Beginning with the second chapter of Daniel, the grand outline of God’s program for world history during the period of Gentile supremacy and the chastisement of Israel is presented for the first time.
What is true of the book in general is especially true of chapter 2. Nowhere else in Scripture, except in Daniel 7, is a more comprehensive picture given of world history as it stretched from the time of Daniel, six hundred years before Christ, to the consummation at the second advent of Christ. It is most remarkable that Daniel was not only given this broad revelation of the course of what Christ called “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), but also the chronological prophecy of Israel’s history stretching from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the Lord’s second advent. These two major foci of the book justify the general description of Daniel as world history in outline with special reference to Israel.
Interpretations of the book of Daniel, and especially chapter 2, divide into two broad categories. Those critics who label Daniel a second-century forgery challenge the prophetic meaning of chapter 2 at every turn, asserting that Daniel is merely recording history. If they are right, an exposition of this chapter becomes a meaningless interpretation of a curious but unimportant document.
On the other hand, reverent scholars have consistently defended the authenticity of this book as a genuine portion of the Word of God written by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. A sensible explanation of the broad prophecies that chapter 2 details can be made only if this second view is adopted.
Among those who regard this chapter as genuine Scripture, there is a further subdivision into two classes: (1) those who interpret the vision from the amillennial or postmillennial point of view; (2) those who interpret the vision from a premillennial perspective, which is the position of this book. The difference here resolves itself largely in differing views of how the image is destroyed, and how the revelation relates to the present age and the two advents of Christ. Few chapters of the Bible are more determinative in establishing both the principles and content of prophecy than Daniel 2; its study, accordingly, is crucial to any system of prophetic interpretation.
chapters 2–7 form a chiastic pattern that offers encouragement and hope to the Jews in the times of the Gentiles. Beginning in 2:4 Daniel switched from Hebrew (the language of Israel) to Aramaic (the “international” language of the day). This change in language highlights Daniel’s focus on the “times of the Gentiles” that would exist from his day until God established His messianic kingdom. chapters 2 and 7 explain the succession of four Gentile empires that would exert control over Jerusalem and the Jews until God finally establishes His kingdom. chapters 3 and 6 warn the Jews of the persecution they would face during this period and exhort them to remain faithful to God in spite of this persecution. chapters 4 and 5 encourage the Jewish remnant by reminding them that a time would come when even the Gentile rulers would acknowledge that the God of Israel was ruling over the nations.
2:1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him.
The important events of this chapter are introduced by the statement that the dreams occurred “in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.” This immediately raises the question of how this relates to the period of training prescribed for Daniel and his companions as described in chapter 1.
Daniel’s course of study prior to entering the king’s service was to last three years (1:5). The apparent discrepancy disappears when one understands the Babylonian method for dating the reigns of kings (see chart below). They used an accession-year dating system that did not count Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (September 7, 605 B.C.–April 1, 604 B.C.) as the first year of his reign. His “first year” would have been April 2, 604 B.C. to March 21, 603 B.C.; and his “second year” would have been March 22, 603 B.C. to April 9, 602 B.C. The events of chapter 2 occurred at the end of the three-year course of study mentioned in 1:5, shortly after Daniel entered the king’s service. But it was officially the “second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.”
The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that the dreams occurred “two years after the destruction of Egypt” (Antiquities 10.10.3). While this could be an instance where Josephus misquoted the Bible or misunderstood history, it’s also possible he was referring to the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. that immediately preceded the events of Daniel 1.
The Babylonian Chronicle describes this battle as a total annihilation of the Egyptian army: “[Nebuchadnezzar] crossed the river [to encounter the army of Egypt] which was encamped at Carchemish…. They did battle together. The army of Egypt retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them off completely. In the district of Hamath the army of Akkad overtook the remainder of the army of [Egypt which] managed to escape [from] the defeat and which was not overcome. They … inflicted a defeat upon them (so that) a single (Egyptian) man [did not return] home.”1 In either case, the events of Daniel 2 probably took place three years after the events of Daniel 1:1–16.
According to Wiseman, “The effect on Judah was that King Jehoiakim, a vassal of Necho, submitted voluntarily to Nebuchadrezzar, and some Jews, including the prophet Daniel, were taken as captives for hostages to Babylon.”2 This was June–August 605 B.C. Daniel and his companions, therefore, entered their training at Babylon soon thereafter, probably after Nebuchadnezzar had been made king on September 7, 605 B.C., at the death of his father, Nabopolassar.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S “SECOND YEAR” (DANIEL 2:1)
The important event of this chapter is simply expressed in the statement that “Nebuchadnezzar had dreams.” The plural implies either that the king had several dreams, or that he was in a state of dreaming.3 In either case, he was troubled and unable to sleep. The Hebrew for “troubled” indicates a deep disturbance inducing apprehension. Nebuchadnezzar seems to have sensed that this was more than an ordinary dream and was a response to his questioning concerning the future, mentioned later by Daniel in 2:29.
In this Nebuchadnezzar was correct, for his circumstances and the dream were providentially induced by God Himself. On other occasions in Scripture, God used dreams to give revelation to a Gentile ruler as in the cases of Abimelech (Gen. 20:3) and Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1–8), which is an interesting parallel to Nebuchadnezzar’s experience. Sleeplessness also has its purpose in divine providence as in the case of Ahasuerus in Esther 6, which started the chain of events leading to Haman’s execution and Israel’s deliverance. Nebuchadnezzar’s experience was obviously orchestrated by God.
2:2–3 Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. And the king said to them, “I had a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.”
Because of the king’s agitation, he immediately summoned all four classifications of wise men here described as “the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans.” Numerous similar listings occur throughout Daniel (1:20; 2:10, 27; 4:7; 5:7, 11, 15). “Wise men,” apparently a general description of all of them, are referred to frequently (2:12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 48; 4:6, 18; 5:7, 8), and the “Chaldeans” are mentioned elsewhere also (1:4; 2:4; 3:8; 5:11). Goldingay notes that the words seemed to be used interchangeably.4
“Magicians” is the translation of a Hebrew word with the root meaning of “stylus” or a “pen,” and hence could refer to a scholar rather than a magician in the ordinary sense.5 “Enchanters” refers to the power of necromancy or communication with the dead,6 but can also be understood as “astrologers.”7 This translation suggests the study of the stars to predict the future. “Sorcerers” are those who practice sorcery or incantations.
The most significant term, however, is “Chaldeans.” This is usually interpreted as a reference to a group of astrologers. But the name designates a people who lived in Southern Babylonia (cf. Gen. 11:28) who eventually conquered the Assyrians when Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, was their king. It would be only natural for the conquerors to assert themselves at the level of wise men, and there is no justification for seizing on this reference to Chaldeans as an inaccuracy.8 The obvious purpose of the summoning of all four classes of wise men is that the king hoped, through their various contributions, to be able to interpret his dream. Daniel and his friends were not among the advisors the king summoned, though they had graduated “at the top of their class.” They were excluded because they would have been among the lower echelon of royal advisors due to their young age.
2:4–6 Then the Chaldeans said to the king in Aramaic, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, “The word from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be torn limb from limb, and your houses shall be laid in ruins. But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation.”
