Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 4:1
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
1. all the people s, nations, and languages ] Dan 3:4.
that dwell in all the earth ] The hyperbole seems to us extravagant; but it must be remembered that ‘all the earth’ in the O.T. has not the meaning which we attach to the expression, but denotes (substantially) Western Asia, from Elam and Media on the E., to Egypt and the ‘isles of the sea’ (i.e. the E. part of the Mediterranean Sea [235] ) on the West, and that the greater part of this did fall within the real or nominal sovereignty of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings (cf. of Nebuchadnezzar himself, Jer 25:26, “all the kingdoms which are upon the face of the earth,” and the preceding enumeration, Dan 4:17-25; Jer 27:5-6). Standing titles of the Assyrian kings are ‘king of multitudes’ (= of the world), ‘king of the four quarters of the earth’; and the same titles are adopted by Nabu-na’id, the last king of Babylon ( KB [236] iii. 2, p. 97). The Persian kings call themselves similarly, ‘the great king, the king of kings, the king of the lands, the king of this great earth’ ( RP [237][238] ix. 73 ff.).
[235] Though of course a few places to the W. of this were known, e.g. Tarshish.
[236] B. Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889 1900.
[237] P. Records of the Past, first and second series, respectively.
[238] Records of the Past, first and second series, respectively.
Peace be multiplied unto you ] so Dan 6:25: cf. 1Pe 1:2; 2Pe 1:2.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1 3. The Prologue of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people … – The Syriac here has, Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote to all people, etc. Many manuscripts in the Chaldee have shalach, sent, and some have kethab, wrote; but neither of these readings are probably genuine, nor are they necessary. The passage is rather a part of the edict of the king than a narrative of the author of the book, and in such an edict the comparatively abrupt style of the present reading would be what would be adopted. The Septuagint has inserted here a historical statement of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did actually issue such an edict: And Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote an encyclical epistle – epistolen egkuklion – to all those nations in every place, and to the regions, and to all the tongues that dwell in all countries, generations and generations: Nebuchadnezzar the king, etc. But nothing of this is in the original.
Unto all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth – That is, people speaking all the languages of the earth. Many nations were under the scepter of the king of Babylon; but it would seem that he designed this as a general proclamation, not only to those who were embraced in his empire, but to all the people of the world. Such a proclamation would be much in accordance with the Oriental style. Compare the note at Dan 3:4.
Peace be multiplied unto you – This is in accordance with the usual Oriental salutation. Compare Gen 43:23; Jdg 6:23; 1Sa 25:6; Psa 122:7; Luk 10:5; Eph 6:23; 1Pe 1:2. This is the salutation with which one meets another now in the Oriental world – the same word still being retained, Shalom, or Salam. The idea seemed to be, that every blessing was found in peace, and every evil in conflict and war. The expression included the wish that they might be preserved from all that would disturb them; that they might be contented, quiet, prosperous, and happy. When it is said peace be multiplied, the wish is that it might abound, or that they might be blessed with the numberless mercies which peace produces.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 4:1-18
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people.
The Proclamation of Peace to all Nations
How changed the spirit and deportment of Nebuchadnezzar from what they were on the plains of Dura. Then, we saw him exulting in the pride of power, and girt with the terrors of tyranny. Then, we saw him in a passion, hot as the furnace he had kindled. Now, nothing but thoughts of peace are in his heart, and the law of kindness is on his tongue. Then, we saw him erecting an image to his idol. Now, we are called upon to listen while he extols and praises the God of Heaven. In early life, when the habits are young, the spirits buoyant, the mind elastic and versatile, a change of character is comparatively easy, and of frequent occurrence. But after a man has passed the middle stage of life, as Nebuchadnezzar had now done, changes are so difficult, and so rare, that we are accustomed to consider his character as fixed. Changes effected upon it, afterwards, even when produced by Divine grace, are very marvellous. To change the character in youth is like altering the channel of a river. To change it in old age is like turning the waters of a river backwards, and making them run upwards, to their source, when they were about to be emptied into the sea. Whether Nebuchadnezzar was truly converted unto God is a question that may afterwards come in our way. Without making any assertion on that head, for the present, it is quite apparent that his character is not only greatly altered, but much improved. The occasion of this change in the character of Nebuchadnezzar was a very remarkable dispensation of the Almighty. He was degraded from his throne, and deprived of his reason, and driven from the dwellings of men, and dwelt amid the cattle in the field. This discipline was severe, but it was salutary. He learned more among the beasts than ever he had learned among men. Is it not a wonderful instance of Divine grace to see the man who had spent so much of his time in war become the advocate, the apostle, the dispenser of peace! The design of this proclamation was to make publicly known the wonderful dealings of God towards himself. Many persons have recorded the more remarkable passages of their history, from a love of fame, from a desire to be spoken of while they are living, and to be remembered after they are dead. No such motive could possibly actuate Nebuchadnezzar. The occurrence, which he was about to relate, was one of the most humbling nature. That which incited Nebuchadnezzar to make his proclamation was a hope that it might be productive of good. I thought it good to show the signs and the wonders which the high God hath wrought toward me. It was good for the Divine glory. It showed the greatness of Jehovah, that there was none like him among the sons of the mighty, when he could thus abase the greatest and the haughtiest man upon the earth. It was good for the warning and instruction of mankind. It cried aloud to all transgressors, Fear and sin not; for if such things be done in the green tree, what will be done in the day. When this haughty spirit, this son of pride, was thus brought down, it cried aloud to all, Be clothed with humility. Thin proclamation is addressed to all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth. We are not to suppose, from this, that Nebuchadnezzar still aspired to universal dominion over his fellow-creatures. There is reason to think that such ambitious thoughts were now dead within him. The proclamation is addressed to all nations, because he considered that a knowledge of the remarkable dispensations of the Most High towards himself might be of universal benefit. To publish this showed an excellent spirit in Nebuchadnezzar–a spirit more concerned for Gods glory than his own–more anxious about the welfare of his subjects than about his ownreputation. It is easy to proclaim our own excellencies, but, surely, God must touch the heart before we are willing to promote His glory at the expense of our own. When his reason was restored, and he considered the whole way in which God had dealt with him, Nebuchadnezzar is filled with astonishment. How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! Nebuchadnezzar had now reigned about forty years. During that period he had journeyed far, and seen much of the Divine doings. On the plains of Dora he had seen a noble testimony lifted up for God. He then, also, saw a visible manifestation of God, and witnessed a very wonderful miracle performed in behalf of the faithful witnesses for His glory. We might have supposed that the evidence afforded by such a manifestation, and such a miracle, was sufficient to have carried conviction to every rational mind. It must, however, be remarked that it is not from want of evidence in support of religion that any continue in unbelief; and it is not by evidence alone that any man can be truly converted unto God. The evidence in behalf of religion is of a moral nature, for the practical reception of which there is requisite a certain moral condition of mind, and where this is awanting, evidence, however powerful, will have no more effect in softening the heart than sunshine has upon a rock. Accordingly, Nebuchadnezzar saw all these miracles of Divine power and wisdom, and received from them only slight and transient impressions. But now, like one who had been all his days blind, and got his eyes opened behold the glory of the Lord, he cries out in astonishment, How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! Jehovah is not only glorious in holiness, and fearful in praises, He is a God ever doing wonders. To a finite mind His works as Creator must, of necessity, appear marvellous, because of the incomprehensible power and wisdom with which they are all stamped. Every man who is truly converted will be filled with wonder at the doings of the Lord. He will see His loving kindness to be a wonderful loving kindness, and His condescension to be infinite. And it is one sign of being benefited by the dispensations of Providence when we are led to wonder, and admire, and adore the hand of God. There may be nothing in our history so extraordinary as there was in that of Nebuchadnezzar. But in the life of the humblest individual, in his life who has fewest vicissitudes, there will appear, when it is seriously considered, evidences of Divine care, wisdom, power, long-suffering, sufficient to constrain him to cry out, O how great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! How often has He disappointed our fears! How often has He exceeded our hopes! If Nebuchadnezzar, on discovering the meaning of one small act of Providence, was filled with such astonishment, how high will their admiration rise, how rich will be their satisfaction, how profound their reverence, who shall have the whole plan of the universe unfolded to their consideration! If he on earth, will not they much more in Heaven sing, O how great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! God had done much for Nebuchadnezzar. He had raised him to the highest place on earth–He had made him a king of kings–had given success to his counsels,victory to his arms, and bestowed on him every temporal blessing which a mortal could possess. In the day of prosperity God is too generally overlooked. Such was the effect of prosperity on Nebuchadnezzar. He felt and spake as if he were omnipotent, as if there was no power in the universe above his own, as if he were a god of gods, as well as a king of kings. But behold and adore the power of Jehovah! In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, He makes this proud and presumptuous creature, who feels himself more than a god, less than the meanest of his subjects, less than a man–He makes him a companion of the beasts of the field, and continues him in that situation for seven years. Behold and adore the sovereignty of Divine grace, in sanctifying this affliction! Many who never praised God for their prosperity have praised Him for their adversity, have thanked and adored Him that ever they were afflicted. This was the case with Nebuchadnezzar. He who never praised God for raising him to the throne, adores and magnifies His name for driving him from the dwellings of men. Joyous chastisement! Blessed degradation! Blessed the eclipse of reason to him! By being deprived of his reason, he was taught the right use of his reason. The minions that dwelt in Nebuchadnezzars court had never approached him without saying, O king, live for ever. Accustomed to the perpetual incense of their flattery, it is probable that he forgot his mortality, he forgot that changes might come–that changes would come. Now, however, he sees that God is the only monarch who shall live for ever, and His kingdom the only one that shall never be subverted by the storms of time. His kingdom, says he, is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion from generation to generation. Change and vicissitude reach not the throne of the Creator. His kingdom shall for ever stand, His throne through all ages. The life of Nebuchadnezzar had been prosperous from its commencement, but his prosperity never appeared to be so complete as it was immediately before the terrible calamity of which we have an account in this chapter. His wealth is immense–his power is unbounded–all his enemies are conquered, all his provinces are submissive. Crownedwith victory, the veteran warrior was at rest in his house, and flourished in his palace. But a more than ordinary share of prosperity is often followed by some great disaster. The time of their greatest prosperity is often the period which God selects for punishing the proud and lofty ones of the earth. (William White.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER IV
Nebuchadnezzar, after having subdued all the neighbouring
countries, and greatly enriched and adorned his own, became so
intoxicated with his prosperity, as to draw down upon himself
a very remarkable judgment, of which this chapter gives a
particular account, in the very words of the edict or
proclamation which the Babylonyish monarch issued on his
restoration to the throne. This state document begins with
Nebuchadnezzar’s acknowledging the hand of God in his late
malady, 1-3.
It then gives an account of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which
portended the loss of his kingdom and reason for seven years,
on account of his pride and arrogance, 4-18.
So it was explained by Daniel, 19-27,
and so it was verified by the event, 28-33.
It then recites how, at the end of the period fixed by the God
of heaven for the duration of his malady, the Chaldean monarch
became sensible of his dependence on the Supreme Being, and
lifted up has eyes to heaven in devout acknowledgment of the
sovereign majesty of the King of kings, the Ruler of the
earth, whose dominion alone is universal, unchangeable, and
everlasting, 34-37.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV
Verse 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people] This is a regular decree, and is one of the most ancient on record; and no doubt was copied from the state papers of Babylon. Daniel has preserved it in the original language.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The prophet Daniel here sets down another strange story, after he had finished that of the three young men: this the prophet sets forth not in his own words, but in the words of the kings own proclamation, that it might pass with undoubted credit, and without all dispute; being sent to all his vast kingdoms, and questionless put into the kings archives and court rolls, as the manner was. These three first verses of this fourth chapter are improperly annexed to the end of the foregoing third chapter, by some; seeing they are the preface of the following history.
Peace be multiplied unto you, i.e. all health and happiness: this was always the form of greeting and salutation among the Eastern nations, comprehending peace, plenty, with uninterrupted joy and felicity in all comfortable enjoyments: and from them it came derived down to the penmen of the New Testament, and notes more, even peace with God in Jesus Christ, spiritual and everlasting. Now the reason hereof was, that war being the root of all misery, especially where all government was tyrannical, and when once it brake forth, it made all desolate; therefore peace was as heaven in comparison of the hell of war, which made the heathens paint Plutus the god of riches in the bosom of peace.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Peacethe usual salutationin the East, shalom, whence “salaam.” The primitiverevelation of the fall, and man’s alienation from God, made “peace”to be felt as the first and deepest want of man. The Orientals (asthe East was the cradle of revelation) retained the word bytradition.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Nebuchadnezzar the king,….. This and the two following verses are annexed to the preceding chapter in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions; as if the author of the division of the chapters thought that Nebuchadnezzar proposed by this public proclamation to celebrate the praise of the Lord, on account of the wonderful deliverance of the three Jews from the fiery furnace; whereas they are a preface to a narrative of a dream, and an event which concerned himself, and most properly begin a new chapter, as they do in the Syriac and Arabic versions. The edict begins, not with pompous and extravagant titles, as was the manner of the eastern monarchs, and still is, but only plainly “Nebuchadnezzar the king”; for he was now humbled under the mighty hand of God; whether his conversion was real is not evident; yet, certain it is, he expresses himself in stronger language concerning the divine Being and his works, and under a deeper sense of his sovereignty and majesty, than ever he did before. This proclamation is directed
unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; belonging to his kingdom, as Aben Ezra; and these were many; besides the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, also the Medes and Persians, the Egyptians, the Jews, and the nations round about them; and also the Spaniards, Moors, and Thracians, with others: but there is no reason to limit this to his own subjects, though first designed; for it was his desire that all people whatever in the known world might read, hear, and consider, what the grace of God had done unto him, with him, and for him, and learn to fear and reverence him:
peace be multiplied unto you: a wish for all kind of outward happiness and prosperity, and an increase of it; thus it becomes a prince to wish for all his subjects, and even for all the world; for there cannot be a greater blessing than peace, nor a greater judgment than war. This phrase is borrowed from the common salutation in eastern countries, and is used often in the New Testament for spiritual and eternal peace.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(3:31-33)
These verses form the introduction
(Note: The connection of these verses with the third chapter in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bibles is altogether improper. The originator of the division into chapters appears to have entertained the idea that Nebuchadnezzar had made known the miracle of the deliverance of the three men from the fiery furnace to his subjects by means of a proclamation, according to which the fourth chapter would contain a new royal proclamation different from that former one, – an idea which was rejected by Luther, who has accordingly properly divided the chapters. Conformably to that division, as Chr. B. Michaelis has well remarked, “ prius illud programma in fine capitis tertii excerptum caput sine corpore, posterius vero quod capite IV exhibetur, corpus sine capite, illic enim conspicitur quidem exordium, sed sine narratione, hic vero narratio quidem, sed sine exordio .” Quite arbitrarily Ewald has, according to the lxx, who have introduced the words before Daniel 3:31, and before Dan 4:1, enlarged this passage by the superscription: “In the 28th year of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar, king Nebuchadnezzar wrote thus to all the nations, communities, and tongues who dwell in the whole earth.”)
to the manifesto, and consist of the expression of good wishes, and the announcement of its object. The mode of address here used, accompanied by an expression of a good wish, is the usual form also of the edicts promulgated by the Persian kings; cf. Ezr 4:17; Ezr 7:12. Regarding the designation of his subjects, cf. Dan 3:4. – , not “in all lands” (Hv.), but on the whole earth, for Nebuchadnezzar regarded himself as the lord of the whole earth. corresponds with the Hebr. ; cf. Deu 6:22; Deu 7:19. The experience of this miracle leads to the offering up of praise to God, Dan 4:33 (Daniel 4:3). The doxology of the second part of Dan 4:33 occurs again with little variation in Daniel 4:31 (Dan 4:34), Dan 7:14, Dan 7:18, and is met with also in Psa 145:13, which bears the name of David; while the rendering of , from generation to generation, i.e., as long as generations exist, agrees with Psa 72:5.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Nebuchadnezzar Magnifies God. | B. C. 570. |
1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. 2 I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me. 3 How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.
Here is, I. Something of form, which was usual in writs, proclamations, or circular letters, issued by the king, v. 1. The royal style which Nebuchadnezzar makes use of has nothing in it of pomp or fancy, but is plain, short, and unaffected–Nebuchadnezzar the king. If at other times he made use of great swelling words of vanity in his title, how he laid them all aside; for he was old, he had lately recovered from a distraction which had humbled and mortified him, and was now in the actual contemplation of God’s greatness and sovereignty. The declaration is directed not only to his own subjects, but to all to whom this present writing shall come–to all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth. He is not only willing that they should all hear of it, though it carry the account if his own infamy (which perhaps none durst have published if he had not done it himself, and therefore Daniel published the original paper), but he strictly charges and commands all manner of persons to take notice of it; for all are concerned, and it may be profitable to all. He salutes those to whom he writes, in the usual form, Peace be multiplied unto you. Note, It becomes kings with their commands to disperse their good wishes, and, as fathers of their country, to bless their subjects. So the common form with us. We send greeting, Omnibus quibus h prsentes liter pervenerint, salutem–To all to whom these presents shall come, health; and sometimes Salutem sempiternam–Health and salvation everlasting.
II. Something of substance and matter. He writes this, 1. To acquaint others with the providences of God that had related to him (v. 2): I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God (so he calls the true God) has wrought towards me. He thought it seemly (so the word is), that it was his duty, and did well become him, that it was a debt he owed to God and the world, now that he had recovered from his distraction, to relate to distant places, and record for future ages, how justly God had humbled him and how graciously he had at length restored him. All the nations, no doubt, had heard what befell Nebuchadnezzar, and rang of it; but he thought it fit that they should have a distinct account of it from himself, that they might know the hand of God in it, and what impressions were made upon his own spirit by it, and might speak of it not as a matter of news, but as a matter of religion. The events concerning him were not only wonders to be admired, but signs to be instructed by, signifying to the world that Jehovah is greater than all gods. Note, We ought to show to others God’s dealings with us, both the rebukes we have been under and the favours we have received; and though the account hereof may reflect disgrace upon ourselves, as this did upon Nebuchadnezzar, yet we must not conceal it, as long as it may redound to the glory of God. Many will be forward to tell what God has done for their souls, because that turns to their own praise, who care not for telling what God has done against them, and how they deserved it; whereas we ought to give glory to God, not only by praising him for his mercies, but by confessing our sins, accepting the punishment of our iniquity, and in both taking shame to ourselves, as this mighty monarch here does. 2. To show how much he was himself affected with them and convinced by them, v. 3. We should always speak of the word and works of God with concern and seriousness and show ourselves affected with those great things of God which we desire others should take notice of. (1.) He admires God’s doings. He speaks of them as one amazed: How great are his signs, and how mighty are his wonders! Nebuchadnezzar was now old, had reigned above forty years, and had seen as much of the world and the revolutions of it as most men ever did; and yet never till now, when himself was nearly touched, was he brought to admire surprising events as God’s signs and his wonders. Now, How great, how mighty, are they! Note, The more we see events to be the Lord’s doing, and see in them the product of a divine power and the conduct of a divine wisdom, the more marvellous they will appear in our eyes, Psa 118:23; Psa 66:2. (2.) He thence infers God’s dominion. This is that which he is at length brought to subscribe to: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; and not like his own kingdom, which he saw, and long since foresaw, in a dream, hastening towards a period. He now owns that there is a God that governs the world and has a universal, incontestable, absolute dominion in and over all the affairs of the children of men. And it is the glory of this kingdom that it is everlasting. Other reigns are confined to one generation, and other dynasties to a few generations, but God’s dominion is from generation to generation. It should seem, Nebuchadnezzar here refers to what Daniel had foretold of a kingdom which the God of heaven would set up, that should never be destroyed (ch. ii. 44), which, though meant of the kingdom of the Messiah, he understood of the providential kingdom. Thus we may make a profitable practical use and application of those prophetical scriptures which yet we do not fully, and perhaps not rightly, comprehend the meaning of.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DANIEL – CHAPTER 4
THE KING’S PROCLAMATION,
Verses 1-3:
Verse 1 begins a proclamation that king Nebuchadnezzar made and addressed to all people, nations, and languages who resided in all parts of the earth. Daniel had told him that he was the mightiest of the mighty, made so, raised up by the Lord, Dan 2:37-38. In this position, as the first universal Gentile ruler, in whom “the times of the Gentiles” began, may be recognized the manner in which it shall end, with the coming and cunning deception of the Anti-christ or the “man of sin,” Dan 9:26-27; 2Th 2:3-10; Revelation ch. 13. Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed “peace be multiplied to you,” or “Shalom” to you. It was a false promise of peace, even as that of the anti-christ shall be, so unlike the peace that angels heralded at the coming of our Lord, Luk 2:13-14; Gen 49:10.
Verse 2 states that Nebuchadnezzar thought it proper that he should relate and acknowledge the signs and wonders or miraculous things that the most high God (the living Jehovah God) had done toward him, to help him, Psa 107:2-8; Dan 3:4. His dream fears had been removed!
Verse 3 recounts an exclamatory expression of the greatness of the signs and wonders of the living God in recalling and interpreting his dream and resolving fears that came to him when the monstrous image appeared, then went from him in the dream, Dan 3:26; Act 22:3-16; Dan 6:27. This living God, he proclaimed had an everlasting kingdom and dominion, generation after generation, 2Sa 7:16; Dan 2:44; Dan 7:13-14; Psa 89:35-37; Luk 1:31-33.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Some join these verses to the end of the third chapter, but there is no reason for this; and it will clearly appear from the context that the edict is here set forth in the king’s name, and other events are inserted. Daniel, therefore, here, speaks in the person of the king; he afterwards narrates what happened to the king, and then returns to his own person. Those who separate these three verses from the context of the fourth chapter, do not seem to have sufficiently considered the intention and words of the Prophet. This passage may seem harsh and rough, when Daniel introduces the king of Babylon as speaking — then speaks in his own name — and afterwards returns to the person of the; king. But since this variety does not render the sense either doubtful or obscure, there is no reason why it should trouble us. We now see how all the sentences which we shall explain in their places are mutually united.
The contents of this chapter are as follow: Nebuchadnezzar was sufficiently instructed in the worship of the God of Israel as one God, and was compelled at the time to confess this; yet he did not depart from his own superstitions; his conceptions of the true God were but momentary, and hence he suffered the punishment due to such great ingratitude. But God intended him to become more and more blinded, as he is accustomed to treat the reprobate and even his elect at times. When men add sin to sin, God loosens his reins and allows them to destroy themselves. Afterwards he either extends his hand towards them, or withdraws them by his hidden virtue, or reduces them to order by his rod, and completely humbles them. He treated the king of Babylon in this way. We shall afterwards discuss the dream; but we must here briefly notice the king’s admonition, that he might feel himself without excuse when he was so utterly broken down. God indeed might justly punish him as soon as he saw he was not truly converted; but before he inflicted the final chastisement — as we shall see in its place — he wished to admonish him, if there were any hope of his repentance. Although he seemed to receive with the greatest modesty what God had manifested by his dream through Daniel’s interpretation of it, yet he professed with his mouth what he did not really possess. And he shews this sufficiently, because, when he ought to be afraid and cautious, he does not lay aside his pride, but glories in himself as a king of kings, and in Babylon as the queen of the whole world! Since, then, he spoke so confidently after being admonished by the Prophet, we perceive how little he had profited by his dream. But God wished in this way to render him more inexcusable, and although he did not bring forth fruit immediately, yet a long time afterwards, when God touched his mind, he very properly recognized this punishment to have been divinely inflicted. Hence this dream was a kind of entrance and preparation for repentance, and as seed seems to lie putrid in the earth before it brings forth its fruit, and God sometimes works by gentle processes, and provides for the teaching, which seemed for a long time useless, becoming both efficacious and fruitful.
I now come to the words themselves; the preface to the edict is, Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples, nations, and languages, which dwell in the whole earth, namely, under his sway. He does not mean this to be extended to Scythia, or Gaul, or other distant regions; but since his empire extended far and wide, he spoke boastingly. Thus we see the Romans, whose sway did not reach near so far, called Rome itself the seat of the empire of the whole world! Here Nebuchadnezzar now predicts. the magnificence and mightiness of his own monarchy. Hence he sends his edict to all peoples, and nations, and languages, which dwell on the earth He afterwards adds, it seemed to me good to relate the signs and wonders which the mighty God hath wrought with me No doubt he feels himself to have paid the penalty of his ingratitude, since he had so punctiliously ascribed the glory to one true God, and yet had relapsed into his own superstitions, and had never really said farewell to them. We see how often King Nebuchadnezzar was chastised before he profited by the rod of the Almighty. Hence we need not be surprised if God often strikes us with his hand, since the result of experience proves us to be dull, and, to speak truly, utterly slothful. When God, therefore, wishes to lead us to repentance, he is compelled to repeat his blows continually, either because we are not moved when he chastises us with his hand, or we seem roused for the time, and then we return again to our former torpor. He is therefore compelled to redouble his blows. And we perceive this in the narrative before us, as in a glass. But the singular benefit of God was this, Nebuchadnezzar, after God had often chastised him, yielded at length. It is unknown whether or not this confession proceeded front true and genuine repentance: I must leave it in doubt. Yet without the slightest doubt Daniel recited this edict, to shew the king so subdued at length, as to confess the God of Israel to be the only God, and to bear witness to this among all people under his sway.
Meanwhile we must remark, how this edict of the king of Babylon receives the testimony of the Spirit; for Daniel has no other object or purpose in relating the edict, than to shew the fruit of conversion in King Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, without doubt, King Nebuchadnezzar bore witness to his repentance when he celebrated the God of Israel among all people, and when he proclaimed a punishment to all who spoke reproachfully against God. Hence this passage is often cited by Augustine against the Donatists. (204) For they wished to grant an act of impunity to themselves, when they disturbed the Church with rashness and corrupted pure doctrine, and even permitted themselves to attack it like robbers. For some were then discovered to have been slain by them, and others mutilated in their limbs. Since, then, they allowed themselves to act so licentiously and still desired to commit crimes with impunity, yet they held this principle as of first importance. No punishment ought to be inflicted on those who differ from others in religious doctrine; as we see in these days, how some contend far too eagerly about this subject. What they desire is clear enough. If any one carefully observes them, he will find them impious despisers of God; they wish to render everything uncertain in religion, and as far as they can they strive to tear away all the principles of piety. With the view then of vomiting forth their poison, they strive eagerly for freedom from punishment, and deny the right of inflicting punishment on heretics and blasphemers.
Such is that dog Castalio (205) and his companions, and all like him, such also were the Donatists; and hence, as I have mentioned, Augustine cites this testimony in many places, and shews how ashamed Christian princes ought to be of their slothfulness, if they are indulgent to heretics and blasphemers, and do not vindicate God’s glory by lawful punishments, since King Nebuchadnezzar who was never truly converted: yet promulgated this decree by a kind of secret instinct. At all events, it ought to be sufficient for men of moderate and quiet tastes to know how King Nebuchadnezzar’s edict was praised by the approval of the Holy Spirit. If this be so, it follows that kings are bound to defend the worship of God, and to execute vengeance upon those who profanely despise it, and on those who endeavor to reduce it to nothing, or to adulterate the true doctrine by their errors, and so dissipate the unity of the faith and disturb the Church’s peace. This is clear enough from the Prophet’s context; for Nebuchadnezzar says at first, it pleases me to relate the signs and wonders which God has prepared for me He had already explained how wonderfully God had treated him; but this had passed away. Now God seizes him a second and even a third time, and then he confesses it to be his boast to explain the wonderful signs of God. He afterwards breaks forth into the exclamation, How mighty are his signs! How remarkable his miracles! His kingdom, is a kingdom of an age, and his dominion is from age to age Without doubt Nebuchadnezzar wished to excite his subjects to the attentive perusal of this edict, and to the acknowledgment of its value, and thus to subject themselves to the true and only God. He calls him The High God, meaning, doubtless, the God of Israel; meanwhile, we do not know whether he cast away his superstitions. I however incline to the opposite conjecture, since he did not put off his errors, but was compelled to give glory to the Most High God. He so acknowledged the God of Israel as to join inferior deities with him as allies and companions, just as all unbelievers, while admitting one supreme deity, imagine a multitude of others. So also Nebuchadnezzar confessed Israel’s God to be Most High; yet, he did not correct the idolatry which still flourished under his sway; nay, he mingled and confused the false gods with the God of Israel. Thus he did not leave behind his own corruption’s. He celebrates indeed with magnificence the glory of the supreme God, but this is not sufficient without; abolishing all superstitions, and promoting that religion alone which is prescribed by the word of God, and causing his pure and perfect worship to flourish.
(204) Eph 166:0. ad Donat. et alibi
(205) Sebastian Castalio is here referred to. He was an opponent of Calvin, and banished from Geneva by his influence. Being a man of extensive learning he was appointed Greek professor at Basil. See Mosheim, cent. 16. section. 3, pt. 2, and the authorities there quoted.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
NEBUCHADNEZZARS DREAM OF THE GREAT TREE
Dan 4:1-37
THE Book of Daniel has long involved disputes as between Bible believers and Bible critics. The circumstance that Daniels interpretations of dreams, had by the king under whom he served and also by himself, have so far fitted history as to provide a strong argument in favor of their inspiration, and have puzzled the critics and at the same time, pleased believers.
There are many points in the Book of Daniel, the accuracy of which can be tested by the known facts of secular history. The kings mentioned there are known to such history; and the archeological spade has demonstrated some of the incidents recited.
There are those among biblical critics who bring against this fourth chapter the charge that neither secular history, tradition, nor archeology attests the truthfulness of the same; and some even go so far as to declare it inconceivable that Nebuchadnezzar could ever have issued the decree voiced in this chapter.
But such criticisms seem to us to ignore two very patent facts:
First: Secular history is not supposed to take account of Divinely-given dreams; in fact, the unregenerate world, as a rule, does not believe in supernaturalism of any sort.
Second: The decrees that are here set forth as a result of Daniels interpretation of the dream, are in perfect accord with the common effect of such interpretations upon the ancient and Oriental kings; and if this one be disputed, then those of similar character are also brought into grave question, and, in the end, the whole Book is discredited.
Meantime it is a matter of moment that the evidences for Daniels date of living, the kings under whom he served, and the certainty of many of the events recorded in his Book, constantly accumulate. In view of that fact one need not falter in his faith, nor doubt either Daniels existence or authorship, or veracity.
In looking through this chapter the natural subjects presented are The Kings Dream, The Kings Downfall, and The Kings Redemption.
THE KINGS DREAM
This dream was not from mental disturbance!
I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace:
I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me (Dan 4:4-5).
That is a unique report of a dream. Commonly the exact opposite is true. When ones rest is broken and his affairs are going badly, and his thoughts are troubled, then he dreams. But the king takes pains to say that none of these things are so; that he was never more at rest than when this dream came.
There are people who make much of dreams. If they have a bad one they conclude that there is some disaster in the offing; if they have a good dream they immediately imagine that some splendid fortune is in store.
The fact is that dreams do not influence future events, but are profoundly influenced by past and present experiences; and still more profoundly by the state of body and mind. Personally, when my body is in health my dreams are uniformly pleasant; the very moment I am seriously troubled or ill, hell itself could not exceed their agony.
I imagine that this is not a unique, but a common experience; and on that account, perhaps, the king was all the more astonished at the character of his dream. Consulting his past experience he knew that it should have been of another, and even of a delightful, character; but recounting the vivid impression, he was compelled to confess, It made me afraid.
Without being able to explain why it is, the most of us have the feeling that dreams are real experience. They may be grotesque and yet one senses their possibility. They may involve the impossible, and yet, paradoxical as it sounds, one fears that they may find answering facts. Waking out of an unpleasant dream, it is not unusual for one to be grateful to God for the fact that it was a fanciful picture; and yet, while the thanksgiving is still upon his lips, a certain terror holds his heart. He knows the body has escaped the experience imagined; but somehow he feels that the soul was involved in it, and time only will shake off the fear of it and leave one either to forget or to ignore.
There is then, a residium of intellectual and spiritual reality in every dream; and in those dreams given of God, that reality is not only substantial, but instructively suggestive.
This Nebuchadnezzar dream was a Divine revelation. At least so Daniel understood and said. In that circumstance it stands not alone. His previous dream of the great figurehead of gold, shoulders of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, feet part iron and part clay, and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands that smote the image upon his feet and toes and brake them to pieces, was a companion piece.
When Joseph dreamed of his coming supremacy, history fulfilled that dream to the letter. When Pilates wife heard of the trial of Jesus, she sent to Pilate saying, Have thou nothing to do with that Just Man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him.
If our Bible is, as the atheists claim, a collection of myths, why has God again and again made Divine use of dreams and Divine revelations through them?
Perhaps among modern dreams no one created a more profound and lasting, or such profitable results as the dream that A. J. Gordon had a half century ago on How Christ came to Church.
Gordon was among the best balanced of men, and he said:
Of the hundreds of dreams which have come to me in the night seasons, I cannot remember a one that has had any profitable significance either for good or ill.
And yet this one which occurred on a Saturday night, when wearied from the work of preparing Sundays sermons he had fallen asleep, not only profoundly impressed him but determined absolutely his future course and conduct in Christian and church affairs.
He saw himself in the pulpit with a full house before him. He was just about ready to begin the sermon when a Stranger entered and passed slowly up the aisle looking first to the one side and then the other, as if to see if any would offer Him a seat. He was about half way up when a gentleman stepped out and motioned Him to a place in his pew, which was quietly accepted.
Immediately upon beginning to preach, Gordon thought his attention riveted upon this hearer, and he found himself saying over and over, Who can that Stranger be? When the benediction was pronounced, before he could get to Him, He had left the house.
Finding the man who had so kindly offered to share his pew, Gordon asked, Who was the Stranger who sat with you today? To which the man calmly answered, Why, didnt you know that Man? that was Jesus of Nazareth.
With a sense of keenest disappointment, Gordon said, My dear Sir, why did you let Him get away? I was so desirous of speaking with Him. With the same calm indifference, the gentleman replied, Oh, do not be troubled; He was here today and He will come again.
That single sentence involved two critical turning points in Gordons ministry.
First: He sensed the fact that Christ was in every audience where he preached, for so He had promised to be; and Second, that Christ was a listener to every word and an observer upon every act of the sanctuary.
One can readily imagine what such an impression would mean if it burned its way into the heart of the true minister of God. It would affect the whole order of the service; it would affect the whole spirit in which the service was rendered; it would affect the singing, the praying, the speaking, the seating.
It would affect the uses to which the house of God would be put; it would affect life itself!
Beyond doubt, Josephs life was delineated in his dreams; and in no small measure determined by them. And beyond doubt Nebuchadnezzars history was profoundly influenced after the same manner. And yet beyond all question, both of them believed that God had granted the visions or the dreams, that they were revelations from Heaven.
The intention of this dream was to teach the absolute sovereignty of God. That Nebuchadnezzar had apprehended that fact is fairly and somewhat fully set forth in the kings statement:
I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God had wrought toward me.
How great are His signs! and how mighty are His wonders! (Dan 4:2-3).
And then when the dream is rehearsed and the effect is reported, one perceives that the lesson was the lesson of Divine sovereignty. It was a lesson that Nebuchadnezzar needed to learn. The proud, the haughty, the imperiousthey are the ones who must be told in no uncertain speech. The statement must be repeated until it is understood, God reigneth over all! The mightiest monarchs need most to be shown that their rulership is naught beside His power and authority; that their highest endeavors are as puny in comparison with His easy accomplishments as the passing second is puny in comparison with eternity.
As Campbell Morgan reminds us in one of his volumes, God is absolute monarch wherever He is King at all. His government is autocratic. He does not consult us as to what He shall do with us, where He shall send us, what He would have us to do. Moreover, His government is an imperative government. He never permits us to make compromises with Him for a single moment. He speaks the word of authority.
All power in Heaven and in earth belongeth to Him.
Some years ago Dr. Helm, pastor of the First Methodist Church of Los Angeles, California, preached a sermon on THE LORD REIGNETH. He recited His power through history, and showed how all the puny plans of men had perished before His slightest will; how the mightiest armies had been brought to naught, and how even the wings of the wind had whelmed certain of them and changed the fate of nations.
The Editor of the magazine, in which this sermon appeared, said;
In these days of naturalized weather reports, materialized newspapers, secularized schools, and anti-supernatural history, we and our children need a reminder like this.
The truth is that He never does anything less than wondrous! The only word that passes His lips is a wondrous wordNever man spake like this Man. Every work wrought by His hands is a wondrous work. By human endeavor it was never seen on this wise.
The object of the kings dream, then, was not missed. Nebuchadnezzar perfectly understood that God was showing him the true seat of authority, and the true deposit of power; and was teaching him that they were not with the king of Babylon, but with the Lord of Heaven and earth Creator and Administrator of all things.
THE KINGS DOWNFALL
This dream recorded between Dan 4:14 and Dan 4:18 is interpreted by Daniel in Dan 4:19 to Dan 4:27 inclusive.. And what a perilous interpretation!
Joseph Parker thinks that the statement Daniel, * * was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him practically means that for a few minutes or moments, he was literally stumped. He was sorely troubled. He saw the plain intent of the same, but hesitated; yea, even hated to speak the truth to the king. The king was his friend. His high office he held by the kings good will, and now he is once more placed in a position where he is compelled to uncover the kings unfortunate future.
What a testing! What a testing of fidelity to God who had given the dream; and, what a testing of fidelity to the king who had befriended him, and whose black future he was in honor bound to uncover.
That is the meaning of the word astonied; that was the occasion of his embarrassment, his hesitation. Nebuchadnezzar, seeing that circumstance, encouraged him to proceed and tell the truth, and so the meaning of it all is brought abroad.
The huge tree symbolized the kings sovereignty. It will be remembered that Ezekiel, Daniels immediate predecessor in prophetic visions, described the Assyrian after this manner, as
A Cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.
The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of Heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters, etc.
The figure of Nebuchadnezzars dream is of close akin; and as that tree was to be cast down to hell, so this tree was also to fall to the earth; and, as in the former case, so here; great was to be the fall of it; or rather, great was to be the fall of him who was symbolized by it.
That was a delicate task for the Prophet; to tell the potentate of the earth that disaster was to overtake him is a distasteful task. There are people who imagine that preachers like to heckle those in authority, that the Prophet Nathan gets real pleasure out of pointing his finger into the face of David crying, Thou art the man!
But that would only be true of the false prophet. Gods Prophet could no more utter such speech with pleasure than Jesus could pronounce the doom of Jerusalem with joy. The true Prophet is always a weeping Prophet; his ministry makes the deepest drafts upon the fountain of tears. His task is always a very tedious, and even agonizing one. To pay compliment to men, that is the province of the politician; but to tell men the truth often the blunt and wounding truththat is the heavy obligation of the minister.
Perhaps no man ever walked the earth who said so many unpopular, and yet such strangely needful things, as Jesus of Nazareth. His words roused indignation, kindled wrath into a flame, and finally effected for Him Calvary and the Cross.
But not a one of them was falsely uttered. They were the words of truth and soberness. They were not the sinister song of the siren, but the physicians honest diagnosis instead. Their employment was pain; but their suppression would have been the death of souls. You cannot reach Kadesh Barnea except by way of the great and terrible wilderness.
It is useless to interpret the Word unless one makes application of the same.
Joseph Parker says truthfully of our great fathers in the ministry that they were mighty in exhortation; they wrestled with their hearers. It was the angel who wrestled with Jacob until his thigh was out of joint that finally brought him a blessing; so those men who deal honestly with souls until they saw themselves hell-bound, and then stayed with them until they had turned them back toward Heaven, were real prophets of God. So the present-day preacher who deals only in fine compliments, and winsome flatteries pushes his auditors nearer and nearer to the pit.
It is a painful speech, It is thou, O king, but it is the truth, and nothing but the truth can warn him, bring him to repentance and affect for him final redemption.
Oh, that God would give to those of us who stand in the pulpit the courage to deal honestly with our congregations, interpret symbolical truth until men shall see the danger in pride, pleasure and sin!
The falling of this tree symbolized the kings overthrow. One coming down from Heaven said,
Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof 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 of the field, till seven times pass over him;
This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king:
That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will. * *
Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity (Dan 4:23-25; Dan 4:27).
Whether this was the angel of the Lord or some specially commissioned and Heavenly spirit is not a matter of the first moment; the message is the great thing. When Heaven sends down a message of judgment the day of its execution is not far distant. Heaven is not the source of alarm but it is the seat whence come dependable announcements.
Saul had heard many testimonies from Christian lips and they had not profoundly impressed him; in fact, they had only sufficed to exasperate him and enflamed his anger against the witnesses. But when a voice was heard from Heaven, saying, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? he was instantly attent!
Somehow or other all men carry an awe of the supernatural, and fear the fire of judgment from that source. That is the pain of living for many a modern monarch. Take the experiences of the last five years as they have affected the financial kings of the earth and you will find that real agony is not with the poor and the unemployed. Theirs is a grinding, grueling experience, but small beside the sufferings of kings.
He was the greatest financier that England ever knew. He laid his hands on the largest financial interests of England during the war and brought them out of chaos, and built up more than twenty of the mightiest corporations that England ever saw in a few short years; and then, the earthquake came. His financial foundations were loosened. Twice his wifes two billion dollar diamonds saved him. But finally he fell with a tremendous crash, and the judgment against him was eleven years in the tower of London.
Who can tell the agony through which that man passed! The Bible description of hella burning caldron, could hardly exceed the mental worry and the soul anguish through which such a man passes.
Or take Paul Krueger, the most dominant name in the financial world. Only yesterday, in a Chicago paper, I clipped a statement made by Aminoff of how he visited Krueger at the latters Park Avenue Apartment in New York City; of how Krueger walked about the room, answering bells that had not rung, opening doors on which no one knocked. He was literally beside himself! Such agony is reserved for kings of finance; for kings of political fortune.
This thought comes even closer home. There are a few thousand people in the country who suffered when the Foshay fabric went flat to earth; many of them losing hundreds; some of them thousands, and some probably touching the millions. But no man of them all has endured such agony as Foshay himself, who, after nights of distempered dreams, days of agonizing worry and alarm, finally faces an eleven year imprisonment.
The value of money looks enormous to the man who has none; but there are circumstances under which the sight of it becomes a flame in which ones flesh is consumed.
The story is told of a man employed in the Spanish treasury who stole the key to the strong room and at night unlocked the iron door and crept into the vault, expecting to carry away enormous sums of money; but while intent upon his booty he heard a click, and turning, he saw that the heavy door had swung with its own weight and closed with the spring lock, fastening him in beyond the hope of escape. There he stood, heaps of money all about him, but as the hours wore on and hunger and thirst united their powers with suffocation to ravish his body, he would have given all the gold that lay in heaps about him for a poverty-stricken freedom and one deep breath of fresh air.
The retained stump was a symbol of promised recovery. The stump with a band about it resists the destructive elements of rain and weather, and may often sprout again and live. One of the most beautiful and shapely trees of my back yard in Linden Hills, is the stately shoot from the stump left there more than twenty years ago. I agree, therefore, with John Skinner, in The Expositors Bible, that the band about this stump had no other significance than the suggestion that the kings authority and power might sprout again.
We have an adage, As long as there is life there is hope. It is always finding fresh illustration. There are men who are down and out today, but will be on their feet next week, and will be heard from next year. Gods judgments are commonly tempered with mercy.
A book like Harold Begbies Twice Born Men reveals the fact that those we reckon dead may live again. The poor Gadarene was not only under the power of demons, but a legion of them possessed him. His mind was a riot of madness and his body a menace of uncontrolled powers. The whole community counted him done for, and lost forever. But, when Jesus came that way He gave a fresh demonstration of the fact that even demons were subject to His command; that the most destroyed man could be rebuilt. We should not be surprised, therefore, to find that the rest of this story records
THE KINGS REDEMPTION
It commenced with his mental recovery.
At the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto Heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me (Dan 4:34).
This Old Testament miracle reminds one of the New Testament record of the Gadarene. The big thing that took place in both instances was the mental recovery. In the Old TestamentMine understanding returned unto me. In the New TestamentClothed, and in his right mind.
The Scripture that precedes this presents the pitiable estate in which the king had been through this period, supposed by some to be seven years, but by others to be seven shorter sections of time. He had been an outcast from society, had eaten grass as an ox, his body had been wet with the dew of Heaven, his unkempt hair was like eagles feathers, and his nails, like birds claws. In other words, he had been reduced to a bestial level.
The madness of kings is nothing new in human history. Dr. Skinner in The Expositors Bible calls attention to the cases of Charles VI. of France, Christian VII. of Denmark, George III. of England, and Otho of Bavaria, and notes in passing that in all these cases the insanity of the king did not interfere with the normal administration of the kingdom. His appointees continued to rule in his name, and as the extreme seclusion, common to the customs of eastern monarchs was such that the subject seldom saw the face of the ruler, months and even years might pass without any public knowledge whatever of insanity on the throne.
It was an Old Testament incident of healing; and while there are those who would see nothing supernatural in the recovery of a deranged intellect, the truth is that it is a miracle as much superior to that of healing a body as the mind itself is superior to the physical frame.
Arthur Pierson in The Miracles of Missions tells how John G. Paton, that marvelous missionary to the New Hebrides, when he was doing work in Scotland among the Wyands in Glasgow, was called to see a Doctor who was both an unbeliever and a drunkard. In delirium tremens he had attempted suicide more than once. Finally, Mr. Paton came to his bed-side and secured from him his promise that he would do anything that the missionary might ask. Thereupon Mr. Paton took down a dusty Bible, and after reading from it said, Now shall we pray?
Yes, said the Doctor, and Paton responded, You pray first, to which the physician answered, I curse; I cannot pray.
But you promised to do all that I asked. Yes, he replied, but I cannot curse God on my knees. Let me stand and I will curse Him; but I cant in the attitude of prayer.
Mr. Paton firmly but gently said, Try to pray now; let me see that you cannot.
Instantly the Doctor cried out, Oh, Lord, Thou knowest that I cannot pray, and he strove to rise up as though Satan were struggling within him to turn this beginning prayer into a curse. Mr. Paton put his arm about him and held him firmly on the floor. Picking up the phrase he continued it himself as though he were in the blasphemers stead, and the man kept quiet. Later, as Paton sat beside him, he fell into a sleep and Paton quietly retired. Returning a few hours later, he found him awake, clothed, and in his right mind, and throwing his arms about Paton, he said, Thank God; I can pray now! When I awoke, my mind was clear and for the first time in my life I have prayed already with my wife and children. Later he joined Dr. Symingtons church, and gave his medical skill to a holy ministry to Gods destitute children, showing himself as anxious to save souls as he was capable in bringing blessing to their bodies.
But mark a further step in this recovery:
The saved king paid tribute to Jehovahs power and authority.
And I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Hint that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His Kingdom is from generation to generation:
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou? (Dan 4:34-35).
The proof of redemption is often if not always in the behavior that follows it.
When the Gadarene went home and bore testimony to his family and friends of how great things the Lord had done for him, he demonstrated both his redemption and the Divine power that had accomplished the same.
Possibly the greatest need of this present time is the witness of men who have experienced the Grace of God.
There is a wide-spread impression that only college graduates and theological seminary products are to preach the Gospel. Practically every one of the big denominations are harangued annually in this direction. Such intellectual ignorance ignores the fact that the best preachers known to the last century never saw the inside of a college and carried no diploma from any theological school.
Witness Spurgeon of England and Moody of America; not to speak of such lesser lights as Harry Ironside, the present pastor of the great Moody Church of Chicago; Campbell Morgan, a popular Bible teacher and extensive author; and Peter Philpott, ex-pastor, Philpott Tabernacle, Moody Church, and the Church of the Open Door.
I have been an ardent advocate of higher education. I sincerely believe that my own ministry was aided by the college course and theological seminary training that I had; but I am compelled to confess, in a recent careful survey of Northwestern graduates now in the active field in the worlds service, the men that I have encouraged to complete college courses and to finish theological seminary curriculums are not more successful, either in the pastorate or in evangelism, than are their less schooled fellow-graduates of Northwestern. So I am a bit nonplussed as to wisdoms course; but this I do know, that the great need of the hour is the testimony of the man of experience; the man who can say, Whereas I was blind, now I see; the man who can tell how Christ cured him of the leprosy of sin, or the one who can tell how Christ came to him and unstopped his ears to hear the Truth and loosened his tongue to tell of his experience of Grace; the man who can declare by the Word of Christ, the demons that possessed him departed, and who exults in the great things that God has done for him; the man who can say as the king here did say, Yesterday I was among the beasts of the field; but thank God, today my mind is clear, my heart beats high with hope, and Jehovah, in His matchless love, wrought the change!
It is doubtful if Decapolis ever heard a preacher that equaled the redeemed Gadarene. There is a question whether any amount of intellectual equipment can equal the effectiveness of that spokesman because of the consciousness of salvation from sin.
Finally: The king affirmed his determined loyalty.
Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of Heaven, all whose works are truth, and His ways judgment: and those that walk in pride He is able to abase.
Here again he rehearses his experience. He had walked in pride, he had looked on the palace in Babylon and kept Babylon itself with its walls three hundred and eighty feet high and eighty-five feet thick, and each side of the quadrilateral they enclosed was fifteen miles in length. The mighty Euphrates flowed through the midst of the city, which is said to have covered a space of two hundred square miles; and on its further bank, terrace above terrace, up to its central altar, rose the huge Temple of Bel with all its dependent temples and palaces. The vast circuit of the walls enclosed no mere wilderness of houses, but there were interspaces of gardens, and palmgroves, and orchards, and cornland, sufficient to maintain the whole population. Here and there rose the temples reared to Nebo, and Sin the moon-god, and Mylitta, and Nana, and Samas, and other deities; and there were aqueducts or conduits for water, and forts and palaces; and the walls were pierced with a hundred brazen gates.
It was of this city that his pride was born, and in its buildings that he saw the expression of his own might and power and honor of his personal majesty.
But now that his mind was recovered, he remembered that while the boast was yet on his lips, there fell a voice from Heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will (Dan 4:31-32).
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fair. That he had experienced; but also the better part, the humble, God by His grace had lifted up, and lo, now he affirms his eternal loyalty.
The story of Nebuchadnezzar ends here and ends suddenly. Let us hope that he passed into eternity in the sincerity of his pledge and in the salvation of his confidence.
Campbell Morgan sententiously said, No man reigns in life who is not under subjection of the government of God.
