Daniel 2

CHAP. 2. ’S DREAM Nebuchadnezzar, in his second year, being disquieted by a dream, demands of the wise men of Babylon that they should repeat and interpret it to him: as they are unable to do this, they are condemned by him to death (Daniel 2:1-12). Daniel, and his companions, being involved in the condemnation, and finding consequently their lives in jeopardy, betake themselves to prayer; their supplication is answered by the secret of the dream being revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night (Daniel 2:13-23). Being now, at his own request, brought before the king, Daniel describes and interprets his dream to him (Daniel 2:24-45), and is rewarded by him with high honours (Daniel 2:46-49). The dream was of a colossal image, the head consisting of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the body of brass, the legs of iron, the feet of iron and clay mixed: as Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating it, a stone ‘cut out without hands’ suddenly fell, smiting the feet of the image, which thereupon broke up, while the stone became a mountain, filling the whole earth. The image symbolizes the anti-theocratic power of the world; and its principal parts are interpreted to signify four empires, the head of gold being Nebuchadnezzar himself, representing the first empire. With the exception of the first, the empires intended are not expressly indicated; and it has been much disputed what the three following the first are. It is, however, generally admitted that the four kingdoms symbolized in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are the same as the four represented by the four beasts in Daniel’s vision in Chap. 7; so that the discussion of the question will come more suitably at the end of the notes on Chap. 7. The conclusion there reached, it may be premised, is that the second, third, and fourth empires are, respectively, the Median, the Persian, and the Macedonian. But whatever may be the case with the three disputed empires, the ‘stone cut out without hands’ clearly represents the kingdom of God, before which all earthly powers are destined ultimately to fall. The main object of the chapter is to shew—(1) how the heathen king is brought (Daniel 2:47) to acknowledge the supremacy of Daniel’s God; (2) how the sequence of empires is in the hands of God; and (3) how a Divine kingdom is destined ultimately to be established upon earth. The representation of the magnificent but hollow splendour of earthly empire in the form of a ‘huge, gleaming, terrible colossus, of many colours and different metals,’ brilliant at its summit, but gradually deteriorating, both in material and appearance, towards its base, and, when struck by the falling rock, instantly collapsing into atoms, is fine and striking. The narrative seems to a certain extent to be modelled on that of Joseph in Genesis 41, there being parallels in both idea and expression. In both narratives a heathen monarch is troubled by a dream which he cannot understand; in both he sends for his own wise men, who fail to remove his perplexity; in both a young Jewish captive, relying on the help of his God, is successful, and is rewarded by the king with high honours, and a life-long position of influence in his kingdom. For similarities of expression, see the notes on Daniel 2:1-2; Daniel 2:12; Daniel 2:28; Daniel 2:30. Additional Note on the Four Empires of Daniel 2, 7It is generally agreed that the four empires represented by the composite image in ch. 2 are the same as those represented by the four beasts in ch. 7: there is also no doubt that the first empire in ch. 7 is the same as the first empire in ch. 2, which is expressly stated in Daniel 2:38 to be that of Nebuchadnezzar, and that the kingdom which is to succeed the fourth is in both chapters the kingdom of God: but the identification of the second, third, and fourth empires in the two chapters has been the subject of much controversy. It is also further a question, to which different answers have been given, whether the same three kingdoms in these two chapters are or are not identical with those denoted by the two horns of the ram, and by the he-goat in Daniel 8:3-5, i.e. (as is expressly explained in Daniel 8:20-21), with the kingdoms of Media, Persia, and Greece. The following tabular synopsis (based upon that of Zόndel) of the two principal interpretations that have been adopted, will probably assist the reader in judging between them. ACh. 2.Ch. 7.Ch. 8.Golden head=Lion with eagle’s wings==Babyl. empireSilver breast and arms=Bear with three ribs in mouth=Ram with two unequal horns=Medo-PersianBronze belly and thighs=Leopard with four wings=Goat with one horn, followed by four horns, out of one of which came a little horn=Grecian (Alexander and his successors)Iron legs, feet and toes partly iron partly clay=Beast with iron teeth, and ten horns, among which came up one little horn=RomanBGolden head=Lion with eagle’s wings=Babyl. empireSilver breast and arms=Bear with three ribs in mouth=First and shorter horn of ram=MedianBronze belly and thighs=Leopard with four wings=Second and longer horn of ram=PersianIron legs, feet and toes partly iron partly clay=Beast with iron teeth, and ten horns, among which came up one little horn=Goat with one horn, followed by four horns out of one of which came a little horn=Grecian (Alexander and his successors)The difference between the two interpretations comes out most markedly in the explanation given of the fourth empire: A, for convenience, may, therefore, be termed the Roman theory, and B the Grecian theory. A. This interpretation is first found[273] in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras (written probably under Domitian, a. d. 81–96), Daniel 12:11 f., where the eagle, which Ezra is supposed to see in his vision and which unquestionably represents the imperial power of Rome, is expressly identified with the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel: though (it is added) the meaning of that kingdom was not expounded to Daniel as it is expounded to Ezra now. The same view of the fourth kingdom is implied in Ep. Barnab. iv. 4–5 (c. 100–120 a.d.), where the writer, in proof that the time of trial, preceding the advent of the Son of God, is at hand, quotes the words from Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:24, respecting the little horn abasing three of the ten horns[274]. Hippolytus (c. 220 a.d.) expounds Daniel 2, 7 at length in the same sense (ed. Lagarde, 1858, pp. 151 ff., 171 ff., 177 ff.).

The same interpretation was also general among the Fathers; and it is met with likewise among Jewish authorities. Among modern writers, it has been advocated by Auberlen, Hengstenberg, Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfόllung, 1841, p. 276 ff.), Keil, Dr Pusey, and others. [273] It is implied also (apparently) in Joseph. Ant. x. xi. 7. [274] The writer seems to have understood by the ‘horns’ the Roman emperors: but there is great difficulty in determining precisely which are meant; see in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition (1878), p. lxix f.Upon this view, the fourth empire being the Roman, the ten toes, partly of iron and partly of clay, of the image in ch. 2, and the ten horns of the fourth beast in ch. 7, represent ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is supposed to have broken up, each retaining to a certain extent the strength of the Roman, but with-its stability greatly impaired by internal weakness and disunion[275]: the ‘mouth speaking great things,’ which is to arise after the ten kingdoms and to destroy three of them, being Antichrist, who is identified by some with the Papacy, and by others is supposed to be a figure still future. [275] Cf. Hippolytus, p. 172, ‘The legs of iron are the Romans, being as strong as iron; then come the toes, partly of iron, partly of clay, in order to represent the democracies which are to arise afterwards’ (similarly, p. 152); p. 153, ‘the little horn growing up among the others is Antichrist.’Thus Dr Rule[276] writes: ‘This little horn is too like the Papacy to be mistaken for anything else; and taking this for granted, as I believe we may venture to do, ten kingdoms must be found that came into existence previously to the establishment of the Pope’s temporal power in Italy.’ Accordingly the ten kingdoms enumerated by him are— [276] An Historical Exposition of Daniel the Prophet, 1869, p. 195 ff.1. The kingdom of the Vandals in Africa, established a.d. 439.2. Venice, which became an independent state in a.d. 452, and long maintained an extremely important position in the affairs of Christendom.3. England, which, properly so called, was founded in a.d. 455, and in spite of the Norman Conquest still retains her independence.4. Spain, first Gothic, a.d. 476, then Saracenic, and still Spain.5. France. Gaul, conquered by the Romans, lost to Rome under the Visigoths, and transferred to the Franks under Clovis, a.d. 483.6. Lombardy, conquered by the Lombards, a.d. 568.7.