Nebuchadnezzar gave his advisors a seemingly impossible task: to tell him both the dream and its interpretation. The KJV of verse 5, “the thing is gone from me,” has led some interpreters to feel that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream. But this is probably not correct. What had “gone from” Nebuchadnezzar was not the dream, but his command that the advisors tell him both the dream and its interpretation. With the wise men before him, the king announced that he has dreamed a dream, using the singular of “dream,” indicating either that he had only one dream or that only one of his many dreams was significant prophetically.
The Chaldeans, acting as spokesmen for the group, then addressed the king. The phrase “in Aramaic” introduces the extended section written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew, beginning with verse 4 and continuing through chapter 7. Aramaic is similar to Hebrew, but also differs from it. Although some have questioned whether the officials would have spoken Aramaic rather than Akkadian in the court at Babylon,9 Aramaic was the diplomatic language of the time. It seems reasonable to assume the court included individuals, like Daniel, from outside Babylon, which would make the use of Aramaic very appropriate. The Aramaic section of Daniel deals with prophecy of primary interest to the Gentiles; thus this change in language highlights Daniel’s focus on “the times of the Gentiles” that would exist from his day until God established His messianic kingdom.
Critics have charged that Aramaic was not used in Daniel’s day. But Kitchen states, concerning the “entire word-stock of Biblical Aramaic” which is largely Daniel, that “nine-tenths of the vocabulary is attested in texts of the fifth century B.C. or earlier.”10 Most of the findings have been fifth century, as there is a scarcity of sixth-century B.C. texts; but, if Daniel’s Aramaic was used in the fifth century, in all probability it was also used in the sixth century B.C. Daniel’s critics appear to argue from a priori assumptions, as the available materials make a sixth-century date quite plausible.
The Chaldeans, eager to please Nebuchadnezzar, addressed him with typical elaborate oriental courtesy, “O king, live forever” (cf. 1 Kings 1:31; Neh. 2:3; Dan. 3:9; 5:10; 6:21). They declared with confidence that, if the king would tell them the dream, they would give the interpretation.
In reply, the king states, “The word from me is firm.” As noted above, it is most likely that Nebuchadnezzar had not forgotten his dream, as traditionally thought. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this word with slight alterations is considered to be a verb form meaning “is gone from me”—that is, the dream had been forgotten. The verb could, however, also mean “gone forth” in the sense of “I have decreed,” the meaning favored by many modern translations such as the ESV quoted in this work. The Niv translates, “This is what I have firmly decided.”
Still, the question of whether the king had actually forgotten his dream cannot be determined with certainty. In favor of the idea that the king had forgotten the dream would be the argument that he, anxious to know its interpretation, would certainly have divulged it to the wise men to see what they had to offer by way of interpretation.
There are, however, a number of reasons the king might have been motivated to make this extreme demand of his counselors—for example, in order to test their ability to have real contact with the gods and divulge secrets. Also, Nebuchadnezzar was a young man (remember that this was only the second full year of his reign) and it is entirely possible that the wise men were much older than the king, having served Nebuchadnezzar’s father. It would be understandable that Nebuchadnezzar might have previously been frustrated by these older counselors and may have had a real desire to be rid of them in favor of younger men whom he had chosen himself (cf. a similar situation with King Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, in 1 Kings 12:1–15). Nebuchadnezzar might well have doubted their honesty, sincerity, and capability, and may even have wondered whether they were loyal to him. He may also have questioned some of their superstitious practices.
In his combined frustration with his counselors and his irritation stemming from the uncertainty of the meaning of the dream, it is entirely possible that Nebuchadnezzar would have suddenly hardened in his attitude toward his wise men and demanded that they should not only interpret the dream but also state the dream itself. It may have been a snap decision arising from the emotion of the moment, or it may have been the result of frustration with these men over a long period. It is significant that the younger wise men, such as Daniel and his companions, were not present.
To reinforce his demand for both the dream and its interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar told his wise men they would be “torn limb from limb.” This was not an idle threat, but was in keeping with the cruelty that could be expected from a despot such as Nebuchadnezzar. It was all too common for victims to be executed by being dismembered. “The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hands of an Eastern despot; the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments.”11
If, however, the wise men were able to respond to the king’s request, they were promised expensive gifts and great honor, a custom to which the Bible bears consistent testimony, as in the case of Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel himself. “Rewards” is the translation of a Persian word, a singular rather than plural, and has the idea of a “present.”12 To receive these, they had only to tell the king the dream and its meaning. Obviously, the wise men were confronted with a supreme test of their superhuman claims. If they had genuine supernatural ability to interpret a dream, they should also have the power to reveal its content.
2:7–9 They answered a second time and said, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show its interpretation.” The king answered and said, “I know with certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see that the word from me is firm—if you do not make the dream known to me, there is but one sentence for you. You have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the times change. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation.”
Confronted with the king’s ultimatum, the wise men repeated their request to be told the dream and again affirmed their ability to interpret it. It would seem that if the king had actually forgotten the dream, the wise men would have attempted some sort of an answer. The fact that they did not tends to support the idea that the king was willfully withholding information about the dream. Even if the king was hazy about the details of the dream and could not recall it enough to provide a basis of interpretation, he probably would have been able to recognize a complete fabrication on the part of the wise men. In any case, they did not attempt such a ploy.
The king grew more angry with each exchange, accusing the wise men of trying to stall for time “because you see that the word from me is firm,” a repeat of his statement in verse 5. Nebuchadnezzar believed they were attempting to gain time in hopes that his ugly mood would change. But he wanted them to know that he had made up his mind. The king’s accusation implied that he remembered the main facts of the dream well enough to detect any invented interpretation that the wise men might offer. It seems clear that Nebuchadnezzar was not willing to accept any easy interpretation of his dream, but wanted proof that his wise men had divine sources of information beyond the ordinary.
2:10–13 The Chaldeans answered the king and said, “There is not a man on earth who can meet the king’s demand, for no great and powerful king has asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or Chaldean. The thing that the king asks is difficult, and no one can show it to the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” Because of this the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed. So the decree went out, and the wise men were about to be killed; and they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them.
Although the Chaldeans had confidently claimed to be able to interpret the dream, they were baffled by the demand to tell the dream itself. With a subtle attempt at flattery, they tried to tell Nebuchadnezzar that his demand was unreasonable and that “no great and powerful king” would expect such a revelation from his wise men. The king’s demand was so “difficult” that only “the gods” could reveal it. This statement, reflecting the bankruptcy of human wisdom, sets the stage for Daniel’s divine revelation.
But the wise men’s humility and protests were of no avail. Their reaction apparently confirmed the king’s suspicion that they were incompetent and incapable of really helping him. It only made him more angry, the word “furious” coming from a root similar to that of the Hebrew word for the wrath of Pharaoh (Gen. 40:2; 41:10).13 The decree to kill all the wise men of Babylon included not only the four classes that were standing before Nebuchadnezzar at the moment, but all others including Daniel and his companions. Although “Babylon” could refer to the entire empire, it is probable that the decree was limited to the city of Babylon (2:49; 3:1).
