Commentari biblici

Section I.-- Authenticity of the Chapter

The objections to the authenticity and credibility of this chapter are not numerous or important.

I. The first that is alleged, by Bertholdt (Com. pp. 192, 193), is substantially this: "that if the account here is true, the records of ancient times could not exhibit a more finished tyrant than Nebuchadnezzar was, if he doomed so many persons to death, on so slight and foolish an occasion, Daniel 2:5. This cruelty, it is said, is wholly contrary to the general character of Nebuchadnezzar as it is reported to us, and wholly incredible. It is further said, that, though it was common in the East to trust in dreams, and though the office of interpreting them was an honorable office, yet no one was so unreasonable, or could be, as to require the interpreter to reveal the dream itself when it was forgotten. The proper office of the interpreter, it is said, was to interpret the dream, not to tell what the dream was."

To this objection, which seems to have considerable plausibility, it may be replied:

(1) Much reliance was placed on "dreams" in ancient times, alike among the Hebrews and in the pagan world. The case of Pharaoh will at once occur to the mind; and it need not be said that men everywhere relied on dreams, and inquired earnestly respecting them, whether they "might" not be the appointed means of communication with the spiritual world, and of disclosing what was to occur in the future. There can be no objection, therefore, to the supposition that this pagan monarch, Nebuchadnezzar, felt all the solicitude which he is reported to have done respecting the dream which he had. It may be further added, that in the dream itself there is nothing improbable as a dream, for it has all the characteristics of those mysterious operations of the mind; and, if God ever communicated his will by a dream, or made known future events in this way, there is no absurdity in supposing that he would thus communicate what was to come, to him who was at that time at the head of the empires of the earth, and who was the king over the first of those kingdoms which were to embrace the world's history for so many ages.

(2) There is no improbability in supposing that a dream would vanish from the distinct recollection, or that if it had vanished, the mind would be troubled by some vague recollection or impression in regard to it. This often occurs in our dreams now, as in the indistinct recollection that we have had a pleasant or a frightful dream, when we are wholly unable to recal the dream itself. This often occurs, too, when we would be "glad" to recover the dream if we could, but when no effort that we can make will recal its distinct features to our minds.

(3) There was, really, nothing that was unreasonable, absurd, or tyrannical in the demand which Nebuchadnezzar made on the astrologers, that they should recal the dream itself, and then interpret it. Doubtless he could recollect it if they would suggest it, or at least he could so far recollect it as to prevent their imposing on him: for something like this constantly occurs in the operation of our own minds. When we have forgotten a story, or a piece of history, though we could not ourselves recal it, yet when it is repeated to us, we can then distinctly recollect it, and can perceive that that is the same narrative, for it agrees with all our impressions in regard to it. Furthermore, though it was not understood to be a part of the office of an interpreter of dreams to "recal" the dream if it had vanished from the mind, yet Nebuchadnezzar reasoned correctly, that if they could "interpret" the dream they ought to be presumed to be able to tell what it was. The one required no more sagacity than the other: and if they were, as they pretended to be, under the inspiration of the gods in interpreting a dream, it was fair to presume that, under the same inspiration, they could tell what it was. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:5. No objection, then, can lie against the authenticity of this chapter from any supposed absurdity in the demand of Nebuchadnezzar. It was not only strictly in accordance with all the just principles of reasoning in the case, but was in accordance with what might be expected from an arbitrary monarch who was accustomed to exact obedience in all things.

(4) what is here said of the threatening of Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 2:5, accords with the general traits of his character as history has preserved them. He had in him the elements of cruelty and severity of the highest order, especially when his will was not immediately complied with. In proof of this, we need only refer to his cruel treatment of the king Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was taken: "So they took the king, and brought him to the king of Babylon to Riblah: and they gave judgment upon him. And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and brought him to Babylon," 2 Kings 25:6-7 : compare also, in 2 Kings 25:18-21, the account of his slaying the large number of persons that were taken by Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard, and brought by him to the king in Babylon. These were slain in cold blood by order of Nebuchadnezzar himself. These facts make it every way probable that, in a fit of passion, he would not hesitate to threaten the astrologers with death if they did not comply at once with his will. Compare Jeremiah 39:5, following; Jeremiah 52:9-11. The truth was, that though Nebuchadnezzar had some good qualities, and was religious "in his way," yet he had all the usual characteristics of an Oriental despot. He was a man of strong passions, and was a man who would never hesitate in carrying out the purposes of an arbitrary, a determined, and a stubborn will.

