In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him. Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be called to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. The king said to them, “I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.”
Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.”
The king answered the Chaldeans, “The thing has gone from me. If you don’t make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you will be cut in pieces, and your houses will be made a dunghill. But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you will receive of me gifts and rewards and great honor. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation.”
They answered the second time and said, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.”
The king answered, “I know of a certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see the thing has gone from me. But if you don’t make known to me the dream, there is but one law for you; for you have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, until the situation changes. Therefore tell me the dream, and I will know that you can show me its interpretation.”
The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, “There is not a man on the earth who can show the king’s matter, because no king, lord, or ruler, has asked such a thing of any magician, or enchanter, or Chaldean. It is a rare thing that the king requires, and there is no other who can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.”
Because of this, the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed. So the decree went out, and the wise men were to be slain. They sought Daniel and his companions to be slain.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Daniel here says, — King Nebuchadnezzar dreamt in the…
Daniel here says, — King Nebuchadnezzar dreamt in the second year of his reign. This seems contrary to the opinion expressed in the first chapter. For if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, how could Daniel be already reckoned among the wise men and astrologers, while he was as yet but a disciple? Thus it is easily gathered from the context that he and his companions were already brought forward to minister before the king. At the first glance these things are not in accordance, because in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign Daniel and his companions were delivered into training; and in the second he was in danger of death through being in the number of the Magi. Some, as we have mentioned elsewhere, count the second year from the capture and destruction of the city, for they say Nebuchadnezzar was called king from the time at which he obtained the monarchy in peace. Before he had cut off the City and Temple with the Nation, his Monarchy could not be treated as united; hence they refer this to the capture of the city, as I have said. But I rather incline to another conjecture as more probable — that of his reigning with his father, and I have shewn that when he besieged Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachim, he was sent by his father; he next returned to Chaldea from the Egyptian expedition, through his wish to repress revolts, if any one should dare to rebel. In this, therefore, there is nothing out of place. Nebuchadnezzar reigned before the death of his father, because he had already been united with him in the supreme power; then he reigned alone, and the present narrative happened in the second year of his reign. In this explanation there is nothing forced, and as the history agrees with it, I adopt it as the best.
He says — he dreamt dreams, and yet only one Dream is narrated; but since many things were involved in this dream, the use of the plural number is not surprising. It is now added, his, spirit was contrite, to shew us how uncommon the dream really was. For Nebuchadnezzar did not then begin to dream, and was not formerly so frightened every night as to send for all the Magi. Hence, in this dream there was something extraordinary, which Daniel wished to express in these words. The clause at the end of the verse which they usually translate his sleep was interrupted, does not seem to have this sense; another explanation which our brother D. Antonius gave you suits it better; namely, — his sleep was upon him, meaning he began to sleep again. The genuine and simple sense of the words seems to me — his spirit was confused, that is, very great terror had seized on his mind. He knew, indeed, the dream to be sent from heaven; next, being astonished, he slept again, and became like a dead man, and when he considered the interpretation of the dream, he became stupified and returned to sleep and forgot the vision, as we shall afterwards see. It follows —
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 Not that he had many dreams, but because many…
Not that he had many dreams, but because many matters were contained in this dream.
He was so heavy with sleep, that he began to sleep again. Some read, and his sleep was broken from him.
Read full note →
The father and the son were both called by this name, so that this is meant of the son, when he reigned alone: for he reigned also after a sort with his father.
Because it was so rare and strange a dream: that he had not had the like.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–13 Dan 2:1 And in the second year of the…
Dan 2:1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
Ver. 1. And in the second year.] Of Daniel’s advancement. {Dan 1:19-20} Or, as Josephus hath it, post annum secundum Aegyptiacae vastitatis, in the second year after that Nebuchadnezzar had subdued Egypt, and other countries, and so established his monarchy, whereupon likely was begun a new computation of the years of his reign.
Read full note →
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams.] All was but one dream, {a} but of many and weighty matters.
Wherewith his spirit was troubled.] God can easily trouble the troublers of his Israel, and make the ringleader of their bondage the trumpeter of their trophy, even nomen illud prolixum et terrificum, Nebuchadnezzar.
{a} Quid sunt regna omnesque res et spes mortalium nisi somnia vigilantium! - Plato.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,…
In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Heb.
in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for this was properly in the fifth year of that king’s reign and of Daniel’s captivity, and the ninth year of Jehoiakim; but in the second year after Daniel had by his three years’ preparation been brought before the king and approved, then the king dreamed.
Read full note →
Dreamed dreams; it was one dream, but of many parts, therefore called dreams; chiefly for what follows.
His spirit was troubled; by reason of the strangeness of it, he was terrified and in great consternation, and this made him awake.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 We meet with a great difficulty in the date…
We meet with a great difficulty in the date of this story; it is said to be in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 2:1. Now Daniel was carried to Babylon in his first year, and, it should seem, he was three years under tutors and governors before he was presented to the king, Dan 1:5. How then could this happen in the second year? Perhaps, though three years were appointed for the education of other children, yet Daniel was so forward that he was taken into business when he had been but one year at school, and so in the second year he became thus considerable. Some make it to be the second year after he began to reign alone, but the fifth or sixth year since he began to reign in partnership with his father. Some read it, and in the second year, (the second after Daniel and his fellows stood before the king), in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, or in his reign, this happened; as Joseph, in the second year after his skill in dreams, showed and expounded Pharaoh's, so Daniel, in the second year after he commenced master in that art, did this service. I would much rather take it some of these ways than suppose, as some do, that it was in the second year after he had conquered Egypt, which was the thirty-sixth year of his reign, because it appears by what we meet with in Ezekiel, that Daniel was famous both for wisdom and prevalence in prayer long before that; and therefore this passage, or story, which shows how he came to be so eminent for both these must be laid early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Now here we may observe,
I. The perplexity that Nebuchadnezzar was in by reason of a dream which he had dreamed but had forgotten (Dan 2:1): He dreamed dreams, that is, a dream consisting of divers distinct parts, or which filled his head as much as if it had been many dreams. Solomon speaks of a multitude of dreams, strangely incoherent, in which there are divers vanities, Ecc 5:7. This dream of Nebuchadnezzar's had nothing in the thing itself but what might be paralleled in many a common dream, in which are often represented to men things as foreign as are here mentioned; but there was something in the impression it made upon him which carried with it an incontestable evidence of its divine original and its prophetic significancy. Note, The greatest of men are not exempt from, nay, they lie most open to, those cares and troubles of mind which disturb their repose in the night, while the sleep of the labouring man is sweet and sound, and the sleep of the sober temperate man free from confused dreams. The abundance of the rich will not suffer them to sleep at all for care, and the excesses of gluttons and drunkards will not suffer them to sleep quietly for dreaming. But this recorded here was not from natural causes. Nebuchadnezzar was a troubler of God's Israel, but God here troubled him; for he that made the soul can make his sword to approach to it. He had his guards about him, but they could not keep trouble from his spirit. We know not the uneasiness of many that live in great pomp, and, one would think, in pleasure, too. We look into their houses, and are tempted to envy them; but, could we look into their hearts, we should pity them rather. All the treasures and all the delights of the children of men, which this mighty monarch had command of, could not procure him a little repose, when by reason of the trouble of his mind his sleep broke from him. But God gives his beloved sleep, who return to him as their rest.
Read full note →
II. The trial that he made of his magicians and astrologers whether they could tell him what his dream was, which he had forgotten. They were immediately sent for, to show the king his dreams, Dan 2:2. There are many things which we retain the impressions of, and yet have lost the images of the things; though we cannot tell what the matter was, we know how we were affected with it; so it was with this king. His dream had slipped out of his mind, and he could not possibly recollect it, but he was confident he should know it if he heard it again. God ordered it so that Daniel might have the more honour, and, in him, the God of Daniel. Note, God sometimes serves his own purposes by putting things out of men's minds as well as by putting things into their minds. The magicians, it is likely, were proud of their being sent for into the king's bed-chamber, to give him a taste of their office, not doubting but it would be for their honour. He tells them that he had dreamed a dream, Dan 2:3. They speak to him in the Syriac tongue, which was then the same with the Chaldee, but now they differ much. And henceforward Daniel uses that language, or dialect of the Hebrew, for the same reason that those words, Jer 10:11, are in that language because designed to convince the Chaldeans of the folly of their idolatry and to bring them to the knowledge and worship of the true and living God, which the stories of these chapters have a direct tendency to. But ch. 8 and forward, being intended for the comfort of the Jews, is written in their peculiar language. They, in their answer, complimented the king with their good wishes, desired him to tell his dream, and undertook with all possible assurance to interpret it, Dan 2:4. But the king insisted upon it that they must tell him the dream itself, because he had forgotten it and could not tell it to them. And, if they could not do this, they should all be put to death as deceivers (Dan 2:5), themselves cut to pieces and their houses made a dunghill. If they could, they should be rewarded and preferred, Dan 2:6. And they knew, as Balaam did concerning Balak, that he was able to promote them to great honour, and give them that wages of unrighteousness which, like him, they loved so dearly. No question therefore that they will do their utmost to gratify the king; if they do not, it is not for want of good-will, but for want of power, Providence so ordering it that the magicians of Babylon might now be as much confounded and put to shame as of old the magicians of Egypt had been, that, how much soever his people were both in Egypt and Babylon vilified and made contemptible, his oracles might in both be magnified and made honourable, by the silencing of those that set up in competition with them. The magicians, having reason on their side, insist upon it that the king must tell them the dream, and then, if they do not tell him the interpretation of it, it is their fault, Dan 2:7. But arbitrary power is deaf to reason. The king falls into a passion, gives them hard words, and, without any colour of reason, suspects that they could tell him but would not; and instead of upbraiding them with impotency, and the deficiency of their art, as he might justly have done, he charges them with a combination to affront him: You have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. How unreasonable and absurd is this imputation! If they had undertaken to tell him what his dream was, and had imposed upon him with a sham, he might have charged them with lying and corrupt words; but to say this of them when they honestly confessed their own weakness only shows what senseless things indulged passions are, and how apt great men are to think it is their prerogative to pursue their humour in defiance of reason and equity, and all the dictates of both. When the magicians begged of him to tell them the dream, though the request was highly rational and just, he tells them that they did but dally with him, to gain time (Dan 2:8), till the time be changed (Dan 2:9), either till the king's desire to know his dream be over, and he grown indifferent whether he be told it or no, though now he is so hot upon it, or till they may hope he has so perfectly forgotten his dream (the remaining shades of which are slipping from him apace as he catches at them) that they may tell him what they please and make him believe it was his dream, and, when the thing which is going, is quite gone from him, as it will be in a little time, he will not be able to disprove them. And therefore, without delay, they must tell him the dream. In vain do they plead, 1. That there is no man on earth that can retrieve the king's dream, Dan 2:10. There are settled rules by which to discover what the meaning of the dream was; whether they will hold or no is the question. But never were any rules offered to be given by which to discover what the dream was; they cannot work unless they have something to work upon. They acknowledge that the gods may indeed declare unto man what is his thought (Amo 4:13), for God understands our thoughts afar off (Psa 139:2), what they will be before we think them, what they are when we do not regard them, what they have been when we have forgotten them. But those who can do this are gods, that have not their dwelling with flesh (Dan 2:11), and it is they alone that can do this. As for men, their dwelling is with flesh; the wisest and greatest of men are clouded with a veil of flesh, which quite obstructs and confounds all their acquaintance with spirit, and their powers and operations; but the gods, that are themselves pure spirit, know what is in man. See here an instance of the ignorance of these magicians, that they speak of many gods, whereas there is but one and can be but one infinite; yet see their knowledge of that which even the light of nature teaches and the works of nature prove, that there is a God, who is a Spirit, and perfectly knows the spirits of men and all their thoughts, so as it is not possible that any man should. This confession of the divine omniscience is here extorted from these idolaters, to the honour of God and their own condemnation, who though they knew there is a God in heaven, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secret is hid, yet offered up their prayers and praises to dumb idols, that have eyes and see not, ears and hear not. 2. That there is no king on earth that would expect or require such a thing, Dan 2:10. This intimates that they were kings, lords, and potentates, not ordinary people, that the magicians had most dealings with, and at whose devotion they were, while the oracles of God and the gospel of Christ are dispensed to the poor. Kings and potentates have often required unreasonable things of their subjects, but they think that never any required so unreasonable a thing as this, and therefore hope his imperial majesty will not insist upon it. But it is all in vain; when passion is in the throne reason is under foot: He was angry and very furious, Dan 2:12. Note, It is very common for those that will not be convinced by reason to be provoked and exasperated by it, and to push on with fury what they cannot support with equity.
III. The doom passed upon all the magicians of Babylon. There is but one decree for them all (Dan 2:9); they all stand condemned without exception or distinction. The decree has gone forth, they must every man of them be slain (Dan 2:13), Daniel and his fellows (though they knew nothing of the matter) not excepted. See here, 1. What are commonly the unjust proceedings of arbitrary power. Nebuchadnezzar is here a tyrant in true colours, speaking death when he cannot speak sense, and treating those as traitors whose only fault is that they would serve him, but cannot. 2. What is commonly the just punishment of pretenders. How unrighteous soever Nebuchadnezzar was in this sentence, as to the ringleaders in the imposture, God was righteous. Those that imposed upon men, in pretending to do what they could not do, are now sentenced to death for not being able to do what they did not pretend to.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–13 And in the second year of the reign of…
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,.... It was in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign that Daniel was carried captive, Jer 25:1, three years Daniel had been under tutors; at the end of which he was presented to the king, as is related in the preceding chapter; and yet the following dream was in the second of his reign: this creates a difficulty, which is solved by some thus: in the second year after the destruction of the temple, so the Jewish chronicle (o), with which Jarchi agrees; others, as Aben Ezra, in the second year of his monarchy, after he had subdued all the nations round about; and so Josephus says (p), it was in the second year after the destruction of the Egyptians. R. Moses the priest, in Aben Ezra, would have it to be the second year to his reign, to the end of it, when there were only two years wanting to it; a very unusual way of reckoning indeed! and therefore justly rejected by Aben Ezra: but all these dates are too late, since Daniel long before these times was well known, and in great fame for his wisdom; whereas, at this time, it does not appear that he was much known, or in great request: it is better either to render it, "in the second year", that is, after Daniel and his companions had been presented to the king, and promoted;
even in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, as opposed to the reign of Darius or Cyrus, in which he flourished also: or rather this was the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reigning alone; for he had been taken into partnership in the throne with his father before his death, as Berosus (q) observes, which is said to be two years; so that this second year was the fourth year of his reign, reckoning from the time he reigned conjunctly with his father, though the second of his reigning alone: yet it seems best of all to render the words, with Noldius (r), but in the second year, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; that is, in the second year of Daniel's ministry in or under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; who continued at court under different reigns, till the first of Cyrus: this was, according to Bishop Usher (s), and Mr. Whiston (t), in the year of the world 3401 A.M., and before Christ 603. Mr. Bedford (u) places it in 604:
Read full note →
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; which, though but one, yet, relating to various things, the several parts of the human body, and the different metals the form he saw was made of, as well as the four monarchies it signified, is called "dreams". Jacchiades says, he first dreamed the dream, and then the interpretation of it; which is the reason of the plural number: wherewith his spirit was troubled; it gave his mind a great deal of trouble while he was dreaming it; and when he awaked, though he could not recover it, yet he had some confused broken ideas of it; it had left some impressions upon him, which gave him great uneasiness, and the more as he could not recollect any part of it; his mind was agitated, and tossed to and fro, and under the greatest perplexity:
and his sleep brake from him; went away from him, through the strangeness of the dream, and the effect it had upon him.
(o) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 28. p. 80. (p) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 10. sect. 3. (q) Apud Joseph. contr. Apion. l. 1. c. 19. (r) Concord. Ebr. Part. p. 452. No. 1405. (s) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3401. (t) Chronological Tables, cent. 9. (u) Scripture Chronology, p. 677.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 13 In this chapter we have, The perplexity of Nebuchadnezzar…
In this chapter we have, The perplexity of Nebuchadnezzar thro' his dream which he had forgotten, and which the magicians could not tell him, ver. 1-11. Orders given to destroy all the wise men of Babylon, ver. 12-15. The dream discovered to Daniel, and his thanksgiving, ver. 16-23. His discovery of the dream and the meaning of it to the king, ver. 24-45. The honour put upon Daniel and his companions, ver. 46-49.
In the second year - This was properly in the fifth year of that king's reign, but in the second year after Daniel had been brought before the king. Dreams - It was one dream, but of many parts.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13 Nebuchadnezzar, in the second year of his reign, (or…
CHAPTER II
Nebuchadnezzar, in the second year of his reign, (or in the
Read full note →
fourth, according to the Jewish account, which takes in the
first two years in which he reigned conjointly with his
father,) had a dream which greatly troubled him; but of which
nothing remained in the morning but the uneasy impression.
Hence the diviners, when brought in before the king, could give
no interpretation, as they were not in possession of the dream,
1-13.
Daniel then, having obtained favour from God, is made acquainted
with the dream, and its interpretation, 14-19;
for which he blesses God in a lofty and beautiful ode, 20-23;
and reveals both unto the king, telling him first the
particulars of the dream, 24-35,
and then interpreting it of the four great monarchies. The then
existing Chaldean empire, represented by the head of gold, is
the first; the next is the Medo-Persian; the third, the
Macedonian or Grecian; the fourth, the Roman, which should
break every other kingdom in pieces, but which in its last
stage, should be divided into ten kingdoms, represented by the
ten toes of the image, as they are in another vision (Da 7:7)
by the ten horns of the fourth beast. He likewise informs the
king that in the time of this last monarchy, viz., the Roman,
God would set up the kingdom of the Messiah; which, though
small in its commencement, should ultimately be extended over
the whole earth, 36-45.
Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
(named by the prince of the eunuchs, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego,) are then promoted by the king to great honour,
46-49.
NOTES ON CHAP. II
Verse 1. The second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar] That is, the second year of his reigning alone, for he was king two years before his father's death. See Clarke on Da 1:1. This was therefore the fifth year of his reign, and the fourth of the captivity of Daniel.
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams wherewith his spirit was troubled] The dream had made a deep and solemn impression upon his mind; and, having forgotten all but general circumstances, his mind was distressed.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 Dan 2:1. In the second year of the reign…
Dan 2:1. In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar — That is, according to the Babylonian account, or the fourth according to the Jewish; that is, in the second year of his reigning alone, or the fourth from his first reigning jointly with his father. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams — Having subdued all his enemies, and firmly established his throne, it is probable he was thinking upon his bed (see Dan 2:29) what should come to pass hereafter: what should be the future success of his family and kingdom, and whether any, or what, families and kingdoms might arise after his own: and as our waking thoughts usually give some tincture to our dreams, he dreamed of something to the same purpose, which astonished him, but which he could not rightly understand. The dream affected him strongly at the time; but awaking in confusion, he had but an imperfect remembrance of it; he could not recollect the particulars. It is said he dreamed dreams, because though it was but one continued dream, it contained divers scenes of affairs, being a description of the succession of the four monarchies which were to continue, under different forms, unto the end of the world. Wherewith his spirit was troubled — The Hebrew expression, ותתפעם רוחו, denotes that his spirit was violently agitated, or in such consternation as to affect his body, and disturb his rest. And his sleep brake from him — Or, went from him, as a like phrase is rendered Dan 6:18.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–13 And in the second year of the reign of…
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar - There is an apparent chronological difficulty in this statement which has given some perplexity to expositors. It arises mainly from two sources.
(1) That in Jer 25:1, it is said that the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar corresponded with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and as the captivity was in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Dan 1:1, the time here would be the “fourth” year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of the second.
Read full note →
(2) That we learn from Dan 1:5, Dan 1:18, that Daniel and his three friends had been in Babylon already three years, under a process of training preparatory to their being presented at court, and as the whole narrative leads us to suppose that it was “after” this that Daniel was regarded as enrolled among the wise men (compare Dan 2:13-14), on the supposition that the captivity occurred in the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, this would bring the time of the dream into the fourth year of his reign. This difficulty is somewhat increased from the fact that when Nebuchadnezzar went up to besiege Jerusalem he is called “king,” and it is evident that he did not go as a lieutenant of the reigning monarch; or as a general of the Chaldean forces under the direction of another. See 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:11. Various solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but the true one probably is, that Nebuchadnezzar reigned some time conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar, and, though the title “king” was given to him, yet the reckoning here is dated from the time when he began to reign alone, and that this was the year of his sole occupancy of the throne.
Berosus states that his father, Nabopolassar, was aged and infirm, and that he gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Necho out of Asia. The victorious prince then marched directly to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim surrendered to him; and this was the beginning of the seventy years, captivity. See “Jahn’s History of the Hebrew Commonwealth,” p. 134. Nabopolassar probably died about two years after that, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne. The period of their reigning together was two years, and of course the second year of his single reign would be the fourth of his entire reign; and a reckoning from either would be proper, and would not be misunderstood. Other modes of solution have been adopted, but as this meets the whole difficulty, and is founded on truth, it is unnecessary to refer to them. Compare Prof. Stuart, on Daniel, Excursus I. and Excursus II. (See Barnes’ Appendix I and Appendix II to Daniel)
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams - The plural is here used, though there is but one dream mentioned, and probably but one is referred to, for Nebuchadnezzar, when speaking of it himself Dan 2:3, says, “I have dreamed a dream.” In the Latin Vulgate, and in the Greek, it is also in the singular. It is probable that this is a popular use of words, as if one should say, “I had strange dreams last night,” though perhaps but a single dream was intended. - Prof. Bush. Among the methods by which God made known future events in ancient times, that by “dreams” was one of the most common. See the notes at Dan 1:17; Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (2); compare Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6; Gen 31:11; Gen 37:5-6; Gen 40:5; Gen 41:7, Gen 41:25; 1Ki 3:5; Num 12:6; Joe 2:28; Job 33:14-16. The belief that the will of heaven was communicated to men by means of dreams, was prevalent throughout the world in ancient times. Hence, the striking expression in Homer, Iliad i. 63 - καὶ γάρ τ ̓ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν kai gar t' onar ek Dios estin, “the dream is of Jove.” So in the commencement of his second Iliad, he represents the will of Jupiter as conveyed to Agamemnon by Ὄνείρος Oneiros, or “the dream.”
So Diogenes Laertius makes mention of a dream of Socrates, by which he foretold his death as to happen in three days. This method of communicating the Divine will was adopted, not only in reference to the prophets, but also to those who were strangers to religion, and even to wicked men, as in the case of Pharaoh, Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, the butler and baker in Egypt, etc. In every such instance, however, it was necessary, as in the case before us, to call in the aid of a true prophet to interpret the dream; and it was only when thus interpreted that it took its place among the certain predictions of the future. One “object” of communicating the Divine will in this manner, seems to have been to fix the attention of the person who had the dream on the subject, and to prepare him to receive the communication which God had chosen to make to him. Thus it cannot be doubted that by the belief in dreams entertained by Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, as disclosing future events, and by the anxiety of mind which they experienced m regard to the dreams, they were better prepared to receive the communications of Joseph and Daniel in reference to the future than they could have been by any other method of making known the Divine will.
They had no doubt that some important communication had been made to them respecting the future, and they were anxious to know what it was. They were prepared, therefore, to welcome any explanation which commended itself to them as true, and in this way the servants of the true God had a means of access to their hearts which they could have found in no other way. By what laws it was so regulated that a dream should be “known” to be a preintimation of coming events, we have now no means of ascertaining. That it is “possible” for God to have access to the mind in sleep, and to communicate his will in this manner, no one can doubt. That it was, so far as employed for that purpose, a safe and certain way, is demonstrated by the results of the predictions thus made in the case of Abimelech, Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6; of Joseph and his brethren, Gen 37:5-6; of Pharaoh, Gen 41:7, Gen 41:25; and of the butler and baker, Gen 40:5. It is not, however, to be inferred that the same reliance, or that any reliance, is now to be placed on dreams, for were there no other consideration against such reliance, it would be sufficient that there is no authorized interpreter of the wanderings of the mind in sleep. God now communicates his truth to the souls of men in other ways.
Wherewith his spirit was troubled - Alike by the unusual nature of the dream, and by the impression which he undoubtedly had that it referred to some important truths pertaining to his kingdom and to future times. See Dan 2:31-36 The Hebrew word here rendered “troubled” (פעם pâ‛am) means, properly, to “strike, to beat, to pound;” then, in Niph., to be moved, or agitated; and also in Hithpa., to be agitated, or troubled. The proper signification of the word is that of striking as on an anvil, and then it refers to any severe stroke, or anything which produces agitation. The “verb” occurs only in the following places: Jdg 13:25, where it is rendered “move;” and Psa 67:4, (5); Gen 41:8; Dan 2:1, Dan 2:3, where it is rendered “troubled.” The “noun” is of frequent occurrence. “And his sleep brake from him.” Hebrew עליו נהיתה שׁנתו shenâthô nı̂heyethâh ‛ālâyv.
Literally, “His sleep was upon him.” The Greek is, “his sleep was from him;” i. e., left him. The Vulgate, “his sleep fled (fugit) from him.” But it may be doubted whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. Probably the literal construction is the true one, by which the sense of the Hebrew - על ‛al “upon” - will be retained. The meaning then would be, that this remarkable representation occurred when he was “in” a profound sleep. It was a “dream,” and not “an open vision.” It was such a representation as passes before the mind when the senses are locked in repose, and not such as was made to pass before the minds of the prophets when they were permitted to see visions of the future, though awake. Compare Num 24:4, Num 24:16. There is nothing in the words which conveys the idea that there was anything preternatural in the sleep that had come upon Nebuchadnezzar, but the thought is, that all this occurred when he “was” sound asleep. Prof. Stuart, however, renders this, “his sleep failed him,” and so does also Gesenius. Winer renders it, “his sleep went away from him.” But it seems to me that the more natural idea is what occurs in the literal translation of the words, that this occurred as a dream, in a state of profound repose.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 Year, from the death of his father, Nabopolassar; for…
Year, from the death of his father, Nabopolassar; for he had reigned before as partner with his father, in the empire. (Challoner) --- In that quality he conquered Syria, (A. 3397 [in the year of the world 3397 or 607 B.C.]) took Daniel, &c. in 3399 [or 605 B.C.]. He succeeded his father. (Usher) (Calmet) --- After he had enlarged his empire by the conquest of Egypt, &c. he had this dream. (A. R. 25.) (Worthington) --- Mind. Septuagint, "his sleep departed from him." (Haydock) --- He was restless, recollecting enough to fill him with trouble. When the dream was repeated over, he knew that it was the same. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 2. The vision of the monarchies, or Nebuchadnezzar’s dream…
2. The vision of the monarchies, or Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concerning the four world-kingdoms, and its interpretation by Daniel
Dan_2:1-49
Read full note →
1And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith [and] his spirit was troubled,1 and his sleep brake 2from him.2 Then [And] the king commanded3 to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldæans, for to shew [tell] the king his dreams. So [And] they came and stood before the king. 3And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled1 to know the dream.
4Then spake the Chaldæans to the king in Syriac [Aramaic], O king, live for ever! tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.
5The king answered and said to the Chaldæans, The thing [word] is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with [and] the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces,4 and your houses shall be made a 6dunghill [sink]. But [And] if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of [from before] me gifts and rewards [largess], and great honour: therefore shew me the dream and the interpretation thereof.
7They answered again, and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it. 8The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing [word] Isaiah 9 gone from me. But [, that] if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you; for [and] ye have prepared lying and corrupt words [a lie and a corrupt word] to speak before me till the time be changed;5 therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can shew me the interpretation thereof.
10The Chaldæans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth6 that can shew the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things [a matter] at any magician, or astrologer, or Chal 11dæan. And it is a rare thing [And the matter] that the king requireth [asketh is weighty]; and there is none other that can shew it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
12For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded7 to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. 13And the decree went forth that [, and] the wise men should be slain [were about to be killed]; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.
14Then Daniel answered with8 counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard,9 which was [who had] gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon: 15he answered and said to Arioch the king’s captain, Why is the decree so hasty 16from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. Then [And] Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would shew [even to show] the king the interpretation.
17Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions; 18that they would desire [even to request] mercies of the God of heaven [the heavens] concerning this secret, that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night-vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven [the heavens]. 20Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God10 for ever and ever [from everlasting and to everlasting]; for wisdom 21and might are his.11 And he12 changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to 22them that know understanding. He11 revealeth the deep and secret things: he 23knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and made known unto me now13 what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter.
24Therefore Daniel went in unto14 Arioch, whom the king had ordained [appointed] to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him, Destroy not15 the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation. 25Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him,16 I have found a man of the captives [children of the captivity] of Judah that [who] will make known unto the king the interpretation. 26The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?
27Daniel answered in the presence of [before] the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded [asked], cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew [the wise men.… cannot show] unto the king; 28but [yet] there is a God in heaven [the heavens] that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days [what is it that shall be in the end of the days]. Thy dream, and the visions 29of thy head upon thy bed, are these [is this]; (as for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed what should come to pass [what it is that shall be] hereafter; and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what 30shall come to pass [what it is that shall be]: but [and] as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have [is in me] more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation [but in order that the interpretation may be made known] to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart:)
31Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a17 great18 image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood [a great image—this image was large, and its brightness excessive—rising] before thee,19 and the form thereof was terrible. 32This image’s head [This was the image: Its head] was of fine20 gold, his breast [its breasts] and his [its] arms of silver, his belly [its bowels] and his thighs 33[its thighs] of brass [copper], his [its] legs of iron, his [its] feet part [of them] of iron and part [of them] of clay. 34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which [and it] smote the image upon his [its] feet, that were 35of iron and clay,21 and brake them to pieces [crushed them]. Then was [were] the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together,22 and became like the chaff of [from] the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that [and] no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became [was for] a great mountain, and filled the whole [all the] earth.
36This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof [its interpretation we will tell] before the king.
37Thou, O king, art a king of kings [the kings]: for the God of heaven [the heavens] hath given thee a [the] kingdom, [the] power, and [the] strength, and [the] glory.23 38And wheresoever the children of men dwell [in every place that the sons of man are dwelling], the beasts [living thing] of the field, and the fowls [bird] of the heaven [heavens], hath he given into [in] thy hand, and hath made thee ruler [rule] over them all. Thou art this [the] head of gold. 39And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to [earthward from] thee, and another third kingdom [a kingdom the third another] of brass,24 which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40And the fourth kingdom [a kingdom the fourth] shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things [the whole]; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41And whereas thou sawest the feet and [the] toes part [of them] of potter’s clay and part [of them] ofiron, the kingdom shall be divided [a divided kingdom it shall be]; but [and] there shall be in it of the strength of the 42iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron25 mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part [of them] of iron and part [of them] of clay; so the 43kingdom shall be partly26 strong, and partly [part of it shall be] broken. And27 whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men [man]; but [and] they shall not cleave one to another 44[this with this], even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the [their] days of these kings shall the God of heaven [the heavens] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other [another] people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it28 shall stand for eDaniel Dan_2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the [a] stone was cut out of the mountain without [upon not with] hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron,24 the brass,24 the clay,24 the silver,24 and the gold; 24 the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter [what it is that shall be after this]: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
46Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer [to offer] an oblation and sweet odours unto him. 47The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is that your God Isaiah 29 a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing [that] thou couldest reveal this secret. 48Then the king made Daniel a great man30 and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole [all the] province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. 49Then [And | Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but [and] Daniel sat in the gate of the king.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_2:1-3. Nebuchadnezzar demands an interpretation of his dream by the Magi. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., in the second year of his sole reign, which, as remarked in § 8, note 2, of the Introduction, must have commenced some time after the fourth—perhaps in the sixth—year of the reign of Jehoiakim. The time, therefore, is about four years later than that mentioned in Dan_1:1, and soon after that designated in Dan_1:18. The three years of the training of Daniel and his companions had expired, perhaps by only a few weeks or months, and their reception into the number of the royal officials, as well as among the magicians, in the broader sense of the term, was of recent occurrence, when the remarkable event transpired which is here recorded, and which raised the four Jews to a far more exalted position in the royal favor. There is, therefore, no conflict, either with those passages of chap. 1 nor with Jer_25:1, where “the first year of Nebuchadnezzar,” does not designate the first year of his sole reign, but of his joint rule. Compare Hengstenberg, p. 60 et seq., who is correct, in opposition to those who find here essentially a chronological error (Berth., Bleek, Hitz., etc.); and also, as compared with the less suitable modes of reconciliations attempted by several, e.g., Wieseler (Die LXX Wochen, etc., p. 8 et seq.), who places the event narrated in this chapter before the expiration of the three years of Daniel’s training, and therefore before Dan_1:18-20, thus regarding it as a supplementary attestation and illustration of the statement in Dan_1:20 (also Füller, p. 33 et seq.); Hävernick (Neue krit. Unters., p. 64), who places the facts stated in Dan_1:1 et seq. altogether at the beginning of the third year of Jehoiakim, and assumes in addition, that Nebuchadnezzar became king a whole year later; from which it follows that 38–39 months may have elapsed between the taking of Jerusalem and the transportation of Daniel (Dan_1:1 et seq.), and the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Ewald’s opinion that עֶשְׂרֵה has been lost from after שְׁתּיִם, which would give the twelfth instead of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, is likewise superfluous.31—The copula in וּבִשְׁנַת ש׳ probably indicates that verses l–4a were written immediately after chap. 1 and doubtless for the purpose of connecting this introductory section more closely with the Chaldaic fragment, Dan_2:4 b–49, which, together with the narratives in Chaldee that follow, may have already existed in manuscript form. Compare the Intr. § 4.—Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. [“It has justly been regarded as a significant thing, that it was Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, who first saw in a dream the whole future development of the world-power (and even its final overthrow).… This circumstance also is worthy of notice, that Nebuchadnezzar did not himself understand the revelation which he received, but the prophet Daniel, enlightened by God, must interpret it to him.”—Keil.] The plural הֲלֹמוֹת is used in this place with reference to the several contents of the dream, which, according to Dan_2:31, comprises a number of scenes: (1) The sight of the great image; (2) its destruction; and (3) the growth of the stone which caused its ruin, until it became a gigantic mountain. The dream thus manifested its confused, mysterious character, that dissolved into indefiniteness. The plural may, therefore, with a certain propriety be taken as a plural of unlimited universality, which serves to prepare the way for the singular that follows in Dan_2:3, in so far as it designates the whole of the confused and complex nature of the dream, among whose visions the image of the monarchies and its fate, were prominent in importance and in the impression they produced (cf. Hävern and Maur. on the passage). The rabbinical interpretation, which refers the plural to the dream and its explanation, is certainly to be rejected (e.g., Jos. Jacchiad.); and also the unauthorized identification of חִַלֹמוֹת with חֲלוֹם. (Sept., Vulg., Luther, etc.; and also Hävernick, who endeavors to define this as a plural of intensity, supporting his view by a comparison with חָכְמוֹת, Pro_1:20; Pro_9:1, which is certainly not plural).—Wherewith his spirit was troubled. Dan_2:3, and also Gen_41:8 (where the awaking of Pharaoh from his dream is described) employ the Niphal וַתִּפָּעֶם in the same sense that the Hithpael in this place bears, viz.: as indicating the alarm of one who has been frightened by a dream; compare Psa_77:5, נִפְעַמְתִּי “I am so troubled” (properly, “I am bruised, beaten,” contundor). and also the Greek ταράττεσθσι. “The Hithpael intensifies the conception of internal disturbance contained in the Niphal, so that it implies that its outward expression could not be mistaken” (Kranichf.).—And his sleep brake from him,” or “and his sleep was over for him.” So, properly, the Sept., Vulg., Luther, Berth., etc., and, in general a majority of expositors. On the Niphal יִהְיָה, in the sense of being past or completed, compare Dan_8:27, and especially Mic_2:4. The phrase “His sleep went from him” (Dan_6:19; Est_6:1) conveys a somewhat different idea. עָלָיוּ, “over him,” or “for him,” expresses, as frequently with conceptions of emotional activity, the sense of the dative in a more circumstantial and emphatic manner; cf. Dan_4:24; Dan_6:19; Dan_10:8, and see Gesenius’ Thesaurus, p. 1027, 3, e. Hävernick renders it incorrectly: “His sleep came on him heavily;” for the statement that the king was greatly troubled does not admit of the other, that a heavy slumber had seized on him. Rather Dan_2:3 shows clearly that the desire to recall his dream, hence such an effort to recollect as would necessarily banish sleep, formed the real cause of his disturbance.—On the phenomenon that Nebuchadnezzar should have a dream of prophetic significance, and then forget it (with reference to many of its details, if not entirely) consult the dogmatico-ethical considerations, No. 1.
