DANIEL
Week 7, chapter 2 continued (2)
We’re still in Daniel chapter 2, and we will today look at Daniel’s interpretation of King
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. To review briefly: Daniel has told Nebuchadnezzar the dream that
the King had dreamt but has yet to tell him what it means except in the broadest sense. The
King had demanded that before he was willing to let someone give him their interpretation of
his dream, first they had to tell him the precise content of the dream as proof of their ability as
a seer. All of the Chaldean seers in Babel admitted that they had no such ability, and when
Daniel approached the King he, too, confessed that he was incapable. However, the God of
Israel knew the King’s dream because it was He who had implanted it in the sleeping King’s
mind. And this God decided to tell Daniel the dream’s details as well as the secret of its
meaning because the Lord wanted King Nebuchadnezzar to understand it.
Secondarily, because the King had ordered all seers in the capital city of Babel to be executed
(he saw them as fakes for their inability to tell him his dream), the divine revelation of the
dream by God to Daniel saved not only those Chaldean seers lives, but also the lives of Daniel
and his 3 Jewish comrades.
The dream consisted of a fearsome statue in the image of a man. The head of it was gold, the
chest and arms were silver, the belly, hips and thighs were of bronze, the legs were made of
iron, and the feet were a mixture of iron and clay. It stood motionless, lifeless in the king’s
dream as suddenly a large stone appeared and it crashed into the feet of the statue,
disintegrating it in to fine particles, which were blown away in a wind.
We learned that the stone was of divine origin, as it was cut out of something (what that
“something” is we’re not yet told) but the “cutting out” was not accomplished by human
hands. We also learned that Nebuchadnezzar was not a wicked man in God’s eyes, but rather
was God’s servant. In fact as Daniel’s speech to the King reveals, Yehoveh had gone so far
as to give Nebuchadnezzar dominion over the land, people, birds, domesticated and wild
animals, which formed the Babylonian Empire. And this circumstance had been foretold by the
Prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 27 and 28. But there was a caveat: that dominion enjoyed by
Nebuchadnezzar would only last for 3 generations. After Nebuchadnezzar, his son and then
grandson had ruled, his dynasty would end and then a series of other kings would rule over
Babylon. Once the grandson’s rule ended, God would begin to turn His wrath away from the
1 / 10

exiled Jews and towards their conquerors, Babylon.
There was an important God-principle we discussed that I want to reinforce today, and it
concerns the term “the latter days”. The reason we’re going to revisit this is quite simple: do
you want to truly understand what lies just ahead as human history winds its way to a close?
Then unraveling the Daniel mystery is pivotal; and to misread, misuse, or misapply it gives us
false expectations. We must NOT read into Daniel things that some branches of the modern
church have established as unassailable traditions, but are in fact often little more than opinion
and speculation that validates a certain agenda. This is why we are approaching the Book of
Daniel as we are, and why we’re going to have several detours to explain some pertinent
history and a handful of crucial God-principles that establish the proper context.
In Hebrew the term for “the latter days” is acharit-hayamim and it literally means “in the latter
part of the days”. This term is really only used for one thing in the bible, and that is to refer to
Messianic times. That is, times immediately approaching, during, and shortly after the
appearance of God’s Messiah. Thus when studying the Bible we need to grasp a couple of
foundational concepts about the latter days. First, there are two sets of latter-days times. The
first “latter days” occurred in the decades leading up to when Yeshua was born to the virgin
Miriam (Mary), during His adult life as He taught and revealed His identity, and finally as He
was crucified and rose from the grave. The second “latter days” is ahead of us. It will happen
in the days leading up to when Yeshua returns (the 2
nd
coming), and then when He fights the
Battle of Armageddon and begins to reign on earth as a worldwide king. We may or may not be
in those latter days right now (although it is my opinion that we are, and the main sign of that is
that Israel has returned to its ancient homeland, as prophesied). Such a thing can only be
determined with certainty in hindsight.
