Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume VI. Lesser Prophets/Daniel

by Franz Delitzsch

The Prophecies of Daniel

Introduction

I. The Person of the Prophet

The name דּניּאל or דּנאל (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3), Δανιήλ, i.e., “God is my Judge,” or, if the י is the Yod compaginis, “God is judging,” “God will judge,” but not “Judge of God,” is in the Old Testament borne by a son of David by Abigail (1Ch 3:1), a Levite in the time of Ezra (Ezr 8:2; Neh 10:7 6), and by the prophet whose life and prophecies form the contents of this book.
Of Daniel's life the following particulars are related: - From Dan 1:1-5 it appears that, along with other youths of the “king's seed,” and of the most distinguished families of Israel, he was carried captive to Babylon, in the reign of Jehoiakim, by Nebuchadnezzar, when he first came up against Jerusalem and took it, and that there, under the Chaldee name of Belteshazzar, he spent three years in acquiring a knowledge of Chaldee science and learning, that he might be prepared for serving in the king's palace. Whether Daniel was of the “seed royal,” or only belonged to one of the most distinguished families of Israel, is not decided, inasmuch as there is no certain information regarding his descent. The statement of Josephus (Ant. 10:10,1), that he was ἐκ τοῦ Σεδεκίου γένους, is probably an opinion deduced from Dan 1:3, and it is not much better established than the saying of Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. 55.3) that his father was called Σαβαάν, and that of the Pseudo-Epiphanius (de vita proph. ch. 10) that he was born at Upper Bethhoron, not far from Jerusalem. During the period set apart for his education, Daniel and his like-minded friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who had received the Chaldee names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, abstained, with the consent of their overseer, from the meat and drink provided for them from the king's table, lest they should thereby be defiled through contact with idolatry, and partook only of pulse and water. This stedfast adherence to the faith of their fathers was so blessed of God, that they were not only in bodily appearance fairer than the other youths who ate of the king's meat, but they also made such progress in their education, that at the end of their years of training, on an examination of their attainments in the presence of the king, they far excelled all the Chaldean wise men throughout the whole kingdom (Dan 1:6-20).
After this, in the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar, being troubled in spirit by a remarkable dream which he had dreamt, called to him all the astrologers and Chaldeans of Babylon, that they might tell him the dream and interpret it. They confessed their inability to fulfil his desire. The king's dream and its interpretation were then revealed by God to Daniel, in answer to prayer, so that he could tell the matter to the king. On this account Nebuchadnezzar gave glory to the God of the Jews as the God of gods and the Revealer of hidden things, and raised Daniel to the rank of ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief president over all the wise men of Babylon. At the request of Daniel, he also appointed his three friends to be administrators over the province, so that Daniel remained in the king's palace (Daniel 2). He held this office during the whole of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and interpreted, at a later period, a dream of great significance relative to a calamity which was about to fall upon the king (Daniel 4).
After Nebuchadnezzar's death he appears to have been deprived of his elevated rank, as the result of the change of government. But Belshazzar, having been alarmed during a riotous feast by the finger of a man's hand writing on the wall, called to him the Chaldeans and astrologers. None of them was able to read and to interpret the mysterious writing. The king's mother thereupon directed that Daniel should be called, and he read and interpreted the writing to the king. For this he was promoted by the king to be the third ruler of the kingdom, i.e., to be one of the three chief governors of the kingdom (Daniel 5). This office he continued to hold under the Median king Darius. The other princes of the empire and the royal satraps sought to deprive him of it, but God the Lord in a wonderful manner saved him (Daniel 6) by His angel from the mouth of the lions; and he remained in office under the government of the Persian Cyrus (Dan 6:28 [29]).
During this second half of his life Daniel was honoured by God with revelations regarding the development of the world-power in its different phases, the warfare between it and the kingdom of God, and the final victory of the latter over all hostile powers. These relations are contained in Daniel 7-12. The last of them was communicated to him in the third year of Cyrus the king (Dan 10:1), i.e., in the second year after Cyrus had issued his edict (Ezr 1:1.) permitting the Jews to return to their own land and to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. Hence we learn that Daniel lived to see the beginning of the return of his people from their exile. He did not, however, return to his native land with the company that went up under Zerubbabel and Joshua, but remained in Babylon, and there ended his days, probably not long after the last of these revelations from God had been communicated to him, which concluded with the command to seal up the book of his prophecies till the time of the end, and with the charge, rich in its comfort, to go in peace to meet his death, and to await the resurrection from the dead at the end of the days (Dan 12:4, Dan 12:13). If Daniel was a youth (ילד, Dan 1:4, Dan 1:10) of from fifteen to eighteen years of age at the time of his being carried captive into Chaldea, and died in the faith of the divine promise soon after the last revelation made to him in the third year (Dan 10:1) of king Cyrus, then he must have reached the advanced age of at least ninety years.
The statements of this book regarding his righteousness and piety, as also regarding his wonderful endowment with wisdom to reveal hidden things, receive a powerful confirmation from the language of his contemporary Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20), who mentions Daniel along with Noah and Job as a pattern of righteousness of life pleasing to God, and (Eze 28:3) speaks of his wisdom as above that of the princes of Tyre. If we consider that Ezekiel gave expression to the former of these statements fourteen years, and to the other eighteen years, after Daniel had been carried captive to Babylon, and also that the former statement was made eleven, and the latter fifteen years, after his elevation to the rank of president of the Chaldean wise men, then it will in no way appear surprising to us to find that the fame of his righteousness and his wonderful wisdom was so spread abroad among the Jewish exiles, that Ezekiel was able to point to him as a bright example of these virtues. When now God gave him, under Belshazzar, a new opportunity, by reading and interpreting the mysterious handwriting on the wall, of showing his supernatural prophetic gifts, on account of which he was raised by the king to one of the highest offices of state in the kingdom; when, moreover, under the Median king Darius the machinations of his enemies against his life were frustrated by his wonderful deliverance from the jaws of the lions, and he not only remained to hoary old age to hold that high office, but also received from God revelations regarding the development of the world-power and of the kingdom of God, which in precision excel all the predictions of the prophets, - then it could not fail but that a life so rich in the wonders of divine power and grace should not only attract the attention of his contemporaries, but also that after his death it should become a subject of wide-spread fame, as appears from the apocryphal addition to his book in the Alexandrine translation of it, and in the later Jewish Haggada, and be enlarged upon by the church fathers, and even by Mohammedan authors. Cf. Herbelot, Biblioth. Orient. s.v. Daniel, and Delitzsch, de Habacuci Proph. vita atque aetate, Lps. 1842, p. 24ff.
Regarding the end of Daniel's life and his burial nothing certain is known. The Jewish report of his return to his fatherland (cf. Carpzov, Introd. iii. p. 239f.) has as little historical value as that which relates that he died in Babylon, and was buried in the king's sepulchre (Pseud.-Epiph.), or that his grave was in Susa (Abulph. and Benjamin of Tudela).
In direct opposition to the wide-spread reports which bear testimony to the veneration with which the prophet was regarded, stands the modern naturalistic criticism, which, springing from antipathy to the miracles of the Bible, maintains that the prophet never existed at all, but that his life and labours, as they are recorded in this book, are the mere invention of a Jew of the time of the Maccabees, who attributed his fiction to Daniel, deriving the name from some unknown hero of mythic antiquity (Bleek, von Lengerke, Hitzig) or of the Assyrian exile (Ewald).

II. Daniel's Place in the History of the Kingdom of God

Though Daniel lived during the Babylonian exile, yet it was not, as in the case of Ezekiel, in the midst of his countrymen, who had been carried into captivity, but at the court of the ruler of the world and in the service of the state. To comprehend his work for the kingdom of God in this situation, we must first of all endeavour to make clear the significance of the Babylonian exile, not only for the people of Israel, but also for the heathen nations, with reference to the working out of the divine counsel for the salvation of the human race.
Let us first fix our attention on the significance of the exile for Israel, the people of God under the Old Covenant. The destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the deportation of the Jews into Babylonish captivity, not only put an end to the independence of the covenant people, but also to the continuance of that constitution of the kingdom of God which was founded at Sinai; and that not only temporarily, but for ever, for in its integrity it was never restored. God the Lord had indeed, in the foundation of the Old Covenant, through the institution of circumcision as a sign of the covenant for the chosen people, given to the patriarch Abraham the promise that He would establish His covenant with him and his seed as an everlasting covenant, that He would be a God to them, and would give them the land of Canaan as a perpetual possession (Gen 17:18-19). Accordingly, at the establishment of this covenant with the people of Israel by Moses, the fundamental arrangements of the covenant constitution were designated as everlasting institutions (עולם חקּת or חק); as, for example, the arrangements connected with the feast of the passover (Exo 12:14, Exo 12:17, Exo 12:24), the day of atonement (Lev 16:29, Lev 16:31, Lev 16:34), and the other feasts (Lev 23:14, Lev 23:21, Lev 23:31, Lev 23:41), the most important of the arrangements concerning the offering of sacrifice (Lev 3:17; Lev 7:34, Lev 7:36; Lev 10:15; Num 15:15; Num 18:8, Num 18:11, Num 18:19), and concerning the duties and rights of the priests (Exo 27:21; Exo 28:43; Exo 29:28; Exo 30:21), etc. God fulfilled His promise. He not only delivered the tribes of Israel from their bondage in Egypt by the wonders of His almighty power, and put them in possession of the land of Canaan, but He also protected them there against their enemies, and gave to them afterwards in David a king who ruled over them according to His will, overcame all their enemies, and made Israel powerful and prosperous. Moreover He gave to this king, His servant David, who, after he had vanquished all his enemies round about, wished to build a house for the Lord that His name might dwell there, the Great Promise: “When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy shall not depart away from him ... . And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever” (2Sa 7:12-16). Wherefore after David's death, when his son Solomon built the temple, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “If thou wilt walk in my statutes, ... then will I perform my word unto thee which I spake unto David thy father, and I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel” (1Ki 6:12-13). After the completion of the building of the temple the glory of the Lord filled the house, and God appeared to Solomon the second time, renewing the assurance, “If thou wilt walk before me as David thy father walked, ... then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father” (1Ki 9:2-5). The Lord was faithful to this His word to the people of Israel, and to the seed of David. When Solomon in his old age, through the influence of his foreign wives, was induced to sanction the worship of idols, God visited the king's house with chastisement, by the revolt of the ten tribes, which took place after Solomon's death; but He gave to his son Rehoboam the kingdom of Judah and Benjamin, with the metropolis Jerusalem and the temple, and He preserved this kingdom, notwithstanding the constantly repeated declension of the king and the people into idolatry, even after the Assyrians had destroyed the kingdom of the ten tribes, whom they carried into captivity. But at length Judah also, through the wickedness of Manasseh, filled up the measure of its iniquity, and brought upon itself the judgment of the dissolution of the kingdom, and the carrying away of the inhabitants into captivity into Babylon.
In his last address and warning to the people against their continued apostasy from the Lord their God, Moses had, among other severe chastisements that would fall upon them, threatened this as the last of the punishments with which God would visit them. This threatening was repeated by all the prophets; but at the same time, following the example of Moses, they further announced that the Lord would again receive into His favour His people driven into exile, if, humbled under their sufferings, they would turn again unto Him; that He would gather them together from the heathen lands, and bring them back to their own land, and renew them by His Spirit, and would then erect anew in all its glory the kingdom of David under the Messiah. Thus Micah not only prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, and the leading away into captivity of the daughters of Zion (Mic 3:12; Mic 4:10), but also the return from Babylon and the restoration of the former dominion of the daughters of Jerusalem, their victory over all their enemies under the sceptre of the Ruler who would go forth from Bethlehem, and the exaltation of the mountain of the house of the Lord above all mountains and hills in the last days (Mic 5:1., Mic 4:1.). Isaiah also announced (Isa 40-66) the deliverance of Israel out of Babylon, the building up of the ruins of Jerusalem and Judah, and the final glory of Zion through the creation of new heavens and a new earth. Jeremiah, in like manner, at the beginning of the Chaldean catastrophe, not only proclaimed to the people who had become ripe for the judgment, the carrying away into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, and the continuance of the exile for the space of seventy years, but he also prophesied the destruction of Babylon after the end of the seventy years, and the return of the people of Judah and Israel who might survive to the land of their fathers, the rebuilding of the desolated city, and the manifestation of God's grace toward them, by His entering into a new covenant with them, and writing His law upon their hearts and forgiving their sins (Jer 25:9-12; 31:8-34).
Hence it evidently appears that the abolition of the Israelitish theocracy, through the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the carrying away of the people into exile by the Chaldeans, in consequence of their continued unfaithfulness and the transgression of the laws of the covenant on the part of Israel, was foreseen in the gracious counsels of God; and that the perpetual duration of the covenant of grace, as such, was not dissolved, but only the then existing condition of the kingdom of God was changed, in order to winnow that perverse people, who, notwithstanding all the chastisements that had hitherto fallen upon them, had not in earnest turned away from their idolatry, by that the severest of all the judgments that had been threatened them; to exterminate by the sword, by famine, by the plague, and by other calamities, the incorrigible mass of the people; and to prepare the better portion of them, the remnant who might repent, as a holy seed to whom God might fulfil His covenant promises.
Accordingly the exile forms a great turning-point in the development of the kingdom of God which He had founded in Israel. With that event the form of the theocracy established at Sinai comes to an end, and then begins the period of the transition to a new form, which was to be established by Christ, and has been actually established by Him. The form according to which the people of God constituted an earthly kingdom, taking its place beside the other kingdoms of the nations, was not again restored after the termination of the seventy years of the desolations of Jerusalem and Judah, which had been prophesied by Jeremiah, because the Old Testament theocracy had served its end. God the Lord had, during its continuance, showed daily not only that He was Israel's God, a merciful and gracious God, who was faithful to His covenant towards those who feared Him and walked in His commandments and laws, and who could make His people great and glorious, and had power to protect them against all their enemies; but also that He was a mighty and a jealous God, who visits the blasphemers of His holy name according to their iniquity, and is able to fulfil His threatenings no less than His promises. It was necessary that the people of Israel should know by experience that a transgressing of the covenant and a turning away from the service of God does not lead to safety, but hastens onward to ruin; that deliverance from sin, and salvation life and happiness, can be found only with the Lord who is rich in grace and in faithfulness, and can only be reached by a humble walking according to His commandments.
The restoration of the Jewish state after the exile was not a re-establishment of the Old Testament kingdom of God. When Cyrus granted liberty to the Jews to return to their own land, and commanded them to rebuild the temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem, only a very small band of captives returned; the greater part remained scattered among the heathen. Even those who went home from Babylon to Canaan were not set free from subjection to the heathen world-power, but remained, in the land which the Lord had given to their fathers, servants to it. Though now again the ruined walls of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were restored, and the temple also was rebuilt, and the offering up of sacrifice renewed, yet the glory of the Lord did not again enter into the new temple, which was also without the ark of the covenant and the mercy-seat, so as to hallow it as the place of His gracious presence among His people. The temple worship among the Jews after the captivity was without its soul, the real presence of the Lord in the sanctuary; the high priest could no longer go before God's throne of grace in the holy of holies to sprinkle the atoning blood of the sacrifice toward the ark of the covenant, and to accomplish the reconciliation of the congregation with their God, and could no longer find out, by means of the Urim and Thummim, the will of the Lord. When Nehemiah had finished the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, prophecy ceased, the revelations of the Old Covenant came to a final end, and the period of expectation (during which no prophecy as given) of the promised Deliverer, of the seed of David, began. When this Deliverer appeared in Jesus Christ, and the Jews did not recognise Him as their Saviour, but rejected Him and put Him to death, they were at length, on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, scattered throughout the whole world, and to this day they live in a state of banishment from the presence of the Lord, till they return to Christ, and through faith in Him again enter into the kingdom of God and be blessed.
The space of 500 years, from the end of the Babylonish captivity to the appearance of Christ, can be considered as the last period of the Old Covenant only in so far as in point of time it precedes the foundation of the New Covenant; but it was in reality, for that portion of the Jewish people who had returned to Judea, no deliverance from subjection to the power of the heathen, no re-introduction into the kingdom of God, but only a period of transition from the Old to the New Covenant, during which Israel were prepared for the reception of the Deliverer coming out of Zion. This respect this period may be compared with the forty, or more accurately, the thirty-eight years of the wanderings of Israel in the Arabian desert. As God did not withdraw all the tokens of His gracious covenant from the race that was doomed to die in the wilderness, but guided them by His pillar of cloud and fire, and gave them manna to eat, so He gave grace to those who had returned from Babylon to Jerusalem to build again the temple and to restore the sacrificial service, whereby they prepared themselves for the appearance of Him who should build the true temple, and make an everlasting atonement by the offering up of His life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
If the prophets before the captivity, therefore, connect the deliverance of Israel from Babylon and their return to Canaan immediately with the setting up of the kingdom of God in its glory, without giving any indication that between the end of the Babylonish exile and the appearance of the Messiah a long period would intervene, this uniting together of the two events is not to be explained only from the perspective and apotelesmatic character of the prophecy, but has its foundation in the very nature of the thing itself. The prophetic perspective, by virtue of which the inward eye of the seer beholds only the elevated summits of historical events as they unfold themselves, and not the valleys of the common incidents of history which lie between these heights, is indeed peculiar to prophecy in general, and accounts for the circumstance that the prophecies as a rule give no fixed dates, and apotelesmatically bind together the points of history which open the way to the end, with the end itself. But this formal peculiarity of prophetic contemplation we must not extend to the prejudice of the actual truth of the prophecies. The fact of the uniting together of the future glory of the kingdom of God under the Messiah with the deliverance of Israel from exile, has perfect historical veracity. The banishment of the covenant people from the land of the Lord and their subjection to the heathen, was not only the last of those judgments which God had threatened against His degenerate people, but it also continues till the perverse rebels are exterminated, and the penitents are turned with sincere hearts to God the Lord and are saved through Christ. Consequently the exile was for Israel the last space for repentance which God in His faithfulness to His covenant granted to them. Whoever is not brought by this severe chastisement to repentance and reformation, but continues opposed to the gracious will of God, on him falls the judgment of death; and only they who turn themselves to the Lord, their God and Saviour, will be saved, gathered from among the heathen, brought in within the bonds of the covenant of grace through Christ, and become partakers of the promised riches of grace in His kingdom.
But with the Babylonish exile of Israel there also arises for the heathen nations a turning-point of marked importance for their future history. So long as Israel formed within the borders of their own separated land a peculiar people, under immediate divine guidance, the heathen nations dwelling around came into manifold hostile conflicts with them, while God used them as a rod of correction for His rebellious people. Though they were often at war among themselves, yet, in general separated from each other, each nation developed itself according to its own proclivities. Besides, from ancient times the greater kingdoms on the Nile and the Euphrates had for centuries striven to raise their power, enlarging themselves into world-powers; while the Phoenicians on the Mediterranean sea-coast gave themselves to commerce, and sought to enrich themselves with the treasures of the earth. In this development the smaller as well as the larger nations gradually acquired strength. God had permitted each of them to follow its own way, and had conferred on them much good, that they might seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him; but the principle of sin dwelling within them had poisoned their natural development, so that they went farther and farther away from the living God and from everlasting good, sunk deeper and deeper into idolatry and immorality of every kind, and went down with rapid steps toward destruction. Then God began to winnow the nations of the world by His great judgments. The Chaldeans raised themselves, under energetic leaders, to be a world-power, which not only overthrew the Assyrian kingdom and subjugated all the lesser nations of Hither Asia, but also broke the power of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and brought under its dominion all the civilised peoples of the East. With the monarchy founded by Nebuchadnezzar it raised itself in the rank of world-powers, which within not long intervals followed each other in quick succession, until the Roman world-monarchy arose, by which all the civilised nations of antiquity were subdued, and under which the ancient world came to a close, at the appearance of Christ. These world-kingdoms, which destroyed one another, each giving place, after a short existence, to its successor, which in its turn also was overthrown by another that followed, led the nations, on the one side, to the knowledge of the helplessness and the vanity of their idols, and taught them the fleeting nature and the nothingness of all earthly greatness and glory, and, on the other side, placed limits to the egoistical establishment of the difference nations in their separate interests, and the deification of their peculiarities in education, culture, art, and science, and thereby prepared the way, by means of the spreading abroad of the language and customs of the physically or intellectually dominant people among all the different nationalities united under one empire, for the removal of the particularistic isolation of the tribes separated from them by language and customs, and for the re-uniting together into one universal family of the scattered tribes of the human race. Thus they opened the way for the revelation of the divine plan of salvation to all peoples, whilst they shook the faith of the heathen in their gods, destroyed the frail supports of heathen religion, and awakened the longing for the Saviour from sin, death, and destruction.
But God, the Lord of heaven and earth, revealed to the heathen His eternal Godhead and His invisible essence, not only by His almighty government in the disposal of the affairs of their history, but He also, in every great event in the historical development of humanity, announced His will through that people whom He had chosen as the depositaries of His salvation. Already the patriarchs had, by their lives and by their fear of God, taught the Canaanites the name of the Lord so distinctly, that they were known amongst them as “princes of God” (Gen 23:6), and in their God they acknowledged the most high God, the Creator of heaven and earth (Gen 14:19, Gen 14:22). Thus, when Moses was sent to Pharaoh to announce to him the will of God regarding the departure of the people of Israel, and when Pharaoh refused to listen to the will of God, his land and his people were so struck by the wonders of the divine omnipotence, that not only the Egyptians learned to fear the God of Israel, but the fear and dread of Him also fell on the princes of Edom and Moab, and on all the inhabitants of Canaan (Exo 15:14.). Afterwards, when Israel came to the borders of Canaan, and the king of Moab, in conjunction with the princes of Midian, brought the famed soothsayer Balaam out of Mesopotamia that he might destroy the people of God with his curse, Balaam was constrained to predict, according to the will of God, to the king and his counsellors the victorious power of Israel over all their enemies, and the subjection of all the heathen nations (Num 22-24). In the age succeeding, God the Lord showed Himself to the nations, as often as they assailed Israel contrary to His will, as an almighty God who can destroy all His enemies; and even the Israelitish prisoners of war were the means of making known to the heathen the great name of the God of Israel, as the history of the cure of Naaman the Syrian by means of Elisha shows (2 Kings 5). This knowledge of the living, all-powerful God could not but be yet more spread abroad among the heathen by the leading away captive of the tribes of Israel and of Judah into Assyria and Chaldea.
But fully to prepare, by the exile, the people of Israel as well as the heathen world for the appearance of the Saviour of all nations and for the reception of the gospel, the Lord raised up prophets, who not only preached His law and His justice among the covenant people scattered among the heathen, and made more widely known the counsel of His grace, but also bore witness by word and deed, in the presence of the heathen rulers of the world, of the omnipotence and glory of God, the Lord of heaven and earth. This mission was discharged by Ezekiel and Daniel. God placed the prophet Ezekiel among his exiled fellow-countrymen as a watchman over the house of Israel, that he might warn the godless, proclaim to them continually the judgment which would fall upon them and destroy their vain hopes of a speedy liberation from bondage and a return to their fatherland; but to the God-fearing, who were bowed down under the burden of their sorrows and were led to doubt the covenant faithfulness of God, he was commissioned to testify the certain fulfilment of the predictions of the earlier prophets as to the restoration and bringing to its completion of the kingdom of God. A different situation was appointed by God to Daniel. His duty was to proclaim before the throne of the rulers of this world the glory of the God of Israel as the God of heaven and earth, in opposition to false gods; to announce to those invested with worldly might and dominion the subjugation of all the kingdoms of this world by the everlasting kingdom of God; and to his own people the continuance of their afflictions under the oppression of the world-power, as well as the fulfilment of the gracious counsels of God through the blotting out of all sin, the establishment of an everlasting righteousness, the fulfilling of all the prophecies, and the setting up of a true holy of holies.

III. The Contents and Arrangement of the Book of Daniel

The book begins (Daniel 1) with the account of Daniel's being carried away to Babylon, his appointment and education for the service of the court of the Chaldean king by a three years' course of instruction in the literature and wisdom of the Chaldeans, and his entrance on service in the king's palace. This narrative, by its closing (Dan 1:21) statement that Daniel continued in this office till the first year of king Cyrus, and still more by making manifest his firm fidelity to the law of the true God and his higher enlightenment in the meaning of dreams and visions granted to him on account of this fidelity, as well as by the special mention of his three like-minded friends, is to be regarded as a historico-biographical introduction to the book, showing how Daniel, under the divine guidance, was prepared, along with his friends, for that calling in which, as prophet at the court of the rulers of the world, he might bear testimony to the omnipotence and the infallible wisdom of the God of Israel. This testimony is given in the following book. Daniel 2 contains a remarkable dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which none of the Chaldean wise men could tell to the king or interpret. But God made it known to Daniel in answer to prayer, so that he could declare and explain to the king the visions he saw in his dream, representing the four great world-powers, and their destruction by the everlasting kingdom of God. Daniel 3 describes the wonderful deliverance of Daniel's three friends from the burning fiery furnace into which they were thrown, because they would not bow down to the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Daniel 4 (in Heb. text 3:31-4:34) contains an edict promulgated by Nebuchadnezzar to all the peoples and nations of his kingdom, in which he made known to them a remarkable dream which had been interpreted to him by Daniel, and its fulfilment to him in his temporary derangement, - a beast's heart having been given unto him as a punishment for his haughty self-deification, - and his recovery from that state in consequence of his humbling himself under the hand of the almighty God. Daniel 4 makes mention of a wonderful handwriting which appeared on the wall during a riotous feast, and which king Belshazzar saw, and the interpretation of it by Daniel. Daniel 6 narrates Daniel's miraculous deliverance from the den of lions into which the Median king Darius had thrown him, because he had, despite of the king's command to the contrary, continued to pray to his God.
The remaining chapters contain visions and divine revelations regarding the development of the world-powers and of the kingdom of God vouchsafed to Daniel. The seventh sets forth a vision, in which, under the image of four ravenous beasts rising up out of the troubled sea, are represented the four world-powers following one another. The judgment which would fall upon them is also revealed. The eighth contains a vision of the Medo-Persian and Greek world-powers under the image of a ram and a he-goat respectively, and of the enemy and desolater of the sanctuary and of the people of God arising out of the last named kingdom; the ninth, the revelation of the seventy weeks appointed for the development and the completion of the kingdom of God, which Daniel received in answer to earnest prayer for the pardon of his people and the restoration of Jerusalem; and, finally, Daniel 10-12 contain a vision, granted in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, with further disclosures regarding the Persian and the Grecian world-powers, and the wars of the kingdoms of the north and the south, springing out of the latter of these powers, for the supreme authority and the dominion over the Holy Land; the oppression that would fall on the saints of the Most High at the time of the end; the destruction of the last enemy under the stroke of divine judgment; and the completion of the kingdom of God, by the rising again from the dead of some to everlasting life, and of some to shame and everlasting contempt.
The book has commonly been divided into two parts, consisting of six chapters each (e.g., by Ros., Maur., Hävern., Hitz., Zündel, etc.). The first six are regarded as historical, and the remaining six as prophetical; or the first part is called the “book of history,” the second, the “book of visions.” But this division corresponds neither with the contents nor with the formal design of the book. If we consider the first chapter and its relation to the whole already stated, we cannot discern a substantial reason for regarding Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the image representing the monarchies (Daniel 2), which with its interpretation was revealed to Daniel in a night vision (Dan 2:19), as an historical narration, and Daniel's dream-vision of the four world-powers symbolized by ravenous beasts, which an angel interpreted to him, as a prophetic vision, since the contents of both chapters are essentially alike. The circumstance that in Daniel 2 it is particularly related how the Chaldean wise men, who were summoned by Nebuchadnezzar, could neither relate nor interpret the dream, and on that account were threatened with death, and were partly visited with punishment, does not entitle us to refuse to the dream and its contents, which were revealed to Daniel in a night vision, the character of a prophecy. In addition to this, Daniel 7, inasmuch as it is written in the Chaldee language and that Daniel speaks in it in the third person (Dan 7:1-2), naturally connects itself with the chapters preceding (Daniel 2-6), and separates itself from those which follow, in which Daniel speaks in the first person and uses the Hebrew language. On these grounds, we must, with Aub., Klief., and Kran., regard Daniel 2, which is written in Chaldee, as belonging to the first part of the book, viz., Daniel 2-7, and Daniel 8-12, which are written in Hebrew, as constituting the second part; and the propriety of this division we must seek to vindicate by an examination of the contents of both of the parts.
Kranichfeld (das Buch Daniel erklärt) thus explains the distinction between the two parts: - The first presents the successive development of the whole heathen world power, and its relation to Israel, till the time of the Messianic kingdom (Daniel 2 and 7), but lingers particularly in the period lying at the beginning of this development, i.e., in the heathen kingdoms standing nearest the exiles, namely, the Chaldean kingdom and that of the Medes which subdued it (Daniel 6). The second part (Daniel 8-12), on the contrary, passing from the Chaldean kingdom, lingers on the development of the heathen world-power towards the time of its end, in the Javanic form of power, and on the Median and Persian kingdom only in so far as it immediately precedes the unfolding of the power of Javan. But, setting aside this explanation of the world-kingdoms, with which we do not agree, the contents of Daniel 9 are altogether overlooked in this view of the relations between the two parts, inasmuch as this chapter does not treat of the development of the heathen world-power, but of the kingdom of God and of the time of its consummation determined by God. If we inspect more narrowly the contents of the first part, we find an interruption of the chronological order pervading the book, inasmuch as events (Daniel 6) belonging to the time of the Median king Darius are recorded before the visions (Daniel 7 and 8) in the first and third year of the Chaldean king Belshazzar. The placing of these events before that vision can have no other ground than to allow historical incidents of a like kind to be recorded together, and then the visions granted to Daniel, without any interruption. Hence has arisen the appearance of the book's being divided into two parts, an historical and a prophetical.
In order to discover a right division, we must first endeavour to make clear the meaning of the historical incidents recorded in Daniel 3-6, that we may determine their relations to the visions in Daniel 2 and 7. The two intervening chapters 4 and 5 are like the second chapter in this, that they speak of revelations which the possessors of the world-power received, and that, too, revelations of the judgment which they drew upon themselves by their boastful pride and violence against the sanctuaries of the living God. To Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, when he boasted (Daniel 4) of the building of great Babylon as a royal residence by his great might, it was revealed in a dream that he should be cast down from his height and debased among the beasts of the field, till he should learn that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men. To king Belshazzar (Daniel 5), in the midst of his riotous banquet, at which he desecrated the vessels of the holy temple at Jerusalem, was revealed, by means of a handwriting on the wall, his death and the destruction of his kingdom. To both of these kings Daniel had to explain the divine revelation, which soon after was fulfilled. The other two chapters (Daniel 3 and 6) make known the attempts of the rulers of the world to compel the servants of the Lord to offer supplication to them and to their images, and the wonderful deliverance from death which the Lord vouchsafed to the faithful confessors of His name. These four events have, besides their historical value, a prophetical import: they show how the world-rulers, when they misuse their power for self-idolatry and in opposition to the Lord and His servants, will be humbled and cast down by God, while, on the contrary the true confessors of His name will be wonderfully protected and upheld. For the sake of presenting this prophetic meaning, Daniel has recorded these events and incidents in his prophetical book; and, on chronological and essential grounds, has introduced Daniel 2 and 7 between the visions, so as to define more clearly the position of the world-power in relation to the kingdom of God. Thus the whole of the first part (Daniel 2-7) treats of the world-power and its development in relation to the kingdom of God; and we can say with Kliefoth,^[1] that “chapter second gives a survey of the whole historical evolution of the world-power, which survey Daniel 7, at the close of this part, further extends, while the intermediate chapters 3-6 show in concrete outlines the nature and kind of the world-power, and its conduct in opposition to the people of God.”
If we now fix our attention on the second part, Daniel 8-12, it will appear that in the visions, Daniel 8 and 10-12, are prophesied oppressions of the people of God by a powerful enemy of God and His saints, who would arise out of the third world-kingdom; which gave occasion to Auberlen^[2] to say that the first part unfolds and presents to view the whole development of the world-powers from a universal historical point of view, and shows how the kingdom of God would in the end triumph over them; that the second part, on the contrary, places before our eyes the unfolding of the world-powers in their relation to Israel in the nearer future before the predicted (Daniel 9) appearance of Christ in the flesh. This designation of the distinction between the two parts accords with that already acknowledged by me, yet on renewed reflection it does not accord with the recognised reference of Dan 9:24-27 to the first appearance of Christ in the flesh, nor with Daniel 11:36-12:7, which prophesies of Antichrist. Rather, as Klief. has also justly remarked, the second part treats of the kingdom of God, and its development in relation to the world-power. “As the second chapter forms the central-point of the first part, so does the ninth chapter of the second part, gathering all the rest around it. And as the second chapter presents the whole historical evolution of the world-power from the days of Daniel to the end, so, on the other hand, the ninth chapter presents the whole historical evolution of the kingdom of God from the days of Daniel to the end.” But the preceding vision recorded in Daniel 8, and that which follows in Daniel 10-12, predict a violent incursion of an insolent enemy rising out of the Javanic world-kingdom against the kingdom of God, which will terminate in his own destruction at the time appointed by God, and, as a comparison of Daniel 8 and 7 and of Dan 11:21-35 with Dan 11:36-44 and Dan 12:1-3 shows, will be a type of the assault of the last enemy, in whom the might of the fourth world-power reaches its highest point of hostility against the kingdom of God, but who in the final judgment will also be destroyed. These two visions, the second of which is but a further unfolding of the first, could not but show to the people of God what wars and oppressions they would have to encounter in the near and the remote future for their sanctification, and for the confirmation of their faith, till the final perfecting of the kingdom of God by the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of the world, and at the same time strengthen the true servants of God with the assurance of final victory in these severe conflicts.
With this view of the contents of the book the form in which the prophecies are given stands also in harmony. In the first part, which treats of the world-power, Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, is the receiver of the revelation. To him was communicated not only the prophecy (Daniel 4) relating to himself personally, but also that which comprehended the whole development of the world-power (Daniel 2); while Daniel received only the revelation (Daniel 7) specially bearing on the relation of the world-power in its development to the kingdom of God, in a certain measure for the confirmation of the revelation communicated to Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar also, as the bearer of the world-power, received (Daniel 5) a revelation from God. In the second part, on the contrary, which treats of the development of the kingdom of God, Daniel, “who is by birth and by faith a member of the kingdom of God,” alone receives a prophecy. - With this the change in the language of the book agrees. The first part (Daniel 2-7), treating of the world-power and its development, is written in Chaldee, which is the language of the world-power; the second part (Daniel 8-12), treating of the kingdom of God and its development, as also the first chapter, which shows how Daniel the Israelite was called to be a prophet by God, is written in the Hebrew, which is the language of the people of God. This circumstance denotes that in the first part the fortunes of the world-power, and that in the second part the development of the kingdom of God, is the subject treated of (ch. Auber. p. 39, Klief. p. 44).^[3]
From these things we arrive at the certainty that the book of Daniel forms an organic whole, as is now indeed generally acknowledged, and that it was composed by a prophet according to a plan resting on higher illumination.

IV. The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel

The book of Daniel, in its historical and prophetical contents, corresponds to the circumstances of the times under which, according to its statements, it sprang up, as also to the place which the receiver of the vision, called the prophet Daniel (Dan 7:2; Dan 8:1; Dan 9:2; Dan 10:2.), occupied during the exile. If the exile has that importance in relation to the development of the kingdom of God as already described in §2, then the whole progressive development of the divine revelation, as it lies before us in the Old and New Testaments, warrants us to expect, from the period of the exile, a book containing records such as are found in the book of Daniel. Since miracles and prophecies essentially belong not only in general to the realizing of the divine plan of salvation, but have also been especially manifested in all the critical periods of the history of the kingdom of God, neither the miracles in the historical parts of the book, nor its prophecies, consisting of singular predictions, can in any respect seem strange to us.
The history of redemption in the Old and New Covenants presents four great periods of miracles, i.e., four epochs, which are distinguished from other times by numerous and remarkable miracles. These are, (1) The time of Moses, or of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and their journey through the Arabian desert to Canaan; (2) In the promised land, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha; (3) The time of Daniel, or of the Babylonish exile; and (4) The period from the appearance of John the Baptist to the ascension of Christ, or the time of Christ. These are the times of the foundation of the Old and the New Covenant, and the times of the two deliverances of the people of Israel. Of these four historical epochs the first and the fourth correspond with one another, and so also do the second and the third. But if we consider that the Mosaic period contains the two elements, the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and the establishment of the kingdom of God at Sinai, the, if we take into view the first of the these elements, the Mosaic period resembles that of the exile in this respect, that in both of them the subject is the deliverance of Israel from subjection to the heathen world-power, and that the deliverance in both instances served as a preparation for the founding of the kingdom of God, - the freeing of Israel from Egyptian bondage for the founding of the Old Testament kingdom of God, and the deliverance from Babylonish exile for the founding of the New. In both periods the heathen world-power had externally overcome the people of God and reduced them to slavery, and determined on their destruction. In both, therefore, God the Lord, if He would not suffer His work of redemption to be frustrated by man, must reveal Himself by wonders and signs before the heathen, as the almighty God and Lord in heaven and on earth, and compel the oppressors of His people, by means of great judgments, to acknowledge His omnipotence and His eternal Godhead, so that they learned to fear the God of Israel and released His people. In the time of Moses, it was necessary to show to the Egyptians and to Pharaoh, who had said to Moses, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice, to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go,” that Israel's God was Jehovah the Lord, that He, and not their gods, as they thought, was Lord in their land, and that there was none like Him in the whole earth (Exo 7:17; Exo 8:18; Exo 9:14, Exo 9:29). And as Pharaoh did not know, and did not wish to know, the God of Israel, so also neither Nebuchadnezzar, nor Belshazzar, nor Darius knew Him. Since all the heathen estimated the power of the gods according to the power of the people who honoured them, the God of the Jews, whom they had subjugated by their arms, would naturally appear to the Chaldeans and their king as an inferior and feeble God, as He had already appeared to the Assyrians (Isa 10:8-11; Isa 36:18-20). They had no apprehension of the fact that God had given up His people to be punished by them on account of their unfaithful departure from Him. This delusion of theirs, by which not only the honour of the true God was misunderstood and sullied, but also the object for which the God of Israel had sent His people into exile among the heathen was in danger of being frustrated, God could only dissipate by revealing Himself, and He once did in Egypt, so now in the exile, as the Lord and Ruler of the whole world. The similarity of circumstances required similar wonderful revelations from God. For this reason there were miracles wrought in the exile as there had been in Egypt, - miracles which showed the omnipotence of the God of the Israelites, and the helplessness of the heathen gods; and hence the way and manner in which God did this is in general the same. To the heathen kings Pharaoh (Gen 41) and Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2). He made known the future in dreams, which the heathen wise men of the land were not able to interpret, and the servants of Jehovah, Joseph and Daniel, interpreted to them, and on that account were exalted to high offices of state, in which they exerted their influence as the saviours of their people. And He shows His omnipotence by miracles which break through the course of nature.
In so far the revelations of God in Egypt and in the Babylonish exile resemble one another. But that the actions of God revealed in the book of Daniel are not mere copies of those which were wrought in Egypt, but that in reality they repeat themselves, is clear from the manifest difference in particulars between the two. Of the two ways in which God reveals Himself as the one only true God, in the wonders of His almighty power, and in the displays of His omniscience in predictions, we meet with the former almost alone in Egypt, while in the exile it is the latter that prevails. Leaving out of view Pharaoh's dream in the time of Joseph, God spoke to the Pharaoh of the time of Moses through Moses only; and He showed Himself as the Lord of the whole earth only in the plagues. In the exile God showed His omnipotence only through the two miracles of the deliverance of Daniel from the den of lions, and of Daniel's three friends from the burning fiery furnace. All the other revelations of God consist in the prophetic announcement of the course of the development of the world-kingdoms and of the kingdom of God. For, besides the general object of all God's actions, to reveal to men the existence of the invisible God, the revelations of God in the time of the exile had a different specific object from those in Egypt. In Egypt God would break Pharaoh's pride and his resistance to His will, and compel him to let Israel go. This could only be reached by the judgments which fell upon the land of Egypt and its inhabitants, and manifested the God of Israel as the Lord in the land of Egypt and over the whole earth. In the exile, on the contrary, the object was to destroy the delusion of the heathen, that the God of the subjugated people of Judea was an impotent national god, and to show to the rulers of the world by acts, that the God of this so humbled people was yet the only true God, who rules over the whole earth, and in His wisdom and omniscience determines the affairs of men. Thus God must, as Caspari, in his Lectures on the Book of Daniel,^[4] rightly remarks, “by great revelations lay open His omnipotence and omniscience, and show that He is infinitely exalted above the gods and wise men of this world and above all the world-powers.” Caspari further says: “The wise men of the Chaldean world-power, i.e., the so-called magi, maintained that they were the possessors of great wisdom, and such they were indeed celebrated to be, and that they obtained their wisdom from their gods. The Lord must, through great revelations of His omniscience, show that He alone of all the possessors of knowledge is the Omniscient, while their knowledge, and the knowledge of their gods, is nothing ... . The heathen world-power rests in the belief that it acts independently, - that it rules and governs in the world, - that even the future, to a certain degree, is in its hands. The Lord must show to it that it is only an instrument in His hand for the furthering of His plans, - that He is the only independent agent in history, - that it is He who directs the course of the whole world, and therefore that all that happens to His people in His own work. And He must, on this account, lay open to it the whole future, that He may show to it that He knows it all, even to the very minutest events, - that it all lies like a map before His eyes, - and that to Him it is history; for He who fully knows the whole future must also be the same who governs the whole development of the world. Omnipotence cannot be separated from omniscience.” Only by virtue of such acts of God could the shaking of the faith of the heathen in the reality and power of their gods, effected through the fall and destruction of one world-kingdom after another, become an operative means for the preparation of the heathen world beforehand for the appearance of the Saviour who should arise out of Judah.
But as all the revelations of God were first and principally intended for Israel, so also the wonderful manifestations of the divine omnipotence and omniscience in the exile, which are recorded in the book of Daniel. The wonders of God in Egypt had their relation to Israel not only in their primary bearing on their deliverance from the house of bondage in Egypt, but also in a far wider respect: they were intended to show actually to Israel that Jehovah, the God of their fathers, possessed the power to overcome all the hindrances which stood in the way of the accomplishing of His promises. With the dissolution of the kingdom of Judah, the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, and the dethronement of the royal house of David, the cessation of the offering up of the Levitical sacrifices, the carrying away of the king, the priests, and the people into bondage, the kingdom of God was destroyed, the covenant relation dissolved, and Israel, the people of Jehovah, driven forth from their own land among the heathen, were brought into a new Egyptian slavery (cf. Deu 28:68; Hos 8:13; Hos 9:3). The situation into which Israel fell by the carrying away into Babylon was so grievous and so full of afflictions, that the earnest-minded and the pious even might despair, and doubt the covenant faithfulness of God. The predictions by the earlier prophets of their deliverance from exile, and their return to the land of their fathers after the period of chastisement had passed by, served to prevent their sinking into despair or falling away into heathenism, amid the sufferings and oppressions to which they were exposed. Even the labours of the prophet Ezekiel in their midst, although his appearance was a sign and a pledge that the Lord had not wholly cast off His people, could be to the vanquished no full compensation for that which they had lost, and must feel the want of. Divine actions must be added to the word of promise, which gave assurance of its fulfilment, - wonderful works, which took away every doubt that the Lord could save the true confessors of His name out of the hand of their enemies, yea, from death itself. To these actual proofs of the divine omnipotence, if they would fully accomplish their purpose, new disclosures regarding the future must be added, since, as we have explained above (p. 489), after the expiry of the seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied of by Jeremiah, Babylon would indeed fall, and the Jews be permitted to return to their fatherland, yet the glorification of the kingdom of God by the Messiah, which was connected by all the earlier prophets, and even by Ezekiel, with the return from Babylon, did not immediately appear, nor was the theocracy restored in all its former integrity, but Israel must remain yet longer under the domination and the oppression of the heathen. The non-fulfilment of the Messianic hopes, founded in the deliverance from Babylonian exile at the end of the seventy years, could not but have shaken their confidence in the faithfulness of God in the fulfilment of His promises, had not God before this already unveiled His plan of salvation, and revealed beforehand the progressive development and the continuation of the heathen world-power, till its final destruction through the erection of His everlasting kingdom.
Prophecy stands side by side with God's actions along the whole course of the history of the Old Covenant, interpreting these actions to the people, and making known the counsel of the Lord in guiding and governing their affairs. As soon and as often as Israel comes into conflict with the heathen nations, the prophets appear and proclaim the will of God, not only in regard to the present time, but they also make known the final victory of His kingdom over all the kingdoms and powers of this earth. These prophetic announcements take a form corresponding to the circumstances of each period. Yet they are always of such a kind that they shine out into the future far beyond the horizon of the immediate present. Thus (leaving out of view the older times) the prophets of the Assyrian period predict not only the deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from the powerful invasion of the hostile Assyrians and the destruction of the Assyrian host before the gates of Jerusalem, but also the carrying away of Judah into Babylon and the subsequent deliverance from this exile, and the destruction of all the heathen nations which fight against the Lord and against His people. At the time of the exile Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesy with great fulness of detail, and in the most particular manner, of the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and of Jerusalem and the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, but Jeremiah prophesies as particularly the return of Israel and of Judah from the exile, and the formation of a new covenant which should endure for ever; and Ezekiel in grand ideal outlines describes the re-establishment of the kingdom of God in a purified and transfigured form. Completing this prophecy, the Lord reveals to His people by Daniel the succession and the duration of the world-kingdoms, the relation of each to the kingdom of God and its preservation under all the persecution of the world-power, as well as its completion by judgments poured out on the world-kingdoms till their final destruction.
The new form of the revelation regarding the course and issue of the process commencing with the formation of the world-kingdoms - a process by which the world-power shall be judged, the people of God purified, and the plan of salvation for the deliverance of the human race shall be perfected - corresponds to the new aspect of things arising in the subjection of the people of God to the violence of the world-powers. The so-called apocalyptical character of Daniel's prophecy is neither in contents nor in form a new species of prophecy. What Auberlen^[5] remarks regarding the distinction between apocalypse and prophecy needs important limitation. We cannot justify the remark, that while the prophets generally place in the light of prophecy only the existing condition of the people of God, Daniel had not so special a destination, but only the general appointment to serve to the church of God as a prophetic light for the 500 years from the exile to the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, during which there was no revelation. For these other prophets do not limit themselves to the present, but they almost all at the same time throw light on the future; and Daniel's prophecy also goes forth from the present and reaches far beyond the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The further observation also, that the apocalypses, in conformity with their destination to throw prophetic light on the relation of the world to the kingdom of God for the times in which the light of immediate revelation is wanting, must be on the one side more universal in their survey, and on the other more special in the presentation of details, is, when more closely looked into, unfounded. Isaiah, for example, is in his survey not less universal than Daniel. He throws light not only on the whole future of the people and kingdom of God onward till the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, but also on the end of all the heathen nations and kingdoms, and gives in his representations very special disclosures not only regarding the overthrow of the Assyrian power, which at that time oppressed the people of God and sought to destroy the kingdom of God, but also regarding far future events, such as the carrying away into Babylon of the treasures of the king's house, and of the king's sons, that they might become courtiers in the palace of the king of Babylon (Isa 39:6-7), the deliverance of Judah from Babylon by the hand of Cyrus (Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1), etc. Compare also, for special glances into the future, the rich representation of details in Mic 4:8-5:3. It is true that the prophets before the exile contemplate the world-power in its present from together with its final unfolding, and therefore they announce the Messianic time for the most part as near at hand, while, on the contrary, with Daniel the one world-power is successively presented in four world-monarchies; but this difference is not essential, but only a wider expansion of the prophecy of Isaiah corresponding to the time and the circumstances in which Daniel was placed, that not Assyria but Babylon would destroy the kingdom of Judah and lead the people of God into exile, and that the Medes and Elamites would destroy Babylon, and Cyrus set free the captive of Judah and Jerusalem. Even the “significant presentation of numbers and of definite chronological periods expressed in them,” which is regarded as a “characteristic mark” of apocalypse, has its roots and fundamental principles in simple prophecy, which here and there also gives significant numbers and definite periods. Thus the seventy years of Jeremiah from the starting-point for the seventy weeks or the seven times of Daniel, Daniel 9. Compare also the sixty-five years of Isa 7:8; the three years, Isa 20:3; the seventy years of the desolation of Tyre, Isa 23:15; the forty and the three hundred and ninety days of Eze 4:6, Eze 4:9.
In fine, if we examine attentively the subjective form the apocalypse, we shall find the two ways in which the future is unveiled, viz., by dreams and visions, the latter with almost all the prophets together with communications flowing from divine illumination, while revelation by dreams as a rule is granted only to the heathen (Abimelech, Gen 20:3; Pharaoh, Gen 41; ; Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2) or to Jews who were not prophets (Jacob, Gen 28:12; Solomon, 1Ki 3:5), and the revelation in Daniel 7 is communicated to Daniel in a dream only on account of its particular relation, as to the matter of it, to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (cf. Amos 7-9; Isa 6:1; 63; Jer 1:13; Jer 24:1-2) had also visions. With Ezekiel visions rather than discourses conveying condemnation or comfort prevail, and Zechariah beholds in a series of actions the future development of the kingdom of God and of the world-kingdoms (Zech 1:7-6:15). We also find images representing angels seen by the prophets when in an ecstasy, not only with Zechariah, who was after Daniel's time, but also with Ezekiel; and Isaiah too saw the seraphim standing, and even moving and acting, before the throne of God (Isa 6:6-7). In the visions the future appears embodied in plastic figures which have a symbolical meaning and which need interpretation. Thus the appearance of angels to Daniel is to be explained in the same way as their appearance to Ezekiel and Zechariah.
Accordingly the prophecies of Daniel are not distinguished even in their apocalyptic form from the whole body of prophecy in nature, but only in degree. When dream and vision form the only means of announcing the future, the prophetic discourse is wholly wanting. But the entire return of the prophecy to the form of discourses of condemnation, warning, and consolation is fully explained from the position of Daniel outside of the congregation of God at the court and in the state service of the heathen world-ruler; and this position the Lord had assigned to him on account of the great significance which the world-kingdom had, as we have shown (p. 491), for the preparation beforehand of Israel and of the heathen world for the renovation and perfecting of the kingdom of God through Christ.
Both in its contents and form the book of Daniel has thus the stamp of a prophetical writing, such as we might have expected according to the development of the Old Testament kingdom of God from the period of the Babylonish exile; and the testimony of the Jewish synagogue as well as of the Christian church to the genuineness of the book, or its composition by the prophet Daniel, rests on a solid foundation. In the whole of antiquity no one doubted its genuineness except the well-known enemy of Christianity, the Neo-Platonist Porphyry, who according to the statement of Jerome (in the preface to his Comment. in Daniel) wrote the twelfth book of his λόγοι κατὰ Χριστιανῶν against the book of Daniel, nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus nomine, esse compositum, sed a quodam qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Judaea, et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrasse praeterita. He was, however, opposed by Eusebius of Caesarea and other church Fathers. For the first time with the rise of deism, naturalism, and rationalism during the bygone century, there began, as a consequence of the rejection of a supernatural revelation from God, the assault against the genuineness of the book. To such an extent has this opposition prevailed, that at the present time all critics who reject miracles and supernatural prophecy hold its spuriousness as an undoubted principle of criticism. They regard the book as the composition of a Jew living in the time of the Maccabees, whose object was to cheer and animate his contemporaries in the war which was waged against them by Antiochus Epiphanes for the purpose of rooting up Judaism, by representing to them certain feigned miracles and prophecies of some old prophet announcing the victory of God's people over all their enemies.^[6]
The arguments by which the opponents of the genuineness seek to justify scientifically their opinion are deduced partly from the position of the book in the canon, and other external circumstances, but principally from the contents of the book. Leaving out of view that which the most recent opponents have yielded up, the following things, adduced by Bleek and Stähelin (in their works mentioned in the last note), are asserted, which alone we wish to consider here, referring to the discussions on this question in my Lehrb. der Einleitung, 133.
Among the external grounds great stress is laid on the place the book holds in the Hebrew canon. That Daniel should here hold his place not among the Nebiyîm the prophetical writings, but among the Kethubîm [the Hagiographa] between the books of Esther and Ezra, can scarcely be explained otherwise than on the supposition that it was yet unknown at the time of the formation of the Nebiyîm, that is, in the age of Nehemiah, and consequently that it did not exist previously to that time. But this conclusion, even on the supposition that the Third Part of the canon, the collection called the Kethubîm, was for the first time formed some time after the conclusion of the Second Part, is not valid. On the contrary, Kranichfeld has not without good reason remarked, that since the prophets before the exile connected the beginning of the Messianic deliverance with the end of the exile, while on the other hand the book of Daniel predicts a period of oppression continuing long after the exile, therefore the period succeeding the exile might be offended with the contents of the book, and hence feel some hesitation to incorporate the book of one who was less distinctively a prophet in the collection of the prophetic books, and that the Maccabee time, under the influence of the persecution prophesied of in the book, first learned to estimate its prophetic worth and secured its reception into the canon. This objection is thus sufficiently disproved. But the supposition of a successive collection of the books of the canon and of its three Parts after the period in which the books themselves were written, is a hypothesis which has never been proved: cf. my Einleit. in d. A. T. §154ff. The place occupied by this book in the Hebrew canon perfectly corresponds with the place of Daniel in the theocracy. Daniel did not labour, as the rest of the prophets did whose writings form the class of the Nebiyîm, as a prophet among his people in the congregation of Israel, but he was a minister of state under the Chaldean and Medo-Persian world-rulers. Although, like David and Solomon, he possessed the gift of prophecy, and therefore was called προφήτης (lxx, Joseph., New Testament), yet he was not a נביא, i.e., a prophet in his official position and standing. Therefore his book in its contents and form is different from the writings of the Nebiyîm. His prophecies are not prophetic discourses addressed to Israel or the nations, but visions, in which the development of the worldkingdoms and their relation to the kingdom of God are unveiled, and the historical part of his book describes events of the time when Israel went into captivity among the heathen. For these reasons his book is not placed in the class of the Nebiyîm, which reaches from Joshua to Malachi, - for these, according to the view of him who arranged the canon, are wholly the writings of such as held the prophetic office, i.e., the office requiring them openly, by word of mouth and by writing, to announce the word of God, - but in the class of the Kethubîm, which comprehends sacred writings of different kinds whose common character consists in this, that their authors did not fill the prophetic office, as e.g., Jonah, in the theocracy; which is confirmed by the fact that the Lamentations of Jeremiah are comprehended in this class, since Jeremiah uttered these Lamentations over the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah not qua a prophet, but as a member of that nation which was chastened by the Lord.
Little importance is to be attached to the silence of Jesus Sirach in his ὗμνος πατέρων, Sirach 49, regarding Daniel, since an express mention of Daniel could not justly be expected. Jesus Sirach passes over other distinguished men of antiquity, such as Job, the good king Jehoshaphat, and even Ezra the priest and scribe, who did great service for the re-establishment of the authority of the law, from which it may be seen that it was not his purpose to present a complete list. Still less did he intend to name all the writers of the Old Testament. And if also, in his praise of the fathers, he limits himself on the whole to the course of the biblical books of the Hebrew canon from the Pentateuch down to the Minor Prophets, yet what he says of Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah he does not gather from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. When, on the other hand, Bleek seeks to account of the absence of any mention of Ezra, which his supposition that Jesus Sirach names all the celebrated men mentioned in the canonical books extant in his time contradicts, by the remark that “Ezra perhaps would not have been omitted if the book which bears his name had been before that time received into the canon,” he has in his zeal against he book of Daniel forgotten to observe that neither the book of Nehemiah in its original or then existing form, nor the first part of the book of Ezra, containing notices of Zerubbabel and Joshua, has ever, separated from the second part, which speaks of Ezra, formed a constituent portion of the canon, but that rather, according to his own statement, the second part of the book of Ezra “was without doubt composed by Ezra himself,” which is consequently as old, if not older than the genuine parts of the book of Nehemiah, and that both books in the form in which they have come to us must have been edited by a Jew living at the end of the Persian or at the beginning of the Grecian supremacy, and then for the first time in this redaction were admitted into the canon.
Besides all this, it appears that in the work of Jesus Sirach the previous existence of the book of Daniel is presupposed, for the idea presented in Sirach. 17:14, that God had given to that people an angel as ἡγούμενος (שׂר), refers to Dan 10:13, 20-11:1; Dan 12:1. For if Sirach first formed this idea from the lxx translation of Deu 32:8-9, then the lxx introduced it from the book of Daniel into Deu 32:8, so that Daniel is the author from whom this opinion was derived; and the book which was known to the Alexandrine translators of the Pentateuch could not be unknown to the Siracidae.
Still weaker is the argumentum e silentio, that in the prophets after the exile, Haggai and Malachi, and particularly Zechariah (Zech 1-8), ), there are no traces of any use being made of the book of Daniel, and that it exerted no influence on the Messianic representations of the later prophets. Kran. has already made manifest the weakness of this argument by replying that Bleek was silent as to the relation of Daniel's prayer, Dan 9:3-19, to Ezr 9:1-15 and Neh 9, because the dependence of Ezra and Nehemiah on the book of Daniel could not be denied. Moreover von Hofmann, Zündel (p. 249ff.), Volck (Vindiciae Danielicae, 1966), Kran., and Klief. have shown that Zechariah proceeded on the supposition of Daniel's prophecy of the four world-monarchies, inasmuch as not only do the visions of the four horns and of the four carpenters of Zec 2:1-4 (Zec 1:18-21) rest on Dan 7:7-8; Dan 8:3-9, and the representation of nations and kingdoms as horns originate in these passages, but also in the symbolic transactions recorded Zec 11:5, the killing of the three shepherds in one month becomes intelligible only by a reference to Daniel's prophecy of the world-rulers under whose power Israel was brought into subjection. Cf. my Comm. on Zec 2:1-4 and Zec 11:5. The exposition of Zec 1:7-17 and Zec 6:1-8 as founded on Daniel's prophecy of the world-kingdoms, does not, however, appear to us to be satisfactory, and in what Zechariah (Zec 2:5) says of the building of Jerusalem we can find no allusion to Dan 9:25. But if Bleek in particular has missed in Zech. Daniel's announcement of a Ruler like a son of man coming in the clouds, Kran. has, on the other hand, justly remarked that this announcement by Daniel is connected with the scene of judgment described in Daniel 7, which Zechariah, in whose prophecies the priestly character of the Messiah predominates, had no occasion to repeat or expressly to mention. This is the case also with the names of the angels in Daniel, which are connected with the special character of his visions, and cannot be expected in Zechariah. Yet Zechariah agrees with Daniel in regard to the distinction between the higher and the lower ranks of angels.
Rather the case stands thus: that not only was Zechariah acquainted with Daniel's prophecies, but Ezra also and the Levites of his time made use of (Ezr 9:1-15 and Neh 9) the penitential prayer of Daniel (Dan 9). In Ezekiel also we have still older testimony for Daniel and the principal contents of his book, which the opponents of its genuineness have in vain attempted to set aside. Even Bleek is obliged to confess that “in the way in which Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3) makes mention of the rectitude and wisdom of Daniel, we are led to think of a man of such virtue and wisdom as Daniel appears in this book to have been distinguished by, and also to conceived of some connection between the character there presented and that which Ezekiel had before his eyes;” but yet, notwithstanding this, the manner in which Ezekiel makes mention of Daniel does not lead him to think of a man who was Ezekiel's contemporary in the Babylonish exile, and who was probably comparatively young at the time when Ezekiel spake of him, but of a man who had been long known as an historic or mythic personage of antiquity. But this latter idea is based only on the groundless supposition that the names Noah, Daniel, and Job, as found in Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20, are there presented in chronological order, which, as we have shown under Ezekiel 14, is a natural order determined by a reference to the deliverance from great danger experienced by each of the persons named on account of his righteousness. Equally groundless is the other supposition, that the Daniel named by Ezekiel must have been a very old man, because righteousness and wisdom first show themselves in old age. If we abandon this supposition and fall in with the course of thought in Ezekiel, then the difficulty arising from the naming of Daniel between Noah and Job (Eze 14:14) disappears, and at the same time also the occasion for thinking of an historical or mythical personage of antiquity, of whose special wisdom no trace can anywhere be found. What Ezekiel says of Daniel in both places agrees perfectly with the Daniel of this book. When he (Eze 28:3) says of the king of Tyre, “Thou regardest thyself as wiser than Daniel, there is nothing secret that is hidden from thee,” the reference to Daniel cannot be denied, to whom God granted an insight into all manner of visions and dreams, so that he excelled ten times all the wise men of Babylon in wisdom (Dan 1:17-20); and therefore Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:6 9) and the queen (Dan 5:11) regarded him as endowed with the spirit and the wisdom of the gods, which the ruler of Tyre in vain self-idolatry attributed to himself. The opinion pronounced regarding Daniel in Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20, refers without a doubt also to the Daniel of this book. Ezekiel names Noah, Daniel, and Job as pious men, who by their righteousness before God in the midst of severe judgments saved their souls, i.e., their lives. If his discourse was intended to make any impression on his hearers, then the facts regarding this saving of their lives must have been well known. Record of this was found in the Holy Scriptures in the case of Noah and Job, but of a Daniel of antiquity nothing was at all communicated. On the contrary, Ezekiel's audience could not but at once think of Daniel, who not only refused, from reverence for the law of God, to eat of the food from the king's table, thereby exposing his life to danger, and who was therefore blessed of God with both bodily and mental health, but who also, when the decree had gone forth that the wise men who could not show to Nebuchadnezzar his dream should be put to death, in the firm faith that God would by prayer reveal to him the king's dream, saved his won life and that of his fellows, and in consequence of his interpretation of the dream revealed to him by God, was appointed ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief over all the wise men of Babylon, so that his name was known in all the kingdom, and his fidelity to the law of God and his righteousness were praised by all the captives of Judah in Chaldea.
Thus it stands with respect to the external evidences against the genuineness of the book of Daniel. Its place in the canon among the Kethubîm corresponds with the place which Daniel occupied in the kingdom of God under the Old Testament; the alleged want of references to the book and its prophecies in Zechariah and in the book of Jesus Sirach is, when closely examined, not really the case: not only Jesus Sirach and Zechariah knew and understood the prophecies of Daniel, but even Ezekiel names Daniel as a bright pattern of righteousness and wisdom.
If we now turn our attention to the internal evidences alleged against the genuineness of the book, the circumstance that the opponents place the Greek names of certain musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3 in the front, awakens certainly no prejudice favourable to the strength of their argument.
In the list of the instruments of music which were played upon at the inauguration of Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, three names are found of Grecian origin: קיתרס = κίθαρις, סוּמפּניה (סיפניא) = συμτηωνία, and פסנתּרין ()פסנטרין = ψαλτήριον (Dan 3:5, Dan 3:7, Dan 3:10, Dan 3:15). To these there has also been added סבּכאa = σαμβύκη, but unwarrantably; for the σαμβύκη σάμβυξ ζαμβίκη is, according to the testimony of Athen. and Strabo, of foreign of Syrian, i.e., of Semitic origin, and the word σαμβύκη is without any etymon in Greek (cf. Ges. Thes. p. 935). Of the other three names, it is undoubted that they have a Grecian origin; but “no one can maintain that such instruments could not at the time of the Chaldean supremacy have found their way from the Greek West into Upper Asia, who takes into view the historical facts” (Kran.). At the time of Nebuchadnezzar, not only was “there intercourse between the inhabitants of Upper Asia and the Ionians of Asia Minor,” as Bleek thinks, but according to Strabo (xiii. 2, 3) there was in the army of Nebuchadnezzar, Antimenidas, the brother of the poet Alcaeus, fighting victoriously for the Babylonians, apparently, as M. v. Nieb. in his Gesch. Assurs, p. 206, remarks, at the head of a warlike troop, as chief of a band of fuorusciti who had bound themselves to the king of Babylon. According to the testimony of Abydenus, quoted in Eusebius, Chr. Arm. ed. Aucher, i. 53, Greek soldiers followed the Assyrian Esarhaddon (Axerdis) on his march through Asia; and according to Berosus (Fragm. hist. Graec. ed. Müller, ii. 504), Sennacherib had already conducted a successful war against a Greek army that had invaded Cilicia. And the recent excavations in Nineveh confirm more and more the fact that there was extensive intercourse between the inhabitants of Upper Asia and Greece, extending to a period long before the time of Daniel, so that the importation of Greek instruments into Nineveh was no by means a strange thing, much less could it be so during the time of the Chaldean supremacy in Babylon, the merchant-city, as Ezekiel (Eze 17:4, Eze 17:19) calls it, from which even in Joshua's time a Babylonish garment had been brought to the Canaanites (Jos 7:21). But if Staehelin (Einleit. p. 348) further remarks, that granting even the possibility that in Nebuchadnezzar's time the Babylonians had some knowledge of the Greek musical instruments, yet there is a great difference between this and the using of them at great festivals, where usually the old customs prevail, it must be replied that this alleged close adherence to ancient custom on the part of Nebuchadnezzar stands altogether in opposition to all we already know of the king. And the further remark by the same critic, that psalterium and symphonie were words first used by the later Greek writers about 150 b.c., finds a sufficient reply in the discovery of the figure of a πσαλτήριον on the Monument of Sennacherib.^[7]
But if through this ancient commerce, which was principally carried on by the Phoenicians, Greek instruments were brought into Upper Asia, it cannot be a strange thing that their Greek names should be found in the third chapter of Daniel, since, as is everywhere known, the foreign name is usually given to the foreign articles which may be imported among any people.
More important appear the historical improbabilities and errors which are said to occur in the historical narratives of this book.
These are: (1) The want of harmony between the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar's incursion against Judah in Jer 25:1., Jer 46:2, and the statement of Daniel (Dan 1:1.) that this king came up against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, besieged the city, and carried away captive to Babylon Daniel and other Hebrew youths, giving command that for three years they should be educated in the wisdom of the Chaldeans; while, according to the narrative of Daniel 2, Daniel already, in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted to the king his dream, which could have occurred only after the close of the period of his education. This inconsistency between Dan 1:1 and Jer 26:2; Jer 25:1, and also between Daniel 1 and 2, would indeed be evident if it were an undoubted fact that the statement that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, as mentioned in Dan 1:1, meant that this was done after he ascended the throne. But the remark of Wieseler (die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel, p. 9), that the supposed opposition between Daniel 1 and 2 is so great that it cannot be thought of even in a pseudo-Daniel, cannot but awaken suspicion against the accuracy of the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar was the actual king of Babylon at the time of the siege of Jerusalem and the carrying away of Daniel. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2:1 is expressly placed in the second year of his reign (מלכוּת); in Daniel 1 Nebuchadnezzar is called the king of Babylon, but yet nothing is said of his actual reign, and the time of the siege of Jerusalem is not defined by a year of his reign. But he who afterwards became king might be proleptically styled king, though he was at the time only the commander of the army. This conjecture is confirmed by the statement of Berosus, as quoted by Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 1, c. Ap. i. 19), that Nebuchadnezzar undertook the first campaign against the Egyptian king during the lifetime of his father, who had entrusted him with the carrying on of the war on account of the infirmity of old age, and that he received tidings of his father's death after he had subdued his enemies in Western Asia. The time of Nebuchadnezzar's ascending the throne and commencing his reign was a year or a year and a half after the first siege of Jerusalem; thus in the second year of his reign, that is about the end of it, the three years of the education of the Hebrew youths in the wisdom of the Chaldees would have come to an end. Thus the apparent contradiction between Dan 2:1 and Dan 1:1 is cleared up. In reference to the date, “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” (Dan 1:1), we cannot regard as justified the supposition deduced from Jer 36:9, that the Chaldeans in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim had not yet come to Jerusalem, nor can we agree with the opinion that Nebuchadnezzar had already destroyed Jerusalem before the victory gained by him over Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish (Jer 46:2) in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, but hope under Dan 1:1 to prove that the taking of Jerusalem in the fourth year of Jehoiakim followed after the battle at Carchemish, and that the statement by Daniel (Dan 1:1), when rightly understood, harmonizes easily therewith, since בּוא (Dan 1:1) signifies to go, to set out, and not to come.
But (2) it is not so easy to explain the historical difficulties which are found in Daniel 5 and Dan 6:1 (Dan 5:31), since the extra-biblical information regarding the destruction of Babylon is very scanty and self-contradictory. Yet these difficulties are by no means so inexplicable or so great as to make the authorship of the book of Daniel a matter of doubt. For instance, that is a very insignificant matter in which Bleek finds a “specially great difficulty,” viz., that in Daniel 5: “so many things should have occurred in one night, which it can scarcely be believed could have happened so immediately after one another in so short a time.” For if one only lays aside the statements which Bleek imports into the narrative, - (1) that the feast began in the evening, or at night, while it began really in the afternoon and might be prolonged into the night; (2) that the clothing of Daniel with purple and putting a chain about his neck, and the proclamation of his elevation to the rank of third ruler in the kingdom, were consummated by a solemn procession moving through the streets of the city; (3) that Daniel was still the chief president over the magi; and (4) that after the appearance of the handwriting lengthened consultations took place, - if one gives up all these suppositions, and considers what things may take place at a sudden disastrous occurrence, as, for example, on the breaking out of a fire, in a very few hours, it will not appear incredible that all the things recited in this chapter occurred in one night, and were followed even by the death of the king before the dawn of the morning. The historical difficulty lies merely in this, that, as Staehelin (p. 35) states the matter, Belshazzar appears as the last king of Babylon, and his mother as the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, which is contrary to historical fact. This is so far true, that the queen-mother, as also Daniel, repeatedly calls Nebuchadnezzar the father (אב) of Belshazzar; but that Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon is not at all stated in the narrative, but is only concluded from this circumstance, that the writing on the wall announced the destruction of king Belshazzar and of his kingdom, and that, as the fulfilling of this announcement, the death of Belshazzar (Dan 5:30) occurred that same night, and (Dan 6:1) also the transferring of the kingdom of the Chaldeans to the Median Darius. But that the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom or its transference to the Medes occurred at the same time with the death of Belshazzar, is not said in the text. The connecting of the second factum with the first by the copula  ו(Dan 6:1) indicates nothing further than that both of these parts of the prophecy were fulfilled. The first (Dan 5:3) was fulfilled that same night, but the time of the other is not given, since Dan 6:1 (Dan 5:31) does not form the conclusion of the narrative of the fifth chapter, but the beginning to those events recorded in the sixth. How little may be concluded as to the relative time of two events by the connection of the second with the first by the copula ,ו may e.g., be seen in the history recorded in 1 Kings 14, where the prophet Ahijah announces (1Ki 14:12) to the wife of Jeroboam the death of her sick son, and immediately in connection therewith the destruction of the house of Jeroboam (1Ki 14:14), as well as the exile (1Ki 14:15) of the ten tribes; events which in point of time stood far apart from each other, while yet they were internally related, for the sin of Jeroboam was the cause not only of the death of his son, but also of the termination of his dynasty and of the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes.^[8]
So here also the death of Belshazzar and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom are internally connected, without, however, rendering it necessary that the two events should take place in the self-same hour. The book of Daniel gives no information as to the time when the Chaldean kingdom was overthrown; this must be discovered from extra-biblical sources, to which we shall more particularly refer under Daniel 5. We hope to show there that the statement made by Daniel perfectly harmonizes with that which, from among the contradictory reports of the Greek historians regarding this occurrence, appears to be historically correct, and perhaps also to show the source of the statement that the destruction of Babylon took place during a riotous feast of the Babylonians.
The other “difficulty” also, that Darius, a king of Median origin, succeeds Belshazzar (Daniel 6:1 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 5:31]]]), who also is, Dan 9:1 and Dan 11:1, designated as a Median, and, Dan 9:1, as the son of Ahasuerus, disappears as soon as we give up the unfounded statement that this Darius immediately followed Belshazzar, and that Ahasuerus the Persian king was Xerxes, and give credit to the declaration, Dan 6:28, that Cyrus the Persian succeeded in the kingdom to Darius the Median, according to the statement of Xenophon regarding the Median king Cyaxeres II and his relation to Cyrus, as at Dan 6:1 shall be shown.
The remaining “difficulties” and “improbabilities” are destitute of importance. The erection of a golden image of the gigantic proportion of sixty cubits high in the open plain, Daniel 3, is “something very improbable,” only when, with Bleek, we think on a massive golden statue of such a size, and lose sight of the fact that the Hebrews called articles that were merely plated with gold, golden, as e.g., the altar, which was overlaid with gold, Exo 39:28; Exo 40:5, Exo 40:26, cf. Exo 37:25., and idol images, cf. Isa 40:19; Isa 41:7, etc. Of the seven years' madness of Nebuchadnezzar the narrative of Daniel 4 says nothing, but only of its duration for seven times (עדּנין, Dan 4:20, Dan 4:22, Dan 4:29), which the interpreters have explained as meaning years. But that the long continuance of the king's madness must have been accompanied with “very important changes and commotions,” can only be supposed if we allow that during this period no one held the reigns of government. And the absence of any mentioning of this illness of Nebuchadnezzar by the extra-biblical historians is, considering their very imperfect acquaintance with Nebuchadnezzar's reign, not at all strange, even though the intimations by Berosus and Abydenus of such an illness should not be interpreted of his madness. See on this under Daniel 4. Concerning such and such-like objections against the historical contents of this book, what Kran., p. 47, has very justly remarked regarding v. Lengerke's assertion, that the author lived “in the greatest ignorance regarding the leading events of his time,” or Hitzig's, that this book, is “very unhistorical,” may be here adopted, viz., “that they emanate from a criticism which is astonishingly consistent in looking at the surface of certain facts, and then pronouncing objection after objection, without showing the least disposition toward other than a wholly external, violent solution of the existing difficulties.”
All the opponents of the book of Daniel who have followed Porphyry^[9] find a powerful evidence of its being composed not in the time of the exile, but in the time of the Maccabees, in the contents and nature of the prophecies found in it, particularly in this, as Bleek has expressed it, that “the special destination of the prediction extends to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when that Syrian prince exercised tyranny against the Jewish people, and especially sought by every means to abolish the worship of Jehovah and to introduce the Grecian cultus into the temple at Jerusalem; for the prophecy either breaks off with the death of this prince, or there is immediately joined to it the announcement of the liberation of the people of God from all oppression, of the salvation and the kingdom of the Messiah, and even of His rising again from the dead.” To confirm this assertion, which deviates from the interpretation adopted in the church, and is also opposed by recent opponents of the genuineness of the book, Bleek has in his Einleitung, and in his Abhandlg. v. note, p. 28, fallen upon the strange expedient of comparing the prophecies of Daniel, going backwards from Dan 12:1-13, for the purpose of showing that as Dan 12:1-13 and 11:21-45 speak only of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, of his wicked actions, and especially of his proceedings against the Jewish people and against the worship of Jehovah, so also in Daniel 9, 8, 7, and 2 the special pre-intimations of the future do not reach further than to this enemy of the people of God. Now certainly in Dan 12:1-13, Dan 12:11 and Dan 12:12 without doubt refer to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Dan 11:21-35 as surely treat of the proceedings and of the wicked actions of this Syrian king; but the section 11:36-12:3 is almost unanimously interpreted by the church of the rise and reign of Antichrist in the last time, and is explained of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, as lately shown by Klief., only when an interpretation is adopted which does not accord with the sense of the words, and is in part distorted, and rests on a false historical basis. While now Bleek, without acknowledging the ancient church-interpretation, adopts that which has recently become prevalent, applying the whole eleventh chapter absolutely to Antiochus Epiphanes, and regards it as necessary only to reject the artistic explanation which Auberlen has given of Dan 12:1-13, and then from the results so gained, and with the help of Daniel 8, so explains the prophecies of the seventy weeks, Daniel 9, and of the four world-monarchies, Daniel 2 and 7, that Dan 9:25-27 closes with Antiochus Epiphanes, and the fourth world-kingdom becomes the Greco-Macedonian monarchy of Alexander and his successors, he has by means of this process gained the wished-for result, disregarding altogether the organism of the well-arranged book. But scientifically we cannot well adopt such a method, which, without any reference to the organism of a book, takes a retrograde course to explain the clear and unambiguous expressions by means of dark and doubtful passages. For, as Zündel (p. 95) has well remarked, as we cannot certainly judge of a symphony from the last tones of the finale, but only after the first simple passages of the thema, so we cannot certainly form a correct judgment from its last brief and abrupt sentences of a prophetical work like this, in which the course of the prophecy is such that it proceeds from general to special predictions. Dan 12:1-13 forms the conclusion of the whole book; in Dan 12:5-13 are placed together the two periods (Daniel 7 and 8) of severe oppression of the people of God, which are distinctly separable from each other - that proceeding from the great enemy of the third world-kingdom, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8), and that from the last great enemy of the fourth world-kingdom, i.e., Antichrist (Daniel 7), - while the angel, at the request of the prophet, makes known to him the duration of both. These brief expressions of the angel occasioned by Daniel's two questions receive their right interpretation from the earlier prophecy in Daniel 7 and 8. If we reverse this relation, while on the ground of a very doubtful, not to say erroneous, explanation of Daniel 11, we misinterpret the questions of Daniel and the answers of the angel, and now make this interpretation the standard for the exposition of Daniel 9; 8; 7; and 2, then we have departed from the way by which we may reach the right interpretation of the prophetic contents of the whole book.
The question how far the prophecies of Daniel reach, can only be determined by an unprejudiced interpretation of the two visions of the world-kingdoms, Daniel 2 and 7, in conformity with the language there used and with their actual contents, and this can only be given in the following exposition of the book. Therefore we must here limit ourselves to a few brief remarks.
According to the unmistakeable import of the two fundamental visions, Daniel 2 and 7, the erection of the Messianic kingdom follows close after the destruction of the fourth world-kingdom (Dan 2:34, Dan 2:44), and is brought about (Dan 7:9-14, Dan 7:26.) by the judgment on the little horn which grew out of the fourth world-power, and the investiture of the Messiah coming in the clouds of heaven with authority, glory, and kingly power. The first of these world-powers is the Chaldean monarchy founded by Nebuchadnezzar, who is the golden head of the image (Dan 2:37-38). The kingdom of the Chaldeans passes over to Darius, of Median origin, who is followed on the throne by Cyrus the Persian (Dan 6:28), and thus it passes over to the Medes and Persians. This kingdom, in Daniel 7 represented under the figure of a bear, Daniel saw in Daniel 8 under the figure of a ram with two horns, which, being pushed at by a he-goat having a great horn between his eyes as he was running in his flight over the earth, had his two horns broken, and was thrown to the ground and trodden upon. When the he-goat hereupon became strong, he broke his great horn, and in its stead there grew up four horns toward the four winds of heaven; and out of one of them came forth a little horn, which became exceeding great, and magnified itself even to the Prince of the host, and took away the daily sacrifice (Dan 8:3-13). This vision was thus explained to the prophet by an angel: - The ram with two horns represents the kings of the Medes and Persians; the he-goat is the king of Javan, i.e., the Greco-Macedonian kingdom, for “the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king” (Alexander of Macedon); the four horns that sprang up in the place of the one that was broken off are four kingdoms, and in the latter time of their kingdom a fierce king shall stand up (the little horn), who shall destroy the people of the Holy One, etc. (Dan 8:20-25). According to this quite distinct explanation given by the angel, the horn, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, so hostile to the people of God belongs to the third world-kingdom, arises out of one of the four kingdoms into which the monarchy of Alexander the Great was divided; the Messianic kingdom, on the contrary, does not appear till after the overthrow of the fourth world-kingdom and the death of the last of the enemies arising out of it (Daniel 7). Accordingly, the affirmation that in the book of Daniel the appearance of the Messianic salvation stands in order after the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, is in opposition to the principal prophecies of the book; and this opposition is not removed by the supposition that the terrible beast with the ten horns (Dan 7:7) is identical with the he-goat, which is quite otherwise described, for at first it had only one horn, after the breaking off of which four came up in its stead. The circumstance that the description of the little horn growing up between the ten horns of the fourth beast, the speaking great and blasphemous things against the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:24.), harmonizes in certain features with the representation of Antiochus Epiphanes described by the little horn (Daniel 8), which would destroy the people of the Holy One, rise up against the Prince of princes, and be broken without the hand of man, does not at all warrant the identification of these enemies of God and His people rising out of different world-kingdoms, but corresponds perfectly with this idea, that Antiochus Epiphanes in his war against the people of God was a type of Antichrist, the great enemy arising out of the last world-kingdom. Along with these resemblances there are also points of dissimilarity, such e.g., as this: the period of continuance of the domination of both is apparently alike, but in reality it is different. The activity of the prince who took away the daily sacrifice, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, was to continue 2300 evening-mornings (Dan 8:14), or, as the angel says, 1290 days (Dan 12:11), so that he who waits and comes to the 1335 days shall see (Dan 12:12) salvation; the activity of the enemy in the last time, i.e., of Antichrist, on the contrary, is for a time, (two) times, and an half time (Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7), or a half  (Dan 9:27) - designations of time which have been taken without any exegetical justification to mean years, in order to harmonize the difference.
Accordingly, Daniel does not prophesy the appearance of the Messianic redemption after the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, but announces that the fourth world-kingdom, with the kingdoms growing out of it, out of which the last enemy of the people of God arises, would first follow Antiochus, who belonged to the third world-kingdom. This fourth world-kingdom with its last enemy is destroyed by the judgment which puts an end to all the world-kingdoms and establishes the Messianic kingdom. Thus the assertion that the special destination of the prediction only goes down to Antiochus Epiphanes is shown to be erroneous. Not only in the visions Daniel 2 and 7 is the conduct of the little horn rising up between the ten horns of the fourth beast predicted, but also in Dan 11:36-45 the actions of the king designated by this horn are as specially predicted as is the domination and rule of Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan 8:9., 24f., and in Daniel 11:20-35.
These are all the grounds worth mentioning which the most recent opponents of the historical and prophetical character of this book have adduced against its genuineness. It is proved from an examination of them, that the internal arguments are of as little value as the external to throw doubts on its authorship, or to establish its Maccabean origin. But we must go a step further, and briefly show that the modern opinion, that the book originated in the time of the Maccabees, which is set aside by the fact already adduced (pp. 505f.), the use of it on the part of Zechariah and Ezra, is irreconcilable with the formal nature, with the actual contents, and with the spirit of the book of Daniel. 1. Neither the character of the language nor the mode in which the prophetic statements are made, corresponds with the age of the Maccabees. As regards the character of the age, the interchange of the Hebrew and the Chaldee, in the first place, agrees fully with the time of the exile, in which the Chaldee language gradually obtained the ascendency over the Hebrew mother-tongue of the exiles, but not with the time of the Maccabees, in which the Hebrew had long ago ceased to be the language used by the people.^[10]
In the second place, the Hebrew diction of Daniel harmonizes peculiarly with the language used by writers of the period of the exile, particularly by Ezekiel;^[11] and the Chaldean idiom of this book agrees in not a few characteristic points with the Chaldee of the book of Ezra and Jer 10:11, wherein these Chaldean portions are markedly distinguished from the Chaldean language of the oldest Targums, which date from the middle of the first century b.c.^[12]

