Daniel 4
THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR
(vs. 1-37)
We follow here the division of chapters which we find in
our English
Version, and as, indeed, in all modern
versions. The Aramaic concludes the
third chapter with the three verses which are placed in our
version at the
beginning of the fourth chapter. The arrangement of the Aramaic is
followed by the Septuagint, by Theodotion, and by Jerome. The
Peshitta
and
Paulus Tellensis follow the more logical division. Luther divides the
chapters logically enough, but carries on the numbering of the
verses from
the
preceding chapter. It is difficult to see anything that can even seem to
be
a reason for this division. It may indicate a suspicion of these verses at
the
time the chapters were divided.
1 “Nebuchadnezzar the
king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that
dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.” The Septuagint has a
different reading here, “The beginning of the letter of
Nebuchadnezzar the king
to
all peoples and tongues dwelling in the whole earth: Peace to you be
multiplied.”
In this reading, the first clause is the heading of
all that follows, and the document
itself begins with, “Peace to you be multiplied.” The absence of
the
opening words from the Syriac Version of the Septuagint by Paulus
Tellensis is against its authenticity. It may have been a
scribal note which
has
slipped into the text. Theodotion is an exact rendering of the
Massoretic text. The Peshitta Version appears to have followed a recension
between that on which the Septuagint Version is founded and the
Massoretic text, “Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote to
all nations, peoples,
and
tongues, joy be increased to you.” The most natural explanation of this
uncertainty in the text is that this chapter is a condensation of a
longer
document. Were the document in question a
proclamation of
Nebuchadnezzar, his titles would necessarily have followed.
These,
however, are omitted, and only malka, “king,” is retained.
The baldness of
this seems to have suggested the variations which we find in the Septuagint
and
the Peshitta. The recension before us gives the beginning of the letter
according to the attesting note of the Septuagint. In the middle of
the document
condensation by the simple omission of clauses was seen to be awkward
and
perhaps impossible, so instead a summary is given in the third person.
That we have not found the proclamation itself is not
extraordinary from
the
very fragmentary condition in which the annals of Nebuchadnezzar
have come down to us.
2 “I thought it good to
show the signs and wonders that the
high God hath wrought toward me. 3 How great are His signs! and how
mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and
His dominion is from generation to generation.” The Greek versions for
these two verses are in absolute agreement, hence one is not
surprised to
find that in the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis, these verses, with that
preceding,
are
marked with an asterisk, which proclaims them not to have been
regarded by their translator as a genuine part of the Septuagint,
but to have
been added from Theodotion. They are in close agreement with the
Massoretic text. In these two verses the Peshitta is also at one with the
Massoretic text. It is possible that this may have been the actual
beginning
of
the document; on the other hand, it may have been simply the suggestion
of
some later scribe of how such a proclamation might have begun. The
latter is, perhaps, the more probable. At the same time, it
vindicates its
position by being a not unnatural expression of feelings such as
Nebuchadnezzar might well be supposed to have had after
such an
experience as he had passed through. It may even be that the signs
and
wonders to which Nebuchadnezzar refers are not merely those of his
dream
and
its fulfillment, but all the signs that had been manifested in his reign.
The Testimony of Experience (vs. 1-3)
It is interesting to observe that the account of
Nebuchadnezzar’s great
humiliation comes from the lips of the king himself, without a word of
comment by his servant Daniel. While the conduct of the prophet
teaches
us
to regard the chastisement of other people with a similar courtesy of
reserve, that of the king should remind us of the duty and utility of frankly
confessing the lessons of our own experience.
OWN HUMILIATION IS ONE OF THE FAIREST FRUITS OF
GENUINE REPENTANCE.
Ø
Nebuchadnezzar had
been a haughty
despot. The confession of deep
humiliation by such a man is evidence of a great change of spirit. The
moral value of humility must be measured:
o
by the strength of the
natural disposition to pride, as this varies
greatly in different temperaments; and
o
by the temptations of a man’s station in society. To some
self-
abasement is familiar and natural. To others it brings keen agony.
In the latter case it is a
wonderful result of repentance.
Ø
Nebuchadnezzar had defied the God of the Jews. (ch. 3:15.) To
recognize Him as the true God, who held the king’s destiny in His
hand, was another proof of a great change. It would have been
much if Nebuchadnezzar had privately trusted in the true God.
But his repentance is confirmed
by this public confession.
Ø
Nebuchadnezzar had
been a selfish tyrant. He now sinks his
self-
interest in concern for the glory of God. We never truly and
perfectly repent until we renounce
self, and give ourselves up to
a pure desire to glorify God.
SPIRITUAL TRUTHS WHICH WE SHOULD CAREFULLY
OBSERVE FOR OURSELVES AND GRATEFULLY OFFER
TO OTHERS. The recognition of Divine truths in the
passage before us is
specially valuable, because
it is not based on abstract grounds, but is derived
from personal
experience. It does not come from an
inspired Hebrew prophet,
but from a heathen
king, and it derives a special force from this circumstance,
because the spiritual teaching of Scripture thus finds an echo in a
most unlikely
quarter.
Ø
Ignorance of Divine truths
on speculative ground gave force to the
testimony. There can be no self-deceit in such cases.
Ø
Prejudice against
these truths, after it was overcome, increased the force
of the testimony. The king was not accustomed to bow before
any
providential power. His recognition of this is the more significant. It
disposes of any suspicion of hypocrisy.
Ø
The depth of the experience gave intensity to the
testimony. Much
religious language sounds hollow because it is not verified by
experience.
As we realize truth in our
lives, we see and feel it with a new power, and
then we have at once the
clear light of personal knowledge and the
strong
earnestness of personal feeling to enable us to declare it to others
(I John 1:1).
US TO SEE THE POWER, WISDOM, TRUTH, AND
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN ALL HIS WAYS WITH US.
(See vs. 3 and 37.)
Ø
The power of God is seen in His successful performance of His will
when the greatest force is set against it, and the greatest
difficulties
lie in its way, as in the overthrow of the might of
Nebuchadnezzar,
and the more wonderful restoration of him from his insanity
(vs. 29-36).
Ø
The wisdom of God is seen when mysteries of providence are
interpreted by later experience, as when the king saw the purpose
and meaning of God’s
strange dealings with him (v. 36).
Ø The truth of
God is seen in His keeping His word. The dream-
prophecy was fulfilled (v. 28).
Ø
The righteousness of God is seen in the ultimate justice of His
chastisements and their good results, as in the deserved punishment
of Nebuchadnezzar, and the final good this wrought in him (v.
25).
EARTHLY THINGS WILL HELP US TO RISE TO FAITH IN THE
ETERNITY OF THINGS DIVINE. Nebuchadnezzar now sees that
“God’s kingdom is
an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from
generation to generation.” Before this the king had been warned not to
trust in the perpetuity of earthly monarchies, but to see that
these must give
way before an everlasting kingdom (ch.2:44). God sends us
changes and disappointments that we may not rest in the temporal and
transitory (Hebrews 12:27); and He sometimes reveals, through these
changes, principles and purposes which run up into the eternal.
The
Comeliness of Confession (vs. 1-3)
“To me it seemed comely
to declare the signs and the wonders that God
Most High for me hath wrought” (v. 2 amended translation). The
history
of
the king’s insanity is told, not by the Prophet Daniel, but in a state
paper, under the hand of the king, and quoted by the prophet.
The edict is
true to human nature and to the king’s character. The following motives
may
have influenced him:
1. Gratitude.
2. Conscience. It was
right to admit sin and to recount its
judgments.
3.
A certain complacency in being the
object of Divine dealing.
4. A self-respectful
independence of the opinion of the crowd.
From the text occasion may be taken to discourse on the
propriety of
recounting the Lord’s dealings with ourselves.
·
THE RECOUNTING should
be marked by the following characteristics.
Ø The
subject-matter should be of public concern. The facts should either
be
already public, or such as may with propriety be made public property.
There are deep
things of the human spirit, which, to recount, would be
good
neither for ourselves nor for others. In Nebuchadnezzar’s case, the
facts
were notorious, though it rested with him to exhibit them in a Divine
light.
Ø The audience may then be one whole circle. The largeness of our circle
depends
in part on our social elevation. The higher our standing, the larger
the
number who know us. Not entirely our social elevation; for much will
depend on
our moral elevation. Thomas Wright, the prison philanthropist;
Levi Coffin,
who was “the underground railway” by which slaves passed
from
misery to
had
any knowledge of the king were to hear what the Lord had done for
his
soul (see v. 1).
Ø The
tone should be kindest. “The royal
style which Nebuchadnezzar
makes use
of has nothing in it of pomp or fancy; but is plain, short, and
unaffected,
‘Nebuchadnezzar the king.’”
Ø Integrity should pervade the recital. It should constitute one whole.
God’s rebukes,
as well as His favors, should come into our account, even
though
humiliating to ourselves, if the good of others and the glory of God
demand
it. Some striking instances of such recital of sins and the Father’s
chastisement, will be found in the narrative of his early life by George
Muller, in ‘The Lord’s Dealings.’
Ø The
motive should be God. Certainly
not our own glory — not self, nor
others,
save subordinately.
·
THE PROPRIETY OF IT.
Such a recounting of Divine dealing with us
is:
Ø
Good for ourselves. In the case of the
king, he was led
o
to admire the Divine
acts;
o
to infer the Divine rule.
Ø Helpful for others.
Ø Conducive to
the Divine glory and the extension of the Divine kingdom.
Royal
Witness for God (vs. 1-3)
Even kings learn the humiliating lesson at
last that they are but men. As a
counterpoise to their advantages, there is, on their
side, this great
disadvantage, viz. that their minds are singularly
impervious to appeals
from God. A drawback this which more
than counterweighs all their
privilege.
·
GOD’S BEST GIFTS ARE OFTEN CONVEYED TO MEN
THROUGH PAINFUL CHANNELS, God “causeth his sun to shine on the
evil and the good. He sendeth rain on just and
unjust alike.” So
with
earthly riches,
honor, rank, fame. These gifts betoken no special favor of
the Highest.
They are of so little worth that God gives them in abundance
to His foes.
But His best gifts are obtained only through penitence, self-denial,
suffering —
both vicarious and personal. Job’s wealth came, at the
first, almost
as an accident, and it exposed him to the envy and malice of
Satan. If he
had lived and died in his luxurious ease, the world would never
have heard of
him. But suffering wrought in him patience, submission, and
faith. This was wealth which entered into his
character, and abides with
him still. The
poor kingdoms of earth may be gained by the accident of
birth, or by
the mere chances of diabolic war; but the everlasting kingdom
can only be reached through
soul-tribulation. “Though
He were a Son, yet
learned He obedience by the things which He
suffered.” (Hebrews
5:8)
·
GOD’S BEST GIFTS ARE INTENDED TO REVEAL
HIMSELF TO
THE SOUL. These gifts, when rightly estimated, are
prodigies of skill and
mirrors of
Divine love. If God may be seen in His material works, He can be
yet more
clearly seen in His gracious gifts to men. Every one of these is a
love-token,
bearing on it the impression of His heart. Nebuchadnezzar had
been wont to
think that his royal good fortune was the highest good he
possessed; but
now he is led into the dark school of suffering, and made to
learn his
folly. Now he learns that God’s gifts of mind, reason, memory,
speech,
are far nobler than royal dignities, and that for the creation and
preservation
of these he is indebted to the God of heaven. Further, he is
made to learn
that there is a higher King than himself, and that to know and
love God is the loftiest good of man. JESUS CHRIST IS GOD’S BEST
GIFT TO MAN because He reveals to us the Father. Let us value most
those blessings which bring us
nearest to God!
·
GOD’S BEST GIFTS ARE INTENDED TO
BEAUTIFY
CHARACTER.
Nebuchadnezzar’s wealth,
power, conquests, had brought
no real good to
the man; nay, they
had done him harm. They had corrupted
the better principles of his soul. They had made him self-sufficient, proud,
tyrannical. But
now, in a season of mental suffering, God’s grace had
touched his heart. In that humiliated state, the
king learns his dependence
on God, his need of Divine help,
and the homage due to the supreme
Jehovah. His pride is abated. His love of the world
is diminished. He is
constrained to
give unto God His due. He is made another man. His inmost
character has
been benefited. He is more indebted to temporary insanity
than to all his
successful wars.
·
THE BEST GIFTS OF GOD DEMAND PUBLIC
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. There was the greatest propriety that the
Chaldean king
should proclaim to the world his obligations to God. He had
been placed
under weighty indebtedness, and could show
his gratitude in
no other way than by declaring
to the world his obligation. Often had he
made
proclamations and edicts to propagate his own will and pleasure; it
was fitting
that he should now act as a dependent, as a herald of the great
King. What better
form — what other form — can gratitude assume, than
publishing our
obligations to the world? We can do no good to God in
return for His
kindness; we may do good to our fellow-men. If gratitude be
genuine
it will be publicly acknowledged. Honest recipients of blessing
will say, “Come,
ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done
for my soul.” (Psalm 66:16)
4“I Nebuchadnezzar was at
rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace:
5
I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my
bed and the
visions of my head troubled me.” In the Aramaic text there is what may be
regarded either as a play on words of the nature of rhyme,
or the traces of a
doublet. The Septuagint begins the chapter with this verse,
as does the Massoretic
text, but further appends a date, “In the eighteenth year of his
reign,
Nebuchadnezzar said, I was at peace in my house, and
established upon my throne:
I saw a vision, and I was awestruck, and fear fell
upon me.” Theodotion differs
from this and also from the Massoretic text, and renders, “I
Nebuchadnezzar was
flourishing (εὐθηνῶν -euthaelon) in my house, and was prospering (εὐθαλῶν
- euthalon ).” The similarity in sound between εὐθηνῶν and εὐθαλῶν may
have had to do with the rendering.
It will be noted that this is further from the
Massoreticrecension than the Septuagint. The Peshitta repeats the idea of rest, “I
Nebuchadnezzar was at peace (shala) in my house, and
was resting (reeh)
in
my palace.” The Massoretic is supported by the Septuagint, and,
therefore, strong. The date in the Septuagint, however, may be
questioned.
The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar was that preceding
the capture of
nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. In the twenty-ninth
verse of the same
chapter we have an account of the carrying away of
prisoners by
Nebuchadnezzar in his eighteenth year, in a passage omitted
from the
Septuagint, in a way that makes it probable that, if this
passage be genuine, the
one is according to the Jewish, the other according to the
Babylonian mode
of reckoning. If that is so, the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar
would
mean the year of the capture of
correct, something about the coincidence would have been
mentioned. Had
this book been written to encourage the Jews in their
conflict against
Epiphanes, it would have been mentioned that
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness
occurred after he had captured
would have a tendency to insert such a date, even if no
date had been
there, or at all events to modify any other date into this.
Thus we find in
the Septuagint v. 15 (Massoretic 19, Authorized Version 24)
a reference
to the capture of
“eighteenth year” liable to occur at this point, it is that
the previous chapter
in the Septuagint begins with assigning the same date. The
change must
have been made before the exemplar from which the
Septuagint translator
made his translation had been transcribed, as it appears in
Paulus Tellensis.
The Septuagint Version does not give the beginning of this
narrative the form
of a proclamation. The attitude of the king is that of rest
after the toils of long
wars — an attitude that could not be attributed to him when
he had not reached
the middle of his reign. The conquest of
The difference between “ten” and “twenty” in Aramaic, as in
Hebrew, is
Comparatively little. עֲשַׂר (‘asar) is “ten,” עְשְׂרִין](‘asareen)
is “twenty.” As the
“ten” is the final word in the numerical statement, it
would be modified
asaratha, whereas the
word “twenty” is frequently in similar circumstances
unmodified; we should then have ‘asoreen. It may
have been even later, but
if the real year had been “thirty-eighth,” the modification
of the words
would require to be greater.. The king had received tokens
of
Divine power in his past history, and had in a sort
acknowledged God but
still he had not surrendered his pride. \
6 “Therefore made I a
decree to bring in all the wise men of
Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the
interpretation of the dream. 7 Then came in the magicians, the
astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told
the dream
before them; but they did not make known unto me the
interpretation
thereof.” These verses do not occur in the Septuagint. Theodotion is
a
somewhat slavish translation of the Massoretic text, “From
me there was set up
a decree to summon before me all the wise men of
The Peshitta is somewhat freer, but as close to the
Massoretic text. Still,
the want of the verses in the Septuagint would throw a
doubt on their
authenticity, even if there were nothing in the verses
themselves to make
them liable to suspicion.