Dan_2:2. And the king commanded to call the magicians, etc. This is exactly similar to Gen_41:8, to which record the writer seems designedly to have conformed in expression. Of the four classes of wise men here remarked (חַכִּימִין, Dan_2:27), the Chartummim and Ashaphim have already been mentioned, Dan_1:20 (see on that place). The מְכַשְּׁפִים, mentioned as a third class, are clearly “enchanters;” cf. כַּשֵּׁף (properly “to mutter words of incantation;” Sept., φαρμακεύεσθαι) 2Ch_33:6 and מְכַשֵּׁף (φαρμακός) Exo_7:11; Deut. 48:10. The term designates, in correspondence with its harsher formation, a stronger and more passionate mode of incantation than אשׁם—an apparent and observable enchantment, as distinguished from the mere breathing of magical formulas. The further mention of the כַּשְׂדִּים, Chaldæans, in connection with the Chartummim, etc., and therefore, as a special class of wise men coördinate with the others, involves no abuse or carelessness of expression, but rather corresponds fully with the statement of Herodotus (I. 181), that the Chaldæans were the priests of Bel, and with that of Diodorus (II. 24), that the Babylonians termed their priests Χαλδαῐοι. Those designated in this place as כַּשְׂדִּים are therefore the sacerdotal wise men (cf. Hesychius, s. v. Χαλδαῖοι, where the Chaldæans are distinguished as a γένος Μάγων), who, it is probable, were specially occupied with astronomy, the aboriginal science of the nations about the Euphrates and the Tigris, whose founder was supposed to be Belus, the chief divinity of the Chaldæans (Pliny, H. N, vi. Dan 30: “Belus—inventor sideralis scientiœ”). As astronomers, they were probably classed with the astrologers, the גָּֽזְרִין, who are mentioned in connection with them in Dan_4:4; Dan_5:7; Dan_5:11, and instead of them in Dan_2:27 of this chapter (see on that passage). The nationality of these Chaldæans was clearly different from that of the great mass of the Babylonian populace; for while these, the original inhabitants of Shinar, were pure Shemites, the former had adopted many Aryan elements into their language and customs. The Chaldæans, after inhabiting Babylonia for centuries, as a kind of priestly caste, attained to political supremacy through Belesys or Nabopolassar, whom Diodorus, ii. 26, designates as ἐπισημότατον τῶν ἱερέων οῦς Βαβυλώνιοι καλοῠαι Χαλδαίους, hence through one of their superior priests (about B. C. 637). They retained this pre-eminence until the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, hence, about a century; but this probably did not exclude the primitive Babylonian priesthood from its place beside the sacerdotal class of the dominant nationality, either in regard to office, or to consideration. Thus we may explain why the Chaldæans are only co-ordinate with the other classes of magicians in this place and in the passages of chap. 4 and 5 which have been mentioned, and also understand the fact that the official language (according to Dan_2:4) was not the Chaldee, but continued to be the Aramæan (primitive Babylonian). The Chaldæns, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar did not, therefore, found a one-sided, intolerant, sacerdotal dynasty; they had rather, so far as this was possible, become thorough Babylonians, or, in other words, Aramæans. The Chaldæns, however, must have formed the potior pars of the whole body of the wise men at the court, for no other supposition will explain why the entire corps are designated sometimes as הַכַּשְׂדִּים, and at others as הַכִּימֵי בָבֶל, in the following account (Dan_2:4-5; Dan_2:10, cf. Dan_2:11-12, etc.). Compare Hitz. and Kranichf. on this passage, and see infra, on Dan_2:4.—For to show the king his dreams. All of the four classes of wise men just mentioned were therefore to co-operate in interpreting the dream, “because in this important matter the facts and opinions were to be settled by various methods, and possibly, to be placed on record. The several classes of wise men supplemented each other on such occasions, and assisted each other mutually by their peculiar methods. Thus, the priests might propitiate the gods and invoke their aid, by sacrifices; the conjurers might contribute to the increase of prophetic ability, as might also the enchanters, e.g., by the use of narcotics, etc. In this way the Egyptian wise-men were constantly employed in individual cases as a αύατημα, according to Diodorus, iii. 30.” (Kranichf.)
Dan_2:3. My spirit was troubled to know the dream. A constr. prœgnans, which signifies, “My spirit has become troubled (cf. on Dan_2:1), and desirous to know the dream.” The king clearly desires to have his dream rehearsed, and not merely to learn its meaning. The words לָדַעַת אֶת־חִַלוֹם may certainly imply the latter, but it appears definitely from Dan_2:5 et seq., 9 et seq. 26, and 36, that he is more immediately concerned to recover the dream itself. The reason was, without doubt, that he had really forgotten it, or, as is frequently the case with intricate dreams, many of its particulars had escaped his memory, and he retained only a general undefined impression of having seen something fearful, monstrous, and alarming, in his dream. A total forgetting of the dream cannot be supposed in this case, since it was not possible for the king to be so greatly troubled as to lose his sleep about a dream which he had forgotten entirely (Dan_2:1). Nor can it be assumed that he really recollected the dream, and had merely pretended that he no longer remembered it (R. Gaon in Ibn-Ezra, Hengstenberg, Hävernick); for the writer would hardly have left unnoticed a representation of this nature, which aimed to test the magicians; and, in addition, the rage of the king, as described in Dan_2:12 et seq., is too furious to be pretended. [On the other hand, Keil justly contends (with the majority of interpreters) that he had not essentially forgotten his dream. “It is psychologically improbable that so impressive a dream, which, on awaking, he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. ‘The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Genesis 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith’ (Kran.). According to Dan_2:9, Nebuchadnezzar wished to hear the dream from the wise men that he might thus have a guarantee for the correctness of the interpretations which they might give. He could not thus have spoken to them if he had wholly forgotten the dream, and had only a dark apprehension remaining in his mind that he had dreamed. In that case he would neither have offered a great reward for the announcement of the dream, nor have threatened severe punishment, even death, for failure in announcing it. For then he would only have given the Chaldæans the opportunity, at the cost of truth, of declaring any dream with an interpretation. ‘The Magi boasted that by the help of the gods they could reveal deep and hidden things’ (Hengst.).” It is very probable, however, that while the king retained a lively recollection of the main features of the dream, he might have forgotten some of the particulars, which, if rehearsed again, he would be able to recognize. This justifies the whole proceeding.]
Dan_2:4. The reply of the magicians. Then spake the Chaldaeans to the king in Syriac, i.e., Aramaic. אֲרָמִיּח, the Aramaic dialect of the Babylonians, which was still prevalent at the court of the Chaldæan rulers, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, etc., and which was distinguished from their Chaldee idiom, including numerous non-Shemitic elements, by its purely Shemitic character, and especially by its near relationship to the Aramæan of the Syrians. Hence, the Sept. and Theodotion translate Συριστί, the Vulg. Syriace, and Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 31)states directly that the Babylonians spoke Syriac. The reason for Daniel’s express statement that the Chaldæans addressed the king in Aramaic (note the verb דִּבֶּר, corresponding to the adverb; cf. Isa_36:11) consists simply in the fact that he desired to call the attention of his Hebrew readers to the contrast between the nationality of the כַּשְׂדִּים, i.e., the majority of the wise men who were summoned before the king, and the purely Shemitic language, which they were obliged to employ (cf. on Dan_2:2). It is wrong to look for the reason of their use of Aramaic, with Palmblad, Hävernick, and others, in their desire to hide the confession of their ignorance from the turba adstantium. This might rather have been accomplished by the use of Chaldee, while the Aramaæan was familiar to all present as the language of the court and nation. Compare supra on Dan_1:4, and also the correct remark of Füller (p. 37): “While the language of the Chaldæans was the language of science, this (the Aram.) was the language of popular intercourse.”—O king, live for ever. This was an introductory formula of the address to the king (cf. Dan_3:9; v. 10; Dan_6:7; Dan_6:22), attested as a general Oriental formula of greeting by 1Sa_10:24 (Saul); 1Ki_1:31 (David); Neh_2:3 (Artaxerxes); Ælian, V. H, I. 31 (βασιλεῠ ʼΑρταξέρξη, δἰ αἰῶνος βασιλεύοις); Curtius, R., VI. 5 (Alexander the Gr.); Jdt_12:14 (Holofernes).—On the Keri לְעַבְדָּךְ, and similar omissions of ו in the Keris, Dan_2:26; Dan_4:16; v. 10, etc., see Hitzig and Kranichf. on this place.
Dan_2:5-6. Renewed demand by the king, connected with a stern menace. The king … said to the Chaldæans, לְכַשְׂדָּיֵא. The uncontracted form כַּשְׂדָּאַיָּא, a stat. emphat. plur., from כַּשְׂדָּאִין, lies at the foundation of this Kethib, as well as of the Keri לְכַשְׂדָּאֵי; compare Winer, Gramm. des bibl. und targum. Chaldaism., § 32, No. 3.—The thing is gone from me, rather, “the decree is made known by me,” i.e., it is my settled purpose, I say it with all emphasis. The words מִלְּתָא מנִּי אַזְדָּא should probably be rendered in this way, as Hitz. and Kranichf. suggest; for (1) this view only is consistent with the repetition of the formula in Dan_2:8, as well as with the parallel מִנִּי שִׂים מְעֵם, Dan_3:29; Dan_4:3; (2) אַזְדָּא, which is found only here and in Dan_2:8, is most readily explained by comparison with the Persian azdâ or azanda, which is found in inscriptions, and is equivalent to publication, science, what is known; (3) the rendering which makes אזדא correspond to תּוּקְפָא ,קְיָמָא, “standing fast” (Pesh., Ibn-Ezra, the rabbins in Saadia, Winer, Hengstenb.), which is closely related to the one under consideration, is untenable from the fact that an assurance of the fixed and irrevocable character of the royal decree would here be out of place, and that an identification of the root אזד with the Arabic vazada, “to be firm,” seems rather precarious; (4) the identification of אזד with אזל, abiit (Dan_2:17; Dan_2:24; Dan_6:19-20), from which arises the sense, “the word has gone out from me” (Gesen., Hävern., Von Lengerke, etc.) is opposed by the extreme improbability that the two forms are identical in meaning, since an interchange of ל and ד is exceedingly rare, and especially because Daniel always employs the form with ל in other places; (5) finally, the view, “the word has escaped my recollection,” which was formerly common, and which is found as early as Theodotion and the Sept. (cod. Chis.) (ὁ λόγος ἀπʼ ἐμοῠ ἀπέστι), the Vulgate (sermo recessit a me), Luther, Dereser, and others, but which here, and much more in Dan_2:8, contradicts the whole context, and does not consist with the only admissible sense of מִלְּתָה=word, command, is wholly untenable; for the term nowhere in this chapter, not even in Dan_2:23, signifies the dream of the king, but always his decree, his demand. [Moreover, “the punctuation of the word אַזְדָּא is not at all that of a verb, for it can neither be a participle, nor the 3d pers. præt. fem.” (Keil), but it is the fem, of an adj. אָזַד, or (as Fürst thinks), an adverbial form of the same. The meaning firm, however, which the author rejects, seems to us more suitable and better corroborated than any other.]—Ye shall be cut in pieces. אתעבד חדּמין, to be made pieces (Sept. διαμερίζεσθαι; cf. μέιλη ποιεῖν, 2Ma_1:16, and διχοτομεῖν, Mat_24:51); a cruel punishment in vogue among till the nations of antiquity, and especially among the Chaldæans (Eze_16:40; Eze_23:47); compare Dan_3:29.—And your houses shall be made a dunghill. Similarly Dan_3:29, and also Ezr_7:11, where the form נְוָלוּ is used instead of Daniel’s נְוָלִי. This term, derived from the Pael נַוֵּל = נַבֵּל:, to soil, defile, indicates the extremely disgraceful nature of the threatened penalty; the houses are to be changed into dunghills, by being razed to the ground and covered with animal and human ordure—just as Jehu turned the temple of Baal into a sink, 2Ki_10:27. See the proofs of the frequent use of this method of disgrace and punishment in the East, adduced by Hävernick.
Dan_2:6. Ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards, and great honors; rather, “great treasures.” The second of the terms here employed, נְבִזְבָּה, “reward “(compare the plural נְבִזְבִּין, “gifts,” chap. v. 17, and the Targ. Jonath., Jer_40:5; Deu_33:24) is satisfactorily explained by its derivation from בזז, and specially from a Palpel form בַּזְבֵּז, facultates suas contemsit, prodegit. It is not necessary, therefore, to refer with Berth., Eichhorn, etc., to the Greek νόμισμα in its elucidation, nor with Haug (in Ewald’s Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, 1853, p. 160), Gesen. -Dietr., etc., to institute a comparison with the old Persian ni-bag-vâ, “presentation,” nor, above all, with the Sanscrit namas, “present, gift,” as Hitzig attempts. Ewald prefers נְבִזְבֶּה, and the translation of this term by official stations, or promoting to office (for which he refers to the old Persic and also to Dan_5:16)—which, however, is opposed to the entire body of exegetical tradition.—Therefore shew me the dream, etc. לָהֵן, therefore (composed of the demonstrative adverb הֵן and the preposition לְ), is found in this signification in Dan_2:9, and Dan_4:24, and in the Hebrew of Rth_1:13. On the other hand it signifies “but rather” in Dan_2:30, and “but” in Ezr_5:12.
Dan_2:7-9. Repeated refusal of the Chaldæans, and renewed threatening of the king. They answered again. תִּנְיָנוּת, an adverb from תִּנְיָן, “the second one,” Dan_7:5.—And we will shew the interpretation, וּפִשְׁרָה נְהַחֲוֵה. The form פִּשְׁרָח is not to be changed into פִּשְׁרֵח, as Hitzig suggests, but must rather be regarded simply as a Hebraized stat. emphat. for פּשׁרא, just as (Dan_2:5) מִלְּתָה is used for מלְּתָא (Dan_2:8, etc.), or כִּתְבָּה (Dan_5:7; Dan_5:15) instead of כִּתְבָּא (ibid., Dan_2:8; Dan_2:16, etc.). Whether the Hebraizing orthography apparent in this and other similar instances is to be placed to the account of Daniel, and to be considered as a peculiar feature of the Chaldee in his time (Pusey, Daniel, p. 46), or whether it originated with later transcribers of Daniel’s text, cannot be definitely decided; compare Kranichf. on this passage.
Dan_2:8. I know of certainty. מִן יַצִּיב, equivalent to מִן קְשׁוֹט, ex veritate, assuredly, Dan_2:47.—That ye would gain the time; literally, “that ye purchase time” (Sept. and Theodotion: καιρὸν ἐξαγοράζετε); compare ἐξαγοράζωσθαι τὸν καιρόν, Eph_5:16; Col_4:15; also tempus emere, Cicero, Verr. Ι. 3. The time, i.e., the favorable juncture, the opportunitas, which the magicians sought to buy, i.e., to improve, consisted in the fact that the king had forgotten his dream; they aim to improve this circumstance in such a way as eventually to avoid the interpretation altogether.32 Their design is therefore properly “to gain time,” to postpone the decision. Thus Gesen., De Wette, Von Leng., Hävernick, and still earlier, Luther, are correct: “That ye seek delay.” Entirely too artificial is the view of Hitzig and Kranichf., that the favorable circumstances, of which the magicians hoped to avail themselves, consisted in the king’s desire to learn the interpretation of the dream; and that they speculated on this desire, in the hope that the king might ultimately be persuaded to disclose to them the dream, etc.—Because ye see that the thing has gone from me; rather, “that my decree is published,” i.e., because ye observe that I am in earnest about the command; compare Dan_2:5. כָּל־קְבֵל דִּי does not, in this nor any other place, not even in Dan_5:22, signify “despite that,” as Hitzig suggests, but “because,” properly “because that,” propterea quod. The king evidently aims to point out the motive for the artful temporizing and delay of the magicians, namely, the menace with which he has intimidated and frightened them.
Dan_2:9. But if ye will not make known … the dream. דִּי הֵן, Heb. אֲשֶׁר אִם. quodsi. The דּי, properly “since,” “therefore,” takes up the subject of the preceding conditional clause, and places it in emphatic correlation to that clause (Kranichf.).—There is but one decree for you; i.e., one and the same sentence of condemnation shall come on all of you (Vulg. correctly, una est de vobis sententia; cf. Luther, “so ergent das Recht über euch”). דָּת, the sentence of condemnation in this passage, is clearly the same in substance as מִלָּא in Dan_2:5; Dan_2:8; the suffix plainly indicates this (דַּתְכוֹן, “your sentence,” i.e., that which comes upon you, which concerns you). Von Leng. and Hitzig (following Theodotion) are wrong: “But one thing forms your object,” ye entertain but one design; for דּת never designates a subjective personal opinion or aim, but rather always an objective norm, which is binding on the individual.—For ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. כִּדְבָה, “falsehood,” and שְׁחִיתָה, properly, “corruption,” “baseness,” are in apposition with מִלָּה. The entire object is, however, placed before the infinitive לְמֵאמַר which governs it, on account of emphasis; compare Dan_2:18; Dan_3:16; Dan_4:15.—The principal verb is הַזְמִנְתּוּן in the Kethib, the Aphel of זְמַן. This form, which does not occur in the Chaldee or Syriac, but is found in the Samaritan, expresses the sense of “conspiring” which is here required, as well as the Ithpa. חִזְדַּמַּנְתּוּן substituted for it in the Keri (cf.συνέθεσθε of Theodotion and the composueritis of the Vulg.).—Till the time be changed, i.e., until by the aid of some hoped for circumstance ye ascertain something more definite concerning the subject of the dream; or, also, until my anger ceases, and I withdraw the demand altogether.—And I shall know that ye can show … the interpretation thereof. The future תְּהַחֲוֻנַּנִי expresses the idea of ability, competency compare Winer, Gramm., § 44, 3, c. (p. 107).
Dan_2:10-11. The magicians attempt to establish their declaration respecting the impossibility of gratifying the king’s desire. Therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things; rather, “since no great and mighty king (ever) asked,” etc. כָּל־קְבֵל דִּי is to be taken here, as in Dan_2:8, in its usual sense of “since,” not as drawing a conclusion, in the sense of “wherefore, for which reason” (Gesen., Von Leng., etc.). It does not, indeed, adduce the actual reason for the assertion that no one could satisfy the royal demand; but it refers to the subjective ground that in all human experience, no king, however great, had imposed such a demand. Compare the similar probatio a posteriori, or a gnorismate, in the familiar passage, Luk_7:47.—The predicates רַב וְשַׁלִּיט are not empty titles after the manner of the Orient (Berth., Von Leng., Häv.), but imply that while the most extreme demands might be expected from precisely the most powerful kings, nevertheless, etc.
Dan_2:11. Except the gods, whose dwelling is not (to be found) with flesh, or “with men.” בְּשַׂר, flesh, indicates the frailty of created man, encompassed by earthly limitations, as contrasted with the uncreated and divine, which is not confined within these perishable bounds; compare Isa_31:3; Jer_17:5; Zec_4:6; Job_5:4; also Joh_1:14; 1Ti_3:16, etc. The Chaldæans include themselves in the term flesh, in order to refer excusingly to their imperfection and the limitation of their knowledge, as in no wise deserving of censure.—The fact that the dwelling of the gods is not with men, prevents such intercourse with them, as would admit of man’s instruction in their superior knowledge. This is certainly a truly heathenish, but not a specifically Babylonian thought (as Hävernick supposes). Von Lengerke’s supposition that the king must already at this juncture have re marked the prophetic rank of Daniel (cf. Exo_8:15) is too far-fetched. On the other hand, the appeal of the wise men to the gods, becomes significant for the progress of the scene, as it might suggest to the king the consideration, so damaging to themselves, that the gods could not conceal their superior knowledge of important secrets from them, of all others, who were professional priests, in case they were not pretended, but real priests of the gods. In other words, the appeal of the magicians hastens the denunciation of the sentence with which they had been threatened.
Dan_2:12-13. The decree for the execution of the appointed penalty. And commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon; naturally only those belonging to the capital city, who alone are to be regarded as summoned before the king (Dan_2:2); not those of the whole realm, nor even of the province of Babylon (Dan_2:49; Dan_3:1). Those remaining magicians, or wise men, who were not inhabitants of Babylon itself, formed, according to Strabo 16:1; Pliny, H. N. Dan_6:26, separate colleges, e.g., in Borsippa, Urchoe, Hipparenum. They differed in certain principles and customs from the Babylonian college, as well as from each other, and therefore, could not be held directly responsible for a mistake or a crime committed by their colleagues in the capital.
Dan_2:13. And the decree went forth. דָּת, the decree in proper form, the firman (cf. δόγμα, Luk_2:1); compare Dan_2:9.—That the wise men should be slain. וְחַכִּימַיָּא מִתְקַטְּלִיּן probably expresses no more than this; the form of the imperf. partic. מִתְקַמְּלִין seems to be used as a gerundive, “they were (persons) to be slain, devoted to death;” or—of which, however, there is no other example—the וְ coupled with the participle, seems exceptionally to express the sense of design: “sapientes ut interficerentur” (cf. Kranichf. and Maurer on this passage, the one of whom prefers the former explanation, and the other the latter). The execution of the sentence is not to be regarded as having actually begun,33 as appears sufficiently from what follows, especially in Dan_2:14; Dan_2:24 (contra Hitzig, etc.).—And they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain; evidently because they were regarded as belonging to the חַכִּימִין or מָגִים in the broader sense, which could only be the case after they had passed the examination before the king mentioned in Dan_1:19—hence, after completing the three years of their training. It follows from this that the event here recorded did not transpire during that period (cf. on Dan_2:1), as Wieseler holds. At the same time the statement before us indicates that Daniel was not entirely unknown to the king at this time, as might appear from Dan_2:25 et seq. The fact that Daniel and his three fellows had not appeared in person before the king, but were sought for, is easily explained by the consideration that Nebuchadnezzar did not, by any means, summon all connected with the class of magians in the capital before him (cf. Dan_2:2, where Luther’s “all star-gazers and wise men” is decidedly inexact), but assuredly only the presidents of the several chief classes, the notables and representatives of the whole body.—On the apologetical significance of the circumstance that Daniel and his companions seem, in this place, to be at least connected or affiliated with the order of magians, if not formal members of it (as Von Lengerke, evidently going too far, supposed) see above, Dogm.-eth. considerations on chap. 1, and also Kranichf. on this passage.
Dan_2:14-16. Daniel prevails on the king to delay the execution of the sentence. Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch, etc. עֵמָא וּמְעֵם, counsel and wisdom, i.e., words of counsel (cf. עֵצָה Isa_11:2; Jer_32:19, etc.) and of wisdom, namely, as concerning the difficult position in which he was placed with the rest of the wise men, and in regard to the proper way to relieve the difficulty (מְעֵם, ratio, similar to Dan_3:12). On הֲתִיב “to reply,” compare Dan_3:16; Ezr_5:11. The connection הֲתִיב טְעֵם reminds us of מְשִׁיבֵי טַעַם, Pro_26:16.—The name אַרְיוֹךְ occurs as early as Gen_14:1, as the name of a king of Ellasar. The leading element in its composition seems to be אֲרִי ,אֲרְיֵה = Sanscrit arja, “lord,” and, possibly, it may even be directly identified with the Sanscrit ârjaka, “venerabilis.” This person was, therefore, a noble, of decidedly Indo-Germanic race, filling an important office at Nebuchadnezzar’s court. His title רַב־טַבִּחַיָּא, chief of the slaughterers (i.e., the executioners), is the Shemitic designation of the same official who was known in the Roman empire as the Præfectus prœtoris, and in Turkey bears the title of Kapidshi-pasha, hence a chief of the life or body guards. Besides the execution of capital punishments, warlike functions, up to those of a commander-in-chief, might occasionally be devolved on this officer, as appears from the instance of Nebuzaradan, 2Ki_25:8 et seq. The office existed, however, even at the court of the Egyptian Pharaohs (see שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים, Gen_37:36; Gen_39:1; Gen_40:3 et seq.). His extensive influence at the Chaldæan court is indicated elsewhere than here (see especially the predicate “the powerful one of the king,” שַׁלִּיטָא דִי־מַלְכָּא Dan_2:15), in 2Ki_8:10; Jer_39:9 et seq.; Jer_40:1 et seq.; Jer_41:10; Jer_43:6; Jer_52:12 et seq.
Dan_2:15. Why is the decree so hasty from the king?—rather, “why this furious decree on the part of the king?” or literally, “why the decree which furious from before the king?” מְהַחְצְפָח the participle of אַחְצֵף, which, according to the Targ. Pro_7:13; Pro_21:29, is equivalent to חֵעֵז, “to rage,” is here in the stat. absol. instead of emphat., just as the Hebrew participle when in apposition is sometimes without the article, e.g., Cant. 12:5; Amo_9:12; Jon. 4:17. Some, as Hävernick, and others, prefer to translate “hurried,” “hasty,” in analogy with Dan_3:29, where מַחְצְפָח seems to bear that sense (?); but the ancient versions support the rendering “furious, raging” (Sept. πικρῶς, Theodot. ἀναιδής, Vulg. crudelis), and the entire situation substantiates this meaning.—The writer, however, does not mention everything that Daniel must have said to Arioch on this occasion; but rather contents himself with faintly indicating that only which served to manifest his counsel and wisdom. The author employs an abbreviated style, as in Dan_1:9-10 (see on the place); he is not, therefore, to be charged with incongruity (Hitzig), nor is the point in question to be strained by an artificially interpolating exegesis, and perhaps (with Kranichf.) to be regarded as particularly surprising and remarkable.
Dan_2:16. And Daniel went in, namely, to the king in the palace (cf. 2Sa_19:6), naturally not until announced by Arioch (cf. Dan_2:25), for none were admitted to the kings of the East without such announcement, see Est_4:11; Herodotus, I., 99; III., 110,118. Hence, another abbreviating statement by the author, as also in what immediately follows.—That he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretation—and naturally, first of all, the contents of the dream itself. He hopes that God will impart both to him, during the respite that is to be granted. In the construction וּפִשְׁרָא לְחַחֲוַיָּה לְמַלְכַּא the copula is explicative, “and indeed, to,” etc., or “namely, to,” etc. The change of construction here is analogous to that in Dan_1:5, where the verb וַיְמַן first governs a simple accusative of object, and afterward a telic infinitive clause with ל (וּלְגַדְּלָם).
Dan_2:17-19. God reveals the secret to Daniel. Then Daniel went to his house—evidently because the king had granted the desired respite, which must be assumed in Dan_2:16, without further question. This favor will not seem strange, nor inconsequent (Hitz.), when we reflect that Daniel and his three friends had secured the favor and good-will of the king but recently, on the occasion of their first appearance in his presence (Dan_1:19 et seq.). None were better adapted to soothe the angry king and obtain at least a postponement of the impending punishment, than the handsome and richly endowed Hebrew youth, who had already made so favorable an impression on the monarch, and who probably would have arrested the publication of the decree of punishment, had he been among those magians that were summoned before the king, according to Dan_2:2; compare on Dan_2:13.—Daniel’s house may probably be considered as an official or servant’s dwelling, as well as the houses of the other wise men mentioned in Dan_2:5; and moreover, as the context shows, as a residence which he shared with his companions, Hananiah, etc.
Dan_2:18. To desire mercies of the God of heaven; more accurately, “and indeed in order to implore mercies.” The clause וְרַחֲמִין לְמִבְעֵא depends on the last preceding verb הוֹדַע, “he made the thing known to them;” hence the construction is the same as in Dan_2:16 b. The design of the הוֹדַע was to impress the exigency on the prayerful consideration of his friends, and, in fact, a united prayerful consideration in which Daniel himself participated (cf. Dan_2:23). That the execution of the design to pray is not expressly mentioned, and that we have merely Daniel’s offering of praise after the secret has been Divinely imparted to him, instead of the supplication of the friends, are additional illustrations of the abbreviating style with which our chapter abounds (cf. Dan_2:14; Dan_2:16). A New-Testament parallel is found in the Johannean narrative of the raising of Lazarus, Joh_9:40-41 et seq., where the supplication of Jesus is likewise omitted, and only his thanksgiving after his prayer is heard, is recorded.—The designation of Jehovah as the “God of heaven,” which occurs as early as Gen_24:7, is very general with Old-Testament writers after the captivity, probably in contradistinction from the custom of the Asiatic Orientals of deifying the several stars or zodiacal regions; cf. Dan_2:19; Dan_2:44; Neh_1:5; Neh_2:4; Ezr_1:2; Ezr_6:10; Ezr_7:12; Ezr_7:21; also the related phrase “King of heaven,” Dan_4:34 (A. V., Dan_2:37), and συνάστης οὐρανῶν, 2Ma_15:23. In general see Hävernick, Theologie des Allen Testaments, 2d ed., p. 49.
Dan_2:19. Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. הֶזְָוא דְּי־לֵילְיָא aim, as well as הֶזְיונוֹת לַיְלָח, Job_4:13, is probably not a dream-vision, but a vision generally, and properly a vision seen by night. On the influence of night to promote the higher range and prophetic elevation of spiritual meditation, by which it readily arrives at visions, consult Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, p. 52.—Compare also the dogmat.-eth. deductions, No. 2 [below].
Dan_2:20-23. Daniel’s praise and thanksgiving. Hitzig observes correctly, “The leading thought which Daniel wishes to express is placed first, Dan_2:20 a; next the exclamation is justified in b, by the attributes which belong to God, and in Dan_2:21-22, by the manner in which they are displayed; finally, Dan_2:22 shows why Daniel felt a desire to utter the specific thought of Dan_2:20 a. Those attributes themselves, Dan_2:20 b, return in Dan_2:23 as belonging to Daniel, conferred on him by God; and thus the prayer is rounded into unity.”—[Daniel answered and said, “The word עֲנֵח retains its proper meaning. The revelation is of the character of an address from God, which Daniel answers with praise and thanks to God.”—Keil.]—Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever. The form לֶהֱוֶא, like the related לֶהֱוְיָן ,לֶהֱוֹן, is to be explained, either by assuming that the particle לְ used as a conjunction (that) has excluded the prefix י (Gesenius, Abhandlung zur hebr. Gramm., p. 180–194), or that the preformative י passes over into ל, as in the later Syriac it passes into נ (Beer, Inscriptiones et papyri vet. Semitici, I., 19 et seq.; Maurer, Hitz., Kranichf., etc.). The latter assumption seems the more trustworthy. On the phrase, “for ever and ever” (from eternity to eternity) compare the similar doxologies, Psa. 41:14; Psa_106:48.—For wisdom and might are his. This is almost verbally the same as Job_12:13. The דִּי in דִּי־לֵהּ חִיא is an emphatic repetition of the former conditional דִּי.
