The iron legs of the image terminate, to maintain the consistency of the figure, in feet and toes. To the toes, of which there were of course just ten, our attention is called by the explicit mention of them in the prophecy; and the kingdom represented by that portion of the image to which the toes belonged, was finally divided into ten parts. The question there naturally arises, Do the ten toes of the image represent the ten final divisions of the Roman empire? To those who prefer what seems to be a natural and straightforward interpretation of the word of God, it is a matter of no little astonishment that any question here should be raised. To take the ten toes to represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided seems like such an easy, consistent, and matter-of-course procedure, that it requires a labored effort to interpret it otherwise. Yet such an effort is made by some - by Romanists universally, and by such Protestants as still cling to Romish errors. {1897 UrS, DAR 62.4}

A volume by H. Cowles, D.D., may perhaps best be taken as a representative exposition on this side of the question. {1897 UrS, DAR 62.5}

The writer gives every evidence of extensive erudition and great ability. It is the more to be regretted, therefore, that these powers are devoted to the propagation of error, and to misleading the anxious inquirer who wishes to know his whereabouts on the great highway of time. {1897 UrS, DAR 63.1}

We can but briefly notice his positions. They are, (1) That the third kingdom was Grecia during the lifetime of Alexander only; (2) That the fourth kingdom was Alexander's successors; (3) That the latest point to which the fourth kingdom could extend, is the manifestation of the Messiah: for (4) There the God of heaven set up his kingdom; there the stone smote the image upon its feet, and commenced the process of grinding it up. {1897 UrS, DAR 63.2}

Nor can we reply at any length to these positions. {1897 UrS, DAR 63.3}

1. We might as well confine the Babylonian empire to the single reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or that of Persia to the reign of Cyrus, as to confine the third kingdom, Grecia, to the reign of Alexander. {1897 UrS, DAR 63.4}

2. Alexander's successors did not constitute another kingdom, but a continuation of the same, the Grecian kingdom of the image; for in this line of prophecy the succession of kingdoms is by conquest. When Persia had conquered Babylon, we had the second empire; and when Grecia had conquered Persia, we had the third. But Alexander's successors (his four leading generals) did not conquer his empire, and erect another in its place; they simply divided among themselves the empire which Alexander had conquered, and left ready to their hand. {1897 UrS, DAR 63.5}

"Chronologically," says Professor C., "the fourth empire must immediately succeed Alexander, and lie entirely between him and the birth of Christ." Chronologically, we reply, it must do no such thing; for the birth of Christ was not the introduction of the fifth kingdom, as will in due time appear. Here he overlooks almost the entire duration of the third diversion of the image, confounding it with the fourth, and giving no room for the divided state of the Grecian empire as symbolized by the four heads of the leopard of chapter 7, and the four horns of the goat of chapter 8. {1897 UrS, DAR 63.6}

"Territorially," continues Professor C., "it [the fourth kingdom] should be sought in Western Asia, not in Europe; in general, on the same territory where the first, second, and third kingdoms stood." Why not Europe? we ask. Each of the first three kingdoms possessed territory which was peculiarly its own. Why not the fourth? Analogy requires that it should. And was not the third kingdom a European kingdom? that is, did it not rise on European territory, and take its name for the land of its birth? Why not, then, go a degree farther west for the place where the fourth great kingdom should be founded? And how did Grecia ever occupy the territory of the first and second kingdoms? - Only by conquest. And Rome did the same. Hence, so far as the territorial requirements of the professor's theory are concerned, Rome could be the fourth kingdom as truthfully as Grecia could be the third. {1897 UrS, DAR 64.1}

"Politically," he adds, "it should be the immediate successor of Alexander's empire, ...changing the dynasty, but not the nations." Analogy is against him here. Each of the first three kingdoms was distinguished by its own peculiar nationality. The Persian was not the same as the Babylonian, nor the Grecian the same as either of the two that preceded it. Now analogy requires that the fourth kingdom, instead of being composed of a fragment of this Grecian empire, should possess a nationality of its own, distinct from the other three. And this we find in the Roman kingdom, and in it alone. But, {1897 UrS, DAR 64.2}

3. The grand fallacy which underlies this whole system of misinterpretation, is the too commonly taught theory that the kingdom of God was set up at the first advent of Christ. It can easily be seen how fatal to this theory is the admission that the fourth empire is Rome. For it was to be after the diversion of that fourth empire, that the God of heaven was to set up his kingdom. But the division of the Roman empire into ten parts was not accomplished previous to A.D. 476; consequently the kingdom of God could not have been set up at the first advent of Christ, nearly five hundred years before that date. Rome must not, therefore, from their standpoint, though it answers admirably to the prophecy in every particular, be allowed to be the kingdom in question. The position that the kingdom of God was set up in the days when Christ was upon earth, must, these interpreters seem to think, be maintained at all hazards. {1897 UrS, DAR 64.3}

