Nebuchadnezzar the king, to all the peoples, nations, and languages, who dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you.
It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has worked toward me.
How great are his signs! How mighty are his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. His dominion is from generation to generation.
I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house, and flourishing in my palace. I saw a dream which made me afraid; and the thoughts on my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream. Then the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers came in; and I told the dream before them; but they didn’t make known to me its interpretation. But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. I told the dream before him, saying,
“Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no secret troubles you, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and its interpretation. Thus were the visions of my head on my bed: I saw, and behold, a tree in the middle of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and its height reached to the sky, and its sight to the end of all the earth. The leaves of it were beautiful, and it had much fruit, and in it was food for all. The animals of the field had shade under it, and the birds of the sky lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it.
“I saw in the visions of my head on my bed, and behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from the sky. He cried aloud, and said this, ‘Cut down the tree, and cut off its branches! Shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit! Let the animals get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches. Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of the sky. Let his portion be with the animals in the grass of the earth. Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let an animal’s heart be given to him. Then let seven times pass over him.
“ ‘The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will, and sets up over it the lowest of men.’
“This dream I, king Nebuchadnezzar, have seen; and you, Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.”
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 Some join these verses to the end of the…
Some join these verses to the end of the third chapter, but there is no reason for this; and it will clearly appear from the context that the edict is here set forth in the king’s name, and other events are inserted. Daniel, therefore, here, speaks in the person of the king; he afterwards narrates what happened to the king, and then returns to his own person. Those who separate these three verses from the context of the fourth chapter, do not seem to have sufficiently considered the intention and words of the Prophet. This passage may seem harsh and rough, when Daniel introduces the king of Babylon as speaking — then speaks in his own name — and afterwards returns to the person of the; king. But since this variety does not render the sense either doubtful or obscure, there is no reason why it should trouble us. We now see how all the sentences which we shall explain in their places are mutually united.
The contents of this chapter are as follow: Nebuchadnezzar was sufficiently instructed in the worship of the God of Israel as one God, and was compelled at the time to confess this; yet he did not depart from his own superstitions; his conceptions of the true God were but momentary, and hence he suffered the punishment due to such great ingratitude. But God intended him to become more and more blinded, as he is accustomed to treat the reprobate and even his elect at times. When men add sin to sin, God loosens his reins and allows them to destroy themselves. Afterwards he either extends his hand towards them, or withdraws them by his hidden virtue, or reduces them to order by his rod, and completely humbles them. He treated the king of Babylon in this way. We shall afterwards discuss the dream; but we must here briefly notice the king’s admonition, that he might feel himself without excuse when he was so utterly broken down. God indeed might justly punish him as soon as he saw he was not truly converted; but before he inflicted the final chastisement — as we shall see in its place — he wished to admonish him, if there were any hope of his repentance. Although he seemed to receive with the greatest modesty what God had manifested by his dream through Daniel’s interpretation of it, yet he professed with his mouth what he did not really possess. And he shews this sufficiently, because, when he ought to be afraid and cautious, he does not lay aside his pride, but glories in himself as a king of kings, and in Babylon as the queen of the whole world! Since, then, he spoke so confidently after being admonished by the Prophet, we perceive how little he had profited by his dream. But God wished in this way to render him more inexcusable, and although he did not bring forth fruit immediately, yet a long time afterwards, when God touched his mind, he very properly recognized this punishment to have been divinely inflicted. Hence this dream was a kind of entrance and preparation for repentance, and as seed seems to lie putrid in the earth before it brings forth its fruit, and God sometimes works by gentle processes, and provides for the teaching, which seemed for a long time useless, becoming both efficacious and fruitful.
Read full note →
I now come to the words themselves; the preface to the edict is, Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples, nations, and languages, which dwell in the whole earth, namely, under his sway. He does not mean this to be extended to Scythia, or Gaul, or other distant regions; but since his empire extended far and wide, he spoke boastingly. Thus we see the Romans, whose sway did not reach near so far, called Rome itself the seat of the empire of the whole world! Here Nebuchadnezzar now predicts. the magnificence and mightiness of his own monarchy. Hence he sends his edict to all peoples, and nations, and languages, which dwell on the earth He afterwards adds, it seemed to me good to relate the signs and wonders which the mighty God hath wrought with me No doubt he feels himself to have paid the penalty of his ingratitude, since he had so punctiliously ascribed the glory to one true God, and yet had relapsed into his own superstitions, and had never really said farewell to them. We see how often King Nebuchadnezzar was chastised before he profited by the rod of the Almighty. Hence we need not be surprised if God often strikes us with his hand, since the result of experience proves us to be dull, and, to speak truly, utterly slothful. When God, therefore, wishes to lead us to repentance, he is compelled to repeat his blows continually, either because we are not moved when he chastises us with his hand, or we seem roused for the time, and then we return again to our former torpor. He is therefore compelled to redouble his blows. And we perceive this in the narrative before us, as in a glass. But the singular benefit of God was this, Nebuchadnezzar, after God had often chastised him, yielded at length. It is unknown whether or not this confession proceeded front true and genuine repentance: I must leave it in doubt. Yet without the slightest doubt Daniel recited this edict, to shew the king so subdued at length, as to confess the God of Israel to be the only God, and to bear witness to this among all people under his sway.
Meanwhile we must remark, how this edict of the king of Babylon receives the testimony of the Spirit; for Daniel has no other object or purpose in relating the edict, than to shew the fruit of conversion in King Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, without doubt, King Nebuchadnezzar bore witness to his repentance when he celebrated the God of Israel among all people, and when he proclaimed a punishment to all who spoke reproachfully against God. Hence this passage is often cited by Augustine against the Donatists. For they wished to grant an act of impunity to themselves, when they disturbed the Church with rashness and corrupted pure doctrine, and even permitted themselves to attack it like robbers. For some were then discovered to have been slain by them, and others mutilated in their limbs. Since, then, they allowed themselves to act so licentiously and still desired to commit crimes with impunity, yet they held this principle as of first importance. No punishment ought to be inflicted on those who differ from others in religious doctrine; as we see in these days, how some contend far too eagerly about this subject. What they desire is clear enough. If any one carefully observes them, he will find them impious despisers of God; they wish to render everything uncertain in religion, and as far as they can they strive to tear away all the principles of piety. With the view then of vomiting forth their poison, they strive eagerly for freedom from punishment, and deny the right of inflicting punishment on heretics and blasphemers.
Such is that dog Castalio and his companions, and all like him, such also were the Donatists; and hence, as I have mentioned, Augustine cites this testimony in many places, and shews how ashamed Christian princes ought to be of their slothfulness, if they are indulgent to heretics and blasphemers, and do not vindicate God’s glory by lawful punishments, since King Nebuchadnezzar who was never truly converted: yet promulgated this decree by a kind of secret instinct. At all events, it ought to be sufficient for men of moderate and quiet tastes to know how King Nebuchadnezzar’s edict was praised by the approval of the Holy Spirit. If this be so, it follows that kings are bound to defend the worship of God, and to execute vengeance upon those who profanely despise it, and on those who endeavor to reduce it to nothing, or to adulterate the true doctrine by their errors, and so dissipate the unity of the faith and disturb the Church’s peace. This is clear enough from the Prophet’s context; for Nebuchadnezzar says at first, it pleases me to relate the signs and wonders which God has prepared for me He had already explained how wonderfully God had treated him; but this had passed away. Now God seizes him a second and even a third time, and then he confesses it to be his boast to explain the wonderful signs of God. He afterwards breaks forth into the exclamation, How mighty are his signs! How remarkable his miracles! His kingdom, is a kingdom of an age, and his dominion is from age to age Without doubt Nebuchadnezzar wished to excite his subjects to the attentive perusal of this edict, and to the acknowledgment of its value, and thus to subject themselves to the true and only God. He calls him The High God, meaning, doubtless, the God of Israel; meanwhile, we do not know whether he cast away his superstitions. I however incline to the opposite conjecture, since he did not put off his errors, but was compelled to give glory to the Most High God. He so acknowledged the God of Israel as to join inferior deities with him as allies and companions, just as all unbelievers, while admitting one supreme deity, imagine a multitude of others. So also Nebuchadnezzar confessed Israel’s God to be Most High; yet, he did not correct the idolatry which still flourished under his sway; nay, he mingled and confused the false gods with the God of Israel. Thus he did not leave behind his own corruption’s. He celebrates indeed with magnificence the glory of the supreme God, but this is not sufficient without; abolishing all superstitions, and promoting that religion alone which is prescribed by the word of God, and causing his pure and perfect worship to flourish.
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, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16 There was no trouble that might cause me to…
There was no trouble that might cause me to dream, and therefore it came only of God.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–18 Dan 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations,…
Dan 4:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
Ver. 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king.] This bare title seemed sufficient to him who came now newly out of the furnace of sharp affliction, whereby he was tamed and taken a link lower, as we say.
Read full note →
Unto all people, nations, and languages.] This epistolary narrative or proclamation was sent abroad a year or two before his death. And here observe, saith one, {a} an omission of twenty-seven years’ history, wherein the Church in Babylon had her halcyons; the emperor being exercised in foreign wars, and the nobles disheartened from attempting anything against those four worthies, as having had formerly such ill success.
That dwell in all the earth.] Thus this great king is made a catholic preacher of humility and moderation of mind.
Peace be multiplied unto you.] Courtesy and kind language in great ones draweth all hearts unto them, as fair flowers do the eyes of beholders in the springtide.
{a} Mr Huet.
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, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 The prophet Daniel here sets down another strange story,…
The prophet Daniel here sets down another strange story, after he had finished that of the three young men: this the prophet sets forth not in his own words, but in the words of the king’s own proclamation, that it might pass with undoubted credit, and without all dispute; being sent to all his vast kingdoms, and questionless put into the king’s archives and court rolls, as the manner was. These three first verses of this fourth chapter are improperly annexed to the end of the foregoing third chapter, by some; seeing they are the preface of the following history.
Peace be multiplied unto you, i.e. all health and happiness: this was always the form of greeting and salutation among the Eastern nations, comprehending peace, plenty, with uninterrupted joy and felicity in all comfortable enjoyments: and from them it came derived down to the penmen of the New Testament, and notes more, even peace with God in Jesus Christ, spiritual and everlasting. Now the reason hereof was, that war being the root of all misery, especially where all government was tyrannical, and when once it brake forth, it made all desolate; therefore peace was as heaven in comparison of the hell of war, which made the heathens paint Plutus the god of riches in the bosom of peace.
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 vv1, 4 Here is, I. Something of form, which was usual…
Here is, I. Something of form, which was usual in writs, proclamations, or circular letters, issued by the king, Dan 4:1. The royal style which Nebuchadnezzar makes use of has nothing in it of pomp or fancy, but is plain, short, and unaffected - Nebuchadnezzar the king. If at other times he made use of great swelling words of vanity in his title, how he laid them all aside; for he was old, he had lately recovered from a distraction which had humbled and mortified him, and was now in the actual contemplation of God's greatness and sovereignty. The declaration is directed not only to his own subjects, but to all to whom this present writing shall come - to all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth. He is not only willing that they should all hear of it, though it carry the account if his own infamy (which perhaps none durst have published if he had not done it himself, and therefore Daniel published the original paper), but he strictly charges and commands all manner of persons to take notice of it; for all are concerned, and it may be profitable to all. He salutes those to whom he writes, in the usual form, Peace be multiplied unto you. Note, It becomes kings with their commands to disperse their good wishes, and, as fathers of their country, to bless their subjects. So the common form with us. We send greeting, Omnibus quibus hae praesentes literae pervenerint, salutem - To all to whom these presents shall come, health; and sometimes Salutem sempiternam - Health and salvation everlasting.
II. Something of substance and matter. He writes this, 1. To acquaint others with the providences of God that had related to him (Dan 4:2): I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God (so he calls the true God) has wrought towards me. He thought it seemly (so the word is), that it was his duty, and did well become him, that it was a debt he owed to God and the world, now that he had recovered from his distraction, to relate to distant places, and record for future ages, how justly God had humbled him and how graciously he had at length restored him. All the nations, no doubt, had heard what befell Nebuchadnezzar, and rang of it; but he thought it fit that they should have a distinct account of it from himself, that they might know the hand of God in it, and what impressions were made upon his own spirit by it, and might speak of it not as a matter of news, but as a matter of religion. The events concerning him were not only wonders to be admired, but signs to be instructed by, signifying to the world that Jehovah is greater than all gods. Note, We ought to show to others God's dealings with us, both the rebukes we have been under and the favours we have received; and though the account hereof may reflect disgrace upon ourselves, as this did upon Nebuchadnezzar, yet we must not conceal it, as long as it may redound to the glory of God. Many will be forward to tell what God has done for their souls, because that turns to their own praise, who care not for telling what God has done against them, and how they deserved it; whereas we ought to give glory to God, not only by praising him for his mercies, but by confessing our sins, accepting the punishment of our iniquity, and in both taking shame to ourselves, as this mighty monarch here does. 2. To show how much he was himself affected with them and convinced by them, Dan 4:3. We should always speak of the word and works of God with concern and seriousness and show ourselves affected with those great things of God which we desire others should take notice of. (1.) He admires God's doings. He speaks of them as one amazed: How great are his signs, and how mighty are his wonders! Nebuchadnezzar was now old, had reigned above forty years, and had seen as much of the world and the revolutions of it as most men ever did; and yet never till now, when himself was nearly touched, was he brought to admire surprising events as God's signs and his wonders. Now, How great, how mighty, are they! Note, The more we see events to be the Lord's doing, and see in them the product of a divine power and the conduct of a divine wisdom, the more marvellous they will appear in our eyes, Psa 118:23; Psa 66:2. (2.) He thence infers God's dominion. This is that which he is at length brought to subscribe to: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; and not like his own kingdom, which he saw, and long since foresaw, in a dream, hastening towards a period. He now owns that there is a God that governs the world and has a universal, incontestable, absolute dominion in and over all the affairs of the children of men. And it is the glory of this kingdom that it is everlasting. Other reigns are confined to one generation, and other dynasties to a few generations, but God's dominion is from generation to generation. It should seem, Nebuchadnezzar here refers to what Daniel had foretold of a kingdom which the God of heaven would set up, that should never be destroyed (Dan 2:44), which, though meant of the kingdom of the Messiah, he understood of the providential kingdom. Thus we may make a profitable practical use and application of those prophetical scriptures which yet we do not fully, and perhaps not rightly, comprehend the meaning of.
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 vv1–18 Nebuchadnezzar the king,..... This and the two following verses…
Nebuchadnezzar the king,..... This and the two following verses are annexed to the preceding chapter in the Hebrew Bible, and in the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions; as if the author of the division of the chapters thought that Nebuchadnezzar proposed by this public proclamation to celebrate the praise of the Lord, on account of the wonderful deliverance of the three Jews from the fiery furnace; whereas they are a preface to a narrative of a dream, and an event which concerned himself, and most properly begin a new chapter, as they do in the Syriac and Arabic versions. The edict begins, not with pompous and extravagant titles, as was the manner of the eastern monarchs, and still is, but only plainly "Nebuchadnezzar the king"; for he was now humbled under the mighty hand of God; whether his conversion was real is not evident; yet, certain it is, he expresses himself in stronger language concerning the divine Being and his works, and under a deeper sense of his sovereignty and majesty, than ever he did before. This proclamation is directed
unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; belonging to his kingdom, as Aben Ezra; and these were many; besides the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, also the Medes and Persians, the Egyptians, the Jews, and the nations round about them; and also the Spaniards, Moors, and Thracians, with others: but there is no reason to limit this to his own subjects, though first designed; for it was his desire that all people whatever in the known world might read, hear, and consider, what the grace of God had done unto him, with him, and for him, and learn to fear and reverence him:
Read full note →
peace be multiplied unto you: a wish for all kind of outward happiness and prosperity, and an increase of it; thus it becomes a prince to wish for all his subjects, and even for all the world; for there cannot be a greater blessing than peace, nor a greater judgment than war. This phrase is borrowed from the common salutation in eastern countries, and is used often in the New Testament for spiritual and eternal peace.
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, 3, 4, 13, 17 The writer of this chapter is Nebuchadnezzar himself. The…
The writer of this chapter is Nebuchadnezzar himself. The story of him is given in his own words. Here is the preface, ver. 1- 3. His dream, which puzzled the magicians, ver. 4-18. The interpretation of it by Daniel, ver. 19-27. The accomplishment of it, ver. 28-33. Nebuchadnezzar's recovery and adoration of God, ver. 34-37.
Nebuchadnezzar the king - Daniel here sets down another strange relation in the words of the king's own proclamation, sent to all his vast kingdoms, and questionless put into the king's archives, and court-rolls. Peace be multiplied - All health and happiness; this was always the form of salutation among the eastern nations.
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, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Nebuchadnezzar, after having subdued all the neighbouring
CHAPTER IV
Nebuchadnezzar, after having subdued all the neighbouring
Read full note →
countries, and greatly enriched and adorned his own, became so
intoxicated with his prosperity, as to draw down upon himself
a very remarkable judgment, of which this chapter gives a
particular account, in the very words of the edict or
proclamation which the Babylonyish monarch issued on his
restoration to the throne. This state document begins with
Nebuchadnezzar's acknowledging the hand of God in his late
malady, 1-3.
It then gives an account of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which
portended the loss of his kingdom and reason for seven years,
on account of his pride and arrogance, 4-18.
So it was explained by Daniel, 19-27,
and so it was verified by the event, 28-33.
It then recites how, at the end of the period fixed by the God
of heaven for the duration of his malady, the Chaldean monarch
became sensible of his dependence on the Supreme Being, and
lifted up has eyes to heaven in devout acknowledgment of the
sovereign majesty of the King of kings, the Ruler of the
earth, whose dominion alone is universal, unchangeable, and
everlasting, 34-37.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV
Verse 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people] This is a regular decree, and is one of the most ancient on record; and no doubt was copied from the state papers of Babylon. Daniel has preserved it in the original language.
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, 4, 6, 8, 10, 17 Dan 4:1-3. Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, &c.…
Dan 4:1-3. Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, &c. — He addresses the proclamation, not only to his own subjects, but to all to whom the writing should come. Peace be multiplied unto you — May all things prosperous happen unto you. The Chaldee is, Your peace be multiplied: a usual form of addressing the subjects of this vast empire. I thought it good to show the signs, &c., that the high God hath wrought toward me — Namely, by signifying to him future things of so extraordinary a kind, as could not naturally have been supposed to happen; and in bringing to pass some of them upon himself in a most wonderful manner. How great are his signs, &c. — “The king’s repeated experience had extorted from him the sublime confession contained in this verse; the latter part of which is a fine display of the infinite power and dominion of the true God.” — Wintle.
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 vv1–18 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people ... - The…
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people ... - The Syriac here has, “Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote to all people, etc.” Many manuscripts in the Chaldee have שׁלח shâlach, “sent,” and some have כתב kethab, “wrote;” but neither of these readings are probably genuine, nor are they necessary. The passage is rather a part of the edict of the king than a narrative of the author of the book, and in such an edict the comparatively abrupt style of the present reading would be what would be adopted. The Septuagint has inserted here a historical statement of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did actually issue such an edict: “And Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote an encyclical epistle - ἐπιστολὴν ἐγκύκλιον epistolēn egkuklion - to all those nations in every place, and to the regions, and to all the tongues that dwell in all countries, generations and generations: ‘Nebuchadnezzar the king,’” etc. But nothing of this is in the original.
