Chapter XLVIII
Ver. 1-35. Allotment of the Land to the .sevekaj; Tribes. 1. Dan—The lands are divided into portions of ideal exactness, running alongside of eacli other, the whole breadth from west to east, standing in a common relation
sui-li pits and marshes. The Arabs take tlie salt collected by evaporation in these pits for theirownuse, and thatof their flocks, not be healed—those not reached by the healing waters of the gospel, tliiough tlieir sloth and earthly-nilndedne.ss, are given over (Revelation 22. 11) to theirown Ijitteinessand barrenness (as"saltness" isoften employed to express, Deuteronomy 29. 23; Psalm 107. 34; Zephaniah 2. 9); an awful example to others in the punishment they suH'er (2 Peter 2. 6). 1!J. Instead of the "vine of Sodom and grai)es of Gomorrah" (Deuteronomy 32. 32), nauseous and unwholesome, trees of life-giving and liferestoring virtue shall bloom similar lu properties to, and
to the temple in the centre: seven tribes' portions on the north, five in the smaller division in the south. The portions of the city, the temple, the prince, and the priesthood, are in the middle, not within the boundaries of any
tribe, all alike having acoinnion interest In them. Judalj has the place of honour next the centre on the north, Benjamin the corresponding place of honour next the centre on the south; because of the adherence of these two to the temple ordinances and to the house of David
for so long, wlien the others deserted them. Dan, on the contrary, so long locally and morally semi-healUen
IntroatLclion. DANIEL. JntroJitction.
suburbs, profane—t'. e., not strictly sacred as the sacerdotal portions, but applied to secular uses. 24. Benjamin —Cf. Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49. 27 ; Deuteronomy 33. 12). It alone with Judah had been throughout loyal to the house of David, so its prowess at the "night" of the national history was celeljrated as well as " in the morning." 25. Simeon—omitted in the blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33., perhaps because of the Siineonite " prince," wlio at Baal-peor led the Israelites In their idolatrous whoredoms witii Midian (Numbers 25. 14). 2(5. Issachar
(Judges 18.). is to have the least honourable place, at the extreme north. For the same reason, St. John (Revelation 7. 5-S) omits Dan altogether. 3. Asher—a tribe of whicli no one of note is mentioned In the Old Testament. In the New Testament one is singled out of it, tlie proplietess Anna. 4. Maiiasseh—the intercourse and unity between the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan, and
tlie nine and a half west of it, had been much kept up by the splitting of Manasseli, causing the visits of kinsmen one to the other from both sides of the Jordan. There shall be no need for this in the new order of things. 5. Ephraiin—This tribe, within its two dependent tribes, Manasseh and Benjamin, for upwards of 400 years under
Its ancient portion had been on the plain of Esdraelon. Compared (Genesis 49. 14) to "a strong ass crouching between two burdens," i. e., tribute and tillage; never meddling witli wars except in self-defence. 31. jjatts—(Revelation 21. 12, &c.) The twelve gates bear the names of the twelve tribes, to imply that all are regarded as having an interest in it. 35. liordla tliere—Jehovah-Shammah. Not that the city will be called so in mere name, but that the reality will be best expressed by this descriptive title (Jeremiah 3.17; 33. 16; Zechariah 2.10; Revelation 21.3;
tlie judges held the pre-eminence. 6, Renben—doomed formerly for incest and instability "not to excel" (Genesis
49. 4). So no distinguished prophet, priest, or king had come from it. Of it were the notorious Dathan and Abiram, the mutineers. A pastoral and Bedouin character marked it and Gad (Judges5. 16). 15-17. The 5000 rods, apportioned to the city out of the 25,000 square, are to be laid f.rc in a square of 4500, with the 250 all around for
22. 3).
THE BOOKOFDANIEL.
Daniel, i. e., God is my judge; probably of the blood royal (cf. ch. 1. 3, with 1 Chronicles 3. 1, where a son of Damd is named so). Jerusalem may have been his birth-place (though cli. 9. 24, " thy holy city," does not necessarily imply
this). He was carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, As he and his tliree companions are called (ch. 1. 4) "children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier
(ch. 1. 3, 6). He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a cliange ia one's condition (2 Kings 23. 34;
21. 17; Ezra 5. 14; Esther 2. 7), Belteshazzar, i. e.; a prince favoured by Bel. His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early period; probably owing to that noble proof lie gave of faithfulness, combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heatlien banquets (ch. 1. 8-16). Hence Ezekiel's reference to him (Ezekiel 14. 14, 20; 28.3) is precisely of tliat kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as arvriter, but as exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in those circumstances now found In his book, which are earlier than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interr preting Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which led him occasionally to be away from Babylon (ch. 8. 2, 27). Again he camo into note when he read the mystic writing of Belsliazzar's doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. Beucsus calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus, and says he was not killed, but had an honourable abode in Carmauia assigned to him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. Rawlinson has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh inscription. Belshazzar was joint-king with his father, Evil-merodach or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, whilst the other king took refuge elsewhere, viz.. In Borsippa. Berosus gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as being to the national dishonour. Had Daniel been a late book, he would no doubt haye taken up the
later account of Berosus. If he gave a history difl'ering from that current in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II., succeeded and reigned two years. The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history, being eclipsed by the splendour of Cyrus, is an incidental proof that Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and criu not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the visions (ch. 10.-12.) relating to his people down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart (chs. 9. and 10. 12).
Authenticity of the Book of Daniel. Ch. 7. 1, 28; 8. 2; 9. 2; 10. 1, 2; 12. 4, 5, testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention himself in the first six chapters, which are histm-ical; for in these it is not the author, but the events which are the prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the author makes him-
pelf known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank In the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the Haglographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like
it relating to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held exclusively the profession of " propiiets" in the theocracy, but was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not tlie office of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it would have been doubtless placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as Bengel calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets. Tiie Psalms also
Intro(h\cl inn. DANIEL. Inlroduction.
