Daniel then focused on the overthrow of those kingdoms. The time of those kings may refer to the four empires or, more likely, it refers to the time of the 10 toes (v. 42) since the first four kingdoms were not in existence at the same time as apparently the toes will be (cf. comments on the 10 horns of the fourth beast, 7:24). Nebuchadnezzar had seen a rock hit and smash the image (2:34).
The statue was destroyed by the rock, not by human hands. In Scripture a rock often refers to Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah (e.g., Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14; 28:16; 1 Peter 2:6-8). God, who had enthroned Nebuchadnezzar and would transfer authority from Babylon to Medo-Persia, then to Greece, and ultimately to Rome, will one day invest political power in a King who will rule over the earth, subduing it to His authority, thus culminating God’s original destiny for man (Gen. 1:27).
In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream the smiting rock became a mountain that filled the whole earth (Dan. 2:35).
In Scripture a mountain is often a symbol for a kingdom. So Daniel explained that the four empires which would rule over the land and the people of Israel would not be destroyed by human means, but rather by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the striking Stone. When He comes He will establish the messianic kingdom promised to Israel through David (2 Sam. 7:16). At His return He will subjugate all … kingdoms to Himself, thus bringing them to an end (cf. Rev. 11:15; 19:11-20). Then He will rule forever in the Millennium and in the eternal state.
Amillennialists hold that this kingdom was established by Christ at His First Advent and that now the church is that kingdom. They argue that: (a) Christianity, like the growing mountain, began to grow and spread geographically and is still doing so; (b) Christ came in the days of the Roman Empire; (c) the Roman Empire fell into the hands of 10 kingdoms (10 toes); (d) Christ is the chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).
Premillenarians, however, hold that the kingdom to be established by Christ on earth is yet future. At least six points favor that view: (1) The stone will become a mountain suddenly, not gradually. Christianity did not suddenly fill “the whole earth” (Dan. 2:35) at Christ’s First Advent. (2) Though Christ came in the days of the Roman Empire, He did not destroy it. (3) During Christ’s time on earth the Roman Empire did not have 10 kings at once. Yet Nebuchadnezzar’s statue suggests that when Christ comes to establish His kingdom, 10 rulers will be in existence and will be destroyed by Him. (4) Though Christ is now the chief Cornerstone to the church (Eph. 2:20) and “a stone that causes [unbelievers] to stumble” (1 Peter 2:8), He is not yet a smiting Stone as He will be when He comes again. (5) The Stone (Messiah) will crush and end all the kingdoms of the world. But the church has not and will not conquer the world’s kingdoms. (6) The church is not a kingdom with a political realm, but the future Millennium will be.
Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s dream clearly teaches premillennialism, that Christ will return to earth to establish His rule on the earth, thereby subduing all nations. The church is not that kingdom.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Further notes on Daniel 2 and 7
A further point to consider lies in the interpretation of the prophecies that are found in the book of Daniel. Usually, the earthly kingdoms of Dan. 2 and 7 are given as four in number: Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. [for instance, see Gammie (1976) 204; Collins (1977): 153; Porteus, 19; Rowley (1935/6): 220; Eissfeldt, 519-20; Gurney, 39; Boutflower (1923): 13-34; Larue, 407; Lacocque (1979): 9, 51, on page 123 he cites Elias Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible. (1967): 67-8: "in the Jewish schema the four empires were Babylon, Media, Persia, and Macedonia."; Collins (1984): 52; Eissfeldt, 522; McNamara (1967): 635; Dummelow, 526; see Davies (1988): 28-9 for his attempt to create an error for Daniel; this view was possibly derived from Porphyry -- see Casey, 19; Gruenthaner, 209-10 notes that some scholars took note of the difficulties that were "created by assuming the second kingdom to be the Median empire"-see, for example, Taylor [2].
They thus propose: Neo-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Alexander's Greek empire, Seleucid-see for instance Rennie and Muller [2]. But, Gruenthaner notes that this is "contrary to Daniel's outlook upon history." He also briefly examines the idea that these kingdoms are the reigns of specific kings and shows how it fails to meet the criteria of the prophecy.] But the author of the book clearly recognized that the Medes and the Persians were the second of the series of kingdoms (5:28)--also we should note that in chapter 2 there are 5 earthly kingdoms, not four: gold, silver, brass, iron, iron and clay. So, that means we have Babylon, Medes and Persians, Greeks, ? (Rome), and ??. According to the prophecy Rome itself would fall and then that no other world-dominating power would take its place. Now, how did the writer of the book, if it was written "after the fact" in 164 B.C., know that the Greeks were going to fall before it happened [from here on of course Daniel would be an excellent example of pure prophecy--see Porteous, 18: "The genuine attempt at prophecy (Dan. 12:40ff)"--I think he meant chapter 11 verse 40 and onward], and to whom, and then on top of all that the final power was going to fall and that there would never be another? That this is the correct sequence of empires can be seen by the parallel vision in chapters 7-8.
In chapter 7 the bear "raised itself up on one side" [Lacocque (1979): 140 says that this means it is either "crouched down ready to spring[!] or standing up on its back legs in an aggressive position"--compare that opinion with the text itself; see also Gurney, 43] and in chapter 8 one of the two horns on the ram "was higher than the other, and the higher came up last." [Eissfeldt, 522 recognizes that the two horns represent two separate kingdoms; Lacocque (1979): 160: recognizes that the ram with its two horns represent Persia and Media--although he confuses the later horn with Media] Notice also that in 8:7 the goat breaks both horns of the ram thereby indicating that "they cannot be two successive kingdoms one of which was overthrown 200 years earlier than the second!" [Emery, 38-9] And then when could the book have been written? We should note, as Goldingay does, that Josephus saw Rome as the fourth empire. [Goldingay, xxix-xxx] Goldingay advances the idea that since "Nebuchadnezzar personally is the head, so it is more natural to refer to them to the regins (sic) of four kings over a single empire." [Goldingay, 49] In doing so he ignores the idea that in an absolute monarchy the king personifies the kingdom as a whole. In looking at the metals involved in the statute of Dan. 2 Goldingay tries to claim that there is "no implication of deterioration as we move from head to trunk ..." and yet on the next page he says "the second regime is inferior to the first". [Goldingay, 49-50; he has to make the later admission because 2:39 says that the kingdom that follows Babylon will be "inferior"; it can be assumed from that alone that all the others will be "inferior" in some respect to their predecessor; see also Gruenthaner, 74-5; Gurney, 41] But, Davies points out that "the Greek poet Hesiod (eight century BC) who, in his Works and Days spoke of four (or five) ages of men represented by metals. Each age is successively degenerate--gold, silver, bronze, then iron ..." [Davies (1988): 44] Lacocque also notes that "Hesiod (Works and Days, 109-201) and Ovid (Metamorphoses I, 89-150) speak of a succession of the ages of the world as a process of degeneration: gold-silver-bronze-iron." [Lacocque (1979): 48; see also Collins (1975): 221] Goldingay may be quite correct in seeing these various metals as constituting the sum of the "valuable natural resources or valuable booty"; but, there is no evidence in the text that this is what these metals stood for. [Goldingay, 49] The story in chapter 3 indicates that by making his "statute" all gold Nebuchadnezzar saw the metals as indicating declining value and he was the greatest of all and that he also wanted his empire to last forever. This is contrary to any Jewish view point a Collins pointed out; but is completely true to the Babylonian way of looking at things. [Collins (1975): 222]
They thus propose: Neo-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Alexander's Greek empire, Seleucid-see for instance Rennie and Muller [2]. But, Gruenthaner notes that this is "contrary to Daniel's outlook upon history." He also briefly examines the idea that these kingdoms are the reigns of specific kings and shows how it fails to meet the criteria of the prophecy.] But the author of the book clearly recognized that the Medes and the Persians were the second of the series of kingdoms (5:28)--also we should note that in chapter 2 there are 5 earthly kingdoms, not four: gold, silver, brass, iron, iron and clay. So, that means we have Babylon, Medes and Persians, Greeks, ? (Rome), and ??. According to the prophecy Rome itself would fall and then that no other world-dominating power would take its place. Now, how did the writer of the book, if it was written "after the fact" in 164 B.C., know that the Greeks were going to fall before it happened [from here on of course Daniel would be an excellent example of pure prophecy--see Porteous, 18: "The genuine attempt at prophecy (Dan. 12:40ff)"--I think he meant chapter 11 verse 40 and onward], and to whom, and then on top of all that the final power was going to fall and that there would never be another? That this is the correct sequence of empires can be seen by the parallel vision in chapters 7-8.
