5<\/strong>. The thing is gone from me<\/em> ] The word spoken by me<\/strong> lit. ( proceeding<\/em>) from me<\/em> is sure<\/strong>. The king means that the threat which follows is fully resolved upon by him. Azda<\/em> is a Persian word, meaning sure, certain<\/em> (see Schrader, KAT<\/em> [204][205] , p. 617); the rendering ‘gone’ is philologically indefensible.<\/p>\n [204] AT.<\/em> Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T.<\/em>, ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T.<\/em> 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.<\/p>\n [205] Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T.<\/em>, ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T.<\/em> 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.<\/p>\n if ye will not make known<\/em> ] if ye<\/em> make not<\/strong> known<\/em> (R.V.). ‘ Will<\/em> not,’ in this sentence would (in modern English) mean ‘ are<\/em> not willing to<\/em>,’ which is not in the Aramaic at all.<\/p>\n cut in pieces<\/em> ] more exactly, dismembered<\/em>; lit. made into<\/em> (separate) limbs<\/em>; so Dan 3:29<\/span> (cf. 2Ma 1:16 ). The word for ‘limb’ ( haddm<\/em>, common in Syriac, but in the O.T. found only here and Dan 3:29<\/span>) is Persian (Zend hadma<\/em>, Mod. Pers. andm<\/em>). The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hands of an Eastern despot: the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments.<\/p>\n be made a dunghill<\/em> ] Cf. Dan 3:29<\/span> and Ezr 6:11<\/span> (where Darius decrees the same punishment for any one altering the terms of his edict).<\/p>\n The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me – <\/B>The Vulgate renders this, Sermo recessit a me – The word is departed from me. So the Greek, <\/SPAN><\/span> Ho<\/I> logos<\/I> ap’<\/I> emou<\/I> apeste<\/I>. Luther, Es ist mir entfallen – It has fallen away from me, or has departed from me. Coverdale, It is gone from me. The Chaldee word rendered the thing – <\/span> mll<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>thah<\/I> – means, properly, a word, saying, discourse – something which is spoken; then, like <\/span> dabar<\/I> and the Greek <\/SPAN><\/span> rema<\/I>, a thing. The reference here is to the matter under consideration, to wit, the dream and its meaning. The fair interpretation is, that he had forgotten the dream, and that if he retained any recollection of it, it was only such an imperfect outline as to alarm him. The word rendered is gone – <\/span> ‘az<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>dda’<\/I> – which occurs only here and in Dan 2:8<\/span>, is supposed to be the same as <\/span> ‘azal<\/I> – to go away, to depart. Gesenius renders the whole phrase, The word has gone out from me; i. e., what I have said is ratified, and cannot be recalled; and Prof. Bush (in loc<\/I>.) contends that this is the true interpretation, and this also is the interpretation preferred by John D. Michaelis, and Dathe. A construction somewhat similar is adopted by Aben Ezra, C. B. Michaelis, Winer, Hengstenberg, and Prof. Stuart, that it means, My decree is firm, or steadfast; to wit, that if they did not furnish an interpretation of the dream, they should be cut off. The question as to the true interpretation, then, is between two constructions: whether it means, as in our version, that the dream had departed from him – that is, that he had forgotten it – or, that a decree or command had gone from him, that if they could not interpret the dream they should be destroyed. That the former is the correct interpretation seems to me to be evident.<\/P> (1) It is the natural construction, and accords best with the meaning of the original words. Thus no one can doubt that the word <\/span> millah<\/I>, and the words <\/span> dabar<\/I> and <\/SPAN><\/span> rema<\/I>, are used in the sense of thing, and that the natural and proper meaning of the Chaldee verb <\/span> ‘azad<\/I> is, to go away, depart. Compare the Hebrew (<\/span> ‘azal<\/I>) in Deu 32:36<\/span>, He seeth that their power is gone; 1Sa 9:7<\/span>, The bread is spent in our vessels; Job 14:11<\/span>, The waters fail from the sea; and the Chaldee (<\/span> ‘azal<\/I>) in Ezr 4:23<\/span>, They went up in haste to Jerusalem; Ezr 5:8<\/span>, We went into the province of Judea; and Dan 2:17<\/span>, Dan 2:24<\/span>; Dan 6:18<\/span> (19), 19(20).<\/P> (2) This interpretation is sustained by the Vulgate of Jerome, and by the Greek.<\/P> (3) It does not appear that any such command had at that time gone forth from the king, and it was only when they came before him that he promulgated such an order. Even though the word, as Gesenins and Zickler (Chaldaismus Dan. Proph.) maintain, is a feminine participle present, instead of a verb in the preterit, still it would then as well apply to the dream departing from him, as the command or edict. We may suppose the king to say, The thing leaves me; I cannot recal it.