Unto all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth - That is, people speaking all the languages of the earth. Many nations were under the scepter of the king of Babylon; but it would seem that he designed this as a general proclamation, not only to those who were embraced in his empire, but to all the people of the world. Such a proclamation would be much in accordance with the Oriental style. Compare the note at Dan 3:4.
Read full note →
Peace be multiplied unto you - This is in accordance with the usual Oriental salutation. Compare Gen 43:23; Jdg 6:23; 1Sa 25:6; Psa 122:7; Luk 10:5; Eph 6:23; 1Pe 1:2. This is the salutation with which one meets another now in the Oriental world - the same word still being retained, “Shalom,” or “Salam.” The idea seemed to be, that every blessing was found in peace, and every evil in conflict and war. The expression included the wish that they might be preserved from all that would disturb them; that they might be contented, quiet, prosperous, and happy. When it is said “peace be multiplied,” the wish is that it might abound, or that they might be blessed with the numberless mercies which peace produces.
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, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 Palace. He continues the edict, having subdued all his…
Palace. He continues the edict, having subdued all his enemies. (Calmet) --- Daniel recites his words. The king had the dream in the 34th year of his reign, which continued in all forty-three, including the seven of absence. (Worthington)
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 [The numerical division of the verses in chap. 4…
CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL NOTES
[The numerical division of the verses in chap. 4 differs in the English Bible from that in the original text, as the latter annexes the first three verses of this narrative to chap. 3, and consequently begins its chap. 4 with Dan_3:4 of the English Bible.]
Read full note →
Lange's comments have been divided here for presentation in Bible software based on the English Bible. See near the end of the comments for Dan_3:1 ff for the division point.
Dan_4:1-6 [Dan_4:4-9]. The king’s dream. Inability of the Magians to interpret it. I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house. “At rest,” i.e., in the undisturbed possession of my kingdom, which, according to Dan_4:19, extended to the end of the earth; “in my house,” i.e., in the abode of peace, not in the field in order to prosecute warlike enterprises. Both expressions therefore refer to the later period of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, when his wars (probably including that against Tyre, Eze_29:17) were ended, and he was able to devote himself to the affairs of peace, and especially to the erection of the great edifices at Babylon, to which Dan_4:27, and also Berosus, in Josephus, c. Apion, I. 19, refer. The time of this dream is therefore still later than that indicated by Dan_3:1.—And flourishing in my palace. רַעֲנַן, “green,” not שַׁלְאֲנָן, “quiet” (as the analogy of Job_21:23 might perhaps lead us to expect), is the term employed by Nebuchadnezzar perhaps because he already recalls at this point the fresh and strongly flourishing tree (Dan_4:7 et seq.), by which he was symbolized in the dream vision. Such a prefatory use of a characteristic feature in the symbolic vision was the more appropriate, since the comparison of fortunate and healthful conditions in life with the verdure of trees was exceedingly common throughout the Orient, and especially so in the Old Testament usage of language; Cf. Psa_1:3; Psa_37:35; Psa 52:10; Psa_92:13 et seq.; Pro_11:28; Hos_14:7; Eze_47:12 (see upon this thought, my Theologia naturalis, p. 495 et seq,). For the rest, רַעֲנַן belongs to the somewhat numerous class of words which fell into disuse in the later Aramæism; Cf. Pusey, Daniel, p. 599–606.
Dan_4:2 [Dan_4:5]. I saw a dream which made me afraid. The abrupt connection, without ו or בֵּאדַיִן indicates the alarming influence which the suddenly transpiring dream exercised over the king, who had previously spent his time in peace; Cf. Job_4:20, and also the numerous antithetic asyndeta in the Proverbs (Introd. to Prov. of Sol., § 14).—And thoughts upon my bed, viz.: “came to me, arose in me;” an independent clause, which must not be connected with the final verb יבהלנני, but which is rather to be regarded as a parallel to הֵלֶם חֲזֵית, exactly as וְחֶזְוֵי וגו׳ is parallel to וִידַחֲלִנַּנִי in the former half of the verse. The assumption of such a parallelism is not, however, to be strained to the point of regarding (with Kranichf.) the “thoughts” as the details of the vision itself; for they, like the רַעְיוֹנֵי לִבְבָךְ in Dan_2:29, were probably the troubled reflections of the king on awaking from his slumber, and while meditating on the nature of his dream (Von Lengerke; Cf. supra, on Dan_2:29).—The הַרְהֹרִין (= the חִרהוּרִין of the Targums) seem, however, to be identical with the Armen. chorhurd, “a thought,” and the word, therefore, is perhaps of Indo-Germanic derivation (thus Hitzig, at any rate; but Ewald, p. 477, objects; Cf. also Gesenius and Dietrich, s. v. הרר)—And visions of my head troubled me. Exactly similar to Dan_7:15 b. The “visions of the head” are the several fancies or images of the dream, as in Dan_2:28.
Dan_4:3 [Dan_4:6]. Therefore made I a decree. The same words occur in Dan_3:29; Cf. Dan_2:5.—In regard to לְחַנְעָלָה, see on 2:25.—Observe that, in this instance, where the contents of the dream were not forgotten by the king, nor regarded as being especially marvellous, the condition of the king while demanding an interpretation of the dream is very different from that described in Dan_2:5—a circumstance that strongly endorses the credibility of the narrative.
Dan_4:4 [Dan_4:7]. Then came in all the magicians, etc. Concerning the various classes of the wise men of Babylon, four of which are here specially referred to, see on Dan_2:2.—Instead of עָלְלִין (read עָֽלְלִין), the participle of עָלַל, “to go in,” the Keri in this place has עָלִּיי (cf. chap. Dan_4:8), which is contracted from עַלְלִין, a form that shortens the initial —ָ to—ַ; with the latter cf., e.g., חַשְׁחִין, Dan_3:16.
Dan_4:5 [Dan_4:8]. But at the last Daniel came in before me. The Kethib אָֽחְָרֵין is a form with an undeniably adverbial signification (=“at last, postremo”—not adjective: “the last, postremus,” as Hitzig prefers), that does not occur in the later Chaldee, and is replaced by the Keri אָֽחֳחָן (or אָֽחֳרֵן). It is rather to be regarded as an extension of the sing. adjective formation אָחֳרְי, than as an irregular plural in which the e-sound has taken the place of —ַי (see Olshausen, Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache, p. 208).—The עַד preceding is the familiar conjunction “until” (Ezr_4:21; Ezr_5:5); the whole expression דעד אחרן, “until at last,” is an adverbial phrase similar to מִן יַצִּיב, Dan_2:8.—Whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god. Cf. on Dan_1:7. This thoroughly heathen reference to the name of Daniel is immediately followed by a reference to his person, which indicates the feature that had inspired the heathen king with confidence in his superior power and understanding, and, through this, with a faint conception of the nature of that Deity to whom he owed such power and wisdom. From this affirmation “that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee,” which is repeated in Dan_4:6 [Dan_4:9] and Dan_4:15 [Dan_4:18], it follows that Nebuchadnezzar had by no means forgotten what he had learned upon two previous occasions respecting the eminent prophetic gifts of Daniel, and his direct intercourse with the only true God. The expression does not, indeed, have an orthodox look from a theocratic or Old Testament point of view; but it is only to the half a heathen sentiment, similar to the remarks by Pharoah in praise of Joseph, Gen_41:38.—קַדִּשִׁין is probably not an epitheton ornans of the gods in general, but rather a special designation of the ἀγαθοδαίμονες in distinction from the destructive divinities (Kranichf.).
Dan_4:6 [Dan_4:9]. O Belteshazzar. master of the magicians, רַב חַרְטֻמַּיּא. This title differs only in form and not in substance from that of “chief president of all the wise men of Babylon,” which dignity was conferred on Daniel, Dan_2:48. It was by no means necessary that Daniel, as the possessor of this exalted dignity, should at once and without ceremony present himself before the king with the remaining חכימין. The more independent position which he occupies, according to this passage, is rather in entire harmony with chap. 3, where he is absent from a large assembly of the officials of the royal court, and also with chap. Dan_4:10 et seq., where it is represented that his character as the chief magian was lost sight of by Nebuchadnezzar’s successors, but not that he had been deprived of that dignity. Among the various answers to the question as to why Daniel was not at once summoned before the king to interpret the dream, instead of being subsequently introduced, the one here indicated, which refers to the freedom of his official station, is certainly the most simple and appropriate, since various features of our book appear to conflict with the assumption that he occupied a political or priestly station in the proper sense (cf. on Dan_2:49; Dan_3:12; and on 8:2). Consequently we prefer this explanation to the many which have been attempted, e.g., that of Jahn, that “custom required that the chief of the magians should not be summoned at the first;” that of Füller, which considers Daniel as being, in fact, an officer of the state (chief satrap) rather than a magian; that of Hävernick, that “the haste with which the terrified king caused the wise men to be summoned” caused the overlooking of Daniel at the outset; that of Kranichfeld, which argues that Nebuchadnezzar, who already surmised the relation of the image of the fallen tree in his dream to his royal person, dreaded the harsher judgment and sterner prophecy of evil to be expected from Daniel, the prophet of Jehovah, exactly as Ahab, in 1Ki_22:8 et seq., summoned the heathen wise men and seers into his presence, before he turned to the proper source, etc. J. D. Michaelis, however, observes with entire correctness, that a certain and trustworthy answer to that question would require a more exact acquaintance with all the facts of the history than we are able to command.1 —And that no secret troubleth thee. אְַנַס signifies in the Targums “to sweep away, to apply force,” but here “to cause difficulty or trouble;” Cf. the Heb. אָנַס, “to compel,” Est_1:8.
Dan_4:7-14 [Dan_4:10-17]. Subject of the king’s dream. Thus were the visions of my head, etc.; literally, “And (concerning) the visions of my head upon my bed; I saw;” an abrupt and detached clause similar to Dan_7:17-23.—In relation to “vision of my head,” see on Dan_4:2.—And behold, a tree (stood) in the midst of the earth. אִילָן, unlike the corresponding Heb. אֵלוֹן, does not signify an “oak” in particular, but “tree” generally; Cf. δοῦς and robur. The position of this tree, “in the midst of the earth,” indicates its great importance for the whole earth, and its destiny to develop an unlimited growth in every direction (cf. Dan_4:8). The tree thus occupies a central position that corresponds to its exceeding height. The symbolizing of the mighty Babylonian king by a tree recalls the description by Ezekiel, Eze_21:3 et seq., which was probably not known to Nebuchadnezzar, but with which Daniel, the narrator of his dream, must have been acquainted. It also suggests a reference to Eze_17:22; Eze_19:10 et seq.; and, among the earlier prophets, to Isa_2:13; Isa_6:13; Isa_14:12; Jer_22:15; Amo_2:9 (cf. also the passages cited above, on Dan_4:1). The especial fondness of the ancient Orientals for the illustration of the growth or decline of human greatness and power by the figure of a growing or fallen tree, is shown by Hävernick in the parallels he adduces from Herodotus (3:19; the dream of Xerxes; 6:37; the threat of Crœsus to destroy the town of Lampsacus like a pine tree; Cf. also 1:108; the dream of Astyages respecting his daughter Mandane), from Arabic writers (Antara’s Moallaka, v. 51, 56; Reiske on Tarafa, proleg., p. 47), from the later Mohammedan traditions (Mohammed’s comparison of a Moslem to an evergreen palm in Sunna, according to v. Hammer, Fundgruben des Orients, I. 152), and from Turkish history and literature (the prophetic dream of Osman 1., according to Murajea d’Ohsson, Allgem. Schilderung des ottoman. Reichs, p. 273 et seq.). Cf. further, with reference to the general use of this tree-symbolism among the Greeks, the interesting work of Bötticher: Baumkultus der Hellenen (Leips., 1858).
Dan_4:8 [Dan_4:11]. The tree grew and was strong, “became great and strong;” thus, correctly, Chr. B. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld. The finite verbs רְבָה and תְּקִף do not designate a fixed, but a becoming state; hence Nabuchadnezzar sees the tree growing and becoming greater than it was in Dan_4:7 [Dan_4:10].—And the height thereof reached unto heaven, like the tower of Babel, Gen_11:4, or the δένδρεα οὐραυομήκεα, Herod. 2:138. Observe the imperfect יִמְֹטֵא, which here takes the place of the perfect, and indicates the heaven-aspiring tendency of the slowly developing tree.—And the sight thereof to the end of all the earth; rather, “its extent” or circumference. חֲזוֹתֵהּ does not signify “its visibility” (Vulg., Syr., de Wette, and many moderns), but “its outlook, its circumference, its extent” (the Sept. and Theodotion are correct, so far as the sense is concerned: τὸ κῦτος αὐτοῦ, its bulging, extension); the contrast with רוּמֵהּ would itself require this interpretation.
Dan_4:9 [Dan_4:12]. The leaves (branches) thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much. עָפְיֵהּ, properly its branching, its crown, as אנְבֵּהּ is the aggregate of its fruit. Bertholdt, von Lengerke, and others, render incorrectly “and its fruit was large” (i.e., it bore a large, thick kind of fruit); for there was no reason to mention such a quality of the tree. The immediate connection shows that the great quantity of fruit, instead of its size, was here referred to.—And it was meat for all, rather, “and food for all (was found) on it.” לְכֹלָּא, “for all,” i.e., for all who lived under its shelter—an exemplification and more circumstantial exposition of שַׂגִּיא. It is, however immaterial to the sense of the passage as a whole, whether בֵּחּ be construed with מָזון by neglecting the makkeph between לְכֹלָּא and בֵּהּ, as a majority of expositors, including ourselves, translate, or whether we translate, as Kranichfeld [and Keil], with regard to the makkeph: “and food was found for all on it,” i.e., for all the birds that nestled on it. The masora evidently requires this rendering here, while in Dan_4:18 [Dan_4:21], where the makkeph is wanting from between לְכֹלָּא and בְּהּ, it observes the other construction.—The beasts of the field had shadow under it. תּטְלֵל, umbram egit spent in the shadow. The aphel of טלל (“obumbrare, to overshadow, protect”), which, in the language of the Targums, is generally transitive, like the Heb. הַצְלֵּל, 1Ch_4:3, is here intransitive by virtue of its Niphal signification.—And the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof; Cf. Mat_13:32, and the parallel passages. The masculine יְדֻרוּן has its explanation in the fact that צִפֲּרִין is of the common gender; the Keri יְדֻרָן construes the word in the feminine, in analogy with יִשְׁכְּנָן, Dan_4:18 [Dan_4:21].—And all flesh was led of it. “All flesh,” i.e., not merely all the birds, but also all the beasts of the field, and, in short, all the animals living on and under the tree, thus imaging all of the human race that were united under the sceptre of Nebuchadnezzar; Cf. Dan_4:19 [Dan_4:22].
Dan_4:10 [Dan_4:13]. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed; a formula designed to prepare for the new and remarkably sudden turn of the hitherto quietly transpiring dream.—A watcher and holy one came down from heaven. וְקַדִּישׁ עיר, obviously a hendiadys for “a holy watcher, a watcher who is holy.” עיר, the pass. part. of עוּר, expergefieri, designates a “watchful one, one who watches” (cf. עַר, Son_5:2; Mal_2:12), in this place more particularly a celestial watcher, an angel who from heaven watches over the fortunes of men. Thus Aquila, Symm., and the Sept.: ἐγρήγορος; also a scholium in the Cod. Alex, on the εἴρ [a transfer of עִיר] of Theodotion (ἐγρήγορος καὶ ἀγρυπῶν); also Polychronius: τὸ ὰγρυπνον καὶ ἄγγελος, and Jerome: “Significat angelos, quod semper vigilent et ad Dei imperium sint parati.” By the addition of the modifying וְקַדִּישׁ the עִיר mentioned in this place is expressly classed with the good or holy watchers of heaven, and thus is distinguished from the κακοδαίμονες, in which light the Babylonians regarded a number of their astral gods (see Gesenius on Isa., II. 334 et seq.), and also from the ἐγρήγοροι of the book of Enoch, who are described as bad angels and as inimical to men. The expression “decree (determination, counsel) of the watchers” points strongly to the conclusion that the עִירִין of our book are identical with the θεοὶ βουλαῖοι of the Babylonians in Diodor., 2:30—i.e., with the thirty-six inferior gods associated as counsellors (deos) with the five superior planetary gods; but the entire correspondence of this feature to the Babylonian doctrine of the gods does not exclude the existence, at the same time, of a certain analogy or essential relation of the “watchers” with the Amesha-cpenta of the Parsees, nor even that the supposed etymology of Amesha-cpenta = non connivens sanctus (thus Bopp, who is, however, contradicted, e.g., by Burnouf) might be asserted in its support. But that עִור וְקַדִּישׁ is “merely a translation of Amshaspand” is an arbitrary dictum of Hitzig, which is opposed by the possibly post-Babylonian age of the name Amesha-cpenta (this does not occur at all in the oldest portion of the Zendavesta), and which lacks all scientific support, to an extent equal to the identification of עִיר with עִיר, “a messenger” (Isa_18:2; Isa_57:9), as was attempted by several older expositors, e.g., Michaelis (in Castell. Lex. Syr., p. 649), cf., however, Häver-nick and Kranichfeld on this passage, and also Hengstenberg, Christologie des Alten Testaments, III. 2, 74 et seq.
Dan_4:11 [Dan_4:14]. He cried aloud and said thus. “Aloud,” exactly like the royal herald, in Dan_3:4; cf. Dan_10:16; Isa_58:1, etc.—Hew down the tree and cut off its branches. The command is addressed to the servants of the angel, who were perhaps inferior angels, and whose presence the rapidly transpiring dream presumes without further explanation; Cf. Mat_8:9, and the parallel passages. Isidorus Pelusiota already is correct (Epp. I. 2. n. 177): ἁγίους δὲ ἔφησεν τοὺς τὸ δένδρον ἐκτέμνειν προσταχθέντας ἀγγέλους. [Perhaps Keil rather is correct, who suggests that “the plur. is to be regarded as impersonal: the tree shall be cut down.”]—Shake (strip) off its leaves, literally, “cause them to fall off.” אַתַּרןּ (instead of אַתִּרוּ after the analogy of verbs third gutt.), the aphel of נְתַר, which designates the falling of faded leaves or blossoms from the tree, in the Targums, Psa_1:3; Isa_40:8; Joe_1:10.—Scatter its fruit; contemptuously, as if it were of no value, and as if it were not worth the trouble of gathering. The consequence, that the animals, who were hitherto sheltered by the tree, were now likewise scattered, and driven far asunder—a lively image of subjects alarmed by the fall of their sovereign—is indicated in what follows.