So when the Hebrews who lived prior to Jesus’ birth spoke of the “latter days” (even those
who lived many centuries before that day), they were mainly pointing ahead to the era of His
advent, death and resurrection (even though they didn’t grasp that this is what they were
looking for). Thus everything that we read in the Old Testament about the latter days was
looking forward to not one but two separate and distinct periods of “latter days” events. But
until Yeshua came and went that fact could not have been known. And even then that
understanding of a 2
nd
latter days only began to be revealed when the Lord spoke to the
Apostle John some years after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. And that
conversation is recorded in what we call the Book of Revelation. This process of the
“unfolding” of prophecy is the very essence of progressive revelation, which is epitomized by
the Book of Revelation.
Also recognize that ONLY among God’s Hebrew people does the concept of a “latter days”
even exist. This was not a concept that gentile societies of the world held, or had they created
some other version of it. It is a purely biblical construction and it is entirely related to some
activity or another of the biblical Messiah. So in modern times we have to be careful not to
2 / 10

lump the “latter days” and the End Times together when we’re studying the bible. Even
though the two terms are related they are not synonymous. There are two latter days, but only
one End Times. Unfortunately that exact thing happens regularly in Christian teaching about
the latter days. Obviously, the first latter days (when Christ was crucified) was NOT the End
Times because we’re all still here, the world is still being ruled by gentile governments, and
Christ is not reigning in the flesh in Jerusalem.
Stay with me, I know this is a little complicated but part of what we’re doing in our study of
Daniel is UNdoing things about the latter days and the End of Days that many of you have
been taught that are, frankly, biblically and factually incorrect and it leads to so much confusion
and misunderstanding.
The bible has no term for what the Christians call the End Times. To put a finer point on it: the
term End Times is a made-up term. Rather in Hebrew there is a term called Olam haba, and it
means “the world to come”. Thus the world to come (Olam haba) is what comes into being
after the Olam hazeh (the present world) comes to an end. It is the NT Book of Revelation that
puts the finishing touches on Judeo-Christian understanding of what is going to happen in the
2
nd
and final “latter days”. But because the Jewish people do not accept the NT as valid
(except for Messianic Jews of course), then for them what lays ahead in the “latter days” is
that the Olam hazeh (the present world of gentile domination) gives way to the Olam haba
(the new world of an everlasting age of a Kingdom of God that is Jewish dominated). And in
fact, that is what the Book of Daniel seems to imply when we don’t include the New
Testament into the equation. So for the Jewish people of today and for the past 2000 years,
their vision of the future is quite different than the typical vision of Christianity. The Jewish
vision is generally not one of a worldwide conflagration fueled by the Battle of Armageddon.
And there is no divine Messiah that returns in the clouds from Heaven; there is no Rapture of
God’s worshippers off this earth and into a safe place; and there is generally no earth and
universe that are supernaturally annihilated by fire, and then (also supernaturally) re-formed
into a new earth and new universe, just as it was at Creation.
Therefore the term “End Times” is a modern Christian label and those words do NOT exist in
either the OT or NT. So in modern Christian-eze, when we speak of the End Times it is an
imprecise bumper-sticker term and just what it encompasses varies from teacher to teacher,
denomination to denomination, and from novelist to novelist. So let me see if I can sum this up
for the purpose of actual Scripture study as opposed to the fanciful religious debates and idle
chatter of today about the End Times, which consists largely of opinion, speculation and often
downright fantasy.
First: even though the Hebrew people who lived before Christ looked ahead to something like
the End Times, their expectation was that the Jewish people would be led into victory over the
gentile world by a charismatic human Jewish Messiah. And the end result would not involve
much more than a change of human government from gentile to Hebrew (even if it was to be a
3 / 10

righteous Hebrew government, led by the re-established dynasty of King David, and based on
strict Torah observance).