Dan_2:21. He changeth the times and seasons. Theodotion and the Sept. correctly render καιροὺ̀ς καὶ χρόνους, for which Act_1:7; 1Th_5:1, have the inverse order. עִדָּן is time in general; זְמַן, the determined time, the appointed period or point of time. Both terms are also connected in Dan_7:12. The thought that God determines and conditions the change of times refers, like the following (“he removeth kings, and setteth up kings”), to the prophetic subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-vision, which had just been revealed to Daniel.—He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. Although Daniel includes himself among these wise and understanding ones, and even has special reference to himself while mentioning them, he utters no offensive sentiment, but expresses essentially the same thought as St. Paul when he writes, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1Co_15:10). He traces the wisdom and understanding with which he had just been endowed back to its Divine source, and places himself, as the bearer of such wisdom graciously bestowed by God, in contrast with the heathen magians, who are without it.
Dan_2:22. He revealeth the deep and secret things, etc. Compare 1Co_2:10; 1Co_4:5; Psa_139:12.—And the light dwelleth with him, has made its abode with him, as a visiting personage of celestial race; compare the Johannean ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμι̇ν of the Logos, as well as what is stated in Pro_8:30, respecting the Divine wisdom. שְׁרֵא (for which, with Hitzig, we are perhaps to read שְׁרָא) is often used in the Targums instead of נוּחַ or שָׁכַן. Instead of the Kethib נַהִירָא, illuminatio, intellectual light, the Keri has נְהוֹרָמ, physical light (compare perhaps Psa_104:2; 1Ti_6:16). The Kethib, however, is sustained by the corresponding Syriac word, and also by the form נַהִירוּ, Dan_5:14.
Dan_2:23. God of my fathers. Daniel addresses Jehovah in this manner, because in contrast with the idols of the heathen, he has just revealed himself again as the same true God, who was known to the patriarchs of his nation.—Who hast given me wisdom and might; namely, wisdom in regard to the understanding of the king’s dream and its interpretation, and strength with reference to the danger of impending death, which he was enabled boldly to face.—And hast made known unto me now. וּכְעַן, the Chaldee וְעַתָּה, “and now,” connects the requisite special proof with the general statement just made. On the etymology of כען, probably a contraction of כְּעִדַּן, “at the time,” see Gesenius, s. v.
Dan_2:24-26. The announcing of Daniel to the king. Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch. עַל shows the direction, like the Hebrew אֶל; cf. Dan_4:31; Dan_7:16. The Hebrew, however, also employs עַל occasionally in this sense, e.g., 2Sa_15:4.—He went and said thus unto him. The על, “he went in,” which is cue off by the insertion of a lengthened clause, is resumed by אֲזַל in an anacoluthic way.
Dan_2:25. Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste. בְּהִתְבְּהָלָה, “hastily,” properly, “in hasting;” cf. Dan_3:24 and בִּבְהִילוּ, Ezra 6:23, which has the same meaning.—The form חַנְעֵל, which occurs also in Dan_4:4; Dan_6:19, neutralizes (like אִנְדַּע, Dan_2:9) the harshness of the Daghesh (required by the omission of a radical) by the substitution of an epenthetic נ; cf. Winer, § 19, 1. In sense הַנְעֵל does not differ from חָעֵל, Dan_2:24. Concerning Arioch as the εἰσαγγελεύς of Daniel, see on Dan_2:16.—I have found a man of the children of the captivity of Judah (margin), i.e., of the Jewish captives. Arioch here certainly speaks of Daniel as wholly unknown to the king, but this is sufficiently explained by the conceited pride and sovereign contempt, with which he, the dignified Indo-Germanic (Dan_2:14) minister of police, believed himself compelled to look down upon the poor Shemitic prisoner. The etiquette of the Babylonian court, so to speak, and particularly of its military or police division, forbade the leader of the body-guard from recognizing Daniel as one known to the sovereign. The compiler can, therefore, by no means be charged with mentioning in this place what contradicts his former statements, and especially with having already forgotten the fact recorded in Dan_2:16 (Hitz., Von Leng.). The manner in which, for instance, David is introduced as a shepherd totally unknown to Saul and Abner, 1Sa_17:33; 1Sa_17:55, might much more readily lead to the conclusion that the narrative there did not originally consist with that recorded in 1 Samuel 16, which had brought David into closer relations with Saul at an earlier period (cf. even Keil, on 1 Sam., p. 129 et seq., who admits the strangeness of this contradiction). The marked difference between the discrepancy in that case and the far lighter one in the passage under consideration, shows of itself how little reason there is to assume a multiplicity of compilers, or even a want of skill on the part of the sole author.
Dan_2:26. The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar. This Babylonian name, which the king himself had caused to be conferred on Daniel (Dan_1:7), would naturally be the only one to claim the notice of Nebuchadnezzar.—[“The question, Art thou able? i.e., ‘Hast thou ability?’ does not express the king’s ignorance of Daniel’s person, but only his amazement at his ability to make known the dream, in the sense, ‘Art thou really able?’ ”—Keil.]
Dan_2:27-30. Introductory to the statement and interpretation of the dream. The secret … cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king. (On אָשְׁפִין and חַרְטֻמִּין, A. V. “astrologers” and “magicians,” see on Dan_1:20.) Concerning the גָּזְרִין “star-gazers,” who are for the first time expressly mentioned in this place, see notes on Dan_2:2. The word (from גְּזַר, “to cut in,” “incise;” cf. גְּזֵרָה, Dan_4:14) primarily denotes “deciders,” viz.: deciders of fate, dispensers of decisive oracles concerning the fortunes of men, hence astrologers. Compare Dan_4:4; Dan_5:7; Dan_5:11; also Isa_47:13, from which passage it appears that the office of the Babylonian astrologers was not confined merely to horoscopy, but extended to every kind of fortune-telling founded on the study of the stars. The Vulg. haruspices is incorrect; for the signification of the Hebrew (and Arabic) גָּזַר, “to cut in pieces,” is foreign to the Aram. גְּזַר; and haruspicy as a specifically priestly function would seem rather to belong to the Chaldæans.
Dan_2:28. But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets. These words imply the total inability of the heathen gods as well as of their priests and wise men, to reveal secret things; compare Isa_41:22 et seq.; Isa_43:8; Isa_48:3, etc.; Amo_3:7; Hos_12:11.—And maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar—though that monarch is a heathen; compare the instances of Pharaoh (Gen_20:3 et seq.; Gen_41:16 et seq.), Balaam (Numbers 22 et seq.), the Eastern Magi (Mat_2:1 et seq.). The ו in וְהוֹדַע is explicative or particularizing. It serves to introduce the transition from the general truth to the special case in question.—What shall be in the latter days. בְּאַחֲרִית יוֹמַיָּא=Heb. בְּאַחֲרית הַיָּמִים, is neither, directly and without qualification, “in the last time “(Hitzig), nor yet “in the course of time, in the future” generally (Maur., Häv.), but, as everywhere in the prophetic language of the Old Testament (not excepting Gen_49:1; Num_24:14), “in the Messianic future,”—in the future theocratic period of salvation. Kranichfeld remarks correctly: “The writer at the outset of his prophetic announcement characterizes, by the use of באחרית יומיא, the whole matter as in relation to the Messianic destiny of his people.”—Thy dream, and the visions of thy head. חֶזְוֵי רֵישָׁךְ (Cf. Dan_4:2; Dan_4:7; Dan_4:10; Dan_7:1) here designate the dream-visions of the king, not because they were begotten by his head or brain in a purely subjective manner, hut because God had originated them in connection with the meditations of his head. The phrase is synonymous with “thy dream,” and with the latter forms a hendiadys, by virtue of their connection by ו; the plural is used because the king had seen a multiplicity of dreams (cf. Dan_2:1-2), but is subordinated to the singular חֶלְמָךְ as the leading conception, so that the following הוּא דְּנָח is exclusively conformed to this; cf. Winer, § 49, 6.
Dan_2:29. As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind (marg. “came up”) upon thy bed, i.e., presented themselves, uncalled for as it were;—a strikingly expressive personifying phrase. On the form סְלִקוּ compare Dan_3:8; Dan_6:13; Ezr_4:12.—The רַעְיוֹנִין, “thoughts,” are by no means to be directly identified with the “visions of thy head” in the preceding verse; they are, rather, merely the psychical substratum of those visions, the natural soil, as it were, from which the Divine communication sprang forth during the dream (correctly Ephraem, Maurer, Von Lengerke, Kranichf.). The רַעְיוֹנֵי לִבְבָךְ at the close of the following verse, again, are probably something different from both the רעיונין here mentioned, and from those “visions of the head.” They are, most likely, as the context indicates, the disquieting thoughts which occupied the king, after his dream, according to Dan_2:1 (cf. Dan_5:6). The pronoun of the second person אַנְתָּה (for which the Keri substitutes the later form אַנְתְּ), which precedes in the nominative absolute, is repeated by the suffix in רַעְיוֹנָיִךְ, in a manner similar to that by which the introductory absolute וַאֲנָה, “and I,” is resumed by “לי, in the next verse; cf. the same construction, Dan_1:17.
Dan_2:30. Not for any wisdom that I have more than any living. This denies every human agency in the imparting of such superior knowledge to Daniel, and at the same time refers to the design which governed it, concerning which the latter half of the verse is more explicit.—But for the intent, that the interpretation may be made known to the king (margin); properly, “that they should make known to the king.” The indefinite, impersonal plural יְחוֹדְעוּן (Winer, § 49, 3) was probably used with design, that the person of Daniel might be as little, conspicuous as was possible, in accordance with the thought in the former half of the verse. Compare also Dan_4:28.
Dan_2:31-35. The subject of the dream, and, more immediately, the general description, in Dan_2:31, of the image observed by the king. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. “Sawest,”—literally, “wast seeing,” wast in the condition of one who beholds a vision; cf. Winer, § 47, 1.—אֲלוּ, “behold,” is a modification of אֲרוּ (Dan_7:5-6), which, according, to some,=the imperative ראוּ, “behold,” but seems rather to be a pronominal form from the demonstr. אל=אַר; see Hupfeld in the Zeitschr. für Kunde des Morgenl., II., 133,163. The Talmud generally substitutes הֲרִי for either of these forms.—The “image” (צְלֵם), as the context shows, designates a statue in the human form, an ἀνδριάς; also, in Dan_3:1; cf. Isa_44:13.—This great image, whose brightness was excellent. In the Chaldee the words “this image great and its brightness magnificent” are inserted as a parenthesis into the sentence, “and behold a great image stood before thee.” The exceeding brightness of the image results naturally from the metals which compose it.—The form (rather “appearance”) thereof was terrible; this on account of its brightness as well of its greatness; compare Son_6:4.
Dan_2:32. This image’s head was of fine gold. Literally, “this image, its head,” etc. The position of the absolute הוּא צַלְמָא at the beginning of the sentence, is similar to Dan_2:29-30, and Dan_2:33 b, 37, 42, etc.—The stat. constr. רֵאשׁ ought properly to be repeated before דּי, the sign of the genitive; cf. Dan_7:7; Dan_7:19; also Psa_45:7; Ezr_10:13, etc.
Dan_2:33. His legs of iron. On שָׁקִין “shanks,” compare Son_5:15—His feet part of iron and part of clay; literally, “of them of iron, and of them of clay.” In the Kethib the masculine suffix is appended to the partitive מִנְּהוֹן ,מִן; likewise in Dan_2:41-42. The Keri employs, in each of these cases, the form מִנְּתָן which the fem. רְגַל might lead us to expect, but which must probably be regarded as an easier reading. The masculine suffix in מִנְּהוֹן, like הִמּוֹן in Dan_2:34, for example, and like the suffix הוֹן in Dan_7:8; Dan_7:19, must either be regarded as a common gender (Hitzig), or these masculine forms must be explained by a more general conception of the subject, or by one modified according to the sense,—in this case by transferring the thought from the figure to the fact to which it relates, i.e., the conception “foot” to the other idea “kingdom,” which is symbolized by it (so Kranichf., following Ewald, Lehrb., p. 784, § 318,a).
Dan_2:34. Till that a stone was cut out. Naturally a stone that lay on the side of a mountain, from whence it rolled. This stone enters suddenly and unannounced into the transaction; as often happens in dreams.—Without hands, i.e., without human, but solely through a supernatural and Divine agency; compare Dan_8:25, בְּאֶפָס יָד; also Job_34:20; Lam_4:6; Heb_9:11.
Dan_2:35. Then was the iron, the clay, etc., broken to pieces together. דָּקוּ instead of דַּקּוּ; the lengthening of the preceding vowel compensates for the Dag. Forte. The impersonal subject in the plural (“they broke in pieces,” cf. Dan_2:30) refers to the invisible supernatural powers, who effected the appearance of the stone itself and the consequent destination. The several component parts of the image, iron, clay, etc., are in this place recited from below upward, because the stone smote and crushed the feet first.—And became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; hence were totally demolished, annihilated without leaving a vestige. Compare Hos_13:3; Mic_4:13; Isa_41:15-16; Isa_57:13; Psa_1:4; Psa_35:5; Job_21:18.—And the stone.… became a great mountain. טוּר, mountain, is the Heb. צוּר, rock. On the hyperbolical phrase “to fill the whole earth” (not merely “the whole land,” as Van Ess, and others) compare Joh_21:25. and also the apocryphal parallels in Fabric., Cod. Apocr. N. T., I., 321 seq. The exaggeration, however, holds with regard to the figure only, not to the symbolized reality, see Dan_2:44.
Dan_2:36. Transition to the interpretation of the dream. We will tell the interpretation thereof to the king. נֵאמַר, in the plural, is used because Daniel classes himself among the worshippers of Jehovah, all of whom, as such, have access to the mysteries of Divine revelation. It is therefore an expression of modesty, similar to that contained in Dan_2:30. [Daniel seems specially to refer to his three companions, who had been associated with him in prayer for the Divine aid in recovering and expounding the dream, Dan_2:17-18; Dan_2:23.]
Dan_2:37-45. The interpretation.—Thou, O king, art a king of kings. מֶלֶךְ מַלְכַיָּא the general title of Oriental sovereigns, e.g., according to the cuneiform inscriptions, among the Persians (cf. Ezr_7:12); among the Ethiopians of modern Abyssinia (Inscr., 5138); and especially among the Babylonians; compare Eze_26:7, where, as here, Nebuchadnezzar is termed a king of kings. For the rest, the form “Thou, O King” is taken up again below, in Dan_2:38 b, by אַנְתָּה הוּא; for which reason מֶלֶךְ מַלְכַיָּא is really to be regarded as in apposition, and the period extended to the close of Dan_2:38; for Dan_2:37 b (דִּי to יְהַב־לִךְ) is merely a relative clause, and Dan_2:38 a (וּבְכָל־דִּי to בְּכָלְהוֹן) is a parenthetical supplement to it.34—The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom (or dominion), power, and strength, and glory. For the connection of the relative דִּי with the pronoun of the second person לָךְ, compare, e.g., Ecc_10:16. On the idea, Dan_4:19; Dan_5:18.
Dan_2:38. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, etc. On וּבְכָל־דִּי, “and wheresoever,” compare the essentially equivalent בַּאֲשֶׁר, Jdg_5:27; Rth_1:17; Job_39:30. The inserted adverbial כָּל strengthens the idea of the relation, as in כָּל־קְבֵל דִּי, etc.—Instead of דָּארִין “dwelling” (part of דּוּר; cf. the Heb. דּוֹר, “race, generation”) the Keri has here and in Daniel 3:31; Dan_4:32; Dan_6:26, דָּיְרִין, which form is usual in the Targums.—Beasts of the field and fowls of the heaven. This mention of the animals as also subject to the great monarch, serves to enforce and strengthen the corresponding statement with reference to men; similarly Jer_27:6; Jer_28:14—which passages Daniel probably had in view; also Bar_3:16; Jdt_11:7, etc.,—[“Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilized world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all world-powers’ (Klief.).”—Keil. “That this method of describing extensive dominion was common to the Shemitic dialects, is evident from Gen_1:26; Psa_8:6-8; comp. Heb_2:7-8.”—Stuart.]—Thou art this head of gold. [In אַנְתְּה הוּא the הוּא is an emphatic copula, as in Dan_2:47. “It carries a kind of demonstrative force with it, like that of the Greek οὐτος, and is equivalent to Thou art the very or that same.”—Stuart. Strictly, the clause might be rendered, “Thou art it, the head of gold,” and this would yield the exact force of the expression.] Read רֵאשָׁח; the form רֵאשָׁהּ (or רֵאשֵׁהּ, as Hitzig prefers) seems to have been taken from Dan_2:32. Still, שְׁמֵהּ, Dan_2:20, might perhaps be adduced in support of this reading; see Hitz. on the passage.—The reason why Daniel designates Nebuchadnezzar himself as the golden head, instead of his kingdom, lies simply in the fact that the first (even though he were yet co-regent with his father Nabopolassar) gave to the Chaldæan empire its glory and world-wide greatness and importance; so that he could not only be considered the founder of this first world-monarchy, but might also, in a measure, be identified with it. Especially might this occur in the address of a speaker, who would ex-officio be compelled to magnify his fame, because he stood before the king in person, and in the presence of his court. How easily our author could identify a realm (מַלְכוּ) with its sovereign (מֶלֶךְ) is shown by Dan_7:17, where “four kings” is almost exactly synonymous with “four kingdoms.”
Dan_2:39. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, אַרְעָא probably does not signify “earthward, toward the earth,” as is generally assumed; nor can we, with the Keri, consider אֲרַע as an adverb.35 It may be taken instead as a casus adverbialis from עֲרַע (=Heb. שָׁפָל), “a low object,”—analogous to the adverbial עֵלָּא, “above, upward,” from עֵל, “height,” Dan_6:3; and as there עֵלָּא מִנְּחוֹן signifies “higher than they, above them,” so here אַרְעָא מִנָּךְ may mean “below, inferior to thee.” The characterizing of the second kingdom as inferior to the first, which Nebuchadnezzar represented, does not, however, relate to its external power; for it is certainly also conceived of as a world-controlling kingdom, a universal monarchy, as appears abundantly from Dan_6:26. Its inferiority to the former kingdom can only consist in a lower standard of morals, as also the third and fourth kingdoms can only be regarded as below their immediate predecessors in an ethical sense, but not physically or politically. This follows with the utmost clearness from the descending gradation of gold, silver, brass, and iron, as compared with he increasing magnitudes of the corresponding parts, the head, breast, belly, and legs of the image, a thought which lies at the foundation of the whole description (cf. on Dan_2:40, and especially Dogmat.-eth. deductions, No. 3). Considering all this, it seems decidedly superfluous and inappropriate to refer the second kingdom to Belshazzar, as the successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and reserve the third for Medo-Persia (Hitzig, Heidelberg. Jahrb., 1832. p. 131 ff., and Redepenning, Stud. und Krit., 1833, p. 863). The suffix in בַּתְרָךְ and in מִנָּךְ does not at all compel us to assume that only Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is designated by the golden head, and that therefore the breast of silver must refer to his successor on the throne of Babylon. Daniel probably conceived of the first and second kingdoms as monarchies under the rule of a succession of kings, as well as the fourth (see Dan_2:43-44); and the courtesy simply, which he was obliged to observe toward the great monarch who was personally before him, led him, in this and the preceding verses, to mention Nebuchadnezzar only as the representative of the first kingdom (see above).—And another, third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth. Its ethical inferiority to both its predecessors is indicated by the brass, while the relative clause דִּי תִשְׁלַט בְּכָל־אַרְעָא (compared with Dan_2:38 d) seems to imply that the extent of its power should even exceed theirs. It may be remarked, in passing, how clearly this indicates the Macedonian world-monarchy.
Dan_2:40-43. The fourth kingdom, corresponding to the fourth beast, Dan_7:7 et seq., and like it signifying the divided Greek supremacy under the successors of Alex. the great. The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron. On the relation of the form רְבִיעָיָא in the Kethib, which is analogous to the usage of the Syriac, to the purer Chaldaic Keri רְבִיעָאָח (here and Dan_3:25; Dan_7:7; Dan_7:23), see Kranichfeld on the passage. The following explains the meaning of the predicate “strong as iron.—Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; rather, “crusheth all things.” כָּל־קְבֵל דִּי is clearly not to be taken in its usual signification, “since,” but comparatively, “just as;” compare Dan_6:11. The opinion that it stands here in its usual sense as=because (Kranichf., etc.), is opposed by the Athnach under the preceding כְּפַרְזְלָא, which shows that “to break in pieces and crush everything” is not merely stated to be a constant property of iron, but has its application to the nature of the fourth kingdom. [Keil labors at length to sustain this illative rather than illustrative sense of כָּל־קְבֵל דּי, but the arguments on both sides are very trivial, and the difference is not important.]—As iron that breaketh in pieces all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. The וּכְפַרְזְלָא דִּי־מְרָעַע is no “offensive and dragging repetition of the already completed comparison,” but rather serves to powerfully emphasize the iron-like destructive character of the fourth kingdom. The hardness and firmness of iron, however, and still more its solidity and durability, are not involved in the comparison, so much as its destructive power, as appears from the multiplication of verbs that express the idea of destroying (הדק, to divide, חשׁל, to crush, רעע, to break in pieces—the first and last of which are repeated). כָּל־אִלֵּין, “all these,” an individualizing resumption of the more general כֹּלָּא, does not belong to the relative clause וּכְפַרְזְלָא דִּי־מְרָעַע (Kranichf.), but to תַּדִּק וְתֵרֹעַ, which verbs would otherwise stand too disconnected at the close of the verse. There is nothing suspicious in the fact that, by this construction a breaking to pieces of “all these,”—i.e., the materials already mentioned, gold, silver, etc.—by the fourth kingdom, is stated; for it does not assert the destruction of all former kingdoms as such, but only the increasing diminution and shattering of their politico-ethnological material. The passage thus merely represents, in general, the separating and destructive influence which, naturally to its own injury, emanates from the fourth kingdom. The way is thus paved for the description which follows, of the divisions, internal confusion, and weakness of that kingdom (Dan_2:41-43).
Dan_2:41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter’s clay. מִנְּהוֹן as in Dan_2:33. The addition of דִּי־פֶהָר, “of the potter,” to חֲסַף, “clay,” strengthens the conception of weakness and lack of power which is implied in that term. The same idea results from the genitive combination חֲסַף טִינָא “miry clay, potsherds,” which occurs at the end of the verse; it designates the finished work of the potter (Vulg. testa), which, as sherd, is capable of being easily broken.—The kingdom shall be divided, i.e., a kingdom that contains in itself the principle of an increasing disruption and self-division. The dual number of the legs, which might have been made to indicate such division (especially if the colossus were conceived as standing with widely-extended legs), is, evidently, not regarded by the composer. Nothing but the mixture of iron and clay forms the symbol of division in his view; and this mixture, according to him, pertains only to the feet, and does not extend to the legs, which are represented in Dan_2:33 a, as composed entirely of iron. This indicates that the division, although its principle was inherent in the iron-kingdom (see on the preceding verse),36 should only be thoroughly manifested, and its ruinous consequences become apparent in the course of the development of this kingdom; facts which were very fully realized in the history of the Macedonian empire after Alexander, whose rulers endeavored to maintain the unity of the realm down to the battle of Ipsus, although engaged in many conflicts and bloody quarrels with each other, and which only, from the period of that event, permanently dissolved into a number of kingdoms (originally four, from which, however, a constantly increasing number of smaller independent states was developed). Compare infra.—But there shall be in it of the strength of iron. Luther renders “of the iron’s plant,” corresponding to נִיצְבָּא in the Targums, and to the Syr. nezbeto (cf. also Theodot. ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης and Vulg.: de plantaris). But נִצְבְּתָא is probably derived from יְצַב in Pa. “to fortify, strengthen,”—and therefore to be rendered firmness, strength (cf. יַצִּיב, firm, certain, Dan_2:8; Dan_2:45; also Dan_3:24; Dan_6:13, etc.), rather than from נְצַב, to plant.
Dan_2:42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay. The nominative which precedes is really disconnected (cf. Dan_2:32), but, since it is in comparison with the latter half of the verse, “as,” or “just as,” it may properly be supplied. The composition of even the toes out of the fatal mixture of iron and clay, indicates the weakness of the feet which support the great colossus, despite the fact that iron enters into its constitution throughout, as a principal element. That Daniel, while mentioning the toes, already refers to the ten kings of the Seleucidæ, who are represented later (Dan_7:7; Dan_7:24) as the ten horns of the fourth beast, cannot be certainly shown. At any rate, he follows this thought no further, as will be seen from the fact that while he mentions the toes, he does not premise their tenfold number (cf. Hitzig on this passage, against Hengstenb., p. 211. The latter clearly forces the symbol of the toes too far).—So the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly brittle (margin). Concerning מִן קְצָת, “chiefly, partly,” see on Dan_1:2.
Dan_2:43. They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; i.e., the several kingdoms, or rather their rulers, shall seek to establish harmony by means of marriage and voluntary relationship (hence in this way of sexual propagation).37 On the expression, compare Jer_31:27; on the subject, Dan_11:6 et seq. and 17, where the prophet enters more fully into the subject here referred to, of the adoption of the marriage policy, and of its failure.—But they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay; properly, “does not mingle itself with clay.” ’ The reflexive Ithpaal of עֲרַב designates the process of mixing or uniting itself, while the Pael, employed above in Dan_2:41 b, expresses a passive sense. This involves the idea that the elements of iron and clay might be externally mixed, but could not be internally united, because their qualities do not blend, i.e., they contribute nothing themselves to their coherence and permanent union.
Dan_2:44-45. The fifth, or Messianic kingdom. And in the days of these kings; hence, while these kings, the Seleucidæ, Lagidæ, and the other Diadochi, are still reigning; and therefore not without being involved in strife and conflict with them: cf. b, and Dan_7:13; Dan_7:25 et seq.; Dan_8:10 et seq.; Dan_9:24,et seq.—Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. On “God of heaven,” compare on Dan_2:18; Dan_2:37. The highest and only true God appears there as the originator and supreme lord of all kingdoms (cf. Dan_2:21); but this fifth and last kingdom alone, is, in the full sense of the word and with unqualified truth, a kingdom of specifically divine and heavenly character. This implies its miraculous origin as well as its never-ending duration.—The kingdom (rather, “its dominion”38) shall not be left to other people. This had occurred at the end of each of the former kingdoms; compare Sir_10:18. The cessation of such transfers of dominion circumscribes the idea of eternal duration in a realizing manner. The term מַלְכוּ in וּמַלְכוּתָהּ is evidently no longer used in the same sense as before, but signifies “dominion,” “government.” The suffix does not refer to the God of heaven as the founder of the kingdom (Theodotion, ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ), but to the kingdom itself.—It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, וְתָסֵף is literally, “and bring to an end”—annihilate them. The Divine kingdom is not merely to destroy the fourth world-kingdom, but also the three that preceded it, inasmuch as all had been incorporated with the former; which is shown by the figure of the stone that crushes the legs of the colossus, and thereby destroys the whole image. All these kingdoms are thus described as arrayed in hostile opposition to the divine kingdom, and as objects of its destructive influence; but this does not prevent the existence of certain gradations in their hostility to God and in their untheocratic tendencies; nor that, for instance, the golden head (Babylon) and the breast of silver (Medo-Persia) show greater favor and ethical approximation to God’s people, than the brazen belly, etc. Compare supra, on Dan_2:39.
Dan_2:45. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain, etc. כָּל־קְבֵל דִּי is employed here as in Dan_2:40, in a comparative sense, like כַּאֲשֶׁר, “accordingly,” or “forasmuch.” From this usage results a closer connection of the former half of this verse (as far as וְדַהֲבָא) with what precedes it. The somewhat loosely connected and abrupt position which the second period, beginning with אֱלָהּ רַב, is thus made to occupy, need not deter us from this construction (against Hitzig and Kranichf.), which was employed by all the old translators (and also by Luther, Dereser, Von Leng., Maur., etc.).—On the subject compare Mat_21:44; Luk_20:18, where Jesus clearly refers this Messianic prophecy to himself and his kingdom.—The (rather “a”) great God hath made known to the king, etc. “A great God,” says Daniel, because he desires to refer to the infinite power of that God, who is not only able to disclose wonderful revelations respecting the future, but also to bring his promises to pass. The mode of expression is not exactly poetical, as Kranichfeld supposes, but generalizing. But compare אֱלָחָא רַבָּא, with the article, Ezr_5:8. [On the contrary, Keil more justly remarks, “That אלהּ יב means, not ‘a (undefined) great God,’ but the great God in heaven, whom Daniel had already (Dan_2:28) announced to the king as the revealer of secrets, is obvious.” The sign of definiteness (as the art. in Heb.) is omitted on the general principle that the construction by a qualifying adjective renders the term sufficiently definite, inasmuch as there could be no doubt what deity is referred to.]—What shall come to pass hereafter. אַחֲרֵי דְנָה, “after this, hereafter,” refers specially to the time of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan_2:29), and not merely to the incident in the former half of the verse, as Hitzig contends, in order to find here an additional trace of the composition of this book in Maccabæan times.—And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. This is an emphatic affirmation at the close of the truly prophetic character of the dream and of the interpretation that had been submitted. The predicate יַצִּיב with חֶלְמָא hardly refers, as Kranichfeld supposes, to the fact that the king had forgotten the particulars of his dream, and now recovered them accurately and perfectly. It is better to hold, in harmony with the preceding context, that Daniel aims to set forth the trustworthiness and prophetic force of the dream, as he afterward certifies the correctness of the interpretation by מְהֵימַן, “faithful, trustworthy.”
Dan_2:46-49. The influence of Daniel’s interpretation. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel. Evidently סְגִד does not here signify a mere προσκύνησις, such as was sometimes offered to men (cf. Gen_31:7; 2 Sam. 25:23; 1Ki_1:16; Est_3:2), but rather a properly divine adoration (λατρεία), as is shown by the connected religious acts of sacrifice and burning incense. This he offers to Daniel as a great prophet of the highest God (see Dan_2:47), and not because he considered him a god in human form, as the inhabitants of Lystra regarded Paul and Barnabas (Act_14:13 et seq.). For this reason the course of Daniel is unlike that of the apostles on the latter occasion. He no more rejects the homage of the heathen king, than did the high-priest Jaddua, when Alexander the great bowed himself to the earth before him, in order to honor the God of Israel (Josephus, Anti. XI. 8, 5); at any rate, he has not definitely recorded that he protested against it and pointed from himself, the human instrument, to his God—which might, however, be explained on the ground of his abbreviating style (cf. on Dan_2:15 et seq.). [We must not forget that Daniel had already explicitly disclaimed before the king the possession of supernatural powers as of himself (Dan_2:36), and had repeatedly ascribed foreknowledge to God alone (Dan_2:28; Dan_2:45).] The opinion of Geier, Calov, and others, that Nebuchadnezzar merely worshipped in the presence of Daniel, without addressing his homage to the prophet (—as if סְגִד לְ were synonymous with ס׳ קְָדָם), must be rejected; and no less the assertion of Hitzig, that the objective aim of the Maccabæan compiler is again betrayed in this instance, by the “highly improbable behavior of the king” (!?).39—And commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. נְסַךְ, in the Pael “to pour out, deal out, libare” (not “to dedicate, offer,” as Hitzig, with an unnecessary reference to the corresponding Arabic verb, prefers), is zeugmatic in this place, and relates not only to the bringing of the מִנִחָח, “meat-offering,” which included an actual libare, but also the נִיחֹחִין i.e., sweet-smelling savors, offerings of incense, which were connected with all meat-offerings. The offering of incense, therefore, which was really implied in the מִנְחָח (Lev_2:1; Lev_2:15, etc.), is again explicitly noticed, in like manner as the קְטֹיֶת is specially mentioned beside the עלה and the מִנְחָח, in Exo_30:9. On the term נִיחוֹחַ (literally “satisfaction, pleasantness”), here used elliptically without רֵיחַ, which is constantly joined to it in the Hebrew (cf. Ezr_6:10, Chaldee text), see Gesenius-Dietr. in the Handwörterbuch.—The tropical conception of the offering of sacrifice and incense as a purely civic testimonial of honor (Bertholdt) is decidedly improper, and leads to a rationalizing of the passage hostile to both the language and the context. Compare the well-known Persian custom of offering sacrifices to kings as the representatives of Ormuzd, which is mentioned in Curtius, Dan_8:5-6; Dan_6:6; Dan_6:2; Arrian, Dan_6:27.
Dan_2:47. Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods. On מִן־קְשׁוֹט see above, on Dan_2:8; compare בִּקְשׁוֹט, Jdg_9:15; also Jer_22:13.— דִּי stands emphatically before the remark, similar to ὅτι in the Greek, but has greater significance than the latter. “God of gods” does not, in the mouth of the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, designate the only true God (Von Leng.), but the mightiest of all gods. The phrase here expresses a different sense from Dan_11:36; Psa_136:2; Deu_10:17.
