Barnes' Notes on the Bible · Daniel 第2章

I. この章の信憑性

この章の信憑性と信用性に対する反対論は、数多くも重要でもない。

I. ベルトルトによって提起される第一のもの（『注解』192、193頁）は、実質的に次のとおりである。「ここの記述が真実であるなら、古代の記録は、ネブカデネザルほど完成された暴君を示すことはできなかったであろう。彼がこのようなささいで愚かな機会に、これほど多くの人々に死を宣告したのだとすれば (Daniel 2:5)。この残酷さは、伝えられるところのネブカデネザルの全般的性格に全く反し、全く信じがたいと言われる。さらに、夢を信じることは東洋では一般的であり、夢を解釈する職務は名誉ある職務であったとはいえ、夢が忘れられたとき、解釈者に夢そのものを明らかにすることを要求するほど不合理な者は、一人もいなかったし、ありえなかったとも言われる。解釈者の正当な職務は、夢を解釈することであって、夢が何であったかを語ることではない、と」。

かなりもっともらしく見えるこの反対論に対しては、次のように回答することができよう。

（1）古代には、ヘブル人の間でも異教世界でも同様に、「夢」に大きな信頼が置かれていた。パロの例はただちに心に浮かぶであろう。人々がどこでも夢に頼り、夢が霊的世界との交わりの、また未来に起こるべきことを啓示するために定められた手段「かもしれない」かどうかを熱心に問うたことは、言うまでもない。それゆえ、この異邦の君主ネブカデネザルが、彼が持ったと伝えられる夢について、報告されているとおりのすべての懸念を感じたという想定に対して、反対はありえない。さらに付け加えれば、夢そのものの中には、夢として不審な点は何もない。それは心のそれらの神秘的な働きの特徴をすべて備えているからである。また、神がかつて夢によってみこころを伝え、この仕方で未来の出来事を知らせたことがあるなら、当時地上の帝国の頂点にあり、これほど多くの時代にわたって世界の歴史を包含することになる諸王国の最初の王国の王であった彼に、神がこのように来たるべきことを伝えられたと想定することに不合理はない。

（2）夢が明確な記憶から消え去ること、また消え去った場合、心がそれに関して何らかの漠然とした記憶ないし印象によって乱されることは、ありえないことではない。これは今の私たちの夢にもしばしば起こる。快い夢か恐ろしい夢を見たという不明瞭な記憶はあるのに、夢そのものを思い出すことは全くできないということが。これはまた、できれば夢を取り戻したいと「願う」ときにもしばしば起こる。私たちがなし得るいかなる努力をもってしても、その明確な特徴を心に思い起こすことができないときである。

（3）ネブカデネザルが占星術師たちに、夢そのものを思い起こし、しかる後にそれを解釈するよう求めたという要求には、実際のところ、不合理な点も、不条理な点も、専横な点も何もなかった。彼らが示唆するなら、彼は疑いなくそれを思い出すことができた。少なくとも、彼らが彼を欺くことを防ぐに足るほどには思い出せたであろう。というのも、これに類することが、私たち自身の心の働きにおいて絶えず起こるからである。物語や歴史の一節を忘れてしまっても、自分では思い出せないのに、それを語られると、そのとき明確に思い出し、それが同じ物語であると知覚しうる。それがそのことに関する私たちのすべての印象と一致するからである。さらに、忘れられた夢を「思い起こす」ことは夢解釈者の職務の一部とは理解されていなかったとはいえ、ネブカデネザルは、彼らが夢を「解釈」できるなら、夢が何であるかを語ることができると推定されて当然だと正しく論じた。一方は他方よりも明察を要しない。また、彼らが自称するように、夢を解釈するにおいて神々の霊感を受けているなら、同じ霊感の下で、夢が何であるかを語ることができると推定するのは当然であった。Daniel 2:5 の注解と比較されたい。それゆえ、ネブカデネザルの要求における何らかの想定された不条理から、この章の信憑性に対して反対が成り立つことはない。それはこの場合の正当な推論のすべての原則に厳密に一致するだけでなく、あらゆることにおいて従順を要求するのに慣れた恣意的な君主から予想されることにも一致していた。

（4）Daniel 2:5 で述べられているネブカデネザルの脅しに関する記述は、歴史が保存する彼の性格の一般的特徴と一致する。彼には、とりわけ自分の意志が直ちに容れられないときに、最高度の残酷さと厳しさの要素があった。この証明として、エルサレムが陥落したときのゼデキヤ王に対する彼の残酷な扱いに言及するだけでよい。「彼らは王を捕えて、リブラにいたバビロンの王のもとに彼を連れて行った。王は彼に宣告を下した。バビロンの王はゼデキヤの目の前でその子らを殺し、ゼデキヤの目を抉り取り、彼を青銅の足かせにつないで、バビロンへ連れて行った」(2 Kings 25:6-7)。また 2 Kings 25:18-21 の、侍衛の長ネブザルアダンが捕らえてバビロンの王のもとに連れて来た多数の人々を殺した記述も比較されたい。これらはネブカデネザル自身の命令によって冷血の中で殺されたのである。これらの事実は、彼が怒りの発作の中で、占星術師たちが直ちに自分の意志に従わないなら死をもって脅すことをためらわなかったであろうことを、あらゆる点からありそうにさせる。Jeremiah 39:5 以下、Jeremiah 52:9-11 も比較されよう。真実はこうである。ネブカデネザルにはいくらかの良い資質があり、「彼なりに」宗教的ではあったが、彼には東洋の専制君主の通常の特徴がすべて備わっていた。彼は強い情欲の人であり、恣意的で、断固とした、強情な意志の目的を実行するにあたって決してためらわない者であった。

II. ベルトルトによる第二の反対論は、実質的に次のとおりである。すなわち、この記述はダニエルにより高い名誉を与え、彼の行ったことをより驚くべきものに見せるために、後代の手が加わった痕跡を帯びている、というものである（62、63、193-196頁）。ベルトルトの想定では、元の記述は、ネブカデネザルが解釈者に夢の意味を説明するよう求めた、というだけのものだった。しかしダニエルの偉大さを示すために、この書の著者が、その出来事から長い後、ネブカデネザルが彼らに「解釈」だけでなく「夢」そのものをも明らかにするよう求めたという事情を付け加え、ダニエルの大きな優越性は、彼が直ちにこれをなしえたことによって示された、というのである。

しかし、この反対論は何らの歴史的根拠に基づくものではなく、終始単なる推量にすぎないので、これ以上検討する必要はない。この推量によって何かが得られるわけではなく、いかなる困難も軽減されない。そもそも、そのような想定によって軽減されるべき現実の困難など存在しない。私たちの手にある物語は、すでに見たとおり、内在する不審を何も持たず、またその中には、よく知られたネブカデネザルの性格に反するものも何もない。

III. 検討に値するこの章の信憑性に対する第三の反対論は、リューダーヴァルト（40頁以下）とブレーク（280頁）によって提起されている。すなわち、この物語全体は、パロの夢とヨセフのエジプト宮廷での昇進の記述と強い類似を持っており、明らかにそこから作り上げられたか、そこから写し取られた、というものである。

これに対して私たちは、次のように回答することができよう。

(a) どちらかが起こったとして、それがバビロンのダニエルに起こったと想定することは、エジプトのヨセフに起こったと想定すること以上に不審ではない。また、それぞれを別個の独立した歴史として見れば、どちらもありえないことではない。

(b) 二つの記事には、一方が他方から写されたのではないことを示すほどの相違がある。確かに両者はいくつかの点で一致する。エジプトの王とバビロンの王がそれぞれ夢を見たこと。ヨセフとダニエルが夢を解き明かすことを許されたこと。二人ともこの能力を自分たちではなく神に帰したこと。そして夢を解き明かすことができた結果、二人とも名誉ある地位に挙げられたこと。しかしその他の点では一致しない。夢そのもの、機会、説明、結果、未来の出来事との関係――これらの点で、また無数の他の点で、両者は完全に異なる。さらに付け加えれば、一方が他方から写されたのなら、一方の書き手が他方を自分の前に置いて自分の物語を構成していたことを知りうる、意図されざる言及が何らかあったであろうと考えられる。しかし事実として、エジプトのヨセフの記述とバビロンのダニエルの記述ほど、独立した、原本的な、実際の出来事の記述という刻印をより強く持つ二つの記録は、歴史の中に存在しない。

IV. この章の記述に対する第四の反対論は、「年代記」の誤りと称せられるものに由来する。これについては、Daniel 2:1 の注解を参照されたい。

II. この章の分析

この章の主題は次のとおりである。

I. ネブカデネザルの夢 (Daniel 2:1)。古代人の間の通念に従って、彼はこれを神的なメッセージとみなした。また、この夢は、その明確な特徴と細部が彼から消え去っていたとはいえ、彼の心に深い印象を残す性格のものであった。

II. カルデヤ人が夢を彼の記憶に呼び起こし、その意味を説明すべきだというネブカデネザルの要求 (Daniel 2:2-9)。彼は、そのような解釈を与えることを公然と職務としていた者たちに、自分の前に来て夢とその意味を明らかにするよう命じた。しかし彼らの主張は、夢が知られているときにそれを説明すること以上には及ばなかったように見える。それゆえ彼らは、説明できるように王が夢を述べてくださるよう丁重に求めた。王は怒って、彼らがまず夢を思い起こし、次に解釈を明らかにしないなら死を脅し、同時に、これができるなら十分な報酬を約束した。これらすべては、神的導きの下に、未来の出来事に関する重要な知識を伝えることを目的としていたので、夢が忘れられるように定められていた。こうしてカルデヤ人の術は完全に混乱させられ、ダニエルが夢とその解釈を明らかにする機会が与えられた。こうして預言者の地からの人が高められ、未来の出来事が、偽りの夢解釈者たちの技術によってではなく、真の神によってその目的のために霊感を受けた者たちによってのみ知られうることが示されたのである。

III. 占星術師とカルデヤ人の力の公認された失敗 (Daniel 2:10-11)。彼らは、要求されたことをなしえないと認めた。結果がどうあろうと、忘れられた夢を「試みにでも」思い起こすことはできなかったのである。私たち自身そのような夢を明確に思い出すことはできなくても、それが語られれば容易に「認識」することができ、また、本物の夢だと誰かが信じ込ませようとする他の何かによって欺かれることもない。魔術師たちは、自分たちが工夫した作り話を本物の夢であるかのように王に押しつけようとする試みが絶望であることを見て、それゆえ王の要求に応じることができないと認めたのである。

IV. 彼らが死ぬべきだという布告 (Daniel 2:12-13)。この布告には、宮廷で彼と共に訓練されたダニエルと三人の友人たち (Daniel 1) が巻き込まれた。彼らが王の要求に従わなかったからではない。この問題が彼らの前に提示されていなかったことには最も十分な証拠があるからである。むしろ、彼らが、来たるべき出来事の前兆を説明するために君主が頼りとした賢者ないし助言者という一般的な階級に属していたからである。

V. 布告とその原因を知らされたダニエルは、王のところに行き、判決の執行の猶予を求めた (Daniel 2:14-16)。彼は随意に王に面会する特権を持っていたように見える。彼は、自分が一般的な判決に巻き込まれたとはいえ、この件が実際には自分の前に提示されていなかったと述べたと推定してよい。また、王が夢にこれほど悩まされ、その意味を知ることにこれほど焦がれ、布告が執行されてダニエルとその友人たちが失われるなら、それを思い出し理解する「すべての」希望が失われることをこれほど明確に見て取っていたので、幻の意味を知らされる「いかなる」希望も、どんなに細くとも、必死につかもうとした、という想定は不合理ではない。それゆえ王は、ダニエルが助かり、布告の執行が停止されることを望んだ。

VI. この興味深く厳粛な事情の中で、ダニエルとその友人たちは祈りに身を捧げた (Daniel 2:17-18)。彼らの生命は危険にあり、その案件は、神的な直接の介入によってしか救われえないものであった。彼らには、いかなる人的手段によっても君主の夢が何であるかを確かめる力はなく、にもかかわらず生命を救うためには、夢が明らかにされなければならなかった。神だけがそれを伝えることができるし、それゆえ神だけが彼らを死から救いうることを彼らは知っていた。この困惑の事情の中で、彼らは、神のすべての友が持つ特権――自分たちの訴えを直ちに神の御座の前に携える特権――を用いたのである。

VII. 秘密は夜の幻の中でダニエルに啓示され、彼はふさわしい賛美の歌を口にした (Daniel 2:19-23)。その機会はそのような感謝の表現を要求するものであり、ダニエルが神にささげた賛美は、あらゆる点でその機会にふさわしいものであった。

VIII. こうしてダニエルが王に夢と解釈を知らせる道が備えられた。そこで彼は王の前に引き出され、夢を思い起こし、あるいはその意味を明らかにする自分自身の力を、はっきりと否定した (Daniel 2:24-30)。

IX. 夢と解釈の陳述 (Daniel 2:31-45)。

X. ネブカデネザルへの影響 (Daniel 2:46-49)。彼は夢を認め、それを明らかにしえたのは真の神だけであることを認め、ダニエルを際立った名誉に昇進させた。ダニエルは自分の名誉の中でも、若い日の徳ある同僚たち (Daniel 1) を忘れず、今や高められた自分のために、彼らにも名誉ある職務の地位を求めた (Daniel 2:49)。

ネブカデネザルの治世の第二年に——この言明には一見して年代記上の困難があり、注解者たちをいくらか困惑させてきた。この困難は主として二つの源から生じる。

（1）(Jeremiah 25:1) では、ネブカデネザルの治世の第一年はユダの王ヨヤキムの第四年に相当すると述べられており、捕囚はヨヤキムの治世の第三年であったから (Daniel 1:1)、ここの時点はネブカデネザルの治世の第二年ではなく「第四」年とならなければならない、というものである。

（2）(Daniel 1:5, Daniel 1:18) から、ダニエルとその三人の友人は、宮廷に引き出されるための準備教育の過程の下で、すでに三年間バビロンにいたことを私たちは知る。そして物語全体は、ダニエルが知者たちの一人に数えられるようになったのがこれ「の後」であったと私たちに想定させるのであり (Daniel 2:13-14 と比較)、捕囚がネブカデネザルの治世の第一年に起こったと想定すれば、この夢の時期は彼の治世の第四年に入ることになる。この困難は、ネブカデネザルがエルサレムを包囲するために上ったとき彼は「王」と呼ばれており、彼が在位する君主の副官として、あるいは他の者の指揮の下にあるカルデヤ軍の将軍として行ったのではないことが明らかであるという事実によって、いくぶん増大する。(2 Kings 24:1, 2 Kings 24:11) を見よ。この困難に対してさまざまな解決が提案されてきたが、おそらく真の解決は、ネブカデネザルがしばらくの間、父ナボポラッサルと共同で統治していたというものであり、彼に「王」という称号が与えられてはいたが、ここでの計算は彼が単独で統治し始めた時から数えられており、この年が彼がただ一人で王座を占めた年であった、というものである。

ベローソスは、父ナボポラッサルが老い病んで、軍の一部を息子ネブカデネザルに委ね、ネブカデネザルはユーフラテス川のほとりのカルケミシュ（キルケシウム）でエジプトの大軍を打ち破り、ネコをアジアから追い出したと述べている。勝利した君主はただちにエルサレムへ進軍し、ヨヤキムは彼に降伏した。そしてこれが七十年の捕囚の始まりであった。ヤーン『ヘブル連邦史』134頁を見よ。ナボポラッサルはおそらくその約二年後に死に、ネブカデネザルが王座を継いだ。二人が共に統治した期間は二年であり、したがって彼の単独統治の第二年は全治世の第四年に相当する。どちらから数えても妥当であり、誤解を招くこともなかったであろう。他の解決の方式も採られてきたが、これが困難全体に応え、事実に基づいているので、それらに言及する必要はない。スチュアート教授のダニエル書についての論考、Excursus I および Excursus II と比較されたい（ダニエル書へのバーンズの付録Iおよび付録IIを見よ）。

ネブカデネザルは夢を見た——ここでは複数形が用いられているが、言及されている夢は一つだけであり、おそらく指されているのも一つだけである。ネブカデネザル自身がそれについて語るとき (Daniel 2:3)、「私は夢を見た」と言っているからである。ラテン語ウルガタ訳でもギリシャ語でも、やはり単数形である。これはおそらく、おそらくはただ一つの夢を意図しつつも「昨夜、不思議な夢を見た」と言うような、通俗的な言葉の用い方であろう——ブッシュ教授。神が古代において将来の出来事を知らせた方法のうち、「夢」によるものは最も一般的なものの一つであった。(Daniel 1:17) の注解、およびイザヤ書序論第7節（2）を見よ。(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) と比較されたい。天の意志が夢によって人々に伝えられるという信仰は、古代世界の至るところに行き渡っていた。それゆえ、ホメロスの『イリアス』第1巻63行には、καὶ γάρ τ' ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν（kai gar t' onar ek Dios estin）、「夢はゼウスから来る」という印象的な表現がある。同様に彼は『イリアス』第2巻の冒頭で、ゼウスの意志がὌνείρος（Oneiros）、すなわち「夢」によってアガメムノンに伝えられる様子を描いている。

同様にディオゲネス・ラエルティオスは、ソクラテスが自分の死が三日後に起こると予告した夢に言及している。この神の意志を伝える方法は、預言者たちに関してだけでなく、宗教を知らない者たち、さらには悪人たちに関しても用いられた。パロ、アビメレク、ネブカデネザル、エジプトの献酒役と調理役などの場合がそうである。しかしすべてのそのような場合において、ここにある場合と同様に、夢を解き明かすために真の預言者の助けを借りることが必要であった。そしてそのように解き明かされて初めて、夢は将来に関する確かな予言の中にその位置を占めた。このような仕方で神の意志を伝えることの一つの「目的」は、夢を見た者の注意をその主題に固定し、神がその者に伝えることを選んだ啓示を受け入れる用意をさせることにあったように思われる。それゆえ、夢が将来の出来事を明らかにするものであるとするパロとネブカデネザルの信仰、また夢に関して彼らが経験した心の不安によって、神の意志を知らせる他のいかなる方法によってよりもよく、ヨセフとダニエルの将来に関する啓示を受け入れる用意ができていたことは疑いえない。

彼らは、将来に関して何らかの重要な啓示が自分たちに与えられたことを疑わず、それが何であるかを知りたいと切望していた。それゆえ彼らは、真実であるとして自分の心に訴えるものはどんな説明でも歓迎する用意があった。このようにして、まことの神のしもべたちは、他のいかなる方法によっても見いだせなかった、彼らの心に至る通路を得たのである。夢が来たるべき出来事の前兆であると「知られる」ように、それがどのような法則によって調節されていたのかを、私たちにはいま確かめる手段がない。神が眠りのうちに心に近づき、このような仕方でご自身の意志を伝えることが「可能である」ことは、だれも疑うことができない。その目的のために用いられた限りにおいて、それが安全で確実な方法であったことは、アビメレクの場合 (Genesis 20:3, Genesis 20:6)、ヨセフとその兄弟たちの場合 (Genesis 37:5-6)、パロの場合 (Genesis 41:7, Genesis 41:25)、献酒役と調理役の場合 (Genesis 40:5) においてそのようにして与えられた予言の結果によって実証されている。しかし、同じ信頼、あるいはいかなる信頼も、いま夢に置かれるべきであると推論してはならない。というのも、そのような信頼に反対する他の考慮がまったくないとしても、眠りのうちにさまよう心の働きについて権威を与えられた解釈者がいないという事実だけで十分だからである。神はいま、他の方法によって人々の魂にご自身の真理を伝えておられる。

それによって彼の心は乱された——これは同様に、夢の通常でない性質によって、また、それが自分の王国と将来の時代に関わる何らかの重要な真理を指しているという印象を彼が確かに抱いていたことによる。(Daniel 2:31-36) を見よ。ここで「乱された」と訳されているヘブル語פעם（pâ‛am）は、本来「打つ、叩く、打ち砕く」を意味し、次にニフアル形では動かされる、あるいはかき乱されることを、またヒトパエル形でも動揺する、あるいは乱されることを意味する。この語の固有な意味は金床を打つような打撃であり、次に、激しい打撃、あるいは動揺を生じさせるものを指す。この「動詞」は次の箇所にのみ現れる。(Judges 13:25)（そこでは「感動させる」と訳される）、および (Psalm 67:4, 5; Genesis 41:8; Daniel 2:1, Daniel 2:3)（そこでは「乱される」と訳される）である。「名詞」は頻繁に現れる。「彼の眠りは彼を離れた」。ヘブル語ではעליו נהיתה שׁנתו（shenâthô nı̂heyethâh ‛ālâyv）である。

文字どおりには「彼の眠りは彼の上にあった」である。ギリシャ語では「彼の眠りは彼を離れた」、すなわち彼を去った。ウルガタ訳では「彼の眠りは彼から逃げ去った（fugit）」。しかしヘブル語がこの解釈を許すかどうかは疑わしい。おそらく、ヘブル語על（‛al）すなわち「上に」という意味を保つ文字どおりの解釈が正しいものであろう。その場合の意味は、この著しい光景が彼が深く「眠っていた」ときに起こった、ということになろう。それは「夢」であって、「開かれた幻」ではなかった。それは、感覚が休息のうちに閉ざされているときに心の前を過ぎ去っていく種類の光景であって、預言者たちが目覚めているままに将来の幻を見ることを許されたときに彼らの心の前に展開されたようなものではなかった。(Numbers 24:4, Numbers 24:16) と比較されたい。これらの言葉には、ネブカデネザルに臨んだ眠り自体に何か超自然的なものがあったという観念を伝えるものは何もなく、すべてこれが彼が深く眠って「いた」ときに起こったという考えだけが含まれている。しかしスチュアート教授はこれを「彼の眠りは彼を裏切った」と訳し、ゲゼニウスも同様である。ヴィナーは「彼の眠りは彼から去った」と訳す。しかし私には、これが深い休息の状態で夢として起こったという、言葉の文字どおりの翻訳に現れる考えの方がより自然であるように思われる。

そこで王は命じた——すなわち、彼が目覚めたときのことである。「そこで」と訳された不変化詞は、これがただちに起こったことを含意するものではない。彼が目覚めたとき、彼の心は動揺しており、自分が重要な神からの伝達を受けたという確信に捉えられていた。しかし夢をさえ明瞭に思い出すことができず、彼は、将来の前兆とみなされるものを解釈することを職務とする者たちを自分の前に召し出すことを決意したのである。

魔法使いたち、占星術師たち——これらは (Daniel 1:20) に現れるのと同じ語である。その箇所の注解を見よ。

呪術者たち——ヘブル語 מכשׁפים（mekashepı̂ym）。ヴルガートは malefici——呪術者たち。ギリシア語訳は φαρμακεύς（pharmakeus）。シリア語訳は「魔法使い」。このヘブル語は כשׁף（kāshaph）から派生したものであり、ピエル形では魔術を行う、魔法の定式ないし呪文を用いる、つぶやくことを意味する。これは、魔術にふけった者たちが欺きを行う際に用いたさまざまな技を指す。この語に含まれる特有の考えは、そのような機会に何らかの形の祈りが用いられたということのようである。シリア語ではこの語は祈りを捧げる、礼拝するという意味を持つからである。おそらくこうした者たちは、呪文を唱える際に偶像の神々の助けを祈り求めたのであろう。この語は次の箇所にのみ現れる。「動詞」としては (2 Chronicles 33:6) に一度現れ、「魔術を行った」と訳されている。「分詞」としては、(Exodus 7:11; Daniel 2:2; Malachi 3:5) で「呪術者たち」と、(Exodus 22:18 (17); Deuteronomy 18:10) で「魔女」と訳されている。名詞（כשׁף（kāshaph）と כשׁפים（keshepı̂ym））は次の箇所で用いられており、常に呪術ないし魔術を指す。(Jeremiah 27:9; 2 Kings 9:22; Isaiah 47:9; Micah 5:12 (11); Nahum 3:4) である。同じ一般的な主題に関わる他の語々と区別して、この語が用いられる正確な意味を特定することは容易でないかもしれないが、何らかの形の「祈り」ないし「祈求」が用いられたということを意味するもののようである。ここで言及される人々は、自分独自の技量によって将来の出来事の前兆を解釈すると主張するのではなく、神々の助けによって解釈すると主張していたのである。

カルデヤ人——(Daniel 1:4) の注解を見よ。カルデヤ人は、バビロンの共同体を構成した部族ないし国民のうちの一つにすぎなかったように見え (Isaiah 23:13 の注解と比較)、当時彼らは特に秘術と秘教の学問の実践に専心していたように思われる。この列挙において言及された他の人々がカルデヤ人であったとは考えがたい。マゴスたちは、もしこの中に用いられていたとすれば、メディア人であり (Daniel 1:20 の注解を見よ)、他の階級の占い師たちも他の国民の出であった可能性が十分ある。ネブカデネザルの目的は、技量と知識において世界じゅうの卓抜なものをすべて宮廷に集めることであり (Daniel 1 の分析を見よ)、カルデヤ人の賢者たちはその計画の遂行に用いられたのである。カルデヤ人はこれらの秘術にこれほどまでに専心し、そのことで非常に名高くなったので、この名は、ギリシアおよびローマの著述家たちの間で、この分野において並外れた力を主張するすべての者を指す語として用いられるようになった。

ディオドロス・シクルス（lib. ii.）は、バビロンのカルデヤ人について、「彼らはそこで、エジプトの祭司たちが果たしているのと同じ職務を担っている。生涯を通じて神の礼拝に専念している彼らは、哲学に励み、占星術にこそ最高の栄光を求めるからである」と述べている。キケロもまた（De Divin., p. 3）、「カルデヤ人という名は、彼らの技芸からではなく国民から付けられたものであり、彼らは星々の長期にわたる観察によって、各人にどんなことが起こるか、また彼がどんな運命に生まれたかを予告しうる学問を編み出したと考えられている」と述べている。ユウェナリスもまた（Sat. vi. 552-554行）、次の一節を残している。「Chaldaeis sed major erit fiducia; quidquid dixerit astrologus, credent a fonte relatum Ammonis.——しかし彼らが最も頼りとするのはカルデヤ人である。占星術師が宣告することなら何であれ、彼らは（ユピテル）アンモンの泉から伝えられた応答として受け入れるであろう」。ホラティウスもまた、自分の時代に「バビロン人」が魔術すなわち占いの技において名高かったことに言及している。

「nec Babylonios,

tentaris numeros.」——Car. lib. i.; xi.