thougli many are prophetical, are ranked with the Haglographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John
Is separated from his Epistles, as Daniel Is fnmi the Old Testament prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and making them the foreg.round of liis picture, he writes in a heathen eourt, the world-kingdomu occupying tlie foreground, and the kingdom of God, thougli ultimately made the most significant; llie Ijackground, His peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar position in the canon. As the " propliets" in the Old Testament, so the Epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written Ijy <|j vincly-commissioiied persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and Jolni were not in immediate contact witli tlie congregation, but isolated and alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle (Revelation 1. »). Pokpiiy'EY, tiie assailant of Christianity In the third century, asserted tliat the book of Daniel was a forgery of tiie time of the Maccal)ees, 170^164
B. c, a time when confessedly there were no propliets, written after the events as to Antiochus Epiplianes, wiiicii it professes to foretell; so accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration, if his prophecies can be Bhown to have been before the events. Now we know, from Josephus, that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel
as in the cano'n. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Sou of man," Mattliew 24. 30 (Daniel 7. 13) ; also expressly by name, and as a " prophet," In Matthew 24. 15 (cf. Matthew 24. 21, with Daniel 12. 1, &c.); and in the. moment that decided His life (Matthew 2(1. 01) or death, when lliehigh priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in Luke 1. 19-2C, "Gal)riel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture, save ch. 8. 16; 9. 21. Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king (Daniel 7. 8, 25; 11. 3C), in 1 Corinthians (5. 2; 2 Thcssalonians 2. .3,
4; the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions" and "the fire," in Hebrews 11. 33, 34. Thus the book is expressly attested by tlie New Testament on the three points made the stumbling-block of neologists the predictions, the narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection has been started to the
tinity of the book, viz., that Jesus quotes no part of the first half of Daniel. But Matthew 21. 44 would be an enigma
if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote tlie image" (Daniel 2. .34, 35, 44, 45). Thus the New Testament sanctions clis. 2., 3., 6., 7., and 11. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts wliere Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world-power, which keemcd to lie victorious over the t heoci acy, to see theessential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was tlie Bame as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (cf. 1 Maccabees 1. 24; 9. 27, 40, with Daniel 12. 1; 11. 2G, of I.XX.) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and even refers to the LXX. Alexandrian version of it. The fact of Daniel having a place in the LXX. shows it was received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The LXX. version so arbitrarily deviated from the Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotion's version was substituted for it in the early Christian Church. JosEPllUS (AntiqiiUies, 7. 11, 8) mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews
for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 b. c), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession, and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch shouUl overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favoured the Jews, and Josephus' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews In Josephus' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. "With Jaddua (high priest from B. c. 341-322) the Old Testament history ends (Neliemiah 12. 11). (The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah, who died about 400 b. c, but was inserted with Divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East, rather tlian
vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek ami Clialdee: lience
their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Cliulilee. The fact that from the fourth yerse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the language is Chaldee, but the
rest Hebrew, is not an argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been composed bj' some one in the circumstances of Daniel, i. e., by one familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with tiie same idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's use of both arc just sucli as were natural to one in his circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts of Daniel wliich concern tlie whole world are mostly Chaldee, then tlie language of the world-empire. So Greek was made the language of the New Testament, wliich wa.s designed for the wliole world. Those affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew ; and this not so impure as that of Ezekiel. His Clialdee is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that Daniel was a true piophet.
(1.) That his prophecies reach beyond Antiochus; viz., he foretells the rise of the four great monarchies, Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece, and Rome (the last not being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium), and tliat no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth, but that it would divide into part.s. All this has come to pass. No great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted, as by Charlemagne, Charles V., and Napoleon. (2.) The time of Messiah's advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut o£t', and the destruction of the city. " He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says Sir Isaac Newton, " undermines Cliristianity, which is founded on Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ."
Chauactbristics of Daniel. The vision modeof revelation is the exception In other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah (1.-6.), who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from the seventh cliapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be cjilled the t^ld Testament Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the diCference above noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the world-kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant people then stood to the world-jjowers. No longer are single powers of the world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are the chief tlieme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom of God, manifests Itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole future from the eschato-
logical point; but in Daniel the historical fZetoiis are given of tliat development of the world-powers which must precede the advent of the kingdom. [Aubeklen.] Significance of the Babylonian Captivity. The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel Implies in the first chapter, which commences witli the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity
(ch. 1. 1, 21; cf. ch. 9. 1, 2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with tlie captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three intursions inU Judah, The first under Jehoiakim (C06 b. c), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy 620
Nebuchadnezzar Besiejes Jerusalem. DANIEL I. 27ie Babylonian Captivity BegifW,
to tlio Babylonian world-power. The second (59S B. c.) was tliat in wtiich Jelioiachin and Ezelciel were carried away. The tliirU (588 B. C), in whicii Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah. Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea" (Daniel 7. 2; of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and Solomon, the theoci'acy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its climax in the Old Testament, not only being Independent, but lord of the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people, instead of resting on Him, seek alliance vitli the world-power, that very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim (722 B. c.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn into the sphere of the world's movements from the time
of Ahaz, who sought Assyrian help (7-10 B. c. ; Isaiali 7.), at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less dependent on. the world-monarchies, and so, til) Messiah, was favoured with no revelations from the time of Malachi,
400 years. Tlius, from the bej^inning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world-powers superseding it. But God's covenant with Israel remains firm (Romans 11.29); therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is tlie turning-point in the history of the theocracy, which Roos thus divides: (1.) From Adam to the exodus out of Kgypt.
(2.) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. (3.) From the captivity to the milU'nnium. (4.) From the millennium to tiie end of the world. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was in unison witli the altered relations of the theocrac.y and the world-power, which newrelatlon was to be the theme of his propliei-y Kar-
ller prophets, from tlie stand-point of Israel, treated of Israel in its relation to the world-powers ; Daniel, from Baby-
lon, the centre of the then world-power, treats of the world-powers in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon, and his high official position tliere, gave him an insight into tlie world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political revelations ; while his spiritual experiences, gained through Nebuchadnezzar's humilia-
tion, Belshazzar's downfall and the rapid decaj' of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous delivei'- ances of himself and his friends (cli. 3.-6.), alLlitted him for regarding things from the spiritual stand-point, fiora which the world's power appears transient, but the glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the body, the scliool of magicians in which he liad studied for three years (Qh. 1. 4, 5) was the soul; and his mind strong iu
faith and nouri.shed by the earlier propliecles (ch. 9. 2), tlie spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for tlie spirit of revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their work. Auberlen compares Daniel to Josepii
the one at the beginning, the otlier at the end of the Jewish history of revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen courts ; Iioth interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honour by the powers of the world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priestliood among the nations; and t.vpes of Clirist, the true Israel, and of Israel's destination to be a liglit to lighten the wliole Gentile world, as Romans 11. 12, 1.5 foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of tlie Hellenic people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel.
Contents of the Book. Historical and biograpliical introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile: while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding tliat of the magi, represents the Divine superiority of the covenant people over their heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thei-eby attained, typify tlie giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people of the saints of the Most High" (ch. 7. 27). Thus Daniel's personal history Is the typical foundation of his prophecy. The propliets had to experience in themselves, and in their age, something of what they foretold about future times ; .iust as David
felt much of Christ's sufterings in his own person (cf. Hosea 1. 2-9, 10, 11; 2. 3). So Jonah 1., &c. [Roos.] Hence bio^ graphical notices of Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. Chs. 2.-12 contain the substance of the book, and consist of two parts. Tlie first, viz., chs. 2.-7., represent the development of the world-powers, viewed from a historical point. The second, chs. 8.-12., tlieir development in relation to Israel, especially in the future preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But prophecy looks beyond the Immediate future to the complete fulfilment in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of salvation cannot be understood except In connection with the whole. Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophec.v whicli tliey needed ought tlierefore to comprise both, and so mucli of tlie history of the world as would elapse before the final consumma-
tion. The period of Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the theocracy at the captivity till its
final restoration, yet future—tlie period of tlie dominion of the world-powers, not set aside by Christ's first coming (John 18. 36; for, to have taken the eartli-kingdom then, would have been to take it from Satan's hands, Matthew 4.
