# comment

text:
<p>The king spoke to Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in some of the Israelites, those of the seed royal and of the nobles- This fulfilled the prophecy to Hezekiah:"Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon"(<a href='B:120 20:17-18'>2Ki 20:17-18</a>). This would mean that Daniel and his friends may well have been castrated. There is no mention of Daniel ever getting married or having children. So we are to imagine these young men looking forward to a rather bleak life; and they instead put their energy into devotion to their God and separation from the evil empire who has seeking to psychologically dominate them. So whilst Daniel’s devotion to Yahweh is to his credit, it is also psychologically understandable given this background. If Daniel and his friends were"of the seed royal", they would not have been ’well brought up’ in spiritual things. They would have seen the tragedy which occurred because attention had not been paid by their families to God’s word; and they were determined to do better. Josephus claims Daniel was in fact a son of Zedekiah.</p>


text:
<p>Youths in whom was no blemish- Both Xenophon and Plato record that the three year program began at age 14. Nebuchadnezzar presents as an anti-God figure, demanding the best for his service rather than God's. For "without blemish" is the language of the sacrifices (<a href='B:30 22:19-21'>Lev 22:19-21</a>) and priests (<a href='B:30 21:16-24'>Lev 21:16-24</a>). These young men were to be trained up in the culture and religion of Babylon. There is a specifically spiritual aspect to the intention to educate them, so that the princes of Judah become princes of Babylon, with loyalty wholly to Babylon and her gods, and not Judah and Yahweh. There was therefore heavy pressure on these young men, with the intention of effectively brainwashing them into a totally different worldview, so that Judah would have no princes loyal to her any more.</p><p>But handsome, well educated, knowledgeable- They were to be"wise", that is, made wise, in the wisdom of Babylon."The wise"in Daniel however are those who reject this and are wise in Yahweh’s ways (<a href='B:340 11:33'>Dan 11:33</a>; <a href='B:340 11:35'>Dan 11:35</a>; <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>; <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>).</p><p>Understanding science, and such as had the ability to stand in the king’s palace; that he should teach them the learning and the language of the Chaldeans- There is an intended echo here of Moses’ experience in Egypt; situations repeat within and between the lives of God’s people, that we might learn from Biblical history and from the experiences of our brethren contemporary with us. Daniel and his friends surely saw and were inspired by the similarities with Moses. They would later see the similarities with Joseph.</p><p>The learning and speech refers to the alphabet and language of the Babylonians. Akkadian was the language of Babylon and it had an alphabet of nearly 700 symbols. It was a complete change of culture for these young people. The stress on the alphabet may also be because the books of magic were written in a unique form of Cuneiform script, and they were to study these books, or clay tablets as they were in reality. "The Chaldeans" in this context refers to a specific type of magician, rather than an ethnic group. Their "tongue" or alphabet and language refers to the thousands of clay magic tablets written in a specific style of Cuneiform. These tablets contained total nonsense about the gods influencing man, demons, omens, potions, curses and how o avoid them. These things were the very opposite of the monotheism of Yahweh worship, and the visions of Daniel deeply and fundamentally deconstruct them. But God gave Daniel understanding and excellence in his studies of these things. On the other hand, Jeremiah had taught Daniel's generation: "Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jer. 10:2). Yet God gave Daniel success in learning that "way", although also teaching Daniel that God's "way" and wisdom was infinitely higher than that of the heathen. And insisting that Daniel had to stand up and be counted for Yahweh's wisdom over that of the world. We marvel at the complex weaving God makes in human lives.</p>


text:
<p>The king appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s dainties, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be trained for three years; that at its end they should stand before the king- It was a compliment to send anyone a portion of food from the table of a king or great man (Gen. 43:34; 2 Sam. 11:8; 2 Kings 25:30). We can feel the same at the breaking of bread. Daniel's objection was not because the food was unclean- that is specifically not mentioned. And whether it had been offered to idols or not was not of itself defiling, as we will discuss later. His conscience was apparently impacted by the idea of eating a "portion" from the king, as if it were an act of fellowship with him which he objected to. The word "portion" is repeatedly used here (Dan. 1:5,8,13,15,16). The root word is used in the phrase "piece [portion] of bread" in Gen. 18:5; Jud. 19:5; 1 Sam. 2:36; 28:22; 1 Kings 17:11; Prov. 28:21), almost sounding like our 'breaking of bread' communion service. Here in Dan. 1, the "portion" of food / bread occurs three times together with reference to ‘the wine of his drink’ (Dan. 1:5,8,16). It all sounds an allusion to some religious fellowship, presumably vicariously partaking in an idol feast. And that is exactly what Paul teaches is wrong. We are not to have fellowship with idols in this way. We note that the king of the South in Dan. 11:26 is destroyed by those he assumed were loyal to him because they ate his portions: "they who eat of his dainties shall destroy him". We note that later, Daniel did eat meat and wine (Dan. 10:3). His refusal of this meat and wine was therefore not due to any issue with the meat and wine of itself, but with what it represented in this context.
</p><p>We note the allusion to the manna, "a daily portion so that I may test them" (Ex. 16:4). The daily "portion" of the king's meat was rejected by Daniel in favour of "seeds", which he set up as a "test". We recall the manna was like coriander seed (Ex. 16:31). Perhaps Daniel perceived this; because he perceived that Babylon with all its grandeur was but the desert, part of his wilderness journey, out of the Egypt of Babylon back to the promised land. And we think of how the purpose of the manna was to humble Israel and make them realize that man lives by every word of God (Dt. 8:3), and Daniel was a man devoted to that word. He saw the truth of Dt. 8:16: "He fed you with manna in the wilderness, unknown to your fathers, in order to humble you, and in order to test you to bring about good for you in the end".</p><p>
</p><p>"Delicacies" is literally an offering. This is a classic case of meat offered to idols. And yet Paul argues that since an idol has no real existence, he who rejects idolatry can freely eat such food. He only must pay attention to not making others stumble. Daniel however displays a finely tuned conscience, over and above what the law required. For there was no Mosaic precept forbidding eating such meat, if it was not done as a conscious form of personal idol worship.
</p><p>To "stand before the king" doesn't mean they would just come before him. It is a technical term referring to his senior attendants, (Dt. 1:38; 1 Kings 10:8; 12:8).
The Persians and Babylonians typically trained such candidates intensely for three years from the age of 14. We can assume that this was the age of Daniel and his friends when they first made their stand for principle. Food and wine had religious significance. They were being made to participate in the king’s idolatry. For his table was seen as the table of the gods he worshipped. Right at the start of the book, we are introduced to the idea of a daily sacrifice- this pagan one mimicked the true daily sacrifice of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Now among these were, of the Judeans, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah- All these names had the name of God in them, either as el or Yah. They were perhaps from amongst the minority influenced by Jeremiah’s attempted reformation on the eve of the Babylonian victory against Jerusalem. Or perhaps these were names they gave themselves, for Semitic peoples often are given or give themselves names appropriate to their belief system or life experience."Daniel"is ’God is judge’, the idea being that although Babylon had judged Jerusalem, God was the ultimate judge who had merely used Babylon and Babylon would be judged too."Hananiah"is"Whom Yah has favoured", and this word is used of how God would"favour"Judah with restoration (<a href='B:230 123:2-3'>Psa 123:2-3</a>; <a href='B:290 30:19'>Isa 30:19</a>; <a href='B:290 33:2'>Isa 33:2</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>)."Mishael"is from the two words misha [’who is like’] and el, ’God’:These same two words are used in the classic restoration prophecy of <a href='B:290 40:18'>Isa 40:18</a> and <a href='B:400 7:18'>Mic 7:18</a>, the idea being ’Who is like the God who restores Judah’. ’Who is like God!’ was the commentary upon God’s deliverance of Israel out of Egypt (<a href='B:20 15:11'>Exo 15:11</a>)."Azariah", ’help of Yah’, is likewise a term associated with God’s promise to"help"Judah in restoring them (s:w. <a href='B:290 41:13-14'>Isa 41:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a>; <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>; <a href='B:290 50:7'>Isa 50:7</a>; <a href='B:290 50:9'>Isa 50:9</a>). So I suggest these young men chose their names in hope, in faith and in defiance of where they were being taken.</p><p>Jewish tradition claims that he was of the royal family, and was descended from Hezekiah. In this case we would have the fulfilment of Is. 39:7: “Of your sons which shall issue from you... shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon".  Daniel was a young man who had been castrated and had lost all his hopes of a life and career in his homeland. It speaks volumes that he retained his faith in Yahweh and was so sensitive in conscience for Him. As we learn from Ezekiel, so many of the exiles were bitter with God and felt they were unjustly suffering for the sins of their fathers.</p>


text:
<p>The prince of the eunuchs gave names to them: to Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego- "Gave names to" is literally 'determined', and the same word occurs in :8 where Daniel equally 'determined' in his mind not to be defiled by Babylon. The determination of the world, the evil empire, is matched by his determination not to let them defeat him. And he won. Just as we are in a similar spiritual battle of determination.</p><p>As noted on :6, the names of these young men all spoke of their faith and hope in the restoration of the Kingdom, and they may have chosen them in defiance of where they were being taken and the unashamed program of brainwashing they were now subject to. The names they were given were an intentional subversion of Yahweh worship."Belteshazar"is"Keeper of the hid treasures of Bel". The treasures of Yahweh’s temple had been transported to the temple of Bel in Babylon, and Daniel was likewise transported.</p><p>The intention in each case was the obliterating of the name of God: Daniel, ‘God is my judge’; Hananiah, ‘Yah is gracious’; Mishael, ‘Who is what God is?’; Azariah, ‘Yah has helped'.
</p><p>Belteshazzar was the name of the personal God of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:8 "Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god"). Apparently Daniel was singled out to have the most Babylonian name, "the wisdom of Bel". The king found Daniel full of wisdom (:20), so we can take that as referring to his name, the wisdom of Bel. The implication is that Daniel trotted out the wisdom of Bel just as a Christian might trot out answers in a science exam that he doesn't personally agree with. Indeed he was called later "Master of the magicians". Yet he knew that the wisdom of Babylon had perverted her and would be the cause of her downfall (Is. 47:10 "Your wisdom and your knowledge has perverted you"). The magic arts of the Babylonians are specifically condemned in Is. 47:9,11-13. And yet Daniel excelled in them and it seems was given fluency in them by Yahweh. There was a fine line between believing the information studied, and seeing it merely as false information to be regurgitated on demand. So it is with we who are to use this world but not abuse it. We note therefore his bravery in repeatedly stating that wisdom belongs to Yahweh (Dan. 2:20,21,23,30) and he himself had no true wisdom. Matters of conscience are a major theme in Daniel. Although he bowed to Bel initially, and could well expound Babylonian magic, he was led by God to positions where he had to nail his personal colours to the mast. We are all led over time to come out publicly for our faith. 
</p><p>"Shadrach" is "Filled with the spirit of the sun god". Hananiah was amongst those to be trained as Babylonian astrologers, and according to the Babylonian understanding, to do his job he would have to live up to his name, and be"Filled with the spirit of the sun god".</p><p>Mishael was tweaked to Meshach, alluding to Misha-Aku, ‘Who is what Aku is?’. The first syllable was retained, but el was replaced with Shak, the goddess of Babylon, also called Sheshach (<a href='B:300 25:26'>Jer 25:26</a>; <a href='B:300 51:41'>Jer 51:41</a>), which also means Venus, the goddess of love and mirth. But that goddess and the attempt to make Mishael into Meshach was subverted by the fact that it was during her feast that Cyrus took Babylon.</p><p>Azariah became"Abednego","servant of Nebo", the god of wisdom, or"servant of the fire god". This was subverted wonderfully when Azariah was put in the fiery furnace, sacrificed to Nego, and yet survived thanks to Israel’s God. The psychological pressure consciously exerted upon these young believers was huge, and matches that which we all live under in this latter day Babylon. Or we could see a similarity with Akkadian mesaku, "I am of little account". In this case we see how the evil empire was doing down the people of God, just as the world does to us. Likewise "Shadrach" may be the Akkadian Sliduraku, "I am very fearful". We too can be dumbed down by society to consider ourselves of little account and fearful. But we are to see ourselves as God sees us, just as Daniel and the friends clearly retained their Hebrew names.</p>
</p>Azariah became "Abednego", "servant of Nebo", the god of wisdom, or "servant of the fire god". This was subverted wonderfully when Azariah was put in the fiery furnace, sacrificed to Nego, and yet survived thanks to Israel's God. The psychological pressure consciously exerted upon these young believers was huge, and matches that which we all live under in this latter day Babylon. Is. 46:1 was a prophecy surely known to the young men; that Nebo would bow to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>But Daniel determined- Although all his surrounding circumstances were changed and pressured him into conformity, Daniel's heart was devoted to God. "Determined"is the same word translated"gave the name to..."in :7. Babylon was determined to rename him, but he was determined not to give in to this brainwashing. He sets an example to all youngsters.</p><p>Not to defile himself- Daniel is the more commendable in this because the other captives didn’t have the same sensitivity of conscience; and he is mentioned alone as the initiator in this refusal, with the three friends only coming in afterwards. The same word is used of how the later restored exiles did pollute themselves (<a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a>; <a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>; <a href='B:150 2:62'>Ezr 2:62</a>; <a href='B:160 7:64'>Neh 7:64</a>). It is so much harder to take a stand for things when others amongst God’s people don’t do so.</p><p>With the king’s dainties, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself- It could be argued that to eat defiled food in captivity was part of Judah's prophesied punishment: “And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them" (Ez. 4:14); “they shall not dwell in the Lord’s land, but Ephraim shall return to Egypt; and shall eat unclean things in Assyria” (Hos. 9:3). Paul seems to argue that eating food offered to idols is not wrong in itself, seeing an idol "has no real existence" and in any case, "there is nothing unclean in itself". His objection to doing so was because in the local context of the church in Corinth, doing so might make other Christians stumble. There was no Mosaic command about this matter. And we can't assume that Daniel refused the food for kosher reasons; for he refused the wine, which was not a forbidden drink under the law of Moses and there was no kosher issue with it. To eat such food was not in itself an act of idol worship, whereby food was eaten as part of the worship ceremony. Of course the diet was part of the attempt to immerse the young Jews in Babylonian culture, just as the British fed local recruits in the Indian Army bacon and sausages at breakfast and roast beef for dinner, in order to deculturize both Hindu and Muslim.</p><p> The objection was not so much because of unclean food or the nature of its preparation, but because Daniel perceived that eating meat offered to idols was purposefully intended by the Babylonians to make these young Jews effectively part of idol worship in every meal they ate. Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians is based upon this; to partake in food knowingly offered to idols, when your eating was perceived as idol worship, was wrong."The king’s dainties"is better"the king’s portion of food", the food that had been placed upon the idolatrous table of the king; and it is used in <a href='B:340 11:26'>Dan 11:26</a> to describe those on the king’s side, his fellow worshippers.</p>


text:
<p>Now God made Daniel to find kindness and compassion with the prince of the eunuchs- On one hand, God's intention was to destroy Judah in captivity. On the other, He promised to make their captors show them pity and kindness (1 Kings 8:50; Ps. 106:46). Here we have an example of that grace shown to Daniel, just as Hatach showed it to Esther, the king did to Nehemiah (Neh. 1:11 "Give success to your servant today and grant him compassion in the sight of this man!") and the prison keeper did to Joseph (Gen. 39:21 "the Lord was with Joseph and showed him grace; he gave him favour in the sight of the chief jailer"). Why would this man risk his life for the sake of the foibles of a teenage captive? He had no good reason for doing so, there was nothing in it for him. The answer is that here as in the other cases of Esther, Nehemiah and Joseph, God worked on his heart, as He will on the hearts of those in our lives, even if they themselves aren't believers. 
</p><p>We could read :9 as a summary of what happened, and then we read of how it happened. Or it could be that God intervened in the heart of this man in :9, he resisted somewhat, and then God's intervention achieved the required end in :16. Thus there was a gap between Divine intervention in a man's heart and the achievement of the required outcome. And such gaps are ongoing all the time in our lives and in the lives of those around us. During those gaps we have to exercise trust / faith in His work. But during the gap, Daniel had to make some human effort. The "prince of the eunuchs" basically said "no" to Daniel in :10, but Daniel then approaches another man, "the steward whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel" (:11), and he agrees. And presumably it was that steward who persuaded his master, "the prince of the eunuchs" whose heart God had already touched, to allow Daniel's request.
</p><p> Finding chesed / kindness and compassion was the language used of finding such mercy from God. But God had shown it to Daniel through the prince of the eunuchs:&nbsp; <a href='B:50 13:17'>Deu 13:17</a> had used the term in explaining that if none of the unclean things of the gentiles defiled God’s people, then Yahweh would show His people mercy and compassion. Daniel was not willing in his heart to be thus defiled, and so God showed him this promised"kindness and compassion". But how, mechanically, did it work out? We wonder if this man who was himself a eunuch may have been homosexually attracted to Daniel, who was a handsome young man and also a eunuch."Compassion"is AV"tender love". I am not suggesting that they had a homosexual affair, but possibly the prince of the eunuchs had a homosexual attraction to Daniel and did him a favour because of it. God works in all manner of ways to bring about His purpose and work in the lives of those faithful to Him. The Hebrew however has the idea of"pity", and is the word used in <a href='B:230 106:46'>Psa 106:46</a>:"He made them to be pitied of all those that carried them captives".</p>


text:
<p>The prince of the eunuchs said to Daniel, I fear my lord the king who has appointed your food and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse looking than the youths who are of your own age? Do you really want to endanger my head with the king?- 
We meet here for the first time in Daniel the theme of risking death in order to disobey the king. This theme is a significant one throughout the book. Daniel here disobeys the king, as does the prince of the eunuchs, but in secret. For the king never finds out. But this quiet disobedience and willingness to potentially lose life becomes developed by God. For Daniel will later have to openly disobey the king and accept loss of life as a threatened consequence. We see how God leads us so gently, by incremental steps and experiences. We are also here introduced to the irony of how the apparently omnipotent king was disobeyed by the friends, but then chooses and congratulates them. Human power is shown to be manipulated by the Divine hand and His servants, embedded as they are within those human power systems.
</p><p>We sense this man had indeed"tender love"(:9 AV) towards Daniel but naturally feared the consequences. We also have here a window into the despotic manner of Nebuchadnezzar, who beheaded his servants for the slightest perceived lack of obedience and servitude towards him. Daniel and his friends grew up as teenagers within the threat of instant death hanging over them. It seems the king personally had come up with this idea of making the young Jews eat and drink what had been offered to idols upon his personal table; he had a personal interest in breaking the culture of Yahweh worship which these youngsters had.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel said to the steward whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah- It seems Daniel didn’t respond directly to the prince of the eunuchs but to the steward, AV"Melzar". It seems those four had one"steward"responsible for them; with only four charges under his control, he would have observed them carefully and known them well.</p>


text:
<p>Test your servants, I beg you, for ten days; let them give us vegetables to eat, and water to drink-"Ten days"is elsewhere a period of testing (<a href='B:730 2:10'>Rev 2:10</a> etc:). "Vegetables" is more correctly 'seeds', that is, pulse (:16). This, along with water, was exactly the food Ezekiel had eaten "daily" before the exiles [in Daniel's youth?], in order to 'bear their iniquity', to take away their sins: "wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt" (Ez. 4:9,11). It could be that Daniel had this in view, and wished to "daily" eat such food rather than fine food and wine. He wanted to suffer as he knew God's people should suffer for their sins, in order that the punishment would be experienced by him and thus the people freed from punishment. </p>


text:
<p>Then let our faces be looked on before you, and the faces of the youths who eat of the king’s dainties; and as you see, deal with your servants-"Faces"or ’appearance’ is the word specifically used in Daniel of the"visions"about the ending of gentile power over Israel. The idea could be that this was a hint that&nbsp; those looking after them were invited to look upon the later visions and judge for themselves.</p>


text:
<p>So he listened to them in this matter, and proved them ten days- The Hebrew is literally ’He heard / obeyed them in this word’, the phrase so often used in appealing to people to hear God’s word. Those in charge of Daniel are presented as spiritually perceptive. We observe how Daniel was allowed to follow his religious conscience rather than just assuming that it was going to be impossible to do so. Likewise it seems he was well known for praying towards Jerusalem with his windows open. And probably it was known that he had written down his visions. All these acts were contrary to the spirit of the empire, with its demand for total loyalty to the current regime. He somehow was allowed to 'get away with it'- despite in the course of his life serving under six Babylonian and two Medo-Persian kings. God will find a way...</p>


text:
<p>At the end of ten days their faces appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths who ate of the king’s dainties- Or,"the king’s portion". There was a fair chance of word getting out about Daniel and his friends, but the men in charge of their feeding took that chance."Fair and fat"is the very Hebrew phrase used about the seven fat ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream (<a href='B:10 41:5'>Gen 41:5</a>). There are so many echoes of the Joseph story in Daniel. We are to understand that it served as a Divine template for the situation Daniel found himself in; and our familiarity with God’s word coupled with sensitivity and self-examination enables us to discern such templates working out in our own lives."Zaphnath Paaneah", the name given to Joseph, can mean ’interpreter of dreams’; and Daniel’s interpreting the king’s dreams, at one stage being summoned out of obscurity to do so, is so clearly based upon Joseph’s experience. Man is not alone- in that no experience is without Biblical precedent, in essence. For other connections with Joseph, see on <a href='B:340 1:19'>Dan 1:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So the steward took away their dainties, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them vegetables- This was all the same a great risk, to disobey the king, and not give"the king’s portion"("dainties") when he had specifically stipulated it should be given them. The steward had sympathy for them.</p>


text:
<p>Now as for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams- The intention was that they should obtain such learning and wisdom from their education in the school of Babylonian mythology; interpretation of dreams was specifically connected with idolatry. Hence the emphasis that Israel’s God gave them wisdom. Daniel’s wisdom was proverbial throughout the empire (<a href='B:330 28:3'>Eze 28:3</a>). The language recalls how Bezaleel was"filled with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge"(<a href='B:20 31:2-3'>Exo 31:2-3</a>) in order to build the tabernacle; these young men were given wisdom to effectively lead to the rebuilding of the temple. God is shown here to be able to operate directly on the human heart by His Spirit; and He can do so to this day (<a href='B:660 1:17'>Jas 1:17</a>; <a href='B:560 3:15-21'>Eph 3:15-21</a>). We don’t read here that Daniel and the four youths got wisdom from their own unaided Bible reading; rather, God gave them knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of the days which the king had appointed for bringing them in, the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar- The King wanted to see how far they had progressed out of the Yahweh cult, as he would have seen it, into the Babylonian mindset. The fact he was impressed with them was a result of the wisdom given to them and probably various providential situations which enabled them to answer his questions in an impressive way. <a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a> says that Daniel interpretted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his second year, so it’s possible that this examination ceremony was actually after that; chapter 2 is explaining, in this case, how the huge reputation of Daniel had been built up. However, the commentaries all give various suggestions about the chronological issues in Daniel and there are other apparently valid ways of understanding it.</p>


text:
<p>The king talked with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore they served the king- The other young Jewish men had compromised their faith in order to gain acceptance with the king; but their efforts somehow failed."They served the king"is literally ’they stood before [the face of] the king", and the same term is used of Pharaoh being brought before Pharaoh and his ’standing before [the face of]’ that king (<a href='B:10 41:46'>Gen 41:46</a>). As noted on <a href='B:340 1:15'>Dan 1:15</a>, this is another background allusion to Pharaoh which sets up the similarities with Joseph. Both of them interpreted dreams three times when the wise men couldn't do so, both were cast into a pit to die. Both are described as having "the spirit of God / the gods" (Gen. 41:44; Dan. 4:5).  Their exaltation in reward is very similar; Daniel's exaltation by Nebuchadnezzar matches that of Joseph by Pharaoh: "Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.’ Removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph’s hand.… He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command". Joseph's ministry started at age 17 and ended with his death at 110, a total of 93 years (Gen. 37:2; 50:22). Daniel's ministry may likewise have been 93 years: twenty years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign until the fall of Jerusalem (his accession year plus the 19 years of 2 Kings 25:8), seventy years of exile (Dan. 9:2) and three years of king Cyrus (Dan. 10:10). See on Dan. 2:1.</p>


text:
<p>In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters who were in all his kingdom- They were not only better than the other Jewish youths, but ten times better than the existing Babylonian magicians. "Ten times" may connect with the ten days testing which they initially gave their steward (:14). Already the seeds of jealousy were sown; these young foreigners were found to be so far ahead of their teachers. It was thereby obvious that they had access to a wisdom far beyond that of their teachers. </p><p>The mention of the "wise" shining for ever in Dan. 12:3 forms an inclusio with the opening of the book of Daniel. Daniel is presented as the truly wise man because he has God's wisdom in contrast to the wise men of Babylon, who are shown to be fools. Daniel is thus presented as typical of the entire class of those who will be saved. He is our pattern. His wisdom was not in all the human wisdom which he was taught and even excelled at, according to Dan. 1. It was in using God's wisdom to turn many to righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel continued up to the first year of king Cyrus- This may refer to the length of Daniel’s uninterrupted court service. The first year of Cyrus was when the command was given to allow the Jewish exiles to return and rebuild the land. This isn’t necessarily when Daniel died, but the point is being made that he lived to see that significant moment. Some Jewish traditions claim Daniel returned to Judah at that time, but then went back to Babylon to die there.  The idea is that Daniel outlived the apparently immortal Babylonian empire. He lived to see the prophecy of Dan. 2 begin to come true. We note Dan. 11:1 LXX "The first year of Cyrus".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a> In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar-  The miserable critics point out that Daniel and his friends were tried for three years by Nebuchadnezzar when he was apparently already king (<a href='B:340 1:18-19'>Dan. 1:18,19</a>). In a book as subtle and carefully internally coherent as the Bible, it beggars belief that such an obvious mistake would be made by some conman author. I suggest the opposite is true; someone who was writing the truth and who had lived close to the situation would write things which may appear contradictory to those reading from a distance. The four Gospel records are another example. And so here, at the time of Dan. 1 Nebuchadnezzar ruled as regent or subordinate to his father, Nabopolassar; whereas &quot;the second year&quot; refers to Nebuchadnezzar's sole sovereignty. <a href='B:300 25:1'>Jer. 25:1</a> likewise uses the idea of &quot;the first year&quot; of Nebuchadnezzar to refer to the first year of his sole reign. Or we can go with the alternative textual readings, which offer &quot;the twelfth&quot; for &quot;the second year&quot;. Another option is to understand Daniel 1 as summarizing how Daniel and his friends came to be so highly acceptable to Nebuchadnezzar after three years; and the events of chapter 2 explain how that came about. This kind of literary device is common in the Bible.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him- There are so many similarities with the young, handsome, captive, faithful Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's dreams and getting rewarded; here the connection is with <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen. 41:8</a>. For more about Daniel's image see http://n-e-v.info/cm/dan2com.html </p>

</p><p>They are both described as good looking (Gen. 39:6; Dan. 1:4), given new names, taken into captivity as 'boys' (Gen. 37:30; Dan. 1:4) but are promoted to the helm of Gentile power after interpreting a king's dream. As noted on Dan. 1:9, "God made Daniel to find kindness and compassion with the prince of the eunuchs" just as the prison keeper did to Joseph (Gen. 39:21 "the Lord was with Joseph and showed him grace; he gave him favour in the sight of the chief jailer"). The parallels are particularly strong between Daniel 2 and Genesis 41. The records both begin with a two year period (Gen. 41:1; Dan. 2:1). Both times, the king is described as agitated (Gen. 41:8, Dan. 2:1) because neither he nor his assistants can interpret the dream (Gen. 41:8, Dan. 2:1-11). Both Joseph and Daniel have someone at court who presents them as a Hebrew to the Gentile king (the cupbearer in Gen. 41:9-13, Arioch in Dan. 2:25). They both say that the interpretation of dreams is with their God (Gen. 40:8; Dan. 2:28), not with them, and that God makes known the future and it is certain of fulfilment (Gen. 41:25,32; Dan. 2:28,45). The Gentile monarch is delighted with the message and rewards the Israelite by giving them gifts and promoting them. The similarities are such that we can assume that Daniel based his words upon those of Joseph, perceiving the similarity of situation. Just as we are to allow ourselves to see the parallels between our life situations and the essence of such situations in the lives of faithful Biblical characters; and act like them. "Zaphnath Paaneah", the name given to Joseph, can mean 'interpreter of dreams'; and Daniel's interpreting the king's dreams, at one stage being summoned out of obscurity to do so, is so clearly based upon Joseph's experience. Man is not alone- in that no experience is without Biblical precedent, in essence.
</p><p>The parallels continue beyond Daniel 2. Thus in Dan. 4:8,9 the foreign monarch realizes that the spirit of God is in Daniel, just as Pharaoh did with Joseph. The reward for telling the vision is a gold chain in both Gen. 41:42 and Dan. 5:7,16,29. Daniel's words to Nebuchadnezzar are clearly inspired by Joseph's example. He perceived the similarities between his situation and that of a Biblical precedent- and spoke and acted accordingly. Truly a pattern for every Bible reader. Both of them interpreted dreams three times when the wise men couldn't do so, both were cast into a pit to die. Both are described as having "the spirit of God / the gods" (Gen. 41:44; Dan. 4:5).  Their exaltation in reward is very similar; Daniel's exaltation by Nebuchadnezzar matches that of Joseph by Pharaoh: "Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.’ Removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph’s hand... He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command". Joseph's ministry started at age 17 and ended with his death at 110, a total of 93 years (Gen. 37:2; 50:22). Daniel's ministry may likewise have been 93 years: twenty years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign until the fall of Jerusalem (his accession year plus the 19 years of 2 Kings 25:8), seventy years of exile (Dan. 9:2) and three years of king Cyrus (Dan. 10:10). 
</p><p>We note though that Daniel is presented as a greater than Joseph. He not only interprets but recalls the king's dream; the dream is of far greater and eternal moment than those which Joseph interpreted; and Daniel is presented as more prayerful and more eager to give glory to Israel's God for the interpretation. Indeed Joseph is never once recorded as praying. Moses and Daniel are presented as resisting assimilation, whereas Joseph assimilates into the Gentile world. Daniel states clearly and more bravely than Joseph, that this Gentile monarch is given his power by God alone. Daniel is repeatedly critical of the impotence of Gentile wisdom, unlike Joseph. And it could be argued that the Gentile king was finally converted to Israel's God by Daniel's interpretations, whereas that isn't said of Pharaoh.

<p style='margin-left:1em'>Daniel chapter 2 begins the Aramaic section of the book. Although God can inspire and use who He wishes, it has been argued that aniel would have known both Hebrew and Aramaic fluently. And God clearly used that. The section concerns the future of the Gentile nations with respect to Israel; the fact Daniel spoke or wrote it in Aramaic was because he wanted to witness to the world around him in their language. He wanted to tell them their destiny, with the implication that they should repent. Another reason for this Aramaic section may simply be to the as it were bind the two halves of Daniel together, as suggested by Collins in his commentary on Daniel (Collins, John J. (1984): Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature,  Eerdmans) p. 31:</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>PART I: Tales (chapters 1:1–6:29)</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>1: Introduction (1:1–21 – set in the Babylonian era, written in Hebrew)<br />
	2: Nebuchadnezzar's dream of four kingdoms (2:1–49 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)<br />
	3: The fiery furnace (3:1–30 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)<br />
	4: Nebuchadnezzar's madness (3:31–4:34 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)<br />
	5: Belshazzar's feast (5:1–6:1 – Babylonian era; Aramaic)<br />
	6: Daniel in the lions' den (6:2–29 – Median era with mention of Persia; Aramaic)<br />
	PART II: Visions (chapters 7:1–12:13)</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>7: The beasts from the sea and the Son of Man (7:1–28 – Babylonian era: Aramaic)<br />
	8: The ram and the he-goat (8:1–27 – Babylonian era; Hebrew)<br />
	9: Interpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy weeks (9:1–27 – Median era; Hebrew)<br />
	10: The angel's revelation: kings of the north and south (10:1–12:13 – Persian era, mention of Greek era; Hebrew)<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Daniel chapter 2 contains an outline of the powers who were to dominate the people of Israel within the land of Israel; that is the eretz / earth / land which is in view, not the whole planet. It begins with a head of gold (Babylon), then breast and arms of silver (Persia), thighs of brass (Greece), two legs of iron (the two halves of the Roman empire) and then feet part of iron, part of clay. Each part of the image corresponds in proportion to how long each empire dominated the land of Israel and the Jewish people- thus the legs were longest because the Romans dominated the land for longest. After AD70, the Jewish state ceased to be a nation. But now, it is once again, for the first time in nearly 2000 years. The final part of the image therefore represents a group of nations (perhaps divided into two groups, symbolized by the two feet) who will dominate Israel in the last days. A stone cut out of a mountain without hands (representing the Lord Jesus Christ) then hits the image on its feet, growing into a mountain which fills the earth. The interpretation is given, and it clearly refers to the second coming of Christ to destroy the kingdoms of men who have dominated His land and His people, and to establish God’s Kingdom on earth: &quot;In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people; it shall crush to powder and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan. 2:44</a>). The vision requires that the image stands complete in order to all be destroyed together. The latter day entity represented by the feet will also be headed up by a latter day Nebuchadnezzar, and will comprise elements of all the previous entities which have dominated God’s people.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet there is another view possible. Bible prophecy is often conditional. At Daniel's time, there was the possibility that in some sense, a Messiah figure could have appeared and re-established Israel as God’s Kingdom on earth. Many of the prophecies we understand as referring to the establishment of the Kingdom on earth at the Lord's return could have then been fulfilled. Ez. 40-48 is the clearest example; the returning exiles were intended to build a temple of the dimensions given, replete with a Messiah figure. But most remained in the soft life of Babylon, and those who did return were disobedient to the Kingdom potential, as prophets like Malachi, Haggai and Zechariah make clear. Daniel's prophecies likewise outline a possible scenario which could have led to the re-establishment of the Kingdom; but it didn’t happen, because of men dropping the baton, missing the opportunities, refusing to use the potential of the Spirit.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Understanding Daniel 2 is programmatic to making sense of Bible prophecy about the last days. The beasts of Daniel 7 are clearly an extension and development of the four metals of the Daniel 2 image, and those beasts morph into the beasts of Revelation, where we find them presented with various aspects and with additional details. As to why the beasts morph over time, I would suggest that this is because Bible prophecy is conditional (see the Appendix 'Conditional Prophecy in Daniel'). What could have come true e.g. in Daniel's time, did not- because of the indolence of God’s people and the lack of repentance amongst the Gentiles. And so the prophecies morphed into another form, and then another, meaning that the essence of God’s prophetic word will still come true, even if the form of fulfilment is not that which was initially or ideally intended. Daniel 2-7 are written in Aramaic [Chaldee], not Hebrew. The section has a concentric structure, in which the visions of chapters 2 and 7 form the opening and concluding parts. They are clearly to be related to each other:<br />
	Daniel 2- Vision of empires<br />
	Daniel 3- Deliverance of three Jews from death<br />
	Daniel 4- God’s discipline of the king<br />
	Daniel 5- God’s discipline of the king<br />
	Daniel 6- Deliverance of Daniel from death<br />
	Daniel 7- Vision of empires<br />
</p>


text:
<p>Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams- Babylon was deeply religious; the real leaders were the religious leaders, and the sorcery for which Babylon was infamous was a large part of their religion. Hence "the Chaldeans" refers to Babylonians generally, as well as to this class of religious leaders. They were the quintessence of all Babylon was. For them to be exposed as fraudulent failures was therefore a blow to Babylon’s entire religious structure, just as the dreams of Pharaoh and later the plagues struck at the very core of Egypt’s religious beliefs.</p><p>So they came in and stood before the king- Perhaps in the middle of the night; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream- The implication of :1 could be that the king couldn’t get back to sleep, and so he called the magicians immediately, at night. It could even be that the king commanded them to be killed immediately (see on :5), and the executioner then went to the house of Daniel to kill him too. But that same night Daniel went to the king (:16) and assured him that he would find the interpretation; he returns to pray, goes to sleep [despite all the pressure and drama], and in a night vision, perhaps later that very same night, receives the answer (:19). If something like this scenario is correct, then time was of the essence. Daniel would have wanted an immediate answer from God; but he had to exercise faith in going to the king and asking for time for the answer to come. And he went to see the king that night knowing that he had a death penalty upon his head. The heads of his department [as it were] had just been condemned to death; and he the very junior underling now goes to the king to ask for more time. Then he comes home, chats with his friends and prayers with them about the matter and goes to sleep in peace; and that night, he gets a vision which is the answer. This is all typical of the deep faith and peace which we sense in Daniel.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in the Syrian language, O king, live forever: tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation- The group are summarized as "the Chaldeans". As noted on :2, "the Chaldeans" refers to Babylonians generally, as well as to this class of religious leaders. They were the quintessence of all Babylon was. For them to be exposed as fraudulent failures was therefore a blow to Babylon’s entire religious structure, just as the dreams of Pharaoh and later the plagues struck at the very core of Egypt’s religious beliefs. That they spoke in Syrian may seem unsurprising, but perhaps the idea is that as this part of Daniel is written in Aramaic ["Syrian"], we are reading the very words they actually spoke.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me- A case could be made that Nebuchadnezzar was paranoid that the Chaldees / magicians were seeking to overthrow him. Dan. 2:9 uses the word for 'conspiracy' about them: “For you have agreed together ['conspired'] to speak lying and corrupt words before me until the situation is changed”. For such rebellions led by this group were not unknown. His dream was a reflection of those fears. The text never says he forgot the dream- if we interpret :5 as meaning "The thing [command to kill you] is gone from me" unless you interpret the dream to me. This would make sense of his otherwise unreasonable demand, that they recall the dream as well as interpret it. He was seeking for an excuse to kill them.  This approach makes better sense of the otherwise strange statement: “Tell me the dream that I may know that you can declare to me its
interpretation” (Dan. 2:9 NASB). He knows the dream, but asks them to tell him what he dreamt, so that he can then trust their interpretation of it. And why would a king be worried silly about a dream he said he had forgotten? How do I know I had a terrible dream last night if I have forgotten it? The awfulness of the image would surely have remained in the king's mind; it is surely stating too much to claim he remembered absolutely zero about this dream. If he had indeed had a dream about his future, including his apparent destruction, he would be desperate to understand it. And that is exactly the scene we have. This would make sense of Daniel saying that he would make known to the king "the thoughts of your heart". And Nebuchadnezzar saying that “My spirit was troubled to know / understand the dream” (Dan. 2:3), as if it was the interpretation aspect which bothered him rather than the lack of recall. 
</p><p>We note that Nebuchadnezzar had only recently won the victory against the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish, whilst his father was still on the throne. This hugely extended Babylonian power and made Nebuchadnezzar some kind of a hero. And he naturally internally wondered what would be his future; and whether the forces of jealousy within Babylon would be his end. Jer. 46:2-12 had prophesied this battle and his victory, but stating that Nebuchadnezzar was merely Yahweh's agent. If Nebuchadnezzar was aware of that prophecy, he would naturally have wondered about his role and relationship with Yahweh. His victory there was huge and he lost very few men compared to the complete destruction of massive Egyptian forces. He must have surely seen some higher hand at work. That was just two or three years previous to him having become king; for soon after the battle he became king on his father's death. And his reign began with rebellions in Media and Persia; and the growth of powerful competitors in Greece. Truly "uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" (Shakespeare, Henry IV). His dream and paranoia is absolutely psychologically credible. 
</p><p>It’s unclear whether "the thing" refers to the dream, which had gone from him in the sense of forgetting it, "the thing" is the same word translated "matter" in :8,23; or whether the reference is to the decree which he intended sending out to kill the Chaldeans unless they recalled his dream for him and interpretted it. The same word for "thing" is translated "commandment" in <a href='B:340 3:22'>Dan 3:22</a>; <a href='B:340 3:28'>Dan 3:28</a> when the king again commands the death of his wise men. And it is translated "word" in Dan. 4:31; 6:12: “the word still (being) in the mouth of the king”, clearly referring to a command from the king. A similar phrase is “the commandment came forth” (Dan. 9:23). Surely the king would have referred to the dream as a "dream" and not a thing / word. I suggest that if the reconstruction of events offered on :3 is correct, then "the thing" refers to the command to kill the wise men unless the dream was retold an interpreted. The reasoning in :8 confirms this. The magicians wanted to "gain time" not because the dream had gone from Nebuchadnezzar, but because the decree to kill them had gone forth from him.</p><p>If you don’t make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a compost heap- The cutting in pieces is to be connected with how the stone was to break the image in pieces, including the head of gold which represented Nebuchadnezzar. He was to be taught that it was not for him to arrogate to himself such power of condemnation. For contrary to what he liked to imagine, he was not eternal, nor was he God. Rather, he was under Divine judgment.</p>


