Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

səhifə	5/62
tarix	26.06.2016
ölçüsü	4.02 Mb.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 62

Summons (1-6)

When Did Daniel begin his work in Nebuchadnezzar’s court?

In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 603 BC.
Does this present an apparent contradiction with 1.5?
1. Some interpreters ask, “How could Daniel be interpreting dreams while still in training?”
2. Liberal ‘scholars’ say that there is an inconsistency between chapter 1 and 2 pointing to a later compiler of the book who got things mixed up.
3. Matthew Henry suggests that a possible solution is that Daniel so excelled in his training that he was promoted out of the training program early. This idea seems to be contradicted by 1.18 where the four young men graduated together.

What might be a possible solution to this apparent inconsistency?

People get wrapped up in this apparent inconsistency when there are at least two simple possible explanations:

One possible explanations is as follows:

We noted that the account of Daniel began before Nebuchadnezzar had actually become king. His father was still alive at the time Daniel was taken into captivity as a hostage.
We noted that it was in 606 BC that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem and took captives. He wasn’t king at that time.

If he became king later, in 605 BC, then the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (603 BC) was actually the third year of Daniel’s training.

First year of Daniel’s training (605 BC)	605 Accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne (part of a year)
Second year of training (604 BC)	604 First full year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign
Third year of training (603 BC). Possibly their training came to an end prior to the New Year’s celebrations [this would have actually been in late winter 602^⁵⁶]	603 Second full year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; The dream occurred near the end of the year shortly after Daniel and his friends has graduated; possibly at the time the New Years’ celebrations were approaching.

A different possible explanation is as follows:

When we considered chapter 1.17-21 we noted that Daniel was probably taken as a hostage in 606 BC.^⁵⁷

If Daniel was taken hostage this early then the following sequence could apply:

First year of Daniel’s training (606-605 BC)	605 Accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne (part of a year)
Second year of training (605-604 BC)	604 First full year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign
Third year of training (604-603 BC)	603 Second full year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; the year in which the dream occurred.

Whatever the explanation is, it is not that there is an error in Daniel 2.1.
1. If there are still problems in reconciling the dates between chapter 1.1 and 2.1, it is because we do not have all the facts and don’t understand fully what was happening in ancient Babylon in 603 BC.
2. The answer is not found in supposed errors in the Bible, or that the book of Daniel was a mishmash composed centuries later by some unknown scribe.
3. We need to conclude: “In such cases there is only one legitimate course, viz., to cling faithfully to the statement of the Bible, and to wait patiently for additional light.”^⁵⁸

What was the event that triggered Daniel’s rise to prominence?
1. “Nebuchadnezzar had dreams”
  1. Lit: “he dreamed dreams”. This could be interpreted as “he dreamed an important dream”.
  2. Nebuchadnezzar may have had different dreams that troubled him, but he recalled only one in particular clearly.
  3. Alternately, the plural may mean that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed the same dream on a number of occasions or that the image was revealed to him through a progression of dreams.
  4. Alternately the passage could be translated: “Nebuchadnezzar was in a state in which an important dream came to him”.
2. When we considered 1.17 we noted that dreams in ancient civilizations were thought to reveal the future.
  1. Dreams were thought to communicate messages from the gods.
  2. Natural dreams cannot predict the future.
  3. Satan does not have the ability to foretell the future, so even if he or his demons can cause us to dream unsettling dreams these cannot predict the future.

