OVERVIEW

The opening chapter of Daniel introduces the “court stories” section of the book (chs. 1–6). These stories are narrative episodes told in the third person and relate the exploits of Daniel and his three companions during their captivity in Babylon. The content of ch. 1 may be outlined in four units: the first (vv.1–2) provides the setting of the book of Daniel (the royal court of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia and his successors; v.1), and the central theological theme of the book (God’s sovereignty, as “the Lord delivered” Jehoiakim to the Babylonians; v.2); the second (vv.3–7) introduces the main characters, or protagonists, of the narratives—the Hebrew captives Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; the third (vv.8–17) offers clues as to the key elements of the “plot” of the book as a narrative, especially nonconformity to the dominant culture (v.8), the testing of faith in God (v.12), and divine provision (v.17); the final literary unit (vv.18–21) foreshadows the outcome of the court stories of the first half of the book—the success and longevity of the four Hebrew captives as officials in the royal court of Babylon.

1. Historical Introduction (1:1–2)

1In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.

COMMENTARY

1 King Jehoiakim (609–597 BC) was installed as a “puppet king” by Pharaoh Neco of Egypt after the death of King Josiah (cf. 2Ki 23:30, 34). The third year of Jehoiakim’s reign dates Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem and Daniel’s subsequent captivity to 605 BC. This date accords with the accession-year method characteristic of the Babylonian system for computing regnal years (i.e., reckoning a king’s first full year of kingship to commence on the New Year’s Day after his accession to the throne, or 608 BC for Jehoiakim; cf. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 16–18). Critics point to the chronological discrepancy in the biblical reporting of the date of the event in that Jeremiah synchronizes the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign with the fourth year of King Jehoiakim’s reign (Jer 25:1, 9; cf. Porteous, 25–26). Yet if one assumes that Jeremiah is based on a nonaccession-year method of reckoning regnal years (more common to Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian practice), the difficulty fades and the dates are readily harmonized (cf. Longman and Dillard, 376–77).

Beyond this, critics dispute the historical veracity of Daniel’s report of a Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 605 BC because there is no record of such an incursion into Palestine at that time (cf. Redditt, 43). There is, however, indirect evidence for a Babylonian campaign in Palestine in 605 BC. Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1:19) cites a Babylonian priest-historian named Berossus, who recorded that Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in campaigns in Egypt, Syria, and Phoenicia at the time his father died (cf. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 15). Further, a cuneiform tablet published in 1956 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar “conquered the whole area of the Hatti-country” shortly after the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC. The geographical term “Hatti” would have included the whole of Syria and Palestine at this time period (cf. Miller, 57; see also Donald J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961], 69).

The siege of Jerusalem in 605 BC, then, was the first of three major invasions of Palestine by Babylonians (although there is no reference to armed conflict in vv.1–2, and the verb “besieged” [Heb. ṣwr] may suggest more threat than substance, as evidenced in Goldingay’s [3] translation “blockaded”; cf. Wood, 30, who comments that “likely only token resistance was made, with the Judeans recognizing the wisdom of peaceful capitulation”).

The second incursion occurred at the end of Jehoiakim’s reign in 598 BC, when King Nebuchadnezzar was finally in a position to move against the disloyal Judean vassal (Jehoiakim had rebelled earlier against Babylonia ca. 603 BC; cf. 2Ki 24:1–7). By the time Nebuchadnezzar reached Jerusalem, Jehoiakim had died and Jehoiachin his son was king of Judah (2Ki 24:8). As a result of this invasion of Judah, King Jehoiachin was deposed and exiled along with ten thousand citizens of Jerusalem (including Ezekiel; 2Ki 24:10–17; cf. Eze 1:1–2).

The third Babylonian invasion of Judah was swift and decisive. Nebuchadnezzar surrounded Jerusalem in 588 BC and after a lengthy siege, the city was sacked, Yahweh’s temple was plundered and destroyed, and Davidic kingship in Judah ceased (2Ki 24:18–25:21).

Nebuchadnezzar II was the eldest son of Nabopolassar and is considered one of the greatest kings of ancient times. He ruled the Babylonian Empire from 605–562 BC—an empire that stretched across the ancient Near East from Elam in the east to Egypt in the west. Miller, 56, notes that the writer of Daniel refers proleptically to Nebuchadnezzar as “king of Babylon,” since he was actually crowned king some two or three months after the siege of Jerusalem.

The city of Babylon lay on the Euphrates River, some fifty miles south of modern Baghdad in Iraq. It reached the height of its splendor as the capital of the Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire because of the extensive building activities of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. The storied Hanging Gardens of Babylon were counted among the “wonders” of the ancient world. The prophet Jeremiah predicted the overthrow of Babylon as divine retribution for her evil deeds (Jer 25:12–14; cf. Isaiah’s prophecy in Isa 13:2–22 against the city of Babylon during the Assyrian period). In the NT, Babylon symbolizes the decadence and wickedness of Rome (cf. 1Pe 5:13; Rev 14:8).

2 From the outset of the book, the record clearly indicates that Nebuchadnezzar’s success is not entirely his own doing. The Lord “delivered” (cf. NASB, “gave”) Jehoiakim into the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar in that he permitted the Babylonian subjugation of Judah. (See NIDOTTE, 3:206, on the use of the Heb. verb nātan [“to give”] to connote “hand over in judgment.”) This introductory statement reveals the unifying theme for the whole book: God’s sovereign rule of human history. God’s judgment of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah was not capricious or arbitrary. The threat of divine punishment, including exile from the land of the Abrahamic promise, was embedded in the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Lev 18:24–30; 26; Dt 28). Owing to God’s covenantal faithfulness, he was extremely patient and longsuffering with his people Israel, warning them through his prophets over centuries of the dire consequences of habitual covenantal disobedience (cf. Ne 9:29–32). Daniel was not oblivious to all this, as attested by his prayer for his people (Da 9:4–11).

Placing objects plundered from the temples of vanquished enemies as trophies of war in the temple(s) of the gods of the victors was common practice in the biblical world (e.g., 1Sa 5:2). The act symbolized the supremacy of the deities of the conquering nation over the gods of the peoples and nations subjugated by the imperialist armies (cf. BBCOT, 287). The articles or vessels from the Jerusalem temple confiscated by Nebuchadnezzar are not itemized. It is possible these articles were given as tribute to Nebuchadnezzar in order to lift the siege against the city (after the earlier example of the payments made by kings Ahaz and Hezekiah to the Assyrians; cf. 2Ki 16:8; 18:15). The temple treasury cache may have included gold and silver ceremonial cups and utensils displayed to the envoy of the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan by King Hezekiah a century earlier (cf. 2Ki 20:12–13). The prophet Isaiah rebuked Hezekiah’s pride and predicted his treasures would be plundered and carried off to Babylon (Isa 39:6; cf. the prohibition in Dt 17:17 against stockpiling wealth given to the Hebrew kings in anticipation of an Israelite monarchy).

Later, King Belshazzar paraded these gold and silver goblets before his nobles at a great feast, precipitating the episode of the writing on the wall and the demise of his kingship (Da 5:1–2, 25–31). Finally, some of these implements may have been part of the larger inventory of temple treasure plundered by the Babylonians that King Cyrus of Persia restored to the Hebrews and that were relocated in Judah when the exiles returned to the land under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (Ezr 1:7–11). All this serves as a reminder that everything under heaven belongs to God and that he providentially oversees what belongs to him—whether his people Israel or drinking bowls from his temple (cf. Job 41:11).

The historical setting laid out in the opening verses is also important to the theology of exile developed in the book of Daniel. It is clear from Daniel’s prayer in ch. 9 that he is aware of Jeremiah’s prophecies projecting a Babylonian exile lasting some seventy years (Da 9:2; cf. Jer 25:12; 29:10). The date formulas in books of subsequent prophets of the exile, such as Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 52:31) and Ezekiel (e.g., Eze 1:2), serve as “covenantal time-clocks” of sorts as they track the chronological progression of God’s judgment against his people for their sin of idolatry in anticipation of the restoration of Israel to the land of covenantal promise (Jer 44:3–6; cf. Lev 18:24–30). Elements of Daniel’s “theology of exile” developed in later sections of the commentary include: the value of prayer for Hebrews in the Diaspora, the role obedience and faithfulness to God play in the success of the Hebrews in the Diaspora, and insights into the nature and character of divine justice and human suffering in the light of the persecution experienced by Israel during and after the Babylonian exile.

More significant for the Hebrews was the crisis in theology created by the historical setting of the Babylonian exile. The Israelites, the people of Yahweh, lost possession of their land, had their temple razed, and had the office of kingship eradicated in one fell swoop to the marauding hordes of King Nebuchadnezzar and the gods of Babylonia. As Wallace, 31, observes, the Hebrews needed a new theology. God’s people needed a “Diaspora theology” addressing the problem of how to live as a minority group in an alien majority culture sometimes hostile, sometimes friendly; how were they to “fit in without being swallowed up?” The remainder of ch. 1 and the rest of the court stories take up the challenge of answering this very question.

NOTES

1 The form of the name (n^ebûkadneʾṣṣar, “Nebuchadnezzar”) given in Daniel is also found in 2 Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The alternative spelling (n^ebûkadreʾṣṣar, “Nebuchadrezzar”) appears in Jeremiah (except ch. 28) and Ezekiel. According to Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 2–3), there is no need to assume that the name Nebuchadnezzar reflects an Aramaic pronunciation shift from r to n since an Aramaic tablet dated to Nebuchadrezzar’s thirty-fourth year spells the name with n after the (dental) d. The name probably means “O Nabu, protect my offspring” (so Wiseman, ibid., 3). Nabu was the son of Marduk and the god of wisdom in the Babylonian pantheon.

2 The phrase “in Babylonia” is literally a reference to “the land of Shinar” (cf. NIV note), a name for the whole of Mesopotamia found elsewhere in a handful of OT passages (Ge 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Jos 7:21; Isa 11:11; Zec 5:11). Daniel is the one exception in the OT where Shinar is used more restrictively to mean Babylonia. Shinar was the site of the tower of Babel (Ge 11:1–9), and according to Baldwin, 78, the reference is a deliberate archaism, since it “was synonymous with opposition to God; it was the place where wickedness was at home (Zec 5:11) and uprightness could expect opposition.”

The phrase “his god” (, ʾ^elōhāw) is a plural form, “his gods” (Archer, 32, observes that the Babylonians were polytheists). The writer may be making a subtle theological statement about “religious pluralism” in the ancient world, as the first divine name used is “Lord” in v.2—, ʾ^adōnāy, meaning God was “owner” or “sovereign ruler” for the Hebrews. The next divine epithet is “God” (, hāʾ^elōhîm), including the definite article (see Miller, 58). This designation for God by the Hebrews is often understood as a plural of majesty (cf. NIDOTTE, 1:405). The final reference to deity is this citation to the treasure house of “his god,” i.e., Nabu, the patron deity of Nebuchadnezzar (see Notes on v.1). The divine names “Lord” and “God” may serve as foils emphasizing the supremacy of the one Hebrew God over the many “non-gods” of the Babylonian pantheon.

2. The Main Characters (1:3–7)

3Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility—4young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. 5The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

6Among these were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

COMMENTARY

3–7 This unit introduces the protagonists of the story line of the book of Daniel. Four young men taken captive from Judah are identified by name as among those Israelites belonging to the royal family and Hebrew nobility deported to Babylonia (v.3). All four bore theophoric names (v.6) associating them with the God of the Israelites: “Daniel” (“God is my judge”), “Hananiah” (“Yah[weh] has been gracious”), “Mishael” (“Who is/what is God?”), and “Azariah” (“Yah[weh] has helped”).

The name “Ashpenaz” (v.3) is an attested proper name in Aramaic known from an incantation bowl dating to ca. 600 BC (cf. Collins, Daniel, 134). The name is associated with “lodging” in some manner and may mean “innkeeper.” His title, “chief of [the] court officials,” indicates a position of oversight vested with some degree of royal authority (since he was in a position to make a decision concerning Daniel’s request concerning food rations without appealing to a superior; v.8). Ashpenaz probably served both as a type of chamberlain overseeing the accommodations (i.e., “room and board”) for the captives and headmaster in terms of supervising the education of the captive foreign youth and approving them for “graduation” into the civil service corps upon completion of their prescribed period of training.

The policy of incorporating capable foreign captives in the civil service corps as officials of the king was widespread in the ancient world (cf. BBCOT, 730). Such practice had the benefit of depleting the leadership ranks in subjugated territories as well as harnessing that administrative potential in civil service to the ruling nation. Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 81) has suggested that in Babylonian practice such “diplomatic hostages” were sometimes educated for eventual return to their homeland as loyal supporters of the Babylonian regime. This training or education was essentially a programmatic indoctrination of the captives in the worldview of a conquering nation (see Lucas, 53). The reprogramming included studies in the language and literature of the host nation (v.4), a special diet, and training in royal protocol (v.5). The goal or desired outcome was reorientation of the exiled individual in the thoughts, beliefs, and practices of the suzerain nation.

Typically, this reorientation included a change of name symbolic of the loyalty of the subject to a new king, his nation, and his gods. Accordingly, Daniel and his three friends became (v.7): “Belteshazzar” (“Bel [i.e., Marduk, the supreme god of the Babylonian pantheon] protects his life”), “Shadrach” (perhaps “command of Aku” [i.e., the Sumerian moon-god] or “I am fearful of Aku”), “Meshach” (perhaps “Who is what [the god] Aku is?”), and “Abednego” (“servant of the shining one” or “servant of Neg[b]o” [i.e., Nabu, son of Marduk and patron deity of the scribal guild]; cf. Goldingay, 18, on naming and renaming in the OT).

Two things stand out in the passage: the exceptional qualifications of the young men chosen for the civil service training and the extensive nature and duration of that diplomatic training. Concerning the former, it is likely that Daniel and his friends were teenagers when they were taken captive from Judah and exiled to Babylonia, the presumption on the part of the Babylonians being that young boys generally would be more teachable and would be in a position to give more years of fruitful service to the state. Natural good looks and physical prowess were commonly associated with leadership in the biblical world (cf. 1Sa 9:2; 16:18). The three expressions referring to intellectual capabilities (v.4, “aptitude for . . . learning, well informed, quick to understand”) should probably be regarded as synonyms for “gifted learners” rather than signifying distinctive aspects of the human intelligence (cf. Miller, 61). The cumulative effect of the triad simply stresses the emphasis King Nebuchadnezzar placed on inherent intellectual ability.

According to Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 86), Babylon prided itself on being the “city of wisdom,” a title that earlier belonged to Assur as the capital of Assyria. The schools of King Nebuchadnezzar’s day would have continued to copy “sign lists . . . word lists, paradigms and extracts of legal terminology . . . religious documents of all kinds . . . fables, and omens of various categories including those about devils and evil spirits . . . as well as texts of possible historical interest.” The language of the Babylonians (v.4) would have been the Akkadian dialect known as Neo-Babylonian. Beyond this, Daniel and his friends would have known several other languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, and probably Persian.

Akkadian was a cuneiform writing system made up of wedge-shaped characters, commonly etched on clay tablets. The language was cumbersome and required learning hundreds of symbols, many with multiple syllabic values. Collins (Daniel, 140) has observed that length of Babylonian education varied depending on the specialization of the student (in some cases from ten to eighteen years). He further comments that the three-year instructional program for Daniel and his friends seems “unrealistically short for anyone who had no previous training in Akkadian letters.” Those who have studied the Akkadian language might be inclined to agree!

Mastery of Akkadian was accomplished by copying simple exercises set forth by an instructor, then advancing to the copying of important literary texts, and finally to the composition of original documents of various sorts. As Baldwin, 80, notes, to study Babylonian literature was “to enter a completely alien thought-world.” This Mesopotamian worldview was polytheistic in nature, superstitious in character, and pluralistic in practice. Lucas (Daniel, 53) summarizes that “the learning process intended for these Judean exiles was thus one of induction into the thought-world and culture of Babylonia.” This makes all the more remarkable the fact that Daniel and his friends were able to devote themselves to the study of Babylonian language and literature without compromising their faith in Yahweh and their Hebrew worldview. Baldwin, 80, aptly reflects, “evidently the work of Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk had not been in vain.” Likewise, the Christian church needs individuals of faith who are “students” of the “language and literature” of modern culture both for the sake of effective gospel outreach (cf. Ac 17:22–28) and for discerning the spirits in terms of maintaining sound doctrine (cf. 1 Jn 4:1).

