Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Summary (31-35)

1. 
   What does Daniel’s description of Nebuchadnezzar’s reception of the dream tell us about Daniel and God? (31, compare 29)
   
   1. 
      Daniel describes the king’s encounter with the vision as if he had not only seen the vision but had been present in the king’s bed chamber, and inside the king’s head during the reception of the dream.
      
   2. 
      The revelation given to Daniel was complete. No detail was missing.
      
   3. 
      This recounting validated Daniel and demonstrated to Nebuchadnezzar that Daniel could not only reveal the content of the dream but could also reveal its meaning.
      
   4. 
      This recounting also validated God. It demonstrated that he is the true God who knows all things and that nothing can be hidden from him.
      

2. 
   How did Nebuchadnezzar observe the statue in his dream? (31, 34)
   
   1. 
      The Aramaic word for ‘looked’ (saw/gazed) is the same in both verses. It includes the idea of being entranced and continual action, i.e., ‘you stared’, ‘you were transfixed’.
      
   2. 
      Daniel reflected on how the king reacted to what he saw as well as on what he saw.
      
      1. 
         It may be that Nebuchadnezzar saw himself standing before the statue staring at it.
         
      2. 
         It was like an out-or-body experience in which he hovered above the scene and saw a likeness of himself staring at the statue.
         
   3. 
      The statue in the king’s dream was so impressive that the king was unable to avert his eyes.
      

3. 
   What was the appearance of the statue?
   
   1. 
      A great and mighty statue – Images or statutes in the ancient world were used as idols for worship of deities or for reverence and worship of humans. The greater the image, the more impressive the god or human being represented. We aren`t told the height of the image, but can guess that it was very large. Considering that it was possible for him to build an image sixty cubits high (3.1), or about 9 storeys, the image in his dream must have been significantly higher to have intimidated him.
      
   2. 
      A statue of exceeding brightness – In most ancient pantheons, there is an association between light and the gods. The more important gods are associated with bright lights (e.g., the sun or light—Re and Shu [Egypt], An or Gibil [Sumerian], Utu [Sumerian], Tutu/Shamash/Girru [Akkadian], Huehueteotl [Aztec], goddess Mazu [China], goddess Lakshmi [Hindu, India], Hyperion and Apollo [Greek]). The presence of light signals the presence of energy, implies power, and commands attention. The brightest bearer of light was the sun, which was usually given a prominent place in the ancient pantheons. A statute of exceeding brightness would have implied a god greater than all the other gods in Nebuchadnezzar’s pantheon or a king greater than Nebuchadnezzar himself.
      
   3. 
      An statue that was of awesome/frightening appearance – [Hebrew: ‘awesome’ (NIV/NKJV) and ‘frightening’ or ‘causing terror’ [ESV]; used also in 4.2; 5.19; 6.27; 7.7, 19] We are not told what in particular engendered fear in Nebuchadnezzar. It certainly could have been the height and brightness of the image, but it was likely the appearance of the image. For example, the face on the head may have had a cruel, cold gaze. The arms may have been folded across the chest to give the impression of confidence, and the legs spread slightly apart in a stance of defiance. Whatever it was about the image, it scared Nebuchadnezzar more than anything he had seen in his experience as a conqueror and ruler.
      

4. 
   Why did God reveal this message to Nebuchadnezzar in the form of a statue?
   
   1. 
      The statue was not necessarily an idol, but an image in human form.
      
   2. 
      The king probably did not perceive the image to represent a god, but rather he thought it represented a great king, one that was greater than him since a great and mighty statue implied that someone great was being honoured.
      
   3. 
      The statue stood erect and unmovable before him and blocked his view.
      
      1. 
         The statue challenged him.
         
      2. 
         Nebuchadnezzar understood that whoever this great king was, he was challenging him just by his intimidating presence.
         
      3. 
         The intimidating appearance humbled him. He would have considered himself to be the greatest king in the world and would have been confronted by an image that implied that someone was greater.
         
      4. 
         He would have also been troubled and curious to find out who deserved to be honoured in this way.
         
   4. 
      Nebuchadnezzar didn’t understand the meaning of the image, but he understood that it was important.
      
      1. 
         That it was the largest image imaginable would have led Nebuchadnezzar to begin questioning his own importance and the importance of his kingdom.
         
