And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream – <\/B>That is, clearly, to know all about it; to recollect distinctly what it was, and to understand what it meant. He was agitated by so remarkable a dream; he probably had, as Jerome remarks, a shadowy and floating impression of what the dream was – such as we often have of a dream that has agitated out minds, but of which we cannot recal the distinct and full image; and he desired to recal that distinctly, and to know exactly what it meant. See Dan 2:1<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n He remembered the fact in general, but could not repeat it perfectly, much less know the meaning of it; yet it had left such an impression on him, as put him into great perplexity. The Lord hath ways to affright the greatest men in the world, in the midst of their security and jollity. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3. troubled to know the dream<\/B>Heawoke in alarm, remembering that something solemn had been presentedto him in a dream, without being able to recall the form in which ithad clothed itself. His thoughts on the unprecedented greatness towhich his power had attained (Da2:29<\/span>) made him anxious to know what the issue of all this shouldbe. God meets this wish in the way most calculated to impress him.<\/P><\/p>\n And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream<\/strong>,…. What before is called dreams is here expressed in the singular, a dream; for it was but one dream, though it contained in it various things; this the king could remember, that he had a dream; for it had left some impression on his mind, though he could not call to mind what it was about. Aben Ezra makes mention of one of their Gaons or Rabbins, that affirmed that Nebuchadnezzar knew his dream, but was willing to try the wise men; but, as he observes, he could not surely believe the words of Daniel:<\/p>\n and my spirit was troubled to know the dream<\/strong>; both that, and the meaning of it; he says nothing as yet about the interpretation of it; concluding that, if they could tell him the dream, they could explain it to him; or then it would be time enough to inquire after that.<\/p>\n Daniel relates first the great confidence of the Chaldeans, since they dared to promise the interpretation of a dream as yet unknown to them. The king says he was troubled through desire to understand the dream; by which he signifies that a kind of riddle was divinely set, before him. He confesses his ignorance, while the importance of the object may be gathered from his words. Since, then, the king testifies his desire to inquire concerning a matter obscure and profound, and exceeding his comprehension, and since he clearly expresses himself to be contrite in spirit, some kind of fear and anxiety ought to have touched these Chaldeans; yet they securely promise to offer the very best interpretation of the dream as soon as they understood it. When they say, O king live for ever, it is not a simple and unmeaning prayer, but they rather order the king to be cheerful and in good spirits, as they are able to remove all care and anxiety from his mind, because the explanation of the dream was at hand. We know how liberal in words those impostors always were; according to the language of an ancient poet, they enriched the ears and emptied the purses of others. And truly those who curiously court the breeze with their ears deserve to feed upon it, and to be taken in by such deceits. And all ages have proved that nothing exceeds the confidence of astrologers, who are not content with true science, but divine every one’s life and death, and conjecture all events, and profess to know everything. <\/p>\n We must hold generally that the art of conjecturing from dreams is rash and foolish; there is, indeed, a certain fixed interpretation of dreams, as we said yesterday, yet as we shall afterwards see, this ought not to be ascribed to a sure science, but to God’s singular gift. As, therefore, a prophet will not gather what he has to say from fixed reasonings, but will explain God’s oracles, so also he who will interpret dreams correctly, will not follow certain disthief rules; but if God has explained the meaning of the dream, he will then undertake the office of interpreting it according to his endowment with this gift. Properly speaking, these two flyings are opposite to each other and do not mutually agree, general and perpetual science, and special revelation. Since God claims this power of opening by means of a dream, what he has engraven on the minds of men, hence art and science cannot obtain it, but a revelation from the spirit must be waited for. When the Chaldeans thus boldly promise to become good interpreters of the dream, they not only betray their rashness, but become mere impostors, who pretend to be proficients in a science of which they know nothing, as if they could predict by their conjectures the meaning of the king’s dream. It now follows — <\/p>\n (3) I have dreamed.<\/strong>It has been questioned whether the king had really forgotten his dream, or whether he only pretended to have done so in order that he might prove the skill of his wise men. The conduct of the Chaldans (Dan. 2:10<\/span>) makes the latter hypothesis possible. However, it is more in accordance with what is stated about the anxious condition of the kings mind to assume that he remembered a portion of the dream, but that he had lost the general outline of it.<\/p>\n ‘And the king said to them, “I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.” Then spoke the Chaldeans to the king in Aramaic, “O king live for ever, tell your servants the dream and we will show the interpretation.”<\/p>\n At first all seemed to be going smoothly. They had been here before. The king had had a dream. It was greatly upsetting him and preying on his mind. And he wanted to know what it meant. They informed him that all he had to do was tell them the dream and they would then interpret it for him. ‘The Chaldeans’ probably here represents the whole body, for it was a name applied to the wise men of Babylon (or else they were acting as spokesmen).