Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 4 (4.1-37)

Chapter 4:The Harder They Come, The Harder They Fall

4.1-37: An introductory note

Ch. 4 revolves around the second of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams. Thechapter as a whole consists of three basic sections: i] the historicalbackdrop to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (4.1-9), ii] the description-and-interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (4.10-27), and iii] the histor-ical fulfilment of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (4.28-37). The second andthird of these sections (i.e., the description and interpretation of thedream) are highly poetic in nature. They are built around a series ofthree-part phrases, e.g.,

The tree became great and strong,and its high-point came up to the heavens,and it was visible from the end-points of the earth.Its leaves were pleasant,and its fruit was plentiful,and in it was food for all.

(Dan. 4.11-12a)

The threefold phrases in Daniel’s narrative are particularly clear whenthe chapter is read in Aramaic. Blocks of three are chained together bywaws or dîs. Breaks are then signalled by devices such as atnachs or aswitch in tense. I have set out my translation of ch. 4 in such a wayas to bring out these phrases.1 Whether the number three is significantto ch. 4’s overall theme is not clear to me. Perhaps Daniel wants us toconnect ch. 4 to the ongoing effect of the witness of the three Hebrews,

1. Many Bible-versions have done likewise (e.g., NKJV, NET, etc.) on isolated occasions (e.g., 4.10-11), butnone seem to have followed the principle through.

1

2 4.1-37: TEXT AND TRANSLATION

i.e., Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. Or perhaps Daniel has anotherreason for his use of three-part phrases. Either way, their enumerationseems to annotate the overall flow and interrelation of the chapter (seelater).

4.1-37: Text and translation

Shorter translational notes are footnoted. Where a ‘+’ sign appears, fur-ther translational notes can be found below (“4.1-37: Further transla-tional notes”).

4.1 לÈלÊעממי³א מלכא נ�בוכד�נªצרכ| Nד´אר£יÊד£י ו�לµ�נ®י³א אuמי³א

Nש למכו בÈלÊאר�עא ק Nד´י�ר£יי¢ש ג¦א;!

[From] Nebuchadnezzar the King to all tribes,nations, and tongues, who reside in every part ofthe earth: May your peace abound!

4.2 עמי עבד ד£י ו�תמהי³א אתי³אש פר ק עלאה כ| עלי³א אלהא

להחו³י³ה;! קד´מי

[1] The signs and wonders which the Most High Godhas done in my [days],2 it is my pleasure3 tounveil:

4.3 ו�תמהוהי Nר¯בר�בי כמה אתוהי!Nתקיפי כמה

[2] how great are his signs, and how strong are hiswonders,

ו�שµלטנ¦ה Mעל מלכות מלכותהו�ד´ר;! עÊMד´ר

[3] his kingdom is an age-steadfast4 kingdom, and hisrule [extends] from generation to generation!

4.4 הו¦ית ש לה נ�בוכד�נªצר אÉהבהיÇלי;! N®ו�ר¯ענ בביתי

I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house andflourishing5 in my palace,

2. lit., ‘with me’, but the sense of the phrase is temporal, like the phrase wešolt.aneh cim-dar wedar (lit., ‘withgeneration and generation’, though in practice, ‘throughout all generations’: 4.3) or beh. ezrî cim lêlya c

(lit., ‘visions with the night’, though in practice, ‘visions [seen] at night’: 7.2). The Heb. prep. cim canfunction in much the same way, e.g., yîra cûka cim-šameš (‘May they fear you while the sun endures’).

3. ‘Please’ is a pfct. conj., but, in the context of speech, can function as a pres. tense (Ezra 4.14).

4. trad., ‘eternal’; «QLM» can refer to ‘eternity’ or a thing’s ‘youthfulness’ or ‘strength’ or ‘durability’ (CAL c

lm c2016:n.m., Heb. GHCL colam), which I have sought to capture here

5. trad., ‘prosper’, but the Heb. cog. often describes the health of vegetation (hence its trans. as “green” or“verdant”: Deut. 12.2, 1 Kgs. 14.23, Psa. 37.35, etc.). As such, it anticipates Nebuchadnezzar’s dream ofa tree (4.10+).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 3

4.5 Nו�הר�הר£י ו¢יד¯חלנ®נ¢י חז¦ית Mחלר§אש¤י ו�חז�ו¦י עלÊמש כבי

י�בהלuנ®נ¢י;!

when I saw a dream which left me fearful.6 [My]thoughts then became unsettled7 [as I lay] on mybed, and the visions of my mind began to run awaywith me.8

4.6 קד´מי להנ�עלה Mטע Mש¤י ומנ¢יד£יÊפש°ר בבל חכימי לכל

י�הוד�עuנ®נ¢י;! חלמא

From my [presence], a decree was therefore set[forth] [which required] all of Babylon’s wise mento appear9 before me and to make known to methe dream’s interpretation.

4.7 ק Nעלי כ| Nעללי N¢באד¯יכ| כש ד´י¦א אש פי³א חר�טuמי³א

אמר ו�חלמא ו�ג³ז�ר¯י³א ק כש ד´איופש ר§ה Nד´מיהוÅק אÉה

לי;! Nמהוד�עיÊלא

So the interpreters-of-dreams,practitioners-of-incantations, astrologers, andshapers-of-destiny began to come in, and, as theydid so, I related the dream before them,10 but theydid not make known to me its interpretation,

4.8 ד´נ¢י¦אל קד´מי על Nאחר§י ו�עדM»כש בלטש°אצר ד£יÊש מה

Nקד£יש¤י NאלהיÊרוח ו�ד£י אלהיאמר§ת;! קד´מוהי ו�חלמא בה

until, at last, there came in Daniel, who is namedBelteshazzar after the name of my god+ but inwhom is the Spirit of the Holy God—,11+ and Irelated the dream before him, [saying],

4.9 ד£י חר�טuמי³א ר¯ב בלטש°אצרNאלהי רוח ד£י י¢ד�עת אÉה

לאÊאנ¦ס ו�ÈלÊר´ז ב� Nקד£יש¤יופש ר§ה ד£יÊחז¦ית חלמי חז�ו¦י ל�

אמר;!

‘O Belteshazzar, greatest12 of the court-magicians,of whom I [can say], I know13 that the Spirit of theHoly God is in you, and that no mystery is aburden to you [to solve]!14 Declare the visions ofmy dream which I have seen, even itsinterpretation!’.+

6. 4.4 describes an ongoing state (via a periphr. constr.), which 4.5 interrupts, hence my translation, “whenI saw...”

7. harhor is underlain by various different concepts, most notably ‘contemplation’, ‘motion’, and ‘excite-ment’ (CAL 2015:v.n.Q.). Its root vb. means ‘to have moving thoughts’ or even ‘to fantasise’, i.e., ‘to allowone’s thoughts to run away’ (CAL «HRHR» 2015:vb., Montgomery 1927:226-227), as per the Theod.’strans. (etarachthen: ‘I was unsettled’). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream has left him in a highly disturbed anduncontrolled mental state. As such, 4.5b sets the stage for Nebuchadnezzar’s breakdown (4.33). Thevb. «BHL»(D) (‘to agitate’) reinforces the point.

8. more lit., ‘troubled me’ or ‘agitated me’, but the vb. ‘to trouble’ can also have the sense ‘to hurry’ and ‘tostir up’ (2.25, 3.24), as I have sought to reflect in my trans.

9. lit., ‘to be brought’

10. The ptc. forms (of ‘come’, ‘relate’, and ‘make known’) are notable, and hence are here treated as im-perfectives. Particularly notable is the ptc. constr. mehôdcîn lî as opposed to Daniel’s customary yehôdc

unnanî (2.5, 2.9, 2.26, etc.).

11. alt., ‘a spirit of the holy gods’

12. alt., ‘chief’ or ‘head’; so also in 1.4, 2.14, 2.48, etc.

13. a pfct. conj., though, like other verbs of perception, it often has a pres. sense

14. more lit., ‘no mystery exerts any pressure on you’. A similar comment is made about Daniel by Ezekiel,who asks of the king of Tyre, ‘Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?’ (Ezek. 28.3: MÈחעממו�! ל¸א MסתוÊכל מדנאל .(אתה


4.10 חז¦ה עלÊמש כבי ר§אש¤י ו�חז�ו¦יו®אלו! הו¦ית

Now, then, [for] the visions of my mind [as I lay]on my bed. As I watched, behold:

!Nאיל [1] [I saw] a tree,15

אר�עא! בגוא [2] in the centre16 of the earth,

ש°ג¢יא;! ו�רומה [3] and it was exceptionally tall in height.17

4.11 !Pותק אילÉא ר�בה [1] The tree became great and strong,

לש מי³א! י¢מטא ו�רומה [2] and its high-point18 came up to the heavens,

כלÊאר�עא;! Pלסו ו®חזותה [3] and it was visible from the end-points19 of theearth.

4.12 ש°פיר! עפי¦ה [1] Its foliage was pleasant,

ש°ג¢יא! ו�אנ�בה [2] and its fruit plentiful

לכלאÊבה! Nומזו [3] and in it was food for all.

בר´א! חיו®ת תטלל תחתוהי [1] Underneath it, the beasts of the field found shade,

ק N´י�דור כ| Nרוºי�ד ובענ�פוהיש מי³א! צפר§י

[2] and, in its branches, the birds of the heavens tookup residence,

כלÊבש ר´א;! Nי¢תז¢י ומנ¦ה [3] and, from it, all flesh was fed.

4.13 ר§אש¤י בחז�ו¦י הו¦ית חז¦הו®אלו! עלÊמש כבי

As I continued to watch,20 in my mind’s visions[while I lay] on my bed, behold:21

ו�קד£יש! עיר [1] a holy watcher,+

Éחת;! מÊNש מי³א [2] coming down from the heavens,

4.14 אמר! Nו�כ בחי¢ל קר§א [3] issuing, with force, the following [word of]command,22

ענ�פוהי! ו�קצצו אילÉא גדו [1] Cut down the tree and cut off23 its branches!

15. With the outset of the vision itself, the groups of three begin.

16. alt., ‘midst’

17. lit., ‘its height was tall’.

18. JDTT rûm II cf, the Old Gr.’s trans. (upsos), to emphasise the vertical (‘heaven-vs-earth’) conflict depictedin ch. 4

19. ‘end-point’ distinguishes sôp from «QS.S. » and its derivatives (1.18’s comm.)

20. ‘watch’ and ‘watcher’ do not derive from the same root

21. The narrative sections are excluded from the groups of three.

22. lit., ‘calling with force and thus saying’. The level of authority conveyed by the vb. camar (‘to say’)depends on who its subject is. When a king camars, the vb. is generally rendered as ‘command’ (e.g.,KJV 2.2, 2.12, 2.46, etc.). Since the Watcher speaks on behalf of all heaven, I have applied the samelogic, hence “issuing the following command”.

23. Just as a derivate of «QS.S. » signalled the beginning of the end for Jehoiakim and Judah (1.2), so it doesfor Nebuchadnezzar.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 5

אנ�בה! ובד¯רו עפי¦ה אתרו [2] Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit!

מÊNתחתוהי חיו�תא תנ¹דמÊNענ�פוהי;! ו�צפר¯י³א

[3] Let the beast be driven out from under it and thebirds from its branches!24

4.15 באר�עא שµר�שוהי עקר M¯ברונ�חש ד£יÊפר�זªל ובאסור ש בuקו

בר´א! ד£י בד£תאא

[1] But leave25 the core of its roots26 in the earthamidst the grass of the field, and a bond of ironand bronze around [it].27

י¢צטבע! ש מי³א ובטל [2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens,

בעש°ב חלקה ו�עÊMחיו�תאאר�עא;!

[3] and [let its] portion be with the beast amidst thegreen plants of the earth.

4.16 ק אÉשµא כ| מÊNאנושµא לבבה!Nי�ש°נו

[1] Let its heart be changed from a man’s,28

לה! י¢תי�הב חיו³ה ולבב [2] and let a beast’s heart be given to it,

על·והי;! Nי®חלפו Nעד´נ¢י ו�ש¤בעה [3] and let seven seasons pass over it.

4.17 ומאמר פתג³מא Nעיר£י בג�ז¦ר¯תד£י עדÊד£בר¯ת ש אלתא Nקד£יש¤י

חי®י³א! Nי¢נ�ד�עו

The [aforementioned] verdict has been shaped29

by the Watchers—the decision announced by theHoly Ones30—in order to let the living know

ק עלאה כ| עלי³א ד£יÊש°ליטק! אÉשµא כ| אנושµא במלכות

[1] that the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdom

י¢תנ¢נ®ה! י¢צבא ולמÊNד£י [2] and gives it to whomever he desires

24. Each clause in 4.14 consists of an impv. followed by a waw + pfct. The waw + pfct. continues the senseof the impv., like the Heb. weqat.al.

25. ‘To leave’ [šbq] can often be ‘to leave behind’, as in Pesh. Matt. 3.19.

26. The nouns cqr and šrš describe ‘roots’ (CAL 2015), as do their cog. verbs (‘to uproot’ and ‘to take root’respectively). As such, cqr šršwhy signifies ‘the root of [a tree’s] roots’, i.e., ‘its deepest root’ (so the CEB).The NET has ‘taproot’, while the CAL has ‘the core of its roots’.

27. lit., ‘with a bond of iron and bronze’. The clause is parenthetical. I have therefore moved it to the end ofthe vs. for the sake of clarity. The implied object ‘[it]’ does not refer to the root-core, but the remnantsof the tree.

28. «ŠNY» generally means ‘to change’, but can also mean ‘to be insane’. We could therefore render 4.16aas, “Let its mind—[a mind] of a man—be [made] insane”. The Akk. cog. šanû has a similar sense, hence,for instance, the phrase libbini u-ša-nu-u-ma (‘they confuse our hearts’: CAD šanû B2).

29. See 2.27’s trans. notes.

30. more lit., ‘by the decision of the Watchers is the decree, and by the speech of the Holy Ones is thedemand’. Goldingay has, “The decision is decreed by watchmen, the intent is determined by holy beings”(Goldingay 1989:78 cf. Gordis 1936:45).


כ| עלי³א Mי�קי Mש¤יÉא וש פלק! עלה

[3] and causes the lowliest of men to stand over it.

4.18 מלכא אÉה חז¦ית חלמא ד�Éהק ו�אנ�ת כ| ו�אנ�תה נ�בוכד�נªצר

אמר פש ר§א בלטש°אצרכלÊחכימי ד£י כלÊקÅבל

פש ר´א NליÇ³יÊלא מלכותיק ו�אנ�ת כ| ו�אנ�תה להוד´עuתנ¢יNקד£יש¤י NאלהיÊרוח ד£י כהל

ב�;!

This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen,and you, Belteshazzar, must relate itsinterpretation. As [surely as]31 none of the wisemen of my kingdom are able to make theinterpretation known to me, you are able [to doso], for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you.

4.19 ד£יÊש מה ד´נ¢י¦אל N¢אד¯יכשµעה Mאש תומ בלטש°אצרענ¦ה י�בהלuנ¦ה ו�ר¯עינהי חד´ה

חלמא בלטש°אצר ו�אמר מלכאענ¦ה אלÊי�בהל� ופש ר§א

מר£י כ| מר�אי ו�אמר בלטש°אצרק לשµנ�א� כ| לשµנ�אי¢� חלמא ק

ק;! לער´� כ| לער¯י¢� ופש ר§ה

Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was thenleft in a temporary state of desolation,32+ and histhoughts began to run away with him, in responseto which the King said, ‘O Belteshazzar! Do not letthe dream or its interpretation trouble33 you’. ‘MyLord!’, Daniel replied, ‘May the dream be for thosewho hate you and its interpretation for yourenemies!’.+

4.20 חז®י�ת! ד£י אילÉא The tree which you saw—

!Pותק ר�בה ד£י [1] which became great and strong

לש מי³א! י¢מטא ו�רומה [2] and the high-point of which came up to theheavens

לÈלÊאר�עא;! ו®חזותה [3] and which was visible from the end-points of theearth,34

4.21 ש°פיר! ו�עפי¦ה [1] and the leaves of which were pleasant

ש°ג¢יא! ו�אנ�בה [2] and the fruit of which was plentiful

תדור תחתוהי לכלאÊבה NומזוNÉי¢ש כ ובענ�פוהי בר´א חיו®ת

ש מי³א;! צפר§י

[3] and in which was food for all those in it (the beastsof the field took up residence underneath it whilethe birds of the heavens made their dwelling-placein its branches)—,35

4.22 מלכא! ק אנ�תÊהוא כ| אנ�תה it is you, O King—

ותקפת! ר�בית ד£י [1] you who have become great and strong,

31. As in 2.40-41, I take kol-qobel dî to connect a clause with what follows it either in a comparative manner(‘just as’) or an explanatory manner (‘insofar as’). See also wedî in 4.23.

32. lit., ‘was desolated [«ŠMM»(Gt)] for an hour’

33. «BHL»(D), as earlier in the vs.

34. where 4.20c-d’s waws inherit the sense of 4.20b’s dî

35. 4.21’s final clause (“the beasts of the field....”) is not joined to what precedes it (by a waw), and henceseems to function parenthetically.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 7

לש מי³א! ומטת ר�בת ור�בות� [2] and whose greatness has become [so] great as tocome up to the heavens,

אר�עא;! Pלסו �Éלטµו�ש [3] and whose rule [extends] to the end-points of theearth.

4.23 ו�קד£יש עיר מלכא חז³ה ו�ד£יו�אמר! מÊNש מי³א Éחת

And insofar as36 the King saw a holy watchercoming down from the heavens, giving thecommand,37

עקר M¯בר ו�חבלוהי אילÉא גדוובאסור ש בuקו באר�עא שµר�שוהי

ד£י בד£תאא ונ�חש ד£יÊפר�זªלבר´א!

[1] Cut down the tree and inflict harm on it—butleave the core of its roots in the earth amidst thegrass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronzearound [it]—,

י¢צטבע! ש מי³א ובטל [2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens,

עד חלקה בר´א ו�עÊMחיו®תNי®חלפו Nעד´נ¢י ד£יÊש¤בעה

על·והי;!

[3] and let its portion be with the beasts of the fielduntil38 seven seasons pass over it,

4.24 עלי³א וג�ז¦ר¯ת מלכא פש ר´א ד�Éהמטת ד£י היא ק עלאה כ|

מלכא;! ק מר£י כ| עלÊמר�אי

[so]39 this is the interpretation, O King—indeed, itis the decision shaped by the Most High which hascome down40 upon my lord, the King.

4.25 מÊNאÉשµא! Nטר�ד£י ו�ל� [1] You will now be driven from man,41

מדר´�! להו¦ה בר´א ו�עÊMחיו®ת and you will reside with the beasts of the field,

!Nי�טעמו ל� Nתור£יÇ ו�עש בא and, like oxen, you will be fed+ green plants,

!Nמצבעי ל� ש מי³א ומטל [2] and you will be drenched with the dew of theheavens,

כ| עלי¢� Nי®חלפו Nעד´נ¢י ו�ש¤בעהד£יÊש°ליט ד£יÊתנ�ד¯ע עד ק על�

במלכות ק עלאה כ| עלי³אי¢תנ¢נ®ה;! י¢צבא ולמÊNד£י אÉשµא

[3] and seven seasons will be made to pass over you,until you acknowledge42 that the Most High rulesover man’s kingdom and gives it to whomever hedesires.

36. wedî similar to kol-qobel dî (4.18). Collins prefers the trans. “as for the fact that” (1993:210-212), thesense of which is much the same.

37. For the sense of «PMR», see 4.14.

38. a departure from 4.16, which here has ‘let seven seasons pass over it!’. The relevant triad is demarcatedby the word ‘until’.

39. 4.24’s ‘so’ answers to 4.23’s ‘just as’. The two verses are connected by the notion of ‘descent’. Just as theWatcher descends from the heavens, so a curse descends on the King.

40. alt., ‘befallen’. Montgomery takes the form met.at to be a remnant of “the ancient stative” (Montgomery1927:241)

41. lit., ‘they will drive you from man’. Goldingay suggests ‘from human society’ (1989:79). The 3rd pers.plur. form seems to function passively here, as throughout 4.25-26.

42. Nebuchadnezzar’s times will continue until he «YDQ»s the Most High’s sovereignty. As such, 4.25c seemsto envisage a moment of realisation, hence my translation “acknowledge”.


4.26 עקר למש בק אמרו ו�ד£ימלכות� אילÉא ד£י שµר�שוהיד£י תנ�ד¯ע מÊNד£י קי³מה ל�

ש מי³א;! Nש°לט

And, insofar as the command has been given toleave the core of the tree’s roots [alone], yourkingdom will [stand] steadfast alongside you43 assoon as you acknowledge heaven’s rule.44

4.27 עלי¢� י¢ש פר מלכי מלכא Nלהק ו®חטא� כ| ו®חטי�³ ק על� כ|

Nבמח ו®עו³י³ת� פרºק בצד�קהלש לו�ת�;! אר�Èה תהו¦א Nה N¢יÉע

Therefore, O King, let my counsel seem pleasing toyou! Break off [from] your sins45 by [practising]righteousness and [from] your iniquities byoffering grace to the afflicted, in case there may bean extension to your rest!46

4.28 עלÊנ�בוכד�נªצר מטא כלא!P מלכא;

All this came down upon Nebuchadnezzar theKing.

4.29 תר§יÊעש°ר Nי®ר�חי לקצתבבל ד£י מלכותא עלÊהיכל

הו³ה;! מהל�

At the end of twelve months, as he was walking on[the roof of] Babylon’s royal palace,47

4.30 הלא ו�אמר מלכא ענ¦הד£יÊאÉה ר¯בתא בבל ד´אÊהיא

Pבתק מלכו לבית בנ®י�תההד�ר£י;! ו�ליקר חסנ¢י

the King declared, “Is this not the great Babylon,48

which I myself have established49 as a royal houseby my sovereign power50 and for [the sake of] myexcellent glory?”.51

4.31 קל מלכא Muבפ מלתא עודNאמר£י ל� נ�פל מÊNש מי³א

מלכותה מלכא נ�בוכד�נªצרמנ�³;! עד´ת

While the word was still on the King’s lips, a voicefell from the heavens, [saying], It is [hereby]announced52 to you, O Nebuchadnezzar theKing:53 the kingdom has passed on from you!

4.32 !Nטר�ד£י ל� ומÊNאÉשµא [1] You will now be driven from man,

43. lit., ‘will be steadfast for you’

44. šallit.in is an adj., but is here trans. as ‘rule’ to retain its connection with other cognates of «ŠLT. ».

45. alt., ‘redeem your sins’ (CAL «PRQ»(G) 2015:vb.), which may be more plausible given «PRQ»’s lack of aprep.

46. The word ‘rest’ [šlwh] looks back to the ‘rest’ [šlh] Nebuchadnezzar enjoyed prior to his dream (4.5).

47. The periphr. constr. implies ‘as he was walking’, as in 4.5-6.

48. alt., ‘Truly this is the great Babylon...!’. For discussion of the part. hl, see Brown (1987:201-219), Mastin(1992:234-247), and Sivan and Schniedewind (1993:209-226).

49. lit., ‘built’, but «BNY» has creatorial overtones in cog. languages, such as Heb. (Gen. 2.22), Ugar. (BP«BNY»), and Akk. (CAD banû), and such overtones may be in mind here, especially given Nebuchadnez-zar’s great arrogance.

50. lit., ‘the strength of my power’, here treated as a hend. (spec., a ‘similar couplet’)

51. lit., ‘the glory of my honour’, also treated as a ‘similar couplet’

52. In Off. Aram., «PMR» can refer to the pronouncement of a legal declaration (CAL 2015:vb.), which wouldseem appropriate here.

53. Found on the King’s lips, the title “Nebuchadnezzar the King” is meant to emphasise his great status (cf.“3.1-30: Its main message”). It may, therefore, be meant sarcastically (Isa. 8.8 cf. Isa. 7.10-14).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 9

עש בא מדר´� בר´א ו�עÊMחיו®ת!Nי�טעמו ל� Nתור£יÇ

[2] and you will reside with the beasts of the field(like oxen, you will be fed green plants),54

כ| עלי¢� Nי®חלפו Nעד´נ¢י ו�ש¤בעהד£יÊש°ליט ד£יÊתנ�ד¯ע עד ק על�

במלכות ק עלאה כ| עלי³אי¢תנ¢נ®ה;! י¢צבא ולמÊNד£י אÉשµא

[3] and seven seasons will be made to pass over youuntil you acknowledge that the Most High is theruler over the kingdom of man and gives it towhomever he desires.

4.33 ספת מלתא בהÊש°עתאעלÊנ�בוכד�נªצר!

At that [very] moment, the word came to itsend-point upon Nebuchadnezzar:55

טר£יד! ומÊNאÉשµא [1] he was driven from man,

י¦אכuל! Nתור£יÇ ו�עש בא [2] and, like oxen, he began to consume green plants,

עד י¢צטבע ג¢ש מה ש מי³א ומטלר�בה Nכנ¢ש ר£י ש°ער§ה ד£י

!;Nצפר£יÇ ו�טפרוהי

[3] and his body became drenched with the dew of theheavens until his hair grew great like eagles’[feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws].

4.34 נ�בוכד�נªצר אÉה יומי³ה ו�לקצתנ¢טלת! לש מי³א עי�נ®י

Yet, at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar liftedmy eyes to the heavens,

י�תוב! עלי ומנ�ד�עי [1] and, as my learning began to return to me,+

בר�כת! ק ולעלאה כ| ולעלי³א [2] I blessed the Most High,

ו�הד�ר§ת! ש°בחת עלמא ולחי [3] and I highly and honorifically esteemed56 theliving age-steadfast one,

Mעל Nלטµש שµלטנ¦ה ד£יו�ד´ר;! עÊMד´ר ומלכותה

[1] whose rule is an age-steadfast rule and whosekingdom [extends] from generation to generation,

4.35 אר�עא ק ד´י�ר§י כ| ו�ÈלÊד´אר§יעבד וÇמצבי¦ה Nחש¤יבי כלה

ק ו�ד´י�ר§י כ| ו�ד´אר§י ש מי³א בחילאר�עא!

[2] to whom the combined residents57 of the earth areas nothing,58 and who does whatever he desireswith the forces of heaven and the residents ofearth,

ביד§ה ד£יÊי�מחא איתי ו�לאעבד�ת;! מה לה ו�י¦אמר

[3] whose hand none can rebuke+ and to whom nonecan say, ‘What have you done?’.

4.36 בהÊז¢מÉא! At that set time,59

עלי! י�תוב מנ�ד�עי [1] as my learning returned to me,

54. ‘like oxen...’ is not initiated by the customary waw, and hence treated parenthetically

55. The prep. ‘upon’ continues the ‘descent’ of God’s word on Nebuchadnezzar (4.24).

56. lit., ‘I highly esteemed and honoured’, treated as a ‘similar couplet’

57. lit., ‘all the residents’

58. ‘to whom’ is carried over by 4.34’s dî, as also in the Vulg. (apud eum)

59. an Aram. eqvt. of the Akk. inumıšu, employed in a similar manner in some of Nebuchadnezzar’s inscrip-tions (XXX)

10 4.1-37: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES

י�תוב ו�ז¢ו¢י הד�ר£י מלכותי ו�ליקרעלי!

[2] and my honour and brightness of face60 [likewise]returned to me for [the sake of] my kingdom’sglory,

!Nי�בעו ו�ר¯בר�בנ®י הד´בר¯י ו�לי [3] and my counsellors and greatest [men] sought meout,61

ור�בו התקנ®ת ו�עלÊמלכותילי;! הוספת י®תיר´ה

[my kingdom]62 was prepared for63 my reign, andextraordinary greatness was added to me.

4.37 נ�בוכד�נªצר! אÉה Nכע Now, therefore, I Nebuchadnezzar

מש°בח! [1] highly esteem,

!Mומרומ [2] lift up high,

ש מי³א! למל� ומהד¯ר [3] and honour the King of Heaven,

קשט! ÈלÊמעבדוהי ד£י [1] all of whose deeds are right,

!Nד£י ו�אר�חתה [2] and whose precepts64 are just,

י³כל בג¦ו³ה Nמהלכי ו�ד£י!P להש פלה;

[3] and who is able to lay low those who walk in pride.

4.1-37: Further translational notes

Much of ch. 4 reads like a proclamation from Nebuchadnezzar, which isprecisely what I take it to be. In particular, I take 4.1-18 and 4.34-37 tobe excerpts from a kingdom-wide proclamation which Nebuchadnezzarissued (in the aftermath of ch. 4’s events), while I take 4.19-33 to bean insertion (added by Daniel) which describes Nebuchadnezzar’s fallin Daniel’s own words. Nebuchadnezzar would not have wanted toinclude the gory details of his fall in a kingdom-wide proclamation. (Fora full discussion of the matter, see “4.1-37: Its literary structure”.)

60. zîw refers to ‘splendour’ or greatness’. When employed as a plural, it refers to a man’s ‘brightness of face’or ‘countenance’ (GHCL, BDB).

61. 4.36’s triad is marked out by impf. forms. Li classes the forms as “fronted circumstantial/backgroundclauses” (Li 2009:108), which look forward to the phrase ‘I was re-established [pfct.] in my kingdom’.

62. ‘prepare’ (trad., ‘established’) is a fem. sing. form. As such, I have supplied the noun “my kingdom”. Thesame inference is required elsewhere, such as in 2.40 and perhaps also Ezek. 31.10 (an important partof the backdrop to ch. 4). Alternatively, we could supply the proper noun ‘Babylon’.