The exarchate of Ravenna, which became independent of Constantinople in 584, and flourished for long as an independent state.8. Naples, subdued by the Normans about 1060.9. Sicily, taken by the Normans under Count Roger about 1080.10. Rome, which assumed independence under a Senate of its own in 1143, and maintained itself so till 1198. ‘The tumultuary revolution headed in Rome by Arnold of Brescia, tore away the ancient city from its imperial relations and brought the prophetic period of the ten kingdoms to its close.’The ‘little horn diverse from the ten, having eyes and a mouth speaking very great things,’ is Pope Innocent III. (a.d. 1198–1216), who immediately after his consecration restored, as it was called, the patrimony of the Church, by assuming absolute sovereignty over the city and territory of Rome, and exacting of the Prefect of the city, in lieu of the oath of allegiance which he had hitherto sworn to the Emperor of Germany, an oath of fealty to himself, by which he bound himself to exercise in future the civil and military powers entrusted to him, solely in the interests of the Pope. ‘Here is the haughty speech, and here are the watchful eyes to survey the newly usurped dominion, and to spy out far beyond.’ Of the three ‘horns’ which fell before Innocent III. and his successors, the first was thus the Roman Senate and people, with the so-called patrimony of St Peter, in the year 1198; the other two were the two kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, which having in 1060 and 1080 fallen under the rule of the Dukes of Normandy, were afterwards offered by Urban IV. to the Duke of Anjou, to be held by him in subjection to the Church, with the result that ultimately, in 1266, ‘the two Sicilies,’ as they were afterwards called, fell under the subordinate rule of a branch of the house of Bourbon, and so remained until recent times. The war on the saints is referred to the Inquisition, organized by Innocent III. and carried on by his successors, and abetted ‘by every device of oppressive legislation, and artful diplomacy.’ ‘Concerning the change of times and laws, a few words will suffice. “He shall think to change times” by the substitution of an ecclesiastical calendar for the civil. He shall ordain festivals, appoint jubilees, and so enforce observance of such times and years as to set aside civil obligations, and even supersede the sanctification of the Lord’s days by the multiplication of saints’ days.

With regard to laws he will enforce Canon Law in contempt of Statute Law, and sometimes in contradiction to the Law of God.’Auberlen, on the other hand[277], points more generally to the many different ways in which the influence of Rome has perpetuated itself even in modern Europe. The various barbarian nations out of which have developed gradually the states of modern Europe, have, he observes, fallen largely under the spell of Roman civilization. ‘Roman culture, the Roman church, the Roman language, and Roman law have been the essential civilizing principles of the Germanic world.

The Romance nations are a monument of the extent to which the influence of Rome has penetrated even into the blood of the new humanity: they are the products of the admixture “by the seed of men.” But they do not cohere together: the Roman element is ever re-acting against the Germanic. The struggles between Romans and Germans have been the determining factor of modern history: we need mention only the contests between the Emperor and the Pope, which stirred the Middle Ages, and the Reformation, with the consequences following from it, which have continued until the present day. The fourth empire has thus a genuine Roman tenacity and force; at the same time, since the Germans have appeared on the scene of history, and the iron has been mixed with the clay, it has been much divided and broken up, and its different constituent parts have shewn themselves to be unstable and fragile (Daniel 2:41-42). The Roman element strives ever after universal empire, the German element represents the principles of individualism and division.’ Hence the ever fresh attempts, whether on the part of the Pope, or of a secular prince, as Charlemagne, Charles V., Napoleon, and even the Czar, to realize anew the ideal of Roman unity. Against these attempts, however, the independent nationalities never cease to assert as persistently their individual rights. Politically and religiously, the Roman, the German, and the Slavonic nationalities stand opposed to one another: in the end, however, after many conflicts, they will resolve themselves into ten distinct kingdoms, out of one of which Antichrist—a kind of exaggerated, almost superhuman, Napoleon—will arise, and realise, on an unprecedented scale, until Providence strikes him down, the ‘dζmonic unity’ of an empire of the world. [277] Der Prophet Daniel (1857), pp. 252–4.So far as the mere symbolism of the vision goes, there is no objection to this interpretation. The kingdom which is to ‘tread down and break in pieces,’ with the strength of iron, ‘the whole earth’ (Daniel 7:23; cf. Daniel 7:7, Daniel 2:40) might well be the empire of the Romans, who by their military conquests subdued, one after another, practically all the nations of the then known world; and it has been contended, not without some show of plausibility, that the imagery of the second kingdom agrees better with the Medo-Persian than with the Persian empire: the bear, it is urged, with its slow and heavy gait would be the most suitable symbol of the Medo-Persian empire, of which ‘heaviness,’ as exemplified by the vast and unwieldy armies which its kings brought into the field[278], was the leading national characteristic, while the three ribs in its mouth are more naturally explained of three provinces absorbed by the empire of the Persians[279], than of any conquests made by the Medes. These explanations of the imagery, however, though they fall in with the interpretation in question, cannot be said to be so certain, upon independent grounds, as to require it: Alexander’s military successes were also such that he might be spoken of as subduing the whole earth; and we do not know that the suggested interpretation of the symbolism of the bear is really that which was in the mind of the writer of the chapter. [278] Darius Hystaspis was said to have led 700,000 men into Scythia: Xerxes’ expedition against Greece numbered 2,500,000 fighting men; Darius Codomannus, at the fatal battle of Issus, commanded 600,000 men (Pusey, p. 71). [279] Media, Assyria, and Babylonia (Hippolytus); Persia, Media, and Babylonia (Jerome, Ephr. Syr.); Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt (Hofmann, Keil. Pusey, p. 70).The great, and indeed fatal, objection to this interpretation is, however, that it does not agree with the history. The Roman empire, the empire which conquered and ruled so many nations of the ancient world[280],—whether it be regarded as coming to its close when in a.d. 476 Romulus Augustulus, at the bidding of Odoacer, resigned his power to the Emperor of the East, or whether that act be regarded merely as a transference of power from the West to the East, and its real close be placed, with Gibbon, at the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, or whether, lastly, it be held, with Bryce, to have prolonged a legal existence till in 1806 the Emperor Francis II resigned the imperial crown,—has passed from the stage of history; nor, whichever date be assigned for its close,—and, in the natural sense of the word, the ‘Roman empire’ ceased to exist at the first of these dates,—can any ‘ten’ kingdoms be pointed to, as in any sense arising out of it? The non-natural character of the ‘praeterist’ explanation of Dr Rule must be patent to the reader. ‘Futurist’ expositors suppose that the kingdoms represented by the ten horns are yet to appear[281]. But these kingdoms are to ‘arise out of’ the fourth empire (Daniel 2:24): clearly therefore the fourth empire must still exist when they appear; but the Roman empire is beyond controversy an empire of the past. Auberlen’s explanation, ingenious as it is, cannot be deemed satisfactory[282]. [280] ‘Empire’ is of course used here generally in the sense of ‘power’: at the time when many of these conquests were made, the Romans, as is well known, were under the rule of neither ‘emperors’ nor ‘kings.’ [281] Auberlen, as cited above; Keil, p. 224; Dr Pusey, p. 78 f. [282] It is remarkable, if Daniel’s vision really extends so far as to embrace the history of Europe, that the first coming of Christ, and the influences wrought by Christianity, should he ignored in it. The explanation that Daniel, “being a statesman and an Israelite, saw nothing of the Church” (Auberlen, p. 252) is surely artificial and improbable.The interpretation under discussion is in fact one which, in view of the circumstances of the age, might readily have suggested itself to. Christian expositors of Daniel, while the Roman empire was still the dominant power in the world; but it is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable. The early Christians believed that they were living in an age in which the end of the world was imminent; and it was in this belief, as Mr (now Bishop) Westcott has pointed out, that the interpretation in question originated. ‘It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object of immediate expectation, and the Roman empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no place in the anticipation of the first Christendom; and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory which took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false[283].’ [283] Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Daniel.B. This interpretation appears first[284] in Ephrem Syrus (c. 300–350 a.d.)[285]; it was adopted afterwards by several later and mediζval scholars; more recently it has been advocated in England by Mr (now Bishop) Westcott, and Prof. Bevan; and on the Continent by Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch[286], Kuenen, Meinhold, and others[287]. The strongest arguments in its favour are derived (1) from the positive objections stated above, to the ‘Roman’ interpretation,—for an intermediate view, which has been suggested, viz. that the four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Syrian, has little to recommend it: and (2) from the description of the ‘little horn’ in Daniel 7, viewed in connexion with what is said in other parts of the book. In ch. 8 there is a ‘little horn,’ which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (Daniel 8:10-12; Daniel 8:25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the ‘little horn’ in ch. 7 (Daniel 7:8 end, 20, 21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world’s history, should be intended.

