference to the homage paid to an idol, all the other cases occurring in the third chapter respecting the image that was set up by Nebuchadnezzar. The corresponding Hebrew word (סגד sâgad) occurs only in Isa_44:15, Isa_44:17, Isa_44:19; Isa_46:6; and is, in every instance, rendered “fall down,” also with reference to idols. The proper idea, therefore, of the word here is, that

155

the monarch meant to render “religious” homage to Daniel, or such adoration as was usually paid to idols. This is confirmed by witat is immediately added, that he commanded that an oblation should be made to him. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that Daniel “received” or “approved” this religious homage of the king, or that he left the impression on his mind that he was “willing” to be honored as a god. The prostration of the king before him, of course, he could not prevent. The views and feelings which the monarch had in doing it he could not prevent. The command to present an “oblation and sweet odors to him” he could not prevent. But it is not a fair inference that Daniel approved this, or that he did anything to countenance it, or even that he did not, in a proper manner, rebuke it: for(1) We are not to suppose that all that was said was recorded, and no one can prove that Daniel did not express his disapprobation of this religious honor shown to him.(2) Daniel had in fact, expressed his views, in the clearest manner, on this very point before the monarch. He had, again and again, disclaimed all power to be able to reveal such secrets. He had directed his mind to the true God, as he who alone could disclose coming events, Dan_2:28, Dan_2:30, Dan_2:45. He had taken all possible precaution to prevent any such result, by declaring, in the most emphatic terms Dan_2:30, that this secret was not revealed to him “on account of any wisdom which he had more than any living.” If now, after all this precaution, and these disclaimers, the king should prostrate himself before him, and, for the moment, feel that he was in the presence of a God, Daniel was not responsible for it, and it should not be inferred that he encouraged or approved it.(3) It would seem, from the narrative itself, more than probable that Daniel did refuse the homage, and direct the thoughts of the monarch to the true God. In the very next verse it is said, “The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets.” “Answered” what? Perhaps something that was said by Daniel. At all events, it is clear from this that whatever were the momentary expressions of wonder, gratitude, and adoration, on the part of the king, his thoughts soon passed to the proper object of worship - the true God. “And commanded, etc.” The fact that this was “commanded” does not prove that it was done. The command was probably given under the excitement of his admiration and wonder. But it does not follow that Daniel received it, or that the command was not recalled on reflection, or that the oblation and odors may not have been presented to the true God.That they should offer an oblation - That is, his attendants, or perhaps the priests to whom pertained the duty of making offerings to the gods. The word rendered

“oblation” (מנחה minchāh) does not refer to a, “bloody” sacrifice, but means a gift or present of any kind. It is applied in the Scriptures to denote

(1) “a gift,” or “present,” Gen_32:13, Gen_32:18, Gen_32:20 (Gen_32:14, Gen_32:19, Gen_32:21); Gen_43:11, Gen_43:15, Gen_43:25-26;(2) “a tribute,” such as was exacted from a subject nation, under the notion of a present, 2Sa_8:2, 2Sa_8:6; 1Ki_4:21 1Ki_5:1,(3) “an offering” or sacrifice to God, especially a bloodless offering, in opposition to

- (zebach זבח) a bloody sacrifice, Lev_2:1, Lev_2:4-6; Lev_6:14 (7); Lev_7:9; Psa_40:6(7); Jer_17:26.

See the word fully explained in the notes at Isa_1:13. There can be no doubt that Nebuchadnezzar meant that such an offering should be presented as was usually made 156

in idol worship.And sweet odors - incense was commonly used in worship (see the notes at Isa_1:13), and it is not improbable that in the worship of the gods it was accompanied with other fragrant odors. Sweet odors, or “savors,” expressed by the same word which is used here, were a part of the prescribed worship in the Hebrew ritual, Lev_1:9, Lev_1:13, Lev_1:17; Lev_2:2, Lev_2:9; Lev_3:5; Lev_6:21 (14); Num_15:7.

CLARKE, "The king - fell upon his face - Prostrated himself: this was the fullest act of adoration among the ancients.

Worshipped Daniel - Supposing him to be a god, or Divine being. No doubt Daniel forbade him; for to receive this would have been gross idolatry.

GILL, "Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel,.... Imagining there was something of divinity in him, that he could so exactly tell him his dream, which was past and gone; and give him the interpretation of it, respecting things to come, which he concluded none but God could do; and therefore, after the manner of the eastern people, threw himself prostrate to the earth, with his face to it, and gave religious adoration to Daniel; for that this cannot be understood of mere civil respect appears by his following orders; and had he not thought that Daniel was something more than a man, he, a proud monarch, would never have behaved in this manner to him; but, being struck with amazement at the relation of the dream, and the interpretation of it, he forgot what both he and Daniel were; the one a mighty king, the other a mere man, a servant, yea, a captive: this shows that he was not exasperated at the account of the fall of his monarchy, as might have been expected, but was filled with wonder at the revelation made: and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him; rising from the ground, he gave orders to his servants about him, some of whom might be the priests of Bel, that they would bring a meat offering, and incense with it, and offer them to him as to a god; but, though this was ordered, we do not read it was done; for it cannot be thought that Daniel, who had scrupled eating the king's food, and drinking his wine, lest he should be defiled, and afterwards chose rather to be cast into a den of lions than to omit prayer to God, would ever suffer such a piece of idolatrous worship to be paid to him; and though he could not hinder the king's prostration and adoration, which were very sudden; yet it is highly probable he reasoned with the king upon it, and earnestly desired that no such undue honours should be paid to him; declaring that this knowledge was not of himself, but of God, to whom the glory ought to be given.

HENRY 46-49, "One might have expected that when Nebuchadnezzar was contriving to make his own kingdom everlasting he would be enraged at Daniel, who foretold the fall of it and that another kingdom of another nature should be the everlasting kingdom; but, instead of resenting it as an affront, he received it as an oracle, and here we are told what the expressions were of the impressions it made upon him. 1. He was ready to look upon Daniel as a little god. Though he saw him to be a man, yet from this wonderful discovery which he had made both of his secret thoughts, in telling him the dream, and

157

of things to come, in telling him the interpretation of it, he concluded that he had certainly a divinity lodged in him, worthy his adoration; and therefore he fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel, Dan_2:46. It was the custom of the country by prostration to give honour to kings, because they have something of a divine power in them (I have said, You are gods); and therefore this king, who had often received such veneration from others, now paid the like to Daniel, whom he supposed to have in him a divine knowledge, which he was so struck with an admiration of that he could not contain himself, but forgot both that Daniel was a man and that himself was a king. Thus did God magnify divine revelation and make it honourable, extorting from a proud potentate such a veneration but for one glimpse of it. He worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation to him, and burn incense. Herein he cannot be justified, but may in some measure be excused, when Cornelius was thus ready to worship Peter, and John the angel, who both knew better. But, though it is not here mentioned, yet we have reason to think that Daniel refused these honours that he paid him, and said, as Peter to Cornelius, Stand up, I myself also am a man, or, as the angel to St. John, See thou do it not; for it is not said that the oblation was offered unto him, though the king commanded it, or rather said it, for so the word is. He said, in his haste, Let an oblation be offered to him. And that Daniel did say something to him which turned his eyes and thoughts another way is intimated in what follows (Dan_2:47), The king answered Daniel. Note, It is possible for those to express a great honour for the ministers of God's word who yet have no true love for the word. Herod feared John, and heard him gladly, and yet went on in his sins, Mar_6:20. 2. He readily acknowledged the God of Daniel to be the great God, the true God, the only living and true God. If Daniel will not suffer himself to be worshipped, he will (as Daniel, it is likely, directed him) worship God, by confessing (Dan_2:47), Of a truth your God is a God of gods, such a God as there is no other, above all gods in dignity, over all gods in dominion. He is a Lord of kings, from whom they derive their power and to whom they are accountable; and he is both a discoverer and a revealer of secrets; what is most secret he sees and can reveal, and what he has revealed is what was secret and which none but himself could reveal, 1Co_2:10. 3. He preferred Daniel, made him a great man, Dan_2:48. God made him a great man indeed when he took him into communion with himself, a greater man than Nebuchadnezzar could make him; but, because God had magnified him, therefore the king magnified him. Does wealth make men great? The king gave him many great gifts; and he had no reason to refuse them, when they all put him into so much the greater capacity of doing good to his brethren in captivity. These gifts were grateful returns for the good services he had done, and not aimed at, nor bargained for, by him, as the rewards of divination were by Balaam. Does power make a man great? He made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, which no doubt had great influence upon the other provinces; he made him likewise chancellor of the university, chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon, to instruct those whom he had thus outdone; and, since they could not do what the king would have them do, they shall be obliged to do what Daniel would have them do. Thus it is fit that the fool should be servant to the wise in heart. Seeing Daniel could reveal this secret (Dan_2:47), the king thus advanced him. Note, It is the wisdom of princes to advance and employ those who receive divine revelation, and are much conversant with it, who, as Daniel here, show themselves to be well acquainted with the kingdom of heaven. Joseph, like Daniel here, was advanced in the court of the king of Egypt for his interpreting his dreams; and he called him Zaphnath-paaneah - a revealer of secrets, as the king of Babylon here calls Daniel; so that the preambles to their patents of honour are the 158

same - for, and in consideration of, their good services done to the crown in revealing secrets. 4. He preferred his companions for his sake, and upon his special instance and request, Dan_2:49. Daniel himself sat in the gate of the king, as president of the council, chief-justice, or prime-minister of state, or perhaps chamberlain of the household; but he used his interest for his friends as became a good man, and procured places in the government for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Those that helped him with their prayers shall share with him in his honours, such a grateful sense had he even of that service. The preferring of them would be a great stay and help to Daniel in his place and business. And these pious Jews, being thus preferred in Babylon, had great opportunity of serving their brethren in captivity, and of doing them many good offices, which no doubt they were ready to do. Thus, sometimes, before God brings his people into trouble, he prepares it, that it may be easy to them.