text:
<p>But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore show me the dream and its interpretation- This is the language of a man who considers that he has the power to give any reward in his kingdom, which he considered to be the kingdom of a divine being, of God. The gifts and rewards given to Daniel were of political power within the kingdom. "Receive" is elsewhere used in Daniel of receiving the kingdom; and yet ultimately it is the people of God who would receive or "take" the Kingdom (<a href='B:340 7:18'>Dan 7:18</a> s:w:). "Great honour" is the word elsewhere translated "glory"; it was this glory which was so prideful and which led to Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall (<a href='B:340 4:30'>Dan 4:30</a>; <a href='B:340 4:36'>Dan 4:36</a>). The glory of the Kingdom was to be finally given for ever to God’s people (<a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a> s:w:). So it was precisely the attitude Nebuchadnezzar had at this point, considering that all reward and glory in the Kingdom of God was his to distribute at will, which had to be taken away from him. He was playing God, and this is so unacceptable to Him.</p>


text:
<p>They answered the second time and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation- Their humanity is being taught to both them and the king. The idea was that they had special dialogue with the gods which others didn’t have, and therefore could give interpretations. But their limitations are apparent; it was God’s attempt to teach all of them, and the king, that their religion was woefully weak and they should accept the one true God. The whole scene here parallels Joseph before Pharaoh, and that was also the intention then. We marvel that God would make such effort to convert the likes of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, the very types we would have passed over and ignored as unsuitable candidates for any evangelism attempt.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered, I know of a certainty that you would gain time, because you see the thing is gone from me- The king is suspicious that they were not who they claimed to be, because they could not tell him what he had dreamt. The thing that went from him sounds like the command to kill them (see on :3,5). The king’s sensitivity to any appeal for extra time therefore made Daniel’s approach to request just that all the harder and more dangerous; although :16 could suggest Daniel as it were booked an appointment with the king, whilst as yet he had no answer. He was so sure that prayer would be answered and he would have an answer to give.</p><p>"To gain the time" meant they wanted time because they were going to try to flee and escape. This explains why the command to slay them was hastily executed, before they could escape. This makes Daniel's request for more time even more amazing, seeing the king wanted to kill the magicians quickly. It shows his trust in prayer, and shows that prayer isn't instantly answered. Surely here we have a prime case when immediate answer to prayer would've been appreciated. But that wasn't God's way. As it often isn't today. </p>


text:
<p>But if you don’t tell me the dream, there is but one law for you; for you have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, until the time be changed- The magicians had presumably come out with some airy words and were begging for more time, in the hope that the death penalty would be lifted. "Words" is the same word as "matter" in :10; perhaps they had come up with some dream which was not the word or matter which the king had dreamed. But Nebuchadnezzar had to be taught that God alone can ’change the times’; Daniel uses the same phrase in :21. The lives of the magicians were held in his hand as if playthings; but he was to learn that his life was in God’s hand in just the same way. It was God through His people who could change the king’s word of command (<a href='B:340 3:28'>Dan 3:28</a>), which was supposedly unchangeable.</p><p>"Until the time be changed" is the idea behind Daniel's later marvel in :21 that God changes times and seasons and sets up and removes rulers. The king appears paranoid that being in such a hopeless position, his magicians were now plotting a changed time, an overthrow of his kingdom. Subconsciously he was clearly worried about his future, as he later admits. There is irony yet again, for Daniel gives the interpretation that effectively, the king would be overthrown or pass from power; and is gloriously rewarded by the king for stating that which he feared.</p><p>Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation- He perceives that the dream and its interpretation cannot be separated; the magicians were making a difference between the two, but the king was not going to be fooled. If they truly had Divine powers, then they would know what he had dreamed. His test of them was to ask them to tell him what he had dreamed, and this would then confirm to him that their interpretation was correct. He knew what he had dreamed, or else this test had no power. Clearly he perceived from the dream that his time was limited, and he feared that the Chaldeans were behind this and would interpret the dream as meaning that he must lose or abdicate from power. If the idea was that the king had forgotten his dream, then the Chaldeans could presumably have made up any dream and interpreted it to him.</p>


text:
<p>The Chaldeans answered before the king and said, There is not a man on the earth who can show the king’s matter, because no king, lord or ruler has asked such a thing of any magician, enchanter or Chaldean- By saying this they were admitting that they were merely men upon earth. They reasoned that there was no historical precedent for such a request. And yet they were setting themselves up to have to make an exception to all their received wisdom; the one true God could inspire one man upon the earth, and show the matter.</p>


text:
<p>It is an unusual thing that the king requires, and there is no other who can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh- They were admitting that they were not in fact in contact with the gods, although this was what their profession was supposedly all about. And they were setting up an acceptance that therefore Daniel was God manifest in flesh.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the king was angry and very furious, and he commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed- As noted on :11, they had effectively admitted that they had no connection with the gods; they were fakes, and may as well be fired from their jobs and "destroyed". The same word is used of how the power of destruction is ultimately with God alone (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>; <a href='B:340 7:26'>Dan 7:26</a>). Again, the king is portrayed as playing God, and being educated as to his error.</p>


text:
<p>So the decree went forth that all the wise men were to be slain; and they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain- I suggested on :3 that this all happened the same night. Perhaps the more prominent wise men were indeed slain, leaving their posts open for Daniel and his friends to replace them.  Indeed we can translate to the effect “the decree went forth, and the wise men were slain”; the LXX supports this ["The decree went forth, and they began to slay the wise men; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to slay them"]. This is why Arioch, the chief of the executioners, was sent to the wise men. But circumstances again repeated. This servant of the king, like Melzar, 'for some reason' took pity upon Daniel and let him have a few hours respite in order to pray to God. We note God didn't give an instant answer, for Daniel surely prayed immediately about the matter. Momentary prayer isn't always what He seeks, but intense and extensive prayer lasting hours.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel returned answer with counsel and prudence to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard, who was gone forth to kill the wise men of Babylon- We imagine Arioch coming to Daniel, sword in hand. "Arioch" may well be a title for the court executioner.</p>


text:
<p>He answered Arioch the king’s captain, Why is the decree so urgent from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel- As suggested on :3, this may have been very late at night.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would appoint him a time, and he would show the king the interpretation- The king had made it clear that there was to be no playing for time. If they were indeed in contact with the gods, he expected an immediate answer. But Daniel asks for time because he has to contact the one true God and wait for an answer. But it could be that although Daniel had not received any revelation at this point, he was certain he would; and he made the appointment to see the king in absolute faith that it would be given to him. Again we sense the calmness and faith of Daniel, reasoning as if what he did not then have, he effectively did have. See on :25.</p></p>We know from the story of Esther that access to kings was not quickly nor easily given. I will suggest on :25 that actually Arioch never went to the king and asked for this extension of time- the king was clearly not in a mood to give it. If however we read the text on face value, that an extension of time was given, then this was remarkable. Perhaps [depending how we read the chronology here] the king recalled Daniel had great ability with dreams (Dan. 1:19,20). Or he was impressed that Daniel's offer was to recall and not just interpret the dream, reflecting thereby his extreme anxiety about the dream. But above all these things there would have been the influence of God's Spirit directly on the mind of this man.
</p><p>Again we marvel that God did not immediately grant Daniel insight. Daniel's faith in intense prayer was being tested, and for all time we are taught that God doesn't always give instant answers to prayer on demand. For surely Daniel had tried momentarily begging God for the answer. In the age of instant access and impatience with delayed response, we have a powerful lesson. Daniel was confident the answer would come, but recognized it wouldn't come immediately and that intense prayer requires time. He was so persuaded of this that he asks the king to give him time [see AV] so that he could receive the answer to his prayers for the interpretation to be given him. He does this aware that the king has ordered the deaths of the other magicians because he thought they were trying to 'buy time' (:8). So his request for more time was the more audacious and driven by absolute need and conviction that prayer is answered, but, it takes time.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel went to his house, and told Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions- As suggested on :3, this was in the middle of the night. "Companions" suggests those he was joined to, through sharing covenant relationship with Yahweh. Perhaps there were no others amongst the young exiles whom he felt were abiding in the covenant. As noted on :30, this is why Daniel later says that the dream was revealed to him simply so that he and his three friends might be saved from death at that time.</p>


text:
<p>That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; so that Daniel and his companions should not die with the rest of the wise men of Babylon- Daniel realized that his own prayers might not be enough, and so he awoke his friends late at night (see on :3) with the request that they join in prayer about the matter "Mercies" is better "pity". Their motivation was admittedly to save their own skins. Daniel's request to his friends to pray for him as he went before the king (Dan. 2:17,18), so that they should not die, contrasts with Esther asking her friends to simply fast for her- with no reference to God (Esther 4:16). </p>


text:
<p>Then was the secret revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven- Effectively, Daniel dreamed the same as Nebuchadnezzar did, making him effectively equal to the king who thought he had no equal. And because he remembered the dream and the interpretation, he was thereby declared greater than him. The night vision reflects the fact that Daniel could sleep under the threat of execution the next day, rather like Peter in prison, all reflects the depth of his faith. See on :3. Daniel’s first response was to thank God for the answer, rather than to race off to the king.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel responded, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever; for wisdom and might are His- Daniel had been shown that the Kingdom of God was to be on earth "for ever and ever", and he envisages praise to God for eternity. The required wisdom was of God, and not of Daniel; this is a major theme in Daniel’s speech to the king, but it reflected how he felt within himself; for his spontaneous prayer of thanks recognizes it. "For wisdom, and might are His" surely stresses the "His". Seeing Daniel had been trained in all the wisdom of Babylon and excelled at it.
Dan. 2:20-23 are in fact a carefully crafted poem or hymn. There are two verses or strophes, the lines of which clearly relate to each other:
"Let the name of God be praised for ever and ever" = "You God of my fathers I honour and praise"
"wisdom and strength" = "for wisdom and strength you gave to me"
"He is the one who reveals deep and hidden things; He knows what lies in darkness and light dwells with him" = "You have made known to me what we asked from You; the dream of the king You have made known to us".
Higher critics would claim that this therefore was composed by an editor well after the event. But another option is that instead of rushing off to the king with the interpretation, as we may well have done, dominated by the fear of death, the executioner knocking at the doors and with not a moment to [apparently] lose... Daniel not only uttered a few words of praise, but deeply reflected on God's grace to him. And ended up composing this brief poem or hymn, there and then. Such composition requires a focus of mind; and he would have had that focus despite all the pressures of the moment. A fine example to us, not to be dominated by the urgencies of the moment, but to retain calm spirituality throughout it all. This is what we see exemplified to the ultimate in the Lord's endurance of eight hours of torture on the cross.
</p>


text:
<p>He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings, and sets up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those who have understanding- The whole prophecy of the image was to result in God’s praise and glory (:20). The challenges of working out the symbolism and its correspondence to geopolitics should not lead us to forget that. Daniel was faced with a "time" and commandment for his own death, made by a despot who considered his own word unchangeable. But for God to change that was a small matter (:9 s:w. "changed"), for He changes the times and seasons of the world powers. "He gives wisdom to the wise" is not Daniel being self congratulatory. Rather he accepts that he and his friends had retained their spiritual wisdom and understanding of God’s ways, and it was in response to that, that he had been given the required insight. The four beasts were "changed" from each other, AV "diverse one from another" (<a href='B:340 7:3'>Dan 7:3</a> s:w:). This is saying that the changes between the metals of the image and then the beasts of Daniel 7 were all orchestrated by God. Daniel understood the image as referring to a succession of kings, not kingdoms; as suggested on :1, this was the primary potential of the prophecy. There would have been a series of kings after Nebuchadnezzar, which would have ended with the mountain of Judah’s kingdom being re-established on earth upon their ruins.</p><p>Daniel marvels that God "changes", not just coordinates, the "times and seasons". This could be a reference to the various potential fulfilments of the prophecy- in Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, in the Greek empire, in the first century Roman empire, and finally in our last days. The phrase "times and seasons" is used of the times relating to the Lord's return (Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1). We are to understand therefore that these times and seasons are variable, due to the conditional and potential nature of such prophecies. Although just as there were four seasons, so there would be four reigns manipulated and brought about by God rather than man. Which again raises the questions of whether Nebuchadnezzar was the first reign, and whether the feet or iron and clay are a fifth empire or entity. The allusion to four seasons could suggest that 'the end' could potentially have come before that.</p>


text:
<p>He reveals the deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him- If as suggested on :3 all this happened in one night, then these allusions to light and darkness make the more sense. The future is "darkness" to us, but God reveals the essence- that the process of human history will climax in the establishment of His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>I thank You, and praise You, You God of my fathers, who has given me wisdom and might, and has now made known to me what we desired of You; for You have made known to us the king’s matter- The reference to his "fathers" must be meshed with Ezekiel's observation that the exiles tended to blame their fathers for their predicament. Daniel instead sees that Yahweh had still been the God of his apostate fathers, even if they had denied that relationship. "Made known to us" reflects Daniel's solidarity with his friends. Daniel’s praise is not that God has hereby saved his life by revealing the vision; but rather praise of God’s wisdom and the glory of His workings amongst men.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon and said this: Don’t destroy the wise men of Babylon; bring me in before the king, and I will show to the king the interpretation- The command to kill them had been issued in the middle of the night (see on :3), and so we envisage Daniel walking or running through darkened streets to find Arioch. We note too that the wise men owed their lives to Daniel. And yet in Daniel 6 they sought to kill him. This is the power of jealousy; it so often develops from an arrogant refusal to be grateful to a person for the grace of God to us which was manifested through them.</p>


text:
<p>Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said: I have found a man among the captives of Judah who will make known to the king the interpretation- this appears to conflict with the impression given on :16 that Daniel had gone in to the king; but it seems that :16 means that he made an appointment to see the king and tell him the dream, seeing it was now the dead of night. Arioch’s reference to "the captives of Judah" heightens the sense that Babylonian religion and wisdom was being overturned. And Arioch himself seems confident that Daniel has really been given the answer.</p><p>"I have found a man..." definitely appears to contradict the apparent agreement from the king to give Daniel time to find the answer. See on :16. Perhaps Arioch had not in fact asked the king for the delay. And now Arioch takes the glory by claiming he is responsible for finding the answer. He has great faith Daniel really has got the answer, but wants to take credit for that. Again, what seems so bad- that Arioch never actually asked the king for more time- is turned to good under God's hand.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Are you able to make known to me the dream which I have seen, and its interpretation?- The king addressed Daniel as Belteshazzar, a reference to the god Bel. Daniel responds by saying immediately that it is the one God of heaven, not Bel of Babylon, who had provided the answers.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel answered before the king, and said, The secret which the king has demanded can neither wise men, enchanters, magicians, nor soothsayers, show to the king- We would likely have answered the king’s question by saying "Yes, sir!". But Daniel is so awed by Yahweh’s majesty that he loses no chances to emphasize that this revelation from Yahweh was an effective trashing of all Babylon’s religious leaders; for the "wise men" were the religious leaders.  If I were Daniel I would have just blurted out the dream and the interpretation. But Daniel sought to convert Nebuchadnezzar and to bring glory to Yahweh. And so he begins by rubbishing all Babylonian wisdom. A brave thing to do before the king of Babylon. Daniel was effectively stating that all his knowledge and success in the wisdom of Babylonian dream interpretation was meaningless.</p>


text:
<p>But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and He has made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Your dream, and the visions of your head on your bed, are these- The Babylonians thought that their god Bel lived in Babylon. Daniel stresses therefore that His God is in Heaven. Cyrus later defines Yahweh as "Yahweh, the God of Heaven" (<a href='B:150 1:2'>Ezr 1:2</a>). The God of or in Heaven was therefore a known title for Israel’s God. "The latter days" is a term which refers both to the final end time, when Messiah shall destroy the image as it stands complete in the last day; and also to the general ’future’ immediate to Nebuchadnezzar. </p><p>"The latter days" could refer just generally to the future; or there may be a specific reference to the end times. LXX has “at the end of the days”. What was to happen in those latter days was that the stone was to hit and entire image, destroy it, and become God's eternal kingdom on earth. Possibly the vagueness of the phrase is because Nebuchadnezzar's repentance could have brought about a totally different outworking of things. The 'last day' could have come in the immediate future at that point. Constantly, we see flexibility in the possible outworkings of things.</p>


text:
<p>As for you, O king, your thoughts came into your mind on your bed, what should happen in the future; and He who reveals secrets has made known to you what shall happen- ’Those who reveal secrets’ were the magicians and wise men; but Daniel says that it is God alone who reveals secrets, through his agency. I would have been tempted to just blurt out the dream and its message, knowing that the king was wary of the slightest attempt to delay, and had ordered my execution by Arioch, who was presumably standing next to Daniel at the time. Just one irritation of the despotic king could lead to Daniel’s head being severed from his shoulders. But still he stresses the glory of Israel’s God before he reveals the dream.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:340 2:30'>Dan 2:30</a> But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your heart- &quot;But to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king&quot; is AV &quot;But for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king&quot;. Daniel wishes to connect his friends to himself in this matter. He is saying that he has been chosen to reveal the secret just so that Daniel and his friends would not be executed. And yet there were many other young exiles from Judah with them at the time; Daniel seems to count them as not really within the covenant (see on <a href='B:340 2:17'>:17</a>).</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Conditional Prophecy in Daniel<br />
	The Olivet prophecy quotes and alludes to various parts of Daniel's prophecy, and yet the Olivet prophecy's intended fulfilment in AD70 didn’t happen as was potentially possible, and was rescheduled. This therefore implies that Daniel's prophecies, which are alluded to, are thereby capable of a similar more elastic fulfilment. And looking in more detail at Daniel, this does indeed seem to be the case. Daniel prophesied whilst Judah were in captivity, and the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are full of potential prophecies of how the Messianic Kingdom could have been established at Judah's return after 70 years in Babylon. Ezekiel's conditional prophecy of the temple system is a parade example, although this was more commandment than prediction. I have discussed this in great detail in The Exiles. I suggest that like the Olivet prophecy, the prophecies of Daniel were an outline of a potential schema of events that could have taken place, leading up to the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. But due to Judah's overall preference to remain in Babylon, and the lethargy of those who did return, that schema was rescheduled and was given a longer term application over history, culminating in the events of [our?] last days and the final, inexorable establishment of the Messianic Kingdom on earth.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>As is well established, Daniel's prophecies are interrelated. The metals of the opening vision in Daniel 2 develop into the beasts of Daniel 7, and the other prophecies give more details of potential fulfilments and developments of the beast systems, culminating in the war between the Kings of the North and South and the final revelation of Israel's triumphant Messiah and the resurrection in Daniel 12. The sequence of metals in the image of Daniel 2 speak primarily of four kings, each having a king-dom, a dominion over which they reigned. And they all form part of the image of an individual man. Nebuchadnezzar personally, rather than the Babylonian empire, was represented by the head of gold (<a href='B:340 2:38'>Dan. 2:38</a>). The ten toes of the image represent &quot;kings&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan. 2:44</a> &quot;in the days of these kings&quot;). The prophecy started to be fulfilled- for in Daniel's lifetime, the head of gold, Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, gave way to Darius the Mede (<a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan. 5:31</a>), and still in Daniel's lifetime, to Cyrus the Persian (<a href='B:340 6:31'>Dan. 6:3</a>). Daniel immediately perceived that it was about a succession of kings, not kingdoms (<a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan. 2:21</a>). But even that sequence need not have happened the way it did if Nebuchadnezzar had repented more quickly; if he had, there would have been a &quot;lengthening of your tranquility&quot; (<a href='B:340 4:27'>Dan. 4:27</a>). If he had, perhaps the next metal of the image would have followed him directly, rather than following his son. The time period intended for him could have been changed. The same word translated &quot;lengthening&quot; occurs only again in <a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan. 7:12</a>, where we read that the beasts had their &quot;lives prolonged for a season and time&quot;. Their intended time periods were added to. The setting up of God’s Kingdom on the earth / land of Israel was exactly what had been prophesied in Jeremiah and Ezekiel as happening once the captivity in Babylon had ended; at that time, the stone could have hit the earth and destroyed the situation envisaged in the image of Daniel 2. But this intended sequence of four kings followed by ten kings didn’t come about as intended. Ezra lamented the intermarriage of the Jews with the surrounding peoples, but even that could have been the fulfilment of the iron and clay mingling themselves with the seed of men (<a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan. 2:43</a>); but still the Kingdom was not established. The attempted reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah and the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi didn’t bear enough fruit; and the potential Messiah figures such as Joshua and Zerubbabel all failed.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The captivity was intended to last for 70 years, but in reality it lasted longer- hence Daniel's confusion and pleading with God in Daniel 10 to do what He had promised. And yet his prayer of Daniel 9 suggests that he realized Judah's sins were such, and their lack of real repentance in Babylon was such, that the restoration program had been delayed. His response to understanding the 70 year period is to pray to God admitting Israel have sinned and are still impenitent- as if he realized this was why the period had been extended (<a href='B:340 9:2-3'>Dan. 9:2,3</a>). In <a href='B:340 9:19'>Dan. 9:19</a> he asks for God to forgive, to accept his repentance on Judah's behalf, and therefore not to &quot;defer&quot; or delay any longer. Clearly he saw that the intended 70 year period had been extended, because Israel had not repented as required. It seems to me that this was the same reason for the 'delay' in Christ's second coming; the bridegroom does indeed &quot;delay&quot;, the same word translated &quot;tarried&quot; (<a href='B:470 24:48'>Mt. 24:48</a>; <a href='B:470 25:5'>25:5</a>). It didn’t happen in the first century as planned but was delayed, just as the coming of the Messianic Kingdom was delayed in Old Testament times.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The beasts of Daniel 7 are based upon the four metals of the image in Daniel 2, with the feet and ten toes of iron and clay matched by the horns upon the fourth beast. The first beast was given a man's heart and stood up looking like a man, showing it represented a personal king (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan. 7:4</a>). <a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan. 7:9</a> speaks of how &quot;the thrones were cast down&quot; and then the last judgment sat. The beasts are therefore kings or &quot;thrones&quot;; their casting down is the same as the smashing of the metals of the image. My point is that the beasts were initially intended to be seen as kings, individuals rather than empires. <a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan. 7:17</a> is clear: &quot;These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth / land&quot;. Likewise &quot;the ten horns… are ten kings&quot; (<a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan. 7:24</a>). We are so familiar with the rescheduled, long term application of the prophecies, rolling through the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, that we can overlook the simple fact that the intended fulfilment was in a swift succession of kings after Nebuchadnezzar which would conclude with the return from exile and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom upon the ruins of the Babylonian kings. When it became clear that there would be some delay, Daniel was given the vision of Daniel 8, in which another version of the horns on the fourth beast was given. In this vision, a ram with a great horn spawned four leaders, out of whom came another horn, which persecuted Israel and defiled the sanctuary for 2,300 days, placing the desolating abomination (<a href='B:3408:13'>Dan. 8:13</a>). This time period has now obvious fulfilment. But this very verse is quoted by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet prophecy; and clearly it has the capacity for various potential fulfilments which can be rescheduled if human repentance and response is inadequate. <a href='B:340 8:20-22'>Dan. 8:20-22</a> says that the two horns on the goat represented the kings of Media and Persia- both of whom Daniel served under (<a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan. 5:31</a>; <a href='B:340 6:31'>6:31</a>). After them, four kings could have arisen, followed by a charismatic leader who would conflict with &quot;the prince of princes&quot; [Messiah] and be &quot;broken without hand&quot; (<a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan. 8:25</a>) just as the little stone cut out without hands would destroy the image of Daniel 2. Such a situation could have happened in Daniel's time, or at least in the time of Alexander the Great. But it didn’t. Firstly, in Daniel 2, he saw a succession of four kings. But then, after the second king, he has a vision of another four kings needing to arise; in other words, another element has been added to the sequence, delaying the fulfilment somewhat. Daniel's response was feeling depressed (<a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan. 8:27</a>)- because obviously he wanted the fulfilment as soon as possible.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>In Daniel 9, Daniel pleads for the prophecy of restoration to be fulfilled, recognizing that the 70 year period had been extended; he is recorded as repenting on behalf of Judah, and asking that God will not further delay the fulfilment (<a href='B:340 9:19'>Dan. 9:19</a>). The answer is the prophecy of the 70 weeks. This could mean that 70 weeks were going to be added to the 70 years. This could have meant a literal 70 weeks from the time of Daniel's prayer, or the seventy sevens could be a total of 490 day / years. Despite many ingenious attempts, there is no persuasive interpretation of the 70 weeks prophecy. It could be that it is a series of potential possibilities; seven literal weeks from the commandment to restore Jerusalem unto Messiah, and then 62 weeks from Messiah's coming to His 'cutting off'. But then the prophecy speaks of how the city and sanctuary would again be destroyed and the destroyer then himself destroyed. This would've been most discouraging for Daniel, who was expecting and hoping for the immediate restitution of the temple.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Then in Daniel 10, Daniel was told that the appointed time had been made longer (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan. 10:1</a> Heb.). This was in the third year of Cyrus, when according to the earlier prophecies, Daniel was looking for a new king to arise (Daniel 2), or four kings (according to the sequence of Dan. 8). Seeing Daniel had lived through the reigns of at least three kings, he likely expected the reign of these kings to be very brief, so that he might see the coming of the restored Kingdom. But now he is told that the time period has been extended. No wonder Daniel mourned this vision for three weeks (<a href='B:340 10:2'>Dan. 10:2</a>). Daniel then symbolically dies and resurrects; the comfort being that he would ultimately be resurrected to the life eternal, but the sadness being that he must die because &quot;the vision [i.e. its fulfilment] is still for many days&quot; (<a href='B:340 10:14'>Dan. 10:14</a>). His praying and weeping for those three weeks had not brought about a reverting of the time period back to that originally planned- it was yet or still for many days. In the spirit of Moses, Daniel had tried to change God’s will. All we learn at least from this is that prophetic time periods are open to change. The Olivet prophecy speaks of how &quot;the days&quot;, and the context suggests the 'days' of Daniel's prophecies were in view, will have to be shortened otherwise even the elect will fall away (<a href='B:470 24:22'>Mt. 24:22</a>). <a href='B:340 11:2'>Dan. 11:2</a> went on to explain to Daniel that now another series of four kings was envisaged, this time all Persian kings, in contrast to the idea of four Greek kings arising in Daniel 8; and this would culminate in two leading kings, of the North and South, who would have a series of conflicts climaxing in the temple being captured again, and conflict with Messiah leading to the resurrection (Dan. 11:40-12:2). This scenario also didn’t happen- and it would explain why no very credible interpretation has been found for Daniel 11. When we read allusions to these prophecies in the Olivet prophecy, and perceive that the Lord had in mind fulfilling them in the first century but later rescheduled that, we must remember that those prophecies had already had various potential fulfilments which had not worked out because of the lack of repentance within Israel. This is the all important sign of fruit on the fig tree, and an encouragement to give highest priority to preaching to Israel.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Daniel's response is to ask &quot;How long to the end of these things?&quot; (<a href='B:340 12:8'>Dan. 12:8</a> Heb.). He's given various time periods of days, but told that these do not concern him, for he is to fall asleep in death, and then stand again &quot;at the end of the days&quot; (<a href='B:340 12:13'>Dan. 12:13</a>), however many they were, whether shortened or extended, &quot;the end&quot; would come all the same, and he would be resurrected then. And this is the great comfort to all of us as we reflect whether we will live to see the Lord's coming or not.</p>


text:
<p>You, O king, saw, and behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty- The original states that the image was "one". And it was an image,  whose head was that of Nebuchadnezzar. It was united, "one", and thus the entire entity was destroyed at one time. The clear implication is that the whole image was Nebuchadnezzar. The obvious interpretation is that it refers to his dynasty, the three kings who followed him, all progressively weaker: Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus [who may or may not be the same as the Biblical Belshazzar]. These three rose and fell within just a few years after Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was initially succeeded by his son, Amel-Marduk, but Amel-Marduk's reign only lasted for two years before Neriglissar usurped the Babylonian throne and put him to death. Neriglissar ruled four years before dying and being succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk. The Uruk King List says Labashi-Marduk reigned only three months before being usurped by Nabonidus; and then killed either by Nabonidus or his son Belshazzar. It's unclear if Nabonidus and Belshazzar were the same person. The later brief rulers of Babylon were seen as either legitimate or illegitimate according to whether they were married in to the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar or his wives. This would explain the allusion to marriage in :43 "the rulers of that empire will try to unite their families by intermarriage" (GNB). And this is the snug fit interpretation of the fact that the head of gold is Nebuchadnezzar personally, according to Daniel's own interpretation. We note the parallel four beasts of Dan. 7 are interpreted as "four kings" (Dan. 7:17). All the 'empires' interpretations have to make the head of gold mean Babylon rather than Nebuchadnezzar personally. They are never going to be a snug fit on that point.
</p><p>In this case, the best fit interpretation would be:
Gold = Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC)
Silver = Amel-Marduk (562-560 BC)
Bronze = Neriglissar (560-556 BC)
Iron = Nabonidus (556-539 BC)

</p><p>The "mixed with clay" period would then refer to Nabonidus' coregency with Belshazzar, weakening the kingdom. We note that Nebuchadnezzar is repeatedly called the father of Belshazzar (Dan. 5:17,22 especially). This wasn't strictly the case. But if the image prophecy had an initial possible fulfilment in the immediate dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, ending in Belshazzar, all is clear. This would explain why Belshazzar is described as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar when he was a descendant but not his literal son. "Son" can legitimately be used of any descendant. We also note the opinion of several scholars that "Belshazzar" was Nebuchadnezzar's son Evil Merodach. The fall of the Babylonian empire and Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty was therefore the fall of Nebuchadnezzar, seeing the whole image represented him. For he was the head of it. This is why Jer. 25:12 speaks of the downfall of Babylon after 70 years as if it would be the fall of Nebuchadnezzar personally: "It shall happen that when seventy years are accomplished, then I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, says Yahweh, for their iniquity". "The king of Babylon" in the context is Nebuchadnezzar. And yet Nebuchadnezzar personally could have repented and not sinned... and in this case another possible scenario would have worked out.
T</p><p>he stone could have hit the image at that point, if the Jews had obeyed the calls of Haggai and Zechariah to rise up against the Babylonians and re-establish the Kingdom. They didn't, and so the image prophecy had other potential fulfilments. Likewise Cyrus of Persia could have been the Messiah figure, as Isaiah makes clear- but he failed that potential. These likewise didn't happen, because the fulfilment of prophecy in this context required human freewill input which wasn't provided by the Jews. The other potential fulfilments were never the snuggest fit interpretation. But finally the essence of the image prophecy will be fulfilled in the Lord's return to earth and destruction of the beast system which is the summation of all the metals. But it all could've happened so much earlier.