In chapter 7 the bear "raised itself up on one side" [Lacocque (1979): 140 says that this means it is either "crouched down ready to spring[!] or standing up on its back legs in an aggressive position"--compare that opinion with the text itself; see also Gurney, 43] and in chapter 8 one of the two horns on the ram "was higher than the other, and the higher came up last." [Eissfeldt, 522 recognizes that the two horns represent two separate kingdoms; Lacocque (1979): 160: recognizes that the ram with its two horns represent Persia and Media--although he confuses the later horn with Media] Notice also that in 8:7 the goat breaks both horns of the ram thereby indicating that "they cannot be two successive kingdoms one of which was overthrown 200 years earlier than the second!" [Emery, 38-9] And then when could the book have been written? We should note, as Goldingay does, that Josephus saw Rome as the fourth empire. [Goldingay, xxix-xxx] Goldingay advances the idea that since "Nebuchadnezzar personally is the head, so it is more natural to refer to them to the regins (sic) of four kings over a single empire." [Goldingay, 49] In doing so he ignores the idea that in an absolute monarchy the king personifies the kingdom as a whole. In looking at the metals involved in the statute of Dan. 2 Goldingay tries to claim that there is "no implication of deterioration as we move from head to trunk ..." and yet on the next page he says "the second regime is inferior to the first". [Goldingay, 49-50; he has to make the later admission because 2:39 says that the kingdom that follows Babylon will be "inferior"; it can be assumed from that alone that all the others will be "inferior" in some respect to their predecessor; see also Gruenthaner, 74-5; Gurney, 41] But, Davies points out that "the Greek poet Hesiod (eight century BC) who, in his Works and Days spoke of four (or five) ages of men represented by metals. Each age is successively degenerate--gold, silver, bronze, then iron ..." [Davies (1988): 44] Lacocque also notes that "Hesiod (Works and Days, 109-201) and Ovid (Metamorphoses I, 89-150) speak of a succession of the ages of the world as a process of degeneration: gold-silver-bronze-iron." [Lacocque (1979): 48; see also Collins (1975): 221] Goldingay may be quite correct in seeing these various metals as constituting the sum of the "valuable natural resources or valuable booty"; but, there is no evidence in the text that this is what these metals stood for. [Goldingay, 49] The story in chapter 3 indicates that by making his "statute" all gold Nebuchadnezzar saw the metals as indicating declining value and he was the greatest of all and that he also wanted his empire to last forever. This is contrary to any Jewish view point a Collins pointed out; but is completely true to the Babylonian way of looking at things. [Collins (1975): 222]
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Dan 2:37-44 with (Comparison to Dan 7)
We will review the intrpretation from Daniel as it relates to a premillinist view.
This image, then, is a picture of world history. You can see that the materials in it decrease in weight (from gold to clay) so that the statue is top-heavy and easily pushed over. Men and women think that human civilization is so strong and enduring; really it is resting on brittle feet of clay. Note too that the value decreases: from gold to silver to bronze to iron to clay. Is mankind getting “better and better” as time goes on? No! Human civilization is actually getting cheaper and weaker. There is also a decrease in beauty and glory (gold is certainly more beautiful than iron mixed with clay); and there is a decrease in strength (from gold to clay) as we approach the end of human history. Each of the successive kingdoms had its own strengths, of course, and Rome exercised a tremendous military power, but through history civilization will become weaker and weaker. This explains why the Antichrist will be able to organize a worldwide dictatorship: nations will be so weak they will demand a dictator just to be able to survive.
Each of these kingdoms had a different form of government. Babylon was ruled by an absolute monarch, a dictator (see 5:19). The Medo-Persian empire had a king, but he worked through princes and established laws (see 6:1–3—and remember the “law of the Medes and the Persians” in Esther 1:19). Greece operated through a king and an army, and Rome was supposed to be a republic, but it was actually a rule of the military through laws. When you come to the iron and clay, you have our present governments: the iron represents law and justice, the clay represents mankind, and together they make up democracy. What is the strength of democracy? Law. What is its weakness? Human nature. We are seeing today that lawlessness comes when human nature refuses to be bound by God’s order and laws.
This entire picture is not a very optimistic one. Nebuchadnezzar saw that his own kingdom would fall one day and be replaced by the Medes and Persians. This happened in 538 B.C. (Dan. 5:30–31). The Medes and Persians would be conquered by the Greeks about 330 B.C.; and Greece would give way to Rome. The Roman Empire outwardly would disappear, but its laws, philosophies, and institutions would continue until this very day, taking us down to the “feet of clay.” The only hope for this world is the return of Christ. When He comes to the earth, it will be to conquer the nations (Rev. 19:11ff) and to establish His own glorious kingdom.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1993). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Notes Dan 7:Also See Rev 13 & 17
raised … itself on one side—but the Hebrew, “It raised up one dominion.” The Medes, an ancient people, and the Persians, a modern tribe, formed one united sovereignty in contrast to the third and fourth kingdoms, each originally one, afterwards divided. English Version is the result of a slight change of a Hebrew letter. The idea then would be, “It lay on one of its fore feet, and stood on the other”; a figure still to be seen on one of the stones of Babylon [MUNTER, The Religion of Babylonia, 112]; denoting a kingdom that had been at rest, but is now rousing itself for conquest. Media is the lower side, passiveness; Persia, the upper, active element [AUBERLEN]. The three ribs in its mouth are Media, Lydia, and Babylon, brought under the Persian sway. Rather, Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, not properly parts of its body, but seized by Medo-Persia [SIR ISAAC NEWTON]. Called “ribs” because they strengthened the Medo-Persian empire. “Between its teeth,” as being much grinded by it.
6. leopard—smaller than the lion; swift (Hab 1:8); cruel (Is 11:6), the opposite of tame; springing suddenly from its hiding place on its prey (Ho 13:7); spotted. So Alexander, a small king, of a small kingdom, Macedon, attacked Darius at the head of the vast empire reaching from the AEgean Sea to the Indies. In twelve years he subjugated part of Europe, and all Asia from Illyricum and the Adriatic to the Ganges, not so much fighting as conquering [JEROME]. Hence, whereas Babylon is represented with two wings, Macedon has four, so rapid were its conquests. The various spots denote the various nations incorporated into his empire [BOCHART]; Or Alexander’s own variation in character, at one time mild, at another cruel, now temperate, and now drunken and licentious.
four heads—explained in Da 8:8, 22; the four kingdoms of the Diadochi or “successors” into which the Macedonian empire was divided at the death of Alexander, namely, Macedon and Greece under Cassander, Thrace and Bithynia under Lysimachus, Egypt under PTOLEMY, and Syria under Seleucus.
dominion … given to it—by God; not by Alexander’s own might. For how unlikely it was that thirty thousand men should overthrow several hundreds of thousands! JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.6] says that Alexander adored the high priest of Jerusalem, saying that he at Dium in Macedonia had seen a vision of God so habited, inviting him to go to Asia, and promising him success.
