Text -- Daniel 2:1-40 (NET)

Nebuchadnezzar Has a Disturbing Dream

2:1 In the second year of his reign Nebuchadnezzar had many dreams. His mind was disturbed and he suffered from insomnia. 2:2 The king issued an order to summon the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and wise men in order to explain his dreams to him. So they came and awaited the king’s instructions. 2:3 The king told them, “I have had a dream, and I am anxious to understand the dream.” 2:4 The wise men replied to the king: What follows is in Aramaic “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will disclose its interpretation.” 2:5 The king replied to the wise men, “My decision is firm. If you do not inform me of both the dream and its interpretation, you will be dismembered and your homes reduced to rubble! 2:6 But if you can disclose the dream and its interpretation, you will receive from me gifts, a reward, and considerable honor. So disclose to me the dream and its interpretation!” 2:7 They again replied, “Let the king inform us of the dream; then we will disclose its interpretation.” 2:8 The king replied, “I know for sure that you are attempting to gain time, because you see that my decision is firm. 2:9 If you don’t inform me of the dream, there is only one thing that is going to happen to you. For you have agreed among yourselves to report to me something false and deceitful until such time as things might change. So tell me the dream, and I will have confidence that you can disclose its interpretation.” 2:10 The wise men replied to the king, “There is no man on earth who is able to disclose the king’s secret, for no king, regardless of his position and power, has ever requested such a thing from any magician, astrologer, or wise man. 2:11 What the king is asking is too difficult, and no one exists who can disclose it to the king, except for the gods– but they don’t live among mortals!” 2:12 Because of this the king got furiously angry and gave orders to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. 2:13 So a decree went out, and the wise men were about to be executed. They also sought Daniel and his friends so that they could be executed. 2:14 Then Daniel spoke with prudent counsel to Arioch, who was in charge of the king’s executioners and who had gone out to execute the wise men of Babylon. 2:15 He inquired of Arioch the king’s deputy, “Why is the decree from the king so urgent?” Then Arioch informed Daniel about the matter. 2:16 So Daniel went in and requested the king to grant him time, that he might disclose the interpretation to the king. 2:17 Then Daniel went to his home and informed his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the matter. 2:18 He asked them to pray for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery so that he and his friends would not be destroyed along with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 2:19 Then in a night vision the mystery was revealed to Daniel. So Daniel praised the God of heaven, 2:20 saying, “Let the name of God be praised forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to him. 2:21 He changes times and seasons, deposing some kings and establishing others. He gives wisdom to the wise; he imparts knowledge to those with understanding; 2:22 he reveals deep and hidden things. He knows what is in the darkness, and light resides with him. 2:23 O God of my fathers, I acknowledge and glorify you, for you have bestowed wisdom and power on me. Now you have enabled me to understand what I requested from you. For you have enabled me to understand the king’s dilemma.” 2:24 Then Daniel went in to see Arioch (whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon). He came and said to him, “Don’t destroy the wise men of Babylon! Escort me to the king, and I will disclose the interpretation to him!” 2:25 So Arioch quickly ushered Daniel into the king’s presence, saying to him, “I have found a man from the captives of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.” 2:26 The king then asked Daniel (whose name was also Belteshazzar), “Are you able to make known to me the dream that I saw, as well as its interpretation?” 2:27 Daniel replied to the king, “The mystery that the king is asking about is such that no wise men, astrologers, magicians, or diviners can possibly disclose it to the king. 2:28 However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the times to come. The dream and the visions you had while lying on your bed are as follows. 2:29 “As for you, O king, while you were in your bed your thoughts turned to future things. The revealer of mysteries has made known to you what will take place. 2:30 As for me, this mystery was revealed to me not because I possess more wisdom than any other living person, but so that the king may understand the interpretation and comprehend the thoughts of your mind. 2:31 “You, O king, were watching as a great statue– one of impressive size and extraordinary brightness– was standing before you. Its appearance caused alarm. 2:32 As for that statue, its head was of fine gold, its chest and arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of bronze. 2:33 Its legs were of iron; its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay. 2:34 You were watching as a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. 2:35 Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth. 2:36 This was the dream. Now we will set forth before the king its interpretation.

Daniel Interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream

2:37 “You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has granted you sovereignty, power, strength, and honor. 2:38 Wherever human beings, wild animals, and birds of the sky live– he has given them into your power. He has given you authority over them all. You are the head of gold. 2:39 Now after you another kingdom will arise, one inferior to yours. Then a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule in all the earth. 2:40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom, one strong like iron. Just like iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything, and as iron breaks in pieces all of these metals, so it will break in pieces and crush the others.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Dan 2:1

This was properly in the fifth year of that king's reign, but in the second year after Daniel had been brought before the king.

Wesley: Dan 2:1

It was one dream, but of many parts.

Wesley: Dan 2:2

Who pretended great skill in natural, and supernatural things.

Wesley: Dan 2:2

Or necromancers, who used diabolical arts.

Wesley: Dan 2:2

This name the magicians assumed as being national, and most noble.

Wesley: Dan 2:3

He remembered the fact in general, but could not repeat it perfectly. Yet it had left such an impression on him, as put him in great perplexity. The Lord hath ways to affright the greatest men in the world, in the midst of their security.

Wesley: Dan 2:4

That is in the Chaldee tongue, for Syria or Aram is sometimes taken in a large sense, containing, Assyria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Palestine, 2Ki 18:26. From hence all is written in the Chaldee language, to the eighth chapter.

Wesley: Dan 2:9

I will not retract my sentence.

Wesley: Dan 2:13

Daniel and his fellows were not called, because of their youth, which the Chaldeans despised. Here it is observable: The magicians confessed, that knowledge and revelation must come from God, and therefore what Daniel did, was not of any human strength. That the Lord held the governor's hands, so that he did not slay Daniel presently with the first. That Daniel by his prudence and piety, saved all the magicians lives.

Wesley: Dan 2:21

God can make the sun go back or stand still, as in Ahaz and Joshua's time, it is the great part of God's power and prerogative to change times. Daniel here attributes that to God, which Heathens attributed to nature, or chance. God only, that made all by his power, doth rule, and over - rule all by his providence.

Wesley: Dan 2:26

By this name of Belteshazzar he had given Daniel, he took courage as if he might expect some great thing from him: for the word signifies the keeper of secret treasure.

Wesley: Dan 2:28

Observe the prophet's wisdom, he does not fall abruptly upon the dream, but first prepares this lofty king for it, and by degrees labours to win him to the knowledge of the true God.

Wesley: Dan 2:30

But that the interpretation may be manifest to the king, and that thou mayest be better instructed and satisfied in thy mind.

Wesley: Dan 2:36

By this word we appears Daniel's piety and modesty, or he declares by it, that he and his companions had begged this skill from God, and therefore he did not arrogate it to himself.

Wesley: Dan 2:38

He hath given thee absolute dominion of all creatures, men and beasts within the bounds of thy vast kingdom.

Wesley: Dan 2:38

He was first in order, as the head is before the other parts, and the vision began in him, and descended downwards to the other three monarchies. He was the head of gold, because of the vast riches wherein this monarchy abounded, and because it stood longest, five hundred years, and was fortunate and flourishing to the last.

Wesley: Dan 2:39

This was that of the Medes and Persians, inferior in time for it lasted not half so long as the Assyrian in prosperity and tranquillity; yet, was this wonderful, rich and large for a time.

Wesley: Dan 2:39

This was the Grecian monarchy under Alexander the great, called brass, because coarser than the other.

Wesley: Dan 2:39

Alexander marched even to the Indies, and was said to conquer the world.

Wesley: Dan 2:40

This is the kingdom of the Romans, and was to last not only to Christ's first coming, but under antichrist, to his second coming. This did break in pieces all other kingdoms, being too strong for them, and brought all into subjection to it, 'till the stone fell upon it.

JFB: Dan 2:1

Dan 1:5 shows that "three years" had elapsed since Nebuchadnezzar had taken Jerusalem. The solution of this difficulty is: Nebuchadnezzar first ruled as subordinate to his father Nabopolassar, to which time the first chapter refers (Dan 1:1); whereas "the second year" in the second chapter is dated from his sole sovereignty. The very difficulty is a proof of genuineness; all was clear to the writer and the original readers from their knowledge of the circumstances, and so he adds no explanation. A forger would not introduce difficulties; the author did not then see any difficulty in the case. Nebuchadnezzar is called "king" (Dan 1:1), by anticipation. Before he left Judea, he became actual king by the death of his father, and the Jews always called him "king," as commander of the invading army.

JFB: Dan 2:1

It is significant that not to Daniel, but to the then world ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, the dream is vouchsafed. It was from the first of its representatives who had conquered the theocracy, that the world power was to learn its doom, as about to be in its turn subdued, and for ever by the kingdom of God. As this vision opens, so that in the seventh chapter developing the same truth more fully, closes the first part. Nebuchadnezzar, as vicegerent of God (Dan 2:37; compare Jer 25:9; Eze 28:12-15; Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1; Rom 13:1), is honored with the revelation in the form of a dream, the appropriate form to one outside the kingdom of God. So in the cases of Abimelech, Pharaoh, &c. (Gen 20:3; Gen 41:1-7), especially as the heathen attached such importance to dreams. Still it is not he, but an Israelite, who interprets it. Heathendom is passive, Israel active, in divine things, so that the glory redounds to "the God of heaven."

JFB: Dan 2:2

Here, a certain order of priest-magicians, who wore a peculiar dress, like that seen on the gods and deified men in the Assyrian sculptures. Probably they belonged exclusively to the Chaldeans, the original tribe of the Babylonian nation, just as the Magians were properly Medes.

JFB: Dan 2:3

He awoke in alarm, remembering that something solemn had been presented to him in a dream, without being able to recall the form in which it had clothed itself. His thoughts on the unprecedented greatness to which his power had attained (Dan 2:29) made him anxious to know what the issue of all this should be. God meets this wish in the way most calculated to impress him.

JFB: Dan 2:4

Here begins the Chaldee portion of Daniel, which continues to the end of the seventh chapter. In it the course, character, and crisis of the Gentile power are treated; whereas, in the other parts, which are in Hebrew, the things treated apply more particularly to the Jews and Jerusalem.

JFB: Dan 2:4

The Aramean Chaldee, the vernacular tongue of the king and his court; the prophet, by mentioning it here, hints at the reason of his own adoption of it from this point.

JFB: Dan 2:4

A formula in addressing kings, like our "Long live the king!" Compare 1Ki 1:31.

JFB: Dan 2:5

That is, The dream, "is gone from me." GESENIUS translates, "The decree is gone forth from me," irrevocable (compare Isa 45:23); namely, that you shall be executed, if you do not tell both the dream and the interpretation. English Version is simpler, which supposes the king himself to have forgotten the dream. Pretenders to supernatural knowledge often bring on themselves their own punishment.

JFB: Dan 2:5

(1Sa 15:33).

JFB: Dan 2:5

Rather, "a morass heap." The Babylonian houses were built of sun-dried bricks; when demolished, the rain dissolves the whole into a mass of mire, in the wet land, near the river [STUART]. As to the consistency of this cruel threat with Nebuchadnezzar's character, see Dan 4:17, "basest of men"; Jer 39:5-6; Jer 52:9-11.

JFB: Dan 2:6

Literally, "presents poured out in lavish profusion."

JFB: Dan 2:8

Literally, "buy." Compare Eph 5:16; Col 4:5, where the sense is somewhat different.

JFB: Dan 2:8

(See on Dan 2:5).

JFB: Dan 2:9

There can be no second one reversing the first (Est 4:11).

JFB: Dan 2:9

Deceitful.

JFB: Dan 2:9

Till a new state of things arrive, either by my ceasing to trouble myself about the dream, or by a change of government (which perhaps the agitation caused by the dream made Nebuchadnezzar to forebode, and so to suspect the Chaldeans of plotting).

JFB: Dan 2:9

If ye cannot tell the past, a dream actually presented to me, how can ye know, and show, the future events prefigured in it?

JFB: Dan 2:10

God makes the heathen out of their own mouth, condemn their impotent pretensions to supernatural knowledge, in order to bring out in brighter contrast His power to reveal secrets to His servants, though but "men upon the earth" (compare Dan 2:22-23).

JFB: Dan 2:10

That is, If such things could be done by men, other absolute princes would have required them from their magicians; as they have not, it is proof such things cannot be done and cannot be reasonably asked from us.

JFB: Dan 2:11

Answering to "no man upon the earth"; for there were, in their belief, "men in heaven," namely, men deified; for example, Nimrod. The supreme gods are referred to here, who alone, in the Chaldean view, could solve the difficulty, but who do not communicate with men. The inferior gods, intermediate between men and the supreme gods, are unable to solve it. Contrast with this heathen idea of the utter severance of God from man, Joh 1:14, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"; Daniel was in this case made His representative.

JFB: Dan 2:12-13

Daniel and his companions do not seem to have been actually numbered among the Magi or Chaldeans, and so were not summoned before the king. Providence ordered it so that all mere human wisdom should be shown vain before His divine power, through His servant, was put forth. Dan 2:24 shows that the decree for slaying the wise men had not been actually executed when Daniel interposed.

JFB: Dan 2:14

Commanding the executioners (Margin; and Gen 37:36, Margin).

JFB: Dan 2:15

Why were not all of us consulted before the decree for the execution of all was issued?

JFB: Dan 2:15

The agitation of the king as to his dream, and his abortive consultation of the Chaldeans. It is plain from this that Daniel was till now ignorant of the whole matter.

JFB: Dan 2:16

Perhaps not in person, but by the mediation of some courtier who had access to the king. His first direct interview seems to have been Dan 2:25 [BARNES].

JFB: Dan 2:16

The king granted "time" to Daniel, though he would not do so to the Chaldeans because they betrayed their lying purpose by requiring him to tell the dream, which Daniel did not. Providence doubtless influenced his mind, already favorable (Dan 1:19-20), to show special favor to Daniel.

JFB: Dan 2:17

Here appears the reason why Daniel sought "time" (Dan 2:16), namely he wished to engage his friends to join him in prayer to God to reveal the dream to him.

JFB: Dan 2:18

An illustration of the power of united prayer (Mat 18:19). The same instrumentality rescued Peter from his peril (Act 12:5-12).

JFB: Dan 2:19

(Job 33:15-16).

JFB: Dan 2:20

Responded to God's goodness by praises.

JFB: Dan 2:20

God in His revelation of Himself by acts of love, "wisdom, and might" (Jer 32:19).

JFB: Dan 2:21

"He herein gives a general preparatory intimation, that the dream of Nebuchadnezzar is concerning the changes and successions of kingdoms" [JEROME]. The "times" are the phases and periods of duration of empires (compare Dan 7:25; 1Ch 12:32; 1Ch 29:30); the "seasons" the fitting times for their culmination, decline, and fall (Ecc 3:1; Act 1:7; 1Th 5:1). The vicissitudes of states, with their times and seasons, are not regulated by chance or fate, as the heathen thought, but by God.

JFB: Dan 2:21

(Job 12:18; Psa 75:6-7; Jer 27:5; compare 1Sa 2:7-8).

JFB: Dan 2:21

(1Ki 3:9-12; Jam 1:5).

JFB: Dan 2:22

(Job 12:22). So spiritually (Eph 1:17-18).

JFB: Dan 2:22

(Psa 139:11-12; Heb 4:13).

JFB: Dan 2:22

(Jam 1:17; 1Jo 1:4). Apocalypse (or "revelation") signifies a divine, prophecy a human, activity. Compare 1Co 14:6, where the two are distinguished. The prophet is connected with the outer world, addressing to the congregation the words with which the Spirit of God supplies him; he speaks in the Spirit, but the apocalyptic seer is in the Spirit in his whole person (Rev 1:10; Rev 4:2). The form of the apocalyptic revelation (the very term meaning that the veil that hides the invisible world is taken off) is subjectively either the dream, or, higher, the vision. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream was a preparatory education to Daniel himself. By gradual steps, each revelation preparing him for the succeeding one, God fitted him for disclosures becoming more and more special. In the second and fourth chapters he is but an interpreter of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams; then he has a dream himself, but it is only a vision in a dream of the night (Dan 7:1-2); then follows a vision in a waking state (Dan 8:1-3); lastly, in the two final revelations (Dan 9:20; Dan 10:4-5) the ecstatic state is no longer needed. The progression in the form answers to the progression in the contents of his prophecy; at first general outlines, and these afterwards filled up with minute chronological and historical details, such as are not found in the Revelation of John, though, as became the New Testament, the form of revelation is the highest, namely, clear waking visions [AUBERLEN].

JFB: Dan 2:23

He ascribes all the glory to God.

JFB: Dan 2:23

Thou hast shown Thyself the same God of grace to me, a captive exile, as Thou didst to Israel of old and this on account of the covenant made with our "fathers" (Luk 1:54-55; compare Psa 106:45).

JFB: Dan 2:23

Thou being the fountain of both; referring to Dan 2:20. Whatever wise ability I have to stay the execution of the king's cruel decree, is Thy gift.

JFB: Dan 2:23

The revelation was given to Daniel, as "me" implies; yet with just modesty he joins his friends with him; because it was to their joint prayers, and not to his individually, that he owed the revelation from God.

JFB: Dan 2:23

The very words in which the Chaldeans had denied the possibility of any man on earth telling the dream ("not a man upon the earth can show the king's matter," Dan 2:10). Impostors are compelled by the God of truth to eat up their own words.

JFB: Dan 2:24

Because of having received the divine communication.

JFB: Dan 2:24

Implying that he had not previously been in person before the king (see on Dan 2:16).

JFB: Dan 2:25

Like all courtiers, in announcing agreeable tidings, he ascribes the merit of the discovery to himself [JEROME]. So far from it being a discrepancy, that he says nothing of the previous understanding between him and Daniel, or of Daniel's application to the king (Dan 2:15-16), it is just what we should expect. Arioch would not dare to tell an absolute despot that he had stayed the execution of his sanguinary decree, on his own responsibility; but would, in the first instance, secretly stay it until Daniel had got, by application from the king, the time required, without Arioch seeming to know of Daniel's application as the cause of the respite; then, when Daniel had received the revelation, Arioch would in trembling haste bring him in, as if then for the first time he had "found" him. The very difficulty when cleared up is a proof of genuineness, as it never would be introduced by a forger.

JFB: Dan 2:27

Daniel, being learned in all the lore of the Chaldeans (Dan 1:4), could authoritatively declare the impossibility of mere man solving the king's difficulty.

JFB: Dan 2:27

From a root, "to cut off"; referring to their cutting the heavens into divisions, and so guessing at men's destinies from the place of the stars at one's birth.

JFB: Dan 2:28

In contrast to "the wise men," &c. (Dan 2:27).

JFB: Dan 2:28

(Amo 3:7; Amo 4:13). Compare Gen 41:45, Zaphnath-paaneah, "revealer of secrets," the title given to Joseph.

JFB: Dan 2:28

Literally, "in the after days" (Dan 2:29); "hereafter" (Gen 49:1): It refers to the whole future, including the Messianic days, which is the final dispensation (Isa 2:2).

JFB: Dan 2:28

Conceptions formed in the brain.

JFB: Dan 2:29

God met with a revelation Nebuchadnezzar, who had been meditating on the future destiny of his vast empire.

JFB: Dan 2:30

Not on account of any previous wisdom which I may have manifested (Dan 1:17, Dan 1:20). The specially-favored servants of God in all ages disclaim merit in themselves and ascribe all to the grace and power of God (Gen 41:16; Act 3:12). The "as for me," disclaiming extraordinary merit, contrasts elegantly with "as for thee," whereby Daniel courteously, but without flattery, implies, that God honored Nebuchadnezzar, as His vicegerent over the world kingdoms, with a revelation on the subject uppermost in his thoughts, the ultimate destinies of those kingdoms.

JFB: Dan 2:30

A Chaldee idiom for, "to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king."

JFB: Dan 2:30

Thy subject of thought before falling asleep. Or, perhaps the probation of Nebuchadnezzar's character through this revelation may be the meaning intended (compare 2Ch 32:31; Luk 2:35).

JFB: Dan 2:31

The world power in its totality appears as a colossal human form: Babylon the head of gold, Medo-Persia the breast and two arms of silver, Græco-Macedonia the belly and two thighs of brass, and Rome, with its Germano-Slavonic offshoots, the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, the fourth still existing. Those kingdoms only are mentioned which stand in some relation to the kingdom of God; of these none is left out; the final establishment of that kingdom is the aim of His moral government of the world. The colossus of metal stands on weak feet, of clay. All man's glory is as ephemeral and worthless as chaff (compare 1Pe 1:24). But the kingdom of God, small and unheeded as a "stone" on the ground is compact in its homogeneous unity; whereas the world power, in its heterogeneous constituents successively supplanting one another, contains the elements of decay. The relation of the stone to the mountain is that of the kingdom of the cross (Mat 16:23; Luk 24:26) to the kingdom of glory, the latter beginning, and the former ending when the kingdom of God breaks in pieces the kingdoms of the world (Rev 11:15). Christ's contrast between the two kingdoms refers to this passage.

JFB: Dan 2:31

Literally, "one image that was great." Though the kingdoms were different, it was essentially one and the same world power under different phases, just as the image was one, though the parts were of different metals.

JFB: Dan 2:32

On ancient coins states are often represented by human figures. The head and higher parts signify the earlier times; the lower, the later times. The metals become successively baser and baser, implying the growing degeneracy from worse to worse. Hesiod, two hundred years before Daniel, had compared the four ages to the four metals in the same order; the idea is sanctioned here by Holy Writ. It was perhaps one of those fragments of revelation among the heathen derived from the tradition as to the fall of man. The metals lessen in specific gravity, as they downwards; silver is not so heavy as gold, brass not so heavy as silver, and iron not so heavy as brass, the weight thus being arranged in the reverse of stability [TREGELLES]. Nebuchadnezzar derived his authority from God, not from man, nor as responsible to man. But the Persian king was so far dependent on others that he could not deliver Daniel from the princes (Dan 6:14-15); contrast Dan 5:18-19, as to Nebuchadnezzar's power from God, whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive" (compare Ezr 7:14; Est 1:13-16). Græco-Macedonia betrays its deterioration in its divisions, not united as Babylon and Persia. Iron is stronger than brass, but inferior in other respects; so Rome hardy and strong to tread down the nations, but less kingly and showing its chief deterioration in its last state. Each successive kingdom incorporates its predecessor (compare Dan 5:28). Power that in Nebuchadnezzar's hands was a God-derived (Dan 2:37-38) autocracy, in the Persian king's was a rule resting on his nobility of person and birth, the nobles being his equals in rank, but not in office; in Greece, an aristocracy not of birth, but individual influence, in Rome, lowest of all, dependent entirely on popular choice, the emperor being appointed by popular military election.

JFB: Dan 2:33

As the two arms of silver denote the kings of the Medes and Persians [JOSEPHUS]; and the two thighs of brass the Seleucidæ of Syria and Lagidæ of Egypt, the two leading sections into which Græco-Macedonia parted, so the two legs of iron signify the two Roman consuls [NEWTON]. The clay, in Dan 2:41, "potter's clay," Dan 2:43, "miry clay," means "earthenware," hard but brittle (compare Psa 2:9; Rev 2:27, where the same image is used of the same event); the feet are stable while bearing only direct pressure, but easily "broken" to pieces by a blow (Dan 2:34), the iron intermixed not retarding, but hastening, such a result.

JFB: Dan 2:34

Messiah and His kingdom (Gen 49:24; Psa 118:22; Isa 28:16). In its relations to Israel, it is a "stone of stumbling" (Isa 8:14; Act 4:11; 1Pe 2:7-8) on which both houses of Israel are broken, not destroyed (Mat 21:32). In its relation to the Church, the same stone which destroys the image is the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). In its relation to the Gentile world power, the stone is its destroyer (Dan 2:35, Dan 2:44; compare Zec 12:3). Christ saith (Mat 21:44, referring to Isa 8:14-15), "Whosoever shall fall on this stone (that is, stumble, and be offended, at Him, as the Jews were, from whom, therefore, He says, 'The kingdom shall be taken') shall be broken; but (referring to Dan 2:34-35) on whomsoever it shall fall (referring to the world power which had been the instrument of breaking the Jews), it will (not merely break, but) grind him to powder" (1Co 15:24). The falling of the stone of the feet of the image cannot refer to Christ at His first advent, for the fourth kingdom was not then as yet divided--no toes were in existence (see on Dan 2:44).

JFB: Dan 2:34

Namely, from "the mountain" (Dan 2:45); namely, Mount Zion (Isa 2:2), and antitypically, the heavenly mount of the Father's glory, from whom Christ came.

JFB: Dan 2:34

Explained in Dan 2:44, "The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom," as contrasted with the image which was made with hands of man. Messiah not created by human agency, but conceived by the Holy Ghost (Mat 1:20; Luk 1:35; compare Zec 4:6; Mar 14:58; Heb 9:11, Heb 9:24). So "not made with hands," that is, heavenly, 2Co 5:1; spiritual, Col 2:11. The world kingdoms were reared by human ambition: but this is the "kingdom of heaven"; "not of this world" (Joh 18:36). As the fourth kingdom, or Rome, was represented in a twofold state, first strong, with legs of iron, then weak, with toes part of iron, part of clay; so this fifth kingdom, that of Christ, is seen conversely, first insignificant as a "stone," then as a "mountain" filling the whole earth. The ten toes are the ten lesser kingdoms into which the Roman kingdom was finally to be divided; this tenfold division here hinted at is not specified in detail till the seventh chapter. The fourth empire originally was bounded in Europe pretty nearly by the line of the Rhine and Danube; in Asia by the Euphrates. In Africa it possessed Egypt and the north coasts; South Britain and Dacia were afterwards added but were ultimately resigned. The ten kingdoms do not arise until a deterioration (by mixing clay with the iron) has taken place; they are in existence when Christ comes in glory, and then are broken in pieces. The ten have been sought for in the invading hosts of the fifth and sixth century. But though many provinces were then severed from Rome as independent kingdoms, the dignity of emperor still continued, and the imperial power was exercised over Rome itself for two centuries. So the tenfold divisions cannot be looked for before A.D. 731. But the East is not to be excluded, five toes being on each foot. Thus no point of time before the overthrow of the empire at the taking of Constantinople by the Turks (A.D. 1453) can be assigned for the division. It seems, therefore, that the definite ten will be the ultimate development of the Roman empire just before the rise of Antichrist, who shall overthrow three of the kings, and, after three and a half years, he himself be overthrown by Christ in person. Some of the ten kingdoms will, doubtless, be the same as some past and present divisions of the old Roman empire, which accounts for the continuity of the connection between the toes and legs, a gap of centuries not being interposed, as is objected by opponents of the futurist theory. The lists of the ten made by the latter differ from one another; and they are set aside by the fact that they include countries which were never Roman, and exclude one whole section of the empire, namely, the East [TREGELLES].

JFB: Dan 2:34

The last state of the Roman empire. Not "upon his legs." Compare "in the days of these kings" (see on Dan 2:44).

JFB: Dan 2:35

Excluding a contemporaneous existence of the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God (in its manifested, as distinguished from its spiritual, phase). The latter is not gradually to wear away the former, but to destroy it at once, and utterly (2Th 1:7-10; 2Th 2:8). However, the Hebrew may be translated, "in one discriminate mass."

JFB: Dan 2:35

Image of the ungodly, as they shall be dealt with in the judgment (Psa 1:4-5; Mat 3:12).

JFB: Dan 2:35

Grain was winnowed in the East on an elevated space in the open air, by throwing the grain into the air with a shovel, so that the wind might clear away the chaff.

JFB: Dan 2:35

(Rev 20:11; compare Psa 37:10, Psa 37:36; Psa 103:16).

JFB: Dan 2:35

Cut out of the mountain (Dan 2:45) originally, it ends in becoming a mountain. So the kingdom of God, coming from heaven originally, ends in heaven being established on earth (Rev 21:1-3).

JFB: Dan 2:35

(Isa 11:9; Hab 2:14). It is to do so in connection with Jerusalem as the mother Church (Psa 80:9; Isa 2:2-3).

JFB: Dan 2:36

Daniel and his three friends.

JFB: Dan 2:37

The committal of power in fullest plenitude belongs to Nebuchadnezzar personally, as having made Babylon the mighty empire it was. In twenty-three years after him the empire was ended: with him its greatness is identified (Dan 4:30), his successors having done nothing notable. Not that he actually ruled every part of the globe, but that God granted him illimitable dominion in whatever direction his ambition led him, Egypt, Nineveh, Arabia, Syria, Tyre, and its Phœnician colonies (Jer 27:5-8). Compare as to Cyrus, Ezr 1:2.

JFB: Dan 2:38

The dominion originally designed for man (Gen 1:28; Gen 2:19-20), forfeited by sin; temporarily delegated to Nebuchadnezzar and the world powers; but, as they abuse the trust for self, instead of for God, to be taken from them by the Son of man, who will exercise it for God, restoring in His person to man the lost inheritance (Psa 8:4-6).

JFB: Dan 2:38

Alluding to the riches of Babylon, hence called "the golden city" (Isa 14:4; Jer 51:7; Rev 18:16).

JFB: Dan 2:39

That Medo-Persia is the second kingdom appears from Dan 5:28 and Dan 8:20. Compare 2Ch 36:20; Isa 21:2.

JFB: Dan 2:39

"The kings of Persia were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire" [PRIDEAUX]. Politically (which is the main point of view here) the power of the central government in which the nobles shared with the king, being weakened by the growing independence of the provinces, was inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose sole word was law throughout his empire.

JFB: Dan 2:39

The Greeks (the third empire, Dan 8:21; Dan 10:20; Dan 11:2-4) were celebrated for the brazen armor of their warriors. JEROME fancifully thinks that the brass, as being a clear-sounding metal, refers to the eloquence for which Greece was famed. The "belly," in Dan 2:32, may refer to the drunkenness of Alexander and the luxury of the Ptolemies [TIRINUS].

JFB: Dan 2:39

Alexander commanded that he should be called "king of all the world" [JUSTIN, 12. sec. 16.9; ARRIAN, Campaigns of Alexander, 7. sec. 15]. The four successors (diadochi) who divided Alexander's dominions at his death, of whom the Seleucidæ in Syria and the Lagidæ in Egypt were chief, held the same empire.

JFB: Dan 2:40

This vision sets forth the character of the Roman power, rather than its territorial extent [TREGELLES].

JFB: Dan 2:40

So, in righteous retribution, itself will at last be broken in pieces (Dan 2:44) by the kingdom of God (Rev 13:10).

Clarke: Dan 2:1

The second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar - That is, the second year of his reigning alone, for he was king two years before his father’ s death. See the notes on Dan 1:1 (note). This was therefore the fifth year of his reign, and the fourth of the captivity of Daniel

Clarke: Dan 2:1

Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams wherewith his spirit was troubled - The dream had made a deep and solemn impression upon his mind; and, having forgotten all but general circumstances, his mind was distressed.

Clarke: Dan 2:2

The magicians - חרטמים chartummim . See the note on Gen 41:8 (note)

Clarke: Dan 2:2

The astrologers - אשפים ashshaphim . Perhaps from נשף nashaph , to breathe, because they laid claim to Divine inspiration; but probably the persons in question were the philosophers and astronomers among the Babylonians

Clarke: Dan 2:2

The sorcerers - מכשפים mechashshephim . See the note on Deu 18:10, and on Exo 22:18 (note), and Lev 19:31 (note), where several of these arts are explained

Clarke: Dan 2:2

The Chaldeans - Who these were is difficult to be ascertained. They might be a college of learned men, where all arts and sciences were professed and taught. The Chaldeans were the most ancient philosophers of the world; they might have been originally inhabitants of the Babylonian Irak; and still have preserved to themselves exclusively the name of Chaldeans, to distinguish themselves from other nations and peoples who inhabited the one hundred and twenty provinces of which the Babylonish government was composed.

Clarke: Dan 2:4

Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriac - ארמית aramith , the language of Aram or Syria. What has been generally called the Chaldee

Clarke: Dan 2:4

O king, live for ever - מלכא לעלמין חיי Malca leolmin cheyi . With these words the Chaldee part of Daniel commences; and continues to the end of the seventh chapter. These kinds of compliments are still in use in the East Indies. A superior gives a blessing to an inferior by saying to him, when the latter is in the act of doing him reverence, "Long life to thee."A poor man, going into the presence of a king to solicit a favor, uses the same kind of address: O father, thou art the support of the destitute; mayest thou live to old age! - Ward’ s Customs.

Clarke: Dan 2:5

Ye shall be cut in pieces - This was arbitrary and tyrannical in the extreme; but, in the order of God’ s providence, it was overruled to serve the most important purpose.

Clarke: Dan 2:8

That ye would gain the time - The king means either that they wished to prolong the time that he might recollect it, or get indifferent about it; or that they might invent something in the place of it; or make their escape to save their lives, after having packed up their valuables. See Dan 2:9.

Clarke: Dan 2:10

There is not a man upon the earth - The thing is utterly impossible to man. This was their decision: and when Daniel gave the dream, with its interpretation, they knew that the spirit of the holy gods was in him. So, even according to their own theology, he was immeasurably greater than the wisest in Babylon or in the world.

Clarke: Dan 2:13

They sought Daniel and his fellows - As the decree stated that all the wise men of Babylon should be slain, the four young Hebrews, being reputed among the wisest, were considered as sentenced to death also.

Clarke: Dan 2:14

Captain of the king’ s guard - Chief of the king’ s executioners or slaughter men. Margin, רב תבחיא rab tabachaiya , chief of the butchers, he that took off the heads of those whom the king ordered to be slain, because they had in any case displeased him. "Go and bring me the head of Giaffer."The honorable butcher went and brought the head in a bag on a dish. It was Herod’ s chief butcher that brought the head of John the Baptist in a dish to the delicate daughter of Herodias. This was the custom of the country. No law, no judge, no jury. The will or caprice of the king governed all things. Happy England! know and value thy excellent privileges!

Clarke: Dan 2:16

That he would give him time - That is, that he might seek unto God for a revelation of the thing. The Chaldeans dared not even to promise this; they would only pledge themselves for the interpretation, provided the king would furnish the dream. Daniel engages both to find the lost dream, and to give the proper interpretation.

Clarke: Dan 2:18

That they would desire mercies - For this Daniel had requested a little time; and doubtless both he and his three companions prayed incessantly till God gave the wished for revelation; but whether it was given that same sight, we do not know.

Clarke: Dan 2:19

Then was the secret revealed - in a night vision - Daniel either dreamed it, or it was represented to his mind by an immediate inspiration.

Clarke: Dan 2:20

Wisdom and might are his - He knows all things, and can do all things.

Clarke: Dan 2:21

He changeth the times - Time, duration, succession are his, and under his dominion. It is in the course of his providence that one king is put down, and another raised up; and therefore he can distinctly tell what he has purposed to do in the great empires of the earth.

Clarke: Dan 2:23

I thank thee and praise thee - No wonder he should feel gratitude, when God by this merciful interference had saved both the life of him and his fellows; and was about to reflect the highest credit on the God of the Jews, and on the people themselves.

Clarke: Dan 2:24

Destroy not the wise men - The decree was suspended till it should be seen whether Daniel could tell the dream, and give its interpretation.

Clarke: Dan 2:27

Cannot the wise men - Cannot your own able men, aided by your gods, tell you the secret? This question was necessary in order that the king might see the foolishness of depending on the one, or worshipping the other

Clarke: Dan 2:27

The soothsayers - One of our old words: "The tellers of truth:"but גזרין gazerin is the name of another class of those curious artists, unless we suppose it to mean the same as the Chaldeans, Dan 2:2. They are supposed to be persons who divined by numbers, amulets, etc. There are many conjectures about them, which, whatever learning they show, cast little light upon this place.

Clarke: Dan 2:28

There is a God in heaven - To distinguish him from those idols, the works of men’ s hands; and from the false gods in which the Chaldeans trusted

Clarke: Dan 2:28

In the latter days - A phrase which, in the prophets, generally means the times of the Messiah. God is about to show what shall take place from this time to the latest ages of the world. And the vision most certainly contains a very extensive and consecutive prophecy; which I shall treat more largely at the close of the chapter, giving in the mean time a short exposition.

Clarke: Dan 2:31

A great image - Representing the four great monarchies.

Clarke: Dan 2:32

Head was of fine gold - The Babylonish empire, the first and greatest

Clarke: Dan 2:32

Breast and his arms of silver - The Medo-Persian empire, under Cyrus, etc

Clarke: Dan 2:32

His belly and his thighs of brass - The Macedonian empire, under Alexander the Great, and his successors.

Clarke: Dan 2:33

His legs of iron - The Roman government

Clarke: Dan 2:33

His feet part of iron and part of clay - The same, mixed with the barbaric nations, and divided into ten kingdoms. See at the end of the chapter.

Clarke: Dan 2:34

A stone was cut out - The fifth monarchy; the spiritual kingdom of the Lord Jesus, which is to last for ever, and diffuse itself over the whole earth.

Clarke: Dan 2:35

The stone - became a great mountain - There is the kingdom אבן eben , of the stone, and the kingdom of the mountain. See at the end at the chapter.

Clarke: Dan 2:37

The God of heaven - Not given by thy own gods, nor acquired by thy own skill and prowess; it is a Divine gift

Clarke: Dan 2:37

Power - To rule this kingdom

Clarke: Dan 2:37

And strength - To defend it against all foes

Clarke: Dan 2:37

And glory - Great honor and dignity.

Clarke: Dan 2:38

Thou art this head of gold - See on Dan 2:31-34 (note), and at the end.

Calvin: Dan 2:1

Daniel here says, — King Nebuchadnezzar dreamt in the second year of his reign. This seems contrary to the opinion expressed in the first chapter. For if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, how could Daniel be already reckoned among the wise men and astrologers, while he was as yet but a disciple? Thus it is easily gathered from the context that he and his companions were already brought forward to minister before the king. At the first glance these things are not in accordance, because in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign Daniel and his companions were delivered into training; and in the second he was in danger of death through being in the number of the Magi. Some, as we have mentioned elsewhere, count the second year from the capture and destruction of the city, for they say Nebuchadnezzar was called king from the time at which he obtained the monarchy in peace. Before he had cut off the City and Temple with the Nation, his Monarchy could not be treated as united; hence they refer this to the capture of the city, as I have said. But I rather incline to another conjecture as more probable — that of his reigning with his father, and I have shewn that when he besieged Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachim, he was sent by his father; he next returned to Chaldea from the Egyptian expedition, through his wish to repress revolts, if any one should dare to rebel. In this, therefore, there is nothing out of place. Nebuchadnezzar reigned before the death of his father, because he had already been united with him in the supreme power; then he reigned alone, and the present narrative happened in the second year of his reign. In this explanation there is nothing forced, and as the history agrees with it, I adopt it as the best.

He says — he dreamt dreams, and yet only one Dream is narrated; but since many things were involved in this dream, the use of the plural number is not surprising. It is now added, his, spirit was contrite, to shew us how uncommon the dream really was. For Nebuchadnezzar did not then begin to dream, and was not formerly so frightened every night as to send for all the Magi. Hence, in this dream there was something extraordinary, which Daniel wished to express in these words. The clause at the end of the verse which they usually translate his sleep was interrupted, does not seem to have this sense; another explanation which our brother D. Antonius gave you ¹⁰¹ suits it better; namely, — his sleep was upon him, meaning he began to sleep again. The genuine and simple sense of the words seems to me — his spirit was confused, that is, very great terror had seized on his mind. He knew, indeed, the dream to be sent from heaven; next, being astonished, he slept again, and became like a dead man, and when he considered the interpretation of the dream, he became stupified and returned to sleep and forgot the vision, as we shall afterwards see. It follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:2

This verse more clearly proves what I have already said that the dream caused the king to feel God to be its author. Though this was not his first dream, yet the terror which God impressed on his mind, compelled him to summon all the Magi, since he could not rest even by returning to sleep. He felt as. it were a sing in his mind, since God did not suffer him to rest, but wished him to be troubled until he received an interpretation of the dream. Even profane writers very correctly consider dreams connected with divine agency. They express various opinions, because they could not know anything with perfect certainty; yet the persuasion was fixed in their minds relative to some divine agency in dreams. It would be foolish and puerile to extend this to all dreams; as we see some persons never passing by a single one without a conjecture, and thus making themselves ridiculous. We know dreams to arise from different causes; as, for instance, from our daily thoughts. If I have meditated on anything during the daytime, something occurs to me at night in a dream; because the mind is not completely buried in slumber, but retains some seed of intelligence, although it be suffocated. Experience also sufficiently teaches us how our daily thoughts recur during sleep, and hence the various affections of the mind and body produce, many dreams. If any one retires to bed in sorrow from either the death of a friend, or any loss, or through suffering any injury or adversity, his dreams will partake of the previous preparation of his mind. The body itself causes dreams, as we see in the case of those who suffer from fever; when thirst prevails they imagine fountains, burnings, and similar fancies. We perceive also how intemperance disturbs men in their sleep; for drunken men start and dream in their sleep, as if in a state of frenzy. As there are many natural causes for dreams, it would be quite out of character to be seeking for divine agency or fixed reason in them all; and on the other hand, it is sufficiently evident that some dreams are under divine regulation. I omit events which have been related in ancient histories; but surely the dream of Calphurnia, the wife of Julius Caesar, could not be fictitious; because, before he was slain it was commonly reported, “Caesar has been killed,” just as she dreamt it. The same may be said of the physician of Augustus, who had ordered him to leave his tent the day of the battle of Pharsalia, and yet there was no reason why the physician should order him to be carried out of the tent on a litter, unless he had dreamt it to be necessary. What was the nature of that necessity? why, such as could not be conjectured by human skill, for the camp of Augustus was taken at that very moment. I doubt not there are many fabulous accounts, but here I may choose what I shall believe, and I do not yet touch on dreams which are mentioned in God’s word, for I am merely speaking of what profane men were compelled to think on this subject. Although Aristotle freely rejected all sense of divination, through being prejudiced in the matter, and desiring to reduce the nature of Deity within the scope of human ingenuity, and to comprehend all things by his acuteness; yet he expresses this confession, that all dreams do not happen rashly but that μαντίκη , that is “divination,” is the source of some of them. He disputes, indeed, whether they belong to the intellectual or sensitive portion of the mind, and concludes they belong to the latter, as far as it is imaginative. Afterwards, when inquiring whether they are causes or anything of that kind, he is disposed to view them only as symptoms or accidents fortuitously contingent. Meanwhile, he will not admit dreams to be sent from heaven; and adds as his reason, that many stupid men dream, and manifest the same reason in them as the wisest. He notices next the brute creation, some of which, as elephants, dream. As the brutes dream, and wise men more seldom than the rudest idiots, Aristotle does not think it probable that dreams are divinely inspired. He denies, therefore, that they are sent from God, or divine, but asserts that they spring from the Daimones; ¹⁰⁴ that is, he fancies them to be something between the natures of the Deity and the Daimones. We know the sense in which philosophers use that word, which, in Scripture, has usually a bad sense. He says that dreams were occasioned by those aerial inspirations, but are not from God.; because, he says, man’s nature is not divine, but inferior; and yet more than earthly, since it, is angelic. Cicero discourses on this subject at great, length, in his first book on Divination; although he refutes in the second all he had said, while he was a disciple of the Academy. ¹⁰⁵ For among other arguments in proof of the existence of deities, he adds dreams; — if there is any divination in dreams, it follows that there is a. Deity in heaven, for the mind of man cannot conceive of any dream without divine inspiration. Cicero’s reasoning is valid; if there is divination in dreams, then is there also a Deity. The distinction made by Macrobius is worthy of notice; although he ignorantly confounds species and genera, through being a person of imperfect judgment, who strung together in rhapsodies whatever he read, without either discrimination or arrangement. This, then, should remain fixed, — the opinion concerning the existence of some kind of divine agency in dreams was not rashly implanted in the hearts of all men. Hence that expression of Homer’s, a dream is from Jupiter. ¹⁰⁶ He does not mean this generally and promiscuously of all dreams; but he takes notice of it, when bringing the characters of his heroes before us, since they were divinely admonished in their sleep.

I now come to Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream. In this, two points are worthy of remark. First, all remembrance of its subject was entirely obliterated; and secondly, no interpretation was; found for it. Sometimes the remembrance of a dream was not; lost while its interpretation was unknown. But here Nebuchadnezzar was not only perplexed at the interpretation of the dream, but even the vision itself had vanished, and thus his perplexity and anxiety was doubled. As to the next point, there is no novelty in Daniel making known the interpretation; for it sometimes, but rarely, happens that a person dreams without a figure or enigma, and with great plainness, without any need of conjurers — a name given to interpreters of dreams. This indeed happens but seldom, since the usual plan of dreams is for God to speak by them allegorically and obscurely. And this occurs in the case of the profane as well as of the servants of God. When Joseph dreamt that he was adored by the sun and moon, (Gen 37:9,) he was ignorant of its meaning; when he dreamt of his sheaf being adored by his brothers sheaves, he understood not its meaning, but related it simply to his brothers. Hence God often speaks in enigmas by dreams, until the interpretation is added. And such was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

We perceive, then, that God reveals his will even to unbelievers, but not clearly; because seeing they do not see, just as if they were gazing at a closed book or sealed letter; as Isaiah says, — God speaks to unbelievers in broken accents and with a stammering tongue. (Isa 28:11 and Isa 29:11.) God’s will was so revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that he still remained perplexed and lay completely astonished. His dream would have been of no use to him, unless, as we shall see, Daniel had been presented to him as its interpreter. For God not only wished to hold the king in suspense, but he thus blotted out the remembrance of the dream from his mind, to increase the power of his sting. As mankind are accustomed to neglect the dreams which they do not remember, God inwardly fastened such a sting in the mind of this unbeliever, as I have already said, that he could not rest, but was always wakeful in the midst of his dreaming, because God was drawing him to himself by secret chains. This is the true reason why God denied him the immediate explanation of his dream, and blotted out the remembrance of it from his mind, until he should receive both from Daniel. We will leave the rest till tomorrow.

Calvin: Dan 2:3

Daniel relates first the great confidence of the Chaldeans, since they dared to promise the interpretation of a dream as yet unknown to them. The king says he was troubled through desire to understand the dream; by which he signifies that a kind of riddle was divinely set, before him. He confesses his ignorance, while the importance of the object may be gathered from his words. Since, then, the king testifies his desire to inquire concerning a matter obscure and profound, and exceeding his comprehension, and since he clearly expresses himself to be contrite in spirit, some kind of fear and anxiety ought to have touched these Chaldeans; yet they securely promise to offer the very best interpretation of the dream as soon as they understood it. When they say, O king live for ever, it is not a simple and unmeaning prayer, but they rather order the king to be cheerful and in good spirits, as they are able to remove all care and anxiety from his mind, because the explanation of the dream was at hand. We know how liberal in words those impostors always were; according to the language of an ancient poet, they enriched the ears and emptied the purses of others. And truly those who curiously court the breeze with their ears deserve to feed upon it, and to be taken in by such deceits. And all ages have proved that nothing exceeds the confidence of astrologers, who are not content with true science, but divine every one’s life and death, and conjecture all events, and profess to know everything.

We must hold generally that the art of conjecturing from dreams is rash and foolish; there is, indeed, a certain fixed interpretation of dreams, as we said yesterday, yet as we shall afterwards see, this ought not to be ascribed to a sure science, but to God’s singular gift. As, therefore, a prophet will not gather what he has to say from fixed reasonings, but will explain God’s oracles, so also he who will interpret dreams correctly, will not follow certain disthief rules; but if God has explained the meaning of the dream, he will then undertake the office of interpreting it according to his endowment with this gift. Properly speaking, these two flyings are opposite to each other and do not mutually agree, general and perpetual science, and special revelation. Since God claims this power of opening by means of a dream, what he has engraven on the minds of men, hence art and science cannot obtain it, but a revelation from the spirit must be waited for. When the Chaldeans thus boldly promise to become good interpreters of the dream, they not only betray their rashness, but become mere impostors, who pretend to be proficients in a science of which they know nothing, as if they could predict by their conjectures the meaning of the king’s dream. It now follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:5

Here the king requires from the Chaldeans more than they professed to afford him; for although their boasting, as we have said, was foolish in promising to interpret any dream, yet they never claimed the power of narrating to any one his dreams. The king, therefore, seems to me to act unjustly in not regarding what they had hitherto professed, and the limits of their art and science, if indeed they had any science! When he says — the matter or speech had departed from him, the words admit of a twofold sense, for מלתה , millethah, may be taken for all “ edict, ” as we shall afterwards see; and so it might be read, has flowed away; but since the same form of expression will be shortly repeated when it seems to be, used of the dream, (Dan 2:8,) this explanation is suitable enough, as the king says his dream had vanished so I leave the point undecided. It is worthwhile noticing again what we said yesterday, that terror was so fastened upon the king as to deprive him of rest, and yet he was not so instructed that the least taste of the revelation remained; just as if an ox, stunned by a severe blow, should toss himself about, and roll over and over. Such is the madness of this wretched king, because God harasses him with dreadful torments; all the while the remembrance of the dream is altogether obliterated from his mind. Hence he confesses — his dream had escaped him; and although the Magi had prescribed the limits of their science, yet through their boasting themselves to be interpreters of the gods, he did not hesitate to exact of them what they had never professed. This is the just reward of arrogance, when men puffed up with a perverse confidence assume before others more than they ought, and forgetful of all modesty wish to be esteemed angelic spirits. Without the slightest doubt God wished to make a laughingstock of this foolish boasting which was conspicuous among the Chaldees, when the king sharply demanded of them to relate his dream, as well as to offer an exposition of it.

He afterwards adds threats, clearly tyrannical; unless they expound the dream their life is in danger No common punishment is threatened, but he says they should become “ pieces ” — if we take the meaning of the word to signify pieces. If we think it means “blood, ” the sense will be the same. This wrath of the king is clearly furious, nay, Nebuchadnezzar in this respect surpassed all the cruelty of wild beasts. What fault could be imputed to the Chaldeans if they did not know the king’s dream? — surely, they had never professed this, as we shall afterwards see; and no, king had ever demanded what was beyond the faculty of man. We perceive how the long manifested a brutal rage when he denounced death and every cruel torture on the Magi and sorcerers. Tyrants, indeed, often give the reins to their lust, and think all things lawful to themselves; whence, also, these words of the tragedian, Whatever he wishes is lawful. And Sophocles says, with evident truth, that any one entering a tyrant’s threshold must cast away his liberty; but if we were to collect all examples, we should scarcely find one like this. It follows, then, that the king’s mind was impelled by diabolic fury, urging him to punish the Chaldees who, with respect to him, were innocent enough. We know them to have been impostors, and the world to have been deluded by their impositions, which rendered them deserving of death, since by the precepts of the law it was a capital crime for any one to pretend to the power of prophecy by magic arts. (Lev 20:6.) But, as far as concerned the king, they could not be charged with any crime. Why, then, did he threaten them with death? because the Lord wished to shew the miracle which we shall afterwards see. For if the king had suffered the Chaldeans to depart, he could have buried directly that anxiety which tortured and excruciated his mind. The subject, too, had been less noticed by the people; hence God tortured the king’s mind, till he rushed headlong in his fury, as we have said. Thus, this atrocious and cruel denunciation ought to have aroused all men; for there is no doubt that the greatest and the least trembled together when they heard of such vehemence in the monarch’s wrath. This, therefore, is the complete sense, and we must mark the object of God’s providence in thus allowing the king’s anger to burn without restraint. ¹¹¹ It follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:6

Here the king, on the other hand, desires to entice them by the hope of gain, to apply themselves to narrate his dream. He had already attempted to strike them with horror, that even if they are unwilling he may wrest the narration of the dream from them, as well as its interpretation. Meanwhile, if they could be induced by flattery, he tries this argument upon them; for he promises a gift, and reward, and honor, that is, he promises a large remuneration if they narrated his dream, and were faithful interpreters. Hence we gather, what all history declares, that the Magi made a gain of their predictions and guesses. The wise men of the Indies, being frugal and austere in their manner of living, were not wholly devoted to gain; for they are known to have lived without any need of either money, or furniture, or anything else. They were content with roots, and had no need of clothing, slept upon the ground, and were thus free from avarice. But the Chaldeans, we know, ran hither and thither to obtain money from the simple and credulous. Hence the king here speaks according to custom when he promises a large reward. We must remark here, how the Chaldeans scattered their prophecies for the sake of gain; and when knowledge is rendered saleable, it is sure to be adulterated with many faults. As when Paul speaks of corruptors of the Gospel, he says, — they trafficked in it, (2Co 2:7,) because when a profit is made, as we have previously said, even honorable teachers must necessarily degenerate and pervert all sincerity by their lying. For where avarice reigns, there is flattery, servile obsequiousness, and cunning of all kinds, while truth is utterly extinguished. Whence it is not surprising if the Chaldeans were so inclined to deceit, as it became natural to them through the pursuit of gain and the lust for wealth. Some honest teachers may receive support from the public treasury; but, as we have said, when any one is drawn aside by lucre, he must necessarily pervert and deprave all purity of doctrine. And from this passage we gather, further, the anxiety of the king, as he had no wish to spare expense, if by this means he could click the interpretation of his dream from the Chaldeans; all the while he is furiously angry with them, because he does not obtain what the offered reward ought to procure. It now follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:7

Here the excuse of the Magi is narrated. They state the truth that their art only enabled them to discover the interpretation of a dream; but the king wished to know the dream itself. Whence he appears again to have been seized with prodigious fury and became quite implacable. Kings sometimes grow warm, but are appeased by a single admonition, and hence this sentiment is very true, — anger is assuaged by mild language. But since the fair reply of the Magi did not mitigate the king’s wrath, he was quite hurried away by diabolical vehemence. And all this, as I have said, was governed by God’s secret counsel, that Daniel’s explanation might be more noticed. They next ask the king — to relate his dream, and then they promise as before to interpret it directly. And even this was too great a boast, as we have said, and they ought to have corrected their own conceit and foolish boasting when in such a difficulty. But since they persist in that foolish and fallacious self-conceit, it shews us how they were blinded by the devil, just as those who have become entangled by superstitious deceptions confidently defend their own madness. Such an example we have in the Magi, who always claimed the power of interpreting dreams.

Calvin: Dan 2:8

The king’s exception now follows: — I know, says he, that ye would gain time, since you are aware that the matter has gone from me, or the word has been pronounced, if we adopt the former sense. The king here accuses them of more disgraceful cunning, since the Magi have nothing to offer, and so desire to escape as soon as they know that the king has lost all remembrance of his dream. It is just as if he had said — You promised me to be sure interpreters of my dream, but this is false; for if I could narrate the dream, it would be easy to prove your arrogance, since ye cannot explain that enigma; but as lye know I have forgotten my dream, for that reason ye ask me to relate it; but this is only to gain time, says he; thus ye manage to conceal your ignorance and retain your credit for knowledge. But if my dream still remained in my memory I should soon detect your ignorance, for we cannot perform your boasting. We see, therefore, how the king here loads the Magi with a new crime, because they were impostors who deluded the people with false boastings; and hence he shews them worthy of death, unless they relate his dream. The argument indeed is utterly vicious; but it is not surprising when tyrants appear in the true colors of their cruelty. Meanwhile we must remember what I have said. — the Magi deserved this reproof, for they were puffed up with vanity and made false promises, through conjecturing the future from dreams, auguries, and the like. But in the king’s case, nothing was more unjust. than to invent such a crime against the Magi, since if they deceived others it arose from being self-deceived. They were blinded and fascinated by the foolish persuasion of their own wisdom, and had no intention of deceiving the king; for they thought something might immediately occur which would free his mind from all anxiety. But the king always pursued the blindest impulse of his rage. Meanwhile we must notice the origin of this feeling, — he was divinely tormented, and could not rest a single moment till he obtained an explanation of his dream. He next adds, If ye do not explain my dream, this sentence alone remains for you, says he; that is, it is already decreed concerning you all, I shall not inquire particularly which of you is in fault and which wishes to deceive me; but I will utterly cut off all the tribe of the Magi, and no one shall escape punishment, unless ye explain to me both the dream and its interpretation.

Calvin: Dan 2:9

He adds again, Ye have prepared a fallacious and corrupt speech to relate here before me, as your excuse. Again, the king charges them with fraud and malice, of which they were not guilty; as if he had said, they purposely sought specious pretenses for practicing deceit. But he says, a lying speech, or fallacious and corrupt; that is, yours is a stale excuse, as we commonly say, and I loathe it. If there were any colorable pretext I might admit what. ye say, but I see in your words nothing but fallacies, and those too which savor of corruption. Now, therefore, we observe the king not only angry because the Magi cannot relate his dream, but charging it against them, as a greater crime, that they brought a stale excuse and wished purposely to deceive him. He next adds, tell me the dream and then I shall know it; or then I shall know that ye can faithfully interpret, its meaning. Here the king takes up another argument to convict the Magi of cunning. Ye boast, indeed, that you have no difficulty in interpreting the dream. How can ye be confident of this, for the dream itself is still unknown to you? If I had told it you, ye might then say whether ye could explain it or not; but when I now ask you about the dream of which both you and I are ignorant, ye say, when have related the dream, the rest is in your power; I therefore shall prove you to be good and true interpreters of dreams if ye can tell me mine, since the one thing depends on the other, and ye are too rash in presuming upon what is not yet discovered. Since, therefore, ye burst forth so hastily, and wish to persuade me that ye are sure of the interpretation, you are evidently quite deceived in this respect; and your rashness and fraud are herein detected, because ye are clearly deceiving me. This is the substance — the rest to-morrow.

Calvin: Dan 2:10

The Chaldeans again excuse themselves for not relating the king’s dream. They say, in reality, this is not their peculiar art or science; and they know of no example handed down of wise men being asked in this way, and required to answer as well de facto as de jure, as the phrase is. They boasted themselves to be interpreters of dreams, but their conjectures could not be extended to discover the dreams themselves, but only their interpretation. This was a just excuse, yet the king does not admit it, but is impelled by his own wrath and by the divine instinct to shew the Magi, and sorcerers, and astrologers, to be mere impostors and deceivers of the people. And we must observe the end in view, because God wished to extol his servant Daniel, and to separate him from the common herd. They add, that no kings had ever dealt thus with Magi and wise men. It afterwards follows: —

Calvin: Dan 2:11

They add, that the object of the king’s inquiry surpassed the power of human ingenuity. There is no doubt that they were slow to confess this, because, as we said before, they had acquired the fame of such great wisdom, that the common people thought nothing unknown to them or concealed from them. And most willingly would they have escaped the dire necessity of confessing their ignorance in this respect, but in their extremity they were compelled to resort to this subterfuge. There may be a question why they thought the matter about which the king inquired was precious; for as they were ignorant of the king’s dream, how could they ascertain its value? But it is not surprising that men, under the influence of extreme anxiety and fear, should utter anything without judgment. They say, therefore, — this matter is precious; thus they mingle flattery with their excuses to mitigate the king’s anger, hoping to escape the unjust death which was at hand. The matter of which the king inquires is precious; and yet it would probably be said, since the, matter was uncommon, that the dream was divinely sent to the king, and was afterwards suddenly buried in oblivion. There certainly was some mystery here, and hence the Chaldeans very reasonably considered the whole subject to surpass in magnitude the common measure of human ability; therefore they add, — there cannot be any other interpreters than gods or angels Some refer this to angels, but we know the Magi to have worshipped a multitude of gods. Hence it is more simple to explain this of the crowd of deities which they imagined. They had, indeed, lesser gods; for among all nations a persuasion has existed concerning a supreme God who reigns alone. Afterwards they imagined inferior deities, and each fabricated a god for himself according to his taste; hence they are called “gods,” according to common opinion and usage, although they ought rather to be denoted genie or demons of the air. For we know that all unbelievers were imbued with this opinion concerning the existence of intermediate deities. The Apostles contended strongly against this ancient error, and we know the books of Plato ¹²³ to be full of the doctrine that demons or genii act as mediators between man and the Heavenly Deity.

We may, then, suitably understand these words that the Chaldeans thought angels the only interpreters; not because they imagined angels as the Scriptures speak of them clearly and sincerely, but the Platonic doctrine flourished among them, and also the superstition about the genii who dwell in heaven, and hold familiar intercourse with the supreme God. Since men are clothed in flesh, they cannot so raise themselves towards heaven as to perceive all secrets. Whence it follows, that the king acted unjustly in requiring them to discharge a duty either angelic or divine. This excuse was indeed probable, but the king’s ears were deaf because he was carried away by his passions, and God also spurred him on by furies, which allowed him no rest. Hence this savage conduct which Daniel records.

Calvin: Dan 2:12

The former denunciation was horrible, but now Nebuchadnezzar proceeds beyond it; for he not merely threatens the Chaldeans with death, but commands it to be inflicted. Such an example is scarcely to be found in history; but the cause of his wrath must be noticed, since God wished his servant Daniel to be brought forward and to be observed by all men. This was the preparation by which it became generally evident that the wise men of Babylon were proved vain, through promising more than they could perform; even if they had been endowed with the greatest wisdom, they would still have been destitute of that gift of revelation which was conferred upon Daniel. Hence it happened that the king denounced death against them all by his edict; for he might then perhaps acknowledge what he had never perceived before, namely, that their boasting was nothing but vanity, and their arts full of superstitions. For when superstition fails of success, madness immediately succeeds, and when those who are thought and spoken of as remarkably devout, perceive their fictitious worship to be of no avail, then they burst forth into the madness which I have mentioned, and curse their idols, and detest what they had hitherto followed. So it occurred here, when Nebuchadnezzar suspected imposture in so serious a matter, and no previous suspicion of it had entered his mind; but now, when he sees through the deception, in so perplexing a case, and hi such great anxiety, when left destitute of the advice of those from whom he hoped all things, then he is a hundredfold more infuriated than if he had been previously in a state of perfect calmness. It afterwards follows: —

Calvin: Dan 2:13

It appears from these words that some of the wise men had been slain, for Daniel at first is not required for slaughter; but when the Magi and Chaldeans were promiscuously dragged out for punishment, Daniel and his companions were in the same danger. And this is clearly expressed thus — widen the edict had gone forth, that is, was published, according to the Latin phrase, and the wise mere were slain, then Daniel was also sought for; because the king would never suffer his decree to be despised after it had once been published; for if he had publicly commanded this to be done, and no execution had been added, would not this have been ridiculous? Hence, very probably, the slaughter of the Magi and Chaldeans was extensive. Although the king had no lawful reason for this conduct, yet they deserved their punishment; for, as we said yesterday, they deserved to be exterminated from the world, and the pest must be removed if it could possibly be accomplished. If Nebuchadnezzar had been like David, or Hezekiah, or Josiah, he might most justly have destroyed them all, and have purged the land from such defilements; but as he was only carried away by the fervor of his wrath, he was himself in fault. Meanwhile, God justly punishes the Chaldeans, and this admonition ought to profit the whole people. They were hardened in their error, and were doubtless rendered more excuseless by being blinded against such a judgment of God. Because Daniel was condemned to death, though he had not been called by the king, the injustice of the edicts of those kings who do not inquire into the causes of which they are judges, becomes more manifest.

Calvin: Dan 2:14

Nebuchadnezzar had often heard of Daniel, and had been compelled to admire the dexterity of his genius, and the singular gift of his wisdom. How comes it, then, that he passed him by when he had need of his singular skill? Although the king anxiously inquires concerning the dream, yet we observe he does not act seriously; since it would doubtless have come into his mind, “Behold, thou hadst formerly beheld in the captives of Judah the incredible gift of celestial wisdom — -then, in the first place, send for them!” Here the king’s sloth is detected because he did not send for Daniel among the rest. We have stated this to be governed by the secret providence of God, who was unwilling that his servant should mix with those ministers of Satan, whose whole knowledge consisted in juggling and errors. We now see how the king had neglected the gift of God, and had stifled the light offered to him; but Daniel is next dragged to death. Therefore, I said, that tyrants are, for this reason, very unjust, and exercise a cruel violence because they will not undertake the labor and trouble of inquiry. Meanwhile we see that God wonderfully snatches his own people from the jaws of death, as it happened in Daniel’s case; for we may be surprised at Arioch sparing his life when he slew the others who were natives. How can we account for Daniel meeting with more humanity than the Chaldeans, though he was a foreigner and a captive? Because his life was in the hand and keeping of God, who restrained both the mind and the hand of the prefect from being immediately savage with him. But it is said — Daniel inquired concerning the counsel and the edict Some translate prudently and cunningly and עטא , gneta, signifies “ prudence, ” just as טעם , tegem, metaphorically is received for “ intelli gence” when it signifies taste. ¹²⁶ But we shall afterwards find this latter word used for an edict, and because this sense appears to suit better, I therefore adopt it, as Daniel had inquired of the prefect the meaning of the edict and the king’s design. Arioch also is called the Prince of Satellites. Some translate it of executioners, and others of cooks, for טבח , tebech, signifies “ to slay,” but the noun deduced from this means a cook. Thus Potiphar is called, to whom Joseph was sold. (Gen 39:1.) It seems to me a. kind of absurdity to call him the prince of gaolers; and if we say the prefect of cooks, it is equally unsuitable to his office of being sent to slay the Chaldeans. I therefore prefer interpreting it more mildly, supposing him to be the prefect of the guards; for, as I have said, Potiphar is called רב טבחים , reb tebechi, and here the pronunciation only is changed. It follows:

Calvin: Dan 2:15

Daniel also had said, Whither does the edict haste from before the king? It seems by these words, that Daniel obliquely blames the king’s anger and ingratitude, because he did not inquire with sufficient diligence before he rushed forward to that cruel punishment. Then he seems to mark his ingratitude, since he is now undeservedly doomed to death without being sent for, though the king might have known what was in him. As he refers to haste, I do not doubt his expostulating with the king, since he was neither called for nor listened to, and yet was to be slain with the rest, as if he were guilty of the same fault as the Chaldeans. The conclusion is, — there was no reason for such haste, since the king would probably find what he desired, if he inquired more diligently. It is afterwards added, Arioch explained the matter to Daniel. Whence it appears that Daniel was formerly ignorant of the whole matter; and hence we may conjecture the amount of the terror which seized upon the pious man. For he had known nothing about it, and was led to punishment suddenly and unexpectedly, as if he had been guilty. Hence, it was necessary for him to be divinely strengthened, that he might with composure seek the proper time from both the prefect and the king, for relating the dream and adding its interpretation. Daniel’s power of acting so composedly, arose from God’s singular gift, since terror would otherwise have seized on his mind; for we are aware that in sudden events, we become deprived of all plan, and lose our presence of mind. Since nothing of this kind was perceived in Daniel, it becomes clear that his mind was governed by God’s Spirit. It is afterwards added-

Calvin: Dan 2:16

This verse contains nothing new, unless we must notice what is not expressed, namely, that the prefect was not entirely without fear in giving Daniel an introduction to the king. For he knew the Icing to be very angry, and himself under serious displeasure, for not immediately executing the edict. But, as we have already said, God had taken Daniel into his confidence, and so bends and tames the mind of the prefect, that he no longer hesitates to introduce Daniel to the king. Another point is also gathered from the context, namely, Daniel’s obtaining his request; for it is said, he returned home, doubtless, because he obtained a single day from the king with the view of satisfying his demands on the next day. And yet it is surprising that this favor was granted, since the king wished the dream narrated to him immediately. Although Daniel does not here relate the reasons which he used with the king, yet most probably he confessed what we shall afterwards observe in its own place, namely, that he was not endued with sufficient intelligence to expound the dream, but hoping in God’s kindness, he would return next day with a new revelation. Otherwise the king would never have permitted this, if Daniel had petitioned doubtfully; or if he had not borne witness to his hopes of some, secret revelation from God, he would have been rejected immediately, and would have provoked still further the anger of the king. The Hebrews very commonly mention afterwards, in the context, whatever they omit in its proper place. So when he modestly confesses his inability to satisfy the king, till he has received from the Lord a faithful message, the king grants him the required time, as we shall see; more clearly afterwards. It follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:17

We observe with what object and with what confidence Daniel demanded an extension of time. His object was to implore God’s grace. Confidence was also added, since he perceived a double punishment awaiting him, if he disappointed the king; if he had returned the next day without reply, the king would not have been content with an easy death, but would have raged with cruelty against Daniel, in consequence of his deception. Without the slightest doubt, Daniel expected what he obtained — namely, that the king’s dream would be revealed to him. He therefore urges his companions to implore unitedly mercy from God. Daniel had already obtained the singular gift of being an interpreter of dreams, and as. we, have seen, he alone was a Prophet. of God. God was accustomed to manifest his intentions to his Prophets by dreams or visions, (Num 12:6,) and Daniel had obtained both. Since Misael, Hananiah, and Azariah were united with him in prayer, we gather that they were not induced by ambition, to desire anything for themselves; for if they had been rivals of Daniel, they could not have prayed in concord with him. They did not pray about their own private concerns, but only for the interpretation of the dream being made known to Daniel. We observe, too, how sincerely they agree in their prayers, how all pride and ambition is laid aside, and without any desire for their own advantage. Besides, it is worthy of notice why they are said to have desired mercy from God Although they, do not hem come into God’s presence as criminals, yet they hoped their request would be graciously granted, and hence the word “mercy” is used. Whenever we fly to God to bring assistance to our necessities, our eyes and all our senses ought always to be turned towards his nlerey, for his more good will reconciles him to us. When it is said, at. the close of the verse, — they should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon, some explain this, as if they had been anxious about the life of the Magi, and wished to snatch them also from death. But although they wished all persons to be safe, clearly enough they here separate themselves from the Magi and Chaldeans; their conduct was far different. It now follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:19

Here it may be gathered, that Daniel did not vacillate nor pray with his companions through any doubt upon his mind. For that sentence of James ought to come into our memory, namely, Those who hesitate, and tremble, and pray to God with difference, are unworthy of being heard. Let not such a one, says James, think he shall obtain anything from the Lord, if he is driven about variously like the waves of the sea. (Jas 1:6.) As God, therefore, shewed himself propitious to the prayers of Daniel, we conclude him to have prayed with true faith, and to be clearly persuaded that his life was in God’s hands; hence, also, he felt that God did not vainly harass the mind of King Nebuchadnezzar, but was preparing some signal and remarkable judgment for him. Because Daniel was imbued with this firm persuasion, he exercises a sure confidence, and prays to God as if he had already obtained his request. On the other hand, we perceive that God never closes his ears when rightly and cordially invoked, as also it is said in the Psalms, (Psa 145:18,) He is near to all who pray to him in truth; for there cannot be truth when faith is wanting; but as Daniel brought faith and sincerity to his prayers, he was listened to, and the secret concerning the dream was made known to him in a vision by night. I cannot now proceed any further.