In the third place, the language of Daniel has, in common with that of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, certain Aryan elements or Parsisms, which can only be explained on the supposition that their authors lived and wrote in the Babylonish exile or under the Persian rule.^[13]
But the expedient adopted by the opponents of the genuineness to explain these characteristic agreements from imitation, is inadmissible from this consideration, that in the Hebrew complexion of the Chaldee portion as in the Aryan element found in the language there used, this book shows, along with the agreements, also peculiarities which announce^[14] the independent character of its language.
Although perhaps the use of peculiar Aramaic words and word-forms by a Jew of the time of the Maccabees may be explained, yet the use of words belonging to the Aryan language by such an one remains incomprehensible, - such words, e.g., as אזדּא, דתברין, פּתבּג, which are met with neither in the Targums nor in the rabbinical writings, or הדּם, member, piece, from which the Targumists formed the denom.  ,μελίζεσθαι, to dismember, and have naturalized in the Aramaic language (cf. J. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. ueber die Targ. i. p. 194). Whence could a Maccabean Jew of the era of the Seleucidae, when the Greek language and culture had become prominent in the East, have received there foreign words?
But as the language of this book, particularly its Aryan element, speaks against its origin in the age of the Maccabees, so also “the contemplative-visionary manner of representation in the book,” as Kran. (p. 59) justly remarks, “accords little with a conjuncture of time when (1 Macc. 2ff.) the sanctuary was desecrated and tyranny rose to an intolerable height. It is not conceivable that in such a time those who mingled in that fearful insurrection and were called on to defend their lives with weapons in their hands, should have concerned themselves with visions and circumstantial narratives of detailed history, which appertain to a lengthened period of quietness, instead of directly encouraging and counselling the men of action, so that they might be set free from the fearful situation in which they were placed.”
2. Thus in no respect do the actual contents of this book correspond with the relations and circumstances of the times of the Maccabees; but, on the contrary, they point decidedly to the time of the exile. The historical parts show an intimate acquaintance not only with the principal events of the time of the exile, but also with the laws and manners and customs of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian monarchies. The definite description (Dan 1:1) of the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, which is fabricated certainly from no part of the O.T., and which is yet proved to be correct, points to a man well acquainted with this event; so too the communication regarding king Belshazzar, Daniel 5, whose name occurs only in this book, is nowhere else independently found. An intimate familiarity with the historical relations of the Medo-Persian kingdom is seen in the mention made of the law of the Medes and Persians, Dan 6:9, Dan 6:13, since from the time of Cyrus the Persians are always placed before the Medes, and only in the book of Esther do we read of the Persians and Medes (Dan 1:3, Dan 1:14, Dan 1:18), and of the law of the Persians and Medes (Dan 1:19). An intimate acquaintance with the state-regulations of Babylon is manifest in the statement made in Dan 1:7 (proved by 2Ki 24:17 to be a Chaldean custom), that Daniel and his companions, on their being appointed for the king's service, received new names, two of which were names derived from Chaldean idols; in the account of their food being brought from the king's table (Dan 1:5); in the command to turn into a dunghill (Dan 2:5) the houses of the magicians who were condemned to death; in the death-punishments mentioned in Dan 2:5 and Dan 3:6, the being hewn to pieces and cast into a burning fiery furnace, which are shown by Eze 16:10; Eze 23:47; Jer 29:29, and other proofs, to have been in use among the Chaldeans, while among the Medo-Persians the punishment of being cast into the den of lions is mentioned, Dan 6:8, Dan 6:13,ff. The statement made about the clothing worn by the companions of Daniel (Dan 3:21) agrees with a passage in Herodotus, i. 195; and the exclusion of women from feasts and banquets is confirmed by Xen.Cyrop. v. 2, and Curtius, v. 1, 38. As to the account given in Dan 2:5, Dan 2:7, of the priests and wise men of Chaldean, Fr. Münter (Religion der Babyl. p. 5) has remarked, “What the early Israelitish prophets record regarding the Babylonish religion agrees well with the notices found in Daniel; and the traditions preserved by Ctesias, Herod., Berosus, and Diodor. are in perfect accordance therewith.” Compare with this what P. F. Stuhr (Die heidn. Religion. des alt. Orients, p. 416ff.) has remarked concerning the Chaldeans as the first class of the wise men of Babylon. A like intimate acquaintance with facts on the part of the author of this book is seen in his statements regarding the government and the state officers of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom (cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 346ff.).
The prophetical parts of this book also manifestly prove its origin in the time of the Babylonian exile. The foundation of the world-kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar forms the historical starting-point for the prophecy of the world-kingdoms. “Know, O king,” says Daniel to him in interpreting his dream of the world-monarchies, “thou art the head of gold” (Dan 2:37). The visions which are vouchsafed to Daniel date from the reign of Belshazzar the Chaldean, Darius the Median, and Cyrus the Persian (Dan 7:1; Dan 8:1; Dan 9:1; Dan 10:1). With this stands in harmony the circumstance that of the four world-kingdoms only the first three are historically explained, viz., besides the first of the monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:37), the second of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and the third of the kingdom of Javan, out of which, at the death of the first king, four kingdoms shall arise toward the four winds of heaven (Dan 8:20-22). Of the kings of the Medo-Persian kingdom, only Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, during whose reign Daniel lived, are named. Moreover the rise of yet four kings of the Persians is announced, and the warlike expedition of the fourth against the kingdom of Javan, as also the breaking up and the division toward the four winds (Dan 11:5-19) of the kingdom of the victorious king of Javan. Of the four kingdoms arising out of the monarchy of Alexander of Macedon nothing particular is said in Daniel 8, and in Dan 11:5-19 only a series of wars is predicted between the king of the south and the king of the north, and the rise of the daring king who, after the founding of his kingdom by craft, would turn his power against the people of God, lay waste the sanctuary, and put an end to the daily sacrifice, and, according to Dan 8:23, shall arise at the end of these four kingdoms.
However full and particular be the description given in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 of this daring king, seen in Daniel 8 as the little horn, yet it nowhere passes over into the prediction of historical particularities, so as to overstep the boundaries of prophecy and become prognostication or the feigned setting forth of the empiric course of history. Now, though the opinion of Kran. p. 58, that “the prophecy of Daniel contains not a single passus which might not (leaving the fulfilment out of view) in a simple, self-evident way include the development founded in itself of a theocratic thought, or of such-like thoughts,” is not in accordance with the supernatural factor of prophecy, since neither the general prophecy of the unfolding of the world-power in four successive world-kingdoms, nor the special description of the appearance and unfolding of this world-kingdom, can be conceived of or rightly regarded as a mere explication of theocratic thoughts, yet the remark of the same theologian, that the special prophecies in Daniel 8 and 9 do not abundantly cover themselves with the historical facts in which they found their fulfilment, and are fundamentally different from the later so-called Apocalypse of Judaism in the Jewish Sibyl, the book of Enoch and the book of Ezra (= Esdras), which are appended to the book of Daniel, is certainly well founded.
What Daniel prophesied regarding the kings of Persian who succeeded Cyrus, regarding the kingdom of Javan and its division after the death of the first king into four kingdoms, etc., could not be announced by him by virtue of an independent development of prophetic thoughts, but only by virtue of direct divine revelation; but this revelation is at the same time not immediate prediction, but is an addition to the earlier prophecies of further and more special unveilings of the future, in which the point of connection for the reference of the third world-kingdom to Javan was already given in the prophecy of Balaam, Num 24:24, cf. Joe 3:6 (4:6). The historical destination of the world-kingdoms does not extend to the kingdom of Javan and the ships of Chittim (Dan 11:30), pointing back to Num 24:24, which set bounds to the thirst for conquest of the daring king who arose up out of the third world-kingdom. The fourth world-kingdom, however distinctly it is described according to its nature and general course, lies on the farther side of the historical horizon of this prophet, although in the age of the Maccabees the growth of the Roman power, striving after the mastery of the world, was already so well known that the Alexandrine translators, on the ground of historical facts, interpreted the coming of the ships of Chittim by ἣξουσι  ̔Ρωμαῖοι. The absence of every trace of the historical reference of the fourth world-kingdom, furnishes an argument worthy of notice in favour of the origin of this book of Daniel during the time of the exile. For at the time of the Babylonian exile Rome lay altogether out of the circle of vision opened up to the prophets of Scripture, since it had as yet come into no relation at all to the then dominant nations which were exercising an influence on the fate of the kingdom of God. Altogether different was the state of matters in the age of the Maccabees, for they sent messengers with letters to Rome, proposing to enter into a league with the Romans: cf. 1 Macc. 8, 12.
The contents of Daniel 9 accord with the age of the Maccabees still less than do the visions of the world-kingdoms. Three and a half centuries after the accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecy of the desolation of Judah, after Jerusalem and the temple had been long ago rebuilt, it could not come into the mind of any Jew to put into the mouth of the exiled prophet Daniel a penitential prayer for the restoration of the holy city, and to represent Gabriel as having brought to him the prophecy that the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem prophesied of by Jeremiah were not yet fulfilled, but should only be fulfilled after the lapse of seventy year-weeks, in contradiction to the testimony of Ezra, or, according to modern critics, of the author of the books of Chronicles and of Ezra, living at the end of the Persian era, that God, in order to fulfil His word spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, had in the first year of Cyrus stirred up the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persian to send forth an edict throughout his whole kingdom, which directed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and commanded them to rebuild the temple (2Ch 36:22., Ezr 1:1-4). 3. If now, in conclusion, we take into consideration the religious spirit of this book, we find that the opponents of its genuineness display no special gift of διάκρισις πνευμάτων when they place the book of Daniel in the same category with the Sybilline Oracles, the fourth book of Ezra (= 2 Esdras), the book of Enoch, the Ascentio Jesajae, and other pseudepigraphical products of apocryphal literature, and represent the narrative of the events of Daniel's life and his visions as a literary production after the manner of Deuteronomy and the book of Koheleth (Ecclesiastes), which a Maccabean Jew has chosen, in order to gain for the wholesome truths which he wished to represent to his contemporaries the wished-for acceptance (Bleek, p. 593f.). For this purpose, he must in the historical narratives, “by adducing the example of Daniel and his companions on the one side, and of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar on the other, exhort his fellow-countrymen to imitate the former in the inflexible stedfastness of their faith, in their open, fearless confession of the God of their fathers, and show them how this only true, all-powerful God will know in His own time to humble those who, like Antiochus Epiphanes, raised themselves against Him in presumptuous pride and sought to turn away His people from His service, and, on the other hand, to make His faithful worshippers in the end victorious” (Bleek, p. 601). Hence the tendency is conspicuous, “that the author in his descriptions in Daniel 3 and 6 almost always, in whole and in part, has kept before his eye the relations of his time (the land of Judea being then under the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes) and the surrounding circumstances; and these he brings before his readers in a veiled, yet by them easily recognisable, manner” (p. 602). Wherein, then, does the “easily recognisable” resemblance of these two facta consist? Nebuchadnezzar directed a colossal image of threescore cubits in height and six cubits in breadth to be erected on the plain of Dura, and to be solemnly consecrated as a national image, the assembled people falling down before it doing it homage. Antiochus Epiphanes, on the contrary, did not command an idol-image, as has been supposed from a false interpretation of the βδέλυγμα ερημώσεως (1 Macc. 1:54), to be placed on the altar of burnt-offering, but only a small idol-altar (βωμόν, 1 Macc. 1:59) to be built; no mention is made, however, of its being solemnly consecrated. He then commanded the Jews to offer sacrifice month after month on this idol-altar; and because he wished that in his whole kingdom all should form but one people, and that each should leave his laws (v. 41), he thus sought to constrain the Jews to give up the worship of God inherited from their fathers, and to fall in with the heathen forms of worship. Nebuchadnezzar did not intend to forbid to the nations that became subject to him the worship of their own gods, and to the Jews the worship of Jehovah, but much more, after in the wonderful deliverance of the three friends of Daniel he recognised the omnipotence of the supreme God, he forbade by an edict, on the pain of death, all his subjects from blaspheming this God (Dan 3:28-30).
And wherein consists the resemblance between Antiochus Epiphanes and the Median Darius (Daniel 6)? Darius; it is true, at the instigation of his princes and satraps, issued an ordinance that whoever within thirty days should offer a prayer to any god or man except to the king himself should be cast into the den of lions, but certainly not with the view of compelling the Jews, or any other of his subjects, to apostatize from their ancestral religion, for after the expiry of the appointed thirty days every one might again direct his prayer to his own god. The special instigators of this edict did not contemplate by it the bringing of the Jewish people under any religious restraint, but they aimed only at the overthrow of Daniel, whom Darius had raised to the rank of third ruler in the realm and had thought to set over the whole kingdom. But when Daniel was denounced to him by the authors of this law, Darius became greatly moved, and did all he could to avert from him the threatened punishment. And when, by an appeal of his satraps to the law of the Medes and Persians that no royal edict could be changed, necessity was laid upon him to cause Daniel to be cast into the den of lions, he spent a sleepless night, and was very glad when, coming to the lions' den early in the morning, he found Daniel uninjured. He then not only commanded Daniel's accusers to be cast to the lions, but he also by a proclamation ordered all his subjects to do homage to the living God who did signs and wonders in heaven and earth. In this conduct of Darius towards Daniel and towards the living God of heaven and earth, whom Daniel and the Jews worshipped, can a single incident be found which will remind us of the rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jews and their worship of God?
Still less can it be conceived that (as Bleek, p. 604, says) the author of this book had “without doubt Antiochus Epiphanes before his eyes” in Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4, and also in Belshazzar, Daniel 5. It is true that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, according to Daniel 4 and 5, sin against the Almighty God of heaven and earth and are punished for it, and Antiochus Epiphanes also at last fell under the judgment of God on account of his wickedness. But this general resemblance, that heathen rulers by their contact with the Jews did dishonour to the Almighty God, and were humbled and punished for it, repeats itself at all times, and forms no special characteristic of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In all the special features of the narratives of Daniel 4 and 5, on the other hand, complete differences are met with. Nebuchadnezzar was struck with beast-like madness, not because he had persecuted the Jews, but because in his haughty pride as a ruler he deified himself, because he knew not that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men (Dan 4:14); and when he humbled himself before the Most High, he was freed from his madness and again restored to his kingdom. Belshazzar also did not transgress by persecuting the Jews, but by causing at a riotous banquet, in drunken insolence, the golden vessels which had been brought from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon to be produced, and by drinking out of these vessels with his captains and his wives amid the singing of songs in praise of the idol-gods; thus, as Daniel represented to him, raising himself up against the Lord of heaven, and not honouring the God in whose hand his breath was and with whom were all his ways, although he knew how his father Nebuchadnezzar had been punished by this God (Dan 5:20-23) for his haughty presumption.
The relation not only of Nebuchadnezzar and of Darius, but also of Belshazzar, to the Jews and their religion is therefore fundamentally different from the tendency of Antiochus Epiphanes to uproot Judaism and the Mosaic worship of God. The Babylonian kings were indeed heathen, who, according to the common opinion of all heathens, held their national gods to be greater and more powerful than the gods of the nations subdued by them, among whom they also placed the God of Israel; but they that heard of the wonders of His divine omnipotence, they gave honour to the God of Israel as the God of heaven and of earth, partly by express confession of Him, and partly, at least as Belshazzar did, by honouring the true worshippers of this God. Antiochus Epiphanes, on the contrary, persisted in his almost mad rage against the worship of God as practised by the Jews till he was swept away by the divine judgment. If the pretended pseudo-Daniel, therefore, had directed his view to Antiochus Epiphanes in the setting forth of such narratives, we could only imagine the purpose to have been that he might lead this fierce enemy of his people to acknowledge and worship the true God. But with such a supposition not only does the sentiment of the Jews, as it is brought to light in the books of the Maccabees, stand in opposition, but it is also contradicted by the prophecies of this book, which threaten the daring and deceitful king, who would take away the daily sacrifice and lay waste the sanctuary, with destruction without the hand of man, without giving any room for the thought of the possibility of a change of mind, or of his conversion. The author of these prophecies cannot therefore have followed, in the historical narratives of his book, the tendency imputed to him by modern critics.
On the whole, an entire misapprehension of the spirit which pervades the historical parts of the book of Daniel lies at the foundation of the supposition of such a tendency. The narratives regarding Nebuchadnezzar, his dream, the consecration of the golden statue, and his conduct after his recovery from his madness, as well as those regarding Darius, Daniel 6, could not be invented, at least could not be invented by a Maccabean Jew, because in the pre-exilian history there are altogether wanting types corresponding to the psychological delineation of these characters. It is true that a Pharaoh raised Joseph, who interpreted his dream, to be the chief ruler in his kingdom, but it does not come into his mind to give honour to the God who revealed in the dream what would befall his kingdom (Gen 41). For the other narratives of this book there are wanting in the Old Testament incidents with which they could be connected; and the resemblance between the life-experience of Joseph and that of Daniel extends only to these general matters, that both received from God the gift of interpreting dreams, and by means of this gift brought help and deliverance to their people:^[15] in all details, however, Daniel is so different from Joseph, that the delineation of his portrait as found in this book cannot be regarded as a copy of the history of Joseph. Still less can we think of the narratives of Daniel as poetical compositions; for the characters of Nebuchadnezzar and of Darius the Mede are essentially different from the prevailing views of Judaism concerning the heathen. The relation of both of these genuine heathen kings to the revelations of God shows a receptivity for the control of the living God in the lot of men, as is predicated before and after the exile in no Jewish writing of a single heathen. Such representations of character cannot be invented; they are drawn according to life, and can only be understood if the wonders of divine omnipotence and grace which the book of Daniel relates truly happened.
But as in the historical narrations, so also in the visions of Daniel, there is wanting every trace of any tendency pointing to Antiochus Epiphanes. This tendency is derived only from the view already (p. 513) shown to be incorrect, that all the prophecies of Daniel extend only down to this king, and that with his death the destruction of the God-opposing world-power and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom of God is to be expected. But if the opponents of the genuineness of this book derive support for their views from the relation of the prophecies of Daniel to the pseudepigraphic products of the Jewish Apocalyptics, so also, on the other hand, Zündel (Krit. Unter. p. 134ff.) has so conclusively proved the decided difference between the prophecies of Daniel and the Sibylline Oracles, which, according to Bleek, Lücke, and others, must have flowed from one source and are homogeneous, that we may limit ourselves to a brief condensed exhibition of the main results of this proof (p. 165ff.).
First, the subject of the two writings is perfectly different. In Daniel the seer stands in moral connection with the vision; this is not so with the Sibyl. Daniel is a pious Israelite, whose name, as we see from Ezekiel, was well known during the Chaldean exile, and whose life-history is spent in inseparable connection with his prophecies; on the contrary, the Sibyls withdraw their existence from all historical control, fore they date back in the times of hoary antiquity, not only of Israel, but of all nations, viz., in the period of the deluge, and their persons disappear in apocryphal darkness. “While Daniel on his knees prays for the divine disclosure regarding the time of the deliverance of his people, and each of his revelations is at the same time an answer to prayer, the Sibyl in the Maccabean time is represented, in a true heathenish manner, powerfully transported against her will by the word of God as by a madness, and twice she prays that she might rest and cease to prophesy.”
Again, the prophetic situation is just as different. As is the case with all the earlier prophets, Daniel's prophecy goes forth from a definite historical situation, the growing up of the first great world-power in Assyria-Chaldea; it stands in a moral practical connection with the deliverance of Israel, about which it treats, after the expiry of the seventy years of Jeremiah; the four world-monarchies which were revealed to him take root in the historical ground of the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In the Seleucidan-Jewish Sibyl, on the contrary, there is no mention made of a prophetical situation, nor of a politico-practical tendency; the Sibyl has in a true Alexandrine manner a literary object, viz., this, to represent Judaism as the world-religion. “That life-question for Israel and the world, When comes the kingdom of God? which in Daniel springs up in an actual situation, as it shall also be only answered by divine fact, is in the Alexandrine Sibyllist only a question of doctrine which he believes himself called on to solve by making the heathen Jews and associates of the Jews.
Finally, in the Sibyls there is wanting a prophetical object. The prophetical object of Daniel is the world-power over against the kingdom of God. This historico-prophetic idea is the determinating, sole, all-penetrating idea in Daniel, and the centre of it lies throughout in the end of the world-power, in its inner development and its inner powerlessness over against the kingdom of God. The four world-forms do not begin with the history of nations and extend over our present time. On the contrary, the creative prophetic spirit is wanting to the Sibyl; not one historical thought of deliverance is peculiar to it; it is a genuine Alexandrine compilation of prophetic and Graeco-classic thoughts externally conceived. The thought peculiarly pervading it, to raise Judaism to the rank of the world-religion, is only a human reflection of the divine plan, that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed, which pervades all the prophets as the great thought in the history of the world; in Daniel it comes out into the greatest clearness, and is realized by Christianity. This prophetic world-thought the Sibyl has destroyed, i.e., has religiously spiritualized and politically materialized it. “Not the living and holy covenant God Jehovah, who dwells on high and with the contrite in heart, but Godhead uncreated and creating all things, without distinction in Himself, the invisible God, who sees all things, who is neither male nor female, as He appears at a later period in the teaching of the school of Philo, is He whom the Sibyl in very eloquent language declares to the heathen. But of the God of Israel, who not only created the world, but who also has a divine kingdom on the earth, and will build up this kingdom, in a word, of the God of the history of redemption, as He is seen in His glory in Daniel, we find no trace whatever.” The materialistic historic prophecy of the Sibyllist corresponds with this religious spiritualism. He seeks to imitate the prophecies of Daniel, but he does not know the prophetic fundamental thought of the kingdom of God over against the kingdom of the world, and therefore he copies the empirical world-history: “first Egypt will rule, then Assyria, Persia, Media, Macedonia, Egypt again, and then Rome.”
Thus the Sibylline Apocalyptic is fundamentally different from the prophecies of Daniel.^[16]
Whoever has a mind so little disciplined that he cannot perceive this difference, cannot be expected to know how to distinguish between the prophecies of Daniel and the philosophical reflections of the book of Koheleth.^[17]
If Koheleth brings forward his thoughts regarding the vanity of all things in the name of the wise king Solomon, then is this literary production, which moreover is so very transparent that every reader of the book can see through it, altogether comprehensible. If, on the other hand, a Maccabean Jew clothe his own self-conceived ideas regarding the development of the war of the heathen world-powers against the people of God in revelations from God, which the prophet living in the Babylonian exile might have received, then this undertaking is not merely literary deception, but at the same time an abuse of prophecy, which, as a prophesying out of one's own heart, is a sin to which God in His law has annexed the punishment of death.
If the book of Daniel were thus a production of a Maccabean Jew, who would bring “certain wholesome truths” which he thought he possessed before his contemporaries as prophecies of a divinely enlightened seer of the time of the exile, then it contains neither prophecy given by God, nor in general wholesome divine truth, but mere human invention, which because it was clothed with falsehood could not have its origin in the truth. Such a production Christ, the eternal personal Truth, never could have regarded as the prophecy of Daniel the prophet, and commended to the observation of His disciples, as He has done (Mat 24:15, cf. Mar 13:14).
This testimony of our Lord fixes on the external and internal evidences which prove the genuineness of the book of Daniel the seal of divine confirmation.
For the exegetical literature of the book of Daniel see in my Lehrb. der Einl. in d. A. Test. 385f. The Messrs. T. and T. Clark of Edinburgh have recently published an English translation of this work, under the title of Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, etc., translated by the Rev. Professor Douglas, D.D., Free Church College, Glasgow. 2 vols., Edinburgh 1869]. To what is there recorded we may add, Das Buch Daniel erkl. von Rud. Kranichfeld, Berlin 1868; Das Buch Daniels uebers. u. erkl. von Dr. Th. Kliefoth, Schwerin 1868; J. L. Füller, der Prophet Daniel erkl., Basel 1868 (for the educated laity); Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, Oxf. 1864; and Mayer (Cath.), die Messian. Prophezieen des Daniel, Wien 1866. [Der Prophet Daniel, theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitt. von Dr. Zoeckler, Professor der Theologie zu Greifswald (J. P. Lange's Bibelwerk, 17er Thiel des A. T.), 1870.]

Historico-Biographical Introduction

When Nebuchadnezzar first besieged Jerusalem he not only took away the holy vessels of the temple, but also commanded that several Israelitish youths of noble lineage, among whom was Daniel, should be carried to Babylon and there educated in the science and wisdom of the Chaldeans for service in his court, which they entered upon when their education was completed. This narrative, in which the stedfast attachment of Daniel and his three friends to the religion of their fathers, and the blessings which flowed to them from this fidelity (Dan 1:8-17), are particularly set forth, forms the historical introduction to the following book, whilst it shows how Daniel reached the place of influence which he held, a place which was appointed for him according to the divine counsel, during the Babylonish exile, for the preservation and development of the Old Testament kingdom of God. It concludes (Dan 1:21) with the remark, that Daniel continued to occupy this place till the first year of Cyrus.

Chap. 1

Verse 1

Dan 1:1
Of this expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem it is related in the second book of Kings (2Ki 24:1): “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him;” and in the second book of Chronicles (2Ch 36:6): “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.” That both of these statements refer to the same expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim mentioned here, appears not only from the statement of the book of Chronicles agreeing with Dan 1:2 of this chapter, namely, that Nebuchadnezzar took away a part of the sacred vessels of the temple to Babylon, and there put them in the temple of his god, but also from the circumstance that, beyond all doubt, during the reign of Jehoiakim where was not a second siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It is true, indeed, that when Jehoiakim threw off the yoke at the end of three years' subjection, Nebuchadnezzar sent Chaldean, Aramaean, Moabitish, and Ammonitish hosts against him for the purpose of bringing him into subjection, but Jerusalem was not again laid siege to by these hosts till the death of Jehoiakim. Not till his son Jehoiachin ascended the throne did the servants of Nebuchadnezzar again come up against Jerusalem and besiege it. When, during the siege, Nebuchadnezzar himself came up, Jehoiachin surrendered to him after three months, and was, along with the chief men of his kingdom, and the strength of the population of Jerusalem and Judah, and the treasures of the royal palace and of the temple, carried down to Babylon (2Ki 24:2-16). The year, however, in which Nebuchadnezzar, in the reign of Jehoiakim, first took Jerusalem and carried away a part of the treasures of the temple to Babylon, is stated neither in the second book of Kings nor in Chronicles, but may be pretty certainly determined by the statements of Jeremiah (Jer 46:2; Jer 25:1., Jer 36:1.). According to Jer 46:2, Nebuchadnezzar smote the Egyptian king Pharaoh-Necho with his army at Carchemish in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That same year is spoken of (Jer 25:1) as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and is represented by Jeremiah not only as a critical period for the kingdom of Judah; but also, by the prediction that the Lord would bring His servant Nebuchadnezzar against Judah and against its inhabitants, and against all the nations round about, that He would make Judah a desolation, and that these nations would serve the king of Babylon seventy years (Jer 25:2-11), he without doubt represents it as the beginning of the seventy years of Babylonish exile: In this the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the prophet was also commanded (Jer 36:1.) to write in a book all the words which the Lord had spoken unto him against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day in which He had spoken to him in the time of Josiah even till then, that the house of Judah might hear all the evil which He purposed to do unto them, and might return every man from his evil way. Jeremiah obeyed this command, and caused these predictions, written in the roll of a book, to be read by Baruch to the people in the temple; for he himself was a prisoner, and therefore could not go to the temple.
The first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot therefore have taken place in the third, but must have been in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c. This, however, appears to stand in opposition to the statement of the first verse of this chapter: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim בּא Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem.” The modern critics accordingly number this statement among the errors which must disprove the genuineness of this book (see above, p. 508f.). The apparent opposition between the language of Daniel (Dan 1:1) that Nebuchadnezzar undertook his first expedition against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and the affirmation of Jeremiah, according to which not only was Pharaoh-Necho slain by Nebuchadnezzar at the Euphrates in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, but also in this same year Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judea is for the first time announced, cannot be resolved either by the hypothesis of a different mode of reckoning the years of the reign of Jehoiakim and of Nebuchadnezzar, nor by the supposition that Jerusalem had been already taken by Nebuchadnezzar before the battle of Carchemish, in the third year of Jehoiakim. The first supposition is set aside by the circumstance that there is no certain analogy for it.^[18]
The latter supposition is irreconcilable with Jer. 25 and 36.^[19]
If Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim announced that because Judah did not hearken unto his warnings addressed to them “from the thirteenth year of Josiah even unto this day,” that is, for the space of three and twenty years, nor yet to the admonitions of all the other prophets (Jer 25:3-7) whom the Lord had sent unto them, therefore the Lord would now send His servant Nebuchadnezzar with all the people of the north against the land and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, utterly to destroy the land and make it desolate, etc. - then it must be affirmed that he publicly made known the invasion of Judah by the Chaldeans as an event which had not yet taken place, and therefore that the supposition that Jerusalem had already in the preceding year been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Jehoiakim had been brought under his subjection, is entirely excluded. It is true that in Daniel 25 Jeremiah prophesies a judgment of “perpetual desolations against Jerusalem and against all the nations,” but it is as unwarrantable to apply, as Klief. does, this prophecy only “to the total destruction of Jerusalem and of Judah, which took place in the eleventh year of Zedekiah,” as with older interpreters only to the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim, 2Ki 24:1 and 2Ch 36:6. In the words of threatening uttered by the prophet there are included all the expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem and Judah, from his first against Jehoiakim to the final destruction of Jerusalem under Zedekiah; so that we cannot say that it is not applicable to the first siege of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, but to the final destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, as this whole prophecy is only a comprehensive intensified summary of all the words of God hitherto spoken by the mouth of the prophet. To strengthen the impression produced by this comprehensive word of God, he was commanded in that same year (Jer 36:1.), as already mentioned, to write out in the roll of a book all the words hitherto spoken by him, that it might be seen whether or not the several words gathered together into a whole might not exert an influence over the people which the separate words had failed to do.
Moreover a destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans before the overthrow of the Egyptian power on the Euphrates, which took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, cannot at all be thought of. King Jehoiakim was “put into bands” by Pharaoh-Necho and made a tributary vassal to him (2Ki 23:33.), and all the land from the river of Egypt even unto the Euphrates was brought under his sway; therefore Nebuchadnezzar could not desolate Judah and Jerusalem before Pharaoh-Necho was slain. Neither could Nebuchadnezzar pass in the presence of the Egyptian host stationed in the stronghold of Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and advance toward Judah, leaving behind him the city of Babylon as a prize to so powerful an enemy, nor would Necho, supposing that Nebuchadnezzar had done this, have quietly allowed his enemy to carry on his operations, and march against his vassal Jehoiakim, without following in the rear of Egypt's powerful foe.^[20]
The statement in the first verse may indeed, literally taken, be interpreted as meaning that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and took in in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, because בּוא frequently means to come to a place. But it is not necessary always so to interpret the word, because בּוא means not only to come, but also to go, to march to a place. The assertion, that in this verse בּוא is to be interpreted (Häv. N. Kr. U. p. 61, Ew., and others) as meaning to come to a place, and not to march to it, is as incorrect as the assertion that the translation of בּא by he marched is inadmissible or quite impossible, because עלה is generally used of the march of an army (Staeh., Zünd.). The word בּוא, from the first book of the Canon (cf. Gen 14:5) to the last, the book of Daniel not excepted (cf. e.g., Dan 11:13, Dan 11:17, Dan 11:29, etc.), is used of military expeditions; and regarding the very general opinion, that בּוא, in the sense of to march, to go to a place, occurs less frequently, Kran. (p. 21) has rightly remarked, that “it stands always and naturally in this sense whenever the movement has its point of departure from the place of him who observes it, thinks of it, or makes a communication regarding it.” Therefore, e.g., it is used “always in a personal verbal command with reference to the movement, not yet undertaken, where naturally the thought as to the beginning or point of departure passes into the foreground; as e.g., in Gen 45:17; Exo 6:11; 7:26; Exo 9:1; Exo 10:1; Num 32:6; 1Sa 20:19; 2Ki 5:5. In Jon 1:3 it is used of the ship that was about to go to Tarshish; and again, in the words עמּהם לבוא, ibid., it is used when speaking of the conclusion of the journey.” “On the contrary, if the speaker or narrator is at the terminus ad quem of the movement spoken of, then of course the word בּוא is used in the other sense of to come, to approach, and the like.” Accordingly these words of Daniel, “Nebuchadnezzar בּוא to Jerusalem,” considered in themselves, may be interpreted without any regard to the point of departure or the termination of the movement. They may mean “Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem,” or that “he marched to Jerusalem,” according as the writer is regarded as writing in Judah or Jerusalem, or in Babylon at the point of departure of Nebuchadnezzar's journey. If the book was composed by a Maccabean Jew in Palestine, then the translation, “he came to Jerusalem,” would be the more correct, because such a writer would hardly have spoken of a military movement from its eastern point of departure. The case is altogether different if Daniel, who lived as a courtier in Babylon from his youth up to old age, wrote this account. “For him, a Jew advanced in years, naturally the first movement of the expedition threatening and bringing destruction to his fatherland, whether it moved directly or by a circuitous route upon the capital, would be a significant fact, which he had in every respect a better opportunity of comprehending than his fellow-countrymen living in the remote west, since this expedition was an event which led to the catastrophe of the exile. For the Jew writing in Babylon about the expedition, the fatal commencement of the march of the Chaldean host would have a mournful significance, which it could not have for a writer living in Jerusalem.”
In this way Kran. has thoroughly vindicated the rendering of בּא, “he marched” to Jerusalem, and also the explanation of the word as referring to the setting out of the Chaldean army which Hitz., Hofm., Staeh., Zünd., and others have declared to be opposed to the meaning of the word and “impossible,” and at the same time he has set aside as groundless the further remark of Hitzig, that the designation of the time also applies to ויּצר. If בּא is to be understood of an expedition with reference to its point of departure, then the fixing of its time cannot of course refer also to the time of the arrival of the expedition at its termination and the siege then ensuing. The time of its arrival before Jerusalem, as well as the beginning, duration, and end of the siege, is not defined, and only its result, the taking of Jerusalem, is, according to the object of the author, of sufficient importance to be briefly announced. The period of the taking of the city can only be determined from dates elsewhere given. Thus from the passages in Jeremiah already referred to, it appears that this happened in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, in which year Nebuchadnezzar overcame the army of Necho king of Egypt at the Euphrates (Jer 46:2), and took all the land which the king of Egypt had subdued, from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, so that Pharaoh-Necho came no more out of his land (2Ki 24:7). With this agrees Berosus in the fragments of his Chaldean history preserved by Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 1, and c. Ap. i. 19). His words, as found in the latter passage, are these: “When his (Nebuc.) father Nabopolassar heard that the satrap whom he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coelesyria and Phoenicia had revolted from him, he was unable to bear the annoyance any longer, but committing a part of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then a youth, he sent him against the rebel. Nabuchodonosor encountered him in battle and overcame him, and brought the land again under his dominion. It happened that his father Nabopolassar at this time fell sick and died at the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-one years (Berosus says twenty-nine years). But when Nabuchodonosor not long after heard of the death of his father, he set the affairs of Egypt and of the other countries in order, and committed the prisoners he had taken from the Jews, the Phoenicians, and Syrians, and from the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct the heavy armed troops with the rest of the baggage to Babylonia, while he himself hastened with a small escort through the desert to Babylon. When he came hither, he found that the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal persons among them had preserved the kingdom for him. He now obtained possession of all his father's dominions, and gave directions that the captives should be placed as colonies in the most favourably situated districts of Babylonia,” etc. This fragment illustrates in an excellent manner the statements made in the Bible, in case one be disposed to estimate the account of the revolt of the satrap placed over Egypt and the countries lying round Coelesyria and Phoenicia as only the expression of boastfulness on the part of the Babylonish historian, claiming that all the countries of the earth of right belonged to the monarch of Babylon; and it also shows that the rebel satrap could be none other than Pharaoh-Necho. For Berosus confirms not only the fact, as declared in 2Ki 24:7, that Pharaoh-Necho in the last year of Nabopolassar, after the battle at Megiddo, had subdued Judah, Phoenicia, and Coelesyria, i.e., “all the land from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates,” but he also bears witness to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had slain Pharaoh-Necho (Jer 46:2) “by the river Euphrates in Carchemish,” made Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and Judah tributary to the Chaldean empire, and consequently that he took Jerusalem not before but after the battle at Carchemish, in prosecution of the victory he had obtained over the Egyptians.
This does not, however, it must be confessed, prove that Jerusalem had already in the fourth year of Jehoiakim come under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore Hitz. and others conclude from Jer 36:9 that Nebuchadnezzar's assault upon Jerusalem was in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim as yet only in prospect, because in that month Jeremiah prophesied of the Chaldean invasion, and the extraordinary fast then appointed had as its object the manifestation of repentance, so that thereby the wrath of God might be averted. This Kran. endeavours to prove from 2Ki 25:27, cf. Jer 52:31. But in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be rehearsed to the people in the court of the temple his former prophecies, written by Baruch in a book according to the commandment of the Lord, and pronounced the threatening against Jehoiakim because he had cut to pieces this book and had cast it into the fire, Jer 36:29. This threatening, that God would bring upon the seed and upon the servants of Jehoiakim, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all the evil which He had pronounced against them (Jer 36:31), does not exclude the previous capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but announces only the carrying out of the threatened judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah to be as yet imminent.
The extraordinary fast of the people also, which was appointed for the ninth month, was not ordained with the view of averting the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which was then expected, after the battle at Carchemish; for although fasts were sometimes appointed or kept for the purpose of turning away threatened judgment or punishment (e.g., 2Sa 12:15.; 1Ki 21:27; Est 4:1; Est 3:1-15 :16), yet, in general, fasts were more frequently appointed to preserve the penitential remembrance of punishments and chastisements which had been already endured: cf. e.g., Zec 7:5; Ezr 10:6.; Neh 1:4; 1Sa 31:13; 2Sa 1:12, etc. To ascertain, therefore, what was the object of this fast which was appointed, we must keep in view the character of Jehoiakim and his relation to this fast. The godless Jehoiakim, as he is represented in 2Ki 23:37; 2Ch 36:5, and Jer 22:13., was not the man who would have ordained a fast (or allowed it if the priests had wished to appoint it) to humble himself and his people before God, and by repentance and prayer to turn away the threatened judgment. Before he could ordain a fast for such a purpose, Jehoiakim must hear and observe the word of the prophet, and in that case he would not have been so enraged at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah as to have cut the book to pieces and cast it into the fire. If the fast took place previous to the arrival of the Chaldeans before Jerusalem, then neither the intention of the king nor his conduct in regard to it can be comprehended. On the other hand, as Zünd. p. 21, and Klief. p. 57, have shown, both the ordaining of a general fast, and the anger of the king at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah in the presence of the people in the temple, are well explained, if the fast is regarded as designed to keep in remembrance the day of the year on which Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem. As Jehoiakim bore with difficulty the yoke of the Chaldean oppression, and from the first meditated on a revolt, for after three years he did actually revolt, he instituted the fast “to stir up the feelings of the people against the state of vassalage into which they had been brought” (Klief.), “and to call forth a religious enthusiasm among them to resist the oppressor” (Zünd.). This opposition could only, however, result in the destruction of the people and the kingdom. Jeremiah therefore had his prophecies read to the people in the temple on that day by Baruch “as a counterbalance to the desire of the king,” and announced to them that Nebuchadnezzar would come again to subdue the land and to destroy from out of it both man and beast. “Therefore the king was angry, and destroyed the book, because he would not have the excitement of the people to be so hindered; and therefore also the princes were afraid (Jer 36:16) when they heard that the book of these prophecies was publicly read” (Klief.).
The words of 2Ki 25:27, cf. Jer 52:31, do not contradict this conclusion from Jer 36:9, even though that drawn by Kran., p. 18, from this passage were adopted, viz., that since almost thirty-seven whole years had passed from the carrying away of Jehoiachin to the end of the forty-three years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but Jehoiachin had reigned only for a few months, the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar must be dated in the sixth of the eleven years' reign of Jehoiakim, the predecessor of Jehoiachin. For since, according to the testimony of Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar conducted the war against Hither Asia, in which he slew king Necho at Carchemish, and as a further consequence of this victory took Jerusalem, before the death of his father, in the capacity of a commander-in-chief clothed with royal power, and when in Hither Asia, as it seems, and on the confines of Egypt, he then for the first time heard tidings of his father's death, and therefore hastened by the shortest road to Babylon to assume the crown and lay claim to all his father's dominions, - then it follows that his forty-three years' reign begins after the battle of Carchemish and the capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, and might possibly have begun in the sixth year of Jehoiakim, some five months after the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 36:9). Against this supposition the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar, as stated in Jer 46:2; Jer 25:1, and also Dan 1:1, was called king of Babylon before he had actually ascended the throne is no valid objection, inasmuch as this title is explained as a prolepsis which would be easily understood by the Jews in Palestine. Nabopolassar came into no contact at all with Judah; the Jews therefore knew scarcely anything of his reign and his death; and the year of Nebuchadnezzar's approach to Jerusalem would be regarded in a general way both by Jeremiah and his contemporaries as the first year of his reign, and the commander of the Chaldean army as the king of Babylon, no matter whether on account of his being actual co-regent with his aged and infirm father, or merely because he was clothed with royal power as the chief commander of the army.^[21]
In this sense Daniel (Dan 1:1) names him who was afterwards king, at a time when he was not yet the possessor of the throne, the king of Babylon; for he was in effect the king, so far as the kingdom of Judah was concerned, when he undertook the first expedition against it.
But the reckoning of Kran. is also not exact. Nebuchadnezzar's ascending the throne and the beginning of his reign would only happen in the sixth year of Jehoiakim if either the three months of Jehoiachin (37 years' imprisonment of Jehoiachin + 1 year's reign + 5 years of Jehoiakim = 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar) are to be reckoned as 1 year, or at least the 11 years of Jehoiakim as 11 full years, so that 5 3/4 years of Jehoiakim's reign must be added to the 37 years of Jehoiachin's imprisonment and the 3 months of his reign so as to make up the 43 years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Jehoiakim must have reigned 5 1/4 years at the time when Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. Whereas if Jehoiakim's reign extended only to 10 1/2 years, which were reckoned as 11 years in the books of the Kings, according to the general method of recording the length of the reign of kings, then Nebuchadnezzar's ascending the throne took place in the fifth years of Jehoiakim's reign, or, at the furthest, after he had reigned 4 3/4 years. This latter reckoning, whereby the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is made to coincide with the fifth year of Jehoiakim's, is demanded by those passages in which the years of the reign of the kings of Judah are made parallel with the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign; viz., 2Ki 24:12, where it is stated that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and carried away captive in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar; also Jer 32:1, where the tenth years of Zedekiah corresponds with the eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar; and finally, Jer 52:5, Jer 52:12, and 2Ki 25:2, 2Ki 25:8, where the eleventh year of Zedekiah corresponds with the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to all these passages, the death of Jehoiakim, or the end of his reign, happened either in the eighth year, or at all events in the end of the seventh year, of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for Jehoiachin reigned only three months; so that Nebuchadnezzar reigned six full years, and perhaps a few months longer, as contemporary with Jehoiakim, and consequently he must have mounted the throne in the fifth of the eleven years of Jehoiakim's reign.^[22]
The above discussion has at the same time also furnished us with the means of explaining the apparent contradiction which has been found between Dan 1:1. and Dan 2:1., and which has been brought forward as an historical error in argument against the genuineness of the book. According to Dan 1:3., Nebuchadnezzar after the capture of Jerusalem commanded that young Israelites of noble birth should be carried away to Babylon, and there educated for the space of three years in the literature and wisdom of the Chaldeans; and, according to Dan 1:18, after the expiry of the appointed time, they were brought in before the king that they might be employed in his service. But these three years of instruction, according to Dan 2:1., expired in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and his companions were ranked among the wise men of Babylon, and Daniel interpreted to the king his dream, which his Chaldean magi were unable to do (Dan 2:13., 19ff.). If we observe that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed his dream “in the second year of his reign,” and that he entered on his reign some time after the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Jehoiakim, them we can understand how the three years appointed for the education of Daniel and his companions came to an end in the second year of his reign; for if Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, then in the seventh year of Jehoiakim three years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year of this king. For the carrying away of the Israelitish youths followed, without doubt, immediately after the subjugation of Jehoiakim, so that a whole year or more of their period of education had passed before Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne. This conclusion is not set aside by what Berosus affirms, that Nebuchadnezzar, after he heard of the death of his father, committed the captives he had taken from the Jews to the care of some of his friends that they might be brought after him, while he himself hastened over the desert to Babylon; for that statement refers to the great transport of prisoners who were carried away for the colonization of Central Asia. As little does the consideration that a twofold method of reckoning the year of Nebuchadnezzar's government by Daniel is improbable militate against this reconciliation of the discrepancy, for no such twofold method of reckoning exists. In Daniel 1 the year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is not given, but Nebuchadnezzar is only named as being king;^[23] while in Dan 2:1 mention is made not merely of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, but of the second year of his reign, from which it appears that the historian here reckons from the actual commencement of his reign. Also, as Klief., p. 67, has well remarked, one may “easily discover the ground on which Daniel in Dan 1:1 followed a different mode of reckoning from that adopted in Dan 2:1. In Daniel 1 Daniel had to do with Israelitish circumstances and persons, and therefore followed, in making reference to Nebuchadnezzar, the general Israelitish mode of contemplation. He reckons his years according to the years of the Israelitish kings, and sees in him already the king; on the contrary, in Daniel 2 Daniel treats of the relations of the world-power, and he reckons here accurately the year of Nebuchadnezzar, the bearer of the world-power, from the day in which, having actually obtained the possession of the world-power, he became king of Babylon.”
If we now, in conclusion, briefly review the results of the preceding discussions, it will be manifest that the following is the course of events: - Necho the king of Egypt, after he had made Jehoiakim his vassal king, went forth on an expedition against the Assyrian kingdom as far as the Euphrates. Meanwhile, however, with the dissolution of the Assyrian kingdom by the fall of Nineveh, the part of that kingdom lying on this side of the Tigris had come under the dominion of the Chaldeans, and the old and enfeebled king Nabopolassar gave to his son Nebuchadnezzar the chief command of the army, with the commission to check the advance of the Egyptians, and to rescue from them the countries they had occupied and bring them again under the Chaldean rule. In consequence of this, Nebuchadnezzar took the field against Hither Asia in the third year of the reign of Jehioakim, and in the first month of the fourth year of Jehoiakim slew Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish and pursued his army to the confines of Egypt, and in the ninth month of the same year took Jerusalem and made king Jehoiakim his subject. While Nebuchadnezzar was busied in Hither Asia with the subjugation of the countries that had been conquered by Pharaoh-Necho, he received the tidings of the death of his father Nabopolassar in Babylon, and hastened forward with a small guard by the nearest way through the desert to Babylon in order to assume the government, giving directions that the army, along with the whole band of prisoners, should follow him by slow marches. But as soon as the Chaldean army had left Judea and returned to Babylon, Jehoiakim sought how he might throw off the Chaldean yoke, and three years after his subjugation he revolted, probably at a time when Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in establishing his dominion in the East, so that he could not immediately punish this revolt, but contented himself meanwhile with sending against Jehoiakim the armies of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, whom he had left behind on the confines of Judah. They were unable, however, to vanquish him as long as he lived. It was only after his son Jehoiachin had ascended the throne that Nebuchadnezzar, as commander of the army, returned with a powerful host to Jerusalem and besieged the city. While the city was being besieged, Nebuchadnezzar came in person to superintend the war. Jehoiachin with his mother, and his chief officers from the city, went out to surrender themselves to the king of Babylon. But Nebuchadnezzar took him as a prisoner, and commanded that the golden vessels of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace should be taken away, and he carried the king with the great men of the kingdom, the men of war, the smiths and craftsmen, as prisoners to Babylon, and made his vassal Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in Jerusalem, under the name of Zedekiah (2 Kings 28:8-17). This happened in the eighth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:12), and thus about six years after Daniel had interpreted his dream (Daniel 2), and had been promoted by him to the rank of president of the wise men in Babylon.
The name נבוּכדנאצּר is written in Dan 1:1 with ,א as it is uniformly in Jeremiah, e.g., Jer 27:6, Jer 27:8,Jer 27:20; Jer 28:3, Jer 28:11, Jer 28:12; Jer 29:1, Jer 29:3, and in the books of the Kings and Chronicles, as 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:10-11; 2Ki 25:1; 2Ch 36:6, 2Ch 36:10,2Ch 36:13; whereas in Dan 1:18 it is written without the ', as it is also in Dan 2:1, Dan 2:28, Dan 2:46; Dan 3:1-3, Dan 3:5., and Ezr 1:7; Ezr 5:12, Ezr 5:14; Est 2:6. From this circumstance Hitzig concludes that the statement in Daniel is derived from 2Ki 24:1, because the manner of writing the name with the  is not peculiar to this book (and is not the latest form), but is that of 2Ki 24:1. Both statements are incorrect. The writings without the  אcannot on this account be taken as the latest form, because it is not found in the Chronicles, and that with the  אis not peculiar to the second book of Kings, but is the standing form, along with the more national Babylonian form נבוּכדראצּר (with r), in Jer 21:2, Jer 21:7; Jer 32:1; Jer 35:11; Jer 39:11; Eze 26:7; Eze 29:18; Eze 30:10, which, according to Ménant (Grammaire Assyrienne, 1868, p. 327), is written in Babylonian inscriptions Nabukudurriusur (אצר כדר נבו, i.e., Nebo coronam servat), the inscription of Behistan having the form Nabukudratschara. Megastehenes and Berosus, in Polyhistor, write the name Ναβουκοδρόσορος. The writing Nebuchadnezar, with n and without the ,א appears to be the Aramean form, since it prevails in the Chaldean portions of Daniel and Ezra, and accounts for the Masoretic pronunciation of the word (the צּ with Dagesch forte). On other forms of the name, cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 41f.

Verse 2

“The Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hands” corresponds with the words in 2Ki 24:1, “he became his servant,” and with 2Ch 36:6, “and he bound him in fetters.” “And part of the vessels of the house of God.” מקצת without the Dag. forte, meaning properly from the end of extremity, is abbreviated from קצה עד מקּצה, cf. Jer 25:33; Gen 47:21; Exo 26:28, and shows that “that which was found from end to end contributed its share; meaning that a great part of the whole was taken, although קצת of itself never means a part” (Kran.). As to the statement of the text, cf. 2Ch 36:7. These vessels he brought (commanded to be brought) into the land of Shinar, i.e., Babylonia (Gen 10:10), into the temple of his god, i.e., Bel, and indeed into the treasure-house of this temple. Thus we understand the meaning of the two latter clauses of Dan 1:2, while Hitz. and Kran., with many older interpreters, refer the suffix in יביאם to Jehoiakim, and also to the vessels, on account of the express contrast in the following words, ואת־הכּלים (Kran.), and because, if it is not stated here, it is nowhere else mentioned that Nebuchadnezzar carried away men also (Hitz.). But the latter fact is expressly affirmed in Dan 1:3, and not only supposed, as Hitz. alleges, and it was not necessary that it should be expressed in Dan 1:2. The application of the suffix to Jehoiakim or the Jewish youths who were carried captive is excluded by the connection of יביאם with אלהיו בּית, into the house of his god. But the assertion that בּית, house, here means country, is not proved from Hos 8:1; Hos 9:15, nor is warranted by such passages as Exo 29:45; Num 35:34; Eze 37:27, etc., where mention is made of God's dwelling in the land. For God's dwelling in the land is founded on the fact of His gracious presence in the temple of the land, and even in these passages the word land does not stand for the word house. Equally unfounded is the further remark, that if by the expression אלהיו בּית the temple is to be understood, the preposition אל would stand before it, for which Zec 11:13; Isa 37:23; Gen 45:25 are appealed to. But such passages have been referred to without observing that in them the preposition אל stands only before living objects, where it is necessary, but not before inanimate objects, such as בּית, where the special object of the motion is with sufficient distinctness denoted by the accusative. The words following, ואת־הכּלים, fall in not as adversative, but explicative: and indeed (or, namely) the vessels brought he into the treasure-house of his god - as booty. The carrying away of a part of the vessels of the temple and a number of the distinguished Jewish youth to Babylon, that they might be there trained for service at the royal court, was a sign and pledge of the subjugation of Judah and its God under the dominion of the kings and the gods of Babylon. Both are here, however, mentioned with this design, that it might be known that Daniel and his three friends, of whom this book gives further account, were among these youths, and that the holy vessels were afterwards fatal (Daniel 5) to the house of the Babylonian king.

Verse 3

The name אשׁפּנז, sounding like the Old Persian Açp, a horse, has not yet received any satisfactory or generally adopted explanation. The man so named was the chief marshal of the court of Nebuchadnezzar. סריסים רב (the word רב used for שׂר, Dan 1:7, Dan 1:9, belongs to the later usage of the language, cf. Jer 39:3) means chief commander of the eunuchs, i.e., overseer of the sérail, the Kislar Aga, and then in a wider sense minister of the royal palace, chief of all the officers; since סריס frequently, with a departure from its fundamental meaning, designates only a courtier, chamberlain, attendant on the king, as in Gen 37:36. The meaning of להביא, more definitely determined by the context, is to lead, i.e., into the land of Shinar, to Babylon. In ישׂראל בּני, Israel is the theocratic name of the chosen people, and is not to be explained, as Hitz. does, as meaning that Benjamin and Levi, and many belonging to other tribes, yet formed part of the kingdom of Judah. וּמן ...  וּמזּרע, as well of the seed ... as also. פּרתּמים is the Zend. frathema, Sanscr. prathama, i.e., persons of distinction, magnates. ילדים, the object to להביא, designates youths of from fifteen to twenty years of age. Among the Persians the education of boys by the παιδάγωγαι βασίλειοι began, according to Plato (Alcib. i. 37), in their fourteenth year, and according to Xenophon (Cyrop. i. 2), the ἔφηβοι were in their seventeenth year capable of entering into the service of the king. In choosing the young men, the master of the eunuchs was commanded to have regard to bodily perfection and beauty as well as to mental endowments. Freedom from blemish and personal beauty were looked upon as a characteristic of moral and intellectual nobility; cf. Curtius, xvii. 5, 29. מאוּם, blemish, is written with an , as in Job 31:7.