JAMISON, "fell upon ... face, and worshipped Daniel — worshipping God in the person of Daniel. Symbolical of the future prostration of the world power before Messiah and His kingdom (Phi_2:10). As other servants of God refused such honors (Act_10:25, Act_10:26; Act_14:13-15; Rev_22:8, Rev_22:9), and Daniel (Dan_1:8) would not taste defiled food, nor give up prayer to God at the cost of his life (Dan_6:7, Dan_6:10), it seems likely that Daniel rejected the proffered divine honors. The word “answered” (Dan_2:47) implies that Daniel had objected to these honors; and in compliance with his objection, “the king answered, Of a truth, your God is a God of gods.” Daniel had disclaimed all personal merit in Dan_2:30, giving GOD all the glory (compare Dan_2:45).

commanded ... sweet odours — divine honors (Ezr_6:10). It is not said his command was executed.

K&D, "The impression which this interpretation of the dream made upon Nebuchadnezzar, and the consequences which thence arose for Daniel.

The announcement and the interpretation of the remarkable dream made so powerful an impression on Nebuchadnezzar, that he fell down in supplication before Daniel and ordered sacrifice to be offered to him. Falling prostrate to the earth is found as a mark of honour to men, it is true (1Sa_20:41; 1Sa_25:28; 2Sa_14:4), but סגד is used only of divine homage (Isa_44:15, Isa_44:17, Isa_44:19; Isa_46:6, and Dan_3:5.). To the Chaldean king, Daniel appeared as a man in whom the gods manifested themselves; therefore he shows to him divine honour, such as was shown by Cornelius to the Apostle Peter, and at Lystra was shown to Paul and Barnabas, Act_10:25; Act_14:13. מנחה, an unbloody sacrifice, and ניחחין, are not burnt sacrifices or offerings of pieces of fat (Hitz.), but incensings, the offering of incense; cf. Exo_30:9, where the קטרת is particularly mentioned along with the עלה and the נס .מנחה is, with Hitz., to be taken after the Arabic in the general signification sacrificare, but is transferred zeugmatically from the pouring out of a drink-offering to the offering of a sacrifice. Dan_2:47, where Nebuchadnezzar praises the God of the Jews as the God of gods, does not stand in contradiction to the rendering of divine honour to Daniel in such a way that, with Hitz., in the conduct of the king we miss consistency and propriety, and find it improbable. For

159

Nebuchadnezzar did not pray to the man Daniel, but in the person of Daniel to his God, i.e., to the God of the Jews; and he did this because this God had manifested Himself to him through Daniel as the supreme God, who rules over kings, and reveals hidden things which the gods of the Chaldean wise men were not able to reveal. Moreover, in this, Nebuchadnezzar did not abandon his heathen standpoint. He did not recognise the God of the Jews as the only, or the alone true God, but only as God of gods, as the highest or the most exalted of the gods, who excelled the other gods in might and in wisdom, and was a Lord of kings, and as such must be honoured along with the gods of his own country. מן־קשט of truth ,די (it is) that, stands adverbially for truly.

CALVIN, "When the king of Babylon fell upon his face, it is partly to be considered as worthy of praise and partly of blame. It was a sign of both piety and modesty, when he prostrated himself before God and his Prophet. We know the fierceness and pride of kings; nay, we see them act like madmen, because they do not reckon themselves among mortals, and become blinded with the splendor of their greatness. Nebuchadnezzar was really a very powerful monarch, and it was difficult for him so to regulate his mind as to attribute the glory to God. Thus the dream which Daniel explained could not be pleasing to him. He saw his monarchy cursed before God, and about to perish in ignominy others, too, which should succeed it were ordained in heaven; and though he might receive some comfort from the destruction of the other kingdoms, yet it was very harsh to delicate ears, to hear that a kingdom, which appeared most flourishing, and which all men thought would be perpetual, was of but short duration and sure to perish. As, therefore, the king so prostrated himself before Daniel, it is, as I have said, a sign of piety in thus reverencing God, and in embracing the prophecy, which would otherwise be bitter and distasteful. It was also a sign of modesty, because he humbled himself so before God’s Prophet Thus far the king of Babylon is worthy of praise, and we will discuss tomorrow the deficiency in his reverence. ELLICOTT, "Worshipped.—This act is of an entirely different nature from such as are mentioned Genesis 33:7; 1 Kings 1:16. The Hebrew word employed here is always used (e.g., Isaiah 46:6) of paying adoration to an idol. Probably the king imagined that the gods were dwelling in Daniel in a higher sense from that in which they dwelt with his other wise men, and worshipped them on account of the marvellous revelation which they had vouchsafed to him through the means of Daniel.Oblation.—That is, the unbloody offering customary among the Babylonians; some honour different from the present mentioned in Daniel 2:48.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.

160

Ver. 46. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face.] Out of admiration, and an opinion of some divinity in Daniel. See the like, Acts 14:11; Acts 28:6. So the savages of Nova Albion stole upon the English, at their departure thence, a sacrifice, and set it on fire ere we were aware, saith Captain Drake, for they supposed us to be gods indeed.And worshipped Daniel,] i.e., He was about to do it, but that Daniel utterly and earnestly refused it, directing him to God, the sole object of divine adoration, as appeareth by the next verse. And indeed it had been better for Daniel a thousand times to have been put to death than to have suffered an oblation and sweet odours to have been offered unto him. He had said enough before to prevent such a mischief. [Daniel 2:28-30] See here how Satan tempteth the saints by extremes. Daniel, who before was destined to death, is now deified; and this was the more dangerous temptation of the two. Be not "ignorant of his wiles."POOLE, " This was strange, that so great a monarch should thus worship his vassal: thus was it sometimes done to men, as to Elias the prophet, 2 Kings 1:13: this was done in consternation and admiration, because he saw so much of God in the prophet, and in the revelation of the dream; but why did Daniel suffer it to be done to him?1. Though he could not hinder the king in his prostration, and in his word of command, yet doubtless he showed his averseness with much zeal and abhorrence, as the apostles did in the like case, Acts 14:13-15, because it was high sacrilege and idolatry.2. It is not said they offered sacrifice to Daniel, but only the king commanded it, which doubtless Daniel refused, because he was so careful in not defiling himself with the king’s dainties, Daniel 1:8; also when he would not omit the worship of God, though with the hazard of his life, Daniel 6:10; therefore the king, being instructed of Daniel, gives God all the glory, in the next words.BENSON, "Verse 46Daniel 2:46. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel — He was so astonished at hearing his whole dream declared and interpreted by Daniel with such exactness, and at finding such wonderful events foretold by it, that he was ready to think him more than man, (just as the Lycaonians and barbarians thought of St. Paul, Acts 14:13, &c., and Acts 28:6,) and therefore prostrated himself before him, intending, as it should seem, to pay him some kind of adoration. It must be observed, however, that “doing reverence by prostration was not only an act of worship paid to God, but often given to kings and great men, in the times of the Old Testament: see 2 Samuel 9:6; 2 Samuel 14:33. It was likewise an expression of reverence paid to prophets on account of the sanctity of their office, and not refused by them, 1 Kings 18:7. Of this kind, probably, was the worship paid by the leper to Christ, (Matthew 8:2,) whom he took for a prophet. But when other

161

circumstances were added to it, which made it look like divine worship, then it was refused to be accepted, as in the case of Peter, (Acts 10:25,) and of the angel, Revelation 19:10. The adoration here described seems to have been of this latter kind, being joined with offering incense, an act of worship peculiar to God alone: see Ezra 6:10. For this reason it is highly probable that Daniel refused the honours offered to him, and put the king in mind that he should give God the glory; as we find he does in the following verse.” — Lowth.

PETT, "Verse 46-47Nebuchadnezzar Duly Honours Daniel (Daniel 2:46-48).‘Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours to him. The king responded to Daniel, and he said, “Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing that you have been able to reveal this secret.’In what we have been looking at we have to some extent lost the powerful picture. Nebuchadnezzar, seated on a throne seat, gazing in awe at Daniel as he listened to his words, as slowly he described the content of his dream and what its significance was. And when Daniel came to an end of what he was saying it was all too much. Here before him was someone who was more than a man, he was revealed as a direct messenger of God. And overawed he fell on his face before Daniel and worshipped him. What was going through his mind we cannot know, but we can fully understand his response. Here before him was one who undoubtedly knew the secrets of the gods.And then he commanded that oblations, gifts that gave honour, should be given to Daniel and probably that incense should be burned before him, or some other sweet savour. This was no doubt a signal honour and was counted as right and proper before one who was in such close contact with the gods.But behind Daniel he saw Daniel’s God, which was why Daniel did not demur. The messenger was being honoured in honour of the One Who had sent him. And he recognised indeed the greatness of the God of Daniel. He recognised at this point in time that this God was indeed supreme among gods, and greater than all kings. He was the ‘revealer of secrets’, in a way that no other god was. But we must not see this as a conversion. Nebuchadnezzar recognised many gods, and the greatness of this God would soon slip from his mind in the house of Marduk, until he needed further secrets revealed. And then he would simply call upon Daniel.

162

47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”

BARNES, "The king answered unto Daniel - Answered either what he had said in the interpretation of the dream, or “possibly” something that he had said in regard to the impropriety of offering this homage to him. Compare the notes at Dan_2:46. It is certain that, for some cause. whatever might have been the homage which he was disposed to render to Daniel, his thoughts were soon turned from him to the true God, and to an acknowledgment of him as superior to all other beings. He seems, at least, instantly to have reflected on what Daniel had himself said Dan_2:30, and to have remembered that religious homage was due, not to Daniel, but to the God who had communicated the secret to him.