Calvin: Dan 2:20

Daniel here pursues his narrative, and thanks God after King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream had been made known to him, while he relates the sense of the words which he had used. May God’s name be blessed, says he, from age to age We ought daily to wish for this; for when we pray that God’s name may be hallowed, continuance is denoted under this form of prayer. But Daniel here breaks forth into the praises of God with greater vehemence, because he acknowledges his singular benefit in being snatched away from death, together with his companions, beyond his expectation. Whenever God confers any remarkable blessing on his servants, they are the more stirred up to praise him, as David says, (Psa 40:3,) Thou hast put a new song into my mouth. And Isaiah also uses this form of speech twice, (Isa 42:10,) as if God had given him material for a new and unusual song, in dealing so wonderfully with his Church. So also, there is no doubt that Daniel here wished to praise God in a remarkable manner, since he had received a rare proof of his favor in being delivered from instant death. Afterwards he adds, whose (or since his) is the wisdom and the strength; for the relative is here taken for the causal particle, and the sentence ought to be so expressed; the additional particles may avail to strengthen the expression, and be taken exclusively, as if he had said, — to God alone ought the praise of wisdom and virtue to be ascribed. Without him, indeed, both are sought in vain; but these graces do not seem to suit the present purpose; for Daniel ought rather to celebrate God’s praises, through this vision being opened, and this was enough to content him. But he may here speak of God’s glory as well from his power as his wisdom; as, when, re Scripture wishes to distinguish the true God from all fictions, it takes these two principles — first, God governs all things by his own hand, and retains them under his sway; and secondly, nothing is hid from him — and these points cannot be separated when his majesty is to be proved. We see mankind fabricating deities for themselves, and thus multiplying gods, and distributing to each his own office; because they cannot rest in simple unity, when God is treated of. Some fancy God retains but half his attributes; as. for instance, the praters about bare foreknowledge. They admit nothing to be hidden to God, and his knowledge of all things; and this they prove by the prophecies which occur in the Scriptures. What they say is true; but they very much lessen the glory of God; nay, they tear it to pieces by likening him to Apollo, whose office it formerly was, hi the opinion of the heathen, to predict future events. When they sought predictions of future events, they endued Apollo with the virtue of making known to them future occurrences. Many at the present time think God able to foresee all things, but suppose him either to dissemble or purposely withdraw from the government of the world.

Lastly, Their notion of God’s foreknowledge is but a cold and idle speculation. Hence I said, they rob God of half his glory, and, as far as they can, tear him to pieces. But Scripture, when it wishes to assert what is peculiar to God, joins these two things inseparably; first, God foresees all things, since nothing is hidden from his eyes; and next, he appoints future events, and governs the world by his will, allowing nothing to happen by chance or without his direction. Daniel here assumes this principle, or rather unites the two, by asserting Israel’s God alone to deserve the name, since both wisdom and strength are in his power. We must remember how God is defrauded of his just praise when we do not connect these two attributes together — his universal foresight and his government of the world allowing nothing to happen without his permission. But as it would be too cold to assert that to God alone belongs wisdom and strength, unless his wisdom was conspicuous, and his strength openly acknowledged, hence it follows immediately afterwards —

Calvin: Dan 2:21

Daniel explains, in these words, what might have been obscure; for he teaches God to be the true fountain of wisdom and virtue, while he does not confine them to himself alone, but diffuses them through heaven and earth. And we must mark this diligently; for when Paul affirms God alone to be wise, this praise does not seem magnificent enough, (Rom 16:27;) but when we think of God’s wisdom, and set before our eyes all around and about us, then we feel more strongly the import of Paul’s words, that God only is wise. God, therefore, as I have already stated, does not keep His wisdom confined to himself, but makes it flow throughout the whole world. The full sense of the verse is, — whatever wisdom and power exists in the world, is a testimony to the Almighty’s. This is man’s ingratitude; whenever they find anything worthy of praise in themselves or others, they claim it directly as their own, and thus God’s glory is diminished by the depravity of those who obtain their blessings from him. We are here taught not to detract anything from God’s wisdom and power, since wherever these qualities are conspicuous in the world, they ought rather to reflect his glory. We now perceive the Prophet’s meaning — God places before our eyes, as in a glass, the proofs of his wisdom and power, when the affairs of the world roll on, and mankind become powerful through wisdom, and some are raised on high, and others fall to the ground. Experience teaches us these events do not proceed from human skill, or through the equable course of nature, while the loftiest kings are cast down and others elevated to the highest posts of honor. Daniel, therefore, admonishes us not to seek in heaven alone for God’s wisdom and power, since it is apparent to us on earth, and proofs of it are daily presented to our observation. We now see how these two verses are mutually united He had stated wisdom to belong exclusively to God; he now shews that it is not hidden within him, but is made manifest to us; and we may perceive by familiar experience, how all wisdom flows from him as its exclusive fountain. We ought to feel the same concurring power also.

It is he, then, who changes times and portions of time. We know it to be ascribed to fortune when the world passes through such uncertain changes that everything is daily changing. hence the profane consider all things to be acted on by blind impulse, and others affirm the human race to be a kind of sport to God, since men are tossed about like balls. But, as I have already said, it is not surprising to find men of a perverse and corrupt disposition thus perverting the object of all God’s works. For our own practical improvement we should consider what the Prophet is here teaching, how revolutions, as they are called, are testimonies of God’s power, and point out with the finger to the truth that the affairs of men are ruled by the Most High. For we must of necessity adopt one or the other of these views, either that nature rules over human events, or else fortune turns about in every direction, things which ought to have an even course. As far as nature is concerned, its course would be even, unless God by his singular counsel, as we have seen, thus changes the course of the times. Yet those philosophers who assign the supreme authority to nature are much sounder than others who place fortune in the highest rank. For if we admit for a moment this latter opinion that fortune directs human affairs by a kind of blind impulse, whence comes this fortune? If you ask them for a definition, what answer will they make? They will surely be compelled to confess this, the word “ fortune ” explains nothing. But neither God nor nature will have any place in this vain and changeable government of the world, where all things throw themselves into distinct forms without the least order or connection. And if this be granted, truly the doctrine of Ephcurus will be received, because if God resigns the supreme government of the world, so that all things are rashly mingled together, he is no longer God. But in this variety he rather displays his hand in claiming for himself the empire over the world. In so many changes, then, which meet us on every side, and by which the whole face of things is renewed, we must remember that the Providence of God shines forth; and things do not flow on in an even course, because then the peculiar property of God might with some shew of reason be ascribed to nature. God, I say, so changes empires, and times, and seasons, that we should learn to look up to him. If the sun always rose and set at the same period, or at least certain symmetrical changes took place yearly, without any casual change; if the days of winter were not short, and those of summer not long, we might then discover the same order of nature, and in this way God would be rejected from his own dominion. But when the days of winter not only differ in length from those of summer, but even spring does not always retain the same temperature, but is sometimes stormy and snowy, and at others warm and genial; and since summers are so various, no year being just like the former one; since the air is changed every hour, and the heavens put on new appearances — when we discern all these things, God rouses us up, that we may not grow torpid in our own grossness, and erect nature into a deity, and de-wive him of his lawful honor, and transfer to our own fancy what he claims for himself alone. If then, in these ordinary events, we are compelled to acknowledge God’s Providence, if any change of greater moment arises, as when God transfers empires from one hand to another, and all but transforms the whole world, ought we not then to be the more affected, unless we are utterly stupid? Daniel, therefore, very reasonably corrects the perverse opinion which commonly seizes upon the senses of all, that the world either rolls on by chance, or that nature is the supreme deity, when he asserts — God changes times and seasons.

It is evident from the context, that he is here properly speaking of empires, since he appoints and removes kings We feel great difficulty in believing kings placed upon their thrones by a divine power, and afterwards deposed again, since we naturally fancy that they acquire their power by their own talents, or by hereditary right, or by fortuitous accident Meanwhile all thought of God is excluded, when the industrly, or valor, or success, or any other quality of man is extolled! Hence it is said in the Psalms, neither from the east nor the west, but God alone is the judge. (Psa 75:6.) The Prophet there derides the discourses of those who call themselves Wise, and who gather up reasons from all sides to shew how power is assigned to man, by either his own counsel and valor, or by good fortune or other human and inferior instruments. Look round, says he, wherever you please, from the rising to the setting of the sun, and you will find no reason why one man becomes lord of his fellow-creatures rather than another. God alone is the judge; that is, the government must remain entirely with the one God. So also in this passage, the Lord is said to appoint kings, and to raise them from the rest of mankind as he pleases. As this argument is a most important one, it might be treated more copiously; but since the same opportunity will occur in other passages, I comment but shortly on the contents of this verse; for we shall often have to treat of the state of kingdoms and of their ruin and changes. I am therefore unwilling to add anything more at present, as it is sufficient to explain Daniel’s intention thus briefly.

He afterwards adds, — he gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who are endued with it In this second clause, the Prophet confirms what we have already said, that God’s wisdom is not shrouded in darkness, but is manifested to us, as he daily gives us sure and remarkable proofs of this. Meanwhile he here corrects the ingratitude of men who assume to themselves the praise of their own excellencies which spring from God, and thus become almost sacrilegious. Daniel, therefore, asserts that men have no wisdom but what springs from God. Men are, indeed, clever and intelligent, but the question arises, whether it springs from themselves? He also shews us how mankind are to be blamed in claiming anything as their own, since they have really nothing belonging to them, however they may be wrapt, in admiration of themselves. Who then will boast of becoming wise by his own innate strength? Has he originated the intellect with which he is endowed? Because God is the sole author of wisdom and knowledge, the gifts by which he has adorned men ought not to obscure his glory, but rather to illustrate it. He afterwards adds —

Calvin: Dan 2:22

He pursues the same sentiment, and confirms it, — that all mortals receive from God’s Spirit whatever intelligence and light they enjoy; but he proceeds a step further in this verse than in the last. He had said generally, that, men receive wisdom and understanding by God’s good will; but here he speaks specially; for when a man’s understanding is rare and unusual, there God’s gift shines forth more clearly; as if he had said — God not only distributes to every one according to the measure of his own liberality, whatever acuteness and ingenuity they possess, but he adorns some with such intelligence that they appear as his interpreters. He speaks, therefore, here, specially of the gift of prophecy; as if he had said, God’s goodness is conspicuous, not only in the ordinary prudence of mankind, for no one is so made as to be unable to discover between justice and injustice, and to form some plan for regulating his life; but in Prophets there is something extraordinary, which renders God’s wisdom more surprising. Whence, then, do Prophets obtain the power of prophesying concerning hidden events, and penetrating above the heavens, and surpassing all bounds? Is this common to all men? Surely this far exceeds the ordinary ability of man, while the Prophet here teaches that; God’s beneficence and power deserve more praise, because he reveals hidden and secret things; and in this sense he adds — light dwells with God; as if he had said, — God differs very much from us, since we are involved in many clouds and mists; but to God all things are clear; he has no occasion to hesitate, or inquire, and has no need to be hindered through ignorance. Now, we fully understand the Prophet’s meaning.

Let us learn from this passage to attribute to God that praise which the greater part of the world claims to itself with sacrilegious audacity, though God shews it to belong to himself. Whatever understanding or judgment we may possess, we should remember that it was first received from God. Hence, also, if we have but a small portion of common sense, we are still equally indebted to God, for we should be like stocks or stones unless by his secret instinct he endued us with understanding. But if any one excels others, and obtains the admiration of all men, he ought still modestly to submit himself to God, and acknowledge himself the more bound to him, because he has received more than others. For who knows himself fully but God? The more, therefore, he excels in understanding, the more he will lay aside all claims of his own, and extol the beneficence of God. Thirdly, let, us learn that the understanding of spiritual things is a rare and singular gift of the Holy Spirit, in which God’s power shines forth conspicuously. Let us guard against that diabolical pride by which we see almost; the whole world to be swollen and intoxicated. And in this respect we should chiefly glorify God, as he has not, only adorned us with ordinary foresight, enabling us to discern between good and evil, but raised us above the ordinary level of human nature, and so enlightened us that we can understand things far exceeding our capacities. When Daniel pronounces light to be with God, we must supply a tacit antithesis; since he indicates, as I have already said, that men are surrounded by thick darkness, and grope about in obscurity. The habitation of men is here obliquely contrasted with the sanctuary of God; as if the Prophet had said, there is no pure and perfect light but in God alone. Hence, when we remain in our natural state, we must necessarily wander in darkness, or at least be obscured by many clouds. These words naturally lead us not to rest satisfied in our own position, but to seek from God that light in which he only dwells. Meanwhile, we should remember how God dwells in light unapproachable, (1Ti 6:16,) unless he deigns to stretch forth his hand to us. Hence, if we desire to become partakers of this divine light, let us be, on our guard against audacity, and mindful of our ignorance; let; us seek God’s illumination. Thus his light will not be inaccessible to us, when, by his Spirit, he shall conduct us beyond the skies. He afterwards adds —

Calvin: Dan 2:23

Daniel turns his discourse to God. I confess to thee, says he, O God of my fathers, and praise thee Here he more openly distinguishes the God of the Israelites from all the fictions of the nations. Nor does he use this epithet in vain, when he praises the God of his fathers; for he wishes to reduce to nothing all the fabrications of the Gentiles concerning a multitude of deities. Daniel rejects this as a vain and foolish thing, and shews how the God of Israel alone is worthy of praise. But he does not found the glory of God on the authority of their fathers, as the Papists, when they wish to ascribe the supreme power to either George, or Catharine, or any others, count up the number of ages during which the error has prevailed. Thus they wish whatever the consent of mankind has approved to be received as oracular. But if religion depended on the common consent of mankind, where would be its stability? We know nothing vainer than the minds of men. If man is weighed, says the Prophet, with vanity in a balance, vanity itself will preponderate. (Psa 62:9.) Nothing, therefore, is more foolish than this principle of this king, — what has prevailed by the consent of many ages must be religiously true. But here Daniel partially commends the God of their fathers, as their fathers were the sorts of God. For that sacred adoption prevailed among the Jews, by which God chose Abraham and his whole family for himself. Daniel, therefore, here does not extol the persons of men, as if they either could or ought to add anything they pleased to God; but this is the reason why he says, the God of Israel is the God of their fathers, since he was of that race which the Almighty had adopted. On the whole, he so opposes the God of Israel to all the idols of the Gentiles, that the mark of separation is in the covenant itself, and in the celestial doctrine by which he revealed himself to the sacred fathers. For while the Gentiles have no certain vision, and follow only their own dreams, Daniel here deservedly sets forth the God of their fathers.

He afterwards adds, because thou hast given me wisdom and strength As far as relates to wisdom, the reason is. clear enough why Daniel thanks God, since he had obtained, as he soon afterwards says, the revelation of the dream. He had also formerly been endued with the prophetic spirit and with visions. as he related in the first chapter, (Dan 1:17.) We may here, inquire what he means by strength? He was not remarkable for his honor among men, nor was he ever a commander in military affairs, and he had no superior gift of magnificent power to cause him to return thanks to God. But Daniel regards this as the principal point, that the God. of Israel was then acknowledged as the true and only God; because, whatever wisdom and virtue exists in the world, it flows from him as its only source. For this reason he speaks of himself as well as of all others, as if he had said — If I have any strength or understanding, I ascribe it all to thee; it is thine entirely. And, truly, though Daniel was neither a king nor a prefect, yet that unconquered greatness of mind which we have seen was not to be esteemed as without value. Hence he very properly acknowledges something of this kind to have been conferred upon him by heaven. Lastly, his intention is to debase himself and to attribute to God his own; but he speaks concisely, as we have said, since under the phrases “ power ” and “ wisdom ” he had previously embraced the proof of his divinity. He afterwards adds, Thou hast revealed to me what we demanded of thee; thou hast made known to us the king’s inquiry There seems here a slight discrepancy, as he praises God for granting him a revelation of the dream, and then unites others to himself. Yet the revelation was not common to them, but peculiar to himself. The solution is easy; for he first expresses that this was given to himself specially, that he might know the king’s dream and understand its interpretation. When he has confessed this, he extends the benefit to his companions, and deservedly so; because though they did not yet understand what God had conferred upon Daniel, yet he had obtained this in their favor,-they were all snatched from death, and all their prayers attended to. And this availed very much for the confirmation of their faith as it assured them they had not prayed in vain. For we said that there was no ambition in their prayers, as if any one desired any peculiar gift by which he might acquire honor and estimation for himself in the world. Nothing of the kind. It was enough for them to shew forth God’s name among unbelievers; because by his kindness, they had been delivered from death. Hence Daniel very properly says, the king’s dream was made known to him with its interpretation; and this he will afterwards transfer to his companions.

Calvin: Dan 2:24

Before Daniel sent his message to the king, as we saw yesterday, he discharged the duty of piety as he ought, for he testified his gratitude to God for revealing the secret. But he now says, that he came to Arioch, who had been sent by the king to, slay the Magi, and asked him not to kill them, for he had a revelation; of which we shall afterwards treat. Here we must notice that some of the Magi were slain, as I have said. For after Arioch had received the king’s mandate, he would never have dared to delay it even a few days; but a delay occurred after Daniel had requested a short space of time, to be afforded him. Then Arioch relaxed from the severity of the king’s order against the Magi; and now Daniel asks him to spare the remainder. He seems, indeed, to have done this with little judgment, because we ought to desire the utter abolition of magical arts, for we saw before that they were diabolical sorceries. It may be answered thus, — although Daniel, saw many faults and corruptions in the Magi and their art, or science, or false pretensions to knowledge, yet, since the principles were true, he was unwilling to allow what had proceeded from God to be blotted out. But; it seems to me that Daniel’s object was somewhat different, for although the Magi might have been utterly destroyed without the slightest difficulty, yet he looks rather to the cause, and therefore wished the persons to be spared. It will often happen that wicked men are called in question as well as those who have deserved a tenfold death; but if they are not punished for any just reason, we ought; to spare their persons, not through their worthiness, but through our own habitual sense of equity and rectitude. It is therefore probable that Daniel, when he saw the king’s command concerning the slaughter of the Magi to be so tyrannical, went out to meet him, lest; they should all be slain with savage and cruel violence, without; the slightest reason. I therefore think that Daniel spared the Magi, but not through any personal regard; he wished them to be safe, but for another purpose, namely, to await their punishment from God. Their iniquity was not yet ripe for destruction through the indignation of the king. It is not surprising, then, that Daniel wished, as far as possible, to hinder this cruelty. It afterwards follows, —

Calvin: Dan 2:25

It may here be a question, in what sense Arioch speaks of bringing Daniel before the king, as if it were something new. For Daniel had already requested from the king time for prayer, as we have seen. Why then does Arioch now boast of having found a man of the captives of Judah, as if he were speaking of all obscure and unknown person? But very probably Daniel requested the time for prayer from Arioch, since we learn from history how difficult it was to approach those kings; for they thought it a profanation of their majesty to be polite and humane. The conjecture, therefore, is probable, that Arioch was the channel through whom the king granted the time to Daniel; or, we may suppose the words of Arioch are not simply related, but that Daniel shews the great boasting of courtiers, who always praise their own good offices, and adorn them with the splendor of words. Hence Arioch reminds the king how he had met with Daniel, and had at length obtained what the king very urgently desired. I do not therefore dwell longer on this, since either Arioch then explained more clearly to the long that Daniel could interpret, his dream; or he joined what had formerly been done; or else Daniel had obtained this before; or he had begged of the king that some time should be given to Daniel. He puts sons of transmigration, or captivity, a usual scriptural phrase for captives, although this noun is collective. It now follows, —

Calvin: Dan 2:26

The king uses these words through his despair of all interpretation, since he perceived all the Magi in this respect without judgment and understanding; for he was at first persuaded that the Magi alone were the possessors of wisdom. Since he had asked them in vain, the error with which he was imbued, as I have said, prevented him from hoping for anything better elsewhere. Through surprise, then, he here inquires, as if the thing were impossible, Have you that power? There is no doubt that God drew this interrogation from the proud king to render his grace in Daniel more illustrious. The less hope there was in the king himself, the more there was in the revelation of both dignity and reverence, as we shall afterwards see; for the, king was astonished, and fell prostrate through stupor upon the earth before a captive! This is the reason wily Daniel relates the use of this interrogation by the king. It now follows, —

Calvin: Dan 2:27

First, with respect to these names we need not trouble ourselves much, since even the Jews themselves are compelled to guess at them. They are very bold in their definitions and rash in their affirmations, and jet they cannot clearly distinguish how one kind of wise man differed from the others; hence it is sufficient for us to hold that the discourse now concerns those then esteemed “wise men,” under the various designations of Magi, Soothsayers, and Astrologers. Now, as to Daniel’s answer. He says it was not surprising that the king did not find what he hoped for among the Magi, since God had breathed into him this dream beyond the comprehension of human intellect. I know not whether those interpreters are right who think magical arts here simply condemned; for I rather think a comparison is instituted; between the king’s dream and the substance of the science of the Magi. I always exclude superstitions by which they vitiated true and genuine science. But as far as the principles are concerned, we cannot precisely condemn astronomy and whatever belongs to the consideration of the order of nature. This appears to me the whole intention, — the king’s dream was not subjected to human knowledge, for mortals have no such natural skill as to be able to comprehend the meaning of the dream, and God manifests those secrets which need the peculiar revelation of the Spirit. When Daniel says the Magi, Astrologers, and the rest cannot explain to the king his dream, and are not suitable interpreters of it, the true reason is, because the dream was not natural and had nothing in common with human conjectures, but was the peculiar revelation of the Spirit. As when Paul disputes concerning the Gospel, he collects into order every kind of intelligence among men, because those who are endued with any remarkable acuteness or ability think they can accomplish anything. But the doctrine of the Gospel is a heavenly mystery (1Co 2:4) which cannot be comprehended by the most learned and talented among men. The real sense of Daniel’s words is this, — the Magi, Astrologers, and Soothsayers had no power of expounding the king’s dream, since it was neither natural nor human.

This is clearly evident from the context, because he adds,

Calvin: Dan 2:28

There is a God in heaven who reveals secrets For I take ברם , berem, here for the adversative particle. He opposes therefore the revelation of God to the conjectures and interpretations of the Magi, since all human sciences are included, so to speak, within their own bounds and bolts. Daniel, therefore, says that the matter requires the singular gift of the Holy Spirit. The same God also who revealed the king’s dream to Daniel, distributes to each of us ability and skill according to his own pleasure. Whence does it arise that some are remarkable for quickness and others for stupidity and sloth? — that some become proficients in human arts and learning, and others remain utterly ignorant, unless God shews, by this variety, how by his power and will the minds of men become enlightened or remain blunt and stupid? As the Almighty is the supreme origin of all intelligence in the world, What Daniel here says is not generally true; and this contrast, unless we come to particulars, is either cold or superfluous. We understand, therefore, why he said in the former verse that the Magi and Astrologers could not explain the king’s dream, since the Almighty had raised King Nebuchadnezzar above the common level for the purpose of explaining futurity to him through his dream.

There is then a God in heaven who reveals secrets; he shews to king Nebuchadnezzar what will come to pass. He confirms what I have said, that the king was utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of his own dream. It often happens that men’s minds move hither and thither, and thus make clever guesses; but Daniel excludes all human media, and speaks of the dream as proceeding directly from God. He adds, what shall happen at the end or extremity of the days We may inquire what he means by the word “extremity.” Interpreters think this ought to be referred to the advent of Christ; but they do not explain why this word signifies Christ’s advent. There is no obscurity in the phrase; “ the end of the days” signifies the advent of Christ, because it was a kind of renewal to the world. Most. truly, indeed, the world is still in the same state of agitation as it was when Christ was manifest in the flesh; but, as we shall afterwards see, Christ came for the very purpose of renovating the world, and since his Gospel is a kind of perfection of all things, we are said to be “in the last days.” Daniel compares the whole period preceding Christ’s advent with this extremity of the days. God therefore wished to shew the king of Babylon what should occur after one monarchy had destroyed another, and also that there should be an end of those changes whenever Christ’s kingdom should arrive. At present I touch but briefly on this point, since more must; be said upon it by and bye.

This, says he, is the dream and vision of thy head upon thy couch It may seem absurd for Daniel here to profess to explain to the king the nature of his dream and its interpretation, and yet to put in something else. But, as he will add nothing out of place, we ought not to question the propriety of his saying, this was the king’s vision and his dream; for his object was to rouse the king the more urgently to attend to both the dream and its interpretation. Here we must; take notice how the Prophet persists in this, with the view of persuading the king that God was the author of the dream about. which he inquired of Daniel; for the words would be entirely thrown away unless men were thoroughly persuaded that the explanation given proceeded from God. For many in the present day will hear willingly enough what may be said about the Gospel, but they are not inwardly touched by it, and then all they hear vanishes away and immediately escapes them. Hence reverence is the principle of true and solid understanding. Thus Daniel does not abruptly bring forward either the explanation or the narration of the dream, but prepares the proud king to listen, by shewing him that he neither dreamt at, random nor in accordance with his own thoughts, but was divinely instructed and admonished concerning hidden events. It now follows,-

Calvin: Dan 2:29

He again confirms what I have just touched upon, for he wished to impress this upon the king’s mind — that God was the author of the dream, to induce the king to prepare for its interpretation with becoming sobriety, modesty, and docility. For unless he had been seriously affected, he would have despised Daniel’s interpretation; just as we see men fail to profit through their own pride or carelessness even when God addresses. them familiarly. Hence we must observe this order, and be fully prepared to listen to God, and learn to put a bridle upon ourselves on hearing his sacred name, never rejecting whatever he proposes to us, but treating it with proper gravity. This is the true reason why Daniel repeats again that King Nebuchadnezzar was divinely instructed in future events. He says, in the first clause, The king’s thoughts ascended, — the phrase is Hebrew and. Chaldee. Thoughts are said to ascend when they are revolved in the brain or head, as we formerly saw — this vision was in thy head; since the seat of the reasoning faculty is in the head. Daniel therefore asserts the king to be anxious about futurity, as the greatest monarchs think of what shall happen after their death, and every one dreams about enjoying the empire of the whole world. So King Nebuchadnezzar was very probably indulging these thoughts. But it follows immediately, that his thoughts could non profit him unless God unveiled the future, because it was his peculiar office, says the Prophet, to reveal secrets, Here we see clearly how vainly men disturb themselves when they turn over and over again subjects which surpass their abilities. King Nebuchadnezzar might have fatigued himself for a, long time without profit if he had not been instructed by the oracle. Hence there is weight in these words — He who reveals secrets has explained to the king what shall happen; that is, thou canst not understand the dream by thine own thoughts, but God has deemed thee worthy of this peculiar favor when he wished to make thee conscious of mysteries which had been otherwise altogether hidden from thee, for thou couldst never have penetrated to such a depth.

He afterwards adds —

Calvin: Dan 2:30

Here Daniel meets an objection which Nebuchadnezzar might make, — If God alone can reveal secrets, how, I pray thee, canst thou, a mere mortal, do it? Daniel anticipates this, and transfers the whole glory to God, and ingenuously confesses that he has no interpretation of his own to offer, but represents himself as led forward by God’s hand to be its interpreter; and as having nothing by his own natural talents, but acting as God pleased to appoint him his servant for this office, and-as using his assistance. This secret, then, says he, has been made known to me By these words he sufficiently declares, how his undertaking to interpret the dream was God’s peculiar gift. But he more clearly expresses this gift to be supernatural, as it is called, by saying, not in the wisdom which belongs to me For if Daniel had surpassed the whole world in intelligence, yet he could never divine what; the king of Babylon had dreamt! He excelled, indeed, in superior abilities and learning, and was endowed, as we have said, with remarkable gifts; yet; he could never have obtained this power which he acquired from God through prayer, (I repeat it; again,) through his own study or industry, or any human exertions.

We observe how Daniel here carefully excludes, not only what men foolishly claim as their own, but; also what God naturally confers; since we know the profane to be endowed with singular talents, and other eminent faculties; and these are called natural, since God desires his gracious gifts to shine forth in the human race by such examples as these. But while Daniel acknowledges himself endowed with no common powers, through the good pleasure and discipline of God, though he confesses this, I say, yet he places this revelation on a higher footing. We observe also how the gifts of the Spirit mutually differ, because Daniel acted in a kind of twofold capacity with regard to the endowments with which it pleased God to adorn him. First of all, he made rapid progress in all sciences, and flourished much in intellectual quickness, and we have already clearly shewn this to be, owing to the mere liberality of God. This liberality puts all things in their proper order, while it shews God’s singular favor in the explanation of the dream.

This secret, then, was not made known to me on account of any wisdom in me beyond the rest of mankind Daniel does not affirm himself to be superior to all men in wisdom, as some falsely twist these words, but he leaves this in doubt by saying, This ought not to be ascribed to wisdom, for if I were the acutest of all men, all my shrewdness would avail me nothing and, again, if I were the rudest idiot, still it is God who uses me as his servant, in interpreting the dream to you. You must not, therefore, expect anything human from me, but you must receive what I say to you, because I am the instrument of God’s Spirit, just as if I had come down from heaven. This is the simple sense of the words. Hence we may learn to ascribe the praise to God alone, to whom it is due; for it is his peculiar office to illuminate our minds, so that we may comprehend heavenly mysteries. For although we are naturally endued with the greatest acuteness, which is also his gift, yet we may call it a limited endowment, as it does not reach to the heavens. Let us learn, then, to leave his own to God, as we are admonished by this expression of Daniel.

He afterwards adds, But that I may make known to the king the interpretation, and thou mayest know the thoughts of thy heart Daniel uses the plural number, but indefinitely; as if he had said, God has left thee indeed hitherto in suspense; but yet he did not inspire thee with this dream in vain. These flyings, therefore, are mutually united, namely, — God has revealed to thee this secret, and has appointed me his interpreter. Thus we perceive Daniel’s meaning. For Nebuchadnezzar might object, Why does God torment me thus? What is the meaning of my perplexity; — first I dream, and then my dream escapes me, and its interpretation is unknown to me? Lest, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar should thus argue with God, Daniel here anticipates him, and shows how neither the dream nor the vision occurred in vain; but God now grants what was there wanting, namely, the return of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar’s memory, and at the same time his acknowledgment of its purport, and the reason of its being sent to him.

Calvin: Dan 2:31

Although Daniel here records the dream, and does not touch on its interpretation, yet we must not proceed farther without discoursing on the matter itself. When the interpretation is afterwards added, we shall confirm what we have previously said, and amplify as the context may guide us. Here Daniel records how Nebuchadnezzar saw an image consisting of gold, silver, brass, and iron, but its feet were mixed, partly of iron and portly of clay. We have already treated of the name of the “Vision,” but I briefly repeat again, — king Nebuchadnezzar did not see this image here mentioned, with his natural eyes, but it was a specimen of the revelation which he knew with certainty to have been divinely offered to him. Otherwise, he might have thrown off all care, and acted as he pleased; but God held him down in complete torment, until Daniel came as its interpreter.

Nebuchadnezzar then saw an image All writers endowed with a sound judgment and candidly desirous of explaining the Prophet’s meaning, understand this, without controversy, of the Four Monarchies, following each other in succession. The Jews, when pressed by this interpretation, confuse the Turkish with the Roman empire, but their ignorance and unfairness is easily proved. For when they wish to escape the confession of Christ having been exhibited to the world, they seek stale calumnies which do not require refutation; but still something must afterwards be said in its proper place. My assertion is perfectly correct, that interpreters of moderate judgment and candor, all explain the passage of the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman monarchies, and Daniel himself afterwards shews this sufficiently by his own words. A question, however, arises, why God represented these four monarchies under this image? for it does not seem to correspond throughout, as the Romans had nothing in common with the Assyrians. History has fully informed us how the Medes and Persians succeeded the Chaldeans; how Babylon was besieged by the enemy; and how Cyrus, after obtaining the victory, transferred the empire to the Medes and Persians. It may, perhaps, seem absurd that one image only should be proposed. But it is probable — nay, it may be shewn — that God does not here regard any agreement between these four monarchies, for there was none at all, but the state of the world at large. God therefore wished, under this figure, to represent the future condition of the world till the advent of Christ. This is the reason why God joined these four empires together, although actually different; since the second sprang from the destruction of the first, and the third from that of the second. This is one point, and we may now inquire, secondly, why Daniel calls the kingdom of Babylon by the honorable term golden. For we know the extent of its tyranny and the character of the Assyrians, and their union with the Chaldeans. We are also aware of the destruction of Nineveh, and how the Chaldeans made Babylon their capital city, to preserve the seat of empire among themselves. If we consider the origin of that monarchy, we shall surely find the Assyrians like savage beasts, full of avarice, cruelty, and rapacity, and the Chaldeans superior to all these vices. Why, then, is that empire called the head — and why a golden head?

As to the name, “head,” since that monarchy arose first, there is nothing surprising in Daniel’s assigning the highest place to it. And as to his passing by Nineveh, this is not surprising, because that city had been already cut off, and he is now treating of future events. The Chaldean empire, then, was first in the order of time, and is called “golden” by comparison; because the world grows worse as it becomes older; for the Persians and Medes who seized upon the whole East under the auspices of Cyrus, were worse than the Assyrians and Chaldeans. So profane poets invented fables about The Four Ages, the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron. They do not mention the clay, but without doubt they received this tradition from Daniel. If any one object, that Cyrus excelled in the noblest qualities, and was of a heroic disposition, and celebrated by historians for his prudence and perseverance, and other endowments, I reply, we must not look here at the character of any one man, but at the continued state of the Persian empire. This is sufficiently probable on comparing the empire of the Medes and Persians with that of the Babylonians, which is called “silver;” since their morals were deteriorated, as we have already said. Experience also demonstrates how the world always degenerates, and inclines by degrees to vices and corruptions.

Then as to the Macedonian empire, it ought not to seem absurd to find it compared to brass, since we know the cruelty of Alexander’s disposition. It is frivolous to notice that politeness which has gained him favor with historians; since, if we reflect upon his natural character, he surely breathed cruelty from his very boyhood. Do we not discern in him, when quite a boy, envy and emulation? When he saw his father victorious in war, and subduing by industry or depraved arts the cities of Greece, he wept with envy, because his father left him nothing to conquer. As he manifested such pride when a boy, we conclude him to have been more cruel than humane. And with what purpose and intention did he undertake the expedition by which he became king of kings, unless through being discontented not only with his own power, but with the possession of the whole worm? We know also how tie wept when he heard from that imaginative philosophy, that there were more worlds than this. “What, ” said he, “I do not possess even one world!” Since, then, one world did not suffice for a man who was small of stature, he must indeed put off all humanity, as he really appeared to do. He never spared the blood of any one; and wherever he burst forth, like a devouring tempest, he destroyed everything. Besides, what is here said of that monarchy ought not to be restricted to the person of Alexander, who was its chief and author, but is extended to all his successors. We know that they committed horrible cruelties, for before his empire was divided into four parts, constituting the kingdoms of Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Macedonia, how much blood was sited! God took away from Alexander all his offspring. He might have lived at home and begotten children, and thus his memory would have been noble and celebrated among all posterity; but God exterminated all his family from the world. His mother perished by the sword at the age of eighty years; also his wife and sons, as well as a brother of unsound mind. Finally, it was a horrible proof of God’s anger against Alexander’s offspring, for the purpose of impressing all ages with a sense of his displeasure at such cruelty. If then we extend the Macedonian empire to the period when Perseus was conquered, and Cleopatra and Ptolemy slain in Egypt., and Syria, Asia, and Egypt reduced under the sway of Rome — if we comprehend the whole of this period, we shall not wonder at the prophet Daniel calling the monarchy “brazen.”

When he speaks of The Roman Empire as “iron,” we must always remember the reason I have noticed, which has reference to the world in general, and to the depraved nature of mankind; whence their vices and immoralities always increase till they arrive at a fearful height. If we consider how the Romans conducted themselves, and how cruelly they tyrannized over others, the reason why their dominion is called “ iron ” by Daniel will immediately appear. Although they appear to have possessed some skill in political affairs, we are acquainted with their ambition, avarice, and cruelty. Scarcely any nation can be found which suffered like the Romans under those three diseases, and since they were so subject to these, as well as to others, it is not surprising that the Prophet detracts from their fame and prefers the Macedonians, Persians, Medes, and even Assyrians and Chaldeans to them.

Calvin: Dan 2:33

When he says, the feet of the image were partly of iron and partly of clay, this ought to be referred to the ruin which occurred, when God dispersed and cut in pieces, so to speak, that monarchy. The Chaldean power fell first; then the Macedonians, after subduing the East, became the sole monarchs to whom the Medes and Persians were subservient. The same event happened to the Macedonians, who were at length subdued by the, Romans; and all their kings who succeeded Alexander were cut off. But there was another reason why God wished to overthrow the Roman monarchy. For it fell by itself according to the prediction of this prophecy. Since, then, without any external force it fell to pieces by itself, it easily appears that it was broken up by Christ, according to this dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. It is positively certain, that nothing was ever stable from the beginning of the world, and the assertion of Paul was always true — the fashion of this world passeth away. (1Co 7:31.) By the word “fashion” he means whatever is splendent in the world is also shadowy and evanescent, he adds, also, that all which our eyest gaze upon must vanish away. But, as I have said, the reason was different when God wished to destroy the empire of the Chaldees, the Persians, and the Macedonians; because this was more clearly shewn in the case of the Romans, how Christ by his advent took away whatever was splendid, and magnificent, and admirable in the world. This, therefore, is the reason why God assigns specially to the Romans feet of clay Thus much, then, with respect to the four empires.

Calvin: Dan 2:34

In the third place, it may be doubted why Christ is said to have broken this image from the mountains For if Christ is the eternal wisdom of God (Pro 8:15) by whom kings reign, this seems scarcely to accord with it; for how, by his advent, should he break up the political order which we; know God approves of, and has appointed and established by his power? I answer, — earthly empires are swallowed and broken up by Christ accidentally, as they say. (Psa 2:9.) For if kings exercise their office honestly, clearly enough Christ’s kingdom is not contrary to their power. Whence, then, does it happen that Christ strikes kings with an iron scepter, and breaks, and ruins, and reduces them to nothing? Just because their pride is untamable, and they raise their heads to heaven, and wish, if possible, to draw down God from his throne. Hence they necessarily feel Christ’s hand opposed to them, because they cannot and will not subject themselves to God.

But another question may be raised: — When Christ was made manifest, those monarchies had fallen long previously; for the Chaldean, the Persian, and that of the successors of Alexander, had passed away. The solution is at hand, if we understand what I have previously mentioned — that under one image the whole state of the world is here depicted for us. Although all events did not occur at the same moment, yet we shall find the Prophet’s language essentially true, that Christ should destroy all monarchies. For when the seat of the empire of the East was changed, and Nineveh destroyed, and the Chaldeans had fixed the seat of empire among themselves, this happened by God’s just judgment, and Christ was already reigning as the king of the world. That monarchy was really broken up by his power, and the same may be said of the Persian empire. For when they degenerated from a life of austerity and sobriety into one of foul and infamous luxury; when they raged so cruelly against all mankind, and became so exceedingly rapacious, their empire necessarily passed away from them, and Alexander executed the judgment of God. The same occurred to Alexander and his successors. Hence the Prophet means, that before Christ appeared, he already possessed supreme power, both in heaven and earth, and thus broke up and annihilated the pride and violence of all men.

But Daniel says — the image perished when the Roman empire was broken up, and yet we observe in the East and the neighboring regions the greatest monarchs still reigning with very formidable prowess. I reply, we must remember what we said yesterday — the dream was presented to King Nebuchadnezzar, that he might understand all future events to the renovation of the world. Hence God was not willing to instruct the king of Babylon further than to inform him of the four future monarchies which should possess the whole globe, and should obscure by their splendor all the powers of the world, and draw all eyes and all attention to itself; and afterwards Christ should come and overthrow those monarchies. God, therefore, wished to inform King Nebuchadnezzar of these events; and here we must notice the intention of the Holy Spirit. No mention is made of other kingdoms, because they had not yet emerged into importance sufficient to be compared to these four monarchies. While the Assyrians and Chaldeans reigned, there was no rivalry with their neighbors, for the whole of the East obeyed them. It was incredible that Cyrus, springing from a barbarous region, could so easily draw to himself such resources, and seize upon so many provinces in so short a time! For he was like a whirlwind which destroyed the whole East. The same may be said of the third monarchy; for if the successors of Alexander had been mutually united, there was then no empire in the world which could have increased their power. The Romans were fully occupied in struggling with their neighbors, and were not yet at rest on their own soil; and afterwards, when Italy, Greece, Asia, and Egypt were obedient to them, no other empire rivaled their fame; for all the power and glory of the world was at that period absorbed by their arms.

We now understand why Daniel mentioned those four kingdoms, and why he places their close at the advent of Christ. When I speak of Daniel, this ought to be understood of the dream; for without doubt God wished to encourage the Jews not to despair, when first the brightness of the Chaldean monarchy, then that of the Persian, next the Macedonian, and lastly, the Romans overwhelmed the world. For what could they have determined by themselves at the time when Nebuchadnezzar dreamt about the four empires? The kingdom of Israel was then utterly destroyed, the ten tribes were exiles, the kingdom of Judah was reduced to desolation. Although the city Jerusalem was yet. standing, still where was the kingdom? It was full of ignominy and disgrace; nay, the posterity of David then reigned precariously in the tribe of Judah, and even there over but a part of it; and afterwards, although their return was permitted, yet we know how miserably they were afflicted. And when Alexander, like a tempest, devastated the East, they suffered, as we know, the greatest distress; they were frequently ravaged. by his successors; their city was reduced almost to solitude, and the temple profaned; and when their condition was at the best, they were still tributary, as we, shall afterwards see. It was certainly necessary for their minds to be supported in so great and such confused perturbation. This, therefore, was the reason why God sent the, dream about those monarchies to the king of Babylon. It Daniel had dreamt, the faithful would not have had so remarkable a subject-matter for the confirmation of their faith; but when the king’s dream is spread abroad through almost the whole East, and when its interpretation is equally celebrated, the Jews might recover their spirits and revive their hopes at their own time, since they understood from the first that these four monarchies should not exist by any mere changes of fortune; for the same God who had foretold to King Nebuchadnezzar future events, determined also what he should do, and what he wished to take place.

The Jews knew that; the Chaldeans were reigning only by the decree of heaven; and that another more destructive empire should afterwards arise; thirdly, that they must undergo a servitude under the Macedonians; lastly, that the Romans should be the conquerors and masters of the world — and all this by the decree of heaven. When they reflected on these things, and finally heard of the Redeemer, as, according to promise, a perpetual King, and all the monarchies, then so refulgent, as without any stability-all this would prove no common source of strength. Now, therefore, we understand with what intention God wished what had hitherto been hidden, to be everywhere promulgated; the Jews, too, would hand down to their sons and grandsons what they had heard from Daniel, and afterwards this prophecy would be extant, and become an admiration to them throughout all ages.

When we come to the words, he says, one image was great and large, its splendor was precious, and its form terrible By this phrase, God wished to meet a doubt which might creep into the minds of the Jews, on perceiving each of those empires prosperous in its turn. When the Jews, captive and forlorn, saw the Chaldeans formidable throughout the whole world, and, consequently, highly esteemed and all but adored by the rest of mankind, what could they think of it? Why, they would have no hope of return, because God had raised their enemies to such great power that their avarice and cruelty were like a deep whirlpool. The Jews might thus conclude themselves to be drowned in a very deep abyss, whence they could not hope to escape. But when the empire was transferred to the Medes and Persians, although they were allowed the liberty of returning, still we know how small a number used this indulgence, and the rest were ungrateful. Whether or not this was so, few of the Jews, returned to their country; and these had to make war upon their neighbors, and were subject to continual molestation. As far as common sense would guide them, it was easier for them not to stir a step from Chaldea, Assyria, and the other parts of the East, since their neighbors in their own country were all so hostile to them. As long as they were tributary and esteemed almost as serfs and slaves, and while their condition was so humiliating, the same temptation remained. For, if they were God’s people, why did he not care for them so far as to relieve them from that cruel tyranny? Wily did he not restore them to calmness, and render them free from such various inconveniences, and from so many injuries? When the Macedonian. empire succeeded, they were more miserable than before; they were daily exposed as a prey, and every species of cruelty was practiced towards them. Then, with regard to the Romans, we know how proudly they domineered over them. Although Pompey, at his first assault, did not spoil the temple, yet at length he became bolder, and Crassus shortly afterwards destroyed everything till the most horrible and prodigious slaughter followed. As the Jews must suffer these things, this consolation must, necessarily be offered to them — the Redeemer shall at length arrive, who shall break up all these empires.

As to Christ being called the stone cut out without human, hands, and being pointed out by other phrases, I cannot explain them now.

Calvin: Dan 2:38

Daniel here declares “ the golden head of the image “ to be the Babylonian kingdom. We know that the Assyrians were subdued before the monarchy was transferred to Babylon; but since they did not prevail sufficiently to be considered as supreme rulers in that eastern territory, the Babylonian empire is here mentioned first. It is also worthwhile to remark, that God was unwilling to refer here to what had already occurred, but he rather proposed that the people should in future depend on this prophecy and rest upon it. Here it would have been superfluous to say anything about the Assyrians, since that empire had already passed away. But the Chaldeans were still to reign for some time — say seventy or at least sixty years. Hence God wished to hold the minds of his own servants in suspense till the end of that monarchy, and then to arouse them by fresh hopes, until the second monarchy should pass away, so that afterwards they might rest in patience under the third and fourth monarchies, and might perceive at length the time of Christ’s advent to be at hand. This is the reason why Daniel places the Chaldean monarchy here in the first rank and order. And in this matter there is no difficulty, because he states King Nebuchadnezzar to be the golden head of the image. We may gather the reason of his being called the golden head from the context, namely, because its integrity was then greater than under the empire of the Medes and Persians. It is very true that the Chaldeans were the most cruel robbers, and we know how Babylon was then detested by all the pious and sincere worshippers of God. Still, since things usually become worse by process of time, the state of the world was; as yet tolerable under that sovereignty. This is the reason why Nebuchadnezzar is called “the head of gold;” but this ought not to be referred to him personally, but rather extended to his whole kingdom, and all his successors, among whom Belshazzar was the most hateful despiser of God; and by comprehension he is said to form part of this head of gold. But Daniel shews that he did not flatter the king, since he assigns this reason for Nebuchadnezzar being the golden head — God had set him up above all the earth. But this seems to be common to all kings, since none of them reign without God’s permission — a sentiment which is partially true, but the Prophet implies that Nebuchadnezzar was raised up in an especial manner, because he excelled all other sovereigns. It now follows —

Calvin: Dan 2:39

In this verse Daniel embraces the Second and Third Monarchies. He says the second should be inferior to the Chaldean in neither power nor wealth; for the Chaldean empire, although it spread so far and so wide, was added to that of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus subdued the Medes first; and although he made his father-in-law, Cyaxares, his ally in the sovereignty, yet he had expelled his maternal grandfather, and thus obtained peaceable possession of the kingdom throughout all Media. Then he afterwards conquered the Chaldeans and Assyrians, as well as the Lydians and the rest of the nations of Asia Minor. We see then that his kingdom is not called inferior through having less splendor or opulence in human estimation, but because the general condition of the world was worse under the second monarchy, as men’s vices and corruptions increase more and more. Cyrus was, it is true, a prudent prince, but yet sanguinary. Ambition and avarice carried him fiercely onwards, and he wandered in every direction, like a wild beast, forgetful of all humanity. And if we scan his disposition accurately, we shall discover it to be, as Isaiah says, very greedy of human blood. (Isa 13:18.) And here we may remark, that he does not treat only of the persons of kings, but of their counselors and of the whole people. Hence Daniel deservedly pronounces the second state of the kingdom inferior to the first; not because Nebuchadnezzar excelled in dignity, or wealth, or power, but because the world had not degenerated so much as it afterwards did. For the more these monarchies extend themselves, the more licentiousness increases in the world, according to the teaching of experience. Whence the folly and madness of those who desire to have kings very powerful is apparent, just as if any one should desire a river to be most rapid, as Isaiah says when combating this folly. (Isa 8:7.) For the swifter, the deeper, and the wider a river flows on, the greater the destruction of its overflow to the whole neighborhood. Hence the insanity of those who desire the greatest monarchies, because some things will by positive necessity occur out of lawful order. when one man occupies so broad a space; and this did occur under the sway of the Medes and Persians.

The description of the Third Monarchy now follows. It is called brazen, not so much from its hardness as from its being worse than the second. The Prophet teaches how the difference between the second and third monarchies is similar to that between silver and brass. The rabbis confound the two monarchies, through their desire to comprehend under the second what they call the kingdom of the Greeks; but they display the grossest ignorance and dishonesty. For they do not err, through simple ignorance, but they purposely desire to overthrow what Scripture here states clearly concerning the advent of Christ. Hence they are not ashamed to mingle and confuse history, and to pronounce carelessly on subjects unknown to them — unknown, I say, not because they escape men moderately versed hi history, but through their being brutal themselves, and discerning nothing. For instead of Alexander the son of Philip, they put Alexander the son of Mammea, who possessed the Roman empire, when half its provinces had been already separated from it. He was a spiritless boy, and was slain in his tent with the greatest ignominy by his own soldiers; besides that, he never really governed, but lived as a minor under the sway of his mother. And yet the Jews are not ashamed to distort and twist what relates to the king of Macedon to this Alexander the son of Mammea. But their wickedness and ignorance is easily refuted by the context, as we shall afterwards see. Here Daniel states shortly that there shall be a third monarchy, he does not describe its character, nor explain it fully; but we shall see in another place the meaning of his prophecy. He now interprets the dream of the king of Babylon, as the vision of the four empires had been offered to him. But the angel afterwards confirms the same to him by a vision, and very clearly, too, as will be seen in its own place. Without doubt this narrative of the brazen image relates to the Macedonian kingdom. How, then, is all doubt removed? By the description of the fourth empire, which is much fuller, and clearly indicates what we shall soon see, that the Roman empire was like the feet, partly of clay and partly of iron. He says, therefore, —

Calvin: Dan 2:40

Here the Fourth Empire is described, which agrees only with the Roman, for we know that the four successors of Alexander were at length subdued. Philip was the first king of Macedon, and Antiochus the second; but yet Philip lost nothing from his own kingdom; he only yielded it to the free cities of Greece. It was, therefore, hitherto, entire, except as it paid tribute to the Romans for some years on account of the expenses of the war. Antiochus, also, when compelled to adopt the conditions imposed by the conqueror, was driven beyond Mount Taurus; but Macedonia was reduced to a province when Perseus was overcome and captured. The kings of Syria and Asia suffered in the same way; and, lastly, Egypt was seized upon by Augustus. For their posterity had reigned up to that period, and Cleopatra was the last of that race, as is sufficiently known. When, therefore, the three monarchies were absorbed by the Romans, the language of the Prophet suits them well enough; for, as the sword diminishes, and destroys, and ruins all things, thus those three monarchies were bruised and broken up by the Roman empire. There is nothing surprising in his here enumerating that popular form of government, among “ monarchies, ” since we know how few were rulers among this people, and how customary it was to call every kind of government among them an empire, and the people themselves the rulers of the whole world! But the Prophet compares them to “iron,” not only on account of its hardness, although this reason is clearly expressed, but also through another kind of similitude, — they were worse than all others, and surpassed in cruelty and barbarity both the Macedonians. and the Medo-Persians. Although they boast much in their own prowess, yet if any one exercises a sound judgment upon their actions, he will discover their tyranny to be far more cruel than all the rest; although they boast in their senators being as great as ordinary kings, yet we shall find them no better than robbers and tyrants, for scarcely one in a hundred of them shewed a grain of equity, either then sent into any province or when discharging any magistracy; and with regard to the body of the empire itself, it was all horrible pollution. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet says that monarchy was partly composed of iron, and partly of potter’s clay, since we know how they suffered under intestine disorders. The Prophet requires no other interpretation here, because, he says, this mixture of iron and clay, which unites so badly, is a sign of disunion, through their never mingling together.

The kingdom, therefore, shall be divided, and he adds yet another mixture, — they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, that is., they shall be neighbors to others, and that mutual interchange which ought to promote true friendship, shall become utterly profitless. The opinion of those who introduce the alliance of Pompey and Caesar is farfetched, for the Prophet is speaking of a continued government. If stability is sought for in any kind of government, it surely ought to shine forth in a republic, or at least in an oligarchy in preference to a despotism; because, when all are slaves, the king cannot so confidently trust his subjects, through their constant fear for themselves. But when all unite in the government, and the very lowest receive some mutual advantage from their commonwealth, then, as I have said, superior stability ought to be conspicuous. But Daniel pronounces, that even if the superior power should reside in the senate and the people — for there is dignity in the senate, and majesty in the people yet that empire should fall. Besides, although they should be mutually united in neighborhood and kindred, yet this would not prevent them from contending with each other with savage enmity, even to the destruction of their empire. Here then the Prophet furnishes us with a vivid picture of the Roman empire, by saying that it was like iron, and also mingled with clay, or mud, as they destroyed themselves by intestine discord after arriving at the highest pitch of fortune. Thus far concerning the four monarchies.

We may now inquire why Daniel said, The stone which was to be cut out of the mountain should destroy all these empires; since it does not appear, at first sight, to suit the kingdom of Christ. The Babylonian monarchy had been previously abolished — the Medes and Persians had been utterly prostrated by Alexander — and after Alexander’s conquests, had been divided into four kingdoms; the Romans subdued all those lands; and then it is objected that the Prophet’s language is absurd, a stone shall come out of a mountain which shall break up all empires The solution, as I have said above is at hand. Daniel does not here state that; the events shall happen together, but simply wishes to teach how the empires of the world shall fail, and one kingdom shall be eternal. He does not regard, therefore, when or why the empire’s of the Chaldees and of the Persians fell, but he compares the kingdom of Christ with all those monarchies which have been mentioned. And we must always remember what I have touched upon, that the Prophet speaks for the captive people, and accommodates his style to the faithful, to whom he wished to stretch forth the hand, and to strengthen them in those most serious concussions which were at hand. And hence, when he speaks of all lands and nations, if any one objects — there were then. other empires in the world, the answer is easy, the Prophet is not here describing what should happen through all the ages of the world, but only what the Jews should see. For the Romans were the lords of many regions before they passed over into Greece; we know they had two provinces in Spain, and after the close of the second Punic war were masters of that upper sea, and held undisputed possession of all the islands, as well as of Cisalpine Gaul and other regions. No notice is taken of this empire, till it was made known to the Jews, as they might have given themselves up to, utter despair, when they could not perceive an end to those storms which almost ruined the world; and, meanwhile, they were the most miserable of all men, because the various and continual calamities of the world never ceased. We must remember this view of things, as otherwise the whole prophecy would be cold and profitless to us. I now return to the kingdom of Christ.

The Kingdom or Christ is said to break up all the empires of the world, not directly, but only accidentally, as the phrase is. For Daniel here assumes a principle, sufficiently understood by the Jews; namely, those monarchies were opposed to Christ’s; kingdom. For the Chaldees had overthrown God’s temple, and had endeavored as far as possible to extinguish the whole of his worship, and to exterminate piety from the world. As far as concerns the Medes and Persians, although by their kindness a permission to return was granted to the people, yet very soon afterwards the kings of the Medes and Persians raged against that most miserable people, until the greater part of them preferred remaining; in exile to returning home. At length came the Macedonian fury; and although the Jews were spared for a short period, we know how impetuously the kings of Syria and Egypt overran Judea, how cruelly they treated the wretched people by rapine and plunder, and the shedding of innocent blood. Again, the extreme barbarity of Antiochus in ordering all the Prophetic Books to be burned, and in all but exterminating the religion itself (1Ma 1:59) is well ascertained.

No wonder, then, that Daniel here opposes the reign of Christ to such monarchies! Next, as to the Romans, we know how thoroughly and proudly they despised the name of “Christian!” nay, they endeavored by all means to root out from the world the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation, as an abominable thing. With all this we are familiar. Hence, to inform the faithful of their future condition until Christ’s advent, Daniel shews how all the empires of the world should be adverse to God, and all its most powerful kings and sovereigns should be his very worst and most cruel enemies, and should use every means in their power to extinguish true piety. Thus he exhorts them to bear their cross, and never to yield to those wretched and sorrowful spectacles, but to proceed steadily in the course of their calling, until the promised Redeemer should appear. We stated this to be “accidental,” since all the kingdoms of this world are clearly founded on the power and beneficence of Christ; but a memorable proof of God’s anger ought to exist against them all, because they raised themselves against the Son of God, the Supreme King, with such extreme fury and hostility.

Now, Christ is compared to a stone cut out of a mountain Some restrict this, unnecessarily, to the generation of Christ, because he was born of a virgin, out of the usual course of nature. Hence he says, as we have seen, that it was cut out of a mountain without the hand of man; that is, he was divinely sent, and his empire was separated from all earthly ones, since it was divine and heavenly. Now, therefore, we understand the reason of this simile.

With respect to the word “ stone, ” Christ is not here called a stone in the sense of the word in Psa 118:22, and Isa 8:14, and Zec 9:15, and elsewhere. For there the name of a stone is applied to Christ, because his Church is founded on it. The perpetuity of his kingdom is denoted there as well as here; but, as I have already said, these phrases ought to be distinguished. It must now be added, — Christ is called a stone cut out without human hands, because he was from the beginning almost without form and comeliness, as far as human appearance goes. There is also a silent contrast between its magnitude, which the Prophet will soon mention, and this commencement. The stone cut out of the mountain shall descend, and it shall become a great mountain, and shall fill the whole earth. We see how the Prophet here predicts the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, as contemptible and abject before the world. It was not conspicuous for excellence, as it is said in Isaiah, A branch is sprung from the root of Jesse. (Isa 11:1.) When the posterity of David were deprived of all dignity, the royal name was utterly buried, and the diadem trodden under foot, as it is said in Ezekiel (Eze 17:19.) Hence, Christ first appeared cast down and lowly; but the branch increased wonderfully and beyond all expectation and calculation, unto an immense size, till it filled the whole earth. We now perceive how appositely Daniel speaks of Christ’s kingdom but we must treat the rest to-morrow.

Defender: Dan 2:1

Nebuchadnezzar's spirit was "troubled" probably because after he succeeded at establishing his kingdom as the most powerful in the world, he planned to require his subjects to worship him as a god in the spirit of the coming world dictator of the last days (Rev 13:15). Even though he could not recall his dream, he knew that it might somehow affect his plans."

Defender: Dan 2:4

From this point, Daniel's account is significantly written in Aramaic (same as Syriac, the language of ancient Syria, and practically identical with the Chaldaic language of the Babylonians). It returns to Hebrew at Daniel 8. Thus, the Babylonian section of Daniel is in the language of the Babylonians, a fact that helps confirm the authenticity of the entire book. Because of its remarkably fulfilled prophecies, skeptics and liberals have tried to assign its writing to a much later date, after the events prophesied had taken place. The internal evidence of the book, however, indicates that it could only have been written by a man fluent in the language of Nebuchadnezzar's court. The inclusion of certain Persian and Greek words in the account still further indicates that the writer was connected with the court of Nebuchadnezzar where he would have contact with emissaries from different nations. The authenticity of the book has been further confirmed by his contemporary Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3) and by Christ Himself (Mat 24:15; Heb 11:33)."

Defender: Dan 2:21

God established the sun, moon and stars with their motions to serve for the measurement of time and the establishment of seasons (Gen 1:14). The great flood may well have resulted in changes in these. For example, the year may have been 360 days long in antediluvian times (Gen 7:11, Gen 7:24; Gen 8:4, Gen 8:14), and the distinctiveness of the seasons was probably accentuated by the upheavals of the flood.

Defender: Dan 2:21

See note on Dan 1:17."

Defender: Dan 2:22

God "created darkness," (Isa 45:7) but "God is light" (1Jo 1:5). He "dwelleth in the light," and needed only to "divide the light from the darkness" (Gen 1:4) when He created heaven and earth (see note on 1Ti 6:16)."

Defender: Dan 2:28

The Babylonian religious system maintained a variety of specially gifted and trained practitioners of the occult sciences - magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, Chaldeans, soothsayers (Dan 2:2, Dan 2:27) - but only the God of heaven can really reveal the future, for He controls the future."

Defender: Dan 2:33

The metals of Nebuchadnezzar's dream image follow a definite order corresponding to the empires they represent, decreasing in intrinsic value, but increasing in strength. That is, gold at the head is the most beautiful and valuable of the metals, iron in the legs is the strongest. These empires decrease in structural likeness to God's ideal theocratic kingdom, but increase in worldly strength and geographical extent."

Defender: Dan 2:38

This begins the remarkable prophecy - later fulfilled in detail over the centuries - of Nebuchadnezzar's dream image. The emperor was very pleased when he learned that the golden head of the image represented himself and his empire. The universality of this kingdom referred to its influence, rather than its geographical extent. Babylon was, indeed, the source (or "head") of all the world's false religions (Rev 17:5) and materialistic greed (Rev 18:3). It was conquered by the Medo-Persian empire in 538 b.c. (Dan 5:28)."

Defender: Dan 2:39

The "breast and arms of silver" (Dan 2:32) represented the two-sided kingdom of the Medes and Persians, which would dominate the known world from 538 b.c. to 334 b.c., when it was to be conquered by Alexander the Great of Greece (Dan 8:20, Dan 8:21).

Defender: Dan 2:39

The "third kingdom of brass (or bronze)," was the great Greek empire, which continued until defeated by Rome, which became a world empire under Augustus in 31 b.c."

Defender: Dan 2:40

The fourth world kingdom, stronger than any before it, and longer in duration, dominated the world beginning about 129 b.c., becoming a monolithic empire under Augustus in 31 b.c., and continuing until its fall in a.d. 476. However, it divided in a.d. 285 under Emperor Diocletian into eastern and western branches, as indicated by the two legs of the image. The eastern leg, centered at Constantinople, did not fall until a.d. 1453."

TSK: Dan 2:1

in : Dan 1:1-5; 2Ch 36:5-7

the second : That is, the second according to the Babylonian computation, but the fourth according to that of the Jews, who reckon from the time he was associated with his father. Jer 25:1

Nebuchadnezzar : Dan 2:3, Dan 4:5; Gen 40:5-8, 41:1-36; Job 33:15-17

and his : Dan 6:18; Est 6:1

TSK: Dan 2:2

Dan 1:20, Dan 4:6, Dan 5:7; Gen 41:8; Exo 7:11; Deu 18:10-12; Isa 8:19, Isa 19:3; Isa 47:12, Isa 47:13

TSK: Dan 2:3

Dan 2:1; Gen 40:8, Gen 41:15

TSK: Dan 2:4

in : Gen 31:47; Ezr 4:7; Isa 36:11

Syriack : Aramith, ""Aramean,""the language of Aram or Syria; a general term comprehending both the Chaldee and Syriac, the latter merely differing from the former as a dialect, and being written in a different character. With the following words the Chaldee part of Daniel commences; and is continued to the end of the Dan 7:1.

O king : Dan 3:9, Dan 4:19, Dan 5:10, Dan 6:6, Dan 6:21; 1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:25, 1Ki 1:31; Neh 2:3; Mat 21:9; Mar 11:9, Mar 11:10

tell : Dan 4:7, Dan 5:8; Gen 41:8; Isa 44:25

TSK: Dan 2:5

ye shall : This was unreasonable, arbitrary, and tyrannical in the extreme; but, in the course of God’ s providence, it was overruled to serve the most important purpose. Dan 3:29; 1Sa 15:33; Psa 50:22, Psa 58:7

cut in pieces : Chal, made pieces

made : Deu 13:16; Jos 6:26; 2Ki 10:27; Ezr 6:11

TSK: Dan 2:6

ye shall : Dan 2:48, Dan 5:7, Dan 5:16, Dan 5:29; Num 22:7, Num 22:17, Num 22:37, Num 24:11

rewards : or, fee, Dan 5:17 *marg.

TSK: Dan 2:7

Let : Dan 2:4, Dan 2:9; Ecc 10:4

TSK: Dan 2:8

gain : Chal, buy, Eph 5:16; Col 4:5

TSK: Dan 2:9

there is : Dan 3:15; Est 4:11

for : 1Ki 22:6, 1Ki 22:22; Pro 12:19; Isa 44:25; Eze 13:6, Eze 13:17, Eze 13:19; 2Co 2:17

the time : Dan 2:21, Dan 5:28, Dan 5:31, Dan 7:25

I shall : Isa 41:23

TSK: Dan 2:11

and there : This was their decision, and when the living and true God, who indeed condescends to dwell with men, and who alone could reveal the dream and the secrets contained in it, actually made it known to Daniel, he evinced the infinite difference between Jehovah and his prophets, and the idols and magicians of Babylon. Dan 2:27, Dan 2:28, Dan 5:11; Gen 41:39; Exo 8:19; Mat 19:26

whose : Exo 29:45; Num 35:34; 1Ki 8:27; 2Ch 6:18; Psa 68:18, Psa 113:5, Psa 113:6, Psa 132:14; Isa 8:18, Isa 57:15, Isa 66:1, Isa 66:2; Joe 3:21; Joh 1:1-3, Joh 1:14, Joh 14:17, Joh 14:23; 2Co 6:16; Rev 21:3

TSK: Dan 2:12

Dan 3:13; Job 5:2; Psa 76:10; Pro 16:14, Pro 19:12, Pro 20:2, Pro 27:3, Pro 27:4, Pro 29:22; Mat 2:16; Mat 5:22

TSK: Dan 2:13

the decree : Dan 6:9-15; Est 3:12-15; Psa 94:20; Pro 28:15-17; Isa 10:1

and they : Dan 1:19, Dan 1:20, Dan 6:12

TSK: Dan 2:14

answered : Chal, returned

with : 2Sa 20:16-22; Ecc 9:13-18

captain of the king’ s guard : or, chief marshall, Chal, chief of the executioners, or slaughter-men. Gen 37:36; Jer 39:9, Jer 52:12, Jer 52:14 *marg.