NOTES

3 The title (rab sārîs), “chief of the court officials,” uses the Akkadian loan-phrase rab-sārîs, literally, “chief eunuch” (cf. Baldwin, 79). The expression occurs elsewhere as a designation for the “chief officer” of the king of Assyria (2Ki 18:17; cf. Jer 39:3, 13; understood in the NASB as a proper noun, “Rab-saris”). The use of castrated males as royal officials, since eunuchs were considered more loyal and trustworthy servants, is best attested during the Persian period (cf. Collins, Daniel, 134). The text of Daniel does not imply that the four Hebrew captives were made eunuchs. According to Collins (ibid., 135), the notion that Daniel and his three companions were eunuchs as reported in rabbinic literature goes beyond the text. In fact Potiphar, a (sārîs, “official”), was a married man (Ge 39:1, 7).

4 The NIV renders the Hebrew (kaśdîm, “Chaldeans”) as “Babylonians.” From Assyrian royal inscriptions, the Chaldeans (Akk. kaldu/kašdu; Aram. , kaśdāy) are known to have inhabited the lowlands south of Babylon and north of Persia as early as the ninth century BC. The OT regularly equates the Chaldeans with the people of Babylonia in general, although the Babylonians did not identify themselves in this way (e.g., Isa 13:19; Jer 24:5; Eze 1:3; cf. Ezr 5:12). Some scholars suggest that the word designates a special guild or priestly class of wise men (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 138; Goldingay, 16). It seems more likely that the term kaśdîm as used in the context of v.4 (i.e., “the language and literature of . . .”; cf. “all kinds of literature and learning” in v.17) refers more generally to the Chaldeans or Babylonians (as in Da 5:30; 9:1) and hence to the larger body of knowledge known and studied in Babylon.

5 The Hebrew phrase (pat-bag hammelek, lit., “fine-food of the king”) is an unusual OT expression found only in Daniel 1:5 and 11:26, rendered “food . . . from the king’s table” (cf. NASB’s “the king’s choice food”). According to Baldwin, 81, the term is derived from Old Persian and refers to “honorific gifts from the royal table.” Similar gifts of “delicacies” from the royal table are mentioned in Genesis 43:34 and 2 Samuel 11:8.

7 The only other reference to Daniel’s Babylonian name occurs in 4:8, where context suggests that the name “Belteshazzar” is a theophoric name related to the Babylonian god Bel or Marduk. The name “Belteshazzar” may be a shortened from of the Akkadian [Bēl]-balātšu-uṣur (“[Bel] protect his life”; cf. Miller, 65) or Bēlet-šar-uṣur (“Lady, protect the king,” in reference to the consort of Bel; cf. Baldwin, 81; Lucas, 53).

3. The Plot (1:8–17)

8But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel, 10but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.”

11Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12“Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.” 14So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days.

15At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

17To these four young men God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning. And Daniel could understand visions and dreams of all kinds.

COMMENTARY

8–17 The plotline of a story unfolds in the arrangement of events recorded in the narrative. The basic ingredient of a good story plot is conflict moving toward resolution. The opening scene of Daniel reports such conflict. The conflict for Daniel and his three friends is an ideological or moral conflict dilemma. This type of conflict usually occurs within the protagonist(s) of the story and generally focuses on issues of worldview and ultimately “good” versus “evil.” Specifically, the issue here is the royal food and wine that Daniel and his friends were required to eat and drink (v.8). The rejection of the royal food by Daniel and his friends foreshadows further episodes of conflict as the story of the Hebrew captives progresses, conflicts with other characters (e.g., the Babylonian wise men; 3:8–12; 6:1–5), and physical danger in the form of execution by fire (3:11) and exposure to wild beasts (6:7).

The expression Daniel “resolved” (v.8) is an idiom expressing a deliberate act of the will motivated by a deep-seated personal conviction (Heb. śîm + lēb, “to set the heart”; cf. NASB’s “Daniel made up his mind”). The word “defile” (Heb. gāʾal) occurs fewer than a dozen times in the OT and may refer to moral or ceremonial impurity (e.g., Isa 59:3; Mal 1:7, 12). Wallace, 42–43, observes that Daniel believed “faith in God and the forgiveness of God had made him clean”—clean from the idolatry and moral pollution of the surrounding world. To eat the king’s food would compromise God’s forgiveness and draw him back into the very same “world” from which he had been cleansed.

The royal food rations posed a problem for Daniel and his friends for several possible reasons. First, the law of Moses prohibited the obedient Hebrews from eating certain types of food, and there was no assurance that such fare would be left off the menu (cf. Lev 11; Dt 12:23–25; 14). Yet the Mosaic dietary restrictions do not include wine, also rejected by Daniel and his friends.

Second, the royal food rations would have probably been associated with idol worship in some way (either by the food’s having been offered to idols or blessed by idolatrous priests). Yet Daniel and his friends do not refuse all the royal food rations (as though only meat and drink but not “vegetables” were dedicated to the Babylonian gods). On both counts the royal food would have been regarded as ritually unclean on theological grounds, and hence the eating of such food would constitute an act of disobedience against Yahweh and his commands.

Beyond this, it is possible that Daniel simply interpreted the eating of the royal food rations as a formal demonstration of allegiance to the Babylonian king. Baldwin, 83, and Felwell, 40, suggest that Daniel’s motivation for rejecting the king’s menu was political in the sense that eating the royal provisions was tantamount to accepting the lordship of the Babylonian king, whereas Daniel and his friends owed loyalty to Yahweh alone as their “king” (cf. 3:17–18; on the issue of cultural assimilation see BBCOT, 731). But again, Daniel and his friends do agree to certain provisions of royal food, thus weakening the argument of political allegiance to King Nebuchadnezzar by virtue of the “meal custom” of the biblical world. Longman, 53, suggests that the food-rations test was essentially a means by which Daniel and his friends might demonstrate that their healthy physical appearance (and hence their intellectual gifts) was the miraculous work of their God—not King Nebuchadnezzar’s palace food or the Babylonian pantheon. As J. H. Sims (“Daniel,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. L. Ryken and T. Longman [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 333–34) points out, whatever the motivation for rejecting the royal food rations, the greater issue theologically is that of divine nurture versus human nurture—on whom or what will the Hebrews rely for sustenance in their captivity?

The question of conformity to the surrounding culture was of paramount concern for the Diaspora Hebrews. To what degree, if any, should the displaced Israelites make accommodation to the surrounding dominant culture? What place was there for the Hebrew distinctives of religious monotheism and ethical absolutism based on the law of Moses in the religious pluralism and moral relativism of the Gentile superpowers? Rather than react in open defiance of the king’s decree, Daniel and his friends arranged a compromise with Ashpenaz and his appointed guardian (vv.10–14). The alternative to eating the king’s food was a “rations test,” with the Hebrew captives to be fed a diet of vegetables and water (v.12), against the control group of those young men eating the royal provisions (v.13). Goldingay, 20, interprets the “ten-day” testing period pragmatically as a standard round number of days that would not arouse the suspicion of Ashpenaz’s superiors and yet be long enough for the effects of the test to be observed.

The example of nonconformity by Daniel and his friends became a model for the Israelite response to Gentile culture in later Judaism. For example, the characters of both Judith and Tobit are portrayed as pious Jews who observe strict adherence to the Mosaic law in the books of the apocryphal OT literature that bear their names. Separation from Gentile culture was an important component in an emerging “Diaspora theology” for the Hebrews during the intertestamental period. By the time of the NT, the Jewish worldview was tainted with attitudes of particularism, exclusivism, and superiority in reaction to the influences of Hellenism.

This “Judaism against Gentile culture” paradigm made Jesus’ apparent laxity toward the Mosaic law and his accommodation to Gentile culture difficult to interpret and accept. The church, as the counter-culture agent of God’s kingdom in the world, has no less difficulty in discerning and practicing what Jesus meant when he instructed his followers that though they were in the world, they were not to be of the world (Jn 17:14–18; see the discussion of the Christian’s interface with culture employing Niebuhr’s classic Christ and culture paradigms in Longman, 62–69).

In the process we learn that God’s providential rule of history is not restricted to nations and kings, as God caused Ashpenaz, the chief official, “to show favor and sympathy to Daniel” (v.9). The passage is reminiscent of Joseph, who “found favor” in Potiphar’s eyes (Ge 39:4), and Esther, who “pleased [Hegai] and won his favor” during her preparations for the royal beauty contest (Est 2:9). The repetition of the verb “gave” (Heb. nātan; GK 5989) echoes God’s deliverance of King Jehoiakim to the Babylonians (v.2). The NIV’s “God had caused” (v.9) fails to convey the full theological freight of the original (cf. NASB, “Now God granted Daniel favor and compassion . . .”). Literally, “God gave Daniel for favor and mercies before the chief official.” Even as God gave Jehoiakim to the Babylonians for judgment, God gave Daniel to Ashpenaz for grace.

This language of divine intervention is in keeping with the theme of Daniel established in the opening verses, namely God’s sovereignty. As Seow, 27, notes, “the sovereignty of God is thus affirmed; the theological paradox of judgment and grace is maintained . . . God is the narrator’s ‘lord’ . . . God is at work and ever providing.” In fact, God’s testing and providing are key themes of the OT and justify his name as “Yahweh Yirʾeh” or “Jehovah Jireh” (“The LORD Will Provide,” Ge 22:14).

The four Hebrews passed the rations test, actually emerging “healthier and better nourished” than their counterparts, whose diet consisted of the royal food (v.15). For the third time in the chapter we read that God “gave” (Heb. nātan; v.17). In this instance, as a result of their resolve not to defile themselves with the royal food, God granted Daniel and his friends “knowledge and understanding” (v.17a). The term “knowledge” (Heb. maddāʿ) implies academic learning (cf. v.4, “quick to understand”), and the word “understanding” (Heb. haśkēl) suggests both “aptitude for learning” (cf. v.4) and insight with respect to prudence or sound judgment.

In other words, the food rations episode offers practical commentary of sorts on Proverbs 1:7a: “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (cf. Ps 111:10). Baldwin, 84, has summarized that even small acts of faith and self-discipline, when undertaken out of loyalty to godly principle, set “God’s servants in the line of his approval and blessing. In this way actions attest faith, and character is strengthened to face more difficult situations.” (But see Goldingay, 20, who denies the cause-and-effect relationship between faithfulness and reward.) The added statement in v.17b that Daniel received a special divine endowment to understand or interpret visions and dreams foreshadows those “more difficult situations” he will face in the key role he plays as interpreter of dreams and seer of visions in the rest of the book.

NOTE

12 The meaning of the word rendered “vegetables” (Heb. , zērō ʿîm), is somewhat uncertain. (On the alternative spelling zērō ʿnîm in v.16, see Collins, Daniel, 144.) The term is connected to the Heb. (zeraʿ, “seeds”) in some way, perhaps signifying a type of porridge made from ground grain (cf. BBCOT, 731).

4. Foreshadow of the Outcome (1:18–21)

18At the end of the time set by the king to bring them in, the chief official presented them to Nebuchadnezzar. 19The king talked with them, and he found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king’s service. 20In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.

21And Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus.

COMMENTARY

18–21 The conclusion of the first court story is a fortuitous one for Daniel and his three friends. After their three-year program of study in the “arts and sciences” of Babylonia, the Hebrews appear before King Nebuchadnezzar for an interview and subsequent appointment to posts of civil service (v.18). All four pass their oral examination with “honors” and are deemed by the king to be superior to all the other wise men of the kingdom in “wisdom and understanding” (v.20). The expression “ten times better” is a common idiom in the OT for expressing hyperbole in dialogue (e.g., Ge 31:41; Nu 14:22; Ne 4:12).

Induction into the civil-service corps of the king meant candidates had to be “qualified to serve in the king’s palace” (v.4). Once the qualifications of the four Hebrews were certified, they “entered the king’s service” or received administrative appointments as civil servants (v.19). The same word (lit., “stand,”ʿāmad) is used in both statements to express the idea of entering the king’s service. To “stand” before the king is an idiom for serving the king (cf. 1Ki 10:8; 12:8) and connotes both loyalty to the crown and adherence to royal protocol and etiquette (cf. Miller, 61).

The purpose of the final section of the first court story is twofold. First, we learn that there is a difference between learning as an “acquired skill” and wisdom as a divine gift (v.20; cf. v.17). Daniel and his friends learned the secret lore of the Babylonian magicians and priests, but they clearly understood the God of Israel to be the source of all knowledge and wisdom (cf. 2:20). The rest of the court stories of Daniel give testimony to the four Hebrew captives’ reliance on God as the fountainhead of knowledge and wisdom, unlike their Babylonian counterparts, who relied on occultic arts and all the gods and demons associated with Babylonian religion (e.g., 2:20–23, 28; 4:18, 24; 5:12). Much like Joseph, who served Pharaoh in Egypt, Daniel and his friends recognized that it is God in heaven who reveals mysteries to his faithful servants (2:28; cf. Ge 40:8; 41:16).

Russell, 32, sums up the outcome of the king’s examination of the Hebrew apprentices by noting that “even in this highly skilled field [i.e., Babylonian ‘arts and sciences’] Daniel and his friends were so obviously better than them all! By the goodness of God they could beat the Babylonian experts at their own game. The secrets of Babylon were no secrets to Yahweh who made them known to whomsoever he willed.” The experience of Daniel and his friends anticipates the instruction of the apostle Paul about the “only wise God” (Ro 16:27) and his son Jesus the Messiah, who is the “wisdom from God” for the Christian (1Co 1:30).

Second, the chronological notice in v.21— attached as an addendum to the opening court story explaining how Daniel and his friends came to be royal officials in Babylonia under King Nebuchadnezzar—attests to the “staying power” of Daniel (cf. Wallace, 47–48). The first year of King Cyrus of Persia is dated to 539 or 538 BC, depending on the source consulted. This means Daniel held an administrative post in the royal court of Babylon for more than sixty years, and his time spent in Babylonian captivity was nearly seventy years (given his deportation in 605 BC; cf. 1:1). Earlier the prophet Jeremiah had predicted that the Hebrew captivity would cover seven decades (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). The reference to the accession year of Cyrus to the throne of Babylon probably marked the end of this enforced exile of the Hebrews by the Babylonians (so Goldingay, 27; Lucas, 56).

In reality, Daniel’s longevity testified both to God’s sovereignty over the nations and his faithfulness to his people Israel. Even as Daniel outlasted the kings of the Babylonian Empire, so God’s people were sustained in captivity and eventually permitted to return to their homeland of covenantal promise (2Ch 36:22–23; Ezr 1:1–4). Likewise, the presence of the Israelite named Daniel in the royal court of seven Babylonian monarchs and the first king of Persia was a tangible reminder that God is the one who sets up kings and deposes them (Da 2:21).

NOTE

20 The conjunctive phrase “wisdom and understanding” is more precisely a construct-genitive in the MT, “wisdom of understanding.” Although unmarked, the NIV and NASB read the LXX and Syriac versions at this point. The term (ḥokmâ, “wisdom”; GK 2683) refers to a matrix of qualities including aptitude, technical skill, intuitive good sense, and experience—demonstrated, for example, in navigating a ship in open waters or crafting fine art from metal, wood, or precious stones (Pr 8:12–14; cf. NIDOTTE, 2:130–34). The word (bînâ, “understanding”; GK 1069) means to discern, distinguish, or differentiate, perceive or have insight, comprehend; with respect to Hebrew wisdom literature, it denotes “problem-solving” ability (Pr 1:6; cf. NIDOTTE, 1:652–53). In either case, the construction calls attention to the idea of wisdom as “applied knowledge”—that is, Daniel and his friends had “agile” minds and were adept at problem solving as a result of the critical-thinking skills garnered through rigorous academic training coupled with the insight and sound judgment instilled by their fear of Yahweh.

The term (ḥarṭōm, “magician”) is used of the soothsayer-priest of Egypt (cf. Ge 41:8, 24; Ex 7:11, 22), and it may be an Egyptian loanword in Hebrew. The magician was a mantic skilled in the occultic arts, including astrology, sorcery, exorcism, performing signs and wonders, and various forms of mechanical divination such as hydromancy (the mixing of liquids in a divining cup; cf. Ge 44:5), haruspicy (the study of animal entrails), hepatoscopy (the analysis of animal livers; cf. Eze 21:21), augury (the tracking of the behavior of sacred animals; cf. 2Ki 21:6), and oneiromancy (the interpretation of dreams; cf. Ge 40:8; Dt 13:1). Technically, the magicians were wise men or scholars who functioned literally as “engravers” or “scribes” by meticulously recording such things as astrological phenomena to inform the process of royal decision-making (see Miller, 72; Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 88–89).