Of a truth it is - It is truly so. This had been shown by the manner in which this secret was disclosed.That your God is a God of gods - Is superior to all other gods; is supreme over all. Compare Rev_17:14; 1Ti_6:15. The idea is, that whatever subordinate beings there may be, He is supreme.And a Lord of kings - Supreme over kings. They are all inferior to him, and subject to his control.And a revealer of secrets - One of the attributes of divinity. See the notes at Dan_2:28.Seeing thou couldest reveal this secret - A secret which the wisest men of the realm had sought in vain to disclose. The fact that a professed servant of God had been able to do this showed that God was himself supreme, and worthy of adoration. We have here, then, an instance in which a proud and haughty pagan monarch was brought to an acknowledgment of the true God, and was constrained to render him homage. This was a result which it was evidently intended to reach in the whole transaction; in the dream itself; in the fact that the wise men of Babylon could not interpret it; and in the fact that an acknowledged servant of the Most High had been enabled to make the disclosure. The instance is instructive, as showing to what extent a mind clearly not under the influence of any genuine piety - for subsequent events showed that no “permanent” effects were produced on him, and that he was still an idolater Dan. 3, and a most proud and haughty man Dan. 4 - may be brought to acknowledge God. See the remarks at the end of the Dan. 7.

163

CLARKE, "Your God is a God of gods - He is greater than all others.And a Lord of kings - He governs both in heaven and earth.

GILL, "The king answered unto Daniel,.... By which it appears that Daniel interposed and expostulated with the king, and prevented the oblation to him as a god, and instructed him in the knowledge of the true God he ought to worship; as the following confession of the king more clearly shows: and said, of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods; the God of Daniel and his companions, and of the people of the Jews, to whom they belonged, is above all gods that are named and worshipped by men: this appeared at this time for the present, though it did not last long, as the following chapter shows, a most glaring truth; that the God of Israel was above all his gods, and whom his magicians and people worshipped, and above all others: and a Lord of kings; that rules over them, and disposes of them; sets them up and pulls them down at his pleasure; and transfers their kingdoms from one to another, as he learned by the interpretation of his dream, to which he may in this refer: and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret; of the dream, and the interpretation of it; which he could never have done, had not his God been a revealer of secrets, and revealed it to him.

JAMISON, "Lord of kings — The world power shall at last have to acknowledge this (Rev_17:14; Rev_19:16); even as Nebuchadnezzar, who had been the God-appointed “king of kings” (Dan_2:37), but who had abused the trust, is constrained by God’s servant to acknowledge that God is the true “Lord of kings.”CALVIN, "This confession is quite pious and holy, and is fraught with rectitude and sincerity; it may even be taken as a proof of true conversion and repentance. But, as I have lately reminded you, profane men are sometimes seized with an admiration of God and then they profess largely and copiously whatever may be expected from God’s true worshippers. Still this is but momentary, for all the while they remain wrapt up in their own superstitions. God, therefore, extorts this language from them, when they speak so piously; but they inwardly retain their faults, and afterwards easily fall back to their accustomed habits — as a memorable example will shortly prove to us. Whatever sense be adopted, God wished his glory to be proclaimed by the mouth of the profane king, and desired him to be the herald of his own power and influence. But this was peculiarly profitable to those Jews who still remained firm in their allegiance; for the greater part had revolted — notoriously enough, and had degenerated with great facility from the pure worship of God. When led into captivity, they became idolaters and apostates, and denied the living God; but a small number of the pious remained; God wished to promote their benefit, and to strengthen their minds when he drew this confession from the king of

164

Babylon. But another object was gained, since the king as well as all the Chaldeans and Assyrians were rendered more excuseless. For if the God of Israel was truly God, why did Bel in the meantime retain his rank? He is the God of gods — then it must be added at once, he is the enemy of false gods. We observe how Nebuchadnezzar here mingles light with darkness, and black with white, while he confesses the God of Israel to be supreme among gods, and set continues to worship other deities. For if the God of Israel obtains his right, all idols vanish away. Hence, Nebuchadnezzar contends with himself in this language. But, as I have said, he is seized by a violent impulse, and is not quite in his senses when he so freely declares the power of the only God.As far then as words go, he says, truly your God is himself a God of gods The particle truly is by no means superfluous here; it is strongly affirmative. For if any one had inquired of him whether Bel and other idols were to be worshipped as gods, he might answer, “yes; ” but doubtfully, and according to pre-conceived opinion, since all superstitious worshippers are perplexed, and if ever they defend their superstitons, they do so with the rashness which the devil suggests, but not according to their judgment. In truth, their minds are not composed when they dare to assert their own superstitions to be pious and holy. But Nebuchadnezzar seems here formally to renounce his own errors; as if he had said — Hitherto I acknowledged other gods, but I now change my opinion; I have discovered your God to be the chief of all gods. And, truly, if he really spoke his own mind, he might perceive he was doing injustice to his own idols, if there was any divinity in them; Israel’s God was confessedly held in utter hatred and abomination by the profane nations. By extolling him above all gods, he degrades Bel and the whole crew of false gods which the Babylonian worshipped. But, as we have said, he was swayed by impulse and spoke without thinking. He was in a kind of enthusiasm, since God astonished him, and then drew him on to wonder at and to declare his own power. He calls him Lord of kings, by which eulogium he claims for him the supreme dominion over the world; he means to assert that Israel’s God not only excels all others, but holds the reins of government over the world. For if he is the Lord of kings, all people are under his hand and dominion! and the multitude of mankind cannot be drawn away from his empire, if he rules their very monarchs. We understand, therefore, the meaning of these words, namely, whatever deity is worshipped is inferior to the God of Israel, because he is high above all gods; then his providence rules over the world, while he is Lord of all peoples and kings, and governs all things by his will.He adds, he is a revealer of secrets This is our proof of Divinity, as we have said elsewhere. For Isaiah, when wishing to prove the existence of only one God, takes these two principles, viz., Nothing happens without his permission; and his foreseeing all things. (Daniel 48:3.) These two principles have been inseparably unified. Although Nebuchadnezzar did not understand what was the true peculiarity of Divinity, yet he is here impelled by the secret instinct of God’s Spirit clearly to set forth God’s power and wisdom. Hence he confesses the God of Israel to excel all gods, since he obtains power in the whole world, and nothing whatever is

165

concealed from him. He adds the reason — Daniel could reveal that secret This reason does not seem very good one; for he infers the world to be governed by one God, because Daniel made this secret known. But, then “this has no reference to his power.” The answer to this remark is easy; we shewed elsewhere how we ought not to imagine a god like Apollo who can only predict future events. And, truly, it is far too insipid to attribute to God simple prescience, as if the events of the world had any other dependence than upon his power; for God is said to have a previous knowledge of future events, because he determined what he wished to have done. Hence Nebuchadnezzar concluded the dominion of the whole world to be in God’s hands, because he could predict futurity; for unless he had the full power over the future, he could not predict anything with certainty. As, therefore, he really predicts future; events, this clearly determines all things to be ordained by him, and disproves the existence of chance, while he fulfills whatever he has decreed.Let us learn from this passage, how insufficient it is to celebrate God’s wisdom and power with noisy declamation, unless we at the same time reject all superstitions from our minds, and so cling to the only God as to bid all others heartily farewell. No fuller verbal confession can be required than is here set before us; and yet we observe how Nebuchadnezzar was always involved in Satan’s impostures, because he wished to retain his false gods, and thought it sufficient to yield the first place to the God of Israel. Let us learn again, to do our best in purging the mind front all superstitions, that the only God may pervade all our senses. Meanwhile, we must observe how severe and dreadful a judgment awaits Papists, and all like them, who at least ought to be imbued with the rudiments of piety, while they confess the existence of but one supreme God, and yet; mingle together a great multitude of deities, and dishonor both his power and wisdom, and at the same time observe, what is here said by a profane king. For the Papists not; only divide God’s power, by distributing it in parts to each of their saints; but also when they speak of God himself, they fancy him as knowing all things beforehand, and yet; leaving all things contingent on man’s free will; first creating all things, and then leaving every event in suspense. Hence heaven and earth, as they bear either men’s merits; or crimes, at one time become useful, and at another adverse to mankind. Truly enough, neither rain, nor heat, nor cloudy nor serene weather, nor anything else happens without God’s permission; and whatever is adverse is a sign of his curse; whatever is prosperous and desirable is the sign of his favor. This, indeed, is true, but when the Papists lay their foundation in the will of man, we see how they deprive God of his rights. Let us learn, then, from this passage, not to attribute to God less than was conceded by this profane king.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth [it is], that your God [is] a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.Ver. 47. The king answered unto Daniel.] Who dissuaded him, with all his might, from doing on that sort, and inculcated that God was the chief doer.

166

Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods.] Hoc fuit momentaneum, saith Calvin; this was but a flash, such as was found in Pharaoh, Saul, and other temporaries; for if it had been in truth, he would not have set up the golden idol, &c. [Daniel 3:1] Nevertheless Nebuchadnezzar showed more ingenuity than our stiff unpersuadable refractories, and especially than the perverse Jesuits, of whom it is noted that they are so cross grained and quarrelsome that they had rather quaerere than credere, start questions than believe truth, and pertinaciously dispute than rest in the plainest interpretations.

POOLE, " A God of gods; the greatest and supreme God of all the world, above Baal, or Bel, and above all other gods.A Lord of kings; the word is Maron or Maran, which in the Syriac signifies Lord, or high Lord, seeing he is the highest King of all the earth. He makes, overrules, and pulls down whom he will, 1 Timothy 6:15 Revelation 17:14 19:16: by this he gathers that God is arevealer of secrets, Isaiah 48:3,5-8. A revealer of secrets; is supreme God, because he knows, and foreknows, and decrees all things future.Seeing thou couldest reveal this secret; therefore Daniel had it from God, who revealed it to him, which here the king confesseth.