TSK: Dan 2:15

made : Dan 2:9

TSK: Dan 2:16

and desired : Dan 2:9-11, Dan 1:18, Dan 1:19

TSK: Dan 2:17

Hananiah : Dan 1:7, Dan 1:11, Dan 3:12

TSK: Dan 2:18

they would : Dan 3:17; 1Sa 17:37; Est 4:15-17; Psa 50:15, Psa 91:15; Pro 3:5, Pro 3:6; Isa 37:4; Jer 33:3; Mat 18:12, Mat 18:19; Act 4:24-31, Act 12:4; Rom 15:30; 2Ti 4:17, 2Ti 4:18

of the God of heaven : Chal. from before God. Daniel and his fellows should not perish. or, they should not destroy Daniel, etc. Gen 18:28; Mal 3:18; 2Pe 2:9

TSK: Dan 2:19

was : Dan 2:22, Dan 2:27-29, Dan 4:9; 2Ki 6:8-12; Psa 25:14; Amo 3:7; 1Co 2:9, 1Co 2:10

in : Dan 7:7; Num 12:6; Job 4:13, Job 33:15, Job 33:16; Mat 2:12, Mat 2:13

TSK: Dan 2:20

Blessed : Gen 14:20; 1Ki 8:56; 1Ch 29:10,1Ch 29:20; 2Ch 20:21; Psa 41:13, Psa 50:23; Psa 72:18, Psa 72:19, Psa 103:1, Psa 103:2, Psa 113:2, Psa 115:18, Psa 145:1, Psa 145:2

for wisdom : Dan 2:21-23; 1Ch 29:11, 1Ch 29:12; Job 12:13, Job 12:16-22; Psa 62:11, Psa 147:5; Pro 8:14; Jer 32:19; Mat 6:13; Jud 1:24; Rev 5:12

TSK: Dan 2:21

he changeth : Dan 2:9, Dan 7:25, Dan 11:6; 1Ch 29:30; Est 1:13; Job 34:24-29; Psa 31:14, Psa 31:15; Ecc 3:1-8; Jer 27:5-7

he removeth : Dan 4:17, Dan 4:32; 1Sa 2:7, 1Sa 2:8; Job 12:18; Psa 75:5, Psa 75:6, Psa 113:7, Psa 113:8; Pro 8:15, Pro 8:16; Luk 1:51, Luk 1:52; Act 13:21, Act 13:22; Rev 19:16

he giveth : Exo 31:3, Exo 31:6; 1Ki 3:8-12, 1Ki 3:28, 1Ki 4:29, 1Ki 10:24; 1Ch 22:12; 2Ch 1:10-12; Pro 2:6, Pro 2:7; Luk 21:15; 1Co 1:30; Jam 1:5, Jam 1:17, Jam 3:15-17

TSK: Dan 2:22

revealeth : Dan 2:11, Dan 2:28, Dan 2:29; Gen 37:5-9, Gen 41:16, Gen 41:25-28; Job 12:22; Psa 25:14; Isa 41:22, Isa 41:26, Isa 42:9; Mat 13:13; Rom 16:25, Rom 16:26; 1Co 2:9-11; Eph 3:5

he knoweth : Job 26:6; Psa 139:11, Psa 139:12; Jer 23:24; Luk 12:2, Luk 12:3; Joh 21:17; 1Co 4:5; Heb 4:13

and the : Dan 5:11, Dan 5:14; Psa 36:9, Psa 104:2; Joh 1:9, Joh 8:12, Joh 12:45, Joh 12:46; 1Ti 6:16; Jam 1:17; 1Jo 1:5

TSK: Dan 2:23

thank : 1Ch 29:13; Psa 50:14, Psa 103:1-4; Isa 12:1; Mat 11:25; Luk 10:21; Joh 11:41

O thou : Gen 32:9-11; Exo 3:15; 1Ki 8:57, 1Ki 18:36; 1Ch 29:10; 2Ch 20:6

who hast : Dan 2:20,Dan 2:21; Pro 8:14, Pro 21:22, Pro 24:5; Ecc 7:19, Ecc 9:16, Ecc 9:18

and hast : Dan 2:18, Dan 2:29, Dan 2:30; Gen 18:17; Psa 25:14; Amo 3:7; Joh 15:15; Rev 1:1, Rev 5:5

TSK: Dan 2:24

Arioch : Dan 2:15

Destroy : Dan 2:12, Dan 2:13; Act 27:24

TSK: Dan 2:25

brought : Pro 24:11; Ecc 9:10

I have : Chal, That I have

captives of Judah : Chal, children of the captivity of Judah. Dan 1:6, Dan 6:13; Neh 7:6; 1Co 1:27, 1Co 1:28

TSK: Dan 2:26

Daniel : Dan 1:7, Dan 4:8, Dan 4:19, Dan 5:12

Art : Dan 2:3-7, Dan 4:18, Dan 5:16; Gen 41:15; 1Sa 17:33

TSK: Dan 2:27

cannot : Dan 2:2, Dan 2:10,Dan 2:11, Dan 5:7, Dan 5:8; Job 5:12, Job 5:13; Isa 19:3, Isa 44:25, Isa 47:12-14

TSK: Dan 2:28

a God : Psa 115:3; Mat 6:9

that revealeth : Dan 2:18, Dan 2:47; Gen 40:8, Gen 41:16; Isa 41:22, Isa 41:23; Amo 4:13

maketh known : Chal, hath made known

in the : Dan 10:14; Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deu 4:30, Deu 31:19; Isa 2:2; Jer 30:24, Jer 48:47; Eze 38:8, Eze 38:16; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1, Mic 4:2; 2Ti 3:1; Heb 1:1; 2Pe 3:3

TSK: Dan 2:29

came into thy mind : Chal, came up, Eze 38:10

he that : Dan 2:22, Dan 2:28, Dan 2:47; Amo 4:13

TSK: Dan 2:30

this secret : Gen 41:16; Act 3:12; 1Co 15:8-12

but : Dan 2:17, Dan 2:18, Dan 2:49; Isa 43:3, Isa 43:4, Isa 45:4; Mat 24:22; Mar 13:20; Rom 8:28; 1Co 3:21-23; 2Co 4:15

their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king : or, the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king. and. Dan 2:47

TSK: Dan 2:31

sawest : Chal, wast seeing

and the : Dan 7:3-17; Mat 4:8; Luk 4:5

terrible : Isa 13:11, Isa 25:3-5; Eze 28:7; Hab 1:7

TSK: Dan 2:32

head : Dan 2:37, Dan 2:38, Dan 4:22, Dan 4:30, Dan 7:4; Isa 14:4; Jer 51:7; Rev 17:4

breast : Dan 2:39, Dan 7:5, Dan 8:3, Dan 8:4, Dan 11:2

belly : Dan 2:39, Dan 7:6, Dan 8:5-8, 11:3-20

thighs : or, sides

TSK: Dan 2:33

Dan 2:40-43, Dan 7:7, Dan 7:8, Dan 7:19-26

TSK: Dan 2:34

a stone : Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45, Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14, Dan 7:27; Psa 118:22; Isa 28:16; Zec 12:3; Mat 16:18; Act 4:11; 1Pe 2:7; Rev 11:15

was cut : Dan 8:25; Zec 4:6; Joh 1:13; 2Co 5:1; Heb 9:24

without hands : or, which was not in hands, Dan 2:45

which : Psa 2:8-12, Psa 110:5, Psa 110:6, Psa 149:6-9; Isa 60:12; Zec 12:3; Rev 17:14; Rev 19:11-21

TSK: Dan 2:35

like : Psa 1:4, Psa 1:5; Isa 17:13, Isa 17:14, Isa 41:15, Isa 41:16; Hos 13:3; Mic 4:13

no place : Job 6:17; Psa 37:10,Psa 37:36, Psa 103:16; Rev 12:8, Rev 20:11

became : Isa 2:2, Isa 2:3; Mic 4:1, Mic 4:2

and filled : Psa 22:27, Psa 46:9, Psa 66:4, Psa 67:1, Psa 67:2, Psa 72:16-19, Psa 80:9, Psa 80:10, Psa 86:9; Isa 11:9; Zec 14:8, Zec 14:9; 1Co 15:25; Rev 11:15, Rev 20:2, Rev 20:3

TSK: Dan 2:36

Dan 2:23, Dan 2:24

TSK: Dan 2:37

a king : 1Ki 4:24; Ezr 7:12; Isa 10:8, Isa 47:5; Jer 27:6, Jer 27:7; Eze 26:7; Hos 8:10; Rev 1:5, Rev 17:14

the God : Dan 4:25, Dan 4:32, Dan 5:18; 2Ch 36:23; Ezr 1:2; Pro 8:15; Jer 28:14; Rev 19:16

power : Dan 4:3, Dan 4:34; Psa 62:11; Mat 6:13; Joh 19:11; Rev 4:11, Rev 5:12

TSK: Dan 2:38

the beasts : Dan 4:21, Dan 4:22; Psa 50:10,Psa 50:11; Jer 27:5-7

Thou art : The Chaldean monarchy, over which Nebuchadnezzar was the only king of note; in whose time it extended over Chaldea, Assyria, Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Libyacaps1 . tcaps0 he head of gold represented its immense riches. Dan 2:32

TSK: Dan 2:39

another kingdom : The empire of the Medes and Persians, whose union was denoted by the breast and two arms of silver; and which was established on the ruins of that of the Chaldeans on the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, bc 538. Dan 2:32, Dan 5:28-31, Dan 7:5, Dan 8:3, Dan 8:4, Dan 8:20, Dan 11:2; Isa 44:28, Isa 45:1-5

another third : The empire of the Macedonians, or ""brazen-coated Greeks,""aptly denoted by the belly and thighs of brass, founded by Alexander the Great, who terminated the Persian monarchy by the overthrow of Darius Codomanus at Arbela, bc 331; Dan 2:32, Dan 7:6, Dan 7:7, Dan 7:23, Dan 8:5-14, Dan 10:20, 11:3-20; Zec 6:3, Zec 6:6

TSK: Dan 2:40

the fourth : The Roman empire, which comprised nearly the whole world. Dan 2:33, Dan 7:19-26, Dan 8:24, Dan 9:26, Dan 11:36-45; Joh 11:48

forasmuch : Dan 7:7; Jer 15:12; Amo 1:3

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Dan 2:1

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar - There is an apparent chronological difficulty in this statement which has given some perplexity to expositors. It arises mainly from two sources.

(1) That in Jer 25:1, it is said that the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar corresponded with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and as the captivity was in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Dan 1:1, the time here would be the "fourth"year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of the second.

(2) That we learn from Dan 1:5, Dan 1:18, that Daniel and his three friends had been in Babylon already three years, under a process of training preparatory to their being presented at court, and as the whole narrative leads us to suppose that it was "after"this that Daniel was regarded as enrolled among the wise men (compare Dan 2:13-14), on the supposition that the captivity occurred in the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, this would bring the time of the dream into the fourth year of his reign. This difficulty is somewhat increased from the fact that when Nebuchadnezzar went up to besiege Jerusalem he is called "king,"and it is evident that he did not go as a lieutenant of the reigning monarch; or as a general of the Chaldean forces under the direction of another. See 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:11. Various solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but the true one probably is, that Nebuchadnezzar reigned some time conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar, and, though the title "king"was given to him, yet the reckoning here is dated from the time when he began to reign alone, and that this was the year of his sole occupancy of the throne.

Berosus states that his father, Nabopolassar, was aged and infirm, and that he gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Necho out of Asia. The victorious prince then marched directly to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim surrendered to him; and this was the beginning of the seventy years, captivity. See "Jahn’ s History of the Hebrew Commonwealth,"p. 134. Nabopolassar probably died about two years after that, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne. The period of their reigning together was two years, and of course the second year of his single reign would be the fourth of his entire reign; and a reckoning from either would be proper, and would not be misunderstood. Other modes of solution have been adopted, but as this meets the whole difficulty, and is founded on truth, it is unnecessary to refer to them. Compare Prof. Stuart, on Daniel, Excursus I. and Excursus II. (See Barnes’ Appendix I and Appendix II to Daniel)

Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams - The plural is here used, though there is but one dream mentioned, and probably but one is referred to, for Nebuchadnezzar, when speaking of it himself Dan 2:3, says, "I have dreamed a dream."In the Latin Vulgate, and in the Greek, it is also in the singular. It is probable that this is a popular use of words, as if one should say, "I had strange dreams last night,"though perhaps but a single dream was intended. - Prof. Bush. Among the methods by which God made known future events in ancient times, that by "dreams"was one of the most common. See the notes at Dan 1:17; Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (2); compare Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6; Gen 31:11; Gen 37:5-6; Gen 40:5; Gen 41:7, Gen 41:25; 1Ki 3:5; Num 12:6; Joe 2:28; Job 33:14-16. The belief that the will of heaven was communicated to men by means of dreams, was prevalent throughout the world in ancient times. Hence, the striking expression in Homer, Iliad i. 63 - καὶ γάρ τ ̓ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν kai gar t' onar ek Dios estin , "the dream is of Jove."So in the commencement of his second Iliad, he represents the will of Jupiter as conveyed to Agamemnon by Ὄνείρος Oneiros , or "the dream."

So Diogenes Laertius makes mention of a dream of Socrates, by which he foretold his death as to happen in three days. This method of communicating the Divine will was adopted, not only in reference to the prophets, but also to those who were strangers to religion, and even to wicked men, as in the case of Pharaoh, Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, the butler and baker in Egypt, etc. In every such instance, however, it was necessary, as in the case before us, to call in the aid of a true prophet to interpret the dream; and it was only when thus interpreted that it took its place among the certain predictions of the future. One "object"of communicating the Divine will in this manner, seems to have been to fix the attention of the person who had the dream on the subject, and to prepare him to receive the communication which God had chosen to make to him. Thus it cannot be doubted that by the belief in dreams entertained by Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, as disclosing future events, and by the anxiety of mind which they experienced m regard to the dreams, they were better prepared to receive the communications of Joseph and Daniel in reference to the future than they could have been by any other method of making known the Divine will.

They had no doubt that some important communication had been made to them respecting the future, and they were anxious to know what it was. They were prepared, therefore, to welcome any explanation which commended itself to them as true, and in this way the servants of the true God had a means of access to their hearts which they could have found in no other way. By what laws it was so regulated that a dream should be "known"to be a preintimation of coming events, we have now no means of ascertaining. That it is "possible"for God to have access to the mind in sleep, and to communicate his will in this manner, no one can doubt. That it was, so far as employed for that purpose, a safe and certain way, is demonstrated by the results of the predictions thus made in the case of Abimelech, Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6; of Joseph and his brethren, Gen 37:5-6; of Pharaoh, Gen 41:7, Gen 41:25; and of the butler and baker, Gen 40:5. It is not, however, to be inferred that the same reliance, or that any reliance, is now to be placed on dreams, for were there no other consideration against such reliance, it would be sufficient that there is no authorized interpreter of the wanderings of the mind in sleep. God now communicates his truth to the souls of men in other ways.

Wherewith his spirit was troubled - Alike by the unusual nature of the dream, and by the impression which he undoubtedly had that it referred to some important truths pertaining to his kingdom and to future times. See Dan 2:31-36 The Hebrew word here rendered "troubled"( פעם pâ‛am ) means, properly, to "strike, to beat, to pound;"then, in Niph., to be moved, or agitated; and also in Hithpa., to be agitated, or troubled. The proper signification of the word is that of striking as on an anvil, and then it refers to any severe stroke, or anything which produces agitation. The "verb"occurs only in the following places: Jdg 13:25, where it is rendered "move;"and Psa 67:4, (5); Gen 41:8; Dan 2:1, Dan 2:3, where it is rendered "troubled."The "noun"is of frequent occurrence. "And his sleep brake from him."Hebrew עליו נהיתה שׁנתו shenâthô nı̂h^e y^e thâh ‛ālâyv .

Literally, "His sleep was upon him."The Greek is, "his sleep was from him;"i. e., left him. The Vulgate, "his sleep fled ( fugit ) from him."But it may be doubted whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. Probably the literal construction is the true one, by which the sense of the Hebrew - על ‛al "upon"- will be retained. The meaning then would be, that this remarkable representation occurred when he was "in"a profound sleep. It was a "dream,"and not "an open vision."It was such a representation as passes before the mind when the senses are locked in repose, and not such as was made to pass before the minds of the prophets when they were permitted to see visions of the future, though awake. Compare Num 24:4, Num 24:16. There is nothing in the words which conveys the idea that there was anything preternatural in the sleep that had come upon Nebuchadnezzar, but the thought is, that all this occurred when he "was"sound asleep. Prof. Stuart, however, renders this, "his sleep failed him,"and so does also Gesenius. Winer renders it, "his sleep went away from him."But it seems to me that the more natural idea is what occurs in the literal translation of the words, that this occurred as a dream, in a state of profound repose.

Barnes: Dan 2:2

Then the king commanded - That is, when he awoke. The particle rendered "then,"does not imply that this occurred immediately. When he awoke, his mind was agitated; he was impressed with the belief that he had had an important Divine communication; but he could not even recal the dream distinctly, and he resolved to summon to his presence those whose business it was to interpret what were regarded as prognostics of the future.

The magicians, and the astrologers - These are the same words which occur in Dan 1:20. See the note at that place.

And the sorcerers - Hebrew מכשׁפים m^e kash^e pı̂ym . Vulgate, malefici - sorcerers. Greek, φαρμακεύς pharmakeus Syriac, "magician."The Hebrew word is derived from כשׁף kâshaph - meaning, in Piel, to practice magic; to use magic formulas, or incantations; to mutter; and it refers to the various arts by which those who were addicted to magic practiced their deceptions. The particular idea in this word would seem to be, that on such occasions some forms of prayers were used, for the word in Syriac means to offer prayers, or to worship. Probably the aid of idol gods was invoked by such persons when they practiced incantations. The word is found only in the following places: once as a "verb,"2Ch 33:6, and rendered "used witchcraft;"and as a "participle,"rendered "sorcerers,"in Exo 7:11; Dan 2:2; Mal 3:5; and "witch,"in Exo 22:18 (17); Deu 18:10. The noun ( כשׁף kashâph and כשׁפים k^e shâpı̂ym ) is used in the following places, always with reference to sorcery or witchcraft: Jer 27:9; 2Ki 9:22; Isa 47:9; Mic 5:12 (11); Nah 3:4. It may not be easy to specify the exact sense in which this word is used as distinguished from the others which relate to the same general subject, but it would seem to be that some form of "prayer"or "invocation"was employed. The persons referred to did not profess to interpret the prognostics of future events by any original skill of their own, but by the aid of the gods.

And the Chaldeans - See the notes at Dan 1:4. The Chaldeans appear to have been but one of the tribes or nations that made up the community at Babylon (compare the notes at Isa 23:13), and it would seem that at this time they were particularly devoted to the practice of occult arts, and secret sciences. It is not probable that the other persons referred to in this enumeration were Chaldeans. The Magians, if any of these were employed, were Medians (see the notes at Dan 1:20), and it is not improbable that the other classes of diviners might have been from other nations. The purpose of Nebuchadnezzar was to assemble at his court whatever was remarkable throughout the world for skill and knowledge (see analysis of Dan. 1), and the wise men of the Chaldeans were employed in carrying out that design. The Chaldeans were so much devoted to these secret arts, and became so celebrated for them, that the name came, among the Greek and Roman writers, to be used to denote all those who laid claim to extraordinary powers in this department.

Diodorus Siculus (lib. ii.) says of the Chaldeans in Babylon, that "they sustain the same office there that the priests do in Egypt, for being devoted to the worship of God through their whole lives, they give themselves to philosophy, and seek from astrology their highest glory."Cicero also remarks (De Divin., p. 3), that "the Chaldeans, so named, not from their art, but their nation, are supposed, by a prolonged observation of the stars, to have wrought out a science by which could be predicted what was to happen to every individual, and to what fate he was born."Juvenal likewise (Sat. vi., verses 552-554), has this passage: "Chaldaeis sed major erit fiducia; quidquid dixerit astrologus, credent a fonte relatum Ammonis. - But their chief dependence is upon the Chaldeans; whatever an astrologer declares, they will receive as a response of (Jupiter) Ammon."Horace refers to the "Babylonians"as distinguished in his time for the arts of magic, or divination:

" nec Babylonios ,

tentaris numeros ."- Car. lib. i.; xi.

It is not probable that the whole nation of Chaldeans was devoted to these arts, but as a people they became so celebrated in this kind of knowledge that it was their best known characteristic abroad. (See also Barnes’ Appendix to Daniel)

For to show the king his dreams - To show him what the dream was, and to explain its import. Compare Gen 41:24; Jdg 14:12; 1Ki 10:3. That it was common for kings to call in the aid of interpreters to explain the import of dreams, appears from Herodotus. When Astyages ascended the throne, he had a daughter whose name was Mandane. She had a dream which seemed to him so remarkable that he called in the "magi,"whose interpretation, Herodotus remarks, was of such a nature that it "terrified him exceedingly."He was so much influenced by the dream and the interpretation, that it produced an entire change in his determination respecting the marriage of his daughter. - Book i., 107: So again, after the marriage of his daughter, Herodotus says (book i., cviii.): "Astyages had another vision. A vine appeared to spring from his daughter which overspread all Asia. On this occasion, also, he consulted his interpreters; the result was, that he sent for his daughter from Persia, when the time of her delivery approached. On her arrival, he kept a strict watch over her, intending to destroy her child. The magi had declared the vision to intimate that the child of his daughter should supplant him on the throne."Astyages, to guard against this, as soon as Cyrus was born, sent for Harpagus, a person in whom he had confidence, and commanded him to take the child to his own house, and put him to death. These passages in Herodotus show that what is here related of the king of Babylon, demanding the aid of magicians and astrologers to interpret his dreams, was by no means an uncommon occurrence.

Barnes: Dan 2:3

And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream - That is, clearly, to know all about it; to recollect distinctly what it was, and to understand what it meant. He was agitated by so remarkable a dream; he probably had, as Jerome remarks, a shadowy and floating impression of what the dream was - such as we often have of a dream that has agitated out minds, but of which we cannot recal the distinct and full image; and he desired to recal that distinctly, and to know exactly what it meant. See Dan 2:1.

Barnes: Dan 2:4

Then spake the Chaldeans to the king - The meaning is, either that the Chaldeans spoke in the name of the entire company of the soothsayers and magicians (see the notes, Dan 1:20; Dan 2:2), because they were the most prominent among them, or the name is used to denote the collective body of soothsayers, meaning that this request was made by the entire company.

In Syriac - In the original - ארמית 'ărâmı̂yt - in "Aramean."Greek, Συριστὶ Suristi - "in Syriac."So the Vulgate. The Syriac retains the original word. The word means Aramean, and the reference is to that language which is known as East Aramean - a general term embracing the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the languages which were spoken in Mesopotamia. See the notes at Dan 1:4. This was the vernacular tongue of the king and of his subjects, and was that in which the Chaldeans would naturally address him. It is referred to here by the author of this book, perhaps to explain the reason why he himself makes use of this language in explaining the dream. The use of this, however, is not confined to the statement of what the magicians said, but is continued to the close of the seventh chapter. Compare the Intro. Section IV. III. The language used is what is commonly called Chaldee. It is written in the same character as the Hebrew, and differs from that as one dialect differs from another. It was, doubtless, well understood by the Jews in their captivity, and was probably spoken by them after their return to their own land.

O king, live for ever - This is a form of speech quite common in addressing monarchs. See 1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:25 (margin); Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10. The expression is prevalent still, as in the phrases, "Long live the king,""Vive l’ empereur ,"" Vive le roi ,"etc. It is founded on the idea that long life is to be regarded as a blessing, and that we can in no way express our good wishes for anyone better than to wish him length of days. In this place, it was merely the usual expression of respect and homage, showing their earnest wish for the welfare of the monarch. They were willing to do anything to promote his happiness, and the continuance of his life and reign. It was especially proper for them to use this language, as they wore about to make a rather unusual request, which "might"be construed as an act of disrespect, implying that the king had not given them all the means which it was equitable for them to have in explaining the matter, by requiring them to interpret the dream when he had not told them what it was.

Tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation - The claim which they set up in regard to the future was evidently only that of "explaining"what were regarded as the prognostics of future events. It was not that of being able to recal what is forgotten, or even to "originate"what might be regarded preintimations of what is to happen. This was substantially the claim which was asserted by all the astrologers, augurs, and soothsayers of ancient times. Dreams, the flight of birds, the aspect of the entrails of animals slain for sacrifice, the positions of the stars, meteors, and uncommon appearances in the heavens, were supposed to be intimations made by the gods of what was to occur in future times, and the business of those who claimed the power of divining the future was merely to interpret these things. When the king, therefore, required that they should recal the dream itself to his own mind, it was a claim to something which was not involved in their profession, and which they regarded as unjust. To that power they made no pretensions. If it be asked why, as they were mere jugglers and pretenders, they did not "invent"something and state "that"as his dream, since he had forgotten what his dream actually was, we may reply,

(1) that there is no certain evidence that they were not sincere in what they professed themselves able to do - for we are not to suppose that all who claimed to be soothsayers and astrologers were hypocrites and intentional deceivers. It was not at that period of the world certainly determined that nothing could be ascertained respecting the future by dreams, and by the positions of the stars, etc. Dreams "were"among the methods by which the future was made known; and whether the knowledge of what is to come could be obtained from the positions of the stars, etc., was a question which was at that time unsettled Even Lord Bacon maintained that the science of astrology was not to be "rejected,"but to be "reformed."

(2) If the astrologers had been disposed to attempt to deceive the king, there is no probability that they could have succeeded in palming an invention of their own on him as his own dream. We may not be able distinctly to recollect a dream, but we have a sufficient impression of it - of its outlines - or of some striking, though disconnected, things in it, to know what it is "not."We might instantly recognize it if stated to us; we should see at once, if anyone should attempt to deceive us by palming an invented dream on us, that "that"was not what we had dreamed.

Barnes: Dan 2:5

The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me - The Vulgate renders this, "Sermo recessit a me"- "The word is departed from me."So the Greek, Ὁ λόγος ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη Ho logos ap' emou apestē . Luther, "Es ist mir entfallen "- "It has fallen away from me,"or has departed from me. Coverdale, "It is gone from me."The Chaldee word rendered "the thing"- מלתה mı̂ll^e thâh - means, properly, "a word, saying, discourse"- something which is "spoken;"then, like דבר dâbâr and the Greek ῥῆμα rēma , a "thing."The reference here is to the matter under consideration, to wit, the dream and its meaning. The fair interpretation is, that he had forgotten the dream, and that if he retained "any"recollection of it, it was only such an imperfect outline as to alarm him. The word rendered "is gone"- אזדא 'az^e ddâ' - which occurs only here and in Dan 2:8, is supposed to be the same as אזל 'ăzal - "to go away, to depart."Gesenius renders the whole phrase, "The word has gone out from me; i. e., what I have said is ratified, and cannot be recalled;"and Prof. Bush ( in loc .) contends that this is the true interpretation, and this also is the interpretation preferred by John D. Michaelis, and Dathe. A construction somewhat similar is adopted by Aben Ezra, C. B. Michaelis, Winer, Hengstenberg, and Prof. Stuart, that it means, "My decree is firm, or steadfast;"to wit, that if they did not furnish an interpretation of the dream, they should be cut off. The question as to the true interpretation, then, is between two constructions: whether it means, as in our version, that the dream had departed from him - that is, that he had forgotten it - or, that a decree or command had gone from him, that if they could not interpret the dream they should be destroyed. That the former is the correct interpretation seems to me to be evident.

(1) It is the natural construction, and accords best with the meaning of the original words. Thus no one can doubt that the word מלה millâh , and the words דבר dâbâr and ῥῆμα rēma , are used in the sense of "thing,"and that the natural and proper meaning of the Chaldee verb אזד 'ăzad is, to "go away, depart."Compare the Hebrew ( אזל 'âzal ) in Deu 32:36, "He seeth that their power is gone;"1Sa 9:7, "The bread is spent in our vessels;"Job 14:11, "The waters fail from the sea;"and the Chaldee ( אזל 'ăzal ) in Ezr 4:23, "They went up in haste to Jerusalem;"Ezr 5:8, "We went into the province of Judea;"and Dan 2:17, Dan 2:24; Dan 6:18 (19), 19(20).

(2) This interpretation is sustained by the Vulgate of Jerome, and by the Greek.

(3) It does not appear that any such command had at that time gone forth from the king, and it was only when they came before him that he promulgated such an order. Even though the word, as Gesenins and Zickler (Chaldaismus Dan. Proph.) maintain, is a feminine participle present, instead of a verb in the preterit, still it would then as well apply to the "dream"departing from him, as the command or edict. We may suppose the king to say, "The thing leaves me; I cannot recal it."

(4) It was so understood by the magicians, and the king did not attempt to correct their apprehension of what he meant. Thus, in Dan 2:7, they say, "Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation thereof."This shows that they understood that the dream had gone from him, and that they could not be expected to interpret its meaning until they were apprised what it was.

(5) It is not necessary to suppose that the king retained the memory of the dream himself, and that he meant merely to try them; that is, that he told them a deliberate falsehood, in order to put their ability to the test. Nebuchadnezzar was a cruel and severe monarch, and such a thing would not have been entirely inconsistent with his character; but we should not needlessly charge cruelty and tyranny on any man, nor should we do it unless the evidence is so clear that we cannot avoid it. Besides, that such a test should be proposed is in the highest degree improbable. There was no need of it; and it was contrary to the established belief in such matters. These men were retained at court, among other reasons, for the very purpose of explaining the prognostics of the future. There was confidence in them; and they were retained "because"there was confidence in them. It does not appear that the Babylonian monarch had had any reason to distrust their ability as to what they professed; and why should he, therefore, on "this"occasion resolve to put them to so unusual, and obviously so unjust a trial?

For these reasons, it seems clear to me that our common version has given the correct sense of this passage, and that the meaning is, that the dream had actually so far departed from him that he could not repeat it, though he retained such an impression of its portentous nature, and of its appalling outline, as to fill his mind with alarm. As to the objection derived from this view of the passage by Bertholdt to the authenticity of this chapter, that it is wholly improbable that any man would be so unreasonable as to doom others to punishment because they could not recal his dream, since it entered not into their profession to be able to do it (Commentary i. p. 192), it may be remarked, that the character of Nebuchadnezzar was such as to make what is stated here by Daniel by no means improbable. Thus it is said respecting him 2Ki 25:7, "And they slew the sons of Zedekiah ‘ before his eyes,’ and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon."Compare 2Ki 25:18-21; Jer 39:5, following; Jer 52:9-11. See also Dan 4:17, where he is called "the basest of men."Compare Hengstenberg, "Die Authentie des Daniel,"pp. 79-81. On this objection, see Introduction to the chapter, Section I. I.

If ye will not make known, unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof - Whatever may be thought as to the question whether he had actually forgotten the dream, there can be no doubt that he demanded that they should state what it was, and then explain it. This demand was probably as unusual as it was in one sense unreasonable, since it did not fall fairly within their profession. Yet it was not unreasonable in this sense, that if they really had communication with the gods, and were qualified to explain future events, it might be supposed that they would be enabled to recal this forgotten dream. If the gods gave them power to explain what was to "come,"they could as easily enable them to recal "the past."

Ye shall be cut in pieces - Margin, "made."The Chaldee is, "Ye shall be made into pieces; "referring to a mode of punishment that was common to many ancient nations. Compare 1Sa 15:33 : "And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."Thus Orpheus is said to have been torn in pieces by the Thracian women; and Bessus was cut in pieces by order of Alexander the Great.

And your houses shall be made a dunghill - Compare 2Ki 10:27. This is an expression denoting that their houses, instead of being elegant or comfortable mansions, should be devoted to the vilest of uses, and subjected to all kinds of dishonor and defilement. The language here used is in accordance with what is commonly employed by Orientals. They imprecate all sorts of indignities and abominations on the objects of their dislike, and it is not uncommon for them to smear over with filth what is the object of their contempt or abhorrenee. Thus when the caliph Omar took Jerusalem, at the head of the Saracen army, after ravaging the greater part of the city, he caused dung to be spread over the site of the sanctuary, in token of the abhorrence of all Mussulmans, and of its being henceforth regarded as the refuse and offscouring of all things. - Prof. Bush. The Greek renders this, "And your houses shall be plundered;"the Vulgate, "And your houses shall be confiscated."But these renderings are entirely arbitrary. This may seem to be a harsh punishment which was threatened, and some may, perhaps, be disposed to say that it is improbable that a monarch would allow himself to use such intemperate language, and to make use of so severe a threatening, especially when the magicians had as yet shown no inability to interpret the dream, and had given no reasons to apprehend that they would be unable to do it. But we are to remember

(1) the cruel and arbitrary character of the king (see the references above);

(2) the nature of an Oriental despotism, in which a monarch is acccustomed to require all his commands to be obeyed, and his wishes gratified promptly, on pain of death;

(3) the fact that his mind was greatly excited by the dream; and

(4) that he was certain that something portentous to his kingdom had been prefigured by the dream, and that this was a case in which all the force of threatening, and all the prospect of splendid reward, should be used, that they might be induced to tax their powers to the utmost, and allay the tumults of his mind.

Barnes: Dan 2:6

But if ye show the dream - If you show what the dream was.

And the interpretation thereof - What it signifies. That is, they were so to state the dream that Nebuchadnezzar would recognize it; and they were to give such an explanation of it as would commend itself to his mind as the true one. On this last point he would doubtless rely much on their supposed wisdom in performing this duty, but it would seem clear, also, that it was necessary that the interpretation should be seen to be a "fair"interpretation, or such as would be "fairly"implied in the dream. Thus, when Daniel made known the interpretation, he saw at once that it met all the features of the dream, and he admitted it to be correct. So also when Daniel explained the handwriting on the wall to Belshazzar, he admitted the justness of it, and loaded him with honors, Dan 5:29. So when Joseph explained the dreams of Pharaoh, he at once saw the appropriateness of the explanation, and admitted it to be correct Gen 41:39-45; and so in the case above referred to (notes on Dan 2:2), of Astyages respecting the dreams of his daughter (Herod. 1, cvii.; cviii.), he at once saw that the interpretation of the dreams proposed by the Magi accorded with the dreams, and took his measures accordingly.

Ye shall receive of me gifts, and rewards, and great honor - Intending to appeal to their highest hopes to induce them, if possible, to disclose the meaning of the dream. He specifics no particular rewards, but makes the promise general; and the evident meaning is, that, in such a case, he would bestow what it became a monarch like him to give. That the usual rewards in such a case were such as were adapted to stimulate to the most vigorous exertions of their powers, may be seen from the honor which he conferred on Daniel when he made known the dream Dan 2:48, and from the rewards which Belshazzar conferred on Daniel for making known the interpretation of the writing on the wall Dan 5:29 : "Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom."Compare Est 5:11; Est 6:7-9.

Barnes: Dan 2:7

They answered again, and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it - Certainly not an unreasonable request, in any circumstances, and especially in theirs. They did not profess, evidently, to be able to recal a dream that was forgotten, but the extent of their profession on this subject appears to have been, that they were able to "explain"what was commonly regarded as a prognostic of a future event.

Barnes: Dan 2:8

The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time - Margin, "buy."The Chaldee word זבנין zâb^e nı̂yn (from זבן z^e ban ) means, to get for oneself, buy, gain, procure. Greek, ἐξαγοράζετε exagorazete - "that ye redeem time;"and so the Vulgate - quod tempus redimitis . The idea is, that they saw that they could not comply with his requisition, and that their asking him Dan 2:7 to state the dream was only a pretext for delay, in the hope that in the interval some device might be hit on by them to appease him, or to avert his threatened indignation. It would be natural to suppose that they might hope that on reflection he would become more calm, and that, although they "might"not be able to recal the dream and explain it, yet it would be seen to be unreasonable to expect or demand it. The king seems to have supposed that some such thoughts were passing through their minds, and he charges on them such a project. The argument of the king seems to have been something like this: "They who can explain a dream correctly can as well tell what it is as what its interpretation is, for the one is as much the result of Divine influence as the other; and if men can hope for Divine help in the one case, why not in the other? As you cannot, therefore, recal the dream, it is plain that you cannot interpret it; and your only object in demanding to know it is, that you may ward off as long as possible the execution of the threatened sentence, and, if practicable, escape it altogether."It is not improbable that what they said was more than the simple request recorded in Dan 2:7. They would naturally enlarge on it, by attempting to show how unreasonable was the demand of the king in the case, and their arguments would give a fair pretext for what he here charges on them.

Because ye see the thing is gone from me - According to the interpretation proposed in Dan 2:5, the "dream."The meaning is, "You see that I have forgotten it. I have made a positive statement on that point. There can be no hope, therefore, that it can be recalled, and it is clear that your only object must be to gain time. Nothing can be gained by delay, and the matter may therefore be determined at once, and your conduct be construed as a confession that you cannot perform what is required, and the sentence proceed without delay."This makes better sense, it seems to me, than to suppose that he means that a sentence had gone forth from him that if they could not recal and interpret it they should be put to death.

Barnes: Dan 2:9

But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you - That is, you shall share the same fate. You shall all be cut to pieces, and your houses reduced to ruin, Dan 2:5. There shall be no favor shown to any class of you, or to any individual among you. It seems to have been supposed that the responsibility rested on them individually as well as collectively, and that it would be right to hold each and every one of them bound to explain the matter. As no difference of obligation was recognized, there would be no difference of criminality. It should be said, however, that there is a difference of interpretation here. Gesenius, and some others, render the word translated "decree"- דת dâth - "counsel, plan, purpose,"and suppose that it means, "this only is your counsel, or plan;"that is, to prepare lying words, and to gain time. So Prof. Stuart renders the verse, "If ye will not make known to me the dream, one thing is your purpose, both a false and deceitful word have ye agreed to utter before me, until the time shall have changed; therefore tell me the dream, and then I shall know that you can show me the interpretation thereof."The original word, however, is most commonly used in the sense of law or decree. See Deu 33:2; Est 1:8, Est 1:13, Est 1:15, Est 1:19; Est 2:8; Est 3:8, Est 3:14-15; Est 4:3, Est 4:8, Est 4:11, Est 4:16; Est 8:13-14, Est 8:17; Est 9:1, Est 9:13-14; and there seems to be no necessity for departing from the common translation. It contains a sense according to the truth in the case, and is in accordance with the Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions.

For ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me - That is, "You have done this in asking me to state the dream Dan 2:4, Dan 2:7, and in the demand that the dream should be made known to you, in order that you may interpret it. I shall know by your inability to recal the dream that you have been acting a false and deceitful part, and that your pretensions were all false. Your wish, therefore, to have me state the dream will be shown to be a mere pretence, an artifice for delay, that you might put off the execution of the sentence with the hope of escaping altogether."

Till the time be changed - That is, until a new state of things shall occur; either until his purpose might change, and his anger should subside or until there should be a change of government: It was natural for such thoughts to pass through the mind of the king, since, as matters could be no "worse"for them if the subject was delayed, there was a possibility that they might be "better"- for any change would be likely to be an advantage. There does not appear to have been any great confidence or affection on either side. The king suspected that they were influenced by bad motives, and they certainly had no strong reasons for attachment to him. Compare the notes at Dan 2:21, and Dan 7:25.

Barnes: Dan 2:10

The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said - Perhaps the "Chaldeans"answered because they were the highest in favor, and were those in whom most confidence was usually reposed in such matters. See the notes at Dan 2:2. On such an occasion, those would be likely to be put forward to announce their inability to do this who would be supposed to be able to interpret the dream, if any could, and on whom most reliance was usually placed.

There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’ s matter - Chaldee, על־יבשׁתא ‛al - yabesh^e thâ' - "upon the dry ground."Compare Gen 1:10. The meaning is, that the thing was utterly beyond the power of man. It was what none who practiced the arts of divining laid claim to. They doubtless supposed that as great proficients in that art as the world could produce might be found among the wise men assembled at the court of Babylon, and if they failed, they inferred that all others would fail. This was, therefore, a decided confession of their inability in the matter; but they meant to break the force of that mortifying confession, and perhaps to appease the wrath of the king, by affirming that the thing was wholly beyond the human powers, and that no one could be expected to do what was demanded.

Therefore"there is "no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things - No one has ever made a similar demand. The matter is so clear, the incompetency of man to make such a disclosure is so manifest, that no potentate of any rank ever made such a request. They designed, undoubtedly, to convince the king that the request was so unreasonable that he would not insist on it. They were urgent, for their life depended on it, and they apprehended that they had justice on their side.

Barnes: Dan 2:11

And it is a rare thing that the king requireth - Chaldee, יקירה yaqqı̂yrâh - meaning, "choice, valuable, costly;"then, "heavy, hard, difficult."Greek, βαρύς barus . Vulgate, "gravis - heavy, weighty."The idea is not so much that the thing demanded by the king was "uncommon"or "rarely made"- though that was true, as that it was so difficult as to be beyond the human powers. They would not have been likely on such an occasion to say that the requirement was absolutely unjust or unreasonable. The term which they used was respectful, and yet it implied that no man could have any hope of solving the question as it was proposed by him.

And there is none other that can show it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh - This was clearly true, that a matter of that kind could not be disclosed except by Divine assistance. It would seem from this that these persons did not claim to be inspired, or to have communication with the gods; or, at least, that they did not claim to be inspired by the Supreme God, but that they relied on their own natural sagacity, and their careful and long study of the meaning of those occurrences which prefigured future events, and perhaps on the mystic arts derived from their acquaintance with science as then understood. The word "gods"here - אלהין 'ĕlâhı̂yn , the same as the Hebrew אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym - is in the plural number, but might be applied to the true God, as the Hebrew אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym often is. It is by no means certain that they meant to use this in the plural, or to say that it was an admitted truth that the gods worshipped in Babylon did not dwell with people.

It was, undoubtedly, the common opinion that they did; that the temples were their abode; and that they frequently appeared among men, and took part in human affairs. But it was a very early opinion that the Supreme God was withdrawn from human affairs, and had committed the government of the world to intermediate beings - internuncii - demons, or aeons: beings of power far superior to that of men, who constantly mingled in human affairs. Their power, however, though great, was limited; and may not the Chaldeans here by the word אלהין 'ĕlâhı̂yn - have meant to refer to the Supreme God, and to say that this was a case which pertained to him alone; that no inferior divinity could be competent to do such a thing as he demanded; and that as the Supreme God did not dwell among men it was hopeless to attempt to explain the matter? Thus understood, the result will convey a higher truth, and will show more impressively the honor put on Daniel. The phrase, "whose dwelling is not with flesh,"means "with men - in human bodies."

On the supposition that this refers to the Supreme God, this undoubtedty accords with the prevailing sentiment of those times, that however often the inferior divinities might appear to men, and assume human forms, yet the Supreme God was far removed, and never thus took up his abode on the earth. They could hope, therefore, for no communication from Him who alone would be competent to the solution, of such a secret as this. This may be regarded, therefore, as a frank confession of their entire failure in the matter under consideration. They acknowledged that "they"themselves were not competent to the solution of the question, and they expressed the opinion that the ability to do it could not be obtained from the help which the inferior gods rendered to men, and that it was hopeless to expect the Supreme God - far withdrawn from human affairs - to interpose. It was a public acknowledgment that their art failed on a most important trial, and thus the way was prepared to show that Daniel, under the teaching of the true God, was able to accomplish what was wholly beyond all human power.

The trial had been fairly made. The wisest men of the Chaldean realm had been applied to. They on whom reliance had been placed in such emergencies; they who professed to be able to explain the prognostics of future events; they who had been assembled at the most important and magnificent court of the world - the very center of Pagan power; they who had devoted their lives to investigations of this nature, and who might be supposed to be competent to such a work, if any on earth could, now openly acknowledged that their art failed them, and expressed the conviction that there was no resource in the case.

Barnes: Dan 2:12

For this cause the king was angry - Because they failed in explaining the subject which had been referred to them. It is true that his anger was unjust, for their profession did not imply that they would undertake to explain what he demanded, but his wrath was not unnatural. His mind was alarmed, and he was troubled. He believed that what he had seen in his dream foreboded some important events, and, as an arbitrary sovereign, unaccustomed to restrain his anger or to inquire into the exact jusrice of matters which excited Iris indignation, it was not unnatural that he should resolve to wreak his vengeance on all who made any pretensions to the arts of divining.

And very furious - Wrought up to the highest degree of passion. Chaldee, "Much enraged."It was not a calm and settled purpose to execute his threat, but a purpose attended with a high degree of excitement.

And commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon - That is, all who made pretensions to this kind of wisdom; all who came under the wellknown denomination of "wise men,"or "sages."He had called that class before him Dan 2:2; he had demanded of them an explanation of his dream; he had been assured by the leading men among them, the Chaldeans Dan 2:10-11, that they could not recall his dream; and, as he supposed that all who could be relied on in such a case had failed, he resolved to cut them off as impostors.

Where Daniel was at this time is not known. It would seem, however, that from some reason he had not been summoned before the king with the others, probably because, although he had shown himself to be eminently endowed with wisdom Dan 1:20, he had not yet made any pretensions to this kind of knowledge, and was not numbered with the Magi, or Chaldeans. When, however, the decree went forth that "all"the "wise men of Babylon"should be slain, the exhibition of wisdom and knowledge made by him Dan 1:18-20 was recollected, and the executioners of the sentence supposed that tie and his companions were included in the general instructions. Whether the word "Babylon"here relates to the city of Babylon, or to the whole realm, there is no certain way of determining. Considering, however, the character of Oriental despotisms, and the cruelty to which absolute sovereigns have usually been transported in their passion, there would be no improbability in supposing that the command included the whole realm, though it is probable that most of this class would be found in the capital.

Barnes: Dan 2:13

And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain - The original here will bear a somewhat different translation, meaning, "the decree went forth, "and"the wise men were slain;"that is, the execution of the sentence was actually commenced. So the Vulgate: Et egressa sententia, sapientes interficiebantur . So also the Greek version: καὶ οἱ σοφοί ἀπεκτέννοντο kai hoi sophoi apektennonto - "and the wise men were slain."This seems to me to be the more probable interpretation, and better to suit the connection. Then it would mean that they had actually begun to execute the decree, and that in the prosecution of their bloody work they sought out Daniel and his companions, and that by his influence with Arioch the execution of the sentence was arrested.

And they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain - His three companions Dan 1:6, who probably had not been among those who were summoned to court to explain the matter. Had they been consulted at first, the issuing of the decree would have been prevented, but it seems to have been the design of Providence to give the fairest trial of the ability of these sages, and to allow matters to come to a crisis, in order to show that what was done was wholly beyond human power.

Barnes: Dan 2:14

Then Daniel answered - Margin, "returned."The original literally is, "returned counsel and wisdom,"meaning, that he returned an answer which was replete with wisdom. It would seem probable that Arioch had communicated to Daniel the decree of the king, and had stated to him that he was involved in that decree, and must prepare to die.

Counsel and wisdom - That is, "wise counsel."He evinced great prudence and discretion in what he said. He made such a suggestion to Arioch as, if acted on, would stay the execution of the sentence against all the wise men, and would secure the object which the king had in view. What was the exact nature of this answer is not mentioned. It is probable, however, that it was that he might be enabled to disclose the dream, and that he made this so plausible to Arioch, that he was disposed to allow him to make the trial. It is evident that Arioch would not have consented to arrest the execution of the sentence, unless it had appeared to him to be in the highest degree probable that he would be able to relieve the anxiety of the king. Knowing that the "main"object of the king was to obtain the interpretation of his dream, and seeing that this object was not any the more likely to be secured by the execution of this stern decree, and knowing the high favor with which Daniel had been received at court Dan 1:19-21, he seems to have been willing to assume some measure of responsibility, and to allow Daniel to make his own representation to the king.

To Arioch the captain of the king’ s guard - Margin, "chief of the executioners, or slaughter-men, or chief marshal."Greek, ἀρχιμαγείρῳ τοῦ βασιλέως archimageirō tou basileōs - chief cook of the king. The Vulgate renders this,"Then Daniel inquired respecting the law and the sentence of Arioch, the commander of the royal army."The Chaldee word rendered "guard"is טבחיא ṭabâchayâ' . It is derived from טבח ṭâbach , to slaughter; to kill animals; and then to kill or slay men. The "noun,"then, means a slaughterer or slayer; a cook; an executioner, or one who kills men at the will of a sovereign, or by due sentence of law. There can be no doubt that the word here refers to Arioch, as sent out to execute this sentence; yet we are not to regard hint as a mere executioner, or as we would a hangman, for undoubtedly the king would entrust this sentence to one who was of respectable, if not of high rank. It is probable that one of the principal officers of his body-guard would be entrusted with the execution of such a sentence. In 1Sa 8:13, the word is rendered "cooks."It does not elsewhere occur. That he was not a "mere"executioner is apparent from the title given him in the next verse, where he is called "the king’ s captain."

Which was gone forth to slay ... - He had gone to execute the decree, and its execution had already commenced.

Barnes: Dan 2:15

He answered and said to Arioch the king’ s captain - The word "captain"- a different word from what occurs in Dan 2:14, שׁליטא shallı̂yṭa' - denotes one who has rule or dominion; one who is powerful or mighty; and it would be applied only to one who sustained a post of honor and responsibility. See the use of the word שׁלט shālaṭ , as meaning "to rule,"in Neh 5:15; Ecc 2:19; Ecc 6:2; Ecc 8:9; Est 9:1; Psa 119:133. The word here used is the same which occurs in Dan 2:10, where it is rendered "ruler."It doubtless denotes here an officer of rank, and designates one of more honorable employment than would be denoted by the word "executioner."It should be said on these verses Dan 2:14-15, however, that the office of executioner in the East was by no means regarded as a dishonorable office. It was entrusted to those high in rank, and even nobles considered it an honor, and often boasted of it as such, that among their ancestors there were those who had in this way been entrusted with executing the commands of their sovereign. Hanway and AbdulKerim both say that this office conferred honor and rank. Tournefort says, that in Georgia "the executioners are very rich, and men of standing undertake this employment; far different from what occurs in other parts of the world, in that country this gives to a family a title of honor. They boast that among their ancestors there were many who were executioners; and this they base on the sentiment, that nothing is more desirable than justice, and that nothing can be more honorable than to be engaged in administering the laws."See Rosenmuller, Morgenland, 1079.

Why is the decree so hasty from the king? - Implying that all the effort had not been made which it was possible to make to solve the mystery. The idea is, that a decree of such a nature, involving so many in ruin, ought not to have proceeded from the king without having taken all possible precautions, and having made all possible efforts to find those who might be able to disclose what the king desired. It was to Daniel a just matter of surprise that, after the favor and honor with which he had been received at court Dan 1:19-20, and the confidence which had been reposed in him, a command like this should have been issued. so comprehensive as to embrace him and his friends, when they had done nothing to deserve the displeasure of the king.

Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel - The statement respecting the dream; the trouble of the king; the consultation of the magicians; their inability to explain the dream, and the positive command to put all the pretenders to wisdom to death. It is clear that Daniel had not before been informed of these things.

Barnes: Dan 2:16

Then Daniel went in ... - Either by himself, or through the medium of some friend. Perhaps all that is meant is not that he actually went into the presence of the monarch, but that he went into the palace, and through the interposition of some high officer of court who had access to the sovereign, desired of him that he would give him time, and that he would make it known. It would rather appear, from Dan 2:24-25, that the first direct audience which he had with the king was after the thing was made known to him in a night vision, and it would scarcely accord with established Oriental usages that he should go immediately and unceremoniously into the royal presence. A petition, presented through some one who had access to the king, would meet all the circumstances of the case.

That he would give him time - He did not specify "why"he desired time, though the reason why he did it is plain enough. He wished to lay the matter before God, and to engage his friends in earnest prayer that the dream and the interpretation might be made known to him. This request was granted to him. It may seem remarkable, as no time was allowed to the Chaldeans that they might make inquiry Dan 2:8, that such a favor should have been granted to Daniel, especially after the execution of the sentence had been commenced; but we are to remember

(1) that the king would recollect the favor which he had already shown Daniel on good grounds, and the fact that he regarded him as endowed with great wisdom, Dan 1:19-20.

(2) Daniel did not ask, as the Chaldeans did, that the king should tell the dream before he undertook to explain it, but he proposed evidently to unfold the whole matter.

(3) It could not but occur to the king that Daniel had not yet been consulted, and that it was but reasonable that he should have a fair trial now, since it appeared that he was involved in the general sentence.

(4) The anxiety of the king to understand the dream was so great that he was willing to grasp at "any"hope in order that his perplexities might be relieved; and

(5) It is not improper to suppose that there may have been a Divine influence on the mind of this monarch, making’ him willing to do so simple an act of justice as this, in order that it might be seen and acknowledged that the hand of God was in the whole matter.

Barnes: Dan 2:17

Then Daniel went to his house - It is quite evident that he had obtained the object of his request, though this is not expressly mentioned. The king was undoubtedly, for the reasons above stated, willing that he should have a fair opportunity to try his skill in disclosing the mysterious secret.

And made the thing known to Hananiah ... - Made the whole matter known - the perplexity respecting the dream; the failure of the Chaldeans to interpret it; the decree; and his own petition to the king. They had a common interest in knowing it, as their lives were all endangered.

Barnes: Dan 2:18

That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret - That they would implore of God that he would show his mercy to them in revealing this secret, that their lives might be spared. In the margin, as in the Chaldee, this is "from before the God of heaven."All depended now on God. It was clear that human skill was exhausted, and that no reliance could be placed on any ability which man possessed. The art of the Chaldeans had failed, and Daniel, as well by this failure as by the promptings of his own feelings, must now have perceived that the only hope was in God, and that his favor in the case was to be obtained only by prayer. As his three friends were equally interested in the issue, and as it was an early principle of religion, and one found in all dispensations (compare Mat 18:19), that "united"prayer has special power with God, it was natural and proper to call on his friends to join with him in asking this favor from Him who alone could grant it. It was the natural and the last resource of piety, furnishing an example of what all may do, and should do, in times of perplexity and danger.

That Daniel and his fellows should not perish - Margin, "or, they should not destroy Daniel."The leading in the margin is most in accordance with the Chaldee, though the sense is substantially the same. The word "fellows"is the same which is before rendered "companions."

With the rest of the wise men of Babylon - It seems to have been certain that the decree would be executed on the Chaldeans, soothsayers, etc. And, indeed, there was no reason "why"the decree should not be executed. They had confessed their inability to comply with the king’ s command, and whatever Daniel could now do could not be construed in their favor as furnishing any reason why the decree should not be executed on them. It was presumed, therefore, that the law, severe as it seemed to be, would be carried into effect on them, and we may suppose that this was probably done. The only hope of their escaping from the common lot was in the belief that the God whom they served would now interpose in their behalf.

Barnes: Dan 2:19

Then was the secret revealed ... - To wit, the dream and the interpretation. The thing which had been "hidden"was disclosed. We may suppose that this occurred after a suitable time had been given to prayer.

In a night vision - A representation made to him at night, but whether when he was asleep or awake does not appear. Compare the notes at Dan 1:17; Isa 1:1; Job 4:13; Job 33:15.

Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven - Nothing would be more natural than that he should burst forth in a song of grateful praise for disclosing a secret by means of which his life, and the lives of his companions, would be preserved, and by which such signal honor would redound to God himself, as alone able to reveal coming events.

Barnes: Dan 2:20

Daniel answered and said - The word "answer,"in the Scriptures, often occurs substantially in the sense of "speak"or "say."It does not always denote a reply to something that has been said by another, as it does with us, but is often used when a speech is commenced, as if one were replying to something that "might"be said in the case, or as meaning that the circumstances in the case gave rise to the remark. Here the meaning is, that Daniel responded, as it were, to the goodness which God had manifested, and gave utterance to his feelings in appropriate expressions of praise.

Blessed be the name of God forever and ever - That is, blessed be God - the "name,"in the Scriptures, being often used to denote the person himself. It is common in the Bible to utter ascriptions of praise to God in view of important revelations, or in view of great mercies. Compare the song of Moses after the passage of the Red Sea, Exo. 15; the song of Deborah after the overthrow of Sisera, Judg. 5; Isa 12:1-6.

For wisdom, and might are his - Both these were manifested in a remarkable manner in the circumstances of this case, and therefore these were the beginnings of the song of praise: "wisdom,"as now imparted to Daniel, enabling him to disclose this secret, when all human skill had failed; and "might,"as about to be evinced in the changes of empire indicated by the dream and the interpretation. Compare Jer 32:19, "Great in counsel, and mighty in work."

Barnes: Dan 2:21

And he changeth the times and the seasons - The object of this is to assert the general control of God in reference to all changes which occur. The assertion is made, undoubtedly, in view of the revolutions in empire which Daniel now saw, from the signification of the dream, were to take place under the Divine hand. Foreseeing now these vast changes denoted by different parts of the image Dan 2:36-45, stretching into far-distant times, Daniel was led to ascribe to God the control over "all"the revolutions which occur on earth. There is no essential difference between the words "times"and "seasons."The words in Chaldee denote stated or appointed seasons; and the idea of times "appointed, set, determined,"enters into both. Times and seasons are not under the control of chance, but are bounded by established laws; and yet God, who appointed these laws, has power to change them, and all the changes which occur under those laws are produced by his agency. Thus the changes which occur in regard to day and night, spring and summer, autumn and winter, clouds and sunshine, health and sickness, childhood and youth, manhood and age, are under his control. Such changes, being in accordance with certain laws, may be regarded as "appointed,"or "set,"and yet the laws and the revolutions consequent on them are all under his control. So in regard to the revolutions of empire. By the arrangements of his providence he secures such revolutions as he shall see it to be best should occur, and in all of them his high hand should be regarded. The words "seasons"and "times"are of frequent occurrence in Daniel, and are sometimes used in a peculiar sense (see the notes at Dan 7:12, Dan 7:25), but they seem here to be employed in their usual and general signification, to denote that "all"the revolutions which occur on earth are under his control.

He removeth kings, and setteth up kings - He has absolute control over all the sovereigns of the earth, to place on the throne whom he will, and to remove them when he pleases. This was doubtless suggested to Daniel, and was made the foundation of this portion of his hymn of praise, from what he was permitted to see in the disclosures made to him in the interpretation of the dream. He then saw (compare Dan 2:37-45) that there would be most important revolutions of kingdoms under the hand of God, and being deeply impressed with these great prospective changes, he makes this general statement, that it was the prerogative of God to do this at pleasure. Nebuchadnezzar was brought to feel this, and to recognize it, when he said Dan 4:17, "The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will;""he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

Dan 4:32, Dan 4:35. This claim is often asserted for God in the Scriptures as a proof of his supremacy and greatness. "For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south: but God is the judge; he putteth down one, and setteth up another,"Psa 75:6-7. Compare 1Sa 2:7-8. Thus he claimed absolute control over Sennacherib to employ him at his pleasure in executing his purposes of punishment on the Hebrew nation Isa 10:5-7, and thus over Cyrus to execute his purposes on Babylon, and to restore his people to their land, Isa 45:1, following See also Isa 46:10-11. In this manner, all the kings of the earth may be regarded as under his control; and if the Divine plan were fully understood it would be found that each one has received his appointment under the Divine direction, to accomplish some important part in carrying forward the Divine plans to their fulfillment. A history of human affairs, showing the exact purpose of God in regard to each ruler who has occupied a throne, and the exact object which God designed to accomplish by placing "him"on the throne at the time when he did, would be a far more important and valuable history than any which has been written. Of many such rulers, like Cyrus, Sennacherib, Pilate, Henry VIII, Edward VI, and the Elector of Saxony, we can see the reason why they lived and reigned when they did; and doubtless God has had some important end to accomplish in the development of his great plans in the case of every one who has ever occupied a throne.

He giveth wisdom unto the wise ... - He is the source of all true wisdom and knowledge. This is often claimed for God in the Scriptures. Compare Pro 2:6-7 :

"For the Lord giveth wisdom;

Out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous;

He is a buckler to them that walk uprightly."

See also 1Ki 3:9-12; Exo 31:3. God claims to be the source of all wisdom and knowledge. He originally formed each human intellect, and made it what it is; he opens before it the paths of knowledge; he gives to it clearness of perception; he preserves its powers so that they do not become deranged; he has power to make suggestions, to direct the laws of association, to fix the mind on important thoughts, and to open before it new and interesting views of truth. And as it would be found, if the history could be written, that God has placed each monarch on the throne with a distinct reference to some important purpose in the development of his great plans, so probably it would be seen that each important work of genius which has been written; each invention in the arts; and each discovery in science has been, for a similar purpose, under his control. He has created the great intellect just at the time when it was needful that such a discovery or invention should be made, and having prepared the world for it by the course of events, the discovery or invention has occurred just at the time when, on the whole, it was most desirable that it should.

Barnes: Dan 2:22

He revealeth the deep and secret things - Things which are too profound for man to fathom by his own power, and which are concealed or hidden until he makes them known. What is said here is an advance on what was affirmed in the previous verse, and relates to another kind of knowledge. "That"related to such knowledge as was not properly beyond the grasp of the human intellect when unaided in any supernatural manner, and affirmed that even then all discoveries and inventions are to be traced to God; "this"refers to a species of knowledge which lies beyond any natural compass of the human powers, and in which a supernatural influence is needed - such things as the Chaldeans and astrologers claimed the power of disclosing. The assertion here is, that when the highest human wisdom showed itself insufficient for the exigency, God was able to disclose those deep truths which it was desirable for man to understand. Applied generally, this refers to the truths made known by revelation - truths which man could never have discovered by his unaided powers.

He knoweth what is in the darkness - What appears to man to be involved in darkness, and on which no light seems to shine. This may refer not only to what is concealed from man in the literal darkness of night, but to all that is mysterious; all that lies beyond the range of human inquiry; all that pertains to unseen worlds. An immensely large portion of the universe lies wholly beyond the range of human investigation at present, and is, of course, dark to man.

And the light dwelleth with him - The word rendered "dwelleth"( שׁרא sh^e rēl ) means, properly, to loose, to unbind, to solve, as e. g., hard questions, Dan 5:16; and is then applied to travelers who unbind the loads of their beasts to put up for the night, and then it comes to mean to put up for the night, to lodge, to dwell. Hence, the meaning is, that the light abides with God; it is there as in its appropriate dwelling-place; he is in the midst of it: all is light about him; light when it is sent out goes from him; when it is gathered together, its appropriate place is with him. Compare Job 38:19-20 :

"Where is the way where light dwelleth?

And as for darkness, where is the place thereof?

That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof,

And that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?"

See the note at that passage. Compare also 1Ti 6:16 : "Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto."1Jo 1:5 : "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

Barnes: Dan 2:23

I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers - By his "fathers"here, Daniel refers doubtless to the Jewish people in general, and not to his own particular ancestors. The meaning of the phrase "God of my fathers"is, that he had been their protector; had regarded them as his people; had conferred on them great favors. The particular ground of thanksgiving here is, that the same God who had so often revealed himself to the Hebrew people by the prophets in their own land, had now condescended to do the same thing to one of their nation, though a captive in a strange country. The favor thus bestowed had an increased value, from the fact that it showed that the Hebrew people were not forgotten, though far from the land of their birth, and that, though in captivity, they might still hope for the benign interposition of God.

Who hast given me wisdom and might - The word "wisdom"here undoubtedly refers to the ability which had now been given him to declare the nature and purport of the dream, imparting to him a degree of wisdom far superior to those pretenders to whom the matter had been at first submitted. The word "might"(Chaldee, strength - גבוּרתא g^e bûr^e thâ' ) does not probably differ materially from "wisdom."It means "ability"to interpret the dream - implying that it was a task beyond natural human ability.

For thou hast now made known unto us the king’ s matter - That is, it had been made known to him and his friends. He joins himself with them, for, although it was particularly made known to him, yet, as they had united with him in prayer that the secret might be disclosed, and as they shared common dangers, he regarded it as in fact made known to them all.

Barnes: Dan 2:24

Therefore Daniel went in, unto Arioch - In view of the fact that the matter was now disclosed to him, he proposed to lay it before the king. This of course, he did not do directly, but through Arioch, who was entrusted with the execution of the decree to slay the wise men of Babylon. That officer would naturally have access to the king, and it was proper that a proposal to arrest the execution of the sentence should be made through his instrumentality. The Chaldee דנה כל־קבל kôl - qebēl denâh is, properly, "on this whole account "- or, "on this whole account because"- in accordance with the usually full and pleonastic mode of writing particles, Similar to the German "alldieweil,"or the compound English "forasmuch as."The meaning is, that in view of the whole matter, he sought to lay the case before the king.

Destroy not the wise men of Babylon - That is, "Stay the execution of the sentence on them. Though they have failed to furnish the interpretation demanded, yet, as it can now be given, there is no occasion for the exercise of this severity."The ground of the sentence was that they could not interpret the dream. As the execution of the sentence involved Daniel and his friends, and as the reason why it was passed at all would now cease by his being able to furnish the required explanation, Daniel felt that it was a matter of mere justice that the execution of the sentence should cease altogether.

Bring me in before the king - It would seem from this that Daniel did not regard himself as having free access to the king, and he would not unceremoniously intrude himself into his presence. This verse confirms the interpretation given of Dan 2:16, and makes it in the highest degree probable that this was the first occasion on which he was personally before the king in reference to this matter.

Barnes: Dan 2:25

Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste - The Chaldee word used here implies "in tumultuous haste,"as of one who was violently excited, or in a state of trepidation, from בהל bâhal - "to tremble, to be in trepidation."The trepidation in this case may have arisen from one or both of two causes:

(1) exultation, or joy, that the great secret was discovered; or

(2) joy that the effusion of blood might be stayed, and that there might be now no necessity to continue the execution of the sentence against the wise men.

I have found a man - Margin, as in Chaldee, "That I have found a man It is not to be supposed that Arioch had known anything of the application which Daniel had made to the king to delay the execution of the sentence Dan 2:16, and, for anything that appears, he had suspended that execution on his own responsibility. Ignorant as he was, therefore, of any such arrangement, and viewing only his own agency in the matter, it was natural for him to go in and announce this as something entirely new to the king, and without suggesting that the execution of the sentence had been at all delayed. It was a most remarkable circumstance, and one which looks like a Divine interposition, that he should have been disposed to delay the execution of the sentence at all, so that Daniel could have an opportunity of showing whether he could not divulge the secret. All the circumstances of the case seem to imply that Arioch was not a man of a cruel disposition, but was disposed, as far as possible, to prevent the effusion of blood.

Of the captives of Judah - Margin, as in Chaldee, "of the children of the captivity."The word "Judah"here probably refers to the "country"rather than to the "people,"and means that he was among those who had been brought from the land of Judah.

That will make known unto the king the interpretation - It is clear, from the whole narrative, that Arioch had great confidence in Daniel. All the "evidence"which he could halve that he would be able to make this known, must have been from the fact that Daniel "professed"to be able to do it; but such was his confidence in him that he had no doubt that he would be able to do it.

Barnes: Dan 2:26

The king answered, and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar - See the notes at Dan 1:7. The "king"may have addressed him by this name, and probably did during this interview. This was the name, it would seem, by which he was known in Babylon - a name which implied honor and respectability, as being conferred on one whom it was supposed the principal Babylonian divinity favored.

Art thou able to make known unto me the dream? - One of the first points in the difficulty was to recal "the dream itself,"and hence, this was the first inquiry which the king presented. If he could not recal that, of course the matter was at an end, and the law would be suffered to take its course.

Barnes: Dan 2:27

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded, cannot the wise men ... show unto the king - Daniel regarded it as a settled and indisputable point that the solution could not be hoped for from the Chaldean sages. The highest talent which the realm could furnish had been applied to, and had failed. It was clear, therefore, that there was no hope that the difficulty would be removed by human skill. Besides this, Daniel would seem also to intimate that the thing, from the necessity of the case, was beyond the compass of the human powers. Alike in reference to the question whether a forgotten dream could be recalled, and to the actual "signification"of a dream so remarkable as this, the whole matter was beyond the ability of man.

