Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 2:1
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep broke from him.
1. in the second year ] There is not, perhaps, necessarily a contradiction here with the ‘three years’ of Dan 1:5; Dan 1:18. By Heb. usage, fractions of time were reckoned as full units: thus Samaria, which was besieged from the fourth to the sixth year of Hezekiah, is said to have been taken ‘at the end’ of three years (2Ki 17:9-10); and in Jer 34:14 ‘at the end of seven years’ means evidently when the seventh year has arrived (see also Mar 8:31, &c.). It, now, the author, following a custom which was certainly sometimes adopted by Jewish writers, and which was general in Assyria and Babylonia, ‘post-dated’ the regnal years of a king, i.e. counted as his first year not the year of his accession but the first full year afterwards [200] , and if further Nebuchadnezzar gave orders for the education of the Jewish youths in his accession-year, the end of the ‘three years’ of Dan 1:5; Dan 1:18 might be reckoned as falling within the king’s second year. Ewald, Kamphausen, and Prince, however, suppose that ‘ten’ has fallen out of the text; and would read ‘in the twelfth year.’
[200] See art. Chronology, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, p. 400.
dreamed dreams ] In Assyria and Babylonia, as in Egypt [201] , and other countries of the ancient world, dreams were regarded as significant, and as portending future events. The Assyrian inscriptions furnish several instances of deities appearing in dreams with words of encouragement or advice. Thus Asshur appears to Gugu (Gyges), king of Lydia, in a dream, and tells him that, if he ‘grasps the feet’ (i.e. owns the sovereignty) of Asshurbanapal, he will overcome his foes ( KB [202] ii. 173, 175). During Asshurbanaparl’s war with his ‘false’ brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, a professional dreamer saw written on the moon, ‘Whoso plans evil against Asshurbanapal, an evil death will I prepare against him’ ( ib. p. 187). When the same king was warring against Ummanaldashi, king of Elam, Ishtar sent his army a dream, in which she said to them, ‘I march before Asshurbanapal, the king whom my hands have made’ ( ib. p. 201); and in another war she appeared to a professional dreamer, standing before the king, armed, and assuring him that, wherever he went, she went likewise ( ib. p. 251). Nabu-na’id, the last king of Babylon (b.c. 555 538), was commanded, or encouraged, to restore temples by deities appearing to him in dreams ( ib. iii. 2, pp. 85, 97, 99). On another occasion, Nabu-na’id saw in a dream a great star in heaven, the significance of which Nebuchadnezzar (also in the dream) explained to him [203] . These, however, are mostly cases of the apparitions of deities; for instances of symbolical dreams, such as the one of Nebuchadnezzar, we may compare rather, though they are much briefer, the dreams in Herodotus, i. 107, 108, 209, iii. 30, 124, vii. 19 (cited below, on Dan 4:10).
[201] See Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, ii. p. 772 b.
[202] B. Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889 1900.
[203] Messerschmidt, Die Inschrift der Stele Nabuna’ids, 1896, p. 30 f.
and his spirit was troubled ] More exactly, was agitated, disturbed; so Dan 2:3. The expression is borrowed from Gen 41:8: cf. Psa 77:5 ‘I am agitated and cannot speak.’
brake from him ] More lit. was come to pass, i.e. was completed or done with (something like the Latin actum est; cf. Dan 8:27), upon him, ‘upon’ being used idiomatically to emphasize the person who is the subject of an experience, or (more often) of an emotion, and who, as it were, is sensible of it as acting or operating upon himself. Cf. Psa 42:4 ‘I will pour out my soul upon me,’ Psa 42:5 ‘why moanest thou upon me?’ Psa 42:6 ‘my soul upon me is cast down,’ Psa 142:3 ‘when my spirit fainteth upon me,’ Psa 143:4, Jer 8:18 ‘my heart upon me is sick,’ Job 30:16 (R.V. marg.), Lam 3:20 ‘my soul is bowed down upon me’: within, in all these passages, does not express the idea of the Hebrew. Cf. the writer’s Parallel Psalter, Glossary I, s. v. upon (p. 464); and see also Dan 5:9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1 6. Nebuchadnezzar, being troubled by a dream, summons the wise men of Babylon before him, and bids them both tell him what his dream had been, and also interpret it to him.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar – There is an apparent chronological difficulty in this statement which has given some perplexity to expositors. It arises mainly from two sources.
(1) That in Jer 25:1, it is said that the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar corresponded with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and as the captivity was in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Dan 1:1, the time here would be the fourth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of the second.
(2) That we learn from Dan 1:5, Dan 1:18, that Daniel and his three friends had been in Babylon already three years, under a process of training preparatory to their being presented at court, and as the whole narrative leads us to suppose that it was after this that Daniel was regarded as enrolled among the wise men (compare Dan 2:13-14), on the supposition that the captivity occurred in the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, this would bring the time of the dream into the fourth year of his reign. This difficulty is somewhat increased from the fact that when Nebuchadnezzar went up to besiege Jerusalem he is called king, and it is evident that he did not go as a lieutenant of the reigning monarch; or as a general of the Chaldean forces under the direction of another. See 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:11. Various solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but the true one probably is, that Nebuchadnezzar reigned some time conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar, and, though the title king was given to him, yet the reckoning here is dated from the time when he began to reign alone, and that this was the year of his sole occupancy of the throne.
Berosus states that his father, Nabopolassar, was aged and infirm, and that he gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Necho out of Asia. The victorious prince then marched directly to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim surrendered to him; and this was the beginning of the seventy years, captivity. See Jahns History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, p. 134. Nabopolassar probably died about two years after that, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne. The period of their reigning together was two years, and of course the second year of his single reign would be the fourth of his entire reign; and a reckoning from either would be proper, and would not be misunderstood. Other modes of solution have been adopted, but as this meets the whole difficulty, and is founded on truth, it is unnecessary to refer to them. Compare Prof. Stuart, on Daniel, Excursus I. and Excursus II. (See Barnes Appendix I and Appendix II to Daniel)
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams – The plural is here used, though there is but one dream mentioned, and probably but one is referred to, for Nebuchadnezzar, when speaking of it himself Dan 2:3, says, I have dreamed a dream. In the Latin Vulgate, and in the Greek, it is also in the singular. It is probable that this is a popular use of words, as if one should say, I had strange dreams last night, though perhaps but a single dream was intended. – Prof. Bush. Among the methods by which God made known future events in ancient times, that by dreams was one of the most common. See the notes at Dan 1:17; Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (2); compare Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6; Gen 31:11; Gen 37:5-6; Gen 40:5; Gen 41:7, Gen 41:25; 1Ki 3:5; Num 12:6; Joe 2:28; Job 33:14-16. The belief that the will of heaven was communicated to men by means of dreams, was prevalent throughout the world in ancient times. Hence, the striking expression in Homer, Iliad i. 63 – kai gar t’ onar ek Dios estin, the dream is of Jove. So in the commencement of his second Iliad, he represents the will of Jupiter as conveyed to Agamemnon by Oneiros, or the dream.
So Diogenes Laertius makes mention of a dream of Socrates, by which he foretold his death as to happen in three days. This method of communicating the Divine will was adopted, not only in reference to the prophets, but also to those who were strangers to religion, and even to wicked men, as in the case of Pharaoh, Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, the butler and baker in Egypt, etc. In every such instance, however, it was necessary, as in the case before us, to call in the aid of a true prophet to interpret the dream; and it was only when thus interpreted that it took its place among the certain predictions of the future. One object of communicating the Divine will in this manner, seems to have been to fix the attention of the person who had the dream on the subject, and to prepare him to receive the communication which God had chosen to make to him. Thus it cannot be doubted that by the belief in dreams entertained by Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, as disclosing future events, and by the anxiety of mind which they experienced m regard to the dreams, they were better prepared to receive the communications of Joseph and Daniel in reference to the future than they could have been by any other method of making known the Divine will.
They had no doubt that some important communication had been made to them respecting the future, and they were anxious to know what it was. They were prepared, therefore, to welcome any explanation which commended itself to them as true, and in this way the servants of the true God had a means of access to their hearts which they could have found in no other way. By what laws it was so regulated that a dream should be known to be a preintimation of coming events, we have now no means of ascertaining. That it is possible for God to have access to the mind in sleep, and to communicate his will in this manner, no one can doubt. That it was, so far as employed for that purpose, a safe and certain way, is demonstrated by the results of the predictions thus made in the case of Abimelech, Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6; of Joseph and his brethren, Gen 37:5-6; of Pharaoh, Gen 41:7, Gen 41:25; and of the butler and baker, Gen 40:5. It is not, however, to be inferred that the same reliance, or that any reliance, is now to be placed on dreams, for were there no other consideration against such reliance, it would be sufficient that there is no authorized interpreter of the wanderings of the mind in sleep. God now communicates his truth to the souls of men in other ways.
Wherewith his spirit was troubled – Alike by the unusual nature of the dream, and by the impression which he undoubtedly had that it referred to some important truths pertaining to his kingdom and to future times. See Dan 2:31-36 The Hebrew word here rendered troubled ( paam) means, properly, to strike, to beat, to pound; then, in Niph., to be moved, or agitated; and also in Hithpa., to be agitated, or troubled. The proper signification of the word is that of striking as on an anvil, and then it refers to any severe stroke, or anything which produces agitation. The verb occurs only in the following places: Jdg 13:25, where it is rendered move; and Psa 67:4, (5); Gen 41:8; Dan 2:1, Dan 2:3, where it is rendered troubled. The noun is of frequent occurrence. And his sleep brake from him. Hebrew shenatho nheyethah alayv.
Literally, His sleep was upon him. The Greek is, his sleep was from him; i. e., left him. The Vulgate, his sleep fled (fugit) from him. But it may be doubted whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. Probably the literal construction is the true one, by which the sense of the Hebrew – al upon – will be retained. The meaning then would be, that this remarkable representation occurred when he was in a profound sleep. It was a dream, and not an open vision. It was such a representation as passes before the mind when the senses are locked in repose, and not such as was made to pass before the minds of the prophets when they were permitted to see visions of the future, though awake. Compare Num 24:4, Num 24:16. There is nothing in the words which conveys the idea that there was anything preternatural in the sleep that had come upon Nebuchadnezzar, but the thought is, that all this occurred when he was sound asleep. Prof. Stuart, however, renders this, his sleep failed him, and so does also Gesenius. Winer renders it, his sleep went away from him. But it seems to me that the more natural idea is what occurs in the literal translation of the words, that this occurred as a dream, in a state of profound repose.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 2:1-2
Nebuchahnezzar Dreamed Dreams.
The Wise Men of Babylon
In the conclusion of last chapter, we are informed that Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Events are now ordered so that he shall have an opportunity of exercising his skill on a more illustrious theatre. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar the king dreamed dreams. Nebuchadnezzars dream was not of an ordinary kind. It was not caused by the ordinary working of a mind agitated by anxiety, or excited by ambition. It came immediately from that great and only God of whom Nebuchadnezzar was ignorant. It was so ordered, for reasons that will afterwards appear, that Nebuchadnezzar forgot what his dream was. But it was also ordained that he should not forget that he had a dream of a most wonderful kind. The impression made upon his mind was deep, and painful, and permanent. He could not forget it. It filled his whole soul. He was so troubled that he could neither compose himself to sleep nor be at rest when awake. Nebuchadnezzar,–the great, the terrible, the invincible,–who had already stormed so many towns, conquered so many countries, routed so many armies, and who, like the eagle in the tempest, seemed to exult in the storm of battle–Nebuchadnezzar troubled by a dream! How completely are the greatest of men in the hand of Jehovah. How easily can he make the stoutest among them to quail. And may we not reflect, if this transient glimpse into the invisible world–if this unveiling of a portion of time and space, so small when compared with eternity and infinity, produced such trouble of mind, what amazement and terror will seize upon the souls of the ungodly, when the gates of the invisible world shall be thrown wide open, and the spirit, disentangled from matter, shall enter, and feel itself encompassed on all sides, not with the vision, but with the reality of the spiritual world–encircled with what is infinite and eternal–and penetrated by the holiness of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Being greatly troubled by his dream, Nebuchadnezzar was anxious to regain his composure. He was an idolater, and, consequently, ignorant of those hidden sources of comfort that are opened up to a believer in his time of need. (J. White.)
The Lost Dream
And as to the sneering Infidel question, How could a forgotten dream trouble the king? it seems quite a sufficient answer to ask whether its propounders have common sense enough to dream? For every one must know from experience that the mind is often greatly agitated by visions of the night, which vanish, leaving only a general impression. It is easy to suppose cases where the agitation would be even increased by the very fact that the particulars were no longer remembered, and the relief that might be hoped for could not, therefore, be so readily obtained. The dimness, indistinctness, mysteriousness of the subject only increases the agitation. The king knew three things. He had had a dream. It was lost; but still it greatly troubled him. He, therefore, called for his wise men.
1. How poor and wretched a creature is a man left to the power of fierce and ungovernable passions! How contemptible a figure does the great King of Babylon make in demanding what was impossible! Hot-headed and furious men are generally without reason, and deaf to all remonstrances. How blessed are your privileges, that you live under constitutional laws, and are not subject to the arbitrary power of a tyrant! Magna Charta, Habeas Corpus, and trial by jury are blessings that cannot be too highly valued.
2. In the rise and fall of nations, shadowed forth in prophecy, and presented in history, it is of great importance to bear in mind the fact that the Supreme Being does rule over all the inhabitants of the world, and yet does no violence to the free agency of any rational creature. The mightiest planets in the highest heavens sweep round in their orbits at his bidding, and so arise and fall the mighty dynasties of our race, both in ancient and modern times, and in both the Old and New World. Not a few seem to think that Gods providence was concerned with ancient nations, but has ceased to take notice of modern nations. This is nothing but practical atheism. God is not less vigilant and supreme now, in the midst of our inventions and improvements, than He was in the days of Jerusalem and Babylon. The celebrated and pious Bogue was in the habit of saying, when he took up the papers in the time of Napoleon the Great, to read what was passing: Let us see how God governs the world.
3. In the history of nations there are always two classes of interests and facts very distinct, and yet exercising over each other a powerful influence. I mean political and religious events. The first relates to kings, emperors, rulers, cabinets, and forms of government; the second relates to the moral character, religious sentiment of the people, and pertains to the salvation of their souls and the condition of the Church of the living God. These interests must necessarily exercise over each other a powerful influence. The history of nations and the history of the Church of Christ reflect mutually the state of the other.
4. Finally, here you are taught where to go in all cases of difficulty. How did Daniel obtain the knowledge of the lost dream? By asking for it. He prayed to God. He sought help in the right direction. We do not, indeed, expect miracles now, yet we do expect answer to prayer. (W.A. Scott, D.D.)
Dreams and Dreamers
Dreams have played an important part in the history of the world. God seems to have made large use of the visions of the night and, of dreams to call men into His service, to commission them to do His will, execute His judgments, and to reveal His gracious purposes concerning the world. It was in a vision that God revealed to the patriarch Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for number. Nor is the New Testament without them. After our Lord Jesus Christ came and revealed God, life; immortality, salvation, and peace, the use of vision and dream did not cease. It was in a dream that Joseph was warned to flee into Egypt, and thus secure the safety of Christ. When the time had come that the Gospel of the grace of God should be preached to the Gentiles, God revealed His will in the matter to Peter in a vision on the housetop at Jaffa. But among all the dreams and visions of which we have read, there are but few more remarkable and important than this, which filled the slumbers of Nebuchadnezzar, and slipped from his memory afterwards.
I. We will consider THE DREAMER. The dreamer of the text was an Eastern monarch. There he is in secure possession of his throne. Famed as a skilful soldier and victor, he is the mightiest monarch on the face of the earth. Babylon, the seat of his empire, the place of his throne, is among the most imposing and great of the ancient cities of the world. This is the home of this royal dreamer. See him in the midst of it. Seated on his throne, around him stand his chief men of state, his eunuchs, priests, princes, and captains, all in their many-coloured and glittering garbs. He is troubled. What has gone wrong? Has some part of his kingdom broken out into rebellion? Has the death-plague seized upon his friends and chief councillors? Nay, he has had a dream, a simple dream. The world owes a great deal to its dreamers. Some have blessed the world by the great victories which they won. What a great and noble company the dreamers make. John Bunyan dreamed the Pilgrims Progress, a book which, next to the Bible, which it illustrates, has had a larger circulation than any other book in the world. That was a grand dream, and the world owes much to it. Columbus was a dreamer. He had visions of another and a great land across an unexplored and unknown ocean. Sir Christopher Wren was a dreamer. He had a vision of St. Pauls, and it grew up in the city of London.
II. THE DREAM. The dreamer was a mighty monarch. The dream was worthy of the dreamer.. However great the dreamer, the dream was not less so. He Went to rest that night with his mind full of great and important thoughts. He thought of what wars had been, and wondered what wars would be. He knew himself secure on his throne then. But did he think that soon he would be gone? He wondered what should come to pass hereafter. It was a great dream. No idolater ever had a greater dream, and but few men any so great. He went out far beyond himself. The present did not satisfy him. He wanted to pull back the curtain and see what was beyond. Have we not all had dreams like this? Think you that this king was the only man who ever felt dissatisfied with the present? Have not we all tried to look beyond? I have had a vision of God; it may have been a dream, but I have thought about Him. I have looked around me in the world, and have seen traces of Him. The great mountains and the mighty ocean, which I have seen in the majesty of its fury, have said something to me of the greatness of God. I seem to have had visions of love, and mercy, and pity, but I cant quite find out myself, I want some one to interpret. I cant myself quite solve it all. Canst thou by searching find out God? asks one in ancient days who also had dreams about God. Then I have had dreams of the soul and its destiny. I have dreamed of what shall come to pass hereafter. Then I have had visions and dreams of a future in which justice and righteousness shall prevail, in which the glaring iniquities and wrongs of this present life shall all be set right. But have we not had dreams of another sort? Sometimes we have felt with sorrow and shame our own weakness and badness. We have become conscious that we were out of harmony with things around us. There is a something within us which speaks to us. Call it conscience or anything else–there it is. I have dreamed of forgiveness, how to get it, and where. Who can tell me? Who can interpret for me all these dreams of mine? Is there any Daniel whom I can call into court who shall reveal to me all these secrets?
III. THE INTERPRETATION of this dream. Daniel was able to tell the king his dream, and also to expound it. And what an exposition it was!
Kingdom succeeds kingdom, monarch follows monarch. The Babylonian head of gold, the Persian breast of silver, the Grecian thighs of brass, and the Roman legs of iron, all come and go as Daniel expounds the dream.. There are two things we must note in this interpretation.
1. The Christ kingdom symbolised by the stone cut from the mountain without hands.
2. The second thing I wish to note is that this Christ prefigured by the mountain stone is the interpreter of all my dreams of God, the soul, and a future state. In His school I get my answer. I have been to other schools and could not learn. Nebuchadnezzar summoned all his wise monk They were accustomed to interpret dreams, but they were perplexed now. When I come to Christ He interprets my dream. Be not only reveals God to me, but He tells me of His love and kindness. God is love. God is a Father. God cares for me. Jesus Christ tells me how I can be at peace with God through Himself. He tells me about things which are to come to pass. Jesus Christ is Gods answer to all my questions, and visions, and dreams. (C. Leach, D.D.)
Human Wisdom Tested and Found Wanting
I. THE DREAM. The first verse states that this vision occurred in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; i.e., in the second year of his solo sovereignty. His father, Nabopolassar, being now dead, the empire devolved upon Nebuchadnezzar alone.
1. The dream reveals the nature of his ambitions. It shows that his mind was busy with projects of conquest, and the cares of government, and the hopes of secure power. How natural that these engrossing thoughts of his waking hours should pursue him in sleep and give complexion to the visions of the night.
2. But the dream was sent by Divine agency. It was not only natural, but also supernatural. This is not the first nor only time that God has vouchsafed to make his revelations to heathen minds. Balaam is a notable instance of prophetic gifts bestowed upon unworthy persons. All extraordinary channels of Divine communications were no doubt selected for a purpose; and while the light of revelation shines steadily upon his own chosen people, yet he vouchsafes occasional flashes upon other minds to illuminate some truth which may be best illuminated in that way.
3. The dream is forgotten. Strangely given, it was strangely recalled. The honour shall be Gods and Gods alone. God will show by an infallible sign that it is His revelation, and will not suffer the Chaldean sages to tinker with its interpretation. Nothing remained but the disturbing sense of having seen strange things, and an abiding conviction that these things were closely related to his destiny. To whom shall he turn in his perplexity?
II. THE DEMAND. We may well imagine the surprise and alarm of the sooth-sayers and magicians when they become acquainted with the nature of the kings demand. Had they been quite sure that the king had indeed forgotten his dream they might have very easily invented one to satisfy him; but I suppose they were apprehensive lest this was only a snare cunningly placed by this intelligent monarch to expose their duplicity. It seemed to them the safer plan, then, not to hazard so dangerous an expedient, but to declare their inability to do more than interpret the dream when told. The king, however, reiterates his demand.
1. The Chaldeans maintain that this demand is unjust in that it was without precedent. There is a true and a false law of precedent. It is undoubtedly true that whoever demands or enacts a new thing, a thing counter to existing usages, must have strong and unquestionable reasons for such a course. There are always presumptions against novelties and innovations, and one who appeals to custom has an undeniably strong ground to rest upon. On the other hand, the law of precedent can create nothing more than presumption. It still leaves the reason of the thing to be inquired into. It is probable the imperious temper of this monarch would not be baulked by an appeal to customary usages.
2. They further maintain the injustice of this demand on the ground that it is beyond human power to comply with it. They say: There is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. Some have supposed this declaration that the dwelling of the gods is not with flesh to be indicative of scepticism. It was the cardinal belief of the Babylonians that the gods were very near to men. Their temples, and sacrifices, and priestly rites proceeded upon that belief. These Chaldeans, then, are supposed, under the influence of their great peril, to betray here their utter disbelief in these hollow mockeries. And the lesson is drawn from it: Alas, that this unbelief should so often, in Christian as well as in Pagan times, have found a nest for itself so near the altar! But I would rather believe that these Chaldeans, whose studies brought them in contact with the mighty works of God, had more exalted conceptions of the deity than those which prevailed among the masses.
3. In this view the demand was not so unreasonable as the Chaldeans would make it appear. They had wilfully imposed upon both king and people, laying claim to mysterious arts by which they could read secret things; and had no doubt taken care that this faith in their powers should be implicit and well-nigh unlimited. They could scarcely complain, then, when they are taken at their word. Skilled in plausibility and ambiguity, they no doubt relied on these powers to cover up a failure when one occurred, and to impose successfully upon the credulity of the king.
4. It is a great gain to the cause of truth when impositions are detected. So, then, Nebuchadnezzar deserves praise for pressing this matter to a decisive issue. The cause of religion no doubt suffers a shock when priestly pretensions are thrown in the crucible and tested, but it rises from such shocks to greater stability, and usefulness, and power.
III. THE DECREE. Whatever may be said of his demand, certainly the decree of the king is indefensible. These wise men had done nothing worthy of death. Moreover, there were many among the Chaldeans who laid no claim to magic powers, but who contented themselves with the sciences, as patient and laborious students, and it was not only manifest injustice, but strange impolicy to include them in this sweeping condemnation. Yet more, why should Daniel and his friends, who had but just passed their novitiate and who had not been consulted at all, share their fate? But rage is blind and knows no discrimination. There are not wanting some, as an illustration of this spirit, who would obliterate Christianity because of unworthy Christians; and no one can estimate what man has suffered from this stupid lack of the power of rational discrimination.
IV. CONCLUSION. What a striking picture is here presented us of Nebuchadnezzar and his wise men trying, by human devices, to arrive at the mind of God! How we yearn for man when we behold his boundless aspirations confronted by his impotent nothingness! But it was well that human skill should first exhaust its resources in endeavouring to know the mind of God. It was a proper prelude to Gods revelation, this confession of impotence: There is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. It is a law of Gods providence that He will not intervene until man has discovered his own absolute inability, and felt his imperative need. (The Southern Pulpit.)
The Dream of Humanity
There is no function in life which can compare for one moment to that of him who can minister to the perplexities of his fellow-men. The story connected with these words is very simple and well known. The king had dreamed a dream, and when he woke in the morning he could not recall it to his mind. A vague sense of the splendour of that dream haunted his imagination and memory. He felt that there was bound up in it some deep and mysterious truth. He hardly liked to let the whole remembrance of it quite go. He had around him his Chaldeans and his wise men, and he turned to them for aid, and their answer was that their function was limited only to the interpretation of dreams; it was not their function to enter upon a process of thought-reading unless there were present in the mind of him who demanded the interpretation the subject matter of those thoughts. In the emergency the difficulty was solved by a Jewish exile; to him it was given to be the reviver and interpreter of the dream. And we, perhaps, may feel that that ancient story is not wholly lost to us when we cast oar mind upon our own lives, and remember how much we, too, have been haunted by some magnificent dream. When the vision of what life really was, with its deep and solemn significance, was granted to us, we, awaking with the impression of all lifes business, lost the vivid force of that dream–we could not recall it, and we turned to the seers about us. They are plentiful to seek, the wise and the unwise, the weak and the strong, the false and the true, and we, haunted by the remembrance of that vision of what lifes deep significance is, turn in vain to these. And yet the conditions may teach us what are the real features and the real capacities of the true prophet. If I am not mistaken, the story suggests to us that there are two great elements which are essential in order that a man may be a real helper of his fellow men, the true prophet of his age. The condition which the king insists upon supplies one of these–it is that he should have touch with human nature; and his interpretation of the dream suggests the other–he must have some knowledge of the law and order of life. These two were just those that were vouchsafed to Daniel.
1. The first is knowledge of human nature. Let me ask you to put yourselves for the moment in the position of those who had this somewhat unreasonable demand made upon them. Their answer to his demand was very simple and fair. We are perfectly ready, they said, to interpret your dream, but our ministrations extend thus far; tell us the dream and we will tell the meaning. But the king, whose vision was elevated, perhaps, by the dream which he had experienced, began to see that he was surrounded by those who were in a large measure but charlatans; and prompted by this, he perhaps insists all the more pertinaciously on the condition. You profess to be able to interpret my dreams. How do I know that your interpretations are true? Tell me what the dream was, and I can verify your accuracy. In other words, vindicate your pretensions in a sphere where I can test them, and then I will be able to give you my faith in the sphere where I cannot test them. I cannot verify your interpretations, but I can verify your statement of what passed through my mind. You profess to explain my life to me, and all the destiny that awaits it; if it be in your power to do this, show, first, that you understand me, and then I will believe that you can unfold my destiny. And that, in itself, when you come to study it, is no unfair condition. It may be unreasonable in the circumstances in which it was used, but there is a vein of reason, and there is a vein of fairness in it; for when you reflect upon it there is no power in a man to teach and to speak concerning the future, unless he has a certain knowledge of the present. The man who can read deepest into the circumstances and the situation of the present is the man who is far the more likely to be able to forecast the future. You would not entrust your case to the doctor who had no knowledge of your symptoms. You would believe that the man, and the man only, who could read into your symptoms, would be able to track the probable development of the disease. It is the same in nature. The naturalist cannot predict a harvest except he understands the nature of the seed, and it is just in proportion as he is possessed of the power of insight that he is possessed of the power of foresight. That is taught us in the pages of history. As long as men thought, as it were, to out-manoeuvre Nature, and to read her secrets by ignoring her face, they simply courted defeat. These were the astrologers, the charlatans of science; but the moment they took up the other attitude, and began to scan closely the features of nature, and sought earnestly to understand the meaning of her thoughts, they began to discover her laws, and discovering them they had the power by which they could predict what would be the evolution of those laws. And if that be true in the law and order of nature, has it its counterpart in the moral order also? Place ourselves for a moment in the position of the king. Daniel comes and unfolds to him the vision. That splendid vision, that noble and colossal figure, represented what had passed through the kings mind, not that night only, but every night. It had been the dream of his life, the splendour and the magnificence of his position; the glorious headship which he held over the empire which he thought his own, from the high vantage ground of which he looked down in proud contempt upon human kind. His thoughts were read. The mans heart is read; his vision, and all the subtle play of his thoughts is unfolded to him. The man that can toll me these secrets of my heart is the man into whose hand I will place my destiny and bid him point the way along the track of my life. He can understand what is the outcome of this career of mine who thus understands me. And wherever men have been in the position of prophets of their age, their strength and power has depended upon their capacity to read the minds and the play of thought of the men of their age. If they are not familiar with this life they cannot have any power to deal with the life that lies beyond. The men who stood in their day foremost had an intimate knowledge of human nature. Take, for example, what, after all, is an illustration in the same direction. This Book of God has found its dominion over the minds and the lives of men because it has always displayed itself as a book well read in the deeps of human nature. I say, said one, rising from the perusal of it, the person who wrote that Book knew me. I believe, said one, who was cut off only too early in his splendid and promising career, I believe it to be Gods Book because it is mans Book; that is to say, it has such a power to fit into the needs of human kind that it vindicates its divine strength because of the very humanity of its methods. And this is what we may call the divine key to the method which God Himself has adopted in the life and pattern of Jesus Christ. He comes into our midst to be the Divine Teacher. He understands men. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee–I knew the devout aspirations of thy life, and that breaks down the thought. This teacher understands me. Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the Judge of Israel. Sometimes we feel ourselves a little disheartened. The cynic turns aside and says, It is true your Christianity is played out, your religion effete. I say it is an unwise thing for a man to echo these doleful plaints. May it not be the case that we have lost touch with humanity, that we have failed to understand human nature as it is before us in the century in which we live; that we have allowed, so to speak, our Christian teaching to grow fossilised, and the fossilised thing has lost its life and the hands and feet of its movement, and it cannot grasp upon the heart of humanity again?
2. But let us look at this second condition–the knowledge of a Divine order. What was the interpretation of the dream? Here stood this colossal figure, glittering with its varied metals. By-and-by, without hands, came the stone which smote upon it, and then, as in a moment, all the magnificence dropped into pieces, and these huge masses of metal, which had been the admiration of the world a moment ago, are lifted as things light, as the char upon the summer threshing-floor, and swept away, and the little stone begins to grow, and to take the place of this great image, and to fill the world itself. Of course, you may say the figure represented the empires which were existing and which were to follow–Persia, Greece, Rome, or, if you will have it so, the Egyptian or the Syrian kingdoms; but whatever the historical interpretation, the ethical interpretation is for you and me. That splendid dream, and that magnificent figure which appeared in the kings dream, is the dream of man in all ages; it is the dream of self-realisation. He who dreams is king. He sees that grand figure bearing human form, dominating the plain; and this is the ambition of men in all ages; but as he beholds he sees it in its glory and in its weakness. He sees it in its splendour–there is the effort of man to realise himself. It was so with all those who endeavoured to establish any solid, single monarchy. From the days of Nebuchadnezzar or Nimrod, if you will, to the days of Napoleon, this has been the same dream, I will take my idea, and I will impress it upon the world, and I will mould that earth and all the creatures that are in it to my will, and I shall dominate all. That is the ambition; what I want you to notice is, that it is the effort of a man to realise self in some form or other. That is an instinct which does not simply breathe into the hearts of great conquerors, or great founders of monarchies; there is not a human being created with a soul or an intelligence that had not had the dream that he will realise himself. The artist who seeks to cast his ideas on the canvas so as to speak his thoughts in richness and detail to his follow men–he is seeking to realise himself–his own idea painted there. Even in the home life you can see it. Thisjoy of home life has largely its play and its beauty because it is the very thing in which we see that in our children we live again–we realise ourselves in them. This instinct of self-realisation is at the root of mans best ambitions as well as his worst, and as it is at the root of them you can understand why it is, but the life and the form of that which was given him from God; for God Himself, if we may in reverence say it, has made His world but the picture of the same principle in Himself. The world is God realising Himself in material beauty; the page of history is God realising Himself in moral order, and this Christian revelation is God realising Himself in spiritual splendour to humanity; and I am not surprised if this, the very impulse of God, be self-realisation that He may manifest His greatness and His love, that therefore we, drawing our life from His hand, should be filled with a like instinct. But while this colossal figure in the vision is shown in its splendour, it is also shown in its weakness. This little stone, without hands, should demolish the whole; mans best and noblest dreams, mans most brilliant ambitions, are destined to be overthrown. And why? This stone represents precisely that unseen, that handless power which has not its origin in the conceptions of man, but in the nature of things; it is just the picture of what you see in nature. Man builds his noble shrines, he rears his sumptuous palaces, he spreads abroad the magnificent tokens of his power; but law, re-written deep down in the heart of nature, lays its hand upon all these creations of mans genius, and overturns all that man creates. In the precincts of moral order the law will overturn also; under this condition, all that is up built disregarding Gods eternal law must perish. It is not merely because man made it that it must die, but it is that man made it in violation of eternal law. Three laws were violated in its erection–the law of time and growth, the law of righteousness, the law of solidarity. The law of time, because this is that which is built up, made–it does not grow in contradistinction to the stone without hands. Thatgrows, this is made. That which is made, as it were, is merely built and at variance with the law of growth. The things which are alive grow, and in those things in which there is any moral life there is the capacity of growing. All the best things of this world grow, but the impatience of man hastens them onward. God will make a kingdom, but men with their impatience say, We will make it in our own time, and therefore at all costs–at the cost of blood, at the cost of righteousness, the kingdoms are made. These empires have perished. Why? Because they violated eternal laws of God; and as surely as the power of natural law can overthrow every shrine of human erection, so surely must every kingdom, every monarch, every race, every nationality, every church die and perish, if it tries to construct itself out of Gods due time and out of Gods due order. And as it thus violated the law of growth, by the very impatience of its construction, you know that it violated the law of rectitude. Men often imagine that they can do the right thing, but that they can do it in any way they please. There are two sentinels that stand at the outgoing of the temple of God; the one is the sentinel of a right way and the other of a right thing, and you are not permitted to build where God builds for all eternity, unless you be directed by the right thing and also by the right way. The weakness of life, as we often see it, is that men are passionately devoted to some great and noble enterprise, but they undermine the very foundations of their own edifice, because, while they seek the right thing they miss the right way, and that is the secret of many a failure. It sinned also against the law of solidarity. If you look at the construction of this image, you will find that it is merely a piling together: there is no homogeneity about it, it is heterogeneous; I am of gold, and I will be the head of all; I am of silver, and I will be the strength of all; I am of brass and I will be power of fertility to all, and my iron heel shall be planted upon all. Christ has made all men to be of one blood upon the face of the earth, and the kingdom which He establishes shall be built up not with materials which shall represent the dignity, the glory, or the pre-eminence of one nation or one people over another, but that wider and better glory, which is the organisation of humanity unto a loving, living whole. Then, if that be the doom, as it were, of this dream of humanity, we begin to say, is it not, then, a sad close to it all? If the instinct to realise self, that is, to leave some impress of our own upon the world ere we die, be a great and a God-given impulse, and if what we see is the constant overthrow of all our schemes, are we, then, to settle down into a miserable pessimism and say, It is vain ever to expect the realisation of human dreams? Nay, not so. This little stone without hands takes the place of this overthrown image; it grows; it is the empire of heart, the kingdom which cannot be shaken; and, therefore, there has never passed through human mind a noble and a true dream that God does not see the way to realise. He breaks down our little efforts to realise it that He may substitute His own. Never let us think, then, that we are to be for ever disappointed by incessant and perpetual failures. The world grows old, but with it there grows, also, the everlasting and the ripening purposes of God. (Bp. Boyd Carpenter.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER II
Nebuchadnezzar, in the second year of his reign, (or in the
fourth, according to the Jewish account, which takes in the
first two years in which he reigned conjointly with his
father,) had a dream which greatly troubled him; but of which
nothing remained in the morning but the uneasy impression.
Hence the diviners, when brought in before the king, could give
no interpretation, as they were not in possession of the dream,
1-13.
Daniel then, having obtained favour from God, is made acquainted
with the dream, and its interpretation, 14-19;
for which he blesses God in a lofty and beautiful ode, 20-23;
and reveals both unto the king, telling him first the
particulars of the dream, 24-35,
and then interpreting it of the four great monarchies. The then
existing Chaldean empire, represented by the head of gold, is
the first; the next is the Medo-Persian; the third, the
Macedonian or Grecian; the fourth, the Roman, which should
break every other kingdom in pieces, but which in its last
stage, should be divided into ten kingdoms, represented by the
ten toes of the image, as they are in another vision (Da 7:7)
by the ten horns of the fourth beast. He likewise informs the
king that in the time of this last monarchy, viz., the Roman,
God would set up the kingdom of the Messiah; which, though
small in its commencement, should ultimately be extended over
the whole earth, 36-45.
Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
(named by the prince of the eunuchs, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego,) are then promoted by the king to great honour,
46-49.
NOTES ON CHAP. II
Verse 1. The second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar] That is, the second year of his reigning alone, for he was king two years before his father’s death. See Clarke on Da 1:1. This was therefore the fifth year of his reign, and the fourth of the captivity of Daniel.
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams wherewith his spirit was troubled] The dream had made a deep and solemn impression upon his mind; and, having forgotten all but general circumstances, his mind was distressed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Heb.
in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for this was properly in the fifth year of that kings reign and of Daniels captivity, and the ninth year of Jehoiakim; but in the second year after Daniel had by his three years preparation been brought before the king and approved, then the king dreamed.
Dreamed dreams; it was one dream, but of many parts, therefore called dreams; chiefly for what follows.
His spirit was troubled; by reason of the strangeness of it, he was terrified and in great consternation, and this made him awake.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. second year of . . .Nebuchadnezzar Da 1:5shows that “three years” had elapsed since Nebuchadnezzarhad taken Jerusalem. The solution of this difficulty is:Nebuchadnezzar first ruled as subordinate to his father Nabopolassar,to which time the first chapter refers (Da1:1); whereas “the second year” in the second chapteris dated from his sole sovereignty. The very difficulty is a proof ofgenuineness; all was clear to the writer and the original readersfrom their knowledge of the circumstances, and so he adds noexplanation. A forger would not introduce difficulties; theauthor did not then see any difficulty in the case.Nebuchadnezzar is called “king” (Da1:1), by anticipation. Before he left Judea, he becameactual king by the death of his father, and the Jews always calledhim “king,” as commander of the invading army.
dreamsIt issignificant that not to Daniel, but to the then world ruler,Nebuchadnezzar, the dream is vouchsafed. It was from the first of itsrepresentatives who had conquered the theocracy, that the world powerwas to learn its doom, as about to be in its turn subdued, and forever by the kingdom of God. As this vision opens, so that in theseventh chapter developing the same truth more fully, closes thefirst part. Nebuchadnezzar, as vicegerent of God (Da2:37; compare Jer 25:9;Eze 28:12-15; Isa 44:28;Isa 45:1; Rom 13:1),is honored with the revelation in the form of a dream, theappropriate form to one outside the kingdom of God. So in the casesof Abimelech, Pharaoh, c. (Gen 20:3Gen 41:1-7), especially asthe heathen attached such importance to dreams. Still it is not he,but an Israelite, who interprets it. Heathendom is passive, Israelactive, in divine things, so that the glory redounds to “the Godof heaven.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,…. It was in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign that Daniel was carried captive, Jer 25:1, three years Daniel had been under tutors; at the end of which he was presented to the king, as is related in the preceding chapter; and yet the following dream was in the second of his reign: this creates a difficulty, which is solved by some thus: in the second year after the destruction of the temple, so the Jewish chronicle o, with which Jarchi agrees; others, as Aben Ezra, in the second year of his monarchy, after he had subdued all the nations round about; and so Josephus says p, it was in the second year after the destruction of the Egyptians. R. Moses the priest, in Aben Ezra, would have it to be the second year to his reign, to the end of it, when there were only two years wanting to it; a very unusual way of reckoning indeed! and therefore justly rejected by Aben Ezra: but all these dates are too late, since Daniel long before these times was well known, and in great fame for his wisdom; whereas, at this time, it does not appear that he was much known, or in great request: it is better either to render it, “in the second year”, that is, after Daniel and his companions had been presented to the king, and promoted;
even in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, as opposed to the reign of Darius or Cyrus, in which he flourished also: or rather this was the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reigning alone; for he had been taken into partnership in the throne with his father before his death, as Berosus q observes, which is said to be two years; so that this second year was the fourth year of his reign, reckoning from the time he reigned conjunctly with his father, though the second of his reigning alone: yet it seems best of all to render the words, with Noldius r, but in the second year, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; that is, in the second year of Daniel’s ministry in or under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; who continued at court under different reigns, till the first of Cyrus: this was, according to Bishop Usher s, and Mr. Whiston t, in the year of the world 3401 A.M., and before Christ 603. Mr. Bedford u places it in 604:
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; which, though but one, yet, relating to various things, the several parts of the human body, and the different metals the form he saw was made of, as well as the four monarchies it signified, is called “dreams”. Jacchiades says, he first dreamed the dream, and then the interpretation of it; which is the reason of the plural number: wherewith his spirit was troubled; it gave his mind a great deal of trouble while he was dreaming it; and when he awaked, though he could not recover it, yet he had some confused broken ideas of it; it had left some impressions upon him, which gave him great uneasiness, and the more as he could not recollect any part of it; his mind was agitated, and tossed to and fro, and under the greatest perplexity:
and his sleep brake from him; went away from him, through the strangeness of the dream, and the effect it had upon him.
o Seder Olam Rabba, c. 28. p. 80. p Antiqu. l. 10. c. 10. sect. 3. q Apud Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 1. c. 19. r Concord. Ebr. Part. p. 452. No. 1405. s Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3401. t Chronological Tables, cent. 9. u Scripture Chronology, p. 677.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the inability of the Chaldean wise men to interpret it. – By the copulative standing at the commencement of this chapter the following narrative is connected with c. Dan 1:21. “ We shall now discover what the youthful Daniel became, and what he continued to be to the end of the exile” (Klief.). The plur. (dreams, Dan 2:1 and Dan 2:2), the singular of which occurs in Dan 2:3, is not the plur. of definite universality (Hv., Maur., Klief.), but of intensive fulness, implying that the dream in its parts contained a plurality of subjects. M(‘p@ft;hi (from , to thrust, to stroke, as , an anvil, teaches, to be tossed hither and thither) marks great internal disquietude. In Dan 2:3 and in Gen 41:8, as in Psa 77:5, it is in the Niphal form, but in Dan 2:1 it is in Hithp., on which Kran. finely remarks: “The Hithpael heightens the conception of internal unquiet lying in the Niphal to the idea that it makes itself outwardly manifest.” His sleep was gone. This is evidenced without doubt by the last clause of Dan 2:1, . These interpretations are altogether wrong: – ”His sleep came upon him, i.e., he began again to sleep” (Calvin); or “his sleep was against him,” i.e., was an aversion to him, was troublesome (L. de Dieu); or, as Hv. also interprets it, “his sleep offended him, or was like a burden heavy upon him;” for does not mean to fall, and thus does not agree with the thought expressed. The Niph. means to have become, been, happened. The meaning has already been rightly expressed by Theodoret in the words , and in the Vulgate by the words “ fugit ab illo ;” and Berth., Ges., and others have with equal propriety remarked, that corresponds in meaning with , Dan 6:19 (18), and , Est 6:1. This sense, to have been, however, does not conduct to the meaning given by Klief.: his sleep had been upon him; it was therefore no more, it had gone; for “to have been” is not “to be no more,” but “to be finished,” past, gone. This meaning is confirmed by , Dan 8:27: it was done with me, I was gone. The stands not for the dative, but retains the meaning, over, upon, expressing the influence on the mind, as e.g., Jer 8:18, Hos 11:8, Psa 42:6-7, 12; Psa 43:5, etc., which in German we express by the word bei or fr .
The reason of so great disquietude we may not seek in the circumstance that on awaking he could not remember the dream. This follows neither from Dan 2:3, nor is it psychologically probable that so impressive a dream, which on awaking he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. “The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Gen 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith” (Kran.).
Dan 2:2 In the disquietude of his spirit the king commanded all his astrologers and wise men to come to him, four classes of whom are mentioned in this verse. 1. The , who were found also in Egypt (Gen 41:24). They are so named from , a “stylus” – those who went about with the stylus, the priestly class of the , those learned in the sacred writings and in literature. 2. The , conjurers, from or , to breathe, to blow, to whisper; for they practised their incantations by movements of the breath, as is shown by the Arabic nft, flavit ut praestigiator in nexos a se nodos, incantavit , with which it is compared by Hitz. and Kran. 3. The , magicians, found also in Egypt (Exo 7:11), and, according to Isa 47:9, Isa 47:12, a powerful body in Babylon. 4. The , the priest caste of the Chaldeans, who are named, Dan 2:4, Dan 2:10, and Dan 1:4, instar omnium as the most distinguished class among the Babylonian wise men. According to Herod. i. 171, and Diod. Sic. ii. 24, the Chaldeans appear to have formed the priesthood in a special sense, or to have attended to the duties specially devolving on the priests. This circumstance, that amongst an Aramaic people the priests in a stricter sense were called Chaldeans, is explained, as at p. 78, from the fact of the ancient supremacy of the Chaldean people in Babylonia.
Besides these four classes there is also a fifth, Dan 2:27; Daniel 4:4 (Dan 4:7), Dan 5:7, Dan 5:11, called the , the astrologers, not haruspices, from , “to cut flesh to pieces,” but the determiners of the , the fatum or the fata, who announced events by the appearances of the heavens (cf. Isa 47:13), the forecasters of nativities, horoscopes, who determined the fate of men from the position and the movement of the stars at the time of their birth. These different classes of the priests and the learned are comprehended, Dan 2:12., under the general designation of (cf. also Isa 44:25; Jer 50:35), and they formed a , i.e., collegium (Diod. Sic. ii. 31), under a president ( , Dan 2:48), who occupied a high place in the state; see at Dan 2:48. These separate classes busied themselves, without doubt, with distinct branches of the Babylonian wisdom. While each class cultivated a separate department, yet it was not exclusively, but in such a manner that the activities of the several classes intermingled in many ways. This is clearly seen from what is said of Daniel and his companions, that they were trained in all the wisdom of the Chaldeans (Dan 1:17), and is confirmed by the testimony of Diod. Sic. (ii. 29), that the Chaldeans, who held almost the same place in the state that the priests in Egypt did, while applying themselves to the service of the gods, sought their greatest glory in the study of astrology, and also devoted themselves much to prophecy, foretelling future things, and by means of lustrations, sacrifices, and incantations seeking to turn away evil and to secure that which was good. They possessed the knowledge of divination from omens, of expounding of dreams and prodigies, and of skilfully casting horoscopes.
That he might receive an explanation of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the classes of the priests and men skilled in wisdom to be brought before him, because in an event which was to him so weighty he must not only ascertain the facts of the case, but should the dream announce some misfortune, he must also adopt the means for averting it. In order that the correctness of the explanation of the dream might be ascertained, the stars must be examined, and perhaps other means of divination must be resorted to. The proper priests could by means of sacrifices make the gods favourable, and the conjurers and magicians by their arts endeavour to avert the threatened misfortune.
Dan 2:3 As to the king’s demand, it is uncertain whether he wished to know the dream itself or its import. The wise men (Dan 2:4) understood his words as if he desired only to know the meaning of it; but the king replied (Dan 2:5.) that they must tell him both the dream and its interpretation. But this request on the part of the king does not quite prove that he had forgotten the dream, as Bleek, v. Leng., and others maintain, founding thereon the objection against the historical veracity of the narrative, that Nebuchadnezzar’s demand that the dream should be told to him was madness, and that there was no sufficient reason for his rage (Dan 2:12). On the contrary, that the king had not forgotten his dream, and that there remained only some oppressive recollection that he had dreamed, is made clear from Dan 2:9, where the king says to the Chaldeans, “If ye cannot declare to me the dream, ye have taken in hand to utter deceitful words before me; therefore tell me the dream, that I may know that ye will give to me also the interpretation.” According to this, Nebuchadnezzar wished to hear the dream from the wise men that he might thus have a guarantee for the correctness of the interpretation which they might give. He could not thus have spoken to them if he had wholly forgotten the dream, and had only a dark apprehension remaining in his mind that he had dreamed. In this case he would neither have offered a great reward for the announcement of the dream, nor have threatened severe punishment, or even death, for failure in announcing it. For then he would only have given the Chaldeans the opportunity, at the cost of truth, of declaring any dream with an interpretation. But as threatening and promise on the part of the king in that case would have been unwise, so also on the side of the wise men their helplessness in complying with the demand of the king would have been incomprehensible. If the king had truly forgotten the dream, they had no reason to be afraid of their lives if they had given some self-conceived dream with an interpretation of it; for in that case he could not have accused them of falsehood and deceit, and punished them on that account. If, on the contrary, he still knew the dream which so troubled him, and the contents of which he desired to hear from the Chaldeans, so that he might put them to the proof whether he might trust in their interpretation, then neither his demand nor the severity of his proceeding was irrational. “The magi boasted that by the help of the gods they could reveal deep and hidden things. If this pretence is well founded – so concluded Nebuchadnezzar – then it must be as easy for them to make known to me my dream as its interpretation; and since they could not do the former, he as rightly held them to be deceivers, as the people did the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18) because their gods answered not by fire.” Hengst.
Dan 2:4 The Chaldeans, as speaking for the whole company, understand the word of the king in the sense most favourable for themselves, and they ask the king to tell them the dream. for , which as a rule stands before a quotation, is occasioned by the addition of , and the words which follow are zeugmatically joined to it. Aramaic, i.e., in the native language of Babylonia, where, according to Xenoph. ( Cyrop. vii. 5), the Syriac, i.e., the Eastern Aramaic dialect, was spoken. From the statement here, that the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, one must not certainly conclude that Nebuchadnezzar spoke the Aryan-Chaldaic language of his race. The remark refers to the circumstance that the following words are recorded in the Aramaic, as Ezr 4:7. Daniel wrote this and the following chapters in Aramaic, that he might give the prophecy regarding the world-power in the language of the world-power, which under the Chaldean dynasty was native in Babylon, the Eastern Aramaic. The formula, “O king, live for ever,” was the usual salutation when the king was addressed, both at the Chaldean and the Persian court (cf. Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:7, Dan 6:22 [6, 21]; Neh 2:3). In regard to the Persian court, see Aelian, var. hist. i. 32. With the kings of Israel this form of salutation was but rarely used: 1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:31. The Kethiv (text) , with Jod before the suffix, supposes an original form here, as at Dan 2:26; Dan 4:16, Dan 4:22, but it is perhaps only the etymological mode of writing for the form with a long, analogous to the Hebr. suffix form for , since the Jod is often wanting; cf. Dan 4:24; Dan 5:10, etc. A form lies at the foundation of the form ; the Keri (margin) substitutes the usual Chaldee form from , with the insertion of the litera quiescib . , homog. to the quies. e , while in the Kethiv the original Jod of the sing. is retained instead of the substituted , thus . This reading is perfectly warranted (cf. Dan 3:2, Dan 3:8, Dan 3:24; Ezr 4:12-13) by the analogous method of formation of the stat. emphat. plur. in existing nouns in in biblical Chaldee.
Dan 2:5 The meaning of the king’s answer shapes itself differently according to the different explanations given of the words . The word drow eh , which occurs only again in the same phrase in Dan 2:8, is regarded, in accordance with the translations of Theodot., , and of the Vulg., “ sermo recessit a me ,” as a verb, and as of like meaning with , “to go away or depart,” and is therefore rendered by M. Geier, Berth., and others in the sense, “the dream has escaped from me;” but Ges. Hv., and many older interpreters translate it, on the contrary, “the command is gone out from me.” But without taking into account that the punctuation of the word is not at all that of a verb, for this form can neither be a particip. nor the 3rd pers. pret. fem., no acknowledgment of the dream’s having escaped from him is made; for such a statement would contradict what was said at Dan 2:3, and would not altogether agree with the statement of Dan 2:8. is not the dream. Besides, the supposition that is equivalent to , to go away, depart, is not tenable. The change of the into is extremely rare in the Semitic, and is not to be assumed in the word , since Daniel himself uses , Dan 2:17, Dan 2:24; Dan 6:19-20, and also Ezra; Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:8, Ezr 5:15. Moreover has not the meaning of , to go out, to take one’s departure, but corresponds with the Hebr. .rbe , to go. Therefore Winer, Hengst., Ibn Esr. Aben Ezra, Saad., and other rabbis interpret the word as meaning firmus : “the word stands firm;” cf. Dan 6:13 (12), (“the thing is true”). This interpretation is justified by the actual import of the words, as it also agrees with Dan 2:8; but it does not accord with Dan 2:5. Here (in Dan 2:5) the declaration of the certainty of the king’s word was superfluous, because all the royal commands were unchangeable. For this reason also the meaning , studiously, earnestly, as Hitz., by a fanciful reference to the Persian, whence he has derived it, has explained it, is to be rejected. Much more satisfactory is the derivation from the Old Persian word found on inscriptions, azanda , “science,” “that which is known,” given by Delitzsch (Herz.’s Realenc. iii. p. 274), and adopted by Kran. and Klief.
(Note: In regard to the explanation of the word as given above, it is, however, to be remarked that it is not confirmed, and Delitzsch has for the present given it up, because-as he has informed me-the word azda , which appears once in the large inscription of Behistan (Bisutun) and twice in the inscription of Nakhschi-Rustam, is of uncertain reading and meaning. Spiegel explains it “unknown,” from zan, to know, and a privativum.)
Accordingly Klief. thus interprets the phrase: “let the word from me be known,” “be it known to you;” which is more suitable obviously than that of Kran.: “the command is, so far as regards me, made public.” For the king now for the first time distinctly and definitely says that he wishes not only to hear from the wise men the interpretation, but also the dream itself, and declares the punishment that shall visit them in the event of their not being able to comply. , , 2 Macc. 1:16, lxx in Daniel 3:39, , to cut in pieces, a punishment that was common among the Babylonians (Daniel 3:39, cf. Eze 16:40), and also among the Israelites in the case of prisoners of war (cf. 1Sa 15:33). It is not, however, to be confounded with the barbarous custom which was common among the Persians, of mangling particular limbs. , in Ezr 6:11 , dunghill, sink. The changing of their houses into dunghills is not to be regarded as meaning that the house built of clay would be torn down, and then dissolved by the rain and storm into a heap of mud, but is to be interpreted according to 2Ki 10:27, where the temple of Baal is spoken of as having been broken down and converted into private closets; cf. Hv. in loco. The Keri without the Dagesh in might stand as the Kethiv for Ithpaal, but is apparently the Ithpeal, as at Dan 3:29; Ezr 6:11. As to , it is to be remarked that Daniel uses only the suffix forms and , while with Ezra and are interchanged (see above, p. 515), which are found in the language of the Targums and might be regarded as Hebraisms, while the forms and are peculiar to the Syriac and the Samaritan dialects. This distinction does not prove that the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to a period later than that of Ezra (Hitz., v. Leng.), but only that Daniel preserves more faithfully the familiar Babylonian form of the Aramaic than does the Jewish scribe Ezra.
Dan 2:6 The rigorous severity of this edict accords with the character of Oriental despots and of Nebuchadnezzar, particularly in his dealings with the Jews (2Ki 25:7, 2Ki 25:18.; Jer 39:6., Jer 52:10., 24-27). In the promise of rewards the explanation of (in the plural , Dan 5:17) is disputed; its rendering by “money,” “gold” (by Eichh. and Berth.), has been long ago abandoned as incorrect. The meaning gift, present, is agreeable to the context and to the ancient versions; but its derivation formed from the Chald. , Pealp. of , erogavit, expendit , by the substitution of for and the excision of the second from , in the meaning largitio amplior , the Jod in the plural form being explained from the affinity of verbs ‘ and ‘ (Ges. Thes. p. 842, and Kran.), is highly improbable. The derivation from the Persian nuvazan , nuvazisch , to caress, to flatter, then to make a present to (P. v. Bohlen), or from the Sanscr. namas , present, gift (Hitz.), or from the Vedish bag , to give, to distribute, and the related New Persian baj ( bash), a present (Haug), are also very questionable. , on that account, therefore (cf. Dan 2:9 and Dan 4:24), formed from the prepos. and the demonstrative adverb , has in negative sentences (as the Hebr. and ) the meaning but, rather (Dan 2:30), and in a pregnant sense, only (Dan 2:11; Dan 3:28; Dan 6:8), without being derived in such instances from and = .
Dan 2:7 The wise men repeat their request, but the king persists that they only justify his suspicion of them by pressing such a demand, and that he saw that they wished to deceive him with a self-conceived interpretation of the dream. is not, as Hitz. proposes, to be changed into . The form is a Hebr. stat. emphat. for , as e.g., , Dan 2:5, is changed into in Dan 2:8 and Dan 2:11, and in biblical Chaldee, in final syllables is often found instead of . fo
Dan 2:8 , an adverbial expression, to be sure, certainly, as , truly, Dan 2:47, and other adverbial forms. The words do not mean either “that ye wish to use or seize the favourable time” (Hv., Kran.), or “that ye wish to buy up the present perilous moment,” i.e., bring it within your power, become masters of the time (Hitz.), but simply, that ye buy, that is wish to gain time (Ges., Maur., etc.). = tempus emere in Cicero. Nothing can be here said of a favourable moment, for there was not such a time for the wise men, either in the fact that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream (Hv.), or in the curiosity of the king with reference to the interpretation of the dream, on which they could speculate, expecting that the king might be induced thereby to give a full communication of the dream (Kran.). But for the wise men, in consequence of the threatening of the king, the crisis was indeed fully of danger; but it is not to be overlooked that they appeared to think that they could control the crisis, bringing it under their own power, by their willingness to interpret the dream if it were reported to them. Their repeated request that the dream should be told to them shows only their purpose to gain time and have their lives, if they now truly believed either that the king could not now distinctly remember his dream, or that by not repeating it he wished to put them to the test. Thus the king says to them: I see from your hesitation that ye are not sure of your case; and since ye at the same time think that I have forgotten the dream, therefore ye wish me, by your repeated requests to relate the dream, only to gain time, to extend the case, because ye fear the threatened punishment (Klief.). , wholly because; not, withstanding that (Hitz.). As to the last words of Dan 2:8, see under Dan 2:5.
Dan 2:9 is equivalent to , quodsi. “The supposes the fact of the foregoing passage, and brings it into express relation to the conditional clause” (Kran.). does not mean, your design or opinion, or your lot (Mich., Hitz., Maur.), but dat is law, decree, sentence; , the sentence that is going forth or has gone forth against you, i.e., according to Dan 2:5, the sentence of death. , one, or the one and no other. This judgment is founded on the following passage, in which the cop. is to be explained as equivalent to namely. , lies and pernicious words, are united together for the purpose of strengthening the idea, in the sense of wicked lies (Hitz.). is not to be read, as Hv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kran. do, as the Aphel : ye have prepared or resolved to say; for in the Aphel this word ( ) means to appoint or summon a person, but not to prepare or appoint a thing (see Buxt. Lex. Tal. s. v.). And the supposition that the king addressed the Chaldeans as the speakers appointed by the whole company of the wise men (Kran.) has no place in the text. The Kethiv is to be read as Ithpa. for according to the Keri (cf. hizakuw for , Isa 1:16), meaning inter se convenire , as the old interpreters rendered it. “Till the time be changed,” i.e., till the king either drop the matter, or till they learn something more particular about the dream through some circumstances that may arise. The lies which Nebuchadnezzar charged the wise men with, consisted in the explanation which they promised if he would tell them the dream, while their desire to hear the dream contained a proof that they had not the faculty of revealing secrets. The words of the king clearly show that he knew the dream, for otherwise he would not have been able to know whether the wise men spoke the truth in telling him the dream (Klief.).
Dan 2:10 Since the king persisted in his demand, the Chaldeans were compelled to confess that they could not tell the dream. This confession, however, they seek to conceal under the explanation that compliance with the king’s request was beyond human power, – a request which no great or mighty king had ever before made of any magician or astrologer, and which was possible only with the gods, who however do not dwell among mortals. does not mean quam ob rem , wherefore, as a particle expressive of a consequence (Ges.), but is here used in the sense of because, assigning a reason. The thought expressed is not: because the matter is impossible for men, therefore no king has ever asked any such thing; but it is this: because it has come into the mind of no great and mighty king to demand any such thing, therefore it is impossible for men to comply with it. They presented before the king the fact that no king had ever made such a request as a proof that the fulfilling of it was beyond human ability. The epithets great and mighty are here not mere titles of the Oriental kings (Hv.), but are chosen as significant. The mightier the king, so much the greater the demand, he believed, he might easily make upon a subject.
Dan 2:11-12 , but only, see under Dan 2:6. In the words, whose dwelling is not with flesh, there lies neither the idea of higher and of inferior gods, nor the thought that the gods only act among men in certain events (Hv.), but only the simple thought of the essential distinction between gods and men, so that one may not demand anything from weak mortals which could be granted only by the gods as celestial beings. , flesh, in opposition to , marks the human nature according to its weakness and infirmity; cf. Isa 31:3; Psa 56:5. The king, however, does not admit this excuse, but falls into a violent passion, and gives a formal command that the wise men, in whom he sees deceivers abandoned by the gods, should be put to death. This was a dreadful command; but there are illustrations of even greater cruelty perpetrated by Oriental despots benore him as well as after him. The edict ( ) is carried out, but not fully. Not “all the wise men,” according to the terms of the decree, were put to death, but , i.e., The wise men were put to death.
Dan 2:13 While it is manifest that the decree was not carried fully out, it is yet clearer from what follows that the participle does not stand for the preterite, but has the meaning: the work of putting to death was begun. The participle also does not stand as the gerund: they were to be put to death, i.e., were condemned (Kran.), for the use of the passive participle as the gerund is not made good by a reference to , Dan 2:45, and , Dan 2:31. Even the command to kill all the wise men of Babylon is scarcely to be understood of all the wise men of the whole kingdom. The word Babylon may represent the Babylonian empire, or the province of Babylonia, or the city of Babylon only. In the city of Babylon a college of the Babylonian wise men or Chaldeans was established, who, according to Strabo (xv. 1. 6), occupied a particular quarter of the city as their own; but besides this, there were also colleges in the province of Babylon at Hipparenum, Orchae , which Plin. hist. nat. vi. 26 (30) designates as tertia Chaldaeorum doctrina , at Borsippa, and other places. The wise men who were called (Dan 2:2) into the presence of the king, were naturally those who resided in the city of Babylon, for Nebuchadnezzar was at that time in his palace. Yet of those who had their residence there, Daniel and his companions were not summoned, because they had just ended their noviciate, and because, obviously, only the presidents or the older members of the several classes were sent for. But since Daniel and his companions belonged to the whole body of the wise men, they also were sought out that they might be put to death.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Nebuchadnezzar’s Forgotten Dream. | B. C. 603. |
1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. 2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. 3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. 4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. 5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. 6 But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. 7 They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it. 8 The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. 9 But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you: for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof. 10 The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean. 11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. 12 For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. 13 And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.
We meet with a great difficulty in the date of this story; it is said to be in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, v. 1. Now Daniel was carried to Babylon in his first year, and, it should seem, he was three years under tutors and governors before he was presented to the king, ch. i. 5. How then could this happen in the second year? Perhaps, though three years were appointed for the education of other children, yet Daniel was so forward that he was taken into business when he had been but one year at school, and so in the second year he became thus considerable. Some make it to be the second year after he began to reign alone, but the fifth or sixth year since he began to reign in partnership with his father. Some read it, and in the second year, (the second after Daniel and his fellows stood before the king), in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, or in his reign, this happened; as Joseph, in the second year after his skill in dreams, showed and expounded Pharaoh’s, so Daniel, in the second year after he commenced master in that art, did this service. I would much rather take it some of these ways than suppose, as some do, that it was in the second year after he had conquered Egypt, which was the thirty-sixth year of his reign, because it appears by what we meet with in Ezekiel, that Daniel was famous both for wisdom and prevalence in prayer long before that; and therefore this passage, or story, which shows how he came to be so eminent for both these must be laid early in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Now here we may observe,
I. The perplexity that Nebuchadnezzar was in by reason of a dream which he had dreamed but had forgotten (v. 1): He dreamed dreams, that is, a dream consisting of divers distinct parts, or which filled his head as much as if it had been many dreams. Solomon speaks of a multitude of dreams, strangely incoherent, in which there are divers vanities, Eccl. v. 7. This dream of Nebuchadnezzar’s had nothing in the thing itself but what might be paralleled in many a common dream, in which are often represented to men things as foreign as are here mentioned; but there was something in the impression it made upon him which carried with it an incontestable evidence of its divine original and its prophetic significancy. Note, The greatest of men are not exempt from, nay, they lie most open to, those cares and troubles of mind which disturb their repose in the night, while the sleep of the labouring man is sweet and sound, and the sleep of the sober temperate man free from confused dreams. The abundance of the rich will not suffer them to sleep at all for care, and the excesses of gluttons and drunkards will not suffer them to sleep quietly for dreaming. But this recorded here was not from natural causes. Nebuchadnezzar was a troubler of God’s Israel, but God here troubled him; for he that made the soul can make his sword to approach to it. He had his guards about him, but they could not keep trouble from his spirit. We know not the uneasiness of many that live in great pomp, and, one would think, in pleasure, too. We look into their houses, and are tempted to envy them; but, could we look into their hearts, we should pity them rather. All the treasures and all the delights of the children of men, which this mighty monarch had command of, could not procure him a little repose, when by reason of the trouble of his mind his sleep broke from him. But God gives his beloved sleep, who return to him as their rest.
II. The trial that he made of his magicians and astrologers whether they could tell him what his dream was, which he had forgotten. They were immediately sent for, to show the king his dreams, v. 2. There are many things which we retain the impressions of, and yet have lost the images of the things; though we cannot tell what the matter was, we know how we were affected with it; so it was with this king. His dream had slipped out of his mind, and he could not possibly recollect it, but he was confident he should know it if he heard it again. God ordered it so that Daniel might have the more honour, and, in him, the God of Daniel. Note, God sometimes serves his own purposes by putting things out of men’s minds as well as by putting things into their minds. The magicians, it is likely, were proud of their being sent for into the king’s bed-chamber, to give him a taste of their office, not doubting but it would be for their honour. He tells them that he had dreamed a dream, v. 3. They speak to him in the Syriac tongue, which was then the same with the Chaldee, but now they differ much. And henceforward Daniel uses that language, or dialect of the Hebrew, for the same reason that those words, Jer. x. 11, are in that language because designed to convince the Chaldeans of the folly of their idolatry and to bring them to the knowledge and worship of the true and living God, which the stories of these chapters have a direct tendency to. But ch. viii. and forward, being intended for the comfort of the Jews, is written in their peculiar language. They, in their answer, complimented the king with their good wishes, desired him to tell his dream, and undertook with all possible assurance to interpret it, v. 4. But the king insisted upon it that they must tell him the dream itself, because he had forgotten it and could not tell it to them. And, if they could not do this, they should all be put to death as deceivers (v. 5), themselves cut to pieces and their houses made a dunghill. If they could, they should be rewarded and preferred, v. 6. And they knew, as Balaam did concerning Balak, that he was able to promote them to great honour, and give them that wages of unrighteousness which, like him, they loved so dearly. No question therefore that they will do their utmost to gratify the king; if they do not, it is not for want of good-will, but for want of power, Providence so ordering it that the magicians of Babylon might now be as much confounded and put to shame as of old the magicians of Egypt had been, that, how much soever his people were both in Egypt and Babylon vilified and made contemptible, his oracles might in both be magnified and made honourable, by the silencing of those that set up in competition with them. The magicians, having reason on their side, insist upon it that the king must tell them the dream, and then, if they do not tell him the interpretation of it, it is their fault, v. 7. But arbitrary power is deaf to reason. The king falls into a passion, gives them hard words, and, without any colour of reason, suspects that they could tell him but would not; and instead of upbraiding them with impotency, and the deficiency of their art, as he might justly have done, he charges them with a combination to affront him: You have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. How unreasonable and absurd is this imputation! If they had undertaken to tell him what his dream was, and had imposed upon him with a sham, he might have charged them with lying and corrupt words; but to say this of them when they honestly confessed their own weakness only shows what senseless things indulged passions are, and how apt great men are to think it is their prerogative to pursue their humour in defiance of reason and equity, and all the dictates of both. When the magicians begged of him to tell them the dream, though the request was highly rational and just, he tells them that they did but dally with him, to gain time (v. 8), till the time be changed (v. 9), either till the king’s desire to know his dream be over, and he grown indifferent whether he be told it or no, though now he is so hot upon it, or till they may hope he has so perfectly forgotten his dream (the remaining shades of which are slipping from him apace as he catches at them) that they may tell him what they please and make him believe it was his dream, and, when the thing which is going, is quite gone from him, as it will be in a little time, he will not be able to disprove them. And therefore, without delay, they must tell him the dream. In vain do they plead, 1. That there is no man on earth that can retrieve the king’s dream, v. 10. There are settled rules by which to discover what the meaning of the dream was; whether they will hold or no is the question. But never were any rules offered to be given by which to discover what the dream was; they cannot work unless they have something to work upon. They acknowledge that the gods may indeed declare unto man what is his thought (Amos iv. 13), for God understands our thoughts afar off (Ps. cxxxix. 2), what they will be before we think them, what they are when we do not regard them, what they have been when we have forgotten them. But those who can do this are gods, that have not their dwelling with flesh (v. 11), and it is they alone that can do this. As for men, their dwelling is with flesh; the wisest and greatest of men are clouded with a veil of flesh, which quite obstructs and confounds all their acquaintance with spirit, and their powers and operations; but the gods, that are themselves pure spirit, know what is in man. See here an instance of the ignorance of these magicians, that they speak of many gods, whereas there is but one and can be but one infinite; yet see their knowledge of that which even the light of nature teaches and the works of nature prove, that there is a God, who is a Spirit, and perfectly knows the spirits of men and all their thoughts, so as it is not possible that any man should. This confession of the divine omniscience is here extorted from these idolaters, to the honour of God and their own condemnation, who though they knew there is a God in heaven, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secret is hid, yet offered up their prayers and praises to dumb idols, that have eyes and see not, ears and hear not. 2. That there is no king on earth that would expect or require such a thing, v. 10. This intimates that they were kings, lords, and potentates, not ordinary people, that the magicians had most dealings with, and at whose devotion they were, while the oracles of God and the gospel of Christ are dispensed to the poor. Kings and potentates have often required unreasonable things of their subjects, but they think that never any required so unreasonable a thing as this, and therefore hope his imperial majesty will not insist upon it. But it is all in vain; when passion is in the throne reason is under foot: He was angry and very furious, v. 12. Note, It is very common for those that will not be convinced by reason to be provoked and exasperated by it, and to push on with fury what they cannot support with equity.
III. The doom passed upon all the magicians of Babylon. There is but one decree for them all (v. 9); they all stand condemned without exception or distinction. The decree has gone forth, they must every man of them be slain (v. 13), Daniel and his fellows (though they knew nothing of the matter) not excepted. See here, 1. What are commonly the unjust proceedings of arbitrary power. Nebuchadnezzar is here a tyrant in true colours, speaking death when he cannot speak sense, and treating those as traitors whose only fault is that they would serve him, but cannot. 2. What is commonly the just punishment of pretenders. How unrighteous soever Nebuchadnezzar was in this sentence, as to the ringleaders in the imposture, God was righteous. Those that imposed upon men, in pretending to do what they could not do, are now sentenced to death for not being able to do what they did not pretend to.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DANIEL – CHAPTER 2
THE DREAM OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Verses 1-13:
Verse 1 recounts that in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, he dreamed dreams with his spirit, dreams that troubled, frustrated or disturbed him repeatedly, so that he found no rest in efforts to sleep, Gen 41:8; Ezr 6:1. As chapter one showed God’s people in heathen captivity, with a remnant who, like Daniel, were unwilling to pollute themselves or bow to idolatrous practices and found glory and triumph in it, (Sleep is a gift from God, and absence a curse, Psa 127:2), So chapter two shows how Nebuchadnezzar, at the height of the glory of heathenism, found his glory and that of Babylon fade like a leaf and fall, Dan 1:21; Dan 5:30-31.
Note: Three years had passed since Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, but he first ruled as subordinate to his father Nabopolassar, Dan 1:5, explaining the year of difference. The dream came from God to a heathen, as in Joseph’s case down in Egypt, but God used His righteous man to interpret it, for His glory, before the heathen; He was God’s vice-gerant; See also v. 37; Jer 25:9; Eze 28:12-15; Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1; Rom 13:1.
Verse 2 recounts that the king sent first for his Chaldean priest-. magicians with peculiar dress, representing their heathen gods, that could not see, hear, understand, or speak; A vain source they were of “hoped for” help, as described Psa 115:4-9; See also Gen 41:8; Exo 7:11. Along with them were called their astrologers and sorcerers, also lying fakes, deluders, and deceivers, empowered by deranged demon powers, as ministers of Satan’s deception, 2Co 11:13-15.
Verse 3 reports that this “triad” or “triad-band” of do-gooders came to stand dutifully before the king. The king related to them that he had dreamed a dream that troubled him, caused him to be so shook up that he could not sleep. And his spirit was troubled, anxiously troubled, to know exactly what the dream concerned. In the midst of power and grandeur, the mighty are troubled without God, Isa 57:20-21.
Verse 4 relates that the triad of pseudo-Chaldean dream interpreters challenged him in the Syriac language, to just relate the dream to them in the best detail he could, and they said, “we will show the interpretation.” The “O, king live forever” phrase was much as that of Bathsheba to David, 1Ki 1:31.
Verse 5 discloses that the king replied to them that “the thing is gone from me.” Apparently after a “hassle” from them, as lying deceivers, the king mandated. “If you all do not make known to me, call to my mind what the dream was, and give the meaning of it, you will be cut to pieces and your houses or residences will be made a dunghill, dumpheap, or rubble, as he cut them in pieces, as Samuel did Agag, 1Sa 15:33. See 2Ki 10:27; Ezr 6:11; Dan 3:29. From here, through chapter 7, the Chaldean languages portion of Daniel’s experience and message to the Gentile powers is given. The remainder of Daniel is in the Hebrew language. See also Jer 39:5-7; Jer 52:9-11; Eze 16:40.
Verse 6 promises that if these pseudo-interpreters of dreams would recall or relate to him the dream that he had had, and interpret it to him, he would give them gifts, rewards, and great honor. He then appealed to them to show him the dream, or describe it vividly, so that he would recognize it; Then give him the meaning of it, to allay or drive away his fears and depression. The term “rewards” means “presents poured out in a lavish manner,” Dan 5:17.
Verse 7 describes the fearful plea of the fraudulent triad of interpreters of dreams. They appealed for a second time for the king to relate to them the dream, then they pledged to interpret it; For they intended to “manufacture a meaning” for the dream; if they could get him to relate it, v. 4.
Verses 8, 9 relate the fury of disgust Nebuchadnezzar had at their evident effort to play for time to “cook up” a meaning for a dream that he had seen, that disturbed him so that he could no longer sleep at night but he could not recall what the dream was. He then demanded for a second time, as politically licensed magicians, astrologers, and sorcerers, that they tell him the dream and give him the interpretation, to drive away his fear and depression, or there was but one decree for each of them. And that was a decree of death, that he had already spoken, v. 5. For Nebuchadnezzar plainly charged that if they could not do for him what they had claimed they could do through his empire for others, they would demonstrate that they were fakes, frauds, and lying corrupters, worthy of death; He would not let them go on putting him off, day after day, 1Ki 22:6; 1Ki 22:22; Pro 12:9; Isa 44:25; Eze 13:6. He simply said, “put up or shut up.”
Verse 10 recounts the strong protests of the Chaldean, charlatan magicians, astrologers, and sorcerers, who plied their trade among his kingdom of people. They derided the king for the request and demand he had made of them, which was no greater than they had previously publicly acclaimed that they could do. They told the king that no man on earth could tell or interpret his dream, nor would any king, ruler or lord ask such of any magician; But in this claim they too lied, v. 22, 22; 2Co 11:13-15.
Verse 11 continues their practical charge that Nebuchadnezzar had become a “nut,” mentally deranged person, to require them to recall and interpret the dream that had “gone from him,” v. 5. They contended that the kings requirement was a “rare thing,” and only the gods who did not dwell among men or communicate with men might relate and interpret the dream. They simply, under a plea to save their lives, admitted that their gods were lifeless, deaf, dumb, blind and therefore unable to see, hear, or speak; They were empty “quacks,” Psa 115:4-9.
Verse 12 certifies that because of their concessions of impotency to help the king he was furiously angered and commanded that they all be destroyed throughout Babylon. For surely, if they could not help the king in trouble, they could not help his people, Psa 94:20; Pro 28:15.
Verse 13 asserts that the decree went forth that the wise men (of this world) should be slain. For the “wisdom of this world is moronic, in comparison with the wisdom of God,” 1Co 3:19-20. Under this decree Daniel and his three comrades, Meshech, Shadrach, and Abednego too were sought out for slaughter, Dan 1:17-20; But God was with them. Psa 34:7; Heb 13:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Daniel here says, — King Nebuchadnezzar dreamt in the second year of his reign. This seems contrary to the opinion expressed in the first chapter. For if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, how could Daniel be already reckoned among the wise men and astrologers, while he was as yet but a disciple? Thus it is easily gathered from the context that he and his companions were already brought forward to minister before the king. At the first glance these things are not in accordance, because in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign Daniel and his companions were delivered into training; and in the second he was in danger of death through being in the number of the Magi. Some, as we have mentioned elsewhere, count the second year from the capture and destruction of the city, for they say Nebuchadnezzar was called king from the time at which he obtained the monarchy in peace. Before he had cut off the City and Temple with the Nation, his Monarchy could not be treated as united; hence they refer this to the capture of the city, as I have said. But I rather incline to another conjecture as more probable — that of his reigning with his father, and I have shewn that when he besieged Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachim, he was sent by his father; he next returned to Chaldea from the Egyptian expedition, through his wish to repress revolts, if any one should dare to rebel. In this, therefore, there is nothing out of place. Nebuchadnezzar reigned before the death of his father, because he had already been united with him in the supreme power; then he reigned alone, and the present narrative happened in the second year of his reign. In this explanation there is nothing forced, and as the history agrees with it, I adopt it as the best.
He says — he dreamt dreams , and yet only one Dream is narrated; but since many things were involved in this dream, the use of the plural number is not surprising. It is now added, his, spirit was contrite, to shew us how uncommon the dream really was. For Nebuchadnezzar did not then begin to dream, and was not formerly so frightened every night as to send for all the Magi. Hence, in this dream there was something extraordinary, which Daniel wished to express in these words. The clause at the end of the verse which they usually translate his sleep was interrupted, does not seem to have this sense; another explanation which our brother D. Antonius gave you (101) suits it better; namely, — his sleep was upon him, meaning he began to sleep again. The genuine and simple sense of the words seems to me — his spirit was confused, that is, very great terror had seized on his mind. He knew, indeed, the dream to be sent from heaven; next, being astonished, he slept again, and became like a dead man, and when he considered the interpretation of the dream, he became stupified and returned to sleep and forgot the vision, as we shall afterwards see. It follows —
(101) This clause “which our brother D. Antonius gave you,” is omitted in the French editions of 1562 and 1569.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
DANIEL THE INTERPRETER OF DREAMS
Dan 2:1-49
THERE are pulpit speakers who specialize on the Book of Daniel. They delight in prophetic portions of the Word, and profess special gifts in their interpretation. In some instances that profession is not a mere pretense; but, rather, a loyalty to the plain teachings of the Word of God and a willingness to accept its prophetic portions and instruct in the same.
Hitherto I have not been guilty of Danielism. In truth, as I have faced the Book with its striking series of facts, its plain references to the future, and its presentation of the finalities of this age, I have felt my insufficiency, and have perhaps too often remained silent. At this time I propose a careful study of the whole Book!
There are three phrases that adequately compass chapter two of this BookThe Development of Revelation, The Reversal of Evolution, and the Climax of Revolution.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF REVELATION
Strange as seems the apparent method of revelation in this particular instance, if one examines it carefully, he will find it is Gods usual method. Not that God always speaks through visions and dreams, but that revelation here follows the most unchangeable lines of development; namely, it came from God Himself: it came to and through men: it was interpreted by the help of the Holy Spirit.
In these three statements we have the distinguishing features of all revelation. Let us examine them briefly.
This revelation came from God Himself. There are dreams that seem to be from the devil; the mighty majority of them are from an over-dose of meat; but in these chapters of Daniel the dreams are neither from wine, meat, nor of the adversary, but from God. That is why we call it a revelation. Had it not been from Him, it would have gone the way of ten thousand other nightmares to the grave of utter forgetting.
If one would know how the Pentateuch came, he will find it in a single phrase, oft recurring throughout the pages of the sameThe Lord spake unto Moses, saying, etc. If one would know the origin of the Book of Joshua, he can find it in the opening sentenceNow after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua.
One who reads the Old Testament from beginning to end is profoundly impressed with the fact that it, like the child of God, was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
In other words, all Scripture is God-breathed. Dr. A. J. Gordon tells of his visit with Joseph Rabinowitz, of Russia, the great Christian Jew, the mighty expounder of the Messianic Psalms, and preacher of the grace of God. Dr. Gordon says: So saturated was he with the letter as well as with the spirit of the Hebrew Scriptures that to hear him talk one might imagine it was Isaiah or some other Prophet of the old dispensation. One day Gordon asked him, What is your view of inspiration? My view is, he said, holding up his Hebrew Bible, that this is the Word of God; the Spirit of God dwells in it. When I read it I know that God is speaking to me, and when I preach it, I say to the people, Be silent, and hear what Jehovah will say to you. In true revelation God speaks!
This revelation came to and through man. It came to Nebuchadnezzar: it came through Daniel. The circumstance that men wrote the Bible need in no wise militate against its very Deity. How else would God be expected to voice Himself than through the life and by the very lips of the ones made in His own image? I have never been able to believe with Dr. R. F. Horton, the old-world pastor, and inconsistent critic, that all the great poets from Homer and Hesiod down to Browning and Walt Whitman, uttered, in the stress of their poetic afflatus, truths and feelings which we can only explain by attributing them to God Himself unless he meant it in a very secondary and superficial sense. They never confessed even the consciousness of God; they never claimed any special inspiration from God. The influence of their writings is not such as to give proof of a Divine origin.
That God illumines the minds of all men few of us questionthere is a Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that He lets into the minds of some, greater light than into others, and a consequent voice of higher wisdom, we need not doubt. But in the proper employment of the term, that is not inspiration, and certainly it is not a revelation from Heaven. Inspiration establishes forever its own pretenses; and revelation is a making known of truths which God alone can uncover. In those facts we find the stability of Scripture and discover the justification of Charles Spurgeons series of questions: Do you imagine that the Gospel is a nose of wax, which can be shaped to suit the face of each succeeding age? Is the revelation, once given by the Spirit of God, to be interpreted according to the fashion of the period? Is Advanced Thought to be the cord with which the Spirit of the Lord is to be straightened? Is the old truth, that saved men hundreds of years ago, to be banished because something fresh has been hatched in the nests of the wise?
No! the Word of the Lord standeth fast! The revelation from God can neither be improved nor destroyed. In spite of the fact that it records human experience and finds expression at human lips, or drips from the pen or the quill held by a human hand, it remains eternally Divine. It is by man, but not from him! It is from God!
But it must be interpreted by the help of the Holy Spirit. Dr. A. C. Gaebelein says: The King acknowledged Daniels God as the God of gods, the Lord of kings and a Revealer of secrets. God is owned by him in a threefold way. The God of gods, as God the Father; and the Lord of kings, such is our Lord Jesus Christ; and the Revealer of secretsthe Holy Spirit. And as it was God the Spiritwho interpreted Nebuchadnezzars dreams, so it is the Holy Spirit who indwells believers in all ages to understand and interpret the Scriptures. Of Him, Jesus Christ said: When He, * * is come, He will guide you into all truth.
That is why Martin Luther wrote to Spalatin, in answer to the question of the latter as to how he could best study the Bible, saying: Above all things it is quite certain that one cannot search into the Holy Scriptures by means of study, nor by means of the intellect. Therefore begin with prayer that the Lord grant unto you the true understanding of His Word.
There is no interpreter of the Word of God except the Author of the Word, God Himself!
This chapter of Daniel, abundantly illustrates Luthers claim. The land was filled with wise men; they were inadequate either to the discovery of the truth or its proper interpretationbeing devoid of the Spirit. Had the dreams been uncovered to them, they would have misinterpreted them. The great Daniel takes pains to deny independent ability to reveal, saying, As for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king.
The men who attempt to interpret, ignoring the Spirit, become false teachers. How mighty is their multitude! The man who concludes that he is a specialist in Scripture interpretation and discredits the Holy Spirit is likely to give proof of the prediction of the Lord by landing himself and his followers full in the ditch provided for the blind who are leaders of the blind.
