Page 84 - Daniel

diverse peoples in the empire. Some also feel this is a reference to the
attempted political “marriage” between imperialism and democracy. 32

Since the text does not actually tell us, probably the safest procedure
is to glean the interpretation from the meaning of the metals in the three
preceding kingdoms. Keil writes, “As, in the three preceding kingdoms,
gold, silver, and bronze 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
33
constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them.” While
intermarriage may form an element of it, it is not necessarily the main
idea. The important point is that the final form of the Roman Empire
will include diverse elements, whether this refers to race, political
orientation, or regional interests; and this will prevent the final form of

the kingdom from having a real unity. This is, of course, borne out by
the fact that the world empire at the end of the age breaks up into a
gigantic civil war in which forces from the South, East, and North
contend with the ruler of the Mediterranean for supremacy (cf. Dan.
11:36–45).

An important aspect of the fourth kingdom is the fact that it is
portrayed as having two legs. This is often overlooked by expositors,
partly because of difficulty fitting it into history precisely and partly
because some do not feel that this aspect has a particular meaning. The

problem some have with the interpretation of this passage is that while
in their view the first three kingdoms are verifiable historically, they
have difficulty finding any proof of the fourth kingdom in history.

Culver sees an increasing division in the image beginning with the
head of gold or a single ruler, then the dualism of the Medo-Persian
Empire, then the fourfold division of Alexander’s empire, and finally the
leg stage of the image ending in further division into ten toes. While
34
Culver’s analysis has much to commend it, the image does not reflect the
fourfold division of Alexander’s kingdom. Instead, the image’s two legs

represent the eventual emergence of Syria and Egypt as the two main
components of the Alexandrian period (although Macedonia at times
was also powerful). Actually there is no indication of diversity of
sovereignty apart from the two arms, two legs, and feet.