It is not entirely clear from verse 13 whether the executioners planned to kill the wise men right where they were found, or went out to collect them for a public execution. The latter is probably the case as subsequent Scripture reveals that Daniel had the time to ask questions. The fact that Daniel and his companions were included among the condemned counselors has given rise to the false accusation that he had become a part of the pagan religious system of Babylon. There is no support whatever for this in Scripture. Daniel’s training did not make him a priest, but merely a counselor of the king. As such, however, he was included in the broad category of wise men.
2:14–16 Then Daniel replied with prudence and discretion to Arioch, the captain of the king’s guard, who had gone out to kill the wise men of Babylon. He declared to Arioch, the king’s captain, “Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” Then Arioch made the matter known to Daniel. And Daniel went in and requested the king to appoint him a time, that he might show the interpretation to the king.
The nature of Daniel’s response is worth noting. Although the wise men previously could hardly be accused of discourtesy, there seems to be an additional dignity and calmness in Daniel’s approach to the problem. “Through Daniel’s judicious interview with Arioch, the further execution of the royal edict was interrupted.”14
Among his other duties, Arioch served as the king’s chief executioner, although he personally may not have had the responsibility of killing the wise men.15 A decree to execute people who had not had an opportunity to speak to the king was indeed harsh and severe. But accustomed as he was to the cruelty of his day, Arioch apparently did not question the king’s order. When Daniel asked why the king’s decree was so urgent, Arioch explained the situation. That an official of the king would take time to explain this to one already condemned to death speaks well both of Daniel’s approach and of Arioch’s regard for him.
In verse 16, only the briefest summary is offered of what actually transpired. Undoubtedly, Daniel expressed to Arioch the possibility that he could interpret the dream and secured Arioch’s cooperation in going before the king. It would hardly have been suitable, especially with the king in the mood he was in, for Daniel to go in to the king unannounced without proper procedure. Possibly, the king by this time had cooled down a bit. In any event, Daniel was given his audience in which he asked for time and promised to show the king the interpretation. In contrast to the other wise men who had already been denied additional time to formulate an answer, Daniel was granted his request. It is possible that Daniel’s calm assurance that his God would help him impressed the king in contrast to his fawning, older counselors.
2:17–18 Then Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, and told them to seek mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his companions might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.
Daniel lost no time informing his three godly companions so they could join him in prayer that God would reveal the secret. As they shared in the danger, so they could also share in the intercession. They were to seek “mercy” or compassion from God, a word sometimes used of human mercy or compassion (Dan. 1:9; Zech. 7:9), but more commonly of the mercies of God (Neh. 9:28; Isa. 63:7, 15; Dan. 9:9, etc.).16 God’s mercy stands in stark contrast to the decree of Nebuchadnezzar calling for the merciless slaughter of all the royal counselors.
The reference to “the God of heaven,” literally “of the heavens,” is an obvious contrast to the religious superstitions of the Babylonians who worshiped the starry heaven. Abraham first used this term in Genesis 24:7, and it is found frequently later in the Bible (Ezra 1:2; 6:10; 7:12, 21; Neh. 1:5; 2:4; Ps. 136:26). Although these four godly young men faced certain death, one can almost visualize them on their knees, fully believing that their God was able to meet their need. Instead of being in a panic, they prayed. For this supreme hour of crisis they were well prepared, as their faith had been tested previously (see chap. 1).
The result could be expected: “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (James 5:16). Daniel and his friends obviously were motivated by the desire to save their lives. That they would be willing to die if necessary to be faithful to God is revealed in chapter 3. Verse 18 does not necessarily imply that the other wise men had already perished, although this is a possibility. But the probability is that Daniel’s ultimate deliverance also extended to the other wise men.
2:19–23 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. Daniel answered and said: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him. To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king’s matter.”
The vision Daniel received apparently was not just a dream but a supernatural revelation given to him in his waking hours. Possibly both he and his companions prayed on into the night, and the vision came when Daniel was awake. The nature of the revelation required both a vision and its interpretation as the image was a visual representation. Hence a vision was more proper than a dream, although frequently God revealed secrets to prophets in dreams as well as visions.
Daniel’s immediate response was to offer a hymn of praise in which he blessed God for answering his prayers. The hymn reveals both Daniel’s deep gratitude and the depth and comprehension of his faith. The first phrase of his psalm, “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,” reflects, as does the entire psalm, Daniel’s acquaintance with hymns of praise found in the Psalms and other Old Testament passages. In praising “the name of God” Daniel was speaking of God in His revealed character. W. H. Griffith Thomas writes, “The name stands in Holy Scripture for the nature or revealed character of God, and not a mere label or title. It is found very frequently in the
Old Testament as synonymous with God Himself in relation to man…. In the New Testament the same usage is perfectly clear.” He cites as illustrations Proverbs 18:10; Psalms 74:10; 118:10; Matthew 28:19; John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; 5:43; 10:25; 17:6, 26; Philippians 2:10.17
Parallels to Daniel’s hymn can be found in Psalm 113:1–2 and 103:1–2. Daniel attributes to God wisdom and might, as in Job 12:12–13, 16–22, and God’s might is mentioned frequently as in 1 Chronicles 29:11–12. Daniel’s God also “changes times and seasons,” an evidence of sovereign power (cf. Dan. 7:25). David declared, “My times are in your hand” (Ps. 31:15). Daniel was contrasting his God with the deities of Babylon who supposedly set the times and seasons by the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. Daniel’s God could change this.
Daniel’s faith also contemplated a God greater than any king, and who could, therefore, remove or set up any monarch. Such a God is also able to give wisdom to those who are wise and knowledge to those able to receive it. The wise men of Babylon were not so wise, for they were not the recipients of divine wisdom. To those wise enough to trust in the God of Daniel, however, and who had sufficient insight to see through the superstitions of Babylonian religions, there was the possibility of divine understanding. God’s power over kings is hailed in Job 12:18 and Psalm 75:6–7, and His divine wisdom is a frequent theme of Scripture. From the same God, Solomon had sought an understanding heart (1 Kings 3:9–10), and the Scriptures record that “God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore” (1 Kings 4:29).
Daniel’s hymn also emphasized that God not only has knowledge and wisdom, but power to do what He wills. Daniel’s God is in control of history and can thus reveal the future as in the king’s dream. This description of God can be contrasted with Daniel 7:25 where the little horn, the future world ruler, will “think to change the times and the law”—that is, take the place of God who “changes times and seasons” (Dan. 2:21). Daniel later commented on man’s complete dependence upon God for wisdom (2:30).
God’s capacity to reveal secrets is mentioned specifically in verse 22. This again is attested by other Scriptures such as Job 12:22 (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10). The darkness does not hide anything from God, as David wrote in Psalm 139:12. Although knowing what is in darkness, God characteristically dwells in light. In Psalm 36:9 it is declared, “in your light do we see light,” that is, God’s light is presented as the light by which we see. In the gospel of John, Christ is identified as the light of the world (1:9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46).
Having attributed to God these superlative qualities of wisdom, power, sovereignty, and knowledge, Daniel directly expresses his thanks to God for His revelation of the secret. Although no mention is made of Daniel’s deliverance from death, obviously this is included. While Daniel does not have the infinite wisdom and power of God, he has that which is derived from God—wisdom and ability to interpret the vision.
