Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 2 (2.1-49)

Chapter 2:You Can’t Keep A Good Man Down(Or A Bad Man Up)

2.1-49: Text and translation

Shorter translational notes are footnoted. Where a ‘+’ sign appears, fur-ther translational notes can be found below (“2.1-49: Further transla-tional notes”).

2.1 למלכות M¢ש תי ובש נ®תנ�בuכד�נªצר Mחל נ�בuכד�נªצר

וש Éתו רוחו Mו®תתפע חל·מותעליו;! נ¢הי�תה

In the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign,Nebuchadnezzar dreamt dreams, as a result ofwhich his spirit was left shaken and his sleep failedhim.1

2.2 Mמיuלחר�ט לקר¸א המל� ו®י¸אמרMו�לכש ד£י Mו�למכ� פי Mפיµ�ו�לא

ו®י³ב¸או חל·מתיו למל� להג¢ידהמל�;! לפנ¦י ו®י®עמדו

So the King gave orders for theinterpreters-of-dreams, practitioners-of-incantations,sorcerers, and astrologers2 to be called [in] to tellthe King [about] his dreams, and they came andstood before the King.

2.3 Mחלו המל� Mלה ו®י¸אמרלד¯עת רוחי Mו®תפע חלמתי

!;MהחלוÊאת

‘I have dreamt a dream’, the King said to them, ‘andmy spirit is anxious to know [about] the dream’.

1. The constr. «HYY»(N) + calayw is unusual, but similar syntax occurs in 6.18 (in Aram.) and 10.8, anda similar sense of «HYY»(N) occurs in 8.27, where Daniel describes his ‘spent’ physical condition (Be-van XXXX:XXX, Montgomery 1927:XXX), a phrase Gesenius renders as “my powers failed [me]” (GHCLhayâh). The general sense of the phrase seems to be ‘his sleep passed him by’ or ‘his sleep eluded him’.

2. For the trans. of these terms, see App. 2A.

1

2 2.1-49: TEXT AND TRANSLATION

2.4 אר´מית למל� Mהכש ד£י ו®י�ד¯ברואמר חי¢י Nלעלמי מלכא

ק לעבד´� כ| לעבד¯י¢� חלמאנ�חו¦א;! ופש ר´א

The Chaldeans then spoke to the King in Aramaic.3

‘O King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages[continue]!’, [they said]. ‘Relate the dream to yourservants, and we will make clear4 its interpretation’,

2.5 כ| לכש ד´י¦א ו�אמר מלכא ענ¦האז�ד´א מנ¢י מלתא ק לכש ד´אי

חלמא תהוד�עונ®נ¢י לא NהNתתעבדו Nהד´מי ופש ר§ה

!;Nמוµי¢תש נ�ו³לי Nובתיכו

to which the King replied+ to the Chaldeans, ‘Myword [of command] has gone forth!5 If you do notmake known to me6 [both] the dream and itsinterpretation, then you will be cut into [little]pieces7 and your houses set [like] dunghills;8

2.6 NÉמת Nתהחו ופש ר§ה חלמא Nו�הNתקבלו ש°ג¢יא ו¢יקר ונ�בז�בה

ופש ר§ה חלמא Nלה מÊNקÅד´מיהחונ¢י;!

if, on the other hand, you are able to unveil thedream and its interpretation, you will receive frombefore me gifts in reward9 and abundant glory.Simply,10 [therefore], unveil the dream and itsinterpretation!’.

2.7 מלכא Nו�אמר£י תנ�י³נות ענוופש ר´ה לעבדוהי י¦אמר חלמא

נ�החו¦ה;!

They later spoke a second time, saying, ‘May theKing [first] relate the dream to his servants; then wewill unveil its interpretation’,

3. In the context of ch. 2’s narrative, 2.4a marks a watershed. The sense of the vs. is, ‘From 2.4a onwards,the Chaldeans addressed the King in a non-Hebrew tongue’, hence my division of the vs. in two. Forfurther discussion, see 2.4a’s comm.

4. «H. WP» occurs in two distinct stems in Daniel’s writings: the D- and the C-stem. I cannot detect muchdistinction between them, but, to preserve their distinction, I have rendered «H. WP»(D) as ‘to make clear’and «H. WP»(C) as ‘to unveil’.

5. lit., ‘the thing[millâh] has gone forth from me’. The millâh in question is the King’s request for an inter-pretation, while its “going forth” is the request’s publication as an official decree. Decrees are routinelysent out ‘from before’ the King in Sem. languages (3.29, 4.6, Est. 1.19, Ezra 4.21, 7.13, etc.). A similarturn of phrase occurs in 9.23, where a word is ‘sent forth’ from God’s presence. See our comm. proper.

6. more lit., ‘cause me to know’

7. lit., ‘made into limbs’. The Pesh. has hdm hdm ttpsqwn (‘you will be divided limb by limb’). The King’sthreat is unusual, but not entirely inconsistent with Babylonian practice. Hammurabi, for instance,asks the gods to ‘cut off the limbs’ of those who disregard his ‘laws’ (XXX), and dismemberment is alsoportrayed in Assyrian bas-reliefs (XXX).

8. “set [like] dunghills” is awkward, but I have retained “set” in order to bring out its function in Daniel. In1.7, a name is set[SWM] over Daniel; in 3.10 and 4.6, a decree is set[SWM] in place; and, in 6.17, a stone isset[SWM] over the lions’ pit in order to prevent Daniel’s escape. The vb. «SWM» is a ‘power word’, whichreflects a king’s influence over his environment. Here, it has the sense ‘to turn into’ or similar. As fornewalû, it may simply refer to a ‘garbage heap’ (CAL nwly 2016:n.f.), in which case the vb. «SWM» wouldhave the sense ‘to pile up’ (compare the phrase gurun šalmatišunu iškun in Frayne 1990:604-608). Butthe trad. trans. (‘dunghill’) has strong support, most notably the sense of newalû in later Jewish Aram.(JDTT) and the vb. «NWL»(D) in Jewish Bab. Aram. (‘to disgrace’). Interestingly, the Fulfulde languagepreserves a spec. vb. (jiddidina) with the sense ‘to turn into a dunghill’ (Mukoshy 2014:271).

9. lit., ‘gifts and a reward and abundant glory’, here treated as a hendiadys (spec., a dissimilar couplet)

10. lahen is often connected with a negation, and then has an ‘adversative’ sense, such as ‘no-one can divinethe dream except [lahen] the gods’ (2.11 cf. 3.28). But neither 2.6 nor 2.9 (where the same syntax isemployed) contains a negation of any kind. lahen therefore seems best translated as ‘simply’ or ‘only’ (asalso in Theod.). For discussion, see Montgomery (1927:XXX).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 3

2.8 י³ד¯ע מÊNי®ציב ו�אמר מלכא ענ¦הNז³בנ¢י Nאנ�תו עד´Éא ד£י אÉה

אז�ד´א ד£י Nחז¦יתו ד£י כלÊקÅבלמלתא;! מנ¢י

to which the King replied, ‘I know exactly what youare doing! You are ‘playing for time’,11 since youcan see that my word has gone forth [with certainty]

2.9 תהוד�עuנ®נ¢י לא הÊNחלמא ד£יכד�בה ומלה Nד´תכו חד´הÊהיאNהז�ד�מנ�תו כ| Nהז�מנ�תו וש חיתה

עד´Éא ד£י עד קד´מי למאמר קלי אמרו חלמא Nלה י¢ש תנ¦אתהחו¹נ®נ¢י;! פש ר§ה ד£י ו�אנ�ד¯ע

and that, if you do not make the dream known tome, [only] one fate [remains] for you.12 You havetherefore prepared among yourselves an entirelydeceptive story13 [which you plan] to recount to meuntil the season[s] change.14 Simply recount thedream to me; I will then know that you are qualifiedto unveil15 its interpretation’.16

2.10 ק כש ד´אי כ| כש ד´י¦א ענולאÊאיתי Nו�אמר£י קÅד´ÊMמלכא

מלת ד£י עלÊי®בש תא אÉשכלÊקÅבל להחו³י³ה יוכל מלכאמלה ו�ש°ליט ר¯ב כלÊמל� ד£יMחר�טÊלÈל ש אל לא כד�Éה

ו�כש ד´י;! P°ו�אש

The Chaldeans later [gave their] answer before theKing,+ saying, ‘There is not a man in the inhabitedworld17 who is able to unveil the King’s [dream]!18

Never, therefore, has any king—however great [his]rule—made such an enquiry19 of anyinterpreter-of-dreams, reciter-of-incantations, orastrologer.

2.11 י®קיר´ה שµאל ד£יÊמלכה ומלתאM´דÅק י�חו¢נ®ה ד£י איתי לא N´ו�אחרNמד´ר�הו ד£י Nאלהי Nלה מלכא

איתוהי;! לא עÊMבש ר´א

The King’s enquiry [concerns] so weighty a matterthat no-one can make it clear before the King exceptthe gods, who do not reside with flesh [and blood]!’.

11. lit., ‘I know for certain you are buying time’, where ‘to buy time’ could, I suppose, derive from theparanomastic constr. zbn zbn c.

12. lit., ‘your law is one’, i.e., ‘the law prescribes only one possible outcome for you’

13. lit., ‘misleading and deceptive’, here treated as a hend. (spec., as a dissimilar couplet). The t-stem mayreflect the ‘inward’ nature of the wise men’s collusion, hence translations such as “conspire” (HCSB),“agree among yourselves” (NET), “agree together” (NASB), etc. For the sense, we can consider the Syr.phrase h. akîme cmeth. ašbîn (‘the wise men deliberated’: Edessa 21/14 cf. Dan. 6.7).

14. For a discussion of the terms zeman and ciddan, see our notes on 2.21. The phrase ‘until the season[s]change’ envisages a long wait. The same idea underlies English idioms such as ‘until the cows comehome’ or ‘until kingdom come’.

15. The impf. form of ‘unveil’ is taken to have a modal nuance.

16. 2.8b-9a’s flow seems most coherent when the text is read as a single sentence (so Hartman 1979:XXX).In 2.8a, the King accuses the wise men of ‘playing for time’, and, in 2.8b-9a, the King explains why, inhis view, the wise men are stalling (i.e., because they can see how determined he is). Otherwise, 2.9aseems to interrupt the King’s flow of thought.

17. yabbešet signifies ‘dry land’ (CAL 2016:n.f.), as does the Heb. cog. (Exod. 4.9, Psa. 95.5, etc). Here, Itake it to designate the dry land as opposed to the sea, i.e., ‘the inhabited world’.

18. lit., ‘the King’s matter’

19. lit., ‘to ask’, but, when employed in a technical sense, the Akk. cog. can refer to divination (where men‘enquire’ of otherworldly entities), as also can the Syr. cog. (Pesh. Num. 24.1). Since Daniel only employs«ŠPL» in the context of a demand for an interpretation, it may reflect a similar ‘enquiry’. Nebuchadnezzarhas ‘enquired’ of the wise men, and wants them to ‘enquire’ of the gods on his behalf.


2.12 בנ®ס מלכא ד�Éה כלÊקÅבללהובד´ה ו®אמר ש°ג¢יא Pוקצ

בבל;! חכימי לכל

At this, the King turned sour20 and [became]extremely angry, and gave orders for all of Babylon’swise men to be destroyed.

2.13 Nמתקטלי ו�חכימי³א נªפקת ו�ד´תאו�חברוהי ד´נ¢י¦אל ובעו

להתקטלה;!

And, as the [King’s] law went forth and the slayingof the wise men began,21 [the King’s men] soughtout Daniel22 and his peers, in order to slay [them].

2.14 עטא התיב ד´נ¢י¦אל N¢באד¯יד£י ר¯בÊטבחי³א לאר�יו� Mוטע

לקטלה נ�פק ד£י מלכאבבל;! לחכימי

At about the same time, Daniel handed in anadvisory report+ to Arioch, the greatest of the King’sexecutioners,23 who had gone forth to slay Babylon’swise men.

2.15 ש°ליטא לאר�יו� ו�אמר ענ¦הד´תא עלÊמה ד£יÊמלכא

N¢אד¯י מלכא M´דÅקÊNמ מהחצפהלד´נ¢י¦אל;! אר�יו� הוד¯ע מלתא

‘What has caused so extreme a law [to be sent forth]from before the King?’, he declared to Arioch, theKing’s [appointed] ruler. Arioch then made thematter known to Daniel.

2.16 ד£י מÊNמלכא ובעה על ו�ד´נ¢י¦אללהחו³י³ה ופש ר´א י¢נ�תÊNלה Nז�מ

למלכא;!

So Daniel entered [the King’s presence] and soughtthe King’s favour. [He asked] to be given a set time[limit within which]24 to unveil the interpretation tothe King.25

2.17 אז®ל לבי�תה ד´נ¢י¦אל N¢אד¯יו®עז®ר�י³ה מישµאל ו�לחנ®נ�י³ההוד¯ע;! מלתא חברוהי

Afterwards, Daniel went to his house and made thematter known to his peers (Hananiah, Mishael, andAzariah),

2.18 אלה M´דÅקÊNמ למבעא Nו�ר¯חמילא ד£י ד�Éה עלÊר´ז³ה ש מי³א

ו�חברוהי ד´נ¢י¦אל Nי�הבדובבל;! חכימי עÊMש אר

for them to seek mercy from before the God ofHeaven concerning this mystery, in order that Danieland his peers might not be destroyed along with theremainder of Babylon’s wise men.

20. «BNS»(G) can mean either ‘to ferment’ or ‘become angry’ (JDTT benas). ‘To turn sour’ captures bothsenses.

21. The publication of the decree is narrated via a pfct. form, while its execution is narrated via a ptc. form.As such, 2.13 reflects (the initiation of) a process as opposed to a discrete event. ‘As the slaying of thewise men was about to begin’ is also possible, though, in light of 2.18, not as plausible.

22. The ‘they’ who carry out the King’s commands, as is common in Daniel (e.g., 2.46, 3.13, 5.3, 5.29) aswell as descriptions of a king’s actions in other Sem. languages (e.g., Est. 7.10, throughout the Laws ofHammurabi, etc.).

23. In Aram., «T. BH. » is ‘to slaughter’, while its nominal form [t.bh. ] refers to a ‘butcher’ or ‘cook’ (CAL 2016),hence the Theod. renders t.bh. as ‘head chef’ (archimageiro). Here, however, rab-t.abbah. ayya cis mostlikely an Aram. eqvt. of the Akk. rab t.abih

˘ı (‘commander of the royal guard’: Jursa 2011), a title attested

in the Court Calendar. The cog. title is applied to Nebuzaradan in Jer. 39.9, etc. (rab-t.abbah. îm). The titlelit. translates as ‘chief slaughterer’ (CAL 2016), but, in Akk., the term ‘slaughterer’ denotes a member ofthe royal guard in such contexts (Finkel 2014:XXX), as also does the Heb. t.abbah. (Gen. 37.36, etc.).

24. Daniel appears to be assigned a time limit within which he must reveal the dream; hence, once thedream has been revealed to him, he immediately approaches Nebuchadnezzar (2.24). For a parallel(Heb.) phrase and concept, see Neh. 2.6.

25. lit., ‘that he might unveil the interpretation to the King’

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 5

2.19 ד£יÊלילי³א בחז�ו³א לד´נ¢י¦אל N¢אד¯יבר£� ד´נ¢י¦אל N¢אד¯י גÁלי ר´ז³ה

ש מי³א;! לאלה

Later, in a certain vision of the night,26 the mysterywas revealed to Daniel. So, Daniel blessed the Godof Heaven,

2.20 ש מה להו¦א ו�אמר ד´נ¢י¦אל ענ¦המÊNעלמא מבר¯� ד£יÊאלהא

חÇמתא ד£י ו�עדÊעלמאלהÊהיא;! ד£י וג�בור�תא

saying in response, ‘Blessed be the name of Godfrom the age[s] [past] to the age[s] [to come]27 for[his] wisdom and might, for such things [belong] tohim.28

2.21 ו�ז¢מנ®י³א עד´נ®י³א מהש נ¦א ו�הואNמלכי Mומהקי Nמלכי מהעד§הומנ�ד�עא Nלחכימי חÇמתא י³הב

ביÉה;! לי³ד�עי

It is he29 who causes the appointed seasons+ tocome and go,30 who causes kings to pass on andkings to stand. He gives wisdom to the wise andlearning to those who know and understand.

2.22 ומסתר´תא עמיקתא ג³לא הואכ| ונ�היר´א בחשוÈא מה י³ד¯ע

ש ר§א;! עמה ק ונ�הור´א

It is he who reveals unfathomable31 and hidden[things]. He knows what is in the darkness; indeed,with him the light has found a resting-place.32

2.23 מהוד§א אבהתי אלה ל�חÇמתא ד£י אÉה ומש°בחNעÇו לי י�הבת וג�בור�תאמנ�³ ד£יÊבעיÉא הוד¯עתנ¢י

הוד¯עתÉא;! מלכא ד£יÊמלת

It is you, the God of my fathers, whom I thank andhighly esteem,+ for you have given me wisdom andmight, and even now you have made known to mewhat we sought insofar as you have made known tous the King’s [dream]’.

26. not ‘just any vision’, but spec. ‘the vision of the night’. Elsewhere, Daniel almost invariably refers to aplurality of visions. The only exception is found in 7.2, where Daniel refers to ‘my vision’.

27. poss. shorthand for דאתי! עלמא עד Nהדי עלמא Nמ (‘from this age until the age to come’: Targ. Psa. 90.2).We might consider, as an analogy, the Heb. !MהעולÊעד MהעולÊNמ (Neh. 9.5), which the Pesh. translates viathe same phrase found in Dan. 2.20, i.e., mn clm wcdm clclm (so also Jer. 7.5, etc.).

28. “Wisdom” and “might” are ‘determinative’. They refer to a specific type of wisdom and might, i.e.,qualities which have recently been exhibited. Daniel then goes on to refer to “such [qualities]” via afem. sing. form, as if to reference the same qualities (of wisdom and might) more abstractly. The YLThas, “Let the name of God be blessed from age even unto age for wisdom and might—for they are his”.

29. The word order makes “he” emphatic, as also in 2.22 and 2.23 (“it is you”).

30. lit., ‘to change’, as discussed in our trans. notes

31. camîq is often used to refer to a ‘hidden’ or ‘obscure’ object, which seems to be its sense here. Consider,by analogy, the Aram. cmq (Targ. Job 12.22), the Syr. cmyqt c(Pesh. Rev. 2.24), and the Heb. cameq (Isa.33.19, Ezek. 3.5-6). Goldingay treats the phrase cmmîqata cûmsatrata cas a dissimilar couplet, whichhe renders as “deeply hidden” (1989:43).

32. trad., ‘light dwells [«ŠRP»] with him’. The basic sense of «ŠRP» is ‘to turn’. By extension, it also has thesense ‘to turn aside’ (e.g., to an inn) and ‘to rest’ (GHCL šerâh, Pesh. Exod. 14.9, 18.5), hence cognatessuch as mšry (‘camp’), mšrwy (‘resting-place’), etc. Unlike the rest of 2.21-22, «ŠRP» has a pfct. form, soI have sought to render it as a completed action (“the light has found a resting-place”).


2.24 על ד´נ¢י¦אל ד�Éה כלÊקÅבלמלכא מנ¢י ד£י עלÊאר�יו�

אז®ל בבל לחכימי להובד´הבבל לחכימי אמרÊלה Nו�כ

מלכא M´דÅק העלנ¢י אלÊתהובדאחו¦א;! למלכא ופש ר´א

Daniel therefore33 went to Arioch, whom the Kinghad appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon;he went and spoke to him as follows: ‘Do notdestroy the wise men of Babylon! Bring me inbefore the King, and I will make clear to the Kingthe interpretation’.

2.25 הנ�על בהתבהלה אר�יו� N¢אד¯יNו�כ מלכא M´דÅק לד´נ¢י¦אל

ג�בר ד£יÊהש כחת אמרÊלהד£י י�הוד ד£י ג³לותא מÊNבנ¦י

י�הוד¯ע;! למלכא פש ר´א

So Arioch hurriedly brought Daniel in before theKing and spoke to him as follows: ‘I have found amighty man34 among the sons of the Revealed+ [i.e.,the exiles] of Judah, who will make known to theKing the interpretation’.

2.26 ד£י לד´נ¢י¦אל ו�אמר מלכא ענ¦הכ| האיתי¢� בלטש°אצר ש מהלהוד´עuתנ¢י כהל ק האית�

ופש ר§ה;! ד£יÊחז¦ית חלמא

The King [gave] Daniel (whose name wasBelteshazzar) an immediate answer, saying, ‘Doesthere [lie] with[in] you the ability to make known tome the dream which I have seen, together with itsinterpretation?’.

2.27 ו�אמר מלכא M´דÅק ד´נ¢י¦אל ענ¦הלא שµאל ד£יÊמלכא ר´ז³ה

Nג³ז�ר£י Nמיuחר�ט Nאש פי Nחכימילמלכא;! להחו³י³ה NליÇ³י

Daniel immediately [presented his] answer beforethe King, ‘No wise man, reciter-of-incantations,interpreter-of-dreams, or shaper-of-destiny+ is ableto unveil to the King the mystery about which theKing has enquired.

2.28 ג³לא בש מי³א אלה איתי M¯ברנ�בוכד�נªצר למלכא ו�הוד¯ע Nר´ז¢י

יומי³א באחר£ית להו¦א ד£י מה�µר§אש ו�חז�ו¦י חלמ�

הוא;! ד�Éה עלÊמש כב�

But there is a god in the heavens—one who revealsmysteries—and he has made known to KingNebuchadnezzar what will come to pass after the[present] days. Your dream—i.e., your mind’svisions35 [as you lay] on your bed—[proceeded] asfollows.

33. lit., ‘because of this’ (2.12, 2.24, 3.22, 6.9). kol-qobel denâh introduces an activity as the result of recentevents.

34. For my trans. of gebar, see “3.1-30: Translational notes”.

35. lit., ‘visions of the head’. A vision of the ‘head’ suggests an internal experience as opposed to an extra-mental change in reality. Visions can sometimes entail the ‘transportation’ of the seer, as in Ezek. 8.3,11.24, etc.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 7

2.29 מלכא ק אנ�ת כ| אנ�תה Pמה סלקו עלÊמש כב� �Éר¯עיו

ר´ז®י³א ו�ג³לא ד�Éה אחר§י להו¦א ד£ילהו¦א;! מהÊד£י הוד�ע�

O Thou King!36 Your thoughts and desires37 rose up[as you lay] on your bed. ‘What will come to passafter [the present day]?’, [you wondered].38 Theone who reveals such mysteries39 then made knownto you what will come to pass.

2.30 בי ד£יÊאיתי בחÇמה לא ו®אÉהלי ג¾לי ד�Éה ר´ז³א מÊNכלÊחי®י³א

פש ר´א ד£י עלÊד£בר¯ת Nלהלבב� ו�ר¯עיונ¦י Nי�הוד�עו למלכא

תנ�ד¯ע;!

As for me, not because40 of a wisdom more[present] in me than any other living [creature]41

has this mystery been revealed to me, but so that theinterpretation might be made known to the King,and so that you might know the thoughts of yourheart.

2.31 חז¦ה מלכא ק אנ�ת כ| אנ�תהש°ג¢יא חד Mצל ו®אלו הו®י�תי®תיר ו�ז¢יו¦ה ר¯ב Nד£כ צלמאד�חיל;! ו�ר§ו¦ה לקבל� Mקא

As you watched, O King, behold: a single42 lofty43

image. That image—great and extraordinarilybright—stood [directly] in front of you, itsappearance fearful.

2.32 טב ד£יÊד�הב ר§אש¨ה צלמא הואPסÇ ד£י וד�ר´עוהי חדוהינ�חש;! ד£י ו�י®ר�Èתה מעוהי

That image!44 Its head [consisted] of goodly gold,its chest and arms of silver, its core45 and thighs ofbronze,

2.33 Nמנ�הו ר¯ג�לוהי פר�זªל ד£י שµקוהיכ| Nומנ�הו פר�זªל ד£י ק Nמנ�הי כ|

!;Pחס ד£י ק Nומנ�הי

its legs of iron, [and] its feet partly of iron andpartly of clay.

36. commonly, “As for you, O King...” (NASB), but one would then expect a waw at the start of the vs. (asin 2.30, 2.40, etc.). Royal addresses routinely open with the words cant malka cin Daniel (2.31, 2.37,2.38, 3.10, 5.18), the general sense of which is simply “You, O King,...”.

37. racyôn can encompass either a thought or a desire (JDTT).

38. trad., ‘to turn towards’, but the vb. lacks a prep. to give it the sense ‘towards’. The Syr. «SLQ» can have theidiomatic sense ‘to bring to mind’, but would then require the syntax slq cl lb (e.g., Pesh. Jer. 7.31, 65.17).My own inclination is to render the clause ‘What will come to pass’ as a question. Either way, the sense ofthe vs. is the same. The King’s dream came in response to his own internal concerns: Nebuchadnezzarwanted to know what the future held for Babylon, and God, the great revealer of mysteries, as if inanswer, revealed it to him.

39. lit., ‘the mysteries’, which presumably refers to the mysteries revealed in the King’s dream

40. alt., ‘by’, but the later phrase פש ר´א! ד£י עלÊד£בר¯ת favours ‘because’. The dream is revealed, not because ofDaniel’s wisdom, but because God wants the King to understand Babylon’s future.

41. alt., ‘in me above all other living [creatures]’

42. h. ad (lit., ‘one’) can function like a cardinal number or an indefinite article (6.17). Here, it seems toemphasise the colossus’s unified nature: the colossus is composed of multiple parts, but is neverthelessa single image.

43. sagî cis normally a ‘modifier’, which is difficult here given the absence of any noun to modify. The senseof the Syr. cog. (‘tall’) therefore seems appropriate (CAL sgy c2015:adj.), esp. in light of ch. 3’s colossusand ch. 4’s tree.

44. alt., ‘the head of the image was...’ if the relevant pron. is treated resumptively

45. trad., “belly”, but the Heb. cog. (*me ceh) tends to designate the inside of the belly, i.e., the bowels andintestines as opposed to the exterior of the stomach.


2.34 Nאב התג�זªר»ת ד£י עד הו®י�ת חז¦הלצלמא ומחת N¢ביד¯י ד£יÊלא

ו�חספא פר�ז�לא ד£י עלÊר¯ג�לוהי!;Nהמו ו�הד§קת

You continued to watch until a stone was shapedout—without hands—, and it struck the image on itsfeet of iron and clay and broke them to pieces.+

2.35 פר�ז�לא כחד´ה ד´קו N¢באד¯יו�ד¯הבא כספא נ�חשµא חספא

ונ�שµא מÊNאד�ר§יÊקי¢ט כעור ו®הווו�ÈלÊאתר רוחא Nהמו

ו�אבÉא Nלהו לאÊהש תכחלטור הו³ת לצלמא ד£יÊמחת

כלÊאר�עא;! ומלת ר¯ב

At that point, the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and goldwere simultaneously46 ground into tiny pieces andbecame like chaff [found] on an end-of-season+

threshing-floor. The wind then carried them awayand no place47 could be found for them; meanwhile,the stone which struck the image became a greatmountain and filled the whole earth.

2.36 נ¦אמר ופש ר§ה חלמא ד�ÉהקÅד´ÊMמלכא;!

That was the dream, and we will now relate itsinterpretation before the King.

2.37 מל� מלכא ק אנ�ת כ| אנ�תהש מי³א אלה ד£י מלכי³א

ו¢יקר´א ו�תקפא חסÉא מלכותאי�הבÊל�;!

You, O King, are the king of kings to whom the Godof Heaven has given the kingdom, the power, andthe strength, and the glory.

2.38 ק Nד´י�ר£י כ| Nד´אר£י ובÈלÊד£יבר´א חיו®ת בנ¦יÊאÉשµא

ביד´� י�הב ו�עוÊPש מי³אכ| אנ�תה NלהוÈב ו�הש לט�

ד¯הבא;! ד£י ר§אשµה ק אנ�תÊהוא

He has also given into your hand, wherever they[happen to] reside, the sons of men, the beasts ofthe field, and the birds of the heavens, and he hasmade you ruler over them all. You48 are the head ofgold.

2.39 אחר£י מלכו Mתקו ובתר´�כ| תליתי³א ומלכו מנ�³ אר¯עא

ד£י נ�חשµא ד£י אחר£י ק תליתאהבÈלÊאר�עא;! תש לט

Yet, after you, another kingdom will stand up,earthward49 of you; and then another kingdom, thethird [one], [made] of bronze, which will rule overall the earth.

46. Aram., kah. adâh, the sense of which is the same as ckh. d

47. alt., ‘site’ (Ezra 6.7)

48. “you” and “head” are connected by a 3rd pers. pron. Some translators take the pron. to add emphasis(as also in Heb.: GKC 141g-h), and hence render 2.38b ‘You yourself are the head of gold’ (Goldingay1989:XXX). But a ‘copulative’ sense seems equally plausible (as in 2.47, 3.22, 7.17, Ezra 5.11). Thesyntax employed in 2.38 does not always have an emphatic sense, e.g., in 3.15 (‘Who is himself the godwho can deliver...!?’).

49. א! + אר¯ע! (directive), akin to עלא! in 6.2 (‘above’), which is א! + על!

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 9

2.40 ק ר�ביעאה כ| ר�ביעי³ה ומלכוכפר�ז�לא תקיפה תהו¦א

מהד§ק פר�ז�לא ד£י כלÊקÅבלוÇפר�ז�לא כלא ו�חש¨ל

תד£ק NאליÊכל ד£יÊמר´עעו�תרע;!

There will then be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron.Just as50 iron breaks in pieces and then hammers[out] all [other metals], so [this kingdom], like theiron [used for] demolition,51 will break in pieces andthen pound [down] all these other [kingdoms].

2.41 ו�אצבעתא ר¯ג�לי³א ו�ד£יÊחז®י�תהד£יÊפחר Pחס ק Nמנ�ה כ| Nמנ�הומלכו פר�זªל ק Nומנ�הי כ| Nומנ�הו

ד£י ומÊNנ¢צבתא תהו¦ה פליג³הד£י כלÊקÅבל להו¦אÊבה פר�ז�לא

Pבחס מער¯ב פר�ז�לא חז®י�תהטיÉא;!

And just as you saw the feet and toes—partly ofpotter’s clay and partly of iron—, so the kingdomwill be divided, though some of the original root52 ofthe iron will remain in it, hence you saw the ironmixed with the miry clay.