And Maltbie D. Babcock highly poetizes:
We are not here to dream, to drift;There is hard work to do, and loads to lift.Shun not the struggle; face it. Tis Gods gift. Be strong! It matters not how deep entrenched the wrong;How hard the battle goes, the day how long.Faint not! Fight on! Tomorrow comes the song.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
HOMILETICS
SECT. XIV.THE ROYAL TESTIMONY (Chap. Dan. 4:1-3)
In this chapter we have a remarkable testimony from Nebuchadneszar himself [103]. The date usually assigned to it is about ten years after the erection of the golden image, probably towards the latter end of his life [104]. The king had still to be brought down from his pride. What was not unusual in the absence of a written revelation, a dream, was employed for this purpose. See Job. 33:14-17. The dream, with its interpretation and fulfilment in a lengthened and humiliating affliction, made effectual [105]. As the result, we have the noble testimony in this chapter. Calvin observes that Daniel has no other object in relating the edict than to show the fruit of conversion in Nebuchadnezzar. The testimony remarkable in itself; still more so from the quarter from which it camea king of kings, the head of the first great universal monarchy, a king who had been all his life a heathen and a devoted worshipper of idols. The testimony given in the form of a royal epistle, proclamation, or edict, addressed to all the subjects of his extensive empire. The chapter an example of the varied contents of the Bible. Out of the mouth of heathen monarchs, as well as of babes and sucklings, God able to ordain strength and perfect praise. The proclamation sets forth Jehovahs greatness, truth, and justice; His supremacy as governor of the universe; His overruling providence among the nations of the world; His sovereignty in doing all according to His own will among angels and men, that will being the most perfect justice; His remarkable dealings with the king himself; and, finally, a humble confession of his sinfulness and pride, with the humiliating chastisement which it had entailed upon him. The testimony addressed to the various peoples under his rule with a view to their conversion to the only true God, the God of Israel. The whole breathes a spirit of sincerity and humility, of gratitude to God and good-will to men. The opening salutation probably more than a mere form. A deep earnestness and warm admiration indicated in the manner in which he refers to Gods dealings with himself. How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! (Dan. 4:2-3). The proclamation also contains a high testimony in favour of Daniel, as an inspired prophet in whom was the spirit of the holy gods, and as a faithful counsellor of the king. The repetition of what Daniel had said in the interpretation of a former dream, many years before, regarding the everlasting kingdom which God was to set up, indicative of the deep impression which the prophets words had left upon his mind. The three first verses of the chapter, improperly forming the concluding ones in the Hebrew Bible and Greek version, serve as the preface or preamble to the edict. Among the lessons of this part of the testimony, as well as of the testimony in general, are the following:
[103] Nebuchadnezzar the king unto all people, &c. Adam Clarke says: This is a regular decree, and is one of the most ancient on record, and no doubt was copied from the state-papers of Babylon. Daniel has preserved it in the original language. Grotius observes: Daniel gives this wonderful history, not in his own words, but in those of the published edict itself, that there might remain no doubt about its trustworthiness. Calvin says: Daniel here gives the edict under the kings name and person, afterwards relates what happened to the king, and at length returns to the kings personal testimony; the change of the person speaking, however, not at all obscuring the sense. This change of the speaker has been made an objection to the genuineness of the book. Hengstenberg remarks in reply: We cannot by any means allow that this happens unwarily. With the exception of Dan. 4:19, where the king stands for I, which calls for no remark, because the same thing is found repeatedly in the decrees of the Persian kings (compare, e.g., Ezr. 7:14-15), the use of the third person commences just where the narrative of the fulfilment of the divine threat of punishment begins (Dan. 4:28), and ends where the description of the sad ailment of Nebuchadnezzar comes to a close (Dan. 4:33). His restoration he describes again in the first person. This cannot possibly be accidental; and if not, then no argument can be taken from it against the genuineness, although we cannot assign with certainty the reason of the change It may be conjectured that Daniel disposed this part in a briefer or more detailed and exact narrative than as it stood in the edict (so Calvin); and now, to be chargeable with no falsehood, used the third person.
[104] The Septuagint has introduced the words in the eighteenth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which Ewald has adopted, but arbitrarily making it in the twenty-eighth year,&c.Keil.
[105] Adam Clarke thinks that very probably Nebuchadnezzar was a true convert, that he relapsed no more into idolatry, and that he died in the faith of the God of Israel. Dr. Cumming remarks: This closing epistle addressed by the King Nebuchadnezzar to his subjects breathes a quiet and a beautiful spirit, that indicates to my mind a change in his heart, a transformation of his character, a true and an actual conversion to God. Among the older commentators, Willet thinks the more probable and certain opinion is that Nebuchadnezzar in the end was saved. He quotes Josephus, who Bays that all his life long alter this he acknowledged God and gave praise and glory to Him; Augustine, who remarks that, unlike Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar was humbled and so saved; and Theodoret, who contrasts the end of Nebuchadnezzar with that of Belshazzar, the one being foreseen to be amended by his correction, the other to be incorrigible. So Bullinger, Osiander, and colampadius. Calvin thinks that though in this edict Nebuchadnezzar does not describe what is required of a pious man long trained in Gods school, yet he shows how he had benefited under Gods rod, by attributing to Him the height of power, and adding the praise of justice and rectitude, while he confesses himself guilty. Matthew Henry says, Whether he continued in the same good mind that here he seems to have been in, we are not told, nor doth anything appear to the contrary but that he did; and if so great a blasphemer and persecutor did find mercy, he was not the last. Dr. Taylor quotes Scotts remark that the beginning and conclusion of the chapter lead us at least to hope with prevailing confidence that Nebuchadnezzar was at last made a monument of the power of divine grace, yet thinks that the conversion was still an imperfect one, as the king still speaks of the name of his god and of the spirit of the holy gods, as if, while acknowledging the supremacy of Jehovah, he still clung to the worship of inferior divinities. Hengstenberg, who seems to be of the same opinion, remarks, in reply to an objection made by Eichhorn and others against the genuineness of the edict, from the narrator making the king speak now as an orthodox Jew, and now again as an idolater: Just this mode of representation would be expected in case the edict were genuine, and certainly affords a presumption that it is. It cannot be imagined that Nebuchadnezzar rooted out the inveterate superstition so quickly from his mind that the traces of it should not have appeared in connection with what he had learned from the instruction of Daniel. That a later Jew, bold in his fictions, would not have been satisfied with such a conversion of Nebuchadnezzar, is clear from the attempt of very many Jewish and Christian expositors to make the conversion as radical and complete as possible. Dr. Pusey observes, Although Nebuchadnezzars two first convictions of the greatness of the God of the Jews faded in time, we know of no relapse after the last. God triumphed at last, and won Nebuchadnezzar, as He does so many relapsing Christians. Dr. Cox judiciously remarks, How far this last return to the sentiments and expressions of religion was genuine, and whether we are to regard Nebuchadnezzar as finally converted to God, may be regarded as one of those questions which, while we are benevolently desirous of giving it the most favourable construction, must be referred to the great mass of unfathomable mysteries. The evidence we have a right to demand in general of a renewal of character must be proportioned to the nature of past delinquencies [and, may we not add, to the individuals circumstances], and it often requires much holy skill to pilot our judgment between the Scylla and Charybdis of uncharitableness and laxity.
1. The power and efficacy of divine grace. The proclamation of the king an apparent evidence of a change of mind and heart where it might least be expected. Nebuchadnezzar apparently a case of remarkable though imperfect conversion. Among the evidences given of an inward change arepride in a mighty monarch acknowledged and abandoned; a formerly idolatrous king now a preacher of the true God to his subjects; sin confessed, its chastisement related, and repentance declared. How hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of God! Yet here is one who at the time was the richest on the face of the earth, apparently made to enter it as a little child. The things that are impossible with men are possible with God. Not many mighty, not many noble are called. Yet, thanks to sovereign and omnipotent grace, some are. Nothing too difficult for the grace that, as we may believe, converted Nebuchadnezzar. No situation too high, as none is too mean, for its operation. Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shall become a plain.
2. Encouragement to pray and labour for the conversion of others. Many a prayer for the kings conversion doubtless offered by Daniel and his three friends. These at length answered apparently in this edict. The testimony of Daniels life and lips at length effectual. His faithfulness to the king (Dan. 4:27) rewarded by the kings testimony for God. The influence, though insensible, of a spiritual and consistent Christians life, accompanied by earnest persevering prayer, always powerful, and often efficacious in the most unlikely places and persons. Ye are my witnesses. Hopefuls conversion mainly due to the spirit exhibited by Christian and Faithful in Vanity Fair. The trial of the three faithful Jews in connection with the fiery furnace now made to bear fruit. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand. The privilege of believers to be the salt of the earth, whether in a palace or a prison.
3. Thanks and praise to be rendered to God in every situation. Thanks especially due after mercies received and deliverance experienced. Gods gracious dealings with ourselves to be made know to others for His glory and their good. Come, hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul. Many shall see it and fear, and put their trust in the Lord. Go home to thy friends and tell them how great things God hath done for thee. No situation too lofty for making public acknowledgment of God and His mercies. Nebuchadnezzar an example to kings and those in high places. Not ashamed to confess God before his court, his princes, servants, and subjects. A throne a meet place to acknowledge Him by whom kings reign and princes decree justice. Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father and the holy angels. Confession of God a natural duty. In Nebuchadnezzar the spontaneous effusion of a grateful and childlike spirit. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me. May not this heathen king, recovered from his madness, put many a professing Christian to shame?
4. Gods works to be viewed with admiration and praise. The king struck with wonder and astonishment at those works. How great are His signs! and how mighty are His wonders! Gods works, whether in creation or in providence, wonderful both for their goodness and greatness. He is fearful in praises, doing wonders. The song of the glorified,Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty,echoed back from earth: Thou art great, and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone. Mans sin not to regard the operation of his hands. He hath made His wonderful works to be remembered (Psa. 111:4). These wonders visible in Nature, Providence, and Grace. Discoverable in each individuals case as well as in Nebuchadnezzars. The greatest wonder of all, the gift, incarnation, and death of the Son of God for mans redemption, and, as the effect of it, the restoration of ruined millions to Gods friendship, family, and likeness. Men turned from the madness and the misery of sin to a life of wisdom, holiness, and peace, like Nebuchadnezzars deliverance, the doing of the Lord, and marvellous in our eyes.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER FOUR
I. DESPOTS DISGRACEDan. 4:1-37
a. EMPERORS EPHEMERAL EXCURSION AND EDICT
TEXT: Dan. 4:1-6
1
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all the peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you.
2
It hath seemed good unto me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God hath wrought toward me.
3
How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his domain is from generation to generation.
4
I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house, and flourishing in my palace.
5
I saw a dream which made me afraid; and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me.
6
Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream.
QUERIES
a.
Is it possible that Nebuchadnezzar would make such a humiliating confession?
b.
Was Nebuchadnezzar now converted to the God of Israel?
c.
Why did the kings dream make him afraid?
PARAPHRASE
This is the proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar the king which he sent to the whole worldto people of every nation and language that dwelt in all the earthMay your peace be multiplied. I consider it necessary and proper at this time to publicly announce to you the great and marvelous signs and wonders which the Most High God has done toward me, They were incrediblethe miraculous dreams and experiencessurely demonstrating that his kingdom is everlasting and his dominion is over all of mankind forever. I, the great emperor, Nebuchadnezzar, was dwelling in luxury, contentment, safely and secure in my great palace, when one night I had a dream that terrified me and caused me great agitation of soul, So I called in all the wise men of Babylon and ordered that they tell me the meaning of my dream.
COMMENT
Dan. 4:1-2 NEBUCHADNEZZAR THE KING, UNTO ALL THE PEOPLES . . . There are many who would deny the historicity of this chapter. Their arguments revolve around two points (a) alleged lack of historical confirmation in records outside the Bible; (b) alleged intrinsic improbability. The critics say (1) other O. T. historical books do not mention the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar (2) there is no record of this event among heathen writers of antiquity (3) Josephus had no information except the O.T. when he wrote of this event (4) Origen and Jerome could find no historical grounds for this event (5) If these things had happened, Nebuchadnezzar would have made sure they were recorded permanently so how come they are absent from Babylonian records? (6) If the record of the event was lost how was the event ever known, recovered and recorded by Daniel?
Let us consider these alleged discrepancies in order: (1) There are thousands of events of, not only Nebuchadnezzars life, but hundreds of other important persons concerned with Israel which are not recorded in the historical books of the O.T. None of the books of the O.T. pretend to be complete in every detail even of the history of Israel. An argument from the silence of other O.T. books is no argument at all against the record of Daniel; (2) for that matter, the argument from the silence of profane historians is no argument against the record of Danielonly if there were profane records stating that such an event never happened would there be an argument against Daniel. But, as a matter of fact, there are two historians of antiquity who mention certain events in the life of Nebuchadnezzar which support the historicity of Daniels record: Berosus and Abydenus. Berosus was a Chaldean, and a priest in the temple of Belus, during the days of Alexander the Great. Abydenus (268 B.C.) was a pupil of Berosus. Berosus wrote three books relative to the history of the Chaldeans, of which only some fragments are preserved in Josephus and Eusebius. Both these writers derived their knowledge from the traditions of the Chaldeans, and both should be regarded as good authorities. Berosus mentions Nabolassar, king of Babylon and of the Chaldeans. He then mentions the expedition of his son, Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar), against the Egyptians; the capture of Jerusalem; the burning of the temple; and the captivity of the Jews. After these and other statements about the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar and the magnificence of his capital, Berosus gives the following narrative:
Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick and departed this life when he had reigned forty-three years, whereupon his son, Evil-Merodach, obtained the kingdom.
This quotation may be found in Josephus vs. Apion. It confirms the account of Daniel: (1) in referring to some sickness in the case of Nebuchadnezzar that was unusual which probably preceded, for a considerable time, his death, and, (2) this statement of Berosus accords, in respect to time, remarkably with that in Daniel inasmuch as both accounts agree that the sickness occurred after he had built Babylon, and towards the close of his reign.
The other quotation, that of Abydenus, is found in the works of Eusebius:
After these things (Nebuchadnezzars conquests) as it is said by the Chaldeans, having ascended his palace, he was seized by some god, and speaking aloud, he said: I Nebuchadnezzar, O Babylonians, foretell your future calamity, which neither Belus, my ancestor, nor queen Beltis, can persuade the destinies to avert. A Persian mule will come, employing your own divinites as his auxiliaries; and he will impose servitude upon you. His coadjutor will be the Mede, who is the boast of the Assyrians. Would that, before he places my citizens in such a condition, some Charybdis or gulf might swallow him up with utter destruction! Or that, turned in a different direction, he might roam in the desert (where are neither cities, nor footsteps of man, but wild beasts find pasturage, and the birds wander), being there hemmed in by rooks and ravines! May it be my lot to attain to a better end, before such things come into his mind! Having uttered this prediction, he forthwith disappeared.
The points of agreement between Abydenus and Daniel in the matter of the Babylonians insanity or sickness are amazing: (1) The sickness or seizure occurred after Nebuchadnezzars conquests and sometime before his death; (2) In both Daniel and Abydenus, the king is on the top of his palace; (3) The king was seized by some divinity, (and it is worthy of note that Abydenus does not ascribe the seizure to either an idol or to any god worshipped by the Chaldeans, but to God simply, as to a God that was not known); (4) in the language which Neb. is reported by Abydenus to have used respecting the return of the Persian king after his conquest, there is a remarkable resemblance to what is said in Daniel. How did such a prediction concerning Cyrus come to be attributed to Nebuchadnezzar?the only reasonable conclusion is that this tradition has its origin from certain factual events involving Nebuchadnezzars insanitythus Daniels account and that of Abydenus both have their origin in a factual event. There are things in both the statements of Berosus and Abydenus which cannot be accounted for except on the assumption of the truth of such an occurrence as that which is stated in the historical record of Daniel.
Dan. 4:3 HOW GREAT ARE HIS SIGNS! . . . The destructive critics claim this edict is historically absurd because it makes Nebuchadnezzar appear to be too familiar with Biblical phraseology, (cf. Psa. 145:13). However, with the impact of Daniels extensive influence as third in the kingdom it is neither absurd or incredible that the Babylonian kings vocabulary in addressing Daniels God would have such familiar phrases in it. Furthermore, it is altogether possible that Nebuchadnezzar requested the direct assistance of Daniel in phrasing this edict. Still further, excerpts from the Babylonian psalms and other literature often remind one of Biblical psalms.
This edict sheds interesting light, as Young puts it, upon the open, magnanimous character of the great king. One thing is evident as the character of Nebuchadnezzar unfolds itself in Daniels narrative, this pagan king is not nearly so biased and prejudiced and close-minded as many unbelievers today who have less reason to be so. Nebuchadnezzar was shaken by his experience! He was impressed as he had never been before! If he, the mightiest monarch who had ever ruled to that time, could be rendered so totally impotent and incompetent then the only noble or honest thing to do was to admit it. Perhaps the element of fear was also a strong motivation for Nebuchadnezzars doxology.
One thing the king had to admit, no human king thus far was so mighty that he could prolong his own reign if Daniels God willed it otherwise. And it was very apparent that the rule of Daniels God was everlasting and omnipotent. The history of the world since the days of Nebuchadnezzar confirms this great fact! All earthly rulers die; all authority lodged in the hands of earthly monarchs is soon withdrawn; and not one of them can insure that his authority will extend even to the next generation.
Dan. 4:4-6 . . . I SAW A DREAM WHICH MADE ME AFRAID . . . The mighty king was at rest which indicates more precisely that he was feeling secure and completely free from apprehension. His wars were over; his kingdom was tranquil and prosperous beyond his fondest dreams. He had built a magnificent city; gathered about him the wealth and the luxuries of the world and now he was preparing to while away the remainder of his life enjoying it all.
The word translated afraid is even stronger than terrified. He was literally petrified with fear. Although he did not at first understand the dream, he was well enough versed in signs and portents to understand that the falling of so mighty a tree signified some mighty overthrow. And even afterward he reflected upon the dream as he lay in his bed, his consternation increased. The weird and exaggerated visions of the dream kept flashing before his minds-eye as he thought about its meaning.
The very first thing that morning when he arose the king sent with all haste an official decree that all the wisemen and seers of the nations capita] should be summoned to the palace to interpret his dream for him.
QUIZ
1.
What is the answer to the attack upon the historicity of chapter 4 by critics who point to the silence of the other O.T. books and profane history about Nebuchadnezzars insanity?
2.
What is a probable explanation to the biblical phraseology of Nebuchadnezzars edict concerning the greatness and everlastingness of God?
3.
What does at rest indicate concerning the kings circumstances before his dream?
4.
Why would this mighty monarch be afraid?
5.
Why did the king call for his wise-men?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
IV.
(1) Peace . . .For this mode of address comp. Ezr. 4:17; Ezr. 7:12. The date of the matter recorded in this chapter cannot be ascertained, as a blank falls upon the last eighteen years of Nebuchadnezzars reign. The only facts that occurred during this period, so far as is known, are the terrible form of mania from which the king suffered, by reason of which he was kept under restraint for some time, and the further extension of his dominions after his recovery (Dan. 4:34).
All the earthBy this time the king has become so powerful that he regards himself as universal monarch, so that some time must have elapsed since the events mentioned in the last chapter.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM OF THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS OWN KINGDOM, AND ITS FULFILLMENT.
1-3. On Nebuchadnezzar see Introduction, III, 3, (1); for his “decrees,” note Dan 3:29; on “peoples, nations, and languages” see Introduction, III, 2. A great quantity of Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions have been recovered. The form of address, “Peace be unto you,” so common even to this day in Arabic, has not been found in Assyrian (Prince). Of course, however, in repeating speeches or “decrees” all ancient historians, and even modern writers down to the middle of the nineteenth century, usually gave them in their own language and not verbatim. On the term “Most High God” (Dan 4:2, R.V.) see notes Dan 3:13-15; Dan 3:26. If an official letter or decree such as this should be found among the cuneiform records, in which under his own royal seal the “King of the Four Quarters of the World” should declare his own mistakes and ignominy, how it would amaze our Assyriologists! (See Introduction, II, 3, 4.) The noblest prophets of Judah could hardly voice more clearly the loftiest Hebrew hopes than does this Babylonian king. “Nothing less than a real change of heart could cause such a confession as this” (Wesley).
Indeed the central thought of the entire Daniel apocalypse is here put in the lips of Nebuchadnezzar and later repeated by Darius (Dan 6:26; compare Dan 2:44).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Introduction.
‘Nebuchadnezzar the king, to all peoples, nations and languages who dwell in all the earth. Peace be multiplied to you.’
The proclamation is addressed to the whole empire, but would go to their rulers. ‘Peoples, nations and languages’ was the official way of addressing members of the empire. See Dan 3:4. The great kings of Babylon and Persia saw themselves as, and called themselves, kings of the earth. Anyone not in their empire was not worthy of consideration, and certainly Nebuchadnezzar’s empire was widespread and covered many nations, from Elam and Media in the north east to Egypt in the south west.
These opening words can be compared with Dan 6:25 in a decree issued by Darius the Mede, the king-governor of Babylon appointed by Cyrus the Persian after the Medo-Persian forces had taken Babylon, who by reason of his status used the Babylonian format.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Nebuchadnezzar’s Second Dream (582 to 575 B.C.) Dan 4:1-37 gives us the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the cutting of the great tree and his subsequent seven years of madness and restoration. As far as dating this particular event, scholars note that there is no Babylonian record of governmental events took place during the years of 582 to 575 B.C. Thus, this is a very likely period of time for Nebuchadnezzar’s madness to take place.
Daniel served the king by interpreting this second important dream for him. Both dreams that Daniel interpreted for the king brought him to a place of acknowledging the God of Israel as the true God.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The King Recounts His Dream Dan 4:1-18
2. Daniel Interprets the Dream Dan 4:19-27
3. The Divine Judgment upon King Nebuchadnezzar Dan 4:28-33
4. The King’s Restoration Dan 4:34-37
The King’s Mental Illness – Some scholars suggest that King Nebuchadnezzar’s illness was a mental illness known to medical science as lycanthropy, in which a person imagines himself to be an animal, and upon their recovery from insanity, is able to remember the events during their illness. [80] The king’s fall and restoration is a great example of how God is able to use a person who has fallen into sin and is willing to come back to God. After this king was restored, he gave an anointed testimony of God’s greatness, which caused many people to place their faith and trust in God.
[80] E. B. Pusey writes, “It is now conceded that the madness of Nebuchadnezzar agrees with the description of a rare sort of disease, called Lycanthropy, from one form of it, of which our earliest notice is in a Greek medical writer of the 4th century after our Lord, in which the sufferer retains his consciousness in other respects, but imagines himself to be changed into some animal, and acts, up to a certain point, in conformity with that persuasion.” See E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford (Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1865), 428-429.
We find a similar judgment in Rom 1:16-32 when Paul the apostle describes the testimony of God’s divine wrath upon mankind. As men progress into sin He turns them over to a reprobate mind until they are entirely depraved. Because they do not repent as King Nebuchadnezzar repented, God turns them over unto deeper degrees of depravity. This human depravity becomes the testimony for other men of God’s divine judgment and wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.
The Watchers Word Study on “a watcher” Gesenius says the Hebrew word “watcher” ( ) (H5894) means, “a guard, a watcher, a name of angels in the later Hebrew, from their guarding the souls of men.” Strong says it means, “a watcher, an angel (as guardian),” and comes from the primitive root word ( ) (H5782), which means, “to wake, raise up, stir up, lift up.” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 3 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “watcher 3.” The Hebrew word is only found in this passage in Dan 4:13; Dan 4:17; Dan 4:23.
Dan 4:13, “I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;”
Dan 4:17, “This matter 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 basest of men.”
Dan 4:23, “And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof 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 of the field, till seven times pass over him;”
Comments – Scholars believe that this “watcher” was an angelic being from sent heaven together with another angelic being called “a holy one” (Dan 4:13; Dan 4:23) to give a decree to men from the throne of God. We read about watchers in the apocryphal literature, which was written during the inter-biblical period. In the books of 1Enoch (1.5; 20.1), [81] 2 Enoch (7.1-5, 18.1), [82] The Book of Jubilees (4.15, 22; 7.21; 8.3; 10.5), [83] and The Book of Adam and Eve, [84] these watchers were angels who were sent down from heaven to guide men in the ways of righteousness. Scholars believe that it is some of these watchers who took for themselves wives from the daughters of men in Gen 6:4, and thus invoked the Flood upon mankind during the time of Noah.
[81] 1 Enoch, trans. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol 2, ed. R. H. Charles, 163-281 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 188, 201.
[82] 2 Enoch, trans. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol 2, ed. R. H. Charles, 425-469 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 433, 439.
[83] The Book of Jubilees, trans. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol 2, ed. R. H. Charles, 1-82 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 19, 20, 24, 25, 28.
[84] S. C. Malan, The Book of Adam and Eve, also Called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (London: Williams and Norgate, 1882).
Gen 6:4, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Dan 4:1-18 The King Recounts His Dream In Dan 4:1-18 King Nebuchadnezzar recounts his dream.
Dan 4:2 I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.
Dan 4:2
Dan 4:8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying,
Dan 4:8
Dan 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
Dan 4:15 Dan 4:15
Dan 4:19-27 Daniel Interprets the Dream In Dan 4:19-27 the prophet Daniel interprets the king’s dream.
Dan 4:23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof 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 of the field, till seven times pass over him;
Dan 4:23
Eze 17:22-24, “Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.”
In the New Testament, Jesus tells the Parable of the Mustard Seed in which the seed grew into a great that provided shade and shelter for birds. This tree represents the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mar 4:31-32, “It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.”
Dan 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.
Dan 4:27
Dan 4:28-33 The Divine Judgment upon King Nebuchadnezzar Dan 4:28-33 describes the condition of King Nebuchadnezzar when he fell under God’s divine judgment and lost his sanity for a period of six years. The question must be asked as to why God judged King Nebuchadnezzar in this manner. We do know that the word of God had been proclaimed to the king through Daniel and his three Hebrew friends, so that he had no excuse for his ignorance of the ways of God. Rom 1:19-32 tells us that when a person deliberately turns from the truth unto a lie, God turns him over to a reprobate mind. Perhaps this is the divine law that was at work in turning King Nebuchadnezzar over to the mind of a beast for seven years of judgment. A similar passage in Job 12:24-25 tells us that God “takes away the heart of the chief of the people.”
Job 12:24-25, “He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man.”
Illustration – I find it interesting to compare my life with King Nebuchadnezzar in respect to divine judgment. The period of seven years reflects divine interaction, with the seventh year being the year of restoration, similar to the Sabbatical year under the Mosaic Law. I was raised in church and saved at the age of seven years old. However, there was a six year period in my life that I backslide, between the ages of fifteen and twenty-one years old. Years later when reading about King Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration in the seventh years, I realized that I came to my senses and returned to the Lord in my seventh year. Perhaps the Lord deals with His people today in such time frames.
Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.
Dan 4:31
Dan 4:34-37 The King’s Restoration Comments – In Dan 4:34-37 King Nebuchadnezzar describes his wonder recovery from six years of insanity.
Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
Dan 4:34
Bill Wiese tells the story of how the Lord took him to hell and back so that he would tell others that hell is a real place. His journey began when he was dropped into a prison cell inhabited by two large demons. He says, “I did not know how I had arrived there. The fact that I knew God was kept from my mind. This was explained to me later by the Lord Himself. In retrospect, I know that there are several scriptures indicating that God does sometimes hide things from man’s mind.” [85] In other words, Jesus sent Bill Wiese to hell with the mind that he was a sinner who had never known the Lord as his Saviour. Jesus returned and took Wiese out of hell, at which time his mind and memory were restored.
[85] Bill Wiese, 23 Minutes in Hell (Lake Mary, Florida: Charis House, c2006), 9.
Dan 4:34, “And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:”
Mat 11:25, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”
Luk 10:21, “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
Luk 18:34, “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.”
Luk 19:42, “Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.”
Luk 24:16, “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.”
Luk 24:31, “And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.”
Luk 24:45, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,”
Joh 12:40, “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”
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
Justification: God Exalts the Righteous and Humbles the Proud Dan 4:1 to Dan 6:28 records the stories of Daniel’s prophetic interpretation and fulfillment of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which predicted his madness for a season (Dan 4:1-27). In this interpretation Daniel calls the king to repent and stand righteous before God in order to obtain His mercies (Dan 4:27). The king is struck mad in the midst of his boasting, only having his mind restored after the season predicted by Daniel’s interpretation of the dream. King Nebuchadnezzar repents when his mind is restored, gives all glory to God, declaring Him true and just, and he finds God’s mercy in that God restores to him his kingdom and his splendor (Dan 4:28-37). This story is followed by King Belshazzar’s drunken pride, when his boasting is interrupted by a divine handwriting upon the wall. Daniel interprets the dream as divine judgment upon the king, only to find its fulfillment that same night in the death of the king and the fall of Babylon (Dan 5:1-31). Darius the Mede exalts Daniel above his other governors because of his just character. Daniel’s right standing before God is tested in the lion’s den and he is proven genuine. Thus, he prospers during the reigns of Darius and Cyprus (Dan 6:1-28).
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The King Tells Daniel His Dream
v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar, the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, v. 2. I thought it good, v. 3. How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! v. 4. I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in mine house, v. 5. I saw a dream which made me afraid, v. 6. Therefore made I a decree, v. 7. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, v. 8. But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name, v. 9. O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, v. 10. Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed, v. 11. The tree grew and was strong, v. 12. the leaves thereof were fair, v. 13. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one, v. 14. he cried aloud and said thus, v. 15. nevertheless, leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field, v. 16. let his heart be changed from man’s, v. 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers, v. 18. This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Dan 4:1-37
THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR.
We follow here the division of chapters which we find in our English Version, and as, indeed, in all modern versions. The Aramaic concludes the third chapter with the three verses which are placed in our version at the beginning of the fourth chapter. The arrangement of the Aramaic is followed by the Septuagint, by Theodotion, and by Jerome. The Peshitta and Paulus Tellensis follow the more logical division. Luther divides the chapters logically enough, but carries on the numbering of the verses from the preceding chapter. It is difficult to see anything that can even seem to be a reason for this division. It may indicate a suspicion of these verses at the time the chapters were divided.
Dan 4:1
(Aramaic ch. 3:31).Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. The Septuagint has a different reading here, “The beginning of the letter of Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples and tongues dwelling in the whole earth: Peace to you be multiplied.” In this reading, the first clause is the heading of all that follows, and the document itself begins with, “Peace to you be multiplied.” The absence of the opening words from the Syriac Version of the Septuagint by Paulus Tellensis is against its authenticity. It may have been a scribal note which has slipped into the text. Theodotion is an exact rendering of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta Version appears to have followed a recension between that on which the Septuagint Version is founded and the Massoretic text, “Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote to all nations, peoples, and tongues, Joy be increased to you.” The most natural explanation of this uncertainty in the text is that this chapter is a condensation of a longer document. Were the document in question a proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar, his titles would necessarily have followed. These, however, are omitted, and only malka, “king,” is retained. The baldness of this seems to have suggested the variations which we find in the Septuagint and the Peshitta. The recension before us gives the beginning of the letter according to the attesting note of the LXX. In the middle of the document condensation by the simple omission of clauses was seen to be awkward and perhaps impossible, so instead a summary is given in the third person. That we have not found the proclamation itself is not extraordinary from the very fragmentary condition in which the annals of Nebuchadnezzar have come down to us.
Dan 4:2, Dan 4:3
I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me. How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation. The Greek versions for these two verses are in absolute agreement, hence one is not surprised to find that in the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis, these verses, with that preceding, are marked with an asterisk, which proclaims them not to have been regarded by their translator as a genuine part of the Septuagint, but to have been added from Theodotion. They are in close agreement with the Massoretic text. In these two verses the Peshitta is also at one with the Massoretic text. It is possible that this may have been the actual beginning of the document; on the other hand, it may have been simply the suggestion of some later scribe of how such a proclamation might have begun. The latter is, perhaps, the more probable. At the same time, it vindicates its position by being a not unnatural expression of feelings such as Nebuchadnezzar might well be supposed to have had after such an experience as he had passed through. It may even be that the signs and wonders to which Nebuchadnezzar refers are not merely those of his dream and its fulfilment, but all the signs that had been manifested in his reign.
Dan 4:4, Dan 4:5
I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace: I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. In the Aramaic text there is what may be regarded either as a play on words of the nature of rhyme, or the traces of a doublet. The Septuagint begins the chapter with this verse, as does the Massoretic text, but further appends a date, “In the eighteenth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar said, I was at peace in my house, and established upon my throne: I saw a vision, and I was awestruck, and fear fell upon me.” Theodotion differs from this and also from the Massoretic text, and renders, “I Nebuchadnezzar was flourishing () in my house, and was prospering ().” The similarity in sound between and may have had to do with the rendering. It will be noted that this is further from the Massoretic recension than the Septuagint. The Peshitta repeats the idea of rest, “I Nebuchadnezzar was at peace (shala) in my house, and was resting (reeh) in my palace.” The Massoretic is supported by the Septuagint, and, therefore, strong. The date in the Septuagint, however, may be questioned. The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar was that preceding the capture of Jerusalem, which, according to Jer 52:12, happened in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. In the twenty-ninth verse of the same chapter we have an account of the carrying away of prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar in his eighteenth year, in a passage omitted from the LXX; in a way that makes it probable that, if this passage be genuine, the one is according to the Jewish, the other according to the Babylonian mode of reckoning. If that is so, the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar would mean the year of the capture of Jerusalem. If this date had, however, been correct, something about the coincidence would have been mentioned. Had this book been written to encourage the Jews in their conflict against Epiphanes, it would have been mentioned that Nebuchadnezzar’s madness occurred after he had captured Jerusalem. At the same time, a later scribe would have a tendency to insert such a date, even if no date had been there, or at all events to modify any other date into this. Thus we find in the Septuagint Jer 52:15 (Massoretic 19, Authorized Version 24) a reference to the capture of Jerusalem. Another cause would tend to make “eighteenth year” liable to occur at this point, it is that the previous chapter in the Septuagint begins with assigning the same date. The change must have been made before the exemplar from which the Septuagint translator made his translation had bern transcribed, as it appears in Paulus Tellensis. Ewald has suggested “the twenty-eighth year”in many respects a probable suggestion. As Ewald has pointed out, the proclamation would have a date. Even if, as Ewald maintained, it was the work of a later time than the days of Nebuchadnezzar, yet so skilful a writer could not fail to recognize the necessity. The Septuagint Version does not give the beginning of this narrative the form of a proclamation. The attitude of the king is that of rest after the toils of long warsan attitude that could not be attributed to him when he had not reached the middle of his reign. The conquest of Egypt followed the capture of Jerusalem. The difference between “ten” and “twenty” in Aramaic, as in Hebrew, is comparatively little. (asar) is “ten,” (asareen) is “twenty.” As the “ten” is the final word in the numerical statement, it would be modified asaratha, whereas the word “twenty” is frequently in similar circumstances unmodified; we should then have asareen. It may have been even later, but if the real year had been “thirty-eighth,” the modification of the words would require to be greater. Ewald’s further consideration, that as “thirty-eighth” would only leave five years till the forty-three years of Nebuchadnezzar were completed, and therefore would not leave space for the seven years of madness, is of less force, as we are not obliged to take “times” as “years” in Jer 52:16 and Jer 52:32. The king had received tokens of Divine power in his past history, and had in a sort acknowledged God but still he had not surrendered his pride. The idea that in this there is a reference to Epiphanes seems far-fetched. The only reason assigned by Hitzig and Behrmann is that the Antiochian mob nicknamed him . We have no reason to believe that this was a common nickname, even in Antioch, and there is not very much likelihood of the nickname spreading to Judaea. There is absolutely no evidence that Antiochus ever received the nickname “Epimanes.” The passage appealed to is usually Polybius, Jer 26:10, but in that passage there is nothing of the kind said. This portion of Polybius has come down to us only in quotation in Athenaeus’ ‘Deipnosophistae’a collection of odds and ends, strung together by a dialogue. In this book, twice is this portion of Polybius quoted, and in introducing this quotation in beth cases the author refers to the nickname “Epimanes.” In the one case, Jer 5:21 (193), he says generally “Antiochus, surnamed () Epiphanes, but called () Epimanes, for his deeds.” So far as this goes, Antiochus may have been generally nicknamed Epimanes; but it is to be noted that this is not said, and Polybius is not given as the authority. In the other passage the aspect of things is changed. In 10:53 (439) Athenaeus gives the reference to the book of Polybius, and says, speaking of Antiochus, “Polybius calls him Epimanes on account of his deeds.” Here Athenaeus says that Polybius himself called Antiochus Epimanes, not that anybody else did so. He does not say that Polybius says that Antiochus “was called Epimanes,” but that “Polybius calls him ( a ).” He further gives no indication where Polybius says this. As there is no evidence for the nickname, there is no evidence that this incident was invented to suit this non-existent nickname. The picture of Nebuchadnezzar at rest in his palace is as unlike as possible the uneasy restless demeanour of Antiochus, staggering through the streets more or less drunk, joining with any brawlers he might come in contact with. If the writer of Daniel got the story of the madness from the nickname, he would not fail to get an account of the habits of the monarch, which led to the nickname being given. If he intended his picture of Nebuehadnezzar resting in his palace after his victorious career, with all the dignity of an Oriental monarch, to be recognized as a portrait of Antiochus roaming the streets with a set of drunken companions, the author of Daniel must have had singular ideas of portraiture. It would require a madness greater then Nebuchadnezzar’s to believe it
Dan 4:6, Dan 4:7
Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof. These verses do not occur in the LXX. Theodotion is a somewhat slavish translation of the Massoretic text, “From me there was set up () a decree to summon before me all the wise men of Babylon,” etc. The Peshitta is somewhat freer, but as close to the Massoretic text. Still, the want of the verses in the Septuagint would throw a doubt on their authenticity, even if there were nothing in the verses themselves to make them liable to suspicion.
Dan 4:8
But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying. This verse is also omitted in the Septuagint. Instead of this verse and those preceding, this verse occurs after the account of the dream, “And when I arose from my couch in the morning, I called Daniel, the ruler of the wise men, and the chief of the interpreters of dreams, and I related to him the dream, and he showed me all the interpretation of it.” Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The Septuagint arranges differently: instead of deferring the account of the dream till Nebuchadnezzar tells it to Daniel, the account of the dream follows immediately upon the statement of the fact that it had occurred and had troubled the king. In it, as we have seen, there is nothing of the summoning of all the wise men of Babylon in all their various classes. This summoning of the whole college of wise men, astrologers, soothsayers, and Chaldeans, is in obvious contradiction, not only to Dan 2:48, but also to the ninth verse of the chapter before us. There was no need of summoning the college of augurs until the king had consulted their head. The explanation of these verses and the occasion of their interpolation is not unlike the fact narrated in Dan 2:2, where Nebuchadnezzar, on account of his first dream, calls together the wise menthat when he had a dream that troubled him it was natural that Nebuchadnezzar should do as the Septuagint declares he did, summon “Daniel, the ruler of the wise men, and the chief of the interpreters of dreams.” One result of which follows, if we discard these verses, i.e. that we get rid, in this passage, of the class of “Chaldeans,” and further, of the etymology of “Belteshazzar,” both of which have been made objections to the authenticity of Daniel.
Dan 4:9
O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. This verso is also omitted in the Septuagint. Theodotion and the Peshitta both have this passage, but with slight variations from the Massoretic text. Instead of “No secret troubleth [, ‘anays, ‘compel,’ Est 1:8] thee,” Thedotion renders, “No secret () baffles () thee.” The Peshitta renders. “And no secret is hid (‘ethcasee) from thee,” reading, instead of , probably . Behrmann, who translates the word by verborgen, thinks the choice of the word occasioned by Eze 28:3, “No secret is hid from thee” (), this last word, he thinks, occasioning the use of ; but : is used in Aramaic (see Le Eze 13:6, “dark” of the spot of leprosy). It seems more probable that there is some mistake in the reading. The Massoretic reading of the last clause seems modelled on the situation in the second chapter, where Nebuchadnezzar demands of the magicians that they not only give the interpretation of the dream, but tell the dream itself. The versions here do not agree with the Massoretic. Theodotion renders, “Hear the vision () of the dream which I saw, and tell me its interpretation.” The Peshitta has, “In the vision of my dream I was seeing visions of my head, and tell me the interpretation.” The Massoretic reading contradicts the situation, and the variety of reading in the two versions confirms the suspicion of this verse induced by its absence from the Septuagint. “Master of the magicians” (rab-hartummaya). There is nothing in Dan 2:48 about the promotion of Daniel over the “magi-clans,” but only over the “governors (signeen) of the wise men (hakaymeen) of Babylon” This is not to be in itself regarded as a proof of antagonism between these verses and the earlier portion of the, book, as Daniel might have been promoted in the interval. The Peshitta calls Daniel rab-hahmeen, “chief of the wise men;” Theodotion, . It is also to be observed that the writer of these verses does not make Daniel rab-mag, which so generally was anciently understood to mean “master of the magicians.” Avoiding an alluring blunder is often as clear a proof of knowledge as a directly correct statement. “Spirit of the holy gods;” not “the Spirit,” but “a spirit.” The Authorized Version is here correct in translating “gods,” not “God,” as the adjective is plural; not as Theodotion, who renders, “a holy spirit of God,” reading, .
Dan 4:10
Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The Septuagint is different here, “I was sleeping [on my couch], and behold a lofty tree springing out of the earth, and its appearance was great, and there was not another like to it.” The words, “on my couch,” are marked with an asterisk, denoting that they have been added, probably from Theodotion. There are indications here of a text slightly different from the Massoretic, even in the latter portion of the verse, where the LXX. and the Massoretic text come closest. Instead of bego’ (), “in the midst of,” the LXX. reading has been saggeee (), “great.” The last clause is most widely different from the Massoretic text; instead of “and the height thereof was great,” we have, “and there was no other like it.” It is not easy to imagine how the one reading grew from the other. Roomeh (), “height,” might easily be mistaken for (demah), if roomeh were written defectively; but the rest of the clause cannot easily be explained The Massoretic text has a certain redundancy of meaning, which is suspicious. In this verse we are told the tree was “great;” the opening clause of the following says the tree grew; whereas the Septuagint, while asserting its loftiness, asserts also that it was “growing” (). On the whole, we prefer the Septuagint, as it does not proceed to assert further that the tree “grew great.” Theodotion, while in the latter portion of the verse agreeing with the Massoretic text, omits the introductory clause. The Pe-shitta is a briefer recension of the Massoretic text, “The vision in my couch wasa tree in the midst of the earth, the height great.” The reference here may be, to the sacred tree of the Assyrians, the symbol of life, which is so perpetually introduced into the sculptures of Nineveh, and seen also in some Babylonian cylinders, especially in connection with royal acts of worship, in Lenormant we find that a sacred treea conifer of some sort as seen by the sculptureswas supposed to have the quality of breaking the power of the seven Maskim. Whatever the origin of this belief, it seems to have passed into the faith of Assyria and Babylon, and to have so permeated them that Ezekiel (31) describes Assyria as a mighty cedar. To pass from the empire to its ruler was a specially easy step in regard to an Oriental monarchy, in which the state was the monarch, in the midst of the earth. This refers to the notion each nation had that their own was the middle point, or omphalos, of the world. Though (gav) meant originally really “back,” not “middle,” yet it is used of the furnace of fire in the preceding chapter, and the primitive meaning is entirely lost in the Targums.
Dan 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. This verse is transposed in the Septuagint with the following verse, and is rendered, “And its appearance () was great, and its top approached to the heavens, and its breadth (, equivalent to ‘branches’) filled () to the clouds all things beneath the heaven and the sun and the moon were, and dwelt in it, and enlightened all the earth.” The addition in the last clause is a singular and picturesque one to one standing beneath a spreading tree; sun and moon might pierce with their rays through some thin points in the foliage, but they would seem never to get beyond the widespread branches of the tree, and therefore it would be but a poetical mode of statement to say, “the sun and moon dwelt amid the branches.” At the same time, it is not impossible that there was some astronomical legend of the sun and moon and the tree of life. If this proclamation was originally written in cuneiform, there might easily be some difficulty at times in deciphering and fixing in which of a dozen possible senses a given word must be taken. The variation is beyond the region of mere ordinary blundering in Aramaic. On the other hand, it seems too picturesque for the work of a commonplace interpolator. Theodotion in the main agrees with the Massoretic, but instead of “sight thereof,” he has “breadth () thereof,” reading some such word as pathootheh instead of hazotheh. The Peshitta is in close agreement with the received text. To those who, like the Babylonian, believed the earth to he a vast plain, it was not inconceivable that a tree should be so high as to be seen over the whole earth. It is a very suitable symbol of a great world-empire. At the same time, we must remember that the great variation in this verse in the Septuagint makes its authenticity somewhat doubtful.
Dan 4:12
The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. The Septuagint Version here is widely different: “Its branches were thirty furlongs in extent, and underneath its shadow all beasts of the earth took shelter, and in it the birds of heaven made their nests, and its fruit was much and good, and it supplied all living creatures.” As already mentioned, this verse occurs before the one we have just been considering. It differs, like it, more than can be explained by a mistake in reading the Massoretic Aramaic; if it were translated from a cuneiform document, it is easily imaginable in what form the statement might be made. The reading, however, is not an unlikely one in the description of a dream, if we could have imagined the Indian banyan tree to have been known to the authors of this version, we might have understood the tree of the dream to have been like it. Theodotion is at one with the Massoretic text, as also the Peshitta. Whether we take the symbol of a tree used for the Babylonian empire, as drawn from the Babylonian tree of life, or merely devised by the poetic fancy of the monarch, inspired for the time, it must be recognized as very apt. From the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, it stretched from the cataracts of the Nile in all probability into Asia Minor. Over all this empire the monarch maintained the attitude of an earthly providence. It was because government was strong that peaceable men could live. It is useless to carry the similitude into the minutiae of Jephet-ibn-Ali, who maintains that the wild beasts are the nomads of the deserts, and the birds the strangers that came to Nebuchadnezzar from far. In the Aramaic here there are traces of the antiquity in the language: the use of inbbaya, “fruit,” instead of ibbaya, is one instance. Saggeee (with sin) is a proof that the distinction between and was still understood, and probably beard. It is remarked by Keil that this word does not really mean “much,” but rather “great,” “strong.” Although it is undeniable that he is correct as to the primitive meaning of the word, it can scarcely mean anything else than “much” in the present connection. Mazon, “food,” is rare as a Biblical word, but occurs in Genesis as well as Chronicles. Professor Bevan quotes Noldeke in favour of a Mandaean origin for it.
Dan 4:13
I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven. The Septuagint Version is shorter here, and therefore, other things being equal, is to be preferred, “And I saw in my dream, and an angel was sent in power from heaven.” Theodotion is as usual in closer accord with the text of the Massoretic than is the Septuagint; yet he omits “of my head.” The Peshitta, yet closer to the Massoretic text, only omits “behold.” There is now a change in the vision. The monarch sees “a watcher and a holy one descend.” This is rendered rightly by the Septuagint, “an angel.” Jephet-ibn-Ali maintains that there are two, and that the watcher is the higher. The word (eer), “watcher,” occurs only in this chapter in the Bible. In the Book of Enoch the name occurs almost a score of times, and is used to designate the archangels. In the present case the word , (qaddeesh), “a holy one,” is in all likelihood an explanatory addition, the word being unknown beforeprobably an adaptation of some Assyrian name. On the other hand, in the Book of Enoch every one is supposed to be as well acquainted with the of Daniel as with the cherubim and ophanim of Ezekiel and the seraphim of Isaiah. Does not this imply that, at the time the Book of Enoch was written, the Book of Daniel was equally well known with those of the two other prophets? The latest conceivable date for Enoch is b.c. 130, and so late a date never would have been thought of had there not been a necessity to place its date after that at which critics in their wisdom had placed Daniel. The date above mentioned implies that Judas Maccabaeus is unmentioned in a struggle of which he was the crowning hero. Even grant that later date, it is inconceivable that a single generation could have given Daniel such a place of honour as to be regarded as the equal with Isaiah and Ezekiel. In this connection it is to be noticed that, though the ophanim, “wheels,” of Ezekiel are made use of, the soosim, “horses,” of Zechariah do not appear in the later books. Yet they are declared to be spirits. If Daniel were a contemporary of Ezekiel, and his writings had thus had time to sink into the mind of the Jewish people, this phenomenon can be understood.
Dan 4:14
He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, cut off his branches, shako off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches. The Septuagint Version is, “And one called and said to him, Cut it down, and destroy it; for it is decreed by the Highest to root it out and destroy it.” It is possible that abbey in the Greek was due to (kayn) being read as (lo). The phrase as it stands in the Greek is not unlike Rev 14:18, “And another cried with a loud voice to him that had the sharp sickle.” It is, therefore, equally possible that (lo) has been changed into (kayn). The latter part of the verse is more condensed, and therefore, by that, more probable; only the rooting out commanded seems to contradict the fact that it is also commanded to leave “one root of it.” Theodotion is in much closer agreement with the Massoretic, save that the beasts, instead of being warned to depart from beneath the shadow of the tree, are to be shaken () from beneath it, as are all the birds from its branches. The Peshitta is an accurate translation of the text of the Massoretes. A peculiarity to be observed in the Aramaic is that the verbs are in the plural, which is retained in Theodotion and the Peshitta. It seems difficult to understand this. Stuart’s explanation which is practically that of Havernick and Hitzigthat the command is addressed by the (eer) to his retinue, seems highly forced, as there has been no word of a retinue. Keil’s and Kliefoth’s view, that the plural is the impersonal, does not suit the circumstances. We have a suspicion that the plural is due to a mistakethinking the watcher and the holy one were separate persons. The Septuagint, however, has the plural, which is all the more extraordinary that is singular. The function assigned here to the angels must be observed. Here, as in the parables of our Lord, the angels are the instruments by whom the decrees of providence are executed. In our days angels are not believed in. It is possible that materialism has much of its advantage over us, in that we do not recognize the existence and activity of angelic forces among the agencies of nature and providence.
Dan 4:15
Nevertheless leave the stump of his 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. Again the Septuagint differs considerably from the received text, “And thus he said, Leave one root of it in the earth, in order that it may with the beasts of the earth browse in the mountains on grass like an ox.” As the reading is the briefer, it is on the whole to be preferred, the more so that the belt of iron and brass is got rid of. The Septuagint assumes that the work of demolishing the tree had gone on to some extent, and then the watcher intervenes to bring forward this limitation to the completeness of the destruction at first enjoined. Theodotion is in agreement with the Massoretic text, as also the Peshitta. Moses Stuart thinks the belt of iron and brass is represented as being put round the stump of the tree in order to prevent it cracking, and so rotting, in this following yon Langerke. Keil, with more justice, thinks that this is a transition from the symbol to the person symbolized; in this view he agrees with Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Zckler, Behrmann, Hitzig, Ewald, Kranichfeld, and others. There is a further division of opinion as to whether it symbolizes the mental darkness Nebuchadnezzar will be under, or the limitation of his kingdom, or the fact that, as a maniac, he will be bound with fetters. The fact that, while commentators have devoted so much time to this, there is no reference to it in the interpretation, confirms us in our suspicion of the whole clause. The transition to the person, if barely doubtful in regard to the belt of iron and brass, is obvious in the remaining clauses in this verse. Every tree is wet with the dew of heaventhat would indicate neither degradation nor hardship; and the browsing with the boasts is impossible to a tree. The transition from thing to person is in perfect accordance with what every one has experienced in dreams.
