John Calvin Commentary Daniel 2:44-45

"And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." — Daniel 2:44-45 (ASV)

The Jews agree with us in thinking this passage can only be understood as referring to the perpetual reign of Christ. They willingly and eagerly ascribe to the glory of their own nation whatever is written everywhere throughout the Scriptures; indeed, they often dismiss many testimonies of Scripture to boast in their own privileges.

They do not, therefore, deny that the dream was sent to King Nebuchadnezzar concerning Christ’s kingdom; but they differ from us in expecting a Christ of their own. Hence, they are compelled in many ways to corrupt this prophecy because if they grant that the fourth empire or monarchy was fulfilled in the Romans, they must necessarily acquiesce in the Gospel, which testifies to the arrival of that Messiah who was promised in the Law.

For Daniel here openly affirms that the Messiah’s kingdom would arrive at the close of the fourth monarchy. Hence, they resort to the miserable claim that the fourth monarchy should be understood as the Turkish empire, which they call that of the Ishmaelites; and thus they confound the Roman with the Macedonian empire.

But what pretense do they have for making only one empire out of two such different ones? They say the Romans originated from the Greeks; and if we grant this, from where did the Greeks originate? Did they not arise from the Caspian Mountains and Higher Asia? The Romans traced their origin to Troy, and at the time when the prophecy was to be fulfilled, this had become utterly obscure—but what relevance does this have, when they had no reputation for a thousand years afterwards?

But the Turks, a long time afterwards—namely 600 years—suddenly burst forth like a deluge. In such a variety of circumstances, and at such a distance of time, how can they form one single kingdom? Then they show no difference between themselves and the rest of the nations. For they take us back to the beginning of the world, and in this way make one kingdom out of two, and this mixture is altogether without reason or any basis for it.

There is no doubt, then, that Daniel intended the Romans by the fourth empire, since we saw yesterday how, in a manner contrary to nature, that empire ultimately perished by internal discord. No single monarch reigned there, but only a democracy. All thought themselves to be equally kings, for they were all related.

This union should have been the firmest bond of perpetuity. But Daniel here testifies beforehand how, even if they were intimately related, that kingdom would not be cohesive but would perish by its own dissensions. Finally, it is now sufficiently apparent that the Prophet’s words can only be explained as referring to the Roman empire, nor can they be diverted, except by force, to the Turkish empire.

I will now relate what our brother Anthony has suggested to me, from a certain Rabbi Barbinel, who seems to excel others in acuteness. He endeavors to show by six principal arguments that the fifth kingdom cannot relate to our Christ—Jesus, the son of Mary. He first assumes this principle: since the four kingdoms were earthly, the fifth cannot be compared with them unless its nature is the same.

The comparison would be, he says, both inappropriate and absurd. As if Scripture does not always compare the celestial kingdom of God with those of earth! For it is neither necessary nor important for all points of a comparison to be precisely similar. Although God showed the king of Babylon the four earthly monarchies, it does not follow that the nature of the fifth was the same, as it could be very different.

Indeed, if we weigh all things rightly, it is necessary to mark some difference between those four and this last one. The reasoning, therefore, of that rabbi is frivolous when he infers that Christ’s kingdom must be visible, since it could not otherwise correspond with the other kingdoms. The second reason by which he opposes us is this: if religion makes the difference between kingdoms, it follows that the Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian are all the same, for we know that all those nations worshipped idols and were devoted to superstition!

The answer to such a weak argument is easy enough: namely, these four kingdoms did not differ simply in religion, but God deprived the Babylonians of their power and transferred the monarchy to the Medes and Persians. By the same providence of God, the Macedonians succeeded them; and then, when all these kingdoms were abolished, the Romans held sway over the whole East.

We have already explained the Prophet’s meaning. He wished simply to teach the Jews this: they were not to despair through seeing the various agitations of the world, and its surprising and dreadful confusion. Although those ages were subject to many changes, the promised king would eventually arrive.

Hence, the Prophet wished to exhort the Jews to patience and to keep them in anticipation through the expectation of the Messiah. He does not distinguish these four monarchies by diversity of religion, but because God was turning the world around like a wheel while one nation was expelling another, so that the Jews might apply all their minds and attention to that hope of redemption which had been promised through the Messiah’s advent.