Verses 4-5

Dan 1:4-5 משׂכּיל, skilful, intelligent in all wisdom, i.e., in the subjects of Chaldean wisdom (cf. Dan 1:17), is to be understood of the ability to apply themselves to the study of wisdom. In like manner the other mental requisites here mentioned are to be understood. דעת ידעי, having knowledge, showing understanding; מדּע מביני, possessing a faculty for knowledge, a strength of judgment. בּהם כּוח ואשׁר, in whom was strength, i.e., who had the fitness in bodily and mental endowments appropriately to stand in the palace of the king, and as servants to attend to his commands. וּללמּדם (to teach them) is co-ordinate with להביא (to bring) in Dan 1:3, and depends on ויּאמר (and he spake). For this service they must be instructed and trained in the learning and language of the Chaldeans. ספר refers to the Chaldee literature, and in Dan 1:17 כּל־ספר, and לשׁון to conversation or the power of speaking in that language. כּשׂדּים, Chaldeans, is the name usually given (1) to the inhabitants of the Babylonian kingdom founded by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, and (2) in a more restricted sense to the first class of the Babylonish priests and learned men or magi, and then frequently to the whole body of the wise men of Babylon; cf. at Dan 2:2. In this second meaning the word is here used. The language of the כּשׂדּים is not, as Ros., Hitz., and Kran. suppose, the Eastern Aramaic branch of the Semitic language, which is usually called the Chaldean language; for this tongue, in which the Chaldean wise men answered Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:4.), is called in Dan 2:4, as well as in Ezr 4:7 and Isa 36:11, the ארמית, Aramaic (Syriac), and is therefore different from the language of the כּשׁדּים.
But the question as to what this language used by the Chaldeans was, depends on the view that may be taken of the much controverted question as to the origin of the כּשׂדּים, Χαλδαίοι. The oldest historical trace of the כּשׂדּים lies in the name כּשׂדּים אוּר (Ur of the Chaldees, lxx χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων), the place from which Terah the father of Abraham went forth with his family to Charran in the north of Mesopotamia. The origin of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees, when taken in connection with the fact (Gen 22:22) that one of the sons of Nahor, Abraham's brother, was called כּשׂד (Chesed), whose descendants would be called כּשׂדּים, appears to speak for the origin of the כּשׂדּים from Shem. In addition to this also, and in support of the same opinion, it has been noticed that one of Shem's sons was called ארפּכשׁד (Arphaxad). But the connection of ארפכשׁד with כּשׂד is unwarrantable; and that Nahor's son כּשׂד was the father of a race called כשׂדים, is a supposition which cannot be established. But if a race actually descended from this כשׂד, then they could be no other than the Bedouin tribe the כּשׂדּים, which fell upon Job's camels (Job 1:17), but not the people of the Chaldees after whom, in Terah's time, Ur was already named. The sojourn of the patriarch Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees finally by no means proves that Terah himself was a Chaldean. He may have been induced also by the advance of the Chaldeans into Northern Mesopotamia to go forth on his wanderings.
This much is at all events unquestionable, and is now acknowledged, that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were of Semitic origin, as the account of the origin of the nations in Gen 10 shows. According to Gen 10:22, Shem had five sons, Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, whose descendants peopled and gave name to the following countries: - The descendants of Elam occupied the country called Elymais, between the Lower Tigris and the mountains of Iran; of Asshur, Assyria, lying to the north-the hilly country between the Tigris and the mountain range of Iran; or Arphaxad, the country of Arrapachitis on the Upper Tigris, on the eastern banks of that river, where the highlands of Armenia begin to descend. Lud, the father of the Lydians, is the representative of the Semites who went westward to Asia Minor; and Aram of the Semites who spread along the middle course of the Euphrates to the Tigris in the east, and to Syria in the west. From this M. Duncker (Gesch. des Alterth.) has concluded: “According to this catalogue of the nations, which shows the extension of the Semitic race from the mountains of Armenia southward to the Persian Gulf, eastward to the mountains of Iran, westward into Asia Minor, we follow the Semites along the course of the two great rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, to the south. Northwards from Arphaxad lie the mountains of the Chasdim, whom the Greeks call Chaldaei, Carduchi, Gordiaei, whose boundary toward Armenia was the river Centrites.” “If we find the name of the Chaldeans also on the Lower Euphrates, if in particular that name designates a region on the western bank of the Euphrates to its mouth, the extreme limit of the fruitful land watered by the Euphrates towards the Arabian desert, then we need not doubt that this name was brought from the Armenian mountains to the Lower Euphrates, and that it owes its origin to the migration of these Chaldeans from the mountains. - Berosus uses as interchangeable the names Chaldea and Babylonia for the whole region between the Lower Euphrates and the Tigris down to the sea. But it is remarkable that the original Semitic name of this region, Shinar, is distinct from that of the Chaldeans; remarkable that the priests in Shinar were specially called Chaldeans, that in the fragments of Berosus the patriarchs were already designated Chaldeans of this or that city, and finally that the native rulers were particularly known by this name. We must from all this conclude, that there was a double migration fro the north to the regions on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris; that they were first occupied by the Elamites, who came down along the Tigris; and that afterwards a band came down from the mountains of the Chaldeans along the western bank of the Tigris, that they kept their flocks for a long time in the region of Nisibis, and faintly that they followed the Euphrates and obtained superiority over the earlier settlers, who had sprung from the same stem (?), and spread themselves westward from the mouth of the Euphrates. The supremacy which was thus established was exercised by the chiefs of the Chaldeans; they were the ruling family in the kingdom which they founded by their authority, and whose older form of civilisation they adopted.”
If, according to this, the Chaldeans are certainly not Semites, then it is not yet decided whether they belonged to the Japhetic race of Aryans, or, as C. Sax^[24] has recently endeavoured to make probable, to the Hamitic race of Cushites, a nation belonging to the Tartaric (Turamic) family of nations. As to the Aryan origin, besides the relation of the Chaldeans, the Gordiaei, and the Carduchi to the modern Kurds, whose language belongs to the Indo-Germanic, and indeed to the Aryan family of languages, the further circumstance may be referred to: that in Assyria and Babylonia the elements of the Aryan language are found in very ancient times. Yet these two facts do not furnish any conclusive evidence on the point. From the language of the modern Kurds being related to the Aryan language no certain conclusion can be drawn as to the language of the ancient Chaldees, Gordiaei, and Carduchi; and the introduction of Aryan words and appellations into the language of the Semitic Assyrians and Babylonians is fully explained, partly from the intercourse which both could not but maintain with Iranians, the Medes and Persians, who were bordering nations, partly from the dominion exercised for some time over Babylonia by the Iranian race, which is affirmed in the fragments of Berosus, according to which the second dynasty in Babylon after the Flood was the Median. Notwithstanding we would decide in favour of the Aryan origin of the Chaldeans, did not on the one side the biblical account of the kingdom which Nimrod the Cushite founded in Babel and extended over Assyria (Gen 10:8-12), and on the other the result to which the researches of the learned into the antiquities of Assyria regarding the development of culture and of writing in Babylonia,^[25] make this view very doubtful.
If, then, for the present no certain answer can be given to the question as to the origin of the Chaldeans and the nature of their language and writing, yet this much may be accepted as certain, that the language and writing of the כּשׂדּים was not Semitic or Aramaic, but that the Chaldeans had in remote times migrated into Babylonia, and there had obtained dominion over the Semitic inhabitants of the land, and that from among this dominant race the Chaldees, the priestly and the learned cast of the Chaldeans, arose. This caste in Babylon is much older than the Chaldean monarchy founded by Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniel and his companions were to be educated in the wisdom of the Chaldean priests and learned men, which was taught in the schools of Babylon, at Borsippa in Babylonia, and Hipparene in Mesopotamia (Strab. xvi. 1, and Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 26). Dan 1:5. To this end Nebuchadnezzar assigned to them for their support provision from the king's household, following Oriental custom, according to which all officers of the court were fed from the king's table, as Athen. iv. 10, p. 69, and Plut. probl. vii. 4, testify regarding the Persians. This appears also (1Ki 5:2-3) to have been the custom in Israel. בּיומו יום דּבר, the daily portion, cf. Exo 5:13, Exo 5:19; Jer 52:34, etc. פּתבּג comes from path, in Zend. paiti, Sanscr. prati = προτί, πρός, and bag, in Sanscr. bhâga, portion, provision, cf. Eze 25:7. With regard to the composition, cf. The Sanscr. pratibhâgha, a portion of fruits, flowers, etc., which the Rajah daily requires for his household; cf. Gildemeister in Lassen's Zeits.f. d. Kunde des Morg. iv. 1, p. 214. פּתבּג therefore means neither ambrosia, nor dainties, but generally food, victuals, food of flesh and meal in opposition to wine, drink (משׁתּיו is singular), and vegetables (Dan 1:12).
The king also limits the period of their education to three years, according to the Persian as well as the Chaldean custom. וּלגדּלם does not depend on ויּאמר (Dan 1:3), but is joined with וימן, and is the final infinitive with  וexplicative, meaning, and that he may nourish them. The infinitive is expressed by the fin. verb יעמדוּ, to stand before (the king). The carrying out of the king's command is passed over as a matter of course, yet it is spoken of as obeyed (cf. Dan 1:6.).

Verses 6-7

Daniel and his three friends were among the young men who were carried to Babylon. They were of the sons of Judah, i.e., of the tribe of Judah. From this it follows that the other youths of noble descent who had been carried away along with them belonged to other tribes. The name of none of these is recorded. The names only of Daniel and his three companions belonging to the same tribe are mentioned, because the history recorded in this book specially brings them under our notice. As the future servants of the Chaldean king, they received as a sign of their relation to him other names, as the kings Eliakim and Mattaniah had their names changed (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17) by Necho and Nebuchadnezzar when they made them their vassals. But while these kings had only their paternal names changed for other Israelitish names which were given to them by their conquerors, Daniel and his friends received genuine heathen names in exchange for their own significant names, which were associated with that of the true God. The names given to them were formed partly from the names of Babylonish idols, in order that thereby they might become wholly naturalized, and become estranged at once from the religion and the country of their fathers.^[26]
Daniel, i.e., God will judge, received the name Belteshazzar, formed from Bel, the name of the chief god of the Babylonians. Its meaning has not yet been determined. Hananiah, i.e., the Lord is gracious, received the name Shadrach, the origin of which is wholly unknown; Mishael, i.e., who is what the Lord is, was called Meshach, a name yet undeciphered; and Azariah, i.e., the Lord helps, had his name changed into Abednego, i.e., slave, servant of Nego or Nebo, the name of the second god of the Babylonians (Isa 46:1), the  בbeing changed by the influence of  בin עבד into ג (i.e., Nego instead of Nebo).

Verse 8

The command of the king, that the young men should be fed with the food and wine from the king's table, was to Daniel and his friends a test of their fidelity to the Lord and to His law, like that to which Joseph was subjected in Egypt, corresponding to the circumstances in which he was placed, of his fidelity to God (Gen 39:7.). The partaking of the food brought to them from the king's table was to them contaminating, because forbidden by law; not so much because the food was not prepared according to the Levitical ordinance, or perhaps consisted of the flesh of animals which to the Israelites were unclean, for in this case the youths were not under the necessity of refraining from the wine, but the reason of their rejection of it was, that the heathen at their feasts offered up in sacrifice to their gods a part of the food and the drink, and thus consecrated their meals by a religious rite; whereby not only he who participated in such a meal participated in the worship of idols, but the meat and the wine as a whole were the meat and the wine of an idol sacrifice, partaking of which, according to the saying of the apostle (1Co 10:20.), is the same as sacrificing to devils. Their abstaining from such food and drink betrayed no rigorism going beyond the Mosaic law, a tendency which first showed itself in the time of the Maccabees. What, in this respect, the pious Jews did in those times, however (1 Macc. 1:62f.; 2 Macc. 5:27), stands on the ground of the law; and the aversion to eat anything that was unclean, or to defile themselves at all in heathen lands, did not for the first time spring up in the time of the Maccabees, nor yet in the time of the exile, but is found already existing in these threatenings in Hos 9:3., Amo 7:17. Daniel's resolution to refrain from such unclean food flowed therefore from fidelity to the law, and from stedfastness to the faith that “man lives not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord” (Deu 8:3), and from the assurance that God would bless the humbler provision which he asks for himself, and would by means of it make him and his friends as strong and vigorous as the other youths who did eat the costly provision from the king's table. Firm in this conviction, he requested the chief chamberlain to free him and his three friends from the use of the food and drink brought from the royal table. And the Lord was favourable to him, so that his request was granted.

Verse 9

Dan 1:9 לחסד נתן, to procure favour for any one, cf. 1Ki 8:30; Psa 106:46; Neh 1:11. The statement that God gave Daniel favour with the chief chamberlain, refers to the fact that he did not reject the request at once, as one not to be complied with, or as punishable, but, esteeming the religious conviction out of which it sprang, pointed only to the danger into which a disregard of the king's command would bring him, thus revealing the inclination of his heart to grant the request. This willingness of the prince of the eunuchs was the effect of divine grace.

Verse 10

The words למּה אשׁר = שׂלּמּה (Sol 1:7), for why should he see? have the force of an emphatic denial, as למּה in Gen 47:15, Gen 47:19; 2Ch 32:4, and as למה דּי in Ezr 7:23, and are equivalent to “he must not indeed see.” זעפים, morose, disagreeable, looking sad, here, a pitiful look in consequence of inferior food, corresponding to σκυθρωπός in Mat 6:16. פּני is to be understood before הילדים, according to the comparatio decurtata frequently found in Hebrew; cf. Psa 4:8; Psa 18:34, etc. וחיּבתּם with  וrelat. depends on למּה: and ye shall bring into danger, so that ye bring into danger. את־ראשׁ חיּב, make the head guilty, i.e., make it that one forfeits his head, his life.

Verses 11-16

When Daniel knew from the answer of the chief that he would grant the request if he were only free from personal responsibility in the matter, he turned himself to the officer who was under the chief chamberlain, whom they were immediately subject to, and entreated him to make trial for ten days, permitting them to use vegetables and water instead of the costly provision and the wine furnished by the king, and to deal further with them according as the result would be. המּלצר, having the article, is to be regarded as an appellative, expressing the business of the calling of the man. The translation, steward or chief cook, is founded on the explanation of the word as given by Haug (Ewald's bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 159f.) from the New Persian word mel, spirituous liquors, wine, corresponding to the Zendh. madhu (μεθυ), intoxicating drink, and  = צרçara, Sanscr. çiras, the head; hence overseer over the drink, synonymous with רבשׁקה, Isa 36:2. - נס  נא, try, I beseech thee, thy servants, i.e., try it with us, ten days. Ten, in the decimal system the number of completeness or conclusion, may, according to circumstances, mean a long time or only a proportionally short time. Here it is used in the latter sense, because ten days are sufficient to show the effect of the kind of food on the appearance. זרעים, food from the vegetable kingdom, vegetables, leguminous fruit. Dan 1:13. מראינוּ is singular, and is used with יראוּ in the plural because two subjects follow. כּאשׁר  תּראה, as thou shalt see, viz., our appearance, i.e., as thou shalt then find it, act accordingly. In this proposal Daniel trusted in the help of God, and God did not put his confidence to shame.^[27]
The youths throve so visibly on the vegetables and water, that the steward relieved them wholly from the necessity of eating from the royal table. Dan 1:15. בּשׂר בּריאי, fat, well nourished in flesh, is grammatically united to the suffix of מראיהם, from which the pronoun is easily supplied in thought. Dan 1:16. נשׂא, took away = no more gave.

Verse 17

Dan 1:17The progress of the young men in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and their appointment to the service of the king.
As God blessed the resolution of Daniel and his three friends that they would not defile themselves by the food, He also blessed the education which they received in the literature (ספר, Dan 1:17 as Dan 1:4) and wisdom of the Chaldeans, so that the whole four made remarkable progress therein. But besides this, Daniel obtained an insight into all kinds of visions and dreams, i.e., he attained great readiness in interpreting visions and dreams. This is recorded regarding him because of what follows in this book, and is but a simple statement of the fact, without any trace of vainglory. Instruction in the wisdom of the Chaldeans was, besides, for Daniel and his three friends a test of their faith, since the wisdom of the Chaldeans, from the nature of the case, was closely allied to the Chaldean idolatry and heathen superstition, which the learners of this wisdom might easily be led to adopt. But that Daniel and his friends learned only the Chaldean wisdom without adopting the heathen element which was mingled with it, is evidenced from the stedfastness in the faith with which at a later period, at the danger of their lives (cf. Dan 3:6), they stood aloof from all participation in idolatry, and in regard to Daniel in particular, from the deep glance into the mysteries of the kingdom of God which lies before us in his prophecies, and bears witness of the clear separation between the sacred and the profane. But he needed to be deeply versed in the Chaldean wisdom, as formerly Moses was in the wisdom of Egypt (Act 7:22), so as to be able to put to shame the wisdom of this world by the hidden wisdom of God.

Verses 18-20

After the expiry of the period of three years the youths were brought before the king. They were examined by him, and these four were found more intelligent and discriminating than all the others that had been educated along with them (מכּלּם, “than all,” refers to the other Israelitish youths, Dan 1:3, that had been brought to Babylon along with Daniel and his friends), and were then appointed to his service. יעמדוּ, as in Dan 1:5, of standing as a servant before his master. The king found them indeed, in all matters of wisdom about which he examined them, to excel all the wise men in the whole of his kingdom. Of the two classes of the learned men of Chaldea, who are named instar omnium in Dan 1:20, see at Dan 2:2.

Verse 21

In Dan 1:21 the introduction to the book is concluded with a general statement as to the period of Daniel's continuance in the office appointed to him by God. The difficulty which the explanation of ויהי offers is not removed by a change of the reading into ויחי, since Daniel, according to Dan 10:1, lived beyond the first year of Cyrus and received divine revelations. עד marks the terminus ad quem in a wide sense, i.e., it denotes a termination without reference to that which came after it. The first year of king Cyrus is, according to 2Ch 36:22; Ezr 1:1; Ezr 6:3, the end of the Babylonish exile, and the date, “to the first year of king Cyrus,” stands in close relation to the date in Dan 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar's advance against Jerusalem and the first taking of the city, which forms the commencement of the exile; so that the statement, “Daniel continued unto the first year of king Cyrus,” means only that he lived and acted during the whole period of the exile in Babylon, without reference to the fact that his work continued after the termination of the exile. Cf. The analogous statement, Jer 1:2., that Jeremiah prophesied in the days of Josiah and Jehoiakim to the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, although his book contains prophecies also of a date subsequent to the taking of Jerusalem. ויהי stands neither for ויחי, he lived, nor absolutely in the sense of he existed, was present; for though היה means existere, to be, yet it is never used absolutely in this sense, as חיּה, to live, but always only so that the “how” or “where” of the being or existence is either expressly stated, or at least is implied in the connection. Thus here also the qualification of the “being” must be supplied from the context. The expression will then mean, not that he lived at the court, or in Babylon, or in high esteem with the king, but more generally, in the place to which God had raised him in Babylon by his wonderful endowments. Part First - The Development of the World-Power - Daniel 2-7
This Part contains in six chapters as many reports regarding the successive forms and the natural character of the world-power. It begins (Daniel 2) and ends (Daniel 7) with a revelation from God regarding its historical unfolding in four great world-kingdoms following each other, and their final overthrow by the kingdom of God, which shall continue for ever. Between these chapters (Daniel 2 and 7) there are inserted four events belonging to the times of the first and second world-kingdom, which partly reveal the attempts of the rulers of the world to compel the worshippers of the true God to pray to their idols and their gods, together with the failure of this attempt (Daniel 3 and 6), and partly the humiliations of the rulers of the world, who were boastful of their power, under the judgments of God (Daniel 4 and 5), and bring under our consideration the relation of the rulers of this world to the Almighty God of heaven and earth and to the true fearers of His name. The narratives of these four events follow each other in chronological order, because they are in actual relation bound together, and therefore also the occurrences (Daniel 5 and 6) which belong to the time subsequent to the vision in Daniel 7 are placed before his vision, so that the two revelations regarding the development of the world-power form the frame within which is contained the historical section which describes the character of that world-power.
Nebuchadnezzar's Vision of the World-Monarchies, and Its Interpretation by Daniel - Daniel 2
When Daniel and his three friends, after the completion of their education, had entered on the service of the Chaldean king, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dream which so greatly moved him, that he called all the wise men of Babylon that they might make known to him the dream and give the interpretation of it; and when they were not able to do this, he gave forth the command (Dan 2:1-13) that they should all be destroyed. But Daniel interceded with the king and obtained a respite, at the expiry of which he promised (Dan 2:14-18) to comply with his demand. In answer to his prayers and those of his friends, God revealed the secret to Daniel in a vision (Dan 2:19-23), so that he was not only able to tell the king his dream (Dan 2:24-36), but also to give him its interpretation (Dan 2:37-45); whereupon Nebuchadnezzar praised the God of Daniel as the true God, and raised him to high honours and dignities (vv. 46-49). It has justly been regarded as a significant thing, that it was Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, who first saw in a dream the whole future development of the world-power. “The world-power,” as Auberlen properly remarks, “must itself learn in its first representative, who had put an end to the kingdom of God the theocracy, what its own final destiny would be, that, in its turn overthrown, it would be for ever subject to the kingdom of God.” This circumstance also is worthy of notice, that Nebuchadnezzar did not himself understand the revelation which he received, but the prophet Daniel, enlightened by God, must interpret it to him.^[28]

Chap. 2

Verse 1

Dan 2:1The dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the inability of the Chaldean wise men to interpret it. - By the ו copulative standing at the commencement of this chapter the following narrative is connected with c. Dan 1:21. “We shall now discover what the youthful Daniel became, and what he continued to be to the end of the exile” (Klief.). The plur. חלמות (dreams, Dan 2:1 and Dan 2:2), the singular of which occurs in Dan 2:3, is not the plur. of definite universality (Häv., Maur., Klief.), but of intensive fulness, implying that the dream in its parts contained a plurality of subjects. M('p'ft;hi (from פּעם, to thrust, to stroke, as פּעם, an anvil, teaches, to be tossed hither and thither) marks great internal disquietude. In Dan 2:3 and in Gen 41:8, as in Psa 77:5, it is in the Niphal form, but in Dan 2:1 it is in Hithp., on which Kran. finely remarks: “The Hithpael heightens the conception of internal unquiet lying in the Niphal to the idea that it makes itself outwardly manifest.” His sleep was gone. This is evidenced without doubt by the last clause of Dan 2:1, עליו נהיתה. These interpretations are altogether wrong: - ”His sleep came upon him, i.e., he began again to sleep” (Calvin); or “his sleep was against him,” i.e., was an aversion to him, was troublesome (L. de Dieu); or, as Häv. also interprets it, “his sleep offended him, or was like a burden heavy upon him;” for נהיה does not mean to fall, and thus does not agree with the thought expressed. The Niph. נהיה means to have become, been, happened. The meaning has already been rightly expressed by Theodoret in the words ἐγένετο ἀπ ̓αὐτου, and in the Vulgate by the words “fugit ab illo;” and Berth., Ges., and others have with equal propriety remarked, that נהיתה שׁנתו corresponds in meaning with נדּת שׁנתּהּ, Dan 6:19 (18), and שׁנת נדדה, Est 6:1. This sense, to have been, however, does not conduct to the meaning given by Klief.: his sleep had been upon him; it was therefore no more, it had gone; for “to have been” is not “to be no more,” but “to be finished,” past, gone. This meaning is confirmed by נהייתי, Dan 8:27 : it was done with me, I was gone. The עליו stands not for the dative, but retains the meaning, over, upon, expressing the influence on the mind, as e.g., Jer 8:18, Hos 11:8, Psa 42:6-7, 12; Psa 43:5, etc., which in German we express by the word bei or für.
The reason of so great disquietude we may not seek in the circumstance that on awaking he could not remember the dream. This follows neither from Dan 2:3, nor is it psychologically probable that so impressive a dream, which on awaking he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. “The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Gen 41), ), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith” (Kran.).

Verse 2

In the disquietude of his spirit the king commanded all his astrologers and wise men to come to him, four classes of whom are mentioned in this verse. 1. The חרטמּים, who were found also in Egypt (Gen 41:24). They are so named from חרט, a “stylus” - those who went about with the stylus, the priestly class of the ἱερογραμματεῖς, those learned in the sacred writings and in literature. 2. The אשּׁפים, conjurers, from שׁאף or נשׁף, to breathe, to blow, to whisper; for they practised their incantations by movements of the breath, as is shown by the Arabic nft, flavit ut praestigiator in nexos a se nodos, incantavit, with which it is compared by Hitz. and Kran. 3. The מכשּׁפים, magicians, found also in Egypt (Exo 7:11), and, according to Isa 47:9, Isa 47:12, a powerful body in Babylon. 4. The כּשׂדּים, the priest caste of the Chaldeans, who are named, Dan 2:4, Dan 2:10, and Dan 1:4, instar omnium as the most distinguished class among the Babylonian wise men. According to Herod. i. 171, and Diod. Sic. ii. 24, the Chaldeans appear to have formed the priesthood in a special sense, or to have attended to the duties specially devolving on the priests. This circumstance, that amongst an Aramaic people the priests in a stricter sense were called Chaldeans, is explained, as at p. 78, from the fact of the ancient supremacy of the Chaldean people in Babylonia.
Besides these four classes there is also a fifth, Dan 2:27; Daniel 4:4 (Dan 4:7), Dan 5:7, Dan 5:11, called the גּזרין, the astrologers, not haruspices, from גּזר, “to cut flesh to pieces,” but the determiners of the גּזרה, the fatum or the fata, who announced events by the appearances of the heavens (cf. Isa 47:13), the forecasters of nativities, horoscopes, who determined the fate of men from the position and the movement of the stars at the time of their birth. These different classes of the priests and the learned are comprehended, Dan 2:12., under the general designation of חכּימין (cf. also Isa 44:25; Jer 50:35), and they formed a σύστημα, i.e., collegium (Diod. Sic. ii. 31), under a president (סגנין רב, Dan 2:48), who occupied a high place in the state; see at Dan 2:48. These separate classes busied themselves, without doubt, with distinct branches of the Babylonian wisdom. While each class cultivated a separate department, yet it was not exclusively, but in such a manner that the activities of the several classes intermingled in many ways. This is clearly seen from what is said of Daniel and his companions, that they were trained in all the wisdom of the Chaldeans (Dan 1:17), and is confirmed by the testimony of Diod. Sic. (ii. 29), that the Chaldeans, who held almost the same place in the state that the priests in Egypt did, while applying themselves to the service of the gods, sought their greatest glory in the study of astrology, and also devoted themselves much to prophecy, foretelling future things, and by means of lustrations, sacrifices, and incantations seeking to turn away evil and to secure that which was good. They possessed the knowledge of divination from omens, of expounding of dreams and prodigies, and of skilfully casting horoscopes.
That he might receive an explanation of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the classes of the priests and men skilled in wisdom to be brought before him, because in an event which was to him so weighty he must not only ascertain the facts of the case, but should the dream announce some misfortune, he must also adopt the means for averting it. In order that the correctness of the explanation of the dream might be ascertained, the stars must be examined, and perhaps other means of divination must be resorted to. The proper priests could by means of sacrifices make the gods favourable, and the conjurers and magicians by their arts endeavour to avert the threatened misfortune.

Verse 3

As to the king's demand, it is uncertain whether he wished to know the dream itself or its import. The wise men (Dan 2:4) understood his words as if he desired only to know the meaning of it; but the king replied (Dan 2:5.) that they must tell him both the dream and its interpretation. But this request on the part of the king does not quite prove that he had forgotten the dream, as Bleek, v. Leng., and others maintain, founding thereon the objection against the historical veracity of the narrative, that Nebuchadnezzar's demand that the dream should be told to him was madness, and that there was no sufficient reason for his rage (Dan 2:12). On the contrary, that the king had not forgotten his dream, and that there remained only some oppressive recollection that he had dreamed, is made clear from Dan 2:9, where the king says to the Chaldeans, “If ye cannot declare to me the dream, ye have taken in hand to utter deceitful words before me; therefore tell me the dream, that I may know that ye will give to me also the interpretation.” According to this, Nebuchadnezzar wished to hear the dream from the wise men that he might thus have a guarantee for the correctness of the interpretation which they might give. He could not thus have spoken to them if he had wholly forgotten the dream, and had only a dark apprehension remaining in his mind that he had dreamed. In this case he would neither have offered a great reward for the announcement of the dream, nor have threatened severe punishment, or even death, for failure in announcing it. For then he would only have given the Chaldeans the opportunity, at the cost of truth, of declaring any dream with an interpretation. But as threatening and promise on the part of the king in that case would have been unwise, so also on the side of the wise men their helplessness in complying with the demand of the king would have been incomprehensible. If the king had truly forgotten the dream, they had no reason to be afraid of their lives if they had given some self-conceived dream with an interpretation of it; for in that case he could not have accused them of falsehood and deceit, and punished them on that account. If, on the contrary, he still knew the dream which so troubled him, and the contents of which he desired to hear from the Chaldeans, so that he might put them to the proof whether he might trust in their interpretation, then neither his demand nor the severity of his proceeding was irrational. “The magi boasted that by the help of the gods they could reveal deep and hidden things. If this pretence is well founded - so concluded Nebuchadnezzar - then it must be as easy for them to make known to me my dream as its interpretation; and since they could not do the former, he as rightly held them to be deceivers, as the people did the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18) because their gods answered not by fire.” Hengst.

Verse 4

The Chaldeans, as speaking for the whole company, understand the word of the king in the sense most favourable for themselves, and they ask the king to tell them the dream. וידבּרוּ for ויּאמרוּ, which as a rule stands before a quotation, is occasioned by the addition of ארמית, and the words which follow are zeugmatically joined to it. Aramaic, i.e., in the native language of Babylonia, where, according to Xenoph. (Cyrop. vii. 5), the Syriac, i.e., the Eastern Aramaic dialect, was spoken. From the statement here, that the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic, one must not certainly conclude that Nebuchadnezzar spoke the Aryan-Chaldaic language of his race. The remark refers to the circumstance that the following words are recorded in the Aramaic, as Ezr 4:7. Daniel wrote this and the following chapters in Aramaic, that he might give the prophecy regarding the world-power in the language of the world-power, which under the Chaldean dynasty was native in Babylon, the Eastern Aramaic. The formula, “O king, live for ever,” was the usual salutation when the king was addressed, both at the Chaldean and the Persian court (cf. Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:7, Dan 6:22 [6, 21]; Neh 2:3). In regard to the Persian court, see Aelian, var. hist. i. 32. With the kings of Israel this form of salutation was but rarely used: 1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:31. The Kethiv (text) לעבדיך, with Jod before the suffix, supposes an original form לעבדיך here, as at Dan 2:26; Dan 4:16, Dan 4:22, but it is perhaps only the etymological mode of writing for the form with ā long, analogous to the Hebr. suffix form עיו for עו, since the Jod is often wanting; cf. Dan 4:24; Dan 5:10, etc. A form ־איא lies at the foundation of the form כשׂדּיא; the Keri (margin) substitutes the usual Chaldee form כשׂדּאי from כּשׂדּאא, with the insertion of the litera quiescib. י, homog. to the quies. ē, while in the Kethiv the original Jod of the sing. כּשׂדּי is retained instead of the substituted ,א thus כשׂדּיא. This reading is perfectly warranted (cf. Dan 3:2, Dan 3:8,Dan 3:24; Ezr 4:12-13) by the analogous method of formation of the stat. emphat. plur. in existing nouns in ־י in biblical Chaldee.

Verse 5

The meaning of the king's answer shapes itself differently according to the different explanations given of the words  אזדּא מנּי מלּתה. The word אזדּא drow eh, which occurs only again in the same phrase in Dan 2:8, is regarded, in accordance with the translations of Theodot., ὁ λόγος ἀπ ̓ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη, and of the Vulg., “sermo recessit a me,” as a verb, and as of like meaning with עזל, “to go away or depart,” and is therefore rendered by M. Geier, Berth., and others in the sense, “the dream has escaped from me;” but Ges. Häv., and many older interpreters translate it, on the contrary, “the command is gone out from me.” But without taking into account that the punctuation of the word אזדּא is not at all that of a verb, for this form can neither be a particip. nor the 3rd pers. pret. fem., no acknowledgment of the dream's having escaped from him is made; for such a statement would contradict what was said at Dan 2:3, and would not altogether agree with the statement of Dan 2:8. מלּתה is not the dream. Besides, the supposition that אזד is equivalent to אזל, to go away, depart, is not tenable. The change of the  לinto  דis extremely rare in the Semitic, and is not to be assumed in the word אזל, since Daniel himself uses אזל אזל, Dan 2:17, Dan 2:24; Dan 6:19-20, and also Ezra; Ezr 4:23; Ezr 5:8, Ezr 5:15. Moreover אזל has not the meaning of יצא, to go out, to take one's departure, but corresponds with the Hebr. הלך .rbe, to go. Therefore Winer, Hengst., Ibn Esr. Aben Ezra, Saad., and other rabbis interpret the word as meaning firmus: “the word stands firm;” cf. Dan 6:13 (12), מלּתא יצּיבה (“the thing is true”). This interpretation is justified by the actual import of the words, as it also agrees with Dan 2:8; but it does not accord with Dan 2:5. Here (in Dan 2:5) the declaration of the certainty of the king's word was superfluous, because all the royal commands were unchangeable. For this reason also the meaning σπουδαιῶς, studiously, earnestly, as Hitz., by a fanciful reference to the Persian, whence he has derived it, has explained it, is to be rejected. Much more satisfactory is the derivation from the Old Persian word found on inscriptions, âzanda, “science,” “that which is known,” given by Delitzsch (Herz.'s Realenc. iii. p. 274), and adopted by Kran. and Klief.^[29]
Accordingly Klief. thus interprets the phrase: “let the word from me be known,” “be it known to you;” which is more suitable obviously than that of Kran.: “the command is, so far as regards me, made public.” For the king now for the first time distinctly and definitely says that he wishes not only to hear from the wise men the interpretation, but also the dream itself, and declares the punishment that shall visit them in the event of their not being able to comply. הדּמין עבד, μέλη ποιεῖν, 2 Macc. 1:16, lxx in Daniel 3:39, διαμελίζεσθαι, to cut in pieces, a punishment that was common among the Babylonians (Daniel 3:39, cf. Eze 16:40), and also among the Israelites in the case of prisoners of war (cf. 1Sa 15:33). It is not, however, to be confounded with the barbarous custom which was common among the Persians, of mangling particular limbs. נולי, in Ezr 6:11 נולוּ, dunghill, sink. The changing of their houses into dunghills is not to be regarded as meaning that the house built of clay would be torn down, and then dissolved by the rain and storm into a heap of mud, but is to be interpreted according to 2Ki 10:27, where the temple of Baal is spoken of as having been broken down and converted into private closets; cf. Häv. in loco. The Keri תּתעבּדוּן without the Dagesh in  בmight stand as the Kethiv for Ithpaal, but is apparently the Ithpeal, as at Dan 3:29; Ezr 6:11. As to בּתּיכון, it is to be remarked that Daniel uses only the suffix forms כון and הון, while with Ezra כם and כן are interchanged (see above, p. 515), which are found in the language of the Targums and might be regarded as Hebraisms, while the forms כון and הון are peculiar to the Syriac and the Samaritan dialects. This distinction does not prove that the Aramaic of Daniel belongs to a period later than that of Ezra (Hitz., v. Leng.), but only that Daniel preserves more faithfully the familiar Babylonian form of the Aramaic than does the Jewish scribe Ezra.

Verse 6

The rigorous severity of this edict accords with the character of Oriental despots and of Nebuchadnezzar, particularly in his dealings with the Jews (2Ki 25:7, 2Ki 25:18.; Jer 39:6., Jer 52:10., 24-27). In the promise of rewards the explanation of נבזבּה (in the plural נבזבּין, Dan 5:17) is disputed; its rendering by “money,” “gold” (by Eichh. and Berth.), has been long ago abandoned as incorrect. The meaning gift, present, is agreeable to the context and to the ancient versions; but its derivation formed from the Chald. בזבז, Pealp. of בּזז, erogavit, expendit, by the substitution of  נfor  מand the excision of the second  זfrom מבזבּזה, in the meaning largitio amplior, the Jod in the plural form being explained from the affinity of verbs ע'ע and ל'ה (Ges. Thes. p. 842, and Kran.), is highly improbable. The derivation from the Persian nuvâzan', 'nuvâzisch, to caress, to flatter, then to make a present to (P. v. Bohlen), or from the Sanscr. namas, present, gift (Hitz.), or from the Vedish bag̀, to give, to distribute, and the related New Persian bâj (bash), a present (Haug), are also very questionable. להן, on that account, therefore (cf. Dan 2:9 and Dan 4:24), formed from the prepos. ל and the demonstrative adverb הן, has in negative sentences (as the Hebr. כּי and להן) the meaning but, rather (Dan 2:30), and in a pregnant sense, only (Dan 2:11; Dan 3:28; Dan 6:8), without להן being derived in such instances from לא and הן = לא אם.

Verse 7

The wise men repeat their request, but the king persists that they only justify his suspicion of them by pressing such a demand, and that he saw that they wished to deceive him with a self-conceived interpretation of the dream. וּפשׁרה is not, as Hitz. proposes, to be changed into וּפשׁרה. The form is a Hebr. stat. emphat. for וּפשׁרא, as e.g., מלּתה, Dan 2:5, is changed into מלּתא in Dan 2:8 and Dan 2:11, and in biblical Chaldee, in final syllables  הis often found instead of .א fo.

Verse 8

Dan 2:8 יצּיב מן, an adverbial expression, to be sure, certainly, as קשׁט מן, truly, Dan 2:47, and other adverbial forms. The words זבנין אנתּוּן  עדּנא דּי do not mean either “that ye wish to use or seize the favourable time” (Häv., Kran.), or “that ye wish to buy up the present perilous moment,” i.e., bring it within your power, become masters of the time (Hitz.), but simply, that ye buy, that is wish to gain time (Ges., Maur., etc.). עדּן זבן = tempus emere in Cicero. Nothing can be here said of a favourable moment, for there was not such a time for the wise men, either in the fact that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream (Häv.), or in the curiosity of the king with reference to the interpretation of the dream, on which they could speculate, expecting that the king might be induced thereby to give a full communication of the dream (Kran.). But for the wise men, in consequence of the threatening of the king, the crisis was indeed fully of danger; but it is not to be overlooked that they appeared to think that they could control the crisis, bringing it under their own power, by their willingness to interpret the dream if it were reported to them. Their repeated request that the dream should be told to them shows only their purpose to gain time and have their lives, if they now truly believed either that the king could not now distinctly remember his dream, or that by not repeating it he wished to put them to the test. Thus the king says to them: I see from your hesitation that ye are not sure of your case; and since ye at the same time think that I have forgotten the dream, therefore ye wish me, by your repeated requests to relate the dream, only to gain time, to extend the case, because ye fear the threatened punishment (Klief.). דּי כּל־קבל, wholly because; not, withstanding that (Hitz.). As to the last words of Dan 2:8, see under Dan 2:5.

Verse 9

Dan 2:9 הן דּי is equivalent to אם אשׁר, quodsi. “The דּי supposes the fact of the foregoing passage, and brings it into express relation to the conditional clause” (Kran.). דּתכון does not mean, your design or opinion, or your lot (Mich., Hitz., Maur.), but dat is law, decree, sentence; דּתכון, the sentence that is going forth or has gone forth against you, i.e., according to Dan 2:5, the sentence of death. חדה, one, or the one and no other. This judgment is founded on the following passage, in which the cop.  וis to be explained as equivalent to namely. וּשׁחיתה כּדבה, lies and pernicious words, are united together for the purpose of strengthening the idea, in the sense of wicked lies (Hitz.). הזמנתון is not to be read, as Häv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kran. do, as the Aphel הזמנתּוּן: ye have prepared or resolved to say; for in the Aphel this word (זמן) means to appoint or summon a person, but not to prepare or appoint a thing (see Buxt. Lex. Tal. s. v.). And the supposition that the king addressed the Chaldeans as the speakers appointed by the whole company of the wise men (Kran.) has no place in the text. The Kethiv הזּמּנתּוּן is to be read as Ithpa. for הזדּמּנתּוּן according to the Keri (cf. hizakuw הזּכּוּ for הזדּכּוּ, Isa 1:16), meaning inter se convenire, as the old interpreters rendered it. “Till the time be changed,” i.e., till the king either drop the matter, or till they learn something more particular about the dream through some circumstances that may arise. The lies which Nebuchadnezzar charged the wise men with, consisted in the explanation which they promised if he would tell them the dream, while their desire to hear the dream contained a proof that they had not the faculty of revealing secrets. The words of the king clearly show that he knew the dream, for otherwise he would not have been able to know whether the wise men spoke the truth in telling him the dream (Klief.).

Verse 10

Since the king persisted in his demand, the Chaldeans were compelled to confess that they could not tell the dream. This confession, however, they seek to conceal under the explanation that compliance with the king's request was beyond human power, - a request which no great or mighty king had ever before made of any magician or astrologer, and which was possible only with the gods, who however do not dwell among mortals. דּי כּל־קבל does not mean quam ob rem, wherefore, as a particle expressive of a consequence (Ges.), but is here used in the sense of because, assigning a reason. The thought expressed is not: because the matter is impossible for men, therefore no king has ever asked any such thing; but it is this: because it has come into the mind of no great and mighty king to demand any such thing, therefore it is impossible for men to comply with it. They presented before the king the fact that no king had ever made such a request as a proof that the fulfilling of it was beyond human ability. The epithets great and mighty are here not mere titles of the Oriental kings (Häv.), but are chosen as significant. The mightier the king, so much the greater the demand, he believed, he might easily make upon a subject.

Verses 11-12

Dan 2:11-12 להן, but only, see under Dan 2:6. In the words, whose dwelling is not with flesh, there lies neither the idea of higher and of inferior gods, nor the thought that the gods only act among men in certain events (Häv.), but only the simple thought of the essential distinction between gods and men, so that one may not demand anything from weak mortals which could be granted only by the gods as celestial beings. בּשׂרא, flesh, in opposition to רוּח, marks the human nature according to its weakness and infirmity; cf. Isa 31:3; Psa 56:5. The king, however, does not admit this excuse, but falls into a violent passion, and gives a formal command that the wise men, in whom he sees deceivers abandoned by the gods, should be put to death. This was a dreadful command; but there are illustrations of even greater cruelty perpetrated by Oriental despots benore him as well as after him. The edict (דּתא) is carried out, but not fully. Not “all the wise men,” according to the terms of the decree, were put to death, but מתקטּלין חכּימיּא, i.e., The wise men were put to death.

Verse 13

While it is manifest that the decree was not carried fully out, it is yet clearer from what follows that the participle מתקטּלין does not stand for the preterite, but has the meaning: the work of putting to death was begun. The participle also does not stand as the gerund: they were to be put to death, i.e., were condemned (Kran.), for the use of the passive participle as the gerund is not made good by a reference to מהימן, Dan 2:45, and דחיל, Dan 2:31. Even the command to kill all the wise men of Babylon is scarcely to be understood of all the wise men of the whole kingdom. The word Babylon may represent the Babylonian empire, or the province of Babylonia, or the city of Babylon only. In the city of Babylon a college of the Babylonian wise men or Chaldeans was established, who, according to Strabo (xv. 1. 6), occupied a particular quarter of the city as their own; but besides this, there were also colleges in the province of Babylon at Hipparenum, Orchae, which Plin. hist. nat. vi. 26 (30) designates as tertia Chaldaeorum doctrina, at Borsippa, and other places. The wise men who were called (Dan 2:2) into the presence of the king, were naturally those who resided in the city of Babylon, for Nebuchadnezzar was at that time in his palace. Yet of those who had their residence there, Daniel and his companions were not summoned, because they had just ended their noviciate, and because, obviously, only the presidents or the older members of the several classes were sent for. But since Daniel and his companions belonged to the whole body of the wise men, they also were sought out that they might be put to death.Daniel's willingness to declare his dream to the king; his prayer for a revelation of the secret, and the answer to his prayer; his explanation before the king.

Verse 14

Through Daniel's judicious interview of Arioch, the further execution of the royal edict was interrupted. וּטעם עטא התיב, he answered, replied, counsel and understanding, i.e., the words of counsel and understanding; cf. Pro 26:16. The name Arioch appears in Gen 14:1 as the name of the king of Ellasar, along with the kings of Elam and Shinar. It is derived not from the Sanscr. ârjaka, venerabilis, but is probably formed from ארי, a lion, as נסרך from nisr = נשׁר. רב־טבּחיּא is the chief of the bodyguard, which was regarded as the highest office of the kingdom (cf. Jer 39:9, Jer 39:11; Jer 40:1.). It was his business to see to the execution of the king's commands; see 1Ki 2:25; 2Ki 25:8.

Verse 15

The partic. Aph. מהחצפה standing after the noun in the stat. absol. is not predicative: “on what account is the command so hostile on the part of the king?” (Kran.), but it stands in apposition to the noun; for with participles, particularly when further definitions follow, the article, even in union with substantives defined by the article, may be and often is omitted; cf. Sol 7:5, and Ew. §335a. חצף, to be hard, sharp, hence to be severe. Daniel showed understanding and counsel in the question he put as to the cause of so severe a command, inasmuch as he thereby gave Arioch to understand that there was a possibility of obtaining a fulfilment of the royal wish. When Arioch informed him of the state of the matter, Daniel went in to the king - i.e., as is expressly mentioned in Dan 2:24, was introduced or brought in by Arioch - and presented to the king the request that time should be granted, promising that he would show to the king the interpretation of the dream.

Verses 16-17

With להחויה וּפשׁרא the construction is changed. This passage does not depend on דּי, time, namely, to show the interpretation (Hitz.), but is co-ordinate with the foregoing relative clause, and like it is dependent on וּבעא. The change of the construction is caused by the circumstance that in the last passage another subject needed to be introduced: The king should give him time, and Daniel will show the interpretation. The copulative  וbefore פשׁרא (interpretation) is used neither explicatively, namely, and indeed, nor is it to be taken as meaning also; the simple and is sufficient, although the second part of the request contains the explanation and reason of the first; i.e., Daniel asks for the granting of a space, not that he might live longer, but that he might be able to interpret the dream to the king. Besides, that he merely speaks of the meaning of the dream, and not also of the dream itself, is, as Dan 2:25. show, to be here explained (as in Dan 2:24) as arising from the brevity of the narrative. For the same reason it is not said that the king granted the quest, but Dan 2:17. immediately shows what Daniel did after the granting of his request. He went into his own house and showed the matter to his companions, that they might entreat God of His mercy for this secret, so that they might not perish along with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

Verse 18

The final clause depends on הודע (Dan 2:17). The ו is to be interpreted as explicative: and indeed, or namely. Against this interpretation it cannot be objected, with Hitz., that Daniel also prayed. He and his friends thus prayed to God that He would grant a revelation of the secret, i.e., of the mysterious dream and its interpretation. The designation “God of heaven” occurs in Gen 24:7, where it is used of Jehovah; but it was first commonly used as the designation of the almighty and true God in the time of the exile (cf. Dan 2:19, Dan 2:44; Ezr 1:2; Ezr 6:10; Ezr 7:12, Ezr 7:21; Neh 1:5; Neh 2:4; Psa 136:26), who, as Daniel names Him (Dan 5:23), is the Lord of heaven; i.e., the whole heavens, with all the stars, which the heathen worshipped as gods, are under His dominion.

Verse 19

In answer to these supplications, the secret was revealed to Daniel in a night-vision. A vision of the night is not necessarily to be identified with a dream. In the case before us, Daniel does not speak of a dream; and the idea that he had dreamed precisely the same dream as Nebuchadnezzar is arbitrarily imported into the text by Hitz. in order to gain a “psychological impossibility,” and to be able to cast suspicion on the historical character of the narrative. It is possible, indeed, that dreams may be, as the means of a divine revelation, dream-visions, and as such may be called visions of the night (cf. Dan 7:1, Dan 7:13); but in itself a vision of the night is a vision simply which any one receives during the night whilst he is awake.^[30]

Verse 20

On receiving the divine revelation, Daniel answered (ענה) with a prayer of thanksgiving. The word ענה retains its proper meaning. The revelation is of the character of an address from God, which Daniel answers with praise and thanks to God. The forms  להוא, and in the plur. להון and להוין, which are peculiar to the biblical Chaldee, we regard, with Maur., Hitz., Kran., and others, as the imperfect or future forms, 3rd pers. sing. and plur., in which the ל instead of the י is to be explained perhaps from the Syriac praeform. נ, which is frequently found also in the Chaldee Targums (cf. Dietrich, de sermonis chald. proprietate, p. 43), while the Hebrew exiles in the word הוא used ל instead of נ as more easy of utterance. The doxology in this verse reminds us of Job 1:21. The expression “for ever and ever” occurs here in the O.T. for the first time, so that the solemn liturgical Beracha (Blessing) of the second temple, Neh 9:5; 1Ch 16:36, with which also the first (Psa 45:14) and the fourth (Psa 106:48) books of the Psalter conclude, appears to have been composed after this form of praise used by Daniel. “The name of God” will be praised, i.e., the manifestation of the existence of God in the world; thus, God so far as He has anew given manifestation of His glorious existence, and continually bears witness that He it is who possesses wisdom and strength (cf. Job 12:13). The דּי before the להּ is the emphatic re-assumption of the preceding confirmatory דּי, for.

Verses 21-23

The evidence of the wisdom and power of God is here unfolded; and firs the manifestation of His power. He changes times and seasons. lxx, Theodot. καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους, would be more accurately χρόνους καὶ καιρούς, as in Act 1:7; 1Th 5:1; for the Peschito in these N. T. passages renders χρόνοι by the Syriac word which is equivalent to זמניּא, according to which עדּן is the more general expression for time = circumstance of time, זמן for measured time, the definite point of time. The uniting together of the synonymous words gives expression to the thought: ex arbitrio Dei pendere revolutiones omnium omnino temporum, quaecunque et qualia-cunque illa fuerint. C. B. Mich. God's unlimited control over seasons and times is seen in this, that He sets up and casts down kings. Thus Daniel explains the revelation regarding the dream of Nebuchadnezzar made to him as announcing great changes in the kingdoms of the world, and revealing God as the Lord of time and of the world in their developments. All wisdom also comes from God. He gives to men disclosures regarding His hidden counsels. This Daniel had just experienced. Illumination dwells with God as it were a person, as Wisdom, Pro 8:30. The Kethiv נהירא is maintained against the Keri by נהירוּ, Dan 5:11, Dan 5:14. With the perf. שׁרא the participial construction passes over into the temp. fin.; the perfect stands in the sense of the completed act. Therefore (Dan 2:23) praise and thanksgiving belong to God. Through the revelation of the secret hidden to the wise men of this world He has proved Himself to Daniel as the God of the fathers, as the true God in opposition to the gods of the heathen. וּכען = ועתּה, and now.

Verses 24-25

Hereupon Daniel announced to the king that he was prepared to make known to him the dream with its interpretation. דּנה כּל־קבל, for that very reason, viz., because God had revealed to him the king's matter, Daniel was brought in by Arioch before the king; for no one had free access to the king except his immediate servants. אזל, he went, takes up inconsequenter the על (intravit), which is separated by a long sentence, so as to connect it with what follows. Arioch introduced (Dan 2:25) Daniel to the king as a man from among the captive Jews who could make known to him the interpretation of his dream. Arioch did not need to take any special notice of the fact that Daniel had already (Dan 2:16) spoken with the king concerning it, even if he had knowledge of it. In the form הנעל, Dan 2:25, also Dan 4:3 (6) and Dan 6:19 (18), the Dagesch lying in העל, Dan 2:24, is compensated by an epenthetic n: cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §19, 1. בּהתבּהלה, in haste, for the matter concerned the further execution of the king's command, which Arioch had suspended on account of Daniel's interference, and his offer to make known the dream and its interpretation. השׁכּחת for אשׁכּחת, cf. Winer, §15, 3. The relative דּי, which many Codd. insert after גּבר, is the circumstantially fuller form of expression before prepositional passages. Cf. Dan 5:13; Dan 6:14; Winer, §41, 5.

Verses 26-28

To the question of the king, whether he was able to show the dream with its interpretation, Daniel replies by directing him from man, who is unable to accomplish such a thing, to the living God in heaven, who alone reveals secrets. The expression, whose name was Belteshazzar (Dan 2:26), intimates in this connection that he who was known among the Jews by the name Daniel was known to the Chaldean king only under the name given to him by the conqueror - that Nebuchadnezzar knew of no Daniel, but only of Belteshazzar. The question, “art thou able?” i.e., has thou ability? does not express the king's ignorance of the person of Daniel, but only his amazement at his ability to make known the dream, in the sense, “art thou really able?” This amazement Daniel acknowledges as justified, for he replies that no wise man was able to do this thing. In the enumeration of the several classes of magicians the word חכּימין is the general designation of them all. “But there is a God in heaven.” Daniel “declares in the presence of the heathen the existence of God, before he speaks to him of His works.” Klief. But when he testifies of a God in heaven as One who is able to reveal hidden things, he denies this ability eo ipso to all the so-called gods of the heathen. Thereby he not only assigns the reason of the inability of the heathen wise men, who knew not the living God in heaven, to show the divine mysteries, but he refers also all the revelations which the heathen at any time receive to the one true God. The  וin והודע introduces the development of the general thought. That there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, Daniel declares to the king by this, that he explains his dream as an inspiration of this God, and shows to him its particular circumstances. God made known to him in a dream “what would happen in the end of the days.” אחרית יומיּא = הימים אחרית designates here not the future generally (Häv.), and still less “that which comes after the days, a time which follows after another time, comprehended under the הימים” (Klief.), but the concluding future or the Messianic period of the world's time; see Gen 49:1.
From דּנה אחרי in Dan 2:29 that general interpretation of the expression is not proved. The expression יומיּא בּאחרית of Dan 2:28 is not explained by the דּנה אחרי להוא דּי מה of Dan 2:29, but this אחרי relates to Nebuchadnezzar's thoughts of a future in the history of the world, to which God, the revealer of secrets, unites His Messianic revelations; moreover, every Messianic future event is also an דּנה אחרי (cf. Dan 2:45), without, however, every דּנה אחרי being also Messianic, though it may become so when at the same time it is a constituent part of the future experience and the history of Israel, the people of the Messianic promise (Kran.). “The visions of thy head” (cf. Dan 4:2 [5], Dan 4:7 [10], Dan 4:10 [13], Dan 7:1) are not dream-visions because they formed themselves in the head or brains (v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), which would thus be only phantoms or fancies. The words are not a poetic expression for dreams hovering about the head (Häv.); nor yet can we say, with Klief., that “the visions of thy head upon thy bed, the vision which thou sawest as thy head lay on thy pillow,” mean only dream-visions. Against the former interpretation this may be stated, that dreams from God do not hover about the head; and against the latter, that the mention of the head would in that case be superfluous. The expression, peculiar to Daniel, designates much rather the divinely ordered visions as such, “as were perfectly consistent with a thoughtfulness of the head actively engaged” (Kran.). The singular הוּא דּנה goes back to חלמך (thy dream) as a fundamental idea, and is governed by ראשׁך וחזוי in the sense: “thy dream with the visions of thy head;” cf. Winer, §49, 6. The plur. חזוי is used, because the revelation comprehends a series of visions of future events.

Verses 29-30

The pronoun אנתּה (as for thee), as Daniel everywhere writes it, while the Keri substitutes for it the later Targ. form אנתּ, is absolute, and forms the contrast to the ואנה (as for me) of Dan 2:30. The thoughts of the king are not his dream (Hitz.), but thoughts about the future of his kingdom which filled his mind as he lay upon his bed, and to which God gave him an answer in the dream (v. Leng., Maur., Kran., Klief.). Therefore they are to be distinguished from the thoughts of thy heart, Dan 2:30, for these are the thoughts that troubled the king, which arose from the revelations of the dream to him. The contrast in Dan 2:30 and Dan 2:30 is not this: “not for my wisdom before all that live to show,” but “for the sake of the king to explain the dream;” for  בis not the preposition of the object, but of the means, thus: “not by the wisdom which might be in me.” The supernatural revelation (לי (<) גּלי) forms the contrast, and the object to which דּי על־דּברת points is comprehended implicite in מן־כּל־חיּיּא, for in the words, “the wisdom which may be in me before all living,” lies the unexpressed thought: that I should be enlightened by such superhuman wisdom. יהודצוּן, “that they might make it known:” the plur. of undefined generality, cf. Winer, §49, 3. The impersonal form of expression is chosen in order that his own person might not be brought into view. The idea of Aben Ezra, Vatke, and others, that angels are the subject of the verb, is altogether untenable.

Verses 31-45

Dan 2:31-45The Dream and Its Interpretation. - Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream a great metallic image which was terrible to look upon. אלוּ (behold), which Daniel interchanges with ארו, corresponds with the Hebrew words ראה, ראוּ, or הנּה. צלם is not an idol-image (Hitz.), but a statue, and, as is manifest from the following description, a statue in human form. חד is not the indefinite article (Ges., Win., Maur.), but the numeral. “The world-power is in all its phases one, therefore all these phases are united in the vision in one image” (Klief.). The words from צלמא to יתּיר contain two parenthetical expressions, introduced for the purpose of explaining the conception of שׁגיא (great). קאם is to be united with ואלוּ. דּכּן here and at Dan 7:20. is used by Daniel as a peculiar form of the demonstrative pronoun, for which Ezra uses דּך. The appearance of the colossal image was terrible, not only on account of its greatness and its metallic splendour, but because it represented the world-power of fearful import to the people of God (Klief.).

Verses 32-36

The description of the image according to its several parts is introduced with the absolute צלמא הוּא, concerning this image, not: “this was the image.” The pronoun הוּא is made prominent, as דּנה, Dan 4:15, and the Hebr. זה more frequently, e.g., Isa 23:13. חדוהי, plural חדין - its singular occurs only in the Targums - corresponding with the Hebr. חזה, the breast. מצין, the bowels, here the abdomen enclosing the bowels, the belly. ירכה, the thighs (hüfte) and upper part of the loins. Dan 2:33. שׁק, the leg, including the upper part of the thigh. מנהון is partitive: part of it of iron. Instead of מנהון the Keri prefers the fem. מנהן here and at Dan 2:41 and Dan 2:42, with reference to this, that רגליו is usually the gen. fem., after the custom of nouns denoting members of the body that are double. The Kethiv unconditionally deserves the preference, although, as the apparently anomalous form, which appears with this suffix also in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20, after substantives of seemingly feminine meaning, where the choice of the masculine form is to be explained from the undefined conception of the subjective idea apart from the sex; cf. Ewald's Lehr. d. hebr. Sp. §319.
The image appears divided as to its material into four or five parts - the head, the breast with the arms, the belly with the thighs, and the legs and feet. “Only the first part, the head, constitutes in itself a united whole; the second, with the arms, represents a division; the third runs into a division in the thighs; the fourth, bound into one at the top, divides itself in the two legs, but has also the power of moving in itself; the fifth is from the first divided in the legs, and finally in the ten toes runs out into a wider division. The material becomes inferior from the head downward - gold, silver, copper, iron, clay; so that, though on the whole metallic, it becomes inferior, and finally terminates in clay, losing itself in common earthly matter. Notwithstanding that the material becomes always the harder, till it is iron, yet then suddenly and at last it becomes weak and brittle clay.” - Klief. The fourth and fifth parts, the legs and the feet, are, it is true, externally separate from each other, but inwardly, through the unity of the material, iron, are bound together; so that we are to reckon only four parts, as afterwards is done in the interpretation. This image Nebuchadnezzar was contemplating (Dan 2:34), i.e., reflected upon with a look directed toward it, until a stone moved without human hands broke loose from a mountain, struck against the lowest part of the image, broke the whole of it into pieces, and ground to powder all its material from the head even to the feet, so that it was scattered like chaff of the summer thrashing-floor. בידין לא דּי does not mean: “which was not in the hands of any one” (Klief.), but the words are a prepositional expression for without; ב לא, not with = without, and דּי expressing the dependence of the word on the foregoing noun. Without hands, without human help, is a litotes for: by a higher, a divine providence; cf. Dan 8:25; Job 34:20; Lam 4:6. כּחדה, as one = at once, with one stroke. דּקוּ for דּקּוּ is not intransitive or passive, but with an indefinite plur. subject: they crushed, referring to the supernatural power by which the crushing was effected. The destruction of the statue is so described, that the image passes over into the matter of it. It is not said of the parts of the image, the head, the breast, the belly, and the thighs, that they were broken to pieces by the stone, “for the forms of the world-power represented by these parts had long ago passed away, when the stone strikes against the last form of the world-power represented by the feet,” but only of the materials of which these parts consist, the silver and the gold, is the destruction replicated; “for the material, the combinations of the peoples, of which these earlier forms of the world-power consist, pass into the later forms of it, and thus are all destroyed when the stone destroys the last form of the world-power” (Klief.). But the stone which brought this destruction itself became a great mountain which filled the whole earth. To this Daniel added the interpretation which he announces in Dan 2:36. נאמר, we will tell, is “a generalizing form of expression” (Kran.) in harmony with Dan 2:30. Daniel associates himself with his companions in the faith, who worshipped the same God of revelation; cf. Dan 2:23.

Verses 37-38

The interpretation begins with the golden head. מלכיּא מלך, the usual title of the monarchs of the Oriental world-kingdoms (vid., Eze 26:7), is not the predicate to אנתּה, but stands in apposition to מלכּא. The following relative passages, Dan 2:37 and Dan 2:38, are only further explications of the address King of Kings, in which אנתּה is again taken up to bring back the predicate. בּכל־דּי, wherever, everywhere. As to the form דּארין, see the remarks under קאמין at Dan 3:3. The description of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion over men, beasts, and birds, is formed after the words of Jer 27:6 and Jer 28:14; the mention of the breasts serves only for the strengthening of the thought that his dominion was that of a world-kingdom, and that God had subjected all things to him. Nebuchadnezzar' dominion did not, it is true, extend over the whole earth, but perhaps over the whole civilised world of Asia, over all the historical nations of his time; and in this sense it was a world-kingdom, and as such, “the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary representative of all world-powers” (Klief.). ראשׁה, stat. emphat. for ראשׁא; the reading ראשׁהּ defended by Hitz. is senseless. If Daniel called him (Nebuchadnezzar) the golden head, the designation cannot refer to his person, but to the world-kingdom founded by him and represented in his person, having all things placed under his sway by God. Hitzig's idea, that Nebuchadnezzar is the golden head as distinguished from his successors in the Babylonian kingdom, is opposed by Dan 2:39, where it is said that after him (not another king, but) “another kingdom” would arise. That “Daniel, in the words, 'Thou art the golden head,' speaks of the Babylonian kingdom as of Nebuchadnezzar personally, while on the contrary he speaks of the other world-kingdoms impersonally only as of kingdoms, has its foundation in this, that the Babylonian kingdom personified in Nebuchadnezzar stood before him, and therefore could be addressed by the word thou, while the other kingdoms could not” (Klief.).

Verse 39

In this verse the second and third parts of the image are interpreted of the second and third world-kingdoms. Little is said of these kingdoms here, because they are more fully described in Daniel 7, 8 and 10. That the first clause of Dan 2:39 refers to the second, the silver part of the image, is apparent from the fact that Dan 2:38 refers to the golden head, and the second clause of Dan 2:39 to the belly of brass. According to this, the breast and arms of silver represent another kingdom which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., after the Babylonian kingdom. This kingdom will be מנּך ארעא, inferior to thee, i.e., to the kingdom of which thou art the representative. Instead of the adjective ארעא, here used adverbially, the Masoretes have substituted the adverbial form ארץ, in common use in later times, which Hitz. incorrectly interprets by the phrase “downwards from thee.” Since the other, i.e., the second kingdom, as we shall afterwards prove, is the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, the question arises, in how far was it inferior to the Babylonian? In outward extent it was not less, but even greater than it. With reference to the circumstance that the parts of the image representing it were silver, and not gold as the head was, Calv., Aub., Kran., and others, are inclined to the opinion that the word “inferior” points to the moral condition of the kingdom. But if the successive deterioration of the inner moral condition of the four world-kingdoms is denoted by the succession of the metals, this cannot be expressed by מנּך ארעא, because in regard to the following world-kingdoms, represented by copper and iron, such an intimation or declaration does not find a place, notwithstanding that copper and iron are far inferior to silver and gold. Klief., on the contrary, thinks that the Medo-Persian kingdom stands inferior to, or is smaller than, the Babylonian kingdom in respect of universality; for this element is exclusively referred to in the text, being not only attributed to the Babylonian kingdom, Dan 2:37, in the widest extent, but also to the third kingdom, Dan 2:39, and not less to the fourth, Dan 2:40. The universality belonging to a world-kingdom does not, however, require that it should rule over all the nations of the earth to its very end, nor that its territory should have a defined extent, but only that such a kingdom should unite in itself the οἰκουμένη, i.e., the civilised world, the whole of the historical nations of its time. And this was truly the case with the Babylonian, the Macedonia, and the Roman world-monarchies, but it was not so with the Medo-Persian, although perhaps it was more powerful and embraced a more extensive territory than the Babylonian, since Greece, which at the time of the Medo-Persia monarchy had already decidedly passed into the rank of the historical nations, as yet stood outside of the Medo-Persian rule. But if this view is correct, then would universality be wanting to the third, i.e., to the Graeco-Macedonian world-monarchy, which is predicated of it in the words “That shall bear rule over the whole earth,” since at the time of this monarchy Rome had certainly passed into the rank of historical nations, and yet it was not incorporated with the Macedonian empire.
The Medo-Persian world-kingdom is spoken of as “inferior” to the Babylonian perhaps only in this respect, that from its commencement it wanted inner unity, since the Medians and Persians did not form a united people, but contended with each other for the supremacy, which is intimated in the expression, Dan 7:5, that the bear “raised itself up on one side:” see under that passage. In the want of inward unity lay the weakness or the inferiority in strength of this kingdom, its inferiority as compared with the Babylonian. This originally divided or separated character of this kingdom appears in the image in the circumstance that it is represented by the breast and the arms. “Medes and Persians,” as Hofm. (Weiss. u. Ef. i. S. 279) well remarks, “are the two sides of the breast. The government of the Persian kingdom was not one and united as was that of the Chaldean nation and king, but it was twofold. The Magi belonged to a different race from Cyrus, and the Medes were regarded abroad as the people ruling with and beside the Persians.” This two-sidedness is plainly denoted in the two horns of the ram, Daniel 8.

Verse 39

Dan 2:39Dan 2:39 treats of the third world-kingdom, which by the expression אחרי, “another,” is plainly distinguished from the preceding; as to its quality, it is characterized by the predicate “of copper, brazen.” In this chapter it is said only of this kingdom that “it shall rule over the whole earth,” and thus be superior in point of extent and power to the preceding kingdoms. Cf. Dan 7:6, where it is distinctly mentioned that “power was given unto it.” Fuller particulars are communicated regarding the second and third world-kingdoms in Daniel 8 and Dan 10:1.

Verses 40-43

The interpretation of the fourth component part of the image, the legs and feet, which represent a fourth world-kingdom, is more extended. That kingdom, corresponding to the legs of iron, shall be hard, firm like iron. Because iron breaks all things in pieces, so shall this kingdom, which is like to iron, break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms.

Verses 40-41

Instead of רביציא, which is formed after the analogy of the Syriac language, the Keri has the usual Chaldee form רביעאה, which shall correspond to the preceding תליתאה, Dan 2:39. See the same Keri Dan 3:25; Dan 7:7, Dan 7:23. דּי כּל־קבל does not mean just as (Ges., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz.), but because, and the passage introduced by this particle contains the ground on which this kingdom is designated as hard like iron. חשׁל, breaks in pieces, in Syriac to forge, i.e., to break by the hammer, cf. חוּשׁלא, bruised grain, and thus separated from the husks. כּל־אלּין is referred by Kran., in conformity with the accents, to the relative clause, “because by its union with the following verbal idea a blending of the image with the thing indicated must first be assumed; also nowhere else, neither here nor in Daniel 7, does the non-natural meaning appear, e.g., that by the fourth kingdom only the first and second kingdoms shall be destroyed; and finally, in the similar expression, Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19, the הדּק stands likewise without an object.” But all the three reasons do not prove much. A mixing of the figure with the thing signified does not lie in the passage: “the fourth (kingdom) shall, like crushing iron, crush to pieces all these” (kingdoms). But the “non-natural meaning,” that by the fourth kingdom not only the third, but also the second and the first, would be destroyed, is not set aside by our referring כּל־אלּין to the before-named metals, because the metals indeed characterize and represent kingdoms. Finally, the expressions in Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19 are not analogous to those before us. The words in question cannot indeed be so understood as if the fourth kingdom would find the three previous kingdoms existing together, and would dash them one against another; for, according to the text, the first kingdom is destroyed by the second, and the second by the third; but the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third. “The elements out of which the Babylonian world-kingdom was constituted, the countries, people, and civilisation comprehended in it, as its external form, would be destroyed by the Medo-Persia kingdom, and carried forward with it, so as to be constituted into a new external form. Such, too, was the relation between the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian world-kingdom, that the latter assumed the elements and component parts not only of the Medo-Persian, but also therewith at the same time of the Babylonian kingdom” (Klief.). In such a way shall the fourth world-kingdom crush “all these” past kingdoms as iron, i.e., will not assume the nations and civilisations comprehended in the earlier world-kingdoms as organized formations, but will destroy and break them to atoms with iron strength. Yet will this world-kingdom not throughout possess and manifest the iron hardness. Only the legs of the image are of iron (Dan 2:41), but the feet and toes which grow out of the legs are partly of clay and partly of iron.
Regarding מנהון, see under Dan 2:33. חסף means clay, a piece of clay, then an earthly vessel, 2Sa 5:20. פּחר in the Targums means potter, also potter's earth, potsherds. The פּחר דּי serves to strengthen the חסף, as in the following the addition of טינא, clay, in order the more to heighten the idea of brittleness. This twofold material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for פּלג always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen 10:25; Psa 55:10; Job 38:25; and Levy, chald. Worterb. s. v. Notwithstanding this inner division, there will yet be in it the firmness of iron. נצבּא, firmness, related to יצב, Pa. to make fast, but in Chald. generally plantatio, properly a slip, a plant.

