A Study of the 7-Headed, 10-Horned Beast: Daniel 2 (Part 3) - Chris White

Chris White continues his multi-part study about the beasts in Daniel and Revelation. In this episode, Chris presents an in-depth discussion about the 7-Headed 10-Horned Beast as found in Daniel 2.

Support Joyful Hearts Home: https://joyfulheartshome.com/

Vine Abiders Podcast:iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vine-abiders-podcast/id1836542893

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/08zwN9adiROSwLvZeg4Vxh

Vine Abiders Substack: https://vineabiders.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and you
don't have to logging to use it, and it doesn't
track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful. I

(00:28):
know I was gonna tell him. How do you get
the app? Just go to fringeradionetwork dot com right at
the top of the page. I know, slippers, we gotta
keep cleaning these chimneys.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
Hey, everybody, welcome to Bible Prophecy Talk. This is going
to be a best of show recorded previously, which I
think you will like. If you're interested in my non
Bible prophecy related Bible teaching, you can subscribe to my
other podcast called vine Abiders. Just search for vine Abiders
wherever you get your podcasts, or go to the substack

(01:06):
at vineabiders dot com. All right, So this is part
of the series of me going back over and trying
to figure out what the seven headed, ten horned Beast
is in the Book of Revelation and how that makes
sense of the Book of Daniel. Really it's kind of
a comprehensive look at what the symbolism really means, because,

(01:32):
as I've explained in the previous parts, there's kind of
problems with most of the views out there, including my view,
my previous view, and so what I am doing is
kind of going back over all the relevant sections and
sort of just checking my facts and learning more. In

(01:52):
this podcast, I'm going to be going over Daniel two,
which is in many ways where I think it kind
of all begins. It's kind of a base level thing
that you've got to figure out what to do with
Daniel two. I did that, and I found a lot
of things I hadn't seen before and kind of have
a different take on it. But I will say I
haven't really gotten any further in the overarching idea. What

(02:17):
the point I guess is that I'm expecting to happen
is that as I get the little pieces that I
missed on the first pass, when maybe I and many
other people who do this, you know, sort of minimize
the things that they don't like and maximize the things
that they do. If I go back over all of
it with no agenda in mind, then perhaps I can,

(02:42):
as I go through the process of studying each chapter
again something will kind of click at some point. So
that's the goal here, and I'm going over Daniel two.
And Daniel two is a chapter in which Nebeknezer, the
king of Babylon, had a dream. His professional development program

(03:02):
was that the wise men and Babylon had to tell
him the dream and then interpret it, and nobody could
do it except Daniel says, hey, don't kill everybody. I
think I can do this. They have a prayer meeting
and he interprets the dream. The dream is of a
multi medaled statue gold, silver, bronze, iron, and then iron
mixed with clay, and the interpretation is that it is

(03:26):
different kingdoms, the first the head of gold being Babylon,
although the other kingdoms are not yet named because they're
effectively prophecies at the time that Daniel wrote this. They
are we know the silver would be Meto Persia, the
bronze would be Greece, the silver legs would be Rome,

(03:46):
and the feet and toes of iron and clay are
probably We're going to discuss this a little bit a
latter stage of the Roman Empire, although there are different
views as to what that exactly means which we're going
to be talking about. So that's the basics. Now. Traditionally

(04:07):
many people have seen Daniel two as the same basic
thing as Daniel seven, In other words, Daniel seven, in
which Daniel this time has a dream. This has nothing
to do with Nebucan hazard. This time Daniel has a
dream of four beasts coming out of the sea. One
like a lion with wings. It's made to stand on
its feet and it's wings are plucked off, one like

(04:29):
a bear that's raised up on one side, has three
ribs in its mouth, and one like a leopard with
four heads swiftly across the atlant et cetera. And then
a diverse beast with iron teeth and ten horns on
its head, and all the rest of it is basically
a retelling of Daniel two. That is to say, the
first beast is Babylon, second is Medo Persia, thir is Grease,
and the fourth is Rome with a revived Roman Empire

(04:52):
aspect in that case the ten horns on the head.
So basically it's just the exact same thing, but a
different way to say it. I have taken the position
in the past of my commentary on Daniel and in
other places that that is not a great way to
look at it. And I go through some of the reasons,

(05:12):
and we're going to be talking about that probably more
as we get into Daniel seven. But for the sake
of argument, I have basically said, Okay, that could be true,
and I think there are some good reasons to think
it might be true, and I in one sense, i'm
leaning that way. In fact, before today I thought I
was going to be a lot stronger towards that view

(05:35):
than I was, But after reviewing a few more things
in Daniel two, I just I'm still kind of just
waffling and primarily think that Daniel two is its own
kind of encapsulated thing. I'm not going to say they're
not related or that you're not supposed to infer or
to understand them. Is connected in some ways, but in

(05:57):
the same way as kind of like Daniel eight with
the ram and the Goat, it's primarily fulfilled in the past.
That is to say, the feet and toes of Rome
is not a revived in times thing, but rather it's
describing the latter portion of the end of the Roman Empire.
In other words, Daniel two is effectively and primarily a

(06:18):
prophecy about the beginning of the Kingdom of God. That
is to say, when Jesus sets it up in the
first century. That's why the rock is described, which is
clearly described as a kingdom. The rock that destroys the
statue is said to be set up at that point.
That's why the rock says it starts small and grows big,
which is the same as the parables of the Kingdom

(06:39):
of God, in which multiple times are described as starting
small and growing big, like the leaven, little leaven, the
whole lump, or like the mustard seed, and which starts
small but grows big, which is another parable of the
Kingdom of God. To describe that small but growing big
nature of it. The strength of that view is just
this unbelievable accurate way it was fulfilled in the end

(07:04):
of the Roman Empire. It's this, it's so good, it's
so perfect that I have a really hard time deviating
from that view. I know a lot of people don't
like it because they feel and people like you know,
in the debate with Joe Richardson and other people have said, oh,
this is a very prederist view of Chris. You know,

(07:24):
that's a way to sort of downplague that. And of
course preterism believes everything was fulfilled in the past. They'll
never say there's no future fulfillment of anything, you know,
They'll say, did a man ever sit in the temple
declare himself to be God? And they'll say, you know,
and us futures will say, no, that hasn't happened. That's
obviously a prophecy of the future. We're preterists because it's
part of their thing. Will have to try to make

(07:44):
it fulfilled in the past. So they'll say, uh, well, yeah,
kind of in a sense that the Romans had a
flag that maybe probably could have gotten into the Holy
of Holies in seventy a d and so, yeah, it
was fulfilled in the past. So by me saying well,
Daniel two doesn't have much to do with the future
any anyway, they'll say, oh, this is preterists and all
that stuff, But it should be noted that it makes