カルデヤ人の民族全体がこれらの技に専心していたとは考えられないが、一つの国民として彼らはこの種の知識によって非常に名高くなり、国外ではこれが彼らの最もよく知られた特徴となったのである（バーンズのダニエル書付録も見よ）。

王にその夢を示すために——その夢が何であったかを彼に示し、その意味を説明するためであった。(Genesis 41:24; Judges 14:12; 1 Kings 10:3) と比較せよ。王たちが夢の意味を説明するために解釈者たちの助けを呼び入れることが通例であったことは、ヘロドトスの記述に現れている。アステュアゲスが王位に就いたとき、マンダネという名の娘がいた。彼女が、彼には非常に注目すべきと思われる夢を見たので、彼は「マギ」たちを呼び寄せた。ヘロドトスの言うには、彼らの解釈は「彼を非常に恐れさせる」ような性質のものであった。彼はその夢とその解釈にこれほどまでに影響されたため、娘の婚姻に関する自分の決定を完全に変えるに至った。——第一巻107。また、娘の婚姻の後について、ヘロドトスはこう記している（第一巻108）。「アステュアゲスはもう一つの幻を見た。彼の娘から一本のぶどうの木が生え出て、アジア全体を覆い尽くしたように見えた。このときも彼は解釈者たちに相談した。その結果、娘の出産の時が近づくと、彼はペルシャから娘を呼び寄せた。娘が到着すると、彼女の子を滅ぼすつもりで彼女を厳重に見張った。マギたちは、その幻が、娘の子が王座において彼に取って代わることを示唆していると宣告したのである」。アステュアゲスはこれを防ぐため、クロが生まれるや否や、自分が信頼していた人物ハルパゴスを呼び寄せ、その子を自分の家に連れて行って殺すよう命じた。ヘロドトスのこれらの記述は、バビロンの王が自分の夢を解釈するために魔法使いたちと占星術師たちの助けを求めたというここの記述が、決してまれな出来事ではなかったことを示しているのである。

王は彼らに言った、「わたしは夢を見たが、その夢を知りたいと、わたしの心は騒いでいる」と——これは明らかに、その夢についてのすべてを知りたい、という意味である。すなわち、それが何であったかをありありと思い出し、それが何を意味するのかを理解したい、ということである。王はこれほど驚くべき夢に心をかき乱されていた。ヒエロニムスが指摘するように、王はおそらく、その夢が何であったかについて、漠然と浮かんでは消えるような印象を抱いていた。それは、私たちの心をかき乱した夢について私たちがしばしば抱く印象のようなものであり、その明瞭で完全な姿を思い出すことはできない。王はそれをありありと思い出し、それが正確に何を意味するのかを知りたいと願ったのである。(Daniel 2:1)を見よ。

そこでカルデヤ人たちは王に言った——その意味は、カルデヤ人たちが彼らの中で最も際立っていたので、占い師たちと魔術師たちの一団全体を代表して語った（(Daniel 1:20; Daniel 2:2) の注釈を見よ）か、あるいはこの名称が占い師たちの集合体を表すのに用いられ、この願いが一団全体によってなされたことを意味する、ということである。

シリヤ語で——原語では (ארמית 'ărâmı̂yt)、すなわち「アラム語で」。ギリシャ語では Συριστὶ Suristi、「シリヤ語で」。ヴルガートも同様である。シリヤ語訳は原語の語を保っている。この語はアラム人を意味し、ここで言及されているのは、東アラム語として知られる言語、すなわちカルデヤ語、シリヤ語、およびメソポタミアで話されていた諸言語を包括する一般名称である。(Daniel 1:4) の注釈を見よ。これは王とその臣民の日常語であり、カルデヤ人たちが王に語りかける際に自然に用いたであろう言語であった。本書の著者がここでこれに言及しているのは、おそらく、彼自身がこの夢を説明するにあたってこの言語を用いる理由を明らかにするためであろう。しかし、この言語の使用は魔術師たちの述べたことを記すことに限られず、第7章の終わりまで続いている。序論第IV節IIIを比較せよ。用いられている言語は、一般にカルデヤ語と呼ばれるものである。ヘブル語と同じ文字で書かれ、一つの方言が他の方言と異なるのと同じ程度にヘブル語と異なる。捕囚中のユダヤ人たちは疑いなくこれをよく理解しており、自分たちの国に帰還した後もおそらくこれを話していたであろう。

王よ、とこしえに生きながらえられますように——これは君主に語りかける際にきわめて一般的な言い回しである。(1 Samuel 10:24; 1 Kings 1:25)（余白）、(Daniel 3:9; Daniel 5:10) を見よ。この表現は、「王万歳」「Vive l' empereur」「Vive le roi」などの言い回しに見られるように、今日でも広く用いられている。これは、長寿が祝福とみなされるべきであり、誰かに対する善意を表現するには、その人の長寿を願う以上によい方法はないという考えに基づいている。ここではそれは、君主の福利を切に願うことを示す、単なる通例の尊敬と敬意の表明であった。彼らは王の幸福と、その生涯と統治の継続とを促進するためなら何でも喜んでするつもりであった。彼らがこれからやや異例な願いをしようとしていたので、この言葉を用いることは特に適切であった。王が夢が何であったかを告げないまま彼らに解釈を求めたので、その願いは、この問題を説明するために当然与えられるべき手段をすべて王が与えていないことを含意する、無礼な行為と解される「可能性」があったからである。

王はその夢をしもべたちにお告げください。そうすれば私たちがその解き明かしをお示しいたします——将来に関して彼らが主張していたことは、明らかに、将来の出来事の前兆とみなされるものを「説明する」ことだけにあった。忘れられたものを思い出させること、あるいは起こるべきことの前兆とみなされ得る何かを生み「出す」ことさえできるという主張ではなかった。これは実質的に、古代のすべての占星術師、鳥占い師、占い師たちが主張していたことと同じであった。夢、鳥の飛翔、犠牲として屠られた獣の内臓の状態、星々の位置、流星、天における異常な現象は、神々が将来起こるべきことについて送る合図とみなされ、未来を占う力があると主張する者たちの仕事は、単にこれらを解釈することであった。それゆえ王が、夢そのものを彼自身の心に思い出させるよう彼らに求めたとき、それは彼らの職分に含まれない事柄を求めることであり、彼らはこれを不当とみなした。そのような力については、彼らは何の主張もしていなかった。彼らが単なる手品師と偽り手にすぎず、王が実際の夢を忘れていたのだから、なぜ何かを「でっち上げて」それを王の夢だと述べなかったのかと問うなら、次のように答えることができる。

（1）彼らが自分のできると公言していたことに誠実でなかったという確実な証拠はない。占い師や占星術師を名乗るすべての者が偽善者で意図的な詐欺師であったと想定すべきではないからである。世界史のあの時期には、夢や星々の位置などによって将来について何も知り得ないということは、まだ確実に確定していなかった。夢は実際、将来が知らされる方法の一つであった。また、星々の位置などから来たるべきことに関する知識が得られるかどうかは、当時なお未解決の問題であった。ベーコン卿でさえ、占星術という学問は「退けられる」べきものではなく、「改革される」べきものであると主張したのである。

（2）仮に占星術師たちが王を欺こうとしたとしても、自分たちの作り事を王自身の夢として押し通すことに成功した可能性はまずない。私たちは夢を明瞭に思い出せないことがあっても、その輪郭や、その中にあった印象的でありながら互いに連結していないいくつかの事柄については、それが何で「ない」かを知るに十分な印象を保っている。それが語られれば即座にそれと分かるであろうし、誰かがでっち上げた夢を私たちの夢として押し付けようとすれば、「それ」が私たちの見た夢ではないことを直ちに見抜くであろう。

王は答えてカルデヤ人たちに言った、そのことは私から去った——ヴルガートはこれを「Sermo recessit a me」——「その言葉は私から去った」と訳す。ギリシャ語も同様に、Ὁ λόγος ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη Ho logos ap' emou apestē である。ルターは「Es ist mir entfallen」——「それは私から脱落した」すなわち私から去った、と訳す。カバーデールは「それは私から去った」。ここで「そのこと」と訳されたカルデヤ語 מלתה mı̂llethâh は、本来「言葉、発言、談話」、すなわち「語られる」何かを意味し、次いで דבר dâbâr やギリシャ語 ῥῆμα rēma と同様に、一つの「事柄」を意味するようになった。ここでは審議中の事項、すなわち夢とその意味が指されている。公正な解釈は、彼が夢を忘れてしまい、たとえ何らかの記憶をとどめていたとしても、彼を不安にするほどの不完全な輪郭にすぎなかった、ということである。「去った」と訳された語 אזדא 'azeddâ' はここと (Daniel 2:8) にのみ現れ、「去る、離れる」を意味する אזל 'ăzal と同じ語と考えられる。ゲゼニウスはこの句全体を「その言葉は私から出て行った。すなわち私が言ったことは確定され、取り消すことができない」と訳す。ブッシュ教授（同箇所）はこれが正しい解釈であると論じ、これはヨハン・D・ミカエリスとダーテも好む解釈である。アベン・エズラ、C・B・ミカエリス、ヴィナー、ヘンゲステンベルク、スチュアート教授はやや類似の構文を採り、それは「私の勅令は確固である」、すなわち彼らが夢の解き明かしを提供しなければ断たれるであろう、という意味だとする。したがって正しい解釈の問題は二つの構文の間にある。すなわち、私たちの訳のように、夢が彼から去った——彼がそれを忘れた——のか、それとも、夢を解き明かせないなら彼らが滅ぼされるという勅令ないし命令が彼から出たのか、である。前者が正しい解釈であることは、私には明らかに思われる。

（1）それは自然な構文であり、原語の意味に最もよく合致する。こうして、מלה millâh と דבר dâbâr および ῥῆμα rēma が「事柄」の意味で用いられること、またカルデヤ語動詞 אזד 'ăzad の自然で本来的な意味が「去る、離れる」であることは、だれも疑えない。(Deuteronomy 32:36) のヘブル語 אזל 'âzal「彼は彼らの力が絶えたのを見られる」、(1 Samuel 9:7)「器のパンは尽きた」、(Job 14:11)「水は海から退く」を比較せよ。また (Ezra 4:23) のカルデヤ語 אזל 'ăzal「彼らは急いでエルサレムに上った」、(Ezra 5:8)「私たちはユダの州に行った」、さらに (Daniel 2:17; Daniel 2:24; Daniel 6:18(19), 19(20)) を比較せよ。

（2）この解釈はヒエロニムスのヴルガートとギリシャ語訳によって支持されている。

（3）当時そのような命令が王から出たとは見えず、王がそのような命令を発布したのは彼らが彼の前に来た後のことである。ゲゼニウスとツィクラー（Chaldaismus Dan. Proph.）が主張するように、この語が過去形の動詞ではなく現在分詞の女性形であるとしても、それは命令や勅令が彼から去るのと同じように、「夢」が彼から去ることにも等しく当てはまる。王が「そのことは私を離れてゆく。私はそれを思い出せない」と言ったと想定することができる。

（4）魔術師たちもそのように理解しており、王は彼の意図したことについての彼らの理解を訂正しようとしなかった。こうして (Daniel 2:7) で彼らは「王はその夢をしもべたちにお話しください。そうすれば私たちがその解き明かしをお示しいたします」と言う。これは、彼らが夢は王から去ったと理解しており、それが何であったかを知らされない限りその意味を解き明かすことは期待され得ないと考えていたことを示す。

（5）王自身は夢を記憶しており、単に彼らを試そうとした、すなわち彼らの能力を試すために意図的な虚偽を述べたと想定する必要はない。ネブカデネザルは残酷で苛烈な君主であり、そのようなことは彼の性格と全く矛盾しなかったであろう。しかし、だれに対しても必要以上に残酷さと専横を帰すべきではなく、避けられないほど証拠が明らかでない限りそうすべきではない。さらに、そのような試みが提案されたとすることは、極めて起こりそうにない。その必要はなく、そのような事柄に関する確立された信仰にも反していたからである。これらの者たちが宮廷に留め置かれた理由の一つは、まさに将来の前兆を説明させることにあった。彼らには信頼が寄せられており、信頼されていたからこそ留め置かれたのである。バビロンの君主が、彼らの公言する能力を疑う理由をそれまでに持っていたとは見えない。それならば、なぜ王は「この」機会に、彼らをこのように異例で、明らかに不当な試みにかけることを決意したのであろうか。

これらの理由から、私たちの通常の訳がこの箇所の正しい意味を与えていること、その意味は、夢が実際に彼からあまりにも遠く去って彼はそれを繰り返すことができなかったが、その不吉な性質とおびえるような輪郭についての印象は、彼の心を不安で満たすほどに残っていた、ということであることは、私には明らかに思われる。この箇所のこの見方からベルトルトがこの章の真正性に対して引き出した異議、すなわち、王の夢を思い出すことは彼らの職分に入らないのに、それができないという理由で他の者たちを刑罰に処するほど非合理な人がいるだろうことは全くありそうにない、という主張（Commentary i. p. 192）については、ネブカデネザルの性格は、ダニエルがここで述べることを決してありそうもないものにしないと言うことができる。こうして彼については (2 Kings 25:7) に、「彼らはゼデキヤの子らを『彼の目の前で』殺し、ゼデキヤの両目を剜り、青銅の足かせで彼を縛り、バビロンへ連れて行った」と記されている。(2 Kings 25:18-21; Jeremiah 39:5 以下; Jeremiah 52:9-11) を比較せよ。また彼が「人々の中で最も卑しい者」と呼ばれている (Daniel 4:17) も見よ。ヘンゲステンベルク『ダニエル書の真正性』pp. 79-81 を比較せよ。この異議については、本章序論第I部Iを見よ。

もしあなたがたがその夢とその解き明かしを私に知らせないなら——彼が実際に夢を忘れたかどうかという問題をどう考えようと、彼が彼らにそれが何であったかを述べ、次にそれを説明するよう要求したことは疑い得ない。この要求は、彼らの職分に公正に含まれないという意味で不合理であると同様に、おそらく異例のものであった。しかし、彼らが本当に神々と交わり、将来の出来事を説明する資格を持っていたなら、この忘れられた夢をも思い出すことができると考えられるという意味では、不合理ではなかった。神々が「将来」来るべきことを説明する力を彼らに与えたのなら、「過去」を思い出す力も同じように容易に与えることができたはずである。

あなたがたは切り刻まれ——余白では「作られる」。カルデヤ語では「あなたがたは断片に作られる」であり、これは多くの古代の国民に共通した刑罰の様式を指す。(1 Samuel 15:33) を比較せよ。「サムエルはギルガルで主の前にアガグを切り刻んだ」。同様に、オルフェウスはトラキアの女たちによって引き裂かれたと言われ、ベッススはアレクサンドロス大王の命によって切り刻まれた。

あなたがたの家は肥やしの山とされる——(2 Kings 10:27) を比較せよ。これは、彼らの家が、優雅で快適な邸宅ではなく、最も卑しい用途に捧げられ、あらゆる種類の恥辱と汚辱に服することを表す表現である。ここで用いられている言葉は、東洋の人が通常用いる表現と一致している。彼らは嫌悪の対象にあらゆる種類の侮辱と憎むべきことを呼びかけ、軽蔑または憎悪の対象に汚物を塗りつけることも珍しくない。こうして、カリフ・ウマルがサラセン軍を率いてエルサレムを占領した際、市の大部分を略奪した後、すべてのムスリムの憎悪のしるしとして、またそれが今後あらゆるものの残滓と屑とみなされることを示すために、聖所の跡地に肥料を撒かせた。——ブッシュ教授。ギリシャ語訳はこれを「あなたがたの家は略奪されるであろう」、ヴルガートは「あなたがたの家は没収されるであろう」と訳す。しかしこれらの訳は全く恣意的である。ここで警告された刑罰は苛酷に見えるかもしれず、魔術師たちはまだ夢を解き明かす能力の欠如を示しておらず、そうできないであろうと憂慮する理由も何も与えていないのに、君主がこのように抑制のない言葉を用い、このように厳しい脅しを発したことはありそうもない、と言おうとする者もいるかもしれない。しかし私たちは次のことを覚えておくべきである。

（1）王の残酷で恣意的な性格（上の参照箇所を見よ）、

（2）君主が、死の刑罰をもって、すべての命令が従われ、すべての願いが速やかに満たされることを慣わしとする東洋の専制政治の性質、

（3）王の心が夢によって大いに動揺していたという事実、

（4）王は、夢によって自分の王国に不吉なことが前もって示されたと確信しており、それゆえ、彼らが力の限りを尽くし、彼の心の動揺を鎮めるように促すために、脅しのあらゆる力と、華やかな報酬のあらゆる見込みが用いられるべき場合であると考えたという事実である。

しかし、もしあなたがたがその夢を示すなら——その夢が何であったかを示すならば、という意味である。

と、その解き明かしを——それが何を意味するかを、という意味である。すなわち、彼らはネブカデネザルがそれと認められるように夢を述べなければならず、また、真実のものとして彼の心に勧められるような説明を与えなければならなかった。この最後の点について、王は疑いなく、この職務を果たす際に発揮されると想定される彼らの知恵に大いに頼ったであろう。しかし同時に、その解き明かしが「公正な」解き明かし、すなわち夢から「公正に」導き出されるようなものであると見えることも必要であったように思われる。それゆえ、ダニエルが解き明かしを知らせたとき、王はそれが夢のすべての特徴に合致することをただちに見て、それが正しいと認めたのである。同様に、ダニエルが壁に書かれた文字をベルシャザルに説明したとき、ベルシャザルはその正当さを認め、彼に栄誉を山ほど与えた（Daniel 5:29）。また、ヨセフがパロの夢を解き明かしたとき、パロはただちにその説明の適切さを見て、それが正しいと認めた（Genesis 41:39-45）。さらに、上で言及した事例（(Daniel 2:2) の注解）、すなわちアステュアゲスが自分の娘について見た夢においても（ヘロドトス第1巻107章；108章）、彼はマギたちが提示した夢の解釈がその夢と一致することをただちに見て、それに応じて処置を取った。

あなたがたは私から贈り物と報酬と大いなる誉れを受ける——可能ならば夢の意味を明かさせるため、彼らの最も高い希望に訴えようとする意図であった。彼は特定の報酬を明示せず、約束を一般的なものとした。その明白な意味は、そのような場合には、彼のような君主が与えるにふさわしいものを授けるであろう、ということである。このような場合に通常与えられる報酬が、彼らの力の最も力強い発揮へと駆り立てるのに適したものであったことは、夢を知らせたときに王がダニエルに与えた栄誉（Daniel 2:48）から、また壁に書かれた文字の解き明かしを知らせたダニエルにベルシャザルが与えた報酬（Daniel 5:29）から知ることができる。「そのときベルシャザルは命じて、ダニエルに紫の衣服を着せ、その首に金の鎖をかけ、彼について、彼が王国の第三の支配者となるべきことを布告させた」。(Esther 5:11; Esther 6:7-9) と比較せよ。

彼らは再び答えて言った、「王よ、その夢をしもべたちにお話しください。そうすれば、私たちがその解き明かしをお示しいたします」——これは、どのような事情の下でも、とりわけ彼らの立場においては、決して不合理な要求ではなかった。彼らが忘れられた夢を思い出すことができると公言していたわけではないことは明らかである。この点に関する彼らの主張の範囲は、将来の出来事の前兆と一般にみなされているものを「説明する」ことができる、というところにとどまっていたように思われる。

王は答えて言った。「おまえたちが時を稼ごうとするのを、私は確かに知っている」——余白では「買う」となっている。カルデヤ語 זבנין zâbenı̂yn（זבן zeban に由来）は、自分のために得る、買う、獲得する、調達する、を意味する。ギリシャ語は ἐξαγοράζετε exagorazete——すなわち「おまえたちは時を買い戻す」——であり、ヴルガートの quod tempus redimitis も同様である。その意味は、彼らは王の要求に応じられないことを悟っており、夢を述べてくれるよう王に願ったこと (Daniel 2:7) は、その間になんとか王をなだめる方法、あるいは王の脅かされた憤りを免れる方法が見つかるという望みを抱いて、引き延ばすための口実にすぎなかった、ということである。彼らは、時が経てば王は再考の末いっそう落ち着きを取り戻し、自分たちが夢を思い出して解き明かすことは「できない」にしても、そのようなことを期待したり要求したりするのは不合理であると認められるであろう、と期待したとしても不自然ではない。王は、このような考えが彼らの心を去来していると見なしたようであり、そのような企てがあるとして彼らを責めた。王の論法は、おおよそ次のようなものであったと見られる。「夢を正しく解き明かせる者は、その解き明かしが何であるかを語れるのと同じように、夢が何であるかをも語れる。一方も他方と同じく神の感化の結果であるからだ。人が一方の場合に神の助けを期待できるなら、他方の場合にはなぜ期待できないのか。それゆえ、おまえたちが夢を思い出せない以上、それを解き明かせないことは明らかである。おまえたちがそれを知りたいと要求する唯一の目的は、脅かされた刑の執行をできる限り長く引き延ばし、可能ならばそれを完全に免れることにある。」彼らの語ったことが (Daniel 2:7) に記録された単純な願い以上のものであった可能性は、ないとは言えない。彼らは当然、この場合の王の要求がいかに不合理であるかを示そうとして話を広げたであろうし、彼らの論法は、王がここで彼らに帰している企てについて、もっともらしい口実を与えたことであろう。

おまえたちが、そのことが私から去ったのを見たから——(Daniel 2:5) で提案した解釈に従えば、「そのこと」とは「夢」のことである。その意味はこうである。「おまえたちは、私がそれを忘れてしまったことを知っている。私はその点について明確な陳述をした。それゆえ、それが思い出されるという希望は持ちえないのであり、おまえたちの唯一の目的が時を稼ぐことであることは明らかだ。引き延ばして得られるものは何もない。それゆえこの件は直ちに決着をつけてよく、おまえたちの振る舞いは、要求されたことを行えないという自白と解釈されうるし、刑は遅滞なく執行されうる。」これは私の見るところ、夢を思い出して解き明かさないなら彼らは死に処せられるという判決がすでに王から出ていた、という意味に取る解釈よりも、よりよく通じる。

しかし、もしあなたがたがあの夢を私に告げ知らせないなら、あなたがたに下る定めは一つしかない——すなわち、あなたがたは同じ運命を共にするというのである。あなたがたはみな切り刻まれ、あなたがたの家々は瓦礫と化すであろう(Daniel 2:5)。あなたがたのうちのいかなる階級にも、またいかなる個人にも、容赦は示されないであろう。責任は彼らの集団全体に対すると同様に各個人に対してもあると考えられていたようであり、彼ら一人ひとりすべてにこの問題を説明する義務を負わせることが正しいとみなされていたようである。義務の差異が認められない以上、罪責の程度にも差異はないはずであった。とはいえ、ここには解釈上の相違があることを述べておかねばならない。ゲゼニウスと他の若干の学者は、「定め」と訳されている語 דת(dâth)を「助言、計画、目的」と訳し、その意味を「これこそあなたがたの唯一の助言ないし計画である」——すなわち、偽りの言葉を仕立て、時間を稼ごうとするもの——と考える。そこでスチュアート教授はこの節を次のように訳している。「もしあなたがたがあの夢を私に告げ知らせないなら、あなたがたの目的はただ一つである。時が変わるまで、偽りで欺瞞に満ちた言葉を私の前で語るとあなたがたは申し合わせた。それゆえ、その夢を私に告げよ。そうすれば、あなたがたがその解き明かしを私に示すことができるということを、私は知るであろう」。しかし原語の語は、律法ないし定めという意味で用いられるのが最も普通である。Deuteronomy 33:2; Esther 1:8, 13, 15, 19; 2:8; 3:8, 14-15; 4:3, 8, 11, 16; 8:13-14, 17; 9:1, 13-14 を見よ。通常の訳から離れる必要はないように思われる。それはこの場合の事実に即した意味を含んでおり、ギリシャ語、ラテン語、シリア語の諸版とも一致しているからである。

これは、あなたがたが偽りで堕落した言葉を私の前で語るために仕立てたからである——すなわち、こういうことである。「あなたがたは、私に夢を述べよと求めること(Daniel 2:4, Daniel 2:7)において、また、それを解き明かせるようにと夢を知らせよと要求することにおいて、このことを行った。私は、あなたがたが夢を呼び戻せないことによって、あなたがたが偽りと欺きの役を演じてきたこと、あなたがたの主張のすべてが偽りであったことを知るであろう。それゆえ、私が夢を述べることを望むというあなたがたの要求は、刑の執行を引き延ばし、ついにはまったく逃れる望みを抱くための、単なる口実、遅延のための策略にすぎなかったことが明らかにされるであろう」。

時が変わるまで——すなわち、新しい事態が生じるまで、という意味である。王の意向が変わり、その怒りが鎮まるまでか、あるいは政体に変化が生じるまでか、のいずれかであろう。この問題が引き延ばされたからといって彼らの状況はこれ以上「悪く」なることはできず、いかなる変化も彼らの利益になる可能性があったのだから、むしろ「良く」なる可能性こそあった。それゆえ、このような思いが王の心を去来するのは自然なことであった。どちらの側にも大きな信頼も愛情もなかったものと思われる。王は彼らが悪い動機に動かされているのではないかと疑っており、彼らの方でも、王に抱く強い愛着の理由は確かになかった。(Daniel 2:21) と (Daniel 7:25) の注解と比較せよ。

カルデア人は王の前にて答えて言った——おそらく「カルデア人」が答えたのは、彼らが最も寵愛を受けており、この種の事柄において通常最も信頼を置かれていた者たちであったからであろう。(Daniel 2:2) の注解を見よ。このような機会には、もし誰かにできるとすれば夢を解き明かせるはずの者たち、また通常最も頼りにされていた者たちが進み出て、自分たちにはこれができないと告げることになっただろう。

王の事柄を王にお示しすることのできる者は、地の上には誰もいません——カルデア語では על־יבשׁתא ‛al-yabeshethâʾ——「乾いた地の上に」(Genesis 1:10) と比較せよ。その意味は、この事がまったく人の力を超えているということである。それは、占いの諸術を業とする者の誰もがその能力を主張しうる類の事柄ではなかった。彼らは疑いなく、世界が生み出しうる限りのその術の達人たちがバビロンの宮廷に集められた知者たちのうちに見出されるだろうと考え、彼らが失敗するならば他のすべての者も失敗するに違いないと推論した。それゆえこれは、この問題における自分たちの無能力のはっきりした告白であった。しかし彼らは、この事が全く人の力を超えており、要求されたことを成し遂げられる者は誰にも期待できないと断言することによって、この屈辱的な告白の衝撃を和らげ、おそらくは王の怒りをもなだめようとしたのである。

それゆえ、このような事を求めた王も、主君も、支配者も、いまだかつてありませんでした——誰もこれに類する要求をした者はない、ということである。事柄はあまりに明白であり、人間にはこのような開示をする能力がないこともあまりに明らかなので、いかなる地位の権力者もこのような要求をしたことがなかったのである。彼らは疑いなく、この要求があまりに不合理であるからこそ強くお求めになることはなかろうと、王を納得させようとした。彼らは切実であった——自分たちの生命がそれにかかっていたからであり、また自分たちの側に正義があると考えていたからである。

「王が求めておられることは難しいことである」——カルデア語 (יקירה yaqqı̂yrâh) は、「選び抜かれた、貴重な、高価な」を意味し、次いで「重い、骨の折れる、困難な」を意味する。ギリシャ語では βαρύς (barus)、ヴルガートでは gravis——「重い」——である。その趣旨は、王が求めた事柄が「まれ」であり「めったに求められない」ということにあるのではなく——それも事実であったが——むしろ、それが人間の力を超えるほど難しいという点にある。彼らはこのような場面で、王の要求が絶対的に不当あるいは不合理であるとは言わなかったであろう。彼らの用いた語は敬意を込めたものであったが、同時に、王の提示したとおりの形では、いかなる者もこの問題を解決する望みを持てないことを含意していた。

「肉を持つ者とともに住まわない神々のほかには、王の前にそれを示しうる者はいない」——この種の事柄は神の助けなしには明らかにされえない、という点で、これは明らかに真であった。ここから見ると、これらの人々は霊感を受けているとか神々と交わっているとか主張してはいなかったようであり、少なくとも至高の神の霊感を受けていると主張してはいなかったようである。むしろ彼らは、自分たちの生来の洞察力と、未来の出来事を予示する諸現象の意味を入念に長く研究した成果と、おそらくは当時の学問に関する知識から得た秘術とに依拠していた。ここでの「神々」という語 (אלהין 'ĕlâhı̂yn) はヘブライ語の (אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym) と同じ語で複数形であるが、ヘブライ語の אלהים がしばしばそうであるように、まことの神に適用されうるものであった。彼らがこの語を複数の意味で用いた、あるいはバビロンで礼拝されていた神々は人々とともに住まわないということが認められた真理であると述べた、と断定することはまったくできない。

神々が人々とともに住まうということが当時の通説であったことは疑いない。神殿は彼らの住処であり、彼らはしばしば人々の間に現れて人間の事柄に関与すると考えられていた。しかし、至高の神は人間の事柄から退き、世界の統治を中間の存在たち——仲介者（internuncii）、悪霊たちあるいはアイオーンたち——にゆだねられたという見方も、きわめて早い時期から存在した。これらの存在たちは人間よりはるかに優れた力を持ち、絶えず人間の事柄に介入すると考えられていた。しかしその力は、どれほど大きくても限られたものであった。それならば、カルデア人たちはここで (אלהין 'ĕlâhı̂yn) という語によって至高の神を指し、この件はその方のみに属し、いかなる下位の神も王の求めるような事柄をなしとげる力はなく、至高の神は人々の間に住まわれないのであるからこの問題を説明しようとする試みは望みがない、と述べたのではなかろうか。このように理解すれば、その結果はより高い真理を伝え、ダニエルに与えられた栄誉をいっそう印象的に示すことになろう。「肉を持つ者とともに住まわない」という句は、「人々とともに、すなわち人間のからだの中には住まわない」を意味する。

これが至高の神を指すと想定すれば、下位の神々はどれほどしばしば人々に現れ人間の姿を取るとはいえ、至高の神は遠く離れておられ、このような形で地に住処を定められることは決してない、という当時の支配的な見解と紛れもなく一致する。それゆえ彼らは、このような秘密の解決に唯一堪能な方から何らかの示しを受ける望みを持ちえなかったのである。したがってこれは、当面の問題における自分たちの完全な失敗を率直に認めた告白と見なしうる。彼らは「自分たち」自身がその問題を解決する力を持たないことを認め、下位の神々が人々に与える助けによってもそれをなしとげる力は得られず、人間の事柄から遠く退いておられる至高の神が介入されることを期待するのは望みがない、という見解を表明した。これは最も重大な試練において自分たちの技が失敗したことの公の承認であり、こうして、まことの神の教えの下にあったダニエルが、あらゆる人間の力を完全に超えた事柄をなしとげることができることを示す道が備えられたのである。