The wise men, the astrologers ... - On these words, see the notes at Dan 1:20. All these words occur in that verse, except גזרין gâz^e rı̂yn - rendered "soothsayers."This is derived from גזר gezar - "to cut, to cut off;"and then "to decide, to determine;"and it is thus applied to those who decide or determine the fates or destiny of men; that is, those who "by casting nativities from the place of the stars at one’ s birth, and by various arts of computing and divining, foretold the fortunes and destinies of individuals."See Gesenius, "Com. z. Isa."2:349-356, Section 4, Von den Chaldern und deren Astrologie. On p. 555, he has given a figure, showing how the heavens were "cut up,"or "divided,"by astrologers in the practice of their art. Compare the phrase numeri Babylonii , in Hor. "Carm."I. xi. 2. The Greek is γαζαρηνῶν gazarēnōn - the Chaldee word in Greek letters. This is one of the words - not very few in number - which the authors of the Greek version did not attempt to translate. Such words, however, are not useless, as they serve to throw light on the question how the Hebrew and Chaldee were pronounced before the vowel points were affixed to those languages.

Barnes: Dan 2:28

But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets - One of the principal objects contemplated in all that occurred respecting this dream and its interpretation was, to direct the mind of the monarch to the true God, and to secure the acknowledgment of his supremacy. Hence, it was so ordered that those who were most eminent for wisdom, and who were regarded as the favorites of heaven, were constrained to confess their entire inability to explain the mystery. The way was thus prepared to show that he who "could"do this must be the true God, and must be worthy of adoration and praise. Thus prepared, the mind of the monarch was now directed by this pious Hebrew youth, though a captive, to a truth so momentous and important. His whole training, his modesty and his piety, all were combined to lead him to attribute whatever skill he might evince in so difficult a matter to the true God alone: and we can scarcely conceive of a more sublime object of contemplation than this young man, in the most magnificent court of the world, directing the thoughts of the most mighty monarch that then occupied a throne, to the existence and the perfections of the true God.

And maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar - Margin, "hath made."The translation in the text is more correct, for it was not true that he had as yet actually made these things known to the king. He had furnished intimations of what was to occur, but he had not yet been permitted to understand their signification.

What shall be in the latter days - Greek ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ep' eschatōn tōn hēmerōn - "in the last days."Vulgate, in novissimis temporibus - "in the last times."Chaldee, יומיא באחרית b^e 'achărı̂yth yômayâ' - "in the after days;"or, as Faber expresses it, "in the afterhood of days."The phrase means what we should express by saying, "hereafter - in future times - in time to come."This phrase often has special reference to the times of the Messiah, as the last dispensation of things on the earth, or as that under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Compare the notes at Isa 2:2. It does not appear, however, to be used in that sense here, but it denotes merely "future"times. The phrase "the latter days,"therefore, does not exactly convey the sense of the original. It is "future"days rather than "latter"days.

Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed - The phrase "visions of thy head"means conceptions or notions formed by the brain. It would seem from this, that, even in the time of Daniel, the brain was regarded as, in some sense, the organ of thinking, or that "thought"had its seat in the head. We are not to suppose that by the use of these different expressions Daniel meant to describe two things, or to intimate that Nebuchadnezzar had had visions which were distinct. What he saw might be described as a dream or a vision; it, in fact, had the nature of both.

Are these - " These which I now proceed to describe."

Barnes: Dan 2:29

As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed - Margin, "up;"that is, thy thoughts ascended. The Chaldee is, "thy thoughts ascended"- סלקוּ selı̂qû . So the Greek: "Thy thoughts ascended ( ἀνέβησαν anebēsan ) upon thy couch."There is, evidently, some allusion to the thoughts "ascending,"or "going up;"and perhaps the idea is, that they were employed on important subjects - an idea which we now express by saying that one’ s thoughts are "elevated,"as contrasted with those which are "low"and "grovelling."

What should come to pass hereafter - It would seem most probable from this, that the thoughts of Nebuchadnezzar were occupied with this subject in his waking moments on his bed, and that the dream was grafted on this train of thought when he fell asleep. Nothing is more probable than that his thoughts might be thus occupied. The question respecting his successor; the changes which might occur; the possibility of revolutions in other kingdoms, or in the provinces of his own vast empire, all were topics on which his mind would probably be employed. As God designed, too, to fix his thoughts particularly on that general subjects the changes which were to occur in his empire - such an occasion, when his attention was greatly engrossed with the subject, would be very suitable to impart the knowledge which he did by this vision. Daniel refers to this, probably, because it would do much to confirm the monarch in the belief of his inspiration, if he referred to the train of thought which had preceded the dream; as it is not improbable that the king would remember his "waking"thoughts on the subject, though his "dream"was forgotten.

Barnes: Dan 2:30

But as for me - So far as I am concerned in this matter, or whatever skill or wisdom I may evince in the interpretation, it is not to be traced to myself. The previous verse commences with the expression "as for thee;"and in this verse, by the phrase "as for me,"Daniel puts himself in strong contrast with the king. The way in which this was done was not such as to flatter the vanity of the king, and cannot be regarded as the art of the courtier, and yet it was such as would be universally adopted to conciliate his favor, and to give him an elevated idea of the modesty and piety of the youthful Daniel. In the previous verse he says, that, as to what pertained to the king, God had greatly honored him by giving him important intimations of what was yet to occur. Occupying the position which he did, it might be supposed that it would not be wholly unnatural that he should be thus favored, and Daniel does not say, as in his own case, that it was not on account of anything in the character and rank of the king that this had been communicated to him. But when he comes to speak of himself - a youth; a captive; a stranger in Babylon; a native of another land - nothing was more natural or proper than that he should state distinctly that it was not on account of anything in him that this was done.

This secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living - That is, "it is not "by"any wisdom which I have above others, nor is it "on account of"any previous wisdom which I have possessed or manifested."There is an absolute and total disclaimer of the idea that it was in any sense, or in any way, on account of his own superiority in wisdom. All the knowledge which he had in the case was to be traced entirely to God.

But for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king - Margin, "or, the intent that the interpretation may be made known."The margin is the more correct rendering, and should have been admitted into the text. The literal translation is, "but ( להן lâhēn ) on account of the thing that they might make known the interpretation to the king."The word rendered "make known"is indeed in the plural, but it is evidently used in an impersonal sense, meaning that the interpretation would be made known. "It was to the intent that they might make it known;"that is, that somebody might do it, or that it might be done. Would not modesty and delicacy lead to the choice of such an expression here, inclining Daniel to avoid, as far as possible, all mention of himself? The main thought is, that the grand object to be secured was not to glorify Daniel, or any other human being, but to communicate to this pagan monarch important truths respecting coming events, and through him to the world.

And that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart - In reference to this matter; that is, that he might be able to recal the thoughts which passed through his mind in the dream. This Dan 2:27-30 is the introduction to the important disclosure which Daniel was about to make to the king. This entire disclaimer of the honor of having originated the interpretation by his own wisdom, and the ascribing of it to God, are worthy here of special attention. It is probable that the magicians were accustomed to ascribe to their own skill and sagacity the ability to interpret dreams and the other prognostics of the future, and to claim special honor on that account. In opposition to this, Daniel utterly disclaims any such wisdom himself, and attributes the skill which he has entirely to God. This is a beautiful illustration of the nature of modesty and piety. It places before us a young man, having now the prospect of being elevated to great honors; under every temptation to arrogate the possession of extraordinary wisdom to himself; suddenly exalted above all the sages of the most splendid court on earth, disclaiming all merit, and declaring in the most solemn manner that whatever profound wisdom there might be in the communication which he was about to make, it was not in the slightest degree to be traced to himself. See the remarks at the end of the chapter, (6.)

Barnes: Dan 2:31

Thou, O king, sawest - Margin, "wast seeing."The margin is in accordance with the Chaldee. The language is properly what denotes a prolonged or attentive observation. He was in an attitude favorable to vision, or was looking with intensity, and there appeared before him this remarkable image. Compare Dan 7:1-2, Dan 7:4, Dan 7:6. It was not a thing which appeared for a moment, and then vanished, but which remained so long that he could contemplate it with accuracy.

And, behold, a great image - Chaldee, "one image that was grand"- שׂגיא חד צלם ts^e lēm chad s'agı̂y' . So the Vulgate - statua una grandis . So the Greek - εἰκὼν μία eikōn mia . The object seems to be to fix the attention on the fact that there was but "one"image, though composed of so different materials, and of materials that seemed to be so little fitted to be worked together into the same statue. The idea, by its being represented as "one,"is, that it was, in some respects, "the same kingdom"that he saw symbolized: that is, that it would extend over the same countries, and could be, in some sense, regarded as a prolongation of the same empire. There was so much of "identity,"though different in many respects, that it could be represented as "one."The word rendered "image"( צלם tselem ) denotes properly "a shade,"or "shadow,"and then anything that "shadows forth,"or that represents anything.

It is applied to man Gen 1:27 as shadowing forth, or representing God; that is, there was something in man when he was created which had so far a resemblance to God that he might be regarded as an "image"of him. The word is often used to denote idols - as supposed to be a "representation"of the gods, either in their forms, or as shadowing forth their character as majestic, stern, mild, severe, merciful, etc. Num 33:52; 1Sa 6:5; 2Ki 11:18; 2Ch 23:17; Eze 7:20; Eze 16:17; Eze 23:14; Amo 5:26. This image is not represented as an idol to be worshipped, nor in the use of the word is it to be supposed that there is an allusion, as Prof. Bush supposes, to the fact that these kingdoms would be idolatrous, but the word is used in its proper and primitive sense, to denote something which would "represent,"or "shadow forth,"the kingdoms which would exist. The exact "size"of the image is not mentioned. It is only suggested that it was great - a proper characteristic to represent the "greatness"of the kingdoms to which it referred.

This great image - The word here rendered "great"( רב rab ) is different from that used in the previous clause, though it is not easy to determine the exact difference between the words. Both denote that the image was of gigantic dimensions. It is well remarked by Prof. Bush, that "the monuments of antiquity sufficiently evince that the humor prevailed throughout the East, and still more in Egypt, of constructing enormous statues, which were usually dedicated to some of their deities, and connected with their worship. The object, therefore, now presented in the monarch’ s dream was not, probably, entirely new to his thoughts."

Whose brightness was excellent - " Whose brightness "excelled,"or was unusual and remarkable."The word rendered brightness ( זיו zı̂yv ) is found only in Daniel. It is rendered "brightness"in Dan 2:31; Dan 4:36, and in the margin in Dan 5:6, Dan 5:9; and "countenance"in Dan 5:6 (text), and in Dan 2:9-10; Dan 7:28. From the places where it is found, particularly Dan 4:36, it is clear that it is used to denote a certain beauty, or majesty, shining forth in the countenance, which was fitted to impress the beholder with awe. The term here is to be understood not merely of the face of the image, but of its entire aspect, as having something in it signally splendid and imposing. We have only to conceive of a colossal statue whose head was burnished gold, and a large part of whose frame was polished silver, to see the force of this language.

Stood before thee - It stood over against him in full view. He had an opportunity of surveying it clearly and distinctly.

And the form thereof was terrible - Vast, imposing, grand, fearful. The sudden appearance of such an object as this could not but fill the mind with terror. The design for which this representation was made to Nebuchadnezzar is clearly unfolded in the explanation which Daniel gives. It may be remarked here, in general, that such an appearance of a gigantic image was well adapted to represent successive kingdoms, and that the representation was in accordance with the spirit of ancient times. "In ancient coins and medals,"says the editor of the "Pictorial Bible,""nothing is more common than to see cities and nations represented by human figures, male or female. According to the ideas which suggested such symbols, a vast image in the human figure was, therefore, a very fit emblem of sovereign power and dominion; while the materials of which it was composed did most significantly typify the character of the various empires, the succession of which was foreshown by this vision. This last idea, of expressing the condition of things by metallic symbols, was prevalent before the time of Daniel. Hesiod, who lived about two centuries before Daniel, characterizes the succession of ages (four) by the very same metals - gold, silver, brass, and iron."

Barnes: Dan 2:32

This image’ s head was of fine gold - Chaldee, "good gold"- טב דהב d^e hab ṭâb - that is, fine, pure, unalloyed. The whole head of the figure, colossal as it was, appeared to be composed wholly of this. Had the "whole"image been made of gold, it would not have been so striking - for it was not uncommon to construct vast statues of this metal. Compare Dan 3:1. But the remarkable peculiarity of this image was, that it was composed of different materials, some of which were seldom or never used in such a structure, and all of which had a peculiar significancy. On the significancy of this part of the figure, and the resemblance between this head of gold and Nebuchadnezzar himself, see the notes at Dan 2:37-38.

His breast and his arms of silver - The word rendered "breast"( חדין chădı̂y ) is in the plural number, in accordance with common usage in the Hebrew, by which several members of the human body are often expressed in the plural; as פנים pânı̂ym - "faces,"etc. There is a foundation for such a usage in nature, in the two-fold form of many of the portions of the human body. The portion of the body which is here represented is obviously the upper portion of the front part - what is prominently visible when we look at the human frame. Next to the head it is the most important part, as it embraces most of the vital organs. Some degree of inferiority, as well as the idea of succession, would be naturally represented by this. "The inferior value of silver as compared with gold will naturally suggest some degree of decline or degeneracy in the character of the subject represented by the metal; and so in other members, as we proceed downward, as the material becomes continually baser, we naturally infer that the subject deteriorates, in some sense, in the like manner."- Professor Bush, in loc . On the kingdom represented by this, and the propriety of this representation, see the notes at Dan 2:39.

His belly and his thighs of brass - Margin, "sides."It is not necessary to enter minutely into an examination of the words here used. The word "belly"denotes, unquestionably, the regions of the abdomen as externally visible. The word rendered "thighs"in the text is rendered "sides"in the margin. It is, like the word "breast"in the previous verse, in the plural number and for the same reason. The Hebrew word ( ירך yârêk ) is commonly rendered "thigh"in the Scriptures (Gen 24:2, Gen 24:9; Gen 32:25 (26), 31, 32(32, 33), et al.), though it is also frequently rendered "side,"Exo 32:27; Exo 40:22, Exo 40:24; Lev 1:11; Num 3:29, et al. According to Gesenius, it denotes "the thick and double fleshy member which commences at the bottom of the spine, and extends to the lower legs."It is that part on which the sword was formerly worn, Exo 32:27; Jdg 3:16, Jdg 3:21; Psa 45:3 (4). It is also that part which was smitten, as an expression of mourning or of indignation, Jer 31:19; Eze 21:12 (17). Compare Hom. Iliad xii. 162, xv. 397; Odyssey xiii. 198; Cic. 150: "Orat."80; "Quinc."xi. 3. It is not improperly here rendered "thighs,"and the portion of the figure that was of brass was that between the breast and the lower legs, or extended from the breast to the knees. The word is elsewhere employed to denote the shaft or main trunk of the golden candlestick of the tabernacle, Exo 25:31; Exo 37:17; Num 8:4.

Of brass - An inferior metal, and denoting a kingdom of inferior power or excellence. On the kingdom represented by this, see the notes at Dan 2:39.

Barnes: Dan 2:33

His legs of iron - The portion of the lower limbs from the knees to the ankles. This is undoubtedly the usual meaning of the English word "legs,"and it as clearly appears to be the sense of the original word here. Iron was regarded as inferior to either of the other metals specified, and yet was well adapted to denote a kingdom of a particular kind - less noble in some respects, and yet hardy, powerful, and adapted to tread down the world by conquest. On the application of this, see the notes at Dan 2:40.

His feet part of iron and part of clay - As to his feet; or in respect to his feet, they were partly of iron and partly of clay - a mixture denoting great strength, united with what is fragile and weak. The word rendered "clay"in this place ( חסף chăsaph ) is found nowhere else except in this chapter, and is always rendered "clay,"Dan 2:33-35, Dan 2:41 (twice), 42, 43 (twice), 45. In some instances Dan 2:41, Dan 2:43, the epithet "miry"is applied to it. This would seem to imply that it was not "burnt or baked clay,"or "earthenware,"as Professor Bush supposes, but clay in its natural state. The idea would seem to be, that the framework, so to speak, was iron, with clay worked in, or filling up the interstices, so as to furnish an image of strength combined with what is weak. That it would be well adapted represent a kingdom that had many elements of permanency in it, yet that was combined with things that made it weak - a mixture of what was powerful with what was liable to be crushed; capable of putting forth great efforts, and of sustaining great shocks, and yet having such elements of feebleness and decay as to make it liable to be overthrown. For the application of this, see the notes at Dan 2:41-43.

Barnes: Dan 2:34

Thou sawest - Chaldee, "Thou wast seeing;"that is, thou didst continue to behold, implying that the vision was of somewhat long continuance. It did not appear and then suddenly vanish, but it remained so long that he had an opportunity of careful observation.

Till that a stone was cut out without hands - That is, from a mountain or hill, Dan 2:45. This idea is expressed in the Latin and the Greek version. The vision appears to have been that of a colossal image "standing on a plain"in the vicinity of a mountain, standing firm, until, by some unseen agency, and in an unaccountable manner, a stone became detached from the mountain, and was made to impinge against it. The margin here is, "which was not in his hands."The more correct rendering of the Chaldee, however, is that in the text, literally, "a stone was cut out which was not by hands"- בידין bı̂ydayı̂n : or perhaps still more accurately, "a stone was cut out which was not in hands,"so that the fact that it was not in or by "hands"refers rather to its not being projected by hands than to the manner of its being detached from the mountain. The essential idea is, that the agency of hands did not appear at all in the case. The stone seemed to be self-moved. It became detached from the mountain, and, as if instinct with life, struck the image and demolished it. The word rendered "stone"( אבן 'eben ) determines nothing as to the "size"of the stone, but the whole statement would seem to imply that it was not of large dimensions. It struck upon "the feet"of the image, and it "became"itself a great mountain Dan 2:35 - all which would seem to imply that it was at first not large. What increased the astonishment of the monarch was, that a stone of such dimensions should have been adequate to overthrow so gigantic a statue, and to grind it to powder. The points on which it was clearly intended to fix the attention of the monarch, and which made the vision so significant and remarkable, were these:

\tx1080 (a) the colossal size and firmness of the image;

(b) the fact that a stone, not of large size, should be seen to be selfdetached from the mountain, and to move against the image;

© the fact that it should completely demolish and pulverize the colossal figure; and

(d) the fact that then this stone of inconsiderable size should be itself mysteriously augmented until it filled the world.

It should be added, that the vision appears not to have been that of a stone detached from the side of a hill, and rolling down the mountain by the force of gravitation, but that of a stone detached, and then moving off toward the image as if it had been thrown from a hand, though the hand was unseen. This would very strikingly and appropriately express the idea of something, apparently small in its origin, that was impelled by a cause that was unseen, and that bore with mighty force upon an object of colossal magnitude, by an agency that could not be explained by the causes that usually operate. For the application and pertinency of this, see the notes at Dan 2:44-45.

Which smote the image upon his feet - The word here used ( מחא m^e châ' ) means, to "strike,"to "smite,"without reference to the question whether it is a single blow, or whether the blow is often repeated. The Hebrew word ( מחא mâchâ' ) is uniformly used as refering to "the clapping of the hands;"that is, smiting them together, Psa 98:8; Isa 55:12; Eze 25:6. The Chaldee word is used only here and in Dan 2:35, referring to the smiting of the image, and in Dan 4:35 (32), where it is rendered "stay"- "none can stay his hand."The connection here, and the whole statement, would seem to demand the sense of a continued or prolonged smiting, or of repeated blows, rather than a single concussion. The great image was not only thrown down, but there was a subsequent process of "comminution,"independent of what would have been produced by the fall. A fall would only have broken it into large blocks or fragments; but this continued smiting reduced it to powder. This would imply, therefore, not only a single shock, or violent blow, but some cause continuing to operate until what had been overthrown was effectually destroyed, like a vast image reduced to impalpable powder. The "first concussion"on the feet made it certain that the colossal frame would fall; but there was a longer process necessary before the whole effect should be accomplished. Compare the notes at Dan 2:44-45.

And brake them to pieces - In Dan 2:35, the idea is, "they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors."The meaning is not that the image was broken to "fragments,"but that it was "beaten fine"- reduced to powder - so that it might be scattered by the wind. This is the sense of the Chaldee word ( דקק d^e qaq ), and of the Hebrew word also ( דקק dâqaq ). See Exo 32:20 : "And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder."Deu 9:21 : "and I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust."Isa 41:15 : "thou shalt thresh the mountains and "beat them small,"and shalt make the hills as chaff."2Ki 23:15 : "he burnt the high place, and "stamped"it "small"to powder."2Ch 34:4 : "and they brake down the altars, etc., and "made dust"of them, and strewed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them."Compare Exo 30:36; 2Ch 34:7; 2Ki 23:6. From these passages it is clear that the general meaning of the word is that of reducing anything to fine dust or powder, so that it may be easily blown about by the wind.

Barnes: Dan 2:35

Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor - The word rendered "together"( כצרה kachădâh ) our translators would seem to have understood as referring to "time;"to its being done simultaneously. The more literal interpretation, however, is, "as one;"that is, "they were beaten small as one,"referring to identity of condition. They were all reduced to one indiscriminate mass; to such a mass that the original materials could no longer be distinguished, and would all be blown away together. The literal meaning of the word ( חד chad used and חדה chădâh ) is, "one,"or "first."Ezr 4:8, "wrote a letter;"Ezr 5:13, "in the first year of Cyrus;"Ezr 6:2, "a roll;"Dan 2:9; "there is but one decree for you;"Dan 3:19, "heat the furnace one seven times hotter,"etc. United with the preposition ( כ k )it means "as one,"like the Hebrew כאחד k^e 'echâd ) - Ecc 11:6; 2Ch 5:13; Ezr 2:64; Ezr 3:9; Isa 65:25. The phrase "chaff of the summer threshing-floors"refers to the mode of winnowing grain in the East. This was done in the open air, usually on an elevated place, by throwing the grain, when thrashed, into the air with a shovel, and the wind thus drove away the chaff. Such chaff, therefore, naturally became an emblem of anything that was light, and that would be easily dissipated. See the notes at Isa 30:24; Mat 3:12.

And the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them - They were entirely dissipated like chaff. As that seems to have no longer any place, but is carried we know not where, so the figure here would denote an entire annihilation of the power to which it refers.

And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth - The vision which was before the mind of the king as here represented was, that the stone which was cut out of the mountain was at first small, and that while he contemplated it, it swelled to larger dimensions, until it became an immense mountain - a mountain that filled the whole land. It was this which, perhaps more than anything else, excited his wonder, that a stone, at first of so small dimensions, should of itself so increase as to surpass the size of the mountain from which it was cut, until it occupied every place in view. Everything about it was so remarkable and unusual, that it was no wonder that he could not explain it. We have now gone over a description of the literal vision as it appeared to the mind of the monarch. Had it been left here, it is clear that it would have been of difficult interpretation, and possibly the true explanation might never have been suggested. We have, however, an exposition by Daniel, which leaves no doubt as to its design, and which was intended to carry the mind forward into some of the most important and remarkable events of history. A portion of his statement has been fulfilled; a part remains still unaccomplished, and a careful exposition of his account of the meaning of the vision will lead our thoughts to some of the most important historical events which have occurred in introducing the Christian dispensation, and to events still more important in the statement of what is yet to come.

Barnes: Dan 2:36

This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king - Daniel here speaks in his own name, and in the name of his companions. Hence, he says, "we will tell the interpretation."It was in answer to their united supplications Dan 2:18, that this meaning of the vision had been made known to him; and it would not only have been a violation of the rules of modesty, but an unjust assumption, if Daniel had claimed the whole credit of the revelation to himself. Though he was the only one who addressed the king, yet he seems to have desired that it might be understood that he was not alone in the honor which God had conferred, and that he wished that his companions should be had in just remembrance. Compare Dan 2:49.

Barnes: Dan 2:37

Thou, O King, art a king of kings - The phrase "king of kings"is a Hebraism, to denote a supreme monarch, or one who has other kings under him as tributary, Ezr 7:12; Eze 26:7. As such it is applied by way of eminence to the Son of God, in Rev 17:14; Rev 19:16. As here used, it means that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over tributary kings and princes, or that he was the most eminent of the kings of the earth. The scepter which he swayed was, in fact, extended over many nations that were once independent kingdoms, and the title here conferred on him was not one that was designed to flatter the monarch, but was a simple statement of what was an undoubted truth. Daniel would not withhold any title that was in accordance with reality, as he did not withhold any communication in accordance with reality that was adapted to humble the monarch.

For the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom ... - At the same time that Daniel gave him a title which might in itself have ministered to the pride of the monarch, he is careful to remind him that he held this title in virtue of no wisdom or power of his own. It was the true God who had conferred on him the sovereignty of these extensive realms, and it was one of the designs of this vision to show him that he held his power at his will, and that at his pleasure he could cause it to pass away. It was the forgetfulness of this, and the pride resulting from that forgetfulness, which led to the melancholy calamity which befel this haughty monarch, as recorded in Dan. 4.

Barnes: Dan 2:38

And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heavens, hath he given into thy hand - This is evidently general language, and is not to be pressed literally. It is designed to say that he ruled over the whole world; that is, the world as then known. This is common language applied in the Scriptures to the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman kingdoms. Thus in Dan 2:39, the third of these kingdoms, the Grecian, was to "bear rule over all the earth."Compare Dan 8:5 : "And, as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth."So of the Roman empire, in Dan 7:23 : "The fourth beast shall devour the whole earth."The declaration that his kingdom embraced the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air is a strong expression, meaning that he reigned over the whole world. A somewhat similar description of the extent of the empire of the king of Babylon occurs in Jer 27:4-8 : "And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Thus shall ye say unto your masters; I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field I have given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’ s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand."

At the time referred to by Daniel, the scepter of Nebuchadnezzar a extended over all these realms, and the world was, in fact, placed substantially under one head. "All the ancient Eastern histories,"says Bishop Newton, "almost are lost; but there are some fragments even of pagan historians yet preserved, which speak of this mighty conqueror and his extended empire. Berosus, in Josephus (Contra Apion, c. i. Section 19), says that he held in subjection Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Arabia, and by his exploits surpassed all the Chaldeans and Babylonians who reigned before him. Strabo asserts that this king among the Chaldeans was more celebrated than Hercules; that he proceeded as far as to the pillars of Hercules, and led his army out of Spain into Thrace and Pontus. But his empire, though of great extent, was not of long duration, for it ended in his grandson Belshazzar, not seventy years after the delivery of this prophecy, nor above twenty-three years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar."- Newton on the "Prophecies,"pp. 186, 187.

Thou art this head of gold - The head of gold seen in the image represents thee as the sovereign of a vast empire. Compared with the other monarchs who are to succeed thee, thou art like gold compared with silver, and brass, and iron; or, compared with thy kingdom, theirs shall be as silver, brass, and iron compared with gold. It was common, at an early period, to speak of different ages of the world as resembling different metals. Compare the notes at Dan 2:31. In reference to the expression before us, "Thou art this head of gold,"it should be observed, that it is not probably to be confined to the monarch himself, but is rather spoken of him as the head of the empire; as representing the state; as an impersonation of that dynasty. The meaning is, that the Babylonian empire, as it existed under him, in its relation to the kingdoms which should succeed, was like the head of gold seen in the image as compared with the inferior metals that made up the remaining portions of the image. Daniel, as an interpreter, did not state in what the resemblance consisted, nor in what respects his empire could be likened to gold as compared with those which should follow. In the scanty details which we now have of the life of that monarch, and of the events of his reign, it may not be possible to see as clearly as would be desirable in what that resemblance consisted, or the full propriety of the appellation given to him. So far as may now be seen, the resemblance appears to have been in the following things:

(I) In respect to the empire itself of which he was the sovereign, as standing at the head of the others - the first in the line. This was not indeed the first kingdom, but the design here was not to give an account of all the empires on earth, but to take the world "as it was then,"and to trace the successive changes which would occur preparatory to the establishment of the kingdom which should finally spread over the earth. Viewed in reference to this design, it was undoubtedly proper to designate the empire of Babylon "as the head."It not only stood before them in the order of time, but in such a relation that the others might be regarded as in some sort its successors; that is, "they would succeed it in swaying a general scepter over the world."In this respect they would resemble also the Babylonian. At the time here referred to, the dominion over which Nebuchadnezzar swayed his scepter was at the head of the nations; was the central power of the Pagan world; was the only empire that could claim to be universal. For a long period the kingdom of Babylon had been dependent on that of Assyria; and while Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire, Babylon was the head of a kingdom, in general subordinate to that of Assyria, until Nabopolassar, the immediate predecessor of Nebuchadnezzar, rendered the kingdom of Babylon independent of the Assyrians, and transferred the seat of empire to Babylon. This was about the year 626 before the Christian era. See "Universal History,"vol. iii. pp. 412-415. Nebuchadnezzar, receiving this mighty kingdom, had carried his own arms to distant lands; had conquered India, Tyre, and Egypt; and, as would appear, all Northern Africa, as far as the pillars of Hercules, and, with quite unimportant exceptions, all the known world was subject to him.

(II) The appellation "head of gold"may have been given him on account of the splendor of his capital, and the magnificence of his court. In Isa 14:4, Babylon is called "the golden city."See the note at that place. In Isa 13:19, it is called "the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency."In Isa 47:5, it is called "the lady of kingdoms."In Jer 51:13, it is spoken of as "abundant in treasures,"and in Jer 51:41, as "the praise of the whole earth."So in profane writers, Babylon has similar appellations. Thus, in Aesch. Per. 51, mention is made of Βαβυλὼν η ̓ πολύχρυσος Babulōn hē poluchrusos - "Babylon abounding in gold."The conquests of Nebuchadnezzar enabled him to bring to his capital the spoils of nations, and to enrich his capital above any other city on the earth. Accordingly, he gave himself to the work of adorning a city that should be worthy to be the head of universal empire, and succeeded in making it so splendid as to be regarded as one of the wonders of the world. His great work in adorning and strengthening his capital consisted, first, of the building of the immense walls of the city; second, of the tower of Belus; and third, of the hanging gardens. For a full description of these, see Prideaux’ s "Connections,"vol. i. p. 232, following.

(III) The appellation may have been given him by comparison with the kingdoms which were to succeed him. In some respects - in extent and power - some one or more of them, as the Roman, might surpass his; but the appellation which was appropriate to them was not gold, but they would be best denoted by the inferior metals. Thus the Medo-Persian kingdom was less splendid than that of Babylon, and would be better represented by silver; the Macedonian, though more distinguished by its conquests, was less magnificent, and would be better represented by brass; and the Roman, though ultimately still more extensive in its conquests, and still more mighty in power, was less remarkable for splendor than strength, and would be better represented by iron. In magnificence, if not in power, the Babylonian surpassed them all; and hence, the propriety of the appellation, "head of gold."

(IV) It is possible that in this appellation there then may have been some reference to the character of the monarch himself. In Jer 27:6, he is spoken of as the "servant of God,"and it is clear that it was designed that a splendid mission was to be accomplished by him as under the Divine control, and in the preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah. Though he was proud and haughty as a monarch, yet his own personal character would compare favorably with that of many who succeeded him in these advancing kingdoms. Though his conquests were numerous, yet his career as a conqueror was not marked with cruelty, like that of many other warriors. He was not a mere conqueror. He loved also the arts of peace. He sought to embellish his capital, and to make it in outward magnificence and in the talent which he concentrated there, truly the capital of the world. Even Jerusalem he did not utterly destroy; but having secured a conquest over it, and removed from it what he desired should embellish his own capital, he still intended that it should be the subordinate head of an important province of his dominions, and placed on the throne one who was closely allied to the king who reigned there when he took the city.

But the appellation here, and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, are to be contemplated chiefly, like the kingdoms that succeeded, in their relation to redemption. It is in this aspect that the study of history becomes most interesting to a mind that regards all events as embraced in the eternal counsels of God, and it is undoubtedly with reference to this that the history of these kingdoms becomes in any way introduced into the inspired writings. All history may be contemplated under two aspects: in its secular bearing; and in its relation to the redemption of the world. In the former aspect, it has great and important uses. As furnishing lessons to statesmen; as showing the progress of society; as illustrating the effects of vice and immorality, and the evils of anarchy, ambition, and war; as recording and preserving the inventions in the arts, and as showing what are the best methods of civil government, and what conduces most to the happiness of a people, its value cannot well be overestimated.

But it is in its relations to the work of redeeming man that it acquires its chief value, and hence, the sacred volume is so much occupied with the histories of early nations. The rise and fall of every nation; the conquests and defeats which have occurred in past times, may all have had, and perhaps may yet be seen to have had, an important connection with the redemption of man - as being designed to put the world in a proper position for the coming of the Prince of Peace, or in some way to prepare the way for the final triumph of the gospel. This view gives a new and important aspect to history. It becomes an object in which all on earth who love the race and desire its redemption, and all in heaven, feel a deep concern. Every monarch; every warrior; every statesman; every man who, by his eloquence, bravery, or virtue, has contributed anything to the progress of the race, or who has in any way played an important part in the progress of the world’ s affairs, becomes a being on whom we can look with intense emotion; and in reference to every man of this character, it would be an interesting inquiry what he has done that has contributed to prepare the way for the introduction of the Mediatorial scheme, or to facilitate its progress through the world. In reference to this point, the monarch whose character is now before us seems to have been raised up, under an overruling Providence, to accomplish the following things:

(1) To inflict "punishment"on the revolted people of God for their numerous idolatries. See the book of Jeremiah, "passim."Hence, he led his armies to the land of Palestine; he swept away the people, and bore them into captivity; he burned the temple, destroyed the capital, and laid the land waste.

(2) He was the instrument, in the hand of God, of effectually purifying the Jewish nation from the sin of idolatry. It was for that sin eminently that they were carried away; and never in this world have the ends of punishment been better secured than in this instance. The chastisement was effectual. The Jewish nation has never since sunk into idolatry. If there have been individuals of that nation - of which, however, there is no certain evidence - who have become idolaters, yet as a people they have been preserved from it. More than two thousand five hundred years have since passed away; they have been wanderers and exiles in all lands; they have been persecuted, ridiculed, and oppressed on account of their religion; they have been placed under every possible inducement to conform to the religion around them, and yet, as professed worshippers of Jehovah, the God of their fathers, they have maintained their integrity, and neither promises nor threatenings, neither hopes nor fears, neither life nor death, have been sufficient to constrain the Hebrew people to bow the knee to an idol god.

(3) \caps1 a\caps0 nother object that seems to have been designed to be accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar in relation to Redemption was to gather the nations under one head preparatory to the coming of the Messiah. It will be seen in the remarks which will be made on the relation of the Roman empire to this work (see the notes at Dan 2:40-43), that there were important reasons why this should be done. Preparatory to that, a succession of such kingdoms each swayed the scepter over the whole world, and when the Messiah came, the way was prepared for the easy and rapid propagation of the new religion to the remotest parts of the earth.

Barnes: Dan 2:39

And after thee - This must mean "subsequently"to the reign, but it does not mean that the kingdom here referred to would "immediately"succeed his own reign, for that would not be true. The Medo-Persian empire did not come into the ascendency until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, between whose reign and that of his grandfather there had intervened the reigns of Evil-merodach and Neriglissar; besides, as the remainder of the prophecy relating to the image refers to "kingdoms,"and not to individual monarchs, it is clear that this also relates not primarily to Nebuchadnezzar as an individual, but as the head of a kingdom. The meaning is, that a kingdom would succeed that over which he reigned, so far inferior that it might be represented by silver as compared with gold.

Shall arise another kingdom - Chaldee, "shall stand up ( תקוּם t^e qûm ) another kingdom."This is language which would denote something different from a succession in the same dynasty, for that would be a mere "continuance of the same kingdom."The reference is evidently to a change of empire; and the language implies that there would be some revolution or conquest by which the existing kingdom would pass away, and another would succeed. Still there would be so much of sameness in respect to its occupying essentially the same territory, that it would be symbolized in the same image that appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. The kingdom here referred to was undoubtedly the Medo-Persian, established by Cyrus in the conquest of Babylon, which continued through the reigns of his successors until it was conquered by Alexander the Great. This kingdom succeeded that of Assyria or Babylon, 538 years b.c., to the overthrow of Darius Codomanus, 333 years b.c. It extended, of course, through the reigns of the Persian kings, who acted so important a part in the invasion of Greece, and whose defeats have given immortality to the names of Leonidas, Aristides, Miltiades, and Themistocles, and made the names of Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon, and Leuctra so celebrated. For a general account of Cyrus, and the founding of the Medo-Persian empire, the reader is referred to the notes at Isa 41:2.

Inferior to thee - And therefore represented by silver as compared with gold. In what respects it would be inferior, Daniel does not specify, and this can only be learned from "the facts"which occurred in relation to that kingdom. All that is necessary to confirm the truth of the prophetic description is, that it was to be so far inferior as to make the appellation "silver"applicable to it in comparison with the kingdom of Babylon, represented by "gold."The expression would denote that there was a general decline or degeneracy in the character of the monarchs, and the general condition of the empire. There have been different opinions as to the inferiority of this kingdom to the Babylonian. Calvin supposes that it refers to degeneracy. Geir supposes that it relates to the duration of the kingdom - this continuing not more than two hundred and forty years; while the other, including the Assyrian, embraced a period of one thousand five hundred years. Polanus supposes that the meaning is, that the Babylonian had more rest and tranquility; while Junius, Willett, and others understand it of a milder and more humane treatment of the Jews by the Babylonians than the Persians. Perhaps, however, none of these opinions meet the circumstances of the case, for they de not furnish as full an account of the reasons of this inferiority as is desirable. In regard to this, it may be observed,

(a) that it is not to be supposed that this kingdom was to be in "all respects"inferior to the Babylonian, but only that it would have certain characteristics which would make it more appropriate to describe it as "silver"than as "gold."In certain other respects it might be far superior, as the Roman, though in the same general line of succession, was in extent and power superior to either, though there was still a reason why that should be represented by "iron,"rather than by gold, by silver, or by brass.

(b) The inferiority did not relate to the power, the riches, or the territorial extent of the Medo-Persian empire, for it embraced, so far as appears, all that was comprehended in the Babylonian empire, and all in addition which was added by the conquests of Cyrus. In his proclamation to rebuild the temple Ezr 1:2, Cyrus speaks of the extent of his empire in language strongly resembling what is applied to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth."Thus also it is said of AhaAhasuerus or Astyages, king of Media - a kingdom that constituted a part of the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus and his successors, that he "reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces."To the kingdom of Babylon, as he found it when he conquered it, Cyrus of course added the kingdoms of Media and Persia, to the crowns of which he was the heir (see the notes at Isa 41:2), and also the various provinces which he had conquered before he came to the throne; that is, Cappadocia, the kingdom of Lydia, and almost the whole of Asia Minor.

© Nor can it be supposed that the kingdom was inferior in regard to "wealth,"for, in addition to all the wealth that Cyrus found in Babylon, he brought the spoils of his victories; the treasures in the possession of the crowns of Persia and Media, and all the wealth of Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, of which he had become possessor by conquest. In considering the "inferiority"of this kingdom, which made it proper that it should be represented by silver rather than by gold, it is to be borne in mind that the representation should embrace "the whole kingdom"in all the successive reigns, and not merely the kingdom as it was under the administration of Cyrus. Thus regarded, it will comprehend the succession of Persian monarchs until the time of the invasion and conquest of the East by Alexander the Great. The reign of Cyrus was indeed splendid; and if "he"alone, or if the kingdom during his administration, were contemplated, it would be difficult to assign a reason why an appellation should have been given to it implying any inferiority to that of Nebuchadnezzar. The "inferiority"of the kingdom, or what made it proper to represent it by silver rather than by gold, as compared with the kingdom of Babylon, may have consisted in the following particulars:

(1) In reference to the succession of kings who occupied the Persian throne. It is true that the character of Cyrus is worthy of the highest commendation, and that he was distinguished not only as a brave and successful conqueror, but as a mild, able, and upright civil ruler. Xenophon, who wished to draw the character of a model prince, made choice of Cyrus as the example; and though he has not improbably embellished his character by ascribing to him virtues drawn from his own fancy in some degree, yet there can be no doubt that in the main his description was drawn from the life. "The true reason,"says Prideaux ("Connections,"vol. i. p. 252, Ed. Charlestown, 1815), "why he chose the life of Cyrus before all others for the purpose above mentioned"(that of giving a description of what a worthy and just prince ought to be) "seemeth to be no other but that he found the true history of that excellent and gallant prince to be, above all others, the fittest for those maxims of right policy and true princely virtue to correspond with, which he grafted upon it."But he was succeeded by a madman, Cambyses, and by a race of kings eminent among princes for folly and crime. "The kings of Persia,"says Prideaux, "were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire."

(2) The kingdom was inferior in reference to the remarkable "defeats"in the military campaigns which were undertaken. The Assyrian or Babylonian empire was distinguished for the victories by which it carried its arms around the then known world. The Medo-Persian empire, after the reign of Cyrus, was almost as remarkable for the succession of defeats which have made the period of the world during which the empire continued, so well known in history. It is probable that no kingdom ever undertook so many foolish projects in reference to the conquests of other nations - projects so unwisely planned, and that resulted in so signal failures. The successor of Cyrus, Cambyses, invaded Egypt, and his conduct there in carrying on the war was such as to make him be regarded as a madman. Enraged against the Ethiopians for an answer which they gave him when, under pretence of friendship, he sent spies to examine their country, he resolved to invade their territory.

Having come to Thebes, in Upper Egypt, he detached from his army fifty thousand men to go against the Hammonians, with orders to destroy their country, and to burn the temple of Jupiter Hammon that stood in it. After marching a few days in the desert, they were overwhelmed in the sands by a strong south wind, and all perished. Meantime Cambyses marched with the rest of his army against the Ethiopians, though he wanted all the means of subsistence for his army, until, having devoured all their beasts of burden, they were constrained to designate every tenth man of the army to be killed and eaten. In these deplorable circumstances, Cambyses returned to Thebes, having lost a great part of his army in this wild expedition. - Prideaux’ s "Con."i. 328. It was also during the continuance of this kingdom, that the ill-starred expeditions to Greece occurred, when Mardonius and Xerxes poured the million of Asia on the countries of Greece, and met such signal overthrows at Platea, Marathon, and Salamis. Such a series of disasters never before had occurred to invading armies, or made those who repelled invasion so illustrious. In this respect there was an evident propriety in speaking of this as an inferior or degenerate kingdom.

(3) It was inferior in respect to the growing degeneracy and effeminacy of character and morals. From the time of Xerxes (479 b.c.) "symptoms of decay and corruption were manifest in the empire; the national character gradually degenerated; the citizens were corrupted and enfeebled by luxury; and confided more in mercenary troops than in native valor and fidelity. The kings submitted to the control of their wives, or the creatures whom they raised to posts of distinction; and the satraps, from being civil functionaries, began to usurp military authority."- Lyman, "Hist. Chart."

(4) The kingdom was inferior by the gradual weakening of its power from internal causes. It was not only defeated in its attempts to invade others, and weakened by the degeneracy of the court and people, but, as a natural consequence, by the gradual lessening of the power of the central government, and the growing independence of the provinces. From the time of Darius Nothus (423 b.c.) - a weak, effeminate, and indolent prince - "the satraps of the distant provinces paid only a nominal obedience to the king. Many of them were, in fact, sovereigns over the countries over which they presided, and carried on wars against each other."- Lyman. It was from causes such as these that the power of the kingdom became gradually weakened, and that the way was prepared for the easy conquests of Alexander the Great. Their successive defeats, and this gradual degeneracy and weakening of the kingdom, show the propriety of the description given of the kingdom in the vision and the interpretation - that it would be an "inferior kingdom,"a kingdom which, in comparison with that of Babylon, might be compared with silver as compared with gold.

Still it sustained an important relation to the progress of events in regard to the history of religion in the world, and had an important bearing on the redemption of man. As this is the most important bearing of history, and as it was doubtless with reference to this that the mention of it is introduced into the sacred Scriptures, and as it is, in fact, often alluded to by Isaiah, and in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and some of the minor prophets, it may be proper, in the most summary way, to alude to some of those things which pertain to the bearing of this kingdom on the great events connected with redemption, or to what was done during the continuance of this kingdom for the promotion of the true religion. A full account may be found in Prideaux’ s "Connections,"part 1, books iii-vii. Compare Edwards’ "History of Redemption,"Period I, part vi. The particular things which occurred in connection with this kingdom bearing on the progress of religion, and favorable to its advancement, were these:

(a) The overthrow of Babylon, so long the formidable enemy of the ancient people of God.

(b) The restoration of the exiles to their own land under the auspices of Cyrus, Ezr 1:1.

© The rebuilding of the temple under the same auspices, and with the favor of the successors of Cyrus.

(d) The preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah, in the agitations that took place during the continuance of the Persian monarchy; the invasion of Greece; the defeats there; the preparation by these defeats for the coming of Him who was so long promised as the "desire of all nations."

Compare Hag 2:7 : "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house"(the temple erected under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors) "with glory, saith the Lord of hosts."There was a propriety, therefore, that this kingdom should receive a distinct notice in the sacred Scriptures, for some of the most important events connected with the history of true religion in the world occurred under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors, and perhaps at no period has there been more occasion to recognize the hand of God than in the influences exerted on the minds of those pagan princes, disposing them to be favorable to the long-oppressed children of God.

And another third kingdom of brass - See the notes at Dan 2:32. The parts of the image which were of brass were the belly and thighs, denoting inferiority not only to the head, but to the part which immediately preceded it - the breast and the arms of silver. It is not, indeed, specified, as in the former case, that this kingdom would be inferior to the former, and it is only from the position assigned to it in the image, and the inferior quality of the metal by which it is represented, that it is implied that there would be any inferiority. There can be no reasonable doubt that by this third kingdom is denoted the empire founded by Alexander the Great - the Macedonian empire. It is known to all that he overthrew the Persian empire, and established a kingdom in the East, embracng substantially the same territory which had been occupied by the Medo-Persian and the Babylonian empire. While there can be no doubt that that kingdom is referred to, there can be as little that the reference is not merely to the empire during the reign of Alexander himself, but that it embraced the whole empire as founded and arranged by him, until it was succeeded by another universal empire - here denominated the fourth kingdom. The reasons for supposing that the Macedonian empire is referred to here are almost too obvious to require that they should be specified. They are such as these:

(1) This kingdom actually succeeded that of Mede-Persia, covering the same territory, and, like that, was then understood to be a universal monarchy.

(2) The empire of Alexander is elsewhere more than once referred to by Daniel in the same order, and in such a manner that the sense cannot be mistaken. Thus, in Dan 8:21 : "And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power."Dan 10:20 : "and now,"said the man that appeared in vision to Daniel Dan 2:5, "will I retram to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come."Dan 11:2-4 : "and now will I show thee the truth. Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to the kingdom that he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those."Since this kingdom is thus referred to elsewhere by Daniel in the same order, and as destined to act an important part in the affairs of the world, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a reference to it here.

(3) It is a circumstance of some importance that the emblem here by which this kingdom is represented, "brass,"is one that is peculiarly appropriate to the Greeks, and one that could not be applied to any other naion with equal propriety. The Greeks were distinguished for their "brazen armor,"and the appellation, the "brazen-coated Greeks"- χαλκοχιτώνες Ἀχαιοὶ chalkochitōnes Achaioi - is that by which they were designated most commonly by the ancients. - Iliad i. 371; ii. 47; Odyssey i. 286. In accordance with this, Josephus says ("Ant."b. x. c. 10, Section 4), τὴν δὲ ἐκεὶνων ἕτερος τις ἀπὸ δύσεως καθαιρήσει χαλκὸν ἠμφιεσμένος tēn de ekeinōn heteros tis apo duseōs kathairēsei chalkon ēmphiesmenos , - "their empire another shall come from the West, clothed with brass, shall destroy."These considerations leave no doubt that the kingdom here referred to was that Grecian or Macedonian, which, under Alexander, obtained dominion over all the East.

Which shall bear rule over all the earth - In a sense similar to that of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Medo-Persian empire. This is the common description of the empire of Alexander. He himself commanded that he should be called "the king of all the world."" Accepto deinde imperio, regem se terrarum omnium ac mundi appellari jussit "(Justin. l. 12, c. 16, Section 9) - "Having received the empire, he ordered himself to be called the king of all lands and of the world."Diodorus Siculus says that he received ambassadors from all countries; κατὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἐξ ἀπάσης σχεδόν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἦκον πρέσβεις, κ.τ.λ. kata de touton ton chronon ex apasē ; schedon tēs oikoumenēs ēkon presbeis , etc . - "At which time, legates came to him from almost the whole habitable world."- L. 17, c. 113. So Arrian (Expedi. Alex. l. 7, c. 15) remarks, that "Alexander then appeared to himself, and to those around him, "to be lord of all the earth and of the sea"- γῆς τε ἁπάσης καὶ θαλάσσης κύριον gēs te hapasēs kai thalassēs kurion .

The author of the book of Maccabees gives a similar account of the extent of this kingdom: "And it came to pass, after that Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, had overthrown Darius, the king of the Persian and Medes, he fought many battles, and took the strongholds of all, and slew the kings of the earth; and he went through even to the ends of the earth; and took the spoil of many nations; and the earth was quiet before him,"1 Macc. 1:1-3. The propriety of saying that this "kingdom bore rule over all the earth"is, therefore, apparent. It embraced, of course, all that was anciently included in the Assyrian and Babylonian empires; all that had been added to that empire by the conquests of Cyrus, and also all that Alexander had added to it by his hereditary dominions, and by his conquests in other places. Nearly or quite all the known world, except what was then subject to the Romans, then just a rising power, was under the sway of Alexander. A question has been started whether this refers merely to the kingdom of Alexander during his own life, or whether it embraced also the succession of dynasties until the conquests of the Romans. That the latter is the correct opinion seems clear from the following considerations:

(1) It was true, as we have seen, of the two previous kingdoms specified the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian - that they embraced, not merely the kingdom under any one reigning monarch, but during its entire continuance until it was overthrown by one that had also pretensions to a universal empire - the former by the Medo-Persian, and the latter by the Macedonian. It is to be presumed that the same principles of interpretation are to be applied also to the Macedonian kingdom itself - especially as that was also actually succeeded by one that in a still higher sense laid claim to universal empire.

(2) This was, in fact, one kingdom. It is true that, on the death of Alexander, the empire which he founded was divided among four of his generals, and also that from that sprung the two reigns, the Seleucidae in Syria, and of the Lagidae who reigned in Egypt; but, as Newton has remarked, "their kingdom was no more a different kingdom from that of Alexander, than the parts differ from the whole. It was the same government still continued. Those who governed were still Macedonians. All ancient authors spoke of the kingdom of Alexander and of his successors as one and the same kingdom The thing is implied in the very name by which they are usually called, the "successors of Alexander."‘ Alexander being dead,’ says Josephus (Ant. b. xi. ch. 8, Section 7), ‘ the empire was divided among his successors.’ ‘ After the death of Alexander,’ says Justin (lib. xli. c. 4, Section 1), ‘ the kingdoms of the East were divided among his successors;’ and he still denominates them Macedonians, and their empire the Macedonian."- Newton "on the Prophecies,"pp. 189, 190.

In regard to the point before adverted to in reference to the kingdoms of Babylon and of Medo-Persia - the relation which they sustained to religion, or the methods in which they were made to contribute to its progress in the world, making it proper that they should be noticed in the volume of inspiration, it may be remarked that the Macedonian kingdom was also designed, undoubtedly, under an overruling Providence, to contribute to the progress of the great work of human redemption, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah. A full statement of what was done under this reign in respect to religion - the most interesting aspect of history - may be seen in Edwards’ "History of Redemption,"pp. 271-275, and in Prideaux’ s "Connections,"vol. ii. p. 279, "seq."The kingdom here referred to - the Macedonian, represented here by the portion of the image that was of brass, and in the vision of the four beasts Dan. 7 by a leopard that had on its back the wings of a fowl, and in Dan 8:21, by the rough goat - continued from the overthrow of Darius Codomanus by Alexander (333 b.c.), to the conquest of Syria, and the East, by the Romans under Pompey, about sixty-six years before the birth of the Saviour. The principal events during this period affecting the interests of religion, and preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah, were the following:

I. The extensive diffusion of the knowledge of the Greek language. The army of Alexander was mainly composed of Greeks. The Greek language was, of course, what was spoken by the court, and in the cities which he founded; the despatches were in Greek; that language would be extensively cultivated to gratify those in power; and the successors of Alexander were those who used the Greek tongue. The consequence was, that the Greek language was extensively spread over the countries which were subdued by Alexander, and which were governed by his successors. That language became the popular tongue; a sort of universal language understood by the great mass of the people, in a manner not unlike the French in Europe at the present day. The effect of this, in preparing for the introduction of the gospel, was seen in two respects:

(a) In facilitating the "preaching"of the gospel. It is true that the apostles had the gift of tongues, and that there was, notwithstanding the prevalence of the Greek language, occasion for this. But there is no evidence that this was conferred on "all"the early preachers of the gospel, nor is it certain that those on whom it "was"conferred were able to make use of it on all occasions. It is not improbable that, in their ordinary labors, the apostles and others were left to rely on their natural endowments, and to use the language to which they had been most accustomed. As there was, therefore, a common language in most of the countries in which the gospel would be proclaimed, it is evident that the propagation of religion would be greatly facilitated by this, and there can be no doubt that it was "one"of the designs of Providence in permitting the Macedonian conquest thus to prepare the way for the more easy and rapid diffusion of the new religion.

(b) In like manner, this conquest prepared the way "for the permanent record"of the history of the Saviour’ s life, and the doctrines of religion in the writings of the New Testament. It was evidently desirable, on many accounts, that the records should be made in one language rather than in many, and of all the languages then spoken on the earth, the "Greek"was the best adapted to such a purpose. It was not only the most polished and cultivated, but it was the most copious; and it was the best fitted to express abstract ideas, and accurate distinctions. Probably with all the improvements since made in the copious Arabic language, and in the languages of modern times, there never has been one that was so well fitted for the purposes of a Divine revelation as the Greek. It may have been one design of Providence, in the extensive and accurate cultivation of that language in Greece itself, as well as in its diffusion over the world, that there should be at the time of the introduction of the Christian revelation a medium of permanent record that should be as free from imperfection as language could be; a medium also in which there should be so much permanent and valuable literature that, even after it should cease to be a spoken language, it would be cultivated by the whole literary world, thus furnishing the means of an accurate knowledge of the meaning of the sacred writings.

II. The translation of the Old Testament into the same language was another important event, which took place during the continuance of this kingdom, which greatly facilitated the introduction and spread of Christianity. The Hebrew language was understood by comparatively few. It ceased to be spoken in its purity after the time of the captivity. In that language the Scriptures of the Old Testament would have been but little diffused in the world. By their being translated, however, into Greek, they became extensively known, and furnished a ready and an intelligible ground of appeal to the preachers of the new religion when they referred to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and the recorded predictions of the Messiah. For a full account of the history of this version, the reader may consult Prideaux’ s "Connections,"vol. iii. p. 53, following. It was made according to Archbishop Usher, about 277 b.c. The probability is, that it was made at different periods, and by different hands, as it is executed with very various degrees of ability. See Introduction to Isaiah, Section viii. I. (1), for a more extended account of this version and its value. There can be no doubt that it contributed much to the diffusion of the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and was an important instrument in preparing the world for the reception of the revelation that should be made by the Messiah.

III. Events of great importance occurred dating the continuance of this kingdom in preserving the Jewish people in times of persecution, and saving their city and temple from ruin. and their nation from extinction.

(a) The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was threatened by Alexander himself. After the siege and capture of Tyre, he became enraged at the Jews for refusing to furnish supplies for his army during the siege, under the plea that they were bound to show allegiance to Darius, and he marched to Jerusalem with an intention to take and destroy it. In order to appease him, it is said that Jaddua, the high priest, went out to meet him in his pontifical robes, at the head of a procession of priests, and accompanied by the people in white garments. Alexander was so impressed with the scene that, to the surprise of all, he spared the city and temple; and on being asked by Parmenio the reason of this clemency, said that he had seen this person in vision, who had directed him to lay aside all anxiety about his contemplated expedition to Asia, and that he had promised that God would give him the empire of the Persians. According to the story, Jaddua showed him the prophecies of Daniel, and confirmed him by those prophecies in the confident expectation of conquering the East; and in view of this, Alexander offered sacrifices in the temple, and granted to the Hebrews the freedom of their country, and the exercise of their laws and religion. See Prideaux, vol. ii. p. 302, following; Josephus, "Ant."b. xi. ch. 8. Whatever of fable there may be in this account, it is certain that this city and temple were not destroyed by Alexander, but that in his ravages in the East, he was led, by some cause, to deal with the capital of the Hebrew nation in a masher different from what he did with others.

(b) A remarkable preservation of the Jewish people, of a somewhat similar character, and evincing the protection of God, occurred during the great persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the successors of Alexander, in the time of the Maccabees. See Prideaux, vol. iii. p. 230, and 2 Macc. 5:11-27. In the times of that celebrated persecution, multitudes of the Jews were slain by Antiochus himself; the city was taken, and the temple defiled. Three years after it was taken by Antiochus (168 b.c.), Apollonius was directed by him to march against the city to vent his wrath on the Jews; and when the people were assembled in their synagogues for worship, he let loose his forces on them, with a command to slay all the men, and to take all the women and children captives to be sold as slaves. After this, he plundered the city, demolished the houses, and pulled down the walls, and then with the ruins of the demolished city built a strong fortress on the top of an eminence in the city of David, in a place which overlooked the temple, and placed a strong garrison within. From this place attacks were made on all who went up to the temple to worship; and the temple was defiled with all manner of pollutions, until it was deserted, and the daily sacrifices ceased. From these calamities and persecutions, the city and the Jewish nation were delivered by the valor of Judas Maccabeus, in the manner detailed in the first book of Maccabees.

Barnes: Dan 2:40

And the fourth kingdom - Represented in the image by the legs of iron, and the feet "part of iron, and part of clay,"Dan 2:33. The first question which arises here is, what kingdom is referred to by this? In regard to this, there have been two leading opinions: one, that it refers to the Roman empire; the other, that it refers to the kingdoms or dynasties that immediately succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great; embracing the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, Syria, and Egypt - in the language of Prof. Stuart, who adopts this opinion, "that the legs and feet were symbols of that intermingled and confused empire which sprung up under the Grecian chiefs who finally succeeded him,"(Alexander the Great). - "Com. on Daniel,"p. 173. For the reasoning by which this opinion is supported, see Prof. Stuart, pp. 173-193. The common opinion has been, that the reference is to the Roman empire, and in support of this opinion the following conditions may be suggested:

(1) The obvious design of the image was to symbolize the succession of great monarchies, which would precede the setting up of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and which would have an important agency in preparing the world for that. The Roman empire was in itself too important, and performed too important an agency in preparing the world for that, to be omitted in such an enumeration.

(2) The kingdom here referred to was to be in existence at the time symbolized by the cutting of the stone out of the mountain, for, during the continuance of that kingdom, or under it, "the God of heaven was to set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed,"Dan 2:44. But the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Lagidae - the "intermingled and confused empires that sprang up"after Alexander the Great - had ceased before that time, being superseded by the Roman.

(3) \caps1 u\caps0 nless the Roman power be represented, the symmetry of the image is destroyed, for it would make what was, in fact, one kingdom represented by two different metals - brass and iron. We have seen above that the Babylonian empire was represented appropriately by gold; the Medo-Persian by silver; and the Macedonian by brass. We have seen also, that in fact the empire founded by Alexander, and continued through his successors in Syria and Egypt, was in fact one kingdom, so spoken of by the ancients, and being in fact a "Greek"dynasty. If the appellation of "brass"belonged to that kingdom as a Greek kingdom, there is an obvious incongruity, and a departure from the method of interpreting the other portions of the image, in applying the term "iron"to any portion of that kingdom.

(4) By the application of the term "iron,"it is evidently implied that the kingdom thus referred to would be distinguished for "strength"- strength greater than its predecessors - as iron surpasses brass, and silver, and gold, in that quality. But this was not true of the confused reigns that immediately followed Alexander. They were unitedly weaker than the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian, and weaker than the empire of Alexander. out of which they arose. Compare Dan 8:21-22. It was true, however, of the Roman power, that it was so much superior to all its predecessors in power, that it might well be represented by iron in comparison with brass, silver, and gold.

(5) The fourth monarchy represented in Nebuchadnezzars dream is evidently the same which is represented by the fourth beast in Dan 7:7-8, Dan 7:23, Dan 7:25. But it will appear, from the exposition of that chapter, that the reference there is to the Roman empire. See the note at these passages. There can be no well-founded objection to this view on the ground that this kingdom was not properly a "succession"of the kingdom of Alexander, and did not occupy precisely the same territory. The same was true of each of the other kingdoms - the Medo-Persian and Macedonian. Yet while they were not, in the usual sense of the term, in the "successions,"they did, in fact, follow one after the other; and with such accessions as were derived from conquest, and from the hereditary dominions of the conquerors, they did occupy the same territory. The design seems to have been to give a representation of a series of great monarchies, which would be, in an important sense, universal monarchies, and which should follow each other before the advent of the Saviour. The Roman, in addition to what it possessed in the West, actually occupied in the East substantially the same territory as the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian, and, like them, it had all the claims which any ancient sovereignty had to the title of a universal monarchy; indeed no kingdom has ever existed to which this title could with more justice be applied.

Shall be strong as iron - It is scarcely necessary to observe that this description is applicable to the Roman power. In nothing was it more remarkable than its "strength;"for that irresistible power before which all other nations were perfectly weak. This characteristic of the Roman power is thus noticed by Mr. Gibbon: "The arms of the Republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the "iron"monarchy of Rome."- "Dec. and Fall,"p. 642, Lond. ed. 1830, as quoted by Prof. Bush.

Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things - Iron is the metal which is used, and always has been used, for the purpose here suggested. In the form of hammers, sledges, and cannon-balls, and, in general, in reference to the accomplishment of any purpose, by beating or battering, this has been found to be the most valuable of the metals. It is heavy, is capable of being easily wrought into desired shapes; is abundant; is susceptible of being made hard so as not to be itself bruised, and has therefore, all the properties which could be desired for purposes like this.

And as iron that breaketh all these - That is, all these things; to wit, everything. Nothing is able to stand before it; there is nothing which it cannot reduce to powder. There is some repetition here, but it is for the sake of emphasis.

Shall it break in pieces and bruise - Nothing could better characterize the Roman power than this. Everything was crushed before it. The nations which they conquered ceased to be kingdoms, and were reduced to provinces, and as kingdoms they were blotted out from the list of nations. This has been well described by Mr. Irving: "The Roman empire did beat down the constitution and establishment of all other kingdoms; abolishing their independence, and bringing them into the most entire subjection; humbling the pride, subjecting the will, using the property, and trampling upon the power and dignity of all other states. For by this was the Roman dominion distinguished from all the rest, that it was the work of almost as many centuries as those were of years; the fruit of a thousand battles in which million of men were slain. It made room for itself, as doth a battering-ram, by continual successive blows; and it ceased not to beat and bruise all nations, so long as they continued to offer any resistance."- "Discourse on Daniel’ s Visions,"p. 180.

Poole: Dan 2:1

In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Heb.

in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar for this was properly in the fifth year of that king’ s reign and of Daniel’ s captivity, and the ninth year of Jehoiakim; but in the second year after Daniel had by his three years’ preparation been brought before the king and approved, then the king dreamed.

Dreamed dreams it was one dream, but of many parts, therefore called dreams; chiefly for what follows.

His spirit was troubled by reason of the strangeness of it, he was terrified and in great consternation, and this made him awake.

Poole: Dan 2:2

The magicians and the astrologers: these words signify astrologers, or those that cast nativities, that pretended great skill in natural and supernatural things; and the sorcerers, or necromancers, were those who used diabolical arts. See Poole "Exo 7:11" ; See Poole "Exo 22:18" , See Poole "Deu 18:10" . Though Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar made use of these as their great counsellors, yet God baffled them by Moses and Daniel; and forbade his people the use or toleration of them, because they are an abomination to him. God will have his people ask counsel of him and his words, and not of the devil’ s oracles.

Chaldeans: this name the magicians assumed, as being national and most noble; and whatever these wise men or wizards said, it was as if Jupiter himself had spoken it, as the Roman satirist said of them, Juv. Sat. 6.

They came and stood before the king Daniel was not called among them. Why? Because the king confided more in these his own old standers; but chiefly God had thus ordered by his wise providence that Daniel should not be in their number, for if he had, the interpretation would have been attributed to astrology and magic, and not to God, as now it was.

Poole: Dan 2:3

He remembered the fact in general, but could not repeat it perfectly, much less know the meaning of it; yet it had left such an impression on him, as put him into great perplexity. The Lord hath ways to affright the greatest men in the world, in the midst of their security and jollity.

Poole: Dan 2:4

In Syriac that is, in the Chaldee tongue, for Syria or Aram is taken in a large sense sometimes, containing Assyria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Palestine, 2Ki 18:26 , and from hence to the 8th chapter all is written in the Chaldee language, and not Hebrew, because it most concerned that people, and from thence in Hebrew again.

O king, live for ever: this was a salutation to princes of old, 1Sa 10:24 1Ki 1:25 ; their meaning was, Let him live a long happy life, for thus the word live is often taken, Psa 34:12 , and this is agreeable to the desires of all worldly men in their prosperity.

We will show the interpretation: it is observed of old to this day, that there is not any sort of men who are such flatterers as impostors. So confident and arrogant are these fortune-tellers, that they promise to interpret a dream which they never knew: this was boldly said of them, seeing the Egyptian magicians could not interpret Pharaoh’ s dream though he told it them, Gen 41:8 .

Poole: Dan 2:5

The thing is gone from me: this was of God, that these impostors should be made infamous, by detecting their ignorance and their arrogance, and that this should be a step to Daniel’ s honour, for knowing the king’ s dream and interpreting it, neither of which the Chaldeans could do.

With the interpretation thereof: if they do not both, saith the king.

Cut in pieces, and your houses & c, this was a usual punishment in those parts of the world; thus Samuel cut Agag in pieces, 1Sa 15:33 1Ch 20:3 . Thus David dealt with the Ammonites. And the like was in making houses a dunghill. The like we have Dan 3:29 ; and thus they did to the house of Baal, made it a draught-house to this day , by Jehu’ s command, 2Ki 10:27 . The like did Darius threaten to them that would alter his decree for building the house of God, Ezr 6:11 . This commination argued the king’ s wrath to be excessive and furious, in punishing for not doing what was above their human strength, and which the Chaldeans never arrogated to themselves; yet was this a just reward to these men, that were so presumptuous.

Poole: Dan 2:6

As I threatened you with death for not doing, I promise you rewards and honour if ye perform it. This is in the power of princes, as they think, but all this would not do; therefore they are still where they were, they answered the king again.

Poole: Dan 2:7

But this the king could not do; they could not tell the dream, and the king could not, yet both require impossibilities.

Poole: Dan 2:8

This ye do in policy, to escape punishment; when taken up with other affairs, I may forget to make further inquiry after this thing, but it shall not serve your turn.

Poole: Dan 2:9

There is but one decree for you that is, I will not retract my sentence, ye shall surely die: you are upon tricks, ye have prepared corrupt and lying words, for he that can interpret a dream can tell the dream, both come from a Divine inspiration, which ye pretend to; but I say ye have it not.

Poole: Dan 2:11

The Chaldeans bring three arguments to convince the king.

1. There is not a man upon earth can show the king’ s matter.

2. There is no king requires such a thing of any magician.

3. None but the gods can do this. The Chaldeans with other Gentiles did believe more gods than one and the supreme deity or deities did not meddle with the affairs of men, but had the cognizance by inferior or intermediate demons. So Plato and many of them held. The meaning then is this, Seeing there are some things that God, who knoweth all things, will not communicate the knowledge of to men, and hath not done it to us, it is therefore a singular and unreasonable thing the king should require it of us, and that so suddenly, and upon such penalties.

Poole: Dan 2:12

Tyrants are inexorable, and they rule according to their will, and being crossed they are furious, and that brings forth death; the wrath of such is the roaring of a lion.

Poole: Dan 2:13

This was unjust, that Daniel and his fellows should have their share in the punishment, and yet be excluded from the other part which was the reward; the reason why they were not called was because of their youth, which the Chaldeans despised, wherein we have these three things observable.

1. The magicians confessed this, that knowledge and revelation must come from God, and therefore what Daniel did was not by any human strength, but Divine only.