2.42 Nמנ�הי כ| Nמנ�הו ר¯ג�לי³א ו�אצבעתק Nומנ�הי כ| Nומנ�הו פר�זªל ק

תהו¦ה מלכותא מÊNקצת Pחסתביר´ה;! תהו¦ה ומנ®ה תקיפה

And [just as] the toes of the feet were partly of ironand partly of clay, so,53 in the end, the kingdom willbe strong, but it will at [the same time] be broken.54

50. alt., ‘The fourth kingdom will be as strong as iron because[kol-qobel dî] iron breaks all things’, but the verse’slogic is then obscure. The reason why the fourth kingdom will be strong is not the ability of iron to breakother metals. Rather, the phrase kol-qobel dî introduces a comparison or analogy of some kind, as alsoin 2.41b, 6.11, and as per the sense of wedî in 2.41a, 4.23, and 4.26.

51. lit., ‘like the iron which demolishes [«RQQ»(D)]’. Iron is often associated with captivity in Scripture (Psa.107.10, 149.8, Jer. 28.13-14), but 2.40 specifies a different kind of iron, namely the kind employed indemolition work [«RQQ»(D)]. For the sense, we can consider Psa. 2.9: “You will break [«RQQ»(G)] themwith a rod of iron”.

52. nis.bâh (trad., ‘strength’) derives from «NS.B» (‘to plant’ or ‘to fix’). It combines the notions of both‘strength’ and ‘origins’, as is reflected by translations such as ‘the root of the iron’ (tes rizes tes sideras:Theod., cqr przl: Pesh.). The CAL suggests “it will have some [of the] germ of iron in it” (CAL 2016).The kingdom has residual strength by virtue of its origins.

53. as implied by 2.42’s atnach

54. lit., ‘in the end [min-qes. at], the kingdom will be strong, and, at it, it will be broken’. More idiom., thevs. reads, ‘part of the kingdom will be strong, and part will be brittle’ (HCSB), which is perfectly valid(compare מקצת! וביטול מקצת Mקיו: b. San. 62a). But ‘in the end’ strikes me as more appropriate givenDaniel’s interest in blocks of time and their end-points[QS.S. ] (1.18 and 8.19’s comm.). I therefore take2.42b to refer to the ‘end’ of the Colossus’s age of dominion, while I take ûminnah (lit., ‘and at it’) torefer back to the same ‘end’. For a similar use of min and qes. at, see 4.29 and 4.34, as well as the Heb. of1.5, 1.15, 1.18.


2.43 פר�ז�לא חז®י�ת ק ו�ד£י כ| ד£יNמתער�בי טיÉא Pבחס מער¯בNלהוÊו�לא אÉשµא בז�ר¯ע Nלהו

האÇÊד£י עÊMד�Éה ד�Éה Nד´בקימתער¯ב לא פר�ז�לא

עÊMחספא;!

Just as you saw the iron mixed55 with the miry clay,so ‘they’ will begin to combine themselves56 with theseed of men. But they will not remain cloven tothem—the one [seed] to the other57—in the sameway as the iron could not combine with the clay.+

2.44 Mי�קי Nאנו מלכי³א ד£י NוביומיהוNלעלמי ד£י מלכו ש מי³א אלה

Mלע ומלכותה תתחבל לאPו�תסי תד£ק תש תבק לא N´אחרMתקו ו�היא מלÇו³תא NאליÊכל

לעלמי³א;!

And, in the days of these kings, the God of Heavenwill cause a kingdom to stand which will not beharmed58 for [as long as] the ages [continue], andthat kingdom will never be left to another people. Itwill permanently break all [the other] kingdoms inpieces, but, as for itself, will stand for [as long as]the ages [continue].+

2.45 מטור´א ד£י ד£יÊחז®י�ת כלÊקÅבלN¢ביד¯י ד£יÊלא Nאב אתג�זªר»ת

חספא נ�חשµא פר�ז�לא ו�הד»קתהוד¯ע ר¯ב אלה ו�ד¯הבא כספא

אחר§י להו¦א ד£י מה למלכאNומהימ חלמא ו�י®ציב ד�Éה

פש ר§ה;!

Just as the stone which you saw—which wasshaped, without hands, from the mountain—brokethe iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold in pieces, so agreat God has [now] made known to the King whatwill come to pass after this [day].59 The dream iscertain and its interpretation is trustworthy’.

2.46 נ�פל נ�בוכד�נªצר מלכא N¢באד¯יסג¢ד ולד´נ¢י¦אל עלÊאנ�פוהי

לנ®סÈה אמר Nו�נ¢יחחי ומנ�חהלה;!

At that point, King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his faceand worshipped Daniel and gave orders for anoffering and a sweet-smelling incense to be pouredout [in honour of] him.

2.47 ו�אמר לד´נ¢י¦אל מלכא ענ¦האלה הוא Nאלהכו ד£י מÊNקשטNר´ז¢י ו�ג³לה Nמלכי ומר§א Nאלהי

ד�Éה;! ר´ז³ה למג�לא י�כלת ד£י

‘Truly’, the King declared to Daniel, ‘your god is agod of gods, one who has dominion over kings60 andwho reveals mysteries, hence you have been able toreveal this mystery’.

2.48 ר¯בי לד´נ¢י¦אל מלכא N¢אד¯יי�הבÊלה Nש°ג¢יא Nר¯בר�ב NÉומת

בבל כלÊמד£ינ®ת על ו�הש לטהכלÊחכימי על Nסג�נ¢יÊו�ר¯ב

בבל;!

So the King made Daniel great and gave him manygreat gifts, and he made him the ruler of the wholeprovince of Babylon, even the greatest of theprefects of Babylon’s wise men.

55. alt., ‘mixing’

56. «QRB»(Dt) is ‘to mix together’ or ‘to combine’ (CAL 2015:vb.), hence the Targums employ the cog. nouncrbrwb to refer to Exod. 12.38’s ‘mixed multitude’ and Lev. 19.19’s mixed fabric (Targ. Neo. Exod. 12.38,Sam. Targ. Jon. Lev. 19.19).

57. lit., ‘this with this’, where the demon. pronouns in question refer to different types of “seed”. For asimilar use of the demon. pron., see 5.6, 7.3, and 12.2.

58. alt., ‘destroyed’

59. For the syntax, see our comm.

60. where מר§א! is trad. treated as a noun, but here as an act. ptc. of «MRY»

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 11

2.49 ומנ¢י מÊNמלכא בעא ו�ד´נ¢י¦אלבבל מד£ינ®ת ד£י עביד�תא על

נ�גו ו®עבד מיש°� לש°ד�ר¯�!;P מלכא בתר¯ע ו�ד´נ¢י¦אל

Daniel then besought [favour] from the King, whoappointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego overthe administration of the Province of Babylon.Meanwhile, Daniel [was stationed] at the entranceto the King’s [court].61

61. lit., ‘the King’s gate’

12 2.1-49: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES

2.1-49: Further translational notes

2.5a to which the King replied to the Chaldeans Daniel narrates the King’sinteraction with his wise men (2.5-11) by means of two distinct verbalforms: the ptc. and the pfct.62 When the King speaks, a ptc. form isemployed, but, when the wise men reply, a pfct. form is employed. Theimport of Daniel’s choice of verbal forms is not clear to me. It may bemerely stylistic, but it could potentially reflect the nature of the dialogue.63

What follows is a possible explanation of the situation.

In the course of 2.5-11, the King asks his wise men a series of very awkwardquestions, to which the wise men reply slowly and cagily. They need tothink carefully about what to say and how best to say it. By way ofcontrast, the King responds freely and without restraint. He in fact becomesincreasingly frustrated by their responses the longer the dialogue goes on,and shows little self-restraint. Daniel therefore employs pfct. verbal formsto describe the wise men’s responses to the King. The King’s questions andthe wise men’s answers belong to different timeframes, separated by anunspecified period of time.64 Meanwhile, Daniel employs a ptc. form todescribe the King’s speech. It is not separated from the timeframe of thewise men’s speech. Rather, it is an immediate (and frustrated) response tothe wise men’s replies, located in the same timeframe as them.

What, then, can be said by way of assessment of my interpretation of2.5-11? It is by not an interpretation which can be proffered with certainty.But it does at least have two points in its favour. First, it makes sense of theKing’s accusation, “You are playing for time!” (2.8). Unlike the King’s, thewise men’s responses come forth hesitantly and warily. Second, it explainsDaniel’s switch of verbal form later in his writings, in 3.24. ThroughoutDaniel’s writings, the hesitant replies of the King’s advisors are narrated viaa pfct. verbal form. But in 3.24, on the one occasion where the King’sadvisors clearly give him an immediate reply, Daniel employs a ptc.form—which is surely instructive.

62. Daniel also employs two different verbal roots—namely «QNY» and «PMR»—, but only the first of theseroots varies its form through the passage. «PMR» remains a ptc. throughout.

63. The vb. ‘answer’ does not always imply a question has been asked (3.9, 3.19, 5.7, 7.2), as is the case inHeb. (Deut. 25.9, 1 Sam. 4.12, 9.17, 2 Sam. 13.32, etc.), NT texts (Luke 1.60, 8.50, 13.14, etc.), andSyr. (consider the phrase tûb men taš cyana c, with which the Edessa flood narrative begins).

64. See “Aramaic verbal forms” in App. 0.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 13

That Daniel reserves the pfct. form for groups of speakers may also besignificant insofar as it reflects the Palace’s convoluted governanceprocesses. To interact with Babylon’s officials is a long and drawn-outprocess, most likely by design. The officials do not want to be backed into acorner, which is precisely what the King seeks to do to them in ch. 2. Theytherefore insulate themselves with various layers of formality and protocol.(Bureaucracy is not a modern problem.) If so, ch. 2’s verbal forms draw outan interesting contrast between the wise men and Daniel. When the Kingspeaks to the wise men, their responses take a long time to come. They arepreceded by protracted consultations and negotiations (2.5-11). By way ofcontrast, the King and Daniel speak to one another freely and fluently,hence the ptc. forms (2.25-27). Daniel has nothing to hide. He gives theKing straight answers to his questions, which is probbaly why the Kingwarms to him (2.25-27).

2.10a before the King “Before the King” is a Sem. idiom for ‘the King’s presence’.In Eng., it is awkward, but I have retained “before the King” in order topreserve its connection with certain other activities. Elsewhere, Daniel andthe wise men are made to stand “before the King” (2.2, 2.25), and questionsare answered “before the King” (2.10, 2.27), and decrees proceed from“before the King” (2.15), and so on. In other words, everything whichhappens in ch. 2 revolves around the King.65 When men appear “before theKing”, they step into his world and submit to his royal authority.66 Realpower, however, is found only in God’s presence. Hence, when Daniel andhis friends seek mercy “from before” the God of heaven, they receive theanswer to the King’s concerns (2.18 cf. 5.24).

65. As such, ch. 2’s depiction of Nebuchadnezzar is strikingly true to history. In one of his building inscrip-tions, Nebuchadnezzar boasts of his palace, “My royal decisions—my imperial commands—I caused togo forth from it” (Langdon 1905:89).

66. which may explain why Artaxerxes is so outraged when queen Vashti refuses to appear “before him” (Est.1.11-12)


2.14 Daniel handed in[TWB (C)] an advisory[cet.a c] report[t.e cem] to Arioch, alt.,‘Daniel replied [with] prudence and taste’. t.e cem covers a wide semanticfield (cf. 5.2’s trans. notes). It can be employed as a noun, normally in alegal context (3.10, 3.12, 3.29, 6.3, 6.9, Ezra 4.19, 5.5), or as an adj. torefer to a ‘tasteful’ or ‘discreet’ action.67 cet.a cis less versatile. It generallyrefers to ‘counsel’ of some kind, as per the Heb. cog. ces.âh. The CAL

proposes the trans., “Daniel returned an advisory report to Arioch”, whichseems attractive for at least two reasons. First, cet.a cand t.e cem areprimarily nouns. They can, of course, serve as adjectives, but only in rarecases. Second, the vb. «TWB»(C)—a vb. only employed four times in Daniel’swritings—does not standardly refer to a speech act. It can do so (3.16), butit normally just means ‘to return’ (4.34, 4.36, Ezra 5.5, 6.5), like its Heb.cog. «ŠWB». And, even when «TWB»(C) does refer to a speech act, it tends toenvisage a formal response to an official question, which does not fit thecontext of 2.14. By way of contrast, the vb. ‘to answer’ [«QNY»] is employeddozens of times in chs. 2-7, and almost invariably refers to a speech act.

Daniel’s rare choice of vb. therefore seems best explained by the CAL’sproffered trans., though the more trad. option (‘Daniel replied withdiscretion and discernment’) is by no means implausible. 2.14 may even bea play on words. While the wise men sought to flee, Daniel handed in anadvisory report, and, while the wise men flew into a panic, Danieladdressed the situation with taste and discretion.

67. Consider, by analogy, t. cmn (‘tasty, prudent’: CAL 2016:adj.) and t. cmn cyt (‘prudently, wisely’: CAL2016:adv.), as well as the Heb. cog. (Job 12.20, Prov. 11.22, 26.16).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 15

2.21a the appointed seasons, lit., ‘the seasons[ciddan] and theappointed-times’[zeman], here treated as a hend. (spec., a dissimilar couplet)

zeman and ciddan are employed carefully in Daniel’s writings. ciddan referseither to the concept of time or to an indeterminate block of time, i.e., aperiod of time whose start-point and end-point are unspecified (in thewriter’s mind). Its emphasis is on the ‘cyclic’ or ‘recurrent’ nature of a givenperiod.68 By way of contrast, zeman refers to a pre-specified block of timewith a fixed start-point and end-point, as is implied by its relation to the vb.«ZMN» (‘to appoint or pre-arrange’: 2.969). Hence, the officials on the Plainof Dura are said to be appointed a set-time[zeman] to bow before the King’simage (3.7), and God is said to appoint a set-time[zeman] forNebuchadnezzar’s sanity to be restored (4.36 in light of 4.16 and 4.34), andDaniel is said to have set-times[zeman] for prayer (6.10, 6.13).70 Thedistinction between these two terms is brought out clearly in ch. 2’snarrative. The wise men’s references to ciddanîn are generic in nature; they‘play for time’[ciddan] and tread water ‘until the season[ciddan] changes’ (i.e.,‘until the cows come home’). By way of contrast, Daniel asks to beappointed a specific time[zeman] to see the King.

The same distinction is apparent in Daniel’s account of the ceremony on thePlain of Dura (3.1-30). The herald’s initial command (‘At the ciddan, whenyou hear the band play, bow down!’: 3.5) is generic in nature. Its gist isclear: whenever you happen to hear the band play, you bow down! But,when ch. 3 narrates the ceremony itself, the word ciddan is exchanged forzeman (‘At the appointed-time,[zeman] when the band played...’: 3.7), since aspecifically appointed time is in view. And later, when a new time for theband to play must be arranged, the narrative reverts back to ciddan (3.15).We might also consider ch. 4, where seven (apparently) unspecifiedtimes[ciddan] pass over Nebuchadnezzar until the specific moment[zeman] forNebuchadnezzar’s restoration arrives (4.36 in light of 4.16 and 4.34).

In general, then, I have rendered zeman as “appointed-time” or “set-time”,and ciddan as “season”, “time”, or simply “when[ever]” (an abbreviation ofthe phrase “at whatever time”). Meanwhile, where the terms zeman and c

iddan are conjoined, I have treated them as a dissimilar couplet, for whichsee “Aramaic hendiadys” (App. 0).

68. The Heb. cog. cûd means ‘to repeat’ or ‘to begin again’, while the derived noun ciddâh refers to themenstrual cycle (Isa. 64.6). Equally relevant is the Aram. cdnyw, which is short hand for ‘the same time[next year]’ (CAL 2015:n.f.). The Aram. ciddan is, therefore, semantically distinct from the Akk. cog.adanu.

69. CAL «ZMN» 2015:vb.

70. Consider also the Heb. phrase cittîm mezummanîm (‘appointed times’), which incorporates the Dp-stemptc. form of «ZMN» (Ezra 10.14, Neh. 10.34, 13.31).


2.21a who causes the appointed seasons to come-and-go[ŠNY (C)] «ŠNY» covers abroad semantic field. Its basic sense is ‘to change’, but, in the D-stem, it hasthe sense ‘to migrate’ or ‘to move around from place to place’ (Pesh. Gen.47.21, 1 Chr. 17.5, Acts 7.4, Old Syr. Luke 17.6). Its C-stem may have asimilar implication here. God causes time to roll on, and hence causesseasons to come and go at their appointed times. In much the same way, hecauses kings to rise and to fall (2.21a). Given the parallel syntax of 2.21aa

and 2.21ab, we could even consider the trans., ‘God changes the appointedseasons by causing some kings to pass on and others to arise in their place’.The CEB suggests, “God is the one who changes times and eras, whodethrones one king, only to establish another”.

2.23 whom I thank and highly esteem[ŠBH. (D)] «ŠBH. »(D) is not an inherentlyreligious term. It simply means ‘to recognise’ an object’s true value or ‘toproperly esteem’ it (Goldingay 1989:34).71 Given the centrality of theconcept of value in Daniel, the connection between «ŠBH. »(D) and value seemssignificant, esp. in the present situation. Nebuchadnezzar is about to beshown a colossus made of metals, one of the key purposes of which is todepict the deterioration in value in man’s kingdoms. Against that backdrop,Nebuchadnezzar will be prompted to question the value of his ownkingdom, namely Babylon.

2.25 the sons of the Revealed[galût] galût derives (or at least can be derived)from the vb. «GLY», which is an important vb. in the context of Daniel. Here,it means ‘to exile’, but can also be ‘to uncover’ or ‘to reveal’, which areimportant concepts in ch. 2 (2.19, 2.22, 2.28, etc.), hence my trans. of galûtas ‘the revealed’.

71. In both Aram. and Heb., the vb. «ŠBH. »(G) means ‘to increase in value’ (JDTT šabah. , šebah. ).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 17

2.27 shapers-of-destiny[gozrîn] gozrîn (trad., ‘soothsayers’) derives from the vb.«GZR», which is an important ‘root word’ in Daniel. It often has the sense ‘tocut’ or ‘to divide’, but can also, by extension, be ‘to decide’ or ‘todetermine’,72 as also in Heb.73 These concepts are inherently connected.The Sefire Treaty, for instance, is said to be cut out[gzr],74 and, in Heb.,covenants and decrees are routinely said to be ‘cut out’.75 Similarconnections pertain in the case of other verbs and cog. languages. Forinstance, the Syr. «QS.S. » can be ‘to cut off’ or ‘to break in pieces’ (in theG-stem) as well as ‘to make an agreement’ (in the C-stem).76 The Aram.«PSQ» can be ‘to cut apart’ as well as ‘to fix, determine, or decree’,77 as canthe Arab. verbs «GZZ» and «GZM».78 Particularly relevant in the case ofDaniel is the Akk. vb. parasu (5.26+), which can be ‘to cut off, to reach alegal decision, or to determine via divination’.79

Here in 2.27, the noun gzr has a distinctly magical nuance. It describes aparticular class of diviner—a man who ‘shapes’ (determines) men’sdestinies and decrees the future. Newsom suggests the translation “(fate)determiners” (2014:63). Throughout the present commentary, I haverendered *gazer as “shaper-of-destiny”, in line with the Akk. term sa cimusımtim (‘settlers of destiny’).80 Daniel later alludes back to the efforts ofBabylon’s shapers-of-destiny when he refers to the one who really doesshaper of the world’s destiny, namely the God who shapes[GZR] a Messianicstone from his holy mountain and crowns him king of all Creation (2.35,2.45).

72. CAL «GZR» 2015:vb. Consider also gzr (‘decree’), gzyrpt. c(‘an official whose role is to enforce decrees’),mgzrn (‘a judge who condemns’), etc.

73. GHCL gazar.

74. Sef. 1.7A.

75. e.g., Gen. 15.18, 21.27, 26.28, Ezra 10.3, etc. Covenants can also be ratified by a ‘cut’—e.g., circumci-sion—, which furthers the connection between a ‘covenant’ and a ‘cut’. Indeed, the root «GZR» can referto circumcision (CAL 2015:vb.).

76. CAL «QS.S. » 2015:vb cf. the nominal form qs.ws. (‘a pact’).

77. CAL «PSQ» 2015:vb.

78. «GZZ» can be ‘to cut, define, or decide’, and «GZZ» can be ‘to cut, swear, pledge, or decree’ (BDSA «GZZ»,«GZM»).

79. CAD parasu cf. the nom. form purussû, which describes a legal decision or resolution.

80. CAD XXX.


2.34 a stone...broke them to pieces Ch. 2 contains a variety of verbs whichdenote similar activities (‘to crush, to break, to hammer, etc.’). Many ofthem have a distinctly metallurgical feel about them. The first is «DQQ». Itinvariably appears in the C-stem (2.34, 2.40, 2.44, 2.45), and means ‘tocrush’ or ‘to finely grind’, as per its Heb. cog.,81 hence my translation, ‘tobreak in pieces’. 2.35 contains an almost identical vb., the exact form ofwhich is daqû.82 In 2.35, it has the sense ‘to grind to powder’ or ‘to reduceto chaff’.83

In 2.40a, the vb. «DQQ» is paired with «H. ŠL».84 The basic sense of «H. ŠL» is ‘tocrush’,85 but it can also be ‘to forge’ or ‘to hammer out’,86 which seemsappropriate here given 2.31-45’s connection with metals. Meanwhile, in2.40b, «DQQ» is paired with «RQQ»(G) (‘to shatter’).87 I have reflected the(arguably) hendiadic arrangement of the verbs via the conj. “then”, as iscommon in the treatment of verbal hendiadys in Akk.88 The vb. «RQQ» alsoappears in the D-stem in 2.40b, where I have rendered it ‘to demolish’. In2.44, where the kingdom of God overthrows the kingdom of iron, the vb.«DQQ» is then paired with «SWP»(C) (‘to bring to an end’, ‘to destroy’).89 Ihave treated these two verbs as a explicative couplet: ‘to permanentlybreak in pieces’. Goldingay suggests “finally shatter”.90 The finality of thekingdom of God’s destructive activities is what differentiates its actions fromits predecessors’. Whereas the kingdom of iron breaks, pounds, andessentially ‘remoulds’ its predecessors’ kingdoms, the kingdom of Godmakes a final end of whatever has gone before it.

81. CAL «DQQ» 2015:vb., GHCL daqaq, as also the adj. dqq (‘finely-ground’).

82. a 3rd pers. plur. form of «DWQ»(G)

83. Jastrow suggests ‘to pound, beat, powder’ (JDTT dûq).

84. For a discussion of the way in which 2.40-44 pairs different verbs together, see “Aramaic hendiadys”(App. 0).

85. CAL «H. ŠL» 2015:vb, as per the adj. h. šyl (‘mashed’).

86. Gesenius has ‘to make thin’ (GHCL h. ašal), in line with the Syr. cog. ‘to hammer out’. Consider alsoh. ašla c(‘a smith’: CAL 2016:n.m.) and h. šyl (‘forged’: CAL 2016:adj.). Pusey provides further details anddiscussion (1868:610).

87. JDTT ra cac. The CAL suggests ‘break to pieces and pound’, which I have adopted here (CAL 2015:vb).

88. XXX.

89. CAL «SWP» 2015:vb.

90. Goldingay 1989:32, 1989:43.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 19

2.35 an end-of-season[qayat.] threshing-floor (2.35) 2.35 may embody a play onwords. qayat. refers to ‘summer’ or ‘harvest’, but closely resembles, and mayderive from, qes. at (‘end’). The prophet Amos connects (Heb. cognates of)these words together in one of his prophecies, saying, “[I see] a basket ofsummer fruit[qayis.], [for] the end[qes.] has come upon my people Israel” (Amos8.2), as Jesus may also have done, though we only have his words in Gr.(Luke 21.29-31). In the context of ch. 2, the ‘summer threshing-floor’ mayallude to the harvest set to take place at ‘the end’ of time (2.42).

2.43b just as you saw the iron mixed[QRB (Dp)] with the miry clay, so ‘they’ willbegin to combine[QRB (Dt)] with the seed of men 2.43a compares the «QRB»

(‘mixture’) of the iron and clay with the «QRB» of two ‘seeds’. Insofar as the«QRB» of the iron and clay is narrated via an act. ptc., the two substancesappear to be mixed together by an external agent. By way of contrast, the«QRB» of the two ‘seeds’ is described via a reflexive ptc., which envisages aninnate and inner agency, as an unidentified seed seeks to intermingle withthe seed of man (“the one with the other”). Ultimately, however, the seedsare unable to cohere, as is brought out in 2.43b. The unidentified seedseeks to cleave to the “seed of man” (2.43b’s comm.), but is unable to do so.Like iron and clay, the seeds are fundamentally incompatible. 2.43bemploys two ptc. forms. The first is part of a periphr. constr., which refers tothe long-term inability of the seeds to cleave together (hence “remain cloventogether”), while the second has a modal force: the iron and clay are unableto mix together, as, by analogy, are the two ‘seeds’. They cleave together fora limited amount of time, but are unable to form a coherent whole.91

2.44b for [as long as] the ages [continue][le calmayya c], lit., ‘for the ages’, alt.,‘forever’. Given the importance of different ‘ages’ in Daniel, a lit. trans.seems helpful here. For Daniel, history unfolds in a series of ages, whichclimax in a final ‘golden age’—or, as the NT has it, ‘the age to come’ (Matt.12.32, Mark 10.30, Luke 18.30, Eph. 1.21, Heb. 6.5). To last ‘for the ages’is, therefore, to last indefinitely; it is to stand the test of time.

91. A similar point is brought out by Hitzig (XXXX:XXX).

20 2.1-49: SOME INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

2.1-49: Some introductory remarks

Ch. 2 describes a landmark moment in Daniel’s life, namely the momentwhen he rose to greatness in Babylon. At the end of ch. 1, Daniel is givenhigh praise by Nebuchadnezzar and admitted into the Palace staff (1.20).The existing wise men, however, do not extend a very warm welcome tohim. They do not consider him to be ‘one of them’; hence, when the Kingsummons ‘the wise men’, Daniel is not included (2.2, 2.14-16). Perhapsthe wise men do not like him because he is an ‘outsider’, or perhaps otherfactors are in play, such as pride or envy or anti-Semitism. Either way,Babylon’s wise men are about to be taught a lesson; they will have theirabilities (or lack therefore) exposed by the King, and they will be shownthe nature of true wisdom by a lowly Jewish exile.92

At the outset of Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream which greatlytroubles him. He is desperate to find out its significance, but is rapidlylosing confidence in his wise men’s abilities. Nebuchadnezzar thereforesets the wise men a challenge: they are to reveal to him not only hisdream’s interpretation but its contents as well. Then Nebuchadnezzarwill know for certain whether or not their ‘wisdom’ can be trusted. Need-less to say, the King’s task is beyond the wise men. But it is not beyondthe God of Heaven, as Daniel is well aware. While chaos and confu-sion reign in the Palace, Daniel therefore approaches the King and asksto be given time to discern the dream’s contents, which the King grantshim. Some time later, Daniel returns to the King. He then discloses andinterprets the contents of the dream. According to Daniel, the King’sdream is a message from the Most High God. It depicts the growth andat the same time the deterioration of man’s kingdoms over the years. Asthe reign of man gains in power and size, it loses cohesion and stability.The dream thus depicts both the strength of man as well as the pride ofman. It is a dream which is at once simple, profound, and eerily accu-rate. Even in the present age, we are seeing the very trends depicted inNebuchadnezzar’s dream unfolding before our eyes.

92. The wise men could have saved themselves a huge amount of trouble had they simply admitted Danielinto their ‘club’ at the outset of ch. 2’s events, but of course God had his reasons for allowing Daniel tobe overlooked.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 21

2.1-49: The Book’s literary structure

Before considering the structure of ch. 2, it will be helpful for us toconsider the overall structure of Daniel’s writings. Any careful readerof the Book of Daniel will soon notice two important things about itscomposition and arrangement. First, it has been written in two differentlanguages: Aramaic and Hebrew. That is not, of course, obvious whenwe read a translation of Daniel, but it could not have been missed byDaniel’s original readership. Second, the Book is built around two pairsof visions. In chs. 2 and 7, we have a pair of fourfold visions (‘theFourfold Colossus’ and ‘the Four Beasts’), while in chs. 8 and 11 we havea pair of twofold visions (i.e., ‘the Ram and the Goat’ and ‘the North andthe South’).93 The commonalities between these pairs of visions can besummarised as follows.

Daniel’s first two visions: Daniel’s last two visions:

are written in Aramaic.94 are written in Hebrew.

have a global scope. They deal with thegrand sweep of world history, from thereign of Babylon to the end of thepresent age.

have a specifically Israel-centric scope.Rather than depicting the broad sweepof world history, they zoom-in onparticular points in time in Israel’shistory. They measure time in terms ofdays rather than seasons[ciddan].

depict world history in terms of foursuccessive world empires. Theyculminate in the rise of a tenfoldempire.

mention only two world-empires,namely Medo-Persia and Greece.

concern predatory beasts. concern sacrificial animals.

depict the general pattern of worldhistory in a highly metaphorical andotherworldly manner. They describemetallic images, mythical animals,nameless beasts, heavenly courtrooms,and fiery thrones.

depict specific political occurrences inmore down-to-earth terms. They referquite plainly to kings, sons, daughters,Jerusalem’s Temple, marriages,fortresses, cities, and taxes.

93. Strictly speaking, two of these visions are “dreams”, but, following Daniel’s lead, I employ the terms“vision” and “dream” largely interchangeably. See, for instance, 7.2, where Daniel refers to what he haspreviously referred to as a “dream” as a “vision”.

94. Daniel’s memoirs do not actually transition into Aramaic until 2.4b, where Daniel quotes the wise men’swords in Aramaic and continues to write in Aramaic until 7.28.

22 2.1-49: THE BOOK’S LITERARY STRUCTURE

Daniel’s first two visions: Daniel’s last two visions:

focus on the the return of the Messiahand the collapse of man’s reign.

make no mention of the return of theMessiah. They focus instead on thehumbling and purging of the Jewishpeople.

are “dreams” which Daniel receivesduring the night-time.

are visions which Daniel receives whilehe is fully conscious. They areexperienced in the presence of angels asDaniel is standing beside a river.

are already in progress at their time ofreception. Nebuchadnezzar himself isthe Colossus’s head of gold as well. Heis also the beast who receives a humanheart.

are entirely future-oriented. They makeno mention at all of Babylon. Theyfocus entirely on the empires destinedto arise in the days to come. As such,Daniel is told to ‘seal them up’.

