In the second year of his reign, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had a troubling dream that none of his counselors could explain. Babylonian culture placed considerable emphasis upon dreams, and Nebuchadnezzar was convinced that this one was of great importance (Daniel 2:1-3). God began His influence over this great pagan king by allowing the prophet Daniel to interpret the dream without any prior knowledge of its content.

Under God's inspiration, Daniel explained the details of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar and provided the king an astounding preview of history. In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw a human image with four distinct parts, each symbolized by a different metal: "You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image's head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay" (Daniel 2:31-33).

The image in the dream represented, in symbolic form, the sequence of great empires that would dominate the civilized world's political scene for centuries, with the final part of the fourth empire existing at the time of Jesus' return to earth to establish the Kingdom of God. Daniel's interpretation gives us a "disclosure of God's plan for the ages till the final triumph of Christ" and "presents the foreordained succession of world powers that are to dominate the Near East till the final victory of the Messiah in the last days" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, pp. 39, 46). In other words, the chronological sequence of the empires depicted by the image is to be viewed from "top to bottom," so to speak, with the feet of the image representing the "empire" that exists at the time Jesus returns. The feet of the image are struck by the stone that represents God's Kingdom (verse 34).

Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that his Babylonian Empire was represented by the head of gold. "You, O king, are a king of kings…you are this head of gold" (verses 37-38). The silver, bronze, iron and clay components of the image, or statue, represented three powerful empires that were to follow mighty Babylon (verses 39-40). "The silver empire was to be Medo-Persia, which began with Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon in 539…. This silver empire was supreme in the Near and Middle East for about two centuries" (ibid., Vol. 7, p. 47).

"The bronze empire was the Greco-Macedonian Empire established by Alexander the Great…. The bronze kingdom lasted for about 260 or 300 years before it was supplanted by the fourth kingdom" (ibid.).

"Iron connotes toughness and ruthlessness and describes the Roman Empire that reached its widest extent under the reign of Trajan" (ibid.). Trajan reigned C.E. 98 to 117, and the Roman Empire itself ruled for many centuries. Daniel described the fourth empire as crushing its opponents, forcing them into submission (verse 40).

The fourth empire was depicted as having 10 toes. "Verse 41 deals with a later phase or outgrowth of this fourth empire, symbolized by the feet and ten toes…" (ibid.). Jesus returns to earth at the time the "kings" depicted by the feet and the toes are in existence. "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed…. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold…" (verse 44-45; cf. verse 34).

Potter's clay and iron

The feet and toes were composed partly of iron and partly of clay, "a fragile base for the huge monument" (ibid.). Verse 43 tells us in this regard: "As you saw iron mixed 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."

Some have wondered about what the mixture of iron and clay would represent in the end time when Jesus returns to the earth. An end-time continuation of the fourth empire, the Roman Empire, will be in existence when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth. Some have speculated that the union depicted represents the diverse cultures and peoples within Europe that would not readily "cleave" one to another, thereby representing a weak union. In this regard, an East-West or a North-South axis within Europe has been suggested in the past.

However, at the peak of its power, the Roman Empire had no difficulty assimilating many different peoples and cultures under its rule. Verse 40 tells us why: "And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others." It would appear, then, that different peoples and cultures-viewed by themselves-would not seem to be the only reason for the fragile mixture of clay and iron.

In the author's opinion, the mixture described does not represent the nature of the peoples involved in the final union, but rather the nature of the union itself. The Expositor's Bible Commentary views verse 41 in the following manner: "The text clearly implies that this final phase will be marked by some sort of federation rather than by a powerful single realm" (ibid.).

Chapter 17 of Revelation pictures Jesus subduing a union of 10 kings at His return to earth. "The ten horns which you saw [cf. verse 3] are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings…" (Revelation 17:12-14).

The 10 kings of Revelation 17 are analogous to the 10 toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image in Daniel 2. With the chronological sequence of the image in Daniel 2 being from top to bottom, the toes are the "last" part of the image. The Kingdom of God is established at the time of "these kings"-the toes (Daniel 2:44). Revelation 17 describes 10 kings who will exist simultaneously at the time Jesus returns. Just as in Daniel 2, their reign is ended by the return of Christ. Interestingly, these 10 kings cede power to a central authority, called the "beast" in Revelation 17:13.