8 “But at the last Daniel
came in before me, whose name was
Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom
is the
spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream,
saying.” This
verse is also omitted in the Septuagint. Instead of this
verse and those
preceding, this verse occurs after the account of the
dream, “And when I
arose from my couch in the morning, I called Daniel, the
ruler of the wise
men, and the chief of the interpreters of dreams, and I
related to him the
dream, and he showed me all the interpretation of it.”
Theodotion and the
Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The Septuagint
arranges
differently: instead of deferring the account of the dream
till
Nebuchadnezzar tells it to Daniel, the account of the dream
follows
immediately upon the statement of the fact that it had
occurred and had
troubled the king. In it, as we have seen, there is nothing
of the summoning
of all the wise men of
of the whole college of wise men, astrologers, soothsayers,
and Chaldeans,
is in obvious contradiction, not only to ch.2:48, but also
to v.9 here. There was
no need of summoning the college of augurs until the king
had consulted their
head. The explanation of these verses and the occasion of
their interpolation is
not unlike the fact narrated in ch.2:2, where
Nebuchadnezzar, on account of his
first dream, calls together the wise men — that when he had
a dream that
troubled him it was natural that Nebuchadnezzar should do
as the
Septuagint declares he did, summon “Daniel, the ruler of
the wise men, and
the chief of the interpreters of dreams.” One result of
which follows, if we
discard these verses, i.e. that we get rid, in this
passage, of the class of
“Chaldeans,” and further, of the etymology of
“Belteshazzar,” both of
which have been made objections to the authenticity of
Daniel.
9 “O Belteshazzar, master
of the magicians, because I know
that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret
troubleth thee,
tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the
interpretation
thereof.” This verse is also omitted in the Septuagint. Theodotion and the
Peshitta both have this passage, but with slight variations
from the Massoretic
text. Instead of “No secret troubleth [אָנֵס, ‘anays, ‘compel,’ Esther 1:8] thee,”
Thedotion renders, “No secret (μυστήριον – mustaerion -
mystery) baffles
(ἀδυνατεῖ - adunatei -
impossible) thee.” The Peshitta renders. “And no
secret is hid (ethcasee) from thee,” reading,
instead of אָנֵס,
probably הִתְכְסִי
Behrmann, who translates the word by verborgen,
thinks the
choice of the word occasioned by Ezekiel 28:3, “No secret
is hid from
thee” (עְמָמוּך), this last word, he thinks, occasioning the use of אנס; but
עֲמַם is used in Aramaic (see Leviticus 13:6, “dark” of the spot
of
leprosy). It seems more probable that there is some mistake
in the reading.
The Massoretic reading of the last clause seems modeled on
the situation
in the second chapter, where Nebuchadnezzar demands of the
magicians
that they not only give the interpretation of the dream,
but tell the dream
itself. The versions here do not agree with the Massoretic.
Theodotion
renders, “Hear the vision (ὅρασιν - horasin) of the dream which I saw,
and tell me its
interpretation.” The Peshitta has, “In the vision of my dream I
was seeing visions of my
head, and tell me the interpretation.” The Massoretic
reading contradicts the situation, and the variety of
reading in the two
versions confirms the suspicion of this verse induced by
its absence from
the Septuagint. “Master
of the magicians” (rob-hartum-maya). There is
nothing in ch. 2:48 about the promotion of Daniel over the
“magiclans,”
but only over the “governors (signeen) of the wise
men
(hakaymeen) of
antagonism between these verses and the earlier portion of
the, book, as
Daniel might have been promoted in the interval. The
Peshitta calls Daniel
rab-hahmeen, “chief of
the wise men;” Theodotion, ἄρχων
τῶν ἐπαοιδῶν –
archon ton
epaoidon. It is also to be observed that
the writer
of these verses does not make Daniel rab-mag, which so generally was
anciently understood to mean
“master of the magicians.” Avoiding an alluring
blunder is often as clear
a proof of knowledge as a directly correct statement.
Spirit of the holy gods; not “the
Spirit,” but “a spirit.” The Authorized Version
is here correct in
translating “gods,” not “God,” as the adjective is plural; not as
Theodotion, who renders, “a holy spirit of God,” reading, רוּחַ אלה
קְדושָׁה.
True and False Prophets (vs. 4-9)
It is amazing how some men are addicted to folly. It
seems ingrained into
the very nature of some men. Nebuchadnezzar had proved aforetime the
vain pretensions of his magicians and soothsayers, and had
proved, too, the
incomparable superiority of Daniel; nevertheless, he
neglects Daniel again
on this occasion, and sends for the pretentious
astrologers. Such men must
be pounded in a mortar before the folly can be expurgated.
has always been, and always will
be, a need for him. Scientific discovery,
however rapid its advancements,
will never push the prophet from his
niche. A vision was granted to
Nebuchadnezzar by God, yet even the
vision does not suffice. It only
perplexes, saddens, alarms. The carnal mind
cannot
understand it. It is a terrific enigma — confusion worse
confounded. There is need of a prophet to unfold the signification. As
long
as man requires authoritative
interpretations of Divine truth, so long he
requires the prophet.
MAN. The Babylonian king
may make decrees from morning till night, but
no number of royal
decrees can manufacture a prophet. He
may call a
certain number of recluses “wise
men;” but he can never make them so.
Both kings and meaner men allow
themselves to be easily deceived by the
mere show and pretence
of authority. Let kings learn that there are some
things which even they cannot
do. In their extremity king-made prophets
fail.
God reveals His mind and will to
whomsoever He pleases. As every power
of mind is His creation, so this
gift of prophetic insight is a direct donation
from God. The capacity is God’s, though man can improve
and develop it
by wise use. Prophecy is not so
much a faculty of mind as the production
of a peculiar temper of soul. It is strongest in the man who walks most
closely with
God; in other words, who is most conformed to God’s
character and
image. “The
secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him.”
(Psalm 25:14) To the same end, Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, “I thank
thee, Father,…
because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast
revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25
AND LOVE. Daniel did
not push his way into the presence of the king,
with the rest of the wise men.
He calmly waited in obscurity until his
presence was sought. Real merit
is neither forward nor froward. Nor, when
Daniel perceived the purport of
the dream, was he in haste to make known
the coming disaster.
Astonishment and sorrow sealed his lips for the space
of an hour. Then, required by
the king to unburden his soul, the prophet
expresses profoundest sympathy
with the king’s doom: “My lord, the
dream be to them
that hate thee.” The true prophet will
not only bring
God’s message, but will bring it
in God’s spirit. He “speaks the truth in
love.” (Ephesians 4:15)
10 “Thus were the visions
of mine head in my bed; I saw, and
behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height
thereof was
great.” The Septuagint is different here, “I was
sleeping [on my couch], and
behold a lofty tree springing out of the earth, and its
appearance was great,
and there was not another like to it.” The words, “on my
couch,” are
marked with an asterisk, denoting that they have been
added, probably
from Theodotion. There are indications here of a text
slightly different
from the Massoretic, even in the latter portion of the
verse, where the
Septuagint and the Massoretic text come closest. Instead of
bega,’ (awOgb]), “in
the midst of,” the Septuagint reading has been saggeee (ayGic),
“great.” The last
clause is most widely different from the Massoretic text;
instead of “and
the height thereof was great,” we have, “and there was no
other like it.” It
is not easy to imagine how the one reading grew from the
other, roomeh
(דוּמֵה), “height,” might easily be mistaken for דְמָה (demah), if roomeh
were written defectively; but the rest of the clause cannot
easily be
explained The Massoretic text has a certain redundancy of
meaning, which
is suspicious. In this verse we are told the tree was “great;”
the opening
clause of the following says the tree grew; whereas the
Septuagint, while
asserting its loftiness, asserts also that it was “growing”
(φνόμενον –
phuomenon). On the whole, we prefer the Septuagint, as it does not proceed
to assert further that the
tree “grew great.” Theodotion, while in the latter
portion of the verse agreeing
with the Massoretic text, omits the introductory
clause. The Pe-shitta is a briefer recension of the Massoretic
text, “The vision in
my couch was — a tree in the midst of the earth, the height
great.” The
reference here may be, to the sacred tree of the Assyrians,
the symbol of
life, which is so perpetually introduced into the
sculptures of
seen also in some Babylonian cylinders, especially in
connection with royal
acts of worship, in
Lenormant (‘La Magie,’ p. 27) we find that a sacred
tree — a conifer of some sort as seen by the sculptures —
was supposed to
have the quality of breaking the power of the seven Maskim.
Whatever the
origin of this belief, it seems to have passed into the
faith of
specially easy step in regard to an Oriental monarchy, in
which the state
was the monarch, in the midst of the earth. This refers
to the notion each
nation had that their own was the middle point, or omphalos,
of the world.
Though גַו (gav)
meant originally really “back,” not “middle,” yet it is used
of the furnace of fire in the preceding chapter, and the
primitive meaning is
entirely lost in the Targums.
11 “The tree grew, and was
strong, and the height thereof
reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of
all the earth.”
This verse is transposed in the Septuagint with the
following verse, and is
rendered, “And its appearance (ὅρασις – horasis) was great, and its top
approached to the heavens, and its breadth (κύτος – kutos - equivalent to
branches) filled (πληροῦν - plaeroun) to the clouds all things beneath the
heaven and the sun and the moon
were, and dwelt in it, and enlightened
all the earth.” The addition in the
last clause is a singular and picturesque
one to one standing beneath a spreading
tree; sun and moon might pierce
with their rays through some thin
points in the foliage, but they would seem
never to get beyond the widespread
branches of the tree, and therefore it
would be but a poetical mode
of statement to say, “the sun and moon dwelt
amid the branches.” At the
same time, it is not impossible that there was some
astronomical legend of the
sun and moon and the tree of life. If this proclamation
was originally written in
cuneiform, there might easily be some difficulty at times
in deciphering and
fixing in which of a dozen possible senses a given word
must be taken. The variation is beyond the region of mere
ordinary
blundering in Aramaic. On the other hand, it seems too
picturesque for the
work of a commonplace interpolator. Theodotion in the main
agrees with
the Massoretic, but instead of “sight thereof,” he has
“breadth (κότος)
thereof,” reading some such word as path-ootheh instead
of hazotheh. The
Peshitta is in close agreement with the received text. To
those who, like the
Babylonian, believed the earth to be a vast plain, it was
not inconceivable
that a tree should be so high as to be seen over the whole
earth. It is a very
suitable symbol of a great world-empire. At the same time, we must
remember that the great variation in this verse in the
Septuagint makes its
authenticity somewhat doubtful.
12 “The leaves thereof
were fair, and the fruit thereof much,
and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had
shadow under it,
and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof,
and all flesh
was fed of it.” The
Septuagint Version here is widely different: “Its
branches were thirty furlongs in extent, and underneath its
shadow all
beasts of the earth took shelter, and in it the birds of
heaven made their
nests, and its fruit was much and good, and it supplied all
living creatures.”
As already mentioned, this verse occurs before the one we
have just been
considering. It differs, like it, more than can be
explained by a mistake in
reading the Massoretic Aramaic; if it were translated from
a cuneiform
document, it is easily imaginable in what form the
statement might be
made. The reading, however, is not an unlikely one in the
description of a
dream, if we could have imagined the Indian banyan tree to
have been
known to the authors of this version, we might have
understood the tree of
the dream to have been like it. Theodotion is at one with
the Massoretic
text, as also the Peshitta. Whether we take the symbol of a
tree used for
the Babylonian empire, as drawn from the Babylonian tree of
life, or merely
devised by the poetic fancy of the monarch, inspired for
the time, it must be
recognized as very apt. From the Persian Gulf to the
stretched from the cataracts of the Nile in all probability
into
Over all this empire the monarch maintained the attitude of
an earthly
providence. It was because government was strong that
peaceable men
could live. It is useless to carry the similitude into the
minutiae of Jephet-ibn-
Ali, who maintains that the wild beasts are the nomads of
the deserts,
and the birds the strangers that came to Nebuchadnezzar
from far. In the
Aramaic here there are traces of the antiquity in the
language: the use of
inbbaya, “fruit,”
instead of ibbaya, is one instance. Saggeee (with sin)
is a
proof that the distinction between c and s was
still understood, and
probably heard. It is remarked by Keil that this word does
not really mean
“much,” but rather “great,” “strong.” Although it is
undeniable that he is
correct as to the primitive meaning of the word, it can
scarcely mean
anything else than “much” in the present connection.
Mazon, “food,” is
rare as a Biblical word, but occurs in Genesis as well as
Chronicles.
13 “I saw in the visions
of my head upon my bed, and, behold,
a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven.” The Septuagint
Version is shorter here, and therefore, other things being
equal, is to be
preferred, “And I saw in my dream, and an angel was sent in
power from
heaven.” Theodotion is as usual in closer accord with the
text of the
Massoretic than is the Septuagint; yet he omits “of my
head.” The Peshitta,
yet closer to the Massoretic text, only omits “behold.”
There is now a
change in the vision. The monarch sees “a
watcher and a holy one
descend.” This is
rendered rightly by the Septuagint, “an angel.” Jephetibn-
Ali maintains that there are two, and that the watcher is
the higher. The
word עִיר (‘eer), “watcher,” occurs only in this chapter in
the Bible. In the
Book of Enoch the name occurs almost a score of times, and
is used to
designate the archangels. In the present case the word קָדִּישׁ, (qaddeesh),
“a holy one,” is in all likelihood an explanatory addition,
the word being
unknown before — probably an adaptation of some Assyrian
name. On the
other hand, in the Book of Enoch every one is supposed to
be as well
acquainted with the עִירִים of Daniel as with the cherubim and ophanim of
Ezekiel and the seraphim of Isaiah. Does not this imply
that, at the time the
Book of Enoch was written, the Book of Daniel was equally
well known
with those of the two other prophets? The latest conceivable
date for
Enoch is B.C. 130, and so late a date never would have been thought of
had
there not been a necessity to place its date after that at
which critics in their
wisdom had placed Daniel. The date above mentioned implies
that Judas
Maccabaeus is unmentioned in a struggle of which he was the
crowning
hero. Even grant that later date, it is inconceivable that
a single generation
could have given Daniel such a place of honor as to be
regarded as the
equal with Isaiah and Ezekiel. In this connection it is to
be noticed that,
though the ophunim, “wheels,” of Ezekiel are made
use of, the soosim,
“horses,” of Zechariah do not appear in the later books.
Yet they are
declared to be spirits. If Daniel were a contemporary of
Ezekiel, and his
writings had thus had time to sink into the mind of the
Jewish people, this
phenomenon can be understood.
14 “He cried aloud, and
said thus, Hew down the tree, cut off
his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit:
let the beasts
get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches.” The
Septuagint Version is, “And one called and said to him, Cut
it down, and
destroy it; for it is decreed by the Highest to root it out
and destroy it.” It
is possible that αὐτῷ - auto - in the Greek was due
to כֵן (kayn) being
read as לו (lo’). The phrase as it stands in the Greek is not
unlike Revelation
14:18, “And another
cried with a loud voice to him that had the sharp
sickle.” It is, therefore, equally possible that לו (lo) has been
changed into
כֵן (kayn). The latter part of the verse is more
condensed, and therefore, by
that, more probable; only the rooting out commanded seems
to contradict
the fact that it is also commanded to leave “one root of
it.” Theodotion is
in much closer agreement with the Massoretic, save that the
beasts, instead
of being warned to depart from beneath the shadow of the
tree, are to be
(σαλευθηῖωσαν – saleuthaeiosan
- shaken)
from beneath it, as are all the
birds from its branches. The Peshitta is an accurate translation of the
text of the
Massoretes. A peculiarity to be observed in the Aramaic is
that the verbs
are in the plural, which is retained in Theodotion and the
Peshitta. It seems
difficult to understand this. Stuart’s explanation ¯ which is practically that
of Havernick and Hitzig — that the command is addressed by
the ry[i
(‘eer) to his retinue, seems highly forced, as there has
been no word of a
retinue. Keil’s and Kliefoth’s view, that the plural is the
impersonal, does
not suit the circumstances. We have a suspicion that the
plural is due to a
mistake — thinking the watcher and the holy one were
separate persons.