</p><p>In Dan. 4:10, Nebuchadnezzar sees himself as a tree that is felled. God was again trying to get Nebuchadnezzar to see the truth of the image prophecy of Daniel 2. For a tree was seen as symbolic of a man. "Trees have toe-like roots, arm-like branches and stand upright from root to crown, between earth and heaven". This confirms that the initial application of the image with Nebuchadnezzar's face was to Nebuchadnezzar himself and his immediate dynasty.</p><p>The end of the exile and the restoration was the time when the prophecies of Jeremiah about 70 years would be fulfilled. It should be noted that Jer. 25:11 specifically states that the 70 years would be the length of the Babylonian kingdom: "And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years". Jer. 29:10 is explicit: "When Babylon’s seventy years are over". I suggested on Dan. 2 that the initial possible fulfilment of the image prophecy was in the Babylonian kingdom from Nebuchadnezzar onwards until its fall. The beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is often dated to 605 BC; and so the defeat of Babylon in BC 538 roughly 70 years later would mean that Darius was Cyrus, and this was when the Jews were intended to return. But Cyrus failed to be the intended Messiah figure and the Jews generally preferred the soft life in Babylon rather than the restoration of Zion. And so there had to be the prophecy of Daniel 9 to provide another path forward.
</p><p>The parallel vision in Dan. 7 is clear and specific that the four beasts "are four kings [melek- individual human beings] which shall arise out of the earth" (Dan. 7:17). The "kingdoms" of Dan. 2 translate a word that can as well mean "kings" or better "reigns". This interpretation didn't come about because the Jews refused to return and establish the Kingdom of God, precluding the fulfilment of the prophecies about them destroying Babylon and Persia in order to reestablish God's Kingdom. The image vision doesn't specifically mention that the feet had ten toes, whereas the fourth beast specifically has ten horns. Possibly the ten toes aren't mentioned because the initial possible scenario was within Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, and the simple point was that fourth generation after him would be very weak and divided, but with elements of the strength of the third generation in it.
</p><p>Matthew Henry notes: “Nebuchadnezzar was an admirer of statues, and had his palace and gardens adorned with them; however, he was a worshipper of images, and now behold a great image is set before him in a dream”. He was being shown that all his worship of images was effectively a worship of himself. And so it can be with all religion; we can think we are doing God service when in reality we are merely using it as a channel for worshipping ourselves. The only other time we encounter the sequence of gold, silver, brass and iron in Daniel is when we read that the idols of the Babylonians were made of these very metals (<a href='B:340 5:4'>Dan 5:4</a>; <a href='B:340 5:23'>Dan 5:23</a>), as are the idols of the latter day Babylon (<a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>). The image reflected back to Nebuchadnezzar how he saw himself.</p><p>And whose brightness was excellent, stood before you; and its aspect was awesome- The "brightness" of the entire image is the word used in Daniel of the glory of Babylon; "the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and brightness" (Dan. 4:36), and again of the brightness of the last king of Babylon being changed (Dan. 5:6,9). Again, the natural primary application is to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. "Stood before you" is a little detail added to show that the entire edifice was an "image" of Nebuchadnezzar. </p><p>“Brightness” was associated with the cherubim, symbols of God’s glory, which were to return from Babylon to Judah (<a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a>; <a href='B:330 1:27-28'>Eze 1:27-28</a>); “brightness” was to be a feature of God’s restored Kingdom in Judah (<a href='B:290 59:9'>Isa 59:9</a>; <a href='B:290 60:3'>Isa 60:3</a>; <a href='B:290 60:19'>Isa 60:19</a>; <a href='B:290 62:1'>Isa 62:1</a>). It is very much the language of theophany (<a href='B:230 18:12'>Psa 18:12</a>; <a href='B:420 3:4'>Hab 3:4</a>) and the return of Christ (<a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a>), and therefore the impression is given that this is a fake Kingdom of God, an anti-Christ, a system which appeared as the true when it was the false. As noted often so far in this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar was playing God. Daniel concludes with a picture of how the brightness of God’s people shall be eternal, as opposed to the fading brightness of the image (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>).</p><p>"Stood before you" implies ‘rose up before you’. It is the same word used of how God raises up kings (2:21), “another kingdom shall arise after you” (2:39), “the God of Heaven will set up a Kingdom” (2:44). The king was being enabled to see himself from outside himself. It is used eight times in Daniel 3 to describe how Nebuchadnezzar defied this revelation by&nbsp; ‘setting up’ another image, purely of gold, as if to say that his kingdom would in fact be eternal; he refused to accept that others would ‘arise’ after him.</p><p>The face of the image is emphasized in <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>. The AV reads "His brightness was excellent", but the Chaldee word translated "brightness" is the same word translated "face" in describing how the face of the ruler of Babylon was ’changed’ as the sequence of empires had its fulfilment (<a href='B:340 4:36'>Dan 4:36</a>; <a href='B:340 5:6'>Dan 5:6</a>; <a href='B:340 5:9-10'>Dan 5:9-10</a>). The entity represented by the entire image is focused upon the face of the man heading it up. That face was notable and awesome, just as the fourth beast entity was "strong exceedingly" (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>; <a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan 7:19</a> s:w. "excellent"). The entire image stood "before you", i:e. Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>). The Hebrew idea of q’bel suggests that the image stood there opposite Nebuchadnezzar ’on his behalf’, as a reflection of himself. The image is of course a person; the entity represented by it in its complete form is a reflection of a person, modelled after the king of Babylon. This all suggests that the entity which the image represents will be a personification of someone. That individual would be the caliph or prince which governs it, to whom the entity swears loyalty. And the Islamists insist that loyalty be sworn to their caliph, who in turn is seen as the incarnation of the [false] prophet Mohammed. It is this individual who is the antiChrist of the last days. The appearance of the image of the man was "terrible" (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>), it struck fear into the heart of the viewers. And this is the effect of the Islamic extremists on those beholding them. But we can expect more emphasis to be given to their leader, with greater prominence accorded to loyalty to him and an aura of fearfulness emanating from him. The same word translated "terrible" is used of how all nations "trembled and feared" before Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 5:19'>Dan 5:19</a>), and of how uniquely and unsurpassedly "terrible" was the fourth beast (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>; <a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan 7:19</a>) whose leader is an embodiment of it. The Chaldee word resh used for the "head" of the image is also translated ’the sum’. The head, the man whose face was on the image, was the sum of the image, he was the embodiment of it in a person.</p><p>The head was of "fine gold", and the equivalent Hebrew words are found in <a href='B:10 2:12'>Gen 2:12</a>, where we read that "the gold of that land was good [’fine’]". Which land? "Havilah", according to <a href='B:10 2:11'>Gen 2:11</a>. Perhaps the leader of the entity will therefore be from Havilah. But there are various options in seeking to identify this area. Keil and Delitzsch in their commentary on Genesis opt for a location in the Caucasus mountains- and many of the Islamic fighters are from there, especially from Chechnaya. Other arguments would place it in Yemen or Saudi Arabia, which is where much of the financial and logistical support for the Islamic extremism is currently coming from, seeing they too are Sunni Moslems. Another line of enquiry is suggested by the way that "fine gold" is used to describe what was used in Yahweh’s temple (<a href='B:140 3:5'>2Ch 3:5</a>; <a href='B:140 3:8'>2Ch 3:8</a>; <a href='B:310 4:1'>Lam 4:1</a>). And where did Solomon get that from? Solomon constructed the finer details of the temple from materials prepared by his father David (<a href='B:130 22:14'>1Ch 22:14</a>). And David received that fine gold as a present from Tou, king of Hamath (<a href='B:130 18:9-10'>1Ch 18:9-10</a>). Hamath is in Syria. Perhaps Syria is another possible source of origin for the head of the Islamic image. The true Christ will be "more precious than fine gold" (<a href='B:290 13:12'>Isa 13:12</a>); He will thus stand in opposition at the last day to the head of "fine gold" which heads up the latter day Islamic state. The manifestation of God in Christ is presented in visual form in <a href='B:340 10:6'>Dan 10:6</a> "His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude". This vision has outline similarities with the image of a man explained in Daniel 2. The two ’men’ will face off against each other in the last days; and Jesus wins. That, in the end, is the simple message of all prophecy, especially the book of Revelation:&nbsp; The "head" of the image uses the same equivalent Hebrew word rosh as we find in the Ezekiel 38 description of ten nations being lead against Israel by a rosh, a leader, a prince, what the Arabs would call a caliph. Again and again, we find a specific figure being identified as the leader of the latter day invaders. The interpretation that Nebuchadnezzar was a "king of kings" (<a href='B:340 2:37'>Dan 2:37</a>) was surely understood by him to mean that he was in some sense king over the other kings which featured in the image. Perhaps God graciously inserted this element in order to preserve Daniel’s life before the king. But it will come true in the final erection of the image upon earth, in that the component nations of the image will be headed up by an individual who is effectively a Nebuchadnezzar-like figure for them all, Babylon personified in a single man.</p>


text:
<p>As for this image, its head- Literally, the rosh, the great leader, of the image, the same rosh spoken of in Ezekiel 38 as leading a latter day invasion of Israel. The image is of a man; a latter day Nebuchadnezzar. For he was the head of gold.</p><p>We note that the value of the metals decreases with distance from the head of gold. Dreams reveal our subconscious thoughts and value systems; Nebuchadnezzar saw himself as most important, and as he speculated about the future, those furthest from him in time seemed less important and valuable. But that illusion was shattered by the idea of the Jewish Messiah, the little stone, destroying the image and becoming an eternal mountain on earth. We need to learn the lesson, valuing the Kingdom perspective far above our immediate prospects. It’s worthy of note that the other empires, especially Medo-Persia and Rome, had far greater dominion and extent than Babylon ever had- both geographically and culturally. And yet from Nebuchadnezzar’s perspective, they were inferior and insignificant simply because they were far away from him in time. The dream was in a sense his dream, which is why the empires are described as “inferior” to him; this is how it was from his perspective. But the interpretation was from God, and the twist in the tail is that all these kingdoms of men are to become as nothing before the Kingdom of the God of Israel to be established on earth.</p><p>The increasing inferiority of the metals refers to how the power of the king / emperor decreased. Nebuchadnezzar was absolute, whereas as Daniel’s history itself shows, the Medo-Persian kings couldn’t even change their own laws and were bound by their courtiers. The Greek rulers over the land / eretz were weaker still, because the power of Alexander the great was shared between his four generals, who often controlled him. And the Romans delegated power to local governors, rather than the Caesar himself dominating the land of Palestine from Rome. This serves to demonstrate that the primary intention of the vision was to present a series of kings, rather than kingdoms, which would arise after Nebuchadnezzar, climaxing in the re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom. But that potential was not realized, and so it was delayed and the fulfilment extended.</p><p>Was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass- The metals decrease in value. And there is progressive disunity; from one head, to two arms, two thighs, two legs, and then very divided feet. The Persian empire was more extensive than Babylon; the degeneration was perhaps in Nebuchadnezzar’s own mind. And the image represented kings or kingdoms who dominated the eretz promised to Abraham. How extensive their dominion was elsewhere isn’t therefore germane to the vision. It could be argued therefore that Babylon had the tightest control over the land; and the powers which followed had less control and allowed more autonomy. This declining value of the metals has its best fit interpretation in the initial fulfilment that was possible in Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate dynasty. The other interpretations fail to maximize on this obvious feature. The sequence of metals (gold, silver, brass and iron) is found again in Dan. 5:4,23 in describing the materials used by the Babylonian kings for their idols. It's as if they wanted to show that actually all the metals of the image were comprehended within their empire- and they would last for ever. This again suggests that the most natural, immediate fulfilment of the image was in Nebuchadnezzar and his dynasty.</p>


text:
<p>Its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay- The legs of iron more comfortably represent the latter part of the Grecian monarchy, the two empires of Syria and Egypt, the former governed by the family of the Seleucidae, from Seleucus, the latter by that of the Lagidae, from Ptolemaeus Lagus . The idea that the two legs represent Eastern and Western Rome [centered in Constantinople and Rome] is problematic, in that these areas were not part of the land promised to Abraham. The image prophecy speaks specifically of kingdoms reigning over “the earth”, the land of Israel. Turkey [Constantinople] and Italy [Rome] were not part of that land. And they will have their revival in the last days in the form of the feet and ten toes- split between two groups, two entities which between them dominate the land promised to Abraham. As explained on :43 and :1, the prophecy had a number of potential fulfilments; one of which was that the Messiah figure could have re-established Israel’s Kingdom during the time of the Greeks, or in the immediate aftermath of the conflict between the kings of the north and south described in Daniel 11. These two kings, the two sections of the Greek empire which affected Israel, were matched by the two legs of the image.</p><p>The feet of clay stood on the ground, but Babylon was built on clay. This is why the city was built primarily with mud-bricks made from clay, as there was not much stone nearby. The image is therefore presented as having feet of clay which were part of the clay beneath them. It was grounded on the earth. The significance of Babylon being built on clay, and the image standing therefore upon clay, is that clay is a symbol for Israel (Is. 64:8; Jer. 18:6). The Jeremiah 18 reference is significant in that God says that Israel are as clay and He will break them in pieces because they didn't respond to His appeals. The very same image is used of the destruction of the feet of clay in Daniel 2. The clay is specifically "potter's clay" (Dan. 2:41). And that is really the key to the interpretation, because Jeremiah 18 speaks of Israel as the clay in the hands of the Divine potter.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:340 2:34'>2:34</a> You saw until- The original here is quite complex; the GNB does well with &quot;While you were looking at it...&quot;, and this forges the connection with Nebuchadnezzar's sudden fall as he looked at great Babylon which he had built, in pride and surety that it would stand for ever (<a href='B:340 4:29-31'>Dan. 4:29-31</a>). This was a primary fulfilment of the image being toppled; it was evidence even during the period contemporary with Daniel that the image prophecy would come true.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>A stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces- The image was an idol, clearly made with human hands. It is in contrast to this stone made without hands. Initially, the reference is to Nebuchadnezzar subconsciously worshipping himself. Literally, “a stone was cut out which was not in hands". The idea is that it was not thrown by hands but had its own energy and moved at its own impetus, or thrown by an unseen hand. The same unseen Divine hand that was to write upon the wall later. This would speak of the potential possible for the exiles to have been filled with the Spirit in order to overthrow the great mountain of Babylon. The grinding to powder uses the same word as in Is. 41:15: “you shall thresh the mountains [the one great mountain, of Babylon] and beat them small and will make the hills like chaff. You will winnow them, and the wind will carry them away, and the whirlwind will scatter them". This clearly connects with the destruction of the image in Dan. 2. But the Jews preferred to flunk the challenge and potential. The stone first hits the feet, breaks them, and then breaks the rest of the image. The ten toes may have had an initial possible fulfilment in the Jewish exiles slaying the ten sons of Haman, recorded in such detail in Esther 9. Quite possibly, with Mordecai the Jew and Esther the Jewish queen effectively governing Persia, the little stone could have become the mountain of God's Kingdom. But the Jews failed to live up to that potential.
</p><p>The 'breaking in pieces' of the colossus is described using the same word as is used about how Israel will break in pieces their latter day enemies (Is. 41:15; Mic. 4:13). Mic. 4:11,12 predict that the nations will be gathered against Jerusalem in order that they may be threshed there. It is Babylon who will be threshed in the last day (Jer. 51:33), so we can understand these collected together nations as all under the control of Babylon. Which is what the image requires, because it was what Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon effectively saw as it were in the mirror, it was him, with his face. This again shows that the best fit initial application of the entire image is to Babylon headed up by Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews refused to be God's threshing instruments, and so Babylon was not threshed at this time in this intended way. And so the longer term applications unfolded, as the kaleidoscope was again turned to present another possible picture. We note that unbelieving Israel are described as chaff (Is. 5:24; 33:11; Jer. 23:28; Hos. 13:3; Zeph. 2:2)
</p><p>These words are quoted specifically about the final judgment of the Lord Jesus in Lk. 20:18: "Everyone who falls upon that stone will be broken in pieces;
but upon whomsoever it falls, it will grind him to powder". Although this doesn't preclude other earlier potential applications. The Lord at His return will do what Israel ought to have done earlier. Just as the suffering servant was initially intended to be Israel, but was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus who was the true, ultimate Israel.
The Lord Jesus surely alluded to this in saying that His resurrection would be a rebuilding of the temple &quot;without hands&quot; (<a href='B:480 14:58'>Mk. 14:58</a>). It could be that He perceived the possibility of the smiting of the image as being fulfilled in His resurrection. Thus the vision had several potential fulfilments which were not realized. This would explain the gap in fulfilment between the end of the iron leg domination of Israel and their land, and the latter day existence of the ten toes / horns. This apparent awkwardness in the symbology can be explained by Israel not being in their land from then until our last days; but it can also be understood in terms of a reworked fulfilment, after the earlier possible fulfilments were disallowed by Israel's lack of response. The breaking in pieces of the feet appears to be separate to the breaking in pieces of the rest of the metals [&quot;then...&quot;, <a href='B:340 2:354'>:35</a>]. This could speak of two stages of judgment at the Lord's return. And his humiliation in Dan. 4 need never have happened had he accepted the teaching of the image of Dan. 2 as God's word to him.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>But as explained on :1, the initial, potential fulfilment was in the remnant of Judah who &quot;broke lose&quot; (GNB) from the mountain of Israel in Babylon, and who could have broken up the hotchpotch of nations then dominating the land, and re-established the Kingdom.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Destruction of the Image <br />
	The 'breaking in pieces' of the colossus is described using the same word as is used about how Israel will break in pieces their latter day enemies (<a href='B:290 41:15'>Is. 41:15</a>; <a href='B:400 4:13'>Mic. 4:13</a>). Whilst God ultimately will do this, it may be that He uses the tiny, ragged, repentant remnant of natural Israel to do so in the last days, achieving the most humanly unlikely, David versus Goliath victory of all human history. For it is God’s style to always work through some human mechanism in achieving His judgments. The destruction of the nations will be as the wind blowing away the chaff from the threshing floors at harvest time (<a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan. 2:35</a>). But God usually works through a mechanism. It is a repentant Israel who will be Yahweh's threshing instrument and who will trample their enemies to pieces and destroy them as chaff (<a href='B:290 41:15'>Is. 41:15</a>; <a href='B:400 4:13'>Mic. 4:13</a>- very much the language of the destruction of the image in Daniel 2). Thus again we have the picture of the tiny, now faithful remnant of Israel being mightily used by the Lord to destroy their oppressors. And yet unbelieving Israel are described as chaff (<a href='B:290 5:24'>Is. 5:24</a>; <a href='B:290 33:11'>33:11</a>; <a href='B:300 23:28'>Jer. 23:28</a>; <a href='B:350 13:3'>Hos. 13:3</a>; <a href='B:430 2:2'>Zeph. 2:2</a>). Those Jews who come into covenant with the oppressors will be treated as them and share their judgment, just as those who do not c+B99ome out of Babylon will share in her plagues, and the unfaithful Christian believers will be &quot;condemned with the world&quot; (<a href='B:530 11:32'>1 Cor. 11:32</a>). The work of the Elijah ministry will culminate in the Lord Jesus appearing on earth in order to destroy the chaff (<a href='B:470 3:12'>Mt. 3:12</a>). So we can infer that the work of the Elijah prophet in appealing for Israel's repentance occurs at the same time as Israel's domination by the oppressors. For both activities culminate in the Lord Jesus destroying the chaff. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The image of threshing definitely connects with other prophecies describing the judgment process at the Lord's second coming as being a threshing. <a href='B:400 4:11-12'>Mic. 4:11,12</a> predict that the nations will be gathered against Jerusalem in order that they may be threshed there. Jerusalem has been the attraction for these peoples- and Islam so strongly desires it. Those are threshed are the ten toes of the image of Daniel 2, the 10 horns of the beast of Daniel 7. These therefore represent nations who desire to take Jerusalem. It is Babylon who will be threshed in the last day (<a href='B:300 51:33'>Jer. 51:33</a>), so we can understand these collected together nations as all under the control of Babylon. Which is what the image requires, because it was what Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon effectively saw as it were in the mirror, it was him, with his face. <a href='B:360 3:2'>Joel 3:2</a>,<a href='B:360 3:12'>12</a> envisages these nations being gathered into the valley of Jehoshaphat as a result of a holy / sanctified war which they have declared, a jihad (Joel 3:9), where God will first plead with them to repent (<a href='B:360 3:2'>Joel 3:2</a>) and then judge them at the harvest (<a href='B:360 3:12-13'>Joel 3:12,13</a>). The Joel 3 passage is developed in more detail in Revelation 16, where we read that once the Angels restraining the forces of evil at the Euphrates release them, the kings of the East will come charging towards God’s people. And the hordes of Islamic fundamentalists are currently gathered at the Euphrates river. But this will in reality be a gathering of them together unto Armageddon, meaning a heap of sheaves in a valley. Still within this same metaphor, Daniel 2 describes the threshing process, resulting in the wind blowing away the ground up peoples like chaff.<br />
	The image of a nation being threshed into dust is used in <a href='B:120 13:7'>2 Kings 13:7</a> of how the Syrians did this to an apostate Israel- inviting us to see the feet of iron and clay as having at least some reference to Israel. &quot;The precious sons of Zion&quot; are likened to potters' clay being smashed by the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:310 4:2'>Lam. 4:2</a>); and the toes are of potters' clay (<a href='B:340 2:41'>Dan. 2:41</a>). The imagery suggests the destruction of an apostate Israel by a latter day Syrian / Babylonian. The stone which does the destruction is the Lord Jesus, but it is He working through the enemies of Israel to do this, just as God did so many times in judging His people historically.</p>


text:
<p>Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors- We note the inverse order of the metals, repeated in :45, possibly speaking of the order of their destruction. The point is laboured in :44 that the stone "will crush all these kingdoms". They all have to exist in some form together. The four beasts of Dan. 7:11,12 likewise have their dominion taken away but their lives are prolonged for a time. They are all in existence together. Any continuous historical interpretation has to struggle to offer a snug fit interpretation of this. The point is stressed that the metals are "broken to pieces together" by the little stone. The image was not just 'an' image, but a together, united image, "one" image (:31). The different metals were united together in one form and person, as a conscious imitation of Nebuchadnezzar. The best fit interpretation is that the image refers to Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate dynasty.</p><p>"To pieces… like the chaff" suggests a breaking up into fine parts. Combining the visual images of Daniel 2 with those of the beasts in Daniel 7, we see a progressive sense of breakup. Babylon was headed by one king, Medo-Persia is presented as a divided kingdom, split between the two arms of the Medes and Persians; then the third Kingdom is likened to a leopard with four heads, referring to the four states that came after Alexander the Great. The fourth empire was divided into two legs (in Daniel 2), and in Daniel 7, it has ten horns, who have conflicts with each other. These are the equivalent of the ten toes, which don’t mix with each other. Then, the entire image is ground to pieces and becomes like tiny pieces of chaff. And the ultimate unity of God’s Kingdom on earth is then established. We see in society generally, and especially in the territory of the land promised to Abraham, a progressive breaking up. And this will continue, until it is confirmed by the Lord’s return breaking into even smaller pieces.</p>
<p>And the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them- The Aramaic word for "place" is used in :39 "And after you", 'in your place'. Nebuchadnezzar too was not to have any "place". The various metals were all left with no "place"; but this is the very word repeatedly used in the Aramaic section of Ezra to describe the "place" of the temple (Ezra 5:15 "the house of God built in its place"; Ezra 6:3,5,7). The focus of the image is therefore upon Jerusalem and the temple mount. We note too that an unhewn stone is an altar stone (Ex. 20:25); again the hint is that the stone becomes an altar, grows to be a temple, a Kingdom... and then fills the earth. The mountain of Yahweh's house will thus be established, as Isaiah had prophesied.
</p><p>The stone was taken from one mountain and became another mountain. As Is. 2:2 foresaw, "the mountain of Yahweh's house shall be established on the top of the [other, pre-existing] mountains". Elsewhere in Daniel, the mountain is defined specifically as Jerusalem: "Your city Jerusalem, even Your holy mountain" (Dan. 9:16). The Babylonian kingdom could have been overthrown by the exiles as a stone cut out from that mountain, as Haggai and Zechariah envisioned; establishing themselves there as an independent kingdom and then using the instability at the end of the Babylonian empire and start of the Persian empire to overthrow the Babylonian - Persian empires. And re-establish God's Kingdom. 
</p><p>The idea is that there was no evidence for their existence in the place where they had once stood so proudly. And that is the end of man and all his power, wealth, possessions, career, family, science and achievement. Ultimately, it will disappear without a trace. Nobody and nothing will be remembered eternally for its greatness, erudition or achievement. All will be subsumed beneath God's Kingdom.
This phrase is quoted in <a href='B:730 20:11'>Rev 20:11</a>, where the "heavens and earth" at the time of the Lord’s coming are likewise carried away and no place found for them. This means that the "heavens and earth" in view at the end of Revelation is the colossus of Daniel 2, the image represents the system which shall dominate the land promised to Abraham in the last days. Here conclusively we see that the main thrust of the prophecy is not some continuous historical account of world history, but rather a depiction of the latter day entity which will dominate the eretz / land promised to Abraham at the time of the Lord’s return. The prophecy insists that the image stands complete when it is struck.</p><p>And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth- This is the picture of the "whole earth" / eretz / land of Israel being filled with God's Kingdom. This is the time of Is. 2:2,3; Hab. 2:14 and other Kingdom prophecies about the mountain of Yahweh being established on the temple mount and growing from there, not least Is. 11:8,9 which speaks of the earth / land being filled with Yahweh's glory at the time when His Kingdom, His "holy mountain", is established. But the rock / stone is laid by Yahweh in Zion, as a cornerstone upon which the returned exiles would build His temple (Is. 28:16,17). The LXX, quoted in the New Testament, speaks of this stone as a person ("He who believes in Him..."), and the NT applies it to the Lord Jesus. He is the rock / stone rejected by the builders etc. of Ps. 118:22. The stone from the mountain comes to the plain and destroys the image, and becomes a great mountain centered on and beginning from that point. The prophecy is about Babylon's dominion over God's land and specifically Jerusalem; it is as it were upon Jerusalem that the image stands, and the stone hits the image at that point. Zech. 3:8-10 is very clear about the connection between Messiah and the stone which is to be laid in Zion, the temple mount: "I will bring forth My servant, the Branch. For, behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes: behold, I will engrave its engraving’, says Yahweh of Armies, ‘and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day’, says Yahweh of Armies, ‘every man will invite his neighbour to come under his vine and under his fig tree’". The stone / rock is Messiah, the seven eyes which are the engraving may refer to the seven letters in the Hebrew "Holiness to Yahweh" which was inscribed upon the High Priestly mitre, and leads in the Messianic Kingdom when every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree.</p><p>The "great mountain" of God’s Kingdom fills the whole earth, but the mountain initially begins at one point on the planet. Elsewhere in Daniel, the mountain is defined specifically as Jerusalem: "Your city Jerusalem, even Your holy mountain" (<a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>). The toes are therefore specifically dominating Jerusalem at the initial point of impact of the stone upon the land. And this is what we would expect from an Islamist confederacy dominating the land of Israel- Jerusalem is the key issue for them. And we know from Zechariah 14 that "the city shall be taken".</p><p>I suggest that the primary interpretation refers to the remnant of Judah, the mountain of God’s Kingdom, which returned to the temple in Jerusalem at the time when it was dominated by a brief coalition of peoples sent there by the Babylonians, some strong and some weak. Being cut out without [human] hands means that it was of God; and Ezra and Nehemiah continually speak of how it was the hand of God which enabled the restoration. "The mountain" so often refers to the Kingdom of God in Israel ruled by a Davidic king, and particularly to the temple mount (<a href='B:50 33:19'>Deu 33:19</a>; <a href='B:230 30:7'>Psa 30:7</a>; <a href='B:230 48:1'>Psa 48:1</a>; <a href='B:230 78:54'>Psa 78:54</a>; <a href='B:290 2:2-3'>Isa 2:2-3</a>; <a href='B:290 11:9'>Isa 11:9</a>; <a href='B:290 25:6-10'>Isa 25:6-10</a>; <a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a>; <a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a>; <a href='B:290 57:7'>Isa 57:7</a>; <a href='B:290 57:13'>Isa 57:13</a>; <a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a>; <a href='B:290 65:25'>Isa 65:25</a>; <a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a>; <a href='B:300 31:23'>Jer 31:23</a>; <a href='B:330 20:40'>Eze 20:40</a>; <a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a> etc:). The restoration prophecies are full of pictures of the restored Zion at the time of the restoration as a huge mountain dominating the eretz. The mountain of Babylon was to be burnt and replaced with the mountain of Yahweh’s restored Kingdom (<a href='B:300 51:25'>Jer 51:25</a>; <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>). It was the returned remnant who were to destroy this mountain (<a href='B:290 41:15'>Isa 41:15</a>); they were to be the little stone. <a href='B:290 41:15-16'>Isa 41:15-16</a> is full of reference to Daniel 2 : “Behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them: and thou shalt rejoice in the LORD, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel”. Having spoken of Babylon as a mountain to be destroyed, we then read that it was a little stone which was to bring Babylon down (<a href='B:300 51:25'>Jer 51:25</a>; <a href='B:300 51:63'>Jer 51:63</a>). Restored Jerusalem was to become the stone (<a href='B:450 12:3'>Zec 12:3</a>). That stone was to as it were grow, stone by stone, as the walls and temple were rebuilt (<a href='B:440 2:15'>Hag 2:15</a>). This is the significance of the enigmatic little stone which was to bring about the restoration of the Kingdom at the time of <a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a>; <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>; <a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>. I have suggested that the command to rebuild the temple according to the specifications of Ezekiel 40-48 was a conditional prophecy of what the exiles could and ought to have achieved. The scenario there is all about a mountain (<a href='B:330 40:2'>Eze 40:2</a>; <a href='B:330 43:12'>Eze 43:12</a>). This is why Daniel prayed for the restoration of the mountain of Yahweh (<a href='B:340 9:20'>Dan 9:20</a>)- i:e. for the vision of the mountain in Daniel 2 to come true in his time. But this was disallowed by the refusal of the exiles to follow the path of the Spirit, and all these prophecies of the mountain being established have been rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord’s return (<a href='B:730 21:10'>Rev 21:10</a>). Judah were not the little stone; the prophecy is to come true in the stone of the Lord Jesus, cut out without hands by God through the virgin birth. We are so familiar with this application that we can overlook the initially intended potential application to the Judah of Daniel’s day.</p><p>Note that the stone was cut out of a mountain, but after hitting the image, it becomes a mountain, filling the whole earth. This second mountain is interpreted as the Kingdom of God coming on earth. Biblically, mountains represent people. The equivalent in Daniel 7 is that the kingdoms of the world are given to "the people of the saints of the Most High" (<a href='B:340 7:27'>Dan 7:27</a>). The first mountain likewise, therefore, refers to people. Out of the mountain of humanity, or perhaps the mountain of the Hebrew people (<a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>; <a href='B:230 48:1'>Psa 48:1</a>; <a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a> "the mountain of Yahweh’s house / family / people will be exalted"), the Lord Jesus as the stone was cut out without human hands, born through the virgin birth. But the people of God will finally all become like Him. He as the stone becomes them, the mountain. We will finally manifest the Lord Jesus in totality, eternally. And if I am correct in understanding "the mountain" as specifically referring to God’s people Israel, then the second mountain, the Kingdom of God on earth, is in fact the eternal and glorious re-establishment of the Kingdom of God as it was in the form of Israel. And this is indeed Bible teaching elsewhere (<a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a>; <a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a> and see more evidence in my Bible Basics chapter 5).</p>


text:
<p>This is the dream; and we will tell its interpretation before the king- Again Daniel speaks of how "we" will give the interpretation. He was not only trying to get a good deal for his friends. He clearly saw that although he was the front man, the answer was given as a result of their prayers and he was intensely aware of this. He considered those who pray for something to be part and parcel of the fulfilment, and worthy of reward for the fulfilment. A great encouragement to those who pray but are not apparently in the front line of action. The "we" reflects how Daniel was eager to save his three friends. He had asked them for their prayers, and therefore although the answer was given specifically to him, he felt that it was effectively given to them all. Daniel has expressed in :23 that God "has now made known to me what we desired of You; for You have made known to us the king’s matter". This is the unity which prayer develops. It could be that the friends came with Daniel, and that this incident is what brought about the situation in <a href='B:340 1:20-21'>Dan 1:20-21</a>, where Daniel and his friends are found far superior than others in the matter of interpreting dreams.</p><p>And yet there is another possibility. Daniel has emphasized how the words he is speaking are not from himself, but from God, who has given the interpretation through Daniel. The "we" could therefore refer to God and Daniel, reflecting the closeness Daniel felt to God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:340 2:37'>Dan 2:37</a> You, O king, are a king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory- The dream of Daniel 2 ascribes to Nebuchadnezzar &quot;the Kingdom, power, strength and glory&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:37'>Dan. 2:37</a>), but this is exactly the language of God’s kingdom. The emphasis of passages like 1 Chron. 29:11 is that Yours is the Kingdom, power, strength and glory (as in <a href='B:230 145:11'>Ps. 145:11</a>; <a href='B:470 6:13'>Mt. 6:13</a>). Nebuchadnezzar is thus presented as an anti-Christ and the Kingdoms of men as a fake imitation of God’s Kingdom.  By saying that God had given Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom, Daniel was bravely undercutting Nebuchadnezzar's idea that he had attained it by his gods and by his own strength. Until the time of Nebuchadnezzar's father, Babylon had been beneath Assyria. Babylon at this point, very early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, was not so widely powerful. But it was powerful over Israel, and that was the point and focus of the prophecy. And the proportions of the image are appropriate to the length of domination over Israel. 
</p><p>The head of gold specifically represented Nebuchadnezzar, whose empire ended 23 years later. He was ruler of the neo-Babylonian empire; "Babylon" as an empire had been around a long time before him. But the Medo-Persian empire did not come into the ascendency until many years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. And Babylon and Media co-existed for some time. Contrary to the diagrams of the image with clear cut off points between the empires, Persia became the dominant regional power before Babylon fell. This is an example of where the four empires approach doesn't fit as snugly as the idea of Babylonian kings. The subsequent kings or kingdoms were to be "inferior" to Babylon, and that fits best with the idea of the Babylonian kings after Nebuchadnezzar, and not with the four empires theory. The best 'snug fit' of the prophecy to interpretation would be if after three generations or kings from Nebuchadnezzar, the little stone of Israel destroyed their Gentile dominators and established God's Kingdom on earth, the mountain of Yahweh's house expanding ever outwards from Jerusalem. This would have been at the end of the 70 years prophesied for their exile. And Haggai and Zechariah definitely speak of the destruction of the mountain of Babylon by the exiles, and the subsequent re-establishment of God's Kingdom on earth.
</p><p>Nebuchadnezzar was not the first king of Babylon; but he was the "head" / rosh of Gentile dominion over the land when Israel had been "removed" (cp. Jer. 15:4; 24:9; 29:18). The kingdoms all existed before the next one and overlapped with each other, becoming absorbed into the next one, But what is in view is their domination of the land and people of God and Jerusalem specifically, that was to become the great mountain. This fits most snugly with the dream being about the immediate dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar.
</p><p>The dream deeply worried him and arose from his concern about what would happen to him. His murder of the wise men betrays his insecurity regarding an internal putsch, and he clearly worried about external factors taking over his empire. The statue was 'him', with his face, but reflected his own fear that he had feet of clay and that he was deeply divided within himself.
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The image of Daniel 2 must stand complete in the last days- the whole image, not just the toes, are to be broken in pieces &quot;together&quot;. This feature of the prophecy is crucial to correct interpretation. Babylon, the head of gold, must therefore rule over the system which the image represents. The image is a man- let's not forget that. The head is Nebuchadnezzar. The entity which will be destroyed by the Lord's coming is therefore headed up in an individual; and there are other Bible themes and specific predictions which flesh out the picture of this anti-Christ of the last days.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>According to the interpretation given in <a href='B:340 2:38-40'>Dan. 2:38-40</a>, the first kingdom (Babylon) was destroyed by the second (Medo-Persia), and the second was destroyed by the third (Greece); but we read that the iron (Roman) kingdom would break in pieces all the previous empires, not just the Greek empire: &quot;iron breaks in pieces and subdues all [these]; and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush them&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:40'>Dan. 2:40</a>). This was achieved in the sense that there were elements of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires in the Greek empire which Rome crushed; as Keil puts it in his commentary, &quot;the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third&quot;. And likewise there are elements of the iron in the last part of the image- for the feet are made of iron mixed with clay. On this basis we can conclude that the final part of the image, the feet of iron and clay, will incorporate elements of all the previous empires which dominated Israel.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Apart from the head of gold, all the metals / beasts have a strange feature in common- they subdue three previous powers. The second beast has three ribs in its mouth` (<a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan. 7:5</a>)- speaking of three powers subdued by the Persians. The third entity, Greece, subdued &quot;three… even four&quot; kings of Persia (<a href='B:340 11:2'>Dan. 11:2</a>). I suggest this is a Semitism which effectively means 'three very great ones'- cp. &quot;for three transgressions and for four&quot; in Amos 1, &quot;three things… even four&quot; (<a href='B:240 30:15-29'>Prov. 30:15,18,21,29</a>). The fourth entity, the legs of iron (Dan. 2) and the terrible fourth beast (Dan. 7) devoured, broke in pieces and stamped upon the remnants of the preceding three beasts / powers (<a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan. 7:19</a>). The little horn roots up three of the ten horns [cp. the ten toes], meaning that &quot;he shall subdue three kings&quot; (<a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan. 7:24</a>). Clearly the final phase of the kingdoms of men will include this feature which was in all the preceding ones. We should look, therefore, for a system which subdues three other kings or kingdoms.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>If you tried to build a replica of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, with human dimensions and the same metals, it would not stand up. The relative gravity of the materials is such that it would be pulled over by the weight of its head. Gold has a specific gravity of 19.6, and the other materials have progressively lower gravities- clay has only 1.8 [silver 11, brass 8.5, and iron7.8]. Specific gravity refers in layman's terms to the tendency of the material to fall to the ground. The whole image is pulled down to the earth by the weight of the head of gold. The specific individual heading it up therefore has an overpowering effect upon the whole entity. This of itself indicates not only how fragile are the Kingdoms of men, but how a specific individual, the latter day head of gold, will bring the image down. The whole colossus of humanity is actually kept standing by God- because the image as it is described could not stand. God is in history, He was and ever shall be and will bring it all down at the appointed time. This of itself is great comfort, as we feel dwarfed by the seeming inexorability of historical event and the apparent colossus of human corporation and empire.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Some of the words used about the behaviours of the elements of the image are elsewhere used specifically about the persecution of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar, and indeed the other empires, are described as 'ruling' over the earth / land (<a href='B:340 2:38'>Dan. 2:38</a> etc.), but the equivalent Hebrew word is used specifically about how the enemies of the Jews sought to rule over the Jewish people. The word is used of how Haman the Agagite [the man of Gog] sought to &quot;have power over&quot; [s.w.] the Jews (<a href='B:190 9:1'>Esther 9:1</a>). Likewise, the word used for how the iron would 'subdue' (<a href='B:340 2:40'>Dan. 2:40</a>) is only used elsewhere of how the Israelites were subdued or 'made feeble' by their Egyptian persecutors (<a href='B:50 25:18'>Dt. 25:18</a>). The iron would &quot;break&quot; all beneath it, and this word is used of Esau [forefather of the Arab Moslem peoples] 'hurting' Jacob (<a href='B:10 31:7'>Gen. 31:7</a>), the Egyptians breaking Israel in Egypt (<a href='B:20 5:22-23'>Ex. 5:22,23</a>; <a href='B:40 20:15'>Num. 20:15</a>; <a href='B:50 26:6'>Dt. 26:6</a>), the Assyrians 'breaking down' the land of Judah (<a href='B:290 24:19'>Is. 24:19</a>) and the Babylonians breaking down Jerusalem (<a href='B:300 25:29'>Jer. 25:29</a>; <a href='B:300 31:28'>31:28</a>). God’s Kingdom will &quot;consume all those kingdoms&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan. 2:44</a>), using the same word as used about the 'consuming' of all things upon the land of Israel, both Gentile dominators and the apostate within Israel (<a href='B:430 1:2-3'>Zeph. 1:2,3</a>). </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>So much of God’s prophetic word had some initial fulfilment and relevance to its first audience. But always we are left with the sense that the fulfilment was only partial. The prophecies of Israel's restoration from Babylon did indeed have a fulfilment in the return of the exiles, as did those of Babylon's judgments, but clearly the major and complete fulfilment is yet to come. And thus it will be in the last days and in the return of Christ to earth that the entire prophetic word has its complete fulfilment. The word will take on the full flesh of reality in a way it has never done previously. The fulfilments and applications of Revelation's prophecies about the beast over history are but a prelude to that which is yet to come. We are seriously mistaken if we think that because we can discern a historical application of these prophetic words, therefore there is no future fulfilment. The schema of the image in Daniel 2 visually demonstrates this; the sequence of empires which can be discerned is not the main fulfilment of the prophecy. Rather is the ultimate and main fulfilment in the way that the image stands complete in the last days and is destroyed by Christ's return to earth. Likewise all the beasts exist at the coming of Christ (<a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan. 7:12</a>). The arising of four beasts from the sea doesn't mean they had to arise at different times; they are a parody of the four beasts representing God’s Angelic organization. John describes these in <a href='B:730 4:7'>Rev. 4:7</a>; clearly he saw them all at the same time: &quot;The first creature was like a lion, the second creature like a calf, the third creature had the face of a man and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle&quot;. Because the continuous historical application is true as far as it goes doesn't preclude the main fulfilment of the prophecy in a rather different way in the very last days. And thus the book of Revelation too can have discernible historical applications over history, but throughout the book there is the strong impression that the prophecies speak of situations immediately before Christ's return, appeals and judgments which are urgently poured out immediately prior to 'the end'- and in that sense He is spoken of as coming &quot;soon&quot; (<a href='B:730 2:16'>Rev. 2:16</a>; <a href='B:730 3:11'>3:11</a>; <a href='B:730 22:7'>22:7</a>,<a href='B:730 22:12'>12</a>,<a href='B:730 22:20'>20</a>), in that the ultimate message of the book is for the generation who will be alive at the Lord's coming.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The complete image will have elements within it of the previous entities who dominated God’s people in their land. But it's also possible that for the image to stand erect there will be four entities dominating the eretz, represented by the four beasts and four metals, with one of them sprouting ten toes / horns and an antichrist figure. This scenario would explain how after the fourth beast is destroyed the other three beasts have their dominion taken away (<a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan. 7:11,12</a>).</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Head of Gold<br />
	Nebuchadnezzar was given a kingdom of power, strength and glory (<a href='B:340 2:37'>Dan. 2:37</a> LXX). Biblically, this is God’s Kingdom, which at that time was Israel. The animals and birds given into his hand (<a href='B:340 2:38'>Dan. 2:38</a>) surely refer to those of the land promised to Abraham, rather than literally the whole planet. For in what sense were the birds of the Amazon or Australian kangaroos given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar? The phrase 'beasts of the field and birds of Heaven' is repeatedly used to represent the 'wild' nations living in eretz Israel, from the Euphrates to Egypt. It is they who were at one time protected by the great empires and then turned against them (<a href='B:330 29:5'>Ez. 29:5</a>; <a href='B:330 31:6'>31:6</a>,<a href='B:330 31:13'>13</a>; <a href='B:330 32:4'>32:4</a>); they are used as symbolic of the nations in the invasion of Ezekiel 38:20, and of Israel's neighbouring enemies (<a href='B:230 72:2'>Ps. 79:2</a>; <a href='B:350 2:18'>Hos. 2:18</a>). It was these which were given into Nebuchadnezzar's hand; and later in Daniel we read that the birds and beasts represent the nations dominated by Babylon (<a href='B:340 4:2'>Dan. 4:2</a>,<a href='B:340 4:21'>21</a>). Clearly Nebuchadnezzar's dominion was not global, and I submit that the only other clearly definable domain for 'the entire earth' is the earth / land promised to Abraham. God is said to have 'given' the beasts and birds 'into the hand' of Nebuchadnezzar. This exact phrase is used of how God gave the people of Israel into his hand (<a href='B:150 5:12'>Ezra 5:12</a>). It is so often stated that God would give His people into Babylon's hand (<a href='B:300 20:4-5'>Jer. 20:4,5</a>; <a href='B:300 22:25'>22:25</a>; <a href='B:300 32:3'>32:3</a>,<a href='B:300 32:28'>28</a>; <a href='B:300 34:2'>34:2</a>,<a href='B:300 34:21'>21</a>). Clearly it is the Jewish people in their land who are in view. As Babylon reigned over them as the head of gold, so the succeeding empires likewise would reign over them, and the entire image would stand therefore upon the land and people of Israel in the last days. Nebuchadnezzar was &quot;made ruler over all&quot;; but the &quot;all&quot; requires definition. I suggest it means all the eretz promised to Abraham, and all God’s people within it. The same word is used of how the Persians wished to ruler over / have power over God’s people (Esther 9:1). The 'all the earth' over which these kings / kingdoms had power (<a href='B:340 2:39'>Dan. 2:39</a>) is not referring to the entire planet, but specifically to the land promised to Abraham and God’s people within it.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole intention of the vision was to &quot;make known to the king what shall be in the latter days&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:28'>Dan. 2:28</a>). Now that of course can simply mean 'in the future' (&quot;hereafter&quot;, <a href='B:340 2:39'>Dan. 2:29</a>). But &quot;the latter days&quot; is a term often used in the Bible regarding 'the last days'- the period directly prior to the return of Christ to earth. So we are invited to see the entire prophecy of the image standing complete and being broken as speaking of events to happen directly prior to the Lord's return. This requires the image to stand complete, and for the entire prophecy to have a primarily latter day fulfilment. The form of the entire image was &quot;terrible&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan. 2:31</a>), and this is the language of the last beast which would exist at the time of Christ's return (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan. 7:7</a>,<a href='B:340 7:19'>19</a> s.w.). That beast, which is the basis of the beasts we meet in Revelation, is a summary of all the components of the image.  The stone cut out without hands (<a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan. 2:34</a>) must be connected with the way in which the antiChrist figure of the very last days will stand up against the Prince of Princes [Christ] and be broken &quot;without hand&quot; (<a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan. 8:25</a>), just as the stone quarried without hands would 'break' the entire image. The individual of <a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan. 8:25</a> is therefore the embodiment of the entire image of Daniel 2; the entity represented by the image will be incarnated in its individual leader, who will exist at the very time of the Lord's coming. And the language of <a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan. 8:25</a> is clearly picked up in the prophecy of the &quot;man of sin&quot; in 2 Thess. 2, who will challenge the Lord Jesus and be destroyed by the brightness of His second coming.</p>