      2. 
         God was beginning the process of humbling Nebuchadnezzar. God humbles nations and their leaders who raise their heads in pride (Is 2.11; 5.15;10.12-14; Ezk 31.10, 14; Dn 4.37).
         

5. 
   What is the significance of the metals and clay seen in the image?
   
   1. 
      To answer this question we won’t look ahead to the interpretation of the dream that Daniel provides in 36-45. Rather, we will consider only what Nebuchadnezzar would have seen and might have surmised before Daniel provided the interpretation.
      
   2. 
      Immediately, Nebuchadnezzar would have noted that the statue was composed of four metals and clay progressing from the head downward.
      
   3. 
      The head was of pure/fine gold.
      
      1. 
         How did he know that the gold was pure?
         
      2. 
         By its appearance. Pure gold has a yellow lustre that is not found in gold alloyed with silver (soft green), copper (red), platinum (white), iron (blue-white) or aluminum (purple).
         
   4. 
      The thighs were of bronze. The KJV translated this as brass, but the metal was bronze.
      
      1. 
         Brass is 60% copper and 40% zinc. It is relatively soft and subject to corrosion. Brass was probably not available until around 500 BC⁸⁵ (shortly after the life of Daniel).
         
      2. 
         Bronze is 80% copper and 20% tin. It is harder than iron and resists corrosion. It was used for armour and cannons and is used for boat propellers and bells. Bronze is found in the oldest post-Flood settlements and was known before the Flood (Gen 4.22).
         
   5. 
      The feet were composed of iron and clay.
      
      1. 
         How was the clay combined with the iron?
         
      2. 
         It could have been that there was an iron framework with clay filling in the spaces.
         
      3. 
         Alternatively, it could have been a hollow iron shell filled with clay, or a skeleton of iron with clay around it.
         
      4. 
         Or it may have been strips of one material and then the other.
         
      5. 
         It is unlikely that a mixture of iron and clay would have been recognizable to the viewer.
         
   6. 
      This progression from precious materials to less valuable would have indicated some sort of change from more glory to less glory. However, there also appeared to be increasing strength from the gold to the iron, but then decreased strength (or brittleness) in the feet indicated weakness and deterioration.
      
   7. 
      An account of a similar statue made of four metals has not been discovered in the ancient literature or archaeology, implying that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was an original revelation direct from God (as we know it was!).
      
      1. 
         However, the concept of different metals representing different (and decreasingly happy) ages, and possibly dynasties or kingdoms, may have been extant in the ancient Middle East and Mediterranean world. A Greek myth⁸⁶ written a couple of centuries earlier, by Hesiod⁸⁷ a farmer in Boeotia, a region of central Greece, recounts world history as divided into four mythological ages, each characterized by a metal of decreasing value—gold, silver, bronze, and iron.
         
   8. 
      What might Nebuchadnezzar have thought the image or statue represented?
      
      1. 
         He might have thought that it represented different dynasties or reigns of individual kings.
         
      2. 
         Alternatively he might have thought of it as showing the aging of an individual man (himself) through his life: youth is the head of gold, the old man is represented by the mixture of iron and clay—weaker than iron and brittle.
         
   9. 
      At first there was no action in the dream. He observed a large, immovable statue.
      

6. 
   What was special about the first appearance of the stone? (34, 45)
   
   1. 
      The rock/stone came into existence without being carved by human hands.
      
      1. 
         How was this accomplished?
         
      2. 
         It may have appeared that someone was shaping it into a sphere through carving, without hands being visible.
         
      3. 
         Or it may have appeared as a growth that started as a mound that formed into a sphere as it separated from the base strata.
         
   2. 
      What may be the meaning of the formation of the stone without human hands?
      
      1. 
         Jerome (ca. 345-420) suggested that it could refer to the virgin birth.⁸⁸
         
      2. 
         It may have a more generic meaning, encompassed in the idea of not being tainted with sin from mankind. For example, God’s altar had to be made of natural stone, not cut stone (Ex 20.25; Dt 27.5, 6; Josh 8.31).
         
   3. 
      From where did the stone appear?
      
      1. 
         It is not stated in 34, but in verse 45 we see that it was cut out of the side of a mountain.
         
   4. 
      How big was the stone?
      
      1. 
         Since it came from the side of a mountain, it probably appeared to be large, certainly larger than a pebble.
         