The Septuagint, however, has the plural, which is all the
more
extraordinary that αὐτῷ is singular. The function assigned here to the
angels must be observed. Here, as in the parables of our
Lord, the
angels
are the instruments
by whom the decrees of providence are executed. In
our days angels are not believed in. It is possible that materialism
has much
of its advantage over us, in that we do not recognize the
existence and
activity of angelic forces among the agencies of nature
and providence.
15 “Nevertheless leave the
stump of his roots in the earth, even
with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the
field; and let
it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be
with the beasts
in the grass of the earth.” Again the Septuagint differs considerably from
the received text, “And thus he said, Leave one root of it
in the earth, in
order that it may with the beasts of the earth browse in
the mountains on
grass like an ox.” As the reading is the briefer, it is on
the whole to be
preferred, the more so that the belt of iron and brass is
got rid of. The
Septuagint assumes that the work of demolishing the tree
had gone on to
some extent, and then the watcher intervenes to bring
forward this
limitation to the completeness of the destruction at first
enjoined.
Theodotion is in agreement with the Massoretic text, as
also the Peshitta.
Moses Stuart thinks the belt of iron and brass is
represented as being put
round the stump of the tree in order to prevent it
cracking, and so rotting,
in this following von Langerke. Keil, with more justice,
thinks that this is a
transition from the symbol to the person symbolized; in
this view he agrees
with Hengstenberg, Kliefoth, Zockler, Behrmann, Hitzig,
Ewald,
Kranichfeld, and others. There is a further division of
opinion as to
whether it symbolizes the mental darkness Nebuchadnezzar
will be under,
or the limitation of his kingdom, or the fact that, as a
maniac, he will be
bound with fetters. The fact that, while commentators have
devoted so
much time to this, there is no reference to it in the
interpretation, confirms
us in our suspicion of the whole clause. The transition to
the person, if
barely doubtful in regard to the belt of iron and brass, is
obvious in the
remaining clauses in this verse. Every tree is wet with the
dew of heaven
— that would indicate neither degradation nor hardship; and
the browsing
with the beasts is impossible to a tree. The transition
from thing to person
is in perfect accordance with what every one has
experienced in dreams.
16 “Let his heart be
changed from man’s, and let a beast’s
heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass ever
him.” The
Septuagint rendering seems to be taken from the previous
verse, “And let
his body be changed by the dew of heaven, and let him be
pastured with
them seven years.” It seems difficult to imagine, either,
on the one hand,
לִבְבֵהּ (libebayh) changed into פִגְרָהּ (pigerah), the word by which Paulus
Tellensis translates σῶμα –
soma – body - though it suggests
“carcass,” or into
hned]ni (nidnayh),
the word used in ch. 7:15; or, on the other, that either of
these should be read lebab. At the same time, ל and נ are not
unlike in old
inscriptions, nor b unlike d; any
indistinctness in the third letter might
easily lead to a mistake. It is not impossible that some of
the words in the
latter part of the previous verse have been modified from
some word
meaning “body.” It is equally difficult to guess what word
has been read by
the Septuagint translator instead of ˆ
יַחְלְפוּן (yah-lephoon), “let them pass
over.” The greater brevity of the Septuagint is in its
favor. Theodotion is,
as usual, in closer agreement with the Massoretic; he
renders min-anaosha’
or anosha’ for ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων – apo ton
anthropon - from men —
a possible translation, and one favored by some recent
commentators. The
Peshitta agrees quite with
the received text. According to the received text, the
main change was mental — the human heart is removed, and
the heart of a
beast given. On the other hand, in the twenty-third verse,
in which we have
the fulfilment of the dream, the change is mainly physical,
and it is to be
observed that the change is produced by “the dew of heaven.” Seven times.
The word ‘iddanun, “times,” is a matter of some
difficulty; it means really
“seasons” or “points” of time, as in Ecclesiastes 3:2,
Targum, and
Genesis 38:1, Targum Onkelos, “It came to pass at this
time.” It is
purely arbitrary to fix the meaning here as “years,” as is
done by the
Septuagint and by many commentators. Theodotiom keeps the
indefiniteness of the original by rendering the word
here καιροί – kairoi –
time; season. The Peshitta
transfers the word. It may be” months” as suggested
by Lenormant; it maybe
“seasons,” in our usual sense of the word. Rendel
Harris’s ‘Biblical Monuments,’ p. 73, says, “Summer and
winter are the
only seasons counted in
four years. From the fact that exposure to weather is the
point of
importance, Mr. Harris’s view is not impossible; but
pathological reasons
suggest “months”. Seven, with the Babylonians, as
with most other Semites,
is a round number of sacred import, and therefore may not
be pressed.
17 “This matter is by the
decree of the watchers, and the
demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the
living may
know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and
giveth it
to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of
men.” In this
verse the difference between the Septuagint text — we mean
the text
behind that version — and that of the Massoretes is great.
It is as follows:
“Until he know the Lord of heaven to have power over all
things which are
in heaven and on the earth, and such things as He willeth
to do, He doeth.”
This, as may be observed, is very much briefer than the
Massoretic, and
hence, to a certain extent, to be preferred. It is,
however, difficult to
imagine the genesis of the one from the other, as they have
only two words
in common in a similar connection, שַׁלִּיּט (shaleet) and ינְדְּעוּן
(yinedeoon)’ If we start with the supposition that
the Massoretic text is the
primary, we have a difficulty in seeing what reason induced
this peculiar
form of condensation. Had it been to get rid of the decree of the watchers,
and the demand
of the holy ones, that clause might have been simply
omitted, and the sense would have given no sign of anything
having been
omitted. If, again, we start with the Septuagint text as
our basis, it is
difficult to understand what led to the insertion of “the decree of the
watchers” and “the demand of
the holy ones.” Of course, the period of the
Persian domination and that of the early Greek supremacy
was one in
which the angelic hierarchy was enormously increased and
made vastly
more complex than it had been before. Further, it is to be
noted that “the
watchers,” עירין (‘ereen), are here distinguished absolutely from “the
holy
ones,” ˆ
קַדִישִׁין (gad-deesbeen),
whereas in v. 13 “the watchers” and
“the holy ones” are identified. This distinction is made in
later Jewish
commentators, and therefore its presence here, in
contradistinction to v.13,
is proof of a relatively late origin for this clause.
Zockler would avoid
this by asserting a parallelism of members in this
sentence; but, in the first
place, this is not verse, but prose, and therefore
parallelism need not be
expected. Further
גְזֵדֵת (gezayrath) is “a decree” given by a person
in
authority, and צּצּצּ (sh’alayth)
is “a petition” presented to one in
authority. So far from the two being identified in the
verse before us, the
watchers and the holy ones are as absolutely contrasted as
they can be.
Bevan simply appeals to v. 13 to prove their identity —
sense has no
influence with him. When we turn to Theodotion, we find
that, in his
practical identity with the Massoretic text, he has
preserved the contrast
between “decree” and “petition,” the former
word being represented by
σύγκριμα – sugkrima, and the
second by ἐπερώτημα – eperotaema.
These two words represent fairly well the distinction
between גְצֵרֵת
(gezayrath), and שְׁאַלֵת (sh’alayth). It is probable that σύγκριμα is used
instead of κρίμα – krima – judgment - in order to show that εἴρ - eir -
is to be regarded as genitive plural. The Peshitta follows
the Massoretic, but less closely. It has עיר “watcher,” in the singular. This
clause in the Syriac should be rendered, “according to the
decrees of the
watcher is this order, and according to the word of the
holy one is the
request;” it retains the distinction in question much as it
is in the received
text, but with a distinct difference of meaning in regard
to the other words
of the clause. So, too, Jerome in the Vulgate translates,
“In sententia
vigilum decretum eat et sermo sanctorum et petitio,” thus
maintaining, in
all the confusion there is in this rendering, the
distinction we have referred
to. In the final clause, the Vulgate is further astray from
the Massoretic.
translating, super eum. The theology of this passage
is singular, so singular
that, were it not for the omission of the passage from the
Septuagint. and
its contradiction of v. 13, we might be inclined to think
it must be
genuine. (For a similar statement, see Galatians 3:19, “The Law… was
ordained by
angels;” Hebrews 2:2, “If the word spoken by angels was
steadfast.”)
The view seems to be that the Almighty had a council of
angels, and before them was every question discussed ere it
was decreed.
In short, that there was a heavenly Sanhedrin,
corresponding to that on
earth — an idea which was developed by the Talmudists. It
appears in
Enoch, not yet fully developed. In Enoch 12. certain of the
watchers are
denounced as having defiled themselves with women; in ch.
20. we have
the name of the holy angels who watch, and in this chapter we
have the
different provinces assigned to each of them. Six are
enumerated. They
have thus no collective function. In the portion of Enoch
preserved in
Syncellus, men are represented as calling to the heavens,
and addressing
them; and the four angels, Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and
Gabriel, give
answer by looking down upon the earth, and they see the
blood that is
being shed by violence. Then follows the statement, “And
the four
archangels came before the Lord, and said.” They may be
here said to act
in a collective capacity, but they have no deliberative
function, still less
have they any power to decree. The interpolated verse
before us thus
represents an angelology more developed than that of the
date of the
Book of Enoch. And
setteth up over it the basest of men. This phrase
suggests the “vile
person,” נִבְּזֶה (nibezeh), of ch. 11:21, who is
probably Epiphanes — the reference in this interpolated
verse is not
unlikely the same. The Syriac form of עליה in
the K’thib has to be
observed. One peculiarity which points to interpolation is
the Hebrew
plural here used, אֶנָשִׁים , (anasheem).
Were it not that our suspicions of
this verse are deepened by examination of it, we should be
inclined to see a
reference to that usurpation of Nebuchadnezzar’s throne, which
Lenormant
thinks is implied in the title Neriglissar gives to his
father. There seems to
be a reference to something like this in v. 24 of this
chapter, according to
the version of the Septuagint.
18 “This dream I King
Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou,
O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof,
forasmuch as all
the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto
me the
interpretation; but thou art able; for the spirit of the
holy gods is in
thee.” This verse is wholly
omitted in the Septuagint. On the other hand, the
verse in the Septuagint which occupies this place is
totally different from
anything in the Massoretic text: “Before me was it cut down
in one day,
and its destruction was in one hour of the day, and its
branches were given
to every wind, and it was driven out and dragged forth, and
it ate the grass
of the earth, and it was delivered to a guard, and in
brazen fetters and
shackles was it bound with them. I marveled exceedingly at
these things,
and the sleep departed from mine eyes.” The first thing
that strikes one
with this is the fact that it is a translation from
Aramaic. The clause, “in
brazen fetters and shackles was it bound with them,” seems
nearly
demonstrative of this Ἐν πέδαις
καὶ ἐν χειροπέδαις
χαλκαῖς ἐδέθη ὑπ
αὐτῶν
- en pedais kai
en cheiropedais chalkais edethae hup auton - is not
a sentence which any one would naturally write in Greek,
but the sentence is natural if the translator followed his
Aramaic original
slavishly. If, then, this is correct, the hypothesis of a falsarius
is reduced to
that of an Aramaic falsarius, who intruded this
verse into the Aramaic
original which was conveyed down to
in the Septuagint completes the narrative which the Massoretic
text leaves
unfinished. This may be used. as an argument against the
authenticity of
this version, as the need of completion may have suggested
the mode in
which the need was to be supplied. But it is also to be
noted that there is
present the same mixture of sign and thing signified,
which, natural in a
dream, is so unnatural in ordinary narration, that the falsarius
who had
observed the incompleteness of the Massoretic text, and had
the necessary
skill to supply the want, would not have increased the
confusion, already
manifest enough. When we turn to Theodotion, we see
symptoms of
trouble, “This is the vision which I Nebuchadnezzar the
king had, and thou,
Beltasar, tell the interpretation, because none of the wise
men of my
kingdom were able to show me its interpretation; but thou,
Daniel, art able,
because a holy spirit of God is in thee.” The introduction
of the Jewish
name Daniel in the midst of a speech in which he is always
elsewhere
addressed by his Bahylonian name, is suspicious. The
repetition, in this as
in the Masoretic, of the original incongruity that Daniel,
the head of the
court magicians, is only summoned after the other magicians
have proved
unable to solve the mystery of this dream, is to be noted.
The Peshitta here
partly follows the same text as that followed by
Theodotion, and partly that
of the Massoretes. Like Theodotion, “Daniel” is inserted,
but, following
the basis of the Massoretic text in opposition to
Theodotion, it has “a spirit
of the holy gods.” There seems no possibility of imagining
the Septuagint
reading to have developed from the Massoretic, or vice
versa. If there
were any proof of Dr. C. H. H. Wright’s hypothesis, that
our present
Daniel was a condensation of a larger work, it might be supposed
that the
Massoretic represented one condensation, and the Septuagint
another. The
Septuagint at this point inserts, “And having risen early
in the morning,. I
summoned Daniel, the ruler of the wise men and chief of the
interpreters,
and related to him the dream, and he showed all the
interpretation of it.” In
Genesis 41. we have two accounts of Pharaoh’s dream, first
in connection
with his actual dreaming, and next in his narrating to
Joseph his experience.
If the original tract — from the union of several of which
we imagine our
book has been compiled — from which this chapter is
condensed
contained, like Genesis 41., two accounts of
Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, and
the Egyptian recension followed one condensation of this
tract, and the
Palestinian another, the phenomena are explicable without
the idea of a
vague gratuitous variation, such as that of which, on the
traditional view,
the writer of the Septuagint has been guilty. On the ground
that the
Massoretic text may represent also a true text of Daniel,
another fragment
of the original document, we may examine it a little more
closely. The king
declares the dream to Daniel in a way that indicates a
certain attestation of
the accuracy of the report of what he had seen. “This is
the dream which I
Nebuchadnezzar the king saw.” Then follows the command to
declare the
interpretation, “You are master of magicians. I have duly
brought before
you an accredited dream which I have had, fulfill now your
office, interpret
to me my dream.” This much is natural. What follows is an
obvious
interpolation. It contradicts what has preceded, which, by
implication,
asserts Daniel’s duty to interpret, and therefore the
probability that not last,
but first, would Daniel have been appealed to. It
contradicts also what
follows, which is a commendation of Daniel’s powers, which,
as known to
the king, ought to have led him at once to summon him, as
the Septuagint
says Nebuchadnezzar did. The commendation of Daniel appears
an
addition to get over the difficulty, but, like many other
attempts of the
same kind, it fails, and really adds to the confusion.