63. cf. the sense of cal in Ezra 6.17

64. alt., ‘ways’

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 11

4.8a the name of my god Nebuchadnezzar composed the text of 4.1-18 afterhis conversion. His reference to ‘Bel’ as ‘my god’ is, therefore, unexpected.Perhaps, then, we should read ‘the name of my god’ as ‘the name of myformer god’. Or perhaps, as a recent convert, Nebuchadnezzar still has amistaken view of Babylon’s many deities. He may, for instance, see YHWH as“the Most High God” among many, i.e., as the head of a large pantheon,which includes such gods as Bel and Nebo and so forth, which would be amistake, though not a million miles from the truth. The Scriptures regularlydepict YHWH as the most powerful of a multitude of “gods”, namely the godsof the nations (Exod. 15.11, Psa. 82.1, 86.8), and they also depict YHWH asthe God who judged the “gods” of Egypt (Num. 33.4), which are elsewherereferred to as “demons” (Deut. 32.15-18 cf. the LXX’s trans. of šedîm asdaimoniois). Either way, Nebuchadnezzar’s statement is understandable,and has a ring of authenticity to it.

4.8b the Spirit of the Holy God[elahîn qaddîšîn] Nebuchadnezzar refers to Daniel asa man indwelt by the spirit of elahîn qaddîšîn. Like its Heb. eqvt., celahîncan refer either to a plurality of gods or, if construed as a ‘plural of majesty’,a singular deity of great majesty.65 Since Nebuchadnezzar is now a believerin YHWH (4.1-3, 4.34-37), I take his reference to ‘the holy gods’ to be areference to the Holy God (so also the NKJV and Montgomery66) Theambiguity inherent in 4.8’s turn of phrase may even be deliberate. Thecasual reader of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation could take the phrase rûah.elahîn qaddîšîn to designate ‘a divine spirit’ of some kind (Gen. 41.38),while those with ears to hear could appreciate its deeper significance. AsGoldingay writes, “[A Jewish reader] could take [the phrase] to mean ‘theHoly God”’.67

In terms of its contextual significance, the purpose of 4.8 is to contrastDaniel’s ‘public identity’ with his real identity. When he first arrived inBabylon, Daniel was given the name “Belteshazzar”, which connected him,and his abilities, with the god Bel. But Daniel’s extraordinary abilitiesactually stemmed from a very different source—namely from YHWH—, as ismade clear here.

65. The adj. “holy” in the phrase “holy gods” is also a plur. form, but the issue is not thereby resolved, sincethe OT can refer to YHWH as “the Holy God” vai both sing. and plur. adjs. (e.g., Josh. 24.19, 1 Sam.6.20). Indeed, 4.8’s reference to celahîn qaddîšîn is a direct equivalent of Josh. 24.19’s reference tocelohîm qedošîm.

66. though Montgomery’s logic is based partly on the presence of the sing. gen. theou in the Theod., whichseems unlikely to be significant insofar as the phrase ‘of the gods’ is never, as far as I can see, renderedvia the plur. theon in the Theod.

67. Goldingay 1989:80.


4.9b Declare, therefore, my dream which I have seen The Aram. חלמי) חז�ו¦יאמר! ופש ר§ה (ד£יÊחז¦ית is awkward. The most natural trans. of it is, “Relate [tome] the visions of my dream which I have seen, as well as itsinterpretation”. Given such a translation, ch. 4’s narrative would seem setto mirror ch. 2’s, where Daniel is asked to recount and interpret the detailsof the King’s dream. But the course of events follows a different pattern inch. 4. In 4.10-17, the King himself discloses the dream, and only asksDaniel to interpret it, which makes the ‘natural’ translation of 4.9b (above)awkward. Consequently, most commentators emend חז�ו¦י! (‘visions’) to חז¢י!(‘Consider!’),68 as does the Theod.69 My own preference is, with the NKJV,to render the impv. «PMR» as ‘Declare!’ or ‘Explain!’, hence, “Declare thevisions of my dream which I have seen, even its interpretation!’. The Heb.cog. [«PMR»] has the same sense in Psa. 40.10, where it is juxtaposed withthe vb. ‘to hide’,70 as also in Ezek. 13.7, the context of which is explicitlyvisionary. Similar senses are attested in other cognate languages.Dillmann, for instance, gives the root sense of «PMR» as ‘to be conspicuous’or ‘to be bright’, and by extension ‘to make clear, to show, etc.’,71 whichseems plausible in light of the Akk. amaru (to discover72), the Gecezcammara (discern, tell73), the Tna. and Amh. ammärä (show74), etc.

4.13 a holy watcher, lit., ‘a watcher and [waw] a holy one’. cîr can be parsedeither as a ptc. or as an adj. The phrase ‘a watcher waw a holy one’ can thenbe trans. in multiple ways. One options is ‘a watcher and a holy one’, but,in the text, only one creature appears to descend from the heavens. Onemight, therefore, try ‘a watcher, even a holy one’ or perhaps ‘a watchful[adj.]

and holy one’. My own inclination is to treat the phrase as a hend. (spec., asimilar couplet). The words ‘watcher’ and ‘holy’ are certainly closelyconnected, since they are treated as synonyms in 4.17a’s parallelism.

68. «H. ZY» generally means ‘to see’, but it can also have a prophetic slant, as it does in the nouns ‘seer’ (h. zy)and ‘vision’ (Heb., h. azôn). Collins cites a passage (in the Elephantine Papyri) where the impv. form of«H. ZY» means ‘to take thought of’ (Collins 1993:223).

69. “Hear [akouson] the vision of the dream which I saw, and tell me its interpretation”.

70. The BBE, for instance, has, “Your righteousness has not been folded away[KSY] in my heart; I have madeclear[PMR] your true word and your salvation”.

71. Dillman 1865:728.

72. CAD amaru A.1e

73. LCDG cammara

74. LCDG cammara

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 13

4.19a Daniel was...temporarily left in a state of desolation[ŠMM (t)] The vb.«ŠMM» is stative. In the t-stem, it has the sense ‘to be left desolate’ or ‘to bedumbstruck/confounded’.75 It has few if any cognates outside of Heb. andlater Jewish Aram., and, interestingly, its occurrences in the OT are mostconcentrated in passages on which Daniel heavily relies. «ŠMM»76 occurs 10times in Lev. 26 (the backdrop to Gabriel’s seventy-week prophecy), over 20times in the prophecies of Jeremiah (Daniel’s contemporary in Judah), andover 40 times in the prophecies of Ezekiel (Daniel’s contemporary inBabylon). By way of contrast, it occurs only four times in the Psalms, oncein Hosea, once in Zechariah, etc. So, to understand what Daniel means by«ŠMM», the books of Lev., Jer., and Ezek. are surely the best place for us tostart.

The essence of the Heb. «ŠMM» is “silence”.77 As a noun, it is mostcommonly employed to describe the desolate condition of ransacked landsor cities (Gen. 47.19, Exod. 23.29, Lev. 26, etc., and especially 2 Chr. 36.21,Jer. 25.12, Ezek. 6.14, 7.27, etc.), or, in Daniel’s case, temple-sanctuaries(9.26-27, 11.31, 12.11). To ‘desolate’ such areas is to plunder them so as toleave them barren, still, and silent—hence, for instance, Jeremiah’sdescription of Judah in the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion: “Ilooked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air hadfled,...and [the] cities were laid in ruins. ...The whole land [was] adesolation[ŠMM (n)] (Jer. 4.24-27). The same connection is evident in Lev.26.31, where the LORD announces to the Israelites, “I will lay your citieswaste and make your sanctuaries desolate[ŠMM (n)], and I will no more smellyour pleasing aromas”.78 To desolate an area of land is, therefore, to silenceand to empty it. To ‘desolate’ a person is then defined by means ofextension. It is to appal them to such an extent as to leave themspeechless—to ‘dumbfound’ them, to leave them overcome and overborne(Ezek. 3.15-17 in light of Job 2.13). As such, the vb. «ŠMM» is a veryforceful and vivid way to describe a man’s reaction. It envisagesshock-horror, dismay, and scandal.

75. CAL «ŠMM» 2015:vb.

76. and its derivatives šamem (vb.), yašam (vb.), šamem (n.), and šemamâh (n.)

77. GHCL šamem.

78. †Lev. 26.31.


4.19c May the dream be for those who hate you!, lit., ‘the dream [is] to/forthose who hate you, and the interpretation [is] to/for your enemies’. 4.19ccan be understood either as an expression of desire (‘May the dreamconcern your enemies!’) or a statement of fact (‘The dream [and itsinterpretation] will delight your enemies!’). The former strikes me as themore likely of the two possibilities. Verbs like ‘concern’ are commonlyomitted in Heb. and Aram.79 Had Daniel wanted to refer to the delight ofthe King’s enemies, he could easily have supplied an appropriate verb (e.g.,‘rejoice’ or ‘delight’).

4.34 my learning began to return to me Lines 1-3 describe three separateactivities: i] the return[TWB] of the King’s understanding, ii] the King’s act ofworship[BRK], and iii] the King’s high estimation[ŠBH. -W-HDR] of the Most HighGod. The first of these verbs is an impf. form, while the others (‘to bless’, ‘tohighly esteem’) are pfct. forms introduced by waws. The first envisages aprotracted process (referenced for a second time in 4.36), while the othersdescribe discrete activities. As soon as God begins to look on the King inmercy, Nebuchadnezzar breaks forth in praise to God (so also Li2009:107-108).

4.35 none can rebuke[MH. P (D)] his hand, lit., ‘no-one can strike his hand’. Tostrike[MH. P (D)] God’s hand could conceivably be ‘to turn back God’s actions’ or‘to chastise God for his actions’. Both senses are viable, and may well bepresent in texts like Job 9.12 (“Who can turn [God] back? Who will say tohim, ‘What are you doing?”’). The Vulg. favours the former possibility(‘no-one can resist [God’s] hand’), but the Pesh. favours the latter (‘no-onecan reproach[ršy (C)] God’s hand’).80 The latter strikes me as most attractivetextually (and is adopted by the NET), since 4.35 can then be viewed interms of two parallelisms. “All the earth’s residents are as nothing[compared to God]” parallels “He does whatever he desires with the armiesof heaven and [likewise with] the residents of earth”; meanwhile, “No-onecan rebuke [God’s] hand” parallels “[No-one can] say to him, ‘What haveyou done?”’.

79. Consider, for instance, 10.14, where we read (literally) ‘The vision is for days’, the sense of which is, ‘Thevision [concerns a period] many days [away]’.

80. The Theod. is somewhere between the two: “No-one can retaliate against [antipoieo] [God’s] hand”,where the main thought seems to be, ‘No-one can do in return to God what God has done to him’ (Lev.24.19 LXX).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 15

4.1-37: Some introductory remarks

Like those of chs. 1-3, the events of ch. 4 are set in and around the cityof Babylon. The MT does not assign a date to the events of ch. 4, butthe Old Gr. assigns them to “the 18th year” of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign(4.1). Given my interpretation of ch. 2’s “2nd year” (2.1), I therefore(tentatively) take ch. 4’s events to have occurred in the year 569n/568n,i.e., the 36th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.81 In 569n/568n,Nebuchadnezzar was at the peak of his power. Elam, Assyria, Syria,Tyre, and Israel had all surrendered to him. Only Egypt had eluded hisgrasp; and even that was about to change, for, in the very next year (the37th of his reign), Egypt too capitulated.82 The year 569n/568n there-fore marked the dawn of a time of peace in Babylon, which squares wellwith ch. 4’s description of Nebuchadnezzar ‘at rest’ in his palace (4.4).569n/568n also coincided with a time of great prosperity in Babylon,which squares well with ch. 4’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as “flour-ishing” (4.4). In the years leading up to 569n/568n, Nebuchadnezzarcompleted a number of major building-projects. (Berger lists a total of58.83) Among other things, Nebuchadnezzar built the famous HangingGardens,84 renovated much of Babylon’s ‘Old City’, and greatly fortifiedBabylon’s defences.85 Most notably of all, Nebuchadnezzar completedthe renovation of the tower of Babel.86

4.1-37: Some notes on the tower of Babel

The tower of Babel has a long and fascinating history. It was built in theland of Shinar (i.e., in Babylonia) in the aftermath of the Flood (Gen.

81. I am not convinced of the accuracy of much of the Theod. in the case of Daniel, and even less so in thecase of the Old Gr. So, my suggested date for ch. 4’s events should only be seen as a ‘best guess’.

82. Langdon 1905:182, Elgood 1951:106.

83. Berger 1973:104-18 as cited by Block (2013:130).

84. which he built for his Median wife, Amyitis, who was accustomed to far greener climates than Babylonoffered

85. These accomplishments are listed by Berosus (Ant. 1.20, EPE 9). Given our proposed date for ch. 4, theycannot plausibly have been completed after the events of ch. 4 took place (App. 4B).

86. Outside of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s role in the creation of a ‘New Babylon’ was not well known.That Daniel is aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s activities has therefore puzzled some of Daniel’s Late-Daters.Pfeiffer, for instance, states, “We shall presumably never know how [the author of Daniel] learned thatthe new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar” (Pfeiffer 1948:758-759).

16 4.1-37: SOME NOTES ON THE TOWER OF BABEL

11.1-9) and is likely to have been a ‘ziggurat’. Ziggurats were common-place in ancient times. The first ones appeared in the 3rd millenium,while the last ones appeared as late as the 6th cent. BC. They were mas-sive structures built in receding tiers (like enormous wedding-cakes) onraised stone platforms. They often served as the centre-piece of a givencity or temple-complex. Ziggurats were constructed primarily from clay.Their outer brickwork could be glazed in a variety of different colours.The ziggurat’s colour was thought to align it with the stars in some way;meanwhile, its height was thought to connect it with the gods. Indeed,ziggurats were seen as places where the heavenly and earthly realms in-tersected—hence they were given names like ‘The Temple of the Stairwayto Heaven’ or ‘The House Binding Heaven and Earth’. (Temples were of-ten erected on ziggurats’ uppermost layers, which could be accessed bymeans of long staircases on the outside of the ziggurats.87) A number ofziggurats are still standing today, such as ‘the Ziggurat of Ur’ in Iraq and‘Chogha Zanbil’ in western Iran.

Exactly when the tower of Babel was built (and by who) is not revealedto us.88 What is clear is that the Tower’s construction was never com-pleted, since God ‘came down’ and confused the languages of the menof Babel. As a result, the men of Babel splintered up into clans anddispersed throughout the Near East. What happened to the Tower inlater centuries is not known. Interestingly, however, Nabopolassar andNebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions mention the remnants of two famous zig-gurats in Babylon. The first was located in the city of Babylon itself andwas known as Etemenanki. According to Nabopolassar, the uppermosttier of Etemenanki “vied with the heavens” at some point in the past,

87. Evidently, then, the idea of a ‘stairway to heaven’ did not originate with Led Zeppelin.

88. The mention of Nimrod in Gen. 10 seems to point forward to the tower of Babel narrative—and thusto connect to Nimrod with it—in a number of ways. First, Nimrod is said to have brought about theestablishment of cities and kingdoms in Mesopotamia—a trend which is furthered by the men of Babelin 11.4. (Nimrod is the only figure in Gen. 10 whose actions are expanded on in any way, which suggeststhat they are significant to the Bible’s narrative in some way.) Second, Nimrod is said ‘to begin [«H. LL»(C)]to be a mighty one on the earth’ (Gen. 10.8). The men of Babel are then said ‘to begin [«H. LL»(C)] to do’great things in the earth (Gen. 11.6). Again, then, the actions of Nimrod and the men of Babel seem to beconnected in some way. Third, the name Nimrod roughly translates as ‘we shall rebel’, which, of course,is precisely what the men of Babel began to do in ch. 11. The Tower’s builder may, therefore, have beenNimrod, but it is impossible (and unnecessary) to say for certain. Ultimately, ch. 11’s narrative connectsthe Tower’s construction with a particular group of men (‘the men of Babel’) rather than a particularking.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 17

but its upper tiers had crumbled since then.89 Nabopolassar thereforeresolved to restore Etemenanki to its former glory, but the task provedto be beyond him. So, Etemenanki’s renovation was left to Nebuchad-nezzar to complete, which he duly did.90 The second of the two zig-gurats was located in Borsippa—which roughly translates as ‘tongue-tower’91—and was known as E’urme’iminanki. According to Nebuchad-nezzar, the ziggurat had been standing derelict “since ancient [times]”.The ziggurat’s upper-tier had never been properly finished. As a result,rainwater had long ago leaked into the Tower and reduced it to rub-ble.92 Towards the end of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar also decided torenovate E’urme’iminanki.93 Of the two ziggurats, Borsippa’s seems tohave been the older but Babylon’s seems to have been the taller. In-deed, it is thought to have functioned as an astronomical observatory inNebuchadnezzar’s day.94 According to today’s best estimates, Babylon’sziggurat consisted of a total of 57,000,000 sun-baked bricks.95 (Thou-sands of such bricks have been found all over ancient Babylon, embossedwith Nebuchadnezzar’s own name.96)

Given the above backdrop, the penultimate scene of ch. 4 seems very ap-posite. Indeed, picture the described events. Nebuchadnezzar is stand-ing on his palace roof. From his vantage point, he has the perfect viewof its magnificent design (a perfect square) and unassailable brick walls(30m tall and 25m thick). He can also see the city’s Processional Way,97

exquisitely-crafted temples, and hanging gardens—a series of “vaultedterraces” stacked one on top of another to an immense height.98 Mostbreathtakingly of all, looming high above every other structure in the city,Nebuchadnezzar can see Babylon’s newly-renovated ziggurat—a reincar-

89. The ziggurat was “badly buckled” in Nabopolassar’s day. Marduk therefore commissioned Nabopolassar“to make [the ziggurat’s] top vie with the heavens” once more (George XXXX:15, 2005-2006:167).

90. Block XXXX:128-130.

91. XXX.

92. Langdon XXXX:95, George 2005-06:169.

93. George 2005-06:168-169.

94. Stephenson 1997:93.

95. Kaiser XXXX:415.

96. MS 2063.

97. a long and highly-decorated street which ran through the centre of the city and led up to the Palace

98. SG 16.1.5, DiodSic. XXX.

18 4.1-37: DANIEL’S ALLUSIONS TO THE TOWER OF BABEL

nation of the ancient tower of Babel. Its exterior consists of thousandsof blue-glazed bricks which blend seamlessly into the sky behind themand at the same time gleam brightly in the desert sun.99 It is as if Baby-lon has its very own sun hovering high above its temples and houses.The city is truly “the glory of [the world’s] kingdoms” (Isa. 13.19). Neb-uchadnezzar’s heart therefore swells with pride as he looks out at thesethings—i.e., at ‘the works of his hands’—and utters those fateful words,

Is this not the great Babylon, which I myself have establishedas a royal house by my sovereign power and for [the sake of]my excellent glory?

(Dan. 4.30)

4.1-37: Daniel’s allusions to the tower of Babel

In our consideration of chs. 1-3, we have already discussed a number ofways in which Daniel’s writings alludes to the tower of Babel narrative.Below, we draw some of these allusions together and show how theycontribute to the overall backdrop of ch. 4.100

Gen. 10-11 Dan. 1-4

The men of Babel gather many nationstogether in the land of Shinar (outsideBabel).

Nebuchadnezzar gathers men fromevery nation together under the shadowof Babylon’s empire (3.2-4, 4.12).

The men of the Near East are able tospeak to one another via a commontongue.

Nebuchadnezzar is able to address menfrom every tribe, nation, and tongue viaa common tongue (3.4, 4.1).

The men of Babel erect an exceptionallytall structure on a “plain”.

Nebuchadnezzar erects an exceptionallytall structure on a plain (3.1-2).

The men of Babel’s main ambition is tocomplete an enormous building projectand hence to make a name forthemselves (Gen. 11.4).

Nebuchadnezzar wants to make a namefor himself; he wants his kingdom tostand throughout the ages and todisplay ‘the glory of his honour’ (4.30).

99. MS 2063, George 2005-06:160.

100. What follows owes a lot to Enrique Báez’s dissertation, Allusions To Genesis 11:1-9 In The Book Of Daniel.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 19

Gen. 10-11 Dan. 1-4

The top of the tower of Babel enter into“the heavens” and hence arouses God’sattention.

The top of Nebuchadnezzar’stree-cum-kingdom ‘reaches to theheavens’ and hence triggers God’sjudgment (4.11).

God gathers together his angels (Gen.11.7’s imperatives are addressed to aplurality of hearers) and descends fromthe heavens in order to pronouncejudgment on the men of Babel (Gen.11.7).

A watcher gathers together a council ofheavenly creatures (4.14-15’simperatives are addressed to a pluralityof hearers) and descends from theheavens in order to pronouncejudgment on Nebuchadnezzar.

The nations are rendered unable tocommunicate with one another as aresult of God’s judgment.

Nebuchadnezzar is rendered unable tocommunicate with his fellow men as aresult of God’s judgment.

The nations are scattered in theaftermath of God’s judgment of theTower.

The beasts of the field (which depict thenations) flee from the tree in theaftermath of God’s judgment of it as itsfruit is scattered far and wide.

The implications of these allusions can be summed up in the followingway. The builders of ancient Babel and the builder of Neo-Babylon sharea similar mindset and agenda. Both see themselves as sovereigns overtheir respective worlds; both raise themselves up in insolence and pride;and both seek to establish an everlasting monument to their achieve-ments. As a result, they attract the (unwelcome) attention of the heav-enly realms, and hence bring disaster and confusion on themselves.Put more precisely, heaven takes note of their actions, pronounces theirdownfall, and subsequently dismantles their powers. God does not wanttoo much power to be concentrated in one place or person. Yet, for allthese similarities, there is an important difference between the experi-ences of men of ancient Babel and Nebuchadnezzar. In Dan. 4, at God’sappointed time, Nebuchadnezzar’s power is restored to him as he castshis gaze heavenwards. The effects of Babel, on the other hand, remainwith us today, since man still refuses to acknowledge God’s sovereignty.Even now, man’s desire is to unite the world’s nations (linguistically, po-litically, religiously, etc.), as was the men of Babel’s. Indeed, the heavensseem once again to be within our grasp. We experiment with thingswhich should not be experimented with—things which are God’s to give

20 4.1-37: AN OVERVIEW

and God’s to take away. The end result of man’s actions will therefore bethe same. God will once again descend from the heavens in order to dis-perse man’s powers. But, on that occasion, his descent to the earth willbe not be a temporary one. He will permanently establish his kingom onearth, and “every tribe, nation, and tongue will serve him” forever more(7.14).

4.1-37: An overview

Ch. 4 recounts God’s third and final attempt to win over the great Neb-uchadnezzar. We could therefore subtitle the chapter, ‘God finally getshis man’. As in ch. 2, God communicates with Nebuchadnezzar by via adream. In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar is shown an immense and majes-tic tree. The tree has risen to so great a height as to bring it into contactwith the clouds of heaven. The tree is therefore a hugely impressive‘structure’. But it is not only impressive on account of its height; it isalso a thing of great beauty. It is green, vibrant, and flourishing. Assuch, it provides a source of food and shelter for a multitude of birds andbeasts.

But, while Nebuchadnezzar’s dream begins well, it soon takes a turn forthe worse. At the behest of a heavenly watcher, the tree is hewn downand the birds and the beasts flee from it. Only a stump is left where thegreat tree once stood. Needless to say, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream leaveshim in a state of panic and anxiety, just as ch. 2’s did. Nebuchadnezzartherefore summons his wise men and orders them to interpret it; but hissummons are to no avail. The wise men are unable (or at least unwilling)to say anything about the King’s dream. Daniel is therefore summoned,who reveals exactly what the dream depicts.

According to Daniel, the opening scene of the dream—i.e., the flourish-ing tree—depicts the present state of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship. Theremainder of the dream then depicts what will become of Nebuchad-nezzar’s kingship unless Nebuchadnezzar repents of his evil ways. Overthe years, Nebuchadnezzar has acquired a huge amount of power andinfluence. His reign is therefore depicted as a tall and luxuriant tree.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 21

But Nebuchadnezzar’s reign has become out-of-control, as has his pride.The top of the tree is therefore in contact with the clouds of heaven.Nebuchadnezzar has attracted the attention of the Most High God.

Nebuchadnezzar’s reign has been both good and terrible. It has broughtgreat riches to the Near East, but it has done so at the expense of justice.Nebuchadnezzar has acquired power by trampling on the rights of thepoor and oppressing the needy. And with his great power has come greatpride. Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘tree’ has therefore been issued its demolitionorders.

The words of the Watcher mark the point at which Nebuchadnezzar’sdream transitions from the past to the future. They also constitute adivine omen. Unless Nebuchadnezzar changes his ways, he will undergoa great fall. Just as the tree will be stripped of its foliage, so the Kingwill be separated from the riches and blessings of his kingship; and, justas the tree will be reduced to a stump, so the King will be left withnothing. He will no longer rule over his subjects like a mighty tree;instead, he will be made to live like the birds and beasts. He will sleepalone under the open skies and awake wet with the dew of heaven. Evenhis appearance and mindset will take on a decidedly ‘beastly’ demeanour.In other words, Nebuchadnezzar will degenerate in every way possible.He must therefore take action; to be precise, he must reform the mannerin which he is governing his people. He is not a law unto himself but aman under God’s authority.

At the end of Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, the King and Danielgo their separate ways. Daniel (we may assume) resumes his duties as aforeign envoy, while Nebuchadnezzar resumes his duties as king. Sadly,however, Nebuchadnezzar refuses to change his way of life; as a result,his dream becomes a reality. Twelve months later (in the 37th year ofhis reign), Nebuchadnezzar is standing on the roof of his palace. Heis surveying Babylon’s wonders and rejoicing in the work of his handswhen a horribly-familiar voice descends from the heavens. The voice isunmistakable. It is an awful sound for Nebuchadnezzar to behold; it isthe voice of heaven’s watcher. As soon as the King hears the voice, his

22 4.1-37: ITS RELIANCE ON ‘THE PRAYER OF NABONIDUS’

mind begins to crumble and he flees to his palace gardens in search ofsolitude. There, for seven long seasons, the King lives like the beasts ofthe field. He acts like a beast, thinks like a beast, and eats like a beast. Atthe end of Nebuchadnezzar’s seven seasons, he then lifts his eyes towardsthe heavens—a broken and dishevelled man with no-one to whom toturn except the God whose communiqués he has for so long ignored.Nevertheless, God acknowledges the King’s heavenward glance as a pleafor mercy and as a recognition of heaven’s sovereignty. In response,he restores Nebuchadnezzar’s mind and kingdom, and the great Kingof Babylon ends his reign as a child of the Most High God. For manyyears, Nebuchadnezzar has seen God’s sovereignty as a threat to him.He has seen God as a deity who wants to challenge his power, to steal histhunder, and to destroy his kingdom. Now, however, Nebuchadnezzar isable to rejoice in God’s sovereignty since he has seen the true nature ofthe true God.

4.1-37: Its reliance on ‘The Prayer of Nabonidus’

In 1948, a text known as ‘The Prayer Of Nabonidus’ was discoveredamong the Qumran scrolls.101 It is relatively short (a hundred wordsor so) and badly damaged, but the following details at least can be madeout. Late on in his reign, Nabonidus was afflicted by an ‘evil disease’.The disease was (apparently) divinely-ordained, and lasted for sevenyears[šnh]. At the end of those years, a Jewish diviner[GZR] then visitedNabonidus and forgave him of his sins, and instructed him to glorifyGod.

Given the obvious parallels between Nabonidus’s Prayer and Dan. 4,many scholars view Nabonidus’s Prayer as a pre-Danielic tradition. But,of course, the parallels between Nabonidus’s Prayer and Dan. 4 admitof (at least) two possible explanations: i] Nabonidus’s Prayer is a pre-Danielic tradition, or ii] Dan. 4 is a pre-Nabonidian historical record.Why, then, should we prefer the former over the latter? Indeed, theevidence seems to point in the opposite direction. According to thenormative principles of higher criticism, texts accumulate theological

101. 4Q242.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 23

and heroic embellishments as they evolve over time; primitive histori-cal cameos morph into richer and more fantastic legends, and so forth.The author of Dan. 4, however, simplifies the ideas he borrows fromNabonidus’s Prayer. For one thing, he downplays the moral aspects ofthe king’s conversion; that is to say, he tells us nothing about the king’s‘sins’, nor does he mention ‘forgiveness’ or even God. The king simply‘lifts his eyes to the heavens’ (4.34). In addition, our author minimisesthe role of the Jewish prophet. In Dan. 4, Daniel does not ‘heal’ the kingor exhort him to glorify God in any way; rather, once he has explainedthe dream to the king, he disappears from the narrative. If, therefore,Dan. 4 evolved from a Nabonidian tradition, then it did not do so inaccordance with the principles of higher criticism.

4.1-37: Its literary structure

As outlined in our translation, ch. 4 is built around a series of three-partphrases, but it is also arranged chiastically, as we show below:

Ref. Sec. Description

4.1-3 A: The King begins his proclamation on a note of praise

4.4-7 » B: The King recounts his dream

4.8-9 »» C: The King urges Daniel to interpret his dream

4.10-18 »»» D: The King reveals the contents of the dream

4.19a »»»» E: Daniel is alarmed the King’s dream

4.19b »»»» E’: The King seeks to allay Daniel’s fears

4.19c-26 »»» D’: Daniel interprets the contents of the King’s dream

4.27 »» C’: Daniel urges the King to listen to his counsel

4.28-33 » B’: Daniel describes the fulfilment of the King’s dream

4.34-38 A’: The King concludes his proclamation on a note of praise

4.1-37: Its literary nature

Ch. 4’s text exhibits a number of unusual features. For one thing, itsopening verse reads very much like the opening of a proclamation fromNebuchadnezzar to his kingdom (“Nebuchadnezzar the King, to all

24 4.1-37: ITS LITERARY NATURE

peoples, nations, and [men of different] languages who dwell in all theearth...”). As such, it is slightly reminiscent of a NT epistle.102 Further-more, in 4.1-18 and 4.34-37, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions are narrated inthe 1st pers.,103 while, in 4.19-33, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions are narratedin 3mpl. forms.104 In light of these facts, I take the text of 4.1-18 and4.34-37 to have been copied from an official document (i.e., from anencyclical which Nebuchadnezzar circulated soon after his seven timesof desolation), while I take 4.19-33 to be a description (composed byDaniel) of Nebuchadnezzar’s fall. As a whole, then, I view ch. 4 asfollows:

Sec. Vs. Content

A: 4.1-18 The King relates to his people his dream and his wise men’sfailure to interpret it

B 4.19-33 Daniel describes the dream’s interpretation and fulfilment in hisown words

C 4.34-37 The King relates to his people his view of the Most High God

As a literary composition, then, ch. 4 is unusual, but it is not withoutparallel in Scripture. Ezra, for instance, quotes extensively from vari-ous decrees (e.g., Ezra 4.17-22), and Nehemiah quotes extensively fromEzra (Neh. 8.1, Ezra 2.1-3.1), and Paul weaves quotations from Chris-tian hymns and creeds into his writings (1 Cor. 15.3b-7, Phil. 2.5-11,1 Tim. 3.16, etc.). Daniel’s composition is not, therefore, a singularity.Nevertheless, the question arises, Why did Daniel feel the need to addto Nebuchadnezzar’s words? Couldn’t Daniel simply have copied outthe proclamation in full? The answers to these questions may becomeclearer when we consider why Nebuchadnezzar chose to issue a procla-mation in the first place.