<\/p>\n It has been argued that the term ‘Chaldeans’ was at this time an ethnic term and would not have been applied in this way. As mentioned above the first external mention of ‘Chaldeans’ in a similar way to this is in Herodotus a hundred years later. But he did then give the inference that they had been around for a very long time. Indeed we can see how easily the name could have arisen. Wise men, magicians, soothsayers and enchanters probably came to the court of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar from far and wide, once their power was established. It is easy therefore to see how the native born wise men could have banded together and have been called ‘the Chaldeans’, claiming further superiority on the grounds that they were priests of Marduk. They were the native born wise men.<\/p>\n But the king had also been here before. He had seen these men interpret dreams for his father. And he had not been impressed. He wanted to ensure that what he was told would be genuine.<\/p>\n We are obviously not told the full details of the conversations that went on. Possibly there was a bit of to and froing, but in the end the king laid down his position. If he was to believe them they must tell him what his dream was, as well as interpreting it. If they truly had mysterious knowledge, surely they would be able to discover his dream by their enchantments and sorcery.<\/p>\n ‘O king live for ever.’ A typically polite and advisable way of addressing a Babylonian king, and other kings (1Ki 1:31<\/span>; Neh 2:3<\/span>), compare ‘may Nebo and Merodach give long days and everlasting years to the king of the lands, my lord’.<\/p>\n NOTE.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n (Note. It is almost an anti-climax to point out that here the text in Daniel changes from Hebrew to Aramaic, and that from here until the end of chapter 7 the text is in Aramaic. It may be that having moved into Aramaic to simulate the words of the Chaldeans, who would in fact use a different form of Aramaic, and wishing to reveal that the king replied in that same Aramaic, the writer simply continued on in Aramaic, in which he was equally fluent, until the end of the vision in chapter 7, when he was able to declare the final triumph of the people of God over the four empires and the crowning of the Davidic king, the final outcome of the dream in chapter 2.<\/p>\n The six chapters do in fact follow an identifiable pattern something like this.<\/p>\n 1) <\/strong> A vision of four kingdoms and their final end (chapter 2).<\/p>\n 2) <\/strong> Faithfulness in conflict with false religion and subsequent miraculous deliverance – the three friends (chapter 3).<\/p>\n 3) <\/strong> Judgment declared on the king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) and its consequence (chapter 4).<\/p>\n 4) <\/strong> Judgment declared on the king of Babylon (Belshazzar) and its consequence (chapter 5).<\/p>\n 5) <\/strong> Faithfulness in conflict with false religion and subsequent miraculous deliverance – Daniel (chapter 6).<\/p>\n 6) <\/strong> A vision of four kingdoms and their final end (chapter 7).<\/p>\n This section might well have been put together by Daniel prior to the whole.<\/p>\n Perhaps he then felt that Hebrew was a better language to use for the remainder of the prophecies as they more directly related to Israel. From chapter 8 the persecutions of Anitochus Epiphanes are stressed, and the prophetic dealings are with Israel in Palestine, whereas chapter 1-7 refer to life in Babylon, and the prophetic sections are more universal. Perhaps he also saw chapters 2-7 as dealing with the history as unfolded in chapter 2, God’s dealings with the wild beasts, resulting in the triumph over them of the people of God, and chapter 8 onwards as beginning another way of looking at things, looking at history mainly from the point of view of the final future of Israel following on the triumph over the beasts in chapter 7.<\/p>\n End of note).<\/p>\n No doubt, but that the Lord in his over-ruling providence, while impressing the mind of the King with the importance of the dream itself; yet made him so totally to forget the particulars of it by way of introducing Daniel. What a beautiful subject doth the conviction of this open to the Lord’s people in all the circumstances of their lives? How sure, how very sure is it, that the very hairs of their head are all numbered, when not a single event in their history can take place, but by the Lord’s appointment. Reader! if a gracious reader, do not forget to make this personal!<\/p>\n Dan 2:3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.<\/p>\n Ver. 3. I have dreamed a dream.<\/strong> ] His thoughts had been occupied belike about the issue of his kingdoms, and thereupon he had a divine vision. He that is moderately careful about the affairs of his lawful calling shall not be destitute of divine direction. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And my spirit was troubled.<\/strong> ] Heb., Troubled itself. Jesus also troubled himself, but without sin. Joh 11:33 See Trapp on “<\/em> Joh 11:33 “<\/em> <\/p>\n I have dreamed. Contrast this with Daniel’s vision, in the Structure on p. 1178; and note the other recorded dreams (Gen 20:3). <\/p>\n was = is. <\/p>\n Dan 2:3-4<\/p>\n Commentary on Dan 2:3-4 by Mark Dunagan<\/p>\n Dan 2:3-4 In Aramaic: Beginning in Dan 2:4 and going all the way through Dan 7:28 our copies of Daniel are written in Aramaic, even the Dead Sea scrolls of Daniel contains this switch from Hebrew to Aramaic. In Daniels time, Aramaic was the common language of non-Jewish peoples. O king, live forever: Yet we know from the interpretation of the dream that his will not be the case (Dan 2:39). The Babylonian king and his Empire are just one passing pause of human history. Tell the dream: They were confident that with their collective wisdom, they could satisfy the king with an interpretation. <\/p>\n Dan 2:1, Gen 40:8, Gen 41:15 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Dan 2:26 – Art Dan 4:9 – no secret Dan 5:15 – General Dan 7:15 – the visions<\/p>\n AN INTERPRETER, ONE AMONG A THOUSAND<\/p>\n I have dreamed a dream.