The third argument that rabbi brings forward may be refuted without the slightest trouble. He gathers from the words of the Prophet that the kingdom of our Christ, the son of Mary, cannot be the kingdom of which Daniel speaks, since it is here clearly expressed that there would be no passing away or change of this kingdom: it shall not pass on to another or a strange people. But the Turks, he says, occupy a large portion of the world, religion among Christians is divided, and many reject the doctrine of the Gospel.

It follows, then, that Jesus, the son of Mary, is not that king of whom Daniel prophesied—that is, about whom the dream which Daniel explained occurred to the king of Babylon. But he trifles very foolishly because he assumes what we will always deny: that Christ’s kingdom is visible. For however the sons of God are dispersed, without any reputation among men, it is quite clear that Christ’s kingdom remains safe and sure, since in its own nature it is not outward but invisible. Christ did not utter these words in vain: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). By this expression He wished to remove His kingdom from the ordinary forms of government. Although, therefore, the Turks have spread far and wide, and the world is filled with impious despisers of God, and the Jews yet occupy a part of it, still Christ's kingdom exists and has not been transferred to any others. Hence this reasoning is not only weak but puerile.

A fourth argument follows: It seems very absurd that Christ, who was born under Octavius or Augustus Caesar, should be the king of whom Daniel prophesied. For, he says, the beginning of the fourth and fifth monarchy was the same, which is absurd; for the fourth monarchy should endure for some time, and then the fifth should succeed it.

But here he not only betrays his ignorance but his utter stupidity, since God so blinded the whole people that they were like restive dogs. I have had much conversation with many Jews—I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—indeed, I have never found common sense in any Jew.

But this fellow, who seems so sharp and ingenious, displays his own impudence to his great disgrace. For he thought the Roman monarchy began with Julius Caesar! As if the Macedonian empire was not abolished when the Romans took possession of Macedon and reduced it to a province, when Antiochus was also subdued by them—indeed, when the third monarchy, namely, the Macedonian, began to decline, then the fourth, which is the Roman, succeeded it.

Reason itself dictates that we reckon in this way, since unless we confess that the fourth monarchy succeeded directly after the passing of the third, how could the rest follow? We must also observe that the Prophet does not look to the Caesars when he treats of these monarchies; indeed, as we saw concerning the mingling of races, this cannot in any way suit the Caesars, for we showed yesterday how those who restrict this passage to Pompey and Caesar are only trifling and are utterly without judgment in this respect.

For the Prophet speaks generally and continuously of a popular state, since they were all mutually related, and yet the empire was not stable, due to their consuming themselves internally by internal warfare. Since this is the case, we conclude this rabbi to be very foolish and palpably absurd in asserting that the Christ is not the son of Mary who was born under Augustus, although I do not argue for the kingdom of Christ commencing at His nativity.

His fifth argument is this: Constantine and other Caesars professed the faith of Christ. If we receive, he says, Jesus the son of Mary as the fifth king, how will this fit, as the Roman Empire was still in existence under this king? For where the religion of Christ flourishes, where He is worshipped and acknowledged as the only King, that kingdom should not be separated from His.

When therefore Christ, under Constantine and his successors, obtained both glory and power among the Romans, His monarchy cannot be separated from theirs. But the solution to this is easy, as the Prophet here puts an end to the Roman Empire when it began to be torn in pieces. As to the time when Christ’s reign began, I have just said it should not be referred to the time of His birth, but to the preaching of the Gospel.

From the time when the Gospel began to be promulgated, we know the Roman monarchy was dissipated and eventually vanished. Hence, the empire did not continue under Constantine or other emperors, since their state was different; and we know that neither Constantine nor the other Caesars were Romans.

From the time of Trajan, the empire began to be transferred to strangers, and foreigners reigned at Rome. We also know by what monsters God destroyed the ancient glory of the Roman people!—for nothing could be more abandoned or disgraceful than the conduct of many of the emperors. If anyone just runs through their histories, he will immediately discover that no other people ever had such monsters for rulers as the Romans under Heliogabalus and others like him—I omit Nero and Caligula, and speak only of foreigners. The Roman Empire was therefore abolished after the Gospel began to be promulgated and Christ became generally known throughout the world. Thus we observe the same ignorance in this argument of the rabbi as in the others.