In my view, Nebuchadnezzar issued his proclamation for two main rea-sons: i] to make a public statement of his devotion to YHWH (4.2-3);

102. Compare the LXX’s 4.1 with, say, 1 Pet. 1.2 or Jude 2.

103. “I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house...”, “I saw a dream which left me fearful...”, “Now I, Neb-uchadnezzar, highly esteem...the King of Heaven...”, etc.

104. “the King spoke” as opposed to “I, Nebuchadnezzar, [spoke]”, etc.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 25

and ii] to reassure his people of his well-being (4.34, 4.36). The sec-ond of these reasons is the most relevant to our present line of enquiry.While the King’s ‘seven times’ were in progress, Babylon’s citizens musthave known something was afoot in the Palace. If so, they would nodoubt have been concerned about the condition of their king, and, byextension, about Babylon’s future. After his recovery, Nebuchadnezzarwould therefore have wanted to alleviate their concerns. But he wouldnot have wanted to tell them too much. (To be told about their King’sbreakdown would hardly comfort the Babylonians. How could they besure his problems wouldn’t recur?) I therefore take Nebuchadnezzar’soriginal proclamation to have consisted, for the most part, of 4.1-18 (adescription of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream) and 4.34-37 (a description ofNebuchadnezzar’s post-conversion state). It may also have included abrief allusion to the dream’s fulfilment, but, if so, Daniel has significantlyexpanded on it. When his readers came to ch. 4, they would then havebeen able to find out what had taken place behind closed doors towardsthe end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. (‘So that’s what was going on...!’,they must have said to themselves.)

That most of ch. 4 is written from Nebuchadnezzar’s perspective is nota mere literary detail. It is an important ingredient of ch. 4’s plot. Asmentioned previously, Nebuchadnezzar has witnessed God’s greatness atclose quarters, but he has not yet grasped its nature and implications,as is evident in his response to God in chs. 2-3. In ch. 4, however, Neb-uchadnezzar gets the message. He finally comes to see what is expectedfrom him as a servant of the Most High God, and it is only, therefore,appropriate for him to give assent to it in his own words.

4.1-37: Its main message

According to the Watcher, the purpose of Nebuchadnezzar’s experiencesis to teach him a simple but vital fact: “the Most High is the ruler ofman’s kingdoms and gives it to whomever he desires” (4.17). Given,then, the Watcher’s statement and Nebuchadnezzar’s own commentaryon ch. 4’s events (4.34-37), my proposal for ch. 4’s main message is asfollows:

26 4.1-37: ITS MAIN MESSAGE

The Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of man. Those wholift themselves up in pride, he brings low, and those who humblethemselves, he lifts up.

By way of justification, consider the following lines of evidence:

(A) Ch. 4 depicts a battle between two kings. Like chs. 1-3, ch. 4 depictsa battle; but, while chs. 1-3 depict a battle between two rival kingdoms(i.e., the kingdom of Babylon and the kingdom of God), ch. 4 depictsa more personal battle. In particular, it depicts a battle between twoopposing kings: the King of Babylon and the King of Heaven. (4.37 is theonly place in Scripture where God is referred to as the ‘King of Heaven’.)As a result, the cast of chs. 1-3 fade into the background. The kings inquestion are then left to do battle alone. The “strong...wonders” of theGod of Heaven come into contact with the “strength” of Nebuchadnezzar(4.3, 4.11, 4.20, 4.22, 4.30).

(B) Ch. 4 has a strong ‘vertical undercurrent’. If ch. 8 describes a battlebetween east and west—and if ch. 11 describes a battle between northand south—, then ch. 4 describes a battle between heaven and earth.(The words “heaven” and “earth” are prevalent throughout the chapter;“heaven” occurs 16 times, while “earth” occurs 10 times.) Ch. 4’s verticalundercurrent is brought out in a number of ways: i] at the outset of ch.4’s dream, an exceptionally tall tree is mentioned, i.e, a kingship whichrivals the heavens for height; ii] later in ch. 4, a watcher descends, atwhose behest the tree is hewn down; iii] when the Watcher announcesthe moral of the story, he employs ‘vertically-oriented’ terms such as ‘theMost High God’ and ‘the lowliest of men’; and v] at the climax of ch. 4, wefind Nebuchadnezzar on his palace roof. The vertical-orientation of ch.4’s climax is particularly striking. As the King raises himself up in pride,the Watcher’s words descend on him from above. The high-flying Kingis thereby plunges into a downward spiral (7.4) which comes to an endonly once he lifts his eyes heavenwards. All these events vividly bring tomind Isaiah’s prophecy against the King of Babylon:

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 27

How you are fallen from heaven,O Day-Star, son of the Dawn!How you are cut down to the ground,you who laid the nations low!You said in your heart,‘I will ascend to heaven,...I will set my throne on high;I will sit on the mount of assembly,...I will ascend above the heights of the clouds...But you have been brought down to Sheol,to the deepest recesses of the pit.

(Isa. 14.12-15)

In sum, then, ch. 4’s thus has a strong vertical undercurrent. It describesa conflict between the heavens above the earth below.

(C) Ch. 4 expands on the previous chapters’ description of God’ssovereignty. Ch. 4’s events are intended to force Nebuchadnezzar to ac-knowledge heaven’s sovereignty. If, therefore, ch. 2 demonstrates God’ssovereignty over the kingdoms of men, then ch. 4 demonstrates God’ssovereignty over the hearts of men. God draws forth praise from thehardest-hearted and most powerful of pagans. Wayne Sibley-Townerputs the point as follows, “[Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion] show[s]—ina way perhaps more convincing than any other—the power of YHWH tovindicate his [use] of suffering and evil in the world and to demonstratehis [sovereignty] over even the most powerful forces of [mankind]”.105

All of the aforementioned lines of evidence point in the direction of myproposed main message:

The Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of man. Those wholift themselves up in pride, he brings low, and those who humblethemselves, he lifts up.

105. Towner 1986:61.

28 4.1-3: THE KING PRAISES THE MOST HIGH

4.1-3: The King praises the Most High

4.1 [From] Nebuchadnezzar the King to all tribes, nations, and tongues,who reside in every part of the earth: May your peace abound!

4.2 [1] The signs and wonders which the Most High God has done in my[days], it is my pleasure to unveil:

4.3 [2] how great are his signs, and how strong are his wonders,

[3] his kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and his rule [extends] fromgeneration to generation!

[From] Nebuchadnezzar the King to all tribes, nations, and tongues(4.1). 4.1 records the opening words of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclama-tion. The proclamation is—at the very least—a province-wide circula-tion.106 It is addressed to “[men of] every tribe, nation, and tongue”.As such, it is highly reminiscent of ch. 3’s proclamation (3.4, 3.7). Butthe two proclamations contain very different messages. While, in ch.3, Nebuchadnezzar wants his people to acknowledge his own majestyand greatness, Nebuchadnezzar now wants them to acknowledge God’smajesty and greatness. Nebuchadnezzar is therefore a transformed man.The conqueror of the entire Near East has himself been conquered, andhe who forced the nations to submit to his reign has been forced to sub-mit to the reign of the Most High God.

[to unveil] the signs and wonders (4.2). Over the last few years, Neb-uchadnezzar has experienced the hand of God in his life. As such, he hasseen great “signs and wonders” taking place and wants to acknowledgethem in a public manner. God’s actions have been “wonders” insofaras they have involved extraordinary events and “signs” insofar as theyhave pointed Nebuchadnezzar towards the heavens. (Darius describesDaniel’s rescue from the lion’s pit in the same terms: 6.27.) Nebuchad-nezzar lays particular emphasis on the “greatness” of God’s signs andthe “strength” of his wonders. God has revealed “great” things to Neb-uchadnezzar, and he has done so with irresistible strength. With theentire military might of the Near East at his disposal, Nebuchadnezzarhas found himself powerless to resist God’s will.

106. For a proclamation to be addressed to multiple language-groups is not unheard-of in ANE history. Wecan consider, for instance, Darius’s Behistun inscription, which was written in Elamite, Akkadian, andOld Persian and then disseminated throughout Persia’s provinces.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 29

his kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and his rule [extends]from generation to generation! (4.3b). Nebuchadnezzar now givespraise to God for the eternal nature of heaven’s reign. When man’s king-dom comes to an end, God’s will still be standing. Unlike ch. 2’s Colos-sus, it will never decay or deteriorate. It will instead go from strengthto strength. That Nebuchadnezzar can praise God for the eternality ofGod’s kingdom is a remarkable fact. In ch. 3, Nebuchadnezzar bristledat the thought of God’s eternal reign. The thought of man’s reign comingto an end was anathema to him. But Nebuchadnezzar has now reachedthe point where he is able to accept the future God has decreed. As amember of God’s kingdom, Nebuchadnezzar can look forward to the daywhen man’s reign will come to an end and when the world’s true kingwill finally take his rightful place (2.44).

4.1-3: A further thought

Nebuchadnezzar’s words of praise (as recorded in 4.3) are highly remi-niscent of David’s words in Psalm 145, namely, “Your kingdom, [O LORD],is a kingdom of all ages, and your rule [will continue] throughout allgenerations” (Psa. 145.13†). Whether Nebuchadnezzar was directly in-fluenced by Psalm 145 is impossible to say. Perhaps Daniel gave Neb-uchadnezzar portions of the Psalms to read before (or during) his timesof desolation. Or perhaps Nebuchadnezzar began to read the Psalms af-ter his conversion. Either way, the next verse in Psalm 145 is also veryrelevant to the King’s experiences, which is unlikely to be a coincidence:

The LORD upholds all those who are falling,and raises up all those who are bowed down.

(Psa. 145.14†)

4.4-6: The King recounts his dream

4.4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house and flourishing in my palace,

4.5 when I saw a dream which left me fearful. [My] thoughts then becameunsettled [as I lay] on my bed, and the visions of my mind began to runaway with me.

30 4.4-6: THE KING RECOUNTS HIS DREAM

4.6 From my [presence], a decree was therefore set [forth] [which required]all of Babylon’s wise men to appear before me and to make known to methe dream’s interpretation.

I, Nebuchadnezzar, was resting in my house and flourishing in mypalace (4.4). 4.4 marks the beginning of the narrative-section of Neb-uchadnezzar’s proclamation. It opens by describing Nebuchadnezzar’sstate of mind prior to God’s intervention in his life. It is the 36th year ofNebuchadnezzar’s reign. Nebuchadnezzar is enjoying a period of greatpeace and prosperity. His life and kingdom are in perfect order. He istherefore able to sit back, relax, and admire the work of his hands—orat least so he thinks. In truth, disaster is around the corner. We mightconsider, as an analogy, the occasion when David stood on his palaceroof surveying the kingdom of Israel prior to his downfall (2 Sam. 11.2).Indeed, Jastrow connects the word rest[ŠLY] not only with relaxation butwith ‘careless ease’ and ‘arrogance’.107 Nebuchadnezzar’s is not, there-fore, the rest which follows hard work; it is the rest of presumption.

In addition to what it tells us about the King’s state of mind, 4.4 revealsthe source of the King’s problems. Nebuchadnezzar’s blessings (of richesand power) have become a curse to him. They have caused him to seeksecurity and fulfilment in his earthly empire rather than in the God of theHeavens. The misguided nature of the King’s state of mind is broughtout very clearly in one of his building inscriptions:

The numerous peoples which Marduk, my Lord, gave [in]to myhand, I [Nebuchadnezzar] [have] subdued under the sway ofBabylon. The produce of the lands—the products of the moun-tains, the bountiful wealth of the sea—within her I [have] gath-ered.

Oh Lord of Lands, Divine Marduk, hear the utterance of mymouth! ...Of the house [which] I have built may I enjoy themagnificence. ...Within it, may I attain to gray old age [and]enjoy prosperity; within it, may I receive the heavy tribute of

107. JDTT šalhayya c, šelâh.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 31

the kings of all regions; ...within it, may my descendants for-ever ruler the dark-headed peoples!

A sentiment further removed from the message of ch. 2’s dream is hardto imagine! Nebuchadnezzar plans to build his house on a foundation ofsand.

flourishing in my palace (4.4). Nebuchadnezzar’s description of him-self as “flourishing” (alt., “green”) is significant for at least two reasons.First, it sets the stage for the coming dream, where Nebuchadnezzar’skingship is depicted as a green and vibrant tree (4.10-12). Second,it reflects the Near Eastern tendency to liken kings (and kingdoms) totrees.108 Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar himself is said to have likened thegrowth of his kingdom to that of a flourishing tree,109 which is an impor-tant detail for us to appreciate. Unlike ch. 2’s dream, ch. 4’s dream wasnot very cryptic. Nebuchadnezzar would have been able to understandit perfectly well without the ‘assistance’ of his wise men. His reasonfor summoning the wise men cannot, therefore, have been merely peda-gogic—a point we will expand on later.

...when I saw a dream which left me fearful (4.5). Against the afore-mentioned backdrop of peace and prosperity (4.4), a disturbing dreamcomes to Nebuchadnezzar. Unlike the dreams described in ch. 2 and ch.7, ch. 4’s dream is not associated with the “night” in any way, nor is iteven associated with “sleep” or a “bed”. It may, therefore, be more of a‘day-dream’ than anything else. Either way, it leaves the King severelyrattled. Try as he might, he cannot shake the images he has seen fromhis head. They keep flashing before his eyes, which he finds extremelyunnerving.

a decree was therefore set forth (4.6). Nebuchadnezzar immediatelysummons his wise men and orders them to interpret the dream. (Daniel

108. One ancient Sumerian hymn refers to the king of Sumer as a “chosen cedar”. “O chosen cedar!”, itproclaims, “For thy shadow the country may feel awe!” (Coxon, “The Great Tree of Daniel 4”, 1986:104-105). Similar examples are easy to find. Astyages the Mede, for instance, is said to have received adream where his kingdom is depicted as a flourishing tree (Hist. 1.108). Báez provides further examples(2013:146).

109. See Porteous (1962:68), who cites Bentzen as his source.


is not among them; he only arrives at the Palace much later: 4.8-9.110) Asimilar situation to the one described in ch. 2 then begins to ensue. Thekey ingredients are the same in both cases: a disturbed king, an equallydisturbed group of wise men (less Daniel), and a dream in need of in-terpretation. But Nebuchadnezzar’s approach to the situation is certainlynot the same. In ch. 2, he requires the wise men to divine the contentsof his dream, while, in ch. 4, he voluntarily reveals contents of his dream.And, in ch. 2, he threatens to dismember the wise men, while, in ch. 4,he mentions no punishment for failure at all. He issues a simple andalmost reasonable request. A number of important questions thereforeneed to be asked about Nebuchadnezzar’s behaviour.

First, what has made Nebuchadnezzar become so reasonable? Whereare his customary death threats? And why does he not command hiswise men to reveal the contents of his dream to him, as he does in ch.2? Second, why has Nebuchadnezzar not called for Daniel? Or, if hehas, why does Daniel not appear in the throneroom until 4.8? The in-terpretation of dreams is Daniel’s speciality after all, and the wise menhardly have the best of track records. Third, why does Nebuchadnezzarfeel the need to consult his wise men at all? As mentioned previously,trees were commonly used to depict kingdoms, and the Watcher’s words(recorded in 4.17) are not very enigmatic. Nebuchadnezzar’s behaviourtherefore strikes me as very odd. My personal reading of the situation isas follows. Nebuchadnezzar knows exactly what his dream signifies; hesimply does not like its implications.111 Nebuchadnezzar has thereforesummoned his wise men, not to obtain their help, but to obtain a palat-able ‘interpretation’ of his dream.112 The wise men are unlikely to tellhim the truth, since they lack the necessary courage, and, if they inter-pret the dream in a palatable way, then he can easily convince himself tobelieve it. They are the experts after all.

110. Daniel’s absence from the events of both 3.1-30 and 4.1-7 seems to lend credence to the way in whichthe Old Gr.’s assigns them to the same period of time (Old Gr. 3.1, 4.1).

111. As mentioned previously, Nebuchadnezzar himself once likened his kingdom to a tree, saying, “Under[Babylon’s] everlasting shadow, I [have] gathered all men in peace”, which strikingly parallels the textof 4.12 (Langdon 1905:89, 19XX:173).

112. The word “interpretation” may have a technical Akk. sense in 4.7, as we discuss later.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 33

If my reading of 4.4-6’s events is correct, then Daniel’s absence is easyto explain. Nebuchadnezzar does not want to ask Daniel to interpret hisdream because, as he well knows, Daniel will tell him the truth. Neb-uchadnezzar has therefore excluded Daniel from his summons and in-stead sought out a more ‘satisfactory’ suggestion from his wise men. Wemight consider, as an analogy, the behaviour of the wicked king Ahab (1Kgs. 22.3-8). Ahab wanted to go to war against Syria, but he wanted hisdecision to go to war to look like a godly one. He therefore sought outthe counsel of his (false) prophets, since he knew they would tell himwhat he wanted to hear. But the prophets did not manage to make theircounsel seem genuine enough for Ahab’s taste. In the end, he was there-fore forced to listen to the counsel of a genuine prophet—a man namedMicaiah—, who told him the hard truth of the matter. Nebuchadnezzar’sexperience will turn out to be very similar.

We may be able to fill out the aforementioned picture by considering theBabylonian concept of interpretation[PŠR (n)]—a concept which Nebuchad-nezzar and the wise men would, of course, have been very familiar with.In the context of the OT, the «PŠR»(n) of a dream is generally equatedwith an ‘exegesis’ of it or an ‘explanation’ of its symbolism. But theBabylon concept of «PŠR»(n) is quite different, and far more involved. Itconcerns not only the interpretation of a dream’s symbols, but a remedy(if appropriate) for how to negate their potentially harmful effects.113

Uninterpreted dreams are viewed as a toxic phenomena. They containmysteries, which makes them dangerous, unpredictable, and uncontain-able entities. To unveil their element of mystery is, therefore, to defuseand ‘defang’ them.114 Interestingly, however, once a dream’s element of

113. According to Oppenheim, the «PŠR»(n) (Sum. BÚR) of a dream can envisage two distinct activities. Thefirst is “the ‘translation’ of [a dream’s] symbols...into an unequivocally worded message”. The second is“the [dissolution of a dream’s] evil implications” by means of magic. In each case, the purpose is thesame, namely to ‘dissolve’ and hence to ‘depotentise’ a dream’s potential danger (TADM 218-220, TBDM208-210).

114. By way of illustration, Oppenheim cites a number of texts where Anum (the Sky-god) is referred toas a pašir or a mupaššir. “One can hardly”, Oppenheim writes, “understand [such titles] to mean ‘hewho unfolds...dreams’ [or] ‘he who interprets dreams’, [since] neither of these activities [lie] withinthe...[functional] domain of Anum. The only possible and defensible translation is, ‘he who dis-pels/removes [the consequences of evil] dreams’ ([elsewhere] said of Marduk...). Such a translationis in perfect harmony with the semantic range of [«PŠR»],..[i.e.], ‘to release, remove, dispose of, relax,loosen, etc.”’ (TADB 218), as well as with the description of Daniel as one who ‘loosens knots’ and ‘un-picks riddles’ (5.12). A similar sense of «PŠR» is attested in Aram. and Nab., namely ‘to annul a charm’or ‘to counter-charm’ (DNWSI pšr1, pšr2). Many other examples can be cited. Oppenheim mentions an


mystery has been removed, the dream is deemed to have been depoten-tised, even if its message foretells a dangerous event.115 In other words,the message of the dream and the dream itself (i.e., the vehicle of themessage) are seen as two distinct entities. Each is a danger in its ownright, and each must be dealt with separately. First the dream itself mustbe dealt with (‘interpreted’);116 then any danger inherent in the ‘inter-pretation’ can be addressed.

In sum, then, to prescribe a pišru for a dream is to dissolve its implica-tions in one of two ways: to unravel its mysteries by means of ‘exegesis’,or to nullify its dangers by means of ‘rituals’ and ‘incantations’.117 Suchrituals were performed by a number of different personnel. They werenormally performed by exorcists[PŠP], but astrologers, whose task was toscan the heavens for relevant ‘signs’, would also be involved at times.118

That Daniel’s writings might have such pišrus in mind is borne out by thetext of 5.12, where Daniel is referred to as a man with the ability to in-terpret dreams[mpšr h. lmyn] and to loosen knots[mšr cqt.ryn]. The reference to“knots” in 5.12 is particularly significant here, since the word “knot” canrefer to a magical ‘spell’ in both Akk. and Aram.119 It also explains therange of personnel whom Nebuchadnezzar orders to interpret his dream(exorcists, sorcerers, etc.), as well as his curious behaviour here in ch.4. It may, therefore, be preferable to read Nebuchadnezzar’s decree (in4.6) as a command to ‘negate’ rather than to explain his dream, i.e., notas ‘Tell me the dream’s interpretation[PŠR]!’, but, ‘Avert the dream’s conse-quences for me!’. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar nowhere claims to want to‘know [about] the dream’, as he does in ch. 2 (2.3, 2.5, 2.9, etc.), since

incident where Ziqiqu, the God of Dreams, is requested to «PŠR» a series of dreams. The request, Oppen-heim says, is not for Ziqiqu to ‘interpret’ the dreams, but to dispel them (TADM 1956:219). Elsewhere,in a Sum. legend, a deity remarks to her brother, “Our dream is not favourable; it cannot be BÚR [Akk.«PŠR»]”. The implication is clear: the dream’s consequences cannot be annulled or removed (TADM1956:218).

115. As Oppenheim writes, “An interpreted[PŠR] dream...is, in [and of] itself, no [longer a] source of danger,[even if] the content of the message...cannot be changed” (TADM 1956:218).

116. “The dream as a means of communication between [god] and man is fraught with awe and danger and[must] be removed immediately, whatever the content of the message [may] be” (TADM 1956:218).

117. The CDOA’s proposed definition of a paširu is “an interpreter of dreams” or “dissolver of spells” (CDOApaširu).

118. CAD ašipu, TADM 220, 2.2’s comm.

119. BDB qet.ar, Montgomery 1927:261. Consider also how the vb. «H. RŠ» can mean both ‘to intertwine’ and‘to perform sorcery’.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 35

knowledge is not the key issue in ch. 4. Nebuchadnezzar knows exactlywhat his dream depicts; what he wants to know from the wise men ishow to negate it. Interestingly, Daniel tells him exactly how to do so,namely to ‘redeem [his] sins by [practising] righteousness” (4.27). Thatis not, however, the kind of remedy the King is after. He is willing toperform certain rituals (e.g., 2.46), but not to reform his ways.

4.7: The wise men are silent

4.7 So the interpreters-of-dreams, practitioners-of-incantations, astrologers,and shapers-of-destiny began to come in, and, as they did so, I related thedream before them, but they did not make known to me its interpretation,

So the interpreters-of-dreams...began to come in (4.7). The wise menseem to enter the throneroom in dribs and drabs—perhaps because theyhave been called away from another task at short notice. Either way, theyseem to be confused by Nebuchadnezzar’s request, since they refuse tosay anything about his dream. The best policy, they decide, is to keeptheir cards close to their chest. In light of our discussion of the wordinterpretation[pešar] (above), the events of 4.7 can be construed in one oftwo ways. Nebuchadnezzar’s decree could be seen as a request for thewise men to ‘nullify’ his dream. If so, the wise men’s silence seems likelyto stem from a mix of inadequacy and trepidation. The wise would notwant to proffer a pešar in the absence of Daniel, the head of their order.Indeed, they would probably, like us, want to know why Daniel himselfhad not been summoned. They may also recognise the signature of YHWH

in the King’s dream, since it is highly reminiscent of one of Ezekiel’s para-bles,120 which the wise men would have studied under Daniel’s tutelage.If so, they would have recognised the dream as beyond their abilitiesto nullify. A second possibility is as follows. Nebuchadnezzar may notwant to know the truth about his dream at all. He may simply want tobe given a palatable interpretation of it. But, of course, he cannot tellthe wise men about his plans, since it would then become pointless toconsult them. The wise men may therefore be trying to second-guesswhat Nebuchadnezzar wants to hear from them. If they tell the Kingthe truth, they could easily ‘lose their heads’, while, if they fob the King

120. See our comments on 4.10-12.

36 4.8-9: DANIEL IS SUMMONED

off with a ‘just-so story’, the end result might be much the same. What,then, are they to do? In the end, they decide not to do anything, and,since the King is unable to press the point, an awkward and embarrassingstand-off results.121

As with 2.2-12, we should probably view the text of 4.6-7 as a summaryof a dialogue which unfolded over a number of hours rather than as acasual conversation between the King and his wise men (2.4-6’s comm.).Exactly how the meeting concluded is not stated. Perhaps the wise menslowly drifted off, or perhaps they promised to reappear before the Kingat a later date. Either way, they do not appear to have been present whenDaniel arrived in 4.8-9, since they do not appear to have been presentduring the events of 4.10-27.

4.8-9: Daniel is summoned

4.8 until, at last, there came in Daniel, who is named Belteshazzar after thename of my god but in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God—, and I relatedthe dream before him, [saying],

4.9 ‘O Belteshazzar, greatest of the court-magicians, of whom I [can say], Iknow that the Spirit of the Holy God is in you, and that no mystery is aburden to you [to solve]! Declare the visions of my dream which I haveseen, even its interpretation!’.

until, at last, there came in Daniel (4.8a). In 4.9, Daniel finally arrives.Daniel seems to have been further afield than the rest of the wise men.He certainly visited ‘foreign’ cities later in life (for instance, ch. 8 is set inSusa). How much later than the wise men Daniel arrived is not revealedto us. It may have been a matter of hours or it may have been a matterof days. Either way, Daniel’s arrival is significant. He is about to ‘breakthe silence’ which has developed between the King and his advisors.

who is named Belteshazzar after the name of my god but in whomis the Spirit of the Holy God (4.8b). Nebuchadnezzar’s description ofDaniel is a great credit to Daniel. As mentioned above, it contrasts his

121. The whole situation is in fact very ironic. In ch. 2, the wise men were only too willing to fob the King offwith a ‘just-so’ story, but the King was unwilling to play ball. Now, years later—when the King actuallywants to be fobbed off with a just-so story—, his wise men are unwilling to play ball!

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 37

public image with his true identity.122 Daniel’s Babylonian name con-nects him with the Babylonian god Bel, but his abilities stem from a verydifferent source, namely YHWH, the “Holy God” of Israel. The entrance ofDaniel therefore marks the entrance of light and truth in the context ofch. 4’s narrative, as it does in ch. 5.

O Belteshazzar, greatest of the court-magicians... (4.9). As soon asDaniel arrives, Nebuchadnezzar recounts the dream to Daniel. Neb-uchadnezzar then proclaims his complete confidence in Daniel’s abilities.(“I know”, he says, “that the Spirit of the Holy God is in you and [that]no mystery is too much for you”.) Nebuchadnezzar therefore createsa very unthreatening atmosphere in which for Daniel to interpret thedream. He may still have been hoping to receive a just-so interpreta-tion of the dream. But, if so, he should have known—and probably didknow—better. Daniel was a servant of the living God. As such, he wasduty-bound to tell the King the truth, whether the King wanted to hearit or not.

4.10-12: The King recalls the beginning of his dream

4.10 Now, then, [for] the visions of my mind [as I lay] on my bed. As Iwatched, behold:

[1] [I saw] a tree,

[2] in the centre of the earth,

[3] and it was exceptionally tall in height.

4.11 [1] The tree became great and strong,

[2] and its high-point came up to the heavens,

[3] and it was visible from the end-points of the earth.

4.12 [1] Its foliage was pleasant,

[2] and its fruit plentiful

[3] and in it was food for all.

[1] Underneath it, the beasts of the field found shade,

[2] and, in its branches, the birds of the heavens took up residence,

[3] and, from it, all flesh was fed.

122. See “4.1-37: Further translational notes”.

38 4.10-12: THE KING RECALLS THE BEGINNING OF HIS DREAM

behold: [I saw] a tree (4.10c). Nebuchadnezzar now recounts hisdream to Daniel. In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw a tree standing inthe midst of the earth. As he watched, the tree became exceptionallygreat and strong. It in fact grew to such a height that its top reached“the heavens”; in other words, its uppermost branches came into contactwith the clouds. The tree therefore became visible from all over the earth(4.11). But the tree was not only tall; it was also attractive, fruitful, andhealthy. As such, it provided food and shelter for the beasts and birds ofthe field (4.12).

In the context of OT prophecy, trees are often used to depict kingships andkingdoms. Ezekiel, for instance, depicts Israel’s restoration in terms ofthe growth of a newly-planted tree,123 and describes the fall of Assyria insimilar terms.124 Isaiah also employs similar imagery, when he describesa day when the pride of the Gentiles will be brought low, saying, “TheLORD of Hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty: against allthat is lifted up,...against all the cedars of Lebanon,...against all the oaksof Bashan” (Isa. 2.12-13).