Dan_2:48. Then the king made Daniel a great man. רַבִּי the Pael of רְבָח, “to become great” (Dan_4:8) hence, “to make great, exaltare.” [“It is more fully defined by the following clauses.”—Keil.]—And made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon; not as Von Leng. supposes, over the whole kingdom, but simply over the province, מְדִינָא, therefore, as in Dan_3:2. The bestowal of a formal governorship or satrapy is not implied in the verb אשׁלט here, or in Dan_2:38. What really was conferred on the prophet, was probably merely a decisive influence over the administration of the province of Babylon, as is illustrated by Dan_2:49. [Still this civil appointment, in distinction from the literary or professional one immediately added, was tantamount to an official position as recognized vice-regent over the province in which the capital was situated.]—And chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. וְרַב־סִגְנִיו still depends on חַשְׁלְטֵהּ, which verb therefore zeugmatically designates, first his elevation to political power, and then to the dignity of chief priest. סְגַן (related to סכן, periclitari, tentare, in the Heb. utilitati esse, officia, praestare; cf. סֹכֵן, minister) is equivalent to “business-manager, president, overseer;” a רַב־סִגְנִין is therefore a superintendent or chief præfect, and the “Rab-Signin over all the wise men of Babylon” accordingly seems to have been identical with the רַב־מג or “chief magian” mentioned in Jer_39:3. On the probable identity of the terms חַכִּימִין and מָגִים and the relation of both to כַּשְׂדִּים, see above on Dan_2:2.
Dan_2:49. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set, etc. וּמַֹנִּי properly, “and (so) he set;” for ו must be joined to the imperfect, in order to express the sense of “that” (Winer, § 44, 4). בְּעָא therefore signifies an effectual asking in this passage, a prevailing with the king.—Over the affairs of the province of Babylon. עֲבִידְתָּא, “management of business, administration” (cf. עֲבדַת, חַמֶּלֶךְ 1Ch_26:30). The effect of this “placing over the administration of the province of Babylon,” was, evidently, to include the three friends of Daniel among the כֹּל שִלְטוֹנֵי ,מְדִינָתָא Dan_3:2, whatever may have been their official title. But their elevation to the rank of Shiltonim to the king involved no receding on the part of Daniel from the political dignity conferred on him, according to Dan_2:48 (Porphyry, Berth., Hitz., etc.). It rather serves to illustrate the powerful influence of the new royal favorite and councillor. But Daniel was only this, not an actual chief satrap of Babylon, to whom the three friends might have been subordinate. See Dan_2:48, and compare Dan_3:12, which clearly indicates that Daniel did not belong to the number of prominent civil functionaries of the province of Babylon. [On the contrary, the passage here referred to only shows that Daniel’s three friends were, as here stated, the persons directly responsible for the civil functions in a certain district; evidently as subordinates under some single higher officer, who in this case could be no other than Daniel himself—a personage too high for direct impeachment by these officious underlings.]—But Daniel sat in the gate of the king, i.e., within the bounds of his palace, at his court. Compare שַׁעַר חַמֶּלֶךְ Est_2:1; Est_2:9; Est_2:21; Est_3:2 et seq.; also αἱ πυλαί (of the Medo-Persian court), Cyropædia, VIII. 1, and the Turkish “Porte,” —and generally, Rosenmüller, Altes u. Neues Morgenland, III. 399 ff. Incorrectly Bertholdt and Gesenius (Jesaias, i. 697), “He became intendant of the royal castle,”—on which Hävernick remarks, with justice: “It is hardly conceivable how such nonsense could be imputed to our book.” [“The chief ruler of the province had a number of ὑπαρχοι, under-officers, in the province for the various branches of the government. To such offices the king appointed Daniel’s three friends at his request, so that he might himself be able as chief ruler to reside continually at the court of the king.”—Keil.]
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions
We are compelled, in view of the great importance of the image of the monarchies for a correct estimate of the Messianic and practical bearing of all that follows, to separate our dogmatical and ethical observations on this vision into several sections. Accordingly, we treat first of its form; next of the circumstances of the times, which afforded suitable analogies for its prophetico-historical composition; in the third place, of the symbolism of the image as a-whole; fourthly, of the interpretation of the four world-kingdoms, and especially of the second, third, and fourth; and finally, of the relation of the prophetic vision to the history of the founding and development of the Messianic kingdom—the whole to be followed by practical homiletical remarks.
1. The form of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision is distinguished from that of almost all the other prophetic visions of the Old Testament, by the peculiarity, that it is a dream-vision, under which mysterious form its highly important prophetic contents are revealed first to a powerful heathen monarch. The dreams of certain heathen princes of patriarchal times, e.g., of Abimelech, Laban, and Pharaoh (Gen_20:3; Gen_31:24; Gen_41:1 et seq.), present the only analogy to this fact, so far as they were divinely occasioned, and had a direct reference to the fortunes of God’s people. But their contents lack the rich, lively dramatic and symbolic character of this vision; and in the double dream of Pharaoh, the single instance where this approximately exists (Genesis 41), we miss the far-reaching vision that covers all history, and the wealth of Messianic references, by which the dream-vision under consideration is so remarkably distinguished. The observation of Hävernick (Komm., p. 42 et seq.) respecting the dreams of heathen persons in the Scripture history, although instructive and worthy of approval in other respects, has only a partial application in this case: “We often (?) make the observation in the Scriptures, that whenever it became necessary to magnify the theocracy and the kingdom of God on earth—which could only be aided to accomplish its final destiny by means of miracles,—and whenever the welfare of the faithful required a special interference, revelations were imparted to heathen and unbelievers, and generally by means of dreams. Compare Gen_20:3 (where it is expressly stated, with reference to Abimelech, ויבא אלח־ם וגו׳), Gen_31:24; Genesis 41; Jdg_7:13-14. At the same time, the Scriptures assign as the reason for such revelations the subjective aim, ‘to withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man,’ Job_33:17. This Divine purpose was directly favored by the solemn awe with which the heathen world regarded dreams (ὅνειροι θεῖοι, θεόπεμπτοι), as is proven by the characteristic and probably proverbial expression of Homer: και γαρ τʼ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός εστιν (Il. I. 63); cf. further, Il. II. 26 et seq.; Odys. VI. 13 et seq.; xxiv. 11, 12; Herod. VII. 16; also Knapp, Scripta varia arg., p. 103 ss.; Rosenmüller, A. u. N. Morgenl., III. 33 et seq.; Jahn, Einl. ins A. T., II. 391 et seq.”—An instructive article in the Evangel. Missions-Magazin, 1863, No. 1, which was written by Ostertag and entitled Der Traum und seine Wirkung in der Heidenwelt, treats of the important part which dreams continually play in the religious life of heathendom, and more especially, when it is aroused and influenced by Christian missionary efforts. Cf. also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, §14, p. 283 et seq., and Splittgerber, Schlaf und Tod, nebst den damit zusammenhängenden Erscheinungen des Seelenlebens (Halle, 1866), p. 144 et seq. The two latter distinguish more carefully than Hävernick, in the above passage, the dreams inspired merely by conscience and those of a divinely caused and presaging character, which were more frequent within the domain of heathendom, from the dreams of revelation in the proper sense, whose occurrence was much less common among gentile nations, being generally limited in the Old and New Testaments to the people of God. Among the former class they reckon, e.g., the dreams of Pharaoh; among the latter, the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, in chap. 2 and 4 of our prophet.
The important circumstance must be observed, in this connection, that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-vision relating to the four world-kingdoms was evidently imparted to this heathen monarch while in a state of violent and guilty terror, but in so confused and indefinite a form as to exceed his understanding, and as even to prevent a clear reproduction of its nature by the unaided efforts of his memory. In both respects he was compelled to seek the aid of an Israelitish prophet, as an instrument of the only true God to make known the purport of His revelation (cf. supra, on Dan_2:1; Dan_2:3). This feature is certainly remarkable, but by no means incomprehensible. The heathen experienced but a single impulse in the direction of prophecy; the clearly connected description and analysis of the image of the future which he had seen were reserved for the spiritual art of the theocratic seer. The startling impression which had been made on the mind of the king while dreaming, by the appearance of the bright colossus, its sudden fall, and its total destruction and annihilation predominated to an extent that destroyed his recollection, and left him, on awaking, with a mere sense of having seen something highly important and of great significance for his own future and for that of his kingdom. It was natural that this should at once give rise to the wish to recall the vision clearly, in order to ascertain more fully what it might portend; and that this desire should finally excite such alarm as to banish sleep. His condition is not without many parallels in the history of man’s spiritual life. The Egyptian ruler had, indeed, retained the contents of his prophetic dreams, and required Joseph for the purpose merely of interpreting their meaning;—in connection with which the much less startling character of the dreams must be regarded. But in more recent times many instances have been recorded, in which significant dreams were forgotten,—either wholly, or so far as details were concerned,—while they left a powerful impression in the mind of the dreamer (cf. Reitz, Historie der Wiedrgeborenen, I., p. 132 et seq.; Schubert, Symbolik des Traums, p. 211 [3d ed.]; by the same, Geschichte der Seele, II., p. 94 et seq.; Splittgerber, as above, p. 118 et seq.). And the ancient Roman poet Attius (Cicero, de divinitat., II. 21) has at least described the alarm produced, on the sudden awaking of the subject, by an impressive dream, in a manner which thoroughly recalls the behavior of Nebuchadnezzar as described in this chapter:
“Rex ipse Priamus somnio mentis metu
Perculsus, curis sumptus suspirantibus
Exsacrificabat hostiis balantibus.
Tum conjectorem postulat, pacem petens,
Ut se edoceret, obsecrans Apollinem,
Quo sese vertant tantæ sortes somnium.”
In view of all this there is nothing in the external form and dress of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision that removes it materially beyond the influence of conditioning circumstances, such as are elsewhere apparent in the surroundings of prophetic dream-visions. Consequently the credibility of the narrative cannot be assailed on psychological grounds, nor on any other; and the attempt of Von Lengerke, Bleek, Hitzig, and others, to stamp it as an imitation of the history of Pharaoh and Joseph, designed to encourage and strengthen the faith of the Israelites in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, must especially be rejected, as being decidedly arbitrary, since the peculiarities in the conduct and character of Nebuchadnezzar by far exceed the traits he manifests in common with his precursor Pharaoh, and also with his alleged imitator Antiochus.
2. In regard to the points of connection which existed in the state of the world for the prophetic image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, see Kranichfeld’s observation on Dan_2:10 : “It is not recorded, as being unessential, how much information, in regard to his spiritual state at the time of the dream, the king imparted to the wise men, nor yet how much they were able to apprehend themselves in view of the political aspect of the times. The historical point of departure for the knowledge of the dream as a revelation, is found in a consideration that must pre-eminently concern a king as such, at the beginning of a newly-founded realm, and in the presence of a powerful and threatening contiguous state, viz.: the question respecting the fate of his dynasty and of his kingdom.” Cf. page Dan 120: “But the political constellation, even in the early years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, was not of a nature to prevent the writer from recognizing a powerful rival of the Chaldæan empire in the Median kingdom. Isaiah and Jeremiah had already pointed to the nations of the north, or specifically to Persia (Elam) and Media as the executors of the judgment that should come upon Babylon, cf. Isa_13:17; Isaiah 21, 2; Jer_50:3; Jer_50:9; Jer_50:41; Jer_51:11; Jer_51:28.—Above all, Media stood as a powerful rival to the Chaldæan kingdom upon the historical arena, at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s entrance. The Medes were allied with the Babylonians in the destruction of Nineveh, and in that joint undertaking of an earlier period were already able to render powerful assistance; there are even indications that on that occasion the Babylonians saw the direction of their military enterprises principally in the hands of the Medes. They shared with the Babylonians in the possession of the Assyrian empire—the latter taking the western portion, while the former claimed chiefly the regions east and north-east of the Tigris. How greatly Nebuchadnezzar was obliged to dread the power of his neighbor is shown by his fortifications in the north, which were begun soon after his accession to the throne, and prosecuted with vigor during the greater part of his reign (cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 218 et seq., p. 223); an Elamitic-Median war against Babylon appears to have transpired as early as the 11th or 12th year of his reign.”—If to these observations on the relations of Babylon to Medo-Persia, we add the remarks of the same exegete in relation to Javan, i.e., Greece, which was looming up in the distant political horizon of Nebuchadnezzar, and remember, that his western rival and probable successor to the power and greatness of Medo-Persia might be well known to a Chaldæan king about B. C. 600—since Sennacherib had already been engaged in a warm contest with an army of Greek mercenaries in Cilicia, about a century before; since further, such mercenaries were accustomed to serve in the Assyrian armies from the time of Esar-haddon, and in the Egyptian from the time of Psammetichus, and since the Lydian kings were involved in exhaustive and bloody wars with the Ionians, Dorians, and Æolians of Western Asia from about B. C. 610 (see Herod., I. 6; II. 152, 163, 169; Abydenus, in Euseb. Armen. ed. Aucher, I., p. 53; Berosus, Fragm. hist. Græcæ, II., 504 ed. Müller;—cf. supra, Introd. § 7, note 2),—it will be evident that all the conditions were present which could possibly be required for the originating of a dream-vision, by which a Chaldæan monarch about B. C. 600 was forewarned of the future overthrow of his dynasty through the agency of warlike neighboring states. More than an external historical occasion or impulse for the dream-vision, was not probably derived by the king from the peculiar state of existing political affairs. All that bears a really prophetic character in his vision is to be traced back to the direct agency of God, which was able to construct a majestic and united vision of the deepest prophetical significance, out of the extremely sporadic and imperfect natural materials that were provided in the range of the king’s political observation. Left to himself, Nebuchadnezzar, whether awake or dreaming, could merely have originated certain presentiments, or combinations of political wisdom, which at the best, must remain mere images of the fancy, or acute speculations. If his dream became a picture of the future that embraced the world and displayed the profoundest prophetic truths, a vision that was “certain, and the interpretation thereof sure” (see above, Dan_2:45), this was entirely owing to the all-enlightening and revealing influence of the Divine Logos (Joh_1:9), who sought to glorify Himself and His prophet at the court of the powerful heathen king, in order thereby to kindle a shining light of Messianic consolation for His faithful ones of that age, as well as for those of the still darker periods of the future. Cf. infra, Ethico-fundamental principles, etc., on chap. 8, No. 3.
3. The symbolism of the image of the monarchies in general, namely, the succession of the four metals, gold, silver, brass, and iron, as also the distribution of these metals over the several parts of a colossal idol or statue in the human form, the contrast between the brittleness and weakness of this image and the world-filling greatness and solidity of the stone which takes its place, etc.; all these, like the fundamental conditions of the vision itself, may find their point of departure, or so to speak, their root, in certain relations and estimates of the time that naturally prevailed in Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom, while the peculiarity of their arrangement is doubtless, as before, to be traced back to the revealing influence of God. An underlying natural basis cannot be mistaken.
a. In the symbolizing of a succession of four world-kingdoms by a connection of four metals of steadily decreasing value. “A comparative view of the idea of a separation of the course of temporal development into four world-periods, which occurs elsewhere also, is instructive in this connection. We meet it in the Indian transformations within the limits of the four Yugs, in the Græco-Roman conception of four metallic œons (the ages of gold, silver, etc.), and also in the Parsee idea of four trees that have sprung from a single root, composed respectively of gold, silver, steel, and iron.40 Hesiod indeed, destroys the number four, by introducing a fifth kingdom between the kingdoms of brass and of iron, which is not of metal, and thus corresponds, in a measure, to the Messianic kingdom of Daniel, namely, the δικαιότερον καὶ ἄρειον, θεῖον γένος of the heroes; but irrespective of this feature, the constant and decided combination of the idea of world-periods with the precise number four, remains a noteworthy fact. And although the correspondence that has been indicated, for instance, in the case of Ovid as coming under the influence of Greek conceptions, must in all probability be regarded as based on that idea, and moreover, although the Persian idea of the four metallic trees, which has been referred to, may not have been uninfluenced by the representations of Daniel,—it will still be apparent, that the natural application of the number four to the ages of the world rests upon a profounder reason that inheres in the nature of things, and evidently, upon a natural and simple association with the four stages of human life. This connection of the number four with the periods of human life is especially easy in Daniel, since the four phases of development are illustrated by the image of man, as a personification of heathendom” (Kranichfeld, p. 118 et seq.). To what extent the application, in this case, of the idea of four ages of the world to the succession of Asiatic monarchies, is to be placed to the account of the natural or political meditations of Nebuchadnezzar, and how far it is of supernatural suggestion or positively revealed, cannot, of course, be definitely decided, especially in view of our extremely fragmentary knowledge respecting the scope of religious thought and the philosophy of human life among the Babylonians.
b. The comparison of the successive kingdoms with the several parts of a colossal human or idol image is also probably based on some heathen mode of conceiving and representing things, with which the dream-originating Divine principle of revelation may have connected itself. Daniel himself, indeed, indicates nothing whatever, either in his recapitulation of the dream or in the interpretation, that can show that the form, size, and natural dignity of the several parts (head, breast, belly, legs), contained any special symbolical reference to the character of the four world-kingdoms; and any attempt to construct such relations between the image and the objects symbolized is exposed to the danger of being involved in useless interpretations and idle pastimes, as may be seen in many older expositors, and even as late as in Starke (on Dan_2:39; Dan_2:41). But at any rate the size and position of the various parts merit consideration as a tertium compar., so far as the first kingdom, which is represented by the head, as the highest and most important, but also the smallest organ, may be conceived of as intensively more, but extensively less considerable, than the succeeding ones; as also each successive organ may signify an aggregation of peoples or states (cf. supra, on Dan_2:39), which becomes steadily more worthless and degraded, from an internal (ethical) point of view, but as regularly increases in size and extent. In one respect, therefore, namely, so far as the decrease of internal moral worth (or dignity, according to the theocratic standard) among the four successive kingdoms is concerned, the symbolism of the various bodily parts yields the same result as that of the metals; while in another respect it leads to a contrary result, inasmuch as it represents these kingdoms as constantly extending their boundaries.
c. The final consideration,—whether the mysterious stone, that descends from the mountain and shatters the metallic image, representing, Messiah’s kingdom or the fifth world-monarchy, also contains features that may be traced back to the religio-political ideas of the ancient Babylonians, or whether, on the other hand, this closing incident of the whole vision must be regarded as purely supernatural in its character,—can hardly lead to a definite conclusion. Some approach to Messianic ideas and expectations, however, may have been contained in the religious estimate of the world current among that people, as well as in that of the Persians, the Greeks (compare what was remarked above concerning Hesiod and the Zoroastrian myth of the four trees), the ancient Germans and Scandinavians, etc. The stone that crushes the image of the monarchies or world-periods may, therefore, have been a conception taken from the Chaldæan or Babylonian circle of ideas, similar in its nature and tendency to those remarkable mythological approximations to the fundamental dogma of Christianity, which have justly been characterized as “mythological foreshadowings of the great truth: ‘The word was made flesh’ ” (Kahnis, Lutherische Dogmatik, III. 334; cf. 5. Osterzee, Das Bild Christi nach der Schrift, 69 et seq.; J. P. Lange, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, I., p. 237 et seq.).
4. The historical interpretation of the four kingdoms, or the application of the image of the monarchies to the facts of history in detail, involves no really serious difficulty upon the symbolic principles that have been established, in view of the definite statement by the prophet in Dan_2:37-38, by which the golden head designates the Chaldæan empire of Nebuchadnezzar. The three succeeding kingdoms may therefore be discovered, without leaving room for doubt. They necessarily represent the three phases of development in the great Oriental universal monarchy, which followed next after the Chaldæan period; for the prophetic horizon, whether of the king or Daniel, did not embrace the Occident. The four world-kingdoms are developed without exception on one and the same geographical stage, on the soil of the Orbis orientalis, thus harmonizing with the Biblical representation under the symbol of a single colossal human image; and the only world-kingdoms of the Orient that arose after the overthrow of Babylon, and that equalled it in importance, were the Medo-Persian founded by Cyrus, and the Macedonian-Hellenistic, originated by Alexander the Great, the latter of which passed through two stages, viz.: the period of its undivided existence, and that of its constantly increasing division and disintegration under the post-Alexandrian Diadochi. These two, or, by a more correct enumeration three, final forms of the Oriental universal monarchy, are represented with the utmost clearness by the silver breast, the brazen (copper) belly, and the nether extremities which are at first of iron and then of intermingled iron and clay. The breast of silver designates the Medo-Persian kingdom, which first succeeded the golden head, or Babylon. It does not signify Media simply, for (1) at the time when the Median king Cyaxares (=Darius the Mede, see Introd. § 8, note 4) and his nephew and son-in-law Cyrus overthrew Babylon, the Persian tribe had already become so prominent within the Median realm as to warrant the designation of the whole kingdom by the names of both tribes, the Median, which was formerly predominant, and the Persian which had now become its equal. (2) Daniel accordingly refers to the whole world-kingdom which succeeded Babylon as a kingdom of “the Medes and Persians” (chap. Dan_2:28; cf. the exposition of that passage), and even in the section relating to the reign of Darius the Mede (Dan_6:9; Dan_6:13; Dan_6:16) he designates the religious code, which was in force throughout the kingdom, as “the law of the Medes and Persians,” thus characterizing it as a sacred ordinance that rested on the common consent of both the nationalities that had united under a single government.41 (3) In exact correspondence with this is his representation of the Medo-Persian kingdom, in chap. 8. under the figure of a warlike ram, and his designation of a succession of two dynasties—a Median and a Persian—simply by the growth of two horns from the head of the ram, of which the smaller comes up first (Dan_2:3; cf. Dan_2:20). (4) Consequently, the instances in which he distinguishes Darius, or Cyrus, or succeeding kings, by the titles, respectively, of “king of the Medes,” or “king of the Persians,” must be regarded as referring, not to a diversity of realms, but simply to a difference of tribal relations among these rulers. (5) Further the vision of the four successive beasts, which is described in chap. 7. and which is doubtless parallel to that of the four elements in the image of the monarchies, does not accord with the assumption, on which the second beast, a carniverous bear, represents the kingdom of the Medes, while the third, a leopard with four wings, designates the Persian monarchy, which fact was scarcely distinct from the former (see infra on that passage). (6) Nor does Zechariah 6, which is an alleged parallel to the vision before us, warrant a conclusion in favor of the opinion that distinguishes between the Median and Persian kingdoms; for the red, black, white, and grizzled, and bay horses, mentioned in that place, do not designate various lands or kingdoms any more than do the horses with similarly varied colors, which are introduced by the same prophet in Dan_1:7 et seq. (see Köhler, Die Nachexilischen Propheten 2:1, 69 et seq., 189 et seq.). (7) Finally, no conclusion in favor of the Median hypothesis can be deduced from the remark by Daniel in Dan_2:39 a, that the second kingdom should be inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar; for an ethical inferiority of the Persian kingdom to that of the Chaldæans might be readily asserted from a theocratic point of view, inasmuch as it clearly displayed a greater moral and social depravation under its later kings, than the former. Only Cyrus excelled the Chaldæan rulers in friendly and benevolent conduct toward the theocracy, while his immediate successors, Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, treated the people of God with greater severity than had any Chaldæan king whatever (cf. also the sufferings inflicted on the Jews by Xerxes, according to the book of Esther, and also by Artaxerxes I, according to Ezra and Nehemiah).
But if, in view of these considerations, the second kingdom of the image of the monarchies represents Medo-Persia, there can be no further doubt as to the interpretation of the third, which is symbolized by the brazen, belly. It must necessarily designate the Macedonian world-kingdom of Alexander the Great, whose grand and rapid introduction, as if borne on the wings of the tempest, is represented in the parallel vision of chap. 7 by the figure of a leopard with four wings, but which receives consideration in this case (chap. 2), only so far as its ethical and religious inferiority in relation to its predecessors is concerned, and as the remark that it should “bear rule over all the earth” (Dan_2:39 b) characterizes its external greatness. The kingdoms of the Hellenistic Diadochi, which arose from the universal monarchy of Alexander the Great, cannot be included in the third or brazen kingdom, since they present a picture of internal disruption, such as is clearly symbolized by the fourth monarchy of Daniel. The nether extremities of the colossus only, which were at first (in the legs) of iron, but afterward (in the feet and toes) a mixture of iron and clay, can be made to harmonize with the period of the Diadochi. In their interpretation, the legs, which are yet of iron, will probably refer to the time during which the immediate successors of Alexander endeavored at least to maintain the unity of the realm, despite their incessant quarrels and bloody conflicts,—hence down to the battle near Ipsus (B. C. 323–301); while the feet, which are in part of iron, and in part of clay, represent the succeeding state of growing dismemberment and hostile divisions (in which the kingdom of the Seleucidæ in Syria, and that of the Lagidæ in Egypt, were alone able to maintain, during a considerable period, a position of commanding power); cf. above, on Dan_2:41-43. That this tom and corrupted state of the post-Alexandrian Hellenistic empire, so analogous to a putrefying gigantic carcass, and also that the vain attempts to heal the sores by means of intermarriages among the contending princely families, etc., should be already described and prefigured in the visions of a Chaldæan king about B. C. 600, can, of course, find an explanation only in the direct operations of the Divine Logos, by which the future is revealed (cf. No. 3). To base these features on a reference to the historical condition of Hellenism during the Chaldæan period, to its internal divisions and incurable discords, which were, at that early day, as apparent as was their warlike bravery, and further, to the custom of political marriages among princes, which was already frequently observed (Kranichfeld), seems inadequate, and involves the danger of an exaggerated naturalizing of the prophetic process in question. Nor can the custom of political marriages be shown to have existed in the time of Nebuchadnezzar among the Greeks (with whom we have chiefly to do, in this connection), although it prevailed in Medo-Persia and Egypt.
Finally, the fourth kingdom was, at an early period, made to signify the Roman universal dominion, so that its first stadium of unimpaired strength (the legs of iron) represented the period of the republic and the first emperors, and the second, divided and powerless stage (the feet of iron and clay) referred to the later empire, or even to the middle ages and more recent times (in which, according to Auberlen’s exposition of Dan_2:43, the German and Sclavic nationalities were intermingled with the Roman); but this interpretation is opposed by many considerations. (1) It ascribes a range of vision over the future to the dreaming king and the prophetic interpreter, which lacks every support based on the actual condition of the times, since, as is well known, the greatness and world-historical importance of Rome were unknown until four hundred years after the captivity. Unlike the sections of the prophecy which relate to Persia and Javan, this would have no foundation in existing relations, but rather, would be of an abstractly supernatural character. (2) The כִּתִּים mentioned in Dan_11:30, although already identified with the Romans by the Septuagint and the Vulgate, must rather be regarded as a race of Greek islanders, in view of the constant usage of the word elsewhere in the Old Testament, and more especially, because there is no indication of the identity of these Chittim with the fourth world-kingdom, either in chap. 11, or elsewhere. They are simply noticed in that connection, like the northern and southern kingdoms, as a constituent part of the Javanic or Hellenistic empire. (3) The symbolic details comprehended in the fourth or lowest world-kingdom according to Nebuchadnezzar’s vision—the legs of iron, the feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, etc., appear natural and suitable when applied to the development of Hellenism after Alexander, and particularly in the era of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies, while they lead to results of a more or less arbitrary character, with every attempt to demonstrate the Roman hypothesis; e.g., the view of Buddeus, Hengstenberg, and others, by, which the two legs of iron designate the eastern and western empires after Honorius and Arcadius, and that of Cocceius, which regards the iron and the clay as indicating the separation of the Roman power into a spiritual and a material kingdom (papacy and empire), etc. (4) That the collocation of the world-monarchy of Alexander and the kingdoms of the Diadochi as forming one and the same מַלְכוּ, a position that becomes necessary on this view, although supported by Dan_8:21 (where a grouping into a מַלְכוּת יָיָן has actually come to pass), is yet shown by Dan_11:4, to be decidedly opposed to the real meaning of the prophet (cf. 1 Macc. (Dan_1:1; Dan_1:7 et seq.). (5) Finally, the figure of a stone, that destroys the image, is positively false as a representation of the triumph of Christianity over the world-power, if the Roman power be regarded as the fourth and final phase of the development of the latter; for this was not overthrown and destroyed suddenly and at a blow by the kingdom of Christ, like the statue by the stone, but instead, it incorporated Christianity with itself, and continued, as Christianized Rome, to bear rule over the earth during more than a thousand years. It might, therefore, be more properly identified with the stone, than described as a potency inimical to it; but it can, in any case, find no place in the series of pre-Messianic world-kingdoms that were hostile to His reign. [To these arguments we add the marked coincidences, between the several visions of Daniel respecting these four great world-powers, as exhibited in the harmonic table inserted in the introduction; and we call especial attention to the almost perfect parallel between the two “little horns” in each case. Now as one of these is admitted on all hands to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, the other, if identical, is, of course, a constituent likewise of the Syrian empire of the Seleucidæ, as the fourth Oriental monarchy. The discrepancies alleged by Keil, p. 258 et seq., as arguing a different interpretation of the little horns respectively, will be duly noticed in the exposition of the passages themselves.]
For these reasons we adopt that exposition of the four kingdoms which Bertholdt (Daniel, 1:192 et seq.) has recently advocated with penetration and fairness, after Polychronius, Grotius, Tossanus, Zeltner, and others, had asserted its principal features. We differ from Bertholdt, however, in failing to deduce anything that argues the composition of Daniel’s prophecy in the period of the Seleucidæ and Asmonæans, from the reference of the feet of iron and of clay to the times of the later Diadochi, since, as will be shown more in detail hereafter, we regard the reference of passages like Dan_7:8 et seq.; Dan_9:24 et seq. to Antiochus Epiphanes as not conflicting with the authenticity of the book. We accordingly reject the following interpretations, which differ from ours in various particulars:
(a.) That of Bunsen (cf. Introd. § 4, note 1), which applies the golden head to Assyria, in harmony with the alleged original interpretation by Daniel, the breast of silver to Babylon, the brazen belly to Media, and the iron legs to Persia, but which is thus guilty, not only of a direct contradiction of Dan_2:38 (“thou art this head of gold”), but also of a misconception that conflicts with history, in relation to the intimate; connection, and even essential identity of the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon, which could never have been contrasted as gold and silver, or the lion and the bear (cf. Dan_7:5 et seq.)42
(b.) That of Hitzig and Redepenning (see above, on Dan_2:39 a), which refers the head and breast to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, as the only Babylonian kings whom the author is said to have known, and which is therefore, at least, a partial reproduction of the scheme formerly attempted by the Swede, H. Benzel (Dissert, de quatuor orbis monarchiis, 1745), and by Harenberg, Dathe, and Hezel, to personify the four kingdoms (regarding them as metonymies for four Babylonian kings).
(c.) The view of Ephraem Syrus, Venema, Eichhorn, V. Lengerke, Bleek, de Wette, Kirmss, Hilgenfeld, Delitzsch, Kranichfeld (and conditionally, i.e., so far as it conforms to the views under a and b, also of Ewald, Bunsen, and Hitzig), that the head represents Babylon, the breast Media, the belly Persia, and the legs Greece and the Diadochian kingdoms (see for the contrary, above, No. 4).
(d.) The “orthodox” view, which refers the first three kingdoms to Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece, but the fourth to Rome and the states which have sprung from it since the empire; early represented by Josephus (Ant. X. 10, 4), by a majority of church-fathers—especially by Jerome, Orosius, and Theodoret; also by all the expositors of the Middle-age church after Walafrid Strabo, and by a majority of moderns, of whom we mention Buddeus (Hist. eccles. p. 2. sect. 5, p. 619 ss.), Joach. Lange, Starke, Zeis, Velthusen (Animadversiones ad Dan_2:27-45; Prag, 1783), Menken (Das Monarchienbild, Brem, and Aurich, 1809), Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Caspari (Die vier daniel. Weltmonarchien, in the Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1841, No. 4), Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung, I. 276 et seq.), Keil (Einl. ins A. T. § 134, p. 443, [also in his Commentary on Daniel]), Gaussen (Daniel le Prophète, 2d. edit. 1850, I. 250 ss.), Auberlen (Daniel, etc., p. 42 et seq.), Zündel (Krit Unterss. etc., p. 74 et seq.), Kliefoth, Füller, Gärtner (in their expositions), Pusey (p. 58 ss.), Volck (Vindiciœ Dan., p. 7 ss.), [and the monographs added in the Introduction].—For the history of this orthodox-churchly interpretation of the image of the monarchies in older times, see Antiquœ et pervulgatœ de quatuor Monarchiis sententiœ plenior et uberior assertis, auct. J. G. Jano, 1728 (also in Breyer’s Histor. Magazin, vol. I, p. 114 et seq.); and in relation to its influence on the conception and representation of universal history during the 16th and 17th centuries, see Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, vol. I, pt. 1, p. 176 ss.43
5. The relation of the image of the monarchies, when correctly interpreted, to the history of the founding of Christianity, must be found, in view of the foregoing considerations, in the assumption that the destroying stone represents the kingdom of Christ at the time of its introduction on the historical arena, while the growth of the stone until it fills the earth, indicates its gradual extension over all the countries of the earth. The fulfillment of this closing incident of the prophetic vision as a whole, is therefore not confined exclusively to the initial period of the history of Christianity—as if the stone represented the pre-Messianic Israel, or any other historical agency preparatory to the advent of Christ; nor is it to be referred entirely to the future of Christianity—as if the destruction of the colossus of world-powers had not yet transpired, and the overthrow of the fourth monarchy were reserved for the final judgment or some other eschatological event. The descent of the stone and the overthrow of the image were rather realized in the history of salvation, when Christ, the stone that was rejected by the builders, ground His enemies to powder, and became the elect and precious corner-stone in Zion, upon which all the foes of God’s kingdom are henceforth to fall, and by which they are to be shattered and put to shame (Mat_21:42-44; 1Pe_2:6-8; cf. Isa_8:14; Isa_28:16). This closing scene of the vision is in the course of being steadily and increasingly fulfilled, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the destruction and dissolution of the world-powers, and on the other, the growth of the stone into a mighty mountain that fills the whole earth, are yet far from their Divinely appointed goal—however surely the world, together with Satan, its head, may have been long since judged in principle by the Spirit of Christ, and however clearly the only true God, who is declared in Christ, may have demonstrated, in a certain measure, his nature as the all supporting rock, from all eternity in the congregation of His faithful ones (as the “Rock of Israel,” Gen_49:24; Deu_32:4 et seq., Isa_30:29; Isa_44:8; 1Sa_2:2, etc.; cf. the “rock of strength,” Isa_17:10; “rock of eternities,” Isa_26:4; “rock of refuge,” Psa_94:22, etc.).—Here again we are compelled to reject several partial conceptions:
(a.) The identification of the stone or fifth monarchy with the Roman dominion (Grotius), which clearly leads to an improper naturalizing of the passage, so far as it confines itself simply to the earthly relations of the historical Roman empire; but which certainly includes an important measure of truth in so far as it regards the Roman world-power as a Divinely chosen and sanctioned bearer and promoter of the royal Messianic cause at the stage of its introduction (cf. supra, No. 4).