text:
<p>Wherever the children of men dwell, the animals of the field and the birds of the sky has He given into your hand, and has made you to rule over them all: you are the head of gold- The parallel vision of Nebuchadnezzar as a great tree in Dan. 4 states that the tree was in sight of "all the earth". Darius wrote to all the earth about the greatness of Daniel's God. But certainly not to New Zealand... All attempts to interpret the "earth" or sphere of domination as "the known world" or "world empires" have to fail here. "The known world" of course depends where on the planet you are standing! Clearly "the earth" is not planet earth, but a more local territory- and the land promised to Abraham is the obvious and Biblical answer. The allusion is to the Jeremiah passages which speak of Nebuchadnezzar as having been placed over the Jews and their land; they were given 'into his hand'. This confirms our thinking that the image is specifically about kings and kingdoms who dominate God's people and their land.
</p><p>The allusion is clearly to Jer. 27:5-7: "I have made the earth [land- of Israel], the men and the animals that are on the surface of the earth / land, by My great power and by My outstretched arm; and I give it to whom it seems right to Me. Now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the animals of the field also have I given him to serve him. All the nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the time of his own land come". This prophecy foresaw Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty lasting another 2 generations. This would fit the idea of the image referring to his immediate dynasty; although it seems the image added another phase or two to this schema. "The time of [judgment of] his own land" was clearly variable. The same is found in Is. 14:22 where God says that He will "cut off from Babylon name and remnant and son and grandchild". And yet he himself failed to remain humble to the God of Israel, made an image entirely of gold in rebellion against the image prophecy, and was made like an animal rather than continuing to rule over the animals (Dan. 4:29,30). He like Adam was set up as ruler over the land and animals, but failed. He should have accepted that the image of Dan. 2 was himself, for it was common to represent a dynasty as an image of that nature. But he wanted it to be all about himself personally.
</p><p>The animals and birds were even under Babylon’s control, according to this; although as Babylon was the great first beast of Daniel 7, these lesser animals likely refer to the peoples of the land / eretz promised to Abraham. If Babylon reigned over "wherever the children of men dwell" it is clear that the "earth" and "children of men" have a limited, local definition; for Babylon didn’t reign over all the earth. But it is the beasts and birds of the sky who later are prophesied as feasting upon Babylon (<a href='B:730 19:17'>Rev 19:17</a>). This is the equivalent of the horns on the beast hating the whore of Babylon who rides it (<a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a>); the destruction of the Babylon system will ultimately be more by Moslem infighting than direct bolts of destruction from God. Indeed, this was historically God’s preferred method of destroying Israel’s invaders in Old Testament times. The head or rosh of gold strictly referred to Nebuchadnezzar personally rather than the kingdom of Babylon; as explained earlier, the prophecy had a potential fulfilment in a series of kings who would arise, culminating in the restoration of Israel’s kingdom under Messiah. But this fulfilment was deferred until the last days, when the image shall stand complete, headed up by an individual, a rosh, "the king of the north" of Daniel 11, the same rosh who leads the confederacy of ten nations against the Lord Jesus in Ezekiel 38.</p><p>The language here recalls what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in <a href='B:340 5:21'>Dan 5:21</a>; he was driven from "the children of men" instead of reigning over them, and became like the animals and birds he was intended to reign over. The idea would be that he had been "given" by God such dominion, but it was taken away from him even during his lifetime. This was an attempt to get him to realize that indeed his kingdom would pass from him to another, he was not immortal; but he was given a wonderful preview of this whilst he was still alive, so that he would repent and accept the import of this vision. We marvel at how God tries to save even people like him and Pharaoh, whom we would likely consider not worth even approaching with the Gospel of God’s Kingdom.</p><p>"You are the head of gold" surely suggests that the king saw his own face in the head of gold. The whole image was him; but he had feet of clay, was top heavy, and was only standing upright by some other power- the God of Israel. Just as he was represented by the entire tree in Dan. 4:8 with all the animals beneath it (Dan. 4:9, just as in Dan. 2:39)- and the whole tree was chopped down, just as the whole image was shattered.
</p><p>The prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal found at
</p><p>Nineveh portrayed the kings as statues of themselves, made “out of silver, gold and shining copper”. Clearly Nebuchadnezzar had in mind to do the same. And he does so in Daniel 3. But Daniel was bravely showing him that he had feet of clay and would be destroyed- unless he humbled himself. The dream was indeed the thoughts of the king's own head. And yet he found the image of himself terrifying. It was dead and lifeless as it stood, and being top heavy, was likely to fall at any moment. 
</p><p>Such images made of precious metals, with gold on the head, were typical of large idols. There are multiple descriptions of them in inscriptions. Idols made of gold or silver were often in human form just like the image seen, as confirmed in Ps. 115:4-8: "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands; they have mouths, but they don’t speak, they have eyes, but they don’t see. They have ears, but they don’t hear, they have noses, but they don’t smell.  They have hands, but they don’t feel; they have feet, but they don’t walk, neither do they speak through their throat. Those who make them will be like them; yes, everyone who trusts in them. Israel, trust in Yahweh!". We note the reference to the same metals in Dan. 5:23: "the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone". Yet this idol was headed up by the face of Nebuchadnezzar. And he repeats the idea by then creating an image purely of gold, as if to say that he as the head of gold would last for ever- in contrast to the Daniel 2 image. Nebuchadnezzar was being presented with the fact that he had set himself up as an idol. But he had feet of clay and the passage of time would reveal his folly and replacement by God's eternal King [the stone] and Kingdom [the mountain]. For Nebuchadnezzar was effectively worshipping himself. Daniel was so brave to give the interpretation- for the connection between Nebuchadnezzar and the image was clear. 
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><br />
	<a href='B:340 2:39'>Dan 2:39</a> After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you; and then a third kingdom of brass, which shall rule over all the land- The second kingdom is almost glossed over, which would be appropriate if the reference is to Media, rather than Medo-Persia. We should not assume that there are no other possibilities apart from the sequence Babylon- Medo-Persia- Greece- Rome. Each kingdom is to reign over the earth / land of Israel. The second and third kingdoms could refer to Media and Persia; and the fourth kingdom to the Greeks, split into the two parts of the empire which affected Israel- the kings of the north and south of Daniel 11, i.e. the Syrian [Seleucid] part of the Greek empire and the Egyptian [Ptolemaid] part of it. These potential possibilities are because God’s purpose is relatively open ended; the Messiah and the restoration of Israel's Kingdom could have come at any point in the sequence, and the ideal initial scenario was that there would be a sequence of kings [not kingdoms] after Nebuchadnezzar which would climax in the Kingdom of God and Messiah's coming. All these potential fulfilments were disallowed by Israel's lack of repentance. The next kingdom was to be &quot;inferior&quot;; but Persia was greater than Babylon in territory and other ways. The inferiority may have been in that their rulership over the Jews was not as powerful as that of the Babylonians, even allowing the Jews to return and rebuild Jerusalem. However, the Chaldee for &quot;inferior&quot; is identical to the word used for &quot;land&quot; in this same verse. The idea is better that this second kingdom is a kingdom [a king having dominion over] the land [promised to Abraham]. The third kingdom rules over &quot;all the land&quot;, perhaps paralleling the idea of the second kingdom being king over the land / eretz. Perhaps the idea was that the third kingdom would rule over all the territory promised to Abraham; from the Euphrates to the Nile. This would have been true of the Persian and Greek empires but not strictly of Babylon nor of Media. The Babylonians didn’t rule the area of Arabia eastward from the Euphrates, but only the fertile crescent; whereas the Persians did. This would make the second kingdom Media, and the Persians the third with the Greeks as the legs of iron, the two legs representing the kings of north and south as explained in Dan. 11. But this is only in the continuous historical fulfilment, which is not that significant compared to the intended latter day fulfilment, when the entire image stands complete, to be destroyed by the Lord's return.</p>
	<p>We also observe that the book of Daniel itself provides some history. There are four kings specifically named in Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian. This must be significant. It presents a sequence of three kingdoms: Babylon (Dan. 1–5; 7:1, 8:1), Media (Dan. 6:1; 9:1) and Persia (Dan. 6:29; 10:1). This sequence is presented after Dan. 2 (in Dan. 6:1,29), and also after the similar vision of the beasts in Dan. 7 (in Dan. 8:1; 9:1; 10:1). It is always preferable to match Bible prophecy against the history presented and contained within the Bible itself, rather than having to totally depend upon access to extra-Biblical history. The LXX has the chapters of Daniel in a slightly different order, but more clearly following this sequence of Babylon-Media-Persia: 1–4 about Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; 7–8 about Belshazzar of Babylon; 5 about the end of Belshazzar’s reign; 6,9 about Darius the Mede; 10–12 about the first year of Cyrus of Persia. A prophet was shown to be true if his predictions came true; therefore prophets had to have prophecies which fulfilled in some form in their lifetime. Daniel met this admirably. The sequence of empires would then be Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece. The divided state of the toes would then represent the confused situation after the death of Alexander the Great, and the two legs would represent the two halves of the Greek empire. In this case, the stone could have destroyed the image and established God's Kingdom in their time. The real possibility of fulfilment at the time of the Greeks would explain why the visions of Daniel are written in Aramaic, the language of the Greeks, and not Hebrew. It was primarily relevant for their time. It has been argued that Aramaic would not have been spoken in Babylon at Daniel's time, so this makes it all the more amazing. I have no problem in believing God could inspire Daniel to record visions in a language he didn't personally understand. The potential Messiah at the time may have been Judas Maccabaeus in his struggle against the Greek Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But he too failed to be the Messiah figure. But this didn't happen, even though the post exilic prophets [Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi] all definitely present this possibility, of the coming of Messiah and re-establishment of the Kingdom of God. But that scenario was then readjusted to the possibility of the sequence being Babylon-Medo Persia-Greece-Rome. But that also didn't work out; Messiah didn't come because the required preconditions weren't met. And so there are other scenarios possible, expanded upon by the transference of the metals of the image to the various beasts of Daniel 7, which are then developed further into other scenarios in Revelation. 
</p><p>In the Antiochus context, it could be argued that the accounts of the behaviour of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Darius all mention things which Antiochus Epiphanes did: Despoiling and blaspheming the temple (1:2), threatening Jews with death (2:12-13), erecting idols (3:1), suffering from madness (4:30), blaspheming the Jewish religion (5:2), prohibiting Jewish religious practices and usurping Divine prerogatives (6:8-10). In this case we could then understand the image of Dan. 2, which was of Nebuchadnezzar, coming true in the person of Antiochus. And he could have been the one felled by the stone, had the Jews been willing.
</p><p>The kingdom was to "arise", to 'stand up', to 'begin to exist'. The sudden existence of other kingdoms doesn't fit history, unless we interpret the dominion of the empires as being specifically Jerusalem or God's people or land. And yet the initial immediate possibility was that the metals were indeed literal "kings" who would follow Nebuchadnezzar, culminating in the appearance of a Messiah figure, the destruction of Babylon and the re-establishment of God's Kingdom. Just as spoken of in Haggai and Zechariah. This has the obvious advantage of Nebuchadnezzar heading up the image, as if the entire image is Babylon. If he is the head, then he has some relation to the rest of the image- it is logically his body politic, his dynasty of the next three or so generations. This makes more natural sense of the reference to "kings", even though the term can legitimately be understood as 'kingdoms'. If solely 'kingdoms' or empires were primarily in view, then a different word would have been used to "kings". And there were other kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar; the 'four empires' view requires that Medo-Persia came immediately after Nebuchadnezzar. He personally was the head of gold, not the empire of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar's successors were progressively inferior to him. This alone makes sense of the decreasing values of the metals in the image. And there was no very clear break between Babylon and Medo-Persia as required by the traditional view. Likewise there was still a Babylonian kingdom under the Greeks [Seleucids], paying lip service loyalty to the Seleucids. The little stone cut out without human hand is the very phrase used of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, who "shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand" (Dan. 8:25). Clearly there was a possible potential fulfilment of the Dan. 2 prophecy at his time. But again, it didn't happen and the prophecy was again reapplied and reinterpreted.
</p><p>But the potential initial fulfilment didn't happen. The later possible fulfilments, and the final fulfilment in the last days, are all not ideal fits to the initial prophecy. We have to accept that the essence of the prophecy and not the details was fulfilled, with aspects of the initial prophecy being reworked and reapplied to the later potential fulfilments so that there is not a 'best fit' between the fulfilment and the original detail. This can be seen in so many other prophecies, especially those of the potentials possible for the return of the exiles and their re-establishment of God's Kingdom under a Messiah figure.
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>&nbsp;</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Bible prophecy can be understood on a number of levels. It would be legitimate to see these four empires as referring to the succession of kingdoms which had dominion over &quot;all the earth&quot;. We must remember that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee. We read through the mask of translation. The Hebrew word and concept of eretz, translated &quot;the earth&quot;, can refer either to the whole planet, or specifically to the land promised to Abraham, between the Nile and the Euphrates. The word is used in modern Hebrew to refer to eretz Israel, the state of Israel. Clearly enough, the domination of &quot;all the earth&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:39'>Dan. 2:39</a>) doesn't mean the entire planet. It surely refers to domination of the land promised to Abraham, and the people of that land, i.e. Israel. Likewise Babylon is described as being ruler over &quot;wherever the children of men dwell&quot; because they had been &quot;given into your hand&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:38'>Dan. 2:38</a>). This isn't speaking of a literal dominion over every human being on the planet. The reference was to the way that Babylon had scattered the Jews amongst the various areas of the eretz [land promised to Abraham] under its control. The very same words for 'give into the hand' are used of how God would give the land and people of Judah / Israel &quot;into the hand of&quot; the king of Babylon (<a href='B:150 5:12'>Ezra 5:12</a>; <a href='B:230 106:41'>Ps. 106:41</a>; <a href='B:300 20:4-5'>Jer. 20:4,5</a>; <a href='B:300 22:25'>22:25</a>; <a href='B:300 32:3'>32:3</a>,<a href='B:300 32:28'>28</a>; <a href='B:300 34:2'>34:2</a>,<a href='B:300 34:20-21'>20,21</a>; <a href='B:300 44:30'>44:30</a>; <a href='B:330 16:39'>Ez. 16:39</a>; <a href='B:320 39:23'>39:23</a>). Indeed, within the book of Daniel the point has been made; for the book opens with the statement that the king of Judah has been 'given into the hand of' the king of Babylon (<a href='B:340 1:2'>Dan. 1:2</a>). This is all quite some emphasis- the people 'given into the hand' of Nebuchadnezzar do not refer to all people on the planet, rather are they specifically the Jewish people. Likewise, the earth / land which is in view isn't the whole planet, but rather the land promised to Abraham. Note too that 'the earth' [eretz] is often understood as the people of Israel within their land. Thus: &quot;Concerning Samaria and Jerusalem… hear, all you people; hear, O earth [eretz] and all that therein is&quot; (<a href='B:400 1:2'>Mic. 1:2</a>). Frequently, the physical land of Israel is addressed by the prophets, when clearly it is the people of the land which is in view. Ezekiel 6 is full of this: &quot;Set your face toward the mountains of Israel, and prophesy against them, and say, You mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains and the hills, to the ravines and the valleys: Behold, I, even I, will bring a sword upon you, and I will destroy your high places...  I will cast down your slain before your idols… I will scatter your bones around your altars… your works wiped out… and you shall know that I am the LORD&quot; (<a href='B:330 6:2-7'>Ez. 6:2-7</a>). Therefore the domination of the land / eretz can be understood specifically as the domination of the people of Israel within that land. This would explain why there is an apparent gap in fulfilment of the Daniel 2 and 7 visions- the historical fulfilment appears to stop once Rome was no longer dominating Israel, and then restarts in the very last days, in the period of the ten toes / horns. This would be because there was no land / state / people of Israel in their land to dominate.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>After Babylon's domination of the land, there followed the Medo-Persian empire (breast and arms of silver), then the Greeks (belly and thighs of brass), followed by the Roman empire, divided as it was into Western and Eastern parts, symbolized by the two iron legs. Out of this arose the two feet with their ten toes. But after the Roman empire, the people of Israel were exiled from their land, only becoming a nation again in 1948. The two feet with their ten toes would then represent a brief period of mixed domination of the land, under a confederacy of ten groups broadly divided into two camps. I say 'brief' because in proportion to the size of the image, the feet are not very large. The proportions of the different parts of the body match the length of time over which the various empires dominated Israel. Thus Babylon dominated Judah for 70 years, and they are represented by the head, which is not a large part of the human body.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The prophecy of Daniel goes further to provide more details of this series of empires. Daniel 7 describes the same succession in terms of four beasts, which also represent the same empires as the metals in the image of Daniel chapter 2. The fourth beast has ten horns, corresponding to the ten toes of Daniel's image; and out of them, one particular horn is prominent. This beast becomes the prototype for the beasts we encounter in the book of Revelation, who likewise dominate God’s people and will be destroyed by Christ's return.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Radical Islam and the Land Promised to Abraham</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Radical Islam has a lot to say about the land promised to Abraham- what the Bible prophecies refer to as the eretz or land / earth. Radical Islamist groups such as The Islamic State and al-Nusra Front have spoken much about it; their definition of the Levant or Sham is pretty much that of the land promised to Abraham. 'Nusra' is an acronym standing for the Front for the Defense of the Levant. They claim to be fighting to prepare the way for the coming of the Mahdi to establish God’s Kingdom worldwide; they call the land promised to Abraham &quot;Land of Malahim,&quot; or &quot;epic battles&quot;, and they expect there to be the al-Malhamah al-Kubra, the &quot;Great Battle of the last hour&quot;, at Jerusalem. This is what the Bible calls Armageddon. When the true Jesus appears in Jerusalem, all nations in the earth / land will be gathered together to battle at Jerusalem. And the jihadist theology is preparing them for this. They consciously speak of their caliphate as being extended over the land promised to Abraham, and they are urging people to leave their native lands as Abraham left his, and journey to live in the caliphate, comprised as they wish it to be, of the territory promised to Abraham. They call their caliph or leader 'Caliph Ibrahim / Abraham', and urge migration or hijrah to the land promised to him. The pieces are all falling into place to fulfil the Biblical pictures of the last days. Jihadist theology makes much of 'signs of the times', leading up to the coming of the Mahdi and the final battle against the antiChrist. These 'signs of the times' they look for are often the same signs which are to be found in the Bible, e.g. the re-establishment of Israel as a nation before Armageddon. So as they apparently come true, Islamists are the more convinced that antiChrist [who they call Dajjal and understand to be a Jew] is about to appear in Jerusalem, and they must fight him in the last great battle, in order to enable the Mahdi to return. Who they consider to be the antichrist will in fact be the true Christ. They will rush to fight Him, believing Him to be the antichrist they are expecting. Their destruction by Him will presage the establishment of God’s true Kingdom on earth, the revived and restored kingdom of Israel. This would explain why many Biblical terms used about the very last days are also found in Jihadist theology. They speak of the events of the very last days before the Mahdi returns as being &quot;the hour&quot;; and yet Revelation speaks of how the kings of the earth / land will have power for &quot;one hour&quot; and be destroyed likewise in &quot;one hour&quot; (<a href='B:730 17:12'>Rev. 17:12</a>; <a href='B:730 18:10'>18:10</a>,<a href='B:730 18:17-19'>17,19</a>). These similarities are unsurprising because Mohammed clearly plagiarized the Bible and Judaism for his teachings.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The changing of times and laws by the antichrist figure of <a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan. 7:25</a> sounds like the radical Islamist desire to impose the Islamic calendar and sharia law in the land promised to Abraham, which they see as their caliphate; and for sure, if Israel becomes part of an Islamic state, then the keeping of the Jewish calendar will be outlawed. The implementation of sharia law and changing legal structures to reflect it, is a major theme in their program. It's clear that the three and a half year domination of Jerusalem and changing of the Jewish law and calendar had an initial fulfilment in the abuses of Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple. There was a three and a half year period from the edict of Antiochus in June 168 BC to the rededication of the temple in December 165 BC.  The little horn of Daniel 8 comes out of the Greek kingdom, but the horn of Daniel 7 out of the fourth kingdom. I suggest that this is because the prophecy could have been fulfilled totally at the time of Antiochus- Messiah could have come and destroyed him. But the various required preconditions weren't met, and so there was another possibility of it coming true out of the Roman kingdom [another possibility is that the four beasts and metals refer to Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece rather than Babylon-Medo Persia-Greece-Rome]. Revelation uses the same imagery to describe the antiChrist of the last days, who will incorporate some elements of the previous historical fulfilments of the little horn in men like Antiochus Epiphanes.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Issue number 3 of the Islamic State magazine Dabiq frequently talks of the call to follow Ibrahim [Abraham] in making hijrah [migration] to the land promised to him: &quot;Islam in the end of times will be more manifest in Shām... So the best of the people on the earth in the end of times will be those who keep to the land of Ibrāhīm's hijrah, which is Shām&quot; [Majmū'ul-Fatāwā]. Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh) also said, &quot;So he informed that the best of the people on the earth are those who keep to the land of Ibrāhīm's hijrah, in contrast to those who pass through it or leave it. The land that Ibrāhīm made hijrah to is Shām... the land of Ibrāhīm's hijrah... And the land of Ibrāhīm's hijrah, has been made for us equal to the land of our Prophet's hijrah. The best people on earth will be those who keep to the land of Ibrāhīm's hijrah&quot;. Note how the theology of these jihadists effectively replaces the land of Saudi Arabia and the city of Mecca with that of the Levant, the territory promised to Abraham; and Mecca is replaced in their focus by Jerusalem. With Saudi Arabia now supporting the Western coalition against radical Islam, such a shift in emphasis isn't surprising. But it means that all is being prepared for the last days- for the Bible prophecies focus upon the domination of the land of Israel and Jerusalem in particular. It's significant that the Caliph of the Islamic State Caliphate is referred to by his followers as Caliph Ibrahim / Abraham; the idea is that the faithful will follow him in migrating from their homelands to the land promised to him- which is the very same eretz which is the focus of the Bible's latter day prophecies, and which is to be dominated by an antiChrist figure and his beast.</p>


text:
<p>The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, because iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things; and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush- This was not the general attitude of the Romans to the earth / land of Israel, although it has some relevance to the Greeks under Antiochus (see on :39). Such a cruel destruction of the land looks ahead to some future, last day fulfilment, when the image stands complete upon the land promised to Abraham. "Crush" is the equivalent of the Hebrew raah, "evil"; this system was to be the embodiment of the evil determined against God’s people, which is how "evil" is usually used in the prophets. The fourth kingdom, like the fourth beast of Daniel 7, is to break in pieces those on the earth / eretz promised to Abraham. But in turn, the little stone will "break in pieces and destroy" the fourth kingdom along with the entire image, represented by how the bones of Daniel’s persecutors were broken to pieces[s:w:] by the lions. The connection demonstrates that the judgments paid out by the latter day abusers of God’s people will in turn be given to them at the Lord’s return. They will be judged by the Lord as they judged. This is a major theme of Revelation, which describes how the judgments upon the land poured out by the latter day beast are in turn meted out to the beast system in the same territory. This is all foreseen here in Daniel; those who break in pieces the land are to be broken in pieces.</p><p>John Drake has some interesting comments here: "If you take the time to look at the history of the middle east you will find that the empires that succeeded Greece and the division into the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires was not Rome but the Parthians, then the Sassanids and then Islam. It was Islam that overthrew the Eastern Roman Empire in Byzantium. Rome never fulfilled the requirements of <a href='B:340 7:23'>Dan 7:23</a> and <a href='B:340 2:40'>Dan 2:40</a> in crushing breaking and trampling all the others. Rome was able to conquer less than 1/3 of the Seleucid Empire (have a look at history). The Roman Empire does not qualify as the Empire of Iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream because it did not successfully conquer and crush Babylon, Persia and Greece. It left Babylon untouched, could not conquer Persia, and its own culture was subservient to Greek culture and language. Rome did not crush any of other three empires. On the other hand Islam was “different from all the other kingdoms” <a href='B:340 7:23'>Dan 7:23</a>. It has one culture (Islam), a different language (Arabic and Farsi in Iran) and one religion. The other empires had multiple gods, cultures and language, as did Rome.</p><p>The divided nature of Islam is very evident in the Sunni and Shia factions of Islam and fits well with the iron legs and the divided nature of the feet. They are one in purpose – the expansion of Islam to rule the world together with the destruction of Israel. The fourth beast of Daniel is the same beast that John sees in Revelation. It is made up of components of the first three beasts. It like a lion (Babylon), looked like a bear (Medes and Persians) and looked like a leopard (Greece). This surely indicates that the beast must be identified with the same geographical areas as those in Daniel and that was Mesopotamia. Bear in mind also that the vision of Daniel 2 was given to Nebuchadnezzar, not Daniel and not Israel. It was about Babylon and kingdoms that would arise in Mesopotamia.</p><p>The mountains upon which the harlot of Revelation sits represent seven kings. Five are fallen. One is and one is yet to come. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece fell before the time of John. The one that existed at the time of John was Rome and one was to come. The one that came was Islam and later the Ottoman Empire. Muslims worldwide and particularly Turkey now seek to revive the caliphate and this I believe is the eighth head of the beast represents the 7 previous empires and it will have dominion over the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece as represented by the leopard, bear and the lion".
<p>The language used about the iron is exactly that used of the effect of the little stone: "Iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things; and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush", GNB "shatter and crush all the earlier empires" (:40); "It shall crush to powder and consume all these kingdoms... the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (:44,45). Note the repetition of "all these [kingdoms]". What are we to make of this obvious connection? The iron legs could have destroyed all the previous empires or kings, but they didn't; because the little stone does this, and also breaks the iron and crushes it to powder. Here is where the popular idea that the legs = Rome is hardly a snug fit interpretation. Because in what sense did Rome crush Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, who was represented by the head of gold? And why is it that the little stone does to the iron and all other metals what the iron was supposed to have done to them? We are surely forced to accept the idea of possible, potential fulfilments. And the iron, whatever it represents, didn't achieve what it could have done. Or we could see irony here in the connection between the destruction caused by the iron, and that caused by the little stone. As if to say that the little stone actually does what the iron wanted to do or claimed to do.     
</p><p>The possibility of fulfilment at the time of the Greeks is specifically taught in the vision of Dan. 8, which is interpreted for us as referring to the Greeks and how the empire would be split between various "horns". One of them would be a "king of fierce appearance" who would persecute God's people and then be destroyed by the coming of Messiah- described in the very language of Dan. 2:44 about the stone without human hand: "he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand" (Dan. 8:25). These things, Daniel is told, are specifically about "the latter time... it concerns the appointed time of the end... the vision concerns the time of the end" (Dan. 8:17,19). But this "end" was envisaged as the Messianic destruction of the aggressive Greek horn, Antiochus Epiphanes. But that didn't happen. Not because prophecy failed, but because God's people failed to rise up their potential. And prophecy almost has to be like this, a conversation, a dialogue, between God and man, taking into account human freewill. For otherwise, the existence of prophecy [in the sense of prediction] would mean God's dominance of human freewill to make things work out as He predicted. Even the predictions concerning the Lord Jesus were of a potential nature- for He had freewill, and as we see in Gethsemane, was capable of disobedience and not going the Father's way. He did, and so the prophecies were in fact fulfilled in Him. But their fulfilment in Him was not totally certain, in that He had freewill and the possibility of failure and disobedience.
</p><p>The two legs in their Greek application would refer to the kings of the north and south, the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, in Syria, and Egypt. We have their history recorded in detail in Dan. 11. The ten toes would then refer to the confused reigns that immediately followed Alexander. And Daniel 11 explains those weaknesses in detail. 
</p><p>The legs of iron are repeated in the vision of Daniel's fourth beast with ten horns. The fulfilment requires that there should have ten kings reigning either simultaneously or consecutively; three of them must be overthrown by an eleventh king, who is far greater than the other kings. This 11th king is to be cruel and blasphemous against the Jewish people, and will be destroyed by the coming of Messiah and direct conflict with Him. These requirements [except destruction by Messiah] simply don't fit the situation at the end of the Roman empire, unless we cherry pick the history. But it does fit the Greek empire, with the 11th cruel king clearly referring to Antiochus Epiphanes. And the vision of Daniel 8 is absolutely clear about this. Daniel 8 is a clear prophecy, with specific interpretation relating to Greece attached to it, which is much neglected by those who simply repeat the hackneyed interpretations of Daniel 2 and 7. Antiochus is clearly the "little horn" of Daniel 8, but this is the same little horn which arises from the fourth beast in Dan. 7. Consider the similarities: Dan. 7:8= Dan. 8:23; Dan. 7:20 = Dan. 8:9; Dan. 7:21,25 = Dan. 8:10; Dan. 7:25 = Dan. 8:11,25; Dan. 7:25 changing times and seasons = Dan. 8:11,12, and 1 Macc. 1:44-51 records how Antiochus forced the Jews to stop offering the daily sacrifice and Jewish feasts, and desecrated the altar with pigs' blood. The period in which the daily sacrifices were stopped is described as 2300 mornings and evenings (Dan. 8:13,14), that is 1150 days when the twice daily [morning and evening] sacrifices were stopped. This is the exact period between when Antiochus began forbidding the daily sacrifices in Autumn of BC167 to the day of his death in the spring of BC163. There is no other very compelling fulfilment of the 2300 mornings and evenings. Indeed we could argue that on some days, there were more daily offerings made, because of the feasts etc. And that would make 2300 evening-morning sacrifices come to about 1260 days, the figure elsewhere used for the period of domination by the fourth beast / little horn. Antiochus would be destroyed "without hand" (Dan. 8:25), the same language of the image being destroyed without human hand. Thus the fourth beast from which the horns come, i.e. the legs of iron, is clearly interpreted in Dan. 8 as Greece. Antiochus Epiphanes came from the northern half of the Greek empire i.e. the Seleucids. He displaced three Seleucid rulers: Heliodoris [driven out], Antiochus son of Seleucis [murdered] and Demetrius, whom he usurped. The other seven horns would then match the seven Seleucid kings: (1) Seleucus Nicator (312-280); (2) Antiochus I, Soter (279-261); (3) Antiochus II, Theos (260-246); (4) Seleucus II, Callinicus (245-226) ; (5) Seleucus III, Ceraunus (225-223); (6) Antiochus III, the Great (222-187); (7) Seleucus IV, Philopator (186-176). These ten horns of the beast are then the ten toes of the image, which are strangely described as being mixed / married with the seed of men; and indeed the weakness and strife amongst the Seleucid rulers was because they intermarried with the local population and were not pure Greeks. 
</p><p>So Antiochus Epiphanes was a fairly good, snug fit fulfilment of the 'little horn' of Daniel 7 and 8, the 'desolator' of Daniel 9, and the 'king of the north' of Dan. 11.21-45. The problem of course is how Antiochus and the final rulers of the Greek empire were destroyed by Messiah's coming. It could be argued that there is a gap between the toes / horns being developed, and the image being hit by the Jewish Messiah. Just as there is a gap in the fulfilment of the Lord's Olivet prophecy, jumping from the destruction of the temple in AD70 to His coming in the last days. Yet Daniel 11 outlines the conflict between the two halves of the Greek empire, and goes on in Daniel 12 to say that "Michael shall stand up" and destroy the king of the north, and then there will be the resurrection and eternal reward of the faithful Jews. This didn't happen. Nor was Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed by the Lord's coming, even though Daniel 8 is at pains to stress that this will be "the time of the end". Not just the general future, "the last days", but the specific "time of the end". I suggest that only the concept of conditional prophecy can explain this. A Messiah could have come at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty and the Jews could have destroyed Babylon / Persia, the great mountain would have become a plain before Zerubbabel, and re-established God's Kingdom, replete with the Messianic temple of Ez. 40-48. But as Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi lament, they failed to live up to this potential. And so another potential was revealed; a Messiah could have arisen at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 8), destroyed the invasion of "the king of the north" and saved God's people, leading to the resurrection and re-establishment of the Kingdom (Dan. 11 and Dan. 12). But this too didn't happen. Likewise there are differences between Dan. 7 and Dan. 8 regarding the number of horns; thus the little horn of Dan. 8 does not uproot three horns as in Dan. 7. The little horn of Dan. 7:8 arises amongst three other horns already there, whilst the little horn of Dan. 8:9 arises from one of four horns. These may simply be different takes on the same situation, giving different aspects; or they may reflect various potential possible scenarios. The 2300 morning-evenings [i.e. 1150 days] of Dan. 8 differ from the 1260 days of Dan. 7; but that may be because we are being given the information that of the 1260 days persecution, 1150 days would involve the stopping of the daily sacrifices. Or perhaps the time periods were and are open to varying fulfilments in accordance with human freewill factors. Clearest of all, Dan. 8 envisages three empires before the coming of Messiah and final conflict with him at "the time of the end". Dan. 7 and Dan. 2 envisage four such empires. The language of the little horn from the fourth beast in Dan. 7:25 is applied to the little horn of the Greek empire, the third empire, in Dan. 8:13,14. We have here a kaleidoscope of images- because the three empire scenario could have worked out. But it didn't, because no Messiah figure arose, Israel were not obedient to their potential mission. And so the possibilities merged into a four empire scenario. And so even in the potential 'Antiochus' fulfilment, we see nuances of different possible potential fulfilments. The strong possibility [potentially] of fulfilment at the time of the Greeks is surely reflected by the fact this is the only part of the Old Testament written in Aramaic and not Hebrew. But all this failed, in that Judas Maccabeus was not a Messiah as God required. Just as Saul, Solomon, Hezekiah and others were set up as potential Messiahs but failed. And so the more familiar scenario became possible- that the metals of the image and their associated beasts refer to the nations who dominated Israel in their land, with the legs of iron / fourth beast representing Rome. Indeed the Lord uses language of the fourth beast from Daniel and applies it to AD70; the "abomination of desolation" (Mt. 24:15) and the "son of man coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 24:30). His language of Himself as the falling stone in Mt. 21:44 surely alluded to Dan. 2:44,45. And yet Paul also quotes the same material about a future situation to his time, the second coming, when "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:4,5). Clearly the prophecies have flexible fulfilment.
</p><p>This is what leads to the impression that whilst Israel were out of their land, there was a great hiatus until the situation of the last days, when a 10 horned beast entity will again briefly dominate the land. The beast entity of Daniel 7 is developed further in the beast visions of Revelation, where it is shown as incorporating all the elements of the previous beasts. And will be destroyed by the return of the Lord Jesus from Heaven, to establish God's Kingdom permanently on earth. But the latter day horns which are "from" the beast are hard to interpret if we see the beast as Rome. The fit is not very snug. But this is typical of how so many prophecies are reapplied and reinterpreted- because the initial intended fulfilment was precluded by human lack of response.