Dan 4:16
Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass ever him. The Septuagint rendering seems to be taken from the previous verse, “And let his body be changed by the dew of heaven, and let him be pastured with them seven years.” It seems difficult to imagine, either, on the one hand, (libebayh) changed into (pigerah), the word by which Paulus Tellensis translates , though it suggests “carcase,” or into (nidnayh), the word used in Dan 7:15; or, on the other, that either of these should be read lebab. At the same time, and are not unlike in old inscriptions, nor unlike ; any indistinctness in the third letter might easily lead to a mistake. It is not impossible that some of the words in the latter part of the previous verse have been modified from some word meaning “body.” It is equally difficult to guess what word has been read by the Septuagint translator instead of (yahlephoon), “let them pass over.” The greater brevity of the Septuagint is in its favour. Theodotion is, as usual, in closer agreement with the Massoretic; he renders min-anaosha’ or anosha’ for , “from men”a possible translation, and one favoured by some recent commentators. The Peshitta agrees quite with the received text. According to the received text, the main change was mentalthe human heart is removed, and the heart of a beast given. On the other hand, in the twenty-third verse, in which we have the fulfilment of the dream, the change is mainly physical, and it is to be observed that the change is produced by “the dew of heaven.” Seven times. The word iddanun, “times,” is a matter of some difficulty; it means really “seasons” or “points” of time, as in Ecc 3:2, Targum, and Gen 38:1, Targum Onkelos, “It came to pass at this time.” It is purely arbitrary to fix the meaning here as “years,” as is done by the Septuagint and by many commentators. Theodotiom keeps the indefiniteness of the original by rendering the word here . The Peshitta transfers the word. It may be” months” as suggested by Lenormant; it maybe “seasons,” in our usual sense of the word. Rendel Harris’s ‘Biblical Monuments,’ p. 73, says, “Summer and winter are the only seasons counted in Babylonia;” if so, seven iddaneen would be nearly four years. From the fact that exposure to weather is the point of importance, Mr. Harris’s view is not impossible; but pathological reasons suggest “months” (see Excursus at the end of chapter). Seven, with the Babylonians, as with most other Semites, is a round number of sacred import, and therefore may not be pressed.
Dan 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy odes: 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 basest of men. In this verse the difference between the Septuagint textwe mean the text behind that versionand that of the Massoretes is great. It is as follows: “Until he know the Lord of heaven to have power over all things which are in heaven and on the earth, and such things as he willeth to do, tie doeth.” This, as may be observed, is very much briefer than the Massoretic, and hence, to a certain extent, to be preferred. It is, however, difficult to imagine the genesis of the one from the other, as they have only two words in common in a similar connection, (shaleet) and (yinedeoon)’ If we start with the supposition that the Massoretic text is the primary, we have a difficulty in seeing what reason induced this peculiar form of condensation. Had it been to get rid of the decree of the watchers, and the demand of the holy ones, that clause might have been simply omitted, and the sense would have given no sign of anything having been omitted. If, again, we start with the Septuagint text as our basis, it is difficult to understand what led to the insertion of “the decree of the watchers” and “the demand of the holy ones.” Of course, the period of the Persian domination and that of the early Greek supremacy was one in which the angelic hierarchy was enormously increased and made vastly more complex than it had been before. Further, it is to be noted that “the watchers,” (ereen), are here distinguished absolutely from “the holy ones,” (gaddeesheen), whereas in Dan 4:10 (13) “the watchers” and “the holy ones” are identified. This distinction is made in later Jewish commentators, and therefore its. presence here, fin contradistinction to Dan 4:13, is proof of a relatively late origin for this clause. Zckler would avoid this by asserting a parallelism of members in this sentence; but, in the first place, this is not verse, but prose, and therefore parallelism need not be expected. Further, (gezayrath) is “a decree” given by a person in authority, and (sh’alayth) is “a petition” presented to one in authority. So far from the two being identified in the verse before us, the watchers and the holy ones are as absolutely contrasted as they can be. Bevan simply appeals to Dan 4:10 (13) to prove their identitysense has no influence with him. When we turn to Theodotion, we find that, in his practical identity with the Massoretic text, he has preserved the contrast between “decree“ and “petition,” the former word being represented by , and the second by . These two words represent fairly well the distinction between (gezayrath), and (sh’alayth). It is probable that is used instead of in order to show that is to be regarded as genitive plural. The Peshitta follows the Massoretic, but less closely. It has , “watcher,” in the singular. This clause in the Syriac should be rendered, “according to the decrees of the watcher is this order, and according to the word of the holy one is the request;” it retains the distinction in question much as it is in the received text, but with a distinct difference of meaning in regard to the ether words of the clause. So, too, Jerome in the Vulgate translates, “In sententia vigilum decretum eat et sermo sanctorum et petitio,” thus maintaining, in all the confusion there is in this rendering, the distinction we have referred to. In the final clause, the Vulgate is further astray from the Massoretic. translating, super eum. The theology of this passage is singular, so singular that, were it not for the omission of the passage from the Septuagint. and its contradiction of Dan 4:13, we might be inclined to think it must be genuine. (For a similar statement, see Gal 3:19, “The Law was ordained by angels;” Heb 2:2, “If the word spoken by angels was steadfast.“) The view seems to be that the Almighty had a council of angels, and before them was every question discussed ere it was decreed. In short, that there was a heavenly sanhedrin, corresponding to that on earthan idea which was developed by the Talmudists. It appears in Enoch, not vet fully developed. In Enoch 12. certain of the watchers are denounced as having defiled themselves with women; in ch. 20. we have the name of the holy angels who watch, and in this chapter we have the different provinces assigned to each of them. Six are enumerated. They have thus no collective function. In the portion of Enoch preserved in Syncellus, men are represented as calling to the heavens, and addressing them; and the four angels, Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel, give answer by looking down upon the earth, and they see the blood that is being shed by violence. Then follows the statement, “And the four archangels came before the Lord, and said.” They may be here said to act in a collective capacity, but they have no deliberative function, still less have they any power to decree. The interpolated verse before us thus represents an angelology more developed than that of the date of the Book of Enoch. And setteth up over it the basest of men. This phrase suggests the “vile person,” (nibezeh), of Dan 11:21, who is probably Epiphanesthe reference in this interpolated verse is not unlikely the same. The Syriac form of in the K’thib has to be observed. One peculiarity which points to interpolation is the Hebrew plural here used, (anasheem). Were it not that our suspicions of this verse are deepened by examination of it, we should be inclined to see a reference to that usurpation of Nebuchadnezzar’s throne, which Lenormant thinks is implied in the title Neriglissar gives to his father. There seems to be a reference to something like this in Dan 11:24 of this chapter, according to the version of the LXX.
Dan 4:18
This dream I King Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation; but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee. This verse is wholly omitted in the Septuagint. On the other hand, the verse in the Septuagint which occupies this place is totally different from anything in the Massoretic text: “Before me was it cut down in one day, and its destruction was in one hour of the day, and its branches were given to every wind, and it was driven out and dragged forth, and it ate the grass of the earth, and it was delivered to a guard, and in brazen fetters and shackles was it bound with them. I marvelled exceedingly at these things, and the sleep departed from mine eyes.” The first thing that strikes one with this is the fact that it is a translation from Aramaic. The clause, “in brazen fetters and shackles was it bound with them,” seems nearly demonstrative of this. is not a sentence which any one would naturally write in Greek, but the sentence is natural if the translator followed his Aramaic original slavishly. If, then, this is correct, the hypothesis of a falsarius is reduced to that of an Aramaic falsarius, who intruded this verse into the Aramaic original which was conveyed down to Egypt. On the other hand, the verse in the Septuagint completes the narrative which the Massoretic text leaves unfinished. This may be used. as an argument against the authenticity of this version, as the need of completion may have suggested the mode in which the need was to be supplied. But it is also to be noted that there is present the same mixture of sign and thing signified, which, natural in a dream, is so unnatural in ordinary narration, that the falsarius who had observed the incompleteness of the Massoretic text, and had the necessary skill to supply the want, would not have increased the confusion, already manifest enough. When we turn to Theodotion, we see symptoms of trouble, “This is the vision which I Nebuchadnezzar the king had, and thou, Beltasar, tell the interpretation, because none of the wise men of my kingdom were able to show me its interpretation; but thou, Daniel, art able, because a holy spirit of God is in thee.” The introduction of the Jewish name Daniel in the midst of a speech in which he is always elsewhere addressed by his Bahylonian name, is suspicious. The repetition, in this as in the Masoretic, of the original incongruity that Daniel, the head of the court magicians, is only summoned after the other magicians have proved unable to solve the mystery of this dream, is to be noted. The Peshitta here partly follows the same text as that followed by Theodotion, and partly that of the Massoretes. Like Theodotion, “Daniel” is inserted, but, following the basis of the Massoretic text in opposition to Theodotion, it has “a spirit of the holy gods.” There seems no possibility of imagining the LXX. reading to have developed from the Massoretic, or vice versa. If there were any proof of Dr. C. H. H. Wright’s hypothesis, that our present Daniel was a condensation of a larger work, it might be supposed that the Massoretic represented one condensation, and the LXX. another. The Septuagint at this point inserts, “And having risen early in the morning,. I summoned Daniel, the ruler of the wise men and chief of the interpreters, and related to him the dream, and he showed all the interpretation of it.” In Gen 41:1-57. we have two accounts of Pharaoh’s dream, first in connection with his actual dreaming, and next in his narrating to Joseph his experience. If the original tractfrom the union of several of which we imagine our book has been compiledfrom which this chapter is condensed contained, like Gen 41:1-57; two accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, and the Egyptian recension followed one condensation of this tract, and the Palestinian another, the phenomena are explicable without the idea of a vague gratuitous variation, such as that of which, on the traditional view, the writer of the Septuagint has been guilty. On the ground that the Massoretic text may represent also a true text of Daniel, another fragment of the original document, we may examine it a little more closely. The king declares the dream to Daniel in a way that indicates a certain attestation of the accuracy of the report of what he had seen. “This is the dream which I Nebuchadnezzar the king saw.” Then follows the command to declare the interpretation, “You are master of magicians. I have duly brought before you an accredited dream which I have had, fulfil now your office, interpret to me my dream.” This much is natural. What follows is an obvious interpolation. It contradicts what has preceded, which, by implication, asserts Daniel’s duty to interpret, and therefore the probability that not last, but first, would Daniel have been appealed to. It contradicts also what follows, which is a commendation of Daniel’s powers, which, as known to the king, ought to have led him at once to summon him, as the Septuagint says Nebuchadnezzar did. The commendation of Daniel appears an addition to get over the difficulty, but, like many other attempts of the same kind, it fails, and really adds to the confusion.
Dan 4:19
Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. Thus far the two main recensions are agreed. The Septuagint renders practically to the same effect as our version, only that means rather “suspicions disturbed him,” which is the rendering of Paulus Tellensis. There are traces in it of doublet; the rendering of the LXX. is, “And Daniel greatly marvelled, and suspicions disturbed him, and he was terrified, trembling having taken hold of him, and his visage was changed, having moved () his head, having been amazed one hour, he answered me in a meek voice.” Theodotion and the Peshitta are at one with the Massoretic text here. It is to be noted here that the word sha‘a, translated “hour,” has no such definite meaning; Gesenius gives, “a moment of time,” in which he is followed by Bevan, Keil, and Stuart. Ewald translates, eine Stunde, and with him agree Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Zckler. Both the Greek versions have , but we must bear in mind that had not the definite meaning which we attach to “hour.” Jerome renders hera. The Septuagint adds, as we have seen, somewhat grotesquely, “having moved () his head, he was astonished for one hour.” This seems a case of “doublet,” that phenomenon so frequent in the Septuagint. The Septuagint rendering, “And () Daniel was greatly astonished, and suspicions troubled him, and, trembling having seized him, he was afraid,” suggests that it is not impossible that , “greatly,” had been read instead of , “an hour;” but the rest is not so easily explicable. There is one case of Syriasm here in the vocalization of instead of . The king spake, and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. This clause is absent from both the Greek versions, though present in the Peshitta and Vulgate. As it stands, on the one hand, it is a departure from the epistolary style, or perhaps rather the proclamative style of the earlier portion of the chapter. On the other hand, if we think this clause an interpolation, we cannot fail to note that the kindly courtesy and consideration ascribed by the interpolator to Nebuchadnezzar is utterly unlike the character of Epiphanes as manifested to the Jews. Nebuchadnezzar saw that Daniel was filled with sorrow and apprehension at the meaning he saw in the vision, and endeavours to reassure and encourage him. If the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar is unlike that which a Jew of b.c. 170 would have ascribed to him were it his intention to present in him Epiphanes under a disguise, still more unlike is the conduct of Daniel to that which certainly would have been ascribed to him had the author intend
serve thee. And that tree was exalted and neared the heaven, and its breadth () touched the clouds. Thou, O king, wast exalted above all men that are upon the face of the whole earth, and thine heart has been [literally, ‘was’] lifted up with pride and strength over those things which pertain to the Holy One and his angels, and thy works are manifest, because thou hast laid waste the house of the living God on account of the sins of the consecrated people.” The latter portion of this contains plain evidence of interpolation. Had there been anything of that sort in the original Daniel, it would not have disappeared from the Massoretic text. This addition reveals the mental attitude of the Jews of the Maccabean period to foreign oppressors. The fact that the whole atmosphere of the primitive Daniel differs so much from this is an indirect evidence of its genuineness. If one looks at the Septuagint rendering of these three verses, there seem evidences of an early origin. The first verse is clearly an instance in which the text behind the Septuagint is superior to that of the Massoretic; the latter is obviously filled out from verse 11. The statement of Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness in verse 22 may be somewhat the result of paraphrase. The fifteenth verse, according to the LXX; which is paralleled by Tischeudorf with verse 19 of the Massoretic, is really another version of the preceding verses, probably slightly modified to give the resulting text the appearance of being continuous. Theodotion bears a very close resemblance to the Massoretic text, only he has , “breadth,” instead of . The Peshitta differs but little, though still a little, from the Massoretic text. Instead of rendering, “meat for all,” it has, “for all flesh.” According to both recensions of the text, Daniel repeats, either in substance or with verbal exactness, the description Nebuchadnezzar had himself given of the tree of his vision, but applies it to the monarch. To us the terms of the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s power are exaggerated; but we must bear in mind that the manners of an Oriental court are different from those of Western nations. It is not unlike the boastful language of Nebuchadnezzar in the Standard Inscription. The monarch’s dominion was vast, but it had been given him, and that he did not recognize, and hence the judgment that came upon him.
Dan 4:23
And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof 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 of the field, till seven times pass over him. This in the beginning agrees with the text behind the Septuagint Version of Dan 4:14. In that verse, instead of the elaborate process of cutting off branches and shaking off leaves, the Septuagint had simply, . This confirms us in our preference of the Septuagint there. In the present instance, the Septuagint is briefer than the Massoretic text; it varies in some points, which may indicate the hand of a redactor, “And the vision which thou sawest, that an angel was sent in strength, and commanded to root the tree up and to cut it down, the judgment of God shall come upon thee.” Here, again, there is nothing of “the watcher and the holy one,” nothing of the belt of “iron and brass,” nor of the “tree having its portion with the beasts of the field,” nor that it was to be “wet with the dew of heaven.” Some of these features are mentioned in the account of the vision, but are not repeated now. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta carries the repetition yet further, and inserts, “And his heart shall be changed from the heart of ‘t man, and the heart of a beast shall be given him.” In this the process already begun in the text of the Massoretes is carried a little further. The Vulgate agrees with the received text. Daniel rapidly notifies the principal features in the king’s dream, before he proceeds to explain it.
Dan 4:24
This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king. The passage in the Seventy which is parallel with this is partly in the last clause of the previous verse and partly in the verse that occupies a similar place to this in the Septuagint text, “The judgments of the great God shall come upon thee, and the Most High and his angels assail thee ( ).” The change of tense here indicates that the second clause is an alternative rendering, brought into the text from the margin. In this marginal note meta has been taken as “assail,” and malka’, “O king,” has been, by transposition of the two final letters, read mela’k, “angel.” Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The respectful tone in which Daniel addresses Nebuchadnezzar in the received text is to be observed; it is utterly alien to the boastful tone Judaism was afterwards accustomed to impute to its old saints. That there is no reference to the watchers or to their decree in this is imputed to Daniel’s recognition of its true source; but in the Septuagint there is nothing equivalent to the statement in verse 17. The fact that it is omitted here confirms the suspicion against it which we expressed in regard to the earlier verse.
Dan 4:25
That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. The Septuagint Version is here much briefer, and in that better, “And they shall put thee in guard, and send thee into a desert place.” The Massoretic text, although it agrees with that from which Theodotion’s Version, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate have been translated, is pleonastic. The Vulgate drops the causative element, and simply says, “Thou shalt eat grass like the ox, and thou shalt be wet with the dew of heaven.” The Peshitta, while translating by the aphel of ‘acalthat is to say, making the meaning causativerenders by the passive, titztaba; similarly Theodotion renders it. If we are to take the words of Daniel strictly, even in the Massoretic, much more if we take the Septuagint, text, he seems to have understood the dream to point, not to lycanthropy, but to an overthrow at the hands of his enemies, when they would compel him to eat grass in his distress, and, by depriving him of every shelter, force him to be wet with the dew of heaven. There is nothing to indicate that the compulsion should work within, and that by these inner scourges the messengers of the Most High would drive Nebuchadnezzar forth to the fields.
Dan 4:26
And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be. sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule. The Septuagint Version here is different, and not so good as the received text, “And (as for) the root of the tree which was left and not rooted out, the place of thy throne shall be preserved to thee to a season and an hour; behold, for thee they are prepared, and they shall bring judgment upon thee. The Lord liveth in heaven, and his power is in all the earth.” The last clause here is plainly a paraphrase of “the heavens do rule.” “A season and an hour” is a doublet, and since it is to be observed that the phrase, “after that thou shalt have known,” is omitted, we may deduce that thindda, “thou shalt know,” is, by transposition of letters, read liddan. Theodotion, who is usually slavish in his following of the Aramaic construction, renders here, “And because they said, Suffer the stump () of the roots of the tree.” This suggests that in the text before Theodotion mere is omitted from (lemishbaq), and it was read (leishbaqoo), meaning, according to the Mandaitic form of the verb, “they shall leave”a form in accordance with the previous construction, then further altered to the second person plural. The end of the verse is also slightly different, “Until thou shalt know the heavenly power,” reading here shooltan dee shemya’ instead of shaltan shemya. The Peshitta renders, “till thou shalt know that power is from the heaven (min shemya).“ Mr. Bevan remarks on this usage of “heavens” for “God,” which he compares with the Mishna and with the New Testament. He does not observe that the difficulty all the translators have with the phrase is a proof that, when the versions were made, it was even then not a common usage; hence that its introduction here was not due to the influence of the Mishnaic Hebrew stretching back, but was owing rather to the peculiar circumstances of Daniel. Professor Bevan’s reference to the New Testament is mistaken. In no case in the New Testament is used for “God.” Even in the Greek Apocrypha is no usage precisely equivalent. Daniel, by using the phrase he did, put himself on the same level as the heathen kingpride against the gods (), and of this, by implication, is Nebuchadnezzar here accused. Certainly the words of his inscriptions do not indicate anything of this sort. In fact, many of the phrases in the prayer to Marduk in the India House Inscription indicate reverent humility almost Christian. Still, these phrases might be due, to some extent, to political custom. The relation of a polytheist to his gods is a psychological enigma to a civilized monotheist. On the one hand, he recognizes his dependence on the god; on the other, he considers the god honoured by his worship, and therefore owing him certain duties in return.
Dan 4:27
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 tranquillity. The Septuagint Version differs in this ease somewhat considerably. It connects itself with the preceding verse, “Entreat him on account of thy sins, and to purify’ all thine unrighteousness in almsgiving, in order that he may give thee humility, and many days on the throne of thy kingdom, and that thou be not destroyed.” This version is paraphrastic and inferior as a whole to the text of the Massoretes, but at the same time, there must have been a different text to make such a rendering possible. Theodotion is more in accordance with the Massoretic text, but also has resemblances to the Septuagint here, “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and atone for thy sins by almsgiving, and for thine unrighteousness by mercies to the poor (), perchance () God will be long-suffering to thy transgression.” The last clause may be due to reading ‘elaha’ () for ‘archa (), in which case the last clause would read, “God may be for thy tranquillity.” In this case Theodotion’s rendering is a natural paraphrase. The Peshitta is in agreement with the received text, save that malka, “king,” is left out, possibly from its resemblance to milki, “my counsel.” The Vulgate rendering is, “Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be pleasing unto thee, redeem thy sins by almsgiving, and thine iniquities by mercies to the poor; perchance he will forgive (ignoscat) thy sins.” This follows Theodotion so far in the last clause, but not wholly, It is to be noticed that all the versions translate (tzid’qah) “almsgiving“a late meaning, and one not present in the Massoretic here. It can only be forced upon,this passage by giving (peraq) a meaning it never has, as Professor Bevan and Keil show it to mean “to break,” and as breaking a yoke meant “setting free,” it thus meant redeeming a person; but in the sense of paying a ransom for sins, it never is used, even in the Targums. There is, therefore, a wide difference between the moral standpoint of the writer of Daniel and that of his translatorsso wide that the writer of Daniel does not see the possibility of his words being twisted to this meaning. In Ecclesiasticus almsgiving is made equivalent to righteousness. The writer of Daniel is on a different moral plane from Ben Sira. But more, Daniel must have been translated into Greek before Ecclesiasticus, as the whole canon was translated when the grandson of Ben Sira had come down to Egypt, and this at the latest was b.c. 135; on the critical hypothesis, not a score of years separate the text of Daniel from the translation. The courteous beginning of Daniel’s speech is to be observed; he is anxious to win the king to repentance. Compare the stern, unrelenting demeanour of Elijah to Ahab, and of Elisha to Jehoram. If we compare this with the way the Jews of Talmudic times regard the memory of Titus, the Roman captor of Jerusalem, we see we are in a totally different atmosphere from that in which the Jewish folsarius of any period of Jewish history could have lived. A grand impulsive character like Nebuchadnezzar could not but at once allure and awe the young Jew, but a zealous Jew would have regarded it as derogatory to imagine this of a prophet of the Lord, and so we see the Septuagint translator drops the courteous words with which Daniel introduces his advice. Daniel looked upon the fact that the warning had been given as an evidence that there might be a place for repentance.
Dan 4:28, Dan 4:29
All this came upon the King Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The Septuagint here has the look of a paraphrase. In continuation of the preceding verse, “Attend () to these words, for my word is certain, and thy time is full. And at the end of this word, Nebuchadnezzar, when he heard the interpretation of the vision, kept these words in his heart” (compare with this the phrase in Luk 2:19). “And after twelve months the king walked upon the walls of the city, and went about its towers, and answered and said.” The variations appear to be due to a desire to expand and explain. It seemed to the translator more natural that, after a survey of the walls and towers of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar should speak his boastful words, hence he makes the suitable changes in the verse before us; so, too, with the effect of Daniel’s words on the king. The rendering of Theodotion coincides nearly with the text of the Massorites, save that haychal is translated “temple” rather than “palace”a translation which usage quite permits. The Peshitta retains the double meaning. One, of the great buildings erected by an Assyrian or Babylonian monarch was his palace, which had also the character of a temple. In the ease of the Ninevite monarchs, the walls of the palace were adorned with sculptures, portraying the principal events of the monarch’s reign. This not impossibly might be the case with the palace of Nebuchadnezzar. Babylon as a city seems to have been practically rebuilt by himhis bricks are the most numerous of any found in Babylonia.
Dan 4:30
The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? The meaning of the Septuagint rendering is the same as the above, “This is Babylon the great, which I built, and the house of my kingdom is it called, in the might of my power, to the honour of my glory.” Theodotion and the Peshitta in the main agree with the received text. It is one of the characteristics of the earlier Chaldean monarchs who reigned over the small Chaldean cantons in Mesopotamia, that they named their capital city from themselves, as Bit-Dakuri and Bit-Adini; the capital of Merodach-Baladan was called after his father, Bit-Jakin. We need scarcely explain that bit represents beth, “house.” In all ages an imperial power has expressed its greatness in the splen-dour of its capital, but in the case of the Babylonian Empire, Nebuchadnezzar was the empire, therefore the splendour of the city was a testimony to his glory.
Dan 4:31, Dan 4:32
While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. The Septuagint rendering has many points of interest, “While the word was yet in the mouth of the kingat the end of his speechhe heard a voice out of heaven, To thee it is said, O King Nebuchadnezzar, the kingdom of Babylon has been taken from thee, and is being given to anothera man set at naught in thy house: behold, I set him in thy kingdom, and thy power and thy glory and thy delicacy he takes possession of; that thou mayest know that the God of heaven hath dominion over the kingdoms of men, and to whomsoever he willeth he shall give it. To the rising of the sun another king shall rejoice in thy house and shall possess thy glory and thy might and thy dominion.” The differences between the Massoretic and Theodotion are inconsiderable. The Peshitta adds the clause, “wet with the dew of heaven,” to the description of the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar; and to the account of the supremacy of the God of heaven adds, “and raises to it the humble man.” This latter clause seems like a faint echo of the more precise statement of the LXX. The Vulgate differs here only as in the former case, omitting the causative. The reference in the LXX. to a special person in the house of Nebuchadnezzar, exalted upon his throne, appears to support an idea thrown out by Lenormant. Neri-glissar, the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar and the successor of Evil-Merodach, claims to be the son of Bel-zikir-iskun, King of Babylon, but in the list of Ptolemy there is no such name; hence Lenormant imagines that this Belzikir-iskun usurped the throne for a short while, too short to be in the canon of Ptolemy. There is no trace of such a usurpation in the contract tables. Rawlin-son’s hypothesis is difficult to believe. It is that this Belzikir-iskun was king in Babylon before the fall of the Assyrian Empire, before Nabepolassar. But from the accession of Nabopolassar to the death of Evil-Merodach is sixty-five or sixty-six years. A man of the age implied was little likely to take part in a revolution or leave behind him an infant son. It is difficult to decide, but it must be admitted that Lenormant’s position is at all events a possible solution of the question.
Dan 4:33
The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. The verse that is placed as parallel with this in the Septuagint differs very considerably. In the LXX. this verse is still part of the proclamation of the angel, “Early shall all these things be completed upon thee, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Baby-Ion, and nothing shall be awanting of all these things.” This verse is properly without a correspondent in the Massoretic text. The next verse resumes the proclamation, “I Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon was bound seven years, and they fed me with grass as an ox. I ate from herbs of the earth.” Then after a verse which Tischen-doff marks as an interpolation, but which really is a misplaced doublet, we have a continuation of Dan 4:30 (33 Authorized Version), “And my hairs became like feathers of an eagle, and my nails like those of the lion, and my flesh and my heart were changed, and I walked naked with the beasts of the earth.” The fact that this is longer than the Massoretic text is decidedly against it. It seems to be a para-phrastic rendering of a text somewhat similar to the Massoretic. On the other hand, the fact that it retains the first person makes it at least possible that the condensation of the middle portion of this chapter, according to the received text, is not resorted to in this recension. It is to be noted that only a very few words in the Septuagint necessitate any idea of condensation: only in the beginning of Dan 4:27 Septuagint is there a change of persons. This verse is rendered by Theodotion in a way much like the Massoretic text. The first portion of the verse is an exact translation of the Aramaic, but at the end the’ rendering is, “till his hairs grew like those of lions, and his malls as those of birds.” The Peshitta agrees exactly with the Massoretic. One cannot help being suspicious of this assertion of the hair being like eagles’ feathers, partly because the eagle is a bird, and “birds” are spoken of in the next clause of the verse, and further there appears to be a pun on the last portion of the king’s name in the word used for “eagle” (nesher). The Jewish scribes were prone to have such plays on names. Early in history it occurs, as when Abigail makes use of it to David in regard to her husband (1Sa 25:25), “Nabal is his name, and folly is with him.” This possibly is the reason for the Hebrew variation in the name given to the Babylonian Nabu-kudur-utzur. Theodotion’s version shows the result of reasoningit is a scribe’s emendation. That matted hair should have an appearance which suggested the feathers of birds, is natural enough, aria the utter inattention to matters of personal cleanliness is an exceedingly common symptom in cases of insanity. This personal neglect would naturally result also in the growth of the nails, and their incurring would give them vaguely the appearance of lions’ claws. We can picture the Babylonian monarch that had, like his Ninevite predecessors, been finical about his curled locks and trimmed and jewelled fingers, walking in wild nakedness so far as his shackles permitted him, with hair-matted locks, and his nails misshapen and long.
Dan 4:34
And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation. If the translator of the Septuagint had the Massoretic text before him, he has gone utterly away from it, and gives us a mere paraphrase, “And after seven years I gave my soul to prayer, and besought concerning my sins at the presence of the Lord, the God of heaven, and prayed concerning mine ignorances to the great God of gods.” There is another version of this verse, for this which we have given has been misplaced. The verse which appears in the proper place, though also very different from the Massoretic, is as different from that we have just given, “And at the end of seven years the time of my redemption came, and my sins and mine ignorances were fulfilled before the God of heaven, and I besought concerning my ignorances the God of gods, and behold an angel out of heaven called to me, saying, Nebuchadnezzar, serve the holy God of heaven, and give glory to the Highest; the kingdom of thy nation has been restored to thee.” The latter clause has the look of leading into the following verse. One cannot but feel that there is in both the work of the paraphrast, but at the same time, he seems, in both cases, to have been working with a different text from that of the Massoretes. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree accurately with the Massoretic. The sudden gleam of intelligence that broke the spell of madness is a perfectly natural termination to an attack like that under which Nebuchadnezzar suffered. The tranquillizing effect of prayer is well known. The ascription of praise in the liturgic formula here given is not unlike what we find in the Ninevite remains. Bevan suggests as a parallel, Euripides’ ‘Bacchae,’ where there is a recovery from madness accompanied with looking up.
Dan 4:35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? The rendering of the Septuagint here is very difficult to follow, from the state of confusion in which the text is. The verse that comes next in order is very short,” At that time my kingdom was set up, and my glory was restored to me.” This is a condensed statement of what is recorded in the following verse, and we shall consider it in that connection. The verse which succeeds suits more the conclusion of such a letter or proclamation as is here represented, so far as form goes, though the matter shows traces of exaggeration and amplification natural to the Jew. At the same time, it bears a resemblance to the last verse of this chapter, according to the Massoretes, only greatly amplified. It may thus be best to regard this verse as not present in the Septuagint text. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The statement here is true, but Jewish, not Babylonian, in colour. This, along with its absence from the Septuagint, leads us to believe it to be the insertion of a Jewish scribe. On the other hand, it looks like a statement in brief of what we find expanded in Isa 40:1-31. and elsewhere. If brevity is to be regarded as an evidence of antiquity, this passage might be taken as the more ancient. It is, however, too bald and prosaic to be the original of such an impassioned passage as that in Isa 40:1-31.
Dan 4:36
At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. As we have already mentioned, the verse in the Septuagint text which agrees to this is very brief, “At that time my kingdom was set up and my glory restored to me.” It may be a condensation of some independent scribe, carried to a greater degree in the one case than the other. Only from the genesis of our Daniel, as we have imagined it, it would seem more probable that the briefer forms are the more primitive, and the longer the result of the expansion to be credited to imaginative copyists. In proof of this it is to be observed that neither Theodotion nor the Peshitta exactly represents the Massoretic text. Theodotion renders, “At that time my intellect ( ) was restored to me, and came to the glory of my king-dora, and my beauty (“form,” ) returned to me, and my rulers and nobles sought me, and I was confirmed upon my kingdom, and more abundant greatness was added unto me.” The Peshitta differs somewhat from this, “And when my intellect returned to me, my nobles and my great army sought me, and to my kingdom was I restored, and its great inheritance was increased to me.” The differences between these two and the Massoretic text are slight compared with those that separate any one of those from the Septuagint; yet starting with the Septuagint text, the others are easily reached by slightly varying additions. The Peshitta certainly more clearly portrays what seems likely to have taken placefirst, a revolution during the king’s madness, and a counter-revolution to restore him when his reason returned. If, however, Nebuchadnezzar was simply confined in a portion of the palace, then his nobles, on the news of his restoration, might seek unto him. None of the texts presents quite a self-consistent representation. If we could perfectly unravel the confusion of the texts which form our present Septuagint text, we should probably find one of them nearly self-consistent.
Dan 4:37
Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment; and those that walk in pride he is able to abase. The Septuagint Version has all the appearance of an original composition by a scribe, not impossibly in imitation of the Song of the Three Holy Children, taking as its theme the subject of the verse before us, “I confess and praise the Highest, who created the heaven and the earth and the sea. He is God of gods, and Lord of lords, and King of kings, because he doeth signs and wonders, and changeth seasons and times, taking away the kingdoms of kings and setting up others instead of them. Now from this time I shall worship him, and from fear of him trembling hath taken hold of me, and all the holy ones I praise, for the gods of the nations have not power in themselves to turn away the kingdom of a king to another king, and to kill and to make alive, and to do signs and marvels great and fearful; and to change very great matters according as the God of heaven did to me, and charged to me great things. I will offer sacrifices to the Highest every day of nay reign for my life, for a savour of sweet smell before the Lord, and what is pleasing before him I shall do, and the people and my nation and the countries which are in my dominion. And as many as shall speak against the God of heaven, and as many as shall be taken saying anything, these shall I condemn to death.” Several of the phrases in this short hymnfor that it rather is than a version of an Aramaic originalare derived from other portions of Scripture; e.g. “for a savour of a sweet smell before the Lord.” There are traces also of the familiar phenomenon of “doublets.” Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. So far as the Massoretic text represents the original Daniel, there is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar had ceased to be a worshipper of Bel-Marduk and Nebo and Nergal. Certainly he recognizes that Jehovah is to be worshipped also. Further, it is to be admitted that Nebuchadnezzar carries his adoration very near the point of true and exclusive worship. In what he came short it may be that he yielded to the political necessities of his situationas Naaman bowing in the temple of Rimmon. Even an autocrat like Nebuchadnezzar would be conditioned by those who served him, and after his madness he would be specially under the power of those officials who had restored him to his place.
Excursus on Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.
The events of the fourth chapter of Daniel are full of elements that have caused question from the days of Porphyry downwards. Many of these have been discussed as they occurred in the narrative. The question of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar has several features which cause it to be of interest. Some of these have been passingly treated in reference to the passages in which they are mentioned. But to a thorough understanding of the matter it is well to collect these features together and discuss it as a whole. To do so effectively, we shall have to consider
(1) the nature of the disease under which Nebuchadnezzar suffered;
(2) the length of time during which he was under it;
(3) what evidence there is in the narrative, or on the monuments, of political changes during the time he was incapacitated.
1. The disease under which Nebuchadnezzar suffered. Dr. Pusey says, “It is now conceded that the madness of Nebuchadnezzar agrees with the description of a rare sort of disease called lycanthropy, of which our earliest notice is a Greek medical writer of the fourth century after our Lord, in which the sufferer retains his consciousness in other respects, but imagines himself to be changed into some animal, and acts up to a certain point in conformity with that persuasion. Those who imagined themselves changed into wolves, howled like wolves, and (there is reason to believe, falsely) accused themselves of bloodshed.” Archdeacon Rose, in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ says, “There is now no question that the disease under which Nebuchadnezzar is said to have suffered, is one of a well-known class of diseases known by such names as lycanthropy, kynanthropy, etc; according to the animal whose habits are simulated by the subject of this disease.” There is no question that there was a disease that was so called: Dr. Pusey has collected proof of that. It is to be noted that all the instances he quotes are from ancient writers. It occurred also in Mediaeval times. The point that is not quite so certain is that Nebuchadnezzar had this disease.
In the first place, lycanthropy has a distinct and definite meaning in mental pathology. Those suffering from it “abandon their homes and make for the forests, that they may consort with those they imagine to be their kind; they allow their hair and nails to grow; they carry their imitation so far as to become ferocious, and mutilate and even to kill and devour children.” Here we must observe that the neglect of the person, with the result of hair and nails growing, is not peculiar to that form of madness, but is really common to many varieties of mental disease. The two other characteristics are more specialthe endeavour to consort with animals of the species to which the patient imagines himself to belong, and the destructive ferocity that in the form of wolf-madness, lycanthropy, properly so called, led to cannibalism. Of neither of these symptoms have we any indubitable evidence in the narrative. In regard to the first, of Nebuchadnezzar it is certainly said (verses 15, 23) that “his portion” should” be with the beasts of the field;” verse 25, “Thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field;” but here there is nothing to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar did this out of a mad overmastering longing. Rather, the very opposite is implied by the statement (verses 25, 32),” They shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling,” etc. So in verse 33 it is said, “And he was driven from men.” The question may be said to turn on the force of the word “they.” It certainly may mean that the angels of God, as avenging spirits, might drive Nebuchadnezzar from men, and that his longing to consort with animals may have been the scourge that drove him, but that is not said or implied. It may have been the members of his own household that so drove him forth directly, or it may have been the indirect result of the cruel treatment intended to be curative. It may be urged that the statement, “Let a beast’s heart be given him,” implies this longing to consort with animals. In the first place, “heart,” (lebab), among the Shemites does not, as among Occidentals, mean the longing appetitive part of our nature, but really the spirit. In the next place, the reading in the Septuagint is quite different; it is not the “heart,” (lebab), but the “body,” , reading (besar) instead of . (lebab).
Indeed, when we turn to the Septuagint, we find a total want of all this appearance of abandoning house and home. In the statement of the dream (verse 11, LXX.), “And it [the tree] was dragged and torn out, and in brazen fetters and shackles was it bound with them.” Again, in the interpretation (verse 18, LXX.), “And they shall put thee in guard, and send thee to a desert place.” When we turn to the fulfilment of the dream (verse 25. LXX.), we find, “And the angels of heaven shall drive thee ( ) seven years, and thou shalt not be seen nor speak with any man; and thou shalt eat grass as an ox, and thy pasture shall be from the herb of the field.” Again (verses 27, 28. LXX.), “I was bound for seven years, and they fed me with grass as an ox, and my hairs became like eagles’ feathers, and my nails like lions’ claws, and my flesh and my heart were changed, and I walked naked among the beasts of the earth.”
The more I studied this, the less I was satisfied with the all-lint universal decision that Nebuchadnezzar suffered under lycanthropy. Having a friend a specialist in mental disease, I submitted the case to him, giving him, in addition to what he found in his English Bible, the version or’ the Septuagint. He is eminently qualified to judge all questions of mental disease. David Yellowlees, Esq; M.D; is head of one of the largest lunatic asylums in Scotland, Gartnavel, near Glasgow. He has been President of the Medico-Psychological Association of Great Britain; is Lecturer on Insanity in the University of Glasgow; and has had over thirty years’ experience in the treatment of mental disease. He kindly wrote me the following, which he has permitted me to publish:
“Nebuchadnezzar’s illness was not lycanthropy; it was an attack of acute mania, which recovered, as such attacks usually do if uncomplicated, in seven months.
“Acute mania, in its extreme forms, exhibits all kinds of degraded habits, such as stripping off and tearing of clothes, eating filth and garbage of all sorts, wild and violent gesticulations, dangerous assaults, howling noises, and utter disregard of personal decency. The patient often is liker a wild animal than a human being. These symptoms merely show the completeness of the aberration, and do not at all indicate a hopeless condition. On the contrary, they are seen most frequently in the cases which recover.
“The king was apparently treated as kindly as the enlightenment of the times permittedbound when injuring himself or others, taken to a desert place away from other men, and allowed a mad freedom, in which his attacks found relief and eventual recovery.”
In another communication, Dr. Yellowlees says, “The ‘seven times’ certainly did not mean seven years for recovery from that form of insanity; that is, acute mania would be most unlikely after so long a time. Seven months is a far more likely period.”
2. This leads us to consider the second questionthe length of time during which Nebuchadnezzar was under this malady. The phrase which states the duration occurs four timesverses 16 (13), 23 (20), 25 (22), 32 (29)and is always the same, “till seven times pass over him (thee).” (sheebeah iddaneen yahelephoon alohee). The question turns on the sense to be given to iddan. This word is found thirteen times in this booknine times besides the four times in this chapter. We find it three times in the second chapter, where it means the time during which certain planetary and stellar influences were at work. This naturally suggests the signs of the Zodiac and the phases of the moon, and therefore a month, though the probability is that the period in the king’s mind was much shorter. The ruling phases of the moon would make a fourfold or threefold division not improbable, while the positions of the planets in the various astrological houses make it more likely that a day rather than even a month is meant. We find the word next in the following chapter (verses 5 and 15), “At what time (iddan) ye hear,” etc. Here it means a point of time, and in the other verse (7), where the phrase occurs we have (zimena’), which usually means a set, fixed point of time. We find it again in the seventh chapter. In the twelfth verse, after the destruction of the fourth beast, the other beasts continue for “a season and time,” (zeman veiddan); it here means a space of time totally indefinite. In the twenty-fifth verse the word in question occurs three times in the phrase, “a time, times, and a dividing of time.” Here it has been assumed to mean “a year,” and this is certainly not improbable for this particular case; but nothing can be drawn from this as to the sense of the word elsewhere. So far as the usage of this book is concerned, we can say the word iddan means a space of time, the length of which is determined by the context. When we pass into the Targums, we find the same, or, if possible, even greater freedom of use. It is used for the time of old age in Psa 71:9; in Ecc 3:1-22. for “the times.” There is a phrase, iddan beiddan (“time in times”), which is commonly understood to mean a year. This would render it probable that the word was originally some period much shorter than a year, probably a month; thus Gen 24:55, where we render, according to the Massoretic, “a few days, at least ten.” Onkelos renders, iddan beiddan ‘o asrah yarheen (“time in time, or ten months”), where the word certainly means “months.” The usage of the Peshitta is much the same. Gaon Saadia would assign to iddan here the sense of “month;” in this he is followed by Lenormant. Notwithstanding the objections of critics and lexicographers, we venture to follow these two authorities the more readily that the critics have assigned no reason why we should not do so.
3. Is there any trace in the inscriptions surviving to us to throw light on this mysterious event? At one time it was supposed that in the Standard Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar we had a distinct reference to this period of madness. As at first translated, Nebuchadnezzar declared that for four years he did not occupy himself in building. A series of further negative sentences followed. More careful study and more accurate rendering have removed that misconception. From the nature of the Standard Inscription, it was a priori unlikely that anything of the kind supposed should have been found in it. It is a record of the various buildings, etc; he had constructed for the honour of the gods and the beauty of his capital. The dates of the erection of these edifices or the construction of these canals is net given; so the fact of years in which nothing was done is not necessarily noticeable. Lenormant makes another suggestion. When he ascends the throne, after the murder of his brother-in-law, Evil-Merodach, we find Neriglissar (Nergalsharezer) claiming that his father, Bil-zikir-iskun, had been King of Babylon. Lenormant’s theory is that Bil-zikir-iskun reigned’ while Nebuchadnezzar was thus incapacitated by madness. Certainly, between the accession of Nabo-polassar in b.c. 625, to the death of Evil-Merodach in b.c. 559, there is no sovereign but the three members of the one dynasty. Rawlinson (‘Five G rear Monarchies’) places him immediately before Nabopolassar, and reads his name Nebu-sum-iskun. But as deposition meant death, this would imply that his sonNeriglissareven if only an infant, at the death of his father, would be at least sixty-five years of age at the death of Evil-Merodach. This is not an age when men engage in conspiracies. But more, he leaves behind him an infant son. While not impossible, this is an unlikely solution. If, then, he did not reign before Nabo-polassar, there must have been some interval in which he held the throne while the legitimate occupant was incapacitated by disease or distance from the capital It was not during the interval between the death of Nabopolassar and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, because Berosus tells us of the rapid march Nebuchadnezzar made through the desert from Syria to reach Babylon before any usurpation took place. It did not take place between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the accession of Evil-Merodach, for, from the contract tables, there seems to have been no interval of uncertainty. Bel-zikir-iskun may have, so M. Lenormant thinks, usurped the throne during the illness of Nebuchadnezzar. If the interval were less than a year, Ptolemy might not insert the name in his chronicle. Against this theory is the fact that throughout the whole of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign there never is seven months without a contract preserved to us, dated by the years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not absolutely conclusive, because some of the contract tables, after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, are still dated by the reign of Nabunahid. We are compelled to abandon the position that we have any trace of this madness. We have an analogous case in the history of Nabunahid; for a long period, not less than five years, he was unable to take part in the business of the empire. Meantime, there is no indication in the contract tables that anything is wrong. The annals of Nabunahid reveal to us the fact that the king s son was acting monarch; but had these not come down to us, we should never have known of any incapacity befalling this monarch. Bel-zikir-iskun may have acted as monarch during Nebuchadnezzar’s illness, and this may have been the fact that enabled Neff-glissar to assert his father to have been King of Babylon.
It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar’s decree may yet turn up from the rubbish of ages.
HOMILETICS
Dan 4:1-3
The testimony of experience.
It is interesting to observe that the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s great humiliation comes from the lips of the king himself, without a word of comment by his servant Daniel. While the conduct of the prophet teaches us to regard the chastisement of other people with a similar courtesy of reserve, that of the king should remind us of the duty and utility of frankly confessing the lessons of our own experience.
I. THE DESIRE TO GLORIFY GOD AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR OWN HUMILIATION IS ONE OF THE FAIREST FRUITS OF GENUINE REPENTANCE.
1. Nebuchadnezzar had been a haughty despot. The confession of deep humiliation by such a man is evidence of a great change of spirit. The moral value of humility must be measured
(1) by the strength of the natural disposition to pride, as this varies greatly in different temperaments; and
(2) by the temptations of a man’s station in society. To some self-abasement is familiar and natural. To others it brings keen agony. In the latter case it is a wonderful result of repentance.
2. Nebuchadnezzar had defied the God of the Jews. (Dan 3:15.) To recognize him as the true God, who held the king’s destiny in his hand, was another proof of a great change. It would have been much if Nebuchadnezzar had privately trusted in the true God. But his repentance is confirmed by this public confession.
3. Nebuchadnezzar had been a selfish tyrant. He now sinks his self-interest in concern for the glory of God. We never truly and perfectly repent until we renounce self, and give ourselves up to a pure desire to glorify God.
II. THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERIENCE IS AN EVIDENCE OF SPIRITUAL TRUTHS WHICH WE SHOULD CAREFULLY OBSERVE FOR OURSELVES AND GRATEFULLY OFFER TO OTHERS. The recognition of Divine truths in the passage before us is specially valuable, because it is not based on abstract grounds, but is derived from personal experience. It does not come from an inspired Hebrew prophet, but from a heathen king, and it derives a special force from this circumstance, because the spiritual teaching of Scripture thus finds an echo in a most unlikely quarter.
1. Ignorance of Divine truths on speculative ground gave force to the testimony. There can be no self-deceit in such cases.
2. Prejudice against these truths, after it was overcome, increased the force of the testimony. The king was not accustomed to bow before any providential power. His recognition of this is the more significant. It disposes of any suspicion of hypocrisy.
3. The depth of the experience gave intensity to the testimony. Much religious language sounds hollow because it is not verified by experience. As we realize truth in our lives, we see and feel it with a new power, and then we have at once the clear light of personal knowledge and the strong earnestness of personal feeling to enable us to declare it to others (1Jn 1:1).
III. A SOUND INTERPRETATION OF EXPERIENCE WILL TEACH US TO SEE THE POWER, WISDOM, TRUTH, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN ALL HIS WAYS WITH US. (See verses 3 and 37.)
1. The power of God is seen in his successful performance of his will when the greatest force is set against it, and the greatest difficulties lie in its way, as in the overthrow of the might of Nebuchadnezzar, and the more wonderful restoration of him from his insanity (verses 29-36).
2. The wisdom of God is seen when mysteries of providence are interpreted by later experience, as when the king saw the purpose and meaning of God’s strange dealings with him (verse 36).
3. The truth of God is seen in his keeping his word. The dream-prophecy was fulfilled (verse 28).
4. The righteousness of God is seen in the ultimate justice of his chastisements and their good results, as in the deserved punishment of Nebuchadnezzar, and the final good this wrought in him (verse 25).
IV. A RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE MUTABILITY OF EARTHLY THINGS WILL HELP US TO RISE TO FAITH IN THE ETERNITY OF THINGS DIVINE. Nebuehadnezzar now sees that “God’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.“ Before this the king had been warned not to trust in the perpetuity of earthly monarchies, but to see that these must give way before an everlasting kingdom (Dan 2:44). God sends us changes and disappointments that we may not rest in the temporal and transitory (Heb 12:27); and he sometimes reveals, through these changes, principles and purposes which run up into the eternal.
Dan 4:28-33
The king’s madness.
I. INSANITY IS SOMETIMES THE DIRECT RESULT AND NATURAL PENALTY OF WRONG CONDUCT. Although the physician may rightly detect here the symptoms of brain-disease, the religious teacher may go further, and see in this brain-disease the fruits of moral faults. Insanity often shows itself as much in moral as in intellectual aberrationespecially in its earlier stages. In many cases it can be traced back to the indulgence of animal instincts, passions, and self-will, to the neglect of higher restraining influences.
1. Irregular self-will tends to insanity. Nebuchadnezzar was a tyrant whose merest caprice became a law for his vast empire. If such a man has no moral principles to guide him, the inordinate indulgence of his wild will must be so contrary to the natural course of life that his mind will be in danger of losing its balance. Lunacy is often only the full development of the vice that throws off all restraints. He who would keep his mind in perfect sanity should learn to yield his will to a higher will.
2. Inordinate self-conceit tends to insanity. The king’s madness came upon him when he was elated with vanity (Dan 4:30). Insane people are commonly inclined to dwelt on their grievances or their imagined greatness, and this absurd habit may often be traced back to an over-sensitiveness or an undue elation with regard to their own worthiness. It is never healthy to think much about ourselves. Mental soundness is best secured by self-forgetting activity and concern for the interests of the large world around us. The habit of introspection and the indulgence in a too subjective religious experience are causes of religious insanity. They who incline in this direction should remember our Lord’s caution (Mat 10:39).
II. WHEN BRUTAL PASSIONS HAVE BEEN THE RULING POWERS IN LIFE, THE HUMILIATION OF THE BRUTE MAY BE A REASONABLE RETRIBUTION. Nebuchadnezzar had shown himself to be governed by passions which can only be described as brutal, and yet he had been honoured with little less than Divine worship. Here was the greatest inconsistency between desert and experience. Frequently this inconsistency is preserved all through a man’s life, because judgment is deferred. But whenever judgment is given, it must be expected that, while the man of spiritual character will be exalted to a state of fitting honour, the man of brutal passion will be put down to one of brutal degradation; for it is just that there should be harmony between the outer and the inner life. Perhaps this is implied in St. Paul’s teaching about “the spiritual body” (1Co 15:44), which may be just the most exact expression and closest-fitting vesture of the soul. The principle of justice which underlies the fantastic Oriental doctrine of the transmigration of souls may thus be exemplified in the various ranks and orders of bodily life in the future world. He who would claim to rank as superior to the brute creation must justify his claim by a corresponding elevation of conduct.
III. THERE IS A SPIRITUAL INSANITY IN WHICH MEN RENOUNCE THE PRIVILEGES AND DUTIES OF THEIR HIGHER NATURE, AND LIVE AS IF THEY HAD NOTHING ABOVE THE ANIMAL IN THEM. The degradation of Nebuchadnezzar ends its spiritual counterpart in the voluntary behaviour of multitudes. They have human souls, yet they live as though they should perish like mere animals. They are made in the image of God, yet they act after the manner of brutes. They have spiritual faculties which they blind and deaden with animal passions. If we were not so familiar with such people, and did not all of us, more or less, share their faults, it would be difficult not to regard them as the worst of madmen. While we shudder at the calamity of Nebuchadnezzar, should we not be far more appalled at the awful depravity of so large a part of the human world which calmly accepts a fate in all moral respects its equivalent?