In other words, in contrast to the early days of the fourth beast when extension of its sovereign realm was achieved by conquest-by crushing opponents (Daniel 2:40), the end-time extension of the fourth beast will indeed be a federation in which political authorities-kings-voluntarily transfer power to a central authority. The economic system described in Revelation 18 indicates the reason for the willingness to cede national or local power to a central authority: prosperity.

Dominion by democratic means

In its current form, the European Union represents a growing but cumbersome supranational dominion by democratic means. Over the years, democratically elected governments of EU member states have ratified various EU treaties and thereby gradually transferred more and more authority to Brussels, the seat of the increasingly powerful European Commission.

In fact, the amount of influence wielded by "Brussels," a phrase often used to mean the European Commission, is becoming a sticking point for Germany's 16 state governors. Representative of their concerns is the point of view expressed this spring by Bavaria's popular Christian Socialist Union governor Edmund Stoiber. "The commission is attempting increasingly to expand its authority over Germany's federal states and other regions. It tends to declare itself responsible for everything…. Europe must not be molded by central domination through distant and anonymous authorities."

Some of Mr. Stoiber's colleagues in Germany have been disappointed by decisions rendered by the Commission in the interest of free and unhindered trade and competition. In line with authority granted to it by EU treaties, the European Commission views itself as the defender of free trade within the EU. One case in point involves the scrutiny of Germany's state banks (each of Germany's 16 federal states has its own state bank) by the Commission to ensure fair competition with commercial banks. Germany's state governors now wonder whether the Commission will intervene to regulate state-run television and radio stations, hospitals and waste-management systems. The Commission likely would claim a need to intervene to prevent state-run or state-subsidized systems from having an unfair competitive advantage in comparison to their commercial counterparts.

Since the EU is currently primarily an economic union and the European Commission is charged with ensuring fair competition, the concerns of Germany's state governors are justified. As might be expected within the overall democratic context of the EU, they have resolved to use the means available to them to prevent any further erosion of their local authority, including the option to have the German Bundesrat (equivalent to the U.S. Senate) veto any future EU treaty expanding powers of the Commission.

Political union becoming a necessity

Certain key aspects of national sovereignty remain with the national governments of EU member states. Among these are economic policy and taxation.

However, the creation of a single currency for the 11 EU member states participating in the euro (with Greece likely to become the 12th member by year's end) has highlighted the need for further political integration. The single currency effectively interlocks national economies and makes them mutually vulnerable to economic decisions made by individual governments within the euro zone. Case in point: the state pension fund crisis developing in several EU countries.

Generous state-funded retirement programs in Europe have often been the envy of many non-Europeans. While the demographic pyramid upon which all such programs were based remained intact-more young people entering the work force than older people entering retirement-no problem existed. However, in recent years the baby boom has gone to "baby bust," and nearly all Western countries face the problem of more people retiring each year than the system will be able to handle.

Individual European governments are reluctant to cut benefits, always an unpopular political decision. One other way to "solve" the problem would be to raise taxes, but with the euro, that could cause inflation beyond a country's own borders. If Germany were to raise taxes to fund its retirement programs, higher inflation in Ireland could be the result, even if Ireland had enough money to pay its pensions. If Italy were to fund its state-run pension program by increasing deficit spending instead of raising taxes, the cost of borrowing money in Belgium could be higher as a result.

Some analysts believe that the euro could be strained to a breaking point if a crisis of this sort were to arise. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank can adjust interest rates for banks borrowing money, but its ability to cope with inflation caused by government spending or borrowing is limited. Although European Commission President Romani Prodi has warned about the possible negative impact of the potential pension funding crisis, he has no authority to deal with the problem: EU national governments are responsible for their individual state-run retirement plans.

When opponents of the euro in Germany stated their case in the months prior to the establishment of the final rate of exchange for member countries, one of their arguments was that without common supranational EU policy on economic issues and taxation the new currency might very well be doomed to failure. Many EU supporters recognize the need for Europe to forge ahead with greater political union to match the intertwining of the economies of the various EU member states. However, an extension of EU powers to include greater influence over national economic policies is simply impossible under the current EU structure, because of the same "mechanism" that Germany's state governors want to use to influence future EU policy: the single-nation veto right.

Since any decision involving an expansion of EU authority or the admission of new member states into the EU requires a unanimous decision of all current member countries, any country can effectively block progress on political union. It is inconceivable, for example, that the United Kingdom will agree to any extension of EU powers that would diminish U.K. national sovereignty-the main reason why the U.K. is not part of the euro zone. (The unanimous vote rule is one of several reasons why the author believes that, in the current political climate within the EU, there is absolutely no likelihood that Austrian Freedom Party leader Jörg Haider's political philosophy will be adopted by the EU.)

A two-tiered Europe ahead?

At the start of the new century, the EU faces the question of what its future will be. Already becoming unwieldy with its current 16 members, the EU could become totally immovable if the ongoing negotiations with the 12 countries seeking admission into the EU are concluded successfully. Will the EU be nothing more than a free-trade agreement-a view held by a minority of current EU members headed by Britain? Or, will the EU proceed on to full political union, as is the desire of its original six members?

A two-tiered Europe has been proposed, most notably by elder statesmen Giscard d'Estaing of France and Helmut Schmidt of Germany. In similar fashion to the way the common currency was handled (only those EU countries wanting to be part of the euro zone must comply with its requirements), those countries who desire to form a political federation within the EU would proceed with the plan in the hope that other countries would eventually join them. The existing free-trade arrangement would continue to apply to all EU members, and membership in the common currency and in a possible political federation would be limited to those EU members who choose to participate.

In a speech titled "Quo vadis Europa?" ["Where are you headed, Europe?"] in Berlin on May 12, German foreign minister Joschka Fischer announced his support for a "Europe of two speeds." Mr. Fischer made clear that he was speaking as a private person and not in his official capacity as Germany's foreign minister. His vision calls for a "center of gravity" made up of a few countries within a greater EU: "Such a center of gravity would have to be the avant—garde or the locomotive for political integration and include all elements of a later federation"—a little center of Europe within a greater European Union, according to one commentator.

Mr. Fischer emphasized that for those countries who want to join the "center of gravity" at a later date, but that do not fulfill all requirements for full political union, there would need to be stages of adjustment enabling them to achieve final admission into Europe's proposed new inner circle.

Criticism of Mr. Fischer's two-tiered Europe is blunted by the fact that an EU moving at different speeds already exists in two different cases: the euro (with 11 of 15 EU member states currently participating) and the Schengen Treaty regulating common internal borders and responsibility for the external border of treaty adherents (with 9 of 15 EU member countries involved). Other than a negative comment from France's interior minister accusing Germany of wanting to revive the Holy Roman Empire, reaction from the original EU countries was generally favorable. EU Scandinavian members, Britain and Ireland are seen to oppose the idea, and the newer EU members from the Mediterranean-Greece, Portugal and Spain-are considered skeptical or not interested.

An "avant-garde" Europe and prophecy

Joschka Fischer's outline for an "avant-garde" Europe prompts a sharper focus on the key prophecies of Daniel 2 and Revelation 17 involving an end-time revival of the fourth world empire of Daniel 2-the Roman Empire. Instead of wondering how the current 16 EU members (or the potential 28 members in just a few years' time) "fit into" a scheme of 10 symbolized by the toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image and the 10 kings of Revelation 17:12-14, a "core Europe" (as Mr. Fischer called it) involving full political union operating within a greater European trade zone could easily fulfill the prophetic vision. This configuration would make it possible for Britain to continue within the free trade zone, but not be part of the inner circle of nations forming the politically unified "core Europe."

The greater European trade zone involving nearly all of Europe provides the large market of buyers and sellers for the economic powerhouse described in the Babylonian system of Revelation 18. And a "core Europe" with its full political integration and proposed majority vote system offers a viable "state" authority for the independent European rapid deployment force proposed within the current NATO structure. In the author's opinion, under existing conditions in Europe, only a supranational political structure of this kind would be able to provide alternative leadership to the superpower influence of the United States.

The "avant-garde" Europe will be formed by consent, continuing the pattern begun when the original treaty was signed in Rome in 1957. Since then, democratically elected governments have increasingly ceded regulatory powers to a central authority, resulting in a remarkable degree of economic integration within the EU.

History causes some of God's people to believe that only a dictatorial system in the tradition of Adolf Hitler would be capable of fulfilling the end-time prophecies of the Bible. But Europe isn't headed that way. Instead, it appears that the pattern established over the last 40 years could continue until the final extension of the Roman Empire grants special powers to a central authority: "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast" (Revelation 17:13). WNP