<\/P> (4) It was so understood by the magicians, and the king did not attempt to correct their apprehension of what he meant. Thus, in Dan 2:7<\/span>, they say, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation thereof. This shows that they understood that the dream had gone from him, and that they could not be expected to interpret its meaning until they were apprised what it was.<\/P> (5) It is not necessary to suppose that the king retained the memory of the dream himself, and that he meant merely to try them; that is, that he told them a deliberate falsehood, in order to put their ability to the test. Nebuchadnezzar was a cruel and severe monarch, and such a thing would not have been entirely inconsistent with his character; but we should not needlessly charge cruelty and tyranny on any man, nor should we do it unless the evidence is so clear that we cannot avoid it. Besides, that such a test should be proposed is in the highest degree improbable. There was no need of it; and it was contrary to the established belief in such matters. These men were retained at court, among other reasons, for the very purpose of explaining the prognostics of the future. There was confidence in them; and they were retained because there was confidence in them. It does not appear that the Babylonian monarch had had any reason to distrust their ability as to what they professed; and why should he, therefore, on this occasion resolve to put them to so unusual, and obviously so unjust a trial?<\/P> For these reasons, it seems clear to me that our common version has given the correct sense of this passage, and that the meaning is, that the dream had actually so far departed from him that he could not repeat it, though he retained such an impression of its portentous nature, and of its appalling outline, as to fill his mind with alarm. As to the objection derived from this view of the passage by Bertholdt to the authenticity of this chapter, that it is wholly improbable that any man would be so unreasonable as to doom others to punishment because they could not recal his dream, since it entered not into their profession to be able to do it (Commentary i. p. 192), it may be remarked, that the character of Nebuchadnezzar was such as to make what is stated here by Daniel by no means improbable. Thus it is said respecting him 2Ki 25:7<\/span>, And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon. Compare 2Ki 25:18-21<\/span>; Jer 39:5<\/span>, following; Jer 52:9-11<\/span>. See also Dan 4:17<\/span>, where he is called the basest of men. Compare Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniel, pp. 79-81. On this objection, see Introduction to the chapter, Section I. I.<\/P> If ye will not make known, unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof – <\/B>Whatever may be thought as to the question whether he had actually forgotten the dream, there can be no doubt that he demanded that they should state what it was, and then explain it. This demand was probably as unusual as it was in one sense unreasonable, since it did not fall fairly within their profession. Yet it was not unreasonable in this sense, that if they really had communication with the gods, and were qualified to explain future events, it might be supposed that they would be enabled to recal this forgotten dream. If the gods gave them power to explain what was to come, they could as easily enable them to recal the past.<\/P> Ye shall be cut in pieces – <\/B>Margin, made. The Chaldee is, Ye shall be made into pieces; referring to a mode of punishment that was common to many ancient nations. Compare 1Sa 15:33<\/span> : And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. Thus Orpheus is said to have been torn in pieces by the Thracian women; and Bessus was cut in pieces by order of Alexander the Great.<\/P> And your houses shall be made a dunghill – <\/B>Compare 2Ki 10:27<\/span>. This is an expression denoting that their houses, instead of being elegant or comfortable mansions, should be devoted to the vilest of uses, and subjected to all kinds of dishonor and defilement. The language here used is in accordance with what is commonly employed by Orientals. They imprecate all sorts of indignities and abominations on the objects of their dislike, and it is not uncommon for them to smear over with filth what is the object of their contempt or abhorrenee. Thus when the caliph Omar took Jerusalem, at the head of the Saracen army, after ravaging the greater part of the city, he caused dung to be spread over the site of the sanctuary, in token of the abhorrence of all Mussulmans, and of its being henceforth regarded as the refuse and offscouring of all things. – Prof. Bush. The Greek renders this, And your houses shall be plundered; the Vulgate, And your houses shall be confiscated. But these renderings are entirely arbitrary. This may seem to be a harsh punishment