</p><p>If the fourth beast is Greece, the belly and thighs of brass are the Persians, the third beast like a leopard, the ram with two unequal horns of Dan. 8. The "dominion given" to it (Dan. 7:6) clearly matches the language of God's giving dominion to Cyrus (Is. 41:1-4). The silver breast and arms then refers to the Medes, matching the bear with three ribs in its mouth (Dan. 7), the first and shorter horn on the ram of Dan. 8. Another possible sequence is Babylon- MedoPersia- Greece- The Seleucids- The divided state after the Seleucids. 
</p><p>The Roman application is always difficult in demonstrating that the ten horns arise out of the fourth beast of Rome. The relationship between the little horn and the three horns it uproots defies legitimate interpretation within the Roman context. And their 1260 days domination is impossible to persuasively demonstrate. Suggestions about the "temporal power of the papacy" all came to an end in the 19th century- and the Lord didn't return then. Likewise the "little horn" is an individual, not a kingdom. Attempts to apply it to "the pope" seem difficult because the obvious question is "Which pope?". Daniel's consternation at the radically different nature of the fourth beast also doesn't fit the Roman empire, which was not so totally different to the empires which preceded it. We note that the Romans didn't “crush and break” the previous three kingdoms (Dan. 2:40 “will crush and break all the others”)- but Greece did. Antiochus is a snug fit with the descriptions of the little horn abuser, and subdued three other horns—Heliodorus, Demetrius Soter and the junior Antiochus. There's no compelling figure in Roman history that matches this. The seven "heads" of the fourth beast are hard to interpret because it depends which Roman emperors are chosen to fit them. Those pushing the "Roman" view tend to just cherry pick the history, naming seven emperors but ignoring the others. Indeed Rome had no king at the time it took over from Greece, being a republic until 27 BC. Nor did Rome take over the areas of eastern Greece. It's just not true that 'Greece ruled over all the known world and then their territory was taken over by Rome'. The Greeks dominated Persia, Media, India and Babylon, whereas the Roman empire never took over all that vast territory. These territories turned into independent states rather than being conquered by Rome. The Greek approach means that any revived fourth empire should be looked for from the area of the Seleucid empire, the middle east, rather than from Europe where Rome was dominant.
</p>


text:
<p>Then you saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, that shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, because you saw the iron mixed with miry clay- The coming of Christ is described in Isa 4125 as: “I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come; from the rising of the sun, one who calls on My name; and he shall come on princes as on mortar, and as the potter treads clay”. This connects with the "potters’ clay" here. And Isaiah 41 was potentially about the restoration from Babylon. The “princes” are surely some of the ten kings represented by the ten toes (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). Note that Israel’s latter day invader is described as one “from the north”; this person will be an imitation of Christ, the ultimate One from the north. His coming will be as “the rising of the sun” (<a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>), just as that of the antichrist will be. The coming of Christ upon princes who are as clay therefore connects directly with the language of Daniel 2. <a href='B:420 2:6'>Hab 2:6</a> speaks of the latter day Babylonian antichrist figure as one who “lades himself with thick clay”, to be destroyed by the Lord’s coming and the Kingdom of God, when “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord” (<a href='B:420 2:14'>Hab 2:14</a>). The “clay” would then refer to the same more lowly components of the feet part of iron and clay.</p><p>However it is perhaps wrong to imagine bits of iron mixed with clay. It has been commented: "Ancient iron production was by subjecting the ore to intense heat and afterwards driving out the clay by beating. When the latter was done imperfectly the result was"slag"in which iron and clay was mixed". The idea is that the situation was brittle and not strong, even if it appeared strong as iron visually. This will be of great comfort to those persecuted by the ten toe / ten horn system; powerful as it will seem, it is actually very brittle and prone to sudden destruction.
</p><p>The point is emphasized here and in :43 that the clay was not baked into earthenware but was muddy, soft, so weak and unable therefore to make the image stand. It was an incredibly weak foundation. The fragility of the two feet after the two iron legs is demonstrated for us in Daniel 11, describing all the tensions between the kings of the north and south- the two halves of the Greek empire, the north [Seleucids based in Syria] and the south [Ptolemies, based in Egypt]. The Greek kingdom was divided into satrapies, or provinces, governed by the Diadochi, Alexander’s generals, bodyguards, governors and friends. Fighting among the Diadochi would fulfil the divided situation of the image's feet. But the language of Dan. 11 has many connections with how that section of prophecy continues in Dan. 12. The language of "the time of the end", an abomination that makes desolate, the purifying of God's people etc. occurs throughout it, including the time clearly relevant to the conflicts between the Seleucids and Ptolemies (e.g. "At the end of years... he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years... the end shall be at the time appointed... the latter time... the time of the end... until the indignation be accomplished" (Dan. 11:6,13,27,29,35,36). And this is all picked up in Dan. 12, applying it to the time of resurrection and final judgment. Clearly "the time of the end" could have been at the end of the Greek empire, just as Dan. 8 clearly states. Up until Dan. 11:39, there is a clear fulfilment of all the details in the history of the interactions between the kings of the north and south. From Dan. 11:40, there is no fulfilment. Antiochus didn't meet his end “between the sea the beautiful holy mountain”. I suggest therefore that this was the potential possible for fulfilment, resulting in the king of the north taking Jerusalem and being destroyed by the Lord's coming and the resurrection of the dead. And that didn't happen, although the essence of it will come true in the final latter day fulfilment through a different "king of the north". The reason was that God's people were not sufficiently faithful. And so Dan. 11:14 explains that the vision was "not established": "the children of the violent among your people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall". The Lord says that "the abomination that makes desolate" spoken of by Daniel must come at some point after His words in the first century: "they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate" (Dan. 11:31). But the initial application of those words was to the time of the wars between the kings of north and south during the Greek empire. He reinterpreted and reapplied the prophecy in another context. Likewise the predictions concerning Antiochus in Dan. 8:25 are clearly applied to the events associated with the coming of the Messiah in Dan. 9:27 to stop the desecration of the temple mount. But that didn't happen- at that time. We note Daniel 8 ends with the comment that Daniel didn't understand that prophecy. That's understandable, because the references to the Greeks would have been very foreign to him, and extended the Divine program far beyond the 70 years' exile which he correctly understood to have been the precursor to the Kingdom's re-establishment. But as was explained to him, the program was delayed. And in fact, it was delayed even further, beyond the Greeks and Romans, until our last days.
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:340 2:42'>Dan 2:42</a> As the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken- If the two legs correspond to the two parts of the Greek empire which were relevant to Israel, this divided kingdom would refer to the dismemberment of Alexander's empire. The ten toes of the image correspond to the ten horns on the beast, one of which was far stronger than the others, and uprooted some of the weaker ones. &quot;Broken&quot; is the same idea in the feet and the whole image being &quot;broken to pieces&quot;  by the Lord's return. The idea may be that some elements of the final stage of the colossus are already broken in judgment, by each other. The breaking in pieces of the former kingdoms by some of the later kingdoms, as explained in Dan. 8 and Dan. 11, was really a foretaste of the final judgment upon them all. The same word is used of how Cyrus of Persia would break in pieces Babylon (<a href='B:290 45:2'>Is. 45:2</a>). Isaiah 45 seems to be saying that it was God’s intention that Cyrus would break Babylon in pieces, convert to Him and be Israel's salvation. Just as it was His intention to convert Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh. But this didn’t happen, and so the prophecy was delayed in fulfilment until our last days. Revelation likewise presents the scenario of the warring factions of the last days destroying or judging each other, before the final destruction of them all by the Lord's coming.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Feet of Iron and Clay <br />
	The ten toes are split into two groups, represented by the two legs. This could refer to the deep division between Sunni &amp; Shia Islam, or to the latter day entity having two foundations within the land of Israel- in the West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip. Imagine the image standing with its two legs standing on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem in the middle; if the image is facing East, it would be looking precisely towards Mecca, as if it is an observant Moslem. Or it could be that there will be ten leaders, or ten groups, within the land promised to Abraham. Another consideration is that the &quot;emirate&quot; of the IS claimed to be headed by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and his &quot;cabinet&quot; of ten &quot;ministers.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The cementing together of the iron and clay recalls the words of the Koran in Surah 61:4: &quot;Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure&quot;. And yet the prophecy requires that they will be mixed together, but will not cleave with each other. And this will be the basis of their destruction, just as the disunity between Israel's historical enemies was the basis of their destruction. Ps. 60:8 and 108:9 predict that God will triumph over Philistia- literally, He will split, divide them. But their own internal divisions are effectively their own judgment. And this is how God so often works.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The military arm of Hamas is the Qassam Brigades; kassam in Arabic means 'divider', another allusion to the feet part of iron and part of clay, when the Kingdom of Israel's oppressors shall be &quot;divided&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:41'>Dan. 2:41</a>). Hamas means 'strong', and the Gaza strip / Hamas controlled area will be part of the final strong / weak, iron / clay entity that briefly dominates the land according to Daniel 2. The uniting of the disparate elements in the ten toes is matched by the great emphasis in the Moslem world upon unity. We read of &quot;King Hussein's plan for the establishment of a so-called United Arab Kingdom&quot; (Y. Harkabi, The Palestinian Covenant And Its Meaning (Totowa, N.J: Valentine, Mitchell &amp; Co., 1979) p.135). This sounds exactly like the 'uniting' of the iron and clay in the entity of the last days which will dominate Israel. &quot;The Palestinian National Authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries [i.e. &quot;all nations around about&quot; Israel- D.H.]… or a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity&quot; – Political Programs of the P.L.O., Article 8. &quot;The Arab 'nation' is made up of 'peoples' and the (one) Arab homeland comprises the national homeland of these peoples… the relationship of the people and the individual to the overall Arab homeland and nation is called in modern Arabic Qamwiyya (nationalism)… like the trunk of a tree that branches off into offshoots of local patriotism…the splitting up of the Arab region into separate states carved out by the colonial powers.  However, once Arab unity is achieved and the frontiers wiped out…&quot; (Y. Harkabi, The Palestinian Covenant And Its Meaning (Totowa, N.J: Valentine, Mitchell &amp; Co., 1979) p. 31).</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a gap in historical fulfilment between the end of the iron legs, the Roman empire, and the brief time of the iron and clay [the feet are a small proportion of the image of a man]. This need not concern us unduly. It could be that this is because there was no nation dominating Israel in the land promised to Abraham, because the Jews were in dispersion from Roman times until the 20th century revival of the state of Israel. This period may be what Jesus had in mind when He spoke about &quot;the times of the Gentiles&quot; (<a href='B:490 21:24'>Lk. 21:24</a>). Or it may be that indeed the prophecy had a possible fulfilment in the first century, or even earlier, that didn’t happen- and so the fulfilment was delayed, resulting in this apparent gap in fulfilment. We encounter a similar gap at the end of Daniel 11, when the fulfilment jumps from the time of the Greek empire to the last days; likewise Daniel 8 makes the very same jump. And the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 seems to require a similar jump from the time of Jesus to the last days. Another possibility is that the entire thrust of the Daniel 2 prophecy is indeed, as Daniel said, to show what shall be in the last days. The fulfilment over history is not exact and is only a dim primary fulfilment of the vision.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Muslim Unity and Disunity<br />
	The entire image with all its component metals is &quot;broken to pieces together&quot; by the little stone (<a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan. 2:35</a>). The Chaldee word translated &quot;together&quot; is the equivalent of the Hebrew echad, one. The various metals, along with the feet or iron and clay, may not naturally cleave to each other and yet in another sense they are one. And this is exactly the scenario we see developing- bitter intra-Islamic rivalry, whilst united passionately. The only commonality they all have is their joint hatred of Israel and desire to destroy the Jewish people and dominate their land. The same word is found, almost untranslated, in <a href='B:340 2:312'>Dan. 2:31</a>, where we read that the king saw a great image. The &quot;a&quot; translates the same original word which is translated &quot;together&quot; in <a href='B:340 2:35'>:35</a>. The image was not just 'an' image, but a together, united image, &quot;one&quot; image. The different metals were united together in one form and person, as a conscious imitation of Nebuchadnezzar and ultimately, Mohammad, whom the IS and the jihadists claim to embody. Remember article 8 of the Hamas Covenant: &quot;Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model&quot;. Recall too that the IS developed out of the Tawhid wa al-Jihadi group, meaning 'Unity &amp; Jihad'. Unity is such a major and recurrent theme in the founding documents of so many jihadist groups, not least the IS [ISIS] and Hamas.<br />
</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'Palestinians' were historically destroyed not by Israel but by the king of the north: &quot;Howl, gate! Cry, city! You are melted away, Philistia, all of you; for smoke comes out of the north, and there is no straggler in his ranks&quot; (<a href='B:290 14:31'>Is. 14:31</a>). Historically, God seems to prefer to provoke division and confusion amongst Israel's enemies so that they turn on themselves and self-destruct. The horns hate the whore riding the beast, and there are many other hints at such a scenario in the last days. The King of the North, a re-formed Babylon, or Assyria redivivus, will likely end up conflicting with Hamas, or the final rulers of Gaza, and likewise destroying them.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'> </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Intermarriage of the Clay and Iron?<br />
	But Biblically, the potters clay is Israel. They and the Arabs do not mix with each other. The strong iron, fragments and elements of the iron legs, the fourth beast system, will be mixed with them but they will not cleave to each other. Hamas / Gaza, the strong ones ['Hamas' and 'Gaza' both mean 'strong'], will be mixed with a weak remnant of Israel within the land- and the whole entity will be destroyed by the Lord's coming. Iron and clay don't cleave or marry to each other (<a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan. 2:43</a>). The same word for &quot;cleave&quot; is used about marriage in <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen. 2:24</a>. They are mixed with each other- and the Hebrew and Chaldee words arab are used here. Clay is a symbol for Israel (<a href='B:290 64:8'>Is. 64:8</a>; <a href='B:300 18:6'>Jer. 18:6</a>). The Jeremiah 18 reference is significant in that God says that Israel are as clay and He will break them in pieces because they didn’t respond to His appeals. The very same image is used of the destruction of the feet of clay in Daniel 2. The clay is specifically &quot;potter's clay&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:41'>Dan. 2:41</a>). And that is really the key to the interpretation, because Jeremiah 18 speaks of Israel as the clay in the hands of the Divine potter. The iron in the toes is clearly to be connected with the iron of the legs, which corresponds to the terrible fourth beast with iron teeth (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan. 7:7</a>,<a href='B:340 7:192'>19</a>). The dominators of Israel in the last days will seek to cleave [in marriage] to the clay, Israel. The clay is called &quot;the seed of men&quot; (<a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan. 2:43</a>), recalling the descriptions of Israel as &quot;the seed of the Jews&quot; (<a href='B:190 6:13'>Esther 6:13</a>). Mingling with the men of the seed would certainly suggest marriage. Is this a reference to a future Islamic domination of Israel unsuccessfully forcing the remaining Jews to marry Moslems? The iron and clay are &quot;mixed&quot; with each other; and the same word is used in <a href='B:150 9:2'>Ezra 9:2</a> of how the people of Judah &quot;mingled themselves&quot; in marriage to the peoples of the land. The suggestion is that the iron and clay 'marry' but do not cleave to each other in that relationship. This is a feature of radical Islamist domination of territories. In Tunisia and other areas brought under Moslem domination, the Jews there were either killed or, if they were women, forced to marry (polygamously) Moslem men. It would not be out of character with the IS if those they conquer [Israel in particular] were given the same choice.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Religious Hypocrisy<br />
	The image is clearly presented as an idol- this is how the word translated &quot;image&quot; is usually used in the Old Testament. The chief deity of Babylon was Marduk who was considered to be the &quot;god of gold&quot;. Herodotus described the image of Marduk as a golden statue seated upon a golden throne before a golden table and a golden altar. Pliny also notes that the robes of Marduk's priests were interlaced with gold. The word used for the breaking in pieces of the image (Dan. 2:34) is that used frequently about the breaking in pieces of idols (<a href='B:20 32:20'>Ex. 32:20</a>; <a href='B:50 9:21'>Dt. 9:21</a>; <a href='B:120 23:6'>2 Kings 23:6</a>,<a href='B:120 23:15'>15</a>; <a href='B:140 34:4'>2 Chron. 34:4</a>).  The sequence of metals (gold, silver, brass and iron) is found again in <a href='B:340 5:4'>Dan. 5:4</a>,<a href='B:340 5:23'>23</a> in describing the materials used by the Babylonian kings for their idols. It's as if they wanted to show that actually all the metals of the image were comprehended within their empire- and they would last for ever. The latter day entity will be distinctly religious, too. The IS, as Sunni Moslems, are passionately against any idols or memorials, hence their destruction of any Shia shrines they take control of. But in a turn of irony which can only be Divine, their religious system is of itself an idol, which is to be destroyed by the Lord's second coming. The entity represented by the image of Daniel 2, which I suggest refers to an Islamic state established in the land promised to Abraham, is destroyed by the return of Christ as of a stone cut out without hands. But the Kaaba stone, the black stone of Mecca which is the central point of the grand mosque in Mecca towards which Moslems pray, is believed by Moslems to have been cut out without human hands and to have come to earth from Heaven, and will reappear at judgment day (1). And yet this stone, which serves as the focal point of Islam, will be shown to be but a parody of the ultimately true stone cut without hands, the Lord Jesus, who will return from Heaven as the stone to smash the image.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>We can likewise observe that the description of the beast in Rev. 17 is very un-Islamic- in fact, the very opposite. The beast is ridden by a prostitute who is drunk- both abominations to radical Islam. The woman has a golden cup- drinking from golden cups is specifically forbidden to Moslems by the Quran. The cup is full of idolatry- and Sunni Islam particularly is passionately against any idolatry or worship of anything apart from God. An image is set up to the beast and worshipped- also abomination for Moslems. The false prophet does miracles- whereas Moslems claim that Mohammed did no miracles and the Quran itself is the one supreme miracle of Islam. The gawdy decoration of the beast and whore of Rev. 17 is far from the sobriety of jihadist Islam. Why the apparent contradictions? The similarities with what Islam is not are so pronounced that a point is surely being made. The beast of Revelation is how God views the Islamic State and radical Islam. From His perspective, they are the very and exact opposite of all they are claiming. And as has often been observed, the supposed 'religion of peace' is responsible for huge destruction and mass murder. Another possibility is that the more opulent descriptions of the beast actually match well with the Islamic conception of Paradise- as defined, e.g., in the Encyclopedia of Islam (Article 'Jannah'): &quot;One day in paradise is considered equal to a thousand years on earth. Palaces are made from bricks of gold, silver, pearls, among other things. Traditions also note the presence of horses and camels of &quot;dazzling whiteness&quot;, along with other creatures. Large trees are described, mountains made of musk, between which rivers flow in valleys of pearl and ruby&quot;. It may be that the radical Islam will seek to portray their caliphate as paradise come on earth.</p>


text:
<p><p>Whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men- "Mingle themselves" is used of intermarriage at the time when the Kingdom could have been re-established (<a href='B:150 9:2'>Ezr 9:2</a>). If the two legs represent the Syrian and Egyptian sides of the Greek empire, then we see here a picture of the breakup of that situation; and <a href='B:340 11:6'>Dan 11:6</a>; <a href='B:340 11:17'>Dan 11:17</a> predicts the intermarriage between the Seleucids and Ptolemies which would not succeed and which would lead to its destruction. The GNB has it right: "This means that the rulers of that empire will try to unite their families by intermarriage, but they will not be able to, any more than iron can mix with clay". Antiochus Theos, king of the North [Syria], married both Laodice and Berenice, daughters of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of the South [Egypt]. Antiochus Magnus, king of the North [Syria], gave his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes, king of the south [Egypt]; but these marriages failed to achieve unity and only led to more disunity. Daniel 11 at various points describes the ending of the Greek kingdom in language appropriate to the Lord’s return and the destruction of the image in Daniel 2 (<a href='B:340 11:22'>Dan 11:22</a>; <a href='B:340 11:36-37'>Dan 11:36-37</a>). As noted on :1, the image prophecy had various potential fulfilments, and one of them was in the coming of a Messianic figure at the end of the Greek kings to re-establish God’s Kingdom. But that too didn’t happen, and the fulfilment was delayed.</p><p>The prophecy may also have had a potential fulfilment in the situation around AD70. The metals represent kings; the Caesars were partly strong and partly weak in the lead up to AD70, with three emperors in the year AD69 alone (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius). The Lord could have come in AD70 and established the Kingdom; but His coming to do so was delayed because of Israel’s lack of repentance.</p><p>But they shall not cling to one another, even as iron does not mingle with clay- Who, then, are these nations who were represented by the feet partly of iron and partly of clay? Some will be strong, others weak. “Then you saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, that shall be a divided kingdom; but thereshall be in it of the strength of the iron, because you saw the iron mixed with miry clay. As the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. Whereas you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cling to one another, even as iron does not mingle with clay” (<a href='B:340 2:41-43'>Dan 2:41-43</a>). One only has to look at the various groups currently fighting in the Middle East to see how deeply divided is the Islamist group.</p><p>The situation could actually lead to a fragmentation of the established territories in the Middle East into groups of smaller states, all united under the Al-Sham concept and a desire to drive Jews out of Israel. The same is true for Iraq and other Muslim states bordering Israel. Writing on the Al Jazeera website in May 2013, Murtaza Hussain wrote a penetrating article "Iraq, Syria and the death of the modern Middle East". The following sounds exactly like the ten toes of Daniel’s image, formed out of larger powers but now weak and yet united against Israel:</p><p>"The countries of Syria and Iraq, formerly unified Arab states formed after the defeat of their former Ottoman rulers, exist today only in name. In their place what appears most likely to come into existence - after the bloodshed subsides - are small, ethnically and religiously homogenous statelets: weak and easily manipulated, where their progenitors at their peaks were robustly independent powers".</p><p>We of course are reading the Bible through translation. But take a closer look at the original Hebrew and Chaldee translated “they shall mingle themselves” (<a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan 2:43</a>). They were to be a mingled people- and that’s exactly who the nations of ‘Al Sham’ are. The original word translated ‘mingle’ is arab. One easy way to check that is to use an online concordance to poke under the surface of <a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan 2:43</a>. And you will see it- Strong’s number <a class='strong' href='#sH6151'>H6151</a>. Arab. Surely there is a reference here to the Arab peoples!</p><p>The ‘feet and toes’ section of the image is proportionally not a very long part of the body. The domination of Israel by this group will not be for long- perhaps the three and a half year period which occurs in several latter day prophecies.</p></p>


text:
<p>In the days of those kings- "In the lifetime of those kings" suggests that the primary interpretation is of kings who will rule over God's land within their normal life spans. "Those kings" more naturally refers to the entire image than to the feet and toes. The phrase is parallel to the stone breaking in pieces "all these kingdoms" represented in the image. This suggests the kings / kingdoms all exist within the same lifetime and will be destroyed by the coming of the stone. The "stone" could have come and the Kingdom of God been established during the lifetimes of the kings of the image, if we interpret the metals as primarily referring to the kings who would rule over Jerusalem after Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel's own lifetime saw this progression of kings, so we again have the history provided within the book of Daniel. But the Jews didn't want to destroy the kingdoms of men; they didn't even want to all return to Jerusalem when encouraged by Cyrus. And so the [to us] more familiar extended interpretation came into play. But the further we get from the initial intended fulfilment, the less snug is the fit of the interpretation to the prophecy. The full existence of the image at the time it is hit by the stone is an example of this not so snug fit. If the image represents the Babylonian kings / reigns following Nebuchadnezzar, then the image as a whole represents the Babylonian empire, to be destroyed by the little stone of the exiles. The exiles didn't live up to this potential, and so all the later possible interpretations struggle with fitting this requirement of the image standing complete and being destroyed together.
</p><p>"The days of these kings" suggests they will all be in power at the same time and not consecutively. The "these kings" could  refer to the Seleucids [king of the north] and Ptolemies [king of the south]; they were the part of the image on which the stone fell (Dan. 2:34).
The kings may refer to the ten toes; but it could equally refer to the situation when the image stands complete in the last days. And we would again see that the primary intention of the prophecy was to describe a sequence of individual kings, rather than kingdoms, which would follow Nebuchadnezzar and be brought to an end by the re-establishment of Judah’s mountain or kingdom.</p><p>Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people; it shall crush to powder and consume all these kingdoms- The location of God’s Kingdom is therefore going to be in the same arena as earthly political kingdoms, here on this earth. There is no reference therefore to any kingdom of God in heaven, nor any spiritual kingdom in human hearts. We note that the feet of the image are already divided into small parts, as iron and clay; the Lord’s judgment only confirms their own situation by breaking them into pieces. Parts of the feet are already ’broken [to pieces]’ [s:w. "crush to powder"] when the Lord’s return hits them (:42); they have already experienced judgment.</p><p>The grinding to powder of the nations dominating Israel could have true in the time of the restoration, according to Hag. 2:7: “And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory". That never happened because the Jews didn't respond to the potential, as Haggai laments. Another restoration prophecy in Is. 60:17 uniquely repeats the sequence of gold-silver-brass-iron: "For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron". The initial allusion is to how the restored temple would replace the brass, iron, wood and stones of Solomon's destroyed temple with something far grander. And that is the initial possible fulfilment of the image in Daniel 2. A new image would be established, again with gold-silver-brass-iron. It would be a temple but in the form of a man, that would spread throughout the land promised to Abraham. A glorious man who is also a temple clearly speaks of Messiah.</p><p>And it shall stand forever- This is the same word used of how the entire image "stood" (:31), and of how Nebuchadnezzar blasphemously set or stood up another image all of gold, representing himself (<a href='B:340 3:1-3'>Dan 3:1-3</a>; <a href='B:340 3:5'>Dan 3:5</a>; <a href='B:340 3:7'>Dan 3:7</a>; <a href='B:340 3:12'>Dan 3:12</a>; <a href='B:340 3:14'>Dan 3:14</a>; <a href='B:340 3:18'>Dan 3:18</a>), as if the image he saw would not have its fulfilment, but he would last for ever. The entire image therefore represents the kingdoms of men which are to become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>). The same word is used throughout Daniel 7 concerning how the various beasts all ’stand’, as if on their legs as men, but are brought down to nothing.</p>


text:
<p>As you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God has made known to the king what shall happen hereafter: and the dream is certain, and its interpretation sure- 
</p><p>The gold in the image represented Nebuchadnezzar personally. But Daniel was so very brave to give the interpretation- that the gold would be crushed and blown away (Dan. 2:45). Indeed the entire image would be destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar would not last for ever. His worst fears, which led to his dream, were justified. Daniel surely risked death by telling him this; and for all time is a great example of speaking God's word even when we know we risk our own lives, at least our social lives, and relationships. Nebuchadnezzar was known [as were other kings] for executing messengers who brought bad news. Yet he was deeply impressed that Daniel knew what he had dreamed, and rewarded him for that. His subsequent making an image entirely of gold reflects his subsequent reflection and deep dislike of the interpretation. Later, Daniel is fearful to tell Nebuchadnezzar an interpretation which means the king's downfall; indeed he was visibly distressed by the prospect of having to do so, going into a panic attack: "The king answered, Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream, or the interpretation, trouble you. Belteshazzar answered, My lord, the dream is to the side of those who hate you, and its interpretation to your adversaries" (Dan. 4:19). Possibly he had lost some of his youthful faith and bravery by this point.
</p><p>Note the order of the metals differs slightly from :32,33. Here the order is iron, brass, clay, silver, gold. This may reflect yet another possible potential fulfilment. We note the clay is out of sequence, placed in the middle- as if to show that the weakness of the clay, the earth of which man is made, was right at the core of the whole colossus. The strong, expensive metals were all the same shown to be centred around clay.
</p><p>The things of God, of Heaven, the things done by Him, are those "not made with hands" (Job 34:20; Lam. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:24). "Stone" is also "rock", and there are so many connections between the rock and Messiah, the Lord Jesus. The connection between God and a rock cannot be doubted. The figure speaks of God's manifestation through His Messiah figure. This could have happened at various points in the various potential possible fulfilments of the prophecy. 
</p><p>The stone is taken from one mountain but then becomes another mountain. Mountains represent kingdoms. "The mountain of humanity" is not a Biblical figure. The initial application was to the exiles being miraculously taken out of the condemned mountain of Babylon, returning to their land and developing into God's re-established, eternal Kingdom. The parallel to the stone hitting the image is the final form of the beast system being destroyed, and the Kingdom being given to Israel: "judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom... the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan. 7:22,27). "The saints" initially refer to Israel, God's people; or possibly to the Angels who oversee Israel, who are thereby "the people of the saints" (Dt. 33:2; Zech. 14:5; Ps. 89:5-7 and consider how within Daniel, Michael is specifically called the Angel who stands for Israel in Dan. 9:21; 12:1). It is the people of Israel who were persecuted by the beast, who "shall wear down the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time" (Dan. 7:25). Again we marvel at Daniel's bravery, as a Jew, in speaking these things publically.Daniel knew these prophecies, and surely perceived this. He was extremely brave to come out with all this to the king, as a Jew under threat of being killed.
</p><p>We recall Moses speaking of God's relationship to Israel as "the Rock who became your father" (Dt. 32:18). They were quarried from the rock, which is a common symbol for God, and not humanity generally. The exiles are urged in Is. 51 to listen to / obey the word of restoration, and to accept they had been hewn and quarried out [as a stone] to be used for the restoration. But they refused to "listen" and ignored their having been hewn out from Abraham: "Listen to Me, you that want to be saved, you that come to Me for help. Think of the rock from which you came, the quarry from which you were cut. Think of your ancestor, Abraham, and of Sarah, from whom you are descended. When I called Abraham, he was childless, but I blessed him and gave him children; I made his descendants numerous. I will show compassion to Jerusalem, to all who live in her ruins. Though her land is a desert, I will make it a garden, like the garden I planted in Eden". But they refused to "listen to Me", and did not act as those hewn from Abraham (Is. 63:16; Jn. 8:40). So they were not the stone they could have been. 

</p><p><a href='B:520 3:16'>Rom 3:16</a> speaks in the Greek of ‘a dashing to pieces’ of the wicked, perhaps an allusion to how the stone of Messiah’s second coming would dash the kingdoms of men to pieces at His return (<a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>; <a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>). But sinners are going now in way of such destruction. Damnation begins now- in the way of life people chose to live.</p><p>The stone was cut out of a mountain and in turn becomes a mountain which fills the whole eretz, the territory promised to Abraham, where all the elements of the image had once dominated. This of itself suggests that the most natural interpretation of the metals refers to nations located within that territory- including Babylon, Media and Persia. We are so familiar with the interpretation which includes Greece and Rome that we can overlook this. Those four kings, not kingdoms, could have arisen and then been broken by the fragment of the mountain which comes into the territory and then becomes a mountain. I suggest that the primary interpretation refers to the remnant of Judah, the mountain of God’s Kingdom, which returned to the temple in Jerusalem at the time when it was dominated by a brief coalition of peoples sent there by the Babylonians, some strong and some weak. Being cut out without [human] hands means that it was of God; and Ezra and Nehemiah continually speak of how it was the hand of God which enabled the restoration. "The mountain" so often refers to the Kingdom of God in Israel ruled by a Davidic king, and particularly to the temple mount (<a href='B:50 33:19'>Deu 33:19</a>; Psa. 30:17; <a href='B:230 48:1'>Psa 48:1</a>; <a href='B:230 78:54'>Psa 78:54</a>; <a href='B:290 2:2-3'>Isa 2:2-3</a>; <a href='B:290 11:9'>Isa 11:9</a>; <a href='B:290 25:6-10'>Isa 25:6-10</a>; <a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a>; <a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a>; <a href='B:290 57:7'>Isa 57:7</a>; <a href='B:290 57:13'>Isa 57:13</a>; <a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a>; <a href='B:290 65:25'>Isa 65:25</a>; <a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a>; <a href='B:300 31:23'>Jer 31:23</a>; <a href='B:330 20:40'>Eze 20:40</a>; <a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a> etc:). The restoration prophecies are full of pictures of the restored Zion at the time of the restoration as a huge mountain dominating the eretz. The mountain of Babylon was to be burnt and replaced with the mountain of Yahweh’s restored Kingdom (<a href='B:300 51:25'>Jer 51:25</a>; <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>). It was the returned remnant who were to destroy this mountain (<a href='B:290 41:15'>Isa 41:15</a>); they were to be the little stone. Having spoken of Babylon as a mountain to be destroyed, we then read that it was a little stone which was to bring Babylon down (<a href='B:300 51:25'>Jer 51:25</a>; <a href='B:300 51:63'>Jer 51:63</a>). Restored Jerusalem was to become the stone (<a href='B:450 12:3'>Zec 12:3</a>). That stone was to as it were grow, stone by stone, as the walls and temple were rebuilt (<a href='B:440 2:15'>Hag 2:15</a>). This is the significance of the enigmatic little stone which was to bring about the restoration of the Kingdom at the time of <a href='B:450 3:9'>Zec 3:9</a>; <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>; <a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>. I have suggested that the command to rebuild the temple according to the specifications of Ezekiel 40-48 was a conditional prophecy of what the exiles could and ought to have achieved. The scenario there is all about a mountain (<a href='B:330 40:2'>Eze 40:2</a>; <a href='B:330 43:12'>Eze 43:12</a>). This is why Daniel prayed for the restoration of the mountain of Yahweh (<a href='B:340 9:20'>Dan 9:20</a>)- i:e. for the vision of the mountain in Daniel 2 to come true in his time. But this was disallowed by the refusal of the exiles to follow the path of the Spirit, and all these prophecies of the mountain being established have been rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord’s return (<a href='B:730 21:10'>Rev 21:10</a>). Judah were not the little stone; the prophecy is to come true in the stone of the Lord Jesus, cut out without hands by God through the virgin birth. We are so familiar with this application that we can overlook the initially intended potential application to the Judah of Daniel’s day.</p><p>Note that the stone was cut out of a mountain, but after hitting the image, it becomes a mountain, filling the whole earth. This second mountain is interpreted as the Kingdom of God coming on earth. Biblically, mountains represent people. The equivalent in Daniel 7 is that the kingdoms of the world are given to "the people of the saints of the Most High" (<a href='B:340 7:27'>Dan 7:27</a>). The first mountain likewise, therefore, refers to people. Out of the mountain of humanity, or perhaps the mountain of the Hebrew people (<a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>; <a href='B:230 48:1'>Psa 48:1</a>; <a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a> "the mountain of Yahweh’s house / family / people will be exalted"), the Lord Jesus as the stone was cut out without human hands, born through the virgin birth. But the people of God will finally all become like Him. He as the stone becomes them, the mountain. We will finally manifest the Lord Jesus in totality, eternally. And if I am correct in understanding "the mountain" as specifically referring to God’s people Israel, then the second mountain, the Kingdom of God on earth, is in fact the eternal and glorious re-establishment of the Kingdom of God as it was in the form of Israel. And this is indeed Bible teaching elsewhere (<a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a>; <a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a> and see more evidence in my Bible Basics chapter 5).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an offering and sweet incense to him- This involuntary falling down of Nebuchadnezzar was in fact a fulfilment of the prophecy, that ultimately he would fall before Israel's God. For surely he saw in the head of gold his own face. The image was in that sense his body. Daniel's Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, could have meant something like "Protect his life" or if Akkadian Balat-sarri-ussur, "Protect the life of the king". And here he was prophesying the fall of the king. Nebuchadnezzar surely reflected upon how he had collapsed at Daniel's feet... because in Dan. 3 he makes an image entirely of gold and forces everyone to bow before it. This was surely his way of hitting back at Daniel and the friends. Possibly Daniel foresaw this and resigned from his post, hence he is not found in Dan. 3. Again we marvel at Daniel's bravery in speaking forth God's word, surely guessing the consequences as he saw Nebuchadnezzar doing what that man had surely never done- groveling prostrate on the floor before one of his junior servants. As he watched the king before him, Daniel was surely thinking, correctly, "This isn't going to end well for me". Even though it was a fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies of the prostration of foreign rulers before the Jewish exiles (Is. 45:14; 49:7,23; 60:14). Those prophecies were all of the restored Kingdom- again we comment, that it could have happened then. Had the exiles risen up as required as the little stone, or if Nebuchadnezzar had remained humble.  As noted on <a href='B:340 3:1'>Dan 3:1</a>, this was the humility and repentance of a moment. Nebuchadnezzar tried to demonstrate through his golden image that this dream would not come true. He was then humbled again in Daniel 4. We too have moments of humility, before God’s word or circumstances brought into our lives, and then our pride so often returns. The offering and incense were typically offered to a god or idol and not to a man (<a href='B:150 6:10'>Ezr 6:10</a>), but the king recognized the intense degree to which God was manifest in Daniel through Daniel’s revelation of God’s word. We too in our witness are the manifestation of God and His Son to men in a very intense identification. All people see of the Father and Son are what they see of us.</p>