2. That the Lord held the governor’ s hands, so that he did not slay Daniel presently with the first.

3. That Daniel, by his prudence and piety, saved all the magicians’ lives.

Poole: Dan 2:15

So hasty so precipitate, to slay the innocent who were never called, who knew nothing of it-this appears plainly from these words,

Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel Dan 2:15 , which was this, that the king had dreamed a strange dream that troubled him, that he had forgotten it, that he called all his wise men to show both the dream and interpretation, but they could not; therefore the king decreed the death of all the wise men in Babylon, and Daniel with his fellows among them, without saving the life of one of them, and he, viz. Arioch, had received command to execute it presently. Thus there was but a step between him and death.

Poole: Dan 2:16

There are four things here very strange and wonderful.

1. That Arioch, instead of executing the king’ s decree speedily, should make this stop.

2. That he should dare to see the king’ s face when he was so wroth, instead of doing what his commission tied him to.

3. That Daniel should have the boldness to go in to the king when he was in his fury.

4. That he should desire time and obtain it of the king, who had denied the same thing to the wise men. To which we answer, The signal hand of God was in all this.

2. In particular, Daniel was in great esteem with the king above all the wise men, Dan 1:19,20 3 .

3. He gave both Arioch and the king hopes he would show and interpret the king’ s dream.

Poole: Dan 2:17

According to the good hand of his God upon him, who had shown him favour thus far, and obtained the king’ s leave, he went to his house near the palace, that he might seek God in secret for this great thing. For,

1. Their lives were at stake.

2. It was not a small thing, he was sure, that God was about, wherewith he had troubled the king’ s mind in such a manner. Therefore he reinforceth his strength, calling his friends to help him: as prayer in times of danger is the most seasonable and sovereign help so, in a common danger we must call in all the help we can to it.

Poole: Dan 2:18

Observe here Daniel’ s humility, he sought not to engross this business, and the honour of it, wholly to himself, but would have his fellows share in it with him. Again, they would desire mercy, Heb. the bowels of tender mercy : the choicest saints desire to be saved by mercy, Psa 51:1 .

That Daniel and his fellows should not perish: the Lord hath a distinguishing care and love for his people, 2Th 1:6 2Pe 2:9 , especially in common calamities, Exo 14:19 , &c.; Rev 18:4 .

Poole: Dan 2:19

It is not improbably conjectured that Daniel spent the night in watching and prayer, for night vision is distinguished from dreams, Num 12:6 ; whether sleeping or waking, Daniel had the same thing revealed unto him which king Nebuchadnezzar had, with this difference, the king remembered not his dream, nor knew what it meant, but Daniel was able to tell his dream and give the meaning of it also.

Daniel blessed the God of heaven he gave thanks and praise to the Father of lights, from whom all wisdom comes, who heard his prayer, and revealed this secret to him. Note, this was revealed to Daniel, and not to his companions, for he was chief, and by this is signified by what steps he rose up to the degree of a famous prophet. Again, he calls the true God the

God of heaven because he made heaven, his throne is there, and the magicians’ and heathen gods come not there, but were cast out thence, being devils of hell; but the God of Israel is the God of heaven .

Poole: Dan 2:20

He blesseth God for two things.

1. Wisdom he means chiefly the wisdom God gave him in revealing this great secret to him, which the wise men could not attain to, because they knew not the true God, nor did seek to him for it, this is clear in Dan 2:21-23 .

2. Might is his that is, almighty, above all mighty potentates of the world, above Nebuchadnezzar and all the kings of the earth, for he sets them up and plucks them down at pleasure, Dan 2:21 , as the interpretation of the dream and vision shows.

Poole: Dan 2:21

God made time; God made the sun, moon, and stars, the measure of time; he made the day and the night, and seasons of the year, yea, the revolutions and change of times; he can make bad times better, and turn night into day. He can make the sun go backward or stand still, as in Ahaz’ s and Joshua’ s time; it is the great part of God’ s power and prerogative to change times. Daniel here attributes that to God which heathens attributed to nature, which they deified, or to chance; seeing that God only, that made all by his power, doth rule, and sometimes overrule all by his providence.

Poole: Dan 2:22

The deep and secret things both of nature, wherein are infinite depths and secrets: and of men’ s hearts and counsels, which are very close, deep, and secret, saying in themselves, Who can see us? and the deep and secret things of grace, and the mysteries of Christ’ s kingdom: all this is comfortable to the saints, and glorious to God.

He knoweth what is in the darkness and it dwelleth with him, and he in it. He sees and foresees the most hidden things. Daniel points at the king’ s dream in the night, which he only gave the king, and then took it from him, and then gave it Daniel for him again.

Poole: Dan 2:23

Here he gives his God another distinguishing title from all the gods of the heathen, he calls him the God of his fathers, meaning the covenant made with Abraham, &c., to whom and their seed God revealed his saving knowledge, which he did not to the heathen. God is the God of all by the kingdom of his power, but the God of his church only according to the kingdom of his grace.

Thou hast now made known unto us the king’ s matter in which words he intimates a twofold privilege; the one that, as the son of such fathers, he obtained the grace and favour of God in giving him safety and wisdom; the other, that he found him a God hearing prayer, and that in a thing of a high nature, he made known to him the king’ s matter.

Poole: Dan 2:24

Being now prepared, he goes to Arioch to go in with him to the king; and bid him stay his hand, and not destroy the wise men of Babylon. Arioch might plead the king’ s command, Daniel tells him that was because they could not tell the king’ s dream: come, saith he, I will show that; by that I take away the ground of thy commission to destroy.

Quest. Did Daniel do well in desiring to have them spared, who deserved to die for their unlawful arts, diviners, necromancers, &c.?

Answ Two things are usually answered to this:

1. They were not all such, some were innocent, studied arts and sciences lawful and laudable.

2. Those that were otherwise, he pleaded not for them as such, but for justice, that they ought not to die unjustly; and that was their case and cause.

Poole: Dan 2:25

How comes Arioch to boast of what he had found; as if he got him by great search, or by great chance, and as if Daniel had been some obscure, unknown person, when Daniel had asked time of the king just before? It is the manner of courtiers to be very officious, and to commend their own little deeds, that thereby they may signify something with their prince, and make themselves necessary to him, possibly Arioch might not know that Daniel had been with the king, and therefore comes with this Eurhka , I have found your man, here he is, behold him, he will give the king full satisfaction in all concerning the dream.

Poole: Dan 2:26

By this name of

Belteshazzar he had given Daniel, he took courage as if he might expect some great thing from him; for the word signifies the keeper of secret treasure, i.e. to lay up and bring forth.

Art thou able & c.? as if he had said, I question if thou canst, seeing all my wise men cannot do it; canst thou presume to do more than all they?

Poole: Dan 2:27

He reckons up here all sorts of divination, to show that divine things, and the secrets of God, cannot be comprehended by man without special revelation; and that those who presume to do it arrogate too much to themselves, and that it is too tyrannical to require it of any, and that upon pain of death; for, saith Daniel, they cannot do it.

Poole: Dan 2:28

Here the prophet gives God entirely all the glory, proving all the powers on earth to come short in it, it being one of God’ s peculiar prerogatives to reveal secrets. Yea, in great humility he denies himself to have any share in it, as also Dan 2:29 .

What shall be in the latter days: observe here the prophet’ s wisdom in this discovery, he doth not fall abruptly upon the dream, but first prepares this lofty king for it in general, and by degrees he doth labour to win him to the knowledge of the true God.

1. By this his power; and,

2. By his gracious favour to the king, in revealing to him the greatest secret in the world about the change of kingdoms and governments, and touching the power of Christ’ s kingdom over all in the latter days. See Dan 2:44 .

Poole: Dan 2:30

For their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king: some will have this relate to the Jews and the church of God, by whose prayers this was obtained; but the more plain sense is this, But that the interpretation may be manifest to the king, and that thou mayst know the thoughts of thy heart, that thou mayst be better instructed and satisfied in thy mind in this great secret, when thou seest the mind of God in it, and what it points at, and what thy duty is, and how to steer thy counsel and actions in this vast monarchy, and towards the afflicted church of God in it.

Poole: Dan 2:31

A great image not a painted, superficial image, but a massy one, a statue in man’ s shape, great, splendid, majestical: thus they were wont of old to represent great emperors and empires, and worshipped them as gods: called here an image, and in a dream, all which is in show and shadow rather than in substance, and therefore vanishing.

Stood before thee and that upright, of a prodigious height, noting the grandeur of those monarchies.

The form thereof was terrible: government is to be feared, fear to whom fear, and honour to whom honour; also some had rather be feared than loved. Some say the image was so placed that the face looked toward the king, and thus it might trouble and terrify him.

Poole: Dan 2:33

By this we see the world is much worse and far declined, every age degenerating from what it was of old; as the poets, which borrowed their fancy from this image, have described the ages of the world from metals; the first was golden, and so, coming on coarser, it ended at last, as this image in the text, in dirt.

Poole: Dan 2:34

i.e. All of it to pieces, all vanished, and the stone became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth: this is the dream, and the interpretation of all follows.

Poole: Dan 2:36

By this word we appears Daniel’ s piety and modesty, for he declares by it that he and his companions had begged this skill from God, and therefore he did not and could not arrogate it to himself, excluding them, without injury and dishonour to God that heard prayer. Now begins the interpretation.

Poole: Dan 2:37

A king of kings ; he means Nebuchadnezzar in person, together with his successors, Evil-merodach and Belshazzar. The prophet would not mind the king of any thing past, nor of any other governments but those with whom his church were then and to be concerned for the future, till the coming of the Messiah, by whose coming they should support and comfort themselves against all their sufferings by oppressors; and also God would have the prophet mind Nebuchadnezzar of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, growing and breaking in pieces all earthly power.

The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom it came not to thee by thy ancestors, or by fortune, or by thy valour, but the great God of heaven hath the bestowing of those, and giveth them to whomsoever he will.

Power, and strength, and glory authority; victorious armies, with great prosperity.

Poole: Dan 2:38

Hath made thee ruler over them all i.e. hath given thee absolute dominion of all creatures, men and beasts, within the bounds of thy vast kingdom, to hunt, catch, or kill far thy use and pleasure. God as Lord paramount allows thee, his vassal and tenant at will, all this. This was not universal over all the world, but only within his large territories, which yet were bounded.

Thou art this head of gold

1. Why head? Because he was first in order, as the head is before the other parts, and the vision began in him, and descended downwards to the other three monarchies.

2. Why head of gold? Because of the vast riches wherein it abounded, and which the Chaldeans most coveted, and scraped from the spoils and tributes of all countries, Isa 10:13,14 Jer 51:41,44 . Also this is called the golden head, because it stood longest, five hundred years, and was fortunate and flourishing to the last.

Poole: Dan 2:39

Another kingdom inferior to thee this was that of the Medes and Persians, inferior in time and succession; in duration, it lasted not half so long as the Assyrian; and in prosperity and tranquillity, for the Persian was fuller of trouble; yet was this wonderfully rich and large for a time, Est 1:1 : this was the breast and arms of silver.

Another third kingdom of brass this was the Grecian monarchy, under Alexander the Great, who conquered the former, called "the city," because given so much to luxury; brass, because coarser than the other, and their armour was chiefly brass, calkocitonev .

Which shall bear rule over all the earth therefore this is also called a universal monarchy; for Alexander marched into the Indies, and conquered much of that, (by which he was said to conquer the world,) and wept that he had not another world to conquer: yet; his lasted not long, for he was soon overcome and killed by his worldly lusts.

Poole: Dan 2:40

The fourth kingdom is the kingdom of the Romans; and was to last not only to Christ’ s first coming, but under antichrist to his second coming, but still going down as to pagan worship, and at last to antichristian and papal power; for in Dan 2:28 Daniel tells the king that God made known to him that should be in the latter days; therefore he intended a general history to the end of the world, Dan 2:44 Da 7 , latter end; and Da 11, Da 12 .

It shall break in pieces and bruise: this did break in pieces all other kingdoms, being too strong for them, and was never in subjection to any, but brought all in subjection to it, till the stone fell upon it, of which afterward.

Haydock: Dan 2:1

Year, from the death of his father, Nabopolassar; for he had reigned before as partner with his father, in the empire. (Challoner) ---

In that quality he conquered Syria, (A. 3397 [in the year of the world 3397 or 607 B.C.]) took Daniel, &c. in 3399 [or 605 B.C.]. He succeeded his father. (Usher) (Calmet) ---

After he had enlarged his empire by the conquest of Egypt, &c. he had this dream. (A. R. 25.) (Worthington) ---

Mind. Septuagint, "his sleep departed from him." (Haydock) ---

He was restless, recollecting enough to fill him with trouble. When the dream was repeated over, he knew that it was the same. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 2:2

The Chaldeans. That is, the astrologers, that pretended to divine by stars. (Challoner) ---

They dwelt on the banks of the Euphrates, and were highly esteemed. (Diodorus Sic. i.) ---

They were the most ancient philosophers. (Civ. Div. i.)

Haydock: Dan 2:3

I know. Hebrew also, "to know or understand what," &c.

Haydock: Dan 2:4

Syriac. It was originally the same as the Chaldee. Daniel understood this language, as well as Hebrew and writes in it what concerned the Chaldees, to Chap. viii. This shews his accuracy, as he makes his speakers use their own tongue. Spinosa ignorantly asserts, that all the seven first chapters are in Chaldeee and taken from the records of that nation by Judas Maccabeus. How then did Matthathias become acquainted with the contents?

Haydock: Dan 2:5

Put. Chaldee: "torn to pieces, and your house become infamous places;" (Calmet) Protestant, "a dunghill" (Haydock) ---

Such cruel punishments were not uncommon. (1 Esdras vi. 11.) (Calmet) ---

Bessus was torn in pieces by the relations of Darius; (Diodorus xvii.) and the Persians generally cut off some member of criminals. (Brisson ii.)

Haydock: Dan 2:8

Gain. Literally, "redeem" (Haydock) ---

St. Paul uses a similar expression, exhorting us to save our souls even at the expense of our temporal interest. (Calmet) ---

The diviners wished to give the king's fury time to abate, (Haydock) and to save their lives; (Calmet) or delay punishment, at least, as much as possible. (Haydock)

Haydock: Dan 2:9

Thereof. It is indeed more easy to discover what dream a person has had, than to explain it; since the devil might disclose the former, but he can only guess at what will happen, and herein his agents are often deceived. (See Genesis xl.) (Worthington) ---

It is not even certain that the devil can know the dreams which we have not divulged, as it is the privilege of God to discern the secrets of the heart. (Haydock)

Haydock: Dan 2:11

Men. They acknowledged greater and less gods. (Stanley, p. 13. Chap. i.) ---

They pretend not to have any communication with the superior ones, (Calmet) and by their answer unguardedly bear testimony to the excellence of the God whom Daniel served. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Dan 2:13

Slain. Literally, "were slaughtering;" interficiebantur. (Haydock) ---

Many think that some had already suffered. (Geier.; Menochius) ---

The had been perhaps jealous of Daniel, and had not informed him of the matter. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Dan 2:14

General. He occupied the same office as Putiphar, in Egypt. (Genesis xxxix. 1.) It was no disgrace for such a one to execute himself the king's order, as Banaias slew the brother of Solomon. (3 Kings ii.)

Haydock: Dan 2:15

Cruel. Chaldee also, "precipitate." (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 2:16

Declare the dream. (Haydock) ---

The Chaldeans had promised only to explain it, and the king knew the superior merit of Daniel. (Chap. i. 19.) (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 2:18

Secret. Literally, "sacrament." Greek: "mystery," which seems to be derived from (Calmet) mosthor, "a secret." (Haydock)

Haydock: Dan 2:19

Night, while he was probably asleep, (Calmet) or praying with his companions. (Villet.)

Haydock: Dan 2:20

His. He grants them to whom he pleases, and disposes of kingdoms (Calmet) without control. (ver. 21.)

Haydock: Dan 2:27

Soothsayers. Chaldee: Gazerin, (Haydock) who inspect entrails, (Ezechiel xxi. 21. St. Jerome) or tell fortunes by sticks. (Chap. iii. 3.)

Haydock: Dan 2:28

Times. In the Old Testament, this commonly signifies when Christ shall appear; but in the New, it refers to the end of the world. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 2:29

Begin. By thus telling what thoughts the king had entertained before his dream, he would be heard with greater confidence. (Worthington)

Haydock: Dan 2:31

Terrible, or unusual. (Calmet) ---

The statue denoted the four great empires of the Chaldees, Persians, Greeks and Romans. The metals did not mean that the empire of gold was greater than the rest, as that signified by iron was far more powerful; but only that the empire of the Chaldees was then the greatest, and that the Persians would acquire still more power and be surpassed by the Greeks, as they were by the Romans, till the kingdom of Christ should be spread over all the earth. (Worthington)

Haydock: Dan 2:37

Of kings. This title was used by the Persians. Nabuchodonosor was at that time the most potent monarch on earth. He conquered many nations, and greatly embellished the city of Babylon, surrounding it with three walls in fifteen days, and building hanging gardens, which were the wonder of the world. See Eusebius, prזp. ix. 41. and x. 42. &c. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 2:39

Another kingdom; viz. that of the Medes and Persians. (Challoner) ---

Inferior; later, of less duration and extent. (Calmet) ---

Third, &c. That of Alexander the Great. (Challoner) ---

World. Alexander received ambassadors at Babylon, from the most distant nations, testifying their submission. He conquered beyond the river Indus, &c. (Diodorus A. 1. Olym. 14.) (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 2:40

The fourth kingdom, &c. Some understand this of the successors of Alexander, the kings of Syria and Egypt: others, of the Roman empire and its civil wars. (Challoner) ---

The former supposition seems best, though the latter is almost universally received, and will be explained hereafter. (Calmet) ---

The Roman empire did not immediately rise out of Alexander's, and had no relation to the Jews, &c. (Grotius, L'Empereus.) ---

But it surely swallowed up all that he had left to his generals, and proved the greatest scourge to the Jewish nation; which has been ever since scattered, while the kingdom of Christ gains ground, and will flourish till that of Rome shall be no more. Antichrist will then appear to cast a cloud over, but not destroy it for three years and a half. It is the opinion of many Fathers, &c. that the Roman empire will subsist till that event take place; (see 2 Thessalonians ii. 3. 7.) and thus it may be said, that the fourth empire shall not be given to another people. For antichrist will not strive to exalt a particular nation, but to rule over all. Yet his dominion will be short, and will end in the general dissolution of nature; so that the Roman empire maybe deemed to last for a long time, or even for ever. (ver. 44.) Those who adopt the former system, allow (Haydock) that the stone designates both the Roman empire and that of Christ; so that some parts of the prediction may refer to one and some to the other. The origin and progress of the Roman empire, might be a figure of the spiritual power of the Church. It is certain that the successors of Alexander owed their dominion to their valour, and established it by the slaughter of many great generals. The kings who followed Seleucus and Ptolemy were remarkable for a mixture of good and bad qualities. Their efforts to preserve their power by intermarriages, proved abortive. The prophet seems also to have had them in view, Chap. vii. 7. and viii. 22. (Calmet)

Gill: Dan 2:1

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,.... It was in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign that Daniel was carried captive, Jer 25:1, three years Daniel had been under tutors; at the end of which he was presented to the king, as is related in the preceding chapter; and yet the following dream was in the second of his reign: this creates a difficulty, which is solved by some thus: in the second year after the destruction of the temple, so the Jewish chronicle ^o, with which Jarchi agrees; others, as Aben Ezra, in the second year of his monarchy, after he had subdued all the nations round about; and so Josephus says ^p, it was in the second year after the destruction of the Egyptians. R. Moses the priest, in Aben Ezra, would have it to be the second year to his reign, to the end of it, when there were only two years wanting to it; a very unusual way of reckoning indeed! and therefore justly rejected by Aben Ezra: but all these dates are too late, since Daniel long before these times was well known, and in great fame for his wisdom; whereas, at this time, it does not appear that he was much known, or in great request: it is better either to render it, "in the second year", that is, after Daniel and his companions had been presented to the king, and promoted;

even in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, as opposed to the reign of Darius or Cyrus, in which he flourished also: or rather this was the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reigning alone; for he had been taken into partnership in the throne with his father before his death, as Berosus ^q observes, which is said to be two years; so that this second year was the fourth year of his reign, reckoning from the time he reigned conjunctly with his father, though the second of his reigning alone: yet it seems best of all to render the words, with Noldius ^r, but in the second year, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; that is, in the second year of Daniel's ministry in or under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; who continued at court under different reigns, till the first of Cyrus: this was, according to Bishop Usher ^s, and Mr. Whiston ^t, in the year of the world 3401 A.M., and before Christ 603. Mr. Bedford ^u places it in 604:

Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; which, though but one, yet, relating to various things, the several parts of the human body, and the different metals the form he saw was made of, as well as the four monarchies it signified, is called "dreams". Jacchiades says, he first dreamed the dream, and then the interpretation of it; which is the reason of the plural number: wherewith his spirit was troubled; it gave his mind a great deal of trouble while he was dreaming it; and when he awaked, though he could not recover it, yet he had some confused broken ideas of it; it had left some impressions upon him, which gave him great uneasiness, and the more as he could not recollect any part of it; his mind was agitated, and tossed to and fro, and under the greatest perplexity:

and his sleep brake from him; went away from him, through the strangeness of the dream, and the effect it had upon him.

Gill: Dan 2:2

Then the king commanded to call the magicians,.... He ordered his servants in waiting to send immediately for the wise men, the philosophers of that age and kingdom, that studied the things of nature, and the natural causes of things:

and the astrologers; that cast nativities, and pretended by the position and influence of the stars to know what would befall men:

and the sorcerers; or wizards, that made use of familiar spirits, and the help of the devil; necromancers that consulted the dead, in order to get knowledge of future things:

and the Chaldeans; so called, not from their country; for probably all the preceding were Chaldeans by nation; but inasmuch as the study of judiciary astrology, and other unlawful arts, greatly obtained in Chaldea; hence those that were addicted to them had this name ^w:

for to show the king his dreams; both what it was he dreamed, and what the interpretation or meaning of it was: so they came, and stood before the king; they came immediately, with great readiness and willingness, esteeming it a great honour done them to be sent for by the king, and admitted into his chamber; and hoping it would turn much both to their credit and profit; and being come, they stood waiting his will and pleasure.

Gill: Dan 2:3

And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream,.... What before is called dreams is here expressed in the singular, a dream; for it was but one dream, though it contained in it various things; this the king could remember, that he had a dream; for it had left some impression on his mind, though he could not call to mind what it was about. Aben Ezra makes mention of one of their Gaons or Rabbins, that affirmed that Nebuchadnezzar knew his dream, but was willing to try the wise men; but, as he observes, he could not surely believe the words of Daniel:

and my spirit was troubled to know the dream; both that, and the meaning of it; he says nothing as yet about the interpretation of it; concluding that, if they could tell him the dream, they could explain it to him; or then it would be time enough to inquire after that.

Gill: Dan 2:4

Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in, Syriac,.... These spake, either because the interpretation of dreams particularly belonged to them; or else as being the chief of the wise men, and of greatest authority; or as chosen by the rest, and spake in their name; and indeed this appellation may include them all, being all of the same country, though they might differ in their profession: they spake in the Syriac or Babylonish language, the same with the Chaldee, being their mother tongue, and that of the king too; and therefore could more easily speak it themselves, and be more easily understood by him, than if they had spoke in another; See Gill on Dan 1:4 and from hence, to the end of the "seventh" chapter, Daniel writes in Chaldee; the things he treats of chiefly relating to the Chaldeans:

O king, live for ever; which is a wish of long life, health, and prosperity; and does not intend an everlasting continuance in this world, or an eternal life in another, to the knowledge of which they might be strangers: this was an usual form of salutation of kings in these eastern nations; like to this is that of Sinaetus, a Persian, to Artaxerxes Mnemon ^x.

"O King Artaxerxes, reign for ever;''

so said ^y Artabazus, a faithful friend of Darius, to Alexander the great, when he met him with the friends and relations of Darius,

"O king, may you flourish in perpetual happiness:''

tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation; this was not the thing that was asked of them, but the dream itself; and if that had been told them, they promise more than there is reason to believe they would have fulfilled, had that been done; it is more than the Egyptian magicians could do, even when Pharaoh had told them his dream: this they said partly to get time, and partly to make a show of their skill and knowledge; though in a very vain and arrogant manner.

Gill: Dan 2:5

The king answered and said to the Chaldeans,.... In the same language they spoke to him:

the thing is gone from me; either the dream was gone from him; it was out of his mind, he had forgot it, and could not call it to remembrance; he had been dreaming of monarchies and kingdoms, which are themselves but dreams and tales, and empty things that pass away, and which he might have learned from hence: or, as it may be rendered, "the word is confirmed by me" ^z. Saadiah says, that some observe that the word here used has the signification of strength or firmness; and so Aben Ezra interprets the word, is stable and firm; to which agrees the Syriac version,

"most sure is the word which I pronounce;''

referring not to the dream, but to what follows the king's declaration, both with respect to threatenings and promises:

if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof; the king speaks as if he thought it was in their power, but they were unwilling to do it; though no doubt, had they been able, they would have readily done it, both for their credit and advantage:

ye shall be cut in pieces; not only cut in two, but into various pieces, limb by limb, as Agag by Samuel, and the Ammonites by David; and which was a punishment often inflicted in the eastern nations; as Orpheus was cut to pieces by the Thracian women, and Bessus by order of Alexander the great ^a; much the same punishment as, with us, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered:

and your houses shall be made a dunghill; be destroyed, and never rebuilt more, but put to the most contemptible uses: and this was common among the Romans; when any were found plotting against the government, or guilty of treason, they were not only capitally punished, but their houses were pulled down, or the names of them changed; or, however, were not used for dwelling houses; so the house of Caius Cassius was pulled down and demolished for his affectation of government, and for treason; and that of M. Maulins Capitolinus, who was suspected of seizing the government, after he was thrown from the rock, was made a mint of; and that of Spuflus Melius for the same crime, after he had suffered, was by reproach called Aequimelium; and of the like kind many instances are given ^b and so among the Grecians; Pausanias ^c relates of Astylus Crotoniata, that by way of punishment, and as a mark of infamy upon him for a crime he had done, his house was appointed for a public prison. Herodotus ^d reports Leutychides, general of the Lacedemonians in Thessalian expedition, that having received money by way of bribery, for which he was tried and condemned, though he made his escape, his house was demolished; and the same usage and custom remains to this day in France: thus the unhappy Damien, a madman, who of late stabbed the French king; one part of his sentence was, that the house in which he was born should be pulled down, as he himself also was pulled and cut to pieces; see 2Ki 10:27.

Gill: Dan 2:6

But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof,.... Which he was extremely intent upon to know; and therefore makes use of every way to obtain it, first by threatenings, to terrify, and next by promises, to allure:

ye shall receive of me gifts, and rewards, and great honour; gold, silver, jewels, rich apparel, houses, lands, and great promotion to some of the highest places of honour, trust, and profit, in the kingdom, as Daniel afterwards had:

therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof; at once, directly, without any more ado; for the king was impatient of it.

Gill: Dan 2:7

They answered again, and said,.... Or, a "second" ^e time; repeating the same words, having nothing more to say:

let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation thereof; the first part was but right and reasonable, though the latter was mere boasting and arrogancy.

Gill: Dan 2:8

The king answered and said, I know of certainty,.... I see plainly and clearly what you are at, and am fully assured you mean nothing, but that

ye would gain the time: or buy ^f, or redeem time, as in Eph 5:16, prolong time, put off the answer to longer time; spin out time, as people do in buying and selling; or have it in their possession and power when to answer; and so by gaining time, or being master of it, might hope something would turn up to their advantage, and extricate them out of their present difficulties:

because ye see the thing is gone from me; the dream he could not remember; or because the decree was certain which he had determined concerning them; See Gill on Dan 2:5.

Gill: Dan 2:9

But if ye will not make known unto me the dream,.... For the present he does not insist upon the interpretation, only the dream itself, at least this is now only mentioned; concluding that if they could do the one, they could do the other, as is after observed:

there is but one decree for you; for them all; and that was the decree of death; which should never be revoked or mitigated, or the sentence be changed for another; but should certainly be executed, and in which they were all involved, not one should escape:

for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me; framed a deceitful answer to impose upon and screen yourselves:

till the time be changed; either that he could remember his dream, and tell them it himself; or all the images and impressions of it were wore off his mind, so that they could tell him anything, and he not be able to disprove them; or he would grow indifferent to it, and his passionate desire after it cool, and he be careless whether he knew it or not; or he or they should die; or he might be engaged in other affairs, and be called abroad to war, as he had been; or some thing or other turn up, whereby they might escape the ruin threatened. Saadiah fixes the time to noon, when the conversation of kings ceased, and they were otherwise engaged:

therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof; for by being able to tell a dream that was past, it might be concluded they were able to tell what was to come, signified by that dream; and if they could not declare what was past, how should it be thought that they could foretell things to come?

Gill: Dan 2:10

The Chaldeans answered before the King, and said,.... As follows, in order to appease his wrath, and cool his resentment, and bring him to reason:

there is not a man upon the earth can show the king's matter; or, "upon the dry land" ^g: upon the continent, throughout the whole world, in any country whatever; not one single man can be found, be he ever so wise and learned, that can show the king what he requires; and yet Daniel afterwards did; and so it appears, by this confession, that he was greater than they, or any other of the same profession with them: this is one argument they use to convince the king of the unreasonableness of his demand; it being such that no man on earth was equal to; another follows:

therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler; there neither is, nor never was, any potentate or prince, be who he will; whether, as Jacchiades distinguishes them, a "king" over many provinces, whose empire is very large; or "lord" over many cities; or "ruler" over many villages belonging to one city; in short, no man of power and authority, whether supreme or subordinate:

that asked things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean; never was such a thing required of any before; no instance, they suggest, could be produced in ancient history, or in the present age, in any kingdom or court under the heavens, of such a request being made; or that anything of this kind was ever insisted upon; and therefore hoped the king would not insist upon it; and which no doubt was true: Pharaoh required of his wise men to tell him the interpretation of his dream, but not the dream itself.

Gill: Dan 2:11

And it is a rare thing the king requireth, Meaning not scarce, or seldom heard of; for they had before asserted it never had been required; but that it was hard and difficult, yea, with them, and as they supposed with any other, impossible to be done:

and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh; these men own there was a God, though, they held, more than one; and the omniscience of God, though they seem to have no notion of his omnipresence; and to suggest as if he had no concern with mortals; had no regard to men on earth, nor communicated the knowledge of things unto them. Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Saadiah, interpret this of angels, who are incorporeal; but the superior deities of the Gentiles are rather designed; who were supposed to dwell in heaven, and to have no conversation with men on earth; these, it is owned, could declare to the king what he desired, and no other; and therefore should not persist in his demand on them.

Gill: Dan 2:12

For this cause the king was angry, and very furious,.... Not only because they could not tell his dream, and the interpretation of it; but because they represented him as requiring a thing unreasonable and impossible, which had never been done by any potentate but himself, and could never be answered but by the gods: this threw him into an excess of wrath and fury; which in those tyrannical and despotic princes was exceeding great and terrible:

and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon; not only those that were now in his presence, but all others; concluding from this instance that they were an useless set of men, yea, deceivers and impostors.

Gill: Dan 2:13

And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain,.... Or, "and the wise men were slain" ^h, as the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Syriac versions render it; and so Saadiah: orders were given by the king to his proper officers, and his edict was published, and his will made known in the usual manner; upon which the wise men, at least some of them, were slain; very probably those who were in the king's presence, and at court; and the officers were gone out to slay the rest:

and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain; who had the character of wise men, and might be envied at court, and so the officers took this opportunity, having these orders, to slay them: there was, no doubt, a particular providence, that Daniel and his friends should not be at court at this time; both that the vanity of the Chaldean wisdom and arts might be the more manifest and made known, and the divine and superior wisdom and knowledge of Daniel might be more conspicuous, and his fame be spread in Babylon, and in other provinces.

Gill: Dan 2:14

Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom,.... In a discreet manner, using soft words and gentle language, humbly and modestly inquiring what should be the meaning of all this. The Vulgate Latin version is, "he inquired of the law and decree" ⁱ; what was the reason of the king's orders, which this officer had in commission to execute; with which others agree: or, "he made to return the counsel and decree" ^k, as some choose to render it; he stopped the execution of it for the present, by his inquiries and prudent behaviour but neither seem to agree with what follows; the first sense is best:

to Arioch the captain of the king's guards: there was a king of this name, Gen 14:1, this man, according to the Septuagint version, and others that follow it, was the chief of the king's cooks; and Aben Ezra says the word in the Arabic language so signifies: or, as it may be rendered, "the chief of the slaughterers" ^l; the executioners of malefactors, so Jarchi; he was the king's chief executioner, with which agrees the business he was now charged with: the Vulgate Latin version calls him the prince of the militia; and others the king's provost marshal:

which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon; who by the king's order went forth from the court into the city, to slay all in Babylon who went under the character of wise men; they were not among those that could not answer the king's demand, since they declared none could do it; and therefore he ordered them all to be slain, as a set of useless men in his kingdom.

Gill: Dan 2:15

And he answered and said to Arioch the king's captain,.... Or governor ^m; over the persons before mentioned; either the king's guard or militia, or cooks or executioners: before, the manner in which Daniel answered is observed; here, the matter of it, as follows:

why is the decree so hasty from the King? or, "why this rash", hasty, or cruel (as the Vulgate Latin version) decree from the king? for so it was: what is the cause and reason of it?

then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel; who before was ignorant of it; he was not with the wise men before the king; either they did not care he should go with them, and therefore called him not; or he did not choose to go himself, being under no temptation by the rewards offered, and especially having no summons from the king himself: this being his case, Arioch informs him of the whole affair; how that the king had dreamed a dream, and forgot it; and had sent for the wise men to tell him both it and the interpretation; but they not being able to do it, and declaring also that it was impossible to be done, the king had given orders to slay all of that character.

Gill: Dan 2:16

Then Daniel went in,.... Or "went up" ⁿ; to the king's palace, which might be built on an eminence; or into his chamber, where he probably was; or in some upper room, very likely introduced by Arioch; and which was a bold and daring action in them both: in Arioch, to cease from doing his orders, and entering into the king's presence before he had; and in Daniel, to appear before him, having the name of a wise man, when the king was in such a fury; all which was owing to the providence of God, that wrought upon the heart of Arioch, to listen to what Daniel said, and inspired them both with courage to go in to the king:

and desired of the king that he would give him time; not two or three days, but only that night, till morning, as Saadiah observes; and this with a view not to read books, or study any art; or, by reasoning with himself, or conversation with others, to get knowledge; but to pray to God:

and that he would show the king the interpretation; that is, of his dream, and the dream itself; being persuaded in his own mind that God would hear his prayers, and make it known to him. The king granted him his request, though he upbraided the wise men of their design to gain time; but perhaps, upon the sight of Daniel, he remembered him again, and how superior in wisdom he was to all his magicians and wise men; and besides, Daniel gave him hope, yea, assurance, of showing his dream, and the interpretation of it, which his mind was very eager after; but chiefly this subsiding of his wrath, and his indulging Daniel in his request, were owing to the overruling providence of God.

Gill: Dan 2:17

Then Daniel went to his house,.... Which Sanctius thinks was in the king's palace; very probably it might be near it, somewhere in the city of Babylon; for that it should be twenty miles from that city, as Benjamin of Tudela relates ^o, is not likely; since Arioch's orders reached to none but the wise men of Babylon, and where he sought for and found Daniel; hither he went, to be alone, and to seek the Lord in secret:

and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions; who either dwelt in the same house with him, or not far off; whom he sent for and acquainted with all that had passed, both between the king and the wise men, and the consequence of that; and between him and the king, and what promise he had made, relying on his God and theirs.

Gill: Dan 2:18

That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret,.... His view in sending for them, and informing them of this whole affair, was to engage them in prayer to God with him; even to that God that made the heaven, and dwells there, and is above all, and sees and knows what is done in earth, and rules both in heaven and in earth according to his will; to entreat his mercy, whose mercies are manifold, and not plead any merits of their own; and that he would, in compassion to them, and the lives of others that were in danger, make known this secret of the king's dream, and the interpretation of it; which could never be found out by the sagacity of men, or by any art they are masters of: this Daniel requested of them, as knowing that it was their duty and interest, as well as his, to unite in prayer unto God on this account, and that the joint and fervent prayer of righteous men avails much with him:

that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon; which they were in danger of: this was the mercy they were to implore, being in distress, and this the interest they had in this affair; a strong argument to induce them to it.

Gill: Dan 2:19

Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision,.... That is, after Daniel and his companions had importunately sought the Lord by prayer, the secret of the king's dream, and the interpretation of it, were made known to Daniel, and to him only; he being the person designed in Providence to be raised to great honour and dignity by means of it; this was done either the same night, or the night following, and, as some think, in a dream, and that he dreamed the same dream Nebuchadnezzar did, which he remembered, though the king forgot it; or, however, the same image was represented, to him, whether sleeping or waking, and the meaning of it given him:

then Daniel blessed the God of heaven: gave thanks to him, that he had heard his prayer, and indulged him in his request; which thanksgiving, blessing, or praise, is expressed in the following words:

Gill: Dan 2:20

Daniel answered and said,.... That is, he began his prayer, as Jacchiades observes, or his thanksgiving, and expressed it in the following manner:

blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: a form of blessing God, or a wish that he may be blessed by men for evermore; for there is that in his name, in his nature, in his perfections, and in his works, which require that praise be given him now, and to all eternity:

for wisdom and might are his; "wisdom" in forming the scheme of things, and "might" or power in the execution of them; "wisdom" in revealing the secret of the dream to Daniel, and "might" to accomplish the various events predicted in it: for what Daniel here and afterwards observes has a very peculiar regard to the present affair, for which his heart was warm with gratitude and thankfulness.

Gill: Dan 2:21

And he changeth the times and the season,.... Not only of day and night, summer and winter, and times and seasons of prosperity and adversity; but all the changes and revolutions in states and kingdoms, in all times and ages, are from him; and particularly those pointed at in the following dream, in the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman monarchies:

he removeth kings, and setteth up kings; he is King of kings, and Lord of lords; by him they reign, and continue on their thrones, as long as he pleases; and then he removes them by death or otherwise, and places others in their stead; and who are sometimes raised from a low estate; and this he does in the ordinary course of Providence; see Psa 75:6 and particularly Daniel might have in view the removal of the Babylonian monarchs, and setting up kings of the race of the Medes and Persians; and then the degrading them, and advancing the Grecians to the height of monarchy; and then reducing of them, and raising the Romans to a greater degree of power and authority; and at last crushing them all in their turns, to make way for the kingdom of his Son:

he giveth wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: an increase of wisdom and knowledge, to wise politicians and counsellors of state, to form wise schemes of peace or war, to make wise laws, and govern kingdoms in a prudent manner; and to wise master builders or ministers of the word, to speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, to diffuse the knowledge of Christ everywhere, and make known the mysteries of grace to the sons of men; particularly to Daniel and his companions, who were wise and knowing men, the interpretation of the king's dream.

Gill: Dan 2:22

He revealeth the deep and secret things,.... The purposes of his own heart, which are the deep things of God, and the secrets that belong to him, and which are opened in providence by the execution of them; the "arcana imperii", or secrets of state, committed to men designed for government; the secrets or mysteries of grace, the deep things of the Gospel, made known to Gospel ministers; and particularly the deep and impenetrable secret of the king's dream, and the interpretation of it, revealed to Daniel:

he knoweth what is in the darkness; the actions of men committed in darkness; the schemes that are drawn in the privy councils and cabinets of princes; yea, the thoughts of men's hearts, which he in the utmost recesses of them, as well as their dreams in the night season; and particularly this of the king's, and which must have been buried in darkness, had he not revealed it:

and the light dwelleth with him; he is light itself, and the Father of lights; the light of nature, grace, and glory, is with him, and from him; the light of the word, the light of prophecy, and the light of the glorious Gospel; and also the Light of the world, the sun of righteousness, the Messiah; and of him some of the ancient Jews interpret this passage. R. Aba Serungia ^p, mentioning this passage, "and the light dwelleth with him", adds, this is the King Messiah, as it is said, "arise, shine", &c.; and his commentator ^q observes, that the sense of it is, he (God) retains the Messiah with himself, and does not send him forth unto us; see Psa 43:3, and elsewhere ^r, in answer to the question, what is the name of the Messiah? among others, this is said, his name is Light, as it is said, "and the light dwelleth with him": and this is a name that is often given to Christ, and he takes to himself in the New Testament; see Joh 1:7 where he is called the "Light", that Light, the true Light, and the Light of the world; as he is both of Jews and Gentiles, even of all his people throughout the world: indeed, the light of nature, which every man has, is from him, as the Creator of all; and the light of grace, and the increase of it, which any are favoured with, is given by him; and all the light of knowledge in divine things, and of spiritual joy and comfort, beams from him the sun of righteousness: the light of the latter day, which will be so very great, as to be as the light of seven days, and to make the sun and moon unnecessary in a figurative sense, will be owing to him; as well as all that light of life and glory, the saints shall possess to all eternity, will be communicated through him: and Christ, who is this light, "dwells" with God; he who is the same with the divine Word, was with God, and dwells with him to all eternity; in the fulness of time this Word or Light was made flesh, or was clothed with it, and dwelt with men; when it was, that be came a light into the world, of which he often speaks; and having done his work, ascended to heaven, and now dwells with God in human nature; and will come again, and dwell with men on earth a thousand years, when he will be the light of the New Jerusalem state; and, after that, will take his people with him to heavens, and dwell with God, and they with him, for evermore. This shows that this Light, or the divine "Logos", is a person distinct from God the Father, with whom he dwells; that he is an eternal one, God never being without this Light and Word; and that he is all abiding light to his saints, and will be for evermore.

Gill: Dan 2:23

I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God my fathers,.... His remote ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and more near progenitors, to whom God had made promises, and revealed his secrets in time past, and still continued his favours to Daniel; for which he was abundantly thankful, and owned and confessed the goodness of God to him, and praised him on account of it:

who hast given me wisdom and might; or "strength" ^s; courage and fortitude of mind, to go in to the king when in his fury, to promise to show his dream, and the interpretation of it; and strength of faith in prayer to God to obtain it, and who gave him wisdom to know it: Jacchiades interprets this might of power to save his own life, and the life of others:

and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee; for though it was only made known to Daniel, yet it was in consequence of the united prayers of him and his companions, to which he ascribes it; which shows his great modesty and humility, not to attribute it to his own prayer, and the interest he had in God, as a God hearing prayer:

for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter; or "word" ^t; which he required of the wise men, namely, his dream, and the interpretation of it; this being made known to Daniel, he communicated it to his friends.

Gill: Dan 2:24

Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch,.... Into his apartments at court, or wherever he was in quest of the wise men, of which Daniel had knowledge; this he did as soon as the secret was revealed to him, though not before he had given thanks to God:

whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon; this is a description of Arioch, from the office assigned him by King Nebuchadnezzar, who had appointed him to see this his will and pleasure accomplished:

he went and said thus unto him, destroy not the wise men of Babylon: that is, do not go on to destroy them, for some he had destroyed; this Daniel said, not from any special love he bore them, though some of them might have been his preceptors in the language and literature of the Chaldeans, and so he might have a natural affection for them, and indeed might say this out of common humanity; but this did not arise from any love he had to their wicked arts, which he abhorred, but from love of justice; for, however wicked these men might be, or however deserving of death on other accounts, yet not on this account, for not doing what was impossible for them to do:

bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation; that is, of the dream, and that itself: by this it seems that Daniel, as yet, was not so well known at court, nor of so much esteem and authority there, as to go in to the king of himself, but needed one to introduce him; and which confirms what has been supposed on Dan 2:16.

Gill: Dan 2:25

Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste,.... As knowing how impatient the king was to have his dream, and the interpretation of it, told him; and how pleasing this would be to him, and be a means of ingratiating and establishing him in his affections, as well as for the sake of saving the lives of the wise men:

and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah: as if he had made it his business to inquire after a man capable of answering the king's demands; whereas he sought after Daniel at first, not for this purpose, but to destroy him; and now Daniel made his application to him for introduction to the king, and was not looked after by Arioch; but he here did as courtiers do, make the most of everything to their own advantage, to insinuate themselves into the favour of princes: it looks by this as if Arioch did not know of Daniel's having been with the king before, and of the promise he had made him; that granting him time, he would satisfy him in the matter requested, which he was now ready to do, as he had told Arioch; and therefore he adds,

that will make known unto the king the interpretation; that is, of his dream.

Gill: Dan 2:26

The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar,.... The name given him by the prince of the eunuchs, Dan 1:7, and by which he was known to Nebuchadnezzar; and very likely he called him now by this name, which is the reason of its being mentioned:

art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? this he said, either as doubting and questioning, or as admiring that one so young should be able to do that, which his seniors, the wise men in Babylon, could not do; or he put this question, as impatient to hear what he must expect from him, whether the performance of his promise, or such an answer as the wise men had given him.

Gill: Dan 2:27

Daniel answered in the presence of the king,.... Boldly, and without fear:

and said, the secret which the king hath demanded: so he calls it, to show that it was something divine, which came from God, and could only be revealed by him, and was not to be found out by any art of man:

cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers show unto the king; this he premises to the revelation of the secret, not only to observe the unreasonableness of the king's demand upon them, and the injustice of putting men to death for it; but that the discovery of the whole might appear to be truly divine, and God might have all the glory; it being what no class of men whatever could ever have made known unto him. The last word, rendered "soothsayers" ^u, is not used before; the Septuagint version leaves it untranslated, and calls them Gazarenes; and so Saadiah says, it is the name of a nation or people so called; but Jarchi takes them to be a sort of men that had confederacy with devils: the word signifies such that "cut" into parts, as the soothsayers, who cut up creatures, and looked into their entrails, and by them made their judgment of events; or as the astrologers, who cut and divide the heavens into parts, and by them divide future things; or determine, as Jacchiades says, what shall befall men; for the word is used also in the sense of determining or decreeing; hence, Saadiah says, some interpret it of princes, who by their words determine the affairs of kingdoms: by some it is rendered "fatalists" ^w, who declare to men what their fate will be; but neither of these could show this secret to the king.

Gill: Dan 2:28

But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets,.... By this Daniel meant to inform the king that there was but one God, in opposition to the notion of polytheism, that obtained among the Heathens; that this one God is in heaven, and presides over all persons and things on earth; and that to him alone belongs the revelation of secrets, and not to Heathen gods, or to any magician, astrologer, &c.; and of this kind was the king's dream, a secret impenetrable by men:

and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days: in the latter days of his monarchy, which should be subverted, and succeeded by another; and in ages after that, during the Persian, Grecian, and Roman monarchies; and in the days of the Messiah, even in the latter of his days:

thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; which were of God, and of great importance; and, that the king might observe it, Daniel introduces these words with what goes before, and says what follows:

Gill: Dan 2:29

As for thee, O king,.... So far as thou hast any concern in this matter, or with respect to thee, the following was thy case; these the circumstances and situation in which thou wert:

thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, which should come to pass hereafter; as he lay on his bed, either sleeping or waking, very probably the latter, his thoughts were employed about this great monarchy he had erected, and what would be the issue of it; and was very desirous of knowing what successors he should have in it, and how long it would continue, and what would be the fate of it; when he fell asleep upon this, and had a dream agreeable to his waking thoughts:

and he that revealeth secrets: a periphrasis of the God of heaven, as in the preceding verse:

maketh known unto thee what shall come to pass; this he did by the dream he gave him, though he had forgot it; and now by restoring that, and the interpretation of it, by Daniel.

Gill: Dan 2:30

But as for me,.... As to the part I have in this affair, I can ascribe nothing to myself; it is all owing to the God of heaven, the recovery of the dream, and its interpretation:

this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living: not that he thought or affirmed that he had more wisdom than any man living, as the Vulgate Latin version and others suggest; but as the king might think he had, by revealing this secret to him, and that it was owing to that; but that he had not such wisdom, and, whatever he had, which was the gift of God, it was not through that, or any sagacity and penetration into things he was master of, superior to others, that it was revealed to him; and therefore would not have it placed to any such account; this he said in great modesty, and in order to set the king right, and that God might have all the glory:

but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king; meaning not only himself, and his companions concerned with him, that they might be promoted to honour and dignity, but the whole body of the Jews in captivity, with which they were in connection; that they might meet with more civil and kind treatment, for the sake of the God they worshipped, who revealed this secret to the king: or, "but that they might make known", &c. ^x; the three Persons in the Godhead, as some; the angels, as others; the ministers of God, as Aben Ezra: or rather it may be rendered impersonally,

but that the interpretation might be made known to the king ^y as by the Vulgate Latin, as it follows:

and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart; both what they were, which were forgotten, and the meaning of them.

Gill: Dan 2:31

Thou, O king, sawest,.... Or, "wast seeing" ^z; not with the eyes of his body, but in his fancy and imagination; as he was dreaming, he thought he saw such an appearance, so it seemed to him, as follows:

and behold a great image; or, "one great image" ^a; not painted, but a massive statue made of various metals, as is afterwards declared: such, though not so large as this, as the king had been used to see, which he had in his garden and palace, and which he worshipped; but this was of a monstrous size, a perfect colossus, and but one, though it consisted of various parts; it was in the form of a great man, as Saadiah and Jacchiades observe; and represented each of the monarchies of this world governed by men; and these being expressed by an image, show how vain and delusory, how frail and transitory, are the kingdoms of the earth, and the glory of them:

this great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee: right over against him, and near him, as he thought; so that he had a full view of it, and saw it at its full length and size, and its dazzling lustre, arising from the various metals of gold, silver, brass, and iron, it was made of; which was exceeding bright, and made it look very majestic:

and the form thereof was terrible; either there was something in the countenance menacing and horrid; or the whole form, being so gigantic, struck the king with admiration, and was even terrible to him; and it may denote the terror that kings, especially arbitrary and despotic ones, strike their subjects with.

Gill: Dan 2:32

This image's head was of fine gold,.... The prophet begins with the superior part of this image, and descends to the lower, because of the order and condition of the monarchies it represents: this signifies the Babylonian monarchy, as afterwards explained; called the "head", being the first and chief of the monarchies; and compared to "fine gold", because of the glory, excellency, and duration of it:

his breast and his arms of silver; its two arms, including its hands and its breast, to which they were joined, were of silver, a metal of less value than gold; designing the monarchy of the Medes and Persians, which are the two arms, and which centred in Cyrus, who was by his father a Persian, by his mother a Mede; and upon whom, after his uncle's death, the whole monarchy devolved:

his belly and his thighs of brass; a baser metal still; this points at the Macedonian or Grecian monarchy, set up by Alexander, signified by the "belly", for intemperance and luxury; as the two "thighs" denote his principal successors, the Selucidae and Lagidae, the Syrian and Egyptian kings; and these of brass, because of the sounding fame of them, as Jerom.

Gill: Dan 2:33

His legs of iron,.... A coarser metal than the former, but very strong; and designs the strong and potent monarchy of the Romans, the last of the four monarchies, governed chiefly by two consuls: and was divided, in the times of Theodosius, into the eastern and western empire, which may be signified by the two legs:

his feet part of iron and part of clay ^b; or some "of them of iron, and some of them of clay" that is, the ten toes of the feet, which represent the ten kingdoms the western empire was divided into, some of which were potent, others weak; for this cannot be understood of the same feet and toes being a mixture, composed partly of one, and partly of the other; since iron and clay will not mix together, Dan 2:43 and will not agree with the form of expression. Jerom interprets this part of the vision of the image to the same sense, who lived about the time when it was fulfilling; for in his days was the irruption of the barbarous nations into the empire; who often speaks of them in his writings ^c, and of the Roman empire being in a weak and ruinous condition on the account of them. His comment on this text is this,

"the fourth kingdom, which clearly belongs to the Romans, is the iron that breaks and subdues all things; but his feet and toes are partly iron, and partly clay, which is most manifestly verified at this time; for as in the beginning nothing was stronger and harder than the Roman empire, so in the end of things nothing weaker; when both in civil wars, and against divers nations, we stand in need of the help of other barbarous people.''

And whereas he had been blamed for giving this sense of the passage, he vindicates himself elsewhere by saying ^d,

"if, in the exposition of the image, and the difference of its feet and toes, I interpret the iron and clay of the Roman kingdom, which the Scripture foreshows should be first and then weak, let them not impute, it to me, but to the prophet; for so we must not flatter princes, as that the truth of the holy Scriptures should be neglected; nor is the general disputation of one person an injury;''

that is, of any great moment to the government.

Gill: Dan 2:34

Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands,.... Or, "wast seeing" ^e; the king continued looking upon the image that stood before him, as he thought, as long as he could see it, till he saw a "stone": an emblem of the Messiah, as it often is in Scripture, Gen 49:24, because of his strength, firmness, and duration; and so it is interpreted here by many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, as well as by Christians; and also of his kingdom, or of him in his kingly office; see Dan 2:44. In an ancient book ^f of theirs, written by R. Simeon Ben Jochai, the author interprets this stone, cut out of the mountain without hands, to be the same with him who in Gen 49:24, is called the Shepherd and Stone of Israel; as it is by Saadiah Gaon, a later writer; and in another of their writings ^g, reckoned by them very ancient, it is said, that the ninth king (for they speak of ten) shall be the King Messiah, who shall reign from one end of the world to the other, according to that passage, "the stone which smote the image", &c. Dan 2:35 and in one of their ancient Midrashes ^h, or expositions, it is interpreted of the King Messiah: and so R. Abraham Seba ⁱ, on those words, "from thence is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel", Gen 49:24; observes, the King Messiah does not come but by the worthiness of Jacob, as it is said, "thou sawest, till that stone cut out without hands, because of Jacob". This is said to be "cut out without hands"; that is, the hands of men, as Saadiah and Jacchiades explain it; not cut out by workmen, as stones usually are out of quarries; but was taken out by an unseen hand, and by invisible power, even purely divine: this may point at the wondrous incarnation of Christ, who was made of a woman, of a virgin, without the help of a man, by the power of God; see Heb 8:2, and at his kingdom, which was like a single stone at first, very small, and was cut out and separated from the world, and set up and maintained, not by human, but divine power, and being of a spiritual nature, 2Co 5:1,

which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces; this seems to represent this image as in a plain, when, from a mountain hanging over it, a stone is taken by an invisible hand, and rolled upon it; which falling on its feet, breaks them to pieces, and in course the whole statue falls, and is broken to shivers; this respects what is yet to be done in the latter day, when Christ will take to himself his great power, and reign, and subdue, and destroy the ten kings or kingdoms that are given to antichrist, and him himself, and the remainder of the several monarchies, and in which they will all end.

Gill: Dan 2:35

Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together,.... The feet, the basis of the image, being broken, the whole body of it fell, and with its own weight was broken to pieces; an emblem this of the utter dissolution of all the monarchies and kingdoms of the earth, signified by these several metals:

and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; which is exceeding small and light:

and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; for the several metals, and the monarchies signified by them, which were no more: the allusion is to the manner of winnowing corn in the eastern countries upon mountains, when the chaff was carried away by the wind, and seen no more:

and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the earth; Christ's kingdom, from small beginnings, has increased, and will more and more, until the whole earth is subject to it: this began to have its accomplishment in the first times of the Gospel, especially when the Roman empire, as Pagan, was destroyed by Constantine, and the kingdom of Christ was set up in it; and it received a further accomplishment at the time of the Reformation, when Rome Papal had a deadly blow given it, and the Gospel of Christ was spread in several nations and kingdoms; but it will receive its full accomplishment when both the eastern and western antichrists shall be destroyed, and the kingdoms of this world shall become the Lord's and his Christ's, Rev 11:15.

Gill: Dan 2:36

This is the dream,.... Which Nebuchadnezzar dreamed, but had forgot, and was now punctually and exactly made known to him; for the truth of which he is appealed unto; for, no doubt, by this account, the whole of his dream, and every circumstance of it, were brought to his mind:

and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king; for though both the dream, and the interpretation of it, were only revealed to Daniel; yet he joins his companions with him, partly because they were now present, and chiefly because they were assisting to him in prayer for it.

Gill: Dan 2:37

Thou, O king, art a king of kings,.... Having many kings subject and tributary to him, or would have; as the kings of Judah, Ammon, Moab, and others, and who were even his captives and prisoners; see Jer 52:32. Jarchi and Saadiah join this with the next clause, "the God of heaven", and interpret it of him thus, thou, O King Nebuchadnezzar, "the King of kings, who is the God of heaven, hath given unto thee", &c.; so some in the Talmud understand it of God ^k; but this is contrary to the accents:

for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory; that is, a very powerful, strong, and glorious kingdom, famous for its mighty armies, strong fortresses, and great riches, from all which the king had great honour and glory; and this he had not by his ancestors, or his own military skill and prowess, but by the favour and gift of God.

Gill: Dan 2:38

And wheresoever the children of men dwell,.... Not in every part of the habitable world, but in every part of his large dominion inhabited by men:

the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand; all parks, chases, and forests (so that none might hunt or hawk without his permission), as well as the persons and habitations of men, were at his dispose; showing the despotic power and sovereign sway he had over his subjects:

and hath made thee ruler over all: men, beasts, and fowl: he not only conquered the Egyptians, Tyrians, and Jews, and other nations about them; but, according to Megasthenes ^l he exceeded Hercules in strength, and conquered Lybia and Iberia, and carried colonies of them into Pontus; and, as Strabo ^m says, carried his arms as far as the pillars of Hercules:

thou art this head of gold; or who was represented by the golden head of the image he had seen in his dream; not he personally only, but his successors Evilmerodach and Belshazzar, and the Babylonish monarchy, as possessed by them; for this refers not back to the Assyrian monarchy, from the time of Nimrod, but to its more flourishing condition in Nebuchadnezzar and his sons; called a "head", because the first of the monarchies; and golden, in comparison of other kingdoms then in being, and because of the riches of it, which the Babylonians were covetous of; hence Babylon is called the golden city, Isa 14:4 and it may be, because not so wicked and cruel to the Jews as the later monarchies were: from hence the poets have been thought by some to have taken their notion of the golden, silver, and iron ages, as growing worse and worse; but this distinction is observed by Hesiod, who lived many years before this vision was seen.

Gill: Dan 2:39

And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee,.... This is the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the breasts and arms of silver, an inferior metal to gold; this rose up, not immediately after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, but after his successors, when Belshazzar his grandson was slain, and Babylon taken by Cyrus; now though this monarchy was as large at the first as the Babylonish monarchy, nay, larger, as it had Media and Persia added to it, new conquests made by Cyrus, and was as rich and as opulent in his times; yet in later kings it shrunk much, in its peace and prosperity, grandeur and glory, as in the times of Cambyses and the Magi; and especially in the reigns of Cyrus the younger, and of Artaxerxes Mnemon; and at last ceased in Darius Codomannus, conquered by Alexander; and was worse than the former monarchy, being more cruel under some of its princes to the people of the Jews:

and another third kingdom of brass: this is the Grecian monarchy, which succeeded the Persian, and therefore called the third kingdom, and is signified by the belly and thighs of brass of the image See Gill on Dan 2:32;

which shall bear rule over all the earth; not the land of Israel, as Saadiah restrains it, but the whole world, as Alexander did, at least in his own opinion; who thought he had conquered the whole world, and wept because there was not another to conquer; and it is certain he did subdue a great part of it. Justin ⁿ says,

"that when he was returning to Babylon from the uttermost shores of the sea, it was told him that the embassies of the Carthaginians and other cities of Africa, and also of Spain, Sicily, France, Sardinia, and some out of Italy, were waiting for his coming; the terror of his name so struck the whole world, that all nations complimented him as their king destined for them.''

And Pliny reports ^o of Macedonia, that

"it formerly (that is, in the times of Alexander) governed the world; this (says he) passed over Asia, Armenia, Iberia, Albania, Cappadocia, Syria, Egypt, Taurus, and Caucasus; this ruled over the Bactrians, Medes, and Persians, possessing the whole east; this also was conqueror of India.''

Gill: Dan 2:40

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,.... This is not the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, the successors of Alexander, as some have thought; for these are designed by the thighs in the third kingdom; and, besides, the kingdom of Christ was to arise in the time of this fourth kingdom, which it did not in that; nor the kingdom of Gog, or the empire of the Turks, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi; but the Roman empire, which is compared to iron for its strength, firmness, and duration in itself; and for its power over other nations; and also for its cruelty to the Jews above all others, in utterly destroying their city, temple, and nation:

forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; so this kingdom has subdued and conquered all others; not the Jews only, but the Persians, Egyptians, Syrians, Africans, French, Germans, yea, all the world:

and as iron that breaketh, or "even as iron breaketh all these",

shall it break in pieces, and bruise; all nations and kingdoms; hence Rome has been called the mistress of the world, and its empire in Scripture is called the whole world, Luk 2:1.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Dan 2:1

¹ tn Heb “Nebuchadnezzar’s.” The possessive pronoun is substituted in the translation for stylistic reasons.

² tn Heb “dreamed dreams.” The plural is used here and in v. 2, but the singular in v. 3. The plural “dreams” has been variously explained. Some interpreters take the plural as denoting an indefinite singular (so GKC 400 §124.o). But it may be that it is describing a stream of related dreams, or a dream state. In the latter case, one might translate: “Nebuchadnezzar was in a trance.” See further, J. A. Montgomery, Daniel (ICC), 142.

³ tn Heb “his spirit.”

⁴ tn Heb “his sleep left (?) him.” The use of the verb הָיָה (hayah, “to be”) here is unusual. The context suggests a meaning such as “to be finished” or “gone.” Cf. Dan 8:27. Some scholars emend the verb to read נָדְדָה (nadÿdah, “fled”); cf. Dan 6:19. See further, DCH 2:540 s.v. היה I Ni.3; HALOT 244 s.v. היה nif; BDB 227-28 s.v. הָיָה Niph.2.

NET Notes: Dan 2:2

¹ tn Heb “said.” So also in v. 12.

² tn Heb “Chaldeans.” The term Chaldeans (Hebrew כַּשְׂדִּים, kasdim) is used in the book of Daniel both in an ethnic sense and, as here, to refer to a caste of Babylonian wise men and astrologers.

³ tn Heb “to explain to the king his dreams.”

⁴ tn Heb “stood before the king.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:3

¹ tn Heb “I have dreamed a dream” (so KJV, ASV).

² tn Heb “my spirit.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:4

¹ sn Contrary to common belief, the point here is not that the wise men (Chaldeans) replied to the king in the Aramaic language, or that this language was uniquely the language of the Chaldeans. It was this view that led in the past to Aramaic being referred to as “Chaldee.” Aramaic was used as a lingua franca during this period; its origins and usage were not restricted to the Babylonians. Rather, this phrase is better understood as an editorial note (cf. NAB) marking the fact that from 2:4b through 7:28 the language of the book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. In 8:1, and for the remainder of the book, the language returns to Hebrew. Various views have been advanced to account for this change of language, most of which are unconvincing. Most likely the change in language is a reflection of stages in the transmission history of the book of Daniel.

² tn Or “the.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:5

¹ tn Aram “answered and said,” a common idiom to indicate a reply, but redundant in contemporary English.

² tn It seems clear from what follows that Nebuchadnezzar clearly recalls the content of the dream, although obviously he does not know what to make of it. By not divulging the dream itself to the would-be interpreters, he intends to find out whether they are simply leading him on. If they can tell him the dream’s content, which he is able to verify, he then can have confidence in their interpretation, which is what eludes him. The translation “the matter is gone from me” (cf. KJV, ASV), suggesting that the king had simply forgotten the dream, is incorrect. The Aramaic word used here (אַזְדָּא, ’azda’) is probably of Persian origin; it occurs in the OT only here and in v. 8. There are two main possibilities for the meaning of the word: “the matter is promulgated by me” (see KBL 1048 s.v.) and therefore “publicly known” (cf. NRSV; F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 62-63, §189), or “the matter is irrevocable” (cf. NAB, NIV, TEV, CEV, NLT; HALOT 1808 s.v. אזד; cf. also BDB 1079 s.v.). The present translation reflects this latter option. See further E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 3.

³ tn Aram “made limbs.” Cf. 3:29.

NET Notes: Dan 2:7

¹ tn Aram “his servants.”

² tn Or “the.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:9

¹ tn Aram “one is your law,” i.e., only one thing is applicable to you.

² tn Aram “a lying and corrupt word.”

³ tn Aram “I will know.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:10

¹ tn Aram “matter, thing.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:11

¹ tn Aram “whose dwelling is not with flesh.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:12

¹ tn Aram “was angry and very furious.” The expression is a hendiadys (two words or phrases expressing a single idea).

NET Notes: Dan 2:13

¹ tn The Aramaic participle is used here to express the imminent future.

² tn The impersonal active plural (“they sought”) of the Aramaic verb could also be translated as an English passive: “Daniel and his friends were sought” (cf. NAB).

NET Notes: Dan 2:14

¹ tn Aram “returned prudence and counsel.” The expression is a hendiadys.

NET Notes: Dan 2:15

¹ tn The Aramaic word מְהַחְצְפָה (mÿhakhtsÿfah) may refer to the severity of the king’s decree (i.e., “harsh”; so HALOT 1879 s.v. חצף; BDB 1093 s.v. חֲצַף), although it would seem that in a delicate situation such as this Daniel would avoid this kind of criticism of the king’s actions. The translation above understands the word to refer to the immediacy, not harshness, of the decree. See further, F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 50, §116; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 67.

NET Notes: Dan 2:16

¹ tc Theodotion and the Syriac lack the words “went in and.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:18

¹ tn Aram “Daniel.” The proper name is redundant here in English, and has not been included in the translation.

NET Notes: Dan 2:19

¹ tn Or “blessed.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:20

¹ tn Aram “Daniel answered and said.”

² sn As is often the case in the Bible, here the name represents the person.

³ tn Or “blessed.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:21

¹ tn Aram “kings.”

² tn Aram “the knowers of understanding.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:23

¹ tn Aram “we.” Various explanations have been offered for the plural, but it is probably best understood as the editorial plural; so also with “me” later in this verse.

² tn Aram “the word of the king.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:24

¹ tc The MT has עַל עַל (’al ’al, “he entered upon”). Several medieval Hebrew MSS lack the verb, although this may be due to haplography.

² tc The LXX and Vulgate, along with one medieval Hebrew MS, lack this verb.

³ tn Aram “cause me to enter.” So also in v. 25.

⁴ tn Aram “the king.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:25

¹ sn Arioch’s claim is self-serving and exaggerated. It is Daniel who came to him, and not the other way around. By claiming to have found one capable of solving the king’s dilemma, Arioch probably hoped to ingratiate himself to the king.

NET Notes: Dan 2:28

¹ tn Aram “a revealer of mysteries.” The phrase serves as a quasi-title for God in Daniel.

² tn Aram “in the latter days.”

³ tn Aram “your dream and the visions of your head upon your bed.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:29

¹ tn Aram “your thoughts upon your bed went up to what will be after this.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:30

¹ tn Aram “not for any wisdom which is in me more than [in] any living man.”

² tn Aram “they might cause the king to know.” The impersonal plural is used here to refer to the role of God’s spirit in revealing the dream and its interpretation to the king. As J. A. Montgomery says, “it appropriately here veils the mysterious agency” (Daniel [ICC], 164-65).

³ tn Aram “heart.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:31

¹ tn Aram “an image.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:33

¹ sn Clay refers to baked clay, which – though hard – was also fragile. Cf. the reference in v. 41 to “wet clay.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:34

¹ tn Aram “until.”

² tc The LXX, Theodotion, and the Vulgate have “from a mountain,” though this is probably a harmonization with v. 45.

NET Notes: Dan 2:35

¹ tn Aram “as one.” For the meaning “without distinction” see the following: F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 36, §64, and p. 93; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 60.

NET Notes: Dan 2:36

¹ tn Various suggestions have been made concerning the plural “we.” It is probably the editorial plural and could be translated here as “I.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:38

¹ tn Aram “the sons of man.”

² tn Aram “the beasts of the field.”

³ tn Aram “hand.”

NET Notes: Dan 2:39

¹ sn The identity of the first kingdom is clearly Babylon. The identification of the following three kingdoms is disputed. The common view is that they represent Media, Persia, and Greece. Most conservative scholars identify them as Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

NET Notes: Dan 2:40

¹ tc Theodotion and the Vulgate lack the phrase “and as iron breaks in pieces.”

