# Daniel 2:43-43



## Peairtach (Nov 12, 2015)

> 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. 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.(Daniel 2:42-43)



What does this mean? 

Is it the case that with the advent of Christ's Kingdom, no (antichristian?) empire shall (or can?) arise with both the strength and longevity of the Roman Empire, or something else?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 12, 2015)

I think it has to do with the nature of man-made empires. No matter what ideas, mechanisms, or force is used to weld mankind together into an Image that competes with God, with his plans; it will fail, as did Rome's attempt. What starts out as an apparently unstoppable "iron juggernaut," despite the efforts at homogenization and a reconstitution of humanity--the recovery of Babel, we might say--it's all doomed to failure. No one can put sinful humanity back together by any other method than the divine one.

Though it has been, is, and will continue to be tried. The typical end-result is war, gas chambers, gulags, and killing fields. Because people remain stubbornly human, and in the end the powerful (man) must "destroy the village in order to save it." His aim ends up being far less grandiose, as all his efforts are put toward preserving the elite, the "brainbox," and the treasury. The people be damned. The same relentless, death-dealing power that compels unity upon those at first apart from empire, and builds a higher pyramid, has no other tool than force to maintain its existence. So it consumes itself.

Only a voluntary return to submission under the true King, and a kingdom like a rock cut with no human hands--no human devising--will produce a living harmony of men.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 12, 2015)

I've always seen many of Daniel's prophecies as being historical, and my interpretation of that part has always pointed to divisions in the Roman Empire. My history is a bit rusty, but I recall civil wars involving Mark Antony in the 1st century, and periods of a divided Roman Empire. The empire was also never well at peace internally, with various revolts going on periodically (Like Judah's ending in 70 AD). The Babylonian empire deported and forcibly mixed nations, hoping to produce a single, unified people instead of conquered peoples with nationalistic dreams. The Persian empire didn't do this as much (as far as I know), but inherited a somewhat unified empire from Babylon. The Greek empire had a bent towards forcing Greek culture on its subjects (Hellenization), which became particularly problematic to Jews during the Maccabean period. The Roman empire did much less of that, generally allowing people to keep their religions and national identity. 

Contra Mondum is certainly also right that human empires will always have an iron and clay aspect to them because only real cultural reconciliation is found in those first reconciled to God. I see the text carrying both meanings.


----------