Dan 4:37 (last clause)
Pride humiliated.
I. THE GREATEST PROSPERITY CONTAINS IN ITSELF NO SECURITY AGAINST THE GREATEST ADVERSITY.
1. As all earthly things are changeable, it is foolish to place our trust in the permanence of any. Yet there is a tendency to infer that because all is well, all will remain well, as though the mere existence of prosperity were a guarantee of its permanence. This may result from a misapplication of the true principle that the future is determined by the present, and with a certain law of similaritylike producing like (Gal 6:7, Gal 6:8). But if so, it is forgotten that outward prosperity is a very superficial thing, and that the real life and its outgoings lie deeper and may be preparing its very opposite beneath the shallow pleasure of the hour. Therefore to assure one’s self for the future, it is necessary to have some deeper and larger ground to rest upon than the mere outside aspect of affairs.
2. Happiness depends far more upon the condition of the inner life than upon any external circumstances. Nebuchadnezzar thought himself a beast of the field. With this idea in his mind, all his resources counted as nothing in respect to his, comfort. To a blind man the world is dark. A gloomy mood throws a shadow over the brightest scene. The rich and discontented man is miserable, while the poor man will be happy so long as he is contented, because happiness depends not upon possession, but upon satisfaction. Therefore it is useless to be assured that our outward affairs are safely prosperous, unless we have also the assurance of peace of mind and inward gladness.
II. THE FITTING PUNISHMENT OF PRIDE IS HUMILIATION. There is a just and natural association of certain sins with corresponding forms of punishment; e.g. the luxurious Dives tormented with a burning tongue; the man with one idle talent deprived of his talent (cf. Hos 8:7). This conception is worked out in Dante’s ‘Inferno.’ So he who will not humble himself shall be humiliated against his will. Pride prepares its own fall
(1) by making its possessor careless and self-confident;
(2) by disturbing the sobriety of his judgment with the giddiness of self-elation;
(3) and by rousing the jealousy and envy of rivals and subordinates.
III. THIS PUNISHMENT OF PRIDE, THOUGH SEVERE, IS NOT HOPELESS. The tree is to be hewn down, but the stump and roots are to be left (Dan 4:15). So Nebuchadnezzar was to suffer only for a limited periodseven “times” (Dan 4:25). When prophets threatened the overthrow of the Jews, they promised that this should not be totala remnant should be spared (Isa 1:9; Jer 15:11); nor finalthe people should be restored (Isa 52:1-10). Even the severest calamities are tempered with mercy and relieved of despair (Amo 3:12; Hab 3:2).
IV. THE OBJECT OF THE HUMILIATION OF PRIDE IS NOT VENGEANCE, BUT SALVATION. The spite which seeks pleasure in the shame of humiliated pride is itself a fruit of sinful pride, and can find no place in the heart of God. Nor is the feeling of complacency which arises in us from the contemplation of the “poetic justice” this exemplifies, a true image of God’s feeling in the humbling of proud men. All God’s purposes are at the root, love. He humbles the proud man because he loves him, and for his good.
1. This humiliation is beneficial in making a man feel the folly and sin of pride.
2. It is helpful in making him feel his own insufficiency and the need of higher grounds of confidence than are to be found in his own merits and resources. Nebuchadnezzar was led to recognize the true God, and humble himself before into with faith and worship, and thus his salvation was accomplished through his humiliation. So the salvation of mankind is effected by the humiliation of its representative Christ, and through the self-humiliation of each individual when he takes up his cross and follows Christ in the narrow path of self-denial.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS
Dan 4:1-3
The comeliness of confession.
“To me it seemed comely to declare the signs and the wonders that God Most High for me hath wrought” (Dan 4:2 amended translation). The history of the king’s insanity is told, not by the Prophet Daniel, but in a state paper, under the hand of the king, and quoted by the prophet. The edict is true to human nature and to the king’s character. The following motives may have influenced him:
1. Gratitude.
2. Conscience. It was right to admit sin and to recount its judgments.
3. A certain complacency in being the object of Divine dealing.
4. A self-respectful independence of the opinion of the crowd.
From the text occasion may be taken to discourse on the propriety of recounting the Lord’s dealings with ourselves.
I. THE RECOUNTING should be marked by the following characteristics.
1. The subject-matter should be of public concern. The facts should either be already public, or such as may with propriety be made public property. There are deep things of the human spirit, which, to recount, would be good neither for ourselves nor for others. In Nebuchadnezzar’s case, the facts were notorious, though it rested with him to exhibit them in a Divine light.
2. The audience may then be one whole circle. The largeness of our circle depends in part on our social elevation. The higher our standing, the larger the number who know us. Not entirely our social elevation; for much will depend on our moral elevation. Thomas Wright, the prison philanthropist; Levi Coffin, who was “the underground railway” by which slaves passed from misery to Canada,were names known all over the world. All who had any knowledge of the king were to hear what the Lord had done for his soul (see verse 1).
3. The tone should be kindest. “The royal style which Nebuchadnezzar makes use of has nothing in it of pomp or fancy; but is plain, short, and unaffected, ‘Nebuchadnezzar the king.‘”
4. Integrity should pervade the recital. It should constitute one whole. God’s rebukes, as well as his favours, should come into our account, even though humiliating to ourselves, if the good of others and the glory of God demand it. Some striking instances of such recital of sins and the Father’s chastisement, will be found in the narrative of his early life by George Muller, in ‘The Lord’s Dealings.’
5. The motive should be God. Certainly not our own glorynot self, nor others, save subordinately.
II. THE PROPRIETY OF IT. Such a recounting of Divine dealing with us is:
1. Good for ourselves. In the case of the king, he was led
(1) to admire the Divine acts;
(2) to infer the Divine rule.
2. Salutary for others.
3. Conducive to the Divine glory and the extension of the Divine kingdom.R.
Dan 4:4-18, Dan 4:20-27
Human greatness, its rise, fall, and restoration.
“Behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great” (Dan 4:10). The subject naturally suggested by the text is that of human greatness, its rise, its decay, its restoration. It should be remembered, even in the first entertainment of the theme, that this greatness may inhere in man individual as in man collective. To guide our thoughts, especially in its practical applications, it will be well, then, to keep distinctly before us the concept man, and also that otherthe nation. The applications will then be rich and manifold. A striking illustration of the greatness of a nation is to be found in the slow growth and present position of Great Britain. That tree has indeed “reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.” The pre-eminence of the Anglo-Saxon race, including now the people of the United States, is a still grander illustration. Another hintthat we may not lose ourselves in the grandiloquent and miss the practical, observe that greatness is, after all, only relative, that all humanity is as nothing compared with the majesty of the Eternal. A workman may be relatively great in the workshop; a child in the school; therefore there is no limit to the applications of the subject. Apply it to the low levels of common life, as well as to the highest,
I. HUMAN GREATNESSIN ITS RISE. Observe:
1. Its dependence. The tree and the man are alike in thisin being living things. Now, life at first is from God; and is ever sustained by effluence from him. The tone of the king (Dan 4:30) was that of moral madness (see also Dan 4:17).
2. Its growth. The tree from its tiny seed. The law of man’s life is that he must grow. The tendency of man (both individual and collective) is to growth. He ought to be so indefinitely. The man that ceases to grow at forty or fifty, mentally, morally, is dead. The young, aspiring spirit is to be retained to life’s last hour. Looked at on the reverse side, no greatness is instantly attained. Neither man nor nation vaults into the throne of moral eminence. Wait, but actively wait, not passively, as the child, of mere circumstance.
3. Its majesty. The tree majestic. Man majestic. So a nation. Let not false humility preach otherwise. The grander our conceptions of man, the higher our adoration of his Maker. Even sin cannot hide the original grandeur. A temple, albeit in ruins.
4. Its loneliness. Eminence ever lonely. The spires above the city. The snow-domes above the lower mountain ranges. As man rises, he retains, or he should retain, sympathy with all below; but he himself rises into a region where the lower sympathies do not follow him (see Robertson on ‘The Loneliness of Christ;’ and. Dr. Caird on Isa 63:3, in volume of ‘ Sermons’).
5. Its conspicuousness. The tree was seen from every part of the far horizon. The more eminent man or nation, the more the observed of all observers. The attendant responsibility, thereforevirtue more influential, vice more pestilential.
6. Its use. (Dan 4:12.) Literal pressing of the figure here impossible. Keep to the commanding central thought, that human greatness must not have self for its object. The eminence of man is for beneficence. We live for others, and in so doing find our richest life. One might be tempted to say that in this we contrast with God; but not so. All things, indeed, flow in upon God as their object, but only that he may again give himself, in the grandeur of his love, to the universe.
II. IN ITS DECLINE. Note:
1. The failure. In the dream-parable of the tree, nothing is said of the failure; but look at the man, Nebuchadnezzar. To appreciate his usual delinquency we must take account of the extraordinary character of his public works; the aim, pitilessly pursued, of his own aggrandizement; the consequent sacrifice of the wealth, labour, comfort, happiness, and lives of his people. The eminence of the great king was not for use and benediction.
2. The judgment.
(1) Its time. In the very height of the king’s prosperity. “I was at rest in my house, and green in my palace” (Dan 4:4). We do not know the exact date, but we know the time in relation to the rest of the king’s life. At rest in domestic relations; no serious solicitude about public affairs; conquests achieved; great buildings finished.
(2) Its cause. Insist on the truth that the doom of men and nations is morally conditioned. Illustrations are more than abundant in modern life.
(3) Its source. Observe: the “watchers” here are not necessarily angels; for they are not objectively real, but subjective in the dream. Still, they point to a reality in heaven.
(a) Intelligence there. The watcher intellectually was characterized by a large, piercing, sleepless eye.
(b) Holiness. This the moral characteristic. “A holy one.”
(c) Arbitrament there.
(d) Power there. “Cried aloud.” The execution certain (Dan 4:17).
3. The decay. (Dan 4:15.) Compare parables of the talent and of the pound.
III. IN ITS RESTORATION. Observe:
1. The subject remains. The man indestructible (Dan 4:15). The moral possibilities abide.
2. The conditions of restoration.
(1) The reawakening of the consciousness of God. (Dan 4:34.)
(2) Penitence.
(3) Bearing practical fruit. (Dan 4:27.)
(4) The conditions accepted on the ground of Christ’s atonement.
The atonement, so far as its efficacy goes, is a perpetual fact. The Lamb has been “slain from the foundation of the world.” Knowledge of the atonement not absolutely necessary to those blessed by it. It stands as an objective ground, justifying Divine benedictions on the unworthy. The providence of God is the atonement in action. The moral government of God is, since the Fall, mediatorial, always and every where.R.
Dan 4:19, Dan 4:26, Dan 4:27
Reproof by the saintly.
“Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him” (verse 19). “Astonied for one hour.” This is not quite accurate. The meaning is that Daniel was so troubled, so overcome, that he remained for some time without uttering a word. Perhaps he stood gazing at the king in mute amazement and sorrow. At length the king himself broke the distressing silence, encouraging the prophet to cast away all fear of consequences, and to tell the meaning, whatever it might be. With much trembling, doubtless, in a tone of deep respect, with fidelity softened by tenderness, Daniel proceeded to point out the meaningthe king’s sin and the king’s doom. This passage in the history suggests much as to the giving and receiving of reproof. We are our brothers’ keepers, but it is to be feared that this duty of spiritual guardianship is one very much neglected. Let us first look at things from the point of view of
I. THE BEPROVED. There are many difficulties in approaching a man with even the most necessary reproof, most of which were present in this case of the king. A sinner is like a fort surrounded by many lines of entrenchment. The reprover is quite conscious of the strength of the moral fortification, and is oft deterred from his duty. The reproved is ready to repel reproof by virtue of:
1. Self-love. “Most quick, delicate, and constant of all feelings.”
2. Pride. The reprover seems to assume the office of both lawgiver and judge. But what right this superiority?
3. Difference in social rank. It matters not whether, as in this case, the reproved be of superior rank or of inferior. If the former, the reproved resents the audacity; if the latter, what he is pleased to call the patronage.
4. Absence of moral aspiration. The reproved does not really desire to be better than he is.
5. Contrariety of judgment. The reproved doubts the principle upon which you are proceeding; e.g. you expostulate with a man on the sin of gambling; but he disputes your premiss, viz. that there is wrong in gambling. There is no sin or vice which some men will not be found to defend. Nebuchadnezzar may have considered all his oppressions of the poor, etc; as quite within his kingly right.
6. Suspicion of the reprover‘s motive.
II. THE REPROVERhis tone and spirit. He should be characterized by:
1. Sincere and simple sympathy for the man. In this respect Daniel was perfect.
2. Grief over the moral position.
3. Sorrow for the consequences.
4. Fidelity.
5. Courtesy. Note the tone of verses 19, 27. Daniel was mindful of his relation to his king.
6. Hopefulness. Daniel gave counsel simple, comprehensive, direct. And then expresses a large hope, “If it may be,” etc. (verses 26, 27). Some elements in
III. THE REPROOF WILL BE SUGGESTIVE.
1. It was solicited. An immense advantage.
2. Based on adequate knowledge. Nothing can be more paralyzing to a would-be reprover than to find that he is proceeding either on false or unproved assumptions.
3. Strong by authority of truth. “In presenting admonitory or accusatory truth, it should be the instructor’s aim that the authority may be conveyed in the truth itself, and not seem to be assumed by him as the speaker of it.” “One man, a discreet and modest one (and not the less strong for that), shall keep himself as much as he can out of the pleading, and press the essential virtue and argument of the subject. Another makes himself prominent in it, so that yielding to the argument shall seem to be yielding to him. His style, expressly or in effect, is this: ‘I think my opinion should have some weight in this case;’ ‘These arguments are what have satisfied me;’ ‘If you have any respect for my judgment,’ etc. So that the great point with him is not so much that you should be convinced, as that he should bare the credit of convincing you.”
4. Well-timed. “The teller of unpleasing truths should watch to select favourable times and occasions (mollia tempora fandi) when an inquisitive or docile disposition is most apparent; when some circumstance or topic naturally leads without formality or abruptness; when there appears to be in the way the least to put him (the person reproved) in the attitude of pride and hostile self-defence” For aught we know, Daniel may have had it on his mind for a long time to speak to the king; at length the day of opportunity dawned.
IV. THE RESULT.
1. The reproof was not at once successful. For a year more (verse 29) the king seems to have gone on, in the same spirit, to do the same deeds.
2. But was so finally. (Verse 34.) When reproof had been emphasized by judgment. The memory, then, of Daniel’s counsel.R.
Dan 4:28-37
Revelation in the world of soul.
“Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?” (verse 30). in approaching the kernel of this remarkable history, many matters would have, by way of introduction, to be set in a true light. They would all fall under these three heads:
1. Confirmations of Bible history from the science of medicine.
2. From the probabilities of the case.
3. From secular history. (See Exposition above; and ‘Daniel, Statesman and Prophet,’ R.T.S; where they are given in full.)
I. THE TOOL. The very essence of sin is self-centredness, which ignores our relations with others and the attendant duties, and which blots out God. The atheism of selfishness may be only practical, but also speculative. When the latter, it is sure to be also the former. The idolater of self:
1. Confines his vision to the material. So with the king on the roof of his palace; his eye swept palace, city, land, but saw only the material magnificence. His heart was of the world, worldly.
2. Misjudges greatness. Not bulk, not material wealth, not splendid show, constitute a nation’s greatness. The elements of greatness are ever moral. As with a nation, so with an individual. A nation may be small, and yet clothed upon with moral majesty. On the other side, a nation may be small (e.g. Monaco) and vile. The two things are not commensurate in any waymaterial size and grandeur of spirit. Some nations, i.e. constituents of nations, need to lay the lesson very much to heart.
3. Makes self the centre of the universe. Babylon was as the palace of the kingdom. The kingdom revolved around the capital, and all around the proud personality of the king.
4. ignores God. All below and around the man lies in light, but seen through the coloured and distorted medium of selfishness. All above is hidden by dense mist and cloud; as of ten, in mountain regions, the snow-clad pinnacles and the serenity of heaven are absolutely invisible. God is unseen, unrecognized. Note the sin of this in the king. We are too likely to think that where God’s clearest revelation through Christ is not, no light is. We underrate the light of natural religion. God moves without witness. To the king testified nature, experience, reason, the inner light. Christ in all these (Joh 1:9).
II. ITS DETHRONEMENT. Self usurped the throne in the moral realm, in the heart and life of man, and so from that throne self was hurled as by a thunderbolt. Observe, the ruin of the doomed was:
1. Stayed. Did not come at once on the sin. But warning and counsel at the lips of Daniel. Then a year’s delay. Opportunity’ for penitence. Misused. The patience of God.
2. Sudden. “While the word,” etc.; “The same hour,” etc. (verses 31-33). Whilst the king was adoring his own shadow, the phantom melted into vacancy. Striking picture of what oft occurs under the moral government of Godlong respiteat length sudden and overwhelming calamity.
3. Utter. “The world recedes, it disappears,” but no heaven opens on his eyes, no ears “with sounds seraphic ring.” The world went; and down fell the self-idolater into a temporal hell. (Note all the particulars, in light of the text, illustrated by all we know of this form of insanity.)
4. Strictly related to the sin. As always. The deification of self and so the prostration of self. Occasion might well be taken to read off such lessons as these:
(1) The obligation of gratitude for reasonits gift and continuance.
(2) The duty of sympathy for the imbecile and insane. To be expressed practically, by prayer and contribution.
(3) That the causes of insanity can be demonstrated to be, in the vast majority of cases, moral; e.g. vanity, care in excess, alcohol, violent passion of any kind, specially the many and various breaches of the seventh commandment.
III. THE ENTHRONEMENT OF GOD. We may discourse on this by putting it in this way: we may mark the gradual steps of the return of God subjective to the throne in man. God objectivei.e. in his reality and poweris never off the throne. But he may be subjectively cast down in the thoughts and sentiments of men.
1. God remains in the mind, animating recognition. “Not even an extreme form of mania interferes with the consciousness of personal identity, of the soul’s relation to God, and therefore does not abate the power to pray. Rather, perhaps, is it to be believed that in many cases the deepest and truest nature of man, his religious nature, is brought into high and brilliant relief”.
2. God recognized. “Lifted up mine eyes unto heaven.“ This is the recognition of God. The enthronement of God. The returning conscious recognition of God marks the advent of moral sanity.
3. Reason returns to the throne with God.
4. And with reason, an admirable twin. All that makes life worth livingconviction of the existence of God; of the everlastingness of his blessed rule; of the comparative insignificance of any man; of the universality of his empire; of the resistlessness of his mightthat “everything which God does is well done” (verse 37); that “those that walk in pride he is able to abase;”add to these convictions that there came back, with reason, brightness of outer life and the joy of fellowship with men. Note: Afflictions last till they have done their workand then no longer.R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Dan 4:1-3
Royal witness for God.
Even kings learn the humiliating lesson at last that they are but men. As a counterpoise to their advantages, there is, on their side, this great disadvantage, viz. that their minds are singularly impervious to appeals from God. A drawback this which more than counterweighs all their privilege.
I. GOD‘S BEST GIFTS ARE OFTEN CONVEYED TO MEN THROUGH PAINFUL CHANNELS, God “causeth his sun to shine on the evil and the good. He sendeth rain on just and unjust alike.” So with earthly riches, honour, rank, lame. These gifts betoken no special favour of the Highest. They are of so little worth that God gives them in abundance to his foes. But his best gifts are obtained only through penitence, self-denial, sufferingboth vicarious and personal. Job’s wealth came, at the first, almost as an accident, and it exposed him to the envy and malice of Satan. If he had lived and died in his luxurious ease, the world would never have heard of him. But suffering wrought in him patience, submission, and faith. This was wealth which entered into his character, and abides with him still. The poor kingdoms of earth may be gained by the accident of birth, or by the mere chances of diabolic war; but the everlasting kingdom can only be reached through soul-tribulation. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
II. GOD‘S BEST GIFTS ARE INTENDED TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO THE SOUL. These gifts, when rightly estimated, are prodigies of skill and mirrors of Divine love. If God may be seen in his material works, he can be yet more clearly seen in his gracious gifts to men. Every one of these is a love-token, bearing on it the impression of his heart. Nebuchadnezzar had been wont to think that his royal good fortune was the highest good he possessed; but now he is led into the dark school of suffering, and made to learn his folly. Now he learns that God’s gifts of mind, reason, memory, speech, are far nobler than royal dignities, and that for the creation and preservation of these he is indebted to the God of heaven. Further, he is made to learn that there is a higher King than himself, and that to know and love God is the loftiest good of man. Jesus Christ is God’s best Gift to man, because he reveals to us the Father. Let us value most those blessings which bring us nearest to God!
III. GOD‘S BEST GIFTS ARE INTENDED TO BEAUTIFY CHARACTER. Nebuchadnezzar’s wealth, power, conquests, had brought no real good to the man; nay, they had done him harm. They had corrupted the better principles of his soul. They had made him self-sufficient, proud, tyrannical. But now, in a season of mental suffering, God’s grace had touched his heart. In that humiliated state, the king learns his dependence on God, his need of Divine help, and the homage due to the supreme Jehovah. His pride is abated. His love of the world is diminished. He is constrained to give unto God his due. He is made another man. His inmost character has been benefited. He is more indebted to temporary insanity than to all his successful wars.
IV. THE BEST GIFTS OF GOD DEMAND PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT. There was the greatest propriety that the Chaldean king should proclaim to the world his obligations to God. He had been placed under weighty indebtedness, and could show his gratitude in no other way than by declaring to the world his obligation. Often had he made proclamations and edicts to propagate his own will and pleasure; it was fitting that he should now act as a dependent, as a herald of the great King. What better formwhat other formcan gratitude assume, than publishing our obligations to the world? We can do no good to God in return for his kindness; we may do good to our fellow-men. If gratitude be genuine it will be publicly acknowledged. Honest recipients of blessing will say, “Come, ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul.”D.
Dan 4:4-9
True and false prophets.
It is amazing how some men are addicted to folly. It seems ingrained into the very nature of some men. Nebuchadnezzar had proved aforetime the vain pretensions of his magicians and soothsayers, and had proved, too, the incomparable superiority of Daniel; nevertheless, he neglects Daniel again on this occasion, and sends for the pretentious astrologers. Such men must be pounded in a mortar before the folly can be expurgated.
I. THE PROPHET HAS ALWAYS A PLACE IN THE WORLD. There has always been, and always will be, a need for him. Scientific discovery, however rapid its advancements, will never push the prophet from his niche. A vision was granted to Nebuchadnezzar by God, yet even the vision does not suffice. It only perplexes, saddens, alarms. The carnal mind cannot understand it. It is a terrific enigmaconfusion worse confounded. There is need of a prophet to unfold the signification. As long as man requires authoritative interpretations of Divine truth, so long he requires the prophet.
II. THE PROPHET CANNOT BE MADE BY THE ART OR SKILL OF MAN. The Babylonian king may make decrees from morning till night, but no number of royal decrees can manufacture a prophet. He may call a certain number of recluses “wise men;” but he can never make them so. Both kings and manner men allow themselves to be easily deceived by the mere show and pretence of authority. Let kings learn that there are some things which even they cannot do. In their extremity king-made prophets fail.
III. THE TRUE PROPHET IS CREATED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. God reveals his mind and will to whomsoever he pleases. As every power of mind is his creation, so this gift of prophetic insight is a direct donation from God. The capacity is God‘s, though man can improve and develop it by wise use. Prophecy is not so much a faculty of mind as the production of a peculiar temper of soul. It is strongest in the man who walks most closely with God; in other words, who is most conformed to God’s character and image. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.” To the same end, Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, “I thank thee, Father, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”
IV. THE TRUE PROPHET MAY BE KNOWN BY HIS HUMILITY AND LOVE. Daniel did not push his way into the presence of the king, with the rest of the wise men. He calmly waited in obscurity until his presence was sought. Real merit is neither forward nor froward. Nor, when Daniel perceived the purport of the dream, was he in haste to make known the coming disaster. Astonishment and sorrow sealed his lips for the space of an hour. Then, required by the king to unburden his soul, the prophet expresses profoundest sympathy with the king’s doom: “My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee.” The true prophet will not only bring God’s message, but will bring it in God’s spirit. He “speaks the truth in love.”D.
Dan 4:10-18
A vision of self-ruin.
It must always be regarded as a mark of God’s kindness, when he forewarns men of his impending judgments. If vindictive retribution only was intended, there would be no premobition. The old adage current among the heathen, “The gods have feet of wool,” ires no place in God’s kingdom. “The axe is laid at the root of the tree”a proof that kindness is not extinct in God’s bosom.
I. WE HAVE A PICTURE OF BRILLIANT PROSPERITY. It was a common method in olden time to represent a prosperous man under the image of a flourishing tree. “The righteous shall prosper as a palm tree: he shall grow as a cedar in Lebanon.” The greatness and splendour of Nebuchadnezzar resembled such a tree. He reigned in Babylonwell-nigh the centre of the then known world. His power among earthly kings was supreme. Neighbouring monarchs were his vassals. In all his wars he had been successful. Israel and Syria, Egypt and Arabia, lay at his feet. His throne was strong, and his fame reached, as it seemed, to heaven. Nor did his rule appear, on the whole, injurious. The peoples found protection under his sceptre. He encouraged the growth of art and science. But this military glory fed and pampered his pride. He deemed himself something more than man. He imagined himself a demi-god. The prosperity was outward, material, plausible. It did not touch and transform his inner nature. His body was nursed in luxury, but he was starving his soul. The flower opened in unrivalled beauty, but there was a worm at the root. Ah! deceitful sunshine.
II. A PICTURE OF AWFUL REVERSE. It is no uncommon thing for prosperous men to suffer a sudden and complete reverse. “Riches make for themselves wings, and fly away.” The props of a throne are soon snapped. The arm of military power is soon broken. Kings have ended life in a dungeon or on a scaffold. Not more complete is the contrast between a fruit tree in spring and the same tree in the frosty days of winter, than the conditions of some menin the morning prosperous, in the evening stripped and naked. Can Fortune’s best gifts be worth much, which give no warrant of continuance? The calamity which was preparing for Nebuchadnezzar was certainly the most severe that could befall a man. Worse than disease! Worse than leprosy Worse than death! He who had “set his heart as the heart of God,” who had aspired to a place among the stars, was to fall below the level of a manwas to have the heart of a beast, abject weakness instead of imperial might, imbecility in place of boasted wisdom. This disaster is said to be proclaimed by a holy watcher. This language was an accommodation to prevalent beliefs. The unfallen angels, being unburdened with a corporeal nature, and having, therefore, no need of sleep, are ever wakeful to execute the commissions of Jehovah. These watch our course, grieve over our declensions, and correct us for our follies. So did an angel scatter the hosts of Sennacherib. So did an angel smite Herod with a fatal disease. “Are they not all ministering spirits?” “Excelling in strength, they do his commands, hearkening to the voice of his word.”
III. TWIN RAYS OF HOPE. The Divine sentence proceeds with a succession of melancholy chastisements, until the word “nevertheless” is reached; then the deepening darkness is relieved by a gleam of hope. The stump of the root was to be preserved. This, of course, implied that the overthrow was not absolute and final. Room was yet left for repentance and restoration. Special means were chosen to preserve the stump from rot and injury. So all God’s judgments, in this life, are corrective and are designed to be remedial. Judgment and mercy are blended in human discipline. The affliction, though severe, was not to be permanent and eternal. There was a limit in respect to duration: “Till seven times are passed over him.” A sad apprenticeship in the dark prison of insanity, for seven years, was to be endured. And then, what? This was the momentous question. Was the issue, then, to be death? Or repentance, amendment, life? Tremendous issues hung upon the man’s use of God’s judgment. Every man is upon his trial. We are here “prisoners of hope.” A ray of mercy gilds our path, which ray may broaden and brighten into eternal noon, or may be quenched in blackest night.
IV. A MERCIFUL DESIGN. There is no room for caprice or chance in the government of our world, nor in any of the affairs of men. Does insanity fall upon a man? It is by a heaven]y design. “The purpose of Jehovah, that shall stand.” Mark, that God’s intention was not simply the good of one individual man, but the good of all living. God uses one to teach manydisciplines one, that he may be a blessing to multitudes. “No man liveth unto himself.” We receive good and evil mediately from the human race. We transmit blessing or bane to the future ages. God’s high design is to teach men religious truth”that the living may know that God ruleth” To know God, as the living, reigning God,this is among the highest blessings we can obtain. If we know God, we shall long to be reconciled to him, to enjoy his friendship. Acquaintance with God will quicken the aspiration to be like him. To know him is the way to virtue, wisdom, eminence, peace. It is comparatively easy to instruct the beggar, it is very difficult to instruct the monarch, in this lore. How hardly shall they that have riches confess themselves poor! How hardly shall they that have dominion acknowledge their dependence! The poorest in this way may become the richest; the meanest among men may become the mightiest in the kingdom of heaven.D.
Dan 4:19-28
Prophetic counsel.
The true prophet is God’s messenger to men. He has a definite mission to perform, and his service here is unspeakably precious. We have here several marks of a genuine prophet.
I. REAL SYMPATHY WITH HIS FELLOW–MEN. As a servant of the most high God, he can have no sympathy with self-indulgence, pride, ambition, or any form of sin. But he has real affection for men. Beneath the thick crust of worldliness, he perceives a precious soul, bearing still some lineaments of the Divine image; and his aim is to release and rescue the real man. The prophet feels for him, enters into his perplexities, bears with him the burden of sin. He would, if he might, take those burdens on his own shoulders, and bear them to the feet of the Sin-destroyer. To a large extent he identifies himself with suffering and enslaved humanity. Daniel’s silence was more eloquent than any speech, and if he could have averted the monarch’s doom he would have done so.
II. CLEAR INSIGHT INTO UNSEEN REALITIES. The prophet of God has commerce with the invisible realm. He knows, as a matter of fact, that there is a sphere of life encompassing us on every side, though unseen by mortal eye. The world, which is patent to the senses is a very small world compared with the territory unrevealed to sense. The visible creation is full of pictures and symbols of the invisible. Moral truths are adumbrated for us in allegorical forms. The objects and events, with which we are familiar in daily life, serve as hieroglyphs, and reveal to our dull understandings heavenly lessons. The trees of the field illustrate man’s growth, prosperity, decadence, sudden fall. His frailty may be read in the grass of the field. 1% material scythe is needed to mow him down. He falls before the east wind. We are dullards and fools if we do not read lessons of wisdom from the scenes of nature, especially when the messengers of God have furnished a key with which to unlock the door of interpretation.
III. PERSONAL REPROOF. God’s prophet is bold as well as skilful; fearless as well as affectionate. Being God’s messenger, he is bound to represent God; and, with all God’s might for his defence, nothing can really harm him. Beside, his very eagerness to promote men’s welfare inspires him with courage. He is conscious that he has no other end in view, except to please his Master and to benefit men; hence he proceeds straightway to put his finger upon the plague-spot of men’s disease, and to prescribe the remedy. In dealing with those who desire their guidance, God’s prophets cannot be too plain, too pointed, or too faithful. If a wanderer seeks guidance through a perilous wilderness, his guide cannot be too plain in his instructions, nor too persistent in requiring a faithful following of his words. Fearless vindication of the truth is a mark of a genuine prophet.
IV. WISE ADMONITION. “Wherefore, O king,” said Daniel, “break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.” It is quite probable that this monarch bad not been scrupulously upright in his administration of public justice; quite probable that the poor had been enslaved and oppressed. In the enlargement and embellishment of his capital, it is more than likely that forced labour had been largely exacted from the poor. Possibly the captives from Palestine and from other lands were included in these oppressive measures. Anyhow, Daniel traces the coming disaster to its real fount, viz. the personal sin of the monarch; and, like a true friend, he implores the king to endeavour by repentance to avert the awful doom. If the end can be obtained by methods less severethe end, viz. man’s salvationGod has no wish to employ harsher discipline. His aim is man’s good. “Judgment is his strange work.” But repentance must be thorough, genuine, practical. It must show itself in real fruit, No half-measures will suffice. The great Physician will have a perfect cure. No human eloquence, however persuasive, will induce men to repent without the attendant and subduing grace of Jehovah. Along with our own efforts, there should be earnest supplication for Divine help.D.
Dan 4:29-33
The sudden collapse of pride.
Careful and costly measures had been furnished by God to restrain Nebuchadnezzar from the brink of ruin, to which he was fast hastening. The dream, with its appalling omens; the human messenger; the king’s conscience;all these were voices from the supreme court of heaven. But conscience was silenced, the prophet was forgotten, the sense of danger diminished; Nebuchadnezzar persisted in his sin, until the patience of God was exhausted.
I. WE SEE PRIDE VAUNTING ITSELF IN BOASTFUL VAIN–GLORY. A year had elapsed since the faithful voice of Daniel had wakened the conscience of the king. At first the monarch intended to reform, but procrastination destroyed the sensitiveness of feeling, blinded him to the imminence of danger, and gave momentum to his downward course. The city grew in magnitude and in magnificence. The royal plans proceeded towards completion. Outward prosperity shone upon him in still clearer glory, Notwithstanding, the hour of reckoning was about to strike. Walking upon his elevated palace-roof, and surveying the grandeur of the city, Nebuchadnezzar gave the reins to natural pridethought and spoke as if there were none greater than he. This is the end pride ever aims at, viz. to make man a god unto himself. Yet was there a solitary stone in that vast pile that had been created by Nebuchadnezzar? Was the mind that designed the whole self-originated? Were the ten thousand artisans who had daily wrought upon those buildings the workmanship of man or of God? Pride is idolatry. Pride becomes mad atheism. There is no sin that is so frequently and freely condemned in Scripture as pride. By it the angels lost their high estate. Into this pit Adam fell. “Ye shall be as gods,” the tempter said. “God resisteth the proud.” They are a smoke in his nostrils. “Pride goeth before destruction.” One step only between haughtiness and hell. Insolent arrogance verges on madness.
II. WE SEE HUMAN PRIDE MOVING TO ACTIVITY THE COUNSELS OF HEAVEN. If the statesmen or the artisans in Babylon overheard the utterance of the king, they might have regarded it as a harmless outburst of vanity. Yet God doth not so regard it. It disturbs the tranquillity of heaven. It is regarded there as the language of hostile defiance. The limit of God’s forbearance was leached. There is a time to be quiet and a time to act. The cup of Nebuchadnezzar’s sin was full. He had despised the messages of kindly expostulation from Jehovah, and now no delay was permitted. The king had barely ceased to speak when Jehovah responded. But the words of Nebuchadnezzar were not intended for the ears of God. Ah! still he heard them. He regarded them as an indirect menace to him, and he at once replies. The verdict has passed the Judge’s lips. The kingdom is alienated. In a moment empire is lost. Rank, honour, power, are lost. Manhood is lost. Intelligence, memory, reason, love,all lust. Bare existence only remains. Like the prodigal boy, he descends step by step into a deeper degradation, and at length herds with the beasts of the field. Yet this is but an outward and visible portraiture of the inward degradation.
III. WE SEE HUMAN PRIDE MEETING WITH FITTING RETRIBUTION. We have here in concrete formin the history of a living personthe abstract truth, “He that exalteth himself shall be abased.” This is its natural and fitting outcomeits proper fruit. We cannot doubt that every form and degree of sin has, in the Divine code, a suitable and adequate punishment. There is not simply one rigid penalty for every mode and measure of transgression. The justice that presides on the eternal throne has eyes of subtlest discrimination and balances of exquisite nicety. Every step in the judicial procedure of God is accordant with natural principles. Even the forces of material nature will possibly be employed in vindicating the Divine Majesty. The indolence and sensual indulgence of the Babylonian palace served to emasculate Nebuchadnezzar. The rousing energy which war had demanded in earlier years had braced the monarch’s mind. But now the years of public peace had been so misused that inertia bred softness and luxury produced effeminacy. Step by step character deteriorated, though, perhaps, not detected by mortal eye. At length, by the Divine fiat, Reason abdicated her seat; the animal got the better of the man. In his imbecile condition the king imagined himself an ox, and preferred to browse in the fields. He was held last by this hallucination. His relatives and attendants, very possibly, feared to resist him. They humoured his infatuation until, in the royal paddock, his hair grew ragged and coarse, his nails became long and bent like eagles’ claws. This is the monarch who disdained to recognize Godthe monarch who plumed himself on his self-sufficiency! Draw near, all proud doffers of God, and see this portrait of yourselves!D.
Dan 4:34-37
Light at eventide.
It is a perilous thing to abuse any of God’s gifts. Thereby we interfere with the order of his government, and justly provoke his anger. The darkening of intellect with prejudice is no mean offence. Bribing reason with sensual delights not to recognize Godthis is a serious injury to one’s self, and daring rebellion against God. Such was the aggravated sin el Nebuchadnezzar; yet the judgment of God was tempered with mercy. The abuse of reason resulted in its loss, yet the loss was temporary. The deplorable darkness was designed as a prelude to clearer light,
I. PRESENT CHASTISEMENTS ARE NOT FINAL. This is a gracious alleviation of the severity. The darkest element in the Divine judgment is absent. There is scope for amendment, repentance, return. A ray of hope lights up the darkness of the scene. Yea, more; the chastisement, however severe, may be transfigured into supremest blessing. “It was good for me to be afflicted.” “Out of the eater may come forth meat.” A rough and prickly shell may enclose the sweetest kernel. The fire which consumes the dross may only beautify the go]d. Loss may be only an unrecognized form of gain. Through faith in God’s faithful love we can “glory in tribulation also.” “At the end of the days” the king’s insanity ceased.
II. LOSS OF REASON DESTROYS MAN‘S SENSE OF SELF–SUFFICIENCY. God had taken pains, on previous occasions, to convince Nebuchadnezzar that the invisible Jehovah was the true God of the universe, but the king had hardened his heart against the conviction. His inveterate pride prevented his belief. Fain would he be his own god. “Our wills are our own: who is Lord over us?” Such was his favourite doctrine. It was pleasant to be self-contained. It was a sweet morsel for the carnal appetite, this flattering unction that his own skill and strength had gained him this success. And so ingrained into his nature had this habit of self-trust become, that only the severest discipline from God could dislodge it. But when his understanding became dark, and memory failed, and Reason abdicated, and manhood became a wreck, he learnt in the school of personal experience what he refused to learn before, viz. how frail and dependent is manhow absolute a sovereign is God. At last self-sufficiency is rooted out, and a spirit of meek humility takes its place. Be it ours to learn the lesson without so severe a discipline!
III. RECOVERED REASON TEACHES US GOD‘S ETERNAL SOVEREIGNTY. The native tendency of man’s mind is to circumscribe its thought about itself. It makes self a centre round which all its thoughts and plans revolve. It vaguely imagines that when personal self fails, the world will collapse. It thinks little about the past, and what has led up to our present privileged position; it cares little about the remote future. But when foolish man “comes to himself,” after his aberrations and follies, he learns that for untold ages One has ruled on the throne of the universe, and is making all events to work out his designs. He was King long before we appeared upon the earthly scene; and he will remain Master of the situation long after we have passed away. His authority none can dispute. Yet, for his hormone and for our consolation, it shall be said that his will is right and just and good. “His will is our sanctification.” “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.”
IV. THE RIGHT USE OF REASON IS TO GLORIFY GOD. It is the primary and pressing duty of every man to learn the proper use of his faculties. When we have reached years of discretion we should often ask ourselves, “What is God’s intention in giving me this understanding, this conscience, this reason?” Our plainest duty is to ascertain, if possible, his intention, and to follow that intention closely. To be self-consistent, we must either deny that he is our Master, and repudiate his every claim, or else we must acknowledge his authority over every part of our nature, and over every moment of our lives. A partial obedience is no obedience at all. This would be a setting up of self to be the judge when obedience should be rendered, and would be a virtual dethronement of God. Here hesitation or debate is excluded. If my reason be an endowment from God, I am bound, by every tie of obligation, to use it for his honour, and to magnify him therewith. Therefore the first principle of genuine religion is this: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.”D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Dan 4:1. Nebuchadnezzar the king This is an edict in favour of the Jews: Daniel has preserved it to us in the original language, as an authentic piece. It is probable that it was given upon the occasion, and in consequence of the deliverance of the three Hebrews from the furnace.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL NOTES
[The numerical division of the verses in chap. 4 differs in the English Bible from that in the original text, as the latter annexes the first three verses of this narrative to chap. 3, and consequently begins its chap. 4 with Dan 3:4 of the English Bible.]
Lange’s comments have been divided here for presentation in Bible software based on the English Bible. See near the end of the comments for Dan 3:1 ff for the division point.
Dan 4:1-6 [Dan 4:4-9]. The kings dream. Inability of the Magians to interpret it. I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house. At rest, i.e., in the undisturbed possession of my kingdom, which, according to Dan 4:19, extended to the end of the earth; in my house, i.e., in the abode of peace, not in the field in order to prosecute warlike enterprises. Both expressions therefore refer to the later period of Nebuchadnezzars reign, when his wars (probably including that against Tyre, Eze 29:17) were ended, and he was able to devote himself to the affairs of peace, and especially to the erection of the great edifices at Babylon, to which Dan 4:27, and also Berosus, in Josephus, c. Apion, I. 19, refer. The time of this dream is therefore still later than that indicated by Dan 3:1.And flourishing in my palace. , green, not , quiet (as the analogy of Job 21:23 might perhaps lead us to expect), is the term employed by Nebuchadnezzar perhaps because he already recalls at this point the fresh and strongly flourishing tree (Dan 4:7 et seq.), by which he was symbolized in the dream vision. Such a prefatory use of a characteristic feature in the symbolic vision was the more appropriate, since the comparison of fortunate and healthful conditions in life with the verdure of trees was exceedingly common throughout the Orient, and especially so in the Old Testament usage of language; Cf. Psa 1:3; Psa 37:35; Psa 52:10; Psa 92:13 et seq.; Pro 11:28; Hos 14:7; Eze 47:12 (see upon this thought, my Theologia naturalis, p. 495 et seq,). For the rest, belongs to the somewhat numerous class of words which fell into disuse in the later Aramism; Cf. Pusey, Daniel, p. 599606.
Dan 4:2 [Dan 4:5]. I saw a dream which made me afraid. The abrupt connection, without or indicates the alarming influence which the suddenly transpiring dream exercised over the king, who had previously spent his time in peace; Cf. Job 4:20, and also the numerous antithetic asyndeta in the Proverbs (Introd. to Prov. of Sol., 14).And thoughts upon my bed, viz.: came to me, arose in me; an independent clause, which must not be connected with the final verb , but which is rather to be regarded as a parallel to , exactly as is parallel to in the former half of the verse. The assumption of such a parallelism is not, however, to be strained to the point of regarding (with Kranichf.) the thoughts as the details of the vision itself; for they, like the in Dan 2:29, were probably the troubled reflections of the king on awaking from his slumber, and while meditating on the nature of his dream (Von Lengerke; Cf. supra, on Dan 2:29).The (= the of the Targums) seem, however, to be identical with the Armen. chorhurd, a thought, and the word, therefore, is perhaps of Indo-Germanic derivation (thus Hitzig, at any rate; but Ewald, p. 477, objects; Cf. also Gesenius and Dietrich, s. v. )And visions of my head troubled me. Exactly similar to Dan 7:15 b. The visions of the head are the several fancies or images of the dream, as in Dan 2:28.
Dan 4:3 [Dan 4:6]. Therefore made I a decree. The same words occur in Dan 3:29; Cf. Dan 2:5.In regard to , see on 2:25.Observe that, in this instance, where the contents of the dream were not forgotten by the king, nor regarded as being especially marvellous, the condition of the king while demanding an interpretation of the dream is very different from that described in Dan 2:5a circumstance that strongly endorses the credibility of the narrative.
Dan 4:4 [Dan 4:7]. Then came in all the magicians, etc. Concerning the various classes of the wise men of Babylon, four of which are here specially referred to, see on Dan 2:2.Instead of (read ), the participle of , to go in, the Keri in this place has (cf. chap. Dan 4:8), which is contracted from , a form that shortens the initial to; with the latter cf., e.g., , Dan 3:16.
Dan 4:5 [Dan 4:8]. But at the last Daniel came in before me. The Kethib is a form with an undeniably adverbial signification (=at last, postremonot adjective: the last, postremus, as Hitzig prefers), that does not occur in the later Chaldee, and is replaced by the Keri (or ). It is rather to be regarded as an extension of the sing. adjective formation , than as an irregular plural in which the e-sound has taken the place of (see Olshausen, Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache, p. 208).The preceding is the familiar conjunction until (Ezr 4:21; Ezr 5:5); the whole expression , until at last, is an adverbial phrase similar to , Dan 2:8.Whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god. Cf. on Dan 1:7. This thoroughly heathen reference to the name of Daniel is immediately followed by a reference to his person, which indicates the feature that had inspired the heathen king with confidence in his superior power and understanding, and, through this, with a faint conception of the nature of that Deity to whom he owed such power and wisdom. From this affirmation that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, which is repeated in Dan 4:6 [Dan 4:9] and Dan 4:15 [Dan 4:18], it follows that Nebuchadnezzar had by no means forgotten what he had learned upon two previous occasions respecting the eminent prophetic gifts of Daniel, and his direct intercourse with the only true God. The expression does not, indeed, have an orthodox look from a theocratic or Old Testament point of view; but it is only to the half a heathen sentiment, similar to the remarks by Pharoah in praise of Joseph, Gen 41:38. is probably not an epitheton ornans of the gods in general, but rather a special designation of the in distinction from the destructive divinities (Kranichf.).
Dan 4:6 [Dan 4:9]. O Belteshazzar. master of the magicians, . This title differs only in form and not in substance from that of chief president of all the wise men of Babylon, which dignity was conferred on Daniel, Dan 2:48. It was by no means necessary that Daniel, as the possessor of this exalted dignity, should at once and without ceremony present himself before the king with the remaining . The more independent position which he occupies, according to this passage, is rather in entire harmony with chap. 3, where he is absent from a large assembly of the officials of the royal court, and also with chap. Dan 4:10 et seq., where it is represented that his character as the chief magian was lost sight of by Nebuchadnezzars successors, but not that he had been deprived of that dignity. Among the various answers to the question as to why Daniel was not at once summoned before the king to interpret the dream, instead of being subsequently introduced, the one here indicated, which refers to the freedom of his official station, is certainly the most simple and appropriate, since various features of our book appear to conflict with the assumption that he occupied a political or priestly station in the proper sense (cf. on Dan 2:49; Dan 3:12; and on 8:2). Consequently we prefer this explanation to the many which have been attempted, e.g., that of Jahn, that custom required that the chief of the magians should not be summoned at the first; that of Fller, which considers Daniel as being, in fact, an officer of the state (chief satrap) rather than a magian; that of Hvernick, that the haste with which the terrified king caused the wise men to be summoned caused the overlooking of Daniel at the outset; that of Kranichfeld, which argues that Nebuchadnezzar, who already surmised the relation of the image of the fallen tree in his dream to his royal person, dreaded the harsher judgment and sterner prophecy of evil to be expected from Daniel, the prophet of Jehovah, exactly as Ahab, in 1Ki 22:8 et seq., summoned the heathen wise men and seers into his presence, before he turned to the proper source, etc. J. D. Michaelis, however, observes with entire correctness, that a certain and trustworthy answer to that question would require a more exact acquaintance with all the facts of the history than we are able to command.1 And that no secret troubleth thee. signifies in the Targums to sweep away, to apply force, but here to cause difficulty or trouble; Cf. the Heb. , to compel, Est 1:8.
Dan 4:7-14 [Dan 4:10-17]. Subject of the kings dream. Thus were the visions of my head, etc.; literally, And (concerning) the visions of my head upon my bed; I saw; an abrupt and detached clause similar to Dan 7:17-23.In relation to vision of my head, see on Dan 4:2.And behold, a tree (stood) in the midst of the earth. , unlike the corresponding Heb. , does not signify an oak in particular, but tree generally; Cf. and robur. The position of this tree, in the midst of the earth, indicates its great importance for the whole earth, and its destiny to develop an unlimited growth in every direction (cf. Dan 4:8). The tree thus occupies a central position that corresponds to its exceeding height. The symbolizing of the mighty Babylonian king by a tree recalls the description by Ezekiel, Eze 21:3 et seq., which was probably not known to Nebuchadnezzar, but with which Daniel, the narrator of his dream, must have been acquainted. It also suggests a reference to Eze 17:22; Eze 19:10 et seq.; and, among the earlier prophets, to Isa 2:13; Isa 6:13; Isa 14:12; Jer 22:15; Amo 2:9 (cf. also the passages cited above, on Dan 4:1). The especial fondness of the ancient Orientals for the illustration of the growth or decline of human greatness and power by the figure of a growing or fallen tree, is shown by Hvernick in the parallels he adduces from Herodotus (3:19; the dream of Xerxes; 6:37; the threat of Crsus to destroy the town of Lampsacus like a pine tree; Cf. also 1:108; the dream of Astyages respecting his daughter Mandane), from Arabic writers (Antaras Moallaka, v. 51, 56; Reiske on Tarafa, proleg., p. 47), from the later Mohammedan traditions (Mohammeds comparison of a Moslem to an evergreen palm in Sunna, according to v. Hammer, Fundgruben des Orients, I. 152), and from Turkish history and literature (the prophetic dream of Osman 1., according to Murajea dOhsson, Allgem. Schilderung des ottoman. Reichs, p. 273 et seq.). Cf. further, with reference to the general use of this tree-symbolism among the Greeks, the interesting work of Btticher: Baumkultus der Hellenen (Leips., 1858).
Dan 4:8 [Dan 4:11]. The tree grew and was strong, became great and strong; thus, correctly, Chr. B. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld. The finite verbs and do not designate a fixed, but a becoming state; hence Nabuchadnezzar sees the tree growing and becoming greater than it was in Dan 4:7 [Dan 4:10].And the height thereof reached unto heaven, like the tower of Babel, Gen 11:4, or the , Herod. 2:138. Observe the imperfect , which here takes the place of the perfect, and indicates the heaven-aspiring tendency of the slowly developing tree.And the sight thereof to the end of all the earth; rather, its extent or circumference. does not signify its visibility (Vulg., Syr., de Wette, and many moderns), but its outlook, its circumference, its extent (the Sept. and Theodotion are correct, so far as the sense is concerned: , its bulging, extension); the contrast with would itself require this interpretation.