What was the nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream?
1. The account informs us that: “his mind [Heb: ‘spirit’, as in ESV] was troubled and he could not sleep”
2. It was a troubling dream.
  1. What in particular was troubling about it?
  2. When we consider the account of the dream given by Daniel, it doesn’t have the elements of a nightmare that we are familiar with (e.g., being chased and not able to run, falling, being buried alive, drowning, being attacked by wild animals or people, going outside in our underwear, etc.).
  3. What would have made it troubling to Nebuchadnezzar (look ahead to 31-35)?
    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 8 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. A 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. A stone cut out by no human hand that struck the image ... and broke it in pieces ... – The on-going scene with the stone appearing that broke the image to pieces would have also been frightening. The ancient kings believed that their deities were all-powerful. Something, as simple as a natural stone (i.e., not cut out with human hands), that could destroy their gods and scatter them to the wind as chaff, implied a much greater force or power than their gods.
3. It caused him to lose sleep.
  1. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t understand the meaning of his dream, but he understood that it was important.
    1. A great and mighty statue implied that someone great was being honoured. He would have wanted to know who it was who deserved such honour that the largest image imaginable was displayed.
    2. 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. This would have been troubling and he would have wanted to know who the image represented.
  2. The power of this image, which Nebuchadnezzar probably believed pointed to a great deity, was perceived by him as being significant and caused him to be perplexed.
    1. He thought so much about what he had seen that he was not able to sleep properly.
    2. He may have dreamed the same dream over a few nights and awoken from the dream each night, and then been unable to get back to sleep. Alternatively, he may have found that his mind was so focused on trying to discern the meaning of the dream that he was unable to fall asleep easily for a few nights after he had had the dream.
    3. Regardless of the immediate cause, his sleep was disrupted by thinking about the meaning of the disturbing image that he had seen in the dream.

How did Nebuchadnezzar proceed to solve his troubles?
1. He (commanded they be) summoned his wise men (2.12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 27, 48; also used in: 4.6, 18; 5.7, 8, 15) to give him the interpretation of the dream.
2. What classes of wise men are mentioned?
  1. The list depends on which translation you are using.
    1. Magicians – (NIV/ESV: 1.20; 2.2, 10, 27; 4.7, 9; 5.11) Scholars who ‘held the book’ and worked wonders (e.g., with herbs, chemicals and metals). This class may have included the alchemists, apothecaries and doctors.
    2. Enchanters – (NIV/ESV: 1.20; 2.2, 10, 27; 4.7, 9; 5.7, 11, 15) Those who used incantations to perform exorcisms, interpreted dreams, maintained the religious liturgy, and developed the myths and legends of the Babylonian religion.
    3. Sorcerers – (NIV/ESV: 2.2) Those who practiced incantations (e.g., cursing enemies). Sorcerers are not mentioned again in Daniel. From the Akkadian for ‘bewitch’ or ‘cast a spell.’
    4. Astrologers/Chaldeans – (NIV/ESV: 2.2, 4, 5, 10, 27; 3.8; 4.7; 5.7, 11) Those who interpreted signs (as omens) in the heavens to predict the future and tell fortunes. This class would likely have included the early astronomers. The term Chaldean, here, is not used in an ethnic sense as in Genesis 11.28, etc. (clearly, the king did not call for all the Babylonians who were from the lower-Mesopotamian tribes) but rather to refer to an office or class of wise man.
    5. Diviner – (NIV: 27; 4.7; 5.7, 11) Those who used entrails of animals to predict the future and tell fortunes, and called up dead spirits (1 Sam 28.8).
  2. All of the classes probably belonged to the generic genus of wise man and ‘priest’
  3. All of the classes likely worked together in fulfilling a number of the advisory and consultative roles of the king. He would have had other advisors for matters dealing with law, the economy, building projects, and the execution of war.
  4. There is likely much overlap among the roles with some men filling more than one role.
3. Why did he summon these classes of men?
  1. He wanted them to tell him what he had dreamed. That is to:
    1. Interpret his dream. To provide the meaning and significance of the dream, and give the meaning of the message from the gods.
    2. Recount his dream before interpreting it. As we will see, he asked the wise men to first tell him what he had dreamed and then interpret it (6). He was intending to use their professed ability to recount the dream as an indicator of their truthfulness in providing its meaning. Anyone of them who could read his deepest thoughts would likely be able also to provide the meaning of them.
4. Why did he summon all these classes of fortune-tellers?
  1. They all professed to be wise and that they were able to interpret omens and foretell the future, by one means or another.
  2. Likely, if one method used by one group failed to produce an answer (or a suitable answer), he could consult with another group of wise men and, hopefully, reveal the dream’s meaning and significance. [Note: this is similar to how modern Evolutionists work—if they don’t like one explanation of origins, they conjure up another. For example, they claim that whales originated from hippopotamuses, sheep, or deer. They are clueless, but postulate myths in the same way as Nebuchadnezzar’s wise men.]
5. The OT Jews were prohibited from consulting: sorcerers (Dt 18.10; Jer 27.9; Mal 3.5); astrologers (Is 47.13); and diviners (Dt 18.10, 14; 2 Kin 17.17; Is 44.25).
6. The Magi were the Persian equivalent of the Chaldeans or, generically, ‘wise men’. The best known Magi are the “wise men from the east” in the NT (Mt 2.1, 7, 16):
  1. Singular magus/magon (e.g., Elymas [Acts 13.6, 8]; or Simon Magus [Acts 8.9-24]), from Greek μάγος, from Old Persian maguš and Proto-Kurdish mâgî);
  2. Herodotus (ca 484 BC – ca 425 BC), a Greek historian from Ionia who wrote about the Greco-Persian wars and the culture of the Persians, refers to the Magi as the priestly caste of the Persians who were said to be able to interpret dreams:
    1. “This vision he [Astyages, the son of Cyaxares] laid before such of the Magi as had the gift of interpreting dreams, who expounded its meaning to him in full, whereat he was greatly terrified.”^⁵⁹
    2. “Such was the mode in which Astyages punished Harpagus: afterwards, proceeding to consider what he should do with Cyrus, his grandchild, he sent for the Magi, who formerly interpreted his dream in the way which alarmed him so much, and asked them how they had expounded it.”^⁶⁰
    3. “After Xerxes had thus determined to go forth to the war, there appeared to him in his sleep yet a third vision. The Magi were consulted upon it, and said that its meaning reached to the whole earth, and that all mankind would become his servants. Now the vision which the king saw was this: he dreamt that he was crowned with a branch of an olive tree, and that boughs spread out from the olive branch and covered the whole earth; then suddenly the garland, as it lay upon his brow, vanished. .”^⁶¹
  3. Marco Polo (1254-1325), a Venetian trader and explorer, reports that he visited the gravesite of the Magi (who came to see the baby Jesus) during his travels in Iran, in the district of Saveh south of Tehran:
    1. “In Persia is the city of Saba, from which the Three Magi set out when they went to worship Jesus Christ; and in this city they are buried, in three very large and beautiful monuments, side by side. And above them there is a square building, carefully kept. The bodies are still entire, with the hair and beard remaining. ... Messer Marco Polo asked a great many questions of the people of that city as to those Three Magi, but never one could he find that knew aught of the matter, except that these were three kings who were buried there in days of old. ... [At another place the people] relate that in old times three kings of that country went away to worship a Prophet that was born, and they carried with them three manner of offerings, Gold, and Frankincense, and Myrrh;” He goes on to recount the legend of why the three kings took the gifts and of their visit to the baby Jesus.”^⁶²