試練は公正に行われた。カルデアの国の最も知恵ある人々が頼りにされた。そのような危急の際に信頼されていた者たち、未来の出来事の前兆を説明しうると公言していた者たち、異教の力の中心である世界で最も重要で荘厳な宮廷に召集されていた者たち、この種の探究に生涯を捧げ、地上の誰かがその仕事に堪能でありうるならまさにその人々と見なされていたその人々が、今や自分たちの技が役に立たないことを公然と認め、この件には頼るべき手段がまったく存在しないという確信を表明したのである。

「このことのために王は怒り」——彼らが、自分に委ねられていた問題を説明できなかったためである。彼らの職務は、王が求めた事柄を説明することを引き受けるという意味を含まないから、王の怒りが不当であったことは確かだが、その憤りが不自然であったわけではない。彼の心は怯え、乱されていた。彼は、夢の中で見たことが何らかの重大なできごとを予告すると信じていた。また、怒りを抑制することにも、自分の憤りをかき立てた事柄の正確な公正さを吟味することにも慣れていない専断的な君主であったから、占術を少しでも標榜する者すべてに復讐することを決意したとしても、不自然ではなかった。

「激しく憤って」——最高度の激情にまで高められた、ということである。カルデア語では「大いに憤った」となる。これは、彼の脅しを実行しようとする冷静で安定した意図ではなく、強度の興奮を伴った意図であった。

「バビロンの知者たちをみな滅ぼせと命じた」——すなわち、この種の知恵を持つと主張するすべての者、よく知られた「知者」ないし「賢者」という名称に含まれるすべての者を指す。王はその階層を自分の前に召し出しており (Daniel 2:2)、彼らに自分の夢の説明を要求し、彼らの中の指導的立場にあった者たち、すなわちカルデア人たちから、王の夢を思い出すことはできないと言われていた (Daniel 2:10-11)。そのような場合に頼りにできる者がすべて失敗したと考えた王は、彼らを詐欺師として断罪し、一掃することを決意したのである。

このときダニエルがどこにいたのかは知られていない。しかし何らかの理由で、彼は他の者たちとともに王の前に召されなかったように見える。おそらく、彼が際立って知恵を授かっていることをすでに示してはいたものの (Daniel 1:20)、この種の知識を持つとまだ一度も主張しておらず、マギやカルデア人たちのうちに数えられていなかったためであろう。しかし、「バビロンの知者たち」を「みな」殺せという布告が発せられると、彼が示した知恵と知識 (Daniel 1:18-20) が思い出され、刑の執行者たちは、彼とその仲間たちもその一般的な命令に含まれると考えた。ここの「バビロン」という語がバビロンの町を指すのか、王国全体を指すのかは、確実に判断する方法がない。しかし、東洋の専制政治の性格と、絶対的君主たちが激情に駆られたときにしばしば陥った残虐さとを考えれば、この階層の者の大多数は首都にいたであろうと思われるものの、この命令が王国全体を含んでいたと想定しても、何の不合理もない。

「そこで、知者たちを殺せという布告が出された」――ここの原文は、「布告が出され、『そして』知者たちは殺された」というやや異なる訳も可能である。すなわち、刑の執行が実際に開始されたという意味である。ヴルガートも Et egressa sententia, sapientes interficiebantur ――布告が出ると、知者たちは殺されていた、と読む。ギリシャ語訳も καὶ οἱ σοφοί ἀπεκτέννοντο (kai hoi sophoi apektennonto)――「そして知者たちは殺された」とする。私見では、こちらの解釈のほうがより蓋然的であり、文脈にもいっそうよく適う。そうであれば、彼らが実際に布告の執行を開始し、その血なまぐさい業の遂行のうちにダニエルとその仲間たちが探し出され、アリオクに及ぼすダニエルの影響力によって刑の執行が停止された、という意味になる。

「彼らはダニエルとその同僚たちをも探し出して殺そうとした」――その三人の仲間 (Daniel 1:6) は、この問題を説明するために宮廷に召された者たちの中には、おそらく含まれていなかった。初めから彼らに相談していたなら、布告の発布は防がれたであろう。しかし、これらの賢者たちの能力を最も公正に試み、なされたことが全く人の力を超えていることを示すために、事態が危機に至るのを許すことが、摂理の計画であったと思われる。

「そのときダニエルは答えた」――欄外注では「返った」となっている。原語を直訳すれば「助言と知恵とを返した」であり、知恵に満ちた答えを返したという意味である。アリオクが王の布告をダニエルに伝え、その布告に彼も巻き込まれており、死の覚悟をしなければならないと告げたことは、ありそうに思われる。

「助言と知恵」――すなわち「賢い助言」である。彼は自分の言葉の中に大きな慎重さと分別とを示した。彼は、もし受け入れられるなら、すべての賢者たちに対する刑の執行を停止させ、王が目指していた目的を確実に達成させるような提案をアリオクに対して行った。この答えの正確な性質については述べられていない。しかし、おそらくそれは、夢を明らかにすることが彼に許されるように、ということであり、彼はこれをアリオクにきわめてもっともらしく示したので、アリオクは彼にその試みをさせる気になったものであろう。アリオクが刑の執行を停止することに同意したのは、ダニエルが王の不安を取り除くことができる可能性がきわめて高いと彼に思えた場合に限られることは明らかである。王の主たる目的が自分の夢の解き明かしを得ることであると知り、この厳しい布告の執行によってかえってその目的が達成されやすくなるわけではないと見て、また、ダニエルが宮廷で大きな好意をもって迎えられていたことを知って (Daniel 1:19-21)、彼はある程度の責任を引き受けることをいとわず、ダニエルが自分自身で王に申し出ることを許したように思われる。

「王の近衛隊の長アリオクに」――欄外注では「処刑人、すなわち殺戮者たちのかしら、または警視総監」となっている。ギリシャ語では ἀρχιμαγείρῳ τοῦ βασιλέως archimageirō tou basileōs――王の料理長。ヴルガータ訳はここを「そのときダニエルは、王軍の指揮官アリオクの法律と裁きについて尋ねた」と訳している。「近衛隊」と訳されたカルデア語は טבחיא ṭabâchayâ' である。これは טבח ṭâbach――屠る、動物を殺す、そして人間を殺すあるいは討つ――から派生したものである。それゆえこの名詞は、屠殺者、料理人、処刑人、あるいは君主の意のままに、あるいは法の正しい判決によって人を殺す者を意味する。ここでのこの語が、この判決を執行するために遣わされたアリオクを指すことは疑いえない。しかし、彼を単なる処刑人として、いわば絞首刑執行人のように見なすべきではない。というのは、間違いなく王はこの判決を、高くはないにしても尊敬に値する地位の者に託したであろうからである。おそらく、近衛隊の主要な士官の一人がこのような判決の執行を託されたのであろう。(1 Samuel 8:13) では、この語は「料理人たち」と訳されている。この語が他に現れることはない。彼が単なる処刑人ではなかったことは、次の節で彼に与えられている称号――彼はそこで「王の隊長」と呼ばれている――から明らかである。

「殺すために出て行った……ところの者に」――彼は布告を執行するために出て行ったのであり、その執行はすでに始まっていた。

「彼は答えて、王の隊長アリオクに言った」――ここで「隊長」と訳されている語、すなわち Daniel 2:14 に出てくる語とは別の語である שׁליטא shallı̂yṭa' は、支配あるいは統治権を持つ者、力ある者・強大な者を表し、名誉と責任のある地位に就く者にのみ用いられるものであった。「支配する」という意味を持つ שׁלט shālaṭ の用例として、Nehemiah 5:15、Ecclesiastes 2:19、Ecclesiastes 6:2、Ecclesiastes 8:9、Esther 9:1、Psalm 119:133 を参照。ここで用いられている語は Daniel 2:10 で「支配者」と訳されているのと同じ語である。それは疑いなくここでは高位の官名を表し、「刑吏」という語によって示されるものよりも名誉ある職務に就く者を指している。ただし、これらの節 Daniel 2:14-15 については、東方における刑吏の職が決して不名誉な職とみなされていたわけではないと言っておかねばならない。それは高位の者たちに委ねられ、貴族たちでさえ、自分たちの先祖の中にこのようにして君主の命令の執行を委ねられた者たちがいたことを名誉とみなし、しばしばそれを誇とした。ハンウェイとアブドルケリムはともに、この職が名誉と地位をもたらしたと述べている。トゥルヌフォールは、グルジアでは「刑吏たちは非常に富んでおり、身分ある人々がこの職業に就く。世界の他の地方で起こることとは大きく異なり、あの国ではこれは一家に名誉の称号を与える。彼らは自分たちの先祖の中に多くの刑吏がいたことを誇りとする。そして彼らはこれを、正義ほど望ましいものはなく、法の執行に携わることほど名誉なことはないという情子に基ぅいている」と言っている。ローゼンミュラー『モルゲンラント』1079を参照。

「なぜ王はこんなに性急な命令を下されるのですか」――なぞを解くために為しうる限りの努力がすべて尽くされたわけではなかった、ということを含意している。ここでの考えは、これほど多くの人々を破滅に巻き込むような性質の命令は、あらゆる可能な用心を尽くし、王が望むことを明らかにしうる者たちを見つけるためにあらゆる可能な努力をした後でなければ、王から発せられるべきではなかった、ということである。ダニエルにとっては、彼が宮廷で受けた恩惠と名誉、そして彼に寄せられていた信頼の後に(Daniel 1:19-20)、このような命令が発せられたことは正当に驚くべき事本であった。それほど包括的で、彼とその友たちをも含む命令が、彼らが王の不興を買うようなことを何もしていないのに出されたのである。

「そのときアリオクはこのことをダニエルに知らせた」――夢に関する報告、王の心の騒ぎ、魔術師たちの相談、彼らが夢を説明することができなかったこと、そして知恥を称する者たちをみな殺せという命令である。ダニエルがそれまでこれらのことを知らされていなかったことは明らかである。

そのときダニエルは…入って — ひとりで、あるいは友人の仲介を通じてであった。おそらく意味されているのは、彼が実際に君主の面前に出たということではなく、宮殿に入り、王に面会できる高位の廷臣のとりなしを通じて、王が時を与えてくださるよう、また自分がそのことをお知らせするのでと願い出たことであろう。ダニエル2:24-25から見ると、彼が王と最初に直接謁見したのは、そのことが夜の幻の中で彼に示された後であったように思われる。また、彼が直ちに無作法に王の面前へ押し入ったと見ることは、確立された東洋の慣習とはほとんど合わないであろう。王に接近しうる何らかの者を通じて差し出された嘆願は、この場合のあらゆる事情に合致する。

王が彼に時を与えるように — 彼はなぜ時を欲するのかその「理由」を明示しなかったが、その理由は十分に明らかである。彼はこの問題を神の前に携え、夢とその解き明かしが自分に示されるように、友人たちとともに熱心に祈ることを望んだのである。この願いは聞き入れられた。カルデヤ人たちには探求する時が許されなかったのに(ダニエル2:8)、とりわけ判決の執行がすでに始まった後に、ダニエルにこのような好意が示されたのは驚くべきことに見えるかもしれない。しかし、私たちは次のことを覚えておかなければならない。

(1) 王は、正当な根拠に基づいてすでにダニエルに示した好意と、彼が大いなる知恵を授かっているとみなした事実を思い起こしたであろうこと(ダニエル1:19-20)。

(2) ダニエルは、カルデヤ人たちがしたように、解き明かしを引き受ける前に王が夢を語るよう求めたのではなく、事全体を明らかにしようと提案したことは明らかであること。

(3) 王に、ダニエルはまだ相談を受けておらず、彼も一般的な判決に含まれていることが明らかになった以上、今こそ彼に公正な試みの機会を与えるのが当然であるという思いが起こらなかったはずはないこと。

(4) 夢を理解したいという王の切望は非常に大きかったので、自分の困惑が解かれるためなら「いかなる」望みにもすがろうとしたこと。

(5) このすべての事に神の手があったことが示され、認められるために、この君主の心に神の影響が及んで、このような単純な正義の行いを進んでするようにさせた可能性を想定することは不当ではないこと。

そのときダニエルは自分の家に帰った — 明示的には記されていないが、彼が願い求めていたものを得たことはきわめて明らかである。上に述べた理由により、王は疑いなく、あの神秘の秘密を解き明かす技倆を試す公正な機会を彼に与えることを望んだのである。

そのことをハナヌヤ…に知らせた — 夢に関する困惑、カルデヤ人たちがそれを解き明かせなかったこと、勅令、および王に対する自分の嘆願を含めて、事全体を知らせたのである。彼らの命がみな危険にさらされていたため、これを知ることは彼ら全員の共通の関心事であった。

彼らがこの秘密について天の神にあわれみを求めるように——すなわち、彼らの命が助けられるように、この秘密を現してくださることで自分たちにあわれみを示してくださるよう神に願うことであった。余白では、カルデヤ語のとおり「天の神の御前から」となっている。今やすべては神にかかっていた。人の技は尽き、人が所有するいかなる能力にも頼ることはできないことが明らかであった。カルデヤ人の術は失敗した。ダニエルは、この失敗によっても、また自分自身の心の促しによっても、唯一の望みは神にあり、この件における神の好意は祈りによってのみ得られることを悟ったに違いない。三人の友もその結果に等しく利害を持っていた。そして、「一致した」祈りが神の前に特別な力を持つということは、宗教の早期の原則であり、神が人を扱われたすべての時代に見出されるものでもあったので (Matthew 18:19 を比較せよ)、この恵みを与えることのできる唯一のお方にそれを共に求めるよう友たちに呼びかけることは、自然であると同時に適切であった。これは敬虔の自然な、そして最後の拠り所であり、困惑と危険の時にすべての人がなし得ること、またなすべきことの模範を示すものである。

ダニエルとその同輩たちが滅びないために——余白では「あるいは、彼らがダニエルを滅ぼさないために」となっている。余白の読みの方がカルデヤ語に最も適合するが、意味は実質的に同じである。「同輩たち」という語は、前に「仲間たち」と訳されている語と同じである。

バビロンの残りの賢者たちと共に——カルデヤ人や占い師などに対するこの勅令は、確実に執行されるように思われた。そして実際、この勅令が執行され「ない」理由は何もなかった。彼らは、王の命令に応える力がないことを認めていたのである。ダニエルが今どんなことをなし得たとしても、それが彼らに対して勅令の執行を免除すべき理由を提供するものとして都合よく解されることはなかった。したがって、その律法は厳しく見えるとはいえ彼らに対して執行されると考えられ、おそらく実際にそうされたと考えてよい。彼らが皆に共通する運命から逃れる唯一の望みは、自分たちの仕える神が今、彼らのために介入してくださるという確信にあった。

「そのとき、この秘密が啓示された……」——すなわち、夢とその解き明かしである。「隠されて」いた事がらが明らかにされたのである。祈りのための適切な時間が与えられた後に、これが起こったと考えることができる。

「夜の幻の中で」——夜に彼に示された現れであるが、彼が眠っていたのか起きていたのかは明らかでない。Daniel 1:17; Isaiah 1:1; Job 4:13; Job 33:15の注解を比較せよ。

「そのときダニエルは天の神をほめたたえた」——自分の命と同輩たちの命を保つことができる手段となる秘密を明かしてくださったこと、また、来たるべき出来事を啓示できるお方はただおひとりであるとして、そのような際立った栄誉が神ご自身の上に帰ることになったことに対して、感謝の賛美の歌を迸らせることより自然なことは何もなかったであろう。

「ダニエルは答えて言った」——聖書において「答える」という語は、しばしば実質的に「語る」「言う」という意味で用いられる。私たちの用法のように、常に他の者が述べたことへの応答を意味するのではなく、あたかもその場合に言われ「うる」何かに応えているかのように、あるいはその場合の事情がその発言を生じさせたという意味で、発言が始められるときにしばしば用いられるのである。ここでの意味は、ダニエルが、神が示されたその善き御わざに応えるかのように、賛美のふさわしい表現をもって自分の感情を言い表した、ということである。

「神のみ名は永遠から永遠までほむべきかな」——すなわち、神はほむべきかな、ということである。聖書では「名」がしばしば当人自身を指すために用いられるからである。重要な啓示を見て、あるいは大いなるあわれみを見て、神に賛美を帰することは、聖書において普通のことである。紅海を渡った後のモーセの歌 (Exodus 15)、シセラの打ち倒された後のデボラの歌 (Judges 5)、Isaiah 12:1-6を比較せよ。

「知恵と力とは彼のものだからである」——この二つはこの場合の事情の中で顕著な仕方で示されたので、賛美の歌はこれらをもって始められたのである。すなわち「知恵」は、すべて人の技が失敗したときに、この秘密を明らかにしうるようにと今やダニエルに授けられたことによって示され、「力」は、夢とその解き明かしによって示された帝国の変遷の中で間もなく示されることになっていたからである。Jeremiah 32:19「その計りごとが大いなること、みわざに力あること」を比較せよ。

「彼は時と季節とを変えられる」——このことの目的は、起こるすべての変化に関して神の一般的支配を主張することにある。この主張は、疑いなく、夢の意味から、神の御手の下で起こることになる帝国の変革をダニエルが今や見たことを念頭に置いてなされた。像のさまざまな部分によって示され、遠い未来にまで及ぶこれらの広大な変化を今や予見して (Daniel 2:36-45)、ダニエルは、地の上で起こる「すべての」変革に対する支配を神に帰することへと導かれたのである。「時」と「季節」という語の間に本質的な違いはない。カルデヤ語のこれらの語は、定められたあるいは指定された時期を表し、「任命された、定められた、決定された」時という観念がその両方に入っている。時と季節は偶然の支配の下にあるのではなく、確立された法則によって画されている。しかし、これらの法則を定められた神は、それらを変える力を持っており、それらの法則の下で起こるすべての変化は彼の働きによって生み出される。それゆえ、昼と夜、春と夏、秋と冬、雲と日光、健康と病、幼年と青年、壮年と老年に関する変化は、彼の支配の下にある。これらの変化は一定の法則に従うので「指定された」あるいは「定められた」ものとみなされうるが、それらの法則と、それに従って起こる循環とは、すべて彼の支配の下にある。帝国の変革についても同様である。彼はその摂理の配剤によって、起こることが最善であるとお見になるような変革を確保され、そのすべてにおいて、彼の高き御手が認められるべきである。「季節」と「時」という語はダニエル書にしばしば現れ、ときには特別な意味で用いられるが (Daniel 7:12, Daniel 7:25の注解を見よ)、ここでは、地の上で起こる「すべての」変革が彼の支配の下にあることを示す、通常の一般的な意味で用いられているように思われる。

「彼は王たちを取り除き、王たちを立てられる」——彼は地のすべての君主たちに対して絶対的な支配権を持ち、その御意志のままの者を王座に着かせ、その御喜びのときに彼らを退けられる。これは疑いなく、夢の解き明かしにおいて彼に示されたことからダニエルに示唆され、彼の賛美の歌のこの部分の基礎とされた。彼はそのとき (Daniel 2:37-45を比較せよ)、神の御手の下に王国の最も重要な変革が起こるであろうことを見ており、これらの大きな将来の変化に深い感銘を受けて、思いのままにこれを行うことは神の特権であるというこの一般的な言明をしているのである。ネブカデネザルもまた、こう言ったとき、このことを感じ、これを認めるに至った。「いと高き者は人の国を治め、これをそのみこころのままに、だれにでも与えられる」(Daniel 4:17)。「彼は天の軍勢と地の住民との間で、みこころのままに行われる。だれもその手を止めることも、『何をしておられるのですか』と言うこともできない」(Daniel 4:32, Daniel 4:35)。この主張は、聖書の中で神の至高性と偉大さの証明として、しばしば神のためになされる。「高められることは東からでも、西からでも、南からでも来ない。神がさばきつかさであり、ある者を低くし、別の者を高くされる」(Psalm 75:6-7)。1 Samuel 2:7-8を比較せよ。このようにして、彼は、ヘブル民族に対する刑罰の目的を執行するにあたってセンナケリブをその御心のままに用いるために、彼に対する絶対的な支配を主張し (Isaiah 10:5-7)、また、バビロンに対するご自身の目的を執行し、ご自身の民をその地に回復させるために、クロスに対しても同様であった (Isaiah 45:1以下)。Isaiah 46:10-11も見よ。この仕方で、地のすべての王たちは彼の支配の下にあるとみなされうる。そして、もし神の計画が十分に理解されるならば、それぞれの者が、ご自身の計画をその成就へと前進させる上で何らかの重要な部分を果たすために、神の導きの下にその任命を受けたことが見出されるであろう。王座を占めた各々の支配者に関する神の正確な目的と、神がその時代に「彼を」王座に着かせることによって成し遂げようとされた正確な目的とを示す人間事象の歴史は、これまでに書かれたどの歴史よりもはるかに重要で価値あるものとなるであろう。クロス、センナケリブ、ピラト、ヘンリー八世、エドワード六世、ザクセン選帝侯のような多くの支配者については、彼らがなぜまさにその時代に生き、統治したのかの理由を見ることができる。そして、王座を占めたことのあるすべての人の場合について、神はご自身の偉大な計画の展開において、何らかの重要な目的を成し遂げることを持っておられたに違いないのである。

「彼は知者に知恵を与え……」——彼はすべてのまことの知恵と知識との源である。これは聖書の中でしばしば神のために主張される。Proverbs 2:6-7を比較せよ。

「主は知恵を与え、 その口から知識と悟りとが出てくる。 主は正しい者のために健全な知恵を蓄え、 直ぐに歩む者たちの盾となる」。

1 Kings 3:9-12; Exodus 31:3も見よ。神は、ご自身がすべての知恵と知識との源であると主張される。彼はもともとそれぞれの人の知性を造り、それを今あるものとされた。彼はその前に知識の道を開き、明晰な知覚を与え、その諸力が乱されないように保たれる。彼は示唆を与え、連想の法則を導き、心を重要な思想に固定し、真理の新しい興味深い観点をその前に開く力を持っておられる。そして、もし歴史が書けるとしたら、神がご自身の偉大な計画の展開における何らかの重要な目的に照らして各々の君主を王座に置かれたことが見出されるであろうのと同様に、書かれたすべての重要な天才的作品、技術におけるすべての発明、科学におけるすべての発見も、同様の目的のために、彼の支配の下にあったことがおそらく見られるであろう。彼は、そのような発見あるいは発明がなされる必要があったまさにその時に大いなる知性を創造し、出来事の経過によって世界をそれに備えられたので、その発見あるいは発明は、全体として見て、それがなされることが最も望ましいまさにその時に起こったのである。

「彼は深いこと、隠れたことをあらわにされる」——人が自分の力では測りきれず、彼がこれを知らされるまで覆い隠され、あるいは隠されている事がらのことである。ここに述べられていることは、前の節で断言されたことより一歩進んだものであり、別の種類の知識に関する。「前のもの」は、超自然的な仕方で助けられていない人の知性が本来及びうる範囲を超えないような知識に関係し、そのような場合にもすべての発見と発明は神に帰せられるべきことを断言した。「ここでのもの」は、人の諸力の自然の及ぶ範囲を完全に超え、超自然的な影響力を必要とする種類の知識、すなわちカルデヤ人や占星術師たちが明らかにする力があると主張したような事がらを指す。ここでの断言は、人の最高の知恵が当面の必要に応じきれないことを示すとき、神は、人が理解することが望ましいそれらの深い真理を明らかにすることがおできになる、ということである。一般的に適用すれば、これは啓示によって知らされた真理、すなわち人が助けられない自分の力だけでは決して発見しえなかった真理を指す。

「彼は暗やみにあることを知られる」——人には暗やみに包まれているように見え、どんな光もその上に照らしていないように見える事がらを、神は知っておられる、ということである。これは、文字どおりの夜の暗やみの中で人に隠されていることだけでなく、すべての神秘的なこと、人の探究の範囲を超えているすべてのこと、見えない諸世界に関するすべてのことを指しうる。宇宙の実に大きな部分は、現在、人の探究の範囲を完全に超えており、したがって当然ながら、人には暗いのである。

「光は彼とともに宿る」——「宿る」と訳された語 (שׁרא sherēʾ) は、本来、解く、縛めを解く、解決する――たとえば難問を (Daniel 5:16)――を意味し、次いで、旅人が夜の宿のために獣の荷を解くことに適用され、そこから、夜を過ごす、宿る、住まうを意味するようになった。それゆえ、その意味は、光は神とともに宿り、ふさわしい住処にあるのと同じようにそこにあり、神はそのただ中におられ、その周りのすべては光である、ということである。光は、送り出されるときには神から出て行き、集められるときには、神とともにあるのがそのふさわしい場所である。Job 38:19-20を比較せよ。

「光はどこに宿るのか、 その道はどこにあるのか。 暗やみはどこにあるのか、 その所はどこにあるのか。 あなたはこれをその境まで連れて行くことができるのか、 その家に至る道を知っているのか」。

その箇所の注解を見よ。また1 Timothy 6:16「近づくことのできない光の中に住まわれる」、1 John 1:5「神は光であり、神のうちには暗やみが少しもない」も比較せよ。

「私の先祖たちの神よ、私はあなたに感謝し、あなたをほめたたえます」——ここでのダニエルの「先祖たち」は、疑いなく彼自身の特定の祖先ではなく、ユダヤ民族全体を指す。「私の先祖たちの神」という句の意味は、神が彼らの守り手であり、彼らをその民とみなし、彼らに大きな恵みを賜った、ということである。ここで感謝の特別な根拠は、彼ら自身の国で預言者たちによってヘブルの民にしばしばご自身を啓示されたその同じ神が、今や、異国の捕囚の身にある彼らの民族の一人に、同じことをしてくださるへりくだりを示された、ということである。こうして賜った恵みは、ヘブルの民が、生まれた地から遠く離れていても忘れられておらず、捕囚の中にあってもなお神の恵みある介入を望みうることを示したという事実によって、いっそうの価値を持っていた。

「あなたは私に知恵と力とを賜ったからです」——ここでの「知恵」という語は、疑いなく、夢の性質と趣旨を明らかにするために今や彼に与えられた能力を指し、この問題が初めにゆだねられたあの自称する者たちよりはるかに優れた程度の知恵が彼に授けられたことを意味する。「力」 (カルデヤ語では力――גבוּרתא gebûrethâ') という語は、おそらく「知恵」と実質的に異なるものではない。それは夢を解き明かす「能力」を意味し、その務めが人の自然な能力を超えていたことを含意している。

「あなたは今、王の事がらを私たちに知らせてくださったからです」——すなわち、それが彼と彼の友たちに知らされた、ということである。彼は自分を彼らと共に数えている。特に彼に知らされたのであったが、彼らはその秘密が明らかにされるように彼と共に祈りを合わせ、共通の危険を分かち合っていたので、彼はそれが事実上彼らすべてに知らされたものとみなしたのである。

Therefore Daniel went in, unto Arioch - In view of the fact that the matter was now disclosed to him, he proposed to lay it before the king. This of course, he did not do directly, but through Arioch, who was entrusted with the execution of the decree to slay the wise men of Babylon. That officer would naturally have access to the king, and it was proper that a proposal to arrest the execution of the sentence should be made through his instrumentality. The Chaldee דנה כל־קבל kôl-qebēl denâh is, properly, "on this whole account " - or, "on this whole account because" - in accordance with the usually full and pleonastic mode of writing particles, Similar to the German "alldieweil," or the compound English "forasmuch as." The meaning is, that in view of the whole matter, he sought to lay the case before the king.

Destroy not the wise men of Babylon - That is, "Stay the execution of the sentence on them. Though they have failed to furnish the interpretation demanded, yet, as it can now be given, there is no occasion for the exercise of this severity." The ground of the sentence was that they could not interpret the dream. As the execution of the sentence involved Daniel and his friends, and as the reason why it was passed at all would now cease by his being able to furnish the required explanation, Daniel felt that it was a matter of mere justice that the execution of the sentence should cease altogether.

Bring me in before the king - It would seem from this that Daniel did not regard himself as having free access to the king, and he would not unceremoniously intrude himself into his presence. This verse confirms the interpretation given of Daniel 2:16, and makes it in the highest degree probable that this was the first occasion on which he was personally before the king in reference to this matter.

Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste - The Chaldee word used here implies "in tumultuous haste," as of one who was violently excited, or in a state of trepidation, from בהל bâhal - "to tremble, to be in trepidation." The trepidation in this case may have arisen from one or both of two causes:

(1) exultation, or joy, that the great secret was discovered; or

(2) joy that the effusion of blood might be stayed, and that there might be now no necessity to continue the execution of the sentence against the wise men.

I have found a man - Margin, as in Chaldee, "That I have found a man It is not to be supposed that Arioch had known anything of the application which Daniel had made to the king to delay the execution of the sentence Daniel 2:16, and, for anything that appears, he had suspended that execution on his own responsibility. Ignorant as he was, therefore, of any such arrangement, and viewing only his own agency in the matter, it was natural for him to go in and announce this as something entirely new to the king, and without suggesting that the execution of the sentence had been at all delayed. It was a most remarkable circumstance, and one which looks like a Divine interposition, that he should have been disposed to delay the execution of the sentence at all, so that Daniel could have an opportunity of showing whether he could not divulge the secret. All the circumstances of the case seem to imply that Arioch was not a man of a cruel disposition, but was disposed, as far as possible, to prevent the effusion of blood.