BENSON, "Verse 47-48Daniel 2:47-48. Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods — Such a God as there is no other; above all gods in dignity, over all gods in dominion. And a Lord of kings — From whom they derive their power, and to whom they are accountable: the supreme Governor of the world, and Ruler of all the kings and kingdoms in it. And a revealer of secrets — One who sees and can bring to light what is most secret; seeing thou couldest reveal this secret — Couldest discover a matter, which it would have been impossible for thee to discover, if God had not revealed it to thee. Then the king made Daniel a great man — Or magnified him, as the original expression means. God made Daniel a great man indeed, when he took him into such intimate communion with himself, a much greater man than Nebuchadnezzar could make him; but because God had honoured him, therefore the king honoured him too. And gave him many great gifts — Which Daniel had no reason to refuse, since they put him into the greater capacity of doing good to his brethren in captivity. These gifts were no more than grateful returns from the king for the good services Daniel had done him, and were not desired or aimed at by Daniel, as the rewards of divination were by Balaam. And made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon — Which, no doubt, had a mighty influence upon the other provinces; and chief of the governors over all the wise men — Constituted him the chief ruler and inspector of

167

them who were students and professors of learning and wisdom. We are not to suppose that this holy prophet, in the exercise of the office now assigned him, would give any countenance or encouragement to any who practised unlawful arts and divinations: rather he would do all in his power to abolish all such practices, and would instruct those of whom he had the oversight in the knowledge of the one living and true God, and in that wisdom which has him for its author and its end. WHEDON, " 47. This verse proves that the “worship” of Daniel 2:46 was not to Daniel, but, as Augustine said, through him to the God whose representative he was; just as Nebuchadnezzar reverenced a living God behind the image to which he was accustomed to pour out libations. Of course Nebuchadnezzar’s words are no indication that he had turned monotheist. He was accustomed to use these titles when speaking of any one of the great Babylonian deities.

48 Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men.

BARNES, "There the king made Daniel a great man - That is, he gave him an honorable appointment; he so honored him that he was regarded as a great man. He was really made great by the grace of God, and the extraordinary favor which God had bestowed upon him, but the estimate which the king had of his greatness was shown by the tokens of the royal favor. “And gave him many great gifts.” This is a common way of showing esteem in the East. The estimate in which one holds another is evinced by the variety and richness of the presents conferred on him. Hence, all persons of distinction expect gifts of those who approach them as expressive of their regard for them, and of the esteem in which they are held. Compare Dan_2:6.

And made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon - Chaldee, השלטה hasheleṭēh - caused him to preside over, or to rule over, from the verb שלט shelaṭ, “to rule,” and commonly applied to one who rules as a prince, or in an elevated office. From this word the terms “sultan” and “sultana” are derived.

And chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon - This would seem to be an appointment which did not pertain to him as governor of the province of Babylon, or as presiding in the capital, but was a separate appointment, and, therefore, 168

an additional mark of favor. The phrase “chief of the governors” would seem to imply that the magi of Babylon were disposed in certain orders or classes, each of which had its appropriate head, like the head of a college or university. Daniel was placed over the whole as the president, principal, or chancellor. It had been the policy of Nebuchadnezzar to assemble at the capital the principal talent and learning of the realm. Compare the notes at Dan_1:18-20; Dan_2:2. Daniel thus, in both these stations of honor at an early period of life, though recently an unknown stranger, and a captive; was exalted to the highest honors which could be conferred on a subject, and raised to posts of distinction which would usually be regarded as the highest rewards which could be obtained by a long life of devotedness to the welfare of the country.

CLARKE, "Made Daniel a great man - By,1. Giving him many rich gifts.2. By making him governor over the whole province of Babylon. And,3. By making him the chief or president over all the wise men.

GILL, "Then the king made Daniel a great man,.... Advanced him to posts of great honour and dignity he was a great man before in spiritual things, in which he was made great by the Lord; and now he was made a great man in worldly things, through the providence of God; those that honour him he will honour: and gave him many great gifts: gifts great in value, and many in number; rich garments, gold, silver, precious stones, and large estates to support his honour and grandeur; and which Daniel accepted of, not merely for his own use, but to do good with to his poor brethren the Jews in captivity: and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon; the whole monarchy was divided into several provinces, over each of which was a deputy governor; this of Babylon was the chief of them, Babylon being the metropolis of the empire; the whole government of which, and all belonging to it, was given to Daniel; a proof of the king's high esteem for him: and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon; here was an university consisting of several colleges, over each of which there was a governor, and Daniel was the president of them all; or the principal or chancellor of the university: this office he might accept of, that he might have an opportunity of inculcating true knowledge, and of checking and correcting what was impious and unlawful.

JAMISON, "One reason for Nebuchadnezzar having been vouchsafed such a dream is here seen; namely, that Daniel might be promoted, and the captive people of God be comforted: the independent state of the captives during the exile and the alleviation of its hardships, were much due to Daniel.

169

K&D, "After Nebuchadnezzar had given honour to the God of the Jews, he rewarded Daniel, the servant of this God, with gifts, and by elevating him to high offices of state. רבי, to make great, is more fully defined by the following passages. השלטה, he made him a man of power, ruler over the province of Babylon, i.e., vicegerent, governor of this province. According to Dan_3:2, the Chaldean kingdom consisted of several מדינתא, each of which had its own ן סגנין The following .שלט ורב depends zeugmatically, however, on השלטה: and (made him) president over all the wise men. סגנין, Hebr. vicegerent, prefect, is an Aryan word incorporated into the Hebrew, ζωγάνης ,סגנים in Athen., but not yet certainly authenticated in Old Persian; vide (Spiegel in Delitzsch on Isa_41:25. The wise men of Babylon were divided into classes according to their principal functions, under סגנין, chiefs, whose president (= רב־מג, Jer_39:3) Daniel was.

CALVIN, "Here also another point is added, namely, how King Nebuchadnezzar raised God’s Prophet and adorned him with the highest honors. We have spoken of that preposterous worship which he himself displayed and commanded others to offer. As far as concerns gifts and the discharge of public duties, we can neither condemn Nebuchadnezzar for honoring God’s servant, nor yet Daniel for suffering himself to be thus exalted. All God’s servants ought to take care not to make a gain of their office, and we know how very pestilent the disease is when prophets and teachers are addicted to gain, or easily receive the gifts offered them. For where there is no contempt of money, many vices necessarily spring up, since all avaricious and covetous men adulterate God’s word and makes, traffic of it. (2 Corinthians 2:17.) Hence all prophets and ministers of God ought to watch against being covetous of gifts. But as far as Daniel is concerned, he might receive what the king offered him just as Joseph could lawfully undertake the government of the whole of Egypt. (Genesis 41:40.) There is no doubt that Daniel had other views than his private and personal advantage. We must not believe him covetous of gain while he bore his exile so patiently, and, besides this, when at the hazard of his life he had preferred abstinence from the royal food to alienating himself from the people of God. As he manifestly preferred the shame of the cross by which God’s people were then oppressed, to opulence, luxury, and honor, who will think him blinded by avarice through receiving gifts? But since he saw the sons of God miserably and cruelly oppressed by the Chaldeans, he wished as far as he could to succor them in their miseries. As he well knew this would afford some consolation and support to his race, he allowed himself to be made prefect of a province. And the same reason influenced him to seek some place of authority for his companions, as follows, —ELLICOTT, "(48) The Province.—According to Daniel 3:2, the Babylonian empire consisted of several provinces, each of which had its own ruler or Shilton. Daniel became ruler of this one province of Babylon. What the other office was to which he was advanced may possibly be explained when further discoveries have been made. Hitherto it has been inexplicable.

170

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise [men] of Babylon.Ver. 48. Then the king made Daniel a great man.] This was, saith Broughton, about two years before the captivity of Jeconiah, when the good figs were to be brought to Babylon; an encouragement for the faithful to go willingly, their own nobles being so advanced in that court.And gave him many great gifts.] This Porphyry, that atheist, snarleth at, viz., that Daniel received these rewards and honours. But why might he not, since the gifts he could bestow upon the poor captives, his fellow brethren, and the honours he could also improve to their benefit, himself did neither ambitiously seek them, nor was vainly puffed up by them. A noble pair of like English spirits we have lately had among us, Dr Ussher and Dr Preston, contemporaries and intimate friends to one another. The former, (a) when he was consecrated Bishop of Meath in Ireland, had this anagram of his name given him, "JAMES MEATH, I am the same." The latter, (b) when he might have chosen his own mitre, but denied all preferment that courted his acceptance, had this anagram made of him, "JOHANNES PRESTONIUS, En stas pius in honore." Behold, you stand holy, in honour.

POOLE, " Made Daniel a great man, Chald. rabbi, magnified him.Many great gifts; an estate suitable to his honour.Ruler over the whole province of Babylon; gnal col medina over the chief province of Babylon, which was head, because of the metropolis; the word is also Arabic, and therefore used in Spain at this day.Chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon: see Daniel 4:9. Daniel was chief of them in wisdom, for he could unfold what none of the wise men could. Again, he was chief in place and power, he had the rule and inspection of them which were students and professors of wisdom and learning, into their studies and manners, like a perpetual lord chancellor. Not that this holy prophet gave any encouragement to them in their unlawful arts and divinations, but rather discouraged and corrected them, leaching them the knowledge of the true God: thus doth the true religion top all the world, and make the grandeur thereof stoop to it, for it is the wisdom of God and the power of God.