which was threatened, and some may, perhaps, be disposed to say that it is improbable that a monarch would allow himself to use such intemperate language, and to make use of so severe a threatening, especially when the magicians had as yet shown no inability to interpret the dream, and had given no reasons to apprehend that they would be unable to do it. But we are to remember<\/P> (1) the cruel and arbitrary character of the king (see the references above);<\/P> (2) the nature of an Oriental despotism, in which a monarch is acccustomed to require all his commands to be obeyed, and his wishes gratified promptly, on pain of death;<\/P> (3) the fact that his mind was greatly excited by the dream; and<\/P> (4) that he was certain that something portentous to his kingdom had been prefigured by the dream, and that this was a case in which all the force of threatening, and all the prospect of splendid reward, should be used, that they might be induced to tax their powers to the utmost, and allay the tumults of his mind.<\/P><\/p>\n Dan 2:5<\/span><\/p>\n The thing is gone from me.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nebuchadnezzars Dream<\/strong><\/p>\n The thing is considered by many to be the dream, and so they also understand the same phrase in the eighth verse. There is nothing in the Chaldee (Aramaic) of this passage to forbid this understanding, for though millethath <\/em>means word, yet, like the Greek rema<\/em> (and even sometimes logos<\/em>) it may also mean a thing or subject of which there is speech, as it seems to do in Dan 2:15<\/span>; Dan 2:17<\/span> of this chapter. The other interpretation, however (the word is gone forth from me), which is given in the margin of the Revised Version, appears to have most probability. The reasons are these: <\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The king would scarcely call his dream a thing. He would have said, the dream is gone from me if he had meant that. Thing would have referred not to the dream, but to the whole matter connected with the dream, and that had not gone from him. <\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The sequences in both the fifth and eighth verses are not relevant with reference to dream, but are relevant with reference to word or decree. In the fifth verse there is no nexus between a the dream is gone from me and if ye will not make known unto me the dream, etc. We should have expected a therefore. In the eighth verse the seeking to gain time would be a natural result of the terrible decree, but not a result of the dream being gone from the monarch. <\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The similar expression in Dan 9:23<\/span> and in Isa 14:23<\/span> (yatza dkabhar<\/em> the commandment came forth, the word is gone out) is a strong support for the meaning here, the word or decree is gone forth from me. Some have supposed (with this rendering) that Nebuchadnezzar well knew his own dream, but wished to test his wise men, and so insisted on their telling him what the dream was as well as its interpretation. It would certainly not be unlike an Oriental despot to do such a thing on pain of death if they failed. But there is one thing that forbids this theory. It is the terrible distress of soul which the monarch experienced regarding the dream. Such distress (verse 1) would not permit him to indulge in a grim play with his wise men. He would be quick enough to tell them the dream in order that his soul might have relief from the interpretation. He would be careful to tell them every feature of the dream which he could remember, and so help them every way to the result–the interpretation. He most certainly had forgotten every detail of the dream, and only remembered that it had impressed his spirit with care and perplexity, which is a common experience in dreams. There may have been beside this a spiritual intimation that the dream was of God, but Daniels marvellous telling of the dream (apart from his interpretation of it) and recalling every feature to his mind mus have been the conclusive proof to him that the dream was no ordinary and unmeaning one, but a divine revelation. (Howard Crosby, D<\/em>.D<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Things that are Most Remembered<\/strong><\/p>\n The king, it would appear, had two dreams at different times. One passed clean out of his memory, the other hung about his memory so that he could not shake it off. The first dream caused a very slight uneasiness, and gave him very little concern, compared with the second dream. The first made but an evanescent impression, the second an enduring one. Look at the dreams, and we may discover the reason of all this. The first vision was about the coming of Christs Kingdom, its power and glory. The second vision reference to himself. Because of his pride, God ordered that he should become deranged for seven years, and all his power