II. A second objection made by Bertholdt, which may demand a moment's notice, is, substantially, that the account bears the mark of a later hand, for the purpose of conferring a higher honor on Daniel, and making what he did appear the more wonderful: pp. 62, 63, 193-196. The supposition of Bertholdt is, that the original account was merely that Nebuchadnezzar required of the interpreter to explain the sense of the dream, but that, in order to show the greatness of Daniel, the author of this book, long after the affair occurred, added the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar required of them to make the "dream" known as well as the "interpretation," and that the great superiority of Daniel was shown by his being able at once to do this.

As this objection, however, is not based on any historical grounds, and as it is throughout mere conjecture, it is not necessary to notice it further. Nothing is gained by the conjecture; no difficulty is relieved by it; nor is there any real difficulty "to be" relieved by any such supposition. The narrative, as we have it, has, as we have seen, no intrinsic improbability, nor is there anything in it which is contrary to the well-known character of Nebuchadnezzar.

III. A third objection to the authenticity of the chapter, which deserves to be noticed, is urged by Luderwald, p. 40, following, and Bleek, p. 280, that this whole narrative has a strong resemblance to the account of the dreams of Pharaoh, and the promotion of Joseph at the court of Egypt, and was apparently made up from that, or copied from it.

But to this we may reply,

(a) that, if either happened, there is no more improbability in supposing that it should happen to Daniel in Babylon than to Joseph in Egypt; and, taken as separate and independent histories, neither of them is improbable.

(b) There is so much diversity in the two cases as to show that the one is not copied from the other. They agree, indeed, in several circumstances: - in the fact that the king of Egypt and the king of Babylon had each a dream; in the fact that Joseph and Daniel were enabled to interpret the dream; in the fact that they both ascribed the ability to do this, not to themselves, but to God; and in the fact that they were both raised to honor, as a consequence of their being able to interpret the dream. But in nothing else do they agree. The dreams themselves; the occasion; the explanation; the result; the bearing on future events - in these, and in numerous other things, they differ entirely. It may be added also, that if the one had been copied from the other, it is probable that there would have been some undesigned allusion by which it could be known that the writer of the one had the other before him, and that he was framing his own narrative from that. But, as a matter of fact, there are no two records in history that have more the marks of being independent and original narratives of real transactions, than the account of Joseph in Egypt, and of Daniel in Babylon.

IV. A fourth objection to the account in this chapter arises from an alleged error in "chronology." For a consideration of this, see the notes at Daniel 2:1.

Section II.-- Analysis of the Chapter

The subjects of this chapter are the following:

I. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2:1. In accordance with the common belief among the ancients, he regarded this as a Divine message. The dream, too, was of such a character as to make a deep impression on his mind, though its distinct features and details had gone from him.

II. The demand of Nebuchadnezzar that the Chaldeans should recal the dream to his recollection, and expound its meaning, Daniel 2:2-9. He ordered those whose business it was professedly to give such interpretations, to come into his presence, and to make known the dream and its meaning. But it would seem that their pretensions went no further than to explain a dream when it was known, and hence, they asked respectfully that the king would state the dream in order that they might explain it. The king, in angel threatened death, if they did not first recal the dream, and then make known the interpretation, promising at the same time ample rewards if they were able to do this. As all this, under Divine direction, was designed to communicate important information of future events, it was so ordered that the dream should be forgotten, thus entirely confounding the art of the Chaldeans, and giving an opportunity to Daniei to make the dream and its interpretation known, thus exalting a man from the land of the prophets, and showing that it was not by the skill of the pretended interpreters of dreams that future events could be made known, but that it was only by those who were inspired for that purpose by the true God.

III. The acknowledged failure of the power of the astrologers and Chaldeans, Daniel 2:10-11. They admitted that they could not do what was demanded of them. Whatever might be the consequence, they could not even "attempt" to recal a forgotten dream. And as, though we may be unable to recal such a dream distinctly ourselves, we could easily "recognize" it if it were stated to us; and as we could not be imposed on by something else that anyone should undertake to make us believe was the real dream, the magicians saw that it was hopeless to attempt to palm a story of their own invention on him, as if that were the real dream, and they therefore acknowledged their inability to comply with the demand of the king.

IV. The decree that they should die, Daniel 2:12-13. In this decree, Daniel and his three friends who had been trained with him at court Daniel 1 were involved, not because they had failed to comply with the demand of the king, for there is the fullest evidence that the subject had not been laid before them, but because they came under the general class of wise men, or counselors, to whom the monarch looked to explain the prognostics of coming events.