What appears to be the relationship between the wise men and Nebuchadnezzar? (2)
1. “They came in and stood before the king.”
  1. As in Daniel 1.5 and 1.9 this reference to their standing before the king may be a idiom for serving the king. The one Hebrew word (עָמַד) can take many meanings, including:
    1. stand, be in a standing attitude (1 Sam 26.13)
    2. take a stand against or oppose (Ezra 10.15)
    3. present oneself before (Gen 43.15)
    4. attend as a servant of (1 Sam 16.22)
    5. delay (Gen 45.9)
2. It may be that we are to understand this reference—they stood before the king—to mean that they presented themselves to the king or attended to him as servants. However, it may also be a reference to their actually standing in his presence.
3. If in fact that they stood, this would seem to be important.
4. In comparison Absalom the son of the king bowed before the king (2 Sam 14.33), Bathsheba, the king’s most loved wife bowed before him (1 Ki 1.16; 31); Nathan the prophet bowed before the king (1 Ki 1.23); see also 2 Sam 18.28; Ps 45.11.
5. It was commonly accepted throughout the kingdoms of the ancient world that subjects (including near relatives and trusted advisors) were to bow before royalty.
  1. Kings, in general, were considered to be divine or, at least, of divine descent and were considered to have absolute authority. For example, “In Egypt, from at least 1630 BC onwards, people perceived the king as the image of god because he was the son of god. The emphasis was not physical appearance. ... What is stressed is that the behaviour of the king reflects the behaviour of his god. The king as the image of god reflects the characteristics and essential notions of the god.”^⁶³
  2. Ancient literature, sculptures and paintings from the ancient ME depict subjects (including other kings) bowing, kneeling, prostrate, or crawling before the king.
    1. Shalmaneser III (859-824 BC) is depicted in a black obelisk, found at Calah and now in the British Museum, as receiving presents from Jehu, King of Judah. It shows Jehu prostrate before the king. This is probably the only surviving picture or sculpture of an Israelite king.^⁶⁴
    2. A letter from an Egyptian vassal notifying the Pharaoh that his instructions have been followed, states the following: “To the king, my lord, my god, my Sun, the Sun from the sky: Message of Yapahu, the ruler of Gezer, your servant, the dirt at your feet. I indeed prostrate myself at the feet of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun...seven times and seven times, on the stomach and on the back. I am indeed guarding the place of the king, my lord, the Sun of the sky, where I am, and all the things the king, my lord, has written me, I am indeed carrying out--everything! Who am I, a dog, and what is my house...and what is anything I have, that the orders of the king, my lord, the Sun from the sky, should not obey constantly?”^⁶⁵
    3. In the Abû-Simbel Tableau from the 12^th century BC, Rameses II is depicted in colossal size sitting on his throne and receiving homage from his officials after a victory in battle against the Hittites.^⁶⁶
6. If, they stood in Nebuchadnezzar’s presence, the wise men may have been acting in a more familiar manner than was commonly expected or accepted.
  1. It could be that Nebuchadnezzar was more relaxed about royal protocol. It has been noted by historians that he was not as tyrannical and despotic as most of the non-Israelite kings of the AME.
  2. However, it is more likely that the wise men were acting in a proud manner.
    1. They were proud that they had been called into the king’s presence.
    2. They believed that they alone could provide the answers he needed to what was troubling him.
    3. They had come to the self-deluded conclusion that they were indispensable and that they were worthy of honour and respect, even from the king.
7. The statement that “they came in and stood before the king” seems to be setting the scene for the confrontation between Nebuchadnezzar and the wise men that will follow in the rest of the chapter.
  1. Nebuchadnezzar is going to call their bluff: “You think you are such hot shots then tell me what I dreamed and what its meaning is. It you can’t, then you are charlatans and you will forfeit your lives!”