   5. 
      What does the stone symbolize?
      
      1. 
         Although we are not yet considering Daniel’s interpretation, we know that the ‘rock’ image appears elsewhere in the OT and it refers to the Messiah (Ps 118.22; Is 28.16; Zech 3.9).
         
      2. 
         This image also appears in the NT to represent Christ (Mt 21.42; Acts 4.11; Rom 9.33; 1 Pet 2.6–8).
         

7. 
   What did the stone do?
   
   1. 
      The stone rolled down the side of the mountain and hit the feet/legs of the image/statue like a bowling ball hitting pins.
      
   2. 
      The force of the stone hitting the feet of the image/statue caused the statue to collapse from the bottom, with the upper portions falling down on the lower portions.
      
   3. 
      The image/statue crashed down on itself and, as it collapsed, it was reduced to dust. The dust was blown away so that there was no trace left of the imposing statue that had stood in front of Nebuchadnezzar.
      
      1. 
         Threshing floors in the AME were on elevated areas where wind could blow away chaff.
         
      2. 
         Chaff is the light, inedible portion of grain husk which separated from the grain when it was threshed (beaten) and then blew away when the grain was winnowed (tossed up in the air) on a windy day.
         

8. 
   What does this action of the stone symbolize?
   
   1. 
      The blow on the feet was sufficient to shatter the entire image/statue. This indicates that the image/statue was:
      
      1. 
         Brittle and destructible—whatever it represented could be destroyed.
         
      2. 
         Not permanent—whatever it represented would not last.
         
   2. 
      The natural stone, not made by human artifice, was greater than the king(s) of the AME—greater even that Nebuchadnezzar.
      
   3. 
      This scene would have frightened Nebuchadnezzar as much as the size and appearance of the image/statue, since the kings of the AME believed that their deities or reigns, as represented by this image/statue, would have been very powerful. For a natural stone to destroy a deity or monarchy and scatter it to the wind as chaff, implied a great force or power.
      

9. 
   What then happened to the stone? What does this symbolize?
   
   1. 
      The climax of the dream is the rapid growth of the stone into a mountain greater than the one from which it was cut.
      
      1. 
         The mountain from which the stone had been cut stood off to the side of the statue.
         
      2. 
         The mountain which the stone grew into filled the whole earth, replacing the statue that probably stood on a plain.
         
      3. 
         The resulting mountain was the largest mountain imaginable. The irony is clear: the largest statue imaginable, representing a human dimension, was replaced with the largest mountain imaginable, representing a non-human (and therefore divine) dimension.
         
   2. 
      The dream itself was simple and even without the explicit interpretation of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar would have known that the dream spoke to significant events that could destroy a human king or worldly kingdoms. This would have greatly agitated him.
      

10. 
    What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
    
    1. 
       We should be humbled:
       
       1. 
          Nothing relating to man (whether a king or a kingdom) is indestructible or eternal.
          
       2. 
          Kings may be honoured or mighty but they are subject to decay.
          
       3. 
          Kings may be awesome and fearsome but they can be blown away in an instant under the force of the Divine (Is 26.5).
          
       4. 
          As this message was intended to humble Nebuchadnezzar so it should humble us.
          
          1. 
             We are weak and brittle before God. We cannot stand before the force of his coming.
             
          2. 
             We are subject to decay and destined to return to the dust from which we were created.
             
    2. 
       We can be helped:
       
       1. 
          We should be encouraged when we see that God can produce great effects from, apparently, weak resources (Ps 8.2; Acts 4.11-21; 1 Cor 1.27; 2 Cor 4.7). As a natural stone can destroy the largest of human edifices; we can apply this:
          
          1. 
             Christians can stand, in the power of God, before tyrants and oppressive systems.
             
          2. 
             Christians do not need to fear unjust laws or the abuse of police powers.
             
          3. 
             God reigns and he will overcome the kings and kingdoms of this earth.
             
       2. 
          The purpose of this vision along with the ones in later chapters (8-12) was to strengthen the faith of the Daniel’s contemporaries and to focus their attention on the establishment of God’s ultimate eschatological kingdom.
          
          1. 
             The kingdom of Jesus Christ will overcome all earthly powers that stand tall in opposition to God. They are ultimately noting but chaff before the winds of his judgement.
             
          2. 
             The kingdom of Jesus Christ, the rock, will grow into a world-filling mountain.