Second: the Hebrews did expect persecution (tribulation) and bad times leading up to this
moment of victory. So, for instance, the oppressive rule of the Syrian King Antiochus
Epiphanies in the mid-2
nd
century B.C. that resulted in the desecration of the Holy Temple (this
is what caused the Maccabean Rebellion) was thought to be indicative of the conditions that
would mean the coming of the Messiah was imminent.
Third: for the Jews of the “Before Christ” era, the times they lived in was the Olam hazeh (the
present world conditions) that would eventually lead to the Olam haba (the new world
conditions) brought about by the coming Jewish Messiah. And in biblical terms, altogether this
era of transition from a worldwide gentile government to a worldwide Jewish government was
the acharyit-hayamim (the latter days).
Fourth: the latter days that the biblical Hebrews envisioned were only the 1
st
set of latter days,
during which time the Messiah did come but they didn’t recognize Him. Even so He did not
accomplish what the Jews of that day (not even Christ’s followers) thought would be
accomplished. Mainly this Messiah did not defeat the ruling gentile government (the Romans)
and set up a new Jewish kingdom. They were unaware of a future 2
nd
set of latter days that
anticipated a 2
nd
coming of the same Messiah.
Fifth: ever since the birth of Christ those who accept Yeshua as Messiah (Jew or gentile), and
who thus typically accept the progressive revelation offered by the Book of Revelation, we are
all in one way or another looking ahead to another latter days. But unlike the 1
st
latter days, this
time the latter days WILL involve the end of the world as we know it. There will not be a better
human history with merely a change of human government at its heart; rather instead there will
be an end to human history as we have ever known it, which is replaced by a divine kingdom
as led by a divine King. And somewhere in the process even the present earth and the
universe will be destroyed and replaced with something new.
And finally, sixth: when Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar that the dream and the statue and
the stone destroying it was about the acharit-hayamim, the latter days, neither of them had
any real understanding of exactly what it was that was occurring or what it would mean for
mankind. Whatever it was, it was future to them; it involved a violent change in world
government from gentile to Hebrew, and God was orchestrating it from on high. That’s about
it. When might this happen? No clue. How will this come about? Unknown.
So we are going to be fastidious about our reading of Daniel being careful NOT to read into
Daniel things that aren’t there, or glossing over difficult things that are. We equally have to
4 / 10

view it from the mindset and worldview of those living in that day, but also from our modern
perspective that has seen 2600 years of human history play out from the time this book was
written. Thus we have much hindsight into the events following Daniel’s interpretation of the
King’s dream. Even so, we have to be especially careful not to add some currently popular
Christian speculations to the Book of Daniel that do little more than lead us down rabbit trails.
So, with that challenging task in mind, let’s re-read part of Daniel 2.
RE-READ DANIEL 2:36 – end
Before we begin to dissect the meanings that Daniel gave to each part of the symbolic statue
of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream we need to consider the use of symbolism in the bible. Because
the Word of God is essentially attempting to explain eternal spiritual principles in the context of
a temporal physical world, a standard biblical technique is to make an illustration of some sort
using common things with which the average person is familiar. I might say, for instance, that
to compare God to a human is like comparing a human to an ant. But you wouldn’t think (I
hope) that I meant that God IS a type of human being, nor is a human being a type of ant. So
the bible uses a number of physical symbols, metaphors, illustrations, and figurative
expressions and Yeshua especially loved to use parables to get a point across. But none of
these are to be taken to an extreme; these kinds of symbols or illustrations are not meant to be
precise parallels because none is possible when trying to explain spiritual principles by
employing physical terms.
Thus for example when the plans for the Wilderness Tabernacle were given to Moses and it
was built accordingly, it was meant as an approximate illustration of the type and order of
God’s throne room in Heaven; even to some extent a model of the layout of the Garden of
Eden. But only to a point; it was not a perfect match.
