Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Solution (36-45)

1. 
   What does Daniel do that the wise men could not do? (36 with 11)
   
   1. 
      The pagan wise men had stated that revealing the content of the dream in order to provide its interpretation was impossible for a man. They said that the mystery could only be resolved by someone with access to the divine realm. But, they argued, the divine realm does not make its mind known to men.
      
      1. 
         Daniel proves the wise men to be unwise—not because they required the Divine to reveal the meaning, but rather because God does in fact reveal his mind to men.
         
      2. 
         Daniel was able to reveal the dream and interpret it for the king because God does in fact reveal himself to men.
         
      3. 
         He presents the solution to the dream in the order that Nebuchadnezzar had demanded: first the content of the dream (31-35) and then its interpretation or meaning (36-45).
         
   2. 
      What do you notice in Daniel’s statement to the king that would distinguish him from the (other) wise men?
      
      1. 
         Daniel speaks of ‘we’ providing an interpretation.
         
         1. 
            The (other) wise men would likely have been proud and concerned about receiving merit points with the king and would have quickly claimed sole possession of any interpretation.
            
         2. 
            Daniel may be including his three friends in the provision of a solution to the mystery.
            
            1. 
               They had played a role as sharers in his concern (17) and by praying with him (18).
               
            2. 
               He had already displayed the spirit of a team player in his previous communication (23).
               
            3. 
               We don’t know if his three friends were present when he revealed the dream, but they may have been (49).
               
         3. 
            The ‘we’ could also be a plural of invested authority (1 Cor 2.6).
            
         4. 
            It seems that the ‘we’ shows that Daniel had a basic humility before God and Man. He knew that the revelation was not his, but God’s and that it had been revealed only to him as a spokesman for the group and not because there was anything special in his own person.
            
      2. 
         Daniel had a confidence that the (other) wise men could not have.
         
         1. 
            The (other) wise men were like the blind leading the blind. Their pagan religion was based on lies and there was no hope that what they had to say to the king could provide the truth. Therefore, they were at best timid fakers and at worst brash liars (Rom 1.18).
            
         2. 
            Daniel knew that God had given him the solution to the mystery and it was without doubt correct (45).
            
         3. 
            He could trust God to provide truth because God is Truth (Ex 34.6; Dt 32.4; Ps 86.15; 117.2; Heb 6.18).
            

2. 
   What does the head of gold represent? (37-38)
   
   1. 
      It could have any of a number of meanings:
      
      1. 
         Nebuchadnezzar himself.
         
      2. 
         His kingdom, under his personal reign (605-562 BC),
         
      3. 
         His dynasty after him: Evil-Merodach, his son, 561-560 BC; Neriglissar, son-in law to Nebuchadnezzar by his marriage to Nitocris, 559-555 BC; Labashi-Marduk, son of Neriglissar, a child-king, 555 BC; Nabonidus, 555-539 BC; Belshazzar, co-regent who was not actually crowned king, 549-539 BC.
         
      4. 
         The Babylonian dynasty, including the kings before him and after him until the conquest of Babylon by the Medo-Persia king, Cyrus, in 539 BC.
         
      5. 
         Since the other metals in the statue appear to refer to dynastic empires (rather than to individuals) it may make sense to consider the gold head as a dynastic empire with Nebuchadnezzar as the representative.
         
   2. 
      How is Nebuchadnezzar described?
      
      1. 
         As the “king of kings” (Ezk 26.7).
         
      2. 
         This may have been a self-designation of Babylonian kings since it appears to have been a self-designation of later Persian rulers (Ezra 7.12).
         
      3. 
         It may have included the pretention of the king as being the greatest king of all time.
         
      4. 
         However, it may also have been a mere statement of fact. Nebuchadnezzar could have been the king of kings if he had subject or vassal kings within the bounds of his dominion who ruled under his authority, as in the case of the kings of Judah (e.g., 2 Ki 24.1; 2 Chron 36.10).
         