In the context of OT prophecy, then, the growth of a tree clearly depictsthe rise of a king and, by extension, a kingdom. The fall of the tree thendepicts the king’s demise. We can make these points more explicit. Atree’s height depicts a king’s power and pride (Isa. 2.12-13, Ezek. 31.3-17). The area covered by a tree’s branches depicts the extent of a king’sdominion (Ezek. 31.3-17). The food and shelter provided by a tree de-picts the blessings provided by a king’s reign, both for himself and his

123. “Thus says the Sovereign LORD”, he writes, “‘I myself will take [a sprig] from the lofty heights of thecedar, and...I will plant it on the mountain height[s] of Israel, so it will bear branches, and produce fruit,and become a noble cedar. And, under it, every kind of bird will reside; and, in the shade of its branches,birds of every sort will reside; and all the trees of the field will know that I, the LORD, bring low the hightree, make high the low tree, dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish”’ (Ezek. 17.22-24†).

124. “Assyria was [once] a cedar in Lebanon”, he writes. “Its branches were beautiful, its lower-boughs[provided] shade, and it was toweringly tall; indeed, its uppermost twigs were in the clouds. ...All thebirds of the heavens made their nests in its boughs, and under its branches all the beasts of the field gavebirth to their young, and under its shadow all [the] great nations lived. ...[But] the Sovereign LORDsaid in response, ‘Because [Assyria] has towered [so] high, and [because the tree] has set its top amongthe clouds, and [because] its heart has been [so] proud of its height, I have given it into the hand of amighty one [from] the nations... Foreigners...have therefore cut it down and left it... Its branches havefallen, and its boughs have been broken,...and all the peoples of the earth have climbed down from itsshadow and abandoned it’ (Ezek. 31.3-17†). Note: Here, I have read ג³בהת! in 31.10 as a 3rd fsg. pfct. ofthe quadriliteral «GBHY/GBHH» (cf. ג³בהא! in Ezek. 31.5 and לג³בהה! in Zeph. 3.11), which I take to refer tothe kingdom of Assyria.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 39

subjects (Ezek. 17.22-24, 31.3-17). The beasts and birds which are shel-tered and fed by a tree depict the nations which a king has conquered(Ezek. 17.22-24, 31.3-17).125 And a tree’s fall depicts the removal of aking’s power, wealth, and reputation (Isa. 2.12-13, Ezek. 31.3-17). Assuch, the downfall of ch. 4’s tree is a very dramatic image. Everythingwhich a king has achieved over the years is brought to nothing in aninstant. The king’s influence on the earth is completely removed. Inthe context of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, then, the tree depicts a king-ship which is imposing, extensive, and flourishing. It also, by extension,depicts a king of great power and strength—a king who has subdueda considerable number of nations and whose kingship is now bringingthem great benefits. The king in question is, of course, Nebuchadnezzar,as Daniel tells us in 4.22a. But, until then, we will confine our commentsto the general imagery employed in the King’s dream. We will thereforelet the narrative unfold at Daniel’s intended pace.

its high-point came up to the heavens (4.11b). The immense heightof ch. 4’s tree brings to mind ch. 2’s colossus and ch. 3’s image. It also,more importantly, brings to mind the tower of Babel.126 Babylon clearlyhas a pre-occupation with tall things and lofty ideas. As such, the im-plication of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is clear. Babel’s spirit of pride andempire is beginning to rear its head again, and is arousing God’s atten-tion. As a result, heaven is about to intervene in the earth’s affairs. Justas, in God’s eyes, the men of Babel’s concentration of power needed tobe dispersed, so does Nebuchadnezzar’s. As Goldingay helpfully writes,“It is dangerous to embody too much in one person”.127 It represents anaccumulation and centralisation of power which God is not prepared totolerate.

125. We can also consider God’s pronouncement to the Israelites in Egypt: “Behold, I will send for Nebuchad-nezzar the King of Babylon, my servant, and I will set his throne above [you], and he will spread hisroyal canopy over [you]” (Jer. 43.10).

126. See “4.1-37: Daniel’s allusions to the tower of Babel”.

127. Goldingay 1989:XXX.

40 4.13-16: THE KING’S DREAM TAKES A TURN FOR THE WORSE

4.13-16: The King’s dream takes a turn for the worse

4.13 As I continued to watch in my mind’s visions [while I lay] on my bed,behold:

[1] a holy watcher,

[2] coming down from the heavens,

4.14 [3] issuing, with force, the following [word of] command,

[1] Cut down the tree and cut off its branches!

[2] Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit!

[3] Let the beast be driven out from under it and the birds from itsbranches!

4.15 [1] But leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of the field,and a bond of iron and bronze around [it].

[2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens,

[3] and [let its] portion be with the beast amidst the green plants of theearth.

4.16 [1] Let its heart be changed from a man’s,

[2] and let a beast’s heart be given to it,

[3] and let seven seasons pass over it.

4.13-16 describes the continuation of Nebuchadnezzar’s visions. (“As Icontinued to watch, in my mind’s visions”.) In particular, it describesheaven’s proclamation of judgment against the tree-cum-kingdom. Justas, in 4.11-12, the glory of the tree is described by means of three three-fold statements, so now its destruction is described by means of threethreefold statements. The dream’s implication is therefore devastating.God will take away everything which once made the tree-cum-kingdombeautiful; just as God has given, so he will now take away. The tree’s fallwill therefore be every bit as monumental and dramatic as its rise. Assuch, 4.13 marks the point at which the King’s dream takes a turn for theworse.

Nebuchadnezzar is, of course, not stranger to dreams which turn nasty.God gave him a very similar dream many years ago, as we learnt in ch. 2.Ch. 2’s dream revolved around a towering colossus. Like ch. 4’s, it beganin glowing terms. It depicted Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship as the figure-head of an immense metallic structure: pure, lustrous, and majestic.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 41

But, as the rest of the Colossus came into view, Nebuchadnezzar’s king-ship gradually deteriorated, and, in the end, the entire structure camecrashing down. Needless to say, ch. 2’s dream left Nebuchadnezzar in adisturbed state of mind. And, sadly for the King, ch. 4’s dream is des-tined to follow a similar pattern. To see his kingship depicted as a talland flourishing tree must have filled Nebuchadnezzar’s heart with prideand satisfaction, but the Watcher’s words are about to shatter Nebuchad-nezzar’s delusion.128 Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar’s is the kind of dreamwhich every Babylonian ruler must have dreaded. The archetypal Baby-lonian Hammurabi writes of himself (in his well-known law-code), “Mybenevolent shade is spread over my city; ...with my skilful wisdom, I[have] sheltered [my people]”, and then goes on to pronounce cursesagainst any future kings who question his laws, saying, “May the godShamash...confuse [that king’s] path; ...when divination is performedfor him, may Shamash provide an inauspicious omen [which foretells]the uprooting of the foundations of his kingship”.129 Nebuchadnezzar’sdream certainly seems to qualify as an “inauspicious omen” which in-volves the “uprooting” of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship.

a holy watcher, coming down from the heavens (4.13b). Once thetree has risen to its full height, Nebuchadnezzar sees a watcher descend-ing from heaven. The Watcher seems to be dispatched in response tothe tree’s growth. The tree rises up to the heavens, and the Watcherdescends in reply. The Watcher is explicitly described as “holy”, which,in the context of ch. 4, connects it with Daniel’s “Holy God” (4.8). Inpagan cultures, the adj. “holy” does not tend to refer to a thing’s moralqualities; its primary sense is ‘otherworldly’ or ‘supernatural’.130

issuing...the...command, ‘Hew down the tree!’ (4.14). The Watcherissues a command on behalf of all heaven (4.17, 4.24). As mentioned

128. Babylon’s myths contain numerous references to night watchers[nas.iru] whose role is to keep watch overthe affairs of the earth while the gods are asleep. (In the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, the cedartree is said to be protected by a watcher who never sleeps: Ferguson 1994:327.) Nebuchadnezzar mayinitially, therefore, have seen the Watcher as the tree’s guardian. If so, he was very much mistaken; theWatcher’s role was to protect heaven’s interests not Babylon’s.

129. Roth XXXX:137-138.

130. Goldingay writes, “The term [«QDŠ»] does not suggest holy in the moral sense but [a] belonging to thesupernatural realm” (1989:80). For further discussion, see Clines ().


above, the Watcher’s commands are issued to a plurality of heavenlycreatures.131 We are probably, therefore, to see the Watcher as a member(the chief?) of a larger company. Indeed, the Watcher explicitly describeshimself as such (4.17).

The Watcher’s decree consists of three separate commands. First ch. 4’stree is to be chopped down; then it is to be stripped of its branches,leaves, and fruit; and, finally, its wildlife is to be driven away from it.Given the context of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, each of these commandsis significant. The command for the tree to be chopped down reflectsHeaven’s judgment of the depicted king. We might consider, by way ofanalogy, John the Baptist’s words to the Israelites: “Even now the axe islaid to the root of the trees”, which roughly translates as, ‘Israel’s leadersare about to be toppled!’ (Matt. 3.10 cf. Isa. 10.33-34). The call for thetree to be stripped of its foliage and fruit reflects the removal of the king’sglory and external splendour. The call for the tree’s birds and beasts toflee then reflects the king’s isolation from human company. The depictedking will be completely abandoned by his subjects and forsaken.

Needless to say, the events described 4.13-16 would have come as anextremely unwelcome surprise to Nebuchadnezzar. Given the size of hisego, the tree’s majesty and splendour would have made him think about‘the great Babylon he has built’ (4.30). The Watcher’s pronouncementmust therefore have mortified him. They would also have been horriblyfamiliar, since they would remind him of the conclusion of one of hisprevious dreams, which ended with his kingship lying in pieces on theground. Everything for which the King had laboured—and which he waspresently able to sit back and enjoy—would end in ruins. It would bebrought to nothing. We might consider, by way of analogy, the successfulfarmer who sat back and said to himself, “You [now] have ample goodslaid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, [and] be merry”, only to hearthe voice of God say to him, “[You] fool! This [very] night your soul[will be] required of you” (Luke 12.18-20†).

131. They are plur. impv. forms.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 43

a watcher (4.13). The text of 4.13-16 does not provide us with a greatdeal of information about the dream’s “watcher”, but it does allow usto make certain inferences about the Watcher’s role and nature:132 (A)Insofar as it descends from the heavenly realms, the Watcher seems tobe an angelic messenger.133 It is heaven’s equivalent of ch. 3’s herald.(B) Given its function in ch. 4’s dream (and the way it is dispatchedin response to Babylon’s rise), the Watcher’s main duty seems to be tomonitor man’s reign of the Near East. It may even be one of the jurorssummoned to attend the trial of the earth’s beasts in ch. 7’s vision. It iscertainly a member of a larger company of some kind (4.17). (C) TheWatcher has the authority to pronounce judgment on Babylon. In ch.10, we learn how God assigns specific angels to specific regions. TheWatcher may therefore be ‘the Angel of Babylon’.

Whatever else we say about it, then, ch. 4’s watcher must be an angelof great power and authority, whose role is to ‘watch over’ and, if nec-essary, to judge the kingdom of Babylon. The same point can be borneout by a lexical consideration of the word “watcher” (cîr). The word cîrembodies the notions of ‘wakefulness’, ‘watchfulness’, and also, perhaps,‘judgment’.134 The Heb. cog. «QWR» encompasses all of these notions,with the added nuance of ‘to stir into action’ or ‘to incite to deliver jus-tice’.135 It is also closely connected (in the C-stem) with the Gentileworld: God ‘stirs up’ the Philistines to attack Israel (2 Chr. 21.16), andthe Medes to conquer Babylon (Isa. 13.17, Jer. 51.1, etc.), and Cyrus toreturn the Jewish people to Judah (2 Chr. 36.22, Ezra 1.1, etc.), and so

132. The references to ‘watchers’ in Second Temple literature post-date the Book of Daniel (on my view), sothey shed little light on our present concerns.

133. The Old Gr. translates “watcher” as angelos.

134. The noun cîr derives from «QYR/QWR», i.e., ‘to (be) awake’, ‘to be vigilant’ or ‘to watch’ (CAL «QYR»2015:vb., CAD êru, Sym. and Aq.’s trans. of egregoros). The concepts of ‘awake’ and ‘watchfulness’ areclearly related. To be awake is to be aware of one’s surroundings. It is to be alive to the possibilityof danger; hence, for instance, the Psalmist declares, “My help [will come] from the LORD, [for]...hewho keeps Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” (Psa. 121.2-4†). «QYR» may also embody the notion ofjudgment. The Syr. cyrt cdenotes an act of vengeance or judgment, (PSCSD cyrt c), as does the Akk. cog.êru can have a similar significance (a well-known Akk. prayer depicts the stars as awakened [e-ra-a-ti]watchers who are able to decide the fate [«PRS»] of mortal men: CAD êru).

135. The Psalmist, for instance, cries out, “Lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies! Awake [«QWR»(G)]for me, [for] you have appointed a judgment!”. And Isaiah cries out, “Awake, awake [«QWR»(G)], put onstrength, O arm of the LORD” (Isa. 51.9). As these examples suggest, the G- and C-stem of «QWR» areto some extent interchangeable (Job 41.2 cf. GHLC cûr).


on.136 In sum, then, our lexical analysis of the word watcher[QÎR] is con-sistent with what we learn about the Watcher’s role from the text of ch.4. Ch. 4’s watcher (alt., ‘awakened one’) is an angel whom God, aftermuch forbearance, has ‘activated’ and required to perform a specific task.That task is to bring low the great Nebuchadnezzar. As such, it is a taskwhich will involve the future of one of the Gentile nations, and will havea significant impact on Israel’s history. Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion willmake Babylon a far safer place for Daniel’s people in the years to come.

But leave the core of its roots in the earth (4.15a). According tothe Watcher’s command, the tree is to be cut down, but it is not to becompletely destroyed. A stump must be allowed to remain in the ground.The depicted king will therefore be ‘cut down in size’, but his reign willbe allowed to continue in some sense. God will not make a ‘full end’ ofthe king.

and a bond of iron and bronze around [it] (4.15a). The “it” impliedin 4.15a presumably refers to the stump left in the aftermath of the tree’sfall. A stump is not explicitly mentioned in the text of 4.15, but, sincethe tree is not fully uprooted (at the Watcher’s command), it may bereasonable to think of its remains as a small stump. If so, the metalband could have been put around the tree’s base in order to preventit from splitting,137 and could, therefore, have a ‘protective’ function.God will limit the extent of the depicted king’s fall in order to make itpossible for him to recover. While disaster will come on the king, hewill not be left without hope. We might consider, by way of illustration,Isaiah’s prophecy against the Jewish people: “The land of Israel [willbe] deserted, but, as a terebinth or oak tree leaves a stump when it is cutdown, so Israel’s stump will be [left as] a holy seed” (Isa. 6.12-13 NLT).Here, Isaiah depicts Israel’s exile as a state from which she will recover.The Israelites will be desolated but not completely destroyed. We maybe meant to interpet ch. 4’s imagery in a similar way. God will not make

136. as also Ezekiel 23.33, etc. Daniel employs the vb. in a similar way in ch. 11, where various kings aresaid to ‘stir up’ their people against their rivals (11.2, 11.25).

137. Nebuchadnezzar is said to have constructed the base of Borsippa’s ziggurat from bronze-coated woodenbeams. The Babylonians must, therefore, have been competent workmen with metal and wood (George2011:166).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 45

a full end of the tree. He will provide it with the ability to regrow in hisappointed time and his appointed way.

The bond[ cswr] of iron and bronze may also be meant to depict the King’sconfinement.138 The word cswr is closely connected with the conceptof captivity,139 As such, the bond alludes to God’s sovereignty over thefallen king. The king who has taken captive many nations will himselfbe taken captive by the Most High God.140

in the grass[dete c] of the field (4.15a). In the aftermath of the tree’sfall, the tree’s stump will be left alone amidst the “grass”.141 If the ideaof ‘tenderness’ or ‘newness’ is present in the Aram. dete c(so the NASB),then it probably hints at the ‘new phrase’ of the king’s life which is dueto begin. The king is about to enter uncharted waters.

and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens (4.15b) and [letits] portion be with the beast amidst the green plants of the earth(4.15c). In the absence of the tree’s branches and foliage, the tree’sstump will be exposed to the elements. As such, it will be “drenchedwith the dew of the heavens”. Its existence will be no different to that ofthe beasts of the field, who have no roofs over their heads. The stump’sexposure to the elements alludes to the removal of the depicted king’scomforts (4.15b). The king will no longer be able to enjoy the blessingsof a palace and a palace-staff. Instead, he will have to fend for himself.The “beasts” mentioned in 4.12 depict the nations and, by extension,the subjects of the king’s empire. The “beasts” mentioned in 4.15 shouldtherefore be seen in a similar light. As such, the stump’s association with

138. That the function of the iron and bronze is primarily restrictive as opposed to protective may fit thecontext better, since it is only placed around the tree after it has been felled (Newsom 2014:140). TheOld Gr. emphasises the connection between the iron band and Nebuchadnezzar’s enslavement (4.17a,4.33a).

139. It can refer to ‘chains’ or a ‘prison’ or ‘one who binds up’, and is etymologically connected to thebinding-edict [ csr] established by Darius in ch. 6 (CAL cswr 2015:n.m.) as also are the metals iron andbronze.<fn>Deut. 33.25, Psa. 105.18, 107.16, 149.8, Isa. 45.2, 60.17.

140. Some commentators take the bond of iron and bronze to depict a further punishment inflicted on thefallen king, but, since 4.15 is introduced with the word ‘nevertheless’ [beram], it seems to stand incontrast to the punishments listed in 4.14. As such, it is a symbol not of divine judgment, but of divinemercy. When God shuts a man up and hedges him in, he also shuts certain harmful things out (Job 3.23cf. 1.10). In all things, God works for the good of his people (Rom. 8.28, Heb. 12.11).

141. Gesenius defines dete cas “tender herb[age]”, while Jastrow defines its Heb. cog. (deše c) as “tender grass”,as is reflected in most Bible-versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, HCSB, etc.).


the beasts of the field depicts the king’s loss of reputation. The king willbe made to adopt the lifestyle of the ‘commoners’ he once ruled over.

4.15 employs a number of terms which are closely associated with Gen.1-2’s creation account—in particular, the terms ‘heavens’, ‘earth’, ‘beasts’,‘field’, ‘grass’ (dt c), ‘plants’ (csb), and ‘dew’.142 The text of 4.15 thereforeseems to envisage a kind of de-creation. The king will be regressed to aprimeval state. He will be desolated—left formless and void—, later tobe remade in the image of God. The mention of ‘dew’ and ‘green plants’may therefore allude to God’s sustenance of the king. As mentionedabove, the text of 4.15 depicts not only God’s judgment but also God’smercy (Hab. 3.2).

Let its heart be changed from a man’s (4.16a) and let a beast’s heartbe given to it (4.16b). According to the Watcher, the fallen king’s con-nection with the beasts of the field will go beyond the merely symbolic.The king will literally acquire the mental faculties of a beast. The fac-ulties which make him human will completely abandon him. He willbe left unable to think calmly or logically, and powerless to control him-self, ruled by brute instinct alone. We might consider, as an illustration,the way in which the Psalmist associates a ‘beastly’ nature with incom-prehension and ignorance. “I was brutish and ignorant”, the Psalmistwrites, “I was like a beast towards you, [O LORD]” (Psa. 73.22). David’swords of warning in Psa. 32 contain a similar thought: “Do not be like asenseless horse or mule [which] needs a bit and bridle to keep it undercontrol” (Psa. 32.9 NLT).

and let seven seasons[ciddan] pass over it (4.16c). The king will beforced to remain in his degenerate and desolate state for seven long sea-sons. (In the present commentary, we frequently refer to these times as‘times of desolation’ or ‘times of humiliation’.) Like the number four, thenumber seven alludes to the concept of fulness or completeness, espe-cially when employed in the context of time. Hence, seven days makeup a full week (Gen. 2.1-3), seven years make up a full ‘week of years’,

142. Also of interest is the prevalence of the term ‘the field’ (bara c) in ch. 4, since, while bara cmeans ‘thefield’ in Aram., it can also mean (in Heb.) ‘he created’. It is in fact the second word in the Heb. Bible.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 47

where the seventh is termed a ‘Sabbath year’ (Lev. 25.1-7), and seven‘seven-year-weeks’ make up a full Jubilee (Lev. 25.8-22). At the end ofeach of these blocks of time, the cycle is then considered to have run itscourse, at which point the next one begins. Given these considerations,I take the king’s “seven seasons” to signify the full length of a given ‘era’in the king’s life—an era which will bring God’s sovereign purposes totheir full completion. Afterwards, the king will be free to enter a new‘season’ of his life. The mention of “seven seasons” may also allude tothe notion of freedom. According to the Mosaic law, if a man buys aHebrew slave, he must allow his slave to go free after seven years of ser-vice (Exod. 21.1-6, Jer. 34.8-16). A similar pattern of events is evidentin Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The depicted king is taken captive by God,bound in iron and bronze. But, after seven years, he will be offered hisfreedom.

seasons[ciddan] (4.16c). As mentioned elsewhere,143 ciddan is a very im-precise word with which to measure time. Daniel would not have beenable to determine the exact duration of the king’s desolation from thephrase ‘seven ciddans’, which was no doubt God’s intention. God wantedthe king to learn from his seasons of desolation, not to count down thehours until their completion.

4.17: The Watcher’s final word on the matter

4.17 The [aforementioned] verdict has been shaped by the Watchers—thedecision announced by the Holy Ones—in order to let the living know

[1] that the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdom

[2] and gives it to whomever he desires

[3] and causes the lowliest of men to stand over it.

In 4.17, the Watcher announces the purpose of the king’s fall and theauthority by which it has been decreed.

The [aforementioned] verdict has been shaped by the Watchers(4.17a). The Watcher did not decree the tree’s fall on the basis of hisown authority; he merely communicated the decision of a whole coun-

143. 2.21’s trans. notes

48 4.17: THE WATCHER’S FINAL WORD ON THE MATTER

cil of heavenly hosts (4.24). The concept of a ‘heavenly council’ maylook forward to the courtroom scene depicted in 7.9-10. Indeed, it in-volves distinctly legal terminology, such as verdict[ptgm] and shape[GZR].Alternatively, it may allude to other heavenly scenes where God is de-picted as the commander of a host of heavenly hosts.144 Either way, thecouncil’s decision ultimately represents the decision of God himself; it is“[an] edict [shaped] by the Most High” (4.24). As such, the Watcher’swords possess great power. Unlike the pronouncements of Babylon’s‘shapers-of-destiny’, they will truly “shape” the course of world history.They embody imperatives (e.g., “Hew down the tree”) to be carried outby heaven’s armies (4.35).

the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdom (4.17b). In 4.17b, theWatcher describes the purpose of the dream. The depicted king’s judg-ment is designed to convey three simple lessons to all who hear aboutit: i] the Most High is entirely sovereign over man’s reign, ii] the earth’skings are appointed by the Most High alone (2.21), and iii] the earth’skings are nothing special in and of themselves; they are merely ‘lowlymen’ whom the Most High assigns positions of authority. If a man risesto great heights in life, it is because the Most High has chosen to makehim great, and, if he falls, it is because the Most High has chosen tobring him low. Such claims would have been a revelation to the Baby-lonians. The Babylonians took their kings to be the appointment of ‘thegods’. They regarded them as practically divine.145 The Watcher’s as-sertion therefore ran completely contrary to Babylonian culture. It re-quired a complete change of worldview in order to embrace. Of course,the events of ch. 4 do not represent the first occasion when God taughtmen about his sovereignty. God taught the children of Israel preciselythe same lesson when he brought about Judah’s fall. Jeremiah told theIsraelites to submit to Nebuchadnezzar’s yoke, but they steadfastly re-fused to do so. They instead looked to Egypt for help. Ezekiel thereforedecreed the destruction of all those who disobeyed Jeremiah’s words,saying,

144. e.g., 1 Kgs. 22.19-23, Job 1-2, Psa. 82.1, 89.5-9, Isa. 6.1-8, Jer. 23.18

145. XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 49

Thus says the Sovereign LORD...‘All the trees of the field will know that I, the LORD,bring low the high tree, make high the low tree,dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish’.

(Ezek. 17.22-24†)

to let the living know... (4.17b). The Watcher’s lesson is not only aimedat Nebuchadnezzar. All men and women (i.e., ‘the living’) are to learnfrom the depicted king’s fall; and, by God’s grace, many of them haveindeed done so. As we know, ch. 4’s dream depicts the fall of Nebuchad-nezzar, which befell Nebuchadnezzar twelve months after the Watcherdecreed it (4.29). After his recovery, Nebuchadnezzar chose to make hisexperiences known to his kingdom (via his proclamation), and Danielthen made them known to the Jewish people (via his memoirs), whohave preserved them by means of the Scriptures—hence we (“the liv-ing”) are reading them even now.

4.18: The King’s demand

4.18 This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen, and you, Belteshazzar,must relate its interpretation. As [surely as] none of the wise men of mykingdom are able to make the interpretation known to me, you are able [todo so], for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you.

You, Belteshazzar, must relate its interpretation (4.18). Nebuchad-nezzar now tells Daniel what he expects from him. Nebuchadnezzar’s re-quest is straightforward in theory, namely to interpret the dream he hasjust described. The problem is, the dream’s implication is unlikely to bewell-received by Nebuchadnezzar. As such, 4.18 signals the crunch-pointin ch. 4’s narrative. The dream has been recounted, and its message isplain for all to see. What, then, will Daniel do? Will he tell Nebuchad-nezzar what he wants to hear, or will he tell Nebuchadnezzar the truth?And, if so, what will become of him?

50 4.19A—B: DANIEL’S REACTION TO THE KING’S DREAM

4.19a—b: Daniel’s reaction to the King’s dream

4.19a Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was then left in a temporary state ofdesolation, and his thoughts began to run away with him,

4.19b in response to which the King said, ‘O Belteshazzar! Do not let the dreamor its interpretation trouble you’.

Daniel now breaks off from his citation of the King’s proclamation andcontinues the story in his own words.146 Suffice to say, Daniel’s nar-rative (as recorded in 4.19-33) records a sequence of events which noancient king would have wanted to publicise, much less to preserve forthe sake of posterity. Besides, Nebuchadnezzar’s recollection of 4.19-33’sevents would have been hazy at best, and not a little painful.147 ThatNebuchadnezzar omitted the details of 4.19-33 from his proclamation ishardly, therefore, a surprise. The setting of 4.19 is, I assume, unchangedfrom 4.8-18. The wise men have proven either unable or unwilling tointerpret the King’s dream and have therefore been escorted out of thethroneroom. Some time later, Daniel has arrived. Nebuchadnezzar andDaniel are now, therefore, alone. They are free to speak to one anotherman-to-man.

Daniel...was left in a temporary state of desolation[ŠMM (Gt)] (4.19a).Just as a marauding army might leave a land silent in its wake, so Neb-uchadnezzar’s dream leaves Daniel speechless (4.19’s trans. notes). He ishorrified by the thought of what awaits Nebuchadnezzar, his friend andking. As a result, he is overcome and disconsolate. Daniel’s reactionto the dream (his thoughts ‘run away’ with him) is exactly the same asNebuchadnezzar’s (4.5). As such, 4.19a lends credence to our proposedexegesis of 4.4-8. Daniel understood the dream perfectly well, and sodid Nebuchadnezzar. Both men were therefore similarly “troubled” byits contents.

Do not let the dream or its interpretation trouble you (4.19b). Asmentioned in our comments on 4.6-8, Nebuchadnezzar summoned hiswise men in order to obtain a palatable interpretation of his dream or

146. 4.19 marks the advent of “Section B” in “4.1-37: Its literary structure and style”.

147. People who have suffered ‘breakdowns’ often lock them away in their subconscious.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 51

an easy ‘remedy’ for its ills. But, as 4.19b makes clear, Nebuchadnez-zar is not about to receive either of these things. Indeed, Daniel’s re-action says it all. The implications of the dream are, as Nebuchadnez-zar feared, neither good nor easy to avert. (We might consider, by wayof analogy, a patient who sees his doctor’s face fall when the results ofan important scan arrive.) The King therefore instructs Daniel simplyto speak his mind. Nebuchadnezzar may as well hear the worst. Al-though he presently resides in a luxurious palace, he is no coward; he isa battle-hardened soldier who has led his fair share of campaigns and isno stranger to trials.

4.19a—b: Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar’s relationship

Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar have evidently become close friends overthe years. (By my estimation, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Daniel asthe kingdom’s Prime Minister over fifteen years prior to the events ofch. 4.148) Daniel was, therefore, visibly upset at the prospect of Neb-uchadnezzar’s suffering, and Nebuchadnezzar responded to him withtenderness and respect. Both details are significant. To display emo-tion in the presence of a man like Nebuchadnezzar was a risky busi-ness. (We might consider, by way of analogy, how worried Nehemiahwas about displaying emotion in the presence of Artaxerxes: Neh. 2.2.)That Daniel did so—and that Nebuchadnezzar allowed it—therefore sug-gests the two men had a mutual affection and respect for one another.Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar was impressed with Daniel at their very firstmeeting (1.20). And, over the years, the men’s relationship would havedeepened due to the rather lonely nature of their respective ‘professions’.Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel had both risen to the very top of Babylon’sranks. As such, they would have had comparatively few friends. TheKing could not afford to let his guard down for too long. (There were noshortage of men looking to knock him off his perch.) And Daniel musthave faced similar issues given Babylon’s undercurrent of anti-Semitism(see chs. 3 and 6). As a result, Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel may havelived quite isolated lives. The occasions when they could commune withone another would therefore have been important to them. They could

148. App. 4A

52 4.20-26: DANIEL INTERPRETS THE KING’S DREAM

discuss matters they were unable to discuss with the rest of the palace-staff. They could have shared their hopes and fears with one another,freely and frankly. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar probably saw Daniel as oneof the few men whom he could trust in Babylon, and Daniel may havefelt the same way about Nebuchadnezzar. Unlike Daniel’s subordinates,Nebuchadnezzar had nothing to gain from Daniel’s demotion. Eitherway, the two men had clearly developed a robust and close friendship,which comes out clearly in the text of 4.19.