Biblically ordained marriage between a man and a woman is yet another example; it was
created as a human institution on earth in order to demonstrate the ideal type of relationship
between God and His worshippers that is based on trust, faithfulness and commitment, which
in reality can only occur in perfection from a spiritual perspective. Therefore we find that there
is no physical marriage of the human-type in Heaven, and the concept that we will one day be
Christ’s “bride” and become married to Him is meant as a metaphor and must not be carried
too far. In fact if one did carry it to the extreme, then we have a male (Christ) literally marrying
millions of male followers, thus destroying the accepted God-principle of a marriage being only
between a man and a woman. Further the centerpiece of biblical marriage is that physical
consummation between the new husband and wife MUST occur or there is NO marriage. Are
we to think that we shall all have a physical marriage consummation with Yeshua? Of course
not.
5 / 10

That Christ is our High Priest also falls along the same lines. Thus we have to be careful not to
envision Yeshua like we would envision Aaron or any of the long line of Levitical High Priests.
While He will have many attributes that are akin to the Levitical High Priest He is also different
and apart from them, and operates at an infinitely higher level. In fact we are specifically told in
Hebrews 7 that Yeshua will NOT be a High Priest of the order of Aaron (the Levites) but rather
of the order of Melchizedek (that mysterious man whom Abraham honored at least 6 centuries
before there was even such a thing as a Levitical Priesthood). And even then, the comparison
is necessarily limited so we must not take it too far.
So with that understanding we shall now approach the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream-statue. The image symbol is an approximation of the succession of gentile empires that
will lead the world towards the latter days, but it is definitely not an exhaustive or precise
representation by which we must find a perfect parallel at every turn.
Verse 36 says straightforwardly that the statue’s head of gold is King Nebuchadnezzar. That
is, the Kingdom of Babylon over which Nebuchadnezzar rules is personified by the King.
Further in ancient times just as a god and the kingdom he presides over were considered to be
organically connected, so it often was the same regarding the kingdom and its king. At the
same time, Nebuchadnezzar was quite special in the Lord’s eyes and could be said to be the
epitome of gentile rulership in a similar way to how King David was the epitome of Jewish
rulership; but it would be all downhill from there forward. Thus we see in the symbolism of the
statue a descending inferiority: gold is the best and silver is inferior to gold, bronze is inferior to
silver, and iron is inferior to bronze.(but only in some senses, not all).
So verse 39 explains that after Babylon another, but inferior, kingdom (represented by the
arms and chest of silver) will replace it. Let me say right now that we would be better served by
using the word empire instead of kingdom because a kingdom in it’s narrowest sense could be
something as small as a single walled city and a few acres of land, ruled over by a petty king.
But in its broader context a kingdom could be as large as worldwide. So we need to envision
empires as enormous expanses of land, and huge populations consisting of many cultures and
races of people, all ruled under a central government. And that is the sense of it with the 4
empires of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-statue.
These descriptions of the various empires are frustratingly brief. The one that gets the most
attention is the 4
th
kingdom of iron. So following the 2
nd
Empire (of silver) will be a 3
rd
, the
bronze Empire. Verse 40 says that there will then be a 4
th
kingdom, the kingdom of iron. And
there is an explanation that since iron is the hardest of all the metals it can overcome any of
the 3 weaker metals (gold, silver, and bronze). From a perspective of the ancient world, this
symbolism makes perfect sense. Empires are built through warfare. Gold of course is not
usable for weapons not only because it is so rare and expensive, but because it is so soft as to
be useless. Silver is a bit harder, but also is too soft and expensive to be used for implements
6 / 10

of war. But bronze is different. Bronze is halfway between copper and iron in hardness, and is
far harder than silver. Thus bronze was used for weaponry as it could hold a sharp edge.
But iron trumped them all. An iron sword could literally break a bronze sword. The
technological development of iron changed the world and it altered the balance of power
among nations. So verse 40 goes on to explain that since it was common knowledge that iron
could break anything (at least anything known to the ancient world), then so would this 4
th
kingdom crush all the previous ones. No contest.
But then we get the representation of another kingdom that some scholars call a 5
th
kingdom.