(b.) The one-sided and exclusive reference of the stone to the people of Israel (older Jewish expositors; Porphyry;—see, on the other hand, Jerome on the passage).
(c.) That interpretation of the stone by which it symbolizes merely the person of the Messiah, as distinct from the kingdom founded by Him (Cosmos Indicopleustes, and several rabbins, as Saadia, Ibn-Ezra, etc.; and, after them, especially J. Chr. Beermann. De monarchia quarta, in his Meditatt. politicœ, 1679, where he submits an interpretation of the several kingdoms that is otherwise entirely correct; cf. Bertholdt, as above, p. 215 et seq., in relation to Beermann, and partially against him).
(d.) The reference of the stone, not to the first, but to the second advent of Christ, and also to the erection of the Apocalyptic millennium, which is said to constitute the “fifth monarchy,” according to the true and actual meaning of the prophet. This view was held by the Chiliasts (Enthusiasts, Anabaptists) of the 16th and 17th centuries, and especially by the fanatical sect of Quintomonarchists or Fifth-monarchy men in England at the time of Cromwell (see Weingarten, Die Recolutionskirchen Englands, Berlin, 1868, p. 180 et seq.); also by several recent expositors of a subtile-chiliastic tendency, especially Auberlen (p. 42 et seq.; 248 et seq.;—in opposition to him see Kranichfeld. p. 113 et seq.). Several earlier exegetes of pietistic-chiliastic or theosophic temper, e.g., Joach. Lange, Starke, M. Fr. Roos, Mencken, etc., contented themselves with finding a prophetic reference to the millennium in the final destiny of the stone, hence in its development to a greatness that fills and controls the earth, which is entirely admissible in view of the above.
6. The practical and homiletical treatment of this chapter will dwell predominantly on either its historical or its prophetic features. The leading subjects for consideration will be either the answer to Daniel’s prayer and his promotion above the heathen wise-men, or the triumph of the kingdom of God over the world-powers.
a. The former theme is immediately connected with the subject of the preceding chapter, since Daniel’s promotion and honor were merely additional fruits of the faithful obedience, which had already in that connection been praised as the source and basis of his greatness. Especially suitable texts may be found in the prayer of Daniel and his friends, Dan_2:16-23, and in the closing Dan_2:46-49. Compare Calvin’s observation on Dan_2:16 : “Videmus, quo consilio, et qua etiam fiducia Daniel postulaverit, tempus sibi dari. Consilium hoc fuit ut Dei gratiam implo-raret …. Non dubium est, quin speraverit Daniel, quod adeptus est, nempe somnium regis sibi revelatum iri. Exponit ergo sociis suis, ut simul postulent misericordiam a Deo.” Also Chr. B. Michaelis on the same passage: “Daniel eadem fide, qua postmodum ora leonum obstrinxit (Heb_11:3), hic solutionem somnii, quod necdum noverat, Nebuchadnezari promittit, certus jam de exauditione precum, quas super hac re ad Deum fusurus erat (Jam_1:6).”—On Dan_2:19 cf. Jerome: “Somnium regis suo discit somnio; immo et somnium et
interpretationem ejus Dei renelatione cognoscit, quod dœnones ignorabant, sapientia sœculi scire non poterat. Unde et Apostoli mysterium, quod cunctis retro generationibus fuerat ignotum, Domino revelante cognoscunt (Eph_3:5).”44—On Dan_2:22 see Starke: “If many things in the Word of God are too deep and hidden for thee, the fault is not in the Word, but in thyself. Beseech God to enlighten thy dark heart, and thou shalt understand the depths of God’s Word with ever-increasing clearness.”—Notice also the evidence of Daniel’s profound humility and modesty in Dan_2:23 b: Thou “hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee;” on which Jerome (and after him Theodoret, Calvin, etc.) correctly observes: “Quod quatuor rogant, uni ostenditur, ut et arrogantiam fugiat, ne solus impetrasse videatur, et agat gratias, quod mysterium somni solus audierit.”—In treating the closing paragraph, Dan_2:46-49, notice particularly that it is a heathen, ruler, a worshipper of idols, who is compelled to exalt and glorify Daniel and his God. Calvin (on Dan_2:47): “Profani homines interdum rapiuntur in admirationem Dei, et tunc large et prolixe fatentur, quicquid posset requiri a veris Dei cultoribus. Sed illud est momentaneum: deinde interea manent impliciti suis superstionibus. Extorquet igitur illis Deus verba, quum ita pie loquuntur, sed intus retinent sua vitia, ut facile postea reoidant ad pristinos mores, quemadmodum memorabile exemplum postea sequetur. Quicquid sit, voluit Deus ore profani regis gloriam suam promulgari, et illum esse prœconem suœ potentiœ et sui numinis.”
b. With regard to the prophetic contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as brought out in Daniel’s interpretation, Dan_2:37-44, Melancthon justly comprehends that the political element must in this connection be decidedly subordinate to the religious and Messianic factor, and observes: “Hœe enarratio non tantum est politica de imperiis, sed prœbet etiam occasionem Danieli concionandi de toto regno Christi, de novissimo judicio, de causa peccati, de redemptione et instauratione humani generis; cur sit tanta mundi brevitas; quale sit futurum perpetuum regnum, utrum in hac natura immunda vel alia; qualis sit futurus Redemtor, et quomodo ad hoc regnum perveniatur. Ita hoœc brevis narratio complectitur summam Evangelii.”—Cf. Calvin (on Dan_2:44): “Summa igitur est: qnamvis visuri sint Judœi potentissima imperia, qua malum et terrorem ipsis incutiant, immo reddant fere attonitos, tamen nihil in illis fore stabile vel firmum, quod scilicet contraria sint regno filii Dei. Atqui male- dictionem denuntiat Jesaias (c. LX. 12) omnibus regnis, quœ non servierint ecclesiœ Dei. Quum ergo omnes illi monarchœ diabolica audacia erexerint cristas adversus filium Dei, oportuit deleri, et in illis conspicuam fieri Dei maledictionem, quœ habetur apud prophetam. Sie ergo contrivit Christus omnia mundi imperia.—Hortatur propheta (Psa_2:12) omnes reges terrœ, ut osculenbur Filium. Quum neque Babylonii, neque Persœ, neque Macedones, neque Romani Christo sese subjecerint, immo omnes suas vires contulerint ad ipsum oppugnandum et fuerint hostes pietatis, opportuit deleri a Chrislo regno, … . Neque etiam hic Daniel ea tantum attingit, quœ patent oculis hominnm, sed altius attollit mentes nostras, nempe ut sciamus, non alibi veram fulturam, in qua quiescamus, posse reperiri, quam in imo Christi (1Co_3:2). Extra Christum ergo pronuntiat quicquid splendoris et potentiœ est in mundo et opulentiœ et roboris, hoc esse caducum et invalidum et nullius momenti.”—Starke (after Geier, on Dan_2:44): “All the kingdoms of earth are subject to change, but Christ’s kingdom shall endure for ever, and no violence can accomplish its overthrow” (Mat_14:19).–Id. (on Dan_2:37 et seq.): “If God foreknows so exactly all changes in the world-kingdoms, and if He governs them all by His wisdom, should He not know the changes which are to transpire in His church? Should He not control them for good?” (Mat_10:29-30).—Menken (Das Monarchienbild, p. 82): “The object for which God created the world, and the end for which He governs it, is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the invisible root which holds and sustains the world-kingdoms, the invisible power which smites and destroys them. Their more or less intimate connection with the kingdom of God decides the duration, the importance, the significance of world-kingdoms. The fate and the history of all the kingdoms of earth, that have no important connection with the kingdom of God, or no connection at all, would be of no value. Whatever may be their history, it is always unimportant, because they exert no influence whatever, or at best a very limited influence, upon the postponing or hastening of the final development of things, upon the supplanting of the world-kingdoms by the kingdom of God.”
Footnotes:
[1]יַתִּפָּעֶם beat itself to and fro, was agitated with conflicting thoughts and feelings.
[2]נִהְיְתָה עָלָין was become upon him, a Chaldaizing sense of the verb, like our colloquial “was all over with him”.
[3]וַיֹּאמֶר said the Chaldee sense.
[4]הַדָּמִין תִּתְעַבְּדוּן, bits ye shall be made, i.e., “chopped into mince meat;” probably a Babylonian form of punishment like “killing by inches.”
[5]יִשְׁתַּנֵּא be turned, i.e., pass by.
[6]יַבֶּשְׁתָּא the dry ground, an emphatic term for the world.
[7]וַיֹּאמֶר said the Chaldee sense.
[8]חֲתיב returned in answer.
[9]סַבָּחַיָּא the executioners, such being in Oriental courts an important part of the royal body-guard.
[10]אֱלָהָא the God, like הָאֱלהִֹים i.e., the true God.
[11]דִּילֵהּ הִיא, for (I say) his, i.e., each of the preceding qualities.
[12]יְהוּא is emphatic, and He. The pronoun is understood with the following clauses.
[13]וּכְעַן and now; the position makes these terms emphatic; q. d., at once, promptly in this emergency.
[14]עַל, upon, seems here to denote the abruptness of the interview, q. d., came upon.
[15]אַל־תְּהוֹבֵד the deprecatory form, mayest thou not destroy!
[16]The דּי following is expletive, like ὅτι before direct quotations.
[17]חַד one, i.e., a single one, standing alone and conspicuous.
[18]שַׂגִּיא, huge or colossal; a different and stronger term than the רַב immediately following.
[19]לְקָבְלָךְ in front of thee; a stronger term, like the Heb. נֶגֶד, than קָדָם so frequently used in the context.
[20]טָב, good, i.e., pure.
[21]פַּרִזְלָא וְחַסָפָּא the iron and the clay, i.e., the materials just described. The art. is emphatic, as in the following verse.
[22]כַּחֲדָהֹ like one thing, all at once; denoting suddenness as well as simultaneousness.
[23]With these epithets compare the similar terms in the (spurious or late) doxology at the close of the Lord’s Prayer.
[24]גְחָשָׁא is rather copper, the simple metal; for zinc, which is a component of brass, was anciently unknown.
[25]פַּרְזְלָא The article here, though present, as in all the preceding verses, should not be expressed in English, as it merely indicates the material.
[26]מִן־קְצָת in part (lit. from the end); a different expression from the partitives elsewhere used in this connection.
[27]The ו connective is wanting in the text, but is supplied in the Masoretic margin.
[28]The הִיא it, is emphatic=itself.
[29]The הֹוּא is an emphatic copula=he is.
[30]לְדָנֵיֵּאל רַבִּי lit. magnified Daniel, i.e., promoted him.]
[31][It would be very natural for a Jewish writer, looking at events from the Palestinian point of view, as Jeremiah, to date occurrences according to the actual arrival of Nebuchadnezzar as apparent sovereign in Syria, although in reality only a viceroy in place of his father. A precisely parallel reckoning occurs in Luk_3:1, with reference to the associate instead of the sole reign of Tiberius, as chronologers are now pretty well agreed. Daniel on the other hand, writing at Babylon, although by courtesy he applies the general title “king” to Nebuchadnezzar, while yet but a deputy, is exact in his statement of the years of the reign itself.]
[32][But it is difficult to see how the supposed circumstance that the king had forgotten the dream can here be called “a favorable time.” אַדְנָא here is evidently to be taken in the sense of delay. The Magians are charged with trying to postpone the matter indefinitely, by the plea of requiring the statement of the dream by the king himself, which they presume cannot be done.]
[33][Keil, however, insists that this must be the meaning of the passive participle here, and renders “the work of putting to death was begun.” This is a straining of the sense. The execution being ordered, and preparations going on for it; it was regarded as virtually, but not actually in progress.]
[34][Keil takes the same view of the construction, Commentary, p. 104. The rendering of the whole clause would then be as follows: “Thou, O King, the king of kings (for the God of heaven hath given to thee the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; and wherever the sons of man dwell, the beast of the field, and the fowl of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all)—thou art the head of gold”]
[35][Yet the author’s explanation below amounts to this interpretation of אַרְעָא, which is substantially adopted by Gesenius and Fürst as being the most natural and agreeable to the form of the word.]
[36][“פלג always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the. unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen_10:25; Psa. 4:10; Job_38:25; and Leng., Chald. Worterb., s. v.”—Keil.]
[37][Keil, however, contends, with Klief., that the mixing is not solely nor properly on the part of the kings, but is only spoken of the vain efforts of the heterogeneous elements of the fourth kingdom to coalesce by juxtaposition or even by intermarriage among themselves. The general character of מִתְעָֽרְבִין and especially the fact that no subject for it is expressed in the text, favor the opinion that both references are intended, namely, to the rulers as well as the people.]
[38][The authorized rendering, however, is correct, if, with most editions of the Masoretic text, we read וּמַלְכוּתָח as the emphatic state simply; but if with others, we read וּמַלְכוּתָהּ as the suffixed state, we must translate its realm or dominion. We may adduce, as an objection to the latter, such a variation in the sense of מַלְכוּת in the game verse, as well as the unusual and somewhat tautological application of the pronominal suffix to its own noun as an antecedent, i.q., the kingdom’s kingdom.]
[39]Porphyry early took offence at this passage, but his objection was properly dispatched by Jerome in a pointed manner: “Hunc locum caluminatur Porphyrius, quod numquam superbissimus rex captivum adoraverit: quasi non et Lycaones ob signorum magnitudinem Paulo et Barnabœ noluarint hostias immolare. Error ergo Gentilum, qui omne quod supra se est Deos putant, Scriptures non debet imputare, quœ simpliciter refert universa quœ gesta sunt.”
[40]Cf. Wollheim da Fonseca, Mythologie des Alten Indien, p. 26 et seq.; Hesiod, Εργα καὶ ἡμέραι 106 ss.; Ovid, Metam. 1, 89 ss.; and in relation to the old-Persic doctrine of four ages of the world, especially Genesis and Avesta in Ausland, 1868, Nos. 12 and 28, and also Delitzsch, Art. Daniel, in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop., p. 276. According to the two latter, the book Bahman Jesht, for instance, contains the following remarkable statement of the myth respecting the four ages of the world: “… Zerdusht demanded immortality tom Ormuzd, then Ormuzd showed to Zerdusht the all-embracing wisdom; whereupon he saw a tree having such a root that four trees had sprung from it, one of gold, another of silver, another of steel, and the fourth of iron. … Ormuzd said to the holy Zerdusht: ‘The root of this single tree, which thou hast seen (is the world), and these four trees are the four times which shall come: this golden one, when I and thou entertain each other, and Cstasp-Shah accepts the law, and the body of the Deos is broken and they conceal themselves: this silver one is the reign of the royal Artashir; the steel one is the rule of Anosheveran-Chosru, the son of Kobat: that of iron the evil reign of the Deos’ ” (on which, according to the Parsee teaching, the time of the Saviour Sofiosh is finally to follow).
[41]The force of the expression “the law of the Medes and Persians” (דָּת מָדַי וּפָרָס) in chap. 6. as an evidence of the union of the two neighboring Iranian nations in a single state us early as the period of the Chaldæan supremacy, and perhaps earlier still, has been recognized, e.g., by Kranichfeld, despite his preference for the interpretation which refers the second world-kingdom to Media, and the third to Persia. In a note on page 123 et seq. he contests the assertion of Von Lengerke, that this formula really originated after the time of Cyrus, and is therefore a gross anachronism in the mouth of Daniel, by arguing that the union of the two peoples in a single nation, or at least under a single government, dates considerably beyond the time of Cyrus, and accordingly, that an exclusively Median realm was never in existence. The conformity of this view to the actual historical development of the ancient Iran is shown by Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 186; cf. Spiegel in Ausland, 1866, p. 355 et seq.
[42]Cf. Zündel, Krit. Unterss., p. 82; and generally as respects the continuity of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires and their inseparable connection in point of nationality, religion, and civilization, see the valuable sketch of the results achieved by the latest efforts of Assyriologists: Ninive et Babylone, in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1868, March 15, by Alfred Maury. The old-Babylonian (Chaldæan), the Assyrian, and the later Babylonian empires, are in fact but three successive phases of the development of one and the same world-kingdom, despite their changes of dynasties and capitals, as also the Median, the Persian (Achæmenidian), the Parthian, and other kingdoms, are successive phases in the manifestation of a single national empire on Iranian soil. cf. G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Eastern World, or the History … of Chaldea, Assyria, Babylon, Media, and Persia. London, 1867. 4 vols. Also A. Scheuchzer’s Assyrische Forschungen in M. Heidenheim’s Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift für engl.-theol. Forschung, Vol. 4., No. 4 (1868), p. 4 et seq.
[43][Justice to this popular view of the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s prophecies, which applies it to the Roman empire, either as a pagan or a papal tyranny, seems to require a statement here of the principal arguments in its favor. Other considerations will be examined, as well as some of , these more in detail, in the exposition of the passages under which they arise.
1. The prominence of the Roman dominion, as being the only really world-wide government after that of Alexander, certainly lends great probability to its selection as the culmination of the previous world-monarchies in comparison with the territorially insignificant realm of the Seleucidæ. But this argument seems to us to be neutralized by indications in the text itself, especially the fact that Daniel’s prophecies in this matter are bounded by the Orient as to their arena of dominion, the chosen people of God and their local heritage being the stand-point from which their influence is measured. The Jews did not come into any severe contact with Rome till after the dawn of the Messianic era, and (as the author observes above) Rome itself did not then succumb under the collision. The note of time “in the days of these kings” (Dan_2:44) cannot be pressed into a corroboration of this synchronism, for then it would cover the whole range of the previous dynasties likewise (see the exposition of that verse). But a most decisive prohibition of the allusion to Rome appears in the continual degeneration of the successive empires from the head downwards, till the fourth has deteriorated into a base metal and even a maudlin alloy. It is true the epithet “strong as iron” well applies to Rome, but it attained its culmination both of force and culture under the early emperors, and there was no subsequent change of government in its decay corresponding to the distinction between the unadulterated metal of the legs and the crumbling mixture of the feet and toes. In the case of the Syro-Greek monarchy, on the other hand, all these particulars have their exact counterpart.
2. The difficulties attendant upon the effort to identify with the history of the Seleucid succession the particulars elsewhere given in connection, with the fourth empire, especially the list of ten kings and the fall of three of them before the successful one (Dan_7:24) have been urged in favor of the “orthodox” view. But the Roman interpretation, on the other hand, seems to be beset with equal if not greater difficulties in this point, as will be seen in the exposition of that passage. Chap. 11. of this book is acknowledged on all hands to be a detailed account of the dynasty of the Scleucidæ, showing that the prophetic ken had it prominently in view; and the little horn of the he-goat (Dan_8:9) is generally admitted to be Antiochus Epiphanes. It is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that the little horn of the fourth beast (Dan_7:8) is the same king, and the fourth section of the colossal image (Dan_2:40 et seq.) the same dynasty. The characteristics make the parallel complete.
3. The violent persecution experienced by the saints under Roman power, particularly in the days of papal supremacy, has been especially thought to justify this scheme of interpretation. But it must be remembered that the Seleucidæ were the first kings who really oppressed the people of God on account of their religion, and the efforts of Antiochus to exterminate their faith were of the most extraordinary character, not exceeded by the virulence of the Inquisition itself. Moreover, the attempt to apply the prophecies in question to both pagan and papal Rome, weakens the force of the whole interpretation. The effort to find in the pope, as such, an emphatic and direct fulfillment of the “little horn” is indeed sustained by the striking analogy of blasphemous atrocity, but fails to find an equal agreement with many other features of the picture, e.g., the “mingling themselves with the seed of men” (Dan_2:43; absolutely forbidden by the celibacy of the pontiffs and clergy), the origin in dynastic and territorial revolution (“the sea,” Dan_7:3. and “earth,” Dan_7:17), the pointed reference to the Mosaic cultus and temple (Dan_8:11), and the whole tenor of the overthrow by civil and military convulsion (Dan_11:40 et seq.). We may also adduce the gross incongruity of representing any branch of the Christian Church, however corrupt, under these heathen symbols, and as the final foe of God’s people.
4. The marked similarity between the visions of Daniel and those of John in the Revelation, extending to details of phraseology as well as of emblem, has naturally led to the belief that they coincide in application. This, however, is a superficial view of their import. In the New Testament we everywhere find the symbols and even the terms of the O. T. used conventionally with a different application and in a wider sense. Thus, in our Lord’s eschatological discourse (Matthew 24.), the symptoms of the dissolution of Judaism are made premonitions of the end of all things; the whole of Ezekiel’s wail over the queen of ancient commerce (chap. 27.) is transferred almost literally to the apocalyptic overthrow of the later mistress of the world (Revelation 18.); the very names, Babylon, Gog, etc., are applied to new places and persons, just as Sodom, Egypt, Zion, etc., had long been current with a metaphorical meaning. It is a great mistake, however, to infer that these N. T. adaptations of types and imagery and language, familiarly drawn from the Q. T., necessarily denote the same objects or events. They are rather related as common types of some recurring Antichrist, as extensions of one general world-power ever inimical to the cause of spiritual religion. To identify them is to destroy the significance and beauty of the conventional signs by which they are expressed. The shallowness of this method of exposition, as applied to St. John’s Apocalypse, has been demonstrated by the futile attempts to make them quadrate with the facts of history.
5. Lastly, the periods assigned in Daniel for the fulfillment of the various prophecies, are appealed to in support of their application to Rome. This seems to us, on the contrary, a fatal argument against the view in question. It is true the same numbers are often used by the Revelator for the length of “the times and seasons” prefigured in his visions, but we have never yet seen any satisfactory adjustment of them to the history of the Roman empire or the papal church. We are strongly inclined to that view which regards them as being conventionally adopted by St. John as representations of longer or shorter periods of indefinite length. But in Daniel they unquestionably denote determinate spaces of time, and for that very reason—as they are ail periods of comparatively brief extent (some three and a half years, with the exception of the notable term of LXX weeks, or rather hebdomads; see the exposition of that passage)—they must be limited by the history of the Antiochian persecution and the Maccabæan revolution. The only escape from this conclusion is by a resort to what is termed the “year-for-a-day hypothesis,” which consists in understanding the days in each of the periods in question as put for so many years. It is sufficient to say of this somewhat popular and certainly convenient theory, that it is a conjecture devoid of countenance in Scripture. True, the prophets occasionally make a literal day the type of a literal year, but they never do so without immediately adding the explanation, for the express purpose of preventing such a generalization of the rule. Besides the passages in Gen_1:5 et seq.; Gen_2:4; 2Pe_3:8 (which would prove too much), the only instances of this usage adduced are Num_14:34; Eze_4:1-6; Dan_9:24 (but this is not in point); Rev_2:10 (but here the application is a pure assumption); Rev_11:13 ff (an equally imaginary case); Rev_11:2-3; Rev_12:6; Rev_12:14 (to include which is a simple petitio principii); Rev_20:6 (a rather difficult case—think of a millennium of 365,000 years!). See the exhaustive list by Dr. Pond, in the Meth. Quar. Rev. for Jan., 1874, p. 116 sq.; where the learned writer argues that if one part of a vision be a symbol so must the rest, e.g., if the locusts in Revelation 9., be symbolical (which is probably true only so far as they are a type of ruin in general, not any particular form or agency), so must the accompanying number be; ergo, the “5 months” of Dan_2:5 must denote 150 years—just as if the number might not be symbolical of an indefinite period, as it no doubt is. We conclude, therefore, by reiterating that no clear instance can be adduced of the use of a “day” in Scriptural prophecy for an exact year, where the typical character of the time is not immediately expressed as being limited to that particular case, much less is there any intimation that such a rule is to apply to prophecy in general. To admit such a principle in Biblical interpretation is to abndon all precision in the use of language.]
[44]Tertullian’s assertion (de jejun., c. 7), with reference to Dan_2:1-19, that Daniel and his friends fasted during three days, and that for this reason their prayer was heard, has its foundation in the fact that he (or rather the pre-Jeromian Latin version of the Bible used by him) followed an ancient ascetic interpolation of the passage, which is still found in the Septuagint: και παρήγγειλε νηστειαν και δέησιν, και τιμωριαν ξητῆσαι—Cf. the similar ascetic extension which the passage 1Co_7:5 experienced at an early day, by the interpolation of the words τῆ νηστεὶᾳ before τῆ προσευχῆ.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Chaldeans--here, a certain order of priest-magicians, who wore a…
Chaldeans--here, a certain order of priest-magicians, who wore a peculiar dress, like that seen on the gods and deified men in the Assyrian sculptures. Probably they belonged exclusively to the Chaldeans, the original tribe of the Babylonian nation, just as the Magians were properly Medes.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 1. In the second year — See note Dan_1:1.…
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM OF THE DECLINE OF ALL WORLD-KINGDOMS.
1. In the second year — See note Dan_1:1. “By the most natural way of counting, the three years were the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, his first year, and his second year, precisely as our Saviour’s three days in the grave were Friday, Saturday, and Sunday” (Trumbull). Many scholars by a slight change of the text read “twelfth” instead of “second.”
Read full note →
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams — Dreams had a great influence on the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, as their inscriptions prove. (See also note Dan_4:5-7.) The god of dreams, Makhir, is often referred to. The dreams recorded of various kings, and especially the Babylonian “Dream Books,” show that apparitions of animals were considered especially fateful — the appearance of a lion, a jackal, a dog, a mountain goat, a stag, etc., each containing a supernatural portent for good or evil. (See Jastrow, Babylonian Religion, pp. 329-351, 402-404.) The records of Assurbanipal, for example, are rich in such omens. The deity appears in a dream to encourage the king; he sends him a message spoken to a priest in a vision and another written on the disk of the moon; he even, on one occasion, appears to Gyges, king of Lydia, the enemy of the king, and commands him to pay homage to his servant Assurbanipal, which command is at once obeyed. So Merodach is said to have appeared in dreams to Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, directing and guiding him.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1. in the second year] There is not, perhaps,…
1. in the second year] There is not, perhaps, necessarily a contradiction here with the ‘three years’ of Dan_1:5; Dan_1:18. By Heb. usage, fractions of time were reckoned as full units: thus Samaria, which was besieged from the fourth to the sixth year of Hezekiah, is said to have been taken ‘at the end’ of three years (2Ki_17:9-10); and in Jer_34:14 ‘at the end of seven years’ means evidently when the seventh year has arrived (see also Mar_8:31, &c.). It, now, the author, following a custom which was certainly sometimes adopted by Jewish writers, and which was general in Assyria and Babylonia, ‘post-dated’ the regnal years of a king, i.e. counted as his first year not the year of his accession but the first full year afterwards[200], and if further Nebuchadnezzar gave orders for the education of the Jewish youths in his accession-year, the end of the ‘three years’ of Dan_1:5; Dan_1:18 might be reckoned as falling within the king’s second year. Ewald, Kamphausen, and Prince, however, suppose that ‘ten’ has fallen out of the text; and would read ‘in the twelfth year.’
[200] See art. Chronology, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, p. 400.
Read full note →
dreamed dreams] In Assyria and Babylonia, as in Egypt[201], and other countries of the ancient world, dreams were regarded as significant, and as portending future events. The Assyrian inscriptions furnish several instances of deities appearing in dreams with words of encouragement or advice. Thus Asshur appears to Gugu (Gyges), king of Lydia, in a dream, and tells him that, if he ‘grasps the feet’ (i.e. owns the sovereignty) of Asshurbanapal, he will overcome his foes (KB[202] ii. 173, 175). During Asshurbanaparl’s war with his ‘false’ brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, a professional dreamer saw written on the moon, ‘Whoso plans evil against Asshurbanapal, an evil death will I prepare against him’ (ib. p. 187). When the same king was warring against Ummanaldashi, king of Elam, Ishtar sent his army a dream, in which she said to them, ‘I march before Asshurbanapal, the king whom my hands have made’ (ib. p. 201); and in another war she appeared to a professional dreamer, standing before the king, armed, and assuring him that, wherever he went, she went likewise (ib. p. 251). Nabu-na’id, the last king of Babylon (b.c. 555–538), was commanded, or encouraged, to restore temples by deities appearing to him in dreams (ib. iii. 2, pp. 85, 97, 99). On another occasion, Nabu-na’id saw in a dream a great star in heaven, the significance of which Nebuchadnezzar (also in the dream) explained to him[203]. These, however, are mostly cases of the apparitions of deities; for instances of symbolical dreams, such as the one of Nebuchadnezzar, we may compare rather, though they are much briefer, the dreams in Herodotus, i. 107, 108, 209, iii. 30, 124, vii. 19 (cited below, on Dan_4:10).
[201] See Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, ii. p. 772 b.
[202] B. Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889–1900.
[203] Messerschmidt, Die Inschrift der Stele Nabuna’ids, 1896, p. 30 f.
and his spirit was troubled] More exactly, was agitated, disturbed; so Dan_2:3. The expression is borrowed from Gen_41:8 : cf. Psa_77:5 ‘I am agitated and cannot speak.’
brake from him] More lit. was come to pass,—i.e. was completed or done with (something like the Latin actum est; cf. Dan_8:27),—upon him,—‘upon’ being used idiomatically to emphasize the person who is the subject of an experience, or (more often) of an emotion, and who, as it were, is sensible of it as acting or operating upon himself. Cf. Psa_42:4 ‘I will pour out my soul upon me,’ Psa_42:5 ‘why moanest thou upon me?’ Psa_42:6 ‘my soul upon me is cast down,’ Psa_142:3 ‘when my spirit fainteth upon me,’ Psa_143:4, Jer_8:18 ‘my heart upon me is sick,’ Job_30:16 (R.V. marg.), Lam_3:20 ‘my soul is bowed down upon me’: within, in all these passages, does not express the idea of the Hebrew. Cf. the writer’s Parallel Psalter, Glossary I, s. v. upon (p. 464); and see also Dan_5:9.
1–6. Nebuchadnezzar, being troubled by a dream, summons the wise men of Babylon before him, and bids them both tell him what his dream had been, and also interpret it to him.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–12 (1) The second year.—Nebuchadnezzar was proleptically spoken of as…
II.
(1) The second year.—Nebuchadnezzar was proleptically spoken of as “king of Babylon” in Dan_1:1, for his father did not die till after the battle of Carchemish. On the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, see Notes on 2Ki_24:1.)
Read full note →
Dreams.—Spoken of in Dan_2:3 as “a dream.” The one dream consisted of several parts, and is therefore spoken of in the plural. For the effects of the dream upon the king’s mind, comp. Gen_41:8.
His sleep brake.—i.e., his sleep finished. A similar use of the word occurs Dan_6:18; Est_6:1. The anxiety which the vision caused him prevented him from sleeping again. And no wonder. The battle of Carchemish, which forced Egypt to retire within her ancient frontiers, had indeed made Nebuchadnezzar master of all the district east of the Euphrates; but there was a growing power northward of him, the Median, which he may have dreaded, though at this time he was on good terms with it, and this may have increased his alarm, and led him to feel some presentiment of evil.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–13 Vers. 1-49. DANIEL FIRST BECOMES DISTINGUISHED.
Vers. 1-49. DANIEL FIRST BECOMES DISTINGUISHED.