It is true, there are details in which the two descriptions differ,—ch. 8 dwells for instance a good deal more fully on the particulars of Antiochus’ assaults upon the faith: but entire identity would be tautology; the differences affect no material feature in the representation; and there is consequently no better reason for supposing that they point here to two different personalities than for supposing that similar differences in the representations of ch. 2 and ch. 7 point there to two different series of empires. Again, the period during which the persecution in ch. 7 is to continue is ‘a time, times, and half-a-time’ (i.e. 3½ years)—exactly the period during which (Daniel 12:7 : cf.

Daniel 2:11; and on Daniel 9:27) the persecution of Antiochus is to continue: is it likely that entirely different events should be measured by precisely the same interval of time? And thirdly, if the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes is in Daniel 12:1-3 (see the notes) followed immediately by the Messianic age, is it probable that in chs. 2 and 7 this should be represented as beginning at an indefinite date in the distant future? The age of Antiochus Epiphanes is in fact the limiting horizon of the book. Not only does the revelation of chs. 10–12 culminate in the description of that age, which is followed, without any interval, by the period of final bliss, but the age of Antiochus himself is in Daniel 8:19 (as the sequel shews) described as the ‘time of the end’: can there then, asks Delitzsch, have been for Daniel a ‘time of the end’ after that which he himself expressly describes as the ‘end’? ‘There might have been, if the visions which ex hyp. represent the Roman age as following that of Alexander and his successors, were later in date than those which do not look beyond the period of the Seleucidae. In point of fact, however, the dream of ch. 2, and the vision of ch. 7, are both of earlier date than the visions of ch. 8 and ch. 9[288].’ [284] Or, at least, for the first time distinctly; for a passage in the so-called ‘Sibylline Oracles’ (see the Introduction, p. lxxxiii) makes it probable that the ‘ten horns’ were understood of the Seleucidae as early as c. 140 b.c. After describing (iii. 381–7) how Macedonia will bring great woe upon Asia, and overcome Babylon (alluding manifestly to Alexander the Great), the ‘Sibyl’ continues (388 ff.):— [285] See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740). [286] In his art. Daniel, in the 2nd edition of Herzog’s Real-Encyklopδdie (1878). It is also adopted by Buhl in the corresponding article in the 3rd edition (1898) of the same work. [287] It is adopted also in the art. Daniel in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, by Prof. E. L. Curtis, of Yale, and in that in Black’s Encyclopaedia Biblica (col. 1007), by Prof. Kamphausen, of Bonn. [288] The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to. p. 474. ἥξεικαίποτʼ ? ἄπυστ [εἰς] Ἀσσίδοςὄλβιονοὖδαςἀνὴρπορφυρέηνλώπηνἐπιειμένοςὤμοις, 390 ἄγριος, ἀλλοδίκης, φλογόεις· ἤγειρεγὰραὐτὸνπρόσθεκεραυνὸςφῶτα· κακὸνδʼ ? Ἀσίηζυγὸνἕξειπᾶσα, πολὺνδὲχθὼνπίεταιφόνονὀμβρηθεῖσα.ἀλλὰκαὶὣςπανάϊστονἅπαντʼ ? Ἀΐδηςθεραπεύσει·ὧνδήπεργενεὴναὐτὸςθέλειἐξαπολέσσαι, 395 ἐκτῶνδὴγενεῆςκείνουγέυοζἐξαπολεῖται·ῥίζανἴανγεδιδούς, ἣνκαὶκόψειΒροτολοιγὸςἐκδέκαδὴκεράτων, παρὰδὲφυτὸνἄλλοφυτεύσει. κόψειπορφυρέηςγενεῆςγενετῆραμαχητήν,καὐτὸςἀφυἱῶν, ὦνἐςὁμόφρονααἴσιονἄρρης 400 φθεῖται· καὶτοτὲδὴπαραφυόμενονκέραςἄρξει.The ‘man clad with purple, fierce, unjust, fiery, lightning-born,’ who is to enslave Asia is, it seems, Antiochus Epiphanes (whose invasion of Egypt is certainly referred to in ll. 611–615). The race which he wishes to destroy, but by which his own race will be destroyed, is that of his brother Seleucus IV. (b.c. 187–175), whose son, Demetrius I., caused the ‘one root’ which Antiochus left, viz. his son and successor, Antiochus V. Eupator (164–162), to be put to death (1Ma 7:1-4): this the writer expresses by saying, ‘the destroyer (Ares, the god of war) will cut him off out of ten horns’, i.e. as the last of ten kings. The (illegitimate) ‘plant’ planted beside him is Alexander Balas, who defeated and slew Demetrius I., the ‘warrior father of a royal race’ in 150 (1Ma 10:49 f.), and usurped the throne of Syria from 150 to 146. In 146, however, Alexandar Balas (l. 399) was attacked and defeated by Demetrius II., son of Demetrius I., and his father in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, and soon afterwards murdered (1Ma 11:8-19; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 8).

The ‘horn’ growing alongside, that was then to rule, is the parvenu Trypho, guardian of the youthful Antiochus VI., who having procured the death of his ward, held the throne of Syria from 142 to 137 (1Ma 12:39; 1Ma 13:31 f., 1Ma 15:37). If this highly probable interpretation is correct (and it is accepted by Schόrer), the ‘ten horns,’ though not entirely, are nevertheless largely (see p. 101 f.) the same Seleucid princes as in Dan.; and it is reasonable to regard the passage as indicating the sense in which the ‘horns’ of Dan. were understood at the time when it was written (see further Schόrer, ii. p. 798 f.). 2Es 12:11 (cited p. 95), where the interpretation of Dan 7:7-8 given in Daniel 2:23-26 seems to be corrected, may also perhaps justify the inference that this interpretation had previously been the prevalent one: it would be but natural that, when the empire of the Greeks had passed away, without the prophecy being fulfilled, it should be re-interpreted of the Romans (cf. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, p. 173).For these reasons it is impossible to think either that the ‘little horn’ of ch. 7 represents any other ruler but Antiochus Epiphanes, or that the fourth empire of ch. 2 and ch. 7 is any other than the Greek empire of Alexander’s successors. That the symbolism of the two visions leaves ‘nothing to be desired’ upon this interpretation, has been shewn by Delitzsch. “By the material of the feet being heterogeneous is signified the division of the kingdom, in consequence of which these offshoots (‘Auslδufer’) of it arose (cf. Daniel 11:5); by its consisting of iron and clay is signified the superior strength of the one kingdom as compared with the other (Daniel 11:5); by the iron and clay being mingled, without being organically united, is signified the union of the two kingdoms by matrimonial alliances (Daniel 11:6; Daniel 11:17), without any real unity between them being attained. And how naturally are the silver breast and arms referred to the Median empire, and the brazen belly and loins to the Persian! ‘After thee,’ says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:39), ‘will arise another kingdom, inferior to thine.’ Was then the Persian empire inferior to the Chaldaean? It may be answered that it was so in its Median beginnings.

