Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 4 (4.1-37)

Chapter 4: The Harder They Come, The Harder They Fall 4.1-37: An introductory note Ch. 4 revolves around the second of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams. The chapter as a whole consists of three basic sections: i] the historical backdrop to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (4.1-9), ii] the description-andinterpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (4.10-27), and iii] the historical fulfilment of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (4.28-37). The second and third of these sections (i.e., the description and interpretation of the dream) are highly poetic in nature. They are built around a series of three-part phrases, e.g., The tree became great and strong, and its high-point came up to the heavens, and it was visible from the end-points of the earth. Its leaves were pleasant, and its fruit was plentiful, and in it was food for all. (Dan. 4.11-12a) The threefold phrases in Daniel’s narrative are particularly clear when the chapter is read in Aramaic. Blocks of three are chained together by wāws or dîs. Breaks are then signalled by devices such as atnachs or a switch in tense. I have set out my translation of ch. 4 in such a way as to bring out these phrases.1 Whether the number three is significant to ch. 4’s overall theme is not clear to me. Perhaps Daniel wants us to connect ch. 4 to the ongoing effect of the witness of the three Hebrews, 1. Many Bible-versions have done likewise (e.g., NKJV, NET, etc.) on isolated occasions (e.g., 4.10-11), but none seem to have followed the principle through. 1 2 4.1-37: TEXT AND TRANSLATION i.e., Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. Or perhaps Daniel has another reason for his use of three-part phrases. Either way, their enumeration seems to annotate the overall flow and interrelation of the chapter (see later). 4.1-37: Text and translation Shorter translational notes are footnoted. Where a ‘+’ sign appears, further translational notes can be found below (“4.1-37: Further translational notes”). 4.1 ‫א‬³‫עַמְמַיּ‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ּצַר מַלְּכָא ל‬ª‫נžבוּכַדŸנ‬ ‌‫ כ‬N‫י‬£‫ד´אֲר‬Ê‫י‬£‫א ּד‬³‫נ®יּ‬µ™ִ‫א וžל‬³‫אֻמַיּ‬ N‫אַרŸעָא שׁלָמְכוֹ‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ ק ּב‬N‫י‬£‫ד´יžר‬ !;‫שּׂג¦א‬¢‫י‬ 4.2 ‫י עֲבַד עִּמִי‬£‫א ּד‬³‫א וžתִמְהַיּ‬³‫אָתַיּ‬ ‫א כ‌ עִּלָאָה ק שׁפַר‬³‫אֱלָהָא עִּלָי‬ !;‫ה‬³‫י‬³‫קָד´מַי לְהַחֲו‬ 4.3 ‫ וžתִמְהוֹהִי‬N‫אָתוֹהִי ּכְמָה ר¯בְרŸבִי‬ !N‫ּכְמָה תַקִּיפִי‬ ‫לְטָנ¦ּה‬µ‫ וžשׁ‬Mַ‫מַלְכוּתֵּה מַלְכוּת עָל‬ !;‫ּד´ר וžד´ר‬ÊMִ‫ע‬ 4.4 ‫ּצַר שׁלֵה הֲו¦ית‬ª‫ה נžבוּכַדŸנ‬Éֲ‫א‬ !;‫לִי‬Ç‫ ּבְהֵי‬N®‫ּבְבֵיתִי וžר¯עְנ‬ [From] Nebuchadnezzar the King to all tribes, nations, and tongues, who reside in every part of the earth: May your peace abound! [1] The signs and wonders which the Most High God has done in my [days],2 it is my pleasure3 to unveil: [2] how great are his signs, and how strong are his wonders, [3] his kingdom is an age-steadfast4 kingdom, and his rule [extends] from generation to generation! I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house and flourishing5 in my palace, 2. lit., ‘with me’, but the sense of the phrase is temporal, like the phrase wĕšolt.anēh c im-dār wĕdār (lit., ‘with generation and generation’, though in practice, ‘throughout all generations’: 4.3) or bĕh.ezrî c im lêlyā c (lit., ‘visions with the night’, though in practice, ‘visions [seen] at night’: 7.2). The Heb. prep. c im can function in much the same way, e.g., yîrā cûkā c im-šāmeš (‘May they fear you while the sun endures’). 3. ‘Please’ is a pfct. conj., but, in the context of speech, can function as a pres. tense (Ezra 4.14). 4. trad., ‘eternal’; «QLM» can refer to ‘eternity’ or a thing’s ‘youthfulness’ or ‘strength’ or ‘durability’ (CAL lmc 2016:n.m., Heb. GHCL c ōlām), which I have sought to capture here c 5. trad., ‘prosper’, but the Heb. cog. often describes the health of vegetation (hence its trans. as “green” or “verdant”: Deut. 12.2, 1 Kgs. 14.23, Psa. 37.35, etc.). As such, it anticipates Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a tree (4.10+). 3 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 4.5 N‫י‬£‫י וžהַרŸהֹר‬¢‫יד¯חֲלִּנ®נ‬¢‫ חֲז¦ית ו‬Mֶ‫חֵל‬ ‫י‬¤‫מִשּׁכְבִי וžחֶזžו¦י ר§אשׁ‬Ê‫עַל‬ !;‫י‬¢‫יžבַהֲלֻּנ®נ‬ when I saw a dream which left me fearful.6 [My] thoughts then became unsettled7 [as I lay] on my bed, and the visions of my mind began to run away with me.8 4.6 ‫ לְהַנžעָלָה קָד´מַי‬Mֵ‫ טְע‬M‫י‬¤‫י שׂ‬¢‫וּמִּנ‬ ‫ר‬°‫פְשׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫לְכֹל חַּכִימֵי בָבֶל ּד‬ !;‫י‬¢‫חֶלְמָא יžהֹודŸעֻּנ®נ‬ From my [presence], a decree was therefore set [forth] [which required] all of Babylon’s wise men to appear9 before me and to make known to me the dream’s interpretation. 4.7 ‫ ק‬N‫ כ‌ עָּלִי‬N‫ עָלֲלִי‬N¢‫ּבֵאד¯י‬ ‌‫א ּכַשּׂד´י¦א כ‬³‫א אָשׁפַיּ‬³‫חַרŸטֻמַיּ‬ ‫א וžחֶלְמָא אָמַר‬³‫זžר¯יּ‬³‫ּכַשּׂד´אֵי ק וžג‬ ‫ וּפִשׁר§ּה‬N‫ד´מֵיהוֹ‬Å‫ה ק‬Éֲ‫א‬ !;‫ לִי‬N‫מְהוֹדŸעִי‬Ê‫לָא‬ So the interpreters-of-dreams, practitioners-of-incantations, astrologers, and shapers-of-destiny began to come in, and, as they did so, I related the dream before them,10 but they did not make known to me its interpretation, 4.8 ‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫ עַל קָד´מַי ּד´נ‬N‫וžעַד אָחֳר§י‬ M»‫אּצַר ּכְשׁ‬°‫שׁמֵּה ּבֵלְטְשׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ N‫י‬¤‫ישׁ‬£‫ קַּד‬N‫אֱלָהִי‬Êַ‫י רוּח‬£‫אֱלָהִי וžד‬ !;‫ּבֵּה וžחֶלְמָא קָד´מוֹהִי אַמְר§ת‬ until, at last, there came in Daniel, who is named Belteshazzar after the name of my god+ but in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God—,11+ and I related the dream before him, [saying], 4.9 ‫י‬£‫א ּד‬³‫אּצַר ר¯ב חַרŸטֻמַיּ‬°‫ּבֵלְטְשׁ‬ N‫י רוּחַ אֱלָהִי‬£‫דŸעֵת ּד‬¢‫ה י‬Éֲ‫א‬ ‫אָנ¦ס‬Ê‫ר´ז לָא‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫ ּבָ› ו‬N‫י‬¤‫ישׁ‬£‫קַּד‬ ‫חֲז¦ית וּפִשׁר§ּה‬Ê‫י‬£‫לָ› חֶזžו¦י חֶלְמִי ד‬ !;‫אֱמַר‬ ‘O Belteshazzar, greatest12 of the court-magicians, of whom I [can say], I know13 that the Spirit of the Holy God is in you, and that no mystery is a burden to you [to solve]!14 Declare the visions of my dream which I have seen, even its interpretation!’.+ 6. 4.4 describes an ongoing state (via a periphr. constr.), which 4.5 interrupts, hence my translation, “when I saw...” 7. harhōr is underlain by various different concepts, most notably ‘contemplation’, ‘motion’, and ‘excitement’ (CAL 2015:v.n.Q.). Its root vb. means ‘to have moving thoughts’ or even ‘to fantasise’, i.e., ‘to allow one’s thoughts to run away’ (CAL «HRHR» 2015:vb., Montgomery 1927:226-227), as per the Theod.’s trans. (etarachthēn: ‘I was unsettled’). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream has left him in a highly disturbed and uncontrolled mental state. As such, 4.5b sets the stage for Nebuchadnezzar’s breakdown (4.33). The vb. «BHL»(D) (‘to agitate’) reinforces the point. 8. more lit., ‘troubled me’ or ‘agitated me’, but the vb. ‘to trouble’ can also have the sense ‘to hurry’ and ‘to stir up’ (2.25, 3.24), as I have sought to reflect in my trans. 9. lit., ‘to be brought’ 10. The ptc. forms (of ‘come’, ‘relate’, and ‘make known’) are notable, and hence are here treated as imperfectives. Particularly notable is the ptc. constr. mĕhôdc în lî as opposed to Daniel’s customary yĕhôdc unnānî (2.5, 2.9, 2.26, etc.). 11. alt., ‘a spirit of the holy gods’ 12. alt., ‘chief’ or ‘head’; so also in 1.4, 2.14, 2.48, etc. 13. a pfct. conj., though, like other verbs of perception, it often has a pres. sense 14. more lit., ‘no mystery exerts any pressure on you’. A similar comment is made about Daniel by Ezekiel, who asks of the king of Tyre, ‘Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?’ (Ezek. 28.3: MÈָ‫ח‬ !œ‫ ל¸א עֲמָמוּ‬M‫סָתוּ‬Ê‫)אַּתָה מדנאל ּכָל‬. 4 4.1-37: TEXT AND TRANSLATION 4.10 ‫מִשּׁכְבִי חָז¦ה‬Ê‫י עַל‬¤‫וžחֶזžו¦י ר§אשׁ‬ !‫הֲו¦ית ו®אֲלוּ‬ 4.11 !Nָ‫אִיל‬ [1] [I saw] a tree,15 !‫ּבְגוֹא אַרŸעָא‬ [2] in the centre16 of the earth, !;‫יא‬¢‫ּג‬°‫וžרוּמֵּה שׂ‬ [3] and it was exceptionally tall in height.17 !Pִ‫א וּתְק‬Éָ‫רŸבָה אִיל‬ [1] The tree became great and strong, !‫א‬³‫מְטֵא לִשׁמַיּ‬¢‫וžרוּמֵּה י‬ [2] and its high-point18 came up to the heavens, !;‫אַרŸעָא‬Ê‫ ּכָל‬P‫ו®חֲזוֹתֵּה לְסוֹ‬ [3] !‫פִּיר‬°‫עָפְי¦ּה שׁ‬ [1] Its foliage was pleasant, !‫יא‬¢‫ּג‬°‫וžאִנžּבֵּה שׂ‬ [2] and its fruit plentiful !‫בֵּה‬Ê‫ לְכֹּלָא‬N‫וּמָזוֹ‬ [3] and in it was food for all. !‫ּתְחֹתוֹהִי ּתַטְלֵל חֵיו®ת ּבָר´א‬ [1] Underneath it, the beasts of the field found shade, [2] and, in its branches, the birds of the heavens took up residence, [3] and, from it, all flesh was fed. 4.12 ‫ ק‬N´‫ כ‌ יžדוּר‬N‫רוּ‬º‫וּבְעַנžפוֹהִי יžד‬ !‫א‬³‫צִפֲּר§י שׁמַיּ‬ !;‫ּבִשׂר´א‬Ê‫ ּכָל‬N‫י‬¢‫ּתְז‬¢‫וּמִּנ¦ּה י‬ 4.13 4.14 Now, then, [for] the visions of my mind [as I lay] on my bed. As I watched, behold: ‫י‬¤‫חָז¦ה הֲו¦ית ּבְחֶזžו¦י ר§אשׁ‬ !‫מִשּׁכְבִי ו®אֲלוּ‬Ê‫עַל‬ and it was visible from the end-points19 of the earth. As I continued to watch,20 in my mind’s visions [while I lay] on my bed, behold:21 !‫ישׁ‬£‫עִיר וžקַּד‬ [1] a holy watcher,+ !;‫חִת‬É ‫א‬³‫שׁמַיּ‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ [2] coming down from the heavens, !‫ אָמַר‬Nֵ‫ל וžכ‬¢‫קָר§א בְחַי‬ [3] issuing, with force, the following [word of] command,22 !‫א וžקַּצִצוּ עַנžפוֹהִי‬Éָ‫ּגֹּדוּ אִיל‬ [1] Cut down the tree and cut off23 its branches! 15. With the outset of the vision itself, the groups of three begin. 16. alt., ‘midst’ 17. lit., ‘its height was tall’. 18. JDTT rûm II cf, the Old Gr.’s trans. (upsos), to emphasise the vertical (‘heaven-vs-earth’) conflict depicted in ch. 4 19. ‘end-point’ distinguishes sôp from «QS.S.» and its derivatives (1.18’s comm.) 20. ‘watch’ and ‘watcher’ do not derive from the same root 21. The narrative sections are excluded from the groups of three. 22. lit., ‘calling with force and thus saying’. The level of authority conveyed by the vb. cămar (‘to say’) depends on who its subject is. When a king cămars, the vb. is generally rendered as ‘command’ (e.g., KJV 2.2, 2.12, 2.46, etc.). Since the Watcher speaks on behalf of all heaven, I have applied the same logic, hence “issuing the following command”. 23. Just as a derivate of «QS.S.» signalled the beginning of the end for Jehoiakim and Judah (1.2), so it does for Nebuchadnezzar. 5 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 !‫אַּתַרוּ עָפְי¦ּה וּבַּד¯רוּ אִנžּבֵּה‬ ‫ּתַחְּתוֹהִי‬ÊNִ‫ד חֵיוžתָא מ‬¹‫ּתְנ‬ !;‫עַנžפֹוהִי‬ÊNִ‫א מ‬³‫וžצִפְּר¯יּ‬ 4.15 ‫רŸשׁוֹהִי ּבְאַרŸעָא‬µ‫ עִקַּר שׁ‬M¯‫ּבְר‬ ‫ל וּנžחָשׁ‬ª‫פַרŸז‬Ê‫י‬£‫שׁבֻקוּ וּבֶאֱסוּר ּד‬ !‫י בָר´א‬£‫תְאָא ּד‬£‫ּבְד‬ !‫צְטַּבַע‬¢‫א י‬³‫וּבְטַל שׁמַיּ‬ ‫ב‬°‫חֵיוžתָא חֲלָקֵּה ּבַעֲשׂ‬ÊMִ‫וžע‬ !;‫אַרŸעָא‬ 4.16 4.17 ‫א ק‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א כ‌ א‬µ‫אֱנוֹשׁ‬ÊNִ‫לִבְבֵּה מ‬ !N‫ּנוֹ‬°‫יžשׁ‬ [2] Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit! [3] Let the beast be driven out from under it and the birds from its branches!24 [1] But leave25 the core of its roots26 in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it].27 [2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens, [3] and [let its] portion be with the beast amidst the green plants of the earth. [1] Let its heart be changed from a man’s,28 !‫תְיžהִב לֵּה‬¢‫ה י‬³‫וּלְבַב חֵיו‬ [2] and let a beast’s heart be given to it, !;‫ עֲל·והִי‬N‫ י®חְלְפוּ‬N‫י‬¢‫בְעָה עִּד´נ‬¤‫וžשׁ‬ [3] and let seven seasons pass over it. ‫מָא וּמֵאמַר‬³‫ פִּתְג‬N‫י‬£‫ּבִגžז¦ר¯ת עִיר‬ ‫י‬£‫בְר¯ת ּד‬£‫ּד‬Ê‫ שׁאֵלְתָא עַד‬N‫י‬¤‫ישׁ‬£‫קַּד‬ !‫א‬³‫ חַיּ®יּ‬N‫נžּדŸעוּ‬¢‫י‬ ‫א כ‌ עִּלָאָה ק‬³‫ּלִיט עִּלָי‬°‫שׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ !‫א ק‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א כ‌ א‬µ‫ּבְמַלְכוּת אֱנוֹשׁ‬ !‫ּנ®ּה‬¢‫ּתְנ‬¢‫צְּבֵא י‬¢‫י י‬£‫ּד‬ÊNַ‫וּלְמ‬ The [aforementioned] verdict has been shaped29 by the Watchers—the decision announced by the Holy Ones30 —in order to let the living know [1] that the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdom [2] and gives it to whomever he desires 24. Each clause in 4.14 consists of an impv. followed by a wāw + pfct. The wāw + pfct. continues the sense of the impv., like the Heb. wĕqāt.al. 25. ‘To leave’ [šbq] can often be ‘to leave behind’, as in Pesh. Matt. 3.19. 26. The nouns c qr and šrš describe ‘roots’ (CAL 2015), as do their cog. verbs (‘to uproot’ and ‘to take root’ respectively). As such, c qr šršwhy signifies ‘the root of [a tree’s] roots’, i.e., ‘its deepest root’ (so the CEB). The NET has ‘taproot’, while the CAL has ‘the core of its roots’. 27. lit., ‘with a bond of iron and bronze’. The clause is parenthetical. I have therefore moved it to the end of the vs. for the sake of clarity. The implied object ‘[it]’ does not refer to the root-core, but the remnants of the tree. 28. «ŠNY» generally means ‘to change’, but can also mean ‘to be insane’. We could therefore render 4.16a as, “Let its mind—[a mind] of a man—be [made] insane”. The Akk. cog. šanû has a similar sense, hence, for instance, the phrase libbini u-ša-nu-u-ma (‘they confuse our hearts’: CAD šanû B2). 29. See 2.27’s trans. notes. 30. more lit., ‘by the decision of the Watchers is the decree, and by the speech of the Holy Ones is the demand’. Goldingay has, “The decision is decreed by watchmen, the intent is determined by holy beings” (Goldingay 1989:78 cf. Gordis 1936:45). 6 4.1-37: TEXT AND TRANSLATION ‌‫א כ‬³‫ עִּלָי‬M‫ יžקִי‬M‫י‬¤‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫וּשׁפַל א‬ !‫עֲלַּה ק‬ 4.18 ‫ה מַלְּכָא‬Éֲ‫ה חֶלְמָא חֲז¦ית א‬ɟ‫ּד‬ ‫ּצַר וžאַנžּתָה כ‌ וžאַנžּתְ ק‬ª‫נžבוּכַדŸנ‬ ‫אּצַר פִּשׁר§א אֱמַר‬°‫ּבֵלְטְשׁ‬ ‫חַּכִימֵי‬Ê‫י ּכָל‬£‫בֵל ּד‬Å‫ק‬Ê‫ּכָל‬ ‫ פִּשׁר´א‬N‫לִי‬dz‫י‬Ê‫מַלְכוּתִי לָא‬ ‫י וžאַנžּתָה כ‌ וžאַנžּתְ ק‬¢‫לְהוֹד´עֻתַנ‬ N‫י‬¤‫ישׁ‬£‫ קַּד‬N‫אֱלָהִי‬Êַ‫י רוּח‬£‫ּכָהֵל ּד‬ !;›ָ‫ּב‬ 4.19 ‫שׁמֵּה‬Ê‫י‬£‫יּ¦אל ּד‬¢‫ ּד´נ‬N¢‫אֱד¯י‬ ‫עָה‬µ‫ ּכְשׁ‬Mַ‫אּצַר אֶשּׁתוֹמ‬°‫ּבֵלְטְשׁ‬ ‫חֲד´ה וžר¯עְיֹנֹהִי יžבַהֲלֻּנ¦ּה עָנ¦ה‬ ‫אּצַר חֶלְמָא‬°‫מַלְּכָא וžאָמַר ּבֵלְטְשׁ‬ ‫יžבַהֲלָ› עָנ¦ה‬Ê‫וּפִשׁר§א אַל‬ ‫י‬£‫אּצַר וžאָמַר מָרŸאִי כ‌ מָר‬°‫בֵלְטְשׁ‬ ‫נžאָ› ק‬µ‫› כ‌ לְשׂ‬¢‫נžאַי‬µ‫ק חֶלְמָא לְשׂ‬ !;‫› כ‌ לְעָר´› ק‬¢‫וּפִשׁר§ּה לְעָר¯י‬ 4.20 !ָ‫י חֲז®יžת‬£‫א ּד‬Éָ‫אִיל‬ 4.21 and causes the lowliest of men to stand over it. This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen, and you, Belteshazzar, must relate its interpretation. As [surely as]31 none of the wise men of my kingdom are able to make the interpretation known to me, you are able [to do so], for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you. Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was then left in a temporary state of desolation,32+ and his thoughts began to run away with him, in response to which the King said, ‘O Belteshazzar! Do not let the dream or its interpretation trouble33 you’. ‘My Lord!’, Daniel replied, ‘May the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!’.+ The tree which you saw— !Pִ‫י רŸבָה וּתְק‬£‫ּד‬ [1] which became great and strong !‫א‬³‫מְטֵא לִשׁמַיּ‬¢‫וžרוּמֵּה י‬ [2] and the high-point of which came up to the heavens !;‫אַרŸעָא‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ו®חֲזוֹתֵּה ל‬ [3] and which was visible from the end-points of the earth,34 !‫פִּיר‬°‫וžעָפְי¦ּה שׁ‬ [1] and the leaves of which were pleasant !‫יא‬¢‫ּג‬°‫וžאִנžּבֵּה שׂ‬ [2] and the fruit of which was plentiful [3] and in which was food for all those in it (the beasts of the field took up residence underneath it while the birds of the heavens made their dwelling-place in its branches)—,35 ‫בֵּה ּתְחֹתוֹהִי ּתְדוּר‬Ê‫ לְכֹּלָא‬N‫וּמָזוֹ‬ NÉְ‫שּׁכ‬¢‫חֵיו®ת ּבָר´א וּבְעַנžפוֹהִי י‬ !;‫א‬³‫צִפֲּר§י שׁמַיּ‬ 4.22 [3] !‫הוּא ק מַלְּכָא‬Êְ‫אַנžּתָה כ‌ אַנžּת‬ !ְ‫י רŸבַית וּתְקֵפְּת‬£‫ּד‬ it is you, O King— [1] you who have become great and strong, 31. As in 2.40-41, I take kol-qŏbēl dî to connect a clause with what follows it either in a comparative manner (‘just as’) or an explanatory manner (‘insofar as’). See also wĕdî in 4.23. 32. lit., ‘was desolated [«ŠMM»(Gt) ] for an hour’ 33. «BHL»(D) , as earlier in the vs. 34. where 4.20c-d’s wāws inherit the sense of 4.20b’s dî 35. 4.21’s final clause (“the beasts of the field....”) is not joined to what precedes it (by a wāw), and hence seems to function parenthetically. 7 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 4.23 !‫א‬³‫וּרŸבוּתָ› רŸבָת וּמְטָת לִשׁמַיּ‬ [2] and whose greatness has become [so] great as to come up to the heavens, !;‫ אַרŸעָא‬P‫› לְסוֹ‬Éָ‫לְט‬µ‫וžשׁ‬ [3] and whose rule [extends] to the end-points of the earth. ‫ישׁ‬£‫ה מַלְּכָא עִיר וžקַּד‬³‫י חֲז‬£‫וžד‬ !‫א וžאָמַר‬³‫שׁמַיּ‬ÊNִ‫חִת מ‬É ‫ עִקַּר‬M¯‫א וžחַּבְלוּהִי ּבְר‬Éָ‫ּגֹּדוּ אִיל‬ ‫רŸשׁוֹהִי ּבְאַרŸעָא שׁבֻקוּ וּבֶאֱסוּר‬µ‫שׁ‬ ‫י‬£‫תְאָא ּד‬£‫ל וּנžחָשׁ ּבְד‬ª‫פַרŸז‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ !‫בָר´א‬ !‫צְטַּבַע‬¢‫א י‬³‫וּבְטַל שׁמַיּ‬ ‫חֵיו®ת ּבָר´א חֲלָקֵּה עַד‬ÊMִ‫וžע‬ N‫ י®חְלְפוּ‬N‫י‬¢‫בעָה עִּד´נ‬ ְ ¤‫שׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ !;‫עֲל·והִי‬ 4.24 ‫א‬³‫ה פִשׁר´א מַלְּכָא וּגžז¦ר¯ת עִּלָי‬ɟ‫ּד‬ ‫י מְטָת‬£‫כ‌ עִּלָאָה ק הִיא ּד‬ !;‫י ק מַלְּכָא‬£‫מַרŸאִי כ‌ מָר‬Ê‫עַל‬ 4.25 !‫א‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א‬ÊNִ‫ מ‬N‫י‬£‫וžלָ› טָרŸד‬ And insofar as36 the King saw a holy watcher coming down from the heavens, giving the command,37 [1] Cut down the tree and inflict harm on it—but leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it]—, [2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens, [3] and let its portion be with the beasts of the field until38 seven seasons pass over it, [so]39 this is the interpretation, O King—indeed, it is the decision shaped by the Most High which has come down40 upon my lord, the King. [1] !›´‫חֵיו®ת ּבָר´א לֶהֱו¦ה מְדֹר‬ÊMִ‫וžע‬ and you will reside with the beasts of the field, !N‫ לָ› יžטַעֲמוּ‬N‫י‬£‫תוֹר‬Ç ‫וžעִשּׂבָא‬ !N‫א לָ› מְצַּבְעִי‬³‫וּמִּטַל שׁמַיּ‬ ‌ ›¢‫ עֲלַי‬N‫ י®חְלְפוּ‬N‫י‬¢‫בְעָה עִּד´נ‬¤‫וžשׁ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ּלִיט‬°‫שׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫תִנžּד¯ע ּד‬Ê‫י‬£‫עֲלָ› ק עַד ּד‬ ‫א כ‌ עִּלָאָה ק ּבְמַלְכוּת‬³‫עִּלָי‬ !;‫ּנ®ּה‬¢‫ּתְנ‬¢‫צְּבֵא י‬¢‫י י‬£‫ּד‬ÊNַ‫א וּלְמ‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א‬ You will now be driven from man,41 and, like oxen, you will be fed+ green plants, [2] and you will be drenched with the dew of the heavens, [3] and seven seasons will be made to pass over you, until you acknowledge42 that the Most High rules over man’s kingdom and gives it to whomever he desires. 36. wĕdî similar to kol-qŏbēl dî (4.18). Collins prefers the trans. “as for the fact that” (1993:210-212), the sense of which is much the same. 37. For the sense of «PMR», see 4.14. 38. a departure from 4.16, which here has ‘let seven seasons pass over it!’. The relevant triad is demarcated by the word ‘until’. 39. 4.24’s ‘so’ answers to 4.23’s ‘just as’. The two verses are connected by the notion of ‘descent’. Just as the Watcher descends from the heavens, so a curse descends on the King. 40. alt., ‘befallen’. Montgomery takes the form mĕt.āt to be a remnant of “the ancient stative” (Montgomery 1927:241) 41. lit., ‘they will drive you from man’. Goldingay suggests ‘from human society’ (1989:79). The 3rd pers. plur. form seems to function passively here, as throughout 4.25-26. 42. Nebuchadnezzar’s times will continue until he «YDQ»s the Most High’s sovereignty. As such, 4.25c seems to envisage a moment of realisation, hence my translation “acknowledge”. 8 4.1-37: TEXT AND TRANSLATION 4.26 ‫י אֲמַרוּ לְמִשּׁבַק עִקַּר‬£‫וžד‬ ›ָ‫א מַלְכוּת‬Éָ‫י אִיל‬£‫רŸשׁוֹהִי ּד‬µ‫שׁ‬ ‫י‬£‫י תִנžּד¯ע ּד‬£‫ּד‬ÊNִ‫מָה מ‬³‫לָ› קַיּ‬ !;‫א‬³‫ שׁמַיּ‬Nִ‫ּלִט‬°‫שׁ‬ 4.27 ›¢‫שׁפַּר עֲלַי‬¢‫ מַלְּכָא מִלְּכִי י‬Nֵ‫לָה‬ ‫› כ‌ ו®חֲטָאָ› ק‬³‫כ‌ עֲלָ› ק ו®חֲטָי‬ Nַ‫תָ› ּבְמִח‬³‫י‬³‫ק ו®עֲו‬º‫ּבְצִדŸקָה פְר‬ !;›ָ‫ה לִשׁלֵוžת‬ȟ‫ ּתֶהֱו¦א אַר‬Nֵ‫ ה‬N¢‫י‬Éֲ‫ע‬ 4.28 ‫ּצַר‬ª‫נžבוּכַדŸנ‬Ê‫ּכֹּלָא ּמְטָא עַל‬ !P ;‫מַלְּכָא‬ 4.29 ‫ר‬°‫עֲשׂ‬Ê‫ ּתְר§י‬N‫לִקְצָת י®רŸחִי‬ ‫י בָבֶל‬£‫הֵיכַל מַלְכוּתָא ּד‬Ê‫עַל‬ !;‫ה‬³‫מְהַּלֵ› הֲו‬ At the end of twelve months, as he was walking on [the roof of] Babylon’s royal palace,47 4.30 ‫עָנ¦ה מַלְּכָא וžאָמַר הֲלָא‬ ‫ה‬Éֲ‫א‬Ê‫י‬£‫הִיא ּבָבֶל ר¯ּבְתָא ּד‬Ê‫ד´א‬ Pַ‫בֱנ®יžתַּה לְבֵית מַלְכוּ ּבִתְק‬ !;‫י‬£‫י וžלִיקָר הַדŸר‬¢‫חִסְנ‬ the King declared, “Is this not the great Babylon,48 which I myself have established49 as a royal house by my sovereign power50 and for [the sake of] my excellent glory?”.51 4.31 ‫ מַלְּכָא קָל‬Mֻ‫עוֹד מִּלְתָא ּבְפ‬ N‫י‬£‫א נžפַל לָ› אָמְר‬³‫שׁמַיּ‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ ‫ּצַר מַלְּכָא מַלְכוּתָה‬ª‫נžבוּכַדŸנ‬ !;›³‫עֲד´ת מִּנ‬ While the word was still on the King’s lips, a voice fell from the heavens, [saying], It is [hereby] announced52 to you, O Nebuchadnezzar the King:53 the kingdom has passed on from you! 4.32 !N‫י‬£‫א לָ› טָרŸד‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א‬ÊNִ‫וּמ‬ And, insofar as the command has been given to leave the core of the tree’s roots [alone], your kingdom will [stand] steadfast alongside you43 as soon as you acknowledge heaven’s rule.44 Therefore, O King, let my counsel seem pleasing to you! Break off [from] your sins45 by [practising] righteousness and [from] your iniquities by offering grace to the afflicted, in case there may be an extension to your rest!46 All this came down upon Nebuchadnezzar the King. [1] You will now be driven from man, 43. lit., ‘will be steadfast for you’ 44. šallit.in is an adj., but is here trans. as ‘rule’ to retain its connection with other cognates of «ŠLT.». 45. alt., ‘redeem your sins’ (CAL «PRQ»(G) 2015:vb.), which may be more plausible given «PRQ»’s lack of a prep. 46. The word ‘rest’ [šlwh] looks back to the ‘rest’ [šlh] Nebuchadnezzar enjoyed prior to his dream (4.5). 47. The periphr. constr. implies ‘as he was walking’, as in 4.5-6. 48. alt., ‘Truly this is the great Babylon...!’. For discussion of the part. hl, see Brown (1987:201-219), Mastin (1992:234-247), and Sivan and Schniedewind (1993:209-226). 49. lit., ‘built’, but «BNY» has creatorial overtones in cog. languages, such as Heb. (Gen. 2.22), Ugar. (BP «BNY»), and Akk. (CAD banû), and such overtones may be in mind here, especially given Nebuchadnezzar’s great arrogance. 50. lit., ‘the strength of my power’, here treated as a hend. (spec., a ‘similar couplet’) 51. lit., ‘the glory of my honour’, also treated as a ‘similar couplet’ 52. In Off. Aram., «PMR» can refer to the pronouncement of a legal declaration (CAL 2015:vb.), which would seem appropriate here. 53. Found on the King’s lips, the title “Nebuchadnezzar the King” is meant to emphasise his great status (cf. “3.1-30: Its main message”). It may, therefore, be meant sarcastically (Isa. 8.8 cf. Isa. 7.10-14). 9 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 ‫חֵיו®ת ּבָר´א מְדֹר´› עִשּׂבָא‬ÊMִ‫וžע‬ !N‫ לָ› יžטַעֲמוּ‬N‫י‬£‫תוֹר‬Ç ‌ ›¢‫ עֲלַי‬N‫ י®חְלְפוּ‬N‫י‬¢‫בְעָה עִּד´נ‬¤‫וžשׁ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ּלִיט‬°‫שׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫תִנžּד¯ע ּד‬Ê‫י‬£‫עֲלָ› ק עַד ּד‬ ‫א כ‌ עִּלָאָה ק ּבְמַלְכוּת‬³‫עִּלָי‬ !;‫ּנ®ּה‬¢‫ּתְנ‬¢‫צְּבֵא י‬¢‫י י‬£‫ּד‬ÊNַ‫א וּלְמ‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א‬ 4.33 [3] and seven seasons will be made to pass over you until you acknowledge that the Most High is the ruler over the kingdom of man and gives it to whomever he desires. At that [very] moment, the word came to its end-point upon Nebuchadnezzar:55 !‫יד‬£‫א טְר‬µ‫שׁ‬Éֲ‫א‬ÊNִ‫וּמ‬ [1] he was driven from man, !‫ י¦אכֻל‬N‫י‬£‫תוֹר‬Ç ‫וžעִשּׂבָא‬ [2] and, like oxen, he began to consume green plants, [3] and his body became drenched with the dew of the heavens until his hair grew great like eagles’ [feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws]. ‫ּצַר‬ª‫ה נžבוּכַדŸנ‬Éֲ‫ה א‬³‫וžלִקְצָת יֹומַיּ‬ !‫טְלֵת‬¢‫א נ‬³‫עַיžנ®י לִשׁמַיּ‬ Yet, at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted my eyes to the heavens, !‫וּמַנžּדŸעִי עֲלַי יžתוּב‬ [1] and, as my learning began to return to me,+ !‫א כ‌ וּלְעִּלָאָה ק ּבָרŸכֵת‬³‫וּלְעִּלָי‬ [2] I blessed the Most High, !‫ּבְחֵת וžהַּדŸר§ת‬°‫וּלְחַי עָלְמָא שׁ‬ [3] Mַ‫ עָל‬Nָ‫לְט‬µ‫לְטָנ¦ּה שׁ‬µ‫י שׁ‬£‫ּד‬ !;‫ּד´ר וžד´ר‬ÊMִ‫וּמַלְכוּתֵּה ע‬ 4.35 and you will reside with the beasts of the field (like oxen, you will be fed green plants),54 ‫עֲתָא מִּלְתָא סָפַת‬°‫שׁ‬Ê‫ּבַּה‬ !‫ּצַר‬ª‫נžבוּכַדŸנ‬Ê‫עַל‬ ‫צְטַּבַע עַד‬¢‫שׁמֵּה י‬¢‫א ּג‬³‫וּמִּטַל שׁמַיּ‬ ‫ רŸבָה‬N‫י‬£‫שׁר‬¢‫עְר§ּה ּכְנ‬°‫י שׂ‬£‫ּד‬ !;N‫י‬£‫צִפְּר‬Ç ‫וžטִפְרוֹהִי‬ 4.34 [2] ‫ּד´אֲר§י כ‌ ּד´יžר§י ק אַרŸעָא‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫ו‬ ‫מִצְּבְי¦ּה עָבֵד‬Ç‫ וּ‬N‫יבִי‬¤‫ּכְלָה חֲשׁ‬ ‫א וžד´אֲר§י כ‌ וžד´יžר§י ק‬³‫ּבְחֵיל שׁמַיּ‬ !‫אַרŸעָא‬ ‫יžמַחֵא בִיד§ּה‬Ê‫י‬£‫וžלָא אִיתַי ּד‬ !;ְ‫וžי¦אמַר לֵּה מָה עֲבַדŸּת‬ [1] [2] [3] !‫א‬Éְ‫מ‬¢‫ז‬Ê‫ּבֵּה‬ 4.36 !‫מַנžּדŸעִי יžתוּב עֲלַי‬ and I highly and honorifically esteemed56 the living age-steadfast one, whose rule is an age-steadfast rule and whose kingdom [extends] from generation to generation, to whom the combined residents57 of the earth are as nothing,58 and who does whatever he desires with the forces of heaven and the residents of earth, whose hand none can rebuke+ and to whom none can say, ‘What have you done?’. At that set time,59 [1] as my learning returned to me, 54. ‘like oxen...’ is not initiated by the customary wāw, and hence treated parenthetically 55. The prep. ‘upon’ continues the ‘descent’ of God’s word on Nebuchadnezzar (4.24). 56. lit., ‘I highly esteemed and honoured’, treated as a ‘similar couplet’ 57. lit., ‘all the residents’ 58. ‘to whom’ is carried over by 4.34’s dî, as also in the Vulg. (apud eum) 59. an Aram. eqvt. of the Akk. inūmı̄šu, employed in a similar manner in some of Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions (XXX) 10 4.1-37: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES ‫י יžתוּב‬¢‫ו‬¢‫י וžז‬£‫וžלִיקַר מַלְכוּתִי הַדŸר‬ !‫עֲלַי‬ !N‫וžלִי הַּד´בְר¯י וžר¯בְרŸבָנ®י יžבַעוֹ‬ [2] [3] ‫מַלְכוּתִי הָתְקְנ®ת וּרŸבוּ‬Ê‫וžעַל‬ !;‫י®ּתִיר´ה הוּסְפַת לִי‬ 4.37 and my honour and brightness of face60 [likewise] returned to me for [the sake of] my kingdom’s glory, and my counsellors and greatest [men] sought me out,61 [my kingdom]62 was prepared for63 my reign, and extraordinary greatness was added to me. !‫ּצַר‬ª‫ה נžבוּכַדŸנ‬Éֲ‫ א‬Nַ‫ּכְע‬ Now, therefore, I Nebuchadnezzar !‫ּבַח‬°‫מְשׁ‬ [1] highly esteem, !Mֵ‫וּמְרוֹמ‬ [2] lift up high, !‫א‬³‫וּמְהַּד¯ר לְמֶלֶ› שׁמַיּ‬ [3] and honour the King of Heaven, !‫מַעֲבָדוֹהִי קְשֹׁט‬Ê‫ל‬È ‫י‬£‫ּד‬ [1] all of whose deeds are right, !N‫י‬£‫וžאֹרŸחָתֵּה ּד‬ [2] and whose precepts64 are just, [3] and who is able to lay low those who walk in pride. ‫כִל‬³‫ה י‬³‫ ּבְג¦ו‬N‫י מַהְלְכִי‬£‫וžד‬ !P ;‫לְהַשׁפָּלָה‬ 4.1-37: Further translational notes Much of ch. 4 reads like a proclamation from Nebuchadnezzar, which is precisely what I take it to be. In particular, I take 4.1-18 and 4.34-37 to be excerpts from a kingdom-wide proclamation which Nebuchadnezzar issued (in the aftermath of ch. 4’s events), while I take 4.19-33 to be an insertion (added by Daniel) which describes Nebuchadnezzar’s fall in Daniel’s own words. Nebuchadnezzar would not have wanted to include the gory details of his fall in a kingdom-wide proclamation. (For a full discussion of the matter, see “4.1-37: Its literary structure”.) 60. zîw refers to ‘splendour’ or greatness’. When employed as a plural, it refers to a man’s ‘brightness of face’ or ‘countenance’ (GHCL, BDB). 61. 4.36’s triad is marked out by impf. forms. Li classes the forms as “fronted circumstantial/background clauses” (Li 2009:108), which look forward to the phrase ‘I was re-established [pfct.] in my kingdom’. 62. ‘prepare’ (trad., ‘established’) is a fem. sing. form. As such, I have supplied the noun “my kingdom”. The same inference is required elsewhere, such as in 2.40 and perhaps also Ezek. 31.10 (an important part of the backdrop to ch. 4). Alternatively, we could supply the proper noun ‘Babylon’. 63. cf. the sense of c al in Ezra 6.17 64. alt., ‘ways’ DANIEL CHAPTER 4 4.8a the name of my god Nebuchadnezzar composed the text of 4.1-18 after his conversion. His reference to ‘Bel’ as ‘my god’ is, therefore, unexpected. Perhaps, then, we should read ‘the name of my god’ as ‘the name of my former god’. Or perhaps, as a recent convert, Nebuchadnezzar still has a mistaken view of Babylon’s many deities. He may, for instance, see YHWH as “the Most High God” among many, i.e., as the head of a large pantheon, which includes such gods as Bel and Nebo and so forth, which would be a mistake, though not a million miles from the truth. The Scriptures regularly depict YHWH as the most powerful of a multitude of “gods”, namely the gods of the nations (Exod. 15.11, Psa. 82.1, 86.8), and they also depict YHWH as the God who judged the “gods” of Egypt (Num. 33.4), which are elsewhere referred to as “demons” (Deut. 32.15-18 cf. the LXX’s trans. of šēdîm as daimoniois). Either way, Nebuchadnezzar’s statement is understandable, and has a ring of authenticity to it. 4.8b the Spirit of the Holy God[ĕlāhîn qaddîšîn] Nebuchadnezzar refers to Daniel as a man indwelt by the spirit of ĕlāhîn qaddîšîn. Like its Heb. eqvt., cĕlāhîn can refer either to a plurality of gods or, if construed as a ‘plural of majesty’, a singular deity of great majesty.65 Since Nebuchadnezzar is now a believer in YHWH (4.1-3, 4.34-37), I take his reference to ‘the holy gods’ to be a reference to the Holy God (so also the NKJV and Montgomery66 ) The ambiguity inherent in 4.8’s turn of phrase may even be deliberate. The casual reader of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation could take the phrase rûah. ĕlāhîn qaddîšîn to designate ‘a divine spirit’ of some kind (Gen. 41.38), while those with ears to hear could appreciate its deeper significance. As Goldingay writes, “[A Jewish reader] could take [the phrase] to mean ‘the Holy God”’.67 11 In terms of its contextual significance, the purpose of 4.8 is to contrast Daniel’s ‘public identity’ with his real identity. When he first arrived in Babylon, Daniel was given the name “Belteshazzar”, which connected him, and his abilities, with the god Bel. But Daniel’s extraordinary abilities actually stemmed from a very different source—namely from YHWH—, as is made clear here. 65. The adj. “holy” in the phrase “holy gods” is also a plur. form, but the issue is not thereby resolved, since the OT can refer to YHWH as “the Holy God” vai both sing. and plur. adjs. (e.g., Josh. 24.19, 1 Sam. 6.20). Indeed, 4.8’s reference to cĕlāhîn qaddîšîn is a direct equivalent of Josh. 24.19’s reference to c ĕlohîm qĕdōšîm. 66. though Montgomery’s logic is based partly on the presence of the sing. gen. theou in the Theod., which seems unlikely to be significant insofar as the phrase ‘of the gods’ is never, as far as I can see, rendered via the plur. theōn in the Theod. 67. Goldingay 1989:80. 12 4.1-37: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES 4.9b Declare, therefore, my dream which I have seen The Aram. (‫חֶזžו¦י חֶלְמִי‬ !‫חֲז¦ית וּפִשׁר§ּה אֱמַר‬Ê‫י‬£‫ )ד‬is awkward. The most natural trans. of it is, “Relate [to me] the visions of my dream which I have seen, as well as its interpretation”. Given such a translation, ch. 4’s narrative would seem set to mirror ch. 2’s, where Daniel is asked to recount and interpret the details of the King’s dream. But the course of events follows a different pattern in ch. 4. In 4.10-17, the King himself discloses the dream, and only asks Daniel to interpret it, which makes the ‘natural’ translation of 4.9b (above) awkward. Consequently, most commentators emend !‫‘( חֶזžו¦י‬visions’) to !‫י‬¢‫חֲז‬ (‘Consider!’),68 as does the Theod.69 My own preference is, with the NKJV, to render the impv. «PMR» as ‘Declare!’ or ‘Explain!’, hence, “Declare the visions of my dream which I have seen, even its interpretation!’. The Heb. cog. [«PMR»] has the same sense in Psa. 40.10, where it is juxtaposed with the vb. ‘to hide’,70 as also in Ezek. 13.7, the context of which is explicitly visionary. Similar senses are attested in other cognate languages. Dillmann, for instance, gives the root sense of «PMR» as ‘to be conspicuous’ or ‘to be bright’, and by extension ‘to make clear, to show, etc.’,71 which seems plausible in light of the Akk. amāru (to discover72 ), the Gec ez c ammara (discern, tell73 ), the Tna. and Amh. ammärä (show74 ), etc. 4.13 a holy watcher, lit., ‘a watcher and [wāw] a holy one’. c îr can be parsed either as a ptc. or as an adj. The phrase ‘a watcher wāw a holy one’ can then be trans. in multiple ways. One options is ‘a watcher and a holy one’, but, in the text, only one creature appears to descend from the heavens. One might, therefore, try ‘a watcher, even a holy one’ or perhaps ‘a watchful[adj.] and holy one’. My own inclination is to treat the phrase as a hend. (spec., a similar couplet). The words ‘watcher’ and ‘holy’ are certainly closely connected, since they are treated as synonyms in 4.17a’s parallelism. 