The mixture of iron and clay in the toes of the great image graphically illustrate the condition due to be manifest in the final expression of political world domination. Clay is elsewhere used metaphorically in the Scriptures to stand for fleshly men, made of the dust of the earth. (Job 10:9; Isa. 29:16; Rom. 9:20, 21) Daniel’s interpretation thus appears to equate the clay with “the offspring of mankind,” the mixing in of which produces fragility in that which is symbolized by the image’s ten toes. This points to a weakening and a lack of cohesion in the ironlike strength of the final form of world domination by earthly kingdoms. “Ten” being used consistently in the Bible to express completeness (see NUMBER, NUMERAL), the ten toes apparently stand for the complete number of all the kingdoms associated with the dominant world power at the time when God’s kingdom is established and takes action against the worldly powers.—Compare Revelation 17:12-14.

The golden image later set up by Nebuchadnezzar on the Plain of Dura is not directly related to the immense image of the dream. In view of its dimensions—sixty cubits (c. 88 feet, c. 27 meters) high and only 6 cubits (c. 8.8 feet, c. 2.7 meters) broad (or a ratio of ten to one)—it does not seem likely to have been a statue in human form, unless it had a very high pedestal, one that was higher than the human statue itself. The human form has a ratio of only four to one as to height and breadth. So the image may have been more symbolic in nature, perhaps like the obelisks of ancient Egypt.

THE IMAGE OF THE WILD BEAST

After a vision of a seven-headed wild beast that rises out of the sea, the apostle John saw the vision of a two-horned beast ascend out of the earth, speaking like a dragon and telling those who dwell on the earth “to make an image to the [seven-headed] wild beast.” (Rev. 13:1, 2, 11-14) The significance of both the seven-headed wild beast and the two-horned beast is considered under BEASTS, SYMBOLIC. As shown there, beasts are consistently used in the Bible as symbols of political governments. The image of the seven-headed wild beast must therefore be some agency reflecting the characteristics and will of the globe-dominating political system represented by the seven-headed wild beast. Logically, it should also have seven heads and ten horns like the wild beast out of the sea that it represents. It is of interest to note, then, that another seven-headed beast, distinct from the wild beast out of the sea, is described at Revelation chapter 17. Its significance is also considered under BEASTS, SYMBOLIC.

After its first mention in Revelation chapter 13 the image of the beast is regularly referred to along with the wild beast, particularly in connection with the worship of that wild beast and the receiving of its mark. The image of the beast shares in these things.—Rev. 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4; see MARK, II.

IMAGE OF THE BEAST

See IMAGE.

IMLAH

(Imʹlah) [possibly, he (God) is full, or fills (fulfills)].

Father of Micaiah, a prophet of Jehovah contemporaneous with Kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat.—1 Ki. 22:8, 9; 2 Chron. 18:7, 8.

IMMANUEL

(Im·manʹu·el) [with us is God].

A name first mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (7:14; 8:8) during the reign of Ahaz (761-745 B.C.E.). In Matthew 1:23, the only other occurrence, Immanuel is a name-title applied to Christ the Messiah.

In view of the circumstances under which the prophecy was given, Bible commentators have looked for an “Immanuel” in Isaiah’s day, one who fittingly served then as a sign that ‘God was with them.’ In that eighth century B.C.E. Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, were bent on overthrowing Ahaz, king of Judah, so as to put the son of Tabeel upon his throne. (Isa. 7:1-6) Jehovah, however, remembered his kingdom covenant with David, the forefather of Ahaz, and sent his prophet with this reassuring message:

“Listen, please, O house of David. . . . Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.”—Isa. 7:13-16.

Then, after telling about the birth of Isaiah’s second son, the prophecy next describes how the threat to Judah would be removed. As an irresistible flood the Assyrians would completely inundate Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel, not stopping until they had dangerously spread over the land of Judah, even “to fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!” Then, in poetic grandeur, the prophet Isaiah warns all those in opposition to Jehovah: If you gird yourselves for war, if you plan out a scheme, if you speak a word against Jehovah—“it will not stand, for God is with us [Immanuel]!”—Isa. 8:5-10.

Some have suggested that in the type back there “Immanuel” was a third son of Isaiah, or possibly a son of Ahaz, borne to him by some “maiden” from among the king’s secondary wives. Certain Jewish commentators endeavored to apply the prophecy to the birth of Ahaz’s son Hezekiah. This, however, is ruled out, since the prophecy was uttered during Ahaz’s reign (Isa. 7:1), making Hezekiah at least nine years old at the time.—2 Ki. 16:2; 18:1, 2.

Another possible candidate was Isaiah’s second son, mentioned in the next chapter, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, concerning whom it was said: “Before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria.” (Isa. 8:1-4) Certainly this echoes what was said about Immanuel: “Before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings [of Damascus and Samaria] you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.” (Isa. 7:16) Also, the birth of Isaiah’s second son is presented in close connection with the further prophecy involving Immanuel and, as Immanuel was to be a “sign,” so also Isaiah said: “I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are as signs.”—Isa. 8:18.

The principal objection to this identification of Isaiah’s second son as the Immanuel of Ahaz’s day, is on the grounds that Isaiah’s wife is spoken of as “the prophetess,” not “the maiden,” as well as the fact that she was already the mother of Isaiah’s firstborn, Shear-jashub, hence no “maiden.” (Isa. 7:3; 8:3) It may be noted, however, the Hebrew word here translated “maiden” is not b^ethu·lahʹ, meaning, specifically, “virgin,” but is ʽal·mahʹ, having a broader reference to a young woman, who could be either a virgin maiden or a recently married woman. ʽAl·mahʹ also occurs in six other texts, one of which specifically involves a virgin maiden.—Gen. 24:43 (compare verse 16); Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8.

The full and complete identity of Immanuel, of course, is found in the office and personage of the Lord Jesus Christ. The use, therefore, of the Hebrew word ʽal·mahʹ in the prophecy would accommodate both the type (if such was a young wife of Ahaz or of Isaiah) and the antitype (the betrothed and yet virgin Mary). In the case of Mary there was no question about her being a virgin when she became “pregnant by holy spirit,” both Matthew and Luke recording this historical fact. (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:30-35) “All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet,” Matthew observed. It was a sign that identified the long-awaited Messiah. So in keeping with