forsake him, and that he should be driven from his kingdom and be treated more like a beast than a man. At the end of those years he should recover his reason, and with it his power and majesty. The second vision was all about the king himself and his worldly prosperity. All that was revealed to him about Christs Kingdom he forgot directly. All that was revealed to him about his own fortunes he remembered well enough. The revelation of the future of Christs Kingdom gave him some anxiety. The revelation of the future of his own affairs filled him with lasting distress. The only vision that goes clear out of remembrance is that with reference to Christs Kingdom. Is it not so now? is it not so with you? is it not an old story repeated over and over again? Everything that has to do with your earthly fortunes, every scheme that has to do with worldly advancement, every dream of human prosperity, sticks firmly in the memory. Bad telegrams in the morning papers, what uneasiness do they not cause? The thoughts upon your bed and the visions of your head trouble you. Very foolish and improvident persons you would be if you did not feel anxious about your incomes, your speculations, your crops. But then if you remember these visions, do not forget those which belong to Christs Kingdom. I suppose there was a time with most of you when your mother, or father, spoke to you earnestly of your duties to God, and the care you must have for your soul. But time passes, and the thing is gone from me. Some sickness fails on you. On your bed you are brought near to the brink of the grave, pain and fear of death distress you, eternity assumes a more real aspect, Gods judgments appear more fearful, the service of God more obligatory. Oh, if you might recover, how you would walk in newness of life! You get well, all the business and care of this present life begin again to engross your attention, and as for the dream of Gods Kingdom–the thing is gone from me. There are solemn moments of solitude, when the heart is especially awake to spiritual influence, and when the soul sees God in an extraordinary, supernatural, manner. Does this last? Sometimes. But too often the clouds roll again over the horizon, the thing is gone from me. (Anon<\/em>.)<\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. Ye shall be cut in pieces<\/B><\/I>] This was arbitrary and tyrannical in the extreme; but, in the order of God’s providence, it was overruled to serve the most important purpose.<\/P> <\/p>\n The thing is gone from me: this was of God, that these impostors should be made infamous, by detecting their ignorance and their arrogance, and that this should be a step to Daniels honour, for knowing the kings dream and interpreting it, neither of which the Chaldeans could do. <\/P> With the interpretation thereof: if they do not both, saith the king. <\/P> Cut in pieces, and your houses, & c, this was a usual punishment in those parts of the world; thus Samuel cut Agag in pieces, 1Sa 15:33<\/span>; 1Ch 20:3<\/span>. Thus David dealt with the Ammonites. And the like was in making houses a dunghill. The like we have Dan 3:29<\/span>; and thus they did to the house of Baal, made it a draught-house to this day, by Jehus command, 2Ki 10:27<\/span>. The like did Darius threaten to them that would alter his decree for building the house of God, Ezr 6:11<\/span>. This commination argued the kings wrath to be excessive and furious, in punishing for not doing what was above their human strength, and which the Chaldeans never arrogated to themselves; yet was this a just reward to these men, that were so presumptuous. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5. The thing<\/B>that is, Thedream, “is gone from me.” GESENIUStranslates, “The decree<\/I> is gone forth from me,”irrevocable (compare Isa 45:23<\/span>);namely, that you shall be executed, if you do not tell both the dreamand the interpretation. English Version<\/I> is simpler, whichsupposes the king himself to have forgotten the dream. Pretenders tosupernatural knowledge often bring on themselves their ownpunishment. <\/P> cut in pieces<\/B> (1Sa15:33<\/span>). <\/P> houses . . . dunghill<\/B>rather,”a morass heap.” The Babylonian houses were built ofsun-dried bricks; when demolished, the rain dissolves the whole intoa mass of mire, in the wet land, near the river [STUART].As to the consistency of this cruel threat with Nebuchadnezzar’scharacter, see Da 4:17<\/span>, “basestof men”; Jer 39:5<\/span>; Jer 39:6<\/span>;Jer 52:9-11<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n The king answered and said to the Chaldeans<\/strong>,…. In the same language they spoke to him:<\/p>\n the thing is gone from me<\/strong>; either the dream was gone from him; it was out of his mind, he had forgot it, and could not call it to remembrance; he had been dreaming of monarchies and kingdoms, which are themselves but dreams and tales, and empty things