² tn The Aramaic text does not have this word, but it has been added in the translation for clarity.

³ tn The words “the others” are supplied from the context.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:1

And in the ^{( a )} second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed ^{( b )} dreams, wherewith his spirit was ^{( c )} troubled, and ^{( d )} his sleep brake from him.

^{( a )} The father and the son were both called by this name, so that this is meant of the son, when he reigned alone: for he also reigned in a way with his father.

^{( b )} Not that he had many dreams, but because many matters were contained in this dream.

^{( c )} Because it was so rare and strange a dream, that he had had nothing similar.

^{( d )} Or, "his sleep was upon him", that is, that he was so heavy with sleep, that he began to sleep again.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:2

Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the ^{( e )} Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

^{( e )} For all these astrologers and sorcerers called themselves by this name of honour, as though all the wisdom and knowledge of the country depended upon them, and that all other countries were void of such wisdom and knowledge.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:4

Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in ^{( f )} Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.

^{( f )} That is, in the Syrian language, which differed not much from the Chaldeans, except it seemed to be more eloquent, and therefore the learned used to speak it, as the Jewish writers do to this day.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:5

The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye ^{( g )} shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.

^{( g )} This is a just reward of their arrogance (who boasted of themselves that they had knowledge of all things), that they should be proved fools, and that to their perpetual shame and confusion.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:7

They answered again and said, Let the king tell ^{( h )} his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it.

^{( h )} In this appears their ignorance, that despite their braggings, yet they were not able to tell the dream, unless he told them of it. And if he did tell them, they would pretend knowledge where there was but mere ignorance, and so as deluders of the people they were worthy to die.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:13

And the decree went forth that the wise [men] should be slain; and they ^{( i )} sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain.

^{( i )} Which declares that God would not have his servant united in the company of these sorcerers and astrologers, whose arts were wicked, and therefore justly ought to die, even though the king did it upon a rage and not from zeal.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:22

He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what [is] in the darkness, and the ^{( k )} light dwelleth with him.

^{( k )} He shows that man has neither wisdom nor knowledge, but very dark blindness and ignorance of himself: for it comes only from God that man understands anything.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:23

I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my ^{( l )} fathers, who hast given me wisdom and ^{( m )} might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast [now] made known unto us the king's matter.

^{( l )} To whom you made your promise, and who lived in fear of you: by which he excludes all other gods.

^{( m )} Meaning power to interpret it.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:24

Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise [men] of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not ^{( n )} the wise [men] of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.

^{( n )} By which appears that many were slain, as in verse thirteen, and the rest at Daniel's offer were preserved on condition. Not that Daniel favoured their wicked profession, but that he had respect to fairness, because the King proceeded according to his wicked affection, and not considering if their profession was morally correct or not.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:28

But there is a God in ^{( o )} heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

^{( o )} He affirms that man by reason and craft is not able to attain to the cause of God's secrets, but the understanding only of them must come from God: by which he smites the king with a certain fear and reverence of God, that he might be the more able to receive the high mysteries that would be revealed.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:30

But as ^{( p )} for me, this secret is not revealed to me for [any] wisdom that I have more than any living, but for [their] sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.

^{( p )} Because he had said that God alone must reveal the signification of this dream, the King might have asked why Daniel undertook to interpret it: and therefore he shows that he was but God's minister, and had no gifts but those which God had given him to set forth his glory.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:32

This image's head [was] of fine ^{( q )} gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,

^{( q )} By gold, silver, brass, and iron are meant the Chaldean, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman kingdoms, which would successively rule all the world until Christ (who is here called the stone) himself comes, and destroys the last. And this was to assure the Jews that their affliction would not end with the empire of the Chaldeans, but that they should patiently await the coming of the Messiah, who would be at the end of this fourth monarchy.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:38

And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou [art] ^{( r )} this head of gold.

^{( r )} Daniel leaves out the kingdom of the Assyrians, which was before the Babylonian, both because it was not a monarchy and general empire, and also because he would declare the things that were to come, until the coming of Christ, for the comfort of the elect among these wonderful alterations. And he calls the Babylonian kingdom the golden head, because in respect of the other three, it was the best, and yet it was of itself wicked and cruel.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:39

And after thee shall arise another kingdom ^{( s )} inferior to thee, and another ^{( t )} third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

^{( s )} Meaning, the Persians who were not inferior in dignity, power, or riches, but were worse with regard to ambition, cruelty, and every type of vice, showing that the world would grow worse and worse, until it was restored by Christ.

^{( t )} That is, those of the Macedonians will be of brass, not alluding to the hardness of it, but to the vileness with regard to silver.

Geneva Bible: Dan 2:40

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all [things]: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in ^{( u )} pieces and bruise.

^{( u )} That is, the Roman empire will subdue all these others, which after Alexander were divided into the Macedonians, Grecians, Syrians, and Egyptians.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Dan 2:1-49

1 Nebuchadnezzar, forgetting his dream, requires it of the Chaldeans, by promises and threatenings.

10 They acknowledging their inability are judged to die.

14 Daniel obtaining some respite finds the dream.

19 He blesses God.

24 He staying the decree is brought to the king.

31 The dream.

36 The interpretation.

46 Daniel's advancement.

MHCC: Dan 2:1-13

The greatest men are most open to cares and troubles of mind, which disturb their repose in the night, while the sleep of the labouring man is sweet and sound. We know not the uneasiness of many who live in great pomp, and, as others vainly think, in pleasure also. The king said that his learned men must tell him the dream itself, or they should all be put to death as deceivers. Men are more eager to ask as to future events, than to learn the way of salvation or the path of duty; yet foreknowledge of future events increases anxiety and trouble. Those who deceived, by pretending to do what they could not do, were sentenced to death, for not being able to do what they did not pretend to.

MHCC: Dan 2:14-23

Daniel humbly prayed that God would discover to him the king's dream, and the meaning of it. Praying friends are valuable friends; and it well becomes the greatest and best men to desire the prayers of others. Let us show that we value our friends, and their prayers. They were particular in prayer. And whatever we pray for, we can expect nothing but as the gift of God's mercies. God gives us leave in prayer to tell our wants and burdens. Their plea with God was, the peril they were in. The mercy Daniel and his fellows prayed for, was bestowed. The fervent prayers of righteous men avail much. Daniel was thankful to God for making known that to him, which saved the lives of himself and his fellows. How much more should we be thankful to God, for making known the great salvation of the soul to those who are not among the worldly wise and prudent!

MHCC: Dan 2:24-30

Daniel takes away the king's opinion of his magicians and soothsayers. The insufficiency of creatures should drive us to the all-sufficiency of the Creator. There is One who can do that for us, and make known that to us, which none on earth can, particularly the work of redemption, and the secret designs of God's love to us therein. Daniel confirmed the king in his opinion, that the dream was of great consequence, relating to the affairs and changes of this lower world. Let those whom God has highly favoured and honoured, lay aside all opinion of their own wisdom and worthiness, that the Lord alone may be praised for the good they have and do.

MHCC: Dan 2:31-45

This image represented the kingdoms of the earth, that should successively rule the nations, and influence the affairs of the Jewish church. 1. The head of gold signified the Chaldean empire, then in being. 2. The breast and arms of silver signified the empire of the Medes and Persians. 3. The belly and thighs of brass signified the Grecian empire, founded by Alexander. 4. The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman empire. The Roman empire branched into ten kingdoms, as the toes of these feet. Some were weak as clay, others strong as iron. Endeavours have often been used to unite them, for strengthening the empire, but in vain. The stone cut out without hands, represented the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which should be set up in the kingdoms of the world, upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom in them. This was the Stone which the builders refused, because it was not cut out by their hands, but it is become the head stone of the corner. Of the increase of Christ's government and peace there shall be no end. The Lord shall reign, not only to the end of time, but when time and days shall be no more. As far as events have gone, the fulfilling this prophetic vision has been most exact and undeniable; future ages shall witness this Stone destroying the image, and filling the whole earth.

Matthew Henry: Dan 2:1-13

We meet with a great difficulty in the date of this story; it is said to be in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 2:1. Now Daniel was carried to Babylon in his first year, and, it should seem, he was three years under tutors and governors before he was presented to the king, Dan 1:5. How then could this happen in the second year? Perhaps, though three years were appointed for the education of other children, yet Daniel was so forward that he was taken into business when he had been but one year at school, and so in the second year he became thus considerable. Some make it to be the second year after he began to reign alone, but the fifth or sixth year since he began to reign in partnership with his father. Some read it, and in the second year, (the second after Daniel and his fellows stood before the king), in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, or in his reign, this happened; as Joseph, in the second year after his skill in dreams, showed and expounded Pharaoh's, so Daniel, in the second year after he commenced master in that art, did this service. I would much rather take it some of these ways than suppose, as some do, that it was in the second year after he had conquered Egypt, which was the thirty-sixth year of his reign, because it appears by what we meet with in Ezekiel, that Daniel was famous both for wisdom and prevalence in prayer long before that; and therefore this passage, or story, which shows how he came to be so eminent for both these must be laid early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Now here we may observe,

I. The perplexity that Nebuchadnezzar was in by reason of a dream which he had dreamed but had forgotten (Dan 2:1): He dreamed dreams, that is, a dream consisting of divers distinct parts, or which filled his head as much as if it had been many dreams. Solomon speaks of a multitude of dreams, strangely incoherent, in which there are divers vanities, Ecc 5:7. This dream of Nebuchadnezzar's had nothing in the thing itself but what might be paralleled in many a common dream, in which are often represented to men things as foreign as are here mentioned; but there was something in the impression it made upon him which carried with it an incontestable evidence of its divine original and its prophetic significancy. Note, The greatest of men are not exempt from, nay, they lie most open to, those cares and troubles of mind which disturb their repose in the night, while the sleep of the labouring man is sweet and sound, and the sleep of the sober temperate man free from confused dreams. The abundance of the rich will not suffer them to sleep at all for care, and the excesses of gluttons and drunkards will not suffer them to sleep quietly for dreaming. But this recorded here was not from natural causes. Nebuchadnezzar was a troubler of God's Israel, but God here troubled him; for he that made the soul can make his sword to approach to it. He had his guards about him, but they could not keep trouble from his spirit. We know not the uneasiness of many that live in great pomp, and, one would think, in pleasure, too. We look into their houses, and are tempted to envy them; but, could we look into their hearts, we should pity them rather. All the treasures and all the delights of the children of men, which this mighty monarch had command of, could not procure him a little repose, when by reason of the trouble of his mind his sleep broke from him. But God gives his beloved sleep, who return to him as their rest.

II. The trial that he made of his magicians and astrologers whether they could tell him what his dream was, which he had forgotten. They were immediately sent for, to show the king his dreams, Dan 2:2. There are many things which we retain the impressions of, and yet have lost the images of the things; though we cannot tell what the matter was, we know how we were affected with it; so it was with this king. His dream had slipped out of his mind, and he could not possibly recollect it, but he was confident he should know it if he heard it again. God ordered it so that Daniel might have the more honour, and, in him, the God of Daniel. Note, God sometimes serves his own purposes by putting things out of men's minds as well as by putting things into their minds. The magicians, it is likely, were proud of their being sent for into the king's bed-chamber, to give him a taste of their office, not doubting but it would be for their honour. He tells them that he had dreamed a dream, Dan 2:3. They speak to him in the Syriac tongue, which was then the same with the Chaldee, but now they differ much. And henceforward Daniel uses that language, or dialect of the Hebrew, for the same reason that those words, Jer 10:11, are in that language because designed to convince the Chaldeans of the folly of their idolatry and to bring them to the knowledge and worship of the true and living God, which the stories of these chapters have a direct tendency to. But ch. 8 and forward, being intended for the comfort of the Jews, is written in their peculiar language. They, in their answer, complimented the king with their good wishes, desired him to tell his dream, and undertook with all possible assurance to interpret it, Dan 2:4. But the king insisted upon it that they must tell him the dream itself, because he had forgotten it and could not tell it to them. And, if they could not do this, they should all be put to death as deceivers (Dan 2:5), themselves cut to pieces and their houses made a dunghill. If they could, they should be rewarded and preferred, Dan 2:6. And they knew, as Balaam did concerning Balak, that he was able to promote them to great honour, and give them that wages of unrighteousness which, like him, they loved so dearly. No question therefore that they will do their utmost to gratify the king; if they do not, it is not for want of good-will, but for want of power, Providence so ordering it that the magicians of Babylon might now be as much confounded and put to shame as of old the magicians of Egypt had been, that, how much soever his people were both in Egypt and Babylon vilified and made contemptible, his oracles might in both be magnified and made honourable, by the silencing of those that set up in competition with them. The magicians, having reason on their side, insist upon it that the king must tell them the dream, and then, if they do not tell him the interpretation of it, it is their fault, Dan 2:7. But arbitrary power is deaf to reason. The king falls into a passion, gives them hard words, and, without any colour of reason, suspects that they could tell him but would not; and instead of upbraiding them with impotency, and the deficiency of their art, as he might justly have done, he charges them with a combination to affront him: You have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. How unreasonable and absurd is this imputation! If they had undertaken to tell him what his dream was, and had imposed upon him with a sham, he might have charged them with lying and corrupt words; but to say this of them when they honestly confessed their own weakness only shows what senseless things indulged passions are, and how apt great men are to think it is their prerogative to pursue their humour in defiance of reason and equity, and all the dictates of both. When the magicians begged of him to tell them the dream, though the request was highly rational and just, he tells them that they did but dally with him, to gain time (Dan 2:8), till the time be changed (Dan 2:9), either till the king's desire to know his dream be over, and he grown indifferent whether he be told it or no, though now he is so hot upon it, or till they may hope he has so perfectly forgotten his dream (the remaining shades of which are slipping from him apace as he catches at them) that they may tell him what they please and make him believe it was his dream, and, when the thing which is going, is quite gone from him, as it will be in a little time, he will not be able to disprove them. And therefore, without delay, they must tell him the dream. In vain do they plead, 1. That there is no man on earth that can retrieve the king's dream, Dan 2:10. There are settled rules by which to discover what the meaning of the dream was; whether they will hold or no is the question. But never were any rules offered to be given by which to discover what the dream was; they cannot work unless they have something to work upon. They acknowledge that the gods may indeed declare unto man what is his thought (Amo 4:13), for God understands our thoughts afar off (Psa 139:2), what they will be before we think them, what they are when we do not regard them, what they have been when we have forgotten them. But those who can do this are gods, that have not their dwelling with flesh (Dan 2:11), and it is they alone that can do this. As for men, their dwelling is with flesh; the wisest and greatest of men are clouded with a veil of flesh, which quite obstructs and confounds all their acquaintance with spirit, and their powers and operations; but the gods, that are themselves pure spirit, know what is in man. See here an instance of the ignorance of these magicians, that they speak of many gods, whereas there is but one and can be but one infinite; yet see their knowledge of that which even the light of nature teaches and the works of nature prove, that there is a God, who is a Spirit, and perfectly knows the spirits of men and all their thoughts, so as it is not possible that any man should. This confession of the divine omniscience is here extorted from these idolaters, to the honour of God and their own condemnation, who though they knew there is a God in heaven, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secret is hid, yet offered up their prayers and praises to dumb idols, that have eyes and see not, ears and hear not. 2. That there is no king on earth that would expect or require such a thing, Dan 2:10. This intimates that they were kings, lords, and potentates, not ordinary people, that the magicians had most dealings with, and at whose devotion they were, while the oracles of God and the gospel of Christ are dispensed to the poor. Kings and potentates have often required unreasonable things of their subjects, but they think that never any required so unreasonable a thing as this, and therefore hope his imperial majesty will not insist upon it. But it is all in vain; when passion is in the throne reason is under foot: He was angry and very furious, Dan 2:12. Note, It is very common for those that will not be convinced by reason to be provoked and exasperated by it, and to push on with fury what they cannot support with equity.

III. The doom passed upon all the magicians of Babylon. There is but one decree for them all (Dan 2:9); they all stand condemned without exception or distinction. The decree has gone forth, they must every man of them be slain (Dan 2:13), Daniel and his fellows (though they knew nothing of the matter) not excepted. See here, 1. What are commonly the unjust proceedings of arbitrary power. Nebuchadnezzar is here a tyrant in true colours, speaking death when he cannot speak sense, and treating those as traitors whose only fault is that they would serve him, but cannot. 2. What is commonly the just punishment of pretenders. How unrighteous soever Nebuchadnezzar was in this sentence, as to the ringleaders in the imposture, God was righteous. Those that imposed upon men, in pretending to do what they could not do, are now sentenced to death for not being able to do what they did not pretend to.

Matthew Henry: Dan 2:14-23

When the king sent for his wise men to tell them his dream, and the interpretation of it (Dan 2:2), Daniel, it seems, was not summoned to appear among them; the king, though he was highly pleased with him when he examined him, and thought him ten times wiser than the rest of his wise men, yet forgot him when he had most occasion for him; and no wonder, when all was done in a heat, and nothing with a cool and deliberate thought. But Providence so ordered it; that the magicians being nonplussed might be the more taken notice of, and so the more glory might redound to the God of Daniel. But, though Daniel had not the honour to be consulted with the rest of the wise men, contrary to all law and justice, by an undistinguishing sentence, he stands condemned with them, and till he has notice brought him to prepare for execution he knows nothing of the matter. How miserable is the case of those who live under arbitrary government, as this of Nebuchadnezzar's! How happy are we, whose lives are under the protection of the law and methods of justice, and lie not thus at the mercy of a peevish and capricious prince!

We have found already, in Ezekiel, that Daniel was famous both for prudence and prayer; as a prince he had power with God and by man; by prayer he had power with God, by prudence he had power with man, and in both he prevailed. Thus did he find favour and good understanding in the sight of both, and in these verses we have a remarkable instance of both.

I. Daniel by prudence knew how to deal with men, and he prevailed with them. When Arioch, the captain of the guard, that was appointed to slay all the wise men of Babylon, the whole college of them, seized Daniel (for the sword of tyranny, like the sword of war, devours one as well as another ), he answered with counsel and wisdom (Dan 2:14); he did not fall into a passion, and reproach the king as unjust and barbarous, much less did he contrive how to make resistance, but mildly asked, Why is the decree so hasty? Dan 2:15. And whereas the rest of the wise men had insisted upon it that it was utterly impossible for him ever to have his demand gratified, which did but make him more outrageous, Daniel undertakes, if he may but have a little time allowed him, to give the king all the satisfaction he desired, Dan 2:16. The king, being now sensible of his error in not sending for Daniel sooner, whose character he began to recollect, was soon prevailed upon to respite the judgment, and make trial of Daniel. Note, The likeliest method to turn away wrath, even the wrath of a king, which is as the messenger of death, is by a soft answer, by that yielding which pacifies great offences; thus, though where the word of a king is there is power, yet even that word may be repelled, and that so as to be repealed; and so some read it here (Dan 2:14): Then Daniel returned, and stayed the counsel and edict, through Arioch, the king's provost-marshal.

II. Daniel knew how by prayer to converse with God, and he found favour with him, both in petition and in thanksgiving, which are the two principal parts of prayer. Observe,

1. His humble petition for this mercy, that God would discover to him what was the king's dream, and the interpretation of it. When he had gained time he did not go to consult with the rest of the wise men whether there was anything in their art, in their books, that might be of use in this matter, but went to his house, there to be alone with God, for from him alone, who is the Father of lights, he expected this great gift. Observe, (1.) He did not only pray for this discovery himself, but he engaged his companions to pray for it too. He made the thing known to those who had been all along his bosom-friends and associates, requesting that they would desire mercy of God concerning this secret, Dan 2:17, Dan 2:18. Though Daniel was probably their senior, and every way excelled them, yet he engaged them as partners with him in this matter, Vis unita fortior - The union of forces produces greater force. See Est 4:16. Note, Praying friends are valuable friends; it is good to have an intimacy with and an interest in those that have fellowship with God and an interest at the throne of grace; and it well becomes the greatest and best of men to desire the assistance of the prayers of others for them. St. Paul often entreats his friends to pray for him. Thus we must show that we put a value upon our friends, upon prayer, upon their prayers. (2.) He was particular in this prayer, but had an eye to, and a dependence upon, the general mercy of God: That they would desire the mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret, Dan 2:18. We ought in prayer to look up to God as the God of heaven, a God above us, and who has dominion over us, to whom we owe adoration and allegiance, a God of power, who can do everything. Our savior has taught us to pray to God as our Father in heaven. And, whatever good we pray for, our dependence must be upon the mercies of God for it, and an interest in those mercies we must desire; we can expect nothing by way of recompence for our merits, but all as the gift of God's mercies. They desired mercy concerning this secret. Note, Whatever is the matter of our care must be the matter of our prayer; we must desire mercy of God concerning this thing and the other thing that occasions us trouble and fear. God gives us leave to be humbly free with him, and in prayer to enter into the detail of our wants and burdens. Secret things belong to the Lord our God, and therefore, if there be any mercy we stand in need of that concerns a secret, to him we must apply; and, though we cannot in faith pray for miracles, yet we may in faith pray to him who has all hearts in his hand, and who in his providence does wonders without miracles, for the discovery of that which is out of our view and the obtaining of that which is out of our reach, as far as is for his glory and our good, believing that to him nothing is hidden, nothing is hard. (3.) Their plea with God was the imminent peril they were in; they desired mercy of God in this matter, that so Daniel and his fellows might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon, that the righteous might not be destroyed with the wicked. Note, When the lives of good and useful men are in danger it is time to be earnest with God for mercy for them, as for Peter in prison, Act 12:5. (4.) The mercy which Daniel and his fellows prayed for was bestowed. The secret was revealed unto Daniel in a night-vision, Dan 2:19. Some think he dreamed the same dream, when he was asleep, that Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed; it should rather seem that when he was awake, and continuing instant in prayer, and watching in the same, the dream itself, and the interpretation of it, were communicated to him by the ministry of an angel, abundantly to his satisfaction. Note, The effectual fervent prayer of righteous men avails much. There are mysteries and secrets which by prayer we are let into; with that key the cabinets of heaven are unlocked, for Christ has said, Thus knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

2. His grateful thanksgiving for this mercy when he had received it: Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven, Dan 2:19. He did not stay till he had told it to the king, and seen whether he would own it to be his dream or no, but was confident that it was so, and that he had gained his point, and therefore he immediately turned his prayers into praises. As he had prayed in a full assurance that God would do this for him, so he gave thanks in a full assurance that he had done it; and in both he had an eye to God as the God of heaven. His prayer was not recorded, but his thanksgiving is. Observe,

(1.) The honour he gives to God in this thanksgiving, which he studies to do in a great variety and copiousness of expression: Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever. There is that for ever in God which is to be blessed and praised; it is unchangeably and eternally in him. And it is to be blessed for ever and ever; as the matter of praise is God's eternal perfection, so the work of praise shall be everlastingly in the doing. [1.] He gives to God the glory of what he is in himself: Wisdom and might are his, wisdom and courage (so some); whatever is fit to be done he will do; whatever he will do he can do, he dares do, and he will be sure to do it in the best manner, for he has infinite wisdom to design and contrive and infinite power to execute and accomplish. With him are strength and wisdom, which in men are often parted. [2.] He gives him the glory of what he is to the world of mankind. He has a universal influence and agency upon all the children of men, and all their actions and affairs. Are the times changed? Is the posture of affairs altered? Does every thing lie open to mutability? It is God that changes the times and the seasons, and the face of them. No change comes to pass by chance, but according to the will and counsel of God. Are those that were kings removed and deposed? Do they abdicate? Are they laid aside? It is God that removes kings. Are the poor raised out of the dust, to be set among princes? It is God that sets up kings; and the making and unmaking of kings is a flower of his crown who is the fountain of all power, King of kings and Lord of lords. Are there men that excel others in wisdom, philosophers and statesmen, that think above the common rate, contemplative penetrating men? It is God that gives wisdom to the wise, whether they be so wise as to acknowledge it or no; they have it not of themselves, but it is he that gives knowledge to those that know understanding, which is a good reason why we should not be proud of our knowledge, and why we should serve and honour God with it and make it our business to know him. [3.] He gives him the glory of this particular discovery. He praises him, First, For that he could make such a discovery (Dan 2:22): He reveals the deep and secret things which are hidden from the eyes of all living. It was he that revealed to man what is true wisdom when none else could (Job 28:27, Job 28:28); it is he that reveals things to come to his servants and prophets. He does himself perfectly discern and distinguish that which is most closely and most industriously concealed, for he will bring into judgment every secret thing; the truth will be evident in the great day. He knows what is in the darkness, and what is done in the darkness, for that hides not from him, Psa 139:11, Psa 139:12. The light dwells with him, and he dwells in the light (1Ti 6:16), and yet, as to us, he makes darkness his pavilion. Some understand it of the light of prophecy and divine revelation, which dwells with God and is derived from him; for he is the Father of lights, of all lights; they are all at home in him. Secondly, For that he had made this discovery to him. Here he has an eye to God as the God of his fathers; for, though the Jews were now captives in Babylon, yet they were beloved for their father's sake. He praises God, who is the fountain of wisdom and might, for the wisdom and might he had given him, wisdom to know this great secret and might to bear the discovery. Note, What wisdom and might we have we must acknowledge to be God's gift. Thou hast made this known to me, Dan 2:23. What was hidden from the celebrated Chaldeans, who made the interpreting of dreams their profession, is revealed to Daniel, a captive-Jew, a babe, much their junior. God would hereby put honour upon the Spirit of prophecy just when he was putting contempt upon the spirit of divination. Was Daniel thus thankful to God for making known that to him which was the saving of the lives of him and his fellows? Much more reason have we to be thankful to him for making known to us the great salvation of the soul, to us and not to the world, to us and not to the wise and prudent.

(2.) The respect he puts upon his companions in this thanksgiving. Though it was by his prayers principally that this discovery was obtained, and to him that it was made, yet he owns their partnership with him, both in praying for it (it is what we desired of thee ) and in enjoying it - Thou hast made known unto us the king's matter. Either they were present with Daniel when the discovery was made to him, or as soon as he knew it he told it them ( heurēka , heurēka - I have found it, I have found it ), that those who had assisted him with their prayers might assist him in their praises; his joining them with him is an instance of his humility and modesty, which well become those that are taken into communion with God. Thus St. Paul sometimes joins Sylvanus, Timotheus, or some other minister, with himself in the inscriptions to many of his epistles. Note, What honour God puts upon us we should be willing that our brethren may share with us in.

Matthew Henry: Dan 2:24-30

We have here the introduction to Daniel's declaring the dream, and the interpretation of it.

I. He immediately bespoke the reversing of the sentence against the wise men of Babylon, Dan 2:24. He went with all speed to Arioch, to tell him that his commission was now superseded: Destroy not the wise men of Babylon. Though there were those of them perhaps that deserved to die, as magicians, by the law of God, yet here that which they stood condemned for was not a crime worth of death or of bonds, and therefore let them not die, and be unjustly destroyed, but let them live, and be justly shamed, as having been nonplussed and unable to do that which a prophet of the Lord could do. Note, Since God shows common kindness to the evil and good, we should do so too, and be ready to save the lives of even bad men, Mat 5:45. A good man is a common good. To Paul in the ship God gave the souls of all that sailed with him; they were saved for his sake. To Daniel was owing the preservation of all the wise men, who yet rendered not according to the benefit done to them, Dan 3:8.

II. He offered his service, with great assurance, to go to the king, and tell him his dream and the interpretation of it, and was admitted accordingly, Dan 2:24, Dan 2:25. Arioch brought him in haste to the king, hoping to ingratiate himself by introducing Daniel; he pretends he had sought him to interpret the king's dream, whereas really it was to execute upon him the king's sentence that he sought him. But courtiers' business is every way to humour the prince and make their own services acceptable.

III. He contrived as much as might be to reflect shame upon the magicians, and to give honour to God, upon this occasion. The king owned that it was a bold undertaking, and questioned whether he could make it good (Dan 2:26): Art thou able to make known unto me the dream? What! Such a babe in this knowledge, such a stripling as thou are, wilt thou undertake that which thy seniors despair of doing? The less likely it appeared to the king that Daniel should do this the more God was glorified in enabling him to do it. Note, In transmitting divine revelation to the children of men it has been God's usual way to make use of the weak and foolish things and persons of the world, and such as were despised and despaired of, to confound the wise and mighty, that the excellency of the power might be of him, 1Co 1:27, 1Co 1:28. Daniel from this takes occasion, 1. To put the king out of conceit with his magicians and soothsayers, whom he had such great expectations from (Dan 2:27): " This secret they cannot show to the king; it is out of their power; the rules of their art will not reach to it. Therefore let not the king be angry with them for not doing that which they cannot do; but rather despise them, and cast them off, because they cannot do it."Broughton reads it generally: "This secret no sages, astrologers, enchanters, or entrail-cookers, can show unto the king; let not the king therefore consult them any more."Note, The experience we have of the inability of all creatures to give us satisfaction should lessen our esteem of them, and lower our expectations from them. They are baffled in their pretensions; we are baffled in our hopes from them. Hitherto they come, and no further; let us therefore say to them, as Job to his friends, Now you are nothing; miserable comforters are you all. 2. To bring him to the knowledge of the one only living and true God, the God whom Daniel worshipped: "Though they cannot find out the secret, let not the king despair of having it found out, for there is a God in heaven that reveals secrets, "Dan 2:28. Note, The insufficiency of creatures should drive us to the all-sufficiency of the Creator. There is a God in heaven (and it is well for us there is) who can do that for us, and make known that to us, which none on earth can, particularly the secret history of the work of redemption and the secret designs of God's love to us therein, the mystery which was hidden from ages and generations; divine revelation helps us out where human reason leaves us quite at a loss, and makes known that, not only to kings, but to the poor of this world, which none of the philosophers or politicians of the heathens, with all their oracles and arts of divination to help them, could ever pretend to give us any light into, Rom 16:25, Rom 16:26.

IV. He confirmed the king in his opinion that the dream he was thus solicitous to recover the idea of was really well worth enquiring after, that it was of great value and of vast consequence, not a common dream, the idle disport of a ludicrous and luxuriant fancy, which was not worth remembering or telling again, but that it was a divine discovery, a ray of light darted into his mind from the upper world, relating to the great affairs and revolutions of this lower world. God in it made known to the king what should be in the latter days (Dan 2:28), that is, in the times that were to come, reaching as far as the setting up of Christ's kingdom in the world, which was to be in the latter days, Heb 1:1. And again (Dan 2:29): " The thoughts which came into thy mind were not the repetitions of what had been before, as our dreams usually are"-

Omnia quae sensu volvuntur vota diurno

Tempore sopito reddit amica quies -

The sentiments which we indulge throughout the day

often mingle with the grateful slumbers of the night.

- Claudian

"But they were predictions of what should come to pass hereafter, which he that reveals secrets makes known unto thee; and therefore thou art in the right in taking the hint and pursuing it thus."Note, Things that are to come to pass hereafter are secret things, which God only can reveal; and what he has revealed of those things, especially with reference to the last days of all, to the end of time, ought to be very seriously and diligently enquired into and considered by every one of us. Some think that the thoughts which are said to have come into the king's mind upon his bed, what should come to pass hereafter, were his own thoughts when he was awake. Just before he fell asleep, and dreamed this dream, he was musing in his own mind what would be the issue of his growing greatness, what his kingdom would hereafter come to; and so the dream was an answer to those thoughts. What discoveries God intends to make he thus prepares men for.

V. He solemnly professes that he could not pretend to have merited from God the favour of this discovery, or to have obtained it by any sagacity of his own (Dan 2:30): " But, as for me, this secret is not found out by me, but is revealed to me, and that not for any wisdom that I have more than any living, to qualify me for the receiving of such a discovery."Note, It well becomes those whom God has highly favoured and honoured to be very humble and low in their own eyes, to lay aside all opinion of their own wisdom and worthiness, that God alone may have all the praise of the good they are, and have, and do, and that all may be attributed to the freeness of his good-will towards them and the fulness of his good work in them. The secret was made known to him not for his own sake, but, 1. For the sake of his people, for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, that is, for the sake of his brethren and companions in tribulation, who had by their prayers helped him to obtain this discovery, and so might be said to make known the interpretation - that their lives might be spared, that they might come into favour and be preferred, and all the people of the Jews might fare the better, in their captivity, for their sakes. Note, Humble men will be always ready to think that what God does for them and by them is more for the sake of others than for their own. 2. For the sake of his prince; and some read the former clause in this sense, "Not for any wisdom of mine, but that the king may know the interpretation, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart, that thou mightest have satisfaction given thee as to what thou wast before considering, and thereby instruction given thee how to behave towards the church of God."God revealed this thing to Daniel that he might make it known to the king. Prophets receive that they may give, that the discoveries made to them may not be lodged with themselves, but communicated to the persons that are concerned.

Matthew Henry: Dan 2:31-45

Daniel here gives full satisfaction to Nebuchadnezzar concerning his dream and the interpretation of it. That great prince had been kind to this poor prophet in his maintenance and education; he had been brought up at the king's cost, preferred at court, and the land of his captivity had hereby been made much easier to him than to others of his brethren. And now the king is abundantly repaid for all the expense he had been at upon him; and for receiving this prophet, though not in the name of a prophet, he had a prophet's reward, such a reward as a prophet only could give, and for which that wealthy mighty prince was now glad to be beholden to him. Here is,

I. The dream itself, Dan 2:31, Dan 2:45. Nebuchadnezzar perhaps was an admirer of statues, and had his palace and gardens adorned with them; however, he was a worshipper of images, and now behold a great image is set before him in a dream, which might intimate to him what the images were which he bestowed so much cost upon, and paid such respect to; they were mere dreams. The creatures of fancy might do as well to please the fancy. By the power of imagination he might shut his eyes, and represent to himself what forms he thought fit, and beautify them at his pleasure, without the expense and trouble of sculpture. This was the image of a man erect: It stood before him, as a living man; and, because those monarchies which were designed to be represented by it were admirable in the eyes of their friends, the brightness of this image was excellent; and because they were formidable to their enemies, and dreaded by all about them, the form of this image is said to be terrible; both the features of the face and the postures of the body made it so. But that which was most remarkable in this image was the different metals of which it was composed - the head of gold (the richest and most durable metal), the breast and arms of silver (the next to it in worth), the belly and sides ( or thighs ) of brass, the legs of iron (still baser metals), and lastly the feet part of iron and part of clay. See what the things of this world are; the further we go in them the less valuable they appear. In the life of a man youth is a head of gold, but it grows less and less worthy of our esteem; and old age is half clay; a man is then as good as dead. It is so with the world; later ages degenerate. The first age of the Christian church, of the reformation, was a head of gold; but we live in an age that is iron and clay. Some allude to this in the description of a hypocrite, whose practice is not agreeable to his knowledge. He has a head of gold, but feet of iron and clay: he knows his duty, but does it not. Some observe that in Daniel's visions the monarchies were represented by four beasts (ch. 7), for he looked upon that wisdom from beneath, by which they were turned to be earthly and sensual, and a tyrannical power, to have more in it of the beast than of the man, and so the vision agreed with his notions of the thing. But to Nebuchadnezzar, a heathen prince, they were represented by a gay and pompous image of a man, for he was an admirer of the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them. To him the sight was so charming that he was impatient to see it again. But what became of this image? The next part of the dream shows it to us calcined, and brought to nothing. He saw a stone cut out of the quarry by an unseen power, without hands, and this stone fell upon the feet of the image, that were of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces; and then the image must fall of course, and so the gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, were all broken to pieces together, and beaten so small that they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors, and there were not to be found any the least remains of them; but the stone cut out of the mountain became itself a great mountain, and filled the earth. See how God can bring about great effects by weak and unlikely causes; when he pleases a little one shall become a thousand. Perhaps the destruction of this image of gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, might be intended to signify the abolishing of idolatry out of the world in due time. The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, as this image was, and they shall perish from off the earth and from under these heavens, Jer 10:11.; Isa 2:18. And whatever power destroys idolatry is in the ready way to magnify and exalt itself, as this stone, when it had broken the image to pieces, became a great mountain.

II. The interpretation of this dream. Let us now see what is the meaning of this. It was from God, and therefore from him it is fit that we take the explication of it. It should seem, Daniel had his fellows with him, and speaks for them as well as for himself, when he says, We will tell the interpretation, Dan 2:36. Now,

1. This image represented the kingdoms of the earth that should successively bear rule among the nations and have influence on the affairs of the Jewish church. The four monarchies were not represented by four distinct statues, but by one image, because they were all of one and the same spirit and genius, and all more or less against the church. It was the same power, only lodged in four different nations, the two former lying eastward of Judea, the two latter westward. (1.) The head of gold signified the Chaldean monarchy, which was now in being (Dan 2:37, Dan 2:38): Thou, O king! art (or rather, shalt be ) a king of kings, a universal monarch, to whom many kings and kingdoms shall be tributaries; or, Thou art the highest of kings on earth at this time (as a servant of servants is the meanest servant); thou dost outshine all other kings. But let him not attribute his elevation to his own politics or fortitude. No; it is the God of heaven that has given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory, a kingdom that exercises great authority, stands firmly, and shines brightly, acts by a puissant army with an arbitrary power. Note, The greatest of princes have no power but what is given them from above. The extent of his dominion is set forth (Dan 2:38), that wheresoever the children of men dwell, in all the nations of that part of the world, he was ruler over them all, over them and all that belonged to them, all their cattle, not only those which they had a property in, but those that were ferae naturae - wild, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven. He was lord of all the woods, forests, and chases, and none were allowed to hunt or fowl without his leave. Thus " thou art the head of gold; thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, for seventy years."Compare this with Jer 25:9, Jer 25:11, especially Jer 27:5-7. There were other powerful kingdoms in the world at this time, as that of the Scythians; but it was the kingdom of Babylon that reigned over the Jews, and that began the government which continued in the succession here described till Christ's time. It is called a head, for its wisdom, eminency, and absolute power, a head of gold for its wealth (Isa 14:4); it was a golden city. Some make this monarchy to begin in Nimrod, and so bring into it all the Assyrian kings, about fifty monarchs in all, and compute that it lasted above 1600 years. But it had not been so long a monarchy of such vast extent and power as is here described, nor any thing like it; therefore others make only Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, and Belshazzar, to belong to this head of gold; and a glorious high throne they had, and perhaps exercised a more despotic power than any of the kings that went before them. Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years current, Evil-merodach twenty-three years current, and Belshazzar three. Babylon was their metropolis, and Daniel was with them upon the spot during the seventy years. (2.) The breast and arms of silver signified the monarchy of the Medes and Persians, of which the king is told no more than this, There shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee (Dan 2:39), not so rich, powerful, or victorious. This kingdom was founded by Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian, in alliance with each other, and therefore represented by two arms, meeting in the breast. Cyrus was himself a Persian by his father, a Mede by his mother. Some reckon that this second monarchy lasted 130 years, others 204 years. The former computation agrees best with the scripture chronology. (3.) The belly and thighs of brass signified the monarchy of the Grecians, founded by Alexander, who conquered Darius Codomannus, the last of the Persian emperors. This is the third kingdom, of brass, inferior in wealth and extent of dominion to the Persian monarchy, but in Alexander himself it shall by the power of the sword bear rule over all the earth; for Alexander boasted that he had conquered the world, and then sat down and wept because he had not another world to conquer. (4.) The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman monarchy. Some make this to signify the latter part of the Grecian monarchy, the two empires of Syria and Egypt, the former governed by the family of the Seleucidae, from Seleucus, the latter by that of the Lagidae, from Ptolemaeus Lagus; these they make the two legs and feet of this image: Grotius, and Junius, and Broughton, go this way. But it has been the more received opinion that it is the Roman monarchy that is here intended, because it was in the time of that monarchy, and when it was at its height, that the kingdom of Christ was set up in the world by the preaching of the everlasting gospel. The Roman kingdom was strong as iron (Dan 2:40), witness the prevalency of that kingdom against all that contended with it for many ages. That kingdom broke in pieces the Grecian empire and afterwards quite destroyed the nation of the Jews. Towards the latter end of the Roman monarchy it grew very weak, and branched into ten kingdoms, which were as the toes of these feet. Some of these were weak as clay, others strong as iron, Dan 2:42. Endeavours were used to unite and cement them for the strengthening of the empire, but in vain: They shall not cleave one to another, Dan 2:43. This empire divided the government for a long time between the senate and the people, the nobles and the commons, but they did not entirely coalesce. There were civil wars between Marius and Sylla, Caesar and Pompey, whose parties were as iron and clay. Some refer this to the declining times of that empire, when, for the strengthening of the empire against the irruptions of the barbarous nations, the branches of the royal family intermarried; but the politics had not the desired effect, when the day of the fall of that empire came.

2. The stone cut out without hands represented the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which should be set up in the world in the time of the Roman empire, and upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom in the kingdoms of the world. This is the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, for it should be neither raised nor supported by human power or policy; no visible hand should act in the setting of it up, but it should be done invisibly the Spirit of the Lord of hosts. This was the stone which the builders refused, because it was not cut out by their hands, but it has now become the head-stone of the corner. (1.) The gospel-church is a kingdom, which Christ is the sole and sovereign monarch of, in which he rules by his word and Spirit, to which he gives protection and law, and from which he receives homage and tribute. It is a kingdom not of this world, and yet set up in it; it is the kingdom of God among men. (2.) The God of heaven was to set up this kingdom, to give authority to Christ to execute judgment, to set him as King upon his holy hill of Zion, and to bring into obedience to him a willing people. Being set up by the God of heaven, it is often in the New Testament called the kingdom of heaven, for its original is from above and its tendency is upwards. (3.) It was to be set up in the days of these kings, the kings of the fourth monarchy, of which particular notice is taken (Luk 2:1), That Christ was born when, by the decree of the emperor of Rome, all the world was taxed, which was a plain indication that that empire had become as universal as any earthly empire ever was. When these kings are contesting with each other, and in all the struggles each of the contending parties hopes to find its own account, God will do his own work and fulfil his own counsels. These kings are all enemies to Christ's kingdom, and yet it shall be set up in defiance of them. (4.) It is a kingdom that knows no decay, is in no danger of destruction, and will not admit any succession or revolution. It shall never be destroyed by any foreign force invading it, as many other kingdoms are; fire and sword cannot waste it; the combined powers of earth and hell cannot deprive either the subjects of their prince or the prince of his subjects; nor shall this kingdom be left to other people, as the kingdoms of the earth are. As Christ is a monarch that has no successor (for he himself shall reign for ever), so his kingdom is a monarchy that has no revolution. The kingdom of God was indeed taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles (Mat 21:43), but still it was Christianity that ruled, the kingdom of the Messiah. The Christian church is still the same; it is fixed on a rock, much fought against, but never to be prevailed against, by the gates of hell. (5.) It is a kingdom that shall be victorious over all opposition. It shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms, as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands broke in pieces the image, Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45. The kingdom of Christ shall wear out all other kingdoms, shall outlive them, and flourish when they are sunk with their own weight, and so wasted that their place knows them no more. All the kingdoms that appear against the kingdom of Christ shall be broken with a rod of iron, as a potter's vessel, Psa 2:9. And in the kingdoms that submit to the kingdom of Christ tyranny, and idolatry, and every thing that is their reproach, shall, as far as the gospel of Christ gets ground, be broken. The day is coming when Jesus Christ shall have put down all rule, principality, and power, and have made all his enemies his footstool; and then this prophecy will have its full accomplishment, and not till then, 1Co 15:24, 1Co 15:25. Our savior seems to refer to this (Mat 21:44), when, speaking of himself as the stone set at nought by the Jewish builders, he says, On whomsoever this stone shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (6.) It shall be an everlasting kingdom. Those kingdoms of the earth that had broken in pieces all about them at length came, in their turn, to be in like manner broken; but the kingdom of Christ shall break other kingdoms in pieces and shall itself stand for ever. His throne shall be as the days of heaven, his seed, his subjects, as the stars of heaven, not only so innumerable, but so immutable. Of the increase of Christ's government and peace there shall be no end. The Lord shall reign for ever, not only to the end of time, but when time and days shall be no more, and God shall be all in all to eternity.

III. Daniel having thus interpreted the dream, to the satisfaction of Nebuchadnezzar, who gave him no interruption, so full was the interpretation that he had no question to ask, and so plain that he had no objection to make, he closes all with a solemn assertion, 1. Of the divine original of this dream: The great God (so he calls him, to express his own high thoughts of him, and to beget the like in the mind of this great king) has made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter, which the gods of the magicians could not do. And thus a full confirmation was given to that great argument which Isaiah had long before urged against idolaters, and particularly the idolaters of Babylon, when he challenged the gods they worshipped to show things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods (Isa 41:23), and by this proved the God of Israel to be the true God, that he declares the end from the beginning, Isa 46:10. 2. Of the undoubted certainty of the things foretold by this dream. He who makes known these things is the same that has himself designed and determined them, and will by his providence effect them; and we are sure that his counsel shall stand, and cannot be altered, and therefore the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure. Note, Whatever God has made known we may depend upon.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 2:1-13

The dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the inability of the Chaldean wise men to interpret it. - By the ו copulative standing at the commencement of this chapter the following narrative is connected with c. Dan 1:21. " We shall now discover what the youthful Daniel became, and what he continued to be to the end of the exile"(Klief.). The plur. חלמות (dreams, Dan 2:1 and Dan 2:2), the singular of which occurs in Dan 2:3, is not the plur. of definite universality (Häv., Maur., Klief.), but of intensive fulness, implying that the dream in its parts contained a plurality of subjects. M('p@ft;hi (from פּעם , to thrust, to stroke, as פּעם , an anvil, teaches, to be tossed hither and thither ) marks great internal disquietude. In Dan 2:3 and in Gen 41:8, as in Psa 77:5, it is in the Niphal form, but in Dan 2:1 it is in Hithp., on which Kran. finely remarks: "The Hithpael heightens the conception of internal unquiet lying in the Niphal to the idea that it makes itself outwardly manifest."His sleep was gone. This is evidenced without doubt by the last clause of Dan 2:1, עליו נהיתה . These interpretations are altogether wrong: - "His sleep came upon him, i.e., he began again to sleep"(Calvin); or "his sleep was against him,"i.e., was an aversion to him, was troublesome (L. de Dieu); or, as Häv. also interprets it, "his sleep offended him, or was like a burden heavy upon him;"for נהיה does not mean to fall , and thus does not agree with the thought expressed. The Niph. נהיה means to have become, been, happened . The meaning has already been rightly expressed by Theodoret in the words ἐγένετο ἀπ ̓αὐτου , and in the Vulgate by the words "fugit ab illo ;" and Berth., Ges., and others have with equal propriety remarked, that נהיתה שׁנתו corresponds in meaning with נדּת שׁנתּהּ , Dan 6:19 (18), and שׁנת נדדה , Est 6:1. This sense, to have been , however, does not conduct to the meaning given by Klief.: his sleep had been upon him ; it was therefore no more, it had gone; for "to have been"is not "to be no more,"but "to be finished,"past, gone. This meaning is confirmed by נהייתי , Dan 8:27 : it was done with me, I was gone . The עליו stands not for the dative, but retains the meaning, over, upon, expressing the influence on the mind, as e.g., Jer 8:18, Hos 11:8, Psa 42:6-7, 12; Psa 43:5, etc., which in German we express by the word bei or für .

The reason of so great disquietude we may not seek in the circumstance that on awaking he could not remember the dream. This follows neither from Dan 2:3, nor is it psychologically probable that so impressive a dream, which on awaking he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. "The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Gen 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith"(Kran.).

Dan 2:2

In the disquietude of his spirit the king commanded all his astrologers and wise men to come to him, four classes of whom are mentioned in this verse. 1. The חרטמּים , who were found also in Egypt (Gen 41:24). They are so named from חרט , a "stylus"- those who went about with the stylus, the priestly class of the ἱερογραμματεῖς , those learned in the sacred writings and in literature. 2. The אשּׁפים , conjurers , from שׁאף or נשׁף , to breathe, to blow, to whisper; for they practised their incantations by movements of the breath, as is shown by the Arabic nft , flavit ut praestigiator in nexos a se nodos, incantavit , with which it is compared by Hitz. and Kran. 3. The מכשּׁפים , magicians, found also in Egypt (Exo 7:11), and, according to Isa 47:9, Isa 47:12, a powerful body in Babylon. 4. The כּשׂדּים , the priest caste of the Chaldeans, who are named, Dan 2:4, Dan 2:10, and Dan 1:4, instar omnium as the most distinguished class among the Babylonian wise men. According to Herod. i. 171, and Diod. Sic. ii. 24, the Chaldeans appear to have formed the priesthood in a special sense, or to have attended to the duties specially devolving on the priests. This circumstance, that amongst an Aramaic people the priests in a stricter sense were called Chaldeans, is explained, as at p. 78, from the fact of the ancient supremacy of the Chaldean people in Babylonia.

Besides these four classes there is also a fifth, Dan 2:27; Daniel 4:4 (Dan 4:7), Dan 5:7, Dan 5:11, called the גּזרין , the astrologers , not haruspices , from גּזר , "to cut flesh to pieces,"but the determiners of the גּזרה , the fatum or the fata , who announced events by the appearances of the heavens (cf. Isa 47:13), the forecasters of nativities, horoscopes, who determined the fate of men from the position and the movement of the stars at the time of their birth. These different classes of the priests and the learned are comprehended, Dan 2:12., under the general designation of חכּימין (cf. also Isa 44:25; Jer 50:35), and they formed a σύστημα , i.e., collegium (Diod. Sic. ii. 31), under a president ( סגנין רב , Dan 2:48), who occupied a high place in the state; see at Dan 2:48. These separate classes busied themselves, without doubt, with distinct branches of the Babylonian wisdom. While each class cultivated a separate department, yet it was not exclusively, but in such a manner that the activities of the several classes intermingled in many ways. This is clearly seen from what is said of Daniel and his companions, that they were trained in all the wisdom of the Chaldeans (Dan 1:17), and is confirmed by the testimony of Diod. Sic. (ii. 29), that the Chaldeans, who held almost the same place in the state that the priests in Egypt did, while applying themselves to the service of the gods, sought their greatest glory in the study of astrology, and also devoted themselves much to prophecy, foretelling future things, and by means of lustrations, sacrifices, and incantations seeking to turn away evil and to secure that which was good. They possessed the knowledge of divination from omens, of expounding of dreams and prodigies, and of skilfully casting horoscopes.

That he might receive an explanation of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the classes of the priests and men skilled in wisdom to be brought before him, because in an event which was to him so weighty he must not only ascertain the facts of the case, but should the dream announce some misfortune, he must also adopt the means for averting it. In order that the correctness of the explanation of the dream might be ascertained, the stars must be examined, and perhaps other means of divination must be resorted to. The proper priests could by means of sacrifices make the gods favourable, and the conjurers and magicians by their arts endeavour to avert the threatened misfortune.

Dan 2:3

As to the king's demand, it is uncertain whether he wished to know the dream itself or its import. The wise men (Dan 2:4) understood his words as if he desired only to know the meaning of it; but the king replied (Dan 2:5.) that they must tell him both the dream and its interpretation. But this request on the part of the king does not quite prove that he had forgotten the dream, as Bleek, v. Leng., and others maintain, founding thereon the objection against the historical veracity of the narrative, that Nebuchadnezzar's demand that the dream should be told to him was madness, and that there was no sufficient reason for his rage (Dan 2:12). On the contrary, that the king had not forgotten his dream, and that there remained only some oppressive recollection that he had dreamed, is made clear from Dan 2:9, where the king says to the Chaldeans, "If ye cannot declare to me the dream, ye have taken in hand to utter deceitful words before me; therefore tell me the dream, that I may know that ye will give to me also the interpretation."According to this, Nebuchadnezzar wished to hear the dream from the wise men that he might thus have a guarantee for the correctness of the interpretation which they might give. He could not thus have spoken to them if he had wholly forgotten the dream, and had only a dark apprehension remaining in his mind that he had dreamed. In this case he would neither have offered a great reward for the announcement of the dream, nor have threatened severe punishment, or even death, for failure in announcing it. For then he would only have given the Chaldeans the opportunity, at the cost of truth, of declaring any dream with an interpretation. But as threatening and promise on the part of the king in that case would have been unwise, so also on the side of the wise men their helplessness in complying with the demand of the king would have been incomprehensible. If the king had truly forgotten the dream, they had no reason to be afraid of their lives if they had given some self-conceived dream with an interpretation of it; for in that case he could not have accused them of falsehood and deceit, and punished them on that account. If, on the contrary, he still knew the dream which so troubled him, and the contents of which he desired to hear from the Chaldeans, so that he might put them to the proof whether he might trust in their interpretation, then neither his demand nor the severity of his proceeding was irrational. "The magi boasted that by the help of the gods they could reveal deep and hidden things. If this pretence is well founded - so concluded Nebuchadnezzar - then it must be as easy for them to make known to me my dream as its interpretation; and since they could not do the former, he as rightly held them to be deceivers, as the people did the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18) because their gods answered not by fire."Hengst.

Dan 2:4

The Chaldeans, as speaking for the whole company, understand the word of the king in the sense most favourable for themselves, and they ask the king to tell them the dream. וידבּרוּ for ויּאמרוּ , which as a rule stands before a quotation, is occasioned by the addition of ארמית , and the words which follow are zeugmatically joined to it. Aramaic , i.e., in the native language of Babylonia, where, according to Xenoph. ( Cyrop . vii. 5), the Syriac , i.e., the Eastern Aramaic dialect, was spoken. From the statement here, that the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, one must not certainly conclude that Nebuchadnezzar spoke the Aryan-Chaldaic language of his race. The remark refers to the circumstance that the following words are recorded in the Aramaic, as Ezr 4:7. Daniel wrote this and the following chapters in Aramaic, that he might give the prophecy regarding the world-power in the language of the world-power, which under the Chaldean dynasty was native in Babylon, the Eastern Aramaic. The formula, "O king, live for ever,"was the usual salutation when the king was addressed, both at the Chaldean and the Persian court (cf. Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:7, Dan 6:22 [6, 21]; Neh 2:3). In regard to the Persian court, see Aelian, var. hist. i. 32. With the kings of Israel this form of salutation was but rarely used: 1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:31. The Kethiv (text) לעבדיך , with Jod before the suffix, supposes an original form לעבדיך here, as at Dan 2:26; Dan 4:16, Dan 4:22, but it is perhaps only the etymological mode of writing for the form with ā long, analogous to the Hebr. suffix form עיו for עו , since the Jod is often wanting; cf. Dan 4:24; Dan 5:10, etc. A form ־איא lies at the foundation of the form כשׂדּיא ; the Keri (margin) substitutes the usual Chaldee form כשׂדּאי from כּשׂדּאא , with the insertion of the litera quiescib . י , homog. to the quies. ē , while in the Kethiv the original Jod of the sing. כּשׂדּי is retained instead of the substituted , א thus כשׂדּיא . This reading is perfectly warranted (cf. Dan 3:2, Dan 3:8,Dan 3:24; Ezr 4:12-13) by the analogous method of formation of the stat. emphat. plur. in existing nouns in ־י in biblical Chaldee.

Dan 2:5

The meaning of the king's answer shapes itself differently according to the different explanations given of the words אזדּא מנּי מלּתה . The word אזדּא drow eh , which occurs only again in the same phrase in Dan 2:8, is regarded, in accordance with the translations of Theodot., ὁ λόγος ἀπ ̓ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη , and of the Vulg., "sermo recessit a me ," as a verb, and as of like meaning with עזל , "to go away or depart,"and is therefore rendered by M. Geier, Berth., and others in the sense, "the dream has escaped from me;"but Ges. Häv., and many older interpreters translate it, on the contrary, "the command is gone out from me."But without taking into account that the punctuation of the word אזדּא is not at all that of a verb, for this form can neither be a particip. nor the 3rd pers. pret. fem., no acknowledgment of the dream's having escaped from him is made; for such a statement would contradict what was said at Dan 2:3, and would not altogether agree with the statement of Dan 2:8. מלּתה is not the dream . Besides, the supposition that אזד is equivalent to אזל , to go away, depart, is not tenable. The change of the ל into ד is extremely rare in the Semitic, and is not to be assumed in the word אזל , since Daniel himself uses אזל אזל , Dan 2:17, Dan 2:24; Dan 6:19-20, and also Ezra; Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:8, Ezr 5:15. Moreover אזל has not the meaning of יצא , to go out, to take one's departure, but corresponds with the Hebr. הלך .rbe , to go. Therefore Winer, Hengst., Ibn Esr. Aben Ezra, Saad., and other rabbis interpret the word as meaning firmus : "the word stands firm;"cf. Dan 6:13 (12), מלּתא יצּיבה ("the thing is true"). This interpretation is justified by the actual import of the words, as it also agrees with Dan 2:8; but it does not accord with Dan 2:5. Here (in Dan 2:5) the declaration of the certainty of the king's word was superfluous, because all the royal commands were unchangeable. For this reason also the meaning σπουδαιῶς , studiously, earnestly, as Hitz., by a fanciful reference to the Persian, whence he has derived it, has explained it, is to be rejected. Much more satisfactory is the derivation from the Old Persian word found on inscriptions, âzanda , "science,""that which is known,"given by Delitzsch (Herz.'s Realenc . iii. p. 274), and adopted by Kran. and Klief.

(Note: In regard to the explanation of the word אזדּא as given above, it is, however, to be remarked that it is not confirmed, and Delitzsch has for the present given it up, because-as he has informed me-the word azdâ , which appears once in the large inscription of Behistan (Bisutun) and twice in the inscription of Nakhschi-Rustam, is of uncertain reading and meaning. Spiegel explains it "unknown,"from zan , to know, and a privativum .)

Accordingly Klief. thus interprets the phrase: "let the word from me be known,""be it known to you;"which is more suitable obviously than that of Kran.: "the command is, so far as regards me, made public."For the king now for the first time distinctly and definitely says that he wishes not only to hear from the wise men the interpretation, but also the dream itself, and declares the punishment that shall visit them in the event of their not being able to comply. הדּמין עבד , μέλη ποιεῖν , 2 Macc. 1:16, lxx in Daniel 3:39, διαμελίζεσθαι , to cut in pieces , a punishment that was common among the Babylonians (Daniel 3:39, cf. Eze 16:40), and also among the Israelites in the case of prisoners of war (cf. 1Sa 15:33). It is not, however, to be confounded with the barbarous custom which was common among the Persians, of mangling particular limbs. נולי , in Ezr 6:11 נולוּ , dunghill, sink . The changing of their houses into dunghills is not to be regarded as meaning that the house built of clay would be torn down, and then dissolved by the rain and storm into a heap of mud, but is to be interpreted according to 2Ki 10:27, where the temple of Baal is spoken of as having been broken down and converted into private closets; cf. Häv. in loco. The Keri תּתעבּדוּן without the Dagesh in ב might stand as the Kethiv for Ithpaal, but is apparently the Ithpeal, as at Dan 3:29; Ezr 6:11. As to בּתּיכון , it is to be remarked that Daniel uses only the suffix forms כון and הון , while with Ezra כם and כן are interchanged (see above, p. 515), which are found in the language of the Targums and might be regarded as Hebraisms, while the forms כון and הון are peculiar to the Syriac and the Samaritan dialects. This distinction does not prove that the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to a period later than that of Ezra (Hitz., v. Leng.), but only that Daniel preserves more faithfully the familiar Babylonian form of the Aramaic than does the Jewish scribe Ezra.

Dan 2:6

The rigorous severity of this edict accords with the character of Oriental despots and of Nebuchadnezzar, particularly in his dealings with the Jews (2Ki 25:7, 2Ki 25:18.; Jer 39:6., Jer 52:10., 24-27). In the promise of rewards the explanation of נבזבּה (in the plural נבזבּין , Dan 5:17) is disputed; its rendering by "money,""gold"(by Eichh. and Berth.), has been long ago abandoned as incorrect. The meaning gift , present , is agreeable to the context and to the ancient versions; but its derivation formed from the Chald. בזבז , Pealp. of בּזז , erogavit, expendit , by the substitution of נ for מ and the excision of the second ז from מבזבּזה , in the meaning largitio amplior , the Jod in the plural form being explained from the affinity of verbs ע ' ע and ל ' ה (Ges. Thes. p. 842, and Kran.), is highly improbable. The derivation from the Persian nuvâzan , nuvâzisch , to caress, to flatter, then to make a present to (P. v. Bohlen), or from the Sanscr. namas , present, gift (Hitz.), or from the Vedish bag̀ , to give, to distribute, and the related New Persian bâj ( bash ), a present (Haug), are also very questionable. להן , on that account, therefore (cf. Dan 2:9 and Dan 4:24), formed from the prepos. ל and the demonstrative adverb הן , has in negative sentences (as the Hebr. כּי and להן ) the meaning but, rather (Dan 2:30), and in a pregnant sense, only (Dan 2:11; Dan 3:28; Dan 6:8), without להן being derived in such instances from לא and הן = לא אם .

Dan 2:7

The wise men repeat their request, but the king persists that they only justify his suspicion of them by pressing such a demand, and that he saw that they wished to deceive him with a self-conceived interpretation of the dream. וּפשׁרה is not, as Hitz. proposes, to be changed into וּפשׁרה . The form is a Hebr. stat. emphat. for וּפשׁרא , as e.g., מלּתה , Dan 2:5, is changed into מלּתא in Dan 2:8 and Dan 2:11, and in biblical Chaldee, in final syllables ה is often found instead of . א fo

Dan 2:8

יצּיב מן , an adverbial expression, to be sure, certainly, as קשׁט מן , truly, Dan 2:47, and other adverbial forms. The words זבנין אנתּוּן עדּנא דּי do not mean either "that ye wish to use or seize the favourable time"(Häv., Kran.), or "that ye wish to buy up the present perilous moment,"i.e., bring it within your power, become masters of the time (Hitz.), but simply, that ye buy , that is wish to gain time (Ges., Maur., etc.). עדּן זבן = tempus emere in Cicero. Nothing can be here said of a favourable moment, for there was not such a time for the wise men, either in the fact that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream (Häv.), or in the curiosity of the king with reference to the interpretation of the dream, on which they could speculate, expecting that the king might be induced thereby to give a full communication of the dream (Kran.). But for the wise men, in consequence of the threatening of the king, the crisis was indeed fully of danger; but it is not to be overlooked that they appeared to think that they could control the crisis, bringing it under their own power, by their willingness to interpret the dream if it were reported to them. Their repeated request that the dream should be told to them shows only their purpose to gain time and have their lives, if they now truly believed either that the king could not now distinctly remember his dream, or that by not repeating it he wished to put them to the test. Thus the king says to them: I see from your hesitation that ye are not sure of your case; and since ye at the same time think that I have forgotten the dream, therefore ye wish me, by your repeated requests to relate the dream, only to gain time, to extend the case, because ye fear the threatened punishment (Klief.). דּי כּל־קבל , wholly because ; not, withstanding that (Hitz.). As to the last words of Dan 2:8, see under Dan 2:5.

Dan 2:9

הן דּי is equivalent to אם אשׁר , quodsi . "The דּי supposes the fact of the foregoing passage, and brings it into express relation to the conditional clause"(Kran.). דּתכון does not mean, your design or opinion, or your lot (Mich., Hitz., Maur.), but dat is law, decree, sentence ; דּתכון , the sentence that is going forth or has gone forth against you, i.e., according to Dan 2:5, the sentence of death. חדה , one, or the one and no other. This judgment is founded on the following passage, in which the cop. ו is to be explained as equivalent to namely . וּשׁחיתה כּדבה , lies and pernicious words , are united together for the purpose of strengthening the idea, in the sense of wicked lies (Hitz.). הזמנתון is not to be read, as Häv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kran. do, as the Aphel הזמנתּוּן : ye have prepared or resolved to say; for in the Aphel this word ( זמן ) means to appoint or summon a person , but not to prepare or appoint a thing (see Buxt. Lex. Tal. s. v. ). And the supposition that the king addressed the Chaldeans as the speakers appointed by the whole company of the wise men (Kran.) has no place in the text. The Kethiv הזּמּנתּוּן is to be read as Ithpa. for הזדּמּנתּוּן according to the Keri (cf. hizakuw הזּכּוּ for הזדּכּוּ , Isa 1:16), meaning inter se convenire , as the old interpreters rendered it. "Till the time be changed,"i.e., till the king either drop the matter, or till they learn something more particular about the dream through some circumstances that may arise. The lies which Nebuchadnezzar charged the wise men with, consisted in the explanation which they promised if he would tell them the dream, while their desire to hear the dream contained a proof that they had not the faculty of revealing secrets. The words of the king clearly show that he knew the dream, for otherwise he would not have been able to know whether the wise men spoke the truth in telling him the dream (Klief.).

Dan 2:10

Since the king persisted in his demand, the Chaldeans were compelled to confess that they could not tell the dream. This confession, however, they seek to conceal under the explanation that compliance with the king's request was beyond human power, - a request which no great or mighty king had ever before made of any magician or astrologer, and which was possible only with the gods, who however do not dwell among mortals. דּי כּל־קבל does not mean quam ob rem , wherefore, as a particle expressive of a consequence (Ges.), but is here used in the sense of because , assigning a reason. The thought expressed is not: because the matter is impossible for men, therefore no king has ever asked any such thing; but it is this: because it has come into the mind of no great and mighty king to demand any such thing, therefore it is impossible for men to comply with it. They presented before the king the fact that no king had ever made such a request as a proof that the fulfilling of it was beyond human ability. The epithets great and mighty are here not mere titles of the Oriental kings (Häv.), but are chosen as significant. The mightier the king, so much the greater the demand, he believed, he might easily make upon a subject.

Dan 2:11-12

להן , but only , see under Dan 2:6. In the words, whose dwelling is not with flesh , there lies neither the idea of higher and of inferior gods, nor the thought that the gods only act among men in certain events (Häv.), but only the simple thought of the essential distinction between gods and men, so that one may not demand anything from weak mortals which could be granted only by the gods as celestial beings. בּשׂרא , flesh , in opposition to רוּח , marks the human nature according to its weakness and infirmity; cf. Isa 31:3; Psa 56:5. The king, however, does not admit this excuse, but falls into a violent passion, and gives a formal command that the wise men, in whom he sees deceivers abandoned by the gods, should be put to death. This was a dreadful command; but there are illustrations of even greater cruelty perpetrated by Oriental despots benore him as well as after him. The edict ( דּתא ) is carried out, but not fully. Not "all the wise men,"according to the terms of the decree, were put to death, but מתקטּלין חכּימיּא , i.e., The wise men were put to death.

Dan 2:13

While it is manifest that the decree was not carried fully out, it is yet clearer from what follows that the participle מתקטּלין does not stand for the preterite, but has the meaning: the work of putting to death was begun . The participle also does not stand as the gerund: they were to be put to death, i.e., were condemned (Kran.), for the use of the passive participle as the gerund is not made good by a reference to מהימן , Dan 2:45, and דחיל , Dan 2:31. Even the command to kill all the wise men of Babylon is scarcely to be understood of all the wise men of the whole kingdom. The word Babylon may represent the Babylonian empire, or the province of Babylonia, or the city of Babylon only. In the city of Babylon a college of the Babylonian wise men or Chaldeans was established, who, according to Strabo (xv. 1. 6), occupied a particular quarter of the city as their own; but besides this, there were also colleges in the province of Babylon at Hipparenum, Orchae , which Plin. hist. nat . vi. 26 (30) designates as tertia Chaldaeorum doctrina , at Borsippa , and other places. The wise men who were called (Dan 2:2) into the presence of the king, were naturally those who resided in the city of Babylon, for Nebuchadnezzar was at that time in his palace. Yet of those who had their residence there, Daniel and his companions were not summoned, because they had just ended their noviciate, and because, obviously, only the presidents or the older members of the several classes were sent for. But since Daniel and his companions belonged to the whole body of the wise men, they also were sought out that they might be put to death.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 2:14-30

Daniel's willingness to declare his dream to the king; his prayer for a revelation of the secret, and the answer to his prayer; his explanation before the king.

Dan 2:14

Through Daniel's judicious interview of Arioch, the further execution of the royal edict was interrupted. וּטעם עטא התיב , he answered, replied, counsel and understanding , i.e., the words of counsel and understanding; cf. Pro 26:16. The name Arioch appears in Gen 14:1 as the name of the king of Ellasar, along with the kings of Elam and Shinar. It is derived not from the Sanscr. ârjaka , venerabilis , but is probably formed from ארי , a lion, as נסרך from nisr = נשׁר . רב־טבּחיּא is the chief of the bodyguard , which was regarded as the highest office of the kingdom (cf. Jer 39:9, Jer 39:11; Jer 40:1.). It was his business to see to the execution of the king's commands; see 1Ki 2:25; 2Ki 25:8.