(08:07):
no difference to a futureist perspective. That is my view
on Daniel two. Daniel. I believe Daniel seven, Daniel eleven,
and twelve our future, so you get the full futurist perspective.
Even if Daniel two is just about a prophecy of
the Messiah, it's kind of like the same thing in
Daniel eight. If Daniel eight, as I think at this point,

(08:28):
although I haven't studied it yet, which is the prophecy
about the Ram and the Goat, which is specifically said
to be about Greece and Meato Persia, And then out
of that comes Anniokis Epiphanies and maybe the Antichrist, And
at least in that one it's got more option for
it to be the Antichrist, but it is also very
clear that it's almost primarily, if not exclusively, a prophecy

(08:51):
of Antiochus Epiphanies. You can take Daniel two and Daniel
eight out of the equation, and I'm still as futurists
as can be. With Daniel seven and Daniel eleven, Daniel twelve,
where it's virtually obvious that we're talking about a future
end times fulfillment with the Antichrist, I think that Daniel
as a whole needs to be understood in that way.

(09:11):
I think there's a lot happening in Daniel where there
are these prophecies that needed to be prophesied about the
Roman Empire, which was in the complete distant future at
the time that he wrote it, as well as Antiochus
Epiphanes in the Greek Empire, which is in the distant future.
They were all important things that needed to be discussed.
And though there are degrees in which they apply to
the Antichrist, and I think some of them, if you

(09:33):
demand that they are in times because that's what is
relevant to us now, then it's causing problems. So I
think that's what's happening in Daniel two in any case.
So what I'm going to do in this podcast is
I'm first going to go over some of the reasons
that I feel strongly that the interpretation that Daniel two
is mostly about the end of the Roman Empire and
the empires that lead up to it, of course, but

(09:55):
mostly about the end of the Roman Empire and not
a prophecy of a future revived version of it. Why
I think that that interpretation is really hard to overturn.
And then I also in the second half of the podcast,
I want to talk about some of the reasons why
some of the problems that that view has, especially with

(10:18):
regard to Daniel two. Again, in this podcast, I'm not
really going to talk much about Daniel seven, because I
do think that when I get to Daniel seven, I'll
probably challenge this view that I'm talking about today more
than I would just looking at this view, because really,
this chapter doesn't really give you a lot of end
times language. This chapter doesn't give you a lot to

(10:41):
suggest that there's a reviving needed or anything like that.
Most of that kind of stuff comes from reading Daniel
seven back into Daniel too. Daniel two by itself doesn't
do that for you so much as it is just
pretty straightforward what it is. So it's only when you
know about Daniel seven do you really start to question
Daniel two. So we're gonna get more of that when

(11:01):
we get to Nano seven. But in this podcast, I'm
going to talk about Danta two, the strength of the
sort of limited interpretation and then its arguments against that,
and come to hopefully some sort of conclusion. Okay, So
there's virtually no disagreements about the first three parts of
the statue and what they represent. It's only when we
get to the legs of iron and feet of iron

(11:23):
and clay that we start to get some disagreement. So
there's one question right off the bat, which is is
the legs of iron different from the feet and toes
of iron and clay? Are they the same kingdom? But
the feet and toes of iron and clay are sort
of the end or the chronologically later part of the
legs or are they separate kingdom? Somehow that should be

(11:47):
understood as one conquered the one before it. And I
think the answer to that is yes, they are both,
and that actually the grammar sort of suggests that it's both,
and it's really hard to pin down one or the other.
I've tried a lot of different ways. And also I
think the fulfillment of it is also both. But I'm

(12:07):
going to talk a little bit more about that later on,
but for now, let's just look at the feet and
toes aspect of this. What do we know about it?
The feet and part of my argument here is that
the end of the Roman Empire is the makes the
best sense of the available information we know about these
feet and toes. The feet and toes are a divided kingdom.

(12:32):
It's this is what we know. It's partly weak and
partly strong, represented by the weak clay and the strong iron.
It tries that is it this divided kingdom it's one kingdom,
but divided somehow. It tries to fix itself. It tries
to cleave itself together. I'm going to argue through marriage

(12:54):
is what mingling your seed with other people is in
the Bible. We'll look at that in a minute, but
will also look at the other interpretations that people have
about that in the Nephelum and so on and so forth.
But in any case, it tries to fix itself with
that mingling that the surety, but it doesn't work. That's
another data point. This mingling does not work, and instead

(13:18):
it is defeated. Instead of mingling and fixing its divided nature,
it is instead defeated. But that defeat is not like
the other metals in the statue, in which they were
defeated by the one that preceded it. This one is
different because it wasn't defeated with human hands, i e.
Another earthly kingdom, but instead it was defeated by the
Kingdom of God. And it's really important to understand, and

(13:39):
it's very obvious to anybody that wants to look the
Kingdom of God. The rock in this which is represented
by the rock is not specifically Jesus or anything like that.
It is a kingdom. It's yet another kingdom. It's God's kingdom.
It is the kingdom of God that defeats this by
striking in the days of those kings, the feet in
the toes, and then it grows into a great mountain. Okay,

(14:01):
so let's look at it piece by piece again to
show that I think this is a really good prophecy.
And I also want to say that at this point
I'm going to start getting into a lot of things
that happened in history and two eighty five Diocletian blah
blah blah, and then this happened, and that happened, and
Nepo did this, and the other king did this, And
generally speaking, I don't like Bible interpretations that have to

(14:22):
get into the weeds in terms of history of any kind.
And part of the reason it is just my preference
to always interpret the Bible with the Bible. And usually
that's something you can do, but it's not always something
that you can do, especially in a situation like this,
where it's sort of demanding, it's calling upon some very

(14:43):
specific historical happenings. Daniel is like that, especially when you
get to like Daniel ten and eleven you're talking about
some very minute events that are happening. Is that you
have to know history in order to sort of confirm
your fact. So it does get into that. We don't
like it when it does. But I do feel a
little bit on solid ground that we're talking about the

(15:05):
Roman Empire because the Roman Empire is so documented about
just about everything about it. It's just been a part
of the world knowledge for so long. We have so
many records about it that it's not one of those
things that my interpretation is different than this guy's interpretation,
or that we don't have specific information about it. So
the question, first off is the end of the Roman Empire?