Daniel’s writings can therefore be analysed in terms of the followingstructure:95 i] a prologue (1.1-21), ii] an Aramaic chiasmus, bracketedby Daniel’s first couplet of visions (2.1-7.28), iii] a Hebrew chiasmus,bracketed by Daniel’s second couplet of visions (8.1-12.8a), and iv] anepilogue (12.8b-13). Of course, the fitness of a structure is (at leastpartly) in the eye of the beholder. The above structure, however, com-mends itself in at least two important ways. First, it is defined by thetext itself since it takes its cue from the Book’s Heb. and Aram. divi-sion.96 Second, it is not simply a way of carving up Daniel’s writings.It also follows their general flow and content. At the outset of Daniel’swritings, Daniel is in the land of Judah. As such, Daniel’s writings beginwith a Hebrew prologue. In 2.4, once Judah has transitioned into Gen-tile hands, Daniel’s writings then transition into Aramaic—the ‘commontongue’ of the Gentiles. Daniel’s writings also take on a Gentile focus.Their narratives focus on the Gentiles’ dealing with God (chs. 4 and 5)and his people (chs. 3 and 6), and their visions focus on the evolutionof the Gentile kingdoms. With the advent of 8.1, Daniel’s memoirs thenrevert to Hebrew. At the same time, Daniel’s writings undergo a distinctchange in focus. That change of focus manifests itself in a number of

95. Interestingly, the same double-chiastic structure seems to underlie the composition of chs. 2 and 7 (dis-cussed later).

96. As Daniel Wallace writes, “When an author gives such a major clue as a shift in the verylanguage he uses, [we must] allow [it] to shape” our understanding of his writings (Wallace,https://bible.org/article/outline-daniel:2015).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 23

important ways: (1) Chs. 8-12’s visions focus on life in and around theTemple as opposed to the life in the wider Gentile world. (Note alsohow Daniel reckons time in terms of Temple-sacrifices: 9.20.) (2) Chs.8-12’s prophecies are set against the backdrop of the day as opposed tothe night. Chs. 2 and 7 depict God’s judgment falling on a world whichlies in darkness, i.e., a world which (like Belshazzar’s) is not preparedto meet its Maker. By way of contrast, chs. 8-12 depict God’s judgmentfalling on a people who should know better—a people to whom God’slight has been revealed, namely Israel. (3) Chs. 8-12 describe Danielfasting and praying for his people rather than serving the Gentile kings.(4) Chs. 8-12’s visions focus on how the Hebrews’ moral conduct willinfluence the Gentiles’ treatment of them. In response to the Jewishpeople’s transgressions, God is forced to bring Antiochus against them(8.19, 8.23). Meanwhile, chs. 2-7’s visions focus on how the Gentiles’treatment of the exiles will influence them. In response to the Babyloni-ans’ anti-Semitic ways and Belshazzar’s blasphemous tendencies, God’sjudgment comes.

We can summarise all these distinctions in the following way: Daniel’sAramaic chiasmus looks at the existence of God’s people from the out-side, while Daniel’s Hebrew chiasmus looks at the existence of God’s peo-ple from the inside. Our double-chiastic structure is thereby able to makegood sense of the contents and flow of thought of Daniel’s writings.97

97. There are, of course, plenty of other ways of dividing up the Book of Daniel. But, to my mind, a satis-factory division of the Book should reflect Daniel’s own division of it (into Aramaic and Hebrew blocks).Daniel’s switch of languages is entirely superfluous in terms of information content, so its primary pur-pose is presumably to divide the Book into distinct sections.

24 2.1-49: THE CHAPTER’S LITERARY STRUCTURE

2.1-49: The chapter’s literary structure

Like the Book of Daniel as a whole, ch. 2 takes the form of a double-chiasmus. The double-chiasmus can be laid out as follows:

Vs. Sec. Description

2.1 A: God gives the King a dream

2.2 » B: The King seeks the help of his wise men to understand his dream

2.4 »» C: The wise men stall for time, but to no avail

2.13 »» C’: Daniel asks to be given time, and his request is granted

2.17 » B’: Daniel seeks the help of God to understand the King’s dream

2.19 A’: God gives Daniel a dream

2.20 A: Daniel praises God and acknowledges the prayers of his friends

2.24 » B: Daniel is brought before the King’s throne

2.31 »» C: Daniel recounts the details of the King’s dream

2.36 »» C’: Daniel interprets the details of the King’s dream

2.46 » B’: The King climbs down from his throne and bows before Daniel

2.47 A’: The King praises God and acknowledges Daniel’s friends

The Book of Daniel’s ‘macro-structure’ therefore seems to be reflected inits ‘micro-structure’. The prevalence of such patterns (we will considermany others in our studies) is testament to the careful and intricate con-struction of Daniel’s memoirs.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 25

2.1-49: Its main message

As in ch. 1, we begin our consideration of ch. 2 with a discussion of itsmain message. We do so by considering its flow, shape, and repeatedwords.98 My proposal for ch. 2’s main message is as follows:

God has begun to unveil his greatness to the Gentile world bymeans of the exile of the Jewish people. And that same God willone day subdue all Creation to his eternal reign. God’s kingdomis therefore preparing to expand, and men must ‘get on board’with God’s plans. Indeed, unless men labour for God’s kingdom,their labours will ultimately amount to nothing, and their lives,like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-colossus, will end in ruins.

The following considerations all seem to point in the direction of myproposal:

(A) Ch. 2 is predicated on God’s sovereignty over world history. The triggerand focal-point of ch. 2’s narrative is the King’s dream. Any satisfactoryanalysis of ch. 2’s main message must therefore be consistent with thedream’s central message, namely that the kingdoms of man are in God’shands.

(B) Ch. 2 depicts a battle between two rival kingdoms. In ch. 2, the king-dom of Babylon comes into contact with the kingdom of God. (The word“kingdom” occurs exactly ten times in ch. 2.) The King wants to knowthe significance of his dream. He therefore orders his wise men to in-terpret it and, in doing so, throws down the gauntlet. The question is,Whose wise men are going to be able to rise to the challenge: Babylon’sor God’s? The answer is clear and emphatic: God’s. The God of Heavenis able to do what men cannot do (2.11, 2.27-28). God knows what mendo not know and his might is greater than the might of men. The samecontest is alluded to elsewhere in ch. 2. Like the word “kingdom”, thephrase “before the King” occurs exactly ten times. Men are made to ap-pear “before the King”, commands proceed from “before the King”, and

98. See “1.1-21: Its main message”.

26 2.1-49: ITS MAIN MESSAGE

so on. The chapter thus revolves around the King and his throne. Im-portantly, however, the answer to the King’s problems comes only whenthe Hebrews gather together in prayer “before the God of Heaven” andseek mercy from God’s throneroom (2.18). As mentioned in our trans.notes, the use of the word shape[GZR] is also important. In ch. 2, the Kingrequests the help of his “shapers-of-destiny”. Nebuchadnezzar therebyseeks to shape his own future and to carve out a destiny for himself.Ultimately, however, it is the God of Heaven who is in control of men’sdestinies. God has shaped[GZR] a rock from a holy mountain, and it willone day displace Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom.

(C) Ch. 2 has a lot to say about time. The words “time”99 and “age”occur five times each in ch. 2. These words are employed in a number ofdifferent of contexts. The wise men stall for ‘time’ (2.8), Daniel asks tobe given a set ‘time’ to unveil the King’s dream (2.16), the interpretationof the dream climaxes in ‘the ages to come’ (2.44), and so on. Ironi-cally, however, time is the one commodity which Nebuchadnezzar doesnot possess. Babylon’s days are fast running out, as are his. The sameirony is reflected in the wise men’s opening words, i.e., “O King, [mayyou] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!”. Unless Nebuchadnezzarsurrenders his sovereignty to God’s, he will certainly not live to see ‘theages to come’.

(D) Ch. 2 depicts the revelation of God’s mystery to the Gentiles. Neb-uchadnezzar’s dream revealed God’s plans for world history to the Gen-tile world, as is underlined by Daniel’s transition from Hebrew to Ara-maic (2.4b+) and his employment of certain key terms. “Mystery”,for instance, occurs eight times, as do the verbs see[h. zy] and reveal[GLY].Daniel also employs a conjugation of «GLY» (‘reveal’) to refer to the exileof the Jewish people. As such, ch. 2 describes the beginning of an impor-tant process, namely the gradual dissemination of God’s truth to the Gen-tile world by means of God’s exiled people. The same process is reflectedin the sequence of titles which Daniel employs to refer to YHWH in 2.28-49, namely, “a god in the heavens” (2.28), “one who reveals...mysteries”(2.29), “God” (2.30), and finally “the God of the heavens” (2.37). These

99. as signified by either the word zeman or [ciddan]

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 27

titles reflect a gradual revelation of God’s nature, which Nebuchadnezzarhimself acknowledges at the conclusion of the narrative with the words,“Truly, your god is a god of gods” (2.47).

In sum, then, ch. 2 revolves around three things: i] a dream which con-cerns the future of man’s reign, ii] a battle for the mastery over the NearEast, and iii] the revelation of God’s truth to the Gentile world. All ofthese themes feature in my proposal for ch. 2’s main message:

God has begun to unveil his greatness to the Gentile world bymeans of the exile of the Jewish people. And that same God willone day subdue all Creation to his eternal reign. God’s kingdomis therefore preparing to expand, and men must ‘get on board’with God’s plans. Indeed, unless men labour for God’s kingdom,their labours will ultimately amount to nothing, and their lives,like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-colossus, will end in ruins.

28 2.1-49: ITS DATE

2.1-49: Its date

Ch. 2 is set in “the 2nd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar” (2.1). Assuch, the text of 1.1-2.1 presents us with a chronological ‘wrinkle’, sinceDaniel appears to have completed a three-year education in the courseof a single year (1.5, 1.18-19, 2.1). How, then, are we meant to explain1.1-2.1’s chronology? One option (favoured by Critical commentators)is simply to dismiss it as a blunder.100 But the Critical scholars’ pre-ferred option is by no means obligatory to accept. Suppose, for instance,Daniel’s education began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (i.e., his0th year). Daniel could then have completed over two years’ worth oftraining by the close of Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd year, which could havebeen reckoned (inclusively) as three years.101 Or suppose, alternatively,ch. 2’s events took place midway through Daniel’s three-year educationprogram. Both of these explanations are at least possible explanations ofthe text, though they are not, in my view, particularly plausible ones.102

My own preferred explanation is as follows. Ch. 2 is not reckoned on thebasis of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign over Babylon (c. 605). It is reckoned onthe basis of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign over Judah (c. 587).103 Daniel couldeasily, therefore, have completed a three-year education program by theoutset of ch. 2. But why, the question arises, would Daniel choose toreckon ch. 2 in such an unusual way? The answer is because, since thedays of ch. 1 came to an end, a new era has begun. With the fall ofJerusalem in 587, Nebuchadnezzar has become the first Gentile king ofJudah since David first conquered it (2 Sam. 5.1-10), and his accessionwill now become the central theme of ch. 2’s dream and narrative. Neb-uchadnezzar is the head of a newly-inaugurated political entity—a Gen-

100. Consider, for instance, Collins’ comment on the matter. “Chap. 2”, he writes, “...was not originally com-posed to fit the context provided by chap. 1, [but] the editor of [Daniel’s] tales did not notice the dis-crepancy [between the chapters]”. But Collins’ statement seems decidedly counter-productive in termsof ‘Danielic study’. After all, if the editor of Daniel’s writings could make such careless blunders, thenhow are we meant to sensibly analyse, say, his arrangement of material? Our editor may have groupedcertain chapters together for a certain reason, or he may just not have noticed the connections betweenthem. He may have arranged his material in order to highlight certain key themes, or he may just nothave read it very carefully and compiled it in any old order. Who knows?

101. XXX.

102. That an exile actually took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year strikes me as doubtful (App. 1B).And that Nebuchadnezzar would have asked Daniel to continue with his education-program after theclose of ch. 2 does not seem much more likely (1.20, 2.48-49).

103. I am grateful to my friend Lester Wilson for directing me towards this solution.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 29

tile empire of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay, which will change theentire course of world history.104 That Daniel reckons Nebuchadnezzar’sreign from 586n should not surprise us, since he reckons Cyrus’s reign inprecisely the same way. Cyrus was a ‘king’ long before he was the rulerof Babylon. But, like the rest of the OT’s authors, Daniel considers Cyrus’sreign to have begun with the fall of Babylon, when Cyrus took his placein the Gentile colossus. Daniel is a prophet after all. He is not interestedin Cyrus’s reign over Medo-Persia; his burden concerns the governanceof God’s people. Daniel therefore treats 538n/537n as the 1st year Cyrus’sreign, just as he treats 586n/585n as the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar’s.105

Josephus treats the reign of Herod in much the same way.106 As such, Itake 2.1’s reference to the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to locatethe events of ch. 2’s in the year 585n/584n.

104. That Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion over Judah began in 587 (as opposed to earlier) is fairly clear. In July587, Nebuchadnezzar ransacked Jerusalem, instated ‘his own man’ as the head of state (Zedekiah), andcarried away Judah’s king (2 Kgs. 25.21-22). From that point on, the Hebrew Bible refers to the rulers ofJudah only as “governors”, i.e., as men under authority. As such, 587 BC marks the point in time whenJudah’s independence came to an end and she became subsumed within Babylon’s kingdom. OT historynever again dates its events by reference to the reigns of Judah’s kings (e.g., “the 4th year of Hezekiah”,etc.). They are instead dated by reference to men like Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Artaxerxes, and so on.

105. The same view is taken by Rashi and Ibn Ezra, and a similar view is maintained by Jerome (Collins1993:154).

106. XXX.

30 2.1-2: NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM

2.1-2: Nebuchadnezzar’s dream

2.1 In the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar dreamtdreams, as a result of which his spirit was left shaken and his sleep failedhim.

2.2 So the King gave orders for the interpreters-of-dreams,practitioners-of-incantations, sorcerers, and astrologers to be called [in] totell the King [about] his dreams, and they came and stood before the King.

In the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar dreamtdreams (2.1a). The year is 585n/584n BC. Nebuchadnezzar is the rulerof Jerusalem; Gedaliah is his appointed governor; and thousands of theJewish people have taken up residence in Nebuchadnezzar’s province.God has, therefore, chosen to make contact with Israel’s newly-appointedking, Nebuchadnezzar, by means of a dream. As the ruler of the Jewishpeople, Nebuchadnezzar needs to understand what he has become in-volved in, yet, as an unregenerate pagan, Nebuchadnezzar is unable tounderstand God’s communication with him. Nebuchadnezzar’s dreamtherefore fills him with dread. It leaves him shaken and unable to sleep(2.1b).

While the dream is ultimately God-given, it also results from Nebuchad-nezzar’s present concerns. According to 2.29, Nebuchadnezzar has beenpondering what the future holds for him. He is no fool. Many kingdomshave come and gone before him. Nebuchadnezzar therefore wants tofind out what will happen to his kingdom. Is he building a legacy whichwill stand the test of time or is he merely building castles made of sand?When he fells asleep that night, God gives Nebuchadnezzar the answerto his question. As we will see, however, it is not quite the answer theKing is hoping for.

Nebuchadnezzar dreamt dreams (2.1a). God’s interaction with Neb-uchadnezzar in ch. 2 is reminiscent of his interaction with Pharaoh manyyears beforehand. The ancient Egyptians were worshippers of foreigngods, and had little if any contact with the God of Israel. Yet, at the turnof the 2nd mill. BC, God chose to resettle his people in the land of Egypt(Exod. 1.1-7). He sent Joseph ahead of them into Egypt, and later made

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 31

contact with Pharaoh by means of a dream (Psa. 105.17). The purposeof the dream was twofold: i] to inform Pharaoh of his great blessingsand responsibilities, and ii] to allow a lowly exile (i.e., Joseph) to rise togreat prominence in the land. In the context of the Book of Daniel, Neb-uchadnezzar’s dream fulfils a similar purpose. The dream will outlineNebuchadnezzar blessings and responsibilities and will allow to rise togreat prominence. We can also consider, as a secondary analogy, God’sinteraction with Balaam. Balaam was a Mesopotamian oracle. As such,he was in league with all sorts of pagan spirits. He had the ability tobless or to curse whole people-groups (Num. 22.4-5). Yet, when Balaamwas asked to curse the Israelites, he came into contact with a deity un-like any he had previously encountered, namely YHWH, the God of Israel.In the context of Daniel’s writings, the same thing is about to happen toNebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar is a worshipper of pagan deities, andis thoroughly devoted to their cause.107 But, in conquering Jerusalem,Nebuchadnezzar has come into contact with a deity unlike any other, andhis life will never be the same again.

dreams (2.1b). God did not speak to Nebuchadnezzar simply by meansof a single dream, but by a whole series of dreams. Those dreams mayhave taken place in a single night,108 or God may have given Nebuchad-nezzar the same dream night after night in order to arrest Nebuchad-nezzar’s attention. If so, it could explain why Nebuchadnezzar is so un-nerved by—and so desperate to get to the bottom of—his dream.109

So the King summoned the interpreters-of-dreams (2.2). Nebuchad-nezzar now goes to his throneroom and summons his advisers to hisside. They quickly come. The phrase “before the King” is an officialterm which signifies ‘the King’s royal presence’. We should not, there-fore, picture the wise men crowing around Nebuchadnezzar’s bed like

107. as his inscriptions attest (XXX)

108. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu has a series of seven dreams which seem to follow one after the other(TADB 208). Meanwhile, the Talmud contains an account of a ‘Russian-doll’-like dream, i.e., a dreamwhich contains other dreams within it (TADB 205).

109. Compared to Akk. accounts of kings’ dreams, Daniel’s description of Nebuchadnezzar’s is quite typical.The end of prophetically-significant dreams are signalled by the vb. negeltû, which roughly means ‘towake up with a start’. The dream’s sudden termination is taken to authenticate it as significant and asrequiring interpretation (TADB 191).

32 2.1-2: NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM

visitors in a hospital ward (1.18). The wise men would have been sum-moned to the royal throneroom.110 Whether Nebuchadnezzar waiteduntil morning to summon his men is not revealed to us. Given what weknow about Nebuchadnezzar from elsewhere, he may well have decidedto summon them in the middle of the night. He was not blessed witha great deal of natural patience. Besides, if he couldn’t sleep, then whyshould his staff do so? He did not pay the wise men to have an easy life.

2.2’s repetition of the word “King” sounds rather awkward in English.The text may reflect the general pomp and circumstance which sur-rounded events in the Palace.111 Alternatively, the phrase “the King’sdreams” may better be rendered as “the royal dreams” and may hencedesignate one of the wise men’s regular duties, i.e., ‘the interpretation ofthe royal dreams’. Dreams were taken very seriously in ancient times.112

It is only recently that we have come to dismiss them as the effects of ran-dom and insignificant processes. As believers, however, we should notbe swayed by such thinking. We presently live in an age characterised bythe reception of visions and dreams (Acts 2.17). It is perfectly appropri-ate, therefore, to ask God to guide our thoughts as we sleep, and, havingdone so, to take our dreams seriously.113

the interpreters-of-dreams, practitioners-of-incantations, sorcerers,and astrologers (2.2a). The translation of the various terms employedin 2.2a in not straightforward. But, however we translate them, the im-port of the verse is much the same. Nebuchadnezzar’s entire staff is toset about interpreting the King’s dream. It is to become their numberone priority. Necromancy, sorcery, stargazing—Nebuchadnezzar doesnot care which particular methods his wise men employ to interpret his

110. For similar phrases, see 1 Kgs. 1.2, 1.28, etc.

111. Similar use of language is employed throughout the Book of Esther—e.g., Est. 1.19, 2.14, 4.11, 5.1-2,etc.

112. Aristotle wrote entire books on the nature and interpretation of dreams.

113. See, for instance, 1 Kgs. 3.4-15. Of course, common sense is required. Some of my own dreams havebeen helpful to me in understanding the Book of Daniel; others, however, have not been so enlightening,such as a dream when I was invited to a theology conference and (on the proviso that I wore a plasticcoat, which was provided by the organisers) given a concoction known as a ‘Rabbinic milkshake’. Sadly,the milkshake in question consisted simply of a few chunks of pineapple (for reasons beyond me). Adegree of discernment therefore seems to be necessary, but the fact remains: God may well choose tospeak to us through our dreams if we are open to the possibility of him doing so. We spend a large partof our lives asleep. God, I believe, wants to use that time for our good.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 33

dream, as long as they get the job done. The King is rattled and is des-perate to determine the significance of his dream. We might consider, byway of analogy, Belshazzar’s desperation to uncover the meaning of thewriting on his wall (5.7-9).

Note: For Nebuchadnezzar to request the assistance of men likepractitioners-of-incantations and astrologers in order to interpret adream may strike us as odd. We tend to associate such people with ‘rev-elation’ as opposed to mere ‘interpretation’. But, once we understandthe relevant terms and traditions, Nebuchadnezzar’s employment of suchpeople makes perfect sense. In the ancient Near East, the interpretationof signs and symbols was a complex business, which could require the in-put of all sorts of ‘experts’. Over the years, an entire ‘science’ had grownup around the endeavour. Rituals were carried out, such as the exam-ination of different animals’ entrails (Ezek. 21.21). Manuals and pastprecedents were consulted. A kind of ‘symbolic arithmetic’ was evenperformed at times.114 (These activities are collectively known as ‘div-ination’, i.e., an effort to discover “[what is] hidden in the past, present,and future”.115) The signs and symbols present in a revelation couldthen be ‘validated’ in order to determine whether they constituted a gen-uinely divine communication, and, if so, what that communication signi-fied.116 What Daniel tells us in 2.1-2, and how he describes his trainingin ch. 1, therefore fits in with what we know about life in Babylon’s royalcourt. As Collins says, “The assembly of interpreters is a familiar scenein reports of dreams of Persian kings”.117 Indeed, the practice of divina-tion was a central feature of ancient Mesopotamian court-life, as was thestudy of omen literature.118 Kings regularly received oracles and dreamsand omens, and, as a result, an array of ‘experts’ were constantly on handto decode them.119 The main methods of divination employed in Baby-

114. Signs were arranged in columns according to whether they were positive or negative and then ‘talliedup’ (Annus 2010:2-4).

115. Annus 2015:445-450.

116. Jack Sasson discusses the nature of divinely-sent messages in Mari in Florilegium Marianum II. Accord-ing to Sasson, divine communiqués could come via “prophecies, dreams, or visions”; either way, theyrequired officially-recognised divination in order to validate them (Sasson 1994:299-316).

117. Collins 1993:155.

118. Hartman 1979:131.

119. Montgomery 1927:143.

34 2.3-6: NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S REQUEST

lon were extispicy (the study of animal entrails), astrology (the study ofthe stars), and oneiromancy (the study of dreams).120 The practitionersof these ‘arts’ were probably seen as ‘scholars’ as much as ‘magicians’.121.

and they came and stood before the King (2.2). When the wise menfirst appear before the King, Daniel and his friends are not among them(2.14-15). The wise men were a large collective. The issue of who ex-actly was to appear before the King would, therefore, have been the chiefwise man’s decision. Nebuchadnezzar would simply have summoned his‘wise men’ as a collective. Why Daniel and his friends were excluded isnot revealed to us. Perhaps the wise men deemed the Hebrews mere‘novices’ or ‘outsiders’ (hinted at by Daniel’s switch to Aramaic in 2.4b),or perhaps they disliked them for some reason. (They may have beenworried about being outdone by the Hebrews: 1.20.) Either way, thewise men’s exclusion of their best members almost cost them dearly, sincethey came very close to execution. They could have saved themselves ahuge amount of stress by simply selecting the best men for the job in thefirst place.122

2.3-6: Nebuchadnezzar’s request

2.3 ‘I have dreamt a dream’, the King said to them, ‘and my spirit is anxious toknow [about] the dream’.

2.4a The Chaldeans then spoke to the King in Aramaic.

2.4b ‘O King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!’, [they said].‘Relate the dream to your servants, and we will make clear itsinterpretation’,

2.5 to which the King replied to the Chaldeans, ‘My word [of command] hasgone forth! If you do not make known to me [both] the dream and itsinterpretation, then you will be cut123 into [little] pieces and your housesset [like] dunghills;

120. Hoffner 1987:257-265.

121. Veldhuis 2010:78, Pongratz-Leisten XXXX:6.

122. In general, I refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s advisers as “the wise men” (h. akkîm), as does Daniel himself(2.12, 2.18, 2.48, 4.6, etc.). Daniel also seems to use the term “wise men” to refer to a particular classof wise man, i.e., those who reveal mysteries by means of conventional wisdom as opposed to magic(2.27).

123. lit., ‘made’

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 35

2.6 if, on the other hand, you are able to unveil the dream and itsinterpretation, you will receive from before me gifts in reward andabundant glory. Simply, [therefore], unveil the dream and itsinterpretation!’.

‘I have dreamt a dream’, the King said to them (2.3). The King nowinforms the wise men why he has summoned them. ‘I am desperate tounderstand my dream!’, he exclaims. The wise men respond in what ap-pears to be the customary manner. “Relate the dream to your servants”,they say, “and we will make clear its interpretation” (2.4). They sound asif they have provided a similar service for the King (or his predecessors)in the past. The ‘terms of service’ are apparently well-defined: the Kingrelates the dream and the wise men provide the interpretation. That isthe way things proceed in the palace. But, on this occasion, the wise menare about to receive a nasty shock. Nebuchadnezzar is about to changethe rules of the game.

If you do not make known to me [both] the dream and its interpreta-tion, then you will be cut into [little] pieces (2.5a). Nebuchadnezzardoes not merely want the wise men to ‘interpret’ his dream. He alsowants them to disclose its contents. Nebuchadnezzar’s request is not inline with protocol, so he raises the stakes of the game in order to force thewise men to engage with it. If they are able to divine the King’s dream,then they will be richly rewarded; if not, they and their households willbe destroyed (2.6). Moreover, negotiation is out of the question. Neb-uchadnezzar’s word has “gone forth”. As such, his request is to be viewedas a word of command which will not now be rescinded.124 The HCSB

therefore renders Nebuchadnezzar’s statement as, “My word is final”.125

124. We might consider, as an analogy, two of God’s declarations in the Book of Isaiah: i] “by myself I havesworn; from my mouth a word has gone out in righteousness and will not return”, and ii] “Thus is myword which has gone forth from my mouth: ...it will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose forwhich I sent it” (Isa. 45.23, 55.11†). Note, however, an important difference between Nebuchadnezzar’sstatement in 2.5a and Darius’s predicament in ch. 6. Darius’s word was final because of the nature of theMedo-Persian law; he could not change it even if he wanted to (6.15-16). Nebuchadnezzar’s, however,was final because of his own force of will. He had made up his mind, and would not be dissauded fromit.

125. The KJV suggests a different interpretation of 2.5, namely “the thing is gone from me”, i.e., ‘The dream’scontents now elude me’. The KJV’s interpretation is not followed by modern translations, but shouldnot be dismissed too quickly. Indeed, it is supported by authorities such as Josephus (Ant. 10.195), theTheod. (ho logos ap’epou apeste), the Vulg. (sermo recessit a me), Pusey (1868:605), Goldingay (1989:46),Bauer (1996:81), and so on. Nevertheless, the KJV’s interpretation of 2.5 raises a number of questions,

36 2.3-6: FURTHER THOUGHTS

2.3-6: Further thoughts

The Chaldeans then spoke to the King in Aramaic (2.4a). The textof 2.4a sets the stage for Daniel’s transition from Hebrew to Aramaic.In immediate terms, the transition reflects the way in which we, thereader, are about to be brought into a whole new world of foreign dis-course. In what follows, we are not going to read about a Judean kingin consultation with the Hebrew prophets; we are going to read of apagan king in consultation with his ‘wise men’, and all the magic andsubterfuge entailed in it. The transition also from Hebrew to Aramaicalso (as mentioned above) reflects Jerusalem’s transition from Jewish toGentile hands.126 All well and good, one might say. But we still mightwant to ask the question, Why does Daniel transition into Aramaic in2.4b? Why not in 2.1, or with the King’s words in 2.3? The answer isnot entirely clear to me. My best guess is as follows: Daniel’s transitionto Aramaic alludes to the way in which the wise men deliberately seek toexclude the Hebrews (i.e., Daniel and his friends) from their counsel. Inthe context of Daniel’s narrative, the King speaks openly since he spokein Daniel’s native tongue, but the wise men respond in such a way as toexclude the Hebrews, i.e., in Aramaic.127 As such, the wise men send outa clear message to Daniel and his colleagues: the King’s dream is theiraffair; it is Babylon’s business not Judah’s.

such as: (a) Why, if Nebuchadnezzar has forgotten his dream, is he so disturbed by it? (b) Why do thewise men repeat their request for Nebuchadnezzar to reveal it to them in 2.8? Did they not hear whathe said in 2.5? (c) How does Nebuchadnezzar hope to judge the accuracy of his wise men’s attemptedrecollections of it? Perhaps he hopes his memory will be jogged by a correct recollection of the dream,but the question still remains, Why would Nebuchadnezzar tell his wise men about his loss of memory?It would encourage precisely the kind of speculation he he wanted to avoid. (d) Why do the wise mennot at least try to guess the dream’s contents? They have little to lose, and, if they get lucky, they mightjog a memory in Nebuchadnezzar’s subconscious. (e) Why, in 2.8, does the King attribute the wisemen’s delay-tactics to his loss of memory? (“You are ‘playing for time’, since you can see the thing hasgone from me”: 2.8.) The King’s statement would make little sense. If, however, we read 2.5 as ‘Myword of command has gone forth and will not now be recalled’, then 2.8 makes far more sense: sinceNebuchadnezzar is determined not to altar the nature of his request, the wise men’s only option is tostall.

126. For further details, see “2.1-49: The Book’s literary structure”. That the wise men did indeed speak to theKing in Aramaic is not an implausible notion. The King would have recruited staff from all over Babylon’svassal states, which is why Dura’s VIPs are said to include a number of different language-groups (3.4,3.7). The body of individuals known as ‘the wise men’ would therefore have consisted of many differentraces, so Aramaic would have been a natural choice of language.

127. We might consider, as an analogy, the text of 2 Kgs. 18.26, where Judah’s spokesmen ask the Rabshakehto speak in Aramaic precisely because it will exclude the rest of the Judeans from their conversation.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 37

O King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! (2.4b).2.4b contains the wise men’s first words in the Book of Daniel. On oneleve, the words are a mere formality—the Aram. equivalent of ‘Longlive the King!’.128 Daniel’s interest, however, is not in mere formalities.Daniel wants us to see the irony of the wise men’s words. As thingsstand, Nebuchadnezzar will certainly not live to see “the ages”, since heis part of a kingdom destined to collapse. The wise men’s words couldhardly, therefore, be less appropriate. Nevertheless, they serve as an aptintroduction to the wise men, who remain resolutely unable to under-stand their true plight in Daniel’s court tales.

to which the King replied... (2.5). At first blush, 2.2-12 seems to re-count a fairly brief dialogue between Nebuchadnezzar and his wise men.But, as mentioned in 2.5’s trans. notes, it may be a summary of a con-versation which took place over a much longer period of time—perhapseven a number of days. According to the verbal forms employed, someof the wise men’s answers to the King’s questions may have been ‘officialresponses’ which were prepared by means of long consultations. If so,the wise men would have gone away to confer after the King states hisdemands (in 2.5-6 and 2.8-9), and later reconvened before the King topresent their answer (in 2.7 and 2.10-11). Nebuchadnezzar’s accusa-tions against the wise men then become more understandable, namely,a] ‘You are playing for time!’ (2.8), and b] ‘You have cooked up a storyamong yourselves’ (2.9). Nebuchadnezzar’s fury is also understandable.To wait days for an official response to an enquiry, and then to be told,‘We cannot interpret dreams unless you tell us them!’, would be enoughto enfuriate even the most patient of kings.