8-10), but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His second coming (Revelation 11. 15). Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the world-powers (chs. 2.-7.) fittingly piecedes the disclosures as to the immediate future (chs. 8.-12). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in Clialdee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew ; the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of the then dominant world-power under which he lived; the hitter, relating to the people of God, in their own language. An Interpolator in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere
Aramaic, so as to be understood by liis contemporaries, he would have used It In the second rather than in tlie first part as having a more immediate reference to his own times. [Axjbeblen.J
of Jehoiakim: this probably took place in the end of the third year of Jehoiakim, shortly before the battle of Carchemlsh. [Fairbairn.] Nebuchadnezzar took away the captives as hostages for the submission of the Hebrews. Historical Scripture gives no positive account of this first deportation, with which the Babylonian captivity, i.e., Judah's subjection to Babylon for seventy y(>ars (Jeremiah
Ver. 1-21. The Babylonian Captivity begins; Daniel's Education at Babylon, &c. 1. third year—cf. Jeremiah 25.1, "the fourth yinxr; Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of the year, wlii(;li Jeremiah reckons as
tl\e first year, but which Daniel leaves out of count, being an incomplete year: thus, in Jeremiah, It Is " the fourth year;" in Daniel, "the WiirtZ." [Jahn.] However, Jeremiah (25. 1; 46. 2) merely says, the fourth year of Jehoiakim coincided with the first of Nebuchadnezzar, when the latter conquered tfie Egyptians at Oarchemish; not that the de-
29. 10), begins. But 2 Chronicles 36.6,7, states, tliat Nebuchadnezzar had intended "to carry Jehoiakim to Babylon," and that he " carried off the vessels of the l)ouse of the Lord" thither. But Jehoiakim died at Jerusalem, before the conqueror's intention as to him was carrii d into
portation of captives from Jeinsalem was in the fourth year
efl'ect (Jeremiah 22. 18, 19; 36. 30), and his dead body, as was
Tk^ Hebrew Children Educated. DANIEL II. 27te Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.
Ills three friends, says Adberlen, stand out like an oasis in the desert. Like Moses, Daniel "chose rather to sufier alHiction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" (see ch. 9). He who is to interpret Divine revelations must not feed on the dainties, nor drink from the intoxicating cup, of this worUi. This made liim as dear a name to his countrymen as Noah and Job, who also stood alone in tlieir piety among a perverse generation (Ezekiel 14. 14; 28. 3). requested— wliilst decided in principle, we ought to seek our object by gentleness, rather than by an ostentatious testimony, which, under the plea of faithfulness, courts opposition. 9. God
foretold, was dragged out of the gates by the Chaldean besiegers, and left uiiburied. The second depoitatioi) under Jehoiachin was eight years hxter. -Z. Shinar—the old name of Babylonia (Genesis 11. 2; 14. 1 ; Isaiah U. 11
Zechariah 5. 11). Nebuchadnezzar took only " part of the vessels," as he did not intend wliolly to overthrow the
Btate, but to make it tributary, and to leave sucli vessels as were absolutely needed for the public worship of Jehovah. Subsequently all were taken away, and were restored under Cyrus (Ezra 1.7). liU god—Bel. His temple, as was often tlie case among the heathen, was made " treasure-house" of the king. 3. master of . . . eunwclis —called in Turkey the " Kislar Aga." of the king's seed—
. . . brought Daniel into favour—the favour of others towards the godly is the doing of God. So in Joseph's case (Genesis 39. 21). Especially towards Israel (Psalm 106. 46;
cf. the prophecy, 2 Kings 20. 17, 18. 4. no blemlsli—
handsome form was connected, in Oriental ideas, with mental power. " Children" means youths of twelve or fourteen years old. teach . . . tongue of . . , Chaldeans —their language and literature, the Aramaic-Babylonian. That the heathen lore was not altogether valueless appears from the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses; the Eastern Magi who sought Jesus, and who may have drawn the tradition as to the " King of the Jews" from Daniel 9. 24, &c., written in the East. As Moses was trained in the learning of the Egyptian sages, so Daniel in that of the Chaldeans, to familiarize his mind with mysterious lore, and so develop his heaven-bestowed gift of understanding in visions (v. 4, 5, 17). 5. king's meat
cf. Proverbs. 16. 7). 10. worse liking—looking less healthj'. your sort of your age, or class ; lit. .circle, endanger my head—an arbitrary Oriental despot would, in a fit of wrath at his orders having been disobeyed, command the offender to be instantly decapitated. 11. Melxar—rather, the steward, or chief butler, entrusted by Ashpenaz with furnishing the daily portion to the youths. [Gesenius.] Tiie word is still in use in Persia. 13. pulse—the IJebri w expresses any vegetable grown from «ee<is, i.e., vegetable food in general. [Gesenius.] 13-15. Illustrating Deuteronomy 8. 3, "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord." 17. God gave them knowledge—(Exodus 31. 2, 3 ; 1 Kings
It is usual for an Eastern king to entertain, from the food of his table, many retainers and royaJ captives (Jeremiah
3. 12; Job 32. 8; James 1. 5, 17.) Daniel had understanding In . . . dreams—God thus made one of the despised covenant people eclipse the Chaldean sages in the very science on which they most prided themselves. So Joseph in the court of Pharaoh (Genesis 40. 5; 41. 1-8). Daniel, in
52. 34). The Hebreiv for " meat" implies delicacies, stand before the king—as attendant courtiers; not as eunuchs. 6. children of Jndah—the most noble tribe, being tliat
to which the "king's seed" belonged (cf. v. 3). 7. gave names—designed to mark their new relation, that so they might forget their former religion and country (Genesis
tliese praises of his own "understanding," speaks not through vanity, but by the direction of God, as one transported out of himself. See my Introduction, "Contents OF THE Book." 18. brought tliem in — i.e., not only Daniel and his three friends, but other youths (v. 3; and
41. 4.")). But as in Joseph's case, whom Pharaoh called Zaphnath-paaneah, so in Daniel's, the name indicative of his relation to a heathen court (" Belteshazzar," i.e., "Bid's prince"), however flattering to him, is not the one retained by Scripture, but the name marking his relation to God ("Daniel," (Jod my Judge, the theme of his prophecies being God's judgment on the heathen world-powers). Mniiaiiiah i. e.. Whom Jehovah hath favoured. Shadracli —from Rak, in Babylonian, " the King," i. e., " the Sun ;" the same root as in Abrech {Margin, Genesis 41. 43), " Inspired or illumined by the Sun-god." Mishael i. e., " Wlio
V. 19, "among them all). 19. stood . . . before the king—
i. e., were advanced to a position of favour near the throne. 30. ten times lit., " ten hands." magicians—properly, "sacred scribes, skilled in the sacred writings, a class of Egyptian priests" [Gesenius] ; from a Hebrew root, a pen, Tlie word in our English Version, " magicians," comes from Mag, i.e., "a priest." The Magi formed one of the six divisions of the Medes. astrologers Hebrew, "enchant-
is what God is?" Who is comparable to Godf Meshach— The Babylonians retained the first syllable of Misliael, the Hebrew name ; but for El, i. e., GoD, substituted jShak, the Babylonian goddess, called Sheshach (Jeremiah 2.3. 26; 51.
ers," from a root, "to conceal," practisers of the occult
arts. 31. Daniel continued . . . unto . . . first year of Cyrus—{2 Chronicles 36. 22 ; Ezra 1. 1.) Not that he did not continue beyond that year, but the expression is designed
to mark the fact that he who was one of the first captives taken to Babylon, lived to see the end of the captivity. Sea my Introduction, "Significance of the Babylonian Exile." In ch. 10. 1 he is mentioned as living "in the third year of Cyrus." See Margin Note, on the use of " till," Psalm 110. 1 ; 112. 8.