Dan 4:9 [Dan 4:12]. The leaves (branches) thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much. , properly its branching, its crown, as is the aggregate of its fruit. Bertholdt, von Lengerke, and others, render incorrectly and its fruit was large (i.e., it bore a large, thick kind of fruit); for there was no reason to mention such a quality of the tree. The immediate connection shows that the great quantity of fruit, instead of its size, was here referred to.And it was meat for all, rather, and food for all (was found) on it. , for all, i.e., for all who lived under its shelteran exemplification and more circumstantial exposition of . It is, however immaterial to the sense of the passage as a whole, whether be construed with by neglecting the makkeph between and , as a majority of expositors, including ourselves, translate, or whether we translate, as Kranichfeld [and Keil], with regard to the makkeph: and food was found for all on it, i.e., for all the birds that nestled on it. The masora evidently requires this rendering here, while in Dan 4:18 [Dan 4:21], where the makkeph is wanting from between and , it observes the other construction.The beasts of the field had shadow under it. , umbram egit spent in the shadow. The aphel of (obumbrare, to overshadow, protect), which, in the language of the Targums, is generally transitive, like the Heb. , 1Ch 4:3, is here intransitive by virtue of its Niphal signification.And the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof; Cf. Mat 13:32, and the parallel passages. The masculine has its explanation in the fact that is of the common gender; the Keri construes the word in the feminine, in analogy with , Dan 4:18 [Dan 4:21].And all flesh was led of it. All flesh, i.e., not merely all the birds, but also all the beasts of the field, and, in short, all the animals living on and under the tree, thus imaging all of the human race that were united under the sceptre of Nebuchadnezzar; Cf. Dan 4:19 [Dan 4:22].
Dan 4:10 [Dan 4:13]. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed; a formula designed to prepare for the new and remarkably sudden turn of the hitherto quietly transpiring dream.A watcher and holy one came down from heaven. , obviously a hendiadys for a holy watcher, a watcher who is holy. , the pass. part. of , expergefieri, designates a watchful one, one who watches (cf. , Son 5:2; Mal 2:12), in this place more particularly a celestial watcher, an angel who from heaven watches over the fortunes of men. Thus Aquila, Symm., and the Sept.: ; also a scholium in the Cod. Alex, on the [a transfer of ] of Theodotion ( ); also Polychronius: , and Jerome: Significat angelos, quod semper vigilent et ad Dei imperium sint parati. By the addition of the modifying the mentioned in this place is expressly classed with the good or holy watchers of heaven, and thus is distinguished from the , in which light the Babylonians regarded a number of their astral gods (see Gesenius on Isa., II. 334 et seq.), and also from the of the book of Enoch, who are described as bad angels and as inimical to men. The expression decree (determination, counsel) of the watchers points strongly to the conclusion that the of our book are identical with the of the Babylonians in Diodor., 2:30i.e., with the thirty-six inferior gods associated as counsellors (deos) with the five superior planetary gods; but the entire correspondence of this feature to the Babylonian doctrine of the gods does not exclude the existence, at the same time, of a certain analogy or essential relation of the watchers with the Amesha-cpenta of the Parsees, nor even that the supposed etymology of Amesha-cpenta = non connivens sanctus (thus Bopp, who is, however, contradicted, e.g., by Burnouf) might be asserted in its support. But that is merely a translation of Amshaspand is an arbitrary dictum of Hitzig, which is opposed by the possibly post-Babylonian age of the name Amesha-cpenta (this does not occur at all in the oldest portion of the Zendavesta), and which lacks all scientific support, to an extent equal to the identification of with , a messenger (Isa 18:2; Isa 57:9), as was attempted by several older expositors, e.g., Michaelis (in Castell. Lex. Syr., p. 649), cf., however, Hver-nick and Kranichfeld on this passage, and also Hengstenberg, Christologie des Alten Testaments, III. 2, 74 et seq.
Dan 4:11 [Dan 4:14]. He cried aloud and said thus. Aloud, exactly like the royal herald, in Dan 3:4; cf. Dan 10:16; Isa 58:1, etc.Hew down the tree and cut off its branches. The command is addressed to the servants of the angel, who were perhaps inferior angels, and whose presence the rapidly transpiring dream presumes without further explanation; Cf. Mat 8:9, and the parallel passages. Isidorus Pelusiota already is correct (Epp. I. 2. n. 177): . [Perhaps Keil rather is correct, who suggests that the plur. is to be regarded as impersonal: the tree shall be cut down.]Shake (strip) off its leaves, literally, cause them to fall off. (instead of after the analogy of verbs third gutt.), the aphel of , which designates the falling of faded leaves or blossoms from the tree, in the Targums, Psa 1:3; Isa 40:8; Joe 1:10.Scatter its fruit; contemptuously, as if it were of no value, and as if it were not worth the trouble of gathering. The consequence, that the animals, who were hitherto sheltered by the tree, were now likewise scattered, and driven far asundera lively image of subjects alarmed by the fall of their sovereignis indicated in what follows.
Dan 4:12 [Dan 4:15]. Nevertheless, leave the stump of its roots in the earth. , the still thrifty stump, like , Isa 6:13, or , Isa 11:1; Job 14:8. The ultimate sprouting of this root-stump (cf. Job 14:7-9), which was allowed to remain in the earth, typified, as appears from Dan 4:23 [Dan 4:26] compared with Dan 4:33 [Dan 4:36], the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar from his sickness; but not the continued supremacy of his dynasty, as Hvernick interprets, since in this passage obviously designates an individual, Nebuchadnezzar himself, instead of the whole race of Chaldan rulers.Even with a band of iron and brass; rather, but in fetters of iron and brass, Supply shall he lie, or be; or even shall he be left (). The figure of a tree is now dropped; in the stead of a vegetable organism that necessarily clings to the ground there is presented, obviously with regard to the bestializing of Nebuchadnezzar, an animal organism, which, while naturally capable of unimpeded motion and of an individual and independent participation in life, is for the present forcibly restrained. There is thus a partial transition from the figure to the fact (as is frequently the case in the comparisons and allegories of our Lord, e.g., Mar 4:28; Luk 12:46; Mat 22:13; Joh 10:11 et seq.), or at least an approximation of the figurative representation to the actual conditions of the event typified. This fact is misunderstood as soon as the attempt is made, with Von Lengerke, to conceive of the fetters of iron as fastened on the root-stump, in order to prevent it from cracking and splitting, and also when it is assumed, with Jerome and others, that an actual binding of Nebuchadnezzar as a furiosus, who required to be fettered like all maniacs, is asserted at this early stage. The literal conception of the idea to fetter is inappropriate on either method. The fetters of iron and brass symbolize the chains of darkness and coarse bestiality in which the mind of the king was held during an extended period. Cf. expressions like chains of darkness, Wis 17:17; 2Pe 2:4, and figurative descriptions, such as Psa 107:10; Psa 116:16; Psa 149:8; Job 36:8. Kranichfeld observes correctly: A more forcible binding of his sovereign aims for himself, exceeding the disgrace of that which might be applied to a prisoner of war, could scarcely happen to the king, than was that to which he was compelled to submit according to Dan 4:22 [Dan 4:25] and Dan 4:29 [Dan 4:31], in the form of a beastly restraint on his understanding, and of an actual expulsion from the society in which he moved. And since binding in fetters of iron and brass is a metaphor as common as it is in this instance a striking figure of the deplorable condition to which the Babylonian universal monarch was reduced; since, moreover, the towering height of the tree in the dream is of itself sufficient to establish the selection of an expression to indicate the corresponding contrast of a severe and servile compulsion, the explanation of the figure does not require the combination of this expression proposed by Hitzig with an assonant kedan, Syr., to bind. taken from the name of Nebuchadnezzar. This is the more obvious because of the consideration that no reference is made to the name in other portions of the description, although, by a repeated use of the k in nebuk (Nebuch), it might to the Hebrew sound portentously like the Arabic inbaka, turbata mente fuit. For the Talmudic animal with an ingrown tree which resembled man in form and language, adne sadeh (Buxt. Lex. Chald., p. 34), may be explained, as by Hitzig, without any doubt whatever, from the of the name Nebuchadnezzar much more readily than that really fabulous creature would have allowed itself to be fabricated, had not the self-authenticated description of Daniel (Dan 4:12-13 [Dan 4:15-16], in connection with the otherwise familiar , the heliotropum which moves its leaves (see Buxt., l. c.), furnished the material.In the tender grass of the field, etc. This lying in the grass and being exposed to the dews of heaven is as applicable to the stump of the tree as to Nebuchadnezzar, the maniac; Cf. Dan 4:20 [Dan 4:23] et seq.Concerning the reading , for which Dan 4:20 [Dan 4:23] substitutes (corresponding to the Hebraizing Keris in 5:39; 6:1), cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage.And let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Cf. Dan 4:30 [Dan 4:33], and did eat grass as oxen. The figure has been departed from entirely in this place, and a feature of the interpretation is anticipated. , portion. occurs also in Dan 4:20 [Dan 4:23] and Ezr 4:16. The Targums have instead. Concerning the not local, but telic signification of , in or of the grass, cf. e.g., Jos 22:25; 2Sa 20:1.
Dan 4:13 [Dan 4:16]. Let his heart be changed from a mans; literally, they shall change from (that of) a man ( = , as Ibn Ezra correctly adds). Cf. the similar brevilo-queuti in Dan 1:10; Dan 7:20, etc., and concerning the active signification of (for which the angels addressed in serve as an indefinite subject), Cf. supra, on Dan 3:4. His heart, i.e., his faculties of conception and desire, or, if it be preferred, his consciousness; Cf. Dan 4:29-30 [Dan 4:32-33]. The Hebraizing form here and in Dan 4:14 [Dan 4:17] is perhaps to be rejected in favor of the more correct Chaldee ; Cf. Dan 4:22; Dan 4:29-30 [Dan 4:25; Dan 4:32-33]; Dan 5:21; Dan 7:13, etc. [And let a beasts heart be given unto him. The heart of a man is dehumanized when his soul becomes like that of a beast; for the difference between the heart of a man and that of a beast has its foundation in the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a beast (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych., p. 252).Keil.]And let seven times pass over him, properly, change over him; , a select word for to pass over, expire, prterire, prterlabi. It may be seriously doubted whether the term , over him, was chosen with a special reference to the stars succeeding each other in the heavenly heights above the tormented one, which were to indicate the duration of his affliction (Kranichfeld), although the mystical phrase seven times may contain a certain reference to the astrology of the Chaldans. The seven are seven years, as appears from Dan 7:25, compared with 12:7 (thus the Sept., Josephus, Ibn-Ezra, Rashi, etc.),not seven months (as Saadia Gaon, Dorotheus, Pseudo-Epiphanius, etc., held) or seven half-years (Theodoret). , in itself equivalent to juncture, emergency, receives in this place and Dan 7:25, the sense of or , a point of time, from the context. The duration of the kings punishment as extending over seven years is explained here, as in Dan 3:19, by the fact that a judicial retribution is concerned; and the heavy weight of punishment which Jehovah caused to be announced with solemn emphasis to the king was accordingly inflicted, Dan 4:25; Dan 4:29 [Dan 4:28; Dan 4:32]. The number seven is. however, not to be pressed literally, to the extent of assuming that the duration of the kings sickness covered exactly seven times 365 days, which would do violence to the always prophetically-ideal pragmatism of the history. Cf. infra, on Dan 7:25.2
Dan 4:14 [Dan 4:17]. This matter (message) is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones. The parallelismus membrorum in which the solemn and elevated speech proceeds, shows that the are here also, as in Dan 4:10 [Dan 4:13], identical with the . The terms and are likewise synonymous, but do not, as Hitzig holds, signify matter (concern) and circumstance, but, in harmony with their etymology and the sense of in Dan 3:16, must be rendered word (message, announcement) and demand (command); cf. the Heb. , a request, desire, Jdg 8:24; 1Ki 2:16; Job 6:8; Est 5:6; Est 5:8, etc. Entirely too artificial and contradictory of the unquestionable sense of , a decision, resolution (and also of , a decision), is the attempt of Kranichfeld to vindicate the signification a request, petition, for , which is based on the idea of a petition such as the watchers, as inferior (see on Dan 4:10 [Dan 4:13]), were obliged to address to their superiors, the five planetary gods. But the appear nevertheless to be advisory deities, inasmuch as they are only , and not , and inasmuch as the supreme decision in their college rests, according to Dan 4:21 [Dan 4:24], with the Most High (). Cf. the representation of a great subordinate council of the Deity as composed of angels in 1Ki 22:19 et seq.; Job 2:1 et seq.; and also, with reference to the specifically Babylonian idea of a decision in the council of the deity, Diodor. 2:30: , , ; further, the familiar picture near Kazwini, which represents Bel as a judge and surrounded by genii (Gesen., on Isa., 2:337). Before , a decree, the instrumental must be supplied from the preceding. The variation is, therefore, correctly supplied in the interpretation.To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth, etc. is to be rendered, either until, to the circumstance, that = until that (donec, Vulg.), or, with Hitzig, in harmony with Dan 2:30, and with the of Theodotion, , to the end that. The latter may perhaps be preferred, because of the ease of mistaking for , and because of the fact that does not occur elsewhere.3 Dan 4:22 [Dan 4:25], which directly substitutes for the of this verse, shows that Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of the earth, is not excluded from the number of the living who are to recognize the authority of the Most High, but rather, that he especially is included.And setteth up (rather, can set up) over it the basest of men. , the humblest of men, is grammatically a. general conception conveying the idea of the superlative, as in 2Ch 21:17, the Heb. ; Cf. Winer, Chald. Gramm., 58, 2. The assertion of Hitzig, that by this humblest of men, an Israelite, or even the Israelitish Messiah ( , Dan 7:13), is designated as successor to the great world-monarch, is without support from the context. The thought of a person of the lowest rank, rather, was naturally suggested to the mind of the dreaming king, because the fall of himself, the most exalted man, was concerned.For the opinion that the imperfects and in this place express the idea of abilityis able to confer, can exaltcf. Dan 2:47, where also designates that Being who is able to reveal secrets. [The Kethib is shortened from , and in the Keri is yet further shortened by the rejection of the ; cf. Dan 5:21; Dan 7:4 sq., etc.Keil.]
Dan 4:15 [Dan 4:18]. Daniel required to interpret the dream. This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. The demonstrative is placed first for emphasis, thus corresponding to the disturbing and exciting subject of the dream. The predicative rendering, This is the dream, which, etc., is opposed by the rule that the relative cannot be omitted after the designated noun (Winer, 41, 4).Declare the interpretation thereof. , is a softened form for , its interpretation, in this place, Dan 4:16 [Dan 4:19], and chap. Dan 4:8. This view is confirmed by the Peshito, while Theodotion and the Vulgate have , which reading is still represented among moderns, e.g., by Hitzig.On the close of the verse, Cf. Dan 4:6 [Dan 4:9].
Dan 4:16-24 [Dan 4:19-27]. The interpretation. Then Daniel. was astonished for (about) one hour. On the reading instead of , Cf. Winer, 25, 2. Several MSS. have instead of , but this reading conflicts with the usage of the context, and also with the testimony of the ancient translators (Theodot., Vulg., Syr., and probably with the Sept.). Concerning the etymology of , hour, which is certainly to be taken here in the literal sense, Cf. on Daniel 3:6.4 That the astonished gazing of Daniel continued about an hour, is mentioned by the author from a motive (viz., in order to indicate the greatness of his astonishment) similar to that from which the book of Job records the sympathetic mourning and silence of the three friends during seven days (Job 2:13). Hitzig observes correctly: He meditates on the interpretation, and is astonished when he perceives it, because he wishes well to the king, and probably, also, because Nebuchadnezzar might receive the prophecy ungraciously, and might take vengeance on him (as Ahab did on Micaiah, 1Ki 22:26-27). His confusion is depicted on his countenance; which causes the king to observe that he has found the interpretation, and to invite him in encouraging terms to impart it freely. It cannot really be comprehended how it is possible, in the face of so unsought for, and, in itself, probable a historical situation, to establish the hypothesis of a conventional forgery in the Maccaban age.[That Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:16 [Dan 4:19]) in his account speaks in the third person does not justify the conclusion either that another spoke of him, and that thus the document is not genuine (Hitzig), nor yet the conclusion that this verse includes a historical notice introduced as an interpolation into the document; for similar forms of expression are often found in such documents; Cf. Ezr 7:13-15; Est 8:7-8.Keil.]My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies! i.e., Would that the dream concerned thine enemies, and that its interpretation related to thy foes rather than to thee! Instead of the Kethib (a regular formation from , Dan 2:47; Dan 4:23), the Keri has, here and in Dan 4:21 [Dan 4:24], the shorter form , which corresponds to the usage of the later Chaldee. The following , an enemy, is likewise peculiar to the pre-targumistic Chaldee.
Dan 4:17 [Dan 4:20]. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong; rather, of which thou sawest that it was great and strong. The second is subordinated to the first in , and is therefore to be rendered as a conjunction, not as a relative pronoun coordinated with the first. The ensuing description of the tree, in Dan 4:17-18 [Dan 4:20-21], and likewise of the Divine sentence of judgment pronounced on it in Dan 4:20 [Dan 4:23], are repeated verbally from Dan 4:7; Dan 4:13 [10 and 16], although with abbreviations and unessential variations.
Dan 4:19 [22]. It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong, etc.; i.e., that art become great and strong. The following , etc., is loosely connected with the relative clause The Keri offers the smoother form instead of , and in the following, the third pers. fern. instead of = ; Cf. also Dan 4:21 [24].Concerning the remarkable addition by the Sept. to Dan 4:19 [22], cf., e.g., Eth.-fund. principles, No. 3 [below].
Dan 4:21 [Dan 4:24]. This is the interpretation (of it), O king;the conclusion to the lengthy antecedent clause, Dan 4:20 [Dan 4:23].And this is the decree of the Most High which is come (determined) upon my lord the king. In regard to , cf. the Heb. , Gen 34:27; Job 2:11. The preterite represents the decree as already decided on, and, therefore, as unavoidable, and certain to be executed on the king.
Dan 4:22 [Dan 4:25]. They shall drive thee from men, literally, and thee shall they drive, etc. The in is consecutive: and thus shall they drive thee. The impersonal active is exactly similar to , Dan 3:4, and infra, Dan 4:28 [Dan 4:31]. The agents of the punishment, who are not designated, are the inferior angels, as with , Dan 4:13 [Dan 4:16], and as in Dan 4:28 [Dan 4:31].5
Dan 4:23 [Dan 4:26]. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; they = the heavenly watchers, of whom one only spoke, Dan 4:10-14 [Dan 4:13-17]; but that one was the representative of the entire community of angels.Thy kingdom shall (again) be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known, etc neither signifies to continue (Theodotion, Vulg., Dereser, von Lengerke, etc.), nor to be preserved (Bertholdt), but rather, to arise, stand, be firm, and here, in view of the context, to again be firm (Hitz., Kranichf.). in this place is not inferentialsince, because,as in Dan 3:22, but instead relates to time, as soon as, and designates a juncture following the period included in , Dan 4:21; Dan 4:29 [Dan 4:24; Dan 4:32]hence at the close of the seven years.That the heavens do rule, viz.: over the kingdoms of men, Cf. Dan 4:14 [Dan 4:17] and Dan 4:22 [Dan 4:25]. The heavens is here used to designate God, instead of the Most High. The expression must be regarded as an abbreviation of the phrase the God of heaven, which was employed on former occasions (chap: 2:18, 37, 44), or of the King of heaven (4:34), which is synonymous with the former, or also of the Lord of heaven (Dan 4:23). There is nothing untheocratic and polytheistic in the expression, even though the Chinese designate their god as heaven, and though the same usage prevailed among the ancient Persians (Herod, 1:131), the Greeks ( = Sanscr. jus, heaven), and the Romans (Deus; Divus, Jovis, etc.). Even in the New Testament the is identical with the . , and the Talmudists (e.g., Nedarim, ix. 10; x. 13, etc.; Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., col. 2440), as well as the Jews of a much earlier period (according to Juvenal, Sat., XIV. 96 et seq., and Diodorus in Photius, Bibl., XL.), generally designated God directly as heaven, indicating thereby that they attributed to Him the sole dominion over the heavenly world, and denied that other gods were associated with Him (cf. Psa 115:16).
Dan 4:24 [27]. Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee. , wherefore, as in Dan 2:6. In regard to , Cf. on Daniel 3:32. The term is here construed with , as in that passage and Dan 6:2, with , by which the persuasiveness of the remarks is increased (cf. with , Ezr 5:17), and by which the desire of Daniel to aid the king, if possible, in averting the impending danger and punishment, becomes more apparent than would be the case if the more courteous phrase had been employed. From this truly theocratic standpoint, the prophet persists in holding it possible to turn aside the punishment threatened in the dream, similar to Isaiah (38:1 et seq.) and Jeremiah (18:7 et seq.) in analogous cases; Cf. Joe 2:12 et seq.; Amo 7:3; Amo 7:6; Jon 3:5 et seq.; 2Ki 20:1 et seq.6 And break off thy sins by righteousness; rather, purchase thy deliverance from thy sins, etc. The ancient translators justly regard as plural; Cf. the parallel . The suffix in , instead of , is defective, similar to that in , Dan 5:10. The word is derived from the Stat, emphat. of a singular (= Heb. , cf. Olshausen, Lehrb., p. 283)., properly to break (cf. Sanscr. prak, Lat. frango, Germ, brechen), designates, similar to the Heb. in passages like Psa 136:24; Sam. 5:8, etc., a tearing out of a matter from its former position or relations, and hence, a liberating, redeeming, or purchase (cf. 2Sa 7:23; Isa 35:9-10, where is used for or , exsolvere, redimere). The Sept. and Theodot. therefore render it correctly by , the Vulg. redime, and Syr., Saad., Ibn Ezra, Berth., de Wette, Hitzig, etc., in a similar manner. On the other hand, Rashi, Geier, Starke, Dereser, Hvernick, von Len-gerke, Kranichfeld, etc., prefer the idea of casting off, casting away, as it is found in Gen. 37:40, and accordingly interpret: lay off thy sins (Hv.), or break off thy sins, give them up (Kranichfeld). But in the usage of the Chaldee language, and especially in that of the Targums, constantly and undeniably bears the sense of redeeming by purchase (e.g., a birthright, a field, the daughter of Jephthah, Jdg 11:35); and the rather broad conception, admitting, as it does, of an application to many and diverse relations, by no means requires that the object to be redeemed should be desirable to the purchaser, and possess value for him. Rather, the remark of von Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, i. 519,) is correct: The sins are not under restraint, but, instead, they enslave. The idea of Daniel, therefore, is that the king should deliver himself from the sins that involve him in guilt and slavery, by practising righteousness and mercy for the future, instead of persisting in the arbitrary and tyrannical course to which he had hitherto been addicted.7 Cf. Melancthon also, in the Apology (Art. III., p. 112), where the redime of the Vulgate is retained, but the supposed interpretation is decidedly rejected, as favoring the doctrines of work-righteousness insisted on by the Jewish and Roman Catholic exegesis (see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 2 [below]). This interpretation, however, does not result from any possible rendering of the imper. , but from the incorrect explanation of by doing good, alms, which is found in numerous expositors, from Jerome to Hitzig; and the latter rendering is not justified, either by Psa 37:21, nor by a comparison with extravagant laudations of works of mercy in Sir 3:28; Sir 29:12; Tob 4:10; Tob 12:9, etc. The only interpretation of allowed by the context and general usage is righteous deportment to be observed by the king toward his subjects, in contrast with his former tyranny and arbitrary domination. In the parallel member, mercy toward the poor is intimately connected with this, as being the second leading virtue in rulers, which virtue the king is exhorted to cultivate (cf. Hofm., as above). The historical situation, rather than the usage, indicates that, in connection herewith, the are to be sought for principally in the number of the poor Israelites, the theocratically wretched (), who were languishing in exile and captivity. The usage would admit of a different rendering of the .8 If it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility; rather, if thy prosperity shall be durable. This is the external motive addressed to the king, to induce him to heed the warning of the theocratic seer. The conditional language is very decided; , if, is no more to be taken in the dubious sense of (Act 8:22) in this passage than in Dan 3:17. is not forbearance, forgiveness, but duration, continuance; Cf. Jer 15:15; Ecc 8:12.
Dan 4:25-30 [Dan 4:28-33]. The fulfilment. All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. Hvernick regards these words as still belonging to the royal proclamation, while all that follows, to Dan 4:30 [Dan 4:33], is a parenthesis inserted by the prophet (see supra, on Daniel 3:31). But this hypothesis renders it impossible to observe unity of the report, which must obviously be preserved, since the theocratic coloring apparent in these verses may elsewhere be frequently noticed (supra), and since a detailed statement of the infliction of the threatened punishment is required in order to give point to the report. This does not make it inconceivable that Daniel, the writer of the report as a whole, should in this connection relegate the royal subject, who had hitherto been spoken of in the first person, to the background, and that he should describe the Divine judgment executed on the king from his own theocratic point of view.9
Dan 4:26 [Dan 4:29]. At the end of twelve months he walked upon (marg.) the palace of the kingdom of Babylon; rather, the royal palace at Babylon. In relation to the time indicated, at the end of twelve months, Kranichfeld observes: When the important incident of the dream was a year old, and on that account its recollection naturally exercised the imagination of the king with special force, he gave himself up, despite the Divine warning, to the proudest exaltation of self, which indicated that he was neither controlled by religious piety in general, nor by reverence for the God of the Jews in particular, etc. It appears to us that this is seeking too much in that designation of time. It is simply a historical circumstance that exactly twelve months elapsed between the dream and its fulfilment, and at the same time an illustration of the simple accuracy and concrete truth of the narrative.10 Upon the royal palace, i.e., upon its flat roof; Cf. 2Sa 11:2. The proud king, who has employed the respite of twelve months in nursing his tyrannical superciliousness, instead of improving it by repenting and working righteousness, wishes, by actual observation from this elevated spot, to assure himself of the condition of his royal power, and to feast himself with looking on the gigantic metropolis of the world which he had created. His thoughts are similar to those of another, in Schillers Glocke (the Bell):
The splendor of the house
Stands firm as earths foundations
Against the power of evil, etc.
The walking along ( ; cf. , Dan 4:34 [Dan 4:37]) likewise indicates his conceited arrogance and pride; cf. the Germ. einherstol ziren (strutting along).The mention of the location, at Babylon, does not at all compel the assumption of a Palestinian origin of the book, or of any particular part of it, as even Hitzig acknowledges. It merely indicates that the author was not a constant resident in the city of Babylon, and that his narrative was composed for readers who were chiefly, or without exception, strangers in Babylon (however long they might have been detained in that city against their will). These features are suited to the view that Daniel was the writer of the document before us, as thoroughly as they militate against the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was its immediate author; Cf. supra, on Daniel 3:31.11
Dan 4:27 [Dan 4:30]. Is not this (the) great Babylon that I have built, etc. The great () was evidently a standing title of Babylon, with its circumference of 480 stadia (Herod. 1:191), its colossal walls, its 25 gates on either side of the immense square, its 676 districts filled with houses of several stories each, its hanging gardens on the Euphrates, its gigantic temples and palaces, etc. Cf. Herod., 1. c.; Diodor. ii. 5 et seq.; Aristotles Polit., 3:2; Philostratus, i. 18; Curtius, 6:1 et seq.; also Starkes Synopsis on this passage; Wattenbach, Nineve und Babylon (Heidelberg, 1868); and Alfred Maury, Nineve et Babylone, in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1868, March 15, p. 470 ss.; [also Rawlinsons Five Ancient Monarchies, I. 510 et seq.]. For this reason many other authors apply the predicate to that city; e.g., the Apocalyptist John, Rev 14:8; Rev 16:19 (cf. also Isa 13:19; Isa 14:4; Isa 47:3-4); and Strabo (50:16.), who applies to it the stanza: , Cf. Pausanius, Arcad., p. 509, who describes Babylon as a city . Nebuchadnezzars Babylon might certainly be designated as the great city with as much propriety as formerly Nineveh (cf. Gen 10:11-12; Jon 1:2; Jon 3:2; Jon 4:11), and far more justly than, e.g., Hamath (see Amo 6:2; ), or Diospolis ( , Inscr. 4717), or Ephesus, Smyrna, Peragmos, Nicomedia, and other cities of a later period in Asia Minor (cf. Rheinwald, Komment. zum Br. an die Philipper, p. 3 et seq.).That I have built for the house (or seat) of the kingdom. The A. V. is literal. The expression is equivalent, in modern idiom, to the royal capital and seat of government. The of the whole empire was to have its seat, its residence, in that metropolis (Kranichf.). Cf. the reference to Bethel as a , in Amo 7:13. That I have built; i.e., that I have developed and completed. On , otherwise , in this signification, Cf. 2Ki 14:22; 2Ch 11:5-6; and see the Chaldan historians Berosus, Abydenus, and Megasthenes, in Josephus. Ant, x. 11, 1; c: Apion, 1:19; and in Eusebius, Chron., 1:59, with reference to the numerous edifices erected in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar; also Bochart, Phaleg, p. 263 et seq., where Nebuchadnezzars services in beautifying the city and increasing its architectural greatness are compared with those of Augustus in Rome, which justified his well-known remark, se marmoream relinquere, quam lateritiam accepisset (Suetonius, Aug., c. 29).12 For the honor of my majesty; ; Cf. the similar constructions in Deu 5:33; Deu 5:17; Zec 11:13; and with reference to the preceding expression, by the might of my power, Cf. passages like Isa 40:26; Eph 1:19; Col 1:11, etc.
Dan 4:28 [Dan 4:31]. While the word was in the kings mouth. The Divine punishment follows closely after the vain and presumptuous exclamation (cf. Isa 28:4); exactly as in the poem by Schiller quoted above, where it is added:
For no eternal bond can be
With the fates that rule our destiny,
And misfortunes pace is swift.
There fell a voice from heaven. Observe the agreement between the prophetic description in the dream, Dan 4:10 [Dan 4:13] and Dan 4:11 [Dan 4:14], and the fulfilment twelve months later. The words , which are employed in the former passage, are here echoed by (cf. Isa 9:7), which still more strongly emphasizes the suddenness with which the judicial sentence is promulgated; and in that place is here repeated by the characteristic , which recalls the analogies in Deu 4:33; Deu 4:36; Mat 3:17; Joh 12:28; Act 9:4; Act 5:13, etc. The record, although sufficiently circumstantial, is but a summary, and affords no trustworthy indications to show whether this was produced by the mediation of psychological or of physical causes. The leading fact to be observed is merely that the powerfully excited king was compelled to recollect the warning formerly conveyed in the dream, by what he now heard, whether by a purely subjective mode of perception, or whether objective agencies were at the same time employed.O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. The perf. is employed, because he who was degraded to the level of the brute by the most fearful of mental maladies, was at once and directly incapacitated for his position and office as ruler as a matter of course. In regard to , they say, see on Dan 4:22 [Dan 4:25]; concerning Dan 4:29 [Dan 4:32] see ibid., and on Dan 4:14 [Dan 4:17].
Dan 4:30 [Dan 4:33] The same hour (hence immediately; cf. on Dan 3:6) was the thing (or word) fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. , literally, came to end; for the end of a prophecy is its coming to pass, by which it ceases to be prophecy (Hitzig); cf. , Dan 12:7; Ezr 1:1. etc.Concerning the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar, see Introd., 8, note 1, and the literature there adduced.Till his hairs were grown like eagles feathers, and his nails like birds claws; literally, like eagleslike birds (), a comparatio compendiaria, with which the Stat, const, after the particle of comparison has been omitted, as with in Dan 4:13 [Dan 4:16], and as in Isa 9:3; Joshua 5:36, and also in the classics (e.g., Il., 17, 51; Juvenal, Sat. 4, 71, etc.).
Dan 4:31-34 [Dan 4:34-37]. The restoration of Nebuchadnezzar, and his ascription of praise to God. And (rather but) at the end of the days, i.e., of the period of seven years, Dan 4:13; Dan 4:22; Dan 4:29 [Dan 4:16; Dan 4:25; Dan 4:32].I. lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, namely, as seeking help from thence, as supplicating the God of heaven (see on Dan 4:23 [Dan 4:26]; cf. Psa 123:1 et seq.; Psa 25:5, etc.13 And mine understanding returned unto me; or, taking the as illative, so that mine understanding returned. The prayer of the hitherto maniac king was thus shown to be anything rather than a flagrant inconsequence, as Von Lengerke. Hitzig, and others characterize it. On the contrary, it produced the beneficial effect of delivering the penitent king from his disease, and of restoring him to the society and the mode of life of civilized people. Cf. Pusey and Kranichfeld on this passage, in relation to the inclination to prayer, or to other religious manifestations and observances, which has frequently been observed in the case of maniacs afflicted with lycanthropy. In the case before us, where the period of insanity and punishment imposed by God had, at any rate, expired, the prayerful looking up to heaven by the humbled king could not possibly result in less than the elevation of the sufferer from his brutal condition to manhoodfrom the state of one lying helplessly on the ground, and looking earthward in his debasement, to the dignity and bearing of man, who is formed in the image of God, that is to say, to the normal form of man, of which Ovid sings (Metam., i. 85 ss.):
Pronaque cum spectent animalia ctera terram,
Os homini sublime dedit, clumque videre
Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.
And I praised and honored him that liveth forever. Cf. 6:27; 12:7; and also, in relation to the latter half of the verse, Daniel 3:33. [The first thought he entertained was to thank God, to praise him as the ever-living One, and to recognize the eternity of His sway. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges and praises God as the ever-living One, because He had again given to him his life, which had been lost in his mad-ness.Keil.]
Dan 4:32 [Dan 4:35]. And all the inhabitants of the earth are (to be) reputed as nothing, that is, in comparison to Him. The partic. must be regarded in this place as the part. fut. pass., and is not, therefore, to be explained (in analogy with Isa 40:17) by, are reputed as nothing by Him (Hvern., Kranichf., etc.). [The eternity of the supremacy of God includes His omnipotence as opposed to the weakness of the inhabitants of earth (Keil).] instead of may be regarded as the error of a copyist, who thought to correct a supposed (that is )by substituting . Or for , is an archaism, conforming to the pregnant character of the negation, similar to for , Deu 3:11 (Kranichf.). [The final seems to be a mere Chaldaic interchange for in the ordinary , as not.] The rabbinical assertion, found in Rashi and Saadia, that signifies an atom of solar dust, is at all events to be rejected.And he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, etc. Cf. Isa 24:21, a passage that evidently lies at the foundation of the one before us, in which the host on high presents the same idea as is contained in the army of heaven in this place. Both refer to the innumerable companies of angels who inhabit heaven (Gen 32:2 et seq.; Heb 12:22 et seq.; cf. Dan 7:10).And none can. say unto him, what doest thou? Cf. Isa 43:13; and in relation to the phrase, to stay ones hand= to oppose him, see the Targ. on Ecc 8:4; Tr. Sanhedr., 100:2; also the Arabic of Hariri, p. 444.14
Dan 4:33 [Dan 4:36]. And the glory of my kingdom, mine honor, and my brightness returned unto me. The before serves to introduce that word as a new subject, after the former, (cf. Isa 32:1; Isa 38:16; Psa 89:19). station, majesty, dignity, such as is manifested in the look, bearing, and manners of a princely personage. , splendor, A. V. honor (cf. Dan 4:27 [Dan 4:30]; chap. Dan 4:18), is here contrasted with his former appearance and condition, which denied his royal state, and even his nature as a man, Dan 4:30 [Dan 4:33]. is properly brightness, and here refers to the beauty or beaming freshness of the human countenance (cf. chap. Dan 4:6; Dan 4:9; Dan 7:28), while refers more particularly to the splendor of his robes (cf. Psa 110:3; Psa 29:2; Psa 96:9; 2Ch 20:21).And my counsellors and my lords sought unto me,they, who had formerly avoided and deserted me! That signifies a search for one who is believed to have disappeared without leaving a trace by which to discover him, is an assumption made by Hitzig and also by a number of earlier expositors, such as Geier, Michaelis, Bertholdt, etc., which, however, is without any support whatever. The expression rather designates a search conducing to the honor of the king, which was instituted by his former counsellors and magnates in their capacity as the council of the regency during the interim, for the purpose of officially requesting the king on his restoration to health, to resume the control of the government. The terms (see on 3:24) and do not, however, designate different subjects, but the same ones with reference to their several powers and dignities; cf. , 2Sa 3:28; , Job 9:22.And I was (again) established in my kingdom. instead of , because of the following accent, distinct.And excellent majesty was added unto me; I received still greater power than I had formerly enjoyed; cf. Job 42:10. There are no historical authorities to show in what the additional power consisted which came to Nebuchadnezzar toward the end of his life; but the truth of this statement cannot on that account be questioned.
Dan 4:34 [Dan 4:37]. Now (or therefore) I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, and extol, and honor, etc. By this doxology the close of the royal proclamation returns to the thought of the introduction, Daniel 3:32 et seq.All whose (rather, for all His) works are truth, and his ways judgment. , literally firmness, immutability, and hence, faithfulness, truth (=Heb. ). , literally judgment, procedure strictly conformed to justice (=Heb. ): Cf. Jer 9:23; Jer 22:13.And those that walk in pride, he is able to abase. cf. Isa 10:33; Isa 13:11; Isa 25:11; 1Sa 22:7; Psa 18:28; Luk 1:51 et seq.In relation to the enlargement of this doxology of Nebuchadnezzar which is found in the Sept. in this place, see the Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 3 [below].
Ethico Fundamental Principles Related To The History Of Salvation, Apologetical Remarks, And Homiletical Suggestions
According to the remarks on Daniel 3:31 [Dan 4:1], the authorship of this section is divided between Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, with the distinction that the former is conceived as the moral originator and ordainer of the edict, while the latter is its writer. But, at the same time, both the heathen king and the theocratic prophet are so exclusively the active (or suffering) characters of the narrative, that every observation of dogmatic or apologetical importance must be derived from the conduct of one or the other of these two persons. We therefore direct our attention
1. To Nebuchadnezzar,with reference to whose seizure by lycanthropic mania, as being credible on general grounds, and also as being attested by extra-biblical authorities, the necessary explanation has been given in the Introd. ( 8, note 1). We now direct attention to the act of profound self-abasement which the king performed by publishing, of his own impulse, a report respecting his protracted disease of several years duration, and also respecting its causes and his final cure. This involves no improbability on psychological, political, or religious grounds. (1) From a psychological point of view, the report became necessary, because a spirit of repentance and of sincere self-abasement had really come over the proud monarch, and because he had been led to recognize with all emphasis that the humiliation, as wearisome as it was deeply painful to his consciousness, was a righteous punishment inflicted on him by the only true God, even though a genuine, durable, and fruit-bearing conversion might not have been accomplished in his case. On the nature of this sincere and profoundly realized humiliation of the king, which, however, was inadequate to secure his admission to a gracious state, or to formal membership in the congregation of Gods people under the Old Covenant, cf. Calvin on Dan 4:34 : Hic est modus omnis humiliationis; sed careret profectu illa humiliatio, nisi Dominus postea regeret nos spiritu mansuetudinis. Et ita Nebucadnezar hic non complectitur gratiam Dei, qu tamen digna erat non vulgari elogio et prdicatione; sed non descripsit etiam in hoc edicto quicquid posset requiri ab homine pio et qui edoctus fuerit diu in schola Dei, sed tamen ostendit se multum profecisse sub Dei ferulis, quum tribuit illi summam potentiam (c. iii. 32, 33; c. iv. 31 ss.), deinde conjungit justiti laudem et rectitudinis (c. iv. 34) et sese interea fatetur reum et testatur justam fuisse pnam, qu divinitus irrogata fuit.(2) In a political aspect, also, the edict became necessary, since, as appears from Dan 4:33, circumstances required that at the end of the kings illness a proclamation should be issued, certifying that the monarch in person was about to resume the government, and to supersede the regency of the interim, composed of his counsellors and lords, who had hitherto administered the affairs of the state. The king had no need to dread the effect of such an explanation on his people, even though it involved much that was humiliating to him; but it is by no means recorded that he caused it to be promulgated in the public places and on the streets by the lips of a herald (as was the case with the edict in Dan 3:4 et seq.), nor even that it was at any time brought into public notice in writing. (3) Finally, the document involves no considerable difficulty in a religious point of view, inasmuch as the partly heathen and partly Israelitish faith of the Babylonian king, in other words, that syncretism which amalgamated all religions, and which so frequently appears in the history of the rulers of the period of the captivity, is clearly manifested, as has already been shown on Daniel 3:31 [Dan 4:1]. Accordingly, even Hitzig finds it to be entirely credible that Nebuchadnezzar as a newly or only partially converted person should acknowledge a god as his god (Dan 4:5), and even other holy gods (Dan 4:6; Dan 4:15), in addition to the Highest God. The statement by the same critic that it is strange that after this stern experience Nebuchadnezzar should not have liberated the Jews, the captive servants of the Highest God, as the history shows he did not, is without any foundation; for, according to Dan 4:1 compared with Dan 4:27; Dan 4:31, the event did not transpire until near the close of Nebuchadnezzars reign, and we cannot tell what he would have done had he lived any considerable time after his recovery (which was certainly not the case, according to Berosus, in Josephus, c. Apion, I, 20), nor yet what political relations, combinations, or considerations may have prevented the immediate execution of a plan to restore the Jews to their country, which may already have been prepared.
2. So far as the conduct of Daniel is concerned, the characteristic feature of the two-fold position which he occupied at the Chaldan court as a prophet of Jehovah and chief of the Magians, is prominently exhibited in a manner that affords a highly favorable testimony for the credibility of the narrative as a whole. The Jewish wise man, who is dignified by an honorary office rather than burdened with definite official functions, e.g., with sacerdotal duties, is permitted to be absent at first, on the occasion when the interpreters of dreams or Magians were summoned before the king, because he was allowed a greater freedom of action in general (see on Dan 4:6). It was not, probably, without producing a feeling of profound injury that when he finally appeared the king addressed the servant of the living God (Dan 4:5-6) in a thoroughly heathen manner as Belteshazzar, after the name of his god (i.e., the idol Bel), according to Calvins just remark, Non dubium est, qulin hoc nomen graviter vulneraverit animum prophet. He did not, however, renounce his allegiance and devotion to the royal personage who was his benefactor, and who, in case he would receive and be guided by the prophets counsel, might so easily become the benefactor and liberator of, the entire people of God. When the king had related to him the dream, so prophetic of misfortune, he gave way to trouble and sympathetic sorrow about an hour (Dan 4:16), and the words by which he at length introduced the interpretation, invoked a blessing on the king coupled with the wish that the fate which threatened the monarch might rather overtake his foes. Cf. Calvin again: Daniel exponit (Dan 4:16), cur ita fuerit attonitus, nempe quia cuperet averti tam horribilem pnam a regis persona. Etsi enim merito eum potuit detestari, tamen reveritus est potestatem divinitus ei traditam. Discamus igitur exemplo prophet, bene precari pro inimicis nostris, qui cupiunt nos perdere, maxime vero precari pro tyrannis, si Deo placeat subjici nos eorum libidini;alioquin non tantum illis, sed etiam Deo ipsi sumus rebelles. cterum altera ex parte ostendit Daniel, se non frangi ullo misericordi affectu, neque etiam molliri, quo minus pergat in sua vocatione.The manner in which Daniel succeeded in uniting the strictest theocratic fidelity towards God with this devotion to his sovereign, is seen partly in the unconcealed directness and the categorical plainness with which he announced the most degrading and humiliating punishment to the king, in Dan 4:22 [Dan 4:25], and partly in the warning or epilogue, Dan 4:24 [Dan 4:27], with which he concluded his interpretation. In this epilogue the fundamental dogmatic and ethical ideas of the entire section concentrate and crowd together in pregnant significance. The exposition of this passage has shown that the course which Daniel here recommends, with a noble frankness and an impressive fervor, is none other than that which should be followed by every pious ruler who is faithful in his office, and in brief, that it comprehends the sum of princely virtues. Hence, those expositors who find that this passage recommends and prescribes work righteous conduct, and especially the giving of alms, as in itself meritorious, do violence to the words. Such expositors are the Rabbins, who generally ascribe an almost magical virtue to alms-giving, and who press every possible passage of Scripture to support their view, especially those containing the term , which is by them rendered well doing, alms-giving (cf. Buxtorf, Lex. p. 1,891 et sq.); further, the Roman Catholic exegetes, who are accustomed, since Bellarmines detailed exposition of this passage (l. II. pnitentia, c. 6; cf. 50:4. 100:6), to employ it as one of the principal proof-texts for their anti-evangelical theory of justification and sanctification (in connection with which they declare, of course, that the rendering of the Vulgate: peccata tua eleemosynis redime, is the only correct translation); finally, nearly all the rational istic expositors, from Griesinger and Bertholdt down to Gesenius, de Wette, and Hitzig, who, while defending the translation by Jerome above referred to, and while referring to apocryphal passages like Sir 3:28; Sir 29:12; Tob 4:7 et seq.; 12:9 et seq.; 14:10 et seq., endeavor to find here a work-righteous morality of the later Judaism, and therefore a certain indication of the composition of the book subsequent to the exile. Grotius already pointed out that even on the adoption of the faulty Vulgate exegesis, which makes equivalent to eleemosyn, the passage does not necessarily yield a sense favorable to Pelagianism: Neque offendere quemquam potest, quod operibus pnitenti, in quibus excellunt eleemosyn, tribuatur id, quod pnitenti proprie conuenit; est enim talis metonymia aut synecdoche frequens. Still better Melancthon, in the Apolog. Conf. Aug. art. iii. p. 112 R: Non volebat Daniel regem tantum eleemosynam largiri, sed totam pnitentiam complectitur, quum ait: Redime peccata tua eleemosynis, i. e.: redime peccata tua mutatione cordis et operum. Hic autem et fides requiritur. . Ac verba Danielis in sua lingua clarius de tota pnitentia loquuntur et clarius promissionem efferunt: Peccata tua per justitiam redime, et iniquitates tuas beneficiis erga pauperes. Hc verba prcipiunt de tota pnitentia; jubent enim, ut Justus fiat, deinde ut bene operetur, ut, quod regis officium erat, miseros adversus injuriam defendat. Justitia autem est fides in corde, etc. He expresses himself similarly in his comment on the passage (Opp. ed. Bretschneider, vol. xiii. p. 843 ss.), where he pays no attention to the false rendering of in the Vulgate; as does also Calvin in his commentary and the Inst. rel. Chr., III. 4, 31, 36, and among the later Protestant expositors especially Carpzov, De eleemosynis Judorum (in his Apparat. historicus in the Critica Sacra, p. 726 ss.). In all the conduct of Daniel, therefore, as described in this section, nothing can be discovered which is at variance with the proper deportment of a witness to the faith and a highly enlightened seer of the Old Covenant in the presence of a heathen ruler of the world. To this deportment in practical life corresponds also the tone observed by him in the composition, under the kings direction, of the document before us, whose agreement with the theocratic modes of thought and conception has already been pointed out.
3. In an apologetic respect the disharmony must be noticed, which exists between what might have been expected from the art of a pseudological tendency-writer of Asmonan times, and the conditions of place and time as indicated in our narrative. A careful and unbiased examination of the document with reference to the conditions of the Maccaban period, reveals at once how empty and arbitrary is everything that has been said by Bertholdt, Bleek, Von Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, respecting the parenetic aim, calculated for the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, with which they allege it was written. The sinner Nebuchadnezzar, who was punished for his pride and folly, was a type of the presumptuous , who in like manner sought improper associates, denied the kingly character, and had but recently issued a circular letter, although of an entirely different character. This brief extract from Hitzig (p. 58) contains a whole brood of tendency-critical assumptions and captious perversions of the actual historical facts, based on the erection of false parallels. It is impossible to understand why precisely Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldan king whose presumption was punished with lycanthropy, should be selected as a type of the proud Seleucidian (cf. 1Ma 1:21; 1Ma 1:24), when, e.g., Sennacherib (2Ki 18:19), Saul (1Sa 16:14; 1Sa 18:10 et seq.), or Pharaoh (Exodus 14), would have furnished a far more suitable parallel to the tyrant of the Maccaban period, who was to be punished for presumptuous fury against God, and since, moreover, there is no lack, upon the whole, of historical examples to illustrate the proverb, A haughty spirit goeth before a fall (Pro 16:18). The fact recorded by Polybius 26:10 (to which passage Hitzig explicitly refers), that Antiochus Epiphanes was a lover of improper, i.e., immoral, coarse, and riotous gatherings, certainly finds but a clumsy illustration and an exceedingly vague foreshadowing in Nebuchadnezzars association with the beasts of the field. The analogy is merely superficial, and that to a degree in which it dissolves into incongruity and even absurdity, whenever it is submitted to a careful examination (cf. Kranichf. p. 174 et seq.). With reference to the third parallel, that both tyrants issued circular letters, Hitzig himself concedes that the circular mentioned in 1Ma 1:41 et seq. was really of a nature entirely different from that of Nebuchadnezzars edict. The mere fact, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar addressed a circular to his subjects, convinces him that it was typical of the other fact, that Epiphanes also issued such a documentas if any king whatever could reign but a single year, without publishing some manifesto, or edict, or circular, etc.! Hitzigs treatment of Dan 4:28 [Dan 4:31], (the sentence of Divine punishment denounced on Nebuchadnezzar, The kingdom is departed from thee), by which he endeavors to demonstrate the special time in the Maccaban epoch during which this section originated, results in similar absurdities. He holds that the threat of an immediate overthrow, or rather of a ruin already in progress, clearly indicates that the document was composed at a time when the Asmonans had already taken up arms and had gained the upper hand, hence in the period designated in 1Ma 2:42-48; as if any real analogy existed between the punishment of a presumptuous spirit by means of a severe mental disease, and the political and religious revolt of an oppressed nation against their persecutors! and further, as if the syncretistic Chaldan king, who admitted all religions, could by any means be placed in comparison with Antiochus, the fanatically intolerant worshipper of Zeus! How can Nebuchadnezzar, who was exhorted to mercy toward the poor (, Dan 4:24 [Dan 4:27], be brought into parallelism with the Syrian king, who was engaged in an open conflict with the representatives of the Theocracy (i.e., with the armed bands of Israelitish heroes inflamed with rage, who, moreover, could at that time hardly be termed the poor)?the world-monarch of the captivity, who was punished indeed, but whose punishment led him to repent and be converted, with the incorrigibly hardened and diabolized antichrist upon the throne of the Seleucid, who for that very reason was regarded as hopelessly lost, and as the certain prey of eternal damnation, from a theocratic point of view? And in relation to the conduct of Danielwhere, in the theocratic state, and especially among the apocalyptists of the Maccaban period who were enthusiasts for God, could a parallel to the prophet of this chapter be found? What servant of Jehovah in that age can be mentioned, who, like our prophet, and in analogy with the course of the Syrian captain Naaman (2Ki 5:18), would quietly sojourn at the court and in the immediate presence of a heathen ruler; who would have counselled the king in friendship, warned him in loving earnestness, supported and comforted him, as Daniel actually did in his intercourse with the Chaldan monarch, according to the statements of our section? Certain passages of the Talmud, (Hilchot Rozeach, 12:15; Baba Bathra, f. 4, p. 1) may serve to indicate the kind of description which the Maccaban age would probably have given of the ancient Daniel. It is there asserted that God afterwards punished that prophet, because he had wasted good advice and instruction on the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, such as are found in Dan 4:24! In addition, cf. the doxology appended by the Sept. to Dan 4:34, for an illustration of the manner in which that age would have described a Nebuchadnezzar who should actually repent and turn to God. In that passage the restored king is represented as renouncing forever the heathen gods as being utterly powerless, as promising to dedicate himself and his people to the constant service of Jehovah, and as honoring and exulting the Jewish people with excessive praise!Upon the whole cf. Kranichfeld, p. 170 et seq. and p. 203. See also Ibid., p. 175: The situation, however, becomes no more conceivable, if, for the purpose of demonstrating the invention of this section as a sketch copied from the circumstances of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, its composition be placed prior to the armed revolt mentioned in 1Ma 2:42 et seq. and consequently in a time when Antiochus raged in unresisted power against the helpless Jews. In this case it must be allowed indeed, that the writer possessed considerable prophetic gifts, so that even Hitzig ascribes prophecy to him in relation to the final fate of Epiphanes, without characterizing it as prophecy ex eventu. The definite and unconditional prediction concerning the loss of the kingdom by means of force, Dan 4:28 et seq., would thus be fully realized; and likewise that foretelling of a peculiar disease by which he should be brought to a humble recognition of the God of the Jews, even though it were not a disease of the mind (cf. 2Ma 9:5 et seq.). The total desertion to which he was actually exposed during the progress of his disease (cf. 2Ma 9:9) (ibid. Dan 4:28) would have reflected honor on the prophetic threat of the alleged forger (cf. Dan 4:22; Dan 4:29 et seq.). But besides mistaking the nature of the disease, he has unfortunately erred with reference to the recovery, and on that very account he is compelled, according to Hitzig, to renounce the honor of composing a prophecy after the event had transpired, and that without compensation for the otherwise really wonderful prediction of the three circumstances mentioned above, whose combined fulfillment of itself assuredly deserves the distinguishing attribute of pseudo-prophecy. But there still remains the oracle of Dan 4:23 [Dan 4:26], an expression on the part of a Jew regarded as a model of the patriot who is jealous because the law of his God is trodden under foot, and which is ambiguous when compared with the circumstances of the period of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore inconceivable in a historical point of view, since that period preceded the armed rising. Moreover, it must seem strange at the least, that the writer should content himself at the time of Epiphanes with assigning such very ordinary limits to the sinfulness and presumptuous pride of Nebuchadnezzar, while the violence done to the sanctuary of Israel is not mentioned with a single word, for instance, in Dan 4:24 [Dan 4:27]; and yet it was this very act which ranked chief in importance in the eyes of Antiochus himself (cf. 1. Macc. 2124, 36 et seq., 44 et seq.; Dan 4:1 et seq.), and which was regarded as the most heinous crime of that tyrant, and as the principal ground for the lamentations of pious Jews in the Maccaban period, as well as of the Divine vengeance visited on him; cf. 1Ma 2:8-13; 1Ma 3:55; 1Ma 3:51; 1Ma 3:58 et seq.; 4:36 et seq.; 6:12 et seq. Such a silence in this connection with regard to so scandalous a deed is the more remarkable, since the historical books expressly record the robbery of the sanctuary perpetrated by Nebuchadnezzar, which action was known to our author, according to Dan 1:2; cf. Dan 4:3, as well as to his compatriots. He was not obliged therefore, as a cautious forger, to fear that he should betray his pseudonymity by the mention of the sacred edifice. How greatly the Sept. animated by the spirit and views of the Maccaban time, must have desired to find in the words of Dan 5:19, a condemnatory mention of the violence done to the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and how appropriate it would seem to them, may appear from their addition to Dan 4:19, which is certainly significant for the Asmonaaan period, and for that reason has unjustly been eliminated by Tischendorf without ceremony: . .The exact acquaintance of the writer with the architectural condition of Babylon (cf. the exegesis) which is apparent in Dan 4:26 [Dan 4:29], and Dan 4:27 [Dan 4:30], and is as unlooked for as it is evident, deserves to be mentioned as a circumstance of especial force as bearing against the hypothesis of a fiction in the interests of a tendency of the Maccaban period. A Maccaban author would scarcely have represented that his typical pseudo-Antiochus was overtaken by a fearful visitation of Divine justice in the form of an unusual disease, while walking on the roof of his own palace and within the limits of his capital. The temptation to let him encounter this fate in the place where Epiphanes succumbed to his, in a strange land and in the desert, would have been almost irresistible (cf. 2Ma 9:3; 2Ma 9:28).