Instead of human authorship of the Bible being true, the Bible cannot even be read and understood apart from the illumination of its true Authorthe Holy Ghost, who is the revealer of secrets!
But to pass from the development of revelation to
THE REVERSAL OF EVOLUTION
If ever there were two men who took opposite positions on any subject, they were Daniel and Darwin; and every intelligent student of Scripture is compelled to make his choice between them.
According to Darwin, the human race, involving the question of personality, government and civilization, is on the ascent. But Daniels interpretation of the image insists that the opposite is true.
This interpretation of Daniels presents the descent of kings: it presents the decline of nations; it portrays the catastrophe of civilization.
It presents the descent of kings! Either this interpretation is a flattery or a fact. If flattery, then Daniel is a false prophet and his interpretation ought to be flung on the dung heap; if a fact, then Darwin falls before it, for the interpretation begins with a head of fine gold, descends to a breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, feet of part iron and part clay; and the interpretation is this, Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of Heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
According to Darwin, Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom ought to have been a head of mud as compared with King George or Kaiser Wilhelm. The evolutionists have made a great deal of the Pithecanthropos erectus, a portion of a skull found in Java, supposed to be that of a primitive man, with a cubic capacity of sixty inches. There are smaller heads in the world now, and if we are told, They are those of imbeciles, we answer, Was ancient man free from imbecility? If so, it might easily be logically affirmed that we are on the down grade.
How in the world any Darwinian, denying as he commonly does the doctrine of plenary inspiration, can place the pigmies of the twentieth century beside Mosesthe man who, though he lived four thousand years ago, towered so far beyond them all by combining in one the merit of the literalist, moralist, statesman, scientist and religionist, I cannot understand. If Moses could be brought back now and the noblest man of the hour stood beside him, I think we should see instantly the descent rather than the ascent of man.
What marvel, and yet how surely to be expected by the men who know the Sacred Scriptures, that one of the great quartette of Scientists who popularized the theory of evolution and gave it a worldwide swing, should live until he saw the falsehood of some of his own premises, and the futility of certain of his own conclusions. If any one doubts this let him read Dr. Alfred Russell Wallaces last book Social Environment and Moral Progress and hear him say:
The great majority of educated persons hold the opinion that our wonderful discoveries and inventions in every department of art and science prove that we are really more intellectual and wiser than the men of past agesthat our mental faculties have increased in power. But this idea is totally unfounded. We are the inheritors of the accumulated knowledge of all the ages; and it is quite possible, and even probable, that the earliest steps taken in the accumulation of this vast mental treasury required even more thought and a higher intellectual power than any of those taken in our own ear.
At a later time Dr. Wallace remarks further:
The fact that the physical characteristics of the Australasians are substantially those of the Caucasian race, in its lowest types, has led me to conclude that these interesting people may have been descended from much more civilized remote ancestors and are thus an example of degradation rather than of survival.
In the same volume, speaking of certain people who are known to have antedated Christ 1500 years, he says, of a poem produced by one of them:
We cannot read this beautiful rendition without feeling that the people it describes were our intellectual and moral equals.
Dr. Joseph Clark, of Ikoko, Africa, affirmed to me that the people to whom he ministered, judged by the language they employed and the traditions which they held, were the descendants of a much nobler race. Sir William Ramsey, in his great volume The Cities of St. Paul, after a careful study of ancient oriental civilization, says:
Our survey of the Mediterranean lands reveals no sign of development. It shows us only a process of degeneration and decay. That is Daniels position; first gold, then silver, then brass, then iron, then mudthe reversal of evolution.
Then again, it presents the decline of nations. Daniel is not speaking of the king as independent of his people, but, rather, as their representative. And he declares that the government of this man shall be succeeded by an inferior one, and that by one more inferior still, and so on.
The thoughtful student of history can hardly misunderstand this prophecy. The great nations of the earth no more represent what the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Graeco-Macedonian and Roman did.
The latter, divided into two parts, represented by the two legs,Eastern and Western empires; and since that time the empires of succeeding rulers, as compared with those world-empires, have been as toes compared with legs; and Nebuchadnezzar would have disdained the limited territory of the modern king, while the Roman Empire was not compelled to fight for what might be called elbow room! Its scepter was supreme in the world.
The division of territory has been the decline of nations, and is the very occasion of that worldwide conflict that now weakens them more and more. Is not Phillip Mauro justified in saying that the system of material governments which has been in vogue in the earth, is a perishing system, holding in itself the seed of decay? Truly the world passeth away, and the lust thereof. The present crumbling of states that were supposed to be civilized, and the breaking up of unions that were supposed to be cemented forever, and the repudiation of alliances that were supposed to be insoluble, tell the tale of toes made up of iron and clay that will not cleave! The very nations that lie in the territory of the old Roman empire, and that came out of it as truly as the feet and toes continued the legs, represent national mixtures that cannot be sufficiently cemented to stand.
The weakness of these nations has long been increasingly evident. They cannot even form alliances and be faithful to the same. Look at the violation of Belgiums treaty rights! Think of the breaking of Italy out of the Triple Entente! England and Russia could hold together until the close of the war, and have no prospect of friendship since the war is over. Even Austria and Germany dared not debate the inevitable questions they faced when peace with their common enemies was secured. Turkey and Germany could only remain mutual friends by the debasement of the latter.
A few years since, exponents of national prosperity, universal brotherhood, a confederacy of nations, a climax of peace and power, were a multitude. Now there are none so stupid as to do them reverence. History is running into the mold of prophecy, and its present pages are being written in blood in fulfilment of Daniels prediction of national decline.
Daniel also portrays the catastrophe of civilization. Eighteen years ago his picture of coming events was held in well nigh universal contempt by men occupying Christian pulpits. But about that time portentous possibilities of catastrophe began to make themselves felt. On July 7, 1913, the great British University Congress was in session in London. Chief among the speakers was Lord Roseberry. Among other things he said: The world has need of all the character, all the honesty and all the ability which it contains, developed or undeveloped, to carry it on without danger of anarchy and chaos.
Doubtless many of his auditors dubbed him a pessimist. Now he is regarded as a seer instead. Our boasted Christian civilization has passed in a total collapse and the language of Dr. I. M. Haldeman is justified,
In the centers of civilization, supposed supreme, and in those nations where the kings and sovereigns claim to have received the scepters from the right hand of the Son of God Himself, in those nations above all others calling themselves Christian, millions of armed men, drawn from every rank of life, leap at each others throats like wild beasts drunken with one anothers blood. Smoke and flame went up from burning towns and cities; women were ravished in the open sunlight, children mutilated, and all the fabric, of a civilization, woven together through the sacrifice and devotion of long and painful centuries was torn apart and the priceless texture flung broadcast upon the cyclonic winds of an excuseless and lawless desolation. All the standards of righteousness, of sacred truth, and honor, the fealty of man to man, and all the worthfulness and sanctity of life have been trampled into the mire and slush and multiplying streams of wasted blood.
And if this were all, we might still hope that a few years at most would end these horrors, and peace, coming back to the world, righteousness might prosper and civilization recover herself. But, alas for those more fundamental features of collapsethe social, the mental, the moral. Alas for the supremacy of Sciencefalsely so-called, predicted by the Master; for the apostasy from the faith once for all delivered, promised by the Apostle; for the perilous times when men are lovers of their own selves, * * traitors, heady, highminded, trucebreakers, disobedient to parents, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Alas for the triumph of those who heap riches unto themselves and live in the wantoness of limitless luxury. Alas for the oppression of the poor by those in places of power; for the covetousness exceeding any idolatry that Judah ever knew! Alas for a religion that has exalted form and dispensed with power! Alas for that possible confederacy of nations that will inevitably result from this baptism of blood, and consent to crown the antichrist, and bring in that last, greatest tragedy of blood the agony of the agesthe Great Tribulation!
Is this pessimism? Then make the most of it, for it is present history and prophecy being even now partially fulfilled. The nations of the world, the greatest of themand the ones with best reputewill as surely spread their sails to the winds of pride and fleshly lusts and false faiths as ever did Babylon, or Greece or Rome! And, as the wisdom of Babylon, the culture of Greece, and the power of Rome, in turn, utterly failed the people who trusted in them, so the boasted civilization of modern timesa civilization that is called Christian while yet in rebellion against the true Christ, will fail to keep the nations of this hour from the judgment that their conduct has provoked and precipitated.
And yet, Daniel does not conclude in pessimism. He calmly proceeds to a brighter prospect and ere our study is finished he introduces
THE CLIMAX OF REVOLUTION
For in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a Kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the Kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it break 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 (Dan 2:44-45).
Mark two or three facts concerning this final revolution.
Unlike its predecessors, it comes down from above.
Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
Hitherto attempts to right the world have been from below. They have been led by mortal man. That man has taken hold of human affairs has been evident enough; sometimes cunning, quite as often clumsy, sometimes capable, but always insufficient. But, as Joseph Parker in his Peoples Bible says: There are influences in the universe other than human. That is a fact that science cannot ignore. There are other directions than upward. There are things that come down from above. There never was a falser couplet than Brownings:
Gods in His Heaven Alls right with the world,
and yet, if one changes it a bit he can make it true, utterly true:
Gods in His Heaven,And will right the world.
But to do that, He will have to destroy the god of this world and compel the abdication of many of his minions.
He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee.
Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potters vessel (Psa 2:4-5; Psa 2:7-9).
What a revolution!
When it is commenced it will be completed. Mark the language of Daniel: The stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
That is the last revolution the world will ever see, and the only sufficient one. Every nation of earth has had its revolutions. A hundred and fifty years ago France entered upon Revolution, and experienced thirteen of them in eighty years; a hundred and fifty years ago America had hers; twenty years ago Chinas revolutions began. For twenty-five years Mexico has revolted. But they were all abortive! No sooner were they finished than there was need of another! There is coming a final revolution however, beyond which no other will ever be needed. It will fill the whole earth.
If Martin Luther were back in the world today he would want to begin his work over again. He would find that Protestantism was almost as apostate as Rome, and his heart would break. But when this change comes it will include all needful things and the worlds anguish will end; her divided kingdoms pass, her wars cease, for God will have set His own King upon His Holy Hill in Zion, and He who was rejected of men, treated as if criminally unworthy, shall at last be crowned Lord of all.
In Creasys Decisive Battles he gives an interesting account of the anointing of Charles King of France, and says: The ceremony of a royal coronation and anointment was not in those days regarded as a mere costly formality. It was believed to confer the sanction and the grace of Heaven upon the prince, who had previously ruled with mere human authority. Thenceforth he was the Lords Anointed. Moreover, one of the difficulties that had previously lain in the way of many Frenchmen, when called on to support Charles VII, was now removed. He had been publicly stigmatized, even by his own parents, as no true son of the royal race of France. The queen-mother, the English and the partisans of Burgundy called him the Pretender to the title of Dauphin but those who had been led to doubt his legitimacy were cured of their skepticism by the victories of the Holy Maid, and by the fulfilment of her pledges. They thought that Heaven had now declared itself in favor of Charles as the true heir of the crown of St. Louis, and the tales about his being spurious were thenceforth regarded as mere English calumnies. With this strong tide of national feeling in his favor, with victorious generals and soldiers round him, and a dispirited and divided enemy before him, he could not fail to conquer.
The day will yet break in which the despised Nazarene will come to His own; in which the Child born for the throne, but accused by critics of bastardy, shall prove His title to the crown, when all Heaven shall declare in His favor and all earth shall join in His homage, for it is written: His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
HOMILETICS
SECT. V.THE ANSWERED PRAYER (Chap. Dan. 2:1-19).
We come to the first of the visions given to Daniel. The occasion of it was a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, of which it was required to give both the description and the interpretation. The vision thus in harmony with Daniels situation in Babylon, where pretensions to such wisdom and ability prevailed; a confirmation of the genuineness of the book. One object of the vision to elevate Daniel still higher in the kings esteem and in the State, and so still further to prepare the way for Israels liberation at the appointed time. Another and more direct object to comfort the people of God, then and in all future time, with the assurance that God rules in the kingdoms of men, and that when the great monarchies of the world have run their allotted course, the kingdom of Messiah shall overthrow them all and bless the earth with a lasting reign of righteousness and peace.
The vision was given in answer to prayer. The time of it was the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, as sole monarch, after having reigned two previous years conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar [28]. The king, having had his thoughts seriously exercised about the future (Dan. 2:29), [29] had a dream [30] which greatly disturbed him (Dan. 2:1); and as the wise men about him pretended to interpret dreams, he summoned the various classes of them [31],magicians [32], astrologers, sorcerers [33], and Chaldeans [34], and required them to give both the dream and its meaning. Either in reality, as is generally supposed, the dream having left only a confused impression, or, as others perhaps more correctly think, in pretence, in order to put to the proof the pretended skill of his wise men, he declared that the dream had passed from his recollection [35], and they must give not only the interpretation, but the dream itself. In accordance with the character of Oriental despotism, the penalty of failure was to be death in most terrible and cruel formto be hewed in pieces [36], with the utter demolition of their dwellings [37]. On the wise men disclaiming, in the Syriac or Chaldaic tongue [38], the entire inability of themselves or any mere man whatever, to gratify the kings desirea thing competent only to the gods, whose dwelling is not with fleshNebuchadnezzar, probably enraged at discovering, as he thought, the falsehood of their pretensions, but ostensibly at their wish only to gain time for the safety of their own persons [39], commanded the chief executioner [40] at once to inflict the penalty. Daniel and his three companions, being supposed to be included among the wise men, though apparently not among those who were summoned into the kings presence, were sought out for execution with the rest. One refuge they knew, which the others had not. The God they worshipped was, as they had already experienced, a God that hears and answers prayer. At Daniels suggestion, they unite immediately in a concert of prayer for the preservation of their own lives and those of the wise men of Babylon, and, to that end, for ability from on high to describe and interpret the kings dream. The prayer was graciously and speedily answered.
[28] In the second year, &c. The dream occurring at this early period in Nebuchadnezzars reign, observes Hengstenberg, agrees with the fame of Daniels wisdom and prevalency in prayer as indicated by Ezekiel. The first mention made of Daniel by that prophet was probably in the sixth year of the reign of Zedekiah (Eze. 8:1), consequently thirteen or fourteen years after the carrying away of Daniel into Babylon. The second mention of him five years later. The repeated mention of such a person quite natural in the circumstances. Yet this mention of Daniel by Ezekiel has been made the ground of an opinion, advanced by Ewald and espoused by Bunsen, that Daniel was led captive in the first Assyrian invasion, and that he lived and prophesied, not in Babylon, but in Nineveh! Kliefoth, quoted by Keil, observes that in Dan. 1:1 Daniel reckons Nebuchadnezzars years according to the years of the Israelitish kings, and sees in him already the king; on the contrary, in chap, 2., he treats of the nations of the World-power, and reckons here accurately the year of Nebuchadnezzar, the bearer of the world-power, from the day in which, having actually obtained the possession of that power, he became king of Babylon. Keil himself remarks: If we observe that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed his dream in the second year of his reign, and that he entered on his reign some time after the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Jehoiakim, then we can understand how the three years appointed for the education of Daniel and his companions came to an end in the second year of his reign; for if Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, then in the seventh year of that king three years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year of his reign. A whole year or more of their period of education had passed before Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne. It is, however, perhaps scarcely correct to speak of what took place in Jehoiakims fourth year as the destruction of Jerusalem, which did not happen till some years afterwards.
[29] What should come to pass hereafter. Dr. Pusey notices it as a striking picture of the young conqueror, that, not contented with the vista of future greatness before him, he was looking on beyond our little span of life, which in youth so fills the mind, to a future when his own earthly life should be closed.
[30] Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. Mr. Wood, in his Lectures on Daniel, observes, that Nebuchadnezzars dream was an event in the Chaldean history which bore upon it the stamp and impress of divine interposition. It involved in its interpretation the future revolutions of the world, and had reference to that most important revolution, the introduction of the religion of Christ, which was to cover the earth.
[31] The king commanded to call the magicians, &c. On all occasions in the book, says Hengstenberg, not particular wise men are consulted, but the whole body of them, probably, as here, in the persons of their representatives, or of a selection made from them. Such in accordance with the information of Diodorus, that the observations of the Babylonian wise men were always instituted in company and by a college. The division of the wise men here indicated is not to be conceived of as if every individual always confined himself to the cultivation of only one particular branch of Babylonian wisdom; the division only amounting to this, that by rule each should particulary excel in only some one department. The different branches, too, were so nearly identified, that it would be difficult previously to determine whether any one of them would not, in any given instance, come into operation.
[32] Magicians. See note under chap. Dan. 1:20. Dr. Rule observes that the Hebrew name is generally considered equivalent with the Greek or sacred scribes, not magicians. The Assyrians had a sacred writing, not like the pictorial hieroglyphic of Egypt, but a literal hieroglyphic or ideograph. The characters were arrow-headed or wedge-like (cuneiform), as in ordinary inscriptions on the Assyrian sculptures and Babylonian cylinders. The style was enigmatic, or at least obscure, by brevity or abruptness or abbreviation.
[33] Sorcerers, (mechash-shephim), from a Syriac root meaning to supplicate or perform sacred rites; enchanters, magicians, Exo. 7:11; Deu. 18:10; Mal. 3:5.Gesenius. Sept., , one who uses drugs or incantations. Vulg., maleficus. Aben Ezra, one who uses horoscopes. Gesenius understands a magician, or one who pretended to cause eclipses by incantations.
[34] Chaldeans. He rerepresented as a class of themselves. A thing in itself most probable. The priest-caste not likely first introduced into Babylonia by the Chaldeans. No civilised people of antiquity without an order of priests. Isaiah, in whose time the Chaldeans had not yet become masters of Babylon, describes that city as the prime seat of the arts of divination. These possessed a priest-caste before their invasion of Babylonia. The name of the people was at Babylon the name of the whole caste, and occurs as such in the oldest writers. The name given from this distinction between the Chaldean and Babylonian priesthoods. Curtius speaks of the Persian magi, the Chaldeans, and the Babylonians as so many different kinds of wise men in Babylon. The distinction here no small attestation to the trustworthiness, and so to the genuineness, of the book.Hengstenberg. Dr. A. Clarke observes that the Chaldeans might be a college of learned men, where all arts and sciences were professed and taught; that they were the most ancient philosophers of the world; and that they might have been originally inhabitants of Babylon, and still have preserved to themselves exclusively the name of Chaldeans. Keil views them as the most distinguished class among the Babylonian wise men.
[35] The thing it gone from me. The passage otherwise rendered by Michaelis, Gesenius, and othersthe word, or decree, has gone forth from me; or, according to Winer, Hengstenberg, and others, the thing has been determined by me, or the word stands firm, like chap. Dan. 6:12, the thing is true. Others translate, let the word from me be known, be it known unto you.
[36] Cut in pieces. This punishment, observes Keil, common among the Babylonians (chap. Dan. 3:30; Eze. 16:40). A Chaldean death-punishment, says Hengstenberg, and in accordance with the cruel character of the people. The kings treatment of the magicians, he observes, was barbarous, but nothing more than, judging even by our sparing historical information, we might expect of him (2Ki. 25:7; 2Ki. 25:18; 2Ki. 25:21; Jer. 39:5, &c.; Jer. 52:9-11, Jer. 52:24-27). A mistake to expect an Oriental despot to use our standard in the estimate of human life. An example of the authors acquaintance with the usages of the time and country, and so a confirmation of the genuineness of the book. The Persians had quite a different mode of inflicting capital punishment.
[37] Your houses shall be made a dunghill. The houses of Babylon were built of earth burnt or simply dried in the sun. When a building was totally demolished or converted into a confused heap of rubbish, the entire mass of earth, in rainy weather, gradually decomposed, and the place of such a house became like a dunghill. Bertholdt admits that the accurate acquaintance here shown with the mode of building practised in Babylon shows the piece to have been written in that country.Hengstenberg.
[38] In Syriack. Therefore, in the opinion of Hengstenberg, not the language of the king and court. The language here meant is the Eastern Aramaic or common Chaldaic; that in which the following part of the book is written as far as the end of chap. 7. Originally the language of Abraham in his own country, but changed by his descendants in Palestine for that commonly called Hebrew, the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18), which was given to them for their possession. This language of Canaan naturally closely allied to the Phnician, whose characters, resembling the Samaritan, continued to be used by the Hebrews till changed after the captivity for those of the Chaldaic. Dr. Rule observes that the language of Aram (or Syria), now less properly called Chaldee in one dialect and Syriac in another, while yet the two dialects hardly differ, is very different from the old Chaldee, or language of Akkad, the classic tongue of Assyria used by the race of Akkadians, who had inhabited Babylonia from the earliest times. These Chaldees would converse, he thinks, with each other in their ancient language; but that speech the soldier-king would not have understood, and therefore they are under the necessity of speaking to him in his mother tongue. A different view from that taken by Hengstenberg.
[39] Ye would gain the time. Either till the king could recollect the dream himself, or should become indifferent about the matter, or till they could invent something in the place of it, or get time to escape with life and property.A. Clark
[40] Captain of the kings guard. Margin: Chief of the executioners or slaughtermen. The chief of the royal bodyguard, who also executed the capital punishments. In Jer. 39:13 he bears a different name from that in this passagean evidence of the genuineness of the book; as a spurious Daniel, if he had derived the corresponding statements from Jeremiah, would have surely transferred also the name, in order to give an appearance of trustworthiness.Hengstenberg. According to Keil, this man was regarded as the highest officer of the king (Jer. 39:9; Jer. 39:11; Jer. 11:1, &c.); his business being to see to the execution of the kings commands (1Ki. 2:25; 2Ki. 6:8). Dr. Rule remarks that this was also the Egyptian title 1200 years before Nebuchadnezzar, and the repetition of both the office and the name may be noted as one of many affinities between Egypt and Babylon in customs, language, and tradition.
From the whole section observe
1. Mens minds capable of being acted upon by God. Dreams themselves often from God, as well as the apprehension of their meaning. The power of recollection, as well as the want of it, also from Him. By divine revelation, mediately or immediately given, Daniel is enabled not only to interpret the kings dream, but to describe the dream itself, without the slightest clue to it. The office of the Spirit to bring all things to remembrance, as well as to show things to come. The faculties of our minds as well as the members of our bodies under the influence and control of Him who made both, and that both while asleep and awake. I awoke, and my sleep was sweet unto me. Thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions.
2. The misery of ungodly men. Nebuchadnezzar troubled and unhappy in the midst of all his power and grandeur. A dream by night or a thought by day, laying hold of the mind, able to poison all earthly enjoyments. The sword of Damocles suspended over the ungodly in the midst of their mirth. Armed guards around a kings chamber unable to keep trouble from his spirit. Sleep, the gift of God to His beloved (Psa. 127:2), often far from the pillow of the ungodly. An evil conscience a sufficient tormentor. A vague terror the usual accompaniment of unpardoned sin. Apprehended anger on the part of God enough to rob a man of peace by day and sleep by night. The mere man of the world generally impatient under suffering; apprehensive of danger at every change both of body and mind; alarmed at every circumstance which to him appears to portend either adversity or dissolution.Wood.
3. The evils of despotism and absolute power. Like Nebuchadnezzar, a despot usually unreasonable and arbitrary, cruel and oppressive, hasty and impetuous. Is easily irritated, while his wrath is like the roaring of a lion. The capricious disposer of his subjects lives and property. The will of an absolute monarch, who in his wrath rather resembles a madman or a wild beast, takes the place of law, justice, and reason. Sad condition of a people when the will of one man is law. Usually the character of Oriental monarchies. The beheaded Baptist and the slaughtered infants of Bethlehem melancholy examples. The tendency of absolute power to make good men bad and bad men much worse. Such power only safe in the hands of Him who is King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace. The happiness of a free and constitutional State, as well as the duty of gratitude to God for the privilege of living under such, best seen in contrast with the misery of being under a despotic one. Adam Clarke exclaims on the passage: Happy England! Know and value thy excellent privileges!
Thee therefore still, blameworthy as thou art,
Thee I account still happy, and the chief
Among the nations, seeing thou art free,
My native nook of earth.
Plutarch relates that when Dionysius the Second took his departure from Syracuse, the whole city went out to behold the joyful sight, and that their hearts were so full of the happy event that they were angry with those that were absent and could not witness with what joy the sun rose that day on Syracuse, now at last delivered from the chains of slavery.
4. The fearful effects of sin, Sin makes men, who were created in the image of God, to resemble demons. Degraded Nebuchadnezzar into the likeness of a beast long before he was driven into the fields to eat grass. When passion is on the throne, reason is under foot. Both God and the devil stamp their image on their respective servants. Men must resemble the being they worship. We must either be like the God who is love, or him who was a murderer from the beginning. Causeless and unholy anger is murder in the germ. Anger may enter for a moment into the breast of a wise man, but resteth only in the bosom of fools. The maxim of Periander, the wise man of Corinth, wasBe master of thine anger. The Holy Spirit says, Let not the sun go down upon your wrath. Anger, Dr. Cox observes, is
(1) undignifying;
(2) unreasonable;
(3) destructive of that just and useful influence to which we should aspire, and for which every one is naturally capacitated by his position in society;
(4) usually makes a rapid progress;
(5) is productive of great unhappiness;
(6) is a most guilty passion. It is remarked by Robert Hall: Vindictive passions surround the soul with a sort of turbulent atmosphere, than which nothing can be conceived more opposite to the calm and holy light in which the blessed Spirit loves to dwell.
5. The helplessness of heathenism and of men without God. Babylons wise men, with all their learning and science, unable either to find direction in their difficulty or deliverance from their danger. Like the mariners in the storm, they are at their wits end. They believed the gods could tell the king his dream, but they had no access to them. Their dwelling is not with flesh. Their gods do not dwell with them, and they confess that they have no converse with them. Thus heathenism, by its own confession, is powerless. Sorry gods, indeed, that cannot approach men, nor be approached by them! Even the great Bel of Babylon unable to help his royal and devoted worshipper. Contrast with this the God of the Bible, a very present help in trouble, and near to all who call upon Him in truth. Blessed are the people who know the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh; and that, having been made flesh Himself, He can and does dwell with men on the earth. Matthew Henry notices the righteousness of God in causing men who imposed on others by pretending to do what they could not, to be threatened with death for not doing what they did not even pretend to do.
6. The happy privilege of prayer. Access to the throne of grace both the comfort and deliverance of Daniel and his three friends. A noble sight for angels to look down upon, those four young men on their knees, asking believingly, as children of a father, the gracious interposition of the God of heaven on behalf of themselves and others. They knew that for the God of their fathers nothing was too dark to know, nothing too hard to do, nothing too great to grant to His praying children. Nothing really good excluded from the subjects of prayer. In everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God (Php. 4:6). Even under the law, Moses could appeal to Israel, What nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon Him for? How much nearer under the Gospel! Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, I will do it. What soever things ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. If we ask according to His will, we know that He heareth us; and if we know that He heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions we desire of Him (1Jn. 3:22; 1Jn. 5:14-15). The Spirit of God given to help us in prayer, and to teach us to pray for what is according to the divine will (Rom. 8:26). Hence
7. The happiness of the godly. Daniel, though exposed to the same danger as the wise men, is calm and collected. He knew in whom he believed. An example of the text, He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord. He knew the God of his fathers to be the God that heareth prayer. The glory of the gospel that it brings the apostolic exhortation into realised experience and actual practice: Be careful (or anxious) for nothing: but in everything by prayer and supplication, let your requests be made known unto God; and the peace of God, that passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Such a religion needed by men in the battle of life; and the last-quoted words show how it is to be found,through Christ Jesus. Daniel an example of it in the Old Testament; millions such in the New. Tried by men and things as others are, yet kept in a peace to which the world is a stranger,a peace found in the knowledge and possession of Christ Jesus. The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.
8. The special importance of united prayer. Daniel invites his three friends to unite with himself in prayer for the divine interposition. Two are better than one, no less in prayer than in labour. If two of you, said the Master, shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them (Mat. 18:19). So Esther asked her Jewish maids to join their prayers with hers in a time of great emergency. The promised baptism of the Holy Ghost bestowed on the disciples when engaged, as they had been for ten days, in united prayer. Peters deliverance from prison in answer to the united prayer made by the Church for that object. Those the most valuable friends who are able to join us in our suit at a throne of grace. Dr. Cox remarks on the passage: While the individual supplication of the righteous man availeth much, union in prayer is adapted to increase its fervency, and, through grace, to promote its success; and while it is adapted to our social nature and suited to our circumstances of common necessity, it has the express assurance of a divine blessing.
9. A praying man a national benefit. Here are four men, captives in a strange land and occupying the position of slaves, made the means, by their intercession with God, not only of saving the lives of a numerous class of citizens, and of bringing peace and comfort to the troubled mind of the sovereign, but of bringing that heathen king to confess the worthlessness of his idols, and for a time at least to favour the worship of the true God among his subjects. How many national blessings have been bestowed and national calamities averted by the believing prayers of godly men, eternity alone will disclose. A poet reminds us how much the world
Receives advantage from his noiseless hours,
Of which she little dreams. Perhaps she owes
Her sunshine and her rain, her blooming spring
And plenteous harvest, to the prayers he makes,
When, lsaac-like, the solitary saint
Walks forth to meditate at eventide,
And thinks on her who thinks not on herself.
10. The special privilege of a godly ancestry. Daniels privilege that he could address his prayers to God as the God of his fathers, and then thank and praise Him as such, connecting with that relationship the gracious answer he had received. The title reminds us, as Dr. Cox observes, that the recollections of piety are the most solemn and endearing that earth can afford. Some are privileged to look back upon an extended succession of holy ancestry, and to recount the names of those who are endeared by relationship as well as distinguished for their faith, who now form a part of the celestial society. Their sun is set, but their example continues to shed its holy twilight around the horizon of life, and cheer them on their pilgrimage. The recollection of such an ancestry at once a stimulus to prayer and a help to faith.
DANIEL AN EXAMPLE OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER
Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision (Dan. 2:19).
Daniel obtained what he asked of God. Important to inquire, How may we Reason and Scripture teach us that various things are necessary to efficacious prayer. Prayer, to be efficacious, must obviously possess the following conditions. It must be
1. Offered in faith. This constantly required. Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering: for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord (Jas. 1:6-7). He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). The ability to grant on the part of the Giver, as well as His faithfulness if He has promised, must be cordially believed. Believe ye that I am able to do this? (Mat. 9:28). We must be able to say, Thine is the power; and to believe He is faithful that promised. Daniel prayed in confidence that God was the Hearer of prayer. The prayer of faith shall save the sick (Jas. 5:15). As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
2. Earnest. Prayer offered without earnestness only begs a refusal. Daniel prayed as in a matter of life and death. It is the fervent prayer that availeth much. Elijah prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not (Jas. 5:17). I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me (Gen. 32:26). They constrained Him.
3. Importunate and persevering. This the evidence at once of faith and earnestness. Answers to prayer not always, nor often, granted immediately. Prayer to be continued till the answer come. Thus prayed Daniel and his three friends. The disciples in the upper room continued in prayer and supplication till they received the promised baptism of fire. The Church prayed for Peters release till it was granted. To this end Christ spake a parable that men ought always to pray and not to faint, or give up because the answer is delayed. Shall not God avenge His own elect who cry day and night unto Him continually, though He bear long with him? Jesus Himself continued whole nights in prayer to God. Elijah returned to his knees seven times before the little cloud appeared.
4. From a right motive and for a right end. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts (Jas. 4:3). Gods glory and the good of others as well as ourselves to be our true motive. Thine is the glory. Hallowed be Thy name, the first petition taught in the Lords Prayer. Daniel prayed that mens lives might be saved and Gods name glorified. Prayer offered to gratify lust, pride, ambition, covetousness, either unanswered or answered without a blessing. He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul (Psa. 106:15).
5. Offered with uprightness of heart and life. Whatever we ask we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments (1Jn. 3:22). The fervent prayer of the righteous man that which availeth much. The language of the man born blind that both of Nature and Scripture: God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God and doeth His will, him He hearth (Joh. 9:31). If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. The prayer of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the righteous is His delight. The sinner, however, also heard, if he come confessing himself such and feeling his sin a burden. God be merciful to me a sinner, a prayer when offered sincerely never returned unanswered. Pauls prayers heard and answered as those of a sinner before they were so as those of a saint. The prayers of a sinner, groaning under his sin, and pleading for pardon and a clean heart, make sweet music in heaven. Behold, he prayeth.
6. With submission to Gods will and desire only for what is according to it. Thy will be done, the third petition in the Lords Prayer. The great Teacher Himself an example. If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done. Prayer without submission to Gods will, only the language of rebellion. Prayer for what is not according to Gods will better left unanswered. If we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us (1Jn. 5:14). The work of the Spirit to teach us to pray for what is according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26-27). Prayer thus offered never unanswered. Connected with this is
7. With entire self-surrender. For the submission of the will to God the surrender of our whole self necessary; without such surrender our prayer still that of rebellion. The language of our heart either, O Lord, I am Thy servant, or, Our lips are our own; who is lord over us? Prayer only safely and profitably answered where there is entire self-surrender. Such surrender secures either the blessing asked or something better.
8. In the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ. Daniel, in a recorded prayer of his (chap. 9.), renounces all merit and righteousness of his own as a ground of acceptance, and pleads only to be heard for the Lords, that is, Messiah or Christs, sake. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name (on my account or for my sake), I will do it. David taught to use the same prevailing pleaLook upon the face of Thine Anointed (Psa. 84:9). God can refuse no blessing so asked, because He cannot refuse His Son. To plead the name and merits of Christ, however, implies a cordial acceptance of and trust in Him as a Saviour. The consequence of such acceptance and trust is a personal union with Him, and the consequent indwelling of the Spirit as a Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. With that Spirit we not merely say, Our Father, but My Father, and pray in the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Part TwoDaniels FortitudeChapters 26
CHAPTER TWO
I. DESPOTS DREAMDan. 2:1-16
a. CHALLENGE TO CHALDEANS
TEXT: Dan. 2:1-6
1
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him.
2
Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king.
3
And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.
4
Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in the Syrian language, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.
5
The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye make not known unto me the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.
6
But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honor; therefore show me the dream and the interpretation thereof.
QUERIES
a.
Why is Nebuchadnezzar concerned with this particular dream?
b.
Why does the text mention the Syrian (Aramaic) language?
c.
Why did Nebuchadnezzar forget the dream?
PARAPHRASE
One night in the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had a very vivid and graphic dream. He was unable to sleep because he was deeply agitated in his mind and soul to know if the dream had some meaning for his life, So he immediately called in all his magicians, enchanters and sorcerers and wise men and demanded that they tell him what his dream had been. When they had come into his presence, the king said to them, I have had a terrifying and mystifying dream and my very soul is in great anxiety to know what it means. Then the kings wise men, speaking in the Aramaic language, which was the language of common discourse then, said to the king, O king, may you live forever: if you will tell your humble servants the details of your dream we will begin at once to use all our knowledge and mystic powers to discern the interpretation of your dream. But the king replied, You are supposed to know every hidden thing: the details of the dream are thoroughly and indelibly set in my mind and now I am testing your claims. If you do not tell me exactly both the details of the dream itself and the interpretation of the dream, I will have you literally cut to pieces and dismembered and your homes destroyed and publicly disgraced. But, if you tell me both the dream and its interpretation I will give you many wonderful gifts and honors. So, begin!
COMMENT
Dan. 2:1 . . . NEBUCHADNEZZAR DREAMED DREAMS; AND HIS SPIRIT WAS TROUBLED. . . . According to Babylonian reckoning, the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar would be the third year of Daniels training. First year of reign for a Babylonian emperor was called The Year of Accession; his first year of reign would really be his second year; and his second year of reign would really be his third year on the throne. Even at that, this very graphic dream, sent by God, occurred at a very early period of this heathen emperors reign.
Young seems to think the force of the plural should be translated Nebuchadnezzar was in a state in which a dream came to him. Leupold believes the king dreamed several dreams, one of which finally roused and disturbed him. Whatever the case, the significant dream was the one of the great image. And it was no ordinary dream, but one which Jehovah God sent directly to this pagan ruler. It was such an arresting dream he could not sleep for anxiety of spirit and soul, deeply troubled as to its meaning. The dream must have been so vivid as to seem to be actually happening right thenthe king was terrified.
Dan. 2:2-3 . . . THE KING . . . COMMANDED . . . THE CHALDEANS, TO TELL HIS DREAMS . . . Four classes of dream interpreters or wise men are summoned to appear before the king. Leupold translates magicians as scholars; enchanters as astrologers. From other listings of such wise men in Daniel it does not seem any technical sense is intended here. The fourfold mention here is evidently designed to include all the classes of wise men and priests of Babylonian religion (see our Special Study on Babylonian Priesthood at the end of this chapter). Chaldeans constitute the most important group in the entire assembly. They seem to be regarded in their day as the very elite of Babylonian society, men in whose ranks the emperor himself appears to have been enrolled. A people by the name of Chaldean lived in southern Babylonia in the days of the early patriarchs (cf. Gen. 11:28). They were a warlike group who in the course of time caused the Assyrians much trouble and finally overcame them in the person of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzars father. These Chaldeans of Daniels time were, therefore, probably men of great learning who could trace their ancestry back to families of the original conquerors of Babylon. They made themselves masters of that group of wise men who exercised the strongest influence in the political and religious affairs of the state.
The Babylonians, as did other ancients, put much stock in a philosophy that the movements of the stars and heavenly bodies determined the events of history and destinies of men on the earth. Astrology, the casting of horoscopes and other predictions based on observations of the stars was used to determine political, religious and moral meaning to mystical experiences such as dreams. Nebuchadnezzar undoubtedly had some strange, inexplicable foreboding concerning the dream that kept him awake.
Dan. 2:4 . . . TELL THY SERVANTS THE DREAM, AND WE WILL SHOW THE INTERPRETATION . . . Xenophon relates that the Babylonians spoke a form of Aramaic and it is not unlikely that this would be the language of common discourse. The covenant people of the exile returned to their homeland speaking Aramaic which they learned in captivity. Just why the fact is deemed necessary to mention in Dan. 2:4 that the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian (Aramaic) language is unknown.
The Chaldeans made the only request they could, being finite creatures with no knowledge of the secrets of mens hearts unless they are told those secrets, There was no possibility of anyone telling the king what he had dreamed unless he tell them the dream or unless God, who knows all the secrets of mens minds, tell it, God did eventually tell it through Daniel. If the king had related the facts of his dream to the Chaldeans, they could have set about at once to compare the details with their astrological charts, cast their horoscopes, made their incantations, submitted the dream to their magic and have come up with an interpretation (which, by the way, would probably have been flattering to the kings ego and favorable to his whims of government and indulgence).
Dan. 2:5-6 . . . IF YE MAKE NOT KNOWN . . . THE DREAM AND THE INTERPRETATION . . . YE SHALL BE CUT IN PIECES . . . BUT IF YE SHOW THE DREAM AND THE INTERPRETATION, YE SHALL RECEIVE . . . GIFTS . . . REWARDS . . . GREAT HONOR . . . Why did Nebuchadnezzar insist that the Chaldeans tell him the details of the actual dream as well as the interpretation? It is not because he had forgotten the dream. Our English translation is misleading here. Leupold, Young and many others agree that the proper rendering of the original here should read the matter has been fully determined by me. The king was sure and certain of the details of the dream itself. Now he was testing his wise men to see, in such a significant experience, if they really had access to the deepest and most completely hidden things. It may very well be that Nebuchadnezzar, deep within himself, knew that most of the religion of Babylon was mere superstition and not the truthhe must have been skeptical of a great part of it. There is a record of a king of Yemen, Rabia by name, who saw a vision and was terrified by it. He assembled all the priests and magicians and star-gazers of his kingdom and said to them, Verily, I have seen a vision and was frightened by it. Tell it to me and its interpretation. They said, Relate it to us, and we shall inform thee of its interpretation. So he replied, If I tell you it, I shall have no certainty as to what you tell me of its interpretation. Verily, no one knows the interpretation unless he knows it before I tell him (the dream). So, Nebuchadnezzar was putting his wise men to the test to determine once and for all if they could divine the secret things of men and nature or not.
The despotic nature of the punishment pronounced should the Chaldeans fail is in character for an Eastern monarch of that day. Assyrians and Persians were especially notorious for the barbarity of their punishments. Even today in Arabia cruel punishments for misdemeanors are meted out even to the severing of members of the body for certain crimes. These Chaldeans faced certain dismemberment since they had no power to tell Nebuchadnezzar his dream. They would be hacked to pieces and their homes razed. And as a final indignity the ruins of their homes would be made public toilets.
It is plain that God is active in this matter to demonstrate to Nebuchadnezzar, to Daniel, to all the heathen who will learn and to all the covenant people who will learn, that there is only One, True God, who knows the secrets of men and Jehovah is His Name; there is only one true prophet of God, Daniel is his name. God sent the dream; now He, through His prophet, will demonstrate that the interpretation His prophet places on the dream is true because His prophet will tell the king what he dreamed.
QUIZ
1.
How many years had Nebuchadnezzar actually been on the throne now?
2.
Who are the Chaldeans and where did they come from?
3.
Why did the Chaldeans speak to the king in Syriac (Aramaic)?
4.
Why did Nebuchadnezzar insist that they tell him his dream?
5.
How was God at work in this event in Nebuchadnezzars life?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
II.
(1) The second year.Nebuchadnezzar was proleptically spoken of as king of Babylon in Dan. 1:1, for his father did not die till after the battle of Carchemish. On the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, see Notes on 2Ki. 24:1.)
Dreams.Spoken of in Dan. 2:3 as a dream. The one dream consisted of several parts, and is therefore spoken of in the plural. For the effects of the dream upon the kings mind, comp. Gen. 41:8.
His sleep brake.i.e., his sleep finished. A similar use of the word occurs Dan. 6:18; Est. 6:1. The anxiety which the vision caused him prevented him from sleeping again. And no wonder. The battle of Carchemish, which forced Egypt to retire within her ancient frontiers, had indeed made Nebuchadnezzar master of all the district east of the Euphrates; but there was a growing power northward of him, the Median, which he may have dreaded, though at this time he was on good terms with it, and this may have increased his alarm, and led him to feel some presentiment of evil.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM OF THE DECLINE OF ALL WORLD-KINGDOMS.
1. In the second year See note Dan 1:1. “By the most natural way of counting, the three years were the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, his first year, and his second year, precisely as our Saviour’s three days in the grave were Friday, Saturday, and Sunday” (Trumbull). Many scholars by a slight change of the text read “twelfth” instead of “second.”
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams Dreams had a great influence on the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, as their inscriptions prove. (See also note Dan 4:5-7.) The god of dreams, Makhir, is often referred to. The dreams recorded of various kings, and especially the Babylonian “Dream Books,” show that apparitions of animals were considered especially fateful the appearance of a lion, a jackal, a dog, a mountain goat, a stag, etc., each containing a supernatural portent for good or evil. (See Jastrow, Babylonian Religion, pp. 329-351, 402-404.) The records of Assurbanipal, for example, are rich in such omens. The deity appears in a dream to encourage the king; he sends him a message spoken to a priest in a vision and another written on the disk of the moon; he even, on one occasion, appears to Gyges, king of Lydia, the enemy of the king, and commands him to pay homage to his servant Assurbanipal, which command is at once obeyed. So Merodach is said to have appeared in dreams to Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, directing and guiding him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Chapter 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream And Its Consequences.
Nebuchadnezzar Dreams and Requires His Wise Men To Tell Him The Content of His Dream ( Dan 2:1-18
‘And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, and his spirit was troubled and his sleep broke from him.’
The reader thoughts immediately turn back to Dan 1:17. This could only be connected in some way with the expert in dreams.
The dreams were clearly vivid ones. Nebuchadnezzar was greatly disturbed and could no longer sleep. And the sense of unease continued on in the morning. He knew that the dreams had something very important to say to him, and he was desperate to know what it was. But as we shall see, he was not going to be satisfied with suave answers. He had had too much experience of interpreters of dreams to trust them. He wanted the truth, and these dreams were very important to him. The importance of dreams in the eyes of the ancient world cannot be over-exaggerated.
The plural ‘dreams’ probably means that he saw what followed as a succession of dreams, into which he slipped in and out, rather than as just one dream. Alternately it may mean that he dreamed the same dream two or three times over (the singular is used later).
This was ‘in the second year of his reign’. Taking in the accession year that meant that it was actually in the third year by Babylonian reckoning, by which time Daniel and his friends had graduated. As we saw earlier ‘three years’ simply meant part of a year (the end of the year of accession), then a year, (the first year of his reign), then part of a year, thus ending in the second year of his reign. Compare 2Ki 18:9-10, which cover the fourth to sixth years of Hezekiah; and the constant reference to ‘three days’ in Joshua 1-3 which clearly refer to differing time periods. (This also explains, something which is also confirmed by external usage among the Jews, why Jesus could be said to rise ‘on the third day’, and yet ‘after three days’. The same usage had continued).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The King Condemns His Wise Men for Failing to Recall His Dream In Dan 2:1-13 we have the opening setting of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Upon waking from his troublesome dream the king immediately consults all of his wise me for assistance in order to recall his dream. However, no one in his kingdom could do such a thing. These wise men then counsel the king that “there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” ( Dan 2:11 ) It is amazing how God sets up and divinely orchestrates a situation so that He gets the glory and His servants are rewarded. When Daniel does step forward to give the king a description of his dream with its interpretation, the king has already been convinced that only God could reveal it to man, for the wise men had told him that such a task was beyond man’s ability. Thus, the king immediately gives God the glory and rewards Daniel as well.
Dan 2:1
Dan 2:1 “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar” Comments – We know that young Daniel and his three friends were taken to Babylon in the third year of King Jehoiakim (605-604 B.C.).
Dan 1:1, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”
We are told in Jer 25:1 that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (604-603 B.C.).
Jer 25:1, “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon;”
In addition, we are told by Josephus that Nebuchadnezzar went out on his first expedition to conquer Egypt while his father was still reigning. While pursuing his enemies in western Asia his father died ( Antiquities 10.11.1). [71] Thus, the reference to the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar may not have been the second year of Daniel’s captivity, but a few years later.
[71] Josephus says, “Now when king Nebuchadnezzar had reigned forty-three years, he ended his life. He was an active man, and more fortunate than the kings that were before him. Now Berosus makes mention of his actions in the third book of his Chaldaic History, where he says thus: “When his father Nebuchodonosor [Nabopollassar] heard that the governor whom he had set over Egypt, and the places about Coelesyria and Phoenicia, had revolted from him, while he was not himself able any longer to undergo the hardships [of war], he committed to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was still but a youth, some parts of his army, and sent them against him. So when Nebuchadnezzar had given battle, and fought with the rebel, he beat him, and reduced the country from under his subjection, and made it a branch of his own kingdom; but about that time it happened that his father Nebuchodonosor [Nabopollassar] fell ill, and ended his life in the city Babylon, when he had reigned twenty-one years;” ( Antiquities 10.11.1)
Depending upon how a king’s reign is counted, Daniel had been in Babylon at least two years and perhaps three, having finished his three years of required training (Dan 1:5) when King Nebuchadnezzar had the dream that is recorded in chapter 2. The king had this dream around 603-602 B.C.
“Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him” – Comments Although Daniel interpreted one dream for King Nebuchadnezzar, the king had been receiving many troublesome dreams. Perhaps these dreams were the same, repeating themselves, dreams that left a deep impression upon the king when he awoke.
Dan 2:2 Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.
Dan 2:2
Dan 2:4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.
Dan 2:4
[72] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), 1963, 51.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Predestination: The Four Periods of the Times of the Gentiles and the Kingdom of Heaven ( Daniel Interprets King Nebuchadnezzar’s First Dream) (603-602 B.C) Dan 2:1-49 records the story of King Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel’s amazing divine recollection of the dream and his prophetic interpretation. This dream reveals four periods of the Times of the Gentiles predestined by God in His divine foreknowledge, and the fall of the fourth kingdom through the rising dominion of the Kingdom of God. The stone symbolizes the redemptive work of Christ Jesus in establishing the Kingdom of God upon earth during the Times of the Gentiles, which will ultimately bring the downfall of Gentile dominion upon earth and the sovereign reign of Christ Jesus at His Second Coming.
The passage in Dan 2:1-49 tells us about King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation of it. The first act of Daniel’s ministry to the Gentile kings is the interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. This event takes place early into Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as king over Babylon. It is interesting to note that a similar event occurred in the book of Genesis when Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream regarding future events. The Lord gives the king a dream in order to reveal to him the things that are coming to pass after him, for this was on the king’s mind as he lay in bed that night. However, God only gave him insight into the history of the Gentiles, and revealed nothing about the history of Israel and of the Messiah. The Lord would reveal more about God’s redemptive work among the Gentiles later in Daniel’s life through dreams and visions.
The events recorded in Dan 2:1-49
When Daniel divinely recalls and interprets King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, he operated in the gifts of the Spirit, that is, the gifts of revelation and of utterance (see 1Co 12:1-11). He operated in the gift of a word of knowledge by supernaturally recalling the details of the dream. He operated in the gift of prophecy by interpreting the dream. In Gen 41:25-36 we have the account of Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dream. Joseph operated in the gift of prophecy as he interpreted the dream. He operated in the gift of wisdom to explain what needed to be done as a result of the interpretation.
It is important to interpret the rest of the symbolism found in the book of Daniel within the context of the four phases of God’s plan of redemption for the Gentiles. For example, the four symbolic creatures revealed to Daniel in Dan 7:1-18, the ram and the goat in Dan 8:1-27, the 70-year fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy in Dan 9:1-27, and the lengthy prophecy of the battles between the king of the north and the king of the south (Daniel 11-12) should be interpreted in light of these four phases of redemptive Gentile history, understanding that the Second Coming of the Messiah would usher the world into a new era of history, bringing a close to the Times of the Gentiles. Thus, Dan 2:1-49 lays a foundation for the prophecies in the book of Daniel.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The King Condemns His Wise Men Dan 2:1-13
2. The Lord Gives Daniel the Interpretation Dan 2:14-30
3. Daniel Describes the King’s Dream Dan 2:31-35
4. Daniel Interprets the Dream Dan 2:36-45
5. The King Honors Daniel Dan 2:46-49
God Reveals His Time-line of Redemption to the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church We know from 1Co 10:32 that God’s plan of redemption for mankind involved three people-groups. He began with the Jews, then moved to the Gentiles and finally created the Church out of the Gentile nations.
1Co 10:32 Each of the groups of people plays an important role in man’s redemption. To each one of them has been revealed God’s time-line to work redemption through them. When I first began to study end-time prophecy I looked for a single passage of Scripture that gave me an outline, or structure of end-time prophecy. I did not find one comprehensive time-line, but rather, three separate time-lines, one for each people-group. Dan 2:1-49 God revealed this time-line to King Nebuchadnezzar because he was asking for an understanding of the future events that related to him and his kingdom ( Dan 2:29
Royal Dreams in Biblical and Extra-biblical Literature God spoke to men by dreams and visions throughout the Holy Scriptures. On a number of occasions, the Scriptures give the account of dreams He gave to kings for divine guidance, such as Abimelech (Gen 20:3-7), Pharaoh (Gen 41:1-8), Solomon (1Ki 3:5-15), and Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:1). While the Lord spoke directly to Abimelech and Solomon in a dream, He gave Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar symbolic dreams with a message that revealed the future of the kingdom. Accounts of such royal dreams are not limited to biblical literature. The Greek historian Herodotus (484-425 B.C.) records the symbolic dreams of Median and Persians rulers and how they sought wise men for the interpretation (1.107 8, 209 10; 3.30; 7.12 19).
Illustration – How often the Lord has given to me spiritual dreams while sleeping that give me understanding. If I do a lot of late night Bible study, I have the Lord speak to me more often in the night. King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in the night. Daniel explained to him that it was because the king had been meditating on what would take place in the future. God spoke to him in the night season to show him. Unfortunately, the king was too undisciplined to write down his dream, so he forgot the dream and needed the ministry of Daniel to recall his dream and to interpret it. Even Daniel had to sleep on it so that God would reveal it to him in a night vision (Dan 2:19). Daniel had to get into the presence of God in order to hear the voice of God. This is why Daniel told the king that he had been with God and this is why he had the revelation of the dream and its interpretation.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Daniel’s Ministry to Gentile Kings Daniel 1-6 contains the historical section of the book, while Daniel 7-12 is called the prophetic section. Chapters 2-6 emphasize Daniel’s ministry to the kings of Babylon and Media. In these passages he interprets two dreams and the writing on the wall for these Gentile kings. Note that the stories recorded in the first six chapters of the book of Daniel have been arranged in chronological order. In addition, chapters 3 and 6 tell of the persecutions that Daniel and his three Hebrew friends faced from the Gentiles, while chapters 2, 4 and 6 tell of Daniel’s ministry to these Gentile kings. But the underlying theme of each of these stories is the glorification of the God of Israel.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Dream of Nebuchadnezzar
v. 1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, v. 2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, v. 3. And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream, v. 4. Then spake the Chaldeans, v. 5. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me, v. 6. But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, v. 7. They answered again and said, v. 8. The king answered and said, I know of certainty, v. 9. But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you, v. 10. The Chaldeans answered before the king, v. 11. And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, v. 12. For this cause the king was angry and very furious and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon, v. 13. And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Dan 2:1-49
DANIEL FIRST BECOMES DISTINGUISHED.
Dan 2:1
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. The versions only differ verbally from the Massoretic text as represented by the above. The Septuagint renders “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he chanced to fall into dreams and visions, and to be troubled with his vision, and his sleep went from him.” The differences here that may evidence a difference of text are slight. Theodotion and the Peshitta are very close to the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders, “In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar saw a vision, and his spirit was troubled, and his vision (somnium) fled from him.” If this is the true text of the Vulgateand it is pre-Clementinethe variation seems too great for paraphrase, and yet it is an unlikely lectional variation. It is easier to imagine the change taking place in the Latin, somnus becoming somnium, especially if the final m was represented, as so often in Latin manuscripts, by a line over the preceding vowel. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This forms one of the chronological difficulties in the interpretation of Daniel. There seems to be a contradiction between the statement in this verse and the chronological data afforded us by the preceding chapter. If Nebuchadnezzar was already king when he placed Daniel and his three companions in the hands of “Ashpeuaz” and assigned them three years of study, then as the three years are by implication ended when the examination took place (Dan 1:18, Dan 1:19), the events narrated in this chapter must be dated not earlier than the third year of Nebuchadnezzar. Most commentators recognize this as a difficulty, the explaining of which is incumbent on them, whatever their views as to the date or authenticity of the book as a whole may be. A really great writerand that title cannot be denied to the author of “Daniel,” if the book be a fictioncould never fall into such a glaring self-contradiction. We do not deny that even very great writers have been guilty of chronological self-contradictions; but these contradictions were such as were not obvious. The only commentator who does not feel it incumbent on him, having noticed the difficulty, to give some hint of a possible solution, is Professor Bevan. From the obviousness of the discrepancy, we must assume that it was known to the writer, and from this we must further assume that the discrepancy was regarded by him as a merely apparent one, the explanation of which was so obvious at the time he wrote that it was needless to state it. In making this statement, we refer to the original documents from which our present Daniel was compiled. Another hypothesis certainly is possiblethat there is a false reading here. Ewald has suggested the twelfth year, which implies that the word (esreh) has been omitted. The main difficulty is that there is no sign that there is any difference of reading. If we are to correct the reading, we must go behind the present book to those documents from which it has been formed. If this portion of Daniel is a translation and a condensation of an Aramaic text, then (tar’teen) is “two,” but “three” would be (t’lath). When the loses from any cause.its upper part, it becomes little distinguishable from n; this renders it not impossible that in the original Aramaic narrative the events in this chapter were dated “the third year of Nebuchadnezzar,” not “the second.” This explanation does not apply to the older form of script as seen in Sindschirli or in Egypt. There have been various other ways of getting over the difficulty. One device, that of Josephus (‘Antiq.,’ 10.10. 3), maintained also by Jephet-ibn-Ali, is to date the reign from the conquest of Egypt, when Daniel is supposed to reckon that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign over the world. The conquest of Egypt, by means of certain recondite interpretations of Scripture, Jephet dates in the thirtieth year of Nebuchadnezzar; the date of this chapter, then, according to him, is the thirty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rashi explains this date by referring it to the destruction of the temple. There is, however, nothing to indicate that any of these dates was ever reckoned of importance in Babylonian chronology. And, however important the destruction of the temple was to the Jews, few of them, even at the latest date criticism assigns to Daniel, would have the hardihood to date a monarch’s reign from this. Another solution is that the second year is reckoned from the time when these Jewish captives stood before the king. This would have implied a different reading, but, as we have said, so far as this clause is concerned, there is no variation. Another suggestion may be made, viz. that this appearance of Daniel before the king is the same as that mentioned in the previous chapter (Dan 1:18-20). This is Wieseler’s hypothesis. As a reign was not reckoned from the date of accession, but from the beginning of the year following, Nebuchadnezzar’s second year might well be the third year of the training of those Hebrew captives. The occasion of their appearance before the king may not have been that he took thought on the mattera view which, though that of the Massoretic text, is not supported by the LXX.but may have been caused by this disquieting dream. On the supposition which we have suggested, that in Dan 1:1-21. we have a condensed version from an Aramaic original, this solution is plausible. The main difficulty, that the quiet communing implied in the nineteenth verse does not suit the fury of the king and the threatened death of the wise men, cannot be pressed, as the communing might follow the interpretation. It may seem to some better to maintain that the incidents of this chapter occurred some little time after Daniel and his three companions were admitted to the royal council. The band of captives and hostages, with the mass of the Babylonian army, arrived at Babylon, according to Berosus, some time after Nebuchadnezzar himself, who had hurried across the desert; still, a month would probably be the utmost of the difference. There might, therefore, be many months to run before the first year of Nebuchadnezzar actually began, when these captives were placed under the charge of the Melzar; so that if our suggestion of a various reading of “third” instead of “second” be accepted, the years would be over while the “third” year of Nebuchadnezzar was still proceeding. However, although many prisoners and hostages may have been sent along with the main army, after Nebuchadnezzar ]earned of the death of his father, many may have been sent earlier, and among these Daniel. The main difficulty is to imagine the orders of Nebuchadnezzar, while merely crown prince, being carried out with such exactness, or that he should be spoken of as “my lord the king” (Dan 1:10). But their training must have begun during the lifetime of Nabopolassar, if the three years were completed while the see(rod year of Nebuchadnezzar was still to finish. If we reject both these solutions, we are shut up to the idea that there is something amiss with the readingalways a thing to be deprecatedand the simplest emendation is to imagine that the “third” has been misread “second.” This, as we have shown, would be easy in Aramaic. On the assumption that the text before us is a translation and condensation of an Aramaic text, it is easy to understand how all derivative texts followed its initial mistake. There is a certain importance here due to the copula “and:” “And in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar.” When any cue attempts to read this verse in connection with the last verse of the first chapter, it at once becomes clear that the twenty-first verse of Dan 1:1-21. is an interpolation. It is probable that the condensation, which was likely to be considerable in the first chapter, becomes less so now, before passing from the one portion to the other; hence either the translator or some other added the note which is contained in Dan 1:21. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. The Greek versions and the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis omit the name “Nebuchadnezzar,” either as nominative or as genitive. The Peshitta follows the order of the Massoretic text. The omission does not alter the sense; possibly the proper names thus came in close juxtaposition in the Massoretic in consequence of an endeavour to condense by omission, without making any further change. It would seem that the LXX. had read (niq’ra) instead of (halam). The rendering is, “It happened () that the king fell into dreams and visions.” This awkward sentence seems to be the result of a difficulty and consequent slavish following of the text before the translator; it is difficult to imagine what the reading could be which could be translated as it is in the Septuagint, and vet was not totally unlike the Massoretic text. “Dreams and visions” is the evident result of a coalescence of two renderings of (halomoth). It is to be observed that it is “dreams” that Nebuchadnezzar had, and yet only one “dream” is spoken of. Kliefeth thinks this refers merely to the class, so that “dreamed dreams’ is equivalent to “was dreaming.” Agreeing with this is Havernick. Jephet-ibn-Ali take the plurality to refer to the contents of the dreamthat it refers to the four world kingdoms and that of Israel (so Kranichfe;d and Keil); for a similar use of plural for singular, he refers to Gen 37:8. Moses Stuart thinks that it is implied that the dream was repeated. It seems to be somewhat of a mannerism of Daniel to use plural for singular, as the “visions of the head” of Dan 4:1-37. Wherewith his spirit was troubled. The same phrase occurs in regard to Pharaoh (Gen 41:8), when he had dreamed of the seven kine and seven ears of corn. The similarity of the thing to be stated might easily lead to a similarity of statement, without there being any necessary copying. If, as we believe, this portion of Daniel had an Aramaic original, the resemblance in language to Genesis proves very little. In this case also the reading of the Septuagint is different. Instead of (ruho), “his spirit,” the translators must have had ; also instead of the feminine (tith’paem), the reading must have been (yith’paem). Though yod and tan are not readily confused, nun and tan in the older script are, and in Eastern Aramaic nun is the preformative of the third person imperfect, and a change may have been made in translating from the Aramaic. Professor Fuller, following Saadia, makes too much of the fact that, while in the present case the conjugation used is the hithpael, in Genesis it is niphal, since the niphal conjugation occurs in verse 3. Kranichfeld holds that the “hithpael heightens the idea lying in the niphal.” In Biblical Aramaic hithpael takes the place of the Hebrew niphal. And his sleep brake from him. While the meaning here is plain, the words are used in an unusual sense; the word here translated “brake from” is the passive of the verb “to be,” in this precise sense only used here. The fact that the substantive verb in Eastern Aramaic has this significance indicates that this is a case where the Syriac original shines through the translation. This is all the more obvious when we remember that in Eastern Aramaic (nun) was in the pre-formative. Analogous to this is the Latin use of the perfect of the substantive verb, e.g. funimus Troes; comp. Rom 6:17,” God be thanked that ye were () the servants of sin.” As we have said, the meaning of this verse is perfectly clear, and although there are differences of reading, there are none theft affect the sense. “In the second (or third) year of his reign, Nebuchaduezzar had a dream.” To us in the West, living in the nineteenth century after Christ, it seems puerile to date so carefully a dream, of all things; but in the East, six hundred years before Christ, dreams had a very different importance from what they have now. In the history of Asshur-baui-pal dreams play a great part. Gyges submits to him in consequence of a dream In consequence of a dream Urdamane (Nut-mi-ammon) invades Egypt. Again and again is Asshur-bald-pal encouraged by dreams which appear to seers. It is ignorance of this that makes Hitzig declare, “The character of the king as here represented to us has no verisimilitude.” Although Heredotus does make dreams prominent in his history, we could not imagine any of the diadochi recording and dating his dreams as does Asshur-bani-pal.
Dan 2:2
Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. The Septuagint renders, “And the king commended that the magicians, astrologers, and sorcerers of the Chaldeans be brought in to tell the king his dream. And they came and steed before the king.” The difference is slight verbally, but very important. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree closely with the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders mecashepheem, “sorcerers,” malefici, “evil workers.” Then the king commanded to call the magicians. The scene seems to stand out before usthe king, excited and sleepless, calling out to his attendants to summon to his presence all the wise men in the capital of his empire. The first that are named are the hartummeem. The name is derived by Gesenius from (heret), “a stylus,” and he supposes them to be sacred scribes. We find the word in Gen 41:24. Although the order may have existed among the Egyptians, the name given to them here and in Exodus may quite well have a Semitic origin. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show us how well the language of Assyria was known in Egypt. Hitzig is quite sure that Nebuchadnezzar “est Abbild des Pharao und zugleich Vorbild des Antiochus Epiphanes.” It is a way critics have; they are always quite sure. It may be observed that both the Greek versions have for this word , “those who use incantations.” The Peshitta has harasha, primarily “one who is silent,” then “one who mutters,” then “one who sings an incantation.” Paulus Tellensis has lehasha, “to whisper,” and then “to reheat a charm” or “incautation.” Jerome renders arioli,” foretellers.” While the Peshitta interprets hartummeem in Genesis by the same word as that used here, in the Septuagint the word in Genesis is instead of , and Jerome uses conjectores instead of, as we have seen, arioli In Exo 7:11 harturameem is translated in the Septuagint . Jerome renders ipsi, as if the word had not been in his text. if, then, the word hartummeem stood in the text of Daniel when the Greek versions were made, there was an uncertainty as to the meaning to be assigned to it in Egypt. The distinction between the two meanings drawn from the etymology of the word hartummeem, and that derived from the Greek equivalent, is not great. The religion of the Chaldeans was largely a system of incantations that were preserved primarily in the Accadiana tongue known only to the sacred scribes. Many of the formulae are translated into Assyriana language, by the time of Nebuchadnezzar, practically as much restricted to the scribes and learned class as the Accadian. Hence only a scribe could know the proper words to use in an incantation, only he could perpetuate and preserve them. It is difficult to know on what grouted the translators of the Authorized Version selected the word “magicians.” The Geneva Bible rendered it “enchanters,” which is adopted by the Revisers. Luther is further afield in tendering sternsehers. The name is Assyrian, and apparently derived from harutu, “a staff” (Norris, ‘Assyr. Dict.’). This staff was possibly used, as the staff of the Roman augur, to mark off the regions of the heavens, or, it may be, to ward off demons. And the astrologers. The Hebrew word used hero is ashshapheem. “In Assyrian the word asep or asipu is used in the sense of diviner. The word was actually borrowed by the Aramaic of Daniel under the form of ashshaph“. It is supposed to mean “one who uses enchantments.” It is not Hebrew, but really Syriac or Eastern Aramaic. In both Greek versions the equivalent is , which Jerome follows. The Peshitta reserves magoeha for the next term. The assertion that this word was really the Greek is now abandoned. The Greek never rendered by , which represented a sound not present in Greek at all. The fact that this non-Hellenic sound is doubled makes it utterly impossible that this word could be brought over from the Greek. It is impossible to assign to this word the precise shade of meaning which belongs to it. There is nothing to suggest “astrologers” in the root of the word. And the sorcerers. The Hebrew here is mekashshepheem. Dr. Robertson Smith, as quoted in Professor Bevan, suggests that the word is derived from , “to shred or cut to pieces,” hence “to prepare magical drugs.” This is in agreement with the Greek versions, which render . The verb, however, is a Syrian one, and means “to worship” (Act 4:31; Php 1:4). It occurs in the Hebrew of Exo 7:11 along with hartummeem; in Deu 18:10, in a verse forbidding to the Israelites the use of magical arts; in 2Ch 33:6, in an account of how Manasseh traversed that law. It may be noted that in this last verse the Peshitta renders Chaldea “Chaldeans.” Again we have to repeat the remark that we do not know the distinctions involved in these different names. And the Chaldeans. The Hebrew word here is (Kas’deem); both the form Kassatu and Kaldu occur in inscriptions. The meaning of this word has caused great discussion, and its use in this chapter for a class of magicians has been held as a strong proof that the writer of the book before us lived long after the time in which he places the events he narrates. The use of “Chaldean” for “magician,” “astrologer,” or “soothsayer” in classic times is well known. The difficulty here is that the name “Chaldean” is used for a particular and limited class in the nation, and at the same time for that nation as a whole. This is not necessarily impossible. In Scotland, although the inhabitants are all called Scots, there is also the clan whose surname is Scott, or, as it was earlier spelt, “Scot.” It would not show confusion or iguorance did a writer of the fifteenth century speak in one page of the Kers, the Hepburns, and the Scots (Scotts) as forming one army, and then in the next page proceed to speak of the whole army as the army of the Scots. His use of the name in the one case for the nation and the other for the clan, so far from showing an insufficient acquaintance with the constitution of Scotland, or the history of its affairs, really evidences the accuracy of the writer’s knowledge. We cannot conclude that the author therefore made a mistake in speakingif he does soof a class of the Babylonian magians being called Chaldeans because the nation bore the same name. We certainly have as yet found no trace of such a usage, but the argumentum e silentio is of strikingly little value in regard to Babylonher annals are so very incomplete. We retest bear in mind that the text of Daniel is in a very bad state: it has been subjected to various inter-polstions and alterations. It is, therefore, hazardous to rest any stress on single words. It is clear the writer knew perfectly well that the nation were called Chaldeans. According to the Massoretic text, Dan 5:30 asserts, “In that night was Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans slain;” according to the LXX. version of the same verse it is, “And the kingdom was taken from the Chaldeans and given to the Medea and Persians.” If we are sure the writer did make the Chaldeans also a class of magians, the probability is that he knew what he was talking about, and made no explanation because, as a contemporary, he took for granted everybody knew how this was. But is it absolutely certain that the writer of Daniel does make this asset-lion? It is true that in the Massoretic text the Kasdeem are represented as a class of magiaas coordinate with the hartummeem, ashshapheem, and mekashshepheem, but in the Septuagint we find the word in the genitive. Consequently, the sentence reads, “the magicians and the astrologers and the sorcerers of the Chaldeans.” If at the time the Massoretic recension was made the name “Chaldean” had gained its later significance of “soothsayer,” one can easily understand how natural it would be to insert the copulative before the preposition. The construction of the sentence in the text before the translator of the LXX. Version is certainly irregular, but not unexampled. It is not so easy to imagine the Septuagint translator changing the nominative plural into a genitive, especially when, by the time the translation was made, the osage we have spoken of above was in full force. We may assume, then, that in the original text of Daniel the “Kasdeem” were not spoken of, in this verse at all events, as a class of magicians. As the clause appears in the LXX; Nebuchadnezzar assembled all the magicians of his nationality, the Chaldeans as distinguished from the Babylonians. Perhaps he had more confidence in them. While the change we have suggested would make only the mekashshepheem connected with the Chaldeans, the grammatical structure of the verse has the aspect of a freer rendering than that in Theodotion’ hence it might quite well have been that the original Hebrew had the meaning represented by the Greek of the Septuagint. Lenormant sees in the four classes here an exact representation of the four classes of Babylonian soothsayers. We do not feel obliged to maintain that all the different classes should be called in on the occasion of this dream. We do not know precisely the characteristics that separated one class from the other, but it seems little likely that they all devoted themselves to the interpretation of dreams. There were other omens and portents that had to be explained. For to show the king his dreams. The natural sense is that represented by the Greek versions, “to tell the king his dream.” The usual reason for these officials being called was to declare to the king the interpretation of the dream; but here it was to declare the dream its. If. Yet if they could foretell the future, could they not much more easily tell what had happened? They professed to know what was coming; they couldso Nebuchadnezzar might arguereadily enough reason back from the future they knew to the sign of the future, the dream which had been given to him. So they came and stood before the king. We can imagine the long ranks of the principal classes of Chaldean soothsayers in Babylon hastening into the royal presence. All the soothsayers, we see, were not summoned, for Daniel and his friends were not, and they were not singular, else the writer would have given some reason for this omission. The writer assumes that his readers know so much about the habits of Bah;Ionian wise men and their schools, as to be aware that certain individuals might nominally be summoned to the court; and yet it might be some time before they were summoned on any critical occasion. The absence of the four Hebrews might be explained in two ways: either only the Chaldean magicians were in this case summoned, and, as Daniel and his friends were not Chaldeans, they were omitted; or they were not summoned he-cause their training was not yet complete.
Dan 2:3
And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. The Revised Version improves the English of the verse by putting the verb in the present, “My Spirit is troubled to know the dream.” The Septuagint Version has the appearance of a paraphrase, “And the king said to them, I have seen a dream, and my spirit is troubled, and I desire to understand the dream.” It is an unusual combination “to see a dream;” from its unusualness the reading of the Septuagint is to be preferred. In old Hebrew (l) and (z) are not unlike each other, nor are (m) and (y). Yet these two, letters are the only differences between halamti, “I have dreamed.” and hazithi. “I have seen.” The Peshitta has haloma hazith, which gives the same combination, and would indicate that here too the Aramaic original is shining through It is however, difficult to see how such a word as ahpatz. “I wish,” could drop out of the Massoretic. The must natural solution is that the translator added to complete the sense. Certainly a link is awanting as it stands in the ordinary interpretation of this verse. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic, while the Vulgate paraphrases the last clause, “And the king said to them. I have seen a dream, and confused in mind I have forgot what I saw.“ The king has been perturbed by the dream, and his perturbation leads him to wish to knew the dreamnot necessarily what the dream actually had been, but what it meant. Thus in Dan 1:17 Daniel had understanding “in all visions and dreams;” this meant that he knew the meaning of dreams and visit us. The other versions give us no assistance to explain this. Archdeacon Rose says, “The king here plainly intimates that, though the dream had troubled and perplexed him. he could not remember what it was.“ It does not appear to us quite so plain It is certainly not impossible to imagine that, while the king had been strongly affected by the dream, he might not remember distinctly what it was. If, however, he had no remembrance of the dream, and only the feeling of perturbation, any grandiose vision might have been brought before him, and he would not have been able to check it, or say that was not the dream he had had. If, again, he had some fragmentary remembrance, he naturally would have told what he remembered, in order that they might reconstruct his dream for him. Nebuchadnezzar’s great purpose is not merely to see again his dream, but really to test these soothsayers that promised so much. If they could with such certainty as they professed tell what was about to happen, surely it was no great demand that they should know this dream of his. The king seems merely to have made the general statement, and left the soothsayers to tell at once the dream and interpretation. There sits the king with troubled brow, and there stand before him the principal adepts at interpretation of dreams. Some have found it a difficulty that God should reveal the future to a heathen monarch. But in the parallel case of Pharaoh this occurred; certainly the future revealed to him was the immediate future of the, land he ruled, whereas the dream of Nebuchadnezzar extended in its revelation to the very end of time. Archdeacon Rose refers to Pilate’s wife and her mysterious dream at the trial of our Lord. The revelation as given to Nebuchadnezzar served a double purposeit gave emphasis to it when, not an obscure Hebrew scholar got the vision, but the great conqueror; further, it gave an occasion for bringing Daniel into prominence, and gave thus to trim and to his companions an opportunity of showing their fidelity to God. This gave an occasion for miracles, the effect of which was to strengthen the Jews in their faith.
Dan 2:4
Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. The versions do not imply any important difference Then the Chaldeans. This does not mean merely that cue class of soothsayersa class the existence of which is doubtfulnor that the whole baud of soothsayers bore the name “Chaldeans.” The name is simply the name of the nation, but is here used of this small portion of it that were soothsayers, in the same way as in Joh 9:22 “Jews,” the name of the nation, is used for the rulers: “For the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” Hence it is needless to speak of’ the Chaldeans being the principal class, and therefore “for the sake of breviloquence” (Moses Stuart) “put for the whole.” So also Kliefoth, “Because the Chaldeans were the first class, they alone are named.” The Chaldeans were not the inhabitants of Babylonia, but belonged to several cantons south and east of Babylon. Spake. The word yedabberu is usually followed by the verb amar in the infinitive. In Eze 40:4 we have the verb dibber used without arnar, to introduce the thing said. It is not improbable that in this instance Aramith, “in the Syriac tongue,” helped to the omission of amar. In the Syriack (Aramith). All scholars know now that there are two leading dialects of the Aramaean or Aramaicthe Eastern or Syriac, and the Western or Chaldee. The terms are very confusing; as Syria was certainly to the west of Chaldea, it seems strange that the usage should ever have sprung up to call the Western variety Chaldee, and the Eastern variety Syriac. The usage having been established, it has a certain convenience to be able to name all the Western, or, as they may be called, Palestinian dialects of Aramaic Chaldee, and all the Eastern varieties Syriac. While the English version uses the term “Syriac,” as the portion of Daniel which follows has come down to us, it is not written in Syriac, but in Chaldee. We shall, however, endeavour to show that this is due to changes introduced by transcribers. As to the word Aramith occurring here, there is great force in the view maintained by Lenormant, that it is to be regarded as a note to the reader, indicating that st this point the Hebrew ceases and the Aramaic begins. The reason of the change from one language to another has been already dealt with in considering the question of the structure of Daniel. In the mean time it is sufficient to say that our theory is that the Hebrew in the beginning of Daniel is due to the editor, who collected the scattered fly-leaves. In the first chapter and in the three opening verses of that before us, we have the results of translation and condensation. As the previous sacred books had been written in Hebrewthe prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, not to speak of other booksit was natural that the editor, especially if he were under the influence of Ezra, would desire to see a book that had so much of holy hope and aspiration about it, in the sacred language of the patriarchs and prophets. There would be probably a considerable mass of irregular material to be gone over before a connected account could be given of the early days of Daniel. These sources would be necessarily in the main Aramaic, and hence the translation and condensation. It was formerly one of the objections urged against Daniel that the author regarded Aramaic as the language spoken in Babylon. By this time the language engraved on the tablets had been discovered not to be any previously known toungue. It is now found that, although the inhabitants of Babylon used the cuneiform for inscriptions, the language of ordinary business and social intercourse was Aramaic. and had been for several centuries. Dr. Hugo Winckler says, in his ‘History of Babylonia and Assyria,’ p. 179, “Aramaic soon became the language of social intercourse (ungangsprache) in nearly the whole of Mesopotamia, and. expelled the Assyro-Babylonian, which continued only as a literary tongue (schriftsprache).“ Bronze weights have been found dating back to the Sargo-nids, with the weight marked on the one side in Aramaic, while on the other the titles of the king are given in Assyrian, When Sennacherib sent Rabshakeh to Jerusalem, Eliakim and Shebna wished the conversation to be carried on in Aramaic, implying that by this time Aramaic had become the ordinary language of diplomacy. The single Aramaic verse in Jeremiah (Jer 10:11) implies that the Jewish captives would be dwelling among a people who ordinarily spoke Aramaic. Some have deduced from the phrase, “then spake,” etc; that Aramaic was not the ordinary language of the speakersa deduction that would be plausible if it had not been that from this point till the end. of the seventh chapter the book is in Aramaic. Jephet-ibn-Ali thinks that Nebuchadnezzar had first addressed the wise men in some other language, and then betook him to Aramaic. O king, live for ever: tell thy servaats the dream, andl we will show the interpretation. The soothsayers address the king in terms of Oriental adulation. Similar phrases are found in despatches to Asshurbanipal. In the Septuagint Version the phrase is accommodated more to the Hellenic usage, and the king is addressed as . Their language implies that they expected to be told the dream, and then, having been told the dream, they would apply the rules of their art to it, and declare to the king the interpretation.
Dan 2:5
The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The version of the LXX. has slight but important differences from the Massoretic text. It is as follows “And the king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if therefore ye do not tell me the dream truly and show me the interpretation thereof, ye shall be made an example of, and your goods shall be escheat to the royal treasury.” Theodotion renders the last portion of the verse, “ye shall be destroyed ( ), and your houses shall be plundered ().“ The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic, but, like Theodotion, softens the last clause into “plundered.” The Vulgate retains the fierceness of the Massoretic, softened merely in phrase, not in meaning. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me. The first thing to be noticed is the difference of the Q’ri and the K’thib in the word “Chaldean;” it is written , according to the Syriac usage, not according to the Chaldee. As the Book of Daniel was copied and recopied many times, probably at least scores of’ times before, on the latest assignable critic d date of Daniel, the Massoretic text was fixed, and copied mainly by those whose language was Western not Eastern Aramaic. the occurrence of Syriac forms is more likely to be survivals from a Syriac original than insertions, either accidental or intentional. When the differences are so slight as those between Eastern and Western Aramaic, the tendency is to remove them rather than to accentuate them. The older interpretation of mill tha, “thing“ or “word,” was to take it as referring to the dreamthat it was the matter that had gone from him. This, however, depends to a large degree on the moaning to be attached to ozda. Is it to be regarded as equivalent to azla, as if it were derived from , “to go;” or is azda to be regarded as Persian azdu, “sure,” “diligent”? Delitzsch suggests azanda. “known.” The two Greek versions render, , a phrase which may either be “the word has gone from me,” or “the matter has departed from me,” the latter being the more natural, from the meaning of . The Peshitta rendering is, “Sure is the word I have spoken.” The older commentators have mainly taken this sentence as asserting that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the dream; Calvin. however, does so only because he feels himself compelled to take verse 8 as meaning this; while Jephet-ibn-Ali and others assume this to be the meaning of the phrase. Aben Ezra takes azda as meaning “firm” or sure. Berthohlt, among moderns, maintains that milletha is “the dream.” Most others assert the sentence to mean, “The word which has gone forth from me is sure;” this is also Professor Bevan’s interpretation. Hitzig’s view here is peculiar: he would translate, “For the matter is important to me.” This view does not suit verse 8. The lexicons differ in this. Winer first gives elapsus est, abiit, then adds, “unless rather it be derived from the Arabic (see Arabic word, atzad), ‘strong,’ or from the Rabbinic , robustus.“ Buxtorf does give the alleged Rabbinic use of the verb, but gives reference only to occurrence in the passage before us and verse 8, and renders abire. Gesenius renders, “to depart,” and quotes in support of this the Rabbinic formula, , “to go to one’s own opinion,” spoken of a rabbi who holds a view not shared by any other. At the same time, Gesenius gives a meaning to the clause as a whole which accords with that of most commentators, “The word has gone out from me.” Furst takes the word as meaning “firm,” “sure,” “unalterable.” He too quotes the Rabbinic formula, as if it confirmed his view, which really it does not. Castell gives (see Arabic word) as robur, but appends no reference. Brockelmann does not give it at all, nor does Levy. Had Castell given any reference, it might have been argued to be a survival of a Syriac word through transcription; but we must remain in doubt in this, all the more so that the Peshitta does not transfer the word, which it would naturally have done had the word been extant in Syriac in a.d. 100. This would make it probable that it is an old word. The fact that it is used in Talmudic only in a formula, and then in a sense unsuitable to the present passage, confirms the idea of its age. It had probably a technical meaning, denoting that a certain matter was irrevocable. The Persian derivation of the word is by no means certain, though supported by Schrader and Noehleke. It may have a Shemitic root. (azoz) Assyrian, “to be firm,” may be the Assyrian form of the word, which becomes in Syriac, and in status emphatieus. In Aramaic of Hebrew becomes , as (zabab) and (dehab), “gold.” The Assyrian use of sibilants is more akin to Hebrew than to Aramaic. Sa, “this,” is equivalent to (zeh), Schrader, ‘Keiln.,’ 586. If were transferred from Assyrian and put in the status emphaticus, is not an unlikely form for it to assume. Even grant the word to be Persian, it is far from proving, or even rendering it probable, that Daniel was composed in the days of the Maccabees. There is no trace of Persian producing much effect on the language of the numerous peoples that were subject to the Persian empire. There is no sign that the word was known in Palestine during the time when the Targums were becoming fixed. In Alexandria, where the Septuagint version of Daniel was made, the meaning of the word was not known, and was thought to be equivalent to (azal). In Asia Minor, where Theodotion made his version, it was unknown. Jerome, who made his version, if not in Palestine, yet under Pales-tinian guidance, translates it also as equivalent to azal. The natural conclusion is that this book must have been composed not later than the Persian period, and not far from the centre of government. As we have already said, our interpretation agrees with that of Professor Bevan; we would render the phrase, “The word which has gone forth from me,” i.e; “is fixed.” The reason of the king’s refusal to tell the wise men his dream is that he cannot do it, net because he has forgotten it, but because he has already announced that he wishes these soothsayers to prove their ability to give the interpretation of the dream by telling him what the dream was which he had had. He has committed himself to that course; he is a king, and he may not change, If ye will not make known to me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The king, unaccustomed to be opposed or refused anything, at once determines that it is not inability to tell him what he wishes to know that hinders the soothsayers, but unwillingness. Of course, the abruptness of the action, immediate sentence pronounced on their hesitating to satisfy his demand, seems improbable. We must, however, remember that we have the account given us in the utmost brevity. We have the substance of the dialogue between the king and his astrologers. It is put in dialogue form simply because the Shemitic tongues naturally lend themselves to this mode of presentation. The sentence, “ye shall be cut in pieces,” suggests some of the punishments inflicted by Asshurbanipal on those who rebelled against him. In the Aramaic the meaning literally is, “Ye shall be made pieces of.” This is considerably softened in both the Greek versions. In the LXX. the rendering is, , “Ye shall be made an example of.“ Theodotion renders, , “Ye shall be for destruction.” The Peshitta is stronger, if anything, from the succession of words, “Piece piece ye shall be cut.” The punishment certainly was horrible, but not more so than the punishment David inflicted on the murderers of Ishbosheth. Indeed, in European countries a century and a half ago punishments yet more revolting were frequent. The punishment for treason in our own country was as horrible as anything well could be. The sentence, however, went further than merely the individuals. And your houses shall be made a dunghill. In the ‘Records of the Past,’ 1:27, 43, are references to something like this. “houses reduced to heaps of rubbish.” That the houses thus made heaps of rubbish should therefore be made dunghills, is in perfect accordance with the manners at present holding in the East. The rendering of the Septuagint is very peculiar here, “And your goods shall be escheat to tire royal treasury ( ).” This cannot be due to any desire to soften the meaning, for in the first place, in Dan 7:1-28 :29, where the same phrase occurs in the Aramaic, it is paraphrased, but not really changed; it is rendered . But further, the meaning here is perfectly different from that in the Aramaic of the Masse,retie recension. Theodotion’s rendering is a softening of the Massoretic, “Your houses shall be () torn down;” but the Septuagint quite changes the meaning. If the translator had a slightly blurred copy before him, he might read instead of ; that is to say, instead of “a dunghill,” he read it as the third person plural pael of the verb (azal), “to go.“ When written in Sama-titan characters, or in old Phoenican characters, the last word would not be unlike , “to the king.” This is the only explanation of this variation that seems feasible, and it implies that the manuscript before the Septuagint translator was written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. The pre-formative , used as the sign of the third person, is the peculiarity of Eastern Aramaic. The translator must have bad this generally before him in his manuscript, or he never could have made this mistake. This is another indication that the Aramaic of Daniel was originally not Chaldee, but Syriac. We can imagine the striking scene: on the one wide the haughty young conqueror, blazing in indignation at the obstinate refusal, as he counts it, of his soothsayers and augurs to tell him his dream and the meaning of it; on the other, the crouching crowd of magicians, astrologers, and oneiromantists, dispirited and nonplussed. Brought up in an absolute faith in astrology and augury, the king never doubted their ability to tell him his dream; it could only be a treasonable desire to hinder him from taking the suitable steps to avoid whatever danger might be threatened by it, or to gain whatever advantage might be promised. They would not tell him the dream, because by their rules the interpretation would be fixed, and from that they could I not escape. The king will not and cannot reverse his word, and they cannot tell him what he desires, and so they stand facing each other.