      5. 
         Ultimately, the true King of kings is Jesus Christ (1 Tim 6.15; Rev 17.14, 19.16) who appears in this account as the rock who overcomes the kingdoms of this world.
         
   3. 
      What is the nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign or kingdom as described by Daniel?
      
      1. 
         It is a dominion or kingdom that includes sovereignty, space (territory), and subjects—laws, land, and lieges; codes, cities, and citizens.
         
      2. 
         It (and the king as its head) has power and might (strength) which includes the capacity or ability to rule and to deal with enemies that attack the kingdom, and with problems that face the kingdom.
         
      3. 
         It has glory or honour that accompanies the other attributes. A kingdom could be strong without honour (e.g., a despicable tyranny) or honourable and weak (e.g., a subject state with a respected statesman), but Nebuchadnezzar has both worldly power and honour.
         
      4. 
         In a few words, Daniel describes a strong, powerful, dominant, and respected dominion—setting up the fact that this dominion is the premier, without peer.
         
      5. 
         There is a deliberate set up in this account to provide a contrast with the kingdom of the Rock. If the authority of Nebuchadnezzar is so awesome in human terms, then how much more so is the authority of Rock who will establish his kingdom at the expense of all earthly kingdoms?
         
   4. 
      Who gave Nebuchadnezzar his authority?
      
      1. 
         Daniel reminds Nebuchadnezzar that he did not build the kingdom by his own power, contrary to what he might think (4.30); but rather it was given to him by God, as Daniel and Jeremiah prophesied (21; Jer 27.5-7).
         
      2. 
         Daniel finds opportunities to remind the greatest king in the world that he is a subject to the ultimate King (28, 37).
         
      3. 
         Daniel uses the expression ‘God of heaven’ (as he did with an equivalent expression, in 28) to assert that God is transcendent, above the pantheon of false gods of the pagan religions, and the creator of the universe. Our pagan culture needs to hear the same message—God is the creator and sovereign over the crated realm.
         
   5. 
      What was the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion?
      
      1. 
         It extended over man and beast—over all animate creation. God had given all people and their possessions into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. He was an absolute monarch who controlled the disposition of everyone and everything. No person had rights without his say, no person owned property without his indulgence.
         
         1. 
            At creation mankind (male and female) was given dominion over the earth and all its creatures (Gen 1.26; Ps 8.6-7).
            
         2. 
            Nebuchadnezzar, by divine appointment, is again granted this dominion. In this, he was helping fulfill what God had planned for man—i.e., to have dominion over the non-rational creation (Jer 27.6).
            
         3. 
            However, Nebuchadnezzar also owned the bodies and souls of every person in his dominion. Every person was ultimately a slave to him. The concepts of freedom that we espouse in NA (from John Locke, the Declaration of Independence, and the American Revolution) would have been such foreign ideas to his subjects to be practically unimaginable.
            
      2. 
         It extended over all territories of the world—to wherever the animate creation made its habitation. All nations on earth were (to be) subject to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27.7).
         
         1. 
            We, in Canada, speak of ‘Crown lands’ with the understanding that these territories belong to the government and in theory to the titular head of the government, the monarch of the dominion.
            
         2. 
            In Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion there really wasn’t a difference between private and public or ‘crown’ property. Every plot of land in his dominion belonged to the crown and was leased or loaned to, and managed by, tenants at his indulgence.
            
         3. 
            The concept of a king’s dominion extending from the centre of his realm to the edges of the earth (the four quarters) is found in inscriptions and writings from the AME:
            
            1. 
               Sargon the Great (thought to have reigned c 2270 to 2215⁸⁹) rose from obscurity to become king of Kish. He conquered Sumer, Upper Mesopotamia, the Amorites in Syria, Elam and Assyria. His empire ranged from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. His eventual heir, Naram-Sin (by tradition), who brought the kingdom of Akkad to its zenith, was the first Mesopotamian king to claim divinity, and the first to be called ‘King of the Four Quarters’ (i.e., the world).⁹⁰
               
            2. 
               An inscription on the door of Sennacherib’s palace from around 693 BC says, “the great king, mighty king, king of the world, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters [of the earth], favorite of the great gods …”.⁹¹
               
            3. 
               Cyrus (c 600-530 BC) read the ‘Charter of Freedom’ after he crowned himself king in the Temple of Marduk, and declared, “I am Kourosh (Cyrus), King of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters ...”⁹²
               
            4. 
               This concept isn’t limited to the AME. The Incans called their empire tahuantinsuyu (‘the four parts that make up the whole’).
               