Verses 42-43

In Dan 2:42 the same is aid of the toes of the feet, and in Dan 2:43 the comparison to iron and clay is defined as the mixture of these two component parts. As the iron denotes the firmness of the kingdom, so the clay denotes its brittleness. The mixing of iron with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain. The mixing of themselves with the seed of men (Dan 2:43), most interpreters refer to the marriage politics of the princes. They who understand by the four kingdoms the monarchy of Alexander and his followers, think it refers to the marriages between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, of which indeed there is mention made in Dan 11:6 and Dan 11:17, but not here; while Hofm. thinks it relates to marriages, such as those of the German Kaiser Otto II and the Russian Grand-Duke Wladimir with the daughters of the Kaiser of Eastern Rome. But this interpretation is rightly rejected by Klief., as on all points inconsistent with the text. The subject to מתערבין is not the kings, of whom mention is made neither in Dan 2:43 nor previously. For the two feet as well as the ten toes denote not kings, but parts of the fourth kingdom; and even in Dan 2:44, by מלכיּא, not kings in contradistinction to the kingdoms, but the representatives of the parts of the kingdom denoted by the feet and the toes as existing contemporaneously, are to be understood, from which it cannot rightly be concluded in any way that kings is the subject to מתערבין (shall mingle themselves).
As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent the material of these kingdoms, i.e., their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e., the national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them. If, then, the “mixing themselves with the seed of men” points to marriages, it is only of the mixing of different tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages as a means of amalgamating the diversified nationalities. But the expression is not to be limited to this, although התערב, Ezr 9:2, occurs of the mixing of the holy nation with the heathen by marriage. The peculiar expression אנששׁא זרע, the seed of men, is not of the same import as זרע שׁכבת, but is obviously chosen with reference to the following contrast to the divine Ruler, Dan 2:44., so as to place (Kran.) the vain human endeavour of the heathen rulers in contrast with the doings of the God of heaven; as in Jer 31:27 אדם זרע is occasioned by the contrast of בּהמה זרע. The figure of mixing by seed is derived from the sowing of the field with mingled seed, and denotes all the means employed by the rulers to combine the different nationalities, among which the connubium is only spoken of as the most important and successful means.
But this mixing together will succeed just as little as will the effort to bind together into one firm coherent mass iron and clay. The parts mixed together will not cleave to each other. Regarding להון, see under Dan 2:20.

Verse 44

The world-kingdom will be broken to pieces by the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up. “In the days of these kings,” i.e., of the kings of the world-kingdoms last described; at the time of the kingdoms denoted by the ten toes of the feet of the image into which the fourth world-monarchy extends itself; for the stone (Dan 2:34) rolling against the feet of the image, or rather against the toes of the feet, breaks and destroys it. This kingdom is not founded by the hands of man, but is erected by the God of heaven, and shall for ever remain immoveable, in contrast to the world-kingdoms, the one of which will be annihilated by the other. Its dominion will not be given to another people. מלכוּתהּ, his dominion, i.e., of the kingdom. This word needs not to be changed into מלכוּתהּ, which is less suitable, since the mere status absol. would not be here in place. Among the world-kingdoms the dominion goes from one people to another, from the Babylonians to the Persians, etc. On the contrary, the kingdom of God comprehends always the same people, i.e., the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His own, only not the Israel κατὰ σάρκα, but the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). But the kingdom of God will not merely exist eternally without change of its dominion, along with the world-kingdoms, which are always changing and bringing one another to dissolution, it will also break in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms (תסף, from סוּף, to bring to an end, to make an end to them), but itself shall exist for ever. This is the meaning of the stone setting itself free without the hands of man, and breaking the image in pieces.

Verse 45

The מטּוּרא before אתגּזרת, which is wanting in Dan 2:34, and without doubt is here used significantly, is to be observed, as in Dan 2:42 “the toes of the feet,” which in Dan 2:33 were also not mentioned. As it is evident that a stone, in order to its rolling without the movement of the human hand, must be set free from a mountain, so in the express mention of the mountain there can be only a reference to Mount Zion, where the God of heaven has founded His kingdom, which shall from thence spread out over the earth and shall destroy all the world-kingdoms. Cf. Psa 50:2; Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2.
The first half of the 45th verse (down to ודהבּא) gives the confirmation of that which Daniel in Dan 2:44 said to the king regarding the setting up and the continuance of the kingdom of God, and essentially belongs to this verse. On the other hand, Hitz. (and Kran. follows him) wishes to unite this confirmatory passage with the following: “because thou hast been that the stone, setting itself free from the mountain, breaks in pieces the iron, etc., thus has God permitted thee a glimpse behind the veil that hides the future,” - in order that he may conclude from it that the writer, since he notes only the vision of the stone setting itself free as an announcement of the future, betrayed his real standpoint, i.e., the standpoint of the Maccabean Jew, for whom only this last catastrophe was as yet future, while all the rest was already past. This conclusion Kran. has rejected, but with the untenable argument that the expression, “what shall come to pass hereafter,” is to be taken in agreement with the words, “what should come to pass,” Dan 2:29, which occur at the beginning of the address. Though this may in itself be right, yet it cannot be maintained if the passage Dan 2:45 forms the antecedent to Dan 2:45. In this case דּנה (this), in the phrase “after this” (= hereafter, Dan 2:45), can be referred only to the setting loose of the stone. But the reasons which Hitz. adduces for the uniting together of the passages as adopted by him are without any importance. Why the long combined passage cannot suitably conclude with ורהבּא there is no reason which can be understood; and that it does not round itself is also no proof, but merely a matter of taste, the baselessness of which is evident from Dan 2:10, where an altogether similar long passage, beginning with דּי כּל־קבל (forasmuch as), ends in a similar manner, without formally rounding itself off. The further remark also, that the following new passage could not so unconnectedly and baldly begin with רב אלהּ, is no proof, but a mere assertion, which is set aside as groundless by many passages in Daniel where the connection is wanting; cf. e.g., Dan 4:16, Dan 4:27>. The want of the copula before this passage is to be explained on the same ground on which Daniel uses רב אלהּ (stat. absol., i.e., without the article) instead of אלהא רבּא, Ezr 5:8. For that רב אלהּ means, not “a (undefined) great God,” but the great God in heaven, whom Daniel had already (Dan 2:28) announced to the king as the revealer of secrets, is obvious. Kran. has rightly remarked, that רב אלהּ may stand “in elevated discourse without the article, instead of the prosaic אלה רב, Ezr 5:8.” The elevated discourse has occasioned also the absence of the copula, which will not be missed if one only takes a pause at the end of the interpretation, after which Daniel then in conclusion further says to the king, “The great God has showed to the king what will be hereafter.” דּנה אחרי, after this which is now, does not mean “at some future time” (Hitz.), but after that which is at present, and it embraces the future denoted in the dream, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar till the setting up of the kingdom of God in the time of the Messiah.

Verse 45

The word with which Daniel concludes his address, יצּיב, firm, sure, is the dream, and certain its interpretation, is not intended to assure the king of the truth of the dream, because the particulars of the dream had escaped him, and to certify to him the correctness of the interpretation (Kran.), but the importance of the dream should put him in mind to lay the matter to heart, and give honour to God who imparted to him these revelations; but at the same time also the word assures the readers of the book of the certainty of the fulfilment, since it lay far remote, and the visible course of things in the present and in the proximate future gave no indication or only a very faint prospect of the fulfilment. For other such assurances see Dan 8:26; Dan 10:21, Rev 19:9; Rev 21:5; Rev 22:6.
We shall defer a fuller consideration of the fulfilment of this dream or the historical references of the four world-kingdoms, in order to avoid repetition, till we have expounded the vision which Daniel received regarding it in Daniel 7.

Verses 46-47

Dan 2:46-47The impression which this interpretation of the dream made upon Nebuchadnezzar, and the consequences which thence arose for Daniel.
The announcement and the interpretation of the remarkable dream made so powerful an impression on Nebuchadnezzar, that he fell down in supplication before Daniel and ordered sacrifice to be offered to him. Falling prostrate to the earth is found as a mark of honour to men, it is true (1Sa 20:41; 1Sa 25:28; 2Sa 14:4), but סגד is used only of divine homage (Isa 44:15, Isa 44:17, Isa 44:19; Isa 46:6, and Dan 3:5.). To the Chaldean king, Daniel appeared as a man in whom the gods manifested themselves; therefore he shows to him divine honour, such as was shown by Cornelius to the Apostle Peter, and at Lystra was shown to Paul and Barnabas, Act 10:25; Act 14:13. מנחה, an unbloody sacrifice, and ניחחין, are not burnt sacrifices or offerings of pieces of fat (Hitz.), but incensings, the offering of incense; cf. Exo 30:9, where the קטרת is particularly mentioned along with the עלה and the מנחה. נסּך is, with Hitz., to be taken after the Arabic in the general signification sacrificare, but is transferred zeugmatically from the pouring out of a drink-offering to the offering of a sacrifice. Dan 2:47, where Nebuchadnezzar praises the God of the Jews as the God of gods, does not stand in contradiction to the rendering of divine honour to Daniel in such a way that, with Hitz., in the conduct of the king we miss consistency and propriety, and find it improbable. For Nebuchadnezzar did not pray to the man Daniel, but in the person of Daniel to his God, i.e., to the God of the Jews; and he did this because this God had manifested Himself to him through Daniel as the supreme God, who rules over kings, and reveals hidden things which the gods of the Chaldean wise men were not able to reveal. Moreover, in this, Nebuchadnezzar did not abandon his heathen standpoint. He did not recognise the God of the Jews as the only, or the alone true God, but only as God of gods, as the highest or the most exalted of the gods, who excelled the other gods in might and in wisdom, and was a Lord of kings, and as such must be honoured along with the gods of his own country. מן־קשׁט דּי, of truth (it is) that, stands adverbially for truly.

Verse 48

After Nebuchadnezzar had given honour to the God of the Jews, he rewarded Daniel, the servant of this God, with gifts, and by elevating him to high offices of state. רבּי, to make great, is more fully defined by the following passages. השׁלטהּ, he made him a man of power, ruler over the province of Babylon, i.e., vicegerent, governor of this province. According to Dan 3:2, the Chaldean kingdom consisted of several מדינתא, each of which had its own שׁלטון. The following סגנין ורב depends zeugmatically, however, on השׁלטהּ: and (made him) president over all the wise men. סגנין, Hebr. סגנים, vicegerent, prefect, is an Aryan word incorporated into the Hebrew, ζωγάνης in Athen., but not yet certainly authenticated in Old Persian; vide (Spiegel in Delitzsch on Isa 41:25. The wise men of Babylon were divided into classes according to their principal functions, under סגנין, chiefs, whose president (= רב־מג, Jer 39:3) Daniel was.

Verse 49

At Daniel's request the king made his three friends governors of the province. וּמנּי is not, with Häv. and other older writers, to be translated that he should ordain; this sense must be expressed by the imperfect. The matter of the prayer is not specially given, but is to be inferred from the granting of it. But this prayer is not, with Hitz. and older interpreters, to be understood as implying that Daniel entreated the king to release him from the office of vicegerent, and that the king entrusted that office to his three friends; for if Daniel wished to retain this dignity, but to transfer the duty to his friends, there was no need, as Hitz. thinks, for this purpose, for the express appointment of the king; his mere permission was enough. But whence did Hitz. obtain this special information regarding the state arrangements of Babylon? and how does he know that מנּי, to decree, means an express appointment in contradistinction to a royal permission? The true state of the matter Häv. has clearly explained. The chief ruler of the province had a number of ὕπαρχοι, under-officers, in the province for the various branches of the government. To such offices the king appointed Daniel's three friends at his request, so that he might be able as chief ruler to reside continually at the court of the king. עבידתּא, rendering of service = המּלך עבדת, service of the king, 1Ch 26:30, according as the matter may be: the management of business. מלכּא בּתרע, near the gate, i.e., at the court of the king, for the gate, the door, is named for the building to which it formed the entrance; cf. המּלך שׁער, Est 2:19, Est 2:21; Est 3:2. Gesenius is in error when he explains the words there as meaning that Daniel was made prefect of the palace. Daniel's Three Friends in the Fiery Furnace - Daniel 3:1-30
Nebuchadnezzar commanded a colossal golden image to be set up in the plain of Dura at Babylon, and summoned all his high officers of state to be present at its consecration. He caused it to be proclaimed by a herald, that at a given signal all should fall down before the image and do it homage, and that whosoever refused to do so would be cast into a burning fiery furnace (Dan 3:1-7). This ceremony having been ended, it was reported to the king by certain Chaldeans that Daniel's friends, who had been placed over the province of Babylon, had not done homage to the image; whereupon, being called to account by the king, they refused to worship the image because they could not serve his gods (Dan 3:8-18). For this opposition to the king's will they were cast, bound in their clothes, into the burning fiery furnace. They were uninjured by the fire; and the king perceived with terror that not three, but four men, were walking unbound and uninjured in the furnace (Dan 3:19-27). Then he commanded them to come out; and when he found them wholly unhurt, he not only praised their God who had so wonderfully protected them, but also commanded, on the pain of death, all the people of his kingdom not to despise this God (Dan 3:28-30).
The lxx and Theodotion have placed the date of this event in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, apparently only because they associated the erection of this statue with the taking of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, although that city was not taken and destroyed till the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 25:8.). But though it is probable that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had firmly established his world-kingdom by the overthrow of all his enemies, first felt himself moved to erect this image as a monument of his great exploits and of his world-power; yet the destruction of the capital of Judea, which had been already twice destroyed, can hardly be regarded as having furnished a sufficient occasion for this. This much, however, is certain, that the event narrated in this chapter occurred later than that of the 2nd chapter, since Dan 3:12 and Dan 3:30 refer to Dan 2:49; and on the other hand, that they occurred earlier than the incident of the 4th chapter, in which there are many things which point to the last half of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, while the history recorded in the chapter before us appertains more to the middle of his reign, when Nebuchadnezzar stood on the pinnacle of his greatness. The circumstance that there is no longer found in the king any trace of the impression which the omnipotence and infinite wisdom of the God of the Jews, as brought to view in the interpretation of his dream by Daniel, made upon his mind (Daniel 2), affords no means of accurately determining the time of the occurrence here narrated. There is no need for our assuming, with Jerome, a velox oblivio veritatis, or with Calvin, the lapse of a considerable interval between the two events. The deportment of Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion does not stand in opposition to the statements made at the close of Daniel 2. The command that all who were assembled at the consecration of the image should all down before it and worship it, is to be viewed from the standpoint of the heathen king. It had no reference at all to the oppression of those who worshipped the God of the Jews, nor to a persecution of the Jews on account of their God. It only demanded the recognition of the national god, to whom the king supposed he owed the greatness of his kingdom, as the god of the kingdom, and was a command which the heathen subjects of Nebuchadnezzar could execute without any violence to their consciences. The Jews could not obey it, however, without violating the first precept of their law. But Nebuchadnezzar did not think on that. Disobedience to his command appeared to him as culpable rebellion against his majesty. As such also the conduct of Daniel's friends is represented to him by the Chaldean informers in Dan 3:12. The words of the informers, “The Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon have not regarded thee, O king; they serve not thy gods,” etc., clearly show that they were rightly named (Dan 3:8) “accusers of the Jews,” and that by their denunciation of them they wished only to expel the foreigners from their places of influence; and for this purpose they made use of the politico-national festival appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as a fitting opportunity. Hence we can understand Nebuchadnezzar's anger against those who disregarded his command; and his words, with which he pronounced sentence against the accused - ”who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hand?” - are, judged of from the religious point of view of the Israelites, a blaspheming of God, but considered from Nebuchadnezzar's heathen standpoint, are only an expression of proud confidence in his own might and in that of his gods, and show nothing further than that the revelation of the living God in Daniel 2 had not permanently impressed itself on his heart, but had in course of time lost much of its influence over him.
The conduct of Nebuchadnezzar toward the Jews, described in this chapter, is accordingly fundamentally different from the relation sustained by Antiochus Epiphanes towards Judaism; for he wished entirely to put an end to the Jewish form of worship. In the conduct of Daniel's friends who were accused before the king there is also not a single trace of the religious fanaticism prevalent among the Jews in the age of the Maccabees, who were persecuted on account of their fidelity to the law. Far from trusting in the miraculous help of God, they regarded it as possible that God, whom they served, would not save them, and they only declare that in no case will they reverence the heathen deities of the king, and do homage to the image erected by him (Dan 3:16.).
The right apprehension of the historical situation described in this chapter is at complete variance with the supposition of the modern critics, that the narrative is unhistorical, and was invented for the purpose of affording a type for the relation of Antiochus Epiphanes to Judaism. The remarkable circumstance, that Daniel is not named as having been present at this festival (and he also would certainly not have done homage to the image), can of itself alone furnish no argument against the historical accuracy of the matter, although it cannot be explained on the supposition made by Hgstb., that Daniel, as president over the wise men, did not belong to the class of state-officers, nor by the assertion of Hitz., that Daniel did not belong to the class of chief officers, since according to Dan 2:49 he had transferred his office to his friends. Both suppositions are erroneous; cf. under Dan 2:49. But many other different possibilities may be thought of to account for the absence of all mention of Daniel's name. Either he may have been prevented for some reason from being present on the occasion, or he may have been present and may have refused to bow down before the image, but yet may only not have been informed against. In the latter case, the remark of Calvin, ut abstinuerint a Daniele ad tempus, quem sciebant magnifieri a Rege, would scarcely suffice, but we must suppose that the accusers had designed first only the overthrow of the three rulers of the province of Babylon.^[31]
But the circumstance that Daniel, if he were present, did not employ himself in behalf of his friends, may be explained from the quick execution of Babylonish justice, provided some higher reason did not determine him confidently to commit the decision of the matter to the Lord his God.^[32]The erection and consecration of the golden image, and the accusation brought against Daniel's friends, that they had refused to obey the king's command to do homage to this image.

Chap. 3

Verse 1

Nebuchadnezzar commanded a golden image to be erected, of threescore cubits in height and six cubits in breadth. צלם is properly an image in human likeness (cf. Dan 2:31), and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or an obelisk, for which מצּבה would have been the appropriate word. Yet from the use of the word צלם it is not by any means to be concluded that the image was in all respects perfectly in human form. As to the upper part - the head, countenance, arms, breast - it may have been in the form of a man, and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar. This would be altogether in accordance with the Babylonian art, which delighted in grotesque, gigantic forms; cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 96f. The measure, in height threescore cubits, in breadth six cubits, is easily explained, since in the human figure the length is to be breadth in the proportion of about six to one. In the height of threescore cubits the pedestal of the image may be regarded as included, so that the whole image according to its principal component part (a potiori) was designated as צלם; although the passage Jdg 18:30-31, adduced by Kran., where mention is made of the image alone which was erected by Micah, without any notice being taken of the pedestal belonging to it (cf. Jdg 18:17 and Jdg 18:18), furnishes no properly authentic proof that פּסל in Jdg 18:30 and Jdg 18:31 denotes the image with the pedestal. The proportion between the height and the breadth justifies, then, in no respect the rejection of the historical character of the narrative. Still less does the mass of gold necessary for the construction of so colossal an image, since, as has been already mentioned, according to the Hebrew modes of speech, we are not required to conceive of the figure as having been made of solid gold, and since, in the great riches of the ancient world, Nebuchadnezzar in his successful campaigns might certainly accumulate an astonishing amount of this precious metal. The statements of Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the Babylonian idol-images,^[33] as well as the description in Isa 40:19 of the construction of idol-images, lead us to think of the image as merely overlaid with plates of gold.
The king commanded this image to be set up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. The ancients make mention of two places of the name of Dura, the one at the mouth of the Chaboras where it empties itself into the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish (Polyb. v. 48; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 5, 8, xxiv. 1, 5), the other beyond the Tigris, not far from Apollonia (Polyb. v. 52; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6, 9). Of these the latter has most probability in its favour, since the former certainly did not belong to the province of Babylon, which according to Xenophon extended 36 miles south of Tiphsach (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, S. 421). The latter, situated in the district of Sittakene, could certainly be reckoned as belonging to the province of Babylon, since according to Strabo, Sittakene, at least in the Old Parthian time, belonged to Babylon (Nieb. p. 420). But even this place lay quite too far from the capital of the kingdom to be the place intended. We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighbourhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert (Expéd. Scientif. en Mésopotamie, i. p. 238ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura, at the end of which, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one which is named el Mokattat (=la colline alignée), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built en briques crues (Arab. lbn), which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes that this little mound is the remains of the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar.^[34]
There is a difference of opinion as to the signification of this image. According to the common view (cf. e.g., Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 97), Nebuchadnezzar wished to erect a statue as an expression of his thanks to his god Bel for his great victories, and on that account also to consecrate it with religious ceremonies. On the other hand, Hofm. (Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 277) remarks, that the statue was not the image of a god, because a distinction is made between falling down to it and the service to his god which Nebuchadnezzar required (Dan 3:12, Dan 3:14, Dan 3:18) from his officers of state. This distinction, however, is not well supported; for in these verses praying to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is placed on an equality with falling down before the image. But on the other hand, the statue is not designated as the image of a god, or the image of Belus; therefore we agree with Klief. in his opinion, that the statue was a symbol of the world-power established by Nebuchadnezzar, so that falling down before it was a manifestation of reverence not only to the world-power, but also to its gods; and that therefore the Israelites could not fall down before the image, because in doing so they would have rendered homage at the same time also to the god or gods of Nebuchadnezzar, in the image of the world-power. But the idea of representing the world-power founded by him as a צלם  was probably suggested to Nebuchadnezzar by the tselem seen (Daniel 2) by him in a dream, whose head of gold his world-kingdom was described to him as being. We may not, however, with Klief., seek any sanction for the idea that the significance off the image is in its size, 6, 10, and six multiplied by ten cubits, because the symbolical significance of the number 6 as the signature of human activity, to which the divine completion (7) is wanting, is not a Babylonian idea. Still less can we, with Zündel (p. 13), explain the absence of Daniel on this occasion as arising from the political import of the statue, because the supposition of Daniel's not having been called to be present is a mere conjecture, and a very improbable conjecture; and the supposition that Daniel, as being chief of the Magi, would not be numbered among the secular officers of state, is decidedly erroneous.

Verses 2-7

Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the chief officers of the kingdom to be present at the solemn dedication of the image. שׁלח, he sent, viz., מלאכים or רצים messengers, 1Sa 11:7; 2Ch 30:6, 2Ch 30:10; Est 3:15. Of the great officers of state, seven classes are named: - 1. אחשׁדּרפּניּא, i.e., administrators of the Khshatra, in Old Pers. dominion, province, and pâvan in Zend., guardians, watchers, in Greek Σατράπης, the chief representatives of the king in the provinces. 2. סגניּא, Hebr. סגנים, from the Old Pers. (although not proved) çakana, to command (see under Dan 2:48), commanders, probably the military chiefs of the provinces. 3. פּחותא, Hebr. פּחה, פחות, also an Old Pers. word, whose etymon and meaning have not yet been established (see under Hag 1:1), denotes the presidents of the civil government, the guardians of the country; cf. Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14; Neh 5:14, Neh 5:18. 4. אדרגּזריּא, chief judges, from the Sem. גזר, to distinguish, and אדר, dignity (cf. אדרמּלך), properly, chief arbitrators, counsellors of the government. 5. גּדבריּא, a word of Aryan origin, from גּדבר, identical with גּזבּר, masters of the treasury, superintendents of the public treasury. 6. דּתבריּא, the Old Pers. dâta'-'bara, guardians of the law, lawyers (cf. דּת, law). 7. תּפתּיּא, Semitic, from Arab. fty IV to give a just sentence, thus judges in the narrower sense of the word. Finally, all שׁלטני, rulers, i.e., governors of provinces, prefects, who were subordinate to the chief governor, cf. Dan 2:48-49.
All these officers were summoned “to come (מתא from אתא, with the rejection of the initial )א to the dedication of the image.” The objection of v. Leng. and Hitz., that this call would “put a stop to the government of the country,” only shows their ignorance of the departments of the state-government, and by no means makes the narrative doubtful. The affairs of the state did not lie so exclusively in the hands of the presidents of the different branches of the government, as that their temporary absence should cause a suspension of all the affairs of government. חנכּה is used of the dedication of a house (Deu 20:5) as well as of the temple (1Ki 8:63; 2Ch 7:5; Ezr 6:16), and here undoubtedly denotes an act connected with religious usages, by means of which the image, when the great officers of the kingdom fell down before it, was solemnly consecrated as the symbol of the world-power and (in the heathen sense) of its divine glory. This act is described (Dan 3:3-7) in so far as the object contemplated rendered it necessary.
When all the great officers of state were assembled, a herald proclaimed that as soon as the sound of the music was heard, all who were present should, on pain of death by being cast into the fire, fall down before the image and offer homage to it; which they all did as soon as the signal was given. The form קאמין, Dan 3:3, corresponds to the sing. קאם (Dan 2:31) as it is written in Syr., but is read קימין. The Masoretes substitute for it in the Talm. The common form קימין; cf. Fürst, Lehrgb. der aram. Idiom. p. 161, and Luzzatto, Elem. Gram. p. 33. The expression לקבל, Dan 3:3, and Ezr 4:16, is founded on קבל, the semi-vowel of the preceding sound being absorbed, as in the Syr. lû-kebel. On כּרוזא, herald, and on the form לכון, see under Dan 2:5. אמרין, they say, for “it is said to you.” The expression of the passive by means of a plural form of the active used impersonally, either participially or by 3rd pers. perf. plur., is found in Hebr., but is quite common in Chald.; cf. Ewald, Lehr. d. hebr. Spr. §128, b, and Winer, Chald. Gram. §49, 3. The proclamation of the herald refers not only to the officers who were summoned to the festival, but to all who were present, since besides the officers there was certainly present a great crowd of people from all parts of the kingdom, as M. Geier has rightly remarked, so that the assembly consisted of persons of various races and languages. אמּיּא denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. אמּה, אמּות Gen 25:16, denotes the several tribes of Ishmael, and Num 25:15 the separate tribes of the Midianites, and is thus not so extensive in its import as עמּין, peoples. לשּׁניּא, corresponding to הלּשׁות, Isa 66:18, designates (vide Gen 10:5, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:31) communities of men of the same language, and is not a tautology, since the distinctions of nation and of language are in the course of history frequently found. The placing together of the three words denotes all nations, however they may have widely branched off into tribes with different languages, and expresses the sense that no one in the whole kingdom should be exempted from the command. It is a mode of expression (cf. Dan 3:7, Dan 3:29, 31[4:1], and Dan 6:26[25]) specially characterizing the pathetic style of the herald and the official language of the world-kingdom, which Daniel also (Dan 5:19; Dan 7:14) makes use of, and which from the latter passage is transferred to the Apocalypse, and by the union of these passages in Daniel with Isa 66:18 is increased to ἔθνη (גּוים in Isa.), φυλλαι,́ λαοὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι (Rev 5:9; Rev 7:9; Rev 13:7; Rev 14:6; Rev 17:15).
In the same passage זמנא בּהּ, Dan 3:7 (cf. also Dan 3:8), is interchanged with בּעדּנא, at the time (Dan 3:5 and Dan 3:15); but it is to be distinguished from בּהּ־שׁעתּא, at the same moment, Dan 3:6 and Dan 3:15; for שׁעא or שׁעה has in the Bib. Chald. only the meaning instant, moment, cf. Dan 4:16, Dan 4:30; Dan 5:5, and acquires the signification short time, hour, first in the Targ. and Rabbin. In the enumeration also of the six names of the musical instruments with the addition: and all kinds of music, the pompous language of the world-ruler and of the herald of his power is well expressed. Regarding the Greek names of three of these instruments see p. 507. The great delight of the Babylonians in music and stringed instruments appears from Isa 14:11 and Psa 137:3, and is confirmed by the testimony of Herod. i. 191, and Curtius, Dan 3:3. קרנא, horn, is the far-sounding tuba of the ancients, the קרן or שׁופר of the Hebr.; see under Jos 6:5. משׁרוקיתא, from שׁרק, to hiss, to whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the lxx and Theodot. σύριγξ, the shepherd's or Pan's pipes, which consisted of several reeds of different thicknesses and of different lengths bound together, and, according to a Greek tradition (Pollux, iv. 9, 15), was invented by two Medes. קיתתס (according to the Kethiv; but the Keri and the Targ. and Rabbin. give the form קתרס) is the Greek κιθάρα or κίθαρις, harp, for the Greek ending ις becomes ος in the Aramaic, as in many similar cases; cf. Ges.Thes. p. 1215. סבּכא, corresponding to the Greek σαμβύκη, but a Syrian invention, is, according to Athen. iv. p. 175, a four-stringed instrument, having a sharp, clear tone; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 935. פּסנמּרין (in Dan 3:7 written with a  טinstead of  תand in Dan 3:10 and Dan 3:15 pointed with a Tsere under the )ת is the Greek ψαλτήριον, of which the Greek ending ιον becomes abbreviated in the Aram. into ין  (cf. Ges. Thes. p. 1116). The word has no etymology in the Semitic. It was an instrument like a harp, which according to Augustin (on Psa 33:2 [32:2] and Psa 43:4 [42:4) was distinguished from the cithara in this particular, that while the strings of the cithara passed over the sounding-board, those of the psalterium (or organon) were placed under it. Such harps are found on Egyptian (see Rosellini) and also on Assyrian monuments (cf. Layard, Ninev. and Bab., Table xiii. 4). סוּמפּניה, in Dan 3:10 סיפניה, is not derived from ספן, contignare, but is the Aramaic form of συμφωνία, bag-pipes, which is called in Italy at the present day sampogna, and derives its Greek name from the accord of two pipes placed in the bag; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 941. זמרא signifies, not “song,” but musical playing, from reemaz, to play the strings, ψάλλειν; and because the music of the instrument was accompanied with song, it means also the song accompanying the music. The explanation of זמרא by singing stands here in opposition to the זני כּל, since all sorts of songs could only be sung after one another, but the herald speaks of the simultaneous rise of the sound. The limiting of the word also to the playing on a stringed instrument does not fit the context, inasmuch as wind instruments are also named. Plainly in the words זמרא זני כּל all the other instruments not particularly named are comprehended, so that זמרא is to be understood generally of playing on musical instruments. בּהּ־שׁעתּא, in the same instant. The frequent pleonastic use in the later Aramaic of the union of the preposition with a suffix anticipating the following noun, whereby the preposition is frequently repeated before the noun, as e.g., בּדּניּאל בּהּ, Dan 5:12, cf. Dan 5:30, has in the Bibl. Chald. generally a certain emphasis, for the pronominal suffix is manifestly used demonstratively, in the sense even this, even that.
Homage was commanded to be shown to the image under the pain of death to those who refused. Since “the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar was founded not by right, but by the might of conquest” (Klief.), and the homage which he commanded to be shown to the image was regarded not only as a proof of subjection under the power of the king, but comprehended in it also the recognition of his gods as the gods of the kingdom, instances of refusal were to be expected. In the demand of the king there was certainly a kind of religious oppression, but by no means, as Bleek, v. Leng., and other critics maintain, a religious persecution, as among heathen rulers Antiochus Epiphanes practised it. For so tolerant was heathenism, that it recognised the gods of the different nations; but all heathen kings required that the nations subdued by them should also recognise the gods of their kingdom, which they held to be more powerful than were the gods of the vanquished nations. A refusal to yield homage to the gods of the kingdom they regarded as an act of hostility against the kingdom and its monarch, while every one might at the same time honour his own national god. This acknowledgement, that the gods of the kingdom were the more powerful, every heathen could grant; and thus Nebuchadnezzar demanded nothing in a religious point of view which every one of his subjects could not yield. To him, therefore, the refusal of the Jews could not but appear as opposition to the greatness of his kingdom. But the Jews, or Israelites, could not do homage to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar without rejecting their faith that Jehovah alone was God, and that besides Him there were no gods. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar practised towards them, without, from his polytheistic standpoint, designing it, an intolerable religious coercion, which, whoever, is fundamentally different from the persecution of Judaism by Antiochus Epiphanes, who forbade the Jews on pain of death to serve their God, and endeavoured utterly to destroy the Jewish religion. - Regarding the structure of the fiery furnace, see under Dan 3:22.

Verses 8-12

The Chaldeans immediately denounced Daniel's three friends as transgressors of the king's command. דּנה כּל־קבל, therefore, viz., because the friends of Daniel who were placed over the province of Babylon had not, by falling down before the golden image, done it homage. That they did not do so is not expressly said, but is expressed in what follows. כּשׂדּאין גּברין are not Chaldeans as astrologers of magi (כּשׂדּים), but members of the Chaldean nation, in contrast to יהוּדיא, the Jews. קרבוּ, they came near to the king. דּי קרצי אכל, literally, to eat the flesh of any one, is in Aramaic the common expression for to calumniate, to denounce. That which was odious in their report was, that they used this instance of disobedience to the king's command on the part of the Jewish officers as an occasion of removing them from their offices, - that their denunciation of them arose from their envying the Jews their position of influence, as in Dan 6:5 (4)f. Therefore they give prominence to the fact that the king had raised these Jews to places of rule in the province of Babylon.
With this form of address in Dan 3:9, cf. Dan 2:4. טעם שׂים signifies in Dan 3:12 rationem reddere, to attend to, to have regard for. In Dan 3:10, as frequently, the expression signifies, on the contrary, to give an opinion, a judgment, i.e., to publish a command. The Keth. לאלהיך (Dan 3:12), for which the Keri prefers the sing. form לאלהך, in sound the same as the contracted plur., is to be maintained as correct; for the Keri here, as in Dan 3:18, supporting itself on לאלהי, Dan 3:14, rests on the idea that by the honouring of his god only the doing of homage to the image is meant, while the not doing homage to the image only gives proof of this, that they altogether refused to honour the gods of Nebuchadnezzar. This is placed in the foreground by the accusers, so as to arouse the indignation of the king. “These Chaldeans,” Hitz. remarks quite justly, “knew the three Jews, who were so placed as to be well known, and at the same time envied, before this. They had long known that they did not worship idols; but on this occasion, when their religion made it necessary for the Jews to disobey the king's command, they make use of their knowledge.”

Verse 13

That they succeeded in their object, Nebuchadnezzar shows in the command given in anger and fury to bring the rebels before him. היתיוּ, notwithstanding its likeness to the Hebr. Hiphil form התיוּ, Isa 21:14, is not the Hebraizing Aphel, but, as היתית, Dan 6:18, shows, is a Hebraizing passive from of the Aphel, since the active form is היתיו, Dan 5:3, and is a passive formation peculiar to the Bib. Chald, for which in the Targg. Ittaphal is used.The trial of the accused.

Verse 14

The question הצדא the old translators incorrectly explain by Is it true? In the justice of the accusation Nebuchadnezzar had no doubt whatever, and צדא has not this meaning. Also the meaning, scorn, which אּצדי in Aram. has, and L. de Dieu, Häv., and Kran. make use of, does not appear to be quite consistent, since Nebuchadnezzar, if he had seen in the refusal to do homage to the image a despising of his gods, then certainly he would not have publicly repeated his command, and afforded to the accused the possibility of escaping the threatened punishment, as he did (Dan 3:15). We therefore agree with Hitz. and Klief., who interpret it, after the Hebr. צדיּה, Num 35:20., of malicious resolution, not merely intention, according to Gesen., Winer, and others. For all the three could not unintentionally or accidentally have made themselves guilty of transgression. The form הצדא we regard as a noun form with  הinterrog. prefixed in adverbial cases, and not an Aphel formation: Scorning, Shadrach, etc., do ye not serve? (Kran.) The affirmative explanation of the verse, according to which the king would suppose the motive of the transgression as decided, does not agree with the alternative which (Dan 3:15) he places before the accused. But if הצדא is regarded as a question, there is no need for our supplying the conjunction דּי before the following verb, but we may unite the חצדא in one sentence with the following verb: “are ye of design ... not obeying?” Nebuchadnezzar speaks of his god in contrast to the God of the Jews.

Verse 15

Dan 3:15 עתידין taken with the following clause, תּפּלוּן ... דּי, is not a circumlocution for the future (according to Winer, Chald. Gram. §45, 2). This does not follow from the use of the simple future in contrast, but it retains its peculiar meaning ready. The conclusion to the first clause is omitted, because it is self-evident from the conclusion of the second, opposed passage: then ye will not be cast into the fiery furnace. Similar omissions are found in Exo 32:32; Luk 13:9. For the purpose of giving strength to his threatening, Nebuchadnezzar adds that no god would deliver them out of his hand. In this Hitz. is not justified in supposing there is included a blaspheming of Jehovah like that of Sennacherib, Isa 37:10. The case is different. Sennacherib raised his gods above Jehovah, the God of the Jews; Nebuchadnezzar only declares that deliverance out of the fiery furnace is a work which no god can accomplish, and in this he only indirectly likens the God of the Jews to the gods of the heathen.

Verse 16

In the answer of the accused, נבוּכדנצּר is not, contrary to the accent, to be placed in apposition to למלכּא; for, as Kran. has rightly remarked, an intentional omission of מלכּא in addressing Nebuchadnezzar is, after Dan 3:18, where מלכּא occurs in the address, as little likely as that the Athnach is placed under למלכּא only on account of the apposition going before, to separate from it the nomen propr.; and an error in the placing of the distinctivus, judging from the existing accuracy, is untenable. “The direct address of the king by his name plainly corresponds to the king's address to the three officers in the preceding words, Dan 3:14.” We are not to conclude from it, as Hitz. supposes, “that they address him as a plebeian,” but much rather, as in the corresponding address, Dan 3:14, are to see in it an evidence of the deep impression sought to be produced in the person concerned. פּתגּם is the accus., and is not to be connected with דּנה על: as to this command (Häv.). If the demonstrative were present only before the noun, then the noun must stand in the status absol. as Dan 4:15 (18). פּתגּם, from the Zend. paiti = πρός, and gâm, to go, properly, “the going to,” therefore message, edict, then generally word (as here) and matter (Ezr 6:11), as frequently in the Targ., corresponding to the Hebr. דּבר.

Verses 17-18

Dan 3:17-18 יכיל denotes the ethical ability, i.e., the ability limited by the divine holiness and righteousness, not the omnipotence of God as such. For this the accused did not doubt, nor will they place in question the divine omnipotence before the heathen king. The conclusion begins after the Athnach, and הן means, not see! lo! (according to the old versions and many interpreters), for which Daniel constantly uses אלוּ or ארו, but it means if, as here the contrast לא והן, and if not (Dan 3:18), demands. There lies in the answer, “If our God will save us, then ... and if not, know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods,” neither audacity, nor a superstitious expectation of some miracle (Dan 3:17), nor fanaticism (Dan 3:18), as Berth., v. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submission to the will of God. “The three simply see that their standpoint and that of the king are altogether different, also that their standpoint can never be clearly understood by Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore they give up any attempt to justify themselves. But that which was demanded of them they could not do, because it would have been altogether contrary to their faith and their conscience. And then without fanaticism they calmly decline to answer, and only say, 'Let him do according to his own will;' thus without superstitiousness committing their deliverance to God” (Klief.).

Verses 19-20

Dan 3:19-20The judgment pronounced on the accused, their punishment, and their miraculous deliverance.
After the decided refusal of the accused to worship his gods, Nebuchadnezzar changed his countenance toward them. Full of anger at such obstinacy, he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times greater than was usual (Dan 3:19), and that the rebels should be bound in their clothes by powerful men of his army, and then cast into the furnace (Dan 3:20, Dan 3:21). The form of his countenance changed, and his wrath showed itself in the lineaments of his face. The Kethiv אשׁתּנּו (plur.) refers to the genitive [אנפּוהי, plur., “of his countenances”] as the chief idea, and is not, after the Keri, to be changed into the sing. למזא for למאזא. On הד־שׁבעה, sevenfold, cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §59, 5. חזה דּי על, beyond that which was fit, i.e., which was necessary. Seven is used as expressive of an exceedingly great number, with reference to the religious meaning of the punishment.

Verse 21

Of the different parts of clothing named, סרבּלין are not hose, short stockings, from which Hitz. concludes that the enumeration proceeds from the inner to the outer clothing. This remark, correct in itself, proves nothing as to the covering for the legs. This meaning is given to the word only from the New Persian shalwâr, which in the Arabic is sarâwîl; cf. Haug in Ew.'s bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 162. But the word corresponds with the genuine Semitic word sirbal, which means tunica or indusium; cf. Ges. Thes.^[35] p. 970, and Heb. Lex. s. v. Accordingly, סרבּלין denotes under-clothing which would be worn next the body as our shirt. פּטישׁיהון, for which the Keri uses the form פּטשׁיהון, corresponding to the Syriac petšayhūn, is explained in the Hebr. translation of the Chald. portions of Daniel by כּתנת, tunica, and is derived from פשׁט, expandit (by the transposition of the second and third radicals). Thus the Syriac word is explained by Syr. lexicographers. Theodotion's translation, τιάραι, is probably only hit upon from the similarity of the sound of the Greek πέτασος, the covering for the head worn by the ἔφηβοι. כּרבּלן are mantles, from כּרבּל, R. כּבל, to bind, to lay around, with r intercalated, which occurs 1Ch 15:27 of the putting around or putting on of the מעיל (upper garment). לבוּשׁיהון are the other pieces of clothing (Aben Ezra and others), not mantles. For that לבוּשׁ was specially used of over-clothes (Hitz.) cannot be proved from Job 24:7 and 2Ki 10:22. We have here, then, the threefold clothing which, according to Herodotus, i. 195, the Babylonians wore, namely, the סרבּלין, the κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, the פּטישׁא worn above it, ἄλλον εἰρίνεον κιθῶνα, and the כּרבּלא thrown above that, χλανίδιον λευκόν; while under the word לבוּשׁיהון the other articles of clothing, coverings for the feet and the head, are to be understood.^[36]

The separate articles of clothing, consisting of easily inflammable material, are doubtlessly mentioned with reference to the miracle that followed, that even these remained unchanged (Dan 3:27) in the fiery furnace. In the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine κιθῶν ποδηνεκὴς λίνεος, we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes, and not, as Theodoret and most others think, in the haste with which the sentence against them was carried out.

Verses 22-23

Dan 3:22-23 דּי מן (because that), a further explanatory expression added to דּנה כּל־קבל (wholly for this cause): because the word of the king was sharp, and in consequence of it (ו), the furnace was heated beyond measure for that reason. The words אלּך גּבריּא (these mighty men) stand here in the status absol., and are again taken up in the pronoun המּון after the verb קטּל. If the three were brought up to the furnace, it must have had a mouth above, through which the victims could be cast into it. When heated to an ordinary degree, this could be done without danger to the men who performed this service; but in the present case the heat of the fire was so great, that the servants themselves perished by it. This circumstance also is mentioned to show the greatness of the miracle by which the three were preserved unhurt in the midst of the furnace. The same thing is intended by the repetition of the word מכפּתין, bound, Dan 3:23, which, moreover, is purposely placed at the close of the passage to prepare for the contrast שׁרין, at liberty, free from the bonds, Dan 3:25.^[37]

Verses 24-27

The king, who sat watching the issue of the matter, looked through the door into the furnace, and observed that the three who had been cast into it bound, walked about freed from their bonds and unhurt; and, in truth, he saw not the three only, but also a fourth, “like to a son of the gods,” beside them. At this sight he was astonished and terrified. He hastily stood up; and having assured himself by a consultation with his counsellors that three men had indeed been cast bound into the furnace, while he saw four walking in the midst of it, he approached the mouth of the furnace and cried to the three to come forth. They immediately came out, and were inspected by the assembled officers of state, and found to be wholly uninjured as to their bodies, their clothes being unharmed also, and without even the smell of fire upon them. הדּברין refers, without doubt, to the officers of the kingdom, ministers or counselors of state standing very near the king, since they are named in Dan 3:27 and Daniel 6:8 (Dan 6:7) along with the first three ranks of officers, and (Dan 4:23 [26]) during Nebuchadnezzar's madness they conducted the affairs of government. The literal meaning of the word, however, is not quite obvious. Its derivation from the Chald. דּברין, duces, with the Hebr. article (Gesen.), which can only be supported by מדברא, Pro 11:14 (Targ.), is decidedly opposed by the absence of all analogies of the blending into one word of the article with a noun in the Semitic language. The Alkoran offers no corresponding analogues, since this word with the article is found only in the more modern dialects. But the meaning which P. v. Bohlen (Symbolae ad interp. s. Codicis ex ling. pers. p. 26) has sought from the Persian word which is translated by simul judex, i.e.,socius in judicio, is opposed not only by the fact that the compensation of the Mim by the Dagesch, but also the composition and the meaning, has very little probability.
The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance, i.e., as commanding veneration, to a son of the gods, i.e., to one of the race of the gods. In Dan 3:28 the same personage is called an angel of God, Nebuchadnezzar there following the religious conceptions of the Jews, in consequence of the conversation which no doubt he had with the three who were saved. Here, on the other hand, he speaks in the spirit and meaning of the Babylonian doctrine of the gods, according to the theogonic representation of the συζυγία of the gods peculiar to all Oriental religions, whose existence among the Babylonians the female divinity Mylitta associated with Bel places beyond a doubt; cf. Hgst. Beitr. i. p. 159, and Häv., Kran., and Klief. in loc.
Acting on this assumption, which did not call in question the deliverance of the accused by the miraculous interposition of the Deity, Nebuchadnezzar approached the door of the furnace and cried to the three men to come out, addressing them as the servants (worshippers) of the most high God. This address does not go beyond the circle of heathen ideas. He does not call the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego the only true God, but only the most high God, the chief of the gods, just as the Greeks called their Zeus ὁ ὕψιστος θεός. The Kethiv עלּיא (in Syr. ̀elāyā̀, to preserve) is here and everywhere in Daniel (v. 32; Dan 4:14, Dan 4:21, etc.) pointed by the Masoretes according to the form עילאה (with )ה prevailing in the Targg. The forms גשׁם, גּשׁמא, are peculiar to Daniel (v. 27f., Dan 4:30; Dan 5:21; Dan 7:11). The Targg. have גּוּשׁמא instead of it.

Verse 28

Dan 3:28The impression made by this event on Nebuchadnezzar.
The marvellous deliverance of the three from the flames of the furnace produced such an impression on Nebuchadnezzar, that he changed his earlier and humbler judgment (Dan 3:15) regarding the God of the Jews, and spoke now in praise of the might of this God. For at the same time he not only openly announced that He had saved (Dan 3:28) His servants, but also by an edict, issued to all the peoples of his kingdom, he forbade on pain of death the doing of any dishonour to the God of the Jews (Dan 3:29). Nebuchadnezzar, however, did not turn to the true God. He neither acknowledged Jehovah as the only, or the alone true God, nor did he command Him to be worshipped. He only declared Him to be a God who is able to save His servants as no other could, and merely forbade the despising and reviling of this God. Whoever speaks שׁלה, that which is erroneous or unjust, against the God of Shadrach, etc., shall be put to death. שׁלה, from שׁלה, to err, to commit a fault, is changed in the Keri into שׁלוּ, which occurs in Dan 6:5 and Ezr 4:22, and in the Targg.; but without sufficient ground, since with other words both forms are found together, e.g., ארמלא, vidua, with ארמלוּ, viduitas. According to this, שׁלוּ in abstr. means the error; שׁלה in concr., the erroneous. Hitz. finds the command partly too narrow, partly quite unsuitable, because an error, a simple oversight, should find pardon as soon as possible. But the distinction between a fault arising from mistake and one arising from a bad intention does not accord with the edict of an Oriental despot, which must be in decided terms, so that there may be no room in cases of transgression for an appeal to a mere oversight. Still less importance is to be attached to the objection that the carrying out of the command may have had its difficulties. but by such difficulties the historical character of the narrative is not brought under suspicion. As the Chaldeans in this case had watched the Jews and accused them of disobedience, so also could the Jews scattered throughout the kingdom bring before the tribunal the heathen who blasphemed their God.

Verses 29-30

Regarding the collocation of the words עם אמּה ו, see under Dan 3:4; and regarding the Nymid'fha and the threatened punishment, see under Dan 2:5. כּדּנה we regard, with the lxx, Theodot., Vulg., and old interpreters, as a fem. adverbial: οὕτως, ita, as it occurs in Dan 2:10; Ezr 5:7, and Jer 10:11. The interpreting it as masculine, as this God, does not correspond with the heathen consciousness of God, to which a God perceptible by sight was more appropriate than a God invisible (Kran.). The history concludes (Dan 3:30) with the remark that Nebuchadnezzar now regarded the three men with the greatest favour. In what way he manifested his regard for them is not stated, inasmuch as this is not necessary to the object of the narrative. הצלח with ל, to give to any one happiness, prosperity, to cause him to be fortunate.
If we attentively consider the import of this narrative in its bearing on the history of the kingdom of God, we learn how the true worshippers of the Lord under the dominion of the world-power could and would come into difficulties, imperilling life, between the demands of the lords of this world and the duties they owe to God. But we also learn, that if in these circumstances they remain faithful to their God, they will in a wonderful manner be protected by Him; while He will reveal His omnipotence so gloriously, that even the heathen world-rulers will be constrained to recognise their God and to give Him glory. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and His Madness - Daniel 4:1-37 (Hebrew_Bible_3:31-4:34)
This section (Daniel 4) is in the form of a proclamation by king Nebuchadnezzar to all the peoples of his kingdom, informing them of a wonderful event in which the living God of heaven made Himself known as the ruler over the kingdoms of men. After a short introduction (Daniel 3:31-4:2 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:1-3]]]) the king makes known to his subjects, that amid the peaceful prosperity of his life he had dreamed a dream which filled him with disquietude, and which the wise men of Babylon could not interpret, until Daniel came, who was able to do so (Daniel 4:1-5 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:4-8]]]). In his dream he saw a great tree, with vast branches and bearing much fruit, which reached up to heaven, under which beasts and birds found a lodging, shelter, and food. Then a holy watcher came down from heaven and commanded the tree to be cut down, so that its roots only remained in the earth, but bound with iron and brass, till seven times shall pass, so that men may know the power of the Most High over the kingdoms of men (vv. 6-15 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:9-18]]]). Daniel interpreted to him this dream, that the tree represented the king himself, regarding whom it was resolved by Heaven that he should be driven forth from men and should live among the beasts till seven times should pass, and he should know that the Highest rules over the kingdoms of men (vv. 16-24 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:19-27]]]). After twelve months this dream began to be fulfilled, and Nebuchadnezzar fell into a state of madness, and became like a beast of the field (vv. 25-30 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:28-33]]]). But after the lapse of the appointed time his understanding returned to him, whereupon he was again restored to his kingdom and became exceeding great, and now praised and honoured the King of heaven (vv. 31-34 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:34-37]]]).
If the preceding history teaches how the Almighty God wonderfully protects His true worshippers against the enmity of the world-power, this narrative may be regarded as an actual confirmation of the truth that this same God can so humble the rulers of the world, if in presumptuous pride they boast of their might, as to constrain them to recognise Him as the Lord over the kings of the earth. Although this narrative contains no miracle contrary to the course of nature, but only records a divine judgment, bringing Nebuchadnezzar for a time into a state of madness, - a judgment announced beforehand in a dream, and happening according to the prediction, - yet Bleek, v. Leng., Hitz., and others have rejected its historical veracity, and have explained it as only an invention by which the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel threatens the haughty Antiochus Epiphanes with the vengeance of Heaven, which shall compel him to recognise One higher than himself, namely, the God of Israel. A proof of this assertion of theirs they find in the form of the narrative. The proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar to all the nations of his kingdom, in which the matter is set forth, shows, in its introduction and its close, greater familiarity with biblical thoughts than one would have expected in Nebuchadnezzar. The doxologies, Daniel 3:33 (Dan 4:3) and Daniel 4:31 (Dan 4:34), agree almost literally with Psa 145:13; and in the praise of the omnipotence and of the infinite majesty of God, Daniel 4:32 (Dan 4:35), the echoes of Isa 40:17; Isa 43:13, Isa 43:24, Isa 43:21 cannot fail to be recognised. The circumstance that in vv. 25-30 (Dan 4:28-33) Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in the third person, appears to warrant also the opinion that the writing was composed by some other person than by the king. But the use of the third person by Nebuchadnezzar in the verses named is fully explained from the contents of the passage (see Exposition), and neither justifies the conclusion that the author was a different person from the king, nor the supposition of Häv. that the vv. 26-30 (Dan 4:29-33) are a passage parenthetically added by Daniel to the brief declaration of the edict, v. 25 (Dan 4:28), for the purpose of explaining it and making the matter better understood by posterity. The circumstance that v. 31 (Dan 4:34) refers to the statement of time in v. 26 (Dan 4:29), and that the royal proclamation would be incomplete without vv. 26-30 (Dan 4:29-33), leads to the opposite conclusion. The existence of these biblical thoughts, however, even though not sufficiently explained by the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar had heard these thoughts and words in a conference on the matter with Daniel, and had appropriated them to himself, cannot be adduced against the genuineness of the edict, but only shows this much, that in the composition of it Nebuchadnezzar had made use of the pen of Daniel, whereby the praise of God received a fuller expression than Nebuchadnezzar would have given to it. For in the whole narrative of the event the peculiar heathen conceptions of the Chaldean king so naturally present themselves before us, that beyond question we read the very words used by Nebuchadnezzar himself.
Then it has been found in the highest degree strange that Nebuchadnezzar himself should have published to his people an account of his madness, instead of doing all to make this sad history forgotten. But, notwithstanding that the views of the ancients regarding madness were different from ours, we must say, with Klief. and others, on the contrary, that “publicity in such a case was better than concealment; the matter, besides, being certainly known, could not be made either better or worse by being made public. Nebuchadnezzar wishes to publish, not his madness, but the help which God had imparted to him; and that he did this openly does honour indeed to his magnanimous character.”
But the principal argument against the historical veracity of the occurrence is derived from the consideration that no mention is anywhere else made of he seven years' madness, an event which certainly could not but introduce very important changes and complications into the Babylonian kingdom. It is true that the Hebrew history does not at all refer to the later years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, though it extends, Jer 52:31, to a period later than these times, and should, without doubt, give as much prominence to such a divine judgment against this enemy as to the fate of Sennacherib (2Ki 19:37) (Hitz.). But the brief notice, Jer 52:31, that king Jehoiachin, thirty-seven years after his deportation, was delivered from prison by Evilmerodach when he became king, afforded no opportunity to speak of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, which for a time rendered him incapable of conducting the affairs of government, but did not cause his death. And the reference to the murder of Sennacherib proves nothing regarding it, because, according to the view of Jeremiah and the biblical historians, Nebuchadnezzar occupied an altogether different relation to the theocracy from that of Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar appeared not as an arch-enemy, but as the servant of Jehovah he executed the will of God against the sinful kingdom of Judah; Sennacherib, on the contrary, in daring insolence derided the God of Israel, and was punished for this by the annihilation of his host, and afterwards murdered by his own son, while Nebuchadnezzar was cured of his madness.
But when the opponents of the genuineness moreover argue that even the Chaldean historian Berosus can have announced nothing at all regarding Nebuchadnezzar's madness, since Josephus, and Origen, and Jerome, who were well-versed in books, could find nothing in any author which pointed to such an event, it is to be replied, in the first place, that the representations of seven years' duration of the madness, and of the serious complications which this malady must have brought on the Babylonian kingdom, are mere frivolous suppositions of the modern critics; for the text limits the duration of the malady only to seven times, by which we may understand seven months as well as seven years. The complications in the affairs of the kingdom were, moreover, prevented by an interim government. Then Hgstb. (Beitr. i. p. 101ff.), Häv., Del., and others, have rightly shown that not a single historical work of that period is extant, in which one could expect to find fuller information regarding the disease of Nebuchadnezzar, which is certainly very significant in sacred history, but which in no respect had any influence on the Babylonian kingdom. Herodotus, the father of history, did not know Nebuchadnezzar even by name, and seems to have had no information of his great exploits - e.g., of his great and important victory over the Egyptian host as Carchemish. Josephus names altogether only six authors in whose works mention is made of Nebuchadnezzar. But four of these authorities - viz.: The Annals of the Phoenicians, Philostratus, author of a Phoenician history, Megasthenes, and Diocles - are not here to be taken into account, because the first two contain only what relates to Phoenicia, the conquest of the land, and the siege of Tyre, the capital; while the other two, Megsth. in his Indian history, and Diocles in his Persian history, speak only quite incidentally of Nebuchadnezzar. There remain then, besides, only Berosus and Abydenus who have recorded the Chaldean history. But of Berosus, a priest of Belus at Babylon in the time of Alexander the Great, who had examined many and ancient documents, and is justly acknowledged to be a trustworthy historian, we possess only certain poor fragments of his Χαλδαι”κά quoted in the writings of Josephus, Eusebius, and later authors, no one of whom had read and extracted from the work of Berosus itself. Not only Eusebius, but, as M. v. Niebuhr has conclusively proved, Josephus also derived his account from Berosus only through the remains of the original preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, a “tumultuous worker,” whose abstract has no great security for accuracy, and still less for integrity, although he has not purposely falsified anything; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, Gesh. Assurs, p. 12f. Abydenus lived much later. He wrote apparently after Josephus, since the latter has made no use of him, and thus he was not so near the original sources as Berosus, and was, moreover, to judge of his fragments which are preserved by Eusebius and Syncellus, not so capable of making use of them, although one cannot pass sentence against the trustworthiness of the peculiar sources used by him, since the notices formed from them, notwithstanding their independent on Berosus, agree well with his statements; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, p. 15f.
But if Josephus did not himself read the work of Berosus, but only reported what he found in the extracts by Polyhistor, we need not wonder though he found nothing regarding Nebuchadnezzar's madness. And yet Josephus has preserved to us a notice from Berosus which points to the unusual malady by which Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted before his death, in the words, “Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the fore-mentioned wall, fell sick and departed this life, when he had reigned forty-three years” (contra Apion, i. 20). In these words lies more than the simple remark, that Nebuchadnezzar, as is wont to happen to the most of men, died after an illness going before, and not suddenly, as Berth., Hitz., and others wish to interpret it. Berosus uses a formula of this kind in speaking neither of Nabonedus nor of Neriglissor, who both died, not suddenly, but a natural death. He remarks only, however, of Nebuchadnezzar's father: “Now it so fell out that he (his father Nabopolassar) fell into a distemper at this time, and died in the city of Babylon,” because he had before stated regarding him, that on account of the infirmity of old age he had committed to his son the carrying on of the war against Egypt; and hence the words, “at that time he fell into a distemper,” or the distemper which led to his death, acquire a particular significance.^[38]
If, accordingly, the “falling sick” pointed to an unusual affliction upon Nebuchadnezzar, so also the fact that Berosus adds to the statement of the distemper the account of his death, while on the contrary, according to this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar again recovered and reigned still longer, does not oppose the reference of the “distemper” to the king's madness; for according to Berosus, as well as according to Daniel, the malady fell upon Nebuchadnezzar in the later period of his reign, after he had not only carried on wars for the founding and establishment of his world-kingdom, but had also, for the most part at least, finished his splendid buildings. After his recovery down to the time of his death, he carried forward no other great work, regarding which Berosus is able to give any communication; it therefore only remained for him to mention the fact of his death, along with the statement of the duration of his reign. No one is able, therefore, to conclude from his summary statement, that Nebuchadnezzar died very soon after his recovery from the madness.
A yet more distinct trace of the event narrated in this chapter is found in Abydenus, in the fragments preserved by Euseb. in the Praepar. evang. ix. 41, and in the Chronic. Armen. ed. Aucher, i. p. 59, wherein Abydenus announces as a Chaldee tradition (λέγεται πρὸς Χαλδαίων), that Nebuchadnezzar, after the ending of his war in the farther west, mounted his royal tower, i.e., to the flat roof, and, there seized by some god (κατασχεθείη θεῷ ὅτεω δὴ), he oracularly (θεσπίσαι) announced to the Babylonians their inevitable subjugation by the Πέρσης ἡμίονος united with the Medes, who would be helped by their own Babylonian gods. He prayed that the Persian might be destroyed in the abyss of the sea, or condemned to wander about in a desert wilderness, inhabited only by wild beasts; and for himself he wished a peaceful death before these misfortunes should fall on the Chaldean empire. Immediately after this utterance Nebuchadnezzar was snatched away from the sight of men (παραχρῆμα ἠφάνιστο). In this Chaldean tradition Eusebius has recognised^[39] a disfigured tradition of this history; and even Bertholdt will not “deny that this strange saying is in its main parts identical with our Aramaic record.” On the other hand, Hitz. knows nothing else to bring forward than that “the statement sounds so fabulous, that no historical substance can be discovered in it.” But the historical substance lies in the occurrence which Daniel relates. As, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar was on the roof of his palace when he was suddenly struck by God with madness, so also according to Abydenus he was ὡς ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὰ βασιλήΐα when seized by some god, or possessed. Here not only the time and the place of the occurrence agree, but also the circumstance that the king's being seized or bound was effected by some god, i.e., not by his own, but by a strange god. Not the less striking is the harmony in the curse which he prayed might fall on the Persian - "May he wander in the wilderness where no cities are, no human footstep, where wild beasts feed and the birds wander” - with the description of the abode of the king in his madness in Dan 5:21 : “And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; and they fed him with grass like oxen.” Moreover, though the designation of the Persian as ἡμίονος in Abyd. may not be formed from the ערדין of Daniel, but derived from old oracles regarding Cyrus diffused throughout the East, as Häv. (N. Krit. Unters. p. 53, under reference to Herod. i. 55, 91) regards as probable, then the harmony of the Chaldean tradition in Abyd. with the narrative in Daniel leaves no doubt that the fact announced by Daniel lies at the foundation of that tradition, but so changed as to be adapted to the mythic glorification of the hero who was celebrated, of whom Megasthenes says that he excelled Hercules in boldness and courage ( ̔Ηρακλέως ἀλκιμώτερον γεγονότα, in Euseb. Praep. ev. l.c.).
To represent the king's state of morbid psychical bondage and want of freedom as his being moved by God with the spirit of prophecy was natural, from the resemblance which the mantic inspiration in the gestures of the ecstasy showed to the μανία (cf. The combination of וּמתנבּא משׁגּה אישׁ, Jer 29:26; 2Ki 9:11); and in the madness which for a time withdrew the founder of the world-kingdom from the exercise of his sovereignty there might appear as not very remote to the Chaldeans, families with the study of portents and prodigies as pointing out the fate of men and of nations, an omen of the future overthrow of the world-power founded by him. As the powerful monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar was transferred to the Πέρσης ἡμίονος not a full generation (25-26 years) after the death of its founder, it might appear conformable to the national vanity of the Chaldeans to give the interpretation to the ominous experience of the great king, that the celebrated hero himself before his death - θεῷ ὅτεω δὴ κατάσχετος - had prophesied its fall, and had imprecated on the destroyer great evil, but had wished for himself a happy death before these disasters should come.
But even if there were no such traditional references to the occurrence mentioned in this chapter, yet would the supposition of its invention be excluded by its nature. Although it could be prophesied to Antiochus as an  ̓Επιμανής (madman) that he would wholly lose his understanding, yet there remains, as even Hitz. is constrained to confess, the choice of just this form of the madness, the insania zoanthropica, a mystery in the solution of which even the acuteness of this critic is put to shame; so that he resorts to the foolish conjecture that the Maccabean Jew had fabricated the history out of the name נבוכדנצר, since נבוך means oberravit cum perturbatione, and כדן, to bind, fasten, while the representation of the king as a tree is derived from the passages Isa 14:12; Eze 31:3. To this is to be added the fact, that the tendency attributed to the narrative does not at all fit the circumstances of the Maccabean times. With the general remark that the author wished to hold up as in a mirror before the eyes of Antiochus Epiphanes to what results haughty presumption against the Most High will lead, and how necessary it is penitentially to recognise His power and glory if he would not at length fall a victim to the severest judgments (Bleek), the object of the invention of so peculiar a malady becomes quite inconceivable. Hitzig therefore seeks to explain the tendency more particularly. “The transgressor Nebuchadnezzar, who for his haughtiness is punished with madness, is the type of that arrogant  ̓Επιμανής, who also sought unsuitable society, as king degraded himself (Polyb. xxvi. 10), and yet had lately given forth a circular-letter of an altogether different character (1 Macc. 1:41ff.).” “If in v. 28 (Dan 4:31) the loss of the kingdom is placed before the view of Nebuchadnezzar (Antiochus Epiphanes), the passage appears to have been composed at a time when the Maccabees had already taken up arms, and gained the superiority (1 Macc. 2:42-48).” According to this, we must suppose that the author of this book, at a time when the Jews who adhered to their religion, under the leadership of Mattathias, marched throughout the land to put an end by the force of arms to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, had proposed to the cruel king the full restoration of his supremacy and the willing subjection of the Jews under his government, on the condition that he should recognise the omnipotence of their God. But how does such a proposal of peace agree with the war of the Jews led by Mattathias against the πׂδψσ, against the heathen and transgressors, whose horn (power) they suffer not to prosper (1 Macc. 2:47, 48)? How with the passionate address of the dying Mattathias, “Fear ye not the words of a sinful man (ἀνδρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ, i.e., Antiochus), for his glory shall be dung and worms” (v. 62)? And wherein then consists the resemblance between the Nebuchadnezzar of his chapter and Antiochus Epiphanes? - the latter, a despot who cherished a deadly hatred against the Jews who withstood him; the former, a prince who showed his good-will toward the Jews in the person of Daniel, who was held in high esteem by him. Or is Nebuchadnezzar, in the fact that he gloried in the erection of the great Babylon as the seat of his kingdom, and in that he was exhorted by Daniel to show compassion toward the poor and the oppressed (v. 24 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:27]]]), a type of Antiochus, “who sought improper society, and as king denied himself,” i.e., according to Polybius as quoted by Hitzig, delighted in fellowship with the lower classes of society, and spent much treasure amongst the poor handicraftsmen with whom he consorted? Or is there seen in the circular-letter of Antiochus, “that in his whole kingdom all should be one people, and each must give up his own laws,” any motive for the fabrication of the proclamation in which Nebuchadnezzar relates to all his people the signs and wonders which the most high God had done to him, and for which he praised the God of heaven?
And if we fix our attention, finally, on the relation of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, shall that prophet as the counsellor of the heathen king, who in true affection uttered the wish that the dream might be to them that hated him, and the interpretation thereof to his enemies (v. 16 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:19]]]), be regarded as a pattern to the Maccabees sacrificing all for the sake of their God, who wished for their deadly enemy Antiochus that his glory might sink into “dung and the worms?” Is it at all conceivable that a Maccabean Jew, zealous for the law of his fathers, could imagine that the celebrated ancient prophet Daniel would cherish so benevolent a wish toward the heathen Nebuchadnezzar, in order that by such an invention he might animate his contemporaries to stedfast perseverance in war against the ruthless tyrant Antiochus?
This total difference between the facts recorded in this chapter and the circumstances of the Maccabean times described in 1 Macc. 2:42-48, as Kranichfeld has fully shown, precludes any one, as he has correctly observed, “from speaking of a tendency delineated according to the original of the Maccabean times in the name of an exegesis favourable to historical investigation.” The efforts of a hostile criticism will never succeed on scientific grounds in changing the historical matters of fact recorded in this chapter into a fiction constructed with a tendency.

Chap. 4

Verses 1-3

Dan 4:1-3 (Hebrew_Bible_3:31-33) These verses form the introduction^[40] to the manifesto, and consist of the expression of good wishes, and the announcement of its object. The mode of address here used, accompanied by an expression of a good wish, is the usual form also of the edicts promulgated by the Persian kings; cf. Ezr 4:17; Ezr 7:12. Regarding the designation of his subjects, cf. Dan 3:4. בּכל-ארעא, not “in all lands” (Häv.), but on the whole earth, for Nebuchadnezzar regarded himself as the lord of the whole earth. ותמהיּא אתיּא corresponds with the Hebr. וּמפתים אותת; cf. Deu 6:22; Deu 7:19. The experience of this miracle leads to the offering up of praise to God, Dan 4:33 (Daniel 4:3). The doxology of the second part of Dan 4:33 occurs again with little variation in Daniel 4:31 (Dan 4:34), Dan 7:14, Dan 7:18, and is met with also in Psa 145:13, which bears the name of David; while the rendering of עם־דּר , from generation to generation, i.e., as long as generations exist, agrees with Psa 72:5.

Verse 4

Dan 4:4 (Hebrew_Bible_4:1)
With Daniel 4:1 (v. 4) Nebuchadnezzar begins the narration of his wonderful experience. When he was at rest in his palace and prospering, he had a dream as he lay upon his bed which made him afraid and perplexed. שׁלה, quiet, in undisturbed, secure prosperity. רענן, properly growing green, of the fresh, vigorous growth of a tree, to which the happiness and prosperity of men are often compared; e.g., in Ps. 52:10 (8), Psa 92:12 (10). Here plainly the word is chosen with reference to the tree which had been seen in the dream. From this description of his prosperity it appears that after his victories Nebuchadnezzar enjoyed the fruit of his exploits, was firmly established on his throne, and, as appears from v. 26 (Dan 4:29)f., a year after his dream could look with pleasure and pride on the completion of his splendid buildings in Babylon; and therefore this event belongs to the last half of his reign.

Verse 5

Dan 4:5 (Hebrew_Bible_4:2)
While in this state of security and peace, he was alarmed by a dream. The abrupt manner in which the matter is here introduced well illustrates the unexpected suddenness of the even itself. הרהרין, thoughts, from הרהר, to think, to meditate; in the Mishna and in Syr. images of the imagination; here, images in a dream. The words משׁכּבי על הרהרין are more properly taken as a passage by themselves with the verb, I had (I saw), supplied, than connected with the following noun to יבהלנּני. Regarding ראשׁי חזוי see under Dan 2:28. On this matter Chr. B. Michaelis has well remarked: ”Licet somnii interpretationem nondum intelligeret, tamen sensit, infortunium sibi isthoc somnio portendi.”