2.7: The wise men’s response

2.7 They later spoke a second time, saying, ‘May the King [first] relate thedream to his servants; then we will unveil its interpretation’,

May the King [first] relate the dream...(2.7). The wise men now startto realise the trouble they are in. They are likely to have left the throne-

128. Montgomery compares them to the well-known Akk. formula, “May Nebo and Marduk give long daysand everlasting years to...my lord” (1927:144).

38 2.8-9: NEBUCHADNEZZAR REPEATS HIS REQUEST

room and convened privately (in their ‘chambers’) before presenting theKing with their official ‘answer’, recorded in 2.7. ‘How are we supposedto uncover the contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream?’, they would franti-cally have asked one another. The wise men’s nervousness is reflected intheir tone of voice when they reassemble before the King in 2.7. The im-perative they employed in 2.5 (‘Relate to us the dream!’) is exchanged fora less forceful129 construction (‘May the King [first] relate the dream’).Ultimately, however, the wise men have little choice but to insist on theiroriginal terms. The King must reveal the contents of his dream; onlythen will can they interpret it.130 2.7 brings out an important distinc-tion between God’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s servants. In ch. 1’s narrative,Daniel and his friends are perfectly willing to be tested. “Please”, theysay, “let your servants be tested [for] ten days!” (1.12). The Hebrewsare confident in the power and faithfulness of their God. Babylon’s wisemen, however, are far from confident in their gods. In fact, the only thingthey seem sure of is their gods’ complete inaccessibility (2.11). They aretherefore unwilling to be put to the test.

2.8-9: Nebuchadnezzar repeats his request

2.8 to which the King replied, ‘I know exactly what you are doing! You are‘playing for time’,131 since you can see that my word has gone forth [withcertainty]

2.9 and that, if you do not make the dream known to me, [only] one fate[remains] for you.132 You have therefore prepared among yourselves anentirely deceptive story [which you plan] to recount to me until theseason[s] change. Simply recount the dream to me; I will then know thatyou are qualified to unveil its interpretation’.

I know exactly what you are doing! (2.8). Nebuchadnezzar is no fool.He may not know the exact significance of his dream, but he is awareof the wise men’s game. They have prepared a “deceptive story” withwhich they plan to occupy him “until the season[s] change”, i.e., until a

129. a jussive

130. As mentioned previously, dream-interpretation in the ANE was largely a case of following an establishedprocedure as opposed to seeking divine revelation (cf. our notes on 1.4). Nebuchadnezzar’s request wastherefore decidedly ‘off-piste’.

131. lit., ‘I know for certain that you are buying time’

132. lit., ‘your law is one’, i.e., ‘the law admits of only one outcome for you’

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 39

more urgent matter demands his attention. (Once Nebuchadnezzar hastold them about the dream, they will be able to ask him further questionsabout it, and hence open up a long dialogue.) Nebuchadnezzar will then,they hope, forget all about the horror of his dream, and business-as-usualwill resume in the palace. Or, at least, that is the idea. But, in responseto the wise men’s reiteration of their original request, Nebuchadnezzarsimply reiterates his request. Either the wise men must reveal the con-tents of his dream or they must prepare for the worst (2.9a). No amountof time-wasting will save them.

[only] one fate [remains] for you (2.9a). The “fate” which Nebuchad-nezzar refers to is that described in 2.5. The wise men will be torn limbfrom limb, and their land will be turned into a dumping-ground. Allmemory of them will be removed from the city of Babylon.

I will then know that you are qualified (2.9b). Why Nebuchadnezzarmakes so stringent a request of his wise men is outlined in 2.9b. Neb-uchadnezzar has lost all confidence in his wise men’s abilities. As far ashe can see, they are mere charlatans—men of no real talent or discern-ment who simply tell him whatever he wants to hear.133 Perhaps thewise men have given Nebuchadnezzar bad advice in the past. Or per-haps the arrival of Daniel and his friends have caused Nebuchadnezzarto question their abilities. (If a group of Judean youths could outper-form his wise men after a mere three years, then they could not be sowonderful at their jobs.) Either way, Nebuchadnezzar wants to verify hiswise men’s abilities (2.9b). They must first reveal the dream to him. Hewill then know he can take their interpretation seriously.

until the season[ciddan] changes (2.9b). The phrase “until the season[s]change” is slightly awkward in English. A more idiomatic translationmight be, ‘until the cows come home’. In the context of Daniel’s writings,the changing of seasons[ciddan] signifies the conclusion of one era and theinauguration of the next one; hence, in 2.21, Daniel refers to God as theOne ‘who changes the seasons and times’ and who ‘causes kings to pass

133. The situation outlined in 2.4b-9 is entirely plausible. Cynthia Jean (in her discussion of Neo-Assyriandivination) describes a situation where “confidence in [a given] ašiputu” is “fading away” (2010:270).

40 2.10-12: THE WISE MEN’S SECOND RESPONSE

on or stand up’ as he pleases. The sense of the King’s remark thereforeseems to be, ‘You will go on lying to me for as long as I stay in power!’.

2.10-12: The wise men’s second response

2.10 The Chaldeans later [gave their] answer before the King, saying, ‘There isnot a man in the inhabited world who is able to unveil the King’s [dream]!Never, therefore, has any king—however great [his] rule—made such anenquiry of any interpreter-of-dreams, reciter-of-incantations, or astrologer.

2.11 The King’s enquiry [concerns] so weighty a matter that no-one can make itclear before the King except the gods, who do not reside with flesh [andblood]!’.

2.12 At this, the King turned sour and [became] extremely angry, and gaveorders for all of Babylon’s wise men to be destroyed.

There is not a man in the inhabited world who is able to unveil theKing’s [dream]! (2.10). The wise men now reconvene before the Kingagain. On this occasion, they adopt a different line of defence. Okay,they admit; they may not be able to meet the King’s demands. But theproblem is not their lack of insight. It is the King’s lack of realism andfailure to follow protocol. No mortal man can know the thoughts of an-other man’s head (2.10a). That is simply not the way the world works.Nebuchadnezzar’s predecessors had recognised as much and had formu-lated their requests accordingly (2.10b). And Nebuchadnezzar must dothe same. The King of Babylon he may be, but he still needs to abide bypalace protocol.

the gods alone can illuminate it (2.11). As far as the wise men areconcerned, the King’s dream is inaccessible to them. It cannot be de-duced by logic, nor can it be revealed by divine revelation since the godsdo not consort with mere mortals. From the wise men’s point of view,then, the issue with which they are faced is completely insoluble. It alsoaptly summarises the issue which underlies the entire chapter. YHWH hasgiven the King of Babylon a dream, but the dream is inaccessible to thewise men since the King is unwilling to reveal it to them and they haveno relationship with YHWH. Aside from the King, then, only a servant ofthe dream’s giver can discern it—only, that is, a man like Daniel.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 41

At this, the King turned sour and [became] extremely angry, andgave orders for all of Babylon’s wise men to be destroyed (2.12).On hearing the wise men’s words, the King explodes. If no-one exceptthe gods can discern men’s dreams, then what on earth do the wise menthink he pays them for? Company? Entertainment? The sole pointof their existence is to know the unknowable, to speak to the gods, todiscern what other morals are unable to discern. If such things arean impossibility, then the King may as well go without a team of wisemen—which is precisely what he proposes to do! Nebuchadnezzar’s re-action is quite understandable. He has been rattled by his dream, hehas had very little sleep, and he has now had his worst fears confirmed,namely that his wise men have been playing him for a fool. He is there-fore enraged and condemns his wise men to death.

2.10-12: An aside

[the gods] do not reside with flesh [and blood]! (2.11). Accordingto the wise men, the realm of the gods and the realm of man are funda-mentally distinct. That the wise men sense a ‘barrier’ separating themfrom their gods is an interesting detail. But, given the general tenor ofScripture, it should not surprise us. According to the Book of Romans,God has engraved his moral law on the heart of all mankind, yet man hasfailed to keep it (Rom. 2.15-16). As a result, those who seek God soonbecome aware of a ‘gulf of separation’ between them and the object oftheir desire. Babylon’s wise men clearly sensed such a separation, as didthe Jews—hence Solomon’s question, “Will God really dwell with man onthe earth?” (2 Chr. 6.18†). Yet, according to the NT apostles (who werealso, of course, Jews), God has now removed the barrier between himand his Creation in the most wonderful way possible. He has personallydescended to the earth by taking the form of a man, and he has borneour sins away by means of his sacrificial death:

The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and wesaw his glory—glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

(John 1.14†)

42 2.13-16: NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DECREE AND DANIEL’S OFFER

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that wemight die to sin and live to righteousness. [As the Scripturesays], ‘By his wounds you have been healed’.

(1 Pet. 2.24†)

We can confidently, therefore, enter the holy place by the bloodof Jesus—by a new and living way which he inaugurated for usthrough the veil, that is, his flesh.

(Heb. 10.19b-20†)

2.13-16: Nebuchadnezzar’s decree and Daniel’s offer

2.13 And, as the [King’s] law went forth and the slaying of the wise men began,[the King’s men] sought out Daniel and his peers, in order to slay [them].

2.14 At about the same time, Daniel handed in an advisory report to Arioch, thegreatest of the King’s executioners, who had gone forth to slay Babylon’swise men.

2.15 ‘What has caused so extreme134 a law [to be sent forth] from before theKing?’, he declared to Arioch, the King’s [appointed] ruler. Arioch thenmade the matter known to Daniel.

2.16 So Daniel entered [the King’s presence] and sought the King’s favour. [Heasked] to be given a set time [limit within which] to unveil theinterpretation to the King.135

And the [King’s] law went forth (2.13). The King’s decree (“the law”)now begins to be effected by a man named Arioch. Arioch is the King’s‘go-to-guy’ in matters of muscle. Hartman renders his official title as“the chief of the royal police”,136 which is very apt. The King’s decree isall-inclusive. Every member of Babylon’s wise men is to be slaughtered,Daniel and his friends included. The Palace therefore (we may assume)flies into a state of confusion. The wise men begin to pack up theirbelongings in an effort to vacate the area as quickly as possible. Theguards seek to prevent their escape, worried their own heads will be forthe chopping block. And the rest of the Palace staff begin to ‘flap around’

134. GHCL defines «H. S. P» (trad., ‘urgent’) as ‘to be sharp’ or ‘hasty’ and hence, by extension, ‘to be severe’ or‘extreme’. Gesenius’s definition makes good sense in light of the context of both 2.15 and 3.22. It is notthe urgency of the King’s command which concerns Daniel; it is its extreme nature.

135. lit., ‘that he might unveil the interpretation to the King’

136. Hartman 1978:XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 43

as people do in such situations, offering very little help in as frenetic away as possible. In other words, chaos reigns supreme.

Against that backdrop, Daniel approaches Arioch in order to submit anofficial report of some kind (2.14). The report does not seem to directlyconcern the events of 2.10-13, since Daniel enquires about these eventsin 2.15. 2.14’s report therefore seems to be a regular report which hap-pens to be due at the same time as the events of 2.10-13. Despite thechaos in the Palace, Daniel has decided simply to get on with his dailyduties. 2.14 therefore seems to describe the kind of ‘happy coincidence’which characterises the Joseph story and Book of Esther. Daniel, a manskilled in the interpretation of dreams, ‘happens’ to be at the right place(at exactly the right time) to find out about the King’s request for aninterpretation of his dream, just like Joseph.137 Either way, Arioch isclearly impressed with Daniel’s attitude. Daniel’s level-headed approachis precisely what the situation calls for. Arioch therefore informs Danielabout recent events in the Palace (2.15). Arioch evidently has a greatrespect for Daniel. He has been ordered to execute him, not to conferwith him.

So Daniel entered [the King’s presence] (2.16a). When Daniel hearsabout the King’s decree, he knows exactly what needs to be done. He ap-proaches the King and volunteers his services as an interpreter of dreams.All he asks is to be given “time” to go about his task. Daniel is not“brought in” to the King’s presence, as he is in 1.18 and 2.25;138 rather,he chooses to “enter” the throneroom of his own accord, which is a dan-gerous thing to do.139 (We might consider, by way of analogy, Esther’sterror at the idea of approaching the King in such a way: Est. 4.11.) Butthen desperate times call for desperate measures, and Daniel is a manwho has great faith in his God.

137. My reading of 2.14-15 is not the standard one, nor is it certain. For a discussion of the matter, see 2.14’strans. notes.

138. See also 4.6, 5.7, etc.

139. In Aramaic, the point is conveyed by means of the G and C verbal stems. In 2.25 (and similar verses),Daniel is brought [calal (C)] into the throneroom, while, in 2.16, Daniel enters [calal (G)] it. The firstvb. is trivalent (Daniel is brought into the throneroom by a third party), while the second is bivalent (theagency of a third party is absent).

44 2.17-18: THE PRAYERS OF DANIEL AND HIS FRIENDS

The exact thought-process which led Daniel to enter the royal throne-room is not revealed to us. Perhaps Daniel derived courage from God’sprior guidance. The God who had equipped him for service in Babylon’sPalace was unlikely to let him perish before he had fulfilled his calling.(God does not give gifts for no reason.) Or Daniel’s decision may havebeen less calculated than that. Who knows? What ultimately mattersis what Daniel did. Daniel chose to take his life in his hands, and Godchose to bless him in return.

[he asked] to be given a set time [limit within which] to unveil theinterpretation to the King (2.16). When Nebuchadnezzar saw Danielentering the throneroom, he must have been outraged at Daniel’s inso-lence. (Who did Daniel think he was to waltz into the King’s presenceunannounced?) But Nebuchadnezzar must at the same time have ad-mired Daniel’s courage, and he would have remembered the potentialhe saw in Daniel many years beforehand (1.19-20). Nebuchadnezzartherefore decides to give Daniel a chance to interpret his dream. (Danielhas at least made a genuine offer to the King, which is more than hiswise men have done.) Daniel thereby earns himself a temporary re-prieve from the death sentence which hangs over his head. Exactly howmuch time he is given to unveil the King’s dream is not stated, but it isunlikely to have been long. Later that night, as the wise men continue tofall, Daniel then returns to his house, where he and his friends seek God’smercy (2.13, 2.17). The events of 2.12-23 therefore describe a Passover-like situation. Deliverance will come midway through the night (2.19a).

2.17-18: The prayers of Daniel and his friends

2.17 Afterwards, Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to hispeers (Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah),

2.18 for them to seek mercy from before the God of Heaven concerning thismystery, in order that Daniel and his peers might not be destroyed alongwith the remainder of Babylon’s wise men.

Afterwards, Daniel went to his house (2.17a). Daniel now returnsto his house, where he informs his friends about events in the Palace(2.17). Daniel has bought them some time, but, as in ch. 1, they now

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 45

need to produce results. In particular, they need to divine and interpretthe King’s dream. Daniel therefore exhorts his friends to seek the mercyof the God of Heaven (2.18).140

mercy from before the God of Heaven (2.18a). That Daniel asks hisfriends to seek God’s mercy speaks well of him. Daniel could easily havebecome presumptuous. Since God got him into the present predicament,he could have reason, God could jolly well get him out of it. But Danieldoes not adopt such a haughty attitude, nor does he seek to bargain withGod in any way or to ‘claim’ God’s deliverance. He simply exhorts hisfriends to seek God’s mercy. Even the most righteous men on earth canonly approach a holy God on the grounds of divine mercy. Whereas,therefore, Babylon’s wise men looked to pagan magic to interpret theKing’s dream, Daniel and his friends look to the God of Heaven (2.2).They placed no confidence in the flesh. If they could not find the solutionto their problem in God, then they could not find it anywhere.141

the God of Heaven (2.18a). Significantly, Daniel asks the Hebrews topray to “the God of Heaven”. In Scripture, the title “God of Heaven”is invariably used to describe God’s interaction with the Gentile na-tions. Insofar as the heavens span the whole earth, the title ‘God ofHeaven’ emphasises God’s supremacy not only over Israel but over allCreation—which, of course, is one of ch. 2’s major themes. God hastemporarily appointed a Gentile king over the nation of Israel, but willone day subdue all Creation to his reign. “The God of Heaven will causea kingdom to stand which will not be harmed for [as long as] the ages[continue]” (2.44).

2.19: God’s answer

140. To interpret a dream by making contact with the deity who provoked it was in fact standardMesopotamian practice—though, of course, seeking to make contact with YHWH was not. OneMesopotamian ‘dream-manual’ notes, “[An] interpreter may turn for verification of [a] proposed in-terpretation...to the...source of the dream, that is, to the deity [who vouchsafed it in the first place].This he may do either by means of magic practices...or by resorting to sought dreams” (TADB 221).

141. The contrast between the two approaches can, perhaps, be extended. Whereas the wise men looked tothe pagan gods, the Hebrews look to the God of Gods (Deut. 10.17); whereas the wise men looked to thedead, the Hebrews look to the God of the Living and the Dead (Isa. 8.19, Matt. 22.32), and whereas thewise men looked to the stars, the Hebrews look to the One who set the stars in their places (Isa. 40.26).

46 2.20-23: DANIEL’S THANKFULNESS

2.19 Later, in a certain vision of the night, the mystery was revealed to Daniel.So, Daniel blessed the God of Heaven,

The mystery was revealed to Daniel (2.19a). God now gives to Danielprecisely the same dream which he gave to Nebuchadnezzar.142 Under-standably, therefore, as soon as he awakes, Daniel gives praise to Godfor answering his prayer (2.19b). Daniel’s actions reflect two importantfeatures of his character: a] his godliness (Daniel’s first thought on wak-ing is to give thanks to God for his grace), and b] his faith (Daniel givespraise to God before he has found out whether the dream he has beengiven is an accurate reflection of the King’s). That Daniel has been ableto sleep at all actually says a lot about his confidence in God. The Palacewas probably still in uproar, and Daniel had chosen to put himself in adangerous position by personally approaching the King. Daniel, how-ever, was at peace, for his confidence was in God. He had a peace whichhis earthly circumstances could neither give nor take away.

2.20-23: Daniel’s thankfulness

2.20 saying in response, ‘Blessed be the name of God from age to age for [his]wisdom and might, for such things [belong] to him.

2.21 It is he who causes the appointed seasons to come and go, who causeskings to pass on and kings to stand. He gives wisdom to the wise andlearning to those who know and understand.

2.22 It is he who reveals unfathomable and hidden [things]. He knows what isin the darkness; indeed, with him the light has found a resting-place.

2.23 It is you, the God of my fathers, whom I thank and highly esteem, for youhave given me wisdom and might, and even now you have made known tome what we sought insofar as you have made known to us the King’s[dream]’.

2.20-23 records the essence of Daniel’s words of praise.143 In 2.20-22, Daniel extols a number of God’s divine attributes and works, allof which are very relevant to Daniel’s recent experiences (2.20-22). In

142. I cannot discern any distinction between a “vision of the night” and a dream, either in Daniel’s writings(7.1-2) or in the rest of the OT (Job 20.8, 33.15, Isa. 29.7).

143. It is not, I assume, a verbatim record of Daniel’s thoughts.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 47

2.23, Daniel then gives thanks to God for answering his and his friends’prayers.

Blessed be the name of God from age to age (2.20a). The first ex-alted aspect of God’s character is God’s eternality. God is an entity whowill endure from age to age and who deserves to be praised from ageand age. Indeed, as we will see, God’s existence throughout the world’smany ‘ages’ is foundational to Daniel’s dream. Daniel has seen the riseof God’s kingdom—a kingdom which will displace the reign of man andwhich will stand the test of time (4.34, 7.9-10, 7.22, 12.7). God there-fore deserves to be praised, both for what he is bringing to pass in thepresent age and for what he will one day bring to fruition in the age tocome. God’s eternality therefore concerns power as well as existence. AsGoldingay helpfully remarks, “To say God is eternal is not to make himtimeless or outside [of] time, but to affirm [as the] lord of all time and[as] unlimited by it”.144

Blessed be the name of God...for wisdom and might (2.20a). Thesecond exalted aspect of God’s character is God’s great wisdom. God isthe only wise God. Wisdom is his to have and his to give. Hence, if anyman is wise, it is because God has made him so. God’s wisdom is veryrelevant to Daniel’s situation. In unveiling the contents of Nebuchadnez-zar’s dream, God has revealed the great depths of his knowledge. Whatis unknowable as far as Babylon’s wisdom is concerned is as plain as dayas far as God is concerned.

The third exalted aspect of God’s character is God’s great might. If therevelation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream speaks of God’s wisdom, then thedream’s contents speak of God’s might and authority. In a future day,every kingdom on earth will be laid low by God’s coming king. Com-pared to him, the kings of the earth are as weak and brittle as dry clay(2.44-45).

such things [belong] to him (2.20a). Just as wisdom is God’s to haveand God’s to give, so might is likewise God’s sovereign possession. If

144. Goldingay 1989:34.


any man is mighty, it is because God has made him might—and howevermuch might and authority any earthly king may have, it is only a palereflection of the might and authority of the God of Heaven.

It is he who causes the appointed seasons to come and go,who causes kings to pass on and kings to stand (2.21a). The fourthexalted aspect of God’s character is God’s sovereignty. God alone dictatesthe flow of world history. He causes some seasons to come to an end andothers to begin. He likewise causes certain kings (and hence kingdoms)to pass on and others to arise (2.37, 2.39).145 As mentioned in our trans.notes, the two lines of 2.21a may be causally connected. That is to say,the way in which God regulates the world’s “seasons” may be connectedto his regulation of the world’s “kings”. If so, the sense of 2.21a is mostlikely, ‘God causes some kings to pass on and others to arise, and therebycauses the seasons of world history to come and go’. Indeed, Danieldescribes precisely such a turn of events in ch. 5. God causes Belshazzarto pass on and Cyrus to arise and thereby inaugurates a new “season”in world history. And, at the end of the present age, God will do thesame thing: he will cause the Anti-God to pass on (9.27, 11.45) and theglorified Son of Man to arise in his place (7.13-14, 7.22).146

appointed seasons (2.21a). Certain aspects of world history appearto be ‘cyclic’ or ‘seasonal’ in nature. Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall.They begin well (with men like Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and Alexander),as if they will stand forever, but they soon begin to crumble. As a result,history seems to go round in circles (Eccl. 1.2-6). But history does notmove forward by chance; nor does it move forward by the will of man.It moves forward by God’s sovereign decree in specific seasons. Indeed,Daniel has seen at least one “season” in world history unfold before hisvery eyes. He has seen God bring the reign of Jehoiakim and Yehoachinto an end and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to be (1.1-2). More impor-tantly, he has seen (in his night-time vision) the reign of man unfoldingin terms of four distinct ‘seasons’ governed by four distinct Gentile kings.

145. For the sense, we can consider Psa. 75.7: “It is God who executes judgment, putting down one and liftingup another”.

146. For further details, see “Aramaic hendiadys” (App. 0).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 49

At God’s appointed time, each of these kingdoms is caused to “stand” andis later caused to fall.147

He gives wisdom to the wise and learning to those who know andunderstand (2.21b). The fifth exalted aspect of God’s character is God’sgrace. As a result of his dream, Daniel has come to possess great wis-dom and knowledge, which, as Daniel acknowledges here and elsewhere(e.g., 2.18), is a gift from God. It ultimately stems neither from his Baby-lonian education, nor from his hard work and natural intelligence, butfrom God’s sovereign grace (2.21b). At first blush, to give wisdom tothe wise (and insight those who understand) may sound like a redun-dant exercise. (What is the point of giving people what they alreadypossess?) 2.21b should, therefore, be seen as a statement of God’s de-sire to award special blessings to those who make wise use of whatevergifts they already possess (Matt. 25.14-30).148 Daniel has shown an ap-titude to learn and a desire to learn (1.4, 1.17). More importantly, hehas shown great wisdom insofar as he has chosen to serve God ratherthan man (1.12-13), which is precisely what it means to be “wise” inthe Book of Daniel. To be “wise” is not to have a knowledge of a largebody of information; it is to possess a knowledge of the living God, andto act accordingly (11.33-35, 12.10). It is to live in light of eternity—tokeep God’s commandments, regardless of the earthly cost. In sum, then,Daniel’s words in 2.21b describe precisely what God has done by meansof ch. 2’s events. God has given wisdom to the wise (i.e., to Daniel) whilehe has withheld the (so-called) wise men of Babylon. The Babylonianshave had every opportunity to learn from the wisdom of Daniel and hisfriends, but, insofar as they have chosen to exclude him from their ranks,they have declined the opportunity.

It is he who reveals unfathomable and hidden [things] (2.22). Thesixth exalted aspect of God’s character is God’s willingness to reveal mys-

147. In the present commentary, I employ the terms ‘Gentile’ and ‘man’ interchangeably, e.g., when I refer to‘the reign of man’ or ‘the Times of the Gentiles’. In such cases, I have in mind man as opposed to God andthe Gentiles as opposed to God’s people. I therefore employ the term “Gentile” in the same manner as theNT does. Consider, for instance, the NT’s references to “Gentile sinners” and “the Gentiles who do notknow God” and “what the Gentiles do, [i.e., to live] in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies” (Gal.2.15, 1 Thes. 4.5, 1 Pet. 4.3).

148. We might consider, by way of analogy, Solomon’s statement in Eccl. 7.19†, namely, “Wisdom shows [alt.,commends] itself to the wise”.


teries to mankind. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was a completely mysteryto the wise men. As far as they were concerned, only one man on theface of the planet knew the contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream; andthat was Nebuchadnezzar himself (2.10-11). The wise men, however,had overlooked an important detail. They had not banked on the exis-tence of the God of Heaven—a God from whom even man’s innermostthoughts are not hidden, a God whose very nature is “light”, a God whodelights to reveal the dark and incomprehensible to his people (2.22, Psa.119.105). The world’s many hidden[GLY] things belong to the domain ofGod. God then moves these things into the domain of man by means ofhis revelation[GLY] (Deut. 29.29). Daniel’s knowledge of God has therebyenabled him to share in God’s knowledge. He has access to a source ofknowledge which men do not possess in their natural state (Gen. 1.3, 2Cor. 4.6, Heb. 4.11). As the Psalmist can therefore write, “In your light,[O LORD], do we see light” (Psa. 36.9).

Before moving on, we should pause to consider what was taking placein Judah at the time of ch. 2’s events. As Daniel was engaged in a battlewith Babylon’s false prophets, one of Daniel’s contemporaries (Jeremiah)was engaged in a similar battle with Judah’s false prophets. The LORD

therefore spoke very clearly to Jeremiah, saying,

Had [these false prophets] stood before me and listened to me,they would have spoken forth my words. I have heard theseprophets saying, ‘Listen to the dream I had...’, but they pro-ceeded to tell lies. ...Let these false prophets tell forth theirdreams. But let my true messengers faithfully proclaim my ev-ery word.

(Jer. 23.22-28†)

God could have said to Babylon’s false prophets precisely what he saidto Judah’s. Consider the situation. The wise men have presented them-selves as the mouthpiece of the gods—men who are able to speak forthgreat mysteries and to discern what other men cannot discern. But, intruth, Babylon’s prophets only speak forth excuses and half-truths. WhatNebuchadnezzar needs is a man who has ‘stood before God’, in his pres-

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 51

ence, and ‘listened to his voice’ (Jer. 23.22). And that, of course, will beDaniel’s cue.

With him the light has found a resting-place (2.22). The seventh as-pect of God’s character which Daniel exalts is God’s holiness. Here, theconcept of “light” seems to have in mind the way in which light illumi-nates things and makes them visible. The light does not allow things tobe hidden. It cannot, therefore, dwell comfortably in the presence of sin-ful man since there is a tension between man’s sinful ways and man’s de-sire to conceal them. (As Jesus said, “Everyone who does wicked thingshates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should beexposed”: John 3.20.) The light can, however, find a resting-place inGod’s presence.149 There is nothing about God’s character which needsto be hidden, nor which compels God to shrink away from the light. Onthe contrary, light can only illuminate God’s greatness. The more we findabout God, the more we find to marvel at.

It is you, the God of my fathers, whom I thank and highly esteem(2.23). There are a number of things which we should note aboutDaniel’s sentiments as they are recorded in 2.23. First, Daniel switchesfrom addressing God in the third person (as “he”) to addressing him inthe second person (as “you”). Daniel’s words are therefore both per-sonal and heartfelt. Second, Daniel addresses God as “the God of myfathers”. Daniel thus identifies God particularly with Israel as opposedto the nations. Third, Daniel is careful to thank God for granting him“the wisdom and the power” necessary to approach Nebuchadnezzar inthe first place.150 Daniel therefore shows how aware he is of God’s guid-ance and protection throughout ch. 2’s events. Fourth, Daniel sees God’sactions as the answer to the prayers of both him and his friends. (“Youhave made known to me what we sought”.)

149. In talking about a light which dwells in God’s presence, Daniel may have in mind the lampstand whichcontinually burned in God’s presence in the Tabernacle (Exod. 27.20, 35.8, etc.).

150. Daniel’s mention of God’s “wisdom and power” in 2.23a does not seem to concern God’s revelation of theKing’s dream, since Daniel says, “You have given me wisdom and might, and even now you have madeknown to me what we sought of you...”. Daniel therefore seems to have two distinct blessings in mind:first, an otherwise unspecified gift of “wisdom and might”, and, second, God’s answering of his prayer.

52 2.20-23: SOME APPLICATIONS

In sum, then, Daniel’s words of praise are personal, reverent, and thank-ful. They depict God’s actions as a vindication of the Hebrews’ wisdomand godliness over the wise men’s complete lack of these attributes. TheBabylonians may not have regarded the Hebrews very highly, but, in thefinal analysis, it made very little difference. The God of Heaven wason the Hebrews’ side. And, ironically, Daniel now knew the piece of in-formation which he and the wise men needed in order to remain alive(2.5)!

2.20-23: Some applications

Before moving on, there are a number of things which we should pauseto note about 2.19-23 from an applicational perspective.