Dan_4:12 [Dan_4:15]. Nevertheless, leave the stump of its roots in the earth. עִקָּר, the still thrifty stump, like מַעֶבֶת, Isa_6:13, or גֶּזַע, Isa_11:1; Job_14:8. The ultimate sprouting of this root-stump (cf. Job_14:7-9), which was allowed to remain in the earth, typified, as appears from Dan_4:23 [Dan_4:26] compared with Dan_4:33 [Dan_4:36], the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar from his sickness; but not the continued supremacy of his dynasty, as Hävernick interprets, since עִקָּר in this passage obviously designates an individual, Nebuchadnezzar himself, instead of the whole race of Chaldæan rulers.—Even with a band of iron and brass; rather, “but in fetters of iron and brass,” Supply “shall he lie, or be;” or even “shall he be left” (שְׁבֻקוּהִי). The figure of a tree is now dropped; in the stead of a vegetable organism that necessarily clings to the ground there is presented, obviously with regard to the bestializing of Nebuchadnezzar, an animal organism, which, while naturally capable of unimpeded motion and of an individual and independent participation in life, is for the present forcibly restrained. There is thus a partial transition from the figure to the fact (as is frequently the case in the comparisons and allegories of our Lord, e.g., Mar_4:28; Luk_12:46; Mat_22:13; Joh_10:11 et seq.), or at least an approximation of the figurative representation to the actual conditions of the event typified. This fact is misunderstood as soon as the attempt is made, with Von Lengerke, to conceive of the fetters of iron as fastened on the root-stump, “in order to prevent it from cracking and splitting,” and also when it is assumed, with Jerome and others, that an actual binding of Nebuchadnezzar as a furiosus, who required to be fettered like all maniacs, is asserted at this early stage. The literal conception of the idea “to fetter” is inappropriate on either method. The “fetters of iron and brass” symbolize the chains of darkness and coarse bestiality in which the mind of the king was held during an extended period. Cf. expressions like “chains of darkness,” Wis_17:17; 2Pe_2:4, and figurative descriptions, such as Psa_107:10; Psa_116:16; Psa_149:8; Job_36:8. Kranichfeld observes correctly: “A more forcible binding of his sovereign aims for himself, exceeding the disgrace of that which might be applied to a prisoner of war, could scarcely happen to the king, than was that to which he was compelled to submit according to Dan_4:22 [Dan_4:25] and Dan_4:29 [Dan_4:31], in the form of a beastly restraint on his understanding, and of an actual expulsion from the society in which he moved. And since binding in fetters of iron and brass is a metaphor as common as it is in this instance a striking figure of the deplorable condition to which the Babylonian universal monarch was reduced; since, moreover, the towering height of the tree in the dream is of itself sufficient to establish the selection of an expression to indicate the corresponding contrast of a severe and servile compulsion, the explanation of the figure does not require the combination of this expression proposed by Hitzig with an assonant kedan, Syr., ‘to bind.’ taken from the name of Nebuchadnezzar. This is the more obvious because of the consideration that no reference is made to the name in other portions of the description, although, by a repeated use of the k in nebuk (Nebuch), it might to the Hebrew sound portentously like the Arabic inbaka, “turbata mente fuit.” For the Talmudic animal with an ingrown tree which resembled man in form and language, adne sadeh (Buxt. Lex. Chald., p. 34), may be explained, as by Hitzig, without any doubt whatever, from the אַדְנֶ of the name Nebuchadnezzar much more readily than that really fabulous creature would have allowed itself to be fabricated, had not the self-authenticated description of Daniel (Dan_4:12-13 [Dan_4:15-16], in connection with the otherwise familiar אֲדָנֵי, the heliotropum which moves its leaves (see Buxt., l. c.), furnished the material.”—In the tender grass of the field, etc. This lying in the grass and being exposed to the dews of heaven is as applicable to the stump of the tree as to Nebuchadnezzar, the maniac; Cf. Dan_4:20 [Dan_4:23] et seq.—Concerning the reading דִּתְאָא, for which Dan_4:20 [Dan_4:23] substitutes דִּתִאָח (corresponding to the Hebraizing Keris in 5:39; 6:1), cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage.—And let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Cf. Dan_4:30 [Dan_4:33], “and did eat grass as oxen.” The figure has been departed from entirely in this place, and a feature of the interpretation is anticipated. חֲכִָק, “portion.” occurs also in Dan_4:20 [Dan_4:23] and Ezr_4:16. The Targums have חוּלַּק instead. Concerning the not local, but telic signification of בְּ, “in or of the grass,” cf. e.g., Jos_22:25; 2Sa_20:1.
Dan_4:13 [Dan_4:16]. Let his heart be changed from a man’s; literally, “they shall change from (that of) a man” (מִן־אֲנָשָׁא = מִלֵּב אֱנוֹשׁ, as Ibn Ezra correctly adds). Cf. the similar brevilo-queutiœ in Dan_1:10; Dan_7:20, etc., and concerning the active signification of יְשַׁנוֹן (for which the angels addressed in שְׁבֻקוּ serve as an indefinite subject), Cf. supra, on Dan_3:4. “His heart,” i.e., his faculties of conception and desire, or, if it be preferred, his consciousness; Cf. Dan_4:29-30 [Dan_4:32-33]. The Hebraizing form אֲנוֹשָׁא here and in Dan_4:14 [Dan_4:17] is perhaps to be rejected in favor of the more correct Chaldee אֲנָשָׁא; Cf. Dan_4:22; Dan_4:29-30 [Dan_4:25; Dan_4:32-33]; Dan_5:21; Dan_7:13, etc. [—And let a beast’s heart be given unto him. “The heart of a man is dehumanized when his soul becomes like that of a beast; for the difference between the heart of a man and that of a beast has its foundation in the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a beast (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych., p. 252).”—Keil.]—And let seven times pass over him, properly, “change over him;” הֲלַף, a select word for “to pass over, expire,” præterire, præterlabi. It may be seriously doubted whether the term עֲלוֹהִי, “over him,” was chosen with a special reference to “the stars succeeding each other in the heavenly heights above the tormented one, which were to indicate the duration of his affliction” (Kranichfeld), although the mystical phrase “seven times” may contain a certain reference to the astrology of the Chaldæans. The seven עִדָּנִין are seven years, as appears from Dan_7:25, compared with 12:7 (thus the Sept., Josephus, Ibn-Ezra, Rashi, etc.),—not seven months (as Saadia Gaon, Dorotheus, Pseudo-Epiphanius, etc., held) or seven half-years (Theodoret). עִדָּן, in itself equivalent to “juncture, emergency,” receives in this place and Dan_7:25, the sense of מוֹעֵד or זְמַן, “a point of time,” from the context. The duration of the king’s punishment as extending over seven years is explained here, as in Dan_3:19, by the fact that a judicial retribution is concerned; and the heavy weight of punishment which Jehovah caused to be announced with solemn emphasis to the king was accordingly inflicted, Dan_4:25; Dan_4:29 [Dan_4:28; Dan_4:32]. The number seven is. however, not to be pressed literally, to the extent of assuming that the duration of the king’s sickness covered exactly seven times 365 days, which would do violence to the always prophetically-ideal pragmatism of the history. Cf. infra, on Dan_7:25.2
Dan_4:14 [Dan_4:17]. This matter (message) is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones. The parallelismus membrorum in which the solemn and elevated speech proceeds, shows that the ͏͏קַדִּישִׁין are here also, as in Dan_4:10 [Dan_4:13], identical with the קִירִין. The terms פִּתְנָּם and שְׁאֵלָא are likewise synonymous, but do not, as Hitzig holds, signify “matter” (concern) and “circumstance,” but, in harmony with their etymology and the sense of פתגם in Dan_3:16, must be rendered “word” (message, announcement) and “demand” (command); cf. the Heb. שְׁאֵלָה, “a request, desire,” Jdg_8:24; 1Ki_2:16; Job_6:8; Est_5:6; Est_5:8, etc. Entirely too artificial and contradictory of the unquestionable sense of גְּזֵרָא, “a decision, resolution” (and also of מֵאמַר, “a decision”), is the attempt of Kranichfeld to vindicate the signification “a request, petition,” for שְׁאֵלָא, which is based on the idea of a petition such as the watchers, as inferior θεοὶ βουλαῑοι (see on Dan_4:10 [Dan_4:13]), were obliged to address to their superiors, the five planetary gods. But the עִירִין appear nevertheless to be advisory deities, inasmuch as they are only עִירִין, and not אֱלָהִין, and inasmuch as the supreme decision in their college rests, according to Dan_4:21 [Dan_4:24], with the “Most High” (עִלָיָא). Cf. the representation of a great subordinate council of the Deity as composed of angels in 1Ki_22:19 et seq.; Job_2:1 et seq.; and also, with reference to the specifically Babylonian idea of a decision in the council of the deity, Diodor. 2:30: οἱ δ̓οὐ̄ν Χαλδαῖοι—φάσιν τὴν τῶν ὅλων τάξιν καὶ διακόσμησιν θεία τινὶ προνοία γεγονέναι, καὶ νῦν ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν οὐρανῶ γινομένων οὐχ ὡς ἔτυχεν οὐδ̓ αὐτομάτως, ἀλλ̓ ὡρισμένη τινὶ καὶ βεβαίως κεκυρωμένη θεῶν κρίσει συντελεῖσθαι; further, the familiar picture near Kazwini, which represents Bel as a judge and surrounded by genii (Gesen., on Isa., 2:337). Before מֵאמַר, “a decree,” the instrumental בְּ must be supplied from the preceding. The variation וּבְמֵאמַר is, therefore, correctly supplied in the interpretation.—To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth, etc. עַד־דִּבְרַת דְּי is to be rendered, either “until, to the circumstance, that” = “until that” (donec, Vulg.), or, with Hitzig, in harmony with Dan_2:30, and with the ἵνα γνῶσιν of Theodotion, עַל־דִּבְרַת דִּי, “to the end that.” The latter may perhaps be preferred, because of the ease of mistaking עַל for עַד, and because of the fact that עַד־דִּבְרַת does not occur elsewhere.3 Dan_4:22 [Dan_4:25], which directly substitutes תִּנְדַּע for the יִנְדְּעוּן of this verse, shows that Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of the earth, is not excluded from the number of the “living” who are to recognize the authority of the Most High, but rather, that he especially is included.—And setteth up (rather, “can set up”) over it the basest of men. שְׁפַל אֲנָשִׁים, “the humblest of men,” is grammatically a. general conception conveying the idea of the superlative, as in 2Ch_21:17, the Heb. קְטן בָּנָיו; Cf. Winer, Chald. Gramm., § 58, 2. The assertion of Hitzig, that by this humblest of men, an Israelite, or even the Israelitish Messiah (בַּר אֱנָשׁ, Dan_7:13), is designated as successor to the great world-monarch, is without support from the context. The thought of a person of the lowest rank, rather, was naturally suggested to the mind of the dreaming king, because the fall of himself, the most exalted man, was concerned.—For the opinion that the imperfects יִתְּנִנַּהּ and יְקִים in this place express the idea of ability—“is able to confer, can exalt”—cf. Dan_2:47, where גָּלֵה רָזִין also designates that Being who is able to reveal secrets. [—“The Kethib עליה is shortened from עֲלֵיהָא, and in the Keri is yet further shortened by the rejection of the י; cf. Dan_5:21; Dan_7:4 sq., etc.”—Keil.]
Dan_4:15 [Dan_4:18]. Daniel required to interpret the dream. This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. The demonstrative דְּנָה is placed first for emphasis, thus corresponding to the disturbing and exciting subject of the dream. The predicative rendering, “This is the dream, which,” etc., is opposed by the rule that the relative cannot be omitted after the designated noun (Winer, § 41, 4).—Declare the interpretation thereof. פִּשְׁרֵא, is a softened form for פִּשְׁרֵהּ, “its interpretation,” in this place, Dan_4:16 [Dan_4:19], and chap. Dan_4:8. This view is confirmed by the Peshito, while Theodotion and the Vulgate have פִּשְׁרָא, which reading is still represented among moderns, e.g., by Hitzig.—On the close of the verse, Cf. Dan_4:6 [Dan_4:9].
Dan_4:16-24 [Dan_4:19-27]. The interpretation. Then Daniel.… was astonished for (about) one hour. On the reading אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם instead of אִשְׁת׳, Cf. Winer, § 25, 2. Several MSS. have בְּשִׁעַה instead of כִּשָׁעָח, but this reading conflicts with the usage of the context, and also with the testimony of the ancient translators (Theodot., Vulg., Syr., and probably with the Sept.). Concerning the etymology of שָׁעָה, “hour,” which is certainly to be taken here in the literal sense, Cf. on Daniel 3:6.4 That the astonished gazing of Daniel continued “about an hour,” is mentioned by the author from a motive (viz., in order to indicate the greatness of his astonishment) similar to that from which the book of Job records the sympathetic mourning and silence of the three friends during seven days (Job_2:13). Hitzig observes correctly: “He meditates on the interpretation, and is astonished when he perceives it, because he wishes well to the king, and probably, also, because Nebuchadnezzar might receive the prophecy ungraciously, and might take vengeance on him (as Ahab did on Micaiah, 1Ki_22:26-27). His confusion is depicted on his countenance; which causes the king to observe that he has found the interpretation, and to invite him in encouraging terms to impart it freely.” It cannot really be comprehended how it is possible, in the face of so unsought for, and, in itself, probable a historical situation, to establish the hypothesis of a conventional forgery in the Maccabæan age.—[“That Nebuchadnezzar (Dan_4:16 [Dan_4:19]) in his account speaks in the third person does not justify the conclusion either that another spoke of him, and that thus the document is not genuine (Hitzig), nor yet the conclusion that this verse includes a historical notice introduced as an interpolation into the document; for similar forms of expression are often found in such documents; Cf. Ezr_7:13-15; Est_8:7-8.”—Keil.]—My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies! i.e., Would that the dream concerned thine enemies, and that its interpretation related to thy foes rather than to thee! Instead of the Kethib מָרְאִי (a regular formation from מָרֵא, Dan_2:47; Dan_4:23), the Keri has, here and in Dan_4:21 [Dan_4:24], the shorter form מָרִי, which corresponds to the usage of the later Chaldee. The following עָר, “an enemy,” is likewise peculiar to the pre-targumistic Chaldee.
Dan_4:17 [Dan_4:20]. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong; rather, “of which thou sawest that it was great and strong.” The second דִּי is subordinated to the first in דִּי הֲזַיְתָ, and is therefore to be rendered as a conjunction, not as a relative pronoun coordinated with the first. The ensuing description of the tree, in Dan_4:17-18 [Dan_4:20-21], and likewise of the Divine sentence of judgment pronounced on it in Dan_4:20 [Dan_4:23], are repeated verbally from Dan_4:7; Dan_4:13 [10 and 16], although with abbreviations and unessential variations.
Dan_4:19 [22]. It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong, etc.; i.e., “that art become great and strong.” The following וּרְבוּתָךְ רְבָת, etc., is loosely connected with the relative clause דִּי רְבַיְתָּ וְגו׳ The Keri offers the smoother form רְבַת instead of רְבַיְתָ, and in the following, the third pers. fern. מְטַת instead of מִטְאַת = מְטָאת; Cf. also Dan_4:21 [24].—Concerning the remarkable addition by the Sept. to Dan_4:19 [22], cf., e.g., Eth.-fund. principles, No. 3 [below].
Dan_4:21 [Dan_4:24]. This is the interpretation (of it), O king;—the conclusion to the lengthy antecedent clause, Dan_4:20 [Dan_4:23].—And this is the decree of the Most High which is come (determined) upon my lord the king. In regard to מְטָא עַל, cf. the Heb. בּוֹא על, Gen_34:27; Job_2:11. The preterite מְטַת represents the decree as already decided on, and, therefore, as unavoidable, and certain to be executed on the king.
Dan_4:22 [Dan_4:25]. They shall drive thee from men, literally, “and thee shall they drive,” etc. The וְ in וְלָךְ is consecutive: “and thus shall they drive thee.” The impersonal active טָרְדִין is exactly similar to אָמְרִין, Dan_3:4, and infra, Dan_4:28 [Dan_4:31]. The agents of the punishment, who are not designated, are the inferior angels, as with יְשַׁנּוֹן, Dan_4:13 [Dan_4:16], and as in Dan_4:28 [Dan_4:31].5
Dan_4:23 [Dan_4:26]. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; “they” = the heavenly watchers, of whom one only spoke, Dan_4:10-14 [Dan_4:13-17]; but that one was the representative of the entire community of angels.—Thy kingdom shall (again) be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known, etc קַיָּם neither signifies “to continue” (Theodotion, Vulg., Dereser, von Lengerke, etc.), nor “to be preserved” (Bertholdt), but rather, “to arise, stand, be firm,” and here, in view of the context, “to again be firm” (Hitz., Kranichf.). מִן־דִּי in this place is not inferential—“since, because,”—as in Dan_3:22, but instead relates to time, “as soon as,” and designates a juncture following the period included in עַד דִּי, Dan_4:21; Dan_4:29 [Dan_4:24; Dan_4:32]—hence at the close of the seven years.—That the heavens do rule, viz.: over the kingdoms of men, Cf. Dan_4:14 [Dan_4:17] and Dan_4:22 [Dan_4:25]. “The heavens” is here used to designate God, instead of “the Most High.” The expression must be regarded as an abbreviation of the phrase “the God of heaven,” which was employed on former occasions (chap: 2:18, 37, 44), or of “the King of heaven” (4:34), which is synonymous with the former, or also of “the Lord of heaven” (Dan_4:23). There is nothing untheocratic and polytheistic in the expression, even though the Chinese designate their god as heaven, and though the same usage prevailed among the ancient Persians (Herod, 1:131), the Greeks (Ζεύς = Sanscr. jâus, “heaven”), and the Romans (Deus; Divus, Jovis, etc.). Even in the New Testament the βασιλεἰα τῶν οὐρανῶν is identical with the βασιλ. τοῦ θεοῦ, and the Talmudists (e.g., Nedarim, ix. 10; x. 13, etc.; Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., col. 2440), as well as the Jews of a much earlier period (according to Juvenal, Sat., XIV. 96 et seq., and Diodorus in Photius, Bibl., XL.), generally designated God directly as “heaven,” indicating thereby that they attributed to Him the sole dominion over the heavenly world, and denied that other gods were associated with Him (cf. Psa_115:16).