But what justification is there for referring the word inferior’ to the beginnings of the second empire, rather than to the period when it displayed most fully its distinctive character? The reference is to the Median Empire which, because it was in general of less importance than the others, is passed by in the interpretation (Daniel 2:39) in few words. Of the third empire, on the contrary, it is said (ibid.) that it will ‘bear rule over all the earth.’ That is the Persian empire. Only this is again a universal empire, in the fullest sense of the term, as the Chaldaean was. The intermediate Median empire, weaker than both, merely forms the transition from the one to the other[289].” [289] Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on Daniel 2:39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.What, however, upon this interpretation of the fourth empire, is denoted by the ‘ten horns’? The most probable view is that they represent the successors of Alexander upon the throne of Antioch, the line out of which Antiochus Epiphanes, the ‘little horn,’ ultimately arose. ‘That all ten appear simultaneously is a consequence of the vision [comp. in ch. 2 how the four successive empires appear as parts of the same image], and does not authorize the conclusion that all were contemporary, though of course the three uprooted by Antiochus must have been contemporary with him’ (Delitzsch). The first seven of these successors are: (1) Seleucus (I.) Nicator (b.c. 312–280); (2) Antiochus (I.) Soter (279–261); (3) Antiochus (II.) Theos (260–246); (4) Seleucus (II.) Callinicus (245–226); (5) Seleucus (III.) Ceraunus (225–223); (6) Antiochus (III.) the Great (222–187); (7) Seleucus (IV.) Philopator (186–176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some[290], they are (8) Heliodorus, the chief minister of Seleucus Philopator, who, having poisoned his master, aimed at the throne for himself, and would, no doubt, have secured it, had not Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Rome in time, with the help of Attalus and Eumenes of Pergamum, to prevent it (see further on Daniel 11:20)[291]; (9) Demetrius, son of Seleucus Philopator and nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after his father’s murder was the legitimate heir to the throne, but who was detained as hostage at Rome in lieu of Antiochus Epiphanes, and only actually succeeded to the throne after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death; (10) Ptolemy (VII.) Philometor, king of Egypt, also nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes (being son of his sister Cleopatra), whom, according to Jerome, a party in Syria desired to place on the throne, but whom Antiochus ‘by simulating clemency’ displaced[292]: Philometor afterwards laid claim to the Syrian provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but being attacked by Antiochus, he fell into his uncle’s hands, and had it not been for the interference of the Romans, would, in all probability, have permanently lost the crown of Egypt (see more fully on Daniel 11:21). These three men, as Ewald points out, were all politically prominent at the time; they all stood in Antiochus’s way, and had in one way or another to be put aside before he could secure his crown: they might thus, in the imagery of the vision, be well described as ‘plucked up’ (Daniel 7:8), ‘falling down’ (Daniel 7:20), or ‘abased’ (Daniel 7:24), before him.

Others[293], arguing that the fourth beast represents the Greek supremacy as a whole, consider that Alexander, the first king, should not be excluded from the enumeration: they accordingly begin the list with him, obtaining then (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) Demetrius: upon this view it is supposed that the murder of Seleucus Philopator, though in fact the work of Heliodorus, was attributed popularly at the time to the suggestion, or instigation, of Antiochus (who, indeed, almost immediately succeeded his brother, and consequently was the one who, to all appearance, benefited most materially by his removal). The exclusion of Ptolemy Philometor from this enumeration, is thought to be a point in its favour; for before the accession of Antiochus, he was not, it is pointed out, king of Syria, and it is doubtful (p. 101, not[294]) whether even any claim to the throne was then made on his behalf. Others[295], again, doubt whether Demetrius is rightly included among the ten kings (for though he was the lawful heir after his father s death, he was not actually king at the time here referred to), and prefer, therefore, (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) an unnamed brother of Demetrius, who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus[296]. One or other of these alternatives may be reasonably adopted, as sufficiently satisfying the requirements of the case; our knowledge of the times does not, unfortunately, enable us to decide with confidence which deserves the preference. [290] Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476. [291] Cf. Appian, Syr. 45: τὸνδὲἩλιόδωρον … εἰςτὴνἀρχὴνβιαζόμενονἐκβάλλουσιν; and (of Antiochus) τῆςἀρχῆςἁρπαζομένηςὑπὸἀλλοτρίωνβασιλεὺςοἰκεῖοςὤφθη.[292] The statement, sometimes made, that Cleopatra herself claimed the throne of Syria for her son, is only matter of inference (cf. Pusey, p. 150). It is, however, true that the claim was afterwards (148–147 b.c.) raised, and even acted on by the Roman senate (Polyb. xxxiii. 16), on behalf of Philometor’s son-in-law, Alexander Balas; and that Philometor, having marched into Syria to assist Alexander in enforcing his claim, was actually for a short time king of Syria (1Ma 11:13; Polyb. xl. 12; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4: see Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 366, and the coin figured on p. 376). [293] Hitzig, Cornill, Behrmann, Prince,—though Behrmann is disposed to treat the number symbolically, and to doubt whether particular individuals are referred to: the ‘ten horns’ he regards as symbolizing generally the divided rule of the Diadochi (p. 46). We cannot feel sure what the author means, so that this view must at least be admitted as a possible one. [294] ote Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on Daniel 2:39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian. [295] Von Gutschmid, Kuenen, Bevan. [296] Mόller, Fragm. hist. Graec. iv. 558.Bleek supposed that the ten horns represented the parts of Alexander’s empire which, after his death, became independent kingdoms, the number ten being chosen in view of the generals who, in the partition of b.c. 323, obtained the chief provinces, viz. 1 Craterus (Macedonia), 2 Antipater (Greece), 3 Lysimachus (Thrace), 4 Leonatus (Little Phrygia on the Hellespont), 5 Antigonus (Great Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia), 6 Kassander (Caria), 7 Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), 8 Laomedon (Syria and Palestine), 9 Pithon (Media), 10 Ptolemy Lagi (Egypt). However, according to Justin (xiii. 4) the entire number of provinces was not 10, but 28, and the principle upon which 10 are selected out of them appears to be arbitrary; moreover, these provinces were not independent kingdoms, but satrapies of an empire still regarded as one and undivided (see Pusey, p. 153 ff).

Daniel 2:1-6

1–6. Nebuchadnezzar, being troubled by a dream, summons the wise men of Babylon before him, and bids them both tell him what his dream had been, and also interpret it to him.

Daniel 2:2

2. the magicians, and the enchanters] See on Daniel 1:20. As in Egypt (Genesis 41:8), the ‘magicians’ and ‘wise men’ (Daniel 2:12) would be the natural persons for the king to consult on the interpretation of a dream. and the sorcerers] This is a word which is well known in the earlier literature: e.g. Exodus 7:11; Exodus 22:18 (in the fem.); Deuteronomy 18:10; cf. the subst. sorceries Micah 5:11, and (in Babylon) Isaiah 47:9; Isaiah 47:12. Chaldeans] Here, as in Daniel 1:4, used in the sense of the priestly or learned class (see p. 12 ff). So Daniel 2:4-5; Daniel 2:10. for to shew] for to tell (R.V.). To ‘shew’ is used often in A.V., and sometimes in R.V., not in the modern sense of pointing out, but in that of telling or declaring; and it stands here for the Heb. word usually rendered tell or declare. So Genesis 46:31 (R.V. tell); Judges 13:10; 1 Samuel 11:9 (R.V. told), 1 Samuel 19:7, 1 Samuel 25:8 (R.V. told); 2 Kings 6:11; Isaiah 41:22; Isaiah 41:26 (R.V. declare), &c.; cf. the Parallel Psalter, p. 481. 3 was disturbed] or is disturbed. It is not perfectly clear whether the intention of the writer is to represent the king as having really forgotten the dream and desiring to have it recalled to him; or as still remembering it, and merely making this demand for the purpose of testing the magicians’ skill.

Daniel 2:4

4. in Syriack] in Aramaic, i.e. the language of the Aramaeans, an important branch of the Semitic stock, inhabiting chiefly Mesopotamia, Syria, and part of Arabia. There were numerous ‘Aramaic’ dialects—as the Aramaic spoken in Assyria, at Zinjirli (near Aleppo), in Palmyra, in Têma, by the Nabataeans at ’el‘Öla, that of the books of Daniel and Ezra, that of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, that of the Babylonian, that of the Palestinian Talmud—which, while similar in their general features, differed in details, somewhat in the manner in which the Greek dialects differed from one another: but the language which is now known distinctively as ‘Syriac,’—i.e. the language in which the ‘Peshiṭ ?tâ’ version of the Bible (2nd cent. a.d.) was made, and in which an extensive Christian literature exists,—differs markedly from the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra: and hence the rendering ‘Syriack’ suggests an entirely false idea of the language here meant. R.V., ‘in the Syrian language’ (cf. Isaiah 36:11) is some improvement; but the term which ought to be employed is ‘Aramaic.’ The Aramaic part of the book begins with the words O king; and if ‘(in) Aramaic’ forms an integral part of the sentence, the author, it seems, must mean to indicate that in his opinion Aramaic was used at the court for communications of an official nature. That, however, does not explain why the use of Aramaic continues to the end of ch. 7; and it is besides quite certain that Aramaic, such as that of the Book of Daniel, was not spoken in Babylon. Very probably Oppert, Lenormant, Nestle, and others are right in regarding ‘Aramaic’ as originally a marginal note, indicating that that language begins to be used here; in this case the word will in English be naturally enclosed in brackets, ‘And they spake to the king, [Aramaic] O king, &c’ The second ‘(in) Aramaic’ in Ezra 4:7 is probably to be explained similarly (‘was written in Aramaic, and interpreted. [Aramaic]’). O king, live for ever] The standing formula, with which, in Dan., the king is addressed (Daniel 3:9, Daniel 5:10, Daniel 6:6; Daniel 6:21); elsewhere (in the 3rd person) only on somewhat exceptional occasions, 1 Kings 1:31; Nehemiah 2:3. we will shew] declare.