text:
<p>The king responded to Daniel and said, Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you have been able to reveal this secret- As noted on :46, there was a very intense association and identification between God and His servant Daniel who manifested Him through the preaching of His word. Daniel was likely expecting to die for having come out with this interpretation, which went so directly against the king’s pride and obvious desire to endure for ever. Nebuchadnezzar’s recognition that Yahweh was "Lord of kings" was effectively a recognition of Yahweh as his lord; although as we will see on <a href='B:340 3:1'>Dan 3:1</a>, he failed to maintain this intensity of devotion. The "kings" he had in view were the kings of the vision; another indication that the primary potential fulfilment of it was in a series of kings rather than kingdoms which would terminate in the re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom as the eternal Kingdom of God. Inscriptions have been found using these very words about Marduk (Merodach), the idol of Nebuchadnezzar. For him to now apply these words to Yahweh was effectively a renunciation of Marduk. It’s so sad that Nebuchadnezzar failed to maintain his commitment; and this is a disappointing feature of our lives, moments of devotion and realization, followed by a slump back into pride and the old and familiar patterns of thinking. Only the Spirit will empower us not to be like this.</p><p>However, I would suggest that these words imply that the king was simply amazed that Daniel had been able to recall his dream and reveal the mystery: "since you have been able to reveal this secret". He was more impressed with this, than with the content of the dream. We read 13 times in Dan. 2 of the "interpretation". Dreams were thought to be dangerous if you didn't have the interpretation to them; and Daniel demonstrated to the king that he was a legitimate dream interpreter by being able to tell the king his dream. Yet according to his behaviour in Dan. 3, the king came to strongly object to the interpretation itself. The job of a dream interpreter was to dispel or remove the evil consequences of such a dream by magic. But Daniel offers none of this. And that is significant. He was so brave to pass no comment as to how the apparent catastrophe could be altered. Nebuchadnezzar's humility at this point was perhaps all that was required to avert his personal destruction which was clearly implied. But he didn't retain his humility of that moment, just as we often don't. We thereby note Daniel's courage in stating God's word to the king, knowing the king wouldn't like it- and he didn't. Dream interpretation always involved a suggested course of action or magic to avoid the ill omen or consequence of the interpreted dream. Daniel offers no such remedy. And he was the braver for all the same telling the meaning of the dream. The king makes no comment about his predicted future loss of power, nor the evident failure of his gods and their servants to predict his future. Isaiah is full of criticisms of Babylon's gods, especially their inability to predict the future; Is. 41:23 is one of many: "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods”. The king at this point fails to engage with this. All those polemics of Isaiah against Babylon's gods surely allude to Daniel's powerful and correct prediction of Babylon's future, on behalf of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king made Daniel great, and gave him many great gifts, and made him to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to be chief governor over all the wise men of Babylon- Comparing with :49, we sense that Daniel was exalted even higher than rulership over the province; he was in the king’s gate, one of his close personal advisers. The word of ’making a great man’ is used of how Nebuchadnezzar had been made a great man (<a href='B:340 4:11'>Dan 4:11</a>; <a href='B:340 4:20'>Dan 4:20</a>; <a href='B:340 4:22'>Dan 4:22</a>), made by God a ruler. It is a classic piece of human psychology that now Nebuchadnezzar wants to do to another what he perceived had been done to him by God’s grace. The Biblical record throughout has the ring of psychological and internal credibility in a way in which the uninspired histories of the time simply do not. We note that the "wise men" were effectively the political governors too. Religion and politics were totally connected in Babylon; for Daniel and his friends to be made governors, to be given political power when they had a different religion, was a radical thing for the king to do. And it set them up for the later conflicts we read of in Daniel. Like all of us, they were in an impossible situation. Daniel later rejected all such reward for telling dreams, but I will suggest on :49 that at this point, Daniel’s motivation for accepting it and getting his Jewish friends into power was because he entertained the possibility that all Babylon might be brought to the true God. We too should set our sights high in our preaching work, not content with mere ’witnessing’ for the sake of relieving our conscience, with no great hopes for conversions. The enduring legacy of Daniel is reflected in the fact that centuries later, it was magi, "wise men"&nbsp; from the east, who came to worship the infant Jesus, realizing that his birth was the fulfilment of some of Daniel’s prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel was in the gate of the king- Daniel clearly did this for the sake of ensuring a good deal for the Jews there, and perhaps also in line with the Divine intention that Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon repent and come to the true God. Just as Isaiah 45 seems to envisage the possibility of Cyrus king of Persia becoming Israel’s saviour after coming personally to Israel’s God. There was likewise an attempt to convert even Pharaoh. These ancient monarchs would have seemed to us not worth wasting effort with; but God did try. And we likewise should consider nobody as just not worth the effort when it comes to our work of witness.</p><p>In Ez. 14:14, Ezekiel [already in exile] mentions Noah, Daniel and Job as well known righteous men who saved others. The prophecy in chapter 14 was in the sixth year of Jehoiachin’s exile (Ez. 8:1) and before the capture of Jerusalem five years later (Ez. 14:21). Daniel went into exile in the third year of Jehoiakim’s 11-year reign (Dan. 1:1), which was followed three months later by the beginning of Jehoiachin’s exile (2 Kings 23:34). This would mean that Ezekiel mentions Daniel after Daniel had been in Babylon for 14 years. His example as a young man soon became legendary amongst the exiles; although the book of Daniel doesn't mention this.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits, and its breadth six cubits- The LXX adds a time note, "In his eighteenth year", suggesting this was done just after he had conquered Jerusalem. Dan. 4:22 LXX adds: "Your works were seen, how you ravaged the house of the living God pertaining to the sins of the sanctified people". The chief deity of Babylon was Marduk who was considered to be the “god of gold”. Herodotus described the image of Marduk as a golden statue seated upon a golden throne before a golden table and a golden altar. Pliny also notes that the robes of Marduk’s priests were interlaced with gold. 
</p><p>The statue seems out of proportion of a man, as the height is so much greater than the width. But we could deduce from this that the human figure was therefore presented seated on a throne. Nebuchadnezzar was presenting himself as the eternally enthroned ruler. The 60 cubits breadth figure recalls the size of the temple, as also recorded in Chaldee in Ezra 6:3: “Let the house be builded, the height thereof threescore cubits, and the “breadth” thereof threescore cubits". We get the impression from this that Nebuchadnezzar was purposefully trying to subvert Yahweh worship, and his proclamation was surely intended to expose the Jews. For all other pagans felt free to worship other gods in a situation like this. Only the Jews were exclusive about whom they worshipped.
</p><p>To be made of gold, the statue was either hollow, or made of wood with gold plating. Both options reflect the hollowness of Nebuchadnezzar. Six is the number of man [man was created on the sixth day].
The dimensions reflect how Babylon used a sexagesimal system [counting based around sixes] rather than a decimal one [based around tens]. The figure 666 in Revelation 13 therefore points us to a figure who epitomizes Babylon. The breadth is out of proportion to its height [human beings are usually about 5 or 6 times their breadth, but here the proportion is 1:10]- like the kingdoms and glory of men it symbolized, it was fragile and unstable, and easily toppled. He was attempting to deconstruct the image made of various metals, insisting that he as the head of gold would in fact be eternal and not followed by other kingdoms. What he did therefore reveals his humility before Daniel in Daniel 2 as just the passing humility of a desperate moment. We too have seen this in our own lives; humility before God and His people is soon replaced by a return to visions of our own strength. This image becomes the prototype for "the image of the beast" to be established in the last days by a latter day Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:730 13:14-15'>Rev 13:14-15</a>; <a href='B:730 14:9'>Rev 14:9</a>; <a href='B:730 14:11'>Rev 14:11</a>). Those of the last days who are victorious over the beast and his image are therefore represented by the three friends (<a href='B:730 15:2'>Rev 15:2</a>). They are to be no mere Sunday School story for us, but real and actual prototypes of us all in the last days.</p><p>He set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon- This is the same word used of how the entire image "stood" (:31), and of how Nebuchadnezzar blasphemously set or stood up another image all of gold, representing himself (<a href='B:340 3:1-3'>Dan 3:1-3</a>; <a href='B:340 3:5'>Dan 3:5</a>; <a href='B:340 3:7'>Dan 3:7</a>; <a href='B:340 3:12'>Dan 3:12</a>; <a href='B:340 3:14'>Dan 3:14</a>; <a href='B:340 3:18'>Dan 3:18</a>), as if the image he saw would not have its fulfilment, but he would last for ever. The entire image therefore represents the kingdoms of men which are to become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>). The same word is used throughout Daniel 7 concerning how the various beasts all ’stand’, as if on their legs as men, but are brought down to nothing. The apocryphal book of Judith claims Nebuchadnezzar at this time attempted "to destroy all the gods of the land, so that all nations should worship Nebuchadnezzar only, and all their tongue and tribes should call upon him as god" (Judith 3:8).
</p><p>"Set up" is same word used of how God would set up or "make arise" another kingdom after Nebuchadnezzar, and finally "set up" His eternal Kingdom (Dan. 2:39,44). Nebuchadnezzar clearly wanted to show that he didn't believe this. He didn't want the Jews nor anyone else to use the Dan. 2 image dream as encouragement to overthrow him. No fewer than eight times is the word used of the image which Nebuchadnezzar set up (Dan. 3:1,2,3,5,7,12,14,18). And it is used of how Babylon would be removed "and shall not arise" (Jer. 51:64) because they had stood up or arose against Yahweh (Jer. 51:1 s.w.). This was part of the oracle which Jeremiah had given Seraiah to pronounce in Babylon, and surely news of it had reached Nebuchadnezzar's ears. Setting up or making to arise his own image was his vain answer to it.  
</p><p>There are clear similarities with the making of the tower of Babel, also on a "plain" in Babylon (Gen. 11:1,2). The connection shows that Nebuchadnezzar's image was likewise a brazen defiance of Yahweh. As the peoples of "the whole earth" were gathered in the plain Gen. 11:1, so the peoples of all the earth / land were gathered together to the image in the plain, quite possibly the same plain (:2). 
</p>


text:
<p>Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up- "Rulers of the provinces", implying a gathering of the leaders of the entire empire. This was how insistent Nebuchadnezzar was to demonstrate on a huge scale that he as the head of gold would in fact be immortal; his idea was that he would not be destroyed nor cede power to another empire, as the vision of Daniel 2 required. He would be the entire image; and he wished to make that point to all levels of society. For "governors" LXX gives 'chiefs of the nationalities', as if Nebuchadnezzar was gathering together representatives of all ethnic groups, and thereby proclaiming himself worthy of their praise. Clearly he was presenting himself as Yahweh. The idea of "dedication" definitely has a religious connotation (Num. 7:10,84,88; 2 Chron. 7:9; Ps. 30:1). He was setting himself up as a god, to be worshipped. This is why every time when the golden image is mentioned, the king is mentioned with it (Dan. 3:13,5,7,10,12,14,15,18). Repeatedly we are told in these verses that it is Nebuchadnezzar who made or set up the image. He is so emphasized. "Nebuchadnezzar" occurs in verses 1,2 (2X),3 (2X),5,7,9,13,14,16,19,24,26,28 – 15 times; and "the king" in verses 1,2 (2X),3,5,7,9 (2X) ,10,12,13,16,17,18,22,24 (3X),28,30 – 21 times. It was all about him. He assembled representatives from throughout the empire and basically demanded them to take an oath of loyalty to him. This could well reflect his paranoia about losing power or disloyalty, as discussed on Dan. 2 in considering why he was suspicious of the wise men and so eager to kill them. The Babylonian Chronicle records various rebellions against Nebuchadnezzar. Clay tablets have been uncovered which record the execution of people for disloyalty and attempted insurrection. All this fear of losing power reflects his lack of acceptance of the Divine plan- to remove him and all men from power, and replace them with His eternal kingdom. There is no mention of any priests nor sacrifice at this event; which strengthens the impression that it was a demonstration of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar personally, who saw himself as the epitome of his own gods.
</p><p>Jer. 51:59-64 records how Zedekiah king of Judah was summoned to Babylon, presumably to declare or demonstrate his loyalty to Babylon. He went there along with Seraiah, who was commanded to read out a condemnation of Babylon by Jeremiah and then throw it into the Euphrates. Quite possibly Nebuchadnezzar was aware of this, and was now seeking to ensure that the Jews were actually loyal to him: "The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah... when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign... Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come on Babylon... Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When you come to Babylon, then see that you read all these words, and say, Yahweh, You have spoken concerning this place to cut it off, that none shall dwell therein, neither man nor animal, but that it shall be desolate forever. It shall be, when you have made an end of reading this book, that you shall bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates:  and you shall say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again because of the evil that I will bring on her". In Jer. 28, just a year or so after Zedekiah's visit to Babylon, Hananiah gave his false prophecy that the Jewish exiles would return from Babylon within 2 years. This must have seemed credible, and it was credible because of the evident weaknesses within Babylon. And these scared Nebuchadnezzar. 
</p>


text:
<p>Then the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together to the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up- This gathering together of people from throughout the empire would have taken time; and so the three friends had plenty of opportunity to plan their course of action. Their devotion was therefore not the zeal of a moment, but a consciously planned willingness to lay down their lives for the one true God. The fact they alone of all the Jews did so makes their bravery the more significant; for it is hard to live on a high level of dedication when our brethren consider it unnecessary and foolhardy. The same had happened over the matter of refusing the king’s meat.</p>


text:
<p>Then the herald called aloud, To you it is commanded, peoples, nations, and languages- The assembled crowd were told to bow down to it whatever nation or language they were from. The idea was that the local rulers of the provinces from throughout the empire may have been local men; and that perhaps there was to be a moment of bowing down observed throughout the empire. This was not merely a local event in the province of Babylon. The idea of a herald calling out a call to worship to all "peoples, nations and languages" is similar to the heralding of the Gospel of the true Kingdom of God to all peoples. Nebuchadnezzar was a fake God, an imitation Christ, a prototype of the latter day antiChrist.</p>


text:
<p>That whenever you hear- "Whenever" suggests the call to worship was not just a one time event; to build a huge image for just one usage would not be justifiable. There was to be a period of regular worship of this image, perhaps throughout the empire.</p><p>The sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music, you fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up- This combination of instruments suggest that the music was associated with religious ritual. The latter day demand to worship the image of the beast will likewise be a specifically religious matter, and it will be consciously designed to deconstruct the claims of the God of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar had fallen down and worshipped Daniel (s:w:) in <a href='B:340 2:46'>Dan 2:46</a>; now he commands everyone to fall down and worship himself. He was perhaps now angry with Daniel because of the interpretation given. "Fall down" is 'to serve'. The phrase 'serve and worship' occurs repeatedly (:5,6,7,10,15) and clearly alludes to the command not to serve and worship idols (Ex. 20:4-6; Dt. 5:8-10). The young men were aware of the acute conflict between Nebuchadnezzar's command and that of God, hence they reply “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us” (:17). The king recognized this when he says they were “servants of the Most High God [who therefore refused to] serve or worship any god except their own” (:26,28). He recognized that his god was pitted against theirs, and their God had one. He had various options open to him at this point [he could have written off what happened as a trick, as the Jews did concerning the empty tomb of Jesus], but commendably he chose the humblest option. </p>


text:
<p>And whoever doesn’t fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace- Remains of such a furnace have been found in the plain of Dura; it was a kind of ’Gehenna’, a burning place for rubbish, and again Nebuchadnezzar is set up as an anti-God, an anti-Christ, playing God, assuming the power of condemnation for not worshipping him. However, it has also been noted that in Babylon, death by burning was uncommon at the time. Although in their mythology, "fire was used in Persia to test the truth of a religion and its followers, as in Zoroaster’s walk through fire". And so Nebuchadnezzar's theology was turned against itself, for the friends came through the fire unharmed and thereby vindicated their God. It seems this was a specially built furnace- the heat and fire of which reflected Nebuchadnezzar's internal anger. He was furious with the implications of the Dan. 2 vision. And again we note the bravery of Daniel in telling him the interpretation, knowing this would be his likely reaction. It also points up how his humility before Daniel was the humility of a moment. And his gratitude and respect were because Daniel knew his dream, rather than because of the interpretation. The interpretation was in fact obvious... and I have suggested that the king knew the dream and had not in fact forgotten it at all.
</p><p>Burning with fire so far in the Bible has always been for sexual matters- Tamar's presumed prostitution in Gen. 38:24; for prostitution (Lev. 21:9) and incest (Lev. 20:14). Nebuchadnezzar was apparently considering that any worship of any other god was the vilest perversion. And he is alluding to how his god Marduk supposedly burnt his enemies in fire. In Dt. 4:20, 1 Kings 8:51 and Jer. 11:4, Egypt is metaphorically an “iron blast furnace”. Perhaps this connection was perceived by the friends, and the Divine deliverance from Egypt encouraged them to believe they could likewise be saved from this literal furnace. Faith is so often based upon such reasoning from Biblical precedent. In this faith comes by hearing the word of God, and we find indeed that whatever was written before was that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. And in turn, the friends became representative of all God's people. For the prophets of the time spoke of how all Israel in exile were to be "tested you in the furnace of adversity” (Is. 48:10), seeing that His anger is presented as a smelting process to refine His people (Ez. 22:18,20,22). Likewise Is. 31:9, in which Yahweh’s “fire is in Zion” and His “furnace is in Jerusalem”. Yahweh’s anger is a “smelter.”
</p>


text:
<p>Therefore at that time, when all the peoples- LXX "all the nations". The impression is given of Nebuchadnezzar seeking to preside over an imitation Kingdom of God, comprised of peoples from all nations; his proclamation to worship his statue, presenting himself as the eternal Kingdom, then would become a parody of the proclamation of the good news of the true Kingdom to "all the nations". We note here how "all the nations" means ’representative people from all nations’, and this is how we are to understand the language of preaching to "all nations", and "all nations" coming before the judgment seat.</p><p>Heard the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music, all the peoples, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up- The record of their obedience to the commandment exactly matches the record of the commandment. This kind of total obedience to "the image of the beast" is to be seen in the last days too. The AV correctly excludes the last instrument, the "dulcimer" (AV; NEV "pipe") of :5, or bagpipe. It could be argued that they could have used the fact the bagpipe ["dulcimer"] didn't sound as an excuse not to fall down and worship. But, as we should, they didn't make excuses. They did the right and transparent thing in their conscience, despite possible opportunity to rationalize it. Likewise when the king enquires whether their failure to bow down was on purpose... he was giving them a get out, which they refused.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and brought accusation against the Jews- The Chaldeans were the supposed interpreters of dreams, bitter and jealous that they had been unable to interpret the dream of Daniel 2. Instead of being grateful to their Jewish saviours, as often happens when we do good to others, they wanted to spite them. They wanted to support the king’ position that in fact the interpretation of the image had in fact been faulty, because the head of gold was going to last for ever.</p><p>We note the strong similarities between the friends being "cast" into the fiery furnace, and Daniel being "cast" into the den of lions. In both cases they had disobeyed an edict from the king that demanded false worship. In both cases they are reported to the king by jealous contemporaries and "accused" (Dan. 3:8; 6:25). In both cases, an Angel saves them (Dan. 3:28; 6:23). Those who try to harm them are harmed in that same way [death by lions / fire]. Both kings (Nebuchadnezzar and Darius) rise in alarm (Dan. 3:24; 6:20), approach the place of destruction (Dan. 3:26; 6:21), address the Jews by their names, and then use the same term to describe them: “servants of the Most High God” (Dan. 3:26) and “servant of the living God” (Dan. 6:21). The kings both command the Jews who had survived death to then come out and approach them. We naturally enquire why there are these parallels. It could be that Daniel had somehow saved himself from having to stand up for his faith in the events of Daniel 3, for Daniel's absence from the story is strange. But he was made to fellowship the sufferings of his friends in a remarkable way. </p>


text:
<p>They answered Nebuchadnezzar the king, O king, live for ever- This was no formal greeting; the message of the all gold image was that the head of gold (Nebuchadnezzar) would last for ever. And they supported this.</p>


text:
<p>You, O king, have made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image- The recorded Biblical history of the restoration often records how the rulers made decrees. Those decrees were considered to be effectively the word of a divine being, unable to be altered, and absolutely certain. But the record shows the tension between the word of the true God, and that of men. The changing of those decrees, or issuing decrees which superseded them, all indicates that their claim to being the Divine word was simply untrue.</p>


text:
<p>And whoever doesn’t fall down and worship shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace- This is a similar idea to how the beast of the last days is to be destroyed and his "body destroyed and given to the burning flame" (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>). Clearly, what the beast seeks to do to God’s people shall be done to it. This is why the series of judgments recorded in Revelation are so similar, e.g. the seals and vials. The idea is that what the latter day abusers do to God’s people is done to them; they are&nbsp; punished with their own judgments.</p>


text:
<p>There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not respected you. They don’t serve your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up- The bitterness of the Chaldeans or magicians / dream interpreters is again apparent. The three Jews had been placed over Babylon as reward for interpreting the dreams which the Chaldeans had been unable to interpret, and so these failed men were jealous and bitter. "Have not respected you" is a three word phrase used again in the accusation against Daniel in <a href='B:340 6:13'>Dan 6:13</a>: "That Daniel, who is of the captives of Judah, doesn’t respect you, O king, nor the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day". . It seems that he went through the very same experience in essence. Perhaps he sought to discreetly and tactfully get himself out of the situation; but maybe he later regretted it, and so the hand of providence enabled him to pass through the same situation in essence in the events of Daniel 6.</p>


text:
<p>Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king- "Rage" is only once used elsewhere, again in a restoration context, regarding the rage of God at Judah’s disobedience and unfaithfulness to Him (<a href='B:150 5:12'>Ezr 5:12</a>). Nebuchadnezzar was again playing God, as if obedience to him was critical, and he had the right to judge as God. The original word for "fury" is likewise used of God’s fury against Judah at the hands of the Babylonians (<a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a>; <a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Nebuchadnezzar said to them, Is it on purpose, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don’t serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?- "Is it on purpose?" supports the suggestion on :28 that the friends purposefully made some sign of worship of their God instead of bowing to the image. Presumably the other Jews, and perhaps Daniel, had been tacitly allowed by the king to be absent; but these three were "on purpose" making a point, and that was what so irritated the king. We can debate the extent to which we too should ’make a point’ regarding our separation from the world, or act like the other Jews and possibly Daniel did at this time. The case of John the Baptist rebuking Herod for his marriage would be another analogous situation to consider. And we should entertain the possibility that Daniel at this point was weaker in faith than his friends, and symbolically went along with it all. And yet when the decree was given forbidding prayer, Daniel like the friends, and doubtless inspired by their example, chose to ’make a point’ by opening his windows and praying towards Jerusalem in full view of his critics. We see here how faithful examples do inspire others to act likewise, at later points intheir lives.</p>


text:
<p>Now if you are ready whenever you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe, and all kinds of music to fall down and worship the image which I have made, well: but if you don’t worship, you shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that god that shall deliver you out of my hands?- The list of musical instruments is repeated four times (:5,7,10,15). It's hard to understand why there is this emphasis, but one suggestion is that all those instruments being played at the same time would not have produced a pleasant symphony of sound but rather a cacophony of confused noise. Possibly the instruments were chosen as representative of all the ethnicities gathered to swear loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar. He had declared Israel's God as "God of gods" in Dan. 2:47, but he assumed now that he was more powerful than any god, including Yahweh, and no god could save a person from the fiery furnace.  The Babylonians worshipped fire, and Nebuchadnezzar is arguing that the God of Israel was no match for the gods of fire. The king’s anger was doubtless because he had promoted these Jews, despite this being an affront to Babylonian culture and religion; and now they had apparently betrayed his trust. He therefore gave them a second chance, because he maybe didn’t want to destroy them immediately, despite his anger.</p>


text:
<p>Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter- The idea is that they weren’t interested in the offer of a second chance; it had taken time to gather together the leaders of the empire, and they had in that period made their minds up and would not flinch from the possible consequences. "In this matter" may stress the "this". They would be obedient in any other matter but not this. Just as we are to obedient to all we're asked to do, so long as it doesn't conflict our conscience to the Lord. "We have no need / we aren't careful to answer you" reflects how utterly confident they were of their position, holding it without any internal wranglings of conscience nor interpretation.
</p><p>They say there is no need to reply; because the reasons were obvious. The king knew the answer in his heart. They were servants of Yahweh, and that is an exclusive relationship. The Lord likewise was silent before Pilate. He gave no answers, yet thereby witnessed a good confession, Paul says. The Lord likewise declined to give specific answers in Jn. 18:21; He tells the disciples that they know where He is going and the way there, even though they were claiming not to know those things (Jn. 14:4). Or Jn. 7:28: "Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, You both know me, and you know whence I am: and I am not come of myself". When they had lifted up the Lord in crucifixion, "then shall you know that I am he" (Jn. 8:28). But they denied that knowledge. Peter made the point that "you already know" the word of the Gospel (Acts 10:37). "As you yourselves know", he adds in Acts 2:22. And in his letters he argues that "you, my friends, already know this..." (2 Pet. 1:12; 3:17). "As you know..." is a phrase that occurs over 20 times in Paul's letters. As Peter put it, he was bringing to their minds what they already passively knew (2 Pet. 1:12). And there are other examples. The point is that men know the truth of God in their consciences, and saying 'yes' to the Gospel is really just accepting what we subconsciously know is the Truth. For God has set eternity in human hearts. Our witness of the Gospel needs to bear this in mind. It is only human pride that leads to men claiming they don't agree with or understand our message. 
</p>


text:
<p>If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king- The essence of their faith was that "God is able", whether or not He chose to exercise His power in the matter at that time in that way. And they would still serve a God who doesn’t always do what He is able to do, and what we would wish Him to do in the immediacy of the moments of trial. Their words are cited back to them by the king in :29 when he recognizes that indeed, their God "is able to deliver" in a way no other deity could.</p><p>The friends speak of two deliverances- from the furnace, and from the king. "One of the goals of burning is the absolute annihilation of a person; not only is their body destroyed, but as smoke they cannot enter and rest in the netherworld". In The Epic of Gilgamesh Gilgamesh asks, “Did you see the man who was burnt to death?”. Enkidu replies that he did not, because the spirits of those burned with fire are not in the netherworld. The friends are surely saying that their God will in fact "save" them. Even if they are not saved from the hand of the king.
</p><p>The two deliverances however can be read as them saying that God will deliver them from the furnace, in that He will resurrect them. And He can deliver them from the king in that He might also save them immediately from death in that furnace. Whether or not God saved them ultimately, or whether or not He saved them from the furnace, they would still serve Him in this life. And that is a powerful challenge. Even if we are not to be saved ultimately, we still love and serve God now.
</p>


text:
<p>But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up- Even if God doesn’t ’come through’ as we expect and believe, all the same, we are to live by His principles and serve Him alone. Even if He slays us, we are to trust in Him (<a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>). "Though the fig tree doesn’t flourish, nor fruit be in the vines" (Hab. 3:17), if the promised blessings for obedience don't come through, still we are to rejoice in Him. The worship of the image was more than a merely symbolic gesture; it was somehow connected with serving the king’s gods. He obviously thought that the version of history suggested by Israel’s God in chapter 2 was going to be overthrown by the power of his gods, who would make him, the golden head, have an eternal kingdom. So to worship the image was to accept servitude to the king’s gods.</p><p>God's forgiveness and salvation can never be presumed upon; even if we are genuinely repentant. For the wages of sin has always been death (Rom. 6:23); we as sinners have no right to life. This is a theme stamped right across the Old Testament. Consider: "You have sinned a great sin. Now I will go up to Yahweh. Perhaps I shall make atonement for your sin" (Ex. 32:30). "Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the courts. It may be that Yahweh, the God of Armies, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph" (Am. 5:15). “Rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious... Who knows whether He will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him?” (Joel 2:13,14). "Let them turn each one from his evil way... Who knows whether God will not turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we might not perish?" (Jonah 3:8,9). Possibly we could add Esther 4:14 to this list: "Who knows if you haven’t come to the kingdom for such a time as this?". This is why Daniel's friends can reason: "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods" (Dan. 3:17,18). They believed in Yahweh's salvation, but were quite prepared not to receive it. They knew that His ability to dramatically save them at that moment was not at all certain of fulfilment for them. The same words "is able" and "save" are used by Darius in Dan. 6:21 when he again expresses a doubt as to whether God is able to save in this case: "Was the God whom you served so regularly able to deliver you from the lions?". Against all this we must balance the fact that those in Christ have been given the "right" to be God's children (Jn. 1:12). But the bold confidence we have in the Lord Jesus must somehow never fail to be nuanced by an awareness of our total unworthiness and inability to presume upon God's forgiveness. </p>


text:
<p>Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and his face changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego- This could mean that his face was filled with rage. But to change face toward someone means to change attitudes. This king had promoted these men on the basis of their part in obtaining the interpretation of the dream in Daniel 2. And the king appears to have liked them; but all that changes now. His respect for them turns to burning anger. The friends didn’t fear his fury, and the restored Judah collectively are urged not to fear the fury [s:w:] of their oppressor but rejoice that God will enable the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom (<a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>). The friends are set up as the pattern for all God’s people.</p><p>Therefore he commanded that they should heat the furnace seven times more than it was usually heated- LXX "until it should burn to the uttermost". Fire burning to the uttermost is the picture of Divine wrath in judgment. Again, Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed as setting himself up as God, feeling that he alone was responsible for human condemnation, instead of continuing to be humbled by the vision of Daniel 2. There was no way of measuring how much a furnace had been heated before, nor of accurately multiplying that by seven. So we can assume this is an example of numbers being used in a non-literal sense; although the allusion may be to the Babylonian belief in seven gods and seven planets. Again, the king would be saying that the faithful three were to experience the full wrath of the Babylonian gods. The incident therefore reveals the triumph of Yahweh over all their false gods, which would explain the king’s proclamation concerning the supremacy of Israel’s God.</p><p>His rage and fury increased from :13, and this was reflected in the raging furnace with its greatly increased heat. As God saved them from that, thus He saved them from the intense fury of the king.</p>


text:
<p>He commanded mighty men who were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to throw them into the burning fiery furnace- The dragon, symbol of the latter day entity persecuting God’s people, is to be bound and thrown to condemnation (<a href='B:730 20:2'>Rev 20:2</a>). What was done to God’s people is to be done to them, which explains the similarities between the seals [what was done to God’s people] and vials [poured out upon their persecutors] in Revelation. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>Then these men were bound in their trousers, their tunics, and their mantles, and their other garments, and were thrown into the midst of the burning fiery furnace- Perhaps the function of thetext’s stress upon their clothing was because it was untouched by the fire, and this was in reality the most convincing proof of their deliverance (:27).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent- LXX "Forasmuch as the king’s word prevailed". The prevailing of the king’s word could suggest that there was some opposition generally to the idea. This is the background for the comment in :28 that the friends "changed the king’s word" (AV). The king’s word was pitted against God’s word, and God’s word prevailed.</p><p>And the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego- We noted on :20 that what was done, or intended to be done, to God’s people is what happens to their abusers. This is a major theme in the prophets, and will be the basis for the nature of the Divine judgments upon the latter day beast.</p>


text:
<p>These three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace- Like us at times, they were in the fire but not consumed by it, not even their clothes; recalling the burning bush unconsumed. We have here a primary fulfilment of <a href='B:290 43:2'>Isa 43:2</a>: "If thou go through fire, thou shalt not be burned; the flame shall not burn thee". This is in the context of a prophecy of how the Jews could have been restored from Babylon, and the Kingdom of God re-established as Israel’s kingdom, replete with a Messiah figure. But the Jews generally preferred to remain in Babylon; what happened to the friends could have developed into a total restoration of Israel. But the potential prophecy didn’t come true because of Israel’s indolence, and so the ultimate fulfilment has been delayed until our last days.</p>


text:
<p>Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste- LXX "And Nabuchodonosor heard them singing praises". The LXX includes the prayer of praise of Azarias. We recall how the prison keeper heard the praises sung by Paul and Silas. To praise God in the face of suffering and death is surely the ultimate reflection of faith in Him and loving trust in Him. perhaps their example inspired Paul and Silas, just as faithful examples may inspire later believers to act likewise.</p><p>He spoke and said to his counsellors, Didn’t we throw three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered the king, True, O king- "We throw" shows the king’s total identity with the men who had actually throw the friends into the furnace. But those men had been slain by the flames.</p>


text:
<p>He answered, Look, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are unharmed; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods- This was an Angel, and not the Lord Jesus personally; see on :28. The LXX gives aggelos, "Angel". I have noted several times on this chapter that the Babylonian belief in the god of fire was being deconstructed; and "Son of the gods" could in fact be a reference to Iz-bar ["bar" = "son"], the god of fire. In this case, the allusion would reflect how in fact the god of fire was under Divine control and rendered powerless to destroy the Jews. The persecution of the Jewish men here in Dan. 3 is very similar to the account of Daniel likewise being dobbed in by jealous courtiers, and thrown to the lions- and likewise being delivered, and the king pronouncing blessing upon Israel's God (Dan. 6). The parallel to this "son of the gods" who appears in the place of intended death is there an Angel; and :28 describes this being as an Angel. It was not the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p>Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace: he spoke and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, you servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the midst of the fire- "Abednego" means 'servant of Nego', the fire god. The irony is that the king recognizes that in actuality, this man is a servant of the most High God- not Nego. The renaming hasn't worked, nor has it broken Abednego's relationship with his own God.  </p><p>This coming out of fire is the historical pattern for the statement that "Your people shall be delivered" (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>); again, the friends are set up as the pattern for God’s people of the latter day tribulation. "The most high God" is quite an admission from Nebuchadnezzar. He is recognizing that whether or not his gods really existed, without doubt the God of Israel was the highest. It was God’s intention that this man should indeed come to recognize that He is the most high (<a href='B:340 4:17'>Dan 4:17</a>). But again, Nebuchadnezzar’s appreciation of this was only momentary, for he needs to be taught this reality again by his illness and humiliation. When we are brought to such deep spiritual realizations, we must pray earnestly that we continue in them and not experience them as merely passing moments.</p>


text:
<p>The satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their clothes changed, nor had the smell of fire passed on them- Sulphur or pitch was likely used to heat the furnace, which would have left a very strong smell on the clothing of anyone who came near the furnace [including the king].  As they had been "gathered together" to the image, now they were "gathered together" to see these men. Perhaps the function of the text’s stress upon their clothing in :21 was because it was untouched by the fire, and this was in reality the most convincing proof of their deliverance. The Babylonians worshipped the gods of fire, and so the stress that the fire had no power was effectively revealing the bankruptcy of their entire belief system. That no "smell of fire" was upon them would then speak of their total disassociation with the Babylonian religious system. Again, the friends are held up as our pattern for faith n <a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a> - by faith they quenched the violence of fire.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuchadnezzar spoke and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent His angel- This shows Nebuchadnezzar recognizing that an Angel had been physically sent to Daniel and his friends in the fiery furnace. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>. The Lord Jesus was not an Angel, as Hebrews 1 demonstrates at length; the one like a son of the gods was therefore an Angel and not the Lord Jesus personally, who wasn’t then in existence.</p><p>And delivered His servants who trusted in Him, these who have set aside the king’s command, and have yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God- LXX "Changed the king’s word", just as Daniel did to him (<a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>). This repetition of situation was surely in order to get Nebuchadnezzar to repent; we marvel that God made such efforts to convert this man, as He did with Pharaoh, when we would likely have considered such a person just not worth the effort in trying with. It would seem that the friends went beyond simply not bowing down to the image, but instead yielded their bodies to Yahweh and made some act of homage towards Him, perhaps like Daniel later, praying toward Jerusalem rather than falling before the image. They did this on purpose (:14), to make a point. "Set aside" can also mean "to despise", as the Peshitta renders it. The king is therefore accepting that his word had been despised, and Yahweh’s word had prevailed. He reaches an impressive point of humility, although as we learn in Daniel 4, he didn’t remain at that level but returned to pride. Just as we too so often experience humility as only a passing condition, in time of crisis, when it ought to remain a permanent characteristic.</p><p>The same word for "change" [NEV "set aside"] is found in :27, where their coats were not "changed" by the fire. Likewise because they "yielded their bodies" to Yahweh, the fire "had no power on their bodies" (:27). As ever in Daniel, we see the theme of total contrast and conflict between the believer and the world. Rom. 6 surely alludes here in saying that we are to yield our bodies to God as His servants and not to the flesh. Those brave men are every man in Christ.
</p><p>Isaiah 43 is a mockery of Babylon's gods, and urges all God's people to pass through the fire, knowing God is with them (Is. 43:2; Ps. 66:12). All the exiles, indeed all God's people, are to in essence pass through that the friends did. And be delivered. The whole incident in Dan. 3, especially references to fire, is full of connection with the prophecies of later Isaiah. This part of Daniel is written in Aramaic, a form of Hebrew mixed with Greek. Perhaps it was translated especially for the Jews suffering under Antiochus. He built a statue of and an altar for Zeus Olympios in the Jewish temple, and forced the Jews to worship it. They are being encouraged to resist, through the distribution of Daniel's prophecy in their common language. Significantly, there were eight copies of Daniel found in the Qumran discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was a book much in demand. 
</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I make a decree, that every people, nation, and language, which speak anything evil against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a compost heap; because there is no other god who is able to deliver after this sort- The Babylonian gods were not saviours; Nebuchadnezzar here recognizes that the God of Israel is essentially a saviour, and we see that supremely articulated in His work through His Son Jesus, Yah’s salvation. The same word for "able" is later used to Nebuchadnezzar in warning him that God is "able" to abase him if he continues in pride (<a href='B:340 4:37'>Dan 4:37</a>). We marvel at God’s continued and constant efforts to convert the king; He taught Nebuchadnezzar that He was indeed "able" to do all things; and then goes on to warn him that He therefore is "able" to abase him, if he continues in pride.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon- LXX adds: "And gave them authority to rule over all the Jews who were in his kingdom". The ministers for Jewish affairs were themselves Jews.</p>


text:
<p>Nebuchadnezzar the king, to all the peoples, nations, and languages, who dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you- We could perhaps note a wider ranging humility in these words than in Dan. 3:4 which addresses all  “peoples, nations, and languages”; now the phrase "in all the earth" is added. Likewise "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego" (Dan. 3:28) is extended to "I blessed the Most High, and praised and honoured the one who lives for ever" (Dan. 4:34,35). The God of the captives becomes "the most high", and he is to be praised "for ever", i.e. even after Nebuchadnezzar's time. Progressive humility and desire to give God ever wider glory are all part of spiritual growth.</p><p>Here we have "all the earth" defined as the area governed by Babylon, and not the entire planet. This assists in our interpretation of the dominions of Daniel 2. Clearly Europe and any area beyond the Middle East is not in view. This proclamation is that made after his humiliation. His response to that humbling was to spread the good news of God’s Kingdom, rather than his own, to every aspect of humanity which he could reach. We too have been given the great commission to do likewise, and we obey it in the humility which comes from having been convicted of our sin and pride.</p><p>Nebuchadnezzar’s multi-lingual preaching of the greatness of God’s Kingdom “to all nations” can easily be read unappreciated. But it must have been quite something, involving translating the Gospel of the Kingdom of God into many languages; and it incorporated a very humble expression of his own failures, a recognition of his foolish pride and lack of repentance. And maybe this is exactly why he was the one used by God to make the widest and greatest Old Testament witness to the Gospel of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has worked toward me- The content of Gospel preaching is the message of God’s Kingdom and His Son. But it is also a reflection of our personal experience of how "God has worked toward me". This is what gives our message credibility. The 'signs and wonders', a phrase used of miracles, refer to the psychological and spiritual miracle worked upon Nebuchadnezzar, a man otherwise specifically condemned to eternal destruction for what he did to Yahweh's temple and people.</p>


text:
<p>How great are His signs! How mighty are His wonders!- These miraculous signs and wonders surely refer to how "God has worked toward me" (:2), for they have no other referent. The way God tirelessly works to humble us and lead us to accept His Kingdom and renounce our own is nothing short of major, dramatic psychological miracle.</p><p>His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation- Nebuchadnezzar had rejected the teaching of the previous revelation to him in <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>, that God’s kingdom alone is everlasting, and will not pass to another. He had built an image of gold, as if to say that he the head of gold would in fact last eternally. And now he realizes how wrong he had been. It's interesting to compare Nebuchadnezzar's doxologies at the end of Dan. 2, in Dan. 3 and now in Dan. 4:3. He seems to be growing in his appreciation of the eternity of God's Kingdom. Indeed he appears to be quoting Ps. 145:13: “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations”. Humility before God's sovereignty is a major theme in Daniel; and Belshazzar is condemned for not learning the lesson of humility from his ancestors: "You, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this" (Dan. 5:22). The implication is that his ancestor or father did learn the lesson, but he didn't.  </p>