Verses 6-9

Dan 4:6-9 (Hebrew_Bible_4:3-6)
Therefore Nebuchadnezzar commanded the wise men of Babylon (Dan 2:2) to be called to him, that they might interpret to him the dream. But they could not do so, although on this occasion he only asked them to give the interpretation, and not, as in Dan 2:2, at the same time the dream itself. Instead of the Kethiv עללין, the Keri here and at Dan 5:8 gives the contracted form עלּין, which became possible only by the shortening of , as in חשׁחן Dan 3:16. The form אחרין is differently explained; apparently it must be the plur. masc. instead of אחרן, and אחרין עד, to the last, a circumlocution of the adverb at last. That אחרין means posterus, and אחרן alius, Hitzig has not yet furnished the proof. The question, wherefore Daniel came only when the Chaldean wise men could not interpret the dream, is not answered satisfactorily by the remark of Zündel, p. 16, that it was the natural course that first they should be called who by virtue of their wisdom should interpret the dream, and that then, after their wisdom had failed, Daniel should be called, who had gained for himself a name by revelations not proceeding from the class of the Magi. For if Nebuchadnezzar had still the events of Daniel 2 in view, he would without doubt have called him forthwith, since it certainly did not come into his mind, in his anxiety on account of his dream, first to try the natural wisdom of his Magi. The objection offered by Hitzig, that the king does not go at once to his chief magician, v. 6 (Dan 4:9), who had already (Daniel 2) shown himself to be the best interpreter of dreams, is not thereby confuted; still less is it by the answer that the custom was not immediately to call the president of the Magi (Jahn), or that in the haste he was not at once thought of (Häv.). Though it may have been the custom not to call the chief president in every particular case, yet a dream by the king, which had filled him with terror, was an altogether unusual occurrence. If Daniel, therefore, was in this case first called only when the natural wisdom of the Magi had proved its inadequacy, the reason of this was, either that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten what had occurred several years before (Daniel 2), and since the chief president of the wise men was only in special cases called on for counsel, therefore only the incorporated cultivators of the magician's art were called, and only when these could not accomplish that which was asked of them was the chief president Daniel required to come, - or it lay in this, that the king, afraid of receiving an unwelcome answer, purposely adopted the course indicated. Kranichfeld has decided in favour of this latter supposition. “The king,” he thinks, “knew from the dream itself that the tree (v. 8 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:11]]]) reaching unto heaven and extending to the end of the whole earth represented a royal person ruling the earth, who could come to ruin on account of the God of the Jews, and would remain in his ruin till there was an acknowledgment of the Almighty; cf. vv. 13, 14, (Dan 4:16, Dan 4:17). There was this reason for the king's keeping Daniel the Jew at a distance from this matter of the dream. Without doubt he would think himself intended by the person concerned in the dream; and since the special direction which the dream took (Dan 4:14) set forth as its natural point of departure an actual relation corresponding to that of the king to the God of Daniel, it must have occasioned to him a well-grounded fear (cf. Dan 4:24), as in the case of Ahab, the idolater, towards Micah, the prophet of Jehovah (cf. 1Ki 22:8), of a severe judgment, leading him to treat with any other regarding his matter rather than with Daniel.” For the establishment of this view Kranichfeld refers to the “king's subsequent address to Daniel, designed especially to appease and captivate (vv. 5, 6 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:8]], Dan 4:9]), as well as the visibly mild and gentle deportment of the king toward the worshipper of the God of the Jews.” This proceeding tending to captivate appears in the appellation, Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god; for Nebuchadnezzar, by the addition of a name of honour in commemoration of the celebrated god of the kingdom, intended to show favour toward him, as also in the expression which follows, In whom is the spirit of the holy gods, which Nebuchadnezzar repeats in the address. But neither in the one nor the other of these considerations can we perceive the intention of specially captivating and appeasing the Jew Daniel; - not in the latter of these expressions, for two reasons: 1. because Nebuchadnezzar uses the expression not merely in the address to Daniel, but also in the references to him which go before; had he designed it to captivate him, he would have used these words of honour only in the address to him; 2. because the expression, “in whom is the spirit of the holy gods,” is so truly heathenish, that the Jew, who knew only one God, could not feel himself specially flattered by having the spirit of the holy gods ascribed to him.
If Nebuchadnezzar had had the intention of gaining the favour of Daniel, he would certainly, according to his confession (Dan 2:47), have attributed to him the spirit of the God of gods, the Lord of lords, - a confession which even as a heathen he could utter. We cannot give the king so little credit for understanding as to suppose that he meant to show^[41] a special favour to Daniel, who held so firmly the confession of his father's God, by reminding him that he had given him the name Belteshazzar after the name of his god Bel, whom the Jews abhorred as an idol. Thus the reminding him of this name, as well as the saying that he possessed the spirit of the holy gods, is not accounted for by supposing that he intended to appease and captivate Daniel. In showing the unsatisfactoriness of this interpretation of these expressions, we have set aside also the explanation of the reason, which is based upon it, why Daniel was called in to the king only after the Chaldean wise men; and other weighty considerations can also be adduced against it. First, the edict contains certainly nothing which can give room to the conjecture that Nebuchadnezzar entertained no true confidence, but much rather want of confidence, in him. The comparison of Nebuchadnezzar also with king Ahab in his conduct toward the prophet Micah is not suitable, because Ahab was not a mere polytheist as Nebuchadnezzar, but much rather, like Antiochus Epiphanes, persecuted the servants of Jehovah in his kingdom, and at the instigation of his heathenish wife Jezebel wished to make the worship of Baal the only religion of his kingdom. Finally, the relation of the dream does not indicate that Nebuchadnezzar, if he knew or suspected that the dream referred to himself as ruler over the whole earth, thought that he would come to ruin because of the God of the Jews. For that this does not follow from v. 14 (Dan 4:17), is shown not only by the divine visitation that happened to the king, as mentioned in v. 27 (Dan 4:30) in fulfilment of the dream, but also by the exhortation to the king with which Daniel closes the interpretation, “to break off sin by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor” (v. 24 [v. 27]).
Thus there only remains this supposition, that the former revelations of God to the king had passed away from his heart and his memory; which was not surprising in the successful founder and ruler of a world-kingdom, if we consider that from twenty-five to thirty years must have passed away since Daniel interpreted to him his dream in the second year of his reign, and from ten to fifteen had passed since the miracle of the deliverance of the three from the burning fiery furnace. But if those earlier revelations of God were obscured in his heart by the fulness of his prosperity, and for ten years Daniel had no occasion to show himself to him as a revealer of divine secrets, then it is not difficult to conceive how, amid the state of disquietude into which the dream recorded in this chapter had brought him, he only gave the command to summon all the wise men of Babylon without expressly mentioning their president, so that they came to him first, and Daniel was called only when the natural wisdom of the Chaldeans had shown itself helpless.
The naming of Daniel by his Hebrew name in the manifesto, intended for all the people of the kingdom as well as for the Jews, is simply intended, as in Dan 2:29, to designate the interpreter of the dream, as distinguished from the native wise men of Babylon, as a Jew, and at the same time as a worshipper of the most high God; and by the addition, “whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god,” Nebuchadnezzar intends to indicate that Daniel by this name was brought into fellowship with his chief god Bel, and that not only as a worshipper of the God of the Jews, but also of the great god Bel, he had become a partaker of the spirit of the holy gods. But by the holy gods Nebuchadnezzar does not understand Jehovah, the Holy One, deriving this predicate “holy,” as M. Geier says, ex theologia Israëlitica, and the plur. “gods” denoting, as Calovius supposes, the mysterium pluralitatis personarum; but he speaks of the holy gods, as Jerome, Calvin, and Grotius supposed, as a heathen (ut idololatra) in a polytheistic sense. For that the revelation of supernatural secrets belonged to the gods, and that the man who had this power must possess the spirit of the gods, all the heathen acknowledged. Thus Pharaoh (Gen 41:38) judged regarding Joseph, and thus also the Chaldeans say to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:11) that only the gods could know his dream. The truth lying at the foundation of this belief was acknowledged by Joseph before Pharaoh, as also by Daniel before the Chaldean king, for both of them declared before the heathen kings that the interpretation of their dreams was not in the power of man, but could come only from God (Gen 41:16; Dan 2:28). But when in the case before us Nebuchadnezzar speaks of the holy gods, he means by the expression the ἀγαθοδαίμονες as opposed to the κακοδαίμονες, using the word holy of the good gods, probably from his conversation with Daniel on the subject.
In the address, Dan 4:6, he calls Belteshazzar חרטמּיּא רב, master of the magicians, probably from the special branch of Chaldean wisdom with which Daniel was particularly conversant, at the same time that he was chief president over all the magicians. אנס, to oppress, to compel any one, to do violence to him; here, to make trouble, difficulty.

Verses 10-11

Dan 4:10-11 (Hebrew_Bible_4:7-8)
Nebuchadnezzar in these verses tells his dream. The first part of v. 10 is an absolute nominal sentence: the visions of my head lying upon my bed, then I saw, etc. - A tree stood in the midst of the earth. Although already very high, yet it became always the greater and the stronger, so that it reached eve unto heaven and was visible to the ends of the earth. V. 11. The perf. רבה and תּקיף express not its condition, but its increasing greatness and strength. In the second hemistich the imperf. ימטא, as the form of the striving movement, corresponds to them. Daniel B. Michaelis properly remarks, that Nebuchadnezzar saw the tree gradually grow and become always the stronger. חזות, the sight, visibleness. Its visibility reached unto the ends of the earth. The lxx have correctly ἡ ὅρασις αὑτοῦ; so the Vulgate; while Theodotion, with τὸ κύτος αὐτοῦ, gives merely the sense, its largeness, or dome. Hitzig altogether improperly refers to the Arab. ḥawzah; for ḥwzh, from ḥwz, corresponds neither with the Hebr. חזה, nor does it mean extent, but comprehension, embracing, enclosure, according to which the meanings, tractus, latus, regio, given in the Arab. Lex., are to be estimated.

Verse 12

Dan 4:12 (Hebrew_Bible_4:9)
At the same time the tree abounded with leaves and fruit, so that birds and beasts found shadow, protection, and nourishment from it. שׁגיא, neither great nor many, but powerful, expressing the quantity and the greatness of the fruit. The בּהּ the Masoretes have rightly connected with לכלּא, to which it is joined by Maqqeph. The meaning is not: food was in it, the tree had food for all (Häv., Maur., and others), but: (it had) food for all in it, i.e., dwelling within its district (Kran., Klief.). The words, besides, do not form an independent sentence, but are only a further view of the שׁגיא (Kran.), and return in the end of the verse into further expansion, while the first and the second clauses of the second hemistich give the further expansion of the first clause in the verse. אטלל, umbram captavit, enjoyed the shadow; in Targg. The Aphel has for the most part the meaning obumbravit. The Kethiv ידרוּן is not to be changed, since the צפּרין is gen. comm. The Keri is conform to Dan 4:18, where the word is construed as fem. The expression all flesh comprehends the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, but is chosen with reference to men represented under this image. For the tree, mighty, reaching even to the heavens, and visible over the whole earth, is an easily recognised symbol of a world-ruler whose power stretches itself over the whole earth. The description of the growth and of the greatness of the tree reminds us of the delineation of Pharaoh and his power under the figure of a mighty cedar of Lebanon, cf. Eze 31:3., also Eze 17:22., Eze 19:10. The comparison of the growth of men to the growth of the trees is every frequent in biblical and other writings.

Verse 13

Dan 4:13 (Hebrew_Bible_4:10)
By the words “I saw,” etc., a new incident of the dream is introduced. “A watcher and an holy one came down from heaven.” וקדּישׁ with the explic. ,ו even, and that too, brings it before us in a very expressive way that the עיר was an “holy one.” עיר is not to be combined with ציר, a messenger, but is derived from עוּר, to watch, and corresponds with the Hebr. ער, Sol 5:2; Mal 2:12, and signifies not keeping watch, but being watchful, one who is awake, as the scholium to the εἴρ of Theodotion in the Cod. Alex. explains it: ἐγρήγορος καὶ ἄγρυπνος. Similarly Jerome remarks: “significat angelos, quod semper vigilent et ad Dei imperium sint parati.” From this place is derived the name of ἐγρήγορος for the higher angels, who watch and slumber not, which is found in the book of Enoch and in other apocryphal writings, where it is used of good and of bad angels or demons. The designation of the angel as עיר is peculiar to this passage in the O.T. This gives countenance to the conjecture that it is a word associated with the Chaldee doctrine of the gods. Kliefoth quite justly, indeed, remarks, that this designation does not come merely from the lips of Nebuchadnezzar, but is uttered also by the holy watcher himself (Dan 4:14), as well as by Daniel; and he draws thence the conclusion, that obviously the holy watcher himself used this expression first of himself and the whole council of his companions, that Nebuchadnezzar used the same expression after him (Dan 4:10), and that Daniel again adopted it from Nebuchadnezzar. Thence it follows that by the word angel we are not to understand a heathen deity; for as certainly as, according to this narrative, the dream was given to Nebuchadnezzar by God, so certainly was it a messenger of God who brought it. But from this it is not to be concluded that the name accords with the religious conceptions of Nebuchadnezzar and of the Babylonians. Regarding the Babylonian gods Diod. Sic. ii. 30, says: “Under the five planets (= gods) are ranked thirty others whom they call the counselling gods (θεοὶ βούλαιοι), the half of whom have the oversight of the regions under the earth, and the other half oversee that which goes on on the earth, and among men, and in heaven. Every ten days one of these is sent as a messenger of the stars from the upper to the lower, and at the same time also one from the lower to the upper regions.”
If, according to Dan 4:14, the עירין constitute a deliberative council forming a resolution regarding the fate of men, and then one of these עירין comes down and makes known the resolution to the king, the conclusion is tenable that the עירין correspond to the θεοὶ βούλαιοι of the Babylonians. The divine inspiration of the dream corresponds with this idea. The correct thought lay at the foundation of the Chaldean representation of the θεοὶ βούλαιοι, that the relation of God to the world was mediate through the instrumentality of heavenly beings. The biblical revelation recognises these mediating beings, and calls them messengers of God, or angels and holy ones. Yea, the Scripture speaks of the assembling of angels before the throne of God, in which assemblies God forms resolutions regarding the fate of men which the angels carry into execution; cf. Job 1:6., 1Ki 22:19., Psa 89:8 (7). Accordingly, if Nebuchadnezzar's dream came from God, we can regard the עיר as an angel of God who belonged to the קדשׁים סוד around the throne of God (Psa 89:8). But this angel announced himself to the Chaldean king not as a messenger of the most high God, not as an angel in the sense of Scripture, but he speaks (Psa 89:14) of עירין גּזרת, of a resolution of the watchers, a fatum of the θεοὶ βούλαιοι who have the oversight of this world. The conception עירין גּזרת is not biblical, but Babylonian heathen. According to the doctrine of Scripture, the angels do not determine the fate of men, but God alone does, around whom the angels stand as ministering spirits to fulfil His commands and make known His counsel to men. The angel designates to the Babylonian king the divine resolution regarding that judgment which would fall upon him from God to humble him for his pride as “the resolution of the watchers,” that it might be announced to him in the way most easily understood by him as a divine judgment. On the other hand, one may not object that a messenger of God cannot give himself the name of a heathen deity, and that if Nebuchadnezzar had through misunderstanding given to the bringer of the dream the name of one of his heathen gods, Daniel ought, in interpreting the dream, to have corrected the misunderstanding, as Klief. says. For the messenger of God obviated this misunderstanding by the explanation that the matter was a decree of the watchers, to acknowledge the living God, that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever He will (Dan 4:17), whereby he distinctly enough announces himself as a messenger of the Most High, i.e., of the living God. To go yet further, and to instruct the king that his religious conceptions of the gods, the עירין, or θεοὶ βούλαιοι, were erroneous, inasmuch as, besides the Highest, the only God, there are no other gods, but only angels, who are no θεοί, but creatures of God, was not at all necessary fore the purpose of his message. This purpose was only to lead Nebuchadnezzar to an acknowledgment of the Most High, i.e., to an acknowledgment that the Most High rules as King of heaven over the kingdom of men. Now, since this was declared by the messenger of God, Daniel in interpreting the dream to the king needed to say nothing more than what he said in vv. 21, 22 (24, 25), where he designates the matter as a resolution of the Most High, and thereby indirectly corrects the view of the king regarding the “resolutions of the watchers,” and gives the king distinctly to understand that the humiliation announced to him was determined,^[42] not by the θεοὶ βούλαιοι of the Babylonians, but by the only true God, whom Daniel and his people worshipped. For Nebuchadnezzar designates עיר as קדּישׁ in the same sense in which, in Dan 4:5, he speaks of the holy gods.

Verses 14-15

Dan 4:14-15 (Hebrew_Bible_4:11-12)
The messenger of God cried with might (cf. Dan 3:4), “as a sign of the strong, firm utterance of a purpose” (Kran.). The command, Hew it down, is not given to the angels (Häv., Hitz., Auberl.). The plur. here is to be regarded as impersonal: the tree shall be cut down. אתּרוּ stands for אתּרוּ according to the analogy of the verbs 3rd gutt., from נתד, to fall off, spoken of withering leaves. In consequence of the destruction of the tree, the beasts which found shelter under it and among its branches flee away. Yet the tree shall not be altogether destroyed, but its stock (v. 12 15) shall remain in the earth, that it may again afterwards spring up and grow into a tree. The stem is not the royalty, the dynasty which shall remain in the house of Nebuchadnezzar (Häv.), but the tree with its roots is Nebuchadnezzar, who shall as king be cut down, but shall as a man remain, and again shall grow into a king. But the stock must be bound “with a band of iron and brass.” With these words, to complete which we must supply שׁבקוּ from the preceding context, the language passes from the type to the person represented by it. This transition is in the last part of the verse: with the beasts of the field let him have his portion in the grass of the earth; for this cannot be said of the stock with the roots, therefore these words are in the interpretation also (Dan 4:22 [25]) applied directly to Nebuchadnezzar. But even in the preceding passages this transition is not doubtful. Neither the words in the grass of the field, nor the being wet with the dew of heaven, are suitable as applied to the stock of the tree, because both expressions in that case would affirm nothing; still less is the band of iron and brass congruous, for the trunk of a tree is not wont to be surrounded with bands of iron in order to prevent its being rent in pieces and completely destroyed. Thus the words refer certainly to Nebuchadnezzar; but the fastening in brass and iron is not, with Jerome and others, to be understood of the binding of the madman with chains, but figuratively or spiritually of the withdrawal of free self-determination through the fetter of madness; cf. The fetters of affliction, Psa 107:10; Job 36:8. With this fettering also agrees the going forth under the open heaven among the grass of the field, and the being wet with the dew of heaven, without our needing thereby to think of the maniac as wandering about without any oversight over him.

Verse 16

Dan 4:16 (Hebrew_Bible_4:13)
Here the angel declares by what means Nebuchadnezzar shall be brought into this condition. His heart shall be changed from a man's heart, according to the following passage, into the heart of a beast. מן שׁנּא, to change, to make different from, so that it is no longer what it was. The Kethiv אנושׁא is the Hebr. form for the Chald. אנששׁא of the Keri, here, as in v. 14, where along with it also stands the Hebr. plur. form אנשׁים. אנושׁא stands here for the abbreviated comparison frequent in Hebr., אנושׁא מן לבב, and the 3rd pers. plur. ישׁנּון impers. for the passive. לבב is the heart, the centre of the intelligent soul-life. The heart of man is dehumanized when his soul becomes like that of a beast; for the difference between the heart of a man and that of a beast has its foundation in the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a beast (Delitzsch, bibl. Psych. p. 252). And seven times shall pass over him, viz., during the continuance of the circumstances described; i.e., his condition of bondage shall last for seven times. Following the example of the lxx and of Josephus, many ancient and recent interpreters, down to Maur., Hitz., and Kran., understood by the word עדּנין years, because the times in Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7, are also years, and because in Dan 4:29 mention is made of twelve months, and thereby the time is defined as one year. But from Dan 4:29 the duration of the עדּנין cannot at all be concluded, and in Dan 7:25 and Dan 12:7 the times are not years. עדּן designates generally a definite period of time, whose length or duration may be very different. Seven is the “measure and signature of the history of the development of the kingdom of God, and of all the factors and phenomena significant for it” (Lämmert's “Revision of the biblical Symbolical Numbers” in the Jahrbb.f. deutsche Theol. ix. p. 11); or as Leyrer, in Herzog's Realencykl. xviii. p. 366, expresses himself, “the signature for all the actions of God, in judgment and in mercy, punishments, expiations, consecrations, blessings, connected with the economy of redemption, perfecting themselves in time.” Accordingly, “seven times” is the duration of the divine punishment which was decreed against Nebuchadnezzar for purposes connected with the history of redemption. Whether these times are to be understood as years, months, or weeks, is not said, and cannot at all be determined. The supposition that they were seven years “cannot well be adopted in opposition to the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar was again restored to reason, a thing which very rarely occurs after so long a continuance of psychical disease” (J. B. Friedreich, Zur Bibel. Naturhist., anthrop. u. med. Fragmente, i. p. 316).

Verse 17

Dan 4:17 (Hebrew_Bible_4:14)
The divine messenger concludes his announcement with the words that the matter was unchangeably decreed, for this purpose, that men might be led to recognise the supremacy of the Most High over the kings of the earth. The first two passages have no verb, and thus the verb. substant. must be supplied. Accordingly we must not translate: by the decree of the watchers is the message, i.e., is it delivered (Kran.), nor: the decree is included in the fate, the unalterable will of Heaven (Häv.); but  בdenotes the department within which the גּזרה lies, and is to be translated: “the message consists in, or rests on, the decree of the watchers.” גּזרה, the unchangeable decision, the decretum divinum, quod homini aut rebus humanis tanquam inevitabile impositum est (Buxtorf's Lex. talm. rabb. p. 419), the Fatum in which the Chaldeans believed. Regarding פּתגּם see under Dan 3:16. Here the fundamental meaning, the message, that which is to happen, can be maintained. The second member is synonymous, and affirms the same thing in another way. The word, the utterance of the holy ones, i.e., the watchers (see under Dan 4:13), is שׁאלתּא, the matter. The meaning lying in the etymon, request or question, is not here suitable, but only the derivative meaning, matter as the object of the request or inquiry. The thing meant is that which is decided regarding the tree, that it should be cut down, etc. This is so clear, that a pronoun referring to it appears superfluous. דּי דּברת עד, till the matter that ... to the end that; not = דּי עד, Dan 4:25, because here no defining of time goes before. The changing of עד into על (Hitz.) is unnecessary and arbitrary. That the living may know, etc. The expression is general, because it is not yet said who is to be understood by the tree which should be cut down. This general expression is in reality correct; for the king comes by experience to this knowledge, and so all will attain to it who consider this. The two last passages of Dan 4:14 express more fully how the Most High manifests His supremacy over the kingdom of men. The Kethiv עליה is shortened from עליהא, and in the Keri is yet further shortened by the rejection of the ;י cf. Dan 5:21; Dan 7:4., etc.

Verse 18

Dan 4:18 (Hebrew_Bible_4:15)
Nebuchadnezzar adds to his communication of his dream a command to Daniel to interpret it. The form פּשׁרא (its interpretation) is the old orthography and the softened form for פּשׁרהּ (cf. Dan 4:6).

Verses 19-27

Dan 4:19-27 (Hebrew_Bible_4:16-24)The interpretation of the dream.
As Daniel at once understood the interpretation of the dream, he was for a moment so astonished that he could not speak for terror at the thoughts which moved his soul. This amazement seized him because he wished well to the king, and yet he must now announce to him a weighty judgment from God.
Daniel 4:19 (Hebrew_Bible_4:16)
The punctuation אשׁתּומם for אשׁתּומם is Syriac, as in Hebrew_Bible_8:27; cf. Winer's Chald. Gram. §25, 2. חדא  כּשׁעהmeans, not about an hour (Mich., Hitz., Kran., etc.), but as it were an instant, a moment. Regarding שׁעה, see under Dan 3:6. The king perceives the astonishment of Daniel, and remarks that he has found the interpretation. Therefore he asks him, with friendly address, to tell him it without reserve. Daniel then communicates it in words of affectionate interest for the welfare of the king. The words, let the dream be to thine enemies, etc., do not mean: it is a dream, a prophecy, such as the enemies of the king might ungraciously wish (Klief.), but: may the dream with its interpretation be to thine enemies, may it be fulfilled to them or refer to them (Häv., Hitz., etc.). The Kethiv מראי is the regular formation from מרא with the suffix, for which the Masoretes have substituted the later Talmudic-Targ. form מר. With regard to שׂנאיך with the a shortened, as also השׁחין (Dan 3:16) and other participial forms, cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §34, III. That Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:16) in his account speaks in the third person does not justify the conclusion, either that another spake of him, and that thus the document is not genuine (Hitz.), nor yet the conclusion that this verse includes an historical notice introduced as an interpolation into the document; for similar forms of expression are often found in such documents: cf. Ezr 7:13-15; Est 8:7-8.
Daniel 4:20 (Hebrew_Bible_4:17)
Daniel interprets to the king his dream, repeating only here and there in an abbreviated form the substance of it in the same words, and then declares its reference to the king. With vv. Hebrew_Bible_17 (Dan 4:20) and Hebrew_Bible_18  (Dan 4:21) cf. vv. Hebrew_Bible_8 (Dan 4:11) and Hebrew_Bible_9 (Dan 4:12). The fuller description of the tree is subordinated to the relative clause, which thou hast seen, so that the subject is connected by הוּא (Dan 4:19), representing the verb. subst., according to rule, with the predicate אילנא. The interpretation of the separate statements regarding the tree is also subordinated in the relative clauses to the subject. For the Kethiv רבית = רביתּ, the Keri gives the shortened form רבת, with the elision of the third radical, analogous to the shortening of the following מטת for מטת. To the call of the angel to “cut down the tree,” etc. (Dan 4:20, cf. Dan 4:10-13), Daniel gives the interpretation, Dan 4:24, “This is the decree of the Most High which is come upon the king, that he shall be driven from men, and dwell among the beasts,” etc. על מטא = Hebr. על בּוא. The indefinite plur. form טרדין stands instead of the passive, as the following לך יטעמוּן and מצבּעין, cf. under Dan 3:4. Thus the subject remains altogether indefinite, and one has neither to think on men who will drive him from their society, etc., nor of angels, of whom, perhaps, the expulsion of the king may be predicated, but scarcely the feeding on grass and being wet with dew.
Daniel 4:26 (Hebrew_Bible_4:23)
In this verse the emblem and its interpretation are simply placed together, so that we must in thought repeat the פשׁרא דּנה from Dan 4:12 before מלכוּתך. קיּמא, קאם do not in this place mean to stand, to exist, to remain, for this does not agree with the following דּי-nim; for until Nebuchadnezzar comes to the knowledge of the supremacy of God, his dominion shall not continue, but rest, be withdrawn. קוּם, to rise up, has here an inchoative meaning, again rise up. To שׁלּיטין (do rule) there is to be added from Hebrew_Bible_4:22 (Dan 4:25) the clause, over the kingdom of men. From this passage we have an explanation of the use of שׁמיּא, heaven, for עלּיא, the Most High, God of heaven, whence afterwards arose the use of βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν for βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Daniel 4:27 (Hebrew_Bible_4:24)
Daniel adds to his interpretation of the dream the warning to the king to break off his sins by righteousness and mercy, so that his tranquillity may be lengthened. Daniel knew nothing of a heathen Fatum, but he knew that the judgments of God were directed against men according to their conduct, and that punishment threatened could only be averted by repentance; cf. Jer 18:7.; Jon 3:5.; Isa 38:1. This way of turning aside the threatened judgment stood open also for Nebuchadnezzar, particularly as the time of the fulfilment of the dream was not fixed, and thus a space was left for repentance. The counsel of Daniel is interpreted by Berth., Hitz., and others, after Theodotion, the Vulgate, and many Church Fathers and Rabbis, as teaching the doctrine of holiness by works held by the later Jews, for they translate it: redeem thy sins by well-doing (Hitz.: buy freedom from thy sins by alms), and thy transgressions by showing mercy to the poor.^[43]
But this translation of the first passage is verbally false; for פּרק does not mean to redeem, to ransom, and צדקה does not mean alms or charity. פּרק means to break off, to break in pieces, hence to separate, to disjoin, to put at a distance; see under Gen. 21:40. And though in the Targg. פרק is used for גּאל, פּדה, to loosen, to unbind, of redeeming, ransoming of the first-born, an inheritance or any other valuable possession, yet this use of the word by no means accords with sins as the object, because sins are not goods which one redeems or ransoms so as to retain them for his own use. חטי פּרק can only mean to throw away sins, to set one's self free from sins. צדקה nowhere in the O.T. means well-doing or alms. This meaning the self-righteous Rabbis first gave to the word in their writings. Daniel recommends the king to practise righteousness as the chief virtue of a ruler in contrast to the unrighteousness of the despots, as Hgstb., Häv., Hofm., and Klief. have justly observed. To this also the second member of the verse corresponds. As the king should practise righteousness toward all his subjects, so should he exercise mercy toward the oppressed, the miserable, the poor. Both of these virtues are frequently named together, e.g., Isa 11:4; Psa 72:4; Isa 41:2, as virtues of the Messiah. חטייך is the plur. of חטי, as the parallel עויּתך shows, and the Keri only the later abbreviation or defective suffix-formation, as Dan 2:4; Dan 5:10.
The last clause of this verse is altogether misunderstood by Theodotion, who translates it ἴσως ἔσται μακρόθυμος τοῖς παραπτώμασιν σου ὁ Θεός, and by the Vulgate, where it is rendered by forsitan ignoscet delictis tuis, and by many older interpreters, where they expound ארכּא in the sense of ארך אפּים, patience, and derive שׁלותך from שׁלה, to fail, to go astray (cf. Dan 3:29). ארכּא means continuance, or length of time, as Dan 7:12; שׁלוא, rest, safety, as the Hebr. שׁלוה, here the peaceful prosperity of life; and הן, neither ecce nor forsitan, si forte, but simply if, as always in the book of Daniel.
Daniel places before the king, as the condition of the continuance of prosperity of life, and thereby implicite of the averting of the threatened punishment, reformation of life, the giving up of injustice and cruelty towards the poor, and the practice of righteousness and mercy.

Verses 28-33

Dan 4:28-33 (Hebrew_Bible_4:25-30)The fulfilling of the dream.
Nebuchadnezzar narrates the fulfilment of the dream altogether objectively, so that he speaks of himself in the third person. Berth., Hitz., and others find here that the author falls out of the role of the king into the narrative tone, and thus betrays the fact that some other than the king framed the edict. But this conclusion is opposed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar from v. 31 speaks of his recovery again in the first person. Thus it is beyond doubt that the change of person has its reason in the matter itself. Certainly it could not be in this that Nebuchadnezzar thought it unbecoming to speak in his own person of his madness; for if he had had so tender a regard for his own person, he would not have published the whole occurrence in a manifesto addressed to his subjects. But the reason of his speaking of his madness in the third person, as if some other one were narrating it, lies simply in this, that in that condition he was not Ich = Ego (Kliefoth). With the return of the Ich, I, on the recovery from his madness, Nebuchadnezzar begins again to narrate in the first person (v. 31 34).
Daniel 4:28 (Hebrew_Bible_4:25)
In this verse there is a brief comprehensive statement regarding the fulfilment of the dream to the king, which is then extended from v. 26 to 30. At the end of twelve months, i.e., after the expiry of twelve months from the time of the dream, the king betook himself to his palace at Babylon, i.e., to the flat roof of the palace; cf. 2Sa 11:2. The addition at Babylon does not indicate that the king was then living at a distance from Babylon, as Berth., v. Leng., Maur., and others imagine, but is altogether suitable to the matter, because Nebuchadnezzar certainly had palaces outside of Babylon, but it is made with special reference to the language of the king which follows regarding the greatness of Babylon. ענה means here not simply to begin to speak, but properly to answer, and suggests to us a foregoing colloquy of the king with himself in his own mind. Whether one may conclude from that, in connection with the statement of time, after twelve months, that Nebuchadnezzar, exactly one year after he had received the important dream, was actively engaging himself regarding that dream, must remain undetermined, and can be of no use to a psychological explanation of the occurrence of the dream. The thoughts which Nebuchadnezzar expresses in v. 26 (Dan 4:29) are not favourable to such a supposition. Had the king remembered that dream and its interpretation, he would scarcely have spoken so proudly of his splendid city which he had built as he does in v. Hebrew_Bible_27 (Dan 4:30).
When he surveyed the great and magnificent city from the top of his palace, “pride overcame him,” so that he dedicated the building of this great city as the house of his kingdom to the might of his power and the honour of his majesty. From the addition רבּתא it does not follow that this predicate was a standing Epitheton ornans of Babylon, as with חמת , Amo 6:2, and other towns of Asia; for although Pausanias and Strabo call Babylon μεγάλη and μεγίστη πόλις, yet it bears this designation as a surname in no ancient author. But in Rev 14:8 this predicate, quoted from the passage before us, is given to Babylon, and in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar it quite corresponds to the self-praise of his great might by which he had built Babylon as the residence of a great king. בּנה designates, as בּנה more frequently, not the building or founding of a city, for the founding of Babylon took place in the earliest times after the Flood (Gen 11), ), and was dedicated to the god Belus, or the mythic Semiramis, i.e., in the pre-historic time; but בּנה means the building up, the enlargement, the adorning of the city מלכוּ לבּית, for the house of the kingdom, i.e., for a royal residence; cf. The related expression ממלכה בּית, Amo 7:13. בּית stands in this connection neither for town nor for היכל (Dan 4:29), but has the meaning dwelling-place. The royalty of the Babylonian kingdom has its dwelling-place, its seat, in Babylon, the capital of the kingdom.
With reference to the great buildings of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, vide the statements of Berosus in Josephi Ant. x. 11, 1, and con. Ap. i. 19, and of Abydenus in Eusebii praepar. evang. ix. 41, and Chron. i. p. 59; also the delineation of these buildings in Duncker's Gesch. des Alterth. i. p. 854ff. The presumption of this language appears in the words, “by the strength of my might, and for the splendour (honour) of my majesty.” Thus Nebuchadnezzar describes himself as the creator of his kingdom and of its glory, while the building up of his capital as a residence bearing witness to his glory and his might pointed at the same time to the duration of his dynasty. This proud utterance is immediately followed by his humiliation by the omnipotent God. A voice fell from heaven. נפל as in Isa 9:7, of the sudden coming of a divine revelation. אמרין for the passive, as Dan 3:4. The perf. עדּת denotes the matter as finished. At the moment when Nebuchadnezzar heard in his soul the voice from heaven, the prophecy begins to be fulfilled, the king becomes deranged, and is deprived of his royalty.
Daniel 4: 32-33 (Hebrew_Bible_4: 29-30)
Here the contents of the prophecy, v. Hebrew_Bible_22 (v. 25), are repeated, and then in v. Hebrew_Bible_30 (v. 33) it is stated that the word regarding Nebuchadnezzar immediately began to be fulfilled. On שׁעתא בהּ, cf. Dan 3:6. ספת, from סוּף, to go to an end. The prophecy goes to an end when it is realized, is fulfilled. The fulfilling is related in the words of the prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar is driven from among men, viz., by his madness, in which he fled from intercourse with men, and lived under the open air of heaven as a beast among the beasts, eating grass like the cattle; and his person was so neglected, that his hair became like the eagles' fathers and his nails like birds' claws. כּנשׁרין and כּצפּרין are abbreviated comparisons; vide under Dan 4:16. That this condition was a peculiar appearance of the madness is expressly mentioned in v. Hebrew_Bible_31 (Dan 4:34), where the recovery is designated as the restoration of his understanding.
This malady, in which men regard themselves as beasts and imitate their manner of life, is called insania zoanthropica, or, in the case of those who think themselves wolves, lycanthropia. The condition is described in a manner true to nature. Even “as to the eating of grass,” as G. Rösch, in the Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xv. p. 521, remarks, “there is nothing to perplex or that needs to be explained. It is a circumstance that has occurred in recent times, as e.g., in the case of a woman in the Württemberg asylum for the insane.” Historical documents regarding this form of madness have been collected by Trusen in his Sitten, Gebr. u. Krank. der alten Hebräer, p. 205f., 2nd ed., and by Friedreich in Zur Bibel, i. p. 308f.^[44]

Verses 34-37

Dan 4:34-37 (Hebrew_Bible_4:31-34)Nebuchadnezzar's recovery, his restoration to his kingdom, and his thankful recognition of the Lord in heaven.
The second part of the prophecy was also fulfilled. “At the end of the days,” i.e., after the expiry of the seven times, Nebuchadnezzar lifted up his eyes to heaven, - the first sign of the return of human consciousness, from which, however, we are not to conclude, with Hitzig, that before this, in his madness, he went on all-fours like an ox. Nebuchadnezzar means in these words only to say that his first thought was a look to heaven, whence help came to him; cf. Psa 123:1. Then his understanding immediately returned to him. The first thought he entertained was to thank God, to praise Him as the ever-living One, and to recognise the eternity of His sway. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges and praises God as the “ever-living One,” because He had again given to him his life, which had been lost in his madness; cf. Daniel 6:27 (Hebrew_Bible_6:26).
Daniel 4:31b (Hebrew_Bible_4:34) cf. with Hebrew_Bible_3:33 (Dan 4:1). The eternity of the supremacy of God includes His omnipotence as opposed to the weakness of the inhabitants of earth. This eternity Nebuchadnezzar praises in v. Hebrew_Bible_32 (v. 35) in words which remind us of the expressions of Isaiah; cf. with the first half of the verse, Isa 40:17; Isa 24:21; and with the second half of it, Isa 43:13. כּלה for כּלא, as not, as not existing. מחא בידהּ in the Pa., to strike on the hand, to hinder, derived from the custom of striking children on the hand in chastising them. The expression is common in the Targg. and in the Arabic.
Daniel 4:33 (Hebrew_Bible_4:36)
With the restoration of his understanding Nebuchadnezzar also regained his royal dignity and his throne. In order to intimate the inward connection between the return of reason and the restoration to his sovereignty, in this verse the first element of his restoration is repeated from v. 31 (Dan 4:34), and the second follows in connection with it in the simple manner of Semitic narrative, for which we in German (and English) use the closer connection: “when my understanding returned, then also my royal state and my glory returned.” The passage beginning with וליקר is construed very differently by interpreters. Many co-ordinate מל ליקר with וזיוי מדרי, and then regard ליקר either as the nominative, “and then my kingly greatness, my glory and splendour, came to me again” (Hitzig), or unite וזיוי מדרי as the genitive with מלכוּתי: “and for the honour of my royalty, of my fame and my glory, it (my understanding) returned to me again” (v. Leng., Maur., Klief.). The first of these interpretations is grammatically inadmissible, since ל cannot be a sign of the genitive; the other is unnecessarily artificial. We agree with Rosenmüller and Kranichfeld in regarding וזיוי מדרי as the subject of the passage. הדר [splendour, pomp] is the majestic appearance of the prince, which according to Oriental modes of conception showed itself in splendid dress; cf. Psa 110:3; Psa 29:2; Psa 96:9; 2Ch 20:21. זיו, splendour (Dan 2:31), is the shining colour or freshness of the appearance, which is lost by terror, anxiety, or illness, as in Dan 5:6, Dan 5:9-10; Dan 7:28. ליקר as in Dan 4:27. In how far the return of the external dignified habitus was conducive to the honour of royalty, the king most fully shows in the second half of the verse, where he says that his counsellors again established him in his kingdom. The בּעא, to seek, does not naturally indicate that the king was suffered, during the period of his insanity, to wander about in the fields and forests without any supervision, as Bertholdt and Hitzig think; but it denotes the seeking for one towards whom a commission has to be discharged, as Dan 2:13; thus, here, the seeking in order that they might transfer to him again the government. The “counsellors and great men” are those who had carried on the government during his insanity. התקנת, on account of the accent. distinct., is Hophal pointed with Patach instead of Tsere, as the following הוּספת. If Nebuchadnezzar, after his restoration to the kingdom, attained to yet more רבוּ, greatness, than he had before, so he must have reigned yet a considerable time without our needing to suppose that he accomplished also great deeds.
Daniel 4:34 (Hebrew_Bible_4:37)
The manifesto closes with praise to God, the King of heaven, whose works are truth and righteousness, which show themselves in humbling the proud. קשׁוט corresponds to the Hebr. אמת, and דּין to the Hebr. משׁפּט. Nebuchadnezzar thus recognised the humiliation which he had experienced as a righteous punishment for his pride, without, however, being mindful of the divine grace which had been shown in mercy toward him; whence Calvin has drawn the conclusion that he was not brought to true heart-repentance.

Belshazzar's Feast and the Handwriting of God

The Chaldean king Belshazzar made a feast to his chief officers, at which in drunken arrogance, by a desecration of the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from the temple at Jerusalem, he derided the God of Israel (Dan 5:1-4). Then he suddenly saw the finger of a hand writing on the wall of the guest-chamber, at which he was agitated by violent terror, and commanded that the wise men should be sent for, that they might read and interpret to him the writing; and when they were not able to do this, he became pale with alarm (Dan 5:5-9). Then the queen informed him of Daniel, who would be able to interpret the writing (Dan 5:10-12). Daniel, being immediately brought in, declared himself ready to read and interpret the writing; but first he reminded the king of his sin in that he did not take warning from the divine chastisement which had visited king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4), but offended the Most High God by desecrating the holy vessels of His temple (Dan 5:13, Dan 5:14). He then interpreted to him the writing, showing the king that God had announced to him by means of it the end of his reign, and the transference of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians (Dan 5:25-28). Daniel was thereupon raised to honour by Belshazzar, who was, however, in that same night put to death (Dan 5:29, Dan 5:30).
This narrative presents historical difficulties, for a Chaldean king by the name of Belshazzar is nowhere else mentioned, except in the passage in Baruch 1:11f., which is dependent on this chapter of Daniel; and the judgment here announced to him, the occurrence of which is in part mentioned in Dan 5:30, and in part set forth in Dan 6:1 (Dan 5:31), does not appear to harmonize with the extra-biblical information which we have regarding the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom.
If we consider closely the contents of this chapter, it appears that Belshazzar, designated in Dan 5:30 as king of the Chaldeans, is not only in Dan 5:22 addressed by Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar's son, but in Dan 5:11, Dan 5:13, and Dan 5:18 is also manifestly represented in the same character, for the queen-mother (Dan 5:11), Belshazzar himself (Dan 5:13), and Daniel (Dan 5:18) call Nebuchadnezzar his אב, father. If now אב and בּר do not always express the special relation of father and son, but אב is used in a wider sense of a grandfather and of yet more remote ancestors, and בּר of grandsons and other descendants, yet this wider interpretation and conception of the words is from the matter of the statements here made highly improbable, or indeed directly excluded, inasmuch as the queen-mother speaks of things which she had experience, and Daniel said to Belshazzar (Dan 5:22) that he knew the chastisement which Nebuchadnezzar had suffered from God in the madness that had come upon him, but had not regarded it. In that case the announcement of the judgment threatening Belshazzar and his kingdom (Dan 5:24-28), when compared with its partial fulfilment in Belshazzar's death (Dan 5:30), appears to indicate that his death, together with the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom and its transference to the Medes and Persians (Dan 6:1[5:31]), occurred at the same time. Nevertheless this indication, as has already been remarked, appears to have more plausibility than truth, since neither the combination of the two events in their announcement, nor their union in the statement of their fulfilment, by means of the copula  וin Dan 6:1, affords conclusive proof of their being contemporaneous. Since only the time of Belshazzar's death is given (Dan 5:30), but the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Median Darius (Dan 6:1) is not chronologically defined, then we may without hesitation grant that the latter event did not happen till some considerable time after the death of Belshazzar, in case other reasons demand this supposition. For, leaving out of view the announcement of the judgment, the narrative contains not the least hint that, at the time when Belshazzar revelled with his lords and his concubines, the city of Babylon was besieged by enemies. “Belshazzar (Dan 5:1-4) is altogether without care, which he could not have been if the enemy had gathered before the gates. The handwriting announcing evil appears out of harmony with the circumstances (Dan 5:5), while it would have had a connection with them if the city had been beleaguered. Belshazzar did not believe (Dan 5:29) that the threatened end was near, which would not have been in harmony with a state of siege. All these circumstances are not to be explained from the light-mindedness of Belshazzar, but they may be by the supposition that his death was the result of an insurrection, unexpected by himself and by all.” Kliefoth, p. 148.
Now let us compare with this review of the chapter the non-biblical reports regarding the end of the Babylonian monarchy. Berosus, in a fragment preserved by Josephus, c. Ap. i. 20, says that “Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in the kingdom by his son Evilmerodach, who reigned badly (προστὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς), and was put to death (ἀνηρέθη) by Neriglissor, the husband of his sister, after he had reigned two years. This Neriglissor succeeded him, and reigned four years. His son Laborosoarchod, being still a child (παῖς ὤν), reigned after him nine months, and was murdered by his friends (διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἐμφαίνειν κακόηθη ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων ἀπετυμπανίσθη), because he gave many proofs of a bad character. His murderers by a general resolution transferred the government to Nabonnedus, one of the Babylonians who belonged to the conspirators. Under him the walls of Babylon along the river-banks were better built. But in the seventeenth year of his reign Cyrus came from Persia with a great army and took Babylon, after he had subjugated all the rest of Asia. Nabonnedus went out to encounter him, but was vanquished in battle, and fled with a few followers and shut himself up in Borsippa. But Cyrus, after he had taken Babylon and demolished its walls, marched against Borsippa and besieged Nabonnedus. But Nabonnedus would not hold out, and therefore surrendered himself. He was at first treated humanely by Cyrus, who removed him from Babylon, and gave him Carmania as a place of residence (δοὺς οἰκητήριον αὐτῷ Καρμανίαν), where he spent the remainder of his days and died.”
Abydenus, in a shorter fragment preserved by Eusebius in the Praepar. Ev. ix. 41, and in the Chron. Armen. p. 60f., makes the same statements. Petermann's translation of the fragment found in Niebuhr's Gesch. Assurs, p. 504, is as follows: - ”There now reigned (after Nebuchodrossor) his son Amilmarodokos, whom his son-in-law Niglisaris immediately murdered, whose only son Labossorakos remained yet alive; but it happened to him also that he met a violent death. He commanded that Nabonedokhos should be placed on the throne of the kingdom, a person who was altogether unfit to occupy it.” (In the Praepar. Evang. this passage is given in these words: Ναβοννίδοχον ἀποδείκνυσι βασιλέα προσήκοντα οἱ οὐδέν). “Cyrus, after he had taken possession of Babylon, appointed him margrave of the country of Carmania. Darius the king removed him out of the land.” (This last passage is wanting in the Praep. Ev.)^[45]
According to these reports, there reigned in Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar four other kings, among whom there was no one called Belshazzar, and only one son of Nebuchadnezzar, viz., Evilmerodach; for Neriglissar is son-in-law and Laborosoarchod is grandson (daughter's son) of Nebuchadnezzar, and Nabonnedus was not at all related to him, nor of royal descent. Of these kings, only Evilmerodach and Laborosoarchod were put to death, while on the contrary Neriglissar and Nabonnedus died a natural death, and the Babylonian dominion passed by conquest to the Medes, without Nabonnedus thereby losing his life. Hence it follows, (1) that Belshazzar cannot be the last king of Babylon, nor is identical with Nabonnedus, who was neither a son nor descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and was not put to death by Cyrus at the destruction of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom; (2) that Belshazzar could neither be Evilmerodach nor Laborosoarchod, since only these two were put to death - the former after he had reigned only two years, and the latter after he had reigned only nine months, while the third year of Belshazzar's reign is mentioned in Dan 8:1; and (3) that the death of Belshazzar cannot have been at the same time as the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and Persians.
If we now compare with these facts, gathered from Oriental sources, those narrated by the Greek historians Herodotus and Xenophon, we find that the former speaks of several Babylonian kings, but says nothing particular regarding them, but, on the other hand, reports many sayings and fabulous stories of two Babylonian queens, Semiramis and Nitocris, to whom he attributes (i. 184f.) many exploits, and the erection of buildings which Berosus has attributed to Nebuchadnezzar. Of Babylonian kings he names (i. 188) only Labynetos as the son of Nitocris, with the remark, that he had the same name as his father, and that Cyrus waged war against this second Labynetos, and by diverting the Euphrates from its course at the time of a nocturnal festival of its inhabitants, stormed the city of Babylon (i. 191), after he had gained a battle before laying siege to the capital of the Babylonians (i. 190). Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 15ff.), agreeing with Herodotus, relates that Cyrus entered the city by damming off the Euphrates during a festival of its inhabitants, and that the king was put to death, whose name he does not mention, but whom he describes (v. 2. 27, iv. 6. 3) as a youth, and (iv. 6. 3, v. 2. 27f., v. 3. 6, vii. 5. 32) as a riotous, voluptuous, cruel, godless man. The preceding king, the father of the last, he says, was a good man, but his youngest son, who succeeded to the government, was a wicked man. Herodotus and Xenophon appear, then, to agree in this, that both of them connect the destruction of Babylon and the downfall of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus with a riotous festival of the Babylonians, and both describe the last king as of royal descent. They agree with the narrative of Daniel as to the death of Belshazzar, that it took place during or immediately after a festival, and regarding the transference of the Chaldean kingdom to the Medes and Persians; and they confirm the prevalent interpretation of this chapter, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and was put to death on the occasion of the taking of Babylon. But in their statements concerning the last king of Babylon they both stand in opposition to the accounts of Berosus and Abydenus. Herodotus and Xenophon describe him as the king's son, while Nabonnedus, according to both of these Chaldean historians, was not of royal descent. Besides this, Xenophon states that the king lost his life at the taking of Babylon, while according to Berosus, on the contrary, he was not in Babylon at all, but was besieged in Borsippa, surrendered to Cyrus, and was banished to Carmania, or according to Abydenus, was made deputy of that province. Shall we then decide for Herodotus and Xenophon, and against Berosus and Abydenus? Against such a decision the great imperfection and indefiniteness of the Grecian account must awaken doubts. If, as is generally supposed, the elder Labynetus of Herodotus is the husband of Nitocris, who was the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, then his son of the same name cannot be identical with the Nabonnedus of Berosus and Abydenus; for according to the testimonies of biblical and Oriental authorities, which are clear on this point, the Chaldean kingdom did not fall under the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and then the statement of Herodotus regarding the two Labynetuses is certainly incorrect, and is fabricated from very obscure traditions. Xenophon also shows himself to be not well informed regarding the history of the Chaldean kings. Although his description of the last of these kings appears to indicate an intimate knowledge of his character, and accords with the character of Belshazzar, yet he does not even know the name of this king, and still less the duration of his reign.
Accordingly these scanty and indefinite Grecian reports cannot counterbalance the extended and minute statements of Berosus and Abydenus, and cannot be taken as regulating the historical interpretation of Daniel 5. Josephus, it is true, understands the narrative in such a way that he identifies Belshazzar with Nabonedus, and connects his death with the destruction of the Babylonish kingdom, for (Ant. x. 11, 2f.) he states that, after Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evilmerodach reigned eighteen years. But when he died, his son Neriglissar succeeded to the government, and died after he had reigned forty years. After him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it but nine months; and when he was dead (τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ), it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus (Nabonnedus), against whom Cyrus the king of Persian and Darius the king of Media made war. While they besieged Babylon a wonderful event occurred at a feast which the king gave to his magnates and his wives, as described by Daniel 5. Not long after Cyrus took the city and made Baltasar prisoner. “For it was,” he continues, “under Baltasar, after he had reigned seventeen years, that Babylon was taken. This was, as has been handed down to us, the end of the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar.” But it is clear that in these reports which Josephus has given he has not drawn his information from sources no longer accessible to us, but has merely attempted in them to combine the reports of Berosus, and perhaps also those of the Greek historians, with his own exposition of the narrative of Daniel 5. The deviations from Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy in regard to the number of the years of the reign of Evilmerodach and of Neriglissar are to be attributed to the transcriber of Josephus, since he himself, in his work contra Apion, gives the number in harmony with those stated by those authors without making any further remark. The names of the four kings are derived from Berosus, as well as the nine months' reign of Labosordacus and the seventeen years of Naboandelus; but the deviations from Berosus with respect to the death of Evilmerodach, and the descent of Neriglissar and Nabonnedus from Nebuchadnezzar, Josephus has certainly derived only from Jer 27:7 and Daniel 5; for the statement by Jeremiah, that all the nations would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son, “until the very time of his land come,” is literally so understood by him as meaning that Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, was succeeded by his own son, who again was succeeded by his son, and so on down to Belshazzar, whom Daniel (Dan 5:22) had called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and whom Josephus regarded as the last king of Babylon, the Nabonnedus of the Babylonians. Josephus did not know how to harmonize with this view the fact of the murder of Evilmerodach by his brother-in-law, and therefore he speaks of Evilmerodach as dying in peace, and of his son as succeeding him on the throne, while he passes by in silence the death of Labosordacus and the descent of Baltasar, and only in the closing sentence reckons him also among the successors of Nebuchadnezzar.
But if in the passages quoted Josephus gives only his own view regarding the Chaldean rulers down to the time of the overthrow of the kingdom, and in that contradicts on several points the statements of Berosus, without supporting these contradictions by authorities, we cannot make use of his narrative as historical evidence for the exposition of this chapter, and the question, Which Babylonian king is to be understood by Belshazzar? must be decided on the ground of existing independent authorities.
Since, then, the extra-biblical authorities contradict one another in this, that the Chaldean historians describe Nabonnedus, the last king of the Chaldean kingdom, as a Babylonian not of royal descent who, after putting to death the last descendant of the royal family, usurped the throne, which, according to their account, he occupied till Babylon was destroyed by Cyrus, when he was banished to Carmania, where he died a natural death; while, on the other hand, Herodotus and Xenophon represent the last Babylonian king, whom Herodotus calls Labynetus = Nabonedos = Nabonned = Nabonid, as of royal descent, and the successor of his father on the throne, and connect the taking of Babylon with a riotous festival held in the palace and in the city generally, during which, Xenophon says, the king was put to death; - therefore the determination regarding the historical contents of Daniel 5 hinges on this point: whether Belshazzar is to be identified, on the authority of Greek authors, with Nabonnedus; or, on the authority of the Chaldean historians, is to be regarded as different from him, and is identical with one of the two Babylonian kings who were dethroned by a conspiracy.
The decision in favour of the former I have in my Lehrb. der Einl., along with many interpreters, contended for. By this view the statements of Berosus and Abydenus regarding Nabonned's descent and the end of his life must be set aside as unhistorical, and explained only as traditions intended for the glorification of the royal house of Nebuchadnezzar, by which the Babylonians sought to lessen the undeniable disgrace attending the downfall of their monarchy, and to roll away the dishonour of the siege at least from the royal family of the famed Nebuchadnezzar. But although in the statements of Berosus, but particularly in those of Abydenus regarding Nebuchadnezzar, their laudatory character cannot be denied, yet Hävernick (N. Krit. Unterss. p. 70f.) and Kranichfeld, p. 30ff., have with justice replied that this national partiality in giving colour to his narrative is not apparent in Berosus generally, for he speaks very condemnatorily of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, saying that he administered the affairs of government ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς; he also blames the predecessor of Nabonnedus, and assigns as the reason of the murder of the former as well as of the latter their own evil conduct. Nor does it appear that Berosus depreciated Nabonnedus in order to benefit his predecessors, rather he thought of him as worthy of distinction, and placed him on the throne in honour among his predecessors. “What Herodotus says (i. 186) of the wife of Nebuchadnezzar is expressly stated by Berosus to the honour of the government of Nabonnedus, namely, that under his reign a great part of the city wall was furnished with fortifications (τὰ περὶ τὸν ποταμὸν τείχη τῆς Βαβυλωνίων πόλεως ἐχ ὀπτῆς πλίνθου καὶ ἀσφάλτου κατεκοσμήθη); and it is obviously with reference to this statement that in the course of the narrative mention is made of the strong fortifications of the city which defied the assault of Cyrus. Moreover, in the narrative Nabonnedus appears neither as a traitor nor as a coward. On the contrary, he goes out well armed against the enemy and offers him battle (ἀπαντήσας μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ παραταξάμενος); and the circumstance that he surrendered to Cyrus in Borsippa is to be accounted for from this, that he only succeeded in fleeing thither with a very small band. Finally, it is specially mentioned that Cyrus made war against Babylon after he had conquered the rest of Asia. From this it is manifest that the fame of the strength of Babylon was in no respect weakened by Nabonnedus' seventeen years' reign.” (Kranichfeld.) All these circumstances stand in opposition to the opinion that there is a tendency in Berosus to roll the disgrace of the overthrow of the kingdom from off the family of Nebuchadnezzar, and to attribute it to an incapable upstart.
What Berosus, moreover, says regarding the treatment of Nabonnedus on the part of Cyrus shows no trace of a desire to depreciate the dethroned monarch. That Cyrus assigned him a residence during life in Carmania is in accordance with the noble conduct of Cyrus in other cases, e.g., toward Astyages the Mede, and toward the Lydian king Croesus (Herod. i. 130; Justin. i. 6, 7). In addition to all this, not only is the statement of Berosus regarding the battle which preceded the overthrow of Babylon confirmed by Herodotus, i. 190, but his report also of the descent of Nabonnedus and of his buildings is established by inscriptions reported on by Oppert in his Expédit. Scient. i. p. 182ff.; for the ruins of Babylon on both banks of the Euphrates preserve to this day the foundations on which were built the walls of Nabonnedus, consisting of hard bricks almost wholly covered with asphalt, bearing the name of Nabonetos, who is not described as a king's son, but is only called the son of Nabobalatirib. Cf. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 719, 3rd ed.
After all that has been said, Berosus, as a native historian, framing his narratives after Chaldean tradition, certainly merits a preference not only to Herodotus, who, according to his own statement, i. 95, followed the Persian tradition in regard to Cyrus, and is not well informed concerning the Babylonian kings, but also to Xenophon, who in his Cyropaedia, however favourably we may judge of its historical value, follows no pure historical aim, but seeks to set forth Cyrus as the pattern of a hero-king, and reveals no intimate acquaintance with the history of the Chaldean kings. But if, in all his principal statements regarding Nabonnedus, Berosus deserves full credit, we must give up the identification of Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, since the narrative of Daniel 5, as above remarked, connects the death of Belshazzar, in point of fact indeed, but no in point of time, with the destruction of the Babylonian kingdom; and the narratives of Herodotus and Xenophon with respect to the destruction of Babylon during a nocturnal revelry of its inhabitants, may rest also only on some tradition that had been transmitted to their time.^[46], in all points differing from the former; and, on the other side, in view of the manifest harmony in which they stand with Daniel, without, however, agreeing with him in all points. In such circumstances the Greek authors, as well as Berosus and Abydenus on the other side, serve to establish the statements in the book of Daniel.”
Against this view of the origin of the tradition transmitted by Herodotus and Xenophon, that Cyrus took Babylon during a riotous festival of its inhabitants, the prophecies of Isa 21:5, and of Jer 51:39, cannot be adduced as historical evidence in support of the historical truth of this tradition; for these prophecies contain only the thought that Babylon shall suddenly be destroyed amid the tumult of its revelry and drunkenness, and would only be available as valid evidence if they were either vaticinia ex eventu, or were literally delivered as predictions.)
But if Belshazzar is not the same person as Nabonnedus, nor the last Babylonian king, then he can only be either Evilmerodach of Laborosoarchod, since of Nebuchadnezzar's successors only these two were murdered. Both suppositions have found their advocates. Following the example of Scaliger and Calvisius, Ebrard (Comm. zur Offb. Johannes, p. 45) and Delitzsch (Herz.'s Realencykl. iii. p. 277) regard Belshazzar as Laborosoarchod or Labosordacus (as Josephus writes the name in the Antt.), i.e., Nebo-Sadrach, and Bel = Nebo; for the appearance of the queen leads us to think of a very youthful king, and Belshazzar (Dan 5:13) speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as if all he knew regarding him was derived from hearsay alone. In v. 6:1 (Jer 5:31) it is indicated that a man of advanced age came in the room of a mere youth. If Daniel reckons the years of Belshazzar from the death of Evilmerodach (cf. Jer 27:7), for Belshazzar's father Neriglissar (Nergal-Sar), since he was only the husband of a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, could only rule in the name of his son, then Belshazzar (Nebo-Sadrach) was murdered after a reign of four years and nine months, of which his father Nergal-Sar reigned four years in his stead, and he himself nine months. With Belshazzar the house of Nebuchadnezzar had ceased to reign. Astyages, the Median king, regarded himself as heir to the Chaldean throne, and held as his vassal Nabonnedus, who was made king by the conspirators who had murdered Belshazzar; but Nabonnedus endeavoured to maintain his independence by means of a treaty with the king of Lydia, and thus there began the war which was directed first against the Lydian king, and then against Nabonnedus himself.
But of these conjectures and combinations there is no special probability, for proof is wanting. For the alleged origin of the war against the Lydian king and against Nabonnedus there is no historical foundation, since the supposition that Astyages regarded himself, after the extinction of the house of Nebuchadnezzar, as the heir to the Chaldean throne is a mere conjecture. Neither of these conjectures finds any support either in the fact that Nabonnedus remained quiet during the Lydian war instead of rendering help to the Lydian king, or from that which we find on inscriptons regarding the buildings of Nabonnedus. According to the researches of Oppert and Duncker (Gesch. d. Alterthums, ii. p. 719), Nabonetus (Nabunahid) not merely completed the walls left unfinished by Nebuchadnezzar, which were designed to shut in Babylon from the Euphrates along both sides of the river; but he designates himself, in inscriptions found on bricks, as the preserver and the restorer of the pyramid and the tower, and he boasts of having built a temple at Mugheir to the honour of his deities, the goddess Belit and the god Sin (god of the Moon). The restoration of the pyramid and the tower, as well as the building of the temple, does not agree with the supposition that Nabonnedus ascended the throne as vassal of the Median king with the thought of setting himself free as soon as possible from the Median rule. Moreover the supposition that Neriglissar, as the husband of Nebuchadnezzar' daughter, could have conducted the government only in the name of his son, is opposed to the statements of Berosus and to the Canon of Ptolemy, which reckon Neriglissar as really king, and his reign as distinct from that of his son. Thus the appearance of the queen in Daniel 5 by no means indicates that Belshazzar was yet a boy; much rather does the participation of the wives and concubines of Belshazzar in the feast point to the age of the king as beyond that of a boy. Finally, it does not follow from Dan 5:13 that Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar only from hearsay. In the verse referred to, Belshazzar merely says that he had heard regarding Daniel that he was one of the Jews who had been carried captive by his father Nebuchadnezzar. But the carrying away of Daniel and of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar took place, as to its beginning, before he had ascended the throne, and as to its end (under Zedekiah), during the first half of his reign, when his eldest son might be yet a mere youth. That Belshazzar knew about Nebuchadnezzar not from hearsay merely, but that he knew from personal knowledge about his madness, Daniel tells him to his face, Dan 5:22.
Finally, the identification of Labosordacus, = Nebo-Sadrach, with Belshazzar has more appearance than truth. Bel is not like Nebo in the sense that both names denote one and the same god; but Bel is the Jupiter of the Babylonians, and Nebo the Mercury. Also the names of the two kings, as found on the inscriptions, are quite different. For the name Λαβοσόρδαχος (Joseph. Ant.) Berosus uses Λαβοροσοάρχοδος; and Abydenus (Euseb. praep. ev. ix. 41) Λαβασσάρασκος; in the Chr. arm. it is Labossorakos, and Syncellus has Λαβοσάροχος. These names do not represent Nebo-Sadrach, but that used by Berosus corresponds to the native Chaldee Nabu-ur-uzuurkud, the others point to Nabu-surusk or -suruk, and show the component parts contained in the name Nabu-kudrussur in inverted order, - at least they are very nearly related to this name. Belshazzar, on the contrary, is found in the Inscription published by Oppert (Duncker, p. 720) written Belsarrusur. In this Inscription Nabonetus names Belsarrusur the offspring of his heart. If we therefore consider that Nabonnedus represents himself as carrying forward and completing the work begun by Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the supposition presses itself upon us, that also in regard to the name which he gave to his son, who was eventually his successor on the throne, he trod in the footsteps of the celebrated founder of the Babylonian monarchy. Consequently these Inscriptions would indicate that Belshazzar (= Belsarrusur) of Daniel was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and his successor on the throne.
Though we may rest satisfied with this supposition, there are yet weighty reasons for regarding Belshazzar as the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, who was put to death by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, and thus for identifying him with Evilmerodach (2Ki 25:27; Jer 52:31). Following the example of Marsham in Canon chron. p. 596, this opinion is maintained among modern critics by Hofmann (Die 70 Jahre, p. 44ff.), Hävernick (N. K. Unt. p. 71), Oehler (Thol. Litt. Anz. 1842, p. 398), Hupfeld (Exercitt. Herod. spec. ii. p. 46), Niebuhr (Ges. Ass. p. 91f.), Zündel (p. 33), Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth. In favour of this opinion we notice, first, that Belshazzar in the narrative of Daniel is distinctly declared to be the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. The statement of Berosus, that Evilmerodach managed the affairs of the government ἀνόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς, entirely harmonizes also with the character ascribed to Belshazzar in this chapter, while the arguments which appear to oppose the identity of the two are unimportant. The diversity of names, viz., that Nebuchadnezzar' successor both in 2Ki 25:27 and Jer 52:31 is called אויל מרדך, and by Berosus, Abydenus, and in the Canon of Ptolemy Εὐειλμαράδουχος, Amilmarodokos,  ̓Ιλλοαρούδαμος (in the Canon only, written instead of   ̓Ιλμαρούδακος), but by Daniel בּלשׁאצּר, is simply explained by this, that as a rule the Eastern kings had several names: along with their personal names they had also a surname or general royal name, the latter being frequently the only one that was known to foreigners; cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs u. Babels, p. 29ff. In the name Evilmerodach, the component parts, Il (= El), i.e., God, and Merodach, recur in all forms. The first part was changed by the Jews, perhaps after the tragic death of the king, into 'ewiyl, stultus (after Psa 53:1-6?); while Daniel, living at the Babylonian court, transmits the name Belshazzar, formed after the name of the god Bel, which was there used. Moreover the kind benevolent conduct of Evilmerodach towards king Jehoiachin, who was languishing in prison, does not stand in contradiction to the vileness of his character, as testified to by Berosus; for even an unrighteous, godless ruler can be just and good in certain instances. Moreover the circumstance that, according to the Canon of Ptolemy, Evilmerodach ruled two years, while, on the contrary, in Dan 8:1 mention is made of the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, forms no inexplicable discrepancy. Without resorting to Syncellus, who in his Canon attributes to him three years, since the numbers mentioned in this Canon contain many errors, the discrepancy may be explained from the custom prevalent in the books of Kings of reckoning the duration of the reign of a king only in full years, without reference to the months that may be wanting or that may exceed. According to this usage, the reign might extend to only two full years if it began about the middle of the calendar year, but might extend into three calendar years, and thus be reckoned as three years, if the year of the commencement of it and the year in which it ended were reckoned according to the calendar. On the other side, it is conceivable that Evilmerodach reigned a few weeks, or even months, beyond two years, which were in the reckoning of the duration of his reign not counted to him, but to his successor. Ptolemy has without doubt observed this procedure in his astronomical Canon, since he reckons to all rulers only full years. Thus there is no doubt of any importance in opposition to the view that Belshazzar was identical with Evilmerodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar.
With the removal of the historical difficulty lying in the name Belshazzar the historical credibility of the principal contents of this narrative is at the same time established. And this so much the more surely, as the opponents of the genuineness are not in a position to find, in behalf of their assertion that this history is a fiction, a situation from which this fiction framed for a purpose can be comprehended in the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes and in the relations of the times of the Maccabees. According to Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Bleek, the author sought on the one hand to represent to the Syrian prince in the fate of Belshazzar how great a judgment from God threatened him on account of his wickedness in profaning the temple, and on the other, to glorify Daniel the Jew by presenting him after the type of Joseph.
But as for the first tendency (or purpose), the chief matter is wholly wanting, viz., The profanation of the holy vessels of the temple by Antiochus on the occasion of a festival, which in this chapter forms the chief part of the wickedness for which Belshazzar brings upon himself the judgment of God. Of Antiochus Epiphanes it is only related that he plundered the temple at Jerusalem in order that he might meet his financial necessities, while on the other hand the carrying away by Nebuchadnezzar of the vessels belonging to the temple (Dan 1:2) is represented as a providence of God.^[47]
As regards the second tendency of the composition, the glorifying of Daniel after the type of Joseph, Kliefoth rightly remarks: “The comparison of Daniel with Joseph rests on hastily collected indefinite resemblances, along with which there are also found as many contrasts.” The resemblances reduce themselves to these: that Daniel was adorned by the king with a golden chain about his neck and raised to the highest office of state for his interpretation of the mysterious writing, as Joseph had been for the interpretation of the dream. But on this Ewald^[48] himself remarks: “The promise that whoever should solve the mystery would be made third ruler of the kingdom, and at the same time the declaration in Daniel 6:3 (Dan 6:2show that in the kingdom of Babylon there existed an arrangement similar to that of the Roman empire after Diocletia, by which under one Augustus there might be three Caesars. Altogether different is the old Egyptian law set forth in Gen 41:43., and prevailing also in ancient kingdoms, according to which the king might recognise a man as the second ruler in the kingdom, or as his representative; and since that mentioned in the book of Daniel is peculiar, it rests, to all appearance, on some old genuine Babylonish custom. On the other hand, the being clothed with purple and adorned with a golden chain about the neck is more generally the distinguishing mark of men of princely rank, as is seen in the case of Joseph, Gen 41:42.”
To this it must be added, that Belshazzar's relation to Daniel and Daniel's conduct toward Belshazzar are altogether different from the relation of Antiochus to the Jews who remained faithful to their law, and their conduct toward that cruel king. That the conduct of Belshazzar toward Daniel does not accord with the times of the Maccabees, the critics themselves cannot deny. Hitzig expresses his surprise that “the king hears the prophecy in a manner one should not have expected; his behaviour is not the same as that of Ahab toward Micah, or of Agamemnon toward Calchas.” Antiochus Epiphanes would have acted precisely as they did. And how does the behaviour of Daniel harmonize with that of Mattathias, who rejected the presents and the favour of the tyrant (1 Macc. 2:18ff.), and who put to death with the sword those Jews who were submitting themselves to the demands of the king? Daniel received the purple, and allowed himself to be adorned with a golden chain by the heathen king, and to be raised to the rank of third ruler in his kingdom.^[49]
While thus standing in marked contrast to the circumstances of the Maccabean times, the narrative is perfectly consistent if we regard it as a historical episode belonging to the time of Daniel. It is true it has also a parenetic character, only not the limited object attributed to it by the opponents of the genuineness - to threaten Antiochus Epiphanes with divine judgments on account of his wickedness and to glorify Daniel. Rather it is for all times in which the church of the Lord is oppressed by the powers of the world, to show to the blasphemers of the divine name how the Almighty God in heaven punishes and destroys the lords of this world who proceed to desecrate and abuse that which is sacred, without taking notice of the divine warnings addressed to them on account of their self-glorification, and bestows honour upon His servants who are rejected and despised by the world. But when compared with the foregoing narratives, this event before us shows how the world-power in its development became always the more hardened against the revelations of the living God, and the more ripe for judgment. Nebuchadnezzar demanded of all his subjects a recognition of his gods, and prided himself in his great power and worldly glory, but yet he gave glory to the Lord of heaven for the signs and wonders which God did to him. Belshazzar knew this, yet it did not prevent him from blaspheming this God, nor did it move him to seek to avert by penitential sorrow the judgment of death which was denounced against him.