Daniel 2:5

5. The thing is gone from me] The word spoken by me—lit. (proceeding) from me—is sure. The king means that the threat which follows is fully resolved upon by him. Azda is a Persian word, meaning sure, certain (see Schrader, KAT[204][205], p. 617); the rendering ‘gone’ is philologically indefensible. [204] AT. Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation. [205] Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.if ye will not make known] if ye make not known (R.V.). ‘Will not,’ in this sentence would (in modern English) mean ‘are not willing to,’ which is not in the Aramaic at all. cut in pieces] more exactly, dismembered; lit. made into (separate) limbs; so Daniel 3:29 (cf. 2Ma 1:16 μέληποιήσαντες). The word for ‘limb’ (haddβm,—common in Syriac, but in the O.T. found only here and Daniel 3:29) is Persian (Zend haρdβma, Mod. Pers. andβm). The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hands of an Eastern despot: the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments. be made a dunghill] Cf. Daniel 3:29 and Ezra 6:11 (where Darius decrees the same punishment for any one altering the terms of his edict).

Daniel 2:6

6. shew (twice)] declare. So Daniel 2:7; Daniel 2:9-11; Daniel 2:16; Daniel 2:24; Daniel 2:27; Daniel 4:2; Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:12; Daniel 5:15. rewards] A rare word, probably of Persian origin (according to Andreas, in the Glossary in Marti’s Gramm. der Bibl.-Aram. Sprache, properly, tribute, present), found otherwise only in Daniel 5:17, where it stands in a similar context.

Daniel 2:7-12

7–12. The wise men profess their willingness to interpret the king’s dream: but protest that his demand that they should tell him what his dream was is an extravagant one. Nebuchadnezzar, however, adheres to his original demand: and as they are unable to comply with it, commands them to be put to death.

Daniel 2:8

8. of certainty] We should say now, ‘of a certainty.’ Murray quotes from North’s Plutarch (1580), ‘It is of certainty that her proper name was Nicostrata.’ would gain time (R.V.)] lit. are buying the time. Their repeated request to the king to tell them his dream is proof to him that they have no power to reveal secrets, and that they could not therefore interpret his dream, even though he were to describe it to them: hence he charges them with buying the time, i.e. with endeavouring to defer the fatal moment when the truth must appear, and when their inability to interpret his dream must be exposed. because ye see that the word spoken by me is sure, (9) That, if, &c.] Because you see that I am resolved to punish you, if you do not fulfil the conditions I lay down (Daniel 2:5).

Daniel 2:9

9. That, if ye make not known unto me the dream, there is but one law for you] you can expect nothing else but punishment. Lit. your law (i.e. the law or sentence against you) is one, implying that it is unalterable and inevitable; cf. Esther 4:11. The word for ‘law’ (dâth) is Persian, Zend dâta, Mod. Pers. dâd (see the Introduction, p. lvi). and (also) lying and corrupt words ye have agreed to speak before me] pretending falsely that you will be able to explain the dream, if it is only told you. prepared] So the Kt.; but the Qrê, ‘ye have prepared yourselves, or agreed together’ (cf. Amos 3:3 Targ.), is more in accordance with usage (see Levy, Chald. W. B., s.v.). before me] to speak ‘before,’ rather than ‘to,’ a king, is the language of respect: so Daniel 2:10-11; Daniel 2:27; Daniel 2:36; Daniel 5:17; Daniel 6:12; Esther 1:16; Esther 7:9; Esther 8:3. Cp. on Daniel 6:10. till the time be changed] till circumstances take a favourable turn, and the king, for instance, has his attention diverted to something else. therefore tell me, &c.] if they are able to tell him the dream, it will be a guarantee to him that their explanation will be trustworthy.

Daniel 2:10

10. shew] declare. therefore, &c.] forasmuch as (R.V.) no great and powerful king (cf. R.V. marg.) hath asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or Chaldean. As no king has ever thought of making such a demand, it may be fairly concluded to be one which it is impossible to satisfy.

Daniel 2:11

11. rare] difficult: properly heavy. The word has the same sense sometimes in Syriac, as Exodus 18:18, in the Peshiṭ ?tâ.requireth] asketh (as Daniel 2:10), which indeed is all that the translators of 1611 meant by their rendering: for require formerly did not express the idea now attaching to the word of demanding as a right. So elsewhere in A.V., as 2 Samuel 12:20; Proverbs 30:7 (R.V. asked); Ezra 8:22 (R.V. ask); and in P.B.V. of the Psalms, as Psalms 27:4; Psalms 38:16; Psalms 40:9; Psalms 51:6; Psalms 137:3. shew] declare. whose dwelling is not with flesh] i.e. who are superhuman, supra-mundane beings.

Daniel 2:12

12. wise men] of those versed in occult arts, as Genesis 41:8; Jeremiah 50:35 (of Babylon), and several times in the sequel (cf. p. 15). Similarly wisdom, Isaiah 47:10 (of Babylon), and ch. Daniel 1:17; Daniel 1:20.

Daniel 2:13-16

13–16. Daniel and his three companions, being regarded now (cf. Daniel 1:17-20) as belonging to the class of ‘wise men,’ and being consequently involved in the condemnation, are in danger of their lives; but Daniel, through Arioch’s intervention, obtains an audience of the king, and promising to tell him his dream, gets execution of the sentence deferred.

Daniel 2:14

14. answered with counsel and discretion] lit. returned counsel and discretion (or tact): lit. taste, and so figuratively of the faculty which discriminates and selects what is suitable for a given occasion. Cf. 1 Samuel 25:33, ‘And blessed be thy discretion’ (R.V. marg.), of the tact displayed by Abigail in averting David’s vengeance from Nabal; Job 12:20, ‘and taketh away the discretion of the elders;’ Proverbs 26:16 (the same phrase as here), ‘than seven men answering with discretion’ (lit. returning discretion). Arioch] The name, in Genesis 14:1, of an ancient king of Ellasar (Larsa, in S. Babylonia); and, no doubt, borrowed thence, both here and in Jdt 1:6 (where it is the name of a ‘king of the Elymaeans’). “The name was Sumerian and not used at that period [Nebuchadnezzar’s] of Babylonian history” (Sayce, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, s.v.). captain of the king’s guard] ‘Captain of the guard’ is the same expression which occurs in 2 Kings 25:8 ff., Jeremiah 39:9 ff., of an officer of Nebuchadnezzar, and (with sar for rab) in Gen. (Genesis 37:36, Genesis 39:1, al.) of an officer of Pharaoh. It is lit. ‘captain (or superintendent, chief) of the slaughterers’ (viz. of animals [not executioners]): the royal butchers came in some way to form the royal body-guard (cf. W. R. Smith, OTJC[206][207], p. 262 f.). The use of the same term in reference to two such different countries as Egypt and Babylon, shews that, though it happens only to be applied to foreigners, it was really a native Hebrew title. [206] TJC. W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, ed. 2, 1892. [207] W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, ed. 2, 1892.

Daniel 2:15

15. so hasty] harsh (Bevan). R.V. urgent, as A.V. itself has in Daniel 3:22. This is not, however, strong enough: in Syriac and the Targums the word and its cognates express the idea of bold, shameless, insolent. Cf. Theod. here, ἀναιδής (LXX. πικρῶς).