Of the captives of Judah - Margin, as in Chaldee, "of the children of the captivity." The word "Judah" here probably refers to the "country" rather than to the "people," and means that he was among those who had been brought from the land of Judah.

That will make known unto the king the interpretation - It is clear, from the whole narrative, that Arioch had great confidence in Daniel. All the "evidence" which he could halve that he would be able to make this known, must have been from the fact that Daniel "professed" to be able to do it; but such was his confidence in him that he had no doubt that he would be able to do it.

The king answered, and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar - See the notes at Daniel 1:7. The "king" may have addressed him by this name, and probably did during this interview. This was the name, it would seem, by which he was known in Babylon - a name which implied honor and respectability, as being conferred on one whom it was supposed the principal Babylonian divinity favored.

Art thou able to make known unto me the dream? - One of the first points in the difficulty was to recal "the dream itself," and hence, this was the first inquiry which the king presented. If he could not recal that, of course the matter was at an end, and the law would be suffered to take its course.

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded, cannot the wise men ... show unto the king - Daniel regarded it as a settled and indisputable point that the solution could not be hoped for from the Chaldean sages. The highest talent which the realm could furnish had been applied to, and had failed. It was clear, therefore, that there was no hope that the difficulty would be removed by human skill. Besides this, Daniel would seem also to intimate that the thing, from the necessity of the case, was beyond the compass of the human powers. Alike in reference to the question whether a forgotten dream could be recalled, and to the actual "signification" of a dream so remarkable as this, the whole matter was beyond the ability of man.

The wise men, the astrologers ... - On these words, see the notes at Daniel 1:20. All these words occur in that verse, except גזרין gâzerı̂yn - rendered "soothsayers." This is derived from גזר gezar - "to cut, to cut off;" and then "to decide, to determine;" and it is thus applied to those who decide or determine the fates or destiny of men; that is, those who "by casting nativities from the place of the stars at one's birth, and by various arts of computing and divining, foretold the fortunes and destinies of individuals." See Gesenius, "Com. z. Isa." 2:349-356, Section 4, Von den Chaldern und deren Astrologie. On p. 555, he has given a figure, showing how the heavens were "cut up," or "divided," by astrologers in the practice of their art. Compare the phrase numeri Babylonii, in Hor. "Carm." I. xi. 2. The Greek is γαζαρηνῶν gazarēnōn - the Chaldee word in Greek letters. This is one of the words - not very few in number - which the authors of the Greek version did not attempt to translate. Such words, however, are not useless, as they serve to throw light on the question how the Hebrew and Chaldee were pronounced before the vowel points were affixed to those languages.

But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets - One of the principal objects contemplated in all that occurred respecting this dream and its interpretation was, to direct the mind of the monarch to the true God, and to secure the acknowledgment of his supremacy. Hence, it was so ordered that those who were most eminent for wisdom, and who were regarded as the favorites of heaven, were constrained to confess their entire inability to explain the mystery. The way was thus prepared to show that he who "could" do this must be the true God, and must be worthy of adoration and praise. Thus prepared, the mind of the monarch was now directed by this pious Hebrew youth, though a captive, to a truth so momentous and important. His whole training, his modesty and his piety, all were combined to lead him to attribute whatever skill he might evince in so difficult a matter to the true God alone: and we can scarcely conceive of a more sublime object of contemplation than this young man, in the most magnificent court of the world, directing the thoughts of the most mighty monarch that then occupied a throne, to the existence and the perfections of the true God.

And maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar - Margin, "hath made." The translation in the text is more correct, for it was not true that he had as yet actually made these things known to the king. He had furnished intimations of what was to occur, but he had not yet been permitted to understand their signification.

What shall be in the latter days - Greek ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ep' eschatōn tōn hēmerōn - "in the last days." Vulgate, in novissimis temporibus - "in the last times." Chaldee, יומיא באחרית be'achărı̂yth yômayâ' - "in the after days;" or, as Faber expresses it, "in the afterhood of days." The phrase means what we should express by saying, "hereafter - in future times - in time to come." This phrase often has special reference to the times of the Messiah, as the last dispensation of things on the earth, or as that under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Compare the notes at Isaiah 2:2. It does not appear, however, to be used in that sense here, but it denotes merely "future" times. The phrase "the latter days," therefore, does not exactly convey the sense of the original. It is "future" days rather than "latter" days.

Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed - The phrase "visions of thy head" means conceptions or notions formed by the brain. It would seem from this, that, even in the time of Daniel, the brain was regarded as, in some sense, the organ of thinking, or that "thought" had its seat in the head. We are not to suppose that by the use of these different expressions Daniel meant to describe two things, or to intimate that Nebuchadnezzar had had visions which were distinct. What he saw might be described as a dream or a vision; it, in fact, had the nature of both.

Are these - "These which I now proceed to describe."

As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed - Margin, "up;" that is, thy thoughts ascended. The Chaldee is, "thy thoughts ascended" - סלקוּ selı̂qû. So the Greek: "Thy thoughts ascended (ἀνέβησαν anebēsan) upon thy couch." There is, evidently, some allusion to the thoughts "ascending," or "going up;" and perhaps the idea is, that they were employed on important subjects - an idea which we now express by saying that one's thoughts are "elevated," as contrasted with those which are "low" and "grovelling."

What should come to pass hereafter - It would seem most probable from this, that the thoughts of Nebuchadnezzar were occupied with this subject in his waking moments on his bed, and that the dream was grafted on this train of thought when he fell asleep. Nothing is more probable than that his thoughts might be thus occupied. The question respecting his successor; the changes which might occur; the possibility of revolutions in other kingdoms, or in the provinces of his own vast empire, all were topics on which his mind would probably be employed. As God designed, too, to fix his thoughts particularly on that general subjects the changes which were to occur in his empire - such an occasion, when his attention was greatly engrossed with the subject, would be very suitable to impart the knowledge which he did by this vision. Daniel refers to this, probably, because it would do much to confirm the monarch in the belief of his inspiration, if he referred to the train of thought which had preceded the dream; as it is not improbable that the king would remember his "waking" thoughts on the subject, though his "dream" was forgotten.

But as for me - So far as I am concerned in this matter, or whatever skill or wisdom I may evince in the interpretation, it is not to be traced to myself. The previous verse commences with the expression "as for thee;" and in this verse, by the phrase "as for me," Daniel puts himself in strong contrast with the king. The way in which this was done was not such as to flatter the vanity of the king, and cannot be regarded as the art of the courtier, and yet it was such as would be universally adopted to conciliate his favor, and to give him an elevated idea of the modesty and piety of the youthful Daniel. In the previous verse he says, that, as to what pertained to the king, God had greatly honored him by giving him important intimations of what was yet to occur. Occupying the position which he did, it might be supposed that it would not be wholly unnatural that he should be thus favored, and Daniel does not say, as in his own case, that it was not on account of anything in the character and rank of the king that this had been communicated to him. But when he comes to speak of himself - a youth; a captive; a stranger in Babylon; a native of another land - nothing was more natural or proper than that he should state distinctly that it was not on account of anything in him that this was done.

This secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living - That is, "it is not "by" any wisdom which I have above others, nor is it "on account of" any previous wisdom which I have possessed or manifested." There is an absolute and total disclaimer of the idea that it was in any sense, or in any way, on account of his own superiority in wisdom. All the knowledge which he had in the case was to be traced entirely to God.

But for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king - Margin, "or, the intent that the interpretation may be made known." The margin is the more correct rendering, and should have been admitted into the text. The literal translation is, "but (להן lâhēn) on account of the thing that they might make known the interpretation to the king." The word rendered "make known" is indeed in the plural, but it is evidently used in an impersonal sense, meaning that the interpretation would be made known. "It was to the intent that they might make it known;" that is, that somebody might do it, or that it might be done. Would not modesty and delicacy lead to the choice of such an expression here, inclining Daniel to avoid, as far as possible, all mention of himself? The main thought is, that the grand object to be secured was not to glorify Daniel, or any other human being, but to communicate to this pagan monarch important truths respecting coming events, and through him to the world.

And that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart - In reference to this matter; that is, that he might be able to recal the thoughts which passed through his mind in the dream. This Daniel 2:27-30 is the introduction to the important disclosure which Daniel was about to make to the king. This entire disclaimer of the honor of having originated the interpretation by his own wisdom, and the ascribing of it to God, are worthy here of special attention. It is probable that the magicians were accustomed to ascribe to their own skill and sagacity the ability to interpret dreams and the other prognostics of the future, and to claim special honor on that account. In opposition to this, Daniel utterly disclaims any such wisdom himself, and attributes the skill which he has entirely to God. This is a beautiful illustration of the nature of modesty and piety. It places before us a young man, having now the prospect of being elevated to great honors; under every temptation to arrogate the possession of extraordinary wisdom to himself; suddenly exalted above all the sages of the most splendid court on earth, disclaiming all merit, and declaring in the most solemn manner that whatever profound wisdom there might be in the communication which he was about to make, it was not in the slightest degree to be traced to himself. See the remarks at the end of the chapter, (6.)

Thou, O king, sawest - Margin, "wast seeing." The margin is in accordance with the Chaldee. The language is properly what denotes a prolonged or attentive observation. He was in an attitude favorable to vision, or was looking with intensity, and there appeared before him this remarkable image. Compare Daniel 7:1-2, Daniel 7:4, Daniel 7:6. It was not a thing which appeared for a moment, and then vanished, but which remained so long that he could contemplate it with accuracy.

And, behold, a great image - Chaldee, "one image that was grand" - שׂגיא חד צלם tselēm chad s'agı̂y'. So the Vulgate - statua una grandis. So the Greek - εἰκὼν μία eikōn mia. The object seems to be to fix the attention on the fact that there was but "one" image, though composed of so different materials, and of materials that seemed to be so little fitted to be worked together into the same statue. The idea, by its being represented as "one," is, that it was, in some respects, "the same kingdom" that he saw symbolized: that is, that it would extend over the same countries, and could be, in some sense, regarded as a prolongation of the same empire. There was so much of "identity," though different in many respects, that it could be represented as "one." The word rendered "image" (צלם tselem) denotes properly "a shade," or "shadow," and then anything that "shadows forth," or that represents anything.

It is applied to man Genesis 1:27 as shadowing forth, or representing God; that is, there was something in man when he was created which had so far a resemblance to God that he might be regarded as an "image" of him. The word is often used to denote idols - as supposed to be a "representation" of the gods, either in their forms, or as shadowing forth their character as majestic, stern, mild, severe, merciful, etc. Numbers 33:52; 1 Samuel 6:5; 2 Kings 11:18; 2 Chronicles 23:17; Ezekiel 7:20; Ezekiel 16:17; Ezekiel 23:14; Amos 5:26. This image is not represented as an idol to be worshipped, nor in the use of the word is it to be supposed that there is an allusion, as Prof. Bush supposes, to the fact that these kingdoms would be idolatrous, but the word is used in its proper and primitive sense, to denote something which would "represent," or "shadow forth," the kingdoms which would exist. The exact "size" of the image is not mentioned. It is only suggested that it was great - a proper characteristic to represent the "greatness" of the kingdoms to which it referred.

This great image - The word here rendered "great" (רב rab) is different from that used in the previous clause, though it is not easy to determine the exact difference between the words. Both denote that the image was of gigantic dimensions. It is well remarked by Prof. Bush, that "the monuments of antiquity sufficiently evince that the humor prevailed throughout the East, and still more in Egypt, of constructing enormous statues, which were usually dedicated to some of their deities, and connected with their worship. The object, therefore, now presented in the monarch's dream was not, probably, entirely new to his thoughts."

Whose brightness was excellent - "Whose brightness "excelled," or was unusual and remarkable." The word rendered brightness (זיו zı̂yv) is found only in Daniel. It is rendered "brightness" in Daniel 2:31; Daniel 4:36, and in the margin in Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9; and "countenance" in Daniel 5:6 (text), and in Daniel 2:9-10; Daniel 7:28. From the places where it is found, particularly Daniel 4:36, it is clear that it is used to denote a certain beauty, or majesty, shining forth in the countenance, which was fitted to impress the beholder with awe. The term here is to be understood not merely of the face of the image, but of its entire aspect, as having something in it signally splendid and imposing. We have only to conceive of a colossal statue whose head was burnished gold, and a large part of whose frame was polished silver, to see the force of this language.

Stood before thee - It stood over against him in full view. He had an opportunity of surveying it clearly and distinctly.

And the form thereof was terrible - Vast, imposing, grand, fearful. The sudden appearance of such an object as this could not but fill the mind with terror. The design for which this representation was made to Nebuchadnezzar is clearly unfolded in the explanation which Daniel gives. It may be remarked here, in general, that such an appearance of a gigantic image was well adapted to represent successive kingdoms, and that the representation was in accordance with the spirit of ancient times. "In ancient coins and medals," says the editor of the "Pictorial Bible," "nothing is more common than to see cities and nations represented by human figures, male or female. According to the ideas which suggested such symbols, a vast image in the human figure was, therefore, a very fit emblem of sovereign power and dominion; while the materials of which it was composed did most significantly typify the character of the various empires, the succession of which was foreshown by this vision. This last idea, of expressing the condition of things by metallic symbols, was prevalent before the time of Daniel. Hesiod, who lived about two centuries before Daniel, characterizes the succession of ages (four) by the very same metals - gold, silver, brass, and iron."

This image's head was of fine gold - Chaldee, "good gold" - טב דהב dehab ṭâb - that is, fine, pure, unalloyed. The whole head of the figure, colossal as it was, appeared to be composed wholly of this. Had the "whole" image been made of gold, it would not have been so striking - for it was not uncommon to construct vast statues of this metal. Compare Daniel 3:1. But the remarkable peculiarity of this image was, that it was composed of different materials, some of which were seldom or never used in such a structure, and all of which had a peculiar significancy. On the significancy of this part of the figure, and the resemblance between this head of gold and Nebuchadnezzar himself, see the notes at Daniel 2:37-38.

His breast and his arms of silver - The word rendered "breast" (חדין chădı̂y) is in the plural number, in accordance with common usage in the Hebrew, by which several members of the human body are often expressed in the plural; as פנים pânı̂ym - "faces," etc. There is a foundation for such a usage in nature, in the two-fold form of many of the portions of the human body. The portion of the body which is here represented is obviously the upper portion of the front part - what is prominently visible when we look at the human frame. Next to the head it is the most important part, as it embraces most of the vital organs. Some degree of inferiority, as well as the idea of succession, would be naturally represented by this. "The inferior value of silver as compared with gold will naturally suggest some degree of decline or degeneracy in the character of the subject represented by the metal; and so in other members, as we proceed downward, as the material becomes continually baser, we naturally infer that the subject deteriorates, in some sense, in the like manner." - Professor Bush, in loc. On the kingdom represented by this, and the propriety of this representation, see the notes at Daniel 2:39.

His belly and his thighs of brass - Margin, "sides." It is not necessary to enter minutely into an examination of the words here used. The word "belly" denotes, unquestionably, the regions of the abdomen as externally visible. The word rendered "thighs" in the text is rendered "sides" in the margin. It is, like the word "breast" in the previous verse, in the plural number and for the same reason. The Hebrew word (ירך yârêk) is commonly rendered "thigh" in the Scriptures (Genesis 24:2, Genesis 24:9; Genesis 32:25 (26), 31, 32(32, 33), et al.), though it is also frequently rendered "side," Exodus 32:27; Exodus 40:22, Exodus 40:24; Leviticus 1:11; Numbers 3:29, et al. According to Gesenius, it denotes "the thick and double fleshy member which commences at the bottom of the spine, and extends to the lower legs." It is that part on which the sword was formerly worn, Exodus 32:27; Judges 3:16, Judges 3:21; Psalm 45:3 (4). It is also that part which was smitten, as an expression of mourning or of indignation, Jeremiah 31:19; Ezekiel 21:12 (17). Compare Hom. Iliad xii. 162, xv. 397; Odyssey xiii. 198; Cic. 150: "Orat." 80; "Quinc." xi. 3. It is not improperly here rendered "thighs," and the portion of the figure that was of brass was that between the breast and the lower legs, or extended from the breast to the knees. The word is elsewhere employed to denote the shaft or main trunk of the golden candlestick of the tabernacle, Exodus 25:31; Exodus 37:17; Numbers 8:4.

Of brass - An inferior metal, and denoting a kingdom of inferior power or excellence. On the kingdom represented by this, see the notes at Daniel 2:39.

His legs of iron - The portion of the lower limbs from the knees to the ankles. This is undoubtedly the usual meaning of the English word "legs," and it as clearly appears to be the sense of the original word here. Iron was regarded as inferior to either of the other metals specified, and yet was well adapted to denote a kingdom of a particular kind - less noble in some respects, and yet hardy, powerful, and adapted to tread down the world by conquest. On the application of this, see the notes at Daniel 2:40.

His feet part of iron and part of clay - As to his feet; or in respect to his feet, they were partly of iron and partly of clay - a mixture denoting great strength, united with what is fragile and weak. The word rendered "clay" in this place (חסף chăsaph) is found nowhere else except in this chapter, and is always rendered "clay," Daniel 2:33-35, Daniel 2:41 (twice), 42, 43 (twice), 45. In some instances Daniel 2:41, Daniel 2:43, the epithet "miry" is applied to it. This would seem to imply that it was not "burnt or baked clay," or "earthenware," as Professor Bush supposes, but clay in its natural state. The idea would seem to be, that the framework, so to speak, was iron, with clay worked in, or filling up the interstices, so as to furnish an image of strength combined with what is weak. That it would be well adapted represent a kingdom that had many elements of permanency in it, yet that was combined with things that made it weak - a mixture of what was powerful with what was liable to be crushed; capable of putting forth great efforts, and of sustaining great shocks, and yet having such elements of feebleness and decay as to make it liable to be overthrown. For the application of this, see the notes at Daniel 2:41-43.

Thou sawest - Chaldee, "Thou wast seeing;" that is, thou didst continue to behold, implying that the vision was of somewhat long continuance. It did not appear and then suddenly vanish, but it remained so long that he had an opportunity of careful observation.

Till that a stone was cut out without hands - That is, from a mountain or hill, Daniel 2:45. This idea is expressed in the Latin and the Greek version. The vision appears to have been that of a colossal image "standing on a plain" in the vicinity of a mountain, standing firm, until, by some unseen agency, and in an unaccountable manner, a stone became detached from the mountain, and was made to impinge against it. The margin here is, "which was not in his hands." The more correct rendering of the Chaldee, however, is that in the text, literally, "a stone was cut out which was not by hands" - בידין bı̂ydayı̂n: or perhaps still more accurately, "a stone was cut out which was not in hands," so that the fact that it was not in or by "hands" refers rather to its not being projected by hands than to the manner of its being detached from the mountain. The essential idea is, that the agency of hands did not appear at all in the case. The stone seemed to be self-moved. It became detached from the mountain, and, as if instinct with life, struck the image and demolished it. The word rendered "stone" ( אבן 'eben) determines nothing as to the "size" of the stone, but the whole statement would seem to imply that it was not of large dimensions. It struck upon "the feet" of the image, and it "became" itself a great mountain Daniel 2:35 - all which would seem to imply that it was at first not large. What increased the astonishment of the monarch was, that a stone of such dimensions should have been adequate to overthrow so gigantic a statue, and to grind it to powder. The points on which it was clearly intended to fix the attention of the monarch, and which made the vision so significant and remarkable, were these:

(a) the colossal size and firmness of the image;

(b) the fact that a stone, not of large size, should be seen to be selfdetached from the mountain, and to move against the image;

(c) the fact that it should completely demolish and pulverize the colossal figure; and

(d) the fact that then this stone of inconsiderable size should be itself mysteriously augmented until it filled the world.

It should be added, that the vision appears not to have been that of a stone detached from the side of a hill, and rolling down the mountain by the force of gravitation, but that of a stone detached, and then moving off toward the image as if it had been thrown from a hand, though the hand was unseen. This would very strikingly and appropriately express the idea of something, apparently small in its origin, that was impelled by a cause that was unseen, and that bore with mighty force upon an object of colossal magnitude, by an agency that could not be explained by the causes that usually operate. For the application and pertinency of this, see the notes at Daniel 2:44-45.

Which smote the image upon his feet - The word here used (מחא mechâ') means, to "strike," to "smite," without reference to the question whether it is a single blow, or whether the blow is often repeated. The Hebrew word (מחא mâchâ') is uniformly used as refering to "the clapping of the hands;" that is, smiting them together, Psalm 98:8; Isaiah 55:12; Ezekiel 25:6. The Chaldee word is used only here and in Daniel 2:35, referring to the smiting of the image, and in Daniel 4:35 (32), where it is rendered "stay" - "none can stay his hand." The connection here, and the whole statement, would seem to demand the sense of a continued or prolonged smiting, or of repeated blows, rather than a single concussion. The great image was not only thrown down, but there was a subsequent process of "comminution," independent of what would have been produced by the fall. A fall would only have broken it into large blocks or fragments; but this continued smiting reduced it to powder. This would imply, therefore, not only a single shock, or violent blow, but some cause continuing to operate until what had been overthrown was effectually destroyed, like a vast image reduced to impalpable powder. The "first concussion" on the feet made it certain that the colossal frame would fall; but there was a longer process necessary before the whole effect should be accomplished. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:44-45.

And brake them to pieces - In Daniel 2:35, the idea is, "they became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors." The meaning is not that the image was broken to "fragments," but that it was "beaten fine" - reduced to powder - so that it might be scattered by the wind. This is the sense of the Chaldee word (דקק deqaq), and of the Hebrew word also (דקק dâqaq). See Exodus 32:20 : "And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder." Deuteronomy 9:21 : "and I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust." Isaiah 41:15 : "thou shalt thresh the mountains and "beat them small," and shalt make the hills as chaff." 2 Kings 23:15 : "he burnt the high place, and "stamped" it "small" to powder." 2 Chronicles 34:4 : "and they brake down the altars, etc., and "made dust" of them, and strewed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them." Compare Exodus 30:36; 2 Chronicles 34:7; 2 Kings 23:6. From these passages it is clear that the general meaning of the word is that of reducing anything to fine dust or powder, so that it may be easily blown about by the wind.

Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor - The word rendered "together" (כצרה kachădâh) our translators would seem to have understood as referring to "time;" to its being done simultaneously. The more literal interpretation, however, is, "as one;" that is, "they were beaten small as one," referring to identity of condition. They were all reduced to one indiscriminate mass; to such a mass that the original materials could no longer be distinguished, and would all be blown away together. The literal meaning of the word (חד chad used and חדה chădâh) is, "one," or "first." Ezra 4:8, "wrote a letter;" Ezra 5:13, "in the first year of Cyrus;" Ezra 6:2, "a roll;" Daniel 2:9; "there is but one decree for you;" Daniel 3:19, "heat the furnace one seven times hotter," etc. United with the preposition (כ k) it means "as one," like the Hebrew כאחד ke'echâd) - Ecclesiastes 11:6; 2 Chronicles 5:13; Ezra 2:64; Ezra 3:9; Isaiah 65:25. The phrase "chaff of the summer threshing-floors" refers to the mode of winnowing grain in the East. This was done in the open air, usually on an elevated place, by throwing the grain, when thrashed, into the air with a shovel, and the wind thus drove away the chaff. Such chaff, therefore, naturally became an emblem of anything that was light, and that would be easily dissipated. See the notes at Isaiah 30:24; Matthew 3:12.

And the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them - They were entirely dissipated like chaff. As that seems to have no longer any place, but is carried we know not where, so the figure here would denote an entire annihilation of the power to which it refers.

And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth - The vision which was before the mind of the king as here represented was, that the stone which was cut out of the mountain was at first small, and that while he contemplated it, it swelled to larger dimensions, until it became an immense mountain - a mountain that filled the whole land. It was this which, perhaps more than anything else, excited his wonder, that a stone, at first of so small dimensions, should of itself so increase as to surpass the size of the mountain from which it was cut, until it occupied every place in view. Everything about it was so remarkable and unusual, that it was no wonder that he could not explain it. We have now gone over a description of the literal vision as it appeared to the mind of the monarch. Had it been left here, it is clear that it would have been of difficult interpretation, and possibly the true explanation might never have been suggested. We have, however, an exposition by Daniel, which leaves no doubt as to its design, and which was intended to carry the mind forward into some of the most important and remarkable events of history. A portion of his statement has been fulfilled; a part remains still unaccomplished, and a careful exposition of his account of the meaning of the vision will lead our thoughts to some of the most important historical events which have occurred in introducing the Christian dispensation, and to events still more important in the statement of what is yet to come.

This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king - Daniel here speaks in his own name, and in the name of his companions. Hence, he says, "we will tell the interpretation." It was in answer to their united supplications Daniel 2:18, that this meaning of the vision had been made known to him; and it would not only have been a violation of the rules of modesty, but an unjust assumption, if Daniel had claimed the whole credit of the revelation to himself. Though he was the only one who addressed the king, yet he seems to have desired that it might be understood that he was not alone in the honor which God had conferred, and that he wished that his companions should be had in just remembrance. Compare Daniel 2:49.

Thou, O King, art a king of kings - The phrase "king of kings" is a Hebraism, to denote a supreme monarch, or one who has other kings under him as tributary, Ezra 7:12; Ezekiel 26:7. As such it is applied by way of eminence to the Son of God, in Revelation 17:14; Revelation 19:16. As here used, it means that Nebuchadnezzar ruled over tributary kings and princes, or that he was the most eminent of the kings of the earth. The scepter which he swayed was, in fact, extended over many nations that were once independent kingdoms, and the title here conferred on him was not one that was designed to flatter the monarch, but was a simple statement of what was an undoubted truth. Daniel would not withhold any title that was in accordance with reality, as he did not withhold any communication in accordance with reality that was adapted to humble the monarch.

For the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom ... - At the same time that Daniel gave him a title which might in itself have ministered to the pride of the monarch, he is careful to remind him that he held this title in virtue of no wisdom or power of his own. It was the true God who had conferred on him the sovereignty of these extensive realms, and it was one of the designs of this vision to show him that he held his power at his will, and that at his pleasure he could cause it to pass away. It was the forgetfulness of this, and the pride resulting from that forgetfulness, which led to the melancholy calamity which befel this haughty monarch, as recorded in Daniel 4.

And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heavens, hath he given into thy hand - This is evidently general language, and is not to be pressed literally. It is designed to say that he ruled over the whole world; that is, the world as then known. This is common language applied in the Scriptures to the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman kingdoms. Thus in Daniel 2:39, the third of these kingdoms, the Grecian, was to "bear rule over all the earth." Compare Daniel 8:5 : "And, as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth." So of the Roman empire, in Daniel 7:23 : "The fourth beast shall devour the whole earth." The declaration that his kingdom embraced the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air is a strong expression, meaning that he reigned over the whole world. A somewhat similar description of the extent of the empire of the king of Babylon occurs in Jeremiah 27:4-8 : "And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Thus shall ye say unto your masters; I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field I have given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand."

At the time referred to by Daniel, the scepter of Nebuchadnezzar a extended over all these realms, and the world was, in fact, placed substantially under one head. "All the ancient Eastern histories," says Bishop Newton, "almost are lost; but there are some fragments even of pagan historians yet preserved, which speak of this mighty conqueror and his extended empire. Berosus, in Josephus (Contra Apion, c. i. Section 19), says that he held in subjection Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Arabia, and by his exploits surpassed all the Chaldeans and Babylonians who reigned before him. Strabo asserts that this king among the Chaldeans was more celebrated than Hercules; that he proceeded as far as to the pillars of Hercules, and led his army out of Spain into Thrace and Pontus. But his empire, though of great extent, was not of long duration, for it ended in his grandson Belshazzar, not seventy years after the delivery of this prophecy, nor above twenty-three years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar." - Newton on the "Prophecies," pp. 186, 187.