Chap. 5

Verse 1

The verses describe the progress of Belshazzar's magnifying himself against the living Do, whereby the judgment threatened came upon him and his kingdom. A great feast, which the king gave to his officers of state and to his wives, furnished the occasion for this.
The name of the king, בּלשׁאצּר, contains in it the two component parts of the name which Daniel had received (Dan 1:7), but without the interposed E, whereby it is distinguished from it. This distinction is not to be overlooked, although the lxx have done so, and have written the two names, as if they were identical, Balta'sar. The meaning of the name is as yet unknown. לחם, meal-time, the festival. The invitation to a thousand officers of state corresponds to the magnificence of Oriental kings. According to Ctesias (Athen. Deipnos. iv. 146), 15, 000 men dined daily from the table of the Persian king (cf. Est 1:4). To account for this large number of guests, it is not necessary to suppose that during the siege of Babylon by Cyrus a multitude of great officers from all parts of the kingdom had fled for refuge to Babylon. The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand. The words, he drank wine before the thousand (great officers), are not, with Hävernick, to be explained of drinking first, or of preceding them in drinking, or of drinking a toast to them, but are to be understood according to the Oriental custom, by which at great festivals the king sat at a separate table on an elevated place, so that he had the guests before him or opposite to him. The drinking of wine is particularly noticed as the immediate occasion of the wickedness which followed.

Verse 2

Dan 5:2 חמרא בּטעם, while he tasted the wine, i.e., when the wine was relished by him; thus “in the wanton madness of one excited by wine, Pro 20:1” (Hitz.). From these words it appears that Belshazzar commanded the temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem to be brought, not, as Hävernick thinks, for the purpose of seeking, in his anxiety on account of the siege of the city, the favour of the God of the Jews, but to insult this God in the presence of his own gods. The supposition of anxiety on account of the siege does not at all harmonize with the celebration of so riotous a festival. Besides, the vessels are not brought for the purpose of making libations in order to propitiate the God to whom they were consecrated, but, according to the obvious statement of the text, only to drink out of them from the madness of lust. וישׁתּון, that they may drink;  before the imperf. expresses the design of the bringing of the vessels. ב שׁתה, to drink out of, as Gen 44:5; Amo 6:6. שׁגלן, the wives of the king; cf. Neh 2:6 with Psa 45:10. לחנן, concubines; this word stands in the Targg. for the Hebr. פּלּגשׁ. The lxx have here, and also at Dan 5:23, omitted mention of the women, according to the custom of the Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans (cf. Herod. Ch. 5:18; Corn. Nep. proem. §6); but Xenophon (Cyr. v. 2. 28) and Curtius (v. 1. 38) expressly declare that among the Babylonians the wives also were present at festivals.

Verse 3

Dan 5:3 היכלא denotes the holy place of the temple, the inner apartment of the temple, as at 1Ki 6:3; Eze 41:1. אשׁתּיו for שׁתיו, with  אprosthet., cf. Winer, chald. Gr. §23, 1.

Verse 4

In this verse the expression they drank wine is repeated for the purpose of making manifest the connection between the drinking and the praising of the gods. The wickedness lay in this, that they drank out of the holy vessels of the temple of the God of Israel to glorify (שׁבּח, to praise by the singing of songs) their heathen gods in songs of praise. In doing this they did not only place “Jehovah on a perfect level with their gods” (Hävernick), but raised them above the Lord of heaven, as Daniel (Dan 5:23) charged the king. The carrying away of the temple vessels to Babylon and placing them in the temple of Bel was a sign of the defeat of the God to whom these vessels were consecrated (see under Dan 1:2); the use of these vessels in the drinking of wine at a festival, amid the singing of songs in praise of the gods, was accordingly a celebrating of these gods as victorious over the God of Israel. And it was not a spirit of hostility aroused against the Jews which gave occasion, as Kranichfeld has well remarked, to this celebration of the victory of his god; but, as the narrative informs us, it was the reckless madness of the drunken king and of his drunken guests (cf. Dan 5:2) during the festival which led them to think of the God of the Jews, whom they supposed they had subdued along with His people, although He had by repeated miracles forced the heathen world-rulers to recognise His omnipotence (cf. Dan 2:47; 3:32f., 4:14 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:17]]], 31 [34], 34 [37]). In the disregard of these revelations consisted, as Daniel represents to Belshazzar (cf. Dan 5:18), the dishonour done to the Lord of heaven, although these vessels of the sanctuary might have been profaned merely by using them as common drinking vessels, or they might have been used also in religious libations as vessels consecrated to the gods, of which the text makes no mention, although the singing of songs to the praise of the gods along with the drinking makes the offering of libations very probable. The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula  וinto two classes: gold and silver - brass, iron, wood and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the vanity of these gods.The warning signs, the astonishment of Belshazzar, the inability of the wise men to give counsel, and the advice of the queen.

Verse 4

Unexpectedly and suddenly the wanton mad revelry of the king and his guests was brought to a close amid terror by means of a warning sign. The king saw the finger of a man's hand writing on the plaster of the wall of the festival chamber, and he was so alarmed that his whole body shook. The בּהּ־שׁעתא places the sign in immediate connection with the drinking and the praising of the gods. The translation, in the self-same hour, is already shown to be inadmissible (see under Dan 3:6). The Kethiv נפקוּ (came forth) is not to be rejected as the indefinite determination of the subject, because the subject follows after it; the Keri נפקה is to be rejected, because, though it suits the gender, it does not in respect of number accord with the subject following. The king does not see the whole hand, but only ידא פּס, the end of the hand, that is, the fingers which write. This immediately awakened the thought that the writing was by a supernatural being, and alarmed the king out of his intoxication. The fingers wrote on the plaster of the wall over against the candlestick which stood on the table at which the king sat, and which reflected its light perceptibly on the white wall opposite, so that the fingers writing could be distinctly seen. The feast had been prolonged into the darkness of the night, and the wall of the chamber was not wainscotted, but only plastered with lime, as such chambers are found in the palaces of Nimrud and Khorsabad covered over only with mortar (cf. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon).

Verse 6

Dan 5:6 מלכּא (the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted. The plur. זיוהי has an intensive signification: the colour of the countenance. Regarding זיו, see under Dan 4:33. The suffix to שׁנוהי is to be taken in the signification of the dative, since שׁנא in the Peal occurs only intransitively. The connection of an intransitive verb with the suff. accus. is an inaccuracy for which שׁוּבני, Eze 47:7, and perhaps also עשׂיתיני, Eze 29:3, afford analogies; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §315b. In Dan 5:9, where the matter is repeated, the harshness is avoided, and עלוהי is used to express the change of colour yet more strongly. The meaning is: “the king changed colour as to his countenance, became pale from terror, and was so unmanned by fear and alarm, that his body lost its firmness and vigour.” The bands or ligaments of his thighs (חרץ, equivalent to the Hebr. חלצים) were loosed, i.e., lost the strength to hold his body, and his knees smote one against another. ארכּוּבא with  אprosth., for רכוּבא, in the Targg. means the knee. The alarm was heightened by a bad conscience, which roused itself and filled him with dark forebodings. Immediately the king commanded the magicians to be brought, and promised a great reward to him who would read and interpret the mysterious writing.

Verses 7-8

Since there are in this verse only three classes of wise men named as ordered to come to the king, to whom he promised the reward for the reading and the interpretation of the writing, and in Dan 5:8 it is first stated that all the king's wise men came, the probability, is, that at first the king commanded only the three classes named in Dan 5:7 to be brought to him. On this probability Kranichfeld founds the supposition that the king purposely, or with intention, summoned only the three classes named to avoid Daniel, whom he did not wish to consult, from his heathen religious fear of the God of the Jews. But this supposition is altogether untenable. For, first, it does not follow from Dan 8:27 that under Belshazzar Daniel was president over all the wise men, but only that he was in the king's service. Then, in the event of Daniel's yet retaining the place assigned to him by Nebuchadnezzar, his non-appearance could not be explained on the supposition that Belshazzar called only three classes of the wise men, because the supposition that מלכּא חכּימי כּל (all the king's wise men) in Dan 5:8 forms a contrast to the three classes named in Dan 5:7 is not sustained by the language here used. But if by “all the wise men of the king,” Dan 5:8, we are to understand the whole body of the wise men of all the classes, and that they appeared before the king, then they must all have been called at the first, since no supplementary calling of the two classes not named in Dan 5:7 is mentioned. Besides this, the words, “the king spake to the wise men of Babylon,” make it probable that all the classes, without the exception of the two, were called. Moreover it is most improbable that in the case before us, where the matter concerned the reading of a writing, the חרטמּים, the magicians Schriftkenner, should not have been called merely to avoid Daniel, who was their רב (president) (Daniel 4:6 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:9]]]). Finally, it is psychologically altogether very improbable, that in the great agitation of fear which had filled him at the sight of the hand writing, Belshazzar should have reflected at all on this, that Daniel would announce to him misfortune or the vengeance of the God of the Jews. Such a reflection might perhaps arise on quiet deliberation, but not in the midst of agitating heart-anguish.
The strange circumstance that, according to Dan 5:7, the king already promised a reward to the wise men, which presupposes that they were already present, and then that for the first time their presence is mentioned in Dan 5:8, is occasioned by this, that in Dan 5:7 the appearing of the wise men is not expressly mentioned, but is naturally presupposed, and that the first two clauses of the eighth verse are simply placed together, and are not united to each other by a causal nexus. The meaning of the statement in Dan 5:7 and Dan 5:8 is this: The king calls aloud, commanding the astrologers, etc., to be brought to him; and when the wise men of Babylon came to him, he said to each of them, Whoever reads the writing, etc. But all the king's wise men, when they had come, were unable to read the writing. As to the names of the wise men in Dan 5:7, see under Dan 2:2. יקרה for יקרא, from קרא, to read. As a reward, the king promises a purple robe, a gold chain for the neck, and the highest office in the kingdom. A robe of purple was the sign of rank worn by the high officers of state among the Persians, - cf. Est 8:15 with Xenophon, Anab. i. 5. 8, - and among the Selucidae, 1 Macc. 10:20; and was also among the Medes the princely garb, Xen. Anab. i. 3. 2, ii. 4. 6. ארגּון, Hebr. ארגּמן, purple, is a word of Aryan origin, from the Sanscrit râga, red colour, with the formative syllables man and vat; cf. Gesen. Thes. Addid. p. 111f. וגו' דּי והמנוּכא does not depend on ילבּשׁ, but forms a clause by itself: and a chain of gold shall be about his neck. For the Kethiv המנוּכא the Keri substitutes the Targum. and Syr. form המניכא (Dan 5:7, Dan 5:16, and Dan 5:29), i.e., The Greek μανιάκης, from the Sansc. mani, jewel, pearl, with the frequent formative syllable ka in the Zend, whence the Chaldee word is derived; it signifies neck- or arm-band, here the former. The golden neck-chain (στρεπτὸς χρύσεος) was an ornament worn by the Persians of rank, and was given by kings as a mark of favour even to kings, e.g., Cambyses and the younger Cyrus; cf. Herod. iii. 20; Xen. Anab. i. 1. 27, 5. 8, 8. 29.
It is not quite certain what the princely situation is which was promised to the interpreter of the writing, since the meaning of תּלתּי is not quite clear. That it is not the ordinale of the number third, is, since Hävernick, now generally acknowledged, because for tertius in Aram. תּליתי is used, which occurs also in Dan 2:39. Hävernick therefore regards תּלתּי, for which תּלתּא is found in Dan 5:16 and Dan 5:29, as an adjective formation which indicates a descent or occupation, and is here used as a nomen officii corresponding to the Hebr. שׁלישׁי. Gesenius and Dietrich regard תּלתּי as only the singular form for תּליתי, and תּלתּא as the stat. abs. of תּלת, third rank. Hitzig would change תּלתּי into תּלתּי, and regard תּלתּא as a singular formed from תּלתּאין, as triumvir from triumvirorum, and would interpret it by τρίτος αὐτός, the third (selbst-dritt): as one of three he shall rule in the kingdom, according to Dan 6:3. Finally, Kranichfeld takes תּלתּי to be a fem. verbal formation according to the analogy of ארמית, אחרי, in the sense of three-ruler-wise, and תּלתּא for a noun formed from תּלתא, triumvir. Almost all these explanations amount to this, that the statements here regard the government of a triumvirate as it was regulated by the Median king Darius, Dan 6:3 (2); and this appears also to be the meaning of the words as one may literally explain תּלתּי and תּלתּא. Regarding the Keri עלּין see under Dan 4:4, and regarding פּשׁרא, under Dan 4:15.
As all the wise men were unable to read the writing, it has been thought that it was in a foreign language different from the usual language of Babylon, the knowledge of which could not legitimately be expected to be possessed by the native wise men; and since, according to Dan 5:17, Dan 5:24., Daniel at once showed his acquaintance with the writing in question, it has from this been concluded that already the old Babylonians had handwriting corresponding to the later Syro-Palmyrenian inscriptions, while among the Hebrews to the time of the Exile the essentially Old-Phoenician writing, which is found on the so-called Samaritan coins and in the Samaritan Scriptures, was the peculiar national style of writing (Kran.). But this interpretation of the miracle on natural principles is quite erroneous. First, it is very unlikely that the Chaldean wise men should not have known these old Semitic characters, even although at that time they had ceased to be in current use among the Babylonians in their common writing. Then, from the circumstance that Daniel could at once read the writing, it does not follow that it was the well-known Old-Hebrew writing of his fatherland. “The characters employed in the writing,” as Hengstenberg has rightly observed (Beitr. i. p. 122), “must have been altogether unusual so as not to be deciphered but by divine illumination.” Yet we must not, with M. Geier and others, assume that the writing was visible only to the king and Daniel. This contradicts the text, according to which the Chaldean wise men, and without doubt all that were present, also saw the traces of the writing, but were not able to read it.

Verse 9

By this not only was the astonishment of the king heightened, but the officers of state also were put into confusion. “In משׁתּבּשׁין lies not merely the idea of consternation, but of confusion, of great commotion in the assembly” (Hitzig). The whole company was thrown into confusion. The magnates spoke without intelligence, and were perplexed about the matter.
Not only was the tumult that arose from the loud confused talk of the king and the nobles heard by those who were there present, but the queen-mother, who was living in the palace, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, also heard it and went into the banqueting hall. As soon as she perceived the cause of the commotion, she directed the attention of her royal son to Daniel, who in the days of his father Nebuchadnezzar had already, as an interpreter of dreams and of mysteries, shown that the spirit of the holy gods dwelt in him (Dan 5:10-12).

Verse 10

By מלכּתא interpreters rightly understand the mother of the reigning king, the widow of his father Nebuchadnezzar, since according to Dan 5:2. The wives of the king were present at the festival, and the queen came before the king as only a mother could do. Among the Israelites also the mother of the reigning king was held in high respect; cf. 1Ki 15:13; 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 24:15; Jer 13:18; Jer 29:2. מלּין לקבל, by reason of the words, not: because of the affair, to which neither the plur. מלּי nor the gen. רברבנוהי agrees. Instead of the Kethiv עללת the Keri has עלּת, the later form. The queen-mother begins in an assuring manner, since she can give an advice which is fitted to allay the embarrassment.

Verse 11

Her judgment concerning Daniel is that of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4:5-6 (Dan 4:8, Dan 4:9); and that she states it in the same words leads to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was her husband. The מלכּא אבוּך at the end of this verse may be an emphatic repetition of the foregoing אבוּך נב מלכּא (Maur., Hitz.), but in that case מלכּא would perhaps stand first. מלכּא is better interpreted by Ros., v. Leng., Klief., and others as the vocative: thy father, O king, by which the words make a greater impression.

Verse 12

The remarkable endowments of Daniel are again stated (according to Dan 5:11) to give weight to the advice that he should be called in. The words from מפשּׁר [interpreting] to פטרין [doubts] are an explanatory parenthetical clause, after which the following verb, according to rule, joins itself to שׂכלתנוּ. In the parenthetical clause the nomen actonis אחויה [showing] is used instead of the participle, whereby the representation of the continued capability lying in the participle is transferred to that of each separate instance; literally, interpreting dreams, the explanation of mysteries and dissolving knots. The allusion of פטרין משׁרא to קטרי חר משׁתּרין, Dan 5:6, is only apparent, certainly is not aimed at, since the former of these expressions has an entirely different meaning. Knots stands figuratively for involved complicated problems. That Daniel did not at first appear along with the wise men, but was only called after the queen had advised it, is to be explained on this simple ground, that he was no longer president over the magicians, but on the occasion of a new king ascending the throne had lost that situation, and been put into another office (cf. Dan 8:27). The words of the queen do not prove that Belshazzar was not acquainted with Daniel, but only show that he had forgotten the service rendered by him to Nebuchadnezzar; for according to Dan 5:13 he was well acquainted with the personal circumstances of Daniel.Daniel is summoned, reminds the king of his sin, and reads and interprets the writing.
The counsel of the queen was followed, and without delay Daniel was brought in. העל, cf. העלּוּ Dan 5:15, is Hebr. Hophal of על = עלל, to go in, as הוּסף, Dan 4:33. The question of the king: Art thou Daniel ... ? did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel. The address shows that Belshazzar was acquainted with Daniel's origin, of which the queen had said nothing, but that he had had no official intercourse with him. It shows also that Daniel was no longer the president of the magicians at the king's court (Dan 2:48.).

Verse 14

Dan 5:14 cf. Dan 5:11. It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with אלהין (of the gods).

Verse 15

The asyndeton אשׁפיּא is in apposition to חכּימיּא as explanatory of it: the wise men, namely the conjurers, who are mentioned instar omnium. דּי with the imperf. following is not the relative particle, but the conjunction that before the clause expressive of design, and the infinitive clause dependent on the clause of design going before: that you may read the writing to make known to me the interpretation. מלּתא is not the mysterious writing = word, discourse, but the writing with its wonderful origin; thus, the matter of which he wishes to know the meaning.

Verses 16-17

The Kethiv תּוּכל, Dan 5:16, is the Hebr. Hophal, as Dan 2:10; the Keri תכּוּל the formation usual in the Chaldee, found at Dan 3:29. Regarding the reward to Daniel, see under Dan 5:7. Daniel declines (Dan 5:17) the distinction and the place of honour promised for the interpretation, not because the former might be dangerous to him and the latter only temporary, as Hitzig supposes; for he had no reason for such a fear, when he spoke “as one conveying information who had just seen the writing, and had read it and understood its import,” for the interpretation, threatening ruin and death to the king, could bring no special danger to him either on the part of Belshazzar or on that of his successor. Much rather Daniel rejected the gift and the distinction promised, to avoid, as a divinely enlightened seer, every appearance of self-interest in the presence of such a king, and to show to the king ad his high officers of state that he was not determined by a regard to earthly advantage, and would unhesitatingly declare the truth, whether it might be pleasing or displeasing to the king. But before he read and interpreted the writing, he reminded the king of the punishment his father Nebuchadnezzar had brought upon himself on account of his haughty pride against God (Dan 5:18-21), and then showed him how he, the son, had done wickedly toward God, the Lord of his life (Dan 5:22, Dan 5:23), and finally explained to him that on this account this sign had been given by God (Dan 5:24).

Verses 18-21

The address, Thou, O king, is here an absolute clause, and is not resumed till Dan 5:22. By this address all that follows regarding Nebuchadnezzar is placed in definite relation to Belshazzar. The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzar's power in Dan 5:18 and Dan 5:19 has undeniably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that he did not equal his father in power and majesty. Regarding וגו עממיּא, see under Dan 3:4, and with regard to the Kethiv זאעין, with the Keri יעין, see under Dan 3:3. מחא is not from מחא, to strike (Theodot., Vulg.), but the Aphel of חיא (to live), the particip. of which is מחי in Deu 32:39, contracted from מחיא, here the part. מחא, in which the Jod is compensated by the lengthening of the vowel a4. Accordingly, there is no ground for giving the preference, with Buxt., Ges., Hitz., and others, to the variant מחא, which accommodates itself to the usual Targum. form. The last clause in Dan 5:19 reminds us of 1Sa 2:6-7. In Dan 5:20 and Dan 5:21 Daniel brings to the remembrance of Belshazzar the divine judgment that fell upon Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4). רם is not the passive part., but the perf. act. with an intransitive signification; cf. Winer, §22, 4. תּקף, strong, to be and to become firm, here, as the Hebr. חזק, Exo 7:13, of obduracy. העדּיו, 3rd pers. plur. imper., instead of the passive: they took away, for it was taken away, he lost it; see under Dan 3:4, and Winer, §49, 3. שׁוּי is also to be thus interpreted, since in its impersonal use the singular is equivalent to the plur.; cf. Winer. There is no reason for changing (with v. Leng. and Hitz.) the form into shewiy, part. Piel. The change of construction depends on the rhetorical form of the address, which explains also the naming of the ערדין, wild asses, as untractable beasts, instead of בּרא חיות (beasts of the field), Dan 4:20 (23). Regarding the Kethiv עליה, see under Dan 4:14; and for the subject, cf. Dan 4:22 (25), 29 (32).

Verses 22-24

Daniel now turns to Belshazzar. The words: forasmuch as thou, i.e., since thou truly knowest all this, place it beyond a doubt that Belshazzar knew these incidents in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and thus that he was his son, since his grandson (daughter's son) could scarcely at that time have been so old as that the forgetfulness of that divine judgment could have been charged against him as a sin. In the דּי קבל כּל, just because thou knowest it, there is implied that, notwithstanding his knowledge of the matter, he did not avoid that which heightened his culpability. In Dan 5:23 Daniel tells him how he had sinned against the God of heaven, viz., by desecrating (see Dan 5:2 and Dan 5:3) the vessels of the temple of the God of Israel. And to show the greatness of this sin, he points to the great contrast that there is between the gods formed of dead material and the living God, on whom depend the life and fortune of men. The former Belshazzar praised, the latter he had not honoured - a Litotes for had dishonoured. The description of the gods is dependent on Deu 4:28, cf. with the fuller account Psa 115:5., Psa 135:15., and reminds us of the description of the government of the true God in Job 12:10; Num 16:22, and Jer 10:23. ארחת, ways, i.e., The destinies. - To punish Belshazzar for this wickedness, God had sent the hand which wrote the mysterious words (Dan 5:24 cf. with Dan 5:5).

Verses 25-28

Daniel now read the writing (Dan 5:25), and gave its interpretation (Dan 5:26-28). The writing bears the mysterious character of the oracle. פּרס, תּקל, מנא (Dan 5:28) are partic. Piel, and the forms תּקל and פּרס, instead of תּקיל and פּריס, are chosen on account of their symphony with מנא. פּרסין is generally regarded as partic. plur., but that would be פּרסין; it much rather appears to be a noun form, and plur. of פּרס = Hebr. פּרס (cf. פּרסיהן, Zec 11:16), in the sense of broken pieces, fragments, for פרס signifies to divide, to break in pieces, not only in the Hebr. (cf. Lev 11:4; Isa 58:7; Psa 69:32), but also in the Chald., 2Ki 4:39 (Targ.), although in the Targg. The meaning to spread out prevails. In all the three words there lies a double sense, which is brought out in the interpretation. מנא, for the sake of the impression, or perhaps only of the parallelism, is twice given, so as to maintain two members of the verse, each of two words. In the numbering lies the determination and the completion, or the conclusion of a manner, a space of time. Daniel accordingly interprets מנא thus: God has numbered (מנה for מנא, perf. act.) thy kingdom, i.e., its duration or its days, והשׁלמהּ, and has finished it, i.e., its duration is so counted out that it is full, that it now comes to an end. In תּקל there lies the double sense that the word תּקל, to weigh, accords with the Niphal of קלל, to be light, to be found light (cf. תּקל, Gen 16:4). The interpretation presents this double meaning: Thou art weighed in the balances (תּקלתּא) and art found too light (like the תּקל). חסּיר, wanting in necessary weight, i.e., deficient in moral worth. תּקלתּא, a perf. formed from the partic. Piel; cf. Winer, §13, 2. As to the figure of the balance, cf. Job 31:6; Psa 62:10 (9).
For פּרסין (Dan 5:25) Daniel uses in the interpretation the sing. פּרס, which, after the analogy of תּקל, may be regarded as partic. Piel, and he interprets it accordingly, so that he brings out, along with the meaning lying in the word, also the allusion to פּרס, Persian: thy kingdom is divided, or broken into pieces, and given to the Medes and Persians. The meaning is not that the kingdom was to be divided into two equal parts, and the one part given to the Medes and the other to the Persians; but פרס is to divide into pieces, to destroy, to dissolve the kingdom. This shall be effected by the Medes and Persians, and was so brought about when the Persian Cyrus with the united power of the Medes and Persians destroyed Babylon, and thus put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, whereby the kingdom was transferred first to the Median Darius (Daniel 6:1 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 5:31]]]), and after him to the Persian Cyrus. In the naming of the Median before the Persian there lies, as already remarked in the Introduction, a notable proof of the genuineness of this narrative, and with it of the whole book; for the hegemony of the Medes was of a very short duration, and after its overthrow by the Persians the form of expression used is always “Persians and Medes,” as is found in the book of Esther.

Verses 29-30

Dan 5:29-30Daniel rewarded, and the beginning of the fulfilment of the writing.
Belshazzar fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel by rewarding him for reading and interpreting the writing. והלבּשׁוּ is not to be translated: (commanded) that they should clothe, - this meaning must be conveyed by the imperfect (cf. Dan 2:49), - but: and they clothed him. The command was then carried out: Daniel was not only adorned with purple and with a golden chain, but was also proclaimed as the third ruler of the kingdom. The objection that this last-mentioned dignity was not possible, since, according to Dan 5:30, Belshazzar was slain that very night, is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation might be made only before the assembled magnates of the kingdom in the palace, and then Belshazzar may have been slain on that very night. Perhaps, as Kliefoth thinks, the conspirators against Belshazzar availed themselves of the confusion connected with this proclamation, and all that accompanied it, for the execution of their purpose. We may not, however, add that therewith the dignity to which Daniel was advanced was again lost by him. It depended much rather on this: whether Belshazzar's successor recognised the promotion granted to Daniel in the last hours of his reign. But the successor would be inclined toward its recognition by the reflection, that by Daniel's interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel's elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him. This supposition appears to be supported by Dan 6:2 (1).
Bleek and other critics have based another objection against the historical veracity of this narrative on the improbability that Belshazzar, although the interpretation predicted evil against him, and he could not at all know whether it was a correct interpretation, should have rewarded Daniel instead of putting him to death (Hitzig). But the force of this objection lies in the supposition that Belshazzar was as unbelieving with regard to a revelation from God, and with regard to the providence of the living God among the affairs of men, as are the critics of our day; the objection is altogether feeble when one appreciates the force of the belief, even among the heathen, in the gods and in revelations from God, and takes into consideration that Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was, since the interpretation by Daniel decided nothing as regards the time, and perhaps also that he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God.^[50]
The circumstance, also, that Daniel received the honour promised to him notwithstanding his declining it (Dan 5:17), can afford no ground of objection against the truth of the narrative, since that refusal was only an expression of the entire absence of all self-interest, which was now so fully established by the matter of the interpretation that there was no longer any ground for his declining the honours which were conferred upon him unsought, while they comprehended in themselves in reality a recognition of the God whom he served.

Verse 31

With the death of Belshazzar that very night the interpretation given by Daniel began to be fulfilled, and this fulfilment afforded a certainty that the remaining parts of it would also sooner or later be accomplished. That this did not take placeimmediately, we have already shown in our preliminary remarks to this chapter.

Daniel in the Den of Lions

Darius, the king of the Medes, had it in view to place Daniel as chief officer over the whole of his realm, and thereby he awakened against Daniel (vv. 1-6 [Hebrew_Bible_5:31]) the envy of the high officers of state. In order to frustrate the king's intention and to set Daniel aside, they procured an edict from Darius, which forbade for the space of thirty days, on the pain of death, prayer to be offered to any god or man, except to the king (vv. 7-10 [Hebrew_Bible_6:6]). Daniel, however, notwithstanding this, continued, according to his usual custom, to open the windows of his upper room, and there to pray to God three times a day. His conduct was watched, and he was accused of violating the king's edict, and thus he brought upon himself the threatened punishment of being thrown into the den of lions (vv. 11-18 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 6:10]]]). But he remained uninjured among the lions; whereupon the king on the following morning caused him to be brought out of the dean, and his malicious accusers to be thrown into it (vv. 19-25 Hebrew_Bible_6:18]), and then by an edict he commanded his subjects to reverence the God of Daniel, who did wonders (vv. 26-28 [Hebrew_Bible_6:25]). As a consequence of this, Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian (v. 29 [Hebrew_Bible_6:28]).
From the historic statement of this chapter, that Darius the Mede took the Chaldean kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old (v. 1 [Hebrew_Bible_5:31]), taken in connection with the closing remark (v. 29 [Hebrew_Bible_6:28]) that it went well with Daniel during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian, it appears that the Chaldean kingdom, after its overthrow by the Medes and Persians, did not immediately pass into the hands of Cryus, but that between the last of the Chaldean kings who lost the kingdom and the reign of Cyrus the Persian, Darius, descended from a Median family, held the reins of government, and that not till after him did Cyrus mount the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, which had been subdued by the Medes and Persians. This Median Darius was a son of Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1), of the seed of the Medes; and according to Dan 11:1, the angel Gabriel stood by him in his first year, which can mean no more than that the Babylonian kingdom was not taken without divine assistance.
This Darius the Mede and his reign are not distinctly noticed by profane historians. Hence the modern critics have altogether denied his existence, or at least have called it in question, and have thence derived an argument against the historical veracity of the whole narrative.
According to Berosus and Abydenus (Fragmenta, see p. 163), Nabonnedus, the last Babylonian king, was, after the taking of Babylon, besieged by Cyrus in Borsippa, where he was taken prisoner, and then banished to Carmania. After this Cyrus reigned, as Alex. Polyhistor says, nine years over Babylon; while in the Fragments preserved by Eusebius in his Chron. Armen., to the statement that Cyrus conferred on him (i.e., nabonet), when he had obtained possession of Babylon, the margraviate of the province of Carmania, it is added, “Darius the king removed (him) a little out of the country.” Also in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, Nabonadius the Babylonian is at once followed by the list of Persian kings, beginning with Κῦρος, who reigned nine years.
When we compare with this the accounts given by the Greek historians, we find that Herodotus (i. 96-103, 106ff.) makes mention of a succession of Median kings: Dejoces, Phraortes, Cyaxares, and Astyages. The last named, who had no male descendants, had a daughter, Mandane, married to a Persian Cambyses. Cyrus sprung from this marriage. Astyages, moved with fear lest this son of his daughter should rob him of his throne, sought to put him to death, but his design was frustrated. When Cyrus had reached manhood, Harpagus, an officer of the court of Astyages, who out of revenge had formed a conspiracy against him, called upon him at the head of the Persians to take the kingdom from his grandfather Astyages. Cyrus obeyed, moved the Persians to revolt from the Medes, attacked Astyages at Pasargada, and took him prisoner, but acted kindly toward him till his death; after which he became king over the realm of the Medes and Persians, and as such destroyed first the Lydian, and then the Babylonian kingdom. He conquered the Babylonian king, Labynetus the younger, in battle, and then besieged Babylon; and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians he penetrated the city by damming off the water of the Euphrates, and took it. Polyaenus, Justin, and others follow in its details this very fabulous narrative, which is adorned with dreams and fictitious incidents. Ctesias also, who records traditions of the early history of Media altogether departing from Herodotus, and who names nine kings, yet agrees with Herodotus in this, that Cyrus overcame Astyages and dethroned him. Cf. The different accounts given by Greek writers regrading the overthrow of the Median dominion by the Persians in M. Duncker's Ges. d. Alterh. ii. p. 634ff., 3rd ed.
Xenophon in the Cyropaedia reports somewhat otherwise regarding Cyrus. According to him, the Median king Astyages, son of Cyaxares I, gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses, the Persia king, who was under the Median supremacy, and that Cyrus was born of this marriage (i. 2. 1). When Cyrus arrived at man's estate Astyages died, and was succeeded on the Median throne by his son Cyaxares II, the brother of Mandane (i. 5. 2). When, after this, the Lydian king Croesus concluded a covenant with the king of the Assyrians (Babylonians) having in view the overthrow of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus received the command of the united army of the Medes and Persians (iii. 3. 20ff.); and when, after a victorious battle, Cyaxares was unwilling to proceed further, Cyrus carried forward the war by his permission, and destroyed the host of Croesus and the Assyrians, on hearing of which, Cyaxares, who had spent the night at a riotous banquet, fell into a passion, wrote a threatening letter to Cyrus, and ordered the Medes to be recalled (iv. 5. 18). But when they declared, on the statement given by Cyrus, their desire to remain with him (iv. 5. 18), Cyrus entered on the war against Babylon independently of Cyaxares (v. 3. 1). Having driven the Babylonian king back upon his capital, he sent a message to Cyaxares, desiring him to come that he might decide regarding the vanquished and regarding the continuance of the war (v. 5. 1). Inasmuch as all the Medes and the confederated nations adhered to Cyrus, Cyaxares was under the necessity of taking this step. He came to the camp of Cyrus, who exhibited to him his power by reviewing before him his whole host; he then treated him kindly, and supplied him richly from the stores of the plunder he had taken (v. 5. 1ff.). After this the war against Babylonia was carried on in such a way, that Cyaxares, sitting on the Median throne, presided over the councils of war, but Cyrus, as general, had the conduct of it (vi. 1. 6); and after he had conquered Sardes, taken Croesus the king prisoner (vii. 2. 1), and then vanquished Hither Asia, he returned to Babylon (vii. 4. 17), and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians took the city, whereupon the king of Babylon was slain (vii. 5. 15-33). After the conquest of Babylon the army regarded Cyrus as king, and he began to conduct his affairs as if he were king (vii. 5. 37); but he went however to Media, to present himself before Cyaxares. He brought presents to him, and showed him that there was a house and palace ready for him in Babylon, where he might reside when he went thither (viii. 5. 17f.). Cyaxares gave him his daughter to wife, and along with her, as her dowry, the whole of Media, for he had no son (viii. 5. 19). Cyrus now went first to Persian, and arranged that his father Cambyses should retain the sovereignty of it so long as he lived, and that then it should fall to him. He then returned to Media, and married the daughter of Cyaxares (viii. 5. 28). He next went to Babylon, and placed satraps over the subjugated peoples, etc. (viii. 6. 1), and so arranged that he spent the winter in Babylon, the spring in Susa, and the summer in Ecbatana (viii. 6. 22). Having reached an advanced old age, he came for the seventh time during his reign to Persia, and died there, after he had appointed his son Cambyses as his successor (viii. 7. 1ff.).
This narrative by Xenophon varies from that of Herodotus in the following principal points: - (1) According to Herodotus, the line of Median kings closes with Astyages, who had no son; Xenophon, on the contrary, speaks of Astyages as having been succeeded by his son Cyaxares on the throne. (2) According to Herodotus, Cyrus was related to the Median royal house only as being the son of the daughter of Astyages, and had a claim to the Median throne only as being the grandson of Astyages; Xenophon, on the other hand, says that he was related to the royal house of Media, not only as being the grandson of Astyages and nephew of Cyaxares II, but also as having received in marriage the daughter of his uncle Cyaxares, and along with her the dowry of the Median throne. (3) According to Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the conspiracy formed by Harpagus against Astyages, slew his grandfather in battle, and took forcible possession of the dominion over the Medes; on the contrary Xenophon relates that, though he was at variance with Cyaxares, he became again reconciled to him, and not only did not dethrone him, but permitted him to retain royal dignity even after the overthrow of Babylon, which was not brought about with his co-operation.
Of these discrepancies the first two form no special contradiction. Xenophon only communicates more of the tradition than Herodotus, who, according to his custom, makes mention only of the more celebrated of the rulers, passing by those that are less so,^[51] and closes the list of Median kings with Astyages. Accordingly, in not mentioning Cyaxares II, he not only overlooks the second relationship Cyrus sustained to the Median royal house, but also is led to refer the tradition that the last of the Median kings had no male descendant to Astyages. The third point only presents an actual contradiction between the statements of Herodotus and those of Xenophon, viz., that according to Herodotus, Cyrus by force of arms took the kingdom from his grandfather, overcame Astyages in a battle at Pasargada, and dethroned him; while according to Xenophon, the Median kingdom first fell to Cyrus by his command of the army, and then as the dowry of his wife. Shall we now on this point decide, with v. Leng., Hitzig, and others, in favour of Herodotus and against Xenophon, and erase Cyaxares II from the list not only of the Median kings, but wholly from the page of history, because Herodotus and Ctesias have not made mention of him? Has then Herodotus or Ctesias alone recorded historical facts, and that fully, and Xenophon in the Cyropaedia fabricated only a paedagogic romance destitute of historical veracity? All thorough investigators have testified to the very contrary, and Herodotus himself openly confesses (i. 95) that he gives only the sayings regarding Cyrus which appeared to him to be credible; and yet the narrative, as given by him, consists only of a series of popular traditions which in his time were in circulation among the Medes, between two and three hundred years after the events. Xenophon also has gathered the historic material for his Cyropaedia only from tradition, but from Persian tradition, in which, favoured by the reigning dynasty, the Cyrus-legend, interwoven with the end of the Median independence and the founding of the Persian sovereignty, is more fully transmitted than among the Medes, whose national recollections, after the extinction of their dynasty, were not fostered. If we may therefore expect more exact information in Xenophon than in Herodotus, yet it is imaginable that Xenophon transformed the narrative of the rebellion by Cyrus and his war against Cyaxares into that which he has recorded as to the relation he sustained towards Cyaxares, in order that he might wipe out this moral stain from the character of his hero. But this supposition would only gain probability under the presumption of what Hitzig maintains, if it were established: “If, in Cyrop. viii. 5. 19, the Median of his own free will gave up his country to Cyrus, Xenophon's historical book shows, on the contrary, that the Persians snatched by violence the sovereignty from the Medes (Anab. iii. 4. 7, 11, 12);” but in the Anab. l.c. Xenophon does not say this, but (§8) only, ὅτε παρὰ Μήδων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανον Πέρσαι.^[52]
Thus, supposing the statement that the cities of Larissa and Mespila were besieged by the Persia king at the time when the Persians gained the supremacy over the Medes were historically true, and Xenophon communicated here not a mere fabulam ab incolis narratam, yet Xenophon would not be found contradicting his Cyropaedia, since, as Kran. has well observed, “it can be nothing surprising that among a people accustomed to a native royal dynasty, however well founded Cyrus' claim in other respects might be, manifold commotions and insurrections should arise, which needed to be forcibly suppressed, so that thus the kingdom could be at the same time spoken of as conquered.”
Add to this the decisive fact, that the account given by Herod. of Cyrus and the overthrow of Astyages, of which even Duncker, p. 649, remarks, that in its prompting motive “it awakens great doubts,” is in open contradiction with all the well-established facts of Medo-Persian history. “All authentic reports testify that in the formation of Medo-Persia the Medes and the Persians are separated in a peculiar way, and yet bound to each other as kindred races. If Herod. is right, if Astyages was always attempting to take Cyrus' life, if Cyrus took the kingdom from Astyages by force, then such a relation between the 'Medes and Persians' (as it always occurs in the O.T.) would have been inconceivable; the Medes would not have stood to the Persians in any other relation than did the other subjugated peoples, e.g., the Babylonians” (Klief.). On the other hand, the account gives by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, “the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.” If, according to Xen., Cyrus conquered Babylon by the permission of Cyaxares, and after its overthrow not only offered him a “residence” there (Hitzig), but went to Media, presented himself before Cyaxares, and showed him that he had appointed for him in Babylon, in order that when he went thither εἰς οἰκεῖα κατάγεσθαι, i.e., in order that when, according to Eastern custom, he changed his residence he might have a royal palace there, so, according to Daniel, Darius did not overthrow the Chaldean kingdom, but received it (Dan 6:1), and was made king (המלך, Dan 9:1), namely, by Cyrus, who, according to the prophecies of Isaiah, was to overthrow Babylon, and, according to Daniel 6:29, succeeded Darius on the throne. The statement, also, that Darius was about sixty-two years old when he ascended the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, harmonizes with the report given by Xenophon, that when Cyaxares gave his daughter to Cyrus, he gave him along with her the kingdom of Media, because he had no male heir, and was so far advance din years that he could not hope to have now any son. Finally, even in respect of character the Cyaxares of Xen. resembles the Darius of Daniel. As the former describes the conduct of Cyrus while he revelled in sensual pleasures, so Darius is induced by his nobles to issue an edict without obtaining any clear knowledge as to its motive, and allows himself to be forced to put it into execution, however sorrowful he might be on account of its relation to Daniel.
After all this, there can be no reason to doubt the reign of Darius the Mede. But how long it lasted cannot be determined either from the book of Daniel, in which (Dan 9:1) only the first year of his reign is named, or from any other direct sources. Ptolemy, in his Canon, places after Nabonadius the reign of Cyrus the Persian for nine years. With this, the words of Xenophon, τὸ ἕβδομον ἐπὶ τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀρχῆς, which by supplying ἔτος after ἕβδομον are understood of even years' reign, are combined, and thence it is concluded that Cyaxares reigned two years. But the supplement of ἔτος is not warranted by the context. The supposition, however, that Darius reigned for two years over Babylon is correct. For the Babylonian kingdom was destroyed sixty-eight years after the commencement of the Exile. Since, then, the seventy years of the Exile were completed in the first year of the reign of Cyrus (2Ch 36:22.; Ezr 1:1), it follows that Cyrus became king two years after the overthrow of Babylon, and thus after Darius had reigned two years. See at Dan 9:1-2.
From the shortness of the reign of Darius, united with the circumstance that Cyrus destroyed Babylon and put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, it is easy to explain how the brief and not very independent reign of Darius might be quite passed by, not only by Herodotus and Ctesias, and all later Greek historians, but also by Berosus. Although Cyrus only as commander-in-chief of the army of Cyaxares had with a Medo-Persian host taken Babylon, yet the tradition might speak of the conquering Persian as the lord of the Chaldean kingdom, without taking at all into account the Median chief king, whom in a brief time Cyrus the conqueror succeeded on the throne. In the later tradition of the Persians,^[53] from which all the historians known to us, with the exception of Berosus, have constructed their narrative, the Median rule over the Chaldean kingdom naturally sinks down into an insignificant place in relation to the independent government of the conqueror Cyrus and his people which was so soon to follow. The absence of all notice by Berosus, Herod., and Ctesias of the short Median reign can furnish no substantial ground for calling in question the statements of Xen. regarding Cyaxares, and of Daniel regarding the Median Darius, although all other witnesses for this were altogether of no force, which is indeed asserted, but has been proved by no one.^[54]

This result is not rendered doubtful by the fact that Xenophon calls this Median king Κυαξάρης and describes him as the son of Astyages, while, on the contrary, Daniel calls him Darjawesch (Darius) the son of Ahasuerus (Dan 9:1). The name Κυαξάρης is the Median Uwakshatra, and means autocrat;  ̓Αστυάγης corresponds to the Median Ajisdahâka, the name of the Median dynasty, meaning the biting serpent (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, p. 175f.). דּריושׁ, Δαρεῖος, the Persian Dârjawusch, rightly explained by Herod. vi. 98 by the word ἐρξείης, means the keeper, ruler; and אחשׁורושׁ, Ahasverus, as the name of Xerxes, in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions Kschajârschâ, is certainly formed, however one may interpret the name, from Kschaja, kingdom, the title of the Persian rulers, like the Median “Astyages.” The names Cyaxares and Darjawesch are thus related to each other, and are the paternal names of both dynasties, or the titles of the rulers. Xenophon has communicated to us the Median name and title of the last king; Daniel gives, as it appears, the Persian name and title which Cyaxares, as king of the united Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom, received and bore.
The circumstances reported in this chapter occurred, according to the statement in v. 29a, in the first of the two years' reign of Darius over Babylon. The matter and object of this report are related to the events recorded in Daniel 3. As in that chapter Daniel's companions are condemned to be cast into the fiery furnace on account of their transgression of the royal commandment enjoining them to fall down before the golden image that had been set up by Nebuchadnezzar, so here in this chapter Daniel himself is cast into the den of lions because of his transgression of the command enjoining that prayer was to be offered to no other god, but to the king only. The motive of the accusation is, in the one case as in the other, envy on account of the high position which the Jews had reached in the kingdom, and the object of it was the driving of the foreigners from their influential offices. The wonderful deliverance also of the faithful worshippers of God from the death which threatened them, with the consequences of that deliverance, are alike in both cases. But along with these similarities there appear also differences altogether corresponding to the circumstances, which show that historical facts are here related to us, and not the products of a fiction formed for a purpose. In Daniel 3 Nebuchadnezzar requires all the subjects of his kingdom to do homage to the image he had set up, and to worship the gods of his kingdom, and his command affords to the enemies of the Jews the wished-for opportunity of accusing the friends of Daniel of disobedience to the royal will. In Daniel 6, on the other hand, Darius is moved and induced by his great officers of state, whose design was to set Daniel aside, to issue the edict there mentioned, and he is greatly troubled when he sees the application of the edict to the case of Daniel. The character of Darius is fundamentally different from that of Nebuchadnezzar. The latter was a king distinguished by energy and activity, a perfect autocrat; the former, a weak prince and wanting in energy, who allowed himself to be guided and governed by his state officers. The command of Nebuchadnezzar to do homage to his gods is the simple consequence of the supremacy of the ungodly world-power; the edict extorted from Darius, on the contrary, is a deification of the world-power for the purpose of oppressing the true servants of God. The former command only places the gods of the world-power above the living God of heaven and earth; the latter edict seeks wholly to set aside the recognition of this God, if only for a time, by forbidding prayer to be offered to Him. This tyranny of the servants of the world-power is more intolerable than the tyranny of the world-ruler.
Thus the history recorded in this chapter shows, on the one side, how the ungodly world-power in its progressive development assumes an aspect continually more hostile toward the kingdom of God, and how with the decrease of its power of action its hatred against the true servants of God increases; and it shows, on the other side, how the Almighty God not only protects His worshippers against all the intrigues and machinations of the enemy, but also requites the adversaries according to their deeds. Daniel was protected against the rage of the lions, while his enemies were torn by them to pieces as soon as they were cast into the den.
This miracle of divine power is so vexatious to the modern critics, that Bleek, v. Leng., Hitzig, and others have spared no pains to overthrow the historical trustworthiness of the narrative, and represent it as a fiction written with a design. Not only does the prohibition to offer any petition to any god or man except to the king for a month “not find its equal in absurdity,” but the typology (Daniel an antitype of Joseph!) as well as the relation to Daniel 3 betray the fiction. Darius, it is true, does not show himself to be the type of Antiochus Epiphanes, also the command, Dan 6:26 and Dan 6:27, puts no restraint in reality on those concerned; but by the prohibition, Dan 6:7, the free exercise of their religion is undoubtedly attacked, and such hostility against the faith found its realization for the first time only and everywhere in the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes. Consequently, according to Hitzig, “the prohibition here is reflected from that of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. 1:41-50), and exaggerates it even to a caricature of it, for the purpose of placing clearly in the light the hatefulness of such tyranny.”
On the contrary, the advocates of the genuineness of Daniel have conclusively shown that the prohibition referred to, Dan 6:7, corresponds altogether to the religious views the Medo-Persians, while on the other hand it is out and out in contradiction to the circumstances of the times of the Maccabees. Thus, that the edict did not contemplate the removal or the uprooting of all religious worship except praying to the king, is clearly manifest not only in this, that the prohibition was to be enforced for one month only, but also in the intention which the magnates had in their eye, of thereby effecting certainly the overthrow of Daniel. The religious restraint which was thus laid upon the Jews for a month is very different from the continual rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish worship of God. Again, not only is the character of Darius and his relation to Daniel, as the opponents themselves must confess, such as not to furnish a type in which Antiochus Epiphanes may be recognised, but the enemies of Daniel do not really become types of this tyrant; for they seek his overthrow not from religious antipathy, but, moved only by vulgar envy, they seek to cast him down from his lofty position in the state. Thus also in this respect the historical point of view of the hostility to Daniel as representing Judaism, is fundamentally different from that of the war waged by Antiochus against Judaism, so that this narrative is destitute of every characteristic mark of the Seleucidan-Maccabee aera. Cf. The further representation of this difference by Kranichfeld, p. 229ff. - The views of Hitzig will be met in our exposition.

Chap. 6

Verses 1-10

Dan 6:1-10 (Hebrew_Bible_5:31-6:9)Transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede; appointment of the regency; envy of the satraps against Daniel, and their attempt to destroy him.
The narrative of this chapter is connected by the copula ו with the occurrence recorded in the preceding; yet Dan 6:1 does not, as in the old versions and with many interpreters, belong to the fifth chapter, but to the sixth, and forms not merely the bond of connection between the events narrated in the fifth and sixth chapters, but furnishes at the same time the historical basis for the following narrative, vv. 2-29 (vv. 1-28). The statement of the verse, that Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old, connects itself essentially with Dan 5:30, so far as it joins to the fulfilment, there reported, of the first part of the sacred writing interpreted by Daniel to Belshazzar, the fulfilment also the second part of that writing, but not so closely that the designation of time, in that same night (Dan 5:30), is applicable also to the fact mentioned in Daniel 6:1 (Dan 5:31), and as warranting the supposition that the transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede took place on the night in which Belshazzar was slain. Against such a chronological connection of these two verses, Dan 5:30 and 6:1 (Hebrew_Bible_5:31), we adduce in the second half of v. 1 (Hebrew_Bible_5:31) the statement of the age of Darius, in addition to the reasons already adduced. This is not to make it remarkable that, instead of the young mad debauchee (Belshazzar), with whom, according to prophecy, the Chaldean bondage of Israel was brought to an end, a man of mature judgment seized the reigns of government (Delitzsch); for this supposition fails not only with the hypothesis, already confuted, on which it rests, but is quite foreign to the text, for Darius in what follows does not show himself to be a ruler of matured experience. The remark of Kliefoth has much more in its favour, that by the statement of the age it is designed to be made prominent that the government of Darius the Mede did not last long, soon giving place to that of Cyrus the Persian, v. 29 (Hebrew_Bible_6:28), whereby the divine writing, that the Chaldean kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians, was fully accomplished. Regarding Darjawesch, Darius, see the preliminary remarks. The addition of מדיא (Kethiv) forms on the one hand a contrast to the expression “the king of the Chaldeans” (Dan 5:30), and on the other it points forward to פּרסיא, v. 29 (Dan 6:28); it, however, furnishes no proof that Daniel distinguished the Median kingdom from the Persian; for the kingdom is not called a Median kingdom, but it is only said of Darius that he was of Median descent, and, v. 29 (Hebrew_Bible_6:28), that Cyrus the Persian succeeded him in the kingdom. In קבּל, he received the kingdom, it is indicated that Darius did not conquer it, but received it from the conqueror. The כ in כבר intimates that the statement of the age rests only on a probable estimate.
Daniel 6:2 (Hebrew_Bible_6:1)
For the government of the affairs of the kingdom he had received, and especially for regulating the gathering in of the tribute of the different provinces, Darius placed 120 satraps over the whole kingdom, and over these satraps three chiefs, to whom the satraps should give an account. Regarding אחשׁדּרפּניּא (satraps), see at Dan 3:2. סרכין, plur. of סרך; סרכא has in the Semitic no right etymology, and is derived from the Aryan, from the Zend. sara, çara, head, with the syllable ach. In the Targg., in use for the Hebr. שׁטר, it denotes a president, of whom the three named in Dan 6:2 (Hebrew_Bible_v_1), by their position over the satraps, held the rank of chief governors or ministers, for which the Targg. use סרכן, while סרכין in Dan 6:8 denotes all the military and civil prefects of the kingdom.
The modern critics have derived from this arrangement for the government of the kingdom made by Darius an argument against the credibility of the narrative, which Hitzig has thus formulated: - According to Xenophon, Cyrus first appointed satraps over the conquered regions, and in all to the number of six (Cyrop. viii. 6, §1, 7); according to the historian Herodotus, on the contrary (iii. 89ff.), Darius Hystaspes first divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies for the sake of the administration of the taxes. With this statement agrees the number of the peoples mentioned on the Inscription at Bisutun; and if elsewhere (Insc. J. and Nakschi Rustam) at least twenty-four and also twenty-nine are mentioned, we know that several regions or nations might be placed under one satrap (Herod. l.c.). The kingdom was too small for 120 satraps in the Persian sense. On the other hand, one may not appeal to the 127 provinces (מדינות) of king Ahasuerus = Xerxes (Est 1:1; Est 9:30); for the ruler of the מדינה is not the same as (Est 8:9) the satrap. In Est 3:12 it is the פּחה, as e.g., of the province of Judah (Hag 1:1; Mal 1:8; Neh 5:14). It is true there were also greater provinces, such e.g., as of Media and Babylonia (Ezr 6:2; Dan 2:49), and perhaps also pecha (פּחה) might be loosely used to designate a satrap (Ezr 5:3; Ezr 6:6); yet the 127 provinces were not such, nor is a satrap interchangeably called a pecha. When Daniel thus mentions so large a number of satraps, it is the Grecian satrapy that is apparently before his mind. Under Seleucus Nicator there were seventy-two of these.
The foundation of this argument, viz., that Darius Hystaspes, “according to the historian Herodotus,” first divided the kingdom into satrapies, and, of course, also that the statement by Xenophon of the sending of six satraps into the countries subdued by Cyrus is worthy of no credit, is altogether unhistorical, resting only on the misinterpretation and distortion of the testimonies adduced. Neither Herodotus nor Xenophon represents the appointment of satraps by Cyrus and Darius as an entirely new and hitherto untried method of governing the kingdom; still less does Xenophon say that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the subjugated countries. It is true he mentions by name (Dan 8:6-7) only six satraps, but he mentions also the provinces into which they were sent, viz., one to Arabia, and the other five to Asia Minor, with the exception, however, of Cilicia, Cyprus, and Paphlagonia, to which he did not send any Πέρσας σατράπας, because they had voluntarily joined him in fighting against Babylon. Hence it is clear as noonday that Xenophon speaks only of those satraps whom Cyrus sent to Asia Minor and to Arabia, and says nothing of the satrapies of the other parts of the kingdom, such as Judea, Syria, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, etc., so that no one can affirm that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the conquered countries. As little does Herodotus, l.c., say that Darius Hystaspes was the first to introduce the government of the kingdom by satraps: he only says that Darius Hystaspes divided the whole kingdom into twenty ἀρχαί which were called σατραπηΐ́αι, appointed ἄρχοντες, and regulated the tribute; for he numbers these satrapies simply with regard to the tribute with which each was chargeable, while under Cyrus and Cambyses no tribute was imposed, but presents only were contributed. Consequently, Herod. speaks only of a regulation for the administration of the different provinces of the kingdom for the special purpose of the certain payment of the tribute which Darius Hystaspes had appointed. Thus the historian M. Duncker also understands this statement; for he says (Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 891) regarding it: - ”About the year 515 Darius established fixed government-districts in place of the vice-regencies which Cyrus and Cambyses had appointed and changed according to existing exigencies. He divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies.” Then at p. 893 he further shows how this division also of the kingdom by Darius was not fixed unchangeably, but was altered according to circumstances. Hitzig's assertion, that the kingdom was too small for 120 satrapies in the Persian sense, is altogether groundless. From Est 8:9 and Est 8:3 :19 it follows not remotely, that not satraps but the פחות represent the מדינות. In Dan 8:9 satraps, פחות, and המדינות שׂרי are named, and in Dan 3:12 they are called the king's satraps and מדינה על אשׁר פחות. On Est 3:12 Bertheau remarks: “The pechas, who are named along with the satraps, are probably the officers of the circles within the separate satrapies;” and in Dan 8:9 satraps and pechas are named as המדינות שׂרי, i.e., presidents, superintendents of the 127 provinces of the kingdom from India to Ethiopia, from which nothing can be concluded regarding the relation of the satraps to the pechas. Berth. makes the same remark on Ezr 8:36 : - ”The relation of the king's satraps to the pachavoth abar nahara (governors on this side the river) we cannot certainly determine; the former were probably chiefly military rulers, and the latter government officials.” For the assertion that pecha is perhaps loosely used for satrap, but that interchangeably a satrap cannot be called a pecha, rests, unproved, on the authority of Hitzig.
From the book of Esther it cannot certainly be proved that so many satraps were placed over the 127 provinces into which Xerxes divided the kingdom, but only that these provinces were ruled by satraps and pechas. But the division of the whole kingdom into 127 provinces nevertheless shows that the kingdom might have been previously divided under Darius the Mede into 120 provinces, whose prefects might be called in this verse אחשׁדּרפּנין, i.e., kschatrapavan, protectors of the kingdom or of the provinces, since this title is derived from the Sanscrit and Old Persian, and is not for the first time used under Darius Hystaspes of Cyrus. The Median Darius might be led to appoint one satrap, i.e., a prefect clothed with military power, over each district of his kingdom, since the kingdom was but newly conquered, that he might be able at once to suppress every attempt at insurrection among the nations coming under his dominion. The separation of the civil government, particularly in the matter of the raising of tribute, from the military government, or the appointment of satraps οἱ τὸν δασμὸν λαμβάνοντες κ.τ.λ., along with the φρούραρχοι and the χιλίαρχοι, for the protection of the boundaries of the kingdom, was first adopted, according to Xenophon l.c., by Cyrus, who next appointed satraps for the provinces of Asia Minor and of Arabia, which were newly brought under his sceptre; while in the older provinces which had formed the Babylonian kingdom, satrapies which were under civil and military rulers already existed from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; cf. Dan 2:32. This arrangement, then, did not originate with Darius Hystaspes in the dividing of the whole kingdom into twenty satrapies mentioned by Herodotus. Thus the statements of Herodotus and Xenophon harmonize perfectly with those of the Scriptures, and every reason for regarding with suspicion the testimony of Daniel wholly fails.
Daniel 6:2-3 (Hebrew_Bible_6:1-2)
According to v. 2, Darius not only appointed 120 satraps for all the provinces and districts of his kingdom, but he also placed the whole body of the satraps under a government consisting of three presidents, who should reckon with the individual satraps. עלּא, in the Targg. עילא, the height, with the adverb מן, higher than, above. טעמא יהב, to give reckoning, to account. נזק, part. of נזק, to suffer loss, particularly with reference to the revenue. This triumvirate, or higher authority of three, was also no new institution by Darius, but according to Dan 5:7, already existed in the Chaldean kingdom under Belshazzar, and was only continued by Darius; and the satraps or the district rulers of the several provinces of the kingdom were subordinated to them. Daniel was one of the triumvirate. Since it is not mentioned that Darius first appointed him to this office, we may certainly conclude that he only confirmed him in the office to which Belshazzar had promoted him.
Daniel 6:4 (Hebrew_Bible_6:3)
In this situation Daniel excelled all the presidents and satraps. אתנצּח, to show one's self prominent. Regarding his excellent spirit, cf. Dan 5:12. On that account the king thought to set him over the whole kingdom, i.e., to make him chief ruler of the kingdom, to make him למּלך משׁנה (Est 10:3). עשׁית for עשׁת, intrans. form of the Peal, to think, to consider about anything. This intention of the king stirred up the envy of the other presidents and of the satraps, so that they sought to find an occasion against Daniel, that he might be cast down. עלּה, an occasion; here, as αἰτία, Joh 18:38; Mat 27:37, an occasion for impeachment, מלוּתא מצּד, on the part of the kingdom, i.e., not merely in a political sense, but with regard to his holding a public office in the kingdom, with reference to his service. But since they could find no occasion against Daniel in this respect, for he was מהימן, faithful, to be relied on, and no fault could be charged against him, they sought occasion against him on the side of his particular religion, in the matter of the law of his God, i.e., in his worship of God.
Daniel 6:7 (Hebrew_Bible_6:6)
For this end they induced the king to sanction and ratify with all the forms of law a decree, which they contrived as the result of the common consultation of all the high officers, that for thirty days no man in the kingdom should offer a prayer to any god or man except to the king, on pain of being cast into the den of lions, and to issue this command as a law of the Medes and Persians, i.e., as an irrevocable law. הרגּשׁ, from רגשׁ to make a noise, to rage, in Aphel c. על, to assail one in a tumultuous manner, i.e., to assault him. “These presidents and satraps (princes),” v. 7 (Hebrew_Bible_6:6), in v. 6 (Hebrew_Bible_6:5) designated “these men,” and not the whole body of the presidents and satraps, are, according to v. 5 (Hebrew_Bible_6:4), the special enemies of Daniel, who wished to overthrow him. It was only a definite number of them who may have had occasion to be dissatisfied with Daniel's service. The words of the text do not by any means justify the supposition that the whole council of state assembled, and in corpore presented themselves before the king (Hävernick); for neither in v. 5 (Hebrew_Bible_6:4) nor in v. 7 (Hebrew_Bible_6:6) is mention made of all (כּל) the presidents and satraps. From the fact also that these accusers of Daniel, v. 25 (Hebrew_Bible_6:24), represent to the king that the decree they had framed was the result of a consultation of all the prefects of the kingdom, it does not follow that all the satraps and chief officers of the whole kingdom had come to Babylon in order, as Dereser thinks, to lay before the three overseers the annual account of their management of the affairs of their respective provinces, on which occasion they took counsel together against Daniel; from which circumstance Hitzig and others derive an argument against the historical veracity of the narrative. The whole connection of the narrative plainly shows that the authors of the accusation deceived the king. The council of state, or the chief court, to which all the satraps had to render an account, consisted of three men, of whom Daniel was one. But Daniel certainly was not called to this consultation; therefore their pretence, that all “presidents of the kingdom” had consulted on the matter, was false. Besides, they deceived the king in this, that they concealed from him the intention of the decree, or misled him regarding it. אתיעט means not merely that they consulted together, but it includes the result of the consultation: they were of one mind (Hitz.).
Daniel 6:8 (Hebrew_Bible_6:7) מלוּתא סרכי כּל does not denote the three presidents named in v. 3 (Hebrew_Bible_v_2), but all the prefects of the kingdom, of whom there were four classes, as is acknowledged by Chr. B. Michaelis, though Hitz. opposes this view. Such an interpretation is required by the genitive מלוּתא, and by the absence of כל, or at least of the copula ו, before the official names that follow; while the objection, that by this interpretation just the chief presidents who are principally concerned are omitted (Hitz.), is without foundation, for they are comprehended under the word סגניּא. If we compare the list of the four official classes here mentioned with that of the great officers of state under Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 3:2, the naming of the סגניּא before the אחשׁדּרפּניּא, satraps) (which in Dan 3:2 they are named after them) shows that the סגניּא are here great officers to whom the satraps were subordinate, and that only the three סרכין could be meant to whom the satraps had to render an account. Moreover, the list of four names is divided by the copula  וinto two classes. To the first class belong the סגניּא and the satraps; to the second the הדּברין, state councillors, and the פּחותא, civil prefects of the provinces. Accordingly, we will scarcely err of by סגניּא we understand the members of the highest council of state, by הדּבריּא the ministers or members of the (lower)state council, and by the satraps and pechas the military and civil rulers of the provinces. This grouping of the names confirms, consequently, the general interpretation of the מלוּתא סרכי כּל, for the four classes named constitute the entire chief prefecture of the kingdom. This interpretation is not made questionable by the fact that the סרכין had in the kingdom of Darius a different position from that they held in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar; for in this respect each kingdom had its own particular arrangement, which underwent manifold changes according to the times.
The infinitive clause וגו קים לקיּמא presents the conclusion arrived at by the consultation. מלכּא is not the genitive to קים, but according to the accents and the context is the subject of the infinitive clause: that the king should appoint a statute, not that a royal statute should be appointed. According to the analogy of the pronoun and of the dimin. noun, the accusative is placed before the subject-genitive, as e.g. Isa 20:1; Isa 5:24, so as not to separate from one another the קים קיּמא (to establish a statute) and the אסר תּקּפה (to make a firm decree). Dan 6:9 requires this construction. It is the king who issues the decree, and not his chief officers of state, as would have been the case if מלכּא were construed as the genitive to קים ot evit. קים, manifesto, ordinance, command. The command is more accurately defined by the parallel clause אסר תּקּפה, to make fast, i.e., to decree a prohibition. The officers wished that the king should issue a decree which should contain a binding prohibition, i.e., it should forbid, on pain of death, any one for the space of thirty days, i.e., for a month, to offer any prayer to a god or man except to the king. בּעוּ is here not any kind of request or supplication, but prayer, as the phrase v. 14 (Hebrew_Bible_6:13), בּעוּתהּ בּעא, directing his prayer, shows. The word ואנשׁ does not prove the contrary, for the heathen prayed also to men (cf. Dan 2:46); and here the clause, except to the king, places together god and man, so that the king might not observe that the prohibition was specially directed against Daniel.
Daniel 6:9 (Hebrew_Bible_6:8)
In order that they may more certainly gain their object, they request the king to put the prohibition into writing, so that it might not be changed, i.e., might not be set aside or recalled, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, in conformity with which an edict once emitted by the king in all due form, i.e., given in writing and sealed with the king's seal, was unchangeable; cf. Dan 6:15 and Est 8:8; Est 1:19. תעדּא לא דּי, which cannot pass away, i.e., cannot be set aside, is irrevocable. The relative דּי refers to דּת, by which we are not to understand, with v. Lengerke, the entire national law of the Medes and Persians, as if this were so unalterable that no law could be disannulled or changed according to circumstances, but דּת is every separate edict of the king emitted in the form of law. This remains unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honoured as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change.
Daniel 6:10 (Hebrew_Bible_6:9)
The king carried out the proposal. ואסרא is explicative: the writing, namely, the prohibition (spoken of); for this was the chief matter, therefore אסרא alone is here mentioned, and not also קים (edict), Dan 6:8.
The right interpretation of the subject-matter and of the foundation of the law which was sanctioned by the king, sets aside the objection that the prohibition was a senseless “bedlamite” law (v. Leng.), which instead of regulating could only break up all society. The law would be senseless only if the prohibition had related to every petition in common life in the intercourse of civil society. But it only referred to the religious sphere of prayer, as an evidence of worshipping God; and if the king was venerated as an incarnation of the deity, then it was altogether reasonable in its character. And if we consider that the intention of the law, which they concealed from the king, was only to effect Daniel's overthrow, the law cannot be regarded as designed to press Parsism or the Zend religion on all the nations of the kingdom, or to put an end to religious freedom, or to make Parsism the world-religion. Rather, as Kliefoth has clearly and justly shown, “the object of the law was only to bring about the general recognition of the principle that the king was the living manifestation of all the gods, not only of the Median and Persian, but also of the Babylonian and Lydian, and all the gods of the conquered nations. It is therefore also not correct that the king should be represented as the incarnation of Ormuzd. The matter is to be explained not from Parsism alone, but from heathenism in general. According to the general fundamental principle of heathenism, the ruler is the son, the representative, the living manifestation of the people's gods, and the world-ruler thus the manifestation of all the gods of the nations that were subject to him. Therefore all heathen world-rulers demanded from the heathen nations subdued by them, that religious homage should be rendered to them in the manner peculiar to each nation. Now that is what was here sought. All the nations subjected to the Medo-Persian kingdom were required not to abandon their own special worship rendered to their gods, but in fact to acknowledge that the Medo-Persian world-ruler Darius was also the son and representative of their national gods. For this purpose they must for the space of thirty days present their petitions to their national gods only in him as their manifestation. And the heathen nations could all do this without violating their consciences; for since in their own manner they served the Median king as the son of their gods, they served their gods in him. The Jews, however, were not in the condition of being able to regard the king as a manifestation of Jehovah, and thus for them there was involved in the law truly a religious persecution, although the heathen king and his satraps did not thereby intend religious persecution, but regarded such disobedience as only culpable obstinacy and political rebellion.”^[55]
The religious persecution to which this law subjected the Jews was rendered oppressive by this: that the Jews were brought by it into this situation, that for a whole month they must either omit prayer to God, and thus sin against their God, or disregard the king's prohibition. The satraps had thus rightly formed their plan. Since without doubt they were aware of Daniel's piety, they could by this means hope with certainty to gain their object in his overthrow. There is no ground for rejecting the narrative in the fact that Darius, without any suspicion, gave their contrivance the sanction of law. We do not need, on the contrary, to refer to the indolence of so many kings, who permit themselves to be wholly guided by their ministers, although the description we have of Cyaxares II by Xenophon accords very well with this supposition; for from the fact that Darius appears to have sanctioned the law without further consideration about it, it does not follow that he did not make inquiry concerning the purpose of the plan formed by the satraps. The details of the intercourse of the satraps with the king concerning the occasion and object of the law Daniel has not recorded, for they had no significance in relation to the main object of the narrative. If the satraps represented to the king the intention of compelling, by this law, all the nationalities that were subject to his kingdom to recognise his royal power and to prove their loyalty, then the propriety of this design would so clearly recommend itself to him, that without reflection he gave it the sanction of law.