68. «H . ZY» generally means ‘to see’, but it can also have a prophetic slant, as it does in the nouns ‘seer’ (h.zy) and ‘vision’ (Heb., h.āzôn). Collins cites a passage (in the Elephantine Papyri) where the impv. form of «H . ZY» means ‘to take thought of’ (Collins 1993:223). 69. “Hear [akouson] the vision of the dream which I saw, and tell me its interpretation”. 70. The BBE, for instance, has, “Your righteousness has not been folded away[KSY] in my heart; I have made clear[PMR] your true word and your salvation”. 71. Dillman 1865:728. 72. CAD amāru A.1e 73. LCDG cammara 74. LCDG cammara DANIEL CHAPTER 4 4.19a Daniel was...temporarily left in a state of desolation[ŠMM (t)] The vb. «ŠMM» is stative. In the t-stem, it has the sense ‘to be left desolate’ or ‘to be dumbstruck/confounded’.75 It has few if any cognates outside of Heb. and later Jewish Aram., and, interestingly, its occurrences in the OT are most concentrated in passages on which Daniel heavily relies. «ŠMM»76 occurs 10 times in Lev. 26 (the backdrop to Gabriel’s seventy-week prophecy), over 20 times in the prophecies of Jeremiah (Daniel’s contemporary in Judah), and over 40 times in the prophecies of Ezekiel (Daniel’s contemporary in Babylon). By way of contrast, it occurs only four times in the Psalms, once in Hosea, once in Zechariah, etc. So, to understand what Daniel means by «ŠMM», the books of Lev., Jer., and Ezek. are surely the best place for us to start. The essence of the Heb. «ŠMM» is “silence”.77 As a noun, it is most commonly employed to describe the desolate condition of ransacked lands or cities (Gen. 47.19, Exod. 23.29, Lev. 26, etc., and especially 2 Chr. 36.21, Jer. 25.12, Ezek. 6.14, 7.27, etc.), or, in Daniel’s case, temple-sanctuaries (9.26-27, 11.31, 12.11). To ‘desolate’ such areas is to plunder them so as to leave them barren, still, and silent—hence, for instance, Jeremiah’s description of Judah in the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion: “I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled,...and [the] cities were laid in ruins. ...The whole land [was] a desolation[ŠMM (n)] (Jer. 4.24-27). The same connection is evident in Lev. 26.31, where the LORD announces to the Israelites, “I will lay your cities waste and make your sanctuaries desolate[ŠMM (n)] , and I will no more smell your pleasing aromas”.78 To desolate an area of land is, therefore, to silence and to empty it. To ‘desolate’ a person is then defined by means of extension. It is to appal them to such an extent as to leave them speechless—to ‘dumbfound’ them, to leave them overcome and overborne (Ezek. 3.15-17 in light of Job 2.13). As such, the vb. «ŠMM» is a very forceful and vivid way to describe a man’s reaction. It envisages shock-horror, dismay, and scandal. 75. CAL «ŠMM» 2015:vb. 76. and its derivatives šāmēm (vb.), yāšam (vb.), šāmēm (n.), and šĕmāmâh (n.) 77. GHCL šāmēm. 78. † Lev. 26.31. 13 14 4.1-37: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES 4.19c May the dream be for those who hate you!, lit., ‘the dream [is] to/for those who hate you, and the interpretation [is] to/for your enemies’. 4.19c can be understood either as an expression of desire (‘May the dream concern your enemies!’) or a statement of fact (‘The dream [and its interpretation] will delight your enemies!’). The former strikes me as the more likely of the two possibilities. Verbs like ‘concern’ are commonly omitted in Heb. and Aram.79 Had Daniel wanted to refer to the delight of the King’s enemies, he could easily have supplied an appropriate verb (e.g., ‘rejoice’ or ‘delight’). 4.34 my learning began to return to me Lines 1-3 describe three separate activities: i] the return[TWB] of the King’s understanding, ii] the King’s act of worship[BRK] , and iii] the King’s high estimation[ŠBH.-W-HDR] of the Most High God. The first of these verbs is an impf. form, while the others (‘to bless’, ‘to highly esteem’) are pfct. forms introduced by wāws. The first envisages a protracted process (referenced for a second time in 4.36), while the others describe discrete activities. As soon as God begins to look on the King in mercy, Nebuchadnezzar breaks forth in praise to God (so also Li 2009:107-108). 4.35 none can rebuke[MH.P (D)] his hand, lit., ‘no-one can strike his hand’. To strike[MH.P (D)] God’s hand could conceivably be ‘to turn back God’s actions’ or ‘to chastise God for his actions’. Both senses are viable, and may well be present in texts like Job 9.12 (“Who can turn [God] back? Who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?”’). The Vulg. favours the former possibility (‘no-one can resist [God’s] hand’), but the Pesh. favours the latter (‘no-one can reproach[ršy (C)] God’s hand’).80 The latter strikes me as most attractive textually (and is adopted by the NET), since 4.35 can then be viewed in terms of two parallelisms. “All the earth’s residents are as nothing [compared to God]” parallels “He does whatever he desires with the armies of heaven and [likewise with] the residents of earth”; meanwhile, “No-one can rebuke [God’s] hand” parallels “[No-one can] say to him, ‘What have you done?”’. 79. Consider, for instance, 10.14, where we read (literally) ‘The vision is for days’, the sense of which is, ‘The vision [concerns a period] many days [away]’. 80. The Theod. is somewhere between the two: “No-one can retaliate against [antipoieō] [God’s] hand”, where the main thought seems to be, ‘No-one can do in return to God what God has done to him’ (Lev. 24.19 LXX). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 15 4.1-37: Some introductory remarks Like those of chs. 1-3, the events of ch. 4 are set in and around the city of Babylon. The MT does not assign a date to the events of ch. 4, but the Old Gr. assigns them to “the 18th year” of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (4.1). Given my interpretation of ch. 2’s “2nd year” (2.1), I therefore (tentatively) take ch. 4’s events to have occurred in the year 569n /568n , i.e., the 36th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.81 In 569n /568n , Nebuchadnezzar was at the peak of his power. Elam, Assyria, Syria, Tyre, and Israel had all surrendered to him. Only Egypt had eluded his grasp; and even that was about to change, for, in the very next year (the 37th of his reign), Egypt too capitulated.82 The year 569n /568n therefore marked the dawn of a time of peace in Babylon, which squares well with ch. 4’s description of Nebuchadnezzar ‘at rest’ in his palace (4.4). 569n /568n also coincided with a time of great prosperity in Babylon, which squares well with ch. 4’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as “flourishing” (4.4). In the years leading up to 569n /568n , Nebuchadnezzar completed a number of major building-projects. (Berger lists a total of 58.83 ) Among other things, Nebuchadnezzar built the famous Hanging Gardens,84 renovated much of Babylon’s ‘Old City’, and greatly fortified Babylon’s defences.85 Most notably of all, Nebuchadnezzar completed the renovation of the tower of Babel.86 4.1-37: Some notes on the tower of Babel The tower of Babel has a long and fascinating history. It was built in the land of Shinar (i.e., in Babylonia) in the aftermath of the Flood (Gen. 81. I am not convinced of the accuracy of much of the Theod. in the case of Daniel, and even less so in the case of the Old Gr. So, my suggested date for ch. 4’s events should only be seen as a ‘best guess’. 82. Langdon 1905:182, Elgood 1951:106. 83. Berger 1973:104-18 as cited by Block (2013:130). 84. which he built for his Median wife, Amyitis, who was accustomed to far greener climates than Babylon offered 85. These accomplishments are listed by Berosus (Ant. 1.20, EPE 9). Given our proposed date for ch. 4, they cannot plausibly have been completed after the events of ch. 4 took place (App. 4B). 86. Outside of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s role in the creation of a ‘New Babylon’ was not well known. That Daniel is aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s activities has therefore puzzled some of Daniel’s Late-Daters. Pfeiffer, for instance, states, “We shall presumably never know how [the author of Daniel] learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar” (Pfeiffer 1948:758-759). 16 4.1-37: SOME NOTES ON THE TOWER OF BABEL 11.1-9) and is likely to have been a ‘ziggurat’. Ziggurats were commonplace in ancient times. The first ones appeared in the 3rd millenium, while the last ones appeared as late as the 6th cent. BC. They were massive structures built in receding tiers (like enormous wedding-cakes) on raised stone platforms. They often served as the centre-piece of a given city or temple-complex. Ziggurats were constructed primarily from clay. Their outer brickwork could be glazed in a variety of different colours. The ziggurat’s colour was thought to align it with the stars in some way; meanwhile, its height was thought to connect it with the gods. Indeed, ziggurats were seen as places where the heavenly and earthly realms intersected—hence they were given names like ‘The Temple of the Stairway to Heaven’ or ‘The House Binding Heaven and Earth’. (Temples were often erected on ziggurats’ uppermost layers, which could be accessed by means of long staircases on the outside of the ziggurats.87 ) A number of ziggurats are still standing today, such as ‘the Ziggurat of Ur’ in Iraq and ‘Chogha Zanbil’ in western Iran. Exactly when the tower of Babel was built (and by who) is not revealed to us.88 What is clear is that the Tower’s construction was never completed, since God ‘came down’ and confused the languages of the men of Babel. As a result, the men of Babel splintered up into clans and dispersed throughout the Near East. What happened to the Tower in later centuries is not known. Interestingly, however, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions mention the remnants of two famous ziggurats in Babylon. The first was located in the city of Babylon itself and was known as Etemenanki. According to Nabopolassar, the uppermost tier of Etemenanki “vied with the heavens” at some point in the past, 87. Evidently, then, the idea of a ‘stairway to heaven’ did not originate with Led Zeppelin. 88. The mention of Nimrod in Gen. 10 seems to point forward to the tower of Babel narrative—and thus to connect to Nimrod with it—in a number of ways. First, Nimrod is said to have brought about the establishment of cities and kingdoms in Mesopotamia—a trend which is furthered by the men of Babel in 11.4. (Nimrod is the only figure in Gen. 10 whose actions are expanded on in any way, which suggests (C) that they are significant to the Bible’s narrative in some way.) Second, Nimrod is said ‘to begin [«H . LL» ] (C) to be a mighty one on the earth’ (Gen. 10.8). The men of Babel are then said ‘to begin [«H . LL» ] to do’ great things in the earth (Gen. 11.6). Again, then, the actions of Nimrod and the men of Babel seem to be connected in some way. Third, the name Nimrod roughly translates as ‘we shall rebel’, which, of course, is precisely what the men of Babel began to do in ch. 11. The Tower’s builder may, therefore, have been Nimrod, but it is impossible (and unnecessary) to say for certain. Ultimately, ch. 11’s narrative connects the Tower’s construction with a particular group of men (‘the men of Babel’) rather than a particular king. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 17 but its upper tiers had crumbled since then.89 Nabopolassar therefore resolved to restore Etemenanki to its former glory, but the task proved to be beyond him. So, Etemenanki’s renovation was left to Nebuchadnezzar to complete, which he duly did.90 The second of the two ziggurats was located in Borsippa—which roughly translates as ‘tonguetower’91 —and was known as E’urme’iminanki. According to Nebuchadnezzar, the ziggurat had been standing derelict “since ancient [times]”. The ziggurat’s upper-tier had never been properly finished. As a result, rainwater had long ago leaked into the Tower and reduced it to rubble.92 Towards the end of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar also decided to renovate E’urme’iminanki.93 Of the two ziggurats, Borsippa’s seems to have been the older but Babylon’s seems to have been the taller. Indeed, it is thought to have functioned as an astronomical observatory in Nebuchadnezzar’s day.94 According to today’s best estimates, Babylon’s ziggurat consisted of a total of 57,000,000 sun-baked bricks.95 (Thousands of such bricks have been found all over ancient Babylon, embossed with Nebuchadnezzar’s own name.96 ) Given the above backdrop, the penultimate scene of ch. 4 seems very apposite. Indeed, picture the described events. Nebuchadnezzar is standing on his palace roof. From his vantage point, he has the perfect view of its magnificent design (a perfect square) and unassailable brick walls (30m tall and 25m thick). He can also see the city’s Processional Way,97 exquisitely-crafted temples, and hanging gardens—a series of “vaulted terraces” stacked one on top of another to an immense height.98 Most breathtakingly of all, looming high above every other structure in the city, Nebuchadnezzar can see Babylon’s newly-renovated ziggurat—a reincar89. The ziggurat was “badly buckled” in Nabopolassar’s day. Marduk therefore commissioned Nabopolassar “to make [the ziggurat’s] top vie with the heavens” once more (George XXXX:15, 2005-2006:167). 90. Block XXXX:128-130. 91. XXX. 92. Langdon XXXX:95, George 2005-06:169. 93. George 2005-06:168-169. 94. Stephenson 1997:93. 95. Kaiser XXXX:415. 96. MS 2063. 97. a long and highly-decorated street which ran through the centre of the city and led up to the Palace 98. SG 16.1.5, DiodSic. XXX. 18 4.1-37: DANIEL’S ALLUSIONS TO THE TOWER OF BABEL nation of the ancient tower of Babel. Its exterior consists of thousands of blue-glazed bricks which blend seamlessly into the sky behind them and at the same time gleam brightly in the desert sun.99 It is as if Babylon has its very own sun hovering high above its temples and houses. The city is truly “the glory of [the world’s] kingdoms” (Isa. 13.19). Nebuchadnezzar’s heart therefore swells with pride as he looks out at these things—i.e., at ‘the works of his hands’—and utters those fateful words, Is this not the great Babylon, which I myself have established as a royal house by my sovereign power and for [the sake of] my excellent glory? (Dan. 4.30) 4.1-37: Daniel’s allusions to the tower of Babel In our consideration of chs. 1-3, we have already discussed a number of ways in which Daniel’s writings alludes to the tower of Babel narrative. Below, we draw some of these allusions together and show how they contribute to the overall backdrop of ch. 4.100 Gen. 10-11 Dan. 1-4 The men of Babel gather many nations together in the land of Shinar (outside Babel). Nebuchadnezzar gathers men from every nation together under the shadow of Babylon’s empire (3.2-4, 4.12). The men of the Near East are able to speak to one another via a common tongue. Nebuchadnezzar is able to address men from every tribe, nation, and tongue via a common tongue (3.4, 4.1). The men of Babel erect an exceptionally tall structure on a “plain”. Nebuchadnezzar erects an exceptionally tall structure on a plain (3.1-2). The men of Babel’s main ambition is to complete an enormous building project and hence to make a name for themselves (Gen. 11.4). Nebuchadnezzar wants to make a name for himself; he wants his kingdom to stand throughout the ages and to display ‘the glory of his honour’ (4.30). 99. MS 2063, George 2005-06:160. 100. What follows owes a lot to Enrique Báez’s dissertation, Allusions To Genesis 11:1-9 In The Book Of Daniel. 19 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 Gen. 10-11 Dan. 1-4 The top of the tower of Babel enter into “the heavens” and hence arouses God’s attention. The top of Nebuchadnezzar’s tree-cum-kingdom ‘reaches to the heavens’ and hence triggers God’s judgment (4.11). God gathers together his angels (Gen. 11.7’s imperatives are addressed to a plurality of hearers) and descends from the heavens in order to pronounce judgment on the men of Babel (Gen. 11.7). A watcher gathers together a council of heavenly creatures (4.14-15’s imperatives are addressed to a plurality of hearers) and descends from the heavens in order to pronounce judgment on Nebuchadnezzar. The nations are rendered unable to communicate with one another as a result of God’s judgment. Nebuchadnezzar is rendered unable to communicate with his fellow men as a result of God’s judgment. The nations are scattered in the aftermath of God’s judgment of the Tower. The beasts of the field (which depict the nations) flee from the tree in the aftermath of God’s judgment of it as its fruit is scattered far and wide. The implications of these allusions can be summed up in the following way. The builders of ancient Babel and the builder of Neo-Babylon share a similar mindset and agenda. Both see themselves as sovereigns over their respective worlds; both raise themselves up in insolence and pride; and both seek to establish an everlasting monument to their achievements. As a result, they attract the (unwelcome) attention of the heavenly realms, and hence bring disaster and confusion on themselves. Put more precisely, heaven takes note of their actions, pronounces their downfall, and subsequently dismantles their powers. God does not want too much power to be concentrated in one place or person. Yet, for all these similarities, there is an important difference between the experiences of men of ancient Babel and Nebuchadnezzar. In Dan. 4, at God’s appointed time, Nebuchadnezzar’s power is restored to him as he casts his gaze heavenwards. The effects of Babel, on the other hand, remain with us today, since man still refuses to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. Even now, man’s desire is to unite the world’s nations (linguistically, politically, religiously, etc.), as was the men of Babel’s. Indeed, the heavens seem once again to be within our grasp. We experiment with things which should not be experimented with—things which are God’s to give 20 4.1-37: AN OVERVIEW and God’s to take away. The end result of man’s actions will therefore be the same. God will once again descend from the heavens in order to disperse man’s powers. But, on that occasion, his descent to the earth will be not be a temporary one. He will permanently establish his kingom on earth, and “every tribe, nation, and tongue will serve him” forever more (7.14). 4.1-37: An overview Ch. 4 recounts God’s third and final attempt to win over the great Nebuchadnezzar. We could therefore subtitle the chapter, ‘God finally gets his man’. As in ch. 2, God communicates with Nebuchadnezzar by via a dream. In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar is shown an immense and majestic tree. The tree has risen to so great a height as to bring it into contact with the clouds of heaven. The tree is therefore a hugely impressive ‘structure’. But it is not only impressive on account of its height; it is also a thing of great beauty. It is green, vibrant, and flourishing. As such, it provides a source of food and shelter for a multitude of birds and beasts. But, while Nebuchadnezzar’s dream begins well, it soon takes a turn for the worse. At the behest of a heavenly watcher, the tree is hewn down and the birds and the beasts flee from it. Only a stump is left where the great tree once stood. Needless to say, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream leaves him in a state of panic and anxiety, just as ch. 2’s did. Nebuchadnezzar therefore summons his wise men and orders them to interpret it; but his summons are to no avail. The wise men are unable (or at least unwilling) to say anything about the King’s dream. Daniel is therefore summoned, who reveals exactly what the dream depicts. According to Daniel, the opening scene of the dream—i.e., the flourishing tree—depicts the present state of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship. The remainder of the dream then depicts what will become of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship unless Nebuchadnezzar repents of his evil ways. Over the years, Nebuchadnezzar has acquired a huge amount of power and influence. His reign is therefore depicted as a tall and luxuriant tree. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 21 But Nebuchadnezzar’s reign has become out-of-control, as has his pride. The top of the tree is therefore in contact with the clouds of heaven. Nebuchadnezzar has attracted the attention of the Most High God. Nebuchadnezzar’s reign has been both good and terrible. It has brought great riches to the Near East, but it has done so at the expense of justice. Nebuchadnezzar has acquired power by trampling on the rights of the poor and oppressing the needy. And with his great power has come great pride. Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘tree’ has therefore been issued its demolition orders. The words of the Watcher mark the point at which Nebuchadnezzar’s dream transitions from the past to the future. They also constitute a divine omen. Unless Nebuchadnezzar changes his ways, he will undergo a great fall. Just as the tree will be stripped of its foliage, so the King will be separated from the riches and blessings of his kingship; and, just as the tree will be reduced to a stump, so the King will be left with nothing. He will no longer rule over his subjects like a mighty tree; instead, he will be made to live like the birds and beasts. He will sleep alone under the open skies and awake wet with the dew of heaven. Even his appearance and mindset will take on a decidedly ‘beastly’ demeanour. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar will degenerate in every way possible. He must therefore take action; to be precise, he must reform the manner in which he is governing his people. He is not a law unto himself but a man under God’s authority. At the end of Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, the King and Daniel go their separate ways. Daniel (we may assume) resumes his duties as a foreign envoy, while Nebuchadnezzar resumes his duties as king. Sadly, however, Nebuchadnezzar refuses to change his way of life; as a result, his dream becomes a reality. Twelve months later (in the 37th year of his reign), Nebuchadnezzar is standing on the roof of his palace. He is surveying Babylon’s wonders and rejoicing in the work of his hands when a horribly-familiar voice descends from the heavens. The voice is unmistakable. It is an awful sound for Nebuchadnezzar to behold; it is the voice of heaven’s watcher. As soon as the King hears the voice, his 22 4.1-37: ITS RELIANCE ON ‘THE PRAYER OF NABONIDUS’ mind begins to crumble and he flees to his palace gardens in search of solitude. There, for seven long seasons, the King lives like the beasts of the field. He acts like a beast, thinks like a beast, and eats like a beast. At the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s seven seasons, he then lifts his eyes towards the heavens—a broken and dishevelled man with no-one to whom to turn except the God whose communiqués he has for so long ignored. Nevertheless, God acknowledges the King’s heavenward glance as a plea for mercy and as a recognition of heaven’s sovereignty. In response, he restores Nebuchadnezzar’s mind and kingdom, and the great King of Babylon ends his reign as a child of the Most High God. For many years, Nebuchadnezzar has seen God’s sovereignty as a threat to him. He has seen God as a deity who wants to challenge his power, to steal his thunder, and to destroy his kingdom. Now, however, Nebuchadnezzar is able to rejoice in God’s sovereignty since he has seen the true nature of the true God. 4.1-37: Its reliance on ‘The Prayer of Nabonidus’ In 1948, a text known as ‘The Prayer Of Nabonidus’ was discovered among the Qumran scrolls.101 It is relatively short (a hundred words or so) and badly damaged, but the following details at least can be made out. Late on in his reign, Nabonidus was afflicted by an ‘evil disease’. The disease was (apparently) divinely-ordained, and lasted for seven years[šnh] . At the end of those years, a Jewish diviner[GZR] then visited Nabonidus and forgave him of his sins, and instructed him to glorify God. Given the obvious parallels between Nabonidus’s Prayer and Dan. 4, many scholars view Nabonidus’s Prayer as a pre-Danielic tradition. But, of course, the parallels between Nabonidus’s Prayer and Dan. 4 admit of (at least) two possible explanations: i] Nabonidus’s Prayer is a preDanielic tradition, or ii] Dan. 4 is a pre-Nabonidian historical record. Why, then, should we prefer the former over the latter? Indeed, the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. According to the normative principles of higher criticism, texts accumulate theological 101. 4Q242. 23 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 and heroic embellishments as they evolve over time; primitive historical cameos morph into richer and more fantastic legends, and so forth. The author of Dan. 4, however, simplifies the ideas he borrows from Nabonidus’s Prayer. For one thing, he downplays the moral aspects of the king’s conversion; that is to say, he tells us nothing about the king’s ‘sins’, nor does he mention ‘forgiveness’ or even God. The king simply ‘lifts his eyes to the heavens’ (4.34). In addition, our author minimises the role of the Jewish prophet. In Dan. 4, Daniel does not ‘heal’ the king or exhort him to glorify God in any way; rather, once he has explained the dream to the king, he disappears from the narrative. If, therefore, Dan. 4 evolved from a Nabonidian tradition, then it did not do so in accordance with the principles of higher criticism. 4.1-37: Its literary structure As outlined in our translation, ch. 4 is built around a series of three-part phrases, but it is also arranged chiastically, as we show below: Ref. Sec. Description 4.1-3 A: The King begins his proclamation on a note of praise 4.4-7 » B: The King recounts his dream 4.8-9 »» C: The King urges Daniel to interpret his dream 4.10-18 »»» D: The King reveals the contents of the dream 4.19a »»»» E: Daniel is alarmed the King’s dream 4.19b »»»» E’: The King seeks to allay Daniel’s fears 4.19c-26 »»» D’: Daniel interprets the contents of the King’s dream 4.27 »» C’: Daniel urges the King to listen to his counsel 4.28-33 » B’: Daniel describes the fulfilment of the King’s dream 4.34-38 A’: The King concludes his proclamation on a note of praise 4.1-37: Its literary nature Ch. 4’s text exhibits a number of unusual features. For one thing, its opening verse reads very much like the opening of a proclamation from Nebuchadnezzar to his kingdom (“Nebuchadnezzar the King, to all 24 4.1-37: ITS LITERARY NATURE peoples, nations, and [men of different] languages who dwell in all the earth...”). As such, it is slightly reminiscent of a NT epistle.102 Furthermore, in 4.1-18 and 4.34-37, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions are narrated in the 1st pers.,103 while, in 4.19-33, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions are narrated in 3mpl. forms.104 In light of these facts, I take the text of 4.1-18 and 4.34-37 to have been copied from an official document (i.e., from an encyclical which Nebuchadnezzar circulated soon after his seven times of desolation), while I take 4.19-33 to be a description (composed by Daniel) of Nebuchadnezzar’s fall. As a whole, then, I view ch. 4 as follows: Sec. Vs. Content A: 4.1-18 The King relates to his people his dream and his wise men’s failure to interpret it B 4.19-33 Daniel describes the dream’s interpretation and fulfilment in his own words C 4.34-37 The King relates to his people his view of the Most High God As a literary composition, then, ch. 4 is unusual, but it is not without parallel in Scripture. Ezra, for instance, quotes extensively from various decrees (e.g., Ezra 4.17-22), and Nehemiah quotes extensively from Ezra (Neh. 8.1, Ezra 2.1-3.1), and Paul weaves quotations from Christian hymns and creeds into his writings (1 Cor. 15.3b-7, Phil. 2.5-11, 1 Tim. 3.16, etc.). Daniel’s composition is not, therefore, a singularity. Nevertheless, the question arises, Why did Daniel feel the need to add to Nebuchadnezzar’s words? Couldn’t Daniel simply have copied out the proclamation in full? The answers to these questions may become clearer when we consider why Nebuchadnezzar chose to issue a proclamation in the first place. In my view, Nebuchadnezzar issued his proclamation for two main reasons: i] to make a public statement of his devotion to YHWH (4.2-3); 102. Compare the LXX’s 4.1 with, say, 1 Pet. 1.2 or Jude 2. 103. “I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house...”, “I saw a dream which left me fearful...”, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, highly esteem...the King of Heaven...”, etc. 104. “the King spoke” as opposed to “I, Nebuchadnezzar, [spoke]”, etc. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 25 and ii] to reassure his people of his well-being (4.34, 4.36). The second of these reasons is the most relevant to our present line of enquiry. While the King’s ‘seven times’ were in progress, Babylon’s citizens must have known something was afoot in the Palace. If so, they would no doubt have been concerned about the condition of their king, and, by extension, about Babylon’s future. After his recovery, Nebuchadnezzar would therefore have wanted to alleviate their concerns. But he would not have wanted to tell them too much. (To be told about their King’s breakdown would hardly comfort the Babylonians. How could they be sure his problems wouldn’t recur?) I therefore take Nebuchadnezzar’s original proclamation to have consisted, for the most part, of 4.1-18 (a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream) and 4.34-37 (a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s post-conversion state). It may also have included a brief allusion to the dream’s fulfilment, but, if so, Daniel has significantly expanded on it. When his readers came to ch. 4, they would then have been able to find out what had taken place behind closed doors towards the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. (‘So that’s what was going on...!’, they must have said to themselves.) That most of ch. 4 is written from Nebuchadnezzar’s perspective is not a mere literary detail. It is an important ingredient of ch. 4’s plot. As mentioned previously, Nebuchadnezzar has witnessed God’s greatness at close quarters, but he has not yet grasped its nature and implications, as is evident in his response to God in chs. 2-3. In ch. 4, however, Nebuchadnezzar gets the message. He finally comes to see what is expected from him as a servant of the Most High God, and it is only, therefore, appropriate for him to give assent to it in his own words. 4.1-37: Its main message According to the Watcher, the purpose of Nebuchadnezzar’s experiences is to teach him a simple but vital fact: “the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdoms and gives it to whomever he desires” (4.17). Given, then, the Watcher’s statement and Nebuchadnezzar’s own commentary on ch. 4’s events (4.34-37), my proposal for ch. 4’s main message is as follows: 26 4.1-37: ITS MAIN MESSAGE The Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of man. Those who lift themselves up in pride, he brings low, and those who humble themselves, he lifts up. By way of justification, consider the following lines of evidence: (A) Ch. 4 depicts a battle between two kings. Like chs. 1-3, ch. 4 depicts a battle; but, while chs. 1-3 depict a battle between two rival kingdoms (i.e., the kingdom of Babylon and the kingdom of God), ch. 4 depicts a more personal battle. In particular, it depicts a battle between two opposing kings: the King of Babylon and the King of Heaven. (4.37 is the only place in Scripture where God is referred to as the ‘King of Heaven’.) As a result, the cast of chs. 1-3 fade into the background. The kings in question are then left to do battle alone. The “strong...wonders” of the God of Heaven come into contact with the “strength” of Nebuchadnezzar (4.3, 4.11, 4.20, 4.22, 4.30). (B) Ch. 4 has a strong ‘vertical undercurrent’. If ch. 8 describes a battle between east and west—and if ch. 11 describes a battle between north and south—, then ch. 4 describes a battle between heaven and earth. (The words “heaven” and “earth” are prevalent throughout the chapter; “heaven” occurs 16 times, while “earth” occurs 10 times.) Ch. 4’s vertical undercurrent is brought out in a number of ways: i] at the outset of ch. 4’s dream, an exceptionally tall tree is mentioned, i.e, a kingship which rivals the heavens for height; ii] later in ch. 4, a watcher descends, at whose behest the tree is hewn down; iii] when the Watcher announces the moral of the story, he employs ‘vertically-oriented’ terms such as ‘the Most High God’ and ‘the lowliest of men’; and v] at the climax of ch. 4, we find Nebuchadnezzar on his palace roof. The vertical-orientation of ch. 4’s climax is particularly striking. As the King raises himself up in pride, the Watcher’s words descend on him from above. The high-flying King is thereby plunges into a downward spiral (7.4) which comes to an end only once he lifts his eyes heavenwards. All these events vividly bring to mind Isaiah’s prophecy against the King of Babylon: DANIEL CHAPTER 4 27 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day-Star, son of the Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven,...I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly,... I will ascend above the heights of the clouds... But you have been brought down to Sheol, to the deepest recesses of the pit. (Isa. 14.12-15) In sum, then, ch. 4’s thus has a strong vertical undercurrent. It describes a conflict between the heavens above the earth below. (C) Ch. 4 expands on the previous chapters’ description of God’s sovereignty. Ch. 4’s events are intended to force Nebuchadnezzar to acknowledge heaven’s sovereignty. If, therefore, ch. 2 demonstrates God’s sovereignty over the kingdoms of men, then ch. 4 demonstrates God’s sovereignty over the hearts of men. God draws forth praise from the hardest-hearted and most powerful of pagans. Wayne Sibley-Towner puts the point as follows, “[Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion] show[s]—in a way perhaps more convincing than any other—the power of YHWH to vindicate his [use] of suffering and evil in the world and to demonstrate his [sovereignty] over even the most powerful forces of [mankind]”.105 All of the aforementioned lines of evidence point in the direction of my proposed main message: The Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of man. Those who lift themselves up in pride, he brings low, and those who humble themselves, he lifts up. 105. Towner 1986:61. 