Daniel 2:16

16. give him time] or (R.V.) appoint him a time. and that he would shew] that he might (R.V. marg.) declare. Daniel only asked for time; and such a request would be the more readily granted, as Nebuchadnezzar had already (Daniel 1:20) been favourably impressed by his superior skill.

Daniel 2:17-19

17–19. In answer to the supplication of Daniel and his three friends, the secret of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is revealed to him in a dream.

Daniel 2:18

18. that they would] ‘that they might’ would be clearer, as it would include more easily a reference to Daniel (see Daniel 2:23 ‘me’). mercies] compassion, as the corresponding Heb. word is rendered in Lamentations 3:22, Zechariah 7:9 in A.V., and in Daniel 1:9 in R.V. the God of heaven] So Daniel 2:19; Daniel 2:37; Daniel 2:44. A favourite expression among the post-exilic Jews[208]: see Ezra 1:2 (= 2 Chronicles 36:23), Daniel 5:11-12, Daniel 6:9-10, Daniel 7:12; Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:23, Nehemiah 1:4-5; Nehemiah 2:4; Nehemiah 2:20, Jonah 1:9, Psalms 136:26 (àì): also Enoch xiii. 6, Tob 10:11, Jdt 5:8; Jdt 6:19; Jdt 11:17, Revelation 11:13; Revelation 16:11. [208] In Genesis 24:7 it is probable that ‘and earth’ (so LXX) has accidentally fallen out: see Daniel 2:3.fellows] companions (R.V.), as Daniel 2:17.

Daniel 2:19

19. in a vision of the night] For the expression, comp. Isaiah 29:7 (‘like a dream, a vision of the night’), Job 4:13; Job 7:14; Job 20:8; Job 33:15, Genesis 46:2.

Daniel 2:20-23

20–23. Daniel’s thanksgiving for the great mercy vouchsafed to him.

Daniel 2:21

21. the times and the seasons] more exactly seasons and times; cf. Daniel 7:12; Acts 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:1. The meaning is, History does not move with the regularity of a clock: the order of things established at a given time is not necessarily permanent; it frequently happens that kings are overthrown and a new régime is established. he giveth wisdom, &c.] The doxology now assumes special reference to Daniel’s own case. As Joseph ascribed his skill in interpreting dreams to God (Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16), so Daniel acknowledges that He is the source of wisdom to those who possess it. know understanding] Cf. Proverbs 4:1.

Daniel 2:22

22. He revealeth, &c.] Cf. Job 12:22, ‘Who revealeth deep things out of darkness.’ light] physical light (cf. 1 Timothy 6:16), but suggesting and implying fulness of intellectual light; cf. 1 John 1:7 (of spiritual light).

Daniel 2:23

23. Thee, O God of my fathers, do I thank and praise] ‘God of my fathers,’ i.e., the same as of old, unchanged among the changes of human generations, and still able to help and defend His servants. Cf. ‘God of thy (Israel’s) fathers,’ Deuteronomy 1:21; Deuteronomy 6:3; Deuteronomy 12:1, al.wisdom and might] a share of His own attributes (Daniel 2:20): ‘might,’ however, rather in the special sense of moral strength, enabling Daniel, for instance, to remain firm in his religion (Daniel 1:8).

Daniel 2:24-30

24–30. Daniel, brought by Arioch into Nebuchadnezzar’s presence, professes his readiness to declare and interpret to him his dream.

Daniel 2:25

25. captives] lit. children of the captivity (or, better[209], of the exile), as A.V. itself renders in Daniel 5:13, Daniel 6:13; Ezra 6:16 : cf. Ezra 4:1; Ezra 6:19-20; Ezra 8:35; Ezra 10:7; Ezra 10:16. [209] See on Amos 1:5-6, in the Cambridge Bible.

Daniel 2:27

27. in the presence of] before (R.V.), as Daniel 2:9. demanded] simply asked, which is all that ‘demand’ formerly expressed. ‘Like Fr. demander, to ask, simply; not as now in the stronger sense of “to ask with authority, or as a right,” ’ (W. A. Wright, Bible Word-book, s.v.). So Exodus 5:14; 2 Samuel 11:7; Job 38:3. ‘Demand’ in the modern sense would suit these passages; but the Hebrew word used is the one that ordinarily means ‘ask.’ can neither wise men, enchanters (Daniel 2:2), magicians, nor determiners (of fates) declare unto the king] The terms are all indefinite in the original. ‘Determiners’ (also Daniel 4:4, Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:11), viz. of future destinies, whether by observation of the heavens (Isaiah 47:13), or by other means. The Babylonians were famed for their astrology, and in classical times the idea of astrologer was that which was almost entirely associated with the term ‘Chaldaean’ (cf. above, p. 13). The verb (strictly, to cut), in the general sense of decide, decree, occurs in the Targums and in Syriac, and once also in the Aramaizing idiom of Job (Job 22:28); cf. the cognate subst., Daniel 4:14; Daniel 4:21. In this particular application, however, it is at present known only in the Biblical Aramaic.

Daniel 2:28

28. But, though human skill is unable to satisfy the king, there is a God in heaven, the revealer of secrets, who has in reality by means of this dream disclosed to him the future. Cf. Genesis 41:28. and maketh known] and he hath made known. in the latter days] lit. in the end (closing-part[210]) of the days. An expression which occurs fourteen times in the O.T., and which always denotes the closing period of the future so far as it falls within the range of view of the writer using it. The sense expressed by it is thus relative, not absolute, varying with the context. In Genesis 49:1 (spoken from Jacob’s standpoint) it is used of the period of Israel’s occupation of Canaan; in Numbers 24:14 of the period of Israel’s future conquest of Moab and Edom (see Daniel 2:17-18); in Deuteronomy 31:29; Deuteronomy 4:30, of the periods, respectively, of Israel’s future apostasy and return to God; in Ezekiel 38:16 (cf. Daniel 2:8—with years for days) of the imagined period of Gog’s attack upon restored Israel; in Daniel 10:14 of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. Elsewhere it is used of the ideal, or Messianic age, conceived as following at the close of the existing order of things: Hosea 3:5; Isaiah 2:2 (= Micah 4:1); Jeremiah 48:47; Jeremiah 49:39; comp.

Jeremiah 23:20 (= Jeremiah 30:24)[211]. Here, as the sequel shews, it is similarly the period of the establishment of the Divine Kingdom which is principally denoted by it (v. 34, 35, 44, 45); but the closing years of the fourth kingdom (v. 40-43) may also well be included in it. [210] For the sense of àçøéú see Job 8:7; Job 42:12 (where it denotes clearly the latter part of a man’s life). [211] Cf. in the N.T. Acts 2:17 (for the ‘afterward’ of Joe 2:28), Hebrews 1:2, 2 Timothy 3:1, 2 Peter 3:3.visions of thy head] Daniel 4:5; Daniel 4:10; Daniel 4:13, Daniel 7:1; Daniel 7:15.

Daniel 2:29

29. came into thy mind] lit. came up,—the corresponding Heb. word followed by ‘upon the heart,’ being a Heb. idiom for occur to, be thought of by: cf. 2Es 3:1; and see Isaiah 65:17; Jeremiah 3:16; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35; Jeremiah 44:21; Jeremiah 51:50; Acts 7:23. The king, as he lay awake at night, was meditating on the future, speculating, it may be, upon the future destinies of his kingdom, or the success of his projects for the beautification of his capital; and the dream, it seems to be implied, was the form into which, under Providence, his thoughts gradually shaped themselves. In a dream, the images and impressions, which the mind, while in a waking state, has received, are recombined into new, and often fantastic forms; in the present case, a colossal and strangely constructed statue was the form which the recombination ultimately produced.

Daniel 2:30

30. Like Joseph (Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16), Daniel disclaims the power of interpreting dreams by his own wisdom. but for their sakes that shall make known, &c.] but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that thou mayest know, &c. (R.V.).

Daniel 2:31-35

31–35. Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar his dream.