Dan_4:24 [27]. Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee. לָהֵן, “wherefore,” as in Dan_2:6. In regard to שְׁפַר, Cf. on Daniel 3:32. The term is here construed with עַל, as in that passage and Dan_6:2, with קֳדָם, by which the persuasiveness of the remarks is increased (cf. מָב with עַל, Ezr_5:17), and by which the desire of Daniel to aid the king, if possible, in averting the impending danger and punishment, becomes more apparent than would be the case if the more courteous phrase שְׁפַר קֳדָמָיךְ had been employed. From this truly theocratic standpoint, the prophet persists in holding it possible to turn aside the punishment threatened in the dream, similar to Isaiah (38:1 et seq.) and Jeremiah (18:7 et seq.) in analogous cases; Cf. Joe_2:12 et seq.; Amo_7:3; Amo_7:6; Jon_3:5 et seq.; 2Ki_20:1 et seq.6 —And break off thy sins by righteousness; rather, “purchase thy deliverance from thy sins,” etc. The ancient translators justly regard חֲטָיָךְ as plural; Cf. the parallel עֲוַיָּתָךְ. The suffix in חֲטָיָךְ, instead of חֲטָיָיךְ, is defective, similar to that in רַעְיוֹנָךְ, Dan_5:10. The word is derived from the Stat, emphat. חֲטָרֵא of a singular חַטִי (= Heb. חֵטְא, cf. Olshausen, Lehrb., p. 283).—פְּרַק, properly “to break” (cf. Sanscr. prak, Lat. frango, Germ, brechen), designates, similar to the Heb. פרק in passages like Psa_136:24; Sam. 5:8, etc., a “tearing out” of a matter from its former position or relations, and hence, a “liberating, redeeming, or purchase” (cf. 2Sa_7:23; Isa_35:9-10, where פרק is used for גאל or פדה, exsolvere, redimere). The Sept. and Theodot. therefore render it correctly by λύτρωσαι, the Vulg. redime, and Syr., Saad., Ibn Ezra, Berth., de Wette, Hitzig, etc., in a similar manner. On the other hand, Rashi, Geier, Starke, Dereser, Hävernick, von Len-gerke, Kranichfeld, etc., prefer the idea of casting off, casting away, as it is found in Gen. 37:40, and accordingly interpret: “lay off thy sins” (Häv.), or “break off thy sins, give them up” (Kranichfeld). But in the usage of the Chaldee language, and especially in that of the Targums, פרק constantly and undeniably bears the sense of redeeming by purchase (e.g., a birthright, a field, the daughter of Jephthah, Jdg_11:35); and the rather broad conception, admitting, as it does, of an application to many and diverse relations, by no means requires that the object to be redeemed should be desirable to the purchaser, and possess value for him. Rather, the remark of von Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, i. 519,) is correct: “The sins are not under restraint, but, instead, they enslave. The idea of Daniel, therefore, is that the king should deliver himself from the sins that involve him in guilt and slavery, by practising righteousness and mercy for the future, instead of persisting in the arbitrary and tyrannical course to which he had hitherto been addicted.”7 Cf. Melancthon also, in the Apology (Art. III., p. 112), where the “redime” of the Vulgate is retained, but the supposed interpretation is decidedly rejected, as favoring the doctrines of work-righteousness insisted on by the Jewish and Roman Catholic exegesis (see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 2 [below]). This interpretation, however, does not result from any possible rendering of the imper. פְּרַק, but from the incorrect explanation of צִדְקָח by “doing good, alms,” which is found in numerous expositors, from Jerome to Hitzig; and the latter rendering is not justified, either by Psa_37:21, nor by a comparison with extravagant laudations of works of mercy in Sir_3:28; Sir_29:12; Tob_4:10; Tob_12:9, etc. The only interpretation of צִדְקָה allowed by the context and general usage is “righteous deportment” to be observed by the king toward his subjects, in contrast with his former tyranny and arbitrary domination. In the parallel member, “mercy toward the poor” is intimately connected with this, as being the second leading virtue in rulers, which virtue the king is exhorted to cultivate (cf. Hofm., as above). The historical situation, rather than the usage, indicates that, in connection herewith, the עֲנִיִּין are to be sought for principally in the number of the poor Israelites, the theocratically wretched (עֲנִיִּים), who were languishing in exile and captivity. The usage would admit of a different rendering of the עֲנִיִּין.8 —If it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility; rather, “if thy prosperity shall be durable.” This is the external motive addressed to the king, to induce him to heed the warning of the theocratic seer. The conditional language is very decided; הֵן, “if,” is no more to be taken in the dubious sense of εἰ ἄρα (Act_8:22) in this passage than in Dan_3:17.—אַרְכָּא is not “forbearance, forgiveness,” but “duration, continuance;” Cf. Jer_15:15; Ecc_8:12.
Dan_4:25-30 [Dan_4:28-33]. The fulfilment. All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. Hävernick regards these words as still belonging to the royal proclamation, while all that follows, to Dan_4:30 [Dan_4:33], is a parenthesis inserted by the prophet (see supra, on Daniel 3:31). But this hypothesis renders it impossible to observe unity of the report, which must obviously be preserved, since the theocratic coloring apparent in these verses may elsewhere be frequently noticed (supra), and since a detailed statement of the infliction of the threatened punishment is required in order to give point to the report. This does not make it inconceivable that Daniel, the writer of the report as a whole, should in this connection relegate the royal subject, who had hitherto been spoken of in the first person, to the background, and that he should describe the Divine judgment executed on the king from his own theocratic point of view.9
Dan_4:26 [Dan_4:29]. At the end of twelve months he walked upon (marg.) the palace of the kingdom of Babylon; rather, “the royal palace at Babylon.” In relation to the time indicated, “at the end of twelve months,” Kranichfeld observes: “When the important incident of the dream was a year old, and on that account its recollection naturally exercised the imagination of the king with special force, he gave himself up, despite the Divine warning, to the proudest exaltation of self, which indicated that he was neither controlled by religious piety in general, nor by reverence for the God of the Jews in particular,” etc. It appears to us that this is seeking too much in that designation of time. It is simply a historical circumstance that exactly twelve months elapsed between the dream and its fulfilment, and at the same time an illustration of the simple accuracy and concrete truth of the narrative.10 —“Upon the royal palace,” i.e., upon its flat roof; Cf. 2Sa_11:2. The proud king, who has employed the respite of twelve months in nursing his tyrannical superciliousness, instead of improving it by repenting and working righteousness, wishes, by actual observation from this elevated spot, to assure himself of the condition of his royal power, and to feast himself with looking on the gigantic metropolis of the world which he had created. His thoughts are similar to those of another, in Schiller’s Glocke (the Bell):
“The splendor of the house
Stands firm as earth’s foundations
Against the power of evil,” etc.
The “walking along” (מְהַלֵּךְ הֲוָא; cf. מְהַלְכִין בְּגֵוָה, Dan_4:34 [Dan_4:37]) likewise indicates his conceited arrogance and pride; cf. the Germ. “einherstol ziren” (strutting along).—The mention of the location, “at Babylon,” does not at all compel the assumption of a Palestinian origin of the book, or of any particular part of it, as even Hitzig acknowledges. It merely indicates that the author was not a constant resident in the city of Babylon, and that his narrative was composed for readers who were chiefly, or without exception, strangers in Babylon (however long they might have been detained in that city against their will). These features are suited to the view that Daniel was the writer of the document before us, as thoroughly as they militate against the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was its immediate author; Cf. supra, on Daniel 3:31.11
Dan_4:27 [Dan_4:30]. Is not this (the) great Babylon that I have built, etc. “The great” (רַבְּתָא) was evidently a standing title of Babylon, with its circumference of 480 stadia (Herod. 1:191), its colossal walls, its 25 gates on either side of the immense square, its 676 districts filled with houses of several stories each, its hanging gardens on the Euphrates, its gigantic temples and palaces, etc. Cf. Herod., 1. c.; Diodor. ii. 5 et seq.; Aristotle’s Polit., 3:2; Philostratus, i. 18; Curtius, 6:1 et seq.; also Starke’s Synopsis on this passage; Wattenbach, Nineve und Babylon (Heidelberg, 1868); and Alfred Maury, Nineve et Babylone, in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1868, March 15, p. 470 ss.; [also Rawlinson’s Five Ancient Monarchies, I. 510 et seq.]. For this reason many other authors apply the predicate ἡ μεγάλη to that city; e.g., the Apocalyptist John, Rev_14:8; Rev_16:19 (cf. also Isa_13:19; Isa_14:4; Isa_47:3-4); and Strabo (50:16.), who applies to it the stanza: ἔρημία μεγάλη εστὶν ἡ μεγάλη πόλις, Cf. Pausanius, Arcad., p. 509, who describes Babylon as a city ἤντινα εἰ̄δε πόλεω τῶν τότε μεγίστην ἥλιος. Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon might certainly be designated as “the great city” with as much propriety as formerly Nineveh (cf. Gen_10:11-12; Jon_1:2; Jon_3:2; Jon_4:11), and far more justly than, e.g., Hamath (see Amo_6:2; חֲמַת רַבָּח), or Diospolis (Διόσπολις ἡ μεγάην, Inscr. 4717), or Ephesus, Smyrna, Peragmos, Nicomedia, and other cities of a later period in Asia Minor (cf. Rheinwald, Komment. zum Br. an die Philipper, p. 3 et seq.).—That I have built for the house (or seat) of the kingdom. The A. V. is literal. The expression is equivalent, in modern idiom, to “the royal capital and seat of government.” The מַלְכוּ of the whole empire was to have its seat, its residence, in that metropolis (Kranichf.). Cf. the reference to Bethel as a מַמְלָכָה, in Amo_7:13. “That I have built;” i.e., that I have developed and completed. On בְּנָא, otherwise בָּנָה, in this signification, Cf. 2Ki_14:22; 2Ch_11:5-6; and see the Chaldæan historians Berosus, Abydenus, and Megasthenes, in Josephus. Ant, x. 11, 1; c: Apion, 1:19; and in Eusebius, Chron., 1:59, with reference to the numerous edifices erected in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar; also Bochart, Phaleg, p. 263 et seq., where Nebuchadnezzar’s services in beautifying the city and increasing its architectural greatness are compared with those of Augustus in Rome, which justified his well-known remark, “se marmoream relinquere, quam lateritiam accepisset” (Suetonius, Aug., c. 29).12 —For the honor of my majesty; לִיקַר הַדְרִי; Cf. the similar constructions in Deu_5:33; Deu_5:17; Zec_11:13; and with reference to the preceding expression, “by the might of my power,” Cf. passages like Isa_40:26; Eph_1:19; Col_1:11, etc.
Dan_4:28 [Dan_4:31]. While the word was in the king’s mouth. The Divine punishment follows closely after the vain and presumptuous exclamation (cf. Isa_28:4); exactly as in the poem by Schiller quoted above, where it is added:
“For no eternal bond can be
With the fates that rule our destiny,
And misfortune’s pace is swift.”—
There fell a voice from heaven. Observe the agreement between the prophetic description in the dream, Dan_4:10 [Dan_4:13] and Dan_4:11 [Dan_4:14], and the fulfilment twelve months later. The words נָהִת מִן שְׁמַיָּא, which are employed in the former passage, are here echoed by נְעַל (cf. Isa_9:7), which still more strongly emphasizes the suddenness with which the judicial sentence is promulgated; and עָרֵא בְהַיִל in that place is here repeated by the characteristic קָל, which recalls the analogies in Deu_4:33; Deu_4:36; Mat_3:17; Joh_12:28; Act_9:4; Act_5:13, etc. The record, although sufficiently circumstantial, is but a summary, and affords no trustworthy indications to show whether this φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ was produced by the mediation of psychological or of physical causes. The leading fact to be observed is merely that the powerfully excited king was compelled to recollect the warning formerly conveyed in the dream, by what he now heard, whether by a purely subjective mode of perception, or whether objective agencies were at the same time employed.—O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. The perf. עַדָת is employed, because he who was degraded to the level of the brute by the most fearful of mental maladies, was at once and directly incapacitated for his position and office as ruler as a matter of course. In regard to אָמְרִין, “they say,” see on Dan_4:22 [Dan_4:25]; concerning Dan_4:29 [Dan_4:32] see ibid., and on Dan_4:14 [Dan_4:17].
Dan_4:30 [Dan_4:33] The same hour (hence immediately; cf. on Dan_3:6) was the thing (or word) fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. סָפַת, literally, “came to end;” for the end of a prophecy is its coming to pass, by which it ceases to be prophecy (Hitzig); cf. כלה, Dan_12:7; Ezr_1:1. etc.—Concerning the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar, see Introd., § 8, note 1, and the literature there adduced.—Till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws; literally, “like eagles—like birds” (כְּצִפֲּרִין—כְּנִשְׁרִין), a comparatio compendiaria, with which the Stat, const, after the particle of comparison has been omitted, as with מִן in Dan_4:13 [Dan_4:16], and as in Isa_9:3; Joshua 5:36, and also in the classics (e.g., Il., 17, 51; Juvenal, Sat. 4, 71, etc.).
Dan_4:31-34 [Dan_4:34-37]. The restoration of Nebuchadnezzar, and his ascription of praise to God. And (rather “but”) at the end of the days, i.e., of the period of seven years, Dan_4:13; Dan_4:22; Dan_4:29 [Dan_4:16; Dan_4:25; Dan_4:32].—I.… lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, namely, as seeking help from thence, as supplicating the God of heaven (see on Dan_4:23 [Dan_4:26]; cf. Psa_123:1 et seq.; Psa_25:5, etc.13 —And mine understanding returned unto me; or, taking the ו as illative, “so that mine understanding returned.” The prayer of the hitherto maniac king was thus shown to be anything rather than a “flagrant inconsequence,” as Von Lengerke. Hitzig, and others characterize it. On the contrary, it produced the beneficial effect of delivering the penitent king from his disease, and of restoring him to the society and the mode of life of civilized people. Cf. Pusey and Kranichfeld on this passage, in relation to the inclination to prayer, or to other religious manifestations and observances, which has frequently been observed in the case of maniacs afflicted with lycanthropy. In the case before us, where the period of insanity and punishment imposed by God had, at any rate, expired, the prayerful looking up to heaven by the humbled king could not possibly result in less than the elevation of the sufferer from his brutal condition to manhood—from the state of one lying helplessly on the ground, and looking earthward in his debasement, to the dignity and bearing of man, who is formed in the image of God, that is to say, to the normal form of man, of which Ovid sings (Metam., i. 85 ss.):
“Pronaque cum spectent animalia cœtera terram,
Os homini sublime dedit, cœlumque videre
Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.”—
And I praised and honored him that liveth forever. Cf. 6:27; 12:7; and also, in relation to the latter half of the verse, Daniel 3:33. [“The first thought he entertained was to thank God, to praise him as the ever-living One, and to recognize the eternity of His sway. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges and praises God as the ‘ever-living One,’ because He had again given to him his life, which had been lost in his mad-ness.”—Keil.]
Dan_4:32 [Dan_4:35]. And all the inhabitants of the earth are (to be) reputed as nothing, that is, “in comparison to Him.” The partic. חֲשִׁיבִין must be regarded in this place as the part. fut. pass., and is not, therefore, to be explained (in analogy with Isa_40:17) by, “are reputed as nothing by Him” (Hävern., Kranichf., etc.). [“The eternity of the supremacy of God includes His omnipotence as opposed to the weakness of the inhabitants of earth” (Keil).] כְּלָה instead of כְּלָא may be regarded as the error of a copyist, who thought to correct a supposed כֻּלָּא (that is אַרְעָא)by substituting כֻּלָּה. Or “לָה for לָא, is an archaism, conforming to the pregnant character of the negation, similar to לֹח for לֹא, Deu_3:11” (Kranichf.). [The final ח seems to be a mere Chaldaic interchange for א in the ordinary כְּלָא, as not.] The rabbinical assertion, found in Rashi and Saadia, that לָח signifies “an atom of solar dust,” is at all events to be rejected.—And he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, etc. Cf. Isa_24:21, a passage that evidently lies at the foundation of the one before us, in which “the host on high” presents the same idea as is contained in “the army of heaven” in this place. Both refer to the innumerable companies of angels who inhabit heaven (Gen_32:2 et seq.; Heb_12:22 et seq.; cf. Dan_7:10).—And none can.… say unto him, what doest thou? Cf. Isa_43:13; and in relation to the phrase, “to stay one’s hand= to oppose him,” see the Targ. on Ecc_8:4; Tr. Sanhedr., 100:2; also the Arabic of Hariri, p. 444.14
Dan_4:33 [Dan_4:36]. And the glory of my kingdom, mine honor, and my brightness returned unto me. The ל before יְקַר serves to introduce that word as a new subject, after the former, מַנְדְּעִי (cf. Isa_32:1; Isa_38:16; Psa_89:19). יְקַר “station, majesty, dignity,” such as is manifested in the look, bearing, and manners of a princely personage. הֲדַר, “splendor,” A. V. “honor” (cf. Dan_4:27 [Dan_4:30]; chap. Dan_4:18), is here contrasted with his former appearance and condition, which denied his royal state, and even his nature as a man, Dan_4:30 [Dan_4:33]. זִיו is properly “brightness,” and here refers to the beauty or beaming freshness of the human countenance (cf. chap. Dan_4:6; Dan_4:9; Dan_7:28), while הדר refers more particularly to the splendor of his robes (cf. Psa_110:3; Psa_29:2; Psa_96:9; 2Ch_20:21).—And my counsellors and my lords sought unto me,—they, who had formerly avoided and deserted me! That בְּעָא signifies a search for one who is believed to have disappeared without leaving a trace by which to discover him, is an assumption made by Hitzig and also by a number of earlier expositors, such as Geier, Michaelis, Bertholdt, etc., which, however, is without any support whatever. The expression rather designates “a search conducing to the honor of the king, which was instituted by his former counsellors and magnates in their capacity as the council of the regency during the interim, for the purpose of officially requesting the king on his restoration to health, to resume the control of the government.” The terms הדברין (see on 3:24) and רברבנין do not, however, designate different subjects, but the same ones with reference to their several powers and dignities; cf. שַׂר וְגָדוֹל, 2Sa_3:28; μέγας καὶ δυνάστης, Job_9:22.—And I was (again) established in my kingdom. חָתְקְנֵת instead of חָתְקְנֵת, because of the following accent, distinct.—And excellent majesty was added unto me; “I received still greater power” than I had formerly enjoyed; cf. Job_42:10. There are no historical authorities to show in what the additional power consisted which came to Nebuchadnezzar toward the end of his life; but the truth of this statement cannot on that account be questioned.
Dan_4:34 [Dan_4:37]. Now (or therefore) I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, and extol, and honor, etc. By this doxology the close of the royal proclamation returns to the thought of the introduction, Daniel 3:32 et seq.—All whose (rather, “for all His”) works are truth, and his ways judgment. קְשׁוֹט, literally “firmness, immutability,” and hence, “faithfulness, truth” (=Heb. אֶמֶת). דִּין, literally “judgment,” procedure strictly conformed to justice (=Heb. מִשְׁפָּט): Cf. Jer_9:23; Jer_22:13.—And those that walk in pride, he is able to abase. cf. Isa_10:33; Isa_13:11; Isa_25:11; 1Sa_22:7; Psa_18:28; Luk_1:51 et seq.—In relation to the enlargement of this doxology of Nebuchadnezzar which is found in the Sept. in this place, see the Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 3 [below].