4. Homiletical suggestions.The features of practical importance in this section are concentrated in Dan 4:24 [Dan 4:27], the same passage in which Daniels words of exhortation and warning to the king furnish the leading elements of dogmatic significance. Not merely is the counsel of Daniel, recommending the practice of the virtues belonging to a ruler who pleases God, such as the doing of works of righteousness and mercy (cf. supra. No. 2), worthy of notice and of thorough homiletical treatment; but equally so the impulse which constrains and encourages him to venture this exhortationhis faith in the willingness of God to avert the threatened punishment from the king, in case he should repent and be converted while it was yet time; his truly prophetic and theocratic conviction that God might possibly repent of His purpose, on the fulfilment of the proper conditions by the threatened person. In this connection see the prophetic parallels adduced above, and compare the remarks of Jerome on this subject: Si prdixit sententiam Dei, qu non potest immutari, quomodo hortatur ad eleemosynas et misericordias pauperum, ut Dei sententia commutetur? Quod facile solvitur Ezechi regis exemplo, quem Isajas dixerat esse moriturum, et Ninivitarum, quibus dictum est: Adhuc quadraginta dies, et Ninive subvertetur. Et tamen ad preces Ezechi et Ninive Dei sententia commutata est; non vanitate judicii, sed illorum conversione qui meruere indulgentiam. Alioquin et in Jeremia loquitur Deus se mala minari super gentem; et si bona fecerit, minas clementia commutare. Rursum bona agenti se asserit polliceri, et si mala fecerit, dicit se mutare suam sententiam; non in homines sed in opera, qu mutata sunt. Neque enim Deus hominibus, sed vitiis irascitur; qu quum in homine non fuerint, nequaquam punit quod mutatum est. Cf. also Melancthon, Calvin, Geier and Starke, on this passage, and further, the expositions of Biblical theologians on the Old Testament teaching concerning the repentance of God, e.g., Steudel, Theologie des A. Ts., p. 181 et seq.; Hvernick, Vorless., p. 65 et seq.; F. Majer, Was hast du wider das Alte Testament? (Stuttgart, 1864), p. 118 et seq., and Kling, in Herzogs Real-Encykl., art. Reue, vol. 12. p. 764.The theme derived from Dan 4:24 [Dan 4:27] might therefore be formulated: Repent of thy sin, and God will repent of the punishment threatened against thee; or, The aim of Divine punishment is the conversion of men; if this be attained, how gladly will He cause the punishment to cease (Starke); or, Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful (Luk 6:36).15
Additional points of departure for homiletical discussion and observation are afforded in Daniel 3:3133 [Dan 4:1-3], and Dan 4:31-34 [Dan 4:34-37], the introductory and closing doxologies of the report. These are particularly adapted to serve as points of connection for sermons upon the entire narrative, having the theme, All the works of God are truth, and His ways judgment (Dan 4:34 [Dan 4:37]); or, Humble yourselves in the sight of God, and He shall lift you up (Jam 4:10); or, God puts down the mighty from their seats, and exalts them of low degree (Luk 1:52), etc. cf. especially what Theodoret observes, on Dan 4:31 : , , . Another homiletical text is contained in Dan 4:3 [Dan 4:6] et seq., on which Cramer (in Starke) observes correctly, If human wisdom cannot interpret and explain a dream, it is much less able to discover the secrets of God. Human reason should therefore not be permitted to be master in Divine things; for none can know what is in God, except the Spirit of God. A still further passage of homiletical bearing is Dan 4:26-30 [Dan 4:29-33], a powerful and awfully impressive illustration of the proverb, Pride goeth before destruction (Pro 16:18). cf. Starke: When a man permits the time for repentance to pass without a change of disposition, the Divine punishment overtakes him in the midst of his sins. He then learns that the threatenings of God were not idle words (Num 16:12; Num 16:31 et seq).
Footnotes:
[1][Keil reviews at length the various reasons assigned for not summoning Daniel at first, and concludes that it must have been because the king had in the lapse of time and varied successes meanwhile totally forgotten the former prophetical powers of the Hebrew captive. This would be natural and entirely satisfactory, but for the fact that on his very introduction into the royal presence he in here designated as one possessing divine foreknowledge, an evident allusion to his former services in that relation.]
[2][Keil, on the other hand, contends that from Dan 4:26 the duration of the cannot at all be concluded, and in Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7, the times are not years. designates generally a definite period of time, whose length or duration may be very different. Seven is the measure and signature of the history of the development of the kingdom of God, and of all the factors and phenomena significant for it (Lmmerts Revision of the Biblical or Symbolical Numbers, in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., ix. p. 11), or as Leyrer, in Herzogs Realencykl,: 18. p. 366, expresses himself, the signature for all the actions of God, in judgment and in mercy, punishments, expiations, consecrations, blessings, consecrated with the economy of redemption, perfecting themselves in time. Accordingly, seven times is the duration of the divine punishment which was decreed against Nebuchadnezzar for purposes connected with the history of redemption. Whether these times are to be understood as years, months, or weeks is not said, and cannot at all be determined. The supposition that they were seven years cannot well be adopted in opposition to the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar was again restored to reason, a thing that very rarely occurs, after so long a continuance of psychical disease (J. B. Friedrich, Zur Bibl. Naturhist., anthrop. u. med. Fragmente, I. p. 316). This last argument, however, is of little force, in view of the evidently miraculous, or at least specially providential, character of the entire event. C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, Rosenmller, Winer, Lengerke, and nearly all the critics agree that year is the probable meaning.Stuart. The supposed difficulty of the management of the empire during so long a period of the kings incapacity is fairly disposed of by Stuart, by a reference to Berosus, who states that on Nebuchadnezzars return to his capital, after his protracted absence during his wars in Western Asia, upon his fathers death, he took upon himself the affairs which had been managed by the Chaldees [Magi], and the royal authority which had been preserved for him by their chief (Josephus., Antiq., 10:11, 1.) Geo. Rawlinson was inclined to find a trace of this interruption of Nebuchadnezzars government in the period of four years inactivity noted in his annals (Historical Evidences, p. 137) on the Standard Inscription (Herodotus, 2:485); but he has since doubted the reference (Five Monarchies, III. 60).]
[3][Keil, however, justly claims that the change of to is unnecessary and arbitrary. The expression is general, because it is not yet said who is to be understood by the tree that is to be cut down. This general expression is in reality correct; for the king comes by experience to this knowledge, and so all will attach to it who consider this.]
[4][Keil, however, insists that the term here means as it were an instant, a moment. But so brief a delay would seem altogether insignificant, and could have excited little surprise, or called for any urging on the part of the king. Stuart, on the other hand, regards so long a hesitation as an hour as very improbable, and therefore adduces the derivation of (a look; Germ. augenblick, Heb. ) as favoring the signification an instant; and in this interpretation Gesenius and Frst both coincide.]
[5][We prefer to say, with Keil, that the indefinite plur. form stands instead of the passive, as the following and , cf. under Dan 3:4. Thus the subject remains altogether indefinite, and one has neither to think of men who will drive him from their society, etc., nor of angels, of whom perhaps the expulsion of the ting may be predicated, but scarcely the feeding on grass and being wet with dew.]
[6][Daniel knew nothing of a heathen Fatum, but he knew that the judgments of God were directed against men according to their conduct, and that punishment threatened could only be averted by repentance.Keil.]
[7][This interpretation of , however, is hardly satisfactory, for, as Keil urges, it means to break off, to break in pieces, hence to separate, to disjoin, to put at a distance, see under Gen. 21:40. And though in the Targums is used for ,, to loosen, to unbend, of redeeming, ransoming the first-born, an inheritance, or any other valuable possession, yet this use of the word by no means accords with sins as the object, because sins are not goods which one redeems or ransoms so as to retain them for his own use. Rosenmller likewise notes this incongruity, and adduces Exo 32:2, as an instance, where Onkelos retains the word in the sense of breaking off (the earrings). He even declares that Chaldee writers employ simply for laying aside as in Num 1:51.]
[8][Daniel prudently alludes to the kings moral obliquities only in general terms. Impiety was doubtless his most heinous offence (see Dan 4:27 [30], 37 [40], and compare Dan 5:22-23), and it was indeed his failure to remember Jehovah, whom he had once been brought to recognise (Dan 3:28), that bred and fostered his heaven-insulting arrogance. Yet Daniel doubtless hinted also at some special Sins of Nebuchadnezzar as a wilful despot. Stuart thinks he means to designate his capricious and tyrannical behavior on some occasions when he fell into a rage; perhaps also to remind him of the heavy hand that pressed on all the captives whom he had led into exile and still retained. This last seems especially probable from the particulars specified immediately.]
[9][Keil thus aptly refutes the view of Bertholdt, Hitzig, and others, who find here that the author falls out of the role of the king into the narrative tone, and thus betrays the fact that some other than the king framed the edict. But this conclusion is opposed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar from Dan 4:31 [34] speaks of his recovery again in the first person. Thus it is beyond doubt that the change of person has its reason in the matter itself. Certainly it could not be that in this Nebuchadnezzar thought it unbecoming to speak in his own person of his madness; for, if he had had so tender a regard for his own person, he would not have published the whole occurrence in a manifesto addressed to his subjects. But the reason of his speaking of his madness in the third person, as if some other one were narrating it, lies simply in this, that in that condition he was not Ich=Ego (Kliefoth). With the return of the Ich, I, on his recovery from his madness, Nebuchadnezzar begins again to narrate in the first person.]
[10][Keil will have it that here means not simply to begin to speak, but, properly, to answer, and suggests to us a foregoing colloquy of the king with himself in his own mind He prudently refrains, however, from inferring that Nebuchadnezzar was thinking of the very dream in question at the time.]
[11][Rather, as Keil suggests, the addition at Babylon does not indicate that the king was then living at a distance from Babylon, as Berth., von Leng., Maurer, and others imagine, but is altogether suitable to the matter, because Nebuchadnezzar certainly had palaces outside of Babylon; but it is made with reference to the language of the king which follows regarding the greatness of Babylon.]
[12][Abundant confirmation has been found of these enlargements and reconstructions of the edifices of Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the excavations carried on there by Botta, Layard, and others. Most of the ancient bricks are stamped with the name of that monarch. See Rawlinsons Herodotus, i. 412 (Am. ed.).]
[13][This raising of his eyes to heaven was the first sign of the return of human consciousness; from which, however, we are not to conclude, with Hitzig, that before this, in his madness, he went on all-fours like an ox
[14][ in the Pael, to strike on the hand, to hinder, is derived from the custom of striking children on the hand in chastisement (Keil), or in order to check them from a proceeding.]
[15][This noble example of manly and Christian fidelity to his sovereign is worthy of all admiration, and of course imitation. Prompted by such manifest love and in manner so respectful to the king, and yet with so much personal dignity, it must have fallen upon the kings mind with great force.The sin specially indicated here, unrighteous oppression of the poor, looks very probably toward the terrible exactions of labor imposed upon his defenceless subjects (some of them captives of war) in those immense public works which were, in the eyes of men, the glory of his reign. The eye of man, dazzled with so much architectural splendor, commonly fails to look down through to the crushed bodies and broken hearts, and to the hopeless, never-lifted pressure of woe which such a mass of coerced labor always signifies. Human eyes rarely see it, still more rarely make any account of it, but the Great Father sees it and can never fail to take it into most solemn account.Cowles.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We are here brought acquainted with another dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which Daniel interprets. The event of the same is also awfully related.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The proud and insolent monarch is here brought to account for his daring impiety towards God, and his cruelty to the Lord’s servants. And he is not only compelled to bow down before the Lord’s sovereignty, but compelled, to publish his disgrace to all the world, and confess, that the Lord’s hand in his just judgment had been upon him. Reader! behold in this man, how sure the scriptures are in truth, that there is, there must be, a day coming to every sinner, in which the Lord will judge the world in righteousness. Psa 58:11 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 4:4-5
‘Remember,’ Mr. F. W. H. Myers once wrote to a friend, ‘that first of all a man must, from the torpor of a foul tranquillity, have his soul delivered unto war.’
Reference. IV. 4, 5, 7. S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. ii. p. 183.
Dan 4:22-30
Can we believe that He whose words were so terrible against the pride of Egypt and Babylon, against that haughty insolence in men on which not Hebrew prophets only, but the heathen poets of Greece, looked with such peculiar and profound alarm, that He will not visit it on those who, in their measure, are responsible for its words and temper, when it takes possession of a Christian nation? Can we doubt what His judgment will one day be on the cynical parade of exclusive selfishness, the cynical worship of mere dexterity and adroitness, in the sophists and tyrants of the old heathen world; and can we doubt what He will think when Christians, disciples of the Lord of truth and righteousness, let themselves be dazzled in matters of right and wrong, by the cleverness of intellectual fence?… We have almost elevated pride to the rank of a national virtue; so far from seeing any harm in it, we extol it as a noble and admirable thing. You see it unconsciously revealed in the look and bearing which meet you constantly in society and in the streets. You see it in that tone of insolence which seems to come so naturally to many of us in the expression of our disapproval and antipathy.
R. W. Church.
Dan 4:27
We can figure the thought of Louis that day, when, all royally caparisoned for hunting, he met, at some sudden turning in the wood of Senart, a ragged peasant with a coffin; For whom?’ It was for a poor brother slave, whom Majesty had sometimes noticed slaving in those quarters. ‘What did he die of?’ ‘Of hunger’: the king gave his steed the spur.
Carlyle.
A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
Dr. Johnson.
Dan 4:30
Kingsley, writing of Sir Walter Raleigh’s haughty temper, observes: ‘Proud? No wonder if the man be proud! “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built?” And yet all the while he has the most affecting consciousness that all this is not God’s will, but the will of the flesh; that the house of fame is not the house of God; that its floor is not the rock of ages, but the sea of glass mingled with fire, which may crack beneath him at any moment, and let the nether flame burst up. He knows he is living in a splendid lie.’
In the preface to his Bible in Spain, Borrow attributes Spanish cruelties in religion not to fanaticism, but to the way in which Rome worked on the predominant feeling of pride in the Spanish nature: ‘It was by humouring her pride that she was induced to waste her precious blood and treasure in Low Country wars, to launch the Armada, and to many other insane actions. Love of Rome had ever slight influence over her policy; but flattered by the title of Gonfaloniera of the Vicar of Jesus, and eager to prove herself not unworthy of the same, she shut her eyes, and rushed upon her own destruction with the cry of “Charge Spain”.’
Dan 4:30-37
Sorrow, pain, and death are sweet to whosoever dares, instead of fighting with or flying from them, to draw near, to examine closely, to inquire humbly, into their nature and their function. He began to perceive that these three reputed enemies, hated and feared of all men, are, after all, the fashioners and teachers of humanity; to whom it is given to keep hearts pure, godly, and compassionate, to purge away the dross of pride, hardness, and arrogance, to break the iron bands of ambition, self-love, and vanity, to purify by endurance and by charity.
Lucas Malet, Sir Richard Calmady.
The greatest obstacle to any improvement or change in John Bull’s sentiments just now is the egregious vanity of the beast. He has been so plastered with flattery, that he has become an impervious mass of self-esteem. Nothing is so difficult as to alter the policy of individuals or nations who allow themselves to be persuaded that they are the ‘envy of surrounding nations and the admiration of the world’. Time and adversity can alone operate in such cases.
Cobden to John Bright, in 1851.
Reference. IV. 34, 35. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi. No. 949.
Dan 4:25 ; Dan 4:37
This Nebuchadnezzar curse, that sends men to grass like oxen, seems to follow but too closely on the excess or continuance of national power and peace. In the perplexities of nations, in their struggle for existence, in their infancy, their impotence, or even their disorganization, they have higher hopes and nobler passions. Out of the suffering comes the serious mind; out of the salvation, the grateful heart; out of endurance, fortitude; out of deliverance, faith.
Ruskin, Modern Painters.
I found occasion at this time to conclude, that the Unio of our river fords secretes pearls so much more frequently than the Unionid and Anadonta of our still pools and lakes, not from any specific peculiarity in the constitution of the creature, but from the effects of the habitat which it is its nature to choose. It receives in the fords and shallows of a rapid river many a rough blow from sticks and peebles carrried down in times of flood, and occasionally from the feet of men and animals that cross the stream during droughts; and the blows induce the morbid secretions of which pearls are the result. There seems to exist no inherent cause why Anadon cygnea, with its beautiful silvery nacre as bright often, and always more delicate than that of Unio margaritiferus should not be equally productive of pearls; but, secure from violence in its still pools and lakes, it does not produce a single pearl for a hundred that are ripened into value and beauty by the exposed, current-tossed Unionid of our rapid mountain rivers. Would that hardship and suffering bore always in a creature of a greatly higher family similar results, and that the hard buffets dealt him by fortune in the rough stream of life could be transmuted, by some blessed internal predisposition of his nature, into pearls of great price.
Hugh Miller, My Schools and Schoolmasters.
Dan 4:37
Express confessions give definiteness to memories that might more easily melt away without them.
George Eliot.
Reference. IV. 37. J. Keble, Sermons for the Sundays After Trinity, 262.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream
Dan 4:1-18
It does us good to hear how a man like Nebuchadnezzar spoke. We do not know what we ourselves have said, as to its effect, until we have heard some other man repeat our own words. The speaker never exactly expresses himself. He is talking to his own consciousness, and is often approved by himself; he therefore supposes that other people can hear what he is speaking to his own spirit. He does not give utterance to all his thought, that is to say, an outside aspect and effect. The speaker hears his own tones; he also hears, as it were, spiritual tones when none but himself can hear. Not, therefore, until we hear other people read our letters do we know what we have written: we are not ashamed of the letters, but we are ashamed of their reading of them. We do not know our own sermons until we hear other people quote from them; then in very deed we are ashamed that we ever preached. Quotation is the ruin of eloquence. The quotation shows how short we have fallen of our purpose. It is interesting beyond all other studies in words to hear an out-and-out worldling talk about religion; it is refreshing, exhilarating, surprising, confounding. We should listen to Nebuchadnezzar. How wondrously he mixes up gleams of the true faith with the strange crosslights of his own pagan thought and heathen education! He is perfectly willing to mix up ideas respecting any number of gods with the ideas which he has derived from the study of his own mythology. Nor must we be amused at him as at a unique specimen of the genus theologia. We are always mixing thoughts that have no proper or vital relation to one another. Herein again is that saying true, Ye cannot mix, or serve, or intermingle God and mammon. The speech of the Church is partly Christian and partly pagan The whole utterance of the Church needs revision, filtration, sanctification. In this chapter Nebuchadnezzar is both heathen and Israelitish; there is part of himself and part of Daniel in his talk; he is in an initial state of education into higher mysteries; and it is delightful to hear how this infantile giant tries to talk the new speech.
Nebuchadnezzar was an instance of sudden conversion: he began instantaneously to preach and testify and publish; he went into authorship before he was a week old in the new faith. That was characteristic of the man’s ardour: he was an urgent, furious, tempestuous man, and what he did he did at once. It would have been better if he could have waited, thought, studied, prayed. But you cannot re-create a Nebuchadnezzar; we must allow him to be himself, for he never could be any other man. We must not even smile at these child-letters; there is something sweet in them, and comely, and right beautiful, such as suits the soul when it is in its finest moods. We must not parse the religion of Nebuchadnezzar; it is not laid before us for grammatical analysis and criticism. He who would parse a child’s letter ought never to receive one.
Nebuchadnezzar the king thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God had wrought toward him ( Dan 4:2 ). This was a fine passion. Here indeed is a sign of reality. A wonderful change is marked by this new thought. Many men who look upon Nebuchadnezzar as a pagan could allow all the signs and wonders of God to pass by without note, comment, or record. We have filled up our diaries with chaff; we ought to have stored their pages as garners are stored with wheat. Many have risen to see the dawn of day from some mountain tower, and have all the while regretted that they got up so soon. Many persons allow a whole summer to pass away without ever seeing a flower; yet they think they see it. When we charge men with not having read the Bible they say they read it through once every year. Perfectly so, and yet they never read it at all; but you cannot drive into such heads the thought you mean to convey by “not reading.” A man cannot read the Bible through once a year if he reads it at all; it is not an almanac; it does not admit of being read through once a year. It is the eternal, the infinite record; it arrests a man at the first verse, and will not let him pass by. If he be a fool, and can vault over the Bible once a year, who would disturb his nightmare or his mechanical piety? Nebuchadnezzar was a man of different metal. He had seen a new revelation, and he would talk about it; something new had shone upon him from the opening heavens, and he would tell all the empire about it Armenia, Syria, and the dwellers by the Persian Gulf, and the Elamites, and all who trembled at his frown, should hear that he had seen a new aspect of the universe. Nebuchadnezzar had not yet become so ineffably pious as to say nothing about his piety. There are Christian men concerning whom it would be a revelation if one of their workpeople could be told that they even professed Christianity; an errand-boy might be frightened out of his propriety and sanity if he were told that his employer had family prayer. Nebuchadnezzar did not belong to the silent religious community: he would publish a proclamation, he would announce a fact, he would preach what little Gospel he had; he would say, There is more light in creation than I had imagined: come, let me tell you what the light is like, and what wizardry it works in colour and shadow and suggestion.
That the spiritual impression of Nebuchadnezzar was of the right kind is shown by his introductory exclamation, “How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders!” It is beautiful to see how the shining of God upon the soul affrights all our little speech. Here the man is touching the inexpressible, the infinite; he can only hint at his meaning by way of exclamation: How great his signs! how mighty his wonders! there is no attempt at analysis, explanation, measurement, definite statement. All religious exaltation is overpowering. The mischief of our piety is that we can tell just what we believe and exactly what we feel. When a man can be so definite about his religion, the question is whether he has any religion to be definite about. No religion is complete that does not simply defy the believer to tell what it is in all its scope, in all its indications, in all its exalting enthusiasms. Sometimes we can only tell our creed by our tears. When a man touches the highest point of his faith he is silent; when he does speak he speaks in great bursts of feeling. To those who listen he may indeed be incoherent and unconnected, so that they, listening, may wonder what he is saying, for the only thing definite about the man is the indefiniteness of unutterable joy. Do not measure God; report nothing concerning his stature; gather up his universe, and regard it but a symbol, poor and dim, of his majesty. We are the better for these great billows of enthusiasm rolling through the soul; it does us good to be brought into the sanctuary of the unutterable; so long as we can speak all we feel the fountains of the great deep have not been broken up. Incoherence in the sanctuary may be but the highest and grandest aspect of eloquence: how great, how noble, how wondrous: all this is but exclamation to the man who carries his religion as a burden; but all this is inspiration to the man of whose soul his religion is an essential part.
Nebuchadnezzar will now speak about himself, and like all undisciplined minds, minds that are just feeling the first touch of intellectual dawn of the highest kind, he will tell his dream. Let us hear the king’s quaint speech: “I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace”: there was nothing wanting; every goblet full of wine, every corner an echo of music, every chamber a refuge from pagan trouble and imperial excitement: I never was more comfortable or restful in my life; the house never was so charming, the palace was never so grand, and I pillowed my head on down, and expected to see visions that would make me glad by doubling and redoubling all the poetry and music and wealth of my existence: that was my delightful case; and even in the midst of that enjoyment “I saw a dream which made me afraid.” Let us not tamper with this graphic language, but take it as it stands in the English tongue. Nebuchadnezzar “saw” a dream: it was part of himself, yet it was wholly outside, so that he could fasten his eyes upon it; it was in him and without him, above him, round about him, beneath him; and he was “afraid.” Sometimes we ask the question, Do dreams come true? Why, they are true. A dream does not need to come true, because it is there, a fact; it is already part of the history of the brain. There need be no other hell than a dream. Who can count the resources of God? In a dream we can be burned; in a dream we can be encoiled by serpents; in a dream we can be eternally suffocated; in a dream the serpent’s fang may be within one inch of striking our life, and we may have no power of resistance or flight. The dream made Nebuchadnezzar afraid, and Nebuchadnezzar was not accustomed to fear, for he had brass enough, iron enough, chariots enough, horsemen enough; at the blast of his trumpet an empire stood up in his defence: but a dream made a fool of him. You cannot strike a dream; you cannot lay your hands upon it and compel it to make terms with you. These are the resources of God. If he would fight us with lightning we could make some device that might catch the lightning and bear it away; if he would fight us always with whirlwinds we could order our masonry accordingly, and hide ourselves behind the granite wall till the great euroclydon cried itself to rest: but he will not do this; he will trouble us with dreams, and make us afraid with visions; and whilst we are flourishing in the palace he will make the floor tremble under us, or there will be a movement behind the screen, the curtain, the arras, and that movement will frighten us more than we ever were affrighted by thunderstorm at midnight. If Nebuchadnezzar had heard that an army was thundering at one of the gates of Babylon, he would have been delighted: war is the amusement of kings; battle is the recreation of royal luxury and ambition: but this was a dream that came through the great brass gates that made the great wall of Babylon memorable as one of the finest structures in the world. You cannot bar out a dream, or lock it out, or bolt it out, or set a watch to keep it out; a wakeful sentry, armed at every point, may be looking at the dream while it touches him, and he cannot touch it, or blow it back, or threaten it, or defy it; it smiles upon him, and passes on, to work its murder in the king’s head and the king’s heart, and turn the king’s imagination into an intolerable perdition. When Pilate was puzzled about the new king and the new theology and the unheard-of sedition which was not written in the Roman books, “his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” God has made great use of dreams in history. Spiritual impressions may be laughed at by those who read nothing but cold type; but they are regarded as having unutterable suggestion to those of a more sensitive and exalted order of mind.
Nebuchadnezzar now sought for interpretation. He had all the wise men of Babylon brought before him:
“Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof” ( Dan 4:6-7 ).
In exalting God, are we to be outdone by a heathen king? Have we nothing to say for our God, our Master, our Christ, the Cross by which we are saved? Is our piety to be dumb? Are our prayers to be so spoken that none may hear them? Is there no place for enthusiasm in the service of the Church? Exclamation may be argument, enthusiasm may be logic with wings, reason on fire. Are we to take no heed of spiritual expressions? Nebuchadnezzar had his dreams, and remembered them, and encouraged them, and dwelt upon them, and sought interpretations from them. Have we no dreamings of a moral kind? Are there no efforts of imagination which require to be explained? Are spiritual impressions nothing? Is the world we can see all there is to be seen or appreciated or valued or appropriated? What! has it come to this: that we have life that could grasp the heavens, and yet must feed it with a handful of dust? It cannot be; the irony is its own answer. Is it of no account that all the wise men have failed? Christ has not yet been written down. The very noblest attempt that ever has been made to reduce Jesus Christ to insignificance has but formed part of the pedestal on which he stands in infinite uniqueness and unparalleled glory. Where are those wise men themselves? Ah me! they wrote when they were in mid-life, when the blood was full and hot, when the world was applauding and cheering and paying; but when these same assailants had to put their own theories to the test they found their polysyllables were hard pillows on which to lay a dying head. No religion is complete that forsakes a man when he is an invalid, when he has lost all his money, when his friends have withdrawn from him and left him in loneliness; no religion is worth cultivating that will not sit up with the sick man all night, and a hundred nights, and never say, I am tired. The religion of Jesus Christ has proved itself practically; it has a sublime argument and is itself an argument sublime: but when it comes to practical service, the real service of man, it may dismiss all its advocates and will prove itself by its beneficence. It wipes the tear from every eye, it trims the midnight lamp, and makes the flickering light as a dawning morning to the soul that yields itself to its inspiring, illuming, ennobling influence; it is as a rod and a staff in the valley of the shadow of death, and when our loved ones leave us Christianity tarries in the house to say: “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.”
Christianity does not die with the dying saint; Christianity goes to the grave, fills it with flowers, and then comes back to the house of mourning, and says it will tarry till the torn hearts be healed, and they are permitted to begin a new and hopeful youth. The religion that can do that has for its symbol the Cross, and for its end the glory that excelleth.
Prayer
Almighty God we cannot tell what thou art doing, but if thou wilt walk with us through all the mystery of this life, and tell us somewhat of its meaning, we shall be comforted and strengthened. There are those who tell us the meanings of thy riddles and parables, but they do not fill the soul with sacred contentment; we feel that the answer is still beyond, a larger reply than has entered into the heart of man to conceive; if thou thyself, by thy Holy Spirit given unto us through our Lord Jesus Christ, wilt explain the meaning of all that is passing around us, our edification will be assured, and thou shalt have all the praise. We see great tumult, and we are afraid of it; we see the great billow rolling towards our poor little vessel, and we cannot tell why the waters should be angry with us; then we see portents in the sky, strange lights, cross-fires, wonderful colours; sometimes we think we hear voices in the wind that we ought to know, voices of old friends, voices of genial ones, who would make our life better if they could; then in our dreaming what trouble we have: we cannot reconcile the lines or the figures or the voices; we know not what is going on around us: what wonder if sometimes our knees smite one another in fear, and we are utterly left without strength to do the duty of the day? Lord, abide with us; say unto us, Be not afraid, it is I, working out all manner of discipline for the soul’s good: then shall we be glad in the storm, and we shall have our full vision in the night-time, and at midnight we shall sing, and at noonday we shall be glad to rapture. We begin to see a little of thy meaning; now that we do see it we are glad with a sacred joy, we say, This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes; we should have been presumptuous but for that affliction, we should have trusted to ourselves but for God’s humiliation of our vanity; we should have said, We know all things, but that we were convinced of our boundless ignorance; we should have put forth our hand to touch the forbidden tree if God had not smitten it with disease, and left us to mourn over it as men mourn over a wreck. Now take us wholly into thy care; we would rest in our Saviour’s arms; he who loved us so much as to die for us will love us unto the end, he will complete in our final deliverance what he began in our redemption. We have seen Jesus walking amongst his disciples, pitying their littleness, condescending to their weakness, anticipating their hunger, going to them through the wild winds when the waves were high; and in all this he was but expressing his inexpressible love. The same Lord rules, the same sweet Jesus looks down upon us all; he will not let one of us perish, he will put out his hands farther than sin can drive us, and he will draw us to himself again. Let the Lord’s blessing be given to us as if it were a new benediction: surprise us by the brightness of thy presence, by the tenderness of thy voice, by the largeness of thy gifts: once more show thyself to be acquainted with us, so that there is not a word on our tongue, or a thought in our heart, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. If thou dost know our need thou wilt supply it; we have not been permitted to wish; thou hast been so good yesterday that we know thou wilt not fail us tomorrow. 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 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
Ver. 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king. ] This bare title seemed sufficient to him who came now newly out of the furnace of sharp affliction, whereby he was tamed and taken a link lower, as we say.
Unto all people, nations, and languages.
That dwell in all the earth.
Peace be multiplied unto you.
a Mr Huet.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Daniel Chapter 4
We have seen, after the vision of the great image, that a chapter followed, presenting at first sight little appearance of connection with the prophecy, but which, I trust, was shown to have a very important bearing upon it. For in Dan 2 we had merely the general history of the Gentile powers, not their moral qualities. Empire after empire rose on, and disappeared from, the scene of God’s providence. But what was the character of these empires, how they used the power that was given into their hands by God, we saw not. These historical incidents were introduced purposely between the first grand outline in Dan 2 and the details which follow from Dan 7 to the end of the book. They show the conduct of the empires while in possession of supreme authority from God in the world. The first picture of their moral ways was given in Dan 3 : religion, such as it was, rendered compulsory by the Gentile power, irrespective of the claims of God and the conscience of man.
The principle of this from the first runs through the times of the Gentiles. No doubt it seemed necessary, in consequence of the immense extent of the empire, to have some one controlling religion that would bind together the various lands and subject nations. What a return for the place of honour in which God had put Nebuchadnezzar! Nevertheless, it only gave occasion for God to display His power, even in the Jewish captives now under the control of the Gentiles. In the chapter before it was plain that the wisdom of God was found among them. All the lore of the Babylonish empire was completely at fault. Daniel alone. could explain the visions. But although divine wisdom was there, power is another thing and God took advantage of the terrible punishment, as it seemed, of the three Hebrews, and showed Himself most conspicuously as the Deliverer of the faithful in the hour of their need. The beginning of Gentile empire is only the foreshadowing of what will be the closing scene. And as there was then deliverance by divine power at the beginning, so there will be by-and-bye: and this specially found in connection with the faithful of Israel, the Jews. I do not mean, of course, with the Jews in their present state; because, now, a Jew remaining such is an enemy of God. But that will not always be the case. The time is coming when the seed of Abraham, without ceasing to be Jews, will be converted to God – will receive the Messiah, according to the prophecies. I do not mean the Jew will enter into the same blessed knowledge and enjoyment that we have now; but that he will be among the faithful to be found in the latter day, as is predicted in many prophecies. Of course, a very important change is supposed, which is to take place in the history of the world; or rather, God will remove from the world that which is not of the world, in order that He may resume His interest in what is taking place upon the earth. Because, at the present time, God’s work is not immediately connected with the movements of the world. Its stages of progress and decline are not the expression of His will, although He always exercises a providential control over them.
But there was a time, we know, in the world’s history, when God took a direct and immediate interest in what was going on among men. Even their battles were said to be the Lord’s battles; and their defeats, famines, etc., were sent as a known infliction from God for some evil that He was dealing with. Now, while it remains perfectly true, that there is no war or sorrow of any kind that happens without God, and all is decidedly under His sovereign control, it is not in the way of the same direct government. So that a person cannot now say, This war is at the word of God; or, This famine is a chastening for such and such an evil. That would be indeed both ignorance and presumption. No doubt there are persons quite ready enough to pronounce as to these matters. Their mistake arises from not appreciating the great change that has taken place in God’s government of the world. As long as Israel was the nation in which God was displaying His character for the earth, these things were found directly and immediately from God. But from the time God gave up His people Israel, it has been merely the indirect, providential control of a general kind, that God exercises over human affairs.
Another thing has come in. When the true Christ was rejected by Israel, and Israel thereby lost their opportunity of being restored to their place of supremacy, God, we may say, took advantage of this to bring in another thing – the calling of the Church. It was no longer God governing a nation like Israel under His law; nor was it simply an indirect government of the Gentiles; but the revelation of Himself as a Father to His children in Christ, and the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, not only to act upon their hearts, but to dwell in their midst, and to baptize them, Jew or Gentile, into one body, the body of Christ the Head in heaven. That goes on now. And therefore God has no particular relations with the Jews now: He does not deal with them any more than with others, save that they have a sentence of judicial blindness upon them. They were blind before. God did not oblige them to refuse Christ. He never makes any person blind in that sense: only sin thus blinds. But when men refuse the light of God, and obstinately reject its every testimony, He may and does give up sometimes to a total darkness, in the sense of its being a judicial one, added to what is natural to the human heart. The nation of Israel is under that judicial blindness now. But while this is the case with the great mass, it is not so with all. There is always to be a remnant of Israel. They are the only nation indeed of which that can be said – the only nation that God has never absolutely given up. Other nations may know God visiting them for a time, and visiting them remarkably in grace. Our own country God has most marvellously blessed – given men His word freely, and many other privileges. But while such is the case, there is no obligation on God’s part always to keep England in that position. If the country show a deaf ear, turning away from the truth, and preferring idolatry, which is not at all impossible, it will certainly be given up, and will fall under the delusion which God will send upon the world by-and-bye. But God bound Himself by special promise to Israel, and He will never give them up entirely. In Israel there will always be a holy seed in the very darkest times. And this is connected with a remark that I made before. While God is occupied with the work of gathering out the Church, there cannot be any special relation with Israel in bringing them out as His people, and delivering them out of their distresses, and the like. But when God is pleased to remove the Church out of this present scene, Israel will come forward again; and it is in that day, when their hearts are touched by the Spirit of God, that there will be the fulfilment of a deliverance, the type of which we see in the end of Dan 3 .
Upon that occasion, I may just observe, the king was so far moved, that he commanded, as a sort of ordinance of his realm, that the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, should be honoured; and that any person who attempted to speak against that God should be cut in pieces, and their houses made a dunghill. But we do find this: that, whether it was the special honour that he paid to Daniel, in Dan 2 , or the command that his subjects should honour the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in Dan 3 , it had but little permanence. It was merely a passing feeling, which, like the morning cloud, faded away from the mind of the king. He himself records in this chapter how little the ways of God had reached his heart, however he might for the moment have been struck with the display of His wisdom. It is one thing to show honour to a prophet, and to compel the subjects of his realm to honour the God who delivered as none other could. But how was it with Nebuchadnezzar himself? “I, Nebuchadnezzar,” he says, “was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace.
Thus, you see, it is plain, from his own account, although he gives it to show the mercy manifested towards him, that, after all the wondrous transactions of the previous chapters, Nebuchadnezzar was just the same man at bottom still. There was no thorough change in his soul – no such thing as his heart brought to God. He was at rest in his house and flourishing in his palace. As the man of the earth, all that God had given into his hands only fed his pride and self-complacency. In this condition God sends him a fresh testimony. “I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me.” Therefore he makes a decree, commanding to bring in all the wise men of Babylon, that they might make known the interpretation of the dream. It was in vain. They came, and he told the dream. But he says, “They did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof. But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god,” etc. To him he speaks with confidence. “O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.” He may speak to him in a heathenish style; the wisdom of the Most High God in him he may attribute to his own gods; but still he does acknowledge that there is something special and peculiar in Daniel. He also alludes to the vision in the same style. Daniel, when he hears the dream, and realizes its meaning, was troubled and amazed for one hour. Nor must we confine this to the story of Nebuchadnezzar. Just as we saw in Dan 2 that the king was said to be the head of gold, so in this chapter he was the tree. But in Dan 2 it was not the king personally alone, but his dynasty that was represented by the head of gold. In a certain sense, what was true of Nebuchadnezzar would characterize the Gentile empire to the close. So in this present scene. Daniel had the pain and horror of seeing what awaited Nebuchadnezzar. And this, alas! too plainly foreboded the issue of this new system that the God of heaven had set up.
But following simply the chapter before us, Daniel explains the vision. “My lord,” said he, “the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth . . . It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong.” Every one must be familiar with the way in which troth the psalms and prophets use the figure of the tree to describe the position assigned by God to Israel, as well as to other people. Thus, the vine in Psa 80 . is clearly what Israel was intended to be in the purpose of God. But there was total failure. And so we see in Jer 2 , Eze 15 , etc., God’s purpose seemed to be broken. But He never gives it up. He may repent of creation. But wherever there is that, which is not barely the work of His hand, but the fruit of the action of His heart, – and that His purpose is, – God never abandons it. Where He merely calls into being that which did not exist before, a change may come in. But there is no change where God sets His love upon a person, and gives certain suited gifts. “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Rom 11:29 ) This is a very important thing, as connected with individual souls. Doubt the faithfulness of God in any one respect, and you weaken it as to everything else. If God could call His people Israel, and afterwards give them up absolutely, how could I be sure that God would keep me always as His child? For if ever it was tried, it was in Israel. If I believe in the faithfulness of God to myself, individually, why doubt it as to Israel? The question always is, Is God faithful! Has He departed from His purpose, or withdrawn His gifts? If not, whatever appearances may say for a time, God will vindicate His truth and mercy in the end.
But to return, the figure of the cedar-tree in Eze 31:3 , may yet more help to illustrate what we have in Daniel. “Behold the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.” Then later on we find “the cedars in the garden of God could not hide him.” Those were the other powers in the world. “The fir-trees were not like his boughs,” etc. And, further still, we find that there is an allusion to Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Verse 18) But I will not dwell upon it further. My desire has been to prove, from these various passages, that it is a common thing in Scripture to use the tree, either as the symbol of fruit-bearing or of a place of high dignity and importance. In the New Testament the figure extended to that which for a season supersedes Israel Mat 13 shows us that the dispensation of the kingdom of heaven is, in one of its phases, compared to a tree sprouting up from small beginnings. The Lord unfolds the history of professing Christendom. In Mat 12 He had given His sentence upon Israel. The last state should be worse than the first. Such will be the state of the wicked generation of Israel, that put the Lord Jesus to death, before God judges it. Then the Lord turns to Christendom, and shows, first of all, His own work on earth. He sows seed. In the next parable an enemy appears upon the scene, intrudes into the field, and sows bad seed. It is the inroad of evil into the field of Christian profession. The parable following discloses that what was little in its commencement grows into a vast towering thing in the earth. The little mustard-seed becomes a great tree.
Now, we may see by these passages that in every case, whether it be an individual as expressive of power, as Nebuchadnezzar, or a nation, which takes the ascendant, or a system of religion, as in Mat 13 , the symbol of a tree points to greatness in the earth, unless fruit be the object. Such is its universal teaching. Of course I am speaking now not so much of those trees, that were merely for bearing fruit, as of such as were chosen for their size and stateliness also. Earthly power is clearly meant by the tree in Daniel. (Dan 4:21 ) “In it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: it is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.” This tree was the admiration of men. There was everything that gratified the heart: its own magnificent proportions, the beauty of its boughs and leaves, the abundance and sweetness of its fruits, the kindly shadow, under which all these creatures, the beasts of the field and fowls of heaven, found protection. All this and more was found in it, and such were man’s thoughts about it. But what was God’s estimate? “And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down and destroy it.” Observe, it is merely a destruction for a time; there is no such thing as annihilation in any one thing in the mind of God. “Yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth.” There must be means used of God to maintain it alive. Leave it, therefore, He says, “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 of the field, till seven times pass over him.” “This is the interpretation,” he says, “O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king.” And then he gives its personal application to Nebuchadnezzar. In this case all was perfectly simple. Nebuchadnezzar was warned of what was to come upon him. He was to be driven from men, and his dwelling was to be with the beasts of the field. But more than that, he himself was to be reduced to their condition. “They shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven.” And this for a certain defined time. “And seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” We need not dwell upon this history of Nebuchadnezzar. No simpleminded believer would be disposed to raise difficulties about it. Men have done so, explaining it as a mere delusion in the king’s mind. But these are not questions that a Christian ought even to consider, except for the good of another. The word affirms that king Nebuchadnezzar was, by God’s power, reduced in appearance to a bestial condition. If we own that God could and did set aside the laws of nature, giving some to walk unhurt in the fiercest of fires, and preserving another intact in a den of lions, we must feel that it is a mere question of His will and word whether Nebuchadnezzar was brought into this terrible debasement; hunted about among the beasts of the field, and made to eat grass like the oxen. The man that believes the one must believe the other. God’s power alone could so work, and God’s word is the warrant for all.
But while that is plain and simple enough, we have a further image of the Gentile power, its self-exalting character, and the judgment of God upon it. I apprehend that Nebuchadnezzar, personally, only showed what would be the general tendency of the Gentiles, as having power given him from God. He would admire and exalt himself; turning all the greatness that God had conferred upon him to his own credit. He was clearly shown the judgments that would come upon him; but the warning was unheeded. Therefore, “all this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.” The sentence was executed. Exactly so have the Gentile powers acted with regard to God. I am not now speaking of individuals who may arise from time to time. Godly persons may have been in the position occupied even by Nebuchadnezzar; but, as a general rule, his successors, from that day to this – those that have had the supremacy of the world, and the world’s glory – have used it in the main for themselves. I do not now speak so as to allow a feeling of disrespect towards these powers for a moment; but am only stating the well-known facts of Gentile rule. They were heathen for many centuries down to Christ, and after Christ; and when Christianity was accepted by Constantine, and its profession was by degrees taken up by the empire, no one can suppose that it was more than a system of religion adopted. But this did not hinder the general course of things. The only difference was: that the heathen profession, which was dominant before, was put down, and Christianity, which was trampled down before, was set up. Heathenism and Christianity changed places. Constantine may have thought it right to put down the heathen and show honour to the Christians; but there was no such question as his taking the Bible and inquiring, What is the will of God about me? How shall I show my obedience to God? That never has been the case, since Nebuchadnezzar’s time, with any one that has swayed the world’s destinies. It could not be. I speak of the great masters of the world, when the empire was an unbroken thing. And even since that, though there may have been exceptional cases of kings who have had the fear of God before them, yet even then it has not been in their power to change the substantial course of policy in their kingdoms. Those who have attempted to do so have completely failed. God’s authority in the world is one thing, and God’s having a soul obedient to Him as His servant is quite another.
This chapter shows us, then, the turning of all the power, and authority, and glory that God gave men, into a means of gratifying their own pride. The consequence of this is, that all understanding of God’s mind would be taken from them. Nebuchadnezzar had remarkable visions and revelations from God. But what did they avail? He had had this warning, the most personal one of all. But what did it avail? Daniel had counselled him to break off his sins by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. He heeded it not. Twelve months passed away, when, in pride of heart, he attributed all the greatness and splendour, with which he was surrounded, to himself and the work of his own hands. That great Babylon was what he had built “for the house of the kingdom, by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty.” At once the sentence takes effect upon himself; and what was then literally true of him individually, was morally true of the Gentile powers as a whole. The character of the Gentiles all through would be without intelligence of God and without subjection to Him.
“The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.” In verse 16, it had been said, “Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him.” All thought of God was entirely lost. He had no more idea about God than the beast of the field. Even a natural man has a conscience in him. But Nebuchadnezzar lost all thought; he was reduced to the non-intelligence of a beast. Man was formed to be the being on earth that looked up to God, and stood in dependence upon Him. That is his glory. A beast enjoys, so to speak, what is its own sphere of enjoyment, according to the capacity that God has conferred upon it naturally, but it has no idea of the God that made it and all things. Man has. That is, recognition of God is the great essential difference between a man and a beast, if one may speak now in a sort of practical way of the truth intended to be taught by the history. I apprehend that we are shown by this history, if we read it typically, that the Gentile powers would give up the recognition of God in their government. They might use His name outwardly, but as for any owning of God as the source of all they possessed, it would completely pass from their minds; and so it has.
But there was a physical change, which was what really took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s case. Reduced to the condition of a beast, he lost what characterizes a man – all recognition of God. He had a beast’s heart, as it is said here. He had nothing of the character and glory of a man. Man is put here below as the image and glory of God. He is responsible to make God known; and he can only do it because he looks up to God. There are those that have an outward semblance of man, but “man that is in honour and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.” This received its most remarkable confirmation in the case of Nebuchadnezzar; but the same thing is true, in principle, of every man that has got self and not God before his eyes. That was exactly true of the Babylonish king. He understood not. He attributed all to himself and not to God; and so, by a terrible retribution, he is reduced to the most abject state. Never had a Gentile possessed such glory and majesty as Nebuchadnezzar; but in a moment all is changed. In the height of his pride the sentence of God falls upon him. “He was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen,” etc. But all this had its limit. It was to be “till seven times had passed over him,” “Times” may have been used rather than years, perhaps, because this judgment of Nebuchadnezzar is the type of the condition to which the Gentile powers are reduced during the whole course of their empire. Hence a symbolic term may have been chosen rather than one of ordinary life. The Gentiles, spite of God’s gift of supreme power, would be without any adequate recognition of Him in their government. They would use their power for their own ends and interests As to really and honestly conforming themselves to the will of God, when was such a thing ever heard of as the great object of any nation’s policy since they got their power? I am not aware that it was ever even thought of. So truly does this figure apply to the whole course of the Gentiles.