7. As Daniel lived under the kingdom of the first beast, and therefore needed not to describe it, and as the second and third are described fully in the second part of the book, the chief emphasis falls on the fourth. Also prophecy most dwells on the end, which is the consummation of the preceding series of events. It is in the fourth that the world power manifests fully its God-opposing nature. Whereas the three former kingdoms were designated respectively, as a lion, bear, and leopard, no particular beast is specified as the image of the fourth; for Rome is so terrible as to be not describable by any one, but combines in itself all that we can imagine inexpressibly fierce in all beasts. Hence thrice (Da 7:7, 19, 23) it is repeated, that the fourth was “diverse from all” the others. The formula of introduction, “I saw in the night visions,” occurs here, as at Da 7:2, and again at Da 7:13, thus dividing the whole vision into three parts—the first embracing the three kingdoms, the second the fourth and its overthrow, the third Messiah’s kingdom. The first three together take up a few centuries; the fourth, thousands of years. The whole lower half of the image in the second chapter is given to it. And whereas the other kingdoms consist of only one material, this consists of two, iron and clay (on which much stress is laid, Da 2:41–43); the “iron teeth” here allude to one material in the fourth kingdom of the image.
ten horns—It is with the crisis, rather than the course, of the fourth kingdom that this seventh chapter is mainly concerned. The ten kings (Da 7:24, the “horns” representing power), that is, kingdoms, into which Rome was divided on its incorporation with the Germanic and Slavonic tribes, and again at the Reformation, are thought by many to be here intended. But the variation of the list of the ten, and their ignoring the eastern half of the empire altogether, and the existence of the Papacy before the breaking up of even the Western empire, instead of being the “little horn” springing up after the other ten, are against this view. The Western Roman empire continued till A.D. 731, and the Eastern, till A.D. 1453. The ten kingdoms, therefore, prefigured by the ten “toes” (Da 2:41; compare Rev 13:1; 17:12), are the ten kingdoms into which Rome shall be found finally divided when Antichrist shall appear [TREGELLES]. These, probably, are prefigured by the number ten being the prevalent one at the chief turning points of Roman history.
8. little horn—little at first, but afterwards waxing greater than all others. He must be sought “among them,” namely, the ten horns. The Roman empire did not represent itself as a continuation of Alexander’s; but the Germanic empire calls itself “the holy Roman empire.” Napoleon’s attempted universal monarchy was avowedly Roman: his son was called king of Rome. The czar (Caesar) also professes to represent the eastern half of the Roman empire. The Roman civilization, church, language, and law are the chief elements in Germanic civilization. But the Romanic element seeks universal empire, while the Germanic seeks individualization. Hence the universal monarchies attempted by the Papacy, Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon have failed, the iron not amalgamating with the clay. In the king symbolized by “the little horn,” the God-opposing,. haughty spirit of the world, represented by the fourth monarchy, finds its intensest development. “The man of sin,” “the son of perdition” (2Th 2:3). Antichrist (1Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3). It is the complete evolution of the evil principle introduced by the fall.
three of the first horns plucked up—the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards and the state of Rome, which constituted the Pope’s dominions at the first; obtained by Pope Zachary and Stephen II in return for acknowledging the usurper Pepin lawful king of France [NEWTON]. See TREGELLES’ objections, Da 7:7, “ten horns,”
Note. The “little horn,” in his view, is to be Antichrist rising three and a half years before Christ’s second advent, having first overthrown three of the ten contemporaneous kingdoms, into which the fourth monarchy, under which we live, shall be finally divided. Popery seems to be a fulfilment of the prophecy in many particulars, the Pope claiming to be God on earth and above all earthly dominions; but the spirit of Antichrist prefigured by Popery will probably culminate in ONE individual, to be destroyed by Christ’s coming; He will be the product of the political world powers, whereas Popery which prepares His way, is a Church become worldly.
eyes of man—Eyes express intelligence (Ez 1:18); so (Ge 3:5) the serpent’s promise was, man’s “eyes should be opened,” if he would but rebel against God. Antichrist shall consummate the self-apotheosis, begun at the fall, high intellectual culture, independent of God. The metals representing Babylon and Medo-Persia, gold and silver, are more precious than brass and iron, representing Greece and Rome; but the latter metals are more useful to civilization (Ge 4:22). The clay, representing the Germanic element, is the most plastic material. Thus there is a progress in culture; but this is not a progress necessarily in man’s truest dignity, namely, union and likeness to God. Nay, it has led him farther from God, to self-reliance and world-love. The beginnings of civilization were among the children of Cain (Ge 4:17–24; Lu 16:8). Antiochus Epiphanes, the first Antichrist, came from civilized Greece, and loved art. As Hellenic civilization produced the first, so modern civilization under the fourth monarchy will produce the last Antichrist. The “mouth” and “eyes” are those of a man, while the symbol is otherwise brutish that is it will assume man’s true dignity, namely, wear the guise of the kingdom of God (which comes as the “Son of man” from above), while it is really bestial, namely, severed from God. Antichrist promises the same things as Christ, but in an opposite way: a caricature of Christ, offering a regenerated world without the cross. Babylon and Persia in their religion had more reverence for things divine than Greece and Rome in the imperial stages of their history. Nebuchadnezzar’s human heart, given him (Da 4:16) on his repentance, contrasts with the human eyes of Antichrist, the pseudo son of man, namely, intellectual culture, while heart and mouth blaspheme God. The deterioration politically corresponds: the first kingdom, an organic unity; the second, divided into Median and Persian; the third branches off into four; the fourth, into ten. The two eastern kingdoms are marked by nobler metals; the two western, by baser; individualization and division appear in the latter, and it is they which produce the two Antichrists.
This image, then, is a picture of world history. You can see that the materials in it decrease in weight (from gold to clay) so that the statue is top-heavy and easily pushed over. Men and women think that human civilization is so strong and enduring; really it is resting on brittle feet of clay. Note too that the value decreases: from gold to silver to bronze to iron to clay. Is mankind getting “better and better” as time goes on? No! Human civilization is actually getting cheaper and weaker. There is also a decrease in beauty and glory (gold is certainly more beautiful than iron mixed with clay); and there is a decrease in strength (from gold to clay) as we approach the end of human history. Each of the successive kingdoms had its own strengths, of course, and Rome exercised a tremendous military power, but through history civilization will become weaker and weaker. This explains why the Antichrist will be able to organize a worldwide dictatorship: nations will be so weak they will demand a dictator just to be able to survive.
Each of these kingdoms had a different form of government. Babylon was ruled by an absolute monarch, a dictator (see 5:19). The Medo-Persian empire had a king, but he worked through princes and established laws (see 6:1–3—and remember the “law of the Medes and the Persians” in Esther 1:19). Greece operated through a king and an army, and Rome was supposed to be a republic, but it was actually a rule of the military through laws. When you come to the iron and clay, you have our present governments: the iron represents law and justice, the clay represents mankind, and together they make up democracy. What is the strength of democracy? Law. What is its weakness? Human nature. We are seeing today that lawlessness comes when human nature refuses to be bound by God’s order and laws.
This entire picture is not a very optimistic one. Nebuchadnezzar saw that his own kingdom would fall one day and be replaced by the Medes and Persians. This happened in 538 B.C. (Dan. 5:30–31). The Medes and Persians would be conquered by the Greeks about 330 B.C.; and Greece would give way to Rome. The Roman Empire outwardly would disappear, but its laws, philosophies, and institutions would continue until this very day, taking us down to the “feet of clay.” The only hope for this world is the return of Christ. When He comes to the earth, it will be to conquer the nations (Rev. 19:11ff) and to establish His own glorious kingdom.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1993). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Notes Dan 7:Also See Rev 13 & 17
raised … itself on one side—but the Hebrew, “It raised up one dominion.” The Medes, an ancient people, and the Persians, a modern tribe, formed one united sovereignty in contrast to the third and fourth kingdoms, each originally one, afterwards divided. English Version is the result of a slight change of a Hebrew letter. The idea then would be, “It lay on one of its fore feet, and stood on the other”; a figure still to be seen on one of the stones of Babylon [MUNTER, The Religion of Babylonia, 112]; denoting a kingdom that had been at rest, but is now rousing itself for conquest. Media is the lower side, passiveness; Persia, the upper, active element [AUBERLEN]. The three ribs in its mouth are Media, Lydia, and Babylon, brought under the Persian sway. Rather, Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, not properly parts of its body, but seized by Medo-Persia [SIR ISAAC NEWTON]. Called “ribs” because they strengthened the Medo-Persian empire. “Between its teeth,” as being much grinded by it.