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. The versions only differ verbally from the Massoretic text as represented by the above. The Septuagint renders "And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he chanced to fall into dreams and visions, and to be troubled with his vision, and his sleep went from him." The differences here that may evidence a difference of text are slight. Theodotion and the Peshitta are very close to the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders, "In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar saw a vision, and his spirit was troubled, and his vision ( somnium) fled from him." If this is the true text of the Vulgate and it is pre-Clementine the variation seems too great for paraphrase, and yet it is an unlikely lectional variation. It is easier to imagine the change taking place in the Latin, somnus becoming somnium, especially if the final m was represented, as so often in Latin manuscripts, by a line over the preceding vowel. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This forms one of the chronological difficulties in the interpretation of Daniel. There seems to be a contradiction between the statement in this verse and the chronological data afforded us by the preceding chapter. If Nebuchadnezzar was already king when he placed Daniel and his three companions in the hands of "Ashpeuaz" and assigned them three years of study, then as the three years are by implication ended when the examination took place, (Dan_1:18, Dan_1:19) the events narrated in this chapter must be dated not earlier than the third year of Nebuchadnezzar. Most commentators recognize this as a difficulty, the explaining of which is incumbent on them, whatever their views as to the date or authenticity of the book as a whole may be. A really great writer and that title cannot be denied to the author of "Daniel," if the book be a fiction could never fall into such a glaring self-contradiction. We do not deny that even very great writers have been guilty of chronological self-contradictions; but these contradictions were such as were not obvious. The only commentator who does not feel it incumbent on him, having noticed the difficulty, to give some hint of a possible solution, is Professor Bevan. From the obviousness of the discrepancy, we must assume that it was known to the writer, and from this we must further assume that the discrepancy was regarded by him as a merely apparent one, the explanation of which was so obvious at the time he wrote that it was needless to state it. In making this statement, we refer to the original documents from which our present Daniel was compiled. Another hypothesis certainly is possible that there is a false reading here. Ewald has suggested the twelfth year, which implies that the word hre (esreh) has been omitted. The main difficulty is that there is no sign that there is any difference of reading. If we are to correct the reading, we must go behind the present book to those documents from which it has been formed. If this portion of Daniel is a translation and a condensation of an Aramaic text, then ytirt (tar"teen) is "two," but "three" would be tl; t (tlath). When the l loses from any cause.its upper part, it becomes little distinguishable from n; this renders it not impossible that in the original Aramaic narrative the events in this chapter were dated "the third year of Nebuchadnezzar," not "the second." This explanation does not apply to the older form of script as seen in Sindschirli or in Egypt. There have been various other ways of getting over the difficulty. One device, that of Josephus ("Antiq.," 10:10. 3), maintained also by Jephet-ibn-Ali, is to date the reign from the conquest of Egypt, when Daniel is supposed to reckon that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign over the world. The conquest of Egypt, by means of certain recondite interpretations of Scripture, Jephet dates in the thirtieth year of Nebuchadnezzar; the date of this chapter, then, according to him, is the thirty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rashi explains this date by referring it to the destruction of the temple. There is, however, nothing to indicate that any of these dates was ever reckoned of importance in Babylonian chronology. And, however important the destruction of the temple was to the Jews, few of them, even at the latest date criticism assigns to Daniel, would have the hardihood to date a monarch"s reign from this. Another solution is that the second year is reckoned from the time when these Jewish captives stood before the king. This would have implied a different reading, but, as we have said, so far as this clause is concerned, there is no variation. Another suggestion may be made, viz. that this appearance of Daniel before the king is the same as that mentioned in the previous chapter. (Dan_1:18-20) This is Wieseler"s hypothesis. As a reign was not reckoned from the date of accession, but from the beginning of the year following, Nebuchadnezzar"s second year might well be the third year of the training of those Hebrew captives. The occasion of their appearance before the king may not have been that he took thought on the matter a view which, though that of the Massoretic text, is not supported by the LXX but may have been caused by this disquieting dream. On the supposition which we have suggested, that in ch. 1. we have a condensed version from an Aramaic original, this solution is plausible. The main difficulty, that the quiet communing implied in the nineteenth verse does not suit the fury of the king and the threatened death of the wise men, cannot be pressed, as the communing might follow the interpretation. It may seem to some better to maintain that the incidents of this chapter occurred some little time after Daniel and his three companions were admitted to the royal council. The band of captives and hostages, with the mass of the Babylonian army, arrived at Babylon, according to Berosus, some time after Nebuchadnezzar himself, who had hurried across the desert; still, a month would probably be the utmost of the difference. There might, therefore, be many months to run before the first year of Nebuchadnezzar actually began, when these captives were placed under the charge of the Melzar; so that if our suggestion of a various reading of "third" instead of "second" be accepted, the years would be over while the "third" year of Nebuchadnezzar was still proceeding. However, although many prisoners and hostages may have been sent along with the main army, after Nebuchadnezzar earned of the death of his father, many may have been sent earlier, and among these Daniel. The main difficulty is to imagine the orders of Nebuchadnezzar, while merely crown prince, being carried out with such exactness, or that he should be spoken of as "my lord the king". (Dan_1:10) But their training must have begun during the lifetime of Nabopolassar, if the three years were completed while the year of Nebuchadnezzar was still to finish. If we reject both these solutions, we are shut up to the idea that there is something amiss with the reading always a thing to be deprecated and the simplest emendation is to imagine that the "third" has been misread "second." This, as we have shown, would be easy in Aramaic. On the assumption that the text before us is a translation and condensation of an Aramaic text, it is easy to understand how all derivative texts followed its initial mistake. There is a certain importance here due to the copula "and:" "And in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar." When any cue attempts to read this verse in connection with the last verse of the first chapter, it at once becomes clear that the twenty-first verse of ch. 1. is an interpolation. It is probable that the condensation, which was likely to be considerable in the first chapter, becomes less so now, before passing from the one portion to the other; hence either the translator or some other added the note which is contained in Dan_1:21. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. The Greek versions and the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis omit the name "Nebuchadnezzar," either as nominative or as genitive. The Peshitta follows the order of the Massoretic text. The omission does not alter the sense; possibly the proper names thus came in close juxtaposition in the Massoretic in consequence of an endeavour to condense by omission, without making any further change. It would seem that the LXX had read arq (niq"ra) instead of (halam). The rendering is, "It happened (sunebh) that the king fell into dreams and visions." This awkward sentence seems to be the result of a difficulty and consequent slavish following of the text before the translator; it is difficult to imagine what the reading could be which could be translated as it is in the Septuagint, and vet was not totally unlike the Massoretic text. "Dreams and visions" is the evident result of a coalescence of two renderings of twOmlj) (halomoth). It is to be observed that it is "dreams" that Nebuchadnezzar had, and yet only one "dream" is spoken of. Kliefeth thinks this refers merely to the class, so that "dreamed dreams" is equivalent to "was dreaming." Agreeing with this is Havernick. Jephet-ibn-Ali take the plurality to refer to the contents of the dream that it refers to the four world kingdoms and that of Israel (so Kranichfed and Keil); for a similar use of plural for singular, he refers to Gen_37:8. Moses Stuart thinks that it is implied that the dream was repeated. It seems to be somewhat of a mannerism of Daniel to use plural for singular, as the "visions of the head" of ch. 4. Wherewith his spirit was troubled. The same phrase occurs in regard to Pharaoh, (Gen_41:8) when he had dreamed of the seven kine and seven ears of corn. The similarity of the thing to be stated might easily lead to a similarity of statement, without there being any necessary copying. If, as we believe, this portion of Daniel had an Aramaic original, the resemblance in language to Genesis proves very little. In this case also the reading of the Septuagint is different. Instead of wOjWr (ruho), "his spirit," the translators must have had ejn tw ejnupniw; also instead of the feminine (tith"pa"em), the reading must have been (yith"pa"em). Though yod and tan are not readily confused, nun and tan in the older script are, and in Eastern Aramaic nun is the preformative of the third person imperfect, and a change may have been made in translating from the Aramaic. Professor Fuller, following Saadia, makes too much of the fact that, while in the present case the conjugation used is the hithpael, in Genesis it is niphal, since the niphal conjugation occurs in ver. 3. Kranichfeld holds that the "hithpael heightens the idea lying in the niphal." In Biblical Aramaic hithpael takes the place of the Hebrew niphal. And his sleep brake from him. While the meaning here is plain, the words are used in an unusual sense; the word here translated "brake from" is the passive of the verb "to be," in this precise sense only used here. The fact that the substantive verb in Eastern Aramaic has this significance (Nestle, "Gram. Syr.," 100) indicates that this is a case where the Syriac original shines through the translation. This is all the more obvious when we remember that in Eastern Aramaic n (nun ) was in the pre-formative. Analogous to this is the Latin use of the perfect of the substantive verb, e.g. funimus Troes; comp. Rom_6:17, "God be thanked that ye were (h+te) the servants of sin." As we have said, the meaning of this verse is perfectly clear, and although there are differences of reading, there are none theft affect the sense. "In the second (or third) year of his reign, Nebuchaduezzar had a dream." To us in the West, living in the nineteenth century after Christ, it seems puerile to date so carefully a dream, of all things; but in the East, six hundred years before Christ, dreams had a very different importance from what they have now. In the history of Asshur-baui-pal dreams play a great part. Gyges submits to him in consequence of a dream In consequence of a dream Urdamane (Nut-mi-ammon) invades Egypt. Again and again is Asshur-bald-pal encouraged by dreams which appear to seers. It is ignorance of this that makes Hitzig declare, "The character of the king as here represented to us has no verisimilitude." Although Heredotus does make dreams prominent in his history, we could not imagine any of the diadochi recording and dating his dreams as does Asshur-bani-pal.
Read full note →
Ver. 1.
A king troubled with bad dreams.
In accordance with the wide cosmopolitan interests with which the Book of Daniel is concerned, we are introduced thus early to the troubles of the Babylonian court. The most striking feature of the book its apocalyptic character is first shown in the dreams of a heathen king. Let us notice
I NEBUCHADNEZZAR AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS PROSPERITY IS TROUBLED WITH BAD DREAMS. In the previous chapter we saw the king triumphing over the Jews. He is now only in the second year of undivided supremacy. Yet the first glimpse we have of his court reveals the king in trouble.
1. No prosperity of external circumstances can secure the peace of mind which is essential to true happiness. Success in battle cannot ward off the invasion of bad dreams. Wealth and power cannot command the luxury of sleep.
2. High rank is especially subject to restless anxiety. Scripture more than once refers to the sleeplessness of great men (Est_6:1; Ecc_5:12; Dan_4:18) On the other hand, sleep is regarded as a boon, (Joh_11:12) and a gift of God to "hisbeloved". (Psa_127:2)
II THOUGH NEBUCHADNEZZAR IS A HEATHEN KING, HIS DREAMS ARE MESSENGERS OF DIVINE REVELATION. Nebuchadnezzar is the victorious enemy of "the people of God," who has sacked the city of Jerusalem, robbed the temple of its sacred treasure, carried the flower of the nation captive, and entirely broken its ancient independence; and now he reigns over his vast domains as a cruel tyrant (ver. 5). With this man God opens up mysterious communications.
1. Thus revelation is not confined to prophets, nor to Jews, nor to good men. God has not deserted the heathen world. He has not deserted bad. (Gen_6:3)
2. Nevertheless, this revelation is imperfect. It is in a dream the lowest form of revelation. (Joe_2:28) The dream is so shadowy that it is forgotten on the king"s awaking. The interpretation is beyond the power of the dreamer. This lowest form of revelation vouchsafed to a bad man is dim, vague, perplexing, and troubling; and the dreamer experiences it as a passive subject. It needs the higher revelation enjoyed by a true prophet a good man in living active communion with God to make it intelligible and profitable. Thus there are scintillations of Divine light in the darkness of heathendom; but these do little more than make the darkness visible and increase the terrors of its superstition. They call for the interpretation of the fuller scriptural revelation. (Act_17:28)
III THOUGH THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF REVELATION IN NEBUCHADNEZZAR"S DREAM, THIS ONLY GIVES HIM THE GREATER TROUBLE. It is plain that the king regarded this as a dream of more than ordinary import (ver. 2), and therefore it caused him sleepless anxiety. His trouble would arise from various sources; viz.:
1. The sense of mystery. The dream was gone. When present it was unintelligible. Thus a partial revelation may often bring only trouble. Perhaps if we knew more of the unseen world we should only be able to discern enough to fill us with dismay.
2. The apprehension of future calamity. Possibly the king saw enough to recognize a portend of future woe. It must be too often the case that a revelation of the future will bring only distress. We desire to pierce the veil of futurity. It is by God"s mercy that it is impervious to our sight. (Mat_6:34)
3. The timidity of an evil conscience. An evil conscience peoples the unseen world with terrors. The Divine and the future are to it both clouded with apprehension.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS
Vers. 1-13. The revelation lost. "My spirit was troubled to know the dream" (ver. 3). Since the word "and," at the beginning of this chapter, links it with Dan_1:21, i.e. Daniel"s public life with Daniel"s preparation, it may be well here to notice what his preparation had been.
1. At home, and the associations of Jerusalem.
2. Knowledge of previous revelations. (see Dan_9:2)
3. Moral victory at a crisis of history.
4. Experience of life at one of its great centres Babylon the court.
As indicating the difference between Ezekiel"s standpoint and that of Daniel, note Ezekiel dates from the years of the Captivity for him, in comparative obscurity, the years dragged on wearily Daniel, by the reigns of kings in whose court he was. Daniel"s experience grew with the years, and he became increasingly fit to receive political revelations revelations as to the rise and fall of empires.
I THE DISCREPANCY. Between Dan_1:5 and Dan_2:1. Occasion might well be taken from this to insist upon one or two wholesome truths in reference to Biblical interpretation.
1. The discrepancy looks at first sight glaring enough; i.e. as to the dates. Still, with our idea of the sacred writings, we should be justified in believing:
2. That some explanation would be forthcoming, if we knew all the loots. Of the propriety of this assumption, we shall have a striking illustration in the recent clearing up of" the special critical difficulty of ch. 5.
3. One might fairly conclude that Daniel is quite as reliable an historian as any other author.
4. The seeming discrepancy is clear evidence that Daniel, and none other, is the writer; for these two dates would never have been admitted in a form apparently contradictory, coming so close to each other as to challenge attention, if the author had been an impostor. Daniel writes straightforwardly the truth, unconscious of the possible misconstruction of his words. This unguardedness of style is a sure sign of the credibility of a living witness, and of the genuineness of any book.
5. There are several explanations forthcoming, one specially credible (see Exposition).
6. Our feeling in relation to discrepancies real or apparent, will doped entirely on our moral attitude in relation to revelation. The believer will treat them lightly; the captious and unbelieving will make the very most of.them (see Alford on receipt of one of Colenso"s volumes, in "Alford"s Life").
II THE PREPARATION. There were subjective conditions of the dream which argue a certain nobility in Nebuchadnezzar. Dreams grow out of waking thought; and, though this dream was supernatural, we may well believe it was naturally conditioned. The mood of the king created a certain receptivity for Divine revelation (ver. 29).
1. The cares of empire weighted his soul.
2. His mind projected itself into the far future. (Ver. 29.)
3. Thoughts of present responsibility and visions of the future were enter-rained. To all, such high thoughts come at some time or other; but not all entertain them. We may drown them in frivolity, or quench them by intoxication. When God comes to a soul with thoughts worthy of its nature, it is for the soul to open wide its portals and let the glory in. About this young conqueror there was a certain grasp and elevation of mind.
III THE DREAM. Here, at present, we ignore its contents; we are supposed, indeed, not to know it: and consider only generally whether, and to what extent, the dream may become the article of Divine communications to man. In a complete, discussion, we should have to cite the following testimonies: Those of:
1. Psychology. The nature and origin of dreams should be elucidated, with the view to a just estimate of the testimonies which follow. Sufficient wilt be found for homiletic purposes in Dr. Smith"s "Bible Dict.," art. "Dreams.
2. Scripture. These inductions seem valid:
(1) "That Scripture claims the dream, as it does every other action of the human mind, as a medium through which God may speak to man
(2) "That it lays far greater stress on that Divine influence by which the understanding also is affected. " In dream, the imagination is in the ascendant; the reason, dormant.
(3) That dream as a medium of Divine communication is inferior to prophecy.
(4) That dreams, therefore, were granted:
(a) To the heathen rather than to the covenant people of God.
(b) To the latter only during their earliest and most imperfect individual knowledge of him.
(c) Only in the earliest ages, and less frequently as the revelations of prophecy increase.
(d) Almost invariably require an interpreter. These last four points are all illustrated by the dreams in the Book of Daniel.
3. Experience. The reference here is to that modern experience, of which we may be either the subjects or the observers. Even in a Christian civilization like ours, the superstitious regard fur dreams is so common, that the following truths may well be insisted on:
(1) That dreams should never for us stand in the place of revelation.
(2) Should be disregarded entirely, when contravening the truth "as it is in Jesus
(3) That God may see fit by dream to prepare the mind for the future.
(4) That there seems well-authenticated instances in which the coming event has been imaged in dream. Surely he who made the soul can have access to it by night or by day, directly or mediately, as he will In the application of these truths to our own life, the greatest spiritual wisdom will be necessary.
IV THE SEARCH. We do not agree with Keil, that the king remembered the dream, and was intent on testing the value of the interpretation by making the interpreter tell also the dream itself; nor with the reasons he assigns for that interpretation. We believe that the dream was gone from memory, yet leaving behind such an impression that the king would recognize it on its being described, and also leaving behind an idea of its tremend us import, and a conviction that its origin was Divine. Here note:
1. The mission of oblivion. "God sometimes serves his own purposes by putting things out of men"s minds, as well as by putting things into their minds." By the king"s forgetfulness Daniel came to be honoured, and in him the God of Daniel.
2. The adaptation of Divine revelations. From Dan_2:4 to 8:28 the language of the book is Chaldee; as though God would throw open the revelation through Daniel to the people of Babylonia as well as to the Jew. After ch. 8. the language reverts to Hebrew, for the communications are then chiefly for Israel. This adaptation one instance of what obtains universally.
3. The infirmities of even noble minds. There were many elements of greatness about Nebuchadnezzar; but all shaded by:
(1) Superstition. Seeking for light where no light could be found from the magi of various grades.
(2) Unreason. Demanding both dream and interpretation. A certain sort of wisdom might interpret; but only the omniscience of God could recover the dream.
(3) Cruelly. Many instances besides that in this chapter.
V THE FAILURE. (Ver. 11.) Observe:
1. The error into which exalted intellect may fall. "Gods" imply polytheism.
2. The truth which may shine through error. The magi were aware:
(1) Of the omniscience that is essential to Deity.
(2) Of the limitation that belongs to the creature. The flesh is a veil that hides from us much of the spirit-world.
VI THE DOOM. Cruel as was the edict on the part of the king, there was, nevertheless, a sort of rough justice on the part of God"s natural government of the world, in consigning to punishment the practicers of imposition and traders on the superstitious fear, of men. "They sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain" suggests how oft the innocent are caught in the consequences of the sin of others. R
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-13.
The failure and discomfiture of falsehood.
As every drop of water on the surface of the hills has a tendency to flow towards the ocean, as every step of the racer moves towards the goal, so every event in every kingdom points toward the establishment of Messiah"s empire. The exile of the Jews, though apparently a retrograde movement in the spiritual machinery; the special education of Daniel and his companions; the heathen monarch"s dream; the discomfiture of the magicians; all these, and like events in Babylon, were so many lines of influence leading on to the advent of Messiah. God is no respecter of persons, no respecter of places, and if there be a more pliant disposition in the King of Babylon than in the King of Israel, the God of heaven will reveal his will to Nebuchadnezzar, and use him in moulding public events. Consciously or unconsciously, all conquerors and all captives are working out the purposes of the universal Lord.
I THE GREAT MONARCH"S DISTRESS.
1. For even kings are not exempt from trouble, Yea, their very elevationexposes them to winds of adversity, from which those escape who dwell in the sequestered vales of private station. As in nature, so in human life, there is a marvellous system of compensation. We look at the external palaces of princes, and are too ready to envy their privileged estate; but could we look within their breasts, we should be prone chiefly to pity them. "The sleep of a labouring man is sweet," but the pillow of royalty is thickly sown with prickly cares.
2. Most probably, outward circumstance combined with inward fear toproduce this ominous dream. By admitting a natural element in human events, we do not exclude the supernatural. Both elements are under Divine direction. Everywhere God engrafts the spiritual upon the natural. The laws and processes of nature and of human life God uses so far as they serve his particular purpose, and when they fall short of fitness he introduces the higher element of miracle. If Nebuchadnezzar already saw the development of military strength in other royal courts, it was impossible but this knowledge would make a corresponding impression upon his mind, and it would be wanton blindness on our part to exclude this from our investigation of the truth. It is equally certain that an influence from God moved upon the monarch"s mind arranging (it may be) the materials of the imagery, impressing his imagination with the portentous meaning of the vision, and partly effacing the recollection from his memory.
3. With stupendous condescension, God accommodates himself to theinfancy of the race. He who tempers the wind for the shorn lamb, simplifies his lessons to the weakness of our understanding. To the inquiry, "Why should God make known his will to men through dreams?" it is a sufficient reply that he found this method the most suitable to the capacity of man in the childhood of his intelligence. During the hours of sleep, the soul is more free from the disturbance of outward events; the will does not play so dominant a part over the movements of thought; the predilections and propensities of the inner man are unveiled. Men have an intense longing to know the future. We cannot doubt that the same God who has given us a faculty for acquiring all the past could have given us a faculty for foreseeing the future. Some potent reason has prevailed with him to hang an impenetrable veil over our untraversed life. Yet some of the grand outlines of the future have gradually been revealed. Our character forecasts our future fortunes. Practical obedience to the will of God is the best telescope through which we may discern our distant weal. Our real destiny is not wrapt in night. But Nebuchadnezzar was mainly concerned about his dominion and his dynasty; hence his inward distress produced by the midnight vision.
II THE IMPOTENCE OF HUMAN QUACKS.
1. It must be granted that these Babylonian magicians had attained toknowledge and craft beyond the ordinary attainments of men; but (as is frequently the case) their knowledge fed their vanity; they imposed on themselves the belief that this knowledge gave them access to the secrets of the unseen world, and they sought to impose on others the conviction that they could foretell coming events. Knowledge does not always ripen into wisdom does not always bear the fruits of humility and truthfulness. These men were deceivers and self-deceived. They made a market out of the ambition and fear of kings.
2. Inflated conceit. They imagined that their skill was the measure of universal attainment. Failing themselves to decipher the problem, they plead, "There"s not a man upon the earth that can show the king"s matter." The usual plea of weakness: "What I cannot do, no one else can do: let us yield to the inevitable." This is the sophistry of modern sceptics, who prefer to style themselves agnostics. Because they fail to unravel difficulties in nature and in the universe, they rush to the conclusion that the matter itself is inexplicable. "A little child shall lead them.
3. A crucial test. The monarch, unreasonable and unscrupulous as he may seem, brings their boasted knowledge to a real test. Whether these magicians did or did not accurately interpret dreams or forecast the future, the king had never known. He had been compelled to take their pretensions wholly upon trust. The oracular deliverances had been delightfully ambiguous were capable of wide significance. No guarantee had ever been furnished by these magicians of their honesty. Now a favourable opportunity occurred for testing the skill of these boasted diviners. If their scientific calculations allowed them to descry the future, much more should it enable them to read a page of the recent past, If their popular deities gave them skill to interpret the meaning of a dream, much easier was it for these deities to give their servants power to revive in a man"s memory the loss of a dream. If they could not accomplish the lesser task, it was vain to pretend they could perform the greater. It was therefore only just that the king should sharply rebuke them in the words, "Ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me.
III THE HASTY VERDICT OF THE KING.
1. See the violence of carnal passion. Haste and impatience are always conspicuous signs of weakness. His expectation of escape from mental disquietude had been awakened by the pretentious arts of these magicians, and, this expectation having collapsed, disappointment added another ingredient to his cup of trouble. If he had only given himself time to recover from this mental disturbance, time to reflect upon his responsibility as arbiter of human life, time to perceive his own folly in pandering aforetime to the pretensions of these men, he would have gained a reputation for wisdom, and have rendered the world a service by exposing the hypocrisy of sorcerers.
2. His verdict was excessively severe. The penalty of death was the severest he could inflict upon his subjects, and if this penalty was enforced on every occasion, even when no public injury was done to the state, he confounded all degrees of crime, and encouraged men, who had transgressed in lesser matters, to become desperate inflictors of mischief. When men know that their offence is trivial compared with other forms of guilt, and yet have to endure the heaviest sentence of doom, they will often lend themselves to some desperate project of vengeance.
3. His verdict was indiscriminate, and involved both the righteous and the wicked. Not content with inflicting capital punishment on the offenders, he decrees that their "houses shall be made a dunghill." By such a vindictive deed, innocent women and young children would have been plunged into suffering and disgrace for no fault, and without any advantage to the state. Moreover, the arbitrary decree required "that all the wise men should be slain." This included Daniel and his comrades yea, all men of intelligence and wisdom, though they had made no pretence to magical art. By a blind act of ungovernable passion, the king would have stripped his court of every ornament, and his government of its best supports. A passionate man usually maims his own face. Nebuchadnezzar would have defeated his own purpose cut off his only chance of having his dream interpreted if his vindictive and unscrupulous command had been executed. What vile deeds have royal hands frequently performed l How does the cry of innocent blood from a myriad battle-field rise to heaven against them! D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 8, 12 Nebuchahnezzar Dreamed Dreams.
Dan_2:1-2
Nebuchahnezzar Dreamed Dreams.
Read full note →
The Wise Men of Babylon
In the conclusion of last chapter, we are informed that Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Events are now ordered so that he shall have an opportunity of exercising his skill on a more illustrious theatre. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar the king dreamed dreams. Nebuchadnezzars dream was not of an ordinary kind. It was not caused by the ordinary working of a mind agitated by anxiety, or excited by ambition. It came immediately from that great and only God of whom Nebuchadnezzar was ignorant. It was so ordered, for reasons that will afterwards appear, that Nebuchadnezzar forgot what his dream was. But it was also ordained that he should not forget that he had a dream of a most wonderful kind. The impression made upon his mind was deep, and painful, and permanent. He could not forget it. It filled his whole soul. He was so troubled that he could neither compose himself to sleep nor be at rest when awake. Nebuchadnezzar,--the great, the terrible, the invincible,--who had already stormed so many towns, conquered so many countries, routed so many armies, and who, like the eagle in the tempest, seemed to exult in the storm of battle--Nebuchadnezzar troubled by a dream! How completely are the greatest of men in the hand of Jehovah. How easily can he make the stoutest among them to quail. And may we not reflect, if this transient glimpse into the invisible world--if this unveiling of a portion of time and space, so small when compared with eternity and infinity, produced such trouble of mind, what amazement and terror will seize upon the souls of the ungodly, when the gates of the invisible world shall be thrown wide open, and the spirit, disentangled from matter, shall enter, and feel itself encompassed on all sides, not with the vision, but with the reality of the spiritual world--encircled with what is infinite and eternal--and penetrated by the holiness of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Being greatly troubled by his dream, Nebuchadnezzar was anxious to regain his composure. He was an idolater, and, consequently, ignorant of those hidden sources of comfort that are opened up to a believer in his time of need. (J. White.)
The Lost Dream
And as to the sneering Infidel question, How could a forgotten dream trouble the king? it seems quite a sufficient answer to ask whether its propounders have common sense enough to dream? For every one must know from experience that the mind is often greatly agitated by visions of the night, which vanish, leaving only a general impression. It is easy to suppose cases where the agitation would be even increased by the very fact that the particulars were no longer remembered, and the relief that might be hoped for could not, therefore, be so readily obtained. The dimness, indistinctness, mysteriousness of the subject only increases the agitation. The king knew three things. He had had a dream. It was lost; but still it greatly troubled him. He, therefore, called for his wise men.
1. How poor and wretched a creature is a man left to the power of fierce and ungovernable passions! How contemptible a figure does the great King of Babylon make in demanding what was impossible! Hot-headed and furious men are generally without reason, and deaf to all remonstrances. How blessed are your privileges, that you live under constitutional laws, and are not subject to the arbitrary power of a tyrant! Magna Charta, Habeas Corpus, and trial by jury are blessings that cannot be too highly valued.
2. In the rise and fall of nations, shadowed forth in prophecy, and presented in history, it is of great importance to bear in mind the fact that the Supreme Being does rule over all the inhabitants of the world, and yet does no violence to the free agency of any rational creature. The mightiest planets in the highest heavens sweep round in their orbits at his bidding, and so arise and fall the mighty dynasties of our race, both in ancient and modern times, and in both the Old and New World. Not a few seem to think that Gods providence was concerned with ancient nations, but has ceased to take notice of modern nations. This is nothing but practical atheism. God is not less vigilant and supreme now, in the midst of our inventions and improvements, than He was in the days of Jerusalem and Babylon. The celebrated and pious Bogue was in the habit of saying, when he took up the papers in the time of Napoleon the Great, to read what was passing: Let us see how God governs the world.
3. In the history of nations there are always two classes of interests and facts very distinct, and yet exercising over each other a powerful influence. I mean political and religious events. The first relates to kings, emperors, rulers, cabinets, and forms of government; the second relates to the moral character, religious sentiment of the people, and pertains to the salvation of their souls and the condition of the Church of the living God. These interests must necessarily exercise over each other a powerful influence. The history of nations and the history of the Church of Christ reflect mutually the state of the other.
4. Finally, here you are taught where to go in all cases of difficulty. How did Daniel obtain the knowledge of the lost dream? By asking for it. He prayed to God. He sought help in the right direction. We do not, indeed, expect miracles now, yet we do expect answer to prayer. (W.A. Scott, D.D.)
Dreams and Dreamers
Dreams have played an important part in the history of the world. God seems to have made large use of the visions of the night and, of dreams to call men into His service, to commission them to do His will, execute His judgments, and to reveal His gracious purposes concerning the world. It was in a vision that God revealed to the patriarch Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for number. Nor is the New Testament without them. After our Lord Jesus Christ came and revealed God, life; immortality, salvation, and peace, the use of vision and dream did not cease. It was in a dream that Joseph was warned to flee into Egypt, and thus secure the safety of Christ. When the time had come that the Gospel of the grace of God should be preached to the Gentiles, God revealed His will in the matter to Peter in a vision on the housetop at Jaffa. But among all the dreams and visions of which we have read, there are but few more remarkable and important than this, which filled the slumbers of Nebuchadnezzar, and slipped from his memory afterwards.
I. We will consider THE DREAMER. The dreamer of the text was an Eastern monarch. There he is in secure possession of his throne. Famed as a skilful soldier and victor, he is the mightiest monarch on the face of the earth. Babylon, the seat of his empire, the place of his throne, is among the most imposing and great of the ancient cities of the world. This is the home of this royal dreamer. See him in the midst of it. Seated on his throne, around him stand his chief men of state, his eunuchs, priests, princes, and captains, all in their many-coloured and glittering garbs. He is troubled. What has gone wrong? Has some part of his kingdom broken out into rebellion? Has the death-plague seized upon his friends and chief councillors? Nay, he has had a dream, a simple dream. The world owes a great deal to its dreamers. Some have blessed the world by the great victories which they won. What a great and noble company the dreamers make. John Bunyan dreamed the Pilgrims Progress, a book which, next to the Bible, which it illustrates, has had a larger circulation than any other book in the world. That was a grand dream, and the world owes much to it. Columbus was a dreamer. He had visions of another and a great land across an unexplored and unknown ocean. Sir Christopher Wren was a dreamer. He had a vision of St. Pauls, and it grew up in the city of London.
II. THE DREAM. The dreamer was a mighty monarch. The dream was worthy of the dreamer.. However great the dreamer, the dream was not less so. He Went to rest that night with his mind full of great and important thoughts. He thought of what wars had been, and wondered what wars would be. He knew himself secure on his throne then. But did he think that soon he would be gone? He wondered what should come to pass hereafter. It was a great dream. No idolater ever had a greater dream, and but few men any so great. He went out far beyond himself. The present did not satisfy him. He wanted to pull back the curtain and see what was beyond. Have we not all had dreams like this? Think you that this king was the only man who ever felt dissatisfied with the present? Have not we all tried to look beyond? I have had a vision of God; it may have been a dream, but I have thought about Him. I have looked around me in the world, and have seen traces of Him. The great mountains and the mighty ocean, which I have seen in the majesty of its fury, have said something to me of the greatness of God. I seem to have had visions of love, and mercy, and pity, but I cant quite find out myself, I want some one to interpret. I cant myself quite solve it all. Canst thou by searching find out God? asks one in ancient days who also had dreams about God. Then I have had dreams of the soul and its destiny. I have dreamed of what shall come to pass hereafter. Then I have had visions and dreams of a future in which justice and righteousness shall prevail, in which the glaring iniquities and wrongs of this present life shall all be set right. But have we not had dreams of another sort? Sometimes we have felt with sorrow and shame our own weakness and badness. We have become conscious that we were out of harmony with things around us. There is a something within us which speaks to us. Call it conscience or anything else--there it is. I have dreamed of forgiveness, how to get it, and where. Who can tell me? Who can interpret for me all these dreams of mine? Is there any Daniel whom I can call into court who shall reveal to me all these secrets?
III. THE INTERPRETATION of this dream. Daniel was able to tell the king his dream, and also to expound it. And what an exposition it was!
Kingdom succeeds kingdom, monarch follows monarch. The Babylonian head of gold, the Persian breast of silver, the Grecian thighs of brass, and the Roman legs of iron, all come and go as Daniel expounds the dream.. There are two things we must note in this interpretation.
1. The Christ kingdom symbolised by the stone cut from the mountain without hands.
2. The second thing I wish to note is that this Christ prefigured by the mountain stone is the interpreter of all my dreams of God, the soul, and a future state. In His school I get my answer. I have been to other schools and could not learn. Nebuchadnezzar summoned all his wise monk They were accustomed to interpret dreams, but they were perplexed now. When I come to Christ He interprets my dream. Be not only reveals God to me, but He tells me of His love and kindness. God is love. God is a Father. God cares for me. Jesus Christ tells me how I can be at peace with God through Himself. He tells me about things which are to come to pass. Jesus Christ is Gods answer to all my questions, and visions, and dreams. (C. Leach, D.D.)