V. Daniel, when apprised of the decree, and the cause of it, went to the king and requested a respite in the execution of the sentence, Daniel 2:14-16. It would seem that he had the privilege of access to the king at pleasure. We may presume that he stated that the thing had not in fact been laid before him, though he had become involved in the general sentence, and it is no unreasonable supposition that the king was so much troubled with the dream, that he was so anxious to know its signification, and that he saw so clearly that if the decree was executed, involving Daniel and his friends, "all" hope of recalling and understanding it would be lost, that he was ready to grasp at "any" hope, however slender, of being made acquainted with the meaning of the vision. He was willing, therefore, that Daniel should be spared, and that the execution of the decree should be suspended.

VI. In these interesting and solemn circumstances, Daniel and his friends gave themselves to prayer, Daniel 2:17-18. Their lives were in danger, and the case was such that they could not be rescued but by a direct Divine inter position. There was no power which they had of ascertaining by any human means what was the dream of the monarch, and yet it was indispensable, in order to save their lives, that the dream should be made known. God only, they knew, could communicate it to them, and he only, therefore, could save them from death; and in these circumstances of perplexity they availed themselves of the privilege which all the friends of God have - of carrying their cause at once before his throne.

VII. The secret was revealed to Daniel in a night vision, and he gave utterance to an appropriate song of praise, Daniel 2:19-23. The occasion was one which demanded such an expression of thanksgiving, and that which Daniel addressed to God was every way worthy of the occasion.

VIII. The way was now prepared for Daniel to make known to the king the dream and the interpretation. Accordingly he was brought before the king, and he distinctly disclaimed any power of himself to recal the dream, or to make known its signification, Daniel 2:24-30.

IX. The statement of the dream and the interpretation, Daniel 2:31-45.

X. The effect on Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2:46-49. He recognized the dream; acknowledged that it was only the true God who could have made it known; and promoted Daniel to distinguished honor. In his own honors, Daniel did not forget the virtuous companions of his youth Daniel 1, and sought for them, now that he was elevated, posts of honorable employment also, Daniel 2:49.

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar - There is an apparent chronological difficulty in this statement which has given some perplexity to expositors. It arises mainly from two sources.

(1) That in Jeremiah 25:1, it is said that the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar corresponded with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and as the captivity was in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Daniel 1:1, the time here would be the "fourth" year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of the second.

(2) That we learn from Daniel 1:5, Daniel 1:18, that Daniel and his three friends had been in Babylon already three years, under a process of training preparatory to their being presented at court, and as the whole narrative leads us to suppose that it was "after" this that Daniel was regarded as enrolled among the wise men (compare Daniel 2:13-14), on the supposition that the captivity occurred in the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, this would bring the time of the dream into the fourth year of his reign. This difficulty is somewhat increased from the fact that when Nebuchadnezzar went up to besiege Jerusalem he is called "king," and it is evident that he did not go as a lieutenant of the reigning monarch; or as a general of the Chaldean forces under the direction of another. See 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Kings 24:11. Various solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but the true one probably is, that Nebuchadnezzar reigned some time conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar, and, though the title "king" was given to him, yet the reckoning here is dated from the time when he began to reign alone, and that this was the year of his sole occupancy of the throne.

Berosus states that his father, Nabopolassar, was aged and infirm, and that he gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Necho out of Asia. The victorious prince then marched directly to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim surrendered to him; and this was the beginning of the seventy years, captivity. See "Jahn's History of the Hebrew Commonwealth," p. 134. Nabopolassar probably died about two years after that, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne. The period of their reigning together was two years, and of course the second year of his single reign would be the fourth of his entire reign; and a reckoning from either would be proper, and would not be misunderstood. Other modes of solution have been adopted, but as this meets the whole difficulty, and is founded on truth, it is unnecessary to refer to them. Compare Prof. Stuart, on Daniel, Excursus I. and Excursus II.((See Barnes' Appendix I and Appendix II to Daniel)

Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams - The plural is here used, though there is but one dream mentioned, and probably but one is referred to, for Nebuchadnezzar, when speaking of it himself Daniel 2:3, says, "I have dreamed a dream." In the Latin Vulgate, and in the Greek, it is also in the singular. It is probable that this is a popular use of words, as if one should say, "I had strange dreams last night," though perhaps but a single dream was intended. - Prof. Bush. Among the methods by which God made known future events in ancient times, that by "dreams" was one of the most common. See the notes at Daniel 1:17; Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (2); compare Genesis 20:3, Genesis 20:6; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 37:5-6; Genesis 40:5; Genesis 41:7, Genesis 41:25; 1 Kings 3:5; Numbers 12:6; Joel 2:28; Job 33:14-16. The belief that the will of heaven was communicated to men by means of dreams, was prevalent throughout the world in ancient times. Hence, the striking expression in Homer, Iliad i. 63 - καὶ γάρ τ ̓ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν kai gar t' onar ek Dios estin, "the dream is of Jove." So in the commencement of his second Iliad, he represents the will of Jupiter as conveyed to Agamemnon by Ὄνείρος Oneiros, or "the dream."