         4. 
            Some commentators suggest we must limit Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion to that part of the world that was known in his day.
            
            1. 
               However, that isn’t what God, through Daniel, says—mankind, wherever they lived were part of his dominion.
               
            2. 
               They are mistaken in their contention that his dominion included only the ‘known world’. The known world in Nebuchadnezzar’s day extended to the territories of the Greeks (8.21; Is 66.19) and the Mediterranean world at least as far as Spain (1 Ki 10.22; Is 23.6), and parts of north and east Africa (1 Ki 10.1; Is 11.11; 66.19), and to India and probably to China. Yet these territories were not directly under the authority of Nebuchadnezzar.
               
            3. 
               The point of God’s message appears to be that Nebuchadnezzar had been given absolute authority over all nations on earth. That his armies did not extend his dominion during his lifetime does not mean that the nations were not subject to him, but rather that he had not taken control of all that had been given to him by God, and belonged to him.
               
      3. 
         We are to understand from this account that Nebuchadnezzar was the greatest king to ever have been given earthly power by God.
         
         1. 
            The authority and extent of his kingdom was absolute and unequalled in history (before or after).
            
         2. 
            Daniel, a Jew, declares God’s word to Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was greater even than Solomon’s.
            
         3. 
            This declaration indicates that the text was written by Daniel as a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, and not some 400 or 500 years later as non-believing ‘scholars’ try to suggest. A Maccabean Jew under Roman oppression would not have credited Nebuchadnezzar with such greatness.
            
         4. 
            The extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion is declared as a set up for comparative purposes. If Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion extends to the whole earth, then how much more extensive must be the kingdom of the Rock?
            
   6. 
      How can Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom have been the greatest kingdom in history?
      
      1. 
         His kingdom wasn’t the largest by geographic extent. Other kingdoms which followed, such as that of the Medes and Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, and later the Han Empire c 200 AD, and the British Empire in the 19^th century, covered larger territories.
         
      2. 
         Other kingdoms lasted considerably longer such as that of the Persians which was founded by Cyrus and continued for over 2,500 years into the 20^th century, and the Roman Empire which lasted for over 500 years.
         
      3. 
         The glory of his kingdom did not appear to be the greatest in history. Solomon’s kingdom, although considerably smaller, was extremely wealthy and glorious. The pomp of ancient Rome from around 50 BC to 150 AD was unparalleled. The wealth and innovation of the Shang (c 1675-1000 BC), Tang (618-906 AD), and Ming dynasties in China (1368-1644 AD) was spectacular. The British Empire during the reign of Queen Victoria was incredibly prosperous.
         
      4. 
         What could be the factors by which Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom is deemed to be the golden head of all worldly kingdoms? A few suggestions:
         
         1. 
            Originality vs. magnitude – The Neo-Babylonian Empire was the first to create a single culture of dominance. Its influence continued into Persian and Greek cultures. For example, the Greek and Roman pantheons are essentially Babylonian, under different names.
            
         2. 
            Tenacity of spirit and purpose vs. duration – Nebuchadnezzar held absolute power over all his subjects. Kingdoms before and after may not have concentrated all power in the king to the same extent. Rome for example had the senate which limited, to a degree, imperial power.
            
         3. 
            Unity of vision vs. display of pomp – Nebuchadnezzar appears to have been the first king to draw all conquered peoples into a single unified empire. Earlier kingdom’s like Sargon’s may have been more of a confederacy under a single head; and empires afterwards, like the Medo-Persian and Greek empires, did not unite peoples.
            