that pass away, and which he might have learned from hence: or, as it may be rendered, “the word is confirmed by me” z. Saadiah says, that some observe that the word here used has the signification of strength or firmness; and so Aben Ezra interprets the word, is stable and firm; to which agrees the Syriac version,<\/p>\n “most sure is the word which I pronounce;”<\/p>\n referring not to the dream, but to what follows the king’s declaration, both with respect to threatenings and promises:<\/p>\n if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof<\/strong>; the king speaks as if he thought it was in their power, but they were unwilling to do it; though no doubt, had they been able, they would have readily done it, both for their credit and advantage:<\/p>\n ye shall be cut in pieces<\/strong>; not only cut in two, but into various pieces, limb by limb, as Agag by Samuel, and the Ammonites by David; and which was a punishment often inflicted in the eastern nations; as Orpheus was cut to pieces by the Thracian women, and Bessus by order of Alexander the great a; much the same punishment as, with us, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered:<\/p>\n and your houses shall be made a dunghill<\/strong>; be destroyed, and never rebuilt more, but put to the most contemptible uses: and this was common among the Romans; when any were found plotting against the government, or guilty of treason, they were not only capitally punished, but their houses were pulled down, or the names of them changed; or, however, were not used for dwelling houses; so the house of Caius Cassius was pulled down and demolished for his affectation of government, and for treason; and that of M. Maulins Capitolinus, who was suspected of seizing the government, after he was thrown from the rock, was made a mint of; and that of Spuflus Melius for the same crime, after he had suffered, was by reproach called Aequimelium; and of the like kind many instances are given b and so among the Grecians; Pausanias c relates of Astylus Crotoniata, that by way of punishment, and as a mark of infamy upon him for a crime he had done, his house was appointed for a public prison. Herodotus d reports Leutychides, general of the Lacedemonians in Thessalian expedition, that having received money by way of bribery, for which he was tried and condemned, though he made his escape, his house was demolished; and the same usage and custom remains to this day in France: thus the unhappy Damien, a madman, who of late stabbed the French king; one part of his sentence was, that the house in which he was born should be pulled down, as he himself also was pulled and cut to pieces; see<\/p>\n 2Ki 10:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n z “verbum a me firmum, [vel] firmatum”, Michaelis; “a me decretum et statutum”, L’Empereur. a Vid. Curtium, l. 7. c. 5. p. 206. b Vid. Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 23. c Eliac. 2. sive l. 6. p. 366. d Erato, sive I. 6. p. 72.<\/p>\n Here the king requires from the Chaldeans more than they professed to afford him; for although their boasting, as we have said, was foolish in promising to interpret any dream, yet they never claimed the power of narrating to any one his dreams. The king, therefore, seems to me to act unjustly in not regarding what they had hitherto professed, and the limits of their art and science, if indeed they had any science! When he says — the matter or speech had departed from him, the words admit of a twofold sense, for מלתה , millethah, may be taken for all “ edict, ” as we shall afterwards see; and so it might be read, has flowed away; but since the same form of expression will be shortly repeated when it seems to be, used of the dream, (Dan 2:8<\/span>,) this explanation is suitable enough, as the king says his dream had vanished so I leave the point undecided. It is worthwhile noticing again what we said yesterday, that terror was so fastened upon the king as to deprive him of rest, and yet he was not so instructed that the least taste of the revelation remained; just as if an ox, stunned by a severe blow, should toss himself about, and roll over and over. Such is the madness of this wretched king, because God harasses him with dreadful torments; all the while the remembrance of the dream is altogether obliterated from his mind. Hence he confesses — his dream had escaped him; and although the Magi had prescribed the limits of their science, yet through their boasting themselves to be interpreters of the gods, he did not hesitate to exact of them what they had never professed. This is the just reward of arrogance, when men puffed up with a perverse confidence assume before others more than they ought, and forgetful of all modesty wish to be esteemed angelic spirits. Without the slightest doubt God wished to make a laughingstock of this foolish boasting which was conspicuous among the Chaldees, when the king sharply