4.19c: Daniel’s desire

4.19c ‘My Lord!’, Daniel replied, ‘May the dream be for those who hate you andits interpretation for your enemies!’.

May the dream be for those who hate you (4.19c). Daniel interpreta-tion of the King’s dream sets the stage for what is about to follow. ‘If onlythe dream concerned your enemies...!’, he says. Daniel thereby bracesthe King for what is to come. His words, however, should not be seenas a token gesture. Daniel has no desire to see the King suffer. As such,he genuinely wants to be mistaken about the dream. But, deep down,he must know that he is not. The dream portrays a bleak future for theKing, and, as a servant of God and a friend of the King, Daniel has a dutyto tell him about it.

4.20-26: Daniel interprets the King’s dream

Daniel now reiterates the main content of the King’s dream and in-terprets it in the process. Daniel’s reiteration of the dream’s contentfollows the order in which Nebuchadnezzar originally revealed it (4.10-17, 4.20-23), and his interpretation for the most part does likewise. Theexception is the tree’s band of bronze-and-iron. As shown below, Danielleaves his interpretation of the bronze-and-iron band until the very endof his address (4.26). Daniel’s arrangement of material is not, of course,coincidental. Times of suffering are worst when we simply cannot seeany end to them. Daniel therefore wants the dream’s interpretation toend on a positive note. True—Nebuchadnezzar will suffer a great fall,

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 53

but he will not fall beyond recovery. God will preserve Nebuchadnezzar’skingship in his absence. The closing words of Daniel’s interpretationtherefore offer Nebuchadnezzar a hope which he can cling onto amidsthis times of tribulation. The table below shows how Daniel’s descriptionand interpretation of the dream tie together.

Vs. Content Vs. Interpretation

4.20 The tree which you saw— 4.22 it is you, O King—

[1] which became great and strong you who have become great andstrong,

[2] and the high-point of which cameup to the heavens

and whose greatness has become[so] great as to come up to theheavens,

[3] and which was visible from theend-points of the earth,

and whose rule [extends] to theend-points of the earth.

4.21 [1] and the leaves of which werepleasant

[2] and the fruit of which wasplentiful

[3] and in which was food for allthose in it (the beasts of the fieldtook up residence underneath itwhile the birds of the heavensmade their dwelling-place in itsbranches)—,

4.23 And insofar as the King saw aholy Watcher coming down fromthe heavens, giving thecommand,

[1] Cut down the tree and inflictharm on it—but leave the core ofits roots in the earth amidst thegrass of the field, and a bond ofiron and bronze around [it]—,

4.25 You will now be driven from man,

and you will reside with thebeasts of the field,

and, like oxen, you will be fedgreen plants,

54 4.20A: THE TREE’S IDENTITY

Vs. Content Vs. Interpretation

[2] and let it be drenched with thedew of the heavens,

and you will be drenched with thedew of the heavens,

[3] and let its portion be with thebeasts of the field until sevenseasons pass over it,

and seven seasons will be made topass over you, until youacknowledge that the Most Highrules over man’s kingdom andgives it to whomever he desires.

4.26 And, insofar as the command hasbeen given to leave the core ofthe tree’s roots [alone], yourkingdom will [stand] steadfastalongside you as soon as youacknowledge heaven’s rule.

4.20a: The tree’s identity

[CONTENT]: The tree which you saw... (4.20a)

[INTERP.]: It is you, O King (4.22a)

Daniel’s first step is to reveal the tree’s identity. Daniel’s words are directand to-the-point. “It is you, O King”, he announces.149 Daniel’s wordscannot have come as much of a surprise to Nebuchadnezzar, but theymust nevertheless have made their mark on him. (We might consider,by way of analogy, the moment when Nathan said to David, “You are theman!”.) According to Daniel, ch. 4’s tree is not merely a generic depictionof Babylon’s pride; it is a specific depiction of Nebuchadnezzar’s career asa king. By extension, then, the tree’s growth depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s(historic) rise, while its fall depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s (future) collapse.

149. There is a tendency, it seems, for commentators to ‘get ahead of themselves’ in their treatment of ch.4. The Watchtower’s commentators, for instance, take ch. 4’s tree (for no really good reason) to depictthe ongoing reign of the Gentiles. Meanwhile, a notable Christian commentator writes, “The tree in thevision is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 2”. But, when we handle God’s word,we must not let our imagination run away with us. God’s word is a revelation from the Most High not aspringboard for our own ideas. The tree in ch. 4 does not depict the Gentiles’ reign, nor does it depictthe Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Daniel explicitly tells us what ch. 4’s tree depicts. It depictsthe reign and person of Nebuchadnezzar (4.22a), and we must interpret the text of ch. 4 accordingly.Our job as commentators is not to be creative but, rather, to expound the text of Scripture faithfully, asGod has handed it down to us.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 55

4.20b: The tree’s nature

[CONTENT]: [It] became great and strong (4.20b)

[INTERP.]: [You] have become great and strong (4.22b)

Daniel now moves on to discuss the tree’s salient features. The tree’sgrowth depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s meteoric rise. When Nebuchadnezzaracquired the throne of Babylon (in 605 BC), the Babylonians were not yetthe Near East’s undisputed superpower. Assyria’s reign was over (indeed,Nebuchadnezzar led many of Babylon’s campaigns against Assyria him-self), but Nebuchadnezzar did not defeat the Assyrians singlehandedly.He was aided by a number of important allies, some of whom were majorworldpowers in their own right; and the Egyptians were still a force tobe reckoned with. As such, the Near East remained a disputed territory.But Nebuchadnezzar soon put an end to that. Over the next 20 yearsor so, Nebuchadnezzar took control of the entire region from Arabia inthe south to Cilicia in the north. The Syrians, Phoenicians, Cimmerians,Scythians, Judeans, Moabites, and Tyrians all surrendered to him, oneby one, and his greatness thereby came to overshadow the entire NearEast. Nebuchadnezzar had indeed become “great and strong” (4.20b),alt., ‘acquired great authority’.150

4.20c: The tree’s stature

[CONTENT]: [Its] high-point came up to the heavens (4.20c)

[INTERP.]: Your greatness has become [so] great as to come up to the heavens(4.22c)

The thrust of Daniel’s interpretation of 4.20c concerns the tree’s great-ness. “[The tree’s] greatness”, he says, “has become great”. The repe-tition of the word “great” reflects Nebuchadnezzar’s overweening pride.In Scripture, when a king is said to become “great”, the adj. “great” in-variably has negative connotations, especially when the king in questionis said to make himself great. We might consider, for instance, Belshaz-zar’s “great feast”, the Sea’s “great beasts”, and the Anti-God’s “great

150. as per the sense of as per the sense of the Heb. toqep in 11.17 (cf. Est. 9.29)

56 4.20B-21: THE TREE’S BENEFITS

boasts” (5.1, 7.2-3, 7.8), as well as the way in which the Anti-God raiseshimself up until he is “[as] great...as the host of the heavens” (8.10;see also 11.36). A king’s “greatness” therefore reflects his self-ambition,pride, and ungodliness. As such, the “greatness” of ch. 4’s tree depictsNebuchadnezzar’s ever-increasing arrogance.

Since his accession to the throne (in 605), Nebuchadnezzar had becomeincreasingly hungry for power. In his quest for world dominion, he swal-lowed up nation after nation. He could therefore address his kingdom’scommuniqués to “every tribe, nation, and tongue...in the earth” (4.1).But, in 587 BC, Nebuchadnezzar crossed an important line. He swal-lowed up the nation God had reserved for himself, namely Judah. Neb-uchadnezzar thereby came into contact with the Most High God; and,foolishly, he refused to heed God’s words of warning. In particular, herefused to heed the message of ch. 2’s dream as well as the testimony ofthe three Hebrews. He instead pursued his own dream. Nebuchadnez-zar’s “greatness” therefore reached the point when God could no longertolerate it. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar came into contact with theclouds of heavens and awakened heaven’s ‘awakened one’. We mightconsider, as an analogy, the way in which Nineveh’s sins are said to “riseup into God’s presence” (Jon. 1.2†). We might also consider the apostleJohn’s vision of Babylon’s sins “piled one on top of the other, [as high as]heaven” (Rev. 18.5†).151 Like the men of Babel, Nebuchadnezzar reachedthe point where ‘nothing [he] sought to do would be impossible for him’(Gen. 11.4). God therefore needed to ‘step in’ and intervene.

4.20b-21: The tree’s benefits

[CONTENT]: [which] was visible from the end-points of the earth,

and the leaves of which were pleasant,

and and the fruit of which was plentiful,

and in which was food for all those in it (the beasts of the field tookup residence underneath it while the birds of the heavens madetheir dwelling-place in its branches) (4.20b—21)

[INTERP.]: [Your] rule [extends] to the end-points of the earth (4.22b)

151. See also Ezra 9.6.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 57

In 4.20b—21, Daniel outlines four of the tree’s features: i] its visibilityfrom the four corners of the earth, ii] its pleasant appearance, iii] itsfruitfulness, and iv] its wildlife. In 4.22b, Daniel then interprets thesedetails. Daniel does not explicitly interpret all four details; he simplypoints out that the tree’s conspicuity (4.20b) depicts the geographicalextent of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. We are presumably, therefore, toview 4.21’s details accordingly; that is to say, we are to interpret thetree’s pleasant appearance, fruitfulness, and related wildlife in terms ofBabylon’s widespread dominion, as we suggested in our original analysisof 4.12’s symbolism.

[Your] rule [extends] to the end-points of the earth (4.22b). Thetree’s conspicuity reflects the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Everytribe, nation, and tongue has heard about the greatness of Nebuchad-nezzar’s Babylon. As such, it stands out from the rest of the Near Eastlike a burning beacon. It truly resembles a tree planted at the centre ofthe earth. Its presence and influence are impossible to ignore.

[Its] leaves were pleasant (4.21a). The leaves of ch. 4’s tree reflectBabylon’s role as a centre of culture and beauty. Under Nebuchadnez-zar’s guidance, Babylon has not only become mighty; it has also becomea place of wonder. Its palaces, temples, and walls are world-renowned.It can rightly be described as “the glory of [the world’s] kingdoms” (Isa.13.19).

[Its] fruit was plentiful (4.21b). The tree’s abundance of fruit reflectBabylon’s vast resources. Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon is characterised byabundance. Its riches surpass those of every other kingdom. Most em-pires in the Near East experience times both of riches and poverty. But,since the rise of Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon has known only riches. Baby-lon is undergoing a boom phase.

[There] was food for all those in it (the beasts...) (4.21c). The tree’srole as a natural habitat depicts the benefits which Nebuchadnezzar’sBabylon brings to its vassal states, i.e., to the “beasts” and “birds”. Baby-lon’s benefits come in two forms. The first is “food”. The extent of Baby-

58 4.23A: THE TREE IS SERVED ITS DEMOLITION ORDERS

lon’s dominion has opened many doors for its vassal states; in particular,it has enabled them to access and to trade with a variety of nations whichwould otherwise have been inaccessible to them (Isa. 47.15). The sec-ond is protection. To attack one of Babylon’s vassal states (and hencearouse Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath) would be a very foolish move. Baby-lon’s reign therefore allows its subjects to dwell in relative safety. Assuch, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign provides the nations of the Near East (i.e.,the “tribes, nations, and tongues” of 3.4 and 4.1) with riches to enjoyand a place in which to enjoy them. Babylon can rightly be likened to atree which provides both food and shelter.

4.23a: The tree is served its demolition orders

[CONTENT]: And insofar as the King saw a holy Watcher coming down from theheavens, giving the command... (4.23a)

[INTERP.]: [so] this is the interpretation, O King—indeed, it is the decisionshaped by the Most High which has come down upon my lord, theKing (4.24)

Daniel now comes to the point in the King’s dream when the Watcher de-scends, and things go from good to bad, i.e., when the dream turns intoa nightmare. According to Daniel, the words Nebuchadnezzar heard inhis dream were not merely the product of a fertile imagination. Neb-uchadnezzar heard the very words of one of heaven’s edicts going forth.The edict was pronounced by a heavenly watcher, but it originated in thethroneroom of the Most High God. As such, it carried the full weightand authority of the God of Heaven.

The Watcher’s words are said to ‘come down’ upon Nebuchadnezzar,which is important for two reasons. First, insofar as the Watcher’s wordsdescend on Nebuchadnezzar from above, they constitute heaven’s re-sponse to Nebuchadnezzar’s growth in pride and power. (See our com-ments on 4.13b.) As mentioned earlier, vertical motion is an importanttheme in ch. 4. That which ‘rises up’ to the heavens (e.g., the top of ch.4’s tree) depicts man’s pride before God, while that which ‘descends from’the heavens (e.g., the Watcher’s words) depicts God’s judgment of man’ssin. Second, insofar as the words come upon Nebuchadnezzar, they ‘take

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 59

hold’ of him in some way. Their pronouncements do not immediatelycome into effect; that is to say, Nebuchadnezzar does not immediatelylose his mind and flee from his palace. But the ‘curse’ inherent in theWatcher’s words nevertheless takes hold Nebuchadnezzar. If the Kingdoes not respond appropriately to the Watcher’s words, then the judg-ment described in 4.14-16 will come to pass. Hence, even as Daniel andthe King stand together in Babylon’s throneroom, the Watcher’s wordshang over Nebuchadnezzar’s head.

4.23b: The tree’s fall

[CONTENT]: Cut down the tree and inflict harm on it, but leave the core of itsroots in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of ironand bronze around [it] (4.23b)

[INTERP.]: You will now be driven from man (4.25a)

Daniel now moves on to address the curse pronounced by the Watcher.Daniel does not explicitly interpret the Watcher’s command for the tree tobe hewn down. (He may not think that it requires an interpretation. Af-ter all, the significance of the command is fairly clear; it is an announce-ment’s of heaven’s plans to judge Nebuchadnezzar—to cut the great kingof Babylon down in size.) And, as mentioned previously, Daniel post-pones the interpretation of the iron-and-bronze band until later. Daniel’sinterpretation of 4.23b therefore focuses entirely on the state of the treein the wake of God’s judgment.

You will be driven from man (4.25a.1). In the aftermath of God’sjudgment of the tree (Nebuchadnezzar), only a stump will remain in the“tender grass” of the field. According to Daniel, the stump depicts theKing’s lonely condition. It also depicts a position of humility insofar asit stands in contrast to the tall and beautiful tree depicted at the outsetof the dream. (As the Psalmist says, “When you, [O Lord], discipline aman...for [his] sin, you consume like a moth what is dear to him [alt.,what makes him beautiful]”: Psa. 39.11.) As a result of God’s judgment,Nebuchadnezzar will be separated from all human company. He will beforced to flee into ‘the wild’ in search of quiet and solitude.

60 4.23B: THE TREE’S FALL

The stump will be located in the “tender grass” of the field. Its ‘tender-ness’ conveys the idea both of ‘newness’152 as well as vulnerability. Bothwill be relevant to the fallen king’s condition. Nebuchadnezzar’s trialswill be “new” to him insofar as they will constitute completely unchar-tered waters. No longer will Nebuchadnezzar have a team of advisers athis disposal or an entourage of palace-staff; he will instead have to fendfor himself. Nebuchadnezzar’s trials will at the same time put him in acompromised and vulnerable position. His position on the throne willbe in jeopardy, and he will be unable to defend himself. As such, he willbe entirely at the mercy of others.

you will reside with the beasts of the field (4.25a.2). Daniel’s state-ment in 4.25a.2 does not seem to relate directly to Daniel’s reiteration ofthe King’s dream. (See our earlier layout of 4.20-26.) It does, however,relate to a detail which is present in the original account of the dream,namely, “[Let the stump’s] portion be with the beast amidst the greenplants of the earth” (4.15c). But, in the absence of an explicit interpre-tation from Daniel, how are we meant to interpret the text of 4.25a.2?Since Daniel’s statements in 4.25a.1 and 4.25a.3 can be understood lit-erally (later in ch. 4, Nebuchadnezzar is literally “driven from men” andliterally tastes “grass”), I am inclined to interpret 4.25a.2 equally liter-ally. During his times of desolation, Nebuchadnezzar will be made todwell with the beasts of the field. He will no longer sleep on a king’s‘couches [made] of gold and silver’ but on a bed of grass under the stars(Est. 1.6). He will be made to exchange the luxuries of Babylon’s palacefor the hazards of the great outdoors.

In addition to its literal significance, Daniel’s statement (in 4.25a.2) mayalso have a metaphorical significance, as we noted in our initial discus-sion of the dream’s symbolism (4.15c). In ch. 4’s dream, the “beastsof the field” depict Babylon’s subjects, while their position under thetree depicts their enjoyment of Babylon’s reign. That the King is madeto dwell alongside the beasts in the open air may therefore depict hischange of status. The King will be stripped of all the benefits associ-ated with his kingship and will be made to adopt the lifestyle of his own

152. hence the NASB’s translation of “new grass”

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 61

people. Indeed, he will barely be recognisable as a king. We might con-sider, as an analogy, Isaiah’s depiction of the King of Babylon’s fall, wherethe nations see the once-mighty tyrant and ask in disbelief, “Is this the[same] man who made the earth tremble and kingdoms shake?” (Isa.14.16†).

like the oxen, you will be fed green plants (4.25a.3). Nebuchadnez-zar’s original recollection of his dream does not mention the ‘taste ofgrass’. As such, Daniel’s statement in 4.25a.3 constitutes fresh revela-tion.153 The King will not only be made to dwell with the beasts of thefield; he will also be made to think and to act like the beasts of the field,even to the extent of adopting their diet. The events of ch. 1 will therebybe reversed in the Jewish people’s favour. The king who encouraged theJewish people to adopt a diet of meat and wine will be made to adopta diet of grass. He will lose his taste for Babylon’s delicacies and willinstead develop a different appetite. Daniel does not explicitly quotethe words of 4.16 (“Let [the king’s] heart be changed from a man’s, andlet a beast’s heart be given to him”), but they certainly seem to be inmind.154 The King’s natural inclinations will be radically reoriented, andhis behaviour and physical make-up will soon follow suit (4.33).

4.23c: The tree’s exposure to the elements

[CONTENT]: Let [the stump] be drenched with the dew of the heavens (4.23c)

[INTERP.]: You will be drenched with the dew of the heavens (4.25b)

The King will be given a genuine taste of ‘life in the great outdoors’. Hewill sleep where the beasts sleep and awake where they awake, wet with

153. In Daniel’s writings, the act of ‘interpretation’ does not merely require exegetical skills; it requires freshrevelation. Hence, for instance, Daniel’s interpretation of ch. 2’s dream refers to details not containedin ‘the original’ (2.41, 2.43), as did Daniel’s interpretation of the writing on Belshazzar’s wall (see ourdiscussion of 5.25-28). The same pattern is evident in chs. 7 and 8 (7.16, 7.19, 7.25-26, 8.23-25). Someof these things may, of course, be an artefact of Daniel’s story-telling. (That is to say, when Daniel initiallyrecords a dream’s content, his record may not be exhaustive.) Either way, Daniel wants us to see theact of interpretation as one which requires divinely-ordained wisdom and divinely-ordained revelation.The God who is sovereign over world history is equally sovereign over his people’s knowledge of worldhistory. Just as regulates the future itself, so he regulates what we come to know about it and when.

154. If any aspect of the King’s dream genuinely puzzled the wise men, then it must have been the details of4.15. Occuppied entirely by the possible symbolism behind “the beasts” and “the dew of the heavens”,the wise men may have overlooked the obvious, namely, Nebuchadnezzar would quite literally begin tobehave like a beast.

62 4.23C: THE TREE’S SEVEN TIMES

the dew of the heavens. Evidently, then, the dream’s references to “thedew of the heavens” depict a literal truth, but, like 4.25a.2’s referencesto “the beasts”, they may also allude to a deeper significance. Daniel’sconstant repetition of the qualifier “of the heavens” is, after all, quite un-necessary. We all know where dew comes from. The mention of “theheavens” therefore seems to allude to the agency of the God of Heavenin the King’s life. Meanwhile, the word “dew” seems likely to refer toGod’s sustenance of the King. Throughout the Pentateuch, the “dew ofthe heavens” is associated with the way in which God governs the naturalworld to bless and sustain his people. Isaac says to his sons, “May Godgive you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth” (Gen.27.28, 27.39), and the manna with which God sustains the Israelitesis associated with the appearance of the “dew” (Exod. 16.13-14, Num.11.9). The metaphorical significance of Daniel’s words in 4.25b there-fore seems to be as follows. Like the Israelites, Nebuchadnezzar willbe forced to undergo a long and difficult journey, but God will sustainhim throughout those ‘wilderness years’ and will allow him to emergefrom them unscathed, just as he enabled the Hebrews to emerge fromBabylon’s furnace unscathed.

4.23c: The tree’s seven times

[CONTENT]: Let [the stump’s] portion be with the beasts of the field until seventimes pass over it (4.23c)

[INTERP.]: Seven times will be made to pass over you until you acknowledgethat the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdoms and gives it towhomever he desires (4.25c)

The King’s state of desolation will persist for “seven times”. As men-tioned previously, the word time[ciddan] does not specify a known lengthof time (4.16c’s comm.). It is akin to English words like ‘season’ and‘epoch’. Daniel’s interpretation of the dream does not, therefore, tell theKing exactly how long his times of desolation will last, which Nebuchad-nezzar may have found rather disconcerting. (In Babylon, interpretersof ‘omens’ generally set a time-limit on an omen’s consequences.155) In-

155. According to Michael Barré, “Most of the omens in the Akkadian medical omen series end with a [state-ment of] the patient’s prospects for recovery. Many indicate how long it will be before the patient getswell, [e.g.], ‘within seven days’, ‘within ten days’, ‘quickly’, [etc.]” (Clifford 2004:195). Hence, the suf-

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 63

stead, Daniel’s (rather vague) reference to “seven times” puts the onussquarely on Nebuchadnezzar to consider his position before God. Neb-uchadnezzar cannot simply let God’s appointed times ‘play out’. Theywill last for as long as it takes for Nebuchadnezzar to recognise God’ssovereignty (4.25c) and for God’s purposes to thereby be accomplished.

4.23b: The tree’s stump

[CONTENT]: but leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of thefield, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it] (4.23b)

[INTERP.]: And, insofar as the command has been given to leave the core of thetree’s roots [alone], your kingdom will [stand] steadfast alongsideyou as soon as you acknowledge heaven’s rule (4.26)

Last of all, Daniel addresses the significance of the iron-and-bronze-band. The band (around the stump) depicts God’s protection of Baby-lon’s kingship. While Nebuchadnezzar will be cut off from his kingdom,he will nevertheless retain his position as Babylon’s king; that is to say,the throne will be preserved for him in his absence. Nebuchadnezzarwill not, therefore, be completely ‘plucked up’ from the earth; rather, his“roots” will remain firmly planted in Babylonian soil. We might consider,by way of contrast, the way in which God “plucks up” or “uproots” certainnations and people-groups from their lands (1 Kgs. 14.15, 2 Chr. 7.19-20,Jer. 12.17, etc.), which refers to a much more permanent removal. Wemight also consider ch. 2’s colossus, which is permanently erased fromthe face of the earth. By way of contrast, God will not completely uprootNebuchadnezzar; rather, God will preserve Nebuchadnezzar’s kingshipfor him and will ultimately reunite him with his kingdom (4.36, 7.4).Hence, for all the horror of his seven times, the King will emerge fromthem a better man—a man who has a knowledge of the Most High God.Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar will be able to rule the Near East as he shouldhave been for the last 18 years or more, i.e., as an ‘Adamic’ figure underGod’s authority.

ferer in ‘The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer’, complains, ‘The diviner could not set a time-limit [«QDN»]on my illness’ (Lambert 1960:XXX), as if it was the diviners’ normal practice to do such things.

64 4.23B: THE TREE’S STUMP

That the bond consists of “iron and bronze” brings to mind the metalliccolossus of ch. 2. The bond may, therefore, be intended to depict theKing’s separation from God’s place of blessing. Gold is the first metalto be mentioned in Scripture (in the context of the Garden of Eden:Gen. 2.11-12) and is associated with the ‘Edenic’ glory of Nebuchadnez-zar’s kingdom in ch. 2 (2.37-38). Meanwhile, bronze and iron are firstmentioned in connection with the ungodly line of Cain—who is drivenfrom men—and are connected with the Colossus’s less majestic king-doms (Gen. 4.14, 4.22). Bronze and iron also share a connection withthe degenerate fourth beast of ch. 7. The text of 4.26 therefore makes animportant point. Like a “brute beast”, Nebuchadnezzar has gone the wayof Cain (Jude 10-11). He has shed innocent blood on the earth (4.29)and, as a result, has been ‘driven from man’. He has at the same timefallen from God’s appointed place of blessing. He must now, therefore,wander the wilds, as a vagabond, until God restores him to his kingdomand counsellors (4.36b, Gen. 4.1-24).

As mentioned previously, Daniel leaves the interpretation of the iron-and-bronze-bond for last. The dream as a whole is bad news, but the mentionof the metallic band offers Nebuchadnezzar at least some hope. In God’sgood time—once Nebuchadnezzar comes to acknowledge heaven’s au-thority—, Nebuchadnezzar will be restored to his kingdom. All is nottherefore lost. There is light at the end of the tunnel—a hope to whichNebuchadnezzar can cling amidst his times of desolation.

In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream depicts an incredible turn ofevents. Indeed, imagine for a moment the scene described in 4.9-26.Nebuchadnezzar is seated in one of the most august and majestic throne-rooms the Near East has ever known. In earthly terms, he is at the top ofhis game. He has overthrown his rivals; he has won the affection of hispeople; and he has established Babylon as the military and financial hubof the then-known world. Yet, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar willsoon find himself separated from his palace and united with the beasts ofthe field! Daniel’s prediction hardly seems possible. How can such a fatepossibly befall a king of Nebuchadnezzar’s stature? The idea is almost

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 65

laughable. But, as the King should know by now: when Daniel makes aprediction, only a very foolish man fails to take it seriously.

once you acknowledge heaven’s rule (4.26). That Daniel refers toheaven’s rule156 as opposed to, say, God’s rule is noteworthy. Daniel wantsto draw Nebuchadnezzar’s attention, not only to God’s supremacy, but tothe way in which God governs a whole hierarchy of heavenly creatures(4.36). (Nebuchadnezzar has already encountered two such creatures,namely ch. 3’s Deliverer and ch. 4’s Watcher.157) In order to recognisethe rule of “the heavens”, Nebuchadnezzar will therefore need to radi-cally reformulate his worldview. As things stand, he sees himself as themost powerful man on earth. But, by the end of the chapter’s events,he will come to realise two important truths: first, in comparison tothe God of Heaven, he is like a mere insect (Isa. 40.22), and, second,God is not the only heavenly entity who outranks Nebuchadnezzar; theheavenly realms are teeming with creatures of infinitely greater powerthan him. These are truths which will give Nebuchadnezzar a com-pletely different outlook on life (4.37). They also happen to be truthswhich we ourselves will do well to keep in mind. To consider the sheervastness of God’s Creation is a helpful and humbling experience. Wepresently inhabit a universe which is composed of particles more minuteand intricately-arranged than we can possibly imagine and yet is at thesame time governed by powers and principalities far greater than we canpossibly imagine. And enthroned above them all sits our God—the Onewho loves us, cares for us, and has revealed himself to us in the Messiah,Jesus of Nazareth. It is a truly staggering thought.

4.20-26: Some further thoughts

The text of 4.23-26 seems to place great emphasis on God’s irresistiblegrace. Indeed, the text is really just one long list of events which God willbring to pass in the King’s life. God will separate Nebuchadnezzar fromhis throne, drench him with the dew of heavens, drive him into the wild,etc. Nebuchadnezzar is a passive observer in the process. One moment

156. As mentioned elsewhere, the word “heaven” always has a plur. form in Aramaic and can refer either to‘the skies’ or to ‘the heavenly realms’. Its context must determine which nuance is in mind.

157. It will be Daniel’s turn to do so in chs. 6-12.

66 4.27: DANIEL’S ADVICE TO THE KING

he is in full control of his mental faculties; the next he is reduced to thestatus and stature of a beast. Seven times are then said to ‘pass over’Nebuchadnezzar, just as a gust of wind might be said to ‘pass over’ afield or a desert. Nebuchadnezzar is given no say at all in the matter.The king of the Near East he may be, but some things are neverthelessbeyond his power to control.

4.27: Daniel’s advice to the King

4.27 Therefore, O King, let my counsel seem pleasing to you! Break off [from]your sins by [practising] righteousness and [from] your iniquities byoffering grace to the afflicted, in case there may be an extension to yourrest!

Therefore, O King, let my counsel seem pleasing to you (4.27a).Daniel now offers the King his personal counsel. He speaks to the Kingwith respect (“may my counsel seem pleasing to you”) and sincerity. Hewants to spare the King from the fate depicted in ch. 4’s dream.158 Asthings stand, the King’s life is completely out-of-step with God’s mind andwill. God has entrusted Nebuchadnezzar with great power and riches(2.37-38, 4.22) and has provided him with godly counsellors (in the formof Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego). God has thereby givenNebuchadnezzar the means to rule the Near East in a just and ethicalmanner. Nebuchadnezzar’s main concern, however, has been the infla-tion of his (already overinflated) ego. He has squandered his riches onself-indulgent projects (such as ch. 3’s golden image), and, in his con-quest for worldwide dominion, he has badly mistreated the poor andweak.159 While, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar has brought wealth to theNear East, he has done so at the expense of justice.160 What God in-tended for good, Nebuchadnezzar has used for evil. As such, Nebuchad-nezzar’s only hope of averting God’s judgment is to radically alter hismanner of life and rule. The first alteration which he must make con-

158. If, in ch. 4, a pešar should be understood in light of the Akk. concept of a pišru, then 4.27 should be seenas the final aspect of Daniel’s pišru, i.e., a ‘remedy’ for averting the evil consequences of ch. 4’s dream,as discussed in 4.7’s comm.