The word (ʾaššāp, “enchanter”; “conjurers,” NASB) occurs only in 1:20; 2:2 in the OT. The term is derived from the Akkadian word āšipu, an “incantation priest” (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 131). The enchanter or conjurer belonged to a priestly class skilled in communication with the spirit world (including the realm of the dead) by means of magic spells and incantations. These and other classes of priests specializing in the occultic arts (cf. 2:2) had prominent roles as advisers to the king in the royal courts of the ancient world (see Miller, 72–73).

B. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Statue (2:1–49)

OVERVIEW

The second chapter of Daniel continues the court-stories section of the book (chs. 1–6). It forms part of a distinct literary unit within the book that includes chs. 2–7. Lucas, 69, has outlined the chiastic structure of the section as follows:

A Dream about four earthly kingdoms and God’s kingdom (ch. 2)
- B Story about Jews being faithful in the face of death (ch. 3)
  - C Story about royal hubris that is humbled (ch. 4)
  - C´ Story about royal hubris that is humbled (ch. 5)
- B´ Story about a Jew who is faithful in the face of death (ch. 6)
A´ Vision about four earthly kingdoms and God’s kingdom (ch. 7)

The plot of the story in ch. 2 may be outlined in five scenes: the king’s troubling dream and the resulting crisis for the royal wise men (vv.1–13); Daniel’s intervention followed by God’s intervention (vv.14–23); Daniel’s description of the contents of the king’s dream (vv.24–35); Daniel’s interpretation of the king’s dream (vv.36–45); and the king’s response to Daniel’s interpretation (vv.46–49).

The literary unity of this chapter has for several reasons been disputed by some biblical scholars (e.g., Davies, 45–46; Anderson, 14–15). For example, the Aramaic section of the book begins in 2:4b, after the king has reported his disturbing dream to the royal advisers. The chapter combines a number of diverse literary subgenres according to form critics, including court tale, dream report, legend, aretalogy, doxology, and midrash (so Goldingay, 36). Instances of repetitiveness in the account (e.g., vv.28–30) and the lack of continuity with other portions of Daniel are sometimes cited as evidence of editorial activity (e.g., the fact that the king needs an introduction to Daniel after previously interviewing him after the completion of his educational training, cf. 1:18). In fact, Fewell, 62, suggests that this tension in the biblical text compromises the narrator’s reliability as an accurate storyteller. Yet Goldingay, 44, observes that such repetitiveness and discontinuity “may as likely be the responsibility of the author as a redactor.”

In the end it is best to read the chapter completely as it stands—a court story of contest featuring a dream report (cf. Humphreys, 219, though he denies the historicity of the story and labels it a “tale”). The story plot is one of contest, and it plays out at two different levels of understanding. On the human level the contest to interpret the king’s dream pits the king himself against his corps of royal advisers. Once Daniel is drawn into the story, he becomes a rival to the other royal advisers in responding to the king’s demand for an “answer” to his dream.

On a spiritual level the contest sets Yahweh of Israel, the true God, against the pantheon of gods represented in the idolatry of Babylonian religion. A related aspect of this cosmic dimension of the contest to interpret the king’s dream is the ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom—the God of the Hebrews or the occultic lore of the Babylonian wise men (cf. 2:21–23). On this count Seow, 35, observes that the narrative of 2:1–49 echoes those poems of Isaiah 40–55 that highlight the wisdom and foreknowledge of Israel’s God over against the idols of the nations (e.g., Isa 41:21–29; 45:19; 46:9–10; 47:13–14; 48:5–6, 16). In fact, it is Yahweh

who foils the signs of false prophets

and makes fools of diviners,

who overthrows the learning of the wise

and turns it into nonsense,

who carries out the words of his servants

and fulfills the predictions of his messengers. (Isa 44:25–26)

Numerous parallels have been drawn between Daniel’s experience in Nebuchadnezzar’s court and Joseph’s in Pharaoh’s court (Ge 41). In each case a Hebrew servant of God interprets a king’s dream that has puzzled the royal advisers and as a result is elevated to a place of prominence in the kingdom. The form-critical scholar attributes this to the shared folklore pattern of the success story of a wise courtier, “in which a lower-class hero solves a problem for a higher-class person and is rewarded for doing so” (Redditt, 50). Others ascribe the similarities to the rule of a sovereign God in history in cultures where special emphasis is placed on dreams and the interpretation of them. According to Goldingay, 36, Daniel, like Joseph, is “a model of Israelite wisdom (v.14) and a model of Israelite piety, in his prayer (v.18), his vision (v.19), his praise (vv.19–23), his witness, (vv.27–28), his self-effacement (v.30), his conviction (v.45); the fruit of his work is not merely rewards and promotions (v.48) but obeisance and recognition of his God (vv.46–47).”

Daniel’s godly living in the Babylonian exile served as an example for Jews living in a foreign culture in the literature of the later Jewish Diaspora (e.g., Tobit, Judith; cf. Longman, 62–69, on the application of Daniel’s example to the relationship between faith and culture for the contemporary Christian). But Humphreys, 221, correctly observes that in ch. 2 “the God of Daniel is the central figure and not the courtier.”

1. A Troubling Dream for the King and a Crisis for the Wise Men (2:1–13)

1In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep. 2So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king, 3he said to them, “I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means.’”

4Then the astrologers answered the king in Aramaic, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will interpret it.”

5The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. 6But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.”

7Once more they replied, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will interpret it.”

8Then the king answered, “I am certain that you are trying to gain time, because you realize that this is what I have firmly decided: 9If you do not tell me the dream, there is just one penalty for you. You have conspired to tell me misleading and wicked things, hoping the situation will change. So then, tell me the dream, and I will know that you can interpret it for me.”

10The astrologers answered the king, “There is not a man on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer. 11What the king asks is too difficult. No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do not live among men.”

12This made the king so angry and furious that he ordered the execution of all the wise men of Babylon. 13So the decree was issued to put the wise men to death, and men were sent to look for Daniel and his friends to put them to death.

COMMENTARY

1 The date formula sets the story in the second year of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (ca. 604 BC). A close reading of Daniel reveals that Daniel’s training in the wisdom guild lasted for three years (1:5). Yet the court story relating the dream of the king includes Daniel among the “condemned” wise men as though he has already graduated and received his appointment as a member of the royal advisers (2:14). While a definitive answer to the chronological conundrum remains elusive, plausible harmonizations have been constructed offering possible solutions to the problem. For example, Wood, 48–50, places the event within Daniel’s three-year apprenticeship (thus explaining why Nebuchadnezzar needs an introduction to Daniel; cf. Fewell, 55). Young, 56, however, prefers to understand the three years of training as including “partial years” and thus reconciles the internal chronology of chs. 1 and 2 according to the following chart:

Year of Daniel’s Training	Reign of Nebuchadnezzar
first year	year of accession
second year	first year
third year	second year

As in the case of 1:1, the date formula here serves simply to set the stage for the narrative. Specifically, the scene unfolds in the royal court of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. More important, the date formula is a feature of ancient historiography and serves to mark the king’s dream as an actual event within the time-space continuum of ancient history.

2–3 The text uses the term “wise men” (v.12) as an umbrella term used to designate the cadre of royal advisers serving in the Babylonian court. These men are “professionals” trained in the literature and lore of the Babylonians—especially divination and other magical arts. The wise men represent several different learned guilds or classes of priest-scholars, including “magicians, enchanters [conjurers, NASB], sorcerers and astrologers [Chaldeans, NASB].”

These and other classes of priests specializing in the occultic arts had prominent roles in the royal courts of the ancient world as advisers to the king (see Miller, 72–73, 78–79; BBCOT, 732). Collectively these experts “were the political consultants, trend spotters, and religious gurus of the day” (Longman, 77). Generally speaking, the OT condemns these classes of priest-scholars and the specialized occultic art(s) practiced by the adherents of each guild (e.g., Ex 22:18; Dt 18:10–11; cf. Lucas, 69–70; Smith-Christopher, 50).

This distinguished group of wise men has been assembled because King Nebuchadnezzar has had a troublesome dream (v.3; cf. the more literal rendering of the NASB, “my spirit is anxious to understand the dream”). In the ancient world, dreams were considered a significant medium of insight for the future, and Babylonian religion especially encouraged the seeking of such portents through dreams and unusual circumstances of everyday life. The success of a king and the welfare of his kingdom were often dependent on the correct interpretation of an unusual dream or some bizarre natural event. Longman, 77, observes that it is in dreams and the interpretation of dreams “that Babylonian religion and Daniel’s faith come closest, and perhaps that is why God chose to speak to Nebuchadnezzar in this way. . . . After all, God had spoken through dreams in the past (e.g., Gen 28:10–22; 1Kgs 3:5), but not through other means of divination so popular in Babylonia.” Naturally, this similarity by no means discounts the profound difference between prophecy as the product of divine initiation and revelation, and divination, which is the result of human initiation or manipulation (cf. Longman, 77).

4 The response of the astrologers to the king marks the beginning of the Aramaic section of this book (2:4b–7:28). The NIV interprets the word “Aramaic” (Heb. ʾ^arāmît) so as to give the impression that the astrologers speak to the king in Aramaic. It would be only logical for the wise men to communicate in a language common to all, since the wise men are a racially and ethnically diverse group. Miller, 80, prefers to understand the phrase “in Aramaic” as a parenthetical notation identifying the shift in the text to the written language of Aramaic. Still others consider the word a gloss based on the manuscripts found at Qumran (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 138). On the composition of Daniel in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, see Languages in the Introduction.

The acclamation “O king, live forever” (v.4a) is standard court etiquette. According to Baldwin, 87, the expression has a long history in the royal circles of the ancient world and reflects the association of the king with both the god(s) and the community he rules. The address was apparently part of Hebrew royal protocol as well (cf. 1Ki 1:31).

The astrologers speak for the group of wise men (v.4b), perhaps because the interpretation of dreams is their special domain of expertise (cf. BBCOT, 732). They are confident of reaching an understanding of the dream’s meaning both because of their training in the mantic arts and also because they have access to dream manuals that documented historical dreams and their aftermath, explained the significance of dream patterns, and decoded the various dream symbols (cf. Baldwin, 87; Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 92–93).

5–9 The threat of punishment or the promise of reward is a characteristic feature of the court contest (cf. Goldingay, 36). The dismemberment of enemies (“have you cut into pieces,” v.5) has parallels in the annals of the ancient Near East (Montgomery, 146; cf. Ezr 6:11). The brutal practice is in keeping with the cruelty of the Babylonians reported elsewhere in this book (i.e., execution by incineration and exposure to wild beasts; cf. 3:15; 6:7).

The king makes an impossible demand of the wise men—they must first describe the content of the king’s dream and then interpret it (vv.5, 9). The king’s request is so unreasonable that it fails to register fully with the wise men, thus prompting them to repeat their standard exchange with him almost automatically (i.e., “let the king tell his servants the dream and we will interpret it”; vv.4, 7). Baldwin, 87–88, attributes Nebuchadnezzar’s extraordinary challenge to the fact the he has forgotten the details of the dream. It is more likely that the king does remember the dream, and as Lucas, 70, observes, his concern stems from the need for a reliable interpretation.

This would especially be the case if A. L. Oppenheim (“The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 [1956]: 219) is correct in his understanding that for the Babylonians “the telling of the dream content removes the influence it has on the person who experienced it” (suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar assumes a “worst-case scenario” for the implications of his dream). Yet the king’s lapse of memory fails to account for his lethal rage (v.12) in reaction to the wise men’s appeal to relate the contents of the dream so they might interpret it (so Longman, 77). The tone and context of v.8 implies that the king fears manipulation at the hands of the diviners—and not without good reason (cf. Lucas, 70–71, on King Sennacherib’s separation of the royal diviners into groups to reduce collusion among the experts).

10–13 Three times the king has asked his wise men the content and interpretation of his dream (vv.3, 5–6, 8–9). Finally the astrologers (who speak for the group throughout the scene) admit defeat. The task lies beyond the capabilities of mortals (v.10a); the king’s answer requires revelation from the gods, and they do not cohabit with humanity (v.11b). Beyond this, there is no precedent for such a request from any king previous to Nebuchadnezzar—implying the king is both unrealistic and unfair (vv.10b–11a). This response infuriates the king, and he decrees the execution of all the wise men of Babylon (v.12).

The king’s fury with his sages may be explained on two counts. First, their accusation of unfairness impugns the king’s sense of justice (a royal epithet for Mesopotamian kings) and hence is construed as an act of insubordination. More telling is the self-indictment of the royal advisers since, as Miller, 83, has recognized, they have admitted that only “the gods knew the dream, [so] whoever revealed the dream must be in touch with gods.” This is exactly what the professions of magician, enchanter, sorcerer, and astrologer claim as their exclusive domain—communication with the spiritual world. Without thinking, the wise men have more or less confessed to the king that they are charlatans—deserving of death for deceiving the king!

The indirect response of the diviners to the king sets the stage for Daniel, since he and his three friends face the same death sentence decreed for all the wise men of Babylon—despite the fact that they are unaware of the consultation Nebuchadnezzar held with his royal advisers (v.13).

NOTES

2–3 Oppenheim, 238, links the word for “magician” (, ḥarṭōm) to the dream interpreters of the Assyrian royal court. The term as used in Daniel seems to identify those skilled more broadly in the occultic arts, including divination, sorcery, exorcism, astrology, and the like (see Notes on 1:20).

The “enchanter” or conjurer (, ʾaššāp) belonged to a priestly class adept at communication with the spirit world, including the realm of the dead (see Notes on 1:20).

The term for “sorcerer” (, m^ekaššēpâ) is associated with the Akkadian word kašāpu and connotes those skilled in charms and incantations. The sorcerer engaged in the magical arts and witchcraft involving the use of spells, incantations, amulets, charms, and other specialized rituals to manipulate natural powers and to influence circumstances, events, people, and the gods—whether for good or evil (cf. NIDOTTE, 2:735–38).

The last category of wise men, the “astrologers,” translates the Hebrew word (kaśdîm; GK 4169; Aram. , kaśdāy; Akk. kaldu/kašdu, or “Chaldeans” [so NASB]). The term may be understood in two ways in Daniel: either to refer to the Babylonian people generally in an ethnic sense (see Notes on 1:4), or (in a more restricted sense) to delineate a special class of Babylonian priest-scholar. In this context the kaśdîm are clearly part of the cohort of royal advisers serving King Nebuchadnezzar. No doubt their expertise includes but is not restricted to astrology, as evidenced by the use of the term elsewhere in Daniel (e.g., 2:5, 10; 4:7; 5:7, 11). (For an extensive treatment of the terms related to the mantic arts as presented in the OT, see NIDOTTE, 3:945–51.)

13 Lacocque, 35, suggests that the massacre of the royal wise men has already begun when Daniel intervenes (cf. Wood, 55). It is more likely that Miller, 84, is correct in understanding the force of the participle as conveying “imminent action” (i.e., the wise men are about to be executed). The assertion of Montgomery, 149–50, that the execution of the wise men would have been a “formal execution under the proper officials and in the appointed place” supports the idea that the executions have not yet begun.

2. Daniel’s Intervention and God’s Intervention (2:14–23)

14When Arioch, the commander of the king’s guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact. 15He asked the king’s officer, “Why did the king issue such a harsh decree?” Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel. 16At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that he might interpret the dream for him.

17Then Daniel returned to his house and explained the matter to his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 18He urged them to plead for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that he and his friends might not be executed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven 20and said:

“Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;

wisdom and power are his.

21He changes times and seasons;

he sets up kings and deposes them.

He gives wisdom to the wise

and knowledge to the discerning.

22He reveals deep and hidden things;

he knows what lies in darkness,

and light dwells with him.

23I thank and praise you, O God of my fathers:

You have given me wisdom and power,

you have made known to me what we asked of you,

you have made known to us the dream of the king.”

COMMENTARY

14–16 The second scene of the court story recounts the problem of interpreting the king’s dream and reports Daniel’s intervention on behalf of the condemned wise men (including himself!) and God’s subsequent intervention on behalf of Daniel. Anderson, 14, considers this section of the narrative (vv.13–23) as secondary, since it may be omitted without causing any interruption in the story, given the smooth transition from v.12 to v.24. He fails to appreciate, however, the importance of the absence of Daniel and his friends during the king’s first interview with the wise men as part of the narrator’s literary technique (cf. Lucas, 71–72). More significant is the role Daniel’s doxology (vv.20–23) plays as a theological touchstone underscoring the foil between the silence of the Babylonian gods of heaven (v.11) and the God of heaven, who reveals deep and hidden things (vv.18, 22).