text:
<p>I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house, and flourishing in my palace- "Flourishing" is the language of a tree, which he will be likened to in the vision he now saw. Again he shows humility by recognizing the truth of the Divine vision concerning him.</p>


text:
<p>I saw a dream which made me afraid; and the thoughts on my bed and the visions of my head troubled me- This is the language of his earlier experience in <a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a>; <a href='B:340 2:29'>Dan 2:29</a>. Circumstances repeat in our lives. If he had humbly accepted the Divine word to him in that first dream, he wouldn’t have needed this further dream and humiliation. The way situations and feelings repeat in our lives is therefore a great encouragement that man is not alone, abandoned in this world; instead we are sure that God is working with us, to humble us that we might be exalted in due time.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might explain to me the interpretation of the dream- As noted on :5, this was just what he had done in Daniel 2. He ought to have guessed that the outcome would be similarly bad for his pride, and the message of God’s Kingdom would again prevail over him.</p>


text:
<p>Then came in the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers; and I told the dream before them; but they did not explain to me its interpretation- Again, as noted on :5 and :6, the situation in Daniel 2 was repeating. He ought to have learnt the lesson then, but he didn’t; and he failed his second chance too, with the dream of the tree, but it seems he learnt his lesson finally and became one of the most remarkable converts to the things of the Kingdom. Surely both the magicians and the king himself knew what the dream meant. The interpretation was obvious. Daniel is again to be commended for his bravery in stating the obvious to the king- that which nobody else dared say. And we will find ourselves in similar life situations. Daniel doesn't offer any interpretation of the tree’s central position in the earth; its great height, nor the fact that there was “food for all” on it. He knew that the king knew what this meant. It was so obvious. Indeed there was virtually no interpretation necessary... </p>


text:
<p>But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar- Nebuchadnezzar ought to have perceived the inability of his magicians to interpret dreams; he ought to have gone to Daniel first rather than "at the last". But he learnt his lesson right at the end, although requiring a terrible humiliation. Daniel being called "at the last" may well have been because he had moved himself away from all the great promotions he had been given, and eagerly slipped into the twilight, out of the deep conflicts between his conscience for Yahweh and the requirements of the Babylonian court life. We too at times need to reverse the effects of promotion in secular life, that we might be separate for our God.</p><p>According to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and I told the dream before him, saying- Nebuchadnezzar proclaims Yahweh as the supreme God. So he may here be admitting his own foolishness in having Bel as his god, and perhaps we are to read in an ellipsis: "In whom [as I mistakenly thought was] the spirit of the holy gods". For he goes on to make it clear that Daniel’s God is the greatest.</p>


text:
<p>Belteshazzar, master of the magicians- As noted on :8, Daniel had perhaps distanced himself from the magicians, or had been demoted. And so the king is accepting that Daniel was far greater than them all.</p><p>Because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you- This is the language used of Joseph in a similar situation (<a href='B:10 41:38'>Gen 41:38</a>). Not only did situations recur within the experiences of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, but between the lives of Joseph and Daniel. Daniel would have been encouraged that he was no treading a unique path, but that the same loving Divine hand was at work according to a broadly similar pattern.</p><p>And no secret troubles you, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and its interpretation- The book of Daniel goes on to record that Daniel was indeed troubled by some secrets and visions which he never understood precisely. It’s as if Daniel’s humility was such that he wished this to be recorded.</p>


text:
<p>Thus were the visions of my head on my bed: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth- In Dan. 4:10, Nebuchadnezzar sees himself as a tree that is felled. God was again trying to get Nebuchadnezzar to see the truth of the image prophecy of Daniel 2. For a tree was seen as symbolic of a man. "Trees have toe-like roots, arm-like branches and stand upright from root to crown, between earth and heaven". This confirms that the initial application of the image with Nebuchadnezzar's face was to Nebuchadnezzar himself and his immediate dynasty.</p><p>A tree represents a kingdom, e.g. Assyria (<a href='B:330 31:1-18'>Eze 31:1-18</a>) or the Kingdom of God (<a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a>). Nebuchadnezzar as a person was intimately associated with his kingdom, hence he transformed himself from being the head of gold to being the entire image in the statue which he made. It is a human tendency to so identify ourselves with our kingdom, be it our career, family or firm we founded... that we cannot extricate ourselves to stand alone before God. And Nebuchadnezzar needed immense humiliation before he made that separation. Being "in the midst of the earth" may be a reference to his capture of Jerusalem, as the central point of the eretz promised to Abraham. This was his deepest sin, and what he was wrongly glorified for. It was the seed of Abraham who were to grow into God’s Kingdom "in the midst of the earth" (<a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a>), and not the people of Babylon.</p><p>And its height was great- The king of Babylon is pictured as having done this specifically in connection with his intention to conquer Jerusalem: "Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north" (<a href='B:290 14:13'>Isa 14:13</a>). As noted above, it was Nebuchadnezzar’s prideful attitude against Israel and Jerusalem in particular which was at the root of his sin.</p>


text:
<p>The tree grew, and was strong, and its height reached to the sky, and its sight to the end of all the earth- "The earth" is clearly not the entire planet. The way it was seen throughout the empire referred to how Nebuchadnezzar exalted himself personally and was looked towards by all; it alludes to how he had built the image of himself in Daniel 3. He "reached to the sky" in terms of his pride and playing God. The growth of the tree refers to the growth in the king’s pride; he said "in his heart" that he would grow as high as heaven (<a href='B:290 14:13'>Isa 14:13</a>)</p>


text:
<p>The leaves of it were beautiful, and its fruit much, and in it was food for all: the animals of the field had their shadow under it, and the birds of the sky lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it- This is the language of God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:330 17:23'>Eze 17:23</a>; <a href='B:470 13:32-33'>Mat 13:32-33</a>). His kingdom had been a fake kingdom of God. This repeats the language of Dan. 2:37,38, which in turn alludes to Adam: "the God of heaven has given beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all... have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Gen 1:26). The one who was given the animals to rule over becomes an animal. We will comment later that Nebuchadnezzar is a man, created to be as Adam. But he acts like an animal and so he is made like an animal, in order that he might become "the man" God intended. “And you shall be made to eat grass like an ox” (Dan. 4:32) recalls “you shall eat the plants of the field” (Gen. 3:18).  We note that Adam's eating the “plants of the field” brings him closer to the animals to whom God gave “every green plant” (Gen. 1:30) for
food. This is exactly what we see with Nebuchadnezzar. He was a man but was given an animal's heart (Dan. 7:3); like Adam, instead of ruling over the animals he became like one. "His spirit was hardened that he dealt proudly" (Dan. 5:20 R.V.), he was confirmed in the mind he chose to have. And yet like Adam he was given the path to restoration. The account of Nebuchadnezzar's glory returning to him is similar to the description of man's final end in Ps. 8:5-9: "You crowned him with glory and honour. You make him ruler over the works of Your hands. You have put all things under his feet: all sheep and cattle, yes, and the animals of the field, the birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, and whatever passes through the paths of the seas. Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!". "The son of man" is referenced in Dan. 7, and he appears as having dominion over the four wild animals that appear. This is surely not without reference to what we learn in Dan. 4- that the king was to pass through the experience of Adam, at his creation, his fall and future restoration.</p>


text:
<p>I saw in the visions of my head on my bed, and behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from Heaven- The watcher even a holy one [one Angel, not two] had already been revealed to Nebuchadnezzar when he observed the Angel with the friends in the fiery furnace. He almost didn’t need Daniel to explain it all. God was constantly working with him to help him, nudge by nudge, come to fully accept Him.</p><p>The Angels are ’watchers’ in the sense that they ’watch over’ God’s word to perform it in practice; God would ’watch over’ His words of condemnation of Babylon to fulfil them, and likewise ’watch over’ His word of restoration toward Judah (<a href='B:300 31:28'>Jer 31:28</a>; <a href='B:300 44:27'>Jer 44:27</a> etc:). See on <a href='B:340 9:14'>Dan 9:14</a>. Nebuchadnezzar appreciated that Daniel had the spirit of the "holy ones", and yet he saw a "holy one" come from Heaven. He thereby was being taught that Daniel was in league with God and the court of Heaven, and the Angels were able to fulfil the prophetic words Daniel was uttering. See on <a href='B:100 23:1-3'>2Sa 23:1-3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He cried aloud, and said thus: Cut down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the animals get away from under it, and the birds from its branches- "He cried aloud" means really 'mightily', as in Dan. 3:4. Nebuchadnezzar is recognizing that just as he had cried aloud for all men to worship him, so now God had called loudly for his own demise. </p><p>This is a command to the animals and birds, rather than just a prediction of the disintegration of the Babylonian empire. We can infer that the intention was that Nebuchadnezzar preached this message, bringing about the demise of his own empire, inviting the tributary peoples [especially Judah] to leave the empire and regain their freedom. But Nebuchadnezzar wouldn’t do so. Perhaps if he had done so, then the restoration of Judah could have begun.</p><p>The imagery of cutting down a tree has been used about what Nebuchadnezzar had done to Assyria. God used him to "lop the boughs with terrifying power; the tallest trees will be cut down, and the lofty will be brought low͟" (Is. 11:33). The same language of Nebuchadnezzar cutting down a tree is used of what he did to Egypt in Ez. 31:2-14. What Nebuchadnezzar had done to others was to be done to him. This experience is all part of what it means to be made human as God intends. To have humanity, to feel for others and empathize with them. </p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of the sky: and let his portion be with the animals in the grass of the earth- The stump of the roots was therefore representative of Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom; for it was he personally who had his portion with the animals. Iron and brass were metals in the image of Daniel 2 which were to come after Nebuchadnezzar. He was to be cut down, and bound by the fact that other kings were to arise after him and take away his dominion. The vision of Daniel 2 was indeed going to come true, much as he had struggled against it through building the state of gold in Daniel 3.</p><p>The idea of a stump and roots remaining is surely that the tree will have a sprout from it and grow again. The words for root and stump are found in Is. 11:1, where the Jewish Messiah is the shoot that grows from the root and stump. This is the language of Zerubbabel. I suggest that there is a hint here that Nebuchadnezzar's repentance could have led to the Messiah figure appearing. But Zerubbabel and other related options failed at that time. As discussed on Dan. 2, the kaleidoscope of images had to be turned again, to come up with another fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let an animal’s heart be given to him- We have to make the connection with Dan. 7:4 "The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I saw until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand on two feet as a man; and a man’s heart was given to it". This is the equivalent of the head of gold in Dan. 2, which we are specifically told was Nebuchadnezzar, "you, O King"... Not Babylon generally. For Nebuchadnezzar was only king at the end of Babylonian dominance, in fact only over the neo-Babylonian empire. So this lion with a changed heart is Nebuchadnezzar. Whatever political, historical fulfilments we wish to see in Dan. 7:4, we must surely accept that primarily it refers to Nebuchadnezzar personally. Dan. 7 doesn't describe him doing anything aggressive, unlike the other beasts mentioned. His claws grew like eagles'; and he frequently depicted himself as a winged lion. The bricks of the great Babylon be built had lions on them to symbolize himself. So there is a double heart transplant operation here. Again we see that God can give man another heart, as He did to Saul, and as He can do today through the work of the Holy Spirit on human hearts. He was a proud man, given an animal's heart and then given a human heart, as he became man as God intended. Humbled before God, abased and living in hope of eternal restoration by God's grace.</p><p>Man is but as the beasts that perish in his death (<a href='B:230 49:20'>Psa 49:20</a>). Nebuchadnezzar had the idea that he was somehow divine, that he as the head of gold would in fact continue and never give way to others- hence his deconstruction of the Daniel 2 image by his own image of total gold in Daniel 3. But he had to be made to realize that he was not divine, he was human, and human nature is animal nature. The Father works with us likewise for decades to help us realize these same truths, so that we might fully grasp the good news of His Kingdom and eternity. For many it may take the loss of strength and faculty that comes with old age before they finally realize this.</p><p>And let seven times pass over him- The closer one looks, the more conditional prophecies and Divine statements there are. The statement that Nebuchadnezzar would be humiliated for seven times could &nbsp;have been changed by his repentance (cp. :27-29). "Seven times" may not have to be seven years; the number seven is so often symbolic. The idea could be that a significant, defined period would pass over him so that he might thereby be perfected, literally ’seven-ed’. Israel too were to suffer "seven times" of judgment for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:18'>Lev 26:18</a>; <a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a>; <a href='B:30 26:24'>Lev 26:24</a>; <a href='B:30 26:28'>Lev 26:28</a>), seventy sevens (<a href='B:300 29:10'>Jer 29:10</a>), and Nebuchadnezzar had played his part in bringing them about. He was now to realize how he had treated God’s people, suffering the same essential judgments he had poured out- not simply as a ’measure for measure’ judgment for the sake of it, but in order to elicit in him repentance.</p>


text:
<p>The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the judgment decision by the word of the holy ones- Although this "sentence" had been 'decreed' by the watching Angels, it was open to negotiation. For Daniel urges Nebuchadnezzar to repent and show grace, with the implication that the terrible decree for him might not have to necessarily come into reality. This is surely the force of the "therefore..." (:27).
Nebuchadnezzar was told that the destruction of his power was a “matter by the decree of the watchers [i:e. Angels, the eyes of the Lord], and the demand by the word of the holy ones” (<a href='B:340 4:17'>Dan 4:17</a>). The Chaldee words translated “matter, “decree” and “demand” are all legal terms, implying a legal answer / response, “a judicial decision” as Strong defines “the demand”. The book of Daniel often records the kings issuing decrees; but they are nothing compared to the decrees of Heaven. Something came before the court of Heaven- presumably the matter in question was Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and his position on the Jews. Daniel’s advice in 4:27 to shew mercy to the poor may be a reference to what the King should’ve been doing to the Jews- perhaps by enabling their return to their land. And a ‘judicial decision’ was made and “a watcher and a Holy One came down from Heaven” to operationalize it (<a href='B:340 4:13'>Dan 4:13</a>). If this is the extent of Angelic attention to the heart of a Gentile king- how much more earnestly are they debating the states of our hearts and our actions, and issuing decrees for action accordingly?</p><p>Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation was “by the demand of the word of the holy ones”. Was it that the Angels had noticed this man’s awful pride, reported it to God Himself in the court of Heaven, and then been empowered to carry out his demise? The same context reminds us that God does according to His will in the army of Heaven (<a href='B:340 4:35'>Dan 4:35</a>). And yet His purpose is to some extent moulded by them. And we are led to ask, how much influence do we His beloved children have upon His actual purpose? In the context of Daniel, one observes that a “herald” cried aloud to peoples of all nations and languages, and bid them worship the Babylonian image, on pain of being cast into a fiery furnace (<a href='B:340 3:4'>Dan 3:4</a> ff:). And yet in <a href='B:730 14:6'>Rev 14:6</a>, an Angel cries to all nations and languages, warning them that if they do worship the image, they will be cast into the lake of fire. The Angels had observed Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance and defiance, and many centuries later they will work out their way of parodying it in their future proclamation. The point is, they have the power to work out their way of operation in accordance with their perceptions and understandings; in this we see the “freedom of the spirit” which is now and shall be ever accorded to Yahweh’s elohim.</p><p>To the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will- The Divine intention at this time was that all the Babylonian empire would come to accept the truth of the message of the Kingdom as explained in the image of Daniel 2. The interpretation is that "till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom He will". Yet Nebuchadnezzar is made representative of "the living"; he is every man. Dan. 2:30 uses "the living" for all men; Daniel says he is not wiser "more than any living". See on :34. Nebuchadnezzar uses the same word in saying in response that he honours Yahweh who "lives" for ever (:34). The idea surely is that "the living" are to realize that they will not "live" for ever, but God will. Nebuchadnezzar came to this realization "at the end of the days" (:34). Whilst that refers initially to the days of his humiliation, it clearly has hints of the last day. It is at that day that man shall be humbled and see himself as he is; but the challenge is to live like that now. </p><p>And sets up over it the most abased of men- Everyone would have known the strange abasement of Nebuchadnezzar. The fact he was restored to his throne, rather than being deposed during his incapacity, was therefore an amazing and most unusual object lesson- before exaltation over God’s Kingdom there must come humility and abasement. The Lord seems to allude to this in teaching that he who abases himself the most shall be exalted the highest in God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a>; <a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a>). The Lord clearly had Himself in view, and Philippians 2 confirms this- He was the most abased, that He might be the most highly exalted.</p><p>The Angel required that Nebuchadnezzar be "abased" (have humility) and Daniel advises Nebuchadnezzar to show righteousness and mercy. These are related to humility. We find the same three ideas together in  Micah: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Mic. 6:8). This suggests that Nebuchadnezzar is indeed every man, every mortal, "the living". This is the same idea as in 1 Cor. 1:28 which surely alludes here and makes Nebuchadnezzar as every man. The 'base things' are what God uses. For man to be abased is to become man as God intends.</p>


text:
<p>This dream I, king Nebuchadnezzar, have seen; and you, Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in you- <a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a> may allude here: "the world by wisdom knows not God". This is no mere ancient history; the principles apply in all ages and situations. Nebuchadnezzar recognizes that his "wise men", whose supposed wisdom was intimately connected with their pagan religious beliefs, were powerless. He tacitly admits that they don’t possess the spirit of the gods which they claimed to. Remember that the text we are reading was part of the proclamation made by Nebuchadnezzar after his humiliation.</p><p>"But you are able" contrasts with his earlier words to Daniel: "Are you able [to interpret my dream]?" (Dan. 2:26. We are being presented with the gradual spiritual development of the king. We wonder why he didn't immediately ask for Daniel's interpretation; and we suspect it was because he knew anyway what the interpretation was, and he knew Daniel knew...</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was stricken mute for a while, and his thoughts troubled him. The king answered, Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream, or the interpretation, trouble you. Belteshazzar answered, My lord, the dream is to the side of those who hate you, and its interpretation to your adversaries- This is the classic encouragement to all of us when we fear to speak forth God’s word, scared of how our audience will receive it. This verse is still part of the proclamation made by Nebuchadnezzar throughout his realm, he wished to show everyone what had transpired. The fact he didn’t have Daniel immediately slain is to his credit; Daniel was fearful because he knew just how proud Nebuchadnezzar was, and how the king had railed against Daniel’s interpretation of the Daniel 2 dream by building an image of gold, subverting the idea that the head of gold was to pass away. He was likely encouraged by the Biblical examples of young Joseph and Samuel speaking forth God’s word to men whom they knew would not welcome their message. The haters and adversaries of Nebuchadnezzar were symbolized by the brass and iron which bound the stump; the metals of the Daniel 2 image which were to supercede Nebuchadnezzar.</p><p>The gold in the image represented Nebuchadnezzar personally. But Daniel was so very brave to give the interpretation- that the gold would be crushed and blown away (Dan. 2:45). Indeed the entire image would be destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar would not last for ever. His worst fears, which led to his dream, were justified. Daniel surely risked death by telling him this; and for all time is a great example of speaking God's word even when we know we risk our own lives, at least our social lives, and relationships. Nebuchadnezzar was known [as were other kings] for executing messengers who brought bad news. Yet he was deeply impressed that Daniel knew what he had dreamed, and rewarded him for that. His subsequent making an image entirely of gold reflects his subsequent reflection and deep dislike of the interpretation. Later, Daniel is fearful to tell Nebuchadnezzar an interpretation which means the king's downfall; indeed he was visibly distressed by the prospect of having to do so, going into a panic attack: "The king answered, Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream, or the interpretation, trouble you. Belteshazzar answered, My lord, the dream is to the side of those who hate you, and its interpretation to your adversaries" (Dan. 4:19). Possibly he had lost some of his youthful faith and bravery by this point.
</p><p>However, we should consider the alternative translation: “My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!" (ESV). Just as Daniel urged the king to repent and show grace to the poor [perhaps specifically the Jews], so that his kingdom and life would be extended; so here, Daniel seems to see the possibility that the dream need not come true for Nebuchadnezzar, but could be reapplied by God to his enemies. Here we see the open nature of these prophecies; which is what makes it too simplistic and inappropriate to insist upon them having only one intended meaning and fulfilment.
</p>


text:
<p>The tree that you saw, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached to the sky, and its view to all the earth- "Which grew" translates the same Hebrew term translated "made [Daniel] a great man" (<a href='B:340 2:48'>Dan 2:48</a>). Daniel had eased himself out of that exaltation; whenever he was exalted, he seems to have slipped out of the limelight, for the next time he’s needed, he has to be searched for. But Nebuchadnezzar hadn’t yet learnt that true greatness is not in this life. "Height" is the same word used in <a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a> for how his heart was "lifted up"; as noted on :22, it was the state of his heart which was of such critical importance to God. And therefore the king uses it in :37 to say that now he extols or lifts up the one true God- rather than himself. To repent of pride is very difficult, and Nebuchadnezzar sets a great example- although it was only achieved by grace alone, and repeated Divine efforts and a huge abasement.</p>


text:
<p>Whose leaves were beautiful, and its fruit much, and in it was food for all; under which the animals of the field lived, and under whose branches the birds of the sky had their habitation- The similarities with imagery of God’s Kingdom are clear (<a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a>). On one level, Babylon was a pseudo kingdom of God with Nebuchadnezzar as a fake God and Messiah. But the similarities perhaps also point to how that if Nebuchadnezzar had repented and his people accepted his testimony about God’s Kingdom, his kingdom could have become part of the revived kingdom of God in Israel. The submission of all animal life to Nebuchadnezzar is after the pattern of Adam in Eden; and his pride led him to a fall after the pattern of Adam.</p>


text:
<p>It is you, O king, that has grown and become strong; for your greatness is grown, and reaches to the sky, and your dominion to the end of the earth- "Strong" is the word for "hard"; it is used again in <a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a> "his mind was hardened in pride". This prophecy about the king is therefore specifically about his heart; this is the essential nature and indicator of a person before God. Nebuchadnezzar’s empire was largely inherited, and even Babylon was glorious when he came to the throne; he rebuilt parts of it and made cosmetic improvements. So the astounding growth depicted here refers more to the growth of his own glory within his own proud mind. "It is you" focuses the interpretation upon Nebuchadnezzar as a person, but clearly the language of :20,21 is about his kingdom. He was his kingdom, just as the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus is within or amongst people; He is the One in view, the king is so identified with His Kingdom (<a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a>).</p><p>Dan. 4:22 LXX adds: "Your works were seen, how you ravaged the house of the living God pertaining to the sins of the sanctified people". See on Dan. 3:1.</p>


text:
<p>Whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from Heaven and saying, Cut down the tree, and destroy it; nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field, and let it be wet with the dew of the sky: and let his portion be with the animals of the field, until seven times pass over him- See on <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a>. "And destroy it" is added here; in contrast with how God’s Kingdom shall never be destroyed (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). Nebuchadnezzar had tried to deconstruct that image by making an entire image of gold. And yet the leaving of the stump in the earth showed that he could still have hope of life even after that.</p>


text:
<p>This is the interpretation, O king, and it is the decree of the Most High, which has come on my lord the king- This contrasts with :17 "the decree of the watchers"; the one and only Most High God is to be accepted rather than the king’s vague idea of Divine "Watchers". Again we see the Father’s patient efforts to spiritually educate this proud man whom we would likely not have bothered preaching to. "Which has come" reflects on one hand the prophetic perfect, that God's word is as good as done once spoken. And yet there is also a gap between the proclamation and the fulfilment, during which men like Nebuchadnezzar could repent and change the outcome of that apparently totally certain Divine word. We see these two movements or strands so clearly in this case of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel's appeal for him to repent. Indeed he was given 12 months to repent and change the outcome.</p>


text:
<p>That you shall be driven from men, and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field, and you shall be made to eat grass as oxen, and shall be wet with the dew of the sky, and seven times shall pass over you; until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will- The king was initially like a tree with all the animals of the field beneath him, and now he was to be made like one of them. Every sin is in some form an essential replication of that of Adam and Eve. They passed through the same. Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God involved recognizing that man is but as the beasts which perish, mortal and not immortal.  Only when he recognized that he didn't have a kingdom, was he given the kingdom again. Similar language is used of God's efforts to get Pharaoh to "know" Him (Ex. 7:5,17; 8:10; 9:29). We marvel at God's great efforts with men whom we would rather assume were not worth trying with. "Until you know that the Most High rules..." shows that there was a condition set upon the ending of this humiliation. And yet a time period of "seven times" was also mandated. But that time period was therefore also flexible, for the duration depended upon the king's humility or otherwise. </p>


text:
<p>Whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree; your kingdom shall be sure to you, after that you shall have known that the Heavens do rule- We are guided in understanding the meaning of the stump by <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>, which seems to be saying that a tree whose stump is left at least has the hope of sprouting again, which Job understood as meaning resurrection. Tree stumps are not usually bound with brass and iron; such bonds would not stop the tree sprouting again. The point is that the root was not removed. I suggest that Nebuchadnezzar was being taught that his earthly kingdom would indeed end and the kingdoms of brass and iron would play a part in that, as taught by the Daniel 2 image vision. But if he redefined his kingdom as the Kingdom of God, which is eternal, then his kingdom, which would beGod’s Kingdom when the kingdoms of this world become those of God (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>), would indeed be eternal. And there is every reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar was finally converted to this good news of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is only "made sure" to anyone by resigning our own kingdoms and making God’s Kingdom ours.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you, and break off your sins by righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if there may be a lengthening of your prosperity- The job of a magician or dream interpreter was not just to interpret the dream, but to then suggest rituals or sacrifices which would negate the negative parts of the dream. Daniel had been schooled in all this and exceled in knowledge of Babylonian magic rituals. But he speaks the truth, unpopular as it is- that the only reversal of this is through the king's personal humility and repentance.
</p><p>And yet Daniel does give Nebuchadnezzar some specifics as to how to reverse the curses. "Righteousness" is literally 'almsgiving'. But how can any act of righteousness or generosity to the poor somehow buy forgiveness? Possibly the idea is that sin is a debt. We are forgiven that debt by God, and our response is naturally to forgive others their debts to us. And to show grace to others as God showed to us. The Lord's parable of the forgiven debtors is clear about this. So although almsgiving and generosity to the poor cannot of themselves buy our forgiveness, it is also so that the man who has experienced forgiveness by grace will show that generosity of grace to others. The grace of all this is that Nebuchadnezzar refuses to repent and do what he can to put right his sins against Judah and the temple. He is punished, yet repents in that abasement. And is accepted. And yet Babylon was to be destroyed for desecrating the temple: "Gather the shields: the Lord has raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for His device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of His temple" (Jer. 50:28). But this was deferred, and didn't happen to Nebuchadnezzar. Because he repented and humbled himself.
</p><p>The prophecy about his humiliation need not have come true if he had repented; just as the statement that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days didn’t come true because of the Ninevites’ repentance. But like us, Nebuchadnezzar had to be an empirical learner, rather than humbling himself before the word of God and just obeying it. The "righteousness" and "mercy to the poor" may have specifically referred to his allowing the restoration of God’s Kingdom in the form of the kingdom of Judah. "Righteousness" is a favourite theme of Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration (<a href='B:290 45:8'>Isa 45:8</a>; <a href='B:290 54:14'>Isa 54:14</a>; <a href='B:290 56:1'>Isa 56:1</a>; <a href='B:290 63:1'>Isa 63:1</a> etc:). "Mercy to the poor" is the word used of how God would "favour" Zion at the restoration (<a href='B:230 102:13-14'>Psa 102:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 30:19'>Isa 30:19</a>). "The poor" is literally ’the afflicted ones’, a term used of Judah afflicted by the Babylonians (<a href='B:150 8:21'>Ezr 8:21</a>; <a href='B:290 60:14'>Isa 60:14</a>; <a href='B:310 5:11'>Lam 5:11</a>).</p><p>&nbsp;"Break off" is a term used of removing the yoke upon captive Judah (<a href='B:230 136:24'>Psa 136:24</a>; <a href='B:310 5:8'>Lam 5:8</a>; <a href='B:330 19:12'>Eze 19:12</a>); and "sins" may be an intensive plural for his one great sin, which was the holding of Judah in captivity. All this could be reversed by Nebuchadnezzar repenting of his pride, handing his kingdom over to Yahweh, and allowing the Jews to return and re-establish the Kingdom of God in Judah.</p><p>The allusion is surely to Dt. 17:20, which uses the equivalent Hebrew word to speak of how if the chosen king was obedient to God's word and had a humbled heart, he would "lengthen / prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children". Had Nebuchadnezzar humbled his heart, then his kingdom would have been prolonged and his children would have continued his dynasty. The language of the image in Dan. 2 need not have come true. Again we see the open, flexible nature of Bible prophecy. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:27), Solomon could have prolonged his days as king over Israel if he walked in the ways of David (1 Kings 3:14), which we are specifically told he did not. Seeing Solomon reigned 40 years, this promise of prolonged days surely implied supernaturally prolonged life, beyond usual human lifespans. Indeed the term is used of how the Lord Jesus "prolonged his days" eternally (Is. 53:10). Hence Solomon twice uses the word to speak of how wise rulers could prolong their reigns (Prov. 28:2,16). He surely has himself in view; but failed to realize this potential. Indeed he cynically uses the word in Ecc. 7:15; 8:12 in claiming that it is the wicked and not the obedient who have their days prolonged. </p>


text:
<p>All this came on the king Nebuchadnezzar- This is tantamount to saying that he did not accept Daniel’s plea for his repentance in :27.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of twelve months he was walking in the royal palace of Babylon- So often, God makes a statement of judgment, but there is a gap between the statement and the fulfilment. We all are located within that gap until we die. But there are specific matters over which we may be given a period of time to repent of. Nebuchadnezzar was given twelve months. And he didn’t. But there was a plan D for him still, involving serious humiliation. And it seems he responded to that. We have such things going on in our lives, although they are seen clearer in the lives of others. We think of the Lord giving the apostate "space to repent" which they declined (Rev. 2:21).</p>


text:
<p>The king spoke and said- These words may well have been simply his innermost thoughts. But as the Lord makes clear, the thoughts of the heart are read by God as our words. He apparently said or thought these things whilst viewing the city, so he would have been on a rooftop, the place of solace and meditation (cp. <a href='B:100 11:2'>2Sa 11:2</a>).</p><p>Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?- Nebuchadnezzar realized after his humbling that one of his reasons for pride had been due to him not realizing the extent to which the "great Babylon which (he) had built" and the Kingdom he had gained were&nbsp; in fact the total result of the work of the Angels; "He doeth according to His will in the army of Heaven (the Angels), and among the inhabitants of the earth" (:35). The bricks of ancient Babylon all have Nebuchadnezzar’s name on them. Pride in our own homes, or our kingdoms no matter how small or great in secular terms, can be the same essential sin. A sense of God’s majesty and power is essential if we are to avoid this temptation to glorify our own power and apparent majesty. And much of that apparent majesty is anyway in our own eyes only, as it was for Nebuchadnezzar; for Babylon was already great when he became king, and all he did was to rebuild parts of it and make cosmetic improvements.</p><p>An inscription from the period of Nebuchadnezzar records him saying: "I have made Babylon, the holy city, the glory of the great gods, more prominent than before, and have promoted its rebuilding. I have caused the sanctuaries of gods and goddesses to lighten up like the day. No king among all the kings has ever created, no earlier king has ever built, what I have magnificently built for Marduk. I have furthered to the utmost the equipment of Esagila (the great temple of Marduk), and the renovation of Babylon more than had ever been done before". His building of Babylon was therefore directly related to his continued idolatry and rejection of Yahweh, despite all he had been shown and taught earlier.</p>


text:
<p>While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from Heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken- The 'falling' of the voice from Heaven surely connects with the Angels 'coming down from heaven' (:23 "Whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from Heaven and saying, Cut down the tree..."). The Angels and the word are connected. God's word is operationalized by the Angels who watch over its fulfilment 'coming down' from the court of Heaven to fulfil it, given the fulfilment of preconditions here on earth. In this case, the precondition was Nebuchadnezzar's failure to repent after a 12 month period.
</p><p>See on <a href='B:680 2:10'>2Pe 2:10</a>. I suggested on :30 that his statement may have been simply in his own heart, but it was counted as being a word in his mouth by the God who considers thoughts to be words. His word and the Divine word are here contrasted.</p><p>The kingdom hasdeparted from you- The same word is used of how the Daniel 2 image vision meant that God "removed" (s:w. "departed") kings, including Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>; <a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan 7:12</a>). He ought to have continued believing in that Divine word; but he had to be brought to accept it through this deep humiliation, when he could have avoided that by simply accepting God’s word as it is. And it’s the same for us. This is why attitude to God’s word, rather than simply reading it, is so critically important in human life. It is why acceptance that the Bible is the inspired word of God has such endless implications in human life. We note however the flexibility of interpretation. The kingdom "has departed". But by the end of the chapter, it was restored. According to Dan. 2:21, Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was to be removed. And it was, for "seven times", until he repented and then he claims that again "I was established in my kingdom, and excellent greatness was added to me" (:36). The tree of Nebuchadnezzar was cut down but the stump was left, with the hope of rising again. The same figure is used in Is. 6:11-13 of how the stump of the cut down tree of Judah could still sprout after the exile: "The holy seed is its stump".  Although his could speak of future resurrection at the last day, surely the idea was that the apparently inevitable removal of Nebuchadnezzar, according to Dan. 2:21, could in fact be ameliorated, delayed or even reversed. For even he had freewill, and the prophecy of his destruction didn't have to come true for him. His comment that God "sets up over it the most abased of men" (:17) may mean that he considered that he had been abased and had now been exalted to rule over God's kingdom. We are left wondering what exactly was Nebuchadnezzar's status before God at this time. The unclarity is surely because there were potentials which Nebuchadnezzar could have achieved, but didn't completely.</p>


text:
<p>And you shall be driven from men; and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field; you shall be made to eat grass as oxen- All beasts of the field had been given to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27:5,6; Dan. 2:37,38), and he as the tree provided food for them. But he is now made as a beast of the field. He is made to feel how his subjects felt. His kingship was thus taken from him. But this is also part of our humanization, our being made 'men' as God intended- being made to feel how we have made others feel. But a lion [as Nebuchadnezzar is presented in Dan. 7:3] eating like an ox is absolutely the language of the Kingdom prophecies in Is. 11:7; 65:25 ["the lion shall eat straw like the ox"]. His conversion was a foretaste of Kingdom living. And we could also consider that there is a hint here that the Kingdom of God in some form could have been re-established at that time. We noted above that this is the significance of the king being left with stump and root, out of which a sprig could shoot forth- the language of Messiah, and also in Is. 11.
</p><p>The AV translates this as if it was the "men" who would make him eat grass. In this case, we have implied humiliation at the hands of his own courtiers, rather than simply an illness. This seems confirmed by <a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a>, which speaks of his glory being taken from him.</p><p>And seven times shall pass over you; until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will- "Times" in Daniel can mean a year, but in other places, simply a period of time. It could have been seven days, months or some other period. Nebuchadnezzar had been taught that God rules over the kingdoms of men and would in due course subsume them into His Kingdom. He had momentarily accepted that at the end of Daniel 2. But that understanding of the Gospel of the Kingdom was but theoretical and transient. He had to be taught the personal truth of it by humiliation. But that could have been avoidable had he accepted God’s word through Daniel in his heart.</p>


text:
<p>The same hour was the thing fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and ate grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the sky, until his hair was grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws- This could have been the medical condition known as insania zoanthropica, but it seems more likely that it was a uniquely designed punishment with the aim in view of eliciting his repentance. The dew was "from heaven", as if to point out that God was in all this, seeking to bring Nebuchadnezzar unto Himself. Or we could have here a case of lycanthropy, "in which the sufferer retains his consciousness in other respects, but imagines himself to be changed into some animal and acts... in conformity to that persuasion". The description of Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation is surely framed in the language of the story of Ahiqar, which was popular at the time. "It is the tale of a wise man of the court who is framed by a treacherous nephew for treason against his king and is forced to hide in a pit. After a period of time, he is needed again by the kingdom and so is sought by the king. Ahiqar recounts that when the king opens the "prison", "I ascended and came and fell before the king; the hair of my head had grown down on my shoulders, and my nails were grown long like an eagle's". The message to the king was that "You're going to become like Ahiqar in the famous story". And so it happened.
</p><p>The description of Nebuchadnezzar here exactly fits the appearance of Enkidu, in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Enkidu was transformed from a "man of nature" into "a man of culture". Nebuchadnezzar surely knew this story, and the point was made that the true civilized man or "man of culture" is one humbled before the one true God. That is the true and only ultimate culture. Nebuchadnezzar as the apex of "culture" was shown to have been but a "man of nature", a wild cave man. 
</p>