Verses 11-25

Dan 6:11-25 (Hebrew_Bible_6:10-24)Daniel's offence against the law; his accusation, condemnation, and miraculous deliverance from the den of lions; and the punishment of his accusers.
The satraps did not wait long for Daniel's expected disregard of the king's prohibition. It was Daniel's custom, on bended knees, three times a day to offer prayer to his God in the upper chamber of his house, the window thereof being open towards Jerusalem. He continued this custom even after the issuing of the edict; for a discontinuance of it on account of that law would have been a denying of the faith and a sinning against God. On this his enemies had reckoned. They secretly watched him, and immediately reported his disregard of the king's command. In Dan 6:10 the place where he was wont to pray is more particularly described, in order that it might be shown how they could observe him. In the upper chamber of his house (עלּית, Hebr. עליּה, 1Ki 17:19; 2Sa 19:1), which was wont to be resorted to when one wished to be undisturbed, e.g., wished to engage in prayer (cf. Act 1:13; Act 10:9), the windows were open, i.e., not closed with lattice-work (cf. Eze 40:16), opposite to, i.e., in the direction of, Jerusalem. להּ does not refer to Daniel: he had opened windows, but to לביתהּ: his house had open windows. If להּ referred to Daniel, then the הוּא following would be superfluous. The custom of turning in prayer toward Jerusalem originated after the building of the temple at Jerusalem as the dwelling-place of Jehovah; cf. 1Ki 8:33, 1Ki 8:35; Psa 5:8; Psa 28:2. The offering of prayer three times a day, - namely, at the third, sixth, and ninth hour, i.e., at the time of the morning and the evening sacrifices and at mid-day, - was not first introduced by the men of the Great Synagogue, to whom the uncritical rabbinical tradition refers all ancient customs respecting the worship of God, nor is the opinion of v. Leng., Hitz., and others, that it is not of later origin than the time of the Median Darius, correct; but its origin is to be traced back to the times of David, for we find the first notice of it in Psa 55:18. If Daniel thus continued to offer prayer daily (מודא = מהודא, Dan 2:23) at the open window, directing his face toward Jerusalem, after the promulgation of the law, just as he had been in the habit of doing before it, then there was neither ostentation nor pharisaic hypocrisy, nor scorn and a tempting of God, as Kirmiss imagines; but his conduct was the natural result of his fear of God and of his religion, under the influence of which he offered prayers not to make an outward show, for only secret spies could observe him when so engaged. דּי כּל־קבל does not mean altogether so as (Rosenmüller, v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but, as always, on this account because, because. Because he always did thus, so now he continues to do it.
Daniel 6:12 (Hebrew_Bible_6:11)
When Daniel's enemies had secretly observed him prayer, they rushed into the house while he was offering his supplications, that they might apprehend him in the very act and be able to bring him to punishment. That the act of watching him is not particularly mentioned, since it is to be gathered from the context, does not make the fact itself doubtful, if one only does not arbitrarily, with Hitzig, introduce all kinds of pretences for throwing suspicion on the narrative; as e.g., by inquiring whether the 122 satraps had placed themselves in ambush; why Daniel had not guarded against them, had not shut himself in; and the lie. הרגּישׁ, as Dan 6:7, to rush forward, to press in eagerly, here “shows the greatness of the zeal with which they performed their business” (Kran.).
Daniel 6:13-14 (Hebrew_Bible_6:12-13)
They immediately accused him to the king. Reminding the king of the promulgation of the prohibition, they showed him that Daniel, one of the captive Jews, had not regarded the king's command, but had continued during the thirty days to pray to his own God, and thus had violated the law. In this accusation they laid against Daniel, we observe that his accusers do not describe him as one standing in office near to the king, but only as one of a foreign nation, one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, in order that they may thereby bring his conduct under the suspicion of being a political act of rebellion against the royal authority.
Daniel 6:15 (Hebrew_Bible_6:14)
But the king, who knew and highly valued (cf. v. 2 [Hebrew_Bible_v_1]) Daniel's fidelity to the duties of his office, was so sore displeased by the accusation, that he laboured till the going down of the sun to effect his deliverance. The verb באשׁ has an intransitive meaning: to be evil, to be displeased, and is not joined into one sentence with the subject מלכּא, which stands here absolute; and the subject to עלוהי באשׁ is undefined: it, namely, the matter displeased him; cf. Gen 21:11. בּל שׂם corresponds to the Hebr. לב שׁית, Pro 22:17, to lay to heart. The word בּל, cor, mens, is unknown in the later Chaldee, but is preserved in the Syr. bālā̀ and the Arab. bâlun.
Daniel 6:16-17 (Hebrew_Bible_6:15-16)
When the king could not till the going down of the sun resolve on passing sentence against Daniel, about this time his accusers gathered themselves together into his presence for the purpose of inducing him to carry out the threatened punishment, reminding him that, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, every prohibition and every command which the king decreed (יהקים), i.e., issued in a legal form, could not be changed, i.e., could not be recalled. There being no way of escape out of the difficulty for the king, he had to give the command that the punishment should be inflicted, and Daniel was cast into the den of lions, v. 17 (Hebrew_Bible_6:16). On the Aphel היתיו, and the pass. from (Dan 6:17) היתית, see at Dan 3:13. The execution of the sentence was carried out, according to Oriental custom, on the evening of the day in which the accusation was made; this does not, however, imply that it was on the evening in which, at the ninth hour, he had prayed, as Hitzig affirms, in order that he may thereby make the whole matter improbable. In giving up Daniel to punishment, the king gave expression to the wish, “May thy God whom thou servest continually, deliver thee!” not “He will deliver thee;” for Darius could not have this confidence, but he may have had the feeble hope of the possibility of the deliverance which from his heart he wished, inasmuch as he may have heard of the miracles of the Almighty God whom Daniel served in the days of Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniel 6:18 (Hebrew_Bible_6:17)
After Daniel had been thrown into the lions' den, its mouth was covered with a flat stone, and the stone was sealed with the king's seal and that of the great officers of state, that nothing might change or be changed (בּּדּניּאל צבוּ) concerning Daniel (צבוּ, affair, matter), not that the device against Daniel might not be frustrated (Häv., v. Leng., Maur., Klief.). This thought required the stat. emphat. צנוּתא, and also does not correspond with the application of a double seal. The old translator Theodot. is correct in his rendering: ὅπως μὴ ἀλλοιωθῇ πρᾶγμα ἐν τῷ Δανιήλ, and the lxx paraphrasing: ὅπως μὴ απ ̓αὐτῶν (μεγιστάνων) αρθῇ ὁ Δανιήλ, ἤ ὁ βασιλεύς αὐτὸν ἀνασπάσῃ ἐκ τοῦ λακκοῦ. Similarly also Ephr. Syr. and others.
The den of lions is designated by גּבּא, which the Targg. use for the Hebr. בור, a cistern. From this v. Leng., Maur., and Hitzig infer that the writer had in view a funnel-shaped cistern dug out in the ground, with a moderately small opening or mouth from above, which could be covered with a stone, so that for this one night the lions had to be shut in, while generally no stone lay on the opening. The pit also into which Joseph, the type of Daniel, was let down was a cistern (Gen 37:24), and the mouth of the cistern was usually covered with a stone (Gen 29:3; Lam 3:53). It can hence scarcely be conceived how the lions, over which no angel watched, could have remained in such a subterranean cavern covered with a stone. “The den must certainly have been very capacious if, as it appears, 122 men with their wives and children could have been thrown into it immediately after one another (v. 25 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 6:24]]]); but this statement itself only shows again the deficiency of every view of the matter,” - and thus the whole history is a fiction fabricated after the type of the history of Joseph! But these critics who speak thus have themselves fabricated the idea of the throwing into the den of 122 men with women and children - for the text states no number - in order that they might make the whole narrative appear absurd.
We have no account by the ancients of the construction of lions' dens. Ge. Höst, in his work on Fez and Morocco, p. 77, describes the lions' dens as they have been found in Morocco. According to his account, they consist of a large square cavern under the earth, having a partition-wall in the middle of it, which is furnished with a door, which the keeper can open and close from above. By throwing in food they can entice the lions from the one chamber into the other, and then, having shut the door, they enter the vacant space for the purpose of cleaning it. The cavern is open above, its mouth being surrounded by a wall of a yard and a half high, over which one can look down into the den. This description agrees perfectly with that which is here given in the text regarding the lions' den. Finally, גּבּא does not denote common cisterns. In Jer 41:7, Jer 41:9, גּוּבא (Hebr. בור) is a subterranean chamber into which seventy dead bodies were cast; in Isa 14:15, the place of Sheol is called גּוב. No reason, therefore, exists for supposing that it is a funnel-formed cistern. The mouth (פּוּם) of the den is not its free opening above by which one may look down into it, but an opening made in its side, through which not only the lions were brought into it, but by which also the keepers entered for the purpose of cleansing the den and of attending to the beasts, and could reach the door in the partition-wall (cf. Höst, p. 270). This opening was covered with a great flat stone, which was sealed, the free air entering to the lions from above. This also explains how, according to Dan 6:20 ff., the king was able to converse with Daniel before the removal of the stone (namely, by the opening above).
Daniel 6:19-21 (Hebrew_Bible_6:18-20)Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were any of his concubines brought before him; and this sleep went from him. The king spent a sleepless night in sorrow on account of Daniel. טות, used adverbially, in fasting, i.e., without partaking of food in the evening. דּחוה, concubina; cf. The Arab. dahâ and dahâ=, subigere faeminam, and Gesen. Thes. p. 333. On the following morning (v. 20 [Hebrew_Bible_6:19]) the king rose early, at the dawn of day, and went to the den of lions, and with lamentable voice called to him feebly hoping that Daniel might be delivered by his God whom he continually served. Daniel answered the king, thereby showing that he had been preserved; whereupon the king was exceeding glad. The future or imperf. יקוּם (Dan 6:19) is not to be interpreted with Kranichfeld hypothetically, he thought to rise early, seeing he did actually rise early, but is used instead of the perf. to place the clause in relation to the following, meaning: the king, as soon as he arose at morning dawn, went hastily by the early light. בּנגהא, at the shining of the light, serves for a nearer determination of the בּשׁפרפּרא, at the morning dawn, namely, as soon as the first rays of the rising sun appeared. The predicate the living God is occasioned by the preservation of life, which the king regarded as possible, and probably was made known to the king in previous conversations with Daniel; cf. Psa 42:3; Psa 84:3; 1Sa 17:36, etc.
Daniel 6:22-24 (Hebrew_Bible_6:21-23)
In his answer Daniel declares his innocence, which God had recognised, and on that account had sent His angel (cf. Psa 34:8; Psa 91:11.) to shut the mouths of the lions; cf. Heb 10:33. ואף, and also (concluding from the innocence actually testified to by God) before the king, i.e., according to the king's judgment, he had done nothing wrong or hurtful. By his transgression of the edict he had not done evil against the king's person. This Daniel could the more certainly say, the more he perceived how the king was troubled and concerned about his preservation, because in Daniel's transgression he himself had seen no conspiracy against his person, but only fidelity toward his own God. The king hereupon immediately gave command that he should be brought out of the den of lions. The Aph. הנסקה and the Hoph. הסּק, to not come from נסק, but from סלק; the  נis merely compensative. סלק, to mount up, Aph. to bring out; by which, however, we are not to understand a being drawn up by ropes through the opening of the den from above. The bringing out was by the opened passage in the side of the den, for which purpose the stone with the seals was removed. To make the miracle of his preservation manifest, and to show the reason of it, v. 24 (Dan 6:23) states that Daniel was found without any injury, because he had trusted in his God.
Daniel 6:25 (Hebrew_Bible_6:24)
But now the destruction which the accusers of Daniel thought to bring upon him fell upon themselves. The king commanded that they should be cast into the den of lions, where immediately, before they had reached the bottom, they were seized and torn to pieces by the lions. On קרצוהי אכל see at Dan 3:8. By the accusers we are not (with Hitzig) to think of the 120 satraps together with the two chief presidents, but only of a small number of the special enemies of Daniel who had concerned themselves with the matter. The condemning to death of the wives and children along with the men was in accordance with Persian custom, as is testified by Herodotus, iii. 119, Amm. Marcell. xxiii. 6. 81, and also with the custom of the Macedonians in the case of treason (Curtius, vi. ii.), but was forbidden in the law of Moses; cf. Deu 24:16.

Verses 26-28

Dan 6:26-28 (Hebrew_Bible_6:25-27)The consequences of this occurrence.
As Nebuchadnezzar, after the wonderful deliverance of Daniel's friends from the burning fiery furnace, issued an edict to all the nations of his kingdom forbidding them on pain of death from doing any injury to these men of God (Dan 3:29), so now Darius, in consequence of this wonderful preservation of Daniel in the den of lions, gave forth an edict commanding all the nations of his whole kingdom to fear and reverence Daniel's God. But as Nebuchadnezzar by his edict, so also Darius, did not depart from the polytheistic standpoint. Darius acknowledged the God of Daniel, indeed, as the living God, whose kingdom and dominion were everlasting, but not as the only true God, and he commanded Him to be reverenced only as a God who does wonders in heaven and on earth, without prejudice to the honour of his own gods and of the gods of his subjects. Both of these kings, it is true, raised the God of Judea above all other gods, and praised the everlasting duration of His dominion (see Dan 3:29, 32 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 4:2]]]f., and Daniel 3:31 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 3:28]]]ff., 6:27 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 6:26]]]f.), but they did not confess Him as the one only God. This edict, the, shows neither the conversion of Darius to the worship of the God of the Jews, nor does it show intolerance toward the gods of his subjects. On v. 26 (Dan 6:25) cf. Daniel 3:31 (Dan 4:1). As Nebuchadnezzar, so also Darius, regarded his kingdom as a world-kingdom. On 27a (Dan 6:26) cf. Dan 3:29. The reverence which all the nations were commanded to show to Daniel's God is described in the same words as is the fear and reverence which the might and greatness of Nebuchadnezzar inspired in all the nations that were subject to him (Dan 5:19), which has led Hitzig justly to remark, that the words לאלההּ פּלחין להון (they must worship his God) are not used. God is described as living (cf. v. 21 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 6:20]]) and eternal, with which is connected the praise of the everlasting duration of His dominion, and of His rule in heaven and on earth; cf. Dan 2:44 and 3:33 (Dan 4:3). The דּי after מלכוּתהּ is not a conjunction, but is the relative, and the expression briefly denotes that His kingdom is a kingdom which is not destroyed; cf. Daniel 4:31 (Dan 4:34). סופא עד, to the end - not merely of all heathen kingdoms which arise on the earth, i.e., to their final destruction by the kingdom of the Messiah, Dan 2:44 (Kranichfeld), for there is no thought of the Messiah, Dan 2:44 (Kranichfeld), for there is no thought of the Messianic kingdom here at all, but to the end of all things, to eternity. In v. 28 (Dan 6:27) this God is lauded as the deliverer and wonder-worker, because in the case of Daniel He had showed Himself as such; cf. Daniel 3:32 (Dan 4:2). יד מן, from the hand, i.e., from the power of; cf. Psa 22:21.

Verse 29

Dan 6:29 (Hebrew_Bible_6:28)
Verse 29 (Hebrew_Bible_v. 28) closes the narrative in the same way as that regarding the deliverance of Daniel's friends (Dan 3:30); only it is further stated, that Daniel continued in office till the reign of the Persian Cyrus. By the pronoun דּנה, this Daniel, the identity of the person is accentuated: the same Daniel, whom his enemies wished to destroy, prospered. From the repetition of בּמלכוּת before כּורשׁ it does not follow that Daniel separates the Persian kingdom from the Median; for מלכוּ here does not mean kingdom, but dominion, i.e., reign. The succession of the reign of Cyrus the Persian to that of Darius the Median does not show the diversity of the two kingdoms, but only that the rulers of the kingdom were of different races.

Chap. 7

Verse 1

The Vision of the Four World-Kingdoms; the Judgment; and the Kingdom of the Holy God

After presenting to view (Daniel 3-6) in concrete delineation, partly in the prophetically significant experiences of Daniel and his friends, and partly in the typical events which befell the world-rulers, the position and conduct of the representatives of the world-power in relation to the worshippers of the living God, there follows in this chapter the record of a vision seen by Daniel in the first year of Belshazzar. In this vision the four world-monarchies which were shown to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream in the form of an image are represented under the symbol of beasts; and there is a further unfolding not only of the nature and character of the four successive world-kingdoms, but also of the everlasting kingdom of God established by the judgment of the world-kingdoms. With this vision, recorded like the preceding chapters in the Chaldean language, the first part of this work, treating of the development of the world-power in its four principal forms, is brought to a conclusion suitable to its form and contents.
This chapter is divided, according to its contents, into two equal portions. Dan 7:1-14 contain the vision, and Dan 7:15-28 its interpretation. After an historical introduction it is narrated how Daniel saw (Dan 7:2-8) four great beasts rise up one after another out of the storm-tossed sea; then the judgment of God against the fourth beast and the other beasts (Dan 7:9-12); and finally (Dan 7:13, Dan 7:14), the delivering up of the kingdom over all nations to the Son of man, who came with the clouds of heaven. Being deeply moved (Dan 7:15) by what he saw, the import of the vision is first made known to him in general by an angel (Dan 7:16-18), and then more particularly by the judgment (Dan 7:19-26) against the fourth beast, and its destruction, and by the setting up of the kingdom of the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:27). The narrative of the vision is brought to a close by a statement of the impression made by this divine revelation on the mind of the prophet (Dan 7:28).^[56]

Dan 7:1
The time here indicated, “in the first year of Belshazzar,” which cannot, as is evident, mean “shortly before the reign of Belshazzar” (Hitz.), but that Daniel received the following revelation in the course of the first year of the reign of this king, stands related to the contest of the revelation. This vision accords not only in many respects with the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2), but has the same subject. This subject, however, the representation of the world-power in its principal forms, is differently given in the two chapters. In Daniel 2 it is represented according to its whole character as an image of a man whose different parts consist of different metals, and in Daniel 7 under the figure of four beasts which arise one after the other out of the sea. In the former its destruction is represented by a stone breaking the image in pieces, while in the latter it is effected by a solemn act of judgment. This further difference also is to be observed, that in this chapter, the first, but chiefly the fourth world-kingdom, in its development and relation to the people of God, is much more clearly exhibited than in Daniel 2. These differences have their principal reason in the difference of the recipients of the divine revelation: Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, saw this power in its imposing greatness and glory; while Daniel, the prophet of God, saw it in its opposition to God in the form of ravenous beasts of prey. Nebuchadnezzar had his dream in the second year of his reign, when he had just founded his world-monarchy; while Daniel had his vision of the world-kingdoms and of the judgment against them in the first year of Belshazzar, i.e., Evilmerodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, when with the death of the golden head of the world-monarchy its glory began to fade, and the spirit of its opposition to God became more manifest. This revelation was made to the prophet in a dream-vision by night upon his bed. Compare Dan 2:28. Immediately thereafter Daniel wrote down the principal parts of the dream, that it might be publicly proclaimed - the sum of the things (מלּין ראשׁ) which he had seen in the dream. אמר, to say, to relate, is not opposed to כּתב, to write, but explains it: by means of writing down the vision he said, i.e., reported, the chief contents of the dream, omitting secondary things, e.g., the minute description of the beasts.

Verses 2-3

With Dan 7:2 Daniel begins his written report: “Daniel began and said,” introduces the matter. חזוי עם־ליליא, visions in (during)the night, cf. Dan 2:19. Dan 7:2 and Dan 7:3 describe the scene in general. The four winds of heaven break loose upon the great sea, and rage fiercely, so that four great beasts, each diverse from the others, arise out of its bosom. The great sea is not the Mediterranean (Berth., Ges., Hitz., Ewald), for such a geographical reference is foreign to the context. It is the ocean; and the storm on it represents the “tumults of the people,” commotions among the nations of the world (Häv., Leng., Hofm., etc.), corresponding to the prophetic comparison found in Jer 17:12; Jer 46:7. “Since the beasts represent the forms of the world-power, the sea must represent that out of which they arise, the whole heathen world” (Hofmann). In the interpretation of the image (Dan 7:17) יגּמא מן is explained by ארעא מן. גּיח means to break forth (Eze 32:2), to burst out in storm, not causative, “to make the great sea break forth” (Kran.). The causative meaning is not certainly found either in the Hebrew or the Chaldee. The four winds stand in relation to the four quarters of the heavens; cf. Jer 49:39. Calvin remarks: Mundus similis turbulento mari, quod non agitatur una procella vel uno vento, sed diversis ventis inter se confligentibus, ac si totum coelum conspiraret ad motus excitandos. With this, however, the meaning of the words is not exhausted. The four winds of heaven are not merely diversi venti, and their bursting forth is not only an image of a general commotion represented by a storm in the ocean. The winds of the heavens represent the heavenly powers and forces by which God sets the nations of the world in motion; and the number four has a symbolical meaning: that the people of all regions of the earth are moved hither and thither in violent commotion. “(Ecumenical commotions give rise to oecumenical kingdoms” (Kliefoth). As a consequence of the storm on the sea, there arise out of it four fierce beasts, not all at once, but, as Dan 7:6 and Dan 7:7 teach, one after another, and each having a different appearance. The diversity of the form of the beasts, inasmuch as they represent kingdoms, is determined beforehand, not only to make it noticeable that the selection of this symbol is not arbitrary but is significant (Hävernick), but emphatically to intimate that the vision of different kingdoms is not to be dealt with, as many interpreters seem inclined to do, as one only of different kings of one kingdom.

Verses 4-8

Dan 7:4-8In these verses there is a description of the four beasts. - Dan 7:4. The first beasts resembled a lion with eagle's wings. At the entrance to a temple at Birs Nimrud there has been found (Layard, Bab. and Nin.) such a symbolical figure, viz., a winged eagle with the head of a man. There have been found also images of winged beasts at Babylon (Münter, Relig. der Bab.). These discoveries may be referred to as evidence that this book was composed in Babylon, and also as explaining the Babylonian colouring of the dream. But the representation of nations and kingdoms by the images of beasts is much more widely spread, and affords the prophetic symbolism the necessary analogues and substrata for the vision. Lions and eagles are not taken into consideration here on account of their strength, rapacity, and swiftness, but simply because they are kings among beasts and birds: “The beast rules royally like the lion, and wings its conquering royal flight high over the οἰκουμένη like the eagle” (Kliefoth). This emblem corresponds with the representation of the first kingdom with the golden head (Daniel 2). What the gold is among metals and the head among the members of the body, that the lion is among beasts and the eagle among birds.
After a time Daniel sees a change take place with this beast. The wings, i.e., the feathers by which it flies, are plucked off: it is deprived of its power of flight, so that it can no more fly conquering over the earth, or hover as a ruler over it; i.e., the kingdom will be deprived of the power of conquering, for it will be lifted up from the earth (הקימת is Hoph., cf. Dan 4:33), and be placed on its feet as a man. The lifting up from the earth does not represent, accordingly, being taken away or blown away from the earth, not the destruction of the Chaldean kingdom (Theodrt., Hieron., Raschi, Hitzig, and others), but the raising of it up when lying prostrate on the ground to the right attitude of a human being. This change is further described by the words, “a man's heart was given to it,” denoting that the beast-nature was transformed to that of a man. The three expressions thus convey the idea, that the lion, after it was deprived of its power of flight, was not only in external appearance raised from the form of a beast to that of a man, but also that inwardly the nature of the beast was ennobled into that of a man. In this description of the change that occurred to the lion there is without doubt a reference to what is said of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4: it cannot, however, be thence concluded, with Hofmann and others, that the words refer directly to Nebuchadnezzar's insanity; for here it is not the king, but the kingdom, that is the subject with reference to whose fate that event in the life of its founder was significant. Forasmuch as it was on account of his haughtiness that madness came upon him, so that he sank down to the level of the beasts of the field, so also for the same reason was his kingdom hindered in its flight over the earth. “Nebuchadnezzar's madness was for his kingdom the plucking off of its wings;” and as when he gave glory to the Most High his reason returned to him, and then for the first time he attained to the true dignity of man, so also was his world-kingdom ennobled in him, although the continued influence of this ennobling may not be perceived from the events in the reign of his son, recorded in Daniel 5. Besides, there lies herein not only the idea of the superiority of the first world-kingdom over the others, as is represented in Daniel 2 by the golden head of the metallic image, but also manifestly the typical thought that the world-kingdom will first be raised to the dignity of manhood when its beast-like nature is taken away. Where this transformation does not take place, or where it is not permanent, there must the kingdom perish. This is the prophetic meaning, for the sake of which that occurrence in the life of the founder of the world-monarchy is here transferred to his kingdom.

Verse 5

Dan 7:5The second beast. - וארו signifies that this beast came first into sight after the lion, which also the predicates תנינה אחרי prove.אחרי expresses the difference from the first beast, תנינה the order in which it appears. The beast was like a bear. Next to the lion it is the strongest among animals; and on account of its voracity it was called by Aristotle ζῶον παμφάγον. The words לשׁטר־חד הקימת present some difficulty. They have been differently explained. The explanation of Rabbi Nathan, “and it established a dominion,” with which Kranichfeld also agrees, is not only in opposition to the חד, but is also irreconcilable with the line of thought. חד is not the indefinite article, but the numeral; and the thought that the beast established one dominion, or a united dominion, is in the highest degree strange, for the character of a united or compact dominion belongs to the second world-kingdom in no case in a greater degree than to the Babylonian kingdom, and in general the establishing of a dominion cannot properly be predicated of a beast = a kingdom. The old translators (lxx, Theod., Peshito, Saad.) and the rabbis have interpreted the word שׁטר in the sense of side, a meaning which is supported by the Targ. סטר, and is greatly strengthened by the Arabic s'thar, without our needing to adopt the reading שׂטר, found in several Codd. The object to the verb הקימת is easily supplied by the context: it raised up, i.e., its body, on one side. This means neither that it leaned on one side (Ebrard), nor that it stood on its fore feet (Hävernick), for the sides of a bear are not its fore and hinder part; but we are to conceive that the beast, resting on its feet, raised up the feet of the one side for the purpose of going forward, and so raised the shoulder or the whole body on that side. But with such a motion of the beast the geographical situation of the kingdom (Geier, Mich., Ros.) cannot naturally be represented, much less can the near approach of the destruction of the kingdom (Hitzig) be signified. Hofmann, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth have found the right interpretation by a reference to Daniel 2 and 8. As in Daniel 2 the arms on each side of the breast signify that the second kingdom will consist of two parts, and this is more distinctly indicated in Daniel 8 by the two horns, one of which rose up after the other, and higher, so also in this verse the double-sidedness of this world-kingdom is represented by the beast lifting itself up on the one side. The Medo-Persian bear, as such, has, as Kliefoth well remarks, two sides: the one, the Median side, is at rest after the efforts made for the erection of the world-kingdom; but the other, the Persian side, raises itself up, and then becomes not only higher than the first, but also is prepared for new rapine.
The further expression, it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth, has also been variously interpreted. That עלעין means ribs, not sides, is as certain as that the ribs in the mouth between the teeth do not denote side-teeth, tusks, or fangs (Saad., Häv.). The עלעין in the mouth between the teeth are the booty which the bear has seized, according to the undoubted use of the word; cf. Amo 3:12; Psa 124:6; Job 29:17; Jer 51:44. Accordingly, by the ribs we cannot understand either the Persians, Medians, and Babylonians, as the nations that constituted the strength of the kingdom (Ephr. Syr., Hieron., Ros.), or the three Median kings (Ewald), because neither the Medes nor the three Median kings can be regarded as a prey of the Median or Medo-Persian world. The “ribs” which the beast is grinding between its teeth cannot be the peoples who constitute the kingdom, or the kings ruling over it, but only peoples who constitute the kingdom, or the kings ruling over it, but only peoples or countries which it has conquered and annexed to itself. The determining of these peoples and countries depends on which kingdom is represented by the bear. Of the interpreters who understand by the bear the Median kingdom, Maurer and Delitzsch refer to the three chief satrapies (Daniel 6:3 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Daniel|Dan 6:2]]]). Not these, however, but only the lands divided between them, could be regarded as the prey between the teeth of the beast, and then Media also must be excluded; so that the reference of the words to the three satrapies is altogether inadmissible. Hitzig thinks that the reference is to three towns that were destroyed by the Medians, viz., Nineveh, Larissa, and a third which he cannot specify; v. Leng. regards the number three as a round number, by which the voracity of the beast is shown; Kranichfeld understands by the three ribs constituent parts of a whole of an older national confederation already dissolved and broken asunder, of which, however, he has no proof. We see, then, that if the bear is taken as representing the Median kingdom, the three ribs in its mouth cannot be explained. If, on the other hand, the Medo-Persian world-kingdom is intended by the bear, then the three ribs in its mouth are the three kingdoms Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, which were conquered by the Medo-Persians. This is the view of Hofm., Ebr., Zünd., and Klief. The latter, however, thinks that the number “Three” ought not to be regarded as symbolical, but as forming only the contrast to the number four in Dan 7:6, and intimating that the second beast will not devour in all the regions of the world, but only on three sides, and will make a threefold and not a fourfold plunder, and therefore will not reach absolute universality. But since the symbolical value of each number is formed from its arithmetical signification, there is no reason here, any more than there is in the analogous passages, Dan 8:4, Dan 8:22, to depart wholly from the exact signification.
The last expression of the verse, Arise, devour much flesh, most interpreters regard as a summons to go forth conquering. But this exposition is neither necessary, nor does it correspond to the relative position of the words. The eating much flesh does not form such a contrast to the three ribs in the mouth between the teeth, that it must be interpreted of other flesh than that already held by the teeth with the ribs. It may be very well understood, with Ebrard and Kliefoth, of the consuming of the flesh of the ribs; so that the command to eat much flesh is only an explication of the figure of the ribs held between the teeth, and contains only the thought that the beast must wholly consume the plunder it has seized with its teeth. The plur. אמרין (they spoke) is impersonal, and is therefore not to be attributed to the angel as speaking.

Verse 6

Dan 7:6The third beast, which Daniel saw after the second, was like a panther (leopard), which is neither so kingly as the lion nor so strong as the bear, but is like to both in rapacity, and superior to them in the springing agility with which it catches its prey; so that one may say, with Kliefoth, that in the subordination of the panther to the lion and the bear, the same gradation is repeated as that this is found (of the third kingdom) in Daniel 2 of the copper (brass). Of the panther it is said, that it had four wings of a fowl and four heads. The representation of the beast with four wings increases the agility of its movements to the speed of the flight of a bird, and expresses the thought that the kingdom represented by that beast would extend itself in flight over the earth; not so royally as Nebuchadnezzar, - for the panther has not eagle's wings, but only the wings of a fowl, - but extending to all the regions of the earth, for it has four wings. At the same time the beast has four heads, not two only, as one might have expected with four wings. The number four thus shows that the heads have an independent signification, and do not stand in relation to the four wings, symbolizing the spreading out of the kingdom into the four quarters of the heavens (Bertholdt, Häv., Kran.). As little do the four wings correspond with the four heads in such a way that by both there is represented only the dividing of the kingdom into four other kingdoms (Häv.. Comment., Auberl.). Wings are everywhere an emblem of rapid motion; heads, on the contrary, where the beast signifies a kingdom, are the heads of the kingdom, i.e., the kings or rulers: hence it follows that the four heads of the panther are the four successive Persian kings whom alone Daniel knows (Dan 11:2). Without regard to the false interpretations of Dan 11:2 on which this opinion rests, it is to be noticed that the four heads do not rise up one after another, but that they all exist contemporaneously on the body of the beast, and therefore can only represent four contemporary kings, or signify that this kingdom is divided into four kingdoms. That the four wings are mentioned before the four heads, signifies that the kingdom spreads itself over the earth with the speed of a bird's flight, and then becomes a fourfold-kingdom, or divides itself into four kingdoms, as is distinctly shown in Dan 8:5. - The last statement, and dominion was given to it, corresponds with that in Dan 2:39, it shall bear rule over all the earth, i.e., shall found an actual and strong world-empire.

Verses 7-8

Dan 7:7-8The fourth beast. - Introduced by a more detailed description, the fourth beast is presented more distinctly before our notice than those which preceded it. Its terribleness and its strength, breaking in pieces and destroying all things, and the fact that no beast is named to which it can be likened, represent it as different from all the beasts that went before. This description corresponds with that of the fourth kingdom denoted by the legs and the feet of the metallic image of the monarchies (Daniel 2). The iron breaking in pieces all things (Dan 2:40) is here represented by the great iron teeth with which this monster devoured and brake in pieces. In addition to that, there are also feet, or, as Dan 7:19 by way of supplement adds, “claws of brass,” with which in the mere fury of its rage it destroyed all that remained, i.e., all that it did not devour and destroy with its teeth. וגו משׁניה היא (it was made different) denotes not complete diversity of being, from which Hitz. and Del. conclude that the expression suits only the Macedonian world-kingdom, which as occidental was different in its nature from the three preceding monarchies, which shared among themselves an oriental home and a different form of civilisation and despotic government. For although משׁניה expresses more than אחרי (Dan 7:5), yet the דּא מן דּא שׁנין (diverse one from another), spoken (Dan 7:3) of all the beasts, shows that משׁניה cannot be regarded as expressing perfect diversity of being, but only diversity in appearance. The beast was of such terrible strength and destructive rage, that the whole animal world could furnish no representative by whose name it might be characterized. It had ten horns, by which its terrible strength is denoted, because a horn is in Scripture always the universal symbol of armed strength. With this the interpretation (Dan 7:24), that these horns are so many kings or kingdoms, fully corresponds. In the ten horns the ten toes of the image (Daniel 2) are again repeated. The number ten comes into consideration only according to its symbolical meaning of comprehensive and definite totality. That the horns are on the head of the one beast, signifies that the unfolding of its power in the ten kingdoms is not a weakening of its power, but only its full display.

Verse 8

Here a new event is brought under our notice. While continuing to contemplate the horns (the idea of continuance lies in the particip. with the verb. fin.), Daniel sees another little horn rise up among them, which uproots, i.e., destroys, three of the other horns that were already there. He observes that this horn had the eyes of a man, and a mouth which spake great things. The eye and the mouth suggest a human being as represented by the horn. Eyes and seeing with eyes are the symbols of insight, circumspection, prudence. This king will thus excel the others in point of wisdom and circumspection. But why the eyes of a man? Certainly this is not merely to indicate to the reader that the horn signified a man. This is already distinctly enough shown by the fact that eyes, a mouth, and speech were attributed to it. The eyes of a man were not attributed to it in opposition to a beast, but in opposition to a higher celestial being, for whom the ruler denoted by the horn might be mistaken on account of the terribleness of his rule and government; ”ne eum putemus juxta quorundam opinionem vel diabolum esse vel daemonem, sed unum de hominibus, in quo totus Satanas habitaturus sit corporaliter,” as Jerome well remarks; cf. Hofmann and Kliefoth. - A mouth which speaketh great things is a vainglorious mouth. רברבן are presumptuous things, not directly blasphemies (Häv.). In the Apocalypse, Rev 13:5, μεγάλα and βλασφημίαι are distinguished.

Verses 9-10

Dan 7:9-10The judgment on the horn speaking great things and on the other beasts, and the delivering of the kingdom to the Son of Man.
After Daniel had for a while contemplated the rising up of the little horn that appeared among the ten horns, the scene changed. There is a solemn sitting in judgment by God, and sentence is pronounced. Seats or chairs were placed. רמיו, activ. with an indefinite subject: they were thrown, i.e., they were placed in order quickly, or with a noise. Seats, not merely a throne for God the Judge, but a number of seats for the assembly sitting in judgment with God. That assembly consists neither of the elders of Israel (Rabb.), nor of glorified men (Hengstb. on Rev 4:4), but of angels (Psa 89:8), who are to be distinguished from the thousands and tens of thousands mentioned in Dan 7:10; for these do not sit upon thrones, but stand before God as servants to fulfil His commands and execute His judgments. יומין עתּיק, one advanced in days, very old, is not the Eternal; for although God is meant, yet Daniel does not see the everlasting God, but an old man, or a man of grey hairs, in whose majestic from God makes Himself visible (cf. Eze 1:26). When Daniel represents the true God as an aged man, he does so not in contrast with the recent gods of the heathen which Antiochus Epiphanes wished to introduce, or specially with reference to new gods, as Hitzig and Kran. suppose, by reference to Deu 32:17 and Jer 23:23; for God is not called the old God, but appears only as an old man, because age inspires veneration and conveys the impression of majesty. This impression is heightened by the robe with which He is covered, and by the appearance of the hair of His head, and also by the flames of fire which are seen to go forth from His throne. His robe is white as snow, and the hair of His head is white like pure wool; cf. Rev 1:14. Both are symbols of spotless purity and holiness. Flames of fire proceed from His throne as if it consisted of it, and the wheels of His throne scatter forth fire. One must not take the fire exclusively as a sign of punishment. Fire and the shining of fire are the constant phenomena of the manifestation of God in the world, as the earthly elements most fitting for the representation of the burning zeal with which the holy God not only punishes and destroys sinners, but also purifies and renders glorious His own people; see under Exo 3:3. The fire-scattering wheels of the throne show the omnipresence of the divine throne of judgment, the going of the judgment of God over the whole earth (Kliefoth). The fire which engirds with flame the throne of God pours itself forth as a stream from God into the world, consuming all that is sinful and hostile to God in the world, and rendering the people and kingdom of God glorious. קדמוהי מן (from before Him) refers to God, and not to His throne. A thousand times a thousand and ten thousand times ten thousand are hyperbolical expressions for an innumerable company of angels, who as His servants stand around God; cf. Deu 33:2; Psa 68:18. The Keri presents the Chaldaic form אלפין for the Hebraizing form of the text אלפים (thousands), and for רבון the Hebraizing form רבבן (myriads), often found in the Targg., to harmonize the plur. form with the singular רבּו going before.
Forthwith the judgment begins. יתב דּינא we translate, with most interpreters, the judgment sets itself. דּינא, judgment, abstr. pro concreto, as judicium in Cicero, Verr. 2. 18. This idea alone is admissible in Dan 7:26, and here also it is more simple than that defended by Dathe and Kran.: “He” (i.e., the Ancient of days) “sets Himself for judgment,” - which would form a pure tautology, since His placing Himself for judgment has been already (Dan 7:9) mentioned, and nothing would be said regarding the object for which the throne was set. - ”The books were opened.” The actions of men are recorded in the books, according to which they are judged, some being ordained to eternal life and others condemned to eternal death; cf. Rev 20:12, and the notes under Dan 12:1. The horn speaking great things is first visited with the sentence of death.

Verse 11

The construction of this verse is disputed. The second הוית חזה (I was seeing) repeats the first for the purpose of carrying on the line of thought broken by the interposed sentence. בּאדין (then) is separated by the accents from the first הוית חזה and joined to the clause following: “then on account of the voice of the great words.” By this interposed sentence the occasion of the judgment which Daniel sees passed upon the beast is once more brought to view. קל מן, “on account of the voice of the words,” i.e., on account of the loud words, not “from the time of the words, or from the time when the voice of the great words made itself heard” (Klief.). The following expression, דּי עד (till that), does not by any means require the temporal conception מן. To specify the terminus a quo of the vision was as little necessary here as in the דּי עד הוית חזה, Dan 7:9. The temporal conception of מן alters not only the parallelism of the passage Dan 7:9 and Dan 7:11, but also the course of thought in the representation, according to which Daniel remains overwhelmed during the vision till all the separate parts of it have passed before his view, i.e., till he has seen the close of the judgment. The first part of this scene consists of the constituting of the judgment (Dan 7:9, Dan 7:10), the second of the death and extinction of the horn speaking great things (Dan 7:11), with which is connected (Dan 7:12) the mention of the destruction of the dominion of the other beasts. If one considers that the words “I beheld till that” correspond with the like expression in Dan 7:9, he will not seek, with Kran., in the דּי עד a reference to a lasting process of judicial execution ending with destruction. The thought is simply this: Daniel remained contemplating the vision till the beast was slain, etc. חיותא (the beast) is, by virtue of the explanatory sentence interposed in the first hemistich, the horn speaking great things. The ungodly power of the fourth beast reaches its climax in the blaspheming horn; in this horn, therefore, the beast is slain and destroyed, while its body is given to the burning. אשּׁא ליקדת (to the burning fire) corresponds with the Hebr. אשׁ לשׂרפת, Isa 64:10. The burning in the fire is not the mere figure of destruction, specially justified by the thunder-storm which gathered as a veil around the scene of judgment (Kran.), for there is no mention of a storm either in Dan 7:9 or anywhere else in this entire vision. The supposition that the burning is only the figure of destruction, as e.g., in Isa 9:4, is decidedly opposed by the parallel passages, Isa 66:14, which Daniel had in view, and Rev 19:20 and Rev 20:10, where this prophecy is again taken up, and the judgment is expressed by a being cast into a like of fire with everlasting torment; so that v. Lengerke is right when he remarks that this passage speaks of the fiery torments of the wicked after death, and thus that a state of retribution after death is indicated.

Verse 12

In this verse it is in addition remarked, that the dominion of the other beasts was also destroyed, because the duration of their lives was determined for a time and an hour. The construction of the words forbids us (with Luther) to regard the first part of Dan 7:12 as dependent on דּי עד of Dan 7:11. The object חיותא וּשׁאר (the rest of the beasts) is presented in the form of an absolute nominative, whereby the statement of Dan 7:12 is separated from the preceding. העדּיו, impersonal, instead of the passive, as דּקוּ in Dan 2:35 : “their dominion was made to perish,” for “their dominion was destroyed.” “The other beasts” are not those that remained of the seven horns of the fourth beast, which were not uprooted by the horn coming up amongst them, the remaining kingdoms of the fourth monarchy after the destruction by that horn, for with the death of the beast the whole fourth world-monarchy is destroyed; nor are they the other kingdoms yet remaining at the time of the overthrow of the fourth world-monarchy or the destruction of the fourth beast (J. D. Mich., v. Leng.), which only lose their political power, but first of all would become subject to the new dominant people (Hitzig), for such other kingdoms have no existence in the prophetic view of Daniel, since the beasts represent world-kingdoms whose dominion stretches over the whole earth. The “remaining beasts” are much rather the first three beasts which arose out of the sea before the fourth, as is rightly acknowledged by Chr. B. Mich., Ros., Häv., Hofm., Maur., Klief., and Kran., with the old interpreters. Although the four world-kingdoms symbolized by those beasts follow each other in actual history, so that the earlier is always overthrown by that which comes after it, yet the dominion of the one is transferred to the other; so in the prophetic representation the death or the disappearance of the first three beasts is not expressly remarked, but is here first indicated, without our needing for that reason to regard העדּיו as the pluperfect. For the exposition of this verse also we may not appeal to Daniel 2, where all the four world-kingdoms are represented in one human image, and the stone which rolled against the feet of this image broke not only the feet, but with them the whole image to pieces (Dan 2:34.), which in Dan 2:44 is explained as meaning that the kingdom of God will bring to an end all those kingdoms. From this we cannot conclude that those kingdoms had long before already perished at the hour appointed for them, but that a remainder (שׁאר) of them yet continued to exist (Häv.), for the representation in this chapter is different; and the rest of the beasts cannot possibly mean that which remained of the beasts after their destruction, but only the beasts that remained after the death of the fourth beast. The mas. suff. to שׁלטנהון (their dominion) and להון refer ad sensum to the possessor or ruler of the world-kingdom represented by the beasts. With that interpretation of “the rest of the beasts” the statement also of the second half of the verse does not agree, for it proves that the subject is the destruction of the dominion of all the beasts which arose up before the fourth. The length or duration of life is the time of the continuance of the world-kingdoms represented by the beasts, and thus the end of life is the destruction of the kingdom. The passive pret. יהיבת is not to be taken thus as the imperf.: “a period of life was appointed to them,” but as the pluperf.: “had been granted to them,” and the passage formally connected by the simple  וis to be taken as confirming the preceding statement. ועדּן זמן (placed together as Dan 2:21 in the meaning there explained) is not to be identified with זמנא, Dan 7:22 (v. Leng., Kran.). The form (stat. absol., not emphat.) shows that not a definite time, the time of the divine judgment of the fourth beast, is meant, but the time of the continuance of the power and dominion for each of the several beasts (kingdoms), foreseen only in the counsel of the Most High, and not further defined. In accordance with this, the statement of Dan 7:12 is that the first three beasts also had their dominion taken away one after another, each at its appointed time; for to each God gave its duration of life, extending to the season and time appointed by Him. Thus Kliefoth, with the older interpreters, correctly regards the connecting of the end of the first three beasts with that of the last as denoting that in the horn not merely the fourth kingdom, but also the first three kingdoms, the whole world-power, is brought to an end by the last judgment. This thought, right in itself, and distinctly announced in the destruction of the image (Daniel 2), appears, however, to lie less in the altogether loose connection of Dan 7:12 with Dan 7:11 than in the whole context, and certainly in this, that with the fourth beast in general the unfolding of the world-power in its diverse phases is exhausted, and with the judgment of this kingdom the kingdom of God is raised to everlasting supremacy.

Verses 13-14

Dan 7:13-14The giving of the kingdom to the Son of Man. - The judgment does not come to an end with the destruction of the world-power in its various embodiments. That is only its first act, which is immediately followed by the second, the erection of the kingdom of God by the Son of man. This act is introduced by the repetition of the formula, I saw in the night-visions (Dan 7:7 and Dan 7:2). (One) like a son of man came in the clouds of heaven. ענני עם, with the clouds, i.e., in connection with them, in or on them as the case may be, surrounded by clouds; cf. Rev 1:7, Mar 13:26, Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64. He who comes is not named, but is only described according to his appearance like a son of man, i.e., resembling a man (אנשׁ בּר as אדם בן = אנושׁ or אדם). That this was a man is not implied in these words, but only that he was like a man, and not like a beast or some other creature. Now, as the beasts signify not beasts but kingdoms, so that which appeared in the form of a man may signify something else than a human individuum. Following the example of Aben Ezra, Paulus, and Wegscheider, Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 1. 80, and 2, p. 582f.), Hitzig, Weisse, Volkmar, Fries (Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. iv. p. 261), Baxmann, and Herzfeld (Gesch. des V. Isr. ii. p. 381) interpret this appearance in the form of a man not of the Messiah, as the Jewish and Christian interpreters in general do, but of the people of Israel, and adduce in support of this view the fact that, in the explanation of the vision, Dan 7:27, cf. Dan 7:24, the kingdom, the dominion, and the power, which according to Dan 7:14 the son of man received, was given to the people of the saints of the Most High. But Dan 7:27 affords no valid support to this supposition, for the angel there gives forth his declaration regarding the everlasting kingdom of God, not in the form of an interpretation of Daniel's vision, as in the case of the four beasts in Dan 7:17 and Dan 7:23, but he only says that, after the destruction of the horn and its dominion, the kingdom and the power will be given to the people of the saints, because he had before (Dan 7:26, cf. 22) spoken of the blasphemies of the horn against God, and of its war against the saints of the Most High. But the delivering of the kingdom to the people of God does not, according to the prophetic mode of contemplation, exclude the Messiah as its king, but much rather includes Him, inasmuch as Daniel, like the other prophets, knows nothing of a kingdom without a head, a Messianic kingdom without the King Messiah. But when Hofmann further remarks, that “somewhere it must be seen that by that appearance in the form of a man is meant not the holy congregation of Israel, but an individual, a fifth king, the Messiah,” Auberlen and Kranichfeld have, with reference to this, shown that, according to Dan 7:21, the saints appear in their multiplicity engaged in war when the person who comes in the clouds becomes visible, and thus that the difference between the saints and that person is distinctly manifest. Hence it appears that the “coming with the clouds of heaven” can only be applied to the congregation of Israel, if we agree with Hofmann in the opinion that he who appeared was not carried by the clouds of heaven down to the earth, but from the earth up to heaven, in order that he might there receive the kingdom and the dominion. But this opinion is contradicted by all that the Scriptures teach regarding this matter. In this very chapter before us there is no expression or any intimation whatever that the judgment is held in heaven. No place is named. It is only said that judgment was held over the power of the fourth beast, which came to a head in the horn speaking blasphemies, and that the beast was slain and his body burned. If he who appears as a son of man with the clouds of heaven comes before the Ancient of days executing the judgment on the earth, it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth. If the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been so expressed, since the coming with the clouds of heaven in opposition to the rising up of the beasts out of the sea very distinctly indicates a coming down from heaven. The clouds are the veil or the “chariot” on which God comes from heaven to execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Psa 18:10., Psa 97:2-4; Psa 104:3, Isa 19:1; Nah 1:3. This passage forms the foundation for the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming, which is described after Dan 7:13 as a coming of the Son of man with, in, on the clouds of heaven; Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64; Mark 18:26; Rev 1:7; Rev 14:14. Against this, Hofmann, in behalf of his explanation, can only adduce 1Th 4:17, in total disregard of the preceding context, Dan 7:16.^[57]
With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “as a man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward from of a man.” The comparison (כ, as a man) proves accordingly much more, that this heavenly or divine being was in human form. This “Son of man” came near to the Ancient of days, as God appears in the vision of the judgment, Dan 7:9, and was placed before Him. The subject to הקרבוּהי is undefined; Kran. thinks that it is the clouds just mentioned, others think it is the ministering angels. Analogous passages may be adduced in support of both views: for the first, the νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόν in Act 1:9; but the parallel passages with intransitive verbs speak more in favour of the impersonal translation, “they brought him” = he was brought. The words, “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom were given to him,” remind us of the expression used of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 2:37., but they are elevated by the description following to the conception of the everlasting dominion of God. God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, the founder and first bearer of the world-power, a kingdom, and might, and majesty, and dominion over all the inhabitants of the earth, men, and beasts, and birds, that he might govern all nations, and tribes, and tongues (Dan 5:18-19), but not indeed in such a manner as that all nations and tribes should render him religious homage, nor was his dominion one of everlasting duration. These two things belong only to the kingdom of God. פּלח is used in biblical Chaldee only of the service and homage due to God; cf. Dan 7:27; Dan 3:12-13, Dan 3:17., Ezr 7:19, Ezr 7:24. Thus it indicates here also the religious service, the reverence which belong to God, though in the Targg. it corresponds with the Heb. עבד in all its meanings, colere Deum, terram, laborare. Regarding the expression “nations, tribes, and tongues,” see under Dan 7:3, Dan 7:4. The eternity of the duration of the dominion is in this book the constant predicate of the kingdom of God and His Anointed, the Messiah; cf. Daniel 3:33; Dan 4:31; Dan 2:44. For further remarks regarding the Son of man, see at the close of this chapter.

Verse 15

Dan 7:15The interpretation of the vision. - Dan 7:14 concludes the account of the contents of the vision, but not the vision itself. That continues to the end of the chapter. Dan 7:15. The things which Daniel saw made a deep impression on his mind. His spirit was troubled within him; the sight filled him with terror. It was not the mystery of the images, nor the fact that all was not clear before his sight, that troubled and disquieted him; for Dan 7:28 shows that the disquietude did not subside when an angel explained the images he had seen. It was the things themselves as they passed in vision before him - the momentous events, the calamities which the people of God would have to endure till the time of the completion of the everlasting kingdom of God - which filled him with anxiety and terror. רוּחי stands for the Hebr. נפשׁי, and דּניּאל אנה is in apposition to the suffix in רוּחי, for the suffix is repeated with emphasis by the pronoun, Dan 8:1, Dan 8:15; Ezr 7:21, and more frequently also in the Hebr.; cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §40, 4; Ges. Hebr. Gram. §121, 3. The emphatic bringing forward of the person of the prophet corresponds to the significance of the vision, which made so deep an impression on him; cf. also Dan 10:1, Dan 10:7; Dan 12:1-13 :15. In this there is no trace of anxiety on the part of the speaker to make known that he is Daniel, as Hitzig supposes. The figure here used, “in the sheath” (E. V. “in the midst of my body”), by which the body is likened to a sheath for the soul, which as a sword in its sheath is concealed by it, is found also in Job 27:8, and in the writings of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s.v.). It is used also by Pliny, vii. 52. On “visions of my head,” cf. Dan 7:1.

Verse 16

Daniel turned himself towards an angel who stood by, with a request for an explanation of these things. One of them that stood by refers to those mentioned in Dan 7:10, who stood around the throne of God; whence it is obvious that the vision is still continued. אבעא is not the preterite, I asked him, but the subjunctive, that (ו) I might ask. So also יהודענּני is to be taken with the  וgoing before: he spake to me, that he informed me, namely by his speaking.

Verses 17-19

In Dan 7:17-27 the angel gives the wished-for explanation. In Dan 7:17 and Dan 7:18 he gives first a general interpretation of the vision. The words, these great beasts, of which there were four, form an absolute nominal clause: “as for the beasts;” as concerning their meaning, it is this: “they represent four kings.” The kings are named as founders and representatives of world-kingdoms. Four kingdoms are meant, as Dan 7:23 shows, where the fourth beast is explained as מלכוּ, “dominion,” “kingdom.” Compare also Dan 8:20 and Dan 8:21, where in like manner kings are named and kingdoms are meant. From the future יקוּמוּן (shall arise) Hitzig concludes that the first kingdom was yet future, and therefore, that since Daniel had the vision under Belshazzar, the first king could only be Belshazzar, but could not represent the Chaldean monarchy. But if from the words shall arise it follows that the vision is only of kings who arise in the future, then, since Daniel saw the vision in the first year of Belshazzar, it cannot of course be Belshazzar who is represented by the first beast; and if Belshazzar was, as Hitzig thinks, the last king of Chaldea, than the entire Chaldean monarchy is excluded from the number of the four great beasts. Kranichfeld therefore understands this word as modal, and interprets it should arise. This was the divine decree by which also the duration of their kingdoms was determined (Dan 7:12, Dan 7:25). But the modal interpretation does not agree with Dan 7:16, according to which the angel wishes to make known the meaning of the matter to Daniel, not to show what was determined in the divine counsel, but what God had revealed to him by the beasts rising up out of the sea. The future, shall arise, is rather (Ros., v. Leng., Maur., Klief., etc.) for the purpose of declaring that the vision represents the development of the world-power as a whole, as it would unfold itself in four successive phases; whereupon the angel so summarily interprets the vision to the prophet, that, dating from the time of their origin, he points out the first world-kingdom as arising along with the rest, notwithstanding that it had already come into existence, and only its last stages were then future. The thought of this summary interpretation is manifestly nothing else than this: “Four kingdoms shall arise on the earth, and shall again disappear; but the saints of God shall receive the kingdom which shall have an everlasting duration.” יקבּלוּן, receive; not found and establish by their own might, but receive through the Son of man, to whom God (Dan 7:14) has given it. עליונין (cf. Dan 7:22, Dan 7:25, Dan 7:27) is the name of God, the Most High, analogous to the plur. forms אלהים, קדשׁים. “The saints of the Most High,” or briefly “the saints” (Dan 7:21, Dan 7:22), are neither the Jews, who are accustomed to call themselves “saints,” in contrast with the heathen (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, etc.), nor the converted Israel of the millennium (Hofmann and other chiliasts), but, as we argue from Exo 19:6; Deu 7:6, the true members of the covenant nation, the New Testament Israel of God, i.e., the congregation of the New Covenant, consisting of Israel and the faithful of all nations; for the kingdom which God gives to the Son of man will, according to Dan 7:14, comprehend those that are redeemed from among all the nations of the earth. The idea of the everlasting duration of their kingdom is, by the words עלמיּא עלם (for ever and ever), raised to the superlative degree.
The angel does not here give further explanations regarding the first three kingdoms. Since the second chapter treats of them, and the eighth also gives further description of the second and third, it is enough here to state that the first three beasts represent those kingdoms that are mentioned in Daniel 2. The form of the fourth beast, however, comprehends much more regarding the fourth world-kingdom that the dream-image of Nebuchadnezzar did. Therefore Daniel asks the angel further for certain information (certainty) regarding the dreadful form of this beast, and consequently the principal outlines of the representation before given of it are repeated by him in Dan 7:19-21, and are completed by certain circumstances there omitted. Thus Dan 7:19 presents the addition, that the beast had, along with iron teeth, also claws of brass, with which it stamped to pieces what it could not devour; and Dan 7:20, that the little horn became greater than its fellows, made war against the people of God and overcame them, till the judgment brought its dominion to an end. צבית ליצּבא, I wished or sure knowledge, i.e., to experience certainty regarding it.

Verse 20

In Dan 7:20, from וּנפלוּ (fell down) the relative connection of the passage is broken, and the direct description is continued. דּכּן וקרנא (and that horn) is an absolute idea, which is then explained by the Vav epexegetic. חזוהּ, the appearance which is presented, i.e., its aspect. חברתהּ מן (above his fellows), for חזוּ חברתהּ מן (above the aspect of his fellows), see under Dan 1:10.

Verse 21

Dan 7:21 קדּישיּן (without the article), although used in a definite sense of the saints already mentioned, appertains to the elevated solemn style of speech, in which also in the Hebr. The article is frequently wanting in definite names; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §277.

Verse 22

As compared with Dan 7:13 and Dan 7:14, this verse says nothing new regarding the judgment. For יהיב  דּינא is not to be rendered, as Hengstenberg thinks (Beitr. i. p. 274), by a reference to 1Co 6:2 : “to the saints of the Most High the judgment is given,” i.e., the function of the judge. This interpretation is opposed to the context, according to which it is God Himself who executes judgment, and by that judgment justice is done to the people of God, i.e., they are delivered from the unrighteous oppression of the beast, and receive the kingdom. דּינא is justice procured by the judgment, corresponding to the Hebrew word משׁפּט, Deu 10:18.

Verses 23-24

Daniel receives the following explanation regarding the fourth beast. It signifies a fourth kingdom, which would be different from all the preceding, and would eat up and destroy the whole earth. “The whole earth is the οἰκουμένη,” the expression, without any hyperbole, for the “whole circle of the historical nations” (Kliefoth). The ten horns which the beast had signify ten kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. מלכוּתהּ מנּהּ, from it, the kingdom, i.e., from this very kingdom. Since the ten horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the ten kings that arise out of the fourth kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into ten principalities or kingdoms is symbolized. For the ten contemporaneous kings imply the existence at the same time of ten kingdoms. Hitzig's objections against this view are of no weight. That מלכוּ and מלך are in this verse used as distinct from each other proves nothing, because in the whole vision king and kingdom are congruent ideas. But that the horn, Dan 7:8, unmistakeably denotes a person, is only so far right, as things are said of the horn which are in abstracto not suitable to a kingdom, but they can only be applicable to the bearer of royal power. But Dan 8:20 and Dan 8:21, to which Hitzig further refers, furnishes no foundation for his view, but on the contrary confutes it. For although in Dan 8:21 the great horn of the goat is interpreted as the first king of Javan, yet the four horns springing up immediately (Dan 8:22) in the place of this one which was broken, are interpreted as four kingdoms (not kings), in distinct proof not only that in Daniel's vision king and kingdom are not “separate from each other,” but also that the further assertion, that “horn” is less fitted than “head” to represent a kingdom, is untenable.
After those ten kingdoms another shall arise which shall be different from the previous ten, and shall overthrow three of them. יהשׁפּל, in contrast with אקים (cf. Dan 2:21), signifies to overthrow, to deprive of the sovereignty. But the king coming after them can only overthrow three of the ten kingdoms when he himself has established and possesses a kingdom or empire of his own. According to this, the king arising after the ten is not an isolated ruler, but the monarch of a kingdom which has destroyed three of the kingdoms already in existence.

Verse 25

Dan 7:25 refers to the same king, and says that he shall speak against the Most High. לצד means, properly, against or at the side of, and is more expressive than על. It denotes that he would use language by which he would set God aside, regard and give himself out as God; cf. 2Th 2:4. Making himself like God, he will destroy the saints of God. בּלא, Pa., not “make unfortunate” (Hitzig), but consume, afflict, like the Hebr. בּלּה, 1Ch 17:9, and Targ. Jes. Dan 3:15. These passages show that the assertion that בּלּה, in the sense of to destroy, never takes after it the accusative of the person (Hitz.), is false. Finally, “he thinks to change times and laws.” “To change times” belongs to the all-perfect power of God (cf. Dan 2:21), the creator and ordainer of times (Gen 1:14). There is no ground for supposing that זמנין is to be specially understood of “festival or sacred times,” since the word, like the corresponding Hebr. מועדים, does not throughout signify merely “festival times;” cf. Gen 1:14; Gen 17:21; Gen 18:14, etc. The annexed ודּת does not point to arrangements of divine worship, but denotes “law” or “ordinance” in general, human as well as divine law; cf. Dan 2:13, Dan 2:15 with Dan 6:6, Dan 6:9. “Times and laws” are the foundations and main conditions, emanating from God, of the life and actions of men in the world. The sin of the king in placing himself with God, therefore, as Kliefoth rightly remarks, “consists in this, that in these ordinances he does not regard the fundamental conditions given by God, but so changes the laws of human life that he puts his own pleasure in the place of the divine arrangements.” Thus shall he do with the ordinances of life, not only of God's people, but of all men. “But it is to be confessed that the people of God are most affected thereby, because they hold their ordinances of life most according to the divine plan; and therefore the otherwise general passage stands between two expressions affecting the conduct of the horn in its relation to the people of God.”
This tyranny God's people will suffer “till, i.e., during, a time, (two) times, and half a time.” By these specifications of time the duration of the last phase of the world-power is more definitely declared, as a period in its whole course measured by God; Dan 7:12 and Dan 7:22. The plural word עדּנין (times) standing between time and half a time can only designate the simple plural, i.e., two times used in the dual sense, since in the Chaldee the plural is often used to denote a pair where the dual is used in Hebrew; cf. Winer, Chald. Gr. §55, 3. Three and a half times are the half of seven times (Dan 4:13). The greater number of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters take imte (עדּן) as representing the space of a year, thus three and a half times as three and a half years; and they base this view partly on Dan 4:13, where seven times must mean seven years, partly on Dan 12:7, where the corresponding expression is found in Hebrew, partly on Rev 13:5 and Rev 11:2-3, where forty-two months and 1260 days are used interchangeably. But none of these passages supplies a proof that will stand the test. The supposition that in Dan 4:13 the seven times represent seven years, neither is nor can be proved. As regards the time and times in Dan 12:7, and the periods named in the passages of the Rev. referred to, it is very questionable whether the weeks and the days represent the ordinary weeks of the year and days of the week, and whether these periods of time are to be taken chronologically. Still less can any explanation as to this designation of time be derived from the 2300 days (evening-mornings) in Dan 8:14, since the periods do not agree, nor do both passages treat of the same event. The choice of the chronologically indefinite expression עדּן, time, shows that a chronological determination of the period is not in view, but that the designation of time is to be understood symbolically. We have thus to inquire after the symbolical meaning of the statement. This is not to be sought, with Hofmann (Weiss. i. 289), in the supposition that as three and a half years are the half of a Sabbath-period, it is thus announced that Israel would be oppressed during half a Sabbath-period by Antichrist. For, apart from the unwarrantable identification of time with year, one does not perceive what Sabbath-periods and the oppression of the people of God have in common. This much is beyond doubt, that three and a half times are the half of seven times. The meaning of this half, however, is not to be derived, with Kranichfeld, from Dan 4:13, where “seven times” is an expression used for a long continuance of divinely-ordained suffering. It is not hence to be supposed that the dividing of this period into two designates only a proportionally short time of severest oppression endured by the people of God at the hands of the heathen. For the humbling of the haughty ruler Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:13) does not stand in any inner connection with the elevation of the world-power over the people of God, in such a way that we could explain the three and a half times of this passage after the seven times of Dan 4:13. In general, the question may be asked, Whether the meaning of the three and a half times is to be derived merely from the symbolical signification of the number seven, or whether, with Lämmert, we must not much rather go back, in order to ascertain the import of this measure of time, to the divine judgments under Elias, when the heavens were shut for three years and six months; Luk 4:25 and Jam 5:17. “As Ahab did more to provoke God to anger than all the kings who were before him, so this king, Dan 7:24, in a way altogether different from those who went before him, spake words against the Most High and persecuted His saints, etc.” But should this reference also not be established, and the three and a half times be regarded as only the half of seven times, yet the seven does not here come into view as the time of God's works, so that it could be said the oppression of the people of God by the little horn will last (Kliefoth) only half as long as a work of God; but according to the symbolical interpretation of the seven times, the three and a half, as the period of the duration of the circumstances into which the people of God are brought by the world-power through the divine permission, indicate “a testing period, a period of judgment which will (Mat 24:22; Pro 10:27), for the elect's sake, be interrupted and shortened (septenarius truncus).” Leyrer in Herz.'s Real. Enc. xviii. 369. Besides, it is to be considered how this space of time is described, not as three and a half, but a time, two times, and half a time. Ebrard (Offenb. p. 49) well remarks regarding this, that “it appears as if his tyranny would extend itself always the longer and longer: first a time, then the doubled time, then the fourfold - this would be a seven times; but it does not go that length; suddenly it comes to an end in the midst of the seven times, so that instead of the fourfold time there is only half a time.” “The proper analysis of the three and a half times,” Kliefoth further remarks, “in that the periods first mount up by doubling them, and then suddenly decline, shows that the power of the horn and its oppression of the people of God would first quickly manifest itself, in order then to come to a sudden end by the interposition of the divine judgment (Dan 7:26).” For, a thing which is not here to be overlooked, the three and a half times present not the whole duration of the existence of the little horn, but, as the half of a week, only the latter half of its time, in which dominion over the saints of God is given to it (Dan 7:21), and at the expiry of which it falls before the judgment. See under Dan 12:7.

Verse 26

In Dan 7:26 and Dan 7:27 this judgment is described (cf. Dan 7:10), but only as to its consequences for the world-power. The dominion of the horn in which the power of the fourth beast culminates is taken away and altogether annihilated. The destruction of the beast is here passed by, inasmuch as it is already mentioned in Dan 7:11; while, on the other hand, that which is said (Dan 7:12) about the taking away of its power and its dominion is strengthened by the inf. להשׁמדה (to destroy), וּלהובדה (and to consume), being added to יהעדּוּן (they shall take away), to which שׁלטנהּ (his dominion) is to be repeated as the object. סופא עד, to the end, i.e., not absolutely, but, as in Dan 6:27, to the end of the days, i.e., for ever.

Verse 27

After the destruction of the beast, the kingdom and the dominion, which hitherto comprehended the kingdom under the whole heaven, are given to the people of God, i.e., under the reign of the Son of man, as is to be supplied from Dan 7:14. As in Dan 7:26 nothing is further said of the fate of the horn, because all that was necessary regarding it had been already said (Dan 7:11), so also all that was to be said of the Son of man was already mentioned in Dan 7:13 and Dan 7:14; and according to the representation of the Scripture, the kingdom of the people of the saints without the Son of man as king is not a conceivable idea. מלכות דּי (of the kingdom) is a subjective genitive, which is required by the idea of the intransitive רבוּתא (the greatness) preceding it. The meaning is thus not “power over all kingdoms,” but “the power which the kingdoms under the whole heaven had.” With regard to Dan 7:27, cf. Dan 7:14 and Dan 7:18.