The expression “God of my fathers” is a common one in the Old Testament, here Elohim being used for God, rather than Yahweh (Gen. 31:42 also uses Elohim, the common name for God, rather than Yahweh, the covenant name of the God of Israel). As Leupold notes, the reference to “my Fathers” indicates that Daniel “is having an experience of God’s mercy which is analogous to that to which the fathers of Old give testimony on the pages of the sacred story.”18 Notice should be made of the pronouns, namely, that while the revelation was given to Daniel as an individual, it was what “we asked for,” and through Daniel the king’s secret was “made known to us,” that is, Daniel and his companions. Daniel does not attribute to his own prayers any special efficacy.
2:24–28 Therefore Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon. He went and said thus to him, “Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon; bring me in before the king, and I will show the king the interpretation.” Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste and said thus to him: “I have found among the exiles from Judah a man who will make known to the king the interpretation.” The king said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to make known to me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?” Daniel answered the king and said, “No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery that the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these:”
Daniel, now fully in command of the situation, told Arioch not to destroy the wise men of Babylon. This is another confirmation of the fact that the decree had not been executed and the potential victims were only in the process of being rounded up. In support of his request Daniel declared, “I will show the king the interpretation.” Daniel’s poise reveals that he fully understood that God’s hand was upon him.
Arioch saw at once the importance of what had happened and, using his office to introduce Daniel to the king, attempted to get as much credit as he could under the circumstances for discovering a man who could reveal the secret. His statement “I have found” was obviously designed to help him participate in the reward. It is understandable that Arioch would not give God the credit for the interpretation.
The introduction of Daniel also served to disassociate him from the wise men who had previously incurred the king’s wrath. Although there is no mention of Daniel’s previous audience with the king that probably at the time had only the king’s briefest attention, now the eager king immediately asked Daniel, “Are you able to make known to me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?” The form of the sentence makes the knowledge of the dream the prominent part of the question. Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, was understandably inserted here as a means of proper identification.
Daniel’s answer is a masterpiece of setting the matter in its proper light and giving God the glory. Although the temptation to imagine that he had supernatural powers was possibly present, Daniel immediately declared that what had been revealed to him was a secret that no wise men of Babylonia could have discovered (cf. Gen. 41:16). The repetition of all classes of the wise men is an indication that no branch of Babylonian religious superstition could possibly have met the king’s need.
In describing the wise men, Daniel used a word to describe the “astrologers” with reference to the idea that astrologers believe various parts of the heavens have particular significance or power. By using this specific word, Daniel was preparing the way to introduce his God as the God of the whole heavens.19 By stating that the wise men could not be expected to reveal the secret, Daniel was, in effect, defending them somewhat from the king’s wrath while at the same time affirming their impotence.
Having disposed of any possible solution to the problem on the part of the wise men, Daniel now seized the opportunity to glorify his own God and, at the same time, disavow that the interpretation of the dream stemmed from any innate powers that he might have. By giving all the credit and glory to God, Daniel was showing that the God of Israel is far superior to the gods of the Babylonians and that He is the God who is able to know and reveal secrets.
Of particular interest to all expositors is the expression “in the latter days.” Some limit this expression to the perspective of the alleged spurious Daniel of the second century.20 Driver states, “[This is] an expression which occurs fourteen times in the O. T., and which always denotes the closing period of the future so far as it falls within the range of view of the writer using it. The sense expressed by it is thus relative, not absolute, varying with the context.”21
This view would, in effect, regard “the latter days” as stopping short of the coming of the Messiah in the New Testament. Driver, however, continues: “Elsewhere it is used of the ideal, or messianic age, conceived as following at the close of the existing order of things: Hos. 3:5; Is. 2:2 (Mic. 4:1); Jer. 48:47, 49:39; comp. 23:20 (30:24). Here, as the sequel shows, it is similarly the period of the establishment of the Divine Kingdom which is principally denoted by it (vv. 34, 35, 44, 45); but the closing years of the fourth kingdom (vv. 40–43) may also well be included in it.”22
Leupold objects to any implied limitation on the messianic content and writes, “But to stop short at this point and to deny messianic import to the passage as such is misleading. Though the content must determine how much of the future is involved, a careful evaluation of all the passages involved shows that from the first instance of the use of the phrase (Gen. 49:1) onward the messianic future is regularly involved. In this passage the messianic element will be seen to be prominent.”23 Conservative scholars usually regard this expression as including the messianic age in general, with some considering it especially the end of the period. Miller notes, “In this context the expression must involve the eschatological future, for it concerns the final phase of the fourth empire and the coming kingdom of God.”24
The phrase “in the latter days” is Aramaic, almost a transliteration of a Hebrew expression that is common in the Old Testament. Daniel was unquestionably using the Aramaic in the same sense as its Hebrew counterpart; and, accordingly, its definition should be based on Hebrew usage. The expression is found as early as Genesis 49:1 where Jacob predicted the future of his sons. The term is employed by Balaam in Numbers 24:14 and Moses in Deuteronomy 4:30 and 31:29 in connection with the future of Israel. An examination of these prophecies indicates that the latter days include much that is now history. But with reference to the consummation in messianic times, Jeremiah used the expression a number of times to refer to the climax of the age relating to the second coming of Jesus Christ (Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39). Ezekiel identified the times of the invasion of Gog and Magog as “in the latter days” (38:16). The expression is also found in Hosea 3:5 and Micah 4:1 in reference to the messianic age.
On the basis of scriptural usage, it is clear that “the latter days” is an extended period of time regarded as the consummation of the prophetic purview involved in each instance. Accordingly, Culver’s definition is accurate that the expression “refers to the future of God’s dealings with mankind as to be consummated and concluded historically in the times of the Messiah.”25 He goes on to point out that the expression always has in view the ultimate establishment of the messianic kingdom on earth, even though “the latter days” include events now history, such as the division of Israel in the Promised Land. On the basis of usage in the Old Testament, it can be concluded that the expression is larger than that of messianic times specifically, but that it always includes this element in its consummation.
In the New Testament there is allusion to the Old Testament concept in Acts 2:17–21 (cf. Joel 2:28–32), but elsewhere reference to “the last days” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 7:37; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; James 5:3; 2 Pet. 3:3) and “last time” (1 Pet. 1:5, 20; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18) must be interpreted contextually and is not always the same concept as “the latter days” (cf. John 7:37). The latter days for Israel are not precisely the same as the last days for the church, as the Old Testament characteristically spans the present age without including the church in its consideration.
Taking both the Old and New Testament uses together, it is clear that the latter days for Israel began as early as the division of the land to the twelve tribes (Gen. 49:1) and include the first and the second advents of Christ. The last days for the church culminate at the rapture and resurrection of the church, and are not related to the time of the end for Israel. Daniel does not deal with the age between the two advents except for the time of the end, and the New Testament does not clearly use the term “latter days” of the present church age.