This is the kingdom, or empire, that is symbolized by the statue’s feet formed of a mixture of
clay and iron. The idea is that this empire has the weak characteristics of clay mixed with the
strong characteristics of iron. What we have to envision though is not a mixture as we might
think of a cake. In other words when we take flour, eggs, milk, sugar, and perhaps a few other
ingredients, mix them thoroughly together and bake it, what emerges is a newly created item.
The molecules of the various ingredients interact and combine and forms a new concoction
altogether.
But such is not the same for a mixture of iron and clay. Rather the bits and pieces of iron
become suspended in the clay, but the molecules of clay don’t interact with the iron and form
a new substance. Thus the mixture of iron and clay is unstable. If you smash a cake it doesn’t
separate back into its ingredients. However if you smash a hardened mixture of clay and iron, it
DOES separate back into specks of iron and the dust of the clay. Thus the symbolism is clearly
explained in verses 42 and 43. This kingdom of clay and iron consists of ingredients that don’t
mix properly; and further it is a divided kingdom. Thus parts of the kingdom will be strong and
other parts weak because the mixture is inherently brittle. So is this actually a 5
th
kingdom or
just an extension of the 4
th
kingdom of iron? Well I think it’s clear that the iron and clay mixture
is something that the 4
th
kingdom eventually morphs into, but it is questionable whether it will
be viewed by the world as a separate empire. And that is substantiated by the fact that later in
the Book of Daniel, Daniel will get a vision of 4 strange beasts that rise from the sea, and
basically they symbolize exactly the same thing that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-stature
represents.
Thus far none of what I have told you is opinion or speculation. It is clearly laid out for us; the
symbolism is unequivocally explained by Daniel, we don’t have to guess. So now before we
go further, let’s see if we can ascertain just who these empires turned out to be, which each
part of the stature represents. Well, the 1
st
part, the head of gold, is easy because we’re
directly told in verse 38 that it is Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon.
But who is the 2
nd
kingdom? The conventional wisdom up to the 19
th
century was that it was
the Persian Empire, or more technically correct the Media-Persian Empire. In fact because the
7 / 10

symbolism of the animals is a precise parallel of the statue of the 4 metals, we are directly told
the answer to our question in Daniel chapter 8.
Daniel 8:16-20 CJB
16
I heard a human voice calling from between the banks of the Ulai, "Gavri'el, make this
man understand the vision!"
17
He came up to where I was standing, and his approach so terrified me that I fell on my
face. But he said to me, "Human being! Understand that the vision refers to the time of
the end."
18
As he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep, with my face toward the ground;
but he touched me, set me on my feet,
19
and said, "I am going to explain to you what will happen at the end of the period of
fury, because [the vision] has to do with the time at the end.
20
You saw a ram with two horns which are the kings of Media and Persia.
So, we learn that the 2
nd
of the empires (the silver empire) is ruled jointly by the kings of Media
and Persia.
What about the 3
rd
kingdom?
Daniel 8:21-22 CJB
21
The shaggy male goat is the king of Greece, and the prominent horn between its eyes
is the first king.
22
As for the horn that broke and the four which rose up in its place, four kingdoms will
arise out of this nation, but not with the power the first king had.
The male goat is parallel to the 3
rd
empire of bronze in Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. And who is
the goat? Greece. So there we have it. Perfectly straightforward and spelled out: Daniel tells us
that the gold head is Babylon, the silver chest and arms are Media-Persia, and the bronze belly
and thighs is Greece. And looking back into history that is precisely how it went. Babylon was
taken over by Media-Persia, and Media-Persia was taken over by Greece. Of course the 4
th
kingdom is not named, but we’ll get to that.
8 / 10

Thus it is no wonder that Christian commentators up until the time of the Enlightenment didn’t
find any mystery at all in identifying the first 3 gentile world empires because the bible tells us
exactly who they are. So why, today, has all that I just told you been thrown out the window? In
fact, the modern bible commentators of the currently dominant school of bible criticism tell us
that these verses in Daniel must be faulty. Remember what I told you some weeks ago. The
modern school of bible scholars says that Daniel is a fraud. Their evidence? Because since
their firm belief is that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy, and there is no such thing
as the supernatural, then there is no possible way that Daniel (or anyone else) could have
known things that were future to him. Therefore since history proves that what we read in
Daniel actually happened, then the only logical explanation is that Daniel had to have been
written after the fact and only pretended to be prophetic. For them there is no other
explanation.
Further, to try to bolster their argument, they claim that the writer of Daniel was, among other
things, a poor historian and so got some things wrong. They say that following the Babylonian
Empire there was a Median Empire, and then following them there was a Persian Empire, and
then after that a Grecian Empire: empires 1 through 4.
Thus for them Babylon is the head of gold, Media is the chest and arms of silver, Persia is the
belly and thighs of bronze, and Greece is the legs and feet of iron. But I must tell you, history
knows of no such thing as a Median Empire. The foremost living Middle Eastern historians of
our day must be Anson Rainey and Steven Notley. And though they are bible skeptics, even
they say forthrightly in their book The Sacred Bridge, that there was no such thing as a Median
Empire and no such reference exists in the Scriptures or in any ancient document ever
discovered. Rather, the Medes and Persians were strong partners and together they
conquered Babylon and ruled over the former Babylonian Empire. Let me say this plainly: the
modern bible scholars tell the academic historians that they must be wrong. The historians say
that there was never a Median Empire, but the modern bible scholars say that there had to
have been. Why do they insist on that? Because if there wasn’t a Median Empire, then they
can’t redefine the symbolism of the statue to fit their unbelieving mindset.
But there is another problem with the modern bible critic’s viewpoint. The arms of silver
(equivalent to the Ram with 2 horns) plainly tells us of 2 entities who work together to form a
single entity (the 2 arms are joined at the chest). Media provides the equivalent of just one of
the arms. The same applies for the issue of Persia as the belly and thighs. Persia represents
one of the two thighs, so who is the other thigh? No good answer. The modern bible critics’
conclusions completely fall apart and are frankly, illogical as they try to rewrite a global history
that no one else but them agrees with.
One final matter for today. We’re told in Daniel 2:39 that the kingdoms that arise after Babylon
will be inferior. But inferior in what way? The reality is that the Media-Persian Empire was
9 / 10

much larger than the Babylonian Empire. The Greek Empire was larger still and the Roman
Empire stretched from India to Europe. Some early commentators thought perhaps the
inferiority referred to the declining moral condition of each succeeding gentile empire, but in
fact the Roman Empire was perhaps the most moral of them all and even made Christianity the
preferred religion of the empire.
The 19
th
century conservative bible scholar Dr. Keil believes that the inferiority Daniel speaks
of is pointing towards a lack of inner unity. All empires consist of many smaller nations, so the
issue of inner unity has to do with the government that rules above these many nations of the
empire. The Babylonian Empire had a strong rulership with the power invested in one family:
Nebuchadnezzar’s. And Daniel and Jeremiah make it clear that God intended for this as He
gave Nebuchadnezzar a supernaturally provided dominion over every aspect of his empire.
The Media-Persian Empire government was divided between the ruling families of the Medes
and the Persians so they lacked the rock-solid inner unity of Babylon. The Grecian Empire
government under Alexander the Great was in time divided into 4 provinces, each ruled by a
different ruling family, and each sought to feather their own nest. And Rome was ruled by
various factions, sometimes by Emperors as dictators, and other times more like Presidents of
a Republic. Back and forth this went until later on in 285 A.D. under Diocletian the Roman
Empire was divided into Eastern and Western empires. But even that vacillated between unity
and chaos until the division was finalized in 480 A.D. So Keil might have it right.
Let’s stop here and we’ll deal with the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-statue a bit
more next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
10 / 10