Daniel 2:32-33

32, 33. The head of the image was of gold; but its substance deteriorated more and more until the feet were reached, which were of mingled iron and clay.

Daniel 2:34

34. was cut out] viz. from a neighbouring mountain (see Daniel 2:45). without hands] without human cooperation; it seemed to fall away of itself. But of course the implicit thought is that its secret mover was God: cf. the similar expressions in Daniel 8:25 end (‘shall be broken without hand,’ of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes); Job 34:20; Lamentations 4:6 : also (in a different connexion) 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 9:24.

Daniel 2:35

35. The absolute dissipation of the image. The feet being broken, the entire image fell to pieces; and the fragments were dispersed by the wind. A fall would not naturally break masses of metal into fragments small enough to be scattered by the wind; but in a dream physical impossibilities or improbabilities occasion no difficulty. threshingfloors] which were generally on exposed or elevated spots, where the chaff might readily be cleared away by the wind. Cf. Hosea 13:3, Isaiah 41:16, Psalms 1:4; and with no place, &c., Revelation 20:11. became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth] another figure, the incongruity of which would not be perceived in a dream, implying the irresistible expansive force, and also the ultimate universality, of the kingdom of God (Daniel 2:44).

Daniel 2:36-45

36–45. The interpretation of the dream. The four parts of the image signify four kingdoms,—the first being represented by its present and greatest ruler, Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 2:37

37. a king of kings] king of kings,—a title applied to Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 26:7, though (Prince) not the customary Babylonian form of address. It is, however, one that was borne constantly by the Persian kings: cf. Ezra 7:12; and see the series of inscriptions of Persian kings, published in Records of the Past, 1st ser., i. iii ff., v. 151 ff., ix. 65 ff. An Aramaic inscription found at Saqqarah, near Cairo, is dated in the 4th year of “Xerxes, king of kings” for, &c.] unto whom the God of heaven (Daniel 2:19) hath given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory. Daniel ascribes Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion to the Providence of God, exactly as is done (in other terms) by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 27:6; Jeremiah 28:14).

Daniel 2:38

38. the beasts of the field] i.e. wild animals (cf. in Heb. e.g. Exodus 23:11; Exodus 23:29). These and the birds are mentioned in order to represent Nebuchadnezzar’s rule as being as absolute as possible; the former are borrowed, no doubt, from Jeremiah 27:6; Jeremiah 28:14. art this] art the. The pronoun in the Aramaic has here no demonstrative force; see Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl. Aram., § 87. 3. The four parts of the image symbolize four kingdoms; but Nebuchadnezzar, both in reality and in the memory of posterity, so eclipsed all other rulers of the first monarchy, that he is identified with it as a whole.

Daniel 2:39

39. The second and third kingdoms are, in all probability, the Median and the Persian. The home of the Medes was in the mountainous country N. and N.E. of Babylon, and S.W. of the Caspian Sea; they are often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions from the 8th cent. b.c.; but they were first consolidated into an important power by Cyaxares, b.c. 624–584, during whose reign, in 607, they were the chief instruments in bringing about the destruction of Nineveh. Cyaxares was succeeded by Astyages, whose soldiers deserted en masse to Cyrus (b.c. 549); and the empire of the Medes thus passed into the hands of the Persians. Their name was however long remembered; for the Greeks regularly spoke of the Persians as Medes (οἱΜῆδοι, τὰΜηδικά). In the book of Daniel the ‘Medes and Persians’ are, it is true, sometimes represented as united (Daniel 5:28, Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15, cf.

Daniel 8:20): but elsewhere they are represented as distinct; after the fall of Babylon, Darius ‘the Mede’ ‘receives the kingdom’ (Daniel 5:31), and acts in it as king (Daniel 6:1-2; Daniel 6:15; Daniel 6:25-26); he reigns for a time—it is not said how long—and is succeeded by Cyrus, who is called pointedly ‘the Persian’ (Daniel 6:28; cf. Daniel 10:1, and contrast Daniel 9:1, Daniel 11:1); the two horns of the ram in Daniel 8:3 are distinguished from each other, one (representing the Persian empire) being higher (i.e. more powerful) than the other (the Median empire), and coming up after it.

Thus in the view of the author of the book, the more powerful rule of Persia is preceded by a ‘kingdom’ of the Medes, beginning immediately after the death of Belshazzar. It is possible that this representation is based upon the prediction in Isaiah 13:17, Jeremiah 51:11; Jeremiah 51:28, that the Medes would be the conquerors of Babylon. If the second kingdom be the Median, the third will be that of Persia; it is described as ruling ‘over all the earth,’ with allusion to the wide empire of Cyrus and his successors, which embraced virtually the whole of Western Asia (including Asia Minor) and Egypt (cf. the note on Daniel 4:1, at the end). Compare in the O.T. Ezra 1:2, Esther 1:1; Esther 10:1. inferior to thee] lit. lower than thou.

Daniel 2:40

40. The fourth kingdom, the formidable crushing power of which is compared to iron. The allusion is to the Macedonian empire, founded by Alexander the Great. subdueth] or beateth down: in Syr. the word used means to forge a metal. breaketh all these … and bruise] crusheth all these … and crush (R.V.).

Daniel 2:41

41. The kingdom which began by being of iron, ended in being partly of iron and partly of clay, symbolizing its division, one part being stronger than the other. it shall be a divided kingdom] alluding to the manner in which Alexander’s empire, immediately after his death (b.c. 332) was partitioned between his generals, the two who, in the end, divided it substantially between them being Seleucus and Ptolemy Lagi, who founded, respectively, dynasties which continued long in power at Antioch in Syria and in Egypt (see fuller particulars on Daniel 9:5 ff). The stronger kingdom, represented by the iron, is that of the Seleucidae. strength] an unusual word, more exactly firmness.

Daniel 2:42

42. so the kingdom, &c.] so part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part of it shall be broken.

Daniel 2:43

43. shall be mingling themselves by the seed of men] i.e. will contract matrimonial alliances. By ‘seed of men’ are meant probably children of the monarchs ruling at the time. is not mixed with clay] doth not mingle with clay. The allusion in this verse is to matrimonial alliances contracted between the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae (cf. Daniel 11:6; Daniel 11:17), which did not, however, succeed in producing permanent harmony or union between them.

Daniel 2:44-45

44, 45. The kingdom of God, to succeed these kingdoms.

Daniel 2:45

45. Forasmuch as thou hast seen in thy dream this colossal image preternaturally destroyed (Daniel 2:34-35), a great God hath let thee see behind the veil of the future, and made known to thee what will come to pass hereafter (cf. Genesis 41:28). a great God] the original is indefinite, not definite: Daniel speaks from the standpoint of the heathen king. the dream is certain, &c.] an asseveration of the truth of what has been stated, in the apocalyptic style: cf. Daniel 8:26, Daniel 10:1, Daniel 11:2; Revelation 21:5; Revelation 22:6.

Daniel 2:46-48

46–48. Nebuchadnezzar is profoundly impressed by Daniel’s skill, and bestows upon him high honour and rewards (cf. the promise of Dan 2:6).

Daniel 2:47

47. a God … a Lord] the God … the Lord. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges the supremacy of Daniel’s God over all other gods, and His sovereignty over all kings. ‘Lord of lords’ (bêl bêlê), and ‘Lord of gods’ (bêl ilâni), are titles often given by the Babylonian kings (including Nebuchadnezzar) to Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon; but it is doubtful whether the terms here used were chosen with allusion to the fact. ‘God of gods,’ as Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalms 136:2; ch. Daniel 11:36. a revealer of secrets] as Daniel had averred, Daniel 2:28; cf. Daniel 5:22. couldest] better, hast been able to.