<\/p>\n Dan 2:3<\/p>\n I. For most dreams, whether dark or pleasant, there is a basis in the waking world.And I think that the date of Nebuchadnezzars dream may afford us a clue as to that point of contact. It came to him in the second year of his reignperhaps in our reckoning we should say the third. It was a time when all his hopes were crowned, as a massive image might be crowned with gold. Yet marvellous as his prosperity has been, consolidated as his empire looked, there was many an anxious thought in the kings heart, for uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. On the east of his empire there lay Persia, and Persia was defiant and aggressive. Among his mercenaries were there not Grecian soldiers, who would sing the praise and prowess of their land? And so the king, in the midst of all his splendour, and strong in the might of his victorious army, would have many a dark thought about the future, when he had gone to his rest and his reward. In such a mood he laid him down to sleep, and was visited by a dream. Not all the reading of pleasant tales to him, nor the playing of restful music in his chamber, could banish the distracting cares of kingship, or win for him the slumber of sweet peace. For as he slept there broke on him a vision, so clear, so terrible, so full of portent that he was ready to slaughter all his soothsayers, if they could not resolve for him what he had seen. What was it, then, that he had seen? It was the colossal image of a man. The head was of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the body and the thighs of brass, and the legs were of iron, and they rested upon feet that were partly made of iron, and partly of clay. Was this a comfortable or cheering dream? It was the very opposite of that. The whole impression was that of instability. It was big with the thought of insecure foundation. And then, as across the slumbers of the king there passed this terrible sense of insecurity, he saw a stone, cut by no human hand, crashing upon the feet of the colossus. The image fell, like chaff on the threshing-floor, shattered and shivered into a thousand fragments. The stone grew till it became a mountain, and at last seemed to cover the whole earth. And the king awoke in the horror of it all, with the cry of another dreamer, I will sleep no more; and the reader was still reading by his bed, and the gentle music breathing through the palace.<\/p>\n II. Now what was the meaning that Daniel found in that?God showed him in that the history of the ages. It was a picture, upon the screen of night, of that which was, and what was yet to be. The head of gold was Nebuchadnezzar himself. Had not Isaiah called Babylon the golden city? And when John saw Babylon the Great in his Apocalypse, had she not in her hand a golden cup? The breast and the arms were the Medo-Persian empire, larger and broader than the head of gold, yet in its division, and its want of unity, inferior to it as silver is to gold. The lower parts were the empire of the Greeks, with Alexander as the subduer of the nations (Dan 2:39). And the legs and feet, of iron and of clay, were the empire of Rome in its mingled strength and weakness. So in the vision was there revealed to Daniel the outline of the history of ages. And does any one need to be told what the stone was? It was, and is, the Kingdom of Christ Jesus. For it began not in the might of men, but in the wisdom and the love of God. And it has proved itself far mightier than the empires that seemed to tower above it in the past. And amid their ruins it has continued growing, by the very power that called it into being, and so it shall grow till the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour. May that Kingdom be to none of us a rock, against which, if we fall, we shall be crushed! May it be what God intended it to be, the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. Rock of ages, cleft for me! Let me hide myself in thee.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n The Bible nowhere encourages us to attach much importance to our dreams, or to think that there must be something of significance in the fantastic medley of our sleep. Probably the ancient Hebrew looked on dreams very much as sensible people do to-day. Unless dreams were extraordinarily impressive, he was not inclined to regard them very seriously. Indeed, as we read the prophets and the psalmists, we find that the dream is a type of what is transient; a figure not of what is profoundly true, but of what is most provokingly unreal (Isa 29:8). It was in pagan religions, and not in that of Israel, that dreams were exalted to a proud pre-eminence. It was in them, and them alone, that every dream was looked upon as ominous. We have no trace in Israel of a house of dreams, or of a cult of examiners of dreams, such as we meet with in other ancient empires, and in the loveless worship of their gods. But while that is true, it must also be remembered that God does not disdain the use of dreams. Unquestionably He may employ them still, as unquestionably He employed them long ago.<\/p>\n Dan 2:3. With the preceding verse in view we understand that know the dreams here means to be told what he dreamed. This is indicated also by a statement in verse 6.<\/p>\n And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream – That is, clearly, to know all about it; to recollect distinctly what it was, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 2:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"