Such is the ground on which some expositors appear, at least, to reason. And it is for the purpose of maintaining this theory that our author dwindles down the third great empire of the world to the insignificant period of about eight years! For this, he endeavors to prove that the fourth universal empire was bearing full sway during a period when the providence of God was simply filling up the outlines of the third! For this, he presumes to fix the points of time between which we must look for the fourth, though the prophecy does not deal in dates at all, and then whatever kingdom he finds within his specified time, that he sets down as the fourth kingdom, and endeavors to bend the prophecy to fit his interpretation, utterly regardless of how much better material he might find outside of his little inclosure, to answer to a fulfilment of the prophetic record. Is such a course logical? Is the time the point to be first established? - No; the kingdoms are the great features of the prophecy, and we are to look for them; and when we find them, we must accept them, whatever may be the chronology or location. Let them govern the time and place, not the time and place govern them. {1897 UrS, DAR 65.1}

But that view which is the cause of all this misapplication and confusion is sheer assumption. Christ did not smite the image at his first advent. Look at it! When the stone smites the image upon its feet, the image is dashed in pieces. Violence is used. The effect is immediate. The image becomes as chaff. And then what? Is it absorbed by the stone, and gradually incorporated with it? - Nothing of the kind. It is blown off, removed away, as incompatible and unavailable material; and no place is found for it. The territory is entirely cleared; and then the stone becomes a mountain, and fills the whole earth. Now what idea shall we attach to this work of smiting and breaking in pieces? Is it a gentle, peaceful, and quiet work? or is it a manifestation of vengeance and violence? How did the kingdoms of the prophecy succeed the one to the other? - It was through the violence and din of war, the shock of armies and the roar of battle. "Confused noise and garments rolled in blood," told of the force and violence with which one nation had been brought into subjection by another. Yet all this is not called "smiting" or "breaking in pieces." {1897 UrS, DAR 65.2}

When Persia conquered Babylon, and Greece Persia, neither of the conquered empires is said to have been broken in pieces, though crushed beneath the overwhelming power of a hostile nation. But when we reach the introduction of the fifth kingdom, the image is smitten with violence; it is dashed to pieces, and so scattered and obliterated that no place is found for it. And now what shall we understand by this? - We must understand that here a scene transpires in which is manifested so much more violence and force and power than accompany the overthrow of one nation by another through the strife of war, that the latter is not worthy even of mention in connection with it. The subjugation of one nation by another by war, is a scene of peace and quietude in comparison with that which transpires when the image is dashed in pieces by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. {1897 UrS, DAR 66.1}

Yet what is the smiting of the image made to mean by the theory under notice? - Oh, the peaceful introduction of the gospel of Christ! the quiet spreading abroad of the light of truth! the gathering out of a few from the nations of the earth, to be made ready through obedience to the truth, for his second coming, and reign! the calm and unpretending formation of a Christian church, - a church that has been domineered over, persecuted, and oppressed by the arrogant and triumphant powers of earth from that day to this! And this is the smiting of the image! this is the breaking of it into pieces, and violently removing the shattered fragments from the face of the earth! Was ever absurdity more absurd? {1897 UrS, DAR 66.2}

From this digression we return to the inquiry, Do the toes represent the ten divisions of the Roman empire? We answer, Yes; because, - {1897 UrS, DAR 66.3}

We have dwelt quite at length on the interpretation of the dream, which Daniel made known to the Chaldean monarch. From this we must now return to the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, and to Daniel, as he stands in the presence of the king, having made known to him the dream and the interpretation thereof, while the courtiers and the baffled soothsayers and astrologers wait around in silent awe and wonder. {1897 UrS, DAR 80.2}

It might be expected that an ambitious monarch, raised to the highest earthly throne, and in the full flush of uninterrupted success, would scarcely brook to be told that his kingdom, which he no doubt fondly hoped would endure through all time, was to be overthrown by another people. Yet Daniel plainly and boldly made known this fact to the king, and the king, so far from being offended, fell upon his face before the prophet of God, and offered him worship. Daniel doubtless immediately countermanded the orders the king issued to pay him divine honors. That Daniel had some communication with the king which is not here recorded, is evident from verse 47: "The king answered unto Daniel," etc. And it may be still further inferred that Daniel labored to turn the king's feelings of reverence from himself to the God of heaven, inasmuch as the king replies, "Of a truth it is that your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings." {1897 UrS, DAR 81.1}