159. 3.1, 4.27, Isa. 14.6-7, 47.6, Jer. 29.22, Zech. 1.15.

160. Judging by his inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar saw himself as an extremely just and virtuous ruler, and hispeople may even have agreed with him, but God did not (Wiseman XXX, Langdon 1905:93, 1905:96,1905:99, etc.).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 67

cerns his view of God’s law. Rather than living in “sin”, Nebuchadnezzarmust pursue “righteousness”. He must make a clean “break” from thepast. The second concerns Nebuchadnezzar’s manner of rule. Ratherthan exploiting the poor and oppressing the weak, he must show them“grace” and mercy. He must rule the kingdom of Babylon as Israel’s kingswere meant to rule the kingdom of Israel.161 Only then does he standany chance of ‘prolonging his prosperity’ (4.27b).

As mentioned above, Daniel’s prescribed ‘remedy’ for the dream’s omenis unlikely to have been to the King’s tastes. A ritual or offering was thegenerally-prescribed remedy. For an interpreter to prescribe a changein lifestyle was, as far as I know, completely unprecedented and, fromNebuchadnezzar’s point of view, decidedly unwelcome. Indeed, Neb-uchadnezzar may well see himself as a very righteous and just ruler.162

in case[[alt., ‘perhaps’]] there may be an extension to your rest! (4.27b).While Daniel regards it as possible for Nebuchadnezzar to delay God’sjudgment, he does not seem to regard it as very likely—maybe becausehe knows stubborn the King can be. As such, Daniel’s words highlight animportant feature of OT prophecy. The Prophets call men to repentance,and the God of Scripture never turns away those who repent. As a re-sult, the Prophets often foretell disasters which their people may or maynot come to experience. It all depends on how those people respond tothe prophecy in question. Put another way, the Prophets often set outpossibilities rather than certainties. The future, for them, is not a faitaccompli but, rather, an open possibility. Consider, by way of example,God’s words to Jeremiah and Ezekiel:

Thus says the LORD, ‘Speak, [O Jeremiah], to all the cities ofJudah which come to worship. ...Perhaps they will listen—andeach man will turn from his evil way—and I will repent of theevil I intend to do to them’.

(Jer. 26.2-3†)

As for you, [Ezekiel], prepare for yourself an exile’s baggage

161. e.g., Lev. 19.33, 25.35, Isa. 1.17, 1.23, Psa 82.3-4., Jer. 7.6, 22.3, Amos 5.14-15, etc.

162. Wiseman, XXX, XXX.

68 4.27: DANIEL’S ADVICE TO THE KING

and go into exile by day in [the people’s] sight. ...Perhaps theywill understand, [even] though they are a rebellious house.

(Ezek. 12.3)

Consider, alternatively, the following prophetic calls:

Even now,...return to me with all your heart, and with fasting,weeping and mourning. ...Who knows whether [God] will notturn and repent and leave a blessing behind him?

(Joel 2.12-14†)

Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the gate. It maybe that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to [Israel’s]remnant.

(Amos 5.15)

Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his just com-mands. ...It may be that you will be hidden on the day of theanger of the LORD.

(Zeph. 2.3†)

God’s communication with his people is therefore designed to conveyan important point. The Israelites are not to view their future fatalisti-cally. What will befall them in the days to come will depend not only onGod’s actions, but also on theirs. If the Israelites ignore God’s word tothem, then God’s judgment will fall on them, but if, on the other hand,they change their mindset towards God, then God will change his mind-set towards them, just as he did towards the Ninevites (Jon. 3.4-10).163

Of course, God knows exactly how people will respond to a prophecyin any given situation. Divinely-inspired prophecies are not, therefore,a ‘best guess’ as to what might or might not come to pass. God canknow the future with absolute certainty, but the future can nevertheless

163. God’s prophetic messages then ‘roll over’ to subsequent generations, who must face the same set ofpossibilities. We might consider, as an example, Joel’s prophecy. Joel is generally considered to be oneof the earlier prophets, but the invasion depicted by Joel in 2.1-11 sounds very much like a Babylonianinvasion. Was Joel’s prophecy therefore irrelevant to his immediate audience? Did it threaten themwith an invasion not due for another few centuries? Not at all. Disaster was indeed looming on thehorizon in Joel’s day, but Joel’s hearers repented of their ways and were therefore spared (Joel 2.18-27),while later generations did not and suffered the consequences (2 Kgs. 25.1-7). Consider, alternatively,Jonah’s prophecy. The Ninevites of Jonah’s day repented and averted God’s judgments, but the Ninevitesof Nahum’s day did not, and so Nineveh ultimately fell (Nah. 1.1, 3.18-19).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 69

contain multiple distinct possibilities. Put another way, God can havea perfect knowledge of the future without the need to determine it.164

And Daniel’s statement in 4.27 (‘perhaps there will be an extension toyour rest’) should be viewed accordingly. Daniel extended a genuine of-fer of mercy to Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar was free to takethe narrow path to life (by altering his behaviour) or the broad road todestruction. True—Daniel did not consider the King’s repentance verylikely, but Nebuchadnezzar nevertheless had a choice to make. Danielextended a genuine offer of mercy to Nebuchadnezzar, but, as we willsee, Nebuchadnezzar freely chose to reject it.

4.28-33: Judgment falls

4.28 All this came down upon Nebuchadnezzar the King.

4.29 At the end of twelve months, as he was walking on [the roof of]Babylon’s royal palace,

4.30 the King declared, “Is this not the great Babylon, which I myself haveestablished as a royal house by my sovereign power and for [the sakeof] my excellent glory?”.

4.31 While the word was still on the King’s lips, a voice fell from theheavens, [saying], It is [hereby] announced to you, O Nebuchadnezzarthe King: the kingdom has passed on from you!

4.32 [1] You will now be driven from man,

[2] and you will reside with the beasts of the field (like oxen, you will befed green plants),

[3] and seven seasons will be made to pass over you until you acknowledgethat the Most High is the ruler over the kingdom of man and gives it towhomever he desires.

4.33 At that [very] moment, the word came to its end-point uponNebuchadnezzar:

[1] he was driven from man,

[2] and, like oxen, he began to consume green plants,

[3] and his body became drenched with the dew of the heavens until hishair grew great like eagles’ [feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws].

164. To put the point in more philosophical terminology, certainty is an epistemic property, while necessity is amodal property. The certainty of God’s foreknowledge need not, therefore, impose any causal constraintson the future.

70 4.28-33: JUDGMENT FALLS

With the advent of 4.28, we reach the pivotal moment in Daniel’s nar-rative. God has personally spoken to Nebuchadnezzar and warned himof the awful future which awaits him. What, then, will the great Neb-uchadnezzar do? Will he humble himself before God’s word or will hecontinue in pride? Will he reform his life or remain in sin? Sadly, Neb-uchadnezzar chooses the latter option. (If my proposed chronology ofchs. 3-4 is correct, then Nebuchadnezzar makes a very deliberate deci-sion to defy God’s word, since, instead of seeking to reform his ways, hemarches against Egypt in order to make his dominance of the Near Eastabsolute.)165 We consequently read in 4.28, “All [the things depicted inthe dream] came down upon King Nebuchadnezzar”. 4.29-33 then de-scribes exactly how Nebuchadnezzar invoked the curse of ch. 4’s dream.

At the end of twelve months, as he was walking on the [roof of]Babylon’s royal palace (4.29). With the advent of 4.29, we ‘fast for-ward’ twelve months to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. TheKing has forgotten all about the horror of his dream and is once again en-joying his ‘home comforts’; specifically, he is taking a walk on his palaceroof after a successful military campaign in Egypt. From his elevatedvantage-point, Babylon is a magnificent sight. Its verdant hanging gar-dens, its baroque city streets, its impregnable walls: it is a city full ofawe-inspiring structures. And rising up above them all is Nebuchadnez-zar’s newly-renovated ziggurat—an immense clay tower which rivals theheavens themselves for majesty and splendour. Meanwhile, the sweetsmell of cedar rises up from beneath the King’s feet. (The palace-roofconsists of thousands of cedar-trees from the forests of Lebanon, manyof which Nebuchadnezzar has felled with his own fair hands!166) TheKing’s heart therefore swells with pride as he utters the fateful words:

Is this not the great Babylon, which I myself have establishedas a royal house by my sovereign power and for [the sake of]my excellent glory?

165. See “XXX”.

166. Ferguson, XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 71

The text of 4.30 only records a single question asked by Nebuchadnezzar,but it clearly does not reflect an isolated moment of pride in the King’slife. It reflects the overall tenor of the King’s life and reign over the lasttwelve months. The King has not ‘broken away’ from his past manner oflife at all (4.27), nor has he sought to glorify God by means of his reign.On the contrary, he has employed his power and influence to bring gloryto himself and to extol his own achievements. Nebuchadnezzar’s palaceinscriptions tell a similar story. One such inscription reads like a carbon-copy of 4.30. It states, “The fortifications of Esagila and Babylon I [Neb-uchadnezzar have] strengthened and [thereby] established the name ofmy reign forever”.167 Other inscriptions portray Nebuchadnezzar in asimilar light. As Montgomery writes, “The King’s self-[satisfaction] inhis glorious Babylon are strikingly true to history”. (Montgomery quotesan inscription where Nebuchadnezzar proudly states, “In Babylon, mydear city, which I love, [is] the palace—the house of wonder of thepeople,...the abode of majesty in Babylon”.168) Such statements are,of course, made by many Babylonians rulers, but they are neverthelessnoteworthy insofar as they resemble the image of Nebuchadnezzar por-trayed in ch. 4. Not even the most arrogant of Israel’s kings is recordedto have uttered such words.169

Is this not...? (4.30). The words of 4.30 are a question, which Neb-uchadnezzar apparently asks himself. But, as he will soon find out, heis not alone. Babylon’s watcher is close at hand, and will now provide amost unwanted answer to his question.

While the word was still on the King’s lips, a voice fell from theheavens (4.31). Even as the King utters the words recorded in 4.30, avoice comes floating down from the heavens in response. It is a voicewhich Nebuchadnezzar has heard only once before and has been tryingto forget ever since, but, to the Nebuchadnezzar’s dismay, it is one whichhe instantly recognises. It is the voice of Babylon’s Watcher. The mere

167. Barton, Archeology And The Bible, 1949:478-479.

168. Montgomery 1927:243-44. While Herodotus credits Babylon’s awesome architecture to two legendaryAssyrian queens (Hist. 1.178-186), Berossus, who is a more reliable source, credits it to Nebuchadnezzar(Ag. Ap. 1.134-141), with which Daniel’s narrative agrees.

169. and the OT is clearly not a book which seeks to protect the reputation of Israel’s kings


sound of the voice is sufficient to strike fear into the King’s heart; and theparticular words which it utters are yet more terrifying:

It is [hereby] announced to you, O Nebuchadnezzar the King:the kingdom has passed on from you!

In other words, “Your seven times are about to begin!”. The passive tenseemployed in 4.31 (“the kingdom has passed on”) clearly alludes to theagency of God. The God who causes kings to pass on[QDP] has now causedNebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to pass on[QDP] from him.

You will be driven from man (4.32a.1). Much to the King’s horror, theWatcher begins to repeat the very words which Nebuchadnezzar heardfrom Daniel’s lips twelve months ago. “You will be driven from man”,the Watcher declares, “and you will reside with the beasts of the field,and, like the ox, you will be made to taste grass, [and so on]” (4.32). AsNebuchadnezzar hears these words, the full terror of his original dreamcomes flooding back to him. He realises how foolishly he has behaved.Instead of reforming his reign, he has escalated his brutality and arro-gance to new levels. He has turned his back on God’s word, and, as aresult, God’s word has overtaken him (Zech. 1.5-6). But it is now toolate for such regrets. The matter has been settled, and the Watcher hasspoken. Accordingly, the King’s seven times of desolation are set to beginand to continue until the King acknowledges that “the Most High rulesover man’s kingdoms”.

At that [very] moment, the word came to its end-point upon Neb-uchadnezzar (4.33a). As the Watcher reaches the end of its declara-tion, the “word” (i.e., the millâh declared by the Watcher) reaches itsend-point in the life of Nebuchadnezzar.170 I take the “word” in questionto cover the entirety of the King’s dream. Over the last twelve months,Nebuchadnezzar’s millâh (dream) has gradually been unfolding in theKing’s life. Babylon has continued to grow in might, and Nebuchadnez-zar has continued to grow in pride. Or, to put the point in the language of

170. Like the Heb. dabar, the Aram. millâh can function in a variety of ways. It can refer, for instance, to arecent event or item of speech, but it can also (as seems to be the case here) function as a synonym for‘the subject presently under consideration’ (2.10, 2.11, 2.17, 2.23, etc.).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 73

the dream, Babylon has become too tall and, as such, has poked its ‘head’through the clouds (4.12). The “end-point” of the dream has thereforefallen on the King. The Watcher has uttered the appropriate word ofcommand (“Hew down the tree!...”: 4.13-14), and the King’s seven timeshave begun to unfold.

he was driven from man (4.33b). As the Watcher’s words descend fromthe heavens, Nebuchadnezzar’s mind begins to crumble and he loses allcontrol of his mental faculties. An incredible transformation thus beginsto take place in the King’s life. The first change which Nebuchadnezzarnotices is his inability to tolerate human company. He feels awkwardand scrutinised in the presence of other people and develops an uncon-trollable urge to distance himself from his palace-staff. As a result, heheads out into ‘the wild’ (Babylon’s Hanging Gardens?) where he canenjoy rest and solitude. There he is forced to fend for and feed himself.Accordingly, he adopts a diet of natural vegetation and plants, which,over time, he acquires a distinct taste for. He even begins to devour thegrass of the field (4.33b). Nebuchadnezzar is also forced to find new ‘ac-commodation’. (He cannot bear the thought of returning to his palacequarters.) He therefore takes to sleeping under the open skies along-side the beasts, which causes him to wake each morning drenched withthe dew of heaven (4.33b). In short, Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a com-pletely change of lifestyle. But the changes are not merely behavioural.His physical appearance also begins to alter insofar as he becomes com-pletely disinterested in such things as personal cleanliness and tidiness.Accordingly, his hair becomes so overgrown and unkempt that it matstogether into feather-like plaits, while his nails become so long that theycurl at the ends like claws. In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar begins to livelike a beast, think like a beast, and even look like a beast. As such, hefinds himself caught in a ‘devolutionary’ spiral (Rom. 1.20). Báez sumsup the situation wonderfully:

A pride [which] is not satisfied with being “a little lowerthan God”—one [which] reaches for the heavens [and hence]blur[s] the human-divine distinction—results in a ‘[bringingback down] to earth’ and a blurring of the human-animal dis-


tinction. The king who thought himself...a superman is re-duced to the [subhuman] status of an animal.171

The words of 4.33 describe a truly epic fall. One moment the King isstanding on his palace roof, the world at his feet; the next he finds him-self running for the hills, his mind and kingdom in tatters. It is oneof the most dramatic transformations ever to have been recorded, and itwould have terrified the Babylonians to know about it.172 It is also highlyreminiscent of Isaiah’s prophecy against Babylon, where Isaiah picturesBabylon’s enemies taunting her fallen king with the following words,

How you have fallen from the heavens, O Day Star...!How you have been cut down to the earth,

you who laid the nations low!

You declared in your heart,‘I will rise up to the heavens,...I will rise above the heights of the clouds,I will make myself like the Most High’.

But you will be brought down to Sheol,to the [deepest] recesses of the pit.

Those who see you will stare at you and...[ask],‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble—

who shook kingdoms,who made the world like a desert,...who would not let his prisoners go home?’

(Isa. 14.12-17†)

He was driven from man, and, like an ox, he began to consume greenplants (4.33b-c). Exactly how God transformed Nebuchadnezzar from anobleman to a brute beast is not revealed to us, but a lot of the ‘ground-work’ may have already been done for him. Nebuchadnezzar was notthe most stable of individuals. We have already seen him swing from

171. Báez, Allusions To Genesis 11:1-9 In The Book Of Daniel, 2013:153.

172. Kings are seen as intermediaries between man and God in many ancient texts, and are even spoken of asthe “image” of God (Parpola 1993:168). The idea of a fallen, cursed, or debased king would, therefore,fill a whole nation with fear. It was not a good sign, to say the least.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 75

one extreme to another on a number of occasions. At the outset of ch.2, for instance, he sought to slay Daniel, and by the end of the chap-ter’s events he wanted to promote him. At the outset of ch. 3, he thenthreatened to slay Daniel’s friends (for their loyalty to YHWH), and at theend of it he threatened to slay the Babylonians (for their lack of loyaltyto YHWH). Suffice it to say, these are not the hallmarks of a man in hisright mind. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar suffered from what we now referto as ‘bi-polar disorder’, or perhaps his erratic behaviour stemmed froma different cause. Either way, Nebuchadnezzar was a highly mercurialand unpredictable individual. His unpredictability may even have playeda part in his military success, since an enemy whose actions cannot bepredicted is a very dangerous prospect. Divine intervention aside, then,Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been on the verge of a nervous break-down, and his recent dream certainly cannot have helped matters. Thesurge of pride which overcame Nebuchadnezzar as he stood on his palaceroof may, therefore, have been the rush of blood which finally pushed theKing ‘over the edge’—the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were.173

Of course, in mentioning these things, I am not seeking to minimise thehandiwork of God in ch. 4’s events. My point is as follows: from apurely naturalistic stand-point, Nebuchadnezzar was ‘ripe’ for the judg-ment that befell him. Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘breakdown’ was not a suddenand unforeseeable event; it was a natural outworking of his divinely-ordained past. God may not, therefore, have needed to ‘intervene’ agreat deal in Nebuchadnezzar’s life in order to bring about his downfall;he may simply have needed to remove his hand of protection and allowNebuchadnezzar’s life of pride and excess take its toll. To put the pointin the language of the Psalmist: God had already set Nebuchadnezzar in“a slippery place”; he then simply needed to ‘let Nebuchadnezzar go hisway’ in order to “make [him] fall into desolation” (Psa. 73.18†).

173. Breakdowns such as Nebuchadnezzar’s are not as uncommon as one might imagine. As Montgomerywrites, “[They are] well known in the sad annals of the human mind and attested by scientific exam-ination” (cf. On The Book Of Daniel, 1927:220). R. K. Harrison mentions a patient in a mental insti-tution whose symptoms were “virtually identical” to Nebuchadnezzar’s. The patient would wander thegrounds of the institution and eat grass from the lawn. His mental symptoms included “pronouncedanti-social tendencies”, and his most notable physical abnormality was “a lengthening of the hair and a...thicken[ing] of the fingernails” (Harrison 1969:1116-1117).


his body was drenched with the dew of the heavens until his hairgrew great like eagles’ [feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws](4.33d). That Daniel makes explicit mention of Nebuchadnezzar’s long(and bird-like) hair and nails is noteworthy. As John Goldingay observes,“Anyone’s hair and nails [would] grow long in the wild”.174 What, then,does Daniel want to tell us here?175 A couple of answers suggest them-selves. The first derives from ch. 4’s Babylonian background. The bird-like imagery employed in 4.33 is commonly found in Mesopotamian de-pictions of ‘the underworld’, where both the dead as well as the demonicentities who inhabit the underworld often exhibit bird-like features.176

4.33’s imagery also resonates with the well-known Babylonian myth ‘TheEpic Of Gilgamesh’. The opening section of the Epic involves a part-manpart-beast named ‘Enkidu’. Enkidu dwells with the “beasts of the field”and “eats grass” alongside them. The hair of his head is “long”, while thehair of his body is dense and “matted”. As the story continues, Enkidugrows in stature and acquires divine status, but he harbours a desireto return to his old way of life. (‘Why, since you have become like agod’, Enkidu’s lover asks him, ‘do you yearn to run wild again with thebeasts in the hills?’.) Enkidu is hence portrayed as a man torn betweentwo worlds. He also seems to be haunted by a troubled past. (Later inthe Epic, he recounts a dream where a demonic entity with an “eagle’stalon[s]” takes hold of him and transforms his arms into “[feathered]wings”.)

4.33’s imagery can very naturally, therefore, be seen in light of its Baby-lonian backdrop, in which case its significance is most likely as follows.Nebuchadnezzar, a king of nigh-on divine status, has lost favour with‘the gods’, and has suffered a catastrophic fall from grace. As such,

174. Goldingay 1989:90.

175. 4.33d may, I suppose, be an idiomatic way of saying, ‘The King became completely unkempt, from headto toe’. In a letter sent from the King of Mari to his wife (18th cent. BC), the King mentions women “whodo not have a blemish...[lit.,] ‘from toe nail to hair of head”’ (Ziegler XXXX:297). But Daniel may stillwant to see a deeper significance to his choice of words.

176. “The Descent of Ishtar”, for instance, depicts the dead as “clothed like birds [MUŠEN] in feather gar-ments”, while the Lamaštu tablets depict the demon Lamaštu as a woman whose feet are “those of aneagle” and whose “fingernails are long”. Hays cites many other examples (2007:308-324). The Syr.version of Ahiqar also employs similar imagery. When the hero of the story is raised from the pit, hesays, “The hair of my head had drown down on my shoulders,...and my nails were grown long like aneagle’s” (Conybeare XXXX:116). Such imagery is not obvious present in Scripture, but may lie behindtexts like Isa. 13.19-22 or 34.10-15.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 77

Nebuchadnezzar has been (metaphorically) dragged down to the under-world. He has been given over to Babylon’s demons,177 and has devolvedto a pre-glorified state in which, like Enkidu, he is associated with the“beasts of the field” and a diet of “grass” and an unkempt appearance(“long” and “matted” hair). Ch. 4’s thereby continues to follow the pat-tern of Ezek. 31. At the outset of Ezek. 31, Assyria is depicted as a talland luxuriant cedar tree which provides a home for the birds and beasts,but, once God’s judgment falls on it, it is “given over to death” and de-scends “to Sheol” (Ezek. 31.14-15).178

An alternative way of interpreting 4.33’s imagery involves ch. 4’s Scrip-tural background. According to Daniel, the branches of ch. 4’s treeprovide a nesting-place for various “birds”, which depict Babylon’s vas-sal states and subjects (4.12’s comm.). By associating Nebuchadnezzarwith bird-like imagery, then, 4.33 describes the continuation of the King’sdownfall. The King will be brought down to the level of his own people.He will not even have a roof over his head. The unnatural length of theKing’s hair and nails can then be understood in light of Mosaic law. InDeut. 21.10-14, provision is made for the assimilation of a female pris-oner of war into Israel’s community. The prisoner in question is requiredto shave her hair, pare back her fingernails, and mourn the death of herparents in the house of her husband-to-be for a full month. Afterwards,she is allowed to be married, at which point she becomes a fully-fledgedmember of Israel’s community. 4.33’s reference to the unnatural lengthof the King’s hair and nails may well allude to these activities. If so, theKing’s ‘seven times’ should be seen as a period of mourning and isolation,after which he will be assimilated into God’s covenant community.

Like the phrase ‘the spirit of the holy gods’, then, 4.33b’s imagery can beinterpreted in two very different ways, which I take to be a deliberatefeature of Daniel’s narrative. A Babylonian might have seen Daniel’saccount of the King’s fall in 4.28-33 as the manifestation of a dark andmysterious curse. The hand of YHWH would therefore have remainedobscure and inscrutable to him, just as it did to Babylon’s wise men.

177. Here, we might think of Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians: “You are to deliver [the relevant man] toSatan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5.5).

178. The fall of Babylon’s king in Isa. 14 is also associated with a descent to Sheol (Isa. 14.4-17).

78 4.28-33: THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

(We might consider, as an analogy, Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “Ifour gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing”: 2 Cor. 4.3.)But those familiar with the Jewish Scriptures would have been able todiscern a much deeper truth between the lines of the text. The King hadnot merely been afflicted by a vague and randomly-decreed divine curse;rather, the great YHWH was about to assimilate Nebuchadnezzar into hiscovenant community. Newsom appropriately describes his experience asa “rite of passage”.179

he was driven from man (4.33b). As mentioned earlier, Nebuchad-nezzar fled into ‘the wilds’ as soon as God’s judgment fell on him. Hedeliberately, therefore, chose to separate himself from his advisors, whoare unlikely to have sought to prevent him from doing so. Indeed, theywould have consciously sought to keep their distance from the King ifthey viewed him as the victim of a divine curse.180 But Daniel wouldnot have deserted his king in his hour of need. As mentioned previously,Daniel had a genuine love for Nebuchadnezzar—a love which was a re-flection of God’s own love for Nebuchadnezzar (4.19). Moreover, Danielwas very likely the only person in Babylon to know the full story behindthe Nebuchadnezzar’s times of desolation. Daniel would therefore havekept in close contact with the King during his seven times. He wouldhave provided him with support, sound advice, and encouragement. Hewould also have sought to protect the King’s reputation in the city ofBabylon. God had promised to preserve Nebuchadnezzar’s throne in hisabsence, so Daniel would have done whatever he could to further God’scause.

4.28-33: The relevant historical evidence

As yet, no evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of insanity has been re-covered from the site of ancient Babylon. But we should not be overlysurprised. For one thing, Nebuchadnezzar’s later years in Babylon arevery poorly documented. Detailed historical records are available upuntil the 11th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but, from that point on,

179. Newsom 2014:149.

180. hence, in 4.36, they are said to “return” to Nebuchadnezzar

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 79

Babylon’s records are surprisingly quiet about goings-on in Babylon.181

For another, Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘breakdown’ is exactly the kind of inci-dent the King (and his successors) would have wanted to erase fromBabylon’s history. The purpose of Babylon’s official records was to glorifyBabylon’s provenance and to bolster its people’s confidence. A record ofNebuchadnezzar’s breakdown would therefore have been distinctly out-of-place. As Montgomery writes, “Corroboration of [Nebuchadnezzar’sinsanity] can hardly...be expected from archaeology, for royal families donot leave memorials of such frailties”.182

But, while no direct evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s breakdown has cometo light, what we do know about the later years of Nebuchadnezzar’sreign provides an intriguing backdrop for it. First (as mentioned above),the latter half of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is unusually quiet in terms ofits literary output, which seems to require some kind of explanation. Atthe very least, there is plenty of room in Babylon’s records for 4.28-33’sevents to have unfolded—especially since the notion of a “time”[ciddan]

in ch. 4 could, theoretically, be as short as a month or even a day. Sec-ond, according to Paul Ferguson, Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions exhibit agrowing pride and arrogance. “Not only does the number of inscriptionssuddenly drop [after Nebuchadnezzar’s early years]”, Ferguson writes,“but...their content radically changes. [The King’s] earlier preoccupa-tion with religion wanes, and [his] attention [instead] turn[s] to palacesand politics. ...In reworking one of his closing prayers, the King managesto insert eight of his own royal titles. [Such] flaunting of royal traits be-fore [a] deity was totally absent in [the King’s] earlier prayers”.183 Third,archeologists have unearthed a fragment of a tablet in Babylon which as-sociates Nebuchadnezzar with some very strange behaviour.184 At onepoint in his life, the King is said to have become “extremely disoriented”and to have issued a number of confused and contradictory orders. He iseven said to have ceased to respond to his name—the same name which

181. As Stephen Langdon writes, “The latter half of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is remarkably poor in itsnumber of literary productions” (Langdon 1905:17 cf. Wiseman 1985:XXX, Ferguson 1994:XXX).

182. Montgomery 1927:221.

183. Ferguson 1994:322.

184. The initial section of the fragment certainly refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Grayson claims that the narrativethen moves on to a different king, but Wiseman argues otherwise (Wiseman 1985:XXX).

80 4.28-33: THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

he had so proudly emblazoned on millions of Babylon’s bricks! Fourth,Nebuchadnezzar is said to have given an unusual speech to his people inthe closing years of his reign. The church father Eusebius cites Abydenusas follows:

Men of Babylon,I, Nebuchadnezzar, here foretell...[a] coming calamity...There will come a Persian mule,185

[who] will bring you into slavery.And the joint author of this [calamity] will be a Mede,in whom the Assyrians glory.[If only], before he gave up my citizens,...he might be carried across the desert,where there are neither cities nor foot of man,but where wild beasts have pasture and birds their haunts,that he might wander alone among rocks and ravines,and that, before he took such thoughts into his mind,I myself had found a better end!186

The King’s speech, as cited by Eusebius, is interesting for a number ofreasons. (A) It has not obviously been contrived to fit the text of ch. 4.As such, it has a ring of authenticity to it. It also contains phrases of thekind Nebuchadnezzar may well have said. When Nebuchadnezzar de-scribes his military campaigns in hostile climates, he refers to such thingsas “roads of bitterness” and “roads without water” and “regions untra-versed” where the paths are “difficult” or “barred” and where “no foothas trod”.187 The speech which Eusebius attributes to Nebuchadnezzartherefore sounds like the kind of thing Nebuchadnezzar might have said.(B) It is said to have been delivered from Babylon’s palace. It may evenhave been delivered from the palace roof. (According to Eusebius, Neb-uchadnezzar “went up to his palace” in order to address his people.) (C)

185. In ancient literature, the term ‘mule’ describes a man of mixed ancestry. Cyrus in fact fell into thiscategory insofar as he had both Persian and Median ancestors, which may explain how he was ableto unite the Persians and the Medes so successfully (cf. Hist. 1.55). The phrase “Persian mule” mayhave been a pun of sorts, since, in Sum., ANŠE refers to a donkey (Flückiger-Hawker 1996:305, Lipinski2001:240), and anšan is the name by which Elam was known in Cyrus’s day, hence Cyrus is referred toas the king of anšan in ancient documents.

