Let us now seek the key to the understanding of the unexplained

portions of the image.  For this we will first examine what is clearly

revealed.  Babylon was succeeded by Medo -Persia, Medo -Persia by Greece, and

Greece by some kingdom unnamed.  Babylon passed off the scene, but the

kingdom of Persia has remained to this day, and so has Greece.  This leads us

to our first point.  It is not a necessity that the dispossessed kingdom

should be either destroyed or absorbed by its successor, and therefore the

idea that Rome is still existing in a weakened condition, and that the ten

kings at the end must be found in the Roman earth, is on this ground, without

foundation.  Some other principle is at work and must be discovered.

We have discussed in Millennial Studies9 the question of the 'Times of

the Gentiles' and we there show that these were characterized by one

essential feature, indicated by the Lord in Luke 21:24: 'And Jerusalem shall

be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be

fulfilled'.  (See Millennial Studies9).  Here is the essential prophetic

character of the times of the Gentiles.  Babylon dominated Jerusalem, and

every power that has succeeded to the control of Jerusalem has taken its

place in the image of Daniel 2.  Does Rome take its place according to this

canon of interpretation?  Let us see.  Who was it that sent out a decree that

all the inhabited earth should be taxed, and so unwittingly compelled the

birth of the Lord Jesus to take place at Bethlehem?  It was Caesar Augustus

(Luke 2:1).  Who was exercising dominion over Jerusalem when John the Baptist

pointed out the Messiah of Israel?  The answer is Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1).

Who was Governor of Jerusalem, with the power of life and death, when the

Lord Jesus was crucified?  Again, it was a Roman, Pontius Pilate (Luke 23).

To whom did the Jewish nation pay tribute at this time?  To none but Caesar

(Luke 23:2).  It is, then, very evident that the Roman Empire is in the line

of Gentile succession, and if historians are true and Rome's sovereignty over

the earth lasted for the space of 666 years, we may, in its typical

character, find food for further thought.

This brings us to another important point.  Believers in the Word of

God are as certain that God knew the rise and fall of Rome as that He knew

the rise and fall of Babylon or Persia.  Why did He not then, definitely name

Rome as he had Persia and Greece?  For the selfsame reason that, in Old

Testament prophecy, He veiled the rejection of Christ by Israel, the ensuing

long interval between the 'suffering' and the 'glory' and the 'times and the

seasons' of Israel's restoration (Acts 1:6).

The principle is brought out in Matthew 11:14: 'If ye will receive it,

this is Elias, which was for to come'.  Now John the Baptist declared most

emphatically that he was not Elias (John 1:21).  The Lord declared that Elias

must first come and restore all things, as Malachi had already prophesied

(Matt. 17:11; Mal. 4:5,6), and that this should herald the great and dreadful

day of the Lord.  At the birth of John the Baptist it was said of him that he

should go before the Lord 'in the spirit and power of Elias' (Luke 1:17).  If

Israel had received the King and the kingdom, then Rome would have rapidly

developed into the Beast, and Herod was already at hand, a potential anti-

christ (see Acts 12:20 -23).  We are not, however, called upon to discuss

what might have been, for that leaves God out of the question.  What actually

took place was foreknown and provided for: Israel rejected their King and

postponed their own restoration.  In consequence of their folly a

dispensation of hitherto unrevealed grace to an election from among the