Daniel 2:48

48. made Daniel a great man] made Daniel great, i.e. advanced, promoted him. made him to rule, &c.] i.e., probably, made him administrator of the principal province of the empire, in which the capital was; opp. to the local ‘provinces,’ Daniel 3:2. and (appointed him) chief of the praefects over, &c.] The idea appears to be (Hitz., Keil, Pusey, p. 20) that each division, or class (Daniel 2:2), of the ‘wise men’ had its own head; and Daniel was promoted to have the supervision of them all. Cf. Daniel 4:9, Daniel 5:11 (‘made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and determiners of fates’). ‘Praefect’ (segan, Heb. sâgân) recurs Daniel 3:2-3; Daniel 3:27, Daniel 6:7; and is found also in Jeremiah 51:23; Jeremiah 51:28; Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel 23:12; Ezekiel 23:23; Isaiah 41:25 (A.V. in Jer., Ez. rulers, in Is. princes; R.V. always deputy or ruler). It is a Hebraized form of the Assyrian shaknu (from shakânu, to appoint), a word used constantly in the inscriptions of the ‘praefect’ appointed by the Assyrian king to govern a conquered district, or a city. Here the term is used more generally, as it is also in Ezra 9:2, Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:14; Nehemiah 4:19; Nehemiah 5:7; Nehemiah 5:17; Nehemiah 7:5; Nehemiah 12:40; Nehemiah 13:11, of certain civic officials in Jerusalem (A.V., R.V., ‘ruler’). On the historical difficulty arising out of this statement respecting Daniel, see the Introd. p. lv, not[212]. [212] ote Cf. Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 104 ff.

Daniel 2:49

49. At Daniel’s request, his three companions are transferred from the ranks of those who ‘stood before the king’ (Daniel 1:19) to positions of authority over the ‘business of the province of Babylon,’—i.e., probably, to act as deputies or assistants to Daniel himself. Daniel’s motive in making this request may have been either simply the promotion of his three friends, or (Hitz., Keil, Meinh.) that he himself might be relieved of duties necessitating his absence from Nebuchadnezzar’s court. but Daniel was in the gate of the king] at the main entrance to the palace; fig. for, he remained at court (Sept. ἐντῇβασιλικῇαὐλῇ). Cf. Esther 2:19; Esther 2:21, where it is said that Mordecai ‘sat in the king’s gate’ (cf. Daniel 3:2-3, Daniel 4:2; Daniel 4:6, Daniel 5:9; Daniel 5:13, Daniel 6:10; Daniel 6:12); and Xen. Cyrop. viii. i. 6 (cf. Hdt. iii. 120), where this is said to have been the usual custom with the officials of the Persian court. The verse is apparently written in view of chap. 3 (see Daniel 2:3 end, 12). Additional Note on ‘Excellent’ and ‘Excellency’The following synopsis of the occurrences of these words in A.V., R.V., and in the P.B. Version of the Psalms, may illustrate and support what is said above with regard to their meaning in these versions. Excellency stands for ιֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ superiority: A.V., R.V. Genesis 49:3; A.V. Job 4:21; and in ‘have the excellency’ for δεϊιψ to shew superiority, Genesis 49:4 R.V. ιϊψεο superiority: A.V., R.V. Ecclesiastes 7:12. βΰεο majesty, fig. glory, pride: A.V., R.V. Exodus 15:7, Psalms 47:4, Isaiah 60:15, Amos 6:8 (R.V. marg. pride), Daniel 8:7, Nahum 2:2; A.V. Job 37:4 (R.V. majesty), Isaiah 13:10 (R.V. glory), Ezekiel 24:21 (R.V. pride); R.V. Job 40:10. βΰεδ majesty: A.V., R.V. Deuteronomy 33:26; Deuteronomy 33:29, Psalms 68:34. ωׂ ?ΰϊ uprising, loftiness, dignity: A.V., R.V. Job 13:11, Psalms 62:4; R.V. Job 31:23. ωׂ ?ιΰ loftiness, dignity: A.V., R.V. Job 20:6. βαδּ height, fig. loftiness: A.V. Job 40:10 (R.V. dignity). ιχψ preciousness, fig. beauty: R.V. Psalms 37:20[213]. [213] Used here in its weakened modern sense.δγψ glory, splendour: A.V., R.V. Isaiah 35:2 (bis). ὑπεροχὴ superiority: A.V., R.V. 1 Corinthians 2:1. ὑπερβολὴ excess: A.V. 2 Corinthians 4:7 (R.V. exceeding greatness). τὸὑπερέχον the surpassingness: A.V., R.V. Philippians 3:8. ἀρετὴ virtue: R.V. 1 Peter 2:9[214]. [214] Used here in its weakened modern sense.And excellent is used for βγεμδ greatness: A.V., R.V. Esther 1:4 (lit. the majesty of his greatness). ωׂ ?βιΰ great: A.V., R.V. Job 37:23. ΰγιψ grand, glorious (Isaiah 33:21), noble (Judges 5:13): P.B.V., A.V., R.V. Psalms 8:1; Psalms 8:9; A.V., R.V. Psalms 16:3; Psalms 76:4. ιχψ precious: P.B.V., A.V. Psalms 36:7 (R.V. precious); A.V. Proverbs 17:27 (following the Qrκ: R.V. follows the K’tib). μξςμδ upwards (paraphrased): P.B.V. Psalms 74:6 (based on Seb. Mόnster’s rendering, ad sublime aliquid). πλαγ glorious: P.B.V. Psalms 87:2. πωׂ ?βα exalted: P.B.V. Psalms 139:5 (A.V., R.V. high); P.B.V., A.V. Psalms 148:12 [A.V. 13] (R.V. exalted). ψΰωׁ head, fig. top, chiefness: A.V. Psalms 141:5 (lit. oil of chiefness). ψα abundance: P.B.V., A.V., R.V. Psalms 150:2 (lit. the abundance of his greatness). πβιγιν princely things: A.V., R.V. Proverbs 8:6. ιָ ?ϊֵ ?ψ superior: A.V. Proverbs 12:26 (R.V. derives the word differently). ιֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ superiority: A.V., R.V. Proverbs 17:7 (lit. speech of superiority). ωׁ ?μιωׁ ?ιν captain-like (?), i.e. noble (?) things: A.V., R.V. Proverbs 22:20. αηεψ choice: A.V., R.V. Son 5:15 (‘excellent as the cedars’). βΰεο majesty: A.V., R.V. Isaiah 4:2 (R.V. marg. majestic). βΰεϊ majesty: A.V., R.V. Isaiah 12:5. δβγιμ to make great: A.V., R.V. Isaiah 28:29 (‘is excellent [i.e. is surpassing] in wisdom,’ lit. maketh wisdom great). ιϊιψ surpassing: A.V., R.V. Daniel 2:31; Daniel 4:36; Daniel 5:12; Daniel 5:14; Daniel 6:3. τὰδιαφέροντα the things that excel (or are of value, Matthew 10:31) R.V. Romans 2:18 (A.V. more excellent); A.V., R.V. Philippians 1:10. μεγαλοπρεπὴς magnificent, transcendent, A.V., R.V. 2 Peter 1:17. In Psalms 136:5 P.B.V. there is nothing in the Heb. corresponding to excellent, though it evidently means surpassing; and in Ezekiel 16:7 A.V., R.V., ‘ornament of ornaments’ (i.e. choicest ornament) is paraphrased by excellent ornament(s). More excellent is used in Ecclesiastes 7:11 R.V. for ιεϊψ superior; in Romans 2:18 A.V. for διαφέροντα; and in A.V., R.V. 1 Corinthians 12:31 in the rendering of τὴνκαθʼ ? ὑπερβολὴνὁδόν; Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 8:6 for διαφορώτερος; Hebrews 11:4 for πλείων. Most excellent represents κράτιστος in A.V., R.V. Luke 1:3, Acts 23:26, and in R.V. Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25. Cf. in the Collect for St Peter’s Day, ‘many excellent gifts,’ in the Collect for Quinquagesima Sunday, ‘that most excellent gift of charity’ (with allusion to 1 Corinthians 12:31, just quoted), in the form of Solemnization of Matrimony, ‘who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery,’ and in the Ordering of Priests, ‘as your office is … of so great excellency,’—all in the sense of pre-eminent, pre-eminency. In view of the weakened sense in which both these words are used in modern times, it is to be regretted that they have been retained in R.V. in passages in which the real meaning is something so very different. Let the reader mark on the margin of his Revised Version the true meaning of the Hebrew (and Greek) in the passages in which it is not already given; and he will find (in most cases) how greatly they gain in expressiveness and force.