28 4.1-3: THE KING PRAISES THE MOST HIGH 4.1-3: The King praises the Most High [From] Nebuchadnezzar the King to all tribes, nations, and tongues, who reside in every part of the earth: May your peace abound! 4.1 4.2 [1] The signs and wonders which the Most High God has done in my [days], it is my pleasure to unveil: 4.3 [2] how great are his signs, and how strong are his wonders, [3] his kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and his rule [extends] from generation to generation! [From] Nebuchadnezzar the King to all tribes, nations, and tongues (4.1). 4.1 records the opening words of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation. The proclamation is—at the very least—a province-wide circulation.106 It is addressed to “[men of] every tribe, nation, and tongue”. As such, it is highly reminiscent of ch. 3’s proclamation (3.4, 3.7). But the two proclamations contain very different messages. While, in ch. 3, Nebuchadnezzar wants his people to acknowledge his own majesty and greatness, Nebuchadnezzar now wants them to acknowledge God’s majesty and greatness. Nebuchadnezzar is therefore a transformed man. The conqueror of the entire Near East has himself been conquered, and he who forced the nations to submit to his reign has been forced to submit to the reign of the Most High God. [to unveil] the signs and wonders (4.2). Over the last few years, Nebuchadnezzar has experienced the hand of God in his life. As such, he has seen great “signs and wonders” taking place and wants to acknowledge them in a public manner. God’s actions have been “wonders” insofar as they have involved extraordinary events and “signs” insofar as they have pointed Nebuchadnezzar towards the heavens. (Darius describes Daniel’s rescue from the lion’s pit in the same terms: 6.27.) Nebuchadnezzar lays particular emphasis on the “greatness” of God’s signs and the “strength” of his wonders. God has revealed “great” things to Nebuchadnezzar, and he has done so with irresistible strength. With the entire military might of the Near East at his disposal, Nebuchadnezzar has found himself powerless to resist God’s will. 106. For a proclamation to be addressed to multiple language-groups is not unheard-of in ANE history. We can consider, for instance, Darius’s Behistun inscription, which was written in Elamite, Akkadian, and Old Persian and then disseminated throughout Persia’s provinces. 29 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 his kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and his rule [extends] from generation to generation! (4.3b). Nebuchadnezzar now gives praise to God for the eternal nature of heaven’s reign. When man’s kingdom comes to an end, God’s will still be standing. Unlike ch. 2’s Colossus, it will never decay or deteriorate. It will instead go from strength to strength. That Nebuchadnezzar can praise God for the eternality of God’s kingdom is a remarkable fact. In ch. 3, Nebuchadnezzar bristled at the thought of God’s eternal reign. The thought of man’s reign coming to an end was anathema to him. But Nebuchadnezzar has now reached the point where he is able to accept the future God has decreed. As a member of God’s kingdom, Nebuchadnezzar can look forward to the day when man’s reign will come to an end and when the world’s true king will finally take his rightful place (2.44). 4.1-3: A further thought Nebuchadnezzar’s words of praise (as recorded in 4.3) are highly reminiscent of David’s words in Psalm 145, namely, “Your kingdom, [O LORD], is a kingdom of all ages, and your rule [will continue] throughout all generations” (Psa. 145.13† ). Whether Nebuchadnezzar was directly influenced by Psalm 145 is impossible to say. Perhaps Daniel gave Nebuchadnezzar portions of the Psalms to read before (or during) his times of desolation. Or perhaps Nebuchadnezzar began to read the Psalms after his conversion. Either way, the next verse in Psalm 145 is also very relevant to the King’s experiences, which is unlikely to be a coincidence: The LORD upholds all those who are falling, and raises up all those who are bowed down. (Psa. 145.14† ) 4.4-6: The King recounts his dream 4.4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house and flourishing in my palace, 4.5 when I saw a dream which left me fearful. [My] thoughts then became unsettled [as I lay] on my bed, and the visions of my mind began to run away with me. 30 4.4-6: THE KING RECOUNTS HIS DREAM 4.6 From my [presence], a decree was therefore set [forth] [which required] all of Babylon’s wise men to appear before me and to make known to me the dream’s interpretation. I, Nebuchadnezzar, was resting in my house and flourishing in my palace (4.4). 4.4 marks the beginning of the narrative-section of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation. It opens by describing Nebuchadnezzar’s state of mind prior to God’s intervention in his life. It is the 36th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Nebuchadnezzar is enjoying a period of great peace and prosperity. His life and kingdom are in perfect order. He is therefore able to sit back, relax, and admire the work of his hands—or at least so he thinks. In truth, disaster is around the corner. We might consider, as an analogy, the occasion when David stood on his palace roof surveying the kingdom of Israel prior to his downfall (2 Sam. 11.2). Indeed, Jastrow connects the word rest[ŠLY] not only with relaxation but with ‘careless ease’ and ‘arrogance’.107 Nebuchadnezzar’s is not, therefore, the rest which follows hard work; it is the rest of presumption. In addition to what it tells us about the King’s state of mind, 4.4 reveals the source of the King’s problems. Nebuchadnezzar’s blessings (of riches and power) have become a curse to him. They have caused him to seek security and fulfilment in his earthly empire rather than in the God of the Heavens. The misguided nature of the King’s state of mind is brought out very clearly in one of his building inscriptions: The numerous peoples which Marduk, my Lord, gave [in]to my hand, I [Nebuchadnezzar] [have] subdued under the sway of Babylon. The produce of the lands—the products of the mountains, the bountiful wealth of the sea—within her I [have] gathered. Oh Lord of Lands, Divine Marduk, hear the utterance of my mouth! ...Of the house [which] I have built may I enjoy the magnificence. ...Within it, may I attain to gray old age [and] enjoy prosperity; within it, may I receive the heavy tribute of 107. JDTT šalhayyā c, šĕlâh. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 31 the kings of all regions; ...within it, may my descendants forever ruler the dark-headed peoples! A sentiment further removed from the message of ch. 2’s dream is hard to imagine! Nebuchadnezzar plans to build his house on a foundation of sand. flourishing in my palace (4.4). Nebuchadnezzar’s description of himself as “flourishing” (alt., “green”) is significant for at least two reasons. First, it sets the stage for the coming dream, where Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship is depicted as a green and vibrant tree (4.10-12). Second, it reflects the Near Eastern tendency to liken kings (and kingdoms) to trees.108 Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar himself is said to have likened the growth of his kingdom to that of a flourishing tree,109 which is an important detail for us to appreciate. Unlike ch. 2’s dream, ch. 4’s dream was not very cryptic. Nebuchadnezzar would have been able to understand it perfectly well without the ‘assistance’ of his wise men. His reason for summoning the wise men cannot, therefore, have been merely pedagogic—a point we will expand on later. ...when I saw a dream which left me fearful (4.5). Against the aforementioned backdrop of peace and prosperity (4.4), a disturbing dream comes to Nebuchadnezzar. Unlike the dreams described in ch. 2 and ch. 7, ch. 4’s dream is not associated with the “night” in any way, nor is it even associated with “sleep” or a “bed”. It may, therefore, be more of a ‘day-dream’ than anything else. Either way, it leaves the King severely rattled. Try as he might, he cannot shake the images he has seen from his head. They keep flashing before his eyes, which he finds extremely unnerving. a decree was therefore set forth (4.6). Nebuchadnezzar immediately summons his wise men and orders them to interpret the dream. (Daniel 108. One ancient Sumerian hymn refers to the king of Sumer as a “chosen cedar”. “O chosen cedar!”, it proclaims, “For thy shadow the country may feel awe!” (Coxon, “The Great Tree of Daniel 4”, 1986:104105). Similar examples are easy to find. Astyages the Mede, for instance, is said to have received a dream where his kingdom is depicted as a flourishing tree (Hist. 1.108). Báez provides further examples (2013:146). 109. See Porteous (1962:68), who cites Bentzen as his source. 32 4.4-6: THE KING RECOUNTS HIS DREAM is not among them; he only arrives at the Palace much later: 4.8-9.110 ) A similar situation to the one described in ch. 2 then begins to ensue. The key ingredients are the same in both cases: a disturbed king, an equally disturbed group of wise men (less Daniel), and a dream in need of interpretation. But Nebuchadnezzar’s approach to the situation is certainly not the same. In ch. 2, he requires the wise men to divine the contents of his dream, while, in ch. 4, he voluntarily reveals contents of his dream. And, in ch. 2, he threatens to dismember the wise men, while, in ch. 4, he mentions no punishment for failure at all. He issues a simple and almost reasonable request. A number of important questions therefore need to be asked about Nebuchadnezzar’s behaviour. First, what has made Nebuchadnezzar become so reasonable? Where are his customary death threats? And why does he not command his wise men to reveal the contents of his dream to him, as he does in ch. 2? Second, why has Nebuchadnezzar not called for Daniel? Or, if he has, why does Daniel not appear in the throneroom until 4.8? The interpretation of dreams is Daniel’s speciality after all, and the wise men hardly have the best of track records. Third, why does Nebuchadnezzar feel the need to consult his wise men at all? As mentioned previously, trees were commonly used to depict kingdoms, and the Watcher’s words (recorded in 4.17) are not very enigmatic. Nebuchadnezzar’s behaviour therefore strikes me as very odd. My personal reading of the situation is as follows. Nebuchadnezzar knows exactly what his dream signifies; he simply does not like its implications.111 Nebuchadnezzar has therefore summoned his wise men, not to obtain their help, but to obtain a palatable ‘interpretation’ of his dream.112 The wise men are unlikely to tell him the truth, since they lack the necessary courage, and, if they interpret the dream in a palatable way, then he can easily convince himself to believe it. They are the experts after all. 110. Daniel’s absence from the events of both 3.1-30 and 4.1-7 seems to lend credence to the way in which the Old Gr.’s assigns them to the same period of time (Old Gr. 3.1, 4.1). 111. As mentioned previously, Nebuchadnezzar himself once likened his kingdom to a tree, saying, “Under [Babylon’s] everlasting shadow, I [have] gathered all men in peace”, which strikingly parallels the text of 4.12 (Langdon 1905:89, 19XX:173). 112. The word “interpretation” may have a technical Akk. sense in 4.7, as we discuss later. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 33 If my reading of 4.4-6’s events is correct, then Daniel’s absence is easy to explain. Nebuchadnezzar does not want to ask Daniel to interpret his dream because, as he well knows, Daniel will tell him the truth. Nebuchadnezzar has therefore excluded Daniel from his summons and instead sought out a more ‘satisfactory’ suggestion from his wise men. We might consider, as an analogy, the behaviour of the wicked king Ahab (1 Kgs. 22.3-8). Ahab wanted to go to war against Syria, but he wanted his decision to go to war to look like a godly one. He therefore sought out the counsel of his (false) prophets, since he knew they would tell him what he wanted to hear. But the prophets did not manage to make their counsel seem genuine enough for Ahab’s taste. In the end, he was therefore forced to listen to the counsel of a genuine prophet—a man named Micaiah—, who told him the hard truth of the matter. Nebuchadnezzar’s experience will turn out to be very similar. We may be able to fill out the aforementioned picture by considering the Babylonian concept of interpretation[PŠR (n)] —a concept which Nebuchadnezzar and the wise men would, of course, have been very familiar with. In the context of the OT, the «PŠR»(n) of a dream is generally equated with an ‘exegesis’ of it or an ‘explanation’ of its symbolism. But the Babylon concept of «PŠR»(n) is quite different, and far more involved. It concerns not only the interpretation of a dream’s symbols, but a remedy (if appropriate) for how to negate their potentially harmful effects.113 Uninterpreted dreams are viewed as a toxic phenomena. They contain mysteries, which makes them dangerous, unpredictable, and uncontainable entities. To unveil their element of mystery is, therefore, to defuse and ‘defang’ them.114 Interestingly, however, once a dream’s element of 113. According to Oppenheim, the «PŠR»(n) (Sum. BÚR) of a dream can envisage two distinct activities. The first is “the ‘translation’ of [a dream’s] symbols...into an unequivocally worded message”. The second is “the [dissolution of a dream’s] evil implications” by means of magic. In each case, the purpose is the same, namely to ‘dissolve’ and hence to ‘depotentise’ a dream’s potential danger (TADM 218-220, TBDM 208-210). 114. By way of illustration, Oppenheim cites a number of texts where Anum (the Sky-god) is referred to as a pāšir or a mupaššir. “One can hardly”, Oppenheim writes, “understand [such titles] to mean ‘he who unfolds...dreams’ [or] ‘he who interprets dreams’, [since] neither of these activities [lie] within the...[functional] domain of Anum. The only possible and defensible translation is, ‘he who dispels/removes [the consequences of evil] dreams’ ([elsewhere] said of Marduk...). Such a translation is in perfect harmony with the semantic range of [«PŠR»],..[i.e.], ‘to release, remove, dispose of, relax, loosen, etc.”’ (TADB 218), as well as with the description of Daniel as one who ‘loosens knots’ and ‘unpicks riddles’ (5.12). A similar sense of «PŠR» is attested in Aram. and Nab., namely ‘to annul a charm’ or ‘to counter-charm’ (DNWSI pšr1 , pšr2 ). Many other examples can be cited. Oppenheim mentions an 34 4.4-6: THE KING RECOUNTS HIS DREAM mystery has been removed, the dream is deemed to have been depotentised, even if its message foretells a dangerous event.115 In other words, the message of the dream and the dream itself (i.e., the vehicle of the message) are seen as two distinct entities. Each is a danger in its own right, and each must be dealt with separately. First the dream itself must be dealt with (‘interpreted’);116 then any danger inherent in the ‘interpretation’ can be addressed. In sum, then, to prescribe a pišru for a dream is to dissolve its implications in one of two ways: to unravel its mysteries by means of ‘exegesis’, or to nullify its dangers by means of ‘rituals’ and ‘incantations’.117 Such rituals were performed by a number of different personnel. They were normally performed by exorcists[PŠP] , but astrologers, whose task was to scan the heavens for relevant ‘signs’, would also be involved at times.118 That Daniel’s writings might have such pišrus in mind is borne out by the text of 5.12, where Daniel is referred to as a man with the ability to inc terpret dreams[mpšr h.lmyn] and to loosen knots[mšr qt.ryn] . The reference to “knots” in 5.12 is particularly significant here, since the word “knot” can refer to a magical ‘spell’ in both Akk. and Aram.119 It also explains the range of personnel whom Nebuchadnezzar orders to interpret his dream (exorcists, sorcerers, etc.), as well as his curious behaviour here in ch. 4. It may, therefore, be preferable to read Nebuchadnezzar’s decree (in 4.6) as a command to ‘negate’ rather than to explain his dream, i.e., not as ‘Tell me the dream’s interpretation[PŠR] !’, but, ‘Avert the dream’s consequences for me!’. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar nowhere claims to want to ‘know [about] the dream’, as he does in ch. 2 (2.3, 2.5, 2.9, etc.), since incident where Ziqiqu, the God of Dreams, is requested to «PŠR» a series of dreams. The request, Oppenheim says, is not for Ziqiqu to ‘interpret’ the dreams, but to dispel them (TADM 1956:219). Elsewhere, in a Sum. legend, a deity remarks to her brother, “Our dream is not favourable; it cannot be BÚR [Akk. «PŠR»]”. The implication is clear: the dream’s consequences cannot be annulled or removed (TADM 1956:218). 115. As Oppenheim writes, “An interpreted[PŠR] dream...is, in [and of] itself, no [longer a] source of danger, [even if] the content of the message...cannot be changed” (TADM 1956:218). 116. “The dream as a means of communication between [god] and man is fraught with awe and danger and [must] be removed immediately, whatever the content of the message [may] be” (TADM 1956:218). 117. The CDOA’s proposed definition of a pāširu is “an interpreter of dreams” or “dissolver of spells” (CDOA pāširu). 118. CAD āšipu, TADM 220, 2.2’s comm. 119. BDB qĕt.ar, Montgomery 1927:261. Consider also how the vb. «H . RŠ» can mean both ‘to intertwine’ and ‘to perform sorcery’. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 35 knowledge is not the key issue in ch. 4. Nebuchadnezzar knows exactly what his dream depicts; what he wants to know from the wise men is how to negate it. Interestingly, Daniel tells him exactly how to do so, namely to ‘redeem [his] sins by [practising] righteousness” (4.27). That is not, however, the kind of remedy the King is after. He is willing to perform certain rituals (e.g., 2.46), but not to reform his ways. 4.7: The wise men are silent 4.7 So the interpreters-of-dreams, practitioners-of-incantations, astrologers, and shapers-of-destiny began to come in, and, as they did so, I related the dream before them, but they did not make known to me its interpretation, So the interpreters-of-dreams...began to come in (4.7). The wise men seem to enter the throneroom in dribs and drabs—perhaps because they have been called away from another task at short notice. Either way, they seem to be confused by Nebuchadnezzar’s request, since they refuse to say anything about his dream. The best policy, they decide, is to keep their cards close to their chest. In light of our discussion of the word interpretation[pĕšar] (above), the events of 4.7 can be construed in one of two ways. Nebuchadnezzar’s decree could be seen as a request for the wise men to ‘nullify’ his dream. If so, the wise men’s silence seems likely to stem from a mix of inadequacy and trepidation. The wise would not want to proffer a pĕšar in the absence of Daniel, the head of their order. Indeed, they would probably, like us, want to know why Daniel himself had not been summoned. They may also recognise the signature of YHWH in the King’s dream, since it is highly reminiscent of one of Ezekiel’s parables,120 which the wise men would have studied under Daniel’s tutelage. If so, they would have recognised the dream as beyond their abilities to nullify. A second possibility is as follows. Nebuchadnezzar may not want to know the truth about his dream at all. He may simply want to be given a palatable interpretation of it. But, of course, he cannot tell the wise men about his plans, since it would then become pointless to consult them. The wise men may therefore be trying to second-guess what Nebuchadnezzar wants to hear from them. If they tell the King the truth, they could easily ‘lose their heads’, while, if they fob the King 120. See our comments on 4.10-12. 36 4.8-9: DANIEL IS SUMMONED off with a ‘just-so story’, the end result might be much the same. What, then, are they to do? In the end, they decide not to do anything, and, since the King is unable to press the point, an awkward and embarrassing stand-off results.121 As with 2.2-12, we should probably view the text of 4.6-7 as a summary of a dialogue which unfolded over a number of hours rather than as a casual conversation between the King and his wise men (2.4-6’s comm.). Exactly how the meeting concluded is not stated. Perhaps the wise men slowly drifted off, or perhaps they promised to reappear before the King at a later date. Either way, they do not appear to have been present when Daniel arrived in 4.8-9, since they do not appear to have been present during the events of 4.10-27. 4.8-9: Daniel is summoned 4.8 until, at last, there came in Daniel, who is named Belteshazzar after the name of my god but in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God—, and I related the dream before him, [saying], 4.9 ‘O Belteshazzar, greatest of the court-magicians, of whom I [can say], I know that the Spirit of the Holy God is in you, and that no mystery is a burden to you [to solve]! Declare the visions of my dream which I have seen, even its interpretation!’. until, at last, there came in Daniel (4.8a). In 4.9, Daniel finally arrives. Daniel seems to have been further afield than the rest of the wise men. He certainly visited ‘foreign’ cities later in life (for instance, ch. 8 is set in Susa). How much later than the wise men Daniel arrived is not revealed to us. It may have been a matter of hours or it may have been a matter of days. Either way, Daniel’s arrival is significant. He is about to ‘break the silence’ which has developed between the King and his advisors. who is named Belteshazzar after the name of my god but in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God (4.8b). Nebuchadnezzar’s description of Daniel is a great credit to Daniel. As mentioned above, it contrasts his 121. The whole situation is in fact very ironic. In ch. 2, the wise men were only too willing to fob the King off with a ‘just-so’ story, but the King was unwilling to play ball. Now, years later—when the King actually wants to be fobbed off with a just-so story—, his wise men are unwilling to play ball! DANIEL CHAPTER 4 37 public image with his true identity.122 Daniel’s Babylonian name connects him with the Babylonian god Bel, but his abilities stem from a very different source, namely YHWH, the “Holy God” of Israel. The entrance of Daniel therefore marks the entrance of light and truth in the context of ch. 4’s narrative, as it does in ch. 5. O Belteshazzar, greatest of the court-magicians... (4.9). As soon as Daniel arrives, Nebuchadnezzar recounts the dream to Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar then proclaims his complete confidence in Daniel’s abilities. (“I know”, he says, “that the Spirit of the Holy God is in you and [that] no mystery is too much for you”.) Nebuchadnezzar therefore creates a very unthreatening atmosphere in which for Daniel to interpret the dream. He may still have been hoping to receive a just-so interpretation of the dream. But, if so, he should have known—and probably did know—better. Daniel was a servant of the living God. As such, he was duty-bound to tell the King the truth, whether the King wanted to hear it or not. 4.10-12: The King recalls the beginning of his dream Now, then, [for] the visions of my mind [as I lay] on my bed. As I watched, behold: 4.10 4.11 4.12 [1] [I saw] a tree, [2] in the centre of the earth, [3] and it was exceptionally tall in height. [1] The tree became great and strong, [2] and its high-point came up to the heavens, [3] and it was visible from the end-points of the earth. [1] Its foliage was pleasant, [2] and its fruit plentiful [3] and in it was food for all. [1] Underneath it, the beasts of the field found shade, [2] and, in its branches, the birds of the heavens took up residence, [3] and, from it, all flesh was fed. 122. See “4.1-37: Further translational notes”. 38 4.10-12: THE KING RECALLS THE BEGINNING OF HIS DREAM behold: [I saw] a tree (4.10c). Nebuchadnezzar now recounts his dream to Daniel. In his dream, Nebuchadnezzar saw a tree standing in the midst of the earth. As he watched, the tree became exceptionally great and strong. It in fact grew to such a height that its top reached “the heavens”; in other words, its uppermost branches came into contact with the clouds. The tree therefore became visible from all over the earth (4.11). But the tree was not only tall; it was also attractive, fruitful, and healthy. As such, it provided food and shelter for the beasts and birds of the field (4.12). In the context of OT prophecy, trees are often used to depict kingships and kingdoms. Ezekiel, for instance, depicts Israel’s restoration in terms of the growth of a newly-planted tree,123 and describes the fall of Assyria in similar terms.124 Isaiah also employs similar imagery, when he describes a day when the pride of the Gentiles will be brought low, saying, “The LORD of Hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty: against all that is lifted up,...against all the cedars of Lebanon,...against all the oaks of Bashan” (Isa. 2.12-13). In the context of OT prophecy, then, the growth of a tree clearly depicts the rise of a king and, by extension, a kingdom. The fall of the tree then depicts the king’s demise. We can make these points more explicit. A tree’s height depicts a king’s power and pride (Isa. 2.12-13, Ezek. 31.317). The area covered by a tree’s branches depicts the extent of a king’s dominion (Ezek. 31.3-17). The food and shelter provided by a tree depicts the blessings provided by a king’s reign, both for himself and his 123. “Thus says the Sovereign LORD”, he writes, “‘I myself will take [a sprig] from the lofty heights of the cedar, and...I will plant it on the mountain height[s] of Israel, so it will bear branches, and produce fruit, and become a noble cedar. And, under it, every kind of bird will reside; and, in the shade of its branches, birds of every sort will reside; and all the trees of the field will know that I, the LORD, bring low the high tree, make high the low tree, dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish”’ (Ezek. 17.22-24† ). 124. “Assyria was [once] a cedar in Lebanon”, he writes. “Its branches were beautiful, its lower-boughs [provided] shade, and it was toweringly tall; indeed, its uppermost twigs were in the clouds. ...All the birds of the heavens made their nests in its boughs, and under its branches all the beasts of the field gave birth to their young, and under its shadow all [the] great nations lived. ...[But] the Sovereign LORD said in response, ‘Because [Assyria] has towered [so] high, and [because the tree] has set its top among the clouds, and [because] its heart has been [so] proud of its height, I have given it into the hand of a mighty one [from] the nations... Foreigners...have therefore cut it down and left it... Its branches have fallen, and its boughs have been broken,...and all the peoples of the earth have climbed down from its shadow and abandoned it’ (Ezek. 31.3-17† ). Note: Here, I have read !ָ‫בַהְּת‬³‫ ּג‬in 31.10 as a 3rd fsg. pfct. of the quadriliteral «GBHY/GBHH» (cf. !‫בְהָא‬³‫ ּג‬in Ezek. 31.5 and !‫בְהָה‬³‫ לְג‬in Zeph. 3.11), which I take to refer to the kingdom of Assyria. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 39 subjects (Ezek. 17.22-24, 31.3-17). The beasts and birds which are sheltered and fed by a tree depict the nations which a king has conquered (Ezek. 17.22-24, 31.3-17).125 And a tree’s fall depicts the removal of a king’s power, wealth, and reputation (Isa. 2.12-13, Ezek. 31.3-17). As such, the downfall of ch. 4’s tree is a very dramatic image. Everything which a king has achieved over the years is brought to nothing in an instant. The king’s influence on the earth is completely removed. In the context of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, then, the tree depicts a kingship which is imposing, extensive, and flourishing. It also, by extension, depicts a king of great power and strength—a king who has subdued a considerable number of nations and whose kingship is now bringing them great benefits. The king in question is, of course, Nebuchadnezzar, as Daniel tells us in 4.22a. But, until then, we will confine our comments to the general imagery employed in the King’s dream. We will therefore let the narrative unfold at Daniel’s intended pace. its high-point came up to the heavens (4.11b). The immense height of ch. 4’s tree brings to mind ch. 2’s colossus and ch. 3’s image. It also, more importantly, brings to mind the tower of Babel.126 Babylon clearly has a pre-occupation with tall things and lofty ideas. As such, the implication of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is clear. Babel’s spirit of pride and empire is beginning to rear its head again, and is arousing God’s attention. As a result, heaven is about to intervene in the earth’s affairs. Just as, in God’s eyes, the men of Babel’s concentration of power needed to be dispersed, so does Nebuchadnezzar’s. As Goldingay helpfully writes, “It is dangerous to embody too much in one person”.127 It represents an accumulation and centralisation of power which God is not prepared to tolerate. 125. We can also consider God’s pronouncement to the Israelites in Egypt: “Behold, I will send for Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon, my servant, and I will set his throne above [you], and he will spread his royal canopy over [you]” (Jer. 43.10). 126. See “4.1-37: Daniel’s allusions to the tower of Babel”. 127. Goldingay 1989:XXX. 40 4.13-16: THE KING’S DREAM TAKES A TURN FOR THE WORSE 4.13-16: The King’s dream takes a turn for the worse As I continued to watch in my mind’s visions [while I lay] on my bed, behold: 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 [1] a holy watcher, [2] coming down from the heavens, [3] issuing, with force, the following [word of] command, [1] Cut down the tree and cut off its branches! [2] Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit! [3] Let the beast be driven out from under it and the birds from its branches! [1] But leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it]. [2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens, [3] and [let its] portion be with the beast amidst the green plants of the earth. [1] Let its heart be changed from a man’s, [2] and let a beast’s heart be given to it, [3] and let seven seasons pass over it. 4.13-16 describes the continuation of Nebuchadnezzar’s visions. (“As I continued to watch, in my mind’s visions”.) In particular, it describes heaven’s proclamation of judgment against the tree-cum-kingdom. Just as, in 4.11-12, the glory of the tree is described by means of three threefold statements, so now its destruction is described by means of three threefold statements. The dream’s implication is therefore devastating. God will take away everything which once made the tree-cum-kingdom beautiful; just as God has given, so he will now take away. The tree’s fall will therefore be every bit as monumental and dramatic as its rise. As such, 4.13 marks the point at which the King’s dream takes a turn for the worse. Nebuchadnezzar is, of course, not stranger to dreams which turn nasty. God gave him a very similar dream many years ago, as we learnt in ch. 2. Ch. 2’s dream revolved around a towering colossus. Like ch. 4’s, it began in glowing terms. It depicted Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship as the figurehead of an immense metallic structure: pure, lustrous, and majestic. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 41 But, as the rest of the Colossus came into view, Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship gradually deteriorated, and, in the end, the entire structure came crashing down. Needless to say, ch. 2’s dream left Nebuchadnezzar in a disturbed state of mind. And, sadly for the King, ch. 4’s dream is destined to follow a similar pattern. To see his kingship depicted as a tall and flourishing tree must have filled Nebuchadnezzar’s heart with pride and satisfaction, but the Watcher’s words are about to shatter Nebuchadnezzar’s delusion.128 Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar’s is the kind of dream which every Babylonian ruler must have dreaded. The archetypal Babylonian Hammurabi writes of himself (in his well-known law-code), “My benevolent shade is spread over my city; ...with my skilful wisdom, I [have] sheltered [my people]”, and then goes on to pronounce curses against any future kings who question his laws, saying, “May the god Shamash...confuse [that king’s] path; ...when divination is performed for him, may Shamash provide an inauspicious omen [which foretells] the uprooting of the foundations of his kingship”.129 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream certainly seems to qualify as an “inauspicious omen” which involves the “uprooting” of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship. a holy watcher, coming down from the heavens (4.13b). Once the tree has risen to its full height, Nebuchadnezzar sees a watcher descending from heaven. The Watcher seems to be dispatched in response to the tree’s growth. The tree rises up to the heavens, and the Watcher descends in reply. The Watcher is explicitly described as “holy”, which, in the context of ch. 4, connects it with Daniel’s “Holy God” (4.8). In pagan cultures, the adj. “holy” does not tend to refer to a thing’s moral qualities; its primary sense is ‘otherworldly’ or ‘supernatural’.130 issuing...the...command, ‘Hew down the tree!’ (4.14). The Watcher issues a command on behalf of all heaven (4.17, 4.24). As mentioned 128. Babylon’s myths contain numerous references to night watchers[nās.iru] whose role is to keep watch over the affairs of the earth while the gods are asleep. (In the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, the cedar tree is said to be protected by a watcher who never sleeps: Ferguson 1994:327.) Nebuchadnezzar may initially, therefore, have seen the Watcher as the tree’s guardian. If so, he was very much mistaken; the Watcher’s role was to protect heaven’s interests not Babylon’s. 129. Roth XXXX:137-138. 130. Goldingay writes, “The term [«QDŠ»] does not suggest holy in the moral sense but [a] belonging to the supernatural realm” (1989:80). For further discussion, see Clines (). 42 4.13-16: THE KING’S DREAM TAKES A TURN FOR THE WORSE above, the Watcher’s commands are issued to a plurality of heavenly creatures.131 We are probably, therefore, to see the Watcher as a member (the chief?) of a larger company. Indeed, the Watcher explicitly describes himself as such (4.17). The Watcher’s decree consists of three separate commands. First ch. 4’s tree is to be chopped down; then it is to be stripped of its branches, leaves, and fruit; and, finally, its wildlife is to be driven away from it. Given the context of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, each of these commands is significant. The command for the tree to be chopped down reflects Heaven’s judgment of the depicted king. We might consider, by way of analogy, John the Baptist’s words to the Israelites: “Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees”, which roughly translates as, ‘Israel’s leaders are about to be toppled!’ (Matt. 3.10 cf. Isa. 10.33-34). The call for the tree to be stripped of its foliage and fruit reflects the removal of the king’s glory and external splendour. The call for the tree’s birds and beasts to flee then reflects the king’s isolation from human company. The depicted king will be completely abandoned by his subjects and forsaken. Needless to say, the events described 4.13-16 would have come as an extremely unwelcome surprise to Nebuchadnezzar. Given the size of his ego, the tree’s majesty and splendour would have made him think about ‘the great Babylon he has built’ (4.30). The Watcher’s pronouncement must therefore have mortified him. They would also have been horribly familiar, since they would remind him of the conclusion of one of his previous dreams, which ended with his kingship lying in pieces on the ground. Everything for which the King had laboured—and which he was presently able to sit back and enjoy—would end in ruins. It would be brought to nothing. We might consider, by way of analogy, the successful farmer who sat back and said to himself, “You [now] have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, [and] be merry”, only to hear the voice of God say to him, “[You] fool! This [very] night your soul [will be] required of you” (Luke 12.18-20† ). 131. They are plur. impv. forms. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 43 a watcher (4.13). The text of 4.13-16 does not provide us with a great deal of information about the dream’s “watcher”, but it does allow us to make certain inferences about the Watcher’s role and nature:132 (A) Insofar as it descends from the heavenly realms, the Watcher seems to be an angelic messenger.133 It is heaven’s equivalent of ch. 3’s herald. (B) Given its function in ch. 4’s dream (and the way it is dispatched in response to Babylon’s rise), the Watcher’s main duty seems to be to monitor man’s reign of the Near East. It may even be one of the jurors summoned to attend the trial of the earth’s beasts in ch. 7’s vision. It is certainly a member of a larger company of some kind (4.17). (C) The Watcher has the authority to pronounce judgment on Babylon. In ch. 10, we learn how God assigns specific angels to specific regions. The Watcher may therefore be ‘the Angel of Babylon’. Whatever else we say about it, then, ch. 4’s watcher must be an angel of great power and authority, whose role is to ‘watch over’ and, if necessary, to judge the kingdom of Babylon. The same point can be borne out by a lexical consideration of the word “watcher” (c îr). The word c îr embodies the notions of ‘wakefulness’, ‘watchfulness’, and also, perhaps, ‘judgment’.134 The Heb. cog. «QWR» encompasses all of these notions, with the added nuance of ‘to stir into action’ or ‘to incite to deliver justice’.135 It is also closely connected (in the C-stem) with the Gentile world: God ‘stirs up’ the Philistines to attack Israel (2 Chr. 21.16), and the Medes to conquer Babylon (Isa. 13.17, Jer. 51.1, etc.), and Cyrus to return the Jewish people to Judah (2 Chr. 36.22, Ezra 1.1, etc.), and so 132. The references to ‘watchers’ in Second Temple literature post-date the Book of Daniel (on my view), so they shed little light on our present concerns. 133. The Old Gr. translates “watcher” as angelos. 134. The noun c îr derives from «QYR/QWR», i.e., ‘to (be) awake’, ‘to be vigilant’ or ‘to watch’ (CAL «QYR» 2015:vb., CAD êru, Sym. and Aq.’s trans. of egrēgoros). The concepts of ‘awake’ and ‘watchfulness’ are clearly related. To be awake is to be aware of one’s surroundings. It is to be alive to the possibility of danger; hence, for instance, the Psalmist declares, “My help [will come] from the LORD, [for]...he who keeps Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” (Psa. 121.2-4† ). «QYR» may also embody the notion of judgment. The Syr. c yrt c denotes an act of vengeance or judgment, (PSCSD c yrt c), as does the Akk. cog. êru can have a similar significance (a well-known Akk. prayer depicts the stars as awakened [e-ra-a-ti] watchers who are able to decide the fate [«PRS»] of mortal men: CAD êru). 135. The Psalmist, for instance, cries out, “Lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies! Awake [«QWR»(G) ] for me, [for] you have appointed a judgment!”. And Isaiah cries out, “Awake, awake [«QWR»(G) ], put on strength, O arm of the LORD” (Isa. 51.9). As these examples suggest, the G- and C-stem of «QWR» are to some extent interchangeable (Job 41.2 cf. GHLC c ûr). 44 4.13-16: THE KING’S DREAM TAKES A TURN FOR THE WORSE on.136 In sum, then, our lexical analysis of the word watcher[QÎR] is consistent with what we learn about the Watcher’s role from the text of ch. 4. Ch. 4’s watcher (alt., ‘awakened one’) is an angel whom God, after much forbearance, has ‘activated’ and required to perform a specific task. That task is to bring low the great Nebuchadnezzar. As such, it is a task which will involve the future of one of the Gentile nations, and will have a significant impact on Israel’s history. Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion will make Babylon a far safer place for Daniel’s people in the years to come. But leave the core of its roots in the earth (4.15a). According to the Watcher’s command, the tree is to be cut down, but it is not to be completely destroyed. A stump must be allowed to remain in the ground. The depicted king will therefore be ‘cut down in size’, but his reign will be allowed to continue in some sense. God will not make a ‘full end’ of the king. and a bond of iron and bronze around [it] (4.15a). The “it” implied in 4.15a presumably refers to the stump left in the aftermath of the tree’s fall. A stump is not explicitly mentioned in the text of 4.15, but, since the tree is not fully uprooted (at the Watcher’s command), it may be reasonable to think of its remains as a small stump. If so, the metal band could have been put around the tree’s base in order to prevent it from splitting,137 and could, therefore, have a ‘protective’ function. God will limit the extent of the depicted king’s fall in order to make it possible for him to recover. While disaster will come on the king, he will not be left without hope. We might consider, by way of illustration, Isaiah’s prophecy against the Jewish people: “The land of Israel [will be] deserted, but, as a terebinth or oak tree leaves a stump when it is cut down, so Israel’s stump will be [left as] a holy seed” (Isa. 6.12-13 NLT). Here, Isaiah depicts Israel’s exile as a state from which she will recover. The Israelites will be desolated but not completely destroyed. We may be meant to interpet ch. 4’s imagery in a similar way. God will not make 136. as also Ezekiel 23.33, etc. Daniel employs the vb. in a similar way in ch. 11, where various kings are said to ‘stir up’ their people against their rivals (11.2, 11.25). 137. Nebuchadnezzar is said to have constructed the base of Borsippa’s ziggurat from bronze-coated wooden beams. The Babylonians must, therefore, have been competent workmen with metal and wood (George 2011:166). 45 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 a full end of the tree. He will provide it with the ability to regrow in his appointed time and his appointed way. The bond[ swr] of iron and bronze may also be meant to depict the King’s confinement.138 The word cswr is closely connected with the concept of captivity,139 As such, the bond alludes to God’s sovereignty over the fallen king. The king who has taken captive many nations will himself be taken captive by the Most High God.140 c in the grass[dete ] of the field (4.15a). In the aftermath of the tree’s fall, the tree’s stump will be left alone amidst the “grass”.141 If the idea of ‘tenderness’ or ‘newness’ is present in the Aram. detec (so the NASB), then it probably hints at the ‘new phrase’ of the king’s life which is due to begin. The king is about to enter uncharted waters. c and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens (4.15b) and [let its] portion be with the beast amidst the green plants of the earth (4.15c). In the absence of the tree’s branches and foliage, the tree’s stump will be exposed to the elements. As such, it will be “drenched with the dew of the heavens”. Its existence will be no different to that of the beasts of the field, who have no roofs over their heads. The stump’s exposure to the elements alludes to the removal of the depicted king’s comforts (4.15b). The king will no longer be able to enjoy the blessings of a palace and a palace-staff. Instead, he will have to fend for himself. The “beasts” mentioned in 4.12 depict the nations and, by extension, the subjects of the king’s empire. The “beasts” mentioned in 4.15 should therefore be seen in a similar light. As such, the stump’s association with 138. That the function of the iron and bronze is primarily restrictive as opposed to protective may fit the context better, since it is only placed around the tree after it has been felled (Newsom 2014:140). The Old Gr. emphasises the connection between the iron band and Nebuchadnezzar’s enslavement (4.17a, 4.33a). 139. It can refer to ‘chains’ or a ‘prison’ or ‘one who binds up’, and is etymologically connected to the binding-edict [csr] established by Darius in ch. 6 (CAL cswr 2015:n.m.) as also are the metals iron and bronze.<fn>Deut. 33.25, Psa. 105.18, 107.16, 149.8, Isa. 45.2, 60.17. 140. Some commentators take the bond of iron and bronze to depict a further punishment inflicted on the fallen king, but, since 4.15 is introduced with the word ‘nevertheless’ [bĕram], it seems to stand in contrast to the punishments listed in 4.14. As such, it is a symbol not of divine judgment, but of divine mercy. When God shuts a man up and hedges him in, he also shuts certain harmful things out (Job 3.23 cf. 1.10). In all things, God works for the good of his people (Rom. 8.28, Heb. 12.11). 141. Gesenius defines detec as “tender herb[age]”, while Jastrow defines its Heb. cog. (dešec) as “tender grass”, as is reflected in most Bible-versions (e.g., KJV, ESV, HCSB, etc.). 46 4.13-16: THE KING’S DREAM TAKES A TURN FOR THE WORSE the beasts of the field depicts the king’s loss of reputation. The king will be made to adopt the lifestyle of the ‘commoners’ he once ruled over. 4.15 employs a number of terms which are closely associated with Gen. 1-2’s creation account—in particular, the terms ‘heavens’, ‘earth’, ‘beasts’, ‘field’, ‘grass’ (dt c), ‘plants’ (c śb), and ‘dew’.142 The text of 4.15 therefore seems to envisage a kind of de-creation. The king will be regressed to a primeval state. He will be desolated—left formless and void—, later to be remade in the image of God. The mention of ‘dew’ and ‘green plants’ may therefore allude to God’s sustenance of the king. As mentioned above, the text of 4.15 depicts not only God’s judgment but also God’s mercy (Hab. 3.2). Let its heart be changed from a man’s (4.16a) and let a beast’s heart be given to it (4.16b). According to the Watcher, the fallen king’s connection with the beasts of the field will go beyond the merely symbolic. The king will literally acquire the mental faculties of a beast. The faculties which make him human will completely abandon him. He will be left unable to think calmly or logically, and powerless to control himself, ruled by brute instinct alone. We might consider, as an illustration, the way in which the Psalmist associates a ‘beastly’ nature with incomprehension and ignorance. “I was brutish and ignorant”, the Psalmist writes, “I was like a beast towards you, [O LORD]” (Psa. 73.22). David’s words of warning in Psa. 32 contain a similar thought: “Do not be like a senseless horse or mule [which] needs a bit and bridle to keep it under control” (Psa. 32.9 NLT). and let seven seasons[ iddān] pass over it (4.16c). The king will be forced to remain in his degenerate and desolate state for seven long seasons. (In the present commentary, we frequently refer to these times as ‘times of desolation’ or ‘times of humiliation’.) Like the number four, the number seven alludes to the concept of fulness or completeness, especially when employed in the context of time. Hence, seven days make up a full week (Gen. 2.1-3), seven years make up a full ‘week of years’, c 142. Also of interest is the prevalence of the term ‘the field’ (bārā c) in ch. 4, since, while bārā c means ‘the field’ in Aram., it can also mean (in Heb.) ‘he created’. It is in fact the second word in the Heb. Bible. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 47 where the seventh is termed a ‘Sabbath year’ (Lev. 25.1-7), and seven ‘seven-year-weeks’ make up a full Jubilee (Lev. 25.8-22). At the end of each of these blocks of time, the cycle is then considered to have run its course, at which point the next one begins. Given these considerations, I take the king’s “seven seasons” to signify the full length of a given ‘era’ in the king’s life—an era which will bring God’s sovereign purposes to their full completion. Afterwards, the king will be free to enter a new ‘season’ of his life. The mention of “seven seasons” may also allude to the notion of freedom. According to the Mosaic law, if a man buys a Hebrew slave, he must allow his slave to go free after seven years of service (Exod. 21.1-6, Jer. 34.8-16). A similar pattern of events is evident in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The depicted king is taken captive by God, bound in iron and bronze. But, after seven years, he will be offered his freedom. seasons[ iddān] (4.16c). As mentioned elsewhere,143 c iddān is a very imprecise word with which to measure time. Daniel would not have been able to determine the exact duration of the king’s desolation from the phrase ‘seven c iddāns’, which was no doubt God’s intention. God wanted the king to learn from his seasons of desolation, not to count down the hours until their completion. c 4.17: The Watcher’s final word on the matter The [aforementioned] verdict has been shaped by the Watchers—the decision announced by the Holy Ones—in order to let the living know 4.17 [1] that the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdom [2] and gives it to whomever he desires [3] and causes the lowliest of men to stand over it. In 4.17, the Watcher announces the purpose of the king’s fall and the authority by which it has been decreed. The [aforementioned] verdict has been shaped by the Watchers (4.17a). The Watcher did not decree the tree’s fall on the basis of his own authority; he merely communicated the decision of a whole coun143. 2.21’s trans. notes 48 4.17: THE WATCHER’S FINAL WORD ON THE MATTER cil of heavenly hosts (4.24). The concept of a ‘heavenly council’ may look forward to the courtroom scene depicted in 7.9-10. Indeed, it involves distinctly legal terminology, such as verdict[ptgm] and shape[GZR] . Alternatively, it may allude to other heavenly scenes where God is depicted as the commander of a host of heavenly hosts.144 Either way, the council’s decision ultimately represents the decision of God himself; it is “[an] edict [shaped] by the Most High” (4.24). As such, the Watcher’s words possess great power. Unlike the pronouncements of Babylon’s ‘shapers-of-destiny’, they will truly “shape” the course of world history. They embody imperatives (e.g., “Hew down the tree”) to be carried out by heaven’s armies (4.35). the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdom (4.17b). In 4.17b, the Watcher describes the purpose of the dream. The depicted king’s judgment is designed to convey three simple lessons to all who hear about it: i] the Most High is entirely sovereign over man’s reign, ii] the earth’s kings are appointed by the Most High alone (2.21), and iii] the earth’s kings are nothing special in and of themselves; they are merely ‘lowly men’ whom the Most High assigns positions of authority. If a man rises to great heights in life, it is because the Most High has chosen to make him great, and, if he falls, it is because the Most High has chosen to bring him low. Such claims would have been a revelation to the Babylonians. The Babylonians took their kings to be the appointment of ‘the gods’. They regarded them as practically divine.145 The Watcher’s assertion therefore ran completely contrary to Babylonian culture. It required a complete change of worldview in order to embrace. Of course, the events of ch. 4 do not represent the first occasion when God taught men about his sovereignty. God taught the children of Israel precisely the same lesson when he brought about Judah’s fall. Jeremiah told the Israelites to submit to Nebuchadnezzar’s yoke, but they steadfastly refused to do so. They instead looked to Egypt for help. Ezekiel therefore decreed the destruction of all those who disobeyed Jeremiah’s words, saying, 144. e.g., 1 Kgs. 22.19-23, Job 1-2, Psa. 82.1, 89.5-9, Isa. 6.1-8, Jer. 23.18 145. XXX. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 49 Thus says the Sovereign LORD... ‘All the trees of the field will know that I, the LORD, bring low the high tree, make high the low tree, dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish’. (Ezek. 17.22-24† ) to let the living know... (4.17b). The Watcher’s lesson is not only aimed at Nebuchadnezzar. All men and women (i.e., ‘the living’) are to learn from the depicted king’s fall; and, by God’s grace, many of them have indeed done so. As we know, ch. 4’s dream depicts the fall of Nebuchadnezzar, which befell Nebuchadnezzar twelve months after the Watcher decreed it (4.29). After his recovery, Nebuchadnezzar chose to make his experiences known to his kingdom (via his proclamation), and Daniel then made them known to the Jewish people (via his memoirs), who have preserved them by means of the Scriptures—hence we (“the living”) are reading them even now. 4.18: The King’s demand 4.18 This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen, and you, Belteshazzar, must relate its interpretation. As [surely as] none of the wise men of my kingdom are able to make the interpretation known to me, you are able [to do so], for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you. You, Belteshazzar, must relate its interpretation (4.18). Nebuchadnezzar now tells Daniel what he expects from him. Nebuchadnezzar’s request is straightforward in theory, namely to interpret the dream he has just described. The problem is, the dream’s implication is unlikely to be well-received by Nebuchadnezzar. As such, 4.18 signals the crunch-point in ch. 4’s narrative. The dream has been recounted, and its message is plain for all to see. What, then, will Daniel do? Will he tell Nebuchadnezzar what he wants to hear, or will he tell Nebuchadnezzar the truth? And, if so, what will become of him? 50 4.19A—B: DANIEL’S REACTION TO THE KING’S DREAM 4.19a—b: Daniel’s reaction to the King’s dream 4.19a Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was then left in a temporary state of desolation, and his thoughts began to run away with him, 4.19b in response to which the King said, ‘O Belteshazzar! Do not let the dream or its interpretation trouble you’. Daniel now breaks off from his citation of the King’s proclamation and continues the story in his own words.146 Suffice to say, Daniel’s narrative (as recorded in 4.19-33) records a sequence of events which no ancient king would have wanted to publicise, much less to preserve for the sake of posterity. Besides, Nebuchadnezzar’s recollection of 4.19-33’s events would have been hazy at best, and not a little painful.147 That Nebuchadnezzar omitted the details of 4.19-33 from his proclamation is hardly, therefore, a surprise. The setting of 4.19 is, I assume, unchanged from 4.8-18. The wise men have proven either unable or unwilling to interpret the King’s dream and have therefore been escorted out of the throneroom. Some time later, Daniel has arrived. Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel are now, therefore, alone. They are free to speak to one another man-to-man. Daniel...was left in a temporary state of desolation[ŠMM (Gt)] (4.19a). Just as a marauding army might leave a land silent in its wake, so Nebuchadnezzar’s dream leaves Daniel speechless (4.19’s trans. notes). He is horrified by the thought of what awaits Nebuchadnezzar, his friend and king. As a result, he is overcome and disconsolate. Daniel’s reaction to the dream (his thoughts ‘run away’ with him) is exactly the same as Nebuchadnezzar’s (4.5). As such, 4.19a lends credence to our proposed exegesis of 4.4-8. Daniel understood the dream perfectly well, and so did Nebuchadnezzar. Both men were therefore similarly “troubled” by its contents. Do not let the dream or its interpretation trouble you (4.19b). As mentioned in our comments on 4.6-8, Nebuchadnezzar summoned his wise men in order to obtain a palatable interpretation of his dream or 146. 4.19 marks the advent of “Section B” in “4.1-37: Its literary structure and style”. 147. People who have suffered ‘breakdowns’ often lock them away in their subconscious. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 51 an easy ‘remedy’ for its ills. But, as 4.19b makes clear, Nebuchadnezzar is not about to receive either of these things. Indeed, Daniel’s reaction says it all. The implications of the dream are, as Nebuchadnezzar feared, neither good nor easy to avert. (We might consider, by way of analogy, a patient who sees his doctor’s face fall when the results of an important scan arrive.) The King therefore instructs Daniel simply to speak his mind. Nebuchadnezzar may as well hear the worst. Although he presently resides in a luxurious palace, he is no coward; he is a battle-hardened soldier who has led his fair share of campaigns and is no stranger to trials. 4.19a—b: Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar’s relationship Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar have evidently become close friends over the years. (By my estimation, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Daniel as the kingdom’s Prime Minister over fifteen years prior to the events of ch. 4.148 ) Daniel was, therefore, visibly upset at the prospect of Nebuchadnezzar’s suffering, and Nebuchadnezzar responded to him with tenderness and respect. Both details are significant. To display emotion in the presence of a man like Nebuchadnezzar was a risky business. (We might consider, by way of analogy, how worried Nehemiah was about displaying emotion in the presence of Artaxerxes: Neh. 2.2.) That Daniel did so—and that Nebuchadnezzar allowed it—therefore suggests the two men had a mutual affection and respect for one another. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar was impressed with Daniel at their very first meeting (1.20). And, over the years, the men’s relationship would have deepened due to the rather lonely nature of their respective ‘professions’. Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel had both risen to the very top of Babylon’s ranks. As such, they would have had comparatively few friends. The King could not afford to let his guard down for too long. (There were no shortage of men looking to knock him off his perch.) And Daniel must have faced similar issues given Babylon’s undercurrent of anti-Semitism (see chs. 3 and 6). As a result, Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel may have lived quite isolated lives. The occasions when they could commune with one another would therefore have been important to them. They could 148. App. 4A 52 4.20-26: DANIEL INTERPRETS THE KING’S DREAM discuss matters they were unable to discuss with the rest of the palacestaff. They could have shared their hopes and fears with one another, freely and frankly. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar probably saw Daniel as one of the few men whom he could trust in Babylon, and Daniel may have felt the same way about Nebuchadnezzar. Unlike Daniel’s subordinates, Nebuchadnezzar had nothing to gain from Daniel’s demotion. Either way, the two men had clearly developed a robust and close friendship, which comes out clearly in the text of 4.19. 4.19c: Daniel’s desire 4.19c ‘My Lord!’, Daniel replied, ‘May the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!’. May the dream be for those who hate you (4.19c). Daniel interpretation of the King’s dream sets the stage for what is about to follow. ‘If only the dream concerned your enemies...!’, he says. Daniel thereby braces the King for what is to come. His words, however, should not be seen as a token gesture. Daniel has no desire to see the King suffer. As such, he genuinely wants to be mistaken about the dream. But, deep down, he must know that he is not. The dream portrays a bleak future for the King, and, as a servant of God and a friend of the King, Daniel has a duty to tell him about it. 4.20-26: Daniel interprets the King’s dream Daniel now reiterates the main content of the King’s dream and interprets it in the process. Daniel’s reiteration of the dream’s content follows the order in which Nebuchadnezzar originally revealed it (4.1017, 4.20-23), and his interpretation for the most part does likewise. The exception is the tree’s band of bronze-and-iron. As shown below, Daniel leaves his interpretation of the bronze-and-iron band until the very end of his address (4.26). Daniel’s arrangement of material is not, of course, coincidental. Times of suffering are worst when we simply cannot see any end to them. Daniel therefore wants the dream’s interpretation to end on a positive note. True—Nebuchadnezzar will suffer a great fall, 53 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 but he will not fall beyond recovery. God will preserve Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship in his absence. The closing words of Daniel’s interpretation therefore offer Nebuchadnezzar a hope which he can cling onto amidst his times of tribulation. The table below shows how Daniel’s description and interpretation of the dream tie together. Vs. Content The tree which you saw— 4.20 4.21 Vs. 4.22 Interpretation it is you, O King— [1] which became great and strong you who have become great and strong, [2] and the high-point of which came up to the heavens and whose greatness has become [so] great as to come up to the heavens, [3] and which was visible from the end-points of the earth, and whose rule [extends] to the end-points of the earth. [1] and the leaves of which were pleasant [2] and the fruit of which was plentiful [3] and in which was food for all those in it (the beasts of the field took up residence underneath it while the birds of the heavens made their dwelling-place in its branches)—, And insofar as the King saw a holy Watcher coming down from the heavens, giving the command, 4.23 [1] Cut down the tree and inflict harm on it—but leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it]—, 4.25 You will now be driven from man, and you will reside with the beasts of the field, and, like oxen, you will be fed green plants, 54 4.20A: THE TREE’S IDENTITY Vs. Content Vs. Interpretation [2] and let it be drenched with the dew of the heavens, and you will be drenched with the dew of the heavens, [3] and let its portion be with the beasts of the field until seven seasons pass over it, and seven seasons will be made to pass over you, until you acknowledge that the Most High rules over man’s kingdom and gives it to whomever he desires. 4.26 And, insofar as the command has been given to leave the core of the tree’s roots [alone], your kingdom will [stand] steadfast alongside you as soon as you acknowledge heaven’s rule. 4.20a: The tree’s identity [CONTENT]: The tree which you saw... (4.20a) [INTERP.]: It is you, O King (4.22a) Daniel’s first step is to reveal the tree’s identity. Daniel’s words are direct and to-the-point. “It is you, O King”, he announces.149 Daniel’s words cannot have come as much of a surprise to Nebuchadnezzar, but they must nevertheless have made their mark on him. (We might consider, by way of analogy, the moment when Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”.) According to Daniel, ch. 4’s tree is not merely a generic depiction of Babylon’s pride; it is a specific depiction of Nebuchadnezzar’s career as a king. By extension, then, the tree’s growth depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s (historic) rise, while its fall depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s (future) collapse. 