In the context of Daniel 2, “the latter days” include all the visions that Nebuchadnezzar received and stretches from 600 B.C. to the second coming of Christ to the earth. It is used in a similar way in Daniel 10:14, including the extensive revelation concerning the remainder of the Medo-Persian kingdom; many details of Alexander’s empire as in chapter 11; and the consummation called “the time of the end” in Daniel 11:36–45. These prophecies served to give added detail not included in the revelation to Nebuchadnezzar. Having stated the general purpose, Daniel now was able to unfold what will occur “in the latter days,” namely, the majestic procession of the four great world empires, and their destruction and replacement by the fifth empire, the kingdom from heaven. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream can now be unfolded.
2:29–30 “To you, O king, as you lay in bed came thoughts of what would be after this, and he who reveals mysteries made known to you what is to be. But as for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living, but in order that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your mind.”
Nebuchadnezzar had had a meteoric rise to power as one of the great conquerors and monarchs of the ancient world. He had begun his brilliant career even while his father was still alive, but after his father’s death, he had quickly consolidated his gains and established himself as absolute ruler over the Babylonian empire. All of southwest Asia was in his power, and there was no rival worthy of consideration at the time. Under these circumstances, it was only natural that Nebuchadnezzar should wonder what was going to come next. His meditation on this subject should not be confused with the dream that followed, but rather it was the preparation for it in the providence of God.
In this context Nebuchadnezzar had his dream; and God, referred to here by Daniel as “he who reveals mysteries” (in effect a new title for God), had used the dream as a vehicle to reveal the answer to Nebuchadnezzar’s question. While Daniel still had the king’s eager attention, he pressed home the fact that the dream was a means of divine revelation in which God had signally honored the Babylonian monarch.
Before proceeding to the dream, however, Daniel once more emphasized the fact that the secret had not come to him from any natural or accrued wisdom, but because God in His providence had selected Nebuchadnezzar as the recipient of the dream and Daniel as its interpreter so that Nebuchadnezzar and others could receive this revelation. Daniel was now ready to proceed to the dream itself.
2:31–35 “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”
Daniel’s mention of “a great image” must have been immediately fascinating to the king as it was evident to him, if he remembered the dream at all, that Daniel was on the right track. This image was not an idol, but a statue corresponding to human form. It was great in the sense of being immense, and by its very size the statue must have been overwhelming in its implication of power. Even Nebuchadnezzar, the absolute ruler, recognized this as something greater than himself.
In addition to its great size, the statue was remarkable for its appearance. It apparently reflected light, indicated by its “exceeding brightness.” The image apparently was seen as standing very close to Nebuchadnezzar, which could help explain why its effect was “frightening.”
Illustration of what Nebuchadnezzar’s statue might have looked like in his dream
Daniel then proceeded to describe the metallic character of the image—its head of gold, breast and arms of silver, abdomen and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet part of iron and part of clay or pottery. There is an apparent symbolism in the major metals and the form of the image.
The preciousness of the metals deteriorates from the head of gold to the clay of the feet, and there is a corresponding lower weight; that is, the gold is much heavier than the silver, the silver than the bronze, the bronze than the iron, and the clay in the feet is the lightest material. While the materials decrease in weight, they increase in hardness, with the notable exception of the clay in the feet. The image was obviously top-heavy and weak in its feet.26
Nebuchadnezzar also saw a stone described as “cut out by no human hand” smite the image at its feet, the weakest place, with the result that the feet were broken. Then in rapid succession the disintegration of the entire image followed, as it broke into small pieces that the wind blew away until the pieces of the image disappeared. The stone that destroyed the image grew into a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This stone is stated in Daniel 2:45 to be cut out of a mountain. It struck the image with terrific force and smashed it.
Daniel’s description was a masterpiece of concise and yet complete narration. Nebuchadnezzar was so fascinated by the obvious accuracy of Daniel’s revelation that he did not interpose a word. This permitted Daniel to proceed immediately to the interpretation.
2:36–38 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold.”
As Daniel transitioned from the dream to its interpretation, he used the plural “we” to describe his answer. Did he mean God and himself, or his three companions who had joined with him in prayer, or was he simply using the plural to avoid the more arrogant-sounding “I”? Given Daniel’s evident modesty, the latter seems the best explanation.
Nebuchadnezzar was addressed as “king of kings,” a position that Daniel made clear was a gift from God. Critics of Daniel have seized upon this as an unsuitable reference to the king of Babylon. But it was quite accurate, for Nebuchadnezzar was actually a supreme monarch who was above all the kings of his generation. Interestingly, Ezekiel 26:7 contains exactly the same title for Nebuchadnezzar.
More significant here was Daniel’s fearless declaration that Nebuchadnezzar owed all of his power to the God of heaven who had revealed this secret to Daniel. How different this was from the subservient respect given by the other wise men. Here was a voice of truth that even the “king of kings” had to receive with submission.
Daniel’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as “rul[ing] over them all” has been regarded by some as hyperbole, since Nebuchadnezzar actually did not control the entire earth’s surface and everything on it. What was meant, however, is that Nebuchadnezzar was in supreme authority insofar as any human ruler could be. The king was the head of gold as the personification and symbol of the Babylonian Empire.27
Heaton considers the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s authority over both men and nature to be a reflection of the Babylonian New Year Festival, “when the reigning king was annually enthroned as the earthly representative of the god and the Epic of Creation was recited…. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven recalls the God-given status of man as it is depicted in Gen. 1:26, which is itself closely related to the Babylonian Epic of Creation.”28 At one point in the ceremonies, they recited the Epic of Creation in honor of the creator god, Marduk, whose representative the king was supposed to be. This and other references in the book of Daniel suggest that Daniel is the author, for the writer had a good knowledge of Babylonian and related mythologies stemming from his three years of study and other intimate contact with Babylonian life.
2:39 “Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.”
Daniel mentioned only briefly the second and third kingdoms represented by the upper and lower parts of the image’s body. Brief as the reference is, critics have lost no time in taking exception to the normal interpretation that Daniel had in view Medo-Persia and Greece, empires that he later identified by name (5:28; 8:20–21; 11:2). The statement that the second kingdom was “inferior” means inferior in quality, but not necessarily in every respect.
Persia actually had more territory than ancient Babylon, and the Greek Empire was greater than the Persian. The Roman Empire was greatest of all in extent. To infer, however, from the larger geographic area of succeeding kingdoms that they were not “inferior” is to misread both the meaning of the dream and Daniel’s comment upon it. Daniel did not say that the head was larger in size than the body, but the nature of the metal, gold, was more precious than that of silver or bronze, which were obviously inferior metals. History certainly confirms that the Medo-Persian Empire, and the empire of Alexander that followed, lacked the central authority and fine organization of the Babylonian Empire. The image and Daniel’s comments on it are most accurate. Daniel himself seems to imply that the inferiority of the succeeding empires does not prevent them from wide geographic control, for he specifically stated that the third kingdom will “rule over all the earth.”
The descending scale of value of the four metals suggests the degeneration of the human race through the ages, as implied in Genesis 4. Classical writers such as Hesiod (Works and Days, 109–201) and Ovid (Metamorphoses I, 89–150) conceive of history in this way. This concept contradicts the evolutionist’s interpretation of human history. Instead of mankind beginning in the dust and consummating in fine gold, God reveals mankind in the times of the Gentiles to begin with fine gold and end in dust.