6. leopard—smaller than the lion; swift (Hab 1:8); cruel (Is 11:6), the opposite of tame; springing suddenly from its hiding place on its prey (Ho 13:7); spotted. So Alexander, a small king, of a small kingdom, Macedon, attacked Darius at the head of the vast empire reaching from the AEgean Sea to the Indies. In twelve years he subjugated part of Europe, and all Asia from Illyricum and the Adriatic to the Ganges, not so much fighting as conquering [JEROME]. Hence, whereas Babylon is represented with two wings, Macedon has four, so rapid were its conquests. The various spots denote the various nations incorporated into his empire [BOCHART]; Or Alexander’s own variation in character, at one time mild, at another cruel, now temperate, and now drunken and licentious.
four heads—explained in Da 8:8, 22; the four kingdoms of the Diadochi or “successors” into which the Macedonian empire was divided at the death of Alexander, namely, Macedon and Greece under Cassander, Thrace and Bithynia under Lysimachus, Egypt under PTOLEMY, and Syria under Seleucus.
dominion … given to it—by God; not by Alexander’s own might. For how unlikely it was that thirty thousand men should overthrow several hundreds of thousands! JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.6] says that Alexander adored the high priest of Jerusalem, saying that he at Dium in Macedonia had seen a vision of God so habited, inviting him to go to Asia, and promising him success.
7. As Daniel lived under the kingdom of the first beast, and therefore needed not to describe it, and as the second and third are described fully in the second part of the book, the chief emphasis falls on the fourth. Also prophecy most dwells on the end, which is the consummation of the preceding series of events. It is in the fourth that the world power manifests fully its God-opposing nature. Whereas the three former kingdoms were designated respectively, as a lion, bear, and leopard, no particular beast is specified as the image of the fourth; for Rome is so terrible as to be not describable by any one, but combines in itself all that we can imagine inexpressibly fierce in all beasts. Hence thrice (Da 7:7, 19, 23) it is repeated, that the fourth was “diverse from all” the others. The formula of introduction, “I saw in the night visions,” occurs here, as at Da 7:2, and again at Da 7:13, thus dividing the whole vision into three parts—the first embracing the three kingdoms, the second the fourth and its overthrow, the third Messiah’s kingdom. The first three together take up a few centuries; the fourth, thousands of years. The whole lower half of the image in the second chapter is given to it. And whereas the other kingdoms consist of only one material, this consists of two, iron and clay (on which much stress is laid, Da 2:41–43); the “iron teeth” here allude to one material in the fourth kingdom of the image.
ten horns—It is with the crisis, rather than the course, of the fourth kingdom that this seventh chapter is mainly concerned. The ten kings (Da 7:24, the “horns” representing power), that is, kingdoms, into which Rome was divided on its incorporation with the Germanic and Slavonic tribes, and again at the Reformation, are thought by many to be here intended. But the variation of the list of the ten, and their ignoring the eastern half of the empire altogether, and the existence of the Papacy before the breaking up of even the Western empire, instead of being the “little horn” springing up after the other ten, are against this view. The Western Roman empire continued till A.D. 731, and the Eastern, till A.D. 1453. The ten kingdoms, therefore, prefigured by the ten “toes” (Da 2:41; compare Rev 13:1; 17:12), are the ten kingdoms into which Rome shall be found finally divided when Antichrist shall appear [TREGELLES]. These, probably, are prefigured by the number ten being the prevalent one at the chief turning points of Roman history.
8. little horn—little at first, but afterwards waxing greater than all others. He must be sought “among them,” namely, the ten horns. The Roman empire did not represent itself as a continuation of Alexander’s; but the Germanic empire calls itself “the holy Roman empire.” Napoleon’s attempted universal monarchy was avowedly Roman: his son was called king of Rome. The czar (Caesar) also professes to represent the eastern half of the Roman empire. The Roman civilization, church, language, and law are the chief elements in Germanic civilization. But the Romanic element seeks universal empire, while the Germanic seeks individualization. Hence the universal monarchies attempted by the Papacy, Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon have failed, the iron not amalgamating with the clay. In the king symbolized by “the little horn,” the God-opposing,. haughty spirit of the world, represented by the fourth monarchy, finds its intensest development. “The man of sin,” “the son of perdition” (2Th 2:3). Antichrist (1Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3). It is the complete evolution of the evil principle introduced by the fall.
three of the first horns plucked up—the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards and the state of Rome, which constituted the Pope’s dominions at the first; obtained by Pope Zachary and Stephen II in return for acknowledging the usurper Pepin lawful king of France [NEWTON]. See TREGELLES’ objections, Da 7:7, “ten horns,”
Note. The “little horn,” in his view, is to be Antichrist rising three and a half years before Christ’s second advent, having first overthrown three of the ten contemporaneous kingdoms, into which the fourth monarchy, under which we live, shall be finally divided. Popery seems to be a fulfilment of the prophecy in many particulars, the Pope claiming to be God on earth and above all earthly dominions; but the spirit of Antichrist prefigured by Popery will probably culminate in ONE individual, to be destroyed by Christ’s coming; He will be the product of the political world powers, whereas Popery which prepares His way, is a Church become worldly.
eyes of man—Eyes express intelligence (Ez 1:18); so (Ge 3:5) the serpent’s promise was, man’s “eyes should be opened,” if he would but rebel against God. Antichrist shall consummate the self-apotheosis, begun at the fall, high intellectual culture, independent of God. The metals representing Babylon and Medo-Persia, gold and silver, are more precious than brass and iron, representing Greece and Rome; but the latter metals are more useful to civilization (Ge 4:22). The clay, representing the Germanic element, is the most plastic material. Thus there is a progress in culture; but this is not a progress necessarily in man’s truest dignity, namely, union and likeness to God. Nay, it has led him farther from God, to self-reliance and world-love. The beginnings of civilization were among the children of Cain (Ge 4:17–24; Lu 16:8). Antiochus Epiphanes, the first Antichrist, came from civilized Greece, and loved art. As Hellenic civilization produced the first, so modern civilization under the fourth monarchy will produce the last Antichrist. The “mouth” and “eyes” are those of a man, while the symbol is otherwise brutish that is it will assume man’s true dignity, namely, wear the guise of the kingdom of God (which comes as the “Son of man” from above), while it is really bestial, namely, severed from God. Antichrist promises the same things as Christ, but in an opposite way: a caricature of Christ, offering a regenerated world without the cross. Babylon and Persia in their religion had more reverence for things divine than Greece and Rome in the imperial stages of their history. Nebuchadnezzar’s human heart, given him (Da 4:16) on his repentance, contrasts with the human eyes of Antichrist, the pseudo son of man, namely, intellectual culture, while heart and mouth blaspheme God. The deterioration politically corresponds: the first kingdom, an organic unity; the second, divided into Median and Persian; the third branches off into four; the fourth, into ten. The two eastern kingdoms are marked by nobler metals; the two western, by baser; individualization and division appear in the latter, and it is they which produce the two Antichrists.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
More comments on the "dream"
D. The Prediction Regarding Kingdoms (2:36–45).
Daniel proceeds with confidence from the presentation of the dream to the predictive interpretation of it (2:36).
1. The head of gold (2:37–38). Nebuchadnezzar was the king of kings to whom the God of heaven had given sovereignty over the world (cf. Jer 27:6–8). The head of gold symbolized him. Since Nebuchadnezzar was the embodiment of all that Babylon was, the head represented the Babylonian kingdom as well as its king. This symbolism was most appropriate for two reasons. First, Babylon was called the golden city (Isa 14:4) because gold was used profusely to decorate its shrines and public buildings. Second, the idea of world empire originated with the Babylonians. The policies which were formulated in Babylon continued to control succeeding empires even as the head controls the body (2:37f.).
2. The breast of silver (2:39a). The breast and arms of silver represented a kingdom inferior to Babylon which would subsequently arise. Most likely this is the Medo-Persian empire which assumed sovereignty over the Near East in 539 B.C. when Cyrus conquered Babylon. The symbolism here was significant for three reasons. First, the two arms appropriately indicate the two major ethnic components of this empire, viz., the Medes and the Persians. Second, the breast encloses the heart. Cyrus, the founder of this empire, is reputed to have displayed heartfelt charity on friend and foe alike. Third, silver was virtually equivalent to money. Thus the silver here may be intended to portray the more commercial spirit of this empire.
The question as to how the Medo-Persian empire was inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar is difficult. Certainly the inferiority did not lie in geography, for the territory administered by Cyrus far exceeded anything Nebuchadnezzar ever ruled. The assertion of the moral inferiority of the Medo-Persian empire is debatable. Perhaps the inferiority of the second world empire was in the following areas. First, the Babylonian empire in the broadest sense was basically uninterrupted for two millennia. On the other hand, the Medo-Persian empire survived for but two centuries. Second, the second empire lacked the inner unity of the first.14 Third, in terms of influence and achievement the old Babylonian empire outranked the Medo-Persian by far.15
3. The belly of bronze (2:39b). The third kingdom appears to be the Greco-Macedonian kingdom founded by Alexander the Great. Again the symbolism was appropriate. First, bronze was the primary metal in instruments of war, and Alexander’s army was noted for its military prowess. Second, what began as a unit (the abdomen) divided itself into two separate parts which were never reunited. This may point to Syria and Egypt, the two great Hellenistic kingdoms which grew out of the empire of Alexander.
4. The legs of iron (2:40). Assuming that the second and third empires have been correctly identified, the fourth kingdom most likely is Rome. The iron might of Rome crushed and broke “all these in pieces.” Each successive kingdom had assumed the elements of the previous kingdom which it supplanted. So when Rome crushed the Hellenistic kingdoms (Syria and Egypt), it in effect crushed all the previous kingdoms.
5. The feet of iron and clay (2:41). The Roman empire would experience a second phase in which it would be a mixture of firmness (iron) and weakness (clay). This may represent the decline of Rome as it absorbed Germanic tribes and became a decadent dictatorship. No rival empire conquered Rome. The fourth empire did not fall so much as it crumbled from within.
6. The toes (2:42–43). Presumably the statue had ten toes. A wide divergence of opinion exists as to the meaning of this symbolism. The Adventists think in terms of ten kingdoms which at one point constituted the Roman Empire. Some modern students of prophecy suggest that a ten nation confederacy, a revived Roman Empire, will appear on the territory once ruled by Rome. Recent political and economic developments in Europe are regarded as the fulfillment of this prophecy. Ten, however, is the number of completeness. It probably was not intended to be taken literally here. Therefore, attempts to identify ten specific kingdoms are unreliable. The toes may designate all the kingdoms which would follow Rome on the stage of history. The iron and clay mixture could be a way of portraying attempts to forge alliances of diverse ethnic and linguistic groups.16
7. The stone (2:44–45). The stone cut out of the mountain without hands represented the messianic kingdom. God would set up that kingdom “in the days of those kings.” Daniel seems to use the terms kings and kingdoms interchangeably (cf. 7:17, 23). Therefore, the reference here is probably to the kingdoms just enumerated. During the span of time represented by the image, the God of Heaven would establish a kingdom of a different sort. That kingdom would be (1) indestructible, (2) non-transferable, (3) irresistibly powerful, and (4) eternal. Although it would coexist with the kingdoms of this world for a time, eventually it would triumph over all human government. Since this kingdom endures forever it cannot be the millennial kingdom which some anticipate. Daniel described the smashing of the image as a sudden, powerful and decisive blow. This probably represents the sweeping away of the world powers at the second coming of Christ.17
Smith, J. E. (1992). The Major Prophets. Joplin, Mo.: College Press.
Daniel proceeds with confidence from the presentation of the dream to the predictive interpretation of it (2:36).
1. The head of gold (2:37–38). Nebuchadnezzar was the king of kings to whom the God of heaven had given sovereignty over the world (cf. Jer 27:6–8). The head of gold symbolized him. Since Nebuchadnezzar was the embodiment of all that Babylon was, the head represented the Babylonian kingdom as well as its king. This symbolism was most appropriate for two reasons. First, Babylon was called the golden city (Isa 14:4) because gold was used profusely to decorate its shrines and public buildings. Second, the idea of world empire originated with the Babylonians. The policies which were formulated in Babylon continued to control succeeding empires even as the head controls the body (2:37f.).
2. The breast of silver (2:39a). The breast and arms of silver represented a kingdom inferior to Babylon which would subsequently arise. Most likely this is the Medo-Persian empire which assumed sovereignty over the Near East in 539 B.C. when Cyrus conquered Babylon. The symbolism here was significant for three reasons. First, the two arms appropriately indicate the two major ethnic components of this empire, viz., the Medes and the Persians. Second, the breast encloses the heart. Cyrus, the founder of this empire, is reputed to have displayed heartfelt charity on friend and foe alike. Third, silver was virtually equivalent to money. Thus the silver here may be intended to portray the more commercial spirit of this empire.
The question as to how the Medo-Persian empire was inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar is difficult. Certainly the inferiority did not lie in geography, for the territory administered by Cyrus far exceeded anything Nebuchadnezzar ever ruled. The assertion of the moral inferiority of the Medo-Persian empire is debatable. Perhaps the inferiority of the second world empire was in the following areas. First, the Babylonian empire in the broadest sense was basically uninterrupted for two millennia. On the other hand, the Medo-Persian empire survived for but two centuries. Second, the second empire lacked the inner unity of the first.14 Third, in terms of influence and achievement the old Babylonian empire outranked the Medo-Persian by far.15
3. The belly of bronze (2:39b). The third kingdom appears to be the Greco-Macedonian kingdom founded by Alexander the Great. Again the symbolism was appropriate. First, bronze was the primary metal in instruments of war, and Alexander’s army was noted for its military prowess. Second, what began as a unit (the abdomen) divided itself into two separate parts which were never reunited. This may point to Syria and Egypt, the two great Hellenistic kingdoms which grew out of the empire of Alexander.
4. The legs of iron (2:40). Assuming that the second and third empires have been correctly identified, the fourth kingdom most likely is Rome. The iron might of Rome crushed and broke “all these in pieces.” Each successive kingdom had assumed the elements of the previous kingdom which it supplanted. So when Rome crushed the Hellenistic kingdoms (Syria and Egypt), it in effect crushed all the previous kingdoms.
5. The feet of iron and clay (2:41). The Roman empire would experience a second phase in which it would be a mixture of firmness (iron) and weakness (clay). This may represent the decline of Rome as it absorbed Germanic tribes and became a decadent dictatorship. No rival empire conquered Rome. The fourth empire did not fall so much as it crumbled from within.
6. The toes (2:42–43). Presumably the statue had ten toes. A wide divergence of opinion exists as to the meaning of this symbolism. The Adventists think in terms of ten kingdoms which at one point constituted the Roman Empire. Some modern students of prophecy suggest that a ten nation confederacy, a revived Roman Empire, will appear on the territory once ruled by Rome. Recent political and economic developments in Europe are regarded as the fulfillment of this prophecy. Ten, however, is the number of completeness. It probably was not intended to be taken literally here. Therefore, attempts to identify ten specific kingdoms are unreliable. The toes may designate all the kingdoms which would follow Rome on the stage of history. The iron and clay mixture could be a way of portraying attempts to forge alliances of diverse ethnic and linguistic groups.16
7. The stone (2:44–45). The stone cut out of the mountain without hands represented the messianic kingdom. God would set up that kingdom “in the days of those kings.” Daniel seems to use the terms kings and kingdoms interchangeably (cf. 7:17, 23). Therefore, the reference here is probably to the kingdoms just enumerated. During the span of time represented by the image, the God of Heaven would establish a kingdom of a different sort. That kingdom would be (1) indestructible, (2) non-transferable, (3) irresistibly powerful, and (4) eternal. Although it would coexist with the kingdoms of this world for a time, eventually it would triumph over all human government. Since this kingdom endures forever it cannot be the millennial kingdom which some anticipate. Daniel described the smashing of the image as a sudden, powerful and decisive blow. This probably represents the sweeping away of the world powers at the second coming of Christ.17
Smith, J. E. (1992). The Major Prophets. Joplin, Mo.: College Press.
Dan. Chap 2 "The Dream"
Summary: Conclusion Chap 1
magicians—properly, “sacred scribes, skilled in the sacred writings, a class of Egyptian priests” [GESENIUS]; from a Hebrew root, “a pen.”
The word in our English Version, “magicians,” comes from mag, that is, “a priest.”
The Magi formed one of the six divisions of the Medes.
astrologers—Hebrew, “enchanters,” from a root, “to conceal,” pactisers of the occult arts.
Note: We see a subtle carryove here from the previous chapter. Daniel "the writer" made it clear to all that his "gift" was from the one and true living God. Jehovah.
Chap 2:
I. The Kings Dream (Note text chnages to Aramaic in verse 4. Very significant. This part of text is to the Gentiles)
dreams—It is significant that not to Daniel, but to the then world ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, the dream is vouchsafed. It was from the first of its representatives who had conquered the theocracy, that the world power was to learn its doom, as about to be in its turn subdued, and for ever by the kingdom of God. As this vision opens, so that in the seventh chapter developing the same truth more fully, closes the first part. Nebuchadnezzar, as vicegerent of God (Da 2:37; compare Je 25:9; Ez 28:12–15; Is 44:28; 45:1; Ro 13:1), is honored with the revelation in the form of a dream, the appropriate form to one outside the kingdom of God. So in the cases of Abimelech, Pharaoh, &c. (Ge 20:3; 41:1–7), especially as the heathen attached such importance to dreams. Still it is not he, but an Israelite, who interprets it. Heathendom is passive, Israel active, in divine things, so that the glory redounds to “the God of heaven.”
A. Disturbing : He has had a significant experience. He is troubled that he doen't understand.
B. Dan 2:3
There is a translation issue here. KJV implies that her has forgotten the dream or perhaps the recollection is cloudy. Who knows. I believe that the next few verses implies that he knows the dream but does not trust the interpretation. He feels that this is so important that he makes an unusual (possibly) demand.
2:5 The king replied to the wise men, “My decision is firm.If you do not inform me of both the dream and its interpretation, you will be dismembered and your homes reduced to rubble!
C. The response from the "wise men"
2:5-2:11 This is a clear self indictment that they pose, the stage is set for Jehovah to make himself known to these people King's and wise men alike.
There is not a man … that can show—God makes the heathen out of their own mouth, condemn their impotent pretensions to supernatural knowledge, in order to bring out in brighter contrast His power to reveal secrets to His servants, though but “men upon the earth”
therefore, &c.—that is, If such things could be done by men, other absolute princes would have required them from their magicians; as they have not, it is proof such things cannot be done and cannot be reasonably asked from us.
D: The Decree-Death to these pretenders.
2:15-There is some interprative issues with Daniel statement 2:15. That is the word (harsh), would Daniel or anyone question the King's intention? Could be urgent or untimely look at the relation to the next statement. Simply put Daniel asks for some time to PRAY.
Note: Daniel went in—perhaps not in person, but by the mediation of some courtier who had access to the king. His first direct interview seems to have been Da 2:25
E. God reveals- Note that Daniel goes to his friends to intercede with him, we are all at risk here.
Daniel's praise for a God who is real and knows the hearst of man. Note the prepatory statements related to the dream.
II. The Dream interpreted.
A. Arioch
Note: Dan 2:25 "I have found a man"—Like all courtiers, in announcing agreeable tidings, he ascribes the merit of the discovery to himself [JEROME]. So far from it being a discrepancy, that he says nothing of the previous understanding between him and Daniel, or of Daniel’s application to the king (Da 2:15, 16), it is just what we should expect. Arioch would not dare to tell an absolute despot that he had stayed the execution of his sanguinary decree, on his own responsibility; but would, in the first instance, secretly stay it until Daniel had got, by application from the king, the time required, without Arioch seeming to know of Daniel’s application as the cause of the respite; then, when Daniel had received the revelation, Arioch would in trembling haste bring him in, as if then for the first time he had “found” him. The very difficulty when cleared up is a proof of genuineness, as it never would be introduced by a forger.
B. Daniel's words
2:27 Daniel replied to the king, “The mystery that the king is asking about is such that no wise men, astrologers, magicians, or diviners can possibly disclose it to the king. 2:28 However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the times to come. The dream and the visions you had while lying on your bed are as follows.
C: Interpretation
Note: not … for any wisdom that I have—not on account of any previous wisdom which I may have manifested (Da 1:17, 20). The specially-favored servants of God in all ages disclaim merit in themselves and ascribe all to the grace and power of God (Ge 41:16; Ac 3:12). The “as for me,” disclaiming extraordinary merit, contrasts elegantly with “as for thee,” whereby Daniel courteously, but without flattery, implies, that God honored Nebuchadnezzar, as His vicegerent over the world kingdoms, with a revelation on the subject uppermost in his thoughts, the ultimate destinies of those kingdoms.
2:29 “As for you, O king, while you were in your bed your thoughts turned to future things. The revealer of mysteries has made known to you what will take place. 2:30 As for me, this mystery was revealed to me not because I possess more wisdom than any other living person, but so that the king may understand the interpretation and comprehend the thoughts of your mind.
2:31 “You, O king, were watching as a great statue – one of impressive size and extraordinary brightness – was standing before you. Its appearance caused alarm. 2:32 As for that statue, its head was of fine gold, its chest and arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of bronze. 2:33 Its legs were of iron; its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay.2:34 You were watching as a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. 2:35 Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth. 2:36 This was the dream. Now we will set forth before the king its interpretation.
D: What does it mean?
2:37 “You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has granted you sovereignty, power, strength, and honor. 2:38 Wherever human beings, wild animals,and birds of the sky live – he has given them into your power. He has given you authority over them all. You are the head of gold. 2:39 Now after you another kingdom will arise, one inferior to yours. Then a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule in all the earth. 2:40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom, one strong like iron. Just like iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything, and as iron breaks in pieces all of these metals, so it will break in pieces and crush the others.2:41 In that you were seeing feet and toes partly of wet clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom. Some of the strength of iron will be in it, for you saw iron mixed with wet clay. 2:42 In that the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, the latter stages of this kingdom will be partly strong and partly fragile. 2:43 And in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed67 with one another without adhering to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. 2:44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever. 2:45 You saw that a stone was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands; it smashed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold into pieces. The great God has made known to the king what will occur in the future.70 The dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable.”
Comparison:
The world power in its totality appears as a colossal human form: Babylon the head of gold, Medo-Persia the breast and two arms of silver, Graeco-Macedonia the belly and two thighs of brass, and Rome, with its Germano-Slavonic offshoots, the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, the fourth still existing. Those kingdoms only are mentioned which stand in some relation to the kingdom of God; of these none is left out; the final establishment of that kingdom is the aim of His moral government of the world. The colossus of metal stands on weak feet, of clay. All man’s glory is as ephemeral and worthless as chaff (compare 1Pe 1:24). But the kingdom of God, small and unheeded as a “stone” on the ground is compact in its homogeneous unity; whereas the world power, in its heterogeneous constituents successively supplanting one another, contains the elements of decay. The relation of the stone to the mountain is that of the kingdom of the cross (Mt 16:23; Lu 24:26) to the kingdom of glory, the latter beginning, and the former ending when the kingdom of God breaks in pieces the kingdoms of the world (Rev 11:15). Christ’s contrast between the two kingdoms refers to this passage.
On ancient coins states are often represented by human figures. The head and higher parts signify the earlier times; the lower, the later times. The metals become successively baser and baser, implying the growing degeneracy from worse to worse. Hesiod, two hundred years before Daniel, had compared the four ages to the four metals in the same order; the idea is sanctioned here by Holy Writ. It was perhaps one of those fragments of revelation among the heathen derived from the tradition as to the fall of man. The metals lessen in specific gravity, as they downwards; silver is not so heavy as gold, brass not so heavy as silver, and iron not so heavy as brass, the weight thus being arranged in the reverse of stability [TREGELLES]. Nebuchadnezzar derived his authority from God, not from man, nor as responsible to man. But the Persian king was so far dependent on others that he could not deliver Daniel from the princes (Da 6:14, 15); contrast Da 5:18, 19, as to Nebuchadnezzar’s power from God, whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive” (compare Ezr 7:14; Es 1:13–16). Graeco-Macedonia betrays its deterioration in its divisions, not united as Babylon and Persia. Iron is stronger than brass, but inferior in other respects; so Rome hardy and strong to tread down the nations, but less kingly and showing its chief deterioration in its last state. Each successive kingdom incorporates its predecessor (compare Da 5:28). Power that in Nebuchadnezzar’s hands was a God-derived (Da 2:37, 38) autocracy, in the Persian king’s was a rule resting on his nobility of person and birth, the nobles being his equals in rank, but not in office; in Greece, an aristocracy not of birth, but individual influence, in Rome, lowest of all, dependent entirely on popular choice, the emperor being appointed by popular military election.
As the two arms of silver denote the kings of the Medes and Persians [JOSEPHUS]; and the two thighs of brass the Seleucidae of Syria and Lagidae of Egypt, the two leading sections into which Graeco-Macedonia parted, so the two legs of iron signify the two Roman consuls [NEWTON]. The clay, in Da 2:41, “potter’s clay,” Da 2:43, “miry clay,” means “earthenware,” hard but brittle (compare Ps 2:9; Rev 2:27, where the same image is used of the same event); the feet are stable while bearing only direct pressure, but easily “broken” to pieces by a blow (Da 2:34), the iron intermixed not retarding, but hastening, such a result.
magicians—properly, “sacred scribes, skilled in the sacred writings, a class of Egyptian priests” [GESENIUS]; from a Hebrew root, “a pen.”
The word in our English Version, “magicians,” comes from mag, that is, “a priest.”
The Magi formed one of the six divisions of the Medes.
astrologers—Hebrew, “enchanters,” from a root, “to conceal,” pactisers of the occult arts.
Note: We see a subtle carryove here from the previous chapter. Daniel "the writer" made it clear to all that his "gift" was from the one and true living God. Jehovah.
Chap 2:
I. The Kings Dream (Note text chnages to Aramaic in verse 4. Very significant. This part of text is to the Gentiles)
dreams—It is significant that not to Daniel, but to the then world ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, the dream is vouchsafed. It was from the first of its representatives who had conquered the theocracy, that the world power was to learn its doom, as about to be in its turn subdued, and for ever by the kingdom of God. As this vision opens, so that in the seventh chapter developing the same truth more fully, closes the first part. Nebuchadnezzar, as vicegerent of God (Da 2:37; compare Je 25:9; Ez 28:12–15; Is 44:28; 45:1; Ro 13:1), is honored with the revelation in the form of a dream, the appropriate form to one outside the kingdom of God. So in the cases of Abimelech, Pharaoh, &c. (Ge 20:3; 41:1–7), especially as the heathen attached such importance to dreams. Still it is not he, but an Israelite, who interprets it. Heathendom is passive, Israel active, in divine things, so that the glory redounds to “the God of heaven.”
A. Disturbing : He has had a significant experience. He is troubled that he doen't understand.
B. Dan 2:3
There is a translation issue here. KJV implies that her has forgotten the dream or perhaps the recollection is cloudy. Who knows. I believe that the next few verses implies that he knows the dream but does not trust the interpretation. He feels that this is so important that he makes an unusual (possibly) demand.
2:5 The king replied to the wise men, “My decision is firm.If you do not inform me of both the dream and its interpretation, you will be dismembered and your homes reduced to rubble!
C. The response from the "wise men"
2:5-2:11 This is a clear self indictment that they pose, the stage is set for Jehovah to make himself known to these people King's and wise men alike.
There is not a man … that can show—God makes the heathen out of their own mouth, condemn their impotent pretensions to supernatural knowledge, in order to bring out in brighter contrast His power to reveal secrets to His servants, though but “men upon the earth”
therefore, &c.—that is, If such things could be done by men, other absolute princes would have required them from their magicians; as they have not, it is proof such things cannot be done and cannot be reasonably asked from us.
D: The Decree-Death to these pretenders.
2:15-There is some interprative issues with Daniel statement 2:15. That is the word (harsh), would Daniel or anyone question the King's intention? Could be urgent or untimely look at the relation to the next statement. Simply put Daniel asks for some time to PRAY.
Note: Daniel went in—perhaps not in person, but by the mediation of some courtier who had access to the king. His first direct interview seems to have been Da 2:25
E. God reveals- Note that Daniel goes to his friends to intercede with him, we are all at risk here.
Daniel's praise for a God who is real and knows the hearst of man. Note the prepatory statements related to the dream.
II. The Dream interpreted.
A. Arioch
Note: Dan 2:25 "I have found a man"—Like all courtiers, in announcing agreeable tidings, he ascribes the merit of the discovery to himself [JEROME]. So far from it being a discrepancy, that he says nothing of the previous understanding between him and Daniel, or of Daniel’s application to the king (Da 2:15, 16), it is just what we should expect. Arioch would not dare to tell an absolute despot that he had stayed the execution of his sanguinary decree, on his own responsibility; but would, in the first instance, secretly stay it until Daniel had got, by application from the king, the time required, without Arioch seeming to know of Daniel’s application as the cause of the respite; then, when Daniel had received the revelation, Arioch would in trembling haste bring him in, as if then for the first time he had “found” him. The very difficulty when cleared up is a proof of genuineness, as it never would be introduced by a forger.
B. Daniel's words
2:27 Daniel replied to the king, “The mystery that the king is asking about is such that no wise men, astrologers, magicians, or diviners can possibly disclose it to the king. 2:28 However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the times to come. The dream and the visions you had while lying on your bed are as follows.
C: Interpretation
Note: not … for any wisdom that I have—not on account of any previous wisdom which I may have manifested (Da 1:17, 20). The specially-favored servants of God in all ages disclaim merit in themselves and ascribe all to the grace and power of God (Ge 41:16; Ac 3:12). The “as for me,” disclaiming extraordinary merit, contrasts elegantly with “as for thee,” whereby Daniel courteously, but without flattery, implies, that God honored Nebuchadnezzar, as His vicegerent over the world kingdoms, with a revelation on the subject uppermost in his thoughts, the ultimate destinies of those kingdoms.
2:29 “As for you, O king, while you were in your bed your thoughts turned to future things. The revealer of mysteries has made known to you what will take place. 2:30 As for me, this mystery was revealed to me not because I possess more wisdom than any other living person, but so that the king may understand the interpretation and comprehend the thoughts of your mind.
2:31 “You, O king, were watching as a great statue – one of impressive size and extraordinary brightness – was standing before you. Its appearance caused alarm. 2:32 As for that statue, its head was of fine gold, its chest and arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of bronze. 2:33 Its legs were of iron; its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay.2:34 You were watching as a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. 2:35 Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth. 2:36 This was the dream. Now we will set forth before the king its interpretation.
D: What does it mean?
2:37 “You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has granted you sovereignty, power, strength, and honor. 2:38 Wherever human beings, wild animals,and birds of the sky live – he has given them into your power. He has given you authority over them all. You are the head of gold. 2:39 Now after you another kingdom will arise, one inferior to yours. Then a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule in all the earth. 2:40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom, one strong like iron. Just like iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything, and as iron breaks in pieces all of these metals, so it will break in pieces and crush the others.2:41 In that you were seeing feet and toes partly of wet clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom. Some of the strength of iron will be in it, for you saw iron mixed with wet clay. 2:42 In that the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, the latter stages of this kingdom will be partly strong and partly fragile. 2:43 And in that you saw iron mixed with wet clay, so people will be mixed67 with one another without adhering to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. 2:44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever. 2:45 You saw that a stone was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands; it smashed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold into pieces. The great God has made known to the king what will occur in the future.70 The dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable.”
Comparison:
The world power in its totality appears as a colossal human form: Babylon the head of gold, Medo-Persia the breast and two arms of silver, Graeco-Macedonia the belly and two thighs of brass, and Rome, with its Germano-Slavonic offshoots, the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay, the fourth still existing. Those kingdoms only are mentioned which stand in some relation to the kingdom of God; of these none is left out; the final establishment of that kingdom is the aim of His moral government of the world. The colossus of metal stands on weak feet, of clay. All man’s glory is as ephemeral and worthless as chaff (compare 1Pe 1:24). But the kingdom of God, small and unheeded as a “stone” on the ground is compact in its homogeneous unity; whereas the world power, in its heterogeneous constituents successively supplanting one another, contains the elements of decay. The relation of the stone to the mountain is that of the kingdom of the cross (Mt 16:23; Lu 24:26) to the kingdom of glory, the latter beginning, and the former ending when the kingdom of God breaks in pieces the kingdoms of the world (Rev 11:15). Christ’s contrast between the two kingdoms refers to this passage.
On ancient coins states are often represented by human figures. The head and higher parts signify the earlier times; the lower, the later times. The metals become successively baser and baser, implying the growing degeneracy from worse to worse. Hesiod, two hundred years before Daniel, had compared the four ages to the four metals in the same order; the idea is sanctioned here by Holy Writ. It was perhaps one of those fragments of revelation among the heathen derived from the tradition as to the fall of man. The metals lessen in specific gravity, as they downwards; silver is not so heavy as gold, brass not so heavy as silver, and iron not so heavy as brass, the weight thus being arranged in the reverse of stability [TREGELLES]. Nebuchadnezzar derived his authority from God, not from man, nor as responsible to man. But the Persian king was so far dependent on others that he could not deliver Daniel from the princes (Da 6:14, 15); contrast Da 5:18, 19, as to Nebuchadnezzar’s power from God, whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive” (compare Ezr 7:14; Es 1:13–16). Graeco-Macedonia betrays its deterioration in its divisions, not united as Babylon and Persia. Iron is stronger than brass, but inferior in other respects; so Rome hardy and strong to tread down the nations, but less kingly and showing its chief deterioration in its last state. Each successive kingdom incorporates its predecessor (compare Da 5:28). Power that in Nebuchadnezzar’s hands was a God-derived (Da 2:37, 38) autocracy, in the Persian king’s was a rule resting on his nobility of person and birth, the nobles being his equals in rank, but not in office; in Greece, an aristocracy not of birth, but individual influence, in Rome, lowest of all, dependent entirely on popular choice, the emperor being appointed by popular military election.
As the two arms of silver denote the kings of the Medes and Persians [JOSEPHUS]; and the two thighs of brass the Seleucidae of Syria and Lagidae of Egypt, the two leading sections into which Graeco-Macedonia parted, so the two legs of iron signify the two Roman consuls [NEWTON]. The clay, in Da 2:41, “potter’s clay,” Da 2:43, “miry clay,” means “earthenware,” hard but brittle (compare Ps 2:9; Rev 2:27, where the same image is used of the same event); the feet are stable while bearing only direct pressure, but easily “broken” to pieces by a blow (Da 2:34), the iron intermixed not retarding, but hastening, such a result.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Daniel 1 cont:
I. Dan 1:4 Age (Young) 14-17 years
II. Parents or Family note 1:6 Lit "Sons of Judah"
A. Dani el - God is my Judge (el- from Elohim) given Belteshazzar
B. Hanan iah - Yaweh has been gracious (iah or Yah from Yahweh) Shadrach
C. Misha el - "Who is what God is" Meshach
D. Azar iah - "Yahweh has helped" Abednego
III. Conviction "purpose" shows discipline Dan 1:8 lit. DAniel "placed on his heart" Why ?
A. Name changed showed ownership or authority
B. Attended school or taught in Babylonia ways. Discuss brainwashing vs education. Polytheistic
Contrast Assyrian vs Babylonian methods or assimilation.
C. Becoming part of the actual government.
D. Eating at the King's table.
See Prov 4:23. Also 1 Sam. 2:30
Discussion:
Why was this on Daniels heart, a young man in a strange place and culture. The only thing I can see is it is about how he was raised, Josiah's influence, a humble heart. Note how he sets about his purpose.
IV. The Method
A. Reason and Tact with Conviction and Purpose, which I believe God noticed. He honored God with this.
B. Daniel was turned down by the Overseer.
C. Humble approach to the Warden. Dan. 1:12
D. God delivers on a humble request to allow Daniel to honor him, no chains removed, no great miracle, no fasting. Dan 1:14
E. God "endows" these young men with "knowledge" and "skill". Dan1:17
F. The 3 years of training ends with Neb. impressed with these still young advisors.
Note Nebs ruled from 605 to 539BC
II. Parents or Family note 1:6 Lit "Sons of Judah"
A. Dani el - God is my Judge (el- from Elohim) given Belteshazzar
B. Hanan iah - Yaweh has been gracious (iah or Yah from Yahweh) Shadrach
C. Misha el - "Who is what God is" Meshach
D. Azar iah - "Yahweh has helped" Abednego
III. Conviction "purpose" shows discipline Dan 1:8 lit. DAniel "placed on his heart" Why ?
A. Name changed showed ownership or authority
B. Attended school or taught in Babylonia ways. Discuss brainwashing vs education. Polytheistic
Contrast Assyrian vs Babylonian methods or assimilation.
C. Becoming part of the actual government.
D. Eating at the King's table.
See Prov 4:23. Also 1 Sam. 2:30
Discussion:
Why was this on Daniels heart, a young man in a strange place and culture. The only thing I can see is it is about how he was raised, Josiah's influence, a humble heart. Note how he sets about his purpose.
IV. The Method
A. Reason and Tact with Conviction and Purpose, which I believe God noticed. He honored God with this.
B. Daniel was turned down by the Overseer.
C. Humble approach to the Warden. Dan. 1:12
D. God delivers on a humble request to allow Daniel to honor him, no chains removed, no great miracle, no fasting. Dan 1:14
E. God "endows" these young men with "knowledge" and "skill". Dan1:17
F. The 3 years of training ends with Neb. impressed with these still young advisors.
Note Nebs ruled from 605 to 539BC
Summary:
From last weeks discussion/review, it is reasonable to conclude that Daniel predates the 165BC period that most scholars assert. This viewpoint asserts that prophetic material in Daniel is in fact legitimate and the study will continue in that perspective.
Daniel 1:1 (Hebrew 1:1-2:4a)
Discussion: Jehoiakim date See Jer. 25:1, 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Chron 36 5-8
Historical Perspective is :
Hebrew system uses asscension year as first year.
Babylonia uses nonasscension. Which describes the first(partial) year as an asscension year.
From last weeks discussion/review, it is reasonable to conclude that Daniel predates the 165BC period that most scholars assert. This viewpoint asserts that prophetic material in Daniel is in fact legitimate and the study will continue in that perspective.
Daniel 1:1 (Hebrew 1:1-2:4a)
Discussion: Jehoiakim date See Jer. 25:1, 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Chron 36 5-8
Historical Perspective is :
Hebrew system uses asscension year as first year.
Babylonia uses nonasscension. Which describes the first(partial) year as an asscension year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)