Ethico Fundamental Principles Related To The History Of Salvation, Apologetical Remarks, And Homiletical Suggestions
According to the remarks on Daniel 3:31 [Dan_4:1], the authorship of this section is divided between Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, with the distinction that the former is conceived as the moral originator and ordainer of the edict, while the latter is its writer. But, at the same time, both the heathen king and the theocratic prophet are so exclusively the active (or suffering) characters of the narrative, that every observation of dogmatic or apologetical importance must be derived from the conduct of one or the other of these two persons. We therefore direct our attention
1. To Nebuchadnezzar,—with reference to whose seizure by lycanthropic mania, as being credible on general grounds, and also as being attested by extra-biblical authorities, the necessary explanation has been given in the Introd. (§ 8, note 1). We now direct attention to the act of profound self-abasement which the king performed by publishing, of his own impulse, a report respecting his protracted disease of several years’ duration, and also respecting its causes and his final cure. This involves no improbability on psychological, political, or religious grounds. (1) From a psychological point of view, the report became necessary, because a spirit of repentance and of sincere self-abasement had really come over the proud monarch, and because he had been led to recognize with all emphasis that the humiliation, as wearisome as it was deeply painful to his consciousness, was a righteous punishment inflicted on him by the only true God, even though a genuine, durable, and fruit-bearing conversion might not have been accomplished in his case. On the nature of this sincere and profoundly realized humiliation of the king, which, however, was inadequate to secure his admission to a gracious state, or to formal membership in the congregation of God’s people under the Old Covenant, cf. Calvin on Dan_4:34 : “Hic est modus omnis humiliationis; sed careret profectu illa humiliatio, nisi Dominus postea regeret nos spiritu mansuetudinis. Et ita Nebucadnezar hic non complectitur gratiam Dei, quœ tamen digna erat non vulgari elogio et prœdicatione; sed non descripsit etiam in hoc edicto quicquid posset requiri ab homine pio et qui edoctus fuerit diu in schola Dei, sed tamen ostendit se multum profecisse sub Dei ferulis, quum tribuit illi summam potentiam (c. iii. 32, 33; c. iv. 31 ss.), deinde conjungit justitiœ laudem et rectitudinis (c. iv. 34) et sese interea fatetur reum et testatur justam fuisse pœnam, quœ divinitus irrogata fuit.”—(2) In a political aspect, also, the edict became necessary, since, as appears from Dan_4:33, circumstances required that at the end of the king’s illness a proclamation should be issued, certifying that the monarch in person was about to resume the government, and to supersede the regency of the interim, composed of his “counsellors and lords,” who had hitherto administered the affairs of the state. The king had no need to dread the effect of such an explanation on his people, even though it involved much that was humiliating to him; but it is by no means recorded that he caused it to be promulgated in the public places and on the streets by the lips of a herald (as was the case with the edict in Dan_3:4 et seq.), nor even that it was at any time brought into public notice in writing. (3) Finally, the document involves no considerable difficulty in a religious point of view, inasmuch as the partly heathen and partly Israelitish faith of the Babylonian king, in other words, that syncretism which amalgamated all religions, and which so frequently appears in the history of the rulers of the period of the captivity, is clearly manifested, as has already been shown on Daniel 3:31 [Dan_4:1]. Accordingly, even Hitzig finds it to be entirely credible that Nebuchadnezzar as a newly or only partially converted person should “acknowledge a god as his god (Dan_4:5), and even other holy gods (Dan_4:6; Dan_4:15), in addition to the Highest God.” The statement by the same critic that it is strange that “after this stern experience Nebuchadnezzar should not have liberated the Jews, the captive servants of the Highest God, as the history shows he did not,” is without any foundation; for, according to Dan_4:1 compared with Dan_4:27; Dan_4:31, the event did not transpire until near the close of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, and we cannot tell what he would have done had he lived any considerable time after his recovery (which was certainly not the case, according to Berosus, in Josephus, c. Apion, I, 20), nor yet what political relations, combinations, or considerations may have prevented the immediate execution of a plan to restore the Jews to their country, which may already have been prepared.
2. So far as the conduct of Daniel is concerned, the characteristic feature of the two-fold position which he occupied at the Chaldæan court as a prophet of Jehovah and chief of the Magians, is prominently exhibited in a manner that affords a highly favorable testimony for the credibility of the narrative as a whole. The Jewish wise man, who is dignified by an honorary office rather than burdened with definite official functions, e.g., with sacerdotal duties, is permitted to be absent at first, on the occasion when the interpreters of dreams or Magians were summoned before the king, because he was allowed a greater freedom of action in general (see on Dan_4:6). It was not, probably, without producing a feeling of profound injury that when he finally appeared the king addressed the servant of the living God (Dan_4:5-6) in a thoroughly heathen manner as “Belteshazzar,” after the name of his god (i.e., the idol Bel), according to Calvin’s just remark, “Non dubium est, qulin hoc nomen graviter vulneraverit animum prophetœ.” He did not, however, renounce his allegiance and devotion to the royal personage who was his benefactor, and who, in case he would receive and be guided by the prophet’s counsel, might so easily become the benefactor and liberator of, the entire people of God. When the king had related to him the dream, so prophetic of misfortune, he gave way to trouble and sympathetic sorrow “about an hour” (Dan_4:16), and the words by which he at length introduced the interpretation, invoked a blessing on the king coupled with the wish that the fate which threatened the monarch might rather overtake his foes. Cf. Calvin again: “Daniel exponit (Dan_4:16), cur ita fuerit attonitus, nempe quia cuperet averti tam horribilem pœnam a regis persona. Etsi enim merito eum potuit detestari, tamen reveritus est potestatem divinitus ei traditam. Discamus igitur exemplo prophetœ, bene precari pro inimicis nostris, qui cupiunt nos perdere, maxime vero precari pro tyrannis, si Deo placeat subjici nos eorum libidini;—alioquin non tantum illis, sed etiam Deo ipsi sumus rebelles. cæterum altera ex parte ostendit Daniel, se non frangi ullo misericordiœ affectu, neque etiam molliri, quo minus pergat in sua vocatione.”—The manner in which Daniel succeeded in uniting the strictest theocratic fidelity towards God with this devotion to his sovereign, is seen partly in the unconcealed directness and the categorical plainness with which he announced the most degrading and humiliating punishment to the king, in Dan_4:22 [Dan_4:25], and partly in the warning or epilogue, Dan_4:24 [Dan_4:27], with which he concluded his interpretation. In this epilogue the fundamental dogmatic and ethical ideas of the entire section concentrate and crowd together in pregnant significance. The exposition of this passage has shown that the course which Daniel here recommends, with a noble frankness and an impressive fervor, is none other than that which should be followed by every pious ruler who is faithful in his office, and in brief, that it comprehends the sum of princely virtues. Hence, those expositors who find that this passage recommends and prescribes work righteous conduct, and especially the giving of alms, as in itself meritorious, do violence to the words. Such expositors are the Rabbins, who generally ascribe an almost magical virtue to alms-giving, and who press every possible passage of Scripture to support their view, especially those containing the term צְדָקָח, which is by them rendered “well doing, alms-giving” (cf. Buxtorf, Lex. p. 1,891 et sq.); further, the Roman Catholic exegetes, who are accustomed, since Bellarmine’s detailed exposition of this passage (l. II. pœnitentia, c. 6; cf. 50:4. 100:6), to employ it as one of the principal proof-texts for their anti-evangelical theory of justification and sanctification (in connection with which they declare, of course, that the rendering of the Vulgate: “peccata tua eleemosynis redime”, is the only correct translation); finally, nearly all the rational istic expositors, from Griesinger and Bertholdt down to Gesenius, de Wette, and Hitzig, who, while defending the translation by Jerome above referred to, and while referring to apocryphal passages like Sir_3:28; Sir_29:12; Tob_4:7 et seq.; 12:9 et seq.; 14:10 et seq., endeavor to find here a work-righteous “morality of the later Judaism,” and therefore a certain indication of the composition of the book subsequent to the exile. Grotius already pointed out that even on the adoption of the faulty Vulgate exegesis, which makes צדקח equivalent to eleemosynæ, the passage does not necessarily yield a sense favorable to Pelagianism: “Neque offendere quemquam potest, quod operibus pœnitentiœ, in quibus excellunt eleemosynœ, tribuatur id, quod pœnitentiœ proprie conuenit; est enim talis metonymia aut synecdoche frequens.” Still better Melancthon, in the Apolog. Conf. Aug. art. iii. p. 112 R: “Non volebat Daniel regem tantum eleemosynam largiri, sed totam pœnitentiam complectitur, quum ait: Redime peccata tua eleemosynis,’ i. e.: redime peccata tua mutatione cordis et operum. Hic autem et fides requiritur.… . Ac verba Danielis in sua lingua clarius de tota pœnitentia loquuntur et clarius promissionem efferunt: ‘Peccata tua per justitiam redime, et iniquitates tuas beneficiis erga pauperes.’ Hœc verba prœcipiunt de tota pœnitentia; jubent enim, ut Justus fiat, deinde ut bene operetur, ut, quod regis officium erat, miseros adversus injuriam defendat. Justitia autem est fides in corde,” etc. He expresses himself similarly in his comment on the passage (Opp. ed. Bretschneider, vol. xiii. p. 843 ss.), where he pays no attention to the false rendering of צדקח in the Vulgate; as does also Calvin in his commentary and the Inst. rel. Chr., III. 4, 31, 36, and among the later Protestant expositors especially Carpzov, De eleemosynis Judœorum (in his Apparat. historicus in the Critica Sacra, p. 726 ss.). In all the conduct of Daniel, therefore, as described in this section, nothing can be discovered which is at variance with the proper deportment of a witness to the faith and a highly enlightened seer of the Old Covenant in the presence of a heathen ruler of the world. To this deportment in practical life corresponds also the tone observed by him in the composition, under the king’s direction, of the document before us, whose agreement with the theocratic modes of thought and conception has already been pointed out.
3. In an apologetic respect the disharmony must be noticed, which exists between what might have been expected from the art of a pseudological tendency-writer of Asmonæan times, and the conditions of place and time as indicated in our narrative. A careful and unbiased examination of the document with reference to the conditions of the Maccabæan period, reveals at once how empty and arbitrary is everything that has been said by Bertholdt, Bleek, Von Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, respecting the parenetic aim, calculated for the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, with which they allege it was written. “The sinner Nebuchadnezzar, who was punished for his pride and folly, was a type of the presumptuous Επιμανής, who in like manner sought improper associates, denied the kingly character, and had but recently issued a circular letter, although of an entirely different character.” This brief extract from Hitzig (p. 58) contains a whole brood of tendency-critical assumptions and captious perversions of the actual historical facts, based on the erection of false parallels. It is impossible to understand why precisely Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldæan king whose presumption was punished with lycanthropy, should be selected as a type of the proud Seleucidian Ἐπιμανής (cf. 1Ma_1:21; 1Ma_1:24), when, e.g., Sennacherib (2Ki_18:19), Saul (1Sa_16:14; 1Sa_18:10 et seq.), or Pharaoh (Exodus 14), would have furnished a far more suitable parallel to the tyrant of the Maccabæan period, who was to be punished for presumptuous fury against God, and since, moreover, there is no lack, upon the whole, of historical examples to illustrate the proverb, “A haughty spirit goeth before a fall” (Pro_16:18). The fact recorded by Polybius 26:10 (to which passage Hitzig explicitly refers), that Antiochus Epiphanes was a lover of improper, i.e., immoral, coarse, and riotous gatherings, certainly finds but a clumsy illustration and an exceedingly vague foreshadowing in Nebuchadnezzar’s association with the beasts of the field. The analogy is merely superficial, and that to a degree in which it dissolves into incongruity and even absurdity, whenever it is submitted to a careful examination (cf. Kranichf. p. 174 et seq.). With reference to the third parallel, that both tyrants issued circular letters, Hitzig himself concedes that the circular mentioned in 1Ma_1:41 et seq. was “really of a nature entirely different” from that of Nebuchadnezzar’s edict. The mere fact, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar addressed a circular to his subjects, convinces him that it was typical of the other fact, that Epiphanes also issued such a document—as if any king whatever could reign but a single year, without publishing some manifesto, or edict, or circular, etc.! Hitzig’s treatment of Dan_4:28 [Dan_4:31], (the sentence of Divine punishment denounced on Nebuchadnezzar, “The kingdom is departed from thee”), by which he endeavors to demonstrate the special time in the Maccabæan epoch during which this section originated, results in similar absurdities. He holds that the threat of an immediate overthrow, or rather of a ruin already in progress, clearly indicates that the document was composed at a time when the Asmonæans had already taken up arms and had gained the upper hand,” hence in the period designated in 1Ma_2:42-48; as if any real analogy existed between the punishment of a presumptuous spirit by means of a severe mental disease, and the political and religious revolt of an oppressed nation against their persecutors! and further, as if the syncretistic Chaldæan king, who admitted all religions, could by any means be placed in comparison with Antiochus, the fanatically intolerant worshipper of Zeus! How can Nebuchadnezzar, who was exhorted to mercy toward the “poor” (עֲנָיִּן, Dan_4:24 [Dan_4:27], be brought into parallelism with the Syrian king, who was engaged in an open conflict with the representatives of the Theocracy (i.e., with the armed bands of Israelitish heroes inflamed with rage, who, moreover, could at that time hardly be termed the poor)?—the world-monarch of the captivity, who was punished indeed, but whose punishment led him to repent and be converted, with the incorrigibly hardened and diabolized antichrist upon the throne of the Seleucidæ, who for that very reason was regarded as hopelessly lost, and as the certain prey of eternal damnation, from a theocratic point of view? And in relation to the conduct of Daniel—where, in the theocratic state, and especially among the apocalyptists of the Maccabæan period who were enthusiasts for God, could a parallel to the prophet of this chapter be found? What servant of Jehovah in that age can be mentioned, who, like our prophet, and in analogy with the course of the Syrian captain Naaman (2Ki_5:18), would quietly sojourn at the court and in the immediate presence of a heathen ruler; who would have counselled the king in friendship, warned him in loving earnestness, supported and comforted him, as Daniel actually did in his intercourse with the Chaldæan monarch, according to the statements of our section? Certain passages of the Talmud, (Hilchot Rozeach, 12:15; Baba Bathra, f. 4, p. 1) may serve to indicate the kind of description which the Maccabæan age would probably have given of the ancient Daniel. It is there asserted that God afterwards punished that prophet, because he had wasted good advice and instruction on the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, such as are found in Dan_4:24! In addition, cf. the doxology appended by the Sept. to Dan_4:34, for an illustration of the manner in which that age would have described a Nebuchadnezzar who should actually repent and turn to God. In that passage the restored king is represented as renouncing forever the heathen gods as being utterly powerless, as promising to dedicate himself and his people to the constant service of Jehovah, and as honoring and exulting the Jewish people with excessive praise!—Upon the whole cf. Kranichfeld, p. 170 et seq. and p. 203. See also Ibid., p. 175: “The situation, however, becomes no more conceivable, if, for the purpose of demonstrating the invention of this section as a sketch’ copied from the circumstances of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, its composition be placed prior to the armed revolt mentioned in 1Ma_2:42 et seq. and consequently in a time when Antiochus raged in unresisted power against the helpless Jews. In this case it must be allowed indeed, that the writer possessed considerable prophetic gifts, so that even Hitzig ascribes prophecy to him in relation to the final fate of Epiphanes, without characterizing it as prophecy ex eventu. The definite and unconditional prediction concerning the loss of the kingdom by means of force, Dan_4:28 et seq., would thus be fully realized; and likewise that foretelling of a peculiar disease by which he should be brought to a humble recognition of the God of the Jews, even though it were not a disease of the mind (cf. 2Ma_9:5 et seq.). The total desertion to which he was actually exposed during the progress of his disease (cf. 2Ma_9:9) ἐπἰξένης ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν (ibid. Dan_4:28) would have reflected honor on the prophetic threat of the alleged forger (cf. Dan_4:22; Dan_4:29 et seq.). But besides mistaking the nature of the disease, he has unfortunately erred with reference to the recovery, and on that very account he is compelled, according to Hitzig, to renounce the honor of composing a prophecy after the event had transpired, and that without compensation for the otherwise really wonderful prediction of the three circumstances mentioned above, whose combined fulfillment of itself assuredly deserves the distinguishing attribute of pseudo-prophecy. But there still remains the oracle of Dan_4:23 [Dan_4:26], an expression on the part of a Jew regarded as a model of the patriot who is jealous because the law of his God is trodden under foot, and which is ambiguous when compared with the circumstances of the period of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore inconceivable in a historical point of view, since that period preceded the armed rising. Moreover, it must seem strange at the least, that the writer should content himself at the time of Epiphanes with assigning such very ordinary limits to the sinfulness and presumptuous pride of Nebuchadnezzar, while the violence done to the sanctuary of Israel is not mentioned with a single word, for instance, in Dan_4:24 [Dan_4:27]; and yet it was this very act which ranked chief in importance in the eyes of Antiochus himself (cf. 1. Macc. 21–24, 36 et seq., 44 et seq.; Dan_4:1 et seq.), and which was regarded as the most heinous crime of that tyrant, and as the principal ground for the lamentations of pious Jews in the Maccabæan period, as well as of the Divine vengeance visited on him; cf. 1Ma_2:8-13; 1Ma_3:55; 1Ma_3:51; 1Ma_3:58 et seq.; 4:36 et seq.; 6:12 et seq. Such a silence in this connection with regard to so scandalous a deed is the more remarkable, since the historical books expressly record the robbery of the sanctuary perpetrated by Nebuchadnezzar, which action was known to our author, according to Dan_1:2; cf. Dan_4:3, as well as to his compatriots. He was not obliged therefore, as a cautious forger, to fear that he should betray his pseudonymity by the mention of the sacred edifice. How greatly the Sept. animated by the spirit and views of the Maccabæan time, must have desired to find in the words of Dan_5:19, a condemnatory mention of the violence done to the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and how appropriate it would seem to them, may appear from their addition to Dan_4:19, which is certainly significant for the Asmonaaan period, and for that reason has unjustly been eliminated by Tischendorf without ceremony: ὑψώθη σοῦ ἡ καρδἰα ὑπερηφανία καὶ ἰσχύϊ ὑπὲρ τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ τὸὺ̀ς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ. Τὰ ἔργα σοῦ ὤφθη καθότι ἐξηρήμωσας τὸν οι̇̄κον τοῦ θερῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἐπὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἡγιασμένου.”—The exact acquaintance of the writer with the architectural condition of Babylon (cf. the exegesis) which is apparent in Dan_4:26 [Dan_4:29], and Dan_4:27 [Dan_4:30], and is as unlooked for as it is evident, deserves to be mentioned as a circumstance of especial force as bearing against the hypothesis of a fiction in the interests of a tendency of the Maccabæan period. A Maccabæan author would scarcely have represented that his typical pseudo-Antiochus was overtaken by a fearful visitation of Divine justice in the form of an unusual disease, while walking on the roof of his own palace and within the limits of his capital. The temptation to let him encounter this fate in the place where Epiphanes succumbed to his, “in a strange land and in the desert,” would ‘have been almost irresistible (cf. 2Ma_9:3; 2Ma_9:28).