(15:28):
Could it be considered divided? And the answer is, of course, Rome,
as you know, kind of had several stages that started
off as a republic. Then around Julius Caesar, well right
at Julius Caesar and Augustus following, it became the empire,
right where it was just this very strong empire that
existed for a long long time. And then at some

(15:51):
point that singular empire just ruled by an iron fist,
by the single emperor, all of a sudden it got divided.
And this division is incredibly well known. The East and
West Empires started in two eighty five with Diocletian. He
split the empire into four parts, which were called the Tetrarchy,
but that didn't last very long at all. It was

(16:11):
briefly united again under Constantine, but it quickly split again
after his death into three divisions. It's total chaos, everyone
claiming to be emperor for a few years. Eventually, when
all the dust settled, there were only two divisions of Rome,
the eastern half and the Western half. And that's how
it would stay until Rome fizzled out of existence. Rome
would never again rise to the prominence at what it

(16:33):
once had at this point, and I'm reading from my
commentary on this section, and it will grow, it will
grow less and less powerful, until it's a shadow of
its former self, constantly sacked by invading barbarians, penniless and powerless.
The exact date of Rome's fall varies because of the
death by a thousand cuts nature of its decline, but
most historians put its fall at about four eighty a d.

(16:56):
A mere one hundred years after the division of the
East and West Empires solidified. So this concept of divided
and I try to really narrow down this biblical term divided.
Does that definitely mean divided into two? Is it a
technical division or can it mean divided into multiple parts?

(17:17):
As sometimes we use the word divided, it doesn't always
mean to It can mean many, And it didn't seem
obvious from the text. It seemed like it could be
used both ways. Probably your best bet would say to
divide into two, but there were some suggestions that it
could be multiple divisions. In any case, they both work
in this case, so we definitely know that the end

(17:38):
of the Roman Empire was divided. Another data point is
the end of the Roman Empire partly strong and partly fragile.
And this is important because the text actually makes this
two distinct points. As you saw the feet in the toes,
it shall be divided. As you saw the feet in
the toes. One shall be strong and one shall be fragile.
So it's not it's two big data points about the

(18:01):
description of the end of this kingdom or the feet
and toes. However you want to look at it, the
divided kingdom, and it wasn't just that they were divided
and they were both strong. No one has to be
strong and one has to be pretty fragile, and that
is unquestionably historically understood to be the case. The eastern
half of this coalition was incredibly strong. The western half,

(18:25):
you know, centered in what used to be the strong part.
Rome of course used to be where it all centered,
but Rome had since become basically a waste land, constantly
sacked by people, very difficult to rule. Because of that,
they even moved the capital to Ravenna in four oh
two because it was so dangerous. The West didn't have
any money, they couldn't hire soldiers, they were just it
was so bad. The East, in contrast, in Constantinople, was

(18:48):
incredibly strong, really rich, very fortified. They could pay off people,
they could, they could hire troops and stuff like that. Eventually,
the end of the Roman Empire really, as we're going
to see is is the eastern half sort of taking
control and like literally setting up kings of the Western Empire.
That's what's part of this trying to cleave them together,
but it not working, as we're going to see. But

(19:09):
everybody would agree this is an incredibly good fulfillment if
it's talking about the end of the Roman Empire. The
idea that one half of this empire would be strong
and one would be fragile, is unquestionably true in history.
Another data point that I feel is best interpreted as
the end of the Roman Empire and not the end
of the Antichrist Empire. At least, what we know of

(19:31):
the Antichrist Empire is that it tries to fix itself.
It tries to fix its divided, weak nature by as
the ESV puts it, so that they will mix one
another in marriage now, but they will not hold together.
That's what the ESV says. The NET says, and as
you saw the iron mixed with wet clay, so people

(19:52):
will be mixed with one another without adhering to one another,
just as iron does not mix with clay. Or it's
more really the King James and the new King James.
They have it that has this sort of nephilim context
that we're going to look at later. But as you
saw the iron mix with ceramic clay, they will mingle
with the seed of men, but they will not adhere
to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

(20:14):
But what I mainly want to take from this right
now is that this divided kingdom tries to fix itself
by this mingling, and I think, and you can see
this in other people that should know, people like Mike
Haiser and stuff who is no. He obviously believes in
the Nephalum, but he doesn't think. This verse is talking
about the Nephilam. And for good reasons. This term. If

(20:38):
you look up the term, it's an Aramaic in this section,
but Aramaic words have direct Hebrew correspondence, which you can
do word study on the idea of this mingling is
the word arab or a rob. It's basically the same
word in Hebrew in Aramaic, and it means to pledge
for surety. It means to be mingled with marriage. It's
used that way all throughout the Bible. Ezra nine to

(21:01):
two is a good example. They have taken their daughters
for themselves, as talking about the Hebrew people intermarrying with
the Gentiles, as they were not supposed to do. Since
they have taken for their daughters for themselves and for
their sons, so that the Holy Seed have mingled themselves
with the people of those lands. Yet the hands of
the princes and rulers in the chief the trespasses. So

(21:23):
the Seeds mingling themselves with other people is and it's
used that way in other places. It's obviously marriage and
mingling there in that sense, because the word mingling is
also used of pledging surety for something, so it's actually
used that way probably the majority of the times in

(21:43):
which you pledge your surety of something. Anyway, it's another
thing that we'll look at later. But the bottom line
is that there's a reason why the ESV and others
translate this as they tried to make these marriages to
fix this problem, but it didn't work, and that is
an unambiguous again fulfillment in Rome. And as I say

(22:06):
in the commentary, it would be one thing if I
had to go searching for some obscure political marriages to
try to fix this issue. But these are just blatant,
exact fulfillments of this this divided, weak kingdom trying desperately
recognizing its problem because it's divided. Because it's weak, it
needed to fix itself. And the solution it comes up

(22:29):
with is multiple political marriages which don't work out because
people are killed. All kinds of stuff happens. Anyway. Let
me just read from my commentary on that point. The
first speaking of political marriages was in four sixty seven,
only about nine years before the last Roman emperor. This
is the time when the Vandals were posing a major

(22:49):
threat to Rome, and while Leo, who was reigning strongly
in the East, there had not been an emperor in
the West four years because a man named Rickmer, who
had been ruling behind the scenes by manipulating puppet emperors
from years, had not appointed another puppet emperor and was
hoping that no one would care, that people would just
accept him as the default emperor. All that became a
problem when the Eastern Empire was threatened by the Vandals

(23:10):
again and imminent war was ready. So Leo in the
East decided to just choose an emperor for the West.
He chose a guy named Anthemius and sent him to
the West with a big army so that Rikimer would
just have to get with a new program. The marriage
connection is that the emperor of the East, Leo, gave
his daughter Leonida to Anthemius, the son of Marcian, to
legitimize the reign of this new appointee to the West,

(23:33):
essentially saying, okay, East and West, we're now one big family.
Now we are one family. The East and West we
have united, so let's go fight the Vandals or we're
all going to be in big trouble. In addition, Anthemius
also gave his only daughter, Alpia to Rickhimer, the puppet master,
so it would kind of be intermarried there, so they
could even be a recognized family within the sort of

(23:54):
shadow deep state, which also made Anthemius, who was a
Greek speaking foreigner to the west, acceptable to the Latin
speaking Romans, of which Rikimer had become kind of a ringleader.
This plan might have worked too, but the battle of
the Vandals went very badly. Anthemius actually fell out with
his Leonida, Leo's wife for him, and it was actually

(24:17):
killed by Rickimer, so it just didn't cleave together. To say.
The least, second attempt of cleaving the East and West
together with marriages, this time it occurred in four seventy four,
just two years before the last Roman emperor, with Julius Nepos.
There's actually a lot of people that argue that Nepos
was the last Roman emperor, choosing not to count the
child Romulus Augustulus, who ruled quote unquote for about a

(24:40):
year after Nepos was exiled. This time Leo married off
his niece to Nepos. Actually the surname Nepos means nephew,
because he took the name nephew as his title, referring
to his now nephew status to Leo in the East.
It should show us the importance of that marriage in
the attempt to unify the East and the West. But
it was too late for Rome. There were too many problems.

(25:02):
And just like this verse in Daniel says, these two
divisions of the final Kingdom do not adhere to one another.
And the fall of the Western Roman Empire is put
somewhere around this time for seventy six to four eighty. Also,
I just thought of this. I have made all of
my books for free. Now. I've put them in web
format and they're all free. I put a new website up.
It's called Bible Prophecy Text. You can go through every

(25:23):
chapter of every book I've ever written. It's all free.
It's all searchable online Bible prophecytext dot com. And for
the most part, I'm just going to consider them to
be public domain. You can use any of them any
way that you want. Another data point that I feel
is in this one, it's maybe not correct to say
it's best described by the end of the Roman Empire,

(25:44):
because this also would just as easily apply to the
end of the Antichrist empire, which is that it is
destroyed not with human hands. The Roman Empire was not
destroyed by another empire like the others on this multi
statue list. It just sort of fizzled out. And the
interesting thing though, is that in both cases I'm describing

(26:08):
my interpretation, or what I think is my interpretation of
Daniel two being mostly represented about the end of the
Roman Empire in that interpretation, and in a possible interpretation
of Daniel seven in which it's all future, in which
that kingdom is also destroyed by human hands. But interestingly,
they both could be said to have been destroyed by

(26:29):
the Kingdom of God. And I think that might be
the connection here, But let me talk about that in
a minute. First, I just want to make this point
that if you asked one hundred different historians the main
reason that Rome fell, you would get one hundred different answers,
because there is just this a lot of reasons why

(26:49):
Rome fell at that point, but all of them would agree,
and all one hundred of those Christianity would be mentioned
by all of them. I'm quite certain it's just on
every list as a main factor of the reason that
Rome fell. And part of the reason for that is
that Rome's state religion was the worship of gods like
you know, Saturn, the Pantheon of Gods. I mean, they're

(27:11):
huge temples that were very patriotic in Rome. They believed
that the reason Rome was Rome was because the gods
favored them, and if you did bad things to the gods,
then it would be bad for Rome. It was incredibly
important idea. Anybody that knows anything about Rome knows that.
And so when Christianity was legalized in three thirteen and
eventually became the state religion in three point eighty, Remember

(27:33):
the empire fell about one hundred years later. For eighty
that that was a huge cohesion problem, not to mention
the problems that caused with the slave class and all
kinds of other issues that grew out of that. The
persecution of Christians for as much zeal as people like
Nero and other emperors put on that, it caused a
disillusionment with other aspects of it. And of course it's

(27:56):
just it's a really, it's a really multifaceted thing. But
to say that Rome was actually if we're taking this idea,
and I guess I need to back up, and we
need to talk about this idea of the kingdom of
God first, So reading in context Daniel two thirty four
through thirty five, this is when the dream is described.
You watched while a stone was cut out without hands,

(28:18):
which struck the image on its feet of iron and
clay and broke them into pieces. The iron, the clay,
the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together
and became like chaff from the summer threshing floor. The
wind carried them away so that no trace of them
was found, and the stone that struck the image became
a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Later on,

(28:38):
when the dream is interpreted Daniel two forty four. And
in the days of those kings which the God of
Heaven will set up a kingdom, set up a kingdom
that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be
left to another people. It shall break in pieces all
these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it
shall stand forever. So let's talk a little about the kingdom.

(28:58):
The stone is a kingdom, a kingdom that God will
institute during the Roman Empire that will eventually grow to
encompass the entire world. This is agreed upon by many scholars,
even Stephen Miller, who holds to the revived Roman Empire view.
He's the guy I quote a lot in this commentary.
There are some that would say that this has to
be speaking of Jesus because Ephesians two twenty, which says

(29:19):
he is the cornerstone. But that would offend the explicit
teaching in this verse that this rock is a kingdom
in the same way that the others were a kingdom.
This rock is representative of what is known all throughout
the Bible as the Kingdom of God. And I will
show you a few verses to demonstrate two points. Number
one that Jesus Christ begins the Kingdom of God in
his day during the Roman Empire, and number two that

(29:41):
the Kingdom of God is supposed to start small and
then grow large, typified by starting with the apostles and
spreading to all those who will ever be saved. Number one,
that Jesus Christ begins the Kingdom of God in his
day Mark one fifteen and saying the time is fulfilled
and the Kingdom of God is a at hand, repent
and believe in the Gospel Matthew twelve, twenty eight. But

(30:04):
if I cast out demons by the spirit of God,
surely the Kingdom of God has come upon you Luke,
seventeen twenty through twenty one. Now, at one point the
Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God was coming.
So he answered, the Kingdom of God is not coming
with signs to be observed, nor will they say, look
here it is or there. For indeed, the Kingdom of

(30:25):
God is in your midst There does seem to be
a present and future sense of the Kingdom of God,
in the sense that the ultimate fulfillment of the Kingdom
of God is not here or in this world, but
rather in the future. But I believe it can be
shown with certainty that Jesus considered the Kingdom of God
to have been established or set up with him on
earth during his teaching ministry. The second point that I

(30:49):
think is important because it helps to explain this idea
of this rock that struck the statue being a rock,
but then growing into a great mountain and filling the earth,
a sort of two stone age aspect of the rock
the Kingdom, and the Daniel passage seems to correspond with
the parables in for example, Matthew thirteen thirty one through
thirty three about the Kingdom of God. Another parable he

(31:11):
put forth to them, saying, the Kingdom of Heaven is
like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed
in his field, which indeed is the least of all
the seeds. But when it is grown, it's greater than
the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds
of the air come and nest in its branches. Another
parable he spoke to them, the Kingdom of Heaven is
like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three

(31:32):
measures of meal, till it was all levened. These two
parables are describing the small and then growing large aspect
of the Kingdom of God. So this is in a
sense of prophecy for all the ancient peoples as to
the general time that the Messiah would come, that is,
the Kingdom of God would be established sometime during the
Roman Empire. This may be one reason that Messianic expectations

(31:55):
were so high in Jesus's day, and that's basically the
thesis I had for the Kingdom of God being established
in Jesus's day. The Kingdom of God will also be
established when he destroys the antichrist kingdom and the end
times and sets up a literal total fulfillment of all
the Messianic expectations and the end times. And I actually

(32:15):
think that more and more really today this kind of
came into more focus that I think that's the point.
You know, it's the same kind of problem that the
people in Jesus's day had trying to understand, Hey, is
this the Kingdom of God? I mean, because that's what
they really wanted, was the end Times version, and Jesus
told them, here it is. The Kingdom of God is here,

(32:38):
but in a sense, it's not here. And I think
maybe that's the tension between Daniel two and Daniel seven
and the setting up of the two. Kingdom of God's there,
But that's just a working theory right now. I really
need to get into Daniel seven before we can get there.
So this next section starts what I call other considerations.
And this first one kind of went back and forth.
I thought it was an argument against than an argument four,

(32:58):
than back against them back four, and it is the
idea that the antichrist kingdom in other places doesn't seem
to be described as divided, isn't described as weak. It's
certainly not described as trying to cleave together but failing,
trying to fix that problem but failing. It seems to
be described in the other places that we know about

(33:19):
the Antichrist in his end times world is very strong,
who can make war with the beast. He seems invincible,
at least for up until a certain point. Obviously, when
Jesus comes back, he's not invincible at all. But there's
this sense that it's extremely strong, not divided in weak.
It's a new doctrine of the Antichrist sort of. So

(33:41):
that was an argument that I used to make, saying
that this is a very proof positive case that Daniel
two the end of this the feet and toes can
be a description of the Antichrist, because that's just not
doctrine of the Antichrist. Now, on one hand, I would
say that's certainly possible. There are other places where we
know about the end times just because of one verse.
If I said, well, we don't know how any doctrine

(34:02):
about the Antichrist on that, well, I could say well,
here it is. Here's your doctrine of the antichristis kingdom
will be divided in weak, and we know that because
of Daniel two, if no other place. Then I was thinking, well,
it could be a reference to the three kings in
Daniel seven that get subdued.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
Right.

Speaker 2 (34:21):
We talked about that in a previous podcast, where he
does something to three of the horns and replaces them,
but not really replaces them because there's still ten plus him,
so he just sort of subdues or humiliates it. Sometimes
it's translated as these three kings and sort of converts
them all to his side. So maybe whatever is happening

(34:42):
with that sort of conversion of those three kings or
subduing or humiliating them, maybe that's supposed to be the
other place where we now have evidence that his kingdom
was divided in weak. There was some infighting of some
kind going on with those kings, right, the three humiliated
and then became ten. So then I kind of swung
back and said, well, okay, maybe that's what's happening, especially

(35:05):
because you got Daniel two and Daniel seven and there's
some connections there and other reasons, so maybe that's kind
of a parallel there. The divided in week should be
equated with the three kings being subdued. But if those
ten kings in Daniel seven, I won't say there's ten
kings and Daniel two necessarily because it's never enumerated. Yes,
it talks about toes, but it doesn't say there are

(35:27):
ten of them. You have to basically read back into
Daniel two the number ten from Daniel seven if you
want there to be ten. I'm not saying that's an
impossible thing or that you're not supposed to do that,
but for the sake of argument, I'm just taking Daniel
seven and say, well, there are definitely ten horns and
ten kings in Daniel seven. If those ten kings in
Daniel seven are to be equated with the ten kings

(35:49):
in Revelation seventeen, which I think is pretty much obvious,
there are ten horns on the beast head, they're ten kings.
They're the exact same things that are happening in both situations.
Ten horns in the head, ten kings that are associated
with the Antichrist. I think it's a pretty much home
run to equate the two. Then you've got a problem

(36:10):
because it says this of the ten horns in Revelation seventeen,
and the ten horns you saw, they and the beast
will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked,
and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire.
For God has put it in their hearts to carry
out his purpose by being of one mind and handing

(36:30):
over their royal power to the beast, until the words
of God are fulfilled. For God has put it into
their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of
one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast,
until the words of God are fulfilled. So these ten
kings are godly ordained to be united with one another,

(36:53):
first of all, being of one mind and united with
the Antichrist, handing over their royal power to the beast.
So even if, and it appears to be if we
equate these, the very beginning of this aspect was there
was a three king issue, in which you know, in
his rise to power, he used three to get all
ten on his side, or what have you. Certainly, by
the end which Revelation seventeen is unquestionably at the end

(37:15):
of this this is them right at the destruction of
Mystery Babylon. This is right before Armageddon. This is the
very end of this situation. And if that's what you
want to make, the divided and weak nature of the
of the feet and toes, the iron and clay, it's
a necessary component that that must be the very end
of that situation, not up near the ankles or whatever.

(37:36):
It's got to be the very end of this whole
situation has to be. They're divided, they're week, they're trying
to cleave together but not and that's taking obviously, the
cleaving together but not working has no nothing I can
think of. I mean, you just basically have to infer
that maybe something will happen in the end times that
we don't know about. It's not described in any other
place in which these ten kings try to cleave together

(37:57):
but it doesn't work. You know, that's all taken on faith.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
Now.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
I know a lot of people will say, well, there's
the Nephilm and everything else, and we'll talk about the nephilon,
But the bottom line with that is that if it
is the Nephilum, you know, some kind of hybrid breeding
program at the end, some attempt to make the two
warring halves of the Antichrist kingdom, the cohesive by some
genetic thing. Then the end result is it doesn't work,

(38:21):
you know, I mean, it doesn't do anything according to that.
So there's just no real even reason for me doing that.
And again, if it is, it's just not described in
any other place. So we just have to assume that
something's gonna come. We've been given information that we won't
know about until the time. The final thing that I'll
say kind of as a pro for that view is

(38:42):
there is no Antichrist language in Daniel two. And this
is significant for Daniel because Daniel, and in my commentary
on Daniel, I actually put on the cover the seven
headed ten horned Beast because Daniel almost seemed uniquely obsessed
is maybe not the right word, but I mean he

(39:03):
talks about the Antichrist and creates this sort of consistent
language around the Antichrist. Daniel seven, eight, nine, eleven, twelve
all have specific Antichrist language that becomes basically a consistent
theme every time he talks about him, or it becomes him,
you know, like in the case of Daniel eleven thirty six,

(39:24):
we know it's him because he starts this sort of
Daniellick refrain of this is the guy, this is the guy,
the abomination of desolation, of the three and a half years,
the warring on the Saints, and more so, and Daniel
two has none of that. You could be forgiven for
thinking Daniel two has nothing to do with any of
those things. And it's really weird and Daniel for it
not to if it is talking about the Antichrist. A

(39:44):
lot of people try to make that sort of distinction.
They say Daniel two is like Daniel seven, except for
Daniel seven it goes into more detail of the Antichrist.
I'll say something like that, Daniel two is just about
the nations and Nane seven is kind of the same thing,
but now he talks about the Antichrist. Admit that is
not an incredibly strong argument. It wouldn't hold up in court.
You could say, well, just nebukan Azer's vision didn't go

(40:06):
into it, so there was no opportunity for Daniel to
talk about the Antichrist. And I suppose again that's all possible.
It's just is strange that almost the entire majority of
Daniel's visions had to do with the Antichrist in some
way or another, even when they didn't necessarily they weren't
exactly about him, they became about him. It was like
it forced it, like Daniel eight is a good example,

(40:27):
or Daniel eleven, it's like it's not. But then it
kind of just has to be. But because of the
just this this strong current in Daniel that just keeps
pushing him to reveal more about the Antichrist, and to
have none of that in Daniel two is suggestive. Okay,
So let's move into some things that are against this theory.
And I think the first thing is in Daniel to

(40:49):
forty two, which says, and as the toes of the
feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom
shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw
the iron mixed with the soft clay. So they will
mix with one another in marriage, but they will not
hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
And in the days of those kings, the God of
Heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed,

(41:11):
nor shall the kingdom be left to other people. So
the first thing I would say here is this idea
of in the days of those kings. Now I've argued
in the past that the grammar has to be strongly
talking about the kings of the two halves of the empire,
or you know, just to break it down even further,

(41:31):
two halves of the iron and the clay haves, whether
they're multiple kings or not, in the days of those kings,
the iron kings and the clay kings, that God will
set up a kingdom that she'll never be destroyed. But
more specifically, I would argue that it would be in
the days of those kings, which kings the eastern half

(41:54):
and the western half almost And I would argue that
partly in verse forty two, it starts off and it
just singles out the toes before it's interesting, like in
verse forty one. It starts off and as you saw
the feet and toes partly of Potter's clay and partly
of iron, it's a divided kingdom. So he's saying he's
equating the feet in toes, right, and forty one, But

(42:15):
then forty two he just singles in on the toes,
and as the toes of the feet were partly iron
and partly clay, now he's already equated both the feet
and the toes is one thing. They're both partly of
iron and partly of clay. So is that significant that
in forty two he just starts off with the toes
of the feet And if so, can we say that
in addition to in the days of those kings, meaning

(42:37):
the clay Kings and the iron Kings. Are we talking
specifically about the toe kings? And is there a distinction
to be made there? In one sense? I think I
think it's a distinction without a difference. I don't think
you can get away from the idea that it's talking
about the iron Kings and the clay Kings, whether it's
trying to also point you to the fact that there
are ten of them. Again, that's one of those things
you gotta read Daniel seven back into this. But it

(42:59):
is estive that it just goes with the toes in
verse forty two, And if that is significant, then you
at least have good solid ground for reading Daniel seven
back into Daniel two and saying, well, there's ten toes
and there's ten of these, even though nobody did that
with the arms and said, hey, well arms have ten
fingers or whatever. But my point here is that it

(43:21):
says in the days of those kings, and I'm going
to read just what I have on this. In the
days of those kings, who are essentially the divided parts
of Rome, according to my earlier view that I talked
about the Eastern and Western Empires, this would cause a
problem because Jesus established the Kingdom of God well before
to eighty five or so, when it was officially kind
of started to divide the different parts of the kingdom.

(43:43):
So if I'm saying that in the days of those kings,
and this is now necessarily talking about the kings that
are partly strong, partly fragile, tried to cleave together but don't,
which is that latter part of the Eastern and Western Empires,
then the king of God wasn't established. Then Jesus established

(44:04):
the Kingdom of God, you know, during his you know,
before thirty three a d or whatever. So so what
am I doing saying that the Kingdom of God was
established at two eighty five. It's a problem, And up
until today I considered it an extremely significant problem, a
big enough problem to say that, well, we just got
to scrap this idea because it requires this establishment of

(44:28):
the Kingdom of God after two eighty five AD. But
I think that it's not too far of a reach
to resolve it this way. This is what I read.
This could be resolved if this was more about the
conquest of the other kingdom than the seed of the
establishment of the kingdom. In other words, yes, the mustard
seed was planted in Jesus's day, But since this section

(44:52):
is all about the rise and fall of kingdoms, it's
an important distinction to actually destroy the Roman Empire first
before you you can officially call the other kingdom established.
And so if you take the idea that it really
was the seed that Jesus started in his day, that
you know, it's still growing, it's going to grow into

(45:13):
a mountain, and it's growing more every single day. But
the growth that it had made by two eighty five
literally crushed it, you know, destroyed that kingdom of Rome. Well,
are you saying, Chris, that there were no other kingdoms
set up after Rome? Are we done with this kind
of kingdoms after Rome? And now the Kingdom of God reigns?

(45:34):
And you know, on one hand, no, of course not.
We've got the British Empire and the Islamic Empire. We
can name all kinds of empires that have existed after
the Kingdom of God was established and Rome fell. But
it is undeniable that in one sense, the Kingdom of
God has been established and is growing. It's not as

(45:55):
though it doesn't exist. It exists, it's just growing. It's
in a growing state. I don't know. There's a lot
of spiritual aspect of that, and things that I don't
think are quite easy to understand, but it is certainly
one possibility to resolve that issue. The other thing that
I think is a problem is the consistency factor. So
one argument in favor of the traditional view that Daniel

(46:17):
two and seven are the same but different retellings but
with the Antichrist more talked about in Daniel seven is
that the language about the establishment of the Kingdom of
God comes after the fourth Kingdom is presented in both passages.
So in Daniel two and Daniel seven, an interlude or
is described in which part of these visions is nations

(46:39):
or kingdoms or what have you, or kings in the world,
and that's contrasted by the setting up of the Kingdom
of God. So we certainly know that they are parallel
in one sense. They're talking about kingdoms. Then supplanted by
the Kingdom of God, which reigns forever. So I mean, right,
there is a big problem for saying, well, they're not

(47:01):
exactly the same. Daniel two has, you know, Kingdom one,
Kingdom two, Kingdom three, Kingdom four, Kingdom of God. Daniel
seven has Kingdom one, Kingdom two, Kingdom three, Kingdom four,
Kingdom of God. So you pretty much have to agree
that there's some kind of parallel there. I think it
should be tempered with the idea that it doesn't always

(47:25):
work like that. Daniel eight essentially says Kingdom one, Kingdom two,
Kingdom three, Kingdom of God. It just completely skips Kingdom
four altogether, unless you know, Daniel eight is mainly about
Antiochus and you know, not necessarily about the Antichrist. Also,

(47:45):
I think that it's difficult because Daniel eight doesn't have
as explicit Kingdom of God language except for that little
horn there is destroyed without human hands, the exact same
language spoken of the Kingdom of God rock that destroys
the Antichrist. The others so or at least in Daniel seven,
and to some extent, if you want to infer the

(48:06):
Antichrist and Daniel two, then yeah, then you have the
Kingdom of God there, except it just skips four altogether.
So it's really really difficult to understand, and I don't
think that it's any help, but it is, I believe,
something that has to be factored in at the end
of this whatever I say conclude, if I conclude anything

(48:28):
about Daniel two and Daniel seven, I will have to
make sense of the fact that they both have the
Kingdom of God established at the end of the fourth
or last item, and I will say that when we
get to Daniel seven, I have more sympathy for the
sort of traditional view that they're similar because well, at

(48:51):
least that Daniel seven is more chronological than it is contemporaneous,
because I'm starting to see more possibilities for what the
bear might be or these kinds of things that are
more traditional in nature. I didn't see any scriptural evidence
to back it up, but I think I'm starting to,
maybe because of Daniel eight, maybe understand a little bit

(49:13):
more about how it's using those symbols. But that's just
a guess. I haven't really even looked at Daniel eight
or Daniel seven in depth with this new concept in mind,
so it could be like today where I just changed
my mind completely once I actually do dig into everything. Nevertheless,
let's move on to the next thing, which is just
briefly hitting some of the other views about this. And

(49:34):
I wanted to briefly talk about the Nephelin view and
the Islamic Antichrist view of Daniel two in my book.
And again I've just made my books all free online
Bible Prophecy text dot com. You can go there. You
can look at the Islamic Antichrist Debunked section. I think
this is actually chapter one in which I talk about
Joel Richard's Joel Richardson's theory of Daniel two. But basically

(49:56):
he zeros in on Daniel two forty, which has this
phrase crush all the other In some translations, it says,
and the fourth Kingdom shall be as strong as iron,
insomuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything, and
like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces
and crush all the others. First of all, he believes

(50:16):
that the crushing all the others is a reference to
a kingdom being able to claim that it is holding
all the lands that the previous empires held in history,
like one hundred percent of the lands are now held
by this final empire. Therefore, in that sense, it has
crushed them. So it's a geographical sort of argument. I
guess you could say. He makes the case that Rome

(50:37):
can't be the fourth Kingdom because even at its largest point,
it didn't hold all the lands one hundred percent of
the lands that the for example, the Babylonian or Meto
Persian Empire had held. So we have to go find
another empire, and he says that empire is the Islamic Empire.
All right, So as far as the Islamic Empire view,
I'm mostly going to direct you to the new website
I mentioned, Bible prophecy text dot com, in which all

(51:00):
of my books are now for free. You can just
click on the Islamic Antichrist version. Chapter one is all
about this section and Daniel two. His theory about Daniel
two is refuted, point by point, all the grammar, all
the other arguments and things like that. But I wanted
to talk about another one that I just thought of
today that I didn't think of obviously when I was
writing the book, and that is that since his argument

(51:24):
is that we have to skip Rome after Greece. It
can't be Rome after Greece, despite all the logical reasons
you would want Rome to be after Greece, it can't
be because Rome, in his view, this is all about
how much land they had acquired, and they have to
acquire one hundred percent of all the land. So since
Rome didn't, for example, ever control Persia or basically modern

(51:44):
day i Ran, it was just too far east for
Rome to get to, so it never controlled that. So
it can't be Rome. We have to go to his one,
the Islamic Empire, which did, for example, control Persia. But
the problem is is that even by that own logic,
he has to have the Islamic Empire, not the future
revived Islamic Empire, and he would admit this. He has

(52:05):
to have the historical Islamic Empire thirteen hundred years long.
He has to have that control all those lands. But
even in his own logic, it didn't even come close
to that. For example, Alexander's Empire obviously controlled Greece, where
he came from, and the vast majority of Asia minor
you know, Thrace and Lydia and all that stuff, which

(52:25):
was all controlled by the Byzantine Empire. Never controlled by
the Islamic Empire. The Islamic Empire, nobody would argue control
Greece or as I say, the entire western portion of
Asia ah minor a very important part. I mean, basically,
the entire northern part of the Mediterranean, arguably the very
thing that you need to control. According to Daniel seven,

(52:46):
when they came out of the Great Sea, the Islamic
Empire never did so. Literally, his main argument, if not
his only argument, for why it has to be the
Islamic Empire and not Rome isn't even true in his
own life. His Islamic Empire did not control all these lands,
and probably the most significant portion of the land that's

(53:06):
needed to control, it didn't even control. So anyway, as
I say, check the rest of the book. I've also
put out the audio podcast of that book, which is
on this feed if you want to learn more about that.
But that's just something else I thought about today. As
far as the Nephelum interpretation, it really kind of comes
down to the sort of spookiness of the King James.
They will mingle their seed with the seed of men,

(53:28):
but they will not cleave together, even as iron doesn't
mix with clay. And so the idea. And you know,
I used to listen to check Missler and he would say, well,
if they're going to mingle with the seed of men,
they have to be something other than the seed of men.
And that's not necessarily the case I think it is.
I will say that obviously, mingling one's seed, if we

(53:49):
just take that part alone, mingling one's seed, we can
be absolutely sure that the ESV isn't or the Nat
or the others aren't out of nowhere saying that this
is about marriage, because that's what that means. In other places,
mingling one seed means to intermarry basically, with the assumption
of having kids, basically. But that's the way it's used

(54:11):
in the Biblical marriage is you know, if you're mingling,
you're mingling in marriage. So that's the way it's used
in the Bible. Ezra nine two. As we mentioned, they
have taken daughters for themselves and for the son, so
the Holy Seed may have mingled themselves with the people
of those lands. It's talking about Jews intermarrying with gentiles,
as it does in the Psalms as well. The same

(54:32):
concept as used them intermingling with gentiles. So I really
think that I'm not going to be as dismissive as
this as before, because I do think mingling their seed
with the seed of men, that phrase seed of men
is different. I think that you could best look at
that as number one, the concept of these kings intermingling

(54:57):
with the seed of men may be a reference to
sort of a different concept that's happening in that there's
no Jews involved. So for example, the political marriages. And
I actually saw this today, it was in my book,
but I'd never really paid attention to it. Is that
Anthemius was this foreigner. He was a Greek speaking guy,

(55:19):
you know, foreigner that was not a Latin speaking type,
you know, acceptable guide in the Romans. But it was
more important to get them all on the same page
than it was to sort of make sure that the
bloodline was correct or whatever. It may Also be, there
were some things happening with the barbarians and things like

(55:40):
that that political marriages within the Visigoths and things like
that were happening too, So the seed have been maybe
just sort of a way to discuss that particular political
marriage seen at the end of the Roman Empire, that
you know, something like that. So That's my guess. If
I wanted to say, okay, because it says the seed

(56:02):
of Men, that's a cue to mean this is, you know,
something big or aliens or Nephilom or whatever, then I'd
have to say And at first I should say that
other translations don't use the Seed of Men. They translated
it like the nat And in that case you saw
iron mixed with clay, so people will be mixed with
one another is the way it has it there. And

(56:23):
I really think this is something you need to get
with a scholar about for the most part, to really
dig into what this actually means. And people like, as
I say, Mike Kaiser, who is no stranger to the
nephylum idea, doesn't think this has to do with then
nefol And it's not like he's scared of nephialem or
anything like that. I mean, it's arguably his main thing,
right and he as a Hebrew scholar, and somebody should

(56:45):
that should know better, says no, this is talking about intermarriage,
as that the various Bible translations have it. But for
the sake of argument, let's assume that this is talking
about mingling with the seed of Men. Part of this
kingdom was not human, and let's say the iron, or
maybe it was the clay, I don't know. One part
of that section wasn't human, and they wanted to mingle

(57:09):
with the seed of men for the purpose of unifying
and saving this kingdom. But it doesn't work. So if
we just assumed that was aliens and maybe some hybrid
program or you know, just choose your choose your thing,
choose your chimera or Aliens or what have you, it
ultimately becomes as mundane as the fizzling out of the

(57:31):
Roman Empire. The net result of it is nothing. The
net result of it is it doesn't work, and it
ends the end. They try to fix it because they're weak,
because they're divided, because they're impotent. They try to this
cleaving together thing, but it basically is is a footnote
in history because it doesn't work and the empire fizzles out. Well,
I don't think I had mentioned the four or five

(57:54):
kingdoms thing, So I did a little bit of research
on that concept, which is is the legs different from
the feet and toes? In other words, I was trying to,
you know, make sure I could say, are we dealing
with it completely separate not revived, you know, with the
feet and toes of iron and clay. Maybe that's like

(58:14):
a whole nother empire altogether that we need to be
looking for, and not necessarily just the chronologically later part
of the legs of iron. And as I say, the
answer is yes, it's kind of like both. There are
two places where I think it pretty much explicitly says
it's a different kingdom in a sense. So let's see

(58:37):
the head of this image was fine gold. One, its
chest with the arms of silver to its middle of
the thighs of bronze, three, its legs of iron. Four,
its feet partly of iron and of clay. Five. So
in that case it gives the feet. It's entirely different,
sort of in the way it's using that language. It's

(58:58):
given it a completely different thing. And it does kind
of the same thing in Daniel two forty five B.
And the interpretation just as you saw the stone was
cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that
it was broken pieces, and that it broke in pieces,
the iron one, the bronze, two, the clay three, the
silver for the gold five. And great God is and

(59:19):
a great God has made known it's the king what
shall be after this? So five there, But in another place,
like in thirty eight through forty one, it enumerates the
kingdoms the third, the kingdom shall be like this, the fourth,
and it seems it doesn't go into the fifth. It
just when it talks about the feet and toes, it

(59:39):
just says it shall be a divided kingdom, which suggests
that it is still talking about the Fourth Kingdom, And
a lot of the grammar when talking about the divided
iron and clay seems to kind of be harkening back.
It's not as clear, but it seems to just be
harkening back to the Fourth Kingdom and a grammar wise
and everything else. So that's why I kind of actually
think that. But certainly it is different. The divided end

(01:00:05):
of the Roman Empire in the original view after two
eighty five, when it became the East and West Roman Empires,
is different from this just unstoppable Roman Empire from let's say, Caesar,
I guess to Diocletian that just the heart of the
Roman Empire when it was singular, it wasn't divided. Sure

(01:00:28):
they had infighting and stuff like that, but it was
the Roman Empire in Rome. And again it wasn't really
until two eighty five where it became this sort of
weak shadow of itself. And it seems that Daniel two
is making a distinction saying there's one kingdom and then
there's the other divided kingdom, and it seems to be
okay with you thinking that they're the same and different,

(01:00:52):
and there are other reasons too. I think that give
people the concept that that's how you should understand this
in other places in the Bible. But again, I'm just
trying to work from Daniel two. Okay. I think that
sums up everything I wanted to say on this, and
I'll move on to Daniel seven at some point. Sorry,
I don't have any absolute answers for anybody yet. Thanks

(01:01:14):
for listening. If you want to support this ministry, the
best way to do so is by supporting the orphanage
and Kenya that my ministry, Chris White Ministries, has committed
to helping called Joyful Heart's Home and Care. You can
see the progress that we're making at joyfulheartshome dot com,
which is linked in the show notes of this podcast,
where you can see the impact that we're making Every week.

(01:01:36):
Your donations have a large impact, which again. You can
follow at joyfulheartshome dot com and donations are tax deductible.

Speaker 1 (01:01:48):
Hi everybody, it's me Cinderella AX. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you.

Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
Have the app?

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
It's the best way to listen to the fringe radio network.
It's safe and you don't have to logging to use it,
and it doesn't track you or trace you, and it
sounds beautiful. I know I was gonna tell him, how
do you get the app? Just go to fringeradionetwork dot
com right at the top of the page. I know, slippers,

(01:02:22):
we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.