Thou art this head of gold - The head of gold seen in the image represents thee as the sovereign of a vast empire. Compared with the other monarchs who are to succeed thee, thou art like gold compared with silver, and brass, and iron; or, compared with thy kingdom, theirs shall be as silver, brass, and iron compared with gold. It was common, at an early period, to speak of different ages of the world as resembling different metals. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:31. In reference to the expression before us, "Thou art this head of gold," it should be observed, that it is not probably to be confined to the monarch himself, but is rather spoken of him as the head of the empire; as representing the state; as an impersonation of that dynasty. The meaning is, that the Babylonian empire, as it existed under him, in its relation to the kingdoms which should succeed, was like the head of gold seen in the image as compared with the inferior metals that made up the remaining portions of the image. Daniel, as an interpreter, did not state in what the resemblance consisted, nor in what respects his empire could be likened to gold as compared with those which should follow. In the scanty details which we now have of the life of that monarch, and of the events of his reign, it may not be possible to see as clearly as would be desirable in what that resemblance consisted, or the full propriety of the appellation given to him. So far as may now be seen, the resemblance appears to have been in the following things:

(I) In respect to the empire itself of which he was the sovereign, as standing at the head of the others - the first in the line. This was not indeed the first kingdom, but the design here was not to give an account of all the empires on earth, but to take the world "as it was then," and to trace the successive changes which would occur preparatory to the establishment of the kingdom which should finally spread over the earth. Viewed in reference to this design, it was undoubtedly proper to designate the empire of Babylon "as the head." It not only stood before them in the order of time, but in such a relation that the others might be regarded as in some sort its successors; that is, "they would succeed it in swaying a general scepter over the world." In this respect they would resemble also the Babylonian. At the time here referred to, the dominion over which Nebuchadnezzar swayed his scepter was at the head of the nations; was the central power of the Pagan world; was the only empire that could claim to be universal. For a long period the kingdom of Babylon had been dependent on that of Assyria; and while Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire, Babylon was the head of a kingdom, in general subordinate to that of Assyria, until Nabopolassar, the immediate predecessor of Nebuchadnezzar, rendered the kingdom of Babylon independent of the Assyrians, and transferred the seat of empire to Babylon. This was about the year 626 before the Christian era. See "Universal History," vol. iii. pp. 412-415. Nebuchadnezzar, receiving this mighty kingdom, had carried his own arms to distant lands; had conquered India, Tyre, and Egypt; and, as would appear, all Northern Africa, as far as the pillars of Hercules, and, with quite unimportant exceptions, all the known world was subject to him.

(II) The appellation "head of gold" may have been given him on account of the splendor of his capital, and the magnificence of his court. In Isaiah 14:4, Babylon is called "the golden city." See the note at that place. In Isaiah 13:19, it is called "the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency." In Isaiah 47:5, it is called "the lady of kingdoms." In Jeremiah 51:13, it is spoken of as "abundant in treasures," and in Jeremiah 51:41, as "the praise of the whole earth." So in profane writers, Babylon has similar appellations. Thus, in Aesch. Per. 51, mention is made of Βαβυλὼν η ̓ πολύχρυσος Babulōn hē poluchrusos - "Babylon abounding in gold." The conquests of Nebuchadnezzar enabled him to bring to his capital the spoils of nations, and to enrich his capital above any other city on the earth. Accordingly, he gave himself to the work of adorning a city that should be worthy to be the head of universal empire, and succeeded in making it so splendid as to be regarded as one of the wonders of the world. His great work in adorning and strengthening his capital consisted, first, of the building of the immense walls of the city; second, of the tower of Belus; and third, of the hanging gardens. For a full description of these, see Prideaux's "Connections," vol. i. p. 232, following.

(III) The appellation may have been given him by comparison with the kingdoms which were to succeed him. In some respects - in extent and power - some one or more of them, as the Roman, might surpass his; but the appellation which was appropriate to them was not gold, but they would be best denoted by the inferior metals. Thus the Medo-Persian kingdom was less splendid than that of Babylon, and would be better represented by silver; the Macedonian, though more distinguished by its conquests, was less magnificent, and would be better represented by brass; and the Roman, though ultimately still more extensive in its conquests, and still more mighty in power, was less remarkable for splendor than strength, and would be better represented by iron. In magnificence, if not in power, the Babylonian surpassed them all; and hence, the propriety of the appellation, "head of gold."

(IV) It is possible that in this appellation there then may have been some reference to the character of the monarch himself. In Jeremiah 27:6, he is spoken of as the "servant of God," and it is clear that it was designed that a splendid mission was to be accomplished by him as under the Divine control, and in the preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah. Though he was proud and haughty as a monarch, yet his own personal character would compare favorably with that of many who succeeded him in these advancing kingdoms. Though his conquests were numerous, yet his career as a conqueror was not marked with cruelty, like that of many other warriors. He was not a mere conqueror. He loved also the arts of peace. He sought to embellish his capital, and to make it in outward magnificence and in the talent which he concentrated there, truly the capital of the world. Even Jerusalem he did not utterly destroy; but having secured a conquest over it, and removed from it what he desired should embellish his own capital, he still intended that it should be the subordinate head of an important province of his dominions, and placed on the throne one who was closely allied to the king who reigned there when he took the city.

But the appellation here, and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, are to be contemplated chiefly, like the kingdoms that succeeded, in their relation to redemption. It is in this aspect that the study of history becomes most interesting to a mind that regards all events as embraced in the eternal counsels of God, and it is undoubtedly with reference to this that the history of these kingdoms becomes in any way introduced into the inspired writings. All history may be contemplated under two aspects: in its secular bearing; and in its relation to the redemption of the world. In the former aspect, it has great and important uses. As furnishing lessons to statesmen; as showing the progress of society; as illustrating the effects of vice and immorality, and the evils of anarchy, ambition, and war; as recording and preserving the inventions in the arts, and as showing what are the best methods of civil government, and what conduces most to the happiness of a people, its value cannot well be overestimated.

But it is in its relations to the work of redeeming man that it acquires its chief value, and hence, the sacred volume is so much occupied with the histories of early nations. The rise and fall of every nation; the conquests and defeats which have occurred in past times, may all have had, and perhaps may yet be seen to have had, an important connection with the redemption of man - as being designed to put the world in a proper position for the coming of the Prince of Peace, or in some way to prepare the way for the final triumph of the gospel. This view gives a new and important aspect to history. It becomes an object in which all on earth who love the race and desire its redemption, and all in heaven, feel a deep concern. Every monarch; every warrior; every statesman; every man who, by his eloquence, bravery, or virtue, has contributed anything to the progress of the race, or who has in any way played an important part in the progress of the world's affairs, becomes a being on whom we can look with intense emotion; and in reference to every man of this character, it would be an interesting inquiry what he has done that has contributed to prepare the way for the introduction of the Mediatorial scheme, or to facilitate its progress through the world. In reference to this point, the monarch whose character is now before us seems to have been raised up, under an overruling Providence, to accomplish the following things:

(1) To inflict "punishment" on the revolted people of God for their numerous idolatries. See the book of Jeremiah, "passim." Hence, he led his armies to the land of Palestine; he swept away the people, and bore them into captivity; he burned the temple, destroyed the capital, and laid the land waste.

(2) He was the instrument, in the hand of God, of effectually purifying the Jewish nation from the sin of idolatry. It was for that sin eminently that they were carried away; and never in this world have the ends of punishment been better secured than in this instance. The chastisement was effectual. The Jewish nation has never since sunk into idolatry. If there have been individuals of that nation - of which, however, there is no certain evidence - who have become idolaters, yet as a people they have been preserved from it. More than two thousand five hundred years have since passed away; they have been wanderers and exiles in all lands; they have been persecuted, ridiculed, and oppressed on account of their religion; they have been placed under every possible inducement to conform to the religion around them, and yet, as professed worshippers of Jehovah, the God of their fathers, they have maintained their integrity, and neither promises nor threatenings, neither hopes nor fears, neither life nor death, have been sufficient to constrain the Hebrew people to bow the knee to an idol god.

(3) another object that seems to have been designed to be accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar in relation to Redemption was to gather the nations under one head preparatory to the coming of the Messiah. It will be seen in the remarks which will be made on the relation of the Roman empire to this work (see the notes at Daniel 2:40-43), that there were important reasons why this should be done. Preparatory to that, a succession of such kingdoms each swayed the scepter over the whole world, and when the Messiah came, the way was prepared for the easy and rapid propagation of the new religion to the remotest parts of the earth.

And after thee - This must mean "subsequently" to the reign, but it does not mean that the kingdom here referred to would "immediately" succeed his own reign, for that would not be true. The Medo-Persian empire did not come into the ascendency until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This occurred during the reign of Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, between whose reign and that of his grandfather there had intervened the reigns of Evil-merodach and Neriglissar; besides, as the remainder of the prophecy relating to the image refers to "kingdoms," and not to individual monarchs, it is clear that this also relates not primarily to Nebuchadnezzar as an individual, but as the head of a kingdom. The meaning is, that a kingdom would succeed that over which he reigned, so far inferior that it might be represented by silver as compared with gold.

Shall arise another kingdom - Chaldee, "shall stand up (תקוּם teqûm) another kingdom." This is language which would denote something different from a succession in the same dynasty, for that would be a mere "continuance of the same kingdom." The reference is evidently to a change of empire; and the language implies that there would be some revolution or conquest by which the existing kingdom would pass away, and another would succeed. Still there would be so much of sameness in respect to its occupying essentially the same territory, that it would be symbolized in the same image that appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. The kingdom here referred to was undoubtedly the Medo-Persian, established by Cyrus in the conquest of Babylon, which continued through the reigns of his successors until it was conquered by Alexander the Great. This kingdom succeeded that of Assyria or Babylon, 538 years b.c., to the overthrow of Darius Codomanus, 333 years b.c. It extended, of course, through the reigns of the Persian kings, who acted so important a part in the invasion of Greece, and whose defeats have given immortality to the names of Leonidas, Aristides, Miltiades, and Themistocles, and made the names of Salamis, Thermopylae, Marathon, and Leuctra so celebrated. For a general account of Cyrus, and the founding of the Medo-Persian empire, the reader is referred to the notes at Isaiah 41:2.

Inferior to thee - And therefore represented by silver as compared with gold. In what respects it would be inferior, Daniel does not specify, and this can only be learned from "the facts" which occurred in relation to that kingdom. All that is necessary to confirm the truth of the prophetic description is, that it was to be so far inferior as to make the appellation "silver" applicable to it in comparison with the kingdom of Babylon, represented by "gold." The expression would denote that there was a general decline or degeneracy in the character of the monarchs, and the general condition of the empire. There have been different opinions as to the inferiority of this kingdom to the Babylonian. Calvin supposes that it refers to degeneracy. Geir supposes that it relates to the duration of the kingdom - this continuing not more than two hundred and forty years; while the other, including the Assyrian, embraced a period of one thousand five hundred years. Polanus supposes that the meaning is, that the Babylonian had more rest and tranquility; while Junius, Willett, and others understand it of a milder and more humane treatment of the Jews by the Babylonians than the Persians. Perhaps, however, none of these opinions meet the circumstances of the case, for they de not furnish as full an account of the reasons of this inferiority as is desirable. In regard to this, it may be observed,

(a) that it is not to be supposed that this kingdom was to be in "all respects" inferior to the Babylonian, but only that it would have certain characteristics which would make it more appropriate to describe it as "silver" than as "gold." In certain other respects it might be far superior, as the Roman, though in the same general line of succession, was in extent and power superior to either, though there was still a reason why that should be represented by "iron," rather than by gold, by silver, or by brass.

(b) The inferiority did not relate to the power, the riches, or the territorial extent of the Medo-Persian empire, for it embraced, so far as appears, all that was comprehended in the Babylonian empire, and all in addition which was added by the conquests of Cyrus. In his proclamation to rebuild the temple Ezra 1:2, Cyrus speaks of the extent of his empire in language strongly resembling what is applied to the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth." Thus also it is said of AhaAhasuerus or Astyages, king of Media - a kingdom that constituted a part of the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus and his successors, that he "reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces." To the kingdom of Babylon, as he found it when he conquered it, Cyrus of course added the kingdoms of Media and Persia, to the crowns of which he was the heir (see the notes at Isaiah 41:2), and also the various provinces which he had conquered before he came to the throne; that is, Cappadocia, the kingdom of Lydia, and almost the whole of Asia Minor.

(c) Nor can it be supposed that the kingdom was inferior in regard to "wealth," for, in addition to all the wealth that Cyrus found in Babylon, he brought the spoils of his victories; the treasures in the possession of the crowns of Persia and Media, and all the wealth of Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, of which he had become possessor by conquest. In considering the "inferiority" of this kingdom, which made it proper that it should be represented by silver rather than by gold, it is to be borne in mind that the representation should embrace "the whole kingdom" in all the successive reigns, and not merely the kingdom as it was under the administration of Cyrus. Thus regarded, it will comprehend the succession of Persian monarchs until the time of the invasion and conquest of the East by Alexander the Great. The reign of Cyrus was indeed splendid; and if "he" alone, or if the kingdom during his administration, were contemplated, it would be difficult to assign a reason why an appellation should have been given to it implying any inferiority to that of Nebuchadnezzar. The "inferiority" of the kingdom, or what made it proper to represent it by silver rather than by gold, as compared with the kingdom of Babylon, may have consisted in the following particulars:

(1) In reference to the succession of kings who occupied the Persian throne. It is true that the character of Cyrus is worthy of the highest commendation, and that he was distinguished not only as a brave and successful conqueror, but as a mild, able, and upright civil ruler. Xenophon, who wished to draw the character of a model prince, made choice of Cyrus as the example; and though he has not improbably embellished his character by ascribing to him virtues drawn from his own fancy in some degree, yet there can be no doubt that in the main his description was drawn from the life. "The true reason," says Prideaux ("Connections," vol. i. p. 252, Ed. Charlestown, 1815), "why he chose the life of Cyrus before all others for the purpose above mentioned" (that of giving a description of what a worthy and just prince ought to be) "seemeth to be no other but that he found the true history of that excellent and gallant prince to be, above all others, the fittest for those maxims of right policy and true princely virtue to correspond with, which he grafted upon it." But he was succeeded by a madman, Cambyses, and by a race of kings eminent among princes for folly and crime. "The kings of Persia," says Prideaux, "were the worst race of men that ever governed an empire."

(2) The kingdom was inferior in reference to the remarkable "defeats" in the military campaigns which were undertaken. The Assyrian or Babylonian empire was distinguished for the victories by which it carried its arms around the then known world. The Medo-Persian empire, after the reign of Cyrus, was almost as remarkable for the succession of defeats which have made the period of the world during which the empire continued, so well known in history. It is probable that no kingdom ever undertook so many foolish projects in reference to the conquests of other nations - projects so unwisely planned, and that resulted in so signal failures. The successor of Cyrus, Cambyses, invaded Egypt, and his conduct there in carrying on the war was such as to make him be regarded as a madman. Enraged against the Ethiopians for an answer which they gave him when, under pretence of friendship, he sent spies to examine their country, he resolved to invade their territory.

Having come to Thebes, in Upper Egypt, he detached from his army fifty thousand men to go against the Hammonians, with orders to destroy their country, and to burn the temple of Jupiter Hammon that stood in it. After marching a few days in the desert, they were overwhelmed in the sands by a strong south wind, and all perished. Meantime Cambyses marched with the rest of his army against the Ethiopians, though he wanted all the means of subsistence for his army, until, having devoured all their beasts of burden, they were constrained to designate every tenth man of the army to be killed and eaten. In these deplorable circumstances, Cambyses returned to Thebes, having lost a great part of his army in this wild expedition. - Prideaux's "Con." i. 328. It was also during the continuance of this kingdom, that the ill-starred expeditions to Greece occurred, when Mardonius and Xerxes poured the million of Asia on the countries of Greece, and met such signal overthrows at Platea, Marathon, and Salamis. Such a series of disasters never before had occurred to invading armies, or made those who repelled invasion so illustrious. In this respect there was an evident propriety in speaking of this as an inferior or degenerate kingdom.

(3) It was inferior in respect to the growing degeneracy and effeminacy of character and morals. From the time of Xerxes (479 b.c.) "symptoms of decay and corruption were manifest in the empire; the national character gradually degenerated; the citizens were corrupted and enfeebled by luxury; and confided more in mercenary troops than in native valor and fidelity. The kings submitted to the control of their wives, or the creatures whom they raised to posts of distinction; and the satraps, from being civil functionaries, began to usurp military authority." - Lyman, "Hist. Chart."

(4) The kingdom was inferior by the gradual weakening of its power from internal causes. It was not only defeated in its attempts to invade others, and weakened by the degeneracy of the court and people, but, as a natural consequence, by the gradual lessening of the power of the central government, and the growing independence of the provinces. From the time of Darius Nothus (423 b.c.) - a weak, effeminate, and indolent prince - "the satraps of the distant provinces paid only a nominal obedience to the king. Many of them were, in fact, sovereigns over the countries over which they presided, and carried on wars against each other." - Lyman. It was from causes such as these that the power of the kingdom became gradually weakened, and that the way was prepared for the easy conquests of Alexander the Great. Their successive defeats, and this gradual degeneracy and weakening of the kingdom, show the propriety of the description given of the kingdom in the vision and the interpretation - that it would be an "inferior kingdom," a kingdom which, in comparison with that of Babylon, might be compared with silver as compared with gold.

Still it sustained an important relation to the progress of events in regard to the history of religion in the world, and had an important bearing on the redemption of man. As this is the most important bearing of history, and as it was doubtless with reference to this that the mention of it is introduced into the sacred Scriptures, and as it is, in fact, often alluded to by Isaiah, and in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and some of the minor prophets, it may be proper, in the most summary way, to alude to some of those things which pertain to the bearing of this kingdom on the great events connected with redemption, or to what was done during the continuance of this kingdom for the promotion of the true religion. A full account may be found in Prideaux's "Connections," part 1, books iii-vii. Compare Edwards' "History of Redemption," Period I, part vi. The particular things which occurred in connection with this kingdom bearing on the progress of religion, and favorable to its advancement, were these:

(a) The overthrow of Babylon, so long the formidable enemy of the ancient people of God.

(b) The restoration of the exiles to their own land under the auspices of Cyrus, Ezra 1:1.

(c) The rebuilding of the temple under the same auspices, and with the favor of the successors of Cyrus.

(d) The preparation of the world for the coming of the Messiah, in the agitations that took place during the continuance of the Persian monarchy; the invasion of Greece; the defeats there; the preparation by these defeats for the coming of Him who was so long promised as the "desire of all nations."

Compare Haggai 2:7 : "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house" (the temple erected under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors) "with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." There was a propriety, therefore, that this kingdom should receive a distinct notice in the sacred Scriptures, for some of the most important events connected with the history of true religion in the world occurred under the auspices of Cyrus and his successors, and perhaps at no period has there been more occasion to recognize the hand of God than in the influences exerted on the minds of those pagan princes, disposing them to be favorable to the long-oppressed children of God.

And another third kingdom of brass - See the notes at Daniel 2:32. The parts of the image which were of brass were the belly and thighs, denoting inferiority not only to the head, but to the part which immediately preceded it - the breast and the arms of silver. It is not, indeed, specified, as in the former case, that this kingdom would be inferior to the former, and it is only from the position assigned to it in the image, and the inferior quality of the metal by which it is represented, that it is implied that there would be any inferiority. There can be no reasonable doubt that by this third kingdom is denoted the empire founded by Alexander the Great - the Macedonian empire. It is known to all that he overthrew the Persian empire, and established a kingdom in the East, embracng substantially the same territory which had been occupied by the Medo-Persian and the Babylonian empire. While there can be no doubt that that kingdom is referred to, there can be as little that the reference is not merely to the empire during the reign of Alexander himself, but that it embraced the whole empire as founded and arranged by him, until it was succeeded by another universal empire - here denominated the fourth kingdom. The reasons for supposing that the Macedonian empire is referred to here are almost too obvious to require that they should be specified. They are such as these:

(1) This kingdom actually succeeded that of Mede-Persia, covering the same territory, and, like that, was then understood to be a universal monarchy.

(2) The empire of Alexander is elsewhere more than once referred to by Daniel in the same order, and in such a manner that the sense cannot be mistaken. Thus, in Daniel 8:21 : "And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power." Daniel 10:20 : "and now," said the man that appeared in vision to Daniel Dan 2:5, "will I retram to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come." Daniel 11:2-4 : "and now will I show thee the truth. Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to the kingdom that he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those." Since this kingdom is thus referred to elsewhere by Daniel in the same order, and as destined to act an important part in the affairs of the world, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a reference to it here.

(3) It is a circumstance of some importance that the emblem here by which this kingdom is represented, "brass," is one that is peculiarly appropriate to the Greeks, and one that could not be applied to any other naion with equal propriety. The Greeks were distinguished for their "brazen armor," and the appellation, the "brazen-coated Greeks" - χαλκοχιτώνες Ἀχαιοὶ chalkochitōnes Achaioi - is that by which they were designated most commonly by the ancients. - Iliad i. 371; ii. 47; Odyssey i. 286. In accordance with this, Josephus says ("Ant." b. x. c. 10, Section 4), τὴν δὲ ἐκεὶνων ἕτερος τις ἀπὸ δύσεως καθαιρήσει χαλκὸν ἠμφιεσμένος tēn de ekeinōn heteros tis apo duseōs kathairēsei chalkon ēmphiesmenos, - "their empire another shall come from the West, clothed with brass, shall destroy." These considerations leave no doubt that the kingdom here referred to was that Grecian or Macedonian, which, under Alexander, obtained dominion over all the East.

Which shall bear rule over all the earth - In a sense similar to that of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Medo-Persian empire. This is the common description of the empire of Alexander. He himself commanded that he should be called "the king of all the world." "Accepto deinde imperio, regem se terrarum omnium ac mundi appellari jussit" (Justin. l. 12, c. 16, Section 9) - "Having received the empire, he ordered himself to be called the king of all lands and of the world." Diodorus Siculus says that he received ambassadors from all countries; κατὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον ἐξ ἀπάσης σχεδόν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἦκον πρέσβεις, κ.τ.λ. kata de touton ton chronon ex apasē; schedon tēs oikoumenēs ēkon presbeis, etc. - "At which time, legates came to him from almost the whole habitable world." - L. 17, c. 113. So Arrian (Expedi. Alex. l. 7, c. 15) remarks, that "Alexander then appeared to himself, and to those around him, "to be lord of all the earth and of the sea" - γῆς τε ἁπάσης καὶ θαλάσσης κύριον gēs te hapasēs kai thalassēs kurion.

The author of the book of Maccabees gives a similar account of the extent of this kingdom: "And it came to pass, after that Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, had overthrown Darius, the king of the Persian and Medes, he fought many battles, and took the strongholds of all, and slew the kings of the earth; and he went through even to the ends of the earth; and took the spoil of many nations; and the earth was quiet before him," 1 Macc. 1:1-3. The propriety of saying that this "kingdom bore rule over all the earth" is, therefore, apparent. It embraced, of course, all that was anciently included in the Assyrian and Babylonian empires; all that had been added to that empire by the conquests of Cyrus, and also all that Alexander had added to it by his hereditary dominions, and by his conquests in other places. Nearly or quite all the known world, except what was then subject to the Romans, then just a rising power, was under the sway of Alexander. A question has been started whether this refers merely to the kingdom of Alexander during his own life, or whether it embraced also the succession of dynasties until the conquests of the Romans. That the latter is the correct opinion seems clear from the following considerations:

(1) It was true, as we have seen, of the two previous kingdoms specified the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian - that they embraced, not merely the kingdom under any one reigning monarch, but during its entire continuance until it was overthrown by one that had also pretensions to a universal empire - the former by the Medo-Persian, and the latter by the Macedonian. It is to be presumed that the same principles of interpretation are to be applied also to the Macedonian kingdom itself - especially as that was also actually succeeded by one that in a still higher sense laid claim to universal empire.

(2) This was, in fact, one kingdom. It is true that, on the death of Alexander, the empire which he founded was divided among four of his generals, and also that from that sprung the two reigns, the Seleucidae in Syria, and of the Lagidae who reigned in Egypt; but, as Newton has remarked, "their kingdom was no more a different kingdom from that of Alexander, than the parts differ from the whole. It was the same government still continued. Those who governed were still Macedonians. All ancient authors spoke of the kingdom of Alexander and of his successors as one and the same kingdom The thing is implied in the very name by which they are usually called, the "successors of Alexander." 'Alexander being dead,' says Josephus (Ant. b. xi. ch. 8, Section 7), 'the empire was divided among his successors.' 'After the death of Alexander,' says Justin (lib. xli. c. 4, Section 1), 'the kingdoms of the East were divided among his successors;' and he still denominates them Macedonians, and their empire the Macedonian." - Newton "on the Prophecies," pp. 189, 190.

In regard to the point before adverted to in reference to the kingdoms of Babylon and of Medo-Persia - the relation which they sustained to religion, or the methods in which they were made to contribute to its progress in the world, making it proper that they should be noticed in the volume of inspiration, it may be remarked that the Macedonian kingdom was also designed, undoubtedly, under an overruling Providence, to contribute to the progress of the great work of human redemption, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah. A full statement of what was done under this reign in respect to religion - the most interesting aspect of history - may be seen in Edwards' "History of Redemption," pp. 271-275, and in Prideaux's "Connections," vol. ii. p. 279, "seq." The kingdom here referred to - the Macedonian, represented here by the portion of the image that was of brass, and in the vision of the four beasts Daniel 7 by a leopard that had on its back the wings of a fowl, and in Daniel 8:21, by the rough goat - continued from the overthrow of Darius Codomanus by Alexander (333 b.c.), to the conquest of Syria, and the East, by the Romans under Pompey, about sixty-six years before the birth of the Saviour. The principal events during this period affecting the interests of religion, and preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah, were the following:

I. The extensive diffusion of the knowledge of the Greek language. The army of Alexander was mainly composed of Greeks. The Greek language was, of course, what was spoken by the court, and in the cities which he founded; the despatches were in Greek; that language would be extensively cultivated to gratify those in power; and the successors of Alexander were those who used the Greek tongue. The consequence was, that the Greek language was extensively spread over the countries which were subdued by Alexander, and which were governed by his successors. That language became the popular tongue; a sort of universal language understood by the great mass of the people, in a manner not unlike the French in Europe at the present day. The effect of this, in preparing for the introduction of the gospel, was seen in two respects:

(a) In facilitating the "preaching" of the gospel. It is true that the apostles had the gift of tongues, and that there was, notwithstanding the prevalence of the Greek language, occasion for this. But there is no evidence that this was conferred on "all" the early preachers of the gospel, nor is it certain that those on whom it "was" conferred were able to make use of it on all occasions. It is not improbable that, in their ordinary labors, the apostles and others were left to rely on their natural endowments, and to use the language to which they had been most accustomed. As there was, therefore, a common language in most of the countries in which the gospel would be proclaimed, it is evident that the propagation of religion would be greatly facilitated by this, and there can be no doubt that it was "one" of the designs of Providence in permitting the Macedonian conquest thus to prepare the way for the more easy and rapid diffusion of the new religion.

(b) In like manner, this conquest prepared the way "for the permanent record" of the history of the Saviour's life, and the doctrines of religion in the writings of the New Testament. It was evidently desirable, on many accounts, that the records should be made in one language rather than in many, and of all the languages then spoken on the earth, the "Greek" was the best adapted to such a purpose. It was not only the most polished and cultivated, but it was the most copious; and it was the best fitted to express abstract ideas, and accurate distinctions. Probably with all the improvements since made in the copious Arabic language, and in the languages of modern times, there never has been one that was so well fitted for the purposes of a Divine revelation as the Greek. It may have been one design of Providence, in the extensive and accurate cultivation of that language in Greece itself, as well as in its diffusion over the world, that there should be at the time of the introduction of the Christian revelation a medium of permanent record that should be as free from imperfection as language could be; a medium also in which there should be so much permanent and valuable literature that, even after it should cease to be a spoken language, it would be cultivated by the whole literary world, thus furnishing the means of an accurate knowledge of the meaning of the sacred writings.

II. The translation of the Old Testament into the same language was another important event, which took place during the continuance of this kingdom, which greatly facilitated the introduction and spread of Christianity. The Hebrew language was understood by comparatively few. It ceased to be spoken in its purity after the time of the captivity. In that language the Scriptures of the Old Testament would have been but little diffused in the world. By their being translated, however, into Greek, they became extensively known, and furnished a ready and an intelligible ground of appeal to the preachers of the new religion when they referred to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and the recorded predictions of the Messiah. For a full account of the history of this version, the reader may consult Prideaux's "Connections," vol. iii. p. 53, following. It was made according to Archbishop Usher, about 277 b.c. The probability is, that it was made at different periods, and by different hands, as it is executed with very various degrees of ability. See Introduction to Isaiah, Section viii. I.((1), for a more extended account of this version and its value. There can be no doubt that it contributed much to the diffusion of the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and was an important instrument in preparing the world for the reception of the revelation that should be made by the Messiah.

III. Events of great importance occurred dating the continuance of this kingdom in preserving the Jewish people in times of persecution, and saving their city and temple from ruin. and their nation from extinction.