demanded of them to relate his dream, as well as to offer an exposition of it. <\/p>\n He afterwards adds threats, clearly tyrannical; unless they expound the dream their life is in danger No common punishment is threatened, but he says they should become “ pieces ” — if we take the meaning of the word to signify pieces. If we think it means “blood, ” the sense will be the same. This wrath of the king is clearly furious, nay, Nebuchadnezzar in this respect surpassed all the cruelty of wild beasts. What fault could be imputed to the Chaldeans if they did not know the king’s dream? — surely, they had never professed this, as we shall afterwards see; and no, king had ever demanded what was beyond the faculty of man. We perceive how the long manifested a brutal rage when he denounced death and every cruel torture on the Magi and sorcerers. Tyrants, indeed, often give the reins to their lust, and think all things lawful to themselves; whence, also, these words of the tragedian, Whatever he wishes is lawful. And Sophocles says, with evident truth, that any one entering a tyrant’s threshold must cast away his liberty; but if we were to collect all examples, we should scarcely find one like this. It follows, then, that the king’s mind was impelled by diabolic fury, urging him to punish the Chaldees who, with respect to him, were innocent enough. We know them to have been impostors, and the world to have been deluded by their impositions, which rendered them deserving of death, since by the precepts of the law it was a capital crime for any one to pretend to the power of prophecy by magic arts. (Lev 20:6<\/span>.) But, as far as concerned the king, they could not be charged with any crime. Why, then, did he threaten them with death? because the Lord wished to shew the miracle which we shall afterwards see. For if the king had suffered the Chaldeans to depart, he could have buried directly that anxiety which tortured and excruciated his mind. The subject, too, had been less noticed by the people; hence God tortured the king’s mind, till he rushed headlong in his fury, as we have said. Thus, this atrocious and cruel denunciation ought to have aroused all men; for there is no doubt that the greatest and the least trembled together when they heard of such vehemence in the monarch’s wrath. This, therefore, is the complete sense, and we must mark the object of God’s providence in thus allowing the king’s anger to burn without restraint. (111) It follows — <\/p>\n (111) Calvin is correct in preferring the sense of “pieces” to that of “blood;” for הדם, hedem, is a Chaldee word, and the ין is the Chaldee plural ending; his criticism, too, on מלה, meleh, is also correct; for it is the Chaldee equivalent for דבר, deber, a “word” or thing, and justly rendered “edict.” As great light has been thrown upon the meaning and derivation of single words since Calvin’s time, we may often find that modern knowledge has rendered his derivations untenable; still the soundness of his judgment is worthy of notice. It may be added, too, that the perplexity is increased when Chaldee forms are used, although there is a uniform change of single letters observable in the two languages. Thus ש, sh, becomes ת , th, as in Dan 2:7<\/span> and Dan 2:14<\/span>; the Hebrew ז, z, becomes ד d, in Dan 2:26<\/span>; so the ץ , tz, becomes ע, gn; the final ה, h, is turned into א, a, and the final ם, m, into ן, n. <\/p>\n (5) Is gone from me.<\/strong>This difficult word, the etymology of which is very uncertain, appears only here and Dan. 2:8<\/span>. It seems to mean, The order has been published by me (comp. Est. 7:7<\/span>; Isa. 45:23<\/span>), and therefore cannot be recalled.<\/p>\n Cut in pieces.<\/strong>This was by no means an uncommon form of punishment: (See Smiths Assurbanipal<\/em>, pp. 137, 245.)<\/p>\n 5<\/strong>. <\/strong> Rather, “The word is gone forth from me” (R.V., margin; also Dan 2:8<\/span>). The king’s decision was final, that the dream as well as the interpretation must be given or those who laid claim to supernatural wisdom should be cut limb from limb (compare Eze 16:40<\/span>, and 2Ma 1:16 ) which was, with stoning, a customary punishment with the Babylonians their houses being turned into rubbish heaps and therefore dunghills (Ezr 6:11<\/span>; 2Ki 10:27<\/span>; compare Records of the Past, <\/em> 1:27-43). If this be literal history, it suggests either that a sign of the king’s future insanity was already showing itself (chap. iv) or else some previous friction had occurred between him and his religious advisers, this test serving as an excuse to get rid of them. The latter seems far more probable than that the king believed the magicians knew the dream but treasonably refused to tell it (Thomson). Such acts on the part of absolute sovereigns who find themselves being interfered with by influential subjects are not at all rare. Behrmann cites a parallel instance from Arabian history. A king of Yemen was visited with a dream which caused him great anxiety. So he summoned his sages and said to them, “I have had a dream which has frightened me and which I cannot forget; tell it me, and its interpretation.” The wise men answered, “Repeat to us the dream, and we will tell you the interpretation.” “No,” said the king; “for if I tell you the dream, I cannot be sure of the truth of your explanation. He who does not know the dream without being told cannot know what it means.”