WHEDON, "Verse 48-4948, 49. If this means that Daniel was really appointed viceroy, or shalit, of the

171

province and official head (rab?) of the order of Magi, he must very soon have lost that position (Daniel 2:13), which might have been arbitrarily given him out of temporary spite toward the Babylonian priests and taken from him when the king and these ecclesiastics became reconciled. (See note Daniel 2:5.) Zockler says, “What really was conferred on the prophet was probably merely a decisive influence over the administration of the province of Babylon.” For a time, at least, Daniel was “in the gate of the king.” This perhaps may only mean that he abode at the royal court, though, strictly speaking, the “gate” was the most sacred part of the temple or palace, and was, therefore, used for the highest judicial functions (Trumbull, Threshold Covenant). At Persepolis (Susa) on the doorways the king is represented rendering justice at the palace gate. A Babylonian tablet written in the twenty-eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar contains the challenge of a certain person to his opponent to bring his witnesses to the gate of the house Bel-idden, and testify, and so the most sacred city of the empire was named Babylon, “the gate of the gods.” The high court of Turkey is still called the Sublime Porte, or Exalted Gateway.

PETT, "Verse 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. And Daniel made request 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.’The king honoured his promises of rewards, and gave him many great gifts and a position of great authority. We do not know exactly what it was, and fortunately for him, for he was young, he would have advisers, but it possibly made him supreme governor of the province of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar would want him always within reach. He was also made ‘Rab signin’ (chief overseer) over the wise men of Babylon. This did not necessarily involve him in their activities. He did not need to involve himself with them, and what follows is testimony enough to the fact that he remained totally faithful to the God of heaven. But it was a position of great honour and prestige, and meant that when the king needed guidance in the future he was always there to call on without incurring jealousy. And for a time at least the wise men were probably grateful to him. He had saved their lives.Daniel did not forget his friends, indeed he knew that he would need them, and he requested that they be appointed to positions were they could assist him, a favour which was immediately granted. So they too had positions of authority. But Daniel himself had his place in the royal entourage and the palace offices (‘the gate of the king’). He was close to the king, with ready access to him.However, the overall importance of the incident as far as the readers were concerned was that it revealed that Yahweh was supreme over all. He alone had been able to do what the servants of the gods of Babylon had said was impossible.

172

49 Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.

BARNES, "Then Daniel requested of the king ... - In his own remarkable prosperity, and in the extraordinary honors conferred on him, he did not forget the companions of his humbler days. They were his countrymen; they had been captives with him; they had been selected with a view to stand with him before the king Dan_1:3-4; they had shared with him in his rules of abstinence Dan_1:11-17; they had all passed an honorable examination before the king Dan_1:18-19; they had united with him in supplication to God that he would disclose the meaning of the vision Dan_2:17-18; and now it was proper that they should be remembered by him who had been so signally honored.

Over the affairs of the province of Babylon - In what particular departments of business they were employed is not mentioned; but it would seem that all that especially pertained to this province was entrusted to them. Daniel had the general superintendence, but the subordinate duties growing out of the office were entrusted to them. The fact that the king granted the request shows the influence that Daniel had at the court. The reasons which influenced the king in granting the request may have been, not only the favor with which he regarded Daniel, but the fact that the duties of the office conferred on him now were such as to require assistance, and the remembrance of the virtues ot these youths when they stood before him.But Daniel sat in the gate of the king - The post of chief honor and dignity as a counselor of the king. The “gate” of a city in the East, being a chief place of concourse, was the place where courts were held, and public business was usually transacted. See the notes at Job_29:7. To say, therefore, that he “sat in the gate of the king,” is merely to say that he occupied a place with the chief counselors and dignitaries of the realm. The phrase “Sublime Porte,” that is, “the Sublime Gate,” is still employed at Constantinople to denote the government of the sultan, for, in the earlier days of Ottoman rule, the reigning sovereign, as is still the case in some parts of the East, held courts of justice and levees at the entrance of his residence. See “Harper’s Magazine,” vol. iv. p. 333. The office of Daniel was, perhaps, not far different from that of the grand vizier of the

173

Turkish government. See Murray’s “Ency. Geog.” vol. ii. p. 202.Remarks

Among the lessons of practical value suggested by this chapter, we may notice the following:(1) We have an instance Dan_2:1-3 of the methods which were resorted to in early periods of the world to ascertain what the future would be. This great monarch relied on a dream which greatly disturbed him, and on the power which he supposed was entrusted to men to interpret dreams. In common with the prevailing spirit of his times, and of all ancient times (notes, Dan_2:1), he believed that dreams might be regarded as prognostics of future events; that they were under Divine direction; and that all that was necessary to make them safe guides in reference to what is to occur, was that they should be properly interpreted. In common, too, with all the people of ancient times, and with most of modern times, the king here referred to had an earnest desire to look into the future. There has been no desire in the human bosom stronger than this. We are so made that we wish to lift the mysterious veil which shrouds the future; to penetrate the deep darkness which rests on the unseen world.Our great interests are there. The past is fixed, and cannot now affect us, except by the consequences of what we have done, and by teaching us lessons of value derived from our own observation, and that of others. But the future is not yet fixed. Man, so anxious to know what this is to be, finds himself in respect to it peculiarly unendowed. In relation to the past, he is endowed with the faculty of “memory,” but with nothing corresponding to this pertaining to “the future.” He can treasure up what has occurred, but he cannot in like manner make the future pass before his mind, that he may become wise by knowing what will take place in far distant times. There can be no doubt that God could have endowed the mind with one faculty as well as the other - for he has it himself - but there were obvious reasons why it should not be done. Destitute, then, as man was of this power, one great object of human inquiry has been to see whether the deficiency could be supplied, and whether something might not be found which would be to the future substantially what the memory is to the past. The efforts and results on this subject - one of which we have in the chapter before us - constitute one of the most instructive chapters of the history of our race, and show how effectually God has bounded the limits of human investigation in this respect. Among those methods of attempting to penetrate the future, and of laying open its deep mysteries, may be noticed the following:(a) Astrology. It was supposed that the stars might exert an influence over the fates of men, and that by observing their positions, conjunctions, and oppositions, it might be ascertained what would be the destiny of individuals and nations. The belief of this has manifested itself more or less in every age; and in such instances as in the word “lunacy,” and in the common apprehensions about the influence of the moon on health and on vegetation, may be still seen traces of that belief. Even Lord Bacon held that “astrology was a science not to be “rejected,” but reformed;” and in the early periods of the world it was a “fair” subject of investigation whether the heavenly bodies actually exerted such an influence, and whether, if it were so, it was possible to ascertain the laws by which this was done. This was the so-called science of astrology.(b) Necromancy. The belief of this also prevailed in nearly all ancient nations, and we find frequent reference to it in the Scriptures. This consisted in the belief that the dead must be acquainted with the world where they now dwell, so dark to the living, and that it might be possible to make a covenant or compact with them, by which they would be

174

induced to disclose what they knew. It was extensively, if not universally, believed that they re-appeared to men, and that it was not an uncommon occurrence for them to leave their abodes, and to visit the earth again. It was, therefore, not an unnatural and not an unfair subject of inquiry, whether they would not disclose to the more favored among mortals what they knew of the secrets of the invisible world, and what they knew of events which were to come. Compare the notes at Isa_8:19.(c) The arts of divination. These were founded mainly on the investigations of science. It was at first a fair question whether, amidst the wonders which science was unfolding to the view, it might not contribute to lift the veil from the future, and reveal what was yet to come. It took long to ascertain what were the legitimate aims of science, and what might be hoped for from it. Hence, it was directed to the inquiry whether some substance might not be found which would transmute all things to gold; whether some elixir might not be discovered which would arrest all disease, and give immortality to man; and whether science would not disclose some means by which the future could be penetrated, and the mysteries of the invisible world be laid open to the view. It required centuries of investigation, a thousand failures, and the results of long and patient thought, to ascertain what were the true objects of science, and to convince the world that it was not its legitimate purpose to reveal the future to man.(d) Pagan oracles. It was an early inquiry whether God would not, in some way, lift the veil from the future and disclose its secrets to man. The belief that this would be done seems to be natural to the mind of man; and in all ages, and in all countries, he has supposed that; the future would be thus disclosed. Hence, among the pagan, certain persons claimed to be divinely inspired; hence, such shrines as that at Delphi became celebrated; hence, ambiguous responses were uttered, so expressed as to support the credit of the oracle, whatever might be the result; hence, men were appointed to observe the flights of birds, to inspect the entrails of animals offered in sacrifice, to interpret any unusual phenomena in the clouds, to mark the direction of meteors, and, in general, to examine any unusual appearances in the heavens or the earth, which would seem to furnish any clew by which the future might be known. Much of all this undoubtedly became mere imposture, and justified the remark of Cicero, that he wondered that one augur could meet another without laughing; but there can be no doubt that by many these inquiries were honestly pursued, and that at first all this seemed to be a legitimate subject of inquiry. What forbade man to pursue it? And who could tell but that in some such ways the secrets of the mysterious future could be found out? It demanded long and patient inquiry and observation to show that this could not be so, and that whatever might be indicated by any of these things, it was never designed that they should be the means by which man could be made acquainted with the mysteries of the invisible world.(e) Dreams. We have seen (notes, Dan_2:1) that it was an early article of belief that through the medium of dreams the Divine will might be made known, and the secrets of the future disclosed. The “theory” on this subject seems to have been, that during sleep the ordinary laws of the mind are suspended; that the soul is abstracted from the visible world; that the thoughts which it has then must be originated by higher beings; and that in this state it has converse with an invisible world, and may be permitted to see much of what is yet to occur. Compare Intro. to Isaiah, Section VII. (2).(f) Visions. Men supposed that there might be representations made to certain favored persons respecting the future, their senses being closed to surrounding objects, and that while in an ecstasy, or trance, the mind might have a view of future events. Such were the visions of Balaam; such, in a remarkable manner, were the visions of the true