(a) The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was threatened by Alexander himself. After the siege and capture of Tyre, he became enraged at the Jews for refusing to furnish supplies for his army during the siege, under the plea that they were bound to show allegiance to Darius, and he marched to Jerusalem with an intention to take and destroy it. In order to appease him, it is said that Jaddua, the high priest, went out to meet him in his pontifical robes, at the head of a procession of priests, and accompanied by the people in white garments. Alexander was so impressed with the scene that, to the surprise of all, he spared the city and temple; and on being asked by Parmenio the reason of this clemency, said that he had seen this person in vision, who had directed him to lay aside all anxiety about his contemplated expedition to Asia, and that he had promised that God would give him the empire of the Persians. According to the story, Jaddua showed him the prophecies of Daniel, and confirmed him by those prophecies in the confident expectation of conquering the East; and in view of this, Alexander offered sacrifices in the temple, and granted to the Hebrews the freedom of their country, and the exercise of their laws and religion. See Prideaux, vol. ii. p. 302, following; Josephus, "Ant." b. xi. ch. 8. Whatever of fable there may be in this account, it is certain that this city and temple were not destroyed by Alexander, but that in his ravages in the East, he was led, by some cause, to deal with the capital of the Hebrew nation in a masher different from what he did with others.

(b) A remarkable preservation of the Jewish people, of a somewhat similar character, and evincing the protection of God, occurred during the great persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the successors of Alexander, in the time of the Maccabees. See Prideaux, vol. iii. p. 230, and 2 Macc. 5:11-27. In the times of that celebrated persecution, multitudes of the Jews were slain by Antiochus himself; the city was taken, and the temple defiled. Three years after it was taken by Antiochus (168 b.c.), Apollonius was directed by him to march against the city to vent his wrath on the Jews; and when the people were assembled in their synagogues for worship, he let loose his forces on them, with a command to slay all the men, and to take all the women and children captives to be sold as slaves. After this, he plundered the city, demolished the houses, and pulled down the walls, and then with the ruins of the demolished city built a strong fortress on the top of an eminence in the city of David, in a place which overlooked the temple, and placed a strong garrison within. From this place attacks were made on all who went up to the temple to worship; and the temple was defiled with all manner of pollutions, until it was deserted, and the daily sacrifices ceased. From these calamities and persecutions, the city and the Jewish nation were delivered by the valor of Judas Maccabeus, in the manner detailed in the first book of Maccabees.

And the fourth kingdom - Represented in the image by the legs of iron, and the feet "part of iron, and part of clay," Daniel 2:33. The first question which arises here is, what kingdom is referred to by this? In regard to this, there have been two leading opinions: one, that it refers to the Roman empire; the other, that it refers to the kingdoms or dynasties that immediately succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great; embracing the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, Syria, and Egypt - in the language of Prof. Stuart, who adopts this opinion, "that the legs and feet were symbols of that intermingled and confused empire which sprung up under the Grecian chiefs who finally succeeded him," (Alexander the Great). - "Com. on Daniel," p. 173. For the reasoning by which this opinion is supported, see Prof. Stuart, pp. 173-193. The common opinion has been, that the reference is to the Roman empire, and in support of this opinion the following conditions may be suggested:

(1) The obvious design of the image was to symbolize the succession of great monarchies, which would precede the setting up of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and which would have an important agency in preparing the world for that. The Roman empire was in itself too important, and performed too important an agency in preparing the world for that, to be omitted in such an enumeration.

(2) The kingdom here referred to was to be in existence at the time symbolized by the cutting of the stone out of the mountain, for, during the continuance of that kingdom, or under it, "the God of heaven was to set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed," Daniel 2:44. But the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Lagidae - the "intermingled and confused empires that sprang up" after Alexander the Great - had ceased before that time, being superseded by the Roman.

(3) unless the Roman power be represented, the symmetry of the image is destroyed, for it would make what was, in fact, one kingdom represented by two different metals - brass and iron. We have seen above that the Babylonian empire was represented appropriately by gold; the Medo-Persian by silver; and the Macedonian by brass. We have seen also, that in fact the empire founded by Alexander, and continued through his successors in Syria and Egypt, was in fact one kingdom, so spoken of by the ancients, and being in fact a "Greek" dynasty. If the appellation of "brass" belonged to that kingdom as a Greek kingdom, there is an obvious incongruity, and a departure from the method of interpreting the other portions of the image, in applying the term "iron" to any portion of that kingdom.

(4) By the application of the term "iron," it is evidently implied that the kingdom thus referred to would be distinguished for "strength" - strength greater than its predecessors - as iron surpasses brass, and silver, and gold, in that quality. But this was not true of the confused reigns that immediately followed Alexander. They were unitedly weaker than the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian, and weaker than the empire of Alexander. out of which they arose. Compare Daniel 8:21-22. It was true, however, of the Roman power, that it was so much superior to all its predecessors in power, that it might well be represented by iron in comparison with brass, silver, and gold.

(5) The fourth monarchy represented in Nebuchadnezzars dream is evidently the same which is represented by the fourth beast in Daniel 7:7-8, Daniel 7:23, Daniel 7:25. But it will appear, from the exposition of that chapter, that the reference there is to the Roman empire. See the note at these passages. There can be no well-founded objection to this view on the ground that this kingdom was not properly a "succession" of the kingdom of Alexander, and did not occupy precisely the same territory. The same was true of each of the other kingdoms - the Medo-Persian and Macedonian. Yet while they were not, in the usual sense of the term, in the "successions," they did, in fact, follow one after the other; and with such accessions as were derived from conquest, and from the hereditary dominions of the conquerors, they did occupy the same territory. The design seems to have been to give a representation of a series of great monarchies, which would be, in an important sense, universal monarchies, and which should follow each other before the advent of the Saviour. The Roman, in addition to what it possessed in the West, actually occupied in the East substantially the same territory as the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian, and, like them, it had all the claims which any ancient sovereignty had to the title of a universal monarchy; indeed no kingdom has ever existed to which this title could with more justice be applied.

Shall be strong as iron - It is scarcely necessary to observe that this description is applicable to the Roman power. In nothing was it more remarkable than its "strength;" for that irresistible power before which all other nations were perfectly weak. This characteristic of the Roman power is thus noticed by Mr. Gibbon: "The arms of the Republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the "iron" monarchy of Rome." - "Dec. and Fall," p. 642, Lond. ed. 1830, as quoted by Prof. Bush.

Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things - Iron is the metal which is used, and always has been used, for the purpose here suggested. In the form of hammers, sledges, and cannon-balls, and, in general, in reference to the accomplishment of any purpose, by beating or battering, this has been found to be the most valuable of the metals. It is heavy, is capable of being easily wrought into desired shapes; is abundant; is susceptible of being made hard so as not to be itself bruised, and has therefore, all the properties which could be desired for purposes like this.

And as iron that breaketh all these - That is, all these things; to wit, everything. Nothing is able to stand before it; there is nothing which it cannot reduce to powder. There is some repetition here, but it is for the sake of emphasis.

Shall it break in pieces and bruise - Nothing could better characterize the Roman power than this. Everything was crushed before it. The nations which they conquered ceased to be kingdoms, and were reduced to provinces, and as kingdoms they were blotted out from the list of nations. This has been well described by Mr. Irving: "The Roman empire did beat down the constitution and establishment of all other kingdoms; abolishing their independence, and bringing them into the most entire subjection; humbling the pride, subjecting the will, using the property, and trampling upon the power and dignity of all other states. For by this was the Roman dominion distinguished from all the rest, that it was the work of almost as many centuries as those were of years; the fruit of a thousand battles in which million of men were slain. It made room for itself, as doth a battering-ram, by continual successive blows; and it ceased not to beat and bruise all nations, so long as they continued to offer any resistance." - "Discourse on Daniel's Visions," p. 180.

And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay and part of iron - Daniel 2:33. The Chaldee is, "of them clay of the potter, and of them iron;" that is, part was composed of one material and part of the other. The sense is, not that the feet were composed entirely of one, and the toes of the other, but that they were intermingled. There was no homogeneousness of material; nothing in one that would coalesce with the other, or that could be permanently united to it, as two metals might be fused or welded together and form one solid compound. Iron and clay cannot be welded; and the idea here clearly is, that in the empire here referred to there would be two main elements which could never be made to blend.

The kingdom shall be divided - That is, divided as the iron and clay were in the image. It does not necessarily mean that there would be an open rupture - an actual separation into two parts; but that there would be "such a diversity in the internal constitution" that, while there would be the element of great power, there would be also an element of weakness; there would be something which could never be blended with the element of strength, so as to produce one harmonious and homogeneous whole.

But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay - The principal idea in this part of the description is, that there would be great "power;" that whatever elements of weakness there might be, yet the "power" of the empire would be apparent. No one can fail to perceive how this applies to the Roman empire; a mighty power which, through all its long history, was distinguished for the vigour with which it carried forward its plans, and pressed on to universal dominion. As to the element of "weakness" symbolized too by the clay, it may not be possible to determine, with absolute certainty, what is referred to. Any internal source of weakness; anything in the constitution of the state, whether originally existing and constituting heterogeneous material, or whether springing up in the empire itself, or whether arising from the intermingling of foreign elements that never amalgamated themselves with the state, any one of these suppositions would meet all that is fairly implied in this language.

From Daniel 2:43, "they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men," it would seem, however, that the reference is to some "foreign" admixture - like the intermingling of nations of other languages, laws, and customs, which were never truly amalgamated with the original materials, and which constantly tended to weaken and divide the kingdom. It is to be remarked, in the exposition of the passage, that in the previous three kingdoms there was comparative homogeneousness. In the fourth kingdom, there was to be something of a peculiar character in this respect by which it should be distinguished from the others. As a matter of fact, the other three kingdoms were comparatively homogeneous in their character. The predominant feature was "Oriental;" and though there were different nations and people intermingled in the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian kingdoms, yet there was the same general prevailing character in each; there was not such an intermingling of foreign nations as to produce disturbing elements, or to mar the symmetry and strength of the whole. It was not thus with Rome. In that empire there was the intermingling of all nations and tongues, and though the essential element of the empire remained always - "the Roman" - yet there was an intermingling of other influences under the same general government, which could be appropriately compared with clay united with iron, and which ultimately contributed to its fall (see the notes at Daniel 2:43).

And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken - Margin, "brittle." The margin is the more correct rendering of the Chaldee word (תבירה tebı̂yrâh). It means "frail, fragile" - easily broken, but not necessarily that it was actually broken. That did not occur until the stone cut out of the mountain impinged on it. It has been commonly supposed (comp. Newton "on the Prophecies"), that the ten toes on the feet refer to the ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire was ultimately broken up, corresponding with the ten horns seen in the vision of Daniel, in Daniel 7:7. In regard to the fact that the Roman empire was ultimately broken up into ten such kingdoms, see the extended notes at Daniel 7:24. The thing which struck the monarch in the vision, and Daniel in the interpretation, as remarkable, was that the feet and toes "were composed partly of iron and partly of clay."

In the upper portion of the image there had been uniformity in the different parts, and had been no intermingling of metals. Here a new feature was seen - not only that a new metal was employed, but that there was intermingled with that, in the same portion of the image, a different substance, and one that had no affinity with the iron, and that could never be made to blend with it. In the latter part of this verse, the original word for "partly" is not the same in each clause. In the former it is מן־קצת min-qetsâth - properly "from the end," sc., of the kingdom. Compare Daniel 12:13, "At the end of the days;" Daniel 1:15, "At the end of ten days;" and Daniel 2:5, Daniel 2:18. The word "might" be employed to denote the "end" or "extremity" of anything, e. g., in respect to "time," and some have supposed that there is a reference here to the later periods of the Roman empire. See Poole's "Synopsis."

But the word is also used to denote "the sum," or "the whole number;" and then the phrase is equivalent to "a part - as" e. g., in the phrase האלהים בית כלי מקצת miqetsât kelēy bēyth hâ'elohı̂ym - from the sum of the vessels of the house of God" Daniel 1:2; that is, a portion of the whole number, or a part. Compare Nehemiah 7:70, "from the sum of the heads of the fathers;" that is, a part of them. In the latter part of the clause it is מנת mı̂nnâh - "from it;" that is, a part of it; partly. The entire phrase means that one part of the whole would be strong, and one part would be fragile. The reference is not to the "time" when this would occur, but to the "fact" that it would be so. The idea in this verse does not vary materially from that in the former, except that in that, the prominent thought is, that there would be "strength" in the kingdom: in this, the idea is, that while there would be strength in the kingdom, there would be also the elements of weakness.

And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men - Various explanations have been given of this verse, and it certainly is not of easy interpretation. The phrase "seed of men," would properly denote something different from the original stock that was represented by iron; some foreign admixture that would be so unlike that, and that would so little amalgamate with it, as to be properly represented by clay as compared with iron. Prof. Stuart interprets this of matrimonial alliances, and supposes that the idea expressed is, that, "while the object of such alliances was union, or at least a design to bring about a peaceable state of things, that object was, in a peculiar manner, defeated." The word rendered "men" (אנשׁא 'ănâshâ') is employed in Hebrew and in Chaldee to denote men of an inferior class - the lower orders, the common herd - in contradistinction from the more elevated and noble classes, represented by the word אישׁ 'ı̂ysh. See Isaiah 2:9; Isaiah 5:15; Proverbs 8:4.

The word here used also (from אנשׁ 'ânash) - to be sick, ill at ease, incurable), would properly denote feebleness or inferiority, and would be aptly represented by clay as contrasted with iron. The expression "seed of men," as here used, would therefore denote some intermingling of an inferior race with the original stock; some union or alliance under the one sovereignty, which would greatly weaken it as a whole, though the original strength still was great. The language would represent a race of mighty and powerful men, constituting the stamina - the bone and the sinew of the empire - mixed up with another race or other races, with whom, though they were associated in the government, they could never be blended; could never assimilate. This foreign admixture in the empire would be a constant source of weakness, and would constantly tend to division and faction, for such elements could never harmonize.

It is further to be remarked, that this would exist to a degree which would not be found in either of the three previous kingdoms. In fact, in these kingdoms there was no such intermingling with foreign nations as to destroy the homogeneousness of the empire. They were, in the main, Orientals; with the language, the manners, the customs, the habits of Orientals; and in respect to energy and power - the point here under consideration - there was no marked distinction between the subjected provinces and the original materials of the monarchy. By the act of subjection, they became substantially one people, and readily blended together. This remark will certainly apply to the two first of these monarchies - the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian; and though with less force to the Macedonian, yet it was not true of that, that it became so intermingled with foreign people as to constitute heterogeneous elements as it was of the Roman. In that monarchy, the element of "strength" was "infused" by Alexander and his Greeks; all the elements of weakness were in the original materials of the empire.

In the Roman, the element of strength - "the iron" - was in the original material of the empire; the weak, the heterogeneous element - "the clay" - was what was introduced from the foreign nations. This consideration may perhaps do something to show that the opinion of Grotius, Prof. Stuart, and others, that this fourth monarchy was what immediately succeeded Alexander is not well founded. The only question then is, whether, in the constitution of the Roman empire, at the time when it became the successor of the other three as a universal monarchy, there was such an intermingling of a foreign element, as to be properly represented by clay as contrasted with the original and stronger material "iron." I say, "at the time when it became the successor of the other three as a universal monarchy," because the only point of view in which Daniel contemplated it was that. He looked at this, as he did at the others, as already such a universal dominion, and not at what it was before, or at the steps by which it rose to power.

Now, on looking at the Roman empire at that period, and during the time when it occupied the position of the universal monarchy, and during which the "stone cut out of the mountain" grew and filled the world, there is no difficulty in finding such an intermingling with other nations - "the seed of men" - as to be properly described by "iron and clay" in the same image that could never be blended, The allusion is, probably, to that intermingling with other nations which so remarkably characterized the Roman empire, and which arose partly from its conquests, and partly from the inroads of other people in the latter days of the empire, and in reference to both of which there was no proper amalgamation, leaving the original vigour of the empire substantially in its strength, but introducing other elements which never amalgamated with it, and which were like clay intermingled with iron.

(1) from their conquests. Tacitus says, "Dominandi cupido cunctis affectibus flagrantior est" - the lust of ruling is more ardent than all other desires; and this was eminently true of the Romans. They aspired at the dominion of the world; and, in their strides at universal conquest, they brought nations under their subjection, and admitted them to the rights of citizenship, which had no affinity with the original material which composed the Roman power, and which never really amalgamated with it, anymore than clay does with iron.

(2) This was true, also, in respect to the hordes that poured into the empire from other countries, and particularly from the Scandinavian regions, in the latter periods of the empire, and with which the Romans were compelled to form alliances, while, at the same time, they could not amalgamate with them. "In the reign of the emperor Caracalla," says Mr. Gibbon, "an innumerable swarm of Suevi appeared on the banks of the Mein, and in the neighborhood of the Roman provinces, in quest of food, or plunder, or glory. The hasty army of volunteers gradually coalesced into a great and permanent nation, and as it was composed of so many different tribes, assumed the name of Allemanni, or "allmen," to denote their various lineage, and their common bravery." No reader of the Roman history can be ignorant of the invasions of the Goths, the Huns, and the Vandals, or of the effects of these invasions on the empire.

No one can be ignorant of the manner in which they became intermingled with the ancient Roman people, or of the attempts to form alliances with them, by intermarriages and otherwish, which were always like attempts to unite iron and clay. "Placidia, daughter of Theodosius the Great, was given in marriage to Adolphus, king of the Goths; the two daughters of Stilicho, the Vandal, were successively married to Honorius; and Genseric, another Vandal, gave Eudocia, a captive imperial princess, to his son to wife." The effects of the intermingling of foreign people on the character and destiny of the empire cannot be stated perhaps in a more graphic manner than is done by Mr. Gibbon, in the summary review of the Roman History, with which he concludes his seventh chapter, and at the same time there could scarcely be a more clear or cxpressive commentary on this prophecy of Daniel. "During the four first ages," says he, "the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government: by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind, and confounded with the million of servile provincials who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence.

By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios. The limits of the Roman empire still extended from the Western Ocean to the Tigris, and from Mount Atlas to the Rhine and the Danube. To the undiscerning eye of the common, Philip appeared a monarch no less powerful than Hadrian or Augustus had formerly been. The form was still the same, but the animating health and rigor were fled. The industry of the people was discouraged and exhausted by a long series of oppression. The discipline of the legions, which alone, after the extinction of every other virtue, had propped the greatness of the state, was corrupted by the ambition, or relaxed by the weakness of the emperors. The strength of the frontiers, which had always consisted in arms rather than in fortifications, was insensibly undermined, and the fairest provinces were left exposed to the rapaciousness or ambition of the barbarians, who soon discovered the decline of the Roman empire." - Vol. i. pp. 110, 111; Harper's Edit. (N. Y.) 1829.

Compare the notes at Revelation 6:1-8. The agency of the Roman empire was so important in preparing the world for the advent of the Son of God, and in reference to the establishment of his kingdom, that there was an obvious proriety that it should be made a distinct subject of prophecy. We have seen that each of the other three kingdoms had an important influence in preparing the world for the introduction of Christianity, and was designed to accomplish an important part in the "History of Redemption." The agency of the Roman empire was more direct and important than any one or all of these, for

(a) that was the empire which had the supremacy when the Son of God appeared;

(b) that kingdom had performed a more direct and important work in preparing the world for his coming;

(c) it was under authority derived from that sovereignty that the Son of God was put to death; and

(d) it was by that, that the ancient dispensation was brought to an end; and

(e) it was under that, that the new religion was spread through the world. It may be of use, therefore, in an exposition of this prophecy, to refer, with some particularity, to the things that were accomplished by this "fourth kingdom" in furthering the work of redemption, or in introducing and establishing the kingdom that was to be "set up, and which was never to be destroyed." That agency related to the following points:

(1) The establishment of a universal dominion; the fact that the world was brought under one scepter greatly favorcd the propagation of the Christian religion. We have seen, under the previous dynasties - the Babylonian, Persian, and macedonian - that such an universal empire was important in earlier ages to "prepare" the world for the advent of the Messiah. This was still more important when he was about actually to appear, and his religion was to be spread over the world. It greatly favored the diffusion of the new system that there was one empire; that the means of communication from one part of the world to another had been so extended by the Romans; and that one who was entitled to the privileges of citizenship could claim protection in nearly every part of the world.

(2) The prevalence of universal peace. The world had become subject to the Roman power, and conquest was at an end. The world at last, after so long agitations and strifes, was at peace. The distant provinces quietly submitted to the Roman control; the civil dissensions which had reigned so long at the capital were hushed; Augustus, having triumphed over all his rivals, quietly occupied the imperial throne, and, as a symbol of the universal peace, the temple of Janus was closed. Rarely in their history had that temple been closed before; and yet there was an obvious propriety that when the "Prince of Peace" should come, the world should be at rest, and that the clangor of arms should cease. It was a beautiful emblem of the nature of his reign. A world that had been always in conflict before rested on its arms; the tumult of battle had died away; the banners of war were furled; the legions of Rome paused in their career of conquest, and the world tranquilly waited for the coming of the Son of God.

(3) The Roman power accomplished an important agency in the great transaction which the Son of God came to perform in his making an atonement for the sins of the world. It was so arranged, in the Divine counsels, that he should be put to death, not by the hands of his own kindred and countrymen, but by the hands of foreigners, and under their authority. The necessity and the certainty of this was early predicted by the Saviour Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33; Luke 18:32, and it is clear that there were important reasons why it should be thus done; and doubtless one design of bringing Judea and the rest of the world under the Roman yoke was, that it might be accomplished in this way. Among the "reasons" for this may be suggested such as the following:

(a) The pagan world, as well as the Jewish community, thus had a part in the great transaction. He died for the whole world - Jews and Gentiles - and it was important that, that fact should be referred to in the manner of his death, and that the two great divisions of the human family should be united in the great transaction. It thus became not a "Jewish" affair only; not an event in which Judea alone was interested, but an affair of the world; a transaction in which the representatives of the world took their part.

(b) It was thus made a matter of publicity. The account of the death of the Saviour would thus, of course, be transmitted to the capital, and would demand the attention of those who were in power. When the gospel was preached at Rome, it would be proper to allege that it was a thing in which Rome itself had had an important agency, from the fact that under the Roman authority the Messiah had been put to death.

(c) The agency of the Romans, therefore, established the certainty of the death of Jesus, and consequently the certainty of his having risen from the dead. In order to demonstrate the latter, it was indispensable that the former should be made certain, and that all questions in regard to the reality of Iris death should be placed beyond a doubt. This was done by the agency of Pilate, a Roman governor. His death was certified to him, and he was satisfied of it. It became a matter of record; a point about which there could be no dispute. Accordingly, in all the questions that came up in reference to the religion of Christ, it was never made a matter of doubt that he had been really put to death under Pilate, the Roman governor, whatever question may have arisen about the fact of his resurrection.

(d) Equally important was the agency of the Romans in establishing establishing the "innocence" of the Saviour. After patient and repeated trials before himself, Pilate was constrained to say that he was innocent of the charges alleged against him, and that no fault could be found in him. In proclaiming the gospel, it was of immense importance to be able to affirm this throughout the world. It could never be alleged against the gospel that its Author had violated the laws; that he deserved to be put to death as a malefactor, for the records of the Roman governor himself showed the contrary. The agency of the Romans, therefore, in the great work of the atonement, though undesigned on their part, was of inestimable importance in the establishment of the Christian religion; and it may be presumed that it was for this, in part at least, that the world was placed under their control, and that it was so ordered that the Messiah suffered under authority derived from them.

(4) There was another important agency of the Romans in reference to the religion that was to fill the earth. It was in destroying the city of Jerusalem, and bringing to a final end the whole system of Hebrew rites and ceremonies. The ancient sacrifices lost their efficacy really when the atonement was made on the cross. Then there was no need of the temple, and the altar, and the ancient priesthood. It was necessary that the ancient rites should cease, and that, having now lost their efficacy, there should be no possibility of perpetuating them. Accordingly, within the space of about thirty years after the death of the Saviour, when there had been time to perceive the bearing of the atonement on their temple rites; when it was plain that they were no longer efficacious, significant, or necessary, the Romans were suffered to destroy the city, the altar, and the temple, and to bring the whole system to a perpetual end. The place where the ancient worship had been celebrated was tiaade a heap of ruins; the altar was overturned, never to be built again; and the pomp and splendor of the ancient ritual passed away forever. It was the design of God that that system should come to a perpetual end; and hence, by his providence, it was so arranged, that ruin should spread over the city where the Lord was crucified, and that the Jewish people should never build an altar or a temple there again. To this day it has never been in their power to kindle the fire of sacrifice there, or to cause the smoke of incense to ascend in a temple consecrated to the worship of the God of their fathers. The agency of this fourth kingdom, therefore, was exceedingly important in the introduction and establishment of that kingdom which was to be perpetual, and which was to fill the earth, and hence, the reference to it here, and the more extended reference in Daniel 7.

And in the days of these kings - Margin, "their." The reading in the text "these kings" - is the more correct. The Vulgate renders this, "in the days of these kingdoms." The natural and obvious sense of the passage is, that during the continuance of the kingdoms above-mentioned, or before they should finally pass away, that is, before the last one should become extinct, another kingdom would be established on the earth which would be perpetual. Before the succession of universal monarchies should have passed away, the new kingdom would be set up that would never be destroyed. Such language is not uncommon. "Thus, if we were to speak of anything taking place in the days of British kings, we should not of course understand it as running through all their reigns, but merely as occurring in some one of them." - Prof. Bush. So it is said in Ruth 1:1 : "It came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land;" that is, the famine occurred sometime under that general administration, or before it had passed away, evidently not meaning that there was a famine in the reign of each one. So it is said of Jephthah, that he was buried "in the cities of Gilead;" that is, some one of them. Josiah was buried in, "the sepulchres of his fathers;" that is, in some one of them.

Shall the God of heaven - The God, who rules in heaven; the true God. This is designed to show the Divine origin of this kingdom, and to distinguish it from all others. Though the others here referred to were under the Divine control, and were designed to act an important part in preparing the world for this, yet they are not represented as deriving their origin directly from heaven. They were founded in the usual manner of earthly monarchies, but this was to have a heavenly origin. In accordance with this, the kingdom which the Messiah came to establish is often called, in the New Testament, "the kingdom of heaven," "the kingdom of God," etc. Compare Micah 4:7; Luke 1:32-33.

Set up a kingdom - "Shall cause to arise or stand up" - יקים yeqı̂ym. It shall not owe its origin to the usual causes by which empires are constituted on the earth by conquests; by human policy; by powerful alliances; by transmitted hereditary possession - but shall exist because God shall "appoint" and "constitute" it. There can be no reasonable doubt as to what kingdom is here intended, and nearly all expositors have supposed that it refers to the kingdom of the Messiah. Grotius, indeed, who made the fourth kingdom refer to the Seleucidse and Lagidse, was constrained by consistency to make this refer to the Roman power; but in this interpretation he stands almost, if not entirely, alone. Yet even he supposes it to refer not to "pagan" Rome only, but to Rome as the perpetual seat of power - the permanent kingdom - the seat of the church: "Imperium Romanum perpetuo mansurum, quod sedes erit ecclesice." And although he maintains that he refers to Rome primarily, yet he is constrained to acknowledge that what is here said is true in a higher sense of the kingdom of Christ: Sensus sublimior, Christum finem impositurum omnibus. imperiis terrestribus. But there can be no real doubt as to what kingdom is intended. Its distinctly declared Divine origin; the declaration that it shall never be destroyed; the assurance that it would absorb all other kingdoms, and that it would stand forever; and the entire accordance of these declarations with the account of the kingdom of the Messiah in the New Testament, show beyond a doubt that the kingdom of the Redeemer is intended.

Which shall never be destroyed - The others would pass away. The Babylonian would be succeeded by the Medo-Persian, that by the Macedonian, that by the Roman, and that in its turn by the one which the God of heaven would set up. This would be perpetual. Nothing would have power to overthrow it. It would live in the revolutions of all other kingdoms, and would survive them all. Compare the notes at Daniel 7:14; and the summary of the doctrines taught here at the close of the notes at Daniel 2:45.

And the kingdom shall not be left to other people - Margin, "thereof. Literally, "Its kingdom shall not be left to other people;" that is, the ruling power appropriate to this kingdom or dominion shall never pass away from its rightful possessor, and be transferred to other hands. In respect to other kingdoms, it often happens that their sovereigns are deposed, and that their power passes into the hands of usurpers. But this can never occur in this kingdom. The government will never change hands. The administration will be perpetual. No foreign power shall sway the scepter of this kingdom. There "may be" an allusion here to the fact that, in respect to each of the other kingdoms mentioned, the power over the same territory "did" pass into the hands of other people. Thus, on the same territory, the dominion passed from the hands of the Babylonian princes to the hands of Cyrus the Persian, and then to the hands of Alexander the Macedonian, and then to the hands of the Romans. But this would never occur in regard to the kingdom which the God of heaven would set up. In the region of empire appropriate to it, it would never change hands; and this promise of perpetuity made this kingdom wholly unlike all its predecessors.

But it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms - As represented by the stone cut out of the mountains without hands, impinging on the image. See the notes at Daniel 2:34-35.

Two inquiries at once meet us here, of somewhat difficult solution. The first is, How, if this is designed to apply to the kingdom of the Messiah, can the description be true? The language here would seem to imply some violent action; some positive crushing force; something like what occurs in conquests when nations are subdued. Would it not appear from this that the kingdom here represented was to make its way by conquests in the same manner as the other kingdoms, rather than by a silent and peaceful influence? Is this language, in fact, applicable to the method in which the kingdom of Christ is to supplant all others? In reply to these questions, it may be remarked,

(1) That the leading idea, as apparent in the prophecy, is not so much that of "violence" as that the kingdoms referred to would be "uttterly brought to an end;" that there would be, under this new kingdom, ultimately an entire cessation of the others; or that they would be removed or supplanted by this. This is represented Daniel 2:35 by the fact that the materials composing the other kingdoms are represented before this as becoming like "the chaff of the summer threshing-floors;" and as "being carried away, so that no place was found for them." The stone cut out of the mountain, small at first, was mysteriously enlarged, so that it occupied the place which they did, and ultimately filled the earth. A process of gradual demolition, acting on them by constant attrition, removing portions of them, and occupying their place until they should disappear, and until there should be a complete substitution of the new kingdom in their place, would seem to correspond with all that is essential in the prophetic description, See the notes at Daniel 2:34, on the expression, "which smote the image upon his feet." But

(2) This language is in accordance with what is commonly used in the predictions respecting the kingdom of the Messiah - language which is descriptive of the existence of "power" in subduing the nations, and bringing the opposing kingdoms of the world to an end. Thus in Psalm 2:9, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron: thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Isaiah 9:12, "for the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." So 1 Corinthians 15:24-25, "When he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet." These expressions denote that there will be an entire subjection of other kingdoms to that of the Messiah, called in the New Testament "the kingdom of God." They undoubtedly imply that there will be some kind of "force" employed - for this great work cannot be accomplished without the existence of "power;" but it may be remarked

(a) That it does not necessarily mean that there will be "physical" force, or power like that by which kingdoms have been usually overturned. The kingdom of the Redeemer is a kingdom of "principles," and those principles will subdue the nations, and bring them into subjection.

(b) It does not necessarily mean that the effect here described will be accomplished "at once." It may be by a gradual process, like a continual beating on the image, reducing it ultimately to powder.

The other question which arises here is, How can it be said that the new kingdom which was to be set up would "break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms?" How could the destruction of the image in the Roman period be in fact the destruction of the "three" previous kingdoms, represented by gold, and silver, and brass? Would they not in fact have passed away before the Roman power came into existence? And yet, is not the representation in Daniel 2:35, that the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together, and were all scattered like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor? Is it supposed that these kingdoms would be all in existence at the same time, and that the action of the symbolic "stone" was to be alike on all of them? To these questions, we may answer,

(1) That the meaning is, undoubtedly, that three of these kingdoms would have passed away at the time of the action of the "stone" referred to. They were to be a "succession" of kingdoms, occupying, to a great extent, the same territory, and not contemporary monarchies occupying distinct territories.

(2) The action of the "stone" was in fact, in a most important sense, to be on them all; that is, it was to be on what "constituted" these successive kingdoms of gold, silver, brass, and iron. Each was in its turn an universal monarchy. The same territory was substantially occupied by them all. The Medo-Persian scepter extended over the region under the Babylonian; the Macedonian over that; the Roman over that. There were indeed "accessions" in each successive monarchy, but still anything which affected the Roman empire affected what had "in fact" been the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian. A demolition of the image in the time of the Roman empire would be, therefore, in fact, a demolition of the whole.

(3) This interpretation is necessary from the nature of the symbolic representation. The eye of the monarch in the dream was directed to the image as "a splendid whole." It was necessary to the object in view that he should see it "all at a time," that he might have a distinct conception of it. This purpose made it impossible to exhibit the kingdoms "in succession," but they all stood up before him at once. No one can doubt that there "might" have been a different representation, and that the kingdoms might have been made to pass before him in their order, but the representation would have been less grand and imposing. But this design made it necessary that the image should be kept "entire" before the mind until its demolition. It would have been unseemly to have represented the head as removed, and then the shoulders and breast, and then the belly and thighs, until nothing remained but the feet and toes. It was necessary to keep up the representation of "the image of colossal majesty and strength," until a new power should arise which "would demolish it all." Nebuchadnezzar is not represented as seeing the parts of the image successively appear or disappear. He does not at first see the golden head rising above the earth, and then the other parts in succession; nor the golden head disappearing, and then the other parts, until nothing was left but the feet and the toes. Such a representation would have destroyed the decorum and beauty of the whole figure; and as it cannot be argued that because Nebuchadnezzar saw the whole image at the outset standing in its complete form, that therefore, all these kingdoms must have been simultaneously in existence, so it cannot be argued because he saw the whole image standing when the stone smote upon it, that therefore, all these kingdoms must have had an existence then.

(4) It may be added, that the destruction of the last was in fact the destruction of all the three predecessors. The whole power had become embodied in that, and the demolition affected the whole series.

Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone ... - On the meaning of the language employed here, see the notes at Daniel 2:34-35. The word "forasmuch" may be taken either in connection with what precedes, or with what follows. In the former method, there should be a period at the word "gold" in this verse; and then the sense is, "In those days shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, etc., "forasmuch," or "because" thou sawest a stone," etc., that is, that was a certain indication of it. According to the other method, the meaning is, "Forasmuch as thou sawest the stone cut out and demolish the image, the great God has made known the certainty of it;" that is, that is a certain indication that it will be done. The Vulgate is, "According to what thou sawest, that the stone was cut out without hands, and reduced the clay, etc., the great God has shown to the king what will be hereafter." The difference in the interpretation is not very material.

Cut out of the mountain - This is not inserted in the statement in Daniel 2:34. It seems, however, to be implied there, as there is mention of the stone as "cut out." The representation is evidently that of a stone disengaged from its native bed, the side of a mountain, without any human agency, and then rolling down the side of it and impinging on the image.

The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter - Margin, the same as the Chaldee, "after this." The meaning is simply, in time to come; in some future period. Daniel claims none of the merit of this discovery to himself. but ascribes it all to God.

And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure - That is, it is no vain and airy phantom; no mere working of the imagination. The dream was all that the monarch had supposed it to be - a representation of coming events, and his solicitude in regard to it was well-founded. Daniel speaks with the utmost assurance also as to its fulfillment. He knew that he had been led to this interpretation by no skill of his own; and his representation of it was such as to satisfy the monarch of its correctness. Two circumstances probably made it appear certain to the monarch, as we learn from the next verse it did: one, that Daniel had recalled the dream to his own recollection, showing that he was under a Divine guidance; and the other, the plausibility - the verisimilitude - the evident truthfulness of the representation. It was such a manifest "explanation" of the dream that Nebuchadnezzar, in the same manner as Pharaoh had done before him when his dreams were explained by Joseph, at once admitted the correctness of the representation.

Having now gone through with the "exposition" of this important passage respecting the stone cut from the mountain, it seems proper to make a few remarks in regard to the nature of the kingdom that would be set up, as represented by the stone which demolished the image, and which so marvelously increased as to fill the earth. That there is reference to the kingdom of the Messiah cannot be reasonably doubted. The points which are established in respect to that kingdom by the passage now under consideration are the following:

I. Its superhuman origin. This is indicated in the representation of the stone cut out of the mountain "without hands;" that is, clearly not by human agency, or in the ordinary course of events. There was to be a superhuman power exerted in detaching it from the mountain, as well as in its future growth. What appeared so marvelous was, that it was cut from its orginal resting place by some invisible power, and moved forward to the consummation of its work without any human agency. That this was designed to be significant of something there can be no reasonable doubt, for the result is made to turn on this. I do not see that any special significancy is to be attached to the idea of its being cut from "a mountain," nor that it is required of us to attempt to refine on that expression, and to ascertain whether the mountain means the Roman kingdom, out of which the gospel church was taken, as many suppose; or the Jewish nation, as Augustine supposed; or that "the origin of Christ was sublime and superior to the whole world," as Calvin supposes; or to the mountainous country of Judea in which the Messiah was born, as many others have maintained; or to the tomb of Joseph, as a rock from which the Messiah sprang to life and victory, as others have imagined.

All this belongs to a system of interpretatation that is trifling in the extreme. The representation of the mountain here is merely for the sake of verisimilitude, like the circumstances in a parable. If a stone was "cut out without hands," it would be natural to speak of it as cut from the mountain or parent-rock to which it was attached. The eye is not here directed to the "mountain" as having anything significant or marvelous about it, but to the "stone" that so mysteriously left its bed, and rolled onward toward the image. The point of interest and of marvel, the mysterious thing that attracted the eye, was that there was no human agency employed; that no hands were seen at work; that none of the ordinary instrumentalities were seen by which great effects are accomplished among men. Now this would properly represent the idea that the kingdom of the Messiah would have a supernatural origin. Its beginnings would be unlike what is usually seen among men. How appropriately this applies to the kingdom of the Messiah, as having its origin not in human power, need not here be stated. Nothing is more apparent; nothing is more frequently dwelt on in the New Testament, than that it had a heavenly origin. It did not owe its beginning to human plans, counsels, or power.

II. Its feebleness in its beginning, compared with its ultimate growth and power. At first it was a stone comparatively small, and that seemed utterly inadequate to the work of demolishing and pulverizing a colossal statue of gold, silver, brass, and iron. Ultimately it grew to be itself of mountain-size, and to fill the land. Now this representation would undoubtedly convey the fair impression that this new power, represented by the stone, would at first be comparatively small and feeble; that there would be comparative weakness in its origin as contrasted with what it would ultimately attain to; and that it would seem to be utterly inadequate to the performance of what it finally accomplished. It is hardly necessary to say that this corresponds entirely with the origin of the Messiah's kingdom. Everywhere it is represented as of feeble beginnings, and, as a system, to human view, entirely inadequate to so great a work as that of bringing other kingdoms to an end, and subduing it to itself. The complete fulfillment of the prophetic statement would be found in such circumstances as the following:

(1) The humble origin of the head of this new power hlmself - the Messiah - the King of Sion. He was, in fact, of a decayed and dilapidated family; was ranked among the poor; was without powerful friends or political connections; possessed no uncommon advantages of learning, and was regarded with contempt and scorn by the great mass of his countrymen. No one would have supposed that the religion originated by one of so humble an origin would have power to change the destiny of the kingdoms of the earth.

(2) The feebleness of the beginning of his kingdom. His few followers - the little band of fishermen; the slow progress at first made; these were circumstances strikingly in accordance with the representation in Daniel.

(3) The absence in that band of all that seemed requisite to accomplish so great a work. They had no arms, no wealth, no political power. They had nothing of what has commonly been employed to overthrow kingdoms, and the band of fishermen sent forth to this work seemed as little adequate to the undertaking as the stone cut from the mountain did to demolish the colossal image.

(4) All this feebleness in the beginning was wonderfully contrasted with the ultimate results, like the stone, when cut from the mountain, contrasted with its magnitude when it filled the earth. The Saviour himself often referred to the contrast between the feeble origin of his religion, and what it would grow to be. At first it was like a grain of mustard-seed, smallest among seeds; then it grew to be a tree so large that the fowls of the air lodged in the branches. At first it was like leaven, hidden in meal; ultimately it would diffuse itself through the mass, so that the whole would be leavened, Matthew 13:31-33.

III. It would supplant all other kingdoms. This was clearly indicated by the fact that the "stone" demolished the image, reducing it to powder, and filled the place which that occupied, and all the land. This has been explained (see the notes at Daniel 2:34-35), as meaning that it would not be by sudden violence, but by a continued process of comminution. There would be such an action on the kingdoms of the earth represented by gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, that they would disappear, and the new power represented by the "stone" would finally take their place. As this new power was to be humble in its origin, and feeble to human view; as it had nothing which, to outward appearance, would seem adequate to the result, the reference would seem to be to the "principles" which would characterize it, and which, as elements of power, would gradually but ultimately secure the changes represented by the demolition of the colossal statue.

The only question then would be, whether the principles in the kingdom of the Messiah had such originality and power as would gradually but certainly change the modes of government that existed in the world, and substitute another kind of reign; or, what is the influence which it will exert on the nations, causing new methods of government, in accordance with its principles, to prevail on the earth. Though apparently feeble, without arms, or wealth, or civil alliances, it has elements of "power" about it which will ultimately subdue all other principles of government, ard take their place. Its work was indeed to be a gradual work, and it is by no means accomplished, yet its effect has been mighty already on the principles that rule among the nations and will still be more mighty until "the laws of the kingdom of the Messiah shall prevail in all the earth." This seems to be the idea which it is designed to express by this prophetic image. If one were asked "in what respects" it is to be anticipated that these changes will be wrought, and "in what respects" we can discern the evidences of such changes already, we might say in such points as the following:

(1) In regard to the methods in which governments are founded. Governments were formerly mostly the result of civil or foreign wars. Nearly all the governments of antiquity were originally founded in the "power" of some military leader, and then held by power. Christianity originated new views about wars and conquests; views that will ultimately prevail. In nothing are the opinions of mankind destined more entirely to be reversed than in regard to "war;" to its glory, its achievements, and the fame of those who have been most celebrated for bloody triumphs.

(2) In regard to the rights of the people. A mighty principle was originated by Christianity in respect to the "rights" of men; the right of conscience; the right to the avails of their own labor; the right to life and liberty.

(3) In regard to oppression. The history of the world has been, to a great extent, a history of oppression. But all this is to be changed by the principles of the true religion; and when the period shall arrive that there shall be no more occasion to use the word "oppression," as descriptive of anything that shall have an actual existenee on earth, this will be a different world. Then the time will have come, appropriately designated by the demolition of the colossal statue - symbolic of all governments of oppression, and the substitution in its place of what was at first insignificant, but which had vital energy to supplant all that went before it.

IV. This kingdom will be perpetual. This is asserted in the unequivocal statements that it "shall never be destroyed," and that "it shall not be left to other people;" that is, shall never pass into other hands. There could not be a more positive declaration that the kingdom here referred to will continue through all coming time. Other kingdoms pass away, but this will not; and amidst all the revolutions of other empires this will remain. The lapse of eighteen hundred years since this kingdom was set up, has done not a little to confirm the truth of this prediction. Many other kingdoms during that time have disappeared from the earth, but this remains in its full vigour, and with extending power. It has, at this day, an extent of dominion which it never had before, and there are clearer indications that it will spread over all the earth than ever existed at any previous time. That this kingdom "will" be perpetual may be argued from the following considerations:

(1) From the promises of God. These are absolute; and they are attested by Him who has all power, and who can, with infinite ease, accomplish all that he has spoken. So in Daniel 7:14, "His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Luke 1:33, "and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Psalm 45:6 (compare the notes at Hebrews 1:8), "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." In Hebrews 1:8, it is, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." Isaiah 9:7, "of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth, even forever."

(2) It may be argued, from the fact that the efforts which have been made to destroy it have shown that this cannot be done by any human power. Eighteen hundred years have now passed away - a period sufficiently long to test the question whether it can be destroyed by force and violence; by argument and ridicule. The experiment has been fairly made, and if it were possible that it should be destroyed by external force, it would have been done. It cannot be imagined that more favorable circumstances for such a purpose will ever occur. The church of Christ has met every form of opposition that we can conceive could be made against it, and has survived them all. Particularly it has survived the trial which has been made in the following respects:

(a) The Roman power, the whole might of the Roman arms, that had subdued and crushed the world, was brought to bear upon the kingdom of Christ to crush and destroy it, but wholly failed. It cannot be supposed that a new power will ever arise that will be more formidable to Christianity than the Roman was.

(b) The power of persecution. That has been tried in every way, and has failed. The most ingenious forms of torture have been devised to extinguish this religion, and have all failed. It has always been found that persecution has only contributed ultimately to the triumph of the cause which it was hoped to crush.

(c) The power of philosophy. The ancient philosophers opposed it, and attempted to destroy it by argument. This was early done by Celsus and Porphyry; but it soon became apparent that the ancient philosophy had nothing that could extinguish the rising religion, and not a few of the prominent philosophers themselves were converted, and became the advocates of the faith.

(d) The power of science. Christianity had its origin in an age when science had made comparatively little progress, and in a country where it was almost unknown. The sciences since have made vast advances; and each one in its turn has been appealed to by the enemies of religion, to furnish an argument against Christianity. Astronomy, history, the discoveries in Egypt, the asserted antiquity of the Hindoos, and geology, have all been employed to overthrow the claims of the Christian religion, and have all been compelled to abandon the field. See this admirably demonstrated in Dr. Wiseman's "Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion."

(e) The power of ridicule. At one time it was held that "ridicule is the test of truth," and this has been applied unsparingly to the Christian religion. But the religion still lives, and it cannot be supposed that there will be men endued with the power of sarcasm and wit superior to those who, with these weapons, have made war on Christianity, or that infidelity has any hope from that quarter. It may be inferred, therefore, that there is no "external" source of corruption and decay which will prevent its being perpetual. Other kingdoms usually have; and after a few centuries at most the internal corruption - the defect of the organization - developes itself, and the kingdom falls. But nothing of this kind occurs in the kingdom of Christ. It has lived now through eighteen hundred years, through periods of the world in which there have been constant changes in the arts, in the sciences, in manners, in philosophy, in forms of government. During that time many a system of philosophy has been superseded, and many a kingdom has fallen, but Christianity is as fresh and vigorous, as it meets each coming generation, as it ever was; and the past has demonstrated that the enemies of the gospel have no reason to hope that it will become weak by age, and will fall by its own decrepitude.

V. A fifth characteristic of this kingdom is, that it will universally prevail. This was symbolized by the stone that "became a great mountain, and that filled the whole earth," Daniel 2:35. It is also implied, in the statement in Daniel 2:44, that it "shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms." They will cease, and this will occupy their places. The "principles" of the kingdom of the Messiah, whatever may be the external forms of government that shall exist on the earth, will everywhere prevail. That this will occur may be argued from the following considerations:

(1) The promises recorded in the Bible. Tlle passage before us is one. Of the same nature are the following: Psalm 2:8, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the pagan for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Malachi 1:11, "for from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering." Isaiah 11:9, "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." Compare Habakkuk 2:14; Isaiah 45:22, and Isaiah 60.

(2) The world in its progress "loses" nothing that is of value. Truth is eternal, and when once discovered, society will not let it go. It seizes upon great elements in human nature, and the world will not let it die. Thus it is with discoveries in science, inventions in the arts, and principles in morals. There is no evidence that anything that was known to the ancients which was of permanent value to mankind has been lost; and the few things that "were" lost have been succeeded by that which is better. All that was truly valuable in their science, their philosophy, their arts, their jurisprudence, their literature, we possess still, and the world will always retMn it. And what can ever obliterate from the memory oi man the printing-press, the steamengine, the cotton-gin, the telescope, the blow-pipe, the magnetic telegraph? Society accumulates from age to age all that is truly valuable in inventions, morals, and the arts, and travels with them down to the period when the world shall have reached the highest point of perfectability. This remark is true also of Christianity - the kingdom of Christ. There are "principles" in regard to the happiness and rights of man in that system which cannot be "detached" from society, but which go into its permanent structure, and which "the world will not let die."

(3) Society is thus making constant "advances." A position gained in human progress is never ultimately lost. "The principles thus accumulated and incorporated into society become permanent. Each age adds something in this respect to the treasures accumulated by all preceding ages, and each one is, in some respects, an advance on its predecessors, and makes the final triumph of the principles of truth, and liberty, and pure religion more sure."

(4) Christianity, or the kingdom of Christ, is "aggressive." It makes a steady war on the evil customs, habits, and laws of the world. It is in accordance with its nature to diffuse itself. Nothing can prevent its propagation; and, according to the laws of society, nothing is so certain philosophically in regard to the future, as the final prevalence of the religion of the Redeemer. It may meet with temporary and formidable obstructions. It may be retarded, or extinguished, in certain places. But its general course is onward - like the current of the mighty river toward the ocean. The only thing certain in the future is, that the Christian religion will yet spread all over the world; and there is enough in this to gratify the highest wishes of philanthropy, and enough to stimulate to the highest effort to secure so desirable an end.

Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face - This was the common method of signifying profound respect among the Orientals. Compare Genesis 17:3; Genesis 50:18; Leviticus 9:24; Numbers 14:5; Joshua 5:14; Judges 13:20; Revelation 11:16.

And worshipped Daniel - The word rendered "worshipped" here (סגד segid), in the Chaldee portions of the Bible is uniformly rendered "worship," Daniel 2:26; Daniel 3:5-7, Daniel 3:10-12, Daniel 3:14-15, Daniel 3:18, Daniel 3:28. It occurs nowhere else, and in every instance, except in the one before us, is employed with reference to the homage paid to an idol, all the other cases occurring in the third chapter respecting the image that was set up by Nebuchadnezzar. The corresponding Hebrew word (סגד sâgad) occurs only in Isaiah 44:15, Isaiah 44:17, Isaiah 44:19; Isaiah 46:6; and is, in every instance, rendered "fall down," also with reference to idols. The proper idea, therefore, of the word here is, that the monarch meant to render "religious" homage to Daniel, or such adoration as was usually paid to idols. This is confirmed by witat is immediately added, that he commanded that an oblation should be made to him. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that Daniel "received" or "approved" this religious homage of the king, or that he left the impression on his mind that he was "willing" to be honored as a god. The prostration of the king before him, of course, he could not prevent. The views and feelings which the monarch had in doing it he could not prevent. The command to present an "oblation and sweet odors to him" he could not prevent. But it is not a fair inference that Daniel approved this, or that he did anything to countenance it, or even that he did not, in a proper manner, rebuke it: for

(1) We are not to suppose that all that was said was recorded, and no one can prove that Daniel did not express his disapprobation of this religious honor shown to him.

(2) Daniel had in fact, expressed his views, in the clearest manner, on this very point before the monarch. He had, again and again, disclaimed all power to be able to reveal such secrets. He had directed his mind to the true God, as he who alone could disclose coming events, Daniel 2:28, Daniel 2:30, Daniel 2:45. He had taken all possible precaution to prevent any such result, by declaring, in the most emphatic terms Daniel 2:30, that this secret was not revealed to him "on account of any wisdom which he had more than any living." If now, after all this precaution, and these disclaimers, the king should prostrate himself before him, and, for the moment, feel that he was in the presence of a God, Daniel was not responsible for it, and it should not be inferred that he encouraged or approved it.

(3) It would seem, from the narrative itself, more than probable that Daniel did refuse the homage, and direct the thoughts of the monarch to the true God. In the very next verse it is said, "The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets." "Answered" what? Perhaps something that was said by Daniel. At all events, it is clear from this that whatever were the momentary expressions of wonder, gratitude, and adoration, on the part of the king, his thoughts soon passed to the proper object of worship - the true God. "And commanded, etc." The fact that this was "commanded" does not prove that it was done. The command was probably given under the excitement of his admiration and wonder. But it does not follow that Daniel received it, or that the command was not recalled on reflection, or that the oblation and odors may not have been presented to the true God.

That they should offer an oblation - That is, his attendants, or perhaps the priests to whom pertained the duty of making offerings to the gods. The word rendered "oblation" (מנחה minchāh) does not refer to a, "bloody" sacrifice, but means a gift or present of any kind. It is applied in the Scriptures to denote

(1) "a gift," or "present," Genesis 32:13, Genesis 32:18, Genesis 32:20 (Genesis 32:14, Genesis 32:19, Genesis 32:21); Genesis 43:11, Genesis 43:15, Genesis 43:25-26;

(2) "a tribute," such as was exacted from a subject nation, under the notion of a present, 2 Samuel 8:2, 2 Samuel 8:6; 1 Kings 4:21 1 Kings 5:1,

(3) "an offering" or sacrifice to God, especially a bloodless offering, in opposition to (זבח zebach) - a bloody sacrifice, Leviticus 2:1, Leviticus 2:4-6; Leviticus 6:14 (7); Leviticus 7:9; Psalm 40:6 (7); Jeremiah 17:26.

See the word fully explained in the notes at Isaiah 1:13. There can be no doubt that Nebuchadnezzar meant that such an offering should be presented as was usually made in idol worship.

And sweet odors - incense was commonly used in worship (see the notes at Isaiah 1:13), and it is not improbable that in the worship of the gods it was accompanied with other fragrant odors. Sweet odors, or "savors," expressed by the same word which is used here, were a part of the prescribed worship in the Hebrew ritual, Leviticus 1:9, Leviticus 1:13, Leviticus 1:17; Leviticus 2:2, Leviticus 2:9; Leviticus 3:5; Leviticus 6:21 (14); Numbers 15:7.

The king answered unto Daniel - Answered either what he had said in the interpretation of the dream, or "possibly" something that he had said in regard to the impropriety of offering this homage to him. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:46. It is certain that, for some cause. whatever might have been the homage which he was disposed to render to Daniel, his thoughts were soon turned from him to the true God, and to an acknowledgment of him as superior to all other beings. He seems, at least, instantly to have reflected on what Daniel had himself said Daniel 2:30, and to have remembered that religious homage was due, not to Daniel, but to the God who had communicated the secret to him.

Of a truth it is - It is truly so. This had been shown by the manner in which this secret was disclosed.

That your God is a God of gods - Is superior to all other gods; is supreme over all. Compare Revelation 17:14; 1 Timothy 6:15. The idea is, that whatever subordinate beings there may be, He is supreme.

And a Lord of kings - Supreme over kings. They are all inferior to him, and subject to his control.

And a revealer of secrets - One of the attributes of divinity. See the notes at Daniel 2:28.

Seeing thou couldest reveal this secret - A secret which the wisest men of the realm had sought in vain to disclose. The fact that a professed servant of God had been able to do this showed that God was himself supreme, and worthy of adoration. We have here, then, an instance in which a proud and haughty pagan monarch was brought to an acknowledgment of the true God, and was constrained to render him homage. This was a result which it was evidently intended to reach in the whole transaction; in the dream itself; in the fact that the wise men of Babylon could not interpret it; and in the fact that an acknowledged servant of the Most High had been enabled to make the disclosure. The instance is instructive, as showing to what extent a mind clearly not under the influence of any genuine piety - for subsequent events showed that no "permanent" effects were produced on him, and that he was still an idolater Daniel 3, and a most proud and haughty man Daniel 4 - may be brought to acknowledge God. See the remarks at the end of the Daniel 7.

There the king made Daniel a great man - That is, he gave him an honorable appointment; he so honored him that he was regarded as a great man. He was really made great by the grace of God, and the extraordinary favor which God had bestowed upon him, but the estimate which the king had of his greatness was shown by the tokens of the royal favor. "And gave him many great gifts." This is a common way of showing esteem in the East. The estimate in which one holds another is evinced by the variety and richness of the presents conferred on him. Hence, all persons of distinction expect gifts of those who approach them as expressive of their regard for them, and of the esteem in which they are held. Compare Daniel 2:6.

And made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon - Chaldee, השׁלטה hasheleṭēh - caused him to preside over, or to rule over, from the verb שׁלט shelaṭ, "to rule," and commonly applied to one who rules as a prince, or in an elevated office. From this word the terms "sultan" and "sultana" are derived.

And chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon - This would seem to be an appointment which did not pertain to him as governor of the province of Babylon, or as presiding in the capital, but was a separate appointment, and, therefore, an additional mark of favor. The phrase "chief of the governors" would seem to imply that the magi of Babylon were disposed in certain orders or classes, each of which had its appropriate head, like the head of a college or university. Daniel was placed over the whole as the president, principal, or chancellor. It had been the policy of Nebuchadnezzar to assemble at the capital the principal talent and learning of the realm. Compare the notes at Daniel 1:18-20; Daniel 2:2. Daniel thus, in both these stations of honor at an early period of life, though recently an unknown stranger, and a captive; was exalted to the highest honors which could be conferred on a subject, and raised to posts of distinction which would usually be regarded as the highest rewards which could be obtained by a long life of devotedness to the welfare of the country.

Then Daniel requested of the king ... - In his own remarkable prosperity, and in the extraordinary honors conferred on him, he did not forget the companions of his humbler days. They were his countrymen; they had been captives with him; they had been selected with a view to stand with him before the king Daniel 1:3-4; they had shared with him in his rules of abstinence Daniel 1:11-17; they had all passed an honorable examination before the king Daniel 1:18-19; they had united with him in supplication to God that he would disclose the meaning of the vision Daniel 2:17-18; and now it was proper that they should be remembered by him who had been so signally honored.

Over the affairs of the province of Babylon - In what particular departments of business they were employed is not mentioned; but it would seem that all that especially pertained to this province was entrusted to them. Daniel had the general superintendence, but the subordinate duties growing out of the office were entrusted to them. The fact that the king granted the request shows the influence that Daniel had at the court. The reasons which influenced the king in granting the request may have been, not only the favor with which he regarded Daniel, but the fact that the duties of the office conferred on him now were such as to require assistance, and the remembrance of the virtues ot these youths when they stood before him.

But Daniel sat in the gate of the king - The post of chief honor and dignity as a counselor of the king. The "gate" of a city in the East, being a chief place of concourse, was the place where courts were held, and public business was usually transacted. See the notes at Job 29:7. To say, therefore, that he "sat in the gate of the king," is merely to say that he occupied a place with the chief counselors and dignitaries of the realm. The phrase "Sublime Porte," that is, "the Sublime Gate," is still employed at Constantinople to denote the government of the sultan, for, in the earlier days of Ottoman rule, the reigning sovereign, as is still the case in some parts of the East, held courts of justice and levees at the entrance of his residence. See "Harper's Magazine," vol. iv. p. 333. The office of Daniel was, perhaps, not far different from that of the grand vizier of the Turkish government. See Murray's "Ency. Geog." vol. ii. p. 202.

Remarks

Among the lessons of practical value suggested by this chapter, we may notice the following:

(1) We have an instance Daniel 2:1-3 of the methods which were resorted to in early periods of the world to ascertain what the future would be. This great monarch relied on a dream which greatly disturbed him, and on the power which he supposed was entrusted to men to interpret dreams. In common with the prevailing spirit of his times, and of all ancient times (notes, Daniel 2:1), he believed that dreams might be regarded as prognostics of future events; that they were under Divine direction; and that all that was necessary to make them safe guides in reference to what is to occur, was that they should be properly interpreted. In common, too, with all the people of ancient times, and with most of modern times, the king here referred to had an earnest desire to look into the future. There has been no desire in the human bosom stronger than this. We are so made that we wish to lift the mysterious veil which shrouds the future; to penetrate the deep darkness which rests on the unseen world.

Our great interests are there. The past is fixed, and cannot now affect us, except by the consequences of what we have done, and by teaching us lessons of value derived from our own observation, and that of others. But the future is not yet fixed. Man, so anxious to know what this is to be, finds himself in respect to it peculiarly unendowed. In relation to the past, he is endowed with the faculty of "memory," but with nothing corresponding to this pertaining to "the future." He can treasure up what has occurred, but he cannot in like manner make the future pass before his mind, that he may become wise by knowing what will take place in far distant times. There can be no doubt that God could have endowed the mind with one faculty as well as the other - for he has it himself - but there were obvious reasons why it should not be done. Destitute, then, as man was of this power, one great object of human inquiry has been to see whether the deficiency could be supplied, and whether something might not be found which would be to the future substantially what the memory is to the past. The efforts and results on this subject - one of which we have in the chapter before us - constitute one of the most instructive chapters of the history of our race, and show how effectually God has bounded the limits of human investigation in this respect. Among those methods of attempting to penetrate the future, and of laying open its deep mysteries, may be noticed the following:

(a) Astrology. It was supposed that the stars might exert an influence over the fates of men, and that by observing their positions, conjunctions, and oppositions, it might be ascertained what would be the destiny of individuals and nations. The belief of this has manifested itself more or less in every age; and in such instances as in the word "lunacy," and in the common apprehensions about the influence of the moon on health and on vegetation, may be still seen traces of that belief. Even Lord Bacon held that "astrology was a science not to be "rejected," but reformed;" and in the early periods of the world it was a "fair" subject of investigation whether the heavenly bodies actually exerted such an influence, and whether, if it were so, it was possible to ascertain the laws by which this was done. This was the so-called science of astrology.

(b) Necromancy. The belief of this also prevailed in nearly all ancient nations, and we find frequent reference to it in the Scriptures. This consisted in the belief that the dead must be acquainted with the world where they now dwell, so dark to the living, and that it might be possible to make a covenant or compact with them, by which they would be induced to disclose what they knew. It was extensively, if not universally, believed that they re-appeared to men, and that it was not an uncommon occurrence for them to leave their abodes, and to visit the earth again. It was, therefore, not an unnatural and not an unfair subject of inquiry, whether they would not disclose to the more favored among mortals what they knew of the secrets of the invisible world, and what they knew of events which were to come. Compare the notes at Isaiah 8:19.

(c) The arts of divination. These were founded mainly on the investigations of science. It was at first a fair question whether, amidst the wonders which science was unfolding to the view, it might not contribute to lift the veil from the future, and reveal what was yet to come. It took long to ascertain what were the legitimate aims of science, and what might be hoped for from it. Hence, it was directed to the inquiry whether some substance might not be found which would transmute all things to gold; whether some elixir might not be discovered which would arrest all disease, and give immortality to man; and whether science would not disclose some means by which the future could be penetrated, and the mysteries of the invisible world be laid open to the view. It required centuries of investigation, a thousand failures, and the results of long and patient thought, to ascertain what were the true objects of science, and to convince the world that it was not its legitimate purpose to reveal the future to man.

(d) Pagan oracles. It was an early inquiry whether God would not, in some way, lift the veil from the future and disclose its secrets to man. The belief that this would be done seems to be natural to the mind of man; and in all ages, and in all countries, he has supposed that; the future would be thus disclosed. Hence, among the pagan, certain persons claimed to be divinely inspired; hence, such shrines as that at Delphi became celebrated; hence, ambiguous responses were uttered, so expressed as to support the credit of the oracle, whatever might be the result; hence, men were appointed to observe the flights of birds, to inspect the entrails of animals offered in sacrifice, to interpret any unusual phenomena in the clouds, to mark the direction of meteors, and, in general, to examine any unusual appearances in the heavens or the earth, which would seem to furnish any clew by which the future might be known. Much of all this undoubtedly became mere imposture, and justified the remark of Cicero, that he wondered that one augur could meet another without laughing; but there can be no doubt that by many these inquiries were honestly pursued, and that at first all this seemed to be a legitimate subject of inquiry. What forbade man to pursue it? And who could tell but that in some such ways the secrets of the mysterious future could be found out? It demanded long and patient inquiry and observation to show that this could not be so, and that whatever might be indicated by any of these things, it was never designed that they should be the means by which man could be made acquainted with the mysteries of the invisible world.

(e) Dreams. We have seen (notes, Daniel 2:1) that it was an early article of belief that through the medium of dreams the Divine will might be made known, and the secrets of the future disclosed. The "theory" on this subject seems to have been, that during sleep the ordinary laws of the mind are suspended; that the soul is abstracted from the visible world; that the thoughts which it has then must be originated by higher beings; and that in this state it has converse with an invisible world, and may be permitted to see much of what is yet to occur. Compare Intro. to Isaiah, Section VII. (2).

(f) Visions. Men supposed that there might be representations made to certain favored persons respecting the future, their senses being closed to surrounding objects, and that while in an ecstasy, or trance, the mind might have a view of future events. Such were the visions of Balaam; such, in a remarkable manner, were the visions of the true prophets; and so deeply was the conviction that this "might" occur engrafted in the human mind, that the belief of it seems to have had a place among the pagan nations. Compare Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (4).

Such were some of the ways by which it was supposed that the future might be penetrated by man, and its secrets disclosed. By allowing man to make trial of these methods, and to pursue them through a period of several thousand years, until he himself saw that they were fruitless, God was preparing the race to feel the necessity of direct communications from himself, and to welcome the true reve lations which he would make respecting things to come.

(2) We have in the chapter before us Daniel 2:4-11 an instance of "the acknowledged failure" of a class of the wisest of men, whose lives were devoted to this employment, in their attempts to disclose the future. This is a fair illustration of all the attempts of the pagan, and it was doubtless permitted in order that it might be seen that all such attempts must fail. The magicians, astrologers, and Chaldeans were foiled in a case which fairly came within the province of their art, and when pretenders to this kind of knowledge ought to have been able to solve the difficulties of the monarch. Regarding this as a fair illustration of all the attempts of the pagan to penetrate the future, and to discover the great truths which it is desirable for man to know, there are three observations which may be made in regard to it:

I. The trial has been a fair one.

(a) There was "time" enough allowed for it. It was about four thousand years from the creation of man to the time when the canon of Scripture was completed, and promulgated to the whole world, and it could not be said that man required a longer time to test the question whether he needed a revelation.

(b) The trial was a fair one, because it was one which men were at liberty to pursue to any extent, and which was conducted under the best advantages. It was confined to no country or favored class of men. In all lands, and with every advantage of climate, government, and laws, man has been engaged in the great inquiry; and if it be remembered what immense "numbers" of minds have been employed in these investigations, it cannot be pretended that the utmost desirable freedom has not been allowed to man to test the question whether "by searching he can find out God," and disclose the future.

(c) The same thing is true in respect to the "talent" which has been employed in this investigation. It is not too much to say, that the "highest" talent that the world has produced has been engaged in these inquiries, and that the rejecters of revelation cannot hope that higher powers can be brought to bear on it, or that the unaided human intellect can hope to accomplish more in this respect than has been done. The profoundest minds in Egypt and Chaldea were engaged in inquiries of this sort. The very highest talent which Greece produced in its best days was employed on questions of religion; in attempts to find out God, to ascertain the relations of man to him, and to determine what man was to be hereafter. What was true, also, of the ancient pagan, and of the modern pagan, that the best talent has been employed on these questions, is true also of the rejecters of revelation in Christian lands. Men of high powers of intellect have refused to acknowledge the Bible as a revelation, and have chosen to fall back on the unaided resources of their own minds. Aided with all that science and learning can do, they have inquired after a system of religion that would commend itself to man as true, and as adapted to his wants; and it cannot be pretended that man in this respect has not had a fair opportunity to show what the human powers can do.

(d) The trial has been a fair one in regard to the field of investigation. Astrology, necromancy, abstruse natural science, oracles, dreams, visions, the observation of the course of events - all these have been open before man, and in one and all of them he has been allowed to pursue his investigations at pleasure.

II. There has been an entire "failure" in the attempt. The Chaldeans failed in Babylon, as the magicians had done in Egypt, to explain what was regarded as a prognostic of the future, and in both cases it was necessary to call in the aid of one who had a direct communication from heaven. The same has been the case in "all" attempts to explain the future, and to disclose what man was so desirous of knowing about the invisible world.

(a) All reliance on astrology, necromancy, oracles, dreams, and the revelations of the abstruser sciences, has failed. Astrology has ceased to be a science, and the stars are studied for other purposes than to disclose future events; necromancy has ceased to be a science - for no one now hopes to be able to make a compact with the dead, in virtue of which they will disclose the secrets of the invisible world; no one now would consult a pagan oracle with the hope of receiving a response to his inquiries that might be relied on: the abstruser sciences are pursued for other purposes; and no one would repose on dreams to furnish a system of truth which would meet the wants of man.

(b) The same thing has been true in regard to the various "systems of religion" on which men have relied. "It is true of the systems of the pagan." They have been tried in the most ample manner, and have shown that they do not meet the wants of man. The experiment has been fairly made, and the system is becoming worse and worse. It is not adapted to elevate man in the scale of being in regard to the present life; it does not remove the evils which press now upon the race; it does not disclose a certain way by which a sinner may be prepared for the life to come. "It is true in regard to an atonement for sin." The attempt has been made now for nearly six thousand years, to find some way in which an efficacious sacrifice may be made for sin. Blood has been poured on thousands of altars; animals have been offered, and thousands of human beings have been devoted to the gods, but still there has been no evidence that these bloody offerings have been accepted, or that they have availed to expiate transgression. The experiment has failed. There is no new sacrifice that can be offered now, and it is hopeless for man to attempt to make expiation for his own sins. "The same thing is true of the systems of religion, proposed by infidelity." They are all failures. One system after another is abandoned, and no one is such as the race needs. The best talent that infidelity can hope to produce has been exhausted in this undertaking, for how can it hope to produce men better fitted to propose a system of religion to mankind than Shaftesbury, or Hobbes, or Tindal, or Herbert, or Voltaire, or Hume? Yet, after all that has been done by infidelity in modern times, an intelligent man would prefer trusting his eternal interests to such a system as Socrates would propose, to one proposed by Hume; he would feel safer under the guidance of Cicero or Seneca than under the direction of Voltaire or Gibbon.

III. The "reasons why God has permitted this trial to be made, in such a manner, and with such results, are obvious. In the cases which occurred in the time of Pharaoh in Egypt, and of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the reason evidently was, that when there was an acknowledged failure of the power of the magicians, God might himself, through Joseph and Daniel, get honor to his own name. So the reasons why he has permitted this trial to be made on a large scale, and has suffered it everywhere to fail, are probably these two:

(1) to show to man, in such a way as to admit of no doubt, his need of revelation; and

(2) to induce him to prize the volume of revealed truth.

We should value it the more, and adhere to it the more firmly, in view of the experiment which has been made in all lands. If that revelation be rejected, man has no resource; he is wholly unable to penetrate the future; he can devise no way of making atonement for sin; he can originate no system that shall alleviate the sorrows under which we groan, or disclose the prospect of happiness beyond the tomb. For if the Bible is taken away, on what shall we fall back to guide us? - on astrology; on necromancy; on pagan oracles and sacrifices; on dreams; on the ravings of priestesses at pagan shrines, or the speculations of infidelity in Christian lands? All these have been tried in vain. The Bible is the only guide on which man can rely to conduct him to heaven: if that fails, all fails, and man is in the midst of impenetrable night.

(3) We may learn from this chapter Daniel 2:12-19, that in the perplexities and trials which arise in life, a good man may appeal to God for guidance and help. So Daniel felt, when all human power had failed in complying with the demands of a stern and arbitrary monarch. and when he and his friends, though innocent, were about to be involved in the sweeping sentence which had been issued against the wise men of Babylon. Then it was clear that nothing could save them but Divine interposition; nothing could avert the stroke but such a heavenly influence as would disclose the secret, and thus avert the wrath of the king. In this emergency Daniel felt that he "might" call upon God, and to this service he summoned also his three friends, who were equally interested with him in the issue. In view of this we may observe:

I. That "all" good men are liable to meet with similar perplexities and embarrassments; to be placed in circumstances where nothing but the interposition of God can help them. This is true in such respects as the following:

(a) In reference to the knowledge of the truth. The mind is often perplexed on the subject of religion: reason fails to disclose those truths which it is desirable to know; darkness and obscurity seem to envelope the whole subject; the soul, oppressed with a sense of conscious guilt, seeks to find some way of peace; the heart, entangled in the meshes of unbelief, struggles and pants to be free, and there is no human help - nothing this side the eternal throne on which reliance can be placed to impart the light which is needed.

(b) In reference to duty. The mind is often perplexed to know what should be done. Though desirous of doing what is right, yet there may be so many conflicting views; there may be such doubt as to what is best and right, that none but God can direct in such an emergency.

(c) In cases of peril. Daniel and his friends were in danger; and men are often now in such danger that they feel that none but God can save them. On a bed of pain, in a stranded vessel, in a burning house, men often feel that human help is powerless, and that aid can be found in none but God. Thus the church, in the dark days of persecution, has often been so encompassed with dangers, that it could not but feel that none but God could avert the impending destruction.

(d) In times when religion declines, and when iniquity abounds. Then the church often is led to feel that there is need of the aid of God, and that none but he can rouse it from its deathlike slumbers, and put back the swelling waves of iniquity.

II. In such circumstances it is the privilege of a good man to appeal to God, with the hope that he will interpose.

(1) This was felt by Daniel, and it is an undoubted truth, as revealed in the Bible, that in such circumstances, if we will look to God, we may hope for his guidance and help. Compare 2 Kings 19:14-15; Job 16:19-21; Psalm 25:9; Psalm 46:1, following; Psalm 55:22; James 1:5-6. But

(2) what kind of interposition and direction may "we" hope for in such perplexities? I:answer:

(a) We may expect the Divine direction by a careful study of the principles laid down in the Scriptures. The Bible indeed does not, for it could not, mention the names of individuals, or specify every case which would occur in which Divine direction would be needed, but it lays down great principles of truth, applicable to all the circumstances which will ever arise. In this respect there is a wonderful richness and fulness in the Word of God. There is many a rich vein of truth which seems never to have been worked until we are placed in some new and untried situation. When one is thrown into perplexing circumstances; when he is called to pass through trials; when he meets some powerful form of temptation, he is surprised to find how much there is in the Bible adapted to such circumstances that he never saw there before. It seems to be a new book, written to meet just such cases; nor in such circumstances does he ever consult its pages in vain.

(b) We may expect direction by his providence. The sparrow falls not to the ground without his direction, and all events are under his control, and as these events occur they may be regarded as so many indications of his will. One of the most interesting and profitable employments in a man's life is to study the indications of Providence in regard to himself, and to endeavor to learn, from what is daily occurring to him, what is the will of God in regard to him. A careful and prayerful observer of the intimations of the Divine will is not in serious danger of error.

(c) God guides those who are in perplexity by his Spirit. There is a secret and silent influence on the mind of him who is desirous of being led in the way of duty, suggesting what is true, delivering the mind from prejudice, overcoming opposition to the truth, disposing the heart to charity, peace, and love, prompting to the performance of duty, and gradually elevating the soul to God. If a man would pray when he feels an inward prompting to pray; would read the Bible when some inward voice seems to call him to do it; would do good when the inward monitor urges him to do it; would fix the eye and the heart on heaven when something within seems to lead him toward the skies, he would not be in much danger of error. Such are "spring-times of piety in the soul" - times when the soul may make rapid progress in the knowledge of the truth, and it is not enthusiasm to say that such states of mind are produced by an influence from above.

(4) In view of this chapter Daniel 2:17-18, we may observe that it is a privilege to have praying friends - friends on whom we can call to unite with us in prayer in the time of trouble. So Daniel found it when he called on his friends to pray; so Esther found it when her whole people were in danger, and when all depended on her successful application to the sovereign Esther 4:16, and so the friends of God have found it in all ages. If prayer is heard at all, there are special reasons why it should prevail when many are united in the request. Compare Matthew 18:19. Hence, the propriety of worship in the family; hence, the fitness of prayermeetings; and hence, the appropriateness of prayer offered in the great congregation.

(5) God should be praised and acknowledged as having supremacy over all things, Daniel 2:20-23. Particularly he should be acknowledged

(a) in the changes that occur on earth; in the changes from childhood to youth, and from youth to manhood, and to old age; in the beautiful changes of the seasons, and in all the variety which the seasons bring with them; in the changes from sickness to health, from poverty to affluence, from oppression and slavery to freedom, from an humble to an exalted condition; in all the revolutions of empire, and the changes of dynasties.

(b) He should be acknowledged in his supremacy over the kings and rulers of the earth. Every monarch reigns by his permission, and every one is designed to accomplish some great purpose in the development of his plans. If a full and correct history of the world could be written, it would be found that God had some object to accomplish by the instrumentality of everyone whom he has called to a throne, and that as we can now see a distinct design to be accomplished by the reign of Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Cyrus, and Augustus, so we could find some distinct design in reference to every one who has ever reigned.

(c) He should be recognized as the source of all knowledge. Particularly

(1) he originally endowed every mind, and gave it the capacity which it has for acquiring knowledge;

(2) he preserves the faculties of the mind, and gives them their just balance;

(3) he makes the intellect clear and bright, and when it applies itself to the investigation of truth he only can preserve it unclouded;

(4) he makes, under the operation of the regular laws of intellect, important suggestions to the mind - those pregnant hints containing so much "the seeds of things" on which all true progress in knowledge depends - those bright thoughts, those happy conceptions, which come into the soul, and which result in such happy inventions, and such advances in science, art, literature, and law; and

(5) he should be regarded as the original source of those "inventions" which contribute so much to the progress of the race. At the proper time, and the best time, when some new and wonderful discovery is to burst upon the world, he raises up the individual who is to make it, and the discovery takes its place as one of the fixed points of progress, and society, with that as a treasure never to be lost, moves forward on a higher elevation, with greatly accelerated progress. So it was with the invention of alphabetical writing; the art of printing; the application of steam to purposes of manufacture and navigation; the telescope, and the telegraph; and, in general, in respect to all those great inventions which have contributed to the progress of society. If the whole truth were known, it would be seen that the hand of God was in these things as really as in the "revelation of the deep and secret things to Daniel."

(6) We may learn from this chapter, as was remarked in the notes at Daniel 2:30, that for all our attainments in knowledge and wisdom we should ascribe the praise to God alone. In illustration of this we may remark:

I. That there is a strong native tendency in man to ascribe the honor of such attainments to himself. It is one of the most difficult of all things to induce man to attribute the praise of whatever excellence he may have. or whatever attainments he may make, to his Creator. This exists universally in regard to talent, rank, and scientific attainments; and it is even hard for a heart that is endowed with true religion to free itself altogether from self-glorying, as if it were all to be traced to ourselves.

II. Yet in our case, as in the case of Daniel, all the honor should be ascribed to God. For

(1) it is to him we owe all our original endowments of mind and of body, whatever they may be. In this respect we are as he chose to make us. We have no natural endowment - whether of beauty, strength, genius, aptness for learning, or advantages for distinction in science which he did not confer on us, and which he could not as easily have withheld from us as he did from those less favored. And why should we be proud of these things? Shall the oak of Bashan be proud of its far-spreading arms, or its strength? Shall the cedar of Lebanon be proud of its height, and its vastness, and its beauty? Shall the rose be proud of its beauty or its sweetness, or shall the magnolia boast of its fragrance?

(2) God has conferred on us all the means of education which we have enjoyed, and all to which the development ot our natural powers can be traced. He has preserved our reason; he has furnished us instructors; he has provided the books which we have read; he has continued to us the possession of the health which we have enjoyed. At any moment he could have driven reason from the throne; he could have deprived us of health; he could have summoned us away.

(3) It is equally owing to him that we have been favored with any success in the prosecution of our calling in life. Let the merchant who has accumulated great property, apparently by his own industry, suppose that all Divine agency and influence in his case had been withheld, and whatever labor he may have expended, or with whatever skill he may be endowed, he could have met with no such success. Let him reflect how much he owes to favoring gales on the ocean; to the seasons producing abundant harvests, and to what seems almost to be "chance" or "fortune," and he will see at once that whatever success he may have been favored with is to be traced, in an eminent sense, to God. The same thing is true of all the other successful departments of human effort.

(4) This is equally true of all the knowledge which we have of the way of salvation, and all our hopes of eternal life. It is a great principle of religion that we have nothing which we have not received, and that if we have received it, we should not glory as if we had not received it, for it is God who makes us to differ (see 1 Corinthians 4:7). It is God who originally gave us the volume of revealed truth - making us differ from the whole pagan world. It is God who awakened us to see our guilt and danger, making us to differ from the gay and careless world around us. It is God alone who has pardoned our sins, making us to differ from the multitude who are unpardoned in the world. It is God who has given us every hope that we cherish that is well-founded, and all the peace and joy which we have had in com munion with himself. For these things, therefore, we should give all the praise to God; and in our case, as in that of Daniel, it is one of the evidences of our piety when we are disposed to do so.

(7) We have in this chapter Daniel 2:46-47 an instructive instance of the extent to which an irreligious man may go in showing respect for God. It can. not be supposed that Nebuchadnezzar was a truly pious man. His characteristics and actions, both before and after this, were those of a pagan, and there is no evidence that he was truly converted to God. Yet he evinced the highest respect for one who was a servant and prophet of the Most High Daniel 2:46, and even for God himself Daniel 2:47. This was evinced in a still more remarkable manner at a subsequent period Daniel 4 In this he showed how far it is possible for one to go who has no real piety, and as such cases are not uncommon, it may not be improper to consider them for a moment.

I. This respect for God extends to the following things:

(1) An admiration of him, as great, and wise, and powerful. The evidences of his power and wisdom are traced in his works. The mind may be impressed with what is wise, or overpowered with what is vast, without there being any real religion, and all this admiration may terminate on God, and be expressed in language of respect for him, or for his ministers.

(2) This admiration of God may be extended to whatever is "beautiful" in religion. The beauty'of the works of nature, of the sky, of a landscape, of the ocean, of the setting sun, of the changing clouds, of the flowers of the field, may lead the thoughts up to God, and produce a certain admiration of a Being who has clothed the world with so much loveliness. There is a religion of sentiment as well as of principle; a religion that terminates on the "beautiful" as well as a religion that terminates on the "holy." The Greeks, natural admirers of beauty, carried this kind of religion to the highest possible degree, for their religion was, in all its forms, characterized by the love of the beautiful. So also there is much that is beautiful in Christianity, as well as in the works of God, and it is possible to be charmed with that without ever having felt any compunction for sin. or any love for pure religion itself. It is possible for one who has a natural admiration for what is lovely in character, to see a high degree of moral beauty in the character of the Redeemer, for one whose heart is easily moved by sympathy to be affected in view of the sufferings of the injured Saviour. The same eyes that would weep over a welltold tale, or over a tragic representation on the stage, or over a scene of real distress, might weep over the wrongs and woes of Him who was crucified, and yet there might be nothing more than the religion of sentiment - the religion springing from mere natural feeling.

(3) There is much "poetic" religion in the world. It is possible for the imagination to form such a view of the Divine character that it shall seem to be lovely, while perhaps there may be scarcely a feature of that character that shall be correct. Not a little of the religion of the world is of this description - where such a God is conceived of as the mind chooses, and the affections are fixed on that imaginary being, while there is not a particle of love to the true God in the soul. So there is a poetic view of man, of his character, of his destiny, while the real character of the heart has never been seen. So there is a poetic view of heaven - strongly resembling the views which the ancients had of the Elysian fields. But heaven as a place of holiness has never been thought of, and would not be loved. Men look forward to a place where the refined and the intelligent; the amiable and the lovely; the accomplished and the upright; where poets, orators, warriors, and philosophers will be assembled together. This is the kind of religion which is often manifested in eulogies, and epitaphs, and in conversation, where those who never had any better religion, and never pretended to any serious piety, are represented as having gone to heaven when they die. There are few who, under the influence of such a religion, are not looking forward to some kind of a heaven; and few persons die, whatever may be their character, unless they are openly and grossly abandoned, for whom the hope is not expressed that they have gone safe to a better world. If we may credit epitaphs, and obituary notices, and funeral eulogiums, and biographies, there are few poets, warriors, statesmen, or philosophers, about whose happiness in the future world we should have any apprehension.

II. But in all this there may be no real religion. There is no evidence that there was any in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, and as little is there in the instances now referred to. Such persons may have a kind of reverence for God as great, and powerful, and wise; they may have even a kind of pleasure in looking on the evidence of his existence and perfections in his works; they may have a glow of pleasurable emotion in the mere "poetry" of religion; they may be restrained from doing many things by their consciences; they may erect temples, and build altars, and contribute to the support of religion, and even be zealous for religion. as they understand it, and still have no just views of God, and no true piety whatever.

(1) The mind that is truly religious is not insensible to all this, and may have as exalted notions of God as a great and glorious being, and be as much impressed with the beauty evinced in his works as in the cases supposed. True religion does not destroy the sense of the sublime and beautiful, but rather cultivates this in a higher degree. But

(2) There is much besides this that enters into true religion, and without which all these things are vain.

(a) True religion always arises from just views of God as he is; not from him as an imaginary being.

(b) True religion must regard God as having "moral" attributes; as benevolent, and just, and true, and holy, and not merely as powerful and great.

(c) In all these things referred to, there is not. necessarily any moral excellence on the part of those who thus admire God and his works. The mere admiration of power implies in us no moral excellence. The admiration of the wisdom which made the worlds and keeps them in their place; of the beauties of poetry, or of a flower, or landscape, though made by God, implies no moral excellence in us, and, therefore, no true religion. There is no more religion in admiring "God" as an architect or painter, than there is in admiring Sir Christopher Wren, or Michael Angelo; and the mere admiration of the works of God as such, implies no more moral excellence in us than it does to admire Paul's or Peter's. In religion, the heart does not merely admire the beautiful and the grand; it loves what is pure, and just, and good, and holy. It delights in God as a holy being rather than as a powerful being; it finds pleasure in his moral character, and not merely in his greatness.

(8) We may learn from this chapter Daniel 2:49, that when we are favored with prosperity and honor we should not neglect, or be ashamed of, the companions of our earlier days, and the partakers of our fortune when we were poor and unknown. Joseph, when exalted to the premiership of Egypt, was not ashamed of his aged father, but, though he had been an humble shepherd, presented him, with the deepest feelings of respect toward an aged parent, to Pharaoh; nor was he ashamed of his brethren, though they had done him so much wrong. Daniel, when in a similar manner advanced to the most honorable post which one could reach, in the most magnificent monarchy of the world, was not ashamed of the youthful friends with whom he had shared the humble and severe lot of bondage. So we, if we are made rich; if we are raised to honor; if we become distinguished for learning or talent; if our names are known abroad, or we are entrusted with a high and honorable office, should not forget the friends and companions of our earlier years.