<\/p>\n “The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, “The word has gone forth from me (or ‘the thing is certain’). If you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you will be cut in pieces and your houses will be made a dunghill (or ‘into ruins’). But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honour. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation.”<\/p>\n The king was not saying that he could not remember his dreams (as AV suggests). His point was rather that he had spoken and what he had spoken was therefore certain to follow. He was extremely upset, even terrified, and he had already begun to feel that his wise men were unreliable. Now things had reached a crisis. If they could not prove to him that they had not been fooling him, by making known to him the dream (surely no difficulty for those who claimed special powers with the gods, if they were genuine), then he would destroy both them and their houses. Their families would be left in poverty. On the other hand if they could prove themselves, then untold riches and honour would be theirs. The words were typical of a despot who had in his hands the power of life and death. Why should he keep on supporting those who were deceiving him? But in the light of subsequent events they might also indicate someone who was mentally not quite stable. Someone who was extreme.<\/p>\n Dan 2:5<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>If ye will not<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> If ye do not. <\/em>Instead of, made a dunghill, <\/em>Houbigant reads, shall be confiscated, <\/em>or sold by public sale.<\/em> <\/p>\n Dan 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.<\/p>\n Ver. 5. The thing is gone from me.<\/strong> ] He had dreamed of monarchies, and now forgotten his dream. He might have hereby learned that kingdoms are but phantasmata, ludicra,<\/em> empty bubbles, pleasant follies, children and tales of fancy, &c. “The fashion of this world passeth away”; 1Co 7:31 “Surely every man walketh in a vain shadow.” Psa 39:6 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ye shall be cut in pieces.<\/strong> ] Practisers of unjust; flatteries do often meet with unjust frowns.<\/p>\n thing. The dream. <\/p>\n gone from me. Referring to the forgotten dream. <\/p>\n cut . . . made a dunghill. Compare Dan 3:29. Ezr 6:11. A further mode of punishment, from the Medo-Persians, in Dan 6:7. <\/p>\n Dan 2:5<\/p>\n Dan 2:5 The kingH4430 answeredH6032 and saidH560 to the Chaldeans,H3779 The thingH4406 is goneH230 fromH4481 me: ifH2006 ye will notH3809 make knownH3046 unto me the dream,H2493 with the interpretationH6591 thereof, ye shall be cutH5648 in pieces,H1917 and your housesH1005 shall be madeH7761 a dunghill.H5122 <\/p>\n Dan 2:5 <\/p>\n The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.<\/p>\n Nebuchadnezzar either could not remember his dream or he chose to tell the Chaldeans he could not as a test of their ability. It is a common thing to have a disturbing dream one cannot remember. Upon waking, the dream fades into oblivion leaving the emotional reaction to it behind. It is likely Nebuchadnezzar experienced just such a dream and wanted to know what it was. The Chaldeans were recognized as an exclusive society of learned magicians and astronomers and Nebuchadnezzar figured it was time they demonstrated their abilities. He obviously felt that it should have been within their abilities to know and tell him what his dream was. Whether Nebuchadnezzar really forgot his dream or not is inconsequential to the narrative. What is significant is that if the Chaldeans could not perform to Nebuchadnezzar’s expectations, they were going to be put to death. And as we see later, this was not going to be confined just to the ones that stood before him that day on his throne. It was going to mean the execution of their entire society at least in the city of Babylon. <\/p>\n ye shall: This was unreasonable, arbitrary, and tyrannical in the extreme; but, in the course of God’s providence, it was overruled to serve the most important purpose. Dan 3:29, 1Sa 15:33, Psa 50:22, Psa 58:7 <\/p>\n cut in pieces: Chal, made pieces <\/p>\n made: Deu 13:16, Jos 6:26, 2Ki 10:27, Ezr 6:11 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Sa 22:16 – Thou shalt 1Ki 18:12 – he shall slay me Dan 3:6 – the same Dan 4:9 – tell<\/p>\n Dan 2:5. But the wise men were not to get off so easily, for they were demanded to tell the king both the dream and its interpretation. The word dunghill occurs 6 times in the Old Testament, and when used figuratively means a foul or corrupt condition.