186. EPE IX.XLI

187. Langdon 1905:121, 1905:155.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 81

Something about Nebuchadnezzar’s manner as he spoke was clearly veryunusual. Those who saw Nebuchadnezzar described him as “possessedby some god or other”. (D) Midway through his speech, Nebuchadnez-zar voices a desire to see one of his enemies “wandering alone” alongsidethe “beasts” and “birds”, which is highly reminiscent of the fate depictedin 4.15-16 and 4.32. Nebuchadnezzar apparently, therefore, wants thecurse described in his dream to befall one of his enemies, just as Danieldid. (“May the dream be for those who hate you!”).188 (E) The closingwords of the King’s speech suggest that Nebuchadnezzar’s outlook on thefuture is very bleak. He ruefully wishes that he had managed to “finda better end” in life. (F) Nebuchadnezzar is said to have disappearedfrom the public eye shortly after delivering the speech in question.

In sum, then, the speech recorded by Eusebius is very noteworthy. Itseems to be precisely the kind of address Nebuchadnezzar may have de-livered after he heard the Watcher’s dreadful words, which might explainhis rather outlandish state of mind as he spoke, as well as his disappear-ance soon afterwards. Also of interest is the way in which the text of4.34-37 embodies a number of Akk. flourishes and influences.189 Ch. 4’semployment of the word “heaven” constitutes a further point of inter-est. In 4.34, Nebuchadnezzar is said to lift his eyes towards the heavens,which is appropriate since Nebuchadnezzar refers to Babylon as “the cityof the lifting up of my eyes [i.e., of his affections]” in his inscriptions.190

Nebuchadnezzar turns his gaze away from his earthly treasures and to-wards his in feather in heaven. That Nebuchadnezzar employs the word‘heaven’ as shorthand for ‘the God of heaven’ (perhaps after the exampleof 4.26) may also be significant. Nowhere else in the Heb. Bible does the

188. We might consider, as an analogy, the events of Neh. 4, where Nehemiah asks God to bring an ‘exile’on his enemies, crying, “Turn back their taunt on their own heads, [O God], and give them up to beplundered in a land where they are captives” (Neh. 4.4).

189. The consecutive impf. forms in 4.36, for instance, which terminate in a pfct., are morphologically (ifnot semantically) suggestive of the Akk. consecutio temporum. And the phrase “at that time” (4.36)is evocative, since its Akk. eqvt. (i-nu-mi-šu a-na) appears in a number of Nebuchadnezzar’s own in-scriptions (Langdon 1905:67). Furthermore, the triadic syntax of 4.34-37 is reminiscent of a numberof Nebuchadnezzar’s royal inscriptions, e.g., “[As for] Gula—who is the patron of life, who favours mysoul, who abides in Etila—,...I rebuilt [her house]” (Langdon 1905:107). “The queen who makes [me]attain unto strength of heart,...and who consoles [me],...who causes...my reign to be enlarged (Langdon1905:182), etc. We should note, however, an important difference between Nebuchadnezzar’s inscrip-tions and 4.34-37. While Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions focus on what Babylon’s gods have done forhim—and what he has done for them in return—, 4.34-37 focuses on who God is in and of himself.

190. Langdon 1905:133.

82 4.34-35: THE KING’S RESTORATION

word “heaven” function as a substitute for God’s name, but Akk. litera-ture regularly does so.191 Indeed, in Akkadian, ‘the skies’ and ‘the gods’can be represented by the same logogram. In sum, then, Nebuchadnez-zar’s statement in 4.34-37 has a ring of authenticity. If the context of ch.4 is genuine—and Nebuchadnezzar really did announce his allegiance toYHWH via some kind of encyclical—, the syntax and style of 4.34-37 is asone might expect.

4.34-35: The King’s restoration

4.34 Yet, at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted my eyes to theheavens,

[1] and, as my learning began to return to me,

[2] I blessed the Most High,

[3] and I highly and honorifically esteemed the living age-steadfast one,

[1] whose rule is an age-steadfast rule and whose kingdom [extends] fromgeneration to generation,

4.35 [2] to whom the combined residents of the earth are as nothing, and whodoes whatever he desires with the forces of heaven and the residents ofearth,

[3] whose hand none can rebuke and to whom none can say, ‘What haveyou done?’.

In 4.34, Daniel resumes his citation of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation.(The text of 4.19-33 is Daniel’s.) Accordingly, the King speaks in the 1st

pers., as he does in 4.1-18.

Yet, at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up my eyes tothe heavens (4.34a-b). In 4.34a, we come to the crowning momentof ch. 4’s narrative, namely Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion and restora-tion. Much of the King’s seven times must have been a blur to him, butthe King can evidently remember a time when—as his days of desola-tion came to an end—he looked up to the heavens and, by implication,looked to the God of Heaven for mercy. The description of Nebuchadnez-zar’s conversion is remarkably brief. A propagandist would surely havemade more of the event. The whole thing is summed up in a mere five

191. CAD šamû A 1a.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 83

(Aram.) words: “I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to the heavens”.The King’s heavenward glance was, perhaps, as much as he could man-age given the circumstances. Either way, it sufficed for God. It reflectedthe dependency of man on his Creator—which, of course, was preciselythe lesson which Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times were intended to teachhim. As such, the text of 4.34a seems to look back to Daniel’s statementin 4.26. The King’s seven times were destined to continue until the King“acknowledged heaven’s rule”, and, as he lifted his eyes heavenwards, hedid just that. Nebuchadnezzar at the same time directed his gaze awayfrom Babylon’s grandeur and towards the God of Heaven. We mightconsider, by way of illustration, the text of the well-known Psalm: “Ilift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My helpcomes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth” (Psa. 121.1-2). Neb-uchadnezzar did not, of course, have anything like a full-orbed Yahwistictheology, but then he did not need to. God did not send Nebuchadnezzarinto the wilderness to teach him doctrinal truths but to humble him—toshow him his dependence on his heavenly Creator. Despite his manyclaims to the contrary, Nebuchadnezzar was not in fact a self-made man.His place on Babylon’s throne was God’s to give and God’s to take away(2.21). The moment God withdrew his hand of protection, Nebuchad-nezzar’s life would begin to come crashing down around him.

At the end of the days (4.34b). Exactly what triggered Nebuchadnez-zar’s restoration is not revealed to us. We are simply told when Neb-uchadnezzar turned his eyes heavenwards, namely, “at the end of the[relevant] days”. A question therefore arises. What exactly broughtabout the King’s restoration: his heavenward glance or the expirationof his seven times? Or, to raise the issue in a slightly different manner,What would have happened if the King hadn’t lifted his eyes heaven-wards at the end of his seven times? Was the end-point of the seventimes response-dependent or time-dependent? As finite creatures, wetend to regard these options as mutually exclusive, but, of course, God’sknowledge of the future is not plagued by the same uncertainties as ours.God perceives the future with perfect clarity. God therefore knows ex-actly what kind of conditions will cause a man to act in a certain wayand exactly when he will choose to do so. As a result, God can make a


period like Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times both response-dependent andtime-dependent. That is to say, God can make man’s freely-chosen de-cisions coincide with his predetermined plans without any problem atall. The two quantities are simply not in conflict with one another fromGod’s point of view.

Will the King continue to be afflicted until he finally decides to turn toGod? Or will a set number of seasons pass over the King, at which pointthe King’s times of desolation will come to an end? The answer is both.God’s knowledge of the future is not plagued by the same uncertainties asours. God can know exactly what a man will choose to do and when hewill choose to do it. God can therefore measure out the future in termsof time, or in terms of causes, or in terms of both—which is preciselywhat he does in ch. 4. According to the text of 4.25, God’s appointedtimes of desolation will continue to roll over the King until the Kingturns to God, which the King will do in precisely seven seasons’ time—nosooner and no later. Indeed, when the King does finally turn to God, heis said to do so at God’s set time[zeman] (4.34). Of course, when God‘timetables’ the future for us, he often does so in an ambiguous manner,so as to make his plans unfeasible to predict in advance but plain for allto see in retrospect. The same coalescence of divine foreknowledge andhuman freedom is evident in Daniel’s later visions. God accomplishes hispurposes by means of the reigns of pagan kings, but he does so in consortwith their decisions. They are wild brute beasts, acting out their wickeddesires. But God stands behind the scenes of world history, causing eachbeast to rise and fall at his appointed time and hence to accomplish hissovereign purposes.

my learning began to return to me (4.34b). As soon as he lifts his eyesto the heavens, Nebuchadnezzar’s “learning” begins to return to him. Itis as if he is emerging from a deep sleep. His knowledge of life left himduring his years of desolation. He was like a brute beast: scared in thecompany of other people, unable to masters his fears, ruled by animalinstinct as opposed to rational thought. But now, as he lifts his eyes tothe heavens, his “learning” begins to return to him. He remembers whatit is like to be human once again, and regains control of his emotions. He

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 85

is able to be calm in the presence of his fellow men and to communicatesensibly with them. His days as a beast are thereby brought to an end,and he re-enters the realm of man. He has been broken and then remadein the image of God.

and I blessed the Most High (4.34a). Nebuchadnezzar’s immediate re-sponse to his ‘re-humanisation’ is, quite rightly, to give praise to God.God has shown Nebuchadnezzar great mercy. He has forborne Neb-uchadnezzar’s arrogance and unrighteousness for well over fifteen years.And now he has got his man. God therefore deserves Nebuchadnezzar’shighest praise. That Nebuchadnezzar’s first act as a ‘new man’ is an act ofworship is highly appropriate. Man was made precisely in order to wor-ship his Creator. Indeed, the capacity to worship is what distinguishesus from the beasts of the field. It is the proper function of every humanheart—“deep calling unto deep” (Psa. 8.5-9, 42.7).

I, Nebuchadnezzar (4.34a). Nebuchadnezzar narrates the events of4.34 in the first person. When he finally lifted his eyes to the heav-ens, he was most likely alone. No-one except God would, therefore,have witnessed his actions. But if anyone had been present to witnessthe King of Babylon bowing his knee before his Maker, they would haveseen an incredible sight. Indeed, picture the scene. In Babylon’s gar-dens stands a once-mighty king. For forty years, he has ruled the NearEast with a rod of iron. He has slain whomever he wanted and sparedwhomever he wanted (5.19). He has been beholden to no-one, leastof all God. That man, however, is now gone, and, in his place, standsa lonely dishevelled figure. The days when Nebuchadnezzar governedthe affairs of tens of thousands of Babylonians are a mere shadow of thepast. Indeed, the man before us can no longer even take care of his ownhygiene. His clothes are in tatters, his hair long and unkempt, and hisnails grotesquely overgrown. He is completely unrecognisable from hisformer self. The God who gave Nebuchadnezzar glory has now taken itaway. And yet, paradoxically, as his life has crumbled around him, Neb-uchadnezzar has discovered life’s true meaning, for there in the wild,amidst the beasts of the field, he has come to discover the greatness ofthe God of Heaven. Slowly and silently, he therefore bows his knee to


his Maker and surrenders his sovereignty to God’s. Not only his outwardappearance has changed but his attitude of heart as well. Indeed, theman who defiantly erected a golden image in Dura is no longer visible.Nebuchadnezzar is now a different man—a broken man, perhaps, buta man who has made peace with God. amidst the riches of his palace,Nebuchadnezzar found only anxiety, anger, and frustration. But beneaththe open skies he has found peace. He has, in a sense, sold his king-dom in order to buy the pearl of greatest price. He has at the same timecome to learn ch. 4’s central lesson, namely, “the Most High is the rulerof man’s kingdoms and gives it to whomever he desires” (4.17). As aresult, he will never be the same again. Nebuchadnezzar can now seeGod’s sovereignty as a blessing rather than a threat, and he can thereforebow in worship before the King of Heaven. No longer will he rule theNear East as a ‘self-made man’. He will rule the Near East as ‘a manunder authority’. Forever in the back of his mind will be the knowledgethat heaven’s watchers are watching over him.

I blessed the Most High...the living age-steadfast one (4.34c-d). In4.34c-d, Nebuchadnezzar attributes two distinct titles to God: “the MostHigh” and “the living age-steadfast one”. These titles have not been ar-bitrarily chosen. That God is the “Most High” is significant since theoutstanding feature of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (as it is portrayed inch. 4’s dream) is its height (4.11, 4.20, 4.22). That God is the “age-steadfast One” is equally significant. When Nebuchadnezzar’s wise mengreet him, they greet him with the words, “May you live for [as long as]the ages [continue]!” (2.4, 3.9). As such, Nebuchadnezzar’s reference toGod as “the Most High” and “the living age-steadfast one” portrays Godas the earth’s true supremo—the One who is enthroned above the kings ofthe earth, and whose heavenly kingdom will outlast all other kingdoms,and who possesses true authority and immortality. Nebuchadnezzar’sgreatness is therefore like God’s, but is only a very pale reflection of it.Whereas Nebuchadnezzar is high, God is the Most High, and, whereasNebuchadnezzar has been given dominion for a limited time, God haseternal dominion. Accordingly, whereas God has given Nebuchadnez-zar honour, Nebuchadnezzar now honours God (4.34). Nebuchadnezzarthen goes on to make three further claims about God:

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 87

(1) God’s reign is “age-steadfast” reign, and God’s kingdom will extend“from generation to generation” (4.34b). Given his recent experiences,Nebuchadnezzar must be well aware of man’s fragility. Even a man ofhis stature can lose his grip on the world (and reality itself) in an instant.Nebuchadnezzar is therefore in awe of the concept of an “age-steadfast”reign. Indeed, he has spent the majority of his life seeking to inauguratesuch a reign. He has lain awake at night contemplating Babylon’s future(2.29). He has erected a 90-foot tall monument to Babylon’s eternalglory (3.1-30). He has fortified Babylon’s defences to the point of absur-dity (4.30). He has sought to procure the eternal blessing of the gods. Inhis building inscriptions, he continually asks the gods to remember andpreserve his works ‘unto eternity’, to grant his sons an everlasting domin-ion over the nations, and so on.192 Nebuchadnezzar’s hopes for eternityhave therefore been grounded in Babylon’s resources, but Nebuchadnez-zar can now ground his hopes in God’s eternal power. He can at thesame time accept the truth of ch. 2’s dream. While he previously sawGod’s eternal rule as a threat, he can now see it as a cause for rejoicing.

(2) In comparison to God, the entire population of the world amountsto “nothing” (4.35a), and is completely subject to his will (4.35b). WhileNebuchadnezzar is an extremely powerful individual, he is only one man.He cannot singlehandedly turn back an army or invade a land. God,however, does not need numbers on his side. Given a contest betweenGod and the entire population of the earth, God would emerge as theundisputed victor. Compared to him, the entire population of the earthis a virtual non-entity. We might consider, by way of analogy, Isa. 40.17†:“All the nations are as nothing to him; they are accounted by him as[even] less than nothing and an emptiness”. As a result, God is able todo “whatever he desires” with the forces of heaven and earth. The senseof 4.35b may be, ‘God does as he pleases: as with the forces of heaven,so with the residents of earth’ (so the Vulg.).193 If so, the thought seemsto be as follows: just as God is sovereign over the heavenly realms, sohe is sovereign over the earth. In other words, God is not only sovereign

192. e.g., Langdon 1905:89, 1905:99, 1905:151.

193. The Aram. אר�עא!) ודארי ש מי³א (בחיל is slightly unusual. The force of the prefix ב! does not normally extendover a compound phrase. We therefore need to make some kind of inference as to how the “residents ofearth” relate to what precedes them.


is his own land (i.e., the heavens) but also over all Creation. Either way,the message is the same: God’s sovereignty has no geographical bounds.It encompasses both the heavens and the earth.

(3) No-one has the right to rebuke God’s actions or to question him, saying,‘What have you done?’ (4.35c-d). Nebuchadnezzar knows from personalexperience exactly what it is like to be a true ‘sovereign’. As Babylon’sdivinely-appointed king, no-one has the right (or the courage) to criticiseor question his actions. He is a law unto himself.194 But Nebuchadnez-zar now acknowledges the existence of a greater sovereign than himself,namely the God of Heaven. Nebuchadnezzar may have questioned theactions of God in the past. He certainly did not welcome the arrival ofGod’s kingdom in ch. 2’s dream. But Nebuchadnezzar is now ready toaccept God’s right to govern his Creation—to cause some kings to standothers to fall as and when he pleases. The handiwork of God is beyondcriticism and question. As such, the text of 4.35c-d parallels the questionwhich the apostle Paul asks in Rom. 9, namely, “Who are you, O man, toanswer back to God? Will what is moulded say to its moulder, ‘Whyhave you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, tomake out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and anotherfor dishonourable use?” (Rom. 9.20-21).

In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar came to appreciate two key truths as hebowed in worship: i] his own frailty, and ii] his Creator’s greatness.These truths are the foundation of all true worship. The self-exalted Neb-uchadnezzar of chs. 2 and 3—a man with far too high a view of himselfand far too low a view of God—was unable to engage in true worship,but the broken man of ch. 4 is so able. Before we move on, however, weshould note an important feature of 4.34-35’s narrative. Nebuchadnez-zar began to worship God before he had been reunited with his kingdom.Nebuchadnezzar therefore praised God, not because God had reinstatedhim as Babylon’s ruler, but because of God’s inherent greatness and glory.

194. We might consider, by way of analogy, the words of a different sovereign, namely Solomon: “The wordof the king is supreme; who may say to him, “What are you doing?” (Eccl. 8.4†).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 89

4.36-37: The King’s restoration continued

4.36 At that set time,

[1] as my learning returned to me,

[2] and my honour and brightness of face [likewise] returned to me for[the sake of] my kingdom’s glory,

[3] and my counsellors and greatest [men] sought me out,

[my kingdom] was prepared for my reign, and extraordinary greatnesswas added to me.

4.37 Now, therefore, I Nebuchadnezzar

[1] highly esteem,

[2] lift up high,

[3] and honour the King of Heaven

[1] all of whose deeds are right,

[2] and whose precepts are just,

[3] and who is able to lay low those who walk in pride.

4.36 describes the continuation of Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration. As theKing’s right mind returned to him, his reputation and counsellors like-wise returned.

At that time (4.36a). The phrase “at that time” looks back to 4.34; thatis to say, it looks back to “the end of [God’s appointed] days”. Nebuchad-nezzar’s restoration took place at exactly the right time as far as God wasconcerned, but it did not take place in an instant. The verbal forms em-ployed in 4.36b-d suggest a gradual process rather than an immediatetransformation (4.36’s trans. notes).

my honour and brightness[zîw] of face began to return to me for [thesake of] my kingdom’s glory (4.36c). As Nebuchadnezzar’s learningreturns to him, his “honour and brightness of face” also returns to him.In ch. 5, Belshazzar’s face turns pale when he sees the hand of God infront of him, and the King is later disgraced in the eyes of his officials(5.6). The idea here is exactly the opposite. The colour of Nebuchad-nezzar’s face returns to him, and the King is glorified in the eyes of his of-

90 4.36-37: THE KING’S RESTORATION CONTINUED

ficials. The word brightness[zîw] conveys the thought of lustre and splen-dour. The same word is employed in ch. 2 to describe the Colossus’sbrightness. There, the brightness reflects the glory of God (2.37-38).The text of 4.36 therefore depicts the return of God’s glory to his life andkingdom (4.36c). The phrase “for [the sake of] my kingdom’s glory” issignificant. Thus far in life, Nebuchadnezzar’s prime concern in life hasbeen to magnify his glory—a fact amply attested in his inscriptions. ButNebuchadnezzar now has different concerns on his mind. He is con-cerned about the glory of his kingdom. He wants to do the job God hasgiven him to the best of his abilities—an ambition which we should allshare.

my counsellors and great-ones began sought me out (4.36d). Thecounsellors who fled from Nebuchadnezzar now begin to associate withhim again. Nebuchadnezzar thus regains his position on Babylon’sthrone; that is to say, he comes to be “re-established” over his kingdom.In terms of ch. 4’s dream, then, 4.36 describes the regrowth of the lonelystump and the return of its wildlife. The word zîw may in fact allude tosuch regrowth, since it alludes in particular to the “splendour” of flowersand trees—hence the Heb. zîw marks the month in the calendar whenIsrael’s flowers and trees come into bloom.195

extraordinary greatness was added to me (4.36e). God does not re-store Nebuchadnezzar in a begrudging or half-hearted manner. On thecontrary, God restores Nebuchadnezzar to a position of “extraordinarygreatness”. Nebuchadnezzar is now, therefore, ready to rule the NearEast as a truly great Adamic figure. Moreover, his kingdom is made readyfor him. (“[My kingdom] was prepared for my reign”.) In human terms,Nebuchadnezzar’s return would not be an easy one, but God would gobefore him to prepare his way. Like zîw, the words “extraordinary” and“great” feature in ch. 2’s description of the Gentile Colossus. The text of4.36 therefore establishes a further connection between Nebuchadnez-zar and the golden figurehead of the Colossus. Nebuchadnezzar is therole model which his descendants are to follow. Sadly, however, theywill fail to do so, as we will see in ch. 5 (5.18-23).

195. GHCL zîw.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 91

I Nebuchadnezzar now praise, lift up high, and honour the King ofHeaven (4.37). We now reach the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclama-tion. Nebuchadnezzar closes his proclamation with a final expression ofgratitude to God. His words are significant in a number of respects. (A)Nebuchadnezzar refers to God as the “King of Heaven”. Nowhere elsein the Book of Daniel—a book which is all about kings and kingships—isGod referred to as a “king”. That Nebuchadnezzar refers to God as a kingis therefore significant. It brings out the way in which we all, to someextent, see God in light of our own experiences. Daniel is a prophet; hetherefore sees God as a ‘changer of times’ and a ‘revealer of mysteries’(2.21-22). Nebuchadnezzar, however, is a king. Nebuchadnezzar there-fore sees God as the undisputed King of Heaven—the One who rules allearthly rulers. (B) To date, Nebuchadnezzar has spent his career ex-alting himself—hence ch. 3’s image and ch. 4’s dream. But he is nowwilling to exalt (“lift up”) the name of God. He is a completely changedman. (C) Nebuchadnezzar is well aware of why he needed to undergohis seven times of desolation, namely because his life was characterisedby “pride”. To come to know the Most High God, he had to be “broughtlow”. We can consider, by way of analogy, God’s statement to Isaiah,“This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite inspirit” (Isa. 66.2). Nebuchadnezzar is even able to describe God’s ac-tions as “just”, which is remarkable in light of what he has been through.Nebuchadnezzar can see how proudly and arrogantly he has behavedand realises why God dealt with him as he did. Interestingly, one ofthe names by which Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was known is “The PlaceWhere Proud Ones Are Compelled to Submit”.196 (Nebuchadnezzar mayhave carried away foreign kings like Jehoiakim to the palace, where herequired them to assent to his treaties.) As such, ch. 4 describes a highlyironic turn of events, since it describes the moment when Nebuchadnez-zar himself joined the list of ‘proud ones’ who have been ‘compelled tosubmit’ to a new overlord in Babylon.

With 4.37’s final words, Nebuchadnezzar disappears from the pages ofScripture, which is likely to be an encouraging sign. Indeed, when Gen-tile kings are mentioned in Scripture, it is invariably for the wrong rea-

196. Wiseman, XXX, XXXX:63.

92 4.36-37: THE KING’S RESTORATION CONTINUED

sons. Nebuchadnezzar’s lesson in humility must therefore have had alasting effect on him. For as long as he lived, Nebuchadnezzar wouldhave known that his well-being depended entirely on God’s mercy, andthat aside from God’s sustenance he would disintegrate—which wouldnot always have been a very comforting thought but certainly appears tohave kept him ‘in check’. Nebuchadnezzar never again turned his backon God as he had done in his early career, and he died a friend of God.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 93

4.1-37: A closing retrospective

Ch. 4 constitutes another remarkable chapter in Daniel’s life and mem-oirs. The overall content and structure of ch. 4 is straightforward enoughto understand. At the outset of the chapter, Nebuchadnezzar is given hissecond dream, and, in response, the wise men chalk up their secondfailure as interpreters. Nebuchadnezzar must therefore resort to the as-sistance of Daniel, who is willing and able to interpret the King’s dream.The dream is precisely as Nebuchadnezzar feared, i.e., an evil omen.If Nebuchadnezzar continues to ‘walk in pride’, then his kingship willbe taken away from him. Nebuchadnezzar therefore has a decision tomake. Either he must change his ways or he must face the bad newsdepicted in his dream. Sadly, Nebuchadnezzar chooses the latter option,and, as a result, he is plunged into his times of desolation. During theseseven times, the King disintegrates in every way possible. But, as hisappointed times come to an end, he lifts his eyes towards the heavensand looks to his Maker for help. To the surprise—and perhaps even thehorror—of many Jews in Babylon, the man who burnt Israel’s Temple tothe ground becomes a child of Israel’s God.

Ch. 4 thereby signals the conclusion of a story which began with the veryfirst verse of Daniel’s writings (“Nebuchadnezzar...came [to] Jerusalemand laid siege to it”), namely the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s long waragainst God. In ch. 1, Nebuchadnezzar marches against Jerusalem, sacksthe city, carries away its ‘leading lights’, and enrols Judah’s nobility intoBabylon’s ranks. From then on, for better or for worse, the affairs ofBabylon become inseparably intertwined with the affairs of God’s peo-ple. In chs. 2-4, God then begins to show Nebuchadnezzar exactly whathe has become involved in. In ch. 2, God shows Nebuchadnezzar Baby-lon’s place in world history, and, in ch. 3, God shows Nebuchadnezzarthe kind of faithfulness which is required from God’s people. In ch. 4,things then become more personal. Nebuchadnezzar must make a per-sonal response to God’s revelation, which, at the end of seven long times,he does. As such, chs. 1-4 constitute the first ‘sub-unit’ within Daniel’swritings. To compare the opening and closing sentences of chs. 1-4 is infact very revealing. In 1.1, Nebuchadnezzar storms Jerusalem by force,

94 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS

while, in 4.33-37, God storms Nebuchadnezzar by force; or, to put thepoint another way, in 1.1, the King of Babylon takes Jehoiakim captive,while, in 4.33-37, the King of Heaven takes Nebuchadnezzar captive. Assuch, chs. 1-4 document the full details of God’s dealings with the greatNebuchadnezzar. They tell us how Nebuchadnezzar first came into con-tact with God and how God finally won him over. We could thereforegive ch. 4 the subtitle, ‘God finally gets his man’. Twice Nebuchadnezzarignored God’s call, but he was unable to do so a third time.197

4.1-37: Some applications

Ch. 4 teaches us a number of important lessons. As per our usualmethod, we begin with the most obvious and relevant to Daniel’s originalreadership and proceed from there.

(1) “The Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdoms and gives it to whomeverhe desires and causes the lowliest of men to stand over it” (4.17). Neb-uchadnezzar acceded to Babylon’s throne in the normal way, i.e., byvirtue of his royal ancestry. But, as ch. 4 amply demonstrates, the King’slife and times were entirely in God’s hands. As such, ch. 4’s events are anillustration of Daniel’s statement many years previously, namely, “[God]is the one who causes the appointed seasons to come and go, who causeskings to pass on and kings to stand” (2.21). God gave Nebuchadnezzarthe victory over Jerusalem and thereby caused him to “stand up”, andGod later caused Nebuchadnezzar’s mind to crumble and hence causedhim to fall. God is in complete control of history. Of course, God’s plansare not always scrutable to us. God raises men to power whom we wouldnot choose to raise up, and God deposes men whom we would not chooseto depose. But the wisdom of God is often clearest in retrospect. Con-sider, for instance, the way in which God has governed the formation andpreservation of the Jewish people over the years and has thereby accom-plished his sovereign purposes. At the outset of the post-flood age, Godscattered the men of Babel all over the Near East. God thereby causedthe world’s various nations to be born. Soon afterwards, God called a

197. Many years beforehand, a different Mesopotamian (named Balaam) did a very similar thing. He tooignored God’s call on two occasions, but he was unable to do so a third time (Num. 22.32-34).

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 95

man named Abram forth from the midst of Mesopotamia’s idolatry andmade his descendants a mighty nation. God then raised up Joseph and,by sending him in chains to Egypt, enabled the Jewish people to relo-cate there, where they multiplied greatly. A few hundred years later,God raised up a Pharaoh in Egypt, whose hostility towards the Jewishpeople soon led to the Exodus. The Israelites thereby came to possessCanaan, at which point God raised up a line of judges and kings in Israelin order to preserve their seed in Canaan. God also sent Israel a lineof prophets in order to preserve her moral purity. But Israel rebelledagainst her God and mistreated his prophets, until the time came whenGod could no longer tolerate his people’s sins. As a result, God scatteredthe Jewish people throughout the Near East, initially by the hand of Sen-nacherib and later by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Seventy years later,God brought Babylon’s reign to an end, and raised Cyrus to power inthe Near East, who allowed the Jewish people to return to Judah. Butthey soon reverted to their sinful ways, which caused God to raise up thespectre of Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus led a brutal assault againstthe Jewish people, but, incredibly, his assault only revived the Jewishpeople’s zeal for their Law and rekindled their religious affections. Acentury and a half later, the time then came for the Jewish Messiah to beborn (Gal. 4.4). To that end, God raised up Caesar Augustus and Pon-tius Pilate. Caesar’s decree summoned the citizens of Israel back to theirhometowns (Luke 2.1-11), which led to the Messiah’s birth in Bethle-hem (Mic. 5.2), while Pilate’s decree allowed the Messiah to be crucified(Matt. 27.22-24). At the same time, God granted the Roman emperorswidespread dominion over the nations of the Near East and beyond. Sauland the Jewish apostles were thus able to publish the Gospel of Christthroughout the whole earth in a commonly spoken language—which iswhy we in the Western world have the Scriptures in our hands today.