Arioch is apparently in the process of rounding up the king’s wise men from various locations in the palace complex for formal sentencing and then mass execution. Daniel’s boldness in speaking to the king’s royal guard was witnessed earlier in the food-rations episode (1:11–12). In addition to boldness, the narrative indicates that Daniel speaks with “wisdom and tact” (“discretion and discernment,” NASB, v.14). According to Wood, 56, Daniel acts “wisely and in good taste,” befitting the gravity of the situation. His question about the king’s harsh decree (“urgent,” NASB, v.15) indicates that Daniel and his friends have not been party to the initial encounter between the king and his royal advisers. Daniel displays similar boldness in approaching the king, no doubt through the mediation of Arioch (though this is unspecified).

Interestingly, Daniel asks the king for time to seek an interpretation for the dream (v.16), when previously the king accused the wise men of stall tactics (v.8). Daniel is most persuasive with the king, but we are given no details as to the exchange between Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar. We can only assume that Daniel’s request for a stay of execution of the wise men is granted because he assures the king that “his God, Yahweh, could reveal the dream and its interpretation to him within a reasonable interval” (Miller, 85). Clearly, God continues to bestow favor on the Hebrew captive Daniel in his encounters with his Babylonian overlords (cf. Seow, 40). As a wise man Daniel has great power (Pr 24:5a), and thus he is able to appease the king’s wrath (Pr 16:14). Goldingay, 55, sums up by saying that Daniel “embodies both the experiential wisdom of a statesman and the revelatory wisdom of a seer.”

17–19 Upon receiving the king’s approval for a period of time to seek an interpretation of the king’s dream, Daniel immediately enlists the aid of his three companions (v.17). He exhorts them to “plead for mercy” (“request compassion,” NASB, v.18a). Daniel and his friends know that Yahweh is a God of compassion (Ex 34:6), and they know from the accounts of Joseph’s experience in Egypt that God alone reveals the meanings of dreams (Ge 40:8; 41:16). Thus they have good cause to believe in the power of urgent petition in prayer to God.

The eventual goal or outcome of this petition is the deliverance of Daniel and his friends from the chief executioner and the royal decree that has placed all the Babylonian wise men on “death row” (v.18c). Not coincidentally, these elements of prayer and faith in the God of heaven, who both rules the nations and reveals mysteries, later become standard “equipment” in the “survival kit” for Jews of the Diaspora seeking deliverance from the persecution and suffering of Gentile oppression (cf. Tob 3:11, 16; 8:4; Jth 4:13; 8:31; 11:17).

The epithet “the God of heaven” is used four times in ch. 2 (vv.18–19, 37, 44) and may be a shortened form of the title for God found in the context of oath-taking in Genesis 24:3, “the God of heaven and the God of earth” (cf. 24:7, “the God of heaven,” and “the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth,” Ge 14:22). The expression “the God of heaven” is recognized as a divine title characteristic of the postexilic period and appears frequently in Ezra and Nehemiah (e.g., Ezr 1:2; Ne 1:4; see the discussions in Russell, 44; Lucas, 72). The name speaks to God’s transcendence and supremacy over all that is temporal and earthbound. This is why he knows the deep and hidden things and what lies in darkness (v.22).

20–23 Daniel’s natural and immediate response to God’s revelation is praise. His doxology or hymn of descriptive praise celebrates the reality that God is God. According to Russell, 44, the hymn is probably an original composition by Daniel appropriate to the setting but in keeping with Israel’s hymnic tradition (cf. Seow, 41). The specific attributes of God’s character extolled include his wisdom and power (v.20), sovereignty (v.21), grace and compassion evidenced in his willingness to share this knowledge with his servants (v.22), and mercy in hearing and responding to their prayers (v.23).

Daniel’s name is associated with the gift of wisdom throughout the book. Yet Russell, 40, notes that this wisdom “is not just technical know-how or professional skill or academic learning or native ability. It is penetrating insight, God-given and God-inspired, that sees meaning in mysteries and light in darkness because it knows God is there and that God is in control.” Daniel fully recognizes this “wisdom” is not his own but instead a gracious gift bestowed by the God of wisdom (vv.20–21). The NT’s exhortation to petition God for wisdom indicates that he still imparts this divine gift to those who seek it (Jas 1:5).

Daniel’s doxology is especially important for the Hebrews of the Babylonian captivity for its affirmation of God’s sovereign rule of the nations, the efficacy of prayer offered to the God of power and wisdom, and the reminder of continuity they share within the covenantal promises made to Israel by the God of their ancestors (v.23; on Daniel’s hymn see Russell, 43–46).

NOTES

14 The meaning of the name “Arioch” is uncertain, though the king of Ellasar (an unknown region, perhaps of southern Mesopotamia) from a much earlier time period bears the same name (Ge 14:1). In Judith 1:6 the name “Arioch” is ascribed to the king of the Elymeans. His title as “commander of the king’s guard” is better understood as “chief of the royal executioners” (see discussion of the Aram. word , ṭabbaḥ, in Collins [Daniel, 158]; Miller, 84).

The word for “wisdom” (Aram. , ʿēṭâ; GK 10539) is related to a root word meaning “to counsel” and “means that which is the cause or product of good counsel” (Wood, 56). The Aramaic word (ṭ^eʿēm, “tact” [NIV], or “discretion” [NASB]) literally means “taste” and “speaks of appropriateness, suitability” (Wood, 56).

15 Montgomery, 156, contends that in this context the Aramaic word (ḥṣp, “harsh”; GK 10280) should be understood as “urgent” or “hasty” (so NRSV; or possibly “peremptory”; cf. Collins, Daniel, 158; Hartman and Di Lella, 135). Since the root ḥṣp denotes “harshness” or “stiffness,” Miller, 84–85, prefers the translation “harsh” (cf. Goldingay, 31, “severe”) and argues that the translation “hasty” is derived from the use of ḥṣp in 3:22.

18 Specifically, Daniel urges his friends to invoke “the God of heaven” with the intent to bring resolution to the “mystery” of the king’s dream (v.18b). The Aramaic word (rāz, “mystery”; GK 10661) is a Persian loanword meaning “secret” and is a key term in ch. 2 (occurring eight times; vv.18–19, 27–30, 47[2x]). When used with the verb (glh, “to reveal,” v.19; GK 10144), the expression becomes almost a technical term for divine revelation required for matters beyond human comprehension (cf. Lucas, 72). Redditt, 55, notes that the secrets revealed by God have implications for the “days to come” (v.28), infusing the word “mystery” with eschatological overtones in ch. 2.

20 The word “wisdom,” (ḥokmâ; GK 10266), speaks of knowledge and the capacity for proper decision-making (Wood, 60). The term also denotes skill (both innate talent and learned expertise) and experience that reflects maturity (cf. NIDOTTE, 2:130–34). As it relates to God, wisdom is a divine attribute (Job 9:4; Ro 16:27) and a means by which his presence and activity in the world are demonstrated (Pr 3:19–20; Eph 3:10). Daniel understands that wisdom is God’s domain, and he may graciously grant wisdom to his servants who seek the gift in prayer (v.23; Job 12:13).

3. Daniel Describes the Content of the King’s Dream (2:24–35)

24Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him.”

25Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means.”

26The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”

27Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, 28but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these:

29“As you were lying there, O king, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. 30As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.

31“You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

COMMENTARY

24–28 The parenthetical reference to Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, links this court story with ch. 1 (1:7). Lucas, 72, has identified two functions for this section of the narrative (vv.24–28). First, these verses advance the plot of the story by increasing the tension and expectation on the part of the audience awaiting the content and interpretation of the dream. Second, they emphasize the supremacy of the God of the Hebrews over the Babylonian gods. Daniel reports with confidence to Arioch, the chief executioner, that he can interpret the king’s dream and thus bring about the stay of execution negotiated with Nebuchadnezzar earlier (v.16).

Longman, 79, has observed that Daniel’s injunction to Arioch not to execute the wise men of Babylon (v.24) is an example of love for one’s enemies mandated in the OT (Ex 23:4–5) and advocated by Jesus (Lk 6:27). Arioch seems to claim credit for finding someone to interpret the king’s dream (v.25), though Porteous, 43, suggests his self-important haste and enthusiasm for presenting Daniel to the king may have stemmed from the fact that he is now spared the task of carrying out his grim assignment of executing all the royal wise men.

Arioch secures an audience for Daniel with the king, (v.25), and in keeping with royal protocol Daniel does not speak until the king has addressed him (v.26). The king’s question is tinged with incredulity. Unlike Arioch, Daniel does not mention himself in his response to the king’s question. In fact, Miller, 89, states that his initial statement may seem rather discouraging since the content and the interpretation of the dream lie beyond the divining arts of the several classes of royal advisers (v.27a). Daniel acknowledges his understanding as supernatural insight obtained by direct revelation and attributes his knowledge concerning the king’s dream to a “God in heaven who reveals mysteries” (v.27b; confirming the royal sages’ observation that such revelation could only come from “the gods,” 2:11).

Explicit in Daniel’s testimony is the superiority of God’s wisdom over all the accumulated lore and learning of the “magical arts” practiced by the king’s wise men. Implicit in Daniel’s confession is the supremacy of Yahweh of the Hebrews over the gods of the Babylonian pantheon worshiped by the royal wise men. The king learns that his dream has both immediate and future ramifications.

29–35 Daniel not only interprets the king’s dream but also recalls its occurrence by rehearsing for the king his troubled mind as he lay in his bed on the night of his dream (v.28). Beyond this, Daniel makes it clear that this divine communication was expressly intended for the king (v.29). And it is only in the reiteration of this fact that Daniel humbly mentions himself as a “player” in the unfolding drama of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (v.30). Daniel discloses that the king saw an image of human likeness of enormous proportion and frightening luminosity. The term used here signifies that the image was a statue (Aram. ṣ^elēm), not an idol. According to Seow, 43, the word is used for images erected to represent the presence of gods and kings.

The awesomeness of the statue in the king’s dream was due both to its extraordinary size and dazzling brilliance (v.31). The statue had an identifiable human form, but it is unclear initially whether it represented a god or a human king. The statue was most unusual in its composition, cast in four different metals. The head was made of gold, the chest and arms were made of silver, the belly and thighs were made of bronze, the legs were made of iron, and the feet were made of an amalgam of iron and clay (v.32–33). The various metals suggest a combination of preciousness and strength in inverted emphasis as the statue is viewed from head to feet. That is, as one moves down the sequence of metals in the statue, its splendor dissipates (from gold to iron and clay) but its hardness increases (from gold to iron).

No doubt, more frightening for the king was his vision of the obliteration and disintegration of the statue by a rock that marvelously transformed into a gigantic mountain that filled the entire earth (vv.34–35). All this was accomplished without any human intervention (v.34a). The reference to the rock that was cut, “but not by human hands,” probably means “that it originates by divine will and power” (Seow, 44; cf. 8:25; Job 34:20 for similar expressions). The stone struck the statue at its weakest point, the feet made of iron and clay at its base, and the entire image was broken to pieces. The disintegration of the statue like chaff blown away by the wind (v.35) recalls the prophecy of Isaiah in which the nations who oppressed Israel are reduced to chaff and blown away by the wind (Isa 41:15–16).

The motif of the mountain that fills the entire earth echoes the vision of Isaiah in which the “mountain of the LORD’s temple” (i.e., Mount Zion and Jerusalem) will be glorified among the nations (Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–2; cf. Lacocque, 49, 124). For an elaboration of the temple motif in Daniel 2, see G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 144–53.

NOTES

27 The list of royal advisers given here differs slightly from the earlier delineation of the several guilds skilled in the occultic arts of ancient Babylonia (vv.2–3). The Aramaic term for “wise man” or sage, (ḥakkîm; GK 10265; Heb. , ḥākām), derives from the root word meaning “to be wise, wisdom” in the OT (see Notes on v.20). The word refers generally to those individuals who possess both physical skill (related to “arts and crafts”) and intellectual knowledge; in this context it denotes a class or guild trained formally in the “wisdom tradition” of the age (cf. NIDOTTE, 2:132–33). The “enchanter” (, ʾaššāp) and the “magician” (, ḥarṭōm) are discussed above (see the Notes on vv.2–3). The Aramaic term “diviners” (, gāz^erîn) appears for the first time (cf. 4:4; 5:7, 11). The root word, (gzr), means “to cut,” a term that refers generally to “fate determiners” (cf. Collins, Daniel, 161).

28 The expression “days to come” (v.28) is deliberately vague and “refers not strictly to the end of the world, but rather to what will happen ‘one day,’ a goal for history some time ‘in the future’” (Baldwin, 91). Contrast the more sweeping understanding of the expression by Archer, 47–48, signifying all the events subsequent to Nebuchadnezzar’s lifetime and including the establishment of the fifth kingdom (= the millennial age).

4. Daniel Interprets the King’s Dream (2:36–45)

36“This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39“After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy.”

COMMENTARY

36–45 Redditt, 59, notes that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream ends as ominously as it began; meanwhile, the audience is still waiting in suspense for some understanding of the significance of the colossal statue. Daniel proceeds to interpret the king’s dream, thus fulfilling the second half of the monarch’s demand to relate both the content and the meaning of the dream (v.6).

Daniel’s statement “we will interpret” may be a veiled reference to the God of heaven, who has made the dream and its interpretation known to Daniel (so Miller, 92). Daniel’s choice to leave God unnamed here is in keeping with his earlier reference to God as the “revealer of mysteries” (v.29). It is clear from v.28, however, that Daniel infers his own God, the God of Israel and the God of heaven. It is also possible that Daniel’s “editorial we” may be an inclusive reference to his three fellow Hebrew captives, since they too prayed fervently for God’s revelation in the matter of the king’s dream (vv.17–18). This may account for the report at the end of the story of their elevation to administrative appointments within the province of Babylon (v.49).

Daniel’s interpretation of the dream suggests that the statue represents a human king, since Nebuchadnezzar is identified as the “head of gold” (v.38). Seow, 44, understands Daniel’s address to Nebuchadnezzar as “king . . . the king of kings” (v.37) as a summary of the substance of his interpretation of the dream. The statue represents human kingship bestowed by an even greater king—Daniel’s “God of gods and Lord of kings” (v.47). This is a lesson Nebuchadnezzar will relearn as a result of his dream about a tree in ch. 4. King Nebuchadnezzar and Babylonia are given preeminence in Daniel’s interpretation, but only as “a microcosm of the true power, an earthly reflex of a greater power that is the source of ‘the kingdom [or, better, ‘kingship’], the power, the might, and the glory’” (Seow, 44). King David understood this reality (1Ch 29:10–13), as did the apostle Paul (cf. 1Ti 6:15).

	Roman View	Greek View 1	Greek View 2
Head of Gold	Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian Empire)	Babylonian Empire	Babylonian Empire
Chest/Arms of Silver	Medo-Persian Empire	Median Kingdom	Medo-Persian Empire
Belly/Thighs of Brass	Greek Empire	Persian Empire	Alexander’s Kingdom
Legs of Iron/Clay	Roman Empire	Greek Empire	Alexander’s Feet of Iron (plus successors)

The rest of Daniel’s interpretation of the statue in the king’s dream outlines a succession of kingdoms rising and falling subsequent to the Babylonian Empire (vv.39–43). The second kingdom, the arms and chest of silver, will prove inferior to Babylonia (v.39a). The third kingdom, the belly and thighs of bronze, will be distinctive for its worldwide rule (v.39b). The fourth kingdom, the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay, will be singularly ruthless and destructive—yet it will be a divided kingdom mixing strength and weakness (vv.40–43).

Beyond the identification of the head of gold as the Babylonian Empire, there is no interpretive consensus as to the identity of the remaining three kingdoms described in Daniel’s understanding of the dream. Two basic approaches have emerged in the scholarly debate: the Greek view (with variation) and the Roman view. The chart below outlines the patterns of historical identification of the corresponding body parts of the statue:

Generally, conservative scholars hold the Roman view (supported by the NT; see below), while mainline scholars tend to opt for one of the Greek views. The issue of predictive prophecy versus ex eventu prophecy is the fault line (see the Introduction: Authorship and Literary Form). Yet the interpretive situation is not clearly represented by this kind of reductionism. Not all mainline scholars hold to one of the Greek views, and there are scattered examples of recent evangelical scholarship’s forwarding of arguments for the Greek views.

Beyond this, disagreement persists as to the interpretation of certain details, such as the blend of iron and clay in the statue’s feet as representing mixed marriages of some sort (e.g., political marriages between the Seleucids and Ptolemies; cf. Collins, Daniel, 170) or the significance of the ten toes of the statue (e.g., Miller, 97–99, equates the “toes” with ten kingdoms). (See on the “interpretive confusion” surrounding the analysis of Da 2 the helpful discussion in Longman, 81–82.)