175

prophets; and so deeply was the conviction that this “might” occur engrafted in the human mind, that the belief of it seems to have had a place among the pagan nations. Compare Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (4).Such were some of the ways by which it was supposed that the future might be penetrated by man, and its secrets disclosed. By allowing man to make trial of these methods, and to pursue them through a period of several thousand years, until he himself saw that they were fruitless, God was preparing the race to feel the necessity of direct communications from himself, and to welcome the true reve lations which he would make respecting things to come.(2) We have in the chapter before us Dan_2:4-11 an instance of “the acknowledged failure” of a class of the wisest of men, whose lives were devoted to this employment, in their attempts to disclose the future. This is a fair illustration of all the attempts of the pagan, and it was doubtless permitted in order that it might be seen that all such attempts must fail. The magicians, astrologers, and Chaldeans were foiled in a case which fairly came within the province of their art, and when pretenders to this kind of knowledge ought to have been able to solve the difficulties of the monarch. Regarding this as a fair illustration of all the attempts of the pagan to penetrate the future, and to discover the great truths which it is desirable for man to know, there are three observations which may be made in regard to it:I. The trial has been a fair one.(a) There was “time” enough allowed for it. It was about four thousand years from the creation of man to the time when the canon of Scripture was completed, and promulgated to the whole world, and it could not be said that man required a longer time to test the question whether he needed a revelation.(b) The trial was a fair one, because it was one which men were at liberty to pursue to any extent, and which was conducted under the best advantages. It was confined to no country or favored class of men. In all lands, and with every advantage of climate, government, and laws, man has been engaged in the great inquiry; and if it be remembered what immense “numbers” of minds have been employed in these investigations, it cannot be pretended that the utmost desirable freedom has not been allowed to man to test the question whether “by searching he can find out God,” and disclose the future.(c) The same thing is true in respect to the “talent” which has been employed in this investigation. It is not too much to say, that the “highest” talent that the world has produced has been engaged in these inquiries, and that the rejecters of revelation cannot hope that higher powers can be brought to bear on it, or that the unaided human intellect can hope to accomplish more in this respect than has been done. The profoundest minds in Egypt and Chaldea were engaged in inquiries of this sort. The very highest talent which Greece produced in its best days was employed on questions of religion; in attempts to find out God, to ascertain the relations of man to him, and to determine what man was to be hereafter. What was true, also, of the ancient pagan, and of the modern pagan, that the best talent has been employed on these questions, is true also of the rejecters of revelation in Christian lands. Men of high powers of intellect have refused to acknowledge the Bible as a revelation, and have chosen to fall back on the unaided resources of their own minds. Aided with all that science and learning can do, they have inquired after a system of religion that would commend itself to man as true, and as adapted to his wants; and it cannot be pretended that man in this respect has not had a fair opportunity to show what the human powers can do.

176

(d) The trial has been a fair one in regard to the field of investigation. Astrology, necromancy, abstruse natural science, oracles, dreams, visions, the observation of the course of events - all these have been open before man, and in one and all of them he has been allowed to pursue his investigations at pleasure.II. There has been an entire “failure” in the attempt. The Chaldeans failed in Babylon, as the magicians had done in Egypt, to explain what was regarded as a prognostic of the future, and in both cases it was necessary to call in the aid of one who had a direct communication from heaven. The same has been the case in “all” attempts to explain the future, and to disclose what man was so desirous of knowing about the invisible world.(a) All reliance on astrology, necromancy, oracles, dreams, and the revelations of the abstruser sciences, has failed. Astrology has ceased to be a science, and the stars are studied for other purposes than to disclose future events; necromancy has ceased to be a science - for no one now hopes to be able to make a compact with the dead, in virtue of which they will disclose the secrets of the invisible world; no one now would consult a pagan oracle with the hope of receiving a response to his inquiries that might be relied on: the abstruser sciences are pursued for other purposes; and no one would repose on dreams to furnish a system of truth which would meet the wants of man.(b) The same thing has been true in regard to the various “systems of religion” on which men have relied. “It is true of the systems of the pagan.” They have been tried in the most ample manner, and have shown that they do not meet the wants of man. The experiment has been fairly made, and the system is becoming worse and worse. It is not adapted to elevate man in the scale of being in regard to the present life; it does not remove the evils which press now upon the race; it does not disclose a certain way by which a sinner may be prepared for the life to come. “It is true in regard to an atonement for sin.” The attempt has been made now for nearly six thousand years, to find some way in which an efficacious sacrifice may be made for sin. Blood has been poured on thousands of altars; animals have been offered, and thousands of human beings have been devoted to the gods, but still there has been no evidence that these bloody offerings have been accepted, or that they have availed to expiate transgression. The experiment has failed. There is no new sacrifice that can be offered now, and it is hopeless for man to attempt to make expiation for his own sins. “The same thing is true of the systems of religion, proposed by infidelity.” They are all failures. One system after another is abandoned, and no one is such as the race needs. The best talent that infidelity can hope to produce has been exhausted in this undertaking, for how can it hope to produce men better fitted to propose a system of religion to mankind than Shaftesbury, or Hobbes, or Tindal, or Herbert, or Voltaire, or Hume? Yet, after all that has been done by infidelity in modern times, an intelligent man would prefer trusting his eternal interests to such a system as Socrates would propose, to one proposed by Hume; he would feel safer under the guidance of Cicero or Seneca than under the direction of Voltaire or Gibbon.III. The “reasons why God has permitted this trial to be made, in such a manner, and with such results, are obvious. In the cases which occurred in the time of Pharaoh in Egypt, and of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the reason evidently was, that when there was an acknowledged failure of the power of the magicians, God might himself, through Joseph and Daniel, get honor to his own name. So the reasons why he has permitted this trial to be made on a large scale, and has suffered it everywhere to fail, are probably these two:

(1) to show to man, in such a way as to admit of no doubt, his need of revelation; and177

(2) to induce him to prize the volume of revealed truth.We should value it the more, and adhere to it the more firmly, in view of the experiment which has been made in all lands. If that revelation be rejected, man has no resource; he is wholly unable to penetrate the future; he can devise no way of making atonement for sin; he can originate no system that shall alleviate the sorrows under which we groan, or disclose the prospect of happiness beyond the tomb. For if the Bible is taken away, on what shall we fall back to guide us? - on astrology; on necromancy; on pagan oracles and sacrifices; on dreams; on the ravings of priestesses at pagan shrines, or the speculations of infidelity in Christian lands? All these have been tried in vain. The Bible is the only guide on which man can rely to conduct him to heaven: if that fails, all fails, and man is in the midst of impenetrable night.(3) We may learn from this chapter Dan_2:12-19, that in the perplexities and trials which arise in life, a good man may appeal to God for guidance and help. So Daniel felt, when all human power had failed in complying with the demands of a stern and arbitrary monarch. and when he and his friends, though innocent, were about to be involved in the sweeping sentence which had been issued against the wise men of Babylon. Then it was clear that nothing could save them but Divine interposition; nothing could avert the stroke but such a heavenly influence as would disclose the secret, and thus avert the wrath of the king. In this emergency Daniel felt that he “might” call upon God, and to this service he summoned also his three friends, who were equally interested with him in the issue. In view of this we may observe:I. That “all” good men are liable to meet with similar perplexities and embarrassments; to be placed in circumstances where nothing but the interposition of God can help them. This is true in such respects as the following:(a) In reference to the knowledge of the truth. The mind is often perplexed on the subject of religion: reason fails to disclose those truths which it is desirable to know; darkness and obscurity seem to envelope the whole subject; the soul, oppressed with a sense of conscious guilt, seeks to find some way of peace; the heart, entangled in the meshes of unbelief, struggles and pants to be free, and there is no human help - nothing this side the eternal throne on which reliance can be placed to impart the light which is needed.(b) In reference to duty. The mind is often perplexed to know what should be done. Though desirous of doing what is right, yet there may be so many conflicting views; there may be such doubt as to what is best and right, that none but God can direct in such an emergency.(c) In cases of peril. Daniel and his friends were in danger; and men are often now in such danger that they feel that none but God can save them. On a bed of pain, in a stranded vessel, in a burning house, men often feel that human help is powerless, and that aid can be found in none but God. Thus the church, in the dark days of persecution, has often been so encompassed with dangers, that it could not but feel that none but God could avert the impending destruction.(d) In times when religion declines, and when iniquity abounds. Then the church often is led to feel that there is need of the aid of God, and that none but he can rouse it from its deathlike slumbers, and put back the swelling waves of iniquity.II. In such circumstances it is the privilege of a good man to appeal to God, with the hope that he will interpose.(1) This was felt by Daniel, and it is an undoubted truth, as revealed in the Bible, that