41) ; answering to the Earth, or else Venus, tlie goddess of love and mirth; it was during lier feast that Cyrus took Babylon. Azarlah i. e., " Whom Jehovah helps." Abednego— i. e., Servant of the shining/ire. Tlius, instead of Jeliovah, these His servants were dedicated by the heathen to their four leading gods [Hekodotus, Clio.] Bel, the Chiefgod, the Sun-god, Earth-god, and Fire-god. To the last the three youths were consigned when refusing to worsliij)
tlie golden image (ch. 3). The Chaldee version trunslalni, "Lucifer," in Isaiah 14. 12, Nogea, the same as Nego. The names tlius at the outset are significant of the seeming triumph, but sure downfall, of the heathen powers before Jeliovah and His people. 8. Daniel . . . would not de-
Ver. 1^9. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream: Daniel's InTF.KPRF.TATION OF IT, AND ADVANCEMENT. 1. second year of . . . Nebuchadnezzar—Ch. 1. 5 shows that " three years" had elapsed since Nebuchadnezzar had taken Jerusalem. The solution of tliis difliculty is, Nebucliadnezzar
ftle himself with . . . king's meat—Daniel is specified as being the leader in the "purpose" (the word implies a decided resolution) to abstain from defilement, thus manifesting a character already formed for prophetical func-
first ruled as subordinate to liis father Nabopola.ssar, to which time ch. 1. refers; whereas "the second year" iu
ch. 2. is dated from his sole sovereignty. The very difficulty is a proof of genuineness; all was clear to the writer and the original readers from their knowledge of the circumstances, and so he adds no explanation. A forger would nott»i<roditceditticulties: tlieauthordid uotWioisee any dilliculty in the case. Nebuc^hadnezzar is called "king" (ell. 1. 1), by anticipation. Before he left Judea he became actual king by the death of his father, and '.he Jews always called him "king," as commaiuh-r of the
tions. Tile other three youths, no doubt, shared in his purpose. It was the custom to throw a small part of the viands and wine upon the earth, as an initiatory ottering
to the gods, so as to consecrate to them the whole entertainment (cf. Deuteronomy 32. 38). To have partaken of
sucli a feast would have been to sanction idolatry, and was forbidden even after the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats was done away (1 Corinthians 8.7, 10; 10.
invading army, dreams— It is significant tliat not to Daniel, l)ut to tlie-then-world-ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, the dream Is vouchsivfed. It was from the first of Its repre-
27 28). Thus the faith of these youths was made insti uraental in overruling the evil foretold against the Jews (Ezekiel 4. 13; Hosea 9. 3), to the glory of God. Daniel and 622
Nebuchadnezzar's Dream. DANIEL iT. Daniers Tnterpretatinn Tliereof
view, could solve the difHculty, but who do not comma, nicate with men. Tlie inferior gods, intermediate between men and the supreme gods, are unable to solve it. Contrast with this heathen idea of the utter severance of God from man, John 1. 14, " The Word was made /lesh, and dwelt among us;" Daniel was in this ease made His representative. 13, 13. Daniel and his companions do not seem to have been actually numbered among the Magi or Chaldeans, and so were not summoned before tlie Iting. Providence ordered it so that all mere human wisdom should be shown vain before his Divine power, through His servant, was put forth. Ver. 24 shows that the decree for slaying the wise men had not been actually executed when Daniel interposed. 14. captain of the king's guard—commanding the executioners (.see Margin; and Genesis 37. 36, Margin). 15. Why is the decree so Iiasty —Why were not all of us consulted before the decree for
•BPUtatlves who had conquered the theocracy, that the
worlil-power was to learn its doom, as about to be In its
turn subdued, and for ever, by the kingdom of God. As
this vision opens, so that In ch. 7., developing the same
trutli more fully, closes the first part. Nebuchadnezzar,
ns vicegerent of God {v. 37; cf. Jeremiah 2.5. 9; Ezekiel 28.
13-15; Isaiah 44. 28; 45. 1; Romans 13. 1), is honoured with
the revelation in the form of a dream, the appropriate form to one outside the kingdom of God. So in the cases
of Abimelech, Pharaoh, &c. (Genesis 20. and 41.), especially
as the heathen attached such importance to dreams. Still
It is not he, but an Israelite, who interprets it. Heathendom is passive, Israel active. In Divine things, so that the glory redounds to " the God of heaven." 3. Clialdeang—
here, a certain order of priest-magicians, who wore a peculiar dress, like that seen on the gods and deified men in the Assyrian sculptures. Probably they belonged exclusively to the Chaldeans, the original tribe of tlie Babylonian nation, just as the Magians were properly Medes. 3. troubled to know the dream—He awoke in alarm, remembering that something solemn had been presented to him in a dream, without being able
tVie execution of all was issued? the thing—the agitation of the king as to his dream, and his abortive consultation of tlie Chaldeans. It is plain from this tliat Daniel was
till now ignorant of the whole matter. IG. Daniel went in—perhaps not in person, but by the mediation of some courtier who had access to him. His first direct interview seems to have been v. 25. [Barnes.] time—the king granted "time" to Daniel, though he would not do so to the Chaldeans, because they betrayed their lying purpose by requiring him to tell the dream, whicli Daniel did not. Providence doubtless Influenced his mind, already favourable (cli. 1. 19, 20), to show special favour to Daniel. 17. Here appears the reason why Daniel souglit " time" (v. 16),
to recall the form in which it had clothed itself. His thoughts on the unprecedented greatness to which his power had attained (v. 29) made him anxious to know what the issue of all this should be. God meets this wish
in the way most calculated to impress him. i. Here
l)e^ins the Chaldee portion of Daniel, which continues to the end of ch. 7. In it the course, character, and crisis of the Gentile power are treated of; whereas, in the other
viz., he wished to engage his friends to join him in prayer to God to reveal the dream to him. 18. An illustration of the power of united prayer (Matthew IS. 19). The same Instrumentality rescued Peter from his peril (Acts 12.5-12). 19. revealed . . . in . . . night vision— (Job 33. 15, 16.) ao. answered—responded to God's goodness by praises, name of God God in His revelation of Himself hy acts of love, "wisdom, and might" (Jeremiah 32. 19). til, cliangetli
parts, which are in Hebrew, the things treated of apply more particularly to the Jews and Jerusalem. Syriac— the Aramean Chaldee, the vernacular tongue of the king and his court; the prophet, by mentioning it here, hints at tlie reason of his own adoption of it from this point, live for ever—a formula in addressing kings, like our "Long live the king!" Cf. 1 Kings I. 31. 5. The thing—
i. e.. The dream, " is gone from me." Gesenius translates, "The decree is gone forth from me," irrevocable (cf. Isaiah
. . . times . . . seasons—"he herein gives a general preparatory intimation, that the dream of Nebu<:hadiiezzar
45. 2.3), viz., that you shall be executed, if you do not tell both the dream and tlie interpretation. English Version
is concerning the changes and successions of kingdoms." [Jerome.] The "times" are the phcutes and periods of duration of empires (cf. ch. 7. 25; 1 Chronicles 12. 32; 29. 30); the "seasons," the/ltting times for their culmination, decline, and fall (Ecclesiastes 3. 1; Acts 1. 7; 1 Tliessalonians
Is simpler, which supposes the king himself to have forgotten the dream. Pretenders to supernatural knowledge often bring on themselves their own punishment, cut In pieces—(1 .Samuel 15. 33.) houses . . . dunghill—rather, a morass heap. The Babylonian houses were built of sundried bricks; when demolished, the rain dissolves the whole into a mass of mire, in the wet land, near the river. [Stuart.] As to the consistency of this cruel threat with Nebuchadnezzar's character, see ch. 4. 17, " basest of men ;"
5. 1). The vicissitudes of states, with their times and seasons, are not regulated by chance or fate, as the heathen thought, but by God. removeth kings—(Job 12.