Beyond the immediate historical situation of the Babylonian Empire, the revelation of the dream and its interpretation in ch. 2 is not intended as a precise schematic of world history. As Longman, 82, writes, Daniel’s point is “something more general, but also more grand: God is sovereign, he is in control despite present conditions.” This is in keeping with the tenor of Daniel’s doxology, as kingship belongs to God and “he sets up kings and deposes them” (v.21). Moreover, Daniel’s audience only needs to know that a series of kingdoms will rise and fall before God’s kingdom breaks into history. Such information serves to allay any fears that God’s promises about Israel’s restoration after the Babylonian exile have failed (see Theological Emphases in the Introduction).

Mainline scholars, especially those associating Daniel with later Jewish apocalypticism, detect the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism in the four-empire scheme in the dream of the statue in ch. 2 and the vision of the four beasts in ch. 7 (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 163). Lucas, 75–76, finds the Persian thesis weak and sees the formative influence on the imagery of Daniel 2 in Greek literature, especially Hesiod’s myth of the four ages represented by the same metals of declining value (gold, silver, bronze, iron; cf. Porteous, 44–45; Lacocque, 48; BBCOT, 733–34). Quite apart from the speculation about possible Persian or Greek influence on the imagery of the dream narrative, the simple fact remains that history knows of four major Near Eastern/Mediterranean empires intervening between Daniel and the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth. (See the discussion of the visions of chs. 7 and 8, since they elaborate the theme of successive world empires as a prelude to the kingdom of God.)

Daniel concludes his interpretation of the king’s dream by announcing that a fifth kingdom will emerge during the rule of the fourth kingdom represented by the legs of iron and feet of an iron-clay mix (v.44). Like the first of the four kingdoms of the statue, this kingdom is identified by name—the kingdom of the God of heaven (v.44a). Unlike the four successive empires represented by the statue of a human king, this kingdom is completed unrelated to the statue symbolizing earthly kingship (i.e., “the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands”; v.45a). God’s kingdom will crush and obliterate all earthly kingdoms (vv.35, 44a). It will be an eternal kingdom built on the ruins of failed human kingship (v.44b), and it will be universal—filling the whole earth (v.35).

REFLECTION

John the Baptist announced that the kingdom of God was near (Mt 3:2), and Jesus claimed to have inaugurated the kingdom of God in his earthly ministry of teaching and healing (Mt 4:23; 12:28; Mk 9:1; Lk 9:1–2). Thus the NT supports the identification of the fourth kingdom (made of iron) as the Roman Empire. What’s more, Jesus clearly stated that his kingdom was entirely other—not of this world (Jn 18:36). But more important than the historical identification of the regimes alluded to in the king’s statue-dream is the message of this court story for Daniel’s audience. Seow, 47, keenly observes that hope for the Hebrew exiles lay in their divine election and the fact that they were heirs of God’s promises to Abraham—the rock from which they were cut (Isa 51:1–2).

In addition, two more timeless principles may be extracted from the interpretation of the statue-dream. First, human kingdoms are transient, but God’s kingdom is eternal—so we set proper priorities (Mt 6:33) and we “invest” wisely (Mt 6:20; cf. Longman, 82–83). Second, the declining value of the successive metals in the composition of the statue speaks of the increasing “inferiority” of the successive earthly empires (v.39). There is a degenerative principle inherent in the cumulative impact of sin upon humanity, yet humanity deceives itself with delusions of progress and advancement (cf. Ro 1:22; see Porteous, 45–46, who acknowledges the degenerative principle but regards it as secondary). This explains the numerous biblical admonitions to beware of sins of pride and arrogance (Pr 16:18; Jas 4:6), and the equally numerous biblical exhortations to contrition and humility (Isa 57:15; Mt 11:29). Jesus’ message still has currency: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mk 1:15).

5. The King’s Response to Daniel’s Interpretation (2:46–49)

46Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”

48Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. 49Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.

COMMENTARY

46–49 The narrative concludes with Nebuchadnezzar’s paying homage to Daniel (v.46), offering tribute to Daniel’s God as the “God of gods” (v.47), and appointing Daniel to an administrative post over the province of Babylon (v.48). It should also be noted that Daniel did not forget his friends, and at Daniel’s request they, too, were given administrative appointments by the king in the province of Babylon (v.49).

The report of the worship offered to Daniel by the Babylonian king has raised numerous questions for biblical commentators. Was the king indeed worshiping Daniel in his prostration and presentation of ritual offerings? Why would Daniel accept such worship? As a result, some interpret the silence of the text about Daniel’s response as tacit rejection of Nebuchadnezzar’s worship since in the context Daniel repeatedly gives God the glory and credit for the interpretation of the dream (cf. Miller, 103). Others admit the embarrassment of the report and understand Daniel’s acquiescence as tantamount to the acceptance of worship—revealing the humor of the narrator (so Porteous, 51) or the “humanness” of Daniel (cf. Anderson, 26). Redditt, 61, sees the king’s response of worship offered to Daniel as clear evidence that he failed to comprehend what had really transpired, thus casting aspersion on his confession in v.47.

Lucas, 77, contends that the king’s response is understandable in that he treats Daniel as the representative of the deity. Goldingay, 61, agrees, noting that “to experience God at work leads to an awareness of who God is . . . he offers the only possible response, an acknowledgement of the revealer—God and his agent.” Furthermore, Longman, 83, reminds us that vv.46 and 47 must be read together: “Daniel is honored because of what his God has done, not because of what he has done.” Lastly, Russell, 57, calls us to enter the spirit of the story, since “as a representative of God’s faithful people Daniel sees in the king’s obeisance a fulfillment of the promise of Scripture ‘that kings shall see and arise: princes, and they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet’ (Isa 49:7, 23).”

Smith-Christopher, 56, isolates in this last section of the story of the king’s dream a theme that recurs in the subsequent court stories of Daniel (and to a lesser degree in the court stories of Joseph and Esther), namely, “the transformation of the king.” Nebuchadnezzar’s transformation is seen in his confession that Daniel’s God is supreme among all the deities and overlord of all earthly kings (v.47). His mini-doxology draws attention to the theological import of ch. 2—the sovereignty, power, and wisdom of God as “the revealer of mysteries” (vv.22, 48). The king’s confession provides evidence of his “transformation” in that “to acknowledge God as Master among kings is to qualify the meaning of his own kingship in a revolutionary way, as to acknowledge him as God among gods is radically to qualify the ascription of divinity to other deities” (Goldingay, 61). The king’s testimony lauding Daniel’s God, however, does not mean he has “converted” to the religion of the Hebrews. “As a polytheist he can always add another god to the deities he worships” (Baldwin, 95).

The king is lavish in his rewarding of Daniel, in keeping with his earlier promise of rewarding the one who could reveal the dream and its meaning (v.6). Daniel receives royal gifts and is appointed “ruler over the entire province of Babylon,” as well as chief among the wise men (v.48). Daniel’s promotion sets up a rivalry with the other wise men that will surface in the later court stories. Daniel is stationed in Babylon as a member of the royal cabinet (“remained at the royal court”; v.49). At Daniel’s request his three fellow Hebrew captives are given administrative posts that move them out of Babylon as “subordinate officers” in the provincial districts (cf. Montgomery, 183); alternatively, Lacocque, 54–55, understands that Daniel relinquishes his political charges for the sake of his friends. The references to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego set the stage for the next court story in Daniel—the account of the image of gold and the fiery furnace (ch. 3).

NOTES

46 Nebuchadnezzar’s prostration before Daniel is more than just the reversal of royal protocol (i.e., a Gentile king bowing before a Hebrew sage as though he were a royal figure). Hartman and Di Lella, 150, note that “one cannot evade the difficulty by supposing that the ‘worship’ (, s^egid) was merely civic homage: the words ‘sacrifice’ (, minḥâ) and ‘incense’ (, nîḥôaḥ, literally, ‘pleasant-smelling offerings’) are strictly religious terms, borrowed in fact from the Hebrew ritual vocabulary.”

48 As ruler over the province of Babylon, Daniel would have the role of supervisor of the various prefects of the administrative districts of the province. His position as “chief prefect” (NASB) over the wise men designates a position of high rank, though the Aramaic term itself, (s^egan), is an Assyrian loanword signifying royal officials of various rank.

49 Literally Daniel remains, (ṭ^eraʿ malkāʾ, “on call”) at the “king’s gate” since “the ‘king’s gate’ is where the king’s retainers wait to be summoned to duty” (Seow, 49; cf. Est 2:19, 21; 3:2–3).

C. The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace (3:1–30)

OVERVIEW

Daniel 3 continues the “court stories” section of the book (chs. 1–6). It forms part of a distinct literary unit within the book that includes chs. 2–7 (see Overview to 2:1–49). Goldingay, 68, regards the story as midrash (or stylized rabbinic interpretation) of Isaiah 41:1–3 composed during the Antiochene period. Collins (Daniel, 193) challenges the midrashic approach to the story since there is no explicit reference to the Isaianic text and “the story hardly exemplifies ‘walking through’ fire.” Porteous, 55, labels the narrative a martyr story, but the miraculous deliverance of the heroes from death seems to overturn the basic motif of this form-critical approach to literary genre (see Redditt, 65, on the story as “wisdom court legend” and Hartman and Di Lella, 160, on the story as “witness literature”; cf. Smith-Christopher, 66–67). The narrative is best understood, from a literary perspective, as a court story of conflict given the fact that “here the Judeans encounter the animosity of their enemies in a way that they have not yet experienced” (Longman, 97; cf. Lucas, 86).

The fantastic details of the court story (e.g., the size of the golden image, the intense heat of the furnace) and the element of the miraculous (i.e., the preservation of the three Hebrews in the midst of roaring flames of the furnace) have prompted a majority of biblical interpreters to view the story metaphorically rather than historically (e.g., Anderson, 27–29; Gowan, 62–63; Towner, 48). Yet Baldwin, 100, points out that the Colossus of Rhodes stood seventy cubits high (ten cubits taller than Nebuchadnezzar’s statue or stele) and that both the OT (e.g., Isa 40:19; 41:7) and the Greek historian Herodotus refer to the practice of overlaying images with gold plating. For Smith-Christopher, 62, the issue of whether or not Nebuchadnezzar ever erected such a statue is beside the point. “The point was that he could—he could amass that much gold; he could assemble the leaders; he could demand obedience and threaten horrible punishment—and this is the plausibility (i.e., a political plausibility) that the stories of Daniel are based on.”

The plot of the story in ch. 3 may be outlined in seven scenes. According to Lucas, 86, the chiastic structure of the narrative calls attention to the words spoken by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to Nebuchadnezzar. They are the only words uttered by these Hebrew civil servants of the king and are thus marked as the key scene in the story. The structure of the story identified by Lucas may be outlined as follows:

A Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to worship the golden image (vv.1–7)
- B The Jews accused (vv.8–12)
  - C The Jews threatened (vv.13–15)
    - D The Jews confess their faith (vv.16–18)
  - C´ The Jews punished (vv.19–23)
- B´ The Jews vindicated (vv.24–27)
A´ Nebuchadnezzar’s decree honoring the Jews and their God (vv.28–30)

Lucas, 87, has observed that from the literary perspective of characterization, Nebuchadnezzar is the only “full-fledged” character in the story. That is, he is the one who speaks, acts, shows emotion, and initiates the action of the story. By contrast, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are “type characters” in the story, even a “composite type character” since they speak and act as one (cf. Lucas, 96). In fact, in this chapter Towner, 47, sees Nebuchadnezzar as moving “toward the model of a persecuting tyrant,” though he admits it is an open question whether or not the king should be viewed as a “persecuting divinized tyrant” since it is unclear whether the statue of gold was an image of a god or the king himself. This question notwithstanding, recent commentators have mined effectively Nebuchadnezzar’s despotism for contemporary application to issues of political power, oppression, colonialism, and ethnic hatred (e.g., Anderson, 28–29; Smith-Christopher, 65–66; Gowan, 71–73).

The court story of the golden statue shares features with ch. 6 in that both are stories of conflict with heroes put in peril because of professional jealousy but finally delivered through divine intervention. Other literary features in the golden-statue narrative include what Towner, 47–48, calls “the amazing redundancy . . . and constant repetition” of the story (perhaps a stylistic device to heighten tension as well as entertain?), the propensity for lists (e.g., the repeated lists of Babylonian officials, vv.2–3, 26; the repeated lists of musical instruments, vv.5, 7, 10, 15), and the comedic impact of the humorous tone set by the narrator’s use of irony and repetition (cf. Towner, 48; Lucas, 87; Goldingay, 67–68).

The setting for the conflict is the plain of Dura, located a few miles south of the city of Babylon (v.1). The event precipitating the conflict was King Nebuchadnezzar’s decision to erect a golden image and issue a decree that on threat of death, all of his subjects must fall down and worship the image of gold (vv.5–6). The plot of the story hinges on the accusation against the three Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, by fellow astrologers for their failure to bow down and worship the golden image set up by the king (vv.8–12). The Babylonian astrologers appear to have been motivated both by professional jealousy and ethnic prejudice, given their statement; “but there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon” (v.12).

The three Hebrew courtiers remain stalwart in their conviction to worship God alone, confessing faith in God whether or not they are spared death in the king’s furnace (vv.16–18). In a fit of rage Nebuchadnezzar has the three Hebrews thrown into the blazing oven, only to witness their miraculous deliverance (vv.24–27). As a result the king praises the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and promotes his civil servants within the ranks of the provincial officials (vv.28–30).

Most commentators agree that above all else the court story of the golden image and the fiery furnace is a polemic against idolatry (e.g., Russell, 60–61). The court story is also an exhortation to the Hebrews in exile to remain loyal in their worship of Yahweh, even at the risk of martyrdom by those who would seek to impose idolatrous worship on them. The deliverance of the three Hebrew sages demonstrates that God has both the will and the power to intervene and rescue his faithful servants—a theological reality attested by Nebuchadnezzar himself (v.28; cf. Towner, 57)!

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox editions of Daniel insert two additions to ch. 3: after v.23, the Prayer of Azariah (3:24–45) and then the Song of the Three Young Men (3:46–90). The conclusion of the story as known in the Hebrew Bible (3:24–30) then follows the two additions (3:91–97). The Prayer of Azariah includes confession of sin (after the pattern of Da 9), an acknowledgment of God’s justice, and a plea for deliverance. The Song of the Three Young Men begins with a description of the furnace (3:46–50), transitions to a liturgical hymn extolling the glory and power of God (3:51–56), and concludes with a liturgical exhortation to all creation to join in praising the Lord (3:57–90). On these Additions to Daniel see the Introduction.

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Golden Image (3:1–7)

1King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, ninety feet high and nine feet wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2He then summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come to the dedication of the image he had set up. 3So the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials assembled for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up, and they stood before it.

4Then the herald loudly proclaimed, “This is what you are commanded to do, O peoples, nations and men of every language: 5As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace.”

7Therefore, as soon as they heard the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp and all kinds of music, all the peoples, nations and men of every language fell down and worshiped the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

COMMENTARY

1–7 No time frame is assigned to this episode, but most likely the event occurs early in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as a test of loyalty to the new administration (cf. Miller, 107). The date given for the incident in the LXX (the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign) is borrowed from Jeremiah 52:29 as a possible rationale for the unusual royal ceremony (cf. Porteous, 57). The story features Daniel’s three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, with no mention of Daniel himself. Daniel’s absence at the “Festival of the New Babylon” may be explained by the reference to his role as an adviser in the royal court (2:49). Either Daniel has relinquished his administrative authority for the profit of his friends (so Lacocque, 55), or his duties are of such a highly specialized nature that he is required to remain at the royal palace (so Miller, 108).

At issue in the story is a giant image erected by Nebuchadnezzar (v.1) and his subsequent decree that all of his royal subjects must bow down and worship the image (vv.6, 11). The term “image” (Aram. ṣ^elēm) simply refers to a statue or stela of some sort. The extreme height (ninety feet) and narrow width (nine feet) of the image suggests the form of an obelisk or totem pole (e.g., Porteous, 57; see BBCOT, 734). Commentators debate whether the image represents the king or a deity of the Babylonian pantheon (cf. Goldingay, 70). Wallace, 64, rightly points out that the matter is left intentionally vague. The statue could represent whatever anyone wants it to symbolize, whether the spirit of Babylon, the king himself, one of the traditional deities (e.g., Marduk according to Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 109), or even a syncretistic focal point for the various religions of Nebuchadnezzar’s realm. The fact that the statue is overlaid with gold may indicate that Nebuchadnezzar has been influenced by Daniel’s interpretation of the king’s statue-dream identifying him as the “head of gold” (2:28; cf. Young, 84).

The “plain of Dura” (v.1) may have been a site near the city wall (since the Akk. duru refers to a “walled place”; cf. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 111), but more traditionally the location has been identified with Tulul Dura (“tells of Dura”) some sixteen miles south of Babylon (cf. Miller, 111). Seven classes of state officials are named (vv.2–3), presumably rank-ordered in terms of importance (cf. Miller, 111; see Notes). These administrators represent the many peoples, nations, and languages of the king’s wide domain. The lesser officials and civil servants are addressed collectively in the umbrella phrase “all the other provincial officials” (v.2). Goldingay, 70, has noted that “in many cultures, music draws attention to state and religious processions and ceremonials.”

Six types of musical instruments are specifically mentioned as examples of the array of instruments comprising the royal band (v.5; see Notes). None of the instruments named were used in Hebrew worship, and most are designated by loanwords from other languages. Rhetorically, the repetition of the musical component of the event (vv.5, 7, 10, 15) attests the grandiose nature and cosmopolitan character of the ceremony (cf. Porteous, 57; Wallace, 64; Miller, 114). Theologically, the repetition of the foreign terms for the musical instruments “imply a double judgment on the alien, pagan nature of the [idolatrous] ceremony Nebuchadnezzar is inaugurating” (Goldingay, 70).

Ceremonies marking the installation of statues or the dedication of buildings are well documented in the ancient world (cf. Montgomery, 197–98). This ceremony probably included the taking of a loyalty oath as Nebuchadnezzar solidified his rule over the vast Babylonian Empire (cf. BBCOT, 735). The word “dedication” (vv.2–3; Heb. ḥ^anukkâ; GK 10273) means to inaugurate or put into use for the first time (and implies some ongoing function for the object so dedicated; cf. TDOT, 5:19–23). The same term is used in the OT for the dedication of the altar (Nu 7:10–11), the temple (1Ki 8:63), and the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Ne 12:27; cf. Seow, 53). “Hanukkah” is the name applied to the Feast of Rededication of the temple after its cleansing by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:56, 59). Later the NT records that Jesus was in the temple during the Feast of Dedication or Hanukkah (Jn 10:22).

The role of the herald (v.4) as public crier and messenger or courier is known in the biblical world (e.g., Est 3:13; cf. Collins, Daniel, 183); according to Wiseman (Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 111), “the use of the herald for public proclamations was a long-standing Babylonian tradition.” The king’s decree is probably announced to the assembly in the Aramaic language, the lingua franca of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire (so Miller, 113). Burning (v.6) is a well-attested penalty for the punishment of criminals throughout the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek periods (cf. Jer 29:22; see Goldingay, 70; Collins, Daniel, 185–86). Nebuchadnezzar’s “blazing furnace” (v.6) may have been a beehive-type oven or kiln with an opening at the top (into which the men were thrown) and a door at the side (permitting a view to the inside of the furnace; cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 161), or a tunnel-shaped brick furnace (so Baldwin, 103). While such details lend authenticity to narrative, the story itself has little to do with “the Festival of the New Babylon” (see Wallace, 63–64) and everything to do with idolatry and apostasy—the very cause of the Hebrews’ exile to Babylonia (see Russell, 59–61; cf. Dt 29:25–28).

NOTES

2 Seven classes of officials are assembled for the dedication of Nebuchadnezzar’s gigantic golden image. These royal administrators represent the people of the Babylonian Empire and presumably are listed in order of importance. Two of the seven titles are of Akkadian origin, while the other five terms are of Persian origin. According to Lucas, 89, since none of the titles are Greek, “the form in which we have this story comes from the Persian period.”

The Aramaic term “satraps” (, ʾ^aḥašdarp^enayyāʾ) is a loanword from the Persian hšatra-pāvan, meaning “protectors of the kingdom.” These officials were in charge of the largest divisions of the empire. The Aramaic term “prefects” (, signayyāʾ) is a loanword from Akkadian (šaknu), and these high-ranking officials were directly responsible to the satraps. The Aramaic word for “governors” (, paḥ^awātāʾ) is a loanword from Akkadian (pihātu, pahātu), and these rulers were heads of regions or provinces within the larger satrapies. The Aramaic word (ʾ^adargāz^erayyāʾ) is from the Old Persian (handarza-kara) and signifies “advisers” (“counselors,” NASB). The Aramaic word for “treasurers” (, g^edāb^erayyāʾ or gizbārayya [cf. Ezr 7:21]) is probably derived from the Persian ganzabara. The Aramaic word for “judges” (, d^etāb^erayyāʾ, from the Persian dātabara) means literally “law bearers.” The Aramaic word for “magistrates” (, tiptāyē ʾ) is probably derived from the Persian tayu-pata (“police magistrate”; so Hartman and Di Lella, 157). See the discussions in Hartman and Di Lella, 156–57; Miller, 111–12.

4 The Aramaic word for “herald” (, kārôzāʾ) is often understood as a loanword from the Greek (kēryx; cf. Montgomery, 202; Lacocque, 57). More recent scholarship associates the term with the Old Persian ʿrausa (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 157). In either case, the derivation of the terms has long been disputed and is inconclusive as evidence for the dating of the book of Daniel (cf. Collins, Daniel, 183).

5 The names of the musical instruments belong to a technical vocabulary, and most are foreign terms used in secular contexts. At least three of the instruments are loanwords from Greek. The Aramaic word for “lyre” (, qît^erôs) is derived from the Greek kithara (which gives rise to the English words “zither” and “guitar”; cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 157). The Aramaic term for “harp” (, p^esantērîn) is derived from the Greek word psaltērion. The term usually rendered “pipes” (or “bagpipe,” NASB), (sûm^epōnyâ), is derived from the Greek word symphōnia (lit., “accompanying sound”; cf. Collins, Daniel, 184; Goldingay, 65 [n.5.f.], who notes the word may refer to a double-flute, drums, or bagpipes).

The “horn” (Heb./Aram. , qeren) is widely attested as a musical instrument in the biblical world. The “flute” (Aram. , mašrôqî) is related to the root word š^eraq, meaning “to hiss, whistle” (cf. Miller, 113). The “zither” (or “trigon,” NASB; Aram. , śabb^ekāʾ) was a triangular instrument with four strings and is probably of non-Semitic origin (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 157). See J. Braun, Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 32–35.

The word “worship” (Heb./Aram. , sgd; GK 6032/10504) occurs four times in Isaiah (Isa 44:15, 17, 19; 46:6), “always in conjunction with [the word ] ḥwh, always of false worship; it reinforces the idea of obeisance” (NIDOTTE, 3:222). The root word sgd in the Aramaic of Daniel 2:46; 3:5–28 is used “instead of, and as an equivalent of, [the word] ḥwh” (NIDOTTE, 3:222). The repetition of the root word sgd in Daniel 3:5–28 highlights true worship versus false worship as the key theme of the chapter.

2. The Three Hebrews Accused (3:8–12)

8At this time some astrologers came forward and denounced the Jews. 9They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever! 10You have issued a decree, O king, that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music must fall down and worship the image of gold, 11and that whoever does not fall down and worship will be thrown into a blazing furnace. 12But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—who pay no attention to you, O king. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up.”

COMMENTARY

8–12 The heart of a good story is gripping conflict moving toward resolution. In this episode of the court stories of Daniel the conflict centers on what Wallace, 65, calls “the miracle of resistance.” The gist of the story is the refusal of three Jewish nonconformists to bow in worship before the towering image erected by King Nebuchadnezzar on the plain of Dura (v.12). The “plot” conflict for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego occurs at multiple levels in the story, including character conflict in the form of rivals who bring accusations against them before the king (v.9), the spiritual and moral issue of participating in false worship (v.10), and physical conflict since their disobedience to the king’s decree puts them under the threat of death by incineration (v.11).

Apparently the king does not see the three rebels left standing at the sound of the musical fanfare signaling the worship of the golden image, given the throng of royal officials at the event. The failure of the Hebrews to bow upon command, however, is duly reported to the king by fellow astrologers (“Chaldeans,” NASB; v.8). The ambiguity of the term “astrologer” (NIV) or “Chaldean” (NASB; Heb. kaśdîm; Aram. kaśdāy) has been noted (see Notes on 1:4.). The accusers are either Babylonian officials generally or members of a special guild of diviners or priestly class of wise men. It seems likely that the more technical understanding of the term as a reference to the professional guild of royal astrologers should be read in this context.

These rival astrologers come forward, have a formal audience with the king, and “denounce” the Hebrews (“brought charges,” NASB; v.8). Russell, 65, notes that the word “denounce” is an idiom (Heb. ʾākal + Aram. q^eraṣ = “slander, backbite”) that literally means “ate their pieces, or as we might say, they made mincemeat out of them!”

The astrologers are careful to observe protocol in the customary address, “O king, live forever!” (v.9), perhaps insinuating that their Hebrew counterparts also violate royal protocol, since later they address Nebuchadnezzar by name but not by title (cf. v.16). The astrologers also politely remind the king of his own edict with obvious intention—the destruction of these Hebrew rivals (v.10). These “worship police” have two motives: ethnic or racial distrust (if not hatred) given the references to the “Jews” (vv.9, 12), and professional jealousy given the reference to the status of the three Hebrews as rulers over the affairs of the province of Babylon (v.12; cf. Seow, 54, who observes that the Chaldean diviners are provoked both by professional jealousy and xenophobia).

The behavior of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is both an act of treason (since they do not serve the king’s gods, v.12) and insubordination (since they refuse to obey the king’s edict and bow to the golden image, v.12). The display of such disloyalty is deserving of death. Though the rival astrologers do not ask for the execution of three Hebrews, the request is implicit in their reminder to the king of the consequences for failure to comply with his decree (v.11).

Russell, 65, comments, “informers and the totalitarian state go hand in hand.” But the role of the accusers may be less sinister, since self-interest tends to dictate behavior in politics—whether ancient or modern. As Porteous, 59, notes, the accusation made by the accusers is not a false one, “since the men had undoubtedly refused to conform to the king’s order, but it was definitely malicious.” The rival astrologers may have had hope of some personal advantage in their display of zeal for the honor of King Nebuchadnezzar. In either case, the accusation of the three Hebrews by their Babylonian counterparts “highlights the dilemma of the Diaspora Jew who wished to get involved in the social and political life of a pagan city” (Lucas, 90).

3. The Three Hebrews Stand Trial before Nebuchadnezzar (3:13–18)

13Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So these men were brought before the king, 14and Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up? 15Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”

16Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. 18But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

COMMENTARY

13–18 The astrologers’ charge against the three Hebrews incites the king’s rage (v.13). The NIV’s “furious with rage” renders the hendiadys “in fury [Aram. r^egaz] and rage [Aram. ḥ^amâ]” (cf. NASB’s “in rage and anger”). Previously, the king’s rage had been directed against these same royal astrologers because they were unable to interpret his dream (2:12). Now these courtiers have managed to turn Nebuchadnezzar’s anger toward their Hebrew counterparts, with little thought that it was a Hebrew who earlier spared their lives (2:24).

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are summoned to appear before the king, who queries them, almost in disbelief, on the veracity of the accusation against them; but he waits for no reply (vv.13–14). The king actually parrots the charge of the accusers, indicating the deep impact the report of open defiance has on him (v.14; cf. v.12). To his credit, Nebuchadnezzar does not simply act on the testimony of the accusers. Instead, he offers the three Hebrews another opportunity to obey the decree and bow down in worship before the golden image (v.15). The reason for the king’s leniency is unclear, though time and money have been invested in these civil servants and they have proven useful to the king on an earlier occasion (cf. 2:17, 49).

The king offers to repeat the same ritual of musical fanfare leading to prostration in worship before the image (v.15). By means of this test he will determine the guilt or innocence and ultimately the fate of his three servants, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Compliance with the king’s edict ensures survival and presumably ongoing service as provincial officials. Disobedience carries the same threat of punishment previously announced in the royal decree—execution by incineration in the crematory oven (cf. vv.6, 11).

A new twist is added to the confrontation with the king’s postscript, “Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” (v.15). Montgomery, 208, notes that the construction of the king’s statement is emphatic (lit., “What [at all] god is there?”). The question implies that the image represents a Babylonian deity of some sort. It also suggests that Nebuchadnezzar assumes he possesses absolute authority—that he alone is sovereign in this situation. The king’s rhetorical question echoes the challenge brought by the envoys of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against King Hezekiah of Judah and the city of Jerusalem: “Has the god of any nation ever delivered his land from the hand of the king of Assyria?” (2Ki 18:33; cf. Isa 36:18). As Russell, 66, observes, the temptation to be like God is as old as Eden (cf. Ge 3:5).

The NIV’s rendering “we do not need to defend ourselves before you” is interpretive (v.16; cf. NASB, “we do not need to give you an answer”). The text says nothing about presenting a defense before the king. Literally, the verse indicates that there is no need “to give back” or “to return” (Aram. twb) to the king on the matter. That is, the young men “feel no compunction to give a comeback, as it were, regarding ‘this matter,’ namely, the theological challenge raised by Nebuchadnezzar” (Seow, 56).

Lacocque, 63, understands the response of the young men as discourteous, even arrogant (since they address Nebuchadnezzar by name, but not by title). For him the demands of the genre of martyr story require the courageous stand of God’s faithful in the face of persecution. Yet the title “O king” is found in the subsequent speech of the three Hebrews addressing Nebuchadnezzar (cf. vv.17–18). Instead, according to Miller, 119, the response of the three men is not a proud reply but a “firm reply” spoken out of deep conviction concerning their faith in God and their understanding of true worship. Seow, 56, confirms this when he comments: “Rather, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego do not feel compelled to respond to the king’s taunt at all. Courage is not really the issue, for a ‘comeback’ is simply not theirs to give.”

The conditional clauses in vv.17–18 make for difficulty in translation. Some ancient versions simply ignore the conditionality of the confession of the three Hebrews and render the verse as a creedal affirmation of divine deliverance (e.g., LXX and Vulgate; cf. Lucas, 90). According to Seow, 56–57, modern translations ignore the “if, if not” point-counterpoint structure of vv.15 and 17–18 “to circumvent the implied conditionality of God’s being and power.” Thus the NIV reads, “the God we serve is able to save us . . .” (v.17; cf. NASB, “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us . . .”). More literally the clause reads, “if he is able, the God we serve . . .” (cf. NJB).

Likewise, the verbal form (Aram. y^ešêzib) in the latter part of the verse carries the force of a future tense (“he will deliver us”) or a modal force (“he may deliver us”). As Miller, 119, has observed, the modal force of the verb (“he may rescue us”) better fits the context of the passage: “Although no doubt existed in the minds of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego about the ability of God to deliver them, they humbly accepted the fact the God does not always choose to intervene miraculously in human circumstances.” The conditional response by the three Hebrews is a rhetorical refocusing of Nebuchadnezzar’s challenge away from themselves and their submission to the king’s edict to whether or not God is present and willing to deliver his servants. Seow, 57, aptly summarizes:

. . . by structuring the dialogue in this point-counterpoint fashion, the narrator indicates that the decisive issue at hand is really not the courage of the Jews. . . . Rather, the critical question is the presence and power of God: inasmuch as a God exists who is able, it is entirely up to God to deliver, if that be the divine will.

Quite apart from the interpretation of v.17, commentators generally agree “that the point being made here is that the youth’s primary reason for standing firm is not their confidence that God will deliver them, but their adherence to the first two commandments of the Decalogue. They will not honour any god other than the God of Israel, and they will not worship any idol” (Lucas, 91). Thus the response of the three Hebrews to Nebuchadnezzar is both a confident statement of faith in the God of Israel and a solemn declaration of independence from royal authority. Their bold expression of civil disobedience to the law of the king is not without consequences (cf. Smith-Christopher, 64). Like the apostles of Jesus later in the NT era, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego accept full responsibility for their decision to defy human authority and obey God (cf. Ac 4:19–20; 5:29).

4. The Three Hebrews Sentenced (3:19–23)

19Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 20and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. 21So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. 22The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 23and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.