(1) It is important for us to be honest with one another. Of the fourHebrews, Daniel was the group’s natural leader. Daniel might thereforehave been tempted to put on a brave face before his peers and to keep hisencounter with Arioch and Nebuchadnezzar to himself. (A true leadershould never show signs of weakness, right?) But Daniel would not havea bar of such thinking. If he and his friends were going to survive theirtime in Babylon, then they would need each other’s help, support, andencouragement; hence, on returning from his discussion with Arioch,Daniel immediately informed his friends as to what had happened andrequested their prayers.

As Christians, we can be far too slow to request the prayers of our friendsand churches. (By way of illustration, we may only need to considerwhen we last did such a thing.) We no doubt have our reasons: perhaps,for instance, we see it as a sign of weakness, or perhaps we see it as anindication of a lack of confidence in our own prayers, or perhaps wesimply don’t like ‘opening up’ to others. Either way, we must changeour ways. To request the prayers of others is not a sign of weakness;it is a sign of wisdom. It also reflects the extent to which we valuethe fellowship of other Christians. Jesus specifically told his disciples,“If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, myFather in heaven will do it for you” (Matt. 18.18-19 NLT). According to

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 53

Jesus, then, communal prayer has great value. When two or three peoplegather together in order seek God’s help, great things can be achieved.

(2) We should be quick to acknowledge the help of others in life. In 2.23,Daniel specifically gives credit to his friends. (He does the same thing in2.36.) Whenever we achieve anything for the Lord, we invariably owemuch of our success to the example, influence, and prayers of others.How sad, then, that we are often so slow to acknowledge such things. Wecan have a great impact on our fellow-believers simply by encouragingthem in their endeavours.

(3) Worship must come from the heart. Daniel’s words of praise in 2.19-23 are highly instructive. In 2.19-22, Daniel mentions a number of God’sdivine attributes—e.g., God’s wisdom, power, sovereignty, etc. The textis not, however, an exercise in abstract theology. Daniel is describingthose aspects of God’s character which he has personally come to knowand appreciate as a result of recent experiences. Daniel’s worship isliving, real, and heart-felt.

Daniel’s words teach us a simple but important lesson: worship is atits best and most sincere when it springs from our own personal expe-riences. We cannot be taught how to worship. Our worship must flowout of what God has done in our lives. We must therefore be careful notto prescribe ‘rules’ for worship or to label certain truths as ‘more appro-priate’ expressions of worship than others. It is not in fact uncommonto hear such rules pronounced—and then tacitly adopted—in churches.Consider, for instance, the Psalmist’s simple cry, “I love the LORD, becausehe has heard my voice” (Psa. 116.1). To say such things, I once hearda preacher claim, is ‘to paddle in shallow water’—to engage in a ‘self-centred’ form of worship. According to the preacher in question, thehighest form of worship is not to thank God for our salvation but to givethanks to God for Christ’s moral perfections. Such ideas have a ring ofgodliness, and are no doubt well-intentioned. But if we want to worshipGod in an acceptable manner, then we need to look to Scripture, and findout what God himself says about the matter. And, when we do so, we donot find a single example of a man praising God for Christ’s moral per-


fections. By way of contrast, we encounter countless examples of menpraising God for his acts of kindness and salvation (Exod. 15.1-2, Judg.5.2, 1 Sam. 2.1, 2 Sam. 22.1-7, Psa. 118.21, Isa. 12.2-3, etc.). To dismisssuch worship as ‘inferior’ or ‘self-centred’ therefore strikes me as an en-tirely man-made and unhelpful practice. Who do we think we are? Arewe seeking to ‘out-spiritualise’ the authors of Scripture? Ultimately, thebest way to praise God is to be led by what God himself has put withinour hearts. If we feel a desire to praise God for the health with whichhe has blessed us, then the best thing we can do is to praise God for thegift of health. And if we feel a desire to praise God for the family andfriends with which he has blessed us, then the best thing we can do isto praise God for the gift of family and friendship. If, rather than doingsuch things, we seek to engage in (so-called) ‘higher’ form of worships,then our worship will soon lose its life and vibrancy. It will become amerely man-made affair—an activity which brings weariness rather thanpleasure to the heart of God. God made the following claim about theIsraelites of Isaiah’s day,

These people come near to me with their mouth and honour mewith their lips, but their hearts are far from me; their worshipof me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.

(Isa. 29.13 NIV)

It would be tragic if God viewed our worship in the same way.

(4) The worship of God must take centre-stage in our lives. When heawoke from his dream, Daniel had all sorts of things which needed toattend to. He needed to inform his friends about what had happened,to contact Arioch, to make an appointment to see the King, and so on.But, before concerning himself with any of these, Daniel paused to givethanks to God.

As believers, we should be people who are marked out by a deep thank-fulness to God for all the things he has done for us. We will probablynever fully fathom or appreciate the extent to which we are reliant uponhis grace and support. Let us not, therefore, be like the ungodly, “[who],

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 55

although they knew God,...did not honour him as God or give thanks tohim” (Rom. 1.21). Let us instead “give thanks always and for everythingto God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5.19).

(5) All successful Christian ministry must be predicated on prayer anddevotion. The events of 2.19-23 mark the beginning of Daniel’s rise togreatness in Babylon. He ends his career in the service of Nebuchadnez-zar as one of the most powerful men in the Near East’s most powerfulempire (2.48). But behind Daniel’s rise to greatness lies the quiet com-munal prayer of 2.19-23. True—prayer and devotion do not guaranteeus promotion or ‘success’, but they are almost invariably preconditionsof it. Towner brings this point out nicely in his comments on ch. 2:

If Daniel’s pity, loyalty, and wit are intended to be offered as asure-fire formula for successful living in an alien land, then wemust part company with the [rather] naive hope of [Daniel].151

It is doubtful, however, that...Daniel cherished any idea as wist-ful and simplistic as that. After all, the latter half of the Bookis very much aware that even the saints ‘[will] fall by the wordand flame, by captivity and plunder’ (11.33-35). [Daniel] in-tends to make the case that only those human efforts at heroicservice which place their ultimate reliance in the wisdom andpower of the ‘God of gods, and Lord of kings’ can hope to standthe test of authenticity and so ultimately to be judged as justand good. That is a teaching with which we can stay.152

(6) As Christians, there are times when we need to step into the limelightfor the sake of our Lord. When Esther remained silent (as per Morde-cai’s command), judgement came upon the Jewish people. And, hadDaniel remained silent (rather than approaching the King), his experi-ence would have been similar. We must therefore be wary of becominganonymous Christians, and we must not be content with a ‘silent wit-ness’;153 if we do so, we may miss our calling in life altogether.

151. For Towner, the ‘Daniel’ of ch. 2 is merely a fictional character, and the ‘Daniel’ who composed the Bookmerely a Maccabean author. I have therefore substituted in “Daniel” for Towner’s references to “theancient writer” and other such titles.

152. Towner 1986:42.

153. a concept which is quite foreign to Scripture (2 Cor. 4.13)

56 2.24-28: DANIEL APPEARS BEFORE THE KING

2.24-28: Daniel appears before the King

2.24 Daniel therefore went to Arioch, whom the King had appointed to destroythe wise men of Babylon; he went and spoke to him as follows: ‘Do notdestroy the wise men of Babylon! Bring me in before the King, and I willmake clear to the King the interpretation’.

2.25 So Arioch hurriedly brought Daniel in before the King and spoke to him asfollows: ‘I have found a mighty man among the sons of the Revealed [i.e.,the exiles] of Judah, who will make known to the King the interpretation’.

2.26 The King [gave] Daniel (whose name was Belteshazzar) an immediateanswer, saying, ‘Does there [lie] with[in] you the ability to make known tome the dream which I have seen, together with its interpretation?’.

2.27 Daniel immediately [presented his] answer before the King, ‘No wise man,reciter-of-incantations, interpreter-of-dreams, or shaper-of-destiny is ableto unveil to the King the mystery about which the King has enquired.

2.28 But there is a god in the heavens—one who reveals mysteries—and he hasmade known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will come to pass after the[present] days. Your dream—i.e., your mind’s visions [as you lay] on yourbed—[proceeded] as follows.

Daniel therefore went to Arioch (2.24). Armed with an understandingof the King’s dream, Daniel goes to tell Arioch the good news. Ariochneed not continue his execution of the wise men; he need only escortDaniel to the throneroom, and all will be well (2.24).

Then, hurriedly, Arioch brought Daniel in before the King (2.25).Arioch immediately agrees to Daniel’s proposal and escorts him to thethroneroom. On their arrival, he introduces Daniel in a slightly self-serving manner. (“I have found a mighty man among the [captives]”.)Arioch may be looking to take some of the credit for the dream’s in-terpretation for himself, or he may have other motives. (He may, forinstance, want to make Daniel’s earlier visit sound more official.) Eitherway, we should not think too badly of Arioch for his behaviour. He hastreated Daniel well in at least two respects: first, by telling him aboutthe King’s decree (instead of executing him), and, second, by agreeingto escort Daniel into the King’s presence. After all, Arioch does not yetknow whether Daniel’s knowledge of the King’s dream is accurate; heonly has Daniel’s word for it! Arioch’s presence at the same time adds an

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 57

‘edge’ to the narrative. Arioch is the King’s executioner; as such, his pres-ence in the throneroom symbolises the threat of death. In the contextof the overarching narrative, we do not know how the King will react toDaniel’s behaviour. He is not the most predictable of individuals to putit mildly.

Does there [lie] with[in] you the ability to make known to me thedream? (2.26). True to form, Nebuchadnezzar comes straight to thepoint: ‘can you explain the dream or not?’, he asks. That is his soleconcern at present (2.26). In Daniel’s view, however, the King’s questionis unduly focused on Daniel’s own abilities. (“Does there [lie] with[in]you the ability to [interpret] the dream?”.) Daniel therefore begins hisresponse in a rather indirect manner. He first emphasises the difficultyof the King’s request and then goes on to reiterate the wise men’s claimthat the King’s dream is a “mystery” to mere mortals (2.27). (One caneasily imagine Nebuchadnezzar’s blood beginning to boil as Daniel is ex-plaining these things!) But Daniel quickly comes to the point. ‘There is aGod in Heaven’, he announces, ‘whose very nature is to reveal great mys-teries’ (2.28). Daniel’s statement has two important implications. First,Daniel can interpret the King’s dream only because he knows the God whobrought it about in the first place (2.28). Daniel’s ability does not, there-fore, ‘lie within him’ as such—at least not intrinsically. Second, Daniel’sGod is very different from Babylon’s nearest equivalents. Babylon’s godsdo not consort with mere flesh and blood; they keep their secrets tothemselves (2.11). Daniel’s God, however, is by nature a “revealer ofmysteries”. He reveals to mankind what is hidden to their natural sight.Indeed, to do so is part of his very nature.

2.29-30: The dream’s background

2.29 O Thou King! Your thoughts and desires rose up [as you lay] on your bed.‘What will come to pass after [the present day]?’, [you wondered]. Theone who reveals such mysteries then made known to you what will cometo pass.

58 2.27-30: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS

2.30 As for me, not because of a wisdom more [present] in me than any otherliving [creature] has this mystery been revealed to me, but so that theinterpretation might be made known to the King, and so that you mightknow the thoughts of your heart.

your thoughts and desires rose up [within you]. ‘What will come topass after [the present day]?’, [you wondered] (2.29a). Before be-ginning the ‘interpretation proper’ (found in 2.31-35), Daniel continuesto clarify the nature of the situation. Nebuchadnezzar has been con-templating his kingdom’s future. In response, God has given the King(and now Daniel) a vision of it (2.29b). Daniel’s task is to explain thevision to the King, i.e., to act as a ‘human translator’ between heavenand earth. As such, Daniel has an important role to play. But the Kingshould not, for that reason, view Daniel as an important man in and ofhimself. Daniel is simply the human agent whom God has chosen (2.30),as Daniel discloses without hesitation. (“This mystery has been revealedto me”, he says, “not because of [any] wisdom which is more [present]in me...”.) Even, then, in the midst of his ‘big moment’—when he isabout to reveal unimaginable mysteries to the most powerful man in theNear East—, Daniel refuses to seek his own glory. As such, his attitudeis notably different from Arioch’s. Jerome summarises the situation asfollows:

The King...[thought] cleverness of the human intellect couldembrace a knowledge of the future, and, for that reason,he...ordered the wise men of Babylon to be slain. Daniel there-fore [made an] excuse for those who were unable to speak,[while he] himself avoid[ed] the envy of others, lest any should[think he knew the future] by virtue of his personal wisdom.154

2.27-30: Some further thoughts

The exact purpose of Daniel’s statements in 2.27-30 is not immediatelyapparent. (Why bother repeating all these things?) The verses are oftenglossed over as if they are a mere preamble to ‘the main event’, but theyserve an important purpose in ch. 2’s narrative. People’s dreams tend

154. Jerome on Dan. XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 59

to be related to their conscious thoughts and concerns in some way, asis true in Nebuchadnezzar’s case.155 Nebuchadnezzar has been contem-plating Babylon’s future. (“Your thoughts and desires rose up [withinyou]. ‘What will come to pass after [the present day]?’, [you won-dered]”.156) He has by the same token been contemplating the futureof God’s kingdom, since, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem,God’s kingdoms and Babylon’s kingdom became fundamentally inter-twined (cf. ‘the wheat and the tares’ in Matt. 13.24-29). God has there-fore chosen to give Nebuchadnezzar an insight into what lies aheadfor him and his successors (2.29b). Accordingly, Daniel addresses Neb-uchadnezzar in the 3rd pers. (as “the King”). God wants Babylon’s futureto be known to the man who currently rules over Babylon. But Goddoes not want Nebuchadnezzar to get the wrong idea. God does notwant Nebuchadnezzar to think of himself as a man who warrants God’sattention. On the contrary, God wants to humble Nebuchadnezzar. Hewants Nebuchadnezzar to realise a few ‘home truths’. Babylon is not theall-powerful and age-steadfast kingdom Nebuchadnezzar takes it to be.Babylon’s reign must one day come to an end, as must that of every otherGentile kingdom. God therefore chooses to speak to Nebuchadnezzar viaan intermediary. Nebuchadnezzar is unworthy to communicate directlywith the Most High God and is unable to understand the mysterious af-fairs in which he has become involved. Nebuchadnezzar must thereforeseek the help of a ‘lowly exile’, namely Daniel. (We might consider, byway of analogy, the way in which God wanted Naaman the Syrian tobathe in the muddy rivers of Israel rather than the rivers of Damascus: 2Kgs. 5.12.) Men must come to God on God’s terms. Things have neverbeen otherwise.

2.27-30 also happens to form a very neat chiasmus:

155. According to Oppenheim, the kinds of dreams which people recorded in the ANE can be divided intothree major categories: i] dreams which were revelations of a particular deity’s majesty and will, ii]dreams which reflected the bodily, mental, and spiritual state of the dreamer, and iii] “mantic” dreamswhich foretold the future. Nebuchadnezzar’s seems to have been a mix of all three.

156. The vb. «SLQ» is later employed to describe the way in which ch. 7’s beasts arise[SLQ] from the depthsof the sea (7.3). Nebuchadnezzar’s thoughts may, therefore, be thoughts he did not want to be dis-turbed—doubts and fears submerged deep within his sub-conscious which God has ‘stirred up’.

60 2.31: THE SINGLE COLOSSUS

Sec. Text

A: The mystery about which the King has enquired is beyond...any wise man,

» B: but...a god in the heavens—one who reveals mysteries—has made known

»» C: ...what will come to pass.

»»» D: Your dream...[as you lay] on your bed [proceeded] as follows:

»»» D’: [As you lay] on your bed, your thoughts and desires arose [within you]

»» C’: ‘What will come to pass after [the present day]?’, [you wondered]

» B’: He who reveals such mysteries made known...what will come to pass,

A’: [and] this [same] mystery has been revealed to me.

2.31: The single Colossus

2.31 As you watched, O King, behold: a single lofty image. That image—greatand extraordinarily bright—stood [directly] in front of you, its appearancefearful.

As you watched, O King, behold: a single lofty image (2.31). Danielnow moves on to the specifics of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The dreamrevolves around a lofty[sagî c] image. The adj. sagî cprimarily refers to theimage’s height. But it may also allude to man’s ‘lofty’ ambitions—i.e., hispride—, especially given the imagery employed in chs. 3 and 4. Eitherway, Daniel sees the image as a hugely imposing figure.157 He must alsohave been surprised by its make-up. The Babylonians would not havechosen to build an image from so many different metals—nor, perhaps,would they have been able to.

a single...image (2.31). Daniel describes the Colossus as a “single” im-age in order to emphasise its unity. While the Colossus consists of manydifferent metals, it is nevertheless a single entity. (As we will see, whileit depicts many different kingdoms, it depicts a single phase of worldhistory, namely the Times of the Gentiles.) Daniel also describes theColossus as “great and extraordinarily bright”. In our mind’s eye, wemight picture it as an enormous metallic statue (like the image the King

157. The opening words of 2.32 could be rendered as “Oh, that image!” (so the YLT), which would furtheremphasise its excessive nature.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 61

would erect on the Plain of Dura), gleaming in the sunlight. Before it,even the great Nebuchadnezzar must have looked like a very small andinsignificant figure.158

In his waking life, Nebuchadnezzar would have been surrounded by idolswhich vaguely resembled the Colossus in form. According to GeorgeRawlinson, the majority of Babylon’s idols were made of gold, silver,brass, bronze, or iron; some of them also involved clay insofar as theywere built around a clay model.159 Aside from its composite construc-tion, then, the Colossus may not have been out-of-place in Babylon’spalaces or temples. Nebuchadnezzar would therefore have admired it, aswell as the king who built it.160 Daniel, however, saw it as an abomina-tion—a horrific and idolatrous monument to man’s vanity and pride.161

2.32-35: Five kings and kingdoms

2.32 That image! Its head [consisted] of goodly gold, its chest and arms ofsilver, its core and thighs of bronze,

2.33 its legs of iron, [and] its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

158. Dreams in the ancient Near East often involved enormous figures or apparitions. One of Egypt’s pharaohsrecorded a dream where he saw an enormous statue of Ptah (an Egyptian deity) towering before him(TADB 189).

159. RTSGM XXX.

160. In Babylon’s records, kings make a point of listing (with no small amount of pride) the various structuresand temples which they have erected in honour of the gods.

161. Nebuchadnezzar’s vision may have been vaguely familiar to the King. According to John J. Collins, itis not uncommon for a prophetic vision to depict the course of history via “a sequence of metals ofdeclining value”. “The most famous [example]”, according to Collins, “is found in Hesiod’s Works andDays, 1.109-201, [which is thought to have been recorded in the 8th cent. BC]. Hesiod, [a Greek author],describes a sequence of five ages—golden, silver, bronze, a fourth (...not identified with a metal), andiron” (Collins 1993:162-163). And, according to Collins, Hesiod’s ‘vision’ may itself have stemmed froman earlier source. If so, Nebuchadnezzar would have found the imagery in his dream familiar. But, forall the similarities between Hesiod’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s visions, their differences are very striking.First, Hesiod’s vision does not concern a series of kingdoms which take over the rulership of the NearEast from one another; rather, it concerns a series of ‘god-like’ races who materialise out of thin air andthen pass out of existence just as mysteriously once their time comes. Second, Hesiod’s vision is notgrounded in ‘world history’ as such; it simply concerns a race of ancient spirit-creatures whose existenceis not related to the present state-of-the-world in any obvious way. Third, Hesiod’s vision does not giveany clear idea as to how things will pan out in the future; rather, it concludes with a description of a ‘fifthrace’ of creatures (whose existence is an unhappy one) and then moves on to a different subject entirely.Nebuchadnezzar’s vision therefore employed (potentially) familiar imagery, but the events it describedwere decidedly unfamiliar to their hearers.

62 2.32-35: FIVE KINGS AND KINGDOMS

2.34 You continued to watch until a stone was shaped out—without hands—,and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and broke them topieces.

2.35 At that point, the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were simultaneouslyground into tiny pieces and became like chaff [found] on an end-of-seasonthreshing-floor. The wind then carried them away and no place could befound for them; meanwhile, the stone which struck the image became agreat mountain and filled the whole earth.

Daniel now describes the composition of the Colossus. Daniel explicitlyinterprets his statements in 2.36-45, which we will shortly consider. Forthe moment, we will simply consider the overall thrust and symbolismof the details recorded in 2.32-35.

Its head [consisted] of goodly gold... (2.32). The Colossus has fourdistinct ‘parts’ which are constructed from four distinct metals (2.32-33).In 2.32-33, Daniel describes the sections one at a time, working his wayfrom the head to the toes. The head is made of gold, the torso of silver,the core and thighs of brass, the legs and feet of iron, and the toes of aniron-and-clay composite, as tabulated below:

Sec. Body-part Metal

1. Head Gold

2. Chest & arms Silver

3. Core & thighs Bronze

4. Legs & toes Iron & clay

For all its impressiveness, however, the Colossus is ultimately a pictureof deterioration and degradation. Its tendency to deteriorate is reflectedin two key trends which unfold as we move from head to toe. First, theColossus’s metals become progressively more base; that is to say, theybecome cheaper and less resistant to corrosion. What begins as goldand silver ends as iron and clay. Second, the Colossus’s metals becomeprogressively less pure. What begins as unalloyed elements (gold andsilver) ends as a mixture of iron and clay. The Colossus is thereforestructurally unsound. While iron or clay can each individually be used

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 63

to construct a sound base, the combination of the two is a recipe fordisaster.

As a whole, then, the Colossus is destined to fall; and fall it does. Evenas Nebuchadnezzar is admiring its splendour, a stone appears and smitesthe Colossus’s feet. The Colossus is therefore brought crashing down,and its precious metals are reduced to ruins. Where a mighty colossusonce stood, only rubble remains, which Daniel refers to as “chaff”. Atthat point in the dream, a wind arises and carries the chaff away. Thesame imagery is employed in Isa. 41.14-16.162 The threshing floor isthereby swept clean of the Colossus’s unwanted remnants, which pavesthe way for a fifth kingdom to arise. Daniel’s vision thereby acquiresa distinctly agricultural feel. The concept of a harvest is not well-understood in the modern world. Once gathered in, grain crops mustbe ‘threshed’ and ‘winnowed’ in order to separate their edible parts fromthe unwanted chaff (the stalks and husks and so forth). Threshing is theact of ‘loosening’ the edible part of the crop from its stalk and husk. Inrural areas, it is done by laying out the crop on a threshing floor andbeating it with a flail, or by allowing animals to walk over it (to ‘treadit [down]’). The remnants of the threshing process are then winnowed.The winnower tosses the threshed grain into the air (with a winnowingfork), and the wind is allowed to carry away the (lighter) unwanted chaffwhile the heavier grain falls back to the floor. The process is repeateduntil all the chaff has been blown away, i.e., until only the desired part ofthe crop is left on the threshing floor. The arrival of the stone seems tohave precisely such ‘threshing’ in mind. It detaches the metals from oneanother, and crushes them to a fine powder. The wind is then allowedto ‘winnow’ the remains of the Colossus. It blows the powder to and frountil no trace of it remains, and the site on which the Colossus stood isready for a new kingdom to arise. We might compare how God sent awind across the earth to assuage the waters of the great flood and henceto prepare the world for a new dawn (Gen. 8.1-2).

162. “Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I am the one who helps you, declares the LORD; yourRedeemer is the Holy One of Israel. Behold, I make of you a threshing sledge—new, sharp, and havingteeth; you will thresh [«DWŠ»] the mountains and crush them [«DQQ»], and you will make the hills likechaff. You will winnow them, and the wind will carry them away, and the tempest will scatter them.And you will rejoice in the LORD; in the Holy One of Israel you will glory” (Isa. 41.14-16†).

64 2.32-35: FIVE KINGS AND KINGDOMS

the stone which struck the image became a great mountain and filledthe whole earth (2.35b). The fifth kingdom is represented by a “stone”(2.34). Unlike the Colossus’s remains, a ‘place’ (alt., ‘site’, as in Ezra 6.7)is found for it. Once it has taken root in the earth, the stone is said to ex-pand until it morphs into a “great mountain”. As such, the fifth outgrowsthe site of the Colossus and fills the entire earth. The chaff is thereforecompletely displaced. Even without the aid of Daniel’s interpretation,then, we can already identify the fifth kingdom as a very different kindof entity to its predecessors. The Colossus’s (four) kingdoms are con-nected with the reign of Gentile man insofar as they: a] flow forth fromNebuchadnezzar’s reign, b] consist of metals produced by human hands,and c] form a human figure. The fifth kingdom, however, has very dif-ferent origins. It is: a] distinct from the Colossus, b] not produced byhuman hands, and c] not fashioned after the likeness of any figure orform. The fifth kingdom also differs from its predecessors in two furtherways:

· While the Colossus’s kingdoms all have their successors, the fifthkingdom is not succeeded by any other kingdom—a point we takeup in our consideration of 2.45.

· While the fifth kingdom is stronger than the Colossus’s kingdoms, itsstrength is of a different nature. It is not metal but stone. It is not,therefore, stronger than iron in the same way that silver is strongerthan gold and bronze than silver. It is a different kind of substancealtogether. It thus depicts a different kind of strength.

The arrival of the kingdom of stone therefore seems to depict the inaugu-ration of God’s eternal kingdom, viz., the dawning of the Messianic age.Given the manner in which the stone shatters its predecessors’ reigns, Itake 2.35 to depict the moment when Christ returns in glory and power.On that day, the entire world will be shaken to its core and whatever isnot rooted in God will come crashing down (Matt. 24.27, Heb. 12.27,Rev. 1.7, 6.13). Hence, as we examine the course of the Colossus’s em-pires—moving from its head (in the clouds?163) to its feet on the earth—,we are brought ever closer to the moment when heaven’s reign is finally

163. 4.11

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 65

established on the earth. That 2.35’s stone is said to come from a moun-tain (2.45) and to turn into a mountain is an unusual detail. It is as ifthe stone is broken off from a mountain, rolls down the mountainside(and builds up momentum), and finally strikes the Colossus’s feet. Ei-ther way, the mountain from which the stone is hewn no longer seemsto be in view when the stone expands to fill the earth (2.35). Perhaps,then, we should see 2.45’s mountain as a ‘heavenly mountain’ (i.e., asGod’s heavenly reign), and then see the expansion of the stone into amountain as the inauguration of God’s reign on the earth.

2.36-38: The first king, namely Nebuchadnezzar

2.36 That was the dream, and we will now relate its interpretation before theKing.

2.37 You, O King, are the king of kings to whom the God of Heaven has giventhe kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory.

2.38 He has also given into your hand, wherever they [happen to] reside, thesons of men, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, and hehas made you ruler over them all. You are the head of gold.

Thus was the dream (2.36a). With the basic details of Nebuchadnez-zar’s dream in place, Daniel moves on to their interpretation. Nebuchad-nezzar apparently makes no response to Daniel’s claims. He has probablybeen left speechless. He has just heard a man about whom he knows nextto nothing tell him about his innermost thoughts and concerns. Suchthings are not possible, as his wise men were only too quick to point out!

We will now, before the King, make clear its interpretation (2.36b).As he begins his interpretation of the dream, Daniel switches from thefirst person singular to the first person plural, i.e., he speaks about “we”as opposed to “I”. The “we” may be intended to encompass Daniel andhis friends,164 or it may be intended to encompass Daniel and Arioch.The latter strikes me as the more likely possibility. For a prisoner-of-war to stand before the King of Babylon and declare Babylon’s fall wasa risky business. It was preferable, therefore, for the message to comefrom him and Arioch jointly. (Besides, Arioch had wanted to take some

164. See our comments on 1.7.

66 2.36-38: THE FIRST KING, NAMELY NEBUCHADNEZZAR

of the credit for Daniel’s interpretation of the dream; well, here was hischance!) Either way, the text of 2.35b-36 provides an interesting coun-terpoint to the wise men’s opening words in 2.4b. “O King, [may you]live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!”, the wise men proclaim; “Relatethe dream to your servants, and we will make clear its interpretation”.Daniel, by way of contrast, says, ‘You will not live for [as long as] theages [continue], O King! That is the message of your dream, as ourinterpretation will now make clear’.

You, O King, are the king of kings to whom the God of Heaven hasgiven the kingdom... (2.37-38). According to Daniel, God has blessedNebuchadnezzar in four specific ways. First, God has made Nebuchad-nezzar a “king of kings”; that is to say, God has established Nebuchad-nezzar as a monarch who has numerous ‘vice-regents’ and ‘governors’underneath him (such as Gedaliah). In terms of the Near East’s gover-nance, Nebuchadnezzar is therefore a King of Kings. He is at the ‘top ofthe tree’, so to speak—which image forms the backdrop to ch. 4’s events.Second, God has given Nebuchadnezzar dominion over “the kingdom”of the Near East (2.37). When Nebuchadnezzar’s father (Nabopolas-sar) rose to power, the Assyrians were the dominant power in the NearEast, but, by the time Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne, the Assyri-ans’ strength had all but faded. Nebuchadnezzar had therefore inher-ited an unrivalled kingship over the Near East. Third, God has madeNebuchadnezzar’s kingdom “powerful, strong, and glorious” (2.37). InNebuchadnezzar’s day, Babylon was a place of both military strength andcultural beauty; indeed, it was one of the wonders of the then-knownworld—“the glory of [the world’s] kingdoms” (Isa. 13.19). Fourth, Godhas given Nebuchadnezzar’s subjects “into his hand”; that is to say, Godhas given Nebuchadnezzar absolute dominion over his people. Babylonwas not a democracy. The King of Babylon ruled his people with a rod ofiron, and his people (mostly) obeyed him. Daniel later says of Nebuchad-nezzar, “all peoples, nations, and language-groups trembled and fearedbefore him; he slew whomever he desired, and he let live whomever hedesired” (5.19).165

165. In describing Nebuchadnezzar’s authority, Daniel employs of rather odd turn of phrase. He tells Neb-uchadnezzar that God has given, not only the “sons of men” into his hand, but also “the beasts of thefield, and the birds of the heavens”. The significance of Daniel’s words is not clear to me. Daniel may

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 67

Daniel’s point in 2.37-38a is therefore clear. Nebuchadnezzar has risento great heights, but he has not done so because of his own wisdom ormight, nor because of his reverence of the gods of Babylon. He has doneso only because of the grace of God. Whatever he has achieved in life,he has achieved by virtue of heaven’s blessings.

You are the head of gold (2.38). Daniel now explains how Nebuchad-nezzar’s position relates to the Colossus in his dream. Nebuchadnezzar isthe Colossus’s head.166 As such, he is the figurehead of the whole image.He is also the first in a long line of kings.