The descending value of the metals, however, permits their ascending strength, which suggests increased military might during the times of the Gentiles, leading to the final world conflict of Revelation 16 and 19 to which Daniel refers (11:36–45).
Critics who say that Daniel could not have been written in the sixth century have also questioned the accuracy of the list of kingdoms. They try to identify the second and third kingdoms as Persia and Media, as if they were separate empires. That would make Greece the fourth empire and thus reduce the prophetic element of this chapter to a minimum by eliminating the Roman Empire, which they say even a second-century Daniel could not have predicted.
But these critics do not take into consideration that Rome already had taken the western Mediterranean and subdued Greece and parts of western Asia. While they might be expected to claim that a writer in the second century B.C. might have guessed that Rome was the fourth empire, they are unwilling to admit that even a spurious Daniel writing in the second century could refer to the Roman Empire, for it is obvious that apart from prophetic insight he could not have predicted the extent of the empire and its fall in the way Daniel prophesies.
In substantiating the identification of the four empires normally accepted by conservative scholars, R. D. Wilson points out that the supposed confusion in the mind of Daniel regarding his facts is actually in the mind of the critics.29 In brief, Wilson points out that the critics do not have sufficient evidence to support their objections to the data supplied by Daniel. Most of their criticisms assume Daniel must be wrong. A similar objection to the account of the fall of Babylon as recorded by Daniel has the same answer. The objections rely on unproved assumptions on the part of critics. Remaining problems arise from insufficient records, not from express contradictions.
Again, the basic difficulty is that the critics cannot admit that the fourth kingdom is Rome without attributing genuine prophecy even to a second-century Daniel. But many problems disappear when Daniel is recognized as prophecy rather than pseudo-prophecy. The revelation of chapter 2 does not give sufficient detail to identify the kingdoms completely; but when this revelation is coupled with that of chapters 7–8, the identification becomes clear and unmistakable.
Daniel did not make any comment on the symbolic meaning of the chest, which contained the heart, or of the lower part of the body containing the abdomen. It is probably reading too much into the Scriptures to infer from this that Cyrus the Persian was a noble man with some compassion for Israel and to conclude, according to oriental custom, that this is supported by the fact that the abdomen is considered the seat of affection. More important and significant is the fact that the third empire ends with the upper part of the legs, or the thighs, indicating that the third empire would territorially embrace both East and West. This will be quite significant in analysis of the next world empire, unnamed in Daniel, but obviously Rome.
2:40–45 “And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
The fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream represented by the legs and feet of the image is obviously the most important. Daniel gives more attention to this fourth kingdom than to the preceding kingdoms put together. Because various schools of prophetic interpretation have differed more on the fourth kingdom than on the other three, it is necessary to give particular attention to what Daniel actually says.
The first aspect of interpretation stresses the strength of the iron legs and their power to break in pieces and subdue all opposition. This, of course, was precisely what characterized ancient Rome. “The Roman legions were noted for their ability to crush all resistance with an iron heel.”30 This description is so apt that most conservative commentaries agree that it represents the Roman Empire. Critics who accept the late date for Daniel and who proceed on the principle that prophecy of the future in detail is impossible offer a discordant note, as previously indicated, and identify the four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. But those who acknowledge Daniel as a sixth-century writing by the prophet Daniel have no difficulty in accepting the fourth kingdom as that of Rome. Even with this agreement, however, there is serious disagreement on the identification of the feet of the image and the destruction of the whole by the stone cut out without hands.
Because of the differences of interpretation on the meaning of the image’s feet, it is all the more significant that Daniel gave special attention to this, and in fact, said as much about the feet of the image as he did about the whole image above the feet. He noted that the feet and toes were part potter’s clay and part iron, making this a “divided kingdom.” There has been much discussion on the meaning of the word “divided.” Young feels that this is simply a reference to composite material, showing that the composite nature of the entire kingdom extends “even to its toes.”31 Here it seems that too much is being made of too little. What Daniel implied is simply that the material that forms the feet portion of the image is not all one kind but is composed of iron and pottery, which do not adhere well to one another. This is what Daniel himself brought out.
The presence of the iron in the feet, however, is an element of strength, as Daniel stated. The clay here was hardened as in pottery, not soft, but even in its hardened state still represented brittleness or weakness. This is brought out in verse 42 where the toes are expressly said to be part of iron and part of clay, which Daniel interpreted as indicating that the kingdom was partly strong, because of the presence of iron, and partly fragile, because of the brittleness of the pottery. The fact that Daniel spent more time on this part of the image has been interpreted by some as needless repetition. But such a view is hardly fair to Daniel, since any repetition in this passage is obviously for greater understanding and emphasis.
A clear interpretation of the meaning of iron and clay, apart from the inherent weakness, is not given except as indicated in verse 43. Here the statement is made that the two materials will not hold together even though “they will mix with one another in marriage.” This reference to marriage has given rise to several interpretations, from actual intermarriage among peoples in the fourth kingdom to the mixing of diverse peoples in the empire. Some also feel this is a reference to the attempted political “marriage” between imperialism and democracy.32
Since the text does not actually tell us, probably the safest procedure is to glean the interpretation from the meaning of the metals in the three preceding kingdoms. Keil writes, “As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and bronze 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.”33 While intermarriage may form an element of it, it is not necessarily the main idea. The important point is that the final form of the Roman Empire will include diverse elements, whether this refers to race, political orientation, or regional interests; and this will prevent the final form of the kingdom from having a real unity. This is, of course, borne out by the fact that the world empire at the end of the age breaks up into a gigantic civil war in which forces from the South, East, and North contend with the ruler of the Mediterranean for supremacy (cf. Dan. 11:36–45).
An important aspect of the fourth kingdom is the fact that it is portrayed as having two legs. This is often overlooked by expositors, partly because of difficulty fitting it into history precisely and partly because some do not feel that this aspect has a particular meaning. The problem some have with the interpretation of this passage is that while in their view the first three kingdoms are verifiable historically, they have difficulty finding any proof of the fourth kingdom in history.
Culver sees an increasing division in the image beginning with the head of gold or a single ruler, then the dualism of the Medo-Persian Empire, then the fourfold division of Alexander’s empire, and finally the leg stage of the image ending in further division into ten toes.34 While Culver’s analysis has much to commend it, the image does not reflect the fourfold division of Alexander’s kingdom. Instead, the image’s two legs represent the eventual emergence of Syria and Egypt as the two main components of the Alexandrian period (although Macedonia at times was also powerful). Actually there is no indication of diversity of sovereignty apart from the two arms, two legs, and feet.
Probably the best solution to the problem is the familiar teaching that Daniel’s prophecy actually passes over the present age, the period between the first and second comings of Christ or, more specifically, the period between Pentecost and the rapture of the church. There is nothing unusual about such a solution, as Old Testament prophecies often lump together predictions concerning the first and second comings of Christ without regard for the millennia that lay between (Luke 4:17–19; cf. Isa. 61:1–2).