COMMENTARY

19–23 For the second time in this court story the king is “furious,” or more literally “filled with wrath” (NASB; cf. v.13). The three Hebrews experience firsthand that “a king’s wrath is a messenger of death” (Pr 16:14). The NIV interprets the altering of the king’s facial expression toward Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (so NASB) as a change in attitude toward his three Hebrew provincial officials. This change of countenance may suggest some previous affinity for the young men, but then again, it may simply mean that the king has lost his calm demeanor, “dropped his kingly control and fell into a rage so that his very visage was contorted” (so Russell, 68; cf. Smith-Christopher, 64 on the king’s “hysterical rage”).

Every precaution is taken to prevent the escape of the resisters so as to make them a public example of those who defy the decree of the king. The heating of the oven “seven times hotter than usual” (v.19) is a proverbial expression or an “idiomatic way of saying ‘as hot as possible’” (Hartman and Di Lella, 162; cf. Baldwin, 105). The cohort of handpicked “strong men” from the army is probably as much a public show of power as it is a precaution against the escape of the insurgents. Likewise, the binding of the prisoners is symbolic of royal authority as well as standard procedure to facilitate the job of the executioners (cf. Smith-Christopher, 64; Collins, Daniel, 188).

Goldingay, 71, remarks that the king is so eager to implement the death sentence that the executioners are not even permitted time to strip the prisoners. The curious nature of the clothing worn by the three Hebrews has generated much scholarly discussion. It seems likely that the garments were ceremonial dress worn over their ordinary clothes (so Porteous, 60). Collins (Daniel, 188–89) concludes that the first two garments in the list (Aram. sarbāl = “robe, mantle, shirt”?; and Aram. paṭṭîš = “coat” or “trousers”?) cover the upper body and the legs (yet these are interchanged in the NASB’s “trousers . . . coats”), while the third term certainly refers to a hat or some other type of head-covering (Aram. karb^elâ). The final term of the series (Heb. l^ebûš) is understood as an inclusive term for clothing. Naturally, the detailed reference to the peculiar garments of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego only serves to heighten the extraordinary nature of their deliverance, since even their clothing ends up unsinged by the fire (v.28).

The king’s urgency to execute the insubordinate Hebrews by incineration means that the military guards are unable to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves from the intense heat of the blazing furnace (v.22). Perhaps as a sign of what’s to come, the three bound Hebrews are not thrown into the fire in compliance with the king’s command (v.23); rather, they fall through the opening at the top of the furnace into its roaring flames. According to Lucas, 92, in “court tales” the tormentors often suffer the same torture they plan or inflict on their victims (e.g., 6:24; Est 7:9–10). As Porteous, 60, observes, however, “it is scarcely adequate poetic justice that the executioners are killed by the heat instead of the informers.” This may be why the Greek Additions to Daniel known as the Song of the Three Young Men (along with the Prayer of Azariah), which are inserted at this point in the narrative, report that the flames of the furnace leap out some seventy-five feet and burn some of the Chaldeans (or rival astrologers; 3:48 LXX).

Commentators are quick to point out the mixture of “mockery and miracle” in the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image and the blazing furnace as evidence of the legendary character of the court story (e.g., Russell, 69; cf. Porteous, 60, on the element of “caricature” in the story). Yet the report of the “absurdity of the king’s rage” (Smith-Christopher, 64), which results in the death of his own executioners, only reinforces the truth that “a quick-tempered man does foolish things” (Pr 14:17). All the more reason why “the One enthroned in heaven laughs” at the plotting of the kings of the earth (Ps 2:4).

5. The Three Hebrews Delivered (3:24–27)

24Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?”

They replied, “Certainly, O king.”

25He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

26Nebuchadnezzar then approached the opening of the blazing furnace and shouted, “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out! Come here!”

So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, 27and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.

COMMENTARY

24–27 King Nebuchadnezzar expects to witness the incineration of three insubordinate provincial officials. Rather than seeing three men burned to death in the roaring flames of the furnace, the king observes four men alive in the midst of the fire (v.24). His startled response to the sight is captured with verbs of immediate action, as he “leaped to his feet in amazement” (or “he was astounded and stood up in haste” [NASB], v.24).

In his bewilderment the Babylonian monarch requests and receives verification of simple math—yes, three bound men were tossed into the crematory oven. How is it that the king counts four men, unbound at that, in the flames of the furnace (v.25)? What’s more, it appears that only Nebuchadnezzar beholds this bizarre apparition (cf. Lucas, 92; Seow, 58). In a way this is fitting, since earlier he is the one who raises the challenge to the three Hebrews as to what god could possible rescue them from his authority (v.15).

Incredibly, not only are the men unharmed, they are actually walking around in the fire. The king even describes the fourth man as “a son of the gods” (v.25). According to Montgomery, 214, the expression “is given language entirely genuine to Aramaic Paganism” (rather than terms borrowed from Babylonian mythology or Greek ideology). The phrase indicates the king understands the fourth figure in the furnace to be a divine being—a member of the class of gods (not an angel as Lacocque, 65, and Porteous, 60, suggest). “For a polytheist like Nebuchadnezzar, this would mean [the divine being was] a member of the pantheon” (Lucas, 92).

The extraordinary turn of events prompts the king to act as his own agent—having lost all sense of his royal station. In an almost humorous scene, the king invites his prisoners by name to come out of the blazing furnace (v.25), into which he has them thrown only moments earlier! Presumably the kiln has a door at ground level in addition to the hole in the top of the structure. Nebuchadnezzar identifies them as “servants of the Most High God” (v.26). Whether fully conscious of the fact or not, the king tacitly recognizes what lies at the heart of the episode concerning the image and the furnace—the defiance of the Hebrews in submitting to the royal edict to bow to the golden image is due precisely to their status as servants of the God of Israel. The title “Most High God” occurs in Genesis 14:18–24, where it is used both by Melchizedek (a Canaanite priest-king) and Abram. The epithet is often used for God by non-Hebrews (cf. Baldwin, 106); “for a pagan it would mean the highest among many gods” (Lucas, 93).

Upon emerging from the fire, Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego are examined by the other ranking officials present at the ceremony (v.27). These civil servants of Nebuchadnezzar are witnesses to the miraculous deliverance of the three servants of the Most High God as they are not harmed, singed, or scorched by the fire (cf. Miller, 124, on the more literal meaning of each of these terms). In fact, there is not even the faintest trace of the smell of fire on them!

The Greek version expands the narrative at this point and explains how an angel descends into the furnace in response to Azariah’s prayer, drives out the flames, and causes a cool damp breeze to blow, thus preserving the lives of the three Hebrew faithful (3:49–50, LXX). The comments of Seow, 59, are insightful at this point. He notes that the Aramaic text “preserves the mystery and wonder of divine presence in the furnace” contrary to the expanded Greek version. Beyond this he observes that the narrator clearly states that the four individuals are not walking in the furnace but amid the fire. Thus the text does not indicate that the three men are rescued from the fire. “Rather, the story is that they are with a divine being in the midst of the fire. They encounter divine presence in the middle of the fire.” Typical of the ironic twist often found in the biblical narrative, the fire, an instrument of death for the Babylonian king, is a source of life for the three Hebrews, since fire is one symbol of divine presence for the God of Israel (Ex 3:2; 13:21; Dt 4:11–12; Ps 18:8).

6. Nebuchadnezzar’s Proclamation (3:28–30)

28Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. 29Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.”

30Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

COMMENTARY

28–30 Goldingay, 75, comments that the deliverance of the three Hebrews from Nebuchadnezzar’s crematory furnace is but one of three climaxes to the court story. The second is his praise of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and his decree legitimizing the religion of the Hebrews in his realm. The third climax is his promotion of the three young men within the ranks of provincial officials of Babylon (v.30).

The king’s blessing or doxology echoes his earlier praise of Daniel’s God (2:47) and anticipates the later proclamation by King Darius lauding the God of Daniel (6:26–27). The doxology is a brief descriptive praise psalm that pronounces a blessing and then offers rationale for the statement (cf. Collins [Daniel, 191], though he rejects the authenticity of the three blessings of the God of Israel by foreign kings).

Nebuchadnezzar credits the rescue of the three Hebrews to an “angel” (GK 10417; Heb. mal ʾāk; NIV, NASB). Since the expression “a son of the gods” (v.25) identifies a divine being, the word “angel” here is better understood as a “divine messenger” or “divine agent” (cf. Miller, 125; Collins, Daniel, 191). The king’s statement also juxtaposes the defiance of the three Israelites with their “trust” in God (v.28). The rejection of idolatry and trust in Yahweh is basic to Israel’s covenantal relationship with God (Ps 31:6, 14; Isa 26:3–4; Jer 17:5, 7). Here the story of the three men in the blazing furnace bears out the truth of the wisdom tradition that says, “whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe” (Pr 29:25).

The NIV’s “then the king promoted . . .” (v.30) is somewhat interpretive. Literally, the king “caused Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to prosper” (NASB; cf. “showered favours,” NJB). At the very least, the three Hebrews receive material goods as rewards for their staunch conviction in their God and his ability to deliver them.

In another example of dramatic irony, the representatives of the peoples of the world as a whole are assembled, not to bow before a golden image, “but to witness how God himself may act when people bow before him alone” (Goldingay, 75). By royal decree King Nebuchadnezzar formally recognizes the God of Israel and the religion of the Hebrews as a legitimate religious ideology in his vast kingdom (v.29). The king himself is probably not a “convert” to the religion of Israel, as Russell, 70, admits. Yet he does offer royal protection to those who are (or may become) worshipers of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as a result of their miraculous deliverance. Those who violate the king’s decree are subject to the same punishment (i.e., “cut into pieces and their houses . . . turned into piles of rubble”) as that threatened against the astrologers for their failure to interpret his dream (2:5).

Two facts about the episode impress the Babylonian king: the willingness of the three Hebrews to die rather than compromise their religious integrity, and the firsthand experience of seeing that “no other god . . . is able to deliver in this way” (NASB; v.29). Both facts point to theological truths that cross the Old and New Testaments. First, whether implicit in Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Ge 22; cf. Heb 11:17–19) or explicit in Paul’s exhortation to the Colossian church (Col 3:3), the righteous know that they have died and their life is hidden with Christ in God. Second, the Bible emphatically declares that there is no other God apart from Yahweh of Israel (Isa 43:10–13; 45: 5–6, 14, 18, 21–22; Jude 25).

The court story of ch. 2 portrays a God who can reveal the mysteries of heaven, while the court story of ch. 3 shows that there is a God who miraculously intervenes in individual and national life (cf. Goldingay, 75). Both portrayals of Israel’s God are important, lest the Babylonians assume that their conquest of Judah meant their gods were greater than the God of the Hebrews. By miraculously delivering his three servants from incineration in the king’s furnace (along with the other miracles in the book of Daniel), “Yahweh made it clear to Nebuchadnezzar (who blatantly challenged Yahweh’s power by his actions in this incident) and to the entire world that Judah’s defeat was not because their God did not exist or was anemic” (Miller, 126).

D. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Tree (4:1–37 [3:31–4:34])

OVERVIEW

Daniel 4 continues the “court stories” section of the book (chs. 1–6). For a discussion of this larger literary context within the book of Daniel, see comments on 2:1–13 and 3:1–7.

Goldingay, 82, detects in the story elements of court contest tale, legend, and aretalogy (i.e., the promotion of traditions concerning the mighty deeds or virtues of a god or hero figure), although these features are less prominent here than in ch. 2. The dominant literary form of this passage is that of dream report, including an introduction, report of the dream, interpretation, and fulfillment of the dream. According to Goldingay, the first-person point of view maintained through much of the narrative is natural to the dream report (cf. Longman, 118). Collins (Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 61) identifies several subsidiary literary forms in Daniel 4, including doxology (v.3), tale of court contest (vv.4–8), and symbolic vision (vv.9–16). He classifies the overall genre of this chapter, however, as that of “epistle” (as opposed to “letter”) since the correspondence is a public proclamation. Lucas, 103, summarizes by noting that the author of the story has taken the form of the basic “tale of court contest” genre and modified it by inserting a dream report and then presents the entire narrative in the form of a royal letter “in order to give it a note of special authority.”

The account reports the Babylonian king’s second dream and his third miraculous encounter with the God of Israel. The contents of ch. 4 may be outlined as follows: Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation and doxology (vv.1–3); the report of the king’s dream (vv.4–18); the interpretation of the dream (vv.19–27), the fulfillment of the dream (vv.28–33), conclusion and doxology (vv.34–37). Redditt, 75–76, adapts Shea’s chiastically structured outline of ch. 4 and offers a more comprehensive schematic of the narrative:

Prologue. Proclamation. Doxology 1 (4:1–3)
- Dream reception by the king (4:4–6)
- Instructions: King to Daniel (4:7–9)
- Dream recital: King to Daniel (4:10–17)
- Dialogue: King and Daniel (4:18–19)
- Dream interpretation: Daniel to the king (4:20–26)
- Instructions: Daniel to the king (4:27)
- Dream fulfillment upon the king (4:28–33)
Epilogue. Restoration. Doxlogy 2 (4:34–37)

Older biblical scholarship questioned the unity of the chapter on the basis of the shifts in the narrative from first person to third person and back again (e.g., Montgomery, 223). More recently Goldingay, 82, has countered that the alternation between the first-person and third-person voice in the narrative is “dramatically appropriate,” while Hartman and Di Lella, 174, have observed the importance of the third-person voice as a literary device to demonstrate the king’s incapacity to give an account of what happened to him while he was out of his mind. (On the first-person voice of the story, see Lucas, 103, and Longman, 118.) The story of Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream is undated, but some scholars suggest that the episode occurs near the close of his reign, since there is peace throughout the realm (v.4) and his great building projects appear to stand complete (v.30; cf. Miller, 127).

The plot of the fourth court story has parallels to ch. 2 in that King Nebuchadnezzar has a troubling dream and appeals to the royal magicians for an interpretation—but to no avail. Like ch. 2, the story makes use of suspense to heighten audience interest (see Lucas, 102; cf. Russell, 73). For example, tension mounts because of the delay caused by the search for an interpreter of the dream (vv.6–7). Daniel then enters the scene at the opportune moment (v.8), although his task is made easier since this time the king remembers his dream and seeks only an interpretation. Finally, Daniel’s reluctant interpretation and admonition (vv.19–27) raises the question of King Nebuchadnezzar’s response: Will he be alarmed (v.19)?

The gist of Daniel’s interpretation of the dream about a great tree is the threat of divine judgment directed at Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and a call to repentance (vv.24–27; cf. Longman, 122, who states “the moral of the story is the last word: ‘Those who walk in pride he is able to humble’”). The dream was fulfilled twelve months later when the king was afflicted with a bizarre mental illness causing him to abandon the throne and behave like an animal in the wild (v.33). Only when the king “raised [his] eyes toward heaven” (v.34) was he healed of his insanity and restored to the throne of Babylonia (v.36). Nebuchadnezzar “published” his experiences as testimony to the power, glory, and justice of the God of Israel as the King of Heaven (v.37).

According to Baldwin, 107, “the king tells the story against himself to explain how he came to capitulate to the God of the captives he had brought from Judea.” Porteous, 65, has noted that the theme of ch. 4 is summed up in declaration that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of the earth and that he gives them to whomever he desires (v.25). The doxologies forming an envelope for the royal epistle (vv.3, 37) highlight God’s sovereignty and confirm this general observation. Towner, 59, goes further by condensing the narrative into a “story about two sovereignties . . . juxtaposing the strength and power of the greatest of all human sovereigns . . . with the strength and power of the Most High.” For him the story pitting the kingdom of Babylon against the kingdom of heaven pivots on the term “grow strong” (Aram. tqp; vv.11, 20, 22; cf. v.3).

The account of King Nebuchadnezzar’s rebuke, madness or illness, exile, and restoration has several extrabiblical parallels (cf. Goldingay, 83–84). These include a story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness or possession written by the Greek historian Megasthenes (ca. 300 BC?) as reported in Eusebius; a fragmentary cuneiform text that makes reference to a mental disorder that afflicted Nebuchadnezzar; the story of a similar divine chastisement, illness, and humiliation in the wisdom literature known as “The Babylonian Job”; and the reference to a malady from which Nebuchadnezzar died as mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus (cf. Goldingay, 83–84; Lucas, 106–7).

In addition, a second series of nonbiblical sources concerns Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. According to these accounts Nabonidus was led by a dream to abdicate the throne and spend ten years living in the oasis village of Tema in Arabia. Conflicting inscriptions report that Nabonidus was exiled as punishment for his neglect of Marduk and other deities of the Babylonian pantheon. The “Prayer of Nabonidus” among the finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls has fueled a growing consensus that Nabonidus’s absence from the Babylonian throne actually lies behind the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in Daniel 4 (cf. Lucas, 106; Smith-Christopher, 72). In this (fragmentary) document, Nabonidus testifies to being afflicted by God with a physical ailment for seven years in Tema. Despite praying to his gods, he receives healing only after a Jewish exorcist admonishes him to honor the name of God Most High (cf. Goldingay, 84).