The last assertion is: The Roman empire still partially survives; hence, what is said here of the fifth monarchy cannot belong to the son of Mary. It is necessary for the fourth empire to be at an end if the fifth king began to reign when Christ rose from the dead and was preached in the world. I reply, as I have said already, the Roman empire ceased and was abolished when God transferred their whole power with shame and reproach to foreigners, who were not only barbarians but horrible monsters! It would have been better for the Romans to suffer the utter blotting out of their name rather than submit to such disgrace. We perceive how this sixth and last reason vanishes. I wished to collect them together to show you how foolishly those Jewish reasoners make war with God and furiously oppose the clear light of the Gospel.

I now return to Daniel’s words. He says, “A kingdom shall come and destroy all other kingdoms.” I explained yesterday the sense in which Christ broke up those ancient monarchies, which had come to an end long before His advent. For Daniel does not wish to state precisely what Christ would do at any one moment, but what should happen from the time of the captivity until His appearance.

If we understand this intention, all difficulty will be removed from the passage. The conclusion, therefore, is this: the Jews would behold the most powerful empires, which would strike them with terror and utterly astonish them, yet these empires would prove neither stable nor firm, because they were opposed to the kingdom of the Son of God.

But Isaiah denounces curses upon all the kingdoms which do not obey the Church of God (Isaiah 60:12). As all those monarchs raised their crests against the Son of God and true piety with diabolical audacity, they must be utterly swept away, and God’s curse, as announced by the Prophet, must become conspicuous upon them.

Thus Christ rooted up all the empires of the world. The Turkish empire, indeed, today excels in wealth and power, and the multitude of nations under its sway; but it was not God’s purpose to explain future events after the appearance of Christ. He only wished the Jews to be admonished and to prevent them from sinking under the weight of their burden, since they would be in imminent danger because of the rise of so many new tyrannies in the world and the absence of all repose.

God wished, therefore, to strengthen their minds with fortitude. One reason was this: to cause them to dwell upon the promised redemption and to experience how evanescent and uncertain are all the empires of the world which are not founded in God and not united to the kingdom of Christ.

God, therefore, will set up the kingdoms of the heavens, which shall never be dissipated. It is worthwhile here to notice the sense in which Daniel uses the term “perpetuity.” It should not be restricted to the person of Christ but belongs to all the pious and the whole body of the Church.

Christ is indeed eternal in Himself, but He also communicates His eternity to us, because He preserves the Church in the world, invites us by the hope of a better life than this, and begets us again by His Spirit to an incorruptible life. The perpetuity, then, of Christ’s reign is twofold, without considering His person:

1. First, in the whole body of believers; for though the Church is often dispersed and hidden from men’s eyes, yet it never entirely perishes, but God preserves it by His incomprehensible power, so that it will survive until the end of the world.

2. Then there is a second perpetuity in each believer, since each is born of incorruptible seed and renewed by the Spirit of God.

The sons of Adam are now not only mortal but bear within them heavenly life, since the Spirit within them is life, as St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 8:10). We hold, therefore, that whenever Scripture affirms Christ’s reign to be eternal, this is extended to the whole body of the Church and need not be confined to His person. We see, then, how the kingdom from which the doctrine of the Gospel began to be promulgated was eternal; for although the Church was in a certain sense buried, yet God gave life to His elect, even in the tomb. Why, then, did it happen that the sons of the Church were buried, and a new people and a new creation required, as in Psalm 102:18? Hence it easily appears that God is served by a remnant, although they are not evident to human observation.

He adds, “This kingdom shall not pass away to another people.” By this phrase the Prophet means that this sovereignty cannot be transferred, as in the other instances. Darius was conquered by Alexander, and his posterity was extinguished, until finally God destroyed that ill-fated Macedonian race, until no one survived who boasted himself to be descended from that family.

With respect to the Romans, although they continued to exist, they were so disgracefully subjected to the tyranny of strangers and barbarians as to be completely covered with shame and utterly disgraced. Then, as to the reign of Christ, He cannot be deprived of the empire conferred upon Him, nor can we who are His members lose the kingdom of which He has made us partakers.