This interpretation depends first of all upon evidence leading to the conclusion that the ten-toe stage of the image has not been fulfilled in history and is still prophetic. The familiar attempts in many commentaries to find a ten-toe stage of the image in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. do not correspond to the actual facts of history and do not fulfill this stage. According to Daniel’s prophecy, the kingdoms represented by the ten toes existed side by side and were destroyed by one sudden catastrophic blow. Nothing like this has yet occurred in history.
The leg stage of the image has been fulfilled historically in the Roman Empire that took control of the Syrian and Egyptian remnants of Alexander’s Greek empire. However, it is not necessary to assume the legs continue to point forward as this image does not correspond to the period of more than a thousand years stretching from the time of Christ to when the Roman Empire finally gasped its last. There is a simpler and yet more effective means of understanding this final portion of the image. As noted above, the upper part of the legs represented the twofold stage of the last period of the Alexandrian Empire, which especially concerned the Jews—namely, Syria and Egypt. This was two-legged because it embraced two continents, or two major geographic areas, the East and the West. The Roman Empire continued this twofold division and extended its sway over the entire Mediterranean area as well as western Asia.
In ordinary history Egypt was usually grouped with Syria as belonging to the East because of the long relationship politically and commercially that tied Egypt to western Asia. By contrast Macedonia in Europe was considered the West. From the divine viewpoint, however, and especially the prophetic outlook that is symbolized in the image of Daniel, both Egypt on the continent of Africa as well as the European nations, including Macedonia, could well be considered the Western division, which eventually expanded to include the whole Mediterranean area west of Asia.
The image portrays the divine viewpoint, which anticipated the rise of the Roman Empire and its geographic inclusion of the East and the West. This was recognized ultimately in the political division of the East and West by Emperor Valentinian I in A.D. 364. Although Daniel does not deal with the interadvent age as such, it still is true that at the time of Christ’s first advent, Rome already was geographically spread over the East and the West. Prophetically it indicates that at the time of the end Rome again will involve both the East and the West.
The meaning of the two legs, therefore, is geographic rather than a matter of nationalities. A comparison of the extension of the various empires will reveal that the Babylonian Empire and the Medo-Persian Empire extended principally over western Asia, although Egypt was also conquered. In the Alexandrian Empire, the Western division began to take real form and power was divided between Syria and Egypt. The Roman Empire embraced a much wider territory in which the Western division became fully as strong as the Eastern, and this seems to be portrayed by the two legs.
This political and geographic situation continued to the time of Christ; and if Daniel’s vision ended here only to pick up the situation again at the end of the age, it would be understandable that the two legs would be seen as equal. The feet portion of the image representing the final stage will also include on an equal basis the Eastern and Western areas once possessed by ancient Rome. In view of the fact that there is nothing whatever in the image of Daniel to portray events from the time of Christ to the present, if the feet stage be considered future, this interpretation makes sense out of a symbol that must at least in its major elements correspond to the facts of history.
The interpretive crux of Daniel’s symbolic vision is his prediction of a kingdom that God will set up. Its description in verse 44 has led to general agreement among all classes of expositors that this is indeed the kingdom of God. Beyond this, expositors are widely divided concerning the nature of the kingdom, the nature of the destruction of the preceding empires, and the time element that is provided. In general, expositors may be divided into premillennial and amillennial positions.
According to amillenarians and some premillenarians, the kingdom of God in Daniel 2 was introduced by Christ at His first coming. However, this view presupposes the destruction of the image by the church in succeeding centuries. Despite this problem, its adherents confidently suppose it is supported by history. Leupold, for instance, while conceding that there were many factors in the destruction of Rome, states, “All students of history are ready to grant that the Christian Church was able to salvage out of the wreckage of the Roman Empire all elements that were worth conserving. But it is just as true that the Christian Church broke the power of pagan Rome. The disintegrating and corrupt empire crumbled through decay from within as well as through the impact of the sound morals and the healthy life of Christianity that condemned lascivious Rome…. Christianity was in a sense God’s judgment upon sinful Rome.”35
The principal difficulty is that as a matter of fact Christianity was not the decisive force that broke the Roman Empire. The main reason was its internal decay and the political conditions that surrounded it. Further, Rome’s decay extended for more than a thousand years after the first advent of Christ. In other words, the time factor was greater than the period from Nebuchadnezzar to Christ. To have such a long period of time described in the symbolism of a stone striking the feet of the image and the chaff being swept away by wind simply does not correspond to the facts of history. In view of the very accurate portrayal of preceding history by the image, it is a reasonable and natural conclusion that the feet stage of the image, including destruction by the stone, is still future and unfulfilled. There is certainly no evidence, two millennia after Christ, that the kingdom of God has conquered the entire world.
In addition, there is no scriptural evidence whatever that Christ’s first coming caused the downfall of Gentile world power, which is still very much with us today. Indeed, express prophecies relating to Christ’s second advent picture just such a devastating defeat of Gentile power. Revelation 19:11–21, which all agree is a picture of the second coming, is expressly the time when Christ assumes command as King of kings and Lord of lords. It is declared that at that time Christ will “strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron” (Rev. 19:15). If it were not necessary to make Daniel’s image conform somehow to the amillennial concept of the gradual conquering of the world by the gospel, no one would ever have dreamed that the smiting by the stone in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream described a long process now more than two thousand years underway and still far from completion. The fact is that the amillennial interpretation does not give any reasonable explanation of the catastrophic character of the stone smiting the image.
The only basis on which prophetic interpretation can be judged is whether it corresponds to the proposed fulfillment. So we can state again that nothing is more evident today than that the stone, if it reflects the church or the spiritual kingdom that Christ formed at His first coming, is not in any sense of the term occupying center stage in a world in which Gentile power has been destroyed. As a matter of fact, for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing.
Accordingly, the interpretation is much preferred that the expression “in the days of those kings” refers to the kings who rule during the last generation of Gentile power. While this is not specifically related to the toes of the image, other passages speak specifically of ten kings in the end times (Dan. 7:24; Rev. 17:12). So it is not unreasonable to hold that this is a reference to the final state of the kingdom and the final rulers.
The description of the stone as being cut out “from a mountain by no human hand” has sometimes been interpreted as Mount Zion specifically, but it is better to consider this as a symbolic picture of political sovereignty. The stone is part and parcel of the sovereignty of God of which it is an effective expression. The symbolism clearly indicates an origination with God rather than with human beings. The effect is that the fifth kingdom, the kingdom of God, replaces completely all vestiges of the preceding kingdoms, a prophecy that can only be fulfilled in any literal sense by a reign of Christ over the earth. The amillennial interpretation, attempting to find fulfillment of the image’s destruction in history, does not provide a reasonable explanation of this passage. Only the premillennial position, which correlates this event with the second advent of Christ, allows literal fulfillment of the symbolism involved in the destruction of the image.
In concluding his interpretation, Daniel reaffirmed the certainty of the dream’s fulfillment, stating again that its interpretation came from God. The dream assures the ultimate rule of God over the earth, not only in the millennial kingdom, but also in the continued display of God’s sovereignty in the new heaven and new earth.