Scholars have held a wide variety of views on the relationship between these various biblical and nonbiblical sources and the historical traditions they represent. Lucas, 107, is even more guarded, acknowledging that the literary relationship between the extrabiblical stories and Daniel 4 is complex but unclear, and he warns that some caution is necessary before assuming stories about Nabonidus were transferred to Nebuchadnezzar, since little is known from Babylonian sources about the last thirty years of Nebuchadnezzar’s life. Longman, 117, concludes that the surface similarities of these stories “are overwhelmed by the differences . . . it seems more reasonable to believe, if we follow the sixth-century BC dating for Daniel, that they were written not before but in light of the story of Daniel 4.”

The variance between the versification of the Aramaic and English versions of the text of ch. 4 has been noted in brackets. (On the history of the chapter division see Lucas, 107–8.) For a discussion of the differences between the Greek versions and the Aramaic text of Daniel 4, see Montgomery, 247–49; Lucas, 104–5; Smith-Christopher, 72; and the “Critical Notes” in Lacocque, 69–89.

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Proclamation and Doxology (4:1–3 [3:31–33])

1King Nebuchadnezzar,

To the peoples, nations and men of every language, who live in all the world:

May you prosper greatly!

2It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me.

3How great are his signs,

how mighty his wonders!

His kingdom is an eternal kingdom;

his dominion endures from generation to generation.

COMMENTARY

1–3 These opening verses are cast in the form of a royal letter, or more properly an epistle since the content of the letter is intended for public consumption (cf. Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 61). Baldwin, 107, correctly observes that the king’s proclamation is not an edict, for no law is enacted. Goldingay, 82, considers the introductory verses of the chapter a type of “royal encyclical.” The format of the address identifying author and audience, along with a salutation, is the standard epistolary formula in Aramaic letters from the postexilic period (cf. Seow, 64–65). The form of a royal letter gives the content a special degree of authority, used in this remarkable case “to testify to a higher authority than the human king” (Goldingay, 82).

Nebuchadnezzar’s appeal to a “universal audience” is typical of both Assyrian and Babylonian claims to rule the entire world (cf. Miller, 129). The reference to “peoples, nations and men of every language” (v.1a) previously occurred in the message of the king’s herald to the assembly gathered before the great statue on the plain of Dura (3:4). The new element introduced in the royal letter is the addendum “who live in all the world” (v.1b). The expression is clearly hyperbole for the entire realm of King Nebuchadnezzar, yet commentators have noted “subtexts” in the author’s terms, such as “world (e.g., v.1), “land” (e.g., v.10), “earth” (e.g., v.11), and “heaven” (e.g., vv.11–12). For instance, Lucas, 102, has suggested the pair of antithetical terms (i.e., “earth” and “heaven”) conveys a double meaning emphasizing both the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and the depth of his humiliation. Seow, 65, understands the juxtaposition of the terms throughout the chapter as a spotlight on the issue of earthly power (the power of Nebuchadnezzar) and heavenly power (the power of God; cf. Goldingay, 87, who concurs that the central concern of ch. 4 is the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar and the kingship of the Most High God).

The salutation “may you prosper greatly” (v.1c) is typical of Aramaic letters, and according to Baldwin, 110, the formula was in use internationally. This expression (lit., “may your peace abound” [NASB]) reappears in 6:25. Collins (Daniel, 221) states that such a greeting invariably included the word “peace” (Aram. š^elām), and it may have influenced the salutations found in 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2. On the epithet “Most High God,” see comments on 3:24–27.

The phrase “signs and wonders” (Aram. ʾāt + t^emâ) recalls the devastating plagues God brought against the Egyptians as “signs and wonders” (Heb. ʾôt + môpēt) in delivering the Hebrews from their slavery in Egypt (e.g., Ex 7:3; Dt 6:22). For Collins (Daniel, 221), the word pair betrays the Jewish authorship of the story. The reference here is to those signs and wonders witnessed by King Nebuchadnezzar himself (namely, the interpretation of his dream by Daniel and the deliverance of the three Hebrews in the blazing furnace), not the signs and wonders associated with the event of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. According to Seow, 65, this is the “ostensible purpose” of the royal communiqué. Theologically, the report of divine “signs and wonders” makes the point that God is still in the business of performing miracles for his people—the Hebrew community in exile needed this assurance.

The king’s doxology (v.3) anticipates the doxology at the close of the narrative (v.34), and the two combine to underscore the central teaching of the court story—the eternal dominion of the God of Israel. For Porteous, 67, the doxology is reminiscent of Psalm 145:13, though Baldwin, 110, states that nothing in the poetry of v.3 demands knowledge of the Psalms or other Scriptures, since Marduk was regarded in similar terms in the Babylonian creation epic. Collins (Daniel, 222) thinks otherwise, but whether or not the doxology of v.3 is biblically inspired, commentators do agree that “the use of such a doxology in the introduction of a royal proclamation is compatible with neo-Babylonian and especially Persian practice.” Remarkably, Nebuchadnezzar’s imperial message begins and ends in praise of the eternal sovereignty of the God of Israel (cf. Smith-Christopher, 72, on the Aram. term šālṭān [“sovereignty”] in Daniel 1–6). His “public confession” of Yahweh’s eternal dominion serves as a testimonial to the admonition in Psalm 2:10–11:

Therefore, you kings, be wise;

be warned, you rulers of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear

and rejoice with trembling.

2. The Report of the King’s Dream (4:4–18 [4:1–15])

4I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at home in my palace, contented and prosperous. 5I had a dream that made me afraid. As I was lying in my bed, the images and visions that passed through my mind terrified me. 6So I commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be brought before me to interpret the dream for me. 7When the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners came, I told them the dream, but they could not interpret it for me. 8Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him.)

9I said, “Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no mystery is too difficult for you. Here is my dream; interpret it for me. 10These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. 12Its leaves were beautiful, its fruit abundant, and on it was food for all. Under it the beasts of the field found shelter, and the birds of the air lived in its branches; from it every creature was fed.

13“In the visions I saw while lying in my bed, I looked, and there before me was a messenger, a holy one, coming down from heaven. 14He called in a loud voice: ‘Cut down the tree and trim off its branches; strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the animals flee from under it and the birds from its branches. 15But let the stump and its roots, bound with iron and bronze, remain in the ground, in the grass of the field.

“‘Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him live with the animals among the plants of the earth. 16Let his mind be changed from that of a man and let him be given the mind of an animal, till seven times pass by for him.

17“‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.’

18“This is the dream that I, King Nebuchadnezzar, had. Now, Belteshazzar, tell me what it means, for none of the wise men in my kingdom can interpret it for me. But you can, because the spirit of the holy gods is in you.”

COMMENTARY

4–18 The king’s dream report or recital consists of the circumstances of the dream (vv.4–5), the interpreter of the dream (vv.6–9), the contents of the dream (vv.10–17), and the request of the dreamer (v.18). The king’s dream is set against the backdrop of peace and prosperity throughout the Babylonian Empire (v.4). The king found himself at home in the royal palace, “contented” (or “at ease” [so NASB], or “at rest”; Aram. š^elēh) and “prosperous” (or “flourishing” [NASB], “luxuriant”; Aram. raʿ^anan). The synonymous terms convey the idea that King Nebuchadnezzar was “thriving” (Lucas, 108), since “his opposition (including the Egyptians) had been subdued, and there was no serious threat to his authority” (Miller, 130; cf. Wood, 103, who suggests a difference in meaning between the two phrases). The circumstances of the dream, especially the word “prosperous” or “luxuriant,” prepares readers for the tree image that follows.

In the ancient world, “the dreams of kings cannot be other than portentous” (Porteous, 67). The report of the terrifying visions and images the king saw while lying on his bed drastically alters his circumstances (v.5). His carefree existence has been shattered by a troubling dream. The mood of contentment induced by the ease and luxury of a realm at peace has been replaced by one of fear and terror since the meaning of the enigmatic dream for the rule of Nebuchadnezzar is unknown.

The search for an interpreter of the dream among the king’s royal advisers—namely, the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and diviners (v.7)—has similarities to the dream report of ch. 2 (see Notes on 2:2–3). As Lucas, 114, observes, however, the “court contest” of ch. 4 “is in reality a case of ‘no contest.’” Towner, 61, comments that the issue is not the failure of the king’s royal advisers satisfactorily to interpret the dream, nor is it Daniel’s success in solving the king’s problem. The heart of the matter is the methodology employed to unravel “mysteries” and reveal the “mind of God (or the gods)” (cf. A. Wolters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” JBL 110 [1991]: 117–22). Or as Porteous, 67, states, “the idea is once again to throw into relief the bankruptcy of Babylonian wisdom.” Unlike the Babylonian magicians, who depended on the interpretation of dreams and omens by means of a scholarly enterprise that required thorough knowledge of a large corpus of omen literature assembled over centuries, Daniel’s ability to interpret the king’s dreams was not based on professional skill but instead flowed “from his personal relationship with God, from whom he gains insight directly” (Lucas, 114).

What Seow, 66, describes as the “careless posture” of the king suddenly shifts to one of alarmed frenzy. The royal advisers in immediate proximity are summoned but proved incapable of interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream—either because of impotence or out of fear (if they realize the meaning of the dream but lack the courage to relay it to the king; so Baldwin, 111). Towner, 61, raises the question as to why Daniel is not brought before the king immediately as “chief of the magicians” (v.9). The story line offers no explanation for his belated appearance on the scene (and the LXX omits vv.6a–10, “evidently in an attempt to solve the difficulty of Daniel’s late arrival”; cf. Miller, 131, n. 16). Most likely, Daniel was not in the palace at the time of the event since he was attending to other duties as “chief of the magicians.”

Three times in this section of the narrative King Nebuchadnezzar identifies Daniel as one who has “the spirit of the holy gods” in him (vv.8–9, 18). Montgomery, 225–26, Wood, 106, and Goldingay, 78, 87 prefer to translate the expression in the singular (i.e., “the s/Spirit of the holy g/God” or “the spirit of holy deity”). Porteous, 67, has observed that although the word “gods” is plural (Aram. ʾ^elāhîn), it is not necessarily a polytheistic expression, since “even paganism was becoming familiar with the concept of a supreme deity.” Yet the larger context of Daniel would suggest that the phrase “is most naturally taken in a polytheistic sense” (Lucas, 109).

Beyond this, Baldwin, 111, has observed that the plural adjective “holy” (Aram. qaddîšîn) supports this understanding of the difficult expression as well. Quite apart from the polytheistic or monotheistic implications of the expression, the king recognizes that Daniel’s extraordinary insight into the meaning of mysterious dreams and visions is due to something not inherent in Daniel but beyond himself—an endowment of a divine spirit that enables him to reveal what is known only to the “gods” (or to God; cf. 2:11). On the name Belteshazzar (v.8), see Notes on 1:7.

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream recital breaks naturally into two sections: an optimistic scene (vv.10–12) followed by a more pessimistic one (vv.13–17). The dream opens with a vision of an enormous tree that is unrivaled in its size, strength, dominance, beauty, and beneficence because of its abundant growth. Seow, 67, observes that the tree appears to be of a “cosmic nature” and that the terms used in v.11 for its greatness (Aram. rbh) and strength (Aram. tqp) mirror those used in praise of the Most High God in the introductory doxology (“great . . . signs” and “mighty . . . wonders,” v.3; on the concept of the “world tree,” see BBCOT, 736).

The second part of the dream reveals that the tree is not cosmic but an earthly one—as indicated by the descent of the holy messenger from heaven (v.13). The heavenly messenger orders the destruction of the tree (v.14) but decrees that a stump will remain, albeit bound with bands of iron and bronze (v.15a). The dream scenario concludes with the stump drenched with dew and “living” among the plants and animals of the earth (v.15b). This situation will persist for “seven times,” and in the process the stump will forfeit the mind of a human being for that of an animal (v.16). Finally, as an epilogue to the dream sequence, the heavenly messengers proclaim that all sovereignty over human kingdoms belongs to the Most High (v.17).

Commentators (e.g., Russell, 74–75; Redditt, 80) have noted the similarities between the king’s dream of a tree in Daniel 4 and Ezekiel’s allegory of a great tree representing the nation of Egypt (Eze 31:3–14; cf. Hos 14:5–8). Porteous, 67, among others, argues that the Ezekiel passage is actually the source of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Others have drawn attention to the image of the stump as a symbol of hope and a new beginning (e.g., Lucas, 111). Still others see the movement in the dream from heaven to earth as reminiscent of the story of God’s destruction of the Tower of Babel erected by arrogant human beings (Ge 11). Several difficult elements surface in the dream recital that complicate the interpretation of the dream and, no doubt, frighten the king given their abnormality. Among the puzzling and unnatural features of the dream are the identity of the heavenly messenger (vv.13, 17), the reference to fetters of iron and bronze (v.15), and the shift in imagery from tree to human to animal (vv.15–16).

The king’s confidence in Daniel’s ability to interpret the dream (v.18) stems from both his previous experience with the Hebrew captives’ unraveling of his dream of the giant statue (ch. 2) and the recognition that Daniel is uniquely endowed with some sort of divine spirit that permits him to penetrate the mysterious interface of the human psyche and divine revelation with respect to dreams and visions (vv.8–9, 18).

NOTES

13 The “messenger” (Aram. , ʿîr; GK 10541), or “angelic watcher” (NASB), refers to a celestial being since the creature descends from heaven and is identified as a “holy one” (Aram. , qaddîš). The word occurs only in 4:13, 17, 23 in the OT and is one of several terms for heavenly beings found in Daniel (cf. 3:28; 7:16; 10:13). Goldingay, 88, describes the beings as “supernatural watchmen” who by analogy to the watchmen of an earthly king serve as “the eyes and ears” of God and see to it that his will is put into effect throughout the earth (cf. 2Ch 16:9; Zec 1:10; 4:10). According to Baldwin, 112, the idea of heavenly beings whose task is to keep watch over the earth probably originated in Babylon (cf. Eze 1:17–18).

The “angelic watchers” are widely attested in later Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman eras. Perhaps the best-known example is the “Book of the Watchers” in 1 Enoch 1–36 (speaking of fallen angels). Elsewhere the term refers to righteous or good angels who watch and never sleep (cf. Jub 4:15; 1En 20:1; 39:12–13; 71:7). These “watchers” who never sleep are reminiscent of God, who unceasingly keeps watch over Israel (Ps 121:4). Lucas, 110, notes that “the class of heavenly beings known as ‘Watchers’ may have been conceived as those whose activities reflected this particular divine concern to look after and protect human beings.” See Porteous, 68; Collins, Daniel, 224–26; BBCOT, 736.

15 According to some Babylonian documents, “dew” (Aram./Heb. , ṭal) fell from the stars and could bring either sickness or healing to those it covered (cf. BBCOT, 736).

16 The East Semitic cognate (Akk. šanû) of the Aramaic verb (šnh), rendered “let his mind be changed,” is sometimes used for mental derangement (cf. CAD, 17:405). On lycanthropy and boanthropy see Miller, 134; Lucas, 111–12; BBCOT, 736.

Text and Exposition

I. STORIES ABOUT DANIEL (1:1–6:28)

A. Daniel and the Three Friends in Nebuchadnezzar’s Court (1:1–21)

1. Historical Introduction (1:1–2)

2. The Main Characters (1:3–7)

3. The Plot (1:8–17)

4. Foreshadow of the Outcome (1:18–21)

B. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Statue (2:1–49)

1. A Troubling Dream for the King and a Crisis for the Wise Men (2:1–13)

2. Daniel’s Intervention and God’s Intervention (2:14–23)

3. Daniel Describes the Content of the King’s Dream (2:24–35)

4. Daniel Interprets the King’s Dream (2:36–45)

5. The King’s Response to Daniel’s Interpretation (2:46–49)

C. The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace (3:1–30)

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Golden Image (3:1–7)

2. The Three Hebrews Accused (3:8–12)

3. The Three Hebrews Stand Trial before Nebuchadnezzar (3:13–18)

4. The Three Hebrews Sentenced (3:19–23)

5. The Three Hebrews Delivered (3:24–27)

6. Nebuchadnezzar’s Proclamation (3:28–30)

D. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Tree (4:1–37 [3:31–4:34])

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s Proclamation and Doxology (4:1–3 [3:31–33])

2. The Report of the King’s Dream (4:4–18 [4:1–15])