The manner in which God has accomplished his redemptive plans in his-tory is therefore quite remarkable. Via the rise and fall of many menand nations, God has: a] preserved his chosen people throughout thecenturies, b] provided a sacrifice for their sins, and c] spread the mes-sage of the Gospel throughout all Creation. Pascale makes the followingcomment on the matter,


How fine it is to see with the eyes of faith Darius and Cyrus,Alexander, the Romans, Pompey and Herod [all] working [to-gether], without knowing it, for the glory of the Gospel!198

True—God has not always accomplished his purposes in the way wemight have expected. But then why should he? Should we not takemen like David and Isaiah and Paul at their word when they tell us aboutthe unfathomable depth of God’s ways—a depth which is far beyond ourpresent understanding (Psa. 139.14-15, Isa. 40.28, Rom. 11.33)? Evennow, as we look back over the centuries, we can see God’s great wisdomin his governance of history. God knows exactly how his universe shouldbe run. Let us, therefore, with confidence, entrust our entire lives intohis hands—our future ambitions, our present concerns, and our past fail-ings; and, while there is yet time to do so, let us seek to play our part inGod’s plans. As one warrior in Israel once said to another,

[Let us] be of good courage, and let us play the man for ourpeople and for the cities of our God, and may the LORD do whatseems good to him.

(2 Sam. 10.12 RSV)

(2) The reign of unjust rulers is only temporary; ultimately, the proudand mighty will be brought low, and the humble and poor will be raisedup. When Nebuchadnezzar raised himself up in ch. 4, God brought himlow (4.29-33), but, when Nebuchadnezzar humbled himself, God raisedhim up (4.34-37). Ch. 4 thus illustrates an important principle in God’seconomy: while, in the present age, power is often the possession of thewicked, the day is coming when God will effect a dramatic reversal inmen’s fortunes. As Isaiah states,

The [LORD of Hosts] has a day in storefor all the proud and lofty,for all that is exalted,...for all the cedars of Lebanon—tall and lofty—,and [for] all the oaks of Bashan...

198. Pascale, Pascal’s Pensées, 700.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 97

The arrogance of man will be brought lowand human pride [will be] humbled.[And] the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.

(Isa. 2.12-17 NIV)

While, therefore, man’s power is not presently distributed according togodliness, one day it will be. The wicked will be stripped of their do-minion, which will be awarded to God’s saints (7.13-14, 7.26-27). Ch.4 must therefore have given great comfort to the powerless and down-trodden exiles over the years—to those who suffered at the hands of thePersians, Seleucids, and Romans! Ultimately, God will humble all suchtyrants and entrust the administration of his kingdom to the poor anddowntrodden; he will humble those who wager their sovereignty againsthis and raise those who are afflicted to positions of glory and honour.The people of God will thus be able to echo the words of Mary:

My soul magnifies the Lord,and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.He has looked on the humble estate of his servant...He who is mighty has done great things for me...His mercy is for those who fear him...He has scattered the proud

in the thoughts of their hearts;he has brought down the mighty from their thrones

and exalted those of humble estate.He has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich he has sent away empty;he has helped his servant Israel

in remembrance of his mercy.(Luke 1.48-55)

As Christians, God’s promise to bring justice to the world should be agreat comfort to us. God does not forget the labours or the enduranceof those who love him. We may seem to be downtrodden by life’s trialsat times, and we may seem to be tossed to and fro by forces completelybeyond our control. But we will ultimately be glorified, and, on that day,


our patient endurance will be to God’s praise and glory. Let us thereforeseek to remain strong, to ‘hang in there’, and to be faithful to God despiteour circumstances. “The LORD is good—a refuge in times of trouble; hecares for those who trust in him” (Nah. 1.7 NIV).

(3) Sometimes God needs to ‘bring us low’ in order to remind us of howdependent we are on him. When we are on top of things in life, we soonforget how dependent we are on God. We attribute our successes to ourown hard work and diligence rather than to God’s unfailing grace. Asa result, God sometimes needs to withdraw his hand of protection fromus. He needs to remind us how dependent we are on him and drive usafresh to him in prayer and repentance. Such times are not enjoyable,but they are vital to our spiritual growth. Absent God’s sustaining grace,we are not merely rendered ‘less effective’; we are rendered completelyunable to function. May we never, therefore, become complacent in life.We can achieve absolutely nothing without God’s strength. That is notmerely a turn of phrase; it is a statement of fact.

(4) It is rarely a good thing to be ‘at rest’ in life (4.4). At the outset of the36th year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar is said to be ‘at rest’. He has noright to be at rest. He is actually in grave danger, since he has ignoredGod’s word to him (2.45). He should therefore be calling out to God formercy, but, like Jonah, he is ‘at rest’; indeed, he is fast asleep (Jon. 1.6).As Christians, it is easy for us to lull ourselves into a similar state of se-curity and contentment—to sit back “at rest in [our] house” we shouldbe ‘calling on the name of the Lord’. Our natural inclination is the sameas the Laodiceans’: to see ourselves as “rich”, “prosperous”, and “in needof nothing”, even if we happen to be “poor”, “blind”, and “naked” (Rev.3.17†). If, however, we are to be useful servants of our Lord, then weneed to shaken from our state of contentment from time to time. Weneed to be woken up from our slumber and made to see what we are re-ally like so that our hunger for God might grow. According to the apostleJohn, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truthis not in us” (1 John 1.8 NIV). In the majority of evangelical churches, thequotation of such verses is greeted with a hearty “Amen”. But does ourapproval of verses like 1 John 1.8 go beyond the theoretical? Suppose,

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 99

for instance, we were asked to name two or three specific patterns ofsinful behaviour in our lives which we are presently seeking to address.Would we be able to do so? And would we be able to spell out whatpractical steps we have taken to rectify these behaviours? If not, are wenot living as if we have no sin, even if we are unwilling to say so? Arewe not effectively saying, ‘I am without sin’, and thereby deceiving our-selves? The all-important question, then, is this: how can we undeceiveourselves? The answer, according to the apostle James, is simple: bybeing both hearers and doers of God’s Word (Jas. 1.22-25). Most Chris-tians attend church services on a regular basis. But, all too often, theyleave them in the same state in which they entered them. Perhaps theyfail to act on what they are told. Or perhaps what they are told simplydoes not (or is not even designed to) stir them up or challenge them inany way. Perhaps they are presented with the same “elementary teach-ings about Christ” week after week, and, as a result, fail to grow (Heb.5.12-6.2 NIV). Either way, they are the same Christians they were ten ortwenty years ago, with exactly the same flaws and failings. If we are toavoid such self-deception, then we need to be doers as well as hearersof God’s Word (Jas. 1.25). We need to receive regular and systematicteaching from God’s word—especially those parts with which we are lesscomfortable—, and we need to pay close attention to what we hear. Sal-vation is all about change (2 Cor. 3.18). When we hear God’s word, wemust therefore ask God how he wants us to change our lives as a resultof what we have heard. True—some of the changes we make may onlybe minor ones. But, if we make fifty minor changes to our lives everyyear, then we will be substantially different people before too long. Letus not, therefore, stagnate as Christians. Let us seek to change and to bechanged by the Holy Spirit who indwells us (Eph. 3.20).

(5) God does not waste his words; when we are unresponsive to God’svoice, we only make life more painful for ourselves in the long run. If Godis gracious enough to speak to us, then we need to listen to what hesays. If we fail to do so, God may well find ‘alternative’ ways of speakingto us, e.g., by bringing times of affliction on us (Heb. 12.6). As C. S.Lewis writes, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks [to us via]our consciences, but shouts in our pains. [Pain] is his megaphone to


rouse a deaf world”.199 We can therefore save ourselves a lot of painin life by listening to God the first time he tells us something. To knowGod’s will for our lives is a precious blessing. Let us not, therefore, wasteit. As Jesus said, “The servant who knows the master’s will [but] doesnot...do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows” (Luke12.47). Nebuchadnezzar learnt his lesson the hard way. Let us not makethe same mistake.

(6) There is a clear connection between pride and insanity. Chs. 1-4 ofDaniel’s writings narrate a highly instructive sequence of events. Neb-uchadnezzar grows increasingly proud until, at the end of ch. 4, he goescompletely insane. That Nebuchadnezzar’s pride leads to his insanity isno coincidence. Pride just is a form of insanity. It leads us to form adistorted view of ourselves and, by extension, of the world around us,which, of course, is the very essence of insanity. It leads us to see our-selves, as opposed to God, as the centre of the universe.200

If we want to overcome the influence of pride in our lives, then suchfacts are helpful for us to meditate on. To become proud is not merelyto develop an undesirable personality trait. It is entirely to lose sight ofreality. It is to fail to see ourselves as God sees us and as we truly are.We might consider, by way of analogy, some of the singers who entertelevised ‘talent shows’, such as The X Factor. Many of these singersclearly view themselves as very talented vocalists, but the truth of thematter is often quite different. The extent to which these people’s prideblinds them to reality is actually very disturbing. And yet, in moral terms,we all suffer from similar delusions. If there is anyone on earth whoshould realise our weakness and fallen-ness, then it is us. Only Godhimself has a better knowledge of our thought-lives and failures. Yet, alltoo often, we ‘gloss over’ our failings to such an extent that our view ofourselves becomes delusional. We fail to perceive in ourselves the faultswe so clearly perceive in others, and we regard our view of Scriptureand church-practice as beyond question, as if we are the only people

199. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 14.

200. While Nebuchadnezzar’s tribulations are often referred to as his ‘seven times of madness’, one couldrightly refer to the King’s entire life as a ‘time of madness’. Nebuchadnezzar saw his kingship as a vehiclefor his self-aggrandisement, which, according to 2.37-28, is exactly what it was not.

DANIEL CHAPTER 4 101

in Christendom to read the Bible in an open and objective manner. Insuch situations, we need to be given a heavy dose of reality. We needto remind ourselves who God is (the flawless Creator), who we are incomparison (fallen creatures), and how many times we have fallen shortof our Lord’s most basic command, namely to love him with our entireheart, mind, soul, and strength. We also need to find a friend who canbe honest with us about our shortcomings, and to think about thing wehave neglected to do—the times when we have failed to speak out onbehalf of our Saviour and to make fools of ourselves for his sake (1 Cor.4.10). Very often, we are not the Christians we think we are, and we willbe of no use to God or man once we lose sight of that fact. Of all people,we, as Christians, should make sure we are living in the real world.

(7) Pride is often the result of dwelling too closely on our own achievments.Few people on earth have commanded anything like Nebuchadnezzar’spower and influence. Many, however, have exhibited Nebuchadnezzar’spride and arrogance as they have considered their own achievementsin life, and we are not immune from doing so simply because we areChristians. “Is this not the qualification which I myself have obtained bymy diligent study?”, we might ask ourselves. “Is this not the promotionwhich I myself have earned by my hard work?, the church which I havebuilt up by years of patient labour?, the family which I have raised by mycommitment to Biblical principles?”. The answer to all these questionsis an unqualified, No! Every good gift which we possess is the result ofGod’s sovereign grace. Pride, however, can rear its head in every walk ofour Christian life. We therefore need to keep a close eye on our attitudeof mind and heart. Spurgeon makes the same point in one of his dailydevotionals, which I have copied out in modern English below:

“What is the vine tree more than any [other] tree?”(Ezek. 15.2)

These words are for the humbling of God’s people. God’s peo-ple are called God’s vine, but what are they by nature morethan others? They, by God’s goodness, have become fruitful.They have been planted in a good soil; the Lord has trainedthem on the walls of the sanctuary; and they bring forth fruit


to his glory. But what are they without their God? What arethey without the continual influence of the Spirit bearing fruitin them?

O believer! Learn to reject pride, for you have no basis for it.Whatever you are, you have nothing to be proud of. The moreyou have, the more you are in debt to God; and you shouldhave no reason to be proud of what makes you a debtor. Con-sider your origin! Look back to what you were! Consider whatyou would have been but for divine grace, and then look onyourself as you are now! Does your conscience not reproachyou? Do a thousand wanderings not stand before you and tellyou that you are unworthy to be called God’s son? And if Godhas made you anything at all, have you not thereby learnt thatit is grace alone which has caused it? ...Oh, strange infatua-tion! That you who have borrowed everything should think ofexalting yourself—a poor pensioner dependent on the bountyof your Saviour, a man whose life dies without fresh streamsof life from Jesus and yet is still proud! Shame on you, O sillyheart!201

(8) Pride and worship are polar opposites; like iron and clay, they cannotbe mixed. As soon as Nebuchadnezzar’s humanity returned to him (at theend of his seven times), Nebuchadnezzar began to worship God (4.34-36). If, therefore, pride was the precursor to Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall,then worship was the precursor to his restoration. Or, to put the pointanother way: if the King’s pride and insanity went hand in hand, thenso did the King’s worship and sanity. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar’s act ofworship reveals one of pride’s most significant (and appalling) features,namely that it inverts the positions of God and man. It takes too lowa view of God and too high a view of man. As such, it robs God ofthe praise he rightly deserves and credits us with the kind of praise wedon’t deserve. The act of worship then restores things to their properplaces. It portrays God in all his glory and man in all his dependency.Nebuchadnezzar’s act of worship is also important insofar as it outlinesone of God’s remedies to pride. Thoughts of boastfulness are often easy

201. Spurgeon, Morning And Evening (put in modern English), 22nd Jan.


to transform into expressions of worship, since the things we are mostproud of in life are generally the things for which we should be mostthankful. Rather, then, than reflecting on what we have achieved in life,let us give thanks for what God has brought out of our fallen existence;and, rather than reflecting on the spiritual maturity of our children, let usgive thanks to God for how he has blessed our testimony and example;and so on. A thankful heart is a humble heart.

(9) If we want an example of how a man can possess power without pride,then we need look no further than the example of Jesus of Nazareth. Whilethe nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s fall was extraordinary, its circumstanceswere not. As Nebuchadnezzar considered his accomplishments in life,he became proud and emboldened and put himself in place of God; andmany other kings in history have done likewise. Consider, for instance,Saul, who, buoyed by his victory over the Amalekites, overruled God’s or-der to destroy the Amalekites’ possessions (1 Sam. 15.17-19), or Uzziah,who, buoyed by his fame among the nations, gave himself leave to per-form the duties of a priest (2 Chr. 26.15-19), or the Rabshakeh, who,buoyed by Assyria’s conquest of the Near East, blasphemed the name ofthe Most High God (2 Kgs. 18.19-25, Isa. 10.6-11). When men pondertheir past successes in life, their pride often leads them to cast aside thecommandments of God. The exception, of course, Jesus of Nazareth.Jesus came to establish a very different kind of kingdom to those of theGentiles. He clearly informed his disciples that, if they wanted to be-come “great” in his kingdom, they would first have to become “servants”(Mark 10.43-44). And Jesus, of course, led by example. The time camein Jesus’ life when his power and authority were very evident to him(John 13.3). Yet, at that very moment, rather than lifting himself up inpride, Jesus began to wash his disciples’ feet. As the apostle John writes,

Knowing that the Father had given all things into hishands,...[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments...and began towash the disciples’ feet.

(John 13.3-5)


In one sense, it was inconceivable for the Son of God to perform an actof such humility. Yet, at the same time—in a much deeper sense—, onlythe Son of God could perform such an act. It was an act of unspeakablegrace and condescension, yet, for those who were willing to see it, itspoke of the true greatness and glory of the man who stood before them.Three days later, that glory then became plain for all to see, when theFather raised the Son from the grave. Paul describes Jesus’ transition(from humiliation to glory) in the following terms,

Though he existed in the form of God,[Jesus] did not regard equality with God as something to begrasped,but emptied himselfby taking on the form of a slave,by looking like other men,and by sharing in human nature.He humbled himself,by becoming obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross!As a result, God exalted himand gave him the name...above every name,so that at the name of Jesusevery knee will bow—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lordto the glory of God the Father.

(Phil. 2.6-11 NET)

In God’s economy, then, the way up is down.

(10) God is no man’s debtor; he always restores to his people more thanhe takes away from them. Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a great loss inch. 4’s events. In order to acquire the King’s undivided attention, Godtakes away his kingdom, glory, and even his sanity. But Nebuchadnez-zar’s latter state (in the aftermath of his seven times) is, if anything,more glorious than his former state.202 The same can be said of others

202. After he is reunited with his kingdom, “extraordinary greatness” is added to him (4.36).


who undergo a loss and a restoration in Daniel’s writings, namely thethree Hebrews (3.30), Daniel himself, (6.28), and God’s suffering people(7.26-27, 11.32-35, 12.1-2). An important principle therefore emerges.When God puts his people through times of tribulation, he invariably re-turns to them more than he takes away. God can therefore say to theJews who return to Jerusalem to find their temple in ruins, “The gloryof this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house”(Hag. 2.9 NIV), and Jesus can say to his disciples, “Everyone who hasgiven up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children orproperty, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in returnand will inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19.29), and the apostle James candescribe Job’s ‘end’ as more glorious than his beginning (Jas. 5.11).

At times in life, God ‘takes things away’ from us.203 Our job, our spouse,our children, our health: all these things are ultimately God’s to giveand God’s to take away. But, when God takes such things away from us,he does so for a reason and he promises to fully compensate our ‘losses’;and, as the source of all joy and goodness in life, God is more than ableto make good on his promises. God is able to give those who suffer aspecial awareness of his presence amidst their trials, as is pictured by theangel’s presence in Babylon’s furnace (3.25). And God is able not onlyto restore what he takes away but also to remove the pain of past losses.In the Book of Revelation, John is shown a stream of believers emergingfrom a period of great tribulation, at which point God says to John,

He who sits on the thronewill shelter them with his presence.

They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore.The sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat,for the Lamb in the midst of the throne

will be their shepherd,and he will guide them to springs of living water,and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

(Rev. 7.14-17)

203. though, in truth, they are never really ‘ours’ in the first place


A time is coming when we will never know pain or sorrow again—atime when God’s work of redemption will be complete and we will enterinto the joyful presence of our Lord (Matt. 25.23). In the meantime, wemay have to suffer the loss of many earthly blessings. Let us thereforeremember that God reserves a special blessing for all those who suffer insuch ways. In times of tribulation, let us seek to draw close to our Lord;let us tell him about our trials and ask him—the God of all comfort—tocomfort us. If he cannot do so, then no-one can.

(11) When God brings times of suffering on us, his desire is not to causeus pain but to spare us from it. At the outset of ch. 4, Nebuchadnezzarwas perfectly content with his lot in life. He was at peace both with him-self and with his people. Nebuchadnezzar’s peace, however, was a falsepeace—a peace which would eventually lead to his destruction. Neb-uchadnezzar was therefore in trouble, but salvation came to him for onesimple reason: God loved him. God loved Nebuchadnezzar enough totake away his (false) sense of peace and lead him to find true peace in hisheavenly father.204 More precisely, God chose to subject Nebuchadnezzarto seven times of desolation in order to save him from eternal desolation.God’s primary intention was not, therefore, to judge Nebuchadnezzarbut to have mercy on him. And the same principle, I believe, underliesall God’s dealings with mankind (Ezek. 33.11, John 3.17). God is nota cruel tyrant but a loving heavenly father. He takes no delight in see-ing his people suffer; he (reluctantly) allows them to suffer only whenit is absolutely necessary and always with their final restoration in mind(1 Pet. 1.6-7). As Jeremiah sat amidst the desolations of Jerusalem, hecould therefore say,

Even though [the Lord] has caused grief, he will neverthelesshave compassion according to the abundance of his steadfastlove, for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children ofmen.

(Lam. 3.31-33†)

204. As such, the opening scene of ch. 4 is highly significant. When Nebuchadnezzar awoke from his day-dream, he did not only awake from a brief nap; he slowly began to awake from a life-long spiritualslumber.


When we undergo times of suffering, it is vital for us to keep suchthoughts in mind, for we will otherwise develop a very warped and un-charitable impression of God’s character. Isaiah refers to a time whenthe Israelites lose sight of God’s love for them and cried out, “The LORD

has deserted us!”, to which God replies,

Can a mother forget her nursing child?Can she feel no love for the child she has borne?[And] even if that were possible,I would not forget you!See, I have written your name on the palms of my hands...Soon your descendants will come back,and all who are trying to destroy you will go away.

(Isa. 49.15-17 NLT)

God’s heart towards his elect is no different today (Heb. 13.5b). We donot have a Saviour who is distant or untouched by human emotions; onthe contrary, we have a Saviour who knows our weaknesses and painand is present to help us in our time of need (Heb. 4.14-16).

(12) Believers should be people who value the truth. Nebuchadnezzarruled Babylon for a total of 43 years, for a good many of which Danielwas his right hand man. As a result, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar de-veloped an unusually close friendship (4.19’s comm.). Nebuchadnezzarwas probably fond of Daniel for a number of reasons, not least of whichwas his sheer brilliance as a wise man. But his integrity was, I suspect,equally important. Unlike the rest of the palace-staff, Daniel was a manwhom Nebuchadnezzar could implicitly trust and whom was honest andupfront with Nebuchadnezzar. He was not intimidated by Nebuchad-nezzar’s power or reputation. (He had God to protect him.) Nor was heoverly worried about his ‘career progression’. So, when difficult thingsneeded to be said, Daniel said them, and Nebuchadnezzar came to re-spect him for it.

As believers, we should seek to follow Daniel’s example in terms ourwitness to unbelievers. We should not be afraid of the world’s ‘big per-


sonalities’, nor should we be afraid to tell people the truth. (God has notgiven us a spirit of “fear” but a spirit of “power and love and self-control”:2 Tim. 1.7.) Many unbelievers are afraid to be honest with one another,especially if they fear that it will cost them in terms of popularity. ‘Peaceat any price’ is the watchword. But, as believers, we should not buy intosuch philosophy. We should be men and women of integrity—peoplewho value the truth for the truth’s sake, “[who] buy truth, and do not sellit” (Prov. 23.23).

(13) Unless we have a genuine concern for people, our witness to them willnever prove very effective. Daniel found himself in a decidedly unenviableposition in ch. 4. God had given Nebuchadnezzar a dream, which wasclearly a bad omen, but the wise men did not want to be the ones to breakit to the King. The task of interpreting the King’s dream therefore fell toDaniel, which could easily have spelt the end of his career. Yet, ratherthan dismembering Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar listened carefully and atten-tively to what he had to say. Why? Because Daniel clearly cared for theKing. Daniel took no delight in being the bearer of bad news; indeed, hewas visibly moved when he heard about the King’s dream, which was areaction he could not have faked. The King therefore listened to Daniel’smessage sympathetically, even if he ultimately failed to act on it.

Daniel’s witness to the King teaches us an important lesson. As Chris-tians, we have a wonderful Gospel to share with people. Part of theGospel, however, is bad news. It tells men that their sin is a serious is-sue and that they are desperately in need of a Saviour. As such, thereis an ‘offence’ to the Gospel (Gal. 5.11). The people with whom weshare the Gospel therefore need to know that we care about them andthat our motives are sincere. Our words will otherwise seem cold andacademic. People with full-time jobs spend the majority of their wak-ing lives at work, yet they often know very little about their colleaguesas individuals—about their hopes and fears and dreams and struggles—,who know equally little about them. Needless to say, this is not a healthystate of affairs. If we are to successfully witness to our colleagues, thenwe need to forge deep relationships with them, just as Daniel did withNebuchadnezzar. We need to care about our colleagues as people rather


than as potential converts; we need to make them a part of our lives bothat work and outside of work; and we need to pray that God will use ourefforts for his glory.

(14) If we seek to honour God in our ‘secular work’, then God will use ourefforts to great effect. Daniel’s opportunity to speak to Nebuchadnezzarabout the things of God did not arise out of thin air; it arose as a resultof his devotion to his secular work. Daniel’s employment in Babylon’sadministration would probably have caused many of the Jews in Babylonto disparage him and to rebuke him for becoming too involved in ‘worldlypolitics’. But Daniel was not concerned about such things. Ultimately,he was accountable to God rather than man, as he realised very well(1.8, Rom. 14.4-12). So, Daniel simply got on with the task to which hehad been called and left others to make of it what they would, and Godresponded accordingly.

(15) Nebuchadnezzar’s fall and restoration has great prophetic signifi-cance. Nebuchadnezzar’s life and times parallel the life and times of Is-rael (both past and future) in a number of interesting ways: i] Both Neb-uchadnezzar and Israel came to reign over Canaan solely by God’s grace.Nebuchadnezzar was not a great man in and of himself; he was simplythe man whom God happened to appoint over the Near East (2.37-38,4.17). Likewise, Israel were “no greater in number than any other peo-ple”; they were simply the people whom God happened to set his loveon in light of his promise to Abraham (Deut. 7.7-8†). ii] Neither Neb-uchadnezzar and Israel fulfilled their calling. Nebuchadnezzar’s reignwas meant to reflect God’s glory (2.37-38), but it was instead charac-terised by sin and brutality (4.27). Israel’s reign was also meant to re-flect God’s glory (Exod. 19.6), but, while it was not brutal, it was highlycorrupt and unjust (Isa. 1.21-23). As a result, the Kings of Israel didnot even manage to bless their own people, let alone “the nations” atlarge (Gen. 12.2-3, 2 Chr. 33.9). iii] As soon as Nebuchadnezzar and Is-rael became powerful, they also became proud. Rather than attributinghis success to God’s grace, Nebuchadnezzar boasted in his own achieve-ments (4.29-30, 5.20), and, sadly, Israel made the same mistake. Assoon as the Israelites began to prosper, their hearts were ‘puffed up’ with


pride and they forgot all about the Lord their God (Deut. 8.11-14, Isa.2.6-11, Jer. 5.27-28, Hos. 13.6). iv] Both Nebuchadnezzar and Israelwere separated from their inheritance as a result of their disobedience.Nebuchadnezzar failed to take heed to Daniel’s words; he was therefore‘exiled’ from his kingdom and made to dwell with the beasts of the field(4.15-16). The same fate befell Israel. Israel refused to listen to thewords of the prophets (2 Chr. 36.15-16); God therefore scattered themamong the nations and thereby caused them to dwell with the world’s“beasts” (7.2, Isa. 5.5, 56.9). v] The return of Nebuchadnezzar andIsrael to their former states of glory coincides with the ‘lifting up’ oftheir eyes to the heavens. Nebuchadnezzar’s period of exile came to anend only when he lifted his eyes heavenwards and hence acknowledgedheaven’s sovereignty (4.34-37). Israel’s period of exile is still in force,but will one day come to an end when Israel calls out to her Messiah(crying, “Blessed be the name of the Lord”), and, even as she does so,she will see her Messiah returning on the clouds of the heavens (Isa.45.22, Zech. 12.10, Matt. 23.38-39, 24.30-31).

Ch. 4 therefore contained an important message for Daniel’s people. LikeNebuchadnezzar, the Jewish people had been brought low, and ances-try alone could not save them (Matt. 3.9). Like Nebuchadnezzar, theytherefore needed to humble themselves and call on God’s mighty name.Only then could they be saved and restored. As such, ch. 4’s narrativepacked a powerful punch, and it proclaims the same message to Daniel’speople today. Even now, the Jewish people are still, in a sense, in ex-ile. True—many of them have returned to their land, but not as manyhave returned to their God, and even less have accepted their Messiah(Zech. 1.2-6). As ingrafted Gentiles, we should not be indifferent tosuch things. Do we care about the glory of God’s name? Do we wantto hasten the day of our Lord’s return? If so, then we will care aboutthe salvation of the Jewish people (Jer. 31.31-40, Ezek. 36.22-24, Matt.23.37-39). Indeed, we owe them a great debt; and yet, tragically, thefeature for which Christendom is most well-known among the Jewishpeople is its anti-Semitic tendencies, both past as well as present. AsChristians, let us therefore seek to make amends for these things. TheJewish people are our Lord’s own flesh and blood. Let us seek, then, to


take our stand alongside them, to bless them, to protect their interests, totell them about their Messiah, and to pray for their welfare (Gen. 12.2-3,Matt. 25.40, Rom. 15.27). Jerusalem is still the apple of our Lord’s eye(Zech. 2.8). And, if we are in tune with our Lord’s heart, then it willbe ours too. As the apostle Paul writes, “If [Israel’s] rejection broughtreconciliation to the world, [then] what will their acceptance be but lifefrom the dead?” (Rom. 11.15 NIV).

In light of the many parallels between Nebuchadnezzar’s and Israel’stimes, it is interesting to note some further parallels which becomeapparent when we consider a chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s life:205

205. See App. 4B for the relevant calculations.


Date Event Age

c. 634 Nebuchadnezzar is born206 0

Sep. 605 Nebuchadnezzar accedes to the throne of Babylon 29

July 587 Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem 47

July 586 God speaks to Nebuchadnezzar by means of a dream(the Colossus)

48

Oct. 569 God speaks to Nebuchadnezzar by means of a seconddream (the great tree)

65

July 568 Nebuchadnezzar conquers Egypt 66

Oct. 568 Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times begin 661/2

Apr. 564 Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times come to an end, atwhich point Nebuchadnezzar is converted

70

Oct. 562 Nebuchadnezzar passes away and enters into glory 72

As can be seen, then, Nebuchadnezzar’s existence parallels Israel’s in anumber of interesting ways. Both divide into seventy blocks of time(9.24), both climax in a three-and-a-half-year period of ‘beast-related’suffering (7.25, 9.27), and both climax in a glorious conversion (9.24).The parallels may run even deeper if Nebuchadnezzar ordered his mento destroy the golden image on the Plain of Dura after his conversion,since both seventy-block periods then climax in the collapse of a mightystructure: in Nebuchadnezzar’s case, the golden image, and in Israel’s,the Gentile Colossus. If Nebuchadnezzar was genuinely converted as aresult of ch. 4’s events, then he would certainly not have wanted to leavethe image intact. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which theEphesians burnt their magical scrolls after their conversion (Acts 19.19).

206. XXX.

Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 4 (4.1-37)

Documents

Transcript of Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 4 (4.1-37)