Human Wisdom Tested and Found Wanting
I. THE DREAM. The first verse states that this vision occurred in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; i.e., in the second year of his solo sovereignty. His father, Nabopolassar, being now dead, the empire devolved upon Nebuchadnezzar alone.
1. The dream reveals the nature of his ambitions. It shows that his mind was busy with projects of conquest, and the cares of government, and the hopes of secure power. How natural that these engrossing thoughts of his waking hours should pursue him in sleep and give complexion to the visions of the night.
2. But the dream was sent by Divine agency. It was not only natural, but also supernatural. This is not the first nor only time that God has vouchsafed to make his revelations to heathen minds. Balaam is a notable instance of prophetic gifts bestowed upon unworthy persons. All extraordinary channels of Divine communications were no doubt selected for a purpose; and while the light of revelation shines steadily upon his own chosen people, yet he vouchsafes occasional flashes upon other minds to illuminate some truth which may be best illuminated in that way.
3. The dream is forgotten. Strangely given, it was strangely recalled. The honour shall be Gods and Gods alone. God will show by an infallible sign that it is His revelation, and will not suffer the Chaldean sages to tinker with its interpretation. Nothing remained but the disturbing sense of having seen strange things, and an abiding conviction that these things were closely related to his destiny. To whom shall he turn in his perplexity?
II. THE DEMAND. We may well imagine the surprise and alarm of the sooth-sayers and magicians when they become acquainted with the nature of the kings demand. Had they been quite sure that the king had indeed forgotten his dream they might have very easily invented one to satisfy him; but I suppose they were apprehensive lest this was only a snare cunningly placed by this intelligent monarch to expose their duplicity. It seemed to them the safer plan, then, not to hazard so dangerous an expedient, but to declare their inability to do more than interpret the dream when told. The king, however, reiterates his demand.
1. The Chaldeans maintain that this demand is unjust in that it was without precedent. There is a true and a false law of precedent. It is undoubtedly true that whoever demands or enacts a new thing, a thing counter to existing usages, must have strong and unquestionable reasons for such a course. There are always presumptions against novelties and innovations, and one who appeals to custom has an undeniably strong ground to rest upon. On the other hand, the law of precedent can create nothing more than presumption. It still leaves the reason of the thing to be inquired into. It is probable the imperious temper of this monarch would not be baulked by an appeal to customary usages.
2. They further maintain the injustice of this demand on the ground that it is beyond human power to comply with it. They say: There is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. Some have supposed this declaration that the dwelling of the gods is not with flesh to be indicative of scepticism. It was the cardinal belief of the Babylonians that the gods were very near to men. Their temples, and sacrifices, and priestly rites proceeded upon that belief. These Chaldeans, then, are supposed, under the influence of their great peril, to betray here their utter disbelief in these hollow mockeries. And the lesson is drawn from it: Alas, that this unbelief should so often, in Christian as well as in Pagan times, have found a nest for itself so near the altar! But I would rather believe that these Chaldeans, whose studies brought them in contact with the mighty works of God, had more exalted conceptions of the deity than those which prevailed among the masses.
3. In this view the demand was not so unreasonable as the Chaldeans would make it appear. They had wilfully imposed upon both king and people, laying claim to mysterious arts by which they could read secret things; and had no doubt taken care that this faith in their powers should be implicit and well-nigh unlimited. They could scarcely complain, then, when they are taken at their word. Skilled in plausibility and ambiguity, they no doubt relied on these powers to cover up a failure when one occurred, and to impose successfully upon the credulity of the king.
4. It is a great gain to the cause of truth when impositions are detected. So, then, Nebuchadnezzar deserves praise for pressing this matter to a decisive issue. The cause of religion no doubt suffers a shock when priestly pretensions are thrown in the crucible and tested, but it rises from such shocks to greater stability, and usefulness, and power.
III. THE DECREE. Whatever may be said of his demand, certainly the decree of the king is indefensible. These wise men had done nothing worthy of death. Moreover, there were many among the Chaldeans who laid no claim to magic powers, but who contented themselves with the sciences, as patient and laborious students, and it was not only manifest injustice, but strange impolicy to include them in this sweeping condemnation. Yet more, why should Daniel and his friends, who had but just passed their novitiate and who had not been consulted at all, share their fate? But rage is blind and knows no discrimination. There are not wanting some, as an illustration of this spirit, who would obliterate Christianity because of unworthy Christians; and no one can estimate what man has suffered from this stupid lack of the power of rational discrimination.
IV. CONCLUSION. What a striking picture is here presented us of Nebuchadnezzar and his wise men trying, by human devices, to arrive at the mind of God! How we yearn for man when we behold his boundless aspirations confronted by his impotent nothingness! But it was well that human skill should first exhaust its resources in endeavouring to know the mind of God. It was a proper prelude to Gods revelation, this confession of impotence: There is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. It is a law of Gods providence that He will not intervene until man has discovered his own absolute inability, and felt his imperative need. (The Southern Pulpit.)
The Dream of Humanity
There is no function in life which can compare for one moment to that of him who can minister to the perplexities of his fellow-men. The story connected with these words is very simple and well known. The king had dreamed a dream, and when he woke in the morning he could not recall it to his mind. A vague sense of the splendour of that dream haunted his imagination and memory. He felt that there was bound up in it some deep and mysterious truth. He hardly liked to let the whole remembrance of it quite go. He had around him his Chaldeans and his wise men, and he turned to them for aid, and their answer was that their function was limited only to the interpretation of dreams; it was not their function to enter upon a process of thought-reading unless there were present in the mind of him who demanded the interpretation the subject matter of those thoughts. In the emergency the difficulty was solved by a Jewish exile; to him it was given to be the reviver and interpreter of the dream. And we, perhaps, may feel that that ancient story is not wholly lost to us when we cast oar mind upon our own lives, and remember how much we, too, have been haunted by some magnificent dream. When the vision of what life really was, with its deep and solemn significance, was granted to us, we, awaking with the impression of all lifes business, lost the vivid force of that dream--we could not recall it, and we turned to the seers about us. They are plentiful to seek, the wise and the unwise, the weak and the strong, the false and the true, and we, haunted by the remembrance of that vision of what lifes deep significance is, turn in vain to these. And yet the conditions may teach us what are the real features and the real capacities of the true prophet. If I am not mistaken, the story suggests to us that there are two great elements which are essential in order that a man may be a real helper of his fellow men, the true prophet of his age. The condition which the king insists upon supplies one of these--it is that he should have touch with human nature; and his interpretation of the dream suggests the other--he must have some knowledge of the law and order of life. These two were just those that were vouchsafed to Daniel.
1. The first is knowledge of human nature. Let me ask you to put yourselves for the moment in the position of those who had this somewhat unreasonable demand made upon them. Their answer to his demand was very simple and fair. We are perfectly ready, they said, to interpret your dream, but our ministrations extend thus far; tell us the dream and we will tell the meaning. But the king, whose vision was elevated, perhaps, by the dream which he had experienced, began to see that he was surrounded by those who were in a large measure but charlatans; and prompted by this, he perhaps insists all the more pertinaciously on the condition. You profess to be able to interpret my dreams. How do I know that your interpretations are true? Tell me what the dream was, and I can verify your accuracy. In other words, vindicate your pretensions in a sphere where I can test them, and then I will be able to give you my faith in the sphere where I cannot test them. I cannot verify your interpretations, but I can verify your statement of what passed through my mind. You profess to explain my life to me, and all the destiny that awaits it; if it be in your power to do this, show, first, that you understand me, and then I will believe that you can unfold my destiny. And that, in itself, when you come to study it, is no unfair condition. It may be unreasonable in the circumstances in which it was used, but there is a vein of reason, and there is a vein of fairness in it; for when you reflect upon it there is no power in a man to teach and to speak concerning the future, unless he has a certain knowledge of the present. The man who can read deepest into the circumstances and the situation of the present is the man who is far the more likely to be able to forecast the future. You would not entrust your case to the doctor who had no knowledge of your symptoms. You would believe that the man, and the man only, who could read into your symptoms, would be able to track the probable development of the disease. It is the same in nature. The naturalist cannot predict a harvest except he understands the nature of the seed, and it is just in proportion as he is possessed of the power of insight that he is possessed of the power of foresight. That is taught us in the pages of history. As long as men thought, as it were, to out-manoeuvre Nature, and to read her secrets by ignoring her face, they simply courted defeat. These were the astrologers, the charlatans of science; but the moment they took up the other attitude, and began to scan closely the features of nature, and sought earnestly to understand the meaning of her thoughts, they began to discover her laws, and discovering them they had the power by which they could predict what would be the evolution of those laws. And if that be true in the law and order of nature, has it its counterpart in the moral order also? Place ourselves for a moment in the position of the king. Daniel comes and unfolds to him the vision. That splendid vision, that noble and colossal figure, represented what had passed through the kings mind, not that night only, but every night. It had been the dream of his life, the splendour and the magnificence of his position; the glorious headship which he held over the empire which he thought his own, from the high vantage ground of which he looked down in proud contempt upon human kind. His thoughts were read. The mans heart is read; his vision, and all the subtle play of his thoughts is unfolded to him. The man that can toll me these secrets of my heart is the man into whose hand I will place my destiny and bid him point the way along the track of my life. He can understand what is the outcome of this career of mine who thus understands me. And wherever men have been in the position of prophets of their age, their strength and power has depended upon their capacity to read the minds and the play of thought of the men of their age. If they are not familiar with this life they cannot have any power to deal with the life that lies beyond. The men who stood in their day foremost had an intimate knowledge of human nature. Take, for example, what, after all, is an illustration in the same direction. This Book of God has found its dominion over the minds and the lives of men because it has always displayed itself as a book well read in the deeps of human nature. I say, said one, rising from the perusal of it, the person who wrote that Book knew me. I believe, said one, who was cut off only too early in his splendid and promising career, I believe it to be Gods Book because it is mans Book; that is to say, it has such a power to fit into the needs of human kind that it vindicates its divine strength because of the very humanity of its methods. And this is what we may call the divine key to the method which God Himself has adopted in the life and pattern of Jesus Christ. He comes into our midst to be the Divine Teacher. He understands men. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee--I knew the devout aspirations of thy life, and that breaks down the thought. This teacher understands me. Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the Judge of Israel. Sometimes we feel ourselves a little disheartened. The cynic turns aside and says, It is true your Christianity is played out, your religion effete. I say it is an unwise thing for a man to echo these doleful plaints. May it not be the case that we have lost touch with humanity, that we have failed to understand human nature as it is before us in the century in which we live; that we have allowed, so to speak, our Christian teaching to grow fossilised, and the fossilised thing has lost its life and the hands and feet of its movement, and it cannot grasp upon the heart of humanity again?
2. But let us look at this second condition--the knowledge of a Divine order. What was the interpretation of the dream? Here stood this colossal figure, glittering with its varied metals. By-and-by, without hands, came the stone which smote upon it, and then, as in a moment, all the magnificence dropped into pieces, and these huge masses of metal, which had been the admiration of the world a moment ago, are lifted as things light, as the char upon the summer threshing-floor, and swept away, and the little stone begins to grow, and to take the place of this great image, and to fill the world itself. Of course, you may say the figure represented the empires which were existing and which were to follow--Persia, Greece, Rome, or, if you will have it so, the Egyptian or the Syrian kingdoms; but whatever the historical interpretation, the ethical interpretation is for you and me. That splendid dream, and that magnificent figure which appeared in the kings dream, is the dream of man in all ages; it is the dream of self-realisation. He who dreams is king. He sees that grand figure bearing human form, dominating the plain; and this is the ambition of men in all ages; but as he beholds he sees it in its glory and in its weakness. He sees it in its splendour--there is the effort of man to realise himself. It was so with all those who endeavoured to establish any solid, single monarchy. From the days of Nebuchadnezzar or Nimrod, if you will, to the days of Napoleon, this has been the same dream, I will take my idea, and I will impress it upon the world, and I will mould that earth and all the creatures that are in it to my will, and I shall dominate all. That is the ambition; what I want you to notice is, that it is the effort of a man to realise self in some form or other. That is an instinct which does not simply breathe into the hearts of great conquerors, or great founders of monarchies; there is not a human being created with a soul or an intelligence that had not had the dream that he will realise himself. The artist who seeks to cast his ideas on the canvas so as to speak his thoughts in richness and detail to his follow men--he is seeking to realise himself--his own idea painted there. Even in the home life you can see it. Thisjoy of home life has largely its play and its beauty because it is the very thing in which we see that in our children we live again--we realise ourselves in them. This instinct of self-realisation is at the root of mans best ambitions as well as his worst, and as it is at the root of them you can understand why it is, but the life and the form of that which was given him from God; for God Himself, if we may in reverence say it, has made His world but the picture of the same principle in Himself. The world is God realising Himself in material beauty; the page of history is God realising Himself in moral order, and this Christian revelation is God realising Himself in spiritual splendour to humanity; and I am not surprised if this, the very impulse of God, be self-realisation that He may manifest His greatness and His love, that therefore we, drawing our life from His hand, should be filled with a like instinct. But while this colossal figure in the vision is shown in its splendour, it is also shown in its weakness. This little stone, without hands, should demolish the whole; mans best and noblest dreams, mans most brilliant ambitions, are destined to be overthrown. And why? This stone represents precisely that unseen, that handless power which has not its origin in the conceptions of man, but in the nature of things; it is just the picture of what you see in nature. Man builds his noble shrines, he rears his sumptuous palaces, he spreads abroad the magnificent tokens of his power; but law, re-written deep down in the heart of nature, lays its hand upon all these creations of mans genius, and overturns all that man creates. In the precincts of moral order the law will overturn also; under this condition, all that is up built disregarding Gods eternal law must perish. It is not merely because man made it that it must die, but it is that man made it in violation of eternal law. Three laws were violated in its erection--the law of time and growth, the law of righteousness, the law of solidarity. The law of time, because this is that which is built up, made--it does not grow in contradistinction to the stone without hands. Thatgrows, this is made. That which is made, as it were, is merely built and at variance with the law of growth. The things which are alive grow, and in those things in which there is any moral life there is the capacity of growing. All the best things of this world grow, but the impatience of man hastens them onward. God will make a kingdom, but men with their impatience say, We will make it in our own time, and therefore at all costs--at the cost of blood, at the cost of righteousness, the kingdoms are made. These empires have perished. Why? Because they violated eternal laws of God; and as surely as the power of natural law can overthrow every shrine of human erection, so surely must every kingdom, every monarch, every race, every nationality, every church die and perish, if it tries to construct itself out of Gods due time and out of Gods due order. And as it thus violated the law of growth, by the very impatience of its construction, you know that it violated the law of rectitude. Men often imagine that they can do the right thing, but that they can do it in any way they please. There are two sentinels that stand at the outgoing of the temple of God; the one is the sentinel of a right way and the other of a right thing, and you are not permitted to build where God builds for all eternity, unless you be directed by the right thing and also by the right way. The weakness of life, as we often see it, is that men are passionately devoted to some great and noble enterprise, but they undermine the very foundations of their own edifice, because, while they seek the right thing they miss the right way, and that is the secret of many a failure. It sinned also against the law of solidarity. If you look at the construction of this image, you will find that it is merely a piling together: there is no homogeneity about it, it is heterogeneous; I am of gold, and I will be the head of all; I am of silver, and I will be the strength of all; I am of brass and I will be power of fertility to all, and my iron heel shall be planted upon all. Christ has made all men to be of one blood upon the face of the earth, and the kingdom which He establishes shall be built up not with materials which shall represent the dignity, the glory, or the pre-eminence of one nation or one people over another, but that wider and better glory, which is the organisation of humanity unto a loving, living whole. Then, if that be the doom, as it were, of this dream of humanity, we begin to say, is it not, then, a sad close to it all? If the instinct to realise self, that is, to leave some impress of our own upon the world ere we die, be a great and a God-given impulse, and if what we see is the constant overthrow of all our schemes, are we, then, to settle down into a miserable pessimism and say, It is vain ever to expect the realisation of human dreams? Nay, not so. This little stone without hands takes the place of this overthrown image; it grows; it is the empire of heart, the kingdom which cannot be shaken; and, therefore, there has never passed through human mind a noble and a true dream that God does not see the way to realise. He breaks down our little efforts to realise it that He may substitute His own. Never let us think, then, that we are to be for ever disappointed by incessant and perpetual failures. The world grows old, but with it there grows, also, the everlasting and the ripening purposes of God. (Bp. Boyd Carpenter.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 SECT. V.—THE ANSWERED PRAYER (Chap. Dan_2:1-19).
HOMILETICS
SECT. V.—THE ANSWERED PRAYER (Chap. Dan_2:1-19).
Read full note →
We come to the first of the visions given to Daniel. The occasion of it was a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, of which it was required to give both the description and the interpretation. The vision thus in harmony with Daniel’s situation in Babylon, where pretensions to such wisdom and ability prevailed; a confirmation of the genuineness of the book. One object of the vision to elevate Daniel still higher in the king’s esteem and in the State, and so still further to prepare the way for Israel’s liberation at the appointed time. Another and more direct object to comfort the people of God, then and in all future time, with the assurance that God rules in the kingdoms of men, and that when the great monarchies of the world have run their allotted course, the kingdom of Messiah shall overthrow them all and bless the earth with a lasting reign of righteousness and peace.
The vision was given in answer to prayer. The time of it was “the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,” that is, as sole monarch, after having reigned two previous years conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar [28]. The king, having had his thoughts seriously exercised about the future (Dan_2:29), [29] had a dream [30] which greatly disturbed him (Dan_2:1); and as the wise men about him pretended to interpret dreams, he summoned the various classes of them [31],—magicians [32], astrologers, sorcerers [33], and Chaldeans [34], and required them to give both the dream and its meaning. Either in reality, as is generally supposed, the dream having left only a confused impression, or, as others perhaps more correctly think, in pretence, in order to put to the proof the pretended skill of his wise men, he declared that the dream had passed from his recollection [35], and they must give not only the interpretation, but the dream itself. In accordance with the character of Oriental despotism, the penalty of failure was to be death in most terrible and cruel form—to be “hewed in pieces” [36], with the utter demolition of their dwellings [37]. On the wise men disclaiming, in the Syriac or Chaldaic tongue [38], the entire inability of themselves or any mere man whatever, to gratify the king’s desire—a thing competent only to the gods, “whose dwelling is not with flesh”—Nebuchadnezzar, probably enraged at discovering, as he thought, the falsehood of their pretensions, but ostensibly at their wish only to gain time for the safety of their own persons [39], commanded the chief executioner [40] at once to inflict the penalty. Daniel and his three companions, being supposed to be included among the wise men, though apparently not among those who were summoned into the king’s presence, were sought out for execution with the rest. One refuge they knew, which the others had not. The God they worshipped was, as they had already experienced, a God that hears and answers prayer. At Daniel’s suggestion, they unite immediately in a concert of prayer for the preservation of their own lives and those of the wise men of Babylon, and, to that end, for ability from on high to describe and interpret the king’s dream. The prayer was graciously and speedily answered.
[28] “In the second year,” &c. The dream occurring at this early period in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, observes Hengstenberg, agrees with the fame of Daniel’s wisdom and prevalency in prayer as indicated by Ezekiel. The first mention made of Daniel by that prophet was probably in the sixth year of the reign of Zedekiah (Eze_8:1), consequently thirteen or fourteen years after the carrying away of Daniel into Babylon. The second mention of him five years later. The repeated mention of such a person quite natural in the circumstances. Yet this mention of Daniel by Ezekiel has been made the ground of an opinion, advanced by Ewald and espoused by Bunsen, that Daniel was led captive in the first Assyrian invasion, and that he lived and prophesied, not in Babylon, but in Nineveh! Kliefoth, quoted by Keil, observes that in Dan_1:1 Daniel reckons Nebuchadnezzar’s years “according to the years of the Israelitish kings, and sees in him already the king; on the contrary, in chap, 2., he treats of the nations of the World-power, and reckons here accurately the year of Nebuchadnezzar, the bearer of the world-power, from the day in which, having actually obtained the possession of that power, he became king of Babylon.” Keil himself remarks: “If we observe that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed his dream in the second year of his reign, and that he entered on his reign some time after the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Jehoiakim, then we can understand how the three years appointed for the education of Daniel and his companions came to an end in the second year of his reign; for if Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, then in the seventh year of that king three years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year of his reign. A whole year or more of their period of education had passed before Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne.” It is, however, perhaps scarcely correct to speak of what took place in Jehoiakim’s fourth year as the destruction of Jerusalem, which did not happen till some years afterwards.
[29] “What should come to pass hereafter.” Dr. Pusey notices it as “a striking picture of the young conqueror, that, not contented with the vista of future greatness before him, he was looking on beyond our little span of life, which in youth so fills the mind, to a future when his own earthly life should be closed.”
[30] “Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams.” Mr. Wood, in his Lectures on Daniel, observes, that “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was an event in the Chaldean history which bore upon it the stamp and impress of divine interposition. It involved in its interpretation the future revolutions of the world, and had reference to that most important revolution, the introduction of the religion of Christ, which was to cover the earth.”
[31] “The king commanded to call the magicians,” &c. On all occasions in the book, says Hengstenberg, not particular wise men are consulted, but the whole body of them, probably, as here, in the persons of their representatives, or of a selection made from them. Such in accordance with the information of Diodorus, that the observations of the Babylonian wise men were always instituted in company and by a college. The division of the wise men here indicated is not to be conceived of as if every individual always confined himself to the cultivation of only one particular branch of Babylonian wisdom; the division only amounting to this, that by rule each should particulary excel in only some one department. The different branches, too, were so nearly identified, that it would be difficult previously to determine whether any one of them would not, in any given instance, come into operation.
[32] “Magicians.” See note under chap. Dan_1:20. Dr. Rule observes that the Hebrew name is generally considered equivalent with the Greek ἱερογραμμαπεῖς or sacred scribes, not magicians. The Assyrians had a sacred writing, not like the pictorial hieroglyphic of Egypt, but a literal hieroglyphic or ideograph. The characters were arrow-headed or wedge-like (cuneiform), as in ordinary inscriptions on the Assyrian sculptures and Babylonian cylinders. The style was enigmatic, or at least obscure, by brevity or abruptness or abbreviation.
[33] “Sorcerers,” מְכַשְּׁפִים (mechash-shephim), from a Syriac root meaning to “supplicate” or “perform sacred rites;” enchanters, magicians, Exo_7:11; Deu_18:10; Mal_3:5.—Gesenius. Sept., φαρμακὸς, one who uses drugs or incantations. Vulg., “maleficus.” Aben Ezra, one who uses horoscopes. Gesenius understands a magician, or one who pretended to cause eclipses by incantations.
[34] “Chaldeans.” He rerepresented as a class of themselves. A thing in itself most probable. The priest-caste not likely first introduced into Babylonia by the Chaldeans. No civilised people of antiquity without an order of priests. Isaiah, in whose time the Chaldeans had not yet become masters of Babylon, describes that city as the prime seat of the arts of divination. These possessed a priest-caste before their invasion of Babylonia. The name of the people was at Babylon the name of the whole caste, and occurs as such in the oldest writers. The name given from this distinction between the Chaldean and Babylonian priesthoods. Curtius speaks of the Persian magi, the Chaldeans, and the Babylonians as so many different kinds of wise men in Babylon. The distinction here no small attestation to the trustworthiness, and so to the genuineness, of the book.—Hengstenberg. Dr. A. Clarke observes that the “Chaldeans” might be a college of learned men, where all arts and sciences were professed and taught; that they were the most ancient philosophers of the world; and that they might have been originally inhabitants of Babylon, and still have preserved to themselves exclusively the name of Chaldeans. Keil views them as the most distinguished class among the Babylonian wise men.
[35] “The thing it gone from me.” The passage otherwise rendered by Michaelis, Gesenius, and others—“the word, or decree, has gone forth from me;” or, according to Winer, Hengstenberg, and others, “the thing has been determined by me,” or “the word stands firm,” like chap. Dan_6:12, “the thing is true.” Others translate, “let the word from me be known,” “be it known unto you.”
[36] “Cut in pieces.” This punishment, observes Keil, common among the Babylonians (chap. Dan_3:30; Eze_16:40). “A Chaldean death-punishment,” says Hengstenberg, “and in accordance with the cruel character of the people.” The king’s treatment of the magicians, he observes, was barbarous, but nothing more than, judging even by our sparing historical information, we might expect of him (2Ki_25:7; 2Ki_25:18; 2Ki_25:21; Jer_39:5, &c.; Jer_52:9-11, Jer_52:24-27). A mistake to expect an Oriental despot to use our standard in the estimate of human life. An example of the author’s acquaintance with the usages of the time and country, and so a confirmation of the genuineness of the book. The Persians had quite a different mode of inflicting capital punishment.
[37] “Your houses shall be made a dunghill.” The houses of Babylon were built of earth burnt or simply dried in the sun. When a building was totally demolished or converted into a confused heap of rubbish, the entire mass of earth, in rainy weather, gradually decomposed, and the place of such a house became like a dunghill. Bertholdt admits that the accurate acquaintance here shown with the mode of building practised in Babylon shows the piece to have been written in that country.—Hengstenberg.
[38] “In Syriack.” Therefore, in the opinion of Hengstenberg, not the language of the king and court. The language here meant is the Eastern Aramaic or common Chaldaic; that in which the following part of the book is written as far as the end of chap. 7. Originally the language of Abraham in his own country, but changed by his descendants in Palestine for that commonly called Hebrew, the language of Canaan (Isa_19:18), which was given to them for their possession. This language of Canaan naturally closely allied to the Phœnician, whose characters, resembling the Samaritan, continued to be used by the Hebrews till changed after the captivity for those of the Chaldaic. Dr. Rule observes that the language of Aram (or Syria), now less properly called Chaldee in one dialect and Syriac in another, while yet the two dialects hardly differ, is very different from the old Chaldee, or language of Akkad, the classic tongue of Assyria used by the race of Akkadians, who had inhabited Babylonia from the earliest times. These Chaldees would converse, he thinks, with each other in their ancient language; but that speech the soldier-king would not have understood, and therefore they are under the necessity of speaking to him in his mother tongue. A different view from that taken by Hengstenberg.
[39] “Ye would gain the time.” Either till the king could recollect the dream himself, or should become indifferent about the matter, or till they could invent something in the place of it, or get time to escape with life and property.—A. Clark
[40] “Captain of the king’s guard.” Margin: “Chief of the executioners or slaughtermen.” “The chief of the royal bodyguard, who also executed the capital punishments. In Jer_39:13 he bears a different name from that in this passage—an evidence of the genuineness of the book; as a spurious Daniel, if he had derived the corresponding statements from Jeremiah, would have surely transferred also the name, in order to give an appearance of trustworthiness.”—Hengstenberg. According to Keil, this man was regarded as the highest officer of the king (Jer_39:9; Jer_39:11; Jer_11:1, &c.); his business being to see to the execution of the king’s commands (1Ki_2:25; 2Ki_6:8). Dr. Rule remarks that this was also the Egyptian title 1200 years before Nebuchadnezzar, and the repetition of both the office and the name may be noted as one of many affinities between Egypt and Babylon in customs, language, and tradition.
From the whole section observe—
1. Men’s minds capable of being acted upon by God. Dreams themselves often from God, as well as the apprehension of their meaning. The power of recollection, as well as the want of it, also from Him. By divine revelation, mediately or immediately given, Daniel is enabled not only to interpret the king’s dream, but to describe the dream itself, without the slightest clue to it. The office of the Spirit to “bring all things to remembrance,” as well as to “show things to come.” The faculties of our minds as well as the members of our bodies under the influence and control of Him who made both, and that both while asleep and awake. “I awoke, and my sleep was sweet unto me.” “Thou scarest me with dreams, and terrifiest me through visions.”
2. The misery of ungodly men. Nebuchadnezzar troubled and unhappy in the midst of all his power and grandeur. A dream by night or a thought by day, laying hold of the mind, able to poison all earthly enjoyments. The sword of Damocles suspended over the ungodly in the midst of their mirth. Armed guards around a king’s chamber unable to keep trouble from his spirit. Sleep, the gift of God to His beloved (Psa_127:2), often far from the pillow of the ungodly. An evil conscience a sufficient tormentor. A vague terror the usual accompaniment of unpardoned sin. Apprehended anger on the part of God enough to rob a man of peace by day and sleep by night. The mere man of the world “generally impatient under suffering; apprehensive of danger at every change both of body and mind; alarmed at every circumstance which to him appears to portend either adversity or dissolution.”—Wood.
3. The evils of despotism and absolute power. Like Nebuchadnezzar, a despot usually unreasonable and arbitrary, cruel and oppressive, hasty and impetuous. Is easily irritated, while his wrath is “like the roaring of a lion.” The capricious disposer of his subjects’ lives and property. The will of an absolute monarch, who in his wrath rather resembles a madman or a wild beast, takes the place of law, justice, and reason. Sad condition of a people when the will of one man is law. Usually the character of Oriental monarchies. The beheaded Baptist and the slaughtered infants of Bethlehem melancholy examples. The tendency of absolute power to make good men bad and bad men much worse. Such power only safe in the hands of Him who is King of Righteousness and Prince of Peace. The happiness of a free and constitutional State, as well as the duty of gratitude to God for the privilege of living under such, best seen in contrast with the misery of being under a despotic one. Adam Clarke exclaims on the passage: “Happy England! Know and value thy excellent privileges!”
“Thee therefore still, blameworthy as thou art,
Thee I account still happy, and the chief
Among the nations, seeing thou art free,
My native nook of earth.”
Plutarch relates that when Dionysius the Second took his departure from Syracuse, the whole city went out to behold the joyful sight, and that their hearts were so full of the happy event that they were angry with those that were absent and could not witness with what joy the sun rose that day on Syracuse, now at last delivered from the chains of slavery.
4. The fearful effects of sin, Sin makes men, who were created in the image of God, to resemble demons. Degraded Nebuchadnezzar into the likeness of a beast long before he was driven into the fields to eat grass. “When passion is on the throne, reason is under foot.” Both God and the devil stamp their image on their respective servants. Men must resemble the being they worship. We must either be like the God who is love, or him who was “a murderer from the beginning.” Causeless and unholy anger is murder in the germ. Anger may enter for a moment into the breast of a wise man, but “resteth only in the bosom of fools.” The maxim of Periander, the wise man of Corinth, was—“Be master of thine anger.” The Holy Spirit says, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” Anger, Dr. Cox observes, is—
(1) undignifying;
(2) unreasonable;
(3) destructive of that just and useful influence to which we should aspire, and for which every one is naturally capacitated by his position in society;
(4) usually makes a rapid progress;
(5) is productive of great unhappiness;
(6) is a most guilty passion. It is remarked by Robert Hall: “Vindictive passions surround the soul with a sort of turbulent atmosphere, than which nothing can be conceived more opposite to the calm and holy light in which the blessed Spirit loves to dwell.”
5. The helplessness of heathenism and of men without God. Babylon’s wise men, with all their learning and science, unable either to find direction in their difficulty or deliverance from their danger. Like the mariners in the storm, they are “at their wit’s end.” They believed the gods could tell the king his dream, but they had no access to them. Their “dwelling is not with flesh.” Their gods do not dwell with them, and they confess that they have no converse with them. Thus heathenism, by its own confession, is powerless. Sorry gods, indeed, that cannot approach men, nor be approached by them! Even the great Bel of Babylon unable to help his royal and devoted worshipper. Contrast with this the God of the Bible, “a very present help in trouble,” and “near to all who call upon Him in truth.” Blessed are the people who know the “mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh;” and that, having been “made flesh” Himself, He can and does dwell with men on the earth. Matthew Henry notices the righteousness of God in causing men who imposed on others by pretending to do what they could not, to be threatened with death for not doing what they did not even pretend to do.
6. The happy privilege of prayer. Access to the throne of grace both the comfort and deliverance of Daniel and his three friends. A noble sight for angels to look down upon, those four young men on their knees, asking believingly, as children of a father, the gracious interposition of the God of heaven on behalf of themselves and others. They knew that for the God of their fathers nothing was too dark to know, nothing too hard to do, nothing too great to grant to His praying children. Nothing really good excluded from the subjects of prayer. “In everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God” (Php_4:6). Even under the law, Moses could appeal to Israel, “What nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon Him for?” How much nearer under the Gospel! “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, I will do it.” “What soever things ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” “If we ask according to His will, we know that He heareth us; and if we know that He heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions we desire of Him” (1Jn_3:22; 1Jn_5:14-15). The Spirit of God given to help us in prayer, and to teach us to pray for what is according to the divine will (Rom_8:26). Hence—
7. The happiness of the godly. Daniel, though exposed to the same danger as the wise men, is calm and collected. He knew in whom he believed. An example of the text, “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord.” He knew the God of his fathers to be the God “that heareth prayer.” The glory of the gospel that it brings the apostolic exhortation into realised experience and actual practice: “Be careful (or anxious) for nothing: but in everything by prayer and supplication, let your requests be made known unto God; and the peace of God, that passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” Such a religion needed by men in the battle of life; and the last-quoted words show how it is to be found,—“through Christ Jesus.” Daniel an example of it in the Old Testament; millions such in the New. Tried by men and things as others are, yet kept in a peace to which the world is a stranger,—a peace found in the knowledge and possession of Christ Jesus. “The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.”