178

in such circumstances, if we will look to God, we may hope for his guidance and help. Compare 2Ki_19:14-15; Job_16:19-21; Psa_25:9; Psa_46:1, following; Psa_55:22; Jam_1:5-6. But(2) what kind of interposition and direction may “we” hope for in such perplexities? I answer:(a) We may expect the Divine direction by a careful study of the principles laid down in the Scriptures. The Bible indeed does not, for it could not, mention the names of individuals, or specify every case which would occur in which Divine direction would be needed, but it lays down great principles of truth, applicable to all the circumstances which will ever arise. In this respect there is a wonderful richness and fulness in the Word of God. There is many a rich vein of truth which seems never to have been worked until we are placed in some new and untried situation. When one is thrown into perplexing circumstances; when he is called to pass through trials; when he meets some powerful form of temptation, he is surprised to find how much there is in the Bible adapted to such circumstances that he never saw there before. It seems to be a new book, written to meet just such cases; nor in such circumstances does he ever consult its pages in vain.(b) We may expect direction by his providence. The sparrow falls not to the ground without his direction, and all events are under his control, and as these events occur they may be regarded as so many indications of his will. One of the most interesting and profitable employments in a man’s life is to study the indications of Providence in regard to himself, and to endeavor to learn, from what is daily occurring to him, what is the will of God in regard to him. A careful and prayerful observer of the intimations of the Divine will is not in serious danger of error.(c) God guides those who are in perplexity by his Spirit. There is a secret and silent influence on the mind of him who is desirous of being led in the way of duty, suggesting what is true, delivering the mind from prejudice, overcoming opposition to the truth, disposing the heart to charity, peace, and love, prompting to the performance of duty, and gradually elevating the soul to God. If a man would pray when he feels an inward prompting to pray; would read the Bible when some inward voice seems to call him to do it; would do good when the inward monitor urges him to do it; would fix the eye and the heart on heaven when something within seems to lead him toward the skies, he would not be in much danger of error. Such are “spring-times of piety in the soul” - times when the soul may make rapid progress in the knowledge of the truth, and it is not enthusiasm to say that such states of mind are produced by an influence from above.(4) In view of this chapter Dan_2:17-18, we may observe that it is a privilege to have praying friends - friends on whom we can call to unite with us in prayer in the time of trouble. So Daniel found it when he called on his friends to pray; so Esther found it when her whole people were in danger, and when all depended on her successful application to the sovereign Est_4:16, and so the friends of God have found it in all ages. If prayer is heard at all, there are special reasons why it should prevail when many are united in the request. Compare Mat_18:19. Hence, the propriety of worship in the family; hence, the fitness of prayermeetings; and hence, the appropriateness of prayer offered in the great congregation.(5) God should be praised and acknowledged as having supremacy over all things, Dan_2:20-23. Particularly he should be acknowledged(a) in the changes that occur on earth; in the changes from childhood to youth, and from youth to manhood, and to old age; in the beautiful changes of the seasons, and in

179

all the variety which the seasons bring with them; in the changes from sickness to health, from poverty to affluence, from oppression and slavery to freedom, from an humble to an exalted condition; in all the revolutions of empire, and the changes of dynasties.(b) He should be acknowledged in his supremacy over the kings and rulers of the earth. Every monarch reigns by his permission, and every one is designed to accomplish some great purpose in the development of his plans. If a full and correct history of the world could be written, it would be found that God had some object to accomplish by the instrumentality of everyone whom he has called to a throne, and that as we can now see a distinct design to be accomplished by the reign of Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Cyrus, and Augustus, so we could find some distinct design in reference to every one who has ever reigned.(c) He should be recognized as the source of all knowledge. Particularly(1) he originally endowed every mind, and gave it the capacity which it has for acquiring knowledge;(2) he preserves the faculties of the mind, and gives them their just balance;(3) he makes the intellect clear and bright, and when it applies itself to the investigation of truth he only can preserve it unclouded;(4) he makes, under the operation of the regular laws of intellect, important suggestions to the mind - those pregnant hints containing so much “the seeds of things” on which all true progress in knowledge depends - those bright thoughts, those happy conceptions, which come into the soul, and which result in such happy inventions, and such advances in science, art, literature, and law; and(5) he should be regarded as the original source of those “inventions” which contribute so much to the progress of the race. At the proper time, and the best time, when some new and wonderful discovery is to burst upon the world, he raises up the individual who is to make it, and the discovery takes its place as one of the fixed points of progress, and society, with that as a treasure never to be lost, moves forward on a higher elevation, with greatly accelerated progress. So it was with the invention of alphabetical writing; the art of printing; the application of steam to purposes of manufacture and navigation; the telescope, and the telegraph; and, in general, in respect to all those great inventions which have contributed to the progress of society. If the whole truth were known, it would be seen that the hand of God was in these things as really as in the “revelation of the deep and secret things to Daniel.”(6) We may learn from this chapter, as was remarked in the notes at Dan_2:30, that for all our attainments in knowledge and wisdom we should ascribe the praise to God alone. In illustration of this we may remark:I. That there is a strong native tendency in man to ascribe the honor of such attainments to himself. It is one of the most difficult of all things to induce man to attribute the praise of whatever excellence he may have. or whatever attainments he may make, to his Creator. This exists universally in regard to talent, rank, and scientific attainments; and it is even hard for a heart that is endowed with true religion to free itself altogether from self-glorying, as if it were all to be traced to ourselves.II. Yet in our case, as in the case of Daniel, all the honor should be ascribed to God. For(1) it is to him we owe all our original endowments of mind and of body, whatever they may be. In this respect we are as he chose to make us. We have no natural endowment -whether of beauty, strength, genius, aptness for learning, or advantages for distinction in

180

science which he did not confer on us, and which he could not as easily have withheld from us as he did from those less favored. And why should we be proud of these things? Shall the oak of Bashan be proud of its far-spreading arms, or its strength? Shall the cedar of Lebanon be proud of its height, and its vastness, and its beauty? Shall the rose be proud of its beauty or its sweetness, or shall the magnolia boast of its fragrance?(2) God has conferred on us all the means of education which we have enjoyed, and all to which the development ot our natural powers can be traced. He has preserved our reason; he has furnished us instructors; he has provided the books which we have read; he has continued to us the possession of the health which we have enjoyed. At any moment he could have driven reason from the throne; he could have deprived us of health; he could have summoned us away.(3) It is equally owing to him that we have been favored with any success in the prosecution of our calling in life. Let the merchant who has accumulated great property, apparently by his own industry, suppose that all Divine agency and influence in his case had been withheld, and whatever labor he may have expended, or with whatever skill he may be endowed, he could have met with no such success. Let him reflect how much he owes to favoring gales on the ocean; to the seasons producing abundant harvests, and to what seems almost to be “chance” or “fortune,” and he will see at once that whatever success he may have been favored with is to be traced, in an eminent sense, to God. The same thing is true of all the other successful departments of human effort.(4) This is equally true of all the knowledge which we have of the way of salvation, and all our hopes of eternal life. It is a great principle of religion that we have nothing which we have not received, and that if we have received it, we should not glory as if we had not received it, for it is God who makes us to differ (see 1Co_4:7). It is God who originally gave us the volume of revealed truth - making us differ from the whole pagan world. It is God who awakened us to see our guilt and danger, making us to differ from the gay and careless world around us. It is God alone who has pardoned our sins, making us to differ from the multitude who are unpardoned in the world. It is God who has given us every hope that we cherish that is well-founded, and all the peace and joy which we have had in com munion with himself. For these things, therefore, we should give all the praise to God; and in our case, as in that of Daniel, it is one of the evidences of our piety when we are disposed to do so.(7) We have in this chapter Dan_2:46-47 an instructive instance of the extent to which an irreligious man may go in showing respect for God. It can. not be supposed that Nebuchadnezzar was a truly pious man. His characteristics and actions, both before and after this, were those of a pagan, and there is no evidence that he was truly converted to God. Yet he evinced the highest respect for one who was a servant and prophet of the Most High Dan_2:46, and even for God himself Dan_2:47. This was evinced in a still more remarkable manner at a subsequent period Dan. 4 In this he showed how far it is possible for one to go who has no real piety, and as such cases are not uncommon, it may not be improper to consider them for a moment.I. This respect for God extends to the following things:(1) An admiration of him, as great, and wise, and powerful. The evidences of his power and wisdom are traced in his works. The mind may be impressed with what is wise, or overpowered with what is vast, without there being any real religion, and all this admiration may terminate on God, and be expressed in language of respect for him, or for his ministers.(2) This admiration of God may be extended to whatever is “beautiful” in religion. The

181

beauty’of the works of nature, of the sky, of a landscape, of the ocean, of the setting sun, of the changing clouds, of the flowers of the field, may lead the thoughts up to God, and produce a certain admiration of a Being who has clothed the world with so much loveliness. There is a religion of sentiment as well as of principle; a religion that terminates on the “beautiful” as well as a religion that terminates on the “holy.” The Greeks, natural admirers of beauty, carried this kind of religion to the highest possible degree, for their religion was, in all its forms, characterized by the love of the beautiful. So also there is much that is beautiful in Christianity, as well as in the works of God, and it is possible to be charmed with that without ever having felt any compunction for sin. or any love for pure religion itself. It is possible for one who has a natural admiration for what is lovely in character, to see a high degree of moral beauty in the character of the Redeemer, for one whose heart is easily moved by sympathy to be affected in view of the sufferings of the injured Saviour. The same eyes that would weep over a welltold tale, or over a tragic representation on the stage, or over a scene of real distress, might weep over the wrongs and woes of Him who was crucified, and yet there might be nothing more than the religion of sentiment - the religion springing from mere natural feeling.(3) There is much “poetic” religion in the world. It is possible for the imagination to form such a view of the Divine character that it shall seem to be lovely, while perhaps there may be scarcely a feature of that character that shall be correct. Not a little of the religion of the world is of this description - where such a God is conceived of as the mind chooses, and the affections are fixed on that imaginary being, while there is not a particle of love to the true God in the soul. So there is a poetic view of man, of his character, of his destiny, while the real character of the heart has never been seen. So there is a poetic view of heaven - strongly resembling the views which the ancients had of the Elysian fields. But heaven as a place of holiness has never been thought of, and would not be loved. Men look forward to a place where the refined and the intelligent; the amiable and the lovely; the accomplished and the upright; where poets, orators, warriors, and philosophers will be assembled together. This is the kind of religion which is often manifested in eulogies, and epitaphs, and in conversation, where those who never had any better religion, and never pretended to any serious piety, are represented as having gone to heaven when they die. There are few who, under the influence of such a religion, are not looking forward to some kind of a heaven; and few persons die, whatever may be their character, unless they are openly and grossly abandoned, for whom the hope is not expressed that they have gone safe to a better world. If we may credit epitaphs, and obituary notices, and funeral eulogiums, and biographies, there are few poets, warriors, statesmen, or philosophers, about whose happiness in the future world we should have any apprehension.II. But in all this there may be no real religion. There is no evidence that there was any in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, and as little is there in the instances now referred to. Such persons may have a kind of reverence for God as great, and powerful, and wise; they may have even a kind of pleasure in looking on the evidence of his existence and perfections in his works; they may have a glow of pleasurable emotion in the mere “poetry” of religion; they may be restrained from doing many things by their consciences; they may erect temples, and build altars, and contribute to the support of religion, and even be zealous for religion. as they understand it, and still have no just views of God, and no true piety whatever.(1) The mind that is truly religious is not insensible to all this, and may have as exalted notions of God as a great and glorious being, and be as much impressed with the beauty evinced in his works as in the cases supposed. True religion does not destroy the sense of