That Nebuchadnezzar is the head of the Colossus—and thus the firstkingdom depicted in it—is significant. From man’s perspective, Neb-uchadnezzar was merely the next in a long line of Babylonian kings,but, from God’s perspective, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was hugely signifi-cant. In 587 BC, Nebuchadnezzar became the first Gentile to reign overJudah since David’s conquest of Jerusalem in the 10th cent. And, ofcourse, when Nebuchadnezzar passed his dominion over Judah on tohis successors, since, when he died, his son began to reign over Judah.Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Judah was not, therefore, an isolated inci-dent; it would spawn a whole line of Gentile rulers over Judah—men likeCyrus, Alexander, and the coming Anti-God, who are, of course, the verykings-and-kingdoms depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.167 As such,Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BC marked the dawningof a new age. It marked the end of the days of the Kings of Judah andthe beginning of the Times of the Gentiles (Luke 21.21-24). Even now,then, Judah is (in a sense) living under Nebuchadnezzar’s shadow. In

simply want to emphasise the totality of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. (Consider, by way of analogy,Jeremiah’s words: “I have put upon the neck of all [the nations of the Near East] an iron yoke to serveNebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they [will] serve him, for I have given to him even the beasts ofthe field”: Jer. 28.14.) Daniel may, alternatively, have in mind man’s God-given dominion over Creation.In particular, Daniel may want us to see the relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and his subjects interms of the relationship between man and the beasts-and-birds. If so, we are to see Nebuchadnezzar asa kind of Adamic head—a man to whom God has entrusted a huge domain and whom God has appointedas a ‘corporate head’.

166. The Colossus’s face may even have been Nebuchadnezzar’s. If so, it might explain why Nebuchadnezzarfound the dream so disturbing. (The image of a metallic monument of oneself being smashed into smallpieces is not a comforting one.) It might also explain why, when Daniel said, “You are the head of gold”,Nebuchadnezzar didn’t reply, “No I’m not! It doesn’t look anything like me!”.

167. Not once since the rise of King David had there been a Gentile king in Jerusalem, and not once does theOT refer to there being a Jewish king in Jerusalem until the Messiah’s return (Zech. 14.9).

68 2.39-40: NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S SUCCESSORS

God’s eyes, everything which has occurred in Judah’s history since 587BC has flowed forth from—and is to be seen as a continuation of—therise of Nebuchadnezzar;168 it is all part of the same phase of world his-tory. We can legitimately, therefore, liken Nebuchadnezzar’s conquestof Jerusalem to Nimrod’s construction of the tower of Babel.169 In con-quering Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar erected a Colossus in Babylon; heinaugurated a kingdom which would draw all manner of men towardsit over the years to come. In this respect, the rise of Nebuchadnezzarwas not so much as the inauguration of a new age but the revival of adormant spirit, namely the spirit of Babel—the love of empire. (In ch. 4,Daniel further develops the parallel between the conquest of Jerusalemand the erection of the tower of Babel. In particular, he depicts Babylonas a huge towering tree the top of which stretches up to the heavens:4.11.)

2.38: A brief note

As we consider Daniel’s visions, we should bear in mind that the foursections of the Colossus are not, strictly speaking, kingdoms but king-ships, i.e., ongoing lines of kings, such as the Kings of Babylon, and theRoman Emperors, and so forth. (“You, [O King], are the head of gold”:2.38.) This distinction should not be overpressed, since, in many ways,a king and his kingdom are interchangeable. (One could see the imageof a king as a synecdoche for his kingdom.) When a king goes to war,his kingdom goes to war; when a king falls, his kingdom falls along withhim; and so on. Nevertheless, it will be helpful for us remember thatDaniel’s visions are fundamentally about kingships. To put the point an-other way: while the Book of Daniel concerns the future of particularkingdoms, it does so only insofar as they are depicted by and affected byparticular kings.

2.39-40: Nebuchadnezzar’s successors

168. Saddam Hussein actually claimed to be a re-incarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. He saw his attempts toswallow up the Middle East as an effort to outdo the great Nebuchadnezzar.

169. XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 69

2.39 Yet, after you, another kingdom will stand up, earthward of you; and thenanother kingdom, the third [one], [made] of bronze, which will rule overall the earth.

2.40 There will then be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron. Just as iron breaks inpieces and then hammers [out] all [other metals], so [this kingdom], likethe iron [used for] demolition, will break in pieces and then pound [down]all these other [kingdoms].

After you, another kingdom will stand up (2.39a). Daniel now moveson from the “head of gold” (Nebuchadnezzar) to describe the rest of theColossus, i.e., to the kingdoms due to arise after Babylon’s fall. Neb-uchadnezzar was no doubt pleased with the opening scene of his dream.He is the figurehead of a majestic kingdom—a man whose reign is char-acterised by greatness and gold. But ch. 2’s dream now begins to take adramatic turn for the worse—a pattern which Nebuchadnezzar will en-counter again in ch. 4’s dream (of a falling tree). What began as golddeteriorates into silver, bronze, iron, clay, and, ultimately, mere chaff.It is hardly the way in which Nebuchadnezzar would have wanted hisempire to unfold.

another kingdom will stand up (2.39a). After Nebuchadnezzar’s king-dom has passed away, the second of the Colossus’s four kingdoms willtake its place. The second kingdom is depicted by the chest and arms ofthe Colossus. According to Daniel, it lies “earthward” of Nebuchadnez-zar; in other words, the chest and arms are closer to the ground than thehead (Nebuchadnezzar) insofar as they lie beneath it.170

and then the third kingdom, another [kingdom] (2.39b). A “third”kingdom will then arise. The third kingdom is depicted by the ‘core’(or loins) of the Colossus. It is a kingdom of “bronze”, which will bedistinguished by the tremendous extent of its dominion. It will come torule “all the earth” (2.39).

170. The term “earthward” ( carac c) is standardly rendered as “inferior”. From a linguistic perspective, Icannot see much justification for the rendering “inferior”, but it ultimately makes little difference to ourunderstanding of the text. The progression from gold to silver to bronze to iron clearly does depict adeterioration insofar as the relevant metals decrease in value, lustre, and splendour (Isa. 60.17).

70 2.38-40: SOME INFERENCES

And just as the iron broke in pieces (2.40). Finally, a fourth kingdomwill emerge. The fourth kingdom is depicted by the legs of the Colossus.Its distinctive will be its strength. It will be “as strong as iron”. As such,it will crush all its rivals to pieces. The primary purpose of 2.40 seemsto be to describe the kingdom’s destructive tendencies. The kingdomwill “break” its victims in pieces and then “hammer” them into (a new?)shape. Insofar as it ‘breaks’ its victims in pieces, the fourth kingdom dis-perses and removes a kingdom’s power (Psa. 2.9, Isa. 14.25, Jer. 51.20-23, etc.). Its action can, perhaps, be compared to how a horse must be‘broken in’ before it can be tamed, or, more specifically, to the “break-ing of the power of the holy people” (12.7). That the fourth kingdom‘hammers’ its predecessors into shape then depicts how Satan subduesthe world’s kings and ‘bends’ them to his will. Satan ‘breaks’ the world’skingdoms, overcomes their power to resist, and then forces them intohis mould. As such, the Colossus’s fourth kingdom is a far cry from itsfirst. While Babylon’s reign brought blessings to the Near East (henceit is pictured as a shelter for the birds and the beasts: 2.38, 4.12), thefourth kingdom brings only destruction. It is depicted in entirely neg-ative terms, and is said to wield an unearthly power. Intriguingly, it isalso said to subdue all its predecessors, i.e., the kingdoms of gold, silver,and bronze—a detail which we will take up later on.

In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream depicts four Gentile king-doms—kingdoms which will come to dominate the Near East over theyears to come. The first is Babylon. The next three are Babylon’s succes-sors. As such, Nebuchadnezzar has seen world history unfolding beforehis very eyes. As he cast his gaze down the Colossus (from its head toits toes), he saw the reigns of his successors. He saw the history of theNear East from the perspective of heaven.171

2.38-40: Some inferences

Given our discussion of 2.38-40, we are now in a position to note a num-ber of important features of the Colossus’s four kingdoms. First, insofar

171. When I use to term ‘history’ in such contexts, I am using the term loosely. I mean to include the entirespan of world history, from the moment of Creation to the end of the present age.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 71

as they are each identified with a different metal, they are different fromone another. Second, insofar as they comprise a single entity (a colos-sus), they are closely related to one another. To put the point negatively,the Colossus’s four kingdoms are not depicted as individual figurines but,rather, as one united man. Their apparent unity should not surpriseus. Their origin derives from precisely the same historical event, namelyNebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem, and they together span thesame prophetico-historical era, namely the Times of the Gentiles. (Seeour comments on 2.31.) Third, insofar as the four kingdoms find theirorigins in Babylon, they depict an interruption or a departure from God’smind and will. God’s intention for the Near East has always been forIsrael to rule over it and to be a blessing to its many nations (Gen. 12.3,Deut. 28.13, Isa. 2.2-3). As such, the Colossus’s dominion depicts a de-parture from God. Granted—it was not man but God himself who gaveIsrael into the hands of the Gentiles. But the Gentiles have gone farbeyond what God required of them (Isa. 47.6, Zech. 1.15). They havebecome wild and out-of-control and destructive in nature. They havedivorced themselves from God’s headship and have therefore set them-selves up as God’s enemies, as we will see in ch. 7. Fourth, the Colossus’sfour kingdoms are fundamentally distinct from the fifth kingdom. (Seeour comments on 2.35.)

But what about the kingdoms’ exact identities? A full discussion of thematter must wait until chs. 7-8,172 where Daniel provides us with furtherdetails about their defining features. For now, a brief summary of thesituation must suffice. The identity of the first kingdom is clear. It isBabylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s present kingdom. The second kingdom de-picts Medo-Persia, a two-pronged kingdom to whom the Babylonians willsoon become subservient (5.28, 6.28, 8.20-21). The third is Greece—amore distant reality, but one which is nevertheless known to Daniel andhis readers (8.20-21). The identity of the fourth kingdom is more diffi-cult to decipher. Indeed, it is never explicitly identified in Daniel’s writ-ings. In light, however, of the text of 2.38-40 (and our present analysisof it), we can glean a number of important things about the fourth king-dom: i] It spans the entire period from the fall of the third kingdom

172. See “7.1-28: The identity of the beasts”.

72 2.38-40: SOME INFERENCES

(Greece) to the inauguration of God’s kingdom. ii] It causes the Colos-sus as a whole to collapse; that is to say, its weakness is (at least partly)responsible for the Colossus’s fall. iii] Insofar as it is connected with thenumber four, the fourth kingdom depicts the culmination and conclu-sion of its predecessors. We can consider, by way of illustration, the wayin which Daniel uses the figure of “the fourth king” of Persia to depictthe high-point of the Persian empire, as well as the reign of the Persiansfrom then onwards (11.2). The fourth kingdom is also connected withthe concept of totality and with the earth as a whole. Here, we can con-sider the way in which four rivers flow out of Eden to water the wholeworld, or the nation of Elam is scattered to “the four quarters” of theearth, or Israel are regathered from “the four corners” of the earth (Gen.2.10, Jer. 49.36, Isa. 11.12). As a result, the fourth kingdom embodieswithin it elements of all its predecessors. It encompasses the remnantsof Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece—hence it is said to conquer all ofthem (2.40), and all four kingdoms are said to collapse simultaneously(2.35). iv] Insofar as it resembles a second tower of Babel, the fourthkingdom depicts the completion of what began in the days of Nimrod(Gen. 10.8-9, 11.2-9). It is an ‘empire of empires’, the fulness of thespirit of Babel, the final plank in man’s rejection of God’s authority.

In sum, then, the Colossus’s fourth kingdom is a worldwide and all-encompassing entity, the figure of which includes every kingdom to haverisen to greatness in the Near East from 587 BC onwards. It is the comple-tion of what Nebuchadnezzar began and flows forth from his accomplish-ments, the fulness of the Times of the Gentiles, the ‘high-point’ of man’sdomination of God’s people. The question, however, remains, What ex-actly is the fourth kingdom? I personally take the Colossus’s fourth king-dom to be the kingdom of Satan—a contention which I defend in detailin ch. 7. I therefore take the fourth kingdom to be a primarily spiritualkingdom—a kingdom of darkness and destruction which is presently co-extensive with (and in conflict with) a second spiritual kingdom, namelythe kingdom of Christ. As such, the fourth kingdom is a dark and myste-rious entity. We can (loosely) define it by means of the following state-ments. (A) The fourth kingdom is that entity which the NT refers to as“the world”. It “lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5.19). (B) The

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 73

fourth kingdom is a ‘mixed multitude’. It embodies both forces for evil(e.g., wicked dictators) and, to a limited extent, forces for good (e.g.,non-Christian charities). It also embodies both demonic entities (i.e.,Satan and his hosts) and human entities (i.e., kings, governments, andkingships). Broadly speaking, these two aspects of the fourth kingdomanswer to the iron and the clay aspects of the Colossus’s feet (2.41-43).(C) The fourth kingdom has no geographical boundaries. As such, itencompasses the remnants of many past kingdoms (e.g., Babylon, Medo-Persia, etc.). (D) The fourth kingdom is the entity which underlies theworld’s present wickedness—its exploitation of the weak, its promotionof immorality (in terms of, say, sexual practice, abortion, racial prejudice,etc.), its persecution of God’s people, and so forth.

As mentioned above, a full discussion of my proposal (call it ‘the Apoc-alyptic view’) must wait until ch. 7.173 But, before moving on, let uspause very briefly to note some ways in which the Apocalyptic view isable to make good sense of the text. First, the iron and clay elementsof the Colossus’s toes depict two distinct aspects of the fourth kingdom’sreign, which is easy to make sense of on the Apocalyptic view. Satan’skingdom does indeed consist of two distinct aspects—i.e., the demonicand the human—, and to depict these aspects in terms of iron and clayseems entirely coherent. The iron depicts Satan’s great strength and de-structive intent, while the clay depicts mankind, who is ultimately madeof clay (Job 33.6).174 Second, according to 2.43, the intermingling of theiron and (wet) clay is said to resemble the intermingling of a mysteriousthird-party (“they”) and “the seed of men”, which would be an odd thingto say were both groups of people of entirely human composition. Third,the fourth kingdom is never explicitly said to ‘arise’ or ‘stand up’. It issimply said to “become great”, as if it has constantly been lurking behindthe scenes of world history. It is then said to “hammer out” the rest ofthe world’s kingdoms—i.e., to shape them to its will and intentions—,which seems an apt description of Satan’s methods and intentions.

173. See in particular “7.7-8: The identity of Daniel’s fourth beast”.

174. Consider also Job 4.19, where Job refers to mortal men as “those who dwell in houses of clay” (Job4.19), as well as the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who liken the relationship between God and manto the relationship between a potter and his clay (Isa. 29.16, 45.9, 64.8, Jer. 18.4-6).

74 2.41-42: THE END OF THE AGE

2.41-42: The end of the age

2.41 And just as you saw the feet and toes—partly of potter’s clay and partly ofiron—, so the kingdom will be divided, though some of the original root ofthe iron will remain in it, hence you saw the iron mixed with the miry clay.

2.42 And [just as] the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so,in the end, the kingdom will be strong, but it will at [the same time] bebroken.

Just as you saw the feet and toes (2.41). Daniel now turns his atten-tion to the “feet and toes” of the Colossus, i.e., the final stages of thefourth kingdom’s reign. Whereas Daniel previously referred simply to“clay” (2.32-35), he now refers to two different types of clay (“potter’sclay” in 2.41 and “miry clay” in 2.43). As a result, the dream becomesfairly involved. We will begin, therefore, with ‘the big picture’, and workour way down to the nitty-gritty.

The fourth kingdom is a kingdom of “iron”. As such, it is a kingdomof “strength”. But, in its final stages, the kingdom acquires elements of“clay” (2.41a). It thereby acquires a “divided” nature. It still embodieselements its original strength, but it begins to come apart at the seams(2.41b). As a result, the Colossus becomes structurally unsound. It be-gins to crumble at its very foundations. In terms of the real-world in-terpretation of these details, I take the division in the fourth kingdom todepict a rift between the kingdom’s Satanic and human aspects, i.e., be-tween Satan’s wicked agenda and man’s willingness to cooperate with it.The rift is therefore said to pertain between the “iron” (Satan’s strengthand influence) and the “potter’s clay” (man insofar as he resembles theimage of God, the Master Potter). As man refuses to co-operate with Sa-tan’s agenda, Satan loses his grip on the world. As such, the emergenceof the clay weakens Satan’s kingdom. It also weakens the entire Colos-sus, since Satan’s ability to influence the world’s kingdoms is dependenton his ability to influence man’s actions. (All of these ideas are developedmore fully in our comments of 2.43.) Satan’s resolve, however, remainsunbowed until the bitter end. As a whole, then, I take the iron aspectof the fourth kingdom to depict the ongoing reign of Satan. Meanwhile,I understand the emergence of its clay ‘sub-kingdom’ to depict a group

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 75

of godly kings who rise up against Satan’s agenda. We might consider,by way of illustration, the Book of Revelation’s depiction of “the earth”defending God’s people from ‘the serpent’ (Rev. 12.15-16). Indeed, ifwe think of the Colossus as four different metals moulded around a ‘claycore’, then 2.41-42 could even be taken to depict a time when man’s ‘claynature’ will finally come to the fore of world history, i.e., when the kingsof the earth stand up and take action against Satan’s agenda.175

With these things in mind, then, let us consider 2.41-42 in more detail.The fundamental distinction described in 2.41-42 concerns the iron andthe clay. That much is fairly clear. But 2.41-42 also seems to have afurther distinction in mind, namely the distinction between two differenttypes of clay: potter’s clay[h. asap dî-peh. ar] and miry clay[t.îna cbah. asap]. Thepotter’s clay is a hardened clay which cannot be mixed with other sub-stances. In terms of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, then, I take the potter’sclay to depict man insofar as he retains God’s image. The “miry clay”,on the other hand, is a moistened clay which can be mixed with othersubstances. In terms of the dream’s interpretation, I therefore take themiry clay to depict man insofar as he is a fallen being and malleable toSatan’s will. In sum, then, 2.41-42 seems to have in mind two distincttypes of entities: i] a group of toes which are part-iron-part-miry-clay,and ii] a group of toes which are not mixed with iron but are formedentirely from hardened potter’s-clay. Given 2.44, I take these toes todepict kings. (“In the days of these kings...”: 2.44.) The events cantherefore be understood as follows.

Verse Text Real-world interpretation

2.41a Just as you saw the feet andtoes—partly of potter’s clay andpartly of iron—, so the kingdomwill be divided,

The introduction of a cluster ofclay toes will create a divisionwithin the fourth kingdom. Menwill rise up against Satan’sagenda.

175. The iron-clay-composite is not weak because clay is inherently weak. It is weak because of its divided na-ture. To put the point in terms of the vision, either iron or clay could individually make a firm foundationfor the colossus, but the mixture of the two makes for a highly unstable foundation.

76 2.41-42: THE END OF THE AGE

Verse Text Real-world interpretation

2.41b though some of the original rootof the iron will remain in it, henceyou saw the iron mixed with themiry clay.

But Satan will nevertheless retaina powerful hold on many of thekings of the earth, whom he willmanipulate to pursue his agenda.

2.42 And [just as] the toes of the feetwere partly of iron and partly ofclay, so, in the end, the kingdomwill be strong, but it will at [thesame time] be broken.

Satan will therefore retain a stronghold over many parts of the earthbut not over others. As a result,the kingdom will remain stronginsofar as Satan remains unbowedand is a creature of great strength.Nevertheless, the kingdom will beweakened by its incoherence.

As we will see in our consideration of ch. 8, these events are very rem-iniscent of the days of 167-160 BC. During the tail-end of the reign ofAntiochus, a number of godly Jewish leaders rose up against him. TheseJewish men (the toes of potter’s clay) freed Judah from the shackles ofthe Seleucids, but the Seleucids retained control over Judah by meansof the ‘sympathisers’ within her midst (the toes of iron-and-wet-clay),whose wickedness the Seleucids turned to their advantage.

In terms of their timing, I take the Colossus’s iron-and-clay kings to de-pict a series of yet-future events for a number of reasons. First, I am notaware of any historical events which can plausibly be associated with thetext of 2.41-43 as I understand it. Second, the scene described in 2.41-43 is highly reminiscent of the scene described in Rev. 16-17, which Iunderstand to depict (at least in part) a yet-future battle. Third, insofaras the stone depicts the inauguration of God’s kingdom on earth, it isgenerally identified as either the first or the second coming of the Mes-siah. But Christ’s first coming does not really fit the picture of 2.41-43.Ten co-regents were not in power at the time of Christ’s first coming,176

and Christ himself never spoke of the inauguration of his present reign asan earth-shattering event which would bring the world’s rulers to theirknees. He spoke of it as a more subtle affair—a protracted affair ofseeking and sowing, waiting and suffering (e.g., Matt. 5.1-16, 7.1-11,

176. See “7.XXX”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 77

13.18-23, etc.). He spoke of leaven subtly working its way through abatch of dough, of good and bad seed growing next to one another, andof small beginnings culminating in great things (Matt. 13.24-50, Luke13.19-22).

2.41-42: First thoughts on the Colossus’s empires

We have now surveyed the main content of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreamtogether with Daniel’s interpretation of it. So, let us pause for a momentto make some general observations about it.

The kingdoms depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s Colossus display fournotable trends. The first is positive; it concerns the way in whichNebuchadnezzar’s kingdoms grow in power over time. The others arenegative; they describe the deterioration of the world’s kingdoms. Thefour trends can be summarised as follows:

Trend Gold Silver Bronze Iron-Clay

Hardness: Softest Less soft Hard Hardest

Shininess: Shiniest Less shiny Dull Dullest

Purity: Purest Less pure Alloyed Mixture

Unity: Most united Less united Divided Disintegrated

Weight: Heaviest Less heavy Light Lightest

Below, we describe these trends in more detail.

(1) Over time, the Colossus’s metals become progressively harder. Goldis the softest of the four, silver is slightly harder (but nevertheless a softmetal), bronze is a hard metal, and iron is the hardest of them all (2.39).In real-world terms, I take the increasing hardness of these metals to de-pict the increasing military presence and prowess of the Near East’s over-lords. The Babylonians were a mighty force. The Medo-Persians weremightier yet, and wielded an army far larger than anything previouslyknown in history. The Greeks were unstoppable in their heyday—highlyskilled and fierce warriors, who defeated their enemies with ruthless ef-

78 2.41-42: FIRST THOUGHTS ON THE COLOSSUS’S EMPIRES

ficiency. And Satan now has the armies of much of the world at hisdisposal, complete with its weapons of mass destruction. The militarymight wielded by the Colossus’s kingships has thereby increased overtime. Nations are now capable of doing untold damage to one another.

(2) Over time, the Colossus’s metals become progressively more com-monly available. Gold is in short supply, hence its cost. Silver is slightlymore plentiful and hence slightly cheaper. And bronze and iron continuethe trend. In real-world terms, I take the increasing availability of thesemetals to depict the increasing sphere of influence of the Near East’s over-lords. The Babylonians conquered most if not all of the Fertile Crescent.The Medo-Persians expanded Babylon’s borders yet further afield. TheGreeks subsumed the entire known-world, as is stated in 2.39. And thekingdom of Satan has no borders at all. It encompasses every nation onearth. The sphere of influence of the Colossus’s kingdoms has therebyincreased dramatically over time.

(3) Over time, the Colossus’s metals become progressively less pure.Gold is the purest of the four, being an indivisible chemical elementwhich is easy to refine. Silver is also pure (but is slightly harder torefine than silver). Bronze is significantly less pure than silver insofaras it as a fusion of copper and tin. And the iron-clay-composite is theleast pure of all insofar as it consists of two unmixable substances. Inreal-world terms, I take the increasing impurity of these metals to depictthe increasing ethnic diversity of the nations of the Near East. In Daniel’sday, most of the population of Egypt were of Egyptian origin, and mostof the population of Israel were of Israelite origin, and so on. But, astime has gone on, the world’s races have become increasingly intermin-gled—both ethnically and geographically. Indeed, many nations todayhave no distinct ethnic identity. As the spirit of Babel has resurfaced,the “boundaries” which God has allotted to different nations have beentrampled down (Acts 17.26).

(4) Over time, the Colossus’s body-parts become progressively more di-vided. What begins as a single head divides into two arms, two legs, and,ultimately, ten toes. (The same trend is depicted in Daniel’s dream in

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 79

ch. 7, where a single lion is succeeded by a lop-sided bear, a four-headedleopard, and, eventually, a ten-horned beast.) In real-world terms, I takethe divided nature of the body-parts to depict the division and disinte-gration of the kingdoms of the Near East. Babylon was a united king-dom with a long and stable history. Medo-Persia consisted of two distinctraces and kingships, which made it significantly less stable than Babylon.Greece was an amalgamation of a number of individual states which, af-ter enjoying a brief period of unity, splintered into four sub-kingdoms.And the kingdom of Satan is in a constant state of division due to itsvolatile mix of races and religions. From time to time, men try to ‘glue’different nations together in order to create united states (such as Yu-goslavia and the EU), but the results are usually unsuccessful.

(5) Over time, the Colossus’s metals become progressively less majes-tic. They become less valuable, less lustrous, and less magnificent inappearance. Gold is the most majestic of the four. Silver is less majesticbut still very valuable. Bronze is significantly less majestic than silver,though it can be made to look like gold when polished (2 Chr. 12.9-10).And an iron-clay-composite is the least majestic of the four. It is a dulland inexpensive compound.177 In real-world terms, I take the decreas-ing splendour of these metals to depict the decreasing sovereignty ofthe Near East’s overlords. Consider, by way of illustration, various kingsof Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute monarch. Whatever hesaid went. Darius the Mede had significantly less autonomy. He wasa co-regent for a start. He was also bound by past precedent, as werehis successors (6.8, Est. 1.19, 8.3). The Seleucid kings enjoyed still lessautonomy. They were constantly at war with the Ptolemies, and theyalso had to be careful not to upset the Romans. They therefore neededto tread carefully. The kingdom of Satan constitutes the logical con-clusion of the aforementioned trend. The ‘kings’ of today’s kingdomshave almost no sovereignty at all. They are ‘enthroned’ by means oftheir people’s votes, and, once they lose popularity, their time in poweris over. Their decisions are also hindered by all sorts of international‘watchdogs’.

177. The OT frequently lists gold, silver, bronze, and iron in such a way as to suggest that they representmetals of decreasing splendour and value—e.g., 1 Chr. 29.7, Isa. 60.17, etc.

80 2.41-42: FIRST THOUGHTS ON THE COLOSSUS’S EMPIRES

(6) Over time, the Colossus’s metals become progressively lighter. Goldis the heaviest of the four. Silver is slightly less dense but still very heavy.Bronze is significantly lighter than silver. And an iron-clay compositeis the lightest of the four.178 In real-world terms, I take the decreas-ing weight of these metals to depict God’s displeasure with the world’sgovernments—a point we take up in more detail in our comments on7.7-8. The same trend is evidence in the weights listed by Daniel inch. 5, namely mene c, teqel, and parsîn (5.24-28’s comm.). In Scripture,to be light[QLL (G)] is to be of little account (1 Sam. 18.23) or lightly es-teemed (Gen. 16.4-5, 2 Sam. 6.22) or positively despised (Job 40.4,Nah. 1.14).179 In the D-stem, «QLL» can even refer to the imputationof a ‘curse’ (Gen. 8.21, Exod. 21.17). God can therefore say to Belshaz-zar at the tail-end of his reign, “You have been weighed in the balancesand have been discovered to be too light” (5.27).

In sum, then, the kingdoms depicted in the Colossus exhibit four cleartrends, each of which has an equally clear real-world interpretation.These trends paint a detailed and coherent picture of the evolution ofthe Near East’s kingdoms. As the Near East’s kingdoms have grown inmilitary power, they have expanded their borders. And, as they have ex-panded their borders, they have swallowed up their neighbours’ lands,making them more ethnically diverse. And, as they have become eth-nically more diverse, they have become increasingly prone to division.And, as they have become increasingly prone to division, their kings havebecome less sovereign over their people. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream there-fore provides us with a remarkably accurate and insightful depiction ofthe course of world history. Ever since the rise of Nebuchadnezzar, thekingdoms of man have been following the pattern depicted in the Colos-sus. They have been increasing in power and size, while decreasing inunity. Paradoxically, then, with man’s strength has come weakness, andwith man’s desire to achieve unity has come division. Such ‘progress’can only end in one way, namely in self-destruction, just as Daniel pre-dicted.180

178. The densities of all of these materials are set out in App. 2B.

179. The Aram. cog. has a similar semantic field.

180. Of course, the fall of the Colossus’s fourth empire is not merely a case of self-destruction. Nevertheless,the Colossus weakens over time and brings about its downfall, in which sense it tends to self-destruction.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 81

2.43: The last days of the Colossus’s fourth kingdom

2.43 Just as you saw the iron mixed with the miry clay, so ‘they’ will begin tocombine themselves with the seed of men. But they will not remain clovento them—the one [seed] to the other—in the same way as the iron couldnot combine with the clay.

just as you saw the iron mixed with miry clay (2.43a). In 2.43, Danielfurnishes us with further insight into the final stages of the Colossus’sreign. According to Daniel, the combination of the iron and clay (de-scribed in 2.41-42) has a specific significance. It depicts an attempt tofuse two distinct lineages together. One is represented by iron, the otherby clay. Daniel at the same time introduces us to a rather mysterious“they”. Daniel does not reveal the precise identity of the “they” in ques-tion, but the nearest antecedent is the Colossus’s “toes” (2.42), and thelater mention of “these kings” (in 2.44) likewise seems to look back to2.42’s “toes”. 2.43’s “they” must, therefore, refer to 2.44’s “kings”. Twofurther points should also be noted in relation to 2.43’s kings: i] Insofaras the combination of 2.43’s kings with the seed of men is compared tothe combination of the iron with the clay, 2.43’s kings are specifically as-sociated with the “iron” of the fourth kingdom, i.e., with the kingdom’sSatanic (non-clay) aspect. ii] Insofar as 2.43’s kings are said to inter-mingle with “the seed of men”, they are unlikely to be of human origin inand of themselves. (For a discussion of our translation, see 2.43’s trans.notes.) In light of these considerations, I take 2.43’s “they” to refer notto man’s seed but to Satan’s seed. More precisely, I take 2.43’s “they” torefer a line of demonically-empowered kings. The overall sense of 2.43is therefore, ‘Just as the iron seeks to combine with the miry clay, so Satanwill seek to fuse his seed with the seed of men’. We might consider, byway of connection, the words which God uttered to Satan when Adamand Eve fell, namely, “I will put enmity between you and the woman,and between your seed and her seed” (Gen. 3.15). According to 2.43,then, a group of iron-and-clay kings will arise on the earth in the days tocome.