Verse 28

In Dan 7:28 the end of the vision is stated, and the impression which it left on Daniel. Hitherto, to this point, was the end of the history; i.e., thus far the history, or, with this the matter is at an end. מלּתא, the matter, is not merely the interpretation of the angel, but the whole revelation, the vision together with its interpretation. Daniel was greatly moved by the event (cf. Dan 5:9), and kept it in his heart.

Appendix to Daniel 1-7

The Four World-Kingdoms

There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar's image (Daniel 2), and by Daniel's vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two vision are to be interpreted in the same way. “The four kingdoms or dynasties, which were symbolized (Daniel 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.” This is the view not only of Bleek, who herein agrees with Auberlen, but also of Kranichfeld and Kliefoth, and all church interpreters. These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. “In this interpretation and opinion,” Luther observes, “all the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.” This opinion prevailed till about the end of the last century, for the contrary opinion of individual earlier interprets had found no favour.^[58]
But from that time, when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, then as a consequence, with the rejection of the genuineness of the book of Daniel the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman world-monarchy was also denied. For the pseudo-Daniel of the times of the Maccabees could furnish no prophecy which could reach further than the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman empire was therefore a priori excluded, the four kingdoms must be so explained that the pretended prophecy should not extend further than to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. For this end all probabilities were created, and yet nothing further was reached than that one critic confuted another. While Ewald and Bunsen advanced the opinion that the Assyrian kingdom is specially to be understood by the first kingdom, and that the Maccabean author of the book was first compelled by the reference to Nebuchadnezzar to separate, in opposition to history, the Median from the Persian kingdom, so as to preserve the number four, Hitzig, in agreement with von Redepenning, has sought to divide the Babylonian kingdom, and to refer the first kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar and the second to his successor Belshazzar; while Bertholdt, Jahn, and Rosenmüller, with Grotius, have divided the kingdom of Alexander from the kingdom of his successors. But as both of these divisions appear to be altogether too arbitrary, Venema, Bleek, de Wette, Lücke, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig (Daniel vii.), Hilgenfeld, and Kranichfeld have disjoined the Medo-Persian monarchy into two world-kingdoms, the Median and the Persian, and in this they are followed by Delitzsch. See Art. Daniel in Herz.'s Real Encyc.
When we examine these views more closely, the first named is confuted by what Ewald himself (Die Proph. iii. 314) has said on this point. The four world-kingdoms “must follow each other strictly in chronological order, the succeeding being always inferior, sterner, and more reckless than that which went before. They thus appear in the gigantic image (Daniel 2), which in its four parts, from head to feet, is formed of altogether different materials; in like manner in Daniel 7 four different beasts successively appear on the scene, the one of which, according to Daniel 8, always destroys the other. Now it cannot be said, indeed, in strict historical fact that the Chaldean kingdom first gave way to the Median, and this again to the Persian, but, as it is always said, the Persian and Median together under Cyrus overthrew the Chaldean and formed one kingdom. This is stated by the author himself in Daniel 8, where the Medo-Persian kingdom is presented as one under the image of a two-horned ram. According to this, he should have reckoned from Nabucodrossor only three world-kingdoms, if he had not received the number of four world-kingdoms from an old prophet living under the Assyrian dominion, who understood by the four kingdoms the Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. Since now this number, it is self-evident to him, can neither be increased nor diminished, there remained nothing else for him than to separate the Median from the Persian kingdom at that point where he rendered directly prominent the order and the number four, while he at other times views them together.” But what then made it necessary for this pseudo-prophet to interpret the golden head of Nebuchadnezzar, and to entangle himself thereby, in opposition not only to the history, but also to his own better judgment, Daniel 8, if in the old sources used by him the Assyrian is to be understood as the first kingdom? To this manifest objection Ewald has given no answer, and has not shown that in Daniel 2 and 7 the Median kingdom is separated from the Persian. Thus this hypothesis is destitute of every foundation, and the derivation of the number four for the world-kingdoms from a prophetic book of the Assyrian period is one of the groundless ideas with which Ewald thinks to enrich biblical literature.
Hitzig's opinion, that Daniel had derived the idea of separating the heathen power into four kingdoms following each other from the representation of the four ages of the world, has no better foundation. It was natural for him to represent Assyria as the first kingdom, yet as he wished not to refer to the past, but to future, he could only begin with the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. Regarding himself as bound to the number four, he divided on that account, in Daniel 2, the Chaldean dominion into two periods, and in Daniel 7, for the same reason, the Medo-Persian into two kingdoms, the Median and the Persian. This view Hitzig founds partly on this, that in Dan 2:38 not the Chaldean kingdom but Nebuchadnezzar is designated as the golden head, and that for Daniel there exist only two Chaldean kings; and partly on this, that the second מלכוּ (Dan 2:39) is named as inferior to the Chaldean, which could not be said of the Medo-Persian as compared with the Chaldean; and, finally, partly on this, that in the vision seen in the first year of Belshazzar (Daniel 7), Nebuchadnezzar already belonged to the past, while according to Dan 7:17 the first kingdom was yet future. But apart from the incorrectness of the assertion, that for the author of this book only two Chaldean kings existed, it does not follow from the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar is styled the golden head of the image, that he personally is meant as distinct from the Chaldean king that succeeded him; on the contrary, that Nebuchadnezzar comes to view only as the founder, and at that time the actual ruler, of the kingdom, is clear from Dan 2:39, “after thee shall arise another kingdom” (מלכוּ), not another king (מלך), as it ought to be read, according to Hitzig's opinion. Belshazzar did not found another kingdom, or, as Hitzig says, another dominion (Herschaft), but he only continued the kingdom or dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. The two other reasons advanced have been already disposed of in the interpretation of Dan 2:39 and of Dan 7:17. The expression, “inferior to thee” (Dan 2:39), would not relate to the Medo-Persian kingdom as compared with the Chaldean only if it referred to the geographical extension of the kingdom, which is not the case. And the argument deduced from the words “shall arise” in Dan 7:17 proves too much, and therefore nothing. If in the word יקוּמוּן (shall arise) it be held that the first kingdom was yet to arise, then also the dominion of Belshazzar would be thereby excluded, which existed at the time of that vision. Moreover the supposition that מלכוּ means in Dan 2:39 the government of an individual king, but in Dan 2:4 a kingdom, the passages being parallel in their contents and in their form, and that מלכין in Dan 7:17 (“the four beasts are four kings”) means, when applied to the first two beasts, separate kings, and when applied to the two last, kingdoms, violates all the rules of hermeneutics. “Two rulers personally cannot possibly be placed in the same category with two kingdoms” (Kliefoth).
But the view of Bertholdt, that the third kingdom represents the monarchy of Alexander, and the fourth that of his διάδοχοι (successors), is at the present day generally abandoned. And there is good reason that it should be so; for it is plain that the description of the iron nature of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 breaking all things in pieces, as well as of the terribleness of the fourth beast in Daniel 7, by no means agrees with the kingdoms of the successors of Alexander, which in point of might and greatness were far inferior to the monarchy of Alexander, as is indeed expressly stated in Dan 11:4. Hitzig has, moreover, justly remarked, on the other hand, that “for the author of this book the kingdom of Alexander and that of his successors form together the יון מלכוּת, Dan 8:21 (the kingdom of Javan = Grecia). But if he had separated them, he could not have spoken of the kingdom of the successors as 'diverse' in character from that of Alexander, Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19. Finally, by such a view a right interpretation of the four heads, Dan 7:6, and the special meaning of the legs which were wholly of iron, Dan 2:33, is lost.”
Now, since the untenableness of these three suppositions is obvious, there only remains the expedient to divide the Medo-Persian world-kingdom into a Median and a Persian kingdom, and to combine the former with the second and the latter with the third of Daniel's kingdoms. But this scheme also is broken to pieces by the twofold circumstance, (1) that, as Maurer himself acknowledges, history knows nothing whatever of a Median world-kingdom; and (2) that, as Kranichfeld is compelled to confess (p. 122ff.), “it cannot be proved from Dan 5:28; Dan 7:1, 29; Dan 9:1; Dan 11:1, that the author of the book, in the vision in Daniel 2 or 7, or at all, conceived of an exclusively Median world-kingdom, and knew nothing of the Persian race as an inner component part of this kingdom.” It is true the book of Daniel, according to Daniel 8, recognises a distinction between a Median and a Persian dynasty (cf. Dan 8:3), but in other respects it recognises only one kingdom, which comprehends in its unity the Median and the Persian race. In harmony with this, the author speaks, at the time when the Median government over Babylon was actually in existence, only of one law of the kingdom for Medes and Persians (Dan 6:9, Dan 6:13, Dan 6:16), i.e., one law which rested on a common agreement of the two nations bound together into one kingdom. “The author of this book, who at the time of Darius, king of the Medes, knew only of one kingdom common to both races,” according to Kran., “speaks also in the preceding period of the Chaldean independence of the Medes only in conjunction with the Persians (cf. Dan 5:28; Dan 8:20), and, after the analogy of the remark already made, not as of two separated kingdoms, but in the sense of one kingdom, comprehending in it, along with the Median race, also the Persians as another and an important component part. This finds its ratification during the independence of Babylon even in Dan 8:20; for there the kings of the Medes and the Persians are represented by one beast, although at the same time two separate dynasties are in view. This actual fact of a national union into one kingdom very naturally and fully explains why, in the case of Cyrus, as well as in that of Darius, the national origin of the governors, emphatically set forth, was of interest for the author (cf. Dan 9:1; Dan 6:1; Dan 11:1; Dan 6:28), while with regard to the Chaldean kings there is no similar particular notice taken of their origin; and generally, instead of a statement of the personal descent of Darius and Cyrus, much rather only a direct mention of the particular people ruled by each - e.g., for these rulers the special designations 'king of the Persians,' 'king of the Medes'-was to be expected^[59] (cf. Dan 8:20; Dan 10:1, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20; Dan 11:2).” Hence, as Kranichfeld further rightly judges, it could not (Daniel 8) appear appropriate to suppose that the author had Persian in view as the third kingdom, while in the visions Daniel 2 and 7 we would regard Persian as a kingdom altogether separated from the Median kingdom. Moreover the author in Daniel 8 speaks of the one horn of the ram as growing up after the other, in order thereby to indicate the growing up of the Persian dynasty after the Median, and consequently the two dynasties together in one and the same kingdom (Dan 8:3, cf. Dan 8:20). Yet, in spite of all these testimonies to the contrary, Daniel must in Daniel 2 and 7 have had in view by the second world-kingdom the Median, and by the third the Persian, because at that time he did not think that in the relation of the Median and the Persian no other change in the future would happen than a simple change of dynasty, but because, at the time in which the Median kingdom stood in a threatening attitude toward the Chaldean (both in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar and in the first year of his son Belshazzar, i.e., Evilmerodach), he thought that a sovereign Persian kingdom would rise up victoriously opposite the Median rival of Nebuchadnezzar.
As opposed to this expedient, we will not insist on the improbability that Daniel within two years should have wholly changed his opinion as to the relation between the Medians and the Persians, though it would be difficult to find a valid ground for this. Nor shall we lay any stress on this consideration, that the assumed error of the prophet regarding the contents of the divine revelation in Daniel 2 and 7 appears irreconcilable with the supernatural illumination of Daniel, because Kranichfeld regards the prophetic statements as only the produce of enlightened human mental culture. But we must closely examine the question how this reference of the world-kingdoms spoken of stands related to the characteristics of the third and fourth kingdoms as stated in Daniel 2 and 7.
The description of the second and third kingdoms is very briefly given in Daniel 2 and 7. Even though the statement, Dan 2:39, that the second kingdom would be smaller than the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar could point to a Median kingdom, and the statement that the third kingdom would rule over the whole earth might refer to the spread of the dominion of the Persians beyond the boundaries of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom under Darius, yet the description of both of these kingdoms in Dan 7:5 sufficiently shows the untenableness of this interpretation. The second kingdom is represented under the image of a bear, which raises itself up on one side, and has three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. The three ribs in its mouth the advocates of this view do not know how to interpret. According to Kran., they are to be regarded as pointing out constituent parts of a whole, of an older kingdom, which he does not attempt more definitely to describe, because history records nothing of the conquests which Darius the Mede may have gained during the two years of his reign after the conquest of Babylon and the overthrow of the Chaldean kingdom by Cyrus. And the leopard representing (Dan 7:6) the third kingdom has not only four wings, but also four heads. The four heads show beyond a doubt the vision of the kingdom represented by the leopard into four kingdoms, just as in Daniel 8 the four horns of the he-goat, which in Dan 8:22 are expressly interpreted of four kingdoms rising out of the kingdom of Javan. But a division into four kingdoms cannot by any means be proved of the Persian world-kingdom. Therefore the four heads must here, according to Kran., represent only the vigilant watchfulness and aggression over all the regions of the earth, the pushing movement toward the different regions of the heavens, or, according to Hitzig, the four kings of Persia whom alone Daniel knew. But the first of these interpretations confutes itself, since heads are never the symbol of watchfulness or of aggressive power; and the second is set aside by a comparison with Dan 8:22. If the four horns of the he-goat represent four world-kingdoms rising up together, then the four heads of the leopard can never represent four kings reigning after one another, even though it were the case, which it is not (Dan 11:2), that Daniel knew only four kings of Persia.
Yet more incompatible are the statements regarding the fourth world-kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 with the supposition that the kingdom of Alexander and his followers is to be understood by it. Neither the monarchy of Alexander nor the Javanic world-kingdom accords with the iron nature of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs of iron, breaking all things in pieces, nor with the internal division of this kingdom, represented by the feet consisting partly of iron and partly of clay, nor finally with the ten toes formed of iron and clay mixed (Dan 2:33, Dan 2:40-43). As little does the monarchy of Alexander and his successors resemble a fearful beast with ten horns, which was without any representative in the animal world, according to which Daniel could have named it (Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19). Kranichfeld rejects, therefore, the historical meaning of the image in Daniel 2, and seeks to interpret its separate features only as the expression of the irreparable division of the ungodly kingdom assailing the theocracy with destructive vehemence, and therein of dependent weakness and inner dissolution. Hitzig finds in the two legs the representation of a monarchy which, as the Greek domination, sets its one foot on Europe and its other on Asia; and he regards Syria and Egypt as the material of it - Syria as the iron, Egypt as the clay. Others, again, regard the feet as the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, and in the ten horns they seek the other kingdoms of the Διάδοχοι. On the other hand, Kliefoth justly asks, “How came Syria and Egypt to be feet? And the toes go out of the feet, but the other kingdoms of the Διάδοχοι do not arise out of Syria and Egypt.” And if in this circumstance, that it is said of the fourth terrible beast that it was different from all the beasts that went before, and that no likeness was found for it among the beasts of prey, Kran. only finds it declared “that it puts forth its whole peculiarity according to its power in such a way that no name can any longer be found for it,” then this in no respect whatever agrees with the monarchy of Alexander. According to Hitz., the difference of the fourth beast is to be sought in the monarchy of Alexander transplanted from Europe into Asia, as over against the three monarchies, which shared in common an oriental home, a different kind of culture, and a despotic government. But was the transference of a European monarchy and culture into Asia something so fearful that Daniel could find no name whereby to represent the terribleness of this beast? The relation of Alexander to the Jews in no respect corresponds to this representation; and in Daniel 8 Daniel does not say a word about the rapidity of its conquests. He had thus an entirely different conception of the Greek monarchy from that of his modern interpreters.
Finally, if we take into consideration that the terrible beast which represents the fourth world-power has ten horns (Dan 7:7), which is to be explained as denoting that out of the same kingdom ten kings shall arise (Dan 7:24), and, on the contrary, that by the breaking off from the he-goat, representing the monarchy of Alexander, of the one great horn, which signified the first king, and the subsequent springing up of four similar horns, is to be understood that four kingdoms shall arise out of it (Dan 8:5, Dan 8:8,Dan 8:21-22); then the difference of the number of the horns shows that the beast with the ten horns cannot represent the same kingdom as that which is represented by the he-goat with four horns, since the number four is neither according to its numerical nor its symbolical meaning identical with the number ten. Moreover, this identifying of the two is quite set aside by the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns historically. Giving weight to the explanation of the angel, that the ten horns represent the rising up of ten kings, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Del. have endeavoured to find these kings among the Seleucidae, but they have not been able to discover more than seven: 1. Seleucus Nicator; 2. Antiochus Soter; 3. Antiochus Theus; 4. Seleucus Callinicus; 5. Seleuchus Ceraunus; 6. Antiochus the Great; 7. Seleucus Philopator, the brother and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after Philopator's death mounted the throne of Syria, having set aside other heirs who had a better title to it, and who must be that little horn which reached the kingdom by the rooting up of three kings. The three kings whom Antiochus plucked up by the roots (cf. Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20,Dan 7:24) must be Heliodorus, the murderer of Philopator; Demetrius, who was a hostage in Rome, the son of Philopator, and the legitimate successor to the throne; and the son of Ptolemy Philometor, for whom his mother Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus Philopator and of Antiochus Epiphanes, claimed the Syrian throne. But no one of these three reached the royal dignity, and none of them was dethroned or plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. Heliodorus, it is true, strove for the kingdom (Appian, Syriac. 45); but his efforts were defeated, yet not by Antiochus Epiphanes, but by Attalus and Eumenes. Demetrius, after his death, was the legitimate heir to the throne, but could not assert his rights, because he was a hostage in Rome; and since he did not at all mount the throne, he was not of course dethroned by his uncle Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, Ptolemy Philometor, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, for a short time, it is true, united the Syrian crown with the Egyptian (1 Macc. 11:13; Polyb. 40:12), but during the life of Antiochus Epiphanes, and before he ascended the throne, he was neither de jure nor de facto king of Syria; and the “pretended efforts of Cleopatra to gain for her son Philometor the crown of Syria are nowhere proved” (Hitzig).
Of this historical interpretation we cannot thus say even so much as that it “only very scantily meets the case” (Delitzsch); for it does not at all accord with the prophecy that the little horn (Antiochus Epiphanes) plucked up by the roots three of the existing kings. Hitzig and Hilgenfeld (Die Proph. Esra u. Daniel p. 82) have therefore dropped out of view the Syrian kingdom of Philometor, and, in order to gain the number ten, have ranked Alexander the Great among the Syrian kings, and taken Seleucus Philopator into the triad of the pretended Syrian kings that were plucked up by the roots by Antiochus Epiphanes. But Alexander the Great can neither according to the evidence of history, nor according to the statement of the book of Daniel, be counted among the kings of Syria; and Seleucus Philopator was not murdered by Antiochus Epiphanes, but Antiochus Epiphanes lived at the time of this deed in Athens (Appian, Syr. 45); and the murderer Heliodorus cannot have accomplished that crime as the instrument of Antiochus, because he aspired to gain the throne for himself, and was only prevented from doing so by the intervention of Attalus and Eumenes. Hilgenfeld also does not venture to reckon Heliodorus, the murderer of the king, among the triad of uprooted kings, but seeks to supply his place by an older son of Seleucus Philopator, murdered at the instigation of Antiochus Epiphanes according to Gutschmid; but he fails to observe that a king's son murdered during the lifetime of his father, reigning as king, could not possibly be represented as a king whom Antiochus Epiphanes drove from his throne. Of the ten kings of the Grecian world-kingdom of the branch of the Seleucidae before Antiochus Epiphanes, whom Hilgenfeld believes that he is almost able “to grasp with his hands,” history gives as little information as of the uprooting of the three Syrian kings by Antiochus Epiphanes.
But even though the historical relevancy of the attempt to authenticate the ten Syrian kings in the kingdom of the Seleucidae were more satisfactory than, from what has been remarked, appears to be the case, yet this interpretation of the fourth beast would be shattered against the ten horns, because these horns did not grow up one after another, but are found simultaneously on the head of the beast, and consequently cannot mean ten Syrian kings following one another, as not only all interpreters who regard the beast as representing the Roman empire, but also Bell. and Kran., acknowledge, in spite of the reference of this beast to the Javanic world-kingdom. “We are induced,” as Bleek justly observes, “by Dan 7:8, where it is said of the little horn that it would rise up between the ten horns, to think of ten contemporaneous kings, or rather kingdoms, existing along with each other, which rise out of the fourth kingdom.” Therefore he will “not deny that the reference to the successors of Alexander is rendered obscure by the fact that Daniel 8 speaks of four monarchies which arise out of that of Alexander after his death.” This obscurity, however, he thinks he is able to clear up by the remark, that “in the kind of development of the historical relations after the death of Alexander, the parts of his kingdom which formed themselves into independent kingdoms might be numbered in different ways.” Thus, in Daniel 7, “as ten from the number of the generals who in the arrangements of the division of the kingdom (323 b.c.) retained the chief provinces: 1. Kraterus (Macedonia); 2. Antipater (Greece); 3. Lysimachus (Thrace); 4. Leonatus (Phrygia Minor on the Hellespont); 5. Antigonus (Phrygia Major, Lycia, and Pamphylia); 6. Cassander (Karia); 7. Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia); 8. Laomedon (Syria and Palestine); 9. Pithon (Media); 10. Ptolemy Lagus (Egypt).” But Zündel justly observes in opposition to this view, that “these kingdoms could only have significance if this number, instead of being a selection from the whole, had been itself the whole. But this is not the case. For at that time the kingdom, according to Justin, hist. L. xiii. 4, was divided into more than thirty separate parts.^[60]
Although all the names do not perfectly agree as given by different writers, yet this is manifest, that there is no information regarding a division of the kingdom of Alexander into ten exclusively. History knows nothing of such a thing; not only so, but much more, this reckoning of Bleek's falls into the same mistake as the oldest of Porphyry, that it is an arbitrary selection and not a fixed number.” But if Bleek wishes to support his arbitrary selection by references to the Sibylline Oracles, where also mention is made of the horns of Daniel in connection with Alexander, Hilgenfeld (Jüd. Apokal. p. 71ff.) has, on the contrary, shown that this passage is derived from Daniel, and is therefore useless as a support to Bleek's hypothesis, because in it the immediate successors of Alexander are not meant, but ten kings following one another; this passage also only shows that the sibyllist had given to the number ten an interpretation regarded by Bleek himself as incompatible with the words of Daniel.
But notwithstanding the impossibility of interpreting the ten horns of the Greek world-kingdom, and notwithstanding the above-mentioned incompatibility of the statements of Daniel 2 and 7 regarding the third kingdom with those of Daniel 8 regarding the Medo-Persian kingdom,^[61] yet, according to Kranichfeld, the identification of the fourth kingdom of Daniel with the Javanic world-kingdom receives a confirmation from the representation of Daniel 11 and Dan 12:1-13, particularly by the striking resemblance of the description of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 with that of the Javanic in Daniel 8ff. “As in Daniel 2 and 7 the inward discord of the fourth kingdom is predicated, so this is obviously represented in the inner hateful strife of the kingdom, of which Dan 11:3. treats; as here the discord appears as inextinguishable, so there; as to the special means also for preventing so striking that it can overbalance the fundamental differences? “Of all that Daniel 8 says, in Dan 8:5-8, Dan 8:21, Dan 8:22, of Macedonia, nothing at all is found in the statements of Daniel 2 and 7 regarding the fourth kingdom.” Kliefoth. Also the inner dissolution predicated of the fourth kingdom, Dan 2:41., which is represented by the iron and clay of the feet of the image, is fundamentally different from the strife of the prince of the south with the prince of the north represented in Dan 11:3. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not unite together, refers to two nationalities essentially different from each other, which cannot be combined into one nation by any means of human effort, but not at all to the wars and conflicts of princes (Dan 11:3.), the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, for the supremacy; and the attempts to combine together national individualities into one kingdom by means of the mingling together of different races by external force, are essentially different from the political marriages by which the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae sought to establish peace and friendship with each other.^[62]
There is more plausibility in criticism which gives prominence to the resemblance in the description of the two violent persecutors of the people of God who arise out of the Javanic and the fourth world-kingdom, and are represented in Daniel 8 as well as in Daniel 7 under the figure of a little horn. “If” - for thus Kran. has formulated this resemblance - ”in the fourth kingdom, according to Dan 7:8, Dan 7:11, Dan 7:20-21, Dan 7:25, the heathen oppressor appears speaking insolent words against the Most High and making war with the saints, so Dan 8:10., 24, Dan 11:31, Dan 11:36, unfolds, only more fully, in his fundamental characteristics, the same enemy; and as in Dan 7:25 the severe oppression continues or three and a half times, so also that contemplated in Dan 8:14 and in Dan 12:7, in connection with Dan 12:1. and Daniel 11.” On the ground of this view of the case, Delitzsch asks, “Is it likely that the little horn which raised itself up and persecuted the church of God is in Daniel 8. Antiochus Epiphanes rising up out of the divided kingdom of Alexander, and in Daniel 7, on the contrary, is a king rising up in the Roman world-kingdom? The representation of both, in their relation to Jehovah, His people, and their religion, is the same. The symbolism in Daniel 7 and 8 coincides, in so far as the arch-enemy is a little horn which rises above three others.” We must answer this question decidedly in the affirmative, since the difference between the two enemies is not only likely, but certain. The similarity of the symbol in Daniel 7 and 8 reaches no further than that in both chapters the persecuting enemy is represented as a little horn growing gradually to greater power. But in Dan 8:9 this little horn arises from one of the four horns of the he-goat, without doing injury to the other three horns; while in Dan 7:8 the little horn rises up between the ten horns of the dreadful beast, and outroots three of these horns. The little horn in Daniel 8, as a branch which grows out of one of these, does not increase the number of the existing horns, as that in Daniel 7, which increases the number there to eleven. This distinction cannot, as Kranichfeld supposes, be regarded merely as a formal difference in the figurative representation; it constitutes an essential distinction for which the use of different symbols for the representation of the world-kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7 furnishes no true analogue. By these two different images two wholly different things are compared with each other.
The representations of the four world-kingdoms in Daniel 2 and in Daniel 7 are only formally different - in Daniel 2 a human image, in Daniel 7 four beasts - but in reality these representations answer to each other, feature for feature, only so that in Daniel 7 further outlines are added, which entirely agree with, but do not contradict, the image in Daniel 2. On the contrary, in Daniel 7 and 8 essential contradictions present themselves in the parallel symbols - four horns and ten horns - which cannot be weakened down to mere formal differences. As little does the description of the enemy of the people of God, portrayed as a little horn in Daniel 8, correspond with that in Daniel 7. The fierce and crafty king arising out of the kingdoms of Alexander's successors will become “great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land, and wax great even to the host of heaven, and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground; yea, he will magnify himself even to the prince of the host, and take away the daily sacrifice, and cast down the place of the sanctuary” (Dan 8:9-12, Dan 8:23-25). On the other hand, the king who rises up out of the fourth world-kingdom, who overthrows three other kings, will “speak great things against the Most High, and make war against the saints of the Most High, and prevail against them, and think to change times and laws” (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20,Dan 7:25). These two enemies resemble each other in this, that they both make war against the people of God; but they differ in that he who arises out of the third world-kingdom, extending his power toward the south and the east, i.e., towards Egypt and Babylon, and towards the Holy Land, shall crush some of the people of God, and by the taking away of the daily worship and the destruction of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, will rise up against God; while, on the contrary, he that shall arise out of the fourth world-kingdom will go much further. He will establish his kingdom by the destruction of three kingdoms, by great words put himself in the place of God, and as if he were God will think to change the times and the laws of men. Conformably to this, the length of time during which the persecution of these two adversaries will continue is different. The laying waste of the sanctuary by the power of the little horn arising out the Javanic world-kingdom will continue 2300 evening-mornings (Dan 8:14): to the power of the little horn arising out of the fourth world-kingdom the saints of the Most High must be given up for a time, two times, and half a time (Dan 7:25). No one will be persuaded, with Kranichfeld, that these two entirely different periods of time are alike. This difference of the periods of time again appears in Dan 12:7, Dan 12:11-12, where also the three and a half times (Dan 12:7) agree neither with the 1290 nor with the 1335 days. It is therefore not correct to say that in Daniel 8 and 7 Antichrist, the last enemy of the church, is represented, and that the aspects of the imagery in both chapters strongly resemble each other. The very opposite is apparent as soon as one considers the contents of the description without prejudice, and does not, with Kranichfeld and others, hold merely by the details of the representation and take the husk for the kernel. The enemy in Daniel 8 proceeds only so far against God that he attacks His people, removes His worship, and lays waste the sanctuary; the enemy in Daniel 7 makes himself like God (לצד, Dan 7:25), thinks himself to be God, and in his madness dares even to seek to change the times and the laws which God has ordained, and which He alone has the power to change. The enemy in Daniel 8 it is an abuse of words to call Antichrist; for his offence against God is not greater than the crime of Ahaz and Manasseh, who also took away the worship of the true God, and set up the worship of idols in His stead. On the other hand, it never came into the mind of an Ahaz, nor of Manasseh, nor of Antiochus Epiphanes, who set himself to put an end to the worship of God among the Jews, to put themselves in the place of God, and to seek to change times and laws. The likeness which the enemy in Daniel 8, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, in his rage against the Mosaic religion and the Jews who were faithful to their law, has to the enemy in Daniel 7, who makes himself like God, limits itself to the relation between the type and the antitype. Antiochus, in his conduct towards the Old Testament people of God, is only the type of Antichrist, who will arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom (Dan 7:24) and be diverse from them, arrogate to himself the omnipotence which is given to Christ, and in this arrogance will put himself in the place of God.
The sameness of the designation given to both of these adversaries of the people of God, a “little horn,” not only points to the relation of type and antitype, but also, as Kliefoth has justly remarked, to “intentional and definite” parallelism between the third world-kingdom (the Macedonian) and the fourth (the Roman). “On all points the changes of the fourth kingdom are described similarly to the changes which took place in the Macedonian kingdom; but in every point of resemblance also there is indicated some distinct difference, so that the Macedonian kingdom in its development comes to stand as the type and representative of the fourth kingdom, lying as yet in the far-off future.” The parallelism appears in this, that in the he-goat, representing the Javanic kingdom, after the breaking of the one great horn four considerable horns come up; and the fourth beast has ten horns; and the horns in both show that out of the one kingdom four, and out of the other ten, kingdoms shall arise;-further, that as out of one of the Javanic Diadoch kingdoms, so also from among the ten kingdoms into which the fourth kingdom is divided, a little horn comes up; the little horn in the Javanic kingdom, however, developes itself and founds its dominion differently from that of the fourth kingdom. If one carefully considers the resemblances and the differences of this description, he cannot fail to observe “the relation of an imperfect preliminary step of heathenish ungodliness to a higher step afterwards taken,” which Kran. (p. 282) seeks in a typical delineation. For the assertion of this critic, that “in the pretended typical, as in the antitypical situation, the same thoughts of the rising up against the Most High, the removal of His worship, and the destruction of the sanctuary always similarly occur,” is, according to the exegetical explanation given above, simply untrue. The difference reduces itself not merely to the greater fulness with which, “not the chief hero, but the type,” is treated, but it shows itself in the diversity of the thoughts; for the elevation to the place of God, and the seeking to change the times and the laws, manifests one of a higher degree of godlessness than the removing of the Jewish sacrificial worship and the desecration of the Jewish temple.
Finally, the relation of the type to the antitype appears yet more distinctly in the determining of the time which will be appointed to both enemies for their opposition to God; for, though apparently they are alike, they are in reality very differently designated, and particularly in the explanation of the angel, Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19, and in the representation of the conduct of both enemies in Daniel 11 and Dan 12:1-13, as we shall show in our exposition of these chapters.
Since, then, neither the division of the Medo-Persian kingdom into the Median and the Persian is allowable, nor the identification of the fourth kingdom, Daniel 2 and 7, with the Javanic world-kingdom in Daniel 8, we may regard as correct the traditional church view, that the four world-kingdoms are the Chaldean, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. This opinion, which has been recently maintained by Häv., Hengst., Hofm., Auberl., Zündel, Klief., and by C. P. Caspari and H. L. Reichel, alone accords without any force or arbitrariness with the representation of these kingdoms in both visions, with each separately as well as with both together. If we compare, for instance, the two visions with each other, they are partly distinguished in this, that while Nebuchadnezzar sees the world-power in its successive unfoldings represented by one metallic image, Daniel, on the other hand, sees it in the form of four ravenous beasts; partly in this, that in Daniel 7 the nature of the world-power, and its relation to the kingdom of God, is more distinctly described than in the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2. These diversities have their foundation in the person of the respective recipients of the revelation. Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, sees its development in its unity and in its earthly glory. As opposed to the kingdom of God, the world-kingdoms, in all the phases of their development, form a united power of outward glory. But its splendour gradually decreases. The image with the golden head has its breast and arms of silver, its belly of brass, its legs of iron, its feet of iron and clay mixed. Thus the image stands on feet that are weak and easily broken, so that a stone rolling against them can break in pieces the whole colossus. Since, then, the image must represent four phases of the world-kingdoms following each other, they must be represented by the separate parts of the image. Beginning with the head, as denoting the first kingdom, the second kingdom is in natural order represented by the breast and arms, the third by the belly, and the fourth by the legs and feet. Since this of necessity follows from the image being that of the human body, yet in the interpretation we may not attach any weight to the circumstance that the second kingdom is represented by the breasts and the two arms, and the fourth by the two legs; but this circumstance may be taken into consideration only in so far as importance is given to it by the interpretation which is furnished in the text, or as it finds corresponding importance in the vision of Daniel 7.
If we thus consider now the image, Daniel 2, the selection of different metals for its separate parts must be regarded as certainly designed not only to distinguish the four world-kingdoms from each other, but also at the same time to bring to view their different natures and qualities. This is evident from the interpretation in Dan 2:39., where the hardness and the crushing power of the iron, and the brittleness of the clay, are brought to view. From this intimation it is at the same time obvious that the metals are not, as Auberlen, p. 228ff., thinks, to be viewed only as to their worth, and that by the successive depreciation of the materials - gold, silver, brass, iron, clay - a continuous decline of the world-power, or a diminution of the world-kingdoms as to their inner worth and power, is intended. Though Aub. says many things that are true and excellent regarding the downward progress of the world-development in general, the successive deterioration of humanity from paradise to the day of judgment, yet this aspect of the subject does not come here primarily before us, but is only a subordinate element in the contemplation. Daniel does not depict, as Aub. with P. Lange supposes, the world-civilisations in the world-monarchies; he does not describe “the progress from a state of nature to one of refined culture - from a natural, vigorous, solid mode of existence to a life of refinement and intellectualism, which is represented by the eye (Dan 7:8) of Antichrist;” but he describes in both visions only the development of the world-power opposite to the kingdom of God, and its influence upon it in the future. If Aub. holds as the foundation of his opinion, that “gold and silver are nobler and more valuable metals, but that, on the other hand, iron and brass are infinitely more important for the cause of civilisation and culture,” he has confounded two different points of view: he has made the essential worth and value of the former metals, and the purpose and use of the latter, the one point of comparison. Gold and silver are nobler and more valuable than brass and iron, yet they have less intrinsic worth. The difference is frequently noticed in the Old Testament. Gold and silver are not only more highly valued than brass and iron (cf. Isa 60:17), but silver and gold are also metonymically used to designate moral purity and righteousness (cf. Mal 3:3 with Isa 1:22); brass and iron, on the contrary, are used to designate moral impurity (cf. Jer 6:28; Eze 22:18) and stubborn rebellion against God (Isa 48:4). With reference to the relative worth of the metals, their gradation in the image shows, without doubt, an increasing moral and religious deterioration of the world-kingdoms. It must not, however, be hence thought, as Auberlen does, “that the Babylonian and Persian religions presuppose more genuine truthfulness, more sacred reverence for that which is divine, deeper earnestness in contending against the evil, in the nations among whom they sprung up, than the Hellenic, which is so much richer and more beautifully developed;” for this distinction is not supported by history. But although this may be said of the Persian, it cannot be held as true of the Babylonian religion, from all we know of it. Kranichfeld (p. 107) is more correct when in the succession of the metals he finds “the thought conceived by the theocrat of a definite fourfold procedure or expression of character comparatively corresponding to them, of a fourfold דּרך (way, Jer 6:27) of the heathen kingdoms manifesting an increasing deterioration.” The two first kingdoms, the golden and the silver, in general appear to him in their conduct as proportionally noble, virtuous, and in their relation to the theocracy even relatively pious; the two latter, on the contrary, which presented themselves to him in the likeness of brass and iron, as among the four morally base, as standing in the moral scale lower and lowest, and in relation to the theocracy as more relentless and wicked (see v. 40)^[63].
With this the declaration of the text as to the position of the four world-kingdoms and their rulers with referenced to the people of God stand in accord; for, on the one hand, Nebuchadnezzar, and the first rulers of the second kingdom, Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, respect the revelations of the living God, and not only in their own persons give honour to this God, but also command their heathen subjects to render unto Him fear and reverence; on the other hand, on the contrary, from the third and the fourth kingdoms the greatest persecutors of the kingdom of God, who wish utterly to destroy it (Daniel 7, 8), arise. In this respect the two first world-kingdoms, seen in their rulers, are like gold and silver, the two latter like copper and iron.
The relation of the world-kingdoms to the kingdom and people of God, represented by this gradation of the metals, corresponds only to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman world-kingdoms, but not to the Babylonian, Median, and Persian. This appears more manifest in the representation of them by four ravenous beasts, the lion, the ear, the leopard, and another beast to which no likeness can be found, Daniel 7. Its eagle's wings were torn from the lion, and it had given to it, by God, a man's heart; the bear shows only wild voracity-holding its prey between its teeth, it raises its one side for new prey; the leopard with four heads and four wings springs forward as in flight over the whole earth, to seize it and to exercise dominion over it; the fourth nameless beast devours and breaks in pieces with its iron teeth all that remains, and stamps upon it with its iron feet, and thus represents godless barbarity in its fullest development. But for the historical interpretation there comes yet particularly into view the circumstance that the fourth beast is represented by no animal existing in nature, and is designated by no historical name, as in the case of the first (Dan 2:38) and the second and third (Dan 8:20-21); for the two first had already come into existence in Daniel's time, and of the third, the people at least out of whom it was to arise had then already come into relation to the people of Israel (Joe 3:6, Joe 3:8). The fourth kingdom, on the contrary, is represented by a nameless beast, because in Daniel's time Rome had not come into contact with Israel, and as yet lay beyond the circle of vision of Old Testament prophecy. Although Daniel receives much more special revelations regarding this world-kingdom (Daniel 7) than Nebuchadnezzar does in his dream (Daniel 2), yet all the separate lines of the representation of the beast and its horn are given with so much want of precision that every reference to a historical people is at fault, and from the vision and its interpretation it was not to be known where this kingdom would arise, whether in Asia or elsewhere. The strength of the monster, devouring and trampling mercilessly on all things, is in harmony with its iron nature, and in its ten horns its powerful armour is depicted. The very concrete expressions regarding the little or eleventh horn contain only ideal traces respecting the position of the king or kingdom represented by it, which distinctly show, indeed, the elevation of the same above all human and divine authority, but give no indication at all of any special historical connections.
Thus it appears that the two vision, on the one hand, do not copy their prophetic representation from historical facts, that the prophecy is not vaticinium ex eventu; but, on the other hand, also that it is not derived from general ideas, as Hitz. and Kran. have attempted to show. While Hitzig thinks that the idea of the four ages of the world lies at the foundation, not of the fourfoldness of the monarchies, but of the kind of representation given of them in Daniel 2, - an idea which came from India to Greece, and was adopted by Daniel in its Greek form, - Kranichfeld considers that, under divine enlightenment, Daniel delineated the ideal of the advancing completion of heathen depravation in four stages (not in five, six, etc.), after the notion of the four ages of the world which we find not only in the Indian four jugas, but also in the Greco-Roman representation of the metallic aeons. Now although for this book of Daniel no special dependence on the Greeks can be proved from the use and value of the metals, because they were used by the ancient Hebrews as metaphorical symbols, yet the combination of the idea of the ages of the world so firmly and definitely stamped with just the number four remains a very noteworthy phenomenon, which must have had a deeper foundation lying in the very fact itself. This foundation, he concludes, is to be sought in the four stages of the age of man.
This conjecture might appear plausible if Kranichfeld had proved the supposed four stages of the age of man as an idea familiar to the O.T. He has not, however, furnished this proof, but limited himself to the remark, that the combination of the number four with the ages of the life of man was one lying very near to Daniel, since the four phases of the development of heathenism come into view (Daniel 2) in the image of a human being, the personification of heathendom. A very marvellous conclusion indeed! What, then, have the four parts of the human figure - the head, breast, belly, feet - in common with the four stages of the age of man? The whole combination wants every point of support. The idea of the development of the world-power in four kingdoms following after each other, and becoming continually the more oppressive to the people of God, has no inward connection with the representation of the four ages of the world, and - as even Ewald (Daniel p. 346), in opposition to this combination, remarks - ”the mere comparison with gold, silver, brass, iron lies too near for the author of this book to need to borrow it from Hesiod.” The agreement of the two ideas in the number four (although Hesiod has inserted the age of the heroes between the brazen and the iron aeon, and thus has not adhered to the number four) would much more readily have been explained from the symbolical meaning of four as the number of the world, if it were the mere product of human speculation or combination in the case of the world-ages as of the world-kingdoms, and not much rather, in the case of the world-ages, were derived from the historical development of humanity and of Daniel's world-kingdoms, from divine revelation. Yet much less are the remaining declarations regarding the development and the course of the world-kingdoms to be conceived of as the product of enlightened human thought. This may be said of the general delineation of the second and third world-kingdoms (Daniel 2 and 7), and yet much more of the very special declaration regarding them in Daniel 8, but most of all of the fourth world-kingdom. If one wished to deduce the fearful power of this kingdom destroying all things from the idea of the rising up of hostility against that which is divine, closely bound up with the deterioration of the state of the world, and to attach importance to this, that the number ten of the horns of the fourth beast, corresponding to the number of the toes of the feet, is derived from the apprehension of heathendom as the figure of a man, and is not to be understood numerically, but symbolically; yet there remains, not to mention other elements, the growth of the little horn between the ten existing horns, and its elevation to power through the destruction of three existing horns, which are deduced neither from the symbolical meaning of the numbers nor are devised by enlightened human thought, but much rather constrain us to a recognition of an immediate divine revelation.
If we now approach more closely to the historical reference of the fourth world-kingdom, it must be acknowledge that we cannot understand by it the Grecian, but only the Roman world-power. With it, not with the Macedonian monarchy, agree both the iron nature of the image (Daniel 2), and the statements (Dan 7:23) that this kingdom would be different from all that preceded it, and that it would devour and break and trample upon the whole earth. The Roman kingdom was the first universal monarchy in the full sense. Along with the three earlier world-kingdoms, the nations of the world-historical future remained still unsubdued: along with the Oriental kingdoms, Greece and Rome, and along with the Macedonia, the growing power of Rome.
First the Roman kingdom spread its power and dominion over the whole οἰκουμένη, over all the historical nations of antiquity in Europe, Africa, and Asia. “There is” (says Herodian, ii. 11. 7) “no part of the earth and no region of the heavens whither the Romans have not extended their dominion.” Still more the prophecy of Daniel reminds us of the comparison of the Roman world-kingdom with the earlier world-kingdoms, the Assyrico-Baylonian, the Persian, and the Grecian, in Dionys. Halicar., when in the proaem. 9 he says: “There are the most famous kingdoms down to our time, and this their duration and power. But the kingdom of the Romans ruled through all the regions of the earth which are not inaccessible, but are inhabited by men; it ruled also over the whole sea, and it alone and first made the east and the west its boundaries.” Concerning the other features of the image in Daniel 2, we can seek neither in the two legs and feet of the image, nor in the twofold material of the feet, any hint as to the division of the Roman kingdom into the Eastern and Western Rome. The iron and clay are in the image indeed not so divided as that the one foot is of iron and the other of clay, but iron and clay are bound together in both of the feet. In this union of two heterogeneous materials there also lies no hint that, by the dispersion of the nations, the plastic material of the Germanic and the Slavic tribes was added to the Old Roman universal kingdom (Dan 2:40) with its thoroughly iron nature (Auberl. p. 252, cf. with Hof. Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 281). For the clay in the image does not comes into view as a malleable and plastic material, but, according to the express interpretation of Daniel (v. 42), only in respect of its brittleness. The mixing of iron and clay, which do not inwardly combine together, shows the inner division of the nations, of separate natural stocks and national character is, which constituted the Roman empire, who were kept together by external force, whereby the iron firmness of the Roman nation was mingled with brittle clay.
The kingdoms represented by the ten horns belong still to the future. To be able to judge regarding them with any certainty, we must first make clear to ourselves the place of the Messianic kingdom with reference to the fourth world-kingdom, and then compare the prophecy of the Apocalypse of John regarding the formation of the world-power - a prophecy which rests on the book of Daniel.

The Messianic Kingdom and the Son of Man

In the image of the monarchies, Daniel 2, the everlasting kingdom of God is simply placed over against the kingdoms of the world without mention being made of the king of this kingdom. The human image is struck and broken to pieces by a stone rolling down against its feet, but the stone itself grows into a great mountain and fills the whole earth (Dan 2:34.). This stone is a figure of that kingdom which the God of heaven will erect in the days of the kings of the fourth world-kingdom; a kingdom which to all eternity shall never be destroyed, and which shall crush all the kingdoms of the world (Dan 2:44). In Daniel 7, on the contrary, Daniel sees not only the judgment which God holds over the kingdoms of the world, to destroy them for ever with the death of their last ruler, but also the deliverance of the kingdom to the Messiah coming with the clouds of heaven in the likeness of a son of man, whom all nations shall serve, and whose dominion shall stand for ever (Dan 7:9-14, cf. Dan 7:26.).
In both visions the Messianic kingdom appears in its completion. Whence Auberlen (p. 248), with other chiliasts, concludes that the beginning of this kingdom can refer to nothing else than to the coming of Christ for the founding of the so-called kingdom of the thousand years; an event still imminent to us. In favour of this view, he argues (1) that the judgment on Antichrist, whose appearance is yet future, goes before the beginning of this kingdom; (2) that this kingdom in both chapters is depicted as a kingdom of glory and dominion while till this time the kingdom of heaven on the earth is yet a kingdom of the cross. But the judgment on Antichrist does not altogether go before the beginning of this kingdom, but only before the final completion of the Messianic kingdom; and the Messianic kingdom has the glory and dominion over all the kingdoms under heaven, according to Daniel 2 and 7, not from the beginning, but acquires them only for the first time after the destruction of all the world-kingdoms and of the last powerful enemy arising out of them. The stone which breaks the image becomes for the first time after it has struck the image a great mountain which fills the whole earth (Dan 2:35), and the kingdom of God is erected by the God of heaven, according to Dan 2:44, not for the first time after the destruction of all the world-kingdoms, but in the days of the kings of the fourth world-monarchy, and thus during its continuance. With this Daniel 7 harmonizes; for, according to Dan 7:21, Dan 7:22, Dan 7:25, Dan 7:27, the little horn of the fourth beast carries on war with the saints of the Most High till the Ancient of days executes judgment in their behalf, and the time arrives when the saints shall possess the kingdom. Here we distinctly see the kingdom of heaven upon earth bearing the form of the cross, out of which condition it shall be raised by the judgment into the state of glory. The kingdom of the Messiah is thus already begun, and is warred against by Antichrist, and the judgment on Antichrist only goes before the raising of it to glory. (3) Auberlen adduces as a third argument, that (according to Roos, Hofm., etc.) only the people of Israel in opposition to the heathen nations and kingdoms can be understood by the “people of the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:18, Dan 7:27), because Daniel could only think of this people. But to this Kranichfeld has rightly replied, that Daniel and the whole O.T. knew nothing whatever of such a distinction between a non-Israelitish and an Israelitish epoch within the kingdom of Messiah, but only a Messianic kingdom in which Israel forms the enduring centre for the heathen believing nations drawing near to them. To this we add, that the division of the kingdom of heaven founded by Christ on the earth into a period of the church of the Gentiles, and following this a period of a thousand years of the dominion of Jewish Christians, contradicts the clear statements of Christ and the apostles in the N.T., and is only based on a misconception of a few passages of the Apocalypse.
Daniel certainly predicts the completion of the kingdom of God in glory, but he does not prophesy that the kingdom of heaven will then for the first time begin, but indicates its beginnings in a simple form, although he does not at large represent its gradual development in the war against the world-power, just as he also gives only a few brief intimations of the temporary development of the world-kingdoms. If Aub. (p. 251) replies that the words of the text, Dan 2:35, “then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together,” cannot at all permit the thought of the co-existence of the fourth world-kingdom and the kingdom of God, he attributes to these words a meaning which they do not bear. The “together” refers only to the breaking in pieces of the five substances named, of which the world-kingdoms are formed, the destruction of the world-power in all its parts, but not that this happened at one and the same moment, and that then for the first time the kingdom of God which is from heaven began. The stone which brake the image in pieces, then first, it is true, grows up into a great mountain filling the whole earth. The destruction of the world-kingdoms can in reality proceed only gradually along with the growth of the stone, and thus also the kingdom of God can destroy the world-kingdoms only by its gradual extension over the earth. The destruction of the world-power in all its component parts began with the foundation of the kingdom of heaven at the appearance of Christ upon earth, or with the establishment of the church of Christ, and only reaches its completion at the second coming of our Lord at the final judgment. In the image Daniel saw in a moment, as a single act, what in its actual accomplishment or in its historical development extends through the centuries of Christendom. Auberlen has in his argument identified the image with the actual realization, and has not observed that his conception of the words Dan 2:35 does not accord with the millennium, which according to Rev 20:1-15 does not gradually from small beginnings spread itself over the earth - is not to be likened to a stone which first after the destruction of the world-kingdom grows up into a mountain.
So also in Daniel 7 Daniel sees the judgment of the world-kingdoms in the form of an act limited to a point of time, by which not only the beast whose power culminates in the little horn is killed, but also the dominion and the kingdom over all nations is given over to the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven and appearing before God the Judge. If one here identifies the form of the prophetic vision with the actual fact, then he places Daniel in opposition to the teaching of the N.T. regarding the judgment of the world. According to N.T. doctrine, Christ, the Son of man, receives the dominion and power over all nations not for the first time on the day of judgment, after the destruction of the world-kingdoms by the Father, but He received it (Mat 28:18) after the completion of His work and before His ascension; and it is not God the Father who holds the judgment, but the Son raised to the right hand of the Father comes in the clouds of heaven to judge the world (Mat 25:31). The Father committed the judgment to the Son even while He yet sojourned on this earth in the form of a servant and founded the kingdom of heaven (Joh 5:27). The judgment begins not for the first time either before or after the millennium, about which chiliasts contend with one another, but the last judgment forms only the final completion of the judgment commencing at the first coming of Christ to the earth, which continues from that time onward through the centuries of the spread of the kingdom of heaven upon earth in the form of the Christian church, till the visible return of Christ in His glory in the clouds of heaven to the final judgment of the living and the dead. This doctrine is disclosed to us for the first time by the appearance of Christ; for by it are unfolded to us for the first time the prophecies regarding the Messiah in His lowliness and in His glory, in the clear knowledge of the first appearance of Christ in the form of a servant for the founding of the kingdom of God by His death and resurrection, and the return of the Son of man from heaven in the glory of His Father for the perfecting of His kingdom by the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.
That which has been said above, avails also for explaining the revelation which Daniel received regarding the King of the kingdom of God. While His appearance in the form of a son of man with the clouds of heaven, according to the statements of the N.T. regarding the second coming of Christ, points to His coming again in glory, yet, as above remarked, His coming before the Ancient of days, i.e., before God, and receiving from God the kingdom and the dominion, does not accord with the statements of the N.T. regarding the return of Christ to judge the world; so that we must here also distinguish between the actual contents and the form of the prophetic representation, and between the thought of the prophecy and its realization or historical fulfilment. Only because of a disregard of this distinction could Fries, e.g., derive from Dan 7:13 an argument against the parallelizing of this passage with Mat 24:30; Mar 14:62, and Rev 1:7, as well as against the reference to the Messias of the personage seen by Daniel in the clouds of heaven as a son of man.
In the vision, in which the Ancient of days, i.e., God, holds judgment over the world and its rulers, and in the solemn assembly for judgment grants to the Son of man appearing before Him the kingdom and the dominion, only this truth is contemplated by the prophet, that the Father gave to the Son all power in heaven and in earth; that He gave the power over the nations which the rulers of the earth had, and which they used only for the oppression of the saints of God, to the Son of man, and in Him to the people of the saints, and thereby founded the kingdom which shall endure for ever. But as to the way and manner in which God executes judgment over the world-power, and in which He gives (Dan 7:22, Dan 7:27) to the Son of man and to the people of the saints the dominion and the power over all the kingdoms under the heavens - on this the prophecy gives no particular disclosures; this much, however, is clear from Dan 7:27, that the judgment held by the Ancient of days over the world-power which was hostile to God is not a full annihilation of the kingdoms under the whole heavens, but only an abolition of their hostile dominion and power, and a subjection of all the kingdoms of this earth to the power and dominion of the Son of man, whereby the hostile rulers, together with all ungodly natures, shall be for ever destroyed. The further disclosures regarding the completion of this judgment are given us in the N.T., from which we learn that the Father executes judgment by the Son, to whom He has given all power in heaven and on earth. With this further explanation of the matter the passages of the N.T. referring to Dan 7:13, regarding the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven to execute judgment over the world, easily harmonize. To show this, we must examine somewhat more closely the conception and the use of the words “Son of man” in the N.T.
The Son of Man, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
It is well known that Jesus only during His sojourn on earth made use of this designation of Himself, as appears in the N.T. Bengel on Mat 16:13 remarks: ”Nemo nisi solus Christus a nemine dum ipse in terra ambularet, nisi a semetipso appellitatus est filius hominis.” Even after Christ's ascension the apostles do not use this name of Christ. In the passages Act 7:56 and Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14, where alone it is found in the N.T. beyond the Gospels, the title is borrowed from Dan 7:13. It is, moreover, generally acknowledged that Jesus wished by thus designating Himself to point Himself out as the Messiah; and “this pointing Himself out as the Messiah is founded,” as H. A. W. Meyer on Mat 8:20 rightly remarks, “not on Psa 8:1-9, but, as is manifest from such passages as Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64 (cf. also Act 7:56), on the description of that prophetic vision, Dan 7:13, well known to the Jews (Joh 12:34), and found also in the pre-Christian book of Enoch, where the Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven  = כּבר אנשׁὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, amid the angels of the divine judgment-seat.” The comparison in the  = כὡς to a son of man refers to the form in which He is seen by the prophet (see pp. 645f.), and affirms neither the true humanity nor the superhuman nature of Him who appeared. The superhuman or divine nature of the person seen in the form of a man lies in the coming with the clouds of heaven, since it is true only of God that He makes the clouds His chariot; Psa 104:3, cf. Isa 19:1. But on the other hand, also, the words do not exclude the humanity, as little as the ὅμοιος υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου, Rev 1:13; for, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, כ non excludit rei veritatem, sed formam ejus quod visum est describit; so that with Oehler (Herz. Realenc.) we may say: The Messiah here appears as a divine being as much as He does a human. The union of the divine and the human natures lies also in the self-designation of Christ as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, although as to the meaning Jesus unites with it there is diversity of opinion.
That this was a designation of the Messiah common among the Jews in the time of Jesus, we cannot positively affirm, because only Jesus Himself made use of it; His disciples did not, much less did the people so style the Messiah. If, then, Jesus speaks of Himself as the Son of man, He means thereby not merely to say that He was the Messiah, but He wishes to designate Himself as the Messiah of Daniel's prophecy, i.e., as the Son of man coming to the earth in the clouds of heaven. He thereby lays claim at once to a divine original, or a divine pre-existence, as well as to affirm true humanity of His person, and seeks to represent Himself, according to John's expression, as the Logos becoming flesh.^[64]
This view of the expression will be confirmed by a comparison of the passages in which Jesus uses it. In Joh 1:51, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man,” the divine glory is intimated as concealed in the lowliness of the Son of man: the Son of man who walks on the earth in the form of a man is the Son of God. So also in the answer which Jesus gave to the high priest, when he solemnly adjured Him to say “whether He were the Christ, the Son of God” (Mat 26:63), pointing distinctly to Dan 7:13, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” In like manner in all the other passages in the Gospels in which Jesus designates Himself the Son of man, He points either to His present lowliness or to His future glory, as is abundantly proved by Fr. A. Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, iv. 1, p. 415, der 2 Auf.) by a lucid comparison of all the passages in the Gospel of Matthew.
From the use of the expression “the Son of man” by Jesus (not only where He refers to His supernatural greatness or His divine pre-existence, but also where He places His human lowliness in contrast with His divine nature), it follows that even in those passages which treat of His coming to judgment, connected with the description, borrowed from Dan 7:13, of His coming in the clouds of heaven, He seeks to prove not so much His appearance for judgment, as rather only the divine power and glory which the Father gave Him, or to indicate from the Scriptures that the Father gave Him dominion over all people, and that He will come to reveal this dominion by the judgment of the world and the completion of His kingdom. The power to execute judgment over the living and the dead, the Father, i.e., God as the Lord of the world, has given to His Son, to Christ, because He is the Son of man (Joh 5:27), i.e., because He as man is at the same time of a divine nature, by virtue of which He is of one essence with the Father. This truth is manifested in the vision, Dan 7:13-14, in this, that the Ancient of days gives glory and the kingdom to Him who appears before Him in the form of a man coming in the clouds of heaven, that all people and nations might honour Him. Therewith He gave Him also implicite the power to execute judgment over all peoples; for the judgment is only a disclosure of the sovereignty given to Him.

The Little Horn and the Apocalyptic Beast

The giving of the kingdom to the Son of man goes before the appearance of the great adversary of the people of God represented by the little horn - the adversary in whom the enmity of the world against the kingdom of God reaches its highest manifestation. But to form a well-founded judgment regarding the appearance of this last enemy, we must compare the description given of him in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:24. with the apocalyptic description of the same enemy under the image of the beast out of the sea or out of the abyss, Rev 13:1-8 and Rev 17:7-13.
John saw a Beast Rise Up Out Of The Sea which had seven heads and ten horns, and on its horns ten crowns; it was like a leopard, but had the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion, and the dragon gave him his throne and great power. One of its heads appears as if it had received a deadly wound, but its deadly wound was healed, Rev 13:1-3. In this beast the four beasts of Daniel, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the nameless ten-horned beast (Dan 7:7), are united, and its heads and horns are represented, like the beasts of Daniel, as kings (Rev 17:9, Rev 17:12). The beast seen by John represents accordingly the world-power, in such a way that the four aspects of the same, which Daniel saw in the form of four beasts rising up one after another, are a whole united together into one. In this all interpreters are agreed. Hofmann is wrong (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 699), however, when from the circumstance that this beast has the body of a leopard, has its peculiar form like that of a leopard, he draws the conclusion “that John sees the Grecian kingdom rise again in a new form, in which it bears the lion's mouth of the Chaldean, the bear's feet of the Median or Persian, and the ten horns of the last kingdom.” For the apocalyptic beast has the body of a leopard from no other reason than because the fourth beast of Daniel was to be compared with no other beast existing in nature, whose appearance could be selected for that purpose. In these circumstances nothing else remained than to lay hold on the form of Daniel's third beast and to make choice of it for the body of the beast, and to unite with it the feet, the mouth or the jaws, and the ten horns of the other beasts.
But that the apocalyptic beast must represent not the rising again of Daniel's third world-kingdom, but the appearance of the fourth, and that specially in its last form, which Daniel had seen as the little horn, appears evidently from this, not to mention the explanation given in Rev 17, that the beast with the seven heads and ten horns, with the name of blasphemy on its heads (Rev 13:1), the marks of the little horn of Daniel, speaks great things and blasphemies, and continues forty and two months (Rev 13:5), corresponding to the three and a half times of Daniel, Dan 7:25. Hofmann, on the other hand, rightly remarks, that the beast must represent not merely the last world-power, but at the same time the last world-ruler, the chief enemy of the saints of God. As with Daniel the world-power and its representative are conceived of as one and the same, so here also with John. This is seen in the insensible transition of the neuter to the masculine, τῷ θηρίῳ ὅς ἔχει, v. 14. In this beast not only does the whole world-power concentrate itself, but in it also attains to its personal head. The ten horns are to be conceived of as on one of the heads, and that the seventh or last, and not (Düsterdieck, etc.) as distributed among the seven heads, so that one horn should be assigned to each head, and three horns should be conceived as between the sixth and the seventh head. This wonderful supposition owes its origin only to the historical reference of the beast to the first Roman emperor, and stands in opposition to the interpretation of the beast which is given by John, Rev 17:7. There John sees the woman, the great Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations, sitting on a scarlet-coloured beast, which was full of names of blasphemy, and had ten horns (Rev 17:3). The identity of the seven-headed beast (Daniel 13) with the scarlet-coloured beast (Rev 17) is justly recognised by the greater number of recent interpreters, even by Düst. Of this red beast the angel, Rev 17:8, says first, “The beast that thou sawest was and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder ... when they behold the beast that was and is not, and yet is” (καὶ πάρεσται = shall come, be present, i.e., again, according to a more accurate reading). In these words the most of interpreters find a paraphrase of the statement, Rev 13:3, Rev 13:12, Rev 13:14, that the beast was wounded to the death, but that its deadly wound was healed. “The distinguishing of the two statements (viz., of the not-being and the death-wound, the coming again and the healing of the wound) has,” as A. Christiani (uebersichtl. Darstellung des Inhalts der Apok., in der Dorpater Zeitschriftf. Thel. 1861, iii. p. 219) rightly remarks, “its foundation (against Ebrard) either in the false supposition that the beast in Rev 17 is different from that in Rev 13, or in this, that there must abstractly be a distinction between the world-power (Rev 13) and the ruler of the world (Rev 17); ); whereby, moreover, it is not clear wherein the difference between the death-wound and the not-being consists (against Aub.).” The being, the not-being, and the appearing gain of the beast, are not to be understood of the present time as regards the seer, so as to mean: the beast existed before John's time, after that it was not, and then one day shall again appear, which has been combined with the fable of Nero's coming again; but the past, the present, and the future of the beast are, with Vitringa, Bengel, Christ., to be regarded from the standpoint of the vision, according to which the time of the fulfilment, belonging to the future, is to be regarded as the point of time from which the being, the not-being, and the appearing again are represented, so that these three elements form the determination of the nature of the beast in its historical manifestation.
Hereupon the angel points out to the seer the secret of the woman and of the beast which bears the woman, beginning with the interpretation of the beast, Rev 17:9. “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth; and there are seven kings.” The heads are thus defined in a twofold way: For the woman they are seven mountains, on which she sits; but in so far as they belong to the beast, they are seven kings (Hofm. p. 711, Christ., etc.). The reference of the mountains to the seven hills of Rome is to be rejected, because it is difficult to understand how the heads can represent at one and the same time both mountains and kings. Mountains are, according to the prophetic view, seats of power, symbols of world-kingdoms (cf. Psa 68:17; Psa 76:5; Jer 51:25; Eze 35:2), and thus are here as little to be thought of as occupying space along with one another as are the seven kings to be thought of as contemporaneous (Hofm., Aub.). According to this, the βασιλείς are not also separate kings of one kingdom, but kingships, dominions, as in Daniel ruler and kingdom are taken together. One need not, however, on this account assume that βασιλείς stands for βασιλείαι; for, according to Dan 8:20-22, “the kingdom is named where the person of the ruler is at once brought into view; but where it is sought to designate the sovereignty, then the king is named, either so that he represents it altogether, or so that its founder is particularly distinguished” (Hofm. p. 714).
The angel further says of the seven heads: “Five (of these sovereignties) are fallen,” i.e., are already past, “one is,” i.e., still exists, “the other is not yet come; and when it cometh, it must continue a short space.” This explanation is obviously given from the point of view of the present of the seer. The five fallen βασιλείς (sovereignties) are Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, and Greece (Hengst., Aub., Christ.), and not Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, Grecia, and the kingdom of the Seleucidae, as Hofmann, with Ebrard and Stier, affirms. The reception of the Seleucidae or of Antiochus Epiphanes into the rank of world-rulers, depends, with Hofmann, on the erroneous interpretation of the apocalyptic beast-image as representing the reappearance of the Grecian world-kingdom, and falls with this error. The chief argument which Hofmann alleges against Egypt, that it was never a power which raised itself up to subdue or unite the world under itself, or is thus represented in the Scriptures, Aub. (p. 309) has already invalidated by showing that Egypt was the first world-power with which the kingdom of God came into conflict under Moses, when it began to exist as a nation and a kingdom. Afterwards, under the kings, Israel was involved in the wars of Egypt and Assyria in like manner as at a later period they were in those of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae. For this reason Egypt and Assyria are often named together by the prophets, particularly as the world-powers with which the people of God committed whoredom, yea, by the older prophets generally as the representatives of the world-power (2Ki 17:4; Hos 7:11; Hos 12:1; Hos 9:3; Hos 11:5, Hos 11:11; Mic 7:12; Isa 52:4; Isa 19:23-25; Jer 2:18, Jer 2:36; Zec 10:10). On the other hand, the Seleucidan appears before us in Daniel 8 and 11:1-25 as an offshoot of the Grecian world-kingdom, without anything further being intimated regarding him. In Daniel 7 there is as little said of him as there is in Zechariah's vision of the four-horsed chariots.
The sixth sovereignty, which “is” (ὁ εἷς ἔστιν), is the Roman world-power exercising dominion at the time of John, the Roman emperor. The seventh is as yet future, and must, when it comes, continue a short time (ὀλίγον). If the sixth sovereignty is the Roman, they by the seventh we may understand the world-powers of modern Europe that have come into its place. The angel adds (Rev 17:11), “The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth (king), and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” By that which is called “even the eighth” can properly be meant only the seventh. The contrast lying in the καὶ αὐτὸς ὀγδοός demands this. But that instead of the seventh (Rev 17:10, ὁ ἄλλος the beast itself is named, therewith it is manifestly intimated that in the eighth the beast embodies itself, or passes into its completed form of existence as a beast. This is supported partly by the expression ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά which is added to ὀγδοός, partly by the designation as “the beast that was and is not.” That addition does not merely say, one out of the seven, for which John would have written εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά (cf. Rev 17:1 and Rev 21:9), or, formed like the seven, but, growing up out of the seven, as the blossom out of the plant (βλαστάνων, as the Greek Andreas explains, and erroneously adds ἐκ μίας αὐτῶν). It is the comprehensive essence of these seven, the embodiment of the beast itself, which for the first time reaches in it to its perfect form (Aub., Düsterd., Christ.). As such it is placed over against the seven as the eighth; but it is not therefore an eighth kingdom, for it is not represented by an eighth head, but only by the beast-only the beast which was, and is not, and then shall be again (πάρεσται, Rev 17:11, cf. Rev 17:8). If now this definition, according to the above, means the same thing as is intended in Daniel 13 by the deadly wound of the beast and the healing again of the wound, then these words mean that the world-power in one of its heads (the seventh?) receives the deadly wound, so that the beast is not-i.e., it cannot show its power, its beast-nature-till the healing of the same, but after the healing of the wound it will appear as the eighth ruler in its full nature as a beast, and will unfold the power of its ten horns. Of these ten horns the angel says, Rev 17:12, “They are ten kings which have received no βασιλείαν, but will receive power as kings one hour with the beast.” By this is it affirmed, on the one side, that the ten horns belong to the seventh beast; but, on the other, it appears from this interpretation of the angel, taken in connection with that going before, that the ruler with the ten horns and the highest phases of the development of the world-power, and is to be regarded as contemporary with the ten βασιλείς which receive power as kings with the beast.
The statement, however, that the seventh ruler is also an eighth, and must represent the beast in its perfect form, without his being denoted by an eighth head to the beast, has its foundation, without doubt, in the dependence of the apocalyptic delineation on Daniel's prophecy of the fourth world-power, in which (Daniel 2) the iron legs are distinguished from the feet, which consist partly of iron and partly of clay; and yet more distinctly in Daniel 7 the climax of the power of the fourth beast is represented in the little horn growing up between its ten horns, and yet neither is it called in Daniel 2 a fifth kingdom, nor yet in Daniel 7 is the little horn designated as a fifth world-ruler.
The apocalyptic delineation of the world-power and the world-ruler is related, therefore, to the prophecy of Daniel in such a manner that, in the first place, it goes back to the elements of the same, and gathers them together into one combined image, according to its whole development in the past, present, and future, while Daniel's prophecy goes forth from the present, beginning with the Chaldean world-kingdom. Moreover, the Apocalypse discloses the spiritual principle working in the world-power. The dragon, i.e., Satan, as prince of this world, gave his throne and his power to the beast. Finally, the Apocalypse extends itself at large over the unfolding, as yet future, of the ungodly world-kingdom; for it places in view, in addition to the sixth ruler existing in the presence of the seer, the rising up of yet a seventh, in which the beast, healed of its death-wound, will first as the eighth ruler fully reveal its ungodly nature. The dividing of the fourth world-kingdom of Daniel between two rulers has its foundation in the purpose to gain the significant number seven. By the number seven of the heads while Daniel saw only four beasts, the apocalyptic beast must be represented as the diabolical contrast to the Lamb. The seven heads and ten horns the beast has in common with the dragon, which gave his power to the beast (cf. Rev 13:1-2 with Rev 12:3). The seven heads of the dragon and of the beast are the infernal caricature and the antithesis of the seven Spirits of God, the seven eyes and seven horns of the Lamb (Rev 5:6), just as the seven mountains on which the woman sits are the antitype and the antithesis of the hill of Zion, the chosen mountain of th