11<\/strong>. rare<\/em> ] difficult<\/strong>: properly heavy<\/em>. The word has the same sense sometimes in Syriac, as Exo 18:18<\/span>, in the Peshit.<\/p>\n requireth<\/em> ] asketh<\/strong> (as Dan 2:10<\/em><\/span>), which indeed is all that the translators of 1611 meant by their rendering: for require<\/em> formerly did not express the idea now attaching to the word of demanding as a right. So elsewhere in A.V., as 2Sa 12:20<\/span>; Pro 30:7<\/span> (R.V. asked<\/em>); Ezr 8:22<\/span> (R.V. ask<\/em>); and in P.B.V. of the Psalms, as Psa 27:4<\/span>; Psa 38:16<\/span>; Psa 40:9<\/span>; Psa 51:6<\/span>; Psa 137:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n shew<\/em> ] declare<\/strong>.<\/p>\n whose dwelling is not with flesh<\/em> ] i.e. who are superhuman, supra-mundane beings.<\/p>\n And it is a rare thing that the king requireth – <\/B>Chaldee, <\/span> yaqqyrah<\/I> – meaning, choice, valuable, costly; then, heavy, hard, difficult. Greek, <\/SPAN><\/span> barus<\/I>. Vulgate, gravis – heavy, weighty. The idea is not so much that the thing demanded by the king was uncommon or rarely made – though that was true, as that it was so difficult as to be beyond the human powers. They would not have been likely on such an occasion to say that the requirement was absolutely unjust or unreasonable. The term which they used was respectful, and yet it implied that no man could have any hope of solving the question as it was proposed by him.<\/P> And there is none other that can show it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh – <\/B>This was clearly true, that a matter of that kind could not be disclosed except by Divine assistance. It would seem from this that these persons did not claim to be inspired, or to have communication with the gods; or, at least, that they did not claim to be inspired by the Supreme God, but that they relied on their own natural sagacity, and their careful and long study of the meaning of those occurrences which prefigured future events, and perhaps on the mystic arts derived from their acquaintance with science as then understood. The word gods here – <\/span> ‘elahyn<\/I>, the same as the Hebrew <\/span> ‘elohym<\/I> – is in the plural number, but might be applied to the true God, as the Hebrew <\/span> ‘elohym<\/I> often is. It is by no means certain that they meant to use this in the plural, or to say that it was an admitted truth that the gods worshipped in Babylon did not dwell with people.<\/P> It was, undoubtedly, the common opinion that they did; that the temples were their abode; and that they frequently appeared among men, and took part in human affairs. But it was a very early opinion that the Supreme God was withdrawn from human affairs, and had committed the government of the world to intermediate beings – internuncii<\/I> – demons, or aeons: beings of power far superior to that of men, who constantly mingled in human affairs. Their power, however, though great, was limited; and may not the Chaldeans here by the word <\/span> ‘elahyn<\/I> – have meant to refer to the Supreme God, and to say that this was a case which pertained to him alone; that no inferior divinity could be competent to do such a thing as he demanded; and that as the Supreme God did not dwell among men it was hopeless to attempt to explain the matter? Thus understood, the result will convey a higher truth, and will show more impressively the honor put on Daniel. The phrase, whose dwelling is not with flesh, means with men – in human bodies.<\/P> On the supposition that this refers to the Supreme God, this undoubtedty accords with the prevailing sentiment of those times, that however often the inferior divinities might appear to men, and assume human forms, yet the Supreme God was far removed, and never thus took up his abode on the earth. They could hope, therefore, for no communication from Him who alone would be competent to the solution, of such a secret as this. This may be regarded, therefore, as a frank confession of their entire failure in the matter under consideration. They acknowledged that they themselves were not competent to the solution of the question, and they expressed the opinion that the ability to do it could not be obtained from the help which the inferior gods rendered to men, and that it was hopeless to expect the Supreme God – far withdrawn from human affairs – to interpose. It was a public acknowledgment that their art failed on a most important trial, and thus the way was prepared to show that Daniel, under the teaching of the true God, was able to accomplish what was wholly beyond all human power.<\/P> The trial had been fairly made. The wisest men of the Chaldean realm had been applied to. They on whom reliance had been placed in such emergencies; they who professed to be able to explain the prognostics of future events; they who had been assembled at the most important and magnificent court of the world – the very center of Pagan power; they who had devoted their lives to investigations of this nature, and who might be supposed to be competent to such a work, if any on earth could, now openly acknowledged that their art failed them, and expressed the conviction that there was no resource in the case.