Dan 2:15

The partic. Aph. מהחצפה standing after the noun in the stat. absol. is not predicative: "on what account is the command so hostile on the part of the king?"(Kran.), but it stands in apposition to the noun; for with participles, particularly when further definitions follow, the article, even in union with substantives defined by the article, may be and often is omitted; cf. Son 7:5, and Ew. §335 a . חצף , to be hard, sharp , hence to be severe . Daniel showed understanding and counsel in the question he put as to the cause of so severe a command, inasmuch as he thereby gave Arioch to understand that there was a possibility of obtaining a fulfilment of the royal wish. When Arioch informed him of the state of the matter, Daniel went in to the king - i.e., as is expressly mentioned in Dan 2:24, was introduced or brought in by Arioch - and presented to the king the request that time should be granted, promising that he would show to the king the interpretation of the dream.

Dan 2:16-17

With להחויה וּפשׁרא the construction is changed. This passage does not depend on דּי , time , namely, to show the interpretation (Hitz.), but is co-ordinate with the foregoing relative clause, and like it is dependent on וּבעא . The change of the construction is caused by the circumstance that in the last passage another subject needed to be introduced: The king should give him time, and Daniel will show the interpretation. The copulative ו before פשׁרא (interpretation) is used neither explicatively, namely, and indeed , nor is it to be taken as meaning also ; the simple and is sufficient, although the second part of the request contains the explanation and reason of the first; i.e., Daniel asks for the granting of a space, not that he might live longer, but that he might be able to interpret the dream to the king. Besides, that he merely speaks of the meaning of the dream, and not also of the dream itself, is, as Dan 2:25. show, to be here explained (as in Dan 2:24) as arising from the brevity of the narrative. For the same reason it is not said that the king granted the quest, but Dan 2:17 . immediately shows what Daniel did after the granting of his request. He went into his own house and showed the matter to his companions, that they might entreat God of His mercy for this secret, so that they might not perish along with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

Dan 2:18

The final clause depends on הודע (Dan 2:17). The ו is to be interpreted as explicative: and indeed , or namely . Against this interpretation it cannot be objected, with Hitz., that Daniel also prayed. He and his friends thus prayed to God that He would grant a revelation of the secret, i.e., of the mysterious dream and its interpretation. The designation "God of heaven"occurs in Gen 24:7, where it is used of Jehovah; but it was first commonly used as the designation of the almighty and true God in the time of the exile (cf. Dan 2:19, Dan 2:44; Ezr 1:2; Ezr 6:10; Ezr 7:12, Ezr 7:21; Neh 1:5; Neh 2:4; Psa 136:26), who, as Daniel names Him (Dan 5:23), is the Lord of heaven; i.e., the whole heavens, with all the stars, which the heathen worshipped as gods, are under His dominion.

Dan 2:19

In answer to these supplications, the secret was revealed to Daniel in a night-vision. A vision of the night is not necessarily to be identified with a dream. In the case before us, Daniel does not speak of a dream; and the idea that he had dreamed precisely the same dream as Nebuchadnezzar is arbitrarily imported into the text by Hitz. in order to gain a "psychological impossibility,"and to be able to cast suspicion on the historical character of the narrative. It is possible, indeed, that dreams may be, as the means of a divine revelation, dream-visions, and as such may be called visions of the night (cf. Dan 7:1, Dan 7:13); but in itself a vision of the night is a vision simply which any one receives during the night whilst he is awake.

(Note: " Dream and vision do not constitute two separate categories. The dream- image is a vision, the vision while awake is a dreaming - only that in the latter case the consciousness of the relation between the inner and the outer maintains itself more easily. Intermediate between the two stand the night-visions , which, as in Job 4:13, either having risen up before the spirit, fade away from the mind in after-thought, or, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:29), are an image before the imagination into which the thoughts of the night run out. Zechariah saw a number of visions in one night, Dan 1:7; Dan 6:15. Also these which, according to Dan 1:8, are called visions of the night are not, as Ew. and Hitz. suppose, dream-images, but are waking perceptions in the night. Just because the prophet did not sleep, he says, Daniel 4, 'The angel awaked me as one is awaked out of sleep. '"- Tholuck's Die Propheten , u.s.w., p. 52.)

Dan 2:20

On receiving the divine revelation, Daniel answered ( ענה ) with a prayer of thanksgiving. The word ענה retains its proper meaning. The revelation is of the character of an address from God, which Daniel answers with praise and thanks to God. The forms להוא , and in the plur. להון and להוין , which are peculiar to the biblical Chaldee, we regard, with Maur., Hitz., Kran., and others, as the imperfect or future forms, 3rd pers. sing. and plur., in which the ל instead of the י is to be explained perhaps from the Syriac praeform. נ , which is frequently found also in the Chaldee Targums (cf. Dietrich, de sermonis chald. proprietate , p. 43), while the Hebrew exiles in the word הוא used ל instead of נ as more easy of utterance. The doxology in this verse reminds us of Job 1:21. The expression " for ever and ever "occurs here in the O.T. for the first time, so that the solemn liturgical Beracha ( Blessing ) of the second temple, Neh 9:5; 1Ch 16:36, with which also the first (Psa 45:14) and the fourth (Psa 106:48) books of the Psalter conclude, appears to have been composed after this form of praise used by Daniel. "The name of God"will be praised, i.e., the manifestation of the existence of God in the world; thus, God so far as He has anew given manifestation of His glorious existence, and continually bears witness that He it is who possesses wisdom and strength (cf. Job 12:13). The דּי before the להּ is the emphatic re-assumption of the preceding confirmatory דּי , for .

Dan 2:21-23

The evidence of the wisdom and power of God is here unfolded; and firs the manifestation of His power. He changes times and seasons . lxx, Theodot. καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους , would be more accurately χρόνους καὶ καιρούς , as in Act 1:7; 1Th 5:1; for the Peschito in these N. T. passages renders χρόνοι by the Syriac word which is equivalent to זמניּא , according to which עדּן is the more general expression for time = circumstance of time, זמן for measured time, the definite point of time. The uniting together of the synonymous words gives expression to the thought: ex arbitrio Dei pendere revolutiones omnium omnino temporum, quaecunque et qualia-cunque illa fuerint . C. B. Mich. God's unlimited control over seasons and times is seen in this, that He sets up and casts down kings. Thus Daniel explains the revelation regarding the dream of Nebuchadnezzar made to him as announcing great changes in the kingdoms of the world, and revealing God as the Lord of time and of the world in their developments. All wisdom also comes from God. He gives to men disclosures regarding His hidden counsels. This Daniel had just experienced. Illumination dwells with God as it were a person, as Wisdom, Pro 8:30. The Kethiv נהירא is maintained against the Keri by נהירוּ , Dan 5:11, Dan 5:14. With the perf. שׁרא the participial construction passes over into the temp. fin. ; the perfect stands in the sense of the completed act. Therefore (Dan 2:23) praise and thanksgiving belong to God. Through the revelation of the secret hidden to the wise men of this world He has proved Himself to Daniel as the God of the fathers, as the true God in opposition to the gods of the heathen. וּכען = ועתּה , and now .

Dan 2:24-25

Hereupon Daniel announced to the king that he was prepared to make known to him the dream with its interpretation. דּנה כּל־קבל , for that very reason , viz., because God had revealed to him the king's matter, Daniel was brought in by Arioch before the king; for no one had free access to the king except his immediate servants. אזל , he went , takes up inconsequenter the על ( intravit ), which is separated by a long sentence, so as to connect it with what follows. Arioch introduced (Dan 2:25) Daniel to the king as a man from among the captive Jews who could make known to him the interpretation of his dream. Arioch did not need to take any special notice of the fact that Daniel had already (Dan 2:16) spoken with the king concerning it, even if he had knowledge of it. In the form הנעל , Dan 2:25, also Dan 4:3 (6) and Dan 6:19 (18), the Dagesch lying in העל , Dan 2:24, is compensated by an epenthetic n: cf. Winer, Chald. Gram . §19, 1. בּהתבּהלה , in haste , for the matter concerned the further execution of the king's command, which Arioch had suspended on account of Daniel's interference, and his offer to make known the dream and its interpretation. השׁכּחת for אשׁכּחת , cf. Winer, §15, 3. The relative דּי , which many Codd . insert after גּבר , is the circumstantially fuller form of expression before prepositional passages. Cf. Dan 5:13; Dan 6:14; Winer, §41, 5.

Dan 2:26-28

To the question of the king, whether he was able to show the dream with its interpretation, Daniel replies by directing him from man, who is unable to accomplish such a thing, to the living God in heaven, who alone reveals secrets. The expression, whose name was Belteshazzar (Dan 2:26), intimates in this connection that he who was known among the Jews by the name Daniel was known to the Chaldean king only under the name given to him by the conqueror - that Nebuchadnezzar knew of no Daniel, but only of Belteshazzar. The question, "art thou able?" i.e., has thou ability? does not express the king's ignorance of the person of Daniel, but only his amazement at his ability to make known the dream, in the sense, "art thou really able?"This amazement Daniel acknowledges as justified, for he replies that no wise man was able to do this thing. In the enumeration of the several classes of magicians the word חכּימין is the general designation of them all. "But there is a God in heaven."Daniel "declares in the presence of the heathen the existence of God, before he speaks to him of His works."Klief. But when he testifies of a God in heaven as One who is able to reveal hidden things, he denies this ability eo ipso to all the so-called gods of the heathen. Thereby he not only assigns the reason of the inability of the heathen wise men, who knew not the living God in heaven, to show the divine mysteries, but he refers also all the revelations which the heathen at any time receive to the one true God. The ו in והודע introduces the development of the general thought. That there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, Daniel declares to the king by this, that he explains his dream as an inspiration of this God, and shows to him its particular circumstances. God made known to him in a dream "what would happen in the end of the days." אחרית יומיּא = הימים אחרית designates here not the future generally (Häv.), and still less "that which comes after the days, a time which follows after another time, comprehended under the הימים "(Klief.), but the concluding future or the Messianic period of the world's time; see Gen 49:1.

From דּנה אחרי in Dan 2:29 that general interpretation of the expression is not proved. The expression יומיּא בּאחרית of Dan 2:28 is not explained by the דּנה אחרי להוא דּי מה of Dan 2:29, but this אחרי relates to Nebuchadnezzar's thoughts of a future in the history of the world, to which God, the revealer of secrets, unites His Messianic revelations; moreover, every Messianic future event is also an דּנה אחרי (cf. Dan 2:45), without, however, every דּנה אחרי being also Messianic, though it may become so when at the same time it is a constituent part of the future experience and the history of Israel, the people of the Messianic promise (Kran.). "The visions of thy head"(cf. Dan 4:2 [5], Dan 4:7 [10], Dan 4:10 [13], Dan 7:1) are not dream-visions because they formed themselves in the head or brains (v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), which would thus be only phantoms or fancies. The words are not a poetic expression for dreams hovering about the head (Häv.); nor yet can we say, with Klief., that "the visions of thy head upon thy bed, the vision which thou sawest as thy head lay on thy pillow,"mean only dream-visions. Against the former interpretation this may be stated, that dreams from God do not hover about the head; and against the latter, that the mention of the head would in that case be superfluous. The expression, peculiar to Daniel, designates much rather the divinely ordered visions as such, "as were perfectly consistent with a thoughtfulness of the head actively engaged"(Kran.). The singular הוּא דּנה goes back to חלמך (thy dream) as a fundamental idea, and is governed by ראשׁך וחזוי in the sense: "thy dream with the visions of thy head;"cf. Winer, §49, 6. The plur. חזוי is used, because the revelation comprehends a series of visions of future events.

Dan 2:29-30

The pronoun אנתּה ( as for thee ), as Daniel everywhere writes it, while the Keri substitutes for it the later Targ. form אנתּ , is absolute, and forms the contrast to the ואנה ( as for me ) of Dan 2:30. The thoughts of the king are not his dream (Hitz.), but thoughts about the future of his kingdom which filled his mind as he lay upon his bed, and to which God gave him an answer in the dream (v. Leng., Maur., Kran., Klief.). Therefore they are to be distinguished from the thoughts of thy heart , Dan 2:30, for these are the thoughts that troubled the king, which arose from the revelations of the dream to him. The contrast in Dan 2:30 and Dan 2:30 is not this: "not for my wisdom before all that live to show,"but "for the sake of the king to explain the dream;"for ב is not the preposition of the object, but of the means, thus: "not by the wisdom which might be in me."The supernatural revelation ( לי (<) גּלי ) forms the contrast, and the object to which דּי על־דּברת points is comprehended implicite in מן־כּל־חיּיּא , for in the words, "the wisdom which may be in me before all living,"lies the unexpressed thought: that I should be enlightened by such superhuman wisdom. יהודצוּן , "that they might make it known:" the plur. of undefined generality, cf. Winer, §49, 3. The impersonal form of expression is chosen in order that his own person might not be brought into view. The idea of Aben Ezra, Vatke, and others, that angels are the subject of the verb, is altogether untenable.

Dan 2:31-45

The Dream and Its Interpretation. - Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream a great metallic image which was terrible to look upon. אלוּ ( behold ), which Daniel interchanges with ארו , corresponds with the Hebrew words ראה , ראוּ , or הנּה . צלם is not an idol-image (Hitz.), but a statue , and, as is manifest from the following description, a statue in human form . חד is not the indefinite article (Ges., Win., Maur.), but the numeral. "The world-power is in all its phases one, therefore all these phases are united in the vision in one image"(Klief.). The words from צלמא to יתּיר contain two parenthetical expressions, introduced for the purpose of explaining the conception of שׁגיא ( great ). קאם is to be united with ואלוּ . דּכּן here and at Dan 7:20. is used by Daniel as a peculiar form of the demonstrative pronoun, for which Ezra uses דּך . The appearance of the colossal image was terrible, not only on account of its greatness and its metallic splendour, but because it represented the world-power of fearful import to the people of God (Klief.).

Dan 2:32-36

The description of the image according to its several parts is introduced with the absolute צלמא הוּא , concerning this image , not: "this was the image."The pronoun הוּא is made prominent, as דּנה , Dan 4:15, and the Hebr. זה more frequently, e.g., Isa 23:13. חדוהי , plural חדין - its singular occurs only in the Targums - corresponding with the Hebr. חזה , the breast . מצין , the bowels, here the abdomen enclosing the bowels, the belly . ירכה , the thighs ( hüfte ) and upper part of the loins. Dan 2:33. שׁק , the leg , including the upper part of the thigh. מנהון is partitive: part of it of iron . Instead of מנהון the Keri prefers the fem. מנהן here and at Dan 2:41 and Dan 2:42, with reference to this, that רגליו is usually the gen. fem. , after the custom of nouns denoting members of the body that are double. The Kethiv unconditionally deserves the preference, although, as the apparently anomalous form, which appears with this suffix also in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20, after substantives of seemingly feminine meaning, where the choice of the masculine form is to be explained from the undefined conception of the subjective idea apart from the sex; cf. Ewald's Lehr. d. hebr. Sp. §319.

The image appears divided as to its material into four or five parts - the head, the breast with the arms, the belly with the thighs, and the legs and feet. "Only the first part, the head, constitutes in itself a united whole; the second, with the arms, represents a division; the third runs into a division in the thighs; the fourth, bound into one at the top, divides itself in the two legs, but has also the power of moving in itself; the fifth is from the first divided in the legs, and finally in the ten toes runs out into a wider division. The material becomes inferior from the head downward - gold, silver, copper, iron, clay; so that, though on the whole metallic, it becomes inferior, and finally terminates in clay, losing itself in common earthly matter. Notwithstanding that the material becomes always the harder, till it is iron, yet then suddenly and at last it becomes weak and brittle clay."- Klief. The fourth and fifth parts, the legs and the feet, are, it is true, externally separate from each other, but inwardly, through the unity of the material, iron, are bound together; so that we are to reckon only four parts, as afterwards is done in the interpretation. This image Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating (Dan 2:34), i.e., reflected upon with a look directed toward it, until a stone moved without human hands broke loose from a mountain, struck against the lowest part of the image, broke the whole of it into pieces, and ground to powder all its material from the head even to the feet, so that it was scattered like chaff of the summer thrashing-floor. בידין לא דּי does not mean: "which was not in the hands of any one"(Klief.), but the words are a prepositional expression for without ; ב לא , not with = without , and דּי expressing the dependence of the word on the foregoing noun. Without hands , without human help, is a litotes for: by a higher, a divine providence ; cf. Dan 8:25; Job 34:20; Lam 4:6. כּחדה , as one = at once , with one stroke. דּקוּ for דּקּוּ is not intransitive or passive, but with an indefinite plur. subject: they crushed , referring to the supernatural power by which the crushing was effected. The destruction of the statue is so described, that the image passes over into the matter of it. It is not said of the parts of the image, the head, the breast, the belly, and the thighs, that they were broken to pieces by the stone, "for the forms of the world-power represented by these parts had long ago passed away, when the stone strikes against the last form of the world-power represented by the feet,"but only of the materials of which these parts consist, the silver and the gold, is the destruction replicated; "for the material, the combinations of the peoples, of which these earlier forms of the world-power consist, pass into the later forms of it, and thus are all destroyed when the stone destroys the last form of the world-power"(Klief.). But the stone which brought this destruction itself became a great mountain which filled the whole earth. To this Daniel added the interpretation which he announces in Dan 2:36. נאמר , we will tell , is "a generalizing form of expression"(Kran.) in harmony with Dan 2:30. Daniel associates himself with his companions in the faith, who worshipped the same God of revelation; cf. Dan 2:23 .

Dan 2:37-38

The interpretation begins with the golden head. מלכיּא מלך , the usual title of the monarchs of the Oriental world-kingdoms (vid., Eze 26:7), is not the predicate to אנתּה , but stands in apposition to מלכּא . The following relative passages, Dan 2:37 and Dan 2:38, are only further explications of the address King of Kings , in which אנתּה is again taken up to bring back the predicate. בּכל־דּי , wherever, everywhere . As to the form דּארין , see the remarks under קאמין at Dan 3:3. The description of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion over men, beasts, and birds, is formed after the words of Jer 27:6 and Jer 28:14; the mention of the breasts serves only for the strengthening of the thought that his dominion was that of a world-kingdom, and that God had subjected all things to him. Nebuchadnezzar' dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilised world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, "the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all world-powers"(Klief.). ראשׁה , stat. emphat. for ראשׁא ; the reading ראשׁהּ defended by Hitz. is senseless. If Daniel called him (Nebuchadnezzar) the golden head, the designation cannot refer to his person, but to the world-kingdom founded by him and represented in his person, having all things placed under his sway by God. Hitzig's idea, that Nebuchadnezzar is the golden head as distinguished from his successors in the Babylonian kingdom, is opposed by Dan 2:39, where it is said that after him (not another king, but) "another kingdom"would arise. That "Daniel, in the words, 'Thou art the golden head,' speaks of the Babylonian kingdom as of Nebuchadnezzar personally, while on the contrary he speaks of the other world-kingdoms impersonally only as of kingdoms, has its foundation in this, that the Babylonian kingdom personified in Nebuchadnezzar stood before him, and therefore could be addressed by the word thou , while the other kingdoms could not"(Klief.).

Dan 2:39

In this verse the second and third parts of the image are interpreted of the second and third world-kingdoms. Little is said of these kingdoms here, because they are more fully described in Daniel 7, 8 and 10. That the first clause of Dan 2:39 refers to the second, the silver part of the image, is apparent from the fact that Dan 2:38 refers to the golden head, and the second clause of Dan 2:39 to the belly of brass. According to this, the breast and arms of silver represent another kingdom which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., after the Babylonian kingdom. This kingdom will be מנּך ארעא , inferior to thee , i.e., to the kingdom of which thou art the representative. Instead of the adjective ארעא , here used adverbially, the Masoretes have substituted the adverbial form ארץ , in common use in later times, which Hitz. incorrectly interprets by the phrase "downwards from thee."Since the other, i.e., the second kingdom, as we shall afterwards prove, is the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, the question arises, in how far was it inferior to the Babylonian? In outward extent it was not less, but even greater than it. With reference to the circumstance that the parts of the image representing it were silver, and not gold as the head was, Calv., Aub., Kran., and others, are inclined to the opinion that the word "inferior"points to the moral condition of the kingdom. But if the successive deterioration of the inner moral condition of the four world-kingdoms is denoted by the succession of the metals, this cannot be expressed by מנּך ארעא , because in regard to the following world-kingdoms, represented by copper and iron, such an intimation or declaration does not find a place, notwithstanding that copper and iron are far inferior to silver and gold. Klief., on the contrary, thinks that the Medo-Persian kingdom stands inferior to, or is smaller than, the Babylonian kingdom in respect of universality; for this element is exclusively referred to in the text, being not only attributed to the Babylonian kingdom, Dan 2:37, in the widest extent, but also to the third kingdom, Dan 2:39, and not less to the fourth, Dan 2:40. The universality belonging to a world-kingdom does not, however, require that it should rule over all the nations of the earth to its very end, nor that its territory should have a defined extent, but only that such a kingdom should unite in itself the οἰκουμένη , i.e., the civilised world, the whole of the historical nations of its time. And this was truly the case with the Babylonian, the Macedonia, and the Roman world-monarchies, but it was not so with the Medo-Persian, although perhaps it was more powerful and embraced a more extensive territory than the Babylonian, since Greece, which at the time of the Medo-Persia monarchy had already decidedly passed into the rank of the historical nations, as yet stood outside of the Medo-Persian rule. But if this view is correct, then would universality be wanting to the third, i.e., to the Graeco-Macedonian world-monarchy, which is predicated of it in the words "That shall bear rule over the whole earth,"since at the time of this monarchy Rome had certainly passed into the rank of historical nations, and yet it was not incorporated with the Macedonian empire.

The Medo-Persian world-kingdom is spoken of as "inferior"to the Babylonian perhaps only in this respect, that from its commencement it wanted inner unity, since the Medians and Persians did not form a united people, but contended with each other for the supremacy, which is intimated in the expression, Dan 7:5, that the bear "raised itself up on one side:"see under that passage. In the want of inward unity lay the weakness or the inferiority in strength of this kingdom, its inferiority as compared with the Babylonian. This originally divided or separated character of this kingdom appears in the image in the circumstance that it is represented by the breast and the arms. "Medes and Persians,"as Hofm. ( Weiss. u. Ef . i. S. 279) well remarks, "are the two sides of the breast. The government of the Persian kingdom was not one and united as was that of the Chaldean nation and king, but it was twofold. The Magi belonged to a different race from Cyrus, and the Medes were regarded abroad as the people ruling with and beside the Persians."This two-sidedness is plainly denoted in the two horns of the ram, Daniel 8.

Dan 2:39

Dan 2:39 treats of the third world-kingdom, which by the expression אחרי , "another,"is plainly distinguished from the preceding; as to its quality, it is characterized by the predicate "of copper, brazen."In this chapter it is said only of this kingdom that "it shall rule over the whole earth,"and thus be superior in point of extent and power to the preceding kingdoms. Cf. Dan 7:6, where it is distinctly mentioned that "power was given unto it."Fuller particulars are communicated regarding the second and third world-kingdoms in Daniel 8 and Dan 10:1.

Dan 2:40-43

The interpretation of the fourth component part of the image, the legs and feet, which represent a fourth world-kingdom, is more extended. That kingdom, corresponding to the legs of iron, shall be hard, firm like iron. Because iron breaks all things in pieces, so shall this kingdom, which is like to iron, break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms.

Dan 2:40-41

Instead of רביציא , which is formed after the analogy of the Syriac language, the Keri has the usual Chaldee form רביעאה , which shall correspond to the preceding תליתאה , Dan 2:39. See the same Keri Dan 3:25; Dan 7:7, Dan 7:23. דּי כּל־קבל does not mean just as (Ges., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), but because , and the passage introduced by this particle contains the ground on which this kingdom is designated as hard like iron. חשׁל , breaks in pieces , in Syriac to forge, i.e., to break by the hammer, cf. חוּשׁלא , bruised grain, and thus separated from the husks. כּל־אלּין is referred by Kran., in conformity with the accents, to the relative clause, "because by its union with the following verbal idea a blending of the image with the thing indicated must first be assumed; also nowhere else, neither here nor in Daniel 7, does the non-natural meaning appear, e.g., that by the fourth kingdom only the first and second kingdoms shall be destroyed; and finally, in the similar expression, Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19, the הדּק stands likewise without an object."But all the three reasons do not prove much. A mixing of the figure with the thing signified does not lie in the passage: "the fourth (kingdom) shall, like crushing iron, crush to pieces all these"(kingdoms). But the "non-natural meaning,"that by the fourth kingdom not only the third, but also the second and the first, would be destroyed, is not set aside by our referring כּל־אלּין to the before-named metals, because the metals indeed characterize and represent kingdoms. Finally, the expressions in Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19 are not analogous to those before us. The words in question cannot indeed be so understood as if the fourth kingdom would find the three previous kingdoms existing together, and would dash them one against another; for, according to the text, the first kingdom is destroyed by the second, and the second by the third; but the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third. "The elements out of which the Babylonian world-kingdom was constituted, the countries, people, and civilisation comprehended in it, as its external form, would be destroyed by the Medo-Persia kingdom, and carried forward with it, so as to be constituted into a new external form. Such, too, was the relation between the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian world-kingdom, that the latter assumed the elements and component parts not only of the Medo-Persian, but also therewith at the same time of the Babylonian kingdom"(Klief.). In such a way shall the fourth world-kingdom crush "all these"past kingdoms as iron, i.e., will not assume the nations and civilisations comprehended in the earlier world-kingdoms as organized formations, but will destroy and break them to atoms with iron strength. Yet will this world-kingdom not throughout possess and manifest the iron hardness. Only the legs of the image are of iron (Dan 2:41), but the feet and toes which grow out of the legs are partly of clay and partly of iron.

Regarding מנהון , see under Dan 2:33. חסף means clay, a piece of clay , then an earthly vessel , 2Sa 5:20. פּחר in the Targums means potter , also potter's earth , potsherds . The פּחר דּי serves to strengthen the חסף , as in the following the addition of טינא , clay , in order the more to heighten the idea of brittleness. This twofold material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for פּלג always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord ; cf. Gen 10:25; Psa 55:10; Job 38:25; and Levy, chald. Worterb. s. v. Notwithstanding this inner division, there will yet be in it the firmness of iron. נצבּא , firmness , related to יצב , Pa. to make fast , but in Chald. generally plantatio , properly a slip, a plant.

Dan 2:42-43

In Dan 2:42 the same is aid of the toes of the feet, and in Dan 2:43 the comparison to iron and clay is defined as the mixture of these two component parts. As the iron denotes the firmness of the kingdom, so the clay denotes its brittleness. The mixing of iron with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain. The mixing of themselves with the seed of men (Dan 2:43), most interpreters refer to the marriage politics of the princes. They who understand by the four kingdoms the monarchy of Alexander and his followers, think it refers to the marriages between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, of which indeed there is mention made in Dan 11:6 and Dan 11:17, but not here; while Hofm. thinks it relates to marriages, such as those of the German Kaiser Otto II and the Russian Grand-Duke Wladimir with the daughters of the Kaiser of Eastern Rome. But this interpretation is rightly rejected by Klief., as on all points inconsistent with the text. The subject to מתערבין is not the kings, of whom mention is made neither in Dan 2:43 nor previously. For the two feet as well as the ten toes denote not kings, but parts of the fourth kingdom; and even in Dan 2:44, by מלכיּא , not kings in contradistinction to the kingdoms, but the representatives of the parts of the kingdom denoted by the feet and the toes as existing contemporaneously, are to be understood, from which it cannot rightly be concluded in any way that kings is the subject to מתערבין ( shall mingle themselves ).

As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent the material of these kingdoms, i.e., their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e., the national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them. If, then, the "mixing themselves with the seed of men"points to marriages, it is only of the mixing of different tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages as a means of amalgamating the diversified nationalities. But the expression is not to be limited to this, although התערב , Ezr 9:2, occurs of the mixing of the holy nation with the heathen by marriage. The peculiar expression אנששׁא זרע , the seed of men , is not of the same import as זרע שׁכבת , but is obviously chosen with reference to the following contrast to the divine Ruler, Dan 2:44., so as to place (Kran.) the vain human endeavour of the heathen rulers in contrast with the doings of the God of heaven; as in Jer 31:27 אדם זרע is occasioned by the contrast of בּהמה זרע . The figure of mixing by seed is derived from the sowing of the field with mingled seed, and denotes all the means employed by the rulers to combine the different nationalities, among which the connubium is only spoken of as the most important and successful means.

But this mixing together will succeed just as little as will the effort to bind together into one firm coherent mass iron and clay. The parts mixed together will not cleave to each other. Regarding להון , see under Dan 2:20.

Dan 2:44

The world-kingdom will be broken to pieces by the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up. "In the days of these kings,"i.e., of the kings of the world-kingdoms last described; at the time of the kingdoms denoted by the ten toes of the feet of the image into which the fourth world-monarchy extends itself; for the stone (Dan 2:34) rolling against the feet of the image, or rather against the toes of the feet, breaks and destroys it. This kingdom is not founded by the hands of man, but is erected by the God of heaven, and shall for ever remain immoveable, in contrast to the world-kingdoms, the one of which will be annihilated by the other. Its dominion will not be given to another people. מלכוּתהּ , his dominion , i.e., of the kingdom. This word needs not to be changed into מלכוּתהּ , which is less suitable, since the mere status absol. would not be here in place. Among the world-kingdoms the dominion goes from one people to another, from the Babylonians to the Persians, etc. On the contrary, the kingdom of God comprehends always the same people, i.e., the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His own, only not the Israel κατὰ σάρκα , but the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). But the kingdom of God will not merely exist eternally without change of its dominion, along with the world-kingdoms, which are always changing and bringing one another to dissolution, it will also break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms ( תסף , from סוּף , to bring to an end, to make an end to them ), but itself shall exist for ever. This is the meaning of the stone setting itself free without the hands of man, and breaking the image in pieces.

Dan 2:45

The מטּוּרא before אתגּזרת , which is wanting in Dan 2:34, and without doubt is here used significantly, is to be observed, as in Dan 2:42 "the toes of the feet,"which in Dan 2:33 were also not mentioned. As it is evident that a stone, in order to its rolling without the movement of the human hand, must be set free from a mountain, so in the express mention of the mountain there can be only a reference to Mount Zion, where the God of heaven has founded His kingdom, which shall from thence spread out over the earth and shall destroy all the world-kingdoms. Cf. Psa 50:2; Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2.

The first half of the 45th verse (down to ודהבּא ) gives the confirmation of that which Daniel in Dan 2:44 said to the king regarding the setting up and the continuance of the kingdom of God, and essentially belongs to this verse. On the other hand, Hitz. (and Kran. follows him) wishes to unite this confirmatory passage with the following: "because thou hast been that the stone, setting itself free from the mountain, breaks in pieces the iron, etc., thus has God permitted thee a glimpse behind the veil that hides the future,"- in order that he may conclude from it that the writer, since he notes only the vision of the stone setting itself free as an announcement of the future, betrayed his real standpoint, i.e., the standpoint of the Maccabean Jew, for whom only this last catastrophe was as yet future, while all the rest was already past. This conclusion Kran. has rejected, but with the untenable argument that the expression, "what shall come to pass hereafter,"is to be taken in agreement with the words, "what should come to pass,"Dan 2:29, which occur at the beginning of the address. Though this may in itself be right, yet it cannot be maintained if the passage Dan 2:45 forms the antecedent to Dan 2:45 . In this case דּנה ( this ), in the phrase " after this "(= hereafter, Dan 2:45), can be referred only to the setting loose of the stone. But the reasons which Hitz. adduces for the uniting together of the passages as adopted by him are without any importance. Why the long combined passage cannot suitably conclude with ורהבּא there is no reason which can be understood; and that it does not round itself is also no proof, but merely a matter of taste, the baselessness of which is evident from Dan 2:10, where an altogether similar long passage, beginning with דּי כּל־קבל ( forasmuch as ), ends in a similar manner, without formally rounding itself off. The further remark also, that the following new passage could not so unconnectedly and baldly begin with רב אלהּ , is no proof, but a mere assertion, which is set aside as groundless by many passages in Daniel where the connection is wanting; cf. e.g., Dan 4:16 , Dan 4:27>. The want of the copula before this passage is to be explained on the same ground on which Daniel uses רב אלהּ ( stat. absol. , i.e., without the article) instead of אלהא רבּא , Ezr 5:8. For that רב אלהּ means, not "a (undefined) great God,"but the great God in heaven, whom Daniel had already (Dan 2:28) announced to the king as the revealer of secrets, is obvious. Kran. has rightly remarked, that רב אלהּ may stand "in elevated discourse without the article, instead of the prosaic אלה רב , Ezr 5:8."The elevated discourse has occasioned also the absence of the copula, which will not be missed if one only takes a pause at the end of the interpretation, after which Daniel then in conclusion further says to the king, "The great God has showed to the king what will be hereafter." דּנה אחרי , after this which is now, does not mean "at some future time"(Hitz.), but after that which is at present, and it embraces the future denoted in the dream, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar till the setting up of the kingdom of God in the time of the Messiah.

Dan 2:45

The word with which Daniel concludes his address, יצּיב , firm, sure , is the dream, and certain its interpretation, is not intended to assure the king of the truth of the dream, because the particulars of the dream had escaped him, and to certify to him the correctness of the interpretation (Kran.), but the importance of the dream should put him in mind to lay the matter to heart, and give honour to God who imparted to him these revelations; but at the same time also the word assures the readers of the book of the certainty of the fulfilment, since it lay far remote, and the visible course of things in the present and in the proximate future gave no indication or only a very faint prospect of the fulfilment. For other such assurances see Dan 8:26; Dan 10:21, Rev 19:9; Rev 21:5; Rev 22:6.

We shall defer a fuller consideration of the fulfilment of this dream or the historical references of the four world-kingdoms, in order to avoid repetition, till we have expounded the vision which Daniel received regarding it in Daniel 7.

Constable: Dan 2:1--7:28

II. The Times of the Gentiles: God's program for the world chs. 2--7

Daniel wrote 2:4b-7:28 in the Aramaic language. This literary change gives the reader a clue that this part is a distinct section of the book. The content of this section also identifies it as special. It concerns the future history of the Gentiles during "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). Aramaic was the common language of the world in which Daniel lived when he wrote. It is natural that he would have recorded what concerns the world as a whole in the language of the Gentiles.

The writer constructed this section of the book in chiastic form.

A A prophecy of an image concerning four Gentile nations and their end ch. 2

B The supernatural persecution and deliverance of Daniel's three friends ch. 3

C God's revelation to the Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar ch. 4

C' God's revelation to the Gentile king Belshazzar ch. 5

B' The supernatural persecution and deliverance of Daniel ch. 6

A' A prophecy of animals concerning four Gentile nations and their end ch. 7

"Chapters 2 and 7 explain the succession of four gentile empires that would exert control over Jerusalem and the Jews until God's kingdom is established. Chapters 3 and 6 warned the Jews of the persecution they would face during this period and exhorted them to remain faithful to God. Chapters 4 and 5 encouraged the Jewish remnant by reminding them that a time would come when even the gentile rulers would acknowledge that the God of Israel rules over the nations."⁴⁶

Constable: Dan 2:1-49

A. Nebuchadnezzar's first dream: the big picture ch. 2

This chapter is important because it records the broadest sweep of world history that God gave any prophet.

"The second chapter of Daniel has been justly called the alphabet of prophecy.' Whoever wishes to understand the prophetic Scriptures must come to this chapter for the broad outline of God's future program for the nations, for Israel, and for the glorious kingdom of Messiah. This outline is the simple but comprehensive framework of a multitude of future events. No political document can compare with it, and its importance cannot be overstated."⁴⁷

"Nowhere else in Scripture, except in Daniel 7, is a more comprehensive picture given of world history as it stretched from the time of Daniel, 600 years before Christ, to the consummation at the second advent of Christ. It is most remarkable that Daniel was not only given this broad revelation of the course of what Christ called the times of the Gentiles' (Lk 21:24), but also the chronological prophecy of Israel's history stretching from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the second advent of Christ. These two major foci of the book of Daniel justify the general description of the book as world history in outline with special reference to the nation of Israel."⁴⁸

"Few chapters of the Bible are more determinative in establishing both principle and content of prophecy than this chapter; and its study, accordingly, is crucial to any system of prophetic interpretation."⁴⁹

"The God of Daniel is the central figure and not the courtier."⁵⁰

Constable: Dan 2:1-3

1. The king's dream 2:1-3

2:1 Daniel opened this new section of his book with another chronological reference (cf. 1:1, 21). This indicates that his interest in this book was in the progress of events and their relationship to one another. As the book unfolds, chronology plays an important part in what God revealed, though the chronology is not always without interruption.

The events related in this chapter happened in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. According to several reliable scholars Nebuchadnezzar officially became king on September 7, 605 B.C. On the first of Nisan, 604 B.C., the following spring, the first official year of his reign began. The intervening months constituted his accession year and were credited to his father's reign. The first year of his reign then ended on the first of Nisan the following year, 603 B.C. The second year of his reign (v. 1) began in 603 and ended in 602 B.C.⁵¹

Daniel probably arrived in Babylon during the summer of 605 B.C. and began his three-year education (1:4-5) shortly after that, perhaps in the fall. His curriculum may not have taken three full years; it could have ended in the spring of 602 B.C. Thus Daniel probably had finished his education and entered into government service when the events of chapter 2 unfolded, as the text implies.

The Hebrew of verse 1 says that Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed dreams that disturbed him. Evidently he had a recurring dream or similar dreams that he later described as one dream (v. 3). These dreams robbed him of rest, as Ahasuerus' dream did him (Esth. 6). Both of these Gentile rulers suffered insomnia as part of God's dealings with them and the people who lived under their authority. Other earlier Gentile rulers who received revelations from God beside Nebuchadnezzar were Abimelech (Gen. 20:3) and Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1-8).

2:2-3 Nebuchadnezzar assembled his wise men (v. 12) to interpret the meaning of what he had dreamed. Daniel identified four distinct groups of them here. The king wanted to make sure someone could help him. The magicians (Heb. hartummim) were evidently scholars who could divine the future by using various means.⁵² The conjurers or enchanters (assapim) could evidently communicate with the dead.⁵³ The sorcerers (mekassepim) practiced sorcery and cast spells. The Chaldeans or astrologers (kasdim) here refer to the priestly caste that studied the heavens to determine the future.⁵⁴ Daniel prepared the reader for the failure of all the king's counselors that follows by pointing out that there were many different groups of them.

Constable: Dan 2:4-13

2. The failure of the king's wise men 2:4-13

2:4 The Chaldeans took the lead in replying to the king. They responded in the Aramaic language that was widely used in business and in government throughout the empire. This reference to Aramaic introduces the section of the book that Daniel wrote in Aramaic (2:4b-7:28) apparently because it concerns matters of empire-wide concern.⁵⁵ The Chaldeans addressed the king with appropriate respect: "O king, live forever!" (cf. 1 Kings 1:31; Neh. 2:3; Dan. 3:9; 5:10; 6:21).

"This represented a wish or hope that the king would live on from one age to another, with no foreseeable termination by death."⁵⁶

Evidently it was customary for the Babylonian kings to tell their dreams to their advisers who would then provide a politically correct interpretation that would satisfy the monarch. However, Nebuchadnezzar wanted his wise men not only to give him an interpretation but also to tell him what he had dreamed.

"The [Chaldean] dream manuals, of which several examples have come to light, consist . . . of historical dreams and the events that followed them, arranged systematically for easy reference. Since these books had to try to cover every possible eventuality they became inordinately long; only the expert could find his way through them, and even he had to know the dream to begin with before he could search for the nearest possible parallel. The unreasonable demands of the king and the protests of the interpreters in verses 3-11 are in keeping with his character and the known facts concerning dream books."⁵⁷

2:5-6 It is unclear in the text whether the king had really forgotten his dream or was just withholding it to test his counselors. The Authorized Version implies that he had forgotten it by translating verses 5 and 8, "The thing is gone from me." However the NASB's (cf. NIV), "The command from me is firm," suggests that Nebuchadnezzar was referring to his command rather than his dream.

"The king was a young man who had been extraordinarily successful in his military conquests. He undoubtedly had developed a great deal of confidence in himself. It is entirely possible that the wise men were much older than the king, having served Nebuchadnezzar's father. It would be understandable that the king might have previously been somewhat frustrated by these older counselors and may have had a real desire to be rid of them in favor of younger men whom he had chosen himself. Nebuchadnezzar might well have doubted their honesty, sincerity, and capability, and may even have wondered whether they were loyal to him. He may also have questioned some of their superstitious practices."⁵⁸

Regardless of what Nebuchadnezzar may or may not have remembered, his desire to validate the interpretation that his advisers would propose is beyond doubt. They claimed to offer infallible supernatural guidance. If they failed, they would suffer excruciating dismemberment and humiliation. It they succeeded, gifts, a special reward, and great honor would be theirs (cf. Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel).

"The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hands of an Eastern despot; the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments."⁵⁹

2:7 The repetition of the wise men's request reinforced it. This is frequently the intent of the biblical writers in repeating something. Repetition assures the reader that something is very important or absolutely certain. This is especially true in prophetic revelations such as the ones that follow in this book.

2:8-9 The king saw through his seers' delay an attempt to put distance between the dream and the interpretation. They hoped that as time passed he would forget what he had dreamed if he had not done so already. Perhaps his expectations of them would diminish as well. However, he wanted to guarantee that the interpretation they offered was correct.

2:10-11 The Chaldeans proceeded to explain with profuse courtesy and flattery that what the king requested was humanly impossible. No one could tell what the king had dreamed. Furthermore no king had ever asked his counselors to do such a thing before. Only the immortal gods could provide this information, and the implication was they even these men could not get information from the gods. Yet that is precisely what they claimed to be able to provide: supernatural information. Their confession sets the stage for Yahweh's ability to do precisely what they said no person could do.

2:12-13 Their confession of inability and their complaint that the king was being unfair with them made Nebuchadnezzar very angry (cf. Gen. 40:2; 41:10; Dan. 3:13, 19). He gave orders to execute all the wise men in Babylon, namely, those who were his counselors. Probably the city of Babylon is in view here rather than the province or the whole empire (cf. v. 49; 3:1) since the king's counselors were the target of his wrath. Daniel and his three friends fell under the edict because they were advisers to the king (1:20), not because they practiced divination, which, it is safe to say, they did not.

Constable: Dan 2:14-16

3. Daniel's request for time 2:14-16

2:14-15 When Daniel learned of his sentence, he responded with customary discretion and discernment (cf. 1:8, 12), not with objections (cf. vv. 10-11) or anger (cf. v. 12). Perhaps the king's decision in itself did not surprise Daniel since he surely realized that many of the wise men were charlatans. However the harshness of the verdict puzzled him. Clearly the court officials, including the king himself, had come to respect Daniel highly since they listened to him and granted his requests.

2:16 There is no other record of God having given anyone knowledge of a dream that another person had without the dreamer telling him about it. Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh and his servants when they told him what they were. However, Daniel believed that God could do anything, even reveal the dream itself to him as well as its interpretation.

"The stage was now set to show the reality, wisdom, and power of the one true God--Yahweh--as over against the inarticulate and impotent imaginary gods the magicians worshiped. It is the same general theme that dominates the remainder of the book and serves to remind the Hebrew nation that despite their own failure, collapse, and banishment into exile, the God of Israel remains as omnipotent as he ever was in the days of Moses and that his covenantal love remains as steadfast toward the seed of Abraham as it ever had been."⁶⁰

Constable: Dan 2:17-23

4. Daniel's reception of a revelation and his thanksgiving 2:17-23

2:17-18 Daniel informed his three friends of the situation so they could pray together about it (cf. Phil. 4:6-7).

"It is the first instance of united prayer recorded in Scripture; and the fact that these children of the captivity resorted to it, discovers to us the secret of their holy and separate walk."⁶¹

Since it affected them all, they joined in interceding corporately to "the God of heavens" (lit.). This title for God appears five times in this chapter (vv. 18, 19, 28, 37, 44) plus elsewhere, particularly in books that have pagan Babylon as their setting.⁶² The Babylonians worshipped the heavens, but Yahweh is the God over all the heavens, not just the God of heaven. He is sovereign over all.

The four young men prayed for compassion from God since the king's edict was very harsh (v. 15). They asked that God's compassion would manifest itself in a revelation of the king's dream and its interpretation (v. 16) so they would not die with the other wise men, who were worthy of death (v. 18; cf. Gen. 18:22-33). The mystery in view was something unknown that they prayed God would reveal. In Scripture this is the consistent meaning of a mystery. It is not something spooky but something previously hidden by God but now revealed by Him.

2:19 The writer narrated these events to help us understand that God revealed the mystery as a response to the prayers of the four men (cf. James 4:2). The answer came at night but in a vision rather than in a dream. In a vision the person receiving the revelation was awake while in a dream he or she was asleep. Both methods were common vehicles of divine revelation at this time (Num. 12:6). The writer waited until later to reveal to the reader what God had revealed to Daniel. Here he wanted to focus our attention on Daniel's response to receiving this revelation.

2:20-22 Daniel wished that people would bless (praise) God's name forever because of two of His traits particularly.

"The name stands in Holy Scripture for the nature or revealed character of God, and not a mere label or title. It is found very frequently in the Old Testament as synonymous with God Himself in relation to man. . . . In the New Testament the same usage is perfectly clear."⁶³

Daniel mentioned God's wisdom and power at the beginning and the end of his praise (vv. 20, 23), and he illustrated both characteristics in between. Evidence of His power is His control of events; He changes times and seasons. In other words, He determines when in history events will happen and how long each process or phase of history will last. The second evidence of God's power is that he controls the destiny of nations; he sets up kings and deposes them.

"Perhaps the greatest evidence of Yahweh's lordship in Daniel's own experience lay . . . in his unswerving conviction that his God was the one who appointed and deposed the monarchs of human kingdoms. Because these kings and their subjects thought they were called to their office and given its privileges and responsibilities by their own gods,⁶⁴ Daniel's assertion that the God of Israel was in fact the originator and grantor of human authority was a tacit denial of any perceived role for the gods of the nations."⁶⁵

Daniel identified two evidences of God's wisdom. First, He gives wisdom to the wise; He is the source of all wisdom. Second, He reveals things that would be unknown to humans otherwise. He can do this because He knows what is unknown to people, and the light of knowledge dwells with Him.

2:23 Perhaps Daniel referred to Yahweh as the God of his fathers because he was experiencing God's compassion that was similar to what his spiritual forefathers had experienced. He gave the credit for the wisdom and its resultant power that he had received to its proper source. Daniel did not originate these revelations but received them from God and communicated them to others (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). He viewed the vision as an answer to the prayers of himself and his three friends (v. 23). He was confident that the information God had given him would save their lives. This confidence is testimony to the clarity and obvious supernatural source of this revelation. Daniel did not need to contrive an answer that he hoped would satisfy the king, as the Babylonian seers did. He simply needed to declare the revelation that the only living and true God had given him.

We should bear this testimony of Daniel in mind when we read the later revelations God gave him in the Book of Daniel. They are as reliable as this one was because they too came from the God of wisdom and power.

Constable: Dan 2:24-30

5. Daniel's appearance before Nebuchadnezzar 2:24-30

2:24 Daniel had to go through Arioch to get to the king since the king had authorized Arioch to execute all the wise men. Daniel could have requested his life and the lives of his friends alone. Perhaps Daniel asked for the lives of the other counselors as well as his own so they would have time to become believers in Yahweh.

"He was not so occupied with his own importance (even though he had just received knowledge concerning the dream) that he did not think of others."⁶⁶

2:25 He convinced Arioch that he could identify the king's dream and interpret it. The king's commander therefore ushered Daniel into Nebuchadnezzar's presence and presented him as someone Arioch had discovered, among the exiles of Judah of all people! Obviously the commander hoped to put himself in the king's favor and to enjoy some of the reward that Daniel would receive. Arioch had great confidence in Daniel since if Daniel failed, Arioch would suffer the king's wrath. Really Daniel had sought Arioch out, not the other way around.

2:26-27 Arioch had focused on Daniel as the solution to the king's problem. Nebuchadnezzar viewed him the same way. Daniel, however, quickly redirected the king's attention from himself and placed it where it belonged, on God who revealed the future. No human being, neither the Babylonian wise men nor himself, could provide what the king required. Daniel used a new name for one of these groups of seers here: diviners, meaning astrologers.⁶⁷ They tried to draw information about the future from the heavens, but "the God of heavens" had revealed the mystery.

Specifically it was information about "the end of the days" that God had given Daniel for the king (v. 28). This phrase occurs first in Genesis 49:1 and always refers to the future. The context determines how much of the future is in view, but it usually focuses on Messiah's appearance. This phrase "refers to the future of God's dealings with mankind as to be consummated and concluded historically in the times of the Messiah."⁶⁸

"In the context of Daniel 2, the latter days' include all the visions which Nebuchadnezzar received and stretches from 600 B.C. to the second coming of Christ to the earth."⁶⁹

2:29-30 Daniel then related the king's dream and its interpretation. He proceeded to remind Nebuchadnezzar that before he had fallen asleep he had been thinking about the future. The dream that God had given him was a divine revelation of what that future would hold.

"No dream [recorded or referred to in the Bible], before this or since, has ever revealed so much of world history."⁷⁰

Daniel then assured the king again that it was the true God who was responsible for this revelation rather than Daniel himself, who was no greater than any other man. Thus Daniel gave all the glory to God (cf. Joseph in Gen. 41:16). It was important for Nebuchadnezzar to receive this revelation since he was to be the first Gentile king in a significant period of history, namely, the times of the Gentiles. As mentioned earlier, "the times of the Gentiles" refers to the period during which Gentile nations would dominate Israel until Messiah would subjugate Gentile power under His reign.

Constable: Dan 2:31-35

6. What Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream 2:31-35

2:31 Daniel next pictured clearly and concisely what Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream. The king had been viewing a large statue that was standing before him.⁷¹ The statue was extremely splendid and awe-inspiring because of its appearance. Daniel did not say if it was a statue of a man or a woman, though it was presumably a man, or if it represented the king or someone whom the king knew. The important things about this statue were the materials that composed it and what happened to it.

"The figure of a man was employed here because God wished to make known what would transpire during man's day, the ages in which mortal man ruled the earth. Here, in one panoramic sweep, the whole history of human civilization is spread before us, from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to the end of time."⁷²

2:32-33 The head was of fine gold. Its chest and arms were silver. Its abdomen and thighs were bronze. Its lower legs were iron, and its feet were a combination of iron and clay.⁷³

Several features are noteworthy. First, the head is the only member of the body made of only one metal. All the other parts had more than one substance with the exception of the arms. For example, the upper torso was silver but bronze lower down. The same was true of the legs and feet. Second, there is a consistently decreasing value to the substances beginning at the top and proceeding to the bottom of the image. Third, the image was top heavy. The specific gravity of gold is about 19, silver about 11, brass about 8.5, and iron 7.8.⁷⁴ Fourth, the substances progress from the softest to the hardest, top to bottom. The feet are a non-adhering combination of very hard and hard but fragile materials. The clay in view may have been baked clay that the Babylonians used as tiles in construction projects.

Nebuchadnezzar's Dream Statue
Head	Gold	Valuable	Soft	Self-contained unit	Heavy	Smallest
Chest & arms	Silver	Less valuable	Harder	1 unit & 2 parts	Lighter	Larger
Abdomen& thighs	Bronze	Even lessvaluable	Evenharder	1 unit & 2 different parts	Evenlighter	Evenlarger
Lower legs	Iron	Still less valuable	Still harder	2 parts	Still lighter	Still larger
Feet &toes	Iron & clay	Leastvaluable	Very hard and very soft	2 parts & 10 segments	Lightest	Largest

2:34-35 As Nebuchadnezzar beheld this image, he saw an uncut stone come flying out of the air and smashing its feet, which crumbled into little pieces. While he watched, the whole statue fell apart and disintegrated into powder. A wind whipped up the powder and blew it all away. Then the rock that had struck the image began to grow larger until it filled the whole scene.

Constable: Dan 2:36-45

7. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream 2:36-45

2:36 Daniel carefully distinguished the dream (vv. 31-35) from its interpretation (vv. 36-45) for the sake of clarity. His reference to "we" telling the interpretation is probably an editorial plural. This form of speech allowed Daniel to present himself humbly to the king and at the same time remind him that God had given the dream and its interpretation.

2:37-38 Nebuchadnezzar was the supreme authority in the world of his day. Earlier Jeremiah had warned the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon that God had given Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty over the entire earth, including the animals (Jer. 27:6-7, 14). While the extent of his empire was not as great as those that followed him, he exercised absolute control as no one after him did.

"For a despot like Nebuchadnezzar, his government was the ideal type and was therefore esteemed as highly as gold. He exercised unrestricted authority over life and death throughout all Babylon. His word was law; no prior written law could challenge his will (v. 38)."⁷⁵

The Lord referred to Nebuchadnezzar as "king of kings" in Ezekiel 26:7. Nonetheless "the God of heavens" (cf. vv. 18, 28) had given this mighty monarch his position. He ruled under the authority of a higher power.

"At the time of Creation the right to rule over the earth was given man who was to have dominion over it and all the creatures in it (Gen. 1:26). Here Nebuchadnezzar by divine appointment was helping fulfill what God had planned for man."⁷⁶

It took considerable courage for Daniel to tell the most powerful ruler of his time that he was responsible to God. God had given Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty (symbolized by the head of the statue), power (the head's weight), strength (the connotation of the head on a body), and glory (its value as gold). The head of gold aptly described Nebuchadnezzar. It also symbolized the kingdom over which he ruled.⁷⁷ Nebuchadnezzar ruled about 45 years (605-560 B.C.), and his empire only lasted another 21 years. Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, founded the Neo-Babylon Empire in 627 B.C., and it fell to the Persians in 539 B.C.

2:39a The Medo-Persian Empire led by Cyrus the Great would have been inferior in quality to Babylon from Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint (cf. 5:28, 31). The Medo-Persian monarchs could not annul a law once it went into effect (cf. 6:8, 12). This restricted the absolute authority of the king. However in some respects this kingdom was superior to Babylonia. For example, it covered a larger geographical territory, and it lasted longer (539-331 B.C.). The arms of the image evidently represented the two nations of Media and Persia that united to defeat Babylon.⁷⁸

2:39b The world kingdom that succeeded Medo-Persia was Greece under Alexander the Great (cf. 8:20-21). Its territory was even larger than that of Medo-Persia. Greece dominated the ancient cradle of civilization from 331 to 31 B.C., so it lasted longer than either Babylonia or Medo-Persia. However after Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., the empire split into four parts, and each of Alexander's generals took one piece. Antipater ruled Macedon-Greece, Lysimachus governed Thrace-Asia Minor, Seleucus headed Asia, and Ptolemy reigned over Egypt, Cyrenaica, and Palestine. Thus Greece lacked the unified strength of Medo-Persia and Babylonia. Its republican form of government gave more power to the people and less to the rulers. The two legs of the statue evidently represented the two major divisions of the Greek Empire: its eastern and western sectors.

2:40 Rome defeated the last vestige of the Greek Empire in 31 B.C. and ruled for hundreds of years, until A.D. 476 in the West and until A.D. 1453 in the East. The eastern and western parts of this empire crushed all opposition with a brutal strength that surpassed any of its predecessors. Certainly iron legs fitly symbolized the Roman Empire. Rome also dominated the map more extensively than any previous kingdom encompassing almost all of Europe including Spain and the British Isles as well as India. Those legs stood astride most of the ancient world.

"The Roman Empire embraced a much wider territory in which the Western division became fully as strong as the Eastern, and this seems to be portrayed by the two legs."⁷⁹

However from Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint, Rome was indeed an inferior power. The people and the senate played major roles in setting its policies, and they controlled the emperors more than had been true in the preceding empires.

2:41-43 In contrast to the preceding empire descriptions, which were quite brief, Daniel gave an extended explanation of this fourth one. The chief feature of the feet is that there were two materials that composed them, and these two materials do not adhere well to one another. Whereas Daniel used metals to describe the kingdoms previously, now he referred to clay, perhaps kiln-fired clay, mixed with iron. The final form of the fourth kingdom--Daniel did not identify it as a fifth kingdom--would not have the cohesiveness that the earlier kingdoms possessed.

What elements are in view in the figures of iron and clay? Obviously one substance is very strong and the other is quite weak. The other metals apparently represent forms of government that were more desirable or less desirable from Nebuchadnezzar's viewpoint and stronger or weaker in controlling populations. That is probably what is in view here too. The iron is quite clearly the well-organized imperial rule that allowed Rome to dominate her world. The clay may refer to some form of government that gives more rule to the people, perhaps democracy and or socialism. Perhaps the clay represents the democratic Roman Republic and the iron the imperial Roman Empire. While democratic government has many obvious advantages over other forms of government, all stemming from the freedoms that its citizens enjoy, it is essentially weak. Its rulers must operate under many checks and balances imposed by the people they serve.

The political weakness of democracy is becoming increasingly obvious in America, which has led the world in exemplifying and promoting this form of government. Self-interest gets in the way of political efficiency. People can block political action with demonstrations and lawsuits. In one sense this is good because it checks the government's powers. However in another it makes the jobs of political leaders much more difficult than if they could just do what they want. Imperial power caters to the leaders whereas democracy caters to those led. It is impossible to have both at the same time. Therefore this may be what is in view with the unmixable iron and clay combination, not that America is in view.

Another indication that democracy or socialism may be what is in view in the clay figure is that people are essentially clay physically (Gen. 2:7). Rule by the people (i.e., democracy) is rule by clay. Thus it should be no surprise that many students of this passage have seen some combination of imperial rule and democracy in the final stage of the fourth (Roman) empire.

"The rulers of the succeeding empires had their powers more and more circumscribed; until in the last state of the Roman empire we find iron mixed with miry clay, or brittle pottery--speaking of an attempted union between imperialism and democracy."⁸⁰

"But what does the clay represent? Clay is of the earth. It stands for that which does not belong to the great statue at all, a foreign ingredient brought in. The metals represent monarchies, but the clay stands for democratic rule, the rule by the people."⁸¹

The reference to the seed of men (v. 43) seems to stress the amalgamation of people where everyone is equal, at least in theory.

"The figure of mixing by seed is derived from the sowing of the field with mingled seed, and denotes all the means employed by the rulers to combine the different nationalities, among which the connubium [intermarriage] is only spoken of as the most important and successful means."⁸²

"The final form of the kingdom will include diverse elements whether this refers to race, political idealism, or sectional interests; and this will prevent the final form of the kingdom from having a real unity."⁸³

If this interpretation is correct, we have another problem. The Roman Empire never consisted of a combination of imperial rule and democracy even though the people had some voice in government. It remained imperialistic to its very end. The way that many scholars have dealt with this problem is to view the last stage of the Roman Empire in this vision (vv. 41-43) as still future.

"Probably the best solution to the problem [of identifying the feet and toes] is the familiar teaching that Daniel's prophecy actually passes over the present age, the period between the first and second coming of Christ or, more specifically, the period between Pentecost and the rapture of the church. There is nothing unusual about such a solution as Old Testament prophecies often lump together predictions concerning the first and second coming of Christ without regard for the millennia that lay between (Lk 4:17-19; cf. Is 61:1-2).

"This interpretation depends first of all upon the evidence leading to the conclusion that the ten-toe stage of the image has not been fulfilled in history and is still prophetic.⁸⁴ The familiar attempts in many commentaries to find a ten-toe stage of the image in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. do not correspond to the actual facts of history and do not fulfill the ten-toe stage. According to Daniel's prophecy, the ten-toe stage is simultaneous, that is, the kingdoms existed side by side and were destroyed by one sudden catastrophic blow. Nothing like this has yet occurred in history."⁸⁵

"Verse 41 deals with a later phase or outgrowth of this fourth empire, symbolized by the feet and 10 toes--made up of iron and earthenware, a fragile base for the huge monument. The text clearly implies that this final phase will be marked by some sort of federation rather than by a powerful single realm. The iron may possibly represent the influence of the old Roman culture and tradition, and the pottery may represent the inherent weakness in a socialist society based on relativism in morality and philosophy. Out of this mixture of iron and clay come weakness and confusion, pointing to the approaching day of doom. Within the scope of v. 43 are disunity, class struggle, and even civil war, resulting from the failure of a hopelessly divided society to achieve an integrated world-order. The iron and pottery may coexist, but they cannot combine into a strong and durable world-order."⁸⁶

2:44-45 These verses explain what the rock that crushed the feet and toes of the image and destroyed it completely signifies. It is a fifth kingdom that God Himself will establish following the final phase of the fourth kingdom (Rome; cf. Ps. 2:7-9; Rev. 11:15). The rock, a frequent symbol of Jesus Christ in Scripture (cf. Ps. 188:22; Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Zech. 3:9; 1 Pet. 2:6-8), evidently represents the King as well as His kingdom (cf. v. 38: "You are the head of gold"). The mountain out of which the rock comes is evidently God (cf. Deut. 32:18; Ps. 18:2; 31:2-3), though a mountain is also a common figure for a kingdom or government in the Bible (cf. Isa. 2:2; 27:13; Mic. 4:1; et al.). "Those kings" evidently refers to the 10 kings represented by the 10 toes. They are quite clearly contemporaneous with one another, not sequential rulers. God's kingdom, the mountain of verse 35, will fill the earth and will last forever (cf. 2 Sam. 7:16). It will never suffer destruction or be succeeded by another kingdom as all the preceding kingdoms had. It will begin with the Millennium and continue forever in the eternal state.

"The major burden of the book of Daniel is the tension and conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world."⁸⁷

Whereas almost all expositors agree that the kingdom of God is in view, they disagree on the nature of that kingdom. They also disagree on how it will destroy the preceding kingdoms and when this destruction will happen. Amillenarians, and some postmillenarians and some premillenarians, believe that Jesus inaugurated this kingdom when He came to earth.⁸⁸ They view the church as this kingdom that defeated Rome.

"The disintegrating and corrupt empire crumbled through decay from within as well as through the impact of the sound morals and the healthy life of Christianity that condemned lascivious Rome. . . . Christianity was in a sense God's judgment upon sinful Rome."⁸⁹

Many students of this passage, including myself, find this explanation unsatisfying. First, Rome did not fall because of Christianity primarily but because of its own internal decay. Invaders from the North defeated it. Second, the effects of the Roman Empire, the fragments of the legs and toes if you will, remained for hundreds of years after Jesus Christ's first coming. Yet the vision pictures all vestiges of this kingdom and its predecessors disappearing, apparently soon after that. "The wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found" (v. 35). Third, few people today would dare say that the kingdom of God has in any sense, certainly not politically, conquered the world. The popular title for our age as the "post-Christian era" testifies to this truth. Fourth, God gave prophecies after Jesus Christ's ascension that He would return to the earth as King of Kings, smite the nations, and rule them with a rod of iron (Rev. 19:11-21).

"Nothing is more evident after nineteen hundred years of Christianity than that the stone, if it reflects the church or the spiritual kingdom which Christ formed at His first coming, is not in any sense of the term occupying the center of the stage in which Gentile power has been destroyed. As a matter of fact, in the twentieth century the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world; and there has been no progress whatever in the church's gaining control of the world politically. If the image represents the political power of the Gentiles, it is very much still standing."⁹⁰

Seeing the destruction of the final stage of the fourth kingdom as future seems more in harmony with the facts of history and with other Scriptures (cf. 7:24; Rev. 17:12). This premillennial view sees the kingdom that Jesus Christ will set up on earth following His second advent as the first stage of his endless rule. The stone in Nebuchadnezzar's vision represents that ruler and His rule.

Daniel concluded by explaining to Nebuchadnezzar that the sovereign God had revealed to him what would happen in the future. He further affirmed that the dream represented reality and that the interpretation that Daniel had given was reliable.

"Daniel 2:31-45 indicates that the Aramaic word for kingdom' may include the concept of a kingdom with both earthly/temporal and heavenly/eternal aspects. The context in Daniel 2 allows for one kingdom beginning on earth and continuing into the eternal state. This kingdom is established by God, fills the whole earth after destroying all other earthly kingdoms, and will never be destroyed."⁹¹

Nebuchadnezzar's Dream of the Statue
The materials	Their interpretation
Gold	Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian Empire
Silver	The Medo-Persian Empire
Bronze	The Greek Empire
Iron	The Roman Empire
Iron and Clay	The revived Roman Empire at Christ's second coming
Rock	The messianic kingdom of Christ

Guzik: Dan 2:1-49

Daniel 2 - Nebuchadnezzar Dreams of an Image

A. Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

1. (1) The troubling dream.

Now in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was so troubled that his sleep left him.

a. In the second year: Some commentators say this happened while Daniel was in his three-year training course; others say that it was soon after he was finished.

i. By Babylonian reckoning, the year 602 B.C. could be both the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and after three years of training for the Hebrew youths.

b. His spirit was so troubled that his sleep left him: There was something disturbing about this dream and Nebuchadnezzar knew that it was unusually significant.

2. (2-9) Nebuchadnezzar demands to know the dream and its interpretation from his wise men.

Then the king gave the command to call the magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans to tell the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. And the king said to them, "I have had a dream, and my spirit is anxious to know the dream." Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, "O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will give the interpretation." The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, "My decision is firm: if you do not make known the dream to me, and its interpretation, you shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made an ash heap. However, if you tell the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts, rewards, and great honor. Therefore tell me the dream and its interpretation." They answered again and said, "Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will give its interpretation." The king answered and said, "I know for certain that you would gain time, because you see that my decision is firm: if you do not make known the dream to me, there is only one decree for you! For you have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the time has changed. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can give me its interpretation."

a. Make known the dream to me: It is hard to say if Nebuchadnezzar really remembered the dream or not. Perhaps he had a sense of it, but had only vague remembrance of the details.

b. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can give me its interpretation: Nebuchadnezzar had no criteria by which to judge the accuracy of the interpretation of the dream by his wise men, but he could test their ability to tell what he dreamed.

i. Despite their protests, Nebuchadnezzar wasn't asking too much of these magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans. These men made their living on their supposed ability to contact the gods and gain secrets from the spirit realm. If they were in reality what they presented themselves as in image, they should be able to tell Nebuchadnezzar both the dream and its interpretation.

c. You shall be cut in pieces: The harsh threat of Nebuchadnezzar and the method of execution he describes are both perfectly consistent with an ancient eastern monarch.

i. Archer describes one method of dismemberment: the victim was tied to four trees with a rope at each limb. The trees were bent inwards and tied together at the top; then the top rope was cut and the body was snapped into four pieces.

d. The Chaldeans: In this verse we have the first mention of Chaldeans as a class of soothsayers to the king. Critics cite the use of this word as a mistake that only a second century B.C. writer would make. Critics suppose that in Daniel's day, the term Chaldean was only used as a racial designation, describing what the Chaldeans thought was the "master race" who ruled Nebuchadnezzar's superpower empire.

i. But linguistic research has demonstrated that the Babylonian word for an astrologer-priest, and their word for their supposed master race were homonyms, both having the sound Chaldean (kas-du in Babylonian), but each retaining their own meaning. This is the same way that the English sound tu can mean to, two, or too.

ii. Daniel's understanding of this is clear from the text, because he also uses the term Chaldean in its racial sense (Daniel 3:8 and 5:30).

e. From Daniel 2:4 to 7:28, the text is in Aramaic - not Hebrew. This is the only section of the Bible written in Aramaic. This was the language of the Babylonian Empire.

3. (10-11) The wise men explain the impossibility of Nebuchadnezzar's request.