         4. 
            In summary, Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian Empire was the original ‘world’ empire that stood in total opposition to God, with:
            
            1. 
               A complete religious system that included sacred myths, priests, and rituals set up to replace Biblical truth. No vestige of the true religion was left or included in their religious system.
               
            2. 
               An absolute monarch who placed himself over all of creation. He claimed to own every aspect of the created realm from land to crops, and from beast to men. He claimed to be subject to no one else, including God.
               
            3. 
               A human-based (humanistic) system that placed man and his inventions at the center of the world. Man claimed to be the measure of all things.
               
            4. 
               A comprehensiveness that brought together people from the people groups descended from the three sons of Noah (Shemites in the ME, Hamites in the Middle East, Africa, and East, Jepthites from the NW in Turkey). This may have been the first time a world-empire, since Sargon I had accomplished this alignment of peoples.
               
            5. 
               His kingdom totally dominated society through the concentration of statist power, but was more than the momentary achievement found in other kingdoms.⁹³
               
         5. 
            Essentially, Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom stand as the representative of all pagan anti-God systems (religious, philosophical, economic, and scientific), governments, cultures, and civilizations.
            
            1. 
               All other kingdoms or nations striving for world domination, before or after, are merely graspers or imitators of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom. They are what empire builders would like to be in total rebellion against God. Nebuchadnezzar was the archetype for all attempts to exalt human beings above God.
               
            2. 
               No other kingdom has been able to realize total rebellion against God in such a complete and organized way. Nebuchadnezzar is the embodiment of anti-Christ.
               
            3. 
               This is the reason that God deals with Nebuchadnezzar explicitly by challenging him (chapters 2 and 3) and humbling him (chapter 4).
               
            4. 
               God shows through Nebuchadnezzar that all usurpers to God’s throne will be put down and made subject to the true King of kings, the Lord Jesus Christ.
               

3. 
   What are the kingdoms represented by the different materials of the statute?
   
   1. 
      What are guiding principles for determining what the kingdoms are?
      
      1. 
         They are not kings, but kingdoms or empires (39, 40).
         
      2. 
         The kingdoms are not just kingdoms, but dominant dynastic empires—which can be called ‘world’ empires.
         
      3. 
         The statue in the dream provides an accurate prophecy of world history and is not just an allegory of man’s rebellion against God.
         
      4. 
         The kingdoms display different or unique traits as represented by the metals which distinguish them from one another.
         
      5. 
         The kingdoms have to be at their peak of dominance between the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Jesus, since there is no disagreement among Christian scholars that the rock in the account refers to the kingdom of Jesus.
         
         1. 
            Note: we will refer, below, to alternate views of which kingdoms are represented by the metals.
            
      6. 
         The Book of Daniel was written sometime in the 6th century BC, not in the 2nd century as claimed by liberal interpreters.⁹⁴ The perspective of Daniel is from within a dominant world-empire. It is not a Jewish Maccabean perspective concerned primarily with the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes.
         
      7. 
         There is a single, over-arching, message in the book of Daniel and the interpretation of chapter 2 needs to be consistent with the interpretation of chapters 7 and 8.
         
      8. 
         The interpretation must be consistent with an interpretation of Matthew 24. Jesus quotes Daniel as a prophet who foretold future events that would be fulfilled in his generation (i.e., at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
         
         1. 
            Some interpreters think that Daniel was describing the “end of the age” (Mt 24.3) that they want to place immediately preceding the Judgement Day (i.e., still in our future).
            
         2. 
            Therefore, their identification of the metals in the statue with empires tends to differ from the interpretation of most Reformed scholars.
            
      9. 
         The opinion of the majority of the Church fathers and Reformers has merit—whereas the post-18^th century liberal interpretations and the opinions of cults and dispensationalists are worth less consideration.
         
   2. 
      The identification of the kingdoms does vary, however the commonly accepted view among Reformed interpreters⁹⁵ is that given in Interpretation 1, below: