Bible Commentaries
Daniel 4

Introduction

Section I - Authenticity of the Chapter

To the authenticity of this chapter, as to the preceding, objections and difficulties have been urged, sufficient, in the view of the objectors, to destroy its credibility as a historical narrative. Those objections, which may be seen at length in Bertholdt (pp. 70-72, 285-309), Bleek (“Theol. Zeitscrift, Drittes Heft,” 268, following.), and Eichhorn (“Einlei.” iv. 471, following.), relate mainly to two points - those derived from the want of historical proofs to confirm the narrative, and those derived from its alleged intrinsic improbability.

I. The former of these, derived from the want of historic confirmation of the truth of the narrative, are summarily the following:

(1) That the historical books of the Old Testament give no intimation that these remarkable things happened to Nebuchadnezzar, that he was deranged and driven from his throne, and made to dwell under the open heaven with the beasts of the field - an omission which, it is said, we cannot suppose would have occurred if these things had happened, since the Hebrew writers, on account of the wrongs which Nebuchadnezzar had done to their nation, would have certainly seized on such facts as a demonstration of the Divine displeasure against him.

(2) There is no record of these events among the pagan writers of antiquity; no writer among the Greeks, or other nations, ever having mentioned them.

(3) It is equally remarkable that Josephus, in his narrative of the sickness of Nebuchadnezzar, makes no allusion to any knowledge of this among other nations, and shows that he derived his information only from the sacred books of his own people.

(4) It is acknowledged by Origen and Jerome that they could find no historical grounds for the truth of this account.

(5) If these things had occurred, as here related, they would not have been thus concealed, for the king himself took all possible measures, by the edict referred to in this chapter, to make them known, and to make a permanent record of them. How could it have happened that all knowledge would have been lost if they had thus occurred?

(6) If the edict was lost, how was it ever recovered again? When, and where, and by whom, was it found? If actually issued, it was designed to make the case known throughout the empire. Why did it fail of producing that effect so as not to have been forgotten? If it was lost, how was the event known? And if it was lost, how could it have been recovered and recorded by the author of this book? Compare Bertholdt, p. 298.

To these objections, it maybe replied,

(1) That the silence of the historical books of the Old Testament furnishes no well-founded objection to what is said in this chapter, for none of them pretend to bring down the history of Nebuchadnezzar to the close of his life, or to this period of his life. The books of Kings and of Chronicles mention his invasion of the land of Palestine and of Egypt; they record the fact of his carrying away the children of Israel to Babylon, but they do not profess to make any record of what occurred to him after that, nor of the close of his life. The second book of Chronicles closes with an account of the removal of the Jews to Babylon, and the carrying away of the sacred vessels of the temple, and the burning of the temple, and the destruction of the city, but does not relate the history of Nebuchadnezzar any farther, 2 Chronicles 36:0. The silence of the book cannot, therefore, be alleged as an argument against anything that may be said to have occurred after that. As the history closes there; as the design was to give a record of Jewish affairs to the carrying away to Babylon, and not a history of Nebuchadnezzar as such, there is no ground of objection furnished by this silence in regard to anything that might be said to have occurred to Nebuchadnezzar subsequently to this in his own kingdom.

(2) In regard to profane writers, also, nothing can be argued as to the improbability of the account mentioned here from their silence on the subject. It is not remarkable that in the few fragments which are found in their writings respecting the kings and empires of the East, an occurrence of this kind should have been omitted. The general worthlessness or want of value of the historical writings of the Greeks in respect to foreign nations, from which we derive most of our knowledge of those nations, is now generally admitted, and is expressly maintained by Niebuhr, and by Schlosser (see Hengstenberg, “Die Authentic des Daniel,” p. 101), and most of these writers make no allusion at all to Nebuchadnezzar. Even Herodotus, who traveled into the East, and who collected all he could of the history of the world, makes no mention whatever of a conqueror so illustrious as Nebuchadnezzar. How could it be expected that when they have omitted all notice of his conquests, of the great events under him, which exerted so important an effect on the world, there should have been a record of an occurrence like that referred to in this chapter - an occurrence that seems to have exerted no influence whatever on the foreign relations of the empire?

It is remarkable that Josephus, who searched for all that he could find to illustrate the literature and history of the Chaldees, says (“Ant.” b. x. ch. xi. Section 1) that he could find only the following “histories as all that he had met with concerning this king: Berosus, in the third book of his Chaldaic history; Philostratus, in the history of Judea and of the Phoenicians, who only mentions him in respect to his siege of Tyre; the Indian history of Megasthenes - Ἰνδικά Indika - in which the only fact which is mentioned of him is that he plundered Libya and Iberia; and the Persian history of Diocles, in which there occurs but one solitary reference to Nebuchadnezzar.” To these he adds, in his work “against Apion” (b. i. 20), a reference to the “Archives of the Phoenicians,” in which it is said that “he conquered Syria and Phoenicia.” Berosus is the only one who pretends to give any extended account of him.

See “Ant.” b. x. ch. 11: Section 1. All those authorities mentioned by Josephus, therefore, except Berosus, may be set aside, since they have made no allusion to many undeniable facts in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and, therefore, the events referred to in this chapter may have occurred, though they have not related them. There remain two authors who have noticed Nebuchadnezzar at greater length, Abydenus and Berosus. Abydenus was a Greek who lived 268 b.c. He wrote, in Greek, a historical account of the Chaldeans, Babylonians, and Assyrians, only a few fragments of which have been preserved by Eusebins, Cyrill, and Syncellus. Berosus was a Chaldean, and was a priest in the temple of Belus, in the time of Alexander, and having learned of the Macedonians the Greek language, he went to Greece, and opened a school of astronomy and astrology in the island of Cos, where his productions acquired for him great fame with the Athenians. Abydenus was his pupil. Berosus wrote three books relative to the history of the Chaldeans, of which only some fragments are preserved in Josephus and Eusebius. As a priest of Belus he possessed every advantage which could be desired for obtaining a knowledge of the Chaldeans, and if his work had been preserved it would doubtless be of great value. Both these writers professedly derived their knowledge from the traditions of the Chaldeans, and both should be regarded as good authority.

Berosus is adduced by Josephus to confirm the truth of the historical records in the Old Testament. He mentions, according to Josephus, the deluge in the time of Noah, and the account of the resting of the ark on one of the mountains of Armenia. He gives a catalogue of the descendants of Noah, and “at length comes down to Nabolassar, who was king of Babylon and of the Chaldeans.” He then mentions the expedition of his son, Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar), against the Egyptians; the capture of Jerusalem; the burning of the temple; and the removal of the Jews to Babylon. He then mentions the manner in which Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne; the way in which he distributed his captives in various parts of Babylonia; his adorning of the temple of Belus; his re-building the old city of Babylon, and the building of another city on the other side of the river; his adding a new palace to what his father had built; and the fact that this palace was finished in fifteen days. After these statements respecting his conquests and the magnificence of his capital, Berosus gives the following narrative: “Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the aforementioned wall, fell sick - ἐμπεσὼν είς ἀῤῥωστίαν empesōn eis arrōstian - and departed this life - μετηλλάξατο τὸν βίον metēllaxato ton bion - (a phrase meaning to die, see Passow on the word μεταλλάσσω metallassō) “when he had reigned forty-three years, whereupon his son Evil-Merodach, obtained the kingdom.” Josephus against Apion, b. 1, section 20. Now this narrative is remarkable, and goes in fact to confirm the statement in Daniel in two respects:

(a) It is manifest that Berosus here refers to some sickness in the case of Nebuchadnezzar that was unusual, and that probably preceded, for a considerable time, his death. This appears from the fact, that in the case of the other monarchs whom he mentions in immediate connection with this narrative, no sickness is alluded to as preceding their death. This is the case with respect to Neriglissar and Nabonnedus - successors of Nebuchadnezzar. See Jos. “against Ap.” i. 20. There is no improbability in supposing, that what Berosus here calls “sickness” is the same which is referred to in the chapter before us. Berosus, himself a Chaldean, might not be desirous of stating all the facts about a monarch of his own country so distinguished, and might not be willing to state all that he knew about his being deprived of reason, and about the manner in which he was treated, and yet what occurred to him was so remarkable, and was so well known, that there seemed to be a necessity of alluding to it in some way; and this he did in the most general manner possible. If this were his object, also, he would not be likely to mention the fact that he was restored again to the throne. He would endeavor to make it appear as an ordinary event - a sickness which preceded death - as it “may” have been the fact that he never was wholly restored so far as to be in perfect health.

(b) This statement of Berosus accords, in respect to “time,” remarkably with that in Daniel. Both accounts agree that the sickness occurred after he had built Babylon, and toward the close of his reign.

The other author which is referred to is Abydenus. The record which he makes is preserved by Eusebius, praep. Evang. ix. 41, and Chronicon Armenolatinum, I. p. 59, and is in the following words:

μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ, λέγεται πρὸς Χαλδαίων, ὡς ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὰ βασιλήΐα, κατασχεθείη θεῷ ὅτεῳ δὴ, φθεγξάμενος δὲ εἶπεν; οὖτος ἐγὼ Ναβουκοδρόσορος, ὦ Βαβυλώνιοι, τὴν μέλλουσαν ὑμῖν προαγγέλλω συμφορὴν, τὴν ὅτε Βῆλος ἐμός πρόγονος, ἥ τε βασίλεια Βῆλτις ἀποτρέψαι Μοίρας πεῖσαι ἀσθενοῦσιν; ἥξες Πέρσης ἡμίονος, τοῖσιν ὑμετέροισι δαίμοσι χρεώμενος αυμμάχοισιν; ἐπάξει δὲ δουλοσύνην; ου{ δὴ συναίτιος ἔσται Μήδης, τὸ Ἀσσύριον αὔχημα; ὡς εἴθε μιν πρόσθεν ἤ δοῦναι τοὺς πολιήτας, Χάρυβδίν τινα, ἤ θάλασσαν εἰσδεξαμένην, ἀΐστῶσαι πρόῤῥιζον; ἤ μιν ἄλλας ὁδοὺς στραφέντα φέρεσθαι διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου, ἵνα οὔτε ἄστεα, οὔτε πάτος ἀνθρώπων, θῆρες δὲ νόμον ἔχουσι, καὶ ὄρνιθες πλάζονται, ἔν τε πέτρῃσι καὶ χαράδρῃσι μοῦνον ἁλώμενον; ἐμέ τε, πρὶν εἰς νόον βαλέσθαι ταῦτα, τέλεος ἀμείνονος κυρῆσαι. Ὁ μὲν θεσπίσας παραχρῆμα ἠφάνιστο.

Meta tauta de, legetai pros Chaldaiōn, hōs anabas epi ta basilēia, kataschetheiē theō hoseō dē, phthengxamenos de eipen; ousos egō Naboukodrosoros, ō Babulōnioi, tēn mellousan humin proangellō sumphorēn, tēn hote Bēlos emos progonos, hē te basileia Bēltis apotrepsai Moiras peisai asthenousin; hēxei Persēs hēmionos, toisin humeteroisi daimosi chreōmenos summachoisin; epaxei de doulosunēn; hou dē sunaitios estai Mēdēs, to Assurion auchēma; hōs eithe min prosthen ē dounai tous poliētas, Charubdin tina, ē thalassan eisdexamenēn, aistōsai prorrizon; ē min allas hodous straphenta pheresthai dia tēs erēmou, hina oute astea, oute patos; anthrōpōn, thēres de nomon echousi, kai ornithes plazontai, en te petrēsi kai charadrēsi mounon halōmenon; eme te, prin eis nōn balesthai tauta, teleos ameinonos kurēsai. Ho men thespissas parachrēma ēphanisto.

This passage is so remarkable that I annex a translation of it, as I find it in Prof. Stuart’s work on Daniel, p. 122: “After these things” (his conquests which the writer had before referred to), “as it is said by the Chaldeans, having ascended his palace, he was seized by some god, and speaking aloud, he said: ‘I, Nebuchadnezzar, O Babylonians, foretell your future calamity, which neither Belus, my ancestor, nor queen Beltis, can persuade the destinies to avert. A “Persian mule” will come, employing your own divinities as his auxiliaries; and he will impose servitude (upon you). His coadjutor will be the “Mede,” who is the boast of the Assyrians. Would that, before he places my citizens in such a condition, some Charybdis or gulf might swallow him up with utter destruction! Or that, turned in a different direction, he might roam in the desert (where are neither cities, nor footsteps of man, but wild beasts find pasturage, and the birds wander), being there hemmed in by rocks and ravines! May it be my lot to attain to a better end, before such things come into his mind!’ Having uttered this prediction, he immediately disappeared.” This passage so strongly resembles the account in Daniel 4:0, that even Bertholdt (p. 296) admits that it is identical (identisch) with it, though he still maintains, that although it refers to mental derangement, it does nothing to confirm the account of his being made to live with wild beasts, eating grass, and being restored again to his throne. The points of “agreement” in the account of Abydenus and that of Daniel are the following:

(1) The account of Abydenus, as Bertholdt admits, refers to mental derangement. Such a mental derangement, and the power of prophecy, were in the view of the ancients closely connected, or were identical, and were believed to be produced by the overpowering influence of the gods on the soul. The rational powers of the soul were supposed to be suspended, and the god took entire possession of the body, and through that communicated the knowledge of future events. Compare Dale, “de Oraculis Ethnicorum,” p. 172. Eusebius, “Chr. Arm.- lat.,” p. 61. In itself considered, moreover, nothing would be more natural than that Nebuchadnezzar, in the malady that came upon him, or when it was coming upon him, would express himself in the manner affirmed by Abydenus respecting the coming of the Persian, and the change that would occur to his own kingdom. If the account in Daniel is true respecting the predictions which he is said to have uttered concerning coming events Daniel 2:0, nothing would be more natural than that the mind of the monarch would be filled with the anticipation of these events, and that he would give utterance to his anticipations in a time of mental excitement.

(2) There is a remarkable agreement between Abydenus and Daniel in regard to the “time” and the “place” in which what is said of the king occurred. According to Abydenus, the prophetic ecstasy into which he fell was at the close of all his military expeditions, and occurred in the same place, and in the same circumstances, which are mentioned in the book of Daniel - upon his palace - apparently as he walked upon the roof, or upon some place where he had a clear view of the surrounding city which he had built - ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὰ βασιλήΐα anabas epi ta basileia.

(3) The accounts in Abydenus and in Daniel harmonize so far as they relate to the God by whom what occurred was produced. In Daniel it is attributed to the true God, and not to any of the objects of Chaldean worship. It is remarkable that in Abydenus it is not ascribed to an idol, or to any god worshipped by the Chaldees, but to God simply, as to a God that was not known - κατασχεθείη θεῷ ὅτεῳ δὴ kataschetheiē Theō hoseō dē. It would seem from this that even the Chaldee tradition did not attribute what was said by Nebuchadnezzar, or what occurred to him, to any of the gods worshipped in Babylon, but to a foreign god, or to one whom they were not accustomed to worship.

(4) In the language which Nebuchadnezzar is reported by Abydenus to have used respecting the return of the Persian king after his conquest, there is a remarkable resemblance to what is said in Daniel, showing that, though the language is applied to different things in Daniel and in Abydenus, it had a common origin. Thus, in the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar, as reported by Abydenus, it is said, “may he, returning through other ways, be borne through the desert where there are no cities, where there is no path for men, where wild beasts graze, and the fowls live, wandering about in the midst of rocks and caves.” These considerations show that the Chaldean traditions strongly corroborate the account here; or, that there are things in these traditions which cannot be accounted for except on the supposition of the truth of some such occurrence as what is here stated in Daniel. The sum of the evidence from history is

(a) that very few things are known of this monarch from profane history;

(b) that there is nothing in what is known of him which makes what is here stated improbable;

(c) that there are things related of him which harmonize with what is here affirmed; and

(d) that there are traditions which can be best explained by some such supposition as that the record in this chapter is true.

As to the objection that if the edict was promulgated it would not be likely to be lost, or the memory of it fade away, it is sufficient to observe that almost “all” of the edicts, the laws, and the statutes of the Assyrian and Chaldean princes have perished with all the other records of their history, and almost all the facts pertaining to the personal or the public history of these monarchs are now unknown. It cannot be believed that the few fragments which we now have of their writings are all that were ever composed, and in the thing itself there is no more improbability that “this” edict should be lost than any other, or that though it may have been kept by a Hebrew residing among them, it should not have been retained by the Chaldeans themselves. As to the question which has been asked, if this were lost how it could have been recovered again, it is sufficient to remark that, for anything that appears, it never “was” lost in the sense that no one had it in his possession. It would undoubtedly come into the hands of Daniel if he were, according to the account in his book, then in Babylon; and it is not probable that so remarkable a document would be suffered by “him” to be lost. The fact that it was preserved by him is all that is needful to answer the questions on that point. It “may” have been swept away with other matters in the ruin that came upon the Chaldean records in their own country; it has been preserved where it was most important that it should be preserved - in a book where it would be to all ages, and in all lands, a signal proof that God reigns over kings, and that he has power to humble and abase the proud.

II. There is a second class of objections to the credibility of the account in this chapter quite distinct from that just noticed. They are based on what is alleged to be the intrinsic “improbability” that the things which are said to have occurred to Nebuchadnezzar should have happened. It cannot be alleged, indeed, that it is incredible that a monarch should become a maniac - for the kings of the earth are no more exempt from this terrible malady than their subjects; but the objections here referred to relate to the statements respecting the manner in which it is said that this monarch was treated, and that he lived during this long period. These objections may be briefly noticed.

(1) It has been objected, that it is wholly improbable that a monarch at the head of such an empire would, if he became incapable of administering the affairs of government, be so utterly neglected as the representation here would imply: that he would be suffered to wander from his palace to live with beasts; to fare as they fared, and to become in his whole appearance so “like” a beast. It is indeed admitted by those who make this objection, that there is no improbability that the calamity would befall a king as well as other men; and Michaelis has remarked that it is even more probable that a monarch would he thus afflicted than others (“Anm. Z. Dan.” p. 41; compare Bertholdt, p. 304), but it is alleged that it is wholly improbable that one so high in office and in power would be treated with the utter neglect which is stated here. “Is it credible,” says Bertholdt (p. 300-303), “that the royal family, and the royal counselors, should have shown so little care or concern for a monarch who had come into a state so perfectly helpless? Would no one have sought him out, and brought him back, if he had wandered so far away? Could he anywhere in the open plains, and the regions about Babylon, destitute of forests, have concealed himself so that no one could have found him? It could only have been by a miracle, that one could have wandered about for so long a time, amidst the dangers which must have befallen him, without having been destroyed by wild beasts, or falling into some form of irrecoverable ruin. What an unwise policy in a government to exhibit to a newly-conquered people so dishonorable a spectacle!”

To this objection it may be replied,

(a) That its force, as it was formerly urged, may be somewhat removed by a correct interpretation of the chapter, and a more accurate knowledge of the disease which came upon the king, and of the manner in which he was actually treated. According to some views formerly entertained respecting the nature of the malady, it would have been impossible, I admit, to have defended the narrative. In respect to these views, see the notes at Daniel 4:25. It “may” appear, from the fair interpretation of the whole narrative, that nothing more occurred than was natural in the circumstances.

(b) The supposition that he was left to wander without any kind of oversight or guardianship is entirely gratuitous, and is unauthorized by the account which Nebuchadnezzar gives of what occurred. This opinion has been partly formed from a false interpretation of the phrase in Daniel 4:36 - “and my counselers and my lords sought unto me” - as if they had sought him when he was wandering, with a view to find out where he was; whereas the true meaning of that passage is, that “after” his restoration they sought unto him, or applied to him as the head of the empire, as they had formerly done.

(c) There is some probability from the passage in Daniel 4:15 - “leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass” - that Nebuchadnezzar was secured in the manner in which maniacs often have been, and that in his rage he was carefully guarded from all danger of injuring himself. See the notes at Daniel 4:15.

(d) On the supposition that he was not, still there might have been all proper “care” taken to guard him. All that may be implied when it is said that he “was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen,” etc., may have been that this was his “propensity” in that state; that he had this roving disposition, and was disposed rather to wander in fields and groves than to dwell in the abodes of men; and that he was driven “by this propensity,” not “by men,” to leave his palace, and to take up his residence in parks or groves - anywhere rather than in human habitations. This has been not an uncommon propensity with maniacs, and there is no improbability in supposing that this was permitted by those who had the care of him, as far as was consistent with his safety, and with what was due to him as a monarch, though his reason was driven from its throne. In the parks attached to the palace; in the large pleasure-grounds, that were not improbably stocked with various kinds of animals, as a sort of royal menagerie, there is no improbability in supposing that he may have been allowed at proper times, and with suitable guards, to roam, nor that the fallen and humbled monarch may have found, in comparatively lucid intervals, a degree of pleasant amusement in such grounds, nor even that it might be supposed that this would contribute to his restoration to health.

Nor, on “any” supposition in regard to these statements, even admitting that there was a great degree of criminal inattention on the part of his friends, would his treatment have been worse than what has usually occurred in respect to the insane. Up to quite a recent period, and even now in many civilized lands, the insane have been treated with the most gross neglect, and with the severest cruelty, even by their friends. Left to wander where they chose without a protector; unshaven and unwashed; the sport of the idle and the vicious; thrown into common jails among felons; bound with heavy chains to the cold walls of dungeons; confined in cellars or garrets with no fire in the coldest weather; with insufficient clothing, perhaps entirely naked, and in the midst of the most disgusting filth - such treatment, even in Christian lands, and by Christian people, may show that in a pagan land, five hundred years before the light of Christianity dawned upon the world, it is not “wholly” incredible that an insane monarch “might” have been treated in the manner described in this chapter.

If the best friends now may so neglect, or treat with such severity, an insane son or daughter, there is no improbability in supposing that in an age of comparative barbarism there may have been as “little” humanity as is implied in this chapter. The following extracts from the Second Annual Report of the Prison Discipline Society (“Boston”) will show what has occurred in the nineteenth century, in this Christian land, and in the old commonwealth of Massachusetts - a commonwealth distinguished for morals, and for humane feeling - and will demonstrate at the same time that what is here stated about the monarch of pagan Babylon is not unworthy of belief. They refer to the treatment of lunatics in that commonwealth before the establishment of the hospital for the insane at Worcester. “In Massachusetts, by an examination made with care, about thirty lunatics have been found in prison. In one prison were found three; in another five; in another six; and in another ten. It is a source of great complaint with the sheriffs and jailers that they must receive such persons, because they have no suitable accommodations for them. Of those last mentioned, one was found in an apartment in which he had been nine years. He had a wreath of rags around his body, and another around his neck. This was all his clothing. He had no bed, chair, or bench. Two or three: rough planks were strewed around the room; a heap of filthy straw, like the nest of swine, was in the corner. He had built a bird’s nest of mud in the iron grate of his den. Connected with his wretched apartment was a dark dungeon, having no orifice for the admission of light, heat, or air, except the iron door, about two and a half feet square, opening into it from the prison.

The other lunatics in the same prison were scattered about in different apartments, with thieves and murderers, and persons under arrest, but not yet convicted of guilt. In the prison of five lunatics, they were confined in separate cells, which were almost dark dungeons. It was difficult after the door was open to see them distinctly. The ventilation was so incomplete that more than one person on entering them has found the air so fetid as to produce nausea, and almost vomiting. The old straw on which they were laid, and their filthy garments, were such as to make their insanity more hopeless; and at one time it was not considered within the province of the physician to examine particularly the condition of the lunatics. In these circumstances any improvement of their minds could hardly be expected. Instead of having three out of four restored to reason, as is the fact in some of the favored lunatic asylums, it is to be feared that in these circumstances some who might otherwise be restored would become incurable, and that others might lose their lives, to say nothing of present suffering.

In the prison in which were six lunatics their condition was less wretched. But they were sometimes an annoyance, and sometimes a sport to the convicts; and even the apartment in which the females were confined opened into the yard of the men; there was an injurious interchange of obscenity and profanity between them, which was not restrained by the presence of the keeper. In the prison, or house of correction, so called, in which were ten lunatics, two were found about seventy years of age, a male and female, in the same apartment of an upper story. The female was lying upon a heap of straw under a broken window. The snow in a severe storm was beating through the window, and lay upon the straw around her withered body, which was partially covered with a few filthy and tattered garments. The man was lying in the corner of the room in a similar situation, except that he was less exposed to the storm.

The former had been in this apartment six, and the latter twenty-one years. Another lunatic in the same prison was found in a plank apartment of the first story, where he had been eight years. During this time he had never left the room but twice. The door of this apartment had not been opened in eighteen months. The food was furnished through a small orifice in the door. The room was warmed by no fire; and still the woman of the house said ‘he had never froze.’ As he was seen through the orifice of the door, the first question was, ‘Is that a human being?’ The hair was gone from one side of his head, and his eyes were like balls of fire. In the cellar of the same prison were five lunatics. The windows of this cellar were no defense against the storm, and, as might be supposed, the woman of the house said, ‘We have a sight to do to keep them from freezing.’ There was no fire in this cellar which could be felt by four of these lunatics.

One of the five had a little fire of turf in an apartment of the cellar by herself. She was, however, infuriate, if any one came near her. The woman was committed to this cellar seventeen years ago. The apartments are about six feet by eight. They are made of coarse plank, and have an orifice in the door for the admission of light and air, about six inches by four. The darkness was such in two of these apartments that nothing could be seen by looking through the orifice in the door. At the same time there was a poor lunatic in each. A man who has grown old was committed to one of them in 1810, and had lived in it seventeen years. An emaciated female was found in a similar apartment, in the dark, without fire, almost without covering, where she had been nearly two years. A colored woman in another, in which she had been six years; and a miserable man in another, in which he had been four years.”

(2) It is asked by Bertholdt, as an objection (p. 301), whether “it is credible that one who had been for so long a time a maniac would be restored again to the throne; and whether the government would be again placed in his hands, without any apprehension that he would relapse into the same state? Or whether it can be believed that the lives and fortunes of so many million would be again entrusted to his will and power?” To these questions it may be replied:

(a) That if he was restored to his reason he had a right to the throne, and it might not have been a doubtful point whether he should be restored to it or not.

(b) It is probable that during that time a regency was appointed, and that there would be a hope entertained that he would be restored. Undoubtedly, during the continuation of this malady, the government would be, as was the case during the somewhat similar malady of George III of Great Britain, placed in the hands of others, and unless there was a revolution, or an usurpation, he would be, of course, restored to his throne on the recovery of his reason.

(c) To this it may be added, that he was a monarch who had been eminently successful in his conquests; who had done much to enlarge the limits of the empire, and to adorn the capital; and that much was to be apprehended from the character of his legal successor, Evil-Merodach (Hengstenberg, p. 113); and that if he were displaced, they who were then the chief officers of the nation had reason to suppose that, in accordance with Oriental usage on the accession of a new sovereign, they would lose their places.

(3) It has been asked also, as an objection, whether “it is not to be presumed that Nebuchadnezzar, on the supposition that he was restored from so fearful a malady, would have employed all the means in his power to suppress the knowledge of it; or whether, if any communication was made in regard to it, pains would not have been taken to give a coloring to the account by suppressing the real truth, and by attributing the affliction to some other cause?” - Bertholdt, p. 301. To this it may be replied:

(a) That if the representation here made of the cause of his malady is correct, that it was a Divine judgment on him for his pride, and that God’s design in bringing it on him was that he himself might be made known, it is reasonable to presume that, on his restoration, there would be such a Divine influence on the mind of the monarch, as to lead him to make this proclamation, or this public recognition of the Most High;

(b) that the edict seems to have been made, not as a matter of policy, but under the fresh recollection of a restoration from so terrible a calamity;

(c) that Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been a man who had a conscience that prompted him to a decided acknowledgment of Divine interposition;

(d) that he had a strong religious propensity (compare Daniel 3:0), and was ready to make any public acknowledgment of what he regarded as Divine; and

(e) that perhaps he supposed that, by stating the truth as it actually occurred, a better impression might be made than already existed in regard to the nature of the malady. It may have been an object, also, with him to convince his subjects that, although he had been deprived of his reason, he was now, in fact, restored to a sound mind.

(4) Another ground of objection has been urged by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and others, derived from the character of the edict. It is said that “the narrative represents Nebuchadnezzar at one time as an orthodox Jew, setting forth his views almost in the very words used in the writings of the Jews, and which only a Jew would employ (see Daniel 4:2-3, Daniel 4:34-37), and then again as a mere idolater, using the language which an idolater would employ, and still acknowledging the reality of idol gods, Daniel 4:8-9, Daniel 4:18.” To this it may be replied, that this very circumstance is rather a confirmation of the truth of the account than otherwise. It is just such an account as we should suppose that a monarch, trained up in idolatry, and practicing it all his life, and yet suddenly, and in this impressive manner, made acquainted with the true God, would be likely to give. In an edict published by such a monarch, under such circumstances, it would be strange if there should be no betrayal of the fact that he had been a worshipper of pagan gods, nor would it be strange that when he disclosed his dream to Daniel, asking him to interpret it, and professing to believe that he was under the influence of inspiration from above, he should trace it to the gods in general, Daniel 4:8-9, Daniel 4:18.

And, in like manner, if the thing actually occurred, as is related, it would be certain that he would use such language in describing it as an “orthodox Jew” might use. It is to be remembered that he is represented as obtaining his view of what was meant by the vision from Daniel, and nothing is more probable than that he would use such language as Daniel would have suggested. It could not be supposed that one who had been an idolater all his life would soon efface from his mind all the impressions made by the habit of idolatry, so that no traces of it would appear in a proclamation on an occasion like this; nor could it be supposed that there would be no recognition of God as the true God. Nothing would be more natural than such an intermingling of false notions with the true. Indeed, there is in fact scarcely any circumstance in regard to this chapter that has more the air of authenticity, nor could there well be anything more probable in itself, than what is here stated.

It is just such an intermingling of truth with falsehood as we should expect in a mind trained in paganism; and yet this is a circumstance which would not be very likely to occur to one who attempted a forgery, or who endeavored to draw the character of a pagan monarch in such circumstances without authentic materials. If the edict was the work of a Jew, he would have been likely to represent its author without any remains of paganism in his mind: if it were the work of a pagan, there would have been no such recognition of the true God. If it is a mere fiction, the artifice is too refined to have been likely to occur, to attempt to draw him in this state of mind, where there was an intermingling of falsehood with truth; of the remains of all his old habits of thinking, with new and momentous truths that had just begun to dawn on his mind. The supposition that will best suit all the circumstances of the case, and be liable to the fewest objections, is, that the account is an unvarnished statement of what actually occurred. On the whole subject of the objections to this chapter, the reader may consult Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniel, pp. 100-119. For many of the remarks here made, I am indebted to that work. Compare further see the notes at Daniel 4:25, following.

Section II. - Analysis of the Chapter

The chapter professes to be an edict published by Nebuchadnezzar after his recovery from a long period of insanity, which was brought upon him for his pride. The edict was promulgated with a view to lead men to acknowledge the true God. It states, in general, that the approach of his calamity was made known to him in a dream, which was interpreted by Daniel; that his own heart had been lifted up with pride in view of the splendid city which he had built; that the predicted malady came suddenly upon him, even while he was indulging in these proud reflections; that he was driven away from the abodes of men, a poor neglected maniac; that he again recovered his reason, and then his throne; and that the God who had thus humbled him, and again restored him, was the true God, and was worthy of universal adoration and praise. The edict, therefore, embraces the following parts:

I. The reason why it was promulgated - to show to all people, dwelling in all parts of the earth, the great things which the high God had done toward him, Daniel 4:1-3.

II. The statement of the fact that he had had a dream which greatly alarmed him, and which none of the Chaldean soothsayers had been able to interpret, Daniel 4:4-7.

III. The statement of the dream in full to Daniel, Daniel 4:8-18.

IV. The interpretation of the dream by Daniel - predicting the fact that he would become a maniac, and would be driven from his throne and kingdom, and compelled to take up his abode with the beasts of the field - a poor neglected outcast, Daniel 4:19-26.

V. The solemn and faithful counsel of Daniel to him to break off his sins, and to become a righteous man, if possibly the terrible calamity might be averted, Daniel 4:27.

VI. The fulfillment of the prediction of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was walking on his palace, and, in the pride of his heart, surveying the great city which he had built, and suddenly a voice from heaven addressed him, announcing that his kingdom had departed, and his reason left him, Daniel 4:28-33.

VII. At the end of the appointed time, his reason was restored, and he gratefully acknowledged the Divine sovereignty, and was again reinstated on his throne, Daniel 4:34-36.

VIII. For all this, he says that he praised the God of heaven, for he had learned that all his works are truth, and his ways judgment, and that those who walk in pride he is able to abase, Daniel 4:37.

Verse 1

Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people ... - The Syriac here has, “Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote to all people, etc.” Many manuscripts in the Chaldee have שׁלח shâlach, “sent,” and some have כתב k^ethab, “wrote;” but neither of these readings are probably genuine, nor are they necessary. The passage is rather a part of the edict of the king than a narrative of the author of the book, and in such an edict the comparatively abrupt style of the present reading would be what would be adopted. The Septuagint has inserted here a historical statement of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar did actually issue such an edict: “And Nebuchadnezzar the king wrote an encyclical epistle - ἐπιστολὴν ἐγκύκλιον epistolēn egkuklion - to all those nations in every place, and to the regions, and to all the tongues that dwell in all countries, generations and generations: ‘Nebuchadnezzar the king,’” etc. But nothing of this is in the original.

Unto all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth - That is, people speaking all the languages of the earth. Many nations were under the scepter of the king of Babylon; but it would seem that he designed this as a general proclamation, not only to those who were embraced in his empire, but to all the people of the world. Such a proclamation would be much in accordance with the Oriental style. Compare the note at Daniel 3:4.

Peace be multiplied unto you - This is in accordance with the usual Oriental salutation. Compare Genesis 43:23; Jdg 6:23; 1 Samuel 25:6; Psalms 122:7; Luke 10:5; Ephesians 6:23; 1 Peter 1:2. This is the salutation with which one meets another now in the Oriental world - the same word still being retained, “Shalom,” or “Salam.” The idea seemed to be, that every blessing was found in peace, and every evil in conflict and war. The expression included the wish that they might be preserved from all that would disturb them; that they might be contented, quiet, prosperous, and happy. When it is said “peace be multiplied,” the wish is that it might abound, or that they might be blessed with the numberless mercies which peace produces.

Verse 2

I thought it good - Margin, “it was seemly before me.” The marginal reading is more in accordance with the original (קדמי שׁפר sh^ephar qâdâmay). The proper meaning of the Chaldee word (שׁפר sh^ephar) is, to be fair or beautiful; and the sense here is, that it seemed to him to be appropriate or becoming to make this public proclamation. It was fit and right that what God had done to him should be proclaimed to all nations.

To show the signs and wonders - Signs and wonders, as denoting mighty miracles, are not unfrequently connected in the Scriptures. See Exodus 7:3; Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 13:1; Deuteronomy 34:11; Isaiah 8:18; Jeremiah 32:20. The word rendered “signs” (Hebrew: אות 'ôth - Chaldee: את 'âth) means, properly, “a sign,” as something significant, or something that points out or designates anything; as Genesis 1:14, “shall be for “signs” and for seasons;” that is, signs of seasons. Then the word denotes an ensign, a military flag, Numbers 2:2; then a sign of something past, a token or remembrancer, Exodus 13:9, Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; then a sign of something future, a portent, an omen, Isaiah 8:18; then a sign or token of what is visible, as circumcision, Genesis 17:11, or the rainbow in the cloud, as a token of the covenant which God made with man, Genesis 9:12; then anything which serves as a sign or proof of the fulfillment of prophecy, Exodus 3:12; 1 Samuel 2:34; and then it refers to anything which is a sign or proof of Divine power, Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 6:22; Deuteronomy 7:19, “et al.”

The Hebrew word is commonly rendered “signs,” but it is also rendered “token, ensign, miracles.” As applied to what God does, it seems to be used in the sense of anything that is significant of his presence and power; anything that shall manifestly show that, what occurs is done by him; anything that is beyond human ability, and that makes known the being and the perfections of God by a direct and extraordinary manifestation. Here the meaning is, that what was done in so remarkable a manner was significant of the agency of God; it was what demonstrated that he exists, and that showed his greatness. The word rendered “wonders” (תמה t^emahh) means, properly, what is fitted to produce astonishment, or to lead one to wonder, and is applied to miracles as adapted to produce that effect. It refers to that state of mind which exists where anything occurs out of the ordinary course of nature, or which indicates supernatural power. The Hebrew word rendered “wonders” is often used to denote miracles, Exodus 3:20; Exodus 7:3; Exodus 11:9; Deuteronomy 6:22, “et al.” The meaning here is, that what had occurred was fitted to excite amazement, and to lead men to wonder at the mighty works of God.

That the high God - The God who is exalted, or lifted up; that is, the God who is above all. See Daniel 3:26. It is an appellation which would be given to God as the Supreme Being. The Greek translation of this verse is, “And now I show unto you the deeds - πράξεις praxeis - which the great God has done unto me, for it seemed good to me to show to you and your wise men” - τοῖς σοφισταῖς ὑμῶν tois sophistais humōn.

Verse 3

How great are his signs! - How great and wonderful are the things by which he makes himself known in this manner! The allusion is doubtless to what had occurred to himself - the event by which a monarch of such state and power had been reduced to a condition so humble. With propriety he would regard this as a signal instance of the Divine interposition, and as adapted to give him an exalted view of the supremacy of the true God.

And how mighty are his wonders! - The wonderful events which he does; the things fitted to produce admiration and astonishment. Compare Psalms 72:18; Psalms 86:10; Isaiah 25:1.

His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom - Nebuchadnezzar was doubtless led to this reflection by what had occurred to him. He, the most mighty monarch then on earth, had seen that his throne had no stability; he had seen that God had power at his will to bring him down from his lofty seat, and to transfer his authority to other hands; and he was naturally led to reflect that the throne of God was the only one that was stable and permanent. He could not but be convinced that God reigned over all, and that his kingdom was not subject to the vicissitudes which occur in the kingdoms of this world. There have been few occurrences on the earth better adapted to teach this lesson than this.

And his dominion is from generation to generation - That is, it is perpetual. It is not liable to be arrested as that of man is, by death; it does not pass over from one family to another as an earthly scepter often does. The same scepter; the same system of laws; the same providential arrangements; the same methods of reward and punishment, have always existed under his government, and will continue to do so to the end of time. There is, perhaps, no more sublime view that can be taken of the government of God than this. All earthly princes die; all authority lodged in the hands of an earthly monarch is soon withdrawn. No one is so mighty that he can prolong his own reign; and no one can make his own authority extend to the next generation. Earthly governments, therefore, however mighty, are of short duration; and history is made up of the records of a great number of such administrations, many of them exceedingly brief, and of very various character. The scepter falls from the hand of the monarch, never to be resumed by him again; another grasps it to retain it also but a little time, and then he passes away. But the dominion of God is in all generations the same. This generation is under the government of the same Sovereign who reigned when Semiramis or Numa lived; and though the scepter has long since fallen from the hands of Alexander and the Caesars, yet the same God who ruled in their age is still on the throne.

Verse 4

I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest - Some manuscripts in the Greek add here, “In the eighteenth year of his reign Nebuchadnezzar said.” These words, however, are not in the Hebrew, and are of no authority. The word rendered “at rest” (שׁלה sh^elēh) means, to be secure; to be free from apprehension or alarm. He designs to describe a state of tranquility and security. Greek, “at peace” - εἰρηνέυων eirēneuōn: enjoying peace, or in a condition to enjoy peace. His wars were over; his kingdom was tranquil; he had built a magnificent capital; he had gathered around him the wealth and the luxuries of the world, and he was now in a condition to pass away the remainder of his life in ease and happiness.

In mine house - In his royal residence. It is possible that the two words here - house and palace - may refer to somewhat different things: the former - house - more particularly to his own private family - is domestic relations as a man; and the latter - palace - to those connected with the government who resided in his palace. If this is so, then the passage would mean that all around him was peaceful, and that from no source had he any cause of disquiet. In his own private family - embracing his wife and children; and in the arrangements of the palace - embracing those who had charge of public affairs, he had no cause of uneasiness.

And flourishing in my palace - Greek, εὐθηνῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου μου euthēnōn epi tou thronou mou - literally, “abundant upon my throne;” that is, he was tranquil, calm, prosperous on his throne. The Chaldee word (רענן ra‛ănan) means, properly, “green;” as, for example, of leaves or foliage. Compare the Hebrew word in Jeremiah 17:8; “He shall be as a tree planted by the waters - her leaf shall be green.” Deuteronomy 12:2, “under every green tree,” 2 Kings 16:4. A green and flourishing tree becomes thus the emblem of prosperity. See Psalms 1:3; Psalms 37:35; Psalms 92:12-14. The general meaning here is, that he was enjoying abundant prosperity. His kingdom was at peace, and in his own home he had every means of tranquil enjoyment.

Verse 5

I saw a dream - That is, he saw a representation made to him in a dream. There is something incongruous in our language in saying of one that he saw a dream.

Which made me afraid - The fear evidently arose from the apprehension that it was designed to disclose some important and solemn event. This was in accordance with a prevalent belief then (comp. Daniel 2:1), and it may be added that it is in accordance with a prevalent belief now. There are few persons, whatever may be their abstract belief, who are not more or less disturbed by fearful and solemn representations passing before the mind in the visions of the night. Compare Job 4:12-17; Job 33:14-15. So Virgil (Aen. iv. 9):

“Anna soror, quae me suspensam insomnia terrent!”

And the thoughts upon my bed - The thoughts which I had upon my bed; to wit, in my dream.

And the visions of my head - What I seemed to see. The vision seemed to be floating around his head.

Troubled me - Disturbed me; produced apprehension of what was to come; of some great and important event.

Verse 6

Therefore made I a decree - The word here rendered decree (טעם ṭ^e‛êm) means, commonly, “taste, flavor,” as of wine; then “judgment, discernment, reason;” and then a judgment of a king, a mandate, edict. Compare Daniel 3:10. The primary notion seems to be that of a delicate “taste” enabling one to determine the qualities of wines, viands, etc.; and then a delicate and nice discrimination in regard to the qualities of actions. The word thus expresses a sound and accurate judgment, and is applied to a decree or edict, as declared by one who had the qualifications to express such a judgment. Here it means, that he issued a royal order to summon into his presence all who could be supposed to be qualified to explain the dream. The Greek (Codex Chisianus) omits Daniel 4:6-9.

To bring in all the wise men ... - Particularly such as are enumerated in the following verse. Compare Daniel 2:12. It was in accordance with his habit thus to call in the wise men who were retained at court to give counsel, and to explain those things which seemed to be an intimation of the Divine will. See the note at Daniel 2:2. Compare also Genesis 41:8.

Verse 7

Then came in the magicians ... - All the words occurring here are found in Daniel 2:2, and are explained in the note at that verse, except the word rendered “soothsayers.” This occurs in Daniel 2:27. See it explained in the note at that verse. All these words refer to the same general class of persons - those who were regarded as endued with eminent wisdom; who were supposed to be qualified to explain remarkable occurrences, to foretell the future, and to declare the will of heaven from portents and wonders. At a time when there was yet a limited revelation; when the boundaries of science were not determined with accuracy; when it was not certain but that some way might be ascertained of lifting the mysterious veil from the future, and when it was an open question whether that might not be by dreams or by communication with departed spirits, or by some undisclosed secrets of nature, it was not unnatural that persons should be found who claimed that this knowledge was under their control. Such claimants to preternatural knowledge are found indeed in every age; and though a large portion of them are undoubted deceivers, yet the existence of such an order of persons should be regarded as merely the exponent of the deep and earnest desire existing in the human bosom to penetrate the mysterious future; to find something that shall disclose to man, all whose great interests lie in the future, what is yet to be. Compare the remarks at the close of Daniel 2:0.

And I told the dream before them ... - In their presence. In this instance he did not lay on them so hard a requisition as he did on a former occasion, when he required them not only to interpret the dream, but to tell him what it was, Daniel 2:0. But their pretended power here was equally vain. Whether they attempted an interpretation of this dream does not appear; but if they did, it was wholly unsatisfactory to the king himself. It would seem more probable that they supposed that the dream might have some reference to the proud monarch himself, and that, as it indicated some awful calamity, they did not dare to hazard a conjecture in regard to its meaning.

Verse 8

But at the last - After the others had shown that they could not interpret the dream. Why Daniel was not called with the others does not appear; nor is it said in what manner he was at last summoned into the presence of the king. It is probable that his skill on a former occasion Daniel 2:0 was remembered, and that when all the others showed that they had no power to interpret the dream, he was called in by Nebuchadnezzar. The Latin Vulgate renders this, Donee collega ingressus est - “until a colleague entered.” The Greek, ἕως heōs, “until.” Aquila and Symmachus render it, “until another entered before me, Daniel.” The common version expresses the sense of the Chaldee with sufficient accuracy, though a more literal translation would be, “until afterward.”

Whose name was Belteshazzar - That is, this was the name which he bore at court, or which had been given him by the Chaldeans. See the note at Daniel 1:7.

According to the name of my god - That is, the name of my god Bel, or Belus, is incorporated in the name given to him. This is referred to here, probably, to show the propriety of thus invoking his aid; because he bore the name of the god whom the monarch had adored. There would seem to be a special fitness in summoning him before him, to explain what was supposed to be an intimation of the will of the god whom he worshipped. There is a singular, though not unnatural, mixture of the sentiments of paganism and of the true religion in the expressions which this monarch uses in this chapter. He had been a pagan all his life; yet he had had some knowledge of the true God, and had been made to feel that he was worthy of universal adoration and praise, Daniel 2:0. That, in this state of mind, he should alternately express such sentiments as were originated by paganism, and those which spring from just views of God, is not unnatural or improbable.

And in whom is the spirit of the holy gods - It is not easy to determine whom he meant by the holy gods. It would seem probable that this was such language as was dictated by the fact that he had been an idolater. He had been brought to feel that the God whom Daniel worshipped, and by whose aid he had been enabled to interpret the dream, was a true God, and was worthy of universal homage; but perhaps his ideas were still much confused, and he only regarded him as superior to all others, though he did not intend to deny the real existence of others. It might be true, in his apprehension, that there were other gods, though the God of Daniel was supreme, and perhaps he meant to say that the spirit of all the gods was in Daniel; that in an eminent degree he was the favorite of heaven, and that he was able to interpret any communication which came from the invisible world. It is perhaps unnecessary to observe here that the word spirit has no intended reference to the Holy Spirit. It is probably used with reference to the belief that the gods were accustomed to impart wisdom and knowledge to certain men, and may mean that the very spirit of wisdom and knowledge which dwelt in the gods themselves seemed to dwell in the bosom of Daniel.

And before him I told the dream - Not requiring him, as he did before Daniel 2:0, to state both the dream and its meaning.

Verse 9

O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians - “Master,” in the sense that he was first among them, or was superior to them all. Or, perhaps, he still retained office at the head of this class of men - the office to which he had been appointed when he interpreted the former dream, Daniel 2:48. The word rendered “master” (רב rab) is that which was applied to a teacher, a chief, or a great man among the Jews - from where came the title “rabbi.” Compare Daniel 2:48; Daniel 5:11.

Because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee - This he had learned by the skill which he had shown in interpreting his dream on former occasion, Daniel 2:0.

And no secret troubleth thee - That is, so troubles you that you cannot explain it; it is not beyond your power to disclose its signification. The word rendered “secret” (רז r̂az) occurs in Daniel 2:18-19, Daniel 2:27-30, Daniel 2:47. It is not elsewhere found. It means what is hidden, and has reference here to the concealed truth or intimation of the Divine will couched under a dream. The word rendered “troubleth thee” (אנס 'ânas) means, to urge, to press, to compel; and the idea here is, than it did not so “press” upon him as to give him anxiety. It was an easy matter for him to disclose its meaning. Greek, “No mystery is beyond your power” - ὀυκ ἀδυνατεῖ σε ouk adunatei se.

Tell me the visions of my dream - The nature of the vision, or the purport of what I have seen. He seems to have desired to know what sort of a vision he should regard this to be, as well as its interpretation - whether as an intimation of the Divine will, or as an ordimary dream. The Greek and Arabic render this, “Hear the vision of my dream, and tell me the interpretation thereof.” This accords better with the probable meaning of the passage, though the word “hear” is not in the Chaldee.

Verse 10

Thus were the visions of my head in my bed - These are the things which I saw upon my bed. When he says that they were the “visions of his head,” he states a doctrine which was then doubtless regarded as the truth, that the head is the seat of thought.

I saw - Margin, “was seeing.” Chaldee, “seeing I saw.” The phrase would imply attentive and calm contemplation. It was not a flitting vision; it was an object which he contemplated deliberately so as to retain a distinct remembrance of its form and appearance.

And, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth - Occupying a central position on the earth. It seems to have been by itself - remote from any forest: to have stood alone. Its central position, no less than its size and proportions, attracted his attention. Such a tree, thus towering to the heavens, and sending out its branches afar, and affording a shade to the beasts of the field, and a home to the fowls of heaven Daniel 4:12, was a striking emblem of a great and mighty monarch, and it undoubtedly occurred to Nebuchadnezzar at once that the vision had some reference to himself. Thus in Ezekiel 31:3, the Assyrian king is compared with a magnificent cedar: “Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of a high stature, and his top was among the thick boughs.” Compare also Ezekiel 17:22-24, where “the high tree and the green tree” refer probably to Nebuchadnezzar. See the note at Isaiah 2:13. Compare Isaiah 10:18-19; Jeremiah 22:7, Jeremiah 22:23. Homer often compares his heroes to trees. Hector, felled by a stone, is compared with an oak overthrown by a thunderbolt. The fall of Simoisius is compared by him to that of a poplar, and that of Euphorbus to the fall of a beautiful olive. Nothing is more obvious than the comparison of a hero with a lofty tree of the forest, and hence, it was natural for Nebuchadnezzar to suppose that this vision had a reference to himself.

And the height thereof was great - In the next verse it is said to have reached to heaven.

Verse 11

The tree grew - Or the tree was “great” - רבה r^ebâh. It does not mean that the tree grew while he was looking at it so as to reach to the heaven, but that it stood before him in all its glory, its top reaching to the sky, and its branches extending afar.

And was strong - It was well-proportioned, with a trunk adapted to its height, and to the mass of boughs and foliage which it bore. The strength here refers to its trunk, and to the fact that it seemed fixed firmly in the earth.

And the height thereof reached unto heaven - To the sky; to the region of the clouds. The comparison of trees reaching to heaven is common in Greek and Latin authors. - Grotius. Compare Virgil’s description of Fame.

“Mox sese attollit in auras,

Ingrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit.” -

“AEn. iv. 176

And the sight thereof to the end of all the earth - It could be seen, or was visible in all parts of the earth. The Greek here for “sight” is κῦτος kutos, “breadth, capaciousness.” Herodotus (“Polymnia”) describes a vision remarkably similar to this, as indicative of a wide and universal monarchy, respecting Xerxes:

“After these things there was a third vision in his sleep, which the magicians (μάγοι magoi) hearing of, said that it pertained to all the earth, and denoted that all men would be subject to him. The vision was this: Xerxes seemed to be crowned with a branch of laurel, and the branches of laurel seemed to extend through all the earth.” The vision which Nebuchadnezzar had here, of a tree so conspicuous as to be seen from any part of the world, was one that would be naturally applied to a sovereign having a universal sway.

Verse 12

The leaves thereof were fair - Were beautiful. That is, they were abundant, and green, and there were no signs of decay. Everything indicated a vigorous and healthy growth - a tree in its full beauty and majesty - a striking emblem of a monarch in his glory.

And the fruit thereof much - It was loaded with fruit - showing that the tree was in its full vigour.

And in it was meat for all - Food for all, for so the word meat was formerly used. This would indicate the dependence of the multitudes on him whom the tree represented, and would also denote that he was a liberal dispenser of his favors.

The beasts of the field had shadow under it - Found a grateful shade under it in the burning heat of noon - a striking emblem of the blessings of a monarchy affording protection, and giving peace to all under it.

And the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof - The fowls of the air. They built their nests and reared their young there undisturbed, another striking emblem of the protection afforded under the great monarchy designed to be represented.

And all flesh was fed of it - All animals; all that lived. It furnished protection, a home, and food for all. Bertholdt renders this, “all men.” In the Greek Codex Chisianus there is the following version or paraphrase given of this passage: “Its vision was great, its top reached to the heaven, and its breadth (κῦτος kutos) to the clouds - they filled the things (τὰ ta) under the heaven - there was a sun and moon, they dwelt in it, and enlightened all the earth.”

Verse 13

I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed - In the visions that passed before me as I lay upon my bed, Daniel 4:10.

And, behold, a watcher and an holy one - Or rather, perhaps, “even a holy one;” or, “who was a holy one.” He evidently does not intend to refer to two beings, a “watcher,” and “one who was holy;” but he means to designate the character of the watcher, that he was holy, or that he was one of the class of “watchers” who were ranked as holy - as if there were others to whom the name “watcher” might be applied who were not holy. So Bertholdt, “not two, but only one, who was both a watcher, and was holy; one of those known as watchers and as holy ones.” The copulative ו (v) and may be so used as to denote not an additional one or thing, but to specify something in addition to, or in explanation of, what the name applied would indicate. Compare 1 Samuel 28:3 : “In Ramah, even (ו v) in his own city.” 1 Samuel 17:40 : “and put them in a shepherd’s bag which he had, even (ו v) in a scrip.”

Compare Psalms 68:9 (10); Amos 3:11; Amos 4:10; Jeremiah 15:13; Isaiah 1:13; Isaiah 13:14; Isaiah 57:11; Ecclesiastes 8:2. - Gesenius, “Lex.” The word rendered “watcher” (עיר ‛ı̂yr) is rendered in the Vulgate vigil; in the Greek of Theodotion the word is retained without an attempt to translate it - εἴρ eir; the Codex Chisianus has ἄγγελος angelos - “an angel was sent in his strength from heaven.” The original word (עיר ‛ı̂yr) means, properly, “a watcher,” from עיר ‛ı̂yr, to be hot and ardent; then to be lively, or active, and then to awake, to be awake, to be awake at night, to watch. Compare Song of Solomon 5:2; Malachi 2:12. The word used here is employed to denote one who watches, only in this chapter of Daniel, Daniel 4:13, Daniel 4:17, Daniel 4:23. It is in these places evidently applied to the angels, but “why” this term is used is unknown. Gesenius (“Lex.”) supposes that it is given to them as watching over the souls of men.

Jerome (in loc.) says that the reason why the name is given is because they always watch, and are prepared to do the will of God. According to Jerome, the Greek ἴρις iris as applied to the rainbow, and which seems to be a heavenly being sent down to the earth, is derived from this word. Compare the “Iliad,” ii. 27. Theodoret says that the name is given to an angel, to denote that the angel is without a body - ἀσώματον asōmaton - “for he that is encompassed with a body is the servant of sleep, but he that is free from a body is superior to the necessity of sleep.” The term “watchers,” as applied to the celestial beings, is of Eastern origin, and not improbably was derived from Persia. “The seven Amhaspands received their name on account of their great, holy eyes, and so, generally, all the heavenly Izeds watch in the high heaven over the world and the souls of men, and on this account are called the watchers of the world.” - Zendavesta, as quoted by Bertholdt, in loc. “The Bun-Dehesh, a commentary on the Zendavesta, contains an extract from it, which shows clearly the name and object of the watchers in the ancient system of Zoroaster. It runs thus: “Ormuzd has set four “watchers” in the four parts of the heavens, to keep their eye upon the host of the stars.

They are bound to keep watch over the hosts of the celestial stars. One stands here as the watcher of his circle; the other there. He has placed them at such and such posts, as watchers over such and such a circle of the heavenly regions; and this by his own power and might. Tashter guards the east, Statevis watches the west, Venant the south, and Haftorang the north.” - Rhode, Die heilige Sage des Zendvolks, p. 267, as quoted by Prof. Stuart., in loc. “The epithet “good” is probably added here to distinguish this class of watchers from the “bad” ones, for Ahriman, the evil genius, had “Archdeves” and “Deves,” who corresponded in rank with the Amhaspands and Izeds of the Zendavesta, and who “watched” to do evil as anxiously as the others did to do good.” - Prof. Stuart. It is not improbable that these terms, as applicable to celestial beings, would be known in the kingdom of Babylon, and nothing is more natural than that it should be so used in this book. It is not found in any of the books of pure Hebrew.

Verse 14

He cried aloud - Margin, as in the Chaldee, “with might.” That is, he cried with a strong voice.

Hew down the tree - This command does not appear to have been addressed to any particular ones who were to execute the commission, but it is a strong and significant way of saying that it would certainly be done. Or possibly the command may be understood as addressed to his fellow-watchers Daniel 4:17, or to orders of angels over whom this one presided.

And cut off his branches ... - The idea here, and in the subsequent part of the verse, is, that the tree was to be utterly cut up, and all its glory and beauty destroyed. It was first to be felled, and then its limbs chopped off, and then these were to be stripped of their foliage, and then the fruit which it bore was to be scattered. All this was strikingly significant, as applied to the monarch, of some awful calamity that was to occur to him after he should have been brought down from his throne. A process of humiliation and desolation was to continue, as if the tree, when cut down, were not suffered to lie quietly in its grandeur upon the earth. “Let the beasts get away,” etc. That is, it shall cease to afford a shade to the beasts and a home to the fowls. The purposes which it had answered in the days of its glory will come to an end.

Verse 15

Nevertheless, leave the stump of his roots in the earth - As of a tree that is not wholly dead, but which may send up suckers and shoots again. See the note at Isaiah 11:1. In Theodotion this is, τὴν φυήν τῶν ῥιξῶν tēn phuēn tōn rizōn - the nature, germ. Schleusner renders the Greek, “the trunk of its roots.” The Vulgate is, germen radicum ejus, “the germ of his roots.” The Codex Chisianus has: ῥίξαν μίαν ἄφετε ἀυτοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ rizan mian aphete autou en tē gē - “leave one of his roots in the earth.” The original Chaldee word (עקר ‛ı̂qqar) means a “stump, trunk” (Gesenius); the Hebrew - עקר ‛ēqer - the same word with different pointing, means a shrub, or shoot. It occurs only once in Hebrew Leviticus 25:47, where it is applied to the stock of a family, or to a person sprung from a foreign family resident in the Hebrew territory: “the stock of the stranger’s family.” The Chaldee form of the word occurs only in Daniel 4:15, Daniel 4:23, Daniel 4:26, rendered in each place “stump,” yet not meaning “stump” in the sense in which that word is now commonly employed. The word “stump” now means the stub of a tree; the part of the tree remaining in the earth, or projecting above it after the tree is cut down, without any reference to the question whether it be alive or dead. The word here used implies that it was still alive, or that there was a germ which would send up a new shoot, so that the tree would live again. The idea is, that though the mighty tree would fall, yet there would remain vitality in the root, or the portion that would remain in the earth after the tree was cut down, and that this would spring up again - a most striking image of what would occur to Nebuchadnezzar after he should be cast down from his lofty throne, and be again restored to his reason and to power.

Even with a band of iron and brass - This expression may be regarded as applicable either to the cut-down tree, or to the humbled monarch. If applied to the former, it would seem that the idea is, that the stump or root of a tree, deemed so valuable, would be carefully secured by an enclosure of iron or brass, either in the form of a hoop placed round the top of the stump, to preserve it from being opened or cracked by the heat of the sun, so as to admit moisture, which would rot it; or around the roots, to bind it together, with the hope that it would grow again; or it may refer to a railing or enclosure of iron or brass, to keep it from being plowed or dug up as worthless. In either case, it would be guarded with the hope that a tree so valuable might spring up again. If applied to the monarch - an explanation not inconsistent with the proper interpretation of the passage - it would seem to refer to some method of securing the royal maniac in bonds of iron and brass, as with the hope that his reason might still be restored, or with a view to keep him from inflicting fatal injury on himself. That the thing here referred to might be practiced in regard to a valuable tree cut down, or broken down, is by no means improbable; that it might be practiced in reference to the monarch is in accordance with the manner in which the insane have been treated in all ages and countries.

In the tender grass of the field - Out of doors; under no shelter; exposed to dews and rains. The stump would remain in the open field where the grass grew, until it should shoot up again; and in a condition strongly resembling that, the monarch would be excluded from his palace and from the abodes of men. For the meaning of this, as applied to Nebuchadnezzar, see the note at Daniel 4:25. The word which is rendered “tender grass,” means simply young grass or herbage. No emphasis should be put on the word tender. It simply means that he would be abroad where the grass springs up and grows.

And let it be wet with the dew of heaven - As applied to the tree, meaning that the dew would fall on it and continually moisten it. The falling of the dew upon it would contribute to preserve it alive and secure its growth again. In a dry soil, or if there were no rain or dew, the germ would die. It cannot be supposed that, in regard to the monarch, it could be meant that his remaining under the dew of heaven would in any way contribute to restore his reason, but all that is implied in regard to him is the fact that he would thus be an outcast. The word rendered “let it be wet” - יצטבע yı̂ts^eṭaba‛ from צבע ts^eba‛ - means, to dip in, to immerse; to tinge; to dye; though the word is not found in the latter senses in the Chaldee. In the Targums it is often used for “to dye, to color.” The word occurs only in this chapter of Daniel Daniel 4:15, Daniel 4:23, Daniel 4:33 and is in each place rendered in the same way. It is not used in the Hebrew scripture in the sense of to dye or tinge, except in the form of a noun - צבע tseba‛ - in Judges 5:30 : “To Sisera a prey of divers colors, a prey of divers colors of needlework, of divers colors of needlework.” In the passage before us, of course, there is no allusion of this kind, but the word means merely that the stump of the tree would be kept moist with the dew; as applicable to the tree that it might be more likely to sprout up again.

And let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth - Here is a change evidently from the tree to something represented by the tree. We could not say of a tree that its “portion was with the beasts in the grass,” though in the confused and incongruous images of a dream, nothing would be more natural than such a change from a tree to some object represented by it, or having some resemblance to it. It is probable that it was this circumstance that particularly attracted the attention of the monarch, for though the dream began with a “tree,” it ended with reference to “a person,” and evidently some one whose station would be well represented by such a magnificent and solitary tree. The sense here is, “let him share the lot of beasts; let him live as they do:” that is, let him live on grass. Compare Daniel 4:25.

Verse 16

Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him - Here the same thing occurs in a more marked form, showing that some man was represented by the vision, and indicating some change which was fitted to attract the deepest attention - as if the person referred to should cease to be a man, and become a beast. The word heart here seems to refer to nature - “let his nature or propensity cease to be that of a man, and become like that of a beast; let him cease to act as a man, and act as the beasts do - evincing as little mind, and living in the same manner.”

And let seven times pass over him - In this condition, or until he is restored. It is not indeed said that he would be restored, but this is implied

(a) in the very expression “until seven times shall pass over him,” as if he would then be restored in some way, or as if this condition would then terminate; and

(b) in the statement that “the stump of the roots “would be left in the earth as if it might still germinate again.

Everything, however, in the dream was fitted to produce perplexity as to what it could mean. The word rendered “times” (עדנין ‛ı̂ddânı̂yn - singular, עדן ‛iddân) is an important word in the interpretation of Daniel. It is of the same class of words as the Hebrew יעד yâ‛ad - to point out, to appoint, to fix; and would refer properly to time considered as “appointed” or “designated;” then it may mean any stated or designated period, as a year. The idea is that of time considered as designated or fixed by periods, and the word may refer to any such period, however long or short - a day, a month, a year, or any other measure of duration. What measurement or portion is intended in any particular case must be determined from the connection in which the word is found. The word used here does not occur in the Hebrew scripture, and is found only in the book of Daniel, where it is uniformly rendered “time” and “times.”

It is found only in the following places: Daniel 2:8, “that ye would gain the time;” Daniel 2:9, “till the time be changed;” Daniel 2:21, “and he changeth the times;” Daniel 3:5, Daniel 3:15, “at what time ye shall hear;” Daniel 4:16, Daniel 4:23, “and let seven times pass over him,” Daniel 4:25, Daniel 4:32, “seven times shall pass over him;” Daniel 7:12, “for a season and time;” Daniel 7:25, “until a time and times and the dividing of time.” In the place before us, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, it might mean a day, a week, a month, or a year. The more common interpretation is what supposes that it was a year, and this will agree better with all the circumstances of the case than any other period. The Greek of Theodotion here is: καὶ ἑππὰ καιροὶ ὰλλαγήσονται ἐπ ̓ ἀυτόν kai hepta kairoi allagēsontai ep' auton - “And seven times shall change upon him;” that is, until seven seasons revolve over him.

The most natural construction of this Greek phrase would be to refer it to years. The Latin Vulgate interprets it in a similar way - et septem tempora mutentur super eum - “And let seven times be changed” or revolve “over him.” In the Codex Chisianus it is: καὶ ἐππὰ ἔτη βοσκηθῆ σὺν αὐτοῖς kai hepta etē boskēthē sun autois - “and let him feed with them seven years.” Luther renders it “times.” Josephus understands by it “seven years.” - “Ant.” b. x. ch. 10: Section 6. While the Chaldee word is indeterminate in respect to the length of time, the most natural and obvious construction here and elsewhere, in the use of the word, is to refer it to years. Days or weeks would be obviously too short, and though in this place the word “months” would perhaps embrace all that would be necessary, yet in the other places where the word occurs in Daniel it undoubtedly refers to years, and there is, therefore, a propriety in understanding it in the same manner here.

Verse 17

This matter is by the decree of the watchers - See the notes at Daniel 4:13. They are described here not only as watching over the affairs of men, but as entrusted wth the execution of high and important designs of God. The representation is, that one of these heavenly beings was seen by Nebuchadnezzar in his visions, and that this one stated to him that he had come to execute what had been determined on by his associates, or in counsel with others. The idea would seem to be, that the affairs of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar had been in important respects placed under the administration of these beings, and that in solemn council they had resolved on this measure. It is not said that this was not in accordance with, and under the direction of, a higher power - that of God; and that is rather implied when it is said that the great design of this was to show to the living that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men.” In itself considered, there is no improbability in supposing that the affairs of this lower world are in some respects placed under the administration of beings superior to man, nor that events may occur as the result of their deliberation, or, as it is here expressed, by their “decree.” If, in any respect, the affairs of the world are subject to their jurisdiction, there is every reason to suppose that there would be harmony of counsel and of action, and an event of this kind might be so represented.

And the demand - Or, the matter; the affair; the business. The Chaldee word properly means a question, a petition; then a subject of inquiry, a matter of business. Here it means, that this matter, or this business, was in accordance with the direction of the holy ones.

The holy ones - Synonymous with the watchers, and referring to the same. See the note at Daniel 4:13.

To the intent that the living may know - With the design that those who live on the earth may understand this. That is, the design was to furnish a proof of this, so impressive and striking, that it could not be doubted by any. No more effectual way of doing this could occur than by showing the absolute power of the Most High over such a monarch as Nebuchadnezzar.

That the Most High - He who is exalted above all men; all angels; all that pretend to be gods. The phrase here is designed to refer to the true God, and the object was to show that he was the most exalted of all beings, and had absolute control over all.

Ruleth in the kingdom of men - Whoever reigns, he reigns over them.

And giveth it to whomsoever he will - That is, he gives dominion over men to whomsoever he chooses. It is not by human ordering, or by arrangements among men. It is not by hereditary right; not by succession; not by conquest; not by usurpation; not by election, that this matter is finally determined; it is by the decree and purpose of God. He can remove the hereditary prince by death; he can cause him to be set aside by granting success to a usurper; he can dispose of a crown by conquest; he can cut off the conqueror by death, and transfer the crown to an inferior officer; he can remove one who was the united choice of a people by death, and put another in his place. So the apostle Paul says, “There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” Romans 13:1.

And setteth up over it the basest of men - That is, he appoints over the kingdom of men, at his pleasure, those who are of the humblest or lowest rank. The allusion here is not to Nebuchadnezzar as if he were the “basest” or the “vilest” of men, but the statement is a general truth, that God, at his pleasure, sets aside those of exalted rank, and elevates those of the lowest rank in their place. There is an idea now attached commonly to the word “basest,” which the word used here by no means conveys. It does not denote the mean, the vile, the worthless, the illiberal, but those of humble or lowly rank. This is the proper meaning of the Chaldee word שׁפל sh^ephal - and so it is rendered in the Vulgate, humillimum hominem. The Greek of Theodotion, however, is, “what is disesteemed among men” - ἐξουδένωμα ἀνθρώπῶν exoudenōma anthrōpōn. In the latter part of the dream Daniel 4:15-16 we have an illustration of what often occurs in dreams - their singular incongruity. In the early part of the dream, the vision is that of a tree, and the idea is consistently carried out for a considerable part of it - the height of the tree, the branches, the leaves, the fruit, the shade, the stump; then suddenly there is a “change” to something that is living and human - the change of the “heart” to that of a beast; the being exposed to the dew of heaven; the portion with the beasts of the earth, etc. Such changes and incongruities, as every one knows, are common in dreams. So Shakespeare -

“True, I talk of dreams,

Which are the children of an idle brain,

Begot of nothing but vain fantasy;

Which is as thin of substance as the air,

And more inconstant than the wind, who woos

Even now the frozen bosom of the North,

And, being anger’d puffs away from thence

Turning his face to the dew-dropping South.”

Romeo and Juliet.