Let us look a little at the effect of the judgment on Nebuchadnezzar. The seven times passed over the king. “And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up my eyes unto heaven.” Then was the first great sign of returning intelligence. A beast looks downward. He never looks upward, in the moral sense of the expression. Man, acting morally as man, acknowledges in his conscience One from whom he has derived all, and One whom he is bound to honour and obey. Nebuchadnezzar, when the term of the judgment was passed, lifted up his eyes unto heaven. He is taking the true place of a man. “And mine understanding returned unto me.” What was the consequence? “And I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him that liveth for ever.” Mark the difference. On previous occasions, he might have bowed down before the prophet, and commanded sweet odours to be offered to him: he might send out statutes and decrees that the God of the Jews should be honoured by all his subjects. But what does he now? He drops all others for the moment, and bows before God. Nebuchadnezzar is not occupied with compelling other people for good or ill, but himself, blessing, praising, and honouring the Most High. Observe, too, the expression, “Most High”; because it is used here with particular emphasis. “I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou? “
When the times of the Gentiles close, the stump will assert its vitality, which was left in the earth protected by divine providence, and allowed still to be a stay in the midst of the anarchy that would otherwise have overspread the earth. We must remember, that the world’s government is a signal mercy for the earth compared with having no government at all. Yet, while God has controlled it and kept it in His providence for the good of the world, there is a time coming, when it will sprout up again and will be found really fulfilling the object for which God has established it in the earth. And when will this be “When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” When everything that has come from God will really be accomplished according to His will – when man will be blessed fully, and will no longer be as the beasts that perish – when Israel will not any more be found rejecting their own Messiah, nor the Gentiles arrogating to themselves the power conferred on them by God, in His sovereign bounty. That same day will see all these glories shining out; but it can only be “when Christ, who is our life, shall appear,” and when we shall “appear with Him in glory.” It is reserved for Him to be the head of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. All nations and tribes and tongues shall serve Him. For God can only be known where Christ is known – can only be seen in His goodness and glory where Christ is recognized as the expression and substance of it. And so it will be in that bright day. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself will come and establish, in perfection, everything that has only crumbled under man’s hand, and had, at best, only a negative effect in the world, staying the evil here and there, but far short of the full means of blessing that God intends. When that day comes, it will be seen that Gentile government, not in its present corrupt state, but cleared of evil, and expanded according to the thoughts of God, will flourish in the earth, and be the channel of nothing but blessing. It is only sin which has hindered God’s mercy in it hitherto. Thus, when the grand fulfilment will take place of this typical history of Nebuchadnezzar – when the time of the “beast’s heart” towards God, caring only for self, gratifying pride and lust of power, shall have passed away, God will take the reins into His own hands as the Most High God, and Gentiles shall bow in praise and thankful joy.
When that expression, “Most High God,” first occurs, there is a very striking scene. And in Scripture we must often recur to the first use, in order to get the full meaning. “Most High God” appears first in the case of Melchizedek, when Abraham was returning victorious from pursuing the kings who had taken Lot prisoner. So it will be at the close of this dispensation, when there will be not only victory over all the powers that assemble against God’s people, but the answer to the blessed scene that followed. Melchizedek meets Abraham, and Abraham gives him tithes of all, and receives his blessing. And Melchizedek is the type of Christ in this, that He unites the kingly glory with the priestly. He was the King of Salem, and his very name was King of righteousness. Then will be the day of peace founded on righteousness. But he was the priest of the Most High God also. It is not the offering of sacrifice or of incense that characterizes his action, but the bringing out of bread and wine for the refreshment of the conquerors. He blesses, and pronounces the blessing of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth. For in that day, there will be no longer a moral chasm between heaven and earth, but complete union. It will be no confusion or amalgam of the two, but a link of most intimate harmony; and the Lord Jesus will be that uniting bond. The Head of those that belong to heaven, He is also the King of kings, and Lord of lords – the sovereign Disposer of all earthly power. To Him all will bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things infernal too. This will be the full epoch of the restoration of Gentile intelligence and blessing.
If any persons are called to honour the truth of God, and to walk in the intelligence of His ways, it is His own children who enjoy the consciousness of their Father’s love. And may we, understanding this our place, be enabled to remember what will be the end of all things, as far as man is concerned! That day of judgment approaches which is coming upon the world, and the weight of which will fall upon the Jew and Gentile, both in a state of apostasy. Still, we know that it will see a remnant of both brought out to shine with greater blessedness than ever – the Jews exalted, the Gentiles blessed, in their true places. No longer a poor, mutilated stump, but again sprouting up into its normal strength and majesty, under the dews of heaven. The Lord grant that we may expect good from God, remembering that in the midst of judgment there is mercy that triumphs over judgment in every case, save in that which utterly rejects Christ – which lives, refusing His mercy – which dies, counting itself unworthy of everlasting life. Remember, that no soul that hears the gospel is lost simply because it is evil. There is a sure remedy for all we are. Men are lost because they reject and despise eternal life, pardon, peace, everything, in the Son of God.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 4:1-3
1Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language that live in all the earth: May your peace abound! 2It has seemed good to me to declare the signs and wonders which the Most High God has done for me.
3How great are His signs
And how mighty are His wonders!
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom
And His dominion is from generation to generation.
Dan 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar Dan 4:1-3 is in chapter 3 in the Hebrew Bible, but this context obviously starts a new section. His name means may Nebo guard the boundary (cf. Dan 4:8).
all the peoples, nations, and men of every language We must remember that the kingdom of neo-Babylon included many language groups (cf. Dan 3:4; Dan 3:7; Dan 3:29; Dan 6:25). This chapter seems to be a royal decree issued to praise the God of Judah for Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration.
in all the earth This, of course, refers to the known world of that day and is an example of a non-literal exaggeration (hyperbole).
‘May your peace abound’ This is parallel to Dan 6:25 (cf. Ezr 4:17). This was a common idiom for initial greetings, meaning welfare, prosperity (BDB 1116). Nebuchadnezzar is declaring, in a royal decree, the praises of the God of Judah, who he calls the Most High God.
Dan 4:2 the signs and wonders which the Most High God has done for me. Nebuchadnezzar II has now been confronted with YHWH in chapters 2, 3, and 4. The accumulating evidence of the existence, sovereignty, and covenant loyalty of the Jewish God is overwhelming.
The book of Daniel is characterized by lists and hendiadys. See the third paragraph of Dan 2:12. The corresponding Hebrew terms for signs, and wonders are often used together (cf. Exo 7:3; Exo 8:23; Deu 4:34; Deu 6:22; Deu 7:19; Deu 13:1-2; Deu 26:8; Deu 28:46; Deu 29:3; Deu 34:11; Neh 9:10; Psa 105:27; Psa 135:9; Jer 32:20). What God did for Israel in the Exodus (cf. Act 7:36) He now displays to pagan kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius). The revelation continues in the life of Jesus (cf. Act 2:22) and the gospel proclamation (cf. Act 2:43; Act 4:30; Act 5:12; Act 8:13; Act 14:3). However, in the NT these two terms are usually associated with false Messiahs (cf. Mat 24:24; Mar 13:22) or the Jewish people demanding evidence of Jesus’ Messiahship (cf. Mat 12:39; Mat 16:1; Joh 4:48). God wants the world to know Him!
Most High God See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY
Dan 4:3 His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom This verse is a poetic/hymnic text extolling God.
1. His signs. . .and wonders (cf. Dan 6:27). God is actively involved in the lives of these Near Eastern kings (cf. chapters 2;3;4;5;6) to demonstrate His power and presence.
2. everlasting kingdom (cf. Dan 4:34; Dan 2:44; Dan 6:26; Dan 7:14; Dan 7:26). This is in contrast to the changing kingdom represented by the vision of chapter 2. These last two lines of poetry are very similar to the Hebrew of Psa 145:13; also see Psa 45:6; Lam 5:19.
3. dominion is from generation to generation. God’s people are safe and secure in Him in each and every generation, even amidst war and exile. Physical circumstances (destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple) do not affect the peace and presence of God in the lives of His followers. These words and phrases are in a parallel relationship in Dan 4:3. Semitic poetry must be interpreted in light of thought parallels, not rhyme.
SPECIAL TOPIC: HEBREW POETRY
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Nebuohadnezzar. What follows is evidently a proclamation. Given probably in 454 B.C., the last of the seven years of his “madness”(461-454 B.C.), the same year as the decree of Astyages, Daniel being then fifty-nine.
people = the peoples.
nations = races.
languages = tongues.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 4
Now Nebuchadnezzar the king, [a proclamation] unto all the people, nation, languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought towards me. How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation ( Dan 4:1-3 ).
Listen to these words of Nebuchadnezzar. Sounds like a convert. And I personally believe he was. He tells now his story, “I’m going to tell you a story.” He said,
I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in my house, I was prospering in my palace: And I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. Therefore I made a decree to bring in all of the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto to me the interpretation of the dream. And there came in the magicians, the astrologers, Chaldeans, and all the soothsayers: and I told them the dream; but they could not make known to me the interpretation. But at last Daniel came before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, no secret troubles thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. And thus for the visions in my head in my bed; I saw, and behold there was a tree in the middle of the eaRuth ( Dan 4:4-10 ),
It was very tall.
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached into heaven, and the sight thereof unto the end of the whole earth: And the leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit was very much, and in it there was meat for everyone: the beast of the field had shadow under it, the fowls in the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh fed from it. And I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher ( Dan 4:11-13 )
Now this is interesting!
and a holy one [a watcher, and a holy one] came down from heaven; And he cried aloud, and said, Cut down the tree, cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beast get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches. Nevertheless, leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the fields; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beast and the grass of the earth: Let his heart be changed from a man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. This matter 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 rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets over it the basest of men. This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all of the wise men in my kingdom were not able to make known the interpretation: but you are able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in you. Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonished for about one hour, his thoughts troubled him. And the king spoke, and said, Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble you. And Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream is for those that hate you, and the interpretation is something your enemies will enjoy. For the tree you saw, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached into heaven, and the sight of all were upon the earth; Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit was very much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beast of the field dwelt, [and so forth]: It is you, O king, that have grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reaches unto heaven, and your dominion unto the end of the earth. And whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew down the tree, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, tell the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let the portion be with beast for the fields, until seven times pass over him; This is the interpretation, O king, this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: They shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as an ox, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till you know that the that Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that you have known that the heavens do rule. 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; for it may be a lengthening of your tranquillity ( Dan 4:13-27 ).
So he had this dream, the tree and the whole thing, and as Daniel interprets it, “The tree is you Nebuchadnezzar. You’ve become great, and powerful, and this great kingdom is given unto you. But you’ve been lifted up in pride.”
Now the interesting thing to me is there are watchers that are watching the whole affair. Do you know that your life is being watched? That’s sort of awesome. These watchers from heaven who are down here watching you. And he had in this dream the insight into these watchers who had come from heaven and were watching him. And he heard one of them say, “Hew down the tree, cut off the branches, until seven times. Let him go out and live with the wild beast until seven times are passed over him.”
The seven times are probably a year and three quarters. Referring to the summer, fall, winter, spring, rather than seven years. And so for a year and three quarters, king Nebuchadnezzar was to be insane. He was to live with the ox and out in the field. He was to eat grass like a wild animal. This was to continue until he realize that the God in heaven is the One who rules over the earth as far as establishing kingdoms and setting in power those whom He will. God still rules in the overall sense. And sometimes God puts evil men into power in order to bring judgment upon the people. But God rules over all. So after Daniel interprets, he said, “Now look, king, straighten up, man. Live right. You know, it may be that you can increase the days of your peace because you know this is going to come on you. But maybe by living right you can forestall it a bit.”
And so for a year there was no furies or rages. The king was watching his p’s and q’s.
But all of this came upon king Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months as he was walking in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon ( Dan 4:28-29 ).
Now according to the ancient historians, Babylon was just a place of marvel and beauty. They describe the hanging gardens of Babylon; they were one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. They described the walls that surrounded the city. The glory, the grandeur of this marvelous city of Babylon. And so Nebuchadnezzar was walking there in the midst of the gardens, the beautiful city, the palace and,
The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty? ( Dan 4:30 )
Boasting in himself that I have built with my power for my majesty.
And while these words were in his mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, [one of the watchers] said ( Dan 4:31 ),
He’d been watching him.
O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling place shall be with the beasts of the field: and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and he gives it to whomsoever he will. And in the same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: he was driven from men ( Dan 4:31-33 ),
He became insane.
he did eat grass as the oxen, his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up my eyes unto heaven, and my understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him that lives for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? ( Dan 4:33-35 )
He came into a consciousness of the power of God and the sovereignty of God, who rules over the universe. And no man can say to God, “What are you doing?”
At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, my honor and my brightness returned unto me; and my counselors and my lord sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven ( Dan 4:36-37 ),
That sounds like conversion to me.
all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase ( Dan 4:37 ).
So this final proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar, a very interesting proclamation of the faith that he had come to as he believed in God and in the power of God and in the sovereignty of God over the universe. Very exciting.
I think that we will hold off on the remainder, and next week we’ll take chapters 5 through 8. So we’ll cut Daniel up in four chapter sections so we can spend a little more time in it. And fascinating, interesting book, and you’ve got some great reading next week as we get into Daniel chapters 5 through 8. Exciting prophecies.
Father, we do acknowledge that You are the Lord, the King, the Ruler over all the universe. We acknowledge Your sovereignty. We realize, Lord, that none of us can really challenge You to say, “What are You doing?” because You do things after the counsel of Your own will and after Your own purposes. God, we bow before Thee and we submit our lives to Thee. That we might be ruled over by Thy Spirit. Lord, we thank You for the commitment of Daniel and of his three friends. Lord, help us that we too might make a full commitment of our lives unto Thee. To have that same kind of confidence and trust that Your ways are best. Knowing, Lord, that You can do whatever You want. Take our lives now and use them as You see fit to glorify Thy Name. Bless this week. Lord, strengthen us, guide us, keep us in Thy Love. In Jesus’ name. Amen. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Dan 4:1
Dan 4:1 NebuchadnezzarH5020 the king,H4430 unto allH3606 people,H5972 nations,H524 and languages,H3961 thatH1768 dwellH1753 in allH3606 the earth;H772 PeaceH8001 be multipliedH7680 unto you.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Testimony of God (Daniel Chapter 4)
Nebuchadnezzar was a religious man for a king. He shared the belief of his people in the existence of many gods. While the first dream Daniel interpreted for him convinced him in the existence of the reality of the God of the Hebrews and the incident with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego convicted him of the supremacy of God, he was not yet convinced that his false god did not exist. He still believed and worshipped his pagan god, Marduk, also called Bel. It is important to know here that the Babylonians believed in many many gods.
Some of these were Sumerian, some Akkadian and other later groups and some imported from the mountainous regions to the north and east of Mesopotamia. These gods reflected the various needs and fears of the different peoples. These different nations and peoples which were engulfed into the Babylonian culture would have their own specific gods. These gods would have been brought into the existing belief structure either as a completely new god or, much more often, be attached or merged into an existing god. Often when this happened the combined god continued under the name of the new people arriving in Mesopotamia. Because of this the Babylonians had a great many gods which they believed in.
A list of their more prominent ones follows:
Anu: the god of the highest heaven
Marduk: national god of the Babylonians. (Also known as Bel)
Tiamat: dragon goddess
Kingu: husband of Tiamat
Enlil: god of weather and storms
Nabu: god of the scribal arts
Ishtar: goddess of love
Ea: god of wisdom
Enurta: god of war
Anshar: father of heaven
Shamash: god of the sun and of justice
Ashur: national god of the Assyrians
Kishar: father of earth
While Nebuchadnezzar was indeed a religious man, he had a long way to go and a lot of deeply rooted beliefs to work through in order to come to the point he achieved as recorded in this remarkable testimony narrated in part by Nebuchadnezzar himself and recorded by inspiration by Daniel who was a trusted servant in the service of the Babylonian king.
This fourth chapter is a narrative revealing yet another dream which greatly affected Nebuchadnezzar, especially after he heard a literal voice from heaven speaking to him. The wise men were consulted as before to no avail. They could not explain the dream to Nebuchadnezzar so Daniel was again consulted. Nebuchadnezzar questioned the interpretation and got a grand demonstration of God’s power and authority in a big way. This extraordinary narrative reveals that at least for a little time, Nebuchadnezzar believed in the one true and living God to the exclusion of all others. It is entirely within the scope of possibility and probable that Nebuchadnezzar may have completely converted and died a faithful follower of God.
What an extraordinary accomplishment this would have been for a conquering king to be brought to righteousness by those under his authority. A king so ruthless and vicious that he would order the execution of a entire class of people from his empire for being unable to reveal a dream to him that he himself couldn’t recall. A ruler so cruel and prideful that he would order the execution of people for refusing to worship a statue of himself. Nebuchadnezzar was not a nice man by any stretch of the imagination. He was a cruel and bloody king who came to know God through the consistent and stedfast actions of those who were faithful to and served God and only God.
What an example Daniel and his companions left for all who would come thereafter of all ages. One cannot help but to draw a parallel here between Babylon and the Roman Empires which were so similar in so many ways due to cruel leaders, forced king worship and a multiplicity of pagan gods.
Dan 4:1
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
Nebuchadnezzar introduces himself in this narrative. It is obvious he intended for Daniel to write this and publish it throughout the Empire as an official decree. It is addressed to all the people that dwell on the earth. It is intended even for those who were not a part of the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzar has something he wants to say and he wants it said to everybody. Daniel wrote this in the Aramaic language which was the most prevalent language at the time.
Notice here the immediate change in this man’s demeanor which is evident from the beginning. He desired peace to be multiplied to all people. This isn’t the same person as the Nebuchadnezzar who handed the king of Egypt a defeat so overwhelming that he returned home never to leave his country again. This isn’t the same man as the one who sacked the city of Jerusalem, carried off some of her temple treasures, castrated and hauled off several of her princes and children of noble blood. Nor is this the same man who tried to burn three men to death for refusing to worship his statue. The Nebuchadnezzar of old was not a peaceful man. So it is a remarkable thing in and of itself to see this man declaring peace to all nations and all people on earth. When studying this extraordinary chapter of Daniel it is important to keep in mind that it was written as an official narrative and decree of the king of the Babylonian empire to all who lived under his authority.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The last story connected with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar consisted of the king’s own manifesto, setting forth the dealings of the Most High God with him.
The opening ascription of praise is most remarkable when it is remembered that it expressed the conviction of so mighty a monarch as Nebuchadnezzar. The story of the dream which troubled him follows. It came to him in the midst of prosperity and ease in his palace. His magicians were unable to give him an interpretation, and Daniel was brought before him. To him he minutely described his vision.
The fact that the king recalled that his dream was symbolic is evidenced by the change to the use of the masculine pronoun, and the declaration that his heart was to be changed from man’s and become like a beast’s.
Daniel was “astonished,” evidently because he immediately saw the application of the dream to the king, and commenced his interpretation with the courteous address, expressive of his sense of the calamity about to fall on the king. Nevertheless, in loyalty to truth he interpreted its meaning to the king.
He then appealed to Nebuchadnezzar to turn from sin and show mercy to the poor in order that his tranquility might be lengthened.
A year later the dream was fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not obey the appeal of Daniel, and while he was boasting that he had built the great city, Babylon, by his own power and for his own glory a voice came from heaven to tell him that the kingdom was departed from him, and that all that Daniel had foretold would be fulfilled. He was immediately stricken with madness and driven out from among men to dwell and eat with the beasts of the field.
Finally, his reason returning, Nebuchadnezzar recognized the God of heaven and was restored to his kingdom, praising the King of Heaven whose works are true and whose ways are judgment.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
The Decree of the Watchers
Dan 4:1-18
Nebuchadnezzar was in the zenith of his fame and power. His wars were over; his prosperity was assured. But he attributed all to his own wisdom and prowess. There was no thought of God, who had raised him up and given him everything. He must be humbled, if his soul was to be saved; and the whole living world must know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever He pleases, Dan 4:17. How gladly worldly men turn in hours of crisis to religious men, who draw upon unseen resources, and bear themselves with calm and unruffled peace, Dan 4:9. The greatness of the King is set forth under the figure of a mighty tree, filling the earth and sheltering the nations. There was only one Being who came down, combining in Himself watchfulness and holiness. In Dan 4:17 we learn that no destiny is decided apart from the careful sifting of the celestial council-chamber. How august is this conception of the matured judgment of heaven. Where should we stand apart from the pleading of the great High Priest?
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter Four Nebuchadnezzar’s Humbling
In Job 33:14-17, we are told, God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed, Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose [or work], and hide pride from man. This is how God often speaks to men who will not open a Bible to receive the clear revelation of His will. He has many ways of reaching those who seem bent on their own destruction.
In the passage from Job, Elihu goes on to show that when dreams and visions do not avail, God sometimes allows disease to grip the body until the poor sinner is broken in spirit and crushed in heart. Then He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light (Job 33:27-28).
The fourth chapter of Daniel is a remarkable example of Gods matchless grace and illustrates most preciously the words of Elihu to Job. The first time God spoke to Nebuchadnezzar He gave him the dream of the great image of the times of the Gentiles. But the heart of the king was willful, and he continued to go on with his own purpose in his pride and folly. God spoke the second time by the marvelous vision of the Son of God in the midst of the fiery furnace, keeping His faithful witnesses from all danger and harm. But again the proud king kept on his way with unsubject heart and unsubdued will. Now God speaks the third time in a most humiliating manner to this great world-ruler.
This stirring fourth chapter of Daniel was written by Nebuchadnezzar himself and preserved and incorporated into the inspired volume. In it we have the interesting account of the means God used to bring this haughty king to the end of himself and lead him to abase Himself before the Majesty in Heaven. In other words, this is Nebuchadnezzars conversion, and it seems clearly to show that a work of grace took place in his soul before he laid down the scepter entrusted to his hand by Jehovah. The account is also illustrative for in Nebuchadnezzar we see a picture of all Gentile power- its departure from God, its degradation and bestial character, and its final subjugation to God in the time of the end. At that time Christ will return in glory, and all nations will prostrate themselves before Him, owning His righteous and benevolent sway.
Nebuchadnezzar set up in intelligence was the embodiment of authority given from Heaven: The powers that be are ordained of God (Rom 13:1). But it is written, Man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish (Psa 49:12). The kings madness clearly illustrates the turning away of the nations from God and the corruption of governments to serve human ends. Has not this been characteristic of the great powers of this world? Instead of kings standing for God and acting as His representatives to maintain justice and judgment in the earth, we find pride, self-will, cov-etousness, and self-seeking generally controlling them. All this is pictured by the debasement of Nebuchadnezzar when his heart was changed to the heart of a beast, and he was driven out to eat grass like the oxen of the fields.
But the day draws near when God will assert Himself, and all Gentile dominion will come to an end. Then the long-promised King will shine forth in His glorious majesty. The kings of the earth will bring their glory and honor to the new Jerusalem, the heavenly throne-city of the coming kingdom, and the nations will look up as redeemed men and not down as the beasts that perish.
Even in this present age, history teaches us the value of a national recognition of Gods moral government. A story is told of a heathen chieftain who came from his distant domain to visit Queen Victoria. One day he asked her if she would tell him the secret of Englands progress and greatness. In response, it is said the queen presented him with a Bible saying, This Book will tell you. Who can doubt that according to the measure in which that Book of books has been believed and loved by any people, God has honored them? And every nation that has welcomed and protected the gospel has been cared for and blessed in a special way.
On the other hand, let there be a national rejection of His Word, and you will find disaster following disaster. This was the case of the French people, who were among the first favored by Him in Reformation times but who drove out the truth He gave them. He who cannot lie has said, Them that honour me, I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed (1Sa 2:30).
But let us now turn directly to Daniel 4 for a concrete example of all this. It begins with: Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth. This verse touches my heart in a most striking way. I realize that I am reading the personal testimony of one who was in some respects the greatest monarch this world has ever known. I am privileged to have his own account of how he-a proud, self-willed man-was brought to repentance and to the saving knowledge of the God of all grace. For I gather from this proclamation that a divine work was accomplished in Nebuchadnezzars soul by God who, in mercy, had revealed Himself to him.
What a wonderful miracle this is! The fact is, every conversion is a miracle-every soul that is saved knows what it is to be dealt with in supernatural power. It is God alone who changes men like this. He picks up a vile, wretched sinner and makes him a holy, happy saint. He works in the drunkards soul and changes him to a sober, useful member of society. He breaks down the proud and stubborn, and they become meek and lowly. Are not these things miracles? Surely, and they are being enacted all around us. Yet men sneer and say the miraculous never happens in this law-controlled, workaday world of ours! Oh that men might have their eyes opened to see, and their ears to hear, what God in His grace is doing on the basis of His blessed Sons offering for sin on the cross!
I thought it good, Nebuchadnezzar continued, to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me. How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation (2-3). What a splendid confession this is and how different from his previous acknowledgments in chapters 2-3! His conscience has been reached now; he knows God for himself and delights to tell of His signs and wonders wrought toward him! He acknowledges Him now not as a god, but as the one true and living God whose kingdom rules over all and will continue forevermore. Nebuchadnezzars testimony does not refer to the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, but to Gods moral government of the universe, which nothing ever alters.
Now I would like to be personal and press some questions home to each reader. Do you have any word of testimony about the signs and wonders that the high God has worked for you? Have you ever been brought into direct contact with Him, so that you can speak confidently of what He has done for your soul? Have you been humbled by seeing yourself as a lost sinner before Him? Have you taken that place-your only rightful place-and acknowledged that you are unclean and in dire need of sovereign mercy? And do you know what it is to have fled for refuge to the very God against whom you have sinned so grievously and to have found in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, a hidingplace from the judgment your sins deserved?
I implore you, do not attempt to avoid these questions. If you cannot answer yes to each one, stop and ponder them again; ask yourself if there is any valid reason why you should continue to neglect Gods way of salvation and leave your soul in jeopardy. Oh that Nebuchadnezzars testimony might speak loudly to your heart and conscience if you are still a stranger to the God he had learned to adore. Something very definite had been done for his soul; he delighted to tell of it and to give an answer to every man as to the reason of the hope that was in him.
Before God awakened him, he had been at rest in [his] house, and flourishing in [his] palace (4). Think of that! At rest and flourishing while still in his sins and a stranger to God. There is a deceitful rest, a deceitful peace, which lulls many a soul into a false security. To be untroubled is no evidence of safety. To be at peace does not prove that all is well. I once caught hold of a blind man and drew him back just in time to keep him from plunging headlong into an open cellarway. He thought all was well and was in peace of mind as he walked along, yet two more steps and he would have gone down! Be sure that your peace is founded on the blood of Christ shed on the cross; then you will have that peace which is true and lasting. Every other is false and fleeting. The peace of God is that which comes from relying on the testimony of God and follows the confession of sins that have separated the soul from Him.
Nebuchadnezzar told us how he was aroused from that false security in which he had dwelt for so long. I saw a dream, he said, which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me (5). The vision was sent for this very purpose. God saw that he needed to be troubled-he needed to be awakened from his sleep of death. It was grace that thus exercised him. And in some way every soul that is saved has to pass through this period of soul-anxiety and concern. Nebuchadnezzar as before turned to the wrong source for help in his time of difficulty. He called in his magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers, to whom he narrated his dream; but all to no purpose. They who before could not recall to his mind the dream that had vanished, now cannot interpret this one. But at last Daniel came in and the king turned expectantly to him. He told how he had seen a great tree in the midst of the earth. It grew so strong and tall that the height reached the heavens and the sight of it to the ends of the earth. Clothed with leaves and loaded with fruit, it supplied food for all. The beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it (12). But the king had seen a watcher and a holy one come down from Heaven, who cried out saying:
Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: Nevertheless, leave the stump of his 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 mans, and let a beasts heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. This matter 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 basest of men (14-17).
This was the dream, and the king anxiously inquired if Daniel, or Belteshazzar, could declare the interpretation of it.
The meaning was evidently clear to Daniel from the first. But we are told that he was astonished for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. It is plain that Nebuchadnezzars character had in it much that was noble and admirable, and this appealed to the prophet. He had also been highly favored by the king, and the thought of the solemn judgment that was soon to fall on his royal master saddened him. Nebuchadnezzar must have discerned the anxiety and sorrow in the face of his minister, for he speaks in a way to give him confidence to proceed with the interpretation. He did not want smooth words made up for the occasion. Little though he realized what was coming, he still desired to know the truth. It is a blessed thing for any soul to get to the place where he can say: Give me Gods Word, and let me know it is His Word, and I will receive it, no matter how it cuts, and interferes with my most cherished thoughts.
My lord, answered Daniel, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies (19). He then goes on to explain that the great tree represented Nebuchadnezzar himself, who had been set by God in a special place of prominence in the earth as the head of all peoples and dominions. The cutting down of the tree signified that he was to be humbled to the very lowest depths, even to being driven from among men. His dwelling was to be with the beasts of the field, where he would eat grass as oxen and be wet with the dew of heaven, until seven times had passed over him-until he knew that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever He will. But the fact that the stump of the tree was left, indicated that his kingdom would be returned to him after he had known that the heavens ruled. The prophet added a word of faithful counsel; he implored the king to break off his sins by righteousness and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in the hope that the days of his tranquillity might be lengthened. Daniel does not speak here of earning eternal salvation. His advice has to do with Gods sovereign rule on earth and Nebuchadnezzars acknowledgment and subjection to it.
All happened exactly as Daniel had said, for Nebuchadnezzar was still unhumbled though he had listened so respectfully to the words of the prophet. One day, a year later, he was walking in the palace of his kingdom, which evidently overlooked his capital. As he walked he said to himself, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? (30) Nebuchadnezzar forgot how he was indebted to the most high God for the position he occupied and the riches and the glory of it; he took all the credit to himself. While the word was in his mouth the decree was spoken by a voice from Heaven saying that the time had come when the dream would be fulfilled. The same hour he lost his reason and became a pitiable spectacle, unfit to associate with others; he was driven from men into the open fields where he became like the beasts that perish. This solemn account is not difficult to believe when we remember the treatment generally given to the insane in the oriental countries. Looked upon as the afflicted of God, they are left to wander at their own will, none interfering nor making them afraid.
In all this we see a picture of Gentile power in its alienation from God and bestial character. Rulers and nations who have trampled the Word of God beneath their feet and despised His mercy and grace, refusing subjection to His government are guilty of acting in madness! A great tree towering up in independence toward heaven is a symbol frequently used in Scripture to depict the great rulers of this world. Ezekiel used it as a picture of the Assyrian kingdom. In the New Testament it is used by our Lord Jesus Christ as a symbol of the kingdom of Heaven as it has become in the hands of men.
I want to dwell a little on the phrase seven times shall pass over thee (32). It has been used to support the year-day theory, which has frequently been put forth by a certain school of prophetic teachers. This is a system of interpretation that takes prophetic seasons and times and says: All days are to be understood as years, months as thirty years, and years as periods of three hundred and sixty years. Now a time is undoubtedly a year. Seven times then, would be seven years. If the year-day theory is true, it would apply here as well as elsewhere in the Scriptures. But what would seven times three hundred and sixty years mean in this connection? It would amount to two thousand five hundred and twenty years. In that case Nebuchadnezzars madness would have gone on until the middle of this century. But if this is ridiculously impossible, then it is folly to attempt to apply the theory elsewhere, as this is distinctly a time-prophecy. In every instance where any of these time-prophecies have already been fulfilled, and are clearly so stated in Scripture, it is evident that days, months, or years, were always fulfilled literally.
For instance, God said of the antediluvians that their days would be one hundred and twenty years (Gen 6:3), and in exactly that length of time the world was overthrown with a flood. Suppose the year-day theory had been held by Noah. He would have calculated that there certainly could be no hurry in building the ark since the flood could not come for at least forty-three thousand two hundred years, or one hundred and twenty prophetic years of three hundred and sixty literal years each.
God also told Moses that the children of Israel, because of their unbelief, would wander in the wilderness for forty years, according to the number of the days in which they had searched the land (Num 14:33-34). Now here we might be supposed to have authority for this year-day theory, but on the contrary, we have the very opposite. Days mean days, and years mean years.
In the book of Ezekiel the prophet was told to lie on his left side for three hundred and ninety days, that he might bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. Then he was to lie on his right side forty days to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; God adds I have appointed thee each day for a year (Eze 4:6). This passage is often adduced as evidence of the scripturalness of the year-day theory. But surely it gives no cause to reason that wherever times and seasons are specified in the prophetic scriptures the principle of a day signifying a year can be relied on as correct. The great prophecy of the seventy weeks (Daniel 9) might appear to support this theory, but as we will see the term week does not necessarily refer to seven days at all.
The fact is that all kinds of contradictory systems have been built on this year-day conception. Dates have been set again and again for the second coming of the Lord and the fulfillment of other prophetic events, only to result in disappointment and confusion. It gives occasion to the enemies of the truth to blaspheme when the dates specified have passed away with nothing of importance occurring on them. The whole theory rests on supposing something that God had never revealed.
In the instance before us Daniel declared that the king would be mad until seven times had passed over him. In exactly seven years Nebuchadnezzar lifted up his eyes, and his reason returned to him. He saw that God had been dealing with him-he learned his lesson. He blessed the most high God and turned to Him in repentance, acknowledging Him as his God. Then he wrote out this account of his conversion, that others might also be humbled before the only true God and bless Him for His mercy.
Thus will it be with the spared nations after the judgments that are to take place in the time of the end. Nebuchadnezzar aptly typifies all Gentile power-haughty, insolent, and Heaven-defying. Forgetting God, the true source of authority and power, it has become like the beasts of the earth. You know something of its course since it crucified the Lord of glory. The nations have been mad-as utterly bereft of all true reason as was the demented king of Babylon. But the day is coming when God, in His grace, is going to end all this and deliver a groaning world from the evils of selfish despotism and national jealousies. Christs personal return from Heaven will conclude the long period of Gentile misrule. Creation groans for the hour when the one true King-our Lord Jesus Christ-will be revealed. In his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords (1Ti 6:15).
The blessed Potentate is the truly happy ruler! The world has never seen a happy potentate in the past. Shakespeares line has passed into a proverb, Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. But in the days when our Lord Jesus Christ takes the rod of power and reigns in righteousness, the world, for the first time, will see a happy Potentate. Who can measure the happiness of the Son of God when He descends to take the kingdom for which He has waited so long; and He will have His own beloved bride with Him to share His glory! Then He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied (Isa 53:11).
Those will be the days of Heaven on earth when the time of the singing (Song of Solomon 2:12) will have come, and all redeemed creation will rejoice beneath Immanuels rule. Our translators have put in two little words in that verse which do not belong there. They have made it say, The time of the singing of birds is come. Oh, how they have weakened it! It should simply read, The time of the singing is come-the time when the heavenly saints will be sounding His praises from the glory, and when Israel, blessed on the earth, will rejoice in His lovingkindness. In that day of the gladness of His heart all creation will fall at His feet to worship, and He will joy over them with singing. Then He will show who is that happy and only Potentate. The phrase, the blessed [happy] Potentate excludes all sorrow and disappointment. That only Potentate excludes every other ruler. Many crowns will be on His head. Every other crown will be cast at His feet, and He will reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. That will be a happy day for those who have humbled themselves and who, like Nebuchadnezzar, have acknowledged the righteousness of His dealings with them. Those who have confessed their sins before Him will exclaim with joy when He descends in majesty, This is our God; we have waited for him (Isa 25:9). Of such He will cry with rejoicing, Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice (Psa 50:5).
Before that day dawns, it is the path of wisdom to kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little (Psa 2:12). Have you kissed the Son? Have you bowed in contrition at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ, trusted Him as your own Savior, and owned Him as your rightful Lord? If you have, you can look up and say with happy confidence, Come, Lord Jesus (Rev 22:20). But whether you have or not, the Lord Jesus is coming-coming very soon, and unhappy indeed will be your state for all eternity if He find you in your sins, a stranger to God and to grace. Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee (Job 36:18). That ransom is available now to all who believe in Him. In the day of Christs return His precious blood will not be offered for salvation to those who have despised the Spirit of grace and refused to heed the gospel message.
O, do not let the word depart,
And close thine eyes against the light;
Poor sinner, harden not thy heart;
Thou wouldst be saved-why not to-night?
The world has nothing new to give,
It has no true, no pure delight;
Look now to Jesus Christ, and live;
Thou wouldst be saved-why not to-night?
Our blessed Lord refuses none
Who would to Him their souls unite;
Believe, obey, the work is done;
Thou wouldst be saved-why not to-night?
Elizabeth Reed
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Dan 4:26
To say that “the heavens do rule” is the same as saying that Almighty God, as Eternal Love, reigns through all and over all. God and His obedient heavens make one sphere of power and overrule. God creates and governs, teaches and redeems, through the humanity of the heavens.
I. God’s purposes are infinitely good, right, beautiful, and sure; and yet an open field is given for the display of creaturely will and opposition. All the frightful consequences of His children’s freedom, all their vices, unrighteousness, cruelties, and miseries, are before His eyes, within His lap, and under His larger overrule. He allows His children to assert their freedom by originating self-willed motions and evils, but they and their evils are compassed about on all sides by the Eternal Spirit.
II. But in the meantime the Almighty and All-bearing Father has a most real cross, arising from the action of myriads of creaturely wills in opposition to the perfect goodness of His own overruling will. The cross of God comprehends all the inclinations, desires, efforts, and works in the universe which are contrary to His fatherly love and purpose. His love willingly bears the cross, for He knows that by Himself bearing all evil He will at length be able to subdue all evil to Himself.
III. The whole mystery of evil and all its cross-working purposes being completely under the overrule of Infinite God and the heavens, there is no ground for despair, and no such thing as the finality of evil. Round about Love’s throne shines the rainbow of promise, that all evil will be overcome by God. Evil will come to its limit, exhaust its energies, and expire in the bosom of Infinite Love.
IV. Under the reign of eternal law as it is in God and in His heavens, right humanity, with its right reason, its progress and happiness without end, are to come out of the lawlessness of self-will.
J. Pulsford, Our Deathless Hope, p. 191.
References: Dan 4:28-37.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. x., p. 220. Dan 4:29, Dan 4:30.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 247. Dan 4:31.-Ibid., p. 246. Dan 4:33.-G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 118. Dan 4:34, Dan 4:35.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi., No. 949. Dan 4:37.-C. J. Vaughan, Expository Sermons and Outlines on the Old Testament, p. 288; Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. viii., p. 209; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, Part II., 262.
Daniel 4
I. In this chapter we have a solemn and instructive warning against pride and vain-glory.
II. A sad illustration of the proverb that pride goeth before a fall.
III. A beautiful illustration of fidelity in the proclamation of God’s truth.
IV. A loud call to thank God for the continuance of our reason.
V. A reminder that the Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 77.
References: 4-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 171; J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 105. Dan 5:1.-G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 132. Dan 5:1-4.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvii., p. 163.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 4 The Tree Vision of Nebuchadnezzar
1. The kings proclamation (Dan 4:1-3)
2. The king relates the tree vision (Dan 4:4-18)
3. Daniel interprets the vision (Dan 4:19-27)
4. The tree vision fulfilled, the kings abasement and his restoration, (Dan 4:28-37)
Dan 4:1-3. This chapter is in form, at least in part, of a proclamation. This proclamation must have been written after the king had passed through the experience recorded in this chapter.
Dan 4:4-18. Read carefully the vision the king had and compare with Eze 31:3 and Mat 13:1-58, the parable of the mustard seed. In each case the great big tree is the symbol of pride and self-exaltation.
Dan 4:19-27. The prophets interpretation of this dream needs no further comment. A careful reading will make it clear in its meaning.
Dan 4:28-37. Twelve months later he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. Then with a haughty mien he utters the fatal words: Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power and for the honor of my majesty. Notice the personal pronoun. But while he yet uttered these words a heavenly voice was heard which announced that the kingdom is departed from him. What Daniel had said in his interpretation is repeated from heaven. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar and he was driven from men and did eat grass as the oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles feathers, and his nails like birds claws. And after the seven times had passed over him his understanding returned unto him and he blessed the Most High.
The great characteristic here is pride and self exaltation. As judgment came upon the great monarch in the beginning of the times of the Gentiles, so judgment will yet fall upon this proud and self exalting age of the Gentiles. That great big, political and religious tree will some day be hewn down and be destroyed.
And Nebuchadnezzars great humiliation in becoming a beast for seven times (seven years), points us to the end of this Gentile age once more. (The attempt to ascertain from this seven times the length of the times of the Gentiles as some do lacks the support of Scripture. The seven times mean seven years.) Apostasy from God will be the great characteristic of that end. There will be no more looking up to God, but the attitude of the beast will be the attitude of the nations. We see much of this already. They mind earthly things and become the earth dwellers so frequently mentioned in the book of Revelation. Madness and bestiality will seize upon the Gentiles, after the One who hinders, the Holy Spirit is removed. Then proud and apostate Christendom will believe the lie and follow the beast with its lying wonders. This will last seven times, that is, seven years.
The stump of the great tree which remains in the field suggests the fact that the judgments which fall upon the nations in the time of the end will not completely destroy all nations. Many of them will be swept away. For those who wilfully rejected the gospel and turned away from the truth, there is no hope. But there are others which will be left and when these judgments are in the earth, the nations learn righteousness.
The millennium is also seen in this chapter in the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar and in the praise He gives to the Most High. In the previous chapter the three friends of Daniel speak of our God, but in this chapter we hear of the Most High. It is the millennial name of God. We see then in the fourth chapter the pride and self exaltation of the Gentiles, and how the Gentiles will be humiliated and judged. First there is self exaltation, that is followed by judgment, and then follows restoration and the acknowledgement of the Most High.
That nothing more is now reported of Nebuchadnezzar, that the last which we hear of him in Scripture is his acknowledgment of the Most High, is also not without meaning. It foreshadows the universal acknowledgment of God in the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up, when the stone fills as the mountain the whole earth.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
dwell
Nebuchadnezzar, first of the Gentile world-kings in whom the times of the Gentiles Luk 21:24; Rev 16:14 began, perfectly comprehended the universality of the sway committed to him Dan 2:37; Dan 2:38 as also did Cyrus Ezr 1:2. That they did not actually subject the known earth to their sway is true, but they might have done so. The earth lay in their power.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Nebuchadnezzar: This is a regular decree, and one of the most ancient extant; and no doubt contains the exact words of Nebuchadnezzar, copied out by Daniel from the state papers of Babylon, and preserved in the original language.
unto all: Dan 3:4, Dan 3:29, Dan 7:14, Est 3:12, Est 8:9, Zec 8:23, Act 2:6
Peace: Dan 6:25, Dan 6:27, 1Ch 12:18, Ezr 4:17, Ezr 5:7, Rom 1:7, Eph 1:2, 1Ti 1:2, 1Pe 1:2
Reciprocal: Gen 28:12 – he dreamed 2Ki 25:1 – Nebuchadnezzar 1Ch 16:24 – General 2Ch 30:5 – to make proclamation Est 1:22 – into every province Est 8:10 – in the king Psa 76:1 – his Psa 96:3 – General Psa 105:1 – make known Psa 119:46 – speak Psa 145:5 – will speak Isa 33:13 – Hear Isa 64:2 – to make Jer 34:1 – all the kingdoms Jer 51:44 – the nations Mar 5:19 – Go home Luk 8:39 – and published Joh 14:27 – not 2Co 1:2 – General 2Pe 1:2 – Grace 3Jo 1:14 – Peace Rev 5:9 – out Rev 7:9 – of all Rev 14:6 – every
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THIS WE FIND as we read on into chapter 4, where a remarkable change in the narration takes place. We are permitted to read what, at a later date, Nebuchadnezzar himself caused to be written and published to all the many nations and languages that were beneath his sway. In it he made known the dealings of God – whom he now called ‘the Most High God’ (New Trans.) – with himself personally. It was a story of his own complete discomfiture and humiliation at the hands of God; and therefore the very fact, that he should publish the story abroad, indicated a great and fundamental change in his own mind and attitude.
The preface to his story, and especially verse Dan 4:3, is very striking. He mentions first ‘His signs’ and ‘His wonders.’ We live in an age that is characterized by faith. The Apostle Paul could write of a time, ‘before faith came,’ and again of a time, ‘after that faith is come’ (Gal 3:23, Gal 3:25). Signs that appealed to sight had a special place before the epoch of faith began. But it is also a fact that, when God inaugurated a fresh dispensation, He authenticated what is new by signs of a miraculous nature. It was so when He brought Israel out of Egypt; and the law epoch began at Sinai. It was so in supreme fashion when He manifested Himself in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ; and again when the church age began, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles. So it was, as we see here, when the times of the Gentiles began.
The particular sign and wonder that Nebuchadnezzar is now about to relate is, as we see, very humbling to himself. In one hour his mighty kingdom departed from him, though presently restored. In contrast to this, he confessed God’s kingdom to be everlasting. Though he may not have in any full measure realized it, two or three generations would see his dominion, typified by gold, fall before another dominion, typified by silver. God’s kingdom, he acknowledged, abides through all generations. This he confessed before he narrated the experience that made him realize it. God had to act toward him in judgment.
Before acting, God issued a warning. This is ever His way. There was warning through Noah before the flood. There was warning for Pharaoh before the judgments on Egypt. There was warning for Jerusalem through Jeremiah before the city fell to the Babylonians. There is warning today as to the judgments that will fall when the church age is closed. So it was here with this powerful individual. God warned him by means of a dream. His first dream might well have lifted him up, for he was the head of gold. His second dream warned him of a complete casting down.
The warning came just when the king seemed to have reached the very climax of his prosperity. His many warlike expeditions were over; his great conquests completed. He was at last at rest and flourishing in the palace of his magnificent city. As we all know, dreams are strange and unaccountable things. As sleep fades, and the mind begins to resume its activities, unusual things may flit across its awakening consciousness. It is not surprising therefore that God has been pleased to make known His thoughts and purposes to men by means of a dream, especially in times of urgency and importance. It is remarkable, for instance, that in the first two chapters of Matthew’s Gospel (Mat 1:1-25; Mat 2:1-23), we get God speaking in a dream no less than five times.
As the result of his second dream Nebuchadnezzar was again troubled and afraid. He was conscious that it proceeded from the unseen world, and had in it a message for him; yet God’s previous dealings with him had left no permanent impression, for in his trouble he again thought first of the magicians of various kinds and the Chaldeans, and when they failed, Daniel was brought in as a last resort.
We notice, however, that though Daniel was consulted, the king addressed him under the heathen name that had been given him. In both verses Dan 4:8-9 we find, ‘Belteshazzar,’ which he states was ‘according to the name of my god,’ for Bel was one of the great gods of Babylon. Moreover, in keeping with the heathen name that he used, he only recognized that in Daniel was, ‘the spirit of the holy gods.’ The true God – ‘the God of Heaven,’ – who had given to him his great dominion, was as yet unknown to him.
This we have, be it remembered, by his own confession, before he proceeded to relate the dream, which made him afraid, warning him of the blow that was impending from the hand of God.
In verses Dan 4:10-17, we have Nebuchadnezzar’s own account of the dream that made him afraid. We have only to read these verses to see that there was in it a strongly marked element of the supernatural. Not only was there a visitation from ‘a Watcher and an Holy One,’ but also a decree, endorsed by ‘the Most High,’ who ‘ruleth in the kingdom of men.’ The king could only turn to Daniel, addressing him as Belteshazzar, ‘according to the name of my god.’ The Babylonian gods are mentioned satirically in Isa 46:1, ‘Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth.’ So, though he hoped for enlightenment from a man, ‘in whom is the spirit of the holy gods,’ we are not surprised that before the Most High he was afraid.
In verse Dan 4:19 we see that Daniel himself, to whom the meaning of the dream was at once revealed, was also afraid and troubled, for he realized it warned the king of impending chastisement from the hand of God – a stroke of the severest kind.
Let us briefly review what had preceded this dream. The times of the Gentiles began when Nebuchadnezzar reached the zenith of human splendour, wielding autocratic power in unparalleled fashion. By an earlier dream he had been warned that though he was the head of gold in the great image, deterioration would set in, and at the end the dominion, vested temporarily in him, would be crushed to powder under the judgment of God.
How little this affected him we see in the next chapter. The dearest passion in the heart of fallen man is that of self-exaltation. So the great king has made the gigantic image, which all are to worship, and woe betide him who does not! Again God intervened. He gave courage to three of His servants, who braved the king’s wrath and his furnace, though seven-times heated. In result, Nebuchadnezzar was defeated. God simply made a fool of him in the presence of vast crowds of his peoples. Had this any permanent effect upon him for good?
The chapter we are considering shows that it had not. He is still the same self-glorifying man. Consequently God will act in an even more drastic way. The first intervention was addressed to his intelligence – his understanding of the future. The second was a display of the Divine power, which publicly humiliated him. Still no permanent alteration, though for the moment he was deeply impressed. So now the kingdom of ‘gold’ will be left intact, while he alone is dealt with.
This second dream concerned a great tree. Elsewhere in Scripture great men and nations are likened to imposing trees – Eze 31:1-18, for instance – so the figure was not an unusual one. Daniel at once saw that the king himself was portrayed, and the judgment that was to fall on him. God will not strike him personally until warning has been given. This indeed is ever His kindly way. He did not send the flood on the world of the ungodly until ample warning had been given; nor captivity upon Israel until they had been fully warned by the prophets. Today we live in an age very near to judgment, as to which warning has long been given. Are we sufficiently aware of this? When the Gospel of grace is preached, is the note of warning sounded with sufficient clearness? We sadly fear that it is not, but rather avoided as an unpleasant theme.
The warning given today may be disregarded by most, even as it was by Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel courageously warned him and even counselled him to alter his ways, as we see in verse 27. But the warning given was not heeded, nor the counsel given followed. Even then, God waited twelve months before His judgment fell.
Walking amidst the splendours of Babylon, the king experienced a moment of supreme pride; Everything around him spoke of his ‘power,’ his ‘honour,’ his ‘majesty.’ The ruins of Babylon are remarkable even today, and men of understanding have reconstructed in picture form the marvels they must have contained. As we looked at the picture, we could only say that if it was at all accurate then none of our present cities could rival it. The king filled with pride, felt himself to be exalted above measure. Then the blow fell.
From a pinnacle of glory Nebuchadnezzar was now degraded to the level of a beast, indeed almost beneath that level; and in that miserable, bestial condition ‘seven times’ passed over him. It was no passing affliction but a protracted one, though it is not indicated here whether ‘times’ means years. Elsewhere apparently, it does.
An element of prophecy enters, we believe, into this story, for it is a remarkable fact that a ‘beast’ appears at the end of the record concerning Gentile dominion, when we come to Rev 13:1-18. The last man who will hold that supreme place, and who will be crushed by the appearing of the Lord Jesus in His glory, is described as a ‘beast.’ He will not be a demented one, as was Nebuchadnezzar, but he will be worse because dominated by Satan, never lifting up his eyes to heaven but always down to the earth. And further, if we are right in identifying him with ‘the prince that shall come’ of Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27, his career will cover the ‘week’ of years, mentioned in those verses – the equivalent of ‘seven times.’
There is a contrast, however, for the beast of the last days goes to his doom in ‘a lake of fire burning with brimstone,’ whereas Nebuchadnezzar at the end of his seven times was restored to sanity and to his kingdom. And further, this time something effectual does seem to have been wrought in his soul. Not only did he lift up his eyes to heaven with the understanding of a man but he blessed God, giving Him His title of ‘the Most High.’ Now the first time that this great name of God occurs is in Gen 14:1-24, where Melchizedek is called a priest of ‘the Most High God’ who is therefore, ‘Possessor of heaven and earth.’