Quite what 2.41-43’s “mixing” and “combining” entails is not clear tome. It may depict a form of demon-possession. If so, the iron-and-

82 2.41-43: A CAVEAT

clay-hybrids would seem to depict a group of Satanically-empoweredrulers whom Satan will raise to positions of greatness (and employ inhis service). Alternatively, the “mixing” in question may depict an evenmore sinister activity, akin to the ‘combination’ of human and angelicbeings which took place in the days prior to the Flood (Gen. 6.1-2).181

Either way, the iron-clay-hybrids kings are dark and dangerous figures.

But they will not remain cloven to them (2.43b). Whatever theirexact identity, Satan’s hybrids will be unable to hold the fourth kingdomtogether. They will form a temporary union with the sons of men, butit will not last. The disintegration of the iron-clay compound is hardlysurprising, since the union of the human and the demonic is a decidedlyunhappy one. Man, insofar as he conforms to God’s image, is destined torule the world. (The iron is not mixed with the potter’s clay but with themiry clay.) Meanwhile, only a fiery furnace awaits Satan and his angels(Matt. 25.41). As a result, the fourth kingdom’s iron and clay aspectscannot form a coherent whole. The two ‘lineages’ have fundamentallyopposed roles in God’s Creation.

cloven (2.43b). The cleaving together[DBQ] of the iron and the clay en-visages a unilateral process, i.e., a process where one substance seeks tocleave to another.182 2.43 therefore depicts 2.44’s iron kings seeking tounite themselves with 2.43’s clay kings, but failing to do so.

2.41-43: A caveat

Before continuing, there are a couple of general points I would like tomake about my interpretation of 2.41-43. First and foremost, I am farfrom confident that my interpretation of 2.41-43 is correct. Some thingsin the Book of Daniel are very clear to me; others are not. The natureof the Colossus’s iron-and-clay kings falls squarely into the latter of these

181. Intermarriage has often been used as a means of uniting disparate kingdoms. Alexander the Great, forinstance, took a Persian wife from the line of Darius, and Ptolemy II gave his daughter (Berenice) inmarriage to the Seleucids (11.14), and so on.

182. Hence, in Heb., a skin disease is said to cleave [«DBQ»(G)] to Gehazi, and a man’s tongue is said tocleave [«DBQ»(G)] to the roof of his mouth (2 Kgs. 5.27, Job 19.20), both of which actions envisage a‘one-way’ process (Clines 2013:235-236). To describe a ‘two-way attachment’, a reflexive stem would bemore appropriate; hence, in later Heb., a t-stem is employed to describe a broken vessel which is ‘joinedtogether’ (JDTT debeq, debaq).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 83

categories. It should only, therefore, be regarded as a best guess. Sec-ond, while my interpretation of 2.41-43 is rather ‘sensational’, it shouldnot be written off on that basis alone. According to the Book of Genesis,some extraordinary things have taken place in the past. (See, for in-stance, Gen. 6-8.) And, according to the Book of Revelation, some evenmore extraordinary things are due to take place in the future (e.g., Rev.9, 16, 20, etc.). Indeed, the day will come when God himself will de-scend to the earth and will permanently establish his dwelling place withman. (If that is not sensational and extraordinary, then nothing is: Rev.21.1-6.) Every believer therefore believes that some extraordinary thingswill take place in the future. That these things might be preceded by asurge in demonic activity is not, therefore, so unusual. It is also in fullaccord with the text of Rev. 12.12, which describes a time when Satanunleashes great wrath on the earth ‘since he knows his time is short’.183

Third, it is difficult to develop a detailed and precise picture of the ‘end-times’, especially on the basis of Daniel’s visions alone. It therefore seemswise for us to take a relatively ‘loose’ or ‘non-committal’ approach tocertain end-times passages. Given the trend of increasing division inthe Colossus, the Colossus’s clay-kings may only be minor players onthe stage of world history. (Antiochus was only a minor player in thegrand scheme of things.) Alternatively, they may be major players. Wesimply do not know, and we may as well say so. The purpose of Daniel’sprophecies is not to fuel end-times speculation. It is to reveal to us theoverarching pattern of the age in which we live and to give us hope forthe days to come.

183. A broader point follows from these two considerations, namely, when interpreting God’s word, we mustnot get ‘lost in the moment’. Ever since time began, God has been moving his purposes forward indistinct times and seasons and “ages” (Heb. 9.26). Some of these ages—such as the pre-Flood era andthe days during which Christ ministered on the Earth—have been characterised by dramatic supernaturalevents. Others, such as the present age, have been characterised by God’s ‘still small voice’ and lessdramatic events. In other words, God has chosen to work in different ages in different ways—whichis, of course, his own strange prerogative. We should not, therefore, be surprised if certain parts ofScripture do not conform to our present expectations or experiences. God often moves his purposesforward not in gradual steps but in sudden transformations, such as the days when, suddenly and withoutwarning, the floodgates of the heavens opened (Gen. 7.11, 8.2). Perhaps, then, 2.41-43 depicts a similartransformation. It is a sad state of affairs when our lack of faith dictates our exegesis of Scripture.

84 2.44: THE COMING KINGDOM OF GOD

2.44: The coming kingdom of God

2.44 And, in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven will cause a kingdom tostand which will not be harmed for [as long as] the ages [continue], andthat kingdom will never be left to another people. It will permanentlybreak all [the other] kingdoms in pieces, but, as for itself, will stand for [aslong as] the ages [continue].

Daniel now reaches the climax of the King’s dream. As such, he reachesthe aspect of the dream that would have most encouraged him. Need-less to say, Nebuchadnezzar would not have shared Daniel’s sentiments.While the arrival of God’s kingdom would have exhilarated Daniel, itwould have terrified Nebuchadnezzar.

In the days of these kings... (2.44a). 2.44 describes a series of eventswhich will take place during “the days of [the iron-and-clay] kings”. Inparticular, 2.44 describes the arrival of the kingdom of God and, simul-taneously, the destruction of the kingdom of man. Insofar as it reducesthe earth’s kingdoms to ruins, the arrival of God’s kingdom answers tothe arrival of the stone as described in 2.35. It strikes the Colossus atits feet and brings the whole artifice crashing down. One kingdom isthereby caused to fall, and another is caused to stand in its place. Asin 2.40, I take the image of ‘breaking in pieces’ to depict the dispersaland removal of a kingdom’s power. The arrival of the kingdom of Godwill make a permanent end of the nations’ power. They will never againexercise dominion over God’s people or over the land of Israel.

Viewed in light of 2.35, 2.44 paints a poignant picture. The Colossuswhich once seemed so mighty is in an instant reduced to mere dust. Itis then blown to and fro by the wind until all trace of it is gone, i.e.,until there is no record whatsoever of its existence (2.35). Hence, in theend, the hopes and dreams of man-apart-from-God end in ruins. Insofaras they do not contribute to God’s kingdom, man’s ‘great achievements’come to nothing. The end of the Gentile Colossus is therefore very rem-iniscent of Shelley’s sonnet, Ozymandias, which describes an archeolo-gist’s discovery of one of Babylon’s (real-life) colossuses:

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 85

...Two vast and trunkless legs of stonestand in the desert. Near them on the sand...a shattered visage lies...And on the pedestal these words appear:‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings—Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’Nothing beside remains. Round the decayof that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,the lone and level sands stretch far away.184

Such will be the remains of man’s day in the sun—a mere shadow of thepast.

The God of Heaven will cause a kingdom to stand (2.44). Unlikethe many kingdoms of man, the single kingdom of God will be eternalin nature. It will endure throughout “the ages”. While man’s kingdomsare left to their successors, God’s kingdom will be inherited by anotherpeople. It will stand the test of time.

2.45a: The end of the dream

2.45a Just as the stone which you saw—which was shaped, without hands, fromthe mountain—broke the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold in pieces, so agreat God has [now] made known to the King what will come to pass afterthis [day].

2.45a marks the conclusion of the King’s dream. It serves two main pur-poses: first, to provide us with further information about the comingstone (namely its divine origins, discussed later); and, second, to alludeto the significance of the dream in the context of Nebuchadnezzar’s ownlife.185 The second of these points drives home the import of ch. 2’sdream in its original context. Just as the stone in the dream will causethe Colossus to collapse, so the King’s dream will soon cause the King’sworldview to collapse. It will shatter his delusions of grandeur and bring

184. Shelley, Ozymandias.

185. Trad., the text of 2.45a is connected (back) to 2.44b, but it is unusual for a clause of the form ‘Just as X,so Y’ to be spread over two verses, and, were 2.45a meant to look back to 2.44b, one might expect 2.45’scatnah. to coincide with the word “pieces”.

86 2.45A: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS

him to repentance. (Indeed, we see a foreshadow of the Colossus’s fallin 2.46, as Nebuchadnezzar falls at Daniel’s feet in awe and wonder, anda more complete fulfilment in ch. 4.) Given ch. 2’s dream, Nebuchadnez-zar’s kingdom is destined to end in disaster. Nebuchadnezzar must ‘jumpship’ if he wants to contribute to a kingdom which will stand the test oftime. If he does not, his hopes and dreams will ultimately be reduced toruins.

That Daniel alone among the wise men has been able to correctly recountand interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is in fact a perfect illustration ofthe dream’s central message. Just as the might of God’s kingdom exceedsthe might of man’s kingdoms, so the God-given wisdom of Daniel exceedsthe man-centred wisdom of Babylon (2.20-23). Even the pinnacle ofman’s wisdom is mere child’s play as far as God is concerned (1 Cor.1.25).

2.45a: Some further thoughts

With the central details of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in place, we can nowpause to note some features of its overall shape and significance.

(A) As mentioned previously, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream primarily con-cerns kings as opposed to kingdoms. (The “head of gold” is not Babylonper se but, rather, Nebuchadnezzar: 2.38.) The stone, whose appear-ance marks the dream’s climax, should therefore be understood in thesame way. It does not primarily depict Israel but, rather, the person andkingship of the Messiah. As such, its destruction of the Colossus—which‘clears the ground’ for the establishment of God’s kingdom—depicts theMessiah’s judgment of the kingdoms of man. Of course, the image of thestone may include within it symbolism a revived nation of Israel. Indeed,Isa. 41.14-16 strongly implies as much. But the stone primarily depictsthe Messiah, Israel’s true king and figurehead.

(B) As mentioned above, the Messianic stone which is hewn from amountain ultimately expands into a mountain (2.35, 2.45). Since themountain is connected with God’s presence and reign, 2.45 seems to

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 87

envisage the inauguration of heaven’s reign on the earth by means ofGod’s chosen Messiah.

(C) The Colossus does not depict ‘any old line’ of kings. It depicts a lineof kings which came to power in 587 BC by means of Nebuchadnezzar’sconquest of Jerusalem and which continue to exercise dominion over Is-rael in the present age by means of Satan’s dominion over the world’sleaders, Israel’s included.186 As such, 2.44 depicts the moment when theGentile’s hold over Israel is broken and the Messiah is crowned as kingin Jerusalem. Never again will a Gentile king exercise dominion overJerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is therefore of enormous signifi-cance. The present age will not come to an end until the evolution ofthe world’s kingdoms reaches the state portrayed by the Colossus’s feet.The Colossus thus stands at the very centre of world history. The stone’sexpansion (into a mountain) then depicts the completion of the Mes-siah’s mission, namely the subjugation of the nations to God’s eternalreign (2.35, Zech. 9.10). If, therefore, the appearance of the Colossussignifies the transition of power from Jewish to Gentile hands, then itsdestruction (by the Messianic stone) signifies the reverse process, i.e.,the transition of power from Gentile to Jewish hands, from the dominionof Satan to the dominion of God, from heaven to earth.

(D) 2.35 and 2.45’s depiction of the establishment of God’s kingdom onthe earth is significant in a number of ways. First, while the expansionof man’s kingdoms is accompanied by division and disintegration, notrace of such things can be found in the expansion of God’s kingdom.What begins as a stone ends as a stone. It is ‘rock solid’ from start tofinish. Second, the image of a mountain is commonly used to depictGod’s rule in the midst of a renewed and glorified Jewish nation.187 Assuch, 2.44-45 envisages the nation of Israel rising to greatness amidstthe nations of the Near East. “The mountain of the House of the LORD

will be established as the head of the mountains and will be lifted upabove the hills, and all the nations will flow to it” (Isa. 2.2†). “You will

186. According to Paul, Satan has put a “veil” over the eyes of Israel’s leaders, and “even in the present day,when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted” (2 Cor. 3.16-4.4). The same ‘accuser’who plagued Israel in the days of the OT is still doing so today (1 Chr. 21.1, Zech. 3.1-2).

187. e.g., Isa. 11.9-11, 27.12-13, 56.6-8, Ezek. 20.40-41, etc.


thus know that I am the LORD...who dwells in Zion, my holy mountain”(Joel 3.17†). Third, insofar as the Messiah conquers the Colossus’s fourkings, God’s kingdom is the fifth to arise. As such, it is connected withGod’s covenantal dealings with mankind.188 It is the fulfilment of hiscovenantal promises to his people. We might consider in particular thewords of Jeremiah:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I willraise up for David a righteous Branch, and he [will] reign asking and deal wisely and [will] execute justice and righteous-ness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israelwill dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will becalled: ‘The LORD is our righteousness’. (Jer. 23.5-6)

Daniel’s vision therefore ends on a note of wonder and triumph. Over theyears, the kingdoms of the Earth are destined to rise and fall. In someways, their reign will be majestic and will reflect their God-given, but,ultimately, it will end only in dust and destruction. For all man’s powerand pride, his achievements will come to nothing. God’s kingdom willthen become all in all.

(E) The Messiah is depicted as a distinct entity to the Colossus. (He mayusher in a fifth kingdom, but he is not depicted as a fifth body-part of theColossus; he is altogether separate from it.) The reason for the Messiah’s‘separation’ is clear. His kingship has not been bequeathed to him on thebasis of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem. His kingship stemsfrom divine right and divine appointment.

(F) The Messiah is depicted as a stone. The image of a stone alludes bothto the Messiah’s rejection as well as to his ultimate vindication. Stoneis the least valuable of the substances portrayed in Nebuchadnezzar’sdream. As such, the Messianic stone continues the trend of decreasingsplendour in the Colossus, from gold to silver, bronze, iron, and clay, and,

188. The number five is often connected with God’s covenants. The Pentateuch, for instance, consists of fivebooks, and the basis of the old covenant (Ten Commandments) consist of two groups of five command-ments. All of Scripture actually revolves around five particular covenants between God and man: thoseof Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 89

finally, to stone—a trend which reflects the decline of rulers’ sovereigntyover their people. That the Messiah is depicted as a stone therefore de-picts his lack of authority over his people. As a king, the Messiah will berejected. He will be a king without a kingdom, if such a thing is poss-bile (9.26a). At the same time, the image of a stone looks forward tothe Messiah’s vindication, for the Messiah’s association with a stone hasin mind both rejection and vindication elsewhere in Scripture. As, forinstance, the Psalmist declares, “The stone which the builders rejectedhas become the cornerstone. [It] is the LORD’s doing, [and] it is marvel-lous in our eyes!” (Psa. 118.22 cf. Isa. 8.14-15). The Messiah’s depic-tion as a stone therefore envisages elements of both the Messiah’s firstand second coming. It also continues the trend of ever-increasing avail-ability (silver is more commonly available than gold, etc.), and henceextends the Colossus’s depiction of the geographical expansion of theNear East’s kingdoms. Babylon subsumed the entire Near East; Persiaextended Babylon’s borders even further afield; and so on. The Mes-sianic kingdom will subsume the entire world. Every tribe, nation, andtongue will become subject to his name (7.27, Matt. 13.31-33, Phil. 2.9-11).

(G) The Messiah is depicted as a stone unshaped by human hands. Theimage of an ‘uncut stone’ alludes both to the Messiah’s holiness and tohis devotion to God. Nebuchadnezzar would probably have viewed theColossus in his dream as an idol. Against that backdrop, the ‘uncut’ na-ture of the Messianic stone is very significant. On entering the Land ofCanaan, the Israelites were instructed to build their altars out of uncutstones as opposed to stones shaped by human hands. (Immediately af-ter recording the Ten Commandments, Moses told the Israelites, “If youmake me an altar of stone, then do not build it of hewn stones, for towield your tool on it is to profane it”: Exod. 20.25†.) The purpose ofMoses’s prohibition was to ensure that Israel’s worship of her God didnot degenerate into a mere adoration of man’s handiwork. Israel’s wor-ship was to be entirely God-centred. That the Messiah is depicted asan uncut stone therefore alludes to his separation from idolatry and hisunswerving devotion to God. It may also, insofar as the Messiah enteredthe world not by the normal human means but by the Spirit of God, al-


lude to the virgin birth.189 Either way, the appearance of the Messiahsignifies the end of man’s idolatry, as well as Israel’s.190

(H) The events of the end of the age set before us two similar (but at thesame time different) ways of entering into the present world. The Dayof Man culminates in the rise of a group of iron-and-clay hybrids. Thesekings are a horrible combination of the human and the non-human; theyare the worst of the heavenly and the earthly realms. According to NT

theology, the Messiah is also a combination of the human and the non-human. The difference, however, is this: unlike Satan’s iron-and-clayhybrids, the Messiah is a perfect combination of the heavenly and theearthly realms—the best of both worlds.191 Hence, Satan’s crude imita-tion of the incarnation (a mixture of iron and miry-clay) is supersededby the true incarnation—the Word of God made flesh.

(I) When the Messianic stone strikes the Gentile Colossus, it is not onlythe iron-and-clay of the fourth empire which break in pieces but the en-tire Colossus—“the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold”. Two importantthings follow. First, Nebuchadnezzar’s first three empires continue toexist (in some sense) beyond their initial fall. The same impression isgiven in 2.40, where the fourth kingdom is said to conquer all of its pre-decessors. Second, the existence of the first three empires in some waydepends upon—or is supported by—the existence of the fourth empire.Hence, when the fourth empire falls, the Colossus’s first three empiresfall along with it.192 (See our initial comments on 2.41.) How, then,are we to make sense of these observations? The answer, I believe, is asfollows: by viewing the Colossus’s kingdoms as entities which subsume

189. If so, we could take the mountain from which the stone is hewn to depict the Messiah’s Abrahamicancestry (Isa. 51.1-2). We could then take the stone’s separation from human hands to depict the Mes-siah’s divine ancestry. Jerome views the significance of the uncut stone in a similar way. “The Lord andSaviour”, he says, “was cut [out] without hands, [i.e.], without copulation or human seed and by birthfrom a virgin’s womb” (Jerome XXX).

190. The description of the Colossus’s reduction to dust [«DQQ»] is reminiscent of the destruction of man’smany idols (e.g., Deut. 9.21, 2 Sam. 22.43, 2 Kgs. 23.6-15, etc.). Particularly relevant is the sceneportrayed in Exodus 32, where Moses is said to grind the golden calf to “powder” [«DQQ»] at the foot ofGod’s holy mountain.

191. Peter seems to draw a similar contrast between Christ’s incarnation and Satan’s mockery of it in 1 Pet.3.18-20.

192. The same idea is reflected in Daniel’s dream in ch. 7 where, at the end of the age, God judges not onlythe fourth kingdom but its three predecessors as well (7.12).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 91

rather than replace their predecessors, i.e., by viewing each kingdomwhich rises to power in the Near East as an ‘overlay’ rather than a ‘newbeginning’.

Kingdoms are slightly mysterious entities. They are never really ‘de-stroyed’ as such. They merely take on new forms and change hand. Byway of illustration, consider the existence of Babylon from the year 587BC onwards. When Cyrus conquered Babylon, he did not raze the cityof Babylon to the ground and erect a new city in its place. He simplyadded the title “King of Babylon” to his existing accolades and took upresidence in Babylon’s palace (Ezra 5.13). Things were much the samewhen Alexander conquered Persia.193

The rise and fall of successive kingdoms is therefore a tale of subsump-tion rather than replacement—hence Babylon’s records describe Cyrus,Alexander, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the like as Kings of Babylon, justlike Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus.194 True—we no longer refer to therulers of the Near East as kings of Babylon today, but then how we nowchoose to label different parts is irrelevant to OT prophecy. In God’s eyes,there is still such a place as Babylon, and there is still such a thing as thekingship of Babylon. In 539 BC, that kingship was subsumed within thePersian empire; in 333 BC, it was subsumed within the empire of Greece;and, today, along with the rest of the world, it exists as a co-regencywithin the kingdom of Satan. Babylon’s kingship has not, therefore, beendestroyed by her successors but, rather, subsumed with their kingdoms;which is precisely why Daniel spell outs not only the indestructibility ofthe kingdom of God but also its unassailability. The Colossus’s kingdomswere left to other people-groups, but the kingdom of God “will [never]be left to another people”.

Prophetically speaking, then, the kingship of Babylon encapsulates allthose rulers who have reigned over Babylon since the rise and fall ofNebuchadnezzar. As such, it has included men like Belshazzar, Cyrus,and Alexander, and, more recently, men like Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and

193. Alexander did not raze Susa or Persepolis to the ground, nor did he seek to expel their former inhabitants.On the contrary, he sought to intermingle with the Persians as much as possible.

194. PDBC XXX.

92 2.45B: DANIEL CONCLUDES HIS INTERPRETATION

Saddam Hussein.195 True—there have been times when Babylon haslacked a king altogether, i.e., when the throne of Babylon has been leftvacant. But, in my view, anyone who acquires the rule over Babylonthereby becomes a King of Babylon. The Colossus’s second and thirdkingships can then be viewed in similar ways.196

In sum, then, I understand Nebuchadnezzar’s Colossus to depict threeongoing kingships: those of Babylon, Persia, and Greece. Each of thesepositions of authority has become great, enjoyed its day in the sun, andsince been subsumed within Satan’s kingdom. The fall of Satan’s all-consuming kingdom therefore means the fall of the entire Colossus. Af-terwards, the site where the Colossus stood will be swept clean of rubble.An entirely new kingdom (the Messianic kingdom) will then take root inthe world.197

2.45b: Daniel concludes his interpretation

2.45b The dream is certain, and its interpretation is trustworthy.

With the King’s dream interpreted, Daniel now informs Nebuchadnezzarof two important facts. First, the dream is not a mere warning, i.e., avision of what may or may not transpire in the future.198 Rather, thedream depicts a series of events that will “certainly” come to pass. Baby-lon will fall, three future kingdoms will arise from its ruins and likewise

195. Saddam Hussein actually regarded himself as a re-incarnation of Nebuchadnezzar.

196. The kingship of Persia came into existence with the rise of Cyrus in 559 BC. Since then, it has includedmen like Cambyses, Artaxerxes, and the Parthian kings, and, more recently, the rulers of Iran. Indeed,in 1971, Iran officially celebrated the 2,500th anniversary of Cyrus’s death, whom many Iranians view asthe founder of their present monarchy. Meanwhile, the kingship of Greece came into existence with therise of Alexander in 331 BC. Since then, it has included Roman Emperors like Caracalla (who regardedhimself as a re-incarnation of Alexander) as well as Byzantine Emperors like Constantine. And now, in2013, it lies in the hands of the European Union. Kingships, like kingdoms, cannot disappear. Theysimply get ‘handed down’ from one generation to the next.

197. That the Colossus kingdoms are not said to fall in chronological order (as one might expect) is anotherinteresting point. (Daniel lists them as “iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold” as opposed to “clay, iron,bronze, silver, and gold”.) As such, the kings of clay are no longer associated with the very end of the age;they instead appear midway through Daniel’s list of kingdoms. The significance of 2.45’s rearrangementof the world’s kingdoms is not clear to me. Perhaps the Holy Spirit wants us to note the way in which,throughout the ages, men of God have always been found in the midst of the world’s kingdoms. Orperhaps something else is in mind. Either way, the non-chronological nature of Daniel’s list furtherunderlines the kingdoms’ ongoing existence and coextensive nature.

198. In Babylon, the job of a ‘diviner’ was twofold: first, to observe and interpret given ‘signs’ or ‘omens’; and,second, to suggest how their implications (if undesirable) could be averted (ABDM 14-15).

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 93

fall, and, finally, God’s Messiah will arise. In God’s eyes, these events arenot ‘best guesses’ but certainties. Second, Daniel’s interpretation of thedream is entirely “trustworthy”. The King seems to have been ‘burnt’ bya history of just-so interpretations (2.8-9), but Daniel’s interpretation isone on which Nebuchadnezzar can rely. If he turns away from his idola-trous ways and reposes faith in the living God, then he will certainly notlive to regret it. Daniel’s God is faithful to his word.

2.46-49: The King’s response to the interpretation

2.46 At that point, King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshipped Danieland gave orders for an offering and a sweet-smelling incense to be pouredout [in honour of] him.

2.47 ‘Truly’, the King declared to Daniel, ‘your god is a god of gods, one whohas dominion over kings and who reveals mysteries, hence you have beenable to reveal this mystery’.

2.48 So the King made Daniel great and gave him many great gifts, and hemade him the ruler of the whole province of Babylon, even the greatest ofthe prefects of Babylon’s wise men.

2.49 Daniel then besought [favour] from the King, who appointed Shadrach,Meshach, and Abed-Nego over the administration of the Province ofBabylon. Meanwhile, Daniel [was stationed] at the entrance to the King’s[court].

In considering 2.35-45, we have been looking ahead to the closing mo-ments of the present age, but we are now brought back to the 6th cent.,i.e., to Babylon’s throneroom. We are thus brought to the crunch-pointof ch. 2’s narrative. (In the context of ch. 2, we do not yet know whetherDaniel’s recollection of the dream is veridical—much less how the Kingwill respond to its interpretation.) Will the King reward Daniel for hispowers of discernment or slay him on the spot as a ‘false prophet’? Willhe accept Daniel’s interpretation or be enraged by Daniel’s insolence?After all, Daniel has just stood before the mightiest man on the planetand has told him that kingdom is destined to end in ruins, that God’sface is set against him. The answer is found in 2.46-47.

At that point, King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshippedDaniel (2.46a). Nebuchadnezzar is completely overwrought by what he

94 2.46-49: THE KING’S RESPONSE TO THE INTERPRETATION

has heard, as one might expect. He therefore falls on his face at Daniel’sfeet. (In the context of Scripture, to ‘worship’ is simply ‘to bow down’.)As such, 2.46 presents us with an amazing scene. The King of Baby-lon—a man before whom every Babylonian trembles and fears—is foundbowing at the feet of an unheard-of Hebrew exile! It is a remarkable turnof events. It is also a very revealing picture of the nature of God’s econ-omy. The kingdom of God is about exalting the humble and humblingthe self-exalting, which is precisely what takes place in Nebuchadnezzar’sthroneroom (1 Sam. 2.8, Luke 1.51-52). The most immediate fulfilmentof ch. 2’s dream therefore involves Daniel himself. In the context of ch.2’s narrative, Daniel is the equivalent of the Messianic stone. Rejectedby Babylon’s wise men he may have been, but he has been vindicatedby the Most High God and he has brought the great Nebuchadnezzar’sworldview crashing down. And, just as the stone in the dream expandedinto a mountain, Daniel will now begin to grow a ‘heavenly kingdom’ inBabylon by securing the promotion of his friends: Shadrach, Meshach,and Abed-Nego (2.49).

and worshipped Daniel (2.46a). In light of what Daniel has said to theKing, Nebuchadnezzar’s reaction seems surprising. (Daniel’s interpreta-tion of the dream was far from good news from Babylon’s perspective.)Perhaps, then, Nebuchadnezzar is simply paying tribute to Daniel’s greatabilities. Or perhaps he sees the dream as a mere ‘warning’ rather thanan inviolable prophecy. Or perhaps the King has not yet paused to con-sidered the dream’s implications; he is simply relieved to have had itinterpreted. (The unknown has its own particular fear.) Either way,Nebuchadnezzar is clearly delighted to have found a man like Daniel inhis service—a man who, unlike his wise men, is courageous, competent,and wise.

[The King] gave orders for an offering and a sweet-smelling incense(2.46b). Nebuchadnezzar now commands his men to pour out “an of-fering and a sweet-smelling incense” before Daniel, which Daniel dulyaccepts (2.46b). That Daniel accepts the King’s offering might, at firstblush, strike us as odd since it seems an inappropriate way to treat amere man, but Daniel’s response is, I believe, quite correct. Through-

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 95

out his interaction with Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel has been very care-ful to stress that his wisdom owes entirely to the grace of the God ofHeaven (2.27-28, 2.45b), as Nebuchadnezzar seems to have grasped.(The King’s statement of praise in 2.47 is directed towards Daniel’s Godrather than towards Daniel himself.) Daniel does not, therefore, object toNebuchadnezzar’s offering. Granted—it may not have been the ‘proper’way to praise God, but then how was Nebuchadnezzar to know that?Nebuchadnezzar simply wanted to respond to God’s grace in some way.Daniel does not, therefore, discourage him from doing so.

So the King made Daniel great and gave him many great gifts (2.48).Nebuchadnezzar recognises Daniel as a great asset. From a king’s pointof view, a man who can discern the minds of others—and who has thefavour of the gods—is worth his weight in gold. (We need only considerthe amount of money that the King of Moab was willing to pay Balaamfor his services: Deut. 23.4.) Nebuchadnezzar therefore promotes Danielto a position of great authority. He makes him “the ruler of the wholeProvince” as well as the leader of the wise men. In an instant, then, theone whom the wise men rejected as a mere ‘novice’ is made the head oftheir order as well as the Prime Minister of Babylonia!199

Daniel then besought [favour] from the King (2.49). In recognitionof his abilities, Daniel is assigned a place at “the entrance to the King’s[court]”. In other words, Daniel is assigned a place of great prominencein the King’s court. He has free access to the King’s presence, and is ableto have an important influence on who is allowed to enter the King’spresence in Babylon. Following his promotion, Daniel asks the King toextend his grace to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego as well, whichNebuchadnezzar seems happy to do. Daniel’s friends are hence assignedprominent places within the Province. That Daniel, in his moment ofglory, remains mindful of his friends speaks well of both his characterand his temperament. Daniel is not one to allow fame to go to his head.He realises that God had brought him to Babylon for a specific reason,which is not to acquire fame and fortune but to be a light and an example

199. We might consider, by way of analogy, the way Pharaoh made Joseph his right hand man, setting him“over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 41.41-42).

96 2.46-49: THE KING’S RESPONSE TO THE INTERPRETATION

to his people. Even, therefore, amidst his success, Daniel’s main concernis how he can use his achievements for God’s glory.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 97

2.1-49: A closing retrospective

Ch. 2 recounts a remarkable and formative incident in the lives of Danieland his three friends. The Hebrews must have been awestruck whenthey first laid eyes on Babylon. As they followed the Fertile Crescenteastwards (in the company of Nebuchadnezzar and his armies), theywould have been able to Babylon from many miles away—an immensecity surrounded by impregnable walls within which lay hidden richesand mysteries beyond belief. But, during the the course of ch. 2’s events,Daniel and his friends see a different side to Babylon. They see Babylonfrom the inside, and, as a result, their view of it completely changes. Theadministration of its palace is chaotic at best; its wise men are largelycorrupt and incompetent; and its king is a highly disturbed and brutalindividual. Contrary to its reputation, then, Babylon is a far cry fromparadise on earth.