How did Nebuchadnezzar ask the wise men to provide the meaning of his dream? (3)
1. ‘He said to them, “I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.”’
2. Josephus suggested that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the content of his dream and was asking the wise men to remind him of what he had dreamed.^⁶⁷
  1. This suggestion can be supported by a misreading of the KJV translation of verse 5 (“the thing is gone from me”).
  2. Matthew Henry in his commentary on this passage also perpetuates this view.
  3. However, modern translations (NIV, ESV, NKJV) express the meaning of the Hebrew more clearly (literally: “this matter from me is certain/firm”).
3. Nebuchadnezzar had not forgotten his dream. Rather, he was testing the wise men (9). He was acting shrewdly and wisely (much like Solomon had when he suggested cutting the prostitute’s baby in half to determine who the real mother was) by setting up a test to establish the truthfulness of his wise men. He required the wise men, first, to reveal the contents of his dream so that he could establish the validity of their interpretation (6).
  1. Anyone of them who could read his deepest thoughts would likely be able also to provide the meaning of them.
  2. Anyone who claimed that he could predict the future by interpreting dreams, should also be able to reconstruct the past and repeat the contents of his dream.
  3. This was the only way that he could know that their interpretation was valid and that the wise men were not deceiving him.
  4. Had he not used this test, the wise men could have fabricated any meaning in order to mollify the king and to save themselves from death.
4. Nebuchadnezzar knew in his deepest heart that the religion of the Babylonians was mere superstition and that the wise men were fakes.
  1. From a human perspective, he sought the impossible.
  2. He was, in a backhanded way, demonstrating the foolishness of human religions and superstitions (e.g., astrology). A similar test is for us today to say to the Evolutionist, “If energy, time and chance can produce life from inanimate matter, then let’s see you a rational, intelligent being, produce life from these raw materials.”
  3. He was, from a divine perspective, setting the scene for God, through Daniel, to demonstrate that there is only one true religion—as revealed in the Bible.

What language is mentioned at this point (4)? Why is this significant?
1. The language is Aramaic.
2. At this point in the narrative, the text switches from Hebrew to Aramaic. Daniel 1.1-2.4a and 8.1-12.13 is written in Hebrew; 2.4b-7.28 in Aramaic.
3. The translations generally apply the word Aramaic to the answer of the astrologers/Chaldeans: “Then the astrologers answered the king in Aramaic.”
  1. It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar spoke a different native language than the astrologers.
  2. The astrologers may have been of a different ethnic/racial/linguistic background than Nebuchadnezzar so they answered him in the generic language of the empire because they spoke this language better than the native language of Nebuchadnezzar.
  3. However, if this is true, it is difficult to explain why the rest of the narrative of Daniel, to 7.28, is in Aramaic. The narrative in these later chapters wasn’t spoken by the astrologers, so why is it in Aramaic?
4. Another suggestion is that ‘in Aramaic’ should not be understood to modify the verb ‘spoke’.
  1. Rather, it may be that ‘in Aramaic’ is a parenthetical sign to the reader that the language has changed.
  2. In support of this view: The king would probably have been speaking Aramaic to the astrologers as it was the lingua franca of the empire that was understood by most people and was the language of commerce and diplomacy. Aramaic would likely have been the language used by those in the court (Ezra 4.7). If so, there wouldn’t be much reason to call out the fact that the astrologers answered in Aramaic.
5. Why did Daniel use Aramaic in a book written for the people God?
  1. It has been suggested that the portions of the narrative that deal with the future of world history were written in the language of the world (at that time), whereas the later portion of the book was written primarily for the Jews. However, chapters 8, 10, and 11 deal with essentially the same material as chapters 2 and 7. The latter chapters have as much relevance and interest to the other national groups in the empire as do chapters 2-7.
  2. It is more likely that the entire book was written to encourage the Jews during the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity (so it is also an encouragement to the NT Church). If this is the case, then it may be simply that Daniel, who was bilingual (1.4), may have used one language or the other depending on when he first recorded the material in his personal records. The earliest narrative, from when he was a youth, was recorded in his native language (Hebrew). During the time of his active work in Nebuchadnezzar’s court he recorded events in Aramaic. After he ‘retired’ from office or was replaced under a new regime, he recorded the remainder of the account in his personal files; again in Hebrew.
6. It is not easy to come to a definitive conclusion about the meaning of “in Aramaic” or the reason that part of the book is written in Hebrew and part in Aramaic.

How did the astrologers answer the king (4)?
1. “O king, live forever!”
  1. This particular greeting appears to have arisen in the Akkadian kingdom in the upper reaches of the Tigris River. The Akkadian kingdoms, founded around 2350 BC and re-founded about 1225 BC, covered much of northern Palestine, Syria, parts of northern Iraq, into Turkey and Iran along the Zargos Mountains to the east. The Akkadian kingdom was absorbed into the Babylonian Empire at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s father. The greeting continued in use in the Babylonian and Persian Empires until the Muslim period (7^th century AD^⁶⁸).
  2. Comparative greetings:
    1. This (or similar) greeting appears also in: 3.9 [used by Nebuchadnezzar’s astrologers]; 5.10 [used by Belshazzar’s mother or wife]; 6.6 [used by Darius’ administrators and satraps]; 6.21 [used by Daniel to Darius].
    2. 1 Kings 1.31, “May my lord King David live forever!” [used by Bathsheba to David];
    3. Nehemiah 2.3, “Let the king live forever!” [used by Nehemiah to Artaxerxes];
    4. 1 Samuel 10.24; 1 Kings 1.25; “Long live the King!”
  3. What was the meaning of this greeting?
    1. It probably is not intended to imply a desire that the king might live forever in this world as a man in his mortal state. It was too obvious to all men that even human kings, despite their pretentions to divinity, grew old and died.
    2. It may be a form of greeting in which the supplicant desires the king’s reputation to be perpetual. Consider Psalm 72.17, for example.
    3. If may be a desire that the king’s dynasty be perpetual (compare 1 Chron 28.4 with 17.23).
    4. It may also be a form of blessing that has the sense of: “May you have a better existence in a future state.”
    5. When it is used by the court astrologers, it was probably nothing more than an empty formality; although it was still a sign of respect.
    6. Daniel (6.6) and Nehemiah (2.3) could use the statement sincerely as they could desire that the king repent of his pagan views, believe in Yahweh, and be granted an eternity in Heaven. They also could use it sincerely as an indication of their respect for the king in his office. They understood the 5^th Commandment which teaches that we are to honour those in authority over us. Regardless of what we think of the person as an individual who is in an office, we are to show respect for the person as the office-holder. Note: Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mt 26.62-64) and Paul in a similar situation (Acts 23.1-5).
2. “Tell your servants the dream, and we will interpret it.”
  1. It is likely that Nebuchadnezzar had requested his wise men to interpret dreams at other times. So, they were not surprised that he was asking for an interpretation.
  2. They asked him to relate to them the content of the dream so that they could interpret it, as he had done in the past.
  3. They confidently asserted that when the king related the content of the dream to them, they would be able to provide an interpretation of it.
  4. The wise men pretend to be interpreters of dreams and had provided ‘interpretations’ in the past, but they were only impostors who could only concoct myths.

How did Nebuchadnezzar respond to the astrologers? (5-6) Why?
1. His answer was firm.
  1. The original King James translation had, “The thing is gone from me” which made early-modern commentators conclude that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the contents of his dream. The correct translation is: “thing/matter/affair from me [is] firm” which in the Middle-Eastern context is stating that the King’s command is beyond change. The NKJV and NIV provide the essence of the meaning in “I have firmly decided”. The ESV has the most accurate translation (almost literal) and does not lead to confusion for modern readers: “The word from me is firm”.
  2. He was saying, effectively, the same thing that was said of the immutable and irrevocable decisions of a king under (later) Mede and Persian law (6.8, 12,15; Est 1.9).
2. He reiterated that he wanted to know both the content of the dream and its interpretation.
  1. He repeats this requirement twice in verses 5 and 6. There could be no confusion on the part of the astrologers. They had to understand clearly what he was asking them to do.
  2. Although the king may have asked for dream interpretations in the past, he had never asked them to also tell him what he had dreamed before interpreting the dream. It seems that this particular dream had such a strong influence on Nebuchadnezzar (1) and appeared to have such significance, that he wanted to be absolutely sure that the wise men really could provide an interpretation of the dream.
  3. As we noted above, Nebuchadnezzar placed this test before the wise men to establish the validity of their claimed ability to interpret dreams:
    1. Anyone of them who could read his deepest thoughts would likely be able also to provide the meaning of them.
    2. Anyone who claimed that he could predict the future by interpreting dreams should also be able to reconstruct the past and repeat the contents of his dream.
    3. This was a creative way on ensuring that their interpretation was valid and that the wise men were not deceiving him.
  4. By placing this challenge before the astrologers, Nebuchadnezzar was able to challenge the wise men’s pretentions to superhuman knowledge.
    1. He placed before the wise men what was, from a human perspective, an impossible challenge in order to humble their hubris. They were too sure of their place in his court, as we noted with the observation that there may have been significance in their standing in his presence (2).
    2. He challenged them to prove their worth and merit as counsellors.
    3. He displayed his superiority over them.
    4. A similar instance, of a king from this era being concerned that his subjects know their place, is found in Esther 1.15-22.
3. He said that he would punish the wise men/astrologers if they didn’t fulfill his request.
  1. If they proved to be false fortune-tellers or prognosticators by being unable to inform Nebuchadnezzar of the content of his dream, they would be subject to harsh punishment. The punishment promised was of a particularly humiliating kind. What made it so?
  2. To cut a human body into pieces was considered about as degrading a curse as possible.
    1. The Babylonians believed that a soul of a body that was not buried properly would torment the living. They invested effort in preparing bodies with spices and perfumes (not by embalming as in Egypt) to help it enter the netherworld of the dead.^⁶⁹
    2. When Babylonian and Assyrian kings wanted to curse someone they would speak of casting a body aside with no burial and the mutilation of a dead body was viewed as a terrible punishment.^⁷⁰
    3. Judges 19.29 can be understood as providing circumstantial evidence of a crime. However, the pieces were also likely viewed as an abominable execration or curse (compare 1 Sam 11, as a symbolic invocation of a curse).
  3. To turn a house into a pile of rubble (ruins) was also considered to be a curse.
    1. Examples of a city (or building) being laid in ruins as a sign of a curse: Joshua 8.28 (Ai’s destruction); 1 Kings 9.8 (prophecy regarding the Temple); 2 Kings 19.25 (Sennacherib’s Fall prophesised by Isaiah); Psalm 79.1 (lament over the state of Jerusalem); Isaiah 17.1 (Isaiah’s prophecy about Damascus).
    2. The Aramaic word used here for rubble/ruins can also be translated as “ash heap” or “garbage-heap” or “public latrine”. Note, for example, Ezra 6.11 (parallel phrasing to Dan 3.29). A similar example is in 2 Kings 10.27 where the temple of Baal was demolished and used as a latrine.
    3. “This was an ancient mode of degradation, which still continues in the East; and we are informed, that Abbas [1571-1629] the Great king of Persia, having conquered Bagdad, treated the tomb of Hanifah, one of the fathers of the church among the Turks, in a similar manner.”^⁷¹
  4. The punishment meted out by ancient Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian kings was known for its barbarity. This barbarity continues today in the lands of the ME that have succumbed to Islam.
4. He said that he would reward the wise men/astrologers if they fulfilled his request.
  1. While punishment could be harsh and barbaric, the kings of the ancient ME could also lavish great rewards and boons.
  2. Biblical examples:
    1. Joseph rewarded by Pharaoh (Gen 41.40-45);
    2. Balak offered to reward Balaam for cursing Israel (Num 22.17);
    3. Ahasuerus offered Esther up to half his kingdom (Est 5.6; 7.2);
    4. Daniel rewarded for interpreting the dream (Dan 2.48);
    5. Belshazzar offered to reward whoever read the writing on the wall, and then rewarded Daniel for doing so (Dan 5.7, 29);
    6. Herod offered to reward Salome, Herodias’s daughter, for her dancing (Mk 6.22-23).

What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
1. God communicates.
  1. God is not silent. His voice, in one form or another, goes out to all mankind (Ps 19.1-4; 29.3-9; Rom 1.19, 20; Heb 1.1, 2). No man can hide from God and the knowledge of God for he will bring into their minds exactly what he wants them to know.
  2. In this instance, he communicates, via a dream, directly to an individual who was not a believer. There are other examples in the Bible of direct communication to unbelievers (e.g., Abimelech king of Gerar in a dream [Gen 20.3]; Balaam in visions, through a donkey, and by an angel [Num 22]; and King Saul [1 Sam 10.10-11; 28.11-19]).
2. God controls.
  1. Even the ‘great’ men of this world are under God’s hand (Prov 21.1).
  2. Nebuchadnezzar’s troubling vision did not result from natural causes. It was sent by God to teach him a lesson and to awaken him to the reality that God controls all things (Dan 4.34, 35, 37).
  3. God can use providential events or a burning conscience to make people pay attention to what he has to say. No man, no matter how great in the world’s eyes, is immune from having a troubled mind sent by God. Even his power and riches cannot protect him from the guilt, fear, anxiety, and perplexity sent by God
  4. In contrast, God promises those who are in his family a rest of mind (conscience) that permits them to sleep in confidence (Ps 4.8; 127.2).
3. God confounds.
  1. Nebuchadnezzar knew in his deepest heart that the religion of the Babylonians was mere superstition and that the wise men were fakes.
  2. God used Nebuchadnezzar’s innate understanding to confound the wise men of this world and their pretentions to superhuman knowledge, by having Nebuchadnezzar place a test before them that would demonstrate the falsity of their claimed ability to interpret dreams.
  3. God orders all events so that his incomprehensible power will be displayed—as he confounded the magicians of Egypt, so the astrologers of Babylon (Job 12.17).
  4. In the same way today, God confounds the foolishness of men and will silence all those that set up a challenge against him (Is 19.2, 3; 44.24, 25; 1 Cor 1.19, 20; 3.19; Rom 1.22). For example:
    1. False religions, robed in priestly garb, self-destruct in internecine conflicts.
    2. False religions, dressed-up with the aphorisms of worldly philosophers, are torn apart by arbitrary assertions and logical inconsistencies.
    3. False religions, attired in the uniforms of political systems or social programs, collapse in expensive ineffectiveness.
    4. False religions, in the white lab-coats of pseudo-science such as Evolution, distort truth until men believe their lies and living by superstition and myth.
  5. The over-arching purpose of the account in this chapter is to demonstrate the superiority of God-given wisdom over the highly praised worldly wisdom of pagan priests. Daniel alone, with God’s help, will interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to silence the pagan astrologers (2.47).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 62