Dan 2:6
But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. The Septuagint Version is “If ye will show me the dream, and tell me its interpretation, ye shall receive every sort () of gifts, and be honoured by me: show me the dream, and judge.” There are indications of differences in the text, which are considered below. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in its rendering of this verse. The Peshitta also manifests no serious difference. All these older versions render it doubtful whether nebizba was part of the original text. But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour. Ewald would conjoin with this verse the latter part of the verse preceding, with considerable justification. Like the latter part of the previous verse, it is to be taken as the summation of a long argument, in which threats anti promises would bear a large part, probably both heightening as they failed to produce tire effect required of making the soothsayers reproduce to Nebuchadnezzar his dream. Now the acme is reachedon the one hand, a death of torture and infamy is threatened; on the other band, in the verse before us, “gifts, rewards, and great honour.” The king is eager to have his dream interpreted, but he has taken his standbefore he will listen to the interpretation, they must afford him evidence that they can interpret correctly this dream, by reproducing it to him. One of the words here has been used by Berthohlt as evidence that the Book of Daniel originated in the days of the Maccabees, when Greek was largely spoken. The word translated “reward“ in our version is nebizba; this, it was argued by Bertholdt, is , m becoming ba not infrequent commutation. In support of this, if we take as meaning “coined money,” this would make a distinction between this word and matnan, the more ordinary word for “a gift.” Jephet-ibn-Ali translates in accordance with this meaning: “I will give you raiment and dinars,” he makes Nebuchadnezzar say. Yet this view is now abandoned by all critics, and however many alleged Greek words are found in Daniel, this is never now brought forward as one of them. Lexicographers are practically unanimous in rejecting this derivation. There are two other derivations, one making it a palpel form of the with a pre-formative which was Gesenius’s view in his ‘Thesaurus.’ He later abandoned this view, and maintained that it was connected with some Persian root. Winer maintains the former of these views, and Furst the latter. As a Persian word, it is supposed to prove the late date of Daniel. It does seem somewhat strange logic to argue, from the presence of Persian words in a document, that therefore it was written late in the Greek period. The prior question presents itselfIs the word Persian, Greek, or Aramaic, really a part of the original text of Daniel? In regard to this the Septuagint Version is of importance. Its rendering of this clause is, as we have seen, “But if ye shall show me the dream, and tell me the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive all manner of gifts, and shall be honoured by me.” This interpretation implies a different textthe word nebizba disappears from the text altogether, for no one would translate it ; evidently the translator had before him some combination of col, “all.” The combination matnan nebizba occurs in the Targum in Jer 40:5, therefore, had it been present, the translator would have been aware of its meaning. Theodotion renders it . If the phrase occurred elsewhere, there would easily be a motive to introduce the word nebizba, but there seems none to substitute for it another word altogether; certainly and are not unfrequently confounded, and a defective might be read as a . It would not be difficult to reproduce a Hebrew sentence, the rendering of which would require . This much is clearnebizba was not before the Septuagint translator. It is further to be observed that the Septuagint translator has had before him, not the noun yeqar, “honour,” but the verb in the passive or ethpael. These, however, are not all the points where the Septuagintal text must have differed from the text we have received from the Massoretes. The adjective sagi,” great,” occurs in the Authorized Version, but is not represented in the Septuagint. The order of the Greek words suggests a different order in the original Aramaic. Other things being equal, the strutter a reading, the more likely it is to be the original reading. It is clear that this advantage is with the Septuagint reading. If there were any likelihood of certain words being omitted from any probable cause as homoioteleuton, it would be different. On the other hand, the addition of a kind which is frequently seen, the more recent word nebizba is put alongside its more ancient equivalents. In the other case, the adjective sagi, “great,” is inserted, as frequently happens, with a view of heightening the effect. Another explanation may be suggested. We know the Aramaic docquets on the back of the contract tablets are written in a script resembling Phoenician characters. If the original manuscripts were written at the date assigned by tradition, then it would be written in this style of letter. In it we find that and were liable to be mistaken, as also and ; we should then have (minni), “from me,” as a possible reading which had been misread by some Palestinian scribe into (sagi), “great,” and the added to complete the word. The case is only a familiar case of doublets. When we have further , “from me,” the change of the preceding is thus in a sense necessitated. This may be regarded as an indication of age, as the square character had begun at least a century before Christ. This leaves but little time for modifications and blunders of penmanship between this and the critical date of Daniel. The latter clause of this verse shows us another variation between the Massoretic text and that lying behind the Septuagint. The Massoretic recension is well represented in the Authorized Version. Therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. The version of the Septuagint indicates a different reading, and has a different point, “Declare to me the dream, and judge.” According to the Massoretic reading, the king merely repeats his demands, the only reference to the preceding promises and threatenings being in the conjunction (lahen), “therefore.” Whereas the main reference of the clause, according to the Septuagint, is to the immediately preceding promises, “Show me the dream, and judge if I will do as I have said.” Another supposition possible is that there has been a transposition. In the very next verse (hevah) is represented by in that case it may mean “interpret,” the rendering then would be, “Show me the dream and interpret,” and represent some part of the verb , only there is the awkwardness of using the same word as equivalent to two different Aramaic words in contiguous verses. The difference is not of great importance; the king is eager to get the magicians to tell him his dream and its interpretation, but, having commenced the experiment as to their powers, he will not allow himself to be driven from it. Before leaving this verse, we must note the presence of certain signs of old date in the Aramaic of the passage. First, the word hen, “if,” is not used in the Targums; it is not in Levy’s Dictionary; neither Gesenius nor Furst gives any non-Biblical reference for the use of the word In the same way, its derivative (lahen), “therefore,” is equally peculiar to Biblical Aramaic. Particles are good notes of age, as they are less liable to change than nouns substantive.
Dan 2:7
They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it. The Septuagint Version here is, “And they answered the second time, saying, O king, tell the dream, and thy servants will judge of these things.” Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. The wise men are unable to satisfy the king’s demands. Ewald comments on the fact that none of them had the inventiveness to make up a dream, and tell the king that had been his dream. He admits himself that there might have been risk of the king discovering the deception, if no flash of reviving memory in his mind answered to their invention. On our hypothesis that the king had not forgotten his dream, but was testing their powers, it was not only in the highest degree hazardous, but it was certain of failure. They must have known the case to be as we imagine it, or, when they were sentenced to death, they would have run the hazard, on the plea, “If we perish, we perish.” There was a chance, though a faint one, of success in the attempt to palm off upon the king their own imaginings for his dream; there was a certainty of death if they did nothing. All they can do, however, is simply to repeat what they before said, “Tell us the dream, and we will find the interpretation of it.” Nebuchadnezzar has often been denounced as specially foolish and tyrannical on account of this demand which he made of the wise men; but tyrannical though he was, and foolish though he seems at times, looked at from our elevation, this demand of his is not an example either of his folly or his tyranny. These soothsayers enjoyed great honour and great revenues, on the assumption that they possessed certain powers of foreseeing the future. He demands of them, instead of an enigmatical statement of what was coming on the earth, that they tell him what he had dreamed. They professed to be able to discover thefts, and where stolen property was; they professed to point out men who were devising evil against another. If their claims were true, they could surely tell the king his dream. They were thus employed and honoured in order that they should foretell to the king any fortune, good or bad, impending himself or the natron. His dream presumably foretold the future; they affirmed that they knew the future; they surely might tell the king what prophecy was made to him in his dream. Believing in the reality of their powers with all the faith of a fanatic, their refusal could only mean to him treason. They did not tell him his dream, not because they could not, but because they would not, in order that the disasterfor such he would be sure the dream portendedmight not be averted by timely sacrifices. If the elaborate treatises on magic and divination which have come to us, so far as has been discovered, only in fragments, were complete, it is not impossible that we might be able to tell what interpretation these wise men would have put on the dream, had they been told it. It would be a curious exercise, for certainly Daniel’s interpretation would not be the result. We must return to the versions for a little, in one respect the Septuagint is closer to the Massoretic than Theodotion, by having , the participle, instead of . We direct attention to this, with a view to the phenomenon we find in the succeeding clause. The Septuagint rendering is given above. The most noticeable thing which the reader will find about this rendering is the change of person in the last clause. As it stands in the Massoretic text, it is certainly the first person plural Imperfect pael of ; but in Syriac the preformative was the sign of the third person in the imperfect, as well as of the first person plural; hence, if there were a little uncertainty as to the end of the word, it was an easy mistake to one who was reading from a manuscript in Eastern Aramaic, but an impossible one for a scribe translating from a manuscript written in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. It cannot be urged plausibly that the change might simply result from a free translation, for the slavish accuracy of the rest of the verse precludes that escape. As the reading of the Greek is confirmed by the version of Paulus Tel-lensis, the probability is slight of a various reading. This is another evidence that Daniel was originally written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. It may be observed that while in the Massoretic text the verb “tell” (y’emar) is put in the imperfect, in the Septuagint it is translated as it’ it were. imperative. The difference between the third person imperfect and the second person imperative is the presence, in the case of the former, of the preformative y (), which is absent in the other. That is a thing that might easily happen, that (yodh) might be dropped or inserted mistakenly; consequently, this affords no evidence that the Septuagint translator took liberties with his text. The question may be put, how tar these soothsayers knew they were impostors. Most likely they were unconscious of anything approaching imposition. We know the elaborate rules by which they determined the exact meaning of every sign and portent. We know how prone men are to supplement such rules by a native faculty for foreseeing what is likely to happen, and how, further, explanations may be devised to save the credit of these canons of interpretation, even when most hopelessly proved to be false by events. Archdeacon Rose appeals to modern spiritualists as examples in point, regarding both the Chaldean soothsayers and modern spiritualists as equally impostors. We feel inclined to regard them as so far alike in thisthat most of both classes imposed most on themselves. The presence of these false prophets is an evidence of the existence of the true prophets at some time, at all events; there would be no counterfeit coin were there no genuine money.
Dan 2:8
The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. The versions here do not differ in any essential point. The king now becomes certain of the treasonable purpose of the soothsayers. The word zeban means not so much “gain” as “purchase,” “barter.“ To the king the meaning of their obstinate refusal to submit to his requirements is that they know that some great advantage may be gained by the king, or some great disaster forefended, if he only knows the meaning of this dream, and that if the king does not submit to them and yield up his decree, and, putting his pride under his feet, tell them the dream, the time when its revelation may be taken advantage of may be passed. In these matters everything was supposed to depend on the thing to be done being done precisely at the right conjunction of the planets. His last utterance seems almost to rise to agony, “Because ye see the thing is fixed away from me!” We have the same word (azda) translated here, as in the fifth verse, “gone.” As we saw above, its real meaning is rather “fixed,” “settled,” “determined.” His decree had gone out, and he would notnay, so strongly had he willed at that it was as it’ he could notalter his decision. It has been regarded as bearing on this passage that St. Paul (Eph 5:16) uses the same word as that by which the Greek versions translate zeban, “redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” The meaning of the apostle is to some extent in contrast to that here. Believers are, as it were, to purchase the time from the evil days. Nebuchadnezzar thought the astrologers were, as it were, ira.suing by their delays to buy the auspicious moment for the kingdom from under his feet. It is a mistaken idea that he thought they merely wished to gain time. It would I seem, from what we read further of his treatment of Daniel’s request lot time, that, had they merely asked for time, Nebuchadnezzar would have granted their request. He had staked his faith in their ability to unfold any mystery on this one test, and they seemed to him obstinately to refuse to submit to it. To believe them unable to reveal the truth that he wished, would be to overturn all the fabric of his faith in the religion of his fathers; therefore, with all the strength of a strong man. and all the blind faith of a fanatic, he will not acknowledge the inability of the soothsayers to tell him his dream; it must be obstinacy, he thinks, that prevents the soothsayers telling him, and that obstinacy must have a sinister purpose. There is a clause in the Septuagint completing this verse, but it is not parallel with any clause in the Massoretic text: “Then just as I have ordered, thus shall it be.” This probably is an alternative rendering. Azda is taken in what is now regarded as its meaning”that which is fixed,” or “decreed,” in which case this final clause might be rendered, “What is fixed from me is a decree;” and of this the above-mentioned clause is a somewhat free rendering. This interpretation of the clause confirms our view of the situation.
Dan 2:9
But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you. The words translated (di hen) “but it'” liar, caused some difference, most translating as if the first word were not present. This is the rendering of the Septuagint. Theodotion and Jerome render the first word, which is really the relative, as “therefore,” ergo, “then,” . The Peshitta has den, the corresponding Syriac phrase, which has a similar sense to that assumed here. The rendering of the next clause, both in the Septuagint and in the version of Theodotion, differs considerably from the Massoretic text. The rendering of the Septuagint is as follows: “If ye do not truly tell me the dream, an,l show me the interpretation, ye shall die.” The version of Theodotion is shorter, “It, then, ye will not tell me the dream.” Theodotion thus omits the clause translated, “there is but one decree for you;” the only word that may be the remains of it is , , or simply the participle, The Syriac is, “If ye will not declare the dream to me, one is your plan and your word.” The text of the Septuagint in this case indicates that we have here additions from previous verses. The phrase, “and declare to me the interpretation,” is evidently supplied from Dan 2:5, whereas “ye shall die.” literally, “ye shall chance to (fall into) death,” has a different origin. This phrase has all the appearance of a translation. It would seem applicable on the idea that in the text before the Septuagint translator, instead of (dathcon), “your decree,” there stood (mothcon), “your death,” the (vav) being omitted, and possibly the preposition (be), and milah being read into some part of nephal, “to fall,” probably (tippelun). The omission of this clause, as above mentioned, from Theodotion renders it a little doubtful, as it indicates that in the text used by the Jews of Asia Minor this phrase was awanting. Most commentators take dath in the sense more common in Eastern than in Western Aramaic, of “pica” rather than “decree” Ewald and Professor Bevan oppose this view, as also Keil, the last with great positiveness. The facts that so many commentators give this meaning, and that certain Rabbinic authorities reterred to but not named by Jephet-ibn-Ali prove it to be no impossible translation. Hitzig, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Michaelis, and Moses Stuart are not quite despicable. The main reason against this view is that in Western Aramaic dath means “decree,” in Eastern Aramaic it means, according to Castell, scopus, meta, finis, voluntas. The only difficulty is that he gives no reference, and Brockel-mann gives only lex, which in this case it cannot be, though this is the only reference beside Hoffmann’s ‘Glossary.’ It might be an individual “decree,” but a “law” it cannot be. On the received renderings the succession is somewhat violent. “If ye will not tell me the dream, one is your decree,” can only be made consecutive by a violent jerk away back to the fifth verse. It seems more natural to take it as meaning, “Ye have agreed together to say one thing to me.” The accusation of conspiracy naturally followed from the king’s firm conviction that the soothsayers could tell, if they only would, what he required of them. If there began to dawn upon him any idea that their silence was due to inability to answer, it might well move him to redoubled anger that they had been guilty of imposture in claiming such lofty powers and being so highly paid and honoured for their exercise. The king’s mind had not yet abandoned the faith of his fathers in magic and divination. For ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. It’ the Septuagint is to be taken as our guide, the word shheethah is a doubtful addition to the Massoretic text It is, however, in the other later versions. According to the rendering of both the Greek versions, the meaning here is stronger than that which is expressed in the Authorized Version; hizdaminton really means “to conspire.” He will not admit the plea of inability to satisfy his demandsthe vague suspicion may be floating before his mindas, if he were to admit their inability to satisfy what he wished to learn, then, according to his logic, all their claims were false. Hence the accusation of “lying and corrupt words” would still stand, and have all the greater emphasis. Waiving the question of the authenticity of “corrupt,” the distinction between the two words “lying“ and “corrupt” seems to be in this: the first refers to the person addressedto Nebuchadnezzar,the words are untrue, they are liesas coming from the soothsayers they are “corrupt,” because they are symptomatic of a corrupt disposition, probably traitor, us. Till the time be changed. Theodotion renders here. “till the time be passed.” The Septuagint follows a similar reading to that in the Massoretic text. The Peshitta rendering is akin to that of Theodotion. While in all forms of magic and soothsaying, time was an element not to be neglected, it was doubly important in regard to astrology, and an hour or two changed the position of the moon in relation to the constellations. If something required to be clone in consequence of this dream, then most likely it would require to be done in a certain relation of the heavenly bodies to each other. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof. The Septuagint rendering is paraphrastic, “Now then, if ye tell me the thing which I saw in the night, I shall know that ye can also show the interpretation.” While we have called it a paraphrase as regards the Massoretic text, the rendering in the Septuagint may represent the Egyptian recension of the text of Daniel. The use of or “thing” suggests translation, and assumes millah or mill’tha, which has the same double suggestion of “word spoken” anti “thing spoken about.” If the Septuagint text were assumed here, we should have confirmation of our view that Nebuchadnezzar remembered his vision, but was determined to experiment on the soothsayers of his court. This view is certainly implied in the following clause. The first word of this clause is peculiar grammatically: (‘in’d’a) instead of (‘iyda) or (‘idda). This form of compensating for a dropped consonant by inserting (nun) instead of doubling occurs elsewhere in Biblical Aramaic (see verse 30). This is rare in Syriac, and in the Targums found only in those later, especially those of the Megilloth, which have affinities with the form of Aramaic seen in the Babylonian Talmud. This peculiarity is common in the Maudaitic dialect. It is thus a distinctively Eastern form of Aramaic that is indicated here. When we pass beyond the grammatical elements, we find that Nebuchadnezzar would take correct information as to what he had dreamed a guarantee of the correctness of the interpretation of the dream which the soothsayers might afterwards give him. His attitude was purely and truly scientific, as it is stated. In his own mind he was warped and confused by his overmastering belief in omens and auguries, in gods and demons, in magicians and astrologers. With this faith in his heart, his only explanation of the silence of these soothsayers was treason.
Dan 2:10
The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, astrologer, or Chaldean. It is to be noted, in the first place, that we have the same Syriac form of . This seems to us a survival from an earlier condition of the text, when the Syriac forms were predominant, if not universal, in it. Scribes accustomed to speak and write in Chaldee would naturally harmonize the text to the language they were accustomed to use. The word “saying” (“and said,” Authorized Version) is omitted from the. Septuagint, but it is found in all other versions: its omission in the Septuagint may have been due to errorthe Aramaic is not complete without it. (la- ‘itha), “there is not.” The ordinary Targumic and Talmudic usage is (layith), “is not.” one word. This full way of writing this negative form is an undeniable proof of antiquity. Neither Levy nor Castell gives any example of the full writing which is the regular practice in Biblical Aramaic. Merx, ‘Chrestomath. Targ.,’ 168, 225, also gives only . As a rule, the fuller a form is, the older it is. Earth; literally, dry groundthe same word as is used in the Targum of Genesis, “Let the dry land appear,” but not the usual word for “the world.” Theodotion, in accordance, translates ; the LXX. renders merely, . The Peshitta has (see word, ar‘a). The king‘s matter (mil-lath malea); literally, the king‘s word, which, consequently, Theodotion translates . The LXX renders, “to tell the king that which he has seen.” It is evident that he read millath, as it’ derived from melal, “to speak,” as lemallala. The rendering, “that which he has seen,” is due to reading (l) into (d); the verb heva was read heza, and then the change in meaning be. conies intelligible. Therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler. The mote natural interpretation of the Aramaic is, “There is no king great and powerful.” Some have regarded rab ushlat as a title of the King of Babylon, hut this does not seem to be borne out by inscriptions. The sense is rather that of the marginal rendering, “There is no king be he never so great and powerful.” Theodotion has this reading. The Septuagint renders, “no king and no ruler ( ),” reading (col) for (rab). The Peshitta follows the Massoretic closely here. In this connection, it may be observed, (shaleet) is not frequent in the Targums, but it occurs in the Peshitta. That asked such things. Kidnah, “like this.” This form of the demonstration, ending with (h), instead of , is regarded as older than the Targumic form. Theodotion inserts here. At any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean. The first thing that strikes the reader of the Aramaic, and for that matter the other versions, is the omission of one of the classes of soothsayersthat called “sorcerers” in our Authorized Version. We saw that, according to the Septuagint, the” Chaldeans” were not a separate college of augurs or soothsayers. When we look atlentively at the Aramaic, the reason of the presence of “Chaldeans” here, and the absence of “sorcerers” becomes probable. In the first place, is written without the , as singular. When so written, its resemblance to (mekashshaph) suggests the question whether there might not be, occupying this place, an Aramaic noun equivalent to ashshaph, which we see is really Assyrian, and, interpreting it we find mekashshaph put thus after ashshaph elsewhere, but omitted here. The solution of’ the omission of mekashshaph is the likeness the latter part of the word bears to Kusdt, especially in the script of Egypt, in which and were very like each other. These assembled wise men protest against the test to which the king would put them as essentially unfair. They had been trained to divine the future from dreams, but never to find out dreams by what they had learned from their airs the future would be; and in proof of this they urge that no king, however great, had made such a demand of any astrologer or soothsayer. Nay, they go further, and say that no man upon the earth is able to tell the king what he wishes. They endeavour to make the king see that what he asks is an impossibility.
Dan 2:11
And it is a rare thing that the king requireth. The Septuagint Version of this passage is, “The thing which thou requirest, O king, is hard and strange.” The last two words are most likely a case of doublettwo different renderings of the same Aramaic word, yakkrah. The primary meaning of this word is “heavy,” and by transference it becomes “difficult,” and then, “strange” or “rare.” There may have been a slight difference of reading to account for the sentence taking the vocative term it does. It may be due to reading instead of in the following clause. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text. and translates yakkrah, . The Peshitta does not differ here from the Massoretic text. The soothsayers still pursue their line of defence, which they had adopted in the preceding verse. The king cannot get the answer he demandshis demand is so difficult and strange. And there is none ether that can show it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. The Septuagint rendering (lifters somewhat, though slightly, from the Massoretic text: “And there is no one who will show these things to the king, unless some () angel, whose dwelling is not at all with flesh.” The omission of ahoran, “other,” gives some slight confirmation of the suggestion that , “strange” or “peculiar,” represents it. It is very characteristic of the time when the Septuagint translation was made, and of the opinions then current, that the, word (elohin), “gods,” should be rendered , “angels” By this time there was an avoidance of the use of the Divine name, and anything that suggested it; further, there was an avoidance of the names of heathen deities. The same feeling that makes the historian of the Book of Samuel represent (1Sa 29:6) Achish swearing by Jehovah rather than by his own gods, as would certainly be the case, makes the translator here represent the soothsayers referring to “angels.” The idea of angels of the nations, which we find later in this book, was generally adopted by the Jews in Egypt (as e.g. Deu 32:8, LXX.). A question has been raised here as to whether the statement, “whose dwelling is not with flesh,” is to be regarded as distinguishing all gods from human beings, or as distinguishing certain of the higher gods from the others. The first view is that of Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Bevan, and others; Professor Fuller and Von Lengerke and others maintain the latter opinion. There is one thing certainthat the soothsayers and interpreters of dreams and auguries believed, or, at all events, pretended they believed, themselves each under the guidance of a special genius or subordinate god. Such a god had his dwelling with fleshthat is to say, with humanity; but there were in their pantheon higher gods, whose dwelling was not with flesh. In some of the incantations and magical formulas which Lenormant has collected in his ‘La Magie,’ we find Selek-Moulou-ki coming to Ea his father for information as to the causes of disease, etc. Marduk is the Babylonian name for Selek-Moulou-ki, and Marduk was the great revealer; but by this his dwelling was with flesh. As we see, however, there were gods whose dwelling was not with flesh, who knew secrets hid even from Marduk. This excuse of the wise men is a preparation for Daniel’s claim to raveal the secret of the king by the power of a higher God than any that communicated with the Babylonian soothsayers. Hitzig regards this as an artistic device of the author. We regard it as the providential intervention of God himself, that raise heathen soothsayers should shelter themselves under an excuse that forced into clearer light the supremacy of Jehovah. It indicates a special knowledge of Babylonian worship thus to lay stress on this distinction between higher and lower gods.
Dan 2:12
For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. The Septuagint rendering differs little in sense from the above, but in words it does considerably, “Then the king, becoming gloomy and very grieved, commanded that they lead out ,all the wise men of Babylonia.” The main thing to be observed is the softening of the meaning in the hands of the Septuagint translator. This is so great as to suggest that he read instead of . The aphel of is not used in Chaldee, but is used in Syriac. Theodotion’s rendering is, “Then the king in anger and wrath commanded to destroy all the wise meal of Babylon.” The Syriac has a shade of difference, “Then was the king vehemently enraged, and in great fury commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.” It is evident that Theodotion read (benas), “was angry,” as if it were the preposition and the Syriac noun (has), “anger.” He also must have inserted the preposition before (qetzaph), “wrath;” in this he is followed by the Peshitta. The Septuagint is freer in its rendering in this verse, and one cannot argue anything from it. The probability seems to be that ; (nas) is used as a noun, and that the Targamic verb was formed from the mistake of a scribe dropping the preposition before (qetzaph). If we are correct in this, we have an additional evidence that the original languagge of Daniel was not Chaldee, but Syriac, or, at all events, Eastern Aramaic. As a grammatical note, we direct attention to the form , where the of the root has totally disappeared before the of the haphel, the equivalent in Biblical Aramaic of the Chaldee and Syriac aphel with its preformative . Professor Bevan says that this distinction is only a matter of orthography. Are we to deduce that Professor Bevan has a cockney disregard for h‘s? The writer now drops reference to special classes of wise men, and names them generally hakeemin. The king is unconvinced of the truth of these wise men (hakeemin), or rather he is convinced that they are traitors and deceivers. They are either concealing from him the knowledge they have, and are, therefore, traitors to him; or the gods have withdrawn from them, and therefore they must have been untrue to the gods. On both these grounds Nebuchadnezzar thinks them worthy of death. He at once issues the decree that all the wise men in the city of Babylon should be slain. If the LXX. reading of Dan 2:2 be correct, he had only summoned the Chaldean wise men. If all the wise men of Babylon were ordered to be slain, the punishment is extended beyond the offence. Possibly he argued, “If even my fellow-countrymen, the Chaldeans, are traitors, much more will the Babylonians be so.” So far as words go, it is doubtful whether this decree applies to the province of Babylonia, as the Septuagint translator thinks, or merely to those in the city. But cruel and furious as was the young conqueror, he was scarcely likely to order the wholesale massacre of those who, in Sippara and Borsippa, had neither refused to do what he wished, nor by implication called him an unreasonable tyrant, as had the wise men in Babylon.
Dan 2:13
And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain. As the Aramaic stands, it might be translated as does Professor Fuller, “And the decree went forth, and the wise men were being slain;” the of co-ordination maybe regarded as here used of Subordination. Further, the use of the participle for the preterite is not by any means uncommon in Daniel, certainly mainly in the principal clause, as in verse 5 of the present chapter. Noldeke, in his ‘Syriac Grammar,’ 278a, gives examples of the passive participle being used as here in the subordinate clause. The Septuagint is very condensed, but possibly drawn from a similar text, only such extreme condensation is unlike the translator elsewhere. It is possible that some part of the . (peqad), “to decree,” was used, perhaps the participle hithpael. It is possible that the verb qetal was in the infinitive. Theodotion renders, “And the decree went forth, and the wise men were slain.” This, though a possible translation, does not fit what we find represented to be the circumstances, as verse 24 seems to assume that the wise men were not yet destroyed. On the other hand, it would be hardly possible to imagine the king allowing these wise men who had refused to answer his question, to go out of his presence in safety and unbound. It would seem more natural to imagine that they were carried off to prison, and that all the soothsaying class were intended to be gathered together in prison, in order that the vengeance of the king might be more appallingly manifest. The sentence looks at first sight to us as too savage to be true, but just as savage proofs of vengeance were given by Asshurbanipal. And they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain. The Septuagint translation of this clause is somewhat paraphrastic, “And Daniel was sought for and all those with him in order to be put to death.” The want of an antecedent to fix the nominative of the verb probably led to the sentence assuming its present mould; but “all” seems to have no word to occasion it. Theodotion follows the Massoretic text closely; so also does the Peshitta. It is clear from this that Daniel and his companions had not been summoned into the royal presence when the question concerning the dream was put to the wise men. This would seem to contradict the statement of Dan 1:19, “Therefore stood they”to wit these Hebrew youths“before the king.” Their position was probably like those who had passed the examination for the Indian Civil Servicethey are accepted, but they have still a season of study, and then, after they go out to India, they occupy only subordinate situations at first. While permited to enter the ranks of the soothsayers and astrologers to the court, they were placed at first only in the lower grades, and would have to rise by degrees, and in ordinary circumstances a long time would elapse before they would be summoned into the immediate presence of the sovereign. On the reading of the LXX; Daniel and his friends would not, because they were Jews, and not Chaldeans. One has only to turn to the Talumdic tales to see how unlike this reasonable position is to the ordinary Jewish fictitious narrative. The Book of Daniel is not nearly prodigal enough in wonders to be a representative of the Jewish Midrash. It is further clear that the decree of the king went beyond those who had actually been in his council-chamber on that merest-able day. The idea of the king probably was that the treason which he had found in the heads of the various classes of Chaldean soothsayers would have permeated all the members. Babylonian and foreign, as well; therefore he orders them all to suffer a common fate. Wieseler’s hypothesis, that this event took place close to the end of the three years of study which had been assigned to these youths, would suit the statement of events which we find here; although it is not necessary, yet on this assumption, the succession of events as narrated in this chapter becomes perfectly natural.
Dan 2:14
Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon. The text here does not seem to have differed much from the Egyptian recension, the translation of which we have in the Septuagint Version. “Then Daniel spake with the counsel and knowledge which were his to Arioch the chief executioner [ , ‘chief butcher,’ used by Plutarch for ‘chief cook’] of the king, to whom it was appointed to lead out the wise men () of Babylonia.” The text before the Septuagint translators seems to have had (deeleh), “which to him,” equivalent to “which he had.” The LXX. text had instead of . Something may be said for this reading, as the of the succeeding word may have occasioned the disappearance of the , which might be regarded as a defectively written. Theodotion agrees perfectly with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is somewhat of a paraphrase in regard to the first clause, “Then Daniel pacified and consulted, and said to Arioch the chief of the king’s guard, who had gone out to slay the wise men of Babylon.” It would seem as if there had been some confusion of the words here, though the meaning is not far from that of the other version. The Vulgate Version differs, “Then Daniel asked about the law and sentence (sentientia) at Arioch, who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.” The slate of matters implied here reveals to us the fact that several links of the story are awanting. There seems to have been absolute secrecy as to what had taken place in the royal council-chamber, and how absolute had been the failure of the Chaldean wise men to satisfy the demands of the king. We could imagine the strange turmoil that this would have caused in the college of young cadets of the various guilds of soothsayers and augurs, had it been announced that these great heads of their various orders had failed. News may have come of the wrath of the king, and close behind the angry sentence of extirpation, passed not only on those who had been the immediate occasions of the king’s wrath, but on all the gull, is of wise men in Babylon. This must have filled those who belonged to the various guilds implicated, not only with terror, but with amazement. It was next brought to them that they, though only in the lower stages of these famous guilds, were doomed to a common destruction with the past masters of the craft. That this was allowed to reach these subalterns proves that popular opinion had not gone with the fiery edict of the king. Above all, Arioch, captain “of the guard””of the cut-throats,” as the Spanish translators have rendered it; “chief butcher,” as both Theodotion and the Septuagint render his titleacts as if he is not in favour of it. lie is compelled to do the king’s bidding; but he is evidently bent on going about the realtor in such a leisurely fashion that the great body of the condemned may escape. We may stay to notice that the name Arioch is a genuine Babylonian name, Eri Aku, “Servant of the moon-god.” Professor Bevan declares it is borrowed from Gen 14:1, as his title is from Gen 37:36. It is singular that when the author’s acquaintance with the earlier Scriptures was so full and accurate, he should drop into the blunders he is accused of. In Genesis the executioner does not execute anybody; in Daniel he is represented as engaged in organizing the massacre. Daniel seems not to have waited till the terrible band of guardsmen-executioners arrived at the college where he and his friends were living, he goes direct to the chief of the band. The fact that he is not cut down immediately on his approach seems to argue that even the common guardsmen shrank from the duty imposed on them. Their horror and shrinking were perfectly natural. Let us suppose a company in a regiment of Irish Roman Catholics ordered to shoot down their own priests, and we may have some idea of the feelings of these soldiers. These augurs and soothsayers, these astrologers and magicians, had been their counsellors; they had been their intercessors with their deities. If they were all slaughtered, would not the sheer blank in their own lives be immense? There would be no one now to tell them, however falsely, of the future: no one to tell them what to do to propitiate the gods. But more, the gods might well be supposed to be enraged by the slaughter of so many of their special servants, and might be expected to pour down vengeance on the whole nation as well as on the king who had commanded it, but most of all on those who, under whatever compulsion, raised their sacrilegious hands against the priests of the holy gods. It is even not improbable that, once the immediate paroxysm of his fury had passed, Nebuchadnezzar would be appalled at what he had himself ordered, and would connive at delay, in the hope that, though late, these wise men might come to reason and tell him what he wished. Daniel seems to find no difficulty in gaining access to the presence of Arioch. There are men who have a magnetic power over their fellows, and bend every one to their way, and still gain their affection. And Daniel seems pre-eminently to have been a man of this type. Personal good looks and suave manners had their own share, but something more was needed to carry a condemned man through the ranks of guards right into the presence of their chief. This is made all the more striking when we bear in mind that preparations were being made for the great massacre.
Dan 2:15
He answered and said to Arioch the king’s captain, Why is the decree so hasty from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. The opening clause in this verse is doubtful. In the Septuagint the verse is rendered, “And he asked him saying, Ruler, why is it decreed so bitterly by the king? And he showed him the warrant.” Theodotion is yet briefer, “Ruler of the king, why has so harsh a sentence come forth from the king? And he declared () to him his orders.” But briefest of all is the Peshitta. It begins at once without any address, “Why is this harsh decree from the king? And Arioch showed the matter (miltha) to Daniel.” As a rule, the shorter a reading is the better it is. Therefore we are inclined to prefer the Peshitta rendering. “Answered and said” is a formula that might easily be stuck in where anything of the kind seemed needed. Here it is not suitable, as Daniel is already said to have “answered Arioch with counsel and prudence.” The addition of the Septuagint is more reasonable, “He asked him saying, Ruler.” Theodotion feels some title is necessary, so he calls Arioch “ruler of the king.” It appears to us that the brief Peshitta represents the best text. Hasty repesents to some extent, though not fully, the clement of blame implied in the word mehahetzpah in greater degree than our English word would indicate. It means” rough,” “raging,” “shameless;” it might be too strong to say that “scandalous” represents Daniel’s meaning. Some commentators cannot imagine a man thus criticizing a royal decree to one of the court officials. Much, however, is permitted to a man speaking about a decree which has condemned him to death without his having an opportunity to defend himself It is possible that he might be able to use all the more freedom by seeing that Arioch had no favour for the business to which he was ordered. The Greek versions represent that Arioch showed the warrant, the king’s order for the execution. As that would not be considered an answer to Daniel’s question, on the one hand, so on the other, it would not be an occasion for the step Daniel immediately thereafter took. We think, on the whole, that the Massoretic reading amended here by the Peshitta is the better. As leader of the royal bodyguard, the place of Arioch would be beside Nebuchadnezzar, even in the council-chamber. He would thus be quite cognizant of everything that took place the demands of the king, the arguments of the wise men. All this scene he could portray for the information of Daniel. The mere exhibition of a warrant would tell nothing more than the fact that the action of Arioch was in obedience to orders.
Dan 2:16
Then Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretation. The version of Theodotion omits all mention of Daniel’s going into the palace, “And Daniel petitioned the king that he should give him time, and he would tell his interpretation to the king.” The rendering of the Peshitta agrees with this, “And Daniel petitioned the king for time, and he would show the interpretation to the king.” The version of the Septuagint is longer, “And Daniel went in quickly to the king, and petitioned that time should be given him from the king, and he would show all things to the king.” Jerome gives a rendering of the Massoretic text in Latin condensation. The question of reading here is of some importance in the light of the apparent contradiction implied in the twenty-fifth verse. There Arioch declares that he “had found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation”as if Nebuchadnezzar had never seen him before, whereas, if the Massoretic recension is correct, Nebuchadnezzar had seen Daniel but a little while before. According to the reading of Theodotion and the Peshitta, Daniel pet:tinned the king for time, but that petition does not imply necessarily that he was admitted into the king’s presence; the petition would pass through court officials, and reach the king in due course. We may note the ease with which he granted this request, and look upon it as confirmatory of our notion that the king, now that his rage had gone down, repented of his harsh decree, and was hoping against hope that the catastrophe would be averted. The only other explanation that would save the authenticity of both passages is that Daniel’s entrance into the palace and his petition to the king happened without Arioch being aware. The most natural explanation of Arioch’s conduct in post-poning the execution of the royal decree is that the postponement was during the interval the petition for time was being presented, but still not decided on. This seems not unlikely. Of course, it is always open to us to declare the verses from this to the twenty-fourth inclusive an interpolation; Daniel has suffered so much from this, that an additional case has no prima facie probability against it. Moreover, the prayer or hymn has strong resemblance to the prayer of Azarias, which is acknowledged to be an interpolation. Still, one ought to be slow to cut a knot in this way, unless there is some clear ground of suspicion. It may be observed also that the Massoretic text does not necessarily assert entrance into the palace or into the king’s presence. Certainly : (alal) means “entered,” and in the connection this would suggest the palace as the place entered, but it may have been the house of Arioch, though this is not likely. We have no means of knowing whether any others of those implicated in the sentence of the king petitioned also for time. Not impossibly they did. The king, who was so suspicious that the wise men wished to delay till the auspicious time was passed, is willing to grant time when it is asked. This is explicable on the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was anxious to be delivered from the horrible slaughter which his decree involved. Another thing to be observed is that in the Massoretic text, Theodotion, and the Peshitta, there is no word of the dream being told. Of course, this interpretation implied a knowledge of the dream also, but it would appear to be another evidence that the king was relenting, when a petition that omitted the crucial point of the question between him and the wise men should be granted without difficulty. We are not told the amount of time requested, the word used, (zeman), is, “a fixed time,” from , “to determine.” It occurs again frequently in Daniel, as in verse 21. It is generally of a fixed point of time, but sometimes, as Dan 7:12, their lives were prolonged for a season (). There being only one instance among the other passages where this word occurs, in which it means a space of time, we are inclined to think that here Daniel petitioned that a time be appointed him when he too should have an audience of the king in regard to the matter of the dream, as the other wise men had. There certainly is implied a space of time in this request. The space must have involved at least twenty-four hours, as the matter is revealed to Daniel in “a night vision.” It is unlikely it would be much longer, for fear the planetary collocation would changecertainly not more than a week. Tertullian (‘Adv. Psychicos,’ 7) says, “Daniel Deo fidens spatium tridui poslulat.“ We learn from what follows that Daniel acted tamely from his general faith in God, and was confident that God would not suffer his saints to be destroyed causelessly, it is noted by Calvin that Daniel
, “bowels,” “mercies,” is common enough in Biblical language; but the phrase, “to desire mercies,” is not found elsewhere in Scripture. It occurs in the later Targums, as Num 12:13, as a paraphrastic addition to the simple statement of Onkelos, that Moses prayed before the Lord; only in the case quoted, as generally, the order is not, as here, the object before the verba construction more frequent in Assyrian than in Aramaic, save in poetry. The phrase is elliptical; the ruling verb is omitted. One is tempted to wonder whether the word had not originally been , making it a case of the Babylonian or Eastern Aramaic, third person plural imperfect; then the preceding word would be , with the vav dropped as unnecessary, and the mere inserted to make the word a regular infinitive. Confirmatory of our view is Theodotion, whose rendering, , implies that he had a third person plural imperfect here. We do not maintain that it is necessary that he should have had such a reading, but there is at least a high probability that he had. The Peshitta reverses the order of the words, and omits the conjunction vav, and, inserting the relative, see character, d, as sign of subordination, proceeds, “that they entreat mercies from before God.” Here, also, the third person plural imperfect is used. From the greater freedom that Jerome allowed himself in his translation, and from the wide difference between the grammatical construction of a Latin and an Aramaic sentence, no stress can be laid on the fact that he too translates by the third plural imperfectut quaerrent misericordiam. The balance of probability is that here we have to do with one of those indications of the Eastern origin of the Aramaic of Daniel. There is an instance of doublet in the LXX. here in the case of the phrase, , “to seek succour.” Tertullian, in his reference to this passage, to which we have referred above (verse 16), adds to what we quoted above, cum sua fraternitate jejunat, and thus shows that, though differing somewhat from the Septuagint text as we have it, the African Latin Version agreed with it in inserting something about “fasting” here. The God of heaven. This is rendered by the Septuagint here, as generally, The probability here is that we have to do with no difference of reading, hut rather with an objection to applying to God a title used for heathen deities. The title has a peculiar significance in the lips of those who, as Daniel, were educated as astrologers, and taught by those who regarded the sun, the moon, and the various planets as deities. Daniel and his fellows might thus believe in astrology, but maintain that the God of heaven, their God, used heavenly bodies as messengers to proclaim to those who could read the writing, the things that were coming on the earth. They might thus even give a certain limited subordinate power to the deities of Babylon; these deities were the servants of the God of heaven, who was also the God of Israel. There may be a reference to Jer 10:11. The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. The God of Israel is called the God of heaven because he has made the heavens. This title is used beforein Gen 24:7, where Abraham uses it. It is characteristic of Biblical Aramaic, that the covenant title of God, “Jehovah,” is never used, Before we leave this, we would observe that the Peshitta inserts, see character, d, the sign of the genitive, before shemayyaa, whereas the text before us uses the older form of construct state in the word for “God.” Concerning this secret. A parallel passage illustrative of this is Amo 3:7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets; “also Deu 29:29, “Secret things belong unto the Lord our God.” Whatever was about to happen, Daniel and his friends knew it could only happen according to the purpose and plan of God. He, as he was the real actor, knew what he was about to do, and whatever revelation of that future had been given to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, it must have come from the God of heaven; therefore to him do Daniel and his friends make their entreaty. Professor Bevan declares (raz) to be a Persian word. Neither Winer, Furst, nor Gesenius recognizes it to be such. Granted that it is Persian, is it not a possible supposition that it is derived from the Aramaic; not that the Aramaic word is derived from the Persian? Even on the supposition that this word was derived from the Persian, this is not extraordinary, when we learn the intimate relationship between the Median court and the Babylonian. That Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. Does this mean that certain of the wise men had already perished? It seems almost necessary to maintain this from the meaning of (shear), “remnant.” It seems at first scarcely natural to take this word as meaning merely “the other,” yet the usage in Ezra is in accordance with this: Ezr 4:9, “Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest () of their companions.” A further question may be raisedDoes this prayer mean that the desire of Daniel and his friends was that, when the wise men of Babylon, under whose superintendence they had been taught, were slain, they should escape? Or does it mean that they prayed that “they with the wise men of Babylon should not be destroyed”? This wholly depends on the meaning to be attached to the word (im), “with.” As in English, this word admits of both meanings. As the word is common to Hebrew and Aramaic, we shall take our examples from Hebrew. Thus Gen 18:24, “That be far from thee, Lord, to slay the righteous with the wicked.” As example of the other use of the word, Gen 32:6, “Esau and four hundred men with him.” Usage thus permits us to regard this prayer as intercessory, that these Hebrew youths prayed not only to be preserved themselves, but also that all the other wise men who shared their condemnation should also be preserved. This is the first record of concerted prayer. Of course, in heathen worship there was the caricature of this concert of prayer in the united shouting of the priests, say, of Baal. This is the earliest instance of that practice that has received such a gracious promise from our Lord (Mat 18:19), “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” We would not maintain, even in appearance, that multitude adds to efficacy with God. But when two or three are gathered together, there is an infection of earnestness, a community of enthusiasm generated, that makes each individual fitter to receive the answer. Yet, again, the more that join in a petition, the more it must be raised out of the grovelling region of selfishness. A man who has a purely selfish desire rising in his heart cannot ask his fellows to join him in supplicating God to grant his request.
Dan 2:19
Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. The Septuagint adds that the secret was revealed “that very night ( ).“ This may be held to be implied in the Aramaic, but it is here explicitly stated. Further, the Septuagint speaks of the secret as “the, mystery of the king.” At the end of the clause the LXX. adds the word , “evidently.” All these alterations imply additions to the text made by the translator. Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome agree with the Massoretic text There has been considerable discussion as to whether this revelation was made to Daniel by a dream. Hitzig assumes that the night-vision to Daniel was a repetition of that which had appeared to Nebuchadnezzar, and then proceeds to brand this as a psychological impossibility. Keil, Kliefoth, Kraniehfeld, and Zckler all declare against the identification of a night-vision with a dream. Keil and Kliefoth say in the same words, “A vision of the night is simply a vision which any one receives during the night whilst he is awake.” And Kranichfeld says, “Of a dream of Daniel, in our present case there is not one word.” Zckler says, “Not a dream-vision, but an appearance (Gesicht) vision, which appeared during the night.” They maintain that, though all “dreams“ may be called “night-visions,” all “night-visions” are not “dreams.“ It would be difficult to prove that this is the usage of Scripture. It is quite true that the distinction between a dream and a vision is that in the former the subject is asleep, while in the latter he is awake. It may, however, be doubted whether this distinction is always maintained by the Hebrew and Aramaic writers, even in regard to “visions” and “dreams” generally; and it seems to us impossible to prove it in regard to “visions of the night” and “dreams.” In verse 28 of the chapter before us, there seems no doubt that Daniel uses these words as equivalent to each other; “Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these.” While we agree with Hitzig that the revelation was to Daniel in a dream, we do not admit the psychological impossibility, save only in the pedantic sense in which it is said that no two people, however close they may stand to each other, see the same rainbow Dreams are very generally the product of what the subject has experienced during his waking hours. Surely Hitzig never meant to assert that it was a psychological impossibility for two individuals to witness the same event. Certainly the improbability is very great that the sight of the same physical event should meet the eyes of two people in similar states of body, and produce on them precisely the some sort and degree of impression. That, however, is akin to the Hegelian pedantic statement, which asserts that we cannot go twice down the same street. Though it might even be admitted to be an impossibility in the only sense in which it can at all be admitted, yet still it is not self-contradictory. The self-contradictory is the only impossibility we can assert in the presence of the miraculous. Hitzig’s objection to this is really that it was a miracle, and all the parade of giving the statement a new face by calling it, not a miracle, but a psychological impossibility, is only throwing dust in the eyes of others, perhaps of himself. Ewald does not see any psychological impossibility, and declares that the author meant to represent this at all events. Up, then, before the mind of Daniel rose the gigantic statue of the monarch’s vision, and with the vision came also the divinely given certainty that this was what the king had seen. He needs, however, more than the vision: the interpretation of the vision is vouchsafed to him also. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. The LXX. rendering here joins the first clause of verse 20 to this, “Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven, and having cried aloud, said.” Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome agree with the Massoretic text. As we have said above, Daniel returned thanks to God for his great goodness to him and his friends. Our blessing God does not increase Divine felicity, but it expresses our sense of this felicity, and we recognize it all the more readily when, as in the case of these Jews, it is exhibited in making us partakers of it. Hence blessing God and giving God thanks become in such cases one and the mine thing.
Dan 2:20
And Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the Name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his. The Septuagint, having practically given the beginning of this verse as the end of verse19. omits it now: hence it renders, “Blessed be the Name of the great Lord for ever, because the wisdom and the greatness are his.” The fact that (minalma), “from eternity,” is not rendered in this version, and that the adjective “great” is added in its place, indicates a difference of reading. Probably there was a transposition of and and the omitted. Then would be regarded as status emphaticus of the adjective (allim) This is not likely to be a correct reading, as allim means “robust,”possessing the vigour of youth.” Theodotion differs somewhat more from the Massoretic text than is his custom, “And he said, Be the Name of God blessed from eternity to eternity, for (the) wisdom and (the) understanding are his.” This is shorter; the omission of the pleonastic formula, “answered and said,” has an appearance of genuineness that is impressive. It would seem as if Theodotion had (beenetha), “understanding,” instead of (geboorah), “might.” The Peshitta and the Vulgate do not differ from the Massoretic text. The first, word of the Hebrew text of this song of thanksgiving has an interest for us, as throwing light on the question of the original language, has the appearance of an infinitive, but it is the third person plural of the imperfect; is here the preformative of the third person singular and plural as in Eastern Aramaic as distinct from Western. This preformative is found occasionally in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, along with , the preformative we find regularly in Syriac. In Biblical Aramaic this pre-formative is found only with the substantive verb; the reason of this, however, we have considered in regard to the language. Suffice it that we regard this as an evidence that Daniel was originally written in Eastern Aramaic. Professor Bevan’s explanation, that the phenomenon is due to the likeness these parts of this verb have to the Divine Name, is of force to afford a reason why, in the midst of the general process of Occidentalizing the Aramaic, they shrank from applying it to this verb. That they had no scruple in writing it first hand, we find in the Targums; thus Onkelos, Gen 18:18, . We might refer to ether examples in the later Aramaic of the Talmud and other Rabbinic works. The Name of God. Later Judaism, to avoid using the sacred covenant name of God, was accustomed to use the “Name,” in this sense. This may be noted that throughout this whole book, “Jehovah” occurs only in Gen 9:1-29. This may be due to something of that reverence which has led the Jews for centuries to avoid pronouncing the sacred name, and to use instead, Adonai, “Lord.“ It is to be observed that all through Daniel the Septuagint has , the Greek equivalent for Jehovah, while Theodotion follows the Massoretic in having . For ever and ever. This is not an accurate translation, although it appears not only in the Authorized, but also in the Revised Version. The sound of the phrase impresses us with a sense of grandeur, perhaps due to the music with which it has been associated. When we think of the meaning we really give to the phrase, or of its actual grammatical sense, it only conveys to us the idea of unending future duration; it does not at all imply unbeginning duration. More correct is Luther’s “veto Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit.” The Greek of Theodotion conveys this also, . Jerome renders, “a saeculo et usque in saeculum.” The true rendering is, “from eternity to eternity.” It is quite true that the means primarily “an age,” as does also and saculum: it is also quite true that it is improbable that in ancient days man had definite ideas of eternity; even at the present time, when men strive after definiteness, they have no real conception of unending existence, still less of existence unbeginning. Still, it was used as having that meaning so far as men were able to apprehend it. As , it is used for “world.” For wisdom and might are his. Wisdom is the Divine quality of which they have had proof now, but “might” is united with it as really one in thought. The fact that the usual combination is “wisdom and understanding” (see Exo 31:3; Isa 11:2; Eze 28:4) has led the scribe, whose text Theodotion used, to replace “might” by “understanding.” He might feel himself confirmed in his emendation by the fact that, while God’s wisdom and, it might be said, his understanding were exhibited in thus revealing to Daniel the royal dream, there was no place for “might.” What was in the mind of Daniel and his friends was that they were in the hands of a great Monarch, who was practically omnipotent. They now make known their recognition of the glorious truth that not only does the wisdom of the wise belong to God, but also the might of the strong. Further, there is another thought here which is present in all Scripturethat wisdom and might are really two sides of one and the same thing; hence a truth is proved by a miracle, a work of power.
Dan 2:21
And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. In regard to this verse, Theodotion and the Septuagint only differ in this from the Massoretic text, that they omit the repetition of the word “kings.” The Peshitta has a different sense in the middle clause. “He maketh (Peshitta, ma’bed) kings and confirmeth (Peshitta, maqeem) kings” The Syriac translators have evidently read (mehadeh), “to remove,” as (mehabed), “to make” The utter want of contrast in this reading condemns it. In regard to the Aramaic of this passage, the carrying on of the preformative , the sign of the haphel conjugation, is a proof of the early date of the Aramaic. In later Aramaic, gives place to , and disappears after the other preformative as , not . Changeth times and seasons. Nebuchadnezzar was anxious lest the time in which he might make advantageous use of the information conveyed by the dream should pass away, and a new “time” be established. Not improbably Nebuchadnezzar, like most heathens, imagined that his gods were limited by some unseen power like the Greek Fate, and, however wishful they might be to be propitious to their worshippers only in certain collocations of the heavenly bodies could they carry out their wish. God, the God of heaven, the God of the despised Hebrews, he it was who arranged the times and the seasons, he made the sun to rise, he makes summer and winter, he leads out the host of the stars, alike the star of Nebo and the star of Marduk. The two words “time” and “season” are nearly synonymous. Perhaps the first is more indefinite than the other. Our own opinion is that the first has more the idea of space of time, and the latter more of point of time; but really they are almost synonymous. He removeth kings, and setteth up kings. In this there seems to be a special reference to the contents of the vision, which showed that in the time to come, not only kings but dynasties were to be set up and overthrown. The former clause regarded God as the God of nature. This looks u pen him as the God of providence, by whom “kings reign, and princes decree .justice.” He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understand-lag. This address to God goes further. Daniel sees in the faculties and mental acquirements of men the manifestation of God. It is the inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding. All the power man has of acquiring knowledge, all the faculty he has for using that knowledge aright, all come from God.
Dan 2:22
He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. The rendering of the Septuagint as it stands differs somewhat from the Massoretic text, “Revealing deep things and dark, and knowing the things which are in the darkness and the things which are in the light, and with him is a dwelling-place ().” There is doubt as to the exact force of this last word; the last element in it suggests “solution.” This meaning seems to have been given to it generally; for Paulus Tellensis renders it shari, which means a “solution,” but as it is derived from shera, which means “to dwell,” he retains the double meaning The reading of Kreysig is decidedly to be preferred, omitting (“the things which”) before “in the light,” and , “and,” after. The rendering then would be, “in light is with him the dwelling-place.” This rendering harmonizes the LXX. completely with the Massoretic. The other versions call for no remark. There is difference here between the Q’rl and K’thib. The Q’ri reads nehora, “light,” a Chaldee or Western Aramaic form; the K’thib again is, neheera, the Eastern Aramaic form. God is not only the God of nature, of providence, and of man, but also of revelation. He can make known to man what otherwise man could never know. He is the very Source of all light and enlightenment. We may compare this statement with that of Paul in 1Ti 6:16; he speaks of God as “dwelling in light which no man can approach unto.” It seems to us the words of the Old Testament song convey a loftier idea of God than does the Pauline statementperhaps it is even loftier than the cognate phrase of the Apostle John (1Jn 1:5), “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” We may compare, in regard to this whole verse, Psa 139:12, “The darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the tight are both alike to thee,” where neheera is used as in the passage before us. Daniel ascribes to Jehovah all the powers of all the gods of Babylon.
Dan 2:23
I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee; for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter. The Septuagint renders, “Thee, O Lord of my fathers, i thank and praise, because thou gavest wisdom and knowledge to me, and now thou hast revealed to me what I entreated, in order to show the king concerning these things.” There seems a slight difference of reading implied here. Theodotion and the Peshitta are practically at one with the Massoretic. Theodotion translates the relative as if it were “and,” not, as in our version, “for;” and the Peshitta repeats the first personal pronoun. Daniel now particularizes his reasons for praise and thanksgiving. He addresses God as the God of his fathers. He appeals to him as the covenant God of Israel, who had led their fathers through the wilderness. God revealed himself to Jacob at Bethel as “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac.” So to Moses at the burning bush he declared himself “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God. of Jacob.” On the other hand, when Jacob approached God in prayer, he addressed him as “the God of my father Abraham, and the God of my father Isaac.” God had shown kindness to his fathers: would he not also show kindness to their seed after them? Who hast given me wisdom and might. As Jacob in his prayer at Mahanaim (Gen 32:9) not only pleads with God as the God of his fathers, but also as the God who had blessed him with his guidance before, so Daniel now further addresses God who had bestowed upon him “wisdom and might.” When God has bestowed upon any one special faculties, he must presumably have a special work for him, ,rid it is therefore reasonable to plead with God to give an opportunity for the exercise of these special powers. Here it forms an occasion of thanksgiving. We are apt to forget that our powers, mental and physical, our possessions and acquirements, are gifts of God’s grace for which we owe thanks. The special reason for gratitude, however, followsGod has answered the prayer of his servants. Hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee. It is to be noted that Daniel attributes the answer not merely to his own prayer, but to the united prayer of his three friends as well. Their earnest desire had gone along with his own in calling down the Divine answer. Daniel, while giving thanks for the knowledge vouchsafed to him, recognizes the help his friends had afforded. For thou hast made known unto us the king‘s matter. Daniel assigns the reason here for his thanksgiving yet more definitely. God had made known to him what the king had required.
Dan 2:24
Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch. whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation. The differences in the versions from this are slight. The LXX.has instead of , as if reading instead of , an emendation due to the fact that the king had demanded from the wise men, not merely the interpretation, which, given the dream, they were willing enough to give, but the dream itself; only the more natural emendation would have been to have interpolated , (hel’ma), “dream,” be fore “interpretation.” Both the Septuagint and Theodotion omit the word representing the second “went.” It is to be observed that “went in” and “went” are different words in the original, as in the Peshitta Version. The verbs (alal) and (‘azal) have different ideas connected with them. The first means “to enter,” of a place with a preposition; the latter has the notion of simple going. If we can imagine the body-guard of the king quartered in some part of the huge palace, then Daniel “went in” first to the quarters of the guard, and then, having got a mission, “went” up to Arioch, who was probably endeavouring to occupy as much time as possible to delay the horrible exe cution, or perhaps escape the necessity altogether. It would seem as if Arioch had heard nothing of the petition which Daniel had presented to the king, and only knew that his delay had not been found fault with. It might seem by the introductory word “therefore” (kol-qebel-denah) that the hymn has been an interpolation. It is quite true that it would most naturally immediately follow verse 19. Yet we must bear in mind that the consecution of one part to another, which we have in our Western languages, is not so carefully observed in Eastern tongues. It may be doubted, more over, whether (kol-qebel-denah) has so much a logical , as a local or temporal significance. “‘Thereupon” would, perhaps, more correctly render this connective here. After he had finished offering up his praise and thanks to God, Daniel went to Arioch. As we have already said, it would seem that Arioch had a reluctance to set about the fulfilment of this horrible order, not that mere slaughter was a thing specially repugnant to himhe had taken part in too many campaigns for that to impress him much; but this was a massacre of the priests. All the reverence of his nature that during his lifetime had associated itself with those who had solemnly sacrificed before each campaign, and taken the auguries, protested against this sudden and wholesale massacre. He has determined to fritter away time, in order to give his master opportunity to bethink himself The mere political ill will that would be roused by such an attempt was formidable. We know that the Babylonian monarch Nabunahid really rather fell before the intrigines of the priests and augurs than before the arms of Cyrus. To him, thus waiting and procrastinating, comes Daniel. Although there is nothing said of it in the narrative, Daniel may have given him to understand that he hoped to be able to satisfy the demands of the king. The power Daniel had of gaining the favour and confidence of those with whom he came in contacts led to his being buoyed up by a certain hope in his procrastination, which would be strengthened by the fact that the fiery young king made no inquiry whether his order was being fulfilled. Still, it must have been with joy he saw Daniel appearing, and heard him say, “Destroy not the wise men of Babylon,” especially when followed by the request to be brought into the presence of the king; thus he knew that Daniel could answer the king’s question and tell him his dream, as well as the promised interpretation. If we take the Septuagint rendering as representing the original text, Daniel promised to tell the king “everything.”
Dan 2:25
Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. Save that the Septuagint has again instead of or , and Paulus Tellensis adds the adjective “wise” as a description of the man who had thus professed to satisfy the king, the versions agree with the Massoretic text. In regard to the Aramaic here, the use of the Eastern form of the haphel is to be notedhanel instead of hael. These are to be looked upon as archaisms or Orientalisms, that have survived modernizing efforts of the pre-Massoretic scribes. We have already remarked on this as an Eastern peculiarity which survives in the Mandaitic and in the Babylonian Talmud. The careful way in which the Septuagint renders the particular , , omitted in the other old versions save the Peshitta, ought to be noted as a sign of the extreme carefulness of the Septuagint translator, and a reason why we should regard divergences from the Massoretic as generally evidences of a different text. It has been remarked by Archdeacon Rose that Arioch claims too much when he asserts that he had “found Daniel.” This is not exactly met by Professor Fuller’s assertion that it was a mode of the court to ignore all “these captives,” with something of the contempt with which the European in India regards those whom he without qualification denotes as “niggers.” This, however, does not meet the case if the ordinary interpretation of the circumstances is right; then Nebuchadnezzar had not only seen Daniel in connection with this matter, but further, Arioch knew of it. The case of Abner and David before Saul, in 1Sa 17:35 should not be brought in in comparison with 1Sa 16:21, as the latter does not occur in the Septuagint. Unless there has been interpolation, the explanation seems to be that Arioch was not aware that Daniel had petitioned. It may be that Arioch wishes to disarm the king’s wrath by not saying anything of Daniel being one of “the wise men” against whom the king’s sentence had gone out; but it may also be regarded as a proof that Daniel and his companions had not yet passed out of the class of pupils into that of wise men. He says he is “of the sons of the captivity of Judah.” The haste with which Arioch brings Daniel into the king’s presence may be due to his own delight at having escaped a piece of employment he had no heart for. There may have been an element of anxietyhe had procrastinated, and the young king had made no inquiries; but it was not the custom of the conqueror to give orders and not to see that they were carried out, and disobedience to the orders of Nebuchadnezzar would mean instant death, possibly with torture. Every moment was fraught with danger, so Arioch’s hastening of Daniel may have been due to his own sense of relief at escape from an impending danger. But more, this haste would give the appearance of eager diligence, if not in slaughtering the wise men of Babylon, at least in searching for one who could make good to the king their lack of service toward him. His haste might be intended to give the look at once of eagerness and diligence. All the motives may have combined.
Dan 2:26
The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? The variations in the versions are here unimportant, save that the Septuagint interpolates “in the Chaldee tongue” before the Babylonian name of Daniel. It is also to be noted that here, as throughout, the Babylonian name of Daniel, in beth the Greek versions, appears as , the same form in which they give Belshazzar. When Daniel is brought in before the king, Nebuchadnezzar demands if he can fulfil his promise, and tell the dream as well as the interpretation. There is no indication that Nebuchadnezzar remembered anything of the youth who had done well in the examination held in his presence some months before. This certainly is confirmatory of Wieseler’s hypothesis. That the king should have forgotten, however, is nothing extraordinary, for the occasions of this kind would be many. Nebuchadnezzar, in the case of the young Hebrew, does not question his willingness to tell him what he wishes, but only his ability. With regard to the wise men, he believed, or professed to believe, in their ability to do what he wished, and reckoned their refusal to answer him as due to obstinacy or treason. It may be that he has moderated somewhat the rancour of his ire, and is willing to recognize their ignorance as to dreams and such light furniture of the mind as not militating against their claim to knowledge in other directions, only for his oath’s sake he must demand that the dream be told him by at least some one. It may be that there was a certain emphasis on the pronoun when Nebuchadnezzar demanded of Daniel, “Is there to thee the power to declare to me the dream which I have seen, and its interpretation?” Is there to thee, mere student of the sacred mysteries as thou art, alien as thou art, a hostage from a city whose king I overthrew easily? It certainly must have been strange to Nebuchadnezzar that what the soothsayers, astrologers, and magicians of the court, the highest, and reputed to be the most skilful of their respective guilds, could not do, this young Hebrew proclaimed himself able to perform. It may be observed that while in the narrative the author calls the prophet by his sacred name Daniel, “the Divine judge,” here in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar, the court name he had received is introduced. To his friends, to his fellow-countrymen, he is Daniel; but as a court official he is Belteshazzar, or perhaps Belshazzar. It may be that there is intended to be conveyed to us that not only was he introduced into the royal presence as Belshazzar, but that the king addressed him,” Belteshazzar (Belshazzar), art thou able?”
Dan 2:27
Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king. The differences between this and the Septuagint are but slight and unimportant. To render it literally, the LXX. is, “Daniel, having spoken out in the presence of the king, said, The mystery which the king saw is nut the showing of the wise men, the astrologers, the sorcerers, the magicians.” There seems to have been a confusion between (anah), “to answer,” and (tzenah), “to cry out;” the latter word is unsuitable in the present connection. The change from to is unlikely to have been the result of any mistake in the writing of the original. It may have been the Greek scribe who misread into . Theodotion and the Peshitta present no peculiarities worthy of notice. Jerome translates asbshaphim by magi, as usual, following the Peshitta. It is to be observed that here again we have a list of the different classes of soothsayers, and the class of Chaldeans is omitted, as also those marked as mecashphim in verse 2; instead, occupying the same place in the catalogue, is gazrn. This may have been the original word, as evidently the real meaning was not known either in Egypt or Asia Minor, as both the LXX. and Theodotion transfer the word. The Peshitta translates this word by asuphe, in reality the corresponding one to the second word in the Chaldee. This would seem to show that the word had disappeared from Eastern as well as Western Aramaic. It is derived from gezar, “to eat.” Behrmann (‘Das Buch Daniel’) derives it thus, and says that it refers to the fact that those who studied nativities divided the heavens into sectiones or segmenta. This was precisely what the “Chaldeans” of classic times did; hence it is quite a possible thing that Chaldeans was inserted in some Greek translations, and got into the Aramaic from the Greek. The word does not seem to be used for , astrologers” in the Talmud. The occasion of Daniel’s narrating the impotence of the other wise men in presence of the task set them by the king is that probably he recognized the accent of surprise in the king’s tone. As if he said, “Yes, it is perfectly true, what none of these wise men could do, I, a mere youth, undertake to do.” There is nothing of contempt for them in this, as is seen in the following verse. There may be a shade of rebuke implied to the king, who had demanded from men what they could not do. They had declared that only the gods could reveal this to the king. And what Daniel says is not in opposition to this, but confirmatory of it.
Dan 2:28
But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these. All the versions are at one with the Massoretic text to the beginning of the last clause, which begins a new sentence. This last clause is omitted in the Septuagint. The clause is pleonastic; therefore, seeing it is omitted by the Septuagint, we may consider it not genuine, but due to a case of doublet in the Aramaic copies. Some copies have the present clause here, without the opening clause of the next, and others without this, but having the opening clause of Dan 2:29. Then came a copyist, who, unable to settle which was the better reading, inserted both. There is a God in heaven. No nation in ancient times was so addicted to the study of the stars of heaven and to the future as were the Chaldeans. Here Daniel announces that the God of heaven, Jehovah, the God of oppressed Judah and conquered Jerusalem, was the God who ruled all the stars from which the Chaldeans derived the knowledge of the future they thought they had, and arranged for his own purposes all things that were coming upon the earth, and he could tell what no one on earth could do. And the reason of this he also makes plainGod had expressly sent the dream to Nebuchadnezzar in order that he might know what was to “be in the latter days.” He, Nebuchadnezzar, was the first of the great imperial powers who ruled after Israel ceased to be so much a nation as a faith. After the Babylonian Captivity Judaism became a Church over against a heathen state. Hence to him with whom this new state of things began was this message given. It has exercised many why this revelation of the future was made to this heathen monarch. Yet we must remember that, though made directly to him, through his obstinacy, it arrived at the Prophet Daniel, for whom it was meant. Yet again, no one can read the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar and fail to observe how deep and unfeigned was his piety according to his light. He worshipped Merodach, and if, in his ascriptions of praise, we were to place “Jehovah” instead of “Merodach,” these prayers and thanksgivings would appear almost as if borrowed from the Hebrew Psalter. God, who readeth the hearts of men, might well have seen such a heart in this conqueror that he might be honoured with a revelation. The phrase, “latter days,” had a special reference in Jewish prophetic language to the times of the Messiah (Isa 2:2); hence we may assume that this vision would stretch in its revelations on to the times of the kingdom which the Lord would set up. It is unscientific to press this as meaning the absolute last time, as does Hitzig. It is not the future generally, as Havernick. We must be led by the usage of prophetic literature. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed are these. This clause, as we have indicated, is probably one of two parallel readings. There is probably no distinction intended between “dream” and “visions of the head upon the bed.” This is really to be regarded as a case of parallelism, in which one portion of the verse was balanced by the other. What shade of difference there is, is between the dream as a totality and the portions of it as seen.
Dan 2:29
As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind m on thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. This verse is of somewhat suspicious authenticity, the renderings of the different versions show such a diversity of text. The Septuagint rendering is very brief, being merely a version of the last clause, “He that revealeth secrets () showed that which behoveth to be.” This has the appearance as if the translators here rendered the last word as an infinitive, taking as not the preformatvre of the third person future, but as the sign of the infinitive. It is not necessarily so, because it may be that is regarded as included in (lehave’). Theodotion is in closer agreement with the Massoretic, “O king, thy thoughts upon thy bed raised up what behoved to be after these things; and he that revealeth secrets hath made known to thee what behoveth to be.” The Peshitta renders slightly differently, Thou, O king, thy thoughts arose in thy heart on account of what should be in the latter days, and he that revealeth secrets made known to thee what shall be.” Even Jerome, who is usually pretty close to the Massoretic text, differs a little here. “Thou, O king, didst begin to think upon thy couch what would be after these things; and he who revealeth mysteries showeth thee what shall be.” Paulus Tellensis has broken away from the Septuagint, supplying the clause omitted, not improbably from Theodotion, “Thou, O king, when. thou layest upon thy couch, sawest all things which behoved to happen in the last days; and he who revealeth secrets hath showed to thee what behoved to be.” Altogether, with the exception of the last clause, which is evidenced by all the versions, we doubt the authenticity of this verse. However, the interpolation, if we have a case of it here, must have been of old date, as is indicated by the archaic form (an’tah), which becomes in the Q’ri (an’t). Whether an interpolation or part of the original text, the picture suggested is very natural. The young conqueror, who had already secured the whole of South-Western Asia to the river of Egypt, was occupying his thoughts in speculating what should come after him. He falls asleep, and the subject of his waking thoughts becomes the subject of his dreams.
Dan 2:30
But as for me, this secret was not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart. The Septuagint Version is simpler, “But as for me, not on account of any wisdom in me above all men is this mystery revealed, but in order that it should be shown to the king it is revealed to me what thou thoughtest in thy heart in knowledge.” The translator has read the preformative into . There is no reference to “those who shall show the interpretation.” The text before him may have omitted the plural termination; consequently, the huphal was supplied. Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome all agree pretty closely with the Massoretic text, but all make the verb translated “shows“ singular, not plural, as does the Massoretic. Of course, it may be that this was due to rendering the sense, not the words, of the original; but Theodotion especially is more prone in any difficulty to slavish adherence to his original. His rendering is, “But as for me, not for wisdom which is in me beyond all living is the mystery revealed, but that the interpretation be made known to the king in order that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.” The Pe-shitta renders the latter clauses thus: “But that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that thou mayest know what thou didst meditate on in thy heart.” Jerome, after rendering (raza, “secret“) sacramentum, proceeds,” Sed ut interpretatio regi manifesta fieret et cogitationes mentis tuae seires.“ The fact that the last word takes the Mandaitic form (tin’dae) instead of (tidda) indicates on the whole an Oriental origin. The use of the plural form, (yehodun), is wrongly rendered, “for their sakes who shall make known the interpretation.” The Revised Version is more accurate, “but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known;” and Luther translates, “Dass dem Konige die Deutung augezeiget warde.” The use of the plural for the indefinite occurs elsewhere (Wirier, 49). The position Daniel takes up is one which does not separate him from the other hakmeen of the court. He in effect says, “I am no wiser than the other sages who have been condemned to death, only the God of heaven can reveal what the king demands, and he has revealed it to me.“ The purpose of the revelation, “that thou mightest know the interpretation,” is fitted to soothe his pride. The humility of Daniel has been remarked in reference to this verse. He puts himself behind the impersonal form, “in order that people may show the king the interpretation.” The reason why the interpretation was shown to Nebuchadnezzar might be really to humble him, to show him that his empire, splendid as it was, was only one in a succession, and that the whole system of world-empires would be overthrown before a kingdom set up by the God of the Jews.
Dan 2:31
Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. The Greek versions do not require notice, as they do not imply any difference in reading from the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is shorter, “Thou, O king, wert seeing, and, lo! a great image of beauty exceeding excellent, and it stood before thee.” The opening clause of the next verse may be regarded as taking up the last clause of the verse before us. As to the Aramaic of the passage, it is to be observed that the s, me long form of the second person is used in Dan 2:29. The numeral (had) is used in this verse very much in the sense of the English indefinite article which is used to translate it in the English versions. It is represented in the Greek Version by . The particle (‘alu),” behold,” does not occur in the Targums; a cognate form occurs in Samaritan, hala. In Talmudic it occurs in a form like the Samaritan. This word occurs in Dan 7:1-28; varied by (‘aru), which is regarded as a phonetic variation. It may, however, be due to defective penmanship, having the top of the too faintly written. Its etymology is doubtful. No Assyrian root has been found from which it may be derived. The word for “image,” (tzelem), occurs in the Palmyrene inscriptions, as the regular term for a memorial statue. Hence, unless reason can be shown to the contrary, we could assume, even though there had been no more, that the figure was like a statue of a man. The word for this, (diccen), occurs only in Daniel; the corresponding word in Ezra is (dec). The n sound is one that so readily slips away, that its presence as a final letter is a sign that the form of a word possessing it is in an older stage than that without it; hence we would argue that as (dec) is older than (da) of the Targums, so (diccen) of Daniel is older than (dec). The word that is most interesting is (ziveh); it is rendered “brightness” in our version. It is recognized by Professor Bevan, on the authority of Delitzsch, as an Assyrio-Babylonian word, therefore affording an additional evidence of the Eastern origin of Daniel. Noldeke would derive it from the Persian zeb (quoted by Behrmann, but there is some mistake in his reference). This tendency to derive everything from the Persian is to be suspected. The long political connection between Babylon and the Aryan nations north and east of it might easily introduce words of such an origin into the writings of a Babylonian diplomat. Another derivation is from (zahah), but seems doubtful, as, although in Hebrew, there is no trace of such a verb in Aramaic. The only other word that merits note is (reve), “appearance.” Professor Bevan says it is the only appearance in Aramaic of a corresponding root to the Hebrew (ra’ah), “to see.“ Daniel, it will be seen, lays stress on the emotions which each feature excited, in order to recall, not only the dream, but something of the feelings with which Nebuchadnezzar had beheld it. With this dream of Nebuchadnezzar we might compare the dream of the seer of Asshurbanipal, given by Lenormant, “The seer (voyant) narrated to Asshurbanipal how the goddess Istar had stood before him seated in her chariot, surrounded by flame, with a bow in her hand”. It is unlikely that the colossal image was identified by Nebuchadnezzar with any one of the Babylonian gods; perhaps this was one of the elements of the terror excited by the vision, that he could not identify him. If he did make any identification, Daniel does not do anything to justify him in any such identification.
Dan 2:32, Dan 2:33
This image’s head was of fine gold, his breasts and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. The versions present no occasion of r,-mark, save that Theodotion has a doublet, , translating, “the hands, the breast, and the arms.” The word rendered “fine” is really “good” (, tab). Naturally, there have not been preserved to us any composite images of this kind; gold and silver would certainly soon have found their way to the melting-pot after the fall of the Babylonian empire, had such a statue been erected in Babylon. Brass and iron were too precious not to follow in the same road. Among the Greeks, as we know, there were what were called “chryselephantine” statues, partly gold and partly ivory. In the description given of the Temple of Belus, we see a succession something akin to that in the statue, but it may be doubted whether we may deduce any connection between the two on that account. In the Book of Enoch the apocalyptist sees mountains of different kinds of metalof gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, and mercury, the first four coinciding with the metals in Daniel’s vision. Ewald refers in a note to the possibility that this idea might be borrowed from Hesiod, but rightly dismisses it as improbable. As to the metals used, gold and silver were well known in ancient times, as also iron, though, from the difficulty of working it, later. What is here translated “brass” ought to be rendered “copper;” “bronze” certainly was known very early, but the whole use of the word, (Aramaic), or (Hebrew), implies that it is a simple metal; thus Deu 8:9, “Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass” (Hebrew, ; Onkelos, ). In this statue the progressive degradation of the material and situation is to be observed. The head, the highest part, gold; the shoulders, lower, silver; the belly and thighs, lower still, brass; the legs, lower yet, iron; and the feet and toes, lowest of all, a mixture of iron and clay. It is observed by Kliefoth that there is further a growing division. The head is one, without any appearance of division; the portion consisting of the breast and arms is divided, though slightly, for the chest is more important and bulky than the arms; the belly and thighs form a portion which from the plural form given to the word translated “belly,” (moh), suggests more of dividedness than does that above. The lowest portion, that forming the legs and toes, has the greatest amount of division. Kliefoth also refers to another pointthat while there is a progressive degradation of the metal, there is also progression in degrees of hardness, silver being harder than gold, copper harder than silver, and iron hardest of all; then suddenly the iron is mingled with clay. There is not a new, softer material added to form a new fifth part; but there is a mingling of “clay “clay suitable for the potter, or rather that has already been baked in the kiln, and therefore in the last degree brittle. In fact, there is a progress in frangibilitygold the most ductile of metals, and iron the least so, then clay, when baked, more brittle still. There are many other successions that might be followed, which are at least ingenious. The idea suggested by the phrase, “part of iron and part of clay,” is that there was not a complete mingling, but that portions were seen that were clearly clay, and other portions as clearly still iron; there was therefore the superadded notion of the imperfect union of the parts with the necessary additional weakness which follows.
Dan 2:34
Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Practically, the versions are at one with the Massoretic text in regard to this verse, save that the two Greek versions add, , “out of the mountain” Concerning the Chaldee text, we would remark that in the dual form (biydayin), the dual has disappeared in the Aramaic of the Targums. Thou sawest till implies some time of contemplation and wonder. The king saw this gigantic statue, not possessing the attributes of any of his national gods, and he looks on in his dream in wonder and awe. Till a stone cut out without hands. The Greek versions make an addition which seems necessary to the sense”out of the mountain.” This addition may certainly have been made from the later verse (Dan 2:45). The logical necessity, however, may have prompted this addition. On the other hand, the evidence of both the Greek versions agreeing in one addition ha. very considerable weight. It is not impossible that the word (mitturah), “from the mountain,” had dropped from the manuscripts used by the Massoretes. In favour of the Massoretic text is the fact that the Peshitta omits the word. On the other band, Jerome adds de monte. It may be noted, as at least a curiosity, that the Peshitta, instead of the (aben),” a stone,” gives kepha, from which Cephas, the name of the Apostle Peter, is derived. As the monarch gazes at the huge image, he sees behind the image a mountain towering above the image, huge as it is. From this mountain he sees a boulder detach itself, as if it were being cut with chisel and wedge, but no hands are risible. Once set loose from the mountain’s side, it came by bounds and leaps down the declivity, “and smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay.“ Every bound that the stone makes down the mountain is larger, and raises it higher and makes it strike the earth with more of force, till with a bound greater than any it had made before, it strikes the feet of the image, “which were of iron and clay” mingled, yet separateand at once they are broken in pieces: “utterly crushed” is the meaning of the word (duq). The Septuagint tendering is , “ground;” it occurs in Exo 32:20, of Moses grinding the golden calf to powder. Theodotion’s word is not a correct rendering of the word; it is , “beat into thin scales;” comp. Mat 21:1-46 :(42) 45 (“the stone which the builders rejected”), “on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” It is to be observed that this cutting of the stone out of the mountain took place after the fourth portion of the image was clearly visible. In the dream the catastrophe took place after the stone had been cut from the mountain and had bounded down its side. A similar chronological succession may be expected in the events foreshadowed.
Dan 2:35
Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors. The versions arc closer to the Massoretic than our Authorized Version, as they all give more prominence to (kahadah), “at once.” It is rendered “together.” The LXX. renders ; Theodotion, the Peshitta repeats the word; and Jerome renders pariter. Theedotion changes the order somewhat, for the sake of making it more symmetrical. The rendering of the LXX. is in some respects different from the natural sense of the Massoretic text, but not so much so as to require us to presume a radically different text: “Then the iron, and the clay, etc; became fragments, and they were smaller than the chaff of the threshing-floor.” We have this verse also in the Itala, preserved to us in Tertullian, but it does not differ from Jerome seriously. It would follow naturally enough if the mighty image were so smitten on its weak and fragile feet, that it would come crashing to the earth; but more happened than this. As the monarch looked, in falling, the various parts of the image, as they fell in a heap, became broken, nay, trituratedthey became as the dust or chaff of the summer threshing-floor. Summer is the dead time in the East; harvest is over by the end of June, and the threshing of corn then commences. All this huge statue was reduced to particles as small and light as the chaff that is beaten off the grain by the threshing instruments of those daysfeet of oxen or wheel of cart. Chaff is a favourite symbol for lightness and worthlessness. In the first psalm the wicked are compared to chaff; so in Psa 28:1-9. In Hosea, where he speaks (Hos 13:3) of Israel’s sins, he says, “Ephraim shall be like the chaff of the threshing-floor.” Isaiah (Isa 41:15, Isa 41:16) speaks of Jacob getting new threshing instruments to thresh the mountains, and make them small as chaff. It may be noted that the word here translated “chaff” only occurs here. The word does not appear in the Targums, instead of which is used (motz), the Hebrew word. In Syriac, again, in the Peshitta, it occurs frequently, as Psa 1:4 and Isa 40:15another sign, slight in itself, of the Eastern origin of the Book of Daniel. The fact that the word occurred in Daniel would have a tendency to preserve it if in use when Daniel was published, or introduce it if it were not. Yet, as we have said, it does not appear in the Targums. It does appear in Syriac, the language of a people who, as not Jews, would presumably not be familiar with Daniel. The word for “threshing-floor,” (iddrei), is also one that does not appear in the Targums, but it does appear in the Peshitta. Jensen suggests an Assyrian etymology, but Brockelmann marks this doubtful; Lagarde suggests a Persian etymology, also marked doubtful. Whichever etymology holds bears out the Eastern origin of the book. The Targums represent the older Aramaic of Palestine. If Daniel were a book originating in Palestine, the Persian words appearing in it might also be expected to appear in the Targums. And the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. The LXX. rendering is, “And the wind carried them away, so that there was nothing left of them, and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and smote the whole earth.” The first portion of this is a fairly correct rendering of our present Massoretic text. On the other hand, the latter clause implies that the translator had before him, or imagined he had, not , but ; not impossibly might be written without the silent a; thus, , as in the Peshitta. In that case the mistake might easily be made. Behrmann remarks on the vocalization of in this passage being the same as , but does not remark that it is written defectively in Syriac. The sense in the Massoretic text is much better than that implied in this reading. Theodotion’s rendering differs in the first clause of this portion of the present verse, “And the abundance () of wind carried it away, and place was not found for them: and the stone, when it had smitten () the image, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” The rendering “multitude” () is due to reading instead of . This form of the plural of the demonstrative pronoun is the commoner in Biblical Aramaic, but does not appear in the Targums nor the Peshitta. It is akin to the Mandaitic . Neither the Peshitta nor the Vulgate presents any peculiarities of rendering. All this mass that had formed the image, though it had been gold, silver, brass, and iron, yet was so ground downhad become reduced to particles so small, that the wind carried them away. So scattered were they that they collected in no special place, so that one could say, “This is the image.” The figure is still that of the threshing-floor; the wind, blowing on the grain that is lifted up before it, carries away the chaff, but, search as one may, the chaff, once blown away, cannot be found. A more remarkable thing now takes placethe stone that, bounding down the mountainside, had smitten the image on the feet, so that it fell and became as dust, now grows apace, overtopping the utmost height the image had attained, overtopping the mountain from which it had been cut. Not only did it grow in height, but, as it increased in height, its base broadened till the whole earth was filled with it. There seems to be a reference here to Isa 2:2, “The mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.“ As the monarch gazes in his dream, the change is completed, the huge image, with its glittering head and gleaming breast, its polished thighs and legs of iron, its unseemly feet that inspired terror by its very appearance, had utterly disappeared, and its place was occupied by a mountain, huge but peaceful, on which the flocks might browse and trees might grow. It may be noted, though not as of importance, that the material of the mountain is most akin with that of the weak clay of which the feet of the image were largely composed. Such, then, is the dream which Nebuchadnezzar had seen, and which the prophet now presented once more before him. We must, however, glance at the picture presented by the reading of the LXX. To the translator the picture evidently present was that of a stone descending from the mountain, and increasing in momentum as it descends; but this stone further increases in size, till before its tremendous strokes and rebounds the very solid earth quakes.
Dan 2:36
This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. The various versions agree closely with the Massoretic text. It is scarcely a variation when the Septuagint has , “to,” instead of , “before,” that is to say, instead of (qedam). Jerome must have read , (qadamak), “before thee,” as he renders coram te, rex; but that also is unimportant. Having finished telling Nebuchadnezzar his dream, Daniel now announces his intention of giving the interpretation. Commentators have noticed the fact that Daniel does not say, “I will give,” but “we.” The opinion of Professor Fuller is that Daniel here includes with himself his three companions; of Keil, Kranichfeld, Zckler, and Behrmann, that he identifies himself with all worshippers of Jehovah; Aben Ezra makes the plurality by making him refer to himself and the Divine wisdom; Jephet-ibn-Ali makes its force lie in contrast; Hitzig makes it really the pluralis excellintiae, and quotes in defence Gen 1:26 and Gen 11:7, where it is God himself that speaks. Had Daniel introduced the phrase, “thus saith the Lord,” this opinion might have been defended. It may be that Daniel fell back on the methods and ordinary mode of address for an astrologer before the King of Babylon (see verse 7). He does not wait for the king to acknowledge that this is the dream he had. Daniel at once pro-coeds with the interpretation.
Dan 2:37
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. The Septuagint renders the latter clause, “To thee the Lord of heaven gave the dominion, and the kingdom, and the might, anti the honor, and the glory in all the earth ( ).“ There appears here to be two cases of doublet; and are probably originally alternative renderings of malcutha, and and double renderings of yiqara. On this hypothesis there is only one Greek word for two Aramaic. We shall consider this later. Paulus Tellensis, in his translation of the Septuagint Version, draws the beginning of the next verse into connection with the final words of this verse as given here. The words, “in the whole earth,” is a transference from the next verse. The rendering of Theodotion is, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings, to whom the God of heaven gave a strong and mighty and honourable kingdom,” making thus hisna, toqpa, and yiqara adjectives of malcut a. But malcutha is feminine, and, if adjectives. hisna, etc; are masculine. The Peshitta differs from the Massoretic in leaving out one of the terms, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings; God most high (merma) a strong kingdom and glory has given to thee.” Of course, the same objection holds to some extent against this version as against that of Theodotion, but it is to be noted that there are not two words conveying the same idea of strength. As there was only one in the Septuagint, we are inclined to think that toqpi must have been an addition. Jerome’s rendering is, “Thou art a king of kings, and the God of heaven has given to thee the kingdom, and might, and dominion, and glory.” There seems to be a transposition here. The general scope of this verse and the next is given in Jer 27:5, Jer 27:6. There is certainly high honour given to Nebuchadnezzar in this address, but, at the same time, he is warned that all his glory is bestowed upon him by the God of heaven. It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar interpreted the words as referring to Merodach, the god whom he specially worshipped, or regarded the God of heaven as only another of the gods many and lords many which, as a polytheist, he acknowledged. The title of the Babylonian king was shar-sharani,” king of kings,” and sharru-rabbu, “great king.” Thus in this address the technical title is given him. The Babylonian monarchs assumed this from their Assyrian predecessors, as e.g. Asshurbanipal. From the Babylonians it was passed on to the Persian monarchs. In Eze 26:7 the prophet gives Nebuchadnezzar this title. As we find by the succeeding verse, the kingdom here is not mere royalty or kingship, but the special royalty of practically universal empire; that is to say, universal so far as the knowledge of the times went. Our rendering in the Authorized Version fails in accuracy, in not inserting the definite article, which is really implied in the sign of the status emphaticus. Luther makes the same mistake. Happily the Revisers have altered matters, and inserted “the,” as does Behrmann. The Greek Version and Peshitta are accurate in this. The word translated “power,” (his’na), is consonantly present in both dialects of more recent Aramaic.
Dan 2:38
And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and bath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. The Septuagint, if we take along with this verse the final clause of the preceding verse, has even more of that look of exaggeration which we can scarcely fail to be conscious of in the Massoretic, “In all the earth inhabited by men, and wild beasts, and birds of the heaven, and fish of the sea, be delivered (all things) into thy hand to rule over all” The addition to the realm of Nebuchadnezzar of the dwelling-place of the fish of the sea is readily observed. Theodotion has the same addition, “In every place where the sons of men dwell, he gave into thy hand beasts of the earth, birds of the air, fishes of the sea, and appointed thee lord of all.” One cannot but observe not only the presence of “the fishes,” but also the fact that only the lower animals are given into his power. It may be that here, as in the LXX; the object is to render with slavish exactness the originalunobservant of the fact that the construction was irregular. Behrmann thinks the author had before his mind (hashaltak), “has made thee ruler,” and then changed the construction. Something might be said for Moses Stuart’s view that should be translated” wherever,” it’ there were any similar construction to be found. The rendering of the Peshitta agrees with the sense of Moses Stuart, “Every place where the sons of men dwell, the bird of heaven, or the beast of the field, he hath given into thy band, and caused thee to rule over all of them.” The change of order is to be noted. The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic. The word for “dwelling” is an older form (dareen), instead of the more recent form, which is that read (dayreen). This copious insertion of the is an Eastern peculiarity. This assertion of Daniel must seem exaggerated to us, but we must remember the courtly form of address that was usual in Oriental courts, and that Nebuchadnezzar in all likelihood claimed this breadth of empire; so Daniel, in order to make way for the assertion he had already made of the king’s dependence on One higher, gives him everything he claims. The addition of the sea to his dominion, although in it Theodotion supports the LXX; is due to a mistaken idea of the point of Daniel’s statements. He adds, Thou art this head of gold. This is not, as Hitzig asserts, Nebuchadnezzar personally, but to him as the type of the Babylonianmonarch. This was but natural, as of the duration of this monarchy his independent reign extended to the half. Before his advent as “king’s son,” the Babylonian Empire had to endure the assault of Egypt, and had to struggle for existence against it. With his ado, at began its glory, with his disappearance began at once its decadence. Only under Nebuchadnezzar was Babylon really imperial. The short reigns of his successors are proofs of an insufficient hand upon the reins. With all the tyrannical moods to which be was subject, and all the wild whirlwinds of passion which were liable to carry him away, Nebuchadnezzar, as presented to us here, was a splendid manutterly unlike Epiphanes, we may remark in passing, with his low tastes and his cringing submission to Rome. His brilliance was that of Alcibiades; he had nothing of the dignity implied in the head of gold. Nebuchadnezzar had secured the love of this captive, as we see by the sorrow with which Daniel communicated to him his approaching madness. There is thus a reasonableness in making him, in especial, the head of gold.
Dan 2:39
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. None of the versions presents any difficulties, or gives occasion for any remark, save the Vulgate, which inserts argenteum, as if reading . The word used, “kingdom,” not “king,” shows, without possibility of reasonable dispute, that in identifying Nebuchadnezzar with the head of gold, the reference is not to him per-serially, but to him as representing his dynasty. The next dynasty is said to be inferior, that is to say, nearer the ground (ara), which is certainly true of the shoulders in relation to the head. Not only does the inferior metal imply inferiority, but the inferior position dues so also. The metal is omitted here, but stated in the next clause, Another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. The metal is here referred to, but not the position; there is no need to say it is inferiorthat is implied when it is said to be a kingdom of brass. We need only refer to what we have said above, as to the fact that “brass” here really means “copper.” As the inferiority stated in the first clause is omitted in the second, so the statement made at the end, which grammatically applies only to the third kingdom, applies also to the second. It is only as, in a sense, bearing rule over the whole earth, that any monarchy comes into this statue at all. When we look at these two, we find certainly the two arms suggesting and rendering emphatic a twofoldness of some sort in this power. The fact that, in the description of the statue, the word translated “belly” () is plural, suggests, along with the two thighs, the idea of four-foldness. Faintly is this suggestion made, but the exigencies of the figure must be considered.
Dan 2:40
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. The version of the LXX. differs considerably here, “The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, as iron which subdueth all things, even as iron cutteth down every tree.” It is evident that the translator has read (‘illan), “a tree,” instead of (‘illeen), “these.“ The last clause is due to (vetayroa) being written with the : ; however, (vav) is not unlike, in ancient Aramaic script, to (kaph), although (lamed) is not like (tau), yet the phrase would carry the reader over every obstacle. Theodotion differs less from the Massoretic,” The fourth kingdom is that which shall be as strong as iron, just as ( ) iron beateth small and subdueth all things, thus shall it beat small and subdue all things.” It may be observed that the clause, “and as iron breaketh all these,” is omitted from the text. It certainly appears to be an addition, indeed, has the look of a “doublet.“ This view is confirmed by the fact that the Peshitta also omits this clause. The Peshitta rendering is,” The fourth kingdom shall be strong like iron, and even as iron crushes and bruises all, thus even it shall beat small and subdue all.” The Vulgate rendering also omits a clause, “And the fourth kingdom shall be like iron, as iron beats small and subdues all things, it shall beat small (comminuet) all these.” For these grounds we feel inclined to regard the clause in question as an explanatory note, which has slipped into the text. Before we leave the consideration of the text, we must observe that the word for “fourth” assumes the Syriac, or Eastern Aramaic form, not the form in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. That empire which was represented by the basest of the four metals, and occupied the lowest position in the figure, is that which is the most powerful. When we go back we find brass is the next in point of hardness and strength; it is the third, and of it, at all events, if not also of that which preceded it, it is said that “it shall bear rule over all the earth.” The inferiority indicated by the metals and by the position occupied in the image, did not indicate inferiority in power or in extent of dominion. An interesting theory has been formed by Dr. Bonnar (‘Great Interregnum’), that this degeneration was one of type. The monarchy as exhibited in Babylon, especially when the monarch was a man of genius, as was Nebuchadnezzar, was likest to the rule of the Almighty over the world: his authority was without limit, direct and absolute over every one subject to his sceptre The Medo-Persian monarchy had much of the Babylonian absoluteness, but there were, if Herodotus is to be trusted, the peers of the crown, and, above all, there were the satraps, with their almost independent position in respect to the central power. The third, in our author’s opinion, the Hellenic, had the monarchy limited, not only by numerous compeers, as the king in Antioch was balanced by the kings in Alexandria and Pergamus, not to speak of the monarchs of Parthia, but also by the autonomous cities with the semblance of freedom. The fourth, the Roman, was yet further removed from the old Divine-right monarchy of the Babylonian type. At their first intercourse with the Jews the Romans were Republicans. Their first conquest of Judaea was made by Pompey, the general of the Republic. To the last the emperor, whatever his power, was still theoretically the first magistrate of a republic. The feet and toes of mingled clay and iron, he held, were modern constitutional monarchiesmonarchies built upon democracy and the will of the people. All this is doomed to be overthrown by the coming of the Messianic kingdom.
Dan 2:41-43
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter’s clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided: but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall he partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. The version of the Septuagint is worthy of notice here, “And as thou sawest (hast seen, ) its feet and toes were partly of potter’s clay, and partly of iron. Another kingdom shall be divided in itself, as thou sawest the iron mingled with the miry clay, and the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part shall be broken. And as thou sawest the iron mingled with the miry clay, there shall be mixings () to the generation () of mankind (), but they shall not agree nor be well affected one to another, just as () iron cannot be compounded with clay.” It may be observed here that a clause is omitted from Dan 2:41, “but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron.” In the forty-third verse the difference is due to as infinitive of the verb “to sow,” that is to say, the translator must have read instead of . The addition of has had its origin in a false idea that the feet and toes of the image represented a new world-dominion. Theodotion renders, “Because () thou sawest the feet and the toes part of potter’s clay, and part of iron, a kingdom shall be divided, and there will be in it from the iron root in like manner as thou sawest the iron mingled with the potter’s clay. And the toes of the feet were partly iron, and partly clay, part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part of it shall be broken (being broken, ); because thou sawest the iron mingled with the potter’s clay, there shall be mixings with the seed of men: but they shall not adhere one to another, even as iron is not mingled with clay.” Neither in Syriac nor Chaldee has netzab the meaning “to be firm;” nitzebthah means, in later Aramaic, “a seedling.” Originally, however, it meant “to confirm,” “to set up,” “to strengthen,” as the Hebrew (yatzab) and (natzab). This meaning had been lost sight of by the time Theodotion wrote, or possibly before the translation was made which he revised. The Peshitta does not call for remark, save that it agrees with Theodotion in translating (nitzebathah) “root.” Jerome renders it plantarium. This new development of the image is to be regarded, not as another empire, but as the outgrowth of the fourth kingdom. This is clear from the fact that there is no new substance introduced of which the feet and toes are wholly made up, but the iron is mingled with a new and inferior substance, potter’s clay. The numerical mark “ten,” which is to be regarded as the peculiar distinctive sign of the fourth empire, is in the toes. This last empire, whatever it may be taken to be, is one that splits itself up into approximately ten parts or sub-kingdoms. Further, there shall be a foreign element introduced which shall not harmonize with the original material. Professor Bevan is certain that the reference is “to the marriages of the Ptolemies with the Se-leucidae.” Notwithstanding that Professor Bevan states this view as if it could not be doubted, it is evidently false. Both the Lagids and the Seleucids were Macedonians, and there was no natural incompatibility. If marriage is intended here, and if the fourth monarchy were the Hellenic, more sensible would have been the suggestion that it referred to the Hellenizing of South-Western Asiathe miscegenation of the peoples inaugurated by Alexander the Great, only it did not proceed very far. Further, it did not signalize the end of the Greek rule, but really the beginning of it. We admit certainly that the LXX. translates in a way that suggests the marriage of a superior with an inferior race. But there is no reference in reality to marriage, but to the mingling of two distinct culture-elements, the infusion of barbarous races into the midst of a civilized; and the barbarians taking on some of the outward forms of civilization would represent better the thing indicated. But to take this as referring to the marriage of the Seleucids and Lagids is certainly as wrong as wrong can be, although it is held by Moses Stuart, Hitzig, Ewald, as well as Professor Bevan. Not one of them shows which, the Seleucid or the Lagid, is “the clay,” “the seed of men,” and which the governing power or race that mingles with them. Yet the inferiority of the clay is an essential element in the symbolism. Hoffmann’s idea, that there is reference to the marriage of the Emperor Otto II. and the Russian grandduke Wladimir with the daughters of the Byzantine emperor, is equally far-fetched. Certainly the intrusion into the Roman Empire of the Germanic tribes on the. one side, and of the Arabs and Turks on the other, is an interpretation much closer to the real meaning of the symbol. A good deal can be said for Dr. Bonnar’s theory, that it is the effort of monarchy to rest on democracy. As to the number, ten, it is not to be made absolute; it may be more than ten or fewer than ten. All that is necessary is that the number be considerably more than four, and not so numerous as to suggest an indefinite multitude. The fact of “the toes” occupying the same portion of the image, seems to signify that these ten divisions were simultaneously existing. What is symbolized is clearly a state of matters not unlike what was in Greece after the defeat of the Persians, and before the Macedonian dominationa number of separate states forming part of one system. Such, to a certain extent, was the empire of the Diadochi, or successors of Alexander, only they were not generally more than four, five, or sixmainly four, the Seleucids, the Lagids, the Attalids, and the Anti-gonids. Such was the state of matters under the Holy Roman Empire, when what are now the six great powers were gradually separating themselves off. A similar state of matters existed at the same time among the Mohammedan powers, which acknowledged a certain suzerainty in the Caliph of Bagdad, but warred with each other with great freedom. While we have said that there is an appearance of simultaneity given to these monarchs or dynasties, candour compels us to acknowledge that they may be successive. We would not desire to anticipate what we say below in a special excursus on the four monarchies of Daniel; yet we may be permitted to indicate two senses in which the number ten may indicate Rome. There were ten emperors to the capture of Jerusalem, and the end of Judaism as a civil power, and the consequent independence of the Church from the trammels of Judaism. Further, a fair case might be made out for the different magistrates that exercised authority, more or less supreme, in Romeconsuls, praetors, dictators, magistri equitum, censors, tribunes. All these were replaced by the emperors. We merely indicate this, as we shall consider the subject more at large below.
Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never he destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever, Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, 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. The Greek versions differ from the Massoretic text only in the order in which the materials of the statue arc recorded. These are arranged in the reverse order in which they are first mentioned, that is to say, we have first the clay, then the iron, and so on, to the gold. This is the order followed by Jerome. On the other hand, the Peshitta follows the Massoretic order. The reason for the order adopted in the Septuagint. Theodotion, and the Vulgate is evidently a symmetrical one, and therefore more likely to be the result of emendation than the somewhat haphazard order of the received text. It is, however, not impossible that the similarity of sound has led to haspa, “clay,” being brought out of its proper place at the beginning of the list and placed in juxtaposition with kaspa, “silver.“ Ewald thinks that the order of the Greek versions is to be preferred. Professor Bevan is doubtful, and refers to the order of the metals in Dan 5:4, which begins with “gold” and ends with “stone.” In the days of these kings. This must refer to the kings who made up the last dynasty, especially the kings of the sub-dynasties represented by the ten toes. If the traditional interpretation is correct, these days are still future. It is not impossible that all the dynasties of the vision are implied, and that the kingdom of heaven is preparing during the whole period; only the natural meaning is that we have assumed. Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. It may be noted that, while in the rest of this chapter the Septuagint renders this title, or , here the rendering is, . This is a clear statement of the Messianic hopes of the Jews on one sidea Messianic kingdom and Messianic times. This new kingdom is on a different plane from those that preceded it, which go to make up the mysterious image. It is explained to be from the direct interference of the God of heaven that this new kingdom is intruded upon history. When we look at the material, it is inferior to all that had gone beforeinferior even to the fire-baked clay of the potter, which formed the toes of the image. This way of representing the Messianic kingdom would have appeared inadequate to an ordinary Jew. Waiving the fact that he regarded the Messianic empire to be another such as the empires of Assyria and Babylonia, only greater, the Jew would certainly have declared that the Messianic kingdom of heaven was a precious stone, not an ordinary piece of rock that goes to build up the framework of the mountains. It is impossible to deny that it is strange that the symbol should be thus a less precious material than even that of the lowest and weakest kingdom of the worldly system of dynasties. When we look at a metal, how homogeneous it is! With rocks, again, begins individualism. The more precious metals, with their extreme ductility, seem to be further removed from this individualism than the baser, such as copper and iron, and clay is still less removed than iron. But simple rock is furthest removed of all from metallic homogeneousness: the grains that compose it, unlike the chemical atoms of the metal, are visible to the naked eye. The process of degradation, which had proceeded through kingdom after kingdom, had now reached its lowest point. Wherever the setting up of this Messianic kingdom is placed, whenever it is held as occurring, it is certain it fits most naturally the Christian Church. The old civilization, represented by the Assyrian monarchy, had only one free man in the state, and that was the king. The Persians had nobles whose power rendered the king’s supremacy less absolute than it had been in the Assyrian days. In the days of Greek and Roman supremacy the freedom of citizenship was, even in the republics, possessed only by a few, the rest were slaves. Still, the freedom was much more widely spread than in the Persian and Assyrian monarchies; only the Church, the kingdom of heaven, made of slaves citizens. It is the very acme of individualism. Looked at from without, the kingdom of heaven was a thing to be despiseda thing for freedmen and slaves, for poor workmen and peasants. In the Assyrian form of government the king was the state; so the royal metal, gold, is used. In the Persian the nobles rule; so we have silver. In Greece it is the free citizens, therefore the artistic but less noble metal, copper, or, perhaps, its composite form as bronze, is used. In Rome, in imperial times, it is the soldiery, and therefore iron is the metal that symbolizes them. Shall we step over the intervening centuries of retrogression, and see in the clay the modern mercantile and manufacturing interests? To the ordinary eye of the world, there is a progressive degeneracy here. The lowest point is reached; not even the rich, not to speak of the noble and learned, but the poor and the ignorant, form the kingdom. Another contrast in the symbol is that these metallic empires remained stationary; they reached a limit, then could go no furthernot growth, but stationariness, is represented by their symbol; but this stone cut out of the mountain “grows,” and ceases not till it has filled the earth. Further, the kingdoms which went to build up the dream-statue endure only for a time; this rock-built kingdom is an ever-lasting kingdom. It is not limited either in extent or duration. This, again, suits only the Church of Christ; fitted and intended to fill the earth, it also has an unending duration. The world itself may end, hut the Church does not. We do not mean to assert that Daniel foresaw this distinctly; the very idea of the prophetic office implied that the speaker often did not know the full import of his own words. It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. The silent, disruptive influence of Christianity is exhibited in regard to slavery, which was the foundation of the ancient state. Without opposing slavery, to appearance, it laid down principles which rendered slavery impossible. The supreme dignity it gives to the individual, as bearing the image of God, affirms the claims of democracy, and so affirms them that the modern state must disappear. Forasmuch as thou sawest the stone teas cut out of the mountain without hands. Nothing could be more silent or unobserved by the men of the world, or more unlikely to form the beginning of a new world-power than Christianity. If Judaism was regarded as “the mountain of the Lord’s house,” then this new kingdom was cut from it, as Christianity was from Judaism. And that it brake, etc. The reason why Nebuchadnezzar had seen all thisthe growth of this kingdom, the way it destroyed all other kingdomswas now to be made known. The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; or, as it ought to be rendered, a great god. The word, as observed by Professor Bevan, is not in the status emphaticus; see Ezr 5:8, (elaha rabba). Daniel thus recognizes the fact that, to his heathen master, all that in the first instance he can convey to himthe only idea he can give himof the greatness of Jehovah is that he is very great, not that he is the solely Great One in the universe (see Behrmann). Zckler, Ewald, Keil, and Kranichfeld assert that the fact of the words “great god” (elah tab) being in the absolute, not the emphatic state, is due to the elevation of pectic language. In the first place, this is not poetry, and, in the second place, neither of these writers gives any example of such a change of construction taking place. Made known to the king. Why was it to “the king”? One objectsecured by making this revelation known to Nebuchadnezzar himself was that it secured its publicity. Had the vision been made known to Daniel himself, he could not have announced that the empire of Babylon should pass away, without running the risk of being condemned for treason. The king’s action had made both dream and interpretation perforce public in a way they could not otherwise have been. What shall come to pass hereafter; literally, which shall be after these things. This does not mean in the immediate future, but after the state of matters at present existingthe domination of the world by great powers after the system of great world-empires has passed away, then will the Lord’s kingdom be set up. And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure; or, literally, to bring out the emphasis, certainestablishedit is the dream, and surefaithfulthe interpretation. This is not a mere assertion of the fact that he, Daniel, had given an exact account of what the king had seen in his dream, and a correct interpretation of its import; of the first the king was the best judge. It is rather an argument: “The account of the dream is correct; from this learn that the interpretation is sure.”
Dan 2:46
Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. The Greek versions render in such a way that we are almost obliged to recognize an act of idolatrous worship. Jerome, too, distinctly says, “Nebuchodonoser Danielem adoravit et hostias et incensnm praecepit ut sacrificarent.” The same idea is conveyed by the Peshitta, but less definitely, from the fact that qorban means a “gift” as well as an “oblation;” though the gift is usually a consecrated gift. In the Aramaic of the Bible we have certain phrases used for “sacrifice;” several of these are here employed: it is true all of them have the possibility of being used in a somewhat lower meaning. The mere “falling down before Daniel upon his face,” when the person who did it was Nebuchadnezzar, is extraordinary, and can only be explained by the idea of worship. When we find the word (segad) used immediately after, it is very difficult to refuse to believe that the Greek Version and Jerome are right when they translate the latter word . The word occurs repeatedly in the following chapter, invariably as “worship.” The corresponding Hebrew word occurs in the second chapter of Isaiah, in the sense of “idolatrous worship” (Isa 2:20). It certainly does mean “to bend.” Had the word thus stood alone, we could not have been certain that it meant “worship;” but when it follows the extreme act of prostration to the earth, “worship’ must be meant. The separate terms, minhah, nhohn, lenassakah lah might, taken separately, mean “gifts” and the “bestowment of gifts;” but, taken together, it is impossible not to regard the action as one of sacrificial offering. It is true minhah means “a present,” as when Jacob sends a present to Esau (Gen 32:13); but, in that connection, nasak is not used. It is quite true that the burning of sweet odours was a common enough thing in entertaining guests whom it was desired to honour, but the term neehoheen was not given to the aromatic woods so used. People sometimes, even at present, scent their rooms by burning aromatic woods, but they never in such cases call them incense. But from the fact that the old Greek version and Jerome read , hostias, the doubt seems forced upon us that the reading here has been altered, and that the true reading was deebheennot neehoheenthis is a change that could with difficulty be imagined as occurring accidentally, but readily enough might happen from the desire to defend Daniel from the charge of allowing idolatrous worship to be offered to him. The instance referred to as parallelthe homage which Josephus relates Alexander the Great gave to Jadduais not quite on all fours with the present case. We are, in the first place, expressly told that it was “the name” of Jehovah, engraved on the petalon on the front of the priest’s mitre, that Alexander worshipped ( ). In the next place, we have no notice of sacrifice or incense being ordered to be offered to the high priest. It is not correct to say that nasak of necessity means “pour out an oblation,” to the exclusion of the more general meaning of “offer sacrifice.“ The corresponding word in Arabic means “to sacrifice” (Behrmann). Behrmann says, in regard to this, truly, “As to Porphyry later, so to the author and to the first readers of this book, it would have seemed indecent if Daniel had allowed himself to be honoured as a god.” This would have been true had the author been a contemporary of the Maccabees. The tide of feeling that led Peter to refuse the prostration of Cornelius, and Paul and Barnabas the sacrifices at Lystra, would have prevented any one inventing such a scene. It is perfectly true the worship was probably directed to the Divine Spirit as resident in Daniel, rather than to Daniel himself; few except the lowest and most degraded of heathen worshipped idols in any other waythe divine spirit, the deity, was the real object of worship, whose sign they were, and who resided in them. We must bear in mind that Daniel had been brought up in an idolatrous court, perhaps, also, he had to submit, on pain of suffering the fate that befell Paul and Barnabas when they refused the worship of the people of Lystra. We must lay stress on the very different relationship to idolatry and its worship implied in Daniel thus suffering sacrifice and incense to be offered to him, from that subsisting in the time of the Maccabees. No writer of that period would have written a sacred romance in which he represented a servant of God receiving idolatrous honours. The attitude of later Judaism is exemplified by Jephet-ibn-Ali, who says that though “Nebuchadnezzar commanded that sacrifices be brought to him as to a god, he (Daniel) does not say that he brought them to him. Most probably Daniel prohibited him from doing so.”
Dan 2:47
The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a Revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. The versions do not exhibit any important variation from the Massoretic text. We must observe the plural form of the pronoun “your,” implying the Hebrew nation as a whole, or at all events the three youths along with Daniel. It must be noted that the titles are not in the emphatic state, but are simply absolute, implying that Nebuchadnezzar simply placed the God of heaven, the God of Daniel, in his pantheon, as one of the superior gods. The historical difficulty that some have seen in Nebuchadnezzar making this confession to God, and yet straightway framing a golden image, is due to a failure to understand the attitude of a polytheist to his gods. To the heathen his god is a person he is afraid of, much more powerful than he is himself, able to do him much ill, or, on the other hand, able to bestow upon him much good, but able to be deceived, cajoled, and flattered. In worshipping his deities the heathen feels that any breach of sacred etiquette in regard to any deity is far more certain of bringing down the vengeance of the aggrieved power than any crime, however heinous. He would be most potent in prayer who could go over all the deities of the pantheon, and give to each his or her appropriate title. Thus the Hindus tell tales of fakirs whose power over the gods was due to this. One of the forms of this religious etiquette was to address each deity as if he were the supreme god who alone deserved worship. Lenormant (‘Los Premieres Civilizations,’ 2:159) gives an address to the god Hourki, or Sin, in which he is called “prince of the gods of heaven and earth, the good god, the great god, lather of gods and men, the lord who extends his power over heaven and earth” In the same work there is an address to Marduk (Merodach), the favourite deity of Nebuchadnezzar, in which he is called “god of gods, king of heaven and earth.” A little further on in the same work Nebu is called “the supreme intelligence, scribe of the universe, who bears the supreme sceptre, the interpreter of the celestial spheres.” In p. 189 Nergal is addressed as “great prince of the greatest gods, who has brought up the greatest gods.” In his ‘ La Magie,’ p. 175, he gives an address to Silik-mulu-ki, regarded as an Accadian name of Marduk, in which he is called “god of gods.” In his ‘ Hibbert Lecture,’ pp. 97-104, Professor Sayce, on the contrast between the religion of Babylon and that of Persia in this respect, says that Nebuchadnezzar calls Merodach “lord of all,” yet declares him the “son of the gods.” The same titles are given to Merodach and to Samas, and yet Samas is distinct from Merodachhe is his comrade in the struggle with the assailants of Otis, the moon-god. At the same time, we must observe the limitations of Nebuchadnezzar’s praiseit is simply as the Revealer of secrets that he praises and honours the God of Daniel.
Dan 2:48, Dan 2:49
Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. In the Greek versions there is not much to be observed. The Septuagint renders the last clause of verse 48 “chief and ruler ( ) of all the wise men of Babylon,” reading us gan instead of signeen. Theodotion’s is a fairly accurate rendering of the Massoretic text, as is also Jerome. The Peshitta renders this clause, “He made Daniel head over all the mighty men (rabiheela), and over all the wise men of Babylon.” The translator must have inserted, or found before him inserted, the preposition (el), “over,” between tab and signeen, evidently a false reading, due to ignorance of the form Babylonianand Assyrian titles assumed. The word , or :, was originally maintained to be Persian. Hitzig connects it with an Arabic root, sajan, but the true derivation is now found to be shokun (Assyrian), “governor.“ It appears in Hebrew in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the deutero-Isaiah, as well as in Ezra and Nehemiah, showing the unlikelihood of any Persian derivation. Hitzig appears to regard Daniel as made the king’s regent over the whole empire of Babylon; but this is not at all the meaning of the words. We must not be led away to believe that all this promotion befell Daniel at once; the statement here is summary, and includes many steps, and perhaps several years. Even at the utmost of his exaltation, he is not represented here as being made the regent of Nebuchadnezzar. as Hitzig would maintain. It is really only the province of Babylon, if we may not restrict the meaning of the word medeena even further, and regard it as equivalent to “city.” We admit that this restriction of significance is not supported by the versions, but the fact that in so many cases we have traces of Syriac influences in Daniel, and that medeena means in Syriac “a city,” renders this supposition not an impossible one. The precise limits of the province of Babylon in the days of Nebuchadnezzar cannot be settled. In later times it consisted mainly of the territory between the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of the murus Medius, with some territory between the latter river and the desert (Professor Rawlinson). It may be that the satrapy of Babylon was of considerably less extent. The word hashleet means “to cause to rule.” This would be made true by making Daniel overseer in any department of the government of the province. It is not necessary to maintain that Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel satrap of Babylonia; at the same time, shalet is the title given to the satrap of Babylon. M. Lenormant thinks there must be an interpolation when Daniel is said to be set over all the governors of the wise men in Babylon. His arguments are founded mainly on the belief that the castes of astrologers, soothsayers, and magiansall that were included in the class of hakmeenwere hereditary, a thing which has not been proved. A difficulty has been urged by Lenormant that Daniel, as a zealous Jew, could not become head of a college of idolatrous priests. While there may be some force in this, one must beware of testing the actions of a Jew of the sixth century B.C. by criteria and principles applicable to one of later times. At all events, this militates strongly against the idea that the Book of Daniel was written in the age of the Maccabees. When we see Daniel thus, a youth of probably two or three and twenty, promoted ultimately to be over the province of Babylon, and to be one of the king’s most trusted councillors, Ezekiel’s saying, which places him between Noah and Job (Eze 14:14), becomes natural. Daniel had already been some years in the king’s privy council before Ezekiel was carried into captivity. We do not know how long after the beginning of his prophetic work we are to date the prophecy of the fourteenth chapterit may have been eight or nine years after. But even if it were only six years, Daniel would by this time have been for eleven years a member of the privy council of the Babylonian monarch, and possibly for a considerable portion of that period governor of the province of Babylon. At any rate, Daniel would bulk very large in the eyes of the poor Jewish captives. Though contemporary, he was so far removed from his fellow-countrymen in social position, that his goodness and greatness would be subject to similar exaggeration to that which happens to heroes of a long-past age. A better argument may be drawn from the fact that sagan is always a civil title. The insertion of the word hakmeen might easily be due to some scribe who thought that as Daniel was one of the wise men, head of them would be more likely than head of the civil governors of the province, and placed it as a suggestion of what ought to take the place of signeen; a copyist following, inserted it in the text. If we compare this chapter with the sixth, we find Daniel one of three who were to receive the accounts of the various governors. Daniel was thus, if we may apply to his office a title drawn from our own political usage, secretary of state for Babylonia. It is characteristic of Daniel, that having been made rich and great by the king, and having received many gifts at the hand of the king, does not satisfy him; he entreats favour for his friends also. Hitzig’s objection that Daniel would have the appointment of his subordinates, would only be valid if Daniel had been made satrap If his shaletship extended merely to some one department of governmental workand that seems to follow from the last clause of this verseit is unlikely that he would have this power. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are set over the “business” (ebeedta‘) of the province of Babylon. This word, in Targumic Aramaic, is very generally used of constructions where labour is employed. We may regard their position as one something like being members of a labour bureau. Nebuchadezzar was a very great builder, so much so that almost all the bricks that have been got in Babylon are stamped with his name. While his Ninevite predecessors record in their inscriptions their campaigns, the kings they conquered, and the cities they sacked, the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar are almost entirely occupied with the various structurestemples, palaces, ramparts, and canalswhich he had caused to be made. These buildings would need perpetual surveying. Further, as a great military genius, roads and canals would also be. important objects, in the carrying out of which captives would be employed. And the products of this enforced labour would have to be surveyed carefully. This seems more probable than that Daniel got these three friends appointed to do the work he himself was appointed to. The only plausible suggestion against this would be that Daniel desired that his friends be set jointly over the province of Babylon instead of himself, and, for his own part, he preferred to remain in the gate of the king. We know that those who wished to undermine a favourite in an Eastern court, frequently intrigued to get him promoted to a governorship, and then poisoned the mind of the king against him. On the other hand. the fact that Daniel had his province in Babylon, and would always be near the king when he was in his capital, rendered the implied precaution needless. But Daniel sat in the gate of the king. The gate of the king was the gate of his palace or the entrance to the central court from which all the apartments branched off. In the gate the kings of the East acted as judges over their people; in the gate the king held councils. Hence to sit in the gate of the king conveyed the twofold idea of being the king’s representative on the throne of judgment, and of being the counsellor of the kingmember of the privy council, to employ a modem term.
HOMILETICS
Dan 2:1
A king troubled with bad dreams.
In accordance with the wide cosmopolitan interests with which the Book of Daniel is concerned, we are introduced thus early to the troubles of the Babylonian court. The most striking feature of the bookits apocalyptic characteris first shown in the dreams of a heathen king. Let us notice
I. NEBUCHADNEZZAR AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS PROSPERITY IS TROUBLED WITH BAD DREAMS. In the previous chapter we saw the king triumphing over the Jews. He is now only in the second year of undivided supremacy. Yet the first glimpse we have of his court reveals the king in trouble.
1. No prosperity of external circumstances can secure the peace of mind which is essential to true happiness. Success in battle cannot ward off the invasion of bad dreams. Wealth and power cannot command the luxury of sleep.
2. High rank is especially subject to restless anxiety. Scripture more than once refers to the sleeplessness of great men (Est 6:1; Ecc 5:12; Dan 4:18). On the other hand, sleep is regarded as a boon (Joh 11:12), and a gift of God to “his beloved” (Psa 127:2).
II. THOUGH NEBUCHADNEZZAR IS A HEATHEN KING, HIS DREAMS ARE MESSENGERS OF DIVINE REVELATION. Nebuchadnezzar is the victorious enemy of “the people of God,” who has sacked the city of Jerusalem, robbed the temple of its sacred treasure, carried the flower of the nation captive, and entirely broken its ancient independence; and now he reigns over his vast domains as a cruel tyrant (verse 5). With this man God opens up mysterious communications.
1. Thus revelation is not confined to prophets, nor to Jews, nor to good men. God has not deserted the heathen world. He has not deserted bad men (Gen 6:3).
2. Nevertheless, this revelation is imperfect. It is in a dreamthe lowest form of revelation (Joe 2:28). The dream is so shadowy that it is forgotten on the king’s awaking. The interpretation is beyond the power of the dreamer. This lowest form of revelation vouchsafed to a bad man is dim, vague, perplexing, and troubling; and the dreamer experiences it as a passive subject. It needs the higher revelation enjoyed by a true propheta good man in living active communion with Godto make it intelligible and profitable. Thus there are scintillations of Divine light in the darkness of heathendom; but these do little more than make the darkness visible and increase the terrors of its superstition. They call for the interpretation of the fuller scriptural revelation (Act 17:28).
III. THOUGH THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF REVELATION IN NEBUCHADNEZZAR‘S DREAM, THIS ONLY GIVES HIM THE GREATER TROUBLE. It is plain that the king regarded this as a dream of more than ordinary import (verse 2), and therefore it caused him sleepless anxiety. His trouble would arise from various sources; viz.:
1. The sense of mystery. The dream was gone. When present it was unintelligible. Thus a partial revelation may often bring only trouble. Perhaps if we knew more of the unseen world we should only be able to discern enough to fill us with dismay.
2. The apprehension of future calamity. Possibly the king saw enough to recognize a portend of future woe. It must be too often the case that a revelation of the future will bring only distress. We desire to pierce the veil of futurity. It is by God’s mercy that it is impervious to our sight (Mat 6:34).
3. The timidity of an evil conscience. An evil conscience peoples the unseen world with terrors. The Divine and the future are to it both clouded with apprehension.
Dan 2:2-18
Character revealed by trial.
Critical moments are tests of character, In this incident the leading features of three distinct classes of character are clearly revealed.
I. THE CONDUCT OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR REVEALS THE EVIL CHARACTER or TYRANNY.
1. It is selfish. Though the charge of a vast empire is entrusted to him, the king exercises, is irresponsible power of life and death simply for his own convenience.
2. It is unreasonable. Nebuchadnezzar not only asks for the interpretation, he demands the recovery of his forgotten dream. Whenever great authority is not balanced by an equivalent intelligence, the result must be some such issue of most unreasonable commands.
3. It is cruel. For failing to meet the king’s preposterous demand, the Chaldeans are to be hewn in pieces. Even those junior members, such as Daniel and his three companions, who were not consulted, are to suffer the same fate. Thus the isolation of supreme rank and irresponsible power tends to destroy that sympathy which is dependent on the feeling of fellowship.
4. It is suicidal, in the madness of his disappointment, the king is about to kill the man who subsequently proves to be his best friend. Selfishness is often blind to its highest interest. Cruelty reverts on the head of its author.
II. THE CONDUCT OF THE CHALDEANS EXPOSES THE WEAKNESS OF PRETENSIONS TO MAGICAL POWER. If the dream had been given, these men would have offered an interpretation, though probably one of Delphic ambiguity. But when the demand is for the exercise and test of a distinctly supernatural faculty, they fail. We may note, in reference to the pretensions to second sight of such men and their modern successors, that:
1. They fail before the crucial test which plainly requires supernatural powers. They are too vague for this.
2. They are of no practical interest. Trivial secrets may appear to be revealed, but mysteries of serious importance remain unsolved.
3. Instead of increasing religious faith, they discourage it. The Chaldeans say that what the king requires can be done only by “the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh,” thus implying that these gods make no revelation to men, and have no contact with them. Contrast their godless divination with Daniel’s higher power of divination, which he attributes solely to the revealing grace of his God.
III. THE CONDUCT OF DANIEL EXHIBITS THE EXCELLENCY OF DEVOUT WISDOM UNDER SEVERE TRIAL.
1. It has immediate recourse to prayer. Daniel deer not pretend to solve the mystery by the force of his own wisdom. He at once invokes the help of God. In the method and object of his prayer his action is a medal of devout wisdom. Thus
(1) he associates his three companions with him in his prayer, and shows his faith in the efficacy of united prayer (see Act 2:1; Act 12:5; Jer 5:14);
(2) his prayer is to the point, asking for special help in special need;
(3) it is reasonable,Daniel asks for deliverance from threatened death, but only by receiving power to fulfil the king’s condition; he does not took for a miraculous escape, but for light in the matter of the king’s dream.
2. Devout wisdom finds its greatest strength in the greatest trial. If it had not been for the king’s savage threat, Daniel might have been long in developing his gifts and realizing his mission. The danger brings him out of obscurity, and compels him to exercise the Divine faculties which are entrusted to him. If we have the right spirit in us to appreciate the opportunities they afford, we shall often find that the extremities and emergencies of life are, under the providence of God, the very means by which his best gifts and graces are made to fructify. Their greatest excellency is in their capacity to shine brightest under the hardest trials.
Dan 2:19-23
Divine might and Divine wisdom.
We have here a model of the highest form of worshipa prayer which is wholly adoration and thanksgiving. The importance of this is emphasized by the circumstances. Daniel’s life is threatened; he has just received the Divine assistance by which he can give the king his dream and secure his own escape; yet he stays to utter a full expression of praise for the greatness and goodness of God, with the sentence of death still hanging over him. For the most part, if people find scant time for prayer, they have still less for praise (Php 4:6). It is well to rise from the receipt of Divine mercies to the worship of the Divine excellences out of which they flow. Thus Daniel, having received a special Divine inspiration, at once contemplates and adores the might and wisdom of God which it reveals. Consider the manifestation of these two Divine attributes in the present instance.
I. MIGHT. The earliest Semitic name for God was “the Strong One,” and the idea of the might of God lies at the root of the scriptural conception of his nature. He is not only revealed as glorious in being and wonderful in thought, but he is always seen to be active, working, exercising power. He is not a Platonic supreme idea, nor an epicurean Divinity, far off and unconcerned about us, but a living energizing Presence. Here we see:
1. Divine might is manifested in human affairs. “He changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (verse 21). God is spoken of in the present tense. He created the world in the past (Psa 102:25); but his power is still manifested in maintaining the life of the world (Joh 5:17). His hand is seen in the fields of nature (Psa 104:1-35.); it is equally present in human life. God is the greatest factor in history.
2. Divine might is most apparent in times of change. “He changeth the times and the seasons.” It is present at all times, but it is evident in the crises of history. The volume of water in the stream is the same while it flows quietly as when it breaks into a torrent; but the roar and flash of the torrent appeal to our senses with a vehemence of their own.
3. Divine might is strikingly evident in overruling the greatest human powers. “He removeth kings, and setteth up kings.” The old pagan tyrants thought to set their will up as a god, but they were made to feel at times that there was a “King of kings” above them. The greater the powers that are made to bow before God, the more stubborn their self-will or the more blind their ignorance, the more fully is the power of God revealed in overruling them.
4. Divine might is especially revealed in overthrowing the evil to stablish the good. Creating power is greater than destructive power. If certain kings are removed, other and better kings are to be set up. Destruction is not the end of the exercise of God’s might; it only prepares the way for fruitful creative energies.
II. WISDOM.
1. This is seen in the Divine actionsfirst in the process, by the arrangement that makes “all things work together;” and then in the result which is aimed at, because it is seen to be the wisest end. Power without wisdom would be brutal, and therefore wisdom is needed, not to make up for the deficiency of power by its adaptations and contrivances, but to direct power to its best exercise.
2. This wisdom is seen in the Divine bestowal of it upon men. Daniel traces human wisdom up to the diving: “He giveth wisdom unto the wise” (Exo 28:3; Deu 24:9; Eph 1:17). In direct opposition to the godless magic of the Chaldeans (verses 10, 11), he tells Nebuchadnezzar that “there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets” (verse 28). We may learn from this that revelation is the result of inspiration; i.e. it is received through the gift of Divine wisdom; it is not flashed upon us apart from spiritual experience. It is the opening of the eyes to see truths which were in existence before, but which were unrecognized for want of a Divine wisdom to discern them.
Dan 2:22 (last clause)
Divine omniscience.
God knows what is darkness to us, because in him dwells the eternal light which penetrates all darkness. This supreme knowledge is essential to his perfection. Without it infinite power and perfect goodness could only issue in fearful disasters to the universe; and therefore the order and progress of all things bear witness to its existence. Consider
I. THE FACT OF THE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE AND WHAT THIS IMPLIES.
1. The knowledge of God comprehends all things. None are too great for its grasp, none too small for its notice. The regions of the telescope and of the microscope come equally under its notice (Job 28:24; Luk 12:6, Luk 12:7).
2. It penetrates the deepest mysteries. Our most secret thoughts are known to God, and he knows us better than we know ourselves (Psa 139:1, Psa 139:2; Heb 4:13).
3. It reaches forward to the whole future. God’s knowledge of the future can be to some extent explained on two grounds.
(1) His perfect knowledge of the present must carry with it the knowledge of the future as far as the present contains the germs cf the future (Act 15:18).
(2) His eternal nature is not limited by our conditions of time, so that he sees all things, not in succession, but in one immediate view (Exo 3:14; 2Pe 3:8).
II. THE PRACTICAL INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE.
1. It should lead to sincerity. The hypocrisy which may seem to help us in our relations with me,, is useless before God. The really important question is, notWhat does the world think of us? butWhat is our character in the sight of God? because our life and all its destinies depend on him (Ecc 12:14)
2. It should strengthen our faith in the providential care of God. He must know better than we know; therefore it is foolish to fear and wrong to complain. We must even expect that, with his supreme knowledge, he will not act just as we should act with our very imperfect knowledge (Job 34:33).
3. It should encourage our hope in the ultimate well-being of the universe. No one would commence a work if he knew it would end in failure. No benevolent pessimist would create a universe. Before be made the world, God foresaw the fall of man; before he sent his Son, he saw how sadly he would be rejected. If he so acted, knowing all the future, it must bare been because he knew that, after all the sin and sorrow, righteousness and peace would finally triumph, so that the ultimate blessedness of existence should amply compensate for all its earlier misery (Isa 53:11).
4. It should lead us to seek our highest knowledge in him. All true discovery comes by revelation. “He revealeth the deep and secret things.” In his mind are the archetypal ideas of all things. The knowledge of God is the highest knowledge.
Dan 2:31-45
The image and the stone.
The king’s dream as interpreted by Daniel shadows forth the history of successive monarchies, and the final overthrow of them by a greater unearthly kingdom. On the face of it it teaches the broad lesson that history is made by higher destinies than the will of kings; that it is determined beforehand according to a Divine scheme. The character of the successive monarchies, and the part they take in the general order of events, is expressed by the appearance of the various parts of the image. The character and missions of the later victorious kingdom is more vaguely revealed in the description of the mystic stone, unhewn by human hands, which destroys the image, and grows to a mountain filling the whole earth and lasting for ever. Notice
I. THE CHARACTER AND DESTINY OF THE OLD WORLDLY MONARCHIES. The image represents one monstrous, incongruous, materialized human form and nature. So there was a certain continuity in the history of the successive monarchies, and yet no real harmony and organic unity such as characterizes the progressive civilization of Christendom. In them humanity was degraded by reliance, not upon just institutions, but upon material force. They afford a terrible evidence of the paralyzing, deadening effects of mere power uninfluenced by political enlightenment and moral character.
1. Their aspect was brilliant but terrible. (Verse 31.) There was a barbaric splendour about these old pagan empires, but behind the pomp and glitter, brutal cruelty, injustice and selfish tyranny, ran riot. The king was not a father to his people, but a master of a world of slaves; the misery of the nations subdued and crushed by his unscrupulous ambition was mournful beyond description.
2. Their glory was destined to constant deterioration. The first kingdom is the head; the others are lower, and, like the less honourable members of the body, of inferior dignity. The lessening value of the series of minerals (gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay) suggests the same idea more plainly. In the last the deterioration has gone so far that the unity of the central government is lost (verse 33). The progress of humanity is linked to moral character and true religion. Where these are absent, nations are either stationary or retrogressive. In our own day the progressive races are, in the main, the Christian.
3. Their supremacy was temporary, and they were all subject to final disintegration. One kingdom arises after another (verse 39). The last is the most violent and destructive, and contains the seeds of decay from its origin (verse 42). The whole image is destroyed by the mystic stone. History shows how these monarchies were corrupted by luxury and overthrown by newer ambition. There is nothing stable in unjust power. Where great resources are not directed by high principles they are often squandered by a self-indulgent prodigality which brings its own ruin. A Divine retribution awaits all such gross abuses of power. The old order changeth, yielding place to new.”
II. THE NATURE AND MISSION OF THE NEW UNEARTHLY MONARCHY. The mystic stone symbolizes one kingdom which is to destroy all the old tyrannies and rule in their stead. This prediction is being fulfilled by the “kingdom in heaven” which Christ founded and is now maintaining among us.
1. It is unearthly in origin. The stone is not hewn” with hands” (verse 34). Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (Joh 18:36; Rev 21:2).
2. It is aggressive in action. Christ is the ‘Prince of Peace,” and he came to bring peace on earth, yet not by allowing evil to go on unmolested, but by first making war on it and overcoming it, and only establishing his peace after complete victory over evil (Mat 10:34).
3. Though small at first, it is destined to become universal in extent. The stone becomes “a great mountain, and fills the whole earth” (verse 35). So the grain of mustard seed grows into a great tree (Mat 13:31, Mat 13:32; see also Isa 2:2, Isa 2:3; Mic 4:1). Christianity began in the manger at Bethlehem and the upper room at Jerusalem, but it has grown immensely since then, and it shows increasing signs of vitality, encouraging our faith in its destiny to conquer the whole world (1Co 15:25; Eph 1:21, Eph 1:22).
4. It is everlasting in duration. “It shall stand for ever” (vet, 44). All earth-born powers are subject to decay. The kingdom of Christ is eternal because
(1) its King is changeless (Heb 13:8);
(2) it is based on the eternal principles of Divine truth (1Pe 1:23); and
(3) the fruits of its rule will be always beneficial (Rev 22:5).
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS
Dan 2:1-13
The revelation lost.
“My spirit was troubled to know the dream” (Dan 2:3). Since the word “and,” at the beginning of this chapter, links it with Dan 1:21, i.e. Daniel’s public life with Daniel’s preparation, it may be well here to notice what his preparation had been.
1. At home, and the associations of Jerusalem.
2. Knowledge of previous revelations (see Dan 9:2).
3. Moral victory at a crisis of history.
4. Experience of life at one of its great centresBabylonthe court.
As indicating the difference between Ezekiel’s standpoint and that of Daniel, note Ezekiel dates from the years of the Captivityfor him, in comparative obscurity, the years dragged on wearilyDaniel, by the reigns of kings in whose court he was. Daniel’s experience grew with the years, and he became increasingly fit to receive political revelationsrevelations as to the rise and fall of empires.
I. THE DISCREPANCY. Between Dan 1:5 and Dan 2:1. Occasion might well be taken from this to insist upon one or two wholesome truths in reference to Biblical interpretation.
1. The discrepancy looks at first sight glaring enough; i.e. as to the dates. Still, with our idea of the sacred writings, we should be justified in believing:
2. That some explanation would be forthcoming, if we knew all the loots. Of the propriety of this assumption, we shall have a striking illustration in the recent clearing up of’ the special critical difficulty of Dan 5:1-31.
3. One might fairly conclude that Daniel is quite as reliable an historian as any other author.
4. The seeming discrepancy is clear evidence that Daniel, and none other, is the writer; for these two dates would never have been admitted in a form apparently contradictory, coming so close to each other as to challenge attention, if the author had been an impostor. Daniel writes straightforwardly the truth, unconscious of the possible misconstruction of his words. This unguardedness of style is a sure sign of the credibility of a living witness, and of the genuineness of any book.
5. There are several explanations forthcoming, one specially credible (see Exposition).
6. Our feeling in relation to discrepancies real or apparent, will doped entirely on our moral attitude in relation to revelation. The believer will treat them lightly; the captious and unbelieving will make the very most of .them (see Alford on receipt of one of Colenso’s volumes, in ‘Alford’s Life’).
II. THE PREPARATION. There were subjective conditions of the dream which argue a certain nobility in Nebuchadnezzar. Dreams grow out of waking thought; and, though this dream was supernatural, we may well believe it was naturally conditioned. The mood of the king created a certain receptivity for Divine revelation (verse 29).
1. The cares of empire weighted his soul.
2. His mind projected itself into the far future. (Verse 29.)
3. Thoughts of present responsibility and visions of the future were enter-rained. To all, such high thoughts come at some time or other; but not all entertain them. We may drown them in frivolity, or quench them by intoxication. When God comes to a soul with thoughts worthy of its nature, it is for the soul to open wide its portals and let the glory in. About this young conqueror there was a certain grasp and elevation of mind.
III. THE DREAM. Here, at present, we ignore its contents; we are supposed, indeed, not to know it: and consider only generally whether, and to what extent, the dream may become the article of Divine communications to man. In a complete, discussion, we should have to cite the following testimonies: Those of:
1. Psychology. The nature and origin of dreams should be elucidated, with the view to a just estimate of the testimonies which follow. Sufficient wilt be found for homiletic purposes in Dr. Smith’s ‘Bible Dict.,’ art. “Dreams.”
2. Scripture. These inductions seem valid:
(1) “That Scripture claims the dream, as it does every other action of the human mind, as a medium through which God may speak to man.”
(2) “That it lays far greater stress on that Divine influence by which the understanding also is affected.“ In dream, the imagination is in the ascendant; the reason, dormant.
(3) That dream as a medium of Divine communication is inferior to prophecy.
(4) That dreams, therefore, were granted:
(a) To the heathen rather than to the covenant people of God.
(b) To the latter only during their earliest and most imperfect individual knowledge of him.
(c) Only in the earliest ages, and less frequently as the revelations of prophecy increase.
(d) Almost invariably require an interpreter. These last four points are all illustrated by the dreams in the Book of Daniel.
3. Experience. The reference here is to that modern experience, of which we may be either the subjects or the observers. Even in a Christian civilization like ours, the superstitious regard fur dreams is so common, that the following truths may well be insisted on:
(1) That dreams should never for us stand in the place of revelation.
(2) Should be disregarded entirely, when contravening the truth “as it is in Jesus”
(3) That God may see fit by dream to prepare the mind for the future.
(4) That there seems well-authenticated instances in which the coming event has been imaged in dream. Surely he who made the soul can have access to it by night or by day, directly or mediately, as he will In the application of these truths to our own life, the greatest spiritual wisdom will be necessary.
IV. THE SEARCH. We do not agree with Keil, that the king remembered the dream, and was intent on testing the value of the interpretation by making the interpreter tell also the dream itself; nor with the reasons he assigns for that interpretation. We believe that the dream was gone from memory, yet leaving behind such an impression that the king would recognize it on its being described, and also leaving behind an idea of its tremend us import, and a conviction that its origin was Divine. Here note:
1. The mission of oblivion. “God sometimes serves his own purposes by putting things out of men’s minds, as well as by putting things into their minds.” By the king’s forgetfulness Daniel came to be honoured, and in him the God of Daniel.
2. The adaptation of Divine revelations. From Dan 2:4 to 8:28 the language of the book is Chaldee; as though God would throw open the revelation through Daniel to the people of Babylonia as well as to the Jew. After Dan 8:1-27. the language reverts to Hebrew, for the communications are then chiefly for Israel. This adaptation one instance of what obtains universally.
3. The infirmities of even noble minds. There were many elements of greatness about Nebuchadnezzar; but all shaded by:
(1) Superstition. Seeking for light where no light could be foundfrom the magi of various grades.
(2) Unreason. Demanding both dream and interpretation. A certain sort of wisdom might interpret; but only the omniscience of God could recover the dream.
(3) Cruelly. Many instances besides that in this chapter.
V. THE FAILURE. (Dan 8:11.) Observe:
1. The error into which exalted intellect may fall. “Gods” imply polytheism.
2. The truth which may shine through error. The magi were aware:
(1) Of the omniscience that is essential to Deity.
(2) Of the limitation that belongs to the creature. The flesh is a veil that hides from us much of the spirit-world.
VI. THE DOOM. Cruel as was the edict on the part of the king, there was, nevertheless, a sort of rough justice on the part of God’s natural government of the world, in consigning to punishment the practicers of imposition and traders on the superstitious fear, of men. “They sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain“ suggests how oft the innocent are caught in the consequences of the sin of others.R
Dan 2:14-30
The dream found.
“Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” In this section Daniel is the principal actor; and as he moves through the successive scenes of this part of the sacred drama, his character shines like the light, and may illumine for us the path of life. We shall, therefore, keep him prominent throughout. Observe Daniel
I. IN THE SHADE.
1. The position. Although Daniel had been trained for distinguished services, pronounced by the king to excel all the magi (Dan 1:20), he was forgotten by the king, ignored by his fellows of the magian college through jealousy, only discovered to share a common ruin. This was a picture of the trials of his whole career. Daniel the eminent had to contend with the jealousy of the mean. This spirit begot the attempt to cast his companions into the burning fiery furnace. Years after it throws him to the lions. So now the captain of the king’s guard “sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.“
2. The moral attitude. Daniel was ever animated by a sense of duty, and more by a readiness to serve those who either neglected or opposed him.
3. The providential call. At the critical moment God, in wisdom and love, supervened and intervened; broke the meshes of the confining net; and called the saint out into that ministry for which he was intellectually and spiritually fit, and also morally ready.
II. AT THE KING‘S GATE.
1. The calm spirit of Daniel. There was much to exasperate in the whole situation. Cruel death was impending. But Daniel lived high above events in a serene heaven of the soul, and was, therefore, prepared to come down into the incidents of life, and act with the best effect.
2. His use of means. To act well in great emergencies requires the coolness of spiritual wisdom. Daniel:
(1) Had conference with Arioch.
(2) Sent a respectful message to the king. (We understand that Daniel did not go himself, till later, actually into the presence of the king, but sent in the request by the proper officer.)
3. His success. This may be attributed especially to three causes, note specially the last:
(1) The king’s remembrance of Daniel.
(2) The awakening of a great hope in the king’s breast.
(3) The hearts of men are in the keeping of God.
III. WITH HIS OWN COMPANY.
1. The prayer. Here observe:
(1) Daniel did not delay. He lost no time. He did not go to consult with the magi, whether there was anything in their art, in their books, that might be of use in the matter. With some men prayer is the last resort instead of the first.
(2) Resolved to make the difficulty a matter of prayer.
(3) Fell back into the soul fellowship to which he belonged. (verse 17).
(4) Seemed the power of united supplication.
In the prayer itself the following specialities are suggestive:
(1) It kept prominent the exalted supremacy of God.
(2) It appealed to his “mercies.”
(3) It went upon the principle of committing all that troubles us to God.
(4) It concerned a great public interest. But
(5) one in which the private safety of the petitioners was involved.
2. The prevalence. The all-important fact is that the prayer was answered. The answer was revealed either in a dream, or more probably in a waking vision of the night; and the vision was no doubt accompanied by a clear attestation of the truth of it. Can any one doubt the possibility of such revelation, who has realized to himself the nearness of the Eternal to the human mind?
3. The praise. This was:
(1) Instantaneous. Daniel did not wait till he had verified the dream by audience with the king. As soon as ever he received the mercy, he was ready to praise.
(2) Full. Matthew Henry puts it well.
(a) Daniel gives to God the glory of what he is in himself.
(b) Of what he is to the world of mankind.
(c) Of this particular discovery.
(3) Sympathetic. Friends were associated in the praise, as in the prayer.
IV. IN THE KING‘S CLOSET. Here we have Daniel, the living representative of what a true prophet should be. He is not only a type of him whom technically we call a prophet, but of every one who is for God the mouthpiece of vital truth to man. Before the king:
1. He sinks himself. (Verse 30.)
2. He forgives personal adversaries. (Verse 24.)
3. He is forward to put down all that exalts itself against God. (Verse 27.)
4. He has a sense of the moment of his message. (Dan 2:8, Dan 2:29.)
5. He glorifies God. (Verse 28.)R.
Dan 2:31-33, Dan 2:37-43
The universal world-powers.
“Thou, O king, sawest, and behold an image, one and grand” (Dan 2:31). Seize first the imagery of the dream.
1. A grand unity loomed before Nebuchadnezzar. “Behold an image, one and grand” (Chaldee, Dan 2:31). Four empires represented, not by four figures, but one. Symbol of human power at its highest, that of universal empire, but separate from God. Same spirit and genius in all four. A common thing to represent empire by the human figure; e.g. Britannia. The colossal imagery of the dream the reflection of the magnificent scale of objects in Babylon. But:
2. A diversity.
(1) Inform; for after the head, the human form is double, in the toes tenfold.
(2) in substance: gold, silver, etc.; the diversity constitutes a successive deterioration.
3. Destruction For a time the image stands. At length there rushes through the air, self-detached, a stone, as instinct with life; it smites, destroys, pulverizes, and instantly the image is gone-nothing is left on the wide Assyrian plain but the stone, which then grows to be a mountain, a whole mountain region, filling the field of view, grand, beautiful, with its varied vegetation, from that of a tropical clime to the eternal snow. So complete was the displacement.
I. THE WHOLE. Observe respecting the ancient world-power:
1. Its unity. One image. One universal empire. One in alienation from God. This need not have been. Civil government is of God, may be a reflection of Divine government, rooted in Divine principles, administered in the fear of God, directed to the good of humanity, and so to the glory of God. The government of this world may be one in alliance with God.
2. Its majesty. Empire like this has a majesty of its own, even though alienated from God. Just as intellect or genius may. Man was made in the image of God, in this matter of dominion over men and also over nature. Of all forms of dominion, rule over a nation (much mere of nations) is of God.
(1) The idea of civil government is of God. Government must be. It is of the Divine will. Not some particular form, e.g. monarchical, republican, etc.; but government in essence.
(2) So its realization. Government of some kind is an everlasting fact, perpetuated in the providence of God. Empire has then intrinsic majesty. Much more when in alliance with God.
3. Its weakness. All things human deteriorate, unless redeemed from corruption by the saving power of religion. The life of all that lasts is of God. It would be interesting to trace, if that were possible, the gradual deterioration of heathen religiousness, from the purer Chaldee form to the Roman degradation. As life declined, so the strength of empire went down.
II. THE PARTS.
1. The head of gold: Babylon.
(1) The empire itself.
(a) First in order of time (first universal empire).
(b) Possessed certain unity (head).
(c) Characterized by intelligence.
(d) Magnificent (gold).
(2) Its relation to the kingdom of God, Note the pressure of the all-directing hand on these heathen world-kingdoms, Babylon:
(a) Cured, by the Captivity, Israel of idolatry.
(b) Prepared the world for unity under the Roman empire, and so prepared for the Advent.
2. The breast and arms of silver: Medo-Persia.
(1) The empire. Silver less value and power of resistance than gold. So Persia inferior to Babylon. Not in extent; but greatness is never to be confounded with bigness. (For vivid picture of real state of Persia, see Eber’s ‘ Egyptian Princess.’)
(2) Relation to Divine kingdom. The Church returned healed from the Captivity. Second temple built. Persia an instrument for raising the dormant energies of Greece, which became, under Alexander, the universal empire, and spread Greek culture, civilization, and speech everywhere, and so prepared the way for the coming of the Lord.
3. The belly and thighs of brass: Greece.
(1) The empire. None other than Greece; for:
(a) Greece succeeded Persia, and, like it, was a universal monarchy.
(b) Is named in the same order (Dan 8:20, Dan 8:21).
(c) Brass armour marked the Greeks; their soldiers were the “brazen-coated.”
(2) Relation to the Divine kingdom. The service of Greece to Christ’s kingdom was vast. Let the following brief sentences and phrases be suggestive: Alexander no vulgar conqueror; a fusion of East and West his object; hence, colonization, intermarriages of races, foundation of seventy cities; the idea, one brotherhood of humanity. Oriental thought blended with Hellenic culture. As a part of this plan, first dispersion of the Jews; and so everywhere a synagogue, the Septuagint, and Hebrew (i.e. true) ideas of God, sin, the Saviour. Influence of the Alexandrian school on early Christianity.
4. The legs of iron: Rome.
(1) The empire. This was indeed Rome, and not the empire of Alexander’s successors; for:
(a) To omit Rome frustrates the design of the image to exhibit in succession the great empires which preceded the Advent.
(b) Rome existed at the Advent, not so the empire of Alexander’s successors.
(c) Compare fourth beast (Dan 7:7 : et seg.).
(d) The symbolic imagery is strikingly close to the reality of Rome.
(2) Relation to the Divine kingdom and the Advent. Under the shield of the prevalent Roman law, Jesus was born, lived, and was crucified. Hence Gentile with Jew nailed him to the tree. The Crucifixion was marked by publicity. Rome destroyed city and temple, broke up the Jewish Church, and scattered the nation.
The most prominent suggestions of this exposition are:
1. The almightiness of God‘s subordinating power. All thingsinterests, men, nations, kingsbend before it.
2. The way in which hostile powers serve his purpose. Often unconsciously, and in spite of their own intention.
3. Christ the Centre of history. To him, before the Advent, all things tend; and since, from him all things date. The greatness of the Lord Jesus. Imagine Christ taken out of the history of man!R.
Dan 2:34-36, Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45
The everlasting kingdom.
“And the stone that smote the image,” etc. (Dan 2:35). We shall assume, what is certain, that the “stone’ is the image of the kingdom of the Son of God.
I. ITS CHARACTERISTICS.
1. The mediatorial action of the Son of God is of the nature of kingly rule.
(1) Over souls, willing or unwilling.
(2) Within the Church.
(3) In the world of men.
(4) Over the spirit-world.
(5) Even over the universe of matter.
(See and weigh the meaning well of Eph 1:22, Eph 1:23.)
2. The kingdom was supernatural in its origin. Here may well be discussed the now present doctrine that the Christ was the creation of his time. Set over against it the truth that Christ was a descent and intervention of the supernatural and of the Divine. Not one, nor all combined, of the ordinary secondary causes can account for the establishment, extension, perpetuity of the kingdom. “Without hands.” The result of eternal counsel, founded by the Son of God, perpetuated by the Spirit of life.
3. Insignificant in its commencement. The stone is clearly meant to be smallanyway, small compared with the mountain. Note: Humanly speaking, the Lord belonged, indeed, to a royal house, but in decay and obscurity; was poor; hidden for thirty years in a hamlet on the wilds; no powerful friends; no political connections; of no special learning; the character and calibre of his first helpers; slow progress of the kingdom. To human view, in the stone, nothing; to the Divine, all potentiality.
4. Destined to universal prevalance. Notwithstanding 3.
(1) Look at the vision.
(a) The kingdom began by the destruction of the hostile (Dan 2:34, Dan 2:35). The world-powers fell before it. Note: The nothingness of the mightiest human power in collision with the kingdom of God.
(b) Goes on by displacement. Man-created universal empires give place to one God-created. Observe: The great empires of antiquity were unconscious prophecies of the universal kingdom of Christ. There has been no universal empire since, nor ever will be. Neither to Great Britain nor to the United States will universal sway be given, but to Christ.
(2) Is the vision true? That the stone will become the earth-filling mountain may be argued from:
(a) The aggressive character of the gospel.
(b) Past achievement. The tide recedes, only to advance again. Discouragement is localat the most temporary.
(c) Prophecy. Think! In olden times a dream. A prophetic interpretation. After the lapse of more than two milleninums we, from our watch-towers, mark the ever-growing fulfilment!
5. Everlasting. The kingdom has stood for nineteen centuries, although every form of hostile force has tried to displace and destroy. Force, physical end intellectual, has done its worst. Philosophy, science, ridicule, persecution. The empire of Jesus is the greatest fact on our planet to-day. Over the highest minds of the noblest races. No empire, political or intellectual, can compare with it. There are great powers on earth, but not one to vie with this, to which they are all subordinated. In this the promise of the future. Time is on its side; the Eternal too (see Php 3:21, especially in the Greek).
II. ITS SUGGESTIONS.
1. We ourselves must submit to it. Nearer, closer, than any earthly rule, it presses on us. We can no more evade it than we can the civil government under whose shield we abide; not so effectually. Neutrality impossiblethe vainest dream!
2. We shall then share the benedictions of this gracious mediatorial rule.
3. We can, must, labour for its extension. With sword as well as trowel (Neh 4:18).
4. We shall then share the day of the final triumph. (Isa 53:11.)
5. And enter with the Lord on that sabbatic repose which follows the long ages of conflict. That eternal sabbath closes the prospect in the sublime, successive relations of God (see George Steward’s ‘Mediatorial Sovereignty,’ vol. 2:520-525).R.
Dan 2:46-49
The soul in the presence of great mercy.
“Then the king made Daniel a great man” (verse 48). The revelation of the dream and its meaning was a very large benediction to the king, for it lifted great anxiety from his mind; to Daniel and the three, for it saved their lives. The closing verses of Dan 2:1-49. present to us the moral effect of the amazing Divine disclosure.
I. THE MORAL ATTITUDE OF THE KING.
1. Entire cessation from self. No trace of that self-consciousness which was so striking a characteristic of the king. Self had become nothing. Self had been swept out of consciousness by the overwhelming benediction which flooded his soul.
2. Gratitude to the human instruments. To Daniel the king gave:
(1) Greatness.
(2) Enrichment.
(3) Power.
(a) The vicegerency of a provinceBabylon.
(b) The chancellorship of the magi.
To Daniel’s friends, administrative offices under Daniel in his province (see the Chaldee, verses 48, 49).
3. Homage to the Divine. The ideas of the king were of this kind, that there were many gods, but among them the God of the Hebrews was supreme, through Daniel shone his clear manifestations. Accordingly, to Daniel he offered incense, etc. Distinguish here between the false form and that which was true in spirit. Through the polytheistic cloud the king looked in the direction of the true and eternal SunGod. He did not, could not, rest in mere secondary causes. He attributed the mercy to the Divine cause.
Lessons:
1. Some omit all gratitude to men.
2. Others withhold devout thankfulness to God. Let the noble kingnoble in all the mist that blinded himin these things be our teacher.
II. THE DEMEANOUR OF THE PROPHET.
1. A moderate estimate of self. Even as an instrument, the benediction had not come wholly through him; he was mindful of his companions, the common danger, their sympathy, their united prayers.
2. Gratitude go friendly helpers. Pleads to the king for them.
3. A consciousness of a real greatness that only God could give. “The king made Daniel a great man.” We may argue from all we know of the elevation of the prophet’s character that, whilst not ungrateful for the king’s kindness, he estimated that elevation at its true value. He must have known that there was a greatness, not of earth, of the spirit, which only the Lord of spirits could give. Such consciousness quite consistent with humility. “Thy clemency hath made me great.”R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Dan 2:1-13
The failure and discomfiture of falsehood.
As every drop of water on the surface of the hills has a tendency to flow towards the ocean, as every step of the racer moves towards the goal, so every event in every kingdom points toward the establishment of Messiah’s empire. The exile of the Jews, though apparently a retrograde movement in the spiritual machinery; the special education of Daniel and his companions; the heathen monarch’s dream; the discomfiture of the magicians;all these, and like events in Babylon, were so many lines of influence leading on to the advent of Messiah. God is no respecter of persons, no respecter of places, and if there be a more pliant disposition in the King of Babylon than in the King of Israel, the God of heaven will reveal his will to Nebuchadnezzar, and use him in moulding public events. Consciously or unconsciously, all conquerors and all captives are working out the purposes of the universal Lord.
I. THE GREAT MONARCH‘S DISTRESS.
1. For even kings are not exempt from trouble, Yea, their very elevation exposes them to winds of adversity, from which those escape who dwell in the sequestered vales of private station. As in nature, so in human life, there is a marvellous system of compensation. We look at the external palaces of princes, and are too ready to envy their privileged estate; but could we look within their breasts, we should be prone chiefly to pity them. “The sleep of a labouring man is sweet,” but the pillow of royalty is thickly sown with prickly cares.
2. Most probably, outward circumstance combined with inward fear to produce this ominous dream. By admitting a natural element in human events, we do not exclude the supernatural. Both elements are under Divine direction. Everywhere God engrafts the spiritual upon the natural. The laws and processes of nature and of human life God uses so far as they serve his particular purpose, and when they fall short of fitness he introduces the higher element of miracle. If Nebuchadnezzar already saw the development of military strength in other royal courts, it was impossible but this knowledge would make a corresponding impression upon his mind, and it would be wanton blindness on our part to exclude this from our investigation of the truth. It is equally certain that an influence from God moved upon the monarch’s mindarranging the materials of the imagery, impressing his imagination with the portentous meaning of the vision, and partly effacing the recollection from his memory.
3. With stupendous condescension, God accommodates himself to the infancy of the race. He who tempers the wind for the shorn lamb, simplifies his lessons to the weakness of our understanding. To the inquiry, “Why should God make known his will to men through dreams?” it is a sufficient reply that he found this method the most suitable to the capacity of man in the childhood of his intelligence. During the hours of sleep, the soul is more free from the disturbance of outward events; the will does not play so dominant a part over the movements of thought; the predilections and propensities of the inner man are unveiled. Men have an intense longing to know the future. We cannot doubt that the same God who has given us a faculty for acquiring all the past could have given us a faculty for foreseeing the future. Some potent reason has prevailed with him to hang an impenetrable veil over our untraversed life. Yet some of the grand outlines of the future have gradually been revealed. Our character forecasts our future fortunes. Practical obedience to the will of God is the best telescope through which we may discern our distant weal. Our real destiny is not wrapt in night. But Nebuchadnezzar was mainly concerned about his dominion and his dynasty; hence his inward distress produced by the midnight vision.
II. THE IMPOTENCE OF HUMAN QUACKS.
1. It must be granted that these Babylonian magicians had attained to knowledge and craft beyond the ordinary attainments of men; but (as is frequently the case) their knowledge fed their vanity; they imposed on themselves the belief that this knowledge gave them access to the secrets of the unseen world, and they sought to impose on others the conviction that they could foretell coming events. Knowledge does not always ripen into wisdomdoes not always bear the fruits of humility and truthfulness. These men were deceivers and self-deceived. They made a market out of the ambition and fear of kings.
2. Inflated conceit. They imagined that their skill was the measure of universal attainment. Failing themselves to decipher the problem, they plead, “There’s not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter.” The usual plea of weakness: “What I cannot do, no one else can do: let us yield to the inevitable.” This is the sophistry of modern sceptics, who prefer to style themselves agnostics. Because they fail to unravel difficulties in nature and in the universe, they rush to the conclusion that the matter itself is inexplicable. “A little child shall lead them.”
3. A crucial test. The monarch, unreasonable and unscrupulous as he may seem, brings their boasted knowledge to a real test. Whether these magicians did or did not accurately interpret dreams or forecast the future, the king had never known. He had been compelled to take their pretensions wholly upon trust. The oracular deliverances had been delightfully ambiguouswere capable of wide significance. No guarantee had ever been furnished by these magicians of their honesty. Now a favourable opportunity occurred for testing the skill of these boasted diviners. If their scientific calculations allowed them to descry the future, much more should it enable them to read a page of the recent past, If their popular deities gave them skill to interpret the meaning of a dream, much easier was it for these deities to give their servants power to revive in a man’s memory the loss of a dream. If they could not accomplish the lesser task, it was vain to pretend they could perform the greater. It was therefore only just that the king should sharply rebuke them in the words, “Ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me.”
III. THE HASTY VERDICT OF THE KING.
1. See the violence of carnal passion. Haste and impatience are always conspicuous signs of weakness. His expectation of escape from mental disquietude had been awakened by the pretentious arts of these magicians, and, this expectation having collapsed, disappointment added another ingredient to his cup of trouble. If he had only given himself time to recover from this mental disturbance, time to reflect upon his responsibility as arbiter of human life, time to perceive his own folly in pandering aforetime to the pretensions of these men, he would have gained a reputation for wisdom, and have rendered the world a service by exposing the hypocrisy of sorcerers.
2. His verdict was excessively severe. The penalty of death was the severest he could inflict upon his subjects, and if this penalty was enforced on every occasion, even when no public injury was done to the state, he confounded all degrees of crime, and encouraged men, who had transgressed in lesser matters, to become desperate inflictors of mischief. When men know that their offence is trivial compared with other forms of guilt, and yet have to endure the heaviest sentence of doom, they will often lend themselves to some desperate project of vengeance.
3. His verdict was indiscriminate, and involved both the righteous and the wicked. Not content with inflicting capital punishment on the offenders, he decrees that their “houses shall be made a dunghill.” By such a vindictive deed, innocent women and young children would have been plunged into suffering and disgrace for no fault, and without any advantage to the state. Moreover, the arbitrary decree required “that all the wise men should be slain.” This included Daniel and his comradesyea, all men of intelligence and wisdom, though they had made no pretence to magical art. By a blind act of ungovernable passion, the king would have stripped his court of every ornament, and his government of its best supports. A passionate man usually maims his own face. Nebuchadnezzar would have defeated his own purposecut off his only chance of having his dream interpretedif his vindictive and unscrupulous command had been executed. What vile deeds have royal hands frequently performed l How does the cry of innocent blood from a myriad battle-field rise to heaven against them!D.
Dan 2:14-23
A specific remedy for human distress.
The immoderate anger of the king had only aggravated his trouble without bringing a remedy. Uncontrollable temper is suicidal, it robbed Nebuchadnezzar of his kingly dignity, of the use of reason, of the power of memory. For the time being he had forgotten that, in all matters of practical wisdom, he had found Daniel to surpass all other state councillors. Now he was on the point of staining his conscience and his throne with wanton cruelty, with the waste of life, with the most precious blood that Babylon held.
I. IT WAS A CASE OF REAL EMERGENCY. The terror of the king, caused by his midnight scare, had only an imaginary foundation. Natural cheerfulness was enough to drive that spectre of evil out of the royal chamber. He might have laughed it out of existence. But now a real distress impended over Daniel and all the wise men of Babylon. It was not merely a fear of future disaster; reputation, property, life, were in imminent peril. The royal edict had gone forth for their summary destruction. The executioner was already preparing the murderous weapons. Before another dawn the die might be castthe deed be beyond recall. Daniel’s anxiety was awakened as much for others as himself. With his devout trust in God, death was not to him draped in sable gloom. There were worse evils, in his regard, than violent death. To die in defence of truth; to die in vindication of God’s cause, was a noble deed. But others, not so prepared for the tremendous change, were included in the peril. Eternal shame would cover the king. The foundations of the throne might be sapped. The fortunes of God’s people might sink into a yet deeper night. Israel’s prospects might suffer a blacker eclipse. The mind of Daniel would be impressed with the folly of putting trust in man. The king had, not long before, shown him special favourhad expressed both regard and friendship; yet now, Daniel is condemned to death unheard, unjudged. More fickle than the vernal sunshine is the ephemeral smile of royalty. “Put not your trust in princes.”
II. THE TRUE ORACLE SOUGHT. Whether the magicians and sorcerers adopted any measures to avert the approaching calamity, we are not told. Possibly they were paralyzed with fear, and could only hide their heads in cowardly shame. Now the worth and power of true piety emerge into the light. In the darkest hours of trouble, religion shines in brightest colours. There was:
1. An exercise of preventive prudence. However imperative be the duty of prayer, there are other duties which must not be neglected. The want of practical prudence often robs prayer of its efficacious lasses, The wise general will dispose his forces well on the battle-field before he makes an onset. Daniel’s first step was to stay the hasty execution of the edict. He calls into exercise his well-disciplined wisdom. He uses his acquired standing in the realm to secure delay. He overlooks no point of precaution. He employs his just influence with the king to gain a temporary respite. He does not attempt to reason with the monarch in his angry moodthat would be a foolish enterprise. He moderates his demand so as to bring it within the compass of a possible success. Prudence is a step towards greater acquisitions.
2. There was united supplication. Daniel’s heart was not excited with selfish ambition to secure the honour of a triumph for himself. He solicited the aid of his companions in this holy task, and addresses them by their proper Jewish names, which names reminded them that theirs was an accessible Deity. “Union is strength” in prayer, as much as in toil. The lack of humility, or earnestness, or preseverance, in one may be supplied or may be promoted by another Combined fervour has special promises of success. “If two of you shall agree touching any matter in my kingdom, it shall be granted unto you.”
3. There was strong confidence in God. In a spirit of calm and unquestioning confidence, Daniel assured the king “that he would show the king the interpretation.” Already Daniel knew that in some way the response would come. Unbelief might have whispered into his car that Jehovah had never yet answered such a request as this. Where, in the range of Jewish history, had it been recorded that the God of heaven had disclosed to one a dream which had lapsed from the memory of another? But faith would reply, “That objection is not to the point. There must be a first occasion, on which God will reveal his will to men on any matter. Let this be the first instance of its kind. The request I make is not in itself wrong or improper. It is not hostile to the purity of God’s nature. It does not spring from a selfish or carnal motive. My success will bring honour and homage to the true God. My petition must succeed. Has not Jehovah said, by the mouth of David, our model king, ‘Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me’?”
4. There was becoming humility in the posture of their souls. “They desired mercies of the God of heaven.” Daniel and his fellow-suppliants presented no claim. They abandoned themselves to the abounding mercy of their God. In a word, they confessed personal unworthiness, and approached the heavenly throne as culprits suing for mercy. This is men’s only chance of success. For, wanting all personal merit, they have no opportunity of feigning a false merit in Jehovah’s presence. With a glance of his eye he strips the veil of pretence from every suppliant, that while he rewards the contrite, he may dismay the proud and the hypocrite. “He requireth truth in the inward parts.” The poor in spirit, he enriches; the boastful rich, he empties.
III. THE ORACULAR RESPONSE OBTAINED. “Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” In what particular way this desired knowledge was imparted is not said. This is not important. Possibly the dream or vision of the king was reproduced before the imagination of Daniel, with the further disclosure of its signification. But whatever was the modus operandi, it was done. Ascertained fact overrides all pre-assumed difficulties. The same God who permits us to have dreams at all can surely repeat the shadowy spectacle; and if he is the sovereign Lord of men, he can certainly make known to intelligent minds his purposes respecting the future. “With God nothing is impossible.”
1. The mode of deliverance resembled, inform, the cause of distress. A dream was the occasion of Nebuchadnezzar’s alarmthe occasion of the wise men’s peril; a night vision was also the method of relief. Jacob’s carnal struggle with Esau was his sin, and also his ground of anxiety; Jacob’s midnight struggle with the heavenly stranger was the source of his triumph. Serpents had bitten with death the Hebrews; by gazing on a brazen serpent, they are healed. The fruit of the forbidden tree was the occasion of sin; the fruit “of the tree of life is for the healing of the nations.” “By man came death; by man came also the resurrection from the dead.”
2. The outcome was gratitude and gladness. “Then,” without any lapse of time”then,” while the sense of benefit was fresh, “Daniel blessed the God of heaven.” His faith was furnished with an additional proof that Israel’s God was a real and living God; that he was accessible to the prayers of men; and that he was a Refuge in every hour of need. It is a blessed necessity that drives us to the throne of grace. As the hosts of winter prepare the soil for a more prolific harvest, so trouble, if rightly used is pregnant with blessing. Now it would be known all through Chaldea, that while the heathen oracles are dumb, the heavenly oracle is ever vocal. The false systems of human invention are covered with shame; the system of God’s truth receives new honour. In that hour of anguish, Daniel learnt new lessons in heavenly wisdomobtained fresh discoveries of the Divine goodnessdiscovered new methods in the Divine procedure. Now he learns that “God giveth wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.” They that use their capacities shall enlarge them. The man who trades with his ten talents shall gain ten more. He who sows in prayer shall reap in praise.D.
Dan 2:23
Special blessing demands special praise.
The state of mind which generates fervent prayer generates also joyous praise. Success in prayer is a fitting occasion for exuberant delight:
1. The basis of sacred praise is gratitude. “I thank and praise thee.” Inward insensibility of feeling and forgetfulness of past favours are deadly enemies to praise. When gratitude opens the inner fountains of feeling, the crystal waters of praise freely flow. Thankfulness is the parent of song.
2. God the proper Object of praise. God, in his own nature and excellence, is deserving of the best music of the heart. The unchangeableness and faithful love of God are fitting materials for praise. The covenant mercies of God should be celebrated in praise. “God of my fathers.”
3. New blessings received are new occasions for praise. No mental possession is of human origination. Our wisdom is a gift from God. Our power to influence others for good is a talent entrusted to us by God. Answers to prayer should be occasions of hearty praise. The pathway to the Divine favour has been found. New revelations of God’s will should start afresh our powers of music. “Oh, praise the Lord!”D.
Dan 2:24
A good man becomes both king and saviour.
The actual king in the empire is not always the man who wears a diadem and occupies a stately seat. An astute statesman is often the real monarch. The poor man who, by his sagacity, delivered the city, was the veritable conqueror. The true servant of God becomes a king among men. See, for example, Joseph in Egypt, Moses in the desert, Samuel in Israel, Daniel in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar was, at this moment, a captive, bound fast in the fetters of tear. Daniel was a real sovereign, directing the act of state officers, and moulding the destinies of the nation.
I. HERE ARE MARKS OF A TRUE PROPHET. “I will show unto the king the interpretation.” To prophesy is not merely to foretell remote events: to prophesy is to disclose the unknownto unveil mysteries. False prophets are a curse; a true prophet is an immeasurable blessing. Guesses at truth are untrustworthy, deceptive, perilous. Real revelation is a safe anchorage for the soul. Science soon reaches the end of her tether; she enjoys a very limited range. Revelation has to do with the infinite and the absolutewith all the secrets in the universe. To unfold the mysteries of human life, one by one, is the mission of God’s prophets. “I will show the interpretation.”
II. HERE ARE SIGNS OF KINGLY RULE. Nebuchadnezzar “was angry and very furious;” he had lost command over himself. Daniel had learnt the art of self-conquest. Nebuchadnezzar had commanded his officer to slay the wise men. Daniel, though one of the doomed, countermands the order. The magicians supposed that their lives were at the disposal of the monarch. They really were, by God’s ordination, at the disposal of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was a captive to dreadful apprehensions; feared a conspiracy; immured himself in the palace. Daniel walked abroad; breathed the sweet air of liberty; and wielded a power more mysterious than any enchanter’s wand. Nebuchadnezzar had said, “Let there be war!” Daniel said, “Peace, be still!” The king had said to Arioch, “Unsheath thy sword, and slay!” Daniel countersaid, “Put up thy sword into its sheath, and spare!” The king had said to the wise men, “Die!” Daniel said instead, “Live I” And the voice of Daniel prevailed.
III. Here we have, in type and emblem, A REAL SAVIOUR. It is easy enough to destroy; it is difficult to save. A child may set a city on fire; ten thousand men may be impotent to save it. A madman has destroyed in five minutes what human genuine had taken years to create. The fiat from Nebuchadnezzar’s lips had been, “Destroy destroy all the wise men of Babylon!” But Daniel had issued another mandate, “Destroy not!” and Daniel’s word prevailed. A strange foreshadowing this of another event. Five hundred years later Herod commanded the massacre of all the infants in Bethlehem; yet One of the innocent babes was spared to become the Saviour of the world and Herod’s Judge. So mercy “rejoices against judgment.”D.
Dan 2:25-30
Needful preparations to receive Divine revelation.
Subjective conditions of mind are requisite for objective truth to enter. Common light cannot penetrate walls of stone or iron shutters. The electric force will only circulate along proper conductors. And if material forces demand suitable conditions in which to perform their active mission, so much more does the spiritual force of truth require that the hand of the recipient shall be sensitive, candid, impressible. Such was the gross, unspiritual state of some populations in Palestine, that even Jesus could not do his mighty works among them. Daniel proceeds to prepare the soil for the seed.
I. PREJUDICE MUST BE DISARMED. The anger of the king had been so greatly excited by the impotence and the imposture of his wise men, that Daniel perceived it best to forego his privilege of entering the monarch’s presence at will. It was better to take the circuitous route of a formal introduction, as if he were a stranger. Hence the marshal of the court precedes the Hebrew prophet, secures the monarch’s attention, and introduces Daniel, not as one of the royal college of sages, but simply as a Jewish captive. The former credulity of the king had given place to utter scepticism. So men’s minds oscillate between the points of easy, groundless belief and obstinate prejudice. No vice so frequently assumes the air of respectable propriety as this vice of prejudice. It serves as a thick fog to shut out from the mind the clear light of heavenly truth. “There’s none so blind as those who will not see.”
II. INQUIRY MUST BE AWAKENED. “Art thou able to make known the dream?” Inquiry is the natural state of the human mind. It is its sense of hungerthe putting forth of its prehensile organs to obtain food. To the spiritually inert nothing will be revealed. Sincere desire for wisdom will impel us to interrogate every possible teacher, and to say, “Art thou able to add to my stock of knowledge?” The true philosopher or prophet will often appear in very modest garb, as did Daniel; but the spirit of the learner is a spirit of humility’tis the spirit of a child. Remote as the antipodes is the temper that asks, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” “Every one that seeketh findeth.” We may often find through a dependentthrough a despised slavewhat we cannot find ourselves. Nebuchadnezzar, with all his royal gifts, could not find an interpreter. Arioch, the captain of his guard, greets him with the news, “I have found him!” A little captive maid in Naaman’s kitchen could direct her master where to find a cure for his leprosy.
III. TRUST IN FALSE PROPHETS AND IN FALSE SYSTEMS MUST BE DESTROYED. Side by side with the growth of true faith must proceed the destruction of a false faith. The pompous monarch had rested his faith in the magicians and soothsayers, without sufficient reason. He had very likely prided himself on the superhuman wisdom of his counsellors. Yet what guarantee had he that they had ever spoken truth? Had he ever examined their credentials? ever put to the test their real capacity? If not, he was simply the victim of self-imposed credulity. The institution of sorcery was ancient and time-honoured, but none the less was it false and corrupt. If the king would not take the pains to examine the pretensions of these magicians, he deserved to be deceived. A Heaven-sent teacher is an incalculable treasure; a false prophet is a poisoned cupa wolf in sheep’s clothing “Try the spirits, whether they be of God.” No human authority is self-odginative; we must know the source whence it sprang. “Cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils.”
IV. RECOGNITION OF GOD MOST BECOMING IN MEN, ESPECIALLY IN TIMES OF PERPLEXITY. “There is a God in heaven.” Nor is that heaven far removed. “In him we live and move and exist.” Even the magicians had confessed that there were invisible deities: “The gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” Why did not the king in secret prostrate himself before these, and entreat their aid? If we believe in God, we shall recognize him, honour him, and use him in seasons of need. The true God does not love to see us grope in darkness; he longs to give us light. Our mental capacities preach to us this truth. He “revealeth secrets.” “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.” The secrets of nature he reveals to the patient investigator; and if we will inquire at the portals of the heavenly kingdom, we shall know, by gradual disclosures, the secrets of the invisible world. Even our inner solves we do not accurately know, until God unveils to us the mystery. Daniel was sent to the king, that he might know the workings of his own heart.
V. GENUINE HUMILITY IS A MARK OF GOD‘S SERVANT. “This secret,” said Daniel, “is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have.” Natural endowments of intellect often puff men up with vain conceit of themselves; but the enlightening grace of God’s Spirit develops their humility. “The meek will he teach his way.” Having revealed to suppliants their own nothingness, their absolute dependence on the heavenly source, he unveils to them all truth that ministers to happiness and purity. The mysteries of his kingdom he hides from the boastful wise and prudent, but reveals them unto babes. The messenger of Divine truth will divert the attention of men from himself to his Master. Like John the Baptist, he accounts himself only as a “voice,” and announces that One mightier and worthier comeththe true Light and Life of men. Humility is a pre-requisite for Divine employment.
VI. WE MUST RECOGNIZE THE NEED OF VICARIOUS MERIT. It is noteworthy that Daniel disclosed the reason why God vouchsafed this revelation to the king. It was not done for the sake of the king, nor for the sake of the magicians, nor for the sake of the empire, but for the sake of the Jewish suppliants. It would be galling to our pride sometimes if we knew to what human mediation we were indebted for Divine blessing. The prayer of some bed-ridden saint has brought down the treasures of heavenly rain upon the Church. For the sake of Paul the prisoner, the lives of all on beard the imperilled ship were saved. For Joseph and his brethren’s sake, famine was averted from the Egyptians. Yet these are but faint and imperfect types of that grand scheme of mediation which God has provided for the redemption of the world; and for Jesus’ sake, mercy flows in a full stream to men; for Jesus’ sake, heaven is opened to all believers; for Jesus’ sake, prayer is heard and the Holy Ghost is given. We, too, can be mediators for others; and it may yet be said that for our sakes, and in response to our intercessions, dark minds are enlightened, a world is blessed. Christ the High Priest puts a censer into our hands, and asks us to tilt it with the fragrant incense of spiritual prayer.D.
Dan 2:36-43
Human sovereignty.
In a proper sense of the words, every dream is prophetic. Else on what ground are we to conclude that the dreams of Joseph, Pharaoh, Abimeloch, Pilate’s wife, were prophetic; and others not prophetic? Dreams are revelations of dominant ideas and habitudes of mind: they disclose features of moral character; they are reminders of an unslumbering Judge; they serve in some measure to forecast the future. The powers of heaven and of hell lie close about us in our sleep.
I. HUMAN SOVEREIGNTY IS DERIVED FROM GOD. If God had so pleased, he might have placed all men on a level. The principle of co-ordination, instead of subordination, was possible. Some genera of animals seem to have the instinct of subordination to rule among them; others, not. This ambition for rule is, in its original and unselfish character, an endowment from God. Strength, influence, will, power, kingly glory, all proceed from God. What have we of any value that we have not received? Fools men are to be inflated with pride, because another has lent them some possessions in trust. As well may a steward of a lordly estate give himself airs while his lord is absent. As well may the horses yoked to a treasure-van arch their necks and shake their manes because they draw behind them costly metals! Earthly honors are not unmistakable evidences of God’s, Invent towards us. He sometimes puts a crown on our heads, that it may lacerate us with its hidden thornsgives us a sceptre, and chastises us therewith.
II. SOVEREIGNTY, IN SOME FORM, IS GIVEN TO EVERY MAN. It was given to every man to have dominion over the beasts of the field and over the fowls of the air. On every man is imposed the duty to rule himselfhis appetite, temper, passions, speech. The loftier part of his nature is divinely commissioned to rule the lower. “Better is he that ruleth his own nature, than he that taketh a city.” Our wise and successful government of ourselves forms a course of training which shall fit us to govern others. This truth may well be printed in letters of gold, and set up where we can read it daily. According to our present loyalty will be the extent of future award. “Be thou ruler over ten cities; be thou ruler over five cities.”
III. HUMAN SOVEREIGNTY DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THE POSSESSION OF THE NOBLEST QUALITIES. The Chaldean sovereignty is represented by gold; the Persian, by silver; the Grecian, by brass; the Roman, by iron. One man, though ill-fitted for the post, may reign by virtue of hereditary succession. Another reigns by reason of his superior sagacity. A third reigns by virtue of real strength of character. A fourth reigns by reason of successful intrigue, or as the result of violent and unscrupulous war. Might is often mistaken for right. One throne is based on law; another rests on bayonets. Qualities and principles very inferior intrinsically often come to the surface, and dominate in human affairs. The dross rises to the top; the virgin metal keeps in obscurity. A Herod is on the throne; Jesus dwells in a stable! The silver is preferred to the gold, yea, the brass takes the place of both. Yet this is only a temporary displacement.
IV. SOVEREIGNTY BASED ON HETEROGENEOUS ELEMENTS COLLAPSES. Iron and clay are both useful in their place; but it was never intended that they should be fused into a unity. A short-sighted monarch frequently vacillates between three or four discordant principles, and, though fortune may, for a time, seem to favour him, yet he never succeeds. Now he insists on royal prerogative; then he concedes to selfish prudence. To-day he uses physical power; to-morrow he yields to fear. “A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” True principle, consistently adhered to, triumphs at last.D.
Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45
The establishment of a permanent kingdom.
It is worth while to note the period in which this new kingdom was destined to arise. “In the days of these,” i.e. Roman, “kings.” God had chosen to defer the visible manifestation of his kingdom until men had learnt the folly and the crime of attempting to do without him. We of this age are permitted to see the exact fulfilment of these words. Verily our God is a God of truth.
I. OBSERVE THE FOUNDER OF THIS NEW‘ KINGDOM. When it was said, in a previous part of this chapter, that the God of heaven had given to Nebuchadnezzar a kingdom, it is not meant that God was the only Person taking part in the elevation of that monarch. Human interests and ambitions exercised their power. Possibly Satan instigated the evil passions of some of the statesmen of that day. But all the events were under the controlling will of God. He allows human and Satanic activity, but only within a limit imposed by his own will. On the other hand, the founding of this new kingdom is exclusively his work. From first conception to final completion; the work is God’s. The heavenly principles on which it is founded are of his origination. The God of heaven hath done it: who can withstand? “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed. But he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision.”
II. ITS MYSTERIOUS MANIFESTATION. It was a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. The process of founding this empire is new and unprecedented. Into its constitution no form of human policy enters. It was a part of a mountaina small partmysteriously detached from the solid whole. By virtue of its own innate energy it grew and spread until it became a mountain also. Herein is symbolized the fact that Christ’s kingdom on the earth is a part of heaven itself; it shall gradually grow into the likeness of heaven itself. There shall be a new earth, in which dwelleth righteousness.
III. ITS IMMUTABILITY. “It shall not be left to other people.” In other words, no change of dynasty shall occur. Our King Emmanuel shall reign for ever. As he possesses an unchanging priesthood, so he holds an unchanging royalty. No change in its principles, or in its laws, or in its modes of aggression, shall be permitted. They are perfect in design from the very commencement. Nor, in the best sense, shall the true subjects in this kingdom be changed. Christ hates divorcements. “Having loved is own, he will love them to the end.” Once Christ’s, we are Christ’s for ever. In moving us from the visible kingdom on earth, death, as our King’s officer, does but convey to the higher provincethe metropolis of the kingdom, viz. the invisible.
IV. ITS ALL–CONQUERING POWER. It shall be ravaged by no other kingdom; it shall vanquish all. its victories may be slow, but they are sure. No weapon that is formed against this empire shall prosper. The nation that will not serve King Jesus shall perish. The powers that assail the Church of Christ shall be broken in pieces as a potter’s vessel. During the past eighteen centuries this has been the tale of history. The two-edged weapon of Divine truth has triumphed. The testimony of infidel and adversary is this: “The Nazarene has conquered.” It is a bloodless warfare, and ends in abiding victory.
V. MARK ITS PERPETUAL DURATION. The elements of which this kingdom is composed are indissoluble and imperishable. They are righteousness, truth, love, peace. The King himself is eternal and immortal, “without beginning of days, and without end of life.” To all his subjects he gives immortal youth. “They shall never perish? Hence there is nothing in this empire that is pervious to decay. Once more will God shake heaven and earth, to the end that what is frail may perish, and that the “things which cannot be shaken may remain.” This is a kingdom which cannot be moved. “For he must reign, until he hath put all things under his feet.” It is a decree growing out of the roots of absolute and eternal necessity.D.
Dan 2:46-49
The kingly worth of a good man discovered.
As surely as God lives, the Author of all real goodness, loyalty shall become, in due time, royalty. Faithful devotion to him shall be honoured in the presence of monarchs and mighty men. The man who bows in lowly homage at the feet of the Eternal shall by-and-by see others at his feet. “Before honour is humility.”
I. THE PROPHET‘S SUCCESS. Daniel had proceeded, with honest fidelity, to declare to the king the truth entrusted to his keeping. He had not flattered Nebuchadnezzar with glittering and delusive hopes. He had held out no prospect that the Chaldean kingdom should be permanent. Nevertheless, the Chaldean king felt that there was an authority and a majesty in the truth, vastly superior to his own. He bowed before it. The previous discovery of the magicians’ falseness had prepared his mind to value truth; hence he prostrated himself before the visible representative of heavenly truth, with that abject mode of prostration common in his court. The truth from the prophet’s lips had produced that inward sense of personal littleness which accorded with reality. The homage he rendered to God’s message was, according to the customs of the age, fitting. There was more of kingly nobleness in Daniel than in Nebuchadnezzar; and the monarch, in his way, foresaw the day when the sons of God shall be manifested in royal power. But it was not fitting that the homage due to the Master should be given to the servant; and, though the narrative leaves Daniel silent here, doubtless he disclaimed all right to such adulation, and directed it to be given to the Divine Author of truth. Publicly did the heathen monarch confess that Jehovah was God above all other godsKing over all other kings. It was no slight change wrought in the convictions and temper of the monarch, when he thus cast obloquy on Chaldea’s deities, and confessed the power of Israel’s God. This was the success which Daniel had sought.
II. THE PROPHET‘S REWARD. Although Daniel declines to accept the homage which was due only to the unseen God, he does not fall therefore in the monarch’s esteem: he rises higher still. Then the candid honesty of the man compels him to forego worldly advantage, that he may be loyal to truth and to God. Such a man is worthy of large and implicit trust. The interests of the empire can be entrusted to no better hands. He shall stand next to the king: he shall be king in all but the name! No human sovereign can make Daniel a great man. He was great already, moulded and fashioned into greatness by a Divine hand. Such intrinsic greatness the world could not give nor take away. Outward signs of greatness, however, the king conferred. He gave him riches; he gave him rule; made him prime minister of state. The king had learnt by experience that no expense spent on Daniel had been waste. His nourishment and education of Daniel for three years had proved most remunerative outlay. Amply had he been repaid. And now gratitude and interest alike prompted him to confer all possible power upon this right noble man. Never could the title be better conferred”most excellent,” or “right honourable.” He “sat in the gate'” to direct the administration and to dispense justice. This was the “sublime porte” of Babylon
III. THE PROPHET‘S SELF–FORGETFUL SPIRIT. He has but one request to make of the king, and this request was not for himself, but for others. Having been highly exalted, be seeks gifts for men. Nowhere does the nobility and magnanimity of the man come more into view than here. His sudden elevation to rank and riches and rule have not spoilt him. In him lurks no ambitious pride. He has no thought of invidious rivalry. He is unwilling to enjoy his honours alone. In that hour of unexpected triumph he does not forget his fellow-captives who had joined their prayers to his in the hour of exigency. It may seem a bold petition: it may imperil his reputation with the king. To ask that the native Chaldeansthe officers who had gained illustrious honour by the conquest of Jerusalemshould be displaced to make room for three obscure and captive Jews: truly, this was a large request. Does not Daniel jeopardize all his gains by this daring proposal? Come what will, he will serve his nation, he will serve his God. And if, by sagacious foresight, he can diminish the oppressions of his countrymen, or pave the path for their return to Palestine, he will do it. The sacred fire aglow in his heart is revealed. Self is obliterated. To do good to Jew and Gentile alikethis is his sweet ambition! O man, “beloved. of God,” thy name shall be embalmed in fragrant remembrance.D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Dan 2:1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar As the affairs of Babylon have so considerable a share in the historical parts of the book of Daniel, as well as in other parts of Scripture, it may not be amiss to give here a short sketch of the kingdom of Babylon, previous to the reign of this monarch.
Whether the Assyrian empire was of very early date according to some of the Greek writers and chronicles, or whether its commencement was not till a much later period according to modern chronologists, it is agreed on all sides, that the origin of this and of the Babylonian monarchy must be traced from nearly the same source. And accordingly we read in the 10th chapter of Genesis, Dan 2:10-11 that Nimrod the son of Cush and grandson of Ham, who seems to have been the first founder of extensive or regal authority, had the beginning of his kingdom in Babel or Babylon in the land of Shinar, as this country was still called in the time of Daniel. Chap. Dan 1:2. Out of this land he went forth into Assyria, or it may be, as most of the versions read, Ashur or an Assyrian went forth, (that is, not one of the sons of Shem, but a person either of that name, or who took his name from the country,) and built Nineveh and other cities. The descendants of these people seem for a considerable time to have followed the way of life of their founder, to have lived upon plunder and rapine in a rude uncivilized state, and not to have been much esteemed among the nations; till some potent king of Assyria collected them together, and settled them in Babylon and the country round about it. Bishop Lowth supposes this king to have been Ninus, and to have lived in the time of the Judges, following the testimony of Herodotus, who is understood to say, that the Assyrian monarchy lasted but 520 years.
The history of Assyria and Babylon from Ninus* to this last-named period, is involved in much uncertainty, as we have scarcely any authentic evidence to have recourse to, the testimony of the Greek writers wearing for the most part the appearance of fable, and the Scriptures throwing very little light on the matter.
* Mr. Bruce, in his Travels, book 2: chap. 1: speaks of Semiramis, and the immense riches of the Assyrian empire, which Montesquieu thinks proceeded chiefly from rapine and plunder of other nations in war; but which Mr. Bruce more justly imputes to her connexions with India; and that as the commerce with that peninsula was unknown by sea, the whole must have been carried on by land only, and all nations of the continent must have received from her markets a supply of Indian stores. See Prelim. Dis. Upon this principle he accounts also for a passage in Solomon’s Proverbs chap. Dan 7:16 where he says, that he decked his bed with coverings of tapestry of Egypt. Now Egypt had neither silk nor cotton manufactory, nor even wool. Solomon’s coverings, therefore, though he had them from Egypt, were an article of barter with India.
The next Assyrian king of the Scriptures is Tiglath-pileser, supposed to have been the son of Pul; and after him follow Shalmanezer and Senacherib: during the reign of one of which monarchs, perhaps the former, the kingdom of Babylon and Chaldea seems to have revolted, and it is probable from Herodotus, not long after the time that the Medes did, from the Assyrian empire. The first prince, after this revolt, at least the first whom we have any certain knowledge of, seems to have been Nabonassar, the founder of the famous aera, which commenced with his reign, and was called by his name. Several other princes or kings succeeded him in this kingdom, of whom little more is known than their names, which are recorded by the celebrated astronomer Ptolemy. But in the twenty-seventh year after the commencement of his father’s kingdom his son Mardoc Empadus, or Merodach Baladan, began to reign over Babylon, which was the prince that sent to congratulate Hezekiah king of Judah on his miraculous recovery, 2 Kings 20 and Isaiah 39 and probably to enter into an alliance with him against Senacherib, the king of the other part of the Assyrian empire. After this monarch had reigned over Babylon twelve years, he was succeeded by several princes, who, in their turns, governed Babylon for a short period of about twenty years; when it became in a state of anarchy for eight years more, and was at length united by Assaradinus or Esar-haddon, the son of Senacherib, to the Assyrian empire. This happened about the nineteenth year of Manasseh, that wretched prince, who succeeded his father the good Hezekiah in the kingdom of Judah.
I must not stop to mention the completion of several remarkable events in the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which took place during the reign of Esar-haddon over Assyria, but must refer the reader to the narratives recorded in the 2nd book of Kings, the prophesy of Isaiah, ch. Dan 7:8 and the book of Ezra, or to Dr. Prideaux and others, who have written the Scripture history. It is sufficient to observe, that the remainder of the tribes of Israel were entirely carried away by this prince, and irrecoverably sunk among other nations, and that the king of Judah was also carried by him to Babylon, though soon after he released him, and restored him to his liberty and his kingdom.
In the thirty-first of Manasseh, Esar-haddon died, after he had reigned thirteen years over the Babylonians united to the kingdom of Assyria: he was succeeded by Saosduchius his son, the Nabuchodonosor of the book of Judith, whose successor was Chyniladan, and whose reign commenced in the fifty-first year of Manasseh, or the hundred-and-first of the aera of Nabonassar. From this effeminate and profligate king, Nabopolassar his general seized the Babylonian part of the empire, and reigned over his native country twenty-one years. This revolt took place in the eighteenth year of Josiah king of Judah, about twenty-five years after the then Assyrian monarch began his reign; and at length by an union of this king of Babylon with the princes of Media, that great city Niniveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, was taken and destroyed, the empire was extinguished, and the people reduced under the yoke of Babylon and Media. This union was effected by the marriage of his son Nebuchadnezzar or Nabocolassar, as he is called by Ptolemy, with Amyite, the daughter of Astyages, of the kingdom of the Medes; and this is the prince of whose history so much is recorded by Daniel, and who, after the death of the good king Josiah, in the reign of his sons, carried away so many captives from Judaea unto Babylon, at that time the capital of the whole united empire.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2. The vision of the monarchies, or Nebuchadnezzars dream concerning the four world-kingdoms, and its interpretation by Daniel
Dan 2:1-49
1And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith [and] his spirit was troubled,1 and his sleep brake 2from him.2 Then [And] the king commanded3 to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldans, for to shew [tell] the king his dreams. So [And] they came and stood before the king. 3And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled1 to know the dream.
4Then spake the Chaldans to the king in Syriac [Aramaic], O king, live for ever! tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.
5The king answered and said to the Chaldans, The thing [word] is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with [and] the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces,4 and your houses shall be made a 6dunghill [sink]. But [And] if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of [from before] me gifts and rewards [largess], and great honour: therefore shew me the dream and the interpretation thereof.
7They answered again, and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it. 8The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing [word] Isaiah 9 gone from me. But [, that] if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you; for [and] ye have prepared lying and corrupt words [a lie and a corrupt word] to speak before me till the time be changed;5 therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can shew me the interpretation thereof.
10The Chaldans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth6 that can shew the kings matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things [a matter] at any magician, or astrologer, or Chal 11dan. And it is a rare thing [And the matter] that the king requireth [asketh is weighty]; and there is none other that can shew it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
12For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded7 to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. 13And the decree went forth that [, and] the wise men should be slain [were about to be killed]; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.
14Then Daniel answered with8 counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the kings guard,9 which was [who had] gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon: 15he answered and said to Arioch the kings captain, Why is the decree so hasty 16from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. Then [And] Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would shew [even to show] the king the interpretation.
17Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions; 18that they would desire [even to request] mercies of the God of heaven [the heavens] concerning this secret, that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night-vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven [the heavens]. 20Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God10 for ever and ever [from everlasting and to everlasting]; for wisdom 21and might are his.11 And he12 changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to 22them that know understanding. He11 revealeth the deep and secret things: he 23knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and made known unto me now13 what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the kings matter.
24Therefore Daniel went in unto14 Arioch, whom the king had ordained [appointed] to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him, Destroy not15 the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation. 25Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him,16 I have found a man of the captives [children of the captivity] of Judah that [who] will make known unto the king the interpretation. 26The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?
27Daniel answered in the presence of [before] the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded [asked], cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew [the wise men. cannot show] unto the king; 28but [yet] there is a God in heaven [the heavens] that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days [what is it that shall be in the end of the days]. Thy dream, and the visions 29of thy head upon thy bed, are these [is this]; (as for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed what should come to pass [what it is that shall be] hereafter; and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what 30shall come to pass [what it is that shall be]: but [and] as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have [is in me] more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation [but in order that the interpretation may be made known] to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart:)
31Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a17 great18 image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood [a great imagethis image was large, and its brightness excessiverising] before thee,19 and the form thereof was terrible. 32This images head [This was the image: Its head] was of fine20 gold, his breast [its breasts] and his [its] arms of silver, his belly [its bowels] and his thighs 33[its thighs] of brass [copper], his [its] legs of iron, his [its] feet part [of them] of iron and part [of them] of clay. 34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which [and it] smote the image upon his [its] feet, that were 35of iron and clay,21 and brake them to pieces [crushed them]. Then was [were] the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together,22 and became like the chaff of [from] the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that [and] no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became [was for] a great mountain, and filled the whole [all the] earth.
36This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof [its interpretation we will tell] before the king.
37Thou, O king, art a king of kings [the kings]: for the God of heaven [the heavens] hath given thee a [the] kingdom, [the] power, and [the] strength, and [the] glory.23 38And wheresoever the children of men dwell [in every place that the sons of man are dwelling], the beasts [living thing] of the field, and the fowls [bird] of the heaven [heavens], hath he given into [in] thy hand, and hath made thee ruler [rule] over them all. Thou art this [the] head of gold. 39And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to [earthward from] thee, and another third kingdom [a kingdom the third another] of brass,24 which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40And the fourth kingdom [a kingdom the fourth] shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things [the whole]; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41And whereas thou sawest the feet and [the] toes part [of them] of potters clay and part [of them] ofiron, the kingdom shall be divided [a divided kingdom it shall be]; but [and] there shall be in it of the strength of the 42iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron25 mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part [of them] of iron and part [of them] of clay; so the 43kingdom shall be partly26 strong, and partly [part of it shall be] broken. And27 whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men [man]; but [and] they shall not cleave one to another 44[this with this], even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the [their] days of these kings shall the God of heaven [the heavens] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other [another] people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it28 shall stand for eDaniel Dan 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the [a] stone was cut out of the mountain without [upon not with] hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron,24 the brass,24 the clay,24 the silver,24 and the gold; 24 the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter [what it is that shall be after this]: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
46Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer [to offer] an oblation and sweet odours unto him. 47The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is that your God Isaiah 29 a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing [that] thou couldest reveal this secret. 48Then the king made Daniel a great man30 and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole [all the] province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. 49Then [And | Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but [and] Daniel sat in the gate of the king.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan 2:1-3. Nebuchadnezzar demands an interpretation of his dream by the Magi. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., in the second year of his sole reign, which, as remarked in 8, note 2, of the Introduction, must have commenced some time after the fourthperhaps in the sixthyear of the reign of Jehoiakim. The time, therefore, is about four years later than that mentioned in Dan 1:1, and soon after that designated in Dan 1:18. The three years of the training of Daniel and his companions had expired, perhaps by only a few weeks or months, and their reception into the number of the royal officials, as well as among the magicians, in the broader sense of the term, was of recent occurrence, when the remarkable event transpired which is here recorded, and which raised the four Jews to a far more exalted position in the royal favor. There is, therefore, no conflict, either with those passages of chap. 1 nor with Jer 25:1, where the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, does not designate the first year of his sole reign, but of his joint rule. Compare Hengstenberg, p. 60 et seq., who is correct, in opposition to those who find here essentially a chronological error (Berth., Bleek, Hitz., etc.); and also, as compared with the less suitable modes of reconciliations attempted by several, e.g., Wieseler (Die LXX Wochen, etc., p. 8 et seq.), who places the event narrated in this chapter before the expiration of the three years of Daniels training, and therefore before Dan 1:18-20, thus regarding it as a supplementary attestation and illustration of the statement in Dan 1:20 (also Fller, p. 33 et seq.); Hvernick (Neue krit. Unters., p. 64), who places the facts stated in Dan 1:1 et seq. altogether at the beginning of the third year of Jehoiakim, and assumes in addition, that Nebuchadnezzar became king a whole year later; from which it follows that 3839 months may have elapsed between the taking of Jerusalem and the transportation of Daniel (Dan 1:1 et seq.), and the time of Nebuchadnezzars dream. Ewalds opinion that has been lost from after , which would give the twelfth instead of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, is likewise superfluous.31The copula in probably indicates that verses l4a were written immediately after chap. 1 and doubtless for the purpose of connecting this introductory section more closely with the Chaldaic fragment, Dan 2:4 b49, which, together with the narratives in Chaldee that follow, may have already existed in manuscript form. Compare the Intr. 4.Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. [It has justly been regarded as a significant thing, that it was Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, who first saw in a dream the whole future development of the world-power (and even its final overthrow). This circumstance also is worthy of notice, that Nebuchadnezzar did not himself understand the revelation which he received, but the prophet Daniel, enlightened by God, must interpret it to him.Keil.] The plural is used in this place with reference to the several contents of the dream, which, according to Dan 2:31, comprises a number of scenes: (1) The sight of the great image; (2) its destruction; and (3) the growth of the stone which caused its ruin, until it became a gigantic mountain. The dream thus manifested its confused, mysterious character, that dissolved into indefiniteness. The plural may, therefore, with a certain propriety be taken as a plural of unlimited universality, which serves to prepare the way for the singular that follows in Dan 2:3, in so far as it designates the whole of the confused and complex nature of the dream, among whose visions the image of the monarchies and its fate, were prominent in importance and in the impression they produced (cf. Hvern and Maur. on the passage). The rabbinical interpretation, which refers the plural to the dream and its explanation, is certainly to be rejected (e.g., Jos. Jacchiad.); and also the unauthorized identification of with . (Sept., Vulg., Luther, etc.; and also Hvernick, who endeavors to define this as a plural of intensity, supporting his view by a comparison with , Pro 1:20; Pro 9:1, which is certainly not plural).Wherewith his spirit was troubled. Dan 2:3, and also Gen 41:8 (where the awaking of Pharaoh from his dream is described) employ the Niphal in the same sense that the Hithpael in this place bears, viz.: as indicating the alarm of one who has been frightened by a dream; compare Psa 77:5, I am so troubled (properly, I am bruised, beaten, contundor). and also the Greek . The Hithpael intensifies the conception of internal disturbance contained in the Niphal, so that it implies that its outward expression could not be mistaken (Kranichf.).And his sleep brake from him, or and his sleep was over for him. So, properly, the Sept., Vulg., Luther, Berth., etc., and, in general a majority of expositors. On the Niphal , in the sense of being past or completed, compare Dan 8:27, and especially Mic 2:4. The phrase His sleep went from him (Dan 6:19; Est 6:1) conveys a somewhat different idea. , over him, or for him, expresses, as frequently with conceptions of emotional activity, the sense of the dative in a more circumstantial and emphatic manner; cf. Dan 4:24; Dan 6:19; Dan 10:8, and see Gesenius Thesaurus, p. 1027, 3, e. Hvernick renders it incorrectly: His sleep came on him heavily; for the statement that the king was greatly troubled does not admit of the other, that a heavy slumber had seized on him. Rather Dan 2:3 shows clearly that the desire to recall his dream, hence such an effort to recollect as would necessarily banish sleep, formed the real cause of his disturbance.On the phenomenon that Nebuchadnezzar should have a dream of prophetic significance, and then forget it (with reference to many of its details, if not entirely) consult the dogmatico-ethical considerations, No. 1.
Dan 2:2. And the king commanded to call the magicians, etc. This is exactly similar to Gen 41:8, to which record the writer seems designedly to have conformed in expression. Of the four classes of wise men here remarked (, Dan 2:27), the Chartummim and Ashaphim have already been mentioned, Dan 1:20 (see on that place). The , mentioned as a third class, are clearly enchanters; cf. (properly to mutter words of incantation; Sept., ) 2Ch 33:6 and () Exo 7:11; Deut. 48:10. The term designates, in correspondence with its harsher formation, a stronger and more passionate mode of incantation than an apparent and observable enchantment, as distinguished from the mere breathing of magical formulas. The further mention of the , Chaldans, in connection with the Chartummim, etc., and therefore, as a special class of wise men cordinate with the others, involves no abuse or carelessness of expression, but rather corresponds fully with the statement of Herodotus (I. 181), that the Chaldans were the priests of Bel, and with that of Diodorus (II. 24), that the Babylonians termed their priests . Those designated in this place as are therefore the sacerdotal wise men (cf. Hesychius, s. v. , where the Chaldans are distinguished as a ), who, it is probable, were specially occupied with astronomy, the aboriginal science of the nations about the Euphrates and the Tigris, whose founder was supposed to be Belus, the chief divinity of the Chaldans (Pliny, H. N, vi. Dan 30: Belusinventor sideralis scienti). As astronomers, they were probably classed with the astrologers, the , who are mentioned in connection with them in Dan 4:4; Dan 5:7; Dan 5:11, and instead of them in Dan 2:27 of this chapter (see on that passage). The nationality of these Chaldans was clearly different from that of the great mass of the Babylonian populace; for while these, the original inhabitants of Shinar, were pure Shemites, the former had adopted many Aryan elements into their language and customs. The Chaldans, after inhabiting Babylonia for centuries, as a kind of priestly caste, attained to political supremacy through Belesys or Nabopolassar, whom Diodorus, ii. 26, designates as , hence through one of their superior priests (about B. C. 637). They retained this pre-eminence until the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, hence, about a century; but this probably did not exclude the primitive Babylonian priesthood from its place beside the sacerdotal class of the dominant nationality, either in regard to office, or to consideration. Thus we may explain why the Chaldans are only co-ordinate with the other classes of magicians in this place and in the passages of chap. 4 and 5 which have been mentioned, and also understand the fact that the official language (according to Dan 2:4) was not the Chaldee, but continued to be the Araman (primitive Babylonian). The Chaldns, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar did not, therefore, found a one-sided, intolerant, sacerdotal dynasty; they had rather, so far as this was possible, become thorough Babylonians, or, in other words, Aramans. The Chaldns, however, must have formed the potior pars of the whole body of the wise men at the court, for no other supposition will explain why the entire corps are designated sometimes as , and at others as , in the following account (Dan 2:4-5; Dan 2:10, cf. Dan 2:11-12, etc.). Compare Hitz. and Kranichf. on this passage, and see infra, on Dan 2:4.For to show the king his dreams. All of the four classes of wise men just mentioned were therefore to co-operate in interpreting the dream, because in this important matter the facts and opinions were to be settled by various methods, and possibly, to be placed on record. The several classes of wise men supplemented each other on such occasions, and assisted each other mutually by their peculiar methods. Thus, the priests might propitiate the gods and invoke their aid, by sacrifices; the conjurers might contribute to the increase of prophetic ability, as might also the enchanters, e.g., by the use of narcotics, etc. In this way the Egyptian wise-men were constantly employed in individual cases as a , according to Diodorus, iii. 30. (Kranichf.)
Dan 2:3. My spirit was troubled to know the dream. A constr. prgnans, which signifies, My spirit has become troubled (cf. on Dan 2:1), and desirous to know the dream. The king clearly desires to have his dream rehearsed, and not merely to learn its meaning. The words may certainly imply the latter, but it appears definitely from Dan 2:5 et seq., 9 et seq. 26, and 36, that he is more immediately concerned to recover the dream itself. The reason was, without doubt, that he had really forgotten it, or, as is frequently the case with intricate dreams, many of its particulars had escaped his memory, and he retained only a general undefined impression of having seen something fearful, monstrous, and alarming, in his dream. A total forgetting of the dream cannot be supposed in this case, since it was not possible for the king to be so greatly troubled as to lose his sleep about a dream which he had forgotten entirely (Dan 2:1). Nor can it be assumed that he really recollected the dream, and had merely pretended that he no longer remembered it (R. Gaon in Ibn-Ezra, Hengstenberg, Hvernick); for the writer would hardly have left unnoticed a representation of this nature, which aimed to test the magicians; and, in addition, the rage of the king, as described in Dan 2:12 et seq., is too furious to be pretended. [On the other hand, Keil justly contends (with the majority of interpreters) that he had not essentially forgotten his dream. It is psychologically improbable that so impressive a dream, which, on awaking, he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Genesis 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith (Kran.). According to Dan 2:9, Nebuchadnezzar wished to hear the dream from the wise men that he might thus have a guarantee for the correctness of the interpretations which they might give. He could not thus have spoken to them if he had wholly forgotten the dream, and had only a dark apprehension remaining in his mind that he had dreamed. In that case he would neither have offered a great reward for the announcement of the dream, nor have threatened severe punishment, even death, for failure in announcing it. For then he would only have given the Chaldans the opportunity, at the cost of truth, of declaring any dream with an interpretation. The Magi boasted that by the help of the gods they could reveal deep and hidden things (Hengst.). It is very probable, however, that while the king retained a lively recollection of the main features of the dream, he might have forgotten some of the particulars, which, if rehearsed again, he would be able to recognize. This justifies the whole proceeding.]
Dan 2:4. The reply of the magicians. Then spake the Chaldaeans to the king in Syriac, i.e., Aramaic. , the Aramaic dialect of the Babylonians, which was still prevalent at the court of the Chaldan rulers, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, etc., and which was distinguished from their Chaldee idiom, including numerous non-Shemitic elements, by its purely Shemitic character, and especially by its near relationship to the Araman of the Syrians. Hence, the Sept. and Theodotion translate , the Vulg. Syriace, and Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 31)states directly that the Babylonians spoke Syriac. The reason for Daniels express statement that the Chaldans addressed the king in Aramaic (note the verb , corresponding to the adverb; cf. Isa 36:11) consists simply in the fact that he desired to call the attention of his Hebrew readers to the contrast between the nationality of the , i.e., the majority of the wise men who were summoned before the king, and the purely Shemitic language, which they were obliged to employ (cf. on Dan 2:2). It is wrong to look for the reason of their use of Aramaic, with Palmblad, Hvernick, and others, in their desire to hide the confession of their ignorance from the turba adstantium. This might rather have been accomplished by the use of Chaldee, while the Aramaan was familiar to all present as the language of the court and nation. Compare supra on Dan 1:4, and also the correct remark of Fller (p. 37): While the language of the Chaldans was the language of science, this (the Aram.) was the language of popular intercourse.O king, live for ever. This was an introductory formula of the address to the king (cf. Dan 3:9; v. 10; Dan 6:7; Dan 6:22), attested as a general Oriental formula of greeting by 1Sa 10:24 (Saul); 1Ki 1:31 (David); Neh 2:3 (Artaxerxes); lian, V. H, I. 31 ( , ); Curtius, R., VI. 5 (Alexander the Gr.); Jdt 12:14 (Holofernes).On the Keri , and similar omissions of in the Keris, Dan 2:26; Dan 4:16; v. 10, etc., see Hitzig and Kranichf. on this place.
Dan 2:5-6. Renewed demand by the king, connected with a stern menace. The king said to the Chaldans, . The uncontracted form , a stat. emphat. plur., from , lies at the foundation of this Kethib, as well as of the Keri ; compare Winer, Gramm. des bibl. und targum. Chaldaism., 32, No. 3.The thing is gone from me, rather, the decree is made known by me, i.e., it is my settled purpose, I say it with all emphasis. The words should probably be rendered in this way, as Hitz. and Kranichf. suggest; for (1) this view only is consistent with the repetition of the formula in Dan 2:8, as well as with the parallel , Dan 3:29; Dan 4:3; (2) , which is found only here and in Dan 2:8, is most readily explained by comparison with the Persian azd or azanda, which is found in inscriptions, and is equivalent to publication, science, what is known; (3) the rendering which makes correspond to ,, standing fast (Pesh., Ibn-Ezra, the rabbins in Saadia, Winer, Hengstenb.), which is closely related to the one under consideration, is untenable from the fact that an assurance of the fixed and irrevocable character of the royal decree would here be out of place, and that an identification of the root with the Arabic vazada, to be firm, seems rather precarious; (4) the identification of with , abiit (Dan 2:17; Dan 2:24; Dan 6:19-20), from which arises the sense, the word has gone out from me (Gesen., Hvern., Von Lengerke, etc.) is opposed by the extreme improbability that the two forms are identical in meaning, since an interchange of and is exceedingly rare, and especially because Daniel always employs the form with in other places; (5) finally, the view, the word has escaped my recollection, which was formerly common, and which is found as early as Theodotion and the Sept. (cod. Chis.) ( ), the Vulgate (sermo recessit a me), Luther, Dereser, and others, but which here, and much more in Dan 2:8, contradicts the whole context, and does not consist with the only admissible sense of =word, command, is wholly untenable; for the term nowhere in this chapter, not even in Dan 2:23, signifies the dream of the king, but always his decree, his demand. [Moreover, the punctuation of the word is not at all that of a verb, for it can neither be a participle, nor the 3d pers. prt. fem. (Keil), but it is the fem, of an adj. , or (as Frst thinks), an adverbial form of the same. The meaning firm, however, which the author rejects, seems to us more suitable and better corroborated than any other.]Ye shall be cut in pieces. , to be made pieces (Sept. ; cf. , 2Ma 1:16, and , Mat 24:51); a cruel punishment in vogue among till the nations of antiquity, and especially among the Chaldans (Eze 16:40; Eze 23:47); compare Dan 3:29.And your houses shall be made a dunghill. Similarly Dan 3:29, and also Ezr 7:11, where the form is used instead of Daniels . This term, derived from the Pael = :, to soil, defile, indicates the extremely disgraceful nature of the threatened penalty; the houses are to be changed into dunghills, by being razed to the ground and covered with animal and human ordurejust as Jehu turned the temple of Baal into a sink, 2Ki 10:27. See the proofs of the frequent use of this method of disgrace and punishment in the East, adduced by Hvernick.
Dan 2:6. Ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards, and great honors; rather, great treasures. The second of the terms here employed, , reward (compare the plural , gifts, chap. v. 17, and the Targ. Jonath., Jer 40:5; Deu 33:24) is satisfactorily explained by its derivation from , and specially from a Palpel form , facultates suas contemsit, prodegit. It is not necessary, therefore, to refer with Berth., Eichhorn, etc., to the Greek in its elucidation, nor with Haug (in Ewalds Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, 1853, p. 160), Gesen. -Dietr., etc., to institute a comparison with the old Persian ni–bag–v, presentation, nor, above all, with the Sanscrit namas, present, gift, as Hitzig attempts. Ewald prefers , and the translation of this term by official stations, or promoting to office (for which he refers to the old Persic and also to Dan 5:16)which, however, is opposed to the entire body of exegetical tradition.Therefore shew me the dream, etc. , therefore (composed of the demonstrative adverb and the preposition ), is found in this signification in Dan 2:9, and Dan 4:24, and in the Hebrew of Rth 1:13. On the other hand it signifies but rather in Dan 2:30, and but in Ezr 5:12.
Dan 2:7-9. Repeated refusal of the Chaldans, and renewed threatening of the king. They answered again. , an adverb from , the second one, Dan 7:5.And we will shew the interpretation, . The form is not to be changed into , as Hitzig suggests, but must rather be regarded simply as a Hebraized stat. emphat. for , just as (Dan 2:5) is used for (Dan 2:8, etc.), or (Dan 5:7; Dan 5:15) instead of (ibid., Dan 2:8; Dan 2:16, etc.). Whether the Hebraizing orthography apparent in this and other similar instances is to be placed to the account of Daniel, and to be considered as a peculiar feature of the Chaldee in his time (Pusey, Daniel, p. 46), or whether it originated with later transcribers of Daniels text, cannot be definitely decided; compare Kranichf. on this passage.
Dan 2:8. I know of certainty. , equivalent to , ex veritate, assuredly, Dan 2:47.That ye would gain the time; literally, that ye purchase time (Sept. and Theodotion: ); compare , Eph 5:16; Col 4:15; also tempus emere, Cicero, Verr. . 3. The time, i.e., the favorable juncture, the opportunitas, which the magicians sought to buy, i.e., to improve, consisted in the fact that the king had forgotten his dream; they aim to improve this circumstance in such a way as eventually to avoid the interpretation altogether.32 Their design is therefore properly to gain time, to postpone the decision. Thus Gesen., De Wette, Von Leng., Hvernick, and still earlier, Luther, are correct: That ye seek delay. Entirely too artificial is the view of Hitzig and Kranichf., that the favorable circumstances, of which the magicians hoped to avail themselves, consisted in the kings desire to learn the interpretation of the dream; and that they speculated on this desire, in the hope that the king might ultimately be persuaded to disclose to them the dream, etc.Because ye see that the thing has gone from me; rather, that my decree is published, i.e., because ye observe that I am in earnest about the command; compare Dan 2:5. does not, in this nor any other place, not even in Dan 5:22, signify despite that, as Hitzig suggests, but because, properly because that, propterea quod. The king evidently aims to point out the motive for the artful temporizing and delay of the magicians, namely, the menace with which he has intimidated and frightened them.
Dan 2:9. But if ye will not make known the dream. , Heb. . quodsi. The , properly since, therefore, takes up the subject of the preceding conditional clause, and places it in emphatic correlation to that clause (Kranichf.).There is but one decree for you; i.e., one and the same sentence of condemnation shall come on all of you (Vulg. correctly, una est de vobis sententia; cf. Luther, so ergent das Recht ber euch). , the sentence of condemnation in this passage, is clearly the same in substance as in Dan 2:5; Dan 2:8; the suffix plainly indicates this (, your sentence, i.e., that which comes upon you, which concerns you). Von Leng. and Hitzig (following Theodotion) are wrong: But one thing forms your object, ye entertain but one design; for never designates a subjective personal opinion or aim, but rather always an objective norm, which is binding on the individual.For ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. , falsehood, and , properly, corruption, baseness, are in apposition with . The entire object is, however, placed before the infinitive which governs it, on account of emphasis; compare Dan 2:18; Dan 3:16; Dan 4:15.The principal verb is in the Kethib, the Aphel of . This form, which does not occur in the Chaldee or Syriac, but is found in the Samaritan, expresses the sense of conspiring which is here required, as well as the Ithpa. substituted for it in the Keri (cf. of Theodotion and the composueritis of the Vulg.).Till the time be changed, i.e., until by the aid of some hoped for circumstance ye ascertain something more definite concerning the subject of the dream; or, also, until my anger ceases, and I withdraw the demand altogether.And I shall know that ye can show the interpretation thereof. The future expresses the idea of ability, competency compare Winer, Gramm., 44, 3, c. (p. 107).
Dan 2:10-11. The magicians attempt to establish their declaration respecting the impossibility of gratifying the kings desire. Therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things; rather, since no great and mighty king (ever) asked, etc. is to be taken here, as in Dan 2:8, in its usual sense of since, not as drawing a conclusion, in the sense of wherefore, for which reason (Gesen., Von Leng., etc.). It does not, indeed, adduce the actual reason for the assertion that no one could satisfy the royal demand; but it refers to the subjective ground that in all human experience, no king, however great, had imposed such a demand. Compare the similar probatio a posteriori, or a gnorismate, in the familiar passage, Luk 7:47.The predicates are not empty titles after the manner of the Orient (Berth., Von Leng., Hv.), but imply that while the most extreme demands might be expected from precisely the most powerful kings, nevertheless, etc.
Dan 2:11. Except the gods, whose dwelling is not (to be found) with flesh, or with men. , flesh, indicates the frailty of created man, encompassed by earthly limitations, as contrasted with the uncreated and divine, which is not confined within these perishable bounds; compare Isa 31:3; Jer 17:5; Zec 4:6; Job 5:4; also Joh 1:14; 1Ti 3:16, etc. The Chaldans include themselves in the term flesh, in order to refer excusingly to their imperfection and the limitation of their knowledge, as in no wise deserving of censure.The fact that the dwelling of the gods is not with men, prevents such intercourse with them, as would admit of mans instruction in their superior knowledge. This is certainly a truly heathenish, but not a specifically Babylonian thought (as Hvernick supposes). Von Lengerkes supposition that the king must already at this juncture have re marked the prophetic rank of Daniel (cf. Exo 8:15) is too far-fetched. On the other hand, the appeal of the wise men to the gods, becomes significant for the progress of the scene, as it might suggest to the king the consideration, so damaging to themselves, that the gods could not conceal their superior knowledge of important secrets from them, of all others, who were professional priests, in case they were not pretended, but real priests of the gods. In other words, the appeal of the magicians hastens the denunciation of the sentence with which they had been threatened.
Dan 2:12-13. The decree for the execution of the appointed penalty. And commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon; naturally only those belonging to the capital city, who alone are to be regarded as summoned before the king (Dan 2:2); not those of the whole realm, nor even of the province of Babylon (Dan 2:49; Dan 3:1). Those remaining magicians, or wise men, who were not inhabitants of Babylon itself, formed, according to Strabo 16:1; Pliny, H. N. Dan 6:26, separate colleges, e.g., in Borsippa, Urchoe, Hipparenum. They differed in certain principles and customs from the Babylonian college, as well as from each other, and therefore, could not be held directly responsible for a mistake or a crime committed by their colleagues in the capital.
Dan 2:13. And the decree went forth. , the decree in proper form, the firman (cf. , Luk 2:1); compare Dan 2:9.That the wise men should be slain. probably expresses no more than this; the form of the imperf. partic. seems to be used as a gerundive, they were (persons) to be slain, devoted to death; orof which, however, there is no other examplethe coupled with the participle, seems exceptionally to express the sense of design: sapientes ut interficerentur (cf. Kranichf. and Maurer on this passage, the one of whom prefers the former explanation, and the other the latter). The execution of the sentence is not to be regarded as having actually begun,33 as appears sufficiently from what follows, especially in Dan 2:14; Dan 2:24 (contra Hitzig, etc.).And they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain; evidently because they were regarded as belonging to the or in the broader sense, which could only be the case after they had passed the examination before the king mentioned in Dan 1:19hence, after completing the three years of their training. It follows from this that the event here recorded did not transpire during that period (cf. on Dan 2:1), as Wieseler holds. At the same time the statement before us indicates that Daniel was not entirely unknown to the king at this time, as might appear from Dan 2:25 et seq. The fact that Daniel and his three fellows had not appeared in person before the king, but were sought for, is easily explained by the consideration that Nebuchadnezzar did not, by any means, summon all connected with the class of magians in the capital before him (cf. Dan 2:2, where Luthers all star-gazers and wise men is decidedly inexact), but assuredly only the presidents of the several chief classes, the notables and representatives of the whole body.On the apologetical significance of the circumstance that Daniel and his companions seem, in this place, to be at least connected or affiliated with the order of magians, if not formal members of it (as Von Lengerke, evidently going too far, supposed) see above, Dogm.-eth. considerations on chap. 1, and also Kranichf. on this passage.
Dan 2:14-16. Daniel prevails on the king to delay the execution of the sentence. Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch, etc. , counsel and wisdom, i.e., words of counsel (cf. Isa 11:2; Jer 32:19, etc.) and of wisdom, namely, as concerning the difficult position in which he was placed with the rest of the wise men, and in regard to the proper way to relieve the difficulty (, ratio, similar to Dan 3:12). On to reply, compare Dan 3:16; Ezr 5:11. The connection reminds us of , Pro 26:16.The name occurs as early as Gen 14:1, as the name of a king of Ellasar. The leading element in its composition seems to be , = Sanscrit arja, lord, and, possibly, it may even be directly identified with the Sanscrit rjaka, venerabilis. This person was, therefore, a noble, of decidedly Indo-Germanic race, filling an important office at Nebuchadnezzars court. His title , chief of the slaughterers (i.e., the executioners), is the Shemitic designation of the same official who was known in the Roman empire as the Prfectus prtoris, and in Turkey bears the title of Kapidshi-pasha, hence a chief of the life or body guards. Besides the execution of capital punishments, warlike functions, up to those of a commander-in-chief, might occasionally be devolved on this officer, as appears from the instance of Nebuzaradan, 2Ki 25:8 et seq. The office existed, however, even at the court of the Egyptian Pharaohs (see , Gen 37:36; Gen 39:1; Gen 40:3 et seq.). His extensive influence at the Chaldan court is indicated elsewhere than here (see especially the predicate the powerful one of the king, Dan 2:15), in 2Ki 8:10; Jer 39:9 et seq.; Jer 40:1 et seq.; Jer 41:10; Jer 43:6; Jer 52:12 et seq.
Dan 2:15. Why is the decree so hasty from the king?rather, why this furious decree on the part of the king? or literally, why the decree which furious from before the king? the participle of , which, according to the Targ. Pro 7:13; Pro 21:29, is equivalent to , to rage, is here in the stat. absol. instead of emphat., just as the Hebrew participle when in apposition is sometimes without the article, e.g., Cant. 12:5; Amo 9:12; Jon. 4:17. Some, as Hvernick, and others, prefer to translate hurried, hasty, in analogy with Dan 3:29, where seems to bear that sense (?); but the ancient versions support the rendering furious, raging (Sept. , Theodot. , Vulg. crudelis), and the entire situation substantiates this meaning.The writer, however, does not mention everything that Daniel must have said to Arioch on this occasion; but rather contents himself with faintly indicating that only which served to manifest his counsel and wisdom. The author employs an abbreviated style, as in Dan 1:9-10 (see on the place); he is not, therefore, to be charged with incongruity (Hitzig), nor is the point in question to be strained by an artificially interpolating exegesis, and perhaps (with Kranichf.) to be regarded as particularly surprising and remarkable.
Dan 2:16. And Daniel went in, namely, to the king in the palace (cf. 2Sa 19:6), naturally not until announced by Arioch (cf. Dan 2:25), for none were admitted to the kings of the East without such announcement, see Est 4:11; Herodotus, I., 99; III., 110,118. Hence, another abbreviating statement by the author, as also in what immediately follows.That he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretationand naturally, first of all, the contents of the dream itself. He hopes that God will impart both to him, during the respite that is to be granted. In the construction the copula is explicative, and indeed, to, etc., or namely, to, etc. The change of construction here is analogous to that in Dan 1:5, where the verb first governs a simple accusative of object, and afterward a telic infinitive clause with ().
Dan 2:17-19. God reveals the secret to Daniel. Then Daniel went to his houseevidently because the king had granted the desired respite, which must be assumed in Dan 2:16, without further question. This favor will not seem strange, nor inconsequent (Hitz.), when we reflect that Daniel and his three friends had secured the favor and good-will of the king but recently, on the occasion of their first appearance in his presence (Dan 1:19 et seq.). None were better adapted to soothe the angry king and obtain at least a postponement of the impending punishment, than the handsome and richly endowed Hebrew youth, who had already made so favorable an impression on the monarch, and who probably would have arrested the publication of the decree of punishment, had he been among those magians that were summoned before the king, according to Dan 2:2; compare on Dan 2:13.Daniels house may probably be considered as an official or servants dwelling, as well as the houses of the other wise men mentioned in Dan 2:5; and moreover, as the context shows, as a residence which he shared with his companions, Hananiah, etc.
Dan 2:18. To desire mercies of the God of heaven; more accurately, and indeed in order to implore mercies. The clause depends on the last preceding verb , he made the thing known to them; hence the construction is the same as in Dan 2:16 b. The design of the was to impress the exigency on the prayerful consideration of his friends, and, in fact, a united prayerful consideration in which Daniel himself participated (cf. Dan 2:23). That the execution of the design to pray is not expressly mentioned, and that we have merely Daniels offering of praise after the secret has been Divinely imparted to him, instead of the supplication of the friends, are additional illustrations of the abbreviating style with which our chapter abounds (cf. Dan 2:14; Dan 2:16). A New-Testament parallel is found in the Johannean narrative of the raising of Lazarus, Joh 9:40-41 et seq., where the supplication of Jesus is likewise omitted, and only his thanksgiving after his prayer is heard, is recorded.The designation of Jehovah as the God of heaven, which occurs as early as Gen 24:7, is very general with Old-Testament writers after the captivity, probably in contradistinction from the custom of the Asiatic Orientals of deifying the several stars or zodiacal regions; cf. Dan 2:19; Dan 2:44; Neh 1:5; Neh 2:4; Ezr 1:2; Ezr 6:10; Ezr 7:12; Ezr 7:21; also the related phrase King of heaven, Dan 4:34 (A. V., Dan 2:37), and , 2Ma 15:23. In general see Hvernick, Theologie des Allen Testaments, 2d ed., p. 49.
Dan 2:19. Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. aim, as well as , Job 4:13, is probably not a dream-vision, but a vision generally, and properly a vision seen by night. On the influence of night to promote the higher range and prophetic elevation of spiritual meditation, by which it readily arrives at visions, consult Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, p. 52.Compare also the dogmat.-eth. deductions, No. 2 [below].
Dan 2:20-23. Daniels praise and thanksgiving. Hitzig observes correctly, The leading thought which Daniel wishes to express is placed first, Dan 2:20 a; next the exclamation is justified in b, by the attributes which belong to God, and in Dan 2:21-22, by the manner in which they are displayed; finally, Dan 2:22 shows why Daniel felt a desire to utter the specific thought of Dan 2:20 a. Those attributes themselves, Dan 2:20 b, return in Dan 2:23 as belonging to Daniel, conferred on him by God; and thus the prayer is rounded into unity.[Daniel answered and said, The word retains its proper meaning. The revelation is of the character of an address from God, which Daniel answers with praise and thanks to God.Keil.]Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever. The form , like the related ,, is to be explained, either by assuming that the particle used as a conjunction (that) has excluded the prefix (Gesenius, Abhandlung zur hebr. Gramm., p. 180194), or that the preformative passes over into , as in the later Syriac it passes into (Beer, Inscriptiones et papyri vet. Semitici, I., 19 et seq.; Maurer, Hitz., Kranichf., etc.). The latter assumption seems the more trustworthy. On the phrase, for ever and ever (from eternity to eternity) compare the similar doxologies, Psa. 41:14; Psa 106:48.For wisdom and might are his. This is almost verbally the same as Job 12:13. The in is an emphatic repetition of the former conditional .
Dan 2:21. He changeth the times and seasons. Theodotion and the Sept. correctly render , for which Act 1:7; 1Th 5:1, have the inverse order. is time in general; , the determined time, the appointed period or point of time. Both terms are also connected in Dan 7:12. The thought that God determines and conditions the change of times refers, like the following (he removeth kings, and setteth up kings), to the prophetic subject of Nebuchadnezzars dream-vision, which had just been revealed to Daniel.He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. Although Daniel includes himself among these wise and understanding ones, and even has special reference to himself while mentioning them, he utters no offensive sentiment, but expresses essentially the same thought as St. Paul when he writes, By the grace of God I am what I am (1Co 15:10). He traces the wisdom and understanding with which he had just been endowed back to its Divine source, and places himself, as the bearer of such wisdom graciously bestowed by God, in contrast with the heathen magians, who are without it.
Dan 2:22. He revealeth the deep and secret things, etc. Compare 1Co 2:10; 1Co 4:5; Psa 139:12.And the light dwelleth with him, has made its abode with him, as a visiting personage of celestial race; compare the Johannean of the Logos, as well as what is stated in Pro 8:30, respecting the Divine wisdom. (for which, with Hitzig, we are perhaps to read ) is often used in the Targums instead of or . Instead of the Kethib , illuminatio, intellectual light, the Keri has , physical light (compare perhaps Psa 104:2; 1Ti 6:16). The Kethib, however, is sustained by the corresponding Syriac word, and also by the form , Dan 5:14.
Dan 2:23. God of my fathers. Daniel addresses Jehovah in this manner, because in contrast with the idols of the heathen, he has just revealed himself again as the same true God, who was known to the patriarchs of his nation.Who hast given me wisdom and might; namely, wisdom in regard to the understanding of the kings dream and its interpretation, and strength with reference to the danger of impending death, which he was enabled boldly to face.And hast made known unto me now. , the Chaldee , and now, connects the requisite special proof with the general statement just made. On the etymology of , probably a contraction of , at the time, see Gesenius, s. v.
Dan 2:24-26. The announcing of Daniel to the king. Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch. shows the direction, like the Hebrew ; cf. Dan 4:31; Dan 7:16. The Hebrew, however, also employs occasionally in this sense, e.g., 2Sa 15:4.He went and said thus unto him. The , he went in, which is cue off by the insertion of a lengthened clause, is resumed by in an anacoluthic way.
Dan 2:25. Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste. , hastily, properly, in hasting; cf. Dan 3:24 and , Ezra 6:23, which has the same meaning.The form , which occurs also in Dan 4:4; Dan 6:19, neutralizes (like , Dan 2:9) the harshness of the Daghesh (required by the omission of a radical) by the substitution of an epenthetic ; cf. Winer, 19, 1. In sense does not differ from , Dan 2:24. Concerning Arioch as the of Daniel, see on Dan 2:16.I have found a man of the children of the captivity of Judah (margin), i.e., of the Jewish captives. Arioch here certainly speaks of Daniel as wholly unknown to the king, but this is sufficiently explained by the conceited pride and sovereign contempt, with which he, the dignified Indo-Germanic (Dan 2:14) minister of police, believed himself compelled to look down upon the poor Shemitic prisoner. The etiquette of the Babylonian court, so to speak, and particularly of its military or police division, forbade the leader of the body-guard from recognizing Daniel as one known to the sovereign. The compiler can, therefore, by no means be charged with mentioning in this place what contradicts his former statements, and especially with having already forgotten the fact recorded in Dan 2:16 (Hitz., Von Leng.). The manner in which, for instance, David is introduced as a shepherd totally unknown to Saul and Abner, 1Sa 17:33; 1Sa 17:55, might much more readily lead to the conclusion that the narrative there did not originally consist with that recorded in 1 Samuel 16, which had brought David into closer relations with Saul at an earlier period (cf. even Keil, on 1 Sam., p. 129 et seq., who admits the strangeness of this contradiction). The marked difference between the discrepancy in that case and the far lighter one in the passage under consideration, shows of itself how little reason there is to assume a multiplicity of compilers, or even a want of skill on the part of the sole author.
Dan 2:26. The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar. This Babylonian name, which the king himself had caused to be conferred on Daniel (Dan 1:7), would naturally be the only one to claim the notice of Nebuchadnezzar.[The question, Art thou able? i.e., Hast thou ability? does not express the kings ignorance of Daniels person, but only his amazement at his ability to make known the dream, in the sense, Art thou really able?Keil.]
Dan 2:27-30. Introductory to the statement and interpretation of the dream. The secret cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king. (On and , A. V. astrologers and magicians, see on Dan 1:20.) Concerning the star-gazers, who are for the first time expressly mentioned in this place, see notes on Dan 2:2. The word (from , to cut in, incise; cf. , Dan 4:14) primarily denotes deciders, viz.: deciders of fate, dispensers of decisive oracles concerning the fortunes of men, hence astrologers. Compare Dan 4:4; Dan 5:7; Dan 5:11; also Isa 47:13, from which passage it appears that the office of the Babylonian astrologers was not confined merely to horoscopy, but extended to every kind of fortune-telling founded on the study of the stars. The Vulg. haruspices is incorrect; for the signification of the Hebrew (and Arabic) , to cut in pieces, is foreign to the Aram. ; and haruspicy as a specifically priestly function would seem rather to belong to the Chaldans.
Dan 2:28. But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets. These words imply the total inability of the heathen gods as well as of their priests and wise men, to reveal secret things; compare Isa 41:22 et seq.; Isa 43:8; Isa 48:3, etc.; Amo 3:7; Hos 12:11.And maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzarthough that monarch is a heathen; compare the instances of Pharaoh (Gen 20:3 et seq.; Gen 41:16 et seq.), Balaam (Numbers 22 et seq.), the Eastern Magi (Mat 2:1 et seq.). The in is explicative or particularizing. It serves to introduce the transition from the general truth to the special case in question.What shall be in the latter days. =Heb. , is neither, directly and without qualification, in the last time (Hitzig), nor yet in the course of time, in the future generally (Maur., Hv.), but, as everywhere in the prophetic language of the Old Testament (not excepting Gen 49:1; Num 24:14), in the Messianic future,in the future theocratic period of salvation. Kranichfeld remarks correctly: The writer at the outset of his prophetic announcement characterizes, by the use of , the whole matter as in relation to the Messianic destiny of his people.Thy dream, and the visions of thy head. (Cf. Dan 4:2; Dan 4:7; Dan 4:10; Dan 7:1) here designate the dream-visions of the king, not because they were begotten by his head or brain in a purely subjective manner, hut because God had originated them in connection with the meditations of his head. The phrase is synonymous with thy dream, and with the latter forms a hendiadys, by virtue of their connection by ; the plural is used because the king had seen a multiplicity of dreams (cf. Dan 2:1-2), but is subordinated to the singular as the leading conception, so that the following is exclusively conformed to this; cf. Winer, 49, 6.
Dan 2:29. As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind (marg. came up) upon thy bed, i.e., presented themselves, uncalled for as it were;a strikingly expressive personifying phrase. On the form compare Dan 3:8; Dan 6:13; Ezr 4:12.The , thoughts, are by no means to be directly identified with the visions of thy head in the preceding verse; they are, rather, merely the psychical substratum of those visions, the natural soil, as it were, from which the Divine communication sprang forth during the dream (correctly Ephraem, Maurer, Von Lengerke, Kranichf.). The at the close of the following verse, again, are probably something different from both the here mentioned, and from those visions of the head. They are, most likely, as the context indicates, the disquieting thoughts which occupied the king, after his dream, according to Dan 2:1 (cf. Dan 5:6). The pronoun of the second person (for which the Keri substitutes the later form ), which precedes in the nominative absolute, is repeated by the suffix in , in a manner similar to that by which the introductory absolute , and I, is resumed by , in the next verse; cf. the same construction, Dan 1:17.
Dan 2:30. Not for any wisdom that I have more than any living. This denies every human agency in the imparting of such superior knowledge to Daniel, and at the same time refers to the design which governed it, concerning which the latter half of the verse is more explicit.But for the intent, that the interpretation may be made known to the king (margin); properly, that they should make known to the king. The indefinite, impersonal plural (Winer, 49, 3) was probably used with design, that the person of Daniel might be as little, conspicuous as was possible, in accordance with the thought in the former half of the verse. Compare also Dan 4:28.
Dan 2:31-35. The subject of the dream, and, more immediately, the general description, in Dan 2:31, of the image observed by the king. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. Sawest,literally, wast seeing, wast in the condition of one who beholds a vision; cf. Winer, 47, 1., behold, is a modification of (Dan 7:5-6), which, according, to some,=the imperative , behold, but seems rather to be a pronominal form from the demonstr. =; see Hupfeld in the Zeitschr. fr Kunde des Morgenl., II., 133,163. The Talmud generally substitutes for either of these forms.The image (), as the context shows, designates a statue in the human form, an ; also, in Dan 3:1; cf. Isa 44:13.This great image, whose brightness was excellent. In the Chaldee the words this image great and its brightness magnificent are inserted as a parenthesis into the sentence, and behold a great image stood before thee. The exceeding brightness of the image results naturally from the metals which compose it.The form (rather appearance) thereof was terrible; this on account of its brightness as well of its greatness; compare Son 6:4.
Dan 2:32. This images head was of fine gold. Literally, this image, its head, etc. The position of the absolute at the beginning of the sentence, is similar to Dan 2:29-30, and Dan 2:33 b, 37, 42, etc.The stat. constr. ought properly to be repeated before , the sign of the genitive; cf. Dan 7:7; Dan 7:19; also Psa 45:7; Ezr 10:13, etc.
Dan 2:33. His legs of iron. On shanks, compare Son 5:15His feet part of iron and part of clay; literally, of them of iron, and of them of clay. In the Kethib the masculine suffix is appended to the partitive ,; likewise in Dan 2:41-42. The Keri employs, in each of these cases, the form which the fem. might lead us to expect, but which must probably be regarded as an easier reading. The masculine suffix in , like in Dan 2:34, for example, and like the suffix in Dan 7:8; Dan 7:19, must either be regarded as a common gender (Hitzig), or these masculine forms must be explained by a more general conception of the subject, or by one modified according to the sense,in this case by transferring the thought from the figure to the fact to which it relates, i.e., the conception foot to the other idea kingdom, which is symbolized by it (so Kranichf., following Ewald, Lehrb., p. 784, 318,a).
Dan 2:34. Till that a stone was cut out. Naturally a stone that lay on the side of a mountain, from whence it rolled. This stone enters suddenly and unannounced into the transaction; as often happens in dreams.Without hands, i.e., without human, but solely through a supernatural and Divine agency; compare Dan 8:25, ; also Job 34:20; Lam 4:6; Heb 9:11.
Dan 2:35. Then was the iron, the clay, etc., broken to pieces together. instead of ; the lengthening of the preceding vowel compensates for the Dag. Forte. The impersonal subject in the plural (they broke in pieces, cf. Dan 2:30) refers to the invisible supernatural powers, who effected the appearance of the stone itself and the consequent destination. The several component parts of the image, iron, clay, etc., are in this place recited from below upward, because the stone smote and crushed the feet first.And became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; hence were totally demolished, annihilated without leaving a vestige. Compare Hos 13:3; Mic 4:13; Isa 41:15-16; Isa 57:13; Psa 1:4; Psa 35:5; Job 21:18.And the stone. became a great mountain. , mountain, is the Heb. , rock. On the hyperbolical phrase to fill the whole earth (not merely the whole land, as Van Ess, and others) compare Joh 21:25. and also the apocryphal parallels in Fabric., Cod. Apocr. N. T., I., 321 seq. The exaggeration, however, holds with regard to the figure only, not to the symbolized reality, see Dan 2:44.
Dan 2:36. Transition to the interpretation of the dream. We will tell the interpretation thereof to the king. , in the plural, is used because Daniel classes himself among the worshippers of Jehovah, all of whom, as such, have access to the mysteries of Divine revelation. It is therefore an expression of modesty, similar to that contained in Dan 2:30. [Daniel seems specially to refer to his three companions, who had been associated with him in prayer for the Divine aid in recovering and expounding the dream, Dan 2:17-18; Dan 2:23.]
Dan 2:37-45. The interpretation.Thou, O king, art a king of kings. the general title of Oriental sovereigns, e.g., according to the cuneiform inscriptions, among the Persians (cf. Ezr 7:12); among the Ethiopians of modern Abyssinia (Inscr., 5138); and especially among the Babylonians; compare Eze 26:7, where, as here, Nebuchadnezzar is termed a king of kings. For the rest, the form Thou, O King is taken up again below, in Dan 2:38 b, by ; for which reason is really to be regarded as in apposition, and the period extended to the close of Dan 2:38; for Dan 2:37 b ( to ) is merely a relative clause, and Dan 2:38 a ( to ) is a parenthetical supplement to it.34The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom (or dominion), power, and strength, and glory. For the connection of the relative with the pronoun of the second person , compare, e.g., Ecc 10:16. On the idea, Dan 4:19; Dan 5:18.
Dan 2:38. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, etc. On , and wheresoever, compare the essentially equivalent , Jdg 5:27; Rth 1:17; Job 39:30. The inserted adverbial strengthens the idea of the relation, as in , etc.Instead of dwelling (part of ; cf. the Heb. , race, generation) the Keri has here and in Daniel 3:31; Dan 4:32; Dan 6:26, , which form is usual in the Targums.Beasts of the field and fowls of the heaven. This mention of the animals as also subject to the great monarch, serves to enforce and strengthen the corresponding statement with reference to men; similarly Jer 27:6; Jer 28:14which passages Daniel probably had in view; also Bar 3:16; Jdt 11:7, etc.,[Nebuchadnezzars dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilized world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all world-powers (Klief.).Keil. That this method of describing extensive dominion was common to the Shemitic dialects, is evident from Gen 1:26; Psa 8:6-8; comp. Heb 2:7-8.Stuart.]Thou art this head of gold. [In the is an emphatic copula, as in Dan 2:47. It carries a kind of demonstrative force with it, like that of the Greek , and is equivalent to Thou art the very or that same.Stuart. Strictly, the clause might be rendered, Thou art it, the head of gold, and this would yield the exact force of the expression.] Read ; the form (or , as Hitzig prefers) seems to have been taken from Dan 2:32. Still, , Dan 2:20, might perhaps be adduced in support of this reading; see Hitz. on the passage.The reason why Daniel designates Nebuchadnezzar himself as the golden head, instead of his kingdom, lies simply in the fact that the first (even though he were yet co-regent with his father Nabopolassar) gave to the Chaldan empire its glory and world-wide greatness and importance; so that he could not only be considered the founder of this first world-monarchy, but might also, in a measure, be identified with it. Especially might this occur in the address of a speaker, who would ex-officio be compelled to magnify his fame, because he stood before the king in person, and in the presence of his court. How easily our author could identify a realm () with its sovereign () is shown by Dan 7:17, where four kings is almost exactly synonymous with four kingdoms.
Dan 2:39. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, probably does not signify earthward, toward the earth, as is generally assumed; nor can we, with the Keri, consider as an adverb.35 It may be taken instead as a casus adverbialis from (=Heb. ), a low object,analogous to the adverbial , above, upward, from , height, Dan 6:3; and as there signifies higher than they, above them, so here may mean below, inferior to thee. The characterizing of the second kingdom as inferior to the first, which Nebuchadnezzar represented, does not, however, relate to its external power; for it is certainly also conceived of as a world-controlling kingdom, a universal monarchy, as appears abundantly from Dan 6:26. Its inferiority to the former kingdom can only consist in a lower standard of morals, as also the third and fourth kingdoms can only be regarded as below their immediate predecessors in an ethical sense, but not physically or politically. This follows with the utmost clearness from the descending gradation of gold, silver, brass, and iron, as compared with he increasing magnitudes of the corresponding parts, the head, breast, belly, and legs of the image, a thought which lies at the foundation of the whole description (cf. on Dan 2:40, and especially Dogmat.-eth. deductions, No. 3). Considering all this, it seems decidedly superfluous and inappropriate to refer the second kingdom to Belshazzar, as the successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and reserve the third for Medo-Persia (Hitzig, Heidelberg. Jahrb., 1832. p. 131 ff., and Redepenning, Stud. und Krit., 1833, p. 863). The suffix in and in does not at all compel us to assume that only Nebuchadnezzars reign is designated by the golden head, and that therefore the breast of silver must refer to his successor on the throne of Babylon. Daniel probably conceived of the first and second kingdoms as monarchies under the rule of a succession of kings, as well as the fourth (see Dan 2:43-44); and the courtesy simply, which he was obliged to observe toward the great monarch who was personally before him, led him, in this and the preceding verses, to mention Nebuchadnezzar only as the representative of the first kingdom (see above).And another, third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth. Its ethical inferiority to both its predecessors is indicated by the brass, while the relative clause (compared with Dan 2:38 d) seems to imply that the extent of its power should even exceed theirs. It may be remarked, in passing, how clearly this indicates the Macedonian world-monarchy.
Dan 2:40-43. The fourth kingdom, corresponding to the fourth beast, Dan 7:7 et seq., and like it signifying the divided Greek supremacy under the successors of Alex. the great. The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron. On the relation of the form in the Kethib, which is analogous to the usage of the Syriac, to the purer Chaldaic Keri (here and Dan 3:25; Dan 7:7; Dan 7:23), see Kranichfeld on the passage. The following explains the meaning of the predicate strong as iron.Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; rather, crusheth all things. is clearly not to be taken in its usual signification, since, but comparatively, just as; compare Dan 6:11. The opinion that it stands here in its usual sense as=because (Kranichf., etc.), is opposed by the Athnach under the preceding , which shows that to break in pieces and crush everything is not merely stated to be a constant property of iron, but has its application to the nature of the fourth kingdom. [Keil labors at length to sustain this illative rather than illustrative sense of , but the arguments on both sides are very trivial, and the difference is not important.]As iron that breaketh in pieces all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. The is no offensive and dragging repetition of the already completed comparison, but rather serves to powerfully emphasize the iron-like destructive character of the fourth kingdom. The hardness and firmness of iron, however, and still more its solidity and durability, are not involved in the comparison, so much as its destructive power, as appears from the multiplication of verbs that express the idea of destroying (, to divide, , to crush, , to break in piecesthe first and last of which are repeated). , all these, an individualizing resumption of the more general , does not belong to the relative clause (Kranichf.), but to , which verbs would otherwise stand too disconnected at the close of the verse. There is nothing suspicious in the fact that, by this construction a breaking to pieces of all these,i.e., the materials already mentioned, gold, silver, etc.by the fourth kingdom, is stated; for it does not assert the destruction of all former kingdoms as such, but only the increasing diminution and shattering of their politico-ethnological material. The passage thus merely represents, in general, the separating and destructive influence which, naturally to its own injury, emanates from the fourth kingdom. The way is thus paved for the description which follows, of the divisions, internal confusion, and weakness of that kingdom (Dan 2:41-43).
Dan 2:41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters clay. as in Dan 2:33. The addition of , of the potter, to , clay, strengthens the conception of weakness and lack of power which is implied in that term. The same idea results from the genitive combination miry clay, potsherds, which occurs at the end of the verse; it designates the finished work of the potter (Vulg. testa), which, as sherd, is capable of being easily broken.The kingdom shall be divided, i.e., a kingdom that contains in itself the principle of an increasing disruption and self-division. The dual number of the legs, which might have been made to indicate such division (especially if the colossus were conceived as standing with widely-extended legs), is, evidently, not regarded by the composer. Nothing but the mixture of iron and clay forms the symbol of division in his view; and this mixture, according to him, pertains only to the feet, and does not extend to the legs, which are represented in Dan 2:33 a, as composed entirely of iron. This indicates that the division, although its principle was inherent in the iron-kingdom (see on the preceding verse),36 should only be thoroughly manifested, and its ruinous consequences become apparent in the course of the development of this kingdom; facts which were very fully realized in the history of the Macedonian empire after Alexander, whose rulers endeavored to maintain the unity of the realm down to the battle of Ipsus, although engaged in many conflicts and bloody quarrels with each other, and which only, from the period of that event, permanently dissolved into a number of kingdoms (originally four, from which, however, a constantly increasing number of smaller independent states was developed). Compare infra.But there shall be in it of the strength of iron. Luther renders of the irons plant, corresponding to in the Targums, and to the Syr. nezbeto (cf. also Theodot. and Vulg.: de plantaris). But is probably derived from in Pa. to fortify, strengthen,and therefore to be rendered firmness, strength (cf. , firm, certain, Dan 2:8; Dan 2:45; also Dan 3:24; Dan 6:13, etc.), rather than from , to plant.
Dan 2:42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay. The nominative which precedes is really disconnected (cf. Dan 2:32), but, since it is in comparison with the latter half of the verse, as, or just as, it may properly be supplied. The composition of even the toes out of the fatal mixture of iron and clay, indicates the weakness of the feet which support the great colossus, despite the fact that iron enters into its constitution throughout, as a principal element. That Daniel, while mentioning the toes, already refers to the ten kings of the Seleucid, who are represented later (Dan 7:7; Dan 7:24) as the ten horns of the fourth beast, cannot be certainly shown. At any rate, he follows this thought no further, as will be seen from the fact that while he mentions the toes, he does not premise their tenfold number (cf. Hitzig on this passage, against Hengstenb., p. 211. The latter clearly forces the symbol of the toes too far).So the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly brittle (margin). Concerning , chiefly, partly, see on Dan 1:2.
Dan 2:43. They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; i.e., the several kingdoms, or rather their rulers, shall seek to establish harmony by means of marriage and voluntary relationship (hence in this way of sexual propagation).37 On the expression, compare Jer 31:27; on the subject, Dan 11:6 et seq. and 17, where the prophet enters more fully into the subject here referred to, of the adoption of the marriage policy, and of its failure.But they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay; properly, does not mingle itself with clay. The reflexive Ithpaal of designates the process of mixing or uniting itself, while the Pael, employed above in Dan 2:41 b, expresses a passive sense. This involves the idea that the elements of iron and clay might be externally mixed, but could not be internally united, because their qualities do not blend, i.e., they contribute nothing themselves to their coherence and permanent union.
Dan 2:44-45. The fifth, or Messianic kingdom. And in the days of these kings; hence, while these kings, the Seleucid, Lagid, and the other Diadochi, are still reigning; and therefore not without being involved in strife and conflict with them: cf. b, and Dan 7:13; Dan 7:25 et seq.; Dan 8:10 et seq.; Dan 9:24,et seq.Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. On God of heaven, compare on Dan 2:18; Dan 2:37. The highest and only true God appears there as the originator and supreme lord of all kingdoms (cf. Dan 2:21); but this fifth and last kingdom alone, is, in the full sense of the word and with unqualified truth, a kingdom of specifically divine and heavenly character. This implies its miraculous origin as well as its never-ending duration.The kingdom (rather, its dominion38) shall not be left to other people. This had occurred at the end of each of the former kingdoms; compare Sir 10:18. The cessation of such transfers of dominion circumscribes the idea of eternal duration in a realizing manner. The term in is evidently no longer used in the same sense as before, but signifies dominion, government. The suffix does not refer to the God of heaven as the founder of the kingdom (Theodotion, ), but to the kingdom itself.It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, is literally, and bring to an endannihilate them. The Divine kingdom is not merely to destroy the fourth world-kingdom, but also the three that preceded it, inasmuch as all had been incorporated with the former; which is shown by the figure of the stone that crushes the legs of the colossus, and thereby destroys the whole image. All these kingdoms are thus described as arrayed in hostile opposition to the divine kingdom, and as objects of its destructive influence; but this does not prevent the existence of certain gradations in their hostility to God and in their untheocratic tendencies; nor that, for instance, the golden head (Babylon) and the breast of silver (Medo-Persia) show greater favor and ethical approximation to Gods people, than the brazen belly, etc. Compare supra, on Dan 2:39.
Dan 2:45. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain, etc. is employed here as in Dan 2:40, in a comparative sense, like , accordingly, or forasmuch. From this usage results a closer connection of the former half of this verse (as far as ) with what precedes it. The somewhat loosely connected and abrupt position which the second period, beginning with , is thus made to occupy, need not deter us from this construction (against Hitzig and Kranichf.), which was employed by all the old translators (and also by Luther, Dereser, Von Leng., Maur., etc.).On the subject compare Mat 21:44; Luk 20:18, where Jesus clearly refers this Messianic prophecy to himself and his kingdom.The (rather a) great God hath made known to the king, etc. A great God, says Daniel, because he desires to refer to the infinite power of that God, who is not only able to disclose wonderful revelations respecting the future, but also to bring his promises to pass. The mode of expression is not exactly poetical, as Kranichfeld supposes, but generalizing. But compare , with the article, Ezr 5:8. [On the contrary, Keil more justly remarks, That means, not a (undefined) great God, but the great God in heaven, whom Daniel had already (Dan 2:28) announced to the king as the revealer of secrets, is obvious. The sign of definiteness (as the art. in Heb.) is omitted on the general principle that the construction by a qualifying adjective renders the term sufficiently definite, inasmuch as there could be no doubt what deity is referred to.]What shall come to pass hereafter. , after this, hereafter, refers specially to the time of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 2:29), and not merely to the incident in the former half of the verse, as Hitzig contends, in order to find here an additional trace of the composition of this book in Maccaban times.And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. This is an emphatic affirmation at the close of the truly prophetic character of the dream and of the interpretation that had been submitted. The predicate with hardly refers, as Kranichfeld supposes, to the fact that the king had forgotten the particulars of his dream, and now recovered them accurately and perfectly. It is better to hold, in harmony with the preceding context, that Daniel aims to set forth the trustworthiness and prophetic force of the dream, as he afterward certifies the correctness of the interpretation by , faithful, trustworthy.
Dan 2:46-49. The influence of Daniels interpretation. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel. Evidently does not here signify a mere , such as was sometimes offered to men (cf. Gen 31:7; 2 Sam. 25:23; 1Ki 1:16; Est 3:2), but rather a properly divine adoration (), as is shown by the connected religious acts of sacrifice and burning incense. This he offers to Daniel as a great prophet of the highest God (see Dan 2:47), and not because he considered him a god in human form, as the inhabitants of Lystra regarded Paul and Barnabas (Act 14:13 et seq.). For this reason the course of Daniel is unlike that of the apostles on the latter occasion. He no more rejects the homage of the heathen king, than did the high-priest Jaddua, when Alexander the great bowed himself to the earth before him, in order to honor the God of Israel (Josephus, Anti. XI. 8, 5); at any rate, he has not definitely recorded that he protested against it and pointed from himself, the human instrument, to his Godwhich might, however, be explained on the ground of his abbreviating style (cf. on Dan 2:15 et seq.). [We must not forget that Daniel had already explicitly disclaimed before the king the possession of supernatural powers as of himself (Dan 2:36), and had repeatedly ascribed foreknowledge to God alone (Dan 2:28; Dan 2:45).] The opinion of Geier, Calov, and others, that Nebuchadnezzar merely worshipped in the presence of Daniel, without addressing his homage to the prophet (as if were synonymous with ), must be rejected; and no less the assertion of Hitzig, that the objective aim of the Maccaban compiler is again betrayed in this instance, by the highly improbable behavior of the king (!?).39And commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. , in the Pael to pour out, deal out, libare (not to dedicate, offer, as Hitzig, with an unnecessary reference to the corresponding Arabic verb, prefers), is zeugmatic in this place, and relates not only to the bringing of the , meat-offering, which included an actual libare, but also the i.e., sweet-smelling savors, offerings of incense, which were connected with all meat-offerings. The offering of incense, therefore, which was really implied in the (Lev 2:1; Lev 2:15, etc.), is again explicitly noticed, in like manner as the is specially mentioned beside the and the , in Exo 30:9. On the term (literally satisfaction, pleasantness), here used elliptically without , which is constantly joined to it in the Hebrew (cf. Ezr 6:10, Chaldee text), see Gesenius-Dietr. in the Handwrterbuch.The tropical conception of the offering of sacrifice and incense as a purely civic testimonial of honor (Bertholdt) is decidedly improper, and leads to a rationalizing of the passage hostile to both the language and the context. Compare the well-known Persian custom of offering sacrifices to kings as the representatives of Ormuzd, which is mentioned in Curtius, Dan 8:5-6; Dan 6:6; Dan 6:2; Arrian, Dan 6:27.
Dan 2:47. Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods. On see above, on Dan 2:8; compare , Jdg 9:15; also Jer 22:13. stands emphatically before the remark, similar to in the Greek, but has greater significance than the latter. God of gods does not, in the mouth of the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, designate the only true God (Von Leng.), but the mightiest of all gods. The phrase here expresses a different sense from Dan 11:36; Psa 136:2; Deu 10:17.
Dan 2:48. Then the king made Daniel a great man. the Pael of , to become great (Dan 4:8) hence, to make great, exaltare. [It is more fully defined by the following clauses.Keil.]And made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon; not as Von Leng. supposes, over the whole kingdom, but simply over the province, , therefore, as in Dan 3:2. The bestowal of a formal governorship or satrapy is not implied in the verb here, or in Dan 2:38. What really was conferred on the prophet, was probably merely a decisive influence over the administration of the province of Babylon, as is illustrated by Dan 2:49. [Still this civil appointment, in distinction from the literary or professional one immediately added, was tantamount to an official position as recognized vice-regent over the province in which the capital was situated.]And chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. still depends on , which verb therefore zeugmatically designates, first his elevation to political power, and then to the dignity of chief priest. (related to , periclitari, tentare, in the Heb. utilitati esse, officia, praestare; cf. , minister) is equivalent to business-manager, president, overseer; a is therefore a superintendent or chief prfect, and the Rab-Signin over all the wise men of Babylon accordingly seems to have been identical with the or chief magian mentioned in Jer 39:3. On the probable identity of the terms and and the relation of both to , see above on Dan 2:2.
Dan 2:49. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set, etc. properly, and (so) he set; for must be joined to the imperfect, in order to express the sense of that (Winer, 44, 4). therefore signifies an effectual asking in this passage, a prevailing with the king.Over the affairs of the province of Babylon. , management of business, administration (cf. , 1Ch 26:30). The effect of this placing over the administration of the province of Babylon, was, evidently, to include the three friends of Daniel among the , Dan 3:2, whatever may have been their official title. But their elevation to the rank of Shiltonim to the king involved no receding on the part of Daniel from the political dignity conferred on him, according to Dan 2:48 (Porphyry, Berth., Hitz., etc.). It rather serves to illustrate the powerful influence of the new royal favorite and councillor. But Daniel was only this, not an actual chief satrap of Babylon, to whom the three friends might have been subordinate. See Dan 2:48, and compare Dan 3:12, which clearly indicates that Daniel did not belong to the number of prominent civil functionaries of the province of Babylon. [On the contrary, the passage here referred to only shows that Daniels three friends were, as here stated, the persons directly responsible for the civil functions in a certain district; evidently as subordinates under some single higher officer, who in this case could be no other than Daniel himselfa personage too high for direct impeachment by these officious underlings.]But Daniel sat in the gate of the king, i.e., within the bounds of his palace, at his court. Compare Est 2:1; Est 2:9; Est 2:21; Est 3:2 et seq.; also (of the Medo-Persian court), Cyropdia, VIII. 1, and the Turkish Porte, and generally, Rosenmller, Altes u. Neues Morgenland, III. 399 ff. Incorrectly Bertholdt and Gesenius (Jesaias, i. 697), He became intendant of the royal castle,on which Hvernick remarks, with justice: It is hardly conceivable how such nonsense could be imputed to our book. [The chief ruler of the province had a number of , under-officers, in the province for the various branches of the government. To such offices the king appointed Daniels three friends at his request, so that he might himself be able as chief ruler to reside continually at the court of the king.Keil.]
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions
We are compelled, in view of the great importance of the image of the monarchies for a correct estimate of the Messianic and practical bearing of all that follows, to separate our dogmatical and ethical observations on this vision into several sections. Accordingly, we treat first of its form; next of the circumstances of the times, which afforded suitable analogies for its prophetico-historical composition; in the third place, of the symbolism of the image as a-whole; fourthly, of the interpretation of the four world-kingdoms, and especially of the second, third, and fourth; and finally, of the relation of the prophetic vision to the history of the founding and development of the Messianic kingdomthe whole to be followed by practical homiletical remarks.
1. The form of Nebuchadnezzars vision is distinguished from that of almost all the other prophetic visions of the Old Testament, by the peculiarity, that it is a dream-vision, under which mysterious form its highly important prophetic contents are revealed first to a powerful heathen monarch. The dreams of certain heathen princes of patriarchal times, e.g., of Abimelech, Laban, and Pharaoh (Gen 20:3; Gen 31:24; Gen 41:1 et seq.), present the only analogy to this fact, so far as they were divinely occasioned, and had a direct reference to the fortunes of Gods people. But their contents lack the rich, lively dramatic and symbolic character of this vision; and in the double dream of Pharaoh, the single instance where this approximately exists (Genesis 41), we miss the far-reaching vision that covers all history, and the wealth of Messianic references, by which the dream-vision under consideration is so remarkably distinguished. The observation of Hvernick (Komm., p. 42 et seq.) respecting the dreams of heathen persons in the Scripture history, although instructive and worthy of approval in other respects, has only a partial application in this case: We often (?) make the observation in the Scriptures, that whenever it became necessary to magnify the theocracy and the kingdom of God on earthwhich could only be aided to accomplish its final destiny by means of miracles,and whenever the welfare of the faithful required a special interference, revelations were imparted to heathen and unbelievers, and generally by means of dreams. Compare Gen 20:3 (where it is expressly stated, with reference to Abimelech, ), Gen 31:24; Genesis 41; Jdg 7:13-14. At the same time, the Scriptures assign as the reason for such revelations the subjective aim, to withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man, Job 33:17. This Divine purpose was directly favored by the solemn awe with which the heathen world regarded dreams ( , ), as is proven by the characteristic and probably proverbial expression of Homer: (Il. I. 63); cf. further, Il. II. 26 et seq.; Odys. VI. 13 et seq.; xxiv. 11, 12; Herod. VII. 16; also Knapp, Scripta varia arg., p. 103 ss.; Rosenmller, A. u. N. Morgenl., III. 33 et seq.; Jahn, Einl. ins A. T., II. 391 et seq.An instructive article in the Evangel. Missions-Magazin, 1863, No. 1, which was written by Ostertag and entitled Der Traum und seine Wirkung in der Heidenwelt, treats of the important part which dreams continually play in the religious life of heathendom, and more especially, when it is aroused and influenced by Christian missionary efforts. Cf. also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, 14, p. 283 et seq., and Splittgerber, Schlaf und Tod, nebst den damit zusammenhngenden Erscheinungen des Seelenlebens (Halle, 1866), p. 144 et seq. The two latter distinguish more carefully than Hvernick, in the above passage, the dreams inspired merely by conscience and those of a divinely caused and presaging character, which were more frequent within the domain of heathendom, from the dreams of revelation in the proper sense, whose occurrence was much less common among gentile nations, being generally limited in the Old and New Testaments to the people of God. Among the former class they reckon, e.g., the dreams of Pharaoh; among the latter, the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, in chap. 2 and 4 of our prophet.
The important circumstance must be observed, in this connection, that Nebuchadnezzars dream-vision relating to the four world-kingdoms was evidently imparted to this heathen monarch while in a state of violent and guilty terror, but in so confused and indefinite a form as to exceed his understanding, and as even to prevent a clear reproduction of its nature by the unaided efforts of his memory. In both respects he was compelled to seek the aid of an Israelitish prophet, as an instrument of the only true God to make known the purport of His revelation (cf. supra, on Dan 2:1; Dan 2:3). This feature is certainly remarkable, but by no means incomprehensible. The heathen experienced but a single impulse in the direction of prophecy; the clearly connected description and analysis of the image of the future which he had seen were reserved for the spiritual art of the theocratic seer. The startling impression which had been made on the mind of the king while dreaming, by the appearance of the bright colossus, its sudden fall, and its total destruction and annihilation predominated to an extent that destroyed his recollection, and left him, on awaking, with a mere sense of having seen something highly important and of great significance for his own future and for that of his kingdom. It was natural that this should at once give rise to the wish to recall the vision clearly, in order to ascertain more fully what it might portend; and that this desire should finally excite such alarm as to banish sleep. His condition is not without many parallels in the history of mans spiritual life. The Egyptian ruler had, indeed, retained the contents of his prophetic dreams, and required Joseph for the purpose merely of interpreting their meaning;in connection with which the much less startling character of the dreams must be regarded. But in more recent times many instances have been recorded, in which significant dreams were forgotten,either wholly, or so far as details were concerned,while they left a powerful impression in the mind of the dreamer (cf. Reitz, Historie der Wiedrgeborenen, I., p. 132 et seq.; Schubert, Symbolik des Traums, p. 211 [3d ed.]; by the same, Geschichte der Seele, II., p. 94 et seq.; Splittgerber, as above, p. 118 et seq.). And the ancient Roman poet Attius (Cicero, de divinitat., II. 21) has at least described the alarm produced, on the sudden awaking of the subject, by an impressive dream, in a manner which thoroughly recalls the behavior of Nebuchadnezzar as described in this chapter:
Rex ipse Priamus somnio mentis metu
Perculsus, curis sumptus suspirantibus
Exsacrificabat hostiis balantibus.
Tum conjectorem postulat, pacem petens,
Ut se edoceret, obsecrans Apollinem,
Quo sese vertant tant sortes somnium.
In view of all this there is nothing in the external form and dress of Nebuchadnezzars vision that removes it materially beyond the influence of conditioning circumstances, such as are elsewhere apparent in the surroundings of prophetic dream-visions. Consequently the credibility of the narrative cannot be assailed on psychological grounds, nor on any other; and the attempt of Von Lengerke, Bleek, Hitzig, and others, to stamp it as an imitation of the history of Pharaoh and Joseph, designed to encourage and strengthen the faith of the Israelites in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, must especially be rejected, as being decidedly arbitrary, since the peculiarities in the conduct and character of Nebuchadnezzar by far exceed the traits he manifests in common with his precursor Pharaoh, and also with his alleged imitator Antiochus.
2. In regard to the points of connection which existed in the state of the world for the prophetic image of Nebuchadnezzars dream, see Kranichfelds observation on Dan 2:10 : It is not recorded, as being unessential, how much information, in regard to his spiritual state at the time of the dream, the king imparted to the wise men, nor yet how much they were able to apprehend themselves in view of the political aspect of the times. The historical point of departure for the knowledge of the dream as a revelation, is found in a consideration that must pre-eminently concern a king as such, at the beginning of a newly-founded realm, and in the presence of a powerful and threatening contiguous state, viz.: the question respecting the fate of his dynasty and of his kingdom. Cf. page Dan 120: But the political constellation, even in the early years of Nebuchadnezzars reign, was not of a nature to prevent the writer from recognizing a powerful rival of the Chaldan empire in the Median kingdom. Isaiah and Jeremiah had already pointed to the nations of the north, or specifically to Persia (Elam) and Media as the executors of the judgment that should come upon Babylon, cf. Isa 13:17; Isaiah 21, 2; Jer 50:3; Jer 50:9; Jer 50:41; Jer 51:11; Jer 51:28.Above all, Media stood as a powerful rival to the Chaldan kingdom upon the historical arena, at the time of Nebuchadnezzars entrance. The Medes were allied with the Babylonians in the destruction of Nineveh, and in that joint undertaking of an earlier period were already able to render powerful assistance; there are even indications that on that occasion the Babylonians saw the direction of their military enterprises principally in the hands of the Medes. They shared with the Babylonians in the possession of the Assyrian empirethe latter taking the western portion, while the former claimed chiefly the regions east and north-east of the Tigris. How greatly Nebuchadnezzar was obliged to dread the power of his neighbor is shown by his fortifications in the north, which were begun soon after his accession to the throne, and prosecuted with vigor during the greater part of his reign (cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 218 et seq., p. 223); an Elamitic-Median war against Babylon appears to have transpired as early as the 11th or 12th year of his reign.If to these observations on the relations of Babylon to Medo-Persia, we add the remarks of the same exegete in relation to Javan, i.e., Greece, which was looming up in the distant political horizon of Nebuchadnezzar, and remember, that his western rival and probable successor to the power and greatness of Medo-Persia might be well known to a Chaldan king about B. C. 600since Sennacherib had already been engaged in a warm contest with an army of Greek mercenaries in Cilicia, about a century before; since further, such mercenaries were accustomed to serve in the Assyrian armies from the time of Esar-haddon, and in the Egyptian from the time of Psammetichus, and since the Lydian kings were involved in exhaustive and bloody wars with the Ionians, Dorians, and olians of Western Asia from about B. C. 610 (see Herod., I. 6; II. 152, 163, 169; Abydenus, in Euseb. Armen. ed. Aucher, I., p. 53; Berosus, Fragm. hist. Grc, II., 504 ed. Mller;cf. supra, Introd. 7, note 2),it will be evident that all the conditions were present which could possibly be required for the originating of a dream-vision, by which a Chaldan monarch about B. C. 600 was forewarned of the future overthrow of his dynasty through the agency of warlike neighboring states. More than an external historical occasion or impulse for the dream-vision, was not probably derived by the king from the peculiar state of existing political affairs. All that bears a really prophetic character in his vision is to be traced back to the direct agency of God, which was able to construct a majestic and united vision of the deepest prophetical significance, out of the extremely sporadic and imperfect natural materials that were provided in the range of the kings political observation. Left to himself, Nebuchadnezzar, whether awake or dreaming, could merely have originated certain presentiments, or combinations of political wisdom, which at the best, must remain mere images of the fancy, or acute speculations. If his dream became a picture of the future that embraced the world and displayed the profoundest prophetic truths, a vision that was certain, and the interpretation thereof sure (see above, Dan 2:45), this was entirely owing to the all-enlightening and revealing influence of the Divine Logos (Joh 1:9), who sought to glorify Himself and His prophet at the court of the powerful heathen king, in order thereby to kindle a shining light of Messianic consolation for His faithful ones of that age, as well as for those of the still darker periods of the future. Cf. infra, Ethico-fundamental principles, etc., on chap. 8, No. 3.
3. The symbolism of the image of the monarchies in general, namely, the succession of the four metals, gold, silver, brass, and iron, as also the distribution of these metals over the several parts of a colossal idol or statue in the human form, the contrast between the brittleness and weakness of this image and the world-filling greatness and solidity of the stone which takes its place, etc.; all these, like the fundamental conditions of the vision itself, may find their point of departure, or so to speak, their root, in certain relations and estimates of the time that naturally prevailed in Nebuchadnezzars kingdom, while the peculiarity of their arrangement is doubtless, as before, to be traced back to the revealing influence of God. An underlying natural basis cannot be mistaken.
a. In the symbolizing of a succession of four world-kingdoms by a connection of four metals of steadily decreasing value. A comparative view of the idea of a separation of the course of temporal development into four world-periods, which occurs elsewhere also, is instructive in this connection. We meet it in the Indian transformations within the limits of the four Yugs, in the Grco-Roman conception of four metallic ons (the ages of gold, silver, etc.), and also in the Parsee idea of four trees that have sprung from a single root, composed respectively of gold, silver, steel, and iron.40 Hesiod indeed, destroys the number four, by introducing a fifth kingdom between the kingdoms of brass and of iron, which is not of metal, and thus corresponds, in a measure, to the Messianic kingdom of Daniel, namely, the , of the heroes; but irrespective of this feature, the constant and decided combination of the idea of world-periods with the precise number four, remains a noteworthy fact. And although the correspondence that has been indicated, for instance, in the case of Ovid as coming under the influence of Greek conceptions, must in all probability be regarded as based on that idea, and moreover, although the Persian idea of the four metallic trees, which has been referred to, may not have been uninfluenced by the representations of Daniel,it will still be apparent, that the natural application of the number four to the ages of the world rests upon a profounder reason that inheres in the nature of things, and evidently, upon a natural and simple association with the four stages of human life. This connection of the number four with the periods of human life is especially easy in Daniel, since the four phases of development are illustrated by the image of man, as a personification of heathendom (Kranichfeld, p. 118 et seq.). To what extent the application, in this case, of the idea of four ages of the world to the succession of Asiatic monarchies, is to be placed to the account of the natural or political meditations of Nebuchadnezzar, and how far it is of supernatural suggestion or positively revealed, cannot, of course, be definitely decided, especially in view of our extremely fragmentary knowledge respecting the scope of religious thought and the philosophy of human life among the Babylonians.
b. The comparison of the successive kingdoms with the several parts of a colossal human or idol image is also probably based on some heathen mode of conceiving and representing things, with which the dream-originating Divine principle of revelation may have connected itself. Daniel himself, indeed, indicates nothing whatever, either in his recapitulation of the dream or in the interpretation, that can show that the form, size, and natural dignity of the several parts (head, breast, belly, legs), contained any special symbolical reference to the character of the four world-kingdoms; and any attempt to construct such relations between the image and the objects symbolized is exposed to the danger of being involved in useless interpretations and idle pastimes, as may be seen in many older expositors, and even as late as in Starke (on Dan 2:39; Dan 2:41). But at any rate the size and position of the various parts merit consideration as a tertium compar., so far as the first kingdom, which is represented by the head, as the highest and most important, but also the smallest organ, may be conceived of as intensively more, but extensively less considerable, than the succeeding ones; as also each successive organ may signify an aggregation of peoples or states (cf. supra, on Dan 2:39), which becomes steadily more worthless and degraded, from an internal (ethical) point of view, but as regularly increases in size and extent. In one respect, therefore, namely, so far as the decrease of internal moral worth (or dignity, according to the theocratic standard) among the four successive kingdoms is concerned, the symbolism of the various bodily parts yields the same result as that of the metals; while in another respect it leads to a contrary result, inasmuch as it represents these kingdoms as constantly extending their boundaries.
c. The final consideration,whether the mysterious stone, that descends from the mountain and shatters the metallic image, representing, Messiahs kingdom or the fifth world-monarchy, also contains features that may be traced back to the religio-political ideas of the ancient Babylonians, or whether, on the other hand, this closing incident of the whole vision must be regarded as purely supernatural in its character,can hardly lead to a definite conclusion. Some approach to Messianic ideas and expectations, however, may have been contained in the religious estimate of the world current among that people, as well as in that of the Persians, the Greeks (compare what was remarked above concerning Hesiod and the Zoroastrian myth of the four trees), the ancient Germans and Scandinavians, etc. The stone that crushes the image of the monarchies or world-periods may, therefore, have been a conception taken from the Chaldan or Babylonian circle of ideas, similar in its nature and tendency to those remarkable mythological approximations to the fundamental dogma of Christianity, which have justly been characterized as mythological foreshadowings of the great truth: The word was made flesh (Kahnis, Lutherische Dogmatik, III. 334; cf. 5. Osterzee, Das Bild Christi nach der Schrift, 69 et seq.; J. P. Lange, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, I., p. 237 et seq.).
4. The historical interpretation of the four kingdoms, or the application of the image of the monarchies to the facts of history in detail, involves no really serious difficulty upon the symbolic principles that have been established, in view of the definite statement by the prophet in Dan 2:37-38, by which the golden head designates the Chaldan empire of Nebuchadnezzar. The three succeeding kingdoms may therefore be discovered, without leaving room for doubt. They necessarily represent the three phases of development in the great Oriental universal monarchy, which followed next after the Chaldan period; for the prophetic horizon, whether of the king or Daniel, did not embrace the Occident. The four world-kingdoms are developed without exception on one and the same geographical stage, on the soil of the Orbis orientalis, thus harmonizing with the Biblical representation under the symbol of a single colossal human image; and the only world-kingdoms of the Orient that arose after the overthrow of Babylon, and that equalled it in importance, were the Medo-Persian founded by Cyrus, and the Macedonian-Hellenistic, originated by Alexander the Great, the latter of which passed through two stages, viz.: the period of its undivided existence, and that of its constantly increasing division and disintegration under the post-Alexandrian Diadochi. These two, or, by a more correct enumeration three, final forms of the Oriental universal monarchy, are represented with the utmost clearness by the silver breast, the brazen (copper) belly, and the nether extremities which are at first of iron and then of intermingled iron and clay. The breast of silver designates the Medo-Persian kingdom, which first succeeded the golden head, or Babylon. It does not signify Media simply, for (1) at the time when the Median king Cyaxares (=Darius the Mede, see Introd. 8, note 4) and his nephew and son-in-law Cyrus overthrew Babylon, the Persian tribe had already become so prominent within the Median realm as to warrant the designation of the whole kingdom by the names of both tribes, the Median, which was formerly predominant, and the Persian which had now become its equal. (2) Daniel accordingly refers to the whole world-kingdom which succeeded Babylon as a kingdom of the Medes and Persians (chap. Dan 2:28; cf. the exposition of that passage), and even in the section relating to the reign of Darius the Mede (Dan 6:9; Dan 6:13; Dan 6:16) he designates the religious code, which was in force throughout the kingdom, as the law of the Medes and Persians, thus characterizing it as a sacred ordinance that rested on the common consent of both the nationalities that had united under a single government.41 (3) In exact correspondence with this is his representation of the Medo-Persian kingdom, in chap. 8. under the figure of a warlike ram, and his designation of a succession of two dynastiesa Median and a Persiansimply by the growth of two horns from the head of the ram, of which the smaller comes up first (Dan 2:3; cf. Dan 2:20). (4) Consequently, the instances in which he distinguishes Darius, or Cyrus, or succeeding kings, by the titles, respectively, of king of the Medes, or king of the Persians, must be regarded as referring, not to a diversity of realms, but simply to a difference of tribal relations among these rulers. (5) Further the vision of the four successive beasts, which is described in chap. 7. and which is doubtless parallel to that of the four elements in the image of the monarchies, does not accord with the assumption, on which the second beast, a carniverous bear, represents the kingdom of the Medes, while the third, a leopard with four wings, designates the Persian monarchy, which fact was scarcely distinct from the former (see infra on that passage). (6) Nor does Zechariah 6, which is an alleged parallel to the vision before us, warrant a conclusion in favor of the opinion that distinguishes between the Median and Persian kingdoms; for the red, black, white, and grizzled, and bay horses, mentioned in that place, do not designate various lands or kingdoms any more than do the horses with similarly varied colors, which are introduced by the same prophet in Dan 1:7 et seq. (see Khler, Die Nachexilischen Propheten 2:1, 69 et seq., 189 et seq.). (7) Finally, no conclusion in favor of the Median hypothesis can be deduced from the remark by Daniel in Dan 2:39 a, that the second kingdom should be inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar; for an ethical inferiority of the Persian kingdom to that of the Chaldans might be readily asserted from a theocratic point of view, inasmuch as it clearly displayed a greater moral and social depravation under its later kings, than the former. Only Cyrus excelled the Chaldan rulers in friendly and benevolent conduct toward the theocracy, while his immediate successors, Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, treated the people of God with greater severity than had any Chaldan king whatever (cf. also the sufferings inflicted on the Jews by Xerxes, according to the book of Esther, and also by Artaxerxes I, according to Ezra and Nehemiah).
But if, in view of these considerations, the second kingdom of the image of the monarchies represents Medo-Persia, there can be no further doubt as to the interpretation of the third, which is symbolized by the brazen, belly. It must necessarily designate the Macedonian world-kingdom of Alexander the Great, whose grand and rapid introduction, as if borne on the wings of the tempest, is represented in the parallel vision of chap. 7 by the figure of a leopard with four wings, but which receives consideration in this case (chap. 2), only so far as its ethical and religious inferiority in relation to its predecessors is concerned, and as the remark that it should bear rule over all the earth (Dan 2:39 b) characterizes its external greatness. The kingdoms of the Hellenistic Diadochi, which arose from the universal monarchy of Alexander the Great, cannot be included in the third or brazen kingdom, since they present a picture of internal disruption, such as is clearly symbolized by the fourth monarchy of Daniel. The nether extremities of the colossus only, which were at first (in the legs) of iron, but afterward (in the feet and toes) a mixture of iron and clay, can be made to harmonize with the period of the Diadochi. In their interpretation, the legs, which are yet of iron, will probably refer to the time during which the immediate successors of Alexander endeavored at least to maintain the unity of the realm, despite their incessant quarrels and bloody conflicts,hence down to the battle near Ipsus (B. C. 323301); while the feet, which are in part of iron, and in part of clay, represent the succeeding state of growing dismemberment and hostile divisions (in which the kingdom of the Seleucid in Syria, and that of the Lagid in Egypt, were alone able to maintain, during a considerable period, a position of commanding power); cf. above, on Dan 2:41-43. That this tom and corrupted state of the post-Alexandrian Hellenistic empire, so analogous to a putrefying gigantic carcass, and also that the vain attempts to heal the sores by means of intermarriages among the contending princely families, etc., should be already described and prefigured in the visions of a Chaldan king about B. C. 600, can, of course, find an explanation only in the direct operations of the Divine Logos, by which the future is revealed (cf. No. 3). To base these features on a reference to the historical condition of Hellenism during the Chaldan period, to its internal divisions and incurable discords, which were, at that early day, as apparent as was their warlike bravery, and further, to the custom of political marriages among princes, which was already frequently observed (Kranichfeld), seems inadequate, and involves the danger of an exaggerated naturalizing of the prophetic process in question. Nor can the custom of political marriages be shown to have existed in the time of Nebuchadnezzar among the Greeks (with whom we have chiefly to do, in this connection), although it prevailed in Medo-Persia and Egypt.
Finally, the fourth kingdom was, at an early period, made to signify the Roman universal dominion, so that its first stadium of unimpaired strength (the legs of iron) represented the period of the republic and the first emperors, and the second, divided and powerless stage (the feet of iron and clay) referred to the later empire, or even to the middle ages and more recent times (in which, according to Auberlens exposition of Dan 2:43, the German and Sclavic nationalities were intermingled with the Roman); but this interpretation is opposed by many considerations. (1) It ascribes a range of vision over the future to the dreaming king and the prophetic interpreter, which lacks every support based on the actual condition of the times, since, as is well known, the greatness and world-historical importance of Rome were unknown until four hundred years after the captivity. Unlike the sections of the prophecy which relate to Persia and Javan, this would have no foundation in existing relations, but rather, would be of an abstractly supernatural character. (2) The mentioned in Dan 11:30, although already identified with the Romans by the Septuagint and the Vulgate, must rather be regarded as a race of Greek islanders, in view of the constant usage of the word elsewhere in the Old Testament, and more especially, because there is no indication of the identity of these Chittim with the fourth world-kingdom, either in chap. 11, or elsewhere. They are simply noticed in that connection, like the northern and southern kingdoms, as a constituent part of the Javanic or Hellenistic empire. (3) The symbolic details comprehended in the fourth or lowest world-kingdom according to Nebuchadnezzars visionthe legs of iron, the feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, etc., appear natural and suitable when applied to the development of Hellenism after Alexander, and particularly in the era of the Seleucid and the Ptolemies, while they lead to results of a more or less arbitrary character, with every attempt to demonstrate the Roman hypothesis; e.g., the view of Buddeus, Hengstenberg, and others, by, which the two legs of iron designate the eastern and western empires after Honorius and Arcadius, and that of Cocceius, which regards the iron and the clay as indicating the separation of the Roman power into a spiritual and a material kingdom (papacy and empire), etc. (4) That the collocation of the world-monarchy of Alexander and the kingdoms of the Diadochi as forming one and the same , a position that becomes necessary on this view, although supported by Dan 8:21 (where a grouping into a has actually come to pass), is yet shown by Dan 11:4, to be decidedly opposed to the real meaning of the prophet (cf. 1 Macc. (Dan 1:1; Dan 1:7 et seq.). (5) Finally, the figure of a stone, that destroys the image, is positively false as a representation of the triumph of Christianity over the world-power, if the Roman power be regarded as the fourth and final phase of the development of the latter; for this was not overthrown and destroyed suddenly and at a blow by the kingdom of Christ, like the statue by the stone, but instead, it incorporated Christianity with itself, and continued, as Christianized Rome, to bear rule over the earth during more than a thousand years. It might, therefore, be more properly identified with the stone, than described as a potency inimical to it; but it can, in any case, find no place in the series of pre-Messianic world-kingdoms that were hostile to His reign. [To these arguments we add the marked coincidences, between the several visions of Daniel respecting these four great world-powers, as exhibited in the harmonic table inserted in the introduction; and we call especial attention to the almost perfect parallel between the two little horns in each case. Now as one of these is admitted on all hands to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, the other, if identical, is, of course, a constituent likewise of the Syrian empire of the Seleucid, as the fourth Oriental monarchy. The discrepancies alleged by Keil, p. 258 et seq., as arguing a different interpretation of the little horns respectively, will be duly noticed in the exposition of the passages themselves.]
For these reasons we adopt that exposition of the four kingdoms which Bertholdt (Daniel, 1:192 et seq.) has recently advocated with penetration and fairness, after Polychronius, Grotius, Tossanus, Zeltner, and others, had asserted its principal features. We differ from Bertholdt, however, in failing to deduce anything that argues the composition of Daniels prophecy in the period of the Seleucid and Asmonans, from the reference of the feet of iron and of clay to the times of the later Diadochi, since, as will be shown more in detail hereafter, we regard the reference of passages like Dan 7:8 et seq.; Dan 9:24 et seq. to Antiochus Epiphanes as not conflicting with the authenticity of the book. We accordingly reject the following interpretations, which differ from ours in various particulars:
(a.) That of Bunsen (cf. Introd. 4, note 1), which applies the golden head to Assyria, in harmony with the alleged original interpretation by Daniel, the breast of silver to Babylon, the brazen belly to Media, and the iron legs to Persia, but which is thus guilty, not only of a direct contradiction of Dan 2:38 (thou art this head of gold), but also of a misconception that conflicts with history, in relation to the intimate; connection, and even essential identity of the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon, which could never have been contrasted as gold and silver, or the lion and the bear (cf. Dan 7:5 et seq.)42
(b.) That of Hitzig and Redepenning (see above, on Dan 2:39 a), which refers the head and breast to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, as the only Babylonian kings whom the author is said to have known, and which is therefore, at least, a partial reproduction of the scheme formerly attempted by the Swede, H. Benzel (Dissert, de quatuor orbis monarchiis, 1745), and by Harenberg, Dathe, and Hezel, to personify the four kingdoms (regarding them as metonymies for four Babylonian kings).
(c.) The view of Ephraem Syrus, Venema, Eichhorn, V. Lengerke, Bleek, de Wette, Kirmss, Hilgenfeld, Delitzsch, Kranichfeld (and conditionally, i.e., so far as it conforms to the views under a and b, also of Ewald, Bunsen, and Hitzig), that the head represents Babylon, the breast Media, the belly Persia, and the legs Greece and the Diadochian kingdoms (see for the contrary, above, No. 4).
(d.) The orthodox view, which refers the first three kingdoms to Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece, but the fourth to Rome and the states which have sprung from it since the empire; early represented by Josephus (Ant. X. 10, 4), by a majority of church-fathersespecially by Jerome, Orosius, and Theodoret; also by all the expositors of the Middle-age church after Walafrid Strabo, and by a majority of moderns, of whom we mention Buddeus (Hist. eccles. p. 2. sect. 5, p. 619 ss.), Joach. Lange, Starke, Zeis, Velthusen (Animadversiones ad Dan 2:27-45; Prag, 1783), Menken (Das Monarchienbild, Brem, and Aurich, 1809), Hengstenberg, Hvernick, Caspari (Die vier daniel. Weltmonarchien, in the Zeitschrift fr luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1841, No. 4), Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfllung, I. 276 et seq.), Keil (Einl. ins A. T. 134, p. 443, [also in his Commentary on Daniel]), Gaussen (Daniel le Prophte, 2d. edit. 1850, I. 250 ss.), Auberlen (Daniel, etc., p. 42 et seq.), Zndel (Krit Unterss. etc., p. 74 et seq.), Kliefoth, Fller, Grtner (in their expositions), Pusey (p. 58 ss.), Volck (Vindici Dan., p. 7 ss.), [and the monographs added in the Introduction].For the history of this orthodox-churchly interpretation of the image of the monarchies in older times, see Antiqu et pervulgat de quatuor Monarchiis sententi plenior et uberior assertis, auct. J. G. Jano, 1728 (also in Breyers Histor. Magazin, vol. I, p. 114 et seq.); and in relation to its influence on the conception and representation of universal history during the 16th and 17th centuries, see Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, vol. I, pt. 1, p. 176 ss.43
5. The relation of the image of the monarchies, when correctly interpreted, to the history of the founding of Christianity, must be found, in view of the foregoing considerations, in the assumption that the destroying stone represents the kingdom of Christ at the time of its introduction on the historical arena, while the growth of the stone until it fills the earth, indicates its gradual extension over all the countries of the earth. The fulfillment of this closing incident of the prophetic vision as a whole, is therefore not confined exclusively to the initial period of the history of Christianityas if the stone represented the pre-Messianic Israel, or any other historical agency preparatory to the advent of Christ; nor is it to be referred entirely to the future of Christianityas if the destruction of the colossus of world-powers had not yet transpired, and the overthrow of the fourth monarchy were reserved for the final judgment or some other eschatological event. The descent of the stone and the overthrow of the image were rather realized in the history of salvation, when Christ, the stone that was rejected by the builders, ground His enemies to powder, and became the elect and precious corner-stone in Zion, upon which all the foes of Gods kingdom are henceforth to fall, and by which they are to be shattered and put to shame (Mat 21:42-44; 1Pe 2:6-8; cf. Isa 8:14; Isa 28:16). This closing scene of the vision is in the course of being steadily and increasingly fulfilled, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the destruction and dissolution of the world-powers, and on the other, the growth of the stone into a mighty mountain that fills the whole earth, are yet far from their Divinely appointed goalhowever surely the world, together with Satan, its head, may have been long since judged in principle by the Spirit of Christ, and however clearly the only true God, who is declared in Christ, may have demonstrated, in a certain measure, his nature as the all supporting rock, from all eternity in the congregation of His faithful ones (as the Rock of Israel, Gen 49:24; Deu 32:4 et seq., Isa 30:29; Isa 44:8; 1Sa 2:2, etc.; cf. the rock of strength, Isa 17:10; rock of eternities, Isa 26:4; rock of refuge, Psa 94:22, etc.).Here again we are compelled to reject several partial conceptions:
(a.) The identification of the stone or fifth monarchy with the Roman dominion (Grotius), which clearly leads to an improper naturalizing of the passage, so far as it confines itself simply to the earthly relations of the historical Roman empire; but which certainly includes an important measure of truth in so far as it regards the Roman world-power as a Divinely chosen and sanctioned bearer and promoter of the royal Messianic cause at the stage of its introduction (cf. supra, No. 4).
(b.) The one-sided and exclusive reference of the stone to the people of Israel (older Jewish expositors; Porphyry;see, on the other hand, Jerome on the passage).
(c.) That interpretation of the stone by which it symbolizes merely the person of the Messiah, as distinct from the kingdom founded by Him (Cosmos Indicopleustes, and several rabbins, as Saadia, Ibn-Ezra, etc.; and, after them, especially J. Chr. Beermann. De monarchia quarta, in his Meditatt. politic, 1679, where he submits an interpretation of the several kingdoms that is otherwise entirely correct; cf. Bertholdt, as above, p. 215 et seq., in relation to Beermann, and partially against him).
(d.) The reference of the stone, not to the first, but to the second advent of Christ, and also to the erection of the Apocalyptic millennium, which is said to constitute the fifth monarchy, according to the true and actual meaning of the prophet. This view was held by the Chiliasts (Enthusiasts, Anabaptists) of the 16th and 17th centuries, and especially by the fanatical sect of Quintomonarchists or Fifth-monarchy men in England at the time of Cromwell (see Weingarten, Die Recolutionskirchen Englands, Berlin, 1868, p. 180 et seq.); also by several recent expositors of a subtile-chiliastic tendency, especially Auberlen (p. 42 et seq.; 248 et seq.;in opposition to him see Kranichfeld. p. 113 et seq.). Several earlier exegetes of pietistic-chiliastic or theosophic temper, e.g., Joach. Lange, Starke, M. Fr. Roos, Mencken, etc., contented themselves with finding a prophetic reference to the millennium in the final destiny of the stone, hence in its development to a greatness that fills and controls the earth, which is entirely admissible in view of the above.
6. The practical and homiletical treatment of this chapter will dwell predominantly on either its historical or its prophetic features. The leading subjects for consideration will be either the answer to Daniels prayer and his promotion above the heathen wise-men, or the triumph of the kingdom of God over the world-powers.
a. The former theme is immediately connected with the subject of the preceding chapter, since Daniels promotion and honor were merely additional fruits of the faithful obedience, which had already in that connection been praised as the source and basis of his greatness. Especially suitable texts may be found in the prayer of Daniel and his friends, Dan 2:16-23, and in the closing Dan 2:46-49. Compare Calvins observation on Dan 2:16 : Videmus, quo consilio, et qua etiam fiducia Daniel postulaverit, tempus sibi dari. Consilium hoc fuit ut Dei gratiam implo-raret . Non dubium est, quin speraverit Daniel, quod adeptus est, nempe somnium regis sibi revelatum iri. Exponit ergo sociis suis, ut simul postulent misericordiam a Deo. Also Chr. B. Michaelis on the same passage: Daniel eadem fide, qua postmodum ora leonum obstrinxit (Heb 11:3), hic solutionem somnii, quod necdum noverat, Nebuchadnezari promittit, certus jam de exauditione precum, quas super hac re ad Deum fusurus erat (Jam 1:6).On Dan 2:19 cf. Jerome: Somnium regis suo discit somnio; immo et somnium et
interpretationem ejus Dei renelatione cognoscit, quod dnones ignorabant, sapientia sculi scire non poterat. Unde et Apostoli mysterium, quod cunctis retro generationibus fuerat ignotum, Domino revelante cognoscunt (Eph 3:5).44On Dan 2:22 see Starke: If many things in the Word of God are too deep and hidden for thee, the fault is not in the Word, but in thyself. Beseech God to enlighten thy dark heart, and thou shalt understand the depths of Gods Word with ever-increasing clearness.Notice also the evidence of Daniels profound humility and modesty in Dan 2:23 b: Thou hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee; on which Jerome (and after him Theodoret, Calvin, etc.) correctly observes: Quod quatuor rogant, uni ostenditur, ut et arrogantiam fugiat, ne solus impetrasse videatur, et agat gratias, quod mysterium somni solus audierit.In treating the closing paragraph, Dan 2:46-49, notice particularly that it is a heathen, ruler, a worshipper of idols, who is compelled to exalt and glorify Daniel and his God. Calvin (on Dan 2:47): Profani homines interdum rapiuntur in admirationem Dei, et tunc large et prolixe fatentur, quicquid posset requiri a veris Dei cultoribus. Sed illud est momentaneum: deinde interea manent impliciti suis superstionibus. Extorquet igitur illis Deus verba, quum ita pie loquuntur, sed intus retinent sua vitia, ut facile postea reoidant ad pristinos mores, quemadmodum memorabile exemplum postea sequetur. Quicquid sit, voluit Deus ore profani regis gloriam suam promulgari, et illum esse prconem su potenti et sui numinis.
b. With regard to the prophetic contents of Nebuchadnezzars dream as brought out in Daniels interpretation, Dan 2:37-44, Melancthon justly comprehends that the political element must in this connection be decidedly subordinate to the religious and Messianic factor, and observes: He enarratio non tantum est politica de imperiis, sed prbet etiam occasionem Danieli concionandi de toto regno Christi, de novissimo judicio, de causa peccati, de redemptione et instauratione humani generis; cur sit tanta mundi brevitas; quale sit futurum perpetuum regnum, utrum in hac natura immunda vel alia; qualis sit futurus Redemtor, et quomodo ad hoc regnum perveniatur. Ita hoc brevis narratio complectitur summam Evangelii.Cf. Calvin (on Dan 2:44): Summa igitur est: qnamvis visuri sint Judi potentissima imperia, qua malum et terrorem ipsis incutiant, immo reddant fere attonitos, tamen nihil in illis fore stabile vel firmum, quod scilicet contraria sint regno filii Dei. Atqui male- dictionem denuntiat Jesaias (c. LX. 12) omnibus regnis, qu non servierint ecclesi Dei. Quum ergo omnes illi monarch diabolica audacia erexerint cristas adversus filium Dei, oportuit deleri, et in illis conspicuam fieri Dei maledictionem, qu habetur apud prophetam. Sie ergo contrivit Christus omnia mundi imperia.Hortatur propheta (Psa 2:12) omnes reges terr, ut osculenbur Filium. Quum neque Babylonii, neque Pers, neque Macedones, neque Romani Christo sese subjecerint, immo omnes suas vires contulerint ad ipsum oppugnandum et fuerint hostes pietatis, opportuit deleri a Chrislo regno, . Neque etiam hic Daniel ea tantum attingit, qu patent oculis hominnm, sed altius attollit mentes nostras, nempe ut sciamus, non alibi veram fulturam, in qua quiescamus, posse reperiri, quam in imo Christi (1Co 3:2). Extra Christum ergo pronuntiat quicquid splendoris et potenti est in mundo et opulenti et roboris, hoc esse caducum et invalidum et nullius momenti.Starke (after Geier, on Dan 2:44): All the kingdoms of earth are subject to change, but Christs kingdom shall endure for ever, and no violence can accomplish its overthrow (Mat 14:19).Id. (on Dan 2:37 et seq.): If God foreknows so exactly all changes in the world-kingdoms, and if He governs them all by His wisdom, should He not know the changes which are to transpire in His church? Should He not control them for good? (Mat 10:29-30).Menken (Das Monarchienbild, p. 82): The object for which God created the world, and the end for which He governs it, is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the invisible root which holds and sustains the world-kingdoms, the invisible power which smites and destroys them. Their more or less intimate connection with the kingdom of God decides the duration, the importance, the significance of world-kingdoms. The fate and the history of all the kingdoms of earth, that have no important connection with the kingdom of God, or no connection at all, would be of no value. Whatever may be their history, it is always unimportant, because they exert no influence whatever, or at best a very limited influence, upon the postponing or hastening of the final development of things, upon the supplanting of the world-kingdoms by the kingdom of God.
Footnotes:
[1] beat itself to and fro, was agitated with conflicting thoughts and feelings.
[2] was become upon him, a Chaldaizing sense of the verb, like our colloquial was all over with him.
[3] said the Chaldee sense.
[4] , bits ye shall be made, i.e., chopped into mince meat; probably a Babylonian form of punishment like killing by inches.
[5] be turned, i.e., pass by.
[6] the dry ground, an emphatic term for the world.
[7] said the Chaldee sense.
[8] returned in answer.
[9] the executioners, such being in Oriental courts an important part of the royal body-guard.
[10] the God, like i.e., the true God.
[11] , for (I say) his, i.e., each of the preceding qualities.
[12] is emphatic, and He. The pronoun is understood with the following clauses.
[13] and now; the position makes these terms emphatic; q. d., at once, promptly in this emergency.
[14], upon, seems here to denote the abruptness of the interview, q. d., came upon.
[15] the deprecatory form, mayest thou not destroy!
[16]The following is expletive, like before direct quotations.
[17] one, i.e., a single one, standing alone and conspicuous.
[18], huge or colossal; a different and stronger term than the immediately following.
[19] in front of thee; a stronger term, like the Heb. , than so frequently used in the context.
[20], good, i.e., pure.
[21] the iron and the clay, i.e., the materials just described. The art. is emphatic, as in the following verse.
[22] like one thing, all at once; denoting suddenness as well as simultaneousness.
[23]With these epithets compare the similar terms in the (spurious or late) doxology at the close of the Lords Prayer.
[24] is rather copper, the simple metal; for zinc, which is a component of brass, was anciently unknown.
[25] The article here, though present, as in all the preceding verses, should not be expressed in English, as it merely indicates the material.
[26] in part (lit. from the end); a different expression from the partitives elsewhere used in this connection.
[27]The connective is wanting in the text, but is supplied in the Masoretic margin.
[28]The it, is emphatic=itself.
[29]The is an emphatic copula=he is.
[30] lit. magnified Daniel, i.e., promoted him.]
[31][It would be very natural for a Jewish writer, looking at events from the Palestinian point of view, as Jeremiah, to date occurrences according to the actual arrival of Nebuchadnezzar as apparent sovereign in Syria, although in reality only a viceroy in place of his father. A precisely parallel reckoning occurs in Luk 3:1, with reference to the associate instead of the sole reign of Tiberius, as chronologers are now pretty well agreed. Daniel on the other hand, writing at Babylon, although by courtesy he applies the general title king to Nebuchadnezzar, while yet but a deputy, is exact in his statement of the years of the reign itself.]
[32][But it is difficult to see how the supposed circumstance that the king had forgotten the dream can here be called a favorable time. here is evidently to be taken in the sense of delay. The Magians are charged with trying to postpone the matter indefinitely, by the plea of requiring the statement of the dream by the king himself, which they presume cannot be done.]
[33][Keil, however, insists that this must be the meaning of the passive participle here, and renders the work of putting to death was begun. This is a straining of the sense. The execution being ordered, and preparations going on for it; it was regarded as virtually, but not actually in progress.]
[34][Keil takes the same view of the construction, Commentary, p. 104. The rendering of the whole clause would then be as follows: Thou, O King, the king of kings (for the God of heaven hath given to thee the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; and wherever the sons of man dwell, the beast of the field, and the fowl of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all)thou art the head of gold]
[35][Yet the authors explanation below amounts to this interpretation of , which is substantially adopted by Gesenius and Frst as being the most natural and agreeable to the form of the word.]
[36][ always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the. unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen 10:25; Psa. 4:10; Job 38:25; and Leng., Chald. Worterb., s. v.Keil.]
[37][Keil, however, contends, with Klief., that the mixing is not solely nor properly on the part of the kings, but is only spoken of the vain efforts of the heterogeneous elements of the fourth kingdom to coalesce by juxtaposition or even by intermarriage among themselves. The general character of and especially the fact that no subject for it is expressed in the text, favor the opinion that both references are intended, namely, to the rulers as well as the people.]
[38][The authorized rendering, however, is correct, if, with most editions of the Masoretic text, we read as the emphatic state simply; but if with others, we read as the suffixed state, we must translate its realm or dominion. We may adduce, as an objection to the latter, such a variation in the sense of in the game verse, as well as the unusual and somewhat tautological application of the pronominal suffix to its own noun as an antecedent, i.q., the kingdoms kingdom.]
[39]Porphyry early took offence at this passage, but his objection was properly dispatched by Jerome in a pointed manner: Hunc locum caluminatur Porphyrius, quod numquam superbissimus rex captivum adoraverit: quasi non et Lycaones ob signorum magnitudinem Paulo et Barnab noluarint hostias immolare. Error ergo Gentilum, qui omne quod supra se est Deos putant, Scriptures non debet imputare, qu simpliciter refert universa qu gesta sunt.
[40]Cf. Wollheim da Fonseca, Mythologie des Alten Indien, p. 26 et seq.; Hesiod, 106 ss.; Ovid, Metam. 1, 89 ss.; and in relation to the old-Persic doctrine of four ages of the world, especially Genesis and Avesta in Ausland, 1868, Nos. 12 and 28, and also Delitzsch, Art. Daniel, in Herzogs Real-Encyklop., p. 276. According to the two latter, the book Bahman Jesht, for instance, contains the following remarkable statement of the myth respecting the four ages of the world: Zerdusht demanded immortality tom Ormuzd, then Ormuzd showed to Zerdusht the all-embracing wisdom; whereupon he saw a tree having such a root that four trees had sprung from it, one of gold, another of silver, another of steel, and the fourth of iron. Ormuzd said to the holy Zerdusht: The root of this single tree, which thou hast seen (is the world), and these four trees are the four times which shall come: this golden one, when I and thou entertain each other, and Cstasp-Shah accepts the law, and the body of the Deos is broken and they conceal themselves: this silver one is the reign of the royal Artashir; the steel one is the rule of Anosheveran-Chosru, the son of Kobat: that of iron the evil reign of the Deos (on which, according to the Parsee teaching, the time of the Saviour Sofiosh is finally to follow).
[41]The force of the expression the law of the Medes and Persians ( ) in chap. 6. as an evidence of the union of the two neighboring Iranian nations in a single state us early as the period of the Chaldan supremacy, and perhaps earlier still, has been recognized, e.g., by Kranichfeld, despite his preference for the interpretation which refers the second world-kingdom to Media, and the third to Persia. In a note on page 123 et seq. he contests the assertion of Von Lengerke, that this formula really originated after the time of Cyrus, and is therefore a gross anachronism in the mouth of Daniel, by arguing that the union of the two peoples in a single nation, or at least under a single government, dates considerably beyond the time of Cyrus, and accordingly, that an exclusively Median realm was never in existence. The conformity of this view to the actual historical development of the ancient Iran is shown by Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 186; cf. Spiegel in Ausland, 1866, p. 355 et seq.
[42]Cf. Zndel, Krit. Unterss., p. 82; and generally as respects the continuity of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires and their inseparable connection in point of nationality, religion, and civilization, see the valuable sketch of the results achieved by the latest efforts of Assyriologists: Ninive et Babylone, in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1868, March 15, by Alfred Maury. The old-Babylonian (Chaldan), the Assyrian, and the later Babylonian empires, are in fact but three successive phases of the development of one and the same world-kingdom, despite their changes of dynasties and capitals, as also the Median, the Persian (Achmenidian), the Parthian, and other kingdoms, are successive phases in the manifestation of a single national empire on Iranian soil. cf. G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Eastern World, or the History of Chaldea, Assyria, Babylon, Media, and Persia. London, 1867. 4 vols. Also A. Scheuchzers Assyrische Forschungen in M. Heidenheims Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift fr engl.-theol. Forschung, Vol. 4., No. 4 (1868), p. 4 et seq.
[43][Justice to this popular view of the fourth kingdom of Daniels prophecies, which applies it to the Roman empire, either as a pagan or a papal tyranny, seems to require a statement here of the principal arguments in its favor. Other considerations will be examined, as well as some of , these more in detail, in the exposition of the passages under which they arise.
1. The prominence of the Roman dominion, as being the only really world-wide government after that of Alexander, certainly lends great probability to its selection as the culmination of the previous world-monarchies in comparison with the territorially insignificant realm of the Seleucid. But this argument seems to us to be neutralized by indications in the text itself, especially the fact that Daniels prophecies in this matter are bounded by the Orient as to their arena of dominion, the chosen people of God and their local heritage being the stand-point from which their influence is measured. The Jews did not come into any severe contact with Rome till after the dawn of the Messianic era, and (as the author observes above) Rome itself did not then succumb under the collision. The note of time in the days of these kings (Dan 2:44) cannot be pressed into a corroboration of this synchronism, for then it would cover the whole range of the previous dynasties likewise (see the exposition of that verse). But a most decisive prohibition of the allusion to Rome appears in the continual degeneration of the successive empires from the head downwards, till the fourth has deteriorated into a base metal and even a maudlin alloy. It is true the epithet strong as iron well applies to Rome, but it attained its culmination both of force and culture under the early emperors, and there was no subsequent change of government in its decay corresponding to the distinction between the unadulterated metal of the legs and the crumbling mixture of the feet and toes. In the case of the Syro-Greek monarchy, on the other hand, all these particulars have their exact counterpart.
2. The difficulties attendant upon the effort to identify with the history of the Seleucid succession the particulars elsewhere given in connection, with the fourth empire, especially the list of ten kings and the fall of three of them before the successful one (Dan 7:24) have been urged in favor of the orthodox view. But the Roman interpretation, on the other hand, seems to be beset with equal if not greater difficulties in this point, as will be seen in the exposition of that passage. Chap. 11. of this book is acknowledged on all hands to be a detailed account of the dynasty of the Scleucid, showing that the prophetic ken had it prominently in view; and the little horn of the he-goat (Dan 8:9) is generally admitted to be Antiochus Epiphanes. It is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that the little horn of the fourth beast (Dan 7:8) is the same king, and the fourth section of the colossal image (Dan 2:40 et seq.) the same dynasty. The characteristics make the parallel complete.
3. The violent persecution experienced by the saints under Roman power, particularly in the days of papal supremacy, has been especially thought to justify this scheme of interpretation. But it must be remembered that the Seleucid were the first kings who really oppressed the people of God on account of their religion, and the efforts of Antiochus to exterminate their faith were of the most extraordinary character, not exceeded by the virulence of the Inquisition itself. Moreover, the attempt to apply the prophecies in question to both pagan and papal Rome, weakens the force of the whole interpretation. The effort to find in the pope, as such, an emphatic and direct fulfillment of the little horn is indeed sustained by the striking analogy of blasphemous atrocity, but fails to find an equal agreement with many other features of the picture, e.g., the mingling themselves with the seed of men (Dan 2:43; absolutely forbidden by the celibacy of the pontiffs and clergy), the origin in dynastic and territorial revolution (the sea, Dan 7:3. and earth, Dan 7:17), the pointed reference to the Mosaic cultus and temple (Dan 8:11), and the whole tenor of the overthrow by civil and military convulsion (Dan 11:40 et seq.). We may also adduce the gross incongruity of representing any branch of the Christian Church, however corrupt, under these heathen symbols, and as the final foe of Gods people.
4. The marked similarity between the visions of Daniel and those of John in the Revelation, extending to details of phraseology as well as of emblem, has naturally led to the belief that they coincide in application. This, however, is a superficial view of their import. In the New Testament we everywhere find the symbols and even the terms of the O. T. used conventionally with a different application and in a wider sense. Thus, in our Lords eschatological discourse (Matthew 24.), the symptoms of the dissolution of Judaism are made premonitions of the end of all things; the whole of Ezekiels wail over the queen of ancient commerce (chap. 27.) is transferred almost literally to the apocalyptic overthrow of the later mistress of the world (Revelation 18.); the very names, Babylon, Gog, etc., are applied to new places and persons, just as Sodom, Egypt, Zion, etc., had long been current with a metaphorical meaning. It is a great mistake, however, to infer that these N. T. adaptations of types and imagery and language, familiarly drawn from the Q. T., necessarily denote the same objects or events. They are rather related as common types of some recurring Antichrist, as extensions of one general world-power ever inimical to the cause of spiritual religion. To identify them is to destroy the significance and beauty of the conventional signs by which they are expressed. The shallowness of this method of exposition, as applied to St. Johns Apocalypse, has been demonstrated by the futile attempts to make them quadrate with the facts of history.
5. Lastly, the periods assigned in Daniel for the fulfillment of the various prophecies, are appealed to in support of their application to Rome. This seems to us, on the contrary, a fatal argument against the view in question. It is true the same numbers are often used by the Revelator for the length of the times and seasons prefigured in his visions, but we have never yet seen any satisfactory adjustment of them to the history of the Roman empire or the papal church. We are strongly inclined to that view which regards them as being conventionally adopted by St. John as representations of longer or shorter periods of indefinite length. But in Daniel they unquestionably denote determinate spaces of time, and for that very reasonas they are ail periods of comparatively brief extent (some three and a half years, with the exception of the notable term of LXX weeks, or rather hebdomads; see the exposition of that passage)they must be limited by the history of the Antiochian persecution and the Maccaban revolution. The only escape from this conclusion is by a resort to what is termed the year-for-a-day hypothesis, which consists in understanding the days in each of the periods in question as put for so many years. It is sufficient to say of this somewhat popular and certainly convenient theory, that it is a conjecture devoid of countenance in Scripture. True, the prophets occasionally make a literal day the type of a literal year, but they never do so without immediately adding the explanation, for the express purpose of preventing such a generalization of the rule. Besides the passages in Gen 1:5 et seq.; Gen 2:4; 2Pe 3:8 (which would prove too much), the only instances of this usage adduced are Num 14:34; Eze 4:1-6; Dan 9:24 (but this is not in point); Rev 2:10 (but here the application is a pure assumption); Rev 11:13 ff (an equally imaginary case); Rev 11:2-3; Rev 12:6; Rev 12:14 (to include which is a simple petitio principii); Rev 20:6 (a rather difficult casethink of a millennium of 365,000 years!). See the exhaustive list by Dr. Pond, in the Meth. Quar. Rev. for Jan., 1874, p. 116 sq.; where the learned writer argues that if one part of a vision be a symbol so must the rest, e.g., if the locusts in Revelation 9., be symbolical (which is probably true only so far as they are a type of ruin in general, not any particular form or agency), so must the accompanying number be; ergo, the 5 months of Dan 2:5 must denote 150 yearsjust as if the number might not be symbolical of an indefinite period, as it no doubt is. We conclude, therefore, by reiterating that no clear instance can be adduced of the use of a day in Scriptural prophecy for an exact year, where the typical character of the time is not immediately expressed as being limited to that particular case, much less is there any intimation that such a rule is to apply to prophecy in general. To admit such a principle in Biblical interpretation is to abndon all precision in the use of language.]
[44]Tertullians assertion (de jejun., c. 7), with reference to Dan 2:1-19, that Daniel and his friends fasted during three days, and that for this reason their prayer was heard, has its foundation in the fact that he (or rather the pre-Jeromian Latin version of the Bible used by him) followed an ancient ascetic interpolation of the passage, which is still found in the Septuagint: , Cf. the similar ascetic extension which the passage 1Co 7:5 experienced at an early day, by the interpolation of the words before .
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
In Consequence of the King of Babylon forgetting the subject of a dream which had troubled him; Daniel, through the Lord, tells the monarch both his dream and the interpretation of it, and is advanced to honor.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
It is well worth the Reader’s remark, how often in Scripture we find the Lord taking occasion to bring about great things by the ministry of dreams. The dream of Joseph, of Pharaoh, of the chief butler and baker, of Ahasuerus, and the like. And what proofs do they all bring of the Lord’s watchful care over his people.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Daniel 2-3
See Keble’s lines on ‘Monday in Whitsunweek ‘.
Successive Monarchies
Dan 2:1-30
Nebuchadnezzar has a dream sent him by God.
I. Strange as the vision had been it had left no clear impression upon his mind, but only a vague sense of great terror. He sent for the wise men of the kingdom, but for such a dilemma their art provided them with no expedient. The king threatens them and their families with death unless they make known to him his dream as well as its interpretation.
II. The king commands that all the wise men of Babylon shall be put to death. Among these were Daniel and his companions. Daniel lost neither his faith nor his presence of mind. He is taken into the king’s presence, and time is granted him, and a respite for the rest, upon his promising to show the king on the day following his dream and its interpretation.
III. Daniel goes then to some apartment in the college at Babylon occupied by him in common with the wise men, and asks others to join him in prayer. They prayed ‘concerning the secret’ and ‘then was the secret revealed to Daniel in a night vision’.
IV. And now, in full possession of the secret, Daniel goes to Arioch and demands an immediate audience of the king. It is a grand and noble speech which Daniel addresses to the king. He claims no special skill; no illumination from any earthly source, that has taught him what had troubled the king upon his bed in night vision. It was a higher power that had sent the vision, and its object was to reveal what shall be in the latter days.
R. Payne Smith, Daniel, p. 37.
References. II. 3. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi. p. 8. II. 3-5. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. ii. p. 183. II. 21. R. E. Hutton, The Crown of Christ, p. 37.
After That, the Dark
Dan 2:22
When the Bible tells us that God knows a thing we have to widen the thought of knowledge a good deal. So much of our knowledge is merely speculative, not vitally linked with life and character, that we are apt to forget that all God’s thought and love really lie latent in what He knows.
I. He knoweth what is in the darkness of the heart. In the most ordinary life are deeps you cannot fathom. In your own heart is a darkness that you never penetrated. If we could only see into the gloom as God sees we should not surprise each other as we do. We are all far more mysterious than we know. The roots of our best and our worst are in the darkness. It is that that makes a man lean hard on God, and say He knows what is in the darkness. Now no man can doubt God’s knowledge of that realm who will seriously read the life of Jesus Christ. Few things arrest us more in that high story than how Jesus explained men and women to themselves. It was the witness and proof upon the stage of history that He knoweth what is in the darkness of the heart.
The thought has a twofold bearing upon practice,
a. It is first a great comfort when we are misunderstood.
b. It is a caution against judging others.
II. He knoweth what is in the darkness of the lot. Now if there is one thing on earth it is hard to understand, it is the meaning and the content of life’s darkness. There is an element of surprise in all affliction. And it is then, finding that flesh is vain, and turning full-faced to the Eternal God, we hear the exquisite music of our text, ‘He knoweth what is in the darkness’.
III. He knoweth what is in the darkness of the future. I think we are all agreed that it is a very merciful provision that God has hidden the tomorrow from us. Of course to a certain limited extent we do see into the darkness of tomorrow. We live in a world of most inflexible law, and as a man soweth, so also shall he reap. But after all it is a limited vision. The fact remains that in His infinite pity we are shielded and safeguarded by our ignorance; and the quiet thinker will waken every morning saying to his own heart ‘God knows’.
G. H. Morrison, Sun-Rise, p. 133.
Dan 2:33
I am not one who in the least doubts or disputes the progress of this century in many things useful to mankind; but it seems to me a very dark sign respecting us that we look with so much indifference upon dishonesty and cruelty in the pursuit of wealth. In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar it was only the feet that were part of iron and part of clay; but many of us are now getting so cruel in our avarice, that it seems as if, in us the heart were part of iron, part of clay.
Ruskin in The Two Paths.
Ik Nebuchadnezzar’s image, the lower the members, the coarser the metal; the further off the time, the more unfit. Today is the golden opportunity, tomorrow will be the silver season, next day but the brazen one, and so long till at last I shall come to the toes of clay, and be turned to dust. Grant therefore that Today I may hear Thy voice And if this day be obscure in the calendar, and remarkable in itself for nothing else, give me to make it memorable in my soul, thereupon, by Thy assistance, beginning the reformation of my life.
Thomas Fuller.
The Kingdom of the Saints
Dan 2:35
Even one poor coincidence in the history of Rome, viz. of the anticipated and the actual duration of its greatness, does not fail to arrest our attention. We know that even before the Christian era it was the opinion of the Roman augurs, that the twelve vultures which Romulus had seen previous to the foundation of the city, represented the twelve centuries, assigned as the limit of its power; an anticipation which was singularly fulfilled by the event. Yet what is this solitary fact to the series of varied and circumstantial prophecies which ushered in, and were fulfilled in Christianity? Extend the twelve centuries of Roman dominion to an additional half of that period, preserve its monarchical form inviolate, whether from aristocratic or popular innovation, from first to last, and trace back the predictions concerning it, through an antecedent period, nearly of the same duration, and then you will have assimilated its history not altogether, but in one or two of its features to the characteristics of the Gospel Dispensation. As it is, this Roman wonder only serves to assist the imagination in embracing the marvellousness of those systematic prophecies concerning Christ’s kingdom, which, from their number, variety, succession, and contemporary influence, may almost be accounted in themselves, and without reference to their fulfilment, a complete and independent dispensation.
J. H. Newman.
Reference. II. 36-49. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Daniel, p. 48.
Dan 2:40
Let’s have no more dominant races; we don’t want them; they only turn men into insolent brutes.
Burne-Jones.
Dan 2:42-43
There be also two false Peaces, or Unities; the one, when the Peace is grounded, but upon an implicit ignorance; For all Colours will agree in the Darke. The other, when it is peeced up, upon a direct Admission of Contraries, in Fundamentall Points. For Truth and Falsehood, in such things, are like the Iron and Clay in the toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s Image; They may Cleave, but they will not Incorporate.
Bacon.
The image that appeared to King Nebuchadnezzar in a dream was made of gold, of silver, of iron, and of clay. The idol of this world differs from that seen by the Babylonian monarch; for it is all gold pure gold and does not even possess the humanity of clay.
Sir Arthur Helps.
Reference. II. 44. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. i. p. 44.
Dan 2:45
Christ’s religion was not a mere creed or philosophy. A creed or a philosophy need not have interfered with kingdoms of this world, but might have existed under the Roman Empire, or under the Persian. No; Christ’s kingdom was a counter kingdom. It occupied ground; it claimed to rule over those whom hitherto this world’s governments ruled over without rival; and if this world’s governments would not themselves acknowledge and submit to its rule, and rule under and according to its laws, it ‘broke in pieces’ those governments.
Newman.
Dan 2:49
When Omar Khayym was a pupil of the Imm Howaffah at Naishapur, he struck up a friendship with two other pupils who were of his own age, Hasam and Nizam. One day they made a covenant and pledge with one another that whoever should gain a high position, should share his good fortune with his less favoured companions. The vow, it seems, was kept Nizam became vizier, and did not forget his friends, both of whom received from him or through him what they desired.
Dan 2:49
Before I was humbled I was like a stone lying in deep mud; and He who is mighty came, and in His own mercy raised me, and lifted me up, and placed me on the top of the wall…. And me who am detested by this world He has inspired beyond others (if indeed I be such), but on condition that with fear and reverence, and without complaining, I should faithfully serve the nation to which the love of Christ has transferred me.
St. Patrick’s Confessions.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Great Dreams
Dan 2:1-30
Nebuchadnezzar was not content to have an interpretation of his dream; he demanded that the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans should tell him not only the interpretation but the dream itself. The question to them is, What did I dream? The Chaldeans said, Tell us the dream, and we will tell thee the interpretation. But the king said, No; the thing is gone from me: it was a broken dream; I dreamed dreams, that is to say, I dreamed one dream, but it was so broken and so disarranged that I cannot put it into coherence; the whole thing is gone from me, but if you are really wise men you will just be as clever in recalling the dream as in giving a right interpretation of it. The magicians and sorcerers said: This is unreasonable; we must have something to start with: we ought not to be called upon first to make a dream and then to answer it by way of interpretation; give us the dream, and we will give the meaning of it. “The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you: for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof.”
Then the Chaldeans complained: “There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean. And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” The Babylonian theology was peculiar in this respect; it assumed that every man who came into the world had a god, or demon, or angel, or spirit peculiarly his own, appointed to watch over him for defence and guidance and the like, but it did not lie within the scope of the genius of these individual deities first to recall a dream and then to give the interpretation of it; but the Babylonian theology had in it the further assumption that there are other gods, a million thick it may be when they gather in full hosts, gods that do not dwell with flesh, non-incarnate gods; and only they can see the whole circle of things, only they can tell a man, king or peasant, what he has dreamed, and can show the dreamer the meaning of the vision.
“For this cause the king was angry and very furious,” kings soon got angry in olden times and in Oriental nations, “and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.” Daniel was not one of the wise men of Babylon; Daniel was only a student at this time; he was preparing to join the ranks of the wise men; but the king’s decree was complete, all-inclusive, final, that every man who professed to study wisdom be killed, because no man can be found to recall my dream, and put it in the shape which I can recognise. That was a short and easy method with imperfect teachers; many would like to practise it now. We do not recognise the limitations of our function as teachers, seers, and prophets, and children of wisdom. We do not see that there are limits even to prayer; it is not fully recognised by us that men can only go a very little way, a mile or two at the most, on the wondrous road that stretches into infinity and eternity. Sometimes we want to scourge our teachers or goad them, or to prick them with the spears of our inquisitiveness, so as to touch their blood and make them bolt forward several miles at once, but it cannot be done. The wisest man has only a lamp, and a certain quantity of oil in it; if he withhold not his oil he is doing all that lies in his power. We must not insist upon impossibilities from our fellow-men; give us what you can, pray what prayer lies within the urgency of your felt need; if you can bring in our sin, and name it with aught of delicacy to God, help us thus by your intercession; and if you have power so to name the Cross as to bring down the answer ere the prayer has gone, use that power for our edification, our release, and our general advantage. Do not hearers expect too much? They want to know things that are only known to God.
Yet there is a sense in which Nebuchadnezzar was right. This is the cry of heathenism. Tell us what we dream; put the nightmare into shape. We have seen wild things, we have walked across wildernesses, we have been lost in storms, we have been deafened by thunder, we have been affrighted by lightning; serpents have coiled round us, questions have risen in the heart like sparks of fire: tell us what it means. Heathenism is right. By heathenism do not understand something that is five thousand miles away, rather understand the unchristianised portion of your own nature; we, dwelling in civilised lands, represent no inconsiderable amount of heathenism ourselves. Christianity ought to be able to tell heathenism what it has been thinking about and what it wants. This is the difficulty of the missionary abroad, and this is the difficulty of the teacher at home. The Christian evangelist has first to tell his hearer the dream that has troubled the hearer’s imagination. It will not do for the hearer to tell his own dream; he really cannot tell it; he can hint at a word here and a symbol there and a shadow yonder: only the interpreter in the Christian sanctuary can tell the dreamer what he dreamed. Christianity therefore undertakes in the first instance to put our memories right, to recall vanished images, to make echoes find their way back to the voices to which they owe their existence. Christianity says, I will tell thee, O poor soul, what thou hast been dreaming about: they were strange things that appeared in thy dream; there was an image, black, grim, awful to look upon, with eyes of reddest fire, and a voice full of reproach and cutting rebuke, and denunciation of the most poignant and severe character: thou didst hear other witnesses testifying against thee in the great clamour, voice following voice, accusation following accusation, until thou wast bewildered by the tremendous impeachment: through it all there was a black line, strange, a crossed line; as thou didst look upon that line it shaped itself into a gallows-tree; there was One upon it, his face marred more than any man’s; he was wounded in five places; he looked at thee with the look of omnipotent weakness, the pathos of that face was mightier than the almightiness of God: that was thy dream it was a dream of need, a dream of self-accusation, a dream full of trouble, woe unspeakable, and expectation that burned like hell. That is a dream of humanity: a great fear containing a great hope; a tremendous accusation broken in upon by possibilities of eloquent pleading and prevalent intercession; a sin, a creditor, black, stern, oppressive, and One side by side offering to pay all the debt. Thy dream expressed universal necessity: it was a cry for the living God, it was a groping after something that seemed to be quite near, yet strangely to elude the fingers that searched for it. Until you realise the dream the interpretation will seem to refer to some other man’s vision. Every dreamer so far must recognise the nightmare, the dream, the troubled sight that came before him; then he will sit attentive and solemn, and listen to the interpreter who has the key of mysteries.
It may be held, therefore, in general terms, that the demand of Nebuchadnezzar was not so unreasonable as it seemed to be. Christianity must do something that no other religion can do, else it will become one of many. Jesus Christ had no plural; Jesus Christ may be described grammatically as a noun of multitude: he represented all the rest, all life eternal, all beauty unfading, all music everlasting. Jesus Christ does not come in with a conjecture, following the guesses of other men; Jesus Christ claims to be unique, original, one, only begotten of the Father; the Ruler of men, their King, and one who brings from eternity water that can slake the thirst of time; the only one who can do away with the little artificial lamps invented by human genius, and displace them by suns that can never burn away, suns that brighten with their burning. When Christianity loses its distinctiveness it foolishly undertakes to descend to a level already thronged by fretful competitors. When the preacher descends from the platform God built for him and begins to read essays, he puts himself into competition with more able men than himself, who know more about the subject and can more fittingly express it in formal and logical manner. So long as he stands upon the crag built by God, and thence thunders the law, or proclaims as with silver trumpet the evangel of reconciliation, he has no rival; only himself can be his parallel. Christianity does not come to answer our curiosity; Christianity comes to reply to our need. The Cross has nothing to say to our intellectual speculativeness; it comes to tell the broken, self-accusing, self-condemning heart that God is love. Keep to your function; stand by your charter: do not disfranchise yourselves by condescending to occupy the lower levels of wrangling controversy, wordy and pithless disputation.
When the intelligence was brought to Daniel he said, “Why is the decree so hasty from the king?” Does he look everywhere That was John Foster’s argument, or part of it, in answer to atheistic inquiry. The celebrated essayist said, Unless a man has been everywhere, the place where he has not been may contain the proof of the presence of the living God; and if a man has been everywhere through and through the universe, why, he seems fit to be God. “Why is the decree so hasty from the king?” Daniel took the right course; he “went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretation. Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions: that they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.” That is always the course that is profoundly prudent, because profoundly rational as well as profoundly Christian. To God! That is your marching order. When you are troubled, affrighted, overwhelmed, imperilled, to God! Do not consult equals, or measurable superiors, but flee! Haste thee! Beat urgently upon heaven’s door! Knock, and it shall be opened unto thee. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not: if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give the Holy Spirit unto them that ask him: ye have not because ye ask not, or because ye ask amiss.
Here is the divine hand magnified in the distresses of mankind. Life was brought to a sharp crisis. The king’s decree went forth, and in Oriental lands kings cared no more for human life than we care for insect life perhaps even less. The decree darkened the whole heaven; there was gloom in every house in the city, mayhap in the whole country. Because Nebuchadnezzar was wrathful, therefore did the sun retire and the whole firmament drape itself in awful guise. What was done? Daniel knew what course to take; he instantly sought fellowship in prayer, and he and his companions fell on their knees and cried to the God of heaven. “Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.” The captain reported to the king that he had found an interpreter. That interpreter was found in unexpected places, as all interpreters are found. Said Arioch, “I have found a man of the captives of Judah.” That is God’s inscrutable way. It was not a brother-king that told Nebuchadnezzar what had troubled him; nor was it some man that drove to the king’s house in a chariot of gold, with steeds of fire, whose scarlet nostrils were distended as if in pride that they were called upon to enter such lofty service: it was a man among the captives of Judah. How wondrously events touch and interrelate in life! Thus captivity is made true freedom, and thus men far from home established a second nativity, and thus persons who suppose themselves to be instances of humiliation find that those circumstances are but a stairway up to primacy, to sovereignty. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. You are in the captivity of poverty, perplexity, difficulty: there will be a message for you some day; for though you have so little outwardly, what treasures you have spiritually; though everything has been taken from you that can be taken except yourself, you live, you pray, you own Christ’s dear, sweet name, you have understanding of human nature; therefore you are rich: when you are sent for, speak roundly, with authority, directly, and make no obeisance that has not in it the stoop of royalty.
Some men cannot be captives except in form. All men are not prisoners who are in gaol. Sometimes the turnkey is more a prisoner than the man whom he has locked up, and oftentimes the judge is more a captive than the man whom he may with unconscious injustice have consigned to a prison undeserved. Consider what you are, and what you have, intellectually, spiritually, educationally. Give a boy a good education, and you give him a fortune, which he cannot spend or throw away, and which will come usefully to his aid in faraway places and faraway times; give a child a rich Christian education, a real, sensible, healthy, wise training, store the memory with Zion’s own Psalms and minstrelsy, and with the words of Jesus, small as dewdrops but immeasurable as suns, and somewhere the child may become even in poverty and expatriation and shame a prophet, a teacher, one who can let fall upon the darkening mystery the illumination of Heaven. This is the attitude of Christianity today and every day. It tells men the meaning of their nightmare and trouble and sorrow, and it often has to put before the distracted imagination the very thing that was dreamed. But Jesus can do all this. He answered every one who came to him earnestly and urgently. It was only to speculation that he was so stonily dumb and deaf; it was only curiosity that he smote and turned away with a wheal on its brazen face. When men came broken-hearted, with eyes blind with tears, he told them all they could receive of wisdom and gospel and tenderness. The disciples sometimes failed, but Jesus Christ never. The disciples were represented in some feeble degree by the magicians and astrologers, the necromancers and the soothsayers of Babylon, but Jesus Christ was partially represented by the true interpreter, the completely equipped and qualified prophet. Said one, “I brought my son to thy disciples that they would heal him, but they could not.” Said Christ, “Bring him hither,” and the diseased son went home a free man, strong, and full of gratitude. Said the disciples, “We cannot feed this great multitude, for we have only a few loaves and a few fishes.” Said Christ, “Make them sit down; now,” said he, “bring what you have got.” What hands he had! He brake, and brake, and gave the disciples a busy time of it. There is a touch that multiplies; there is a smile rich as the dawn of a summer day; there is a voice every tone of which has in it a martial inspiration or a tender benediction. That voice is Christ’s.
Prayer
Almighty God, we are thy children; thou hast made us, and not we ourselves. We live by thy power, and because of thy love, thy tenderness, thy daily grace. We are in liberty, we are looking forward to perfect emancipation, when we shall see light in thy light, and have all thy heaven to dwell in. Thou hast inspired great hopes in us through the power of the Cross of Jesus Christ; now we see that with God all things are possible; we have been living in the midst of difficulty and wonder, so that we could not see how the day was to dawn upon the world; but seeing that Jesus Christ, thy Son, has come and has taken upon him the sins of the world, and died for every man, we see that in him is fulness of salvation, and from his Cross and from his throne shall come the redemption and the sovereignty of the world. We bless thee that all souls are thine; thou wilt not forget the least of them; thou dost remember thy jewels; the old man and the little child thou wilt reckon in thine host; the great hero, and the humble sufferer who accepts thy will and does it with a full heart, all alike are thine; thou dost see thine image in the great and in the small, and in the end nothing of thine shall be lost. We pray thee that we may ever remember the solemnity of thy law, The soul that sinneth, it shall die; may we look upon this law as thine, and as irresistible, unchangeable, everlasting; and thus may we discover that we are bound round about by limitations of thine own imposing; may we not seek a freedom with which thou hast not invested us, but accepting what thou hast done for us, may we live in the liberty of thy law, may we enjoy the freedom of thy righteousness, and may we know ourselves to be at our best estate but men, whose breath is in our nostrils, whose days fly like a weaver’s shuttle, and whose end can never be far away. Thus in humbleness and reverence, in docility and love, may we spend our time, and behold how the will of God is being done on earth as it is done in heaven. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
III
THE HISTORY OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Dan 2:1-4:37
The history contained and involved Dan 1 , because it is fundamental to the rest of the book, and because it is most contested, hag been elaborately examined in the preceding chapter. With the foundation thus firmly established, we may proceed more rapidly in the consideration of the rest of the historical sections of the book.
Dan 2 commences with an important date, the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. We have seen from the preceding chapter that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, made its king tributary, and led Daniel into captivity, in the third year of Jehoiakim; that on this expedition he was only co-regent with his father, but was called home suddenly by the news of his father’s death, so that in the fourth year of Jehoiakim he became sole king (Jer 25:1 ), and the same year as king he defeated the invading Egyptians at the second battle of Charchemish near the fords of the Euphrates (Jer 46:2 ). The victory was so decisive that he finished that year the campaign which gave him all the Syrian and Palestinian country to the river of Egypt. We say he finished the Charchemish campaign that year, for this chapter (Dan 2:1 ) finds him back in Babylon some time later, doubtless in his second year. It is in this year he had the dream of the great image destroyed by the little stone cut out of the mountain, or the succession of five great world empires which will be considered carefully when we come to the exposition of the prophetic sections. Because of his interpretation of this dream Daniel and his friends receive great honors. Our record says, “Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshiped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours to him. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou hast been able to reveal this secret. Then the king made Daniel great, and gave him many great gifts, and made him to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to be chief governor over all the wise men of Babylon. And Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Dan 2:46-49 ).
He is now not only the chief of all the wise men, a very influential body, but is prime minister of all the empire. As it is a world empire, the governmental affairs of the known world are in his hands. His purity of life and his incorruptible integrity in the administration of public affairs soon gives him such a reputation for righteousness throughout the world as later to call forth a tribute from his fellow captive and contemporary, Ezekiel, which associates him with the two men most remarkable for righteousness at that date in the world’s history (Eze 14:14 ; Eze 14:20 ).
Tyre, on the Phenician coast, had also become tributary to Babylonia. But the king of Tyre, meditating the rebellion which would soon bring Nebuchadnezzar to destroy his city, imagined he knew more about politics and public administration of affairs than anybody else. This calls forth another tribute to Daniel by Ezekiel when he ironically says to the king of Tyre, “Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that is hidden from thee!” The reference here is very obvious to Daniel’s God-given wisdom and his selection by the Almighty to be a revealer of secrets set forth in Dan 2 . And the pertinence of the allusion becomes more apparent when we consider that it is Daniel’s wise administration of the world’s affairs, including those of Tyre, against which the king of Tyre proposes to rebel. There is nothing in the world’s literature more exquisite as a classical gem than this prophecy of Ezekiel against Tyre. (See Ezekiel 26-28.)
When we consider the relation of Tyre to Daniel and Babylon at this very juncture, nothing but the most incorrigible perversity and wilful blindness could induce a radical critic to refer these allusions of Ezekiel to a Daniel unknown to history or tradition, and to deny their reference to the well-known Daniel of this book, the only man on earth at that time, before or since, whose relations to the matters in hand could justify the allusions.
Attention is here called to the frequent instances in history when alien Jews, on account of their capacity, have been promoted to the management of national affairs: Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, Mordecai in Persia, Disraeli in England, Judah P. Benjamin in the Southern Confederacy. The history in Dan 3 relates, not directly to him, but to his three friends. And as the record is so plain we need not do more than make clear a few points in the story. That Nebuchadnezzar, in his exaltation to the sovereignty of the world, should be inflated with abnormal pride and count himself worthy of divine honors is no strange thing, particularly when we call to mind the existence of that evil spirit, the prince of this world, at all times ready to tempt men to idolatry, or to any form of worship that will deny the only true God. In our Lord’s great prophecy which refers to the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel, the prophet, we find the Greek word “Bdelugma” translated “abomination,” to mean an idol, an image for worship, and therefore an “abomination.” Probably that idol, or image, was the effigy of Caesar on the Roman standard which the soldiers worshiped by imperial command. There is a thrilling account by Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities, of the revolt of the Jews because Pilate had the legion from Caesarea to bring these idol standards and to “introduce” them by might into the holy city. Inasmuch as the desolation of Jerusalem was to be accomplished by Roman armies, and as these armies carried standards on which were idol effigies of Caesar, we can see why Daniel would call the Roman standard an abomination of desolation. If, much later in the world’s history, all the Caesars assumed divine honors and demanded worship of their images, we should not find it incredible that Nebuchadnezzar should erect this image in the plain of Dura.
We may trust a radical critic, however, to find some ground of objection against the history. Three of their objections I now cite and answer, as follows:
1. The available gold of the world would not suffice for the material of that colossal image, ninety feet high and nine feet wide. Those who are familiar with the financial arguments of Bryan’s first campaign for the presidency will recall “Coin’s” dramatic description of the smallness of the room whose cubic capacity would hold all the gold of the world. But these critics ignore the fact that these images were not solid but hollow like the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, and that probably the component sections were not solid gold but only plated or gilt. Gold is one of the most malleable of all metals. A single grain of gold can be hammered out until it will cover fifty square inches. It would not have strained Nebuchadnezzar’s credit to gild or plate that image.
2. But the critics blow the trumpet of doubt when they find among the names of the musical instruments enumerated in Dan 3:4 ; Dan 3:10 , one or two Greek words, which they say could not have been known in Babylon at this date and therefore the author must belong to the times after Antiochus Epiphanes. It is hardly worth while to notice this philological objection since objections on the ground of philology have been either virtually abandoned by many of the later critics or little stress given to them. It is true the book of Daniel deals only with the Greek Empire prophetically, commencing with Alexander the Great, yet unborn, but Greek language and literature preceded Alexander very many years and were widely diffused before Daniel’s time. The Greek name of an instrument of music would naturally follow the instrument. From the time that Nebuchadnezzar gained the Mediterranean coast, and long before there was communication with Greece (not yet an empire of course) through Pheonician ships and overland routes of commerce (read particularly Eze 27 ). But Dr. Pusey, one of the ripest scholars of Europe, denies that there is even one Greek word in the book of Daniel.
3. Of course they regard the miraculous preservation of the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace as altogether incredible. How their gorge rises in them when a miracle appears! A close student of Bible miracles cannot fail to note that they appear in groups of great epochs in the history of the kingdom of God the times of Moses, of Elijah and Elisha, of Isaiah and Daniel, of our Lord and his apostles. And always the times call for mighty demonstrations of divine power. I call attention to the old heathen literary maxim: “Never introduce a god into your story unless there be a necessity for a god, and when introduced let his words and deeds be worthy of a god.” Of course the author of the maxim is looking only to an artistic standard of literary taste, and yet his words contain a principle that justifies all biblical miracles. There is always an occasion for them. They are never needless or out of harmony with the conditions. And particularly in this instance as in the memorable case of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, there was a distinct issue between Jehovah and idolatry which called for the divine interposition, as we see in Dan 3:15 . These three Hebrews had openly refused to obey the king’s mandate to worship the image. They were formally brought before him in the presence of his people. The king once more peremptorily demanded obedience and challenged any god to deliver from his wrath if they again disobeyed.
Aesop, in one of his fables, justly rebukes a wagoner for calling on the demigod, Hercules, when all that was needed was to put his own shoulder to the wheel. No human power could have helped these martyrs in that furnace, and only the supernatural intervention could have brought Nebuchadnezzar to his right mind. The New Testament certifies the miracle: “By faith they quenched the violence of fire” (Heb 11:34 ). One incident of this preservation has impressed the world, and teaches a lesson of transcendent importance to God’s people: “Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors) Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
The great lesson is the actual presence of God with his people in all their trials and afflictions. This time the Presence was made visible. But whether visible to the natural eye or only to the spiritual eye, the fact of that Presence has been, throughout the ages of unspeakable comfort to all persecuted for righteousness’ sake or in sore straits from any cause. It has inspired lofty songs and given wings to praise. David, in that matchless hymn concerning the good shepherd, sings: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
It is the glorious assurance of the great commission: “Lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.” In the absence of our Lord in heaven this doctrine of the Divine Presence prevents the sense and loneliness of orphanage. Says our Lord, on the eve of his departure) “I will not leave you orphans. I come unto you. . . . If any man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Joh 14:18 ; Joh 14:23 ). Nebuchadnezzar, an outsider, and challenging God’s intervention, needed natural sight to convince him. We need it not. The manifestation of the Presence is more vivid, more realizable) because made evident to the soul’s senses. Let us keep on singing that grand old Baptist hymn: Fear not; I am with thee; O be not dismayed, I am thy God, and will still give thee aid: I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand, Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand. When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie, My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply: The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design Thy dross to consume, thy gold to refine.
To the end of time the reply of these three men to Nebuchadnezzar’s imperious demand will develop moral heroes: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said unto the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” The world would become corrupt as before the flood and evoke condign and sweeping wrath from heaven were it not that in every generation some heroes of faith, like these men, arise to save it by their sublime devotion to the paramount law of God. The whole book of Daniel breeds heroes.
More than once already have I called attention to the variant readings of the Septuagint, or Greek version. We must understand first, that a translation is not inspired. Then we should understand that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, for whose great library this version was made, was seeking literature, not religion. Sometimes this version is a paraphrase, not a translation. Sometimes it incorporates traditions and even whole books, belonging indeed to later Jewish literature, but not found in the Hebrew nor reckoned by the Jews as canonical. Hence we need not be surprised to find incorporated in this third chapter of Daniel a section longer than the rest of the chapter. It sandwiches between Dan 3:23 and Dan 3:24 sixty-seven other verses, consisting of three parts:
1. After stating that these men had fallen down bound when thrown into the furnace, it says that they arose and walked in the flame. Then Azarias (i.e., Abed-nego) offered a prayer much like Daniel’s prayer in Dan 8 . Indeed, it is evidently modeled on that prayer, but it contains one untrue statement, which was true, however, in the time of the apochryphal book from which it seems to be quoted.
2. It contains a brief statement to this effect: That Nebuchadnezzar’s servants kept on adding fuel to feed the flames of the furnace, but that God’s angel entered the furnace with the martyrs and blew all the flames out of the furnace and made all its interior as cool as if a gentle breeze circulated or a dew were falling.
3. The consciousness of deliverance leads all three of them to burst out in a long song of praise, which is little more than quotations from some of the psalms. It bears the marks of a later age, and unlike the reticence of the Holy Scriptures, it seeks to explain the process of the miracle. The inspired oracles record miracles in the simplest and briefest language, never stopping to attempt an explanation, or to offer an apology. The miracle stands naked before the eye and is left unclothed.
Dan 4 is a contribution by Nebuchadnezzar himself. It consists of a proclamation which recites the events of eight years. The time order of the events is as follows:
1. Nebuchadnezzar, though a great king and a pious one according to his religion, was going far astray through pride in consequence of his greatness and the exercise of his sovereignty over the world.
2. God sends him a dream to rebuke him for his sins and to warn him of punishment if there be no reformation.
3. This dream is interpreted by Daniel to signify the loss of his reason for seven years and his expulsion from the throne during that time, and his becoming as a beast of the field. Daniel closes his interpretation with this exhortation: “Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.”
4. At the end of twelve months, the king’s heart being lifted up with pride as he contemplates the greatness of his city and the glory of his dominion, the dream is fulfilled.
5. On the recovery of his reason he blesses and praises Jehovah, the God of the Jews, and acknowledges his supremacy over all governments and kings.
The dream in itself was a marvel:
Thus were the visions of mine head upon my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was food for all, the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the birds of the heavens dwelt in the branches thereof, and all flesh was fed from it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from heaven. He cried alone and said, thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches. Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven; and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth; let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men. Dan 4:10-17 .
The great lesson which the dream was designed to teach is thus expressed: “To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will; and setteth up over it the lowest of men.” This chapter, as all of the rest of the book, is designed to affirm and demonstrate the supremacy of the government of God over the governments of men. On one occasion Dr. Lyman Beecher preached a sermon on “The Government of God.” The impression made by it was so profound that a friend inquired, “Dr. Beecher, how long were you preparing that sermon?” He replied, “Forty years, and the time was too short for me to understand the comprehension of the divine rule.” The dream was also intended to show that all kings and governments are under inspection of heavenly watchers, and when the measure of their iniquity is full the divine judgment will certainly fall. Any man who cannot, from the study of nature and from the affairs of time) find out that there is a God who rules over heaven and earth, classifies himself with the brutes that perish. As this dream says, “Take away from him the heart of a man and let the heart of a beast be given to him.”
In the days of my early ministry in Waco, Mr. Huxley’s definition of an agnostic was becoming widely accepted and the Darwinian theory of evolution as set forth by Charles Darwin and advocated by Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall, was receiving great favor in literary circles in Waco. After reviewing in a series of lectures the “First Principles” of Herbert Spencer, I preached a sermon on the text from this chapter, “Take away from him the heart of a man and give him the heart of a beast,” and used these expressions: “An atheist is a fool; an agnostic is a beast,” following out the thought of this chapter that one too ignorant to know God and his government classified himself with the beasts. The evolutionists who had confidently affirmed a brute ancestry, objected to classification with their parents.
The disease which came upon Nebuchadnezzar was a disease well known to medical authorities in which the subject, through mental derangement on one point, imagines himself to be some beast or fowl and acts as if it were true; that is, the patient, if he imagines himself to be a rooster, flaps his arms as if they were wings and crows; if he imagines himself to be a dog he barks and growls and snarls like a dog; if he imagines himself to be an ox he goes on all-fours instead of standing erect and eats grass and herbs like an ox. The technical name of the disease in Nebuchadnezzar’s case is “boanthropy.” A Greek medical writer of the fourth century A.D. seems to be the first to notice this disease. Doubtless during the seven years of Nebuchadnezzar’s incompetency through mental disorder regents ruled over Babylon for him.
Is it credible that a king of Babylon would issue such a proclamation? In this book and in other books of the Bible, near the times, for example Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, we find kings prodigal in proclamations. It is also in line with the latest discoveries of archeological researches, that kings made proclamations or recorded inscriptions to memorialize the great events of their own lives or of the history of their people. So there is nothing incredible in the proclamation.
A certain sentence of this chapter in the Greek version has been made to play a prominent part in the baptismal controversy. See in the Greek version the rendering of “and his body was wet with the dew of heaven” (Dan 4:33 ).
QUESTIONS
1. What is the subject matter of Dan 2 ?
2. What promotion did Daniel and his three friends receive for the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the image and little stone?
3. Daniel’s righteousness in his own life and in the administration of the world’s affairs called forth what tribute from his contemporary, Ezekiel?
4. How would his political position as prime minister bring him in contact with Tyre?
5. How does his wisdom in administering world affairs call for another tribute from Ezekiel and what its pertinence?
6. What other Jews have been called to high positions in foreign lands?
7. Show the naturalness of Nebuchadnezzar’s erecting an image of himself for worship.
8. In what form did the Roman Caesars have themselves worshiped?
9. Give the account in Josephus of the revolt of the Jews because these effigies of the Caesars were introduced into the holy city.
10. Why does Daniel, later, call these effigies “the abomination of desolation”?
11. Give the size, height, and breadth of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.
12. What the objection of the critics to the golden material of the image, and your reply?
13. What was their objection to the names of the musical instruments that introduced worship of the image, and your reply?
14. What was their objection to the miracle of preservation in the fiery furnace, and your reply?
15. What incident of the miracle (Dan 3:24-25 ) suggests a great doctrine and how is it elsewhere taught?
16. What has been the moral effect of the reply of the three Hebrews (Dan 3:16-18 ) to Nebuchadnezzar?
17. Give full account of the Septuagint interpolation in this chapter just where it is placed, how much, and what.
18. How do you account for these extensive additions in that version?
19. Who is the author of Dan 4 and of what does it consist?
20. What was the time order of the events?
22. What is the lesson, or design of the dream, and what great sermon cited on “The Government of God”?
23. What use was made of Dan 4:16 by the author and what the occasion of it?
24. What was the disease which came upon Nebuchadnezzar? Describe the actions of on who has it.
25. Is it credible that a king of Babylon would issue such a proclamation?
26. What sentence of this chapter in the Greek version has been made to play a prominent part in the baptismal controversy and what was the reply of immersionists?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Dan 2:1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
Ver. 1. And in the second year. ] Of Daniel’s advancement. Dan 1:19-20 Or, as Josephus hath it, post annum secundum Aegyptiacae vastitatis, in the second year after that Nebuchadnezzar had subdued Egypt, and other countries, and so established his monarchy, whereupon likely was begun a new computation of the years of his reign.
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams.
Wherewith his spirit was troubled.
a Quid sunt regna omnesque res et spes mortalium nisi somnia vigilantium! – Plato.
Daniel Chapter 2
Before entering upon my present subject, I would point out an obvious proof that Dan 1 has a prefatory character. The last verse of the chapter informs us that “Daniel continued unto the first year of king Cyrus.” It is not merely an account of certain circumstances, before we are introduced to the various revelations or facts that are given in succession in the book; but we have the preparation for the place that Daniel was to keep. And then we are carried, as it were, on to the end. The continuance of Daniel is shown through the whole term of the Babylonish monarchy, and even to the beginning of the Persian. It is not meant that Daniel only lived to the first year of king Cyrus; because the latter part of the book shows us a vision subsequent to that date. The fact is simply stated, that he lived at the commencement of a new dynasty. And it will be found that the end of the last chapter is an equally suitable conclusion to the book; answering, as such, to the first chapter as a preface.
But before going farther, I would make one remark of a general kind. The book divides itself into two nearly equal volumes or sections. First, that which refers to the great Gentile powers, and the features that would mark their outward conduct; and, finally, to the judgment of it all. This is continued up to the end of Dan 6 . Then, from Dan 7 to the close, we have not the external history of the four Gentile empires, but that which is of more peculiar interest to God’s people. This was, evidently enough, indicated by the circumstance that the first portion of the book does not consist of visions that Daniel saw; for the only one, properly so called, was seen by Nebuchadnezzar. There is one in Dan 2 , and then another of a different character in Dan 4 ; Dan 3:5 , and 6 being facts that had to do with the moral condition of the first two monarchies, but nothing at all that was made known in the first instance to Daniel, or visions seen by the prophet himself; whereas the latter part of the book is occupied exclusively with communications to the prophet himself. And there it is that we find, not merely what ought to strike the natural mind, but the secrets of God that peculiarly affect and interest His people, and hence details also. The external proof of this is, that chapter vi., which closes what I have called the first section of Daniel, brings us up to the close again. “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” Now this is remarkable, because the next chapter goes back again to Belshazzar. “In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions of his head,” etc. That was long before Cyrus the Persian. Then in Dan 8 , “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar.” And in Dan 9 , “In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus.” So far all is regular. Next, we come down to Dan. 10-12. “In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel,” etc. The first part (Dan. 1-6) brings us down to the close in a general way, and the second (Dan. 7-12) with equal order; divided, not merely in this outward manner, but having the moral difference, already explained, i.e. the one external and the other internal. That this is not an unprecedented thing in the word of God is familiar to the reader of Mat 13 . There, we have an orderly setting forth of the kingdom of heaven under certain parables – the first of these being a prefatory one. Now, taking the other six parables (for there are exactly seven in all), you have a division of them into two sets of three, the first of which refers to the exterior of the kingdom, and the last to more inward and hidden relations.
This exactly answers to what we have in Daniel. First, the external history goes down to the close, and then the internal succeeds, or what was of special interest to those that had understanding of the ways of God. This will suffice to show that the book is characterized by that divine method which we ought to expect in the word of God. There is a profound design, which runs through the works of God, and more especially through His word. The finger of God Himself is evident indeed upon what He has made; yet death has come in, and the creature is made subject to vanity. Hence, we hear the groans of the lower creation; and, as you rise in the scale of animal life, the misery is more intense. Man is more conscious and capable of feeling the wretchedness that his own sin has brought upon the world, and upon that creation, of which he is made the lord. But in the word of God, although there may be slips and errors of scribes, they are for the most part but specks. They may obscure its full light; but they are trifling in comparison with the evident brightness of that which God gives, even through the most imperfect version. In passing through the hands of men, we discover more or less of the weakness that attaches to the earthen vessel; but through the great mercy of God, there is ample light for every honest soul.
But turning to this first great scene, we have the entire failure of the wisdom of the world. Unusual care was taken, at the court of Babylon, to have men trained in all wisdom and knowledge. The time was now come when this was to be put to the test. God was pleased, while the great Gentile king was meditating upon his bed, to give him a vision of the future history of the world: on the one hand, gratifying his desire to see the world’s course thence onward unveiled; while, on the other hand, he was made to feel the utter powerlessness of all human resources. It was God’s opportunity for displaying His own power, and the perfect wisdom of which even a poor captive was made the channel. This is a signal example of God’s ways. Here were these Jews; and the proud king might have supposed that, if God was for them, they could not possibly have come under his hand. But if God’s people are guilty, there are none whose faults He so much exposes. How do we know the wrong that Abraham did? or David? Only from God. He loves His people too well to hide their faults. It is a part of His moral government, that He is the very last to put or allow a veil over what displeases Him, in those even whom He loves best. Take a well-governed family. Is it the way of love to cover over the fault of the child, when the child ought to feel it? – and feel it he must if he is to be happy. So with God’s people. Israel had abandoned Him – had denied their relationship to Him; and God shows that He felt their sin, and that they must feel it too. He disowned them as His people for a time – swept them out of the land in which He had planted them; and now they were the slaves of the Gentiles.
But in turn their conqueror must be taught that, after all, the mind – the heart of God, was with the poor captives. The power of God might be with the Gentile for a season, but the affections of God and His secret were with His own, even in the hour of their abasement.
The circumstances through which this was brought out strikingly illustrate the ways of God. The king dreams a dream: the thing departs from him. He summons his wise men, and calls upon them to make known the dream and the interpretation of it. But all in vain. They themselves are so struck with the unreasonableness of the demand, that they say, “There is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” (Ver. 11) It was impossible to meet the king’s request. Thus all was allowed to come out in its reality. Their wisdom proved to be unavailing for what was wanted. Daniel hears of the decree which went forth, that the wise men should be slain. He goes to Arioch, and begs for time to be given him. But mark this – and it is the characteristic of faith – he has confidence in God. He does not wait till God gives him the answer, before he says that he would show the interpretation of the dream. He proffers it at once. He is confident in God, and that is faith – a conviction founded on the known character of God. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and Daniel feared the Lord. Therefore, also, he was not alarmed at the decree. He knew that God who gave could recall the dream. At the same time, he does not in the least degree pretend to answer it himself. We have thus two great things brought out in Daniel: first, his confidence that God would reveal the thing to the king; secondly, his confession that he could not. He goes to his house, and makes the thing known to his companions. He wishes that they also should “desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret.” He has exceeding value for the prayers of his brethren – the witnesses with himself of the true God in Babylon. He gets them on their knees before God, as well as takes that place himself. But Daniel, having special faith, was the one that God therefore honours. “Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” (Verses 14-19)
Neither does he go directly to the king, nor even to his companions, to tell them that God has made known the dream to him. The first thing he does is to go to God. The God that has made known the secret is the One that Daniel at once owns. He is in the place of one that worships God. And allow me to say, that this is the grand object of all the revelations of God. Do not suppose it is a question of making known to me my sin and a Saviour meeting all the need of my soul. What God works by His Spirit in His saints, is not merely that they should know they are delivered from hell, or that they should walk as His children. There is a higher thing still. God makes His people worshippers of Himself; and, if there is one thing, in which God’s children fail more than another, it is in realizing their place as worshippers.
Now, Daniel understood this. Though comparatively young, he was well acquainted with the mind of God. And here we have this beautiful feature. He brings out in his outburst of praise the mind of God; and this, not so much in connection with His power – though it is true that “He changeth the times and seasons; He removeth kings and setteth up kings,” etc. – but what his heart specially dwells upon is this: “He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.” I call your attention to the words. It is quite true that the Lord looks with compassion on the ignorant, and shows His goodness to those that have no understanding. But Daniel is speaking of His ways with those whose hearts are towards Him; and in their case the Lord’s principle is, “Unto every one that hath shall be given, …. but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” (Mat 25:29 ) Nothing is more dangerous, In the things of God, than to stop short in the path of learning His ways. What arrests souls is the consciousness that the truth is too practical; and they fear the consequences: for the truth of God is not a thing merely to know, but to live; and the soul instinctively shrinks back because of the serious present results it entails. In Daniel’s case the eye was single, and the whole body, therefore, full of light. This is the real secret of progress. Let the desire only be towards God, and the progress is sure and steady.
Daniel then goes in unto Arioch, and says, “Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation.” Accordingly, Arioch brings him in before the king in haste, and says, “I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make unto the king the interpretation.” The king asks him whether it is true, that he is able to make known the dream and the interpretation. Daniel’s answer is beautiful. Real, deep knowledge of the ways of God is always accompanied by humility. There is no greater mistake, nor one more unfounded in fact, than the supposition, that spiritual intelligence puffeth up; knowledge may – mere knowledge But I speak of that spiritual understanding in the word, which flows from the sense of God’s love, and seeks to spread itself, if I may so say, just because it is divine love. Daniel intimates how impossible it was for “the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, and the soothsayers,” to show the dream unto the king. “But there is a God in heaven, that revealeth secrets, and maketh known [he does not even say to Daniel, but] to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.” He desired that Nebuchadnezzar should know the interest that God took in him. “As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind, upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter; and He that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.” But he is not satisfied with that: he adds, “As for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.”
Then he enters upon the dream. “Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.” He had seen the course of empire, not merely in a fragmentary successional manner, but as a whole. In the latter part of the book, we have the succession more minutely marked, and the detailed ways of the different powers towards Daniel’s people: but here it is the general history of the Gentile empire.
“This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass.” That is, there was deterioration, as the empires departed from the source of power. It was God who gave imperial rule to Nebuchadnezzar. Consequently, that which is nearest to the source is seen as “this head of gold.” There comes in a certain measure more of what was human in the Persian empire; “the breast and the arms of silver,” an inferior metal, and so on down to the legs, which are of iron, and the feet, part of iron and part of clay. It is quite plain from this, that, as we descend from the original grant of power, there is a gradual debasement.
But it is well, now, to state a principle or two, which I believe to be of importance in looking at prophetic scriptures. One of the commonest maxims, even among Christians, is this: that prophecy is to be interpreted by the event – that history is the proper exponent of prophecy – that when the prophetic visions are realized upon the earth, the facts explain the visions. This is a false principle; it has not one particle of truth in it. People confound with interpretation of prophecy the confirmation of its truth. When a prediction is fulfilled, of course its fulfilment confirms its truth, but that is a very different thing from explaining it. The proper understanding of prophecy is just as difficult after the event as before it. For instance, let any one take the seventy weeks of Daniel. That chapter has furnished occasion for immense controversy and dispute among believers themselves. It is one of their commonest assumptions, that it is all fulfilled (which is not correct), and yet there is no such thing as agreement among them about its meaning.
Looking again at Ezekiel’s prophecy: we find that the difficulty of prophecy arises from a totally different source. The first part of Ezekiel was fulfilled in the then ways of God with Israel; it extended over the time when Daniel lived. But that does not explain it. It is, in fact, more obscure than the closing chapters, which are future.
What, then, does explain prophecy? That which explains all Scripture – the Spirit of God alone. His power can unfold any part of the word of God. Do you ask, if I mean to say, that it is of no importance to know languages, understand history, and so on? I am not raising a question about learning: it has its use; but I deny that history is the interpreter of prophecy, or of any Scripture. And if there are Christians who know the history of the world, or the original tongues of Scripture, it is Christ that has to do with their spiritual intelligence, and not their knowledge or learning. Besides, even if men are Christians, it does not necessarily follow that they understand Scripture. They know Christ, else they would not be Christians. But real entrance into God’s mind, in Scripture, supposes that a person watches against self, desires the glory of God, has full confidence in His word, and dependence on the Holy Ghost. The understanding of Scripture is not a mere intellectual thing. If a man has no mind at all, he could not understand anything: but the mind is only the vessel – not the power. The power is the Holy Ghost, acting upon and through the vessel; but it must be the Holy Ghost Himself that fills a soul. As it is said, “They shall be all taught of God.”
There is a great difference in the measure of the teaching, because there is much difference in the measure of dependence upon God. The important thing is to bear in mind that the understanding of Scripture depends much more Upon what is moral, than what is of the mind – upon a single eye to Christ. The Holy Ghost can never give us anything to save us from the necessity of dependence and waiting upon God.
How, then, are we to interpret prophecy? It is entirely independent of history; it was given to be understood before it becomes history. That this is true must be manifest. The great mass of prophecy is about the terrible judgments that are to fall at the end of this age. What becomes of the people who do not profit by the prophecies, till the facts have taken place? It is a serious thing to despise it. The believer that understands prophecy has got special help, which he lacks who neglects it.
Starting, then, with this great principle – that it is the Holy Ghost who gives us to read prophecy, as bearing upon the glory of God, and connected with Christ, who shall yet be exalted, and whose glory shall fill the earth and heavens, all usurpers and pretenders being put down – let us look at this scene, as that which shows us the course of the world, up to that time. First, consider the position of the parties. Here was the proudest king in the world. He had gone forth at the head of victorious armies, before his father’s death – before he had properly come into the undivided kingdom of Babylon. And now he has laid open to him a sphere of dominion, perhaps, beyond his ambition. He learns, with certainty, that it was God, in His providence, who had put him in this position. But more than that: he sees brought before him, in a few touches, the whole chart of the Gentile world – the leading features of its history from that day to the day of glory and judgment that is coming. He has brought before him the rise of another and neighbouring power, that had been already alluded to in prophecy; so that there was therefore no difficulty at all in gathering what was meant by it. The prophet Isaiah, who lived a hundred and fifty years before Cyrus was born, had not only referred by the Holy Ghost to the nation and king of the Medes and Persians, but had called him by name.
Again: another empire was foreshown, that was then comparatively in its infancy, or consisting only of so many separate tribes, without any stable bond of cohesion among them – I refer to the Greeks. But, more remarkable still, the kingdom, which is most dwelt upon by the Spirit of God, was then one that was in a mere embryo condition, and probably not even known by name to the king of Babylon. For though that kingdom was destined to play the greatest part ever taken by a kingdom in the history of the world, it was then utterly obscure. It was engaged in home and neighbouring squabbles of the pettiest kind, without any thought of extending its dominion. The more marvellous, therefore, it is to look at that great king, and the servant of God that stood before him, unfolding the history of the world
“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.” It was not a question of his own prowess, nor special wisdom, that he possessed. If Nebuchadnezzar had been allowed to carry away these captives – to triumph over the power of Egypt, that had wished to dispute the supremacy of the world, it was the God of heaven who had given it to him. “And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, hath He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.” Clearly the Babylonish monarchy is meant. God had referred to this by Isaiah. And Jeremiah, who was a contemporary of Daniel’s, had brought before him not only the length of period during which the Babylonish monarchy should last, but even the succession. There would be Nebuchadnezzar and his son, and his son’s son. This had a remarkable fulfilment. So that we need not go beyond Scripture to understand prophecy. It is the right, spiritual use of what is in the word of God, and I bless God for it. If you find the simplest man who only studies with diligence the Bible, in his mother tongue, and is led by the Spirit of God, he has the elements and the power of a true interpretation. But as sure as a man tries to find an interpretation here and there, by the help of history, antiquities, newspapers, and what not, he is only deceiving himself and his hearers. Such is the universal moral sentence of God upon the soul that searches, in what is of man, the proper key to God’s secrets. I must find it in God Himself, by a right use of what is in His own word.
An early Jewish writer, whose history is everywhere read and valued, Josephus, I had the curiosity to look at, and, finding the common version peculiar, I examined the original Greek of his history, but found the same strange sense still. He makes out that the head of gold means Nebuchadnezzar, and the kings that were before him! Thus, there is an entire want of understanding what the word of God says. The going away from Scripture, and allowing one’s own thoughts, always leads astray. Babylon was first made an empire of in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, who here includes, as it were, those that were to follow. ”Thou art this head of gold.” There is no reference to the kings that were before him. Babylon never was allowed to have the empire of the world till Nebuchadnezzar’s day; therefore it was that he, and not his forefathers, formed the head of gold. He was the one in whom the imperial place of Babylon finds its beginning.
In Jer 25 we find not only the epoch of seventy years of captivity, but, farther on (Jer 27 ), the succession is mentioned. “All nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come.” It happened that, after his son Evil-Merodach was cut off, there was one who took the throne, not in the order of succession, but called to it by the Babylonish people, with a sort of claim through marriage with Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter. This man reigned for a time, and after him’ his son, who was, therefore, the son of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, not of his son. It might, so far, then, appear that the prophecy had failed. Not at all. A few months after, Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson was called to the throne. “Scripture cannot be broken.” It had been said, “Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his son’s son,” and so it was. In Belshazzar, the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, the whole thing terminated. For this then Scripture furnishes all the main parts. So that prophecy does, in fact, explain history, but history never interprets prophecy. The man who understands prophecy can open up history; but no understanding of history will enable him to explain prophecy. It may confirm the truth of a prediction, to a doubter, so far as it is clear. Thus, if the history of the taking of Jerusalem, as it is given in the Wars of Josephus, is a true one, it will, of course, coincide with the inspired notice told us by Luke. But it is quite plain, that if I have confidence in the word of God, there I have a much more certain account of it. In a word, the circumstance of being uttered before the event has nothing to do with the matter. The eye of God saw all along, and through the stream of Gentile empire; and the language is as plain in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the writings of the Greek and Latin historians.* And so true is this that those who have no sympathy with what is of God, even infidels, are obliged to acknowledge, that whatever clearly bears upon the subject coincides with what Daniel had said hundreds of years before the events.
* “The four empires are clearly delineated; and the invincible armies of the Romans described with as much clearness, in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the histories of Justin and Diodorus.” – Gibbon.
“And after thee shall arise another kingdom, inferior to thee.” Not inferior in territorial extent, but in splendour, and perhaps most of all in the admixture of control outside the ruler, instead of a man acting in the conviction that God had put him in his place of authority. Darius (Dan 6 ) took the advice of unscrupulous subjects and suffered bitterly for it. Had he felt the sense of immediate responsibility to God, the snare had been avoided. Men naturally shrink from absolute authority, chiefly because it is uncontrolled power in the hands of a weak and erring man. But supposing it was one who had all the wisdom and goodness in his own person, nothing could be happier. This is exactly what will be true in the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ, when full authority will be put into His hands, and all will be blessed and according to the will of God, and when the contrary will of men would only be rebellion.
What seems to confirm this, is, that when we come down to the third kingdom, the Macedonian, of which Alexander the Great was the founder, there we have a man, who not merely acted at the suggestion of his wise men, but was controlled by his generals. It became, in fact, a kind of military rule – a less respectable thing than the aristocratic interference of the Medes and Persians, and their inflexible laws.
Then we come down much lower still, and have a fourth kingdom, represented by iron. “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.” There, strength is the great feature of the kingdom, and the quality of the metal is consistent with it. But it is of the commonest sort – not one of the precious metals; perhaps, because the Roman empire was distinguished by this, that it was nominally the people that governed. However despotic the emperor, he always pretended, in theory at least, to consult the people and senate. Even under the empire, the Romans had still the semblance of their old republican constitution; whilst, in point of fact, it was but an individual who had clothed himself with all the real power.
Here, then, we have sketched before us the whole course of empire. But it may be asked, How do you know these things? It is not said that the second empire represents Medo-Persia, or the third Macedonia, or the fourth Rome. I think it is. It may not be said here: but Scripture does not always hang up the key exactly at the door. It is not often that we find the explanation of one portion in the very next verse. God wants me to know His word, to be familiar with all that He has written, and to be assured that all is very good. To instruct even the unconverted child in the Scripture is always of great value. It is like laying a fire well, so that a spark alone is needed to kindle it into a flame. It is a good and wholesome thing for Christians to be most particular in training up their children in a thorough knowledge of the word of God.
But, returning to consider what light Scripture gives, we need not go farther than this Book of Daniel to find the names of these empires In chapter 5: 28, we are told, “Peres: thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” There is the answer at once. We find the Babylonian kingdom just tottering and about to be destroyed. We are told that the Medes and Persians succeed. Nothing simpler or more certain. The only people I ever heard of that found difficulties, were some learned men who strove to make out that the empire of Babylon extends to Persia as well, so as to make Greece the second, Rome the third, and the fourth a distinct and purely future antichristian power. Another class of these scholars have contended that Alexander’s kingdom is one thing, and that of his successors another wholly different: in fact, one the third and the other the fourth empire; so as to make even the fifth kingdom (that of “the little stone”) a past or present thing. Had Scripture been read and weighed without an object, mistakes like these could never have been made. But the believer, instead of seeing in history things to perplex his mind, takes up his Bible, and finds the solution before he leaves the prophecy itself. For it is plain from Dan 8:20 , Dan 8:21 , that the empire of the united Medes and Persians gives place to the Grecian kingdom, with its fourfold division at Alexander’s death. This again is succeeded by the fourth, or Roman Empire, the peculiar feature of which is, that in its last stage it is seen divided into ten separate kingdoms. (Dan 7 ) Was this ever the case with the successors of Alexander? His kingdom was divided into four, never into ten. Thus we have prophecy explaining history; while the general use that mere learning makes of history is to obscure the brightness of the word of God. But let us understand the word of God first; and then, if we turn to history, we shall find it comes in as a human witness, and confirms, with its feeble voice, the divine testimony. It is obliged to do so. Thus, the man that does not know history stands upon at least as good ground as those who are learned, but find difficulties. He is not perplexed as others are, who look through the mist of their own speculations.
In the third kingdom a feature is introduced which is not in the second. It was to “bear rule over all the earth.” How remarkably this was fulfilled in the Macedonian or Grecian kingdom! Because, although Cyrus was a great conqueror, it was altogether in the region where he lived. He overcame the whole of those parts to the north of Media and Persia, and also southward, as well as the west. All that was true; but he never went outside, so far as I know, the bounds of Asia.
But now we see a kingdom marked by extraordinary rapidity of conquest. One might challenge all ages to show anything that fulfils this prophecy, as the kingdom of Alexander did. In the course of a few years, that remarkable man overran almost the whole of the then known world. He even lamented, as we know, that he had not another world to conquer. This is a striking commentary upon what we have here. Do we need to go to history for it all? No. We find in this very book the explanation. In Dan 8:20 , Dan 8:21 , the third empire is shown to be the Grecian. “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.” There you have also a confirmation of what I said before, as to the second kingdom. But when this ram was there, a fierce goat came that had a notable horn between his eyes. With the single horn that he has in his head, he butts against the ram, who represented these kings of Media and Persia. Here we have the third kingdom, that was to “bear rule over all the earth.” What is its name? The 21st verse gives the answer. “The rough goat is the king of Grecia, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” We do not need history to explain prophecy We have here the distinct, positive answer from the word of God, as to what the third kingdom is; and all real research you may make in history will only confirm this, but you do not need it. If you take your stand upon the word of God, you are upon a ground that no history can touch for a single instant. God, who gives the only sure account, shows that the Medo-Persian Empire is followed by the Grecian. The sole great horn of the latter is broken, and “for it came up four notable ones, towards the four winds of heaven.” The kingdom of Alexander, at his death, was broken up into four great parts, which his generals fought for. You have their comparative littleness in the presence of Alexander. He was the great horn, the first king and representative of the third kingdom. The next question is, What was to follow that? What other great empire was to succeed: and that, the last empire before God should set up His kingdom? The Old Testament history closes before the third empire begins. The last facts historically stated are in the Book of Nehemiah, while the Persian was still the great king, i.e. the second empire was yet supreme. But the New Testament history opens, and what is found there? I have only to read the beginning of Luke, and I hear of another great empire then ruling. “It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” There we have, at once, the fourth kingdom, without requiring to ask history for it. There is a fourth kingdom, and the word of God shows it to be universal; it summons men throughout the world to be enrolled in its register, and God takes care that there should be a legal acknowledgment even of His own Son’s having been then born.
The fourth kingdom, then, was the Roman Empire. When I know that from Scripture,* I can go to history, which tells me that it was the Roman Empire which crushed the power of Greece. They got the Greeks first to join them in beating the Macedonians, and then they turned upon the Greeks, and soon put them down.
* I have no doubt that, in “the ships of Chittim” (Dan 11:30 ) we have a reference to the naval power of Rome which interfered with Antiochus Epiphanes. But as the allusion is less explicit than Luk 2:1 , Luk 3:1 , Luk 20:22-25 , Joh 11:48 , Joh 19:15 , I add the direct proof from the New Testament.
Afterwards, the Romans extended their conquests all over Asia. What does God say about it? “The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces . . . and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.” And if people do call in history, can they see things more clearly? Where can they show as just a description of that empire as that which God gives here? One well-known historian, when speaking about the empires, describes them in the liveliest imagery, derived from these very symbols of Daniel the prophet. He could find no figures so apt as those which the Spirit of God had consecrated to their use already, though every one knows it was from no lack of imagination, any more than from the wish to accredit Scripture.
Even this is not all that God gives us. “Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.” Never was a description more exactly to the point. I could quote passages from the old Roman writers, which show that they themselves gave an account of their own empire and policy, in terms substantially similar.
But there was something they could not tell, and that was beyond what man could foresee. That power that above all other was distinguished for its strength in warring down every one that rose up against it, whatever its kindness to those who stooped to the conqueror – that very power is described here thus: – “And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided.” The Romans do not tell us this. History is not always a truthful speaker. Those who describe their own country’s statecraft are not in general very trustworthy. If there was that which threatened extinction, they are as glad to hide it as they were ready to boast in whatever evidences their boldness, strength, and glory; but God tells all out; and we find that the same empire, that was to be so celebrated for its amazing strength, is to exhibit also the greatest inherent weakness. “There shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.”
The iron was the original element; the clay was brought in subsequently, and properly did not belong to the great metal statue: it was a foreign ingredient. When and whence did it come? I believe that the Spirit of God in using the figure of clay refers not to the original Roman element, which had the strength of the iron, but to the barbaric hordes, which broke in at a later period, weakening the Roman power, and forming by degrees separate kingdoms. I can, however, only state this as my own judgment, founded upon the general use of Scripture language and ideas. We have what was not properly and originally Roman, but was brought in from elsewhere: and it is the mixture of the two elements that is productive of the weakness, and that finally leads to division. These hordes of barbarians, that forced themselves in at first, professed not to be conquerors, but guests of Rome, and finally settled themselves within its limits. This it was that subsequently led to the division of the empire into a number of separate independent kingdoms, when the power and pride of imperial Rome was broken. Charlemagne, later on, cherished the desire of universal empire, which he laboured hard to realize; but it was a failure; and all that he acquired in his life was separated in his death. Another man attempted it in our own days; I mean, of course, the exile of St. Helena. He had at heart the same universal monarchy. What was the issue? His success was still more short-lived. All was completely broken up into its original constituents before he had breathed his last. And so it will continue in the main, until the moment spoken of here, but more fully entered into in the Book of the Revelation.
This is, I believe, what Scripture lays down about the matter. There will be, before the age closes, the most remarkable union of two apparently contradictory conditions – a universal head of empire, and separate independent kingdoms besides, each of which will have its own king; but that one man will be the emperor over all these kings. Till that time comes, every effort to unite the different kingdoms under one head will be a total failure. Even then, it will be not by fusing them together into one kingdom, but each independent kingdom will have its own king, though all subject to one head. God has said they shall be divided. This, then, is what is shown us. “They shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” And if ever there was a portion of the world that has represented this incoherent system of kingdoms, it is modern Europe. As long as the iron predominated, there was one empire: but then came in the clay, or foreign material. In virtue of the iron there will be a universal monarchy, while in virtue of the clay there will be separate kingdoms.
“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” Mark those words, “in the days of these kings.” They are a complete answer to those who have tried to make this the birth of Christ, and the introduction of what they call the kingdom of grace. At the time here spoken of, the empire is broken up and divided. Was that the case when the Lord was born? Could it be said then “in the days of these kings “? Nothing of the sort. Rome was then in its fullest power; there was not the smallest breach apparent throughout the empire. There was but one ruler, but one will predominant. It was not therefore “in the days of these kings.” What then does the verse refer to? I believe to the closing scene of the Roman Empire: not to the time when Christ was born, but when God “bringeth in the First-begotten into the world” – when the Lord Jesus is brought in, not as the Nazarene to suffer and to die, but when He comes with divine power to judge. The “stone cut out without hands,” though in a sense applicable to Him at any time, applies really and fully then. We have the interpretation here. It does not refer to His person, so much as to the kingdom that the God of heaven shall set up in Him and by Him. No doubt He is the stone; but this is a destructive stone extinguishing the kingdoms of the earth. Can any one deny it? The stone was “cut out of the mountain without hands, and it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” There was the crash of all the image. Was that the case when Christ was born Did Christ attack the Roman Empire? Did He destroy it? On the contrary, Christ was killed, and it was its minister that was the official means of His crucifixion. The image, we may say, smote Him, instead of His smiting the image. Such an interpretation is unworthy of serious attention.
The stone falls upon the feet of the image, the toes of which were part of iron and part of clay; that is, upon the last condition of the Roman Empire. After all the division, the stone smites it. Thus its action is not grace, but judgment. It is not a sower sowing seed, to produce life; still less is it leaven diffusing itself over certain limits. Its blow falls destructively upon the image and shatters it completely. It is evident, then, that the first coming of Christ is not the question here. His birth is wholly passed by. It took place during the course of the Roman Empire and in no way destroyed it. Whereas what will deal with the Roman Empire yet, is the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in a day that is future.
But some will say, How can that be? There is no Roman Empire now. But let me ask, How does this show that there is not to be a Roman Empire? Can you prove that the Roman Empire is not to revive? What is given me here is that the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors.
Further, we are told in the Revelation that the beast, representing the imperial power of Rome, is remarkably characterized as “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” (Rev 17:8 ) The last clause, which in the English version is so obscurely rendered “and yet is,” should be “and shall be present.”* There is no doubt about this at all: no man that knows the Apocalypse properly would dispute it. If so, it follows that the beast, or empire that existed, when John was there, was to be in a state of non-existence, and then to appear again, ascending out of the bottomless pit. That is, it will be the power of Satan that will accomplish the reunion of the fragments that make up the Roman Empire. And it is remarkable that when the beast is seen again, this chapter shows that there will be ten kings who will agree to give their power to “the beast,” or person then raised up of Satan to organize and govern the empire. He will use this vast power against God and the Lamb; every appearance of Christianity will be destroyed, idolatry will be restored, and Antichrist set up. Then God, as it were, will say, I will endure this no longer; My hour is come. The Lord Jesus will leave the right hand of God, and will execute judgment upon these vile pretenders.
* It depends on an indisputably good various reading.
“In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom . . . it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” The first action of that stone is to destroy. It is not a question of saving souls; it is judgment and destruction: putting down kingdoms and everything that exalts itself against the true God.
But a difficulty may arise here as to how it is that, when this destructive blow falls, we have the gold, the silver, and the brass all jumbled together, with the iron and clay – as if these successive empires existed together at the end. The truth is that though Babylon, for instance, lost its imperial place, it existed subordinately under the powers that succeeded; and so with each following empire till Rome. (Comp. Dan 7:11 , Dan 7:12 ) So that when the final judgment of the fourth empire takes place, there will still be the representatives of its three predecessors, distinct from itself. And this makes evident that by the last empire is meant what is exclusively western, and not that which had belonged to the previous empires.
Thus it is the great seat of modern civilization (i.e. the ten kingdoms of the beast) that will be the scene of this tremendous apostasy. And this will be allowed in the judicial wisdom of God, because men have not received “the love of the truth that they might be saved.” God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: “that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” I have not a question that this is the future history of the world, on the authority of the word of God. This remarkable prophecy brings us down from the first beginning of imperial power, and finally shows us in the last days, before God sets up His kingdom, the judgment of the world as it is, when God will deal with the quick, not with the dead merely. “He will judge the [habitable] world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.”
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 2:1-3
1Now in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was troubled and his sleep left him. 2Then the king gave orders to call in the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. 3The king said to them, I had a dream and my spirit is anxious to understand the dream.
Dan 2:1 in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar began reigning in 605 B.C., so this would be 604 B.C. Apparently Daniel was still in his three year initial study (cf. Dan 1:4-5), possibly this is why he was not with the group of wise men who the king initially addresses (cf. Dan 2:2).
Nebuchadnezzar See note at Dan 1:1.
had dreams Notice that this is PLURAL and COGNATE, he dreamed dreams. Some have asserted that he had several dreams, but the last one was awesome and frightening. However, it seems to me that the PLURAL may indicate that he had the same dream repeatedly. God is revealing Himself to a pagan Gentile ruler! Why? God is in control of all nations! God loves all nations! God plans to redeem all nations (cf. Gen 3:15).
and his spirit was troubled and his sleep left him From an old Babylonian omen text we find this quote, if a man cannot remember the dream he saw, his god is mad at him. This same interpretation is picked up on in Dan 1:5; Dan 1:8 in the King James translation, which implies that Nebuchadnezzar forgot his dream, but it must remain a possibility that he was testing them (cf. Dan 1:9).
The VERB was troubled (BDB 821, KB 952, Hithpael IMPERFECT) is also used of Pharaoh (also note Isa 19:3) in Gen 41:8 (Niphal). There are many similarities between Joseph and Daniel’s gifts and ministries.
The phrase his sleep left him is uncertain. The Masoretic Hebrew text printing implies that sleep came to him, not left him. The problem lies in how to translate a possible Aramaic idiom.
Dan 2:2 the king gave orders to call in the This is a series of wise men which imply that Nebuchadnezzar called in the entire group of those who claimed to know the will of the gods.
magicians This is from the Hebrew word engraving tool. See note at Dan 1:20. A good discussion of these different kinds of wise men is found in Robert B. Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 296-302.
the conjurers See note at Dan 1:20.
sorcerers The general term for magic in Hebrew is kp (BDB 506).
1. male witch, wizard – kap
2. sorcery – keep
3. witchcraft – kepm
These people tried to know and manipulate events by the use of natural and supernatural powers through physical means, divination, magic charms, and occult potions.
For a good general discussion of all the terms see New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 3, pp. 945-951.
Chaldeans This seems to refer to astrologers. However, the term in Gen 11:28 has a racial connotation (cf. Dan 1:4; 2Ki 24:2; Jer 35:11; and also in Assyrian documents relating to Nabopolassar). Some have dealt with this changing meaning by asserting a misunderstanding in the Sumerian root, master-builders, instead of racial lineage. The fifth century B.C. historian, Herodotus, in his Persian Wars, mentions a class of priests whose origins went back to Cyrus’ day.
Here and in Dan 2:10 it occurs last in a list of wise men, but in Dan 4:7; Dan 5:7; Dan 5:11 it occurs within the list. It is obvious this term had several connotations (BDB 505). It seems to be a collective term for wise men (cf. Dan 2:4).
Dan 2:3
NASB, NKJVmy spirit is anxious
NRSVmy spirit is troubled
TEVI’m worried
NJBmy mind is troubled
This Hebrew term anxious (BDB 821, KB 952) originally meant strike or hit. It is also used of Pharaoh in Gen 41:8, who was disturbed by his dreams (both in Niphal).
And. Thus linking on this chapter of momentous prophecy with Dan 1, which is pure history.
the second year: 495 B.C. (Daniel’s eighteenth year). Therefore Jehoiakim’s fifth year, the year of the burning of the roll which marked the official rejection of Jehovah. Hence Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Daniel was in Babylon, and writes from that standpoint. The supposed difficulty is a proof of genuineness; for the writer would have been a fool as well as a forger to have left it unexplained.
Nebuchadnezzar. See note on Dan 1:1.
spirit. Hebrew. ruach. App-9.
brake from = had been upon: i.e. had now gone from.
Chapter 2
Now in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep was taken from him. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to show the king his dream. So they came and they stood before the king. And the king said unto them, I’ve dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. So the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Syriac ( Dan 2:1-4 ),
And so part of this book is written, and in fact, at this point from chapter 2 verse Dan 2:4 on to chapter 7 verse Dan 2:28 , this book is written, because it says they spoke to him in Syriac, the book is written in this language of Aramaic, which it was the ancient Syrian language.
O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show you the interpretation. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, I forgotten it: if you will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation, you’ll be cut to pieces, and your houses shall be made of dunghill. But if you show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive from me gifts, rewards, great honor: therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation. They answered again and said, Let the king just tell the servants his dream, and we will show you the interpretation. And the king answered and said, I know of certainty that you would gain the time, because you see that I have forgotten the dream. But if you will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you: for you have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me the interpretation thereof. The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, Look there’s not a man on the earth that can show the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that has asked such things of any of his magicians, or astrologers, or Chaldeans ( Dan 2:4-10 ).
Oh, come on, king, you know. Let’s be fair. No man knows what a man dreams. No man can show you this. Look in history, no king has ever demanded such a ridiculous thing from his counselors.
It’s a rare thing that the king requires, there’s none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh ( Dan 2:11 ).
Now, they were dealing with the wrong man because Nebuchadnezzar was a hothead. He was always becoming angry and very furious, until his conversion.
For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and he commanded that all of the wise men be destroyed. And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain ( Dan 2:12-13 ).
Now, we notice the tremendous power of Nebuchadnezzar. Autocratic control. He was the final word. His word was law. He could order these men all eliminated. Cut them to pieces. His word was law. When we get into the next empire, as we get into chapter 5 and 6, as we get into the Medo-Persian Empire, we notice that when the king made a decree and signed it, that he was subject then to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which once a decree had been signed it could not be changed. He did not have the same type of autocratic control and power as did Nebuchadnezzar. Probably no man has been vested with so much power in the history of mankind as was Nebuchadnezzar. So much control over the world and over the lives of people. That is why in the interpretation of his dream, he said, “Your kingdom will be replaced by an inferior kingdom.” Not inferior as far as strength, but the Medo-Persian Empire was very powerful and very wealthy, but as far as the as the control by the king, much less. He was subject to the laws of the land, whereas Nebuchadnezzar was the law himself. His word became law.
So he was very furious. He ordered the execution of his wise men.
And Daniel answered with the counsel and wisdom to Arioch who was the captain of the king’s guard, who was commissioned to go out and to slay all of the wise men: And he said to Arioch, Why is the decree so hasty from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. Daniel went in, and he desired of the king that he would give him a little time, then he promised to show the king the interpretation. Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions: That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret, that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon ( Dan 2:14-18 ).
So Daniel went in to the king and he said, “Look, give me a little time. I’ll come and I’ll tell you the dream and the interpretation.” Then he went to his buddies and said, “Hey, it’s time for a prayer meeting, fellows. We got to get some information, you know. Our necks are on the line.”
Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven ( Dan 2:19 ).
Now it is, I think, important to the story and for us to know that Daniel at this point was probably around nineteen or twenty years of age. He was probably around sixteen years old when he was carried as a captive to Babylon. Just a very young man. Just a very young man when he purposed in his heart he wasn’t going to defile himself with the king’s meat. It shows that somewhere along the line Daniel had excellent training in the ways of God and in the things of God. That even by the age of sixteen these things were so deeply embedded that as he is carried away to far country, where he is away from the influences, the spiritual influences under which he grew up, still he maintains such integrity in spiritual matters. Absolutely glorious to behold. And to realize that even as a very young man he had such high principles, high ideals. And the depth of his spiritual character is expressed here after God reveals to him the dream and the interpretation. As we read Daniel’s response to God and realize, here is just a young man in a far country, but he shows such depth of spiritual character.
Daniel answered [the Lord] and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changes the times and the seasons: he removes kings, and sets up kings: he gives wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He reveals the deep and secret things: he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who has given me wisdom and might, and has made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for you have now made known unto us the king’s matter ( Dan 2:20-23 ).
And this to me is just a marvelous expression of praise and thanksgiving unto God, which shows a real depth of spiritual character in such a young man. I think that a lot of times we perhaps think, “Well, you know, he’s too young to really have much spiritual maturity or to be able to share much in spiritual things.” But I look at Daniel; I look at Jeremiah. These young men who started their ministry so early and the depth of spiritual understanding that they had, even while young.
Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went in and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation. Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? And Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret in which the king has demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magician, the soothsayers, show unto the king; But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and makes known unto the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these ( Dan 2:24-28 );
Now, first of all, make note that Daniel does not take personal credit for the interpreting of the dream. King says, “I understand you can make known to me the dream and the interpretation.” Daniel says, “Look, the wise men, the astrologers, none of them can do it, but there is a God in heaven who reveals things.” And he gives credit to God for the interpretation, for the understanding and the interpretation of the dream. I think that this is something that if anyone is at all interested in becoming involved in the work of the Lord it is important to note this particular aspect of Daniel. That he was not about to take credit for what God had done. He immediately points to God as the source and he gives credit to God. He does not let the king give him credit or give him honor, but he points the king to God. “There’s a God in heaven who reveals things and He has made known.”
Secondly, the dream is for the latter days. So it is a dream that has prophetic significance. The things that are going to come to pass here on the earth.
But as for me ( Dan 2:30 ),
Now notice he is not taking credit.
as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than anyone else, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, that you may know the thoughts of your heart ( Dan 2:30 ).
“God didn’t do this for me ’cause I’m something special or because I have anything over anybody else.” He’s not trying to exalt himself in this at all. He does seek to exalt God, but not seeking to promote or exalt himself. It so important for anyone involved in any kind of ministry not to try to exalt yourself, but to just seek to bring glory to God.
Now he tells the king what he dreamed. But notice he said,
Thou, O king, saw, and behold a great image. This image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; in the form thereof was awesome ( Dan 2:31 ).
So you saw this great image, awesome, bright.
The image head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part iron and part of clay. And you were watching till a stone was cut without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, the gold, broke into pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole eaRuth ( Dan 2:32-35 ).
So this was the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had that troubled him.
This is the dream; [Daniel said,] and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beast of the field, the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and have made thee ruler over them all. For thou art this head of gold ( Dan 2:36-38 ).
Now, we skipped a verse, and it is an important verse, and I’m going to go back to it, verse Dan 2:29 . He said,
As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thine mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that reveals secrets is made known unto thee what should come to pass ( Dan 2:29 ).
Before Nebuchadnezzar had gone to sleep, he was wondering in his mind, “What’s going to happen to the world? What does the future hold?” And so this dream pertains to the future. God is in this dream giving him history in advance, as He lays out the kingdoms that would rule over the earth. The first world-governing empire, the Babylonian Empire, the head of gold.
But after thee there shall arise another kingdom that is inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which will bear rule over all the eaRuth ( Dan 2:39 ).
Notice these are world-dominating empires bearing rule over all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things: and as iron that breaks all things, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas you saw the feet and the toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly weak, or brittle. And whereas you saw iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men ( Dan 2:40-43 ):
That is, there would not be a monarchy but there would be more of a democracy kind of a thing, a confederacy of states, but not a strong dictatorship or monarchy as such. “You saw the iron mixed with the miry clay they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men.”
and they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: the dream is certain, the interpretation is sure ( Dan 2:43-45 ).
So, this great image, the head of gold representing the Babylonian Empire, the first world-dominating empire, which was to be replaced by an inferior empire. The arms and chest of silver or the Medo-Persian Empire, which was to be replaced by the brass stomach or the Grecian Empire, which was to be supplanted by the legs of iron, the Roman Empire. But then he saw the feet of iron and clay with ten toes, weaker than just the iron because you have the mixture of iron and clay. Not a strong monarchy, but more of a confederacy. And yet, it is related to the Roman Empire because it is part iron. So because of this, and of course, the subsequent vision of Daniel in chapters 7 and 8, in which Daniel declares that the second empire will be the Medo-Persian and the third would be the Grecian. And, of course, we know from history that the fourth was the Roman Empire.
Bible scholars for years have been looking for a confederacy of European nations to join together with treaties that would become and will become the final world-governing empire. Since the Roman Empire, there has not been a world-governing empire. It was, of course, Hitler’s dream to become a world ruler. And he sought to establish a world-governing empire through the super race. But he never accomplished his dream. It is the goal of communism to develop a world-dominating empire. The communists will not fulfill their dreams. But Bible scholars, and I can show you books that were written back in the twenties, back in the thirties by Bible scholars, Dr. Talbot, Arnold Gabbling, William Newell, who all in their books predicted that there will arise in Europe a confederacy of ten nations who will link themselves together with treaties. And that this ten-nation federation in Europe will become the final world-dominating empire. Because the ten toes are part iron, the nations that become, or joined together, will be related to the Roman Empire, or nations that were involved in the Roman Empire. But because there is also the mixture of clay, so that you have a democracy among them, the nations having equal parts it won’t be one nation ruling over them all, but the nations ruling together as a confederacy. So that we as Bible students have been watching Europe for the development of a ten nation European community. And, of course, at the beginning of this year, among the Bible scholars there was tremendous excitement as Greece signed the treaty and became officially the tenth nation of the European community.
Now, the thing that is especially relevant and significant is verse Dan 2:44 of chapter 2, where the Lord said, “And in the days of these kings,” that is the ten kings when this ten nation European confederacy has been formed, “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed.” So that he does declare that the coming of Christ will take place during the time of the rule of these ten kings of the European community.
The fact that the European community has been formed is extremely significant from a biblical standpoint. Now there are many other passages that relate to this in the scriptures. The ruler that will ultimately arise from this ten-nation European confederacy. The power that will be given to him and his rule over the earth as is described in other passages throughout the Bible. As well as Daniel gives us quite a bit of insight towards the latter part of the book of Daniel concerning this man of sin that is going to arise. But to me, the really exciting thing is that we, in seeing the formation of the European community, could very well be seeing exactly what Daniel was prophesying here as we see the Roman Empire, in a sense, being revived in the European community. And we see its growing strength, especially in economy. And we see its industrial might as it is being developed. The European community has a potential GMP that is double that of the United States. And it is certainly one of the most powerful forces in the world today as far as economic and industrial. It is not yet a military force. That will come later, but I’m always excited to realize that it’s during the time of the ten kings that the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed. The coming of Christ and the kingdom of Christ upon the earth. The stone, not cut with hands, that grows into a mountain that cover the earth. And to realize that we are coming to those days. We see, it’s just almost incredible that we see the ten-nation European community being formed. Now, they say, “But Spain and Portugal want to come in.” That is correct, then there’ll be twelve. Well, there will be ten. Maybe Greece will drop out or maybe the Lord will come before Spain and Portugal can get in. But there will be ten.
We will get in Daniel, chapter 7, a corresponding vision of Daniel, in which it will amplify just a little more fully. This ten horns that come out of this Roman Empire, and the little horn that arises and destroys three and all, but we’ll get to that when we get to chapter 7. But nonetheless, I cannot read this second chapter of Daniel and look at what’s happening in the world today without getting extremely excited. Because we’re coming right down. And like the Lord said, “The dream is certain and the interpretation is sure.” And it has followed the very sequences that were predicted. And it is significant that since the Roman Empire you have not had a world-governing empire. And yet there will be one final world-governing empire, ten kings related to the Roman Empire.
Then king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and he commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him. And the king answered Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing that you can reveal this secret. Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him a ruler over a whole province of Babylon, and a chief of the governors over the wise men of Babylon. And then Daniel requested of the king, that he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: that Daniel sat in the gate of the king ( Dan 2:46-49 ).
So Daniel spoke to them about his three friends and got them important positions. “
Dan 2:1
Dan 2:1 And in the secondH8147 yearH8141 of the reignH4438 of NebuchadnezzarH5019 NebuchadnezzarH5019 dreamedH2492 dreams,H2472 wherewith his spiritH7307 was troubled,H6470 and his sleepH8142 brakeH1961 fromH5921 him.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream (Daniel Chapter 2)
The first chapter of Daniel is an introduction to the person of Daniel, his three companions and a brief history of their capture, enslavement and life in Babylon. Daniel himself wrote this book as evidenced by Him using the autographical first person from chapter 7 onward. Interestingly, Daniel wrote the first three chapters as a historical account much like Moses wrote Exodus, keeping in mind that Daniel did not put the chapter divisions in his book. Chapter 4 begins with an accounting of Nebuchadnezzar as seen from his perspective, looking for all the world like it was written by Nebuchadnezzar himself. It is most likely that Daniel wrote what Nebuchadnezzar narrated. Then in chapter 5, Daniel returns to the narrative mode type of writing and continues this style until chapter 7 where he then began using much more apocalyptic language to describe his visions.
We will look much more closely at apocalyptic language at the beginning of chapter 7. Daniel is recognized as the apocalypse of the Old Testament and presents a detailed and comprehensive view of prophetic history. Daniel wrote chapter 1 in Hebrew, then he switched to Aramaic in chapters 2 thru 7 where he prophesied about the future course of the Gentile world powers. Then in chapters 8 thru 12, he returned to his native language of Hebrew to predict the future of the Israelite nation under Gentile domination. How comforting it must have been to the Israelites in bondage in Babylon to know from Daniel’s prophecies that their nation would continue into the future. With the Jerusalem and the temple utterly destroyed, it must have seemed to the captives that there was no hope of them ever returning and being a nation again. But Daniel’s prophecies concerning the Israelite nation in the future let them know that there would indeed be a future for the nation of Israel.
Daniel chapter 2 begins with the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about the future and what lay in store for his empire and thereafter. He went to sleep one night pondering the future of Babylon (Dan 2:29), and he received an answer from God in the form of a troubling dream which he could not remember. From this account we learn that God did indeed make himself known to nations other than Israel and that he had expectations of them in their conduct and behavior. From Daniel, we learn that God was very proactive in the life of Nebuchadnezzar and from this we can infer that He was with the kings and rulers of other nations as well.
Dan 2:1
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
Nebuchadnezzar was not quite yet king when Daniel was taken from Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar’s father was old and infirmed back in Babylon while Nebuchadnezzar led his father’s (Nabo-polassar), campaigns against Egypt. It was during this campaign that Nabo-polassar died. Upon hearing the news of Nabo-polassar’s death, Nebuchadnezzar hastened to Babylon to secure his ascension to the throne of his father. Nebuchadnezzar probably arrived in Babylon after the Judean captives did so he began his reign a matter of months after Daniel and company arrived in Babylon.
Daniel was almost certainly a young teenager and had only been in Babylon a short time when Nebuchadnezzar had this dream. Nebuchadnezzar was obviously disturbed by this dream enough that it woke him up and he was unable to sleep because of it.
In the second year of his reign Nebuchadnezzar, troubled by dreams and unable to sleep, called together his enchanters and sorcerers to explain his dreams one of which troubled him especially. Their difficulty was that the king could not recall the dream. It had left an impression on his mind, but none of the details remained in his memory. Of course, his demand was the unreasonable one of a despot, and yet the claims these men made, if true, ought to have enabled them to discover the dream as well as to interpret it. Such was the king’s opinion, and he made it a test case, declaring that if they were unable to do what he asked, he would know that they were lying and corrupt. They failed, Nebuchadnezzar was furious, and commanded the destruction of them all. In this decree the Hebrew youths were involved.
Daniel, through the king’s captain, sought and obtained an interview with the king, asking for time, and promising to interpret the dream. The request being granted, he at once gathered his friends together, and they betook themselves to prayer. In answer the secret was revealed to Daniel in a vision at night, and in his gratitude he praised the name of Jehovah in what was practically a psalm full of beauty. He then charged the king’s captain, Arioch, not to destroy the wise men, as he was able to interpret the king’s dream.
Daniel was immediately brought into the king’s presence, and first, in language full of confidence and dignity, ascribed to God the glory of the interpretation he was about to give. He exonerated the wise men from any blame for their inability to interpret the dream, and declared the truth concerning the God of heaven, who was able to reveal secrets, and who by this dream intended to make known to the king the course of events in the history of his people. He then vividly described the image of the king’s dream, and proceeded to interpret its meaning, Tracing the progress of events through the successive kingdoms of Babylon, Media, and Persia, Greece, Rome, the ten kingdoms, and the final setting up of the Kingdom of Heaven, he showed how there would be a process of deterioration, which would merge into the establishment of the new order. This interpretation convinced Nebuchadnezzar, who at once recognized the supremacy of God, and rewarded Daniel by setting him over the province and the wise men.
the Forgotten Dream
Dan 2:1-13
This was the second year of Nebuchadnezzars sole reign. At first he was joint-governor with his father. From Dan 2:4 b to Dan 7:28 the Syriac language is employed, and as this was the vernacular tongue of the king and his court, it is possible that this part of Daniels record is based upon documents of state. The kings argument throughout his discussion with the magicians and astrologers, was that if they could not recall the past, they certainly could not be trusted to foretell the future; and the failure of the wise-men provided the opportunity for the greater triumph of the servant of God. The wise-men of Babylon said truly that only the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh, could recover lost dreams. Daniel thought so, too, only he looked to the Lord God of his fathers. Irresponsible power is a temptation to the ruler, and perilous to the ruled. No mortal should have despotic power over life and death. But a movement is afoot in our times which is likely to give to all nations what Abraham Lincoln described as, government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Chapter Two The Times Of The Gentiles
The second chapter of Daniel has well been called the A-B-C of prophecy. I suppose it contains the most complete, and yet the most simple, prophetic picture that we have in all the Word of God. It is in the form of a dream given to a heathen monarch. Nebuchadnezzar was at this time the ruler of the greater part of the known civilized world and of a great deal of that which was given over to barbarism. We speak of this as a world empire, though in one sense of the word, it was hardly that. There were tribes and nations beyond the outskirts of his dominions that were not subject to Nebuchadnezzar-those on the northern shores of the Mediterranean sea, for instance, and portions of southern Egypt and the regions beyond. But God had given him the title to rule over all nations. This authority was given to Nebuchadnezzar because of the rejection of Israel as Gods kingdom on earth. Had they been faithful to God, had they always been obedient to Him, royalty never would have departed from Judah. But because of their disobedience God gave their glory to the stranger, and dominion passed to the Gentiles in the person of Nebuchadnezzar. This was, in fact, the beginning of the distinctive period designated by the Lord Jesus in Luk 21:24 as the times of the Gentiles. This period will continue until all derived power is overthrown and
Jesus shall reign whereer the sun
Doth his successive journeys run;
His kingdom spread from shore to shore,
Till moons shall wax and wane no more.
Isaac Watts
In the book of Jeremiah, as also in Kings and Chronicles, we read of Nebuchadnezzar coming up against the land of Palestine in the reign of King Jehoiakim. At the time of his first invasion Nebuchadnezzar was not the emperor; his father sat on the throne of the Babylonian dominion, and he was vice-king. But at the beginning of Daniel 2 we read that he had been reigning alone for two years. The glory of God had departed from Jerusalem, and the people of Judah became captives in the land of Shinar: By the rivers of Babylon, [they] sat down, yea, [they] wept, when [they] remembered Zion (Psa 137:1).
Now God was pleased to reveal an outline of His ways to this heathen monarch. We learn from Daniels address to him that this great king had been concerned about what was coming on the earth. Look at the 29th verse: As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter. Nothing could be more natural. Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful monarch the world had ever known. As he lay on his bed that night, he began to ponder what would come to pass in the future. He knew he could not stay here forever. He would have to pass away as other potentates had done before him. What would follow? It was not unwise for him to consider these things.
All men should be more concerned about what the future has in store. The great business of today seems to be securing wealth and pleasure for the present life; most people seem utterly indifferent about what is to come to pass afterward. God has not left us in ignorance as to the future. He has given us the prophetic word to shed light on what is to come. If people were willing to seriously read the Bible, in subjection to its holy author, they would find that in it the whole course of human events, right up to the great white throne, has been clearly revealed. Anyone who earnestly desires it, may know the truth of Gods ways right on to the end.
Nebuchadnezzar was wiser than many today, for he was concerned about the future. As he lay on his bed he had an impressive dream; but in the morning it had gone from him. He found it impossible to overcome the impression it made on him, yet when he tried to recall what it was he had dreamed, he could not do so. So, according to the custom of his times, he sent for his wise men-the soothsayers, astrologers, and magicians. To them he said, I have dreamed a dream, but it has gone from my mind; and I want you to tell me my dream, and then tell me the interpretation of it.
Miserable charlatans that they were, they pleaded the absurdity and impossibility of this request. They declared what was possibly true enough: no king or ruler had ever asked anything so difficult of his wise men. They assured the king that if he would but relate the dream, they would explain its meaning. But Nebuchadnezzar responded that if they had skill enough to interpret dreams, they ought to be able to tell him the dream also. He threatened that if after a limited time they did not accede to his demand, all the wise men in his kingdom would be put to death- which, of course, included Daniel.
When Daniel learned of the decree through Arioch the captain of the guard, he went in and asked Nebuchadnezzar for a brief respite. Communicating the seriousness of the situation to his three friends, he requested that they seek the face of God regarding the matter and together they made supplication to the God of heaven.
I want you to notice that title-the God of heaven (2:18). Nothing shows the divine source and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures more clearly than the way in which the names and titles of the deity are used throughout the Bible. Unspiritual and ignorant men have sometimes tried to use the diversity of divine names to show that the Bible speaks of different gods. But all these names and titles are used in a most exact and careful manner. For instance, in the entire Old Testament, Jehovah is always used in one particular sense and Elohim (God, plural form) in another. When it is the Creator that is brought before us, then we have the Hebrew word Elohim, indicating the triune God, now revealed in three persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When referring to Gods covenant with His people and His dealings with the men whom He has made and taken into relationship with Himself, the Scriptures use the name Jehovah. It is not only in Genesis, but throughout the Bible, that this holds true.
The expression, the God of heaven is used in three books in the Old Testament (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel) and one in the New Testament (Revelation). All refer to almost the same period- when God had scattered His people among the nations because of their sins. He had forsaken His throne at Jerusalem. The glory had gone up to Heaven, and He was no longer called the Lord of the whole earth. He was now the God of heaven, and so far as the world is concerned that is still His title. He will never again be owned as the Lord of the whole earth until the millennium.
And so Daniel and his friends entreated the God of Heaven. You will notice that we have three things here: First, prayer-They would desire mercies of the God of heaven (18). Then there is divine ministry-Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. And the result of that was worship-they blessed the God of heaven (19). Where God is speaking, it stirs the hearts of His people, and it leads them out in worship and praise back to Himself.
People have very low ideas about worship nowadays; they talk about worshiping God no matter what religious exercise they may be engaged in. But let us remember that even prayer is not worship, and ministry is not worship. Prayer is asking of God; ministry is when God gives something to man. But when man has asked and God has given until the heart overflows in adoration back to God, worship takes place.
My wife and I stood one day looking down on Niagara Falls. How our hearts were stirred as we watched that mighty cataract pouring its tremendous volume of water over the great cliff unceasingly. But soon we noticed that from below a mist or fine spray rose up that actually reached the point where we stood on the ledge above the Falls. I said to my wife, This is like worship-Gods mighty love and grace pouring down on us, and then our love and praise rising up and ascending back to Him, the source of all our blessing.
The Father is seeking worshipers, but people have to be born again before they can worship Him. How can a poor guilty sinner who has never been brought into the family of God be a worshiper in spirit and in truth? We hear often of public worship; but the fact of the matter is the public, as such, cannot worship in the Christian sense.
Turning back to Daniel, we see he comes in before the king and tells him that he is able to reveal the secret. He makes it plain that it is not through any superior wisdom of his own that he is able to do this: there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days (28). It was of God that this great king was brought to the end of all human resources. If he had been able to remember his dream, he never would have realized that he had to deal with God. He first had to be brought to the end of all human wisdom; he had to learn his own nothingness and ignorance and the nothingness and ignorance of all his wise men. Only then could the matchless wisdom of God be revealed to him. And the same lesson must be learned by us. If we are ever going to learn of God, we have to learn the poverty of our own resources first.
Have you ever noticed where the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified? It was at Golgotha-the place of a skull. If you are saved, you began at the place of a skull. That is not very nice for human pride, for it is the place of death and the end of all human wisdom. You cannot reason it out; all the wise men of the earth cannot teach it to you; you have to be brought to the place of an empty skull-the helplessness of death-where you realize that God is writing confusion on all the wisdom of this world. So this great king had to be brought to the place where he learned that mans extremity is Gods opportunity. It was then that the God of Heaven, through His prophet, revealed to him the dream and its interpretation.
Daniel said:
Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This images head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth (31-35).
At once the king recognized the fact that it was indeed the dream he had forgotten. Daniel then proceeded with the interpretation. The image represented the whole period of the times of the Gentiles. But notice that on the chart the feet of the image have been separated from the legs of iron. The reason for this is that although during the present age the Gentile times are still running on, yet prophecy has to do not with this age. Rather prophecy is dealing with the period that closed at the cross and another brief season that will commence after the church has been caught up to be with the Lord. Gods special work in this day of grace is the taking out from among the Gentiles a people to the name of His Son. He is not now dealing with nations as such; He is saving individual souls and, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, forming them into one body to be the bride of the Lamb in the ages to come.
Daniel showed that the times of the Gentiles began with Nebuchadnezzar. He is declared to be the head of gold of this man of the earth (Psa 10:18). It is not that he alone is the fulfillment of this picture, but he represents the Babylonian empire, which began with him and was to close with the downfall of Belshazzar his grandson.
After thee, said Daniel, shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth (2:39). We do not need to go outside of Scripture to find out the names of these empires. In chapter 5:31 we read, Darius the Median took the kingdom. In the book of Esther we learn that the Persian rulers ruled over all the earth. Darius is generally supposed to be Cyaxares II, the last king of Media. Some think he was Gobryas, the general who led the assault on Babylon under instructions from Cyaxares and Cyrus the Persian; he united Media and Persia in one great empire. Daniel elsewhere showed us that this Medo-Persian dominion, after existing for several hundred years, would be overthrown by a mighty Grecian warrior. This was fulfilled by Alexander the Great.
A fourth kingdom was to follow. It would be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise (40). This must be that great world power which was in existence at the birth of the Lord Jesus, when there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed (Luk 2:1). Under this empire our Lord was crucified. After His death it continued to exist for about five hundred years, though eventually divided into two parts, the eastern and western empires. The two legs may be meant to represent this division; though one could hardly insist on this strongly because Rome is represented by the legs of iron from the beginning.
Therefore we do not need secular history to find out what these four great empires are; we find them all in Scripture in the order in which they were revealed to the king of Babylon. All this is confirmed by history and is a remarkable proof of the inspiration of the Bible. At the time that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed his dream the Persian kingdom did not exist. Persia was but a Babylonian province. A Grecian empire might have seemed an utter impossibility. The Hellenic states were a lot of warring tribes and kingdoms, giving little promise of their future greatness. The city of Rome was just being founded-an insignificant little village on the banks of the Tiber. How did Daniel portray with such accuracy the future history of all these powers if unaided by the Holy Spirit of God?
The metals of which the great image was composed deteriorated from the head to the feet, illustrating the continual decrease in the absolute power and magnificence of each kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as an unlimited despot. Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive (5:19). The rulers of the succeeding empires had their power more and more circumscribed; until in the last state of the Roman empire we find iron mixed with miry clay, or brittle pottery-speaking of attempted union between imperialism and democracy. Notice also, that the specific gravity of the metals decreases each time. Gold is the heaviest and iron the lightest, while feet of mingled iron and pottery would be lighter than all. No wonder such an image breaks in pieces the moment the Stone falls from Heaven on such feet! Gentile power may seem to be firmly settled on an immovable base; it may appear to be powerful enough to resist every effort aimed at its overthrow; but the hour is coming when the Stone will fall from Heaven, and the whole thing will collapse in a moment.
This brings us to the last form of the fourth kingdom; for the Roman empire, though at the present in abeyance, has not yet come to its end. The ten toes on the feet of the image represent (as a comparison with the ten horns on the beast in chapter 7 will make plain) ten kings who are to reign at one time; they will form a confederacy on the ground of the ancient empire. This is something that the world has not seen yet.
Commentators generally tell us that the ten-toed condition of the empire was reached in the fifth and sixth centuries. At that time the barbarians from the north overran the Roman empire, and it was divided into something like ten different kingdoms. A number of different lists have been made often kingdoms each, but few writers agree as to the actual divisions. One thing they all seem to have overlooked is that the ten kingdoms are to exist at one time, not through a period of several centuries, and all are to form one confederation. There is nothing in the past history of the kingdoms of Europe that answers to this. They were generally warring enemies, each seeking the destruction of others. Therefore we reject this interpretation of the ten toes. What event in the centuries of Romes decline and fall could possibly answer to the Stone falling from Heaven and the institution of the kingdom of God? And how could it be said that all the dominions represented by the image have been ground to powder, when we see most of them still in existence in some form or other?
Some tell us that the Stone fell from Heaven when the Lord Jesus was born into this world, and that His kingdom has been in existence and spreading through the world ever since. But Daniel says, In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom (2:44); that is, in the days of the ten kings, Gods kingdom is to be established. Now the ten-kingdom condition of the empire certainly had not been reached at the incarnation. Rome remained an undivided kingdom for three hundred years after the birth of Christ; for two hundred years more it existed as the Eastern and Western empires. Clearly then, the birth of the Son of God is not the event here prophesied. Gentile dominion was not overturned and destroyed at that time, nor since then; therefore we look to the future for it.
To attempt to locate the falling of the Stone in the fifth or sixth century is the height of absurdity. In what sense did the God of Heaven then set up a kingdom? That was the very time when the bishop of Rome was struggling for supremacy over the church and the nations. It was followed by a thousand years of darkness: the Word of God was lost to the masses, superstition took the place of faith, iniquity ruled in both civil and ecclesiastical high places, and peace seemed to be taken from the earth. Surely all this is very different from Christs predicted reign of righteousness and blessing. Evidently then the Stone has not yet fallen from Heaven, though no one knows how soon it will do so.
I desire to trace out a little of what Scripture has to tell us elsewhere about this Stone. It is undoubtedly a figure of the Lord Jesus Christ. Psa 118:22 tells us that He would be the Stone rejected by the builders and become the head of the corner; in the New Testament this verse is declared to be prophetic of Christ (Luk 20:17-18; Act 4:11-12). When He came to earth He was indeed the Stone rejected by the builders, the rulers of the Jews, but He did not come as the Stone falling from Heaven. That is the way He will come when He returns the second time. He came before to His own, but His own received Him not. He came here as the foundation Stone, the head Stone of the corner, but they who should have owned His claims cried in their unbelief and hatred, Away with Him; crucify Him; crucify Him! Now God has taken Him up to Heaven, and in the Fathers glory, the eye of faith beholds that exalted Stone. The day is coming when it is going to fall on His enemies; when it falls, it will grind to powder all Gentile dominion and all those who have rejected the precious grace of God.
In Isa 8:14 Christ is prophetically described as a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense, and we are told that many will stumble and fall. Thus it was when He came in lowly grace: They stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written (Rom 9:32-33). The Jews were looking for a great world-monarch and when Christ came in humiliation, Israel nationally stumbled over Him; they were broken and they remain broken to this day. Whenever a Jew walks the streets of a Gentile city it proves the truth of what the Lord Jesus has said, Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken (Mat 21:44). Broken and scattered they have wandered in all the lands of the earth, hardly welcome anywhere, until in these last days God has been turning the hearts of the nations toward them, preparatory to their being taken back to their own land. By and by a remnant will return to the Lord; so Isa 28:16 says, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. He then goes on depicting Israels deliverance at the second appearing of this Stone of salvation. He is described in Zec 3:9 as the Stone engraved with the engraving of a signet, on which will be seven eyes.
But what about the nations in that day? The message of grace has gone out to them and what has been the result? God has been taking out from among them a people for His name, but the mass have deliberately rejected the Christ of God. That rejected Lord Jesus is soon going to fall on them in judgment. Then the rest of His Word will be fulfilled, On whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder (Mat 21:44). Israel stumbled over Him, and they were broken. He is going to fall on the Gentiles in His wrath and indignation. They will be ground to powder and driven away from before His face like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor.
Do you ask, When is the Stone going to fall? It will be when the countries once occupied by the Roman empire in Europe make a ten-kingdom coalition, electing one of their number to be their supreme arbiter. In Daniel 7 he is described as the little horn rising out of the Roman empire. This passage has often been applied to the pope, but we will see it has no application to him at all. In that day the iron of imperial power will be mixed with the brittle pottery of socialism and democracy, but they will not cling together.
Before the ten-kingdomed form of the Roman empire is brought about, the church will have been caught away to Heaven. No believer of the present dispensation will be on the earth when these things are in process of fulfillment. But there may be some who read this who will still be living on this earth in the days of the feet of the image-the last solemn period of the times of the Gentiles. It will be awful to dwell in this world then and to participate in the judgment when the Stone falls from Heaven.
If these words reach one who is still out of Christ, let me warn you faithfully that if you go on rejecting the Lord Jesus a little longer, if you continue to harden your heart, if you turn away the shoulder, if you close your ears and shut your eyes to the truth of God, you may be numbered among those left behind when the Lord calls for His redeemed ones to rise to meet Him in the air. Then there will be for you nothing but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries (Heb 10:27). Think what it will mean to be thus left for the vengeance of God! If you have not yet heeded the voice of Him who pleads in grace, get down on your face before Him now, I beseech you, and cry as Job cried, I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes (42:6). Then remember that If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom 10:9-10). Thus shall you be ready to hail His coming with joy, whose return would otherwise mean for you the end of mercys day, the sealing of your doom.
Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshiped Daniel; he acknowledged that Daniels God was a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets (Dan 2:47). Yet there is no evidence that his conscience had been reached by the revelation made to him of Gods wisdom and power. He advanced Daniel to a position of trust and confidence, and at his request set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but he was not yet ready to acknowledge the God of Daniel as his God and the only Savior. He was still a god to him, albeit greater than other deities. Nebuchadnezzar was soon to know Him as the God who alone rules in the kingdoms of men.
Dan 2:1-23
I. The narrative sets before us the value of united prayer.
II. We have an illustration here of the power of gratitude.
III. We have an illustration of the devout humility of genuine piety.
IV. We have an illustration of faithful friendship. When Daniel was exalted, he did not forget his companions.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 20.
References: Dan 2:1.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. vi., p. 45; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 267.
Dan 2:3
We may feel that this ancient story is not wholly untrue, nor the effects of it wholly lost to it, when we cast our mind upon our own lives, and remember how much we, too, have been haunted by some magnificent dream. When the vision of what life really was, with its deep and solemn significance, was granted to us, we, awaking with the impression of all life’s business, lost the vivid force of that dream-we could not recall it, and we turned to the seers about us to revive those impressoins which we felt must be for good. They are plentiful to seek, the wise and the unwise, the weak and the strong, the false and the true; and we, haunted by the remembrance of that vision of what life’s deep significance is, turn in vain to these. And yet the conditions may teach us what are the real features and the real capacities of the true prophet. The story suggests that there are two great elements which are essential, in order that a man may be a real helper of his fellow-men, the true prophet of his age. These two were just those that were vouchsafed to Daniel.
I. The first is knowledge of human nature. The king says, “You profess to be able to interpret my dreams. How do I know that your interpretations are true? Tell me what the dream was, and I can verify your accuracy; vindicate your pretensions in a sphere where I can test them, and then I will be able to give you my faith in the sphere where I cannot test them. Show first that you understand me, and then I will believe that you can understand my destiny.” Daniel tracks the movement of the man’s mind, he shows himself master of the play of his thoughts. That splendid vision, that noble and colossal figure, represented what had passed through the king’s mind not that night only but every night. It had been the dream of his life, the splendour and the magnificence of his position; the glorious headship which he held over the empire, which he thought his own, from the high vantage-ground of which he looked down in proud contempt upon human kind. His thoughts were read. And whatever men have been in the position of prophets of their age, their strength and power has depended upon their capacity to read the minds and the play of thought of the men of their age.