<\/P><\/p>\n The Chaldeans bring three arguments to convince the king. <\/P> 1. There is not a man upon earth can show the kings matter. <\/P> 2. There is no king requires such a thing of any magician. <\/P> 3. None but the gods can do this. The Chaldeans with other Gentiles did believe more gods than one and the supreme deity or deities did not meddle with the affairs of men, but had the cognizance by inferior or intermediate demons. So Plato and many of them held. The meaning then is this, Seeing there are some things that God, who knoweth all things, will not communicate the knowledge of to men, and hath not done it to us, it is therefore a singular and unreasonable thing the king should require it of us, and that so suddenly, and upon such penalties. <\/P> <\/p>\n 11. gods, whose dwelling is not withflesh<\/B>answering to “no man upon the earth<\/I>“;for there were, in their belief, “men in heaven,<\/I>“namely, men deified; for example, Nimrod. The supreme<\/I> gods arereferred to here, who alone, in the Chaldean view, could solve thedifficulty, but who do not communicate with men. The inferior<\/I>gods, intermediate between men and the supreme gods, are unable tosolve it. Contrast with this heathen idea of the utter severance ofGod from man, Joh 1:14<\/span>, “TheWord was made flesh,<\/I> and dwelt<\/I> among us”; Danielwas in this case made His representative.<\/P><\/p>\n And it is a rare thing the king requireth<\/strong>, e.] Meaning not scarce, or seldom heard of for they had before asserted it never had been required; but that it was hard and difficult, yea, with them, and as they supposed with any other, impossible to be done:<\/p>\n and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh<\/strong>; these men own there was a God, though, they held, more than one; and the omniscience of God, though they seem to have no notion of his omnipresence; and to suggest as if he had no concern with mortals; had no regard to men on earth, nor communicated the knowledge of things unto them. Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Saadiah, interpret this of angels, who are incorporeal; but the superior deities of the Gentiles are rather designed; who were supposed to dwell in heaven, and to have no conversation with men on earth; these, it is owned, could declare to the king what he desired, and no other; and therefore should not persist in his demand on them.<\/p>\n They add, that the object of the king’s inquiry surpassed the power of human ingenuity. There is no doubt that they were slow to confess this, because, as we said before, they had acquired the fame of such great wisdom, that the common people thought nothing unknown to them or concealed from them. And most willingly would they have escaped the dire necessity of confessing their ignorance in this respect, but in their extremity they were compelled to resort to this subterfuge. There may be a question why they thought the matter about which the king inquired was precious; for as they were ignorant of the king’s dream, how could they ascertain its value? But it is not surprising that men, under the influence of extreme anxiety and fear, should utter anything without judgment. They say, therefore, — this matter is precious; thus they mingle flattery with their excuses to mitigate the king’s anger, hoping to escape the unjust death which was at hand. The matter of which the king inquires is precious; and yet it would probably be said, since the, matter was uncommon, that the dream was divinely sent to the king, and was afterwards suddenly buried in oblivion. There certainly was some mystery here, and hence the Chaldeans very reasonably considered the whole subject to surpass in magnitude the common measure of human ability; therefore they add, — there cannot be any other interpreters than gods or angels Some refer this to angels, but we know the Magi to have worshipped a multitude of gods. Hence it is more simple to explain this of the crowd of deities which they imagined. They had, indeed, lesser gods; for among all nations a persuasion has existed concerning a supreme God who reigns alone. Afterwards they imagined inferior deities, and each fabricated a god for himself according to his taste; hence they are called “gods,” according to common opinion and usage, although they ought rather to be denoted genie or demons of the air. For we know that all unbelievers were imbued with this opinion concerning the existence of intermediate deities. The Apostles contended strongly against this ancient error, and we know the books of Plato (123) to be full of the doctrine that demons or genii act as mediators between man and the Heavenly Deity. <\/p>\n We may, then, suitably understand these words that the Chaldeans thought angels the only interpreters; not because they imagined angels as the Scriptures speak of them clearly and sincerely, but the Platonic doctrine flourished among them, and also the superstition about the genii who dwell in heaven, and hold familiar intercourse with the supreme God. Since men are clothed in flesh, they cannot so raise themselves towards heaven as to perceive all secrets. Whence it follows, that the king acted unjustly in requiring them to discharge a duty either angelic or divine. This excuse was indeed probable, but the king’s ears were deaf because he was carried away by his passions, and God also spurred him on by furies, which allowed him no rest. Hence this savage conduct which Daniel records. <\/p>\n (123) A most interesting and singular allegory on this subject occurs in Plato’s Phoedrus, edit. Bekker, Section 51; edit. Priestley, (Lond., 182c,) p.71, et seq.; see also Cic. Tusc. Quoest. 