A Vision of Self-Ruin (vs. 10-18)
It must always be regarded as a mark of God’s kindness,
when He
forewarns men of His impending judgments. If vindictive
retribution only
was intended, there would be no premonition. The old adage
current
among the heathen, “The gods have feet of wool,” has no
place in God’s
kingdom. “The axe is laid at the root of the tree” (Matthew 3:10) —
a proof that kindness is not extinct in God’s bosom.
common method in olden time to
represent a prosperous man under the
image of a flourishing tree. “The
righteous shall prosper as a palm tree: he
shall grow as a
cedar in
splendor of Nebuchadnezzar
resembled such a tree. He reigned in
well-nigh the center of the then
known world. His power among earthly kings
was supreme. Neighboring
monarchs were his vassals. In all his wars he
had been successful.
throne was strong, and his fame
reached, as it seemed, to heaven. Nor did
his rule appear, on the whole,
injurious. The peoples found protection
under his scepter. He encouraged
the growth of art and science. But this
military glory fed and pampered
his pride. He deemed himself something
more than man. He imagined
himself a demi-god. The prosperity was
outward, material, plausible. It
did not touch and transform his inner
nature. His body was nursed in
luxury, but he was starving his soul. The
flower opened in unrivalled
beauty, but there was a worm at the root. Ah!
deceitful sunshine.
prosperous men to suffer a
sudden and complete reverse. “Riches make for
themselves wings, and fly away.” (Proverbs 23:5) The
props of a throne are
soon snapped. The arm of
military power is soon broken. Kings have ended
life in a dungeon or on a
scaffold. Not more complete is the contrast between
a fruit tree in spring and the
same tree in the frosty days of winter, than the
conditions of some men — in the
morning prosperous, in the evening
stripped and naked. Can Fortune’s best gifts be worth much, which give no
warrant of
continuance? The calamity which was
preparing for
Nebuchadnezzar was certainly the
most severe that could befall a man.
Worse than disease! Worse than
leprosy Worse than death! He who had
“set his heart as
the heart of God,” who had aspired to a place among the
stars, was to fall below the level
of a man — was to have the heart of a
beast, abject weakness instead of
imperial might, imbecility in place of
boasted wisdom. This disaster is said to be proclaimed by a holy watcher.
This language was an
accommodation to prevalent beliefs. The unfallen
angels, being unburdened with a
corporeal nature, and having, therefore,
no need of sleep, are ever
wakeful to execute the commissions of Jehovah.
These watch our course, grieve
over our declensions, and correct us for
our follies. So did an angel
scatter the hosts of Sennacherib (II Kings 19).
So did an angel smite Herod with
a fatal disease (Acts 12:23). “Are they
not all ministering spirits?” (Hebrews
1:14) “Excelling
in strength, they
do His commands, hearkening to the voice of His word.” (Psalm 103:20)
succession of melancholy
chastisements, until the word “nevertheless” is
reached; then the deepening
darkness is relieved by a gleam of hope. The
stump of the root was to be
preserved. This, of course, implied that the
overthrow was not absolute and
final. Room was yet left for repentance
and restoration. Special means were chosen to preserve the stump from rot
and injury. So all God’s judgments, in this life, are corrective and
are
designed to be
remedial. Judgment and mercy are blended in human
discipline. The affliction, though severe, was not to be permanent and
eternal. There was a limit in
respect to duration: “Till seven times are
passed over him.” A sad apprenticeship in the dark prison of insanity, for
seven years, was to be endured.
And then, what? This was the momentous
question. Was the issue, then, to be death? Or repentance, amendment,
life? Tremendous issues hung upon
the man’s use of God’s judgment.
Every man is upon his trial. We
are here “prisoners of hope.” A ray of
mercy gilds our path, which ray may broaden and
brighten INTO
ETERNAL NOON or may be quenched
in BLACKEST NIGHT!
the government of our world, nor
in any of the affairs of men. Does
insanity fall upon a man? It is
by a heaven]y design. “The purpose of
Jehovah, that
shall stand.” (Proverbs
19:21) Mark,
that God’s intention
was not simply
the good of one individual man,
but THE GOOD OF
ALL LIVING! God uses one
to teach
many — disciplines one, that he may
be a blessing to multitudes. “No man liveth unto
himself.” (Romans 14:7)
We receive good and evil
mediately from the human race. We transmit
blessing or bane to the future ages. God’s high design is to teach men
religious truth — “that
the living may know that God ruleth” (v. 17).
To know God, as
the living, reigning God, — this is among
the highest blessings
we can obtain. If we know God, we
shall long to be
reconciled to Him, to enjoy His
friendship. Acquaintance with God will
quicken the aspiration to be
like Him. To know Him is the way to virtue,
wisdom, eminence, peace. It is
comparatively easy to instruct the beggar, it
is very difficult to instruct
the monarch, in this lore. How hardly shall
they
that have riches
confess themselves poor! (Matthew 19:23) How hardly
shall they that have dominion
acknowledge their dependence! The poorest
in this way may become the
richest; the commonest among men may
become the
mightiest in the kingdom of heaven.
19 “Then Daniel, whose
name was Belteshazzar, was astonied
for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him.” Thus far the two
main
recensions are agreed. The Septuagint renders practically
to the same effect
as our version, only that ὑπόνοια κατέσπευδεν
αὐτόν – huponoia
katespeuden auton
means rather - suspicions
disturbed him -which is the
rendering of Paulus Tellensis. There
are traces in it of doublet; the rendering
of the Septuagint is, “And Daniel greatly marveled, and suspicions disturbed
him, and he was terrified, trembling
having taken hold of him, and his visage
was changed, having moved
(κινήσας – kinaesas -
disturbance) his head,
having been amazed one hour, he answered me in a meek voice.” Theodotion
and the Peshitta are at one with the Massoretic text here. It is to be noted here
that the word sha’a, translated “hour,” has no such definite meaning; Gesenius
gives, “a moment of time,” in
which he is followed by Bevan, Keil, and Stuart.
Ewald translates, eine Stunde, and with him agree Hitzig,
Kranichfeld, Zockler.
Both the Greek versions have ὥραν – horan –
time; (limited), but we must
bear in mind that ὥρα – hora – limited time - had not the definite meaning
which we attach to “hour.” Jerome renders hera. The Septuagint adds, as we
have seen, somewhat grotesquely, “having moved (κινήσας) his head, he was
astonished for one hour.” This seems a case of “doublet,” that phenomenon so
frequent in the Septuagint. The Septuagint rendering, (δὲ – de - and) Daniel
was greatly astonished, and suspicions troubled him, and, trembling having
seized him, he was afraid,” suggests that it is not impossible that ygc,
“greatly,”
had been read instead of h[v, “an hour;” but the rest is not so easily explicable.
There is one case of Syriasm
here in the vocalization of אֶשְׁתּומַם instead
of אִשׁיי. .
“The king spake, and said,
Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the
interpretation thereof,
trouble thee.” This clause is absent from
both the
Greek versions, though present in
the Peshitta and Vulgate. As it stands, on
the one hand, it is a departure from
the epistolary style, or perhaps rather the
proclamative style of the earlier portion of the chapter. On the other
hand, if
we think this clause an
interpolation, we cannot fail to note that the kindly
courtesy and consideration
ascribed by the interpolator to Nebuchadnezzar is
utterly unlike the character
of Epiphanes as manifested to the Jews.
Nebuchadnezzar saw that Daniel was filled with sorrow and
apprehension
at the meaning he saw in the vision, and endeavors to
reassure and
encourage him. If the conduct of Nebuchadnezzar is unlike
that which a
Jew of B.C. 170 would have ascribed to him were it his intention to
present
in him Epiphanes under a disguise, still more unlike is the
conduct of
Daniel to that which certainly would have been ascribed to
him had the
author intended to represent him as a model of the pious Jew
in a heathen
court — in the court of Epi-phanes. Would Mattathias have
remained
astonished and speechless in the presence of Epiphanes, had
it been
revealed to him that Epiphanes was to be driven out to the
wilds a
madman? If, then, it is an interpolation, it is an early
one — earlier than the
Maccabean struggle. But if the interpolation be early, the
book interpolated
must be yet earlier. “Belteshazzar answered and said, My
lord, the
dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation
thereof to
thine enemies.” The Septuagint
maintains the epistolary character of this
narrative here, “And Baltasar answered me with a meek
voice, This dream
be to those that hate thee, and let the interpretation
thereof come upon
thine enemies.” Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate
are at one with
the ordinary text. The feelings of Daniel towards
Nebuchadnezzar seem to
have been those of the highest personal loyalty, and thus
in the widest
contrast from the feelings that any Jew of the time of the
Maccabees would
have towards Epiphanes. He, Daniel, in his love for the
grand impulsive
despot, would have the enemies and haters of his monarch
swept forth to
wander as maniacs, rather than that he should so suffer.
20 “The tree that thou
sawest, which grew, and was
strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, an the sight
thereof to
all the earth; 21 Whose leaves were fair,
and the fruit thereof much, and
in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field
dwelt, and
upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their
habitation:
22 It is thou, O king, that
art grown and become strong: for thy greatness
is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the
end of
the earth.” The Septuagint Version here differs very
considerably in
wording from the above, but not in sense, “Thou, O king,
art this tree
planted in the earth, the appearance of which was great,
and all the birds of
the heaven made their nests in it: the strength of the
earth and of the
nations, and of all tongues to the ends of the earth, and
all the
(χῶραι – chorai - provinces) serve thee.
And that tree was exalted and
neared the heaven, and its breadth (κῦτος - kutos) touched the clouds.
Thou, O king, wast exalted above all
men that are upon the face of the whole
earth, and thine heart has been [literally,
‘was’] lifted up with pride and strength
over those things which pertain
to the Holy One and His angels, and thy works
are manifest, because thou hast
laid waste the house of the living God on account
of the sins of the
consecrated people.” The latter portion of this contains plain
evidence of interpolation. Had there been anything of that
sort in the
original Daniel, it would not have disappeared from the
Massoretic text.
This addition reveals the mental attitude of the Jews of
the Maccabean
period to foreign oppressors. The fact that the whole
atmosphere of the
primitive Daniel differs so much from this is an indirect
evidence of its
genuineness. If one looks at the Septuagint rendering of
these three verses,
there seem evidences of an early origin. The first verse is
clearly an
instance in which the text behind the Septuagint is
superior to that of the
Massoretic; the latter is obviously filled out from v. 11.
The statement of
Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness in v. 22 (14 Septuagint, 18
Massoretic) may
be somewhat the result of paraphrase. The fifteenth verse,
according to the
Septuagint, which is paralleled by Tischeudorf with v. 19
of the Massoretic, is
really another version of the preceding verses, probably
slightly modified to
give the resulting text the appearance of being continuous.
Theodotion
bears a very close resemblance to the Massoretic text, only
he has κύτος,
“breadth,” instead of ὅρασις (vision; appearance). The Peshitta differs but
little,
though still a little, from the Massoretic text. Instead of
rendering, “meat for all,”
it has,“for all flesh.” According to both recensions of the
text, Daniel repeats,
either in substance or with verbal exactness, the
description
Nebuchadnezzar had himself given of the tree of his vision,
but applies it to
the monarch. To us the terms of the description of
Nebuchadnezzar’s
power are exaggerated; but we must bear in mind that the
manners of an
Oriental court are different from those of Western nations.
It is not unlike
the boastful language of Nebuchadnezzar in the Standard
Inscription. The
monarch’s dominion was vast, but it
had been given him, and that he did
not recognize, and hence the judgment that came upon him.
23 “And whereas the king
saw a watcher and an holy one
coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and
destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the
earth, even
with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the
field; and let
it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be
with the beasts
of the field, till seven times pass over him.” This in the
beginning agrees
with the text behind the Septuagint Version of v. 14 (7
Septuagint., 11
Massoretic). In that verse, instead of the elaborate
process of cutting off
branches and shaking off leaves, the Septuagint had simply,
καταφθείρατε
αὐτό. – kataphtheirate
auto. This confirms us in
our preference of the Septuagint there. In the present
instance, the Septuagint
is briefer than the Massoretic text;
it varies in some points, which may indicate
the hand of a redactor, “And the vision which thou sawest, that an angel was
sent in strength,
and commanded
to root the tree up and to cut it down, the
judgment of God shall come upon thee.” Here, again, there is nothing of
“the watcher and the holy one,” nothing of the belt of “iron and brass,”
nor of the “tree having its portion with the beasts of the field,” nor that it
was to be “wet with the dew of heaven.”
Some of these features are mentioned
in the account of the
vision, but are not repeated now. Theodotion agrees with
the Massoretic text. The Peshitta carries the repetition
yet further, and
inserts, “And his heart shall be changed from the heart of
a man, and the
heart of a beast shall be given him.” In this the process
already begun in the
text of the Massoretes is carried a little further. The
Vulgate agrees with
the received text. Daniel rapidly notifies the principal
features in the king’s
dream, before he proceeds to explain it.
24 “This is the
interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of
the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king.” The passage in
the Seventy which is parallel with this is partly in the
last clause of the
previous verse and partly in the verse that occupies a
similar place to this in
the Septuagint text, “The judgments of the great God shall
come upon
thee, and the Most High and his angels assail thee (κατατρέχουσιν
ἐπὶ σὲ –
katatrechousin
epi se – are pursuing you).” The change of
tense here
indicates that the second clause is an alternative
rendering, brought into the
text from the margin. In this marginal
note meta has been taken as “assail,”
and malka’, “O king,” has been,
by transposition of the two final letters, read
mela’k,
“angel.” Theodotion
and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text.
The respectful tone in which Daniel
addresses Nebuchadnezzar in the received
text is to be observed; it is
utterly alien to the boastful tone Judaism was
afterwards accustomed to impute
to its old saints. That there is no reference to
the watchers or to their
decree in this is imputed to Daniel’s recognition of its
true source; but in the Septuagint there is nothing
equivalent to the
statement in v. 17. The fact that it is omitted here
confirms the suspicion
against it which we expressed in regard to the earlier
verse.
25 “That they shall drive
thee from men, and thy dwelling
shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make
thee to eat
grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of
heaven, and
seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the
Most High
ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever
He will.”
The Septuagint Version is here much briefer, and in that
better, “And they
shall put thee in guard, and send thee into a desert
place.” The Massoretic
text, although it agrees with that from which Theodotion’s
Version, the
Peshitta, and the Vulgate have been translated, is
pleonastic. The Vulgate
drops the causative element, and simply says, “Thou shalt
eat grass like the
ox, and thou shalt be wet with the dew of heaven.” The
Peshitta, while
translating טְעַם by the aphel of ‘acal — that is to say, making the meaning
causative — renders צְבַע by the passive, titztaba; similarly Theodotion
renders it. If we are to take the words of Daniel strictly,
even in the
Massoretic, much more if we take the Septuagint, text, he
seems to have
understood the dream to point, not to lycanthropy, but to
an overthrow at
the hands of his enemies, when they would compel him to eat
grass in his
distress, and, by depriving him of every shelter, force him
to be wet with
the dew of heaven. There is nothing to indicate that the
compulsion should
work within, and that by these inner scourges the
messengers of the Most
High would drive Nebuchadnezzar forth to the fields.
26 “And whereas they
commanded to leave the stump of the
tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that
thou shalt
have known that the heavens do rule.” The Septuagint Version here is
different, and not so good as the received text, “And (as
for) the root of
the tree which was left and not rooted out, the place of
thy throne shall be
preserved to thee to a season and an hour; behold, for thee
they are
prepared, and they shall bring judgment upon thee. The Lord
liveth in
heaven, and His power is in all the earth.” The last clause
here is plainly a
paraphrase of “the heavens do rule.” “A season and
an hour” is a doublet,
and since it is to be observed that the phrase, “after that
thou shalt have
known,” is omitted, we may deduce that thindda’,
“thou shalt know,” is,
by transposition of letters, read l’iddan. Theodotion,
who is usually slavish
in his following of the Aramaic construction, renders here,
“And because
they said, Suffer the stump (φυὴν – phuaen)
of the roots of the tree.” This
suggests that in the text before Theodotion mere is
omitted from למשבק
(l’mishbaq), and it was read לשבקו (leishbaqoo),
meaning, according to
the Mandaitic form of the verb, “they shall leave” — a form
in accordance
with the previous construction, then further altered to the
second person
plural. The end of the verse is also slightly different,
“Until thou shalt know
the heavenly power,” reading here shooltan dee shemya’
instead of shaltan
shemya. The Peshitta
renders, “till thou shalt know that power is from the
heaven (min shemya).” Mr. Bevan remarks on
this usage of “heavens” for
“God,” which he compares with the Mishna and with the New
Testament.
He does not observe that the difficulty all the translators
have with the
phrase is a proof that, when the versions were made, it was
even then not a
common usage; hence that its introduction here was not due
to the
influence of the Mishnaic Hebrew stretching back, but was
owing rather to
the peculiar circumstances of Daniel. Professor Bevan’s
reference to the
New Testament is mistaken. In no case in the New Testament
is οὔρανοι –
ourunoi – heavens
- used for “God.” Even in the Greek Apocrypha is no
usage precisely equivalent.
Daniel, by using the phrase he did, put himself on
the same level as
the heathen king — pride against the gods (ὕβρις – hubris –
harm; hurt, injury), and of this, by implication,
is Nebuchadnezzar here accused.
Certainly the words of his inscriptions do not indicate anything of this sort. In
fact, many of the phrases in
the prayer to Marduk in the India House Inscription
indicate reverent
humility almost Christian. Still, these phrases might be due, to
some extent, to political custom. The relation of a
polytheist to his gods is
a psychological enigma to a civilized monotheist. On the
one hand, he
recognizes his dependence on the god; on the other, he
considers the god
honored by his worship, and therefore owing him certain
duties in return.
27 “Wherefore, O king, let
my counsel be acceptable unto thee,
and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine
iniquities by
showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of
thy
tranquility.” The Septuagint Version differs in this case
somewhat
considerably. It connects itself with the preceding verse,
“Entreat Him on
account of thy sins, and to purify’ all thine
unrighteousness in almsgiving,
in order that He may give thee humility, and many days on
the throne of thy
kingdom, and that thou be not destroyed.” This version is
paraphrastic and
inferior as a whole to the text of the Massoretes, but at
the same time,
there must have been a different text to make such a
rendering possible.
Theodotion is more in accordance with the Massoretic text,
but also has
resemblances to the Septuagint here, “Therefore, O king,
let my counsel be
acceptable to thee, and atone for thy sins by almsgiving,
and for thine
unrighteousness by mercies to the (ενήτων– penaeton – poor;
indigent),
perchance (ἵσως – isos – like; similar) God will be long-suffering to thy
transgression.” The last clause may be due to reading ‘elaha’ (אלחא) for ‘archu
(ארכא), in which case the last clause would
read, “God may be for thy tranquillity.”
In this case Theodotion’s rendering
is a natural paraphrase. The Peshitta is in
agreement with the received
text, save that malka, “king,” is left out, possibly
from its resemblance to milki,
“my counsel.” The Vulgate rendering is,
“Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be pleasing unto thee, redeem thy
sins by
almsgiving, and thine iniquities by mercies to the poor;
perchance He will
forgive (ignoscat) thy sins.” This follows
Theodotion so far in the last
clause, but not wholly, It is to be noticed that all the
versions translate
צִדְקָה (tzid’qah) “almsgiving” — a
late meaning, and one not present in
the Massoretic here. It can only be forced
upon,this passage by giving פְרַק
(peraq) a meaning it never has, as Professor Bevan
and Keil show it to
mean “to break,” and as breaking a yoke meant “setting
free,” it thus meant
redeeming a person; but in
the sense of paying a ransom for sins, it never is
used, even in the
Targums. There is, therefore, a wide difference between
the moral standpoint of the writer of Daniel and that of
his translators —
so wide that the writer of
Daniel does not see the possibility of his words
being twisted to this meaning.
In Ecclesiasticus almsgiving is made
equivalent to righteousness. The writer of Daniel is on a
different moral
plane from Ben Sira. But more, Daniel must have been
translated into
Greek before Ecclesiasticus, as the whole canon was
translated when the
grandson of Ben Sira had come down to
B.C. 135; on
the critical hypothesis, not a score of years separate the text of
Daniel from the translation. The courteous beginning of
Daniel’s speech is
to be observed; he is anxious to
win the king to repentance. Compare
the
stern, unrelenting demeanor of Elijah to Ahab, and of
Elisha to Jehoram.
If we compare this with the way the Jews of Talmudic times
regard the
memory of Titus, the Roman captor of
totally different atmosphere from that in which the Jewish folsarius
of any
period of Jewish history could have lived. A grand
impulsive character like
Nebuchadnezzar could not but at once allure and awe the
young Jew, but a
zealous Jew would have regarded it as derogatory to imagine
this of a
prophet of the Lord, and so we see the Septuagint
translator drops the
courteous words with which Daniel introduces his advice.
Daniel looked
upon the fact that the warning had been given as an
evidence that there
might be a place for repentance.
Human Greatness, Its
Rise, Fall, and Restoration
(vs. 4-18, 20-27)
“Behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height
thereof was great”
(v. 10). The subject naturally suggested by the text is that of
human
greatness, its rise, its decay, its restoration. It should be remembered,
even
in
the first entertainment of the theme, that this greatness may be inherent in
man
individual as in man collective. To guide our thoughts,
especially in
its
practical applications, it will be well, then, to keep distinctly before us
the
concept man, and also that other — the nation. The applications
will
then be rich and manifold. A striking illustration of the greatness of a
nation is to be found in the slow growth and present position of
Great
the
end of all the earth.” The pre-eminence of the Anglo-Saxon race,
including now the people of the
Another hint — that we may not lose ourselves in the
grandiloquent and
miss the practical, observe that greatness is, after all, only relative,
that all
humanity is as nothing COMPARED WITH THE
MAJESTY OF THE
ETERNAL! A workman may be relatively great in the
workshop; a child in the
school; therefore there is no limit to the applications of
the subject. Apply it to
the
low levels of common life, as well as to the highest,
·
HUMAN GREATNESS — IN ITS RISE. Observe:
Ø Its dependence. The tree
and the man are alike in this — in being living
things.
Now, life at first is from God; and is ever sustained by effluence
from Him. The tone of the king (v. 30) was that of
moral madness (see
also v.
17).
Ø Its growth. The tree
from its tiny seed. The law of man’s life is that he
must
grow. The tendency of man (both individual and
collective) is to
growth. He
ought to be so indefinitely. The man that ceases to grow at
forty or
fifty, mentally, morally, is dead. The young, aspiring spirit is to be
retained
to life’s last hour. Looked at on the reverse side, no greatness is
instantly
attained. Neither man nor nation vaults into the throne of moral
eminence.
Wait, but actively wait, not passively, as the child, of mere
circumstance.
Ø Its majesty. The tree
majestic. Man majestic. So a nation. Let not false
humility
preach otherwise. The grander
our conceptions of man, THE
HIGHER
OUR ADORATION OF HIS MAKER! Even sin cannot hide
the
original grandeur. A
temple, albeit in ruins.
Ø Its loneliness. Eminence
ever lonely. The spires above the city. The
snow-domes
above the lower mountain ranges. As man rises, he retains, or
he should
retain, sympathy with all below; but he himself rises into a region
where the
lower sympathies do not follow him (see Robertson on ‘The
Loneliness of
Christ;’ and. Dr. Caird on Isaiah 63:3, in volume of ‘
Sermons’).
Ø Its conspicuousness. The tree
was seen from every part of the far
horizon.
The more eminent man or nation, the more the observed of all
observers.
The attendant responsibility, therefore:
o
virtue
more influential,
o
vice
more pestilential.
Ø Its use. (v.
12.) Literal pressing of the figure here impossible. Keep to
the
commanding central thought, that human greatness must not have self
for its object. The eminence of man is for beneficence. We live for
others,
and in so
doing find our richest life. One might be tempted to say that in
this we
contrast with God; but not so. All things, indeed, flow in upon God
as their
object, but only that He may again give Himself, in the
grandeur
of His love, to the universe.
·
IN ITS DECLINE. Note:
Ø The failure. In the
dream-parable of the tree, nothing is said of the
failure;
but look at the man, Nebuchadnezzar. To appreciate his usual
delinquency
we must take account of the extraordinary character of his
public
works; the aim, pitilessly pursued, of his own aggrandizement; the
consequent
sacrifice of the wealth, labor, comfort, happiness, and lives of
his
people. (See ‘Daniel, Statesman and Prophet,’ R.T.S., pp. 119-121,
126, 127.)
The eminence of the great king was not for use and benediction.
Ø
The judgment.
o
Its time. In the very height of the king’s prosperity. “I was at rest in my
house, and flourishing in my palace” (v. 4). We do not know the exact
date, but
we know the time in relation to the rest of the king’s life. At
rest in
domestic relations; no serious solicitude about public affairs;
conquests
achieved; great buildings finished.
o
Its cause. Insist on the truth that the doom of men and nations is
morally conditioned.
Illustrations are more than abundant in modern
life.
o
Its source. Observe: the “watchers” here are not necessarily
angels; for
they are
not objectively real, but subjective in the dream. Still, they
point to
a reality in heaven.
§
Intelligence there. The watcher intellectually was
characterized
by a
large, piercing, sleepless eye.
§
Holiness. This the moral characteristic. “A
holy one.”
§
Arbitrament there.
§
Power there. “Cried aloud.” The execution certain (v.
17).
Ø The
decay. (v. 15.) Compare parables of the talent
and of the pound.
(Luke 19:12-27)
·
IN ITS RESTORATION. Observe:
Ø
The subject remains. The man
indestructible (v. 15). The moral
possibilities abide.
Ø The conditions
of restoration.
o
The reawakening of the consciousness of God. (v. 34.)
o
Penitence.
o
Bearing practical fruit. (v. 27.)
o
The conditions accepted on the ground of Christ’s
atonement.
The atonement, so far as its
efficacy goes, is A PERPETUAL
FACT! The Lamb has
been “slain
from the foundation of
the world.” (Revelation 13:8) Knowledge of the
atonement not absolutely necessary to those blessed by it.
It stands as an objective
ground, justifying Divine benedictions
on the unworthy. The providence of God is the atonement in
action. The moral government of God is, since the Fall,
mediatorial,
always and every where.
Reproof by
the Saintly (vs. 19, 26-27)
“Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for
one hour,
and his
thoughts troubled him” (v. 19). “Astonied for one hour.”
This is
not
quite accurate. The meaning is that Daniel was so troubled, so
overcome, that he remained for some time without uttering a
word.
Perhaps he stood gazing at the king in mute amazement and
sorrow. At
length the king himself broke the distressing silence,
encouraging the
prophet to cast away all fear of consequences, and to tell
the meaning,
whatever it might be. With much trembling, doubtless, in a tone of
deep
respect, with fidelity softened by tenderness, Daniel proceeded
to point out
the
meaning — the king’s sin and the king’s doom. This passage in the
history suggests much as to the giving and receiving of
reproof. We are
our
brothers’ keepers, but it is to be feared that this duty of spiritual
guardianship is one very much neglected. Let us first look at things
from
the
point of view of:
·
THE BEPROVED. There
are many difficulties in approaching a man
with even the most necessary reproof, most of which were
present in this
case of the king. A sinner is like a fort
surrounded by many lines of
entrenchment. The reprover is
quite conscious of the strength of the moral
fortification, and is oft deterred from his duty. The reproved is
ready to
repel reproof by virtue of:
Ø
Self-love. “Most quick, delicate, and constant of all feelings.”
Ø
Pride. The reprover seems to assume the office of both lawgiver
and
judge. But what right this superiority?
Ø
Difference in social rank. It matters not
whether, as in this case, the
reproved be of superior rank or of inferior. If the former, the
reproved
resents the audacity; if the latter, what he is pleased to call
the patronage.
Ø
Absence of moral aspiration. The reproved does not
really desire to be
better than he is.
Ø
Contrariety of judgment. The reproved doubts
the principle upon which
you are proceeding; e.g. you expostulate with a man on
the sin of
gambling; but he disputes your premiss, viz. that there is wrong in
gambling. There is no sin or vice
which some men will not be found to
defend. Nebuchadnezzar may have
considered all his oppressions of the
poor, etc., as quite within his kingly right.
Ø Suspicion of
the reprover’s motive.
·
THE REPROVER — his
tone and spirit. He should be characterized
by:
Ø
Sincere and simple sympathy for
the man. In this respect Daniel was
perfect.
Ø Grief over
the moral position.
Ø Sorrow for the
consequences.
Ø Fidelity.
Ø
Courtesy. Note the tone of vs. 19, 27. Daniel was mindful of his
relation to his king.
Ø
Hopefulness. Daniel gave counsel simple, comprehensive, direct. And
then expresses a large hope, “If it may be,” etc. (vs. 26-27). Some
elements in:
·
THE REPROOF WILL BE SUGGESTIVE.
Ø
It was solicited.
An immense advantage.
Ø
Based on adequate knowledge. Nothing can be more
paralyzing to a
would-be reprover than to find that he is proceeding either on
false or
unproved assumptions.
Ø
Strong by authority of truth. “In presenting
admonitory or accusatory
truth, it should be the instructor’s aim that the authority may
be conveyed
in the truth itself (“...speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians
4:15), and
not seem to be assumed by him as the speaker of
it.” “One man, a
discreet and modest one (and not the less strong for that), shall
keep
himself as much as he can out
of the pleading, and press the essential
virtue and argument of the subject. Another makes himself
prominent in
it, so that yielding to the argument shall seem to be
yielding to him. His
style, expressly or in effect, is this: ‘I think my opinion
should
have some weight in this case;’ ‘These arguments are what have
satisfied me;’ ‘If you have any respect for my judgment,’
etc. So
that the great point with him is not so much that you should be
convinced, as that he should bare the credit of convincing you.”
Ø Well-timed. “The teller of
unpleasing truths should watch to select
favorable times and occasions (mollia tempora fandi - favorable
occasions for speaking) when an inquisitive or
docile disposition is
most apparent; when some circumstance or topic naturally leads
without formality or abruptness; when there appears to be in
the way the least to put him (the person reproved) in the
attitude of pride
and hostile self-defense” For aught we know, Daniel may have
had it on
his mind for a long time to speak to the king; at length the
day of
opportunity dawned.
·
THE RESULT.
Ø
The reproof was not at once successful. For a year more (v.
29) the
king seems to have gone on, in the same spirit, to do the same
deeds.
Ø
But was so finally. (v. 34.) When reproof
had been emphasized by
judgment. The memory, then, of Daniel’s counsel.
28 “All
this came upon the King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 At the end of twelve
months he walked in the palace of the
here has the look of a paraphrase. In continuation
of the preceding verse, “Attend
(ἀγάπησον - agapaeson) to these words, for my word is certain, and thy time is
full. And at the end of this word, Nebuchadnezzar,
when he heard the interpretation
of the vision, kept these words in his heart” (compare
with this the phrase in
Luke 2:19). “And after twelve months the king walked
upon the walls of the city,
and went about its towers, and answered and said.”
The variations appear to be due
to a desire to expand and explain. It seemed to the translator
more natural
that, after a survey of the walls and towers of
should speak his boastful words, hence he makes the
suitable changes in
the verse before us; so, too, with the effect of Daniel’s
words on the king.
The rendering of Theodotion coincides nearly with the text
of the
Massorites, save that hoychal is translated “temple”
rather than “palace” —
a translation which usage quite permits. The Peshitta
retains the double
meaning. One, of the great buildings erected by an Assyrian
or Babylonian
monarch was his palace, which had also the character of a
temple. In the
case of the Ninevite monarchs, the walls of the palace were
adorned with
sculptures, portraying the principal events of the
monarch’s reign. This not
impossibly might be the case with the
as a city seems to have been practically rebuilt by him —
his bricks are the
most numerous of any found in
Prophetic
Counsel (vs. 19-28)
The true prophet is God’s messenger to
men. He has a definite mission to
perform, and his service here is unspeakably
precious. We have here
several marks of a genuine prophet.
·
REAL SYMPATHY WITH HIS FELLOW-MEN. As a servant of the
most high God,
he can have no sympathy with self-indulgence, pride,
ambition, or
any form of sin. But he has real affection for men. Beneath the
thick crust of
worldliness, he perceives a precious soul, bearing still some
lineaments of
the Divine image; and his aim is to release and rescue the real
man. The
prophet feels for him, enters into his perplexities, bears with him
the burden of
sin. He would, if he might, take those burdens on his own
shoulders, and
bear them to the feet of the Sin-destroyer. To a large extent
he identifies himself with
suffering and enslaved humanity. Daniel’s
silence was
more eloquent than any speech, and if he could have averted the
monarch’s doom
he would have done so.
·
CLEAR INSIGHT INTO UNSEEN REALITIES. The prophet of God
has commerce
with the invisible realm. He knows, as a matter of fact, that
there is a
sphere of life encompassing us on every side, though unseen by
mortal eye. The
world, which is patent to the senses is a very small
world
compared with
the territory unrevealed to sense. The visible creation is full
of pictures and
symbols of the invisible. Moral truths are adumbrated for us
in allegorical
forms. The objects and
events, with which we are familiar in
daily life,
serve as hieroglyphs, and reveal to our dull understandings
heavenly lessons. The trees of the field illustrate man’s growth, prosperity,
decadence,
sudden fall. His frailty may be read in the grass of the field. No
material scythe
is needed to mow him down. He falls before the east wind.
We are dullards
and fools if we do not read lessons of wisdom from the
scenes of
nature, especially when the
messengers of God have furnished a
key
with which to unlock the door of interpretation.
·
PERSONAL REPROOF. God’s prophet is bold as well as skilful;
fearless as
well as affectionate. Being God’s messenger, he is bound to
represent
God; and, with all God’s might for his defence, nothing can
really harm
him. Beside, his very eagerness to promote men’s welfare inspires
him with
courage. He is conscious that he
has no other end in view, except
to please his Master and to benefit men; hence he proceeds straightway to
put his finger
upon the plague-spot of men’s disease, and to prescribe the
remedy. In
dealing with those who desire their guidance, God’s prophets
cannot be too
plain, too pointed, or too faithful. If a wanderer seeks
guidance
through a perilous wilderness, his guide cannot be too plain in
his instructions, nor too
persistent in requiring a faithful following of his
words. Fearless vindication of the truth is a
mark of a genuine prophet.
·
WISE ADMONITION. “Wherefore, O king,” said Daniel, “break
off
thy sins by righteousness, and thine
iniquities by showing mercy to the
poor.” It is quite probable that this monarch had not been
scrupulously
upright in his
administration of public justice; quite probable that the poor
had been
enslaved and oppressed. In the enlargement and embellishment of
his capital, it
is more than likely that forced labor had been largely exacted
from the poor.
Possibly the captives from
were included
in these oppressive measures. Anyhow, Daniel traces the
coming disaster
to its real fount, viz. the personal sin of the monarch;
and,
like a true
friend, he implores the king to endeavor by repentance to avert
the awful doom.
If the end can be obtained by methods less severe — the
end, viz. man’s
salvation — God has no wish to employ
harsher discipline.
His
aim is man’s good. “Judgment
is His strange work.” (Isaiah 28:21)
But repentance must
be thorough, genuine, practical. It must show itself
in
real fruit, No half-measures will suffice. The
great Physician will have a
perfect cure. No
human eloquence, however persuasive, will induce men
to repent without the
attendant and subduing grace of Jehovah through
the Holy Spirit! Along with our own efforts, there should be earnest
supplication for Divine help.
30 “The king spake, and
said, Is not this great
have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my
power,
and for the honour of my majesty?” The meaning of the Septuagint
rendering is the same as the above, “This is
built, and the house of my kingdom is it called, in the
might of my power,
to the honor of my glory.” Theodotion and the Peshitta in
the main agree
with the received text. It is one of the characteristics of
the earlier
Chaldean monarchs who reigned over the small Chaldean
cantons in
Dakuri and Bit-Adini; the capital of Merodach-Baladan was
called after his
father, Bit-Jakin. We need scarcely explain that bit represents
beth,
“house.” In all ages an imperial power has expressed its
greatness in the
splendor of its capital, but in the case of the Babylonian
Empire,
Nebuchadnezzar was the empire, therefore the splendor of
the city was a
testimony to his glory.
31 “While the word was in
the king’s mouth, there fell a
voice from heaven, saying, O King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee
it is
spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. 32 And they shall drive thee
from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the
field: they
shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall
pass over
thee, until thou know that the Most High ruleth in the
kingdom of
men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.” The
Septuagint rendering has
many points of interest, “While the word was yet in the
mouth of the king
— at the end of his speech — he heard a voice out of
heaven, To thee it is
said, O King Nebuchadnezzar, the
from thee, and is being given to another — a man set at
naught in thy
house: behold, I set him in thy kingdom, and thy power and
thy glory and
thy delicacy he takes possession of; that thou mayest know
that the God of
heaven hath dominion over the kingdoms of men, and to
whomsoever He
willeth he shall give it. To the rising of the sun another
king shall rejoice in
thy house and shall possess thy glory and thy might
and thy dominion.” The
differences between the Massoretic and Theodotion are
inconsiderable.
The Peshitta adds the clause, “wet with the dew of heaven,”
to the
description of the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar; and to
the account of
the supremacy of the God of heaven adds, “and raises to it
the humble
man.” This latter clause seems like a faint echo of the
more precise
statement of the Septuagint. The Vulgate differs here only as in the
former case,
omitting the causative. The reference in the Septuagint to
a special person in the
house of Nebuchadnezzar, exalted upon his throne, appears
to support an
idea thrown out by Lenormant. Neri-glissar, the son-in-law
of
Nebuchadnezzar and the successor of Evil-Merodach,
claims to be the son
of Bel-zikir-iskun, King of Babylon (Lenormant, ‘La
Divination,’ 204), but
in the list of Ptolemy there is no such name; hence
Lenormant imagines that
this Belzikir-iskun usurped the throne for a short while,
too short to be in
the canon of Ptolemy. There is no trace of such a
usurpation in the contract
tables. Rawlinson’s hypothesis is difficult to believe. It
is that this Belzikiriskun
was king in
Nabepolassar. But from the accession of Nabopolassar to the
death of Evil-
Merodach is sixty-five or sixty-six years. A man of the age
implied was
little likely to take part in a revolution or leave behind
him an infant son. It
is difficult to decide, but it must be admitted that
Lenormant’s position is at
all events a possible solution of the question.
33 “The same hour was the
thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was
driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body
was wet with the
dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers,
and his nails
like birds’ claws.” The verse that
is placed as parallel with this in the Septuagint
differs very considerably. There this verse is still
part of the proclamation of the
angel, “Early shall all these things be completed
upon thee,
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and nothing shall be
awanting of all
these things.” This verse is properly without a
correspondent in the
Massoretic text. The next verse resumes the proclamation,
“I
Nebuchadnezzar King of
with grass as an ox. I ate from herbs of the earth.” Then
after a verse which
Tischendoff marks as an interpolation, but which really is
a misplaced
doublet, we have a continuation of v. 30 (33 Authorized
Version), “And
my hairs became like feathers of an eagle, and my nails
like those of the
lion, and my flesh and my heart were changed, and I walked
naked with the
beasts of the earth.” The fact that this is longer than the
Massoretic text is
decidedly against it. It seems to be a paraphrastic
rendering of a text
somewhat similar to the Massoretic. On the other hand, the
fact that it
retains the first person makes it at least possible that
the condensation of
the middle portion of this chapter, according to the
received text, is not
resorted to in this recension. It is to be noted that only
a very few words in
the Septuagint necessitate any idea of condensation: only
in the beginning
of v. 27 Septuagint (28 Aramaic, 31 Authorized Version) is
there a
change of persons. This verse is rendered by Theodotion in
a way much
like the Massoretic text. The first portion of the verse is
an exact
translation of the Aramaic, but at the end the’ rendering
is, “till his hairs
grew like those of lions, and his nails as those of birds.”
The Peshitta
agrees exactly with the Massoretic. One cannot help being
suspicious of
this assertion of the hair being like eagles’ feathers,
partly because the
eagle is a bird, and “birds” are spoken of in the next
clause of the verse,
and further there appears to be a pun on the last portion
of the king’s name
in the word used for “eagle” (nesher). The
Jewish scribes were prone to
have such plays on names. Early in history it occurs, as
when Abigail
makes use of it to David in regard to her husband (I Samuel
25:25),
“Nabal is his
name, and folly is with him.” This
possibly is the reason for
the Hebrew variation in the name given to the Babylonian
Nabu-kudurutzur.
Theodotion’s version shows the result of reasoning — it is
a scribe’s
emendation. That matted hair should have an appearance
which suggested
the feathers of birds, is natural enough, and the utter
inattention to matters
of personal cleanliness is an exceedingly common
symptom in cases of
insanity. This personal neglect would naturally result also
in the growth of
the nails, and their incurring would give them vaguely the
appearance of
lions’ claws. We can picture the Babylonian monarch that
had, like his
Ninevite predecessors, been finical about his curled locks
and trimmed and
jeweled fingers, walking in wild nakedness so far as his
shackles permitted
him, with hair-matted locks, and his nails misshapen and
long.
The King’s Madness (vs. 28-33)
NATURAL PENALTY OF WRONG CONDUCT. Although the physician
may rightly detect here the
symptoms of brain-disease, the religious teacher
may go further, and see in this
brain-disease the fruits of
moral faults.
Insanity often shows itself as
much in moral as in intellectual aberration —
especially in its earlier
stages. In many cases it can be traced back to the
indulgence of animal instincts, passions,
and self-will, to the neglect of
higher restraining
influences.
Ø
Irregular self-will tends to insanity.
Nebuchadnezzar was a tyrant
whose merest caprice became a law for his vast
empire. If such a
man has no moral
principles to guide him, the inordinate indulgence
of his wild will must be
so contrary to the natural course of life that
his mind will be in danger of losing its balance. Lunacy is often only
the full development of the
vice that throws off all restraints. He
who would keep his mind
in perfect sanity should learn to yield his
will to A HIGHER WILL!
Ø
Inordinate self-conceit tends to insanity.
The king’s madness came upon
him when he was elated with
vanity (v. 30). Insane people are commonly
inclined to dwelt on their
grievances or their imagined greatness, and this
absurd habit may often be traced
back to an over-sensitiveness or an undue
elation with regard to their own
worthiness. It is never healthy to think
much about ourselves.
(“Let
nothing be done through strife or vainglory;
but in lowliness of mind let each esteem
other better than themselves.”
(Philippians 2:3) Mental soundness is best secured by self-forgetting
activity and concern for the
interests of the large world around us. The
habit of introspection and the
indulgence in a too subjective religious
experience are causes of
religious insanity. They who incline in this
direction should remember our
Lord’s caution “He that findeth his
life shall lose
it: and he that loseth his life for my
sake shall find it.”
(Matthew 10:39).
IN LIFE, THE HUMILIATION OF THE BRUTE MAY BE A
REASONABLE RETRIBUTION. Nebuchadnezzar had shown himself to
be governed by passions which
can only be described as brutal, and yet he
had been honored with little
less than Divine worship. Here was the
greatest inconsistency between
desert and experience. Frequently this
inconsistency is preserved all
through a man’s life, because judgment is
deferred. (“Some men’s sins are open
beforehand, going before to
judgment; and some
men they follow after. Likewise also the
good
works of some are
manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise
cannot be hid.” (I
Timothy 5:24-25) But whenever judgment is given,
it must be expected that, while
the man of spiritual character will be
exalted to a state of fitting
honor, the man of brutal passion will be put
down to one of brutal
degradation; for it is just that there should be harmony
between the outer and the inner
life. Perhaps this is implied in Paul’s teaching
about “the spiritual body” (I
Corinthians 15:44), which may be just the most
exact expression and
closest-fitting vesture of the soul. The principle of justice
which underlies the fantastic
Oriental doctrine of the transmigration of souls
may thus be exemplified in the
various ranks and orders of bodily life in the
future world. He who would claim
to rank as superior to the brute creation
must justify his claim by a corresponding elevation of conduct.
RENOUNCE THE PRIVILEGES AND DUTIES OF THEIR HIGHER
NATURE, AND LIVE AS IF THEY HAD NOTHING ABOVE THE
ANIMAL IN THEM. The
degradation of Nebuchadnezzar ends its
spiritual counterpart in the
voluntary behavior of multitudes. They have
human souls, yet they live as though they should perish like mere
animals.
They are made in
the image of God, yet they act after the manner of brutes.
They have
spiritual faculties which they blind and deaden with animal
passions. If we were not so familiar with such people, and did not
all of us,
more or less, share their
faults, it would be difficult not to regard them as
the worst of madmen. (“And
such were some of you: but ye are washed,
but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,
and by the Spirit
of our God.”
I Corinthians 6:11) While we shudder at
the calamity of Nebuchadnezzar,
should we not be far more appalled at the
awful depravity of so large a
part of the human world which calmly accepts
a fate in all moral respects its equivalent?
The Sudden Collapse of Pride (vs. 29-33)
Careful and costly measures had been
furnished by God to restrain
Nebuchadnezzar from the
brink of ruin, to which he was fast hastening.
The dream, with its appalling omens; the
human messenger; the king’s
conscience; — all these were voices from the supreme
court of heaven. But
conscience was silenced, the prophet was forgotten,
the sense of danger
diminished; Nebuchadnezzar persisted
in his sin, until the patience of God
was exhausted.
·
WE SEE PRIDE VAUNTING ITSELF IN BOASTFUL
VAINGLORY.
A year had
elapsed since the faithful voice of Daniel had
wakened the
conscience of the king. At first the monarch intended to
reform, but procrastination destroyed the
sensitiveness of feeling, blinded
him to the
imminence of danger, and gave momentum to his downward
course. The
city grew in magnitude and in magnificence. The royal plans
proceeded
towards completion. Outward prosperity shone upon him in still
clearer glory,
Notwithstanding, the hour of reckoning was about to strike.
Walking upon
his elevated palace-roof, and surveying the grandeur of the
city, Nebuchadnezzar gave the reins to natural
pride — thought and
spoke
as if there
were none greater than he. This is the end pride ever aims at,
viz. to make man a god unto himself. Yet was there a solitary stone in that
vast pile that
had been created by Nebuchadnezzar? Was the mind that
designed the
whole self-originated? Were the ten thousand artisans who
had daily
wrought upon those buildings the workmanship of man or of
God? Pride
is idolatry. Pride becomes mad atheism. There is no sin that is
so frequently
and freely condemned in Scripture as pride. By it the angels
lost their high estate. Into this pit Adam fell. “Ye shall be as gods”
(Genesis 3:5); the
tempter said. “God resisteth the proud.” (James 4:6)
They are a
smoke in His nostrils. “Pride goeth before destruction.”
(Proverbs
16:18) One step only
between haughtiness and hell. Insolent
arrogance
verges on madness.
·
WE SEE HUMAN PRIDE MOVING TO ACTIVITY THE
COUNSELS OF HEAVEN. If the statesmen or the artisans in
overheard the
utterance of the king, they might have regarded it as a
harmless
outburst of vanity. Yet God doth not so regard it. It disturbs the
tranquillity of
heaven. It is regarded there as the language of hostile
defiance. The
limit of God’s forbearance was leached. There is a time to be
quiet and a
time to act. The cup of Nebuchadnezzar’s sin was full. He had
despised the
messages of kindly expostulation from Jehovah, and now no
delay was
permitted. The king had barely ceased to speak when Jehovah
responded. But the words of Nebuchadnezzar were not
intended for the
ears of God. Ah! still He
heard them. He
regarded them as an indirect
menace to Him,
and He at once replies. The verdict has passed the Judge’s
lips. The
kingdom is alienated. In a moment empire is lost. Rank, honor,
power,
are lost. Manhood is lost. Intelligence, memory,
reason, love, —
ALL LOST! Bare
existence only remains. Like the prodigal boy, he descends
step by step into a deeper degradation, and at length herds with the beasts of
the field. Yet
this is but an outward and visible portraiture of the inward
degradation.
·
WE SEE HUMAN PRIDE MEETING WITH FITTING
RETRIBUTION. We have here in concrete form — in the
history of a
living person —
the abstract truth, “He that exalteth himself shall be
abased.” (Luke 14:11) This is
its natural and fitting outcome — its proper
fruit. We cannot
doubt that every form and degree of sin has, in the Divine
code, a suitable
and adequate punishment. There is not simply one rigid
penalty for every
mode and measure of transgression. The justice that presides
on the eternal
throne has eyes of subtlest discrimination and balances of
exquisite nicety.
Every step in the judicial procedure of God is accordant
with
natural principles. Even the forces of material nature will possibly be
employed
in vindicating the Divine Majesty. The indolence and sensual
indulgence of
the Babylonian palace served to emasculate (make feminine)
Nebuchadnezzar. The rousing energy which war had demanded in
earlier
years had
braced the monarch’s mind. But now the years of public peace had
been so misused
that inertia bred softness and luxury produced effeminacy.
Step by step
character deteriorated, though, perhaps, not detected by mortal
eye. At length,
by the Divine fiat, Reason abdicated her seat; the animal
got
the better of the man. In
his imbecile condition the king imagined
himself an
ox, and preferred to browse
in the fields. He was held fast by this
hallucination.
His relatives and attendants, very possibly, feared to resist
him. They humored
his infatuation until, in the royal paddock, his hair
grew ragged and
coarse, his nails became long and bent like eagles’ claws.
This is
the monarch who disdained to recognize God — the monarch who
plumed himself
on his self-sufficiency! Draw near, all proud doffers of
God, and see THIS PORTRAIT OF YOURSELVES!
34 “And at the end of the
days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up
mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto
me,
and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him
that
liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and His
kingdom is from generation to generation.” If the
translator of the
Septuagint had the Massoretic text before him, he has gone
utterly away
from it, and gives us a mere paraphrase, “And after seven
years I gave my
soul to prayer, and besought concerning my sins at the
presence of the
Lord, the God of heaven, and prayed concerning mine
ignorances to the
great God of gods.” There is another version of this verse,
for this which
we have given has been misplaced. The verse which appears
in the proper
place, though also very different from the Massoretic, is
as different from
that we have just given, “And at the end of seven years the
time of my
redemption came, and my sins and mine ignorances were
fulfilled before
the God of heaven, and I besought concerning my ignorances
the God of
gods, and behold an angel out of heaven called to me,
saying,
Nebuchadnezzar, serve the holy God of heaven, and give glory
to the
Highest; the kingdom of thy nation has been restored to
thee.” The latter
clause has the look of leading into the following verse.
One cannot but feel
that there is in both the work of the paraphrasist, but at
the same time, he
seems, in both cases, to have been working with a different
text from that
of the Massoretes. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree
accurately with the
Massoretic. The sudden gleam of intelligence that broke the
spell of
madness is a perfectly natural termination to an attack
like that under
which Nebuchadnezzar suffered. The tranquillizing effect of
prayer is well
known. The ascription of praise in the liturgic formula
here given is not
unlike what we find in the Ninevite remains.
35 And all the inhabitants
of the earth are reputed as
nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of
heaven, and
among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His
hand, or
say unto Him, What doest thou?” The
rendering of the Septuagint here is
very difficult to follow, from the state of confusion in
which the text is. The
verse that comes next in order is very short,” At that time
my kingdom was
set up, and my glory was restored to me.” This is a
condensed statement of
what is recorded in the following verse (v. 36; 33 Massoretic),
and we
shall consider it in that connection. The verse which
succeeds suits more
the conclusion of such a letter or proclamation as is here
represented, so
far as form goes, though the matter shows traces of
exaggeration and
amplification natural to the Jew. At the same time, it
bears a resemblance
to the last verse of this chapter, according to the
Massoretes, only greatly
amplified. It may thus be best to regard this verse as not
present in the
Septuagint text. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the
Massoretic
text. The statement here is true, but Jewish, not
Babylonian, in color.
This, along with its absence from the Septuagint, leads us
to believe it to be
the insertion of a Jewish scribe. On the other hand, it
looks like a statement
in brief of what we find expanded in Isaiah 40. and
elsewhere. If brevity is
to be regarded as an evidence of antiquity, this passage
might be taken as
the more ancient. It is, however, too bald and prosaic to
be the original of
such an impassioned passage as that in Isaiah 40.
36 “At the same time my
reason returned unto me; and for the
glory of my kingdom, mine honor and brightness returned
unto me;
and my counselors and my lords sought unto me; and I was
established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added
unto me.”
As we have already mentioned, the verse in the Septuagint
text which
agrees to this is very brief, “At that time my kingdom was
set up and my
glory restored to me.” It may be a condensation of some
independent
scribe, carried to a greater degree in the one case than
the other. Only from
the genesis of our Daniel, as we have imagined it, it would
seem more
probable that the briefer forms are the more primitive, and
the longer the
result of the expansion to be credited to imaginative
copyists. In proof of
this it is to be observed that neither Theodotion nor the
Peshitta exactly
represents the Massoretic text. Theodotion renders, “At
that time (αἱ
φρένες μου –
hoi phrenes mou –
my intellect) was restored to me, and came to the
glory of my kingdom,
and my beauty (ἡ
μορφή μου – hae morphae
mou –
form) returned to me, and my rulers and nobles sought me, and I
was confirmed
upon my kingdom, and more
abundant greatness was added unto me.” The
Peshitta differs somewhat
from this, “And when my intellect returned to me,
my nobles and my
great army sought me, and to my kingdom was I restored,
and its great
inheritance was increased to me.” The differences between these
two and the
Massoretic text are slight compared with those that separate any
one of those from the Septuagint; yet starting with the
Septuagint text, the
others are easily reached by slightly varying additions.
The Peshitta
certainly more clearly portrays what seems likely to have
taken place —
first, a
revolution during the king’s madness, and a counter-revolution to
restore him when
his reason returned. If, however,
Nebuchadnezzar was
simply confined in a portion of the palace, then his
nobles, on the news of
his restoration, might seek unto him. None of the texts
presents quite a
self-consistent representation. If we could perfectly
unravel the confusion
of the texts which form our present Septuagint text, we
should probably
find one of them nearly self-consistent.
37 “Now I Nebuchadnezzar
praise and extol and honor the
King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and His ways
judgment;
and those that walk in pride He is able to abase.” The Septuagint Version
has all the appearance of an original composition by a
scribe, not
impossibly in imitation of the Song of the Three Holy Children,
taking as
its theme the subject of the verse before us, “I confess
and praise the
Highest, who created the heaven and the earth and the sea.
He is God of
gods, and Lord of lords, and King of kings, because He
doeth signs and
wonders, and changeth seasons and times, taking away the
kingdoms of
kings and setting up others instead of them. Now from this
time I shall
worship Him, and from fear of Him trembling hath taken hold
of me, and all
the holy ones I praise, for the gods of the nations have not
power in
themselves to turn away the kingdom of a king to another
king, and to kill
and to make alive, and to do signs and marvels great and
fearful; and to
change very great matters according as the God of heaven
did to me, and
charged to me great things. I will offer sacrifices to the
Highest every day
of my reign for my life, for a savor of sweet smell before
the Lord, and
what is pleasing before Him I shall do, and the people and
my nation and
the countries which are in my dominion. And as many as shall
speak
against the God of heaven, and as many as shall be taken
saying anything,
these shall I condemn to death.” Several of the phrases in
this short hymn
— for that it rather is than a version of an Aramaic
original — are derived
from other portions of Scripture; e.g. “for
a savor of a sweet smell before
the Lord.” There
are traces also of the familiar phenomenon of “doublets.”
Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text.
So far as the
Massoretic text represents the original Daniel, there is no
evidence that
Nebuchadnezzar had ceased to be a worshipper of Bel-Marduk
and Nebo
and Nergal. Certainly he recognizes that Jehovah is to be
worshipped also.
Further, it is to be admitted that Nebuchadnezzar carries
his adoration very
near the point of true and exclusive worship. In what he
came short it may
be that he yielded to the political necessities of his
situation — as Naaman
bowing in the
Nebuchadnezzar would be conditioned by those who served
him, and after
his madness he would be specially under the power of those
officials who
had restored him to his place.
During this trial of Nebuchadnezzar, his extreme form of
mania didn’t interfere
with the consciousness of personal identity, of the soul’s
relation to God, and
did not abate the his power to pray. Rather, perhaps, is it to be believed that in
many cases the deepest and truest nature of man, his
religious nature, is brought
into high and brilliant relief.
recognition of God. The
enthronement of God. The returning conscious
recognition of God marks the
advent of moral sanity.
conviction of the existence of
God; of the everlastingness of His blessed
rule; of the comparative
insignificance of any man; of the universality of His
empire; of the resistlessness of
His might — that “everything which
God
does is well
done” (v. 37); that “those that walk in pride he is able to
abase;” — add to these convictions that there came back, with
reason,
brightness of outer life and the
joy of fellowship with men. Note:
Afflictions last till they have
done their work — and then no longer.
The object of the humiliation of pride is not vengeance,
but salvation. All God’s
purposes are at the root, love. He humbles the proud man
because He loves him,
and for his good.
pride.
higher grounds of confidence
than are to be found in his own merits and
resources. Nebuchadnezzar was
led to recognize the true God, and humble
himself before Him with faith and
worship, and thus his salvation was
accomplished through his
humiliation. So the salvation of mankind is
effected by the
humiliation of its representative Christ, and through the
self-humiliation of each
individual when he takes up his cross and follows
Christ in the
narrow path of self-denial.
Revelation in the World
of Soul (vs. 28-37)
“Is not this great
kernel of this remarkable history, many matters would have, by
way of
introduction, to be set in a true light. They would all fall under
these three
heads:
1. Confirmations of
Bible history from the science of medicine.
2. From
the probabilities of the case.
3. From
secular history. (See Exposition above; and ‘Daniel, Statesman
and Prophet,’ R.T.S., where they are given in full.)
·
THE TOOL. The very
essence of sin is self-centeredness, which ignores
our relations with others and the attendant duties, and which blots out
God. The atheism of
selfishness may be only practical, but also
speculative. When
the latter, it is sure to be also the former. The idolater of
self:
Ø
Confines his vision to the material. So with the king on
the roof of his
palace; his eye swept palace, city, land, but saw only the material
magnificence. His heart was of
the world, worldly.
Ø
Misjudges greatness. Not bulk, not
material wealth, not splendid show,
constitute a nation’s greatness. The elements of greatness are ever
moral. As with a nation, so with an individual. A nation may be small,
and yet clothed upon with
moral majesty. On the other side, a
nation
may be small (e.g.
commensurate in any way:
o
material size and
o
grandeur of spirit.
Some nations, i.e. constituents
of nations, need to lay the lesson very
much to heart.
Ø
Makes self the center of the universe.
kingdom. The kingdom revolved around the capital, and all around
the
proud personality of the king.
Ø
Ignores God. All below and around the man lies in light, but seen
through the colored and distorted medium of selfishness. All above
is
hidden by dense mist and cloud; as often, in mountain regions,
the
snowclad pinnacles and the serenity of heaven are absolutely
invisible.
God is unseen, unrecognized. Note the sin of this in the king. We are
too likely to think that where God’s clearest revelation through
Christ
is not, NO LIGHT IS! We underrate the light of natural religion. God
moves without witness. To the king testified nature, experience,
reason,
the inner light. Christ in all
these! “That was the true Light, which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” -
John 1:9).
·
ITS DETHRONEMENT. Self usurped the throne in the moral realm,
in the heart and life of man, and so from that throne self was
hurled as by a
thunderbolt. (Luke 10:18)
Observe, the ruin of the doomed was:
Ø
Stayed. Did not come at once on the sin. But warning and counsel at
the
lips of Daniel. Then a year’s delay.
The patience of
God.
Ø
Sudden. “While the word,”
etc.; “The same hour,” etc. (vs. 31-33).
Whilst the king was adoring his
own shadow, the phantom melted into
vacancy.
Striking picture of what oft occurs under the moral government
of God — long respite — at length sudden and overwhelming
calamity.
Ø
Utter. “The world recedes, it disappears,” but no heaven opens on
his
eyes, no ears “with sounds seraphic ring.” The world went; and
down fell
the self-idolater into a temporal hell. (Note all the
particulars, in light of
the text, illustrated by all we know of this form of
insanity.)
Ø
Strictly related to the sin. As always. The
deification of self and so the
prostration of self. Occasion might well be taken to read off such
lessons
as these:
o
The obligation of gratitude for reason — its gift and continuance.
o
The duty of sympathy for the imbecile and
insane. To
be expressed
practically,
by prayer and contribution.
o
That the causes of insanity can be
demonstrated to be, in the vast
majority of cases, moral; e.g. vanity, care in excess, alcohol (and
especially
in our day, recreational drugs - CY -
2022), violent
passion
of any kind, specially the many and
various breaches of the
seventh commandment.
·
THE ENTHRONEMENT OF GOD. We may discourse on this by
putting it in this way: we may mark the gradual steps of the
return of God
subjective to the throne in man. God objective — i.e. in His reality
and
power — is
never off the throne. But He may be
subjectively cast down in
the thoughts and sentiments of men.
Ø
God remains in the mind,
animating recognition. “Not even an
extreme
form of mania interferes with the consciousness of personal
identity, of
the soul’s relation to God, and therefore does not abate the
power to pray.
Rather, perhaps, is it to be
believed that in many cases the deepest and
truest nature of man, his religious nature, is
brought into high and
brilliant relief”
(see ‘Daniel, Statesman and Prophet,’ pp. 136, 137).
Ø
God recognized.
“Lifted up mine eyes unto heaven.” This is
the
recognition of God. The enthronement of God.
The returning conscious
recognition of God marks the advent of moral sanity.
Ø Reason
returns to the throne with God.
Ø
And with reason, an
admirable twin. All that makes life worth living —
conviction of the existence of God; of the everlastingness of His
blessed
rule; of the comparative insignificance of any man; of the universality
of His empire; of the resistlessness of His might — that “everything
which God does is well done” (v. 37); that “those that walk in pride
He is able to
abase;” — add to these convictions
that there came
back, with reason, brightness of outer life and the joy of fellowship
with men.
Note: Afflictions last till they have done their work —
and then no longer.
Light at Eventide (vs. 34-37)
It is a perilous thing to abuse any of God’s gifts. Thereby
we interfere with
the order of His government, and justly provoke His anger. The
darkening
of intellect with prejudice is no mean offence. Bribing reason
with sensual
delights not to recognize God — this is a serious injury to one’s self, and
daring rebellion against God. Such was the aggravated sin
of
Nebuchadnezzar; yet the judgment of God was tempered with
mercy. The
abuse of reason resulted in its loss, yet the loss was
temporary. The
deplorable darkness was designed as a prelude to clearer
light.
alleviation of the severity. The
darkest element in the Divine judgment is
absent. There is scope for:
Ø
amendment,
Ø
repentance,
Ø
return.
A ray of hope lights up the
darkness of the scene. Yea, more; the chastisement,
however severe, may be
transfigured into supremest blessing. “It was good for
me to be
afflicted.” (Psalm 119:71) “Out of the eater may come forth meat.”
(Judges 14:14) A rough and prickly shell may enclose the
sweetest kernel.
The fire which consumes the
dross
may only beautify the go]d. Loss may
be only an unrecognized form of gain.
Through faith in God’s faithful
love we can “glory in tribulation also.” (Romans
5:3)“At
the end of the days”
the king’s insanity ceased. (v. 34)
SUFFICIENCY. God had taken pains, on previous occasions, to convince
Nebuchadnezzar that the
invisible Jehovah was the true God of the
universe, but the king had
hardened his heart against the conviction. His
inveterate pride prevented his
belief. Fain would he be his own god. “Our
wills are our own:
who is Lord over us?” Such was his favorite
doctrine.
It was pleasant to be
self-contained. It was a sweet morsel for
the carnal
appetite, this flattering
unction that his own skill and strength had gained
him this success. And so ingrained into his nature had this habit of
self-trust
become, that only the severest
discipline from God could dislodge it. But
when his understanding became
dark, and memory failed, and Reason
abdicated, and manhood became a
wreck, he learned in the school of
personal experience what he
refused to learn before, viz. how frail and
dependent is man — HOW ABSOLUTE A
SOVEREIGN IS GOD!
At last self-sufficiency is
rooted out, and a
spirit of meek humility takes its
place. Be it ours to learn the lesson without so severe a
discipline!
SOVEREIGNTY. The native
tendency of man’s mind is to circumscribe its
thought about itself. It makes
self a center round which all its thoughts and
plans revolve. It vaguely
imagines that when personal self fails, the world
will collapse. It thinks little
about the past, and what has led up to our
present privileged position; it
cares little about the remote future. But when
foolish man “comes to himself” (Luke 15:17), after his aberrations and
follies,
he learns that for untold ages One has ruled on the throne of the
universe, and
is MAKING ALL
EVENTS TO WORK OUT HIS DESIGNS! He was King
long before we
appeared upon the earthly scene; and He will remain Master of
the situation long
after we have passed away. His authority
none can dispute.
Yet, for His honor and
for our consolation, it shall be said that His will is right
and just and good. “His will is our sanctification.” (I Thessalonians 4:3)
“It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good.” (I Samuel 3:18)
primary and pressing duty of every man to learn the proper use of his
faculties. When we have reached years of discretion we should often
ask
ourselves, “What is God’s
intention in giving me this understanding, this
conscience, this reason?” Our plainest duty is to ascertain, if possible, His
intention, and to follow that intention closely. To be self-consistent, we
must either deny that He is our
Master, and repudiate His every claim, or
else we must acknowledge His
authority over every part of our nature, and
over every moment of our lives. A
partial obedience is no obedience at all.
This would be a setting up of
self to be the judge when obedience should
be rendered, and would be a virtual
dethronement of God. Here hesitation
or debate is excluded. If my reason be an endowment from God, I am
bound, by every tie
of obligation, to use it for HIS HONOR, and to magnify
Him therewith. Therefore the first
principle of genuine religion is this:
“Man’s chief end is
to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever.”
(Westminister Shorter Catechism)
Pride
Humiliated (v. 37)
·
THE GREATEST PROSPERITY CONTAINS IN ITSELF NO
SECURITY AGAINST THE GREATEST ADVERSITY.
1. As all earthly things are changeable, it is foolish to place our trust in
the permanence of any. Yet there is a tendency to infer that
because all is
well, all will remain well, as though the mere existence of
prosperity were a
guarantee of its permanence. This may result from a misapplication
of the
true principle that the future is determined by the present,
and with a
certain law of similarity — like producing like (Galatians 6:7-8).
But if
so, it is forgotten that outward prosperity is a very
superficial thing, and
that the real life and its outgoings lie deeper and may be
preparing its very
opposite beneath the shallow pleasure of the hour. Therefore to
assure
one’s self for the future, it is necessary to
have some deeper and larger
ground to rest upon than the mere outside aspect
of affairs.
2. Happiness depends far more upon the condition of the
inner life than
upon any external circumstances. Nebuchadnezzar thought himself
a beast
of the field. With this idea in his mind, all his resources
counted as nothing
in respect to his, comfort. To a blind man the world is dark.
A gloomy
mood throws a shadow over the brightest scene. The rich and
discontented
man is miserable, while the poor man will be happy so long as
he is
contented, because happiness depends not upon possession, but upon
satisfaction. Therefore
it is useless to be assured that our outward affairs
are safely prosperous, unless we have also the assurance of
peace of mind
and inward gladness.
·
THE FITTING PUNISHMENT OF PRIDE IS HUMILIATION.
There is a just and natural
association of certain sins with corresponding
forms of punishment; e.g. the luxurious Dives tormented
with a burning
tongue; the man with one idle talent deprived of his talent
(compare Hosea
8:7). This
conception is worked out in Dante’s ‘Inferno.’ So he who will
not humble himself shall be humiliated against his will. Pride
prepares its
own fall
(1) by
making its possessor careless and self-confident;
(2) by
disturbing the sobriety of his judgment with the giddiness of self-elation;
(3) and
by rousing the jealousy and envy of rivals and subordinates.
·
THIS PUNISHMENT OF PRIDE, THOUGH SEVERE, IS NOT
HOPELESS. The
tree is to be hewn down, but the stump and roots are to
be left (v. 15). So Nebuchadnezzar was to suffer only for a
limited period
— seven
“times” (v. 25). When prophets threatened the overthrow of the
Jews, they promised that this
should not be total — a remnant should be
spared (Isaiah 1:9; Jeremiah 15:11); nor final — the people
should
be restored (Isaiah 52:1-10). Even the severest calamities
are tempered
with mercy and relieved of despair (Amos 3:12; Habakkuk 3:2).
·
THE OBJECT OF THE HUMILIATION OF PRIDE IS NOT
VENGEANCE, BUT SALVATION. The spite which seeks pleasure in the
shame of humiliated pride is itself a fruit of sinful pride, and
can find no
place in the heart of God. Nor is the feeling of complacency
which arises in
us from the contemplation of the “poetic justice” this
exemplifies, a true
image of God’s feeling in the humbling of proud men. All God’s
purposes
are at the root, love.
He humbles the proud man because He loves him, and
for his good.
1. This humiliation is beneficial in making a man feel the folly
and sin of
pride.
2. It is helpful in making him feel his own insufficiency
and the need of
higher grounds of confidence than are to be found in his own
merits and
resources. Nebuchadnezzar was led to recognize the true God, and
humble
himself before with faith and worship, and thus his salvation was
accomplished through his humiliation. So the salvation of mankind is
effected by the humiliation of its representative
Christ, and through the
self-humiliation of each individual when he takes up his cross and follows
Christ in the narrow path of
self-denial.
Excursus on Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.
In the first place, lycanthropy has a distinct and
definite meaning in mental
pathology. Those suffering from it “abandon their homes and
make for the
forests, that they may consort with those they imagine to
be their kind; they
allow their hair and nails to grow; they carry their
imitation so far as to
become ferocious, and mutilate and even to kill and devour
children.” Here
we must observe that the neglect of the person, with the
result of hair and
nails growing, is not peculiar to that form of madness, but
is really
common to many varieties of mental disease. The two other
characteristics
are more special — the endeavor to consort with animals of
the species to
which the patient imagines himself to belong, and the destructive
ferocity
that in the form of wolf-madness, lycanthropy,
properly so called, led to
cannibalism. Of neither of these symptoms have we any
indubitable
evidence in the narrative. In regard to the first, of
Nebuchadnezzar it is
certainly said (vs. 15, 23) that “his portion” should “be
with the beasts of
the field;” v. 25,
“Thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field;” but
here there is nothing to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar did
this out of a mad
overmastering longing. Rather, the very opposite is implied
by the
statement (vs. 25, 32), “They shall drive thee from men, and thy
dwelling,” etc. So
in v. 33 it is said, “And he was driven from men.” The
question may be said to turn on the force of the word “they.” It certainly
may mean that the angels of God, as avenging spirits, might
drive
Nebuchadnezzar from men, and that his longing to consort
with animals
may have been the scourge that drove him, but that is not
said or implied.
It may have been the members of his own household that so
drove him
forth directly, or it may have been the indirect result of
the cruel treatment
intended to be curative. It may be urged that the
statement, “Let a beast’s
heart be given him,”
implies this longing to consort with animals. In the
first place, “heart,” לְבַב (lebab), among the Shemites does not, as among
Occidentals, mean the longing appetitive part of our
nature, but really the
spirit. In the next place, the reading in the Septuagint is
quite different; it is
not
the “heart,” לְבַב (lebab), but the σῶμα – soma – body - reading
בְשַׂר
(besar) instead of לְבַב (lebab).
Indeed, when we turn to the Septuagint,
we find a total want of all this
appearance of abandoning house and home.
In the statement of the dream (v. 11,
Septuagint), “And it [the tree] was dragged
and torn out, and in brazen fetters and
shackles was it bound with them.”
Again, in the interpretation (v. 18,
Septuagint), “And they shall put thee in guard,
and send thee to a desert place.” When we
turn to the fulfillment of the dream
(v. 25 - Septuagint), we find, “And the
angels of heaven shall drive thee
(διώ ξονταί σε – dio xontai se)
seven years, and thou shalt not be seen nor
speak with any man; and thou shalt eat grass as an ox, and thy pasture shall be
from the herb of the field.”
Again (vs. 27, 28 - Septuagint), “I was bound for
seven years, and they fed me
with grass as an ox, and my hairs became like
eagles’ feathers, and my
nails like lions’ claws, and my flesh and my heart
were changed, and I walked naked among the
beasts of the earth.”
The more I studied this, the less I was satisfied with the
all-but universal
decision that Nebuchadnezzar suffered under lycanthropy.
Having a friend
a specialist in mental disease, I submitted the case to
him, giving him, in
addition to what he found in his English Bible, the version
or’ the
Septuagint. He is eminently qualified to judge all
questions of mental
disease. David Yellowlees, Esq., M.D., is head of one of
the largest lunatic
asylums in
the Medico-Psychological Association of Great Britain; is
Lecturer on
Insanity in the
experience in the treatment of mental disease. He kindly
wrote me the
following, which he has permitted me to publish: —
“Nebuchadnezzar’s illness was not lycanthropy; it
was an attack of acute
mania, which recovered, as such attacks usually do if
uncomplicated, in
seven months.
“Acute mania, in its extreme forms, exhibits all kinds of
degraded habits,
such as stripping off and tearing of clothes, eating filth
and garbage of all
sorts, wild and violent gesticulations, dangerous assaults,
howling noises,
and utter disregard of personal decency. The patient often
is liker a wild
animal than a human being. These symptoms merely show the
completeness of the aberration, and do not at all indicate
a hopeless
condition. On the contrary, they are seen most frequently
in the cases
which recover.
“The king was apparently treated as kindly as the enlightenment
of the
times permitted — bound when injuring himself or others,
taken to a desert
place away from other men, and allowed a mad freedom, in
which his
attacks found relief and eventual recovery.”
In another communication, Dr. Yellowlees says, “The ‘seven
times’
certainly did not mean seven years for recovery from that
form of insanity;
that is, acute mania would be most unlikely after so long a
time. Seven
months is a far more likely period.”
2. This leads us to consider
the second question — the length of time
during which Nebuchadnezzar was under this malady. The
phrase which
states the duration occurs four times — vs. 16 (13), 23
(20), 25 (22), 32
(29) — and is always the same, “till seven times pass over
him (thee).”
שִׁבְעָה
עַדָּנִין
יַחְלְפוּן
עֲלוהִי (sheebeah ‘iddaneen
yahelephoon ‘alohee).
The question turns on the sense to be given to ‘iddan. This
word is found
thirteen times in this book — nine times besides the four times in
this
chapter. We find it three times in the second chapter, where it
means the
time during which certain planetary and stellar influences were at work.
This naturally suggests the signs of the Zodiac and the
phases of the moon,
and
therefore a month, though the probability is that the period in the
king’s mind was much shorter. The ruling phases of the moon would
make
a
fourfold or threefold division not improbable, while the positions of the
planets in the various astrological houses make it more likely
that a day
rather than even a month is meant. We find the word next in the
following
chapter (vs. 5 and 15), “At what time (‘iddan) ye hear,”
etc. Here it
means a point of time, and in the other verse (7), where the
phrase occurs
we
have זִמְנָא (zimena’), which usually means a set, fixed point of
time.
We find it again in the seventh chapter (vs. 12 and 25). In
the twelfth
verse, after the destruction of the fourth beast, the other
beasts continue
for
“a season and time,” זְמַן
וְעִדָּן (z’man ve’iddan); it here
means a space
of time totally indefinite. In the
twenty-fifth verse the word in question
occurs three times in the phrase, “a time,
times, and a dividing of time.”
Here it has been assumed to mean “a year,”
and this is certainly not
improbable for this particular case; but
nothing can be drawn from this as
to the sense of the word elsewhere. So far
as the usage of this book is
concerned, we can say the word ‘iddan means
a space of time, the length
of which is determined by the context.
When we pass into the Targums, we
find the same, or, if possible, even
greater freedom of use. It is used for the
time of old age in Psalm 71:9; in
Ecclesiastes 3. for “the times.” There
is a phrase, ‘iddan be’iddan (“time
in times”), which is commonly
understood to mean a year. This would
render it probable that the word
was originally some period much shorter
than a year, probably a month;
thus Genesis 24:55, where we render,
according to the Massoretic, “a
few days, at least ten.” Onkelos renders,
‘iddan be’iddan ‘o ‘asrah
yarheen (“time in time, or ten months”), where the word
certainly means
“months.” The usage of the Peshitta is
much the same. Gaon Saadia would
assign to ‘iddan here the sense of
“month;” in this he is followed by
Lenormant. Notwithstanding the objections
of critics and lexicographers,
we venture to follow these two authorities
the more readily that the critics
have assigned no reason why we should not
do so.
3. Is there any trace in the inscriptions surviving to us to
throw light on this
mysterious event? At one time it was
supposed that in the Standard
Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar we had a
distinct reference to this period of
madness. As at first translated,
Nebuchadnezzar declared that for four
years he did not occupy himself in
building. A series of further negative
sentences followed. More careful study and
more accurate rendering have
removed that misconception. From the
nature of the Standard Inscription,
it was a priori unlikely that
anything of the kind supposed should have
been found in it. It is a record of the
various buildings, etc., he had
constructed for the honor of the gods and
the beauty of his capital. The
dates of the erection of these edifices or
the construction of these canals is
not given; so the fact of years in which
nothing was done is not necessarily
noticeable. Lenormant (‘La Divination,’
204) makes another suggestion.
When he ascends the throne, after the
murder of his brother-in-law, Evil-
Merodach, we find Neriglissar
(Nergalsharezer) claiming that his father,
Bil-zikir-iskun, had been King of Babylon. Lenormant’s
theory is that Bilzikir-
iskun reigned’ while Nebuchadnezzar was
thus incapacitated by
madness. Certainly, between the accession
of Nabo-polassar in B.C. 625, to
the death of Evil-Merodach in B.C.
559, there is no sovereign but the three
members of the one dynasty. Rawlinson
(‘Five Great Monarchies’) places
him immediately before Nabopolassar, and
reads his name Nebu-sumiskun.
But as deposition meant death, this would
imply that his son —
Neriglissar — even if only an infant, at
the death of his father, would be at
least sixty-five years of age at the death
of Evil-Merodach. This is not an
age when men engage in conspiracies. But
more, he leaves behind him an
infant son. While not impossible, this is
an unlikely solution. If, then, he did
not reign before Nabo-polassar, there must
have been some interval in
which he held the throne while the
legitimate occupant was incapacitated
by disease or distance from the capital It
was not during the interval
between the death of Nabopolassar and the
accession of Nebuchadnezzar,
because Berosus tells us of the rapid
march Nebuchadnezzar made through
the desert from
did not take place between the death of
Nebuchadnezzar and the accession
of Evil-Merodach, for, from the contract
tables, there seems to have been
no interval of uncertainty.
Bel-zikir-iskun may have, so M. Lenormant
thinks, usurped the throne during the
illness of Nebuchadnezzar. If the
interval were less than a year, Ptolemy
might not insert the name in his
chronicle. Against this theory is the fact
that throughout the whole of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign there never is
seven months without a contract
preserved to us, dated by the years of the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This is
not absolutely conclusive, because some of
the contract tables, after the
conquest of
We are compelled to abandon the position
that we have any trace of this
madness. We have an analogous case in the
history of Nabunahid; for a
long period, not less than five years, he
was unable to take part in the
business of the empire. Meantime, there is
no indication in the contract
tables that anything is wrong. The annals
of Nabunahid reveal to us the fact
that the king’s son was acting monarch;
but had these not come down to
us, we should never have known of any
incapacity befalling this monarch.
Bel-zikir-iskun may have acted as monarch
during Nebuchadnezzar’s
illness, and this may have been the fact
that enabled Neri-glissar to assert
his father to have been King of
Babylon. It is not impossible that
Nebuchadnezzar’s decree may yet turn up
from the rubbish of ages.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library,
LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are
reproduced by permission."
This material can
be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition
is helpful, please share with others.