Christ, therefore, both in Himself and His members, reigns without any danger of change, because He always remains safe and secure in His own person. As to ourselves, since we are preserved by His grace, and He has received us under His own care and protection, we are beyond the reach of danger; and, as I have already said, our safety is ensured, for we cannot be deprived of the inheritance awaiting us in heaven.

We, therefore, who are kept by His power through faith, as Peter says, may be secure and calm (1 Peter 1:5), because whatever Satan devises, and however the world attempts various plans for our destruction, we will still remain safe in Christ. We thus see how the Prophet’s words should be understood when he says that this fifth empire is not to be transferred and alienated to another people.

The last clause of the sentence, which is this: “it shall bruise and break all other kingdoms, and shall stand perpetually itself,” does not require a long exposition. We have explained the manner in which Christ’s kingdom would destroy all the earthly kingdoms of which Daniel had previously spoken, since whatever is adverse to the only-begotten Son of God must necessarily perish and utterly vanish.

A Prophet exhorts all the kings of the earth to kiss the Son (Psalms 2:12). Since neither the Babylonians, nor Persians, nor Macedonians, nor Romans submitted themselves to Christ, indeed, even used their utmost efforts to oppose Him, they were the enemies of piety and had to be extinguished by Christ’s kingdom; because, although the Persian empire was not in existence when Christ appeared in the world, yet its remembrance was cursed before God.

For Daniel does not here touch only on those things which were visible to men, but raises our minds higher, assuring us most clearly that no true support on which we can rest can be found except in Christ alone. Hence he pronounces that without Christ all the splendor, power, opulence, and might of the world is vain, unstable, and worthless. He confirms the same sentiment in the following verse, where God showed the king of Babylon what should happen in the last times, when He pointed out a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. We stated Christ to be cut out of the mountain without hands because He was divinely sent, so that men cannot claim anything for themselves in this respect. For God, when treating of the redemption of His own people, speaks thus by Isaiah: “Since God saw no help in the world, He relied upon His own arm and His own power” (Isaiah 63:5). As, therefore, Christ was sent only by His heavenly Father, He is said to be cut out without hands.

Meanwhile, we must consider what I have added in the second place: that the humble and abject origin of Christ is denoted, since it was like a rough and unpolished stone. With regard to the word “mountain,” I have no doubt Daniel here wished to show Christ’s reign to be sublime and above the whole world.

Hence the figure of the mountain means, in my opinion: Christ would not spring out of the earth but would come in the glory of His heavenly Father, as it is said in the Prophet: “And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art the least among the divisions of Judah; yet out of thee shall a leader in Israel arise for me, and his reign shall be from the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2).

Daniel, then, here condescends to those gross imaginations to which our minds are subjected. Because, at the beginning, Christ’s dignity did not appear as great as we discern it in the kings of the world, and to this day it seems to some obscured by the shame of the cross, many, alas! despise Him and do not acknowledge any dignity in Him.

Daniel, therefore, now raises aloft our eyes and senses when he says this stone should be cut out of the mountain. Meanwhile, if anyone prefers taking the mountain for the elect people, I will not object to it, but this seems to me not in accordance with the genuine sense of the Prophet.

Finally, he adds, “And the dream is true, and its interpretation trustworthy.” Here Daniel securely and intrepidly asserts that he does not bring forward doubtful conjectures but explains faithfully to King Nebuchadnezzar what he has received from the Lord. Here he claims for himself the Prophetic authority to induce the king of Babylon to acknowledge him as a sure and faithful interpreter of God.

We see how the prophets always spoke with this confidence; otherwise, all their teaching would be useless. If our faith depended on man’s wisdom or on anything of the kind, it would indeed be variable. Hence it is necessary to determine this foundation of truth: Whatever the Prophets set before us proceeds from God. The reason they so constantly insist on this is so that their doctrine should not be thought to be fabricated by men.

Thus also in this place, Daniel first says, “the dream is true;” as if he said, the dream is not a common one, as the poets fable concerning a gate of horn. The dream is not confused, as men imagine when scarcely sane, or stuffed with meat and drink, or through bodily constitution, either melancholy or choleric.

He states, therefore, the king of Babylon’s dream to have been a true oracle, and adds, “its interpretation is certain.” Here, as in the next clause, the Prophet again urges his own authority, lest Nebuchadnezzar should doubt his divine instructions to explain the truth of his dream.