8. The special importance of united prayer. Daniel invites his three friends to unite with himself in prayer for the divine interposition. “Two are better than one,” no less in prayer than in labour. “If two of you,” said the Master, “shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them” (Mat_18:19). So Esther asked her Jewish maids to join their prayers with hers in a time of great emergency. The promised baptism of the Holy Ghost bestowed on the disciples when engaged, as they had been for ten days, in united prayer. Peter’s deliverance from prison in answer to the united prayer made by the Church for that object. Those the most valuable friends who are able to join us in our suit at a throne of grace. Dr. Cox remarks on the passage: “While the individual supplication of the ‘righteous man availeth much,’ union in prayer is adapted to increase its fervency, and, through grace, to promote its success; and while it is adapted to our social nature and suited to our circumstances of common necessity, it has the express assurance of a divine blessing.”
9. A praying man a national benefit. Here are four men, captives in a strange land and occupying the position of slaves, made the means, by their intercession with God, not only of saving the lives of a numerous class of citizens, and of bringing peace and comfort to the troubled mind of the sovereign, but of bringing that heathen king to confess the worthlessness of his idols, and for a time at least to favour the worship of the true God among his subjects. How many national blessings have been bestowed and national calamities averted by the believing prayers of godly men, eternity alone will disclose. A poet reminds us how much the world—
“Receives advantage from his noiseless hours,
Of which she little dreams. Perhaps she owes
Her sunshine and her rain, her blooming spring
And plenteous harvest, to the prayers he makes,
When, lsaac-like, the solitary saint
Walks forth to meditate at eventide,
And thinks on her who thinks not on herself.”
10. The special privilege of a godly ancestry. Daniel’s privilege that he could address his prayers to God as “the God of his fathers,” and then thank and praise Him as such, connecting with that relationship the gracious answer he had received. The title reminds us, as Dr. Cox observes, “that the recollections of piety are the most solemn and endearing that earth can afford. Some are privileged to look back upon an extended succession of holy ancestry, and to recount the names of those who are endeared by relationship as well as distinguished for their faith, who now form a part of the celestial society. Their sun is set, but their example continues to shed its holy twilight around the horizon of life, and cheer them on their pilgrimage.” The recollection of such an ancestry at once a stimulus to prayer and a help to faith.
DANIEL AN EXAMPLE OF THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER
“Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision” (Dan_2:19).
Daniel obtained what he asked of God. Important to inquire, How may we Reason and Scripture teach us that various things are necessary to efficacious prayer. Prayer, to be efficacious, must obviously possess the following conditions. It must be—
1. Offered in faith. This constantly required. “Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering: for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord” (Jas_1:6-7). “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb_11:6). The ability to grant on the part of the Giver, as well as His faithfulness if He has promised, must be cordially believed. “Believe ye that I am able to do this?” (Mat_9:28). We must be able to say, “Thine is the power;” and to believe “He is faithful that promised.” Daniel prayed in confidence that God was the “Hearer of prayer.” “The prayer of faith shall save the sick” (Jas_5:15). “As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.”
2. Earnest. Prayer offered without earnestness only begs a refusal. Daniel prayed as in a matter of life and death. It is the “fervent” prayer that availeth much. “Elijah prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not” (Jas_5:17). “I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me” (Gen_32:26). “They constrained Him.”
3. Importunate and persevering. This the evidence at once of faith and earnestness. Answers to prayer not always, nor often, granted immediately. Prayer to be continued till the answer come. Thus prayed Daniel and his three friends. The disciples in the upper room “continued in prayer and supplication” till they received the promised baptism of fire. The Church prayed for Peter’s release till it was granted. To this end Christ spake a parable that “men ought always to pray and not to faint,” or give up because the answer is delayed. “Shall not God avenge His own elect who cry day and night unto Him continually, though He bear long with him?” Jesus Himself continued whole nights in prayer to God. Elijah returned to his knees “seven times” before the “little cloud” appeared.
4. From a right motive and for a right end. “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (Jas_4:3). God’s glory and the good of others as well as ourselves to be our true motive. “Thine is the glory.” “Hallowed be Thy name,” the first petition taught in the Lord’s Prayer. Daniel prayed that men’s lives might be saved and God’s name glorified. Prayer offered to gratify lust, pride, ambition, covetousness, either unanswered or answered without a blessing. “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul” (Psa_106:15).
5. Offered with uprightness of heart and life. “Whatever we ask we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments” (1Jn_3:22). The fervent prayer of the “righteous man” that which availeth much. The language of the man born blind that both of Nature and Scripture: “God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God and doeth His will, him He hearth” (Joh_9:31). “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” “The prayer of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the righteous is His delight.” The sinner, however, also heard, if he come confessing himself such and feeling his sin a burden. “God be merciful to me a sinner,” a prayer when offered sincerely never returned unanswered. Paul’s prayers heard and answered as those of a sinner before they were so as those of a saint. The prayers of a sinner, groaning under his sin, and pleading for pardon and a clean heart, make sweet music in heaven. “Behold, he prayeth.”
6. With submission to God’s will and desire only for what is according to it. “Thy will be done,” the third petition in the Lord’s Prayer. The great Teacher Himself an example. “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done.” Prayer without submission to God’s will, only the language of rebellion. Prayer for what is not according to God’s will better left unanswered. “If we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us” (1Jn_5:14). The work of the Spirit to teach us to pray for what is according to the will of God (Rom_8:26-27). Prayer thus offered never unanswered. Connected with this is—
7. With entire self-surrender. For the submission of the will to God the surrender of our whole self necessary; without such surrender our prayer still that of rebellion. The language of our heart either, “O Lord, I am Thy servant,” or, “Our lips are our own; who is lord over us?” Prayer only safely and profitably answered where there is entire self-surrender. Such surrender secures either the blessing asked or something better.
8. In the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ. Daniel, in a recorded prayer of his (chap. 9.), renounces all merit and righteousness of his own as a ground of acceptance, and pleads only to be heard “for the Lord’s, that is, Messiah or Christ’s, sake.” “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name” (on my account or for my sake), “I will do it.” David taught to use the same prevailing plea—“Look upon the face of Thine Anointed” (Psa_84:9). God can refuse no blessing so asked, because He cannot refuse His Son. To plead the name and merits of Christ, however, implies a cordial acceptance of and trust in Him as a Saviour. The consequence of such acceptance and trust is a personal union with Him, and the consequent indwelling of the Spirit as a “Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” With that Spirit we not merely say, “Our Father,” but “My Father,” and “pray in the Holy Ghost.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 Dan 2:1-23
Dan 2:1-23
I. The narrative sets before us the value of united prayer.
Read full note →
II. We have an illustration here of the power of gratitude.
III. We have an illustration of the devout humility of genuine piety.
IV. We have an illustration of faithful friendship. When Daniel was exalted, he did not forget his companions.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 20.
References: Dan 2:1.—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. vi., p. 45; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 267.
Dan 2:3
We may feel that this ancient story is not wholly untrue, nor the effects of it wholly lost to it, when we cast our mind upon our own lives, and remember how much we, too, have been haunted by some magnificent dream. When the vision of what life really was, with its deep and solemn significance, was granted to us, we, awaking with the impression of all life’s business, lost the vivid force of that dream—we could not recall it, and we turned to the seers about us to revive those impressoins which we felt must be for good. They are plentiful to seek, the wise and the unwise, the weak and the strong, the false and the true; and we, haunted by the remembrance of that vision of what life’s deep significance is, turn in vain to these. And yet the conditions may teach us what are the real features and the real capacities of the true prophet. The story suggests that there are two great elements which are essential, in order that a man may be a real helper of his fellow-men, the true prophet of his age. These two were just those that were vouchsafed to Daniel.
I. The first is knowledge of human nature. The king says, "You profess to be able to interpret my dreams. How do I know that your interpretations are true? Tell me what the dream was, and I can verify your accuracy; vindicate your pretensions in a sphere where I can test them, and then I will be able to give you my faith in the sphere where I cannot test them. Show first that you understand me, and then I will believe that you can understand my destiny." Daniel tracks the movement of the man’s mind, he shows himself master of the play of his thoughts. That splendid vision, that noble and colossal figure, represented what had passed through the king’s mind not that night only but every night. It had been the dream of his life, the splendour and the magnificence of his position; the glorious headship which he held over the empire, which he thought his own, from the high vantage-ground of which he looked down in proud contempt upon human kind. His thoughts were read. And whatever men have been in the position of prophets of their age, their strength and power has depended upon their capacity to read the minds and the play of thought of the men of their age.
II. The second condition is the knowledge of a Divine order. That splendid dream, and that magnificent figure which appeared in the king’s dream, is the dream of man in all ages; it is the dream of self-realisation. But while this colossal figure is shown in its splendour, it is also shown in its weakness. This little stone, without hands, should demolish the whole; man’s best and noblest dreams, man’s most brilliant ambitions, are destined to be overthrown. And why? This stone represents precisely that unseen, that handless power which has not its origin in the conceptions of man, but in the nature of things. This little stone takes the place of this overthrown image; it grows; it is the empire of heart, the kingdom which cannot be shaken; and therefore there has never passed through human mind a dream, a noble and a true dream, that God does not see the way to realise. He breaks down our little efforts to realise it, that He may substitute His own. We look upon the things seen, and because the glittering image stands no more upon the plain of the world, we wring our hands and say, "The vision is dead, and there is no hope for humanity." But those laws which are the work of the spiritual kingdom, and of the moral kingdom, are building up that which we cannot see, but which we may know by the creation of its strength within the citadel of our hearts—that eternal kingdom of the living God which shall never be overthrown.
Bishop Boyd Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 8.
Dan 2:29-49
I take the severance of the stone from the mountain to denote the coming of Christ into the world, and the collision of the stone with the image to mean the founding by the Lord of that spiritual kingdom which is in its principles antagonistic to all the world-powers, and which will ultimately subdue them all. Thus viewed, the vision which Daniel recovered and interpreted suggests to us many interesting things concerning the kingdom of Christ.
I. There is, first, its superhuman origin. The stone was "cut out of the mountain without hands."
II. There is the comparative feebleness of its beginning. The language of the vision indicates that the stone grew from a small size until it became a huge mountain.
III. There is, in the third place, the gradualness of its progress. The stone grew until it became a mountain. Not all at once was the development made. And so in the kingdom which it symbolises advancement was by degrees.
IV. There is, fourthly, its universal extent. The mountain filled the whole earth." "The knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth."
V. There is, fifthly, the perpetual duration of this kingdom. It shall never be destroyed, and "it shall not be left to other people."
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 39.
References: Dan 2:31-35.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 306. Dan 2:31-45.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 324. Dan 2:31-47.—R. Payne-Smith, Ibid., vol. vi., p. 351.
Dan 2:34-35
I. We see in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar the great fact that the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of truth, is at length to be supreme over all other kingdoms. Other kingdoms have always hitherto represented ideas and forces of evil. From the beginning, even down to the present moment, there has not yet been one kingdom which has aimed supremely at the well-being of the world. All of them, without exception, have been selfish and aggressive, aiming at the accession of territory and the augmentation of power and wealth. The image which Nebuchadnezzar saw did not fall of its own accord. It was not destroyed by a band of enemies. It was destroyed by miracle, by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. We see in this a type of the fact that the great power—the power which is to be dominant in our world, which is to grow and move and smite all evil—is a miraculous, a heavenly power.
II. We note the apparent contrast between the agent which destroys evil and the evil which is to be destroyed. A stupendous image—that is the evil; a stone, quite small at first, cut out of the mountain without hands—that is the good. It has ever been so. That which is to destroy evil is at first little and despised, and men laugh at it and treat it with mockery. What was Christ to all appearance that He should assume the part of the destroyer of evil? He was as a root out of a dry ground. He was an obscure man, from an obscure city, in an obscure portion of Palestine, without what the world would now deem education. This was the man who claimed to stand forth as the great, the only conqueror of error and sin and death; whose name was to fill, whose love was to inspire, and whose work was to save the world. If that mighty stone moves with a menacing aspect towards all embodiments of evil, it becomes each of us to inquire how we stand in relation to it. Like the wheels of Ezekiel, it is full of eyes. Wherever it sees goodness, faith, love, it leaves them standing. It breaks not the bruised reed. But for them that resist there can be no escape. There is nothing more fatal than the defiance of love.
E. Mellor, The Hem of Christ’s Garment, p. 219.
References: Dan 2:35.—J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. ii., pp. 232, 244. Dan 2:41, Dan 2:42.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 310.
Dan 2:44-45
I. Notice the law of decay in human affairs. (1) It is impressively illustrated in the fact that individuals pass so soon out of the memory of the world. (2) It is more impressively illustrated in the fact that nations die. (3) It disappoints the most plausible plans and. expectations of men.
II. To this law of decay in human affairs there is one grand and marvellous exception. God has a kingdom in this world, which lives. (1) It deserves mention in illustration of this exception, that the work of God in redemption is the only thing in human history that dates back to the beginning of time. (2) The contrast between the kingdoms of men and the kingdom of God is further seen in the mysterious vitality of right in this world, in its conflicts with wrong. (3) The contrast is further seen in an anomalous suspension of the law of decay in some cases of historic immortality. The only men who are destined to live while the world lives are those who are in some way especially identified with the kingdom of Christ. (4) The only names from the remote past which in the nature of things can go down to the world’s latest ages are those which are to be immortalised by the Christian Scriptures.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 230.
Dan 2:45
(with Pro 27:1)
Our subject is the future, and we are to find out what is known, and also what is unknown about it.
I. We owe a great deal, both in the way of stimulus and in the way of education, to the very mysteriousness of the future. It is expectancy—call it hope and fear—that gives life a rare interest: hope itself sometimes brings with it a sting of pain, and fear now and again brings with it even something of weird pleasure. Life that had no future would be but a flat surface, a stiff and cold monotony, a world without a firmament. But with a future it is a hope, an inspiration, a sweet and gracious promise.
II. We know the great broad features of the future, but next to nothing of its mere detail. Mortality, destiny, the future moral state of the world—but detail, nothing! Still, this ignorance of detail ought not to interfere with our right apprehension and proper use of the future. The fact of our ignorance of the future should have a deeply religious effect upon us: (1) dependence; (2) earnestness.
Parker, The Ark of God, p. 222.
References: Dan 2:46-49.—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 121. 2—J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 85; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 184. Dan 3:1-12.—Ibid., vol. iv., p. 243. Dan 3:14.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii., No. 1930; C. Kingsley, The Good News of God, p. 31.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Nebuchandezzar's Dream-Image
Nebuchandezzar's Dream-Image
Nebuchadnezzar in his second year had a dream, which he required the wise men of his court to describe and interpret on pain of death. They said this was beyond their power, but professed their readiness to explain the dream if the king would tell them its nature. Nebuchadnezzar persisted in his first demand, and as the wise men could not satisfy him he gave orders that they should be slain (Dan_2:1-13). Daniel, however, interposed and asked that the execution of the penalty should be delayed. In answer to his prayers and those of his three companions God revealed the dream and its meaning to Daniel, who gave thanks and praise for this favour (Dan_2:14-23). Daniel was then brought before Nebuchadnezzar, and after explaining the true source of his knowledge proceeded to describe and interpret the dream (Dan_2:24-31). What Nebuchadnezzar had seen was a great image with a head of gold, a breast and arms of silver, a belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of iron mingled with clay. A stone fell on the feet and broke them in pieces, and the whole image crumbled into fragments, and was carried away by the wind. The stone then became a great mountain, which filled the whole earth (Dan_2:31-35). The head of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar's empire (Dan_2:36-38). The parts of the image made of silver, brass, and iron represented three other kingdoms that should arise, with characteristics corresponding to their various materials (Dan_2:39-43). In the days of the last of these God would set up a universal and everlasting kingdom (Dan_2:44-45). On hearing the interpretation of the dream Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the greatness of the true God, and made Daniel governor of the province of Babylon, and chief of the wise men (Dan_2:46-48). At Daniel's request his three companions also received posts of honour and authority (Dan_2:49).
Read full note →
Teaching. On any interpretation of this chapter its central truth lies in the prophecy of the divine kingdom, which is to supersede all human empires—a prophecy which in NT. times is receiving an ever-increasing fulfilment. The reasons for regarding the fourth kingdom as the Greek empire have been given in the Intro. The first three are usually taken to be the Babylonian, the Median (represented by 'Darius the Mede,' whom the writer of Daniel places before Cyrus), and the Persian. Another interpretation supposes that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were the only Babylonian kings known to the author (see on 57), and makes the first two kingdoms to be those of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, followed by the Medo-Persian empire as the third.
1. The second year] seems inconsistent with the statement in Dan_1:5, that Daniel and his companions were under training during three years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. But it appears from the monuments that the Babylonian kings counted the year after their accession as their first year. The 'second' year might therefore be really the third, while the 'three' years of Dan_1:5 might include, by another mode of reckoning, the year of accession, the following year, and part of the next. The 'three' years might, therefore, be over before the end of the 'second' year.
2. Sorcerers] another class of wise men. Astrologers.. Chaldeans] see on Dan_1:4, Dan_1:20.
3. Was troubled] RV 'is troubled.'
4. In Syriack] RM 'in Aramaic' The Aramaic portion of the book begins with the words 'O king.' The phrase 'in Aramaic' should probably be regarded as a parenthesis indicating that at 'this point a change of language takes place: see Intro.
5. The thing is gone] RM 'the word is gone forth.' Nebuchadnezzar had not actually forgotten the dream, but he was resolved to test the wise men's power by insisting that they should describe as well as interpret it: so in Dan_2:8.
Made a dunghill] cp. Ezr_6:11.
8. Gain the time] RV 'gain time.'
9. Till the time be changed] till something should divert the king's purpose.
10. Therefore there is] RV 'forasmuch as.'
14. Arioch] Eri-Aku, 'servant of Aku,' an old Babylonian name (Gen_14:1).
16. Give him time] RV 'appoint him a time.' Daniel's request was very different from the temporising of the wise men in Dan_2:9.
27. Soothsayers] still another class of Babylonian wise men.
28. Maketh known] RV 'he hath made known': so in Dan_2:29.
29.The dream was an answer to Nebuchadnezzar's waking thoughts.
30. For their sakes that shall make known the interpretation] RV 'to the intent that the interpretation may be made known.'
38. Thou art this (RV 'the') head of gold] The golden head may be identified either with the Babylonian empire which Nebuchadnezzar represented, or with Nebuchadnezzar personally. The latter is the more natural interpretation.
39. Another kingdom inferior] either the Median rule of Darius, which the writer of Daniel mistakenly supposed to come before that of Cyrus the Persian (see on Dan_8:20), or the kingdom of Belshazzar, who is contrasted with Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. Another third kingdom] either the Persian empire, beginning with Cyrus, or the Medo-Persian empire, which is represented by a single animal (the ram) in Daniel 8.
40. The fourth kingdom] is the Greek empire, founded by the conquests of Alexander the Great.
41. The feet and toes] represent Alexander's empire as broken up after his death. Miry clay] RM 'earthenware.' There were elements both of strength and weakness in the rival kingdoms of the Seleucidæ and Ptolemies.
43. They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men] referring to the royal marriages by which these kingdoms sought to establish alliance: see Dan_11:6, Dan_11:17.
44.The Messianic kingdom of God will overpower and succeed the kingdoms of Syria and Egypt. And the kingdom.. other people] RV 'nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people.' The Messianic kingdom will be in the hands, not of foreigners, but of the Jews. Both the national limitation and the foreshortening of view in this v. are characteristic of OT. prophecy, and do not affect the value of the central truth which is taught.
45. The dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure] Note the absoluteness of the prediction, so unlike the conditional utterances of the prophets in general: see Intro.
46.Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel, but it is plain that, though Daniel is not said to have prevented him, the king really meant to give the glory to God.
47. Of a truth, etc.] RV 'of a truth your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings.' On the view that this narrative is literal history it is difficult to account for Nebuchadnezzar's conduct in Daniel 3.
48. Chief of the governors] RV 'chief governor.'
49. Sat] RV 'was.' In the gate of the king] RM 'at the king's court': see Est_2:19, Est_2:21; Est_3:2.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4 i.e. to see the return of the remnant of…
continued
i.e. to see the return of the remnant of Judah at the end of the 70 years, Jer 25:11; Jer 25:12; Jer 29:10. Daniel actually lived beyond the first year of Cyrus. Dan 10:1.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 CHAPTER 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream and Its Interpretation
CHAPTER 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream and Its Interpretation
1. The forgotten dream (Dan 2:1-13)
Read full note →
2. The prayer meeting in Babylon and the answer (Dan 2:14-23)
3. Daniel before the king (Daniel 2:24-28)
4. The revelation and interpretation of the dream (Dan 2:29-45)
5. The promotion of Daniel and his companions (Dan 2:46-49)
Dan 2:1-13. The king had a dream which was occasioned by thinking concerning the future (Dan 2:29). God answered his desire by this dream, which made a great impression on him. But he had forgotten the dream. The soothsayers, wise men and magicians, who were kept by him to interpret dreams, were unable to reveal the forgotten dream: they confessed their utter helplessness. The king condemned them to death. Inasmuch as Daniel and his companions were counted among the wise men, “they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain.”
Dan 2:14-23. And now Daniel steps to the front. But there is no haste and no hurry connected with it, for “He that believeth shall not make haste.” He is brought before the king and promises to the king the meaning of that dream. It was the language of faith; he had confidence in God. He knew that the same Jehovah who had given another captive wisdom, Joseph in Egypt, was his God also. Then there was a prayer meeting in Babylon. While the condemned wise men, the astrologers and magicians trembled for fear of death, Daniel and his companions asked “mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret.” The prayer was speedily answered.
Dan 2:24-28. After Daniel had praised the God of heaven he requested an audience with the king. How beautiful he is in the presence of the mighty monarch! What an opportunity to glorify himself. But he hides himself completely and gives God all the glory. Then he tells the king that in the dream he is about to relate God has made known unto him “what shall be in the latter days.”
Dan 2:29-45. Daniel then told to the king the forgotten dream:
Thou, O King, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth (Dan 2:31-35).
The great man image is the prophetic symbol of the “times of the Gentiles.” This expression “The times of the Gentiles” is not found in the book of Daniel, but it is a New Testament phrase. Our Lord used it exclusively. In that part of His prophetic discourse which is reported in the Gospel of Luke and which relates to the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation, our Lord said: “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled” Luk 21:24. Now, the times of the Gentiles did not begin when Jerusalem rejected the Lord from heaven. Our Lord does not say that the times of the Gentiles were then ushered in. The times of the Gentiles started with the Babylonian captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. The glory of the Lord departed from Jerusalem. The other great prophet of the captivity, Ezekiel, beheld the departure of the Shekinah. “Then did the Cherubim lift up their Wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city” Eze 11:22-25. But before that Jeremiah recorded a remarkable word. These are the words of Jehovah concerning Nebuchadnezzar:
I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto Me. And now have I given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand Jer 27:5-22.
Jerusalem had been supreme because the throne and the glory of Jehovah was there. Though Assyria, Egypt and Babylon had tried repeatedly to overthrow Jerusalem, they were held in check by the power of God and divine intervention, but when the measure of the wickedness of Jerusalem was full, Nebuchadnezzar was chosen to become the first great monarch of the times of the Gentiles. The dominion was then taken away from Jerusalem and transferred to the Gentiles.
Therefore the golden head in this prophetic man-image represents Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian empire. The chest of silver, according to divine interpretation, stands for an inferior monarchy which was to follow the Babylonian empire. This second world empire is the Medo- Persian. The belly and thighs of brass represent the third great monarchy, the Graeco-Macedonian. The fourth great monarchy which was to rise during the times of the Gentiles, represented by the two legs of iron, is the iron empire, Rome. Here, then, is history pre-written. God, who knows the end from the beginning, revealed in this dream the course of the times of the Gentiles, beginning with the Babylonian monarchy and followed by three more: The Medo-Persian, the Graeco-Macedonian and the Roman. Notice the process of deterioration as indicated in the composition of this image: Gold, silver, brass, iron, and finally the iron getting less and clay taking a prominent place. It shows that politically the times of the Gentiles are not improving.
Everything which this image represents has been fulfilled, except the last portion, when a stone falls out of heaven and strikes the ten toes and the clay, so that the whole colossal figure goes to pieces, the different constituent metals become like the chaff on the summer threshingfloor and the striking stone becomes a mountain and fills the whole earth.
The fourth Empire, the Roman, has not yet fulfilled its history. The final form, and with it the final form of the times of the Gentiles is yet to pass into history. This final form is symbolically seen in the ten toes and the clay, in the feet of the image. The territory which constituted the now extinct Roman empire will in the near future undergo a political revival. It will reappear in a confederated Europe, except certain countries which never belonged to the Roman empire. In that confederacy will be kingdoms to the number of ten; the clay represents democracies, the rule by the people and for the people. The late great war has brought such a political combination into our times. Such is the future and end of the times of the Gentiles, as foretold in the feet of the image.
But what does the smiting stone represent, the stone which abolisheth the image and becomes itself a great mountain filling the whole earth?
The Stone is Christ. That the stone represents Christ is seen from the Scriptures. “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation” Isa 28:16. Zechariah speaks of this stone with seven eyes upon it and engraven. We read of Him in the New Testament as the foundation stone of the church, the cornerstone, the stone rejected by the builders. Most interesting is His own word in the Gospel of Matthew: “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” Mat 21:44. Here we have Israel’s sin and judgment and the fate of the Gentiles. Israel stumbled against this stone; for them He was a stumblingstone and rock of offense. In consequence they were broken as a nation. But the Gentile world, rejecting Him, will be broken when the stone falls. They will be ground to powder by the falling stone. Our Lord must have had the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in mind when he spake these words. The falling stone of which He speaks and the striking stone in the dream mean the same Person, Himself .
The stone doing its work in smiting the image is a prophecy of the second coming of our Lord. The mountain filling after that the earth foreshadows that kingdom which will be established with the return of Christ and His enthronement as King of kings.
Dan 2:46-49. The heathen monarch then acknowledged Daniel’s God in a threefold way: The God of Gods (the Father); the Lord of Kings (God the Son); the Revealer of Secrets (God the Holy Spirit). Daniel is lifted from the place of humiliation to a place of exaltation. He did not forget his companions; they share honor and glory with him. It is a beautiful picture of that day when our Lord will receive the throne and when His own will not be left behind in sharing with Him His glory.
Historical Events (3-6)
The four chapters which follow the great dream of Nebuchadnezzar are of a historical character. They do not contain direct prophecies, but record certain events which transpired during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, his successor and grandson Belshazzar, and Darius, the Mede. On the personal history of these three persons and where they are found in profane history we have little to say, as a deeper examination of this subject would lead us too far and would be tedious. But this much must be said that the criticism which charged Daniel with being incorrect has been completely silenced by the Babylonian cylinders of Cyrus and Nabonnaid and the so-called annalistic tablets, the very records of those days. It is true the personality of Darius the Mede has not yet been definitely located historically. However, we do not believe the Bible because its historical statements can be verified from profane history. We believe the Bible because its records are divinely inspired and therefore correct. What would we know of the genuineness of these ancient tablets and cylinders covered with cuneiform inscriptions if it were not for the Bible? These witnesses from the stones, which indeed cry out, do not verify the Bible, they are rather declared genuine and correct by the Word of God.
These four chapters then give us historical events. Each has a prophetic meaning, though direct prophecy is not found in them.
These chapters describe the moral conditions which held sway during the two first world empires; they indicate prophetically the moral conditions which continue to the end of the times of the Gentiles. Five things may be traced in these four chapters: The moral characteristics of the times of the Gentiles; what will happen at the close of these times; the faithful remnant in suffering; their deliverance and the Gentiles acknowledging God, as King and the God of heaven.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The Dream of Nebuchadnezzar
The Dream of Nebuchadnezzar
v. 1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when he had advanced from the position of coregent to that of sole regent of the Babylonian Empire, which must have been shortly after he had examined the Jewish youths brought before him, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, he was, by the interposition of God, vouchsafed a vision of the future in the form of symbols, wherewith his spirit was troubled, very strongly agitated, and his sleep brake from him, so that he was unable to regain the tranquility of mind necessary for quiet sleep.
Read full note →
v. 2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, the men who were learned in the Chaldean language and literature, and the astrologers, those who were masters of incantation, and the sorcerers, the men who employed witchcraft, and the Chaldeans, the noblest and most exalted among the highest class of influential men in the kingdom, for to show the king his dreams, to tell him the contents of his dream which he could not remember. So they came, in obedience to his summons, and stood before the king.
v. 3. And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream, for he had only a vague impression of the importance of his dream, whence he was all the more anxious to have it presented to him in all its details, together with its explanation.
v. 4. Then spake the Chaldeans, as the foremost representatives of the wise men of the realm, to the king in Syriac, in the East Aramaic dialect in which this section of the book is also written, O king, live forever! This was the usual form of salutation at the courts of the Chaldean and the Persian monarchs. Tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. It was necessary for them to know the contents of the dream before they would even venture an interpretation.
v. 5. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me, that is, the statement of what he required from them had gone forth from him, he had stated his purpose of having called them; if ye will not make known unto me the dream, giving its contents, with the interpretation thereof, both of which he now clearly demanded, ye shall be cut in pieces, such hewing to pieces being a punishment in vogue among the Chaldeans, and your houses shall be made a dunghill, that is, razed to the ground and covered with refuse and dung.
v. 6. But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, what it consisted in and what it meant, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honor, both in money and in advancement. Therefore show me the dream and the interpretation thereof. The insistence of the king was that of a true Oriental despot, who demanded without a reason, simply because it suited his fancy.
v. 7. They answered again and said, in an effort to bring home to the king the unreasonableness of his request, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it.
v. 8. The king answered and said, I know of certainty, most assuredly, that ye would gain the time, because ye see that the thing is gone from me, because he insisted upon a speedy answer to his demand. He declared that they were merely trying to put off the matter, to postpone it indefinitely, in the hope that he would sufficiently relent to tell them the contents of his dream.
v. 9. But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you, one and the same sentence of condemnation would strike them all: for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, base misrepresentations, by which they kept him for a fool, till the time be changed, until by some lucky chance they might get into possession of the secret, or until the king would withdraw his demand. Therefore tell me the dream, which he would immediately recognize, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof. It was clear to Nebuchadnezzar that the wise men were unable to reveal hidden things, and therefore he concluded that the interpretation which they would offer in case they would find out the contents of the dream would, at best, be mere guesswork.
v. 10. The Chaldeans answered before the king, in an attempt to establish the impossibility for mere human beings to satisfy the king’s demand, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter, revealing this secret thing; therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler that asked such things at any magician or astrologer or Chaldean. The fact that no ruler on earth, no matter how great and mighty he was, had ever made such a demand, was to them a proof that the fulfillment of his command transcended the highest human wisdom.
v. 11. And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, most singular and unusual, the like of which was not known in history, and there is none other that can show it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. "God makes the heathen, out of their own mouth, condemn their impotent pretensions to supernatural knowledge in order to bring out in brighter contrast His power to reveal secrets to His servants. "
v. 12. For this cause the king was angry and very furious and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon, either of this city or of the province.
v. 13. And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain, the slaughter being apparently begun; and they sought Daniel and his fellows, who had not been summoned with the older members of the. Chaldeans, but belonged to their class, to be slain. The enemies of the believers often seem to be on the verge of triumphing over them and of taking their life, but God holds His sheltering hand over His children so that without His consent no harm may come near them.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12 In the second year
In the second year
"In year two" (See: Ordinal Numbers)
Read full note →
he had dreams
"Nebuchadnezzar had dreams"
His mind was troubled
Here "mind" refers to his thoughts. AT: "His thoughts disturbed him" (See: Metonymy)
and he could not sleep
His troubled thoughts prevented him from sleeping. AT: "so that he could not sleep"
Then the king summoned the magicians
"Then the king called the magicians"
the dead
"people who had died"
they came in
"they came into the palace"
stood before
"stood in front of"
translationWords
reign
Nebuchadnezzar
dream
mind
trouble
king
magic
sorcerer
wise men
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12 2:1–6:28 This section contains stories and dreams from the…
2:1–6:28 This section contains stories and dreams from the experiences of Daniel and his friends in Babylon. Daniel exercised his special gift of understanding the meaning of dreams and his mastery of literature and science (1:17). Chapter 2 gives a broad schematic view of all history until the appearance of God’s kingdom (2:44-49). Chapters 3–6 portray the demise of Babylon and the rise of Persia. History moves toward its inexorable goal—the everlasting Kingdom of God (2:44; 4:2-3, 34; 6:26).
2:1-49 God gave a dream that encompassed the flow of world history over the centuries, and Daniel interpreted the enigmatic imagery of this revelation. This dream and its interpretation reflect a key theme of the book—the assured final establishment of the Kingdom of God as the ultimate goal of history (2:44-45; 7:9-14, 26-27). This chapter also demonstrates the inability of paganism to discern the activity and plans of Israel’s God.
Read full note →
2:1-3 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream disturbed him so much that he called on his specially trained advisers to help him.
2:1 second year: If the three-year training period for Daniel and his friends is understood as having occurred in parts of three calendar years, it could have been completed by this time (cp. 2:48).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.