182

the sublime and beautiful, but rather cultivates this in a higher degree. But(2) There is much besides this that enters into true religion, and without which all these things are vain.(a) True religion always arises from just views of God as he is; not from him as an imaginary being.(b) True religion must regard God as having “moral” attributes; as benevolent, and just, and true, and holy, and not merely as powerful and great.(c) In all these things referred to, there is not. necessarily any moral excellence on the part of those who thus admire God and his works. The mere admiration of power implies in us no moral excellence. The admiration of the wisdom which made the worlds and keeps them in their place; of the beauties of poetry, or of a flower, or landscape, though made by God, implies no moral excellence in us, and, therefore, no true religion. There is no more religion in admiring “God” as an architect or painter, than there is in admiring Sir Christopher Wren, or Michael Angelo; and the mere admiration of the works of God as such, implies no more moral excellence in us than it does to admire Paul’s or Peter’s. In religion, the heart does not merely admire the beautiful and the grand; it loves what is pure, and just, and good, and holy. It delights in God as a holy being rather than as a powerful being; it finds pleasure in his moral character, and not merely in his greatness.(8) We may learn from this chapter Dan_2:49, that when we are favored with prosperity and honor we should not neglect, or be ashamed of, the companions of our earlier days, and the partakers of our fortune when we were poor and unknown. Joseph, when exalted to the premiership of Egypt, was not ashamed of his aged father, but, though he had been an humble shepherd, presented him, with the deepest feelings of respect toward an aged parent, to Pharaoh; nor was he ashamed of his brethren, though they had done him so much wrong. Daniel, when in a similar manner advanced to the most honorable post which one could reach, in the most magnificent monarchy of the world, was not ashamed of the youthful friends with whom he had shared the humble and severe lot of bondage. So we, if we are made rich; if we are raised to honor; if we become distinguished for learning or talent; if our names are known abroad, or we are entrusted with a high and honorable office, should not forget the friends and companions of our earlier years.

CLARKE, "Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon - He wished his three companions promoted, who had shared his anxieties, and helped him by their prayers. They all had places of trust, in which they could do much good, and prevent much evil.

Daniel sat in the gate of the king - That is, was the chief officer in the palace; and the greatest confidant and counselor of the king. But whatever his influence and that of his friends was, it extended only over the province of Babylon; not through the empire.

GILL, "Then Daniel requested of the king,.... Being in his favour, he improved it to the advantage of his friends, whom he did not forget in his elevated state; but made suit to the king for them to be put into places of trust and honour, which the king listened to:

183

and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon; that is, under Daniel, who was made ruler over it; these were deputies under him, appointed to take care of some affairs, which would have been too troublesome to him, and would have took up too much of his time from court; where he chose to be, to improve his interest on behalf of the church of God. De Dieu thinks, from the use of the word in Chaldee, and from what answers to it in the Arabic language, that it was agriculture, the fruits of the field, and the revenues arising from thence, which these men had the care of: this Daniel got for them; that as they had assisted him in their prayers to God, to obtain the dream, and the interpretation of it, so they might share with him in his honours and profits he had on the account thereof; and probably he might suggest this to Nebuchadnezzar, which the more easily engaged him to grant the request: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king; either as judge there, or to introduce persons into the king's presence: or it may be rendered, "in the king's court" (t); he was chief man at court, and always resided there; he was prime minister and privy counsellor: it was usual with the eastern nations to call their court a "port", as the Turks do at this day; the Ottoman court is called "the Port".

JAMISON, "Daniel requested — Contrast this honorable remembrance of his humble friends in his elevation with the spirit of the children of the world in the chief butler’s case (Gen_40:23; Ecc_9:15, Ecc_9:16; Amo_6:6).

in the gate — the place of holding courts of justice and levees in the East (Est_2:19; Job_29:7). So “the Sublime Porte,” or “Gate,” denotes the sultan’s government, his counsels being formerly held in the entrance of his palace. Daniel was a chief counselor of the king, and president over the governors of the different orders into which the Magi were divided.

K&D, "At Daniel's request the king made his three friends governors of the province. ומני is not, with Häv. and other older writers, to be translated that he should ordain; this sense must be expressed by the imperfect. The matter of the prayer is not specially given, but is to be inferred from the granting of it. But this prayer is not, with Hitz. and older interpreters, to be understood as implying that Daniel entreated the king to release him from the office of vicegerent, and that the king entrusted that office to his three friends; for if Daniel wished to retain this dignity, but to transfer the duty to his friends, there was no need, as Hitz. thinks, for this purpose, for the express appointment of the king; his mere permission was enough. But whence did Hitz. obtain this special information regarding the state arrangements of Babylon? and how does he know that מני, to decree, means an express appointment in contradistinction to a royal permission? The true state of the matter Häv. has clearly explained. The chief ruler of the province had a number of ὕπαρχοι, under-officers, in the province for the various branches of the government. To such offices the king appointed Daniel's three friends at his request, so that he might be able as chief ruler to reside continually at the court of the king. עבידתא, rendering of service המל = :service of the king, 1Ch_26:30, according as the matter may be ,עבדתthe management of business. מלכא near the gate, i.e., at the court of the king, for ,בתרע

184

the gate, the door, is named for the building to which it formed the entrance; cf. המל Est_2:19, Est_2:21; Est_3:2. Gesenius is in error when he explains the words there ,שערas meaning that Daniel was made prefect of the palace.

CALVIN, "Some ambition may be noticed here in the Prophet, since he procures honors for his own companions. For when the king spontaneously offers him a command, he is obliged to accept it; he need not offend the mind of the proud king. There was a necessity for this, because he himself seeks from the king prefectships for others. What shall we say was the origin of this conduct? As I have already hinted, Daniel may be here suspected of ambition, for it might be charged against him as a crime that he made a gain of the doctrine which he had been divinely taught. But, he rather regarded his people, and wished to bring some comfort to them when oppressed. For the Chaldeans treated their slaves tyrannically, and we are aware how the Jews were utterly hated by the whole world. When therefore Daniel, through the feeling of pity, seeks some consolation from the people of God, there is no reason for accusing him of any fault, because he was not drawn aside by private advantage, and did not desire honors for either himself or his companions; but he was intent on that object to enable his companions to succor the Jews in their troubles. Hence the authority which he obtains for them has no other object than to cause the Jews to be treated a little more humanely, as their condition would not be so harsh and bitter while they have prefects of their own people who should study to treat them as brethren. We now see how Daniel may be rightly acquitted of this charge without any difficulty or argument; for the matter itself is sufficiently clear, and we may readily collect that Daniel was both pious and humane, and free from all charge of sin. From the words — was in the king’s gate, we ought not to understand his being a gate-keeper. Some suppose this phrase to be used, because they were accustomed to exercise justice there; but they transfer to the Chaldeans what Scripture teaches us of the Jews. I take it more simply. Daniel was chief over the king’s court, since he held the supreme command there; and that sense is more genuine. Besides, we are fully aware of the custom of the Chaldeans and Assyrians to make the approach to the king difficult. Daniel is therefore said to be at the gate, to prevent any entrance into the king’s palace, unless by his permission. It now follows, ELLICOTT, " (49) Over the affairs.—Compare Nehemiah 2:16; Esther 3:9. These holy children, it appears from this verse, were satraps, under Daniel’s supervision.Gate of the king.—Compare Esther 3:2, &c. Daniel was of higher rank than his three friends, and was therefore admitted into the inner part of the palace.

TRAPP, "Daniel 2:49 Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel [sat] in the gate of the king.

185

Ver. 49. Then Daniel requested of the king.] Acquainting him likely that by their prayers also in part the secret had been brought to knowledge. [Daniel 2:18-19]But Daniel sat in the gate of the king.] As chief admissional, so the civilians call it, without whose leave and licenee none might come into the king’s presence. Himself meanwhile had an excellent opportunity of treating with the king upon all occasions of such things as concerned the Church’s good; and this privilege no question but he improved to the utmost.

POOLE, "He substituted them as lieutenants for the king’s service, under Daniel, which, as the curious observe, was chiefly about agriculture, and gathering revenues and provisions for the court; but Daniel was as privy counsellor and lord chamberlain, about arduous affairs of the king and kingdom, sitting sometimes in judgment, and also admitting and conducting persons and causes to the king, as there was need, to whom there was difficult access, according to the magnificence and majesty of the kings of the East. Thus Daniel sat in the king’s gate, to be near and ready for the king’s chiefest business; and it notes honour, also high favour; but especially we must look upon Daniel’s promotion to be for the service and protection of his brethren in their present state of captivity, as Mordecai was, which shows that God doth remember his people in their low estate, and doth not leave himself without witness to them, in raising up nursing-fathers for them.

BENSON, "Verse 49Daniel 2:49. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, &c. — He used his interest for his friends, as became a good man, and procured places in the government for them, that they might be assisting to him in his office, and sharers in his honour, by whose intercessions, united with his own, so important a secret had been revealed to him: such a grateful sense had he even of that service! This preferring of them would not only be a great help to Daniel in his place and business, but would afford them many and great opportunities of being useful to their brethren in captivity. But Daniel sat in the gate of the king — Was a constant attendant at the king’s court: and as the expression may probably signify, was a kind of chief justice, hearing and determining such causes as were brought before him, and administering justice to the people.

186