So Diogenes Laertius makes mention of a dream of Socrates, by which he foretold his death as to happen in three days. This method of communicating the Divine will was adopted, not only in reference to the prophets, but also to those who were strangers to religion, and even to wicked men, as in the case of Pharaoh, Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, the butler and baker in Egypt, etc. In every such instance, however, it was necessary, as in the case before us, to call in the aid of a true prophet to interpret the dream; and it was only when thus interpreted that it took its place among the certain predictions of the future. One "object" of communicating the Divine will in this manner, seems to have been to fix the attention of the person who had the dream on the subject, and to prepare him to receive the communication which God had chosen to make to him. Thus it cannot be doubted that by the belief in dreams entertained by Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, as disclosing future events, and by the anxiety of mind which they experienced m regard to the dreams, they were better prepared to receive the communications of Joseph and Daniel in reference to the future than they could have been by any other method of making known the Divine will.

They had no doubt that some important communication had been made to them respecting the future, and they were anxious to know what it was. They were prepared, therefore, to welcome any explanation which commended itself to them as true, and in this way the servants of the true God had a means of access to their hearts which they could have found in no other way. By what laws it was so regulated that a dream should be "known" to be a preintimation of coming events, we have now no means of ascertaining. That it is "possible" for God to have access to the mind in sleep, and to communicate his will in this manner, no one can doubt. That it was, so far as employed for that purpose, a safe and certain way, is demonstrated by the results of the predictions thus made in the case of Abimelech, Genesis 20:3, Genesis 20:6; of Joseph and his brethren, Genesis 37:5-6; of Pharaoh, Genesis 41:7, Genesis 41:25; and of the butler and baker, Genesis 40:5. It is not, however, to be inferred that the same reliance, or that any reliance, is now to be placed on dreams, for were there no other consideration against such reliance, it would be sufficient that there is no authorized interpreter of the wanderings of the mind in sleep. God now communicates his truth to the souls of men in other ways.

Wherewith his spirit was troubled - Alike by the unusual nature of the dream, and by the impression which he undoubtedly had that it referred to some important truths pertaining to his kingdom and to future times. See Daniel 2:31-36 The Hebrew word here rendered "troubled" (פעם pâ‛am) means, properly, to "strike, to beat, to pound;" then, in Niph., to be moved, or agitated; and also in Hithpa., to be agitated, or troubled. The proper signification of the word is that of striking as on an anvil, and then it refers to any severe stroke, or anything which produces agitation. The "verb" occurs only in the following places: Judges 13:25, where it is rendered "move;" and Psalm 67:4, (5); Genesis 41:8; Daniel 2:1, Daniel 2:3, where it is rendered "troubled." The "noun" is of frequent occurrence. "And his sleep brake from him." Hebrew עליו נהיתה שׁנתו shenâthô nı̂heyethâh ‛ālâyv.

Literally, "His sleep was upon him." The Greek is, "his sleep was from him;" i. e., left him. The Vulgate, "his sleep fled (fugit) from him." But it may be doubted whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. Probably the literal construction is the true one, by which the sense of the Hebrew - על ‛al "upon" - will be retained. The meaning then would be, that this remarkable representation occurred when he was "in" a profound sleep. It was a "dream," and not "an open vision." It was such a representation as passes before the mind when the senses are locked in repose, and not such as was made to pass before the minds of the prophets when they were permitted to see visions of the future, though awake. Compare Numbers 24:4, Numbers 24:16. There is nothing in the words which conveys the idea that there was anything preternatural in the sleep that had come upon Nebuchadnezzar, but the thought is, that all this occurred when he "was" sound asleep. Prof. Stuart, however, renders this, "his sleep failed him," and so does also Gesenius. Winer renders it, "his sleep went away from him." But it seems to me that the more natural idea is what occurs in the literal translation of the words, that this occurred as a dream, in a state of profound repose.

Then the king commanded - That is, when he awoke. The particle rendered "then," does not imply that this occurred immediately. When he awoke, his mind was agitated; he was impressed with the belief that he had had an important Divine communication; but he could not even recal the dream distinctly, and he resolved to summon to his presence those whose business it was to interpret what were regarded as prognostics of the future.

The magicians, and the astrologers - These are the same words which occur in Daniel 1:20. See the note at that place.

And the sorcerers - Hebrew מכשׁפים mekashepı̂ym. Vulgate, malefici - sorcerers. Greek, φαρμακεύς pharmakeus Syriac, "magician." The Hebrew word is derived from כשׁף kâshaph - meaning, in Piel, to practice magic; to use magic formulas, or incantations; to mutter; and it refers to the various arts by which those who were addicted to magic practiced their deceptions. The particular idea in this word would seem to be, that on such occasions some forms of prayers were used, for the word in Syriac means to offer prayers, or to worship. Probably the aid of idol gods was invoked by such persons when they practiced incantations. The word is found only in the following places: once as a "verb," 2 Chronicles 33:6, and rendered "used witchcraft;" and as a "participle," rendered "sorcerers," in Exodus 7:11; Daniel 2:2; Malachi 3:5; and "witch," in Exodus 22:18 (17); Deuteronomy 18:10. The noun (כשׁף kashâph and כשׁפים keshâpı̂ym) is used in the following places, always with reference to sorcery or witchcraft: Jeremiah 27:9; 2 Kings 9:22; Isaiah 47:9; Micah 5:12 (11); Nahum 3:4. It may not be easy to specify the exact sense in which this word is used as distinguished from the others which relate to the same general subject, but it would seem to be that some form of "prayer" or "invocation" was employed. The persons referred to did not profess to interpret the prognostics of future events by any original skill of their own, but by the aid of the gods.

And the Chaldeans - See the notes at Daniel 1:4. The Chaldeans appear to have been but one of the tribes or nations that made up the community at Babylon (compare the notes at Isaiah 23:13), and it would seem that at this time they were particularly devoted to the practice of occult arts, and secret sciences. It is not probable that the other persons referred to in this enumeration were Chaldeans. The Magians, if any of these were employed, were Medians (see the notes at Daniel 1:20), and it is not improbable that the other classes of diviners might have been from other nations. The purpose of Nebuchadnezzar was to assemble at his court whatever was remarkable throughout the world for skill and knowledge (see analysis of Daniel 1), and the wise men of the Chaldeans were employed in carrying out that design. The Chaldeans were so much devoted to these secret arts, and became so celebrated for them, that the name came, among the Greek and Roman writers, to be used to denote all those who laid claim to extraordinary powers in this department.

Diodorus Siculus (lib. ii.) says of the Chaldeans in Babylon, that "they sustain the same office there that the priests do in Egypt, for being devoted to the worship of God through their whole lives, they give themselves to philosophy, and seek from astrology their highest glory." Cicero also remarks (De Divin., p. 3), that "the Chaldeans, so named, not from their art, but their nation, are supposed, by a prolonged observation of the stars, to have wrought out a science by which could be predicted what was to happen to every individual, and to what fate he was born." Juvenal likewise (Sat. vi., verses 552-554), has this passage: "Chaldaeis sed major erit fiducia; quidquid dixerit astrologus, credent a fonte relatum Ammonis. - But their chief dependence is upon the Chaldeans; whatever an astrologer declares, they will receive as a response of (Jupiter) Ammon." Horace refers to the "Babylonians" as distinguished in his time for the arts of magic, or divination:

"nec Babylonios,

tentaris numeros." - Car. lib. i.; xi.

It is not probable that the whole nation of Chaldeans was devoted to these arts, but as a people they became so celebrated in this kind of knowledge that it was their best known characteristic abroad. (See also Barnes' Appendix to Daniel)

For to show the king his dreams - To show him what the dream was, and to explain its import. Compare Genesis 41:24; Judges 14:12; 1 Kings 10:3. That it was common for kings to call in the aid of interpreters to explain the import of dreams, appears from Herodotus. When Astyages ascended the throne, he had a daughter whose name was Mandane. She had a dream which seemed to him so remarkable that he called in the "magi," whose interpretation, Herodotus remarks, was of such a nature that it "terrified him exceedingly." He was so much influenced by the dream and the interpretation, that it produced an entire change in his determination respecting the marriage of his daughter. - Book i., 107: So again, after the marriage of his daughter, Herodotus says (book i., cviii.): "Astyages had another vision. A vine appeared to spring from his daughter which overspread all Asia. On this occasion, also, he consulted his interpreters; the result was, that he sent for his daughter from Persia, when the time of her delivery approached. On her arrival, he kept a strict watch over her, intending to destroy her child. The magi had declared the vision to intimate that the child of his daughter should supplant him on the throne." Astyages, to guard against this, as soon as Cyrus was born, sent for Harpagus, a person in whom he had confidence, and commanded him to take the child to his own house, and put him to death. These passages in Herodotus show that what is here related of the king of Babylon, demanding the aid of magicians and astrologers to interpret his dreams, was by no means an uncommon occurrence.

And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream - That is, clearly, to know all about it; to recollect distinctly what it was, and to understand what it meant. He was agitated by so remarkable a dream; he probably had, as Jerome remarks, a shadowy and floating impression of what the dream was - such as we often have of a dream that has agitated out minds, but of which we cannot recal the distinct and full image; and he desired to recal that distinctly, and to know exactly what it meant. See Daniel 2:1.

Then spake the Chaldeans to the king - The meaning is, either that the Chaldeans spoke in the name of the entire company of the soothsayers and magicians (see the notes, Daniel 1:20; Daniel 2:2), because they were the most prominent among them, or the name is used to denote the collective body of soothsayers, meaning that this request was made by the entire company.

In Syriac - In the original - ארמית 'ărâmı̂yt - in "Aramean." Greek, Συριστὶ Suristi - "in Syriac." So the Vulgate. The Syriac retains the original word. The word means Aramean, and the reference is to that language which is known as East Aramean - a general term embracing the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the languages which were spoken in Mesopotamia. See the notes at Daniel 1:4. This was the vernacular tongue of the king and of his subjects, and was that in which the Chaldeans would naturally address him. It is referred to here by the author of this book, perhaps to explain the reason why he himself makes use of this language in explaining the dream. The use of this, however, is not confined to the statement of what the magicians said, but is continued to the close of the seventh chapter. Compare the Intro. Section IV. III. The language used is what is commonly called Chaldee. It is written in the same character as the Hebrew, and differs from that as one dialect differs from another. It was, doubtless, well understood by the Jews in their captivity, and was probably spoken by them after their return to their own land.

O king, live for ever - This is a form of speech quite common in addressing monarchs. See 1 Samuel 10:24; 1 Kings 1:25 (margin); Daniel 3:9; Daniel 5:10. The expression is prevalent still, as in the phrases, "Long live the king," "Vive l' empereur," "Vive le roi," etc. It is founded on the idea that long life is to be regarded as a blessing, and that we can in no way express our good wishes for anyone better than to wish him length of days. In this place, it was merely the usual expression of respect and homage, showing their earnest wish for the welfare of the monarch. They were willing to do anything to promote his happiness, and the continuance of his life and reign. It was especially proper for them to use this language, as they wore about to make a rather unusual request, which "might" be construed as an act of disrespect, implying that the king had not given them all the means which it was equitable for them to have in explaining the matter, by requiring them to interpret the dream when he had not told them what it was.

Tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation - The claim which they set up in regard to the future was evidently only that of "explaining" what were regarded as the prognostics of future events. It was not that of being able to recal what is forgotten, or even to "originate" what might be regarded preintimations of what is to happen. This was substantially the claim which was asserted by all the astrologers, augurs, and soothsayers of ancient times. Dreams, the flight of birds, the aspect of the entrails of animals slain for sacrifice, the positions of the stars, meteors, and uncommon appearances in the heavens, were supposed to be intimations made by the gods of what was to occur in future times, and the business of those who claimed the power of divining the future was merely to interpret these things. When the king, therefore, required that they should recal the dream itself to his own mind, it was a claim to something which was not involved in their profession, and which they regarded as unjust. To that power they made no pretensions. If it be asked why, as they were mere jugglers and pretenders, they did not "invent" something and state "that" as his dream, since he had forgotten what his dream actually was, we may reply,

(1) that there is no certain evidence that they were not sincere in what they professed themselves able to do - for we are not to suppose that all who claimed to be soothsayers and astrologers were hypocrites and intentional deceivers. It was not at that period of the world certainly determined that nothing could be ascertained respecting the future by dreams, and by the positions of the stars, etc. Dreams "were" among the methods by which the future was made known; and whether the knowledge of what is to come could be obtained from the positions of the stars, etc., was a question which was at that time unsettled Even Lord Bacon maintained that the science of astrology was not to be "rejected," but to be "reformed."

(2) If the astrologers had been disposed to attempt to deceive the king, there is no probability that they could have succeeded in palming an invention of their own on him as his own dream. We may not be able distinctly to recollect a dream, but we have a sufficient impression of it - of its outlines - or of some striking, though disconnected, things in it, to know what it is "not." We might instantly recognize it if stated to us; we should see at once, if anyone should attempt to deceive us by palming an invented dream on us, that "that" was not what we had dreamed.

The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me - The Vulgate renders this, "Sermo recessit a me" - "The word is departed from me." So the Greek, Ὁ λόγος ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη Ho logos ap' emou apestē. Luther, "Es ist mir entfallen" - "It has fallen away from me," or has departed from me. Coverdale, "It is gone from me." The Chaldee word rendered "the thing" - מלתה mı̂llethâh - means, properly, "a word, saying, discourse" - something which is "spoken;" then, like דבר dâbâr and the Greek ῥῆμα rēma, a "thing." The reference here is to the matter under consideration, to wit, the dream and its meaning. The fair interpretation is, that he had forgotten the dream, and that if he retained "any" recollection of it, it was only such an imperfect outline as to alarm him. The word rendered "is gone" - אזדא 'azeddâ' - which occurs only here and in Daniel 2:8, is supposed to be the same as אזל 'ăzal - "to go away, to depart." Gesenius renders the whole phrase, "The word has gone out from me; i. e., what I have said is ratified, and cannot be recalled;" and Prof. Bush (in loc.) contends that this is the true interpretation, and this also is the interpretation preferred by John D. Michaelis, and Dathe. A construction somewhat similar is adopted by Aben Ezra, C. B. Michaelis, Winer, Hengstenberg, and Prof. Stuart, that it means, "My decree is firm, or steadfast;" to wit, that if they did not furnish an interpretation of the dream, they should be cut off. The question as to the true interpretation, then, is between two constructions: whether it means, as in our version, that the dream had departed from him - that is, that he had forgotten it - or, that a decree or command had gone from him, that if they could not interpret the dream they should be destroyed. That the former is the correct interpretation seems to me to be evident.

(1) It is the natural construction, and accords best with the meaning of the original words. Thus no one can doubt that the word מלה millâh, and the words דבר dâbâr and ῥῆμα rēma, are used in the sense of "thing," and that the natural and proper meaning of the Chaldee verb אזד 'ăzad is, to "go away, depart." Compare the Hebrew (אזל 'âzal) in Deuteronomy 32:36, "He seeth that their power is gone;" 1 Samuel 9:7, "The bread is spent in our vessels;" Job 14:11, "The waters fail from the sea;" and the Chaldee (אזל 'ăzal) in Ezra 4:23, "They went up in haste to Jerusalem;" Ezra 5:8, "We went into the province of Judea;" and Daniel 2:17, Daniel 2:24; Daniel 6:18 (19), 19(20).

(2) This interpretation is sustained by the Vulgate of Jerome, and by the Greek.

(3) It does not appear that any such command had at that time gone forth from the king, and it was only when they came before him that he promulgated such an order. Even though the word, as Gesenins and Zickler (Chaldaismus Dan. Proph.) maintain, is a feminine participle present, instead of a verb in the preterit, still it would then as well apply to the "dream" departing from him, as the command or edict. We may suppose the king to say, "The thing leaves me; I cannot recal it."

(4) It was so understood by the magicians, and the king did not attempt to correct their apprehension of what he meant. Thus, in Daniel 2:7, they say, "Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation thereof." This shows that they understood that the dream had gone from him, and that they could not be expected to interpret its meaning until they were apprised what it was.

(5) It is not necessary to suppose that the king retained the memory of the dream himself, and that he meant merely to try them; that is, that he told them a deliberate falsehood, in order to put their ability to the test. Nebuchadnezzar was a cruel and severe monarch, and such a thing would not have been entirely inconsistent with his character; but we should not needlessly charge cruelty and tyranny on any man, nor should we do it unless the evidence is so clear that we cannot avoid it. Besides, that such a test should be proposed is in the highest degree improbable. There was no need of it; and it was contrary to the established belief in such matters. These men were retained at court, among other reasons, for the very purpose of explaining the prognostics of the future. There was confidence in them; and they were retained "because" there was confidence in them. It does not appear that the Babylonian monarch had had any reason to distrust their ability as to what they professed; and why should he, therefore, on "this" occasion resolve to put them to so unusual, and obviously so unjust a trial?

For these reasons, it seems clear to me that our common version has given the correct sense of this passage, and that the meaning is, that the dream had actually so far departed from him that he could not repeat it, though he retained such an impression of its portentous nature, and of its appalling outline, as to fill his mind with alarm. As to the objection derived from this view of the passage by Bertholdt to the authenticity of this chapter, that it is wholly improbable that any man would be so unreasonable as to doom others to punishment because they could not recal his dream, since it entered not into their profession to be able to do it (Commentary i. p. 192), it may be remarked, that the character of Nebuchadnezzar was such as to make what is stated here by Daniel by no means improbable. Thus it is said respecting him 2 Kings 25:7, "And they slew the sons of Zedekiah 'before his eyes,' and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon." Compare 2 Kings 25:18-21; Jeremiah 39:5, following; Jeremiah 52:9-11. See also Daniel 4:17, where he is called "the basest of men." Compare Hengstenberg, "Die Authentie des Daniel," pp. 79-81. On this objection, see Introduction to the chapter, Section I.I.

If ye will not make known, unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof - Whatever may be thought as to the question whether he had actually forgotten the dream, there can be no doubt that he demanded that they should state what it was, and then explain it. This demand was probably as unusual as it was in one sense unreasonable, since it did not fall fairly within their profession. Yet it was not unreasonable in this sense, that if they really had communication with the gods, and were qualified to explain future events, it might be supposed that they would be enabled to recal this forgotten dream. If the gods gave them power to explain what was to "come," they could as easily enable them to recal "the past."

Ye shall be cut in pieces - Margin, "made." The Chaldee is, "Ye shall be made into pieces; "referring to a mode of punishment that was common to many ancient nations. Compare 1 Samuel 15:33 : "And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal." Thus Orpheus is said to have been torn in pieces by the Thracian women; and Bessus was cut in pieces by order of Alexander the Great.

And your houses shall be made a dunghill - Compare 2 Kings 10:27. This is an expression denoting that their houses, instead of being elegant or comfortable mansions, should be devoted to the vilest of uses, and subjected to all kinds of dishonor and defilement. The language here used is in accordance with what is commonly employed by Orientals. They imprecate all sorts of indignities and abominations on the objects of their dislike, and it is not uncommon for them to smear over with filth what is the object of their contempt or abhorrenee. Thus when the caliph Omar took Jerusalem, at the head of the Saracen army, after ravaging the greater part of the city, he caused dung to be spread over the site of the sanctuary, in token of the abhorrence of all Mussulmans, and of its being henceforth regarded as the refuse and offscouring of all things. - Prof. Bush. The Greek renders this, "And your houses shall be plundered;" the Vulgate, "And your houses shall be confiscated." But these renderings are entirely arbitrary. This may seem to be a harsh punishment which was threatened, and some may, perhaps, be disposed to say that it is improbable that a monarch would allow himself to use such intemperate language, and to make use of so severe a threatening, especially when the magicians had as yet shown no inability to interpret the dream, and had given no reasons to apprehend that they would be unable to do it. But we are to remember

(1) the cruel and arbitrary character of the king (see the references above);

(2) the nature of an Oriental despotism, in which a monarch is acccustomed to require all his commands to be obeyed, and his wishes gratified promptly, on pain of death;

(3) the fact that his mind was greatly excited by the dream; and

(4) that he was certain that something portentous to his kingdom had been prefigured by the dream, and that this was a case in which all the force of threatening, and all the prospect of splendid reward, should be used, that they might be induced to tax their powers to the utmost, and allay the tumults of his mind.

But if ye show the dream - If you show what the dream was.

And the interpretation thereof - What it signifies. That is, they were so to state the dream that Nebuchadnezzar would recognize it; and they were to give such an explanation of it as would commend itself to his mind as the true one. On this last point he would doubtless rely much on their supposed wisdom in performing this duty, but it would seem clear, also, that it was necessary that the interpretation should be seen to be a "fair" interpretation, or such as would be "fairly" implied in the dream. Thus, when Daniel made known the interpretation, he saw at once that it met all the features of the dream, and he admitted it to be correct. So also when Daniel explained the handwriting on the wall to Belshazzar, he admitted the justness of it, and loaded him with honors, Daniel 5:29. So when Joseph explained the dreams of Pharaoh, he at once saw the appropriateness of the explanation, and admitted it to be correct Genesis 41:39-45; and so in the case above referred to (notes on Daniel 2:2), of Astyages respecting the dreams of his daughter (Herod. 1, cvii.; cviii.), he at once saw that the interpretation of the dreams proposed by the Magi accorded with the dreams, and took his measures accordingly.

Ye shall receive of me gifts, and rewards, and great honor - Intending to appeal to their highest hopes to induce them, if possible, to disclose the meaning of the dream. He specifics no particular rewards, but makes the promise general; and the evident meaning is, that, in such a case, he would bestow what it became a monarch like him to give. That the usual rewards in such a case were such as were adapted to stimulate to the most vigorous exertions of their powers, may be seen from the honor which he conferred on Daniel when he made known the dream Daniel 2:48, and from the rewards which Belshazzar conferred on Daniel for making known the interpretation of the writing on the wall Daniel 5:29 : "Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom." Compare Esther 5:11; Esther 6:7-9.

They answered again, and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation of it - Certainly not an unreasonable request, in any circumstances, and especially in theirs. They did not profess, evidently, to be able to recal a dream that was forgotten, but the extent of their profession on this subject appears to have been, that they were able to "explain" what was commonly regarded as a prognostic of a future event.