18; Psalm 75. 6, 7; Jeremiah 27. 5; cf. 1 Samuel 2. 7, 8.) giveth wisdom—<1 Kings 3.9-12; James 1.5.) 23. rcvealeth—(Job 12. 22.) So spiritually, Ephesians 1. 17, 18). knoweth what is in , . . darkness—(Psalm 139. 11. 12; Hebrews 4. 1.3.) light . . . him—{James 1. 17 ; 1 John 1.
Jeremiah 39. 5, 6; 52. 9-11. 6. rcTrards—-it<., "presents poured out in lavish profusion." 8. gain . . . time lit., buy. Cf. Ephesians 5. 16; Colossians 4. 5, where the sense
is somewhat different, the thing is gone from me—(See Note, V. 5.) 9. one decree—there can be no second one reversing the first (Esther 4. 11). corrupt—deceitful, till the time be changed—till a new state of things arrive, either by my ceasing to trouble myself about the dream, or by a change of government (which perhaps the agitation caused by the dream made Nebuchadnezzar to forebode, and so to suspect the Chaldeans of plotting), tell
4.) Apocalypse, or "revelation," signifies a Divine, prophecy a human, activity. Cf. 1 Corinthians It. 6, where the two are distinguished. The prophet is connected with the outer world, addressing to the congregation the words with which the Spirit of God supplies him; he speaks in the Spirit, but the apocalyptic seer is in the Spirit in his whole per.son (Revelation 1. 10; 4.2). The form of the apocalyptic revelation (the very term meaning that the veil that hides the invisible world is take^i off) is subjectively either the dream, or, higher, the vision. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream was a preparatory education to Daniel himself. By gradual steps, each revelation preparing him for the succeeding one, God fitted him for disclosures becoming more and more special. In chs. 2. and 4. he is but an interpreter of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams; then he has a dream himself, but it is only a vision in a dream of the night (ch. 7. 1, 2); then follows a vision in a waking state (ch. 8. 1-.3) ; lastly, in the two final revelations (chs. 9. .and 10.-12.) the ecstatic state is no longer needed. The progression in the form answers to the progression in the contents of his prophecy; at first general outlines, and these afterwards filled up with minute chronological and historical
, . , dream, and I shall know . . . ye can show , , , interpretjition-If ye cannot tell the past, a dream actually presented to me, how can ye know, and show, the future events prefigured in it? There is not a man . . . that can show— God makes the heathen, out of their own mouth, condemn their impotent pretensions to supernatural knowledge, In order to bring out In brighter contrast His power to reveal .secrets to His servants, though but "men upon the earth" (cf. v. 22, 23). therefore, <fec. i. e., If such things could be done by men, other absolute princes would have required them from their magicians; as they have not. It Is a proof such things cannot be done, and cannot be reasonably asked from us. 11. gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh—answering to "no man upon the earth ;" for there were, in their belief, " men in?ieaven," viz., men deified; e. g., Nimrod. The supreme gods are referred to here, who alone, in the Clialdean
details, such as are not found in the Revelation of John, though, as became the New Testament, the form of revelj*.
Daniel Tcllelh the King^s Dream, DANIEL II. and the Interpretation of li.
the final establishment of that kingdom is the aim of Ilia,
tlon is the highest, viz., clear waking visions. [Aubee-
liEN.] 23. thee . . . tliee—he ascribes all tlie glory to God. God of my fathers—thou hast shown tliyself tlie same God of grace to me, a captive exile, as tliou didst to Israel of old, and this on account of the covenant ma<\e with our "fathers" (Luke 1. 54, 55; cf. Psalm 106. io). given me wisclom aud might—thou being tlie fountain of both ; referring to v. 20. "Whatever iyi.se ability I have to stay the execution of the king's cruel decree, is thy gift, me . . . ive . . . us—the revelation was given to Daniel, as "me" implies; yet with just modesty he joins Ins friends witli him; because it was to tlieir joint prayers, and not to his individually, that lie owed the revelation from God. Icnown . , . the king's matter—tlie very words in which the Chaldeans had denied the possibility of any man on earth telling tlie dream ("not a man upon the earth can show the king's matter," v. 10). Impostors are compelled by the God of truth to eat up their own words. 34. Therefore—Because of having received the Divine communication, bring me in before tlie king Implying that he had not previously been in person before the king {Note, v. 16). 35. I have found a man—like all courtiers, in announcing agreeable tidings, he ascribes the merit of the discovery to himself. [Jerome.] So far from it being a discrepancy, that he says uotliing of the previous understanding between him and Daniel, or of Daniel's application to the king {v. 15, 16) it is just what we should expect. Arloch would not dare to tell an absolute despot that he had stayed the execution of his sanguinary decree, on his own responsibility ; but would, in the first instance, secretly stay it until Daniel had got, by application from the king, the time required, without Arioch seeming to know of Daniel's application as the cause of the respite; then, when Daniel had received the revelation, Arioch would in trembling haste bring him
mor.-il government of the world. The colossus of metal stands on weak feet, of clay. All man's glory is as epliemeral and worthless as chaff (cf. 1. Pcler 1.34). But the kingdom of God, small and unheeded as a " stone " on the ground, is compact in its homogeneous unity ; whereas the world-power, in its hctei'ogeneous constituents, successively supplanting one another, contains the elements of decay. The relation of the stone to the mountain is that of the kingdom of the cross (Matthew 10.23; Luke
21. 26) to the kingdom of glory, the latter beginning, and the former ending when the kingdom of God breaks in pieces the kingdoms of the world (Revelation 11. 15). Clirist's contrast between the two kingdoms refers to this passage, a great image lit., "one image that was great." Though the kingdoms were different, it was essentially one and the same woi'ld-power under different phases, just as the image was one, though the parts were of different metals. 33. On ancient coins states are often represented by human figures. The head and higher parts signify the earlier times; the lower, the later times. The metals become successively baser and baser, implying the growingdegeneracy from worse to worse. Hesiod, 200 years before Daniel, had compared the four ages to the four metals in the same order; the Idea is sanctioned here by Holy Writ. It was perhaps one of those fragments of revelation among the heathen, derived from the tradition as to the fall of man. The metals lessen in
specific gravity, sis, they go downwards; silver is not so heavy as gold, brass not so heavy as silver, and iron not so heavj' as brass, the weight thus being arranged in the reverse of stability. [Tkegelles.] Nebuchadnezzar derived his authoi'ity from God, not from man, nor as responsible to man. But the Persian king was so far dependent on otliers that he could not deliver Daniel from the princes (ch. C. 14, 15); contrast ch. 5. 18, 19, as to Nebuchadnezzar's power from God, " whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive" (cf. Ezra 7. 14; Esther!.