1:16; Aristot. Metaph. 1:5; and De amima, i : 2; Diog. Laert., 8:83. <\/p>\n (11) A rare thing<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> a difficult matter. The difficulty is so great, that the gods whose dwelling is not with flesh are alone able to solve it. Here the reference is to a doctrine of Babylonian theology, according to which every man from his birth onward had a special deity attached to him as his protector. It lived in him, or dwelt with flesh, as the wise men here remark. The deity, being united to the man, became a partaker of human infirmities. For instance, it was subject to the action of evil spirits, and to the influence of the spirits of sickness to such an extent that it might injure the person whom it was bound to protect. Even these deities, the wise men urge, cannot do what the king requires. Such wisdom belongs only to the gods whose dwelling is apart from man. (See Lenormant, La Magie,<\/em> pp. 181-183.)<\/p>\n Dan 2:11 And [it is] a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.<\/p>\n Ver. 11. And it is a rare thing.<\/strong> ] Exceeding man’s wit. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.<\/strong> ] They cohabit not with men, that we might converse and confer with them. Here these wizards (1.) Superstitiously affirm a multitude of gods, which the wiser heathens denied, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Chrysippus, &c. (2.) They deny God’s providence, as did also the Epicures, who held that the gods did nothing out of themselves. The Peripatetics also held that they had nothing to do with things below the moon; yea, the Platonists and Stoics placed the gods in heaven only, and other spirits good and bad in the air, which conversed with men, and were as messengers between them and the gods. Thus these famous philosophers became altogether “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Rom 1:21 (3.) They seem to affirm that man can know nothing of God, unless he cohabited in the flesh with him. “But we have the mind of Christ,” 1Co 2:16 and “the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him”; Psa 25:14 this is a paradox to the natural man. 1Co 2:14 Lastly, they deny the incarnation of Christ, that great “mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh.” 1Ti 3:16<\/span> <\/em> Joh 1:14 <\/p>\n not. Is emphatic. They held that there were gods who dwelt in men. But these were beyond mortal men altogether <\/p>\n and there: This was their decision, and when the living and true God, who indeed condescends to dwell with men, and who alone could reveal the dream and the secrets contained in it, actually made it known to Daniel, he evinced the infinite difference between Jehovah and his prophets, and the idols and magicians of Babylon. Dan 2:27, Dan 2:28, Dan 5:11, Gen 41:39, Exo 8:19, Mat 19:26 <\/p>\n whose: Exo 29:45, Num 35:34, 1Ki 8:27, 2Ch 6:18, Psa 68:18, Psa 113:5, Psa 113:6, Psa 132:14, Isa 8:18, Isa 57:15, Isa 66:1, Isa 66:2, Joe 3:21, Joh 1:1-3, Joh 1:14, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:23, 2Co 6:16, Rev 21:3 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 40:8 – Do not Exo 8:18 – they could 2Ki 5:7 – Amos I God Isa 41:28 – I beheld Dan 2:22 – revealeth Dan 4:8 – and in Act 12:19 – commanded<\/p>\n Dan 2:11. The statements of these Chaldeans shows they believed in the existence of invisible, supernatural beings who did not live among men. It indicates also that these gods possessed knowledge that was never transmitted to men, for they claimed to have knowledge that ordinary men did not have. The gist of the verse is that the king was asking something that was impossible even of men possessing superhuman talents,<\/p>\n And [it is] a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. 11. rare ] difficult: properly heavy. The word has the same sense sometimes in Syriac, as Exo 18:18, in the Peshit. requireth ] asketh … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 2:11”<\/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-21780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21780","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=21780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21780"}],"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: 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: 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: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"