149. There is a tendency, it seems, for commentators to ‘get ahead of themselves’ in their treatment of ch. 4. The Watchtower’s commentators, for instance, take ch. 4’s tree (for no really good reason) to depict the ongoing reign of the Gentiles. Meanwhile, a notable Christian commentator writes, “The tree in the vision is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 2”. But, when we handle God’s word, we must not let our imagination run away with us. God’s word is a revelation from the Most High not a springboard for our own ideas. The tree in ch. 4 does not depict the Gentiles’ reign, nor does it depict the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Daniel explicitly tells us what ch. 4’s tree depicts. It depicts the reign and person of Nebuchadnezzar (4.22a), and we must interpret the text of ch. 4 accordingly. Our job as commentators is not to be creative but, rather, to expound the text of Scripture faithfully, as God has handed it down to us. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 55 4.20b: The tree’s nature [CONTENT]: [It] became great and strong (4.20b) [INTERP.]: [You] have become great and strong (4.22b) Daniel now moves on to discuss the tree’s salient features. The tree’s growth depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s meteoric rise. When Nebuchadnezzar acquired the throne of Babylon (in 605 BC), the Babylonians were not yet the Near East’s undisputed superpower. Assyria’s reign was over (indeed, Nebuchadnezzar led many of Babylon’s campaigns against Assyria himself), but Nebuchadnezzar did not defeat the Assyrians singlehandedly. He was aided by a number of important allies, some of whom were major worldpowers in their own right; and the Egyptians were still a force to be reckoned with. As such, the Near East remained a disputed territory. But Nebuchadnezzar soon put an end to that. Over the next 20 years or so, Nebuchadnezzar took control of the entire region from Arabia in the south to Cilicia in the north. The Syrians, Phoenicians, Cimmerians, Scythians, Judeans, Moabites, and Tyrians all surrendered to him, one by one, and his greatness thereby came to overshadow the entire Near East. Nebuchadnezzar had indeed become “great and strong” (4.20b), alt., ‘acquired great authority’.150 4.20c: The tree’s stature [CONTENT]: [Its] high-point came up to the heavens (4.20c) [INTERP.]: Your greatness has become [so] great as to come up to the heavens (4.22c) The thrust of Daniel’s interpretation of 4.20c concerns the tree’s greatness. “[The tree’s] greatness”, he says, “has become great”. The repetition of the word “great” reflects Nebuchadnezzar’s overweening pride. In Scripture, when a king is said to become “great”, the adj. “great” invariably has negative connotations, especially when the king in question is said to make himself great. We might consider, for instance, Belshazzar’s “great feast”, the Sea’s “great beasts”, and the Anti-God’s “great 150. as per the sense of as per the sense of the Heb. tōqep in 11.17 (cf. Est. 9.29) 56 4.20B-21: THE TREE’S BENEFITS boasts” (5.1, 7.2-3, 7.8), as well as the way in which the Anti-God raises himself up until he is “[as] great...as the host of the heavens” (8.10; see also 11.36). A king’s “greatness” therefore reflects his self-ambition, pride, and ungodliness. As such, the “greatness” of ch. 4’s tree depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s ever-increasing arrogance. Since his accession to the throne (in 605), Nebuchadnezzar had become increasingly hungry for power. In his quest for world dominion, he swallowed up nation after nation. He could therefore address his kingdom’s communiqués to “every tribe, nation, and tongue...in the earth” (4.1). But, in 587 BC, Nebuchadnezzar crossed an important line. He swallowed up the nation God had reserved for himself, namely Judah. Nebuchadnezzar thereby came into contact with the Most High God; and, foolishly, he refused to heed God’s words of warning. In particular, he refused to heed the message of ch. 2’s dream as well as the testimony of the three Hebrews. He instead pursued his own dream. Nebuchadnezzar’s “greatness” therefore reached the point when God could no longer tolerate it. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar came into contact with the clouds of heavens and awakened heaven’s ‘awakened one’. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which Nineveh’s sins are said to “rise up into God’s presence” (Jon. 1.2† ). We might also consider the apostle John’s vision of Babylon’s sins “piled one on top of the other, [as high as] heaven” (Rev. 18.5† ).151 Like the men of Babel, Nebuchadnezzar reached the point where ‘nothing [he] sought to do would be impossible for him’ (Gen. 11.4). God therefore needed to ‘step in’ and intervene. 4.20b-21: The tree’s benefits [CONTENT]: [which] was visible from the end-points of the earth, and the leaves of which were pleasant, and and the fruit of which was plentiful, and in which was food for all those in it (the beasts of the field took up residence underneath it while the birds of the heavens made their dwelling-place in its branches) (4.20b—21) [INTERP.]: 151. See also Ezra 9.6. [Your] rule [extends] to the end-points of the earth (4.22b) DANIEL CHAPTER 4 57 In 4.20b—21, Daniel outlines four of the tree’s features: i] its visibility from the four corners of the earth, ii] its pleasant appearance, iii] its fruitfulness, and iv] its wildlife. In 4.22b, Daniel then interprets these details. Daniel does not explicitly interpret all four details; he simply points out that the tree’s conspicuity (4.20b) depicts the geographical extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. We are presumably, therefore, to view 4.21’s details accordingly; that is to say, we are to interpret the tree’s pleasant appearance, fruitfulness, and related wildlife in terms of Babylon’s widespread dominion, as we suggested in our original analysis of 4.12’s symbolism. [Your] rule [extends] to the end-points of the earth (4.22b). The tree’s conspicuity reflects the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Every tribe, nation, and tongue has heard about the greatness of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon. As such, it stands out from the rest of the Near East like a burning beacon. It truly resembles a tree planted at the centre of the earth. Its presence and influence are impossible to ignore. [Its] leaves were pleasant (4.21a). The leaves of ch. 4’s tree reflect Babylon’s role as a centre of culture and beauty. Under Nebuchadnezzar’s guidance, Babylon has not only become mighty; it has also become a place of wonder. Its palaces, temples, and walls are world-renowned. It can rightly be described as “the glory of [the world’s] kingdoms” (Isa. 13.19). [Its] fruit was plentiful (4.21b). The tree’s abundance of fruit reflect Babylon’s vast resources. Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon is characterised by abundance. Its riches surpass those of every other kingdom. Most empires in the Near East experience times both of riches and poverty. But, since the rise of Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon has known only riches. Babylon is undergoing a boom phase. [There] was food for all those in it (the beasts...) (4.21c). The tree’s role as a natural habitat depicts the benefits which Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon brings to its vassal states, i.e., to the “beasts” and “birds”. Babylon’s benefits come in two forms. The first is “food”. The extent of Baby- 58 4.23A: THE TREE IS SERVED ITS DEMOLITION ORDERS lon’s dominion has opened many doors for its vassal states; in particular, it has enabled them to access and to trade with a variety of nations which would otherwise have been inaccessible to them (Isa. 47.15). The second is protection. To attack one of Babylon’s vassal states (and hence arouse Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath) would be a very foolish move. Babylon’s reign therefore allows its subjects to dwell in relative safety. As such, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign provides the nations of the Near East (i.e., the “tribes, nations, and tongues” of 3.4 and 4.1) with riches to enjoy and a place in which to enjoy them. Babylon can rightly be likened to a tree which provides both food and shelter. 4.23a: The tree is served its demolition orders [CONTENT]: And insofar as the King saw a holy Watcher coming down from the heavens, giving the command... (4.23a) [INTERP.]: [so] this is the interpretation, O King—indeed, it is the decision shaped by the Most High which has come down upon my lord, the King (4.24) Daniel now comes to the point in the King’s dream when the Watcher descends, and things go from good to bad, i.e., when the dream turns into a nightmare. According to Daniel, the words Nebuchadnezzar heard in his dream were not merely the product of a fertile imagination. Nebuchadnezzar heard the very words of one of heaven’s edicts going forth. The edict was pronounced by a heavenly watcher, but it originated in the throneroom of the Most High God. As such, it carried the full weight and authority of the God of Heaven. The Watcher’s words are said to ‘come down’ upon Nebuchadnezzar, which is important for two reasons. First, insofar as the Watcher’s words descend on Nebuchadnezzar from above, they constitute heaven’s response to Nebuchadnezzar’s growth in pride and power. (See our comments on 4.13b.) As mentioned earlier, vertical motion is an important theme in ch. 4. That which ‘rises up’ to the heavens (e.g., the top of ch. 4’s tree) depicts man’s pride before God, while that which ‘descends from’ the heavens (e.g., the Watcher’s words) depicts God’s judgment of man’s sin. Second, insofar as the words come upon Nebuchadnezzar, they ‘take DANIEL CHAPTER 4 59 hold’ of him in some way. Their pronouncements do not immediately come into effect; that is to say, Nebuchadnezzar does not immediately lose his mind and flee from his palace. But the ‘curse’ inherent in the Watcher’s words nevertheless takes hold Nebuchadnezzar. If the King does not respond appropriately to the Watcher’s words, then the judgment described in 4.14-16 will come to pass. Hence, even as Daniel and the King stand together in Babylon’s throneroom, the Watcher’s words hang over Nebuchadnezzar’s head. 4.23b: The tree’s fall [CONTENT]: Cut down the tree and inflict harm on it, but leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it] (4.23b) [INTERP.]: You will now be driven from man (4.25a) Daniel now moves on to address the curse pronounced by the Watcher. Daniel does not explicitly interpret the Watcher’s command for the tree to be hewn down. (He may not think that it requires an interpretation. After all, the significance of the command is fairly clear; it is an announcement’s of heaven’s plans to judge Nebuchadnezzar—to cut the great king of Babylon down in size.) And, as mentioned previously, Daniel postpones the interpretation of the iron-and-bronze band until later. Daniel’s interpretation of 4.23b therefore focuses entirely on the state of the tree in the wake of God’s judgment. You will be driven from man (4.25a.1). In the aftermath of God’s judgment of the tree (Nebuchadnezzar), only a stump will remain in the “tender grass” of the field. According to Daniel, the stump depicts the King’s lonely condition. It also depicts a position of humility insofar as it stands in contrast to the tall and beautiful tree depicted at the outset of the dream. (As the Psalmist says, “When you, [O Lord], discipline a man...for [his] sin, you consume like a moth what is dear to him [alt., what makes him beautiful]”: Psa. 39.11.) As a result of God’s judgment, Nebuchadnezzar will be separated from all human company. He will be forced to flee into ‘the wild’ in search of quiet and solitude. 60 4.23B: THE TREE’S FALL The stump will be located in the “tender grass” of the field. Its ‘tenderness’ conveys the idea both of ‘newness’152 as well as vulnerability. Both will be relevant to the fallen king’s condition. Nebuchadnezzar’s trials will be “new” to him insofar as they will constitute completely unchartered waters. No longer will Nebuchadnezzar have a team of advisers at his disposal or an entourage of palace-staff; he will instead have to fend for himself. Nebuchadnezzar’s trials will at the same time put him in a compromised and vulnerable position. His position on the throne will be in jeopardy, and he will be unable to defend himself. As such, he will be entirely at the mercy of others. you will reside with the beasts of the field (4.25a.2). Daniel’s statement in 4.25a.2 does not seem to relate directly to Daniel’s reiteration of the King’s dream. (See our earlier layout of 4.20-26.) It does, however, relate to a detail which is present in the original account of the dream, namely, “[Let the stump’s] portion be with the beast amidst the green plants of the earth” (4.15c). But, in the absence of an explicit interpretation from Daniel, how are we meant to interpret the text of 4.25a.2? Since Daniel’s statements in 4.25a.1 and 4.25a.3 can be understood literally (later in ch. 4, Nebuchadnezzar is literally “driven from men” and literally tastes “grass”), I am inclined to interpret 4.25a.2 equally literally. During his times of desolation, Nebuchadnezzar will be made to dwell with the beasts of the field. He will no longer sleep on a king’s ‘couches [made] of gold and silver’ but on a bed of grass under the stars (Est. 1.6). He will be made to exchange the luxuries of Babylon’s palace for the hazards of the great outdoors. In addition to its literal significance, Daniel’s statement (in 4.25a.2) may also have a metaphorical significance, as we noted in our initial discussion of the dream’s symbolism (4.15c). In ch. 4’s dream, the “beasts of the field” depict Babylon’s subjects, while their position under the tree depicts their enjoyment of Babylon’s reign. That the King is made to dwell alongside the beasts in the open air may therefore depict his change of status. The King will be stripped of all the benefits associated with his kingship and will be made to adopt the lifestyle of his own 152. hence the NASB’s translation of “new grass” DANIEL CHAPTER 4 61 people. Indeed, he will barely be recognisable as a king. We might consider, as an analogy, Isaiah’s depiction of the King of Babylon’s fall, where the nations see the once-mighty tyrant and ask in disbelief, “Is this the [same] man who made the earth tremble and kingdoms shake?” (Isa. 14.16† ). like the oxen, you will be fed green plants (4.25a.3). Nebuchadnezzar’s original recollection of his dream does not mention the ‘taste of grass’. As such, Daniel’s statement in 4.25a.3 constitutes fresh revelation.153 The King will not only be made to dwell with the beasts of the field; he will also be made to think and to act like the beasts of the field, even to the extent of adopting their diet. The events of ch. 1 will thereby be reversed in the Jewish people’s favour. The king who encouraged the Jewish people to adopt a diet of meat and wine will be made to adopt a diet of grass. He will lose his taste for Babylon’s delicacies and will instead develop a different appetite. Daniel does not explicitly quote the words of 4.16 (“Let [the king’s] heart be changed from a man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given to him”), but they certainly seem to be in mind.154 The King’s natural inclinations will be radically reoriented, and his behaviour and physical make-up will soon follow suit (4.33). 4.23c: The tree’s exposure to the elements [CONTENT]: Let [the stump] be drenched with the dew of the heavens (4.23c) [INTERP.]: You will be drenched with the dew of the heavens (4.25b) The King will be given a genuine taste of ‘life in the great outdoors’. He will sleep where the beasts sleep and awake where they awake, wet with 153. In Daniel’s writings, the act of ‘interpretation’ does not merely require exegetical skills; it requires fresh revelation. Hence, for instance, Daniel’s interpretation of ch. 2’s dream refers to details not contained in ‘the original’ (2.41, 2.43), as did Daniel’s interpretation of the writing on Belshazzar’s wall (see our discussion of 5.25-28). The same pattern is evident in chs. 7 and 8 (7.16, 7.19, 7.25-26, 8.23-25). Some of these things may, of course, be an artefact of Daniel’s story-telling. (That is to say, when Daniel initially records a dream’s content, his record may not be exhaustive.) Either way, Daniel wants us to see the act of interpretation as one which requires divinely-ordained wisdom and divinely-ordained revelation. The God who is sovereign over world history is equally sovereign over his people’s knowledge of world history. Just as regulates the future itself, so he regulates what we come to know about it and when. 154. If any aspect of the King’s dream genuinely puzzled the wise men, then it must have been the details of 4.15. Occuppied entirely by the possible symbolism behind “the beasts” and “the dew of the heavens”, the wise men may have overlooked the obvious, namely, Nebuchadnezzar would quite literally begin to behave like a beast. 62 4.23C: THE TREE’S SEVEN TIMES the dew of the heavens. Evidently, then, the dream’s references to “the dew of the heavens” depict a literal truth, but, like 4.25a.2’s references to “the beasts”, they may also allude to a deeper significance. Daniel’s constant repetition of the qualifier “of the heavens” is, after all, quite unnecessary. We all know where dew comes from. The mention of “the heavens” therefore seems to allude to the agency of the God of Heaven in the King’s life. Meanwhile, the word “dew” seems likely to refer to God’s sustenance of the King. Throughout the Pentateuch, the “dew of the heavens” is associated with the way in which God governs the natural world to bless and sustain his people. Isaac says to his sons, “May God give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth” (Gen. 27.28, 27.39), and the manna with which God sustains the Israelites is associated with the appearance of the “dew” (Exod. 16.13-14, Num. 11.9). The metaphorical significance of Daniel’s words in 4.25b therefore seems to be as follows. Like the Israelites, Nebuchadnezzar will be forced to undergo a long and difficult journey, but God will sustain him throughout those ‘wilderness years’ and will allow him to emerge from them unscathed, just as he enabled the Hebrews to emerge from Babylon’s furnace unscathed. 4.23c: The tree’s seven times [CONTENT]: Let [the stump’s] portion be with the beasts of the field until seven times pass over it (4.23c) [INTERP.]: Seven times will be made to pass over you until you acknowledge that the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdoms and gives it to whomever he desires (4.25c) The King’s state of desolation will persist for “seven times”. As menc tioned previously, the word time[ iddān] does not specify a known length of time (4.16c’s comm.). It is akin to English words like ‘season’ and ‘epoch’. Daniel’s interpretation of the dream does not, therefore, tell the King exactly how long his times of desolation will last, which Nebuchadnezzar may have found rather disconcerting. (In Babylon, interpreters of ‘omens’ generally set a time-limit on an omen’s consequences.155 ) In155. According to Michael Barré, “Most of the omens in the Akkadian medical omen series end with a [statement of] the patient’s prospects for recovery. Many indicate how long it will be before the patient gets well, [e.g.], ‘within seven days’, ‘within ten days’, ‘quickly’, [etc.]” (Clifford 2004:195). Hence, the suf- DANIEL CHAPTER 4 63 stead, Daniel’s (rather vague) reference to “seven times” puts the onus squarely on Nebuchadnezzar to consider his position before God. Nebuchadnezzar cannot simply let God’s appointed times ‘play out’. They will last for as long as it takes for Nebuchadnezzar to recognise God’s sovereignty (4.25c) and for God’s purposes to thereby be accomplished. 4.23b: The tree’s stump [CONTENT]: but leave the core of its roots in the earth amidst the grass of the field, and a bond of iron and bronze around [it] (4.23b) [INTERP.]: And, insofar as the command has been given to leave the core of the tree’s roots [alone], your kingdom will [stand] steadfast alongside you as soon as you acknowledge heaven’s rule (4.26) Last of all, Daniel addresses the significance of the iron-and-bronzeband. The band (around the stump) depicts God’s protection of Babylon’s kingship. While Nebuchadnezzar will be cut off from his kingdom, he will nevertheless retain his position as Babylon’s king; that is to say, the throne will be preserved for him in his absence. Nebuchadnezzar will not, therefore, be completely ‘plucked up’ from the earth; rather, his “roots” will remain firmly planted in Babylonian soil. We might consider, by way of contrast, the way in which God “plucks up” or “uproots” certain nations and people-groups from their lands (1 Kgs. 14.15, 2 Chr. 7.19-20, Jer. 12.17, etc.), which refers to a much more permanent removal. We might also consider ch. 2’s colossus, which is permanently erased from the face of the earth. By way of contrast, God will not completely uproot Nebuchadnezzar; rather, God will preserve Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship for him and will ultimately reunite him with his kingdom (4.36, 7.4). Hence, for all the horror of his seven times, the King will emerge from them a better man—a man who has a knowledge of the Most High God. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar will be able to rule the Near East as he should have been for the last 18 years or more, i.e., as an ‘Adamic’ figure under God’s authority. ferer in ‘The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer’, complains, ‘The diviner could not set a time-limit [«QDN»] on my illness’ (Lambert 1960:XXX), as if it was the diviners’ normal practice to do such things. 64 4.23B: THE TREE’S STUMP That the bond consists of “iron and bronze” brings to mind the metallic colossus of ch. 2. The bond may, therefore, be intended to depict the King’s separation from God’s place of blessing. Gold is the first metal to be mentioned in Scripture (in the context of the Garden of Eden: Gen. 2.11-12) and is associated with the ‘Edenic’ glory of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom in ch. 2 (2.37-38). Meanwhile, bronze and iron are first mentioned in connection with the ungodly line of Cain—who is driven from men—and are connected with the Colossus’s less majestic kingdoms (Gen. 4.14, 4.22). Bronze and iron also share a connection with the degenerate fourth beast of ch. 7. The text of 4.26 therefore makes an important point. Like a “brute beast”, Nebuchadnezzar has gone the way of Cain (Jude 10-11). He has shed innocent blood on the earth (4.29) and, as a result, has been ‘driven from man’. He has at the same time fallen from God’s appointed place of blessing. He must now, therefore, wander the wilds, as a vagabond, until God restores him to his kingdom and counsellors (4.36b, Gen. 4.1-24). As mentioned previously, Daniel leaves the interpretation of the iron-andbronze-bond for last. The dream as a whole is bad news, but the mention of the metallic band offers Nebuchadnezzar at least some hope. In God’s good time—once Nebuchadnezzar comes to acknowledge heaven’s authority—, Nebuchadnezzar will be restored to his kingdom. All is not therefore lost. There is light at the end of the tunnel—a hope to which Nebuchadnezzar can cling amidst his times of desolation. In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream depicts an incredible turn of events. Indeed, imagine for a moment the scene described in 4.9-26. Nebuchadnezzar is seated in one of the most august and majestic thronerooms the Near East has ever known. In earthly terms, he is at the top of his game. He has overthrown his rivals; he has won the affection of his people; and he has established Babylon as the military and financial hub of the then-known world. Yet, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar will soon find himself separated from his palace and united with the beasts of the field! Daniel’s prediction hardly seems possible. How can such a fate possibly befall a king of Nebuchadnezzar’s stature? The idea is almost DANIEL CHAPTER 4 65 laughable. But, as the King should know by now: when Daniel makes a prediction, only a very foolish man fails to take it seriously. once you acknowledge heaven’s rule (4.26). That Daniel refers to heaven’s rule156 as opposed to, say, God’s rule is noteworthy. Daniel wants to draw Nebuchadnezzar’s attention, not only to God’s supremacy, but to the way in which God governs a whole hierarchy of heavenly creatures (4.36). (Nebuchadnezzar has already encountered two such creatures, namely ch. 3’s Deliverer and ch. 4’s Watcher.157 ) In order to recognise the rule of “the heavens”, Nebuchadnezzar will therefore need to radically reformulate his worldview. As things stand, he sees himself as the most powerful man on earth. But, by the end of the chapter’s events, he will come to realise two important truths: first, in comparison to the God of Heaven, he is like a mere insect (Isa. 40.22), and, second, God is not the only heavenly entity who outranks Nebuchadnezzar; the heavenly realms are teeming with creatures of infinitely greater power than him. These are truths which will give Nebuchadnezzar a completely different outlook on life (4.37). They also happen to be truths which we ourselves will do well to keep in mind. To consider the sheer vastness of God’s Creation is a helpful and humbling experience. We presently inhabit a universe which is composed of particles more minute and intricately-arranged than we can possibly imagine and yet is at the same time governed by powers and principalities far greater than we can possibly imagine. And enthroned above them all sits our God—the One who loves us, cares for us, and has revealed himself to us in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is a truly staggering thought. 4.20-26: Some further thoughts The text of 4.23-26 seems to place great emphasis on God’s irresistible grace. Indeed, the text is really just one long list of events which God will bring to pass in the King’s life. God will separate Nebuchadnezzar from his throne, drench him with the dew of heavens, drive him into the wild, etc. Nebuchadnezzar is a passive observer in the process. One moment 156. As mentioned elsewhere, the word “heaven” always has a plur. form in Aramaic and can refer either to ‘the skies’ or to ‘the heavenly realms’. Its context must determine which nuance is in mind. 157. It will be Daniel’s turn to do so in chs. 6-12. 66 4.27: DANIEL’S ADVICE TO THE KING he is in full control of his mental faculties; the next he is reduced to the status and stature of a beast. Seven times are then said to ‘pass over’ Nebuchadnezzar, just as a gust of wind might be said to ‘pass over’ a field or a desert. Nebuchadnezzar is given no say at all in the matter. The king of the Near East he may be, but some things are nevertheless beyond his power to control. 4.27: Daniel’s advice to the King 4.27 Therefore, O King, let my counsel seem pleasing to you! Break off [from] your sins by [practising] righteousness and [from] your iniquities by offering grace to the afflicted, in case there may be an extension to your rest! Therefore, O King, let my counsel seem pleasing to you (4.27a). Daniel now offers the King his personal counsel. He speaks to the King with respect (“may my counsel seem pleasing to you”) and sincerity. He wants to spare the King from the fate depicted in ch. 4’s dream.158 As things stand, the King’s life is completely out-of-step with God’s mind and will. God has entrusted Nebuchadnezzar with great power and riches (2.37-38, 4.22) and has provided him with godly counsellors (in the form of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego). God has thereby given Nebuchadnezzar the means to rule the Near East in a just and ethical manner. Nebuchadnezzar’s main concern, however, has been the inflation of his (already overinflated) ego. He has squandered his riches on self-indulgent projects (such as ch. 3’s golden image), and, in his conquest for worldwide dominion, he has badly mistreated the poor and weak.159 While, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar has brought wealth to the Near East, he has done so at the expense of justice.160 What God intended for good, Nebuchadnezzar has used for evil. As such, Nebuchadnezzar’s only hope of averting God’s judgment is to radically alter his manner of life and rule. The first alteration which he must make con158. If, in ch. 4, a pĕšar should be understood in light of the Akk. concept of a pišru, then 4.27 should be seen as the final aspect of Daniel’s pišru, i.e., a ‘remedy’ for averting the evil consequences of ch. 4’s dream, as discussed in 4.7’s comm. 159. 3.1, 4.27, Isa. 14.6-7, 47.6, Jer. 29.22, Zech. 1.15. 160. Judging by his inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar saw himself as an extremely just and virtuous ruler, and his people may even have agreed with him, but God did not (Wiseman XXX, Langdon 1905:93, 1905:96, 1905:99, etc.). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 67 cerns his view of God’s law. Rather than living in “sin”, Nebuchadnezzar must pursue “righteousness”. He must make a clean “break” from the past. The second concerns Nebuchadnezzar’s manner of rule. Rather than exploiting the poor and oppressing the weak, he must show them “grace” and mercy. He must rule the kingdom of Babylon as Israel’s kings were meant to rule the kingdom of Israel.161 Only then does he stand any chance of ‘prolonging his prosperity’ (4.27b). As mentioned above, Daniel’s prescribed ‘remedy’ for the dream’s omen is unlikely to have been to the King’s tastes. A ritual or offering was the generally-prescribed remedy. For an interpreter to prescribe a change in lifestyle was, as far as I know, completely unprecedented and, from Nebuchadnezzar’s point of view, decidedly unwelcome. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar may well see himself as a very righteous and just ruler.162 in case[[alt., ‘perhaps’]] there may be an extension to your rest! (4.27b). While Daniel regards it as possible for Nebuchadnezzar to delay God’s judgment, he does not seem to regard it as very likely—maybe because he knows stubborn the King can be. As such, Daniel’s words highlight an important feature of OT prophecy. The Prophets call men to repentance, and the God of Scripture never turns away those who repent. As a result, the Prophets often foretell disasters which their people may or may not come to experience. It all depends on how those people respond to the prophecy in question. Put another way, the Prophets often set out possibilities rather than certainties. The future, for them, is not a fait accompli but, rather, an open possibility. Consider, by way of example, God’s words to Jeremiah and Ezekiel: Thus says the LORD, ‘Speak, [O Jeremiah], to all the cities of Judah which come to worship. ...Perhaps they will listen—and each man will turn from his evil way—and I will repent of the evil I intend to do to them’. (Jer. 26.2-3† ) As for you, [Ezekiel], prepare for yourself an exile’s baggage 161. e.g., Lev. 19.33, 25.35, Isa. 1.17, 1.23, Psa 82.3-4., Jer. 7.6, 22.3, Amos 5.14-15, etc. 162. Wiseman, XXX, XXX. 68 4.27: DANIEL’S ADVICE TO THE KING and go into exile by day in [the people’s] sight. ...Perhaps they will understand, [even] though they are a rebellious house. (Ezek. 12.3) Consider, alternatively, the following prophetic calls: Even now,...return to me with all your heart, and with fasting, weeping and mourning. ...Who knows whether [God] will not turn and repent and leave a blessing behind him? (Joel 2.12-14† ) Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to [Israel’s] remnant. (Amos 5.15) Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his just commands. ...It may be that you will be hidden on the day of the anger of the LORD. (Zeph. 2.3† ) God’s communication with his people is therefore designed to convey an important point. The Israelites are not to view their future fatalistically. What will befall them in the days to come will depend not only on God’s actions, but also on theirs. If the Israelites ignore God’s word to them, then God’s judgment will fall on them, but if, on the other hand, they change their mindset towards God, then God will change his mindset towards them, just as he did towards the Ninevites (Jon. 3.4-10).163 Of course, God knows exactly how people will respond to a prophecy in any given situation. Divinely-inspired prophecies are not, therefore, a ‘best guess’ as to what might or might not come to pass. God can know the future with absolute certainty, but the future can nevertheless 163. God’s prophetic messages then ‘roll over’ to subsequent generations, who must face the same set of possibilities. We might consider, as an example, Joel’s prophecy. Joel is generally considered to be one of the earlier prophets, but the invasion depicted by Joel in 2.1-11 sounds very much like a Babylonian invasion. Was Joel’s prophecy therefore irrelevant to his immediate audience? Did it threaten them with an invasion not due for another few centuries? Not at all. Disaster was indeed looming on the horizon in Joel’s day, but Joel’s hearers repented of their ways and were therefore spared (Joel 2.18-27), while later generations did not and suffered the consequences (2 Kgs. 25.1-7). Consider, alternatively, Jonah’s prophecy. The Ninevites of Jonah’s day repented and averted God’s judgments, but the Ninevites of Nahum’s day did not, and so Nineveh ultimately fell (Nah. 1.1, 3.18-19). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 69 contain multiple distinct possibilities. Put another way, God can have a perfect knowledge of the future without the need to determine it.164 And Daniel’s statement in 4.27 (‘perhaps there will be an extension to your rest’) should be viewed accordingly. Daniel extended a genuine offer of mercy to Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar was free to take the narrow path to life (by altering his behaviour) or the broad road to destruction. True—Daniel did not consider the King’s repentance very likely, but Nebuchadnezzar nevertheless had a choice to make. Daniel extended a genuine offer of mercy to Nebuchadnezzar, but, as we will see, Nebuchadnezzar freely chose to reject it. 4.28-33: Judgment falls 4.28 All this came down upon Nebuchadnezzar the King. 4.29 At the end of twelve months, as he was walking on [the roof of] Babylon’s royal palace, 4.30 the King declared, “Is this not the great Babylon, which I myself have established as a royal house by my sovereign power and for [the sake of] my excellent glory?”. 4.31 While the word was still on the King’s lips, a voice fell from the heavens, [saying], It is [hereby] announced to you, O Nebuchadnezzar the King: the kingdom has passed on from you! 4.32 [1] You will now be driven from man, [2] and you will reside with the beasts of the field (like oxen, you will be fed green plants), [3] and seven seasons will be made to pass over you until you acknowledge that the Most High is the ruler over the kingdom of man and gives it to whomever he desires. At that [very] moment, the word came to its end-point upon Nebuchadnezzar: 4.33 [1] he was driven from man, [2] and, like oxen, he began to consume green plants, [3] and his body became drenched with the dew of the heavens until his hair grew great like eagles’ [feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws]. 164. To put the point in more philosophical terminology, certainty is an epistemic property, while necessity is a modal property. The certainty of God’s foreknowledge need not, therefore, impose any causal constraints on the future. 70 4.28-33: JUDGMENT FALLS With the advent of 4.28, we reach the pivotal moment in Daniel’s narrative. God has personally spoken to Nebuchadnezzar and warned him of the awful future which awaits him. What, then, will the great Nebuchadnezzar do? Will he humble himself before God’s word or will he continue in pride? Will he reform his life or remain in sin? Sadly, Nebuchadnezzar chooses the latter option. (If my proposed chronology of chs. 3-4 is correct, then Nebuchadnezzar makes a very deliberate decision to defy God’s word, since, instead of seeking to reform his ways, he marches against Egypt in order to make his dominance of the Near East absolute.)165 We consequently read in 4.28, “All [the things depicted in the dream] came down upon King Nebuchadnezzar”. 4.29-33 then describes exactly how Nebuchadnezzar invoked the curse of ch. 4’s dream. At the end of twelve months, as he was walking on the [roof of] Babylon’s royal palace (4.29). With the advent of 4.29, we ‘fast forward’ twelve months to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The King has forgotten all about the horror of his dream and is once again enjoying his ‘home comforts’; specifically, he is taking a walk on his palace roof after a successful military campaign in Egypt. From his elevated vantage-point, Babylon is a magnificent sight. Its verdant hanging gardens, its baroque city streets, its impregnable walls: it is a city full of awe-inspiring structures. And rising up above them all is Nebuchadnezzar’s newly-renovated ziggurat—an immense clay tower which rivals the heavens themselves for majesty and splendour. Meanwhile, the sweet smell of cedar rises up from beneath the King’s feet. (The palace-roof consists of thousands of cedar-trees from the forests of Lebanon, many of which Nebuchadnezzar has felled with his own fair hands!166 ) The King’s heart therefore swells with pride as he utters the fateful words: Is this not the great Babylon, which I myself have established as a royal house by my sovereign power and for [the sake of] my excellent glory? 165. See “XXX”. 166. Ferguson, XXX. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 71 The text of 4.30 only records a single question asked by Nebuchadnezzar, but it clearly does not reflect an isolated moment of pride in the King’s life. It reflects the overall tenor of the King’s life and reign over the last twelve months. The King has not ‘broken away’ from his past manner of life at all (4.27), nor has he sought to glorify God by means of his reign. On the contrary, he has employed his power and influence to bring glory to himself and to extol his own achievements. Nebuchadnezzar’s palace inscriptions tell a similar story. One such inscription reads like a carboncopy of 4.30. It states, “The fortifications of Esagila and Babylon I [Nebuchadnezzar have] strengthened and [thereby] established the name of my reign forever”.167 Other inscriptions portray Nebuchadnezzar in a similar light. As Montgomery writes, “The King’s self-[satisfaction] in his glorious Babylon are strikingly true to history”. (Montgomery quotes an inscription where Nebuchadnezzar proudly states, “In Babylon, my dear city, which I love, [is] the palace—the house of wonder of the people,...the abode of majesty in Babylon”.168 ) Such statements are, of course, made by many Babylonians rulers, but they are nevertheless noteworthy insofar as they resemble the image of Nebuchadnezzar portrayed in ch. 4. Not even the most arrogant of Israel’s kings is recorded to have uttered such words.169 Is this not...? (4.30). The words of 4.30 are a question, which Nebuchadnezzar apparently asks himself. But, as he will soon find out, he is not alone. Babylon’s watcher is close at hand, and will now provide a most unwanted answer to his question. While the word was still on the King’s lips, a voice fell from the heavens (4.31). Even as the King utters the words recorded in 4.30, a voice comes floating down from the heavens in response. It is a voice which Nebuchadnezzar has heard only once before and has been trying to forget ever since, but, to the Nebuchadnezzar’s dismay, it is one which he instantly recognises. It is the voice of Babylon’s Watcher. The mere 167. Barton, Archeology And The Bible, 1949:478-479. 168. Montgomery 1927:243-44. While Herodotus credits Babylon’s awesome architecture to two legendary Assyrian queens (Hist. 1.178-186), Berossus, who is a more reliable source, credits it to Nebuchadnezzar (Ag. Ap. 1.134-141), with which Daniel’s narrative agrees. 169. and the OT is clearly not a book which seeks to protect the reputation of Israel’s kings 72 4.28-33: JUDGMENT FALLS sound of the voice is sufficient to strike fear into the King’s heart; and the particular words which it utters are yet more terrifying: It is [hereby] announced to you, O Nebuchadnezzar the King: the kingdom has passed on from you! In other words, “Your seven times are about to begin!”. The passive tense employed in 4.31 (“the kingdom has passed on”) clearly alludes to the agency of God. The God who causes kings to pass on[QDP] has now caused Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to pass on[QDP] from him. You will be driven from man (4.32a.1). Much to the King’s horror, the Watcher begins to repeat the very words which Nebuchadnezzar heard from Daniel’s lips twelve months ago. “You will be driven from man”, the Watcher declares, “and you will reside with the beasts of the field, and, like the ox, you will be made to taste grass, [and so on]” (4.32). As Nebuchadnezzar hears these words, the full terror of his original dream comes flooding back to him. He realises how foolishly he has behaved. Instead of reforming his reign, he has escalated his brutality and arrogance to new levels. He has turned his back on God’s word, and, as a result, God’s word has overtaken him (Zech. 1.5-6). But it is now too late for such regrets. The matter has been settled, and the Watcher has spoken. Accordingly, the King’s seven times of desolation are set to begin and to continue until the King acknowledges that “the Most High rules over man’s kingdoms”. At that [very] moment, the word came to its end-point upon Nebuchadnezzar (4.33a). As the Watcher reaches the end of its declaration, the “word” (i.e., the millâh declared by the Watcher) reaches its end-point in the life of Nebuchadnezzar.170 I take the “word” in question to cover the entirety of the King’s dream. Over the last twelve months, Nebuchadnezzar’s millâh (dream) has gradually been unfolding in the King’s life. Babylon has continued to grow in might, and Nebuchadnezzar has continued to grow in pride. Or, to put the point in the language of 170. Like the Heb. dābār, the Aram. millâh can function in a variety of ways. It can refer, for instance, to a recent event or item of speech, but it can also (as seems to be the case here) function as a synonym for ‘the subject presently under consideration’ (2.10, 2.11, 2.17, 2.23, etc.). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 73 the dream, Babylon has become too tall and, as such, has poked its ‘head’ through the clouds (4.12). The “end-point” of the dream has therefore fallen on the King. The Watcher has uttered the appropriate word of command (“Hew down the tree!...”: 4.13-14), and the King’s seven times have begun to unfold. he was driven from man (4.33b). As the Watcher’s words descend from the heavens, Nebuchadnezzar’s mind begins to crumble and he loses all control of his mental faculties. An incredible transformation thus begins to take place in the King’s life. The first change which Nebuchadnezzar notices is his inability to tolerate human company. He feels awkward and scrutinised in the presence of other people and develops an uncontrollable urge to distance himself from his palace-staff. As a result, he heads out into ‘the wild’ (Babylon’s Hanging Gardens?) where he can enjoy rest and solitude. There he is forced to fend for and feed himself. Accordingly, he adopts a diet of natural vegetation and plants, which, over time, he acquires a distinct taste for. He even begins to devour the grass of the field (4.33b). Nebuchadnezzar is also forced to find new ‘accommodation’. (He cannot bear the thought of returning to his palace quarters.) He therefore takes to sleeping under the open skies alongside the beasts, which causes him to wake each morning drenched with the dew of heaven (4.33b). In short, Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a completely change of lifestyle. But the changes are not merely behavioural. His physical appearance also begins to alter insofar as he becomes completely disinterested in such things as personal cleanliness and tidiness. Accordingly, his hair becomes so overgrown and unkempt that it mats together into feather-like plaits, while his nails become so long that they curl at the ends like claws. In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar begins to live like a beast, think like a beast, and even look like a beast. As such, he finds himself caught in a ‘devolutionary’ spiral (Rom. 1.20). Báez sums up the situation wonderfully: A pride [which] is not satisfied with being “a little lower than God”—one [which] reaches for the heavens [and hence] blur[s] the human-divine distinction—results in a ‘[bringing back down] to earth’ and a blurring of the human-animal dis- 74 4.28-33: JUDGMENT FALLS tinction. The king who thought himself...a superman is reduced to the [subhuman] status of an animal.171 The words of 4.33 describe a truly epic fall. One moment the King is standing on his palace roof, the world at his feet; the next he finds himself running for the hills, his mind and kingdom in tatters. It is one of the most dramatic transformations ever to have been recorded, and it would have terrified the Babylonians to know about it.172 It is also highly reminiscent of Isaiah’s prophecy against Babylon, where Isaiah pictures Babylon’s enemies taunting her fallen king with the following words, How you have fallen from the heavens, O Day Star...! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who laid the nations low! You declared in your heart, ‘I will rise up to the heavens,... I will rise above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High’. But you will be brought down to Sheol, to the [deepest] recesses of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and...[ask], ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble— who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert,... who would not let his prisoners go home?’ (Isa. 14.12-17† ) He was driven from man, and, like an ox, he began to consume green plants (4.33b-c). Exactly how God transformed Nebuchadnezzar from a nobleman to a brute beast is not revealed to us, but a lot of the ‘groundwork’ may have already been done for him. Nebuchadnezzar was not the most stable of individuals. We have already seen him swing from 171. Báez, Allusions To Genesis 11:1-9 In The Book Of Daniel, 2013:153. 172. Kings are seen as intermediaries between man and God in many ancient texts, and are even spoken of as the “image” of God (Parpola 1993:168). The idea of a fallen, cursed, or debased king would, therefore, fill a whole nation with fear. It was not a good sign, to say the least. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 75 one extreme to another on a number of occasions. At the outset of ch. 2, for instance, he sought to slay Daniel, and by the end of the chapter’s events he wanted to promote him. At the outset of ch. 3, he then threatened to slay Daniel’s friends (for their loyalty to YHWH), and at the end of it he threatened to slay the Babylonians (for their lack of loyalty to YHWH). Suffice it to say, these are not the hallmarks of a man in his right mind. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar suffered from what we now refer to as ‘bi-polar disorder’, or perhaps his erratic behaviour stemmed from a different cause. Either way, Nebuchadnezzar was a highly mercurial and unpredictable individual. His unpredictability may even have played a part in his military success, since an enemy whose actions cannot be predicted is a very dangerous prospect. Divine intervention aside, then, Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and his recent dream certainly cannot have helped matters. The surge of pride which overcame Nebuchadnezzar as he stood on his palace roof may, therefore, have been the rush of blood which finally pushed the King ‘over the edge’—the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were.173 Of course, in mentioning these things, I am not seeking to minimise the handiwork of God in ch. 4’s events. My point is as follows: from a purely naturalistic stand-point, Nebuchadnezzar was ‘ripe’ for the judgment that befell him. Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘breakdown’ was not a sudden and unforeseeable event; it was a natural outworking of his divinelyordained past. God may not, therefore, have needed to ‘intervene’ a great deal in Nebuchadnezzar’s life in order to bring about his downfall; he may simply have needed to remove his hand of protection and allow Nebuchadnezzar’s life of pride and excess take its toll. To put the point in the language of the Psalmist: God had already set Nebuchadnezzar in “a slippery place”; he then simply needed to ‘let Nebuchadnezzar go his way’ in order to “make [him] fall into desolation” (Psa. 73.18† ). 173. Breakdowns such as Nebuchadnezzar’s are not as uncommon as one might imagine. As Montgomery writes, “[They are] well known in the sad annals of the human mind and attested by scientific examination” (cf. On The Book Of Daniel, 1927:220). R. K. Harrison mentions a patient in a mental institution whose symptoms were “virtually identical” to Nebuchadnezzar’s. The patient would wander the grounds of the institution and eat grass from the lawn. His mental symptoms included “pronounced anti-social tendencies”, and his most notable physical abnormality was “a lengthening of the hair and a ...thicken[ing] of the fingernails” (Harrison 1969:1116-1117). 76 4.28-33: JUDGMENT FALLS his body was drenched with the dew of the heavens until his hair grew great like eagles’ [feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws] (4.33d ). That Daniel makes explicit mention of Nebuchadnezzar’s long (and bird-like) hair and nails is noteworthy. As John Goldingay observes, “Anyone’s hair and nails [would] grow long in the wild”.174 What, then, does Daniel want to tell us here?175 A couple of answers suggest themselves. The first derives from ch. 4’s Babylonian background. The birdlike imagery employed in 4.33 is commonly found in Mesopotamian depictions of ‘the underworld’, where both the dead as well as the demonic entities who inhabit the underworld often exhibit bird-like features.176 4.33’s imagery also resonates with the well-known Babylonian myth ‘The Epic Of Gilgamesh’. The opening section of the Epic involves a part-man part-beast named ‘Enkidu’. Enkidu dwells with the “beasts of the field” and “eats grass” alongside them. The hair of his head is “long”, while the hair of his body is dense and “matted”. As the story continues, Enkidu grows in stature and acquires divine status, but he harbours a desire to return to his old way of life. (‘Why, since you have become like a god’, Enkidu’s lover asks him, ‘do you yearn to run wild again with the beasts in the hills?’.) Enkidu is hence portrayed as a man torn between two worlds. He also seems to be haunted by a troubled past. (Later in the Epic, he recounts a dream where a demonic entity with an “eagle’s talon[s]” takes hold of him and transforms his arms into “[feathered] wings”.) 4.33’s imagery can very naturally, therefore, be seen in light of its Babylonian backdrop, in which case its significance is most likely as follows. Nebuchadnezzar, a king of nigh-on divine status, has lost favour with ‘the gods’, and has suffered a catastrophic fall from grace. As such, 174. Goldingay 1989:90. 175. 4.33d may, I suppose, be an idiomatic way of saying, ‘The King became completely unkempt, from head to toe’. In a letter sent from the King of Mari to his wife (18th cent. BC), the King mentions women “who do not have a blemish...[lit.,] ‘from toe nail to hair of head”’ (Ziegler XXXX:297). But Daniel may still want to see a deeper significance to his choice of words. 176. “The Descent of Ishtar”, for instance, depicts the dead as “clothed like birds [MUŠEN] in feather garments”, while the Lamaštu tablets depict the demon Lamaštu as a woman whose feet are “those of an eagle” and whose “fingernails are long”. Hays cites many other examples (2007:308-324). The Syr. version of Ahiqar also employs similar imagery. When the hero of the story is raised from the pit, he says, “The hair of my head had drown down on my shoulders,...and my nails were grown long like an eagle’s” (Conybeare XXXX:116). Such imagery is not obvious present in Scripture, but may lie behind texts like Isa. 13.19-22 or 34.10-15. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 77 Nebuchadnezzar has been (metaphorically) dragged down to the underworld. He has been given over to Babylon’s demons,177 and has devolved to a pre-glorified state in which, like Enkidu, he is associated with the “beasts of the field” and a diet of “grass” and an unkempt appearance (“long” and “matted” hair). Ch. 4’s thereby continues to follow the pattern of Ezek. 31. At the outset of Ezek. 31, Assyria is depicted as a tall and luxuriant cedar tree which provides a home for the birds and beasts, but, once God’s judgment falls on it, it is “given over to death” and descends “to Sheol” (Ezek. 31.14-15).178 An alternative way of interpreting 4.33’s imagery involves ch. 4’s Scriptural background. According to Daniel, the branches of ch. 4’s tree provide a nesting-place for various “birds”, which depict Babylon’s vassal states and subjects (4.12’s comm.). By associating Nebuchadnezzar with bird-like imagery, then, 4.33 describes the continuation of the King’s downfall. The King will be brought down to the level of his own people. He will not even have a roof over his head. The unnatural length of the King’s hair and nails can then be understood in light of Mosaic law. In Deut. 21.10-14, provision is made for the assimilation of a female prisoner of war into Israel’s community. The prisoner in question is required to shave her hair, pare back her fingernails, and mourn the death of her parents in the house of her husband-to-be for a full month. Afterwards, she is allowed to be married, at which point she becomes a fully-fledged member of Israel’s community. 4.33’s reference to the unnatural length of the King’s hair and nails may well allude to these activities. If so, the King’s ‘seven times’ should be seen as a period of mourning and isolation, after which he will be assimilated into God’s covenant community. Like the phrase ‘the spirit of the holy gods’, then, 4.33b’s imagery can be interpreted in two very different ways, which I take to be a deliberate feature of Daniel’s narrative. A Babylonian might have seen Daniel’s account of the King’s fall in 4.28-33 as the manifestation of a dark and mysterious curse. The hand of YHWH would therefore have remained obscure and inscrutable to him, just as it did to Babylon’s wise men. 177. Here, we might think of Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians: “You are to deliver [the relevant man] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5.5). 178. The fall of Babylon’s king in Isa. 14 is also associated with a descent to Sheol (Isa. 14.4-17). 78 4.28-33: THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (We might consider, as an analogy, Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing”: 2 Cor. 4.3.) But those familiar with the Jewish Scriptures would have been able to discern a much deeper truth between the lines of the text. The King had not merely been afflicted by a vague and randomly-decreed divine curse; rather, the great YHWH was about to assimilate Nebuchadnezzar into his covenant community. Newsom appropriately describes his experience as a “rite of passage”.179 he was driven from man (4.33b). As mentioned earlier, Nebuchadnezzar fled into ‘the wilds’ as soon as God’s judgment fell on him. He deliberately, therefore, chose to separate himself from his advisors, who are unlikely to have sought to prevent him from doing so. Indeed, they would have consciously sought to keep their distance from the King if they viewed him as the victim of a divine curse.180 But Daniel would not have deserted his king in his hour of need. As mentioned previously, Daniel had a genuine love for Nebuchadnezzar—a love which was a reflection of God’s own love for Nebuchadnezzar (4.19). Moreover, Daniel was very likely the only person in Babylon to know the full story behind the Nebuchadnezzar’s times of desolation. Daniel would therefore have kept in close contact with the King during his seven times. He would have provided him with support, sound advice, and encouragement. He would also have sought to protect the King’s reputation in the city of Babylon. God had promised to preserve Nebuchadnezzar’s throne in his absence, so Daniel would have done whatever he could to further God’s cause. 4.28-33: The relevant historical evidence As yet, no evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of insanity has been recovered from the site of ancient Babylon. But we should not be overly surprised. For one thing, Nebuchadnezzar’s later years in Babylon are very poorly documented. Detailed historical records are available up until the 11th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but, from that point on, 179. Newsom 2014:149. 180. hence, in 4.36, they are said to “return” to Nebuchadnezzar DANIEL CHAPTER 4 79 Babylon’s records are surprisingly quiet about goings-on in Babylon.181 For another, Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘breakdown’ is exactly the kind of incident the King (and his successors) would have wanted to erase from Babylon’s history. The purpose of Babylon’s official records was to glorify Babylon’s provenance and to bolster its people’s confidence. A record of Nebuchadnezzar’s breakdown would therefore have been distinctly outof-place. As Montgomery writes, “Corroboration of [Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity] can hardly...be expected from archaeology, for royal families do not leave memorials of such frailties”.182 But, while no direct evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s breakdown has come to light, what we do know about the later years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign provides an intriguing backdrop for it. First (as mentioned above), the latter half of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is unusually quiet in terms of its literary output, which seems to require some kind of explanation. At the very least, there is plenty of room in Babylon’s records for 4.28-33’s c events to have unfolded—especially since the notion of a “time”[ iddān] in ch. 4 could, theoretically, be as short as a month or even a day. Second, according to Paul Ferguson, Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions exhibit a growing pride and arrogance. “Not only does the number of inscriptions suddenly drop [after Nebuchadnezzar’s early years]”, Ferguson writes, “but...their content radically changes. [The King’s] earlier preoccupation with religion wanes, and [his] attention [instead] turn[s] to palaces and politics. ...In reworking one of his closing prayers, the King manages to insert eight of his own royal titles. [Such] flaunting of royal traits before [a] deity was totally absent in [the King’s] earlier prayers”.183 Third, archeologists have unearthed a fragment of a tablet in Babylon which associates Nebuchadnezzar with some very strange behaviour.184 At one point in his life, the King is said to have become “extremely disoriented” and to have issued a number of confused and contradictory orders. He is even said to have ceased to respond to his name—the same name which 181. As Stephen Langdon writes, “The latter half of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is remarkably poor in its number of literary productions” (Langdon 1905:17 cf. Wiseman 1985:XXX, Ferguson 1994:XXX). 182. Montgomery 1927:221. 183. Ferguson 1994:322. 184. The initial section of the fragment certainly refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Grayson claims that the narrative then moves on to a different king, but Wiseman argues otherwise (Wiseman 1985:XXX). 80 4.28-33: THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE he had so proudly emblazoned on millions of Babylon’s bricks! Fourth, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have given an unusual speech to his people in the closing years of his reign. The church father Eusebius cites Abydenus as follows: Men of Babylon, I, Nebuchadnezzar, here foretell...[a] coming calamity... There will come a Persian mule,185 [who] will bring you into slavery. And the joint author of this [calamity] will be a Mede, in whom the Assyrians glory. [If only], before he gave up my citizens,... he might be carried across the desert, where there are neither cities nor foot of man, but where wild beasts have pasture and birds their haunts, that he might wander alone among rocks and ravines, and that, before he took such thoughts into his mind, I myself had found a better end!186 The King’s speech, as cited by Eusebius, is interesting for a number of reasons. (A) It has not obviously been contrived to fit the text of ch. 4. As such, it has a ring of authenticity to it. It also contains phrases of the kind Nebuchadnezzar may well have said. When Nebuchadnezzar describes his military campaigns in hostile climates, he refers to such things as “roads of bitterness” and “roads without water” and “regions untraversed” where the paths are “difficult” or “barred” and where “no foot has trod”.187 The speech which Eusebius attributes to Nebuchadnezzar therefore sounds like the kind of thing Nebuchadnezzar might have said. (B) It is said to have been delivered from Babylon’s palace. It may even have been delivered from the palace roof. (According to Eusebius, Nebuchadnezzar “went up to his palace” in order to address his people.) (C) 185. In ancient literature, the term ‘mule’ describes a man of mixed ancestry. Cyrus in fact fell into this category insofar as he had both Persian and Median ancestors, which may explain how he was able to unite the Persians and the Medes so successfully (cf. Hist. 1.55). The phrase “Persian mule” may have been a pun of sorts, since, in Sum., ANŠE refers to a donkey (Flückiger-Hawker 1996:305, Lipinski 2001:240), and anšan is the name by which Elam was known in Cyrus’s day, hence Cyrus is referred to as the king of anšan in ancient documents. 186. EPE IX.XLI 187. Langdon 1905:121, 1905:155. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 81 Something about Nebuchadnezzar’s manner as he spoke was clearly very unusual. Those who saw Nebuchadnezzar described him as “possessed by some god or other”. (D) Midway through his speech, Nebuchadnezzar voices a desire to see one of his enemies “wandering alone” alongside the “beasts” and “birds”, which is highly reminiscent of the fate depicted in 4.15-16 and 4.32. Nebuchadnezzar apparently, therefore, wants the curse described in his dream to befall one of his enemies, just as Daniel did. (“May the dream be for those who hate you!”).188 (E) The closing words of the King’s speech suggest that Nebuchadnezzar’s outlook on the future is very bleak. He ruefully wishes that he had managed to “find a better end” in life. (F) Nebuchadnezzar is said to have disappeared from the public eye shortly after delivering the speech in question. In sum, then, the speech recorded by Eusebius is very noteworthy. It seems to be precisely the kind of address Nebuchadnezzar may have delivered after he heard the Watcher’s dreadful words, which might explain his rather outlandish state of mind as he spoke, as well as his disappearance soon afterwards. Also of interest is the way in which the text of 4.34-37 embodies a number of Akk. flourishes and influences.189 Ch. 4’s employment of the word “heaven” constitutes a further point of interest. In 4.34, Nebuchadnezzar is said to lift his eyes towards the heavens, which is appropriate since Nebuchadnezzar refers to Babylon as “the city of the lifting up of my eyes [i.e., of his affections]” in his inscriptions.190 Nebuchadnezzar turns his gaze away from his earthly treasures and towards his in feather in heaven. That Nebuchadnezzar employs the word ‘heaven’ as shorthand for ‘the God of heaven’ (perhaps after the example of 4.26) may also be significant. Nowhere else in the Heb. Bible does the 188. We might consider, as an analogy, the events of Neh. 4, where Nehemiah asks God to bring an ‘exile’ on his enemies, crying, “Turn back their taunt on their own heads, [O God], and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives” (Neh. 4.4). 189. The consecutive impf. forms in 4.36, for instance, which terminate in a pfct., are morphologically (if not semantically) suggestive of the Akk. consecutio temporum. And the phrase “at that time” (4.36) is evocative, since its Akk. eqvt. (i-nu-mi-šu a-na) appears in a number of Nebuchadnezzar’s own inscriptions (Langdon 1905:67). Furthermore, the triadic syntax of 4.34-37 is reminiscent of a number of Nebuchadnezzar’s royal inscriptions, e.g., “[As for] Gula—who is the patron of life, who favours my soul, who abides in Etila—,...I rebuilt [her house]” (Langdon 1905:107). “The queen who makes [me] attain unto strength of heart,...and who consoles [me],...who causes...my reign to be enlarged (Langdon 1905:182), etc. We should note, however, an important difference between Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions and 4.34-37. While Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions focus on what Babylon’s gods have done for him—and what he has done for them in return—, 4.34-37 focuses on who God is in and of himself. 190. Langdon 1905:133. 82 4.34-35: THE KING’S RESTORATION word “heaven” function as a substitute for God’s name, but Akk. literature regularly does so.191 Indeed, in Akkadian, ‘the skies’ and ‘the gods’ can be represented by the same logogram. In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar’s statement in 4.34-37 has a ring of authenticity. If the context of ch. 4 is genuine—and Nebuchadnezzar really did announce his allegiance to YHWH via some kind of encyclical—, the syntax and style of 4.34-37 is as one might expect. 4.34-35: The King’s restoration Yet, at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted my eyes to the heavens, 4.34 4.35 [1] and, as my learning began to return to me, [2] I blessed the Most High, [3] and I highly and honorifically esteemed the living age-steadfast one, [1] whose rule is an age-steadfast rule and whose kingdom [extends] from generation to generation, [2] to whom the combined residents of the earth are as nothing, and who does whatever he desires with the forces of heaven and the residents of earth, [3] whose hand none can rebuke and to whom none can say, ‘What have you done?’. In 4.34, Daniel resumes his citation of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation. (The text of 4.19-33 is Daniel’s.) Accordingly, the King speaks in the 1st pers., as he does in 4.1-18. Yet, at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up my eyes to the heavens (4.34a-b). In 4.34a, we come to the crowning moment of ch. 4’s narrative, namely Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion and restoration. Much of the King’s seven times must have been a blur to him, but the King can evidently remember a time when—as his days of desolation came to an end—he looked up to the heavens and, by implication, looked to the God of Heaven for mercy. The description of Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion is remarkably brief. A propagandist would surely have made more of the event. The whole thing is summed up in a mere five 191. CAD šamû A 1a. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 83 (Aram.) words: “I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to the heavens”. The King’s heavenward glance was, perhaps, as much as he could manage given the circumstances. Either way, it sufficed for God. It reflected the dependency of man on his Creator—which, of course, was precisely the lesson which Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times were intended to teach him. As such, the text of 4.34a seems to look back to Daniel’s statement in 4.26. The King’s seven times were destined to continue until the King “acknowledged heaven’s rule”, and, as he lifted his eyes heavenwards, he did just that. Nebuchadnezzar at the same time directed his gaze away from Babylon’s grandeur and towards the God of Heaven. We might consider, by way of illustration, the text of the well-known Psalm: “I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth” (Psa. 121.1-2). Nebuchadnezzar did not, of course, have anything like a full-orbed Yahwistic theology, but then he did not need to. God did not send Nebuchadnezzar into the wilderness to teach him doctrinal truths but to humble him—to show him his dependence on his heavenly Creator. Despite his many claims to the contrary, Nebuchadnezzar was not in fact a self-made man. His place on Babylon’s throne was God’s to give and God’s to take away (2.21). The moment God withdrew his hand of protection, Nebuchadnezzar’s life would begin to come crashing down around him. At the end of the days (4.34b). Exactly what triggered Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration is not revealed to us. We are simply told when Nebuchadnezzar turned his eyes heavenwards, namely, “at the end of the [relevant] days”. A question therefore arises. What exactly brought about the King’s restoration: his heavenward glance or the expiration of his seven times? Or, to raise the issue in a slightly different manner, What would have happened if the King hadn’t lifted his eyes heavenwards at the end of his seven times? Was the end-point of the seven times response-dependent or time-dependent? As finite creatures, we tend to regard these options as mutually exclusive, but, of course, God’s knowledge of the future is not plagued by the same uncertainties as ours. God perceives the future with perfect clarity. God therefore knows exactly what kind of conditions will cause a man to act in a certain way and exactly when he will choose to do so. As a result, God can make a 84 4.34-35: THE KING’S RESTORATION period like Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times both response-dependent and time-dependent. That is to say, God can make man’s freely-chosen decisions coincide with his predetermined plans without any problem at all. The two quantities are simply not in conflict with one another from God’s point of view. Will the King continue to be afflicted until he finally decides to turn to God? Or will a set number of seasons pass over the King, at which point the King’s times of desolation will come to an end? The answer is both. God’s knowledge of the future is not plagued by the same uncertainties as ours. God can know exactly what a man will choose to do and when he will choose to do it. God can therefore measure out the future in terms of time, or in terms of causes, or in terms of both—which is precisely what he does in ch. 4. According to the text of 4.25, God’s appointed times of desolation will continue to roll over the King until the King turns to God, which the King will do in precisely seven seasons’ time—no sooner and no later. Indeed, when the King does finally turn to God, he is said to do so at God’s set time[zĕmān] (4.34). Of course, when God ‘timetables’ the future for us, he often does so in an ambiguous manner, so as to make his plans unfeasible to predict in advance but plain for all to see in retrospect. The same coalescence of divine foreknowledge and human freedom is evident in Daniel’s later visions. God accomplishes his purposes by means of the reigns of pagan kings, but he does so in consort with their decisions. They are wild brute beasts, acting out their wicked desires. But God stands behind the scenes of world history, causing each beast to rise and fall at his appointed time and hence to accomplish his sovereign purposes. my learning began to return to me (4.34b). As soon as he lifts his eyes to the heavens, Nebuchadnezzar’s “learning” begins to return to him. It is as if he is emerging from a deep sleep. His knowledge of life left him during his years of desolation. He was like a brute beast: scared in the company of other people, unable to masters his fears, ruled by animal instinct as opposed to rational thought. But now, as he lifts his eyes to the heavens, his “learning” begins to return to him. He remembers what it is like to be human once again, and regains control of his emotions. He DANIEL CHAPTER 4 85 is able to be calm in the presence of his fellow men and to communicate sensibly with them. His days as a beast are thereby brought to an end, and he re-enters the realm of man. He has been broken and then remade in the image of God. and I blessed the Most High (4.34a). Nebuchadnezzar’s immediate response to his ‘re-humanisation’ is, quite rightly, to give praise to God. God has shown Nebuchadnezzar great mercy. He has forborne Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance and unrighteousness for well over fifteen years. And now he has got his man. God therefore deserves Nebuchadnezzar’s highest praise. That Nebuchadnezzar’s first act as a ‘new man’ is an act of worship is highly appropriate. Man was made precisely in order to worship his Creator. Indeed, the capacity to worship is what distinguishes us from the beasts of the field. It is the proper function of every human heart—“deep calling unto deep” (Psa. 8.5-9, 42.7). I, Nebuchadnezzar (4.34a). Nebuchadnezzar narrates the events of 4.34 in the first person. When he finally lifted his eyes to the heavens, he was most likely alone. No-one except God would, therefore, have witnessed his actions. But if anyone had been present to witness the King of Babylon bowing his knee before his Maker, they would have seen an incredible sight. Indeed, picture the scene. In Babylon’s gardens stands a once-mighty king. For forty years, he has ruled the Near East with a rod of iron. He has slain whomever he wanted and spared whomever he wanted (5.19). He has been beholden to no-one, least of all God. That man, however, is now gone, and, in his place, stands a lonely dishevelled figure. The days when Nebuchadnezzar governed the affairs of tens of thousands of Babylonians are a mere shadow of the past. Indeed, the man before us can no longer even take care of his own hygiene. His clothes are in tatters, his hair long and unkempt, and his nails grotesquely overgrown. He is completely unrecognisable from his former self. The God who gave Nebuchadnezzar glory has now taken it away. And yet, paradoxically, as his life has crumbled around him, Nebuchadnezzar has discovered life’s true meaning, for there in the wild, amidst the beasts of the field, he has come to discover the greatness of the God of Heaven. Slowly and silently, he therefore bows his knee to 86 4.34-35: THE KING’S RESTORATION his Maker and surrenders his sovereignty to God’s. Not only his outward appearance has changed but his attitude of heart as well. Indeed, the man who defiantly erected a golden image in Dura is no longer visible. Nebuchadnezzar is now a different man—a broken man, perhaps, but a man who has made peace with God. amidst the riches of his palace, Nebuchadnezzar found only anxiety, anger, and frustration. But beneath the open skies he has found peace. He has, in a sense, sold his kingdom in order to buy the pearl of greatest price. He has at the same time come to learn ch. 4’s central lesson, namely, “the Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdoms and gives it to whomever he desires” (4.17). As a result, he will never be the same again. Nebuchadnezzar can now see God’s sovereignty as a blessing rather than a threat, and he can therefore bow in worship before the King of Heaven. No longer will he rule the Near East as a ‘self-made man’. He will rule the Near East as ‘a man under authority’. Forever in the back of his mind will be the knowledge that heaven’s watchers are watching over him. I blessed the Most High...the living age-steadfast one (4.34c-d). In 4.34c-d, Nebuchadnezzar attributes two distinct titles to God: “the Most High” and “the living age-steadfast one”. These titles have not been arbitrarily chosen. That God is the “Most High” is significant since the outstanding feature of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (as it is portrayed in ch. 4’s dream) is its height (4.11, 4.20, 4.22). That God is the “agesteadfast One” is equally significant. When Nebuchadnezzar’s wise men greet him, they greet him with the words, “May you live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!” (2.4, 3.9). As such, Nebuchadnezzar’s reference to God as “the Most High” and “the living age-steadfast one” portrays God as the earth’s true supremo—the One who is enthroned above the kings of the earth, and whose heavenly kingdom will outlast all other kingdoms, and who possesses true authority and immortality. Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness is therefore like God’s, but is only a very pale reflection of it. Whereas Nebuchadnezzar is high, God is the Most High, and, whereas Nebuchadnezzar has been given dominion for a limited time, God has eternal dominion. Accordingly, whereas God has given Nebuchadnezzar honour, Nebuchadnezzar now honours God (4.34). Nebuchadnezzar then goes on to make three further claims about God: DANIEL CHAPTER 4 87 (1) God’s reign is “age-steadfast” reign, and God’s kingdom will extend “from generation to generation” (4.34b). Given his recent experiences, Nebuchadnezzar must be well aware of man’s fragility. Even a man of his stature can lose his grip on the world (and reality itself) in an instant. Nebuchadnezzar is therefore in awe of the concept of an “age-steadfast” reign. Indeed, he has spent the majority of his life seeking to inaugurate such a reign. He has lain awake at night contemplating Babylon’s future (2.29). He has erected a 90-foot tall monument to Babylon’s eternal glory (3.1-30). He has fortified Babylon’s defences to the point of absurdity (4.30). He has sought to procure the eternal blessing of the gods. In his building inscriptions, he continually asks the gods to remember and preserve his works ‘unto eternity’, to grant his sons an everlasting dominion over the nations, and so on.192 Nebuchadnezzar’s hopes for eternity have therefore been grounded in Babylon’s resources, but Nebuchadnezzar can now ground his hopes in God’s eternal power. He can at the same time accept the truth of ch. 2’s dream. While he previously saw God’s eternal rule as a threat, he can now see it as a cause for rejoicing. (2) In comparison to God, the entire population of the world amounts to “nothing” (4.35a), and is completely subject to his will (4.35b). While Nebuchadnezzar is an extremely powerful individual, he is only one man. He cannot singlehandedly turn back an army or invade a land. God, however, does not need numbers on his side. Given a contest between God and the entire population of the earth, God would emerge as the undisputed victor. Compared to him, the entire population of the earth is a virtual non-entity. We might consider, by way of analogy, Isa. 40.17† : “All the nations are as nothing to him; they are accounted by him as [even] less than nothing and an emptiness”. As a result, God is able to do “whatever he desires” with the forces of heaven and earth. The sense of 4.35b may be, ‘God does as he pleases: as with the forces of heaven, so with the residents of earth’ (so the Vulg.).193 If so, the thought seems to be as follows: just as God is sovereign over the heavenly realms, so he is sovereign over the earth. In other words, God is not only sovereign 192. e.g., Langdon 1905:89, 1905:99, 1905:151. 193. The Aram. (!‫א ודארי אַרŸעָא‬³‫ )ּבְחֵיל שׁמַיּ‬is slightly unusual. The force of the prefix !‫ ב‬does not normally extend over a compound phrase. We therefore need to make some kind of inference as to how the “residents of earth” relate to what precedes them. 88 4.34-35: THE KING’S RESTORATION is his own land (i.e., the heavens) but also over all Creation. Either way, the message is the same: God’s sovereignty has no geographical bounds. It encompasses both the heavens and the earth. (3) No-one has the right to rebuke God’s actions or to question him, saying, ‘What have you done?’ (4.35c-d). Nebuchadnezzar knows from personal experience exactly what it is like to be a true ‘sovereign’. As Babylon’s divinely-appointed king, no-one has the right (or the courage) to criticise or question his actions. He is a law unto himself.194 But Nebuchadnezzar now acknowledges the existence of a greater sovereign than himself, namely the God of Heaven. Nebuchadnezzar may have questioned the actions of God in the past. He certainly did not welcome the arrival of God’s kingdom in ch. 2’s dream. But Nebuchadnezzar is now ready to accept God’s right to govern his Creation—to cause some kings to stand others to fall as and when he pleases. The handiwork of God is beyond criticism and question. As such, the text of 4.35c-d parallels the question which the apostle Paul asks in Rom. 9, namely, “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is moulded say to its moulder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and another for dishonourable use?” (Rom. 9.20-21). In sum, then, Nebuchadnezzar came to appreciate two key truths as he bowed in worship: i] his own frailty, and ii] his Creator’s greatness. These truths are the foundation of all true worship. The self-exalted Nebuchadnezzar of chs. 2 and 3—a man with far too high a view of himself and far too low a view of God—was unable to engage in true worship, but the broken man of ch. 4 is so able. Before we move on, however, we should note an important feature of 4.34-35’s narrative. Nebuchadnezzar began to worship God before he had been reunited with his kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar therefore praised God, not because God had reinstated him as Babylon’s ruler, but because of God’s inherent greatness and glory. 194. We might consider, by way of analogy, the words of a different sovereign, namely Solomon: “The word of the king is supreme; who may say to him, “What are you doing?” (Eccl. 8.4† ). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 89 4.36-37: The King’s restoration continued At that set time, 4.36 [1] as my learning returned to me, [2] and my honour and brightness of face [likewise] returned to me for [the sake of] my kingdom’s glory, [3] and my counsellors and greatest [men] sought me out, [my kingdom] was prepared for my reign, and extraordinary greatness was added to me. Now, therefore, I Nebuchadnezzar 4.37 [1] highly esteem, [2] lift up high, [3] and honour the King of Heaven [1] all of whose deeds are right, [2] and whose precepts are just, [3] and who is able to lay low those who walk in pride. 4.36 describes the continuation of Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration. As the King’s right mind returned to him, his reputation and counsellors likewise returned. At that time (4.36a). The phrase “at that time” looks back to 4.34; that is to say, it looks back to “the end of [God’s appointed] days”. Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration took place at exactly the right time as far as God was concerned, but it did not take place in an instant. The verbal forms employed in 4.36b-d suggest a gradual process rather than an immediate transformation (4.36’s trans. notes). my honour and brightness[zîw] of face began to return to me for [the sake of] my kingdom’s glory (4.36c). As Nebuchadnezzar’s learning returns to him, his “honour and brightness of face” also returns to him. In ch. 5, Belshazzar’s face turns pale when he sees the hand of God in front of him, and the King is later disgraced in the eyes of his officials (5.6). The idea here is exactly the opposite. The colour of Nebuchadnezzar’s face returns to him, and the King is glorified in the eyes of his of- 90 4.36-37: THE KING’S RESTORATION CONTINUED ficials. The word brightness[zîw] conveys the thought of lustre and splendour. The same word is employed in ch. 2 to describe the Colossus’s brightness. There, the brightness reflects the glory of God (2.37-38). The text of 4.36 therefore depicts the return of God’s glory to his life and kingdom (4.36c). The phrase “for [the sake of] my kingdom’s glory” is significant. Thus far in life, Nebuchadnezzar’s prime concern in life has been to magnify his glory—a fact amply attested in his inscriptions. But Nebuchadnezzar now has different concerns on his mind. He is concerned about the glory of his kingdom. He wants to do the job God has given him to the best of his abilities—an ambition which we should all share. my counsellors and great-ones began sought me out (4.36d ). The counsellors who fled from Nebuchadnezzar now begin to associate with him again. Nebuchadnezzar thus regains his position on Babylon’s throne; that is to say, he comes to be “re-established” over his kingdom. In terms of ch. 4’s dream, then, 4.36 describes the regrowth of the lonely stump and the return of its wildlife. The word zîw may in fact allude to such regrowth, since it alludes in particular to the “splendour” of flowers and trees—hence the Heb. zîw marks the month in the calendar when Israel’s flowers and trees come into bloom.195 extraordinary greatness was added to me (4.36e ). God does not restore Nebuchadnezzar in a begrudging or half-hearted manner. On the contrary, God restores Nebuchadnezzar to a position of “extraordinary greatness”. Nebuchadnezzar is now, therefore, ready to rule the Near East as a truly great Adamic figure. Moreover, his kingdom is made ready for him. (“[My kingdom] was prepared for my reign”.) In human terms, Nebuchadnezzar’s return would not be an easy one, but God would go before him to prepare his way. Like zîw, the words “extraordinary” and “great” feature in ch. 2’s description of the Gentile Colossus. The text of 4.36 therefore establishes a further connection between Nebuchadnezzar and the golden figurehead of the Colossus. Nebuchadnezzar is the role model which his descendants are to follow. Sadly, however, they will fail to do so, as we will see in ch. 5 (5.18-23). 195. GHCL zîw. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 91 I Nebuchadnezzar now praise, lift up high, and honour the King of Heaven (4.37). We now reach the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation. Nebuchadnezzar closes his proclamation with a final expression of gratitude to God. His words are significant in a number of respects. (A) Nebuchadnezzar refers to God as the “King of Heaven”. Nowhere else in the Book of Daniel—a book which is all about kings and kingships—is God referred to as a “king”. That Nebuchadnezzar refers to God as a king is therefore significant. It brings out the way in which we all, to some extent, see God in light of our own experiences. Daniel is a prophet; he therefore sees God as a ‘changer of times’ and a ‘revealer of mysteries’ (2.21-22). Nebuchadnezzar, however, is a king. Nebuchadnezzar therefore sees God as the undisputed King of Heaven—the One who rules all earthly rulers. (B) To date, Nebuchadnezzar has spent his career exalting himself —hence ch. 3’s image and ch. 4’s dream. But he is now willing to exalt (“lift up”) the name of God. He is a completely changed man. (C) Nebuchadnezzar is well aware of why he needed to undergo his seven times of desolation, namely because his life was characterised by “pride”. To come to know the Most High God, he had to be “brought low”. We can consider, by way of analogy, God’s statement to Isaiah, “This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit” (Isa. 66.2). Nebuchadnezzar is even able to describe God’s actions as “just”, which is remarkable in light of what he has been through. Nebuchadnezzar can see how proudly and arrogantly he has behaved and realises why God dealt with him as he did. Interestingly, one of the names by which Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was known is “The Place Where Proud Ones Are Compelled to Submit”.196 (Nebuchadnezzar may have carried away foreign kings like Jehoiakim to the palace, where he required them to assent to his treaties.) As such, ch. 4 describes a highly ironic turn of events, since it describes the moment when Nebuchadnezzar himself joined the list of ‘proud ones’ who have been ‘compelled to submit’ to a new overlord in Babylon. With 4.37’s final words, Nebuchadnezzar disappears from the pages of Scripture, which is likely to be an encouraging sign. Indeed, when Gentile kings are mentioned in Scripture, it is invariably for the wrong rea196. Wiseman, XXX, XXXX:63. 92 4.36-37: THE KING’S RESTORATION CONTINUED sons. Nebuchadnezzar’s lesson in humility must therefore have had a lasting effect on him. For as long as he lived, Nebuchadnezzar would have known that his well-being depended entirely on God’s mercy, and that aside from God’s sustenance he would disintegrate—which would not always have been a very comforting thought but certainly appears to have kept him ‘in check’. Nebuchadnezzar never again turned his back on God as he had done in his early career, and he died a friend of God. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 93 4.1-37: A closing retrospective Ch. 4 constitutes another remarkable chapter in Daniel’s life and memoirs. The overall content and structure of ch. 4 is straightforward enough to understand. At the outset of the chapter, Nebuchadnezzar is given his second dream, and, in response, the wise men chalk up their second failure as interpreters. Nebuchadnezzar must therefore resort to the assistance of Daniel, who is willing and able to interpret the King’s dream. The dream is precisely as Nebuchadnezzar feared, i.e., an evil omen. If Nebuchadnezzar continues to ‘walk in pride’, then his kingship will be taken away from him. Nebuchadnezzar therefore has a decision to make. Either he must change his ways or he must face the bad news depicted in his dream. Sadly, Nebuchadnezzar chooses the latter option, and, as a result, he is plunged into his times of desolation. During these seven times, the King disintegrates in every way possible. But, as his appointed times come to an end, he lifts his eyes towards the heavens and looks to his Maker for help. To the surprise—and perhaps even the horror—of many Jews in Babylon, the man who burnt Israel’s Temple to the ground becomes a child of Israel’s God. Ch. 4 thereby signals the conclusion of a story which began with the very first verse of Daniel’s writings (“Nebuchadnezzar...came [to] Jerusalem and laid siege to it”), namely the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s long war against God. In ch. 1, Nebuchadnezzar marches against Jerusalem, sacks the city, carries away its ‘leading lights’, and enrols Judah’s nobility into Babylon’s ranks. From then on, for better or for worse, the affairs of Babylon become inseparably intertwined with the affairs of God’s people. In chs. 2-4, God then begins to show Nebuchadnezzar exactly what he has become involved in. In ch. 2, God shows Nebuchadnezzar Babylon’s place in world history, and, in ch. 3, God shows Nebuchadnezzar the kind of faithfulness which is required from God’s people. In ch. 4, things then become more personal. Nebuchadnezzar must make a personal response to God’s revelation, which, at the end of seven long times, he does. As such, chs. 1-4 constitute the first ‘sub-unit’ within Daniel’s writings. To compare the opening and closing sentences of chs. 1-4 is in fact very revealing. In 1.1, Nebuchadnezzar storms Jerusalem by force, 94 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS while, in 4.33-37, God storms Nebuchadnezzar by force; or, to put the point another way, in 1.1, the King of Babylon takes Jehoiakim captive, while, in 4.33-37, the King of Heaven takes Nebuchadnezzar captive. As such, chs. 1-4 document the full details of God’s dealings with the great Nebuchadnezzar. They tell us how Nebuchadnezzar first came into contact with God and how God finally won him over. We could therefore give ch. 4 the subtitle, ‘God finally gets his man’. Twice Nebuchadnezzar ignored God’s call, but he was unable to do so a third time.197 4.1-37: Some applications Ch. 4 teaches us a number of important lessons. As per our usual method, we begin with the most obvious and relevant to Daniel’s original readership and proceed from there. (1) “The Most High is the ruler of man’s kingdoms and gives it to whomever he desires and causes the lowliest of men to stand over it” (4.17). Nebuchadnezzar acceded to Babylon’s throne in the normal way, i.e., by virtue of his royal ancestry. But, as ch. 4 amply demonstrates, the King’s life and times were entirely in God’s hands. As such, ch. 4’s events are an illustration of Daniel’s statement many years previously, namely, “[God] is the one who causes the appointed seasons to come and go, who causes kings to pass on and kings to stand” (2.21). God gave Nebuchadnezzar the victory over Jerusalem and thereby caused him to “stand up”, and God later caused Nebuchadnezzar’s mind to crumble and hence caused him to fall. God is in complete control of history. Of course, God’s plans are not always scrutable to us. God raises men to power whom we would not choose to raise up, and God deposes men whom we would not choose to depose. But the wisdom of God is often clearest in retrospect. Consider, for instance, the way in which God has governed the formation and preservation of the Jewish people over the years and has thereby accomplished his sovereign purposes. At the outset of the post-flood age, God scattered the men of Babel all over the Near East. God thereby caused the world’s various nations to be born. Soon afterwards, God called a 197. Many years beforehand, a different Mesopotamian (named Balaam) did a very similar thing. He too ignored God’s call on two occasions, but he was unable to do so a third time (Num. 22.32-34). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 95 man named Abram forth from the midst of Mesopotamia’s idolatry and made his descendants a mighty nation. God then raised up Joseph and, by sending him in chains to Egypt, enabled the Jewish people to relocate there, where they multiplied greatly. A few hundred years later, God raised up a Pharaoh in Egypt, whose hostility towards the Jewish people soon led to the Exodus. The Israelites thereby came to possess Canaan, at which point God raised up a line of judges and kings in Israel in order to preserve their seed in Canaan. God also sent Israel a line of prophets in order to preserve her moral purity. But Israel rebelled against her God and mistreated his prophets, until the time came when God could no longer tolerate his people’s sins. As a result, God scattered the Jewish people throughout the Near East, initially by the hand of Sennacherib and later by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Seventy years later, God brought Babylon’s reign to an end, and raised Cyrus to power in the Near East, who allowed the Jewish people to return to Judah. But they soon reverted to their sinful ways, which caused God to raise up the spectre of Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus led a brutal assault against the Jewish people, but, incredibly, his assault only revived the Jewish people’s zeal for their Law and rekindled their religious affections. A century and a half later, the time then came for the Jewish Messiah to be born (Gal. 4.4). To that end, God raised up Caesar Augustus and Pontius Pilate. Caesar’s decree summoned the citizens of Israel back to their hometowns (Luke 2.1-11), which led to the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5.2), while Pilate’s decree allowed the Messiah to be crucified (Matt. 27.22-24). At the same time, God granted the Roman emperors widespread dominion over the nations of the Near East and beyond. Saul and the Jewish apostles were thus able to publish the Gospel of Christ throughout the whole earth in a commonly spoken language—which is why we in the Western world have the Scriptures in our hands today. The manner in which God has accomplished his redemptive plans in history is therefore quite remarkable. Via the rise and fall of many men and nations, God has: a] preserved his chosen people throughout the centuries, b] provided a sacrifice for their sins, and c] spread the message of the Gospel throughout all Creation. Pascale makes the following comment on the matter, 96 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS How fine it is to see with the eyes of faith Darius and Cyrus, Alexander, the Romans, Pompey and Herod [all] working [together], without knowing it, for the glory of the Gospel!198 True—God has not always accomplished his purposes in the way we might have expected. But then why should he? Should we not take men like David and Isaiah and Paul at their word when they tell us about the unfathomable depth of God’s ways—a depth which is far beyond our present understanding (Psa. 139.14-15, Isa. 40.28, Rom. 11.33)? Even now, as we look back over the centuries, we can see God’s great wisdom in his governance of history. God knows exactly how his universe should be run. Let us, therefore, with confidence, entrust our entire lives into his hands—our future ambitions, our present concerns, and our past failings; and, while there is yet time to do so, let us seek to play our part in God’s plans. As one warrior in Israel once said to another, [Let us] be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people and for the cities of our God, and may the LORD do what seems good to him. (2 Sam. 10.12 RSV) (2) The reign of unjust rulers is only temporary; ultimately, the proud and mighty will be brought low, and the humble and poor will be raised up. When Nebuchadnezzar raised himself up in ch. 4, God brought him low (4.29-33), but, when Nebuchadnezzar humbled himself, God raised him up (4.34-37). Ch. 4 thus illustrates an important principle in God’s economy: while, in the present age, power is often the possession of the wicked, the day is coming when God will effect a dramatic reversal in men’s fortunes. As Isaiah states, The [LORD of Hosts] has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted,... for all the cedars of Lebanon—tall and lofty—, and [for] all the oaks of Bashan... 198. Pascale, Pascal’s Pensées, 700. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 97 The arrogance of man will be brought low and human pride [will be] humbled. [And] the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. (Isa. 2.12-17 NIV) While, therefore, man’s power is not presently distributed according to godliness, one day it will be. The wicked will be stripped of their dominion, which will be awarded to God’s saints (7.13-14, 7.26-27). Ch. 4 must therefore have given great comfort to the powerless and downtrodden exiles over the years—to those who suffered at the hands of the Persians, Seleucids, and Romans! Ultimately, God will humble all such tyrants and entrust the administration of his kingdom to the poor and downtrodden; he will humble those who wager their sovereignty against his and raise those who are afflicted to positions of glory and honour. The people of God will thus be able to echo the words of Mary: My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. He has looked on the humble estate of his servant... He who is mighty has done great things for me... His mercy is for those who fear him... He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty; he has helped his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy. (Luke 1.48-55) As Christians, God’s promise to bring justice to the world should be a great comfort to us. God does not forget the labours or the endurance of those who love him. We may seem to be downtrodden by life’s trials at times, and we may seem to be tossed to and fro by forces completely beyond our control. But we will ultimately be glorified, and, on that day, 98 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS our patient endurance will be to God’s praise and glory. Let us therefore seek to remain strong, to ‘hang in there’, and to be faithful to God despite our circumstances. “The LORD is good—a refuge in times of trouble; he cares for those who trust in him” (Nah. 1.7 NIV). (3) Sometimes God needs to ‘bring us low’ in order to remind us of how dependent we are on him. When we are on top of things in life, we soon forget how dependent we are on God. We attribute our successes to our own hard work and diligence rather than to God’s unfailing grace. As a result, God sometimes needs to withdraw his hand of protection from us. He needs to remind us how dependent we are on him and drive us afresh to him in prayer and repentance. Such times are not enjoyable, but they are vital to our spiritual growth. Absent God’s sustaining grace, we are not merely rendered ‘less effective’; we are rendered completely unable to function. May we never, therefore, become complacent in life. We can achieve absolutely nothing without God’s strength. That is not merely a turn of phrase; it is a statement of fact. (4) It is rarely a good thing to be ‘at rest’ in life (4.4). At the outset of the 36th year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar is said to be ‘at rest’. He has no right to be at rest. He is actually in grave danger, since he has ignored God’s word to him (2.45). He should therefore be calling out to God for mercy, but, like Jonah, he is ‘at rest’; indeed, he is fast asleep (Jon. 1.6). As Christians, it is easy for us to lull ourselves into a similar state of security and contentment—to sit back “at rest in [our] house” we should be ‘calling on the name of the Lord’. Our natural inclination is the same as the Laodiceans’: to see ourselves as “rich”, “prosperous”, and “in need of nothing”, even if we happen to be “poor”, “blind”, and “naked” (Rev. 3.17† ). If, however, we are to be useful servants of our Lord, then we need to shaken from our state of contentment from time to time. We need to be woken up from our slumber and made to see what we are really like so that our hunger for God might grow. According to the apostle John, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1.8 NIV). In the majority of evangelical churches, the quotation of such verses is greeted with a hearty “Amen”. But does our approval of verses like 1 John 1.8 go beyond the theoretical? Suppose, DANIEL CHAPTER 4 99 for instance, we were asked to name two or three specific patterns of sinful behaviour in our lives which we are presently seeking to address. Would we be able to do so? And would we be able to spell out what practical steps we have taken to rectify these behaviours? If not, are we not living as if we have no sin, even if we are unwilling to say so? Are we not effectively saying, ‘I am without sin’, and thereby deceiving ourselves? The all-important question, then, is this: how can we undeceive ourselves? The answer, according to the apostle James, is simple: by being both hearers and doers of God’s Word (Jas. 1.22-25). Most Christians attend church services on a regular basis. But, all too often, they leave them in the same state in which they entered them. Perhaps they fail to act on what they are told. Or perhaps what they are told simply does not (or is not even designed to) stir them up or challenge them in any way. Perhaps they are presented with the same “elementary teachings about Christ” week after week, and, as a result, fail to grow (Heb. 5.12-6.2 NIV). Either way, they are the same Christians they were ten or twenty years ago, with exactly the same flaws and failings. If we are to avoid such self-deception, then we need to be doers as well as hearers of God’s Word (Jas. 1.25). We need to receive regular and systematic teaching from God’s word—especially those parts with which we are less comfortable—, and we need to pay close attention to what we hear. Salvation is all about change (2 Cor. 3.18). When we hear God’s word, we must therefore ask God how he wants us to change our lives as a result of what we have heard. True—some of the changes we make may only be minor ones. But, if we make fifty minor changes to our lives every year, then we will be substantially different people before too long. Let us not, therefore, stagnate as Christians. Let us seek to change and to be changed by the Holy Spirit who indwells us (Eph. 3.20). (5) God does not waste his words; when we are unresponsive to God’s voice, we only make life more painful for ourselves in the long run. If God is gracious enough to speak to us, then we need to listen to what he says. If we fail to do so, God may well find ‘alternative’ ways of speaking to us, e.g., by bringing times of affliction on us (Heb. 12.6). As C. S. Lewis writes, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks [to us via] our consciences, but shouts in our pains. [Pain] is his megaphone to 100 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS rouse a deaf world”.199 We can therefore save ourselves a lot of pain in life by listening to God the first time he tells us something. To know God’s will for our lives is a precious blessing. Let us not, therefore, waste it. As Jesus said, “The servant who knows the master’s will [but] does not...do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows” (Luke 12.47). Nebuchadnezzar learnt his lesson the hard way. Let us not make the same mistake. (6) There is a clear connection between pride and insanity. Chs. 1-4 of Daniel’s writings narrate a highly instructive sequence of events. Nebuchadnezzar grows increasingly proud until, at the end of ch. 4, he goes completely insane. That Nebuchadnezzar’s pride leads to his insanity is no coincidence. Pride just is a form of insanity. It leads us to form a distorted view of ourselves and, by extension, of the world around us, which, of course, is the very essence of insanity. It leads us to see ourselves, as opposed to God, as the centre of the universe.200 If we want to overcome the influence of pride in our lives, then such facts are helpful for us to meditate on. To become proud is not merely to develop an undesirable personality trait. It is entirely to lose sight of reality. It is to fail to see ourselves as God sees us and as we truly are. We might consider, by way of analogy, some of the singers who enter televised ‘talent shows’, such as The X Factor. Many of these singers clearly view themselves as very talented vocalists, but the truth of the matter is often quite different. The extent to which these people’s pride blinds them to reality is actually very disturbing. And yet, in moral terms, we all suffer from similar delusions. If there is anyone on earth who should realise our weakness and fallen-ness, then it is us. Only God himself has a better knowledge of our thought-lives and failures. Yet, all too often, we ‘gloss over’ our failings to such an extent that our view of ourselves becomes delusional. We fail to perceive in ourselves the faults we so clearly perceive in others, and we regard our view of Scripture and church-practice as beyond question, as if we are the only people 199. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 14. 200. While Nebuchadnezzar’s tribulations are often referred to as his ‘seven times of madness’, one could rightly refer to the King’s entire life as a ‘time of madness’. Nebuchadnezzar saw his kingship as a vehicle for his self-aggrandisement, which, according to 2.37-28, is exactly what it was not. 101 DANIEL CHAPTER 4 in Christendom to read the Bible in an open and objective manner. In such situations, we need to be given a heavy dose of reality. We need to remind ourselves who God is (the flawless Creator), who we are in comparison (fallen creatures), and how many times we have fallen short of our Lord’s most basic command, namely to love him with our entire heart, mind, soul, and strength. We also need to find a friend who can be honest with us about our shortcomings, and to think about thing we have neglected to do—the times when we have failed to speak out on behalf of our Saviour and to make fools of ourselves for his sake (1 Cor. 4.10). Very often, we are not the Christians we think we are, and we will be of no use to God or man once we lose sight of that fact. Of all people, we, as Christians, should make sure we are living in the real world. (7) Pride is often the result of dwelling too closely on our own achievments. Few people on earth have commanded anything like Nebuchadnezzar’s power and influence. Many, however, have exhibited Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and arrogance as they have considered their own achievements in life, and we are not immune from doing so simply because we are Christians. “Is this not the qualification which I myself have obtained by my diligent study?”, we might ask ourselves. “Is this not the promotion which I myself have earned by my hard work?, the church which I have built up by years of patient labour?, the family which I have raised by my commitment to Biblical principles?”. The answer to all these questions is an unqualified, No! Every good gift which we possess is the result of God’s sovereign grace. Pride, however, can rear its head in every walk of our Christian life. We therefore need to keep a close eye on our attitude of mind and heart. Spurgeon makes the same point in one of his daily devotionals, which I have copied out in modern English below: “What is the vine tree more than any [other] tree?” (Ezek. 15.2) These words are for the humbling of God’s people. God’s people are called God’s vine, but what are they by nature more than others? They, by God’s goodness, have become fruitful. They have been planted in a good soil; the Lord has trained them on the walls of the sanctuary; and they bring forth fruit 102 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS to his glory. But what are they without their God? What are they without the continual influence of the Spirit bearing fruit in them? O believer! Learn to reject pride, for you have no basis for it. Whatever you are, you have nothing to be proud of. The more you have, the more you are in debt to God; and you should have no reason to be proud of what makes you a debtor. Consider your origin! Look back to what you were! Consider what you would have been but for divine grace, and then look on yourself as you are now! Does your conscience not reproach you? Do a thousand wanderings not stand before you and tell you that you are unworthy to be called God’s son? And if God has made you anything at all, have you not thereby learnt that it is grace alone which has caused it? ...Oh, strange infatuation! That you who have borrowed everything should think of exalting yourself—a poor pensioner dependent on the bounty of your Saviour, a man whose life dies without fresh streams of life from Jesus and yet is still proud! Shame on you, O silly heart!201 (8) Pride and worship are polar opposites; like iron and clay, they cannot be mixed. As soon as Nebuchadnezzar’s humanity returned to him (at the end of his seven times), Nebuchadnezzar began to worship God (4.3436). If, therefore, pride was the precursor to Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall, then worship was the precursor to his restoration. Or, to put the point another way: if the King’s pride and insanity went hand in hand, then so did the King’s worship and sanity. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar’s act of worship reveals one of pride’s most significant (and appalling) features, namely that it inverts the positions of God and man. It takes too low a view of God and too high a view of man. As such, it robs God of the praise he rightly deserves and credits us with the kind of praise we don’t deserve. The act of worship then restores things to their proper places. It portrays God in all his glory and man in all his dependency. Nebuchadnezzar’s act of worship is also important insofar as it outlines one of God’s remedies to pride. Thoughts of boastfulness are often easy 201. Spurgeon, Morning And Evening (put in modern English), 22nd Jan. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 103 to transform into expressions of worship, since the things we are most proud of in life are generally the things for which we should be most thankful. Rather, then, than reflecting on what we have achieved in life, let us give thanks for what God has brought out of our fallen existence; and, rather than reflecting on the spiritual maturity of our children, let us give thanks to God for how he has blessed our testimony and example; and so on. A thankful heart is a humble heart. (9) If we want an example of how a man can possess power without pride, then we need look no further than the example of Jesus of Nazareth. While the nature of Nebuchadnezzar’s fall was extraordinary, its circumstances were not. As Nebuchadnezzar considered his accomplishments in life, he became proud and emboldened and put himself in place of God; and many other kings in history have done likewise. Consider, for instance, Saul, who, buoyed by his victory over the Amalekites, overruled God’s order to destroy the Amalekites’ possessions (1 Sam. 15.17-19), or Uzziah, who, buoyed by his fame among the nations, gave himself leave to perform the duties of a priest (2 Chr. 26.15-19), or the Rabshakeh, who, buoyed by Assyria’s conquest of the Near East, blasphemed the name of the Most High God (2 Kgs. 18.19-25, Isa. 10.6-11). When men ponder their past successes in life, their pride often leads them to cast aside the commandments of God. The exception, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus came to establish a very different kind of kingdom to those of the Gentiles. He clearly informed his disciples that, if they wanted to become “great” in his kingdom, they would first have to become “servants” (Mark 10.43-44). And Jesus, of course, led by example. The time came in Jesus’ life when his power and authority were very evident to him (John 13.3). Yet, at that very moment, rather than lifting himself up in pride, Jesus began to wash his disciples’ feet. As the apostle John writes, Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,...[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments...and began to wash the disciples’ feet. (John 13.3-5) 104 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS In one sense, it was inconceivable for the Son of God to perform an act of such humility. Yet, at the same time—in a much deeper sense—, only the Son of God could perform such an act. It was an act of unspeakable grace and condescension, yet, for those who were willing to see it, it spoke of the true greatness and glory of the man who stood before them. Three days later, that glory then became plain for all to see, when the Father raised the Son from the grave. Paul describes Jesus’ transition (from humiliation to glory) in the following terms, Though he existed in the form of God, [Jesus] did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death —even death on a cross! As a result, God exalted him and gave him the name...above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow —in heaven and on earth and under the earth— and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2.6-11 NET) In God’s economy, then, the way up is down. (10) God is no man’s debtor; he always restores to his people more than he takes away from them. Nebuchadnezzar undergoes a great loss in ch. 4’s events. In order to acquire the King’s undivided attention, God takes away his kingdom, glory, and even his sanity. But Nebuchadnezzar’s latter state (in the aftermath of his seven times) is, if anything, more glorious than his former state.202 The same can be said of others 202. After he is reunited with his kingdom, “extraordinary greatness” is added to him (4.36). DANIEL CHAPTER 4 105 who undergo a loss and a restoration in Daniel’s writings, namely the three Hebrews (3.30), Daniel himself, (6.28), and God’s suffering people (7.26-27, 11.32-35, 12.1-2). An important principle therefore emerges. When God puts his people through times of tribulation, he invariably returns to them more than he takes away. God can therefore say to the Jews who return to Jerusalem to find their temple in ruins, “The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house” (Hag. 2.9 NIV), and Jesus can say to his disciples, “Everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or property, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in return and will inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19.29), and the apostle James can describe Job’s ‘end’ as more glorious than his beginning (Jas. 5.11). At times in life, God ‘takes things away’ from us.203 Our job, our spouse, our children, our health: all these things are ultimately God’s to give and God’s to take away. But, when God takes such things away from us, he does so for a reason and he promises to fully compensate our ‘losses’; and, as the source of all joy and goodness in life, God is more than able to make good on his promises. God is able to give those who suffer a special awareness of his presence amidst their trials, as is pictured by the angel’s presence in Babylon’s furnace (3.25). And God is able not only to restore what he takes away but also to remove the pain of past losses. In the Book of Revelation, John is shown a stream of believers emerging from a period of great tribulation, at which point God says to John, He who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore. The sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat, for the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. (Rev. 7.14-17) 203. though, in truth, they are never really ‘ours’ in the first place 106 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS A time is coming when we will never know pain or sorrow again—a time when God’s work of redemption will be complete and we will enter into the joyful presence of our Lord (Matt. 25.23). In the meantime, we may have to suffer the loss of many earthly blessings. Let us therefore remember that God reserves a special blessing for all those who suffer in such ways. In times of tribulation, let us seek to draw close to our Lord; let us tell him about our trials and ask him—the God of all comfort—to comfort us. If he cannot do so, then no-one can. (11) When God brings times of suffering on us, his desire is not to cause us pain but to spare us from it. At the outset of ch. 4, Nebuchadnezzar was perfectly content with his lot in life. He was at peace both with himself and with his people. Nebuchadnezzar’s peace, however, was a false peace—a peace which would eventually lead to his destruction. Nebuchadnezzar was therefore in trouble, but salvation came to him for one simple reason: God loved him. God loved Nebuchadnezzar enough to take away his (false) sense of peace and lead him to find true peace in his heavenly father.204 More precisely, God chose to subject Nebuchadnezzar to seven times of desolation in order to save him from eternal desolation. God’s primary intention was not, therefore, to judge Nebuchadnezzar but to have mercy on him. And the same principle, I believe, underlies all God’s dealings with mankind (Ezek. 33.11, John 3.17). God is not a cruel tyrant but a loving heavenly father. He takes no delight in seeing his people suffer; he (reluctantly) allows them to suffer only when it is absolutely necessary and always with their final restoration in mind (1 Pet. 1.6-7). As Jeremiah sat amidst the desolations of Jerusalem, he could therefore say, Even though [the Lord] has caused grief, he will nevertheless have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love, for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. (Lam. 3.31-33† ) 204. As such, the opening scene of ch. 4 is highly significant. When Nebuchadnezzar awoke from his daydream, he did not only awake from a brief nap; he slowly began to awake from a life-long spiritual slumber. DANIEL CHAPTER 4 107 When we undergo times of suffering, it is vital for us to keep such thoughts in mind, for we will otherwise develop a very warped and uncharitable impression of God’s character. Isaiah refers to a time when the Israelites lose sight of God’s love for them and cried out, “The LORD has deserted us!”, to which God replies, Can a mother forget her nursing child? Can she feel no love for the child she has borne? [And] even if that were possible, I would not forget you! See, I have written your name on the palms of my hands... Soon your descendants will come back, and all who are trying to destroy you will go away. (Isa. 49.15-17 NLT) God’s heart towards his elect is no different today (Heb. 13.5b). We do not have a Saviour who is distant or untouched by human emotions; on the contrary, we have a Saviour who knows our weaknesses and pain and is present to help us in our time of need (Heb. 4.14-16). (12) Believers should be people who value the truth. Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon for a total of 43 years, for a good many of which Daniel was his right hand man. As a result, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar developed an unusually close friendship (4.19’s comm.). Nebuchadnezzar was probably fond of Daniel for a number of reasons, not least of which was his sheer brilliance as a wise man. But his integrity was, I suspect, equally important. Unlike the rest of the palace-staff, Daniel was a man whom Nebuchadnezzar could implicitly trust and whom was honest and upfront with Nebuchadnezzar. He was not intimidated by Nebuchadnezzar’s power or reputation. (He had God to protect him.) Nor was he overly worried about his ‘career progression’. So, when difficult things needed to be said, Daniel said them, and Nebuchadnezzar came to respect him for it. As believers, we should seek to follow Daniel’s example in terms our witness to unbelievers. We should not be afraid of the world’s ‘big per- 108 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS sonalities’, nor should we be afraid to tell people the truth. (God has not given us a spirit of “fear” but a spirit of “power and love and self-control”: 2 Tim. 1.7.) Many unbelievers are afraid to be honest with one another, especially if they fear that it will cost them in terms of popularity. ‘Peace at any price’ is the watchword. But, as believers, we should not buy into such philosophy. We should be men and women of integrity—people who value the truth for the truth’s sake, “[who] buy truth, and do not sell it” (Prov. 23.23). (13) Unless we have a genuine concern for people, our witness to them will never prove very effective. Daniel found himself in a decidedly unenviable position in ch. 4. God had given Nebuchadnezzar a dream, which was clearly a bad omen, but the wise men did not want to be the ones to break it to the King. The task of interpreting the King’s dream therefore fell to Daniel, which could easily have spelt the end of his career. Yet, rather than dismembering Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar listened carefully and attentively to what he had to say. Why? Because Daniel clearly cared for the King. Daniel took no delight in being the bearer of bad news; indeed, he was visibly moved when he heard about the King’s dream, which was a reaction he could not have faked. The King therefore listened to Daniel’s message sympathetically, even if he ultimately failed to act on it. Daniel’s witness to the King teaches us an important lesson. As Christians, we have a wonderful Gospel to share with people. Part of the Gospel, however, is bad news. It tells men that their sin is a serious issue and that they are desperately in need of a Saviour. As such, there is an ‘offence’ to the Gospel (Gal. 5.11). The people with whom we share the Gospel therefore need to know that we care about them and that our motives are sincere. Our words will otherwise seem cold and academic. People with full-time jobs spend the majority of their waking lives at work, yet they often know very little about their colleagues as individuals—about their hopes and fears and dreams and struggles—, who know equally little about them. Needless to say, this is not a healthy state of affairs. If we are to successfully witness to our colleagues, then we need to forge deep relationships with them, just as Daniel did with Nebuchadnezzar. We need to care about our colleagues as people rather DANIEL CHAPTER 4 109 than as potential converts; we need to make them a part of our lives both at work and outside of work; and we need to pray that God will use our efforts for his glory. (14) If we seek to honour God in our ‘secular work’, then God will use our efforts to great effect. Daniel’s opportunity to speak to Nebuchadnezzar about the things of God did not arise out of thin air; it arose as a result of his devotion to his secular work. Daniel’s employment in Babylon’s administration would probably have caused many of the Jews in Babylon to disparage him and to rebuke him for becoming too involved in ‘worldly politics’. But Daniel was not concerned about such things. Ultimately, he was accountable to God rather than man, as he realised very well (1.8, Rom. 14.4-12). So, Daniel simply got on with the task to which he had been called and left others to make of it what they would, and God responded accordingly. (15) Nebuchadnezzar’s fall and restoration has great prophetic significance. Nebuchadnezzar’s life and times parallel the life and times of Israel (both past and future) in a number of interesting ways: i] Both Nebuchadnezzar and Israel came to reign over Canaan solely by God’s grace. Nebuchadnezzar was not a great man in and of himself; he was simply the man whom God happened to appoint over the Near East (2.37-38, 4.17). Likewise, Israel were “no greater in number than any other people”; they were simply the people whom God happened to set his love on in light of his promise to Abraham (Deut. 7.7-8† ). ii] Neither Nebuchadnezzar and Israel fulfilled their calling. Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was meant to reflect God’s glory (2.37-38), but it was instead characterised by sin and brutality (4.27). Israel’s reign was also meant to reflect God’s glory (Exod. 19.6), but, while it was not brutal, it was highly corrupt and unjust (Isa. 1.21-23). As a result, the Kings of Israel did not even manage to bless their own people, let alone “the nations” at large (Gen. 12.2-3, 2 Chr. 33.9). iii] As soon as Nebuchadnezzar and Israel became powerful, they also became proud. Rather than attributing his success to God’s grace, Nebuchadnezzar boasted in his own achievements (4.29-30, 5.20), and, sadly, Israel made the same mistake. As soon as the Israelites began to prosper, their hearts were ‘puffed up’ with 110 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS pride and they forgot all about the Lord their God (Deut. 8.11-14, Isa. 2.6-11, Jer. 5.27-28, Hos. 13.6). iv] Both Nebuchadnezzar and Israel were separated from their inheritance as a result of their disobedience. Nebuchadnezzar failed to take heed to Daniel’s words; he was therefore ‘exiled’ from his kingdom and made to dwell with the beasts of the field (4.15-16). The same fate befell Israel. Israel refused to listen to the words of the prophets (2 Chr. 36.15-16); God therefore scattered them among the nations and thereby caused them to dwell with the world’s “beasts” (7.2, Isa. 5.5, 56.9). v] The return of Nebuchadnezzar and Israel to their former states of glory coincides with the ‘lifting up’ of their eyes to the heavens. Nebuchadnezzar’s period of exile came to an end only when he lifted his eyes heavenwards and hence acknowledged heaven’s sovereignty (4.34-37). Israel’s period of exile is still in force, but will one day come to an end when Israel calls out to her Messiah (crying, “Blessed be the name of the Lord”), and, even as she does so, she will see her Messiah returning on the clouds of the heavens (Isa. 45.22, Zech. 12.10, Matt. 23.38-39, 24.30-31). Ch. 4 therefore contained an important message for Daniel’s people. Like Nebuchadnezzar, the Jewish people had been brought low, and ancestry alone could not save them (Matt. 3.9). Like Nebuchadnezzar, they therefore needed to humble themselves and call on God’s mighty name. Only then could they be saved and restored. As such, ch. 4’s narrative packed a powerful punch, and it proclaims the same message to Daniel’s people today. Even now, the Jewish people are still, in a sense, in exile. True—many of them have returned to their land, but not as many have returned to their God, and even less have accepted their Messiah (Zech. 1.2-6). As ingrafted Gentiles, we should not be indifferent to such things. Do we care about the glory of God’s name? Do we want to hasten the day of our Lord’s return? If so, then we will care about the salvation of the Jewish people (Jer. 31.31-40, Ezek. 36.22-24, Matt. 23.37-39). Indeed, we owe them a great debt; and yet, tragically, the feature for which Christendom is most well-known among the Jewish people is its anti-Semitic tendencies, both past as well as present. As Christians, let us therefore seek to make amends for these things. The Jewish people are our Lord’s own flesh and blood. Let us seek, then, to DANIEL CHAPTER 4 111 take our stand alongside them, to bless them, to protect their interests, to tell them about their Messiah, and to pray for their welfare (Gen. 12.2-3, Matt. 25.40, Rom. 15.27). Jerusalem is still the apple of our Lord’s eye (Zech. 2.8). And, if we are in tune with our Lord’s heart, then it will be ours too. As the apostle Paul writes, “If [Israel’s] rejection brought reconciliation to the world, [then] what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Rom. 11.15 NIV). In light of the many parallels between Nebuchadnezzar’s and Israel’s times, it is interesting to note some further parallels which become apparent when we consider a chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s life:205 205. See App. 4B for the relevant calculations. 112 4.1-37: SOME APPLICATIONS Date Event Age c. 634 Nebuchadnezzar is born206 Sep. 605 Nebuchadnezzar accedes to the throne of Babylon 29 July 587 Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem 47 July 586 God speaks to Nebuchadnezzar by means of a dream (the Colossus) 48 Oct. 569 God speaks to Nebuchadnezzar by means of a second dream (the great tree) 65 July 568 Nebuchadnezzar conquers Egypt 66 Oct. 568 Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times begin Apr. 564 Nebuchadnezzar’s seven times come to an end, at which point Nebuchadnezzar is converted 70 Oct. 562 Nebuchadnezzar passes away and enters into glory 72 0 661/2 As can be seen, then, Nebuchadnezzar’s existence parallels Israel’s in a number of interesting ways. Both divide into seventy blocks of time (9.24), both climax in a three-and-a-half-year period of ‘beast-related’ suffering (7.25, 9.27), and both climax in a glorious conversion (9.24). The parallels may run even deeper if Nebuchadnezzar ordered his men to destroy the golden image on the Plain of Dura after his conversion, since both seventy-block periods then climax in the collapse of a mighty structure: in Nebuchadnezzar’s case, the golden image, and in Israel’s, the Gentile Colossus. If Nebuchadnezzar was genuinely converted as a result of ch. 4’s events, then he would certainly not have wanted to leave the image intact. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which the Ephesians burnt their magical scrolls after their conversion (Acts 19.19). 206. XXX.