In, as if then for the first time he had " found " him. The very difficulty when cleared up is a proof of genuineness, as it never would be introdvtced by a forger. 37. cannot Daniel, being learned in all the lore of the Chaldeans (ch.
13-16). Grteco-Macedonia betrays its deterioration in ita divisions, not united as Babylon and Persia. Iron is stronger than brass, but inferior in other respects; so Rome hardy and strong to tread down the nations, but less kingly and showing its chief deterioration in its last
1. 4), could authoritatively declare the impossibility of mere man solving the king's difficulty, soothsayers—from a root, "to cutoff;" referring to their cutting the heavens into divisions, and so guessing at men's destinies from the place of the stars at one's birth. 38. God—in contrast to " the wise ifreiT," &c. (v. 27). revealeth secrets—(Amos 3.7; 4.13.) Cf. Geni^Sis--41. 45, " Zaphnath-paaneah," revealcr of secrets, the title given to Joseph, tlie latter days —lit., " in the after days" (v. 29); "hereafter" (Genesis 49.
state. Each successive kingdom incorporates its predecessor (cf. ch. .5. 28). Power that in Nebuchadnezzar's hands was a God-derived (d. 37, 38) autocracy, in tlie Persian king's was a rule resting on his nobility of person and birth, the nobles being his equals in rank, but not la
1). It refers to tlie whole future, including the Messianic daj's, which is the final dispensation (Isaiah 2. 2). visions of thy head—conceptions formed in the brain. 39. God met with a revelation Nebuchadnezzar, who had been meditating on the future destiny of his vast empire. 30. not . . . for any wisdom that I have—not on account of any previous wisdom which I may have manifested (ch.
office ; in Greece, an aristocracy not of birth, but individual influence ; in Rome, lowest of all, dependent entirely on popular choice, the emperor being appointed by popular military election. 33. As the two arms of silver denote the kings of the Medes and Persians (Josephu3J; and the two thighs of brass the Seleucidee of Syria and Lagidse of Egypt, the two leading sections into which GrtecoMacedonla parted, so the two legs of iron signify the two Roman consuls. [Newton. J The clay, in r. 41, "potter's
1. 17, 20). The specially-favoured servants of God in all ages disclaim merit in themselves, and ascribe all to the grace and power of God (Genesis 41. 16; Acts 3. 12). The "as for me," disclaiming extraordinary merit, contrasts elegivntly with " as for thee," whereby Daniel courteously,
cla.v," V. 43, " miry clay," moans earthenware, hard but
lirittle (cf. Psalm 2.9; Revelation 2.27, where the same Image is used of the same event); the feet are stable whilst bearing only direct pressure, but easily broken to pieces by a blow (u. 34), the iron intermixed not retarding, but hastening, such a result. 34. stone—Messiah and His kingdom (Genesis 49. 24; P-salm 118. 22; Is.ilith 28. 10). lu
but without flattc^ry. Implies, that God honoured Nebuchadnezzar, as his vicegerent over the world-kingdoms, with a revelation on the subject uppermost in his thoughts, the ultimate destinies of those kingdoms, for their sakes that shall make known, <fec.—a Chaldee Idiom for, "to the Intent that the Interpretation may bo made known to the king." the thoughts of tliy heart thy subject of thought before falling asleep. Or, perhaps the probation of Nebuchadnezzar's character through this revelation may be the meaning intended (cf. 2 Chronicles 82.31; Luke 2.3.')). 31. The world-power in Its totality appears as a colossal human form: Babylon the head of gold, Medo-Persia the breast and two arms of silver, Grieco-Macedonla the belly and two thighs of brass, and Rome, with Its Germano-Slavonlo offshoots, the legs of Iron and feet of Iron and clay; the fourth still existing. Those kingdoms only are meatloned which stand In some
Its relations to Israel, it Is a " stone of stumbling ' (Isalali
8. 14; Acts 4. II ; 1 Peter 2. 7, S), on which both houses of Israel are broken, not destroyed (Matthew 21. 32). In Its relation to the Church, the same stone which destroys the Image Is the foundation of the Church (Ephesiims 2. 20). In Its relation to the Gentile world-power, the stone Is its destroyer (v. 35, 44; cf. Zecharlah 12. 3). Christ saith (Matthew 21. 44, referring to Isainl\ 8. 14, 15), " Whosoever shall
fall on this stone (i. e., stumble, and be offended, at Him, aa the Jews were, from whom, therefore, He says*, ' The king* dom shall be taken') shall be broken:" "but (referring to
V. 34, 35) on whomsoever It shall fall" (referring iothe u'orliU power which had been the Instrument of breaking the Jews), It shall not merely break, but " gi-ind Mm to poto-
relation to the kingdom of Ood; of these uoue Is left oui;
DANIEL II.
and the Inlerpretatiun thereof.
Daniel Telleth the King's Dream,
Thou . . . art a king of kings—The committal of power in fullest plenitude belongs to Nebuchadnezzar personally, as having made Babylon the mighty empire it wa«. In twenty-three years after him tlie empire was ended; with him its greatness is identified (ch. 4. 30), his successors having done nothing notable. Not that lie aclually ruled every part of tiie globe, but that God granted him Illimitable dominioii in whatever direction liis utnbilioii led him, Egypt, Nineveh, Arabia, Syria, Tyre, and its Phoenician colonies (Jeremiah 27. 5-8). Cf. as to Cyrus, Ezra 1.
ttei " (1 Corinthians 15. 2i). The falling of the stone on the
leetof the iniagt^ cannot refer to Christ at His first advent,
for the fourth kingdom was not then as yet divided—no
toes were in existence (see Note, v.H). cut out—viz., from " the mountain" (v. 4.5); viz.. Mount Zion (Isaiah 2. 2), and
antltypicallj', the heavenly mount of the Father's glory, from whom Christ came, wltliout hands—explained in
V. a, "The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom," as con-
trasted with thelmagewhich was made Aantis of man. Messiah not created by human agency, hut conceived by the Holy Ghost (Mattliew 1. 20; Luke 1. 35; cf. Zecliariah
2. 38. men . . . beasts . . . fowls—the dominion originally designed for man (Genesis 1. 28; 2. 19, 20), forleitcd by sin; temporarily delegated to Nebuchadnezzar and the world-powers; but, as they abuse the trust for self, instead of for God, to be taken from them by the .Sun of man, who will exercise it for God, restoring in his person to man the lost inheritance (Psalm 8. 4-6, &c.). Tliou art
4.6; Mark 11. 58; Hebrews 9. 11, 24). So "not made with hands," i.e., heavenl//, 2 Corintliians 5. 1; spiritual, Colossians 2. 11. The world-kingdoms were reared by human ambition: but this is the "kingdom of heaven:" "not of
this world" (John 18. 36). As the fourth kingdom, or Rome, was represented in a twofold state, first strong, with legs of Iron, then weak, with twies part of iron, part of clay; so
. . . head of gold—alluding to the riches of Baljylon, hence called " the golden city" (Isaiah 14. 4 ; Jeremiah 51.7
this fifth kingdom, that of Christ, Is seen conversely,
first insignificant as a "stone," then as a "mountain"
Revelation 18. 16). 39. That Medo-Persia is the second kingdom appears from ch. 5. 28; 8. 20. Cf. 2 Chronicles 3(i.