4. Homiletical suggestions.—The features of practical importance in this section are concentrated in Dan_4:24 [Dan_4:27], the same passage in which Daniel’s words of exhortation and warning to the king furnish the leading elements of dogmatic significance. Not merely is the counsel of Daniel, recommending the practice of the virtues belonging to a ruler who pleases God, such as the doing of works of righteousness and mercy (cf. supra. No. 2), worthy of notice and of thorough homiletical treatment; but equally so the impulse which constrains and encourages him to venture this exhortation—his faith in the willingness of God to avert the threatened punishment from the king, in case he should repent and be converted while it was yet time; his truly prophetic and theocratic conviction that God might possibly repent of His purpose, on the fulfilment of the proper conditions by the threatened person. In this connection see the prophetic parallels adduced above, and compare the remarks of Jerome on this subject: “Si prœdixit sententiam Dei, quœ non potest immutari, quomodo hortatur ad eleemosynas et misericordias pauperum, ut Dei sententia commutetur? Quod facile solvitur Ezechiæ regis exemplo, quem Isajas dixerat esse moriturum, et Ninivitarum, quibus dictum est: Adhuc quadraginta dies, et Ninive subvertetur. Et tamen ad preces Ezechiæ et Ninive Dei sententia commutata est; non vanitate judicii, sed illorum conversione qui meruere indulgentiam. Alioquin et in Jeremia loquitur Deus se mala minari super gentem; et si bona fecerit, minas clementia commutare. Rursum bona agenti se asserit polliceri, et si mala fecerit, dicit se mutare suam sententiam; non in homines sed in opera, quœ mutata sunt. Neque enim Deus hominibus, sed vitiis irascitur; quœ quum in homine non fuerint, nequaquam punit quod mutatum est.” Cf. also Melancthon, Calvin, Geier and Starke, on this passage, and further, the expositions of Biblical theologians on the Old Testament teaching concerning the repentance of God, e.g., Steudel, Theologie des A. Ts., p. 181 et seq.; Hävernick, Vorless., p. 65 et seq.; F. Majer, Was hast du wider das Alte Testament? (Stuttgart, 1864), p. 118 et seq., and Kling, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., art. Reue, vol. 12. p. 764.—The theme derived from Dan_4:24 [Dan_4:27] might therefore be formulated: “Repent of thy sin, and God will repent of the punishment threatened against thee;” or, “The aim of Divine punishment is the conversion of men; if this be attained, how gladly will He cause the punishment to cease” (Starke); or, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luk_6:36).15
Additional points of departure for homiletical discussion and observation are afforded in Daniel 3:31–33 [Dan_4:1-3], and Dan_4:31-34 [Dan_4:34-37], the introductory and closing doxologies of the report. These are particularly adapted to serve as points of connection for sermons upon the entire narrative, having the theme, “All the works of God are truth, and His ways judgment” (Dan_4:34 [Dan_4:37]); or, “Humble yourselves in the sight of God, and He shall lift you up” (Jam_4:10); or, “God puts down the mighty from their seats, and exalts them of low degree” (Luk_1:52), etc. cf. especially what Theodoret observes, on Dan_4:31 : Τοσαύτην ὠφέλειαν ὁ Ναβουχοδονόσορ ἐκ τῶν συμφορῶν ἐδέξατο, ὅτι προφητικῶς περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φρονεῑ καὶ φθέγγεται, καὶ ὡς ἐκ συμφωνίας τινὸς ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως πάσην σὴν ὑμνωδίαν ὔφαινει. Another homiletical text is contained in Dan_4:3 [Dan_4:6] et seq., on which Cramer (in Starke) observes correctly, “If human wisdom cannot interpret and explain a dream, it is much less able to discover the secrets of God. Human reason should therefore not be permitted to be master in Divine things; for none can know what is in God, except the Spirit of God.” A still further passage of homiletical bearing is Dan_4:26-30 [Dan_4:29-33], a powerful and awfully impressive illustration of the proverb, “Pride goeth before destruction” (Pro_16:18). cf. Starke: “When a man permits the time for repentance to pass without a change of disposition, the Divine punishment overtakes him in the midst of his sins. He then learns that the threatenings of God were not idle words” (Num_16:12; Num_16:31 et seq).
Footnotes:
[1][Keil reviews at length the various reasons assigned for not summoning Daniel at first, and concludes that it must have been because the king had in the lapse of time and varied successes meanwhile totally forgotten the former prophetical powers of the Hebrew captive. This would be natural and entirely satisfactory, but for the fact that on his very introduction into the royal presence he in here designated as one possessing divine foreknowledge, an evident allusion to his former services in that relation.]
[2][Keil, on the other hand, contends that “from Dan_4:26 the duration of the עִדָּנִין cannot at all be concluded, and in Dan_7:25; Dan_12:7, the times are not years. עִדָּן designates generally a definite period of time, whose length or duration may be very different. “Seven is the ‘measure and signature of the history of the development of the kingdom of God, and of all the factors and phenomena significant for it” (Lämmert’s Revision of the Biblical or Symbolical Numbers, in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., ix. p. 11), or as Leyrer, in Herzog’s Realencykl,: 18. p. 366, expresses himself, ‘the signature for all the actions of God, in judgment and in mercy, punishments, expiations, consecrations, blessings, consecrated with the economy of redemption, perfecting themselves in time.’ Accordingly, ‘seven times’ is the duration of the divine punishment which was decreed against Nebuchadnezzar for purposes connected with the history of redemption. Whether these times are to be understood as years, months, or weeks is not said, and cannot at all be determined. The supposition that they were seven years ‘cannot well be adopted in opposition to the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar was again restored to reason, a thing that very rarely occurs, after so long a continuance of psychical disease’ (J. B. Friedrich, Zur Bibl. Naturhist., anthrop. u. med. Fragmente, I. p. 316).” This last argument, however, is of little force, in view of the evidently miraculous, or at least specially providential, character of the entire event. “C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Winer, Lengerke, and nearly all the critics agree that year is the probable meaning.”—Stuart. The supposed difficulty of the management of the empire during so long a period of the king’s incapacity is fairly disposed of by Stuart, by a reference to Berosus, who states that on Nebuchadnezzar’s return to his capital, after his protracted absence during his wars in Western Asia, upon his father’s death, “he took upon himself the affairs which had been managed by the Chaldees [Magi], and the royal authority which had been preserved for him by their chief” (Josephus., Antiq., 10:11, 1.) Geo. Rawlinson was inclined to find a trace of this interruption of Nebuchadnezzar’s government in the period of four years’ inactivity noted in his annals (Historical Evidences, p. 137) on the “Standard Inscription” (Herodotus, 2:485); but he has since doubted the reference (Five Monarchies, III. 60).]
[3][Keil, however, justly claims that “the change of עַד to עַל is unnecessary and arbitrary. The expression is general, because it is not yet said who is to be understood by the tree that is to be cut down. This general expression is in reality correct; for the king comes by experience to this knowledge, and so all will attach to it who consider this.”]
[4][Keil, however, insists that the term here means “as it were an instant, a moment.” But so brief a delay would seem altogether insignificant, and could have excited little surprise, or called for any urging on the part of the king. Stuart, on the other hand, regards so long a hesitation as an hour as “very improbable,” and therefore adduces the derivation of שָׁעָה(a look; Germ. augenblick, Heb. רֶגַע) as favoring the signification an instant; and in this interpretation Gesenius and Fürst both coincide.]
[5][We prefer to say, with Keil, that “the indefinite plur. form טָֽרְדִין stands instead of the passive, as the following יְטַעֲמוּן לָךְ and מְצַבְּעִין, cf. under Dan_3:4. Thus the subject remains altogether indefinite, and one has neither to think of men who will drive him from their society, etc., nor of angels, of whom perhaps the expulsion of the ting may be predicated, but scarcely the feeding on grass and being wet with dew.”]
[6][“Daniel knew nothing of a heathen Fatum, but he knew that the judgments of God were directed against men according to their conduct, and that punishment threatened could only be averted by repentance.”—Keil.]
[7][This interpretation of פרק, however, is hardly satisfactory, for, as Keil urges, it “means to break off, to break in pieces, hence to separate, to disjoin, to put at a distance, see under Gen. 21:40. And though in the Targums פרק is used for פָּרָה ,גָּאַל, to loosen, to unbend, of redeeming, ransoming the first-born, an inheritance, or any other valuable possession, yet this use of the word by no means accords with sins as the object, because sins are not goods which one redeems or ransoms so as to retain them for his own use.” Rosenmüller likewise notes this incongruity, and adduces Exo_32:2, as an instance, where Onkelos retains the word in the sense of breaking off (the earrings). He even declares that “Chaldee writers employ פרק simply for laying aside as in Num_1:51.”]
[8][Daniel prudently alludes to the king’s moral obliquities only in general terms. Impiety was doubtless his most heinous offence (see Dan_4:27 [30], 37 [40], and compare Dan_5:22-23), and it was indeed his failure to remember Jehovah, whom he had once been brought to recognise (Dan_3:28), that bred and fostered his heaven-insulting arrogance. Yet Daniel doubtless hinted also at some special Sins of Nebuchadnezzar as a wilful despot. Stuart thinks “he means to designate his capricious and tyrannical behavior on some occasions when he fell into a rage; perhaps also to remind him of the heavy hand that pressed on all the captives whom he had led into exile” and still retained. This last seems especially probable from the particulars specified immediately.]
[9][Keil thus aptly refutes the view of Bertholdt, Hitzig, and others, who “find here that the author falls out of the role of the king into the narrative tone, and thus betrays the fact that some other than the king framed the edict. But this conclusion is opposed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar from Dan_4:31 [34] speaks of his recovery again in the first person. Thus it is beyond doubt that the change of person has its reason in the matter itself. Certainly it could not be that in this Nebuchadnezzar thought it unbecoming to speak in his own person of his madness; for, if he had had so tender a regard for his own person, he would not have published the whole occurrence in a manifesto addressed to his subjects. But the reason of his speaking of his madness in the third person, as if some other one were narrating it, lies simply in this, that in that condition he was not Ich=Ego (Kliefoth). With the return of the Ich, I, on his recovery from his madness, Nebuchadnezzar begins again to narrate in the first person.”]
[10][Keil will have it that “עָנֵח here means not simply to begin to speak, but, properly, to answer, and suggests to us a foregoing colloquy of the king with himself in his own mind” He prudently refrains, however, from inferring that Nebuchadnezzar was thinking of the very dream in question at the time.]
[11][Rather, as Keil suggests, “the addition at Babylon does not indicate that the king was then living at a distance from Babylon, as Berth., von Leng., Maurer, and others imagine, but is altogether suitable to the matter, because Nebuchadnezzar certainly had palaces outside of Babylon; but it is made with reference to the language of the king which follows regarding the greatness of Babylon.”]
[12][Abundant confirmation has been found of these enlargements and reconstructions of the edifices of Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the excavations carried on there by Botta, Layard, and others. Most of the ancient bricks are stamped with the name of that monarch. See Rawlinson’s Herodotus, i. 412 (Am. ed.).]
[13][This raising of his eyes to heaven was “the first sign of the return of human consciousness; from which, however, we are not to conclude, with Hitzig, that before this, in his madness, he went on all-fours like an ox
[14][מְחָא בִידֵהּ in the Pael, to strike on the hand, to hinder, is derived from the custom of striking children on the hand in chastisement (Keil), or in order to check them from a proceeding.]
[15][“This noble example of manly and Christian fidelity to his sovereign is worthy of all admiration, and of course imitation. Prompted by such manifest love and in manner so respectful to the king, and yet with so much personal dignity, it must have fallen upon the king’s mind with great force.—The sin specially indicated here, unrighteous oppression of the poor, looks very probably toward the terrible exactions of labor imposed upon his defenceless subjects (some of them captives of war) in those immense public works which were, in the eyes of men, the glory of his reign. The eye of man, dazzled with so much architectural splendor, commonly fails to look down through to the crushed bodies and broken hearts, and to the hopeless, never-lifted pressure of woe which such a mass of coerced labor always signifies. Human eyes rarely see it, still more rarely make any account of it, but the Great Father sees it and can never fail to take it into most solemn account.”—Cowles.]
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, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 I thought it good--"It was seemly before me" (Psa…
I thought it good--"It was seemly before me" (Psa 107:2-8).
signs--tokens significant of God's omnipotent agency. The plural is used, as it comprises the marvellous dream, the marvellous interpretation of it, and its marvellous issue.
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, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18 1-3. On Nebuchadnezzar see Introduction, III, 3, (1); for…
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM OF THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS OWN KINGDOM, AND ITS FULFILLMENT.
1-3. On Nebuchadnezzar see Introduction, III, 3, (1); for his “decrees,” note Dan_3:29; on “peoples, nations, and languages” see Introduction, III, 2. A great quantity of Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions have been recovered. The form of address, “Peace be unto you,” so common even to this day in Arabic, has not been found in Assyrian (Prince). Of course, however, in repeating speeches or “decrees” all ancient historians, and even modern writers down to the middle of the nineteenth century, usually gave them in their own language and not verbatim. On the term “Most High God” (Dan_4:2, R.V.) see notes Dan_3:13-15; Dan_3:26. If an official letter or decree such as this should be found among the cuneiform records, in which under his own royal seal the “King of the Four Quarters of the World” should declare his own mistakes and ignominy, how it would amaze our Assyriologists! (See Introduction, II, 3, 4.) The noblest prophets of Judah could hardly voice more clearly the loftiest Hebrew hopes than does this Babylonian king. “Nothing less than a real change of heart could cause such a confession as this” (Wesley).
Read full note →
Indeed the central thought of the entire Daniel apocalypse is here put in the lips of Nebuchadnezzar and later repeated by Darius (Dan_6:26; compare Dan_2:44).
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 vv1–18 1. all the peoples, nations, and languages] Dan_3:4.
1. all the peoples, nations, and languages] Dan_3:4.
that dwell in all the earth] The hyperbole seems to us extravagant; but it must be remembered that ‘all the earth’ in the O.T. has not the meaning which we attach to the expression, but denotes (substantially) Western Asia, from Elam and Media on the E., to Egypt and the ‘isles of the sea’ (i.e. the E. part of the Mediterranean Sea[235]) on the West, and that the greater part of this did fall within the real or nominal sovereignty of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings (cf. of Nebuchadnezzar himself, Jer_25:26, “all the kingdoms which are upon the face of the earth,” and the preceding enumeration, Dan_4:17-25; Jer_27:5-6). Standing titles of the Assyrian kings are ‘king of multitudes’ (= of the world), ‘king of the four quarters of the earth’; and the same titles are adopted by Nabu-na’id, the last king of Babylon (KB[236] iii. 2, p. 97). The Persian kings call themselves similarly, ‘the great king, the king of kings, the king of the lands, the king of this great earth’ (RP[237][238] ix. 73 ff.).
Read full note →
[235] Though of course a few places to the W. of this were known, e.g. Tarshish.
[236] B. Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889–1900.
[237] P. Records of the Past, first and second series, respectively.
[238] Records of the Past, first and second series, respectively.
Peace be multiplied unto you] so Dan_6:25 : cf. 1Pe_1:2; 2Pe_1:2.
1–3. The Prologue of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation.
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, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (1) Peace . . .—For this mode of address…
IV.
(1) Peace . . .—For this mode of address comp. Ezr_4:17; Ezr_7:12. The date of the matter recorded in this chapter cannot be ascertained, as a blank falls upon the last eighteen years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The only facts that occurred during this period, so far as is known, are the terrible form of mania from which the king suffered, by reason of which he was kept under restraint for some time, and the further extension of his dominions after his recovery (Dan_4:34).
Read full note →
All the earth—By this time the king has become so powerful that he regards himself as universal monarch, so that some time must have elapsed since the events mentioned in the last chapter.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Vers. 1-37. THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. We follow here…
Vers. 1-37. THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. We follow here the division of chapters which we find in our English Version, and as, indeed, in all modern versions. The Aramaic concludes the third chapter with the three verses which are placed in our version at the beginning of the fourth chapter. The arrangement of the Aramaic is followed by the Septuagint, by Theodotion, and by Jerome. The Peshitta and Paulus Tellensis follow the more logical division. Luther divides the chapters logically enough, but carries on the numbering of the verses from the preceding chapter. It is difficult to see anything that can even seem to be a reason for this division. It may indicate a suspicion of these verses at the time the chapters were divided.
(Aramaic ch. 3:31). Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. The Septuagint has a different reading here, "The beginning of the letter of Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples and tongues dwelling in the whole earth: Peace to you be multiplied." In this reading, the first clause is the heading of all that follows, and the document itself begins with, "Peace to you be multiplied." The absence of the opening words from the Syriac Version of the Septuagint by Paulus Tellensis is against its authenticity. It may have been a scribal note which has slipped into the text. Theodotion is an exact rendering of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta Version appears to have followed a recension between that on which the Septuagint Version is founded and the Massoretic text, "Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote to all nations, peoples, and tongues, Joy be increased to you." The most natural explanation of this uncertainty in the text is that this chapter is a condensation of a longer document. Were the document in question a proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar, his titles would necessarily have followed. These, however, are omitted, and only malka, "king," is retained. The baldness of this seems to have suggested the variations which we find in the Septuagint and the Peshitta. The recension before us gives the beginning of the letter according to the attesting note of the LXX In the middle of the document condensation by the simple omission of clauses was seen to be awkward and perhaps impossible, so instead a summary is given in the third person. That we have not found the proclamation itself is not extraordinary from the very fragmentary condition in which the annals of Nebuchadnezzar have come down to us.
Read full note →
HOMILETICS.
Vers. 1-3.
The testimony of experience.
It is interesting to observe that the account of Nebuchadnezzar"s great humiliation comes from the lips of the king himself, without a word of comment by his servant Daniel. While the conduct of the prophet teaches us to regard the chastisement of other people with a similar courtesy of reserve, that of the king should remind us of the duty and utility of frankly confessing the lessons of our own experience.
I THE DESIRE TO GLORIFY GOD AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR OWN HUMILIATION IS ONE OF THE FAIREST FRUITS OF GENUINE REPENTANCE.
1. Nebuchadnezzar had been a haughty despot. The confession of deep humiliation by such a man is evidence of a great change of spirit. The moral value of humility must be measured
(1) by the strength of the natural disposition to pride, as this varies greatly in different temperaments; and
(2) by the temptations of a man"s station in society. To some self-abasement is familiar and natural. To others it brings keen agony. In the latter case it is a wonderful result of repentance.
1. Nebuchadnezzar had defied the God of the Jews. (Dan_3:15) To recognize him as the true God, who held the king"s destiny in his hand, was another proof of a great change. It would have been much if Nebuchadnezzar had privately trusted in the true God. But his repentance is confirmed by this public confession.
2. Nebuchadnezzar had been a selfish tyrant. He now sinks his self-interest in concern for the glory of God. We never truly and perfectly repent until we renounce self, and give ourselves up to a pure desire to glorify God.
II THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERIENCE IS AN EVIDENCE OF SPIRITUAL TRUTHS WHICH WE SHOULD CAREFULLY OBSERVE FOR OURSELVES AND GRATEFULLY OFFER TO OTHERS. The recognition of Divine truths in the passage before us is specially valuable, because it is not based on abstract grounds, but is derived from personal experience. It does not come from an inspired Hebrew prophet, but from a heathen king, and it derives a special force from this circumstance, because the spiritual teaching of Scripture thus finds an echo in a most unlikely quarter.
1. Ignorance of Divine truths on speculative ground gave force to the testimony. There can be no self-deceit in such cases.
2. Prejudice against these truths, after it was overcome, increased the force of the testimony. The king was not accustomed to bow before any providential power. His recognition of this is the more significant. It disposes of any suspicion of hypocrisy.
3. The depth of the experience gave intensity to the testimony. Much religious language sounds hollow because it is not verified by experience. As we realize truth in our lives, we see and feel it with a new power, and then we have at once the clear light of personal knowledge and the strong earnestness of personal feeling to enable us to declare it to others. (1Jn_1:1)
III A SOUND INTERPRETATION OF EXPERIENCE WILL TEACH US TO SEE THE POWER, WISDOM, TRUTH, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN ALL HIS WAYS WITH US. (See vers. 3 and 37.)
1. The power of God is seen in his successful performance of his will when the greatest force is set against it, and the greatest difficulties lie in its way, as in the overthrow of the might of Nebuchadnezzar, and the more wonderful restoration of him from his insanity (vers. 29-36).
2. The wisdom of God is seen when mysteries of providence are interpreted by later experience, as when the king saw the purpose and meaning of God"s strange dealings with him (ver. 36).
3. The truth of God is seen in his keeping his word. The dream-prophecy was fulfilled (ver. 28).
4. The righteousness of God is seen in the ultimate justice of his chastisements and their good results, as in the deserved punishment of Nebuchadnezzar, and the final good this wrought in him (ver. 25).
IV A RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE MUTABILITY OF EARTHLY THINGS WILL HELP US TO RISE TO FAITH IN THE ETERNITY OF THINGS DIVINE. Nebuehadnezzar now sees that "God"s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation." Before this the king had been warned not to trust in the perpetuity of earthly monarchies, but to see that these must give way before an everlasting kingdom. (Dan_2:44) God sends us changes and disappointments that we may not rest in the temporal and transitory; (Heb_12:27) and he sometimes reveals, through these changes, principles and purposes which run up into the eternal.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS Vers. 1-3.
The comeliness of confession.
me it seemed comely to declare the signs and the wonders that God Most High for me hath wrought" (ver. 2 amended translation). The history of the king"s insanity is told, not by the Prophet Daniel, but in a state paper, under the hand of the king, and quoted by the prophet. The edict is true to human nature and to the king"s character. The following motives may have influenced him:
1. Gratitude.
2. Conscience. It was right to admit sin and to recount itsjudgments.
3. A certain complacency in being the object of Divine dealing.
4. A self-respectful independence of the opinion of the crowd.
From the text occasion may be taken to discourse on the propriety of recounting the Lord"s dealings with ourselves.
I THE RECOUNTING should be marked by the following characteristics.
1. The subject-matter should be of public concern. The facts should either be already public, or such as may with propriety be made public property. There are deep things of the human spirit, which, to recount, would be good neither for ourselves nor for others. In Nebuchadnezzar"s case, the facts were notorious, though it rested with him to exhibit them in a Divine light.
2. The audience may then be one whole circle. The largeness of our circle depends in part on our social elevation. The higher our standing, the larger the number who know us. Not entirely our social elevation; for much will depend on our moral elevation. Thomas Wright, the prison philanthropist; Levi Coffin, who was "the underground railway" by which slaves passed from misery to Canada, were names known all over the world. All who had any knowledge of the king were to hear what the Lord had done for his soul (see ver. 1).
3. The tone should be kindest. "The royal style which Nebuchadnezzar makes use of has nothing in it of pomp or fancy; but is plain, short, and unaffected, "Nebuchadnezzar the king.
4. Integrity should pervade the recital. It should constitute one whole. God"s rebukes, as well as his favours, should come into our account, even though humiliating to ourselves, if the good of others and the glory of God demand it. Some striking instances of such recital of sins and the Father"s chastisement, will be found in the narrative of his early life by George Muller, in "The Lord"s Dealings.
5. The motive should be God. Certainly not our own glory not self, nor others, save subordinately.
II THE PROPRIETY OF IT. Such a recounting of Divine dealing with us is:
1. Good for ourselves. In the case of the king, he was led to admire the Divine acts; to infer the Divine rule.
2. Salutary for others.
3. Conducive to the Divine glory and the extension of the Divine kingdom.
R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-3.
Royal witness for God.
Even kings learn the humiliating lesson at last that they are but men. As a counterpoise to their advantages, there is, on their side, this great disadvantage, viz. that their minds are singularly impervious to appeals from God. A drawback this which more than counterweighs all their privilege.
I GOD"S BEST GIFTS ARE OFTEN CONVEYED TO MEN THROUGH PAINFUL CHANNELS, God "causeth his sun to shine on the evil and the good. He sendeth rain on just and unjust alike." So with earthly riches, honour, rank, lame. These gifts betoken no special favour of the Highest. They are of so little worth that God gives them in abundance to his foes. But his best gifts are obtained only through penitence, self-denial, suffering both vicarious and personal. Job"s wealth came, at the first, almost as an accident, and it exposed him to the envy and malice of Satan. If he had lived and died in his luxurious ease, the world would never have heard of him. But suffering wrought in him patience, submission, and faith. This was wealth which entered into his character, and abides with him still. The poor kingdoms of earth may be gained by the accident of birth, or by the mere chances of diabolic war; but the everlasting kingdom can only be reached through soul-tribulation. "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
II GOD"S BEST GIFTS ARE INTENDED TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO THE SOUL. These gifts, when rightly estimated, are prodigies of skill and mirrors of Divine love. If God may be seen in his material works, he can be yet more clearly seen in his gracious gifts to men. Every one of these is a love-token, bearing on it the impression of his heart. Nebuchadnezzar had been wont to think that his royal good fortune was the highest good he possessed; but now he is led into the dark school of suffering, and made to learn his folly. Now he learns that God"s gifts of mind, reason, memory, speech, are far nobler than royal dignities, and that for the creation and preservation of these he is indebted to the God of heaven. Further, he is made to learn that there is a higher King than himself, and that to know and love God is the loftiest good of man. Jesus Christ is God"s best Gift to man, because he reveals to us the Father. Let us value most those blessings which bring us nearest to God!
III GOD"S BEST GIFTS ARE INTENDED TO BEAUTIFY CHARACTER. Nebuchadnezzar"s wealth, power, conquests, had brought no real good to the man; nay, they had done him harm. They had corrupted the better principles of his soul. They had made him self-sufficient, proud, tyrannical. But now, in a season of mental suffering, God"s grace had touched his heart. In that humiliated state, the king learns his dependence on God, his need of Divine help, and the homage due to the supreme Jehovah. His pride is abated. His love of the world is diminished. He is constrained to give unto God his due. He is made another man. His inmost character has been benefited. He is more indebted to temporary insanity than to all his successful wars.
IV THE BEST GIFTS OF GOD DEMAND PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT. There was the greatest propriety that the Chaldean king should proclaim to the world his obligations to God. He had been placed under weighty indebtedness, and could show his gratitude in no other way than by declaring to the world his obligation. Often had he made proclamations and edicts to propagate his own will and pleasure; it was fitting that he should now act as a dependent, as a herald of the great King. What better form what other form can gratitude assume, than publishing our obligations to the world? We can do no good to God in return for his kindness; we may do good to our fellow-men. If gratitude be genuine it will be publicly acknowledged. Honest recipients of blessing will say, "Come, ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul. D.
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, 3, 10, 17, 18 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people.
Dan_4:1-18
Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people.
Read full note →
The Proclamation of Peace to all Nations
How changed the spirit and deportment of Nebuchadnezzar from what they were on the plains of Dura. Then, we saw him exulting in the pride of power, and girt with the terrors of tyranny. Then, we saw him in a passion, hot as the furnace he had kindled. Now, nothing but thoughts of peace are in his heart, and the law of kindness is on his tongue. Then, we saw him erecting an image to his idol. Now, we are called upon to listen while he extols and praises the God of Heaven. In early life, when the habits are young, the spirits buoyant, the mind elastic and versatile, a change of character is comparatively easy, and of frequent occurrence. But after a man has passed the middle stage of life, as Nebuchadnezzar had now done, changes are so difficult, and so rare, that we are accustomed to consider his character as fixed. Changes effected upon it, afterwards, even when produced by Divine grace, are very marvellous. To change the character in youth is like altering the channel of a river. To change it in old age is like turning the waters of a river backwards, and making them run upwards, to their source, when they were about to be emptied into the sea. Whether Nebuchadnezzar was truly converted unto God is a question that may afterwards come in our way. Without making any assertion on that head, for the present, it is quite apparent that his character is not only greatly altered, but much improved. The occasion of this change in the character of Nebuchadnezzar was a very remarkable dispensation of the Almighty. He was degraded from his throne, and deprived of his reason, and driven from the dwellings of men, and dwelt amid the cattle in the field. This discipline was severe, but it was salutary. He learned more among the beasts than ever he had learned among men. Is it not a wonderful instance of Divine grace to see the man who had spent so much of his time in war become the advocate, the apostle, the dispenser of peace! The design of this proclamation was to make publicly known the wonderful dealings of God towards himself. Many persons have recorded the more remarkable passages of their history, from a love of fame, from a desire to be spoken of while they are living, and to be remembered after they are dead. No such motive could possibly actuate Nebuchadnezzar. The occurrence, which he was about to relate, was one of the most humbling nature. That which incited Nebuchadnezzar to make his proclamation was a hope that it might be productive of good. I thought it good to show the signs and the wonders which the high God hath wrought toward me. It was good for the Divine glory. It showed the greatness of Jehovah, that there was none like him among the sons of the mighty, when he could thus abase the greatest and the haughtiest man upon the earth. It was good for the warning and instruction of mankind. It cried aloud to all transgressors, Fear and sin not; for if such things be done in the green tree, what will be done in the day. When this haughty spirit, this son of pride, was thus brought down, it cried aloud to all, Be clothed with humility. Thin proclamation is addressed to all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth. We are not to suppose, from this, that Nebuchadnezzar still aspired to universal dominion over his fellow-creatures. There is reason to think that such ambitious thoughts were now dead within him. The proclamation is addressed to all nations, because he considered that a knowledge of the remarkable dispensations of the Most High towards himself might be of universal benefit. To publish this showed an excellent spirit in Nebuchadnezzar--a spirit more concerned for Gods glory than his own--more anxious about the welfare of his subjects than about his ownreputation. It is easy to proclaim our own excellencies, but, surely, God must touch the heart before we are willing to promote His glory at the expense of our own. When his reason was restored, and he considered the whole way in which God had dealt with him, Nebuchadnezzar is filled with astonishment. How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! Nebuchadnezzar had now reigned about forty years. During that period he had journeyed far, and seen much of the Divine doings. On the plains of Dora he had seen a noble testimony lifted up for God. He then, also, saw a visible manifestation of God, and witnessed a very wonderful miracle performed in behalf of the faithful witnesses for His glory. We might have supposed that the evidence afforded by such a manifestation, and such a miracle, was sufficient to have carried conviction to every rational mind. It must, however, be remarked that it is not from want of evidence in support of religion that any continue in unbelief; and it is not by evidence alone that any man can be truly converted unto God. The evidence in behalf of religion is of a moral nature, for the practical reception of which there is requisite a certain moral condition of mind, and where this is awanting, evidence, however powerful, will have no more effect in softening the heart than sunshine has upon a rock. Accordingly, Nebuchadnezzar saw all these miracles of Divine power and wisdom, and received from them only slight and transient impressions. But now, like one who had been all his days blind, and got his eyes opened behold the glory of the Lord, he cries out in astonishment, How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! Jehovah is not only glorious in holiness, and fearful in praises, He is a God ever doing wonders. To a finite mind His works as Creator must, of necessity, appear marvellous, because of the incomprehensible power and wisdom with which they are all stamped. Every man who is truly converted will be filled with wonder at the doings of the Lord. He will see His loving kindness to be a wonderful loving kindness, and His condescension to be infinite. And it is one sign of being benefited by the dispensations of Providence when we are led to wonder, and admire, and adore the hand of God. There may be nothing in our history so extraordinary as there was in that of Nebuchadnezzar. But in the life of the humblest individual, in his life who has fewest vicissitudes, there will appear, when it is seriously considered, evidences of Divine care, wisdom, power, long-suffering, sufficient to constrain him to cry out, O how great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! How often has He disappointed our fears! How often has He exceeded our hopes! If Nebuchadnezzar, on discovering the meaning of one small act of Providence, was filled with such astonishment, how high will their admiration rise, how rich will be their satisfaction, how profound their reverence, who shall have the whole plan of the universe unfolded to their consideration! If he on earth, will not they much more in Heaven sing, O how great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! God had done much for Nebuchadnezzar. He had raised him to the highest place on earth--He had made him a king of kings--had given success to his counsels,victory to his arms, and bestowed on him every temporal blessing which a mortal could possess. In the day of prosperity God is too generally overlooked. Such was the effect of prosperity on Nebuchadnezzar. He felt and spake as if he were omnipotent, as if there was no power in the universe above his own, as if he were a god of gods, as well as a king of kings. But behold and adore the power of Jehovah! In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, He makes this proud and presumptuous creature, who feels himself more than a god, less than the meanest of his subjects, less than a man--He makes him a companion of the beasts of the field, and continues him in that situation for seven years. Behold and adore the sovereignty of Divine grace, in sanctifying this affliction! Many who never praised God for their prosperity have praised Him for their adversity, have thanked and adored Him that ever they were afflicted. This was the case with Nebuchadnezzar. He who never praised God for raising him to the throne, adores and magnifies His name for driving him from the dwellings of men. Joyous chastisement! Blessed degradation! Blessed the eclipse of reason to him! By being deprived of his reason, he was taught the right use of his reason. The minions that dwelt in Nebuchadnezzars court had never approached him without saying, O king, live for ever. Accustomed to the perpetual incense of their flattery, it is probable that he forgot his mortality, he forgot that changes might come--that changes would come. Now, however, he sees that God is the only monarch who shall live for ever, and His kingdom the only one that shall never be subverted by the storms of time. His kingdom, says he, is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion from generation to generation. Change and vicissitude reach not the throne of the Creator. His kingdom shall for ever stand, His throne through all ages. The life of Nebuchadnezzar had been prosperous from its commencement, but his prosperity never appeared to be so complete as it was immediately before the terrible calamity of which we have an account in this chapter. His wealth is immense--his power is unbounded--all his enemies are conquered, all his provinces are submissive. Crownedwith victory, the veteran warrior was at rest in his house, and flourished in his palace. But a more than ordinary share of prosperity is often followed by some great disaster. The time of their greatest prosperity is often the period which God selects for punishing the proud and lofty ones of the earth. (William White.)
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 vv1, 4 SECT. XIV.—THE ROYAL TESTIMONY (Chap. Dan_4:1-3)
HOMILETICS
SECT. XIV.—THE ROYAL TESTIMONY (Chap. Dan_4:1-3)
Read full note →
In this chapter we have a remarkable testimony from Nebuchadneszar himself [103]. The date usually assigned to it is about ten years after the erection of the golden image, probably towards the latter end of his life [104]. The king had still to be brought down from his pride. What was not unusual in the absence of a written revelation, a dream, was employed for this purpose. See Job_33:14-17. The dream, with its interpretation and fulfilment in a lengthened and humiliating affliction, made effectual [105]. As the result, we have the noble testimony in this chapter. Calvin observes that Daniel has no other object in relating the edict than to show the fruit of conversion in Nebuchadnezzar. The testimony remarkable in itself; still more so from the quarter from which it came—a king of kings, the head of the first great universal monarchy, a king who had been all his life a heathen and a devoted worshipper of idols. The testimony given in the form of a royal epistle, proclamation, or edict, addressed to all the subjects of his extensive empire. The chapter an example of the varied contents of the Bible. Out of the mouth of heathen monarchs, as well as of “babes and sucklings,” God able to ordain strength and perfect praise. The proclamation sets forth Jehovah’s greatness, truth, and justice; His supremacy as governor of the universe; His overruling providence among the nations of the world; His sovereignty in doing all according to His own will among angels and men, that will being the most perfect justice; His remarkable dealings with the king himself; and, finally, a humble confession of his sinfulness and pride, with the humiliating chastisement which it had entailed upon him. The testimony addressed to the various peoples under his rule with a view to their conversion to the only true God, the God of Israel. The whole breathes a spirit of sincerity and humility, of gratitude to God and good-will to men. The opening salutation probably more than a mere form. A deep earnestness and warm admiration indicated in the manner in which he refers to God’s dealings with himself. “How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders!” (Dan_4:2-3). The proclamation also contains a high testimony in favour of Daniel, as an inspired prophet in whom was “the spirit of the holy gods,” and as a faithful counsellor of the king. The repetition of what Daniel had said in the interpretation of a former dream, many years before, regarding the “everlasting kingdom” which God was to set up, indicative of the deep impression which the prophet’s words had left upon his mind. The three first verses of the chapter, improperly forming the concluding ones in the Hebrew Bible and Greek version, serve as the preface or preamble to the edict. Among the lessons of this part of the testimony, as well as of the testimony in general, are the following:—
[103] “Nebuchadnezzar the king unto all people,” &c. Adam Clarke says: “This is a regular decree, and is one of the most ancient on record, and no doubt was copied from the state-papers of Babylon. Daniel has preserved it in the original language.” Grotius observes: “Daniel gives this wonderful history, not in his own words, but in those of the published edict itself, that there might remain no doubt about its trustworthiness.” Calvin says: “Daniel here gives the edict under the king’s name and person, afterwards relates what happened to the king, and at length returns to the king’s personal testimony; the change of the person speaking, however, not at all obscuring the sense.” This change of the speaker has been made an objection to the genuineness of the book. Hengstenberg remarks in reply: “We cannot by any means allow that this happens unwarily. With the exception of Dan_4:19, where ‘the king’ stands for ‘I,’ which calls for no remark, because the same thing is found repeatedly in the decrees of the Persian kings (compare, e.g., Ezr_7:14-15), the use of the third person commences just where the narrative of the fulfilment of the divine threat of punishment begins (Dan_4:28), and ends where the description of the sad ailment of Nebuchadnezzar comes to a close (Dan_4:33). His restoration he describes again in the first person. This cannot possibly be accidental; and if not, then no argument can be taken from it against the genuineness, although we cannot assign with certainty the reason of the change It may be conjectured that Daniel disposed this part in a briefer or more detailed and exact narrative than as it stood in the edict (so Calvin); and now, to be chargeable with no falsehood, used the third person.”
[104] The Septuagint has introduced the words “in the eighteenth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,” which Ewald has adopted, but arbitrarily making it “in the twenty-eighth year,”&c.—Keil.
[105] Adam Clarke thinks that very probably Nebuchadnezzar was a true convert, that he relapsed no more into idolatry, and that he died in the faith of the God of Israel. Dr. Cumming remarks: “This closing epistle addressed by the King Nebuchadnezzar to his subjects breathes a quiet and a beautiful spirit, that indicates to my mind a change in his heart, a transformation of his character, a true and an actual conversion to God.” Among the older commentators, Willet thinks “the more probable and certain opinion is that Nebuchadnezzar in the end was saved.” He quotes Josephus, who Bays that all his life long alter this he acknowledged God and gave praise and glory to Him; Augustine, who remarks that, unlike Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar was humbled and so saved; and Theodoret, who contrasts the end of Nebuchadnezzar with that of Belshazzar, the one being foreseen to be amended by his correction, the other to be incorrigible. So Bullinger, Osiander, and Œcolampadius. Calvin thinks that “though in this edict Nebuchadnezzar does not describe what is required of a pious man long trained in God’s school, yet he shows how he had benefited under God’s rod, by attributing to Him the height of power, and adding the praise of justice and rectitude, while he confesses himself guilty.” Matthew Henry says, “Whether he continued in the same good mind that here he seems to have been in, we are not told, nor doth anything appear to the contrary but that he did; and if so great a blasphemer and persecutor did find mercy, he was not the last.” Dr. Taylor quotes Scott’s remark that “the beginning and conclusion of the chapter lead us at least to hope with prevailing confidence that Nebuchadnezzar was at last made a monument of the power of divine grace,” yet thinks that the conversion was still an imperfect one, as the king still speaks of the name of his god and of the spirit of the holy gods, as if, while acknowledging the supremacy of Jehovah, he still clung to the worship of inferior divinities. Hengstenberg, who seems to be of the same opinion, remarks, in reply to an objection made by Eichhorn and others against the genuineness of the edict, from the narrator making the king speak now as an orthodox Jew, and now again as an idolater: “Just this mode of representation would be expected in case the edict were genuine, and certainly affords a presumption that it is. It cannot be imagined that Nebuchadnezzar rooted out the inveterate superstition so quickly from his mind that the traces of it should not have appeared in connection with what he had learned from the instruction of Daniel. That a later Jew, bold in his fictions, would not have been satisfied with such a conversion of Nebuchadnezzar, is clear from the attempt of very many Jewish and Christian expositors to make the conversion as radical and complete as possible.” Dr. Pusey observes, “Although Nebuchadnezzar’s two first convictions of the greatness of the God of the Jews faded in time, we know of no relapse after the last. God triumphed at last, and won Nebuchadnezzar, as He does so many relapsing Christians.” Dr. Cox judiciously remarks, “How far this last return to the sentiments and expressions of religion was genuine, and whether we are to regard Nebuchadnezzar as finally converted to God, may be regarded as one of those questions which, while we are benevolently desirous of giving it the most favourable construction, must be referred to the great mass of unfathomable mysteries. The evidence we have a right to demand in general of a renewal of character must be proportioned to the nature of past delinquencies [and, may we not add, to the individual’s circumstances], and it often requires much holy skill to pilot our judgment between the Scylla and Charybdis of uncharitableness and laxity.”
1. The power and efficacy of divine grace. The proclamation of the king an apparent evidence of a change of mind and heart where it might least be expected. Nebuchadnezzar apparently a case of remarkable though imperfect conversion. Among the evidences given of an inward change are—pride in a mighty monarch acknowledged and abandoned; a formerly idolatrous king now a preacher of the true God to his subjects; sin confessed, its chastisement related, and repentance declared. “How hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of God!” Yet here is one who at the time was the richest on the face of the earth, apparently made to enter it as a little child. “The things that are impossible with men are possible with God.” “Not many mighty, not many noble are called.” Yet, thanks to sovereign and omnipotent grace, some are. Nothing too difficult for the grace that, as we may believe, converted Nebuchadnezzar. No situation too high, as none is too mean, for its operation. “Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shall become a plain.”
2. Encouragement to pray and labour for the conversion of others. Many a prayer for the king’s conversion doubtless offered by Daniel and his three friends. These at length answered apparently in this edict. The testimony of Daniel’s life and lips at length effectual. His faithfulness to the king (Dan_4:27) rewarded by the king’s testimony for God. The influence, though insensible, of a spiritual and consistent Christian’s life, accompanied by earnest persevering prayer, always powerful, and often efficacious in the most unlikely places and persons. “Ye are my witnesses.” Hopeful’s conversion mainly due to the spirit exhibited by Christian and Faithful in Vanity Fair. The trial of the three faithful Jews in connection with the fiery furnace now made to bear fruit. “In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand.” The privilege of believers to be the “salt of the earth,” whether in a palace or a prison.
3. Thanks and praise to be rendered to God in every situation. Thanks especially due after mercies received and deliverance experienced. God’s gracious dealings with ourselves to be made know to others for His glory and their good. “Come, hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul.” “Many shall see it and fear, and put their trust in the Lord.” “Go home to thy friends and tell them how great things God hath done for thee.” No situation too lofty for making public acknowledgment of God and His mercies. Nebuchadnezzar an example to kings and those in high places. Not ashamed to confess God before his court, his princes, servants, and subjects. A throne a meet place to acknowledge Him by whom “kings reign and princes decree justice.” “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father and the holy angels.” Confession of God a natural duty. In Nebuchadnezzar the spontaneous effusion of a grateful and childlike spirit. “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me.” May not this heathen king, recovered from his madness, put many a professing Christian to shame?
4. God’s works to be viewed with admiration and praise. The king struck with wonder and astonishment at those works. “How great are His signs! and how mighty are His wonders!” God’s works, whether in creation or in providence, wonderful both for their goodness and greatness. He is “fearful in praises, doing wonders.” The song of the glorified,—“Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty,”—echoed back from earth: “Thou art great, and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone.” Man’s sin not to regard the operation of his hands. “He hath made His wonderful works to be remembered” (Psa_111:4). These wonders visible in Nature, Providence, and Grace. Discoverable in each individual’s case as well as in Nebuchadnezzar’s. The greatest wonder of all, the gift, incarnation, and death of the Son of God for man’s redemption, and, as the effect of it, the restoration of ruined millions to God’s friendship, family, and likeness. Men turned from the madness and the misery of sin to a life of wisdom, holiness, and peace, like Nebuchadnezzar’s deliverance, “the doing of the Lord, and marvellous in our eyes.”
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 To say that "the heavens do rule" is the…
Dan 4:26
To say that "the heavens do rule" is the same as saying that Almighty God, as Eternal Love, reigns through all and over all. God and His obedient heavens make one sphere of power and overrule. God creates and governs, teaches and redeems, through the humanity of the heavens.
Read full note →
I. God’s purposes are infinitely good, right, beautiful, and sure; and yet an open field is given for the display of creaturely will and opposition. All the frightful consequences of His children’s freedom, all their vices, unrighteousness, cruelties, and miseries, are before His eyes, within His lap, and under His larger overrule. He allows His children to assert their freedom by originating self-willed motions and evils, but they and their evils are compassed about on all sides by the Eternal Spirit.
II. But in the meantime the Almighty and All-bearing Father has a most real cross, arising from the action of myriads of creaturely wills in opposition to the perfect goodness of His own overruling will. The cross of God comprehends all the inclinations, desires, efforts, and works in the universe which are contrary to His fatherly love and purpose. His love willingly bears the cross, for He knows that by Himself bearing all evil He will at length be able to subdue all evil to Himself.
III. The whole mystery of evil and all its cross-working purposes being completely under the overrule of Infinite God and the heavens, there is no ground for despair, and no such thing as the finality of evil. Round about Love’s throne shines the rainbow of promise, that all evil will be overcome by God. Evil will come to its limit, exhaust its energies, and expire in the bosom of Infinite Love.
IV. Under the reign of eternal law as it is in God and in His heavens, right humanity, with its right reason, its progress and happiness without end, are to come out of the lawlessness of self-will.
J. Pulsford, Our Deathless Hope, p. 191.
References: Dan 4:28-37.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. x., p. 220. Dan 4:29, Dan 4:30.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 247. Dan 4:31.—Ibid., p. 246. Dan 4:33.—G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 118. Dan 4:34, Dan 4:35.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi., No. 949. Dan 4:37.—C. J. Vaughan, Expository Sermons and Outlines on the Old Testament, p. 288; Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. viii., p. 209; J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, Part II., 262.
Daniel 4
I. In this chapter we have a solemn and instructive warning against pride and vain-glory.
II. A sad illustration of the proverb that pride goeth before a fall.
III. A beautiful illustration of fidelity in the proclamation of God’s truth.
IV. A loud call to thank God for the continuance of our reason.
V. A reminder that the Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 77.
References: 4—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 171; J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 105. Dan 5:1.—G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 132. Dan 5:1-4.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xvii., p. 163.
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 Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and its fulfilment
Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and its fulfilment
In the form of a proclamation Nebuchadnezzar records his experience of the power of the Most high God (Dan_4:1-3). He had a dream which none of his wise men could interpret (Dan_4:4-7). He then called Daniel, and told him the dream, in which he had seen a lofty and spreading tree, which at the bidding of an angel had been cut down, its stump being bound among the grass for seven 'times' (Dan_4:8-18). Daniel explained that the tree was Nebuchadnezzar in his greatness, that he would lose his reason and live a beast's life for seven years, after which he would be restored to his throne (Dan_4:19-27). All this has come to pass (Dan_4:28-33), and Nebuchadnezzar now magnifies the King of heaven who is able to abase the proud (Dan_4:34-37).
Read full note →
The picture here given of Nebuchadnezzar's pride is in keeping with the evidence of his own boastful inscriptions. The form of madness attributed to him is not an uncommon one, and is generally known as 'lycanthropy.' No historical record of such an event in his life has come to light. There is, however, a tradition, quoted by the church historian Eusebius from Abydenus, a Greek writer of the 2nd cent. a.d., which, though quite different as a whole from the story in this c., has one or two points of contact with it.
Teaching. The example of pride brought low which this chapter contains would afford a significant lesson to the Jews under the tyranny of Antiochus. It is suggestive also that the conduct of Antiochus led some to substitute for the title Epiphanes ('the illustrious') that of Epimanes ('the madman').
1. People] RV 'peoples.'
2. High] RV 'Most High,'
7. Astrologers] RV 'enchanters.'
8. According to the name of my god] This is merely an assonance, not a strict derivation. The chief god of Nebuchadnezzar was Marduk (Merodach). The word Belteshazzar does not contain the name of the god Bel: see on Dan_1:7.
9. Master of the magicians] see on Dan_2:48.
13. A watcher and an holy one] Both terms refer to the same being. The name 'watcher' is first used for 'angel' in Daniel, and is common in the later apocalyptic books.
16. In this v. the figure of the tree is dropped. Times] years.
17. Matter] RV 'sentence.' The angels are represented as entrusted with the power of deciding the destinies of men.
19. One hour] RV 'a while.'
The dream be] i.e. be fulfilled on.
27. If it may be] RV 'if there may be.'
28-33. In these vv. the narrative, which has hitherto been in the terms of Nebuchadnezzar's proclamation, passes into the third person. The first person is resumed in Dan_4:34.
30. House of the kingdom] RV 'royal dwelling place.'
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, 3, 10, 13, 16 Nebuchadnezzar, first of the Gentile world-kings in whom the…
dwell
Nebuchadnezzar, first of the Gentile world-kings in whom the times of the Gentiles Luk 21:24; Rev 16:14 began, perfectly comprehended the universality of the sway committed to him Dan 2:37; Dan 2:38 as also did Cyrus Ezr 1:2. That they did not actually subject the known earth to their sway is true, but they might have done so. The earth lay in their power.
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 4 The Tree Vision of Nebuchadnezzar
CHAPTER 4 The Tree Vision of Nebuchadnezzar
1. The king’s proclamation (Dan 4:1-3)
Read full note →
2. The king relates the tree vision (Dan 4:4-18)
3. Daniel interprets the vision (Dan 4:19-27)
4. The tree vision fulfilled, the king’s abasement and his restoration, (Dan 4:28-37)
Dan 4:1-3. This chapter is in form, at least in part, of a proclamation. This proclamation must have been written after the king had passed through the experience recorded in this chapter.
Dan 4:4-18. Read carefully the vision the king had and compare with Eze 31:3 and Mat 13:1-58, the parable of the mustard seed. In each case the great big tree is the symbol of pride and self-exaltation.
Dan 4:19-27. The prophet’s interpretation of this dream needs no further comment. A careful reading will make it clear in its meaning.
Dan 4:28-37. Twelve months later he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. Then with a haughty mien he utters the fatal words: “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power and for the honor of my majesty.” Notice the personal pronoun. But while he yet uttered these words a heavenly voice was heard which announced that the kingdom is departed from him. What Daniel had said in his interpretation is repeated from heaven. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar and he was driven from men and did eat grass as the oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. And after the seven times had passed over him his understanding returned unto him and he blessed the Most High.
The great characteristic here is pride and self exaltation. As judgment came upon the great monarch in the beginning of the times of the Gentiles, so judgment will yet fall upon this proud and self exalting age of the Gentiles. That great big, political and religious tree will some day be hewn down and be destroyed.
And Nebuchadnezzar’s great humiliation in becoming a beast for seven times (seven years), points us to the end of this Gentile age once more. (The attempt to ascertain from this “seven times” the length of the times of the Gentiles as some do lacks the support of Scripture. The seven times mean seven years.) Apostasy from God will be the great characteristic of that end. There will be no more looking up to God, but the attitude of the beast will be the attitude of the nations. We see much of this already. They mind earthly things and become the “earth dwellers” so frequently mentioned in the book of Revelation. Madness and bestiality will seize upon the Gentiles, after the One who hinders, the Holy Spirit is removed. Then proud and apostate Christendom will believe the lie and follow the beast with its lying wonders. This will last seven times, that is, seven years.
The stump of the great tree which remains in the field suggests the fact that the judgments which fall upon the nations in the time of the end will not completely destroy all nations. Many of them will be swept away. For those who wilfully rejected the gospel and turned away from the truth, there is no hope. But there are others which will be left and when these judgments are in the earth, the nations learn righteousness.
The millennium is also seen in this chapter in the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar and in the praise He gives to the Most High. In the previous chapter the three friends of Daniel speak of “our God,” but in this chapter we hear of “the Most High.” It is the millennial name of God. We see then in the fourth chapter the pride and self exaltation of the Gentiles, and how the Gentiles will be humiliated and judged. First there is self exaltation, that is followed by judgment, and then follows restoration and the acknowledgement of the Most High.
That nothing more is now reported of Nebuchadnezzar, that the last which we hear of him in Scripture is his acknowledgment of the Most High, is also not without meaning. It foreshadows the universal acknowledgment of God in the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up, when the stone fills as the mountain the whole earth.
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 King Tells Daniel His Dream
The King Tells Daniel His Dream
v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar, the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, this term, in a public proclamation or royal edict, including all the subjects of the empire, that dwell in all the earth, for the Babylonian Empire embraced practically the entire world then explored: Peace be multiplied unto you, literally, "Peace be imparted to you in rich measure," a greeting which was in use in the Orient for many centuries and was later taken over by the Christians. Cf 1Pe 1:2; 2Pe 1:2.
Read full note →
v. 2. I thought it good, it pleased the king, he regarded it as the right and seemly thing, to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me, the reference here being to the true God, of whose omnipotent power Nebuchadnezzar had received further unmistakable evidence, as he relates in this edict.
v. 3. How great are His signs, and how mighty are His wonders! exceeding those of any so-called gods of the heathen. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation. It is a doxology which gives due honor to the true God, even though it does not confess faith in Jehovah. Now follows the account of the happenings which caused this outburst of praise.
v. 4. I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in mine house, his wars victoriously concluded, his kingdom at peace, and flourishing in my palace, enjoying wonderful prosperity.
v. 5. I saw a dream which made me afraid, the suddenness of whose coming filled him with alarm, and the thoughts upon my bed, which exercised him in connection with his dream, and the visions of my head, those which were presented to the eyes of his mind, troubled me, their fancies and images filling him with apprehension of approaching evil.
v. 6. Therefore made I a decree, he issued the command, to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream, the dream itself with all its details, in this instance, being very clear in the recollection of the king, so that he desired an explanation only.
v. 7. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers, Cf. Dan 2:2, and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof, their merely human wisdom was unable to penetrate into the depths of the mysteries which God wanted to make known in this instance.
v. 8. But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name, given him when he entered the king’s service, was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, "the foremost of Bel," the chief god of Babylon, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, of whose eminent prophetic gifts the king had been given evidence on previous occasions, although he was in this case, for some unexplained reason, reserved to the last; and before him I told the dream, saying,
v. 9. O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, whose comparatively independent position as the chief of all the wise men at Babylon made it possible for him to be absent from a large assembly of the officials of the royal court on this occasion, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, no secret being too difficult for him to explain, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen and the interpretation thereof.
v. 10. Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed, literally, "And regarding the visions of my head upon my bed," I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, therefore evidently possessing great importance for the whole earth, and the height thereof was great, it was of conspicuous size to begin with.
v. 11. The tree grew and was strong, became great and mighty, and the height thereof reached unto heaven and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth, so that it extended far enough to be seen from the very ends of the world;
v. 12. the leaves thereof were fair, its branching, forming the crown, was very beautiful, and the fruit thereof much, growing in large quantities, and in it was meat for all, food for all who lived under its shelter being found on it; the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it, the image being that of the entire human race united under the scepter of Nebuchadnezzar and enjoying prosperity under his beneficent government.
v. 13. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one, that is, a holy watchman, an angel delegated by God to watch over the affairs of men, came down from heaven;
v. 14. he cried aloud and said thus, making announcement with a mighty voice, as the herald of almighty God, Hew down the tree and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, causing them to fall quickly, and scatter his fruit, in a contemptuous manner, as though possessing no value; let the beasts get away from under it, as no longer safe within his shelter, and the fowls from his branches, which no longer offered them a safe retreat;
v. 15. nevertheless, leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field, this description already indicating that the application must be made to an animate being, whose fetters were those of the mental and spiritual darkness brought on as the result of the loss of reason; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, there being no shelter to keep the weather away from him, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth, so that he would partake of their food;
v. 16. let his heart be changed from man’s, so that this center of intellectual life would lose its human aspect, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him, so that he would fully descend to the level of a brute; and let seven times pass over him, the exact length of these periods not being given.
v. 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers, according to their uniform judgment, and the demand by the word of the holy ones, the angels of God having reminded Him, as it were, of the requirements of His holiness and justice upon so flagrant a transgressor, to the intent that the living, all human beings on earth, may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, dispensing authority and power according to His will, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men, a man from the humblest rank of life, if God so chose, assuming the reins of government according to His disposition.
v. 18. This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen, all its details being clear before his eyes and set forth in the same manner. Now, thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, setting forth its meaning, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation; v. 7. but thou art able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee. The affairs of the whole world and of every nation on earth are in the hands of God, who directs them according to His good pleasure, in the interest of His Church.
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, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17 General Information:
General Information:
In this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar tells what God did to him. In verses 1-18, Nebuchadnezzar describes in the first person his vision from God. Verses 19-33 switch to the third person to describe the punishment of Nebuchadnezzar. Verses 34-37 change back to first person as Nebuchadnezzar describes his response to God. (See: First, Second, or Third Person)
Read full note →
King Nebuchadnezzar sent
This phrase is referring to the king's messenger as the king himself. AT: "Nebuchadnezzar sent his messengers with" (See: Metonymy)
peoples, nations, and languages
Here "nations" and "languages" represent people from different nations who speak different languages. See how you translated this in Daniel 3:4. AT: "people from different nations and who speak different languages" (See: Metonymy)
who lived on the earth
Kings would often exaggerate how wide their kingdom was. Nebuchadnezzar did rule over most of the known world at the time this book was written. AT: "who lived in the kingdom of Babylon" (See: Hyperbole and Generalization)
May your peace increase
This is a common greeting.
signs and wonders
These words share similar meanings and refer to the amazing things that God had done. (See: Doublet)
How great are his signs, and how mighty are his wonders!
Both of these phrases have the same meaning and are used to emphasize how great God's signs and wonders are. (See: Parallelism)
His kingdom is ... generation to generation
Both of these phrases have the same meaning and are repeated to emphasize how God's reign is forever. (See: Parallelism)
translationWords
king
Nebuchadnezzar
decree
people group
nation
peace
miracle
Most High
might
kingdom
eternity
dominion
generation
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, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 4:1-37 In his pride, King Nebuchadnezzar convinced himself that…
4:1-37 In his pride, King Nebuchadnezzar convinced himself that he had built Babylon (4:30; cp. Gen 11:1-9). He disregarded the warning of the Most High God (Dan 4:24-27). He had still not learned the lesson God was teaching him through these experiences, that the God of Daniel stands outside the world of time and space, and no human is equal to him. So God’s decree of judgment fell upon Nebuchadnezzar (4:17, 25-26; see Prov 16:18).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.