Before we complete the exposition of this chapter, it is instructive to note the interpretation of this vision by the first-century A.D. Jewish historian Josephus, which helps us understand how Jews in Christ’s day would have understood Daniel’s prophecy. Josephus’s interpretation is thus:
The head of gold (2:36–38). “The head of gold denotes thee [Nebuchadnezzar], and the kings of Babylon that have been before thee.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)
Daniel clearly identified Nebuchadnezzar as the head of gold. Josephus included the idea that the head denoted more than just one king; it indicated a succession of kings that formed the Babylonian Empire.
The chest and arms of silver (2:39a). “But the two hands and arms signify this, that your government shall be dissolved by two kings.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)
Josephus didn’t identify the two kings here, but later he stated that the kingdom of Babylon was divided “among the Medes and Persians.”
The legs of bronze (2:39b). “But another king that shall come from the west, armed with bronze, shall destroy that government.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)
Josephus added the fact that the ruler of this third kingdom will “come from the west” to destroy the Medes and Persians. Later he identified the “Greeks” as the nation that would defeat the Persians.
The feet of iron and clay (2:40–43). “And another government, that shall be like unto iron, shall put an end to the power of the former, and shall have dominion over all the earth, on account of the nature of iron, which is stronger than that of gold, of silver, and of bronze.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)
Though Josephus doesn’t provide a specific identification here, he clearly had the Roman Empire in view. First, he wrote that he was describing things “past or present,” and the Roman Empire was in power when he wrote. Second, he later stated, “In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them” (Antiquities 10.11.7). Rome is the fourth of the world empires identified by Daniel.
The fifth kingdom (2:44–45). “Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king; but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or present, but not things that are future.”
Josephus understood this portion of the prophecy as still future from his perspective. Whiston notes that Josephus failed to explain the meaning of what he “intimated to be a prophecy of futurity and probably not safe for him to explain, as belonging to the destruction of the Roman empire by Jesus Christ, the true Messiah of the Jews.”36
2:46–49 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him. The king answered and said to Daniel, “Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery.” Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. Daniel made a request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon. But Daniel remained at the king’s court.
Overwhelmed by the tremendous significance of the image and the demonstration that Daniel’s God was greater than any god whom he worshiped, Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid great honor to Daniel. The word for “homage” can denote the worship of a deity.37 It is quite clear, however, from the king’s conversation with Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar merely regarded Daniel as a worthy priest or representative of his God and was honoring him in this category. In other words, even the king understood that Daniel was the ambassador and representative of God but not deity himself. It is probably for this reason that Daniel permitted the king to do what he did.
An interesting parallel is found in Josephus, recording the instance where Alexander the Great bowed before the high priest of the Jews. When Parmenion, one of his generals, asked him why, when ordinarily all men would prostrate themselves before Alexander the Great, he had prostrated himself before the high priest of the Jews, Alexander replied, “It was not before him that I prostrated myself, but the God of whom he has the honor to be high priest.”38 In view of the previous statements of Daniel repeated several times and Nebuchadnezzar’s own statement of verse 47, the record leaves no doubt that Daniel was not claiming deity or any of the powers of deity.
Nebuchadnezzar paid a great tribute to the God of Daniel. It is most significant that the king did not even mention his own gods that had failed to produce a suitable revelation, except in the statement that Daniel’s God is “God of gods”—that is, Daniel’s God is supreme over any other gods commonly worshiped in a polytheistic system. Although Nebuchadnezzar was short of true faith in Daniel’s God at this point in his life, this was the first step on Nebuchadnezzar’s journey of faith. The evidence that Daniel’s God could reveal a secret and may indeed have been the author of his dream impressed Nebuchadnezzar with the fact that no other god could be greater.
In keeping with the king’s desire to honor Daniel and also according to his promise, Daniel was immediately promoted. Many valuable gifts were given to him, and he was installed in the exalted position of ruler over the whole province of Babylon as well as chief prefect over the wise men. Although this position may have been objectionable for a Jew, no doubt Daniel found a way to avoid involvement in the usual practices of divination, pagan rites, and other things that might normally fall to this office.
Having been thus honored by the king, Daniel, in fairness to his three companions who had joined him in prayer that the secret might be revealed, requested that they too might have a position of power and influence in the province of Babylon. Apparently, although Daniel had great authority, it did not include appointing such officials without the king’s permission.
Granting Daniel’s request, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to positions of trust in the province of Babylon. Daniel himself apparently had a position of honor in the king’s court itself. Thus Daniel, the obscure Jewish captive who could have been lost to history like many others if he had compromised in chapter 1, was now exalted to a place of great honor and power. Like Joseph in Egypt, he was destined to play an important part in the subsequent history of his generation.
1 A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1970; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 99.
2 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961), 26.
3 Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, New American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, ed. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 46.
4 John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 46.
5 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 75.
6 Ibid., 76.
7 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 57. See also 51.
8 See Leupold’s discussion in Daniel, 83–86; and Young, Daniel, 271–73.
9 Miller, Daniel, 80.
10 K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, D. J. Wiseman et al., eds. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 32.
11 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 20.
12 Leupold, Daniel, 90.
13 Young, Daniel, 63.
14 Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 96.
15 Miller, Daniel, 84.
16 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 933.
17 W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (July–September 1968), 262.
18 Leupold, Daniel, 101.
19 Ibid., 105.
20 Montgomery, Daniel, 162; cf. discussion by Leupold, Daniel, 105–6; and Goldingay, Daniel, 48.
21 Driver, Book of Daniel, 26.
22 Ibid.
23 Leupold, Daniel, 105.
24 Miller, Daniel, 84.
25 Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 107.
26 Charles, with insufficient warrant, thinks that the order of mention, “iron, clay, bronze” in verse 35 is wrong and should be “clay, iron, bronze” as in verse 33, in reverse order. As Charles admits, the KJV rendering is supported by the LXX and the Vulgate, and in any case no rigid order is observed in the passage as a whole, as illustrated in another order in verse 45, where “clay” comes after “bronze.” Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 24–25.
27 Young, Daniel, 73–74.
28 Eric William Heaton, The Book of Daniel, Torch Bible Commentaries, John Marsh, Alan Richardson, and R. Gregor Smith, eds. (London: SCM, 1956), 169–72.
29 Wilson comments, “When one asserts that the author of Daniel has ‘confused’ events or persons, it is not enough for him to affirm that the author was thus confused. This confusion is a matter of evidence. With all due deference to the opinion of other scholars, I am firmly convinced that no man to-day has sufficient evidence to prove that the author of Daniel was confused. There are no records to substantiate the assertions of confusion” (Robert Dick Wilson, “Book of Daniel,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, ed., vol. 2 [Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930], 128). Wilson then deals with the major criticisms of the critics. The most important of these concerns Darius the Mede (Dan. 5:31). For further discussion of this problem see the introduction to chapter 6.
30 Leupold, Daniel, 119.
31 Young, Daniel, 77.
32 Henry A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (New York: Loizeaux, 1920), 36–37.
33 Keil, Daniel, 109.
34 Culver, Daniel, 115–20.
35 Leupold, Daniel, 121.
36 William Whiston, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980), 224.
37 Miller, Daniel, 84.
38 Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities,” in Josephus, 6:476–77.