Some understanding of this fact had now entered the heart of Nebuchadnezzar, as we see in verses Dan 4:34-35. This opened the king’s eyes to the fact of his own nothingness, for he confessed that, ‘all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;’ and if all, then himself among them. He recognized also the supreme power of God in enforcing His will in heaven and on earth. In the presence of the greatness and the power of God, he at last recognized his own nothingness and impotence.
At last Nebuchadnezzar had learned his lesson, and made public acknowledgment of the God of heaven, and therefore the discipline of very severe sort, through which he had been passed, was removed and he was restored to his kingdom in a chastened spirit. His public confession and praise of ‘the King of heaven.’ is recorded in the last verse of our chapter. To Him he ascribed ‘honour,’ ‘truth’ and ‘judgement,’ in all His dealings. Never had a man been more lifted up in pride than this king, and never had a proud man been more signally abased.
Let us not forget the abasing power of God. We often dwell upon the grace of Christ, as mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but let us not forget that not only is He able to sympathize, ‘able to succour,’ and ‘able to save,’ but also, ‘able to abase.’ He did it effectually with Nebuchadnezzar, and evidently for his spiritual good. He will presently do it far more drastically with the ‘beast’ of Rev 13:1-18, as we see when Rev 19:1-21 is reached. The pride of man, generated by his scientific advances and consequent wonderful achievements, is increasing. It will reach its climax ere long. Then Nebuchadnezzar’s confession will be demonstrated as true in overwhelming fashion – ‘those that walk in pride He is able to abase.’
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Nebuchadnezzar’s Proclamation
Dan 4:1-28
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
1. Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom. As we open our study we find King Nebuchadnezzar relating the story of God’s dealings with himself: “Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth.” After God had shown the king the utter folly of his golden image and his effort for a world kingdom, with a world religion centering in himself; after Nebuchadnezzar had been shown the glory of God, by the deliverance of the three Hebrew children from the fiery furnace; Nebuchadnezzar still walked in pride. Then the things related in the chapters of this study occurred, and after they had come to pass, Nebuchadnezzar sent forth this world notification of how God dealt with him.
2. Nebuchadnezzar’s salutation. Here it is: “Peace be multiplied unto you.” In his hour of humiliation, his heart went out to his people, and in the hour of his restoration he wrote, “Peace be multiplied unto you.”
3. Nebuchadnezzar’s tribute to God.
(1) “How great are His signs!” Nebuchadnezzar wrote, saying, “I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the High God hath wrought toward me.” Then he gave this tribute: “How great are His signs.” Somehow we wonder if this king was not almost persuaded to follow the Lord fully. It seemed that he was.
(2) “How mighty are His wonders.” “How great are His signs! and how mighty are His wonders!” Yes, the king was ready to ascribe honor and glory unto God. The three Hebrew children had forced the king to acknowledge God’s greatness and power. Had the king only lived in the center of that wonderful confession relative to God, God had never brought him to sorrow.
Now, however, God was again merciful to him, and had restored his kingdom unto him, and once again he is ascribing honor and glory unto God.
(3) “His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.” This was the message of Dan 2:1-49, where God said to Nebuchadnezzar, “In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a Kingdom, which shall never be destroyed.” This also was God’s promise to David, that upon his throne the Lord would sit, to establish His Kingdom forever.
Earth’s thrones will all topple and fall, but the throne of God, which is to be given unto the Son, shall never fall. It is true that Christ will, after the thousand years, turn over the Kingdom to the Father, that God may be All in all. However, the Kingdom of Christ but merges into the Kingdom of the Father; and it shall never be destroyed.
(4) “His dominion is from generation to generation.” Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged that God was All in all. We are reminded of Isaiah, who, when he saw the throne of Uzziah toppling and falling, saw also the Lord seated upon His throne. Isaiah knew what Nebuchadnezzar had learned-that God’s throne is from generation to generation.
The thousand years upon the earth will be a wonderful period of blessing. In that day the Word of the Lord will go forth from Jerusalem, for He will reign in Zion. He will judge the poor with righteousness, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.
In that day the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the cow and the bear shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The earth will be full of the glory of the Lord.
I. PEACE ‘MID A COMING STORM (Dan 4:4-5)
1. Saying peace when there is no peace. Here are the words of the king. “I * * was at rest in mine house.” Nebuchadnezzar was resting in his own pride and glory. He was resting in a false security. The Lord had shown him, through Daniel, and through the three Hebrew children, God’s power and Godhead, but Nebuchadnezzar had foolishly trusted in his own strength and forgotten the God who had spoken to his heart. We are reminded of the Scripture: “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed.”
2. Flourishing with destruction lowering near. Here again are the words of the king: I was “flourishing in my palace.”
He was flourishing just the same as his successor, flourished. Belshazzar gave a feast to a thousand of his lords and drank wine before the thousand, as he drank, he praised the gods of gold, of silver, of iron, of wood, and of stone. In the same hour (the hour when he flourished and when he feasted), the Lord God wrote over against the wall, the memorable “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.”
Nebuchadnezzar flourished. He looked out over the city of Babylon and in his self-trust and self-pride he said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” It was in that moment, while he flourished, that he was cut down.
Is this not often the case? The rich man said: “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” That night he was cut down. The Lord said unto him, “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?”
So also shall the antichrist be cut down when he, in the Temple, ascribes himself as God.
II. SEEKING HELP IN THE WRONG PLACE (Dan 4:6-7)
1. He brought in the magicians and astrologers. The king, in his letter to all the world, was recounting a dream which made him afraid. He says that this dream came upon him while he was resting on his bed, and the visions of his head troubled him. He knew that he had gone too far in his self-centered life. Therefore his dream startled him.
At once he made a decree, and brought all the wise men of Babylon before him, and demanded that they should make known unto him the interpretation of his dream.
One would have thought that Nebuchadnezzar by this time would have known the futility of going to men in an hour like that. Had he himself not called in all the Babylonian soothsayers, magicians, and astrologers when he had dreamed a dream and had forgotten it?
Did he not know that they could not tell him anything? Had he failed to remember his former anger and fury, as he commanded that all of them should be killed? Why, then, should he call in the wise men?
2. The magicians and astrologers failed him again. Here is the way it reads: “They did not make known unto me the interpretation.” When will men cease from men? When will they turn away from the arm of flesh?
It is the same story today that it was then. We go to one another for advice and for help in the time of emergency, but we go not to God. Have we not learned that other men are just as weak as we? They may know much about some things and yet know nothing as they ought to know. There is a verse which says: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
III. CAST UPON DANIEL AND DANIEL’S GOD (Dan 4:8-9)
1. Daniel was called only after the others failed. There are very few men who like to be brought in as a second choice. We wonder how God feels about it. A businessman met his friend on the street, and said something like this: “George, my business is about to go to the wall. I have tried everything I know. I guess I’ll have to take it to God.” His friend replied, “Has it come to this?”
For our part we feel that if it had come to that, in the first place, he never would have been in such a fix. “That in all things (God) might have the preeminence.”
2. Daniel was recognized as led of God. When Nebuchadnezzar turned away from the wise men, he sent for Daniel, and he said unto him, “O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream, that I have seen.”
Even now that Nebuchadnezzar was forced to call Daniel, he would not ascribe glory to Daniel’s God, but he said, “the spirit of the holy gods.” When Nebuchadnezzar had sent forth his edict after the three Hebrew children had been saved from the burning fiery furnace, he spoke of God as the Most High God. He knew that the God of Daniel, was not like unto the gods of the nations.
3. An SOS call to Daniel for help. Is it when everything fails, and there is no other hope or help, that we sound our SOS call to God? Why should we wait until the hour of extremity has arisen? Daniel knew how to pray to God three times every day. Nebuchadnezzar knew how to cry to God only in the hour when hope failed him, and disaster seemed about to fall upon him.
How about those who read these words?
If we fail to pray regularly, we have no power in which to pray in the time of stress.
IV. A LIFE WORLD-CENTERED (Dan 4:10-13)
1. A tree in the midst of the earth-world-centered. Nebuchadnezzar said: “I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.” The earth stands for the things which are beneath, and not above. The great tree rooted in the earth prefigured a great life centered in the things under the sun. This tree was none other than Nebuchadnezzar himself. It seemed to say to him, You are great and mighty and all that, but you are of the earth earthy.
2. A tree in the earth-world-known and glorified. The tree was great in height. It grew and was strong. It reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of the earth.
Thus far Nebuchadnezzar might have been well pleased with his dream. He needed no astrologer or wise man to tell him that he was the mighty tree that reached to the heavens, and that he was known in his glory and might unto the ends of the earth. In all this he would feast his soul. It was in his greatness that he rejoiced.
3. A tree-earth blessing-filled with fruit. The vision continues: The leaves of the tree were fair. The fruit there-of was much. In it there was meat for all. Even the beasts of the field enjoyed its shadows, and the fowls of the heavens roosted in its branches.
Everything thus far in the dream appealed to Nebuchadnezzar’s pride. God Himself was granting to Nebuchadnezzar everything that was his due. He knew that the king was beneficent, and that all men were enjoying his rule because he provided them with meat for all. Even the beasts seemed to enjoy the shadow of his kingdom. All flesh fed upon him.
V. THE CRY OF THE WATCHER AND AN HOLY ONE (Dan 4:14-16)
1. Earth’s crumbling thrones. Here is the part of the dream that troubled the king. In the visions of his head he saw “And, behold, a Watcher and an Holy One came down from Heaven; He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches.”
This dream seems simple enough. If Nebuchadnezzar had boasted, however, that he was the tree that flourished, he must also admit that he was the tree that was about to be hewn down. There is no need to marvel that his thoughts troubled him. Let us stop awhile and consider.
If we build for the things of earth, and glory in the things of men, we, too, will be cut down. Can we not hear the voice of the crier even now, saying, “Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?”
2. A new order on the old stump. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream did not stop with the hewing down of the tree. In his dream he saw that the stump of the tree was left, and that its roots remained in the earth. He even saw that a band of iron and brass had girdled it. He beheld that the tree was wet with the dew of heaven, and that its portion became with the beasts in the grass of the earth.
The Crier then said: “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.”
No wonder that Nebuchadnezzar sent for the wise men. If the wise men detected its meaning, they would not at least endanger their lives by revealing unto the king what it evidently meant.
God Himself was speaking to King Nebuchadnezzar. He was giving him one more opportunity to repent, and one more opportunity to follow the Most High. This refused, there was nothing for the king except dethronement and worse than that.
The Psalmist saw the wicked flourish, and then he cried: “But suddenly he was cut down.”
VI. THE PROUD BROUGHT LOW (Dan 4:17-25)
1. The supremacy of God-The Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men.
The last part of the dream was “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 basest of men.”
Did God mean to call the greatest of kings, the one whom He described as the head of gold, the basest of men? Even so. He was base because he had sinned against light, and had refused to recognize, as he should, God’s greatness.
2. Daniel astonished one hour. Daniel, as he heard the dream, knew full well the meaning of it all. We have no doubt that he had lived in anticipation of something similar to this. The die was cast. The hour had come that God had said: “It shall be no more.” Thus, for one hour, amazed and astonished, Daniel hesitated to speak. Then the king said unto Daniel, “Let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee.” Thus Daniel answered and said: “My Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies.”
3. The dream interpreted, pride brought low (Dan 4:25-26).
(1) Daniel told the king that he was the tree that had grown strong: “For thy greatness is. grown, and reacheth unto Heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.”
(2) Daniel told the king that the decree of the Watcher meant-that he should be cut down. Then he said: “They shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.”
(3) Daniel told the king that whereas the stump of the tree was left, his kingdom should be sure unto him after he had learned that the Heavens do rule.
VII. THE PLEA TO REPENT (Dan 4:27)
1. Break off thy sins by righteousness. When Daniel had finished telling the meaning of the dream, he uttered a plea from his heart, saying, “O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness.”
God is still calling to sinners to repent. He is still asking them to forsake every evil way, and every evil thought, under the promise that He will have mercy upon them, and that He will abundantly pardon.
He also said to the king, “Break off * * thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be the lengthening of thy tranquillity.”
2. The dream’s fulfillment. Nebuchadnezzar now concludes his edict which he is sending throughout the Babylonian empire. Remember as you read that the 4th chapter of Daniel is a proclamation which Nebuchadnezzar made and sent out after the fulfillment of his dream. It was written when the seven years of his sorrow had passed by; after he had been driven from men; after his body was wet with the dew of heaven; after he had eaten grass as oxen; after his mind had been restored, and he, was reestablished in his kingdom; after he had learned that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men.
Then it was that King Nebuchadnezzar sent out his letter praising God, and saying, “All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.” God had cut him down, but God had also restored him; and now the king, at the end of the day, with the seven years of darkness behind him, lifted up his eyes unto Heaven and blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him that liveth forever and ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion.
Then it was that the king said: “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing.”
Then it was that Nebuchadnezzar concluded his worldwide confession:
“Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of Heaven, all whose works are truth, and His ways judgment: and those that walk in pride He is able to abase.”
AN ILLUSTRATION
Saints should forget their persecutions and trials. The unsaved should remember their warnings. The three Hebrew children could well forget their “fiery trials”; Nebuchadnezzar should have remembered Daniel’s warnings.
It is said that Percy Crosby, the cartoonist, has in his yard a small house called a “Forgettory.” That is good spiritual architecture. Much of our misery comes from remembering the wrong things: stinging words whipped out by careless friends; honeyed praises making us arrogant; a glamorous past which cannot be recovered. Let us go into the “Forgettory” and there prayerfully submit to God the mistakes of yesterday; let our forgiveness heal the old wounds of stinging words; let the confession of sins humble unearned praises; and be sure that the past has held no good thing which cannot be ours in God’s tomorrow.-E. W. Z.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Dan 4:1. Chronologically, the first 3 verses of this chapter should he the last 3, yet it was proper to place them where they are as an explanation of why the king is going to tell his story. The message is addressed to all the people of the earth, and is accompanied with his best wishes for their peace.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 4:1-3. Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, &c. He addresses the proclamation, not only to his own subjects, but to all to whom the writing should come. Peace be multiplied unto you May all things prosperous happen unto you. The Chaldee is, Your peace be multiplied: a usual form of addressing the subjects of this vast empire. I thought it good to show the signs, &c., that the high God hath wrought toward me Namely, by signifying to him future things of so extraordinary a kind, as could not naturally have been supposed to happen; and in bringing to pass some of them upon himself in a most wonderful manner. How great are his signs, &c. The kings repeated experience had extorted from him the sublime confession contained in this verse; the latter part of which is a fine display of the infinite power and dominion of the true God. Wintle.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The three first verses of this chapter in Theodotian and the Vulgate, are appended to the third chapter; but seem to stand better as in the English, being the introduction to the dream.
Dan 4:5. The visions of my head troubled me. The king believed that his dream was portentous of future events.
Dan 4:7. The magicians, as in Dan 2:2.
Dan 4:10. I sawa tree. See the dream of Cambyses, in the note on Isa 4:2.
Dan 4:13. A watcher and a holy one came down from heaven. The high and holy Angel, who had, at the head of the heavenly hosts, a celestial charge of the Chaldaic empire. He is called the holy one, indicating that God does not allow Satan to rule the world.
Dan 4:14. Hew down the tree. This shows that the fall of the Chaldaic empire, as well as the fall of Zedekiahs kingdom, had its sentence first pronounced in heaven. Eze 17:22. This Angel led the Persian armies against Babylon to destroy her empire.
Dan 4:25. Seven times shall pass over thee. Seven years of melancholy, the punishment for his boundless pride, in aspiring at divine honours: Dan 4:30-31. This fever lurking in the blood, has a strange effect in exciting the passions of pride, fury, or despair.
Dan 4:27. Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. By the exercise of all those virtues which are the reverse of his former conduct; for what is repentance worth without its fruits. Who but Daniel durst have said these words to king Nebuchadnezzar?
REFLECTIONS.
How soon may the minds of the greatest men be terrified: Dan 4:4. Nebuchadnezzar had made many successful campaigns, obtained great glory, made his bed easy, and was well guarded; yet he was terrified. Of what little value are riches and honour, when they cannot secure peace of mind, nor relieve it when God is a terror to it. It is our duty to inform others of Gods dealings with us, as far as may be for his glory and their good. All countries no doubt heard of Nebuchadnezzars distraction; but he lets them know that the hand of God was in it, and bears testimony to his power and righteousness. Thus should we embrace every opportunity of glorifying God, and celebrating his excellencies; and not be ashamed to mention even those dispensations which are most afflictive and mortifying to us.
Daniels excellent counsel to Nebuchadnezzar, should be attended to by all those who have been unjust or uncharitable, viz. to break off their sins, to cease to do evil, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; to be as forward to show mercy as they have been to oppress or bear hard upon others. This may remove temporal judgments, at least prevent or defer them; but it is absolutely necessary in order to secure everlasting tranquility.
What a dreadful case is it to be deprived of reason! The most afflictive of all temporal judgments. The poorest beggar in his kingdom was more honourable and happy than this insane king. How thankful should we be for the continuance of our reason, and how careful never to injure it by intemperance, by violent passions, by anxious cares about the world, or by suffering our faculties to rust. Let us tenderly pity those who are deprived of reason, never censure them, or make a jest of them, but contribute all in our power for their relief.
Observe how easily God can humble the proudest of men. This is one of the finest, most mortifying, and instructive lessons to human vanity, that ever was exhibited; and a glorious lasting proof of Gods supremacy, almighty power, and hatred of pride. Let us attend to those instructions which Nebuchadnezzar hath given us, and remember that the heavens rule, and the Most High governs; that he will abase those that walk in pride, and that none can ever harden themselves against him and prosper.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Daniel 4. This chapter takes us again into the realm of Apocalyptic. Nebuchadnezzar dreams a fresh dream. This time he sees a gigantic tree, the top of which reached to heaven, full of leaves and fruit. Suddenly a holy one appears from heaven, and cries the command, Hew down the tree, strip off the branches, but leave the stump in the ground. That the dream refers to some individual is clear, for the holy one continues, Let his portion be with the beasts. Let his heart be changed from a mans, and let a beasts heart be given unto him. Daniel, who is summoned to interpret the vision, informs the king that the dream refers to himself. He is the tree which is soon to be cut down. For his pride madness will overtake him, and his portion will be with the beasts of the field for seven years.
There are two difficulties about this chapter, the one connected with the form, the other connected with the subject-matter. The form differs in the Heb. and the LXX. In the Heb. the story is told in the form of an edict issued by the king. Nebuchadnezzar the king unto all peoples. The LXX, on the other hand, omits Dan 4:1-3, which introduces the edict, and begins with Dan 4:4. Charles prefers the LXX (Cent. B, p. 37). There is a much greater difficulty with regard to the subject-matter. The kings madness takes the form of lycanthropy, i.e. the sufferer imagines himself to be an animal. We have considerable evidence that such a disease was known in ancient time (CB, p. 58), but there is not a shred of testimony to show that Nebuchadnezzar ever suffered in this way. If the affliction lasted for seven years, the silence of the Inscriptions is inexplicable. Probably the author is embodying a floating tradition. We know from Eusebius that Nebuchadnezzar is said to have imprecated the same fate upon Cyrus, whom he foresaw in a vision to be the destined overthrower of his empire. The words ascribed to him by Megas-thenes, from whom Eusebius quotes, are, Would that some whirlpool or flood might destroy him or else that he might be driven through the desert where wild beasts seek their food and birds fly hither and thither. Many scholars think that our author has transferred to Nebuchadnezzar the doom with which he threatened Cyrus, but the evidence is obscure. The motive of the chapter is obvious. If God struck down Nebuchadnezzar in the zenith of his power, he can bring a similar downfall upon Antiochus Epiphanes. It is a significant fact that Antiochus was sometimes called Epimanes (madman) instead of Epiphanes (illustrious).
Dan 4:1-4 and Dan 4:6 f. are omitted in the LXX.
Dan 4:8. according to the name of my God: this phrase assumes that the word Belteshazzar is derived from Bel, a Babylonian deity, but the more correct interpretation of the term regards the first three letters as part of the word balatsu, my life. The writer, therefore, makes the king a victim of a false etymology.spirit of the holy gods: the king here speaks as a polytheist, though elsewhere in the chapter (Dan 4:3; Dan 4:34 f.) he uses the language of monotheism.
Dan 4:10. a tree in the midst: cf. the vision of the cedar of Lebanon to which the glory of Assyria is likened (Eze 31:3-14).
Dan 4:13. a watcher: this term is used to denote a class of angels who were always on the watch to carry out the commands of God. The term frequently occurs in the Apocryphal literature, especially in the Book of Enoch.a holy one: also a title for an angel. Both terms refer to the same individual.
Dan 4:15. let his portion: the metaphor is here changed, and the remaining words of the description apply to the person designated by the tree, i.e. the king, and not to the tree itself.
Dan 4:16. Seven times: seven years.
Dan 4:17. the demand: lit. the matter. Charles translates, the word of the holy ones is the matter in question.
Dan 4:22. For this description of Nebuchadnezzars power, cf. Dan 2:37 f.
Dan 4:26. they commanded: i.e. the watchers.the heavens: i.e. God (cf. Luk 15:18; Luk 15:21).
Dan 4:27. break off thy sins: lit. redeem thy sins.righteousness: almost equivalent to good works (cf. Mat 6:1). The idea suggested here, as often in the Apocrypha, is that sin may be atoned for by good works.a lengthening of thy tranquillity: or, a healing of thine error (mg.).
Dan 4:34. At the end of the days: after seven years.
Dan 4:35. army of heaven: hosts of heavenly beings.those that walk in pride: sums up the point and moral of the whole chapter.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE EXALTATION OF MAN
Daniel 4
We learn from Daniel 3 that, directly the power of government is committed to the Gentiles, it is used to set aside the rights of God. This solemn feature of man’s rule has marked each of the four great powers and will have its most extreme expression in the closing days of the last Empire.
From Daniel 4 we learn that the exaltation of man is another leading characteristic of the times of the Gentiles. The power and authority conferred by God is used by man for the exaltation of himself and the gratification of his own pride. Leaving God out of his thoughts, man becomes like a beast that has no understanding of the mind of God, and lives without reference to God.
These solemn truths are presented in the form of a letter addressed by Nebuchadnezzar to all peoples, nations and languages, relating his own experiences.
Already God had spoken to the king by visions and interventions of divine power, but, apparently, the king had not been brought into personal relations with God. After the interpretation of the vision of the great image, Nebuchadnezzar had put great honour upon Daniel, and acknowledged that Daniel’s God was the God of gods and a Lord of kings; but, however much impressed, he himself did not bow down to God. No personal link was formed between his soul and God. Again, in the matter of God’s intervention on behalf of His servants in the fiery furnace, it is evident that the king was greatly moved, and in consequence issued autocratic commands as to the attitude others were to take in relation to God. But, while the king acknowledged the power of “the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,” he did not recognise and submit to God as the One who alone is God.
At length, however, in His mercy God deals with the king in a personal way, leading him to turn to God and bless Him as the Most High, and acknowledge His authority in the affairs of
men. For the first time Nebuchadnezzar has personally to do with God. In result, he sends out this personal confession of his sin, and acknowledges the way in which he, himself, had been brought to submit to God.
(Vv. 1-3). The king’s letter is addressed to all that dwell in all the earth. He tells the people all that “God hath wrought toward” him, and, as he thinks of the wonders of God’s ways with him, he breaks forth into praise.
(V. 4). In recounting these ways of the Lord, he first describes the circumstances in which God commenced to deal with him. “I was at rest,” he says, “in mine house, and flourishing in my palace.” As a thorough man of the world, he found rest and prosperity in the enjoyment of his own things without any thought of God.
(V. 5). In the midst of the king’s prosperity, God spoke to him by a dream. Though he did not understand the full import of the dream, it was sufficiently plain to fill him with dire forebodings of coming evil.
(Vv. 6, 7). In his fear, the king again turns to his wise men, only to find that they cannot interpret the dream. The reason is simple. The dream was a message from God, and, being such, can only be interpreted by God. The natural man can understand the things of a man, but, “the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” God’s things are only spiritually discerned.
(V. 8) . “But at the last Daniel came in.” It might be thought that after the way Daniel had been used to interpret the king’s former dreams, he would be the first to whom the king would turn. Apparently, Daniel is the last resource of the king. But the man that is “last” in man’s estimate is first in God’s.
(Vv. 9-18). The king commences his interview with Daniel by assuring him that he is perfectly aware of the wisdom and power that is with Daniel, though ascribed by the king to false gods.
Then he tells Daniel the dream, giving first the vision of the tree (10-12); then the cutting down of the tree (13-16); and lastly the great object of the tree being cut down (17). He concludes his address to Daniel by owning that all the wise men or his kingdom are unable to give the interpretation; but, says the king, “Thou art able.”
(V. 19). Before hearing the interpretation of the dream we learn the effect it produced upon Daniel. He was a captive in a strange land under the yoke of a foreign king; but it was no pleasure to Daniel to know that judgment and disaster were coming upon the king. So, for one hour, he was silent and his thoughts troubled him. Reassured by the king, Daniel at length gives the interpretation of the dream.
(Vv. 20-22). The tree, which was so imposing in the sight of the earth and which provided shelter for all living creatures was a figure of the king himself.
(Vv. 23-26). The interpretation of the cutting down of the tree follows. The king is plainly told that the dream indicates that he is going to be driven from men to take his place with the beasts for a period of seven years, until the king acknowledges the rule of the Most High in the kingdoms of men. Nevertheless, though he will lose his kingly dignity and position, the kingdom will be retained. The stump of the tree roots will be left, though the tree will disappear for a time from the sight of men.
(V. 27). Finally, Daniel closes the interview with a bold appeal to the king to break off his sins by doing righteousness, and ceasing his oppression of the poor. This is indeed a bold witness for a Jewish captive to bear before the world’s greatest potentate. It surely signifies that during the times of these Gentile powers God will have a faithful witness for Himself on the earth. There will be a godly remnant marked by dependence upon God and wisdom before men, as we have seen in Daniel 2; by devotedness to God and power before men, as seen in Daniel 3; and by a faithful witness to God, as seen in this chapter.
(Vv. 28-30). There follows the account of the fulfilment of the dream. The threatened blow is held off for twelve months. Between the announcement of the judgment and its execution, space is given for repentance. Will the king avail himself of this mercy and humble himself before God? Alas! at the end of twelve months the king’s pride is as great as ever. Walking in his palace he says, “Is not this great Babylon that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” In all this proud talk there is no recognition of God. As the king looks over the great city of Babylon, he claims that he has built it for the establishment of the imperial line. He claims that all has been wrought by his power and for his glory.
(Vv. 31-33). This boastful pride of the king, in spite of solemn warnings, proves that the time is ripe for judgment. While the word is in the king’s mouth, the voice comes from heaven telling him that the predicted judgment is to be fulfilled. So we read that, “the same hour was the thing fulfilled.” Nebuchadnezzar is driven from men and becomes like a beast of the field.
It may be that this judgment took the form of madness; but, even so, we are permitted to see in the case of the king its direct connection with the hand of God. God had given to the king “a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory” (Dan 2:37). In spite of God’s gifts and the striking way in which God had borne witness to Himself, God had been forgotten. The king, at rest in his palace and at the height of his prosperity, ascribes all his power and glory to himself, and uses his high position for his own self-exaltation. Never was such great prosperity linked with such pride. Even so, God had given warning and space for repentance, but all in vain. Judgment must take its course, and the king becomes as a beast. As one has said, “He makes himself the centre instead of God. He becomes a beast and loses his reason entirely. A beast may be powerful, large, stronger than man, show much sagacity in his way, but its look is downward; there is no exercise of conscience, and, as a consequence, no real relationship to God.”
In all these incidents we have set forth the evil course of these Gentile powers. They will exalt themselves against God, ignore God, impute their prosperity to their own efforts, and thus become brutish, and finally bring down judgment upon themselves.
Seven times pass, and then God is confessed. Seven times signifies a complete period of time, and prophetically would cover the whole period of Gentile domination. We have a similar use of “seven” in connection with the addresses to the seven Churches in Revelation 2 and 3, where seven Churches are chosen to cover the complete period of the history of the professing Church on earth. During the period of Gentile power, the government of the world is carried on without reference to God and therefore without any understanding of His mind. At the end of this period, after judgment has done its work, God will be confessed by the nations.
(Vv. 34, 35). Looking at himself, his might and his glory had led the king to become like a beast that looks down; but at the end of days he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and at once his understanding returned. His reason being restored, he blesses and praises the Most High. Then he thinks of men and, in comparison with God, he owns that all the inhabitants of the earth – the greatest kings as well as the meanest subjects – are as nothing. The man that thought he was everything discovers that he is nothing – a wholesome lesson for us all to learn. Moreover, he owns the sovereignty of God; and that God is not only sovereign in the armies of heaven, but also among the inhabitants of the earth. None can stay His hand or question His ways.
Vv. 36, 37). Upon his submission to God, the king’s reason returns and he is once again established in his kingdom. So, in the days yet to come, after the judgment of the living nations the Gentiles will be established in blessing under the rule of Christ.
Nebuchadnezzar is brought personally to extol and honour the King of heaven. Before, he had owned that Daniel’s God was a God of gods and the Lord of kings: later, he had passed a decree that none should speak a word against God, but at last he himself turns to God, and praises Him. Now he says “Those that walk in pride He is able to abase.” He no longer talks about cutting people in pieces and making their houses a dunghill if they do not praise and bless the God of heaven. He will not intrude into God’s domain, for God Himself knows how to humble the proud. He no longer tells others what they are to do, but he acknowledges what he himself does. He says ‘Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and His ways judgment: and those that walk in pride He is able to abase.”
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the {o} earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
(o) Meaning, as far as his dominion extended.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
1. Nebuchadnezzar’s introductory doxology 4:1-3
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The fact that Nebuchadnezzar addressed what follows to everyone living on the earth, even though he did not rule over the entire earth, should not be a problem. This was the universal language that he customarily used (cf. Dan 3:29). He did, in fact, rule over a very large portion of the ancient world. Likewise the benediction, "May your peace abound," seems to be a typical salutation formula (cf. Dan 6:25).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE BABYLONIAN CEDAR, AND THE STRICKEN DESPOT
THRICE already, in these magnificent stories, had Nebuchadrezzar been taught to recognise the existence and to reverence the power of God. In this chapter he is represented as having been brought to a still more overwhelming conviction, and to an open acknowledgment of Gods supremacy, by the lightning-stroke of terrible calamity.
The chapter is dramatically thrown into the form of a decree which, alter his recovery and shortly before his death, the king is represented as having promulgated to “all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth.” But the literary form is so absolutely subordinated to the general purpose-which is to show that where Gods “judgments are in the earth the inhabitants of the earth will learn righteousness,” {Isa 26:9} -that the writer passes without any difficulty from the first to the third person. {Dan 4:20-30} He does not hesitate to represent Nebuchadrezzar as addressing all the subject nations in favour of the God of Israel, even placing in his imperial decree a cento of Scriptural phraseology.
Readers unbiassed by a priori assumptions, which are broken to pieces at every step, will ask, “Is it even historically conceivable that Nebuchadrezzar (to whom the later Jews commonly gave the title of Ha-Rashang, the wicked) could ever have issued such a decree?” They will further ask, “Is there any shadow of evidence to show that the kings degrading madness and recovery rest upon any real tradition?”
As to the monuments and inscriptions, they are entirely silent upon the subject; nor is there any trace of these events in any historic record. Those who, with the school of Hengstenberg and Pusey, think that the narrative receives support from the phrase of Berossus that Nebuchadrezzar “fell sick and departed this life when he had reigned forty-three years,” must be easily satisfied, since he says very nearly the same of Nabopolassar. Such writers too much assume that immemorial prejudices on the subject have so completely weakened the independent intelligence of their readers, that they may safely make assertions which, in matters of secular criticism, would be set aside as almost childishly nugatory.
It is different with the testimony of Abydenus, quoted by Eusebius. Abydenus, in his book on the Assyrians, quoted from Megasthenes the story that, after great conquests, “Nebuchadrezzar” (as the Chaldean story goes), “when he had ascended the roof of his palace, was inspired by some god or other, and cried aloud, I, Nebuchadrezzar, announce to you the future calamity which neither Bel, my ancestor, nor our queen Beltis, can persuade the Fates to avert. There shall come a Persian, a mule, who shall have your own gods as his allies, and he shall make you slaves. Moreover, he who shall help to bring this about shall he the son of a Median woman, the boast of the Assyrian. Would that before his countrymen perish some whirlpool or flood might seize him and destroy him utterly; or else would that he might betake himself to some other place, and might be driven to the desert, where is no city nor track of men, where wild beasts seek their food and birds fly hither and thither? Would that among rocks and mountain clefts he might wander alone? And as for me, may I, before he imagines this, meet with some happier end! When he had thus prophesied, he suddenly vanished.”
I have italicised the passages which, amid immense differences, bear a remote analogy to the story of this chapter. To quote the passage as any proof that the writer of Daniel is narrating literal history is an extraordinary misuse of it.
Megasthenes flourished B.C. 323, and wrote a book which contained many fabulous stories, three centuries after the events to which he alludes. Abydenus, author of “Assyriaca,” was a Greek historian of still later, and uncertain, date. The writer of Daniel may have met with their works, or, quite independently of them, he may have learned from the Babylonian Jews that there was some strange legend or other about the death of Nebuchadrezzar. The Jews in Babylonia were more numerous and more distinguished than those in Palestine, and kept up constant communication with them. So far from any historical accuracy about Babylon in a Palestinian Jew of the age of the Maccabees being strange, or furnishing any proof that he was a contemporary of Nebuchadrezzar, the only subject of astonishment would be that he should have fallen into so many mistakes and inaccuracies, were it not that the ancients in general, and the Jews particularly, paid little attention to such matters.
Aware, then, of some dim traditions that Nebuchadrezzar at the close of his life ascended his palace roof and there received some sort of inspiration, after which he mysteriously disappeared, the writer, giving free play to his imagination for didactic purposes, after the common fashion of his age and nation, worked up these slight elements into the stately and striking Midrash of this chapter. He too makes the king mount his palace roof and receive an inspiration: but in his pages the inspiration does not refer to the “mule” or half-breed, Cyrus, nor to Nabunaid, the son of a Median woman, nor to any imprecation pronounced upon them, but is an admonition to himself; and the imprecation which he denounced upon the future subverters of Babylon is dimly analogous to the fate which fell on his own head. Instead of making him “vanish” immediately afterwards, the writer makes him fall into a beast-madness for “seven times,” after which he suddenly recovers and publishes a decree that all mankind should honour the true God.
Ewald thinks that a verse has been lost at the beginning of the chapter, indicating the nature of the document which follows; but it seems more probable that the author began this, as he begins other chapters, with the sort of imposing overture of the first verse.
Like Assur-bani-pal and the ancient despots, Nebuchadrezzar addresses himself to “all people in the earth,” and after the salutation of peace. {Ezr 4:7; Ezr 7:12} says that he thought it right to tell them “the signs and wonders that the High God hath wrought towards me. How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation.”
He goes on to relate that, while he was at ease and secure in his palace, he saw a dream which affrighted him, and left a train of gloomy forebodings. As usual he summoned the whole train of “Khakhamim, Ashshaphim, Mekash-shaphim, Kasdim, Chartummim,” and “Gazerim,” to interpret his dream, and as usual they failed to do so. Then, lastly, Daniel, surnamed Belteshazzar, after Bel, Nebuchadrezzars god, and “chief of the magicians,” in whom was “the spirit of the holy gods,” is summoned. To him the king tells his dream.
The writer probably derives the images of the dream from the magnificent description of the King of Assyria as a spreading cedar in Eze 31:3-18 :-
“Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of a high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters nourished him, the deep made him to grow Therefore his stature was exalted above all the trees of the field; and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long by reason of many waters. All the fowls of the air made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him nor was any tree in the garden of God like him in his beauty Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Because thou art exalted in stature I will deliver him into the hand of the mighty one of the nations And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have left him. Upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches are broken and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left himI made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall.”
We may also compare this dream with that of Cambyses narrated by Herodotus: “He fancied that a vine grew from the womb of his daughter and overshadowed the whole of Asia The magian interpreter expounded the vision to foreshow that the offspring of his daughter would reign over Asia in his stead.”
So too Nebuchadrezzar in his dream had seen a tree in the midst of the earth, of stately height, which reached to heaven and overshadowed the world, with fair leaves and abundant fruit, giving large nourishment to all mankind, and shade to the beasts of the field and fowls of the heaven. The LXX adds with glowing exaggeration, “The sun and moon dwelled in it, and gave light to the whole earth. And, behold, a watcher (ir) and a holy one (qaddish) came down from heaven, and bade, Hew down, and lop, and strip the tree, and scatter his fruit, and scare away the beasts and birds from it, but leave the stump in the greening turf bound by a band of brass and iron, and let it be wet with heavens dews,”-and then, passing from the image to the thing signified, “and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Let his heart be changed from mans, and let a beasts heart be given unto him, and let seven times pass over him.” We are not told to whom the mandate is given-that is left magnificently vague. The object of this “sentence of the watchers, and utterance of the holy ones,” is that the living may know that the Most High is the Supreme King, and can, if He will, give rule even to the lowliest. Nebuchadrezzar, who tells us in his inscription that “he never forgave impiety,” has to learn that he is nothing, and that God is all, -that “He pulleth down the mighty from their seat, and exalteth the humble and meek.”
This dream Nehuchadrezzar bids Daniel to interpret, “because thou hast the spirit of a Holy God in thee.”
Before we proceed let us pause for a moment to notice the agents of the doom. It is one of the never-sleeping ones-an ir and a holy one-who flashes down from heaven with the mandate; and he is only the mouthpiece of the whole body of the watchers and holy ones.
Generally, no doubt, the phrase means an angelic denizen of heaven. The LXX translates watcher by “angel.” Theodotion, feeling that there is something technical in the word, which only occurs in this chapter, renders it by alp. This is the first appearance of the term in Jewish literature, but it becomes extremely common in later Jewish writings-as, for instance, in the Book of Enoch. The term “a holy one” {Comp. Zec 14:5 Psa 89:8} connotes the dedicated separation of the angels; for in the Old Testament holiness is used to express consecration and setting apart, rather than moral stainlessness. {See Job 15:15} The “seven watchers” are alluded to in the post-exilic Zechariah: {Zec 4:10} “They see with joy the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel, even those seven, the eyes of the Lord; they run to and fro through the whole earth.” In this verse Kohut and Kuenen read “watchers” (irim ) for “eyes” ( inim ), and we find these seven watchers in the Book of Enoch (chapter 20.). We see as a historic fact that the familiarity of the Jews with Persian angelology and demonology seems to have developed their views on the subject. It is only after the Exile that we find angels and demons playing a more prominent part than before, divided into classes, and even marked out by special names. The Apocrypha becomes more precise than the canonical books, and the later pseudepigraphic books, which advance still further, are left behind by the Talmud. Some have supposed a connection between the seven watchers and the Persian “amschashpands” The “shedim,” or evil spirits, are also seven in number, –
“Seven are they, seven are they! In the channel of the deep seven are they, In the radiance of heaven seven are they!”
It is true that in Enoch (90:91) the prophet sees “the first six white ones, and we find six also in” Eze 9:2. On the other hand, we find seven in Tobit: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.” The names are variously given; but perhaps the commonest are Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael, and Raguel. In the Babylonian mythology seven deities stood at the head of all Divine beings, and the seven planetary spirits watched the gates of Hades.
To Daniel, when he had heard the dream, it seemed so full of portentous omen that “he was astonished for one hour.” Seeing his agitation, the king bids him take courage and fearlessly interpret the dream. But it is an augury of fearful visitation; so he begins with a formula intended as it were to avert the threatened consequences. “My Lord,” he exclaimed, on recovering voice, “the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation to thine enemies.” The king would regard it as a sort of appeal to the averting deities (the Roman Di Averrunci), and as analogous to the current formula of his hymns, “From the noxious spirit may the King of heaven and the king of earth preserve thee!” He then proceeds to tell the king that the fair, stately, sheltering tree-“it is thou, O king”; arid the interpretation of the doom pronounced upon it that he should be driven from men, and should dwell with the beasts of the field, and be reduced to eat grass like the oxen, and be wet with the dew of heaven, “and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou shalt know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.” But as the stump of the tree was to be left in the fresh green grass, so the kingdom should be restored to him when he had learnt that the Heavens do rule.
The only feature of the dream which is left uninterpreted is the binding of the stump with bands of iron and brass. Most commentators follow Jerome in making it refer to the fetters with which maniacs are bound, {Mar 5:3} but there is no evidence that Nebuchadrezzar was so restrained, and the bands round the stump are for its protection from injury. This seems preferable to the view which explains them as “the stern and crushing sentence under which the king is to lie.” Josephus and the Jewish exegetes take the “seven times” to be “seven years”; but the phrase is vague, and the event is evidently represented as taking place at the close of the kings reign. Instead of using the awful name of Jehovah, the prophet uses the distant periphrases of “the Heavens.” It was a phrase which became common in later Jewish literature, and a Babylonian king would be familiar with it; for in the inscriptions we find Maruduk addressed as the “great Heavens,” the father of the gods.
Having faithfully interpreted the fearful warning of the dream, Daniel points out that the menaces of doom are sometimes conditional, and may be averted or delayed. “Wherefore,” he says, “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 so be there may be a healing of thy error.”
This pious exhortation of Daniel has been severely criticised from opposite directions.
The Jewish Rabbis, in the very spirit of bigotry and false religion, said that Daniel was subsequently thrown into the den of lions to punish him for the crime of tendering good advice to Nebuchadrezzar; and, moreover, the advice could not be of any real use; “for even if the nations of the world do righteousness and mercy to prolong their dominion, it is only sin to them.”
On the other hand, the Roman Catholics have made it their chief support for the doctrine of good works, which is so severely condemned in the twelfth of our Articles.
Probably no such theological questions remotely entered into the mind of the writer. Perhaps the words should be rendered “break off thy sins by righteousness,” rather than (as Theodotion renders them) “redeem thy sins by almsgiving.” It is, however, certain that among the Pharisees and the later Rabbis there was a grievous limitation of the sense of the word tzedakah, “righteousness,” to mean merely almsgiving. In Mat 6:1 it is well known that the reading “alms” has in the received text displaced the reading “righteousness”; and in the Talmud “righteousness”-like our shrunken misuse of the word “charity”-means almsgiving. The value of “alms” has often been extravagantly exalted. Thus we read: “Whoever shears his substance for the poor escapes the condemnation of hell” (“Nedarim,” f. 22, 1).
In “Baba Bathra,” f. 10, 1, and “Rosh Hashanah,” f. 16, 2, we have ” alms delivered from death,” as a gloss on the meaning of Pro 11:4.
We cannot tell that the writer shared these views. He probably meant no more than that cruelty and injustice were the chief vices of despots, and that the only way to avert a threatened calamity was by repenting of them. The necessity for compassion in the abstract was recognised even by the most brutal Assyrian kings.
We are next told the fulfilment of the dark dream. The interpretation had been meant to warn the king; but the warning was soon forgotten by one arrayed in such absolutism of imperial power. The intoxication of pride had become habitual in his heart, and twelve months sufficed to obliterate all solemn thoughts. The Septuagint adds that “he kept the words in his heart”; but the absence of any mention of rewards or honours paid to Daniel is perhaps a sign that he was rather offended that impressed.
A year later he was walking on the flat roof of the great palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The sight of that golden city in the zenith of its splendour may well have dazzled the soul of its founder. He tells us in an inscription that he regarded that city as the apple of his eye, and that the palace was its most glorious ornament. It was in the centre of the whole country; it covered a vast space, and was visible far and wide. It was built of brick and bitumen, enriched with cedar and iron, decorated with inscriptions and paintings. The tower “contained the treasures of my imperishable royalty; and silver, gold, metals, gems, nameless and priceless, and immense treasures of rare value,” had been lavished upon it. Begun “in a happy month, and on an auspicious day,” it had been finished in fifteen days by armies of slaves. This palace and its celebrated hanging gardens were one of the wonders of the world.
Beyond this superb edifice, where now the hyena prowls amid miles of debris and mounds of ruin, and where the bittern builds amid pools of water, lay the unequalled city Its walls were three hundred and eighty feet high and eighty-five feet thick, and each side of the quadrilateral they enclosed was fifteen miles in length. The mighty Euphrates flowed through the midst of the city, which is said to have covered a space of two hundred square miles; and on its farther bank, terrace above terrace, up to its central altar, rose the huge Temple of Bel, with all its dependent temples and palaces. The vast circuit of the walls enclosed no mere wilderness of houses, but there were interspaces of gardens, and palm-groves, and orchards, and corn-land, sufficient to maintain the whole population. Here and there rose the temples reared to Nebo, and Sin the moon-god, and Mylitta, and Nana, and Samas, and other deities; and there were aqueducts or conduits for water, and forts and palaces; and the walls were pierced with a hundred brazen gates. When Milton wanted to find some parallel to the city of Pandemonium in “Paradise Lost,” he could only say, –
“Not Babylon, Nor great Alcairo such magnificence Equalld in all their glories, to enshrine Belus or Serapis their gods, or seat Their kings, when Egypt with Assyria strove In wealth and luxury.”
Babylon, to use the phrase of Aristotle, included, not a city, but a nation.
Enchanted by the glorious spectacle of this house of his royalty and abode of his majesty, the despot exclaimed almost in the words of some of his own inscriptions, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my treasures and for the honour of my majesty?”
The Bible always represents to us that pride and arrogant self-confidence are an offence against God. The doom fell on Nebuchadrezzar “while the haughty boast was still in the kings mouth.” The suddenness of the Nemesis of pride is closely paralleled by the scene in the Acts of the Apostles in which Herod Agrippa I is represented as entering the theatre at Caesarea to receive the deputies of Tyre and Sidon. He was clad, says Josephus, in a robe of intertissued silver, and when the sun shone upon it he was surrounded with a blaze of splendour. Struck by the scene, the people, when he had ended his harangue to them, shouted, “It is the voice of a god, and not of a man!” Herod, too, in the story of Josephus, had received, just before, an ominous warning; but it came to him in vain. He accepted the blasphemous adulation, and immediately, smitten by the angel of God, he was eaten of worms, and in three days was dead.
And something like this we see again and again in what the late Bishop Thirlwall called the “irony of history”-the very cases in which men seem to have been elevated to the very summit of power only to heighten the dreadful precipice over which they immediately fall. He mentions the cases of Persia, which was on the verge of ruin, when with lordly arrogance she dictated the Peace of Antalcidas; of Boniface VIII, in the Jubilee of 1300, immediately preceding his deadly overthrow; of Spain, under Philip II, struck down by the ruin of the Armada at the zenith of her wealth and pride. He might have added the instances of Ahab, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, and Herod Antipas; of Alexander the Great, dying as the fool dieth, drunken and miserable, in the supreme hour of his conquests; of Napoleon, hurled into the dust, first by the retreat from Moscow, then by the overthrow at Waterloo.
“While the word was yet in the kings mouth, there fell a voice from heaven.” It was what the Talmudists alluded to so frequently as the “Bath Qol,” or “daughter of a voice,” which came sometimes for the consolation of suffering, sometimes for the admonition of overweening arrogance. It announced to him the fulfilment of the dream and its interpretation. As with one lightning-flash the glorious cedar was blasted, its leaves scattered, its fruits destroyed, its shelter reduced to burning and barrenness. Then somehow the mans heart was taken from him. He was driven forth to dwell among the beasts of the field, to eat grass like oxen. Taking himself for an animal in his degrading humiliation he lived in the open field. The dews of heaven fell upon him. His unkempt locks grew rough like eagles feathers, his uncut nails like claws. In this condition he remained till “seven times”-some vague and sacred cycle of days-passed over him.
His penalty was nothing absolutely abnormal. His illness is well known to science and national tradition as that form of hypochondriasis in which a man takes himself for a wolf (lycanthropy), or a dog (kynanthropy), or some other animal. Probably the fifth-century monks, who were known as “Boskoi,” from feeding on grass, may have been, in many cases, half maniacs who in time took themselves for oxen. Cornill, so far as I know, is the first to point out the curious circumstance that a notion as to the points of analogy between Nebuchadnezzar (thus spelt) and Antiochus Epiphanes may have been strengthened by the Jewish method of mystic commentary known in the Talmud as “Gematria,” and in Greek as “Isopsephism.” That such methods, in other forms, were known and practised in early times we find from the substitution of Sheshach for Babel in Jer 25:26; Jer 51:41, and of Tabeal (by some cryptogram) for Remaliah in Isa 7:6; and of lebh kamai (“them that dwell in the midst of them”) for Kasdim (Chaldeans) in Jer 51:1. These forms are only explicable by the interchange of letters known as Athbash, Albam, etc. Now Nebuchadnezzar = 423:-
n= 50;
b= 2;
w= 6;
k= 20;
d= 4;
n= 50;
a= 1;
x= 90;
r= 200 = 423.
And Antiochus Epiphanes: 423:
a=1;
n= 50;
f= 9;
y= 10;
w= 6;
k= 20;
w= 6;
s= 60
a= 1
p= 70;
y= 10;
p= 70;
n= 50;
s= 60.
Total = 423
The madness of Antiochus was recognised in the popular change of his name from Epiphanes to Epimanes. But there were obvious points of resemblance between these potentates. Both of them conquered Jerusalem. Both of them robbed the Temple of its holy vessels. Both of them were liable to madness. Both of them tried to dictate the religion of their subjects.
What happened to the kingdom of Babylon during the interim is a point with which the writer does not trouble himself. It formed no part of his story or of his moral. There is, however. no difficulty in supposing that the chief mages and courtiers may have continued to rule in the kings name-a course rendered all the more easy by the extreme seclusion in which most Eastern monarchs pass their lives, often unseen by their subjects from one years end to the other. Alike in ancient days as in modern-witness the cases of Charles VI of France, Christian VII of Denmark, George III of England, and Otho of Bavaria-a kings madness is not allowed to interfere with the normal administration of the kingdom.
When the seven “times”-whether years or brief periods-were concluded, Nebuchadrezzar “lifted up his eyes to heaven,” and his understanding returned to him. No further light is thrown on his recovery, which (as is not infrequently the case in madness) Was as sudden as his aberration. Perhaps the calm of the infinite azure over his head flowed into his troubled soul, and reminded him that (as the inscriptions say) “the Heavens” are “the father of the gods.” At any rate, with that upward glance came the restoration of his reason.
He instantly blessed the Most High, “and praised and honoured Him who liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. {Exo 17:16} And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and He doeth according to His will {Psa 45:13} in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?”
Then his lords and counsellors reinstated him in his former majesty; his honour and brightness returned to him; he was once more “that head of gold” in his kingdom. {Dan 2:38}
He concludes the story with the words: “Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth and His ways judgment; {Psa 33:4} and those that walk in pride He is able to abase.”. {Exo 18:11}
He died B.C. 561, and was deified, leaving behind him an invincible name.