The king said, "And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." This language is by some supposed to refer to Christ; but it is not likely that the king had any idea of the Saviour. A better rendering, according to good authorities, would be "like a son of the gods;" that is, he had the appearance of a supernatural or divine being. Nebuchadnezzar subsequently called him an angel. {1897 UrS, DAR 90.1}

The Source of Blessing. - "From him which is, and which was, and which is to come," or is to be, - an expression which signifies complete eternity, past and future, and can be applicable to God the Father only. This language, we believe, is never applied to Christ. He is spoken of as another person, in distinction from the being thus described. {1897 UrS, DAR 357.3}

These Things Saith the Amen. - This is, then, the final message to the churches ere the close of probation. And though the description of their condition which he gives to the indifferent Laodiceans is fearful and startling, nevertheless it cannot be denied; for the Witness is "faithful and true." Moreover, he is "the beginning of the creation of God." Some attempt by this language to uphold the error that Christ was a created being, dating his existence anterior to that of any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God. But the language does not necessarily imply that he was created; for the words, "the beginning of the creation," may simply signify that the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by him. "Without him was not anything made." Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word to mean the "agent" or "efficient cause," which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ, is the agent through whom God has created all things, but that the Son came into existence in a different manner, as he is called "the only begotten" of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of that term. {1897 UrS, DAR 400.2}

"Then cometh the end (of the present dispensation), when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom (which he now holds conjointly with the Father) to God, even the Father; when God shall have put down all rule and all authority and power (that is opposed to the work of the Son). For Christ must reign (on the throne of his Father) till the Father hath put all enemies under Christ's feet. But when God saith, All things are put under Christ (and he commences his reign upon his own throne), it is manifest that God is excepted, who did put all things under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall Christ also himself be subject unto God that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." {1897 UrS, DAR 411.2}

That this is a correct version of this scripture may be easily verified. The only question that can be raised is concerning the persons to whom the pronouns refer; and any attempt to make the pronouns refer to Christ which in the foregoing paraphrase are referred to God, will be found, when traced through the quotation, to make poor sense of Paul's language. {1897 UrS, DAR 411.3}

To the Lamb, equally with the Father who sits upon the throne, praise is ascribed in this song of adoration. Commentators, with great unanimity, have seized upon this as proof that Christ must be coeval with the Father; for otherwise, say they, here would be worship paid to the creature which belongs only to the Creator. But this does not seem to be a necessary conclusion. The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father. (See remarks on Rev. 3:14, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being.) But while as the Son he does not possess a co- eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb. 1:2. Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without its being idolatry on the part of the worshiper? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshiped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that "as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." John 5:26. The Father has "highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." Phil. 2:9. And the Father himself says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:6. These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence. {1897 UrS, DAR 430.1}

It is held by some that this war took place when Satan, then an angel of light and glory, rebelled in heaven; and that the "casting out" of which John speaks, was his expulsion from heaven at that time. But we are unable to harmonize this view with the testimony before us. Thus, in verse 13 we read: "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." This shows that just as soon as the devil saw that he was cast out, he turned his wrath against the woman, the church, which, not far from that time, fled into the wilderness. When Satan therefore found himself thus overthrown, the man-child had already been brought forth, or, in other words, the first advent of Christ had taken place. Hence this war and defeat of Satan, taking place this side of the Christian era, and not a great length of time before the church went into the wilderness in 538, cannot be his fall from heaven before the creation of the world; though that was a war in heaven. {1897 UrS, DAR 550.4}

Again, there seem to be a number of instances in which Satan is spoken of as defeated, or cast down. One was his first rejection from heaven; another, when Christ overcame him at his first advent; and there will be another in the future, when he is cast into the bottomless pit, and shut up for a thousand years. And on each successive occasion, we behold a regularly increasing limitation of his power. He falls a degree lower in every succeeding combat. The first time, as we may plainly infer from certain scriptures, the contest was between him and God the Father (see 2Pet. 2:4); the second time between him and Christ the Son, as in the scripture before us; while the third time an angel suffices to accomplish the work of his humiliation. Rev. 20:1,2. Since his first contest, he has not been permitted to rise to the dignity of contending with the Father; since the second, he has not had the privilege, if such it may be called, of a personal encounter with the Son. The war mentioned in the scripture now before us is between the devil and Michael, Christ. The great effort of the former against the latter, personally, was during his mission here on earth; and Christ's great personal victory over him was in that very contest. {1897 UrS, DAR 551.1}

Elder J. N. Andrews, in his work on The Three Messages of Revelation 14:6-12, pp. 32-35, speaks as follows concerning the message under consideration:- {1897 UrS, DAR 643.1}

"None can deny that this world-wide warning of impending judgment has been given. The nature of the evidence adduced in its support now claims our attention, as furnishing the most conclusive testimony that it was a message from Heaven. {1897 UrS, DAR 643.2}

"All the great outlines of the world's prophetic history were shown to be complete in the present generation. The great prophetic chain of Daniel 2, also those of chapters 7, 8, 11, and 12, were shown to be just accomplished. The same was true of our Lord's prophetic description of the gospel dispensation. Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21. The prophetic periods of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 12; Revelation 11, 12, 13, were shown to harmonize with, and unitedly to sustain, this great proclamation. The signs in the heavens and upon the earth and sea, in the church and among the nations, with one voice bore witness to the warning which God addressed to the human family. Joel 2:30, 31; Matt. 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-26; Luke 21:25-36; 2 Tim. 3; 2 Pet. 3; Rev. 6:12, 13. And besides the mighty array of evidence on which this warning is based, the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit in connection with this proclamation set the seal of heaven to its truth. {1897 UrS, DAR 643.3}

"The warning of John the Baptist, which was to prepare the way for the first advent of our Lord, was of short duration, and limited in its extent. For each prophetic testimony which sustained the work of John, we have several which support the proclamation of Christ's near advent. John had not the aid of the press to disseminate his proclamation, nor the facility of Nahum's chariots; he was a humble man, dressed in camel's hair, and he performed no miracles. If the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves in not being baptized of John, how great must be the guilt of those who reject the warning sent by God to prepare the way of the second advent! {1897 UrS, DAR 643.4}

"But those were disappointed who expected the Lord in 1843 and 1844. This fact is with many a sufficient reason for rejecting all the testimony in this case. We acknowledge the disappointment, but cannot acknowledge that this furnishes a just reason for denying the hand of God in this world. The Jewish church was disappointed when, at the close of the work of John the Baptist, Jesus presented himself as the promised Messiah. And the trusting disciples were most sadly disappointed when he whom they expected to deliver Israel was by wicked hands taken and slain. And after his resurrection, when they expected him to restore again the kingdom to Israel, they could not but be disappointed when they understood that he was going away to his Father, and that they were to be left for a long season to tribulation and anguish. But disappointment does not prove that God has no hand in the guidance of his people. It should lead them to correct their errors, but it should not lead them to cast away their confidence in God. It was because the children of Israel were disappointed in the wilderness that they so often denied divine guidance. They are set forth as an admonition to us, that we should not fall after the same example of unbelief. {1897 UrS, DAR 644.1}

"But it must be apparent to every student of the Scriptures that the angel who proclaims the hour of God's judgment does not give the latest message of mercy. Revelation 14 presents two other and later proclamations before the close of human probation. This fact alone is sufficient to prove that the coming of the Lord does not take place until the second and third proclamations have been added to the first. The same thing may also be seen in the fact that after the angel of chapter 10 has sworn that time shall be no longer, another work of prophesying before many people and nations is announced. Hence we understand that the first angel preaches the hour of God's judgment come; that is, he preaches the termination of the prophetic periods; and that this is the time which he swears shall be no longer. {1897 UrS, DAR 644.2}

"The judgment does of necessity commence before the advent of Christ; for he comes to execute the judgment (Jude 14, 15; Rev. 22:12; 2 Tim. 4:1); and at the sound of the last trumpet he confers immortality upon every one of the righteous, and passes by all the wicked. The investigative judgment does therefore precede the execution of the same by the Saviour. It is the province of the Father to preside in this investigative work, as set forth in Daniel 7. At this tribunal, the Son closes up his work as high priest, and is crowned king. Thence he comes to earth to execute the decisions of his Father. It is this work of judgment by the Father which the first angel introduces. {1897 UrS, DAR 644.3}

"The great period of 2300 days, which was the most important period in marking the definite time in that proclamation, extends to the cleansing of the sanctuary. That the cleansing of the sanctuary is not the cleansing of any part of the earth, but that it is the last work of our great High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle before his advent to the earth, has been clearly shown. [See on Dan. 8:14.] And we understand that it is while the work of cleansing the sanctuary is taking place, that the latest message of mercy is proclaimed. Thus it will be seen that the prophetic periods, and the proclamation which is based upon them, do not extend to the coming of the Lord." {1897 UrS, DAR 645.1}

This we believe to be the very event described in the verses under notice. The sanctuary service is, at the time here specified, closed. Christ lays upon the head of the devil the sins which have been transferred to the sanctuary, and which are imputed to the saints no more, and the devil is sent away, not by the hand of the High Priest, but by the hand of another person, according to the type, into a place here called the bottomless pit. Hence this angel is not Christ. For a full exposition of this subject, see the work, Looking unto Jesus; or Christ in Type and Antitype. {1897 UrS, DAR 735.1}