filling the whole earth. The ten toes are the ten lesser kingdoms Into which the Roman kingdom was finally to be divided; this tenfold division here hinted at is not specified in detail till the seventh chapter. Tlie fourth empire originally was bounded in Europe pretty nearly by the line of the Rhine and Danube; In Asia by the Euphrates. In Africa it possessed Egypt and the north coasts ; South Britain and Dacia were afterwards added, but were ultimately resigned. The ten kingdoms do not arise until a deterioration (by mixing clay with the iron) has taken place ; they are in existence when Christ comes in glory, and then are broken in pieces. The ten have been sought for in the invading hosts of the fifth and sixth century. But though many provinces were then severed from Rome as independent kingdoms, the dignity of emperor still continued, and the imperial power was exercised over Rome itself for two centuries. So the tenfold divisions cannot be looked for before 731 a. d. But the East is not to be excluded, five toes being on each
20 ; Isaiah 21. 2. inferior—" The kings of Persia were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire." [Pkideaux.] Politically, which is the main point of view here, the power of the central government in which the nobles shared with the king, being weakened by the growing independence of the provinces, was Inferior to thatof Nebuchadnezzar, whose sole word was law throughout his empire, brass—the Greeks (the third empire, ch.
8. 21; 10. 20; 11. 2-4) were celebrated for the brazen armour of their warriors. Jehome fancifully thinks that the brass, as being a clear-sounding metal, refers to the eloquence for which Greece was famed. The "belly," in ti.
32, may refer to the drunkenness of Alexander and the luxury of the Ptolemies. [Tirinus.] over all the earth —Alexander commanded that he should be called "king of all the -world" (Justin, 12. sec. 16. 9 ; Arrian, Exp. A lex.
7. sec. 15). The four successors (Diadochi) wlio divided Alexander's dominions tX his death, of whom the Seleu-
foot. Thus no point of time before the overthrow of the empire at the taking of Constantinople by the Turks (1453 A.D.)can be assigned for the division. It seems, there-
cldae in Syria and the Lagidoe in Egypt were cliicf, lield the same empire. 40. iron—this vision sets foi lh tlie character of the Roman power, rather than its territorial extent. [Tregelles.] brealceth in pieces . . . all—So, In righteous retribution. Itself will at last be broken in pieces (v. 44) by the kingdom of God (Revelation 13. 10). 4:l-i3. feet . . . toes . . . part . . . clay . . . iron—explained presently, " the kingdom shall be partly strong, partly broken" (rather, "brittle," as earthenware); and v.
fore, that the definite ten will be the ultimate development of the Roman empire just before the rise of Anti-
christ, who shall overthrow three of the kings, and, after three and a half years, he himself be overthrown by Christ in person. Some of the ten kingdoms will, doubt-
less, be the same as some past and present divisions of the old Roman empire, which accounts for the continuity ot the connection between the toes and legs, a gap of centuries not being interposed, as is objected by opponents of the futurist theory. The lists of the ten made by the latter differ from one another; and are set aside by the fact that they include countries which were never Roman, and exclude one whole section of the empire, viz., the Eofi. [Tregelles.] upon bis feet—the last state of the Roman empire. Not " upon his legs." Cf. " in the days of these kings" (Note, v. 44). 35. broken . . . togetUer—excluding a contemporaneous existence of the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God (in Us manifested, as distinguished from its spiritual phase). The latter is not gradually to wear away the former, but to destroy it at once, and utterly (2 Thessalonians 1.7-10; 2.8). However, the Hebrew may be translated, " in one discriminate mass." chaffimage of the ungodly, as they shall be dealt with in the
43, "they shall mingle . . . with tlie seed of men," i. e., there will be power (In Its deteriorated form, iron) mixedup with that which Is wholly of man, and therefore bi it-
tle; power In the hands of the people having no internal:
stability, though something is left of the strength of tlie iron. [Tregelles.] Newtox, who understands the Roman empire to be parted into the ten kingdoms already (whereas Tregelles makes them future), explainsthe "clay" mixture as the blending of barbarous nationswlth Rome by Intermarriages and alliances, in which there was no stable amalgamation, though the ten kingdoms retained much of Rome's strength. The " mingling with the seed of men" {v. 44) seems to refer to Genesis 6. 2, where the marriages of the seed of godly Seth with the daughters of ungodly Cain are described In simi lar words
the reference, therefore, seems to be to the blending of the Christianized Roman empire with the pagan, nations, a deterioration being the result. EflTorts have been often made to reunite the parts into one great empire, as by Charlemagne and Napoleon, but in vain. Christ alone shall eflect that. 44:. In the days of these king»—in the days of these kingdoms, i. e., of the last of the four. So Christianity was set up when Rome ha<l become mistress of Judea and the world (Luke 2.. 1, &c.). [Nbwton.J Rather, " In the days of these kings," answers to " upon his feet" (u. 34), i. e., the ten toes (u.42),.or ten kings, the
Judgment (Psalm 1.4, 5; Matthew 3. 12). summer threshing-floors—Grain was winnowed in the East on an elevated space In the open air, by throwing the grain into the air with a shovel, so that the wind might clear away the chafi". noplace . . . found for them—(Revelation 20. 11 ; cf. Psalm 37. 10, 36; 103. 16.) became . . . mountain—cut out of the mountain (r. 45) originally, it ends in becoming a. mountain. So the kingdom of God, coming from heaven originally, ends in heaven being established on earth (Revelation 21. 1-3). filled . . . earth— (Isaiah 11. 9; Habakkuk 2. 14.) It is in connection with Jerusalem as the mother Church it is to do so (Psalm 80. 9
final state of the Roman empire.. For " these kings" cannot mean the four successional monarchies, as they do not coexist as the holders of power ; if the fourth had been meant, the nngular, not the ulurali .-woald
Isaiah 2. 2, 3). 36. we—Daniel and his three friends. 3T. 40
' be used. The 625
DunieVs Advancement. DANIEL III. The Gulden Image net up.
tolling of the stone on the image must mean, destroying judg7nent on the fourth Gentile power, not gradual evangelization of it by grace; ami the destroying judgment
vancps from mere self-glorification, ill the fourth chapter, to open opposition to God in the liflh. Nebucliadnezzar demands homage to be paid to his image (cli. 3.), and boasts of his power (ch. 4). But Belsliazzar gws further, blasplieming Gwl by polluting His holy vessels. There
«*4iunot be dealt by Christians, for they are taught to submit to the powers that be, so that it must be dealt by Christ himself at his coming again. We live under the divisions of the Roman empire which began 14(10 years ago, iiid which at the time of His coming shall be definitely ten. All that had failed In the hand of man shall then pass away, and that which Is kept in His own hand shall l)e introduced. Thus the second chapter is the alphabet of the subsequent prophetic statements in Daniel. [TrugeMjES.] God of heaven . . . Icingdom— lience the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 3.
is a similar progression in tlie conduct of God's people. Sbadracli, Mesliacli, and Abed-nego refuse ;)ost7ae homa^je to the image of the world-power (eh. 3.); Daniel will not yield iteven a nefirah've homage, by omitting for a time the worship of God (ch. 6). Jeliovah's power manifested for the saints agaitist the world in individual histories (ch.
3.-6.), is exhibited in ch. 2. and 7., in world-wide proplieti cal pictures; the former heightening the ell'ec-t of the latter. The miracles wrought in behalf of Daniel and his friends were a manifestation of God's glory in Daniel's person, as the representative of tlie theocracy before th« Babylonian king, who deemed himself almighty, at a time when God could not jnanifest it in His people as a body. Tliey tended also to secure, by their iinpressivo character, that respect for the covenant people on tlie part of the heatlien powers which issued in Cyrus' decree, not only restoring the Jews, but ascribing honour to the God of heaven, aud commanding the building of the tempU (Ezra 1. 1-4). [Auberlen.] ImageNebucliadnezzar'* confession of Gtxl did not prevent him being a worshippef of idols besides. Ancient idolaters thougiit that eacli nation had its own gods, and that, in addition to these, foreign gods might he worshipped. The Jewish religioi* was the only exclusive one tliat claimed all homage for Jehovah as tlie only true God. Men will in times of troublo confess God, if tliey are allowed to retain their favourite heart-idols. Tlie image was that of Bel, the Babyloniab tutelary god ; or rather, Nebuchadnezzar himself, the pei Bonification and representative of the Babylonian empire, as suggested to him by the dream (ch. 2. 3S), " I'Aox art this head of gold." The interval between the dreai>« and the event here was about nineteen years. Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from finishing the .Jewish anfl Syrian wars, the spoils of which would furnish the meaM of rearing such a colossal statue. [Prideaux.] The colossal size makes it likely that the frame was wood, overlaid with gold. The " heiglit," 60 cubits, is so out of proportion with the "breadth," exceeding it ten times, thai
2). not . . . left to otlier people—as the Chaldees had been forced to leave their kingdom to the Medo-Persians, and these to the Greeks, and these to the Romans (Micah
4.7; Luke 1. 32, a3). l»reali . . . all—(Isaiah 60.12; 1 Corinthians 15.2-1.) 45. witUout hands {Note, v. 35.) Tlie connection of the "forasmuch," &c., is, "as thovi sawest that the stone," &c., this is an indication that "the great God," d'c, i. e., the fact of thy seeing the dream as I have recalled it to thy recollection, is a proof that it is no airy phantom, but a real representation to thee from God of the future. A similar proof of the "certainty" of tlie event was given to Pharaoh by the doubling of hisdream (Genesis 41.32). 46. fell upon . . . face, and worshipped Daniel—worshipping God in the person of Daniel. Symbolical of the future prostration of the world-power before Messiah and His kingdom (Philippians 2. 10). As other servants of God refused such honours (Acts 10. 25, 2«;
14. 13-15; Revelation 22.8,9), and Daniel (ch. 1.8) would not taste defiled food, por give up prayer to God at the cost of his life (ch. 6.), it seems likely that Daniel rejected the profTered Divine honours. The word " answered" (i>.
47)iniplies that Daniel had objected to these honours; and in compliance with his objection, "the king ansvered. Of a truth, your God is a God of gods." Daniel had disclaimed all personal merit in v. 30, giving God all the glory (cf. V. 45). commanded . . . sweet odours—Divine lionours (Ezra 6. 10). It is not said his command was execitted. 47. liord of kings—The world-power shall at
last have to acknowledge this (Revelation 17. 14; 19. 16); even as Nebuchadnezzar, who had been the God-appointed "king of kings" (v. 37), but who had abused the trust, is constrained by God's servant to acknowledge that God is the true "Lord of kings." 48. One reason for Nebuchadnezzar having been vouchsafed such a dream is here seen,
it seems best to suppose the thickness from breast to bacK to be intended, which is exactly the right proportion of n •well-formed man. [Auqustine, De Civilale Dei, 15. 2k.] Prideaux thinks the 60 cubits to refer to ifte image and pedestal together, the image being 27 cubits high, or 4i yi feet, the pedestal 33 cubits, or 50 feet. Herodotus (1. irH) conflrms this by mentioning a iimi7ar image, 40 /eci hit/h,
viz., that Daniel might be promoted, and the captive people of God be comforted: the Independent state of the captives during the exile, and the alleviation of its hard-
in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not tlie*fMi« image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura, not in the city. 3. princes—" satraps" of provinces. [GeseNius.] captains— ruJc?-*, not exclusively military, ahei-- iffs—men learned in the law, like tlie Arab Mufti. [GeskNIUS.] 3. stood before the Image—in an attitude of devotion. Wliatever the king approved of, they all op^irovo
ships, were much due to Daniel. 49. Daniel reqneste<l Contrast this honourable remembrance of his humble friends in his elevation with the spirit of the children of the world In the chief butler's case (Genesis 40. 23; Eccle-
Biastes 9. 15, IG; Amos 6.6). In the gate—the place of holding courts of Justice and levees In the East (Estlier 2.
of. There Is no stability of principle in the ung<xl<y. 4. The arguments of the persecutor are In brief. Turn o? burn. 5. cornet—a wind instrument, like thi; French horn, is meant, flute-a pipe or pipes, not bio A'n transversely as our "flute," but by mouth-pieces at the end, gackbnt—a triangular stringed instrument, having short strings, the sound being on a high sharp key. psaltery —a kind of harp, dulcimer—a bagpipe consisting of two pipes, thrust through a leathern bag, emitting a sweet plaintive sound. Chaldee Sumponya, the inodern Italian Zampngna, Asiatic Za.mbonja. fall down—that the recusants might be the more readily detected. 6. Noothernatlon but the Jews would feel this edict oppressive; for it did not prevent them worshipping their own gods beside*.
19; Job 29.7). So "the Sublime Porte," or Ga^c, denotes the sultan's government, his counsels being formerly held
in the entrance of his palace. Daniel was a chief coun-
sellor of the king, and president over the governors of the
difTerent orders Into which the Magi were divided.
Ver. 1-30. Nebuchadnezzar's Idolatrous Image; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-neqo are delivered FROM THE Furnace. Between the vision of Nebuchadnezzar in the 2d ch., and that of Daniel in the 7th, four narratives of Daniel's and his friends' personal history ar« Introduced. As ch. 2. and 7. go together, so ch.
It was evidently aimed at the Jews by those jealous of their high position in the king's court, who therefore ln» duced him to pass an edict as to all recusants, representing such refusal of homage as an act of treason to Nebuchadnezzar as civil and religious "head" of the empire. So the edict under Darius (Otli ch.) was aimed against the Jews by those Jealous of Daniel's Influence. TUi literal
3. and 6, (the deliverance from the Hons' den), ch. 4. and
6.; of these last two pairs, the former shows God's nearness to save His saints when faithful to Him, at tlie very time they seem to be crushed by the world-power. The second pair shows In the case of the two kings of the first monarchj', how God can suddenly humble the world-power in the height of its Insolence. The latter ad-