II. The second condition is the knowledge of a Divine order. That splendid dream, and that magnificent figure which appeared in the king’s dream, is the dream of man in all ages; it is the dream of self-realisation. But while this colossal figure is shown in its splendour, it is also shown in its weakness. This little stone, without hands, should demolish the whole; man’s best and noblest dreams, man’s most brilliant ambitions, are destined to be overthrown. And why? This stone represents precisely that unseen, that handless power which has not its origin in the conceptions of man, but in the nature of things. This little stone takes the place of this overthrown image; it grows; it is the empire of heart, the kingdom which cannot be shaken; and therefore there has never passed through human mind a dream, a noble and a true dream, that God does not see the way to realise. He breaks down our little efforts to realise it, that He may substitute His own. We look upon the things seen, and because the glittering image stands no more upon the plain of the world, we wring our hands and say, “The vision is dead, and there is no hope for humanity.” But those laws which are the work of the spiritual kingdom, and of the moral kingdom, are building up that which we cannot see, but which we may know by the creation of its strength within the citadel of our hearts-that eternal kingdom of the living God which shall never be overthrown.
Bishop Boyd Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 8.
Dan 2:29-49
I take the severance of the stone from the mountain to denote the coming of Christ into the world, and the collision of the stone with the image to mean the founding by the Lord of that spiritual kingdom which is in its principles antagonistic to all the world-powers, and which will ultimately subdue them all. Thus viewed, the vision which Daniel recovered and interpreted suggests to us many interesting things concerning the kingdom of Christ.
I. There is, first, its superhuman origin. The stone was “cut out of the mountain without hands.”
II. There is the comparative feebleness of its beginning. The language of the vision indicates that the stone grew from a small size until it became a huge mountain.
III. There is, in the third place, the gradualness of its progress. The stone grew until it became a mountain. Not all at once was the development made. And so in the kingdom which it symbolises advancement was by degrees.
IV. There is, fourthly, its universal extent. The mountain filled the whole earth.” “The knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth.”
V. There is, fifthly, the perpetual duration of this kingdom. It shall never be destroyed, and “it shall not be left to other people.”
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 39.
References: Dan 2:31-35.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 306. Dan 2:31-45.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 324. Dan 2:31-47.-R. Payne-Smith, Ibid., vol. vi., p. 351.
Dan 2:34-35
I. We see in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar the great fact that the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of truth, is at length to be supreme over all other kingdoms. Other kingdoms have always hitherto represented ideas and forces of evil. From the beginning, even down to the present moment, there has not yet been one kingdom which has aimed supremely at the well-being of the world. All of them, without exception, have been selfish and aggressive, aiming at the accession of territory and the augmentation of power and wealth. The image which Nebuchadnezzar saw did not fall of its own accord. It was not destroyed by a band of enemies. It was destroyed by miracle, by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. We see in this a type of the fact that the great power-the power which is to be dominant in our world, which is to grow and move and smite all evil-is a miraculous, a heavenly power.
II. We note the apparent contrast between the agent which destroys evil and the evil which is to be destroyed. A stupendous image-that is the evil; a stone, quite small at first, cut out of the mountain without hands-that is the good. It has ever been so. That which is to destroy evil is at first little and despised, and men laugh at it and treat it with mockery. What was Christ to all appearance that He should assume the part of the destroyer of evil? He was as a root out of a dry ground. He was an obscure man, from an obscure city, in an obscure portion of Palestine, without what the world would now deem education. This was the man who claimed to stand forth as the great, the only conqueror of error and sin and death; whose name was to fill, whose love was to inspire, and whose work was to save the world. If that mighty stone moves with a menacing aspect towards all embodiments of evil, it becomes each of us to inquire how we stand in relation to it. Like the wheels of Ezekiel, it is full of eyes. Wherever it sees goodness, faith, love, it leaves them standing. It breaks not the bruised reed. But for them that resist there can be no escape. There is nothing more fatal than the defiance of love.
E. Mellor, The Hem of Christ’s Garment, p. 219.
References: Dan 2:35.-J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. ii., pp. 232, 244. Dan 2:41, Dan 2:42.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 310.
Dan 2:44-45
I. Notice the law of decay in human affairs. (1) It is impressively illustrated in the fact that individuals pass so soon out of the memory of the world. (2) It is more impressively illustrated in the fact that nations die. (3) It disappoints the most plausible plans and. expectations of men.
II. To this law of decay in human affairs there is one grand and marvellous exception. God has a kingdom in this world, which lives. (1) It deserves mention in illustration of this exception, that the work of God in redemption is the only thing in human history that dates back to the beginning of time. (2) The contrast between the kingdoms of men and the kingdom of God is further seen in the mysterious vitality of right in this world, in its conflicts with wrong. (3) The contrast is further seen in an anomalous suspension of the law of decay in some cases of historic immortality. The only men who are destined to live while the world lives are those who are in some way especially identified with the kingdom of Christ. (4) The only names from the remote past which in the nature of things can go down to the world’s latest ages are those which are to be immortalised by the Christian Scriptures.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 230.
Dan 2:45
(with Pro 27:1)
Our subject is the future, and we are to find out what is known, and also what is unknown about it.
I. We owe a great deal, both in the way of stimulus and in the way of education, to the very mysteriousness of the future. It is expectancy-call it hope and fear-that gives life a rare interest: hope itself sometimes brings with it a sting of pain, and fear now and again brings with it even something of weird pleasure. Life that had no future would be but a flat surface, a stiff and cold monotony, a world without a firmament. But with a future it is a hope, an inspiration, a sweet and gracious promise.
II. We know the great broad features of the future, but next to nothing of its mere detail. Mortality, destiny, the future moral state of the world-but detail, nothing! Still, this ignorance of detail ought not to interfere with our right apprehension and proper use of the future. The fact of our ignorance of the future should have a deeply religious effect upon us: (1) dependence; (2) earnestness.
Parker, The Ark of God, p. 222.
References: Dan 2:46-49.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 121. 2-J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 85; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 184. Dan 3:1-12.-Ibid., vol. iv., p. 243. Dan 3:14.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii., No. 1930; C. Kingsley, The Good News of God, p. 31.
CHAPTER 2 Nebuchadnezzars Dream and Its Interpretation
1. The forgotten dream (Dan 2:1-13)
2. The prayer meeting in Babylon and the answer (Dan 2:14-23)
3. Daniel before the king (Daniel 2:24-28)
4. The revelation and interpretation of the dream (Dan 2:29-45)
5. The promotion of Daniel and his companions (Dan 2:46-49)
Dan 2:1-13. The king had a dream which was occasioned by thinking concerning the future (Dan 2:29). God answered his desire by this dream, which made a great impression on him. But he had forgotten the dream. The soothsayers, wise men and magicians, who were kept by him to interpret dreams, were unable to reveal the forgotten dream: they confessed their utter helplessness. The king condemned them to death. Inasmuch as Daniel and his companions were counted among the wise men, they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain.
Dan 2:14-23. And now Daniel steps to the front. But there is no haste and no hurry connected with it, for He that believeth shall not make haste. He is brought before the king and promises to the king the meaning of that dream. It was the language of faith; he had confidence in God. He knew that the same Jehovah who had given another captive wisdom, Joseph in Egypt, was his God also. Then there was a prayer meeting in Babylon. While the condemned wise men, the astrologers and magicians trembled for fear of death, Daniel and his companions asked mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret. The prayer was speedily answered.
Dan 2:24-28. After Daniel had praised the God of heaven he requested an audience with the king. How beautiful he is in the presence of the mighty monarch! What an opportunity to glorify himself. But he hides himself completely and gives God all the glory. Then he tells the king that in the dream he is about to relate God has made known unto him what shall be in the latter days.
Dan 2:29-45. Daniel then told to the king the forgotten dream:
Thou, O King, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This images head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth (Dan 2:31-35).
The great man image is the prophetic symbol of the times of the Gentiles. This expression The times of the Gentiles is not found in the book of Daniel, but it is a New Testament phrase. Our Lord used it exclusively. In that part of His prophetic discourse which is reported in the Gospel of Luke and which relates to the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation, our Lord said: And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled Luk 21:24. Now, the times of the Gentiles did not begin when Jerusalem rejected the Lord from heaven. Our Lord does not say that the times of the Gentiles were then ushered in. The times of the Gentiles started with the Babylonian captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. The glory of the Lord departed from Jerusalem. The other great prophet of the captivity, Ezekiel, beheld the departure of the Shekinah. Then did the Cherubim lift up their Wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city Eze 11:22-25. But before that Jeremiah recorded a remarkable word. These are the words of Jehovah concerning Nebuchadnezzar:
I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto Me. And now have I given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his sons son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand Jer 27:5-22.
Jerusalem had been supreme because the throne and the glory of Jehovah was there. Though Assyria, Egypt and Babylon had tried repeatedly to overthrow Jerusalem, they were held in check by the power of God and divine intervention, but when the measure of the wickedness of Jerusalem was full, Nebuchadnezzar was chosen to become the first great monarch of the times of the Gentiles. The dominion was then taken away from Jerusalem and transferred to the Gentiles.
Therefore the golden head in this prophetic man-image represents Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian empire. The chest of silver, according to divine interpretation, stands for an inferior monarchy which was to follow the Babylonian empire. This second world empire is the Medo- Persian. The belly and thighs of brass represent the third great monarchy, the Graeco-Macedonian. The fourth great monarchy which was to rise during the times of the Gentiles, represented by the two legs of iron, is the iron empire, Rome. Here, then, is history pre-written. God, who knows the end from the beginning, revealed in this dream the course of the times of the Gentiles, beginning with the Babylonian monarchy and followed by three more: The Medo-Persian, the Graeco-Macedonian and the Roman. Notice the process of deterioration as indicated in the composition of this image: Gold, silver, brass, iron, and finally the iron getting less and clay taking a prominent place. It shows that politically the times of the Gentiles are not improving.
Everything which this image represents has been fulfilled, except the last portion, when a stone falls out of heaven and strikes the ten toes and the clay, so that the whole colossal figure goes to pieces, the different constituent metals become like the chaff on the summer threshingfloor and the striking stone becomes a mountain and fills the whole earth.
The fourth Empire, the Roman, has not yet fulfilled its history. The final form, and with it the final form of the times of the Gentiles is yet to pass into history. This final form is symbolically seen in the ten toes and the clay, in the feet of the image. The territory which constituted the now extinct Roman empire will in the near future undergo a political revival. It will reappear in a confederated Europe, except certain countries which never belonged to the Roman empire. In that confederacy will be kingdoms to the number of ten; the clay represents democracies, the rule by the people and for the people. The late great war has brought such a political combination into our times. Such is the future and end of the times of the Gentiles, as foretold in the feet of the image.
But what does the smiting stone represent, the stone which abolisheth the image and becomes itself a great mountain filling the whole earth?
The Stone is Christ. That the stone represents Christ is seen from the Scriptures. Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation Isa 28:16. Zechariah speaks of this stone with seven eyes upon it and engraven. We read of Him in the New Testament as the foundation stone of the church, the cornerstone, the stone rejected by the builders. Most interesting is His own word in the Gospel of Matthew: And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder Mat 21:44. Here we have Israels sin and judgment and the fate of the Gentiles. Israel stumbled against this stone; for them He was a stumblingstone and rock of offense. In consequence they were broken as a nation. But the Gentile world, rejecting Him, will be broken when the stone falls. They will be ground to powder by the falling stone. Our Lord must have had the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in mind when he spake these words. The falling stone of which He speaks and the striking stone in the dream mean the same Person, Himself .
The stone doing its work in smiting the image is a prophecy of the second coming of our Lord. The mountain filling after that the earth foreshadows that kingdom which will be established with the return of Christ and His enthronement as King of kings.
Dan 2:46-49. The heathen monarch then acknowledged Daniels God in a threefold way: The God of Gods (the Father); the Lord of Kings (God the Son); the Revealer of Secrets (God the Holy Spirit). Daniel is lifted from the place of humiliation to a place of exaltation. He did not forget his companions; they share honor and glory with him. It is a beautiful picture of that day when our Lord will receive the throne and when His own will not be left behind in sharing with Him His glory.
Historical Events (3-6)
The four chapters which follow the great dream of Nebuchadnezzar are of a historical character. They do not contain direct prophecies, but record certain events which transpired during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, his successor and grandson Belshazzar, and Darius, the Mede. On the personal history of these three persons and where they are found in profane history we have little to say, as a deeper examination of this subject would lead us too far and would be tedious. But this much must be said that the criticism which charged Daniel with being incorrect has been completely silenced by the Babylonian cylinders of Cyrus and Nabonnaid and the so-called annalistic tablets, the very records of those days. It is true the personality of Darius the Mede has not yet been definitely located historically. However, we do not believe the Bible because its historical statements can be verified from profane history. We believe the Bible because its records are divinely inspired and therefore correct. What would we know of the genuineness of these ancient tablets and cylinders covered with cuneiform inscriptions if it were not for the Bible? These witnesses from the stones, which indeed cry out, do not verify the Bible, they are rather declared genuine and correct by the Word of God.
These four chapters then give us historical events. Each has a prophetic meaning, though direct prophecy is not found in them.
These chapters describe the moral conditions which held sway during the two first world empires; they indicate prophetically the moral conditions which continue to the end of the times of the Gentiles. Five things may be traced in these four chapters: The moral characteristics of the times of the Gentiles; what will happen at the close of these times; the faithful remnant in suffering; their deliverance and the Gentiles acknowledging God, as King and the God of heaven.
continued
i.e. to see the return of the remnant of Judah at the end of the 70 years, Jer 25:11; Jer 25:12; Jer 29:10. Daniel actually lived beyond the first year of Cyrus. Dan 10:1.
in: Dan 1:1-5, 2Ch 36:5-7
the second: That is, the second according to the Babylonian computation, but the fourth according to that of the Jews, who reckon from the time he was associated with his father. Jer 25:1
Nebuchadnezzar: Dan 2:3, Dan 4:5, Gen 40:5-8, Gen 41:1-36, Job 33:15-17
and his: Dan 6:18, Est 6:1
Reciprocal: Gen 28:12 – he dreamed Gen 37:5 – dreamed Gen 40:6 – behold Gen 41:8 – his spirit 2Ki 9:3 – I have anointed Ezr 1:1 – the Lord Job 7:14 – thou scarest Dan 4:7 – Then came Dan 5:6 – the king’s Dan 5:9 – greatly Dan 7:1 – Daniel Dan 7:15 – the visions
TROUBLED KINGCALM SEER
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams Daniel sat in the gate of the king.
Dan 2:1; Dan 2:49
The lessons of the chapter are
I. God in human life.Nebuchadnezzar was an idolater, and although he was ready to ascribe great distinction to Daniels God, yet he never became a believer. For all that He that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. We may not acknowledge God, but He still works in us. He controls our sleeping and our waking hours. He is, as Daniel afterwards told Belshazzar, the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways.
II. God in human history.Not we, but God is governing us. The distinction between sacred and secular in history is mischievous. It is very important that we should recognise fully that God is ruling among the nations of the earth. He has never relinquished the sceptre. These proud kings, whose boasted glory can be seen yet in the carvings in Babylon, are only His subjects. Daniel was nearer far to Nebuchadnezzar than Nebuchadnezzar was to Jehovah.
III. As to dreams.Here, as in the history of Joseph, our attention is drawn to the part which is played in ancient history by dreams. In a general way we can say that the thought is often father to the dream. Something which, perhaps unconsciously, has been passing through our minds before we sleep suggests the rapid visions which follow. Nor ought it to surprise us that the God Who controls our thought should sometimes speak to us in this way. Formerly, when there was no Bible, it was still more likely to happen than now. But we are not warranted by the facts of history or experience in relying very much on what dreams may reveal to us.
IV. How much we forget!The thing is gone from me, says Nebuchadnezzar. But not finally and for ever. Daniel can recall it. Here is a light upon the judgment which will, we may presume, be a sudden lighting up of those caves of memory which now lie in shadow. Son, remember.
V. We cannot leave off without a final glance at Daniels character.Some of its noblest traits can be found here. We notice his prayerfulness, his modesty, his godliness, his love of his friends, and his sterling worth. In the gate of the king. To have the Kings ear in prayer, to be a worshipper on the threshold of the Kings house, to be sent on the Kings business, all this should be our ambition as Kings sons.
WITH THE SENSATIONAL rise of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar the times of the Gentiles began, and chapter 2 opens with the statement that as early as his second year that great monarch had a remarkable dream that troubled him much; and well it might, for in it lay a God-given revelation calculated to humble him. He lost his sleep and, what to him was worse, he lost also any recollection of his dream. He turned naturally to the Chaldeans and their associates, who trafficked with demon powers; demanding that they should recount his dream as well as give its meaning.
This demand, with the threat that, if they failed to answer to it, they should all be destroyed, does at first sight seem savage and unreasonable. On second thoughts we may remember that just about that time there were false prophets and diviners even in Jerusalem, as we see in Jer 29:1-32, whose predictions and explanations failed, and so it doubtless had been with the diviners of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar may have thought he had now a fine opportunity to test these men that surrounded him, and would wish to control him with supernatural understanding as they claimed. If they claimed to give supernatural interpretation of dreams, surely the same supernatural power could reconstruct the forgotten dream! This would verify the claims they made. And if they could not verify their claims, he would wipe them out of his kingdom!
Daniel and his friends being classified by the Babylonians as being amongst these ‘wise men,’ they were included in the decree issued by the furious king. The action of Daniel and his friends is instructive. They did two things. First, there was Daniel’s humble supplication to the king for time, with the assurance that an answer would be forthcoming. This assurance revealed faith in God on the part of Daniel, and that of very remarkable strength. Second, having obtained this brief respite, Daniel and his fellows gave themselves to prayer that the secret as to the dream might be revealed to them.
So here were these four men, surrounded by the grossest form of idolatry in the world’s greatest city, yet so truly separated in heart and ways from it all as to be in touch with the ‘God of heaven,’ to the point of receiving communications from Him. The secret they prayerfully sought was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. He saw by night just what the king had seen by night some days before. Others had been enabled to interpret dreams – Joseph for instance – but to duplicate a dream, so that what appeared before the mind of one man by night should be exactly repeated before the mind of another man a few nights later; this none can achieve but God. And in no servant of His does God perform this miracle but in one who was thoroughly separated to Him from the defilements of the surrounding world.
The first thing that Daniel did was to bless God and offer praise to Him, as shown in verses Dan 2:19-23. He was indeed living in an epoch, when God had been changing ‘the times and the seasons,’ and also removing kings, and setting up kings, showing that wisdom and might are His. The removing of the kings of David’s line and the setting up of Nebuchadnezzar had been acts of God, and Daniel bowed to this and even blessed God in the acknowledgment of it. He blessed God too that He imparted wisdom to those who had been given understanding to receive it, and in particular that the desired secret had been made known unto him.
‘Times and seasons’ as relating to the earth are first mentioned in Gen 1:14. We have the exact words here, and we meet with them again in Act 1:7 and 1Th 5:1. It is clear that this expression refers to God’s dispensations and dealings on the earth. In Act 1:1-26, the disciples were not to know the time of God’s dealings. Yet the Thessalonians did know the manner of God’s predicted dealings, and the order in which they would transpire: indeed they knew this perfectly, though they were ignorant of the coming of the Lord for His saints, as revealed in the previous chapter. But then, that coming has to do with a heavenly calling, while ‘times and seasons’ relate to the earth.
The dream being revealed, Daniel is quickly brought before the king, and at once disclaims any virtue, as resident in himself. He referred the king to the God of heaven, who reveals secrets, and who intends to make known to him the future course of Gentile dominion, that had commenced with his overthrow of Jerusalem and its king. Nebuchadnezzar was plainly told that God had thus acted for the sake of Daniel himself and his fellows, and that he might realize that he had to do with a God who knew the most secret thoughts of his heart and mind. In verses Dan 2:31-35, the dream is related to the king.
We pass on however to consider the dream, as its meaning is unfolded by Daniel, beginning with verse 37. The golden head of this great image of excellent and terrible brightness was Nebuchadnezzar himself. He wielded absolute power, unfettered and unlimited, as no one before had known, nor has anyone since, and which we believe will only be equalled by the predicted ‘Beast’ of Rev 13:1-18, and exceeded by the Lord Jesus, when He comes as King of kings and Lord of lords. The Lord Jesus will judge and rule in equity, but it was far otherwise with Nebuchadnezzar, for, ‘whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive’ (Dan 5:19), as Daniel himself recorded.
The Babylonian empire, magnificent as it was, only dominated the stage in the world’s history for a short time. Under Belshazzar and his father it fell from its proud preeminence. It was so much dependent upon the power and glory of Nebuchadnezzar that no subsequent king is regarded, and in verse Dan 2:39 we read, ‘after thee shall arise another kingdom’ which was to be inferior in its character, described in the dream by the breast and arms of silver; and this again superseded by a third kingdom, designated by the belly and thighs of brass.
The lessening value of the metals indicated a deterioration in the quality of the succeeding powers. We may think it a hard saying, but autocracy is the Divine ideal in government, to be realized in righteous yet benevolent perfection in the millennial reign of Christ. It is worthy of note that in this chapter Daniel more than once speaks of ‘the God of heaven,’ indicating that this first Gentile monarch of supreme power held his authority as delegated from heaven. This is the fact, we believe, that underlies the instruction of the Apostle given in Rom 13:1. The existing power of his day was the fourth, mentioned in our chapter, but the Gentile powers that exist, whoever they may be at any given moment, hold their authority as delegates of ‘the God of heaven.’
The second and third empires are passed over with slight mention and our thoughts are concentrated on the fourth, which was to be characterized by strength, as set forth by the iron. The Roman empire did indeed break in pieces and subdue the civilized earth, and lasted in its unified form for centuries. Though its unity was dissolved, as we know, it is viewed in the dream as existing in some way until its final development in a ten-kingdom form at the end of its story, when clay will be found mixed with the iron; and in result the kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.
The mixture of clay and iron aptly symbolizes this, for they are substances entirely different in character. Iron is a metal, of less value than gold, though stronger: clay is non-metallic, and its figurative use in Scripture indicates what is human in contrast to what is Divine: see Job 10:9, and Job 33:6; also the references to man being like clay in the hands of God, who is the Potter.
The dream indicated therefore that the fourth empire in its last days would have ‘kings,’ to the number of ten, and that though still strong there would be an element of brittleness, induced by the introduction of a human element – what in these days we call democracy; which was defined by a noted man as being, ‘Government of the people by the people for the people.’ Nothing is more uncertain, and therefore brittle, than the will of the people. It seems quite certain therefore that we are living in the days contemplated as being the closing stage in the history of the image.
Upon the feet of the image the stone fell. The stone is described as ‘cut out without hands;’ that is, apart from man having anything to do with it – not human but Divine in origin. The first prophetic reference to the Lord Jesus as the Stone is in Gen 49:24, when old Jacob, in blessing his sons made a parenthetic exclamation, ‘from thence is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel.’ Under this figure He again appears in Isa 28:16, and so on into the New Testament.
In the dream we are considering, the stone is interpreted as ‘A kingdom, which shall never be destroyed,’ but we know who the King of that kingdom is going to be. Just as the ‘vision’ of Hab 2:3, which will surely come and not tarry, is found in Heb 10:37 to be centred in a Person, (for the ‘it’ of Habakkuk is turned into ‘He’ in Hebrews), so the ‘kingdom’ which Daniel mentioned as predicted by the ‘stone’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is found to centre round a Person, who is God’s ‘King of kings.’
We know Him as the ‘Living Stone,’ and to Him we have already come, as we are reminded in 1Pe 2:5. We are His already and we partake of His nature as ‘living stones,’ and so are built up, as under His authority, into that spiritual house and holy priesthood, as indicated. When as the King of that coming kingdom, predicted in Dan 2:1-49, He falls in judgment it will be completely to demolish. While we wait for that, we know His attractive power, the effect of which is to build up. How great the favour and blessing of knowing Him thus!
It is indeed a solemn thought that judgment has at last to fall on the imposing image, that represents Gentile dominion on earth, and crush all to powder. It should have a sobering effect on us all, as we realize that nothing of all man’s pomp and power and outward glory is going to remain. Not only are the iron and clay ground to powder, but the gold and silver and brass also. The wind of God will sweep all away as chaff. The God, who will do this, is great, and He was making it known to this king, who was great in the eyes of men. The greatness of God guaranteed the certainty of the things the dream foretold.
This should remind us of what we read in 1Co 1:19, and 1Co 2:6, where the Apostle’s words inform us that not only powerful Gentile kingdoms are to be swept away, but that also the intellectual princes of the earth and all the wisdom they represent will come to nothing in the day when God rises up in judgment.
This revelation, that reached the king through Daniel, had an immediate effect upon him, as we see in the closing verses of the chapter. Instead of being angered by this prediction of ultimate disaster, he was made acutely conscious that he was in the presence of the supernatural – a power was in evidence that he had found wholly wanting in the Chaldeans and his magicians. Only, true to his heathen upbringing, he was mainly concerned with the man in whom the power was displayed. He did indeed acknowledge that Daniel’s God was ‘a God of gods, and a Lord of kings,’ but the worship he offered was directed to Daniel, rather than to the God, in whose name he spoke. So we see here an illustration of what is written in Rom 1:25, that the heathen ‘worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.’
So Daniel was not only worshipped but also made one of the chief, if not the very chief, of the advisers and rulers under the king, and at his request his three companions were also greatly elevated. They went at one bound, so to speak, into high positions of prominence. And did this wonderful display of Divine power have a salutary and lasting effect on Nebuchadnezzar? The next chapter shows quite conclusively that it did not.
Dan 2:1. Paul says that, God spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets (Heb 1:1) and that He did it at sundry times and in diverse manners. And we also know that He delivered messages to heathen men by dreams and visions and various signs. Thus we now have an instance of it in this chapter, and the king of Babylon is the person who was caused to have a dream. This date is definitely given, the second year of the king’s reign which was also the second year of the Jewish captivity. A dream comes to a man in his sleep, but this verse says that Nebuchadnezzars sleep brake front, him. The situation is understandable, for the dream caused him to awaken, and its mystifying character so worked him up that he was unable to go to sleep again. What added to his worries was the fact that he could not even recall the dream, much less understand its meaning.
Dan 2:1. In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar That is, according to the Babylonian account, or the fourth according to the Jewish; that is, in the second year of his reigning alone, or the fourth from his first reigning jointly with his father. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams Having subdued all his enemies, and firmly established his throne, it is probable he was thinking upon his bed (see Dan 2:29) what should come to pass hereafter: what should be the future success of his family and kingdom, and whether any, or what, families and kingdoms might arise after his own: and as our waking thoughts usually give some tincture to our dreams, he dreamed of something to the same purpose, which astonished him, but which he could not rightly understand. The dream affected him strongly at the time; but awaking in confusion, he had but an imperfect remembrance of it; he could not recollect the particulars. It is said he dreamed dreams, because though it was but one continued dream, it contained divers scenes of affairs, being a description of the succession of the four monarchies which were to continue, under different forms, unto the end of the world. Wherewith his spirit was troubled The Hebrew expression, , denotes that his spirit was violently agitated, or in such consternation as to affect his body, and disturb his rest. And his sleep brake from him Or, went from him, as a like phrase is rendered Dan 6:18.
Dan 2:1. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, after he ascended the throne, according to the Chaldaic account, which was the fourth according to the Hebrew account. Nebuchadnezzar is thought by some to have reigned awhile with his father, as Solomon did with David. He is called king when he first came against Jerusalem. 2Ch 36:6.
Dan 2:2. Call the hariolites or aruspices, those who used incantations, being diviners. The magicians, those who affected to know all the secrets of philosophy. The astrologers, those who affected necromancy, or converse with the dead: by some they are called aruspices. The Chaldeans, professors of astronomy, engaged in deciphering the book of fate. All these were to interpret to the king his dreams.
Dan 2:5. Your houses shall be made a dunghill, or be demolished, as Theodotian reads; and his is the only Greek version extant. Desirous of being exact as far as possible, in the illustration of these prophecies, as far as critics have given light, I have procured two copies of Theodotians work, with a variety of others on this book.Daniel wrote the first chapter, and to the fourth verse of the second chapter, in the Hebrew language. Chapters eight to twelve are also in the Hebrew; the others, which concerned chiefly the affairs of Babylon, are written in the Chaldee.
Dan 2:21. He changeth the times and the seasons. The God of heaven was not bound by any law of fate; he can do what he pleaseth among the armies of heaven, and the inhabitants of the earth. This was a homestroke at the Chaldaic astrology.
Dan 2:41. Iron mixed with miry clay. The word in Theodotian, followed by the Vulgate, signifies earthenware. So it is in Montanus.
Dan 2:45. The stone was cut out of the mountain without hands. Christ, the chief cornerstone of the church, emanated from the bosom of the Father, and was born of the virginwithout hands. He also sent his gospel throughout the Roman world without regal support, and established his kingdom without acquainting the princes of this world with his design, and it shall encrease and enlarge till it has filled the whole earth.
Dan 2:46. Then the kingworshipped Daniel. He was so awed and overcome with the divinity that spake in Daniel, that he could not forbear this act of prostration. When the emperor Alexander was marching to punish the jews for not sending him supplies, Jaddua the highpriest came out to meet him in his full pontifical dress. The emperor fell down at his feet; and on being admonished by his generals for this act of degradation, he said that he had before seen this highpriest in a dream, who had promised to give him the keys of Asia. In like manner the Lycaonians wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, when they had healed the lame man at Lystra. Act 14:10-13. The elevation of Daniel proves how much the king was struck with the divine wisdom communicated to that distinguished prophet.
REFLECTIONS.
Here the veil of futurity was lifted up to the young and holy Daniel somewhat higher than it had ever been raised to any other prophet. The four great monarchies stood before him in all their gigantic terrors, but peacefully terminated in the everlasting kingdom of Jesus. The Babylonian empire was just organized after the unexampled conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, and conquests extending towards the extremities of the earth. It was, so to speak, the empire of the whole social world. Hence, though other prophets had spoken of the chastisement of the nations by Nebuchadnezzars bloody career, and of the fall of Babylon; yet no one had spoken in this way, of the future lords of the world. The vision therefore tended to humble the haughty monarch, who had already begun to reckon himself a god rather than a mortal. It tended also to exalt the Most High, to procure better treatment of the captives, and to elevate Daniel in the eyes of all the world. Above all, it tended to lead good men to the contemplation of prophecy, harmonized by providence, as the sole hope of the afflicted church. But the language is so figurative, that while it affords a general hope to the church, it does not discover too much of Gods designs to proud and infidel men. Nor is there any calamity denounced against either men or nations but what may be postponed, or altogether averted by sincere repentance; so we fairly gather from the repentance of Ahab, of Hezekiah, and of Nineveh. This is very encouraging to all men oppressed by the heavy hand of Gods afflicting rod, and to every nation menaced with devastation and war. The dream of this monarch has claimed the most serious attention of the church, and in conjunction with the other prophecies of this nature, the most enlightened saints have kept their eye upon it. Nebuchadnezzar was elevated with thoughts of present and of future grandeur, for God prepared him for the dream by deep reveries of thought. Then sleep stole on his weary mind, and heaven presented him with a huge statue or image; for the idols of the nations represented the patriarchs and kings who had once governed the earth. The composition of this idol was so various that the imagination of man, unassisted by revelation, would hardly have dared to indulge so singular an idea. The head was gold; the breast and shoulders, silver; the belly and thighs, brass; the legs and feet were pillars of iron branching into toes, and decorated with potters ware to give a beauteous finish to the human form.In the morning, all the dream was wiped away from the monarchs mind, except the beclouded consciousness of a portentous influence. Had he recollected the dream, the astrologers would have given some studious interpretation to sooth the royal fears. The embarrassment of the learned, and the terror of the tyrants threats, led Daniel, with his three colleagues to watch and pray. Then He, who sometimes speaks to carnal men in dreams, favoured Daniel with an extraordinary revelation, showing him both the dream and its import. Thus the Lord spake to the king and the Chaldeans by his prophet, that they might know his name and rely on his providence; revere his servants, and no more repose confidence in gentile prognostications. How glorious it is to seek wisdom from heaven.
1. Nebuchadnezzar and his government were this head of fine gold. His capital is called the golden city, being filled with plundered wealth and the riches of commerce. His empire comprised all the Assyrian conquests and power, extending itself in Europe and Africa to the straits of Gibraltar. This prince was therefore fitly represented by a head of gold. But as the image seemed melted in four furnaces, and was composed of four metals, so this head, imperfectly sodered to the body, was to fall off in less than seventy years. Jer 25:11.
2. The breasts and the arms of the idol were silver. The Medes and Persians had before been represented by a couple of chariots approaching Babylon: now they are represented as one breast and two arms which act in concert. These two powers were consolidated in Cyrus; and after the reign of nine monarchs, most of whom were monsters of tyranny, Babylon was taken by Alexander, and the Persian empire was destroyed after having existed from two hundred to two hundred and thirty years.
3. The belly and the thighs of this idol were of brass. Here the Grecian empire under Alexander is foretold. On this subject, sacred antiquity both before and after Christ is generally agreed. This vain and ambitions youth, making Cyrus his model, took about thirty six thousand veteran soldiers from Greece, the same in number as Cyrus led from Persia and Media; for magnitude of force is not of moment when God has a work to do. He led his army to Babylon, overthrew the Persian power, and filled his court with ambassadors from all the earth. This is called the Grecian brazen empire; their shields and coats of mail were chiefly of that metal. It extended from Spain to India, from Abyssinia to Thrace. On Alexanders death, his great captains divided the empire; but of course, the manner and the spirit of the several governments remained much the same, till the Romans under their consuls generally extended their conquests over the east. And it is very remarkable, that most of the ancient empires and kingdoms fell by the loss of a single battle. How small is the pivot on which the largest empire moves. The gradual fall of this empire may be averaged at about two hundred years.
4. The legs and feet of this statue were composed of iron, and potters ware, or beautiful porcelain, at once to denote, its incomparable strength and great weakness. The fourth kingdom, or empire, says St Jerome, obviously refers to the Romans, who break and subdue all nations. Its feet are partly iron and partly pot, as is most manifestly felt in our own age. In the beginning, nothing was stronger and harder than this empire; now nothing is weaker. Both in our civil wars, and in our contests with other nations, we need the aid of barbarous gentiles. This empire was not only stronger but more durable than the other three, reckoning from the time that they enlarged themselves by conquests. It fell a prey to the northern nations, being first weakened by its own discords; and they divided its toes into about ten kingdoms. It is also remarkable, that the Romans strengthened themselves by mixing with the seed of men. They kept not themselves from marriage with strangers, as the Jews did, and some other nations of the east, but freely intermarried with any nation. Their city rising at first from vagabonds and refugees associated from all parts, this principle operated throughout all succeeding ages, and their various forms of government. There is therefore no empire but the Roman to which this prophecy can refer, and it applies to that with a force which carries conviction of the truth of prophecy to every impartial mind. Hence the prophecies have embarrassed and confounded every infidel who has rashly dared to oppose their authenticity.
5. While Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating his majestic statue, he beheld a stone detached from the adjacent hills, as by accident, which rolling down with encreasing velocity struck the terrific image, not on the head, nor the breast, nor the trunk, but on the feet, and it fell with a portentous crash, and all the different metals were broken to pieces. And this mysterious stone, rising as a mountain by an earthquake in the seas, became the mountain of the Lord, and the sanctuary of all the earth. This stone or mountain is illustrated at the forty fourth verse. In the days of these kings, that is in the time of the fourth empire, as is signified by the stone striking the feet of the image, shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and this kingdom shall not be left to other people, but shall consume, or convert all kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. The rise and progress of this stone or kingdom which is the cheering theme of prophecy, is illustrated at large in the general reflections at the close of Isaiahs prophecies. Now, this kingdom differs from all the others in many material points. The stone was detached from the precipice without hands. No human tools or policy was employed. The Lord Jesus became incarnate by the power of the Highest, and his gospel was preached in a peaceful way, without noise or ostentation. The commencement of this kingdom was not the mighty result of battles which founded other kingdoms; on the contrary, it was small and weak as a foundation and a corner-stone, and it became great before the world was properly aware. At the same time this kingdom was impregnable, as is marked by the mountain on which it is exalted above the malice of all its enemies. It was to be inhabited, not by wicked and bloody men, but by the saints of the Most High. It was to break in pieces the rebel power of all the other nations, and to endure for ever. Now, no kingdom began in the time of the Romans, or rose to empire, but that of Christs. Already overflowing with righteousness, peace and joy, may it spread to the remotest corners of the earth. May it also encrease our confidence, and confound the infidelity of the human heart.
Dan 2:1-13. The Forgotten Dream.Nebuchadnezzar, troubled by a dream which had escaped him, calls his magicians and orders them to recover it and explain its meaning. When they declare their inability, he issues orders that they are to be put to death.
Dan 2:1. in the second year: this statement seems to be in conflict with Dan 1:5; Dan 1:18, which imply that Daniel spent three years in training. Driver suggests that the discrepancy can be explained thus: We know that Babylonian kings did not count the year of their accession as the first year of their reign, but regarded the second year as the first. In that case, the second year mentioned here would be the third, and it is quite possible that the dream may have occurred at the end of this year, and so after Daniels period of education was ended (CB, p. 17). For other suggestions see Cent.B, p. 14.
Dan 2:2. magicians, etc.: Dan 1:20*.
Dan 2:4. in the Syrian language: i.e. in Aramaic (mg.). From this point to Dan 7:28 the Book is written in Aramaic. The statement seems to assume that Aramaic was used in the Babylonian court for official communications, but this is very improbable. Many scholars suppose that the words are not genuine, but were originally a marginal note to indicate that the Aramaic part of Daniel commenced at this point, which afterwards crept into the text.
Dan 2:9. there is but one law for you: your fate is irretrievable.till the time be changed: i.e. till the kings attention is diverted to other affairs.
THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES
Daniel 2
In the first chapter we have seen the moral characteristics that are necessary to be found in the one to whom God can give wisdom and understanding as to His mind. This prepares the way for the revelations of the whole book.
In the second division of the book, commencing with chapter 2 and continuing to the end of chapter 6, there is brought before us the main purport of the prophecy of Daniel – the presentation of a prophetic outline of the times of the Gentiles.
In chapter 2 there pass before us four great successive Empires that will wield the power of government during this time. This government commences with the Babylonish Empire, continues through the Medo-Persian and Grecian Empires, and terminates with the Roman Empire. We learn, further, that these Empires, exercising their power without reference to God, will come under a judgment that prepares the way for the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of Christ.
Daniel 3 to 6 bring before us certain historical incidents which set forth the outstanding moral features of these successive world Empires.
Further, these chapters are rich with moral instruction for God’s people at all times.
The main subjects that pass before us in Daniel 2 are: –
First, the exposure of the weakness and futility of the power and wisdom of this world (1-13):
Secondly, the man of God with whom is the mind of the Lord (14-23):
Thirdly, the witness to God before the world (24-30):
Fourthly, the revelation of the king’s dream (31-35):
Fifthly, the interpretation of the king’s dream (36-45):
Sixthly, the honour put upon the Lord’s servant (46-49).
(a) The wisdom of this world comes to nought (1-13).
In the early part of the chapter we are permitted to see how God works behind the changing scenes of this world, controlling even the dreams of a heathen king, and pouring contempt upon the pride of man.
(Vv. 1-6). Nebuchadnezzar is troubled by a dream, his sleep forsakes him, and his memory fails him. All is permitted by God to force the king into an acknowledgement of Himself through the instrumentality of His servant Daniel. Already the king had found Daniel to be ten times wiser than all the wise men of Babylon. Nevertheless, forgetting or rejecting Daniel, he turns to the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and Chaldeans, demanding that they should not only give the interpretation of the dream, but should first recall the forgotten dream. Satisfying the king’s demands, they would be highly rewarded; failing to do so they would be cut in pieces and their houses made a dunghill.
(Vv. 7-11). This request appears at first sight wholly unreasonable, and the Chaldeans tell the king, “There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter…. And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” When, however, we remember the vast pretensions of these wise men of Babylon, the request does not appear so outrageous.
(Vv. 12, 13). Evidently, the king has no great opinion of the integrity of his wise men. He probably had good ground for considering them quite capable of preparing lying and corrupt words. They, on their part, are placed in such a dilemma that they are compelled to own their utter incompetency. However, the confession of their helplessness avails nothing before the furious king, who forthwith sends out a decree for the destruction of all the wise men of Babylon.
What a picture of the world! Authority makes unreasonable demands upon counsellors in whom there is no real confidence, and resorts to rage and violence if the demands are not immediately complied with. The wisdom of this world is found to be mere pretension when put to the test. There is might without wisdom on the one hand; and profession of wisdom without might on the other.
(b) The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him (14-23). The exposure of the weakness of the man that wields the greatest power on earth and the folly of those who pretend to the greatest wisdom prepare the way for introducing the power and wisdom of God. This brings to the front the remnant of God’s people with whom is found wisdom and understanding, and who bear witness to the wisdom, power and sovereign rights of God in heaven, and in relation to the affairs of men on earth.
(Vv. 14, 15). Apparently, Daniel had not been summoned with the wise men who appeared before the king; but, being reckoned among the wise men of Babylon, he comes under the decree that all such should be slain. Thus Daniel and his companions are brought into touch with the great events of the day.
What follows brings out very strikingly the godly character of these men, constituting them a bright witness for God before the world. First, we see the calm serenity of faith in the midst of a scene of terror and confusion. Daniel, maintaining a quiet demeanour, enquires, “Why is the decree so hasty from the king?” The arbitrary will of man, driven by fear, brooks no delay; but, “he that believeth shall not make haste” (Isa 28:16). Happy, indeed, when the faith of God’s people maintains them in calm composure in the presence of the excitement of some national crisis.
(V. 16). Secondly, we see the bold confidence of faith that marks Daniel in the presence of the king. Asking the king for time he informs the enraged monarch with the utmost confidence that “he would show the king the interpretation.” The subsequent course of Daniel shows that this is not the self-confidence of the flesh, but rather the outward expression of secret confidence in God. Apparently, Daniel has so entered into the mind of God that he realises that God has withheld the dream from the king in order to bring to nought the power and wisdom of this world, and to bear witness to His own sovereign power and wisdom. Thus Daniel can say, not only that God could show the interpretation, but that He “would” do so, and that without any suggestion that the king should first tell the dream.
(Vv. 17, 18). Thirdly, we see the value that Daniel sets upon fellowship and prayer. Having left the presence of the king, he goes to his own company, and makes the thing known to his companions. He values the fellowship of his brethren and has confidence in their prayers, for he requires that “they would desire mercies of the God of heaven.” Further, he values definite prayer, for their prayers are to be for mercies “concerning this secret.” Herein we discover that fellowship with his brethren and dependence upon God is the secret of Daniel’s calm assurance and confidence before men.
(V. 19). Fourthly, we see that Daniel is marked by the peace of God – the peace that is the promised result of making known our requests to God. So we read the secret was “revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” This surely indicates that Daniel, having spread the matter before God, had calmly retired to sleep. In like spirit David, in an earlier day, in that terrible moment when he was driven from Jerusalem by his son Absalom, could say, “I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill. I laid me down and slept” (Psa 3:4; Psa 3:5). So the Lord, in a later day, in the absolute perfection of His way, could sleep in the storm with His head on a pillow. Good for us if, committing all to the Father’s care, we are kept in perfect peace amidst the storms of life.
Fifthly, Daniel not only prays, but he gives thanks. He does not proceed to use the answer to his prayer without first giving thanks for this mercy.
(V. 20). So greatly does God appreciate the gratitude of His people that, though He has not revealed the words of the prayer, He has left on record the exact words of the praise. As in the prayer given by the Lord to His disciples at a later day, so in the praise of Daniel, the foremost place is given to the Name of God. “Blessed be the Name of God for ever and ever,” says Daniel: “Hallowed be Thy Name” are the words of the Lord.
Then Daniel ascribes to God “wisdom and might.” Nebuchadnezzar had a measure of might but lacked wisdom; the Chaldeans had a measure of wisdom but no might. With the God of heaven there is absolute wisdom with absolute might.
(Vv. 21, 22). Moreover, God is sovereign. He can change the times and seasons. He removeth kings and setteth up kings. Furthermore, He can, if He so wills, impart wisdom and knowledge to others, and reveal “the deep and secret things.” To His omniscience nothing is hidden; “He knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him.”
(V. 23). Finally, while thanking God for the revelation made known to him, Daniel owns it is in answer to united prayer. He can say “Thou hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for Thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter.”
(c) The witness for God before the world (24-30).
Following the prayer and praise of Daniel and his companions in private, we have the faithful witness of Daniel in public.
(Vv. 24, 25). Arioch, the captain of the king’s guard, having brought in Daniel before the king, seeks with worldly wisdom to use the occasion for his own advantage. He says to the king, “I have found a man . . . that will make known unto the king the interpretation.” He is careful not to commit himself by suggesting that Daniel will show the king his dream.
(V. 26). This, however, is the important thing in the eyes of the king. It is not enough to give an interpretation of the dream – this the wise men were prepared to do. The real question is, Can anyone recall the dream? So at once the king asks Daniel, “Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen and the interpretation thereof?”
(V. 27). Daniel can indeed do so; but in his answer he first sets aside the wisdom of this world by reminding the king that his wise men, astrologers, magicians and soothsayers cannot show the secret which the king has demanded.
(V. 28). Then, having blown upon the wisdom of Babylon, Daniel bears a faithful witness to God. What man cannot do, God can do. “There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets.”
(V. 29). Moreover, as to the king, Daniel makes it very clear that he has to do with God. “He that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass” in the latter days. As to Daniel himself, he is not elated by the great revelations he has received, nor does he, like Arioch, use the occasion for his own glory. He hides himself behind the glory of God and inasmuch as he does so God is glorified.
(V. 30). He owns that any knowledge he possesses has come to him by revelation; and, even so, this revelation has not been given to him because of any wisdom that he has more than any living; nor does it come primarily for the king’s sake, still less to save the lives of the wise men of Babylon. It is for “their sakes that shall make known the interpretation.” He links his companions with himself and reminds the king that God is caring for His people, captives though they be, and is acting for “their sakes.” In the government of this world, God ever has His people in view and oftentimes intervenes in the affairs of men for “their sakes.” Speaking of this scene, one has said, “It is when we understand how to humble ourselves thoroughly that we are truly exalted. If Daniel disappears, God Himself is manifested in him. Oh that we might have wisdom and spiritual power to hide ourselves thus behind Jesus, in order that He might be put into the foreground! Every such act is a great and precious triumph.”
(d) The revealer or secrets (31-35) .
(V. 31). Having set man in his true place, and witnessed to the sufficiency of God, Daniel proceeds to show the king his dream. He tells the king that he saw “a great image.” In the interpretation that follows, we learn that this image sets forth the government of the world during the times of the Gentiles by means of four great Gentile monarchies. Here, in the vision, they are presented as forming one image, and that the image of a man – a man that appears excellent and yet terrible.
The times of the Gentiles are marked by the rule of man, in which there is much that calls forth the admiration of men by outward magnificence, and yet strikes terror by oppression. It is a vision of the man of earth in contrast to the God of heaven.
(Vv. 32, 33). Another characteristic of the image is the progressive deterioration of its composition from head to feet. The head is of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, the legs of iron, and the feet part of iron and part of clay. This deterioration is not in the strength of the metals, but in their value. The material strength of the metals sets forth the extent of the dominions of each empire. The value of the metals signifies rather the sovereign power of each empire. The extent of the dominions of the three last world empires would greatly exceed that of the first empire; but in none was the imperial power, representing the power of God, so manifest as in the first empire – the head of gold.
(Vv. 34, 35). Lastly, in the vision, Nebuchadnezzar saw a stone cut out without hands. He saw the introduction of a Kingdom which was not established as the result of man’s agency; it was “without hands.” This we know is the Kingdom of Christ. The stone falls upon the feet of the image; but, in result, the whole image is involved in ruin. The Kingdom of Christ will deal in judgment with the final form of the last empire, but, in so doing, it will set aside the whole system of government by the man of the earth, and set up a stable and world-wide government, likened to a great mountain that “filled the whole earth.”
(e) Things that shall come to pass hereafter (Vv. 36-45). Having recalled the dream, Daniel proceeds to give the interpretation, revealing “what should come to pass hereafter.”
(Vv. 36-38). Nebuchadnezzar is told that, as the representative of the Babylonish empire, he is the head of gold. Hitherto there had existed on the earth distinct nations, each under its own king. Now, for the first time there is established a new form of government – government by imperial unity. Under this form of government, nations, with their kings, are united under an empire with an imperial head who is a king of kings.
Nebuchadnezzar, the first head of the first empire, is told that his kingdom, and power, and strength, and glory were God-given. “Wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath He given into thine hand.” In the successive empires we shall see the extent of the empires increasing, but this sovereign power of the head declining.
(V. 39). The second and third empires, represented by the breast and arms of silver, and the belly and thighs of brass, are here alluded to in the briefest way. From later visions we shall learn that the second empire is the Medo-Persian (See Dan 5:28 and Dan 8:20) and the third empire the Grecian (See Dan 8:21). Here we are simply told that the kingdoms that will arise will be inferior to the empire of Babylon.
(V. 40). Coming to the fourth kingdom, we have its character presented in much greater detail, not only because it is the final kingdom of the times of the Gentiles, but it is the one kingdom with which Christ will deal directly in judgment. This plainly defines the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire. The world was under the dominion of the Roman Empire when Christ came to earth. It came into conflict with Christ when He left the world. It is the revived Roman Empire that will be dealt with in judgment by Christ at His coming again (Luk 2:1; Luk 2:2; Joh 19:10; Joh 19:11; Rev 17:7-14).
It is important to notice that of the last three kingdoms none is directly set up by God. Only the first kingdom and the kingdom of Christ are said to be established by the God of heaven (37, 44). The other three kingdoms arise by providential means, sovereign power declining with each kingdom until it is re-established in absolute perfection in the kingdom of Christ.
The outstanding characteristic of the fourth kingdom is that it “shall be strong as iron.” Iron is stronger than gold or silver or brass, but not so precious. As Scriptural figures, gold ever speaks of what is divine, iron of what is human. In the fourth Empire there is a vast increase of all that is human, and a great loss of all that is divine. In the government of the fourth Empire, there will be an increasing development of human wisdom, human ingenuity and human resources, and less and less recognition of God, involving an increasing loss of the sovereign and absolute power of God in government. As the times of the Gentiles draw to their close, man will increasingly seek to govern the world without reference to God, until the world is ripe for judgment.
A second mark of the fourth kingdom is its ruthlessness. With ruthless power it breaks in pieces and crushes all its opposers.
(Vv. 41. 42). A third feature is that the fourth empire in the course of its history, will become divided and weakened. We are told by Daniel that “the feet and toes” were “part of potters’ clay, and part of iron,” setting forth the fact that “the kingdom shall be divided,” and weakened, or, as Daniel says, “partly strong and partly fragile” (N. Tn.).
(V. 43). The loss of what is of God and the introduction of the human element lead as ever to division and weakness. The weakened governing power can no longer hold the empire together. The iron mixed with the miry clay indicates the mingling of democracy with sovereignty. The clay, or democratic element, brings about the break up of the empire.
Two facts, however, become clear. First, though the fourth empire will be divided and weakened by the admixture of clay, yet it will always be true “there shall be in it of the strength of the iron.” There will never come a time when it will be likened wholly to clay. The government of the fourth empire will never be wholly democratic. Secondly, we are told that the iron and the clay may mingle, yet they will never cleave together. Democracy and sovereignty will ever be antagonistic.
(Vv. 44, 45). Then we are told that, altogether apart from the kingdoms represented by the image, another kingdom will be set up by the God of heaven. This Kingdom stands in direct contrast to the four great kingdoms of the times of the Gentiles. The four kingdoms are destroyed or left to others, but this Kingdom will never be destroyed, nor will it be passed on to others. It will not only break up the kingdom that immediately preceded it, but it will break in pieces all these kingdoms, and as long as the world lasts it will remain – “it shall stand for ever.”
Beyond all question this Kingdom is the millennial Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. The prophecy does not refer to the first coming of Christ into the world in grace, and the establishment of the kingdom of grace by the triumph of the gospel over heathen systems, as some have thought. It is the Kingdom established in power by the second coming of Christ, a kingdom that is introduced not by grace but by judgment.
We have, then, in the dream and its interpretation, a complete forecast of the government of this world during the times of the Gentiles, leading to the setting up of the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Christ. It is an immense mercy that the Christian has a God-given outline of the course and end of the great world Empires during the times of the Gentiles. He can thus keep apart from the political movements of the day, content to go on in obscurity, awaiting the coming of the King of kings. He knows that all the political movements will end in a great confederation of the nations under the revived Roman Empire, in opposition to God and the Lamb, and he knows that all these efforts of man will be dealt with in judgment when Christ comes forth as the King of kings and the Lord of lords. He sees that the leagues, treaties and pacts amongst the nations are preparing the way for the final confederation against God and Christ, and he keeps apart from that which will end in open apostacy to God and overwhelming judgment at the appearing of Christ.
(f) “Them that honour Me I will honour” (Vv. 46-49)
(Vv. 46, 47). The chapter closes with an account of the effect produced upon Nebuchadnezzar by these revelations, and the honour put upon the Lord’s servants. The fact that the king fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that an oblation be offered to him, sufficiently indicates that neither his heart nor his conscience had been reached. Heart and conscience working would have enlightened the monarch as to what was suitable to God. But if the conscience is not reached, the mind of the king is at least convinced that God is supreme and omniscient.
(Vv. 48, 49). Finally, Daniel is promoted to great honour. This faithful man has borne a witness for God before the king, and becomes a means of blessing both to the world and to his own companions. Though he had neither sought nor asked anything for himself, he is free to use the advantage of his exalted position to make request for his companions.
2:1 And in the {a} second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed {b} dreams, wherewith his spirit was {c} troubled, and {d} his sleep brake from him.
(a) The father and the son were both called by this name, so that this is meant of the son, when he reigned alone: for he also reigned in a way with his father.
(b) Not that he had many dreams, but because many matters were contained in this dream.
(c) Because it was so rare and strange a dream, that he had had nothing similar.
(d) Or, “his sleep was upon him”, that is, that he was so heavy with sleep, that he began to sleep again.
1. The king’s dream 2:1-3
Daniel opened this new section of his book with another chronological reference (cf. Dan 1:1; Dan 1:21). This indicates that his interest in this book was in the progress of events and their relationship to one another. As the book unfolds, chronology plays an important part in what God revealed, though the chronology is not always without interruption.
The events related in this chapter happened in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. According to several reliable scholars, Nebuchadnezzar officially became king on September 7, 605 B.C. On the first of Nisan, 604 B.C., the following spring, the first official year of his reign began. The intervening months constituted his accession year and were credited to his father’s reign. The first year of his reign then ended on the first of Nisan the following year, 603 B.C. The second year of his reign (Dan 2:1) began in 603 and ended in 602 B.C. [Note: Wiseman, pp. 25-26; Thiele, pp. 159-60; Finegan, p. 38.]
Daniel probably arrived in Babylon during the summer of 605 B.C. and began his three-year education (Dan 1:4-5) shortly after that, perhaps in the fall. His curriculum may not have taken three full years; it could have ended in the spring of 602 B.C. Thus Daniel probably had finished his education and entered into government service when the events of chapter 2 unfolded, as the text implies.
The Hebrew of Dan 2:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar had "dreamed dreams" that disturbed him. Evidently he had a recurring dream or similar dreams that he later described as one dream (Dan 2:3). These dreams robbed him of rest, as Pharaoh’s dreams did him (Genesis 41), and Ahasuerus’ dream did him (Esther 6). All of these Gentile rulers suffered insomnia as part of God’s dealings with them and the people who lived under their authority. Another earlier Gentile ruler who received revelations from God was Abimelech (Gen 20:3). The ancients regarded dreams as having significance and as portents of events to come. [Note: Young, p. 56.]
THE DREAM-IMAGE OF RUINED EMPIRES
“With thee will I break in pieces rulers and captains.” – Jer 51:23
THE Book of Daniel is constructed with consummate skill to teach the mighty lessons which it was designed to bring home to the minds of its readers, not only in the age of its first appearance, but forever. It is a book which, so far from being regarded as unworthy of its place in the Canon by those who cannot accept it as either genuine or authentic, is valued by many such critics as a very noble work of inspired genius, from which all the difficulties are removed when it is considered in the light of its true date and origin. This second chapter belongs to all time. All that might be looked upon as involving harshnesses, difficulties, and glaring impossibilities, if it were meant for literal history and prediction, vanishes when we contemplate it in its real perspective as a lofty specimen of imaginative fiction, used, like the parables of our Blessed Lord, as the vehicle for the deepest truths. We shall see how the imagery of the chapter produced a deep impress on the imagination of the holiest thinkers-how magnificent a use is made of it fifteen centuries later by the great poet of medieval Catholicism. It contains the germs of the only philosophy of history which has stood the test of time. It symbolises that ultimate conviction of the Psalmist that “God is the Governor among the nations.” No other conviction can suffice to give us consolation amid the perplexity which surrounds the passing phases of the destinies of empires.
The first chapter serves as a keynote of soft, simple, and delightful music by way of overture. It calms us for the contemplation of the awful and tumultuous scenes that are now in succession to be brought before us.
The model which the writer has had in view in this Haggadah is the forty-first chapter of the Book of Genesis. In both chapters we have magnificent heathen potentates-Pharaoh of Egypt, and Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. In both chapters the kings dream dreams by which they are profoundly troubled. In both, their spirits are saddened. In both, they send for all the “Chakamim” and all the “Chartummim” of their kingdoms to interpret the dreams. In both, these professional magicians prove themselves entirely incompetent to furnish the interpretation. In both, the failure of the heathen oneirologists is emphasised by the immediate success of a Jewish captive. In both, the captives are described as young, gifted, and beautiful. In both, the interpretation of the Kings dream is rewarded by the elevation to princely civil honours. In both, the immediate elevation to ruling position is followed by life-long faithfulness and prosperity. When we add that there are even close verbal resemblances between the chapters, it is difficult not to believe that the one has been influenced by the other.
The dream is placed “in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadrezzar.” The date is surprising; for the first chapter has made Nebuchadrezzar a king of Babylon after the siege of Jerusalem “in the third year of Jehoiakim”; and setting aside the historic impossibilities involved in that date, this scene would then fall in the second year of the probation of Daniel and his companions, and at a time when Daniel could only have been a boy of fifteen. The apologists get over the difficulty with the ease which suffices superficial readers who are already convinced. Thus Rashi says “the second year of Nebuchadnezzar,” meaning “the second year after the destruction of the Temple,” i.e. , his twentieth year! Josephus, no less arbitrarily, makes it mean “the second year after the devastation of Egypt.” By such devices anything may stand for anything. Hengstenberg and his school, after having made Nebuchadrezzar a king, conjointly with his father-a fact of which history knows nothing, and indeed seems to exclude-say that the second year of his reign does not mean the second year after he became king, but the second year of his independent rule after the death of Nabopolassar. This style of interpretation is very familiar among harmonists, and it makes the interpretation of Scripture perpetually dependent on pure fancy. It is perhaps sufficient to say that Jewish writers, in works meant for spiritual teaching, troubled themselves extremely little with minutiae of this kind. Like the Greek dramatists, they were unconcerned with details, to which they attached no importance, which they regarded as lying outside the immediate purpose of their narrative. But if any explanation be needful, the simplest way is, with Ewald, Herzfeld, and Lenormant, to make a slight alteration in the text, and to read “in the twelfth ” instead of “in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.”
There was nothing strange in the notion that God should have vouchsafed a prophetic dream to a heathen potentate. Such instances had already been recorded in the case of Pharaoh, {Gen 41:1-57} as well as of his chief courtiers; {Gen 11:1-32} and in the case of Abimelech {Gen 20:5-7}-It was also a Jewish tradition that it was in consequence of a dream that Pharaoh Necho had sent a warning to Josiah not to advance against him to the Battle of Megiddo. Such dreams are recorded in the cuneiform inscriptions as having occurred to Assyrian monarchs. Ishtar, the goddess of battles, had appeared to Assur-bani-pal, and promised him safety in his war against Teumman, King of Elam; and the dream of a seer had admonished him to take severe steps against his rebel brother, the Viceroy of Babylon. Gyges, King of Lydia, had been warned in a dream to make alliance with Assur-bani-pal. In Egypt Amen-meri-hout had been warned by a dream to unite Egypt against the Assyrians. Similarly in Persian history Afrasiab has an ominous dream, and summons all the astrologers to interpret it; and some of them bid him pay no attention to it. Xerxes (Herod., 3:19) and Astyages (Herod., 1:108) have dreams indicative of future prosperity or adversity. The fundamental conception of the chapter was therefore in accordance with history-though to say, with the “Speakers Commentary,” that these parallels “endorse the authenticity of the Biblical narratives,” is either to use inaccurate terms, or to lay the unhallowed fire of false argument on the sacred altar of truth. It is impossible to think without a sigh of the vast amount which would have to be extracted from so-called “orthodox” commentaries, if such passages were rigidly reprobated as a dishonour to the cause of God.
Nebuchadrezzar then-in the second or twelfth year of his reign-dreamed a dream, by which (as in the case of Pharaoh) his spirit was troubled and his sleep interrupted. His state of mind on waking is a psychological condition with which we are all familiar. We awake in a tremor. We have seen something which disquieted us, but we cannot recall what it was; we have had a frightful dream, but we can only remember the terrifying impression which it has left upon our minds.
Pharaoh, in the story of Joseph, remembered his dreams, and only asked the professors of necromancy to furnish him with its interpretation. But Nebuchadrezzar is here represented as a rasher and fiercer despot, not without a side-glance at the raging folly and tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes. He has at his command an army of priestly prognosticators, whose main function it is to interpret the various omens of the future. Of what use were they, if they could not be relied upon in so serious an exigency? Were they to be maintained in opulence and dignity all their lives, only to fail him at a crisis? It was true that he had forgotten the dream, but it was obviously one of supreme importance; it was obviously an intimation from the gods: was it not clearly their duty to say what it meant?
So Nebuchadrezzar summoned together the whole class of Babylonian augurs in all their varieties-the Chartummim, “magicians,” or book-learned; the Ashshaphim, “enchanters”; the Mekashaphim, “sorcerers”; and the Kasdim, to which the writer gives the long later sense of “dream-interpreters,” which had become prevalent in his own day. In later verses he adds two further sections of the students-the Khakhamim, “wise men,” and the Gazerim, or ” sooth-Sayers. “attempts have often been made, and most recently by Lenormant, to distinguish accurately between these classes of magi, but the attempts evaporate for the most part into shadowy etymologies. It seems to have been a literary habit with the author to amass a number of names and titles together. It is a part of the stateliness and leisureliness of style which he adopts, and he gives no indication of any sense of difference between the classes which he enumerates, either here or when he describes various ranks of Babylonian officials.
When they were assembled before him, the king informed them that he had dreamed an important dream, but that it produced such agitation of spirit as had caused him to forget its import. He plainly expected them to supply the failure of his memory, for “a dream not interpreted,” say the Rabbis, “is like a letter not read.”
Then spake the Chaldeans to the king, and their answer follows in Aramaic (“Aramith”), a language which continues to be used till the end of chapter 7. The Western Aramaic, however, here employed could not have been the language in which they spoke, but their native Babylonian, a Semitic dialect more akin to Eastern Aramaic. The word “Aramith” here, as in Ezr 4:7, is probably a gloss or marginal note, to point out the sudden change in the language of the Book.
With the courtly phrase, “O king, live forever,” they promised to tell the king the interpretation, if he would tell them the dream.
“That I cannot do,” said the king, “for it is gone from me. Nevertheless, if you do not tell me both the dream and its interpretation, you shall be hacked limb by limb, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.”
The language was that of brutal despotism such as had been customary for centuries among the ferocious tyrants of Assyria. The punishment of dismemberment, dichotomy, or death by mutilation was common among them, and had constantly been depicted on their monuments. It was doubtless known to the Babylonians also, being familiar to the apathetic cruelty of the East. Similarly the turning of the houses of criminals into draught-houses was a vengeance practised among other nations. On the other hand, if the “Chaldeans” arose to the occasion, the king would give them rewards and great honours. It is curious to observe that the Septuagint translators, with Antiochus in their mind, render the verse in a form which would more directly remind their readers of Seleucid methods. “If you fail,” they make the king say, “you shall be made an example, and your goods shall be forfeited to the crown.”
With “nervous servility” the magi answer to the kings extravagantly unreasonable demand, that he must tell them the dream before they can tell him the interpretation. Ewald is probably not far wrong in thinking that a subtle element of irony and humour underlies this scene. It was partly intended as a satirical reflection on the mad vagaries of Epiphanes.
For the king at once breaks out into fury, and tells them that they only want to gain (lit. “buy”) time; but that this should not avail them. The dream had evidently been of crucial significance and extreme urgency; something important, and perhaps even dreadful, must be in the air. The very raison detre of these thaumaturgists and stargazers was to read the omens of the future. If the stars told of any human events, they could not fail to indicate something about the vast trouble which overshadowed the monarchs dream, even though he had forgotten its details. The king gave them to understand that he looked on them as a herd of impostors; that their plea for delay was due to mere tergiversation; and that, in spite of the lying and corrupt words which they had prepared in order to gain respite “till the time be changed”-that is, until they were saved by some “lucky day” or change of fortune {Est 3:7}-there was but one sentence for them, which could only be averted by their vindicating their own immense pretensions, and telling him his dream.
The “Chaldeans” naturally answered that the kings request was impossible. The adoption of the Aramaic at this point may be partly due to the desire for local colouring. No king or ruler in the world had ever imposed such a test on any “Kartum” or “Ashshaph” in the world. No living man could possibly achieve anything so difficult. There were some gods whose dwelling is with flesh; they tenant the souls of their servants. But it is not in the power of these genii to reveal what the king demands; they are limited by the weakness of the souls which they inhabit. It can only be done by those highest divinities whose dwelling is not with flesh, but who
“haunt The lucid interspace of world and world,” and are too far above mankind to mingle with their thoughts.
Thereupon the unreasonable king was angry and very furious, and the decree went forth that the magi were to be slain en masse.
How it was that Daniel and his companions were not summoned to help the king, although they had been already declared to be “ten times wiser” than all the rest of the astrologers and magicians put together, is a feature in the story with which the writer does not trouble himself, because it in no way concerned his main purpose. Now, however, since they were prominent members of the magian guild, they are doomed to death among their fellows. Thereupon Daniel sought an interview with Arioch, “the chief of the bodyguard,” and asked with gentle prudence why the decree was so harshly urgent. By Ariochs intervention he gained an interview with Nebuchadrezzar, and promised to tell him the dream and its interpretation, if only the king would grant him a little time-perhaps but a single night.
The delay was conceded, and Daniel went to his three companions, and urged them to join in prayer that God would make known the secret to them and spare their lives. Christ tells us that “if two shall agree on earth as touching anything that they ask, it shall be done for them.” The secret was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night, and he blessed “the God of heaven.” Wisdom and might are his. Not dependent on “lucky” or “unlucky” days, He changeth the times and seasons; He setteth down one king and putteth up another. By His revelation of deep and sacred things-for the light dwelleth with Him-He had, in answer to their common prayer, made known the secret.
Accordingly Daniel bids Arioch not to execute the magians, but to go and tell the king that he will reveal to him the interpretation of his dream.
Then, by an obvious verbal inconsistency in the story, Arioch is represented as going with haste to the king, with Daniel, and saying that he had found a captive Jew who would answer the kings demands. Arioch could never have claimed any such merit, seeing that Daniel had already given his promise to Nebuchadrezzar in person, and did not need to be described. The king formally puts to Daniel the question whether he could fulfil his pledge; and Daniel answers that, though none of the “Khakhamim,” “Ashshaphim,” “Chartummim,” or “Gazerim” could tell the king his dream, yet there is a God in heaven-higher, it is implied, than either the genii or those whose dwelling is not with mortals-who reveals secrets, and has made known to the king what shall be in the latter days. {Comp. Gen 20:3, Gen 41:25 Num 22:35}
The king, before he fell asleep, had been deeply pondering the issues of the future; and God, “the revealer of secrets,”. {Comp. Gen 41:45} had revealed those issues to him, not because of any supreme wisdom possessed by Daniel, but simply that the interpretation might be made known.
The king had seen a huge, gleaming, terrible colossus of many colours and of different metals, but otherwise not unlike the huge colossi which guarded the portals of his own palace. Its head was of fine gold; its torso of silver; its belly and thighs of brass; its legs of iron; its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. But while he gazed upon it as it reared into the sunlight, as though in mute defiance and insolent security, its grim metallic glare, a mysterious and unforeseen fate fell upon it. The fragment of a rock broke itself loose, not with hands, smote the image upon its feet of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces. It had now nothing left to stand upon, and instantly the hollow multiform monster collapsed into promiscuous ruins; Its shattered fragments became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor, and the wind swept them away; {Psa 1:4 Isa 41:15 Jer 51:33, etc.} but the rock, unhewn by any earthly hands, grew over the fragments into a mountain that filled the earth.
That was the haunting and portentous dream; and this was its interpretation:-
The head of gold was Nebuchadrezzar himself, the king of what Isaiah had called “the golden city” {Isa 14:4} -a King of kings, ruler over the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and the children of men.
After him should come a second and an inferior kingdom, symbolised by the arms and heart of silver.
Then a third kingdom of brass.
Finally a fourth kingdom, strong and destructive as iron. But in this fourth kingdom was an element of weakness, symbolised by the fact that the feet are partly of iron and partly of weak clay. An attempt should be made, by intermarriages, to give greater coherency to these elements; but it should fail, because they could not intermix. In the days of these kings, indicated by the ten toes of the image, swift destruction should come upon the kingdoms from on high; for the King of heaven should set up a kingdom indestructible and eternal, which should utterly supersede all former kingdoms. “The intense nothingness and transitoriness of mans might in its highest estate, and the might of Gods kingdom, are the chief subjects of this vision.”
Volumes have been written about the four empires indicated by the constituents of the colossus in this dream; but it is entirely needless to enter into them at length. The vast majority of the interpretations have been simply due to a priori prepossessions, which are arbitrary and baseless. The object has been to make the interpretations fit in with preconceived theories of prophecy, and with the traditional errors about the date and object of the Book of Daniel. If we first see the irresistible evidence that the Book appeared in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then observe that all its earthly “predictions” culminate in a minute description of his epoch, the general explanation of the four empires, apart from an occasional and a subordinate detail, becomes perfectly clear. In the same way the progress of criticism has elucidated in its general outlines the interpretation of the Book which has been so largely influenced by the Book of Daniel-the Revelation of St. John. The all-but-unanimous consensus of the vast majority of the sanest and most competent exegetes now agrees in the view that the Apocalypse was written in the age of Nero, and that its tone and visions were predominantly influenced by his persecution of the early Christians, as the Book of Daniel was by the ferocities of Antiochus against the faithful Jews. Ages of persecution, in which plain-speaking was impossible to the oppressed, were naturally prolific of apocalyptic cryptographs. What has been called the “futurist” interpretation of these books-which, for instance, regards the fourth empire of Daniel as some kingdom of Antichrist as yet unmanifested-is now universally abandoned. It belongs to impossible forms of exegesis, which have long been discredited by the boundless variations of absurd conjectures, and by the repeated refutation of the predictions which many have ventured to base upon these erroneous methods. Even so elaborate a work as Elliotts “Horae Apocalypticae” would now be regarded as a curious anachronism.
That the first empire, represented by the head of gold, is the Babylonian, concentrated in Nebuchadrezzar himself, is undisputed, because it is expressly stated by the writer. {Dan 2:37-38}
Nor can there be any serious doubt, if the Book be one coherent whole, written by one author, that by the fourth empire is meant, as in later chapters, that of Alexander and his successors-“the Diadochi,” as they are often called.
For it must be regarded as certain that the four elements of the colossus, which indicate the four empires as they are presented to the imagination of the heathen despot, are closely analogous to the same four empires which in the seventh chapter present themselves as wild beasts out of the sea to the imagination of the Hebrew seer. Since the fourth empire is there, beyond all question, that of Alexander and his successors, the symmetry and purpose of the Book prove conclusively that the fourth empire here is also the Graeco-Macedonian, strongly and irresistibly founded by Alexander, but gradually sinking to utter weakness by its own divisions, in the persons of the kings who split his dominion into four parts. If this needed any confirmation, we find it in the eighth chapter, which is mainly concerned with Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes; and in the eleventh chapter, which enters with startling minuteness into the wars, diplomacy, and intermarriages of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties. In Dan 8:21 we are expressly told that the strong he-goat is “the King of Grecia,” who puts an end to the kingdoms of Media and Persia. The arguments of Hengstenberg, Pusey, etc., that the Greek Empire was a civilising and an ameliorating power, apply at least as strongly to the Roman Empire. But when Alexander thundered his way across the dreamy East, he was looked upon as a sort of shattering levin-bolt. The interconnection of these visions is clearly marked even here, for the juxtaposition of iron and miry clay is explained by the clause “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: {Comp. Jer 31:27} but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” This refers to the same attempts to consolidate the rival powers of the Kings of Egypt and Syria which are referred to in Dan 11:6-7; Dan 11:17. It is a definite allusion which. becomes meaningless in the hands of those interpreters who attempt to explain the iron empire to be that of the Romans. “That the Greek Empire is to be the last of the Gentile empires appears from Dan 8:17, where the vision is said to refer to the time of the end. Moreover, in the last vision of all (Daniel chapters 10-12), the rise and progress of the Greek Empire are related with many details, but nothing whatever is said of any subsequent empire. Thus to introduce the Roman Empire into the Book of Daniel is to set at naught the plainest rules of exegesis.”
The reason of the attempt is to make the termination of the prophecy coincide with the coming of Christ, which is then-quite unhistorically-regarded as followed by the destruction of the fourth and last empire. But the interpretation can only be thus arrived at by a falsification of facts. For the victory of Christianity over Paganism, so decisive and so Divine, was in no sense a destruction of the Roman Empire. In the first place that victory was not achieved till three centuries after Christs advent, and in the second place it was rather a continuation anti defence of the Roman Empire than its destruction. The Roman Empire, in spite of Alaric and Genseric and Attila, and because of its alliance with Christianity, may be said to have practically continued down to modern times. So far from being regarded as the shatterers of the Roman Empire, the Christian popes and bishops were, and were often called, the “Defensores Civitatis.” That many of the Fathers, following many of the Rabbis, regarded Rome as the iron empire, and the fourth wild beast, was due to the fact that until modern days the science of criticism was unknown, and exegesis was based on the shifting sand. If we are to accept their authority on this question, we must accept it on many others, respecting views and methods which have now been unanimously abandoned by the deeper insight and advancing knowledge of mankind. The influence of Jewish exegesis over the Fathers – erroneous as were its principles and fluctuating as were its conclusions-was enormous. It was not unnatural for the later Jews, living under the hatred and oppression of Rome, and still yearning for the fulfilment of Messianic promises, to identify Rome with the fourth empire. And this seems to have been the opinion of Josephus, whatever that may be worth. But it is doubtful whether it corresponds to another and earlier Jewish tradition. For among the Fathers even Ephraem Syrus identifies the Macedonian Empire with the fourth empire, and he may have borrowed this from Jewish tradition. But of how little value were early conjectures may be seen in the fact that, for reasons analogous to those which had made earlier Rabbis regard Rome as the fourth empire, two mediaeval exegetes so famous as Saadia the Gaon and Abn Ezra had come to the conclusion that the fourth empire was-the Mohammedan!
Every detail of the vision as regards the fourth kingdom is minutely in accord with the kingdom of Alexander. It can only be applied to Rome by deplorable shifts and sophistries, the untenability of which we are now more able to estimate than was possible in earlier centuries. So far indeed as the iron is concerned, that might by itself stand equally well for Rome or for Macedon, if Dan 7:7-8; Dan 8:3-4; Dan 11:3 did not definitely describe the conquests of Alexander. But all which follows is meaningless as applied to Rome, nor is there anything in Roman history to explain any division of the kingdom (Dan 2:41), or attempt to strengthen it by intermarriage with other kingdoms (Dan 2:43). In the divided Graeco-Macedonian Empires of the Diadoehi, the dismemberment of one mighty kingdom into the four much weaker ones of Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Seleucus began immediately after the death of Alexander (B.C. 323). It was completed as the result of twenty-two years of war after the Battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301). The marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, {B.C. 249, Dan 11:6} was as ineffectual as the later marriage of Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) to Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus the Great (B.C. 193), to introduce strength or unity into the distracted kingdoms. {Dan 11:17-18}
The two legs and feet are possibly meant to indicate the two most important kingdoms-that of the Seleucidae in Asia, and that of the Ptolemies in Egypt. If we are to press the symbolism still more closely, the ten toes may shadow forth the ten kings who are indicated by the ten horns Dan 7:7.
Since, then, we are told that the first empire represents Nebuchadrezzar by the head of gold, and since we have incontestably verified the fourth empire to be the Greek Empire of Alexander and his successors, it only remains to identify the intermediate empires of silver and brass. And it becomes obvious that they can only be the Median and the Persian. That the writer of Daniel regarded these empires as distinct is clear from Dan 5:31; Dan 5:6.
It is obvious that the silver is meant for the Median Empire, because, closely as it was allied with the Persian in the view of the writer, {Dan 6:9; Dan 6:13; Dan 6:16; Dan 8:7} he yet spoke of the two as separate. The rule of “Darius the Mede,” not of “Cyrus the Persian,” is, in his point of view, the “other smaller kingdom” which arose after that of Nebuchadrezzar. {Dan 5:31} Indeed, this is also indicated in the vision of the ram; {Dan 8:3} for it has two horns, of which the higher and stronger (the Persian Empire) rose up after the other (the Median Empire); just as in this vision the Persian Empire represented by the thighs of brass is clearly stronger than the Median Empire, which, being wealthier, is represented as being of silver, but is smaller than the other. Further, the second empire is represented later on by the second beast, {Dan 7:5} and the three ribs in its mouth may be meant for the three satrapies of Dan 6:2.
It may then be regarded as a certain result of exegesis that the four empires are-
(1) the Babylonian;
(2) the Median;
(3) the Persian;
(4) the Graeco-Macedonian.
But what is the stone cut without hands which smote the image upon his feet? It brake them in pieces, and made the collapsing debris of the colossus like chaff scattered by the wind from the summer threshing-floor. It grew till it became a great mountain which filled the earth.
The meaning of the image being first smitten upon its feet is that the overthrow falls on the iron empire.
All alike are agreed that by the mysterious rock-fragment the writer meant the Messianic Kingdom. The “mountain” out of which (as is here first mentioned) the stone is cut is “the Mount Zion.” It commences “in the days of these kings.” Its origin is not earthly, for it is “cut without hands.” It represents “a kingdom” which “shall be set up by the God of heaven,” and shall destroy and supersede all the kingdoms, and shall stand for ever.
Whether a personal Messiah was definitely prominent in the mind of the writer is a question which will come before us when we consider the seventh chapter. Here there is only a Divine Kingdom; and that this is the dominion of Israel seems to be marked by the expression, “the kingdom shall not be left to another people.”
The prophecy probably indicates the glowing hopes which the writer conceived of the future of his nation, even in the days of its direst adversity, in accordance with the predictions of the mighty prophets his predecessors, whose writings he had recently studied. Very few of those predictions have as yet been literally fulfilled; not one of them was fulfilled with such immediateness as the prophets conceived, when they were “rapt into future times.” To the prophetic vision was revealed the glory that should be hereafter, but not the times and seasons, which God hath kept in His own power, and which Jesus told His disciples were not even known to the Son of Man Himself in His human capacity.
Antiochus died, and his attempts to force Hellenism upon the Jews were so absolute a failure that, in point of fact, his persecution only served to stereotype the ceremonial institutions which-not entirely proprio motu, but misled by men like the false high priests Jason and Menelaus-he had attempted to obliterate. But the magnificent expectations of a golden age to follow were indefinitely delayed. Though Antiochus died and failed, the Jews became by no means unanimous in their religious policy. Even under the Hasmonaean princes fierce elements of discord were at work in the midst of them. Foreign usurpers adroitly used these dissensions for their own objects, and in B.C. 37 Judaism acquiesced in the national acceptance of a depraved Edomite usurper in the person of Herod, and a section of the Jews attempted to represent him as the promised Messiah!
Not only was the Messianic prediction unfulfilled in its literal aspect “in the days of these kings,” but even yet it has by no means received its complete accomplishment. The “stone cut without hands” indicated the kingdom, not-as most of the prophets seem to have imagined when they uttered words which meant more than they themselves conceived-of the literal Israel, but of that ideal Israel which is composed, not of Jews, but of Gentiles. The divinest side of Messianic prophecy is the expression of that unquenchable hope and of that indomitable faith which are the most glorious outcome of all that is most Divine in the spirit of man. That faith and hope have never found even an ideal or approximate fulfilment save in Christ and in His kingdom, which is now, and shall be without end.
But apart from the Divine predictions of the eternal sunlight visible on the horizon over vast foreshortened ages of time which to God are but as one day, let us notice how profound is the symbolism of the vision-how well it expresses the surface glare, the inward hollowness, the inherent weakness, the varying successions, the predestined transience of overgrown empires. The great poet of Catholicism makes magnificent use of Daniels image, and sees its deep significance. He too describes the ideal of all earthly empire as a colossus of gold, silver, brass, and iron, which yet mainly rests on its right foot of baked and brittle clay. But he tells us that every part of this image, except the gold, is crannied through and through by a fissure, down which there flows a constant stream of tears. These effects of misery trickle downwards, working their way through the cavern in Mount Ida in which the image stands, till, descending from rock to rock, they form those four rivers of hell, –
“Abhorred Styx, the flood of deadly hate;
Sad Acheron of sorrow, black and deep;
Cocytus, named of lamentation loud heard on the rueful stream;
fierce Phlegethon whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage.”
There is a terrible grandeur in the emblem. Splendid and venerable looks the idol of human empire in all its pomp and pricelessness. But underneath its cracked and fissured weakness drop and trickle and stream the salt and bitter runnels of misery and anguish, till the rivers of agony are swollen into overflow by their coagulated scum.
It was natural that Nebuchadrezzar should have felt deeply impressed when the vanished outlines of his dream were thus recalled to him and its awful interpretation revealed. The manner in which he expresses his amazed reverence may be historically improbable, but it is psychologically true. We are told that “he fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel,” and the word “worshipped” implies genuine adoration. That so magnificent a potentate should have lain on his face before a captive Jewish youth and adored him is amazing. It is still more so that Daniel, without protest, should have accepted, not only his idolatrous homage, but also the offering of “an oblation and sweet incense.” That a Nebuchadrezzar should have been thus prostrate in the dust before their young countryman would no doubt be a delightful picture to the Jews, and if, as we believe, the story is an unconnected Haggada, it may well have been founded on such passages as Isa 49:23, “Kings shall bow down to thee with their faces toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet”: together with Isa 52:15, “Kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.”
But it is much more amazing that Daniel, who, as a boy, had been so scrupulous about the Levitic ordinance of unclean meats, in the, scruple against which the gravamen lay in the possibility of their having been offered to idols, {Comp. Rom 14:23 Act 15:29 1Co 8:1-13 : 1Ki 2:14; 1Ki 2:20} should, as a man, have allowed himself to be treated exactly as the king treated his idols! To say that he accepted this worship because the king was not adoring him, but the God whose power had been manifested in him, is an idle subterfuge, for that excuse is offered by all idolaters in all ages. Very different was the conduct of Paul and Barnabas when the rude population of Lystra wished to worship them as incarnations of Hermes and Zeus. The moment they heard of it they rent their clothes in horror, and leapt at once among the people, crying out, “Sirs, why do ye such things? We also are men of like passions with you, and are preaching unto you that ye should turn from these vain ones unto the living God.”. {Act 14:14-15}
That the King of Babylon should be represented as at once acknowledging the God of Daniel as “a God of gods,” though he was a fanatical votary of Bel-merodach, belongs to the general plan of the Book. Daniel received in reward many great gifts, and is made “ruler of all the wise men of Babylon, and chief of the governors (signin) over all the wise men of Babylon.” About his acceptance of the civil office there is no difficulty; but there is a quite insuperable historic difficulty in his becoming a chief magian. All the wise men of Babylon, whom the king had just threatened with dismemberment as a pack of impostors, were, at any rate, a highly sacerdotal and essentially idolatrous caste. That Daniel should have objected to particular kinds of food from peril of defilement, and yet that he should have consented to be chief hierarch of a heathen cult, would indeed have been to strain at gnats and to swallow camels!
And so great was the distinction which he earned by his interpretation of the dream, that, at his further request, satrapies were conferred on his three companions; but he himself, like Mordecai, afterwards “sat in the gate of the king.”
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary