Daniel 2 - Pulpit Commentary vs Calvin John

Daniel 2

Daniel 2:1

Verses 1-49. - DANIEL FIRST BECOMES DISTINGUISHED. Verse 1. - And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. The versions only differ verbally from the Massoretic text as represented by the above. The Septuagint renders "And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he chanced to fall into dreams and visions, and to be troubled with his vision, and his sleep went from him." The differences here that may evidence a difference of text are slight. Theodotion and the Peshitta are very close to the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders, "In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar saw a vision, and his spirit was troubled, and his vision (somnium) fled from him." If this is the true text of the Vulgate - and it is pre-Clementine - the variation seems too great for paraphrase, and yet it is an unlikely lectional variation. It is easier to imagine the change taking place in the Latin, somnus becoming somnium, especially if the final m was represented, as so often in Latin manuscripts, by a line over the preceding vowel. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This forms one of the chronological difficulties in the interpretation of Daniel. There seems to be a contradiction between the statement in this verse and the chronological data afforded us by the preceding chapter. If Nebuchadnezzar was already king when he placed Daniel and his three companions in the hands of "Ashpeuaz" and assigned them three years of study, then as the three years are by implication ended when the examination took place (Daniel 1:18, 19), the events narrated in this chapter must be dated not earlier than the third year of Nebuchadnezzar. Most commentators recognize this as a difficulty, the explaining of which is incumbent on them, whatever their views as to the date or authenticity of the book as a whole may be. A really great writer - and that title cannot be denied to the author of "Daniel," if the book be a fiction - could never fall into such a glaring self-contradiction. We do not deny that even very great writers have been guilty of chronological self-contradictions; but these contradictions were such as were not obvious. The only commentator who does not feel it incumbent on him, having noticed the difficulty, to give some hint of a possible solution, is Professor Bevan. From the obviousness of the discrepancy, we must assume that it was known to the writer, and from this we must further assume that the discrepancy was regarded by him as a merely apparent one, the explanation of which was so obvious at the time he wrote that it was needless to state it. In making this statement, we refer to the original documents from which our present Daniel was compiled. Another hypothesis certainly is possible - that there is a false reading here. Ewald has suggested the twelfth year, which implies that the word עְֶשרֵה (esreh) has been omitted. The main difficulty is that there is no sign that there is any difference of reading. If we are to correct the reading, we must go behind the present book to those documents from which it has been formed. If this portion of Daniel is a translation and a condensation of an Aramaic text, then תַרְתִין (tar'teen) is "two," but "three" would be תְלָת (t'lath). When the ל loses from any cause its upper part, it becomes little distinguishable from n; this renders it not impossible that in the original Aramaic narrative the events in this chapter were dated "the third year of Nebuchadnezzar," not "the second." This explanation does not apply to the older form of script as seen in Sindschirli or in Egypt. There have been various other ways of getting over the difficulty. One device, that of Josephus ('Antiq.,' 10:10. 3), maintained also by Jephet-ibn-Ali, is to date the reign from the conquest of Egypt, when Daniel is supposed to reckon that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign over the world. The conquest of Egypt, by means of certain recondite interpretations of Scripture, Jephet dates in the thirtieth year of Nebuchadnezzar; the date of this chapter, then, according to him, is the thirty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rashi explains this date by referring it to the destruction of the temple. There is, however, nothing to indicate that any of these dates was ever reckoned of importance in Babylonian chronology. And, however important the destruction of the temple was to the Jews, few of them, even at the latest date criticism assigns to Daniel, would have the hardihood to date a monarch's reign from this. Another solution is that the second year is reckoned from the time when these Jewish captives stood before the king. This would have implied a different reading, but, as we have said, so far as this clause is concerned, there is no variation. Another suggestion may be made, viz. that this appearance of Daniel before the king is the same as that mentioned in the previous chapter (Daniel 1:18-20). This is Wieseler's hypothesis. As a reign was not reckoned from the date of accession, but from the beginning of the year following, Nebuchadnezzar's second year might well be the third year of the training of those Hebrew captives. The occasion of their appearance before the king may not have been that he took thought on the matter - a view which, though that of the Massoretic text, is not supported by the LXX. - but may have been caused by this disquieting dream. On the supposition which we have suggested, that in ch. 1. we have a condensed version from an Aramaic original, this solution is plausible. The main difficulty, that the quiet communing implied in the nineteenth verse does not suit the fury of the king and the threatened death of the wise men, cannot be pressed, as the communing might follow the interpretation. It may seem to some better to maintain that the incidents of this chapter occurred some little time after Daniel and his three companions were admitted to the royal council. The band of captives and hostages, with the mass of the Babylonian army, arrived at Babylon, according to Berosus, some time after Nebuchadnezzar himself, who had hurried across the desert; still, a month would probably be the utmost of the difference. There might, therefore, be many months to run before the first year of Nebuchadnezzar actually began, when these captives were placed under the charge of the Melzar; so that if our suggestion of a various reading of "third" instead of "second" be accepted, the years would be over while the "third" year of Nebuchadnezzar was still proceeding. However, although many prisoners and hostages may have been sent along with the main army, after Nebuchadnezzar ]earned of the death of his father, many may have been sent earlier, and among these Daniel. The main difficulty is to imagine the orders of Nebuchadnezzar, while merely crown prince, being carried out with such exactness, or that he should be spoken of as "my lord the king" (Daniel 1:10). But their training must have begun during the lifetime of Nabopolassar, if the three years were completed while the see(rod year of Nebuchadnezzar was still to finish. If we reject both these solutions, we are shut up to the idea that there is something amiss with the reading - always a thing to be deprecated - and the simplest emendation is to imagine that the "third" has been misread "second." This, as we have shown, would be easy in Aramaic. On the assumption that the text before us is a translation and condensation of an Aramaic text, it is easy to understand how all derivative texts followed its initial mistake. There is a certain importance here due to the copula "and:" "And in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar." When any cue attempts to read this verse in connection with the last verse of the first chapter, it at once becomes clear that the twenty-first verse of ch. 1. is an interpolation. It is probable that the condensation, which was likely to be considerable in the first chapter, becomes less so now, before passing from the one portion to the other; hence either the translator or some other added the note which is contained in Daniel 1:21. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. The Greek versions and the Syriac of Paulus Tellensis omit the name "Nebuchadnezzar," either as nominative or as genitive. The Peshitta follows the order of the Massoretic text. The omission does not alter the sense; possibly the proper names thus came in close juxtaposition in the Massoretic in consequence of an endeavour to condense by omission, without making any further change. It would seem that the LXX. had read נִקְרָא (niq'ra) instead of חלם (halam). The rendering is, "It happened (συνέβη) that the king fell into dreams and visions." This awkward sentence seems to be the result of a difficulty and consequent slavish following of the text before the translator; it is difficult to imagine what the reading could be which could be translated as it is in the Septuagint, and vet was not totally unlike the Massoretic text. "Dreams and visions" is the evident result of a coalescence of two renderings of חֲלמות (halomoth). It is to be observed that it is "dreams" that Nebuchadnezzar had, and yet only one "dream" is spoken cf. Kliefeth thinks this refers merely to the class, so that "dreamed dreams' is equivalent to "was dreaming." Agreeing with this is Havernick. Jephet-ibn-Ali take the plurality to refer to the contents of the dream - that it refers to the four world kingdoms and that of Israel (so Kranichfe;d and Keil); for a similar use of plural for singular, he refers to Genesis 37:8. Moses Stuart thinks that it is implied that the dream was repeated. It seems to be somewhat of a mannerism of Daniel to use plural for singular, as the "visions of the head" of ch. 4. Wherewith his spirit was troubled. The same phrase occurs in regard to Pharaoh (Genesis 41:8), when he had dreamed of the seven kine and seven ears of corn. The similarity of the thing to be stated might easily lead to a similarity of statement, without there being any necessary copying. If, as we believe, this portion of Daniel had an Aramaic original, the resemblance in language to Genesis proves very little. In this case also the reading of the Septuagint is different. Instead of רוּחו (ruho), "his spirit," the translators must have had בָחֲלום ἐν τῷ ἐνυπνίῳ; also instead of the feminine תִּתְפַיִם (tith'pa'em), the reading must have been יִתְפַעֶם (yith'pa'em). Though yod and tan are not readily confused, nun and tan in the older script are, and in Eastern Aramaic nun is the preformative of the third person imperfect, and a change may have been made in translating from the Aramaic. Professor Fuller, following Saadia, makes too much of the fact that, while in the present case the conjugation used is the hithpael, in Genesis it is niphal, since the niphal conjugation occurs in ver. 3. Kranichfeld holds that the "hithpael heightens the idea lying in the niphal." In Biblical Aramaic hithpael takes the place of the Hebrew niphal. And his sleep brake from him. While the meaning here is plain, the words are used in an unusual sense; the word here translated "brake from" is the passive of the verb "to be," in this precise sense only used here. The fact that the substantive verb in Eastern Aramaic has this significance (Nestle, 'Gram. Syr.,' 100) indicates that this is a case where the Syriac original shines through the translation. This is all the more obvious when we remember that in Eastern Aramaic נ (nun) was in the pre-formative. Analogous to this is the Latin use of the perfect of the substantive verb, e.g. funimus Troes; comp. Romans 6:17," God be thanked that ye were (η΅τε) the servants of sin." As we have said, the meaning of this verse is perfectly clear, and although there are differences of reading, there are none theft affect the sense. "In the second (or third) year of his reign, Nebuchaduezzar had a dream." To us in the West, living in the nineteenth century after Christ, it seems puerile to date so carefully a dream, of all things; but in the East, six hundred years before Christ, dreams had a very different importance from what they have now. In the history of Asshur-baui-pal dreams play a great part. Gyges submits to him in consequence of a dream In consequence of a dream Urdamane (Nut-mi-ammon) invades Egypt. Again and again is Asshur-bald-pal encouraged by dreams which appear to seers. It is ignorance of this that makes Hitzig declare, "The character of the king as here represented to us has no verisimilitude." Although Heredotus does make dreams prominent in his history, we could not imagine any of the diadochi recording and dating his dreams as does Asshur-bani-pal.

Daniel 2:2

Verse 2. - Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. The Septuagint renders, "And the king commended that the magicians, astrologers, and sorcerers of the Chaldeans be brought in to tell the king his dream. And they came and steed before the king." The difference is slight verbally, but very important. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree closely with the Massoretic. The Vulgate renders mecashe-pheem, "sorcerers," malefici, "evil workers." Then the king commanded to call the magicians. The scene seems to stand out before us - the king, excited and sleepless, calling out to his attendants to summon to his presence all the wise men in the capital of his empire. The first that are named are the hartummeem. The name is derived by Gesenius from חֶרֶט (heret), "a stylus," and he supposes them to be sacred scribes. We find the word in Genesis 41:24. Although the order may have existed among the Egyptians, the name given to them here and in Exodus may quite well have a Semitic origin. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show us how well the language of Assyria was known in Egypt. Hitzig is quite sure that Nebuchadnezzar "est Abbild des Pharao und zugleich Vorbild des Antiochus Epiphanes." It is a way critics have; they are always quite sure. It may be observed that both the Greek versions have for this word ἐπαοιδούς, "those who use incantations." The Peshitta has harasha, primarily "one who is silent," then "one who mutters," then "one who sings an incantation." Paulus Tellensis has lehasha, "to whisper," and then "to reheat a charm" or "incautation." Jerome renders arioli," foretellers." While the Peshitta interprets hartummeem in Genesis by the same word as that used here, in the Septuagint the word in Genesis is ἐξηγητής instead of ἐ῞παοίδος, and Jerome uses conjectores instead of, as we have seen, arioli In Exodus 7:11 harturameem is translated in the Septuagint ἐπαοιδοί. Jerome renders ipsi, as if the word had not been in his text. if, then, the word hartummeem stood in the text of Daniel when the Greek versions were made, there was an uncertainty as to the meaning to be assigned to it in Egypt. The distinction between the two meanings drawn from the etymology of the word hartummeem, and that derived from the Greek equivalent, is not great. The religion of the Chaldeans was largely a system of incantations that were preserved primarily in the Accadian - a tongue known only to the sacred scribes. Many of the formulae are translated into Assyrian - a language, by the time of Nebuchadnezzar, practically as much restricted to the scribes and learned class as the Accadian. Hence only a scribe could know the proper words to use in an incantation, only he could perpetuate and preserve them. It is difficult to know on what grouted the translators of the Authorized Version selected the word "magicians." The Geneva Bible rendered it "enchanters," which is adopted by the Revisers. Luther is further afield in tendering sternsehers. The name is Assyrian, and apparently derived from harutu, "a staff" (Norris, 'Assyr. Dict.'). This staff was possibly used, as the staff of the Roman augur, to mark off the regions of the heavens, or, it may be, to ward off demons. And the astrologers. The Hebrew word used here is ashshapheem. "In Assyrian the word asep or asipu is used in the sense of diviner. The word was actually borrowed by the Aramaic of Daniel under the form of ashshaph" (Sayce, 'Hibbert Lecture,' p. 51). It is supposed to mean "one who uses enchantments." It is not Hebrew, but really Syriao or Eastern Aramaic. In both Greek versions the equivalent is μάγοι, which Jerome follows. The Peshitta reserves magoeha for the next term. The assertion that this word was really the Greek σοφοί is now abandoned. The Greek σ never rendered by שׁ, which represented a sound not present in Greek at all. The fact that this non-Hellenic sound is doubled makes it utterly impossible that this word could be brought over from the Greek. It is impossible to assign to this word the precise shade of meaning which belongs to it. There is nothing to suggest "astrologers" in the root of the word. And the sorcerers. The Hebrew here is mekash,hepheem. Dr. Robertson Smith, as quoted in Professor Bevan, suggests that the word is derived from כשפ, "to shred or cut to pieces," hence "to prepare magical drugs." This is in agreement with the Greek versions, which render φαρμάκοι. The verb, however, is a Syrian one, and means "to worship" (Acts 4:31; Philippians 1:4). It occurs in the Hebrew of Exodus 7:11 along with hartummeem; in Deuteronomy 18:10, in a verse forbidding to the Israelites the use of magical arts; in 2 Chronicles 33:6, in an account of how Manasseh traversed that law. It may be noted that in this last verse the Peshitta renders Chaldea "Chaldeans." Again we have to repeat the remark that we do not know the distinctions involved in these different names. And the Chaldeans. The Hebrew word here is כַשְׂדִים (Kas'deern); both the form Kassatu and Kaldu occur in in-seriptions. The meaning of this word has caused great discussion, and its use in this chapter for a class of magicians has been held as a strong proof that the writer of the book before us lived long after the time in which he places the events he narrates. The use of "Chaldean" for "magician," "astrologer," or "soothsayer" in classic times is well known. The difficulty here is that the name "Chaldean" is used for a particular and limited class in the nation, and at the same time for that nation as a whole. This is not necessarily impossible. In Scotland, although the inhabitants are all called Scots, there is also the clan whose surname is Scott, or, as it was earlier spelt, "Scot." It would not show confusion or iguorance did a writer of the fifteenth century speak in one page of the Kers, the Hepburns, and the Scots (Scotts) as forming one army, and then in the next page proceed to speak of the whole army as the army of the Scots. His use of the name in the one case for the nation and the other for the clan, so far from showing an insufficient acquaintance with the constitution of Scotland, or the history of its affairs, really evidences the accuracy of the writer's knowledge. We cannot conclude that the author therefore made a mistake in speaking - if he does so - of a class of the Babylonian magians being called Chaldeans because the nation bore the same name. We certainly have as yet found no trace of such a usage, but the argumentum e silentio is of strikingly little value in regard to Babylon - her annals are so very incomplete. We retest bear in mind that the text of Daniel is in a very bad state: it has been subjected to various inter-polstions and alterations. It is, therefore, hazardous to rest any stress on single words. It is clear the writer knew perfectly well that the nation were called Chaldeans. According to the Massoretic text, Daniel 5:30 asserts, "In that night was Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans slain;" according to the LXX. version of the same verse it is, "And the kingdom was taken from the Chaldeans and given to the Medea and Persians." If we are sure the writer did make the Chaldeans also a class of magians, the probability is that he knew what he was talking about, and made no explanation because, as a contemporary, he took for granted everybody knew how this was. But is it absolutely certain that the writer of Daniel does make this asset-lion? It is true that in the Massoretic text the Kasdeem are represented as a class of magiaas coordinate with the hartummeem, ashshapheem, and mekashepheem, but in the Septuagint we find the word χαλδαίων in the genitive. Consequently, the sentence reads, "the magicians and the astrologers and the sorcerers of the Chaldeans." If at the time the Massoretic recension was made the name "Chaldean" had gained its later significance of "soothsayer," one can easily understand how natural it would be to insert the copulative before the preposition. The construction of the sentence in the text before the translator of the LXX. Version is certainly irregular, but not unexampled. It is not so easy to imagine the Septuagint translator changing the nominative plural into a genitive, especially when, by the time the translation was made, the osage we have spoken of above was in full force. We may assume, then, that in the original text of Daniel the "Kasdeem" were not spoken of, in this verse at all events, as a class of magicians. As the clause appears in the LXX., Nebuchadnezzar assembled all the magicians of his nationality, the Chaldeans as distinguished from the Babylonians. Perhaps he had more confidence in them. While the change we have suggested would make only the mekashshepheem connected with the Chaldeans, the grammatical structure of the verse has the aspect of a freer rendering than that in Theodotion' hence it might quite well have been that the original Hebrew had the meaning represented by the Greek of the Septuagint. Lenormant sees in the four classes here an exact representation of the four classes of Babylonian soothsayers. We do not feel obliged to maintain that all the different classes should be called in on the occasion of this dream. We do not know precisely the characteristics that separated one class from the other, but it seems little likely that they all devoted themselves to the interpretation of dreams. There were other omens and portents that had to be explained. For to show the king his dreams. The natural sense is that represented by the Greek versions, "to tell the king his dream." The usual reason for these officials being called was to declare to the king the interpretation of the dream; but here it was to declare the dream its. If. Yet if they could foretell the future, could they not much more easily tell what had happened? They professed to know what was coming; they could - so Nebuchadnezzar might argue - readily enough reason back from the future they knew to the sign of the future, the dream which had been given to him. So they came and stood before the king. We can imagine the long ranks of the principal classes of Chaldean soothsayers in Babylon hastening into the royal presence. All the soothsayers, we see, were not summoned, for Daniel and his friends were not, and they were not singular, else the writer would have given some reason for this omission. The writer assumes that his readers know so much about the habits of Bah;Ionian wise men and their schools, as to be aware that certain individuals might nominally be summoned to the court; and yet it might be some time before they were summoned on any critical occasion. The absence of the four Hebrews might be explained in two ways: either only the Chaldean magicians were in this case summoned, and, as Daniel and his friends were not Chaldeans, they were omitted; or they were not summoned he-cause their training was not yet complete.

Daniel 2:3

Verse 3. - And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. The Revised Version improves the English of the verse by putting the verb in the present, "My Spirit is troubled to know the dream." The Septuagint Version has the appearance of a paraphrase, "And the king said to them, I have seen a dream, and my spirit is troubled, and I desire to understand the dream." It is an unusual combination "to see a dream;" from its unusualness the reading of the Septuagint is to be preferred. In old Hebrew ל (l) and ז (z) are not unlike each other, nor are מ (m) and י (y). Yet these two, letters are the only differences between halamti, "I have dreamed." and hazithi. "I have seen." The Peshitta has haloma hazith, which gives the same combination, and would indicate that here too the Aramaic original is shining through It is however, difficult to see how such a word as ahpatz. "I wish," could drop out of the Massoretic. The must natural solution is that the translator added θέλω to complete the sense. Certainly a link is awanting as it stands in the ordinary interpretation of this verse. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic, while the Vulgate paraphrases the last clause, "And the king said to them. I have seen a dream, and confused in mind I have forgot what I saw." The king has been perturbed by the dream, and his perturbation leads him to wish to knew the dream - not necessarily what the dream actually had been, but what it meant. Thus in Daniel 1:17 Daniel had understanding "in all visions and dreams;" this meant that he knew the meaning of dreams and visit us. The other versions give us no assistance to explain this. Archdeacon Rose says, "The king here plainly intimates that, though the dream had troubled and perplexed him. he could not remember what it was." It does not appear to us quite so plain It is certainly not impossible to imagine that, while the king had been strongly affected by the dream, he might not remember distinctly what it was. If, however, he had no remembrance of the dream, and only the feeling of perturbation, any grandiose vision might have been brought before him, and he would not have been able to check it, or say that was not the dream he had had. If, again, he had some fragmentary remembrance, he naturally would have told what he remembered, in order that they might reconstruct his dream for him. Nebuchadnezzar's great purpose is not merely to see again his dream, but really to test these soothsayers that promised so much. If they could with such certainty as they professed tell what was about to happen, surely it was no great demand that they should know this dream of his. The king seems merely to have made the general statement, and left the soothsayers to tell at once the dream and interpretation. There sits the king with troubled brow, and there stand before him the principal adepts at interpretation of dreams. Some have found it a difficulty that God should reveal the future to a heathen monarch. But in the parallel case of Pharaoh this occurred; certainly the future revealed to him was the immediate future of the, land he ruled, whereas the dream of Nebuchadnezzar extended in its revelation to the very end of time. Archdeacon Rose refers to Pilate's wife and her mysterious dream at the trial of our Lord. The revelation as given to Nebuchadnezzar served a double purpose - it gave emphasis to it when, not an obscure Hebrew scholar got the vision, but the great conqueror; further, it gave an occasion for bringing Daniel into prominence, and gave thus to trim and to his companions an opportunity of showing their fidelity to God. This gave an occasion for miracles, the effect of which was to strengthen the Jews in their faith.

Daniel 2:4

Verse 4. - Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. The versions do not imply any important difference Then... the Chaldeans. This does not mean merely that cue class of soothsayers - a class the existence of which is doubtful - nor that the whole baud of soothsayers bore the name "Chaldeans." The name is simply the name of the nation, but is here used of this small portion of it that were soothsayers, in the same way as in John 9:22 "Jews," the name of the nation, is used for the rulers: "For the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." Hence it is needless to speak of' the Chaldeans being the principal class, and therefore "for the sake of breviloquence" (Moses Stuart) "put for the whole." So also Kliefoth ('Kom.,' p. 79), "Because the Chaldeans were the first class, they alone are named." The Chaldeans were not the inhabitants of Babylonia, but belonged to several cantons south and east of Babylon. Spake. The word yedabberu is usually followed by the verb amar in the infinitive. In Ezekiel 40:4 we have the verb dibber used without arnar, to introduce the thing said. It is not improbable that in this instance Aramith, "in the Syriac tongue," helped to the omission of amar. In the Syriack (Aramith). All scholars know now that there are two leading dialects of the Aramaean or Aramaic - the Eastern or Syriac, and the Western or Chaldee. The terms are very confusing; as Syria was certainly to the west of Chaldea, it seems strange that the usage should ever have sprung up to call the Western variety Chaldee, and the Eastern variety Syriac. The usage having been established, it has a certain convenience to be able to name all the Western, or, as they may be called, Palestinian dialects of Aramaic Chaldee, and all the Eastern varieties Syriac. While the English version uses the term "Syriac," as the portion of Daniel which follows has come down to us, it is not written in Syriac, but in Chaldee. We shall, however, endeavour to show that this is due to changes introduced by transcribers. As to the word Aramith occurring here, there is great force in the view maintained by Lenormant, that it is to be regarded as a note to the reader, indicating that st this point the Hebrew ceases and the Aramaic begins. The reason of the change from one language to another has been already dealt with in considering the question of the structure of Daniel. In the mean time it is sufficient to say that our theory is that the Hebrew in the beginning of Daniel is due to the editor, who collected the scattered fly-leaves. In the first chapter and in the three opening verses of that before us, we have the results of translation and condensation. As the previous sacred books had been written in Hebrew - the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, not to speak of other books - it was natural that the editor, especially if he were under the influence of Ezra, would desire to see a book that had so much of holy hope and aspiration about it, in the sacred language of the patriarchs and prophets. There would be probably a considerable mass of irregular material to be gone over before a connected account could be given of the early days of Daniel. These sources would be necessarily in the main Aramaic, and hence the translation and condensation. It was formerly one of the objections urged against Daniel that the author regarded Aramaic as the language spoken in Babylon. By this time the language engraved on the tablets had been discovered not to be any previously known toungue. It is now found that, although the inhabitants of Babylon used the cuneiform for inscriptions, the language of ordinary business and social intercourse was Aramaic. and had been for several centuries. Dr. Hugo Winckler says, in his 'History of Babylonia and Assyria,' p. 179, "Aramaic soon became the language of social intercourse (ungangsprache) in nearly the whole of Mesopotamia, and. expelled the Assyro-Babylonian, which continued only as a literary tongue (schriftsprache)." Bronze weights have been found dating back to the Sargo-nids, with the weight marked on the one side in Aramaic, while on the other the titles of the king are given in Assyrian, When Sennacherib sent Rabshakeh to Jerusalem, Eliakim and Shebna wished the conversation to be carried on in Aramaic, implying that by this time Aramaic had become the ordinary language of diplomacy. The single Aramaic verse in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 10:11) implies that the Jewish captives would be dwelling among a people who ordinarily spoke Aramaic. Some have deduced from the phrase, "then spake," etc., that Aramaic was not the ordinary language of the speakers - a deduction that would be plausible if it had not been that from this point till the end. of the seventh chapter the book is in Aramaic. Jephet-ibn-Ali thinks that Nebuchadnezzar had first addressed the wise men in some other language, and then betook him to Aramaic. O king, live for ever: tell thy servaats the dream, andl we will show the interpretation. The soothsayers address the king in terms of Oriental adulation. Similar phrases are found in despatches to Asshurbanipal. In the Septuagint Version the phrase is accommodated more to the Hellenic usage, and the king is addressed as κύριε βασιλεῦ. Their language implies that they expected to be told the dream, and then, having been told the dream, they would apply the rules of their art to it, and declare to the king the interpretation.

Daniel 2:5

Verse 5 - The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The version of the LXX. has slight but important differences from the Massoretic text. It is as follows "And the king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if therefore ye do not tell me the dream truly and show me the interpretation thereof, ye shall be made an example of, and your goods shall be escheat to the royal treasury." Theodotion renders the last portion of the verse, "ye shall be destroyed (εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε), and your houses shall be plundered (διαρπαγήσονται)." The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic, but, like Theodotion, softens the last clause into "plundered." The Vulgate retains the fierceness of the Massoretic, softened merely in phrase, not in meaning. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me. The first thing to be noticed is the difference of the Q'ri and the K'thib in the word "Chaldean;" it is written כשׂדיא, according to the Syriac usage, not כשׂדאי according to the Chaldee. As the Book of Daniel was copied and recopied many times, probably at least scores of' times before, on the latest assignable critic d date of Daniel, the Massoretic text was fixed, and copied mainly by those whose language was Western not Eastern Aramaic. the occurrence of Syriac forms is more likely to be survivals from a Syriac original than insertions, either accidental or intentional. When the differences are so slight as those between Eastern and Western Aramaic, the tendency is to remove them rather than to accentuate them. The older interpretation of mill tha, "thing" or "word," was to take it as referring to the dream - that it was the matter that had gone from him. This, however, depends to a large degree on the moaning to be attached to ozda. Is it to be regarded as equivalent to azla, as if it were derived from אֲזַל, "to go;" or is azda to be regarded as Persian azdu, "sure," "diligent"? Delitzsch suggests azanda. "known." The two Greek versions render, ὁ λόγος ἀπ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη, a phrase which may either be "the word has gone from me," or "the matter has departed from me," the latter being the more natural, from the meaning of ἀφίστημι. The Peshitta rendering is, "Sure is the word I have spoken." The older commentators have mainly taken this sentence as asserting that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten the dream; Calvin. however, does so only because he feels himself compelled to take ver. 8 as meaning this; while Jephet-ibn-Ali and others assume this to be the meaning of the phrase. Aben Ezra takes azda as meaning "firm" or sure. Berthohlt, among moderns, maintains that millitha is "the dream." Most others assert the sentence to mean, "The word which has gone forth from me is sure;" this is also Professor Bevan's interpretation. Hitzig's view here is peculiar: he would translate, "For the matter is important to me." This view does not suit ver. 8. The lexicons differ in this. Winer first gives elapsus est, abiit, then adds, "unless rather it be derived from the Arabic (atzad), 'strong,' or from the Rabbinic אָזַד, robustus." Buxtorf does give the alleged Rabbinic use of the verb, but gives reference only to occurrence in the passage before us and ver. 8, and renders abire. Gesenius renders, "to depart," and quotes in support of this the Rabbinic formula, אזדא לטצמים, "to go to one's own opinion," spoken of a rabbi who holds a view not shared by any other. At the same time, Gesenius gives a meaning to the clause as a whole which accords with that of most commentators, "The word has gone out from me." Furst takes the word as meaning "firm," "sure," "unalterable." He too quotes the Rabbinic formula, as if it confirmed his view, which really it does not. Castell gives as robur, but appends no reference. Brockelmann does not give it at all, nor does Levy. Had Castell given any reference, it might have been argued to be a survival of a Syriac word through transcription; but we must remain in doubt in this, all the more so that the Peshitta does not transfer the word, which it would naturally have done had the word been extant in Syriac in A.D. . This would make it probable that it is an old word. The fact that it is used in Talmudic only in a formula, and then in a sense unsuitable to the present passage, confirms the idea of its age. It had probably a technical meaning, denoting that a certain matter was irrevocable. The Persian derivation of the word is by no means certain, though supported by Schrader and Noehleke. It may have a Shemitic root. אזז (azoz) Assyrian (Schrader, 526), "to be firm," may be the Assyrian form of the word, which becomes אזד in Syriac, and אזדא in status emphatieus. In Aramaic ז of Hebrew becomes ד, as זָהַב (zabab) and דְהַב (dehab), "gold." The Assyrian use of sibilants is more akin to Hebrew than to Aramaic. Sa, "this," is equivalent to זֶה (zeh), Schrader, 'Keiln.,' 586. If אזז were transferred from Assyrian and put in the status emphaticus, אַזְדָא is not an unlikely form for it to assume. Even grant the word to be Persian, it is far from proving, or even rendering it probable, that Daniel was composed in the days of the Maccabees. There is no trace of Persian producing much effect on the language of the numerous peoples that were subject to the Persian empire. There is no sign that the word was known in Palestine during the time when the Targums were becoming fixed. In Alexandria, where the Septuagint version of Daniel was made, the meaning of the word was not known, and was thought to be equivalent to אזל (azal). In Asia Minor, where Theodotion made his version, it was unknown. Jerome, who made his version, if not in Palestine, yet under Pales-tinian guidance, translates it also as equivalent to azal. The natural conclusion is that this book must have been composed not later than the Persian period, and not far from the centre of government. As we have already said, our interpretation agrees with that of Professor Bevan; we would render the phrase, "The word which has gone forth from me," i.e., "is fixed." The reason of the king's refusal to tell the wise men his dream is that he cannot do it, net because he has forgotten it, but because he has already announced that he wishes these soothsayers to prove their ability to give the interpretation of the dream by telling him what the dream was which he had had. He has committed himself to that course; he is a king, and he may not change, If ye will not make known to me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. The king, unaccustomed to be opposed or refused anything, at once determines that it is not inability to tell him what he wishes to know that hinders the soothsayers, but unwillingness. Of course, the abruptness of the action, immediate sentence pronounced on their hesitating to satisfy his demand, seems improbable. We must, however, remember that we have the account given us in the utmost brevity. We have the substance of the dialogue between the king and his astrologers. It is put in dialogue form simply because the Shemitic tongues naturally lend themselves to this mode of presentation. The sentence, "ye shall be cut in pieces," suggests some of the punishments inflicted by Asshurbanipal on those who rebelled against him. In the Aramaic the meaning literally is, "Ye shall be made pieces of." This is considerably softened in both the Greek versions. In the LXX. the rendering is, Παρὰ δειγματισθήσεσθε, "Ye shall be made an example of." Theodotion renders, Αἰς ἀπώλειαν ἔσεσθε, "Ye shall be for destruction." The Peshitta is stronger, if anything, from the succession of words, "Piece piece ye shall be cut." The punishment certainly was horrible, but not more so than the punishment David inflicted on the murderers of Ishbosheth. Indeed, in European countries a century and a half ago punishments yet more revolting were frequent. The punishment for treason in our own country was as horrible as anything well could be. The sentence, however, went further than merely the individuals. And your houses shall be made a dunghill. In the 'Records of the Past,' 1:27, 43, are references to something like this. "houses reduced to heaps of rubbish." That the houses thus made heaps of rubbish should therefore be made dunghills, is in perfect accordance with the manners at present holding in the East. The rendering of the Septuagint is very peculiar here, "And your goods shall be escheat to tire royal treasury (καὶ ὀναληφθήσεται ὑμῶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα εἰς τὸ βασιλίκον)." This cannot be due to any desire to soften the meaning, for in the first place, in Daniel 7:29, where the same phrase occurs in the Aramaic, it is paraphrased, but not really changed; it is rendered δημευθήσεται. But further, the meaning here is perfectly different from that in the Aramaic of the Masse,retie recension. Theodotion's rendering is a softening of the Massoretic, "Your houses shall be (διαρπαγήσονται) torn down;" but the Septuagint quite changes the meaning. If the translator had a slightly blurred copy before him, he might read נזלו instead of נולי; that is to say, instead of "a dunghill," he read it as the third person plural pael of the verb אֲזַלַ (azal), "to go." When written in Sama-titan characters, or in old Phoenican characters, the last word would not be unlike למלך, "to the king." This is the only explanation of this variation that seems feasible, and it implies that the manuscript before the Septuagint translator was written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. The pre-formative נ, used as the sign of the third person, is the peculiarity of Eastern Aramaic. The translator must have bad this generally before him in his manuscript, or he never could have made this mistake. This is another indication that the Aramaic of Daniel was originally not Chaldee, but Syriac. We can imagine the striking scene: on the one wide the haughty young conqueror, blazing in indignation at the obstinate refusal, as he counts it, of his soothsayers and augurs to tell him his dream and the meaning of it; on the other, the crouching crowd of magicians, astrologers, and oneiromantists, dispirited and nonplussed. Brought up in an absolute faith in astrology and augury, the king never doubted their ability to tell him his dream; it could only be a treasonable desire to hinder him from taking the suitable steps to avoid whatever danger might be threatened by it, or to gain whatever advantage might be promised. They would not tell him the dream, because by their rules the interpretation would be fixed, and from that they could I not escape. The king will not and cannot reverse his word, and they cannot tell him what he desires, and so they stand facing each other.

Daniel 2:6

Verse 6. - But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. The Septuagint Version is "If ye will show me the dream, and tell me its interpretation, ye shall receive every sort (παντοῖα) of gifts, and be honoured by me: show me the dream, and judge." There are indications of differences in the text, which are considered below. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in its rendering of this verse. The Peshitta also manifests no serious difference. All these older versions render it doubtful whether nebizba was part of the original text. But if ye show the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour. Ewald would conjoin with this verse the latter part of the verse preceding, with considerable justification. Like the latter part of the previous verse, it is to be taken as the summation of a long argument, in which threats and promises would bear a large part, probably both heightening as they failed to produce tire effect required of making the soothsayers reproduce to Nebuchadnezzar his dream. Now the acme is reached - on the one hand, a death of torture and infamy is threatened; on the other band, in the verse before us, "gifts, rewards, and great honour." The king is eager to have his dream interpreted, but he has taken his stand - before he will listen to the interpretation, they must afford him evidence that they can interpret correctly this dream, by reproducing it to him. One of the words here has been used by Berthohlt as evidence that the Book of Daniel originated in the days of the Maccabees, when Greek was largely spoken. The word translated "reward" in our version is nebizba; this, it was argued by Bertholdt, is νόμισμα, m becoming b - a not infrequent commutation. In support of this, if we take νόμισμα as meaning "coined money," this would make a distinction between this word and matnan, the more ordinary word for "a girt." Jephet-ibn-Ali translates in accordance with this meaning: "I will give you raiment and dinars," he makes Nebuchadnezzar say. Yet this view is now abandoned by all critics, and however many alleged Greek words are found in Daniel, this is never now brought forward as one of them. Lexicographers are practically unanimous in rejecting this derivation. There are two other derivations, one making it a palpel form of the בְוז with a נ pre-formative which was Gesenius's view in his 'Thesaurus.' He later abandoned this view, and maintained that it was connected with some Persian root. Winer maintains the former of these views, and Furst the latter. As a Persian word, it is supposed to prove the late date of Daniel. It does seem somewhat strange logic to argue, from the presence of Persian words in a document, that therefore it was written late in the Greek period. The prior question presents itself - Is the word Persian, Greek, or Aramaic, really a part of the original text of Daniel? In regard to this the Septuagint Version is of importance. Its rendering of this clause is, as we have seen, "But if ye shall show me the dream, and tell me the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive all manner of gifts, and shall be honoured by me." This interpretation implies a different text - the word nebizba disappears from the text altogether, for no one would translate it παντοῖα; evidently the translator had before him some combination of col, "all." The combination matnan nebizba occurs in the Targum in Jeremiah 40:5, therefore, had it been present, the translator would have been aware of its meaning. Theodotion renders it δωρεάς. If the phrase occurred elsewhere, there would easily be a motive to introduce the word nebizba, but there seems none to substitute for it another word altogether; certainly כ and נ are not unfrequently confounded, and a defective ל might be read as a ב. It would not be difficult to reproduce a Hebrew sentence, the rendering of which would require παντοῖα. This much is clear - nebizba was not before the Septuagint translator. It is further to be observed that the Septuagint translator has had before him, not the noun yeqar, "honour," but the verb in the passive or ethpael. These, however, are not all the points where the Septuagintal text must have differed from the text we have received from the Massoretes. The adjective sagi," great," occurs in the Authorized Version, but is not represented in the Septuagint. The order of the Greek words suggests a different order in the original Aramaic. Other things being equal, the strutter a reading, the more likely it is to be the original reading. It is clear that this advantage is with the Septuagint reading. If there were any likelihood of certain words being omitted from any probable cause as homoioteleuton, it would be different. On the other hand, the addition of a kind which is frequently seen, the more recent word nebizba is put alongside its more ancient equivalents. In the other case, the adjective sagi, "great," is inserted, as frequently happens, with a view of heightening the effect. Another explanation may be suggested. We know the Aramaic docquets on the back of the contract tablets are written in a script resembling Phoenician characters. If the original manuscripts were written at the date assigned by tradition, then it would be written in this style of letter. In it we find that ש and מ were liable to be mistaken, as also; and ג; we should then have נ (minni), "from me," as a possible reading which had been rot,read by some Palestinian scribe into שׂגי (sagi), "great," and the א added to complete the word. The case is only a familiar case of doublets. When we have further מִן־קָדָמָי, "from me," the change of the preceding is thus in a sense necessitated. This may be regarded as an indication of age, as the square character had begun at least a century before Christ (Driver,' Samuel,' p. 21.). This leaves but little time for modifications and blunders of penmanship between this and the critical date of Daniel. The latter clause of this verse shows us another variation between the Massoretic text and that lying behind the Septuagint. The Massoretic recension is well represented in the Authorized Version. Therefore show me the dream, and the interpretation thereof. The version of the Septuagint indicates a different reading, and has a different point, "Declare to me the dream, and judge." According to the Massoretic reading, the king merely repeats his demands, the only reference to the preceding promises and threatenings being in the conjunction לָהֵן (lahen), "therefore." Whereas the main reference of the clause, according to the Septuagint, is to the immediately preceding promises, "Show me the dream, and judge if I will do as I have said." Another supposition possible is that there has been a transposition. In the very next verse חְוָה (hevah) is represented by κρίνω - in that case it may mean "interpret," the rendering then would be, "Show me the dream and interpret," and represent some part of the verb פשר, only there is the awkwardness of using the same word as equivalent to two different Aramaic words in contiguous verses. The difference is not of great importance; the king is eager to get the magicians to tell him his dream and its interpretation, but, having commenced the experiment as to their powers, he will not allow himself to be driven from it. Before leaving this verse, we must note the presence of certain signs of old date in the Aramaic of the passage. First, the word hen, "if," is not used in the Targums; it is not in Levy's Dictionary; neither Gesenius nor Furst gives any non-Biblical reference for the use of the word In the same way, its derivative לָהֵן (lahen), "therefore," is equally peculiar to Biblical Aramaic. Particles are good notes of age, as they are less liable to change than nouns substantive.

Daniel 2:7

Verse 7. - They answered again and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it. The Septuagint Version here is, "And they answered the second time, saying, O king, tell the dream, and thy servants will judge of these things." Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. The wise men are unable to satisfy the king's demands. Ewald comments on the fact that none of them had the inventiveness to make up a dream, and tell the king that had been his dream. He admits himself that there might have been risk of the king discovering the deception, if no flash of reviving memory in his mind answered to their invention. On our hypothesis that the king had not forgotten his dream, but was testing their powers, it was not only in the highest degree hazardous, but it was certain of failure. They must have known the case to be as we imagine it, or, when they were sentenced to death, they would have run the hazard, on the plea, "If we perish, we perish." There was a chance, though a faint one, of success in the attempt to palm off upon the king their own imaginings for his dream; there was a certainty of death if they did nothing. All they can do, however, is simply to repeat what they before said, "Tell us the dream, and we will find the interpretation of it." Nebuchadnezzar has often been denounced as specially foolish and tyrannical on account of this demand which he made of the wise men; but tyrannical though he was, and foolish though he seems at times, looked at from our elevation, this demand of his is not an example either of his folly or his tyranny. These soothsayers enjoyed great honour and great revenues, on the assumption that they possessed certain powers of foreseeing the future. He demands of them, instead of an enigmatical statement of what was coming on the earth, that they tell him what he had dreamed. They professed to be able to discover thefts, and where stolen property was; they professed to point out men who were devising evil against another. If their claims were true, they could surely tell the king his dream. They were thus employed and honoured in order that they should foretell to the king any fortune, good or bad, impending himself or the natron. His dream presumably foretold the future; they affirmed that they knew the future; they surely might tell the king what prophecy was made to him in his dream. Believing in the reality of their powers with all the faith of a fanatic, their refusal could only mean to him treason. They did not tell him his dream, not because they could not, but because they would not, in order that the disaster - for such he would be sure the dream portended - might not be averted by timely sacrifices. If the elaborate treatises on magic and divination which have come to us, so far as has been discovered, only in fragments, were complete, it is not impossible that we might be able to tell what interpretation these wise men would have put on the dream, had they been told it. It would be a curious exercise, for certainly Daniel's interpretation would not be the result. We must return to the versions for a little, in one respect the Septuagint is closer to the Massoretic than Theodotion, by having λέγοντες, the participle, instead of εϊπαν. We direct attention to this, with a view to the phenomenon we find in the succeeding clause. The Septuagint rendering is given above. The most noticeable thing which the reader will find about this rendering is the change of person in the last clause. As it stands in the Massoretic text, it is certainly the first person plural Imperfect pael of חוה; but in Syriac the preformative נ was the sign of the third person in the imperfect, as well as of the first person plural; hence, if there were a little uncertainty as to the end of the word, it was an easy mistake to one who was reading from a manuscript in Eastern Aramaic, but an impossible one for a scribe translating from a manuscript written in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. It cannot be urged plausibly that the change might simply result from a free translation, for the slavish accuracy of the rest of the verse precludes that escape. As the reading of the Greek is confirmed by the version of Paulus Tel-lensis, the probability is slight of a various reading. This is another evidence that Daniel was originally written in Eastern, not Western Aramaic. It may be observed that while in the Massoretic text the verb "tell" (y'emar) is put in the imperfect, in the Septuagint it is translated as it' it were. imperative. The difference between the third person imperfect and the second person imperative is the presence, in the case of the former, of the preformative y (י), which is absent in the other. That is a thing that might easily happen, that, (yodh) might be dropped or inserted mistakenly; consequently, this affords no evidence that the Septuagint translator took liberties with his text. The question may be put, how tar these soothsayers knew they were impostors. Most likely they were unconscious of anything approaching imposition. We know the elaborate rules by which they determined the exact meaning of every sign and portent. We know how prone men are to supplement such rules by a native faculty for foreseeing what is likely to happen, and how, further, explanations may be devised to save the credit of these canons of interpretation, even when most hopelessly proved to be false by events. Archdeacon Rose appeals to modern spiritualists as examples in point, regarding both the Chaldean soothsayers and modern spiritualists as equally impostors. We feel inclined to regard them as so far alike in this - that most of both classes imposed most on themselves. The presence of these false prophets is an evidence of the existence of the true prophets at some time, at all events; there would be no counterfeit coin were there no genuine money.

Daniel 2:8

Verse 8. - The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. The versions here do not differ in any essential point. The king now becomes certain of the treasonable purpose of the soothsayers. The word zeban means not so much "gain" as "purchase," "barter." To the king the meaning of their obstinate refusal to submit to his requirements is that they know that some great advantage may be gained by the king, or some great disaster forefended, if he only knows the meaning of this dream, and that if the king does not submit to them and yield up his decree, and, putting his pride under his feet, tell them the dream, the time when its revelation may be taken advantage of may be passed. In these matters everything was supposed to depend on the thing to be done being done precisely at the right conjunction of the planets. His last utterance seems almost to rise to agony, "Because ye see the thing is fixed away from me!" We have the same word (azda) translated here, as in the fifth verse, "gone." As we saw above, its real meaning is rather "fixed," "settled," "determined." His decree had gone out, and he would not - nay, so strongly had he willed at that it was as it' he could not - alter his decision. It has been regarded as bearing on this passage that St. Paul (Ephesians 5:16) uses the same word as that by which the Greek versions translate zeban, "redeeming the time, because the days are evil." The meaning of the apostle is to some extent in contrast to that here. Believers are, as it were, to purchase the time from the evil days. Nebuchadnezzar thought the astrologers were, as it were, meaning by their delays to buy the auspicious moment for the kingdom from under his feet. It is a mistaken idea that he thought they merely wished to gain time. It would I seem, from what we read further of his treatment of Daniel's request lot time, that, had they merely asked for time, Nebuchadnezzar would have granted their request. He had staked his faith in their ability to unfold any mystery on this one test, and they seemed to him obstinately to refuse to submit to it. To believe them unable to reveal the truth that he wished, would be to overturn all the fabric of his faith in the religion of his fathers; therefore, with all the strength of a strong man. and all the blind faith of a fanatic, he will not acknowledge the inability of the soothsayers to tell him his dream; it must be obstinacy, he thinks, that prevents the soothsayers telling him, and that obstinacy must have a sinister purpose. There is a clause in the Septuagint completing this verse, but it is not parallel with any clause in the Massoretic text: "Then just as I have ordered, thus shall it be." This probably is an alternative rendering. Azda is taken in what is now regarded as its meaning - "that which is fixed," or "decreed," in which case this final clause might be rendered, "What is fixed from me is a decree;" and of this the above-mentioned clause is a somewhat free rendering. This interpretation of the clause confirms our view of the situation.

Daniel 2:9

Verse 9. - But if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you. The words translated (di hen) "but it'" liar, caused some difference, most translating as if the first word were not present. This is the rendering of the Septuagint. Theodotion and Jerome render the first word, which is really the relative, as "therefore," ergo, "then," οϋν. The Peshitta has den, the corresponding Syriac phrase, which has a similar sense to that assumed here. The rendering of the next clause, both in the Septuagint and in the version of Theodotion, differs considerably from the Massoretic text. The rendering of the Septuagint is as follows: "If ye do not truly tell me the dream, an,l show me the interpretation, ye shall die." The version of Theodotion is shorter, "It, then, ye will not tell me the dream." Theodotion thus omits the clause translated, "there is but one decree for you;" the only word that may be the remains of it is οϊδα, ידעת, or simply the participle, The Syriac is, "If ye will not declare the dream to me, one is your plan and your word." The text of the Septuagint in this case indicates that we have here additions from previous verses. The phrase, "and declare to me the interpretation," is evidently supplied from ver. 5, whereas "ye shall die." literally, "ye shall chance to (fall into) death," has a different origin. This phrase has all the appearance of a translation. It would seem applicable on the idea that in the text before the Septuagint translator, instead of דתכון (datheon), "your decree," there stood מתכון (motheon), "your death," the ו (vav) being omitted, and possibly the preposition בְ (be), and milch being read into some part of nephal, "to fall," probably תִּפּלוּן (tippelun). The omission of this clause, as above mentioned, from Theodotion renders it a little doubtful, as it indicates that in the text used by the Jews of Asia Minor this phrase was awanting. Most commentators take dath in the sense more common in Eastern than in Western Aramaic, of "pica" rather than "decree" Ewald and Professor Bevan oppose this view, as also Keil, the last with great positiveness. The facts that so many commentators give this meaning, and that certain Rabbinic authorities reterred to but not named by Jephet-ibn-Ali prove it to be no impossible translation. Hitzig, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Michaelis, and Moses Stuart are not quite despicable. The main reason against this view is that in Western Aramaic dath means "decree," in Eastern Aramaic it means, according to Castell, scopus, meta, finis, voluntas. The only difficulty is that he gives no reference, and Brockel-mann gives only lex, which in this case it cannot be, though this is the only reference beside Hoffmann's 'Glossary.' It might be an individual "decree," but a "law" it cannot be. On the received renderings the succession is somewhat violent. "If ye will not tell me the dream, one is your decree," can only be made consecutive by a violent jerk away back to the fifth verse. It seems more natural to take it as meaning, "Ye have agreed together to say one thing to me." The accusation of conspiracy naturally followed from the king's firm conviction that the soothsayers could tell, if they only would, what he required of them. If there began to dawn upon him any idea that their silence was due to inability to answer, it might well move him to redoubled anger that they had been guilty of imposture in claiming such lofty powers and being so highly paid and honoured for their exercise. The king's mind had not yet abandoned the faith of his fathers in magic and divination. For ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. It' the Septuagint is to be taken as our guide, the word shheethah is a doubtful addition to the Massoretic text It is, however, in the other later versions. According to the rendering of both the Greek versions, the meaning here is stronger than that which is expressed in the Authorized Version; hizdaminton really means "to conspire." He will not admit the plea of inability to satisfy his demands - the vague suspicion may be floating before his mind - as, if he were to admit their inability to satisfy what he wished to learn, then, according to his logic, all their claims were false. Hence the accusation of "lying and corrupt words" would still stand, and have all the greater emphasis. Waiving the question of the authenticity of "corrupt," the distinction between the two words "lying" and "corrupt" seems to be in this: the first refers to the person addressed - to Nebuchadnezzar, - the words are untrue, they are lies - as coming from the soothsayers they are "corrupt," because they are symptomatic of a corrupt disposition, probably traitor, us. Till the time be changed. Theodotion renders here. "till the time be passed." The Septuagint follows a similar reading to that in the Massoretic text. The Peshitta rendering is akin to that of Theodotion. While in all forms of magic and soothsaying, time was an element not to be neglected, it was doubly important in regard to astrology, and an hour or two changed the position of the moon in relation to the constellations. If something required to be clone in consequence of this dream, then most likely it would require to be done in a certain relation of the heavenly bodies to each other. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof. The Septuagint rendering is paraphrastic, "Now then, if ye tell me the thing which I saw in the night, I shall know that ye can also show the interpretation." While we have called it a paraphrase as regards the Massoretic text, the rendering in the Septuagint may represent the Egyptian recension of the text of Daniel. The use of ῤῆμα or "thing" suggests translation, and assumes millah or mill'tha, which has the same double suggestion of "word spoken" and "thing spoken about." If the Septuagint text were assumed here, we should have confirmation of our view that Nebuchadnezzar remembered his vision, but was determined to experiment on the soothsayers of his court. This view is certainly implied in the following clause. The first word of this clause is peculiar grammatically: אִנְדַּע ('in'd'a) instead of אידע ('iyda) or אִדַּע ('idda). This form of compensating for a dropped consonant by inserting נ (nun) instead of doubling occurs elsewhere in Biblical Aramaic (see ver. 30). This is rare in Syriac, and in the Targums found only in those later, especially those of the Megilloth, which have affinities with the form of Aramaic seen in the Babylonian Talmud. This peculiarity is common in the Maudaitic dialect. It is thus a distinctively Eastern form of Aramaic that is indicated here. When we pass beyond the grammatical elements, we find that Nebuchadnezzar would take correct information as to what he had dreamed a guarantee of the correctness of the interpretation of the dream which the soothsayers might afterwards give him. His attitude was purely and truly scientific, as it is stated. In his own mind he was warped and confused by his overmastering belief in omens and auguries, in gods and demons, in magicians and astrologers. With this faith in his heart, his only explanation of the silence of these soothsayers was treason.

Daniel 2:10

Verse 10. - The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king's matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, astrologer, or Chaldean. It is to be noted, in the first place, that we have the same Syriac form of כַּשְׂדָיֵא. This seems to us a survival from an earlier condition of the text, when the Syriac forms were predominant, if not universal, in it. Scribes accustomed to speak and write in Chaldee would naturally harmonize the text to the language they were accustomed to use. The word "saying" ("and said," Authorized Version) is omitted from the. Septuagint, but it is found in all other versions: its omission in the Septuagint may have been due to error - the Aramaic is not complete without it. לָא־אִתַי (la-'itha), "there is not." The ordinary Targumic and Talmudic usage is לַיִת (layith), "is not." one word. This full way of writing this negative form is an undeniable proof of antiquity. Neither Levy nor Castell gives any example of the full writing which is the regular practice in Biblical Aramaic. Merx, 'Chrestomath. Targ.,' 168, 225, also gives only לית. As a rule, the fuller a form is, the older it is. Earth; literally, dry groined- the same word as is used in the Targum of Genesis, "Let the dry land appear," but not the usual word for "the world." Theodotion, in accordance, translates ξηρᾶς; the LXX. renders merely, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The Peshitta has (ar'a). The king's matter (mil-lath malea); literally, the king's word, which, consequently, Theodotion translates ῤῆμα. The LXX renders, "to tell the king that which he has seen." It is evident that he read milbdh, as it' derived from melal, "to speak," as lemallala. The rendering, "that which he has seen," is due to reading ל (l) into ד (d); the verb heva was read heza, and then the change in meaning be. conies intelligible. Therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler. The mote natural interpretation of the Aramaic is, "There is no king great and powerful." Some have regarded ral, ushlat as a title of the King of Babylon, but this does not seem to be borne out by inscriptions. The sense is rather that of 1he marginal rendering, "There is no king be he never so great and powerful." Then-dotion has this reading. The Septuagint renders, "no king and no ruler (πᾶς βασιλεὺς καὶ πᾶς δυνάστης...οὐκ)," reading כול (eol) for רב (rab). The Peshitta follows the Massoretic closely here. In this connection, it may be observed, שליט (shaleet) is not frequent in the Targums, but it occurs in the Peshitta. That asked such things. Kidnah, "like this." This form of the demonstration, ending with ה (h), instead of א, is regarded as older than the Targumic form. Theodotion inserts ῤῆμα here. At any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean. The first thing that strikes the reader of the Aramaic, and for that matter the other versions, is the omission of one of the classes of soothsayers - that called "sorcerers" in our Authorized Version. We saw that, according to the Septuagint, the" Chaldeans" were not a separate college of augurs or soothsayers. When we look atlentively at the Aramaic, the reason of the presence of "Chaldeans" here, and the absence of "sorcerers" becomes probable. In the first place, כשדיא is written without the א, as singular. When so written, its resemblance to מְכַשֵׁפ (mekashshaph) suggests the question whether there might not be, occupying this place, an Aramaic noun equivalent to ashshaph, which we see is really Assyrian, and, interpreting it we find mekashshaph put thus after ashshaph elsewhere, but omitted here. The solution of' the omission of mekashshaph is the likeness the latter part of the word bears to Kusdt, especially in the script of Egypt, in which כ and א were very like each other. These assembled wise men protest against the test to which the king would put them as essentially unfair. They had been trained to divine the future from dreams, but never to find out dreams by what they had learned from their airs the future would be; and in proof of this they urge that no king, however great, had made such a demand of any astrologer or soothsayer. Nay, they go further, and say that no man upon the earth is able to tell the king what he wishes. They endeavour to make the king see that what he asks is an impossibility.

Daniel 2:11

Verse 11. - And it is a rare thing that the king requireth. The Septuagint Version of this passage is, "The thing which thou requirest, O king, is hard and strange." The last two winds are most likely a case of doublet - two different renderings of the same Aramaic wind, yakkirah. The primary meaning of this word is "heavy," and by transference it becomes "difficult," and then, "strange" or "rare." There may have been a slight difference of reading to account for the sentence taking the vocative term it does. It may be due to reading הדר instead of אחר in the following clause. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text. and translates yakkirah, βαρύς. The Peshitta does not differ here from the Massoretic text. The soothsayers still pursue their line of defence, which they had adopted in the preceding verse. The king cannot get the answer he demands - his demand is so difficult and strange. And there is none ether that can show it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. The Septuagint rendering (lifters somewhat, though slightly, from the Massoretic text: "And there is no one who will show these things to the king, unless some (τις) angel, whose dwelling is not at all with flesh." The omission of ahoran, "other," gives some slight confirmation of the suggestion that ἐπίδοξος, "strange" or "peculiar," represents it. It is very characteristic of the time when the Septuagint translation was made, and of the opinions then current, that the, word אלחין (elohin), "gods," should be rendered ἄγγελος, "angels" By this time there was an avoidance of the use of the Divine name, and anything that suggested it; further, there was an avoidance of the names of heathen deities. The same feeling that makes the historian of the Book of Samuel represent (1 Samuel 29:6) Achish swearing by Jehovah rather than by his own gods, as would certainly be the case, makes the translator here represent the soothsayers referring to "angels." The idea of angels of the nations, which we find later in this book, was generally adopted by the Jews in Egypt (as e.g. Deuteronomy 32:8, LXX.). A question has been raised here as to whether the statement, "whose dwelling is not with flesh," is to be regarded as distinguishing all gods from human beings, or as distinguishing certain of the higher gods from the others. The first view is that of Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Bevan, and others; Professor Fuller and Von Lengerke and others maintain the latter opinion. There is one thing certain - that the soothsayers and interpreters of dreams and auguries believed, or, at all events, pretended they believed, themselves each under the guidance of a special genius or subordinate god. Such a god had his dwelling with flesh - that is to say, with humanity; but there were in their pantheon higher gods, whose dwelling was not with flesh. In some of the incantations and magical formulas which Lenormant has collected in his 'La Magie,' we find (p. 21) Selek-Moulou-ki coming to Ea his father for information as to the causes of disease, etc. Marduk is the Babylonian name for Selek-Moulou-ki, and Marduk was the great revealer; but by this his dwelling was with flesh. As we see, however, there were gods whose dwelling was not with flesh, who knew secrets hid even from Marduk. This excuse of the wise men is a preparation for Daniel's claim to raveal the secret of the king by the power of a higher God than any that communicated with the Babylonian soothsayers. Hitzig regards this as an artistic device of the author. We regard it as the providential intervention of God himself, that raise heathen soothsayers should shelter themselves under an excuse that forced into clearer light the supremacy of Jehovah. It indicates a special knowledge of Babylonian worship thus to lay stress on this distinction between higher and lower gods.

Daniel 2:12

Verse 12. - For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. The Septuagint rendering differs little in sense from the above, but in words it does considerably, "Then the king, becoming gloomy and very grieved, commanded that they lead out all the wise men of Babylonia." The main thing to be observed is the softening of the meaning in the hands of the Septuagint translator. This is so great as to suggest that he read לָהוזָלה instead of לְהובָדָה. The aphel of אזל is not used in Chaldee, but is used in Syriac. Theodotion's rendering is, "Then the king in anger and wrath commanded to destroy all the wise meal of Babylon." The Syriac has a shade of difference, "Then was the king vehemently enraged, and in great fury commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon." It is evident that Theodotion read בְנַס (benas), "was angry," as if it were the preposition ב and the Syriac noun נַס (has), "anger." He also must have inserted the preposition before קְצַפ (qetzaph), "wrath;" in this he is followed by the Peshitta. The Septuagint is freer in its rendering in this verse, and one cannot argue anything from it. The probability seems to be that נַס; (nas) is used as a noun, and that the Targamic verb was formed from the mistake of a scribe dropping the preposition before קְצַפ (qetzaph). If we are correct in this, we have an additional evidence that the original languagge of Daniel was not Chaldee, but Syriac, or, at all events, Eastern Aramaic. As a grammatical note, we direct attention to the form לְהובָדָה, where the א of the root has totally disappeared before the ה of the haphel, the equivalent in Biblical Aramaic of the Chaldee and Syriac aphel with its preformative א . Professor Bevan says that this distinction is only a matter of orthography. Are we to deduce that Professor Bevan has a cockney disregard for hs? The writer now drops reference to special classes of wise men, and names them generally hakeemin. The king is unconvinced of the truth of these wise men (hakeemin), or rather he is convinced that they are traitors and deceivers. They are either concealing from him the knowledge they have, and are, therefore, traitors to him; or the gods have withdrawn from them, and therefore they must have been untrue to the gods. On both these grounds Nebuchadnezzar thinks them worthy of death. He at once issues the decree that all the wise men in the city of Babylon should be slain. If the LXX. reading of Daniel 2:2 be correct, he had only summoned the Chaldean wise men. If all the wise men of Babylon were ordered to be slain, the punishment is extended beyond the offence. Possibly he argued, "If even my fellow-countrymen, the Chaldeans, are traitors, much more will the Babylonians be so." So far as words go, it is doubtful whether this decree applies to the province of Babylonia, as the Septuagint translator thinks, or merely to those in the city. But cruel and furious as was the young conqueror, he was scarcely likely to order the wholesale massacre of those who, in Sippara and Borsippa, had neither refused to do what he wished, nor by implication called him an unreasonable tyrant, as had the wise men in Babylon.

Daniel 2:13

Verse 13. - And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain. As the Aramaic stands, it might be translated as does Professor Fuller, "And the decree went forth, and the wise men were being slain;" the ו of co-ordination maybe regarded as here used of Subordination. Further, the use of the participle for the preterite is not by any means uncommon in Daniel, certainly mainly in the principal clause, as in ver. 5 of the present chapter. Noldeke, in his 'Syriac Grammar,' 278a, gives examples of the passive participle being used as here in the subordinate clause. The Septuagint is very condensed, but possibly drawn from a similar text, only such extreme condensation is unlike the translator elsewhere. It is possible that some part of the פְּקַד. (peqad), "to decree," was used, perhaps the participle hithpael. It is possible that the verb qetal was in the infinitive. Theodotion renders, "And the decree went forth, and the wise men were slain." This, though a possible translation, does not fit what we find represented to be the circumstances, as ver. 24 seems to assume that the wise men were not yet destroyed. On the other hand, it would be hardly possible to imagine the king allowing these wise men who had refused to answer his question, to go out of his presence in safety and unbound. It would seem more natural to imagine that they were carried off to prison, and that all the soothsaying class were intended to be gathered together in prison, in order that the vengeance of the king might be more appallingly manifest. The sentence looks at first sight to us as too savage to be true, but just as savage proofs of vengeance were given by Asshurbanipal. And they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain. The Septuagint translation of this clause is somewhat paraphrastic, "And Daniel was sought for and all those with him in order to be put to death." The want of an antecedent to fix the nominative of the verb probably led to the sentence assuming its present mould; but "all" seems to have no word to occasion it. Theodotion follows the Massoretic text closely; so also does the Peshitta. It is clear from this that Daniel and his companions had not been summoned into the royal presence when the question concerning the dream was put to the wise men. This would seem to contradict the statement of Daniel 1:19, "Therefore stood they" - to wit these Hebrew youths - "before the king." Their position was probably like those who had passed the examination for the Indian Civil Service - they are accepted, but they have still a season of study, and then, after they go out to India, they occupy only subordinate situations at first. While permited to enter the ranks of the soothsayers and astrologers to the court, they were placed at first only in the lower grades, and would have to rise by degrees, and in ordinary circumstances a long time would elapse before they would be summoned into the immediate presence of the sovereign. On the reading of the LXX., Daniel and his friends would not, because they were Jews, and not Chaldeans. One has only to turn to the Talumdic tales to see how unlike this reasonable position is to the ordinary Jewish fictitious narrative. The Book of Daniel is not nearly prodigal enough in wonders to be a representative of the Jewish Midrash. It is further clear that the decree of the king went beyond those who had actually been in his council-chamber on that merest-able day. The idea of the king probably was that the treason which he had found in the heads of the various classes of Chaldean soothsayers would have permeated all the members. Babylonian and foreign, as well; therefore he orders them all to suffer a common fate. Wieseler's hypothesis, that this event took place close to the end of the three years of study which had been assigned to these youths, would suit the statement of events which we find here; although it is not necessary, yet on this assumption, the succession of events as narrated in this chapter becomes perfectly natural.

Daniel 2:14

Verse 14. - Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king's guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon. The text here does not seem to have differed much from the Egyptian recension, the translation of which we have in the Septuagint Version. "Then Daniel spake with the counsel and knowledge which were his to Arioch the chief executioner [ἀρχὶ μαγείρῳ, 'chief butcher,' used by Plutarch for 'chief cook'] of the king, to whom it was appointed to lead out the wise men (σοφιστὰς) of Babylonia." The text before the Septuagint translators seems to have had דילֵה (deeleh), "which to him," equivalent to "which he had." The LXX. text had פקד instead of נפק. Something may be said for this reading, as the ל of the succeeding word may have occasioned the disappearance of the ד, which might be regarded as a ל defectively written. Theodotion agrees perfectly with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is somewhat of a paraphrase in regard to the first clause, "Then Daniel pacified and consulted, and said to Arioch the chief of the king's guard, who had gone out to slay the wise men of Babylon." It would seem as if there had been some confusion of the words here, though the meaning is not far from that of the other version. The Vulgate Version differs, "Then Daniel asked about the law and sentence (sentientia) at Arioch, who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon." The slate of matters implied here reveals to us the fact that several links of the story are awanting. There seems to have been absolute secrecy as to what had taken place in the royal council-chamber, and how absolute had been the failure of the Chaldean wise men to satisfy the demands of the king. We could imagine the strange turmoil that this would have caused in the college of young cadets of the various guilds of soothsayers and augurs, had it been announced that these great heads of their various orders had failed. News may have come of the wrath of the king, and close behind the angry sentence of extirpation, passed not only on those who had been the immediate occasions of the king's wrath, but on all the gull, is of wise men in Babylon. This must have filled those who belonged to the various guilds implicated, not only with terror, but with amazement. It was next brought to them that they, though only in the lower stages of these famous guilds, were doomed to a common destruction with the past masters of the craft. That this was allowed to reach these subalterns proves that popular opinion had not gone with the fiery edict of the king. Above all, Arioch, captain "of the guard" - "of the cut-throats," as the Spanish translators have rendered it; "chief butcher," as both Theodotion and the Septuagint render his title - acts as if he is not in favour of it. lie is compelled to do the king's bidding; but he is evidently bent on going about the realtor in such a leisurely fashion that the great body of the condemned may escape. We may stay to notice that the name Arioch is a genuine Babylonian name, Eri Aku, "Servant of the moon-god." Professor Bevan declares it is borrowed from Genesis 14:1, as his title is from Genesis 37:36. It is singular that when the author's acquaintance with the earlier Scriptures was so full and accurate, he should drop into the blunders he is accused cf. In Genesis the executioner does not execute anybody; in Daniel he is represented as engaged in organizing the massacre. Daniel seems not to have waited till the terrible band of guardsmen-executioners arrived at the college where he and his friends were living, he goes direct to the chief of the band. The fact that he is not cut down immediately on his approach seems to argue that even the common guardsmen shrank from the duty imposed on them. Their horror and shrinking were perfectly natural. Let us suppose a company in a regiment of Irish Roman Catholics ordered to shoot down their own priests, and we may have some idea of the feelings of these soldiers. These augurs and soothsayers, these astrologers and magicians, had been their counsellors; they had been their intercessors with their deities. If they were all slaughtered, would not the sheer blank in their own lives be immense? There would be no one now to tell them, however falsely, of the future: no one to tell them what to do to propitiate the gods. But more, the gods might well be supposed to be enraged by the slaughter of so many of their special servants, and might be expected to pour down vengeance on the whole nation as well as on the king who had commanded it, but most of all on those who, under whatever compulsion, raised their sacrilegious hands against the priests of the holy gods. It is even not improbable that, once the immediate paroxysm of his fury had passed, Nebuchadnezzar would be appalled at what he had himself ordered, and would connive at delay, in the hope that, though late, these wise men might come to reason and tell him what he wished. Daniel seems to find no difficulty in gaining access to the presence of Arioch. There are men who have a magnetic power over their fellows, and bend every one to their way, and still gain their affection. And Daniel seems pre-eminently to have been a man of this type. Personal good looks and suave manners had their own share, but something more was needed to carry a condemned man through the ranks of guards right into the presence of their chief. This is made all the more striking when we bear in mind that preparations were being made for the great massacre.

Daniel 2:15

Verse 15. - He answered and said to Arioch the king's captain, Why is the decree so hasty from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. The opening clause in this verse is doubtful. In the Septuagint the verse is rendered, "And he asked him saying, Ruler, why is it decreed so bitterly by the king? And he showed him the warrant." Theodotion is yet briefer, "Ruler of the king, why has so harsh a sentence come forth from the king? And he declared (ἐγνώρισε) to him his orders." But briefest of all is the Peshitta. It begins at once without any address, "Why is this harsh decree from the king? And Arioch showed the matter (miltha) to Daniel." As a rule, the shorter a reading is the better it is. Therefore we are inclined to prefer the Peshitta rendering. "Answered and said" is a formula that might easily be stuck in where anything of the kind seemed needed. Here it is not suitable, as Daniel is already said to have "answered Arioch with counsel and prudence." The addition of the Septuagint is more reasonable, "He asked him saying, Ruler." Theodotion feels some title is necessary, so he calls Arioch "ruler of the king." It appears to us that the brief Peshitta represents the best text. Hasty repesents to some extent, though not fully, the clement of blame implied in the word mehahetzpah in greater degree than our English word would indicate. It means" rough," "raging," "shameless;" it might be too strong to say that "scandalous" represents Daniel's meaning. Some commentators cannot imagine a man thus criticizing a royal decree to one of the court officials. Much, however, is permitted to a man speaking about a decree which has condemned him to death without his having an opportunity to defend himself It is possible that he might be able to use all the more freedom by seeing that Arioch had no favour for the business to which he was ordered. The Greek versions represent that Arioch showed the warrant, the king's order for the execution. As that would not be considered an answer to Daniel's question, on the one hand, so on the other, it would not be an occasion for the step Daniel immediately thereafter took. We think, on the whole, that the Massoretic reading amended here by the Peshitta is the better. As leader of the royal bodyguard, the place of Arioch would be beside Nebuchadnezzar, even in the council-chamber. He would thus be quite cognizant of everything that took place the demands of the king, the arguments of the wise men. All this scene he could portray for the information of Daniel. The mere exhibition of a warrant would tell nothing more than the fact that the action of Arioch was in obedience to orders.

Daniel 2:16

Verse 16. - Then Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretation. The version of Theodotion omits all mention of Daniel's going into the palace, "And Daniel petitioned the king that he should give him time, and he would tell his interpretation to the king." The rendering of the Peshitta agrees with this, "And Daniel petitioned the king for time, and he would show the interpretation to the king." The version of the Septuagint is longer, "And Daniel went in quickly to the king, and petitioned that time should be given him from the king, and he would show all things to the king." Jerome gives a rendering of the Massoretic text in Latin condensation. The question of reading here is of some importance in the light of the apparent contradiction implied in the twenty-fifth verse. There Arioch declares that he "had found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation" - as if Nebuchadnezzar had never seen him before, whereas, if the Massoretic recension is correct, Nebuchadnezzar had seen Daniel but a little while before. According to the reading of Theodotion and the Peshitta, Daniel pet:tinned the king for time, but that petition does not imply necessarily that he was admitted into the king's presence; the petition would pass through court officials, and reach the king in due course. We may note the ease with which he granted this request, and look upon it as confirmatory of our notion that the king, now that his rage had gone down, repented of his harsh decree, and was hoping against hope that the catastrophe would be averted. The only other explanation that would save the authenticity of both passages is that Daniel's entrance into the palace and his petition to the king happened without Arioch being aware. The most natural explanation of Arioch's conduct in post-poning the execution of the royal decree is that the postponement was during the interval the petition for time was being presented, but still not decided on. This seems not unlikely. Of course, it is always open to us to declare the verses from this to the twenty-fourth inclusive an interpolation; Daniel has suffered so much from this, that an additional case has no prima facie probability against it. Moreover, the prayer or hymn has strong resemblance to the prayer of Azarias, which is acknowledged to be an interpolation. Still, one ought to be slow to cut a knot in this way, unless there is some clear ground of suspicion. It may be observed also that the Massoretic text does not necessarily assert entrance into the palace or into the king's presence. Certainly עֲלַל: ('alal) means "entered," and in the connection this would suggest the palace as the place entered, but it may have been the house of Arioch, though this is not likely. We have no means of knowing whether any others of those implicated in the sentence of the king petitioned also for time. Not impossibly they did. The king, who was so suspicious that the wise men wished to delay till the auspicious time was passed, is willing to grant time when it is asked. This is explicable on the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was anxious to be delivered from the horrible slaughter which his decree involved. Another thing to be observed is that in the Massoretic text, Theodotion, and the Peshitta, there is no word of the dream being told. Of course, this interpretation implied a knowledge of the dream also, but it would appear to be another evidence that the king was relenting, when a petition that omitted the crucial point of the question between him and the wise men should be granted without difficulty. We are not told the amount of time requested, the word used, זְמָן (zeman), is, "a fixed time," from זְמַן, "to determine." It occurs again frequently in Daniel, as in ver. 21. It is generally of a fixed point of time, but sometimes, as Daniel 7:12, their lives were prolonged for a season (זְמָן). There being only one instance among the other passages where this word occurs, in which it means a space of time, we are inclined to think that here Daniel petitioned that a time be appointed him when he too should have an audience of the king in regard to the matter of the dream, as the other wise men had. There certainly is implied a space of time in this request. The space must have involved at least twenty-four hours, as the matter is revealed to Daniel in "a night vision." It is unlikely it would be much longer, for fear the planetary collocation would change - certainly not more than a week. Tertullian ('Adv. Psychicos,' 7) says, "Daniel Deo fidens... spatium tridui poslulat." We learn from what follows that Daniel acted tamely from his general faith in God, and was confident that God would not suffer his saints to be destroyed causelessly, it is noted by Calvin that Daniel (lees not tell the king the reasons of his confidence. A falsarius would have taken the opportunity of making Daniel declare his confidence in the God of heaven from the very first. The real Daniel acts as any wise saint would do, confident that God would do justly, hopeful that he would reveal to him the secret, yet too careful of the honour of Jehovah to put it in pledge; he knew God could and would defend his own honour, and his plan might not involve the saving of their lives.

Daniel 2:17

Verse 17. - Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions. There is nothing in the versions that calls for remark here, save that the Septuagint seems to have had כֹל, "all," or some such word, instead of mill'tha. Alter having got his petition granted, to all appearance easily, Daniel now proceeds to his own house. As during the period of their education the four friends had formed one "mess" in the hall of Nebuchadnezzar, and it is probable had one table set apart to them, so when in college - if we may use the phrase - they occupied one apartment or set of apartments. Their life in the matter of food was simple and abstemious, and it is little likely that they would require extensive accommodation. Having got the reprieve he had petitioned for, Daniel now informs his friends of it. We have assumed that the news of the royal decree had reached the college where, among other students and soothsayers of as yet lesser grade, Daniel and his friends abode; in that case, he would merely have to inform them how he had sped with Arioch. and how he had further presented a petition to the king tbr a time to be set when he should answer the king's request, and how he got what he desired. It may, however, have been that Daniel had alone heard the dreadful news, and then acted so that his companions heard only of the threatened disaster when they heard of the mode of escape. It is to be observed, in passing, that the names of the friends are given in the Hebrew, not in the Babylonian form. Alone with each other, we may imagine they used the old Hebrew names of their childhood. Now especially would the sacred tongue be present to their lips and their thoughts when the cloud of a great danger hung over them. It was as Jews, members of the holy people, that they could appeal for help and deliverance to Jehovah the God of Israel.

Daniel 2:18

Verse 18. - That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. The Septuagint has as close a connection between the preceding verse and that before us as has the Massoretie, only it is slightly different in its rendering, "And he told them to fast and pray [urged them to fasting and prayer], and to seek help from the Lord the Highest, concerning this mystery, in order that Daniel with his companions might not be given over to destruction with the wise men of Babylon." It is, certainly, possible that the Septuagint translator had a different reading here. The verb צוּם, "to fast," in the infinitive, might have begun the verse. Still there would be the difficulty of finding anything to correspond to παρήγγειλε. It, however, was probably added to bring the sentence into Greek regimen. The Septuagint translator read the words as nouns in the accusative, and of this case לְ was a frequent sign. Thus what they had was וּלְבָעוּ לְצומָא. The Hebrew word corresponding to the Aramaic word here translated "mercies," רַחֲמִין (rahamin), "bowels," "mercies," is common enough in Biblical language; but the phrase, "to desire mercies," is not found elsewhere in Scripture. It occurs in the later Targums, as Numbers 12:13, as a paraphrastic addition to the simple statement of Onkelos, that Moses prayed before the Lord; only in the case quoted, as generally, the order is not, as here, the object before the verb - a construction more frequent in Assyrian than in Aramaic, save in poetry. The phrase is elliptical; the ruling verb is omitted. One is tempted to wonder whether the word had not originally been לבעון, making it a case of the Babylonian or Eastern Aramaic, third person plural imperfect; then the preceding word would be לצומון, with the vav dropped as unnecessary, and the mere inserted to make the word a regular infinitive. Confirmatory of our view is Theodotion, whose rendering, ἐζήτουν, implies that he had a third person plural imperfect here. We do not maintain that it is necessary that he should have had such a reading, but there is at least a high probability that he had. The Peshitta reverses the order of the words, and omits the conjunction vav, and, inserting the relative ל, as sign of subordination, proceeds, "that they entreat mercies from before God." Here, also, the third person plural imperfect is used. From the greater freedom that Jerome allowed himself in his translation, and from the wide difference between the grammatical construction of a Latin and an Aramaic sentence, no stress can be laid on the fact that he too translates by the third plural imperfect - ut quaerrent misericordiam. The balance of probability is that here we have to do with one of those indications of the Eastern origin of the Aramaic of Daniel. There is an instance of doublet in the LXX. here in the case of the phrase, τιμωρίαν ζητῆσαι, "to seek succour." Tertullian, in his reference to this passage, to which we have referred above (ver. 16), adds to what we quoted above, cum sua fraternitate jejunat, and thus shows that, though differing somewhat from the Septuagint text as we have it, the African Latin Version agreed with it in inserting something about "fasting" here. The God of heaven. This is rendered by the Septuagint here, as generally, ὕψιστος The probability here is that we have to do with no difference of reading, but rather with an objection to applying to God a title used for heathen deities. The title has a peculiar significance in the lips of those who, as Daniel, were educated as astrologers, and taught by those who regarded the sun, the moon, and the various planets as deities. Daniel and his fellows might thus believe in astrology, but maintain that the God of heaven, their God, used heavenly bodies as messengers to proclaim to those who could read the writing, the things that were coming on the earth. They might thus even give a certain limited subordinate power to the deities of Babylon; these deities were the servants of the God of heaven, who was also the God of Israel. There may be a reference to Jeremiah 10:11. The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. The God of Israel is called the God of heaven because he has made the heavens. This title is used before - in Genesis 24:7, where Abraham uses it. It is characteristic of Biblical Aramaic, that the covenant title of God, "Jehovah," is never used, Before we leave this, we would observe that the Peshitta inserts ל, d, the sign of the genitive, before shemayyaa, whereas the text before us uses the older form of construct state in the word for "God." Concerning this secret. A parallel passage illustrative of this is Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets; "also Deuteronomy 29:29, "Secret things belong unto the Lord our God." Whatever was about to happen, Daniel and his friends knew it could only happen according to the purpose and plan of God. He, as he was the real actor, knew what he was about to do, and whatever revelation of that future had been given to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, it must have come from the God of heaven; therefore to him do Daniel and his friends make their entreaty. Professor Bevan declares רַז (raz) to be a Persian word. Neither Winer, Furst, nor Gesenius recognizes it to be such. Granted that it is Persian, is it not a possible supposition that it is derived from the Aramaic; not that the Aramaic word is derived from the Persian? Even on the supposition that this word was derived from the Persian, this is not extraordinary, when we learn the intimate relationship between the Median court and the Babylonian. That Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. Does this mean that certain of the wise men had already perished? It seems almost necessary to maintain this from the meaning of שְׁאָר (shear), "remnant." It seems at first scarcely natural to take this word as meaning merely "the other," yet the usage in Ezra is in accordance with this: Ezra 4:9, "Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest (וְּשאָר) of their companions." A further question may be raised - Does this prayer mean that the desire of Daniel and his friends was that, when the wise men of Babylon, under whose superintendence they had been taught, were slain, they should escape? Or does it mean that they prayed that "they with the wise men of Babylon should not be destroyed"? This wholly depends on the meaning to be attached to the word עִם ('im), "with." As in English, this word admits of both meanings. As the word is common to Hebrew and Aramaic, we shall take our examples from Hebrew. Thus Genesis 18:24, "That be far from thee, Lord, to slay the righteous with the wicked." As example of the other use of the word, Genesis 32:6, "Esau and four hundred men with him." Usage thus permits us to regard this prayer as intercessory, that these Hebrew youths prayed not only to be preserved themselves, but also that all the other wise men who shared their condemnation should also be preserved. This is the first record of concerted prayer. Of course, in heathen worship there was the caricature of this concert of prayer in the united shouting of the priests, say, of Baal. This is the earliest instance of that practice that has received such a gracious promise from our Lord (Matthew 18:19), "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." We would not maintain, even in appearance, that multitude adds to efficacy with God. But when two or three are gathered together, there is an infection of earnestness, a community of enthusiasm generated, that makes each individual fitter to receive the answer. Yet, again, the more that join in a petition, the more it must be raised out of the grovelling region of selfishness. A man who has a purely selfish desire rising in his heart cannot ask his fellows to join him in supplicating God to grant his request.

Daniel 2:19

Verse 19. - Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. The Septuagint adds that the secret was revealed "that very night (ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ νυκτι)." This may be held to be implied in the Aramaic, but it is here explicitly stated. Further, the Septuagint speaks of the secret as "the, mystery of the king." At the end of the clause the LXX. adds the word εὐσήμως, "evidently." All these alterations imply additions to the text made by the translator. Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome agree with the Massoretic text There has been considerable discussion as to whether this revelation was made to Daniel by a dream. Hitzig assumes that the night-vision to Daniel was a repetition of that which had appeared to Nebuchadnezzar, and then pro-coeds to brand this as a psychological impossibility. Keil, Kliefoth, Kraniehfeld, and Zockler all declare against the identification of a night-vision with a dream. Keil and Kliefoth say in the same words, "A vision of the night is simply a vision which any one receives during the night whilst he is awake." And Kranichfeld says, "Of a dream of Daniel, in our present case there is not one word." Zockler says, "Not a dream-vision, but an appearance (Gesicht) vision, which appeared during the night." They maintain that, though all "dreams" may be called "night-visions," all "night-visions" are not "dreams." It would be difficult to prove that this is the usage of Scripture. It is quite true that the distinction between a dream and a vision is that in the former the subject is asleep, while in the latter he is awake. It may, however, be doubted whether this distinction is always maintained by the Hebrew and Aramaic writers, even in regard to "visions" and "dreams" generally; and it seems to us impossible to prove it in regard to "visions of the night" and "dreams." In ver. 28 of the chapter before us, there seems no doubt that Daniel uses these words as equivalent to each other; "Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these." While we agree with Hitzig that the revelation was to Daniel in a dream, we do not admit the psychological impossibility, save only in the pedantic sense in which it is said that no two people, however close they may stand to each other, see the same rainbow Dreams are very generally the product of what the subject has experienced during his waking hours. Surely Hitzig never meant to assert that it was a psychological impossibility for two individuals to witness the same event. Certainly the improbability is very great that the sight of the same physical event should meet the eyes of two people in similar states of body, and produce on them precisely the some sort and degree of impression. That, however, is akin to the Hegelian pedantic statement, which asserts that we cannot go twice down the same street. Though it might even be admitted to be an impossibility in the only sense in which it can at all be admitted, yet still it is not self-contradictory. The self-contradictory is the only impossibility we can assert in the presence of the miraculous. Hitzig's objection to this is really that it was a miracle, and all the parade of giving the statement a new face by calling it, not a miracle, but a psychological impossibility, is only throwing dust in the eyes of others, perhaps of himself. Ewald does not see any psychological impossibility, and declares that the author meant to represent this at all events. Up, then, before the mind of Daniel rose the gigantic statue of the monarch's vision, and with the vision came also the divinely given certainty that this was what the king had seen. He needs, however, more than the vision: the interpretation of the vision is vouchsafed to him also. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. The LXX. rendering here joins the first clause of ver. 20 to this, "Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven, and having cried aloud, said." Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome agree with the Massoretic text. As we have said above, Daniel returned thanks to God for his great goodness to him and his friends. Our blessing God does not increase Divine felicity, but it expresses our sense of this felicity, and we recognize it all the more readily when, as in the case of these Jews, it is exhibited in making us partakers of it. Hence blessing God and giving God thanks become in such cases one and the mine thing.

Daniel 2:20

Verse 20. - And Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the Name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his. The Septuagint, having practically given the beginning of this verse as the end of ver 19. omits it now: hence it renders, "Blessed be the Name of the great Lord for ever, because the wisdom and the greatness are his." The fact that מִן־עָלְמָא (min'alma), "from eternity," is not rendered in this version, and that the adjective "great" is added in its place, indicates a difference of reading. Probably there was a transposition of מברך and מן־עלמא and the מן omitted. Then עלמא would be regarded as status em-phaticus of the adjective עלּים (allim) This is not likely to be a correct reading, as allim means "robust," - possessing the vigour of youth." Theodotion differs somewhat more from the Massoretic text than is his custom, "And he said, Be the Name of God blessed from eternity to eternity, for (the) wisdom and (the) understanding are his." This is shorter; the omission of the pleonastic formula, "answered and said," has an appearance of genuineness that is impressive. It would seem as if Theodotion had בינְתָא (beenetha), "understanding," instead of גְבוּרָה (geboorah), "might." The Peshitta and the Vulgate do not differ from the Massoretic text. The first, word of the Hebrew text of this song of thanksgiving has an interest for us, as throwing light on the question of the original language, לְהֶוֵא has the appearance of an infinitive, but it is the third person plural of the imperfect; ל is here the preformative of the third person singular and plural as in Eastern Aramaic as distinct from Western. This preformative is found occasionally in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, along with נ, the preformative we find regularly in Syriac. In Biblical Aramaic this pre-formative is found only with the substantive verb; the reason of this, however, we have considered in regard to the language (see Introduction, p. 23.). Suffice it that we regard this as an evidence that Daniel was originally written in Eastern Aramaic. Professor Bevan's explanation, that the phenomenon is due to the likeness these parts of this verb have to the Divine Name, is of force to afford a reason why, in the midst of the general process of Occidentalizing the Aramaic, they shrank from applying it to this verb. That they had no scruple in writing it first hand, we find in the Targums; thus Onkelos, Genesis 18:18, יֶהֲוֵי. We might refer to ether examples in the later Aramaic of the Talmud and other Rabbinic works. The Name of God. Later Judaism, to avoid using the sacred covenant name of God, was accustomed to use the "Name," in this sense. This may be noted that throughout this whole book, "Jehovah" occurs only in ch. 9. This may be due to something of that reverence which has led the Jews for centuries to avoid pronouncing the sacred name, and to use instead, Adonai, "Lord." It is to be observed that all through Daniel the Septuagint has Κύριος, the Greek equivalent for Jehovah, while Theodotion follows the Massoretic in having Θεός. For ever and ever. This is not an accurate translation, although it appears not only in the Authorized, but also in the Revised Version. The sound of the phrase impresses us with a sense of grandeur, perhaps due to the music with which it has been associated. When we think of the meaning we really give to the phrase, or of its actual grammatical sense, it only conveys to us the idea of unending future duration; it does not at all imply unbeginning duration. More correct is Luther's "veto Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit." The Greek of Theodotion conveys this also, ἀπό τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος. Jerome renders, "a saeculo et usque in saeculum." The true rendering is, "from eternity to eternity." It is quite true that the עָלְמָא means primarily "an age," as does also αἰών and saculum: it is also quite true that it is improbable that in ancient days man had definite ideas of eternity; even at the present time, when men strive after definiteness, they have no real conception of unending existence, still less of existence unbeginning. Still, it was used as having that meaning so far as men were able to apprehend it. As αἰών, it is used for "world." For wisdom and wight are his. Wisdom is the Divine quality of which they have had proof now, but "might" is united with it as really one in thought. The fact that the usual combination is "wisdom and understanding" (see Exodus 31:3; Isaiah 11:2; Ezekiel 28:4) has led the scribe, whose text Theodotion used, to replace "might" by "understanding." He might feel himself confirmed in his emendation by the fact that, while God's wisdom and, it might be said, his understanding were exhibited in thus revealing to Daniel the royal dream, there was no place for "might." What was in the mind of Daniel and his friends was that they were in the hands of a great Monarch, who was practically omnipotent. They now make known their recognition of the glorious truth that not only does the wisdom of the wise belong to God, but also the might of the strong. Further, there is another thought here which is present in all Scripture - that wisdom and might are really two sides of one and the same thing; hence a truth is proved by a miracle, a work of power.

Daniel 2:21

Verse 21. - And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. In regard to this verse, Theodotion and the Septuagint only differ in this from the Massoretic text, that they omit the repetition of the word "kings." The Peshitta has a different sense in the middle clause. "He maketh (Peshitta, ma'bed) kings and confirmeth (Peshitta, maqeem) kings" The Syriac translators have evidently read מְחֲעְדֵה (meh 'deh), "to remove," as מְהַעְבֵד (meha'bed), "to make" The utter want of contrast in this reading condemns it. In regard to the Aramaic of this passage, the carrying on of the preformative ה, the sign of the haphel conjugation, is a proof of the early date of the Aramaic. In later Aramaic, ה gives place to א, and א disappears after the other preformative as יַקְטֵל, not יִאֲקְטֵל. Changeth times and seasons. Nebuchadnezzar was anxious lest the time in which he might make advantageous use of the information conveyed by the dream should pass away, and a new "time" be established. Not improbably Nebuchadnezzar, like most heathens, imagined that his gods were limited by some unseen power like the Greek Fate, and, however wishful they might be to be propitious to their worshippers only in certain collocations of the heavenly bodies could they carry out their wish. God, the God of heaven, the God of the despised Hebrews, he it was who arranged the times and the seasons, he made the sun to rise, he makes summer and winter, he leads out the host of the stars, alike the star of Nebo and the star of Marduk. The two words "time" and "season" are nearly synonymous. Perhaps the first is more indefinite than the other. Our own opinion is that the first has more the idea of space of time, and the latter more of point of time; but really they are almost synonymous. He removeth kings, and setteth up kings. In this there seems to be a special reference to the contents of the vision, which showed that in the time to come, not only kings but dynasties were to be set up and overthrown. The former clause regarded God as the God of nature. This looks u pen him as the God of providence, by whom "kings reign, and princes decree justice." He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understand-lag. This address to God goes further. Daniel sees in the faculties and mental acquirements of men the manifestation of God. It is the inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding. All the power man has of acquiring knowledge, all the faculty he has for using that knowledge aright, all come from God.

Daniel 2:22

Verse 22. - He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. The rendering of the Septuagint as it stands differs somewhat from the Massoretic text, "Revealing deep things and dark, and knowing the things which are in the darkness and the things which are in the light, and with him is a dwelling-place (κατάλυσις)." There is doubt as to the exact force of this last word; the last element in it suggests "solution." This meaning seems to have been given to it generally; for Paulus Tellensis renders it shari, which means a "solution," but as it is derived from shera, which means "to dwell," he retains the double meaning The reading of Kreysig is decidedly to be preferred, omitting τὰ ("the things which") before "in the light," and καὶ, "and," after. The rendering then would be, "in light is with him the dwelling-place." This rendering harmonizes the LXX. completely with the Massoretic. The other versions call for no remark. There is difference here between the Q'rl and K'thib. The Q'ri reads nehora, "light," a Chaldee or Western Aramaic form; the K'thib again is, neheera, the Eastern Aramaic form. God is not only the God of nature, of providence, and of man, but also of revelation. He can make known to man what otherwise man could never know. He is the very Source of all light and enlightenment. We may compare this statement with that of Paul in 1 Timothy 6:16; he speaks of God as "dwelling in light which no man can approach unto." It seems to us the words of the Old Testament song convey a loftier idea of God than does the Pauline statement - perhaps it is even loftier than the cognate phrase of the Apostle John (1 John 1:5), "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." We may compare, in regard to this whole verse, Psalm 139:12, "The darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the tight are both alike to thee," where neheera is used as in the passage before us. Daniel ascribes to Jehovah all the powers of all the gods of Babylon.

Daniel 2:23

Verse 23. - I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee; for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter. The Septuagint renders, "Thee, O Lord of my fathers, i thank and praise, because thou gavest wisdom and knowledge to me, and now thou hast revealed to me what I entreated, in order to show the king concerning these things." There seems a slight difference of reading implied here. Theodotion and the Peshitta are practically at one with the Massoretic. Theodotion translates the relative דִי as if it were "and," not, as in our version, "for;" and the Peshitta repeats the first personal pronoun. Daniel now particularizes his reasons for praise and thanksgiving. He addresses God as the God of his fathers. He appeals to him as the covenant God of Israel, who had led their fathers through the wilderness. God revealed himself to Jacob at Bethel as "the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac." So to Moses at the burning bush he declared himself "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God. of Jacob." On the other hand, when Jacob approached God in prayer, he addressed him as "the God of my father Abraham, and the God of my father Isaac." God had shown kindness to his fathers: would he not also show kindness to their seed after them? Who hast given me wisdom and might. As Jacob in his prayer at Mahanaim (Genesis 32:9) not only pleads with God as the God of his fathers, but also as the God who had blessed him with his guidance before, so Daniel now further addresses God who had bestowed upon him "wisdom and might." When God has bestowed upon any one special faculties, he must presumably have a special work for him, rid it is therefore reasonable to plead with God to give an opportunity for the exercise of these special powers. Here it forms an occasion of thanksgiving. We are apt to forget that our powers, mental and physical, our possessions and acquirements, are gifts of God's grace for which we owe thanks. The special reason for gratitude, however, follows - God has answered the prayer of his servants. Hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee. It is to be noted that Daniel attributes the answer not merely to his own prayer, but to the united prayer of his three friends as well. Their earnest desire had gone along with his own in calling down the Divine answer. Daniel, while giving thanks for the knowledge vouchsafed to him, recognizes the help his friends had afforded. For thou hast made known unto us the king's matter. Daniel assigns the reason here for his thanksgiving yet more definitely. God had made known to him what the king had required.

Daniel 2:24

Verse 24. - Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch. whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation. The differences in the versions from this are slight. The LXX. has ἔκαστα instead of σύγκρισιν, as if reading כֹל instead of פִשְׂרָא, an emendation due to the fact that the king had demanded from the wise men, not merely the interpretation, which, given the dream, they were willing enough to give, but the dream itself; only the more natural emendation would have been to have interpolated הֶלְמָא, (hel'ma), "dream," be fore "interpretation." Both the Septuagint and Theodotion omit the word representing the second "went." It is to be observed that "went in" and "went" are different words in the original, as in the Peshitta Version. The verbs עֲלַל (alal) and אזל (azal) have different ideas connected with them. The first means "to enter," of a place with a preposition; the latter has the notion of simple going. If we can imagine the body-guard of the king quartered in some part of the huge palace, then Daniel "went in" first to the quarters of the guard, and then, having got a mission, "went" up to Arioch, who was probably endeavouring to occupy as much time as possible to delay the horrible exe cution, or perhaps escape the necessity altogether. It would seem as if Arioch had heard nothing of the petition which Daniel had presented to the king, and only knew that his delay had not been found fault with. It might seem by the introductory word "therefore" (kol-qebe-denah) that the hymn has been an interpolation. It is quite true that it would most naturally immediately follow ver. 19. Yet we must bear in mind that the consecution of one part to another, which we have in our Western languages, is not so carefully observed in Eastern tongues. It may be doubted, more over, whether כָּל־קְבֵל־דְנָה (kol-qebel-denah) has so much a logical , as a local or temporal significance. "'Thereupon" would, perhaps, more correctly render this connective here. After he had finished offering up his praise and thanks to God, Daniel went to Arioch. As we have already said, it would seem that Arioch had a reluctance to set about the fulfilment of this horrible order, not that mere slaughter was a thing specially repugnant to him - he had taken part in too many campaigns for that to impress him much; but this was a massacre of the priests. All the reverence of his nature that during his lifetime had associated itself with those who had solemnly sacrificed before each campaign, and taken the auguries, protested against this sudden and wholesale massacre. He has determined to fritter away time, in order to give his master opportunity to bethink himself The mere political ill will that would be roused by such an attempt was formidable. We know that the Babylonian monarch Nabunahid really rather fell before the intrigines of the priests and augurs than before the arms of Cyrus. To him, thus waiting and procrastinating, comes Daniel. Although there is nothing said of it in the narrative, Daniel may have given him to understand that he hoped to be able to satisfy the demands of the king. The power Daniel had of gaining the favour and confidence of those with whom he came in contacts led to his being buoyed up by a certain hope in his procrastination, which would be strengthened by the fact that the fiery young king made no inquiry whether his order was being fulfilled. Still, it must have been with joy he saw Daniel appearing, and heard him say, "Destroy not the wise men of Babylon," especially when followed by the request to be brought into the presence of the king; thus he knew that Daniel could answer the king's question and tell him his dream, as well as the promised interpretation. If we take the Septuagint rendering as representing the original text, Daniel promised to tell the king "everything."

Daniel 2:25

Verse 25. - Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. Save that the Septuagint has again ἕκαστα instead of σύγκρισιν or σύγκριμα, and Paulus Tellensis adds the adjective "wise" as a description of the man who had thus professed to satisfy the king, the versions agree with the Massoretic text. In regard to the Aramaic here, the use of the Eastern form of the haphel is to be noted - hanel instead of ha'el. These are to be looked upon as archaisms or Orientalisms, that have survived modernizing efforts of the pre-Massoretic scribes. We have already remarked on this as an Eastern peculiarity which survives in the Mandaitic and in the Babylonian Talmud. The careful way in which the Septuagint renders the particular דִי, ὅτι, omitted in the other old versions save the Peshitta, ought to be noted as a sign of the extreme carefulness of the Septuagint translator, and a reason why we should regard divergences from the Massoretic as generally evidences of a different text. It has been remarked by Archdeacon Rose that Arioch claims too much when he asserts that he had "found Daniel." This is not exactly met by Professor Fuller's assertion that it was a mode of the court to ignore all "these captives," with something of the contempt with which the European in India regards those whom he without qualification denotes as "niggers." This, however, does not meet the case if the ordinary interpretation of the circumstances is right; then Nebuchadnezzar had not only seen Daniel in connection with this matter, but further, Arioch knew of it. The case of Abner and David before Saul, in 1 Samuel 17:35 should not be brought in in comparison with 1 Samuel 16:21, as the latter does not occur in the Septuagint. Unless there has been interpolation, the explanation seems to be that Arioch was not aware that Daniel had petitioned. It may be that Arioch wishes to disarm the king's wrath by not saying anything of Daniel being one of "the wise men" against whom the king's sentence had gone out; but it may also be regarded as a proof that Daniel and his companions had not yet passed out of the class of pupils into that of wise men. He says he is "of the sons of the captivity of Judah." The haste with which Arioch brings Daniel into the king's presence may be due to his own delight at having escaped a piece of employment he had no heart for. There may have been an element of anxiety - he had procrastinated, and the young king had made no inquiries; but it was not the custom of the conqueror to give orders and not to see that they were carried out, and disobedience to the orders of Nebuchadnezzar would mean instant death, possibly with torture. Every moment was fraught with danger, so Arioch's hastening of Daniel may have been due to his own sense of relief at escape from an impending danger. But more, this haste would give the appearance of eager diligence, if not in slaughtering the wise men of Babylon, at least in searching for one who could make good to the king their lack of service toward him. His haste might be intended to give the look at once of eagerness and diligence. All the motives may have combined.

Daniel 2:26

Verse 26. - The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? The variations in the versions are here unimportant, save that the Septuagint interpolates "in the Chaldee tongue" before the Babylonian name of Daniel. It is also to be noted that here, as throughout, the Babylonian name of Daniel, in beth the Greek versions, appears as Βαλτάσαρ, the same form in which they give Belshazzar. When Daniel is brought in before the king, Nebuchadnezzar demands if he can fulfil his promise, and tell the dream as well as the interpretation. There is no indication that Nebuchadnezzar remembered anything of the youth who had done well in the examination held in his presence some months before. This certainly is confirmatory of Wieseler's hypothesis. That the king should have forgotten, however, is nothing extraordinary, for the occasions of this kind would be many. Nebuchadnezzar, in the case of the young Hebrew, does not question his willingness to tell him what he wishes, but only his ability. With regard to the wise men, he believed, or professed to believe, in their ability to do what he wished, and reckoned their refusal to answer him as due to obstinacy or treason. It may be that he has moderated somewhat the rancour of his ire, and is willing to recognize their ignorance as to dreams and such light furniture of the mind as not militating against their claim to knowledge in other directions, only for his oath's sake he must demand that the dream be told him by at least some one. It may be that there was a certain emphasis on the pronoun when Nebuchadnezzar demanded of Daniel, "Is there to thee the power to declare to me the dream which I have seen, and its interpretation?" Is there to thee, mere student of the sacred mysteries as thou art, alien as thou art, a hostage from a city whose king I overthrew easily? It certainly must have been strange to Nebuchadnezzar that what the soothsayers, astrologers, and magicians of the court, the highest, and reputed to be the most skilful of their respective guilds, could not do, this young Hebrew proclaimed himself able to perform. It may be observed that while in the narrative the author calls the prophet by his sacred name Daniel, "the Divine judge," here in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar, the court name he had received is introduced. To his friends, to his fellow-countrymen, he is Daniel; but as a court official he is Belteshazzar, or perhaps Belshazzar. It may be that there is intended to be conveyed to us that not only was he introduced into the royal presence as Belshazzar, but that the king addressed him," Belteshazzar (Belshazzar), art thou able?"

Daniel 2:27

Verse 27. - Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king. The differences between this and the Septuagint are but slight and unimportant. To render it literally, the LXX. is, "Daniel, having spoken out in the presence of the king, said, The mystery which the king saw is nut the showing of the wise men, the astrologers, the sorcerers, the magicians." There seems to have been a confusion between עֲנָה ('anah), "to answer," and צְנָה (tzenah), "to cry out;" the latter word is unsuitable in the present connection. The change from שׁאל to חזה is unlikely to have been the result of any mistake in the writing of the original. It may have been the Greek scribe who misread ἠρώτησεν into ἑώρακεν. Theodotion and the Peshitta present no peculiarities worthy of notice. Jerome translates asbshaphim by magi, as usual, following the Peshitta. It is to be observed that here again we have a list of the different classes of soothsayers, and the class of Chaldeans is omitted, as also those marked as mecashphim in ver. 2; instead, occupying the same place in the catalogue, is gazrin. This may have been the original word, as evidently the real meaning was not known either in Egypt or Asia Minor, as both the LXX. and Theodotion transfer the word. The Peshitta translates this word by asuphe, in reality the corresponding one to the second word in the Chaldee. This would seem to show that the word had disappeared from Eastern as well as Western Aramaic. It is derived from gezar, "to eat." Behrmann ('Das Buch Daniel') derives it thus, and says that it refers to the fact that those who studied nativities divided the heavens into sectiones or segmenta. This was precisely what the "Chaldeans" of classic times did; hence it is quite a possible thing that Chaldeans was inserted in some Greek translations, and got into the Aramaic from the Greek. The word does not seem to be used for , astrologers" in the Talmud. The occasion of Daniel's narrating the impotence of the other wise men in presence of the task set them by the king is that probably he recognized the accent of surprise in the king's tone. As if he said, "Yes, it is perfectly true, what none of these wise men could do, I, a mere youth, undertake to do." There is nothing of contempt for them in this, as is seen in the following verse. There may be a shade of rebuke implied to the king, who had demanded from men what they could not do. They had declared that only the gods could reveal this to the king. And what Daniel says is not in opposition to this, but confirmatory of it.

Daniel 2:28

Verse 28. - But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these. All the versions are at one with the Massoretic text to the beginning of the last clause, which begins a new sentence. This last clause is omitted in the Septuagint. The clause is pleonastic; therefore, seeing it is omitted by the Septuagint, we may consider it not genuine, but due to a case of doublet in the Aramaic copies. Some copies have the present clause here, without the opening clause of the next, and others without this, but having the opening clause of ver. 29. Then came a copyist, who, unable to settle which was the better reading, inserted both. There is a God in heaven. No nation in ancient times was so addicted to the study of the stars of heaven and to the future as were the Chaldeans. Here Daniel announces that the God of heaven, Jehovah, the God of oppressed Judah and conquered Jerusalem, was the God who ruled all the stars from which the Chaldeans derived the knowledge of the future they thought they had, and arranged for his own purposes all things that were coming upon the earth, and he could tell what no one on earth could do. And the reason of this he also makes plain - God had expressly sent the dream to Nebuchadnezzar in order that he might know what was to "be in the latter days." He, Nebuchadnezzar, was the first of the great imperial powers who ruled after Israel ceased to be so much a nation as a faith. After the Babylonian Captivity Judaism became a Church over against a heathen state. Hence to him with whom this new state of things began was this message given. It has exercised many why this revelation of the future was made to this heathen monarch. Yet we must remember that, though made directly to him, through his obstinacy, it arrived at the Prophet Daniel, for whom it was meant. Yet again, no one can read the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar and fail to observe how deep and unfeigned was his piety according to his light. He worshipped Merodach, and if, in his ascriptions of praise, we were to place "Jehovah" instead of "Merodach," these prayers and thanksgivings would appear almost as if borrowed from the Hebrew Psalter. God, who readeth the hearts of men, might well have seen such a heart in this conqueror that he might be honoured with a revelation. The phrase, "latter days," had a special reference in Jewish prophetic language to the times of the Messiah (Isaiah 2:2); hence we may assume that this vision would stretch in its revelations on to the times of the kingdom which the Lord would set up. It is unscientific to press this as meaning the absolute last time, as does Hitzig. It is not the future generally, as Havernick. We must be led by the usage of prophetic literature. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed are these. This clause, as we have indicated, is probably one of two parallel readings. There is probably no distinction intended between "dream" and "visions of the head upon the bed." This is really to be regarded as a case of parallelism, in which one portion of the verse was balanced by the other. What shade of difference there is, is between the dream as a totality and the portions of it as seen.

Daniel 2:29

Verse 29. - As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind m on thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. This verse is of somewhat suspicious authenticity, the renderings of the different versions show such a diversity of text. The Septuagint rendering is very brief, being merely a version of the last clause, "He that revealeth secrets (μυστήρια) showed that which behoveth to be." This has the appearance as if the translators here rendered the last word as an infinitive, taking ל as not the preformatvre of the third person future, but as the sign of the infinitive. It is not necessarily so, because it may be that δει' is regarded as included in לֶךהוֵא (lehave). Theodotion is in closer agreement with the Massoretic, "O king, thy thoughts upon thy bed raised up what behoved to be after these things; and he that revealeth secrets hath made known to thee what behoveth to be." The Peshitta renders slightly differently, Thou, O king, thy thoughts arose in thy heart on account of what should be in the latter days, and he that revealeth secrets made known to thee what shall be." Even Jerome, who is usually pretty close to the Massoretic text, differs a little here. "Thou, O king, didst begin to think upon thy couch what would be after these things; and he who reveal-eth mysteries showeth thee what shall be." Paulus Tellensis has broken away from the Septuagint, supplying the clause omitted, not improbably from Theodotion, "Thou, O king, when. thou layest upon thy couch, sawest all things which behoved to happen in the last days; and he who revealeth secrets hath showed to thee what behoved to be." Altogether, with the exception of the last clause, which is evidenced by all the versions, we doubt the authenticity of this verse. However, the interpolation, if we have a case of it here, must have been of old date, as is indicated by the archaic form אַנְתָה (an'tah), which becomes in the Q'ri אַנְת (an't). Whether an interpolation or part of the original text, the picture suggested is very natural. The young conqueror, who had already secured the whole of South-Western Asia to the river of Egypt, was occupying his thoughts in speculating what should come after him. He falls asleep, and the subject of his waking thoughts becomes the subject of his dreams.

Daniel 2:30

Verse 30. - But as for me, this secret was not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart. The Septuagint Version is simpler, "But as for me, not on account of any wisdom in me above all men is this mystery revealed, but in order that it should be shown to the king it is revealed to me what thou thoughtest in thy heart in knowledge." The translator has read the preformative ת into ב. There is no reference to "those who shall show the interpretation." The text before him may have omitted the plural termination; consequently, the huphal was supplied. Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome all agree pretty closely with the Massoretic text, but all make the verb translated "shows" singular, not plural, as does the Massoretic. Of course, it may be that this was due to rendering the sense, not the words, of the original; but Theodotion especially is more prone in any difficulty to slavish adherence to his original. His rendering is, "But as for me, not for wisdom which is in me beyond all living is the mystery revealed, but that the interpretation be made known to the king in order that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart." The Pe-shitta renders the latter clauses thus: "But that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that thou mayest know what thou didst meditate on in thy heart." Jerome, after rendering רזא (raza, "secret") sacra-mentum, proceeds," Sed ut interpretatio regi manifesta fieret et cogitationes mentis tuae seires." The fact that the last word takes the Mandaitic form תִּנְדַּע (tin'dae) instead of תִדַּע (tidda') indicates on the whole an Oriental origin. The use of the plural form, יְהודעוּן (yehod'un), is wrongly rendered, "for their sakes who shall make known the interpretation." The Revised Version is more accurate, "but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known;" and Luther translates, "Dass dem Konige die Deutung augezeiget warde." The use of the plural for the indefinite occurs elsewhere (Wirier, § 49). The position Daniel takes up is one which does not separate him from the other hakmeen of the court. He in effect says, "I am no wiser than the other sages who have been condemned to death, only the God of heaven can reveal what the king demands, and he has revealed it to me." The purpose of the revelation, "that thou mightest know the interpretation," is fitted to soothe his pride. The humility of Daniel has been remarked in reference to this verse. He puts himself behind the impersonal form, "in order that people may show the king the interpretation." The reason why the interpretation was shown to Nebuchadnezzar might be really to humble him, to show him that his empire, splendid as it was, was only one in a succession, and that the whole system of world-empires would be overthrown before a kingdom set up by the God of the Jews.

Daniel 2:31

Verse 31. - Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. The Greek versions do not require notice, as they do not imply any difference in reading from the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is shorter, "Thou, O king, wert seeing, and, lo! a great image of beauty exceeding excellent, and it stood before thee." The opening clause of the next verse may be regarded as taking up the last clause of the verse before us. As to the Aramaic of the passage, it is to be observed that the s, me long form of the second person is used in ver. 29. The numeral חַד (had) is used in this verse very much in the sense of the English indefinite article which is used to translate it in the English versions. It is represented in the Greek Version by μία. The particle אְלַוּ ('ulu)," behold," does not occur in the Targums; a cognate form occurs in Samaritan, hala. In Talmudic it occurs in a form like the Samaritan. This word occurs in ch. 7, varied by אֲרוּ ('aru), which is regarded as a phonetic variation. It may, however, be due to defective penmanship, having the top of the ל too faintly written. Its etymology is doubtful. No Assyrian root has been found from which it may be derived. The word for "image," צֶלֶם (tzelem), occurs in the Palmyrene inscriptions, as the regular term for a memorial statue. Hence, unless reason can be shown to the contrary, we could assume, even though there had been no more, that the figure was like a statue of a man. The word for this, דִכֵּן (diccen), occurs only in Daniel; the corresponding word in Ezra is דֵך (dec). The n sound is one that so readily slips away, that its presence as a final letter is a sign that the form of a word possessing it is in an older stage than that without it; hence we would argue that as דֵך (dec) is older than דָא (da) of the Targums, so דִכֵּן (diccen) of Daniel is older than דֵך (dec). The word that is most interesting is זִיוֵהּ (ziveh); it is rendered "brightness" in our version. It is recognized by Professor Bevan, on the authority of Delitzsch, as an Assyrio-Babylonian word, therefore affording an additional evidence of the Eastern origin of Daniel. Noldeke would derive it from the Persian zeb (quoted by Behrmann, but there is some mistake in his reference). This tendency to derive everything from the Persian is to be suspected. The long political connection between Babylon and the Aryan nations north and east of it might easily introduce words of such an origin into the writings of a Babylonian diplomat. Another derivation is from זָחָה (zahah), but seems doubtful, as, although in Hebrew, there is no trace of such a verb in Aramaic. The only other word that merits note is רֵוֵה (reve), "appearance." Professor Bevan says it is the only appearance in Aramaic of a corresponding root to the Hebrew רָאָה (ra'ah), "to see." Daniel, it will be seen, lays stress on the emotions which each feature excited, in order to recall, not only the dream, but something of the feelings with which Nebuchadnezzar had beheld it. With this dream of Nebuchadnezzar we might compare the dream of the seer of Asshurbanipal, given by Lenormant ('La Divination,' p. 137), "The seer (voyant) narrated to Asshurbanipal how the goddess Istar had stood before him seated in her chariot, surrounded by flame, with a bow in her hand" (see also Smith's 'Assurbanipal,' pp. 123. 124). It is unlikely that the colossal image was identified by Nebuchadnezzar with any one of the Babylonian gods; perhaps this was one of the elements of the terror excited by the vision, that he could not identify him. If he did make any identification, Daniel does not do anything to justify him in any such identification.

Daniel 2:32

Verses 32, 33. - This image's head was of fine gold, his breasts and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. The versions present no occasion of r,-mark, save that Theodotion has a doublet, a; χεῖρες, translating, "the hands, the breast, and the arms." The word rendered "fine" is really "good" (טָב, tab). Naturally, there have not been preserved to us any composite images of this kind; gold and silver would certainly soon have found their way to the melting-pot after the fall of the Babylonian empire, had such a statue been erected in Babylon. Brass and iron were too precious not to follow in the same road. Among the Greeks, as we know, there were what were called "chryselephantine" statues, partly gold and partly ivory. In the description given of the Temple of Belus, we see a succession something akin to that in the statue, but it may be doubted whether we may deduce any connection between the two on that account. In the Book of Enoch the apocalyptist sees mountains of different kinds of metal - of gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, and mercury, the first four coinciding with the metals in Daniel's vision. Ewald refers in a note to the possibility that this idea might be borrowed from Hesiod, but rightly dismisses it as improbable. As to the metals used, gold and silver were well known in ancient times, as also iron, though, from the difficulty of working it, later. What is here translated "brass" ought to be rendered "copper;" "bronze" certainly was known very early, but the whole use of the word, נְחָשׁ (Aramaic), or נְחשֶׁת (Hebrew), implies that it is a simple metal; thus Deuteronomy 8:9, "Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass" (Hebrew, נְחשֶׁת; Onkelos, נְחָשָׁא). In this statue the progressive degradation of the material and situation is to be observed. The head, the highest part, gold; the shoulders, lower, silver; the belly and thighs, lower still, brass; the legs, lower yet, iron; and the feet and toes, lowest of all, a mixture of iron and clay. It is observed by Kliefoth that there is further a growing division. The head is one, without any appearance of division; the portion consisting of the breast and arms is divided, though slightly, for the chest is more important and bulky than the arms; the belly and thighs form a portion which from the plural form given to the word translated "belly," מעוהי (m'ohi), suggests more of dividedness than does that above. The lowest portion, that forming the legs and toes, has the greatest amount of division. Kliefoth also refers to another point - that while there is a progressive degradation of the metal, there is also progression in degrees of hardness, silver being harder than gold, copper harder than silver, and iron hardest of all; then suddenly the iron is mingled with clay. There is not a new, softer material added to form a new fifth part; but there is a mingling of "clay " - clay suitable for the potter, or rather that has already been baked in the kiln, and therefore in the last degree brittle. In fact, there is a progress in frangibility - gold the most ductile of metals, and iron the least so, then clay, when baked, more brittle still. There are many other successions that might be followed, which are at least ingenious. The idea suggested by the phrase, "part of iron and part of clay," is that there was not a complete mingling, but that portions were seen that were clearly clay, and other portions as clearly still iron; there was therefore the superadded notion of the imperfect union of the parts with the necessary additional weakness which follows.

Daniel 2:33

Daniel 2:34

Verse 34. - Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Practically, the versions are at one with the Massoretic text in regard to this verse, save that the two Greek versions add, ἐξ ὅρους, "out of the mountain" Concerning the Chaldee text, we would remark that in the dual form בִּידַיִן (biydayin), the dual has disappeared in the Aramaic of the Targums. Thou sawest till implies some time of contemplation and wonder. The king saw this gigantic statue, not possessing the attributes of any of his national gods, and he looks on in his dream in wonder and awe. Till a stone cut out without hands. The Greek versions make an addition which seems necessary to the sense - "out of the mountain." This addition may certainly have been made from the later verse (ver. 45). The logical necessity, however, may have prompted this addition. On the other hand, the evidence of both the Greek versions agreeing in one addition ha. very considerable weight. It is not impossible that the word מִטּוּרה (mitturah), "from the mountain," had dropped from the manuscripts used by the Massoretes. In favour of the Massoretic text is the fact that the Peshitta omits the word. On the other band, Jerome adds de monte. It may be noted, as at least a curiosity, that the Peshitta, instead of the אבן (aben)," a stone," gives kepha, from which Cephas, the name of the Apostle Peter, is derived. As the monarch gazes at the huge image, he sees behind the image a mountain towering above the image, huge as it is. From this mountain he sees a boulder detach itself, as if it were being cut with chisel and wedge, but no hands are risible. Once set loose from the mountain's side, it came by bounds and leaps down the declivity, "and smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay." Every bound that the stone makes down the mountain is larger, and raises it higher and makes it strike the earth with more of force, till with a bound greater than any it had made before, it strikes the feet of the image, "which were of iron and clay" mingled, yet separate - and at once they are broken in pieces: "utterly crushed" is the meaning of the word דוּק (duq). The Septuagint tendering is κατήλεσεν, "ground;" it occurs in Exodus 32:20, of Moses grinding the golden calf to powder. Theodotion's word is not a correct rendering of the word; it is ἐλέπτυνεν, "beat into thin scales;" comp. Matthew 21:(42) 45 ("the stone which the builders rejected"), "on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." It is to be observed that this cutting of the stone out of the mountain took place after the fourth portion of the image was clearly visible. In the dream the catastrophe took place after the stone had been cut from the mountain and had bounded down its side. A similar chronological succession may be expected in the events foreshadowed.

Daniel 2:35

Verse 35. - Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors. The versions arc closer to the Massoretic than our Authorized Version, as they all give more prominence to כַחֲדָה (kahadah), "at once." It is rendered "together." The LXX. renders ἅμα; Theodotion, εἰσάπαξ the Peshitta repeats the word; and Jerome renders pariter. Theedotion changes the order somewhat, for the sake of making it more symmetrical. The rendering of the LXX. is in some respects different from the natural sense of the Massoretic text, but not so much so as to require us to presume a radically different text: "Then the iron, and the clay, etc., became fragments, and they were smaller than the chaff of the threshing-floor." We have this verse also in the Itala, preserved to us in Tertullian, but it does not differ from Jerome seriously. It would follow naturally enough if the mighty image were so smitten on its weak and fragile feet, that it would come crashing to the earth; but more happened than this. As the monarch looked, in falling, the various parts of the image, as they fell in a heap, became broken, nay, triturated - they became as the dust or chaff of the summer threshing-floor. Summer is the dead time in the East; harvest is over by the end of June, and the threshing of corn then commences. All this huge statue was reduced to particles as small and light as the chaff that is beaten off the grain by the threshing instruments of those days - feet of oxen or wheel of cart. Chaff is a favourite symbol for lightness and worthlessness. In the first psalm the wicked are compared to chaff; so in Psalm 28. In Hosea, where he speaks (Hosea 13:3) of Israel's sins, he says, "Ephraim shall be like the chaff of the threshing-floor." Isaiah (Isaiah 41:15, 16) speaks of Jacob getting new threshing instruments to thresh the mountains, and make them small as chaff. It may be noted that the word here translated "chaff" only occurs here. The word does not appear in the Targums, instead of which is used מוצ (motz), the Hebrew word. In Syriac, again, in the Peshitta, it occurs frequently, as Psalm 1:4 and Isaiah 40:15 - another sign, slight in itself, of the Eastern origin of the Book of Daniel. The fact that the word occurred in Daniel would have a tendency to preserve it if in use when Daniel was published, or introduce it if it were not. Yet, as we have said, it does not appear in the Targums. It does appear in Syriac, the language of a people who, as not Jews, would presumably not be familiar with Daniel. The word for "threshing-floor," אִדְּרֵי (iddrei), is also one that does not appear in the Targums, but it does appear in the Peshitta. Jensen suggests an Assyrian etymology, but Brockelmann marks this doubtful; Lagarde suggests a Persian etymology, also marked doubtful. Whichever etymology holds bears out the Eastern origin of the book. The Targums represent the older Aramaic of Palestine. If Daniel were a book originating in Palestine, the Persian words appearing in it might also be expected to appear in the Targums. And the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. The LXX. rendering is, "And the wind carried them away, so that there was nothing left of them, and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and smote the whole earth." The first portion of this is a fairly correct rendering of our present Massoretic text. On the other hand, the latter clause implies that the translator had before him, or imagined he had, not מלאת, but מחת; not impossibly מלאת might be written without the silent a; thus, מלת, as in the Peshitta. In that case the mistake might easily be made. Behrmann remarks on the vocalization of מלאת in this passage being the same as מחת, but does not remark that it is written defectively in Syriac. The sense in the Massoretic text is much better than that implied in this reading. Theodotion's rendering differs in the first clause of this portion of the present verse, "And the abundance (πλῆθος) of wind carried it away, and place was not found for them: and the stone, when it had smitten (πατάξας) the image, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." The rendering "multitude" (πλῆθος) is due to reading הָמון instead of הִמון. This form of the plural of the demonstrative pronoun is the commoner in Biblical Aramaic, but does not appear in the Targums nor the Peshitta. It is akin to the Mandaitic הינון. Neither the Peshitta nor the Vulgate presents any peculiarities of rendering. All this mass that had formed the image, though it had been gold, silver, brass, and iron, yet was so ground down - had become reduced to particles so small, that the wind carried them away. So scattered were they that they collected in no special place, so that one could say, "This is the image." The figure is still that of the threshing-floor; the wind, blowing on the grain that is lifted up before it, carries away the chaff, but, search as one may, the chaff, once blown away, cannot be found. A more remarkable thing now takes place - the stone that, bounding down the mountainside, had smitten the image on the feet, so that it fell and became as dust, now grows apace, overtopping the utmost height the image had attained, overtopping the mountain from which it had been cut. Not only did it grow in height, but, as it increased in height, its base broadened till the whole earth was filled with it. There seems to be a reference here to Isaiah 2:2, "The mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." As the monarch gazes in his dream, the change is completed, the huge image, with its glittering head and gleaming breast, its polished thighs and legs of iron, its unseemly feet that inspired terror by its very appearance, had utterly disappeared, and its place was occupied by a mountain, huge but peaceful, on which the flocks might browse and trees might grow. It may be noted, though not as of importance, that the material of the mountain is most akin with that of the weak clay of which the feet of the image were largely composed. Such, then, is the dream which Nebuchadnezzar had seen, and which the prophet now presented once more before him. We must, however, glance at the picture presented by the reading of the LXX. To the translator the picture evidently present was that of a stone descending from the mountain, and increasing in momentum as it descends; but this stone further increases in size, till before its tremendous strokes and rebounds the very solid earth quakes.

Daniel 2:36

Verse 36. - This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. The various versions agree closely with the Massoretic text. It is scarcely a variation when the Septuagint has ἐπὶ, "to," instead of ἐνώπιον, "before," that is to say, לְ instead of קְדָם (qedam). Jerome must have read קָדָמָך, (qadamak), "before thee," as he renders coram te, rex; but that also is unimportant. Having finished telling Nebuchadnezzar his dream, Daniel now announces his intention of giving the interpretation. Commentators have noticed the fact that Daniel does not say, "I will give," but "we." The opinion of Professor Fuller is that Daniel here includes with himself his three companions; of Keil, Kranichfeld, Zockler, and Behrmann, that he identifies himself with all worshippers of Jehovah; Aben Ezra makes the plurality by making him refer to himself and the Divine wisdom; Jephet-ibn-Ali makes its force lie in contrast; Hitzig makes it really the pluralis excellintiae, and quotes in defence Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7, where it is God himself that speaks. Had Daniel introduced the phrase, "thus saith the Lord," this opinion might have been defended. It may be that Daniel fell back on the methods and ordinary mode of address for an astrologer before the King of Babylon (see ver 7). He does not wait for the king to acknowledge that this is the dream he had. Daniel at once pro-coeds with the interpretation.

Daniel 2:37

Verse 37. - Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. The Septuagint renders the latter clause, "To thee the Lord of heaven gave the dominion, and the kingdom, and the might, and the honor, and the glory in all the earth (ἐν πάσῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ)." There appears here to be two cases of doublet; ἀρχὴ and βασιλεία are probably originally alternative renderings of malcutha, and τιμὴ and δόξα double renderings of yiqara. On this hypothesis there is only one Greek word for two Aramaic. We shall consider this later. Paulus Tellensis, in his translation of the Septuagint Version, draws the beginning of the next verse into connection with the final words of this verse as given here. The words, "in the whole earth," is a transference from the next verse. The rendering of Theodotion is, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings, to whom the God of heaven gave a strong and mighty and honourable kingdom," making thus hisna, toqpa, and yiqara adjectives of malcut a. But malcutha is feminine, and, if adjectives. hisna, etc., are masculine. The Peshitta differs from the Massoretic in leaving out one of the terms, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings; God most high (merima) a strong kingdom and glory has given to thee." Of course, the same objection holds to some extent against this version as against that of Theodotion, but it is to be noted that there are not two words conveying the same idea of strength. As there was only one in the Septuagint, we are inclined to think that toqpi must have been an addition. Jerome's rendering is, "Thou art a king of kings, and the God of heaven has given to thee the kingdom, and might, and dominion, and glory." There seems to be a transposition here. The general scope of this verse and the next is given in Jeremiah 27:5, 6. There is certainly high honour given to Nebuchadnezzar in this address, but, at the same time, he is warned that all his glory is bestowed upon him by the God of heaven. It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar interpreted the words as referring to Merodach, the god whom he specially worshipped, or regarded the God of heaven as only another of the gods many and lords many which, as a polytheist, he acknowledged. The title of the Babylonian king was shar-sharani," king of kings," and sharru-rabbu, "great king." Thus in this address the technical title is given him. The Babylonian monarchs assumed this from their Assyrian predecessors, as e.g. Asshurbanipal (Smith, 'History,' pp. 26, 73, 196). From the Babylonians it was passed on to the Persian monarchs. In Ezekiel 26:7 the prophet gives Nebuchadnezzar this title. As we find by the succeeding verse, the kingdom here is not mere royalty or kingship, but the special royalty of practically universal empire; that is to say, universal so far as the knowledge of the times went. Our rendering in the Authorized Version fails in accuracy, in not inserting the definite article, which is really implied in the sign of the status emphaticus. Luther makes the same mistake. Happily the Revisers have altered matters, and inserted "the," as does Behrmann. The Greek Version and Peshitta are accurate in this. The word translated "power," חִסְנָא (his'na), is consonantly present in both dialects of more recent Aramaic.

Daniel 2:38

Verse 38. - And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and bath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. The Septuagint, if we take along with this verse the final clause of the preceding verse, has even more of that look of exaggeration which we can scarcely fail to be conscious of in the Massoretic, "In all the earth inhabited by men, and wild beasts, and birds of the heaven, and fish of the sea, be delivered (all things) into thy hand to rule over all" The addition to the realm of Nebuchadnezzar of the dwelling-place of the fish of the sea is readily observed. Theodotion has the same addition, "In every place where the sons of men dwell, he gave into thy hand beasts of the earth, birds of the air, fishes of the sea, and appointed thee lord of all." One cannot but observe not only the presence of "the fishes," but also the fact that only the lower animals are given into his power. It may be that here, as in the LXX., the object is to render with slavish exactness the original - unobservant of the fact that the construction was irregular. Behrmann thinks the author had before his mind השׁלטך (hashaltak), "has made thee ruler," and then changed the construction. Something might be said for Moses Stuart's view that כָּל־דִידָארִין should be translated" wherever," it' there were any similar construction to be found. The rendering of the Peshitta agrees with the sense of Moses Stuart, "Every place where the sons of men dwell, the bird of heaven, or the beast of the field, he hath given into thy band, and caused thee to rule over all of them." The change of order is to be noted. The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic. The word for "dwelling" is an older form דארין (dareen), instead of the more recent form, which is that read דירין (dayreen). This copious insertion of the א is an Eastern peculiarity. This assertion of Daniel must seem exaggerated to us, but we must remember the courtly form of address that was usual in Oriental courts, and that Nebuchadnezzar in all likelihood claimed this breadth of empire; so Daniel, in order to make way for the assertion he had already made of the king's dependence on One higher, gives him everything he claims. The addition of the sea to his dominion, although in it Theodotion supports the LXX., is due to a mistaken idea of the point of Daniel's statements. He adds, Thou art this head of gold. This is not, as Hitzig asserts, Nebuchadnezzar personally, but to him as the type of the Babylonianmonarch. This was but natural, as of the duration of this monarchy his independent reign extended to the half. Before his advent as "king's son," the Babylonian Empire had to endure the assault of Egypt, and had to struggle for existence against it. With his ado, at began its glory, with his disappearance began at once its decadence. Only under Nebuchadnezzar was Babylon really imperial. The short reigns of his successors are proofs of an insufficient hand upon the reins. With all the tyrannical moods to which be was subject, and all the wild whirlwinds of passion which were liable to carry him away, Nebuchadnezzar, as presented to us here, was a splendid man - utterly unlike Epiphanes, we may remark in passing, with his low tastes and his cringing submission to Rome. His brilliance was that of Alcibiades; he had nothing of the dignity implied in the head of gold. Nebuchadnezzar had secured the love of this captive, as we see by the sorrow with which Daniel communicated to him his approaching madness. There is thus a reasonableness in making him, in especial, the head of gold.

Daniel 2:39

Verse 39. - And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. None of the versions presents any difficulties, or gives occasion for any remark, save the Vulgate, which inserts argenteum, as if reading כספ. The word used, "kingdom," not "king," shows, without possibility of reasonable dispute, that in identifying Nebuchadnezzar with the head of gold, the reference is not to him per-serially, but to him as representing his dynasty. The next dynasty is said to be inferior, that is to say, nearer the ground אָרְעָא (ar'a), which is certainly true of the shoulders in relation to the head. Not only does the inferior metal imply inferiority, but the inferior position dues so also. The metal is omitted here, but stated in the next clause, Another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. The metal is here referred to, but not the position; there is no need to say it is inferior - that is implied when it is said to be a kingdom of brass. We need only refer to what we have said above, as to the fact that "brass" here really means "copper." As the inferiority stated in the first clause is omitted in the second, so the statement made at the end, which grammatically applies only to the third kingdom, applies also to the second. It is only as, in a sense, bearing rule over the whole earth, that any monarchy comes into this statue at all. When we look at these two, we find certainly the two arms suggesting and rendering emphatic a twofoldness of some sort in this power. The fact that, in the description of the statue, the word translated "belly" (מעוהי) is plural, suggests, along with the two thighs, the idea of four-foldness. Faintly is this suggestion made, but the exigencies of the figure must be considered.

Daniel 2:40

Verse 40. - And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. The version of the LXX. differs considerably here, "The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, as iron which subdueth all things, even as iron cutteth down every tree." It is evident that the translator has read אִילָן ('illan), "a tree," instead of אִלֵּין ('illeen), "these." The last clause is due to וְתֵּרֹעַ (vetayroa') being written with the א: ותארע; however, ו (vav) is not unlike, in ancient Aramaic script, to כּ (kaph), although ל (lamed) is not like ת (tau), yet the phrase כָלאּאֲרַע would carry the reader over every obstacle. Theodotion differs less from the Massoretic," The fourth kingdom is that which shall be as strong as iron, just as (ὅν τρόπον) iron beateth small and subdueth all things, thus shall it beat small and subdue all things." It may be observed that the clause, "and as iron breaketh all these," is omitted from the text. It certainly appears to be an addition, indeed, has the look of a "doublet." This view is confirmed by the fact that the Peshitta also omits this clause. The Peshitta rendering is," The fourth kingdom shall be strong like iron, and even as iron crushes and bruises all, thus even it shall beat small and subdue all." The Vulgate rendering also omits a clause, "And the fourth kingdom shall be like iron, as iron beats small and subdues all things, it shall beat small (comminuet) all these." For these grounds we feel inclined to regard the clause in question as an explanatory note, which has slipped into the text. Before we leave the consideration of the text, we must observe that the word for "fourth" assumes the Syriac, or Eastern Aramaic form, not the form in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. That empire which was represented by the basest of the four metals, and occupied the lowest position in the figure, is that which is the most powerful. When we go back we find brass is the next in point of hardness and strength; it is the third, and of it, at all events, if not also of that which preceded it, it is said that "it shall bear rule over all the earth." The inferiority indicated by the metals and by the position occupied in the image, did not indicate inferiority in power or in extent of dominion. An interesting theory has been formed by Dr. Bonnar ('Great Interregnum'), that this degeneration was one of type. The monarchy as exhibited in Babylon, especially when the monarch was a man of genius, as was Nebuchadnezzar, was likest to the rule of the Almighty over the world: his authority was without limit, direct and absolute over every one subject to his sceptre The Medo-Persian monarchy had much of the Babylonian absoluteness, but there were, if Herodotus is to be trusted, the peers of the crown, and, above all, there were the satraps, with their almost independent position in respect to the central power. The third, in our author's opinion, the Hellenic, had the monarchy limited, not only by numerous compeers, as the king in Antioch was balanced by the kings in Alexandria and Pergamus, not to speak of the monarchs of Parthia, but also by the autonomous cities with the semblance of freedom. The fourth, the Roman, was yet further removed from the old Divine-right monarchy of the Babylonian type. At their first intercourse with the Jews the Romans were Republicans. Their first conquest of Judaea was made by Pompey, the general of the Republic. To the last the emperor, whatever his power, was still theoretically the first magistrate of a republic. The feet and toes of mingled clay and iron, he held, were modern constitutional monarchies - monarchies built upon democracy and the will of the people. All this is doomed to be overthrown by the coming of the Messianic kingdom.

Daniel 2:41

Verses 41-43. - And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided: but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall he partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. The version of the Septuagint is worthy of notice here, "And as thou sawest (hast seen, ἑώρακας) its feet and toes were partly of potter's clay, and partly of iron. Another kingdom shall be divided in itself, as thou sawest the iron mingled with the miry clay, and the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part shall be broken. And as thou sawest the iron mingled with the miry clay, there shall be mixings (συμμιγεῖς) to the generation (γένεσιν) of mankind (ἀνθρώπων), but they shall not agree nor be well affected one to another, just as (ὥσπερ) iron cannot be compounded with clay." It may be observed here that a clause is omitted from ver. 41, "but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron." In the forty-third verse the difference is due to זְרַע as infinitive of the verb "to sow," that is to say, the translator must have read למזרע instead of להון בזיי. The addition of ἄλλη has had its origin in a false idea that the feet and toes of the image represented a new world-dominion. Theodotion renders, "Because (ὅτι) thou sawest the feet and the toes part of potter's clay, and part of iron, a kingdom shall be divided, and there will be in it from the iron root in like manner as thou sawest the iron mingled with the potter's clay. And the toes of the feet were partly iron, and partly clay, part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part of it shall be broken (being broken, συντριβόμενον); because thou sawest the iron mingled with the potter's clay, there shall be mixings with the seed of men: but they shall not adhere one to another, even as iron is not mingled with clay." Neither in Syriac nor Chaldee has netzab the meaning "to be firm;" nitzebthah means, in later Aramaic, "a seedling." Originally, however, it meant "to confirm," "to set up," "to strengthen," as the Hebrew יָצַב (yatzab) and נָצַב (natzab). This meaning had been lost sight of by the time Theodotion wrote, or possibly before the translation was made which he revised. The Peshitta does not call for remark, save that it agrees with Theodotion in translating נצבתא (nitzeba-thah) "root." Jerome renders it plantarium. This new development of the image is to be regarded, not as another empire, but as the outgrowth of the fourth kingdom. This is clear from the fact that there is no new substance introduced of which the feet and toes are wholly made up, but the iron is mingled with a new and inferior substance, potter's clay. The numerical mark "ten," which is to be regarded as the peculiar distinctive sign of the fourth empire, is in the toes. This last empire, whatever it may be taken to be, is one that splits itself up into approximately ten parts or sub-kingdoms. Further, there shall be a foreign element introduced which shall not harmonize with the original material. Professor Bevan is certain that the reference is "to the marriages of the Ptolemies with the Se-leucidae." Notwithstanding that Professor Bevan states this view as if it could not be doubted, it is evidently false. Both the Lagids and the Seleucids were Macedonians, and there was no natural incompatibility. If marriage is intended here, and if the fourth monarchy were the Hellenic, more sensible would have been the suggestion that it referred to the Hellenizing of South-Western Asia - the miscegenation of the peoples inaugurated by Alexander the Great, only it did not proceed very far. Further, it did not signalize the end of the Greek rule, but really the beginning of it. We admit certainly that the LXX. translates in a way that suggests the marriage of a superior with an inferior race. But there is no reference in reality to marriage, but to the mingling of two distinct culture-elements, the infusion of barbarous races into the midst of a civilized; and the barbarians taking on some of the outward forms of civilization would represent better the thing indicated. But to take this as referring to the marriage of the Seleucids and Lagids is certainly as wrong as wrong can be, although it is held by Moses Stuart, Hitzig, Ewald, as well as Professor Bevan. Not one of them shows which, the Seleucid or the Lagid, is "the clay," "the seed of men," and which the governing power or race that mingles with them. Yet the inferiority of the clay is an essential element in the symbolism. Hoffmann's idea, that there is reference to the marriage of the Emperor Otto II. and the Russian grandduke Wladimir with the daughters of the Byzantine emperor, is equally far-fetched. Certainly the intrusion into the Roman Empire of the Germanic tribes on the. one side, and of the Arabs and Turks on the other, is an interpretation much closer to the real meaning of the symbol. A good deal can be said for Dr. Bonnar's theory, that it is the effort of monarchy to rest on democracy. As to the number, ten, it is not to be made absolute; it may be more than ten or fewer than ten. All that is necessary is that the number be considerably more than four, and not so numerous as to suggest an indefinite multitude. The fact of "the toes" occupying the same portion of the image, seems to signify that these ten divisions were simultaneously existing. What is symbolized is clearly a state of matters not unlike what was in Greece after the defeat of the Persians, and before the Macedonian domination - a number of separate states forming part of one system. Such, to a certain extent, was the empire of the Diadochi, or successors of Alexander, only they were not generally more than four, five, or six - mainly four, the Seleucids, the Lagids, the Attalids, and the Anti-gonids. Such was the state of matters under the Holy Roman Empire, when what are now the six great powers were gradually separating themselves off. A similar state of matters existed at the same time among the Mohammedan powers, which acknowledged a certain suzerainty in the Caliph of Bagdad, but warred with each other with great freedom. While we have said that there is an appearance of simultaneity given to these monarchs or dynasties, candour compels us to acknowledge that they may be successive. We would not desire to anticipate what we say below in a special excursus on the four monarchies of Daniel; yet we may be permitted to indicate two senses in which the number ten may indicate Rome. There were ten emperors to the capture of Jerusalem, and the end of Judaism as a civil power, and the consequent independence of the Church from the trammels of Judaism. Further, a fair case might be made out for the different magistrates that exercised authority, more or less supreme, in Rome - consuls, praetors, dictators, magistri equitum, censors, tribunes. All these were replaced by the emperors. We merely indicate this, as we shall consider the subject more at large below.

Daniel 2:42

Daniel 2:43

Daniel 2:44

Verses 44, 45. - And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never he destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever, Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. The Greek versions differ from the Massoretic text only in the order in which the materials of the statue arc recorded. These are arranged in the reverse order in which they are first mentioned, that is to say, we have first the clay, then the iron, and so on, to the gold. This is the order followed by Jerome. On the other hand, the Peshitta follows the Massoretic order. The reason for the order adopted in the Septuagint. Theodotion, and the Vulgate is evidently a symmetrical one, and therefore more likely to be the result of emendation than the somewhat haphazard order of the received text. It is, however, not impossible that the similarity of sound has led to haspa, "clay," being brought out of its proper place at the beginning of the list and placed in juxtaposition with kaspa, "silver." Ewald thinks that the order of the Greek versions is to be preferred. Professor Bevan is doubtful, and refers to the order of the metals in Daniel 5:4, which begins with "gold" and ends with "stone." In the days of these kings. This must refer to the kings who made up the last dynasty, especially the kings of the sub-dynasties represented by the ten toes. If the traditional interpretation is correct, these days are still future. It is not impossible that all the dynasties of the vision are implied, and that the kingdom of heaven is preparing during the whole period; only the natural meaning is that we have assumed. Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. It may be noted that, while in the rest of this chapter the Septuagint renders this title, Κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ or Κὐριος ὁ ὕψιστος, here the rendering is, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. This is a clear statement of the Messianic hopes of the Jews on one side - a Messianic kingdom and Messianic times. This new kingdom is on a different plane from those that preceded it, which go to make up the mysterious image. It is explained to be from the direct interference of the God of heaven that this new kingdom is intruded upon history. When we look at the material, it is inferior to all that had gone before - inferior even to the fire-baked clay of the potter, which formed the toes of the image. This way of representing the Messianic kingdom would have appeared inadequate to an ordinary Jew. Waiving the fact that he regarded the Messianic empire to be another such as the empires of Assyria and Babylonia, only greater, the Jew would certainly have declared that the Messianic kingdom of heaven was a precious stone, not an ordinary piece of rock that goes to build up the framework of the mountains. It is impossible to deny that it is strange that the symbol should be thus a less precious material than even that of the lowest and weakest kingdom of the worldly system of dynasties. When we look at a metal, how homogeneous it is! With rocks, again, begins individualism. The more precious metals, with their extreme ductility, seem to be further removed from this individualism than the baser, such as copper and iron, and clay is still less removed than iron. But simple rock is furthest removed of all from metallic homogeneousness: the grains that compose it, unlike the chemical atoms of the metal, are visible to the naked eye. The process of degradation, which had proceeded through kingdom after kingdom, had now reached its lowest point. Wherever the setting up of this Messianic kingdom is placed, whenever it is held as occurring, it is certain it fits most naturally the Christian Church. The old civilization, represented by the Assyrian monarchy, had only one free man in the state, and that was the king. The Persians had nobles whose power rendered the king's supremacy less absolute than it had been in the Assyrian days. In the days of Greek and Roman supremacy the freedom of citizenship was, even in the republics, possessed only by a few, the rest were slaves. Still, the freedom was much more widely spread than in the Persian and Assyrian monarchies; only the Church, the kingdom of heaven, made of slaves citizens. It is the very acme of individualism. Looked at from without, the kingdom of heaven was a thing to be despised - a thing for freedmen and slaves, for poor workmen and peasants. In the Assyrian form of government the king was the state; so the royal metal, gold, is used. In the Persian the nobles rule; so we have silver. In Greece it is the free citizens, therefore the artistic but less noble metal, copper, or, perhaps, its composite form as bronze, is used. In Rome, in imperial times, it is the soldiery, and therefore iron is the metal that symbolizes them. Shall we step over the intervening centuries of retrogression, and see in the clay the modern mercantile and manufacturing interests? To the ordinary eye of the world, there is a progressive degeneracy here. The lowest point is reached; not even the rich, not to speak of the noble and learned, but the poor and the ignorant, form the kingdom. Another contrast in the symbol is that these metallic empires remained stationary; they reached a limit, then could go no further - not growth, but stationariness, is represented by their symbol; but this stone cut out of the mountain "grows," and ceases not till it has filled the earth. Further, the kingdoms which went to build up the dream-statue endure only for a time; this rock-built kingdom is an ever-lasting kingdom. It is not limited either in extent or duration. This, again, suits only the Church of Christ; fitted and intended to fill the earth, it also has an unending duration. The world itself may end, but the Church does not. We do not mean to assert that Daniel foresaw this distinctly; the very idea of the prophetic office implied that the speaker often did not know the full import of his own words. It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. The silent, disruptive influence of Christianity is exhibited in regard to slavery, which was the foundation of the ancient state. Without opposing slavery, to appearance, it laid down principles which rendered slavery impossible. The supreme dignity it gives to the individual, as bearing the image of God, affirms the claims of democracy, and so affirms them that the modern state must disappear. Forasmuch as thou sawest the stone teas cut out of the mountain without hands. Nothing could be more silent or unobserved by the men of the world, or more unlikely to form the beginning of a new world-power than Christianity. If Judaism was regarded as "the mountain of the Lord's house," then this new kingdom was cut from it, as Christianity was from Judaism. And that it brake, etc. The reason why Nebuchadnezzar had seen all this - the growth of this kingdom, the way it destroyed all other kingdoms - was now to be made known. The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; or, as it ought to be rendered, a great god. The word, as observed by Professor Bevan, is not in the status emphaticus; see Ezra 5:8, אלחא רבא (elaha rabba). Daniel thus recognizes the fact that, to his heathen master, all that in the first instance he can convey to him - the only idea he can give him - of the greatness of Jehovah is that he is very great, not that he is the solely Great One in the universe (see Behrmann). Zockler, Ewald, Keil, and Kranichfeld assert that the fact of the words "great god" (elah tab) being in the absolute, not the emphatic state, is due to the elevation of pectic language. In the first place, this is not poetry, and, in the second place, neither of these writers gives any example of such a change of construction taking place. Made known to the king. Why was it to "the king"? One objectsecured by making this revelation known to Nebuchadnezzar himself was that it secured its publicity. Had the vision been made known to Daniel himself, he could not have announced that the empire of Babylon should pass away, without running the risk of being condemned for treason. The king's action had made both dream and interpretation perforce public in a way they could not otherwise have been. What shall come to pass hereafter; literally, which shall be after these things. This does not mean in the immediate future, but after the state of matters at present existing - the domination of the world by great powers after the system of great world-empires has passed away, then will the Lord's kingdom be set up. And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure; or, literally, to bring out the emphasis, certain - established - it is the dream, and sure - faithful - the interpretation. This is not a mere assertion of the fact that he, Daniel, had given an exact account of what the king had seen in his dream, and a correct interpretation of its import; of the first the king was the best judge. It is rather an argument: "The account of the dream is correct; from this learn that the interpretation is sure."

Daniel 2:45

Daniel 2:46

Verse 46. - Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. The Greek versions render in such a way that we are almost obliged to recognize an act of idolatrous worship. Jerome, too, distinctly says," Nebuchodonoser... Danielem ador-avit et hostias et incensnm praecepit ut sacri-ficarent." The same idea is conveyed by the Peshitta, but less definitely, from the fact that qorban means a "gift" as well as an "oblation;" though the gift is usually a consecrated gift. In the Aramaic of the Bible we have certain phrases used for "sacrifice;" several of these are here employed: it is true all of them have the possibility of being used in a somewhat lower meaning. The mere "falling down before Daniel upon his face," when the person who did it was Nebuchadnezzar, is extraordinary, and can only be explained by the idea of worship. When we find the word סְגַד (segad) used immediately after, it is very difficult to refuse to believe that the Greek Version and Jerome are right when they translate the latter word προσεκύνησε. The word occurs repeatedly in the following chapter, invariably as "worship." The corresponding Hebrew word occurs in the second chapter of Isaiah, in the sense of "idolatrous worship" (Isaiah 2:20). It certainly does mean "to bend." Had the word thus stood alone, we could not have been certain that it meant "worship;" but when it follows the extreme act of prostration to the earth, "worship' must be meant. The separate terms, minhah, nihohin, lenassakah lah, might, taken separately, mean "gifts" and the "bestowment of gifts;" but, taken together, it is impossible not to regard the action as one of sacrificial offering. It is true minhah means "a present," as when Jacob sends a present to Esau (Genesis 32:13); but, in that connection, nasak is not used. It is quite true that the burning of sweet odours was a common enough thing in entertaining guests whom it was desired to honour, but the term neehoheen was not given to the aromatic woods so used. People sometimes, even at present, scent their rooms by burning aromatic woods, but they never in such cases call them incense. But from the fact that the old Greek version and Jerome read θυσίας, hostias, the doubt seems forced upon us that the reading here has been altered, and that the true reading was deebheen - not neehoheen - this is a change that could with difficulty be imagined as occurring accidentally, but readily enough might happen from the desire to defend Daniel from the charge of allowing idolatrous worship to be offered to him. The instance referred to as parallel - the homage which Josephus relates Alexander the Great gave to Jaddua - is not quite on all fours with the present case. We are, in the first place, expressly told that it was "the name" of Jehovah, engraved on the petalon on the front of the priest's mitre, that Alexander worshipped (προσεκύνησε τό ὄνομα). In the next place, we have no notice of sacrifice or incense being ordered to be offered to the high priest. It is not correct to say that nasak of necessity means "pour out an oblation," to the exclusion of the more general meaning of "offer sacrifice." The corresponding word in Arabic means "to sacrifice" (Behrmann). Behrmann says, in regard to this, truly, "As to Porphyry later, so to the author and to the first readers of this book, it would have seemed indecent if Daniel had allowed himself to be honoured as a god." This would have been true had the author been a contemporary of the Maccabees. The tide of feeling that led Peter to refuse the prostration of Cornelius, and Paul and Barnabas the sacrifices at Lystra, would have prevented any one inventing such a scene. It is perfectly true the worship was probably directed to the Divine Spirit as resident in Daniel, rather than to Daniel himself; few except the lowest and most degraded of heathen worshipped idols in any other way - the divine spirit, the deity, was the real object of worship, whose sign they were, and who resided in them. We must bear in mind that Daniel had been brought up in an idolatrous court, perhaps, also, he had to submit, on pain of suffering the fate that befell Paul and Barnabas when they refused the worship of the people of Lystra. We must lay stress on the very different relationship to idolatry and its worship implied in Daniel thus suffering sacrifice and incense to be offered to him, from that subsisting in the time of the Maccabees. No writer of that period would have written a sacred romance in which he represented a servant of God receiving idolatrous honours. The attitude of later Judaism is exemplified by Jephet-ibn-Ali, who says that though "Nebuchadnezzar commanded that sacrifices be brought to him as to a god, he (Daniel) does not say that he brought them to him. Most probably Daniel prohibited him from doing so."

Daniel 2:47

Verse 47. - The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a Revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. The versions do not exhibit any important variation from the Massoretic text. We must observe the plural form of the pronoun "your," implying the Hebrew nation as a whole, or at all events the three youths along with Daniel. It must be noted that the titles are not in the emphatic state, but are simply absolute, implying that Nebuchadnezzar simply placed the God of heaven, the God of Daniel, in his pantheon, as one of the superior gods. The historical difficulty that some have seen in Nebuchadnezzar making this confession to God, and yet straightway framing a golden image, is due to a failure to understand the attitude of a polytheist to his gods. To the heathen his god is a person he is afraid of, much more powerful than he is himself, able to do him much ill, or, on the other hand, able to bestow upon him much good, but able to be deceived, cajoled, and flattered. In worshipping his deities the heathen feels that any breach of sacred etiquette in regard to any deity is far more certain of bringing down the vengeance of the aggrieved power than any crime, however heinous. He would be most potent in prayer who could go over all the deities of the pantheon, and give to each his or her appropriate title. Thus the Hindus tell tales of fakirs whose power over the gods was due to this. One of the forms of this religious etiquette was to address each deity as if he were the supreme god who alone deserved worship. Lenormant ('Los Premieres Civilizations,' 2:159) gives an address to the god Hourki, or Sin, in which he is called "prince of the gods of heaven and earth, the good god, the great god, lather of gods and men, the lord who extends his power over heaven and earth" In the same work (p. 178) there is an address to Marduk (Merodach), the favourite deity of Nebuchadnezzar, in which he is called "god of gods, king of heaven and earth." A little further on in the same work (p. 18t) Nebu is called "the supreme intelligence, scribe of the universe, who bears the supreme sceptre, the interpreter of the celestial spheres." In p. 189 Nergal is addressed as "great prince of the greatest gods, who has brought up the greatest gods." In his ' La Magie,' p. 175, he gives an address to Silik-mulu-ki, regarded as an Accadian name of Marduk, in which he is called "god of gods." In his ' Hibbert Lecture,' pp. 97-104, Professor Sayce, on the contrast between the religion of Babylon and that of Persia in this respect, says that Nebuchadnezzar calls Merodach "lord of all," yet declares him the "son of the gods." The same titles are given to Merodach and to Samas, and yet Samas is distinct from Merodach - he is his comrade in the struggle with the assailants of Otis, the moon-god. At the same time, we must observe the limitations of Nebuchadnezzar's praise - it is simply as the Revealer of secrets that he praises and honours the God of Daniel.

Daniel 2:48

Verses 48, 49. - Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. In the Greek versions there is not much to be observed. The Septuagint renders the last clause of ver. 48 "chief and ruler (ἄρχοντα καὶ ἡγούμενον) of all the wise men of Babylon," reading us gan instead of signeen. Theodotion's is a fairly accurate rendering of the Massoretic text, as is also Jerome. The Peshitta renders this clause, "He made Daniel head over all the mighty men (rabiheela), and over all the wise men of Babylon." The translator must have inserted, or found before him inserted, the preposition על ('el), "over," between tab and signeen, evidently a false reading, due to ignorance of the form Babylonianand Assyrian titles assumed. The word סָגָן, or סְגַן:, was originally maintained to be Persian. Hitzig connects it with an Arabic root, sajan, but the true derivation is now found to be shokun (Assyrian), "governor." It appears in Hebrew in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the deutero-Isaiah, as well as in Ezra and Nehemiah, showing the unlikelihood of any Persian derivation. Hitzig appears to regard Daniel as made the king's regent over the whole empire of Babylon; but this is not at all the meaning of the words. We must not be led away to believe that all this promotion befell Daniel at once; the statement here is summary, and includes many steps, and perhaps several years. Even at the utmost of his exaltation, he is not represented here as being made the regent of Nebuchadnezzar. as Hitzig would maintain. It is really only the province of Babylon, if we may not restrict the meaning of the word medeena even further, and regard it as equivalent to "city." We admit that this restriction of significance is not supported by the versions, but the fact that in so many cases we have traces of Syriac influences in Daniel, and that medeena means in Syriac "a city," renders this supposition not an impossible one. The precise limits of the province of Babylon in the days of Nebuchadnezzar cannot be settled. In later times it consisted mainly of the territory between the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of the murus Medius, with some territory between the latter river and the desert (Professor Rawlinson). It may be that the satrapy of Babylon was of considerably less extent. The word hashleet means "to cause to rule." This would be made true by making Daniel overseer in any department of the government of the province. It is not necessary to maintain that Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel satrap of Babylonia; at the same time, shalet is the title given to the satrap of Babylon. M. Lenormant thinks there must be an interpolation when Daniel is said to be set over all the governors of the wise men in Babylon. His arguments are founded mainly on the belief that the castes of astrologers, soothsayers, and magians - all that were included in the class of hakmeen - were hereditary, a thing which has not been proved. A difficulty has been urged by Lenormant that Daniel, as a zealous Jew, could not become head of a college of idolatrous priests. While there may be some force in this, one must beware of testing the actions of a Jew of the sixth century B.C. by criteria and principles applicable to one of later times. At all events, this militates strongly against the idea that the Book of Daniel was written in the age of the Maccabees. When we see Daniel thus, a youth of probably two or three and twenty, promoted ultimately to be over the province of Babylon, and to be one of the king's most trusted councillors, Ezekiel's saying, which places him between Noah and Job (Ezekiel 14:14), becomes natural. Daniel had already been some years in the king's privy council before Ezekiel was carried into captivity. We do not know how long after the beginning of his prophetic work we are to date the prophecy of the fourteenth chapter - it may have been eight or nine years after. But even if it were only six years, Daniel would by this time have been for eleven years a member of the privy council of the Babylonian monarch, and possibly for a considerable portion of that period governor of the province of Babylon. At any rate, Daniel would bulk very large in the eyes of the poor Jewish captives. Though contemporary, he was so far removed from his fellow-countrymen in social position, that his goodness and greatness would be subject to similar exaggeration to that which happens to heroes of a long-past age. A better argument may be drawn from the fact that sagan is always a civil title. The insertion of the word hakmeen might easily be due to some scribe who thought that as Daniel was one of the wise men, head of them would be more likely than head of the civil governors of the province, and placed it as a suggestion of what ought to take the place of signeen; a copyist following, inserted it in the text. If we compare this chapter with the sixth, we find Daniel one of three who were to receive the accounts of the various governors. Daniel was thus, if we may apply to his office a title drawn from our own political usage, secretary of state for Babylonia. It is characteristic of Daniel, that having been made rich and great by the king, and having received many gifts at the hand of the king, does not satisfy him; he entreats favour for his friends also. Hitzig's objection that Daniel would have the appointment of his subordinates, would only be valid if Daniel had been made satrap If his shaletship extended merely to some one department of governmental work - and that seems to follow from the last clause of this verse - it is unlikely that he would have this power. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are set over the "business" ('el,eedt,') of the province of Babylon. This word, in Targumic Aramaic, is very generally used of constructions where labour is employed. We may regard their position as one something like being members of a labour bureau. Nebuchadezzar was a very great builder, so much so that almost all the bricks that have been got in Babylon are stamped with his name. While his Ninevite predecessors record in their inscriptions their campaigns, the kings they conquered, and the cities they sacked, the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar are almost entirely occupied with the various structures - temples, palaces, ramparts, and canals - which he had caused to be made. These buildings would need perpetual surveying. Further, as a great military genius, roads and canals would also be. important objects, in the carrying out of which captives would be employed. And the products of this enforced labour would have to be surveyed carefully. This seems more probable than that Daniel got these three friends appointed to do the work he himself was appointed to. The only plausible suggestion against this would be that Daniel desired that his friends be set jointly over the province of Babylon instead of himself, and, for his own part, he preferred to remain in the gate of the king. We know that those who wished to undermine a favourite in an Eastern court, frequently intrigued to get him promoted to a governorship, and then poisoned the mind of the king against him. On the other hand. the fact that Daniel had his province in Babylon, and would always be near the king when he was in his capital, rendered the implied precaution needless. But Daniel sat in the gate of the king. The gate of the king was the gate of his palace or the entrance to the central court from which all the apartments branched off. In the gate the kings of the East acted as judges over their people; in the gate the king held councils. Hence to sit in the gate of the king conveyed the twofold idea of being the king's representative on the throne of judgment, and of being the counsellor of the king - member of the privy council, to employ a modern term.

Daniel 2:49

Daniel 2

Daniel here says, — King Nebuchadnezzar dreamt in the second year of his reign. This seems contrary to the opinion expressed in the first chapter. For if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, how could Daniel be already reckoned among the wise men and astrologers, while he was as yet but a disciple? Thus it is easily gathered from the context that he and his companions were already brought forward to minister before the king. At the first glance these things are not in accordance, because in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign Daniel and his companions were delivered into training; and in the second he was in danger of death through being in the number of the Magi. Some, as we have mentioned elsewhere, count the second year from the capture and destruction of the city, for they say Nebuchadnezzar was called king from the time at which he obtained the monarchy in peace. Before he had cut off the City and Temple with the Nation, his Monarchy could not be treated as united; hence they refer this to the capture of the city, as I have said. But I rather incline to another conjecture as more probable — that of his reigning with his father, and I have shewn that when he besieged Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachim, he was sent by his father; he next returned to Chaldea from the Egyptian expedition, through his wish to repress revolts, if any one should dare to rebel. In this, therefore, there is nothing out of place. Nebuchadnezzar reigned before the death of his father, because he had already been united with him in the supreme power; then he reigned alone, and the present narrative happened in the second year of his reign. In this explanation there is nothing forced, and as the history agrees with it, I adopt it as the best.

He says — he dreamt dreams , and yet only one Dream is narrated; but since many things were involved in this dream, the use of the plural number is not surprising. It is now added, his, spirit was contrite, to shew us how uncommon the dream really was. For Nebuchadnezzar did not then begin to dream, and was not formerly so frightened every night as to send for all the Magi. Hence, in this dream there was something extraordinary, which Daniel wished to express in these words. The clause at the end of the verse which they usually translate his sleep was interrupted, does not seem to have this sense; another explanation which our brother D. Antonius gave you (101) suits it better; namely, — his sleep was upon him, meaning he began to sleep again. The genuine and simple sense of the words seems to me — his spirit was confused, that is, very great terror had seized on his mind. He knew, indeed, the dream to be sent from heaven; next, being astonished, he slept again, and became like a dead man, and when he considered the interpretation of the dream, he became stupified and returned to sleep and forgot the vision, as we shall afterwards see. It follows —

(101) This clause “which our brother D. Antonius gave you,” is omitted in the French editions of 1562 and 1569.



This verse more clearly proves what I have already said that the dream caused the king to feel God to be its author. Though this was not his first dream, yet the terror which God impressed on his mind, compelled him to summon all the Magi, since he could not rest even by returning to sleep. He felt as. it were a sing in his mind, since God did not suffer him to rest, but wished him to be troubled until he received an interpretation of the dream. Even profane writers very correctly consider dreams connected with divine agency. They express various opinions, because they could not know anything with perfect certainty; yet the persuasion was fixed in their minds relative to some divine agency in dreams. It would be foolish and puerile to extend this to all dreams; as we see some persons never passing by a single one without a conjecture, and thus making themselves ridiculous. We know dreams to arise from different causes; as, for instance, from our daily thoughts. If I have meditated on anything during the daytime, something occurs to me at night in a dream; because the mind is not completely buried in slumber, but retains some seed of intelligence, although it be suffocated. Experience also sufficiently teaches us how our daily thoughts recur during sleep, and hence the various affections of the mind and body produce, many dreams. If any one retires to bed in sorrow from either the death of a friend, or any loss, or through suffering any injury or adversity, his dreams will partake of the previous preparation of his mind. The body itself causes dreams, as we see in the case of those who suffer from fever; when thirst prevails they imagine fountains, burnings, and similar fancies. We perceive also how intemperance disturbs men in their sleep; for drunken men start and dream in their sleep, as if in a state of frenzy. As there are many natural causes for dreams, it would be quite out of character to be seeking for divine agency or fixed reason in them all; and on the other hand, it is sufficiently evident that some dreams are under divine regulation. I omit events which have been related in ancient histories; but surely the dream of Calphurnia, the wife of Julius Caesar, could not be fictitious; because, before he was slain it was commonly reported, “Caesar has been killed,” just as she dreamt it. The same may be said of the physician of Augustus, who had ordered him to leave his tent the day of the battle of Pharsalia, and yet there was no reason why the physician should order him to be carried out of the tent on a litter, unless he had dreamt it to be necessary. What was the nature of that necessity? why, such as could not be conjectured by human skill, for the camp of Augustus was taken at that very moment. I doubt not there are many fabulous accounts, but here I may choose what I shall believe, and I do not yet touch on dreams which are mentioned in God’s word, for I am merely speaking of what profane men were compelled to think on this subject. Although Aristotle freely rejected all sense of divination, through being prejudiced in the matter, and desiring to reduce the nature of Deity within the scope of human ingenuity, and to comprehend all things by his acuteness; yet he expresses this confession, that all dreams do not happen rashly but that μαντίκη , that is “divination,” is the source of some of them. He disputes, indeed, whether they belong to the intellectual or sensitive portion of the mind, and concludes they belong to the latter, as far as it is imaginative. Afterwards, when inquiring whether they are causes or anything of that kind, he is disposed to view them only as symptoms or accidents fortuitously contingent. Meanwhile, he will not admit dreams to be sent from heaven; and adds as his reason, that many stupid men dream, and manifest the same reason in them as the wisest. He notices next the brute creation, some of which, as elephants, dream. As the brutes dream, and wise men more seldom than the rudest idiots, Aristotle does not think it probable that dreams are divinely inspired. He denies, therefore, that they are sent from God, or divine, but asserts that they spring from the Daimones; (104) that is, he fancies them to be something between the natures of the Deity and the Daimones. We know the sense in which philosophers use that word, which, in Scripture, has usually a bad sense. He says that dreams were occasioned by those aerial inspirations, but are not from God.; because, he says, man’s nature is not divine, but inferior; and yet more than earthly, since it, is angelic. Cicero discourses on this subject at great, length, in his first book on Divination; although he refutes in the second all he had said, while he was a disciple of the Academy. (105) For among other arguments in proof of the existence of deities, he adds dreams; — if there is any divination in dreams, it follows that there is a. Deity in heaven, for the mind of man cannot conceive of any dream without divine inspiration. Cicero’s reasoning is valid; if there is divination in dreams, then is there also a Deity. The distinction made by Macrobius is worthy of notice; although he ignorantly confounds species and genera, through being a person of imperfect judgment, who strung together in rhapsodies whatever he read, without either discrimination or arrangement. This, then, should remain fixed, — the opinion concerning the existence of some kind of divine agency in dreams was not rashly implanted in the hearts of all men. Hence that expression of Homer’s, a dream is from Jupiter. (106) He does not mean this generally and promiscuously of all dreams; but he takes notice of it, when bringing the characters of his heroes before us, since they were divinely admonished in their sleep.

I now come to Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream. In this, two points are worthy of remark. First, all remembrance of its subject was entirely obliterated; and secondly, no interpretation was; found for it. Sometimes the remembrance of a dream was not; lost while its interpretation was unknown. But here Nebuchadnezzar was not only perplexed at the interpretation of the dream, but even the vision itself had vanished, and thus his perplexity and anxiety was doubled. As to the next point, there is no novelty in Daniel making known the interpretation; for it sometimes, but rarely, happens that a person dreams without a figure or enigma, and with great plainness, without any need of conjurers — a name given to interpreters of dreams. This indeed happens but seldom, since the usual plan of dreams is for God to speak by them allegorically and obscurely. And this occurs in the case of the profane as well as of the servants of God. When Joseph dreamt that he was adored by the sun and moon, (Gen 37:9,) he was ignorant of its meaning; when he dreamt of his sheaf being adored by his brothers sheaves, he understood not its meaning, but related it simply to his brothers. Hence God often speaks in enigmas by dreams, until the interpretation is added. And such was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

We perceive, then, that God reveals his will even to unbelievers, but not clearly; because seeing they do not see, just as if they were gazing at a closed book or sealed letter; as Isaiah says, — God speaks to unbelievers in broken accents and with a stammering tongue. (Isa 28:11 and Isa 29:11.) God’s will was so revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that he still remained perplexed and lay completely astonished. His dream would have been of no use to him, unless, as we shall see, Daniel had been presented to him as its interpreter. For God not only wished to hold the king in suspense, but he thus blotted out the remembrance of the dream from his mind, to increase the power of his sting. As mankind are accustomed to neglect the dreams which they do not remember, God inwardly fastened such a sting in the mind of this unbeliever, as I have already said, that he could not rest, but was always wakeful in the midst of his dreaming, because God was drawing him to himself by secret chains. This is the true reason why God denied him the immediate explanation of his dream, and blotted out the remembrance of it from his mind, until he should receive both from Daniel. We will leave the rest till tomorrow.

(104) Calvin uses the Greek words θεόπεμπτα, θεῖα, and δαιμόνια. The Greek Daimones corresponded with our idea of angels, and were said to be the origin of human souls. See most interesting passages in the Dialogues of Plato, also the Dissertation on this verse at the close of the Volume.

(105) De Divin., lib. 1 21-23; and lib. 2:58, et seq.

(106) Iliad, book 1, v. 63.



Daniel relates first the great confidence of the Chaldeans, since they dared to promise the interpretation of a dream as yet unknown to them. The king says he was troubled through desire to understand the dream; by which he signifies that a kind of riddle was divinely set, before him. He confesses his ignorance, while the importance of the object may be gathered from his words. Since, then, the king testifies his desire to inquire concerning a matter obscure and profound, and exceeding his comprehension, and since he clearly expresses himself to be contrite in spirit, some kind of fear and anxiety ought to have touched these Chaldeans; yet they securely promise to offer the very best interpretation of the dream as soon as they understood it. When they say, O king live for ever, it is not a simple and unmeaning prayer, but they rather order the king to be cheerful and in good spirits, as they are able to remove all care and anxiety from his mind, because the explanation of the dream was at hand. We know how liberal in words those impostors always were; according to the language of an ancient poet, they enriched the ears and emptied the purses of others. And truly those who curiously court the breeze with their ears deserve to feed upon it, and to be taken in by such deceits. And all ages have proved that nothing exceeds the confidence of astrologers, who are not content with true science, but divine every one’s life and death, and conjecture all events, and profess to know everything.

We must hold generally that the art of conjecturing from dreams is rash and foolish; there is, indeed, a certain fixed interpretation of dreams, as we said yesterday, yet as we shall afterwards see, this ought not to be ascribed to a sure science, but to God’s singular gift. As, therefore, a prophet will not gather what he has to say from fixed reasonings, but will explain God’s oracles, so also he who will interpret dreams correctly, will not follow certain disthief rules; but if God has explained the meaning of the dream, he will then undertake the office of interpreting it according to his endowment with this gift. Properly speaking, these two flyings are opposite to each other and do not mutually agree, general and perpetual science, and special revelation. Since God claims this power of opening by means of a dream, what he has engraven on the minds of men, hence art and science cannot obtain it, but a revelation from the spirit must be waited for. When the Chaldeans thus boldly promise to become good interpreters of the dream, they not only betray their rashness, but become mere impostors, who pretend to be proficients in a science of which they know nothing, as if they could predict by their conjectures the meaning of the king’s dream. It now follows —



Here the king requires from the Chaldeans more than they professed to afford him; for although their boasting, as we have said, was foolish in promising to interpret any dream, yet they never claimed the power of narrating to any one his dreams. The king, therefore, seems to me to act unjustly in not regarding what they had hitherto professed, and the limits of their art and science, if indeed they had any science! When he says — the matter or speech had departed from him, the words admit of a twofold sense, for מלתה , millethah, may be taken for all “edict, ” as we shall afterwards see; and so it might be read, has flowed away; but since the same form of expression will be shortly repeated when it seems to be, used of the dream, (Dan 2:8,) this explanation is suitable enough, as the king says his dream had vanished so I leave the point undecided. It is worthwhile noticing again what we said yesterday, that terror was so fastened upon the king as to deprive him of rest, and yet he was not so instructed that the least taste of the revelation remained; just as if an ox, stunned by a severe blow, should toss himself about, and roll over and over. Such is the madness of this wretched king, because God harasses him with dreadful torments; all the while the remembrance of the dream is altogether obliterated from his mind. Hence he confesses —his dream had escaped him; and although the Magi had prescribed the limits of their science, yet through their boasting themselves to be interpreters of the gods, he did not hesitate to exact of them what they had never professed. This is the just reward of arrogance, when men puffed up with a perverse confidence assume before others more than they ought, and forgetful of all modesty wish to be esteemed angelic spirits. Without the slightest doubt God wished to make a laughingstock of this foolish boasting which was conspicuous among the Chaldees, when the king sharply demanded of them to relate his dream, as well as to offer an exposition of it.

He afterwards adds threats, clearly tyrannical; unless they expound the dream their life is in danger No common punishment is threatened, but he says they should become “pieces ” — if we take the meaning of the word to signify pieces. If we think it means “blood, ” the sense will be the same. This wrath of the king is clearly furious, nay, Nebuchadnezzar in this respect surpassed all the cruelty of wild beasts. What fault could be imputed to the Chaldeans if they did not know the king’s dream? — surely, they had never professed this, as we shall afterwards see; and no, king had ever demanded what was beyond the faculty of man. We perceive how the long manifested a brutal rage when he denounced death and every cruel torture on the Magi and sorcerers. Tyrants, indeed, often give the reins to their lust, and think all things lawful to themselves; whence, also, these words of the tragedian, Whatever he wishes is lawful. And Sophocles says, with evident truth, that any one entering a tyrant’s threshold must cast away his liberty; but if we were to collect all examples, we should scarcely find one like this. It follows, then, that the king’s mind was impelled by diabolic fury, urging him to punish the Chaldees who, with respect to him, were innocent enough. We know them to have been impostors, and the world to have been deluded by their impositions, which rendered them deserving of death, since by the precepts of the law it was a capital crime for any one to pretend to the power of prophecy by magic arts. (Lev 20:6.) But, as far as concerned the king, they could not be charged with any crime. Why, then, did he threaten them with death? because the Lord wished to shew the miracle which we shall afterwards see. For if the king had suffered the Chaldeans to depart, he could have buried directly that anxiety which tortured and excruciated his mind. The subject, too, had been less noticed by the people; hence God tortured the king’s mind, till he rushed headlong in his fury, as we have said. Thus, this atrocious and cruel denunciation ought to have aroused all men; for there is no doubt that the greatest and the least trembled together when they heard of such vehemence in the monarch’s wrath. This, therefore, is the complete sense, and we must mark the object of God’s providence in thus allowing the king’s anger to burn without restraint. (111) It follows —

(111) Calvin is correct in preferring the sense of “pieces” to that of “blood;” for הדם, hedem, is a Chaldee word, and the ין is the Chaldee plural ending; his criticism, too, on מלה, meleh, is also correct; for it is the Chaldee equivalent for דבר, deber, a “word” or thing, and justly rendered “edict.” As great light has been thrown upon the meaning and derivation of single words since Calvin’s time, we may often find that modern knowledge has rendered his derivations untenable; still the soundness of his judgment is worthy of notice. It may be added, too, that the perplexity is increased when Chaldee forms are used, although there is a uniform change of single letters observable in the two languages. Thus ש, sh, becomes ת , th, as in Dan 2:7 and Dan 2:14; the Hebrew ז, z, becomes ד d, in Dan 2:26; so the ץ , tz, becomes ע, gn; the final ה, h, is turned into א, a, and the final ם, m, into ן, n.



Here the king, on the other hand, desires to entice them by the hope of gain, to apply themselves to narrate his dream. He had already attempted to strike them with horror, that even if they are unwilling he may wrest the narration of the dream from them, as well as its interpretation. Meanwhile, if they could be induced by flattery, he tries this argument upon them; for he promises a gift, and reward, and honor, that is, he promises a large remuneration if they narrated his dream, and were faithful interpreters. Hence we gather, what all history declares, that the Magi made a gain of their predictions and guesses. The wise men of the Indies, being frugal and austere in their manner of living, were not wholly devoted to gain; for they are known to have lived without any need of either money, or furniture, or anything else. They were content with roots, and had no need of clothing, slept upon the ground, and were thus free from avarice. But the Chaldeans, we know, ran hither and thither to obtain money from the simple and credulous. Hence the king here speaks according to custom when he promises a large reward. We must remark here, how the Chaldeans scattered their prophecies for the sake of gain; and when knowledge is rendered saleable, it is sure to be adulterated with many faults. As when Paul speaks of corruptors of the Gospel, he says, — they trafficked in it, (2Co 2:7,) because when a profit is made, as we have previously said, even honorable teachers must necessarily degenerate and pervert all sincerity by their lying. For where avarice reigns, there is flattery, servile obsequiousness, and cunning of all kinds, while truth is utterly extinguished. Whence it is not surprising if the Chaldeans were so inclined to deceit, as it became natural to them through the pursuit of gain and the lust for wealth. Some honest teachers may receive support from the public treasury; but, as we have said, when any one is drawn aside by lucre, he must necessarily pervert and deprave all purity of doctrine. And from this passage we gather, further, the anxiety of the king, as he had no wish to spare expense, if by this means he could click the interpretation of his dream from the Chaldeans; all the while he is furiously angry with them, because he does not obtain what the offered reward ought to procure. It now follows —



Here the excuse of the Magi is narrated. They state the truth that their art only enabled them to discover the interpretation of a dream; but the king wished to know the dream itself. Whence he appears again to have been seized with prodigious fury and became quite implacable. Kings sometimes grow warm, but are appeased by a single admonition, and hence this sentiment is very true, — anger is assuaged by mild language. But since the fair reply of the Magi did not mitigate the king’s wrath, he was quite hurried away by diabolical vehemence. And all this, as I have said, was governed by God’s secret counsel, that Daniel’s explanation might be more noticed. They next ask the king — to relate his dream, and then they promise as before to interpret it directly. And even this was too great a boast, as we have said, and they ought to have corrected their own conceit and foolish boasting when in such a difficulty. But since they persist in that foolish and fallacious self-conceit, it shews us how they were blinded by the devil, just as those who have become entangled by superstitious deceptions confidently defend their own madness. Such an example we have in the Magi, who always claimed the power of interpreting dreams.



The king’s exception now follows: — I know, says he, that ye would gain time, since you are aware that the matter has gone from me, or the word has been pronounced, if we adopt the former sense. The king here accuses them of more disgraceful cunning, since the Magi have nothing to offer, and so desire to escape as soon as they know that the king has lost all remembrance of his dream. It is just as if he had said — You promised me to be sure interpreters of my dream, but this is false; for if I could narrate the dream, it would be easy to prove your arrogance, since ye cannot explain that enigma; but as lye know I have forgotten my dream, for that reason ye ask me to relate it; but this is only to gain time, says he; thus ye manage to conceal your ignorance and retain your credit for knowledge. But if my dream still remained in my memory I should soon detect your ignorance, for we cannot perform your boasting. We see, therefore, how the king here loads the Magi with a new crime, because they were impostors who deluded the people with false boastings; and hence he shews them worthy of death, unless they relate his dream. The argument indeed is utterly vicious; but it is not surprising when tyrants appear in the true colors of their cruelty. Meanwhile we must remember what I have said. — the Magi deserved this reproof, for they were puffed up with vanity and made false promises, through conjecturing the future from dreams, auguries, and the like. But in the king’s case, nothing was more unjust. than to invent such a crime against the Magi, since if they deceived others it arose from being self-deceived. They were blinded and fascinated by the foolish persuasion of their own wisdom, and had no intention of deceiving the king; for they thought something might immediately occur which would free his mind from all anxiety. But the king always pursued the blindest impulse of his rage. Meanwhile we must notice the origin of this feeling, — he was divinely tormented, and could not rest a single moment till he obtained an explanation of his dream. He next adds, If ye do not explain my dream, this sentence alone remains for you, says he; that is, it is already decreed concerning you all, I shall not inquire particularly which of you is in fault and which wishes to deceive me; but I will utterly cut off all the tribe of the Magi, and no one shall escape punishment, unless ye explain to me both the dream and its interpretation.



He adds again, Ye have prepared a fallacious and corrupt speech to relate here before me, as your excuse. Again, the king charges them with fraud and malice, of which they were not guilty; as if he had said, they purposely sought specious pretenses for practicing deceit. But he says, a lying speech, or fallacious and corrupt; that is, yours is a stale excuse, as we commonly say, and I loathe it. If there were any colorable pretext I might admit what. ye say, but I see in your words nothing but fallacies, and those too which savor of corruption. Now, therefore, we observe the king not only angry because the Magi cannot relate his dream, but charging it against them, as a greater crime, that they brought a stale excuse and wished purposely to deceive him. He next adds, tell me the dream and then I shall know it; or then I shall know that ye can faithfully interpret, its meaning. Here the king takes up another argument to convict the Magi of cunning. Ye boast, indeed, that you have no difficulty in interpreting the dream. How can ye be confident of this, for the dream itself is still unknown to you? If I had told it you, ye might then say whether ye could explain it or not; but when I now ask you about the dream of which both you and I are ignorant, ye say, when have related the dream, the rest is in your power; I therefore shall prove you to be good and true interpreters of dreams if ye can tell me mine, since the one thing depends on the other, and ye are too rash in presuming upon what is not yet discovered. Since, therefore, ye burst forth so hastily, and wish to persuade me that ye are sure of the interpretation, you are evidently quite deceived in this respect; and your rashness and fraud are herein detected, because ye are clearly deceiving me. This is the substance — the rest to-morrow.



The Chaldeans again excuse themselves for not relating the king’s dream. They say, in reality, this is not their peculiar art or science; and they know of no example handed down of wise men being asked in this way, and required to answer as well de facto as de jure, as the phrase is. They boasted themselves to be interpreters of dreams, but their conjectures could not be extended to discover the dreams themselves, but only their interpretation. This was a just excuse, yet the king does not admit it, but is impelled by his own wrath and by the divine instinct to shew the Magi, and sorcerers, and astrologers, to be mere impostors and deceivers of the people. And we must observe the end in view, because God wished to extol his servant Daniel, and to separate him from the common herd. They add, that no kings had ever dealt thus with Magi and wise men. It afterwards follows: —



They add, that the object of the king’s inquiry surpassed the power of human ingenuity. There is no doubt that they were slow to confess this, because, as we said before, they had acquired the fame of such great wisdom, that the common people thought nothing unknown to them or concealed from them. And most willingly would they have escaped the dire necessity of confessing their ignorance in this respect, but in their extremity they were compelled to resort to this subterfuge. There may be a question why they thought the matter about which the king inquired was precious; for as they were ignorant of the king’s dream, how could they ascertain its value? But it is not surprising that men, under the influence of extreme anxiety and fear, should utter anything without judgment. They say, therefore, — this matter is precious; thus they mingle flattery with their excuses to mitigate the king’s anger, hoping to escape the unjust death which was at hand. The matter of which the king inquires is precious; and yet it would probably be said, since the, matter was uncommon, that the dream was divinely sent to the king, and was afterwards suddenly buried in oblivion. There certainly was some mystery here, and hence the Chaldeans very reasonably considered the whole subject to surpass in magnitude the common measure of human ability; therefore they add, — there cannot be any other interpreters than gods or angels Some refer this to angels, but we know the Magi to have worshipped a multitude of gods. Hence it is more simple to explain this of the crowd of deities which they imagined. They had, indeed, lesser gods; for among all nations a persuasion has existed concerning a supreme God who reigns alone. Afterwards they imagined inferior deities, and each fabricated a god for himself according to his taste; hence they are called “gods,” according to common opinion and usage, although they ought rather to be denoted genie or demons of the air. For we know that all unbelievers were imbued with this opinion concerning the existence of intermediate deities. The Apostles contended strongly against this ancient error, and we know the books of Plato (123) to be full of the doctrine that demons or genii act as mediators between man and the Heavenly Deity.

We may, then, suitably understand these words that the Chaldeans thought angels the only interpreters; not because they imagined angels as the Scriptures speak of them clearly and sincerely, but the Platonic doctrine flourished among them, and also the superstition about the genii who dwell in heaven, and hold familiar intercourse with the supreme God. Since men are clothed in flesh, they cannot so raise themselves towards heaven as to perceive all secrets. Whence it follows, that the king acted unjustly in requiring them to discharge a duty either angelic or divine. This excuse was indeed probable, but the king’s ears were deaf because he was carried away by his passions, and God also spurred him on by furies, which allowed him no rest. Hence this savage conduct which Daniel records.

(123) A most interesting and singular allegory on this subject occurs in Plato’s Phoedrus, edit. Bekker, Section 51; edit. Priestley, (Lond., 182c,) p.71, et seq.; see also Cic. Tusc. Quoest. 1:16; Aristot. Metaph. 1:5; and De amima, i: 2; Diog. Laert., 8:83.



The former denunciation was horrible, but now Nebuchadnezzar proceeds beyond it; for he not merely threatens the Chaldeans with death, but commands it to be inflicted. Such an example is scarcely to be found in history; but the cause of his wrath must be noticed, since God wished his servant Daniel to be brought forward and to be observed by all men. This was the preparation by which it became generally evident that the wise men of Babylon were proved vain, through promising more than they could perform; even if they had been endowed with the greatest wisdom, they would still have been destitute of that gift of revelation which was conferred upon Daniel. Hence it happened that the king denounced death against them all by his edict; for he might then perhaps acknowledge what he had never perceived before, namely, that their boasting was nothing but vanity, and their arts full of superstitions. For when superstition fails of success, madness immediately succeeds, and when those who are thought and spoken of as remarkably devout, perceive their fictitious worship to be of no avail, then they burst forth into the madness which I have mentioned, and curse their idols, and detest what they had hitherto followed. So it occurred here, when Nebuchadnezzar suspected imposture in so serious a matter, and no previous suspicion of it had entered his mind; but now, when he sees through the deception, in so perplexing a case, and hi such great anxiety, when left destitute of the advice of those from whom he hoped all things, then he is a hundredfold more infuriated than if he had been previously in a state of perfect calmness. It afterwards follows: —



It appears from these words that some of the wise men had been slain, for Daniel at first is not required for slaughter; but when the Magi and Chaldeans were promiscuously dragged out for punishment, Daniel and his companions were in the same danger. And this is clearly expressed thus — widen the edict had gone forth, that is, was published, according to the Latin phrase, and the wise mere were slain, then Daniel was also sought for; because the king would never suffer his decree to be despised after it had once been published; for if he had publicly commanded this to be done, and no execution had been added, would not this have been ridiculous? Hence, very probably, the slaughter of the Magi and Chaldeans was extensive. Although the king had no lawful reason for this conduct, yet they deserved their punishment; for, as we said yesterday, they deserved to be exterminated from the world, and the pest must be removed if it could possibly be accomplished. If Nebuchadnezzar had been like David, or Hezekiah, or Josiah, he might most justly have destroyed them all, and have purged the land from such defilements; but as he was only carried away by the fervor of his wrath, he was himself in fault. Meanwhile, God justly punishes the Chaldeans, and this admonition ought to profit the whole people. They were hardened in their error, and were doubtless rendered more excuseless by being blinded against such a judgment of God. Because Daniel was condemned to death, though he had not been called by the king, the injustice of the edicts of those kings who do not inquire into the causes of which they are judges, becomes more manifest.



Nebuchadnezzar had often heard of Daniel, and had been compelled to admire the dexterity of his genius, and the singular gift of his wisdom. How comes it, then, that he passed him by when he had need of his singular skill? Although the king anxiously inquires concerning the dream, yet we observe he does not act seriously; since it would doubtless have come into his mind, “Behold, thou hadst formerly beheld in the captives of Judah the incredible gift of celestial wisdom — -then, in the first place, send for them!” Here the king’s sloth is detected because he did not send for Daniel among the rest. We have stated this to be governed by the secret providence of God, who was unwilling that his servant should mix with those ministers of Satan, whose whole knowledge consisted in juggling and errors. We now see how the king had neglected the gift of God, and had stifled the light offered to him; but Daniel is next dragged to death. Therefore, I said, that tyrants are, for this reason, very unjust, and exercise a cruel violence because they will not undertake the labor and trouble of inquiry. Meanwhile we see that God wonderfully snatches his own people from the jaws of death, as it happened in Daniel’s case; for we may be surprised at Arioch sparing his life when he slew the others who were natives. How can we account for Daniel meeting with more humanity than the Chaldeans, though he was a foreigner and a captive? Because his life was in the hand and keeping of God, who restrained both the mind and the hand of the prefect from being immediately savage with him. But it is said — Daniel inquired concerning the counsel and the edict Some translate prudently and cunningly and עטא, gneta, signifies “prudence, ” just as טעם , tegem, metaphorically is received for “intelli gence” when it signifies taste. (126) But we shall afterwards find this latter word used for an edict, and because this sense appears to suit better, I therefore adopt it, as Daniel had inquired of the prefect the meaning of the edict and the king’s design. Arioch also is called the Prince of Satellites. Some translate it of executioners, and others of cooks, for טבח, tebech, signifies “to slay,” but the noun deduced from this means a cook. Thus Potiphar is called, to whom Joseph was sold. (Gen 39:1.) It seems to me a. kind of absurdity to call him the prince of gaolers; and if we say the prefect of cooks, it is equally unsuitable to his office of being sent to slay the Chaldeans. I therefore prefer interpreting it more mildly, supposing him to be the prefect of the guards; for, as I have said, Potiphar is called רב טבחים , reb tebechi, and here the pronunciation only is changed. It follows:



(126) So translated in Auth. Verses, Exo 16:31; Num 11:8; Job 6:6; and Jer 48:11.



Daniel also had said,Whither does the edict haste from before the king? It seems by these words, that Daniel obliquely blames the king’s anger and ingratitude, because he did not inquire with sufficient diligence before he rushed forward to that cruel punishment. Then he seems to mark his ingratitude, since he is now undeservedly doomed to death without being sent for, though the king might have known what was in him. As he refers to haste, I do not doubt his expostulating with the king, since he was neither called for nor listened to, and yet was to be slain with the rest, as if he were guilty of the same fault as the Chaldeans. The conclusion is, — there was no reason for such haste, since the king would probably find what he desired, if he inquired more diligently. It is afterwards added, Arioch explained the matter to Daniel. Whence it appears that Daniel was formerly ignorant of the whole matter; and hence we may conjecture the amount of the terror which seized upon the pious man. For he had known nothing about it, and was led to punishment suddenly and unexpectedly, as if he had been guilty. Hence, it was necessary for him to be divinely strengthened, that he might with composure seek the proper time from both the prefect and the king, for relating the dream and adding its interpretation. Daniel’s power of acting so composedly, arose from God’s singular gift, since terror would otherwise have seized on his mind; for we are aware that in sudden events, we become deprived of all plan, and lose our presence of mind. Since nothing of this kind was perceived in Daniel, it becomes clear that his mind was governed by God’s Spirit. It is afterwards added-



This verse contains nothing new, unless we must notice what is not expressed, namely, that the prefect was not entirely without fear in giving Daniel an introduction to the king. For he knew the Icing to be very angry, and himself under serious displeasure, for not immediately executing the edict. But, as we have already said, God had taken Daniel into his confidence, and so bends and tames the mind of the prefect, that he no longer hesitates to introduce Daniel to the king. Another point is also gathered from the context, namely, Daniel’s obtaining his request; for it is said, he returned home, doubtless, because he obtained a single day from the king with the view of satisfying his demands on the next day. And yet it is surprising that this favor was granted, since the king wished the dream narrated to him immediately. Although Daniel does not here relate the reasons which he used with the king, yet most probably he confessed what we shall afterwards observe in its own place, namely, that he was not endued with sufficient intelligence to expound the dream, but hoping in God’s kindness, he would return next day with a new revelation. Otherwise the king would never have permitted this, if Daniel had petitioned doubtfully; or if he had not borne witness to his hopes of some, secret revelation from God, he would have been rejected immediately, and would have provoked still further the anger of the king. The Hebrews very commonly mention afterwards, in the context, whatever they omit in its proper place. So when he modestly confesses his inability to satisfy the king, till he has received from the Lord a faithful message, the king grants him the required time, as we shall see; more clearly afterwards. It follows —



We observe with what object and with what confidence Daniel demanded an extension of time. His object was to implore God’s grace. Confidence was also added, since he perceived a double punishment awaiting him, if he disappointed the king; if he had returned the next day without reply, the king would not have been content with an easy death, but would have raged with cruelty against Daniel, in consequence of his deception. Without the slightest doubt, Daniel expected what he obtained — namely, that the king’s dream would be revealed to him. He therefore urges his companions to implore unitedly mercy from God. Daniel had already obtained the singular gift of being an interpreter of dreams, and as. we, have seen, he alone was a Prophet. of God. God was accustomed to manifest his intentions to his Prophets by dreams or visions, (Num 12:6,) and Daniel had obtained both. Since Misael, Hananiah, and Azariah were united with him in prayer, we gather that they were not induced by ambition, to desire anything for themselves; for if they had been rivals of Daniel, they could not have prayed in concord with him. They did not pray about their own private concerns, but only for the interpretation of the dream being made known to Daniel. We observe, too, how sincerely they agree in their prayers, how all pride and ambition is laid aside, and without any desire for their own advantage. Besides, it is worthy of notice why they are said to have desired mercy from God Although they, do not hem come into God’s presence as criminals, yet they hoped their request would be graciously granted, and hence the word “mercy” is used. Whenever we fly to God to bring assistance to our necessities, our eyes and all our senses ought always to be turned towards his nlerey, for his more good will reconciles him to us. When it is said, at. the close of the verse, — they should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon, some explain this, as if they had been anxious about the life of the Magi, and wished to snatch them also from death. But although they wished all persons to be safe, clearly enough they here separate themselves from the Magi and Chaldeans; their conduct was far different. It now follows —



Here it may be gathered, that Daniel did not vacillate nor pray with his companions through any doubt upon his mind. For that sentence of James ought to come into our memory, namely, Those who hesitate, and tremble, and pray to God with difference, are unworthy of being heard. Let not such a one, says James, think he shall obtain anything from the Lord, if he is driven about variously like the waves of the sea. (Jas 1:6.) As God, therefore, shewed himself propitious to the prayers of Daniel, we conclude him to have prayed with true faith, and to be clearly persuaded that his life was in God’s hands; hence, also, he felt that God did not vainly harass the mind of King Nebuchadnezzar, but was preparing some signal and remarkable judgment for him. Because Daniel was imbued with this firm persuasion, he exercises a sure confidence, and prays to God as if he had already obtained his request. On the other hand, we perceive that God never closes his ears when rightly and cordially invoked, as also it is said in the Psalms, (Psa 145:18,) He is near to all who pray to him in truth; for there cannot be truth when faith is wanting; but as Daniel brought faith and sincerity to his prayers, he was listened to, and the secret concerning the dream was made known to him in a vision by night. I cannot now proceed any further.



Daniel here pursues his narrative, and thanks God after King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream had been made known to him, while he relates the sense of the words which he had used. May God’s name be blessed, says he, from age to age We ought daily to wish for this; for when we pray that God’s name may be hallowed, continuance is denoted under this form of prayer. But Daniel here breaks forth into the praises of God with greater vehemence, because he acknowledges his singular benefit in being snatched away from death, together with his companions, beyond his expectation. Whenever God confers any remarkable blessing on his servants, they are the more stirred up to praise him, as David says, (Psa 40:3,) Thou hast put a new song into my mouth. And Isaiah also uses this form of speech twice, (Isa 42:10,) as if God had given him material for a new and unusual song, in dealing so wonderfully with his Church. So also, there is no doubt that Daniel here wished to praise God in a remarkable manner, since he had received a rare proof of his favor in being delivered from instant death. Afterwards he adds, whose (or since his) is the wisdom and the strength; for the relative is here taken for the causal particle, and the sentence ought to be so expressed; the additional particles may avail to strengthen the expression, and be taken exclusively, as if he had said, — to God alone ought the praise of wisdom and virtue to be ascribed. Without him, indeed, both are sought in vain; but these graces do not seem to suit the present purpose; for Daniel ought rather to celebrate God’s praises, through this vision being opened, and this was enough to content him. But he may here speak of God’s glory as well from his power as his wisdom; as, when, re Scripture wishes to distinguish the true God from all fictions, it takes these two principles — first, God governs all things by his own hand, and retains them under his sway; and secondly, nothing is hid from him — and these points cannot be separated when his majesty is to be proved. We see mankind fabricating deities for themselves, and thus multiplying gods, and distributing to each his own office; because they cannot rest in simple unity, when God is treated of. Some fancy God retains but half his attributes; as. for instance, the praters about bare foreknowledge. They admit nothing to be hidden to God, and his knowledge of all things; and this they prove by the prophecies which occur in the Scriptures. What they say is true; but they very much lessen the glory of God; nay, they tear it to pieces by likening him to Apollo, whose office it formerly was, hi the opinion of the heathen, to predict future events. When they sought predictions of future events, they endued Apollo with the virtue of making known to them future occurrences. Many at the present time think God able to foresee all things, but suppose him either to dissemble or purposely withdraw from the government of the world.

Lastly, Their notion of God’s foreknowledge is but a cold and idle speculation. Hence I said, they rob God of half his glory, and, as far as they can, tear him to pieces. But Scripture, when it wishes to assert what is peculiar to God, joins these two things inseparably; first, God foresees all things, since nothing is hidden from his eyes; and next, he appoints future events, and governs the world by his will, allowing nothing to happen by chance or without his direction. Daniel here assumes this principle, or rather unites the two, by asserting Israel’s God alone to deserve the name, since both wisdom and strength are in his power. We must remember how God is defrauded of his just praise when we do not connect these two attributes together — his universal foresight and his government of the world allowing nothing to happen without his permission. But as it would be too cold to assert that to God alone belongs wisdom and strength, unless his wisdom was conspicuous, and his strength openly acknowledged, hence it follows immediately afterwards —



Daniel explains, in these words, what might have been obscure; for he teaches God to be the true fountain of wisdom and virtue, while he does not confine them to himself alone, but diffuses them through heaven and earth. And we must mark this diligently; for when Paul affirms God alone to be wise, this praise does not seem magnificent enough, (Rom 16:27;) but when we think of God’s wisdom, and set before our eyes all around and about us, then we feel more strongly the import of Paul’s words, that God only is wise. God, therefore, as I have already stated, does not keep His wisdom confined to himself, but makes it flow throughout the whole world. The full sense of the verse is, — whatever wisdom and power exists in the world, is a testimony to the Almighty’s. This is man’s ingratitude; whenever they find anything worthy of praise in themselves or others, they claim it directly as their own, and thus God’s glory is diminished by the depravity of those who obtain their blessings from him. We are here taught not to detract anything from God’s wisdom and power, since wherever these qualities are conspicuous in the world, they ought rather to reflect his glory. We now perceive the Prophet’s meaning — God places before our eyes, as in a glass, the proofs of his wisdom and power, when the affairs of the world roll on, and mankind become powerful through wisdom, and some are raised on high, and others fall to the ground. Experience teaches us these events do not proceed from human skill, or through the equable course of nature, while the loftiest kings are cast down and others elevated to the highest posts of honor. Daniel, therefore, admonishes us not to seek in heaven alone for God’s wisdom and power, since it is apparent to us on earth, and proofs of it are daily presented to our observation. We now see how these two verses are mutually united He had stated wisdom to belong exclusively to God; he now shews that it is not hidden within him, but is made manifest to us; and we may perceive by familiar experience, how all wisdom flows from him as its exclusive fountain. We ought to feel the same concurring power also.

It is he, then, who changes times and portions of time. We know it to be ascribed to fortune when the world passes through such uncertain changes that everything is daily changing. hence the profane consider all things to be acted on by blind impulse, and others affirm the human race to be a kind of sport to God, since men are tossed about like balls. But, as I have already said, it is not surprising to find men of a perverse and corrupt disposition thus perverting the object of all God’s works. For our own practical improvement we should consider what the Prophet is here teaching, how revolutions, as they are called, are testimonies of God’s power, and point out with the finger to the truth that the affairs of men are ruled by the Most High. For we must of necessity adopt one or the other of these views, either that nature rules over human events, or else fortune turns about in every direction, things which ought to have an even course. As far as nature is concerned, its course would be even, unless God by his singular counsel, as we have seen, thus changes the course of the times. Yet those philosophers who assign the supreme authority to nature are much sounder than others who place fortune in the highest rank. For if we admit for a moment this latter opinion that fortune directs human affairs by a kind of blind impulse, whence comes this fortune? If you ask them for a definition, what answer will they make? They will surely be compelled to confess this, the word “fortune ” explains nothing. But neither God nor nature will have any place in this vain and changeable government of the world, where all things throw themselves into distinct forms without the least order or connection. And if this be granted, truly the doctrine of Ephcurus will be received, because if God resigns the supreme government of the world, so that all things are rashly mingled together, he is no longer God. But in this variety he rather displays his hand in claiming for himself the empire over the world. In so many changes, then, which meet us on every side, and by which the whole face of things is renewed, we must remember that the Providence of God shines forth; and things do not flow on in an even course, because then the peculiar property of God might with some shew of reason be ascribed to nature. God, I say, so changes empires, and times, and seasons, that we should learn to look up to him. If the sun always rose and set at the same period, or at least certain symmetrical changes took place yearly, without any casual change; if the days of winter were not short, and those of summer not long, we might then discover the same order of nature, and in this way God would be rejected from his own dominion. But when the days of winter not only differ in length from those of summer, but even spring does not always retain the same temperature, but is sometimes stormy and snowy, and at others warm and genial; and since summers are so various, no year being just like the former one; since the air is changed every hour, and the heavens put on new appearances — when we discern all these things, God rouses us up, that we may not grow torpid in our own grossness, and erect nature into a deity, and de-wive him of his lawful honor, and transfer to our own fancy what he claims for himself alone. If then, in these ordinary events, we are compelled to acknowledge God’s Providence, if any change of greater moment arises, as when God transfers empires from one hand to another, and all but transforms the whole world, ought we not then to be the more affected, unless we are utterly stupid? Daniel, therefore, very reasonably corrects the perverse opinion which commonly seizes upon the senses of all, that the world either rolls on by chance, or that nature is the supreme deity, when he asserts — God changes times and seasons.

It is evident from the context, that he is here properly speaking of empires, since he appoints and removes kings We feel great difficulty in believing kings placed upon their thrones by a divine power, and afterwards deposed again, since we naturally fancy that they acquire their power by their own talents, or by hereditary right, or by fortuitous accident Meanwhile all thought of God is excluded, when the industrly, or valor, or success, or any other quality of man is extolled! Hence it is said in the Psalms, neither from the east nor the west, but God alone is the judge. (Psa 75:6.) The Prophet there derides the discourses of those who call themselves Wise, and who gather up reasons from all sides to shew how power is assigned to man, by either his own counsel and valor, or by good fortune or other human and inferior instruments. Look round, says he, wherever you please, from the rising to the setting of the sun, and you will find no reason why one man becomes lord of his fellow-creatures rather than another. God alone is the judge; that is, the government must remain entirely with the one God. So also in this passage, the Lord is said to appoint kings, and to raise them from the rest of mankind as he pleases. As this argument is a most important one, it might be treated more copiously; but since the same opportunity will occur in other passages, I comment but shortly on the contents of this verse; for we shall often have to treat of the state of kingdoms and of their ruin and changes. I am therefore unwilling to add anything more at present, as it is sufficient to explain Daniel’s intention thus briefly.

He afterwards adds, — he gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who are endued with it In this second clause, the Prophet confirms what we have already said, that God’s wisdom is not shrouded in darkness, but is manifested to us, as he daily gives us sure and remarkable proofs of this. Meanwhile he here corrects the ingratitude of men who assume to themselves the praise of their own excellencies which spring from God, and thus become almost sacrilegious. Daniel, therefore, asserts that men have no wisdom but what springs from God. Men are, indeed, clever and intelligent, but the question arises, whether it springs from themselves? He also shews us how mankind are to be blamed in claiming anything as their own, since they have really nothing belonging to them, however they may be wrapt, in admiration of themselves. Who then will boast of becoming wise by his own innate strength? Has he originated the intellect with which he is endowed? Because God is the sole author of wisdom and knowledge, the gifts by which he has adorned men ought not to obscure his glory, but rather to illustrate it. He afterwards adds —



He pursues the same sentiment, and confirms it, — that all mortals receive from God’s Spirit whatever intelligence and light they enjoy; but he proceeds a step further in this verse than in the last. He had said generally, that, men receive wisdom and understanding by God’s good will; but here he speaks specially; for when a man’s understanding is rare and unusual, there God’s gift shines forth more clearly; as if he had said — God not only distributes to every one according to the measure of his own liberality, whatever acuteness and ingenuity they possess, but he adorns some with such intelligence that they appear as his interpreters. He speaks, therefore, here, specially of the gift of prophecy; as if he had said, God’s goodness is conspicuous, not only in the ordinary prudence of mankind, for no one is so made as to be unable to discover between justice and injustice, and to form some plan for regulating his life; but in Prophets there is something extraordinary, which renders God’s wisdom more surprising. Whence, then, do Prophets obtain the power of prophesying concerning hidden events, and penetrating above the heavens, and surpassing all bounds? Is this common to all men? Surely this far exceeds the ordinary ability of man, while the Prophet here teaches that; God’s beneficence and power deserve more praise, because he reveals hidden and secret things; and in this sense he adds — light dwells with God; as if he had said, — God differs very much from us, since we are involved in many clouds and mists; but to God all things are clear; he has no occasion to hesitate, or inquire, and has no need to be hindered through ignorance. Now, we fully understand the Prophet’s meaning.

Let us learn from this passage to attribute to God that praise which the greater part of the world claims to itself with sacrilegious audacity, though God shews it to belong to himself. Whatever understanding or judgment we may possess, we should remember that it was first received from God. Hence, also, if we have but a small portion of common sense, we are still equally indebted to God, for we should be like stocks or stones unless by his secret instinct he endued us with understanding. But if any one excels others, and obtains the admiration of all men, he ought still modestly to submit himself to God, and acknowledge himself the more bound to him, because he has received more than others. For who knows himself fully but God? The more, therefore, he excels in understanding, the more he will lay aside all claims of his own, and extol the beneficence of God. Thirdly, let, us learn that the understanding of spiritual things is a rare and singular gift of the Holy Spirit, in which God’s power shines forth conspicuously. Let us guard against that diabolical pride by which we see almost; the whole world to be swollen and intoxicated. And in this respect we should chiefly glorify God, as he has not, only adorned us with ordinary foresight, enabling us to discern between good and evil, but raised us above the ordinary level of human nature, and so enlightened us that we can understand things far exceeding our capacities. When Daniel pronounces light to be with God, we must supply a tacit antithesis; since he indicates, as I have already said, that men are surrounded by thick darkness, and grope about in obscurity. The habitation of men is here obliquely contrasted with the sanctuary of God; as if the Prophet had said, there is no pure and perfect light but in God alone. Hence, when we remain in our natural state, we must necessarily wander in darkness, or at least be obscured by many clouds. These words naturally lead us not to rest satisfied in our own position, but to seek from God that light in which he only dwells. Meanwhile, we should remember how God dwells in light unapproachable, (1Ti 6:16,) unless he deigns to stretch forth his hand to us. Hence, if we desire to become partakers of this divine light, let us be, on our guard against audacity, and mindful of our ignorance; let; us seek God’s illumination. Thus his light will not be inaccessible to us, when, by his Spirit, he shall conduct us beyond the skies. He afterwards adds —



Daniel turns his discourse to God. I confess to thee, says he, O God of my fathers, and praise thee Here he more openly distinguishes the God of the Israelites from all the fictions of the nations. Nor does he use this epithet in vain, when he praises the God of his fathers; for he wishes to reduce to nothing all the fabrications of the Gentiles concerning a multitude of deities. Daniel rejects this as a vain and foolish thing, and shews how the God of Israel alone is worthy of praise. But he does not found the glory of God on the authority of their fathers, as the Papists, when they wish to ascribe the supreme power to either George, or Catharine, or any others, count up the number of ages during which the error has prevailed. Thus they wish whatever the consent of mankind has approved to be received as oracular. But if religion depended on the common consent of mankind, where would be its stability? We know nothing vainer than the minds of men. If man is weighed, says the Prophet, with vanity in a balance, vanity itself will preponderate. (Psa 62:9.) Nothing, therefore, is more foolish than this principle of this king, — what has prevailed by the consent of many ages must be religiously true. But here Daniel partially commends the God of their fathers, as their fathers were the sorts of God. For that sacred adoption prevailed among the Jews, by which God chose Abraham and his whole family for himself. Daniel, therefore, here does not extol the persons of men, as if they either could or ought to add anything they pleased to God; but this is the reason why he says, the God of Israel is the God of their fathers, since he was of that race which the Almighty had adopted. On the whole, he so opposes the God of Israel to all the idols of the Gentiles, that the mark of separation is in the covenant itself, and in the celestial doctrine by which he revealed himself to the sacred fathers. For while the Gentiles have no certain vision, and follow only their own dreams, Daniel here deservedly sets forth the God of their fathers.

He afterwards adds, because thou hast given me wisdom and strength As far as relates to wisdom, the reason is. clear enough why Daniel thanks God, since he had obtained, as he soon afterwards says, the revelation of the dream. He had also formerly been endued with the prophetic spirit and with visions. as he related in the first chapter, (Dan 1:17.) We may here, inquire what he means by strength? He was not remarkable for his honor among men, nor was he ever a commander in military affairs, and he had no superior gift of magnificent power to cause him to return thanks to God. But Daniel regards this as the principal point, that the God. of Israel was then acknowledged as the true and only God; because, whatever wisdom and virtue exists in the world, it flows from him as its only source. For this reason he speaks of himself as well as of all others, as if he had said — If I have any strength or understanding, I ascribe it all to thee; it is thine entirely. And, truly, though Daniel was neither a king nor a prefect, yet that unconquered greatness of mind which we have seen was not to be esteemed as without value. Hence he very properly acknowledges something of this kind to have been conferred upon him by heaven. Lastly, his intention is to debase himself and to attribute to God his own; but he speaks concisely, as we have said, since under the phrases “power ” and “wisdom ” he had previously embraced the proof of his divinity. He afterwards adds, Thou hast revealed to me what we demanded of thee; thou hast made known to us the king’s inquiry There seems here a slight discrepancy, as he praises God for granting him a revelation of the dream, and then unites others to himself. Yet the revelation was not common to them, but peculiar to himself. The solution is easy; for he first expresses that this was given to himself specially, that he might know the king’s dream and understand its interpretation. When he has confessed this, he extends the benefit to his companions, and deservedly so; because though they did not yet understand what God had conferred upon Daniel, yet he had obtained this in their favor,-they were all snatched from death, and all their prayers attended to. And this availed very much for the confirmation of their faith as it assured them they had not prayed in vain. For we said that there was no ambition in their prayers, as if any one desired any peculiar gift by which he might acquire honor and estimation for himself in the world. Nothing of the kind. It was enough for them to shew forth God’s name among unbelievers; because by his kindness, they had been delivered from death. Hence Daniel very properly says, the king’s dream was made known to him with its interpretation; and this he will afterwards transfer to his companions.



Before Daniel sent his message to the king, as we saw yesterday, he discharged the duty of piety as he ought, for he testified his gratitude to God for revealing the secret. But he now says, that he came to Arioch, who had been sent by the king to, slay the Magi, and asked him not to kill them, for he had a revelation; of which we shall afterwards treat. Here we must notice that some of the Magi were slain, as I have said. For after Arioch had received the king’s mandate, he would never have dared to delay it even a few days; but a delay occurred after Daniel had requested a short space of time, to be afforded him. Then Arioch relaxed from the severity of the king’s order against the Magi; and now Daniel asks him to spare the remainder. He seems, indeed, to have done this with little judgment, because we ought to desire the utter abolition of magical arts, for we saw before that they were diabolical sorceries. It may be answered thus, — although Daniel, saw many faults and corruptions in the Magi and their art, or science, or false pretensions to knowledge, yet, since the principles were true, he was unwilling to allow what had proceeded from God to be blotted out. But; it seems to me that Daniel’s object was somewhat different, for although the Magi might have been utterly destroyed without the slightest difficulty, yet he looks rather to the cause, and therefore wished the persons to be spared. It will often happen that wicked men are called in question as well as those who have deserved a tenfold death; but if they are not punished for any just reason, we ought; to spare their persons, not through their worthiness, but through our own habitual sense of equity and rectitude. It is therefore probable that Daniel, when he saw the king’s command concerning the slaughter of the Magi to be so tyrannical, went out to meet him, lest; they should all be slain with savage and cruel violence, without; the slightest reason. I therefore think that Daniel spared the Magi, but not through any personal regard; he wished them to be safe, but for another purpose, namely, to await their punishment from God. Their iniquity was not yet ripe for destruction through the indignation of the king. It is not surprising, then, that Daniel wished, as far as possible, to hinder this cruelty. It afterwards follows, —



It may here be a question, in what sense Arioch speaks of bringing Daniel before the king, as if it were something new. For Daniel had already requested from the king time for prayer, as we have seen. Why then does Arioch now boast ofhaving found a man of the captives of Judah, as if he were speaking of all obscure and unknown person? But very probably Daniel requested the time for prayer from Arioch, since we learn from history how difficult it was to approach those kings; for they thought it a profanation of their majesty to be polite and humane. The conjecture, therefore, is probable, that Arioch was the channel through whom the king granted the time to Daniel; or, we may suppose the words of Arioch are not simply related, but that Daniel shews the great boasting of courtiers, who always praise their own good offices, and adorn them with the splendor of words. Hence Arioch reminds the king how he had met with Daniel, and had at length obtained what the king very urgently desired. I do not therefore dwell longer on this, since either Arioch then explained more clearly to the long that Daniel could interpret, his dream; or he joined what had formerly been done; or else Daniel had obtained this before; or he had begged of the king that some time should be given to Daniel. He puts sons of transmigration, or captivity, a usual scriptural phrase for captives, although this noun is collective. It now follows, —



The king uses these words through his despair of all interpretation, since he perceived all the Magi in this respect without judgment and understanding; for he was at first persuaded that the Magi alone were the possessors of wisdom. Since he had asked them in vain, the error with which he was imbued, as I have said, prevented him from hoping for anything better elsewhere. Through surprise, then, he here inquires, as if the thing were impossible, Have you that power? There is no doubt that God drew this interrogation from the proud king to render his grace in Daniel more illustrious. The less hope there was in the king himself, the more there was in the revelation of both dignity and reverence, as we shall afterwards see; for the, king was astonished, and fell prostrate through stupor upon the earth before a captive! This is the reason wily Daniel relates the use of this interrogation by the king. It now follows, —



First, with respect to these names we need not trouble ourselves much, since even the Jews themselves are compelled to guess at them. They are very bold in their definitions and rash in their affirmations, and jet they cannot clearly distinguish how one kind of wise man differed from the others; hence it is sufficient for us to hold that the discourse now concerns those then esteemed “wise men,” under the various designations of Magi, Soothsayers, and Astrologers. Now, as to Daniel’s answer. He says it was not surprising that the king did not find what he hoped for among the Magi, since God had breathed into him this dream beyond the comprehension of human intellect. I know not whether those interpreters are right who think magical arts here simply condemned; for I rather think a comparison is instituted; between the king’s dream and the substance of the science of the Magi. I always exclude superstitions by which they vitiated true and genuine science. But as far as the principles are concerned, we cannot precisely condemn astronomy and whatever belongs to the consideration of the order of nature. This appears to me the whole intention, — the king’s dream was not subjected to human knowledge, for mortals have no such natural skill as to be able to comprehend the meaning of the dream, and God manifests those secrets which need the peculiar revelation of the Spirit. When Daniel says the Magi, Astrologers, and the rest cannot explain to the king his dream, and are not suitable interpreters of it, the true reason is, because the dream was not natural and had nothing in common with human conjectures, but was the peculiar revelation of the Spirit. As when Paul disputes concerning the Gospel, he collects into order every kind of intelligence among men, because those who are endued with any remarkable acuteness or ability think they can accomplish anything. But the doctrine of the Gospel is a heavenly mystery (1Co 2:4) which cannot be comprehended by the most learned and talented among men. The real sense of Daniel’s words is this, — the Magi, Astrologers, and Soothsayers had no power of expounding the king’s dream, since it was neither natural nor human.

This is clearly evident from the context, because he adds,



There is a God in heaven who reveals secrets For I take ברם, berem, here for the adversative particle. He opposes therefore the revelation of God to the conjectures and interpretations of the Magi, since all human sciences are included, so to speak, within their own bounds and bolts. Daniel, therefore, says that the matter requires the singular gift of the Holy Spirit. The same God also who revealed the king’s dream to Daniel, distributes to each of us ability and skill according to his own pleasure. Whence does it arise that some are remarkable for quickness and others for stupidity and sloth? — that some become proficients in human arts and learning, and others remain utterly ignorant, unless God shews, by this variety, how by his power and will the minds of men become enlightened or remain blunt and stupid? As the Almighty is the supreme origin of all intelligence in the world, What Daniel here says is not generally true; and this contrast, unless we come to particulars, is either cold or superfluous. We understand, therefore, why he said in the former verse that the Magi and Astrologers could not explain the king’s dream, since the Almighty had raised King Nebuchadnezzar above the common level for the purpose of explaining futurity to him through his dream.

There is then a God in heaven who reveals secrets; he shews to king Nebuchadnezzar what will come to pass. He confirms what I have said, that the king was utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of his own dream. It often happens that men’s minds move hither and thither, and thus make clever guesses; but Daniel excludes all human media, and speaks of the dream as proceeding directly from God. He adds, what shall happen at the end or extremity of the days We may inquire what he means by the word “extremity.” Interpreters think this ought to be referred to the advent of Christ; but they do not explain why this word signifies Christ’s advent. There is no obscurity in the phrase; “the end of the days” signifies the advent of Christ, because it was a kind of renewal to the world. Most. truly, indeed, the world is still in the same state of agitation as it was when Christ was manifest in the flesh; but, as we shall afterwards see, Christ came for the very purpose of renovating the world, and since his Gospel is a kind of perfection of all things, we are said to be “in the last days.” Daniel compares the whole period preceding Christ’s advent with this extremity of the days. God therefore wished to shew the king of Babylon what should occur after one monarchy had destroyed another, and also that there should be an end of those changes whenever Christ’s kingdom should arrive. At present I touch but briefly on this point, since more must; be said upon it by and bye.

This, says he, is the dream and vision of thy head upon thy couch It may seem absurd for Daniel here to profess to explain to the king the nature of his dream and its interpretation, and yet to put in something else. But, as he will add nothing out of place, we ought not to question the propriety of his saying, this was the king’s vision and his dream; for his object was to rouse the king the more urgently to attend to both the dream and its interpretation. Here we must; take notice how the Prophet persists in this, with the view of persuading the king that God was the author of the dream about. which he inquired of Daniel; for the words would be entirely thrown away unless men were thoroughly persuaded that the explanation given proceeded from God. For many in the present day will hear willingly enough what may be said about the Gospel, but they are not inwardly touched by it, and then all they hear vanishes away and immediately escapes them. Hence reverence is the principle of true and solid understanding. Thus Daniel does not abruptly bring forward either the explanation or the narration of the dream, but prepares the proud king to listen, by shewing him that he neither dreamt at, random nor in accordance with his own thoughts, but was divinely instructed and admonished concerning hidden events. It now follows,-



He again confirms what I have just touched upon, for he wished to impress this upon the king’s mind — that God was the author of the dream, to induce the king to prepare for its interpretation with becoming sobriety, modesty, and docility. For unless he had been seriously affected, he would have despised Daniel’s interpretation; just as we see men fail to profit through their own pride or carelessness even when God addresses. them familiarly. Hence we must observe this order, and be fully prepared to listen to God, and learn to put a bridle upon ourselves on hearing his sacred name, never rejecting whatever he proposes to us, but treating it with proper gravity. This is the true reason why Daniel repeats again that King Nebuchadnezzar was divinely instructed in future events. He says, in the first clause, The king’s thoughts ascended, — the phrase is Hebrew and. Chaldee. Thoughts are said to ascend when they are revolved in the brain or head, as we formerly saw — this vision was in thy head; since the seat of the reasoning faculty is in the head. Daniel therefore asserts the king to be anxious about futurity, as the greatest monarchs think of what shall happen after their death, and every one dreams about enjoying the empire of the whole world. So King Nebuchadnezzar was very probably indulging these thoughts. But it follows immediately, that his thoughts could non profit him unless God unveiled the future, because it was his peculiar office, says the Prophet, to reveal secrets, Here we see clearly how vainly men disturb themselves when they turn over and over again subjects which surpass their abilities. King Nebuchadnezzar might have fatigued himself for a, long time without profit if he had not been instructed by the oracle. Hence there is weight in these words — He who reveals secrets has explained to the king what shall happen; that is, thou canst not understand the dream by thine own thoughts, but God has deemed thee worthy of this peculiar favor when he wished to make thee conscious of mysteries which had been otherwise altogether hidden from thee, for thou couldst never have penetrated to such a depth.

He afterwards adds —



Here Daniel meets an objection which Nebuchadnezzar might make, — If God alone can reveal secrets, how, I pray thee, canst thou, a mere mortal, do it? Daniel anticipates this, and transfers the whole glory to God, and ingenuously confesses that he has no interpretation of his own to offer, but represents himself as led forward by God’s hand to be its interpreter; and as having nothing by his own natural talents, but acting as God pleased to appoint him his servant for this office, and-as using his assistance. This secret, then, says he, has been made known to me By these words he sufficiently declares, how his undertaking to interpret the dream was God’s peculiar gift. But he more clearly expresses this gift to be supernatural, as it is called, by saying, not in the wisdom which belongs to me For if Daniel had surpassed the whole world in intelligence, yet he could never divine what; the king of Babylon had dreamt! He excelled, indeed, in superior abilities and learning, and was endowed, as we have said, with remarkable gifts; yet; he could never have obtained this power which he acquired from God through prayer, (I repeat it; again,) through his own study or industry, or any human exertions.

We observe how Daniel here carefully excludes, not only what men foolishly claim as their own, but; also what God naturally confers; since we know the profane to be endowed with singular talents, and other eminent faculties; and these are called natural, since God desires his gracious gifts to shine forth in the human race by such examples as these. But while Daniel acknowledges himself endowed with no common powers, through the good pleasure and discipline of God, though he confesses this, I say, yet he places this revelation on a higher footing. We observe also how the gifts of the Spirit mutually differ, because Daniel acted in a kind of twofold capacity with regard to the endowments with which it pleased God to adorn him. First of all, he made rapid progress in all sciences, and flourished much in intellectual quickness, and we have already clearly shewn this to be, owing to the mere liberality of God. This liberality puts all things in their proper order, while it shews God’s singular favor in the explanation of the dream.

This secret, then, was not made known to me on account of any wisdom in me beyond the rest of mankind Daniel does not affirm himself to be superior to all men in wisdom, as some falsely twist these words, but he leaves this in doubt by saying, This ought not to be ascribed to wisdom, for if I were the acutest of all men, all my shrewdness would avail me nothing and, again, if I were the rudest idiot, still it is God who uses me as his servant, in interpreting the dream to you. You must not, therefore, expect anything human from me, but you must receive what I say to you, because I am the instrument of God’s Spirit, just as if I had come down from heaven. This is the simple sense of the words. Hence we may learn to ascribe the praise to God alone, to whom it is due; for it is his peculiar office to illuminate our minds, so that we may comprehend heavenly mysteries. For although we are naturally endued with the greatest acuteness, which is also his gift, yet we may call it a limited endowment, as it does not reach to the heavens. Let us learn, then, to leave his own to God, as we are admonished by this expression of Daniel.

He afterwards adds, But that I may make known to the king the interpretation, and thou mayest know the thoughts of thy heart Daniel uses the plural number, but indefinitely; as if he had said, God has left thee indeed hitherto in suspense; but yet he did not inspire thee with this dream in vain. These flyings, therefore, are mutually united, namely, — God has revealed to thee this secret, and has appointed me his interpreter. Thus we perceive Daniel’s meaning. For Nebuchadnezzar might object, Why does God torment me thus? What is the meaning of my perplexity; — first I dream, and then my dream escapes me, and its interpretation is unknown to me? Lest, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar should thus argue with God, Daniel here anticipates him, and shows how neither the dream nor the vision occurred in vain; but God now grants what was there wanting, namely, the return of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar’s memory, and at the same time his acknowledgment of its purport, and the reason of its being sent to him.



Although Daniel here records the dream, and does not touch on its interpretation, yet we must not proceed farther without discoursing on the matter itself. When the interpretation is afterwards added, we shall confirm what we have previously said, and amplify as the context may guide us. Here Daniel records how Nebuchadnezzar saw an image consisting of gold, silver, brass, and iron, but its feet were mixed, partly of iron and portly of clay. We have already treated of the name of the “Vision,” but I briefly repeat again, — king Nebuchadnezzar did not see this image here mentioned, with his natural eyes, but it was a specimen of the revelation which he knew with certainty to have been divinely offered to him. Otherwise, he might have thrown off all care, and acted as he pleased; but God held him down in complete torment, until Daniel came as its interpreter.

Nebuchadnezzar then saw an image. All writers endowed with a sound judgment and candidly desirous of explaining the Prophet’s meaning, understand this, without controversy, of the Four Monarchies, following each other in succession. The Jews, when pressed by this interpretation, confuse the Turkish with the Roman empire, but their ignorance and unfairness is easily proved. For when they wish to escape the confession of Christ having been exhibited to the world, they seek stale calumnies which do not require refutation; but still something must afterwards be said in its proper place. My assertion is perfectly correct, that interpreters of moderate judgment and candor, all explain the passage of the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman monarchies, and Daniel himself afterwards shews this sufficiently by his own words. A question, however, arises, why God represented these four monarchies under this image? for it does not seem to correspond throughout, as the Romans had nothing in common with the Assyrians. History has fully informed us how the Medes and Persians succeeded the Chaldeans; how Babylon was besieged by the enemy; and how Cyrus, after obtaining the victory, transferred the empire to the Medes and Persians. It may, perhaps, seem absurd that one image only should be proposed. But it is probable — nay, it may be shewn — that God does not here regard any agreement between these four monarchies, for there was none at all, but the state of the world at large. God therefore wished, under this figure, to represent the future condition of the world till the advent of Christ. This is the reason why God joined these four empires together, although actually different; since the second sprang from the destruction of the first, and the third from that of the second. This is one point, and we may now inquire, secondly, why Daniel calls the kingdom of Babylon by the honorable term golden. For we know the extent of its tyranny and the character of the Assyrians, and their union with the Chaldeans. We are also aware of the destruction of Nineveh, and how the Chaldeans made Babylon their capital city, to preserve the seat of empire among themselves. If we consider the origin of that monarchy, we shall surely find the Assyrians like savage beasts, full of avarice, cruelty, and rapacity, and the Chaldeans superior to all these vices. Why, then, is that empire called the head — and why agolden head?

As to the name, “head,” since that monarchy arose first, there is nothing surprising in Daniel’s assigning the highest place to it. And as to his passing by Nineveh, this is not surprising, because that city had been already cut off, and he is now treating of future events. The Chaldean empire, then, was first in the order of time, and is called “golden” by comparison; because the world grows worse as it becomes older; for the Persians and Medes who seized upon the whole East under the auspices of Cyrus, were worse than the Assyrians and Chaldeans. So profane poets invented fables about The Four Ages, the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron. They do not mention the clay, but without doubt they received this tradition from Daniel. If any one object, that Cyrus excelled in the noblest qualities, and was of a heroic disposition, and celebrated by historians for his prudence and perseverance, and other endowments, I reply, we must not look here at the character of any one man, but at the continued state of the Persian empire. This is sufficiently probable on comparing the empire of the Medes and Persians with that of the Babylonians, which is called “silver;” since their morals were deteriorated, as we have already said. Experience also demonstrates how the world always degenerates, and inclines by degrees to vices and corruptions.

Then as to the Macedonian empire, it ought not to seem absurd to find it compared to brass, since we know the cruelty of Alexander’s disposition. It is frivolous to notice that politeness which has gained him favor with historians; since, if we reflect upon his natural character, he surely breathed cruelty from his very boyhood. Do we not discern in him, when quite a boy, envy and emulation? When he saw his father victorious in war, and subduing by industry or depraved arts the cities of Greece, he wept with envy, because his father left him nothing to conquer. As he manifested such pride when a boy, we conclude him to have been more cruel than humane. And with what purpose and intention did he undertake the expedition by which he became king of kings, unless through being discontented not only with his own power, but with the possession of the whole worm? We know also how tie wept when he heard from that imaginative philosophy, that there were more worlds than this. “What, ” said he, “I do not possess even one world!” Since, then, one world did not suffice for a man who was small of stature, he must indeed put off all humanity, as he really appeared to do. He never spared the blood of any one; and wherever he burst forth, like a devouring tempest, he destroyed everything. Besides, what is here said of that monarchy ought not to be restricted to the person of Alexander, who was its chief and author, but is extended to all his successors. We know that they committed horrible cruelties, for before his empire was divided into four parts, constituting the kingdoms of Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Macedonia, how much blood was sited! God took away from Alexander all his offspring. He might have lived at home and begotten children, and thus his memory would have been noble and celebrated among all posterity; but God exterminated all his family from the world. His mother perished by the sword at the age of eighty years; also his wife and sons, as well as a brother of unsound mind. Finally, it was a horrible proof of God’s anger against Alexander’s offspring, for the purpose of impressing all ages with a sense of his displeasure at such cruelty. If then we extend the Macedonian empire to the period when Perseus was conquered, and Cleopatra and Ptolemy slain in Egypt., and Syria, Asia, and Egypt reduced under the sway of Rome — if we comprehend the whole of this period, we shall not wonder at the prophet Daniel calling the monarchy “brazen.”

When he speaks of The Roman Empire as “iron,” we must always remember the reason I have noticed, which has reference to the world in general, and to the depraved nature of mankind; whence their vices and immoralities always increase till they arrive at a fearful height. If we consider how the Romans conducted themselves, and how cruelly they tyrannized over others, the reason why their dominion is called “iron ” by Daniel will immediately appear. Although they appear to have possessed some skill in political affairs, we are acquainted with their ambition, avarice, and cruelty. Scarcely any nation can be found which suffered like the Romans under those three diseases, and since they were so subject to these, as well as to others, it is not surprising that the Prophet detracts from their fame and prefers the Macedonians, Persians, Medes, and even Assyrians and Chaldeans to them.



When he says, the feet of the image were partly of iron and partly of clay, this ought to be referred to the ruin which occurred, when God dispersed and cut in pieces, so to speak, that monarchy. The Chaldean power fell first; then the Macedonians, after subduing the East, became the sole monarchs to whom the Medes and Persians were subservient. The same event happened to the Macedonians, who were at length subdued by the, Romans; and all their kings who succeeded Alexander were cut off. But there was another reason why God wished to overthrow the Roman monarchy. For it fell by itself according to the prediction of this prophecy. Since, then, without any external force it fell to pieces by itself, it easily appears that it was broken up by Christ, according to this dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. It is positively certain, that nothing was ever stable from the beginning of the world, and the assertion of Paul was always true — the fashion of this world passeth away. (1Co 7:31.) By the word “fashion” he means whatever is splendent in the world is also shadowy and evanescent, he adds, also, that all which our eyest gaze upon must vanish away. But, as I have said, the reason was different when God wished to destroy the empire of the Chaldees, the Persians, and the Macedonians; because this was more clearly shewn in the case of the Romans, how Christ by his advent took away whatever was splendid, and magnificent, and admirable in the world. This, therefore, is the reason why God assigns specially to the Romans feet of clay Thus much, then, with respect to the four empires.



In the third place, it may be doubted why Christ is said to have broken this image from the mountains For if Christ is the eternal wisdom of God (Pro 8:15) by whom kings reign, this seems scarcely to accord with it; for how, by his advent, should he break up the political order which we; know God approves of, and has appointed and established by his power? I answer, — earthly empires are swallowed and broken up by Christ accidentally, as they say. (Psa 2:9.) For if kings exercise their office honestly, clearly enough Christ’s kingdom is not contrary to their power. Whence, then, does it happen that Christ strikes kings with an iron scepter, and breaks, and ruins, and reduces them to nothing? Just because their pride is untamable, and they raise their heads to heaven, and wish, if possible, to draw down God from his throne. Hence they necessarily feel Christ’s hand opposed to them, because they cannot and will not subject themselves to God.

But another question may be raised: — When Christ was made manifest, those monarchies had fallen long previously; for the Chaldean, the Persian, and that of the successors of Alexander, had passed away. The solution is at hand, if we understand what I have previously mentioned — that under one image the whole state of the world is here depicted for us. Although all events did not occur at the same moment, yet we shall find the Prophet’s language essentially true, that Christ should destroy all monarchies. For when the seat of the empire of the East was changed, and Nineveh destroyed, and the Chaldeans had fixed the seat of empire among themselves, this happened by God’s just judgment, and Christ was already reigning as the king of the world. That monarchy was really broken up by his power, and the same may be said of the Persian empire. For when they degenerated from a life of austerity and sobriety into one of foul and infamous luxury; when they raged so cruelly against all mankind, and became so exceedingly rapacious, their empire necessarily passed away from them, and Alexander executed the judgment of God. The same occurred to Alexander and his successors. Hence the Prophet means, that before Christ appeared, he already possessed supreme power, both in heaven and earth, and thus broke up and annihilated the pride and violence of all men.

But Daniel says — the image perished when the Roman empire was broken up, and yet we observe in the East and the neighboring regions the greatest monarchs still reigning with very formidable prowess. I reply, we must remember what we said yesterday — the dream was presented to King Nebuchadnezzar, that he might understand all future events to the renovation of the world. Hence God was not willing to instruct the king of Babylon further than to inform him of the four future monarchies which should possess the whole globe, and should obscure by their splendor all the powers of the world, and draw all eyes and all attention to itself; and afterwards Christ should come and overthrow those monarchies. God, therefore, wished to inform King Nebuchadnezzar of these events; and here we must notice the intention of the Holy Spirit. No mention is made of other kingdoms, because they had not yet emerged into importance sufficient to be compared to these four monarchies. While the Assyrians and Chaldeans reigned, there was no rivalry with their neighbors, for the whole of the East obeyed them. It was incredible that Cyrus, springing from a barbarous region, could so easily draw to himself such resources, and seize upon so many provinces in so short a time! For he was like a whirlwind which destroyed the whole East. The same may be said of the third monarchy; for if the successors of Alexander had been mutually united, there was then no empire in the world which could have increased their power. The Romans were fully occupied in struggling with their neighbors, and were not yet at rest on their own soil; and afterwards, when Italy, Greece, Asia, and Egypt were obedient to them, no other empire rivaled their fame; for all the power and glory of the world was at that period absorbed by their arms.

We now understand why Daniel mentioned those four kingdoms, and why he places their close at the advent of Christ. When I speak of Daniel, this ought to be understood of the dream; for without doubt God wished to encourage the Jews not to despair, when first the brightness of the Chaldean monarchy, then that of the Persian, next the Macedonian, and lastly, the Romans overwhelmed the world. For what could they have determined by themselves at the time when Nebuchadnezzar dreamt about the four empires? The kingdom of Israel was then utterly destroyed, the ten tribes were exiles, the kingdom of Judah was reduced to desolation. Although the city Jerusalem was yet. standing, still where was the kingdom? It was full of ignominy and disgrace; nay, the posterity of David then reigned precariously in the tribe of Judah, and even there over but a part of it; and afterwards, although their return was permitted, yet we know how miserably they were afflicted. And when Alexander, like a tempest, devastated the East, they suffered, as we know, the greatest distress; they were frequently ravaged. by his successors; their city was reduced almost to solitude, and the temple profaned; and when their condition was at the best, they were still tributary, as we, shall afterwards see. It was certainly necessary for their minds to be supported in so great and such confused perturbation. This, therefore, was the reason why God sent the, dream about those monarchies to the king of Babylon. It Daniel had dreamt, the faithful would not have had so remarkable a subject-matter for the confirmation of their faith; but when the king’s dream is spread abroad through almost the whole East, and when its interpretation is equally celebrated, the Jews might recover their spirits and revive their hopes at their own time, since they understood from the first that these four monarchies should not exist by any mere changes of fortune; for the same God who had foretold to King Nebuchadnezzar future events, determined also what he should do, and what he wished to take place.

The Jews knew that; the Chaldeans were reigning only by the decree of heaven; and that another more destructive empire should afterwards arise; thirdly, that they must undergo a servitude under the Macedonians; lastly, that the Romans should be the conquerors and masters of the world — and all this by the decree of heaven. When they reflected on these things, and finally heard of the Redeemer, as, according to promise, a perpetual King, and all the monarchies, then so refulgent, as without any stability-all this would prove no common source of strength. Now, therefore, we understand with what intention God wished what had hitherto been hidden, to be everywhere promulgated; the Jews, too, would hand down to their sons and grandsons what they had heard from Daniel, and afterwards this prophecy would be extant, and become an admiration to them throughout all ages.

When we come to the words, he says, one image was great and large, its splendor was precious, and its form terrible By this phrase, God wished to meet a doubt which might creep into the minds of the Jews, on perceiving each of those empires prosperous in its turn. When the Jews, captive and forlorn, saw the Chaldeans formidable throughout the whole world, and, consequently, highly esteemed and all but adored by the rest of mankind, what could they think of it? Why, they would have no hope of return, because God had raised their enemies to such great power that their avarice and cruelty were like a deep whirlpool. The Jews might thus conclude themselves to be drowned in a very deep abyss, whence they could not hope to escape. But when the empire was transferred to the Medes and Persians, although they were allowed the liberty of returning, still we know how small a number used this indulgence, and the rest were ungrateful. Whether or not this was so, few of the Jews, returned to their country; and these had to make war upon their neighbors, and were subject to continual molestation. As far as common sense would guide them, it was easier for them not to stir a step from Chaldea, Assyria, and the other parts of the East, since their neighbors in their own country were all so hostile to them. As long as they were tributary and esteemed almost as serfs and slaves, and while their condition was so humiliating, the same temptation remained. For, if they were God’s people, why did he not care for them so far as to relieve them from that cruel tyranny? Wily did he not restore them to calmness, and render them free from such various inconveniences, and from so many injuries? When the Macedonian. empire succeeded, they were more miserable than before; they were daily exposed as a prey, and every species of cruelty was practiced towards them. Then, with regard to the Romans, we know how proudly they domineered over them. Although Pompey, at his first assault, did not spoil the temple, yet at length he became bolder, and Crassus shortly afterwards destroyed everything till the most horrible and prodigious slaughter followed. As the Jews must suffer these things, this consolation must, necessarily be offered to them — the Redeemer shall at length arrive, who shall break up all these empires.

As to Christ being called the stone cut out without human, hands, and being pointed out by other phrases, I cannot explain them now.



Daniel here declares “ the golden head of the image “ to be the Babylonian kingdom. We know that the Assyrians were subdued before the monarchy was transferred to Babylon; but since they did not prevail sufficiently to be considered as supreme rulers in that eastern territory, the Babylonian empire is here mentioned first. It is also worthwhile to remark, that God was unwilling to refer here to what had already occurred, but he rather proposed that the people should in future depend on this prophecy and rest upon it. Here it would have been superfluous to say anything about the Assyrians, since that empire had already passed away. But the Chaldeans were still to reign for some time — say seventy or at least sixty years. Hence God wished to hold the minds of his own servants in suspense till the end of that monarchy, and then to arouse them by fresh hopes, until the second monarchy should pass away, so that afterwards they might rest in patience under the third and fourth monarchies, and might perceive at length the time of Christ’s advent to be at hand. This is the reason why Daniel places the Chaldean monarchy here in the first rank and order. And in this matter there is no difficulty, because he states King Nebuchadnezzar to be the golden head of the image. We may gather the reason of his being called the golden head from the context, namely, because its integrity was then greater than under the empire of the Medes and Persians. It is very true that the Chaldeans were the most cruel robbers, and we know how Babylon was then detested by all the pious and sincere worshippers of God. Still, since things usually become worse by process of time, the state of the world was; as yet tolerable under that sovereignty. This is the reason why Nebuchadnezzar is called “the head of gold;” but this ought not to be referred to him personally, but rather extended to his whole kingdom, and all his successors, among whom Belshazzar was the most hateful despiser of God; and by comprehension he is said to form part of this head of gold. But Daniel shews that he did not flatter the king, since he assigns this reason for Nebuchadnezzar being the golden head — God had set him up above all the earth. But this seems to be common to all kings, since none of them reign without God’s permission — a sentiment which is partially true, but the Prophet implies that Nebuchadnezzar was raised up in an especial manner, because he excelled all other sovereigns. It now follows —



In this verse Daniel embraces the Second and Third Monarchies. He says the second should be inferior to the Chaldean in neither power nor wealth; for the Chaldean empire, although it spread so far and so wide, was added to that of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus subdued the Medes first; and although he made his father-in-law, Cyaxares, his ally in the sovereignty, yet he had expelled his maternal grandfather, and thus obtained peaceable possession of the kingdom throughout all Media. Then he afterwards conquered the Chaldeans and Assyrians, as well as the Lydians and the rest of the nations of Asia Minor. We see then that his kingdom is not called inferior through having less splendor or opulence in human estimation, but because the general condition of the world was worse under the second monarchy, as men’s vices and corruptions increase more and more. Cyrus was, it is true, a prudent prince, but yet sanguinary. Ambition and avarice carried him fiercely onwards, and he wandered in every direction, like a wild beast, forgetful of all humanity. And if we scan his disposition accurately, we shall discover it to be, as Isaiah says, very greedy of human blood. (Isa 13:18.) And here we may remark, that he does not treat only of the persons of kings, but of their counselors and of the whole people. Hence Daniel deservedly pronounces the second state of the kingdom inferior to the first; not because Nebuchadnezzar excelled in dignity, or wealth, or power, but because the world had not degenerated so much as it afterwards did. For the more these monarchies extend themselves, the more licentiousness increases in the world, according to the teaching of experience. Whence the folly and madness of those who desire to have kings very powerful is apparent, just as if any one should desire a river to be most rapid, as Isaiah says when combating this folly. (Isa 8:7.) For the swifter, the deeper, and the wider a river flows on, the greater the destruction of its overflow to the whole neighborhood. Hence the insanity of those who desire the greatest monarchies, because some things will by positive necessity occur out of lawful order. when one man occupies so broad a space; and this did occur under the sway of the Medes and Persians.

The description of the Third Monarchy now follows. It is called brazen, not so much from its hardness as from its being worse than the second. The Prophet teaches how the difference between the second and third monarchies is similar to that between silver and brass. The rabbis confound the two monarchies, through their desire to comprehend under the second what they call the kingdom of the Greeks; but they display the grossest ignorance and dishonesty. For they do not err, through simple ignorance, but they purposely desire to overthrow what Scripture here states clearly concerning the advent of Christ. Hence they are not ashamed to mingle and confuse history, and to pronounce carelessly on subjects unknown to them — unknown, I say, not because they escape men moderately versed hi history, but through their being brutal themselves, and discerning nothing. For instead of Alexander the son of Philip, they put Alexander the son of Mammea, who possessed the Roman empire, when half its provinces had been already separated from it. He was a spiritless boy, and was slain in his tent with the greatest ignominy by his own soldiers; besides that, he never really governed, but lived as a minor under the sway of his mother. And yet the Jews are not ashamed to distort and twist what relates to the king of Macedon to this Alexander the son of Mammea. But their wickedness and ignorance is easily refuted by the context, as we shall afterwards see. Here Daniel states shortly that there shall be a third monarchy, he does not describe its character, nor explain it fully; but we shall see in another place the meaning of his prophecy. He now interprets the dream of the king of Babylon, as the vision of the four empires had been offered to him. But the angel afterwards confirms the same to him by a vision, and very clearly, too, as will be seen in its own place. Without doubt this narrative of the brazen image relates to the Macedonian kingdom. How, then, is all doubt removed? By the description of the fourth empire, which is much fuller, and clearly indicates what we shall soon see, that the Roman empire was like the feet, partly of clay and partly of iron. He says, therefore, —



Here the Fourth Empire is described, which agrees only with the Roman, for we know that the four successors of Alexander were at length subdued. Philip was the first king of Macedon, and Antiochus the second; but yet Philip lost nothing from his own kingdom; he only yielded it to the free cities of Greece. It was, therefore, hitherto, entire, except as it paid tribute to the Romans for some years on account of the expenses of the war. Antiochus, also, when compelled to adopt the conditions imposed by the conqueror, was driven beyond Mount Taurus; but Macedonia was reduced to a province when Perseus was overcome and captured. The kings of Syria and Asia suffered in the same way; and, lastly, Egypt was seized upon by Augustus. For their posterity had reigned up to that period, and Cleopatra was the last of that race, as is sufficiently known. When, therefore, the three monarchies were absorbed by the Romans, the language of the Prophet suits them well enough; for, as the sword diminishes, and destroys, and ruins all things, thus those three monarchies were bruised and broken up by the Roman empire. There is nothing surprising in his here enumerating that popular form of government, among “monarchies, ” since we know how few were rulers among this people, and how customary it was to call every kind of government among them an empire, and the people themselves the rulers of the whole world! But the Prophet compares them to “iron,” not only on account of its hardness, although this reason is clearly expressed, but also through another kind of similitude, — they were worse than all others, and surpassed in cruelty and barbarity both the Macedonians. and the Medo-Persians. Although they boast much in their own prowess, yet if any one exercises a sound judgment upon their actions, he will discover their tyranny to be far more cruel than all the rest; although they boast in their senators being as great as ordinary kings, yet we shall find them no better than robbers and tyrants, for scarcely one in a hundred of them shewed a grain of equity, either then sent into any province or when discharging any magistracy; and with regard to the body of the empire itself, it was all horrible pollution. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet says that monarchy was partly composed of iron, and partly of potter’s clay, since we know how they suffered under intestine disorders. The Prophet requires no other interpretation here, because, he says, this mixture of iron and clay, which unites so badly, is a sign of disunion, through their never mingling together.

The kingdom, therefore, shall be divided, and he adds yet another mixture, —they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, that is., they shall be neighbors to others, and that mutual interchange which ought to promote true friendship, shall become utterly profitless. The opinion of those who introduce the alliance of Pompey and Caesar is farfetched, for the Prophet is speaking of a continued government. If stability is sought for in any kind of government, it surely ought to shine forth in a republic, or at least in an oligarchy in preference to a despotism; because, when all are slaves, the king cannot so confidently trust his subjects, through their constant fear for themselves. But when all unite in the government, and the very lowest receive some mutual advantage from their commonwealth, then, as I have said, superior stability ought to be conspicuous. But Daniel pronounces, that even if the superior power should reside in the senate and the people — for there is dignity in the senate, and majesty in the people yet that empire should fall. Besides, although they should be mutually united in neighborhood and kindred, yet this would not prevent them from contending with each other with savage enmity, even to the destruction of their empire. Here then the Prophet furnishes us with a vivid picture of the Roman empire, by saying that it was like iron, and also mingled with clay, or mud, as they destroyed themselves by intestine discord after arriving at the highest pitch of fortune. Thus far concerning the four monarchies.

We may now inquire why Daniel said, The stone which was to be cut out of the mountain should destroy all these empires; since it does not appear, at first sight, to suit the kingdom of Christ. The Babylonian monarchy had been previously abolished — the Medes and Persians had been utterly prostrated by Alexander — and after Alexander’s conquests, had been divided into four kingdoms; the Romans subdued all those lands; and then it is objected that the Prophet’s language is absurd, a stone shall come out of a mountain which shall break up all empires The solution, as I have said above is at hand. Daniel does not here state that; the events shall happen together, but simply wishes to teach how the empires of the world shall fail, and one kingdom shall be eternal. He does not regard, therefore, when or why the empire’s of the Chaldees and of the Persians fell, but he compares the kingdom of Christ with all those monarchies which have been mentioned. And we must always remember what I have touched upon, that the Prophet speaks for the captive people, and accommodates his style to the faithful, to whom he wished to stretch forth the hand, and to strengthen them in those most serious concussions which were at hand. And hence, when he speaks of all lands and nations, if any one objects — there were then. other empires in the world, the answer is easy, the Prophet is not here describing what should happen through all the ages of the world, but only what the Jews should see. For the Romans were the lords of many regions before they passed over into Greece; we know they had two provinces in Spain, and after the close of the second Punic war were masters of that upper sea, and held undisputed possession of all the islands, as well as of Cisalpine Gaul and other regions. No notice is taken of this empire, till it was made known to the Jews, as they might have given themselves up to, utter despair, when they could not perceive an end to those storms which almost ruined the world; and, meanwhile, they were the most miserable of all men, because the various and continual calamities of the world never ceased. We must remember this view of things, as otherwise the whole prophecy would be cold and profitless to us. I now return to the kingdom of Christ.

The Kingdom or Christ is said to break up all the empires of the world, not directly, but only accidentally, as the phrase is. For Daniel here assumes a principle, sufficiently understood by the Jews; namely, those monarchies were opposed to Christ’s; kingdom. For the Chaldees had overthrown God’s temple, and had endeavored as far as possible to extinguish the whole of his worship, and to exterminate piety from the world. As far as concerns the Medes and Persians, although by their kindness a permission to return was granted to the people, yet very soon afterwards the kings of the Medes and Persians raged against that most miserable people, until the greater part of them preferred remaining; in exile to returning home. At length came the Macedonian fury; and although the Jews were spared for a short period, we know how impetuously the kings of Syria and Egypt overran Judea, how cruelly they treated the wretched people by rapine and plunder, and the shedding of innocent blood. Again, the extreme barbarity of Antiochus in ordering all the Prophetic Books to be burned, and in all but exterminating the religion itself (1Ma 1:59) is well ascertained.

No wonder, then, that Daniel here opposes the reign of Christ to such monarchies! Next, as to the Romans, we know how thoroughly and proudly they despised the name of “Christian!” nay, they endeavored by all means to root out from the world the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation, as an abominable thing. With all this we are familiar. Hence, to inform the faithful of their future condition until Christ’s advent, Daniel shews how all the empires of the world should be adverse to God, and all its most powerful kings and sovereigns should be his very worst and most cruel enemies, and should use every means in their power to extinguish true piety. Thus he exhorts them to bear their cross, and never to yield to those wretched and sorrowful spectacles, but to proceed steadily in the course of their calling, until the promised Redeemer should appear. We stated this to be “accidental,” since all the kingdoms of this world are clearly founded on the power and beneficence of Christ; but a memorable proof of God’s anger ought to exist against them all, because they raised themselves against the Son of God, the Supreme King, with such extreme fury and hostility.

Now, Christ is compared to a stone cut out of a mountain Some restrict this, unnecessarily, to the generation of Christ, because he was born of a virgin, out of the usual course of nature. Hence he says, as we have seen, that it was cut out of a mountain without the hand of man; that is, he was divinely sent, and his empire was separated from all earthly ones, since it was divine and heavenly. Now, therefore, we understand the reason of this simile.

With respect to the word “stone, ” Christ is not here called a stone in the sense of the word in Psa 118:22, and Isa 8:14, and Zec 9:15, and elsewhere. For there the name of a stone is applied to Christ, because his Church is founded on it. The perpetuity of his kingdom is denoted there as well as here; but, as I have already said, these phrases ought to be distinguished. It must now be added, — Christ is called a stone cut out without human hands, because he was from the beginning almost without form and comeliness, as far as human appearance goes. There is also a silent contrast between its magnitude, which the Prophet will soon mention, and this commencement. The stone cut out of the mountain shall descend, and it shall become a great mountain, and shall fill the whole earth. We see how the Prophet here predicts the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, as contemptible and abject before the world. It was not conspicuous for excellence, as it is said in Isaiah, A branch is sprung from the root of Jesse. (Isa 11:1.) When the posterity of David were deprived of all dignity, the royal name was utterly buried, and the diadem trodden under foot, as it is said in Ezekiel (Eze 17:19.) Hence, Christ first appeared cast down and lowly; but the branch increased wonderfully and beyond all expectation and calculation, unto an immense size, till it filled the whole earth. We now perceive how appositely Daniel speaks of Christ’s kingdom but we must treat the rest to-morrow.



The Jews agree with us in thinking this passage cannot be otherwise understood than of the perpetual reign of Christ, and willingly and eagerly ascribe to the glory of their own nation whatever is written everywhere throughout the Scriptures; nay, they often cry down many testimonies of Scripture for the purpose of boasting in their own privileges. They do not therefore deny the dream to have been sent to King Nebuchadnezzar concerning Christ’s kingdom; but they differ from us, in expecting a Christ of their own. Hence they are, compelled in many ways to corrupt this prophecy; because, if they grant that the fourth empire or monarchy was accomplished in the Romans, they must necessarily acquiesce in the Gospel, which testifies of the arrival of that Messiah who was promised in the Law. For Daniel here openly affirms that Messiah’s kingdom should arrive at the close of the fourth monarchy. Hence they fly to the miserable refuge that by the fourth monarchy should be understood the Turkish empire, which they call that of the Ishmaelites; and thus they confound the Roman with the Macedonian empire. But what pretense have they for making only one empire out of two such different ones? They say the Romans sprang from the Greeks; and if we grant this, whence did the Greeks spring? Did they not arise from the Caspian Mountains and Higher Asia? The Romans referred their origin to Troy, and at the time when the prophecy ought to be fulfilled, this had become utterly obscure — but what is this to the purpose when they had no reputation for a thousand years afterwards? But the Turks a long time afterwards, namely 600 years, suddenly burst forth like a deluge. In such a variety of circumstances, and at such a distance of time, how can they form one single kingdom? Then they shew no difference between themselves and the rest of the nations. For they recall us to the beginning of the world, and in this way make one kingdom out of two, and this mixture is altogether without reason, or any pretension to it. There is no doubt then, that Daniel intended the Romans by the fourth empire, since we yesterday saw, how in a manner contrary to nature, that empire ultimately perished by intestine discord. No single monarch reigned there, but only a democracy. All thought themselves to be equally kings, for they were all related. This; union ought to have been the firmest bond of perpetuity. But Daniel here witnesses beforehand, how, even if they were intimately related, that kingdom would not be social, but would perish by its own dissension’s. Finally, it is now sufficiently apparent that the Prophet’s words cannot be otherwise explained than of the Roman empire, nor can they be drawn aside, except by violence, to the Turkish empire.

I shall now relate what our brother Anthony has suggested to me, from a certain Rabbi Barbinel, (163) who seems to excel others in acuteness. He endeavors to shew by six principal arguments, that the fifth kingdom cannot relate to our Christ — Jesus, the son of Mary. He first assumes this principle, since the four kingdoms were earthly, the fifth cannot be compared with them, except its nature is the same. The comparison would be, he says, both inappropriate and absurd. As if Scripture does not always compare the celestial kingdom of God with those of earth! for it is neither necessary nor important for all points of a comparison to be precisely similar. Although God shewed to the king of Babylon the four earthly monarchies, it does not follow that the nature of the fifth was the same, since it might be very different. Nay, if we weigh all things rightly, it is necessary to mark some difference between those four and this. last one. The reasoning, therefore, of that rabbi is frivolous, when he infers that Christ’s kingdom ought to be visible, since it could not otherwise correspond with the other kingdoms. The second reason, by which he opposes us, is this, — if religion makes the difference between kingdoms, it follows that the Babylonian, and Persian, and Macedonian are all the same; for we know that all those nations worshipped idols, and were devoted to superstition! The answer to so weak an argument is easy enough, namely, these four kingdoms did not differ simply in religion, but God deprived the Babylonians of their power, and transfer-red the monarchy to the Medes and Persians; and by the same providence of God the Macedonians succeeded them; and then, when all these kingdoms were abolished, the Romans possessed the sway over the whole East. We have already explained the Prophet’s meaning. He wished simply to teach the Jews this, — they were not to despair through beholding the various agitation’s of the world, and its surprising and dreadful confusion; although those ages were subject to many changes, the promised king should at length arrive. Hence the Prophet wished to exhort the Jews to patience, and to hold them in suspense by the expectation of the Messiah. He does not distinguish these four monarchies through diversity of religion, but because God was turning the, world round like a wheel while one nation was expelling another, so that the Jews might apply all their minds and attention to that hope of redemption which had been promised through Messiah’s advent.

The third argument which that rabbi brings forward may be refitted without the slightest trouble. He gathers from the words of the Prophet that the kingdom of our Christ, the son of Mary, cannot be the kingdom of which Daniel! speaks, since it is here clearly expressed that there should be no passing away or change of this kingdom,it shall not pass on to another or a strange people. But the Turks, says he, occupy a large portion of the world, and religion among Christians is divided, and many reject the doctrine of the Gospel. It follows, then, that Jesus, the son of Mary, is not, that king of whom Daniel prophesied — that is, about whom the dream which Daniel explained occurred to the king of Babylon. But he trifles very foolishly, because he assumes, what. we shall ever deny — that Christ’s kingdom is visible. For however the sons of God are dispersed, without any reputation among men, it is quite clear that Christ’s kingdom remains safe and sure, since hi its own nature it is not outward but invisible. Christ did not utter these words in vain, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Joh 18:36.) By this expression he wished to remove his kingdom from the ordinary forms of government. Although, therefore, the Turks have spread far and wide, and the world is filled with impious despisers. of God, and the Jews yet occupy a part of it, still Christ, kingdom exists and has not been transferred to any others. Hence this reasoning is not only weak but puerile.

A fourth argument follows: — It seems very absurd that Christ, who was born under Octavius or Augustus Caesar, should be the king of whom Daniel prophesied. For, says he, the beginning of the fourth and fifth monarchy was the same, which is absurd; for the fourth monarchy ought to endure for some time, and then the fifth should succeed it. But here he not only betrays his ignorance, but his utter stupidity, since God so blinded the whole people that they were like restive dogs. I have had much conversation with many Jews- I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness — nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew. But this fellow, who seems so sharp and ingenious, displays his own impudence to his great disgrace. For he thought the Roman monarchy began with Julius Caesar! as if the Macedonian empire was not abolished when the Romans took possession of Macedon and reduced it to a province, when also Antiochus was reduced into order by them — nay, when the third monarchy, namely, the Macedonian, began to decline, then the fourth, which is the Roman, succeeded it. Reason itself dictates to us to reckon hi this way, since unless we confess the fourth monarchy to have succeeded directly on the passing away of the third, how could the rest follow on? We must observe, also, that the Prophet does not look to the Caesars when he treats of these monarchies; nay, as we saw concerning the mingling of races, this cannot in any way suit the Caesars; for we shewed yesterday how those who restrict this passage to Pompey and Caesar are only trifling, and are utterly without judgment in this respect. For the Prophet speaks generally and continuously of a popular state, since they were, all mutually related, and yet the empire was not stable, through their consuming themselves internally by intestine warfare. Since this is the case, we conclude this rabbi to be very foolish and palpably absurd in asserting the Christ not to be the son of Mary who was born under Augustus, although I do not argue for the kingdom of Christ commencing at his nativity.

His fifth argument is this: — Constantine and other Caesars professed the faith of Christ. If we receive, says he, Jesus the son of Mary as the fifth king, how will this suit? as the Roman Empire was still in existence under this king. For where rite religion of Christ flourishes, where he is worshipped and acknowledged as the only King, that kingdom ought not to be separated from his. When therefore Christ, under Constantine and his successors, obtained both glory and power among the Romans, his monarchy cannot be separated from theirs. But the solution of this is easy, as the Prophet here puts an end to the Roman Empire when it began to be torn in pieces. As to the time when Christ’s reign began, I have just said it ought not to be referred to the time of his birth, but to the preaching of the Gospel. From the time when the Gospel began to be promulgated, we know the Roman monarchy to have been dissipated and at length to vanish away. Hence the empire did not endure through Constantine or other emperors, since their state was different; and we know that neither Constantine nor the other Caesars were Romans. From the time of Trojan the empire began to be transferred to strangers, and foreigners reigned at Rome. We also know by what monsters God destroyed the ancient glory (164) of the Roman people! — for nothing could be more abandoned or disgraceful than the conduct of many of the emperors. If any one will but run through their histories, he will discover immediately that no other people ever had such monsters for rulers as the Romans under Heliogabalus and others like him, — I omit Nero and Caligula, and speak only of foreigners. The Roman Empire was therefore abolished after the Gospel began to be promulgated and Christ became generally known throughout the world. Thus we observe the same ignorance in this argument of the rabbi as in the others.

The last assertion is, — The Roman empire as yet partially survives, hence what is here said of the fifth monarchy cannot belong to the son of Mary; it is necessary for the fourth empire to be at an end, if the fifth king began to reign when Christ rose from the dead and was preached in the world. I reply, as I have said already, the Roman empire ceased, and was abolished when God transferred their whole power with shame and reproach to foreigners, who were not only barbarians, but horrible monsters! It would have been better for the Romans to suffer the utter blotting out of their name, rather than submit to such disgrace. We perceive how this sixth and last reason vanishes away. I wished to collect them together, to shew you how foolishly those Jewish reasoners make war with God, and furiously oppose the clear light of the Gospel.

I now return to Daniel’s words. He says A kingdom shall come and destroy all other kingdoms I explained yesterday the sense in which Christ broke up those ancient monarchies, which had come to an end long before his advent. For Daniel does not wish to state precisely what Christ would do at any one moment, but what should happen from the time of the captivity till his appearance. If we attend to this intention, all difficulty will be removed from the passage. The conclusion, therefore, is this; the Jews should behold the most powerful empires, which should strike them with terror, and utterly astonish them, yet they should prove neither stable nor firm, through being opposed to the kingdom of the Son of God. But Isaiah denounces curses upon all the kingdoms which do not obey the Church of God. (Isa 60:12.) As all those monarchs erected their crests against the Son of God and true piety, with diabolical audacity, they must be utterly swept away, and God’s curse, as announced by the Prophet, must become conspicuous upon them. Thus Christ rooted up all the empires of the world. The Turkish empire, indeed, at this day, excels in wealth and power, and the multitude of nations under its sway; but. it was not God’s purpose to explain future events after the appearance of Christ. He only wished the Jews to be admonished, and prevented from sinking under the weight of their burden, since they would be in imminent danger through the rise of so many fresh tyrannies in the world, and the absence of all repose. God wished, therefore, to brace their minds by fortitude. One reason was this — to cause them to dwell upon the promised redemption, and to experience how evanescent and uncertain are all the empires of the world which are not founded in God, and not united to the kingdom of Christ. God, therefore, will set up the kingdoms of the heavens, which shall never be dissipated. It is here worthwhile to notice the sense in which Daniel uses the term “perpetuity ” It ought not to be restricted to the person of Christ, but belongs to all the pious and the whole body of the Church. Christ is indeed eternal in himself, but he also communicates his eternity to us, because he preserves the Church in the world, and invites us by the hope of a better life than this, and begets us again by his Spirit to an incorruptible life. The perpetuity, then, of Christ’s reign, is twofold, without considering his person. First, in the whole body of believers; for though the Church is often dispersed and hidden from men’s eyes, yet it never entirely perishes; but God preserves it by his incomprehensible virtue, so that it shall survive till the end of the world. Then there is a second perpetuity in each believer, since each is born of incorruptible seed, and renewed by the Spirit of God. The sons of Adam are now not mortal only, but bear within them heavenly life; since the Spirit within them is life, as St. Paul says, in the Ephstle to the Romans. (Rom 8:10.) We hold, therefore, that whenever Scripture affirms Christ’s reign to be eternal, this is extended to the whole body of the Church, and need not be confined to his person. We see, then, how the kingdom from which the doctrine of the Gospel began to be promulgated, was eternal; for although the Church was in a certain sense buried, yet God gave life to his elect, even in the sepulcher. Whence, then, did it happen that the sons of the Church were buried, and a new people and a new creation required, as in Psa 102:18 ? Hence it easily appears that God is served by a remnant, although they are not evident to human observation.

He adds, This kingdom shall not pass away to another people. By this phrase the Prophet means that this sovereignty cannot be transferred, as in the other instances. Darius was conquered by Alexander, and his posterity was extinguished, till at length God destroyed that ill-fated Macedonian race, until no one survived who boasted himself to be sprung from that-family. With respect to the Romans, although they continued to exist, yet they were so disgracefully subjected to the tyranny of strangers and barbarians, as to be completely covered with shame and utterly disgraced. Then, as to the reign of Christ, he cannot be deprived of the empire conferred upon him, nor can we who are his members lose the kingdom of which he has made us partakers. Christ, therefore, both in himself and his members, reigns without any danger of change, because he always remains safe and secure in his own person. As to ourselves, since we are preserved by his grace, and he has received us under his own care and protection, we are beyond the reach of danger; and, as I have already said, our safety is ensured, for we cannot be deprived of the inheritance awaiting us in heaven. We, therefore, who are kept by his power through faith, as Peter says, may be secure and calm, (1Pe 1:5,) because whatever Satan devises, and however the world attempts various plans for our destruction, we shall still remain safe in Christ. We thus see how the Prophet’s words ought to be understood, when he says that this fifth empire is not to be transferred and alienated to another people. The last clause of the sentence, which is this, it shall bruise and break all other kingdoms, and shall stand perpetually itself, does not require any long exposition. We have explained the manner in which Christ’s kingdom should destroy all the earthly kingdoms of which Daniel had previously spoken; since whatever is adverse to the only-begotten Son of God, must necessarily perish and utterly vanish away. A Prophet exhorts all the kings of the earth to kiss the Son. (Psa 2:12.) Since neither the Babylonians, nor Persians, nor Macedonians, nor Romans, submitted themselves to Christ, nay, even used their utmost efforts to oppose him, they were the enemies of piety, and ought to be extinguished by Christ’s kingdom; because, although the Persian empire was not in existence when Christ appeared in the world, yet its remembrance was cursed before God. For Daniel does not here touch only on those things which were visible to men, but raises our minds higher, assuring us most clearly that no true support on which we can rest can be found except in Christ alone. Hence he pronounces, that without Christ all the splendor, and power, opulence, and might of the world, is vain, and unstable, and worthless. He confirms the same sentiment in the following verse, where God shewed the king of Babylon what should happen in the last times, when he pointed out a stone cut out of the mountain without hands We stated Christ to be cut out of the mountain without hands, because he was divinely sent, so that men cannot claim anything for themselves in this respect, since God, when treating of the redemption of his own people, speaks thus, by Isaiah, — Since God saw no help in the world, he relied upon his own arm and his own power. (Isa 63:5.) As, therefore, Christ was sent only by his heavenly Father, he is said to be cut out without hands

Meanwhile, we must consider what I have added in the second place, that the humble and abject origin of Christ is denoted, since it was like a rough and unpolished stone. With regard to the word “mountain”, I have no doubt Daniel here, wished to shew Christ’s reign to be sublime, and above the whole world. Hence the figure of the mountain means, in my opinion, — Christ should not spring out of the earth, but should come in the glory of his heavenly Father, as it is said in the Prophet. And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art the least among the divisions of Judah; yet out of thee shall a leader in Israel arise for me, and his reign shall be from the days of eternity. (Mic 5:2.) Daniel, then, here condescends to those gross imaginations to which our minds are subjected. Because, at the beginning, Christ’s dignity did not, appear so great as we discern it in the kings of the world, and to this day it seems to some obscured by the shame of the cross, many, alas! despise him, and do not acknowledge any dignity in him. Daniel, therefore, now raises aloft our eyes and senses, when he says this stone should be cut out of the mountain Meanwhile, if any one prefers taking the mountain for the elect people, I will not object to it, but this seems to me not in accordance with the genuine sense of the Prophet. At length he adds, And the dream is true, and its interpretation trustworthy Here Daniel securely and intrepidly asserts, that he does not bring forward doubtful conjectures, but explains faithfully to King Nebuchadnezzar what he has received from the Lord. Here he claims for himself the Prophetic authority, to induce the king of Babylon to acknowledge him a sure and faithful interpreter of God. We see how the prophets always spoke with this confidence, otherwise all their teaching would be useless. If our faith depended on man’s wisdom, or on anything of the kind, it would indeed be variable. Hence it is necessary to determine this foundation of truth, — Whatever the Prophets set before us proceeds from God; and the reason why they so constantly insist on this is, lest their doctrine should be supposed to be fabricated by men. Thus also in this place, Daniel first says, the dream is true; as if he said, the dream is not a common one, as the poets fable concerning a gate of horn; the dream is not confused, as men imagine when scarcely sane, or stuffed with meat and drink, or through bodily constitution, either melancholy or choleric. He states, therefore, the king of Babylon’s dream to have been a true oracle; and adds, its interpretation is certain Where, as in the next clause, the Prophet again urges his own authority, lest Nebuchadnezzar should doubt his divine instructions to explain the truth of his dream. It now follows, —

(163) The Rabbi Barbinel, to whose opinion Calvin’s attention was drawn, was the celebrated Jewish statesman and commentator, Isaac Abarbanel. He claimed descent from the family of King David, being born in Lisbon 1437, and died at Venice 1508. From Dr. M’Caul’s preface to Tegg’s ­Prideaux, (1845,) we learn that his “Commentary to Daniel” was entitled Mayene ha-yeshuah, and published after his death in 1551, 4to, and also at Amsterdam, 1647. The younger Buxtory translated it into Latin, and it was refuted at length by Carpzov, Hulsius, and Varenius. Several of his works are still unprinted. He was a strong opponent of the Christian interpretation of Daniel, and an equally determined combatant of the rationalistic views of Moses the Egyptian, the son of Maimon.

(164) This word is omitted in the edition published at Geneva A.D. 1667, but is correctly inserted in that of Bart. Vincentius, A.D. 1571. — Tr.



When the king of Babylon fell upon his face, it is partly to be considered as worthy of praise and partly of blame. It was a sign of both piety and modesty, when he prostrated himself before God and his Prophet. We know the fierceness and pride of kings; nay, we see them act like madmen, because they do not reckon themselves among mortals, and become blinded with the splendor of their greatness. Nebuchadnezzar was really a very powerful monarch, and it was difficult for him so to regulate his mind as to attribute the glory to God. Thus the dream which Daniel explained could not be pleasing to him. He saw his monarchy cursed before God, and about to perish in ignominy others, too, which should succeed it were ordained in heaven; and though he might receive some comfort from the destruction of the other kingdoms, yet it was very harsh to delicate ears, to hear that a kingdom, which appeared most flourishing, and which all men thought would be perpetual, was of but short duration and sure to perish. As, therefore, the king so prostrated himself before Daniel, it is, as I have said, a sign of piety in thus reverencing God, and in embracing the prophecy, which would otherwise be bitter and distasteful. It was also a sign of modesty, because he humbled himself so before God’s Prophet Thus far the king of Babylon is worthy of praise, and we will discuss tomorrow the deficiency in his reverence.



This confession is quite pious and holy, and is fraught with rectitude and sincerity; it may even be taken as a proof of true conversion and repentance. But, as I have lately reminded you, profane men are sometimes seized with an admiration of God and then they profess largely and copiously whatever may be expected from God’s true worshippers. Still this is but momentary, for all the while they remain wrapt up in their own superstitions. God, therefore, extorts this language from them, when they speak so piously; but they inwardly retain their faults, and afterwards easily fall back to their accustomed habits — as a memorable example will shortly prove to us. Whatever sense be adopted, God wished his glory to be proclaimed by the mouth of the profane king, and desired him to be the herald of his own power and influence. But this was peculiarly profitable to those Jews who still remained firm in their allegiance; for the greater part had revolted — notoriously enough, and had degenerated with great facility from the pure worship of God. When led into captivity, they became idolaters and apostates, and denied the living God; but a small number of the pious remained; God wished to promote their benefit, and to strengthen their minds when he drew this confession from the king of Babylon. But another object was gained, since the king as well as all the Chaldeans and Assyrians were rendered more excuseless. For if the God of Israel was truly God, why did Bel in the meantime retain his rank? He is the God of gods — then it must be added at once, he is the enemy of false gods. We observe how Nebuchadnezzar here mingles light with darkness, and black with white, while he confesses the God of Israel to be supreme among gods, and set continues to worship other deities. For if the God of Israel obtains his right, all idols vanish away. Hence, Nebuchadnezzar contends with himself in this language. But, as I have said, he is seized by a violent impulse, and is not quite in his senses when he so freely declares the power of the only God.

As far then as words go, he says, truly your God is himself a God of gods The particle truly is by no means superfluous here; it is strongly affirmative. For if any one had inquired of him whether Bel and other idols were to be worshipped as gods, he might answer, “yes; ” but doubtfully, and according to pre-conceived opinion, since all superstitious worshippers are perplexed, and if ever they defend their superstitons, they do so with the rashness which the devil suggests, but not according to their judgment. In truth, their minds are not composed when they dare to assert their own superstitions to be pious and holy. But Nebuchadnezzar seems here formally to renounce his own errors; as if he had said — Hitherto I acknowledged other gods, but I now change my opinion; I have discovered your God to be the chief of all gods. And, truly, if he really spoke his own mind, he might perceive he was doing injustice to his own idols, if there was any divinity in them; Israel’s God was confessedly held in utter hatred and abomination by the profane nations. By extolling him above all gods, he degrades Bel and the whole crew of false gods which the Babylonian worshipped. But, as we have said, he was swayed by impulse and spoke without thinking. He was in a kind of enthusiasm, since God astonished him, and then drew him on to wonder at and to declare his own power. He calls him Lord of kings, by which eulogium he claims for him the supreme dominion over the world; he means to assert that Israel’s God not only excels all others, but holds the reins of government over the world. For if he is the Lord of kings, all people are under his hand and dominion! and the multitude of mankind cannot be drawn away from his empire, if he rules their very monarchs. We understand, therefore, the meaning of these words, namely, whatever deity is worshipped is inferior to the God of Israel, because he is high above all gods; then his providence rules over the world, while he is Lord of all peoples and kings, and governs all things by his will.

He adds, he is a revealer of secrets This is our proof of Divinity, as we have said elsewhere. For Isaiah, when wishing to prove the existence of only one God, takes these two principles, viz., Nothing happens without his permission; and his foreseeing all things. (Dan 48:3.) These two principles have been inseparably unified. Although Nebuchadnezzar did not understand what was the true peculiarity of Divinity, yet he is here impelled by the secret instinct of God’s Spirit clearly to set forth God’s power and wisdom. Hence he confesses the God of Israel to excel all gods, since he obtains power in the whole world, and nothing whatever is concealed from him. He adds the reason — Daniel could reveal that secret This reason does not seem very good one; for he infers the world to be governed by one God, because Daniel made this secret known. But, then “this has no reference to his power.” The answer to this remark is easy; we shewed elsewhere how we ought not to imagine a god like Apollo who can only predict future events. And, truly, it is far too insipid to attribute to God simple prescience, as if the events of the world had any other dependence than upon his power; for God is said to have a previous knowledge of future events, because he determined what he wished to have done. Hence Nebuchadnezzar concluded the dominion of the whole world to be in God’s hands, because he could predict futurity; for unless he had the full power over the future, he could not predict anything with certainty. As, therefore, he really predicts future; events, this clearly determines all things to be ordained by him, and disproves the existence of chance, while he fulfills whatever he has decreed.

Let us learn from this passage, how insufficient it is to celebrate God’s wisdom and power with noisy declamation, unless we at the same time reject all superstitions from our minds, and so cling to the only God as to bid all others heartily farewell. No fuller verbal confession can be required than is here set before us; and yet we observe how Nebuchadnezzar was always involved in Satan’s impostures, because he wished to retain his false gods, and thought it sufficient to yield the first place to the God of Israel. Let us learn again, to do our best in purging the mind front all superstitions, that the only God may pervade all our senses. Meanwhile, we must observe how severe and dreadful a judgment awaits Papists, and all like them, who at least ought to be imbued with the rudiments of piety, while they confess the existence of but one supreme God, and yet; mingle together a great multitude of deities, and dishonor both his power and wisdom, and at the same time observe, what is here said by a profane king. For the Papists not; only divide God’s power, by distributing it in parts to each of their saints; but also when they speak of God himself, they fancy him as knowing all things beforehand, and yet; leaving all things contingent on man’s free will; first creating all things, and then leaving every event in suspense. Hence heaven and earth, as they bear either men’s merits; or crimes, at one time become useful, and at another adverse to mankind. Truly enough, neither rain, nor heat, nor cloudy nor serene weather, nor anything else happens without God’s permission; and whatever is adverse is a sign of his curse; whatever is prosperous and desirable is the sign of his favor. This, indeed, is true, but when the Papists lay their foundation in the will of man, we see how they deprive God of his rights. Let us learn, then, from this passage, not to attribute to God less than was conceded by this profane king.



Here also another point is added, namely, how King Nebuchadnezzar raised God’s Prophet and adorned him with the highest honors. We have spoken of that preposterous worship which he himself displayed and commanded others to offer. As far as concerns gifts and the discharge of public duties, we can neither condemn Nebuchadnezzar for honoring God’s servant, nor yet Daniel for suffering himself to be thus exalted. All God’s servants ought to take care not to make a gain of their office, and we know how very pestilent the disease is when prophets and teachers are addicted to gain, or easily receive the gifts offered them. For where there is no contempt of money, many vices necessarily spring up, since all avaricious and covetous men adulterate God’s word and makes, traffic of it. (2Co 2:17.) Hence all prophets and ministers of God ought to watch against being covetous of gifts. But as far as Daniel is concerned, he might receive what the king offered him just as Joseph could lawfully undertake the government of the whole of Egypt. (Gen 41:40.) There is no doubt that Daniel had other views than his private and personal advantage. We must not believe him covetous of gain while he bore his exile so patiently, and, besides this, when at the hazard of his life he had preferred abstinence from the royal food to alienating himself from the people of God. As he manifestly preferred the shame of the cross by which God’s people were then oppressed, to opulence, luxury, and honor, who will think him blinded by avarice through receiving gifts? But since he saw the sons of God miserably and cruelly oppressed by the Chaldeans, he wished as far as he could to succor them in their miseries. As he well knew this would afford some consolation and support to his race, he allowed himself to be made prefect of a province. And the same reason influenced him to seek some place of authority for his companions, as follows, —



Some ambition may be noticed here in the Prophet, since he procures honors for his own companions. For when the king spontaneously offers him a command, he is obliged to accept it; he need not offend the mind of the proud king. There was a necessity for this, because he himself seeks from the king prefectships for others. What shall we say was the origin of this conduct? As I have already hinted, Daniel may be here suspected of ambition, for it might be charged against him as a crime that he made a gain of the doctrine which he had been divinely taught. But, he rather regarded his people, and wished to bring some comfort to them when oppressed. For the Chaldeans treated their slaves tyrannically, and we are aware how the Jews were utterly hated by the whole world. When therefore Daniel, through the feeling of pity, seeks some consolation from the people of God, there is no reason for accusing him of any fault, because he was not drawn aside by private advantage, and did not desire honors for either himself or his companions; but he was intent on that object to enable his companions to succor the Jews in their troubles. Hence the authority which he obtains for them has no other object than to cause the Jews to be treated a little more humanely, as their condition would not be so harsh and bitter while they have prefects of their own people who should study to treat them as brethren. We now see how Daniel may be rightly acquitted of this charge without any difficulty or argument; for the matter itself is sufficiently clear, and we may readily collect that Daniel was both pious and humane, and free from all charge of sin. From the words — was in the king’s gate, we ought not to understand his being a gate-keeper. Some suppose this phrase to be used, because they were accustomed to exercise justice there; but they transfer to the Chaldeans what Scripture teaches us of the Jews. I take it more simply. Daniel was chief over the king’s court, since he held the supreme command there; and that sense is more genuine. Besides, we are fully aware of the custom of the Chaldeans and Assyrians to make the approach to the king difficult. Daniel is therefore said to be at the gate, to prevent any entrance into the king’s palace, unless by his permission. It now follows, —