The Chaldeans answered the king, and said, "There is not a man on earth who can tell the king's matter; therefore no king, lord, or ruler has ever asked such things of any magician, astrologer, or Chaldean. It is a difficult thing that the king requests, and there is no other who can tell it to the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh."

a. There is not a man on earth who can tell the king's matter: When the Chaldeans say this they admit that true revelation comes from God down to man; it is not the achievement of man.

i. Despite all their wisdom - real and imagined - these wise men had no answer for Nebuchadnezzar, because only God could bring and answer to the king.

ii. "They were like some modern ministers of our own day who spend their time studying philosophy, psychiatry, psychology, social science, political science, and then continue under the pretense of being God's messengers to men." (Strauss)

b. No king, lord, or ruler has ever asked such things: The strategy of the wise men was to convince the king that he was unreasonable, not that they were incompetent.

c. Except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh: As far as these pagan magicians, astrologers, and wise men knew, this was true. They did not know what we know so plainly in Jesus - that He is Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23).

4. (12-13) A furious Nebuchadnezzar sentences all his wise men to death.

For this reason the king was angry and very furious, and gave a command to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. So the decree went out, and they began killing the wise men; and they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them.

a. The king was angry and very furious: Though he was a despot, Nebuchadnezzar knew that false religious is worse than useless. He knew that it was a curse, and he didn't want "wise men" who could not bring him wisdom from God.

b. Gave a command to destroy all the wise men of Babylon: As a new king, Nebuchadnezzar also perhaps used the situation to test the suitability of his father's old advisors. The dream provided him with a good reason to clean house.

B. God reveals the dream to Daniel.

1. (14-16) Daniel reacts to Nebuchadnezzar's decree by asking for a brief extension.

Then with counsel and wisdom Daniel answered Arioch, the captain of the king's guard, who had gone out to kill the wise men of Babylon; he answered and said to Arioch the king's captain, "Why is the decree from the king so urgent?" Then Arioch made the decision known to Daniel. So Daniel went in and asked the king to give him time, that he might tell the king the interpretation.

a. With counsel and wisdom Daniel answered Arioch: Daniel is obviously innocent in all this, yet he calmly and discretely deals with the crisis. Daniel's calmness in this crisis showed what kind of man he really was. In one sense, crises do not make the man, they reveal the man.

b. Asked the king to give him time: This wasn't just a stalling tactic. Daniel knew that it takes time to listen to the Lord and to wait upon Him, and Daniel was willing to take the time if the king would grant it.

2. (17-18) Daniel asks his companions for prayer.

Then Daniel went to his house, and made the decision known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, that they might seek mercies from the God of heaven concerning this secret, so that Daniel and his companions might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

a. That they might seek mercies from the God of heaven: Daniel was in the type of situation where only God could meet his need. Therefore he knew how important it was for both him and his companions to pray.

i. The battle was won when Daniel prayed with his friends. "It is a privilege to have praying friends" (Barnes); "In prayer meetings such as this history has been made." (Strauss)

b. Concerning this secret: Daniel had confidence that God could do an unprecedented miracle. Joseph had interpreted dreams with God's help, but had not reconstructed the dreams.

c. Might not perish: Considering what was at stake, there is little doubt that their prayers were extremely earnest. God listens to earnest prayer.

3. (19) God reveals Nebuchadnezzar's dream and its interpretation to Daniel.

Then the secret was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. So Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

a. The secret was revealed to Daniel: This was not religion, but revelation. Daniel did not find it out, God revealed it to him.

i. Christianity begins with the principle of revelation. What we know about God is what He has revealed to us. We do actively seek Him, but we seek what He has revealed. Our job isn't to figure things out about God, but to understand what He has revealed to us.

b. In a night vision: We don't know exactly what this is. It may have been a dream, or a supernatural vision that happened at night.

4. (20-23) Daniel praises God for this revelation.

Daniel answered and said: "Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him. I thank You and praise You, O God of my fathers; You have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of You, for You have made known to us the king's demand."

a. He changes . . . He removes . . . He knows: Daniel praises God for His power and might. Daniel thinks of how God is in command of all things, and how God is mightier than a mighty king like Nebuchadnezzar.

b. He gives . . . He reveals: Daniel praises God for His communication to man. All God's power and might were of little help to Daniel if God stayed silent. Daniel is grateful that God has revealed His great knowledge.

c. You have given . . . You have made known to us: Daniel had the certainty of faith to believe that God gave him the answer, even before confirming it before Nebuchadnezzar yet.

i. Our level of faith is often indicated by how long it takes us to start praising God. If we won't praise Him until the answer is in hand, then we don't have much faith. Greater faith is able to praise God when the promise is given and received.

C. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar and its interpretation.

1. (24-30) Daniel is ushered into the king's presence, and gives glory to God for revealing the dream.

Therefore Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon. He went and said thus to him: "Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon; take me before the king, and I will tell the king the interpretation." Then Arioch quickly brought Daniel before the king, and said thus to him, "I have found a man of the captives of Judah, who will make known to the king the interpretation." The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, "Are you able to make known to me the dream which I have seen, and its interpretation?" Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, "The secret which the king has demanded, the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, and the soothsayers cannot declare to the king. But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head upon your bed, were these: As for you, O king, thoughts came to your mind while on your bed, about what would come to pass after this; and He who reveals secrets has made known to you what will be. But as for me, this secret has not been revealed to me because I have more wisdom than anyone living, but for our sakes who make known the interpretation to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your heart.

a. I have a found a man: Arioch tries to glorify himself and Daniel for the answer to the king's dream. But Daniel refused to take credit, recognizing that the credit went to God, who revealed this dream to Daniel.

b. What will be in the latter days: Nebuchadnezzar's dream didn't just concern himself for his kingdom, but the whole span of the future - which was to Nebuchadnezzar the latter days.

2. (31-35) Daniel describes Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

"You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image's head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

a. Behold, a great image: Daniel's description is clear. This is a massive and spectacular image made of different materials (fine gold . . . silver . . . bronze . . . iron . . . partly of iron and partly of clay).

i. The materials descended in value from top to bottom, with gold at the top and iron mixed with clay at the bottom.

b. Broke them in pieces: This spectacular image is destroyed by a stone made without hands, and what remains of it is blown away like worthless chaff, while the stone became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

3. (36-45) The interpretation of the dream.

"This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all; you are this head of gold. But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure."

a. Now we will tell the interpretation: Daniel first accurately reported the content of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. This gave Daniel credibility when explaining what the dream meant, the interpretation.

b. You are the head of gold: Nebuchadnezzar is clearly said to be the head of gold. After him will come three other kingdoms, each represented by the different materials Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. After the succession of kingdoms, then the final kingdom set up by God.

i. "Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was likened unto gold because it was an absolute monarchy, God's ideal government. Nebuchadnezzar was not, however, God's ideal monarch!" (Talbot)

c. The fulfillment of this prophecy in history.

i. Three dominating empires came after Babylon: Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The nature of these empires is accurately reflected by the nature of the image Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream.

ii. The empires succeeding Babylon were inferior to Nebuchadnezzar's head of gold in the sense of their centralization of absolute power. Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute monarch, the succeeding empires progressively less so. They were larger and lasted longer than Babylon, but none held as much centralized power as Nebuchadnezzar did.

iii. "Babylon, the head of gold, was an absolute autocracy. Persia, a monarchial oligarchy with the nobles equal to the king in all but office, is represented by silver. Greece is set forth by brass, indicated the still lower value of it aristocracy of mind and influence . . . Rome, a democratic imperialism, with military dominion dependent upon the choice of army and citizenry and administered in the spirit of martial law, is set forth by iron." (Newell)

iv. The third kingdom, of bronze, is the one which shall rule over the whole earth. Indeed, Alexander's Grecian Empire was the largest among those compared in the image (except the final government of the Messiah).

v. The Babylonian Empire stood for 66 years; the Medo-Persian Empire for 208 years; the Grecian Empire for 185 years, and the Roman Empire stood for more than 500 years.

vi. Liberal commentators do not believe that the fourth kingdom is Rome, but they say it is Greece, and that the second and third kingdoms are Media and Persia respectively, instead of the Medo-Persian Empire as a whole. They interpret this way because they believe it was impossible for Daniel to predict the rise of these empires.

d. In the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: This describes the fulfillment of this prophecy in the future. The stone cut without hands shatters a confederation of kings, represented by the feet of the image, and then God's Kingdom dominates the earth.

i. Since Roman history provides no fulfillment of this federation of kings (which seems to number ten, because of the number of toes, and passages like Daniel 7:24 and Revelation 17:12) this prophecy must still be future.

ii. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has never been a world-dominating empire equal to Rome. Many have tried - the Huns, Islam, the so-called Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin - but none have succeeded. Each of these had amazing power and influence, but nothing compared to that of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, in some form or another, will be revived under the leadership of the final fallen dictator, the Antichrist.

iii. It broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold: This describes a single, decisive event that shatters the image representing the glory of man's rule on earth. Since the Church or the gospel have not, in a single decisive event, shattered the reign of human kingdoms, this event is still in the future.

iv. This isn't the gradual salvation of the world by the church; "Smashing is not salvation. Crushing is not conversion. Destroying is not delivering nor is pulverizing the same as purification." (Heslop)

vi. This stone cut without hands is the Messiah, not the Church. Psalm 118:22, Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 28:16, and Zechariah 3:9 also refer to Jesus as a stone.

vii. Therefore, the final superpower of the world is thought to be a "revival" of the Roman Empire, a continuation of the image. This will be the final world empire that the returning Jesus will conquer over.

e. The kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile: This final world empire will be according to the nature of clay mixed with iron. It will have more the image of true strength than the substance of strength.

i. As a whole, the image accurately represents human power and empire. The image seems invincible, but is actually unstable at its base. No wonder one blow to the foundation can topple the whole thing!

ii. It's also significant to see that the image describes devolution, not evolution. Instead of man beginning in the dust and evolving into gold, this vision declares that man's dominion begins with gold and devalues into dust.

iii. Some 40 years from this, Daniel had a vision describing the same succession of empires. Daniel saw it from God's perspective, and Nebuchadnezzar saw it from man's perspective. Nebuchadnezzar saw these empires as an impressive image; Daniel saw them as fierce beasts.

f. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure: This wasn't Daniel guessing or thinking - this was God announcing the future. The only reason that God can predict history is because he can control it.

4. (46-49) Nebuchadnezzar's reaction to Daniel's reporting of the dream and its interpretation.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, prostrate before Daniel, and commanded that they should present an offering and incense to him. The king answered Daniel, and said, "Truly your God is the God of gods, the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you could reveal this secret." Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts; and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief administrator over all the wise men of Babylon. Also Daniel petitioned the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel sat in the gate of the king.

a. Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face: This great king was obviously impressed. He wasn't in the custom of showing such respect to anyone, especially a foreign slave who was about to be executed with the rest of the wise men. This confirms that Daniel accurately reported the dream and skillfully explained its meaning.

b. Your God is the God of gods: Nebuchadnezzar knew that it wasn't Daniel himself that revealed these things, but Daniel's God revealed it through Daniel. Daniel wanted the glory to go to God, and it did.

c. The king promoted Daniel: Daniel not only had his life spared, but he was promoted to high office - and he made sure his friends were also promoted. It was fitting that Daniel's friends got to share in his advancement, because they accomplished much of the victory through their prayers.

© 2002 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Dan 2:2

DANIEL 2:2 —Why does Daniel refer to the Chaldeans as a group of wise men here    when he refers to them as an ethnic group in 5:30 ?

PROBLEM: When Daniel refers to those whom Nebuchadnezzar summoned to interpret    his dream, he identifies these as magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and Chaldeans.    Each of these is a group of wise men who functioned as advisors to    Nebuchadnezzar. However, in 5:30 Daniel refers to the Chaldeans as an ethnic    group when he refers to Belshazzar as king of the Chaldeans.

SOLUTION: There is no contradiction here. Although these two verses use the same    word, kasdim, this word has two distinct uses in the Hebrew language. The    Hebrew word can refer to a class of astrologer-priests, as it is used in Daniel 2:2 .    It can also refer to the ethnic group of Chaldeans as it is used in 5:30 . Due to its    development through several languages and cultures, what originally started out    as the Sumerian word Gal-du, which was applied to the astrologers meaning    “master builder,” has ultimately become confused with the Hebrew word for the    ethnic group, Chaldeans (kasdim). Consequently, Daniel employs the same word    in its two common uses.

Evidence: Dan 2:1

Chapter 2 describes a succession of five empires or nationat entities. Historians have confirmed that the succession of empires predicted in this chapter followed one another just as predicted here. Hundreds of years before these nations ever formed, Daniel foresaw the rise and fall of Assyria, Medo-Persia with Elam, Greece, Rome-Western and Eastern, European nations. Richard Gunther

Evidence: Dan 2:11

The wisdom of man is foolishness with God . The wisest of the wise of this world are but bumbling, brainless, babbling baboons when it comes to understanding the simplest of the simple things of God The natural mind cannot receive them (see 1Co 2:14 ). The simplest Christian has the mind of Christ ( 1Co 2:16 ). He has access to the wisdom of God. The godless wisdom of this world can give no explanation as to why we exist, what causes death, and what is death's antidote. These mysteries are revealed by the Spirit of God to all who trust in the Savior.

Evidence: Dan 2:15

To know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom. CHARLES H. SPURGEON

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Daniel (Book Introduction)

DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal (compare Dan 1:3, with 1Ch 3:1, where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have been his birthplace (though Dan 9:24, "thy holy city," does not necessarily imply this). He was carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As he and his three companions are called (Dan 1:4) "children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier (Dan 1:3, Dan 1:6). He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a change in one's condition (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17; Ezr 5:14; Est 2:7), Belteshazzar, that is, "a prince favored by Bel" (Dan 1:7). His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early period; probably owing to that noble proof he gave of faithfulness, combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heathen banquets (Dan 1:8-16). Hence Ezekiel's reference to him (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3) is precisely of that kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as a writer, but as exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in those circumstances now found in his book, which are earlier than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which led him occasionally to be away from Babylon (Dan 8:2, Dan 8:27). Again he came into note when he read the mystic writing of Belshazzar's doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. BEROSUS calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus and says he was not killed, but had an honorable abode in Carmania assigned to him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. RAWLINSON has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh inscription. Belshazzar was joint king with his father, Evil-merodach or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, while the other king took refuge elsewhere, namely, in Borsippa. BEROSUS gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as being to the national dishonor. Had Daniel been a late book, he would no doubt have taken up the later account of BEROSUS. If he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, succeeded and reigned two years. The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history (being eclipsed by the splendor of Cyrus) is an incidental proof that Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and did not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the visions (the tenth through twelfth chapters) relating to his people down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart (Dan. 9:3-19; Dan 10:12).

AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. Dan 7:1, Dan 7:28; Dan 8:2; Dan 9:2; Dan 10:1-2; Dan 12:4-5, testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention himself in the first six chapters, which are historical; for in these it is not the author, but the events which are the prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the author makes himself known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank in the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the Hagiographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like it relating to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held exclusively the profession of "prophets" in the theocracy, but was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not the office of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it doubtless would have been placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as BENGEL calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets. The Psalms also, though many are prophetical, are ranked with the Hagiographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John is separated from his Epistles, as Daniel is from the Old Testament prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and making them the foreground of his picture, he writes in a heathen court, the world kingdoms occupying the foreground, and the kingdom of God, though ultimately made the most significant, the background. His peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar position in the canon. As the "prophets" in the Old Testament, so the epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written by divinely commissioned persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and John were not in immediate contact with the congregation, but isolated and alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle (Rev 1:9). PORPHYRY, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, asserted that the Book of Daniel was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees (170-164 B.C.), a time when confessedly there were no prophets, written after the events as to Antiochus Epiphanes, which it professes to foretell; so accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration, if his prophecies can be shown to have been before the events. Now we know, from JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 10.11.7], that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel as in the canon. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Son of man," Mat 24:30 (Dan 7:13); also expressly by name, and as a "prophet," in Mat 24:15 (compare Mat 24:21, with Dan 12:1, &c.); and in the moment that decided His life (Mat 26:64) or death, when the high priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in Luk 1:19-26, "Gabriel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture, save in Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21. Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:25; Dan 11:36), in 1Co 6:2; 2Th 2:3-4; the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions" and "the fire," in Heb 11:33-34. Thus the book is expressly attested by the New Testament on the three points made the stumbling-block of neologists--the predictions, the narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection has been stated to the unity of the book, namely, that Jesus quotes no part of the first half of Daniel. But Mat 21:44 would be an enigma if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote the image" (Dan 2:34-35, Dan 2:44-45). Thus the New Testament sanctions the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts where Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world power, which seemed to be victorious over the theocracy, to see the essential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was the same as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees 1:24; 9:27, 40, with Dan 12:1; Dan 11:26, of the Septuagint) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and even refers to the Septuagint Alexandrian version of it. The fact of Daniel having a place in the Septuagint shows it was received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The Septuagint version so arbitrarily deviated from the Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotius' version was substituted for it in the early Christian Church. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. With Jaddua (high priest from 341-322 B.C.) the Old Testament history ends (Neh 12:11). (The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah, who died about 400 B.C., but was inserted with divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East, rather than vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek and Chaldee: hence their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Chaldee. The fact that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the language is Chaldee, but the rest Hebrew, is not an argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been composed by someone in the circumstances of Daniel, that is, by one familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with the same idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's use of both are just such as were natural to one in his circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts of Daniel which concern the whole world are mostly Chaldee, then the language of the world empire. So Greek was made the language of the New Testament, which was designed for the whole world. Those affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew; and this not so impure as that of Ezekiel. His Chaldee is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that Daniel was a true prophet. (1) That his prophecies reach beyond Antiochus; namely, he foretells the rise of the four great monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (the last not being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium), and that no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has come to pass. No fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted, as by Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon. (2) The time of Messiah's advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut off, and the destruction of the city. "He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says SIR ISAAC NEWTON, "undermines Christianity, which is founded on Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ."

CHARACTERISTICS OF DANIEL. The vision mode of revelation is the exception in other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah (Zec. 1:1-6:15), who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from the seventh chapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be called the Old Testament Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the difference above noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the world kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant-people then stood to the world powers. No longer are single powers of the world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are the chief theme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom of God, manifests itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole future from the eschatological point; but in Daniel the historical details are given of that development of the world powers which must precede the advent of the kingdom [AUBERLEN].

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity (Dan 1:1, Dan 1:21; compare Dan 9:1-2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah. Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea" (Dan 7:2) of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and Solomon, the theocracy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its climax in the Old Testament, not only being independent, but lord of the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people, instead of resting on Him, seek alliance with the world power, that very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim (722 B.C.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn into the sphere of the world's movements from the time of Ahaz, who sought Assyrian help (740 B.C., Isa. 7:1-25) at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less dependent on the world monarchies, and so, till Messiah, was favored with no revelations from the time of Malachi (four hundred years). Thus, from the beginning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world powers superseding it. But God's covenant with Israel remains firm (Rom 11:29); therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is the turning point in the history of the theocracy, which ROOS thus divides: (1) From Adam to the exodus out of Egypt. (2) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. (3) From the captivity to the millennium. (4) From the millennium to the end of the world. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was in unison with the altered relations of the theocracy and the world power, which new relation was to be the theme of his prophecy. Earlier prophets, from the standpoint of Israel, treated of Israel in its relation to the world powers; Daniel, from Babylon, the center of the then world power, treats of the world powers in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon, and his high official position there, gave him an insight into the world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political revelations; while his spiritual experiences, gained through Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation, Belshazzar's downfall, and the rapid decay of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous deliverances of himself and his friends (the third through sixth chapters), all fitted him for regarding things from the spiritual standpoint, from which the world's power appears transient, but the glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the body, the school of magicians in which he had studied for three years (Dan 1:4-5) was the soul; and his mind strong in faith and nourished by the earlier prophecies (Dan 9:2), the spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for the spirit of revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their work. AUBERLEN compares Daniel to Joseph: the one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Jewish history of revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen courts; both interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honor by the powers of the world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priesthood among the nations; and types of Christ, the true Israel, and of Israel's destination to be a light to lighten the whole Gentile world, as Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15 foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of the Hellenic people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK. Historical and biographical introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile: while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding that of the magi, represents the divine superiority of the covenant-people over their heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thereby attained, typify the giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan 7:27). Thus Daniel's personal history is the typical foundation of his prophecy. The prophets had to experience in themselves, and in their age, something of what they foretold about future times; just as David felt much of Christ's sufferings in his own person (compare Hos 1:2-11; Hos 2:3). So Jon. 1:1-17, &c. [ROOS]. Hence biographical notices of Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. The second through twelfth chapters contain the substance of the book, and consist of two parts. The first (the second through seventh chapters) represents the development of the world powers, viewed from a historical point. The second (the eighth through twelfth chapters), their development in relation to Israel, especially in the future preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But prophecy looks beyond the immediate future to the complete fulfilment in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of salvation cannot be understood except in connection with the whole. Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophecy which they needed ought therefore to comprise both, and so much of the history of the world as would elapse before the final consummation. The period of Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the theocracy at the captivity till its final restoration, yet future--the period of the dominion of the world powers, not set aside by Christ's first coming (Joh 18:36; for, to have taken the earth-kingdom then, would have been to take it from Satan's hands, Mat 4:8-10), but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His second coming (Rev 11:15). Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the world powers (the second through seventh chapters) fittingly precedes the disclosures as to the immediate future (the eighth through twelfth chapters). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in Chaldee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew; the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of the then dominant world power under which he lived; the latter, relating to the people of God, in their own language. An interpolator in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere Aramaic, so as to be understood by his contemporaries, he would have used it in the second rather than in the first part as having a more immediate reference to his own times [AUBERLEN].

JFB: Daniel (Outline)

• THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY BEGINS; DANIEL'S EDUCATION AT BABYLON, &C. (Dan. 1:1-21)
• NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM: DANIEL'S INTERPRETATION OF IT, AND ADVANCEMENT. (Dan. 2:1-49)
• NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S IDOLATROUS IMAGE; SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABED-NEGO ARE DELIVERED FROM THE FURNACE. (Dan. 3:1-30)
• EDICT OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR CONTAINING HIS SECOND DREAM, RELATING TO HIMSELF. (Dan. 4:1-37)
• BELSHAZZAR'S IMPIOUS FEAST; THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL INTERPRETED BY DANIEL OF THE DOOM OF BABYLON AND ITS KING. (Dan. 5:1-31)
• DARIUS' DECREE: DANIEL'S DISOBEDIENCE, AND CONSEQUENT EXPOSURE TO THE LION'S: HIS DELIVERANCE BY GOD, AND DARIUS' DECREE. (Dan. 6:1-28)
• VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS. (Dan. 7:1-28)
• VISION OF THE RAM AND HE-GOAT: THE TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS OF THE SANCTUARY BEING TRODDEN DOWN. (Dan. 8:1-27)
• DANIEL'S CONFESSION AND PRAYER FOR JERUSALEM: GABRIEL COMFORTS HIM BY THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. (Dan. 9:1-27)
• DANIEL COMFORTED BY AN ANGELIC VISION. (Dan. 10:1-21)
• CONCLUSION OF THE VISION (TENTH THROUGH TWELFTH CHAPTERS) AND EPILOGUE TO THE BOOK. (Dan 12:1-13)

TSK: Daniel 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Dan 2:1, Nebuchadnezzar, forgetting his dream, requires it of the Chaldeans, by promises and threatenings; Dan 2:10, They acknowledging their inability are judged to die; Dan 2:14, Daniel obtaining some respite finds the dream; Dan 2:19, He blesses God; Dan 2:24, He staying the decree is brought to the king; Dan 2:31, The dream; Dan 2:36, The interpretation; Dan 2:46, Daniel’s advancement.

Poole: Daniel (Book Introduction)

BOOK OF DANIEL

THE ARGUMENT

IN Daniel and his prophecy, observe these things for the better understanding of this book, and the mind of God in it:

1. As to the author; First, He was a prophet, as appears in the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, meaning Christ the Messiah and his kingdom, what he should do, chapter 2; likewise chapter 7 to the end of the book: the first six chapters are historical, the last six prophetical. Secondly, As to his lineage, he was one of the royal seed. Thirdly, He was a captive. Fourthly, He was rarely qualified for piety, wisdom, beauty. Fifthly, As to his education, he was trained for three years in learning. Sixthly, His advancement for his parts and wisdom. Seventhly, He was faithful and blameless in the place of honour to which he was preferred. Eighthly, His care and kindness for his companions; he procured their promotion also. Ninthly, His singular holiness and power with God in prayer, Eze 14:14 . Tenthly, His faithfulness and constancy in the worship of God, maugre the envy and persecution of his enemies. Eleventhly, The strange providence of God in his preservation and deliverance. Twelfthly, His signal integrity and flourishing state under several kings’ reigns, even in critical times and great changes, unto his old age, and beyond the seventy years of captivity.

2. AS to the book itself, both the historical and prophetical part of it, especially the latter, we find, First. Great variety in them. Secondly, Famous predictions; of the Messiah, of dreadful wars, of fearful desolations to countries, and the Jewish nation in particular, for putting Christ to death; great persecutions of the church, by the Grecians and Romans especially, in which Antiochus and antichrist are pointed at. These things are all of such weighty consideration, that our blessed Saviour calls for especial understanding in the reading even of one part of it, Mat 24:15 . His chronology and calculations may be called the key of time, relating to the church’ s sufferings and deliverances. Daniel was the greatest favourite we read of, namely, of the King of heaven, Dan 9:23 10:11 , and of the greatest kings then on earth. He was the noblest pattern of a public heart for the church of God, for whose affliction he was deeply afflicted in the midst of his court honours and employments.

Poole: Daniel 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

In this chapter are four principal parts:

I. The king’ s, dream, Dan 2:1 .

II. The wise men’ s ignorance and danger, Dan 2:2-13 .

III. The revelation and interpretation of the dream by Daniel, Dan 2:14-45 .

IV. The advancement of Daniel to great honour by that means, Dan 2:46-49 .

MHCC: Daniel (Book Introduction)

Daniel was of noble birth, if not one of the royal family of Judah. He was carried captive to Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiachin, B. C. 606, when a youth. He was there taught the learning of the Chaldeans, and held high offices, both under the Babylonian and Persian empires. He was persecuted for his religion, but was miraculously delivered; and lived to a great age, as he must have been about ninety-four years old at the time of the last of his visions. The book of Daniel is partly historical, relating various circumstances which befell himself and the Jews, at Babylon; but is chiefly prophetical, detailing visions and prophecies which foretell numerous important events relative to the four great empires of the world, the coming and death of the Messiah, the restoration of the Jews, and the conversion of the Gentiles. Though there are considerable difficulties in explaining the prophetical meaning of some passages in this book, we always find encouragement to faith and hope, examples worthy of imitation, and something to direct our thoughts to Christ Jesus upon the cross and on his glorious throne.

MHCC: Daniel 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(Dan 2:1-13) Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

(Dan 2:14-23) It is revealed to Daniel.

(Dan 2:24-30) He obtains admission to the king.

(Dan 2:31-45) The dream and the interpretation.

(Dan 2:46-49) Honours to Daniel and his friends.

Matthew Henry: Daniel (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of the Prophet Daniel

The book of Ezekiel left the affairs of Jerusalem under a doleful aspect, all in ruins, but with a joyful prospect of all in glory again. This of Daniel fitly follows. Ezekiel told us what was seen, and what was foreseen, by him in the former years of the captivity: Daniel tells us what was seen, and foreseen, in the latter years of the captivity. When God employs different hands, yet it is about the same work. And it was a comfort to the poor captives that they had first one prophet among them and then another, to show them how long, and a sign that God had not quite cast them off. Let us enquire, I. Concerning this prophet His Hebrew name was Daniel, which signifies the judgment of God; his Chaldean name was Belteshazzar. He was of the tribe of Judah, and, as it should seem, of the royal family. He was betimes eminent for wisdom and piety. Ezekiel, his contemporary, but much his senior, speaks of him as an oracle when thus he upbraids the king of Tyre with his conceitedness of himself: Thou art wiser then Daniel, Eze 38:3. He is likewise there celebrated for success in prayer, when Noah, Daniel, and Job are reckoned as three men that had the greatest interest in heaven of any, Eze 14:14. He began betimes to be famous, and continued long so. Some of the Jewish rabbin are loth to acknowledge him to be a prophet of the higher form, and therefore rank his book among the Hagiographa , not among the prophecies, and would not have their disciples pay much regard to it. One reason they pretend is because he did not live such a mean mortified life as Jeremiah and some other of the prophets did, but lived like a prince, and was a prime-minister of state; whereas we find him persecuted as other prophets were (ch. 6), and mortifying himself as other prophets did, when he ate no pleasant bread (Dan 10:3), and fainting sick when he was under the power of the Spirit of prophecy, Dan 8:27. Another reason they pretend is because he wrote his book in a heathen country, and there had his visions, and not in the land of Israel; but, for the same reason, Ezekiel also must be expunged out of the roll of prophets. But the true reason is that he speaks so plainly of the time of the Messiah's coming that the Jews cannot avoid the conviction of it and therefore do not care to hear of it. But Josephus calls him one of the greatest of the prophets, nay, the angel Gabriel calls him a man greatly beloved. He lived long an active life in the courts and councils of some of the greatest monarchs the world ever had, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius; for we mistake of we confine the privilege of an intercourse with heaven to speculative men, or those that spend their time in contemplation; no, who was more intimately acquainted with the mind of God than Daniel, a courtier, a statesman, and a man of business? The Spirit, as the wind, blows where it lists. And, if those that have much to do in the world plead that as an excuse for the infrequency and slightness of their converse with God, Daniel will condemn them. Some have thought that he returned to Jerusalem, and was one of the masters of the Greek synagogue; but nothing of that appears in scripture; it is therefore generally concluded that he died in Persia at Susan, where he lived to be very old. II. Concerning this book. The first six chapters of it are historical, and are plain and easy; the last six are prophetical, and in them are many things dark, and hard to be understood, which yet would be more intelligible if we had a more complete history of the nations, and especially the Jewish nation, from Daniel's time to the coming of the Messiah. Our Saviour intimates the difficulty of apprehending the sense of Daniel's prophecies when, speaking of them, he says, Let him that readeth understand, Mat 24:15. The first chapter, and the first three verses of the second chapter, are in Hebrew; thence to the eighth chapter is in the Chaldee dialect; and thence to the end is in Hebrew. Mr. Broughton observes that, as the Chaldeans were kind to Daniel, and gave cups of cold water to him when he requested it, rather than the king's wine, God would not have them lose their reward, but made that language which they taught him to have honour in his writings through all the world, unto this day. Daniel, according to his computation, continues the holy story from the first surprising of Jerusalem by the Chaldean Babel, when he himself was carried away captive, until the last destruction of it by Rome, the mystical Babel, for so far forward his predictions look, Dan 9:27. The fables of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, in both which Daniel is made a party, are apocryphal stories, which we think we have no reason to give any credit to, they being never found in the Hebrew or Chaldee, but only in the Greek, nor ever admitted by the Jewish church. There are some both of the histories and of the prophecies of this book that bear date in the latter end of the Chaldean monarchy, and others of both that are dated in the beginning of the Persian monarchy. But both Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which Daniel interpreted, and his own visions, point at the Grecian and Roman monarchies, and very particularly at the Jews' troubles under Antiochus, which it would be of great use to them to prepare for; as his fixing the very time for the coming of the Messiah was of use to all those that waited for the consolation of Israel, and is to us, for the confirming of our belief, That this is he who should come, and we are to look for no other.

Matthew Henry: Daniel 2 (Chapter Introduction)

It was said (Dan 1:17) that Daniel had understanding in dreams; and here we have an early and eminent instance of it, which soon made him famous in the court of Babylon, as Joseph by the same means came to be so in the court of Egypt. This chapter is a history, but it is the history of a prophecy, by a dream and the interpretation of it. Pharaoh's dream, and Joseph's interpretation of it, related only to the years of plenty and famine and the interest of God's Israel in them; but Nebuchadnezzar's dream here, and Daniel's interpretation of that, look much higher, to the four monarchies, and the concerns of Israel in them, and the kingdom of the Messiah, which should be set up in the world upon the ruins of them. In this chapter we have, I. The great perplexity that Nebuchadnezzar was put into by a dream which he had forgotten, and his command to the magicians to tell him what it was, which they could not pretend to do (Dan 2:1-11). II. Orders given for the destroying of all the wise men of Babylon, and of Daniel among the rest, with his fellows (Dan 2:12-15). III. The discovery of this secret to him, in answer to prayer, and the thanksgiving he offered up to God thereupon (Dan 2:16-23). IV. His admission to the king, and the discovery he made to him both of his dream and of the interpretation of it (v. 24-45). V. The great honour which Nebuchadnezzar put upon Daniel, in recompence for this service, and the preferment of his companions with him (Dan 2:46-49).

Constable: Daniel (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Background

In 605 B.C. Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon's victory, Egypt's vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 B.C. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon (Dan. 1:1-3) including Daniel, whose name means "God is my judge" or "God is judging" or "God will judge," plus some of the vessels from Solomon's temple (2 Chron. 36:7). This was the first of Judah's three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1-4).

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p27dan-1@

Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 B.C. Jehoichin reigned only three months and 10 days (2 Chron. 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 B.C., he took Jehoichin to Babylon along with most of Judah's remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2 Kings 24:10-17; 2 Chron. 36:10).

A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 B.C. Jehoikim's younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah's puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon's sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer. 37-38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king's eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2 Kings 24:18-25:24).

Scope

Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 B.C. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of chapter 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 B.C. (1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 B.C. (10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.

Writer

There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 B.C. or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel's life. What makes Daniel's authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.

Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (8:1; 9:2, 20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf. Exod. 20:2, 7).¹

Externally the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of this book as the writing of Daniel (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). The Jews believed that Daniel was its writer from its earliest appearance. The early church father Jerome argued for Daniel's authorship against a contemporary critic of his, Porphyry, who contended that someone composed it about 165 B.C. and claimed that he was Daniel.

The Jews placed Daniel in the Writings section of their Bible.² They did this because Daniel was not a prophet in the sense in which the other Hebrew prophets were. He functioned as a prophet and wrote inspired Scripture, but he was a government official, an administrator in a Gentile land, rather than an official prophet.

"For though Christ spoke of Daniel's function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30)."³

In contrast to Ezekiel, his contemporary in Babylon, Daniel lived and worked among Gentiles primarily, whereas Ezekiel live and ministered among the Israelites.⁴

The Greek and Latin translators of Daniel placed this book among the other major prophets in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions because of its prophetic content. That tradition influenced the scholars who produced our English versions.

Date

The dating of this book is one of the most controversial subjects in the field of Old Testament Introduction. The controversy is not due to the obscurity of evidence but to the presuppositions of critics.

It is quite easy to determine when Daniel lived and ministered because of the many historical references in this book. His fellow prophet Ezekiel also referred to him (cf. Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). However because the book contains prophecies that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled in the second century B.C. many rationalistic critics who deny that the Bible contains predictive prophecy have said that Daniel could not have written it. They contend that it must have been written after Antiochus, namely, about 165 B.C. However there are many evidences within the book itself that point to its origin in the sixth century B.C.⁵ This modern criticism follows Porphyry's view. However no significant writer espoused a late date for the book after Jerome refuted Porphyry until the eighteenth century A.D. J. D. Michaelis revived Porphyry's theory in 1771, and it took root in the rationalistic intellectual soil of the Enlightenment. Since then many scholars who disbelieve in predictive prophecy have insisted that this book must have been the product of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Liberal critics still consider the late dating of Daniel to be one of the most assured results of modern scholarship. Nevertheless there is ample evidence in the book itself that Daniel wrote it and that it dates from the sixth century B.C.⁶

"One who claims that the book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it purports to be. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees, I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery, for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during the exile."⁷

Languages

Daniel is one of the few books in the Old Testament that was originally written in two different languages. One was Aramaic (also known as Chaldee or Syriac), the common language of the ancient Near East, and the other was Hebrew.⁸ The Aramaic portions deal with matters pertaining to all the citizens of the Babylonian and Persian empires whereas the Hebrew sections describe predominantly Jewish concerns and God's plans for Israel. Probably Daniel wrote the Aramaic sections for the benefit of his Gentile neighbors, and he wrote the whole book for the Jews who could read both languages.

Purpose

To the interested observer of Israel's fortunes in Daniel's time, it seemed that Yahweh had either become impotent or had abandoned His chosen people. The gods of Assyria and Babylon had apparently triumphed over Him. His temple lay in ruins, His capital had been ravaged and stood empty and vulnerable, and His people were living as unhappy captives in a foreign land.

At such a time as this, God revealed His supernatural power. He did so to demonstrate that He is the one true God and that He is still sovereign over the affairs of humanity and history. He manifested his power to the supreme rulers of Babylon and Persia that they might know that He governs over all from heaven. This was a time in Israel's history similar to the time just before the Exodus. Israel was in captivity, and Israel's God was in disgrace. Daniel contains proof of God's sovereignty, which the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea demonstrated to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Daniel, as Exodus, relates several "contests" between false gods and Yahweh in which Israel's God proves to be the only true and living God. Like Daniel, Esther also shows God working for His people during a period of their divine discipline.

"The predominant message is that God's people will experience suffering and be threatened with extinction, but that will not be the end of the story because their God is the living and all-powerful God who will get glory by vindicating His name and who will save them."⁹

"Daniel's purpose in writing blended the two themes of prophecy and piety. He wrote first to show God's future program for the nation of Israel (in light of her fall) during and after the times of the Gentiles.' Second, he wrote to show what the believers' present response should be as they await the coming kingdom of God. Daniel encouraged his readers to remain faithful to God in a hostile society while they waited for God's promised kingdom."¹⁰

Theology

Theologically the book stresses the sovereignty of God.

"The absolute sovereignty and transcendence of God above all angels and men literally permeates the book."¹¹

"The theme running through the whole book is that the fortunes of kings and the affairs of men are subject to God's decrees, and that he is able to accomplish his will despite the most determined opposition of the mightiest potentates on earth."¹²

"The collapse and fall of both Israel and Judah notwithstanding, the book of Daniel makes crystal clear that the Lord God remains absolutely sovereign over human affairs. This is apparent in the present, despite political and religious conditions that might suggest otherwise, and in the future, when there would be no doubt in anyone's mind."¹³

The miracles recorded in chapters 1-6 show God's sovereignty at work for His people. The prophecies in chapters 7-12 show His sovereignty over the Gentile nations and Israel by unveiling what He will do with them far into the future. Especially the period that Jesus Christ referred to as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) is the focus of this revelation.

"The times of the Gentiles is that extended period of time in which the land given in covenant by God to Abraham and his descendants is occupied by Gentile powers and the Davidic throne is empty of any rightful heir in the Davidic line. The times of the Gentiles, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Jerusalem in 605 B.C., will continue till the Messiah returns. Then Christ will subdue nations, deliver the land of Israel from its Gentile occupants, and bring the nation Israel into her covenanted blessings in the millennial kingdom."¹⁴

These prophecies also reveal the fulfillment of God's great redemptive plan that began at the Fall and will culminate in the return and reign of the Son of Man on the earth.

A third theological emphasis is the power of prayer. God's working in response to His people's prayers is evident everywhere in this book, particularly in the first six chapters and in chapters 9 and 10.

Another theological theme is the indomitable grace of God. Even though the Jews had failed Him miserably, God revealed that He had not cast off His people Israel. He was disciplining them presently, but He has a future for them as a nation (cf. Rom. 11:29). Furthermore He will fulfill His promises to the patriarchs regarding Gentile blessing too.

Genre

Daniel is a book of prophecy.

"Among the great prophetic books of Scripture, none provides a more comprehensive and chronological prophetic view of the broad movement of history than the book of Daniel. Of the three prophetic programs revealed in Scripture, outlining the course of the nations, Israel, and the church, Daniel alone reveals the details of God's plan for both the nations and Israel. Although other prophets like Jeremiah had much to say to the nations and Israel, Daniel brings together and interrelates these great themes of prophecy as does no other portion of Scripture. For this reason, the book of Daniel is essential to the structure of prophecy and is the key to the entire Old Testament prophetic revelation. A study of this book is, therefore, not only important from the standpoint of determining the revelation of one of the great books of the Old Testament but is an indispensable preliminary investigation to any complete eschatological system."¹⁵

"In NT prophecy Daniel is referred to more than any other OT book. Moreover, it contains more fulfilled prophecies than any other book in the Bible."¹⁶

"In many respects, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament, giving the only total view of world history from Babylon to the second advent of Christ and interrelating Gentile history and prophecy with that which concerns Israel. Daniel provides the key to the overall interpretation of prophecy, is a major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God has brought assurance to Jew and Gentile alike that God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity."¹⁷

Daniel is one of three Old Testament books that is apocalyptic. The apocalyptic sections are chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12. The other two books are Ezekiel (37:1-14; 40:1-48:35) and Zechariah (1:7-6:8). In the New Testament, Revelation is the only apocalyptic book.¹⁸ Apocalyptic literature is a particular genre (literary type).

"Apocalyptic literature is symbolic visionary prophetic literature, composed during oppressive conditions, consisting of visions whose events are recorded exactly as they were seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter, and whose theological content is primarily eschatological."¹⁹

"The book of Daniel is unquestionably the key to all biblical prophecy. It is the great apocalyptic book of the Old Testament, whereas Revelation is that of the New Testament. Passages such as Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21, and the book of Revelation are unintelligible without a knowledge of the book of Daniel."²⁰

"No one who has reverently studied the book of Daniel in the context of the completed Scriptures can deny the crucial contribution of this book to God's complete prophetic revelation. Our Lord spoke often of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 5:3; Dan. 2:44) and of Himself as the son of man' (Matt. 26:64; Dan. 7:13-14). Looking toward His second coming to the earth, He referred to a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now' (Matt. 24:21; cf. Dan. 12:1), and to the abomination of desolation' that will stand in the Temple (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27; 12:11). The apostle Paul also referred to this work of the man of lawlessness' (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Dan. 7:25; 11:36-39) but rejoiced that someday the saints will judge the world' (1 Cor. 6:1; Dan. 7:18, 22, 27)."²¹

Message²²

The Book of Daniel contains many unique and significant emphases. I would like to point out some of these first before we organize them into an explanation of what God has given us this book to reveal.

Theologically Daniel stresses the sovereignty of God. Specifically it shows that God is wise enough and powerful enough to control and to create history.

Philosophically Daniel reveals the course and the culmination of good and evil throughout human history.

Hermeneutically we see that God teaches His people what will happen in the future by helping them to appreciate what has happened in the past. In other words, we learn to understand the future by studying the past. The future builds on the past and is an extension of the past.

Pedagogically we observe that God teaches us by going from the simple to the complex, from the known to the unknown. This applies as we look back on history, and it applies as we look forward in prophecy. For example, God gave Daniel simple visions first and then more complex ones later that built on the earlier ones. The first vision in Daniel is the most simple to interpret, and the last one is the most difficult to interpret.

Temporally the book proceeds from what happened in the past to what will happen in the future. Some students of the book divide it into two parts: history (chs. 1-6), and prophecy (chs. 7-12). This illustrates how the content of this book moves generally from past events to future events.

Anthropologically Daniel deals with two groups of people that occupy planet earth in time: Israel and the Gentiles. Some students of the book, including myself, prefer to divide it into three parts. We believe that the languages that Daniel wrote in reflect his emphases on revelation stressing particularly Gentiles or Jews in the various sections of the book.

Chronologically the revelation in Daniel advances from the present, to the near future, to the far future from Daniel's perspective. Even liberal students of the book admit this. From Daniel's perspective in history, some of what God revealed to him involved what was past, and some was future. From our perspective, we can see that what God revealed was not just past and future for him but past, near future, and far future.

Now with this background, let us turn to the major revelations in the Book of Daniel. The contrasts are observational; they help us see what is here clearly. The major revelations are interpretational; they help us understand what is here clearly. I am now going to suggest what is significant about what we observe. There are essentially two major revelations.

The first major revelation is that Yahweh is sovereign in history. By history I mean what is past. In Daniel, God has proved that He is the ultimate ruler of the world by the way things turned out in the past. Half the book deals with history; the other half, generally speaking, deals with prophecy.

God has revealed much evidence in this book that He is sovereign over history, that He has made it turn out the way He has wanted it to turn out. We find this evidence particularly in the record of the three rulers in chapters 1-6.

We have the most evidence in the record of Nebuchadnezzar.

In the first chapter we read, "The Lord (Adonai) gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his [Nebuchadnezzar's] hand" (1:2). All the events of chapter 1, beginning with Daniel's insignificance in Judah and his quick rise to great significance in Babylon, demonstrate God's sovereignty in the past.

In chapter 2, we have the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's image that gets crushed by a stone that flies at it from heaven. This revelation teaches that all the kingdoms of the earth are subject to the kingdom of heaven. Daniel's own testimony to God's sovereignty in 2:20-22 expresses the main point of this dream, which the most powerful king in the ancient world received from God.

In chapter 3, we see how God takes care of people who acknowledge His sovereignty, namely Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.

In chapter 4 we see how He takes care of people who do not, namely Nebuchadnezzar. Learning who is the ultimate authority and responding appropriately to Him is extremely important for all human beings.

Belshazzar was the second king through whom God revealed His sovereignty (ch. 5). Belshazzar could not read the handwriting on the wall, but Daniel could. The God of heaven had evaluated the king on earth, had found him deficient, and had decided to replace him. What a demonstration of Yahweh's sovereignty we have in this chapter!

The third king was Darius (ch. 6). When Darius visited the lion's den early in the morning, he voiced a question that all people have asked. The Jews of Daniel's day, whom their Gentile enemies had wrenched from the land that Yahweh had promised them and given them, were asking this question. Darius said, "Has your God, whom you constantly serve, been able to deliver you from the lion's mouth?" (6:20). Remember that the lion was a symbol of Babylon (7:4). Daniel's reply testified to Yahweh's sovereignty: "My God . . . shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me" (6:22). This is the historical evidence of Yahweh's sovereignty that provided a base of confidence for the prophet, and for the reader, to believe that He is sovereign over the future too.

How were Daniel and his three friends able to perceive the fact that God is sovereign when most people did not? There are three keys to their spiritual perception that this book identifies for our education.

First, they separated themselves unto God and His will. Daniel did this in chapter 1. We read that his three friends did it in chapter 3.

Second, in response to their choice to separate to His will God gave them the ability to understand His will (1:20; 3:30).

Third, the outcome of their decision and God's provision was the glorification of God publicly (3:28-29; 4:34-35; 6:25-27).

Notice also how God communicated the fact of His sovereignty to Daniel and through him to others. Notice His methods.

First, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's wisdom manifest through His own servants in their ability to interpret dreams and visions that no one else could interpret (1:20; 2:10; 5:11-12). The Jews who returned to the land to reestablish life there needed this wisdom, and God's provision of it to Daniel and his friends would have encouraged them.

Second, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's power manifest through His own servants in His care of them (1:15, 21; 2:48-49; 3:24-26, 30; 5:29; 6:28). The many instances in which God protected His own who had committed themselves to following Him faithfully would have encouraged Daniel's contemporaries particularly. They encourage us too.

A second major revelation of the Book of Daniel is God's sovereignty in the future. He has shown us that He is sovereign over the past in history, and now He asks us to believe that He is sovereign over the future in prophecy. The foci of prophecy in this book are three.

The first general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Gentiles. We might speak of this as humanity in general. He told us how He would direct the affairs of Gentile world powers in the future.

He did this by comparing nations to the parts of an image of a person and to various beasts. What He showed Daniel about Gentile world powers under the image of the man (ch. 2) revealed their external manifestations primarily: their relative power and glory. What He showed Daniel about them under the figures of beasts (chs. 7 and 8) revealed their internal character primarily: their haughtiness, brutality, aggressiveness, vileness, etc. Notice that these were all beasts and birds of prey symbolizing their hostility toward one another.

The second general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Israelites. This is a particular element within humanity, namely Israel. God also told us how He would direct the affairs of His chosen people in the future.

Essentially He did this in two stages both of which were future from Daniel's perspective in history but only one of which is future from our perspective. The first stage, or near future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a great persecution under a Greek ruler, namely Antiochus Epiphanes (9:23-26; 11:2-35). This persecution happened in the second century B.C. The second stage, or far future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a greater persecution under a Roman ruler, namely the Antichrist (9:27; 11:36-45). This would happen in the far future.

Daniel struggled to understand this revelation because the two antagonists were both future from his perspective. God did not specify that they would be separate individuals. We can understand this revelation more easily than Daniel could because one antagonist has appeared and the other has not yet appeared. Similarly the Old Testament prophets struggled to understand God's revelation about the two advents of Christ (Isa. 61:1-2). From our perspective we now understand that He had always predicted two advents of Messiah and that we live between them.

The third general subject of prophecy in Daniel is God Himself. As I have mentioned, it is God's sovereign control over time and space that He stressed in the Book of Daniel. However, two sub-revelations help us appreciate Yahweh's sovereignty, namely His wisdom and His power.

Absolute sovereignty demands perfect wisdom and limitless power. We can see God's perfect wisdom in His insight into the course of history and in His ability to impart that wisdom (insight) to His prophet. We can see God's limitless power in His setting up and taking down Gentile kingdoms and in His delegating great worldly power to His prophet.

We come now to the "so what" of the book. We have observed several important characteristics of this book and have pointed out the significant major revelation. We have done observation and interpretation of the book as a whole, so now we will do application. What effect did God intend that this book should have on the readers, the original Jewish readers of Daniel's day and us in our day? Let me suggest three applications.

First, we must apply the revelation that God is sovereign by acknowledging it and by submitting to Him. We need to know that God is sovereign, to have an unshakable conviction that God is in control, to believe that He is the ultimate ruler over all the affairs of humankind. The Book of Daniel can strengthen this belief in us. However, we must not just reckon this fact as true. We must also yield ourselves to Him as Daniel and His three friends did. If He is sovereign, then we must submit to His will. His slightest wish must be for us a command. We must live according to His revealed will.

Second, as we submit to His sovereignty we can understand what is going on in history. In this book God has revealed that He is guiding the course of evil to its end, which is destruction. He has also revealed that He is guiding the course of good to its end, which is victory.

Some people are saying that the days in which we live are the most wonderful that the world has ever seen. The world is getting better and better, and utopia is just around the corner. With just a few more modifications, we can realize a world order that will surpass anything in the past.

Other people say the world is getting worse and worse. Crime and violence are running rampant. We are just the push of a button away from extinction as a race. Which is true?

Daniel reveals that both are true. If both are true, we seem to be headed for a crisis, a final conflict between the forces of good and evil. Daniel reveals that that crisis is coming. It also tells us what the outcome of that conflict will be. God will intervene in history to terminate evil and to establish good. The stone from heaven will crush the image that represents Gentile world dominion.

Third, how should we then live? We should live as Daniel and his three friends did. We should separate ourselves unto God and His will. We should receive inspiration to persevere from the insight that He has given to us in this revelation. Moreover we should worship the sovereign God of the universe who, in His infinite wisdom and power, will eventually raise His own to everlasting life and reward them with participation in His coming kingdom (12:2-3, 13).

Constable: Daniel (Outline)

Outline

I. The character of Daniel ch. 1

A. Historical background 1:1-2

B. Nebuchadnezzar's training program for promising youths 1:3-7

C. Daniel's resolve to please Yahweh 1:8-13

D. The success of the test 1:14-16

E. God's blessing of Daniel and his friends 1:17-21

II. The Times of the Gentiles: God's program for the world chs. 2-7

A. Nebuchadnezzar's first dream: the big picture ch. 2

1. The king's dream 2:1-3

2. The failure of the king's wise men 2:4-13

3. Daniel's request for time 2:14-16

4. Daniel's reception of a revelation and his thanksgiving 2:17-23

5. Daniel's appearance before Nebuchadnezzar 2:24-30

6. What Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream 2:31-35

7. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream 2:36-45

8. The consequences of Daniel's interpretation 2:46-49

B. Nebuchadnezzar's golden image ch. 3

1. The worship of Nebuchadnezzar's statue 3:1-7

2. The charge against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:8-12

3. The response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:13-18

4. The execution of the king's command 3:19-23

5. God's deliverance of His servants 3:24-27

6. The consequences of God's deliverance 3:28-30

C. Nebuchadnezzar's pride and humbling ch. 4

1. Nebuchadnezzar's introductory doxology 4:1-3

2. The king's frustration over his second dream 4:4-8

3. Nebuchadnezzar's account of his dream 4:9-18

4. Daniel's interpretation 4:19-27

5. The fulfillment of threatened discipline 4:28-33

6. Nebuchadnezzar's restoration 4:34-37

D. Belshazzar's feast ch. 5

1. Belshazzar's dishonoring of Yahweh 5:1-4

2. God's revelation to Belshazzar 5:5-9

3. The queen's counsel 5:10-12

4. Belshazzar's request of Daniel 5:13-16

5. Daniel's rebuke of Belshazzar 5:17-24

6. Daniel's interpretation of the writing 5:25-28

7. Daniel's rise and Belshazzar's fall 5:29-31

E. Darius' pride and Daniel's preservation ch. 6

1. Daniel's promotion in the Persian government 6:1-3

2. The conspiracy against Daniel 6:4-9

3. Daniel's faithfulness and Darius' predicament 6:10-15

4. Daniel in the lions' den 6:16-18

5. Daniel's deliverance and his enemies' destruction 6:19-24

6. Darius' decree and praise of Yahweh 6:25-28

F. Daniel's vision of future world history ch. 7

1. The four beasts 7:1-8

2. The Ancient of Days and the destruction of the fourth beast 7:9-12

3. The Son of Man's kingdom 7:13-14

4. The interpretation of the four beasts 7:15-18

5. Daniel's request for interpretation of the fourth beast 7:19-22

6. The interpretation of the fourth beast 7:23-25

7. The end of the fourth beast and the beginning of the everlasting kingdom 7:26-28

III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8-12

A. Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat ch. 8

1. The setting of the vision 8:1

2. The ram 8:2-4

3. The goat 8:5-8

4. The little horn on the goat 8:9-14

5. The interpretation of this vision 8:15-26

6. The result of this vision 8:27

B. Daniel's vision of the 70 sevens ch. 9

1. Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's restoration and Daniel's response 9:1-3

2. Daniel's prayer of confession 9:4-14

3. Daniel's petition for restoration 9:15-19

4. God's response to Daniel's prayer 9:20-23

5. The revelation of Israel's future in 70 sevens 9:24-27

C. Daniel's most detailed vision of the future chs. 10-12

1. Daniel's preparation to receive the vision 10:1-11:1

2. The near future 11:2-35

3. The distant future 11:36-12:4

4. The end of Israel's trials 12:5-13

This outline reflects the linguistic divisions of the book, chapters 1 and 8-12 having been written in Hebrew, and chapters 2-7 in Aramaic.

Many students of the book simply divide it into two parts.

I. The history of Daniel chs. 1-6

II. The prophecies of Daniel chs. 7-12

Constable: Daniel

Daniel

Bibliography

Albright, William F. From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday Press, Anchor Books, 1957.

Aalders, G. C. Daniel. Koorte Verklaring servies. The Netherlands: Kampen, 1965.

Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1967.

Alexander, J. B. "New Light on the Fiery Furnace." Journal of Biblical Literature 69:4 (December 1950):375-76.

Alexander, Ralph H. "Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. 14th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Daniel." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

_____. "Old Testament History and Recent Archeology From the Exile to Malachi." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):291-98.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1964. Revised ed. 1974.

Armerding, Carl. "Russia and the King of the North." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):50-55.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel, An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Barker, Kenneth L. "Evidence from Daniel." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 135-46. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Bevan, Anthony Ashley. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: University Press, 1892.

Boutflower, Charles. In and Around the Book of Daniel. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing Co., 1977.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas Myers. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852.

Campbell, Donald K. Daniel: Decoder of Dreams. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1977.

Charles, Robert Henry. The Book of Daniel. The New Century Bible series. New York: H. Frowde, Oxford University, n.d.

Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. London: Dent, 1983.

Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.

Cumont, F. "La Plus Ancienne geographie astrologique." Klio 9 (1909):263-73.

Darby, John Nelson. Studies in the Book of Daniel. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Dennett, Edward. Daniel the Prophet: And The Times of the Gentiles Reprint ed. Denver: Wilson Foundation, 1967.

Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Daniel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Dyer, Charles H. "The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):426-36.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1981.

Ferguson, Paul. "Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the Babylonian Job.'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):321-31.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing House, 1978.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Prophet Daniel. New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentaries series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gurney, R. "the Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7." Themelios 2 (1977):39-45.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Herodotus. History of the Persian Wars. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Carey. New York: Harper Publishers, 1889.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hoehner, Harold W. "Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):47-65.

Humphreys, W. L. "A Life-style for Diaspora." Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973):211-23.

Ironside, Harry A. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; A. R. Fausset; and David Brown. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeffery, Arthur. "The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis." In The Interpreter's Bible. 6 vols. Edited by George A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951.

Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. Against Apion. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Translated by M. G. Easton. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Book of Daniel. 2nd ed. London: G. Morrish, 1881.

King, Geoffrey R. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Aramaic in Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 31-79. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Kraeling, Emil G. Rand McNally Bible Atlas. New York, Chicago, and San Francisco: Rand McNally & Co., 1956.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80. Reprint ed. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 7: Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets, by W. J. Schröder, et al.

Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: The author, 1929.

Lehmann, Paul. The Transfiguration of Politics. London: SCM Press, 1975.

Leupold, Herbert Carl. Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1949; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.

Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1923.

McClain, Alva J. Daniel's Prophecies of the Seventy Weeks. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1940.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 211-25. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

_____. "A Theology of Ezekiel and Daniel." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 365-95. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Mitchell, T. C., and R. Joyce. "The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 19-27. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962 ed. S.v. "Belshazzar," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. S.v. "Ophir," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. S.v. "Uphaz," by D. J. Wiseman.

New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Olmstead, A. T. The History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Oppenheim, A. L. "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179-373.

Patterson, Richard D. "Holding on to Daniel's Court Tales." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):445-54.

Pember, George Hawkins. The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "Daniel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1323-75. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

Peretti, Frank E. Piercing the Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989.

_____. Prophet. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992.

_____. This Present Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1986.

Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Revised ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Pusey, Edward B. Daniel the Prophet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885.

Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 1961.

Rowley, Harold Henry. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales, 1959.

_____. "The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel." Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12-31.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seiss, Joseph A. Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1879.

Shea, William H. "Darius the Mede: An Update." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229-47.

_____. "The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel's Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):97-105.

_____. "Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):89-96.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Charles R. "The Book of Life." Grace Theological Journal 6:2 (Fall 1985):219-30.

Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850.

Talbot, Louis T. The Prophecies of Daniel. 3rd ed. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Thomas, D. W., ed. Documents from Old Testament Times. London/New York: Thomas Nelson, 1958.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):254-62.

Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel. 7th ed. London: Sovereign Grace, 1965.

Unger's Bible Dictionary. 1957. S.v. "Shushan," by Merrill F. Unger.

Van Sickle, C. E. A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World. 2 vols. N.c.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1947 & 1948.

Waltke, Bruce K. "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):319-29.

Walton, John H. "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):25-36.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

_____. The Nations in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

_____. "Revival of Rome." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):317-28.

West, Nathaniel. Daniel's Great Prophecy. New York: Hope of Israel, 1898.

Whitcomb, John Clement. Daniel. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

_____. Darius the Mede. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Wilson, Robert Dick. Studies in the Book of Daniel. New York: Putnam, 1917.

_____. "The Title king of Persia' in the Scriptures." Princeton Theological Review 15 (1917):90-145.

Wiseman, Donald J. The Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.

_____. "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 9-18. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Wood, Leon. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949.

Yuzon, Lourdino A. "The Kingdom of God in Daniel." South East Asia Journal of Theology 19 (1978):23-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. S.v. "Book of Daniel," by J. Barton Payne.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Daniel (Book Introduction)

THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL.

INTRODUCTION.

DANIEL, whose name signifies "the judgment of God," was of the royal blood of the kings of Juda, and one of those that were first of all carried away into captivity. He was so renowned for his wisdom and knowledge, that it became a proverb among the Babylonians, "as wise as Daniel;" (Ezechiel xxviii. 3.) and his holiness was so great from his very childhood, that at the time when he was as yet but a young man, he is joined by the Spirit of God with Noe[Noah] and Job, as three persons most eminent for virtue and sanctity. (Ezechiel xiv.) He is not commonly numbered by the Hebrews among the prophets, because he lived at court, and in high station in the world: but if we consider his many clear predictions of things to come, we shall find that no one better deserves the name and title of a prophet; which also has been given him by the Son of God himself. (Matthew xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke xxi.) (Challoner) --- The ancient Jews ranked him among the greatest prophets. (Josephus, Antiquities x. 12., and 1 Machabees ii. 59.) Those who came after Christ began to make frivolous exceptions, because he so clearly pointed out the coming of our Saviour, (Theodoret) that Porphyrius has no other method of evading this authority except by saying, that the book was written under Epiphanes after the event of many of the predictions. (St. Jerome) --- But this assertion is contrary to all antiquity. Some parts have indeed been questioned, which are found only in Greek. They must, however, have sometime existed in Hebrew or Chaldee else how should we have the version of Theodotion, which the Church has substituted instead of the Septuagint as that copy was become very incorrect, and is now lost? (Calmet) --- Some hopes of its recovery are nevertheless entertained; and its publication, at Rome, has been announced. (Kennicott.) --- In a title, it seems to make the Daniel visited by Habacuc, a priest; but it is abandoned. (Calmet) --- This version of course proves that the original was formerly known; and the loss of it, at present, is no more decisive against the authenticity of these pieces, that that of St. Matthew's Hebrew original, and of the Chaldee of Judith, &c. will evince that their works are spurious. (Haydock) ---Extracts of (Calmet) Aquila and Symmachus seen by St. Jerome, (Worthington) are also given in the Hexapla. Origen has answered the objections of Africanus, respecting the history of Susanna; and his arguments are equally cogent, when applied to the other contested works. The Jews and Christians were formerly both divided in their sentiments about these pieces. (Calmet) See St. Jerome in Jeremias xxix. 12. and xxxii. 44. --- But now as the Church ( the pillar of truth ) has spoken, all farther controversy ought to cease; (Haydock) and we should follow the precept, Remove not the landmarks which thy fathers have placed. (Deuteronomy xix. 14.) See N. Alex. [Alexander Noel] t. ii. St. Jerome, who sometimes calls these pieces "fables," explains himself, by observing, that he had delivered "not his own sentiments," but those of the Jews: quid illi contra nos dicere soleant. (Calmet) --- If he really denied their authority, his opinion ought not to outweigh that of so many other (Haydock) Fathers and Councils who receive them. They admit all the parts, as the Council of Trent expressly requires us to do. See St. Cyprian, &c., also the observations prefixed to Tobias, (Worthington) and p. 597. (Haydock) --- Paine remarks that Daniel and Ezechiel only pretended to have visions, and carried on an enigmatical correspondence relative to the recovery of their country. But this deserves no refutation. By allowing that their works are genuine, he cuts up the very root of his performance. (Watson) --- Daniel, according to Sir Isaac Newton, resembles the Apocalypse (as both bring us to the end of the Roman empire) and is "the most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and therefore, in those things that relate to the last times, he must be made a key to the rest." (Bp. Newton.) --- Yet there are many difficulties which require a knowledge of history; (St. Jerome; Worthington) and we must reflect on the words of Christ, He that readeth, let him understand. (Matthew xxiv. 15.) Daniel (Haydock) is supposed to have died at court, (Calmet) aged 110, having written many things of Christ. (Worthington) --- His name is not prefixed to his book, yet as Prideaux observes, he sufficiently shews himself in the sequel to be the author. (Haydock)

Gill: Daniel (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL

This book is called, in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Daniel"; and in the Syriac and Arabic versions "the Prophecy of Daniel the Prophet". This Daniel was of the children of Judah, that were carried captive into Babylon with Jehoiakim; and was of princely blood, if not of the royal seed, as appears from, Dan 1:3. Josephus ^a is express for it, that he was of the kindred and family of Zedekiah: and Saadiah Gaon ^b says he was of the seed of Hezekiah, and so fulfilled the prophecy in 2Ki 20:18. As to what the author of the "Lives of the Prophets", ascribed to Epiphanius, says ^c, that he was born in upper Bethabara, not far from Jerusalem, it is not to be depended on; or that his father's name was Sabaam, according to a tradition mentioned by the true Epiphanius ^d. The Jews ^e would have it that this book was not written by Daniel himself, but by the men of the great synagogue; though it is evident, from the book itself, that Daniel is the writer of it, as from Dan 7:1. That he wrote books, which were received, read, and believed by the Jews as of God, is affirmed by Josephus ^f; and the Jews in general acknowledge that this book was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not by prophecy; they, without any foundation, distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and prophecy. And so Maimonides says ^g, it is the general consent of their nation, that this book is among the holy writings, but not among the Prophets; nor will they allow Daniel to be a prophet: the reasons they give are frivolous; what seems to have induced them to degrade him is the manifest prophecy of the time of the Messiah's coming in this book, which sometimes they are obliged to own is fixed in it. They tell us a story of Jonathan ben Uzziel, that having finished his paraphrase of the Prophets, thought to have wrote one on the Hagiographa, or holy writings, among which they place the book of Daniel; but was forbid by "Bath Kol", or a voice from heaven, giving this as a reason, because that in it is contained the end of the Messiah ^h, the precise time of his coming; and the gloss on the passage adds, by way of explanation,

"in the book of Daniel;''

though elsewhere they would have it, that after it was made known to Daniel, it was taken away from him. For so, they say ⁱ, there are two men to whom the end was revealed, and afterwards it was hidden from them; and these are they, Jacob and Daniel: from Daniel, according to Dan 12:4, "but thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book &c.", from Jacob, Gen 49:1, "that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days". Yet the prophecy of Daniel was so clear, with respect to the time of the Messiah's coming, that one of their Rabbins, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, asserted that the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be deferred longer than those fifty years ^k; and a most glaring prophecy it is, and sufficient to denominate Daniel a prophet, as well as many more contained in this book. And, after all, Maimonides himself owns, that he, and the other writers of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, may be called prophets in general. And Aben Ezra observes of Daniel, in his preface, that he delivered out prophecies of things now past, and of things to come; yea, he expressly calls him a prophet on Dan 1:17. And Jacchiades, another of their commentators on this book, says that he attained to the highest degree of prophecy. To which may be added the testimony of Josephus ^l, who says he was one of the greatest prophets, and to be preferred to others; since he not only predicted things future, but fixed the time when they should come to pass. And, above all, and what should satisfy us Christians, he is expressly called a prophet by our Lord, Mat 24:15. There are no other authentic writings of Daniel, which bear his name; the stories of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, which make the "thirteenth" and "fourteenth" chapters in the Greek of Theodotion, and in the Vulgate Latin version, are apocryphal and spurious. The Oriental writers make Daniel the author of a volume, entitled, "Principles relating to the Explanation of Dreams". And there is another book in the king of France's library, with this title, "Odmath-al-mantoul ân Daniel al-nabi"; which contains predictions of the Prophet Daniel, received by tradition from him. This is a book which abounds with falsities, forged by the Mahometans, and founded on the real prophecies of Daniel ^m. This book, written by him, is partly historical, relating facts in which he was concerned; and partly prophetic, of things that should happen from his time to the end of the world, and especially of the Messiah and his kingdom; and it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. This great man, as he was both in nature and grace, in religion and politics, lived throughout the captivity, but does not seem ever to have returned into Judea; but continued in the courts of the kings of the Medes and Persians, to take care of the affairs of his people the Jews. Where he died, and was buried, is not certain. Some say in Babylon; and others, which is more likely, at Susa on the Tigris, where he was in the third year of Cyrus, Dan 10:1. So says Abulfeda ⁿ; with which agrees the account of Benjamin of Tudela ^o.

Gill: Daniel 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 2

The subject of this chapter is a dream which Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed, but had forgot; upon which he calls his magicians and astrologers together, to tell him it, and the interpretation of it; threatening them with death if they did not, and promising them great rewards and honour if they did, Dan 2:1, they urge the unreasonableness of the demand, and the impossibility of the thing; which so highly incensed the king, that he ordered their immediate destruction, Dan 2:7, Daniel and his companions being in danger, he goes in to the king, and desires time, and he would show him what he had dreamed; which being granted, he spent it in prayer to God, Dan 2:14, and the thing being revealed to him, he gave thanks to God, Dan 2:19, and being introduced to the king, he both told him his dream, and the interpretation of it; which concerned the four monarchies of the world, and the everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, Dan 2:24, upon which he was highly honoured, and greatly promoted by the king, Dan 2:46.