Ch. 2’s narrative is extremely well-told. As commentators like WayneSibley-Towner and Sidney Greidanus have noted, it unfolds in terms of anumber of distinct ‘scenes’, each of which is defined by a change in loca-tion and a variation in personnel.200 As the narrative unfolds, its tensiontherefore increases, until, finally, the time for Daniel’s appointment withNebuchadnezzar comes, at which point his interpretation of the King’sdream is put to the ultimate test. (Of course, as students of Scripture,we know how the story ends. But, for the purposes of analysing the nar-rative, we must pretend that we are reading the story for the first time.We must put ourselves in the shoes of one of the main characters, likethe Hebrews or Arioch, and consider how the story unfolds from theirperspective.)

Ch. 2 can be divided into distinct scenes as follows:

200. Towner, Daniel, XXXX:XXX; Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Daniel, 2012:XXX.

98 2.1-49: A CLOSING RETROSPECTIVE

Vs. Content

#1 2.1-4a At the outset of ch. 2’s narrative, we find the King alone in hispalace. He has recently conquered Judah and is at peace bothwith himself and with his kingdom. The God of Israel thendecides to speak to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream, which the Kingfinds hugely unnerving. The King therefore summons his wisemen and seeks their counsel.

#2 2.4b-11 A (lengthy) dialogue now ensues between the King and his wisemen. Nebuchadnezzar is suspicious of his wise men’s abilities.He therefore asks them, not only to interpret his dream, but alsoto recount its contents. Given their inability to perform suchfeats, the wise men refuse to comply with the King’s request. Indoing so, they effectively admit that they serve no real purposein the King’s service (since they cannot do anything mere mortalscannot do for themselves), at which point Nebuchadnezzarcompletely explodes.

#3 2.12-24 The King sentences the wise men to death (Daniel included) anddispatches his chief executioner (Arioch) to make the necessaryarrangements. The killing of the wise men then begins. At thesame time, Daniel approaches the King and offers his services asa diviner-and-interpreter of dreams, which the King accepts.Daniel therefore earns himself a reprieve. He then returns to hishouse, where he and his friends seek God’s grace and mercy.

#4 2.25-45 Daniel now appears before the King in order for his recollectionand interpretation of the dream to be put to the test. Needless tosay, the King is staggered by Daniel’s abilities. Daniel recountsprecisely what the King saw in his dream, which leaves himabsolutely speechless. Daniel then proceeds to interpret theKing’s dream.

#5 2.46-49 The King now falls prostrate before Daniel. He is overcome withamazement as a result of what he has seen and heard. Danielhas clearly not employed any ‘trickery’. (How could he?Nebuchadnezzar was the only one who knew the contents of hisdream.) His recollection of the dream can only, therefore, be anact of God, and Nebuchadnezzar embraces it as such. In light ofhis abilities, Daniel is promoted to a position of great prominencein Babylon. The same thing is later done to Daniel’s friends.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 99

Ch. 2 can therefore be analysed in terms of a number of distinct scenes.Interestingly, these five scenes seem to parallel the five stages of theColossus’s evolution in the following way:

Vs. Aspect ofthe

Colossus

Counter-part inhistory

Counterpart in ch. 2’s narrative

#1 2.1-4a Thekingdomof gold

The reignof

Babylon

The narrative begins in Babylon’s palace,where Nebuchadnezzar is alone with thevisions of his “head”. As such, scene #1depicts the sole monarchy of Babylon.

#2 2.4b-11 The two-armed

kingdomof silver

The reignof Medo-

Persia

As the wise men enter the picture, divisionensues and Nebuchadnezzar’s rage beginsto grow. (At the same time, Daniel’snarrative transitions to Aramaic.) As such,scene #2 depicts the divided kingdom ofMedo-Persia.

#3 2.12-24 The coreof bronze

The reignof

Greece,culminat-ing in the

rise ofAnti-ochus

A death sentence is passed on Daniel andhis friends, and Arioch enters onto thescene in order to execute it. The Hebrewstherefore gather together in their house,where they seek God’s grace and mercy. Assuch, scene #3 depicts the days ofAntiochus. The rise of the Greeks speltdisaster for Israel, which culminated in therise of Antiochus. As Antiochus wroughthavoc in Israel, slaughtering her people, afaithful remnant gathered together ‘withintheir house’ and called on the name oftheir God.

#4 2.25-45 Theworld’sfourthempire

The reignof Satan’s

empire

The time for Daniel’s testing arrives.Daniel is given over to a Gentileworldpower, who apparently holds hisdestiny in his hands. As such, scene #4depicts the Jews’ time of testing. The Jewsare given over to the Gentile worldpowers,in whose midst they must manage tosurvive.

100 2.1-49: A CLOSING RETROSPECTIVE

Vs. Aspect ofthe

Colossus

Counter-part inhistory

Counterpart in ch. 2’s narrative

#5 2.46-49 The finaldays of

thefourthempire

Theemer-

gence ofthe toesof clayand thecollapseof the

Colossus

Daniel and his friends are raised topositions of prominence within Babylon.They thereby foreshadow the ‘kings of clay’within Satan’s empire—the godly seed whowill ultimately cause the entire edifice tocome crashing down. As such, scene #5depicts the beginning of the end of Satan’sempire. Satan’s ranks come to bepopulated by a group of godly kings, whowill withstand his ungodly agenda in thedays to come (as Shadrach, Meshach, andAbed-Nego do in ch. 3).

Not all of these parallels and division are, perhaps, warranted, but theconnection between ch. 2’s narrative and vision seems unlikely to be en-tirely coincidental. Either way, ch. 2 fulfils a number of important func-tions in the context of Daniel’s writings. For one thing, it introduces us tothe character of Nebuchadnezzar, the newly-crowned King of Judah. Welearn what type of man Nebuchadnezzar is, and how he runs his palace.Ch. 2 also explains how Daniel and his friends rose to such prominencein Babylon’s ranks, and describes the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s re-lationship with Daniel (developed in ch. 4). Ch. 2 also has propheticrelevance. It describes the beginning of Daniel’s career as an interpreterof dreams, and provides us with a high-level prophetic ‘framework’ intowhich we can ‘slot’ the rest of Daniel’s visions. Chs. 7-12 can thereforebe thought of as visions which fill out the details of ch. 2.

DANIEL CHAPTER 2 101

2.1-49: Some applications

Daniel’s experiences in ch. 2 teach us a number of important lessons,some of which we have already considered (2.21-23’s comm.) and therest of which we will consider now. As usual, we begin by consideringthe most relevant to Daniel’s original readership and proceed from there.

(1) God is sovereign over the affairs of man.

The sovereignty of God is very evident in ch. 2’s events, as it is in otherchapters. But the way in which God’s sovereignty is portrayed in ch. 2has a particular slant to it. The God of the Colossus is not depicted as aGod who is constrained by—or must battle against—the Gentile super-powers; rather, he is depicted as the one who stands behind—and therebydirects—world history. It is he who chose to raise Nebuchadnezzar—thehead of gold—to greatness, and it is he who has likewise chosen to raiseup (and put down) every one of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors. The evo-lution of the Gentile kingships therefore takes place entirely within thesphere of God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. It brings God’s fore-ordained plans to pass in time and space and culminates in God’s eternalreign. God therefore works, not against, but by means of and in con-sort with the Gentile kings. In a sense, then, the Colossus brings aboutits own downfall, as Daniel tells us in 2.41-44. The Colossus’s dividedpeople-groups (of iron and clay) undermine its power and authority;hence, when the Messiah comes to deal the Colossus its death-blow, hefinds the Colossus already weak and defenceless.

As stated above, then, ch. 2 portrays a very particular view of God’ssovereignty. It portrays the King of Heaven bringing about his sovereignpurposes by means of the reigns of the kings of the earth. Ch. 2 there-fore contained an important lesson for it readers, and it teaches us thesame thing today. Wherever we live and move, God is sovereign over ourcircumstances. We must therefore live accordingly. We must be peopleof courage and perseverance, even amidst times of great chaos, just asDaniel and his friends were. Despite their success in ch. 1, Daniel andhis friends ended up in a veritable whirlpool of confusion. One moment,


all was well; the next, their entire world had turned upside down. TheKing was in a rage; the palace-staff were running around like headlesschickens; the Hebrews had been assigned a nigh-on impossible task; anda death sentence was hanging over their heads.

As believers, we often find ourselves in situations which, if not as dra-matic as Daniel’s, are nonetheless unnerving. We find ourselves buffetedto and fro by our circumstances. We feel as if we are entirely at themercy of our environment; we find our lives spinning out of control andare powerless to do anything about it. In such situations, our calling isto behave as Daniel did: to gather together with fellow believers in ourhouses, to seek God’s help in prayer, and to cling on to the promise Jesusleft his disciples:

Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure togive you the kingdom. ...Stay dressed for action, and keep yourlamps burning (Luke 12.32-35).

Things will not always be as they are at the present moment. God iscausing the world’s events to unfold according to his divine plan, and,soon, he will replace the world’s temporary kingships with the glory ofhis eternal kingdom. As we see chaos unfolding on the Earth, let ustherefore “straighten up, and raise [our] heads”, for we know that “[our]redemption is drawing near” (Luke 21.28). Our God—the judge of thewhole earth—will do what is right. He will leave no wrong unpunishedand no injustice uncompensated, and his glory will fill the entire earth(Isa. 11).

(2) God’s people have a duty to submit to God’s appointed leaders.

When Nebuchadnezzar rose to power, the Jewish people acquired a newoverlord. Indeed, they acquired a whole new line of overlords, sinceNebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem marked the beginning of theTimes of the Gentiles. During these times, the Jewish people would needto show great resilience and self-discipline, just as Daniel did.


At the time of ch. 2’s events, Daniel had served as a wise man withinthe King’s service for (by my reckoning) twelve years or so. In terms ofwisdom and intellect, he was head and shoulders above Babylon’s wisemen. Yet he seemed to have been overlooked by the wise men. (Hewas clearly not present among the wise men who were first summonedby the King: 2.15.) Daniel must therefore have found life in the Palaceextremely frustrating. He was a man of great wisdom surrounded by‘lesser men’ making poor decisions, and he knew God had stationed himin the Palace for a reason. Yet, for many years, Daniel simply had to bitehis lip, to submit to his ‘superiors’, and to trust that God would raise himup at the appropriate time. In the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign,that time came. With the rest of the Palace in uproar and confusion,Daniel seized the moment and offered his services to Nebuchadnezzar.And the rest, as they say, is history (2.48-49).

Daniel’s example was very relevant to the lives of his original readers.The Jews in Babylon would not have warmed to the idea of being ruledby a series of Gentile overlords. Those, however, were the kings Godhad given them (2.38). The Jewish people were, therefore, to respectand to submit to the authority of their Gentile rulers, just as Daniel did(Jer. 29.4-11, Rom. 13.3-4). True—there would be times when the Jew-ish people would need to stand up and be counted, but there wouldalso be times when they would need to submit to their superiors. LikeDaniel, then, the Jewish people needed to exhibit both humility as wellas courage. They needed to know when to speak up and when to submit.And, of course, we need to exhibit precisely the same qualities in our dayand age. For some people, ‘daring to be a Daniel’ is not the difficult part.The difficult part is knowing when to keep our mouths shut.

(3) Since ch. 2’s Colossus is not portrayed in entirely negative terms, weshould not see man’s reign in entirely negative terms.201

201. As mentioned previously, I employ the terms ‘Gentile’ and ‘man’ interchangeably in the present commen-tary (e.g., when I refer to ‘the reign of man’ or ‘the Times of the Gentiles’). In such cases, I have in mindthe notion of man as opposed to God and the Gentiles as opposed to God’s people. The authors of theNT use the term in the same way—hence, for instance, Paul’s references to “Gentile sinners” and “theGentiles (who do not know God)” (Gal. 2.15, 1 Thes. 4.5; see also 1 Pet. 4.3).


The Colossus depicts a temporary ‘disruption’ in God’s appointed order.It strips God’s people of their power and relegates Israel to the positionof ‘the tail’ rather than ‘the head’ (Deut. 28.13.) Yet the Colossus is atthe same time a reflection of God’s glory and power. It is a majestic andlustrous depiction of a man whom God has anointed with power andstrength and glory (2.37-38). It thus depicts a line of rulers whom Godhas exalted to positions of great majesty. Even at its most ungodly—i.e.,even when Satan is seeking to exert his iron grip on the world—, tracesof God’s image can be found in the Colossus, as depicted by its base of“potter’s clay”.

While, therefore, the figure of the Colossus embodies the reigns of anumber of ungodly rulers, it at the same time depicts the unfolding ofGod’s plans for his people. In particular, it depicts a sequence of king-doms, running from the Colossus’s head (in the clouds) to its toes (on theground). As such, the Colossus brings the reign of Heaven down to theearth. With each Gentile king who rises and falls, the time of Heaven’sreign draws inexorably closer.

The Colossus also depicts a series of kingdoms which provide a ‘dwellingplace’ for the dispersed Jewish people during the Times of the Gentiles.The OT book which most frequently mentions the Colossus’s metals (gold,silver, bronze, and iron) is the Book of Exodus, where the metals are al-most always connected with the Tabernacle (e.g., the Tabernacle’s goldenvessels, silver bases, and bronze altar).202 We might, therefore, view theColossus as a kind of second Tabernacle—a dwelling place for the Jewishpeople during their years of wandering in “the wilderness of the nations”(Ezek. 20.35). Just as the Jews’ Temple-vessels are carried away fromJerusalem and stored in a pagan temple, so the Jews themselves arecarried away and stored in a pagan temple, namely the Gentile Colos-sus. (True—the Colossus has not been a very comfortable dwelling placefor the Jewish people, but then its purpose is not only to house thembut to purify them.) Either way, the Colossus depicts the continuation

202. Interestingly, iron is never mentioned in connection with the Tabernacle, which, in light of its associationwith Satan’s kingdom, seems appropriate.


of God’s divine plans from 587 BC onwards, as well as reflecting God’sglory, power, and sovereignty.203

In the context of 6th-cent. Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s vision containedan important message for Daniel and his readers. The Jewish peoplewere not to see their Gentile overlords as their enemies—as tyrants fromwhose reign they were to seek to escape or break free. They were insteadto see their Gentile overlords as God’s appointed rulers over them—asservants of the Most High who were part and parcel of God’s divinely-ordained plans (Jer. 29.4-11). The Jewish people were therefore toserve, respect, and co-operate with their overlords. That idea may nothave gone down very well with Daniel’s readers, nor would the idea ofdepicting the reign of the Gentiles in ‘glowing terms’ (i.e., in terms ofprecious metals like gold and silver). But men like Nehemiah and Ezraclearly took Daniel’s vision to heart. And, had more Jews done likewise,life would surely have turned out better for the exiles. Indeed, it wasprecisely Jerusalem’s history of dissension and rebellion that hinderedtheir work on the Temple during the days of the Persians (Ezra XXX).

As well as containing an important message for Daniel and his readers,Nebuchadnezzar’s vision contains an important message for us. As be-lievers, we should not seek to disassociate ourselves from the world inwhich we live. Rather, we should seek to be an influence for good on ourworld. We are to serve, respect, and co-operate with our civil authoritiesand to serve our employers with a willing heart (Eph. 6.5-8). We areto think seriously about what impact we might be able to have on ourgovernments. And, just as the exiles were to “seek the welfare of the city[of Babylon]”, so we are to seek the welfare of the cities and nations inwhich God has placed us (Jer. 29.7). It is a great mistake for us to seeour nations as a ‘lost cause’—as ‘too far gone’ or as beyond God’s trans-forming power. (If God had viewed us in such terms, we would be in

203. In considering the prophetic significance of Nebuchadnezzar’s Colossus, it is easy to overlook its God-appointed nature, but we must guard against doing so. The Holy Spirit wants us to develop, thoughour consideration of Daniel’s vision, a balanced view of man’s reign. Despite the many ungodly rulersits figure embodies, the Colossus nevertheless represents God’s appointed authority-figures—men whoare a reflection of God’s power and might and who mete out God’s justice to evildoers (Rom. 13.3-4).Nebuchadnezzar’s dream therefore seems to emphasise the positive aspects of the Gentiles’ rule overJerusalem. Meanwhile, Daniel’s dream (in ch. 7) reveals the other side of the coin.


real trouble.) Indeed, the future depicted in the Colossus is not all doomand gloom. In its final moments, it depicts (in my view) a great uprisingagainst Satan and his agenda. Let us therefore realise that God wants touse our lives to influence the world around us for good, and let us seekto do whatever we can to further that end.

(4) History is heading in precisely the direction Daniel predicted, sincehistory is in the control of Daniel’s God.

Daniel’s vision begins by describing the rise and fall of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. Each of these kingdoms rose and fell precisely aspredicted. Since then, a fourth kingdom has been evolving—a kingdomcentred around the Near East but encompassing all the nations of theworld. According to Daniel’s vision, that kingdom is destined to be-come progressively more mighty and more eager to expand yet, at thesame time, progressively less united and less ethnically pure (2.41-42’scomm.). In its desire to become strong, it weakens, and, in its desire tounite, it falls to pieces.

Daniel’s description of the fourth kingdom is a remarkably accurate de-piction of today’s world. As time has unfolded, the world’s kingdomshave become ever more powerful (today, even poorer nations are able toinflict great damage on the world) and ever more eager to unite (hencethe formation of nation-states like the EU), and yet, all the time, the‘cracks’ in the world’s kingdoms have become wider. Today’s kings havebecome progressively less sovereign over their people (and, as a result,less able to hold them together), while their people’s differences andethnic diversity have become ever more apparent. Indeed, many nationscontain such a mix of races and religions that they are unable to unite onanything. And, as always, these things are exemplified in spades in theland of Israel—a microcosm of the world as a whole. We can thereforesee Daniel’s fourth empire evolving before our very eyes. The emergenceof the Colossus’s iron-and-clay toes may still be a long way off or it maynot. But one thing is for sure: history is heading in precisely the di-rection Daniel predicted. More importantly, it is leading inexorably on


towards the point where man’s kingdoms finally crumble and give wayto God’s eternal reign.

Towner captures the overall flavour and significance of these things quitebrilliantly:

The decline which has dogged history for many generations,and which we have experienced acutely in our own time, can-not go on forever. [Its] end-point is not entropy—some undif-ferentiated age of dull mediocrity or relentless tyranny. Nor is itsome kind of omega-point, at which all things work themselvesaround to the full realisation of their potential. Rather, the end-[point] of this decline is the in-breaking of a destroying [and]purging power of God and [its] establishment in...place of whatis palpably fading and insufficient, namely, human power andautonomy!204

(5) When interpreting OT prophecy, it is important not to miss the woodfor the trees.

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream contained many details which Daniel failed todisclose to him (e.g., the identity of the Colossus’s future kingdoms).Why, we might wonder, would God want to keep such things from Neb-uchadnezzar? The answer is simple: because Nebuchadnezzar did notneed to know them. God did not want Nebuchadnezzar to becomebogged down in the dream’s details, for Nebuchadnezzar’s primary needwas not to improve his knowledge of the future but to turn from hiswickedness to the living God. To put the same point another way: Neb-uchadnezzar’s problem was not his ignorance of his successors’ identity.Rather, Nebuchadnezzar’s problem was a much more serious one. Ev-erything on which he had built his life was destined to end in ruins, andhe had no inheritance whatsoever in the kingdom of God. That was theproblem he most needed to address.

204. Towner 1986:39.


The fundamental message of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is therefore sim-ple, straightforward, and very relevant to the present day. The kingdomsof man will not last. The day will come when the heavens and the earthwill be shaken and everything not built in accordance with the will ofGod will crumble (Heb. 12.26-27). If, therefore, we want to be part of akingdom of lasting glory and value, we need to labour for the kingdomof God rather than the kingdom of man. Man’s gold, silver, bronze, andiron may seem very impressive at the moment, but, before too long, itwill be entirely forgotten. By way of contrast, the work of the Messiah(the coming stone) may not seem so impressive—a stumbling block tothe Jews and folly to the Gentiles—, but, before too long, it will be plainfor all Creation to see and will be remembered forevermore. During hisearthly ministry, the Messiah therefore spoke to his disciples, saying,

Do not be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will wedrink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’, for [even] the Gentiles seek af-ter such things, and your heavenly Father knows that you needthem all. Rather, seek first the kingdom of God and his righ-teousness, and all these [other] things will be added to you. Donot be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxiousfor itself. Today has enough troubles of its own.

(Matt. 6.31-34†)

Like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Jesus’ words are both simple in essenceand profound in application. The challenge is living them out in the realworld.

(6) God is doing something truly incredible in our world, and we, as mem-bers of God’s kingdom, are privileged beyond belief to have any part in it atall.

As believers in God’s Messiah, we are not isolated individuals whom Godhas plucked out of a disintegrating world. Rather, we are members ofa heavenly kingdom whom are destined to rule and renew our fallenworld. In yielding our lives to Christ, we have therefore become part


of an awesome plan—something in light of which our lives and actionsinherit an immense significance.

Understood in a certain way, modern science inform that there is nothingobjectively significant about the times in which we live. Billions of yearsago, our universe began, and, billions of years later, it will peter out, andhere we are in the middle of it all not knowing what, if anything, awaitsus beyond the grave. In the grand scheme of things, then, the times inwhich we live are quite insignificant. They are no different to previoustimes or future times. We are quite free, therefore, to view our positionin history as significant if we find it helpful to do so, but we should notsee it as objectively significant. We may as well simply muddle our waythrough life as best we can and worry about the ‘details’ later.

Needless to say: as believers, we should not have a bar of such thinking.Our lives and times are anything but insignificant. God has a plan forworld history, and we have the privilege of witnessing its ‘final act’ (Heb.9.26, 1 Pet. 1.20, etc.). Many people in world history have stood on thecusp of a new epoch: Noah prior to the Flood, Moses prior to the Exodus,David prior to the building of the Temple, Daniel prior to the return toJudah, John the Baptist prior to the coming of Christ, the disciples priorto the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and so on. All these people lived andlaboured on the cusp of monumental times without being fully aware ofit. According to the NT, we too are on the cusp of a new epoch. Our partis therefore to “redeem the time” which God has allotted to us and to putour talents to good use in God’s service (Matt. 25.14-30, Eph. 5.16).

The world in which we live is full of unsaved men and women. LikeNebuchadnezzar, these men and women spend the majority of their liveslabouring for things which are destined to end in ruins. Yet, the zealwith which they do so often puts us to shame as Christians. That is not,however, the way things should be. Knowing what we know, we shouldbe infinitely more zealous of and committed to our cause than othersare. May God therefore implant deep within us an unquenchable desireto serve him—to make the most of our lives while there is still time to


do so and to make decisions that glorify God rather than decisions whichwe will one day regret. As the apostle Paul says,

[We] know the time, that the hour has come for [us] to wakefrom sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we firstbelieved. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then,let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour oflight.

(Rom. 13.12-13)

(7) Christian leaders should be selected on the basis of their actions ratherthan their ambitions.

Men who are determined to carve out positions of importance for them-selves in Christian ministries often, in my experience, make poor Chris-tian leaders. The apostle John (in his third epistle) refers to a mannamed “Diotrephes”—a man who loved to “put himself first” and whothereby caused great problems for his church (3 John 9). Suffice it tosay, Daniel was not cut from the same cloth as Diotrephes. He did notseek out a ‘great work’ for himself. He simply wanted to fulfil God’spurposes for his life. He remained mindful of the gifts God had givenhim (i.e., the ability to interpret dreams), and, when the time came, hethen stepped up to the plate (by offering to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’sdream).


(8) It is important for us to take risks for the sake of our Lord.

Daniel was a man of great faith. When he heard about the events at thePalace, he had no idea as to the nature or content of the King’s dream,but he had no hesitation in offering his services to the King, since hewas confident that God would provide for his needs. Daniel thereforeput himself in a position where, unless God did something quite remark-able, he would be in serious trouble. And, as we know, God blessed andhonoured his decision. All well and good, we might say, but Daniel wasabout to die, so he had very little to lose. That response might seemreasonable enough at first blush, but it prompts the question, What dowe have to lose exactly? What is our main concern in putting our life onthe line for the sake of our Lord? Is our eternal destiny not secure? Dowe not believe that our lives are continually in God’s hands anyway? Inwhat way, then, is our situation so different from Daniel’s? As believers,what should most worry us is not the possibility of dying an ‘early’ deathbut of living a lukewarm life—of reaching the end of our lives withouthaving given our all in God’s service. Let us therefore be people who,like Daniel, are prepared to put our personal well-being at risk for thesake of our Lord. It is not presumptuous to act in such ways. On thecontrary, it is honouring to God when we simply take him at his wordand live accordingly.

(9) Believers can be successful in their ‘secular’ lives as well as in their‘spiritual’ lives, as the life of Daniel perfectly illustrates.

Believers do not have to make a choice between ‘secular’ or ‘spiritual’success. It is possible—and in fact desirable—for a believer to prosper inboth areas of life. True—the believer may not be in a position to put in asmuch ‘overtime’ as others do, but God is more than able to compensatefor such things. Indeed, God’s blessing is worth more than any amountof natural ability and effort, as Babylon’s wise men found out during thecourse of ch. 2’s events (1.17). If we commit our work to the Lord eachday, then who knows what he might do with it?


(10) When God gives us a message to pass on to people, then we must tellthem exactly what God has told us: no more and no less.

One of the most striking things about Daniel’s address to Nebuchadnez-zar (as recorded in 2.27-45) is what Daniel chooses not to say. God gaveDaniel a very specific message to pass on to Nebuchadnezzar: a dreamand an interpretation. As Daniel reached the end of the interpretation,it would have been easy for him to seek to get ‘a decision’ from Neb-uchadnezzar (i.e., whether to follow the gods of Babylon or the God ofHeaven). But Daniel refused to ‘force the issue’. He told Nebuchadnez-zar precisely what God had told him: no more and no less. And thecourse of time proved the rightness of his actions. God planned to winNebuchadnezzar’s heart over a period of many years. He would speak toNebuchadnezzar through the ongoing witness of Daniel, the deliveranceof Daniel’s friends, and the suffering of Nebuchadnezzar himself (cf. chs.3-4). And, in the end, God would win his man. In the meantime, Danielneeded to exercise patience and trust.

When we preach and teach God’s Word, it is very easy for us to go beyondwhat God has given us to say. Most of us have ‘bugbears’ when it comesto Christian practice—things which we feel are ignored or overlookedby many believers. Sadly, however, when we preach and teach God’sWord, we are often so busy trying to shoehorn our particular bugbearsinto our text that we fail in our most basic duty, namely to expound themeaning of God’s Word to God’s people. Needless to say, such preachingis honouring neither to our hearers, nor to the Scriptures, nor to Godhimself. God’s Word is living and powerful. As Paul said, “Scripture isGod-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and train-ing in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3.16). If we believe that, then we do notneed to indulge in ‘pick and mix preaching’ or ‘springboard exegesis’. (Ifwe do not, then it would be better for us not to preach at all.) We cansimply expound the plain meaning of God’s Word and allow God to takecare of the rest. God has not left us to our own devices to work out whatpeople need to hear and how they can be brought to faith. Rather, hehas given us a specific means of producing faith in the hearts of menand women, namely his Word. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing


through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10.17). It is that simple. As preach-ers and teachers of God’s Word, then, let us stick to our texts. Let us tellothers what God has told us: no more and no less.

(11) As Christians, we need to meet people where they are.

On hearing Daniel’s words, Nebuchadnezzar fell at Daniel’s feet inamazement. Nebuchadnezzar’s actions were not, therefore, ‘the donething’; that is to say, they were not in accordance with God’s prescribedforms of worship. (It would have been quite improper for a Jew to havefallen at Daniel’s feet.) But then Nebuchadnezzar did not know suchthings. Rather, then, than seeking to ‘correct’ Nebuchadnezzar’s actions,Daniel accepted Nebuchadnezzar’s response to God’s word. He met theKing where he was.

When we share God’s Word with unbelievers, we should learn fromDaniel’s example. We should not always expect a ‘proper’ response fromour interlocutors, nor should we seek to squelch or ‘correct’ everythingthey say. Rather, we should meet people where they are. When peoplesought to attract Jesus’ attention, Jesus did not seem too worried abouthow they did so. Whether they asked him questions or grabbed his cloakor shouted loudly (to the chagrin of the masses) was not his primary con-cern (Mark 5.27-28, 10.48). What mattered was that they made somekind of response to the message of the Gospel. The details could be dealtwith later.

When we share God’s Word with unbelievers (or even with young believ-ers), we should exhibit the same kind of lenience which Jesus exhibited.God often works in people’s lives gradually. He takes things one stepat a time rather than seeking to correct every aspect of a man’s life atonce. Often, however, we are in too much of a rush to allow God towork in such ways. We explain our position on everything from baptismto divorce-and-remarriage to every visitor who steps within our churchbuildings, which, as a result, does not happen very often. Let us there-fore seek to be patient with people. Let us meet men and women where


they are and allow God to bring the relevant doctrinal matters to light inhis own time and his own way.

(12) God’s plans are often much more long-term than we would like.

At the outset of Daniel’s years in Babylon, God earmarked Daniel fora specific purpose. (He gave him great favour in his captors’ eyes andgreat insight into men’s dreams and visions.) But many years passedbetween the end of Daniel’s training program and the events of ch. 2,during which time very little seems to have happened in Daniel’s life.The wise men regarded as a mere novice, so he was unable to advancevery far in his career or to make inroads into Babylon’s higher echelons.Daniel simply had to get on with the job to which God had called him asbest he knew how.

Daniel’s experiences teach us a simple but important lesson. There aretimes when God seems very active in our lives, and there are times whenGod does not seem so active. But we should not make the mistake ofviewing life’s ‘quieter’ moments as times when God has lost interest inus. We should instead see them as times when God is preparing us fora longer journey—when God simply wants us to get on with the jobs hehas already given us to do and thereby to grow in faith and patience.(Indeed, it was precisely Daniel’s diligence in his daily duties that al-lowed him access to the King’s presence and thereby made the events ofch. 2 possible: 2.14-15.) May God therefore grant us both the courageto stand up for him in life’s storms as well as the patience to perseverewith our Christian duties in life’s moments of calm. Both are essential.

Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 2 (2.1-49)

Documents

Transcript of Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 2 (2.1-49)