<\/p>\n Dan 2:5-6. The king said, The thing is gone from me That is, he could not recollect the substance, much less all the particulars of it; some traces of it, however, must have remained in his mind, by which he thought the whole might be brought back to his remembrance, if his wise men could give him any clew to his dream, or hit, any way, upon the subject of it. This, without doubt, was the state of his mind; for unless some traces of his dream, however imperfect, had remained in it, his wise men would have endeavoured to impose upon him, and have told him any dream they could devise. If ye will not make known the dream, ye shall be cut in pieces Literally, be made into pieces. So Syriac; that is, utterly destroyed, as the LXX. and the Vulgate render it. A kind of punishment, of which other places in Scripture make mention: see the margin. And your houses shall be made a dunghill That is, shall be entirely pulled down, and never rebuilt. The ground of this threatening of the king is, that the eastern nations esteemed it a very grievous punishment inflicted upon any one to efface his memory, which in a great measure would be done by pulling down his house, and preventing its being ever rebuilt. The LXX. read, , your houses shall be plundered, and the Vulgate: your houses shall be confiscated, or taken for the kings use. This proud king seemed determined to exercise the bitterest acts of cruelty against his magicians, and to blot out the very traces of their memory, if they did not gratify his unreasonable but anxious wishes. We meet with a like denunciation from this haughty monarch, Dan 3:9. But if ye show the dream, &c., ye shall receive gifts As I have threatened you with death, and the destruction of all you have, if you do not perform what I require: so I promise you honour and great rewards if you do perform it.<\/p>\n 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye {g} shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.<\/p>\n (g) This is a just reward of their arrogance (who boasted of themselves that they had knowledge of all things), that they should be proved fools, and that to their perpetual shame and confusion.<\/p>\n It is unclear in the text whether the king had really forgotten his dream or was just withholding it to test his counselors. The Authorized Version implies that he had forgotten it, by translating Dan 2:5; Dan 2:8: "The thing is gone from me." However, the NASB’s, "The command<\/span> from me is firm," suggests that Nebuchadnezzar was referring to his command rather than his dream. The NIV and TNIV rendering is similar.<\/p>\n "The king was a young man who had been extraordinarily successful in his military conquests. He undoubtedly had developed a great deal of confidence in himself. It is entirely possible that the wise men were much older than the king, having served Nebuchadnezzar’s father. It would be understandable that the king might have previously been somewhat frustrated by these older counselors and may have had a real desire to be rid of them in favor of younger men whom he had chosen himself. Nebuchadnezzar might well have doubted their honesty, sincerity, and capability, and may even have wondered whether they were loyal to him. He may also have questioned some of their superstitious practices." [Note: Walvoord, p. 50. Cf. Culver, p. 778.] <\/span><\/p>\n Regardless of what Nebuchadnezzar may or may not have remembered, his desire to validate the interpretation that his advisers would propose is beyond doubt. They claimed to offer infallible supernatural guidance. If they failed, they would suffer excruciating dismemberment and humiliation. If they succeeded, gifts, a special reward, and great honor would be theirs (cf. Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel).<\/p>\n "The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hands of an Eastern despot; the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments." [Note: S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, p. 20.] <\/span><\/p>\n The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. 5. The thing is gone from me ] The word spoken by me … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 2:5”<\/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-21774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21774","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=21774"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21774\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical 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: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/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: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"