text:
<p>At the end of the days- The "seven times". "Times" need not refer to years, it could be literal days or any period.</p><p>I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to heaven- This is the language of prayerful repentance. He lifts his eyes to heaven because he recognizes "the God of heaven" (:37) as opposed to the various idols of Babylon which were located in temples on earth.</p><p>And my understanding returned to me- The only true understanding is that we are as beasts and God’s Kingdom is over all. It "returned to me" in that he returned to the humility before God which he had momentarily had after the Daniel 2 image vision and after Daniel’s explanation of his latest dream 12 months previously. Nebuchadnezzar had earlier recognized that Daniel was the one with "understanding" (<a href='B:340 1:4'>Dan 1:4</a>; <a href='B:340 1:17'>Dan 1:17</a>; <a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>; <a href='B:340 5:12'>Dan 5:12</a> s:w:). It’s as if he was saying that he had once accepted Daniel’s "understanding", which was God’s understanding- that he was only the head of gold, and his kingdom would pass away and ultimately be subsumed within God’s Kingdom. And now he again accepted that, his earlier humility and "understanding" of a moment returned to him permanently. "Understanding" or 'knowledge' is the same word used in :32 for how he had to be humbled until he 'knew' that the Most High rules. Now he did 'know' or 'understand' that. But he says this understanding returned to him. Again we see how we may perceive things very clearly at one point, but pride and the passage of life can cloud them to the point that we have to re-learn them. The art of the spiritual life is to live with that knowledge and let the word abide in us. Nebuchadnezzar's 'knowledge' was not only of God's abiding eternity, but also of what it means to be human. For surely his humiliation and rising again is referred to in Dan. 7:4, where he is presented as a lion which “was lifted up from the ground and made to stand upon two feet like a man; and the mind of a man was given to it”. He, the proud man, the man who stamped lions on the bricks used to build "this great Babylon", had to become an animal in order to be transformed from an animal into a man as God intended. Being humbled is in fact to become a man, humanity as we are intended to be. He was the lion who became a man. To truly show yourself a man, to be the humanity that God intended, is to be humbled before your God; and not to preen yourself as if you are a lion. Is. 57:15 seems strangely relevant to him: "For thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy; ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite'". Nebuchadnezzar started as a man, but was made as an animal, so that he might become "a human" again, but man as God intended: "Let his mind be changed from that of a human, and let the mind of an animal be given to him" (:16).͟ But Dan. 7 presents Nebuchadnezzar before his conversion as an animal; a lion with eagles' wings. The 'human mind' he then had was in fact that of an animal. Those wings are plucked and he is given a man's heart- he is transformed from an animal to a man; a true man. The first beast of Dan. 7 was "lifted up from the ground" so it could stand on two feet as a man. No longer a four footed lion. 
</p><p>Nebuchadnezzar in his days of madness would have been similar to a middle aged man in a psychiatric ward, sectioned and identifying as an animal, with wild frightened eyes and a diagnosis well beyond any human cure through therapy or medication. Yet the power of the Holy Spirit is such that in this case, such a person had a spiritual awareness deep within them. And when this was responded to, God did the greatest psychological miracle of the Old Testament. He healed that tormented mind, and made that man the world's most powerful ruler. And despite the man's awful sins and blasphemy, God sanctified and eternally saved him. We have for all time a parade example of how God can psychologically transform a person and save them. Human psychology and psychiatry never totally cured anyone. At best a few symptoms were partially relieved. No psychotropic medication, no course of therapy, can radically transform. Only God's Spirit can. And here we have the parade example. 
</p><p>And I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him who lives forever; for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom from generation to generation- Now finally he accepts the truth of the image vision of <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>. If he had accepted it more deeply and from the heart at the time, he wouldn’t have needed to be so humiliated in order to learn its truth on a personal level. We too need to convert our Sunday School Christianity, or our previous acceptance of the Gospel of God’s Kingdom, into deep personal reality. If we won’t do so, still proudly seeking to build up our own kingdoms, then we too shall be humbled in a desperate Divine attempt to help us accept the truth of His Kingdom so that we might enjoy it eternally.</p>


text:
<p>All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing- This is not to say that God doesn’t value the human person. Nebuchadnezzar had proudly reflected that all the peoples of the "earth" which he knew were under his control. But that, he now realized, was nothing.</p><p>And He does according to His will in the army of heaven- The apparently invincible Babylonian army, through which Nebuchadnezzar had attained his empire, were nothing compared to the Angelic army of Yahweh of hosts.</p><p>And among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or ask Him, What are You doing?-Nebuchadnezzar’s image of gold had been an attempt to stay God’s hand, to stop him as the head of gold being deposed and taken over by others. Now he more deeply accepted the truth which he had briefly perceived after Daniel had explained it to him in Daniel 2. The same word for "stay" is used of how the stone "smote" the image and ground all of it to powder, including Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom (<a href='B:340 2:34-35'>Dan 2:34-35</a>).</p><p>All Nebuchadnezzar's statements are in fact repeating God's words from already existent Bible texts. Surely more happened here than meets the eye; Daniel maybe spoke to him in far more detail than is recorded. “All the inhabitants of the earth are considered nothing” is Is. 40:17 (“All the nation are like nothing before him; they are regarded as worthless and less than nothing by him”); “according to His will, he does with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth” is Ps. 115:3 (“Our God is in heaven; whatever He pleases, He does” and Ps. 135:6 “Whatever pleases Yahweh He does, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all the depths”); “There is no one who strikes His hand and says to Him, ‘What have you done?’” is Job 9:12 (“Who can say to [God], ‘What are you doing?’” and Job 42:2 “I know that You can do everything; no purpose of Yours can be thwarted”).</p>


text:
<p>At the same time my understanding returned to me- See on :34.</p><p>And the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and brightness returned to me; and my officials and my lords sought to me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent greatness was added to me- His kingdom was returned or restored to him. The message was that he was an example to the Jews. Their kingdom likewise could be restored, in line with the restoration prophecies. But like Nebuchadnezzar, they had to repent and be humbled.</p><p>There is no historical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar in his final years became even greater and more glorious than when he proudly strutted the rooftop admiring great Babylon which he had built. Having committed his kingdom and glory to God’s Kingdom and glory, it would read rather strangely if in fact he then regained all his secular glory. I suggest that he is now reframing his understanding of glory and majesty. The glory we have, and which he had, was to be with the Lord God, on the side of His Kingdom and prophetic program. The AV offers: "And for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me". The idea would be that instead of secular glory, he had the glory of knowing God in truth. The return of "my understanding", which as noted on :34 referred to his understanding of God’s ways, is paralleled with the return of his glory. But his glory was in that he now knew God in the sense of having relationship with him. There is a strong appropriacy of <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a> to Nebuchadnezzar: "Thus says Yahweh, Don’t let the mighty man glory in his might, don’t let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, says Yahweh". The "excellent greatness" that he felt had been added to him was therefore in reference to God’s grace, rather than any reference to secular things. The original seems to mean "the pre-eminent, ultimate" greatness; and he now realized that the ultimate exaltation was to walk humbly with your God and have the hope of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honour the King of heaven; for all His works are truth, and His ways justice; and those who walk in pride He is able to abase- "Extol" is literally ’to lift up’, the same word used of how previously he had lifted himself up rather than God (see on :20). He openly accepts his pride and appropriate abasement. His acceptance of Yahweh as the ultimate King, rather than himself or his previous god Bel, was effectively a resignation of his own kingship and kingdom to Yahweh. He finally learns the truth God tried to teach him through the three friends, when they stated that their God "was able" to deliver. And Nebuchadnezzar at that time, for a moment, recognized that no god was 'able to save' like Israel's God. Now he recognizes that this same God is "able to abase". For Him to be "able to save" He has to be "able to abase" because it is only, as Peter puts it, by being humbled beneath His mighty hand that we can be exalted in due time. Like Nebuchadnezzar, we are taught these things and learn them and accept them for a moment; but often have to be painfully re-taught them so that they become a permanent fixture in our personalities. And thus the word becomes flesh in us, as it was supremely in the Lord.
</p><p>And so the Nebuchadnezzar who abused God's people [just read Lamentations], desecrated the temple, blasphemously tried to upend the vision of Daniel 2 by making an image of himself all of gold... will, it seems to me, finally be saved. We marvel at God's grace to save literally anyone- if they humble themselves. In contrast, it was pride which led to the Jews and their leadership and kings being condemned as they proudly refused all Jeremiah's multiple entreaties to them. And their abuser Nebuchadnezzar did humble himself and presumably will therefore be saved in the end. He had exalted and abased people at will: "Whom he would he set up, and whom he would he abased" (Dan. 5:19). He "became proud, stubborn, and cruel" (GNB). But he concludes his witness to the world by saying that in fact it is God who 'sets up' those who have been abased. And he is the parade example. He had been taught in Dan. 2 that God sets up, and he himself had exalted the abased Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. But until now he never really 'got it'.
</p>


text:
<p>Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand- Belshazzar was the effective king of Babylon whilst Nabonidus was in north Africa. Belshazzar means "Bel Protect the King", and he clearly believed that Bel would protect Babylon even with the Medes approaching- and he believed this to the extent of recklessly feasting with the Medes outside the gates. Again, we find the historical accounts in Daniel to be deconstructions of the supposed power of the Babylonian gods, who are revealed as powerless before Yahweh’s purpose; just as the dream of Daniel 2 had depicted. The feast was likely an annual religious festival, and Cyrus / Darius planned the attack at precisely that time. Again, we see the victory as being a victory specifically against the guardian gods of Babylon. The destruction of Babylon whilst feasting was specifically foretold (<a href='B:290 21:4-5'>Isa 21:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 50:24'>Jer 50:24</a>; <a href='B:300 51:39'>Jer 51:39</a>; <a href='B:300 51:57'>Jer 51:57</a>).</p><p>Quite possibly this feast was to celebrate his coronation. The usage of the temple vessels may even have been an intentional mocking of Jeremiah's prophecy that these would return to Zion after 70 years. He was exalting his gods over Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels- "While he tasted..." is really 'under the power of [the wine]'. It refers to the command given by the king in Dan. 3:10, 29; 4:6; 6:26. The wine is commanding him, rather than he being in command. Yet still he is condemned for the behaviour arising from it, because even drunken behaviour was seen by God in this case as a fair reflection of the true state of his heart.</p><p>This was a conscious act of blasphemy. The God of Israel had foretold in Daniel 2 that Babylon would be taken over by another empire; and Jeremiah had made it clear in the previous generation that although Babylon would take Jerusalem, Babylon would also fall to her enemies (<a href='B:300 50:28'>Jer 50:28</a> etc:). Belshazzar seems to have been aware of this, and with enemy armies outside the gates, he trusts in his god to preserve him and mocks Yahweh. He was turning the table of Yahweh into the table of Bel and the gods supposed to preserve Babylon. In essence we commit the same sin if we turn the Lord’s table into our table, in glorification of our own religion and worldview.</p><p>Which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink from them- The miserable critics point out that Belshazzar’s father was the usurper Nabuna’id [Nabonidus]. But "father" simply means ’ancestor’ in practice, and could refer to Nebuchadnezzar as his grandfather (as in <a href='B:10 28:13'>Gen 28:13</a>; <a href='B:10 32:9'>Gen 32:9</a>), which he could have been, if Nabuna’id had Belshazzar through one ofNebuchadnezzar’s daughters. Indeed this would appear a likely and logical way for Nabuna’id to enforce his claim to the throne and establish his dynasty. That Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by <a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a>: "All the nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar) and his son, and his son’s son until the very time of his land come". But father-son relationships were presented at the time in a far less specific sense than the terms are used today.</p><p>Drinking from the temple vessels was an act of blasphemy that warranted death, according to the law of his father / ancestor Nebuchadnezzar: "Any people, nation, or language that utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins” (Dan. 3:29). His praising “the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (Dan. 5:4) clearly alludes to all the metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Dan. 2 which were to be destroyed.  Babylon fell because of their attitude to the temple: "Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the Lord has raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for His device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of His temple" (Jer. 50:28).
Nebuchadnezzar had desecrated the temple but it seems he was forgiven and humbled himself before Yahweh. Belshazzar didn't continue that spirit but continued to desecrate the temple through his blasphemous use of the temple vessels. And this clearly enough triggered his destruction, and that of Babylon.
</p>


text:
<p>Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of God’s house which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them- "The temple of God’s house" means not generally ’the temple’ ["God’s house"] but specifically the holy and most holy place. There would not have been many "golden vessels" there; just those used for pouring out the blood on the day of atonement. They would therefore have passed these vessels between them all, as they all drunk from them (:23), rather like a mock communion service. It was very deep blasphemy. It seems that the golden candlestick from the holy place was also present (:5). They were pretending that their table of drunken revelry was the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple.</p>


text:
<p>They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone- They were imitating the worship of Yahweh (see on :3), and replacing Him with their gods. The golden vessels were now see as part of the paraphernalia of the worship of their golden gods. Gold, silver, brass, iron and a little stone all feature in the vision of Daniel 2. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar tried to say that the vision was wrong and he as the golden head was going to be the entire image. So here, they were saying that their gods of those same metals were the true gods and that the image was really just a composite of their gods, with the king of Babylon as the eternal head of it.</p><p>We note the changed order of the metals in :23: "the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone". Silver is placed before gold because the Babylonian empire has effectively been replaced by the Medes, the silver. These metals are all those of the image in Dan. 2, the implication being that the image was also an idol, and all those metals were to pass away. Although they were acting as if they wouldn't ever pass and those metals were under their control. They failed to learn from Nebuchadnezzar's history of making a golden image of himself to try to deny that those other metals would ever take over from him.
The Nabonidus Chronicle, in its entry for Nabonidus' 17th (and final) year describes the transfer of gods into the city of Babylon in order to by all means protect them from the onslaught of the Medo-Persians. The Chronicle records how afterwards, Cyrus ordered these gods to be returned to their home cities: "From the month of Kislimu to the month of Addaru, the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had made come down to Babylon... returned to their sacred cities." 
</p>


text:
<p>In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote opposite the lampstand- This candlestick may have been the one taken from the holy place of the Jerusalem temple; as noted on :3, they were pretending that their table of drunken revelry was the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple.</p><p>On the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace- Literally, "the chalk"; and this was exactly how the palace walls unearthed in Nineveh appear to have been constructed.</p><p>And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote- "The palm". I will suggest on :8 that the hand covered the writing, and only Daniel could as it were make the Angelic hand move to reveal it (:24). This would explain the confusion between the palm and the fingers which wrote.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s appearance changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; the joints of his thighs were loosened, and his knees struck one against another- This is the picture of a man facing Divine judgment. We should all be there; the wonder is that for us, as Paul explains in Romans, we are there, but then saved from it by grace through Christ. And it is the picture of the middle eastern world, and indeed the whole planet, on the eve of Divine judgment (<a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a>).</p><p>We have a powerful word picture of the king. The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in upon him. His colour changed, his thoughts visibly troubled him; his limbs gave way ['his loins were untied'] and his knees knocked together (Dan. 5:6 RSV). Literally, 'the knots of his loins were loosened / untied'. This is quite typical human reaction to extreme fear, experienced e.g. when men come under fire for the first time. I suggest the loosening of his loins meant that his bowels opened. He was reduced to a pathetic figure, he who had just been drunkenly blaspheming Yahweh's temple vessels. But the very same word for loosening / untying is found a few verses later, where Daniel is presented as the one who can untie knots, although the term is usually translated to the effect "solve problems" (Dan. 5:12,16). The irony is that the king's knots have already been untied... and by Daniel's God. The king calls for Daniel and says to him "I have heard that you can... solve problems (untie / loosen knots)" . Continence of the bowel, bladder and anus is controlled by the sphincter muscle. It is like a knot which closes off our urine and stool. The Greek word 'sphincter' means literally a knot. These things are a clear fulfilment of Is. 45:1 RSV: "Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed". This is incidental confirmation that Cyrus and "Darius" [unknown to secular history] were the same person. The opening of the city gates and the opening of the king of Babylon's bowels stand related. There is then an obvious irony in the way that the king, whose bowels have already been untied by his fear of the Divine word, then asks Daniel to open / untie the knot for him. But it has already happened. As so often, man subconsciously knows the truth of God's word even before it is explained to him. Just as Nebuchadnezzar surely understood the dream of himself as a tree that was to be cut down. The interpretation was obvious to him, surely, even before Daniel stated the obvious to him.</p>


text:
<p>The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whoever shall read this writing, and show me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom- It was the job description of the wise men to interpret such things; to offer them huge reward for doing their job indicates not only the king’s desperation, but also the tacit recognition that usually they could not really accurately interpret such things. History was of course repeating, for this was the very scene of Daniel 2, when the image vision was interpreted as meaning that Babylon too must pass over to others. Belshazzar should have perceived the similarities, and called for Daniel immediately. Again we note the similarities with Joseph (<a href='B:10 41:42'>Gen 41:42</a>), who would have been a great role model for Daniel. We too will find such role models in the Bible as we face our various life experiences.  We note too the similarities with the situation in Dan. 2. Belshazzar demands the writing be both read and interpretted. It's possible that only the king saw what was written ["the king saw the hand that was writing"]; :8 notes that the wise men could neither read nor interpret the writing. Likewise Daniel both recalled and interpreted the vision of Dan. 2, and it seems the same is repeated here. He first read the writing (:25) and then interpreted it (:26). Again, circumstances repeat.</p>


text:
<p>Then came in all the king’s wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor reveal to the king the interpretation- As noted on :7, this is a conscious repetition of the scene in Daniel 2. But Belshazzar failed to respond appropriately. Perhaps they couldn’t read the writing because the Angelic hand was covering it, and only Daniel had the power to remove that hand (:24). They could not read the writing perhaps because they couldn't see it. It was only the king who saw the Angelic hand and what was written. Only Daniel knew and saw the writing. Indeed it could  be understood that the king here is seeing a dream, as in Dan. 2; and as with Nebuchadnezzar, his dream is but his own premonitions of his own inevitable fall.</p>


text:
<p>Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his appearance was changed, and his lords were perplexed- <a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a> appears to allude here. The king was on the eve of God’s judgment, and he knew it. Why be so worried about what could have been shrugged off as an optical illusion? He was after all quite drunk. We see in this matter evidence enough that even the most hardened blasphemers have a conscience, somewhere deep down. This should encourage us to never consider anyone not worth witnessing to. There is a gap in every heart and psyche which only the gospel of God’s Kingdom can satisfy. We were wired that way. The description is that of Nebuchadnezzar when he realized that the three Jewish friends were being preserved in the fire by an Angel (<a href='B:340 3:24'>Dan 3:24</a>), and of Nebuchadnezzar when he saw the revelation of his own downfall (<a href='B:340 4:5'>Dan 4:5</a>). The historical incidents in Daniel all share such points of commonality, to demonstrate the same Divine hand in the affairs of men. He works according to a similar imprint and hallmark. And that continues to this day. It is why we can look back upon our lives and see that they make sense. "Appearance" is the same original word translated "brightness"; Nebuchadnezzar’s appearance was likewise changed but he repented, and it changed back to how it previously was (<a href='B:340 4:36'>Dan 4:36</a>). But Belshazzar would not repent. He failed to learn from history. The same word is used of the bright appearance of the image in <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>, which was to be changed and brought to nothing. Time and again, we see the basic truth of that image revealed in the immediate history of those times.</p>


text:
<p>Now the queen because of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: the queen spoke and said, O king, live forever; don’t let your thoughts trouble you, nor let your appearance be changed- This may refer to the king’s mother, the queen mother, hence she is mentioned separately to his wives in :2,3. As noted on :2, this would then refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, who would therefore have remembered Daniel’s interpretations.</p>


text:
<p>There is a man in your kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. The king Nebuchadnezzar your father, the king, I say, your father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothsayers- The history of Daniel and his interpretations was therefore well known, although Belshazzar had put it out of his mind, even though he knew Daniel and employed him as one of his workers (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a>; <a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan 8:27</a>). We too can put inconvenient truth far from our minds instead of recalling it to mind and being humbled by it unto repentance. We note her laboured emphasis of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was his ancestor, which may have been counted on the basis that she was a daughter or granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. She was aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance and perhaps hoped that Belshazzar would likewise humble himself.</p>


text:
<p>Because an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, the interpreting of dreams, and revealing of strange messages, solving of problems and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation- Daniel was still working for Belshazzar and was therefore known (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a>; <a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan 8:27</a>). The way he is spoken of as being somewhat distant and unknown therefore suggests he had been ousted from the ranks of the dream interpreters, or had removed himself from them, and was working for the king in a different capacity. We too may need to remove ourselves from situations where we are in a conflict of conscience, even if it means a loss of power and kudos.</p><p>"Solving of problems" is literally 'untying of knots', see on :6.</p>


text:
<p>Then was Daniel brought in before the king. The king spoke and said to Daniel, Are you that Daniel, who are of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Judah?- Possibly the palm of God's hand was over the inscription until Daniel arrived. And when he arrived the palm was withdrawn. "Brought in before the king" is yet another connection with the Joseph story. Time and again, Daniel was nudged to see the similarities, so that he might act like faithful Joseph.</p><p> We must remember that Belshazzar knew Daniel and employed him (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a>; <a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan 8:27</a>). "Are you that Daniel…?" doesn’t have to mean that Belshazzar didn’t know or recognize him; it is similar to Saul enquiring who David was after the victory over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:55-56'>1Sa 17:55-56</a>), and David enquiring who Bathsheba was, when she was his next door neighbour and wife of his loyal friend Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>). To enquire who someone was must be read as a Semitic literary device, and not literally. The idea was in all these examples: ’I want you to do something for me and serve me as I ask you’.</p>


text:
<p>I have heard of you, that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you- The wise man all claimed that they could interpret dreams because they possessed "the spirit of the gods". But their failure meant that they were charlatans, or that in fact the gods of Babylon whom they were so strongly trusting in that evening were not in fact the true God. God so often leads men to situations where they are forced to jettison their myths and favoured beliefs, and accept His truth. But in the final analysis, Belshazzar still would not do this.</p>


text:
<p>Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and tell me its interpretation; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing- As noted on :14, this was a tacit admission that the gods were not in fact in touch with Belshazzar and his courtiers. But as explained on :1 and :2, they were desperately trusting those gods to deliver them from the armies outside the city walls. God was nudging Belshazzar towards total repentance, but he resisted, although accepting the theoretical truth of Daniel’s interpretation.</p>


text:
<p>But I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations, and dissolve problems; now if you can read the writing, and tell me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom- As noted on :17, that kingdom was about to fall. All such rewards would be only for a few more hours at the most. Perhaps the "third ruler" meant being one of the three rulers of Dan 249, who had once been comprised of Daniel’s friends. It’s as if the king was promising to return the Jews to the places from which they had been deposed. But such symbolic repentance was too little and too late now.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel answered before the king, Let your gifts be to yourself, and give your rewards to another- Unlike the queen mother, Daniel noticeably doesn't address the king with the customary "O king, live for ever". He does use this term to Nebuchadnezzar and Darius (Dan. 6:21). But in this case, he knew and believed Belshazzar's day to die had come. He had been so nervous in telling Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of the cut down tree; here he exudes confidence from the vision of God's word, even just a few words, which he saw inscribed on the wall, illuminated for all to see by the candlestick. We too can have every boldness and confidence in knowing the ultimate future of man's glory, according to God's word.</p><p>This was said not only because Daniel didn’t want to again be in a position where his conscience to God would be hopelessly compromised. He knew from Daniel 2 and from the writing on the wall that the kingdom of Belshazzar was about to fall. To be made third ruler in that kingdom for just a few more moments was not what anyone wanted. Daniel would have been aware of <a href='B:290 13:15'>Isa 13:15</a>, which in the context of the fall of Babylon had warned: "he that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword". As it happened, the honours were forced upon Daniel, but God recognized that this was not Daniel’s will. We too may find ourselves promoted to situations we would rather not be in, and God understands that. It is for us like Daniel to seek to remove ourselves from those situations as best we can.</p><p>Nevertheless I will read the writing to the king, and tell him the interpretation- The difference between reading and interpreting it would suggest that the writing was in an alphabet unknown to the king; perhaps it was in Hebrew.  Perhaps the lack of vowel points made it impossible to read and understand; or quite likely the king was illiterate, as most monarchs were in those times.</p>


text:
<p>As for you, O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty- To call Yahweh the most high was in direct criticism of the mockery of Yahweh and glorification of the Babylonian gods which had been going on. Daniel could well have been executed for this, but like Joseph and Samuel before him, he spoke forth God’s truth as he had done in Daniel 2 and Daniel 4.</p><p>We note that Nebuchadnezzar is repeatedly called the father of Belshazzar (:22 especially). This wasn't strictly the case. But I suggested on Dan. 2 that the image prophecy had an initial possible fulfilment in the immediate dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, ending in Belshazzar. This would explain why Belshazzar is described as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar when he was a descendant but not his literal son. "Son" can legitimately be used of any descendant. We also note the opinion of several scholars that "Belshazzar" was Nebuchadnezzar's son Evil Merodach.</p>


text:
<p>And because of the greatness that He gave him, all the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he killed, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down- This is all the language of Yahweh Himself. But these possibilities were all given to Nebuchadnezzar by God. He had such power in order to make him later reflect that indeed, such Divine possibilities could only have been given him by God. Our experiences of exaltation are used likewise. We may reflect: ’How could I have ever... passed that exam, held that job down, done that or this’. The experiences are given so that we may realize that it was all of God, and be humbled; but if we fail to make that realization, then we end up proud and playing God.
 Nebuchadnezzar had raised up and abused / put down people; he had this same experience, and from his abasing he was lifted up. How we treat others is so often how God treats us. It is therefore imperative to forgive and seek to save others especially those who sin against us. For we too sin against others and against God...</p>


text:
<p>But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he became proud, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him- The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was from God. Here too, the psychological attitudes of Nebuchadnezzar were confirmed by God. The spirit of God works in this way, confirming our spirit. Which is why our spirit, our mind, our deepest inner heart, is so significant. For God confirms us in it. Pride is a hardening of the spirit or the heart / mind. "They took his glory from him" would confirm what we suggested on <a href='B:340 4:32'>Dan 4:32</a>, that Nebuchadnezzar’s own courtiers robbed him of his glory rather than nursing him through a psychological illness.</p>


text:
<p>And he was driven from men, and his heart was made like an animal’s, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the sky; until he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and that He sets up over it whomsoever He will- The humiliation was "until" he recognized the truth of the Daniel 2 image vision. But the prophecy of Daniel 4 had been that he would be in this humbled situation for a period of "seven times". We noted there that "times" is undefined; it could have referred to seven days, periods of time, weeks or years. In this sense God’s time periods are open ended and capable of redefinition. And of course Nebuchadnezzar didn’t have to repent; repentance had to be from the heart, of his choice. The "seven times" prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar could have been falsified by his refusal to repent, and we will see something similar in later time periods in Daniel regarding Israel’s repentance, especially in the prophecy of the sevens in Daniel 9. This is how we can have a sense of excitement with God as we read His words and consider the open ended possibilities which stretch before us.</p>The implication is that he did 'know' or learn this. He was converted, in the end. 


text:
<p>You, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this- We are intended to learn from the experiences of others, both contemporary with us and as recorded in the Bible. As noted on <a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a>, the Jews of the Lord’s day were held guilty for not repenting when they saw the example of prostitutes and tax collectors repenting. We may not be humbled ourselves as Nebuchadnezzar was, but if we see others humbled, then we are expected to take the lesson and humble ourselves. The experiences of those around us are therefore not random, but brought into our lives by God so that we might learn from them. And we are held responsible for our response to them. This has very far reaching practical consequence, and gives an urgency and significance to social life of an altogether different dimension to what most experience.</p><p>We note that Daniel scolds the king for his arrogance, and seems fearless in pronouncing his fall and almost laughing off the offer of being 'third ruler' in an empire that was literally about to fall. This contrasts with his nervousness to tell the same kind of message to Nebuchadnezzar. It is the kind of confidence he had as a young man explaining the Daniel 2 image to Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps this is an example of the ebb and flow of faith and confidence in every believer. Or it could be that Daniel was so persuaded of the truth of the message that he fearlessly states that truth, knowing the empire was literally about to fall. </p>


text:
<p>But have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which don’t see, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose hand your breath is, and whose are all your ways, you have not glorified- Realizing the basic truths about our nature, that we are not our own, that our fragile breath is in God’s hands, with nothing inherently immortal within us, and that our ways are "His" in that they are known to Him... will lead us to humility and repentance. All true theology must have its issue in practice. "The God, in whose hand your breath (spirit) is" was language which pointed to how the same Angelic hand&nbsp; had written on the wall.</p>


text:
<p>Then was the part of the hand sent from before him, and this writing was inscribed- I have explained on :5 and :8 that the hand wrote the words and then the palm of that Angelic hand covered the words. Only Daniel had the power to remove that Angelic hand. Note that this was an inscription, hence the earlier mention of the writing being on the plaster; and the idea of an inscription is that it is for public view. It was inscribed on the wall next to the candlestick, so it was as it were illuminated. It's hard to see what other significance there is in the mention of the candlestick. Surely the idea was that the courtiers and all present should have accepted the message and surrendered to the Medes and Persians they knew were besieging them. Just as Zedekiah should have surrendered to the Babylonians besieging him. But they failed to learn the lesson from the circumstances repeating their own history, and likewise pride stopped them from repenting and surrendering. And so their city fell and their king likewise fell. </p>


text:
<p>MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN- This could be rendered: "There is counted a mina, a shekel, and two half minas"; for justification of the translation, see R:H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel p. 135. "Mene" is the word used for counting or numbering. This has more obvious connection with the interpretation of the words given in :26-28. The mina would then refer to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (a 50th part of a mina) to Belshazzar, who was found of little weight or account; and the two half minas would then refer to the Medes and Persians. Indeed the word "upharsin" in Aramaic sounds like "and the Persians". The repetition of the word "mene", "numbered", is another connection with the dream which Joseph interpreted for another king; it was stated twice because the fulfilment was so certain and would begin fulfilment immediately (<a href='B:10 41:32'>Gen 41:32</a>). As noted on :26-28, the original text carries the implication that these things were immediately happening. But Belshazzar only theoretically accepted that, by still trying to promote Daniel within his already ended kingdom. Some texts read just one "mene", and there is only one "mene" referred to in the interpretation in :26. The words refer to weights- a minah (60 shekels), a tsekel or one shekel, and upharsin, two half shekel pieces, referring initially to the Medes and Persians. This makes a total of 62 shekels- the age of Darius when he took the kingdom (:31).</p><p>The explanation of the handwriting on the wall is initially hard for readers to understand, because it is unclear whether the words are being read or interpreted. When we read that "Peres" means that the kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians, we are surely not to understand that that is what the word "Peres" means as a word. That surely is the interpretation. My suggestion is that the handwriting consisted of the nine letters mn'tqlprs, which can be read as three words of three consonant letters each. Daniel gives three interpretations of each word. Depending which vowels are placed in each word, different words [vocalizations] can be formed with different meanings. And this is the key to how Daniel arrives at the interpretations. He doesn't so much as give an interpretation, as with previous visions; he simply reads the writing. The words formed are themselves the message.
</p><p>On the simplest level of meaning, the words are simply weights used in a balance or scale. We could vocalize them as in most English versions, 'mina, shekel, half-mina'. But if we vocalize as 'menah, teqal, peras' we have words which speak of God's evaluation: 'he has reckoned, he has weighed, he has assessed'. But if we vocalize as 'menah, tiqqal, paras', we have God's actions of judgment in response to His evaluation: 'he has paid out, you are too light, Persia!'. These three levels of interpretation all allude to scales and weights as a metaphor for God's judgment; to 'pay out' is the language of the balances and transaction. It is a legitimate alternative translation to "it is finished" (AV). This is made explicit in :27: "You are weighed in the balances and found wanting". A weight of 62 was required to equal the weights of a mina [60 shekels], a shekel and two half shekels. And that weight was Darius / Cyrus at 62 years old. "Many Babylonian weight-stones with a value of a mina, a shekel or a half-mina are now housed in archeological museums, some of them inscribed in Aramaic with the very words of our passage: mene, teqel, or peres". The idea of Divine judgment as scales was commonly understood; there are Egyptian paintings of souls being weighed in scales after death, in order to determine where and how they will spend the afterlife. And the prophets speak of the nations being weighed in the balances and not coming to much. Note that God weighs even pagan unbelievers in this detailed way.
</p><p>It has been demonstrated that the date of the fall of Babylon comes immediately after the annual morning rising of the constellation Libra, which in Akkadian was called zibanitu, 'the scales'. The magicians of Babylon were well versed in the interpretation of the zodiac and stars. But they missed the obvious connection, because they couldn't read the writing on the wall. Yet again they are demonstrated as useless and the whole incident even pokes fun at them. And of course, the point is made that it is not the stars nor Libra that weigh nations, people and kings in the balances- it is the God of Heaven. This is a classic example of deconstruction.
</p><p>The difficulty of the wise men in reading the text may simply have been that it was written in Hebrew with no breaks between the three words; and they didn't know which vowel points to add between the consonants, in order to vocalize it and read it aloud. Or perhaps only the king saw the hand that wrote; and quite likely he was illiterate.
</p>


text:
<p>This is the interpretation of it: MENE; God has numbered your kingdom, and brought it to an end- In the interpretation of each of the weights, Daniel makes a word play, based around the similarity [paronomasia] with other words. In this case to the verb menah, to count or number. The kingdom was 'paid out', the language of the counting house and scales; NEV "brought it to an end".</p><p> As noted on :28, the original suggests that it has now imminently been ended, although Belshazzar’s response in elevating Daniel reflects how he only accepted the truth of these words on a theoretical and not a personal level. Numbering is a figure for the final judgment (<a href='B:220 31:4'>Job 31:4</a>), the final taking of account; but the essence of judgment day is right now, before the God who weighs and numbers actions and lives as they happen.</p><p>The number of days of the Babylonian kingdom was therefore related to the behaviour of the king. Nebuchadnezzar could have lengthened the days of his "tranquility" by cutting off his sins, or perhaps he could have altogether avoided judgment by doing so. He didn't, and so his kingdom was removed, but was restored because he repented. Likewise, Belshazzar is criticized for not learning this lesson. The numbering of his days had it seems been cut short because of his acts of drunken blasphemy with the vessels of Yahweh's temple.
</p><p>I suggested on Dan. 2 that the metals that followed Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold, could refer to the rulers / kings who followed him. The image was him and his dynasty, in the initial possible application. We may have something of that here. Mene, the 60 shekels, would have been Nebuchadnezzar. If indeed the text reads "Mene, mene" then there was a reference also to his immediate successors, Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar. Possibly the extra "mene" was inserted to develop the correspondence with the four kings schema of Dan. 2.  Tekel or tsekel, the one shekel, would have been the next ruler Labashi-Marduk; and uparsin, the two halves, would then have referred to the joint rule [co-regency] of Nabonidus and Belshazzar. 
</p>


text:
<p>TEKEL; you are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting- "Tekel" is the Hebrew "shekel", a weight. But in the interpretation of each of the weights, Daniel makes a word play, based around the similarity [paronomasia] with other words. In this case to the verb teqal, to measure, or, 'to make light', in the sense that a weight on a balance can make the weight on the other side of the balance 'light'. And so he reaches the interpretation that Belshazzar is 'light', he has been weighted and made light and thus "found wanting". We must take away the lesson that we are not to be found 'light' before God; we recall that the Hebrew idea of kabod, "glory", means literally 'weight'. We are to abound in the "weightier matters of the law" and not be the light, surface level chaff of this world that shall be blown away at judgment day. As noted on :26 and :28, the original implies that this was the situation at that moment. There was no desperate plea from Belshazzar for mercy, no statement of repentance, but rather he continued with life as it had been by elevating Daniel within his already ended kingdom. And this is a cameo of so much human response before God’s word. The final judgment of men is likened to a weighing in the balances (<a href='B:220 31:4'>Job 31:4</a>; <a href='B:220 31:6'>Job 31:6</a>), but the essence of judgment is going on right now in this life. "We make the answer now".</p>


text:
<p>PERES; your kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians- The interpretation makes use of a double word play, in that 'Peres' sounds like the word for 'Persians' and also the verb peras, to divide. Uparsin, meaning 'two', would hint at there being two definitions of 'Peres'; one is that your kingdom has been broken up, and the second meaning was that it had been given to Media and Persia.</p><p>The original implies that this is imminently happening. But by elevating Daniel to third ruler in the kingdom, Belshazzar showed that he only theoretically acknowledged this truth, just as some terminally ill people deny the realities right up to the end. And so it is with us all; we have a tendency to think that God’s urgent word is not true quite as stated, although on another level we may genuinely accept the truth of it. The division of the kingdom could refer to it being given to both Medes and Persians, but ’division’ may more carry the sense of dividing it out, to others, just as required by the image vision of Daniel 2. We note that division is judgment; so often the enemies of Israel were judged by being divided against themselves. Those who make the Lord’s house divided are effectively working out their own judgment / condemnation. The division of the kingdom perhaps also alludes to the divided state of the kingdoms of men presented in the image of Daniel 2.</p>


text:
<p>Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom- This response was surprising in that to give such bad news would typically have warranted immediate execution. Belshazzar humbled himself and tried to return Daniel to the three senior rulers, who had once been comprised of his Jewish friends (<a href='B:340 2:49'>Dan 2:49</a>). But Belshazzar’s humility and apparent repentance was too little and too late. To accept the truth of God’s word is not of itself enough. The way he proclaimed Daniel to a third ruler in his kingdom was of itself a tacit reflection of his inability to accept that his kingdom had been ended and given to the Medes (:28). The gold chain, purple clothing which was the insignia of the kingdom and proclamation was all so bizarre to Daniel, who knew that at that moment, the kingdom was ended. All our exaltation in this life is similarly inappropriate and meaningless. For the end of all things is at hand, and the judge stands before the door. Or we could have here an example of how like Nebuchadnezzar, a man can accept the truth of God's word for him, but not personalize it. Hence the Angel insisting: "To you it is spoken". And this stands as a global challenge for all time- to personalize God's word, far beyond merely accepting that it is true and Divinely inspired. The chain of gold put on the reluctant Daniel would have encouraged him that he was indeed going through the experience of Joseph, and would personally be saved. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>In that night Belshazzar the king of the Chaldees was slain- It is hard to know whether this was by his courtiers, or as a result of the Medes entering Babylon. There may indeed be a gap of some years between the death of Belshazzar and Darius taking the kingdom (:31). Such gaps in history are found at other points in the Biblical narrative. We think of how in 1 Kings 14, Ahijah states to Jeroboam’s wife that Abijah would die, Jeroboams dynasty would be overthrown, and Israel’s kingdom ended. These things appear to all happen at the same time, when there were significant time periods between them. However, I have noted on :25-28 that the idea is that these things happened immediately, at that moment; and this leads me to support the traditional view that immediately, that night, the Medes took Babylon. This is also the implication of Jeremiah’s prophecies, that in the night of her feasting, Babylon would fall. H:P. Mansfield gives relevant support for this: "Xenophon (Cyrop. 7:5) is quoted as stating:"But Cyrus, when he heard that there was to be such a feast in Babylon in which all the Babylonians would feast and revel through the whole night, on that night, as soon as it began to grow dark, taking many men, opened the dams into the river (i:e. he opened thedykes which had been made by Semiramis and her successors to confine the waters of the Euphrates to one channel), and allowed them to again flood the country, so that he could enter Babylon beneath its walls in the channel of the river". He quotes the address of Cyrus to his army:"Now let us go up against them. Many of them are asleep; many of them are intoxicated; and all of them are unfit for battle". Herodotus (Book 1:19) states:"it was a day of festivity among them; and whilst the citizens were engaged in dance and merriment, Babylon was. for the first time, thus taken". Isaiah predicted that the gates of brass would no longer provide a defence, and that the"bars of iron would be cut asunder’"(<a href='B:290 45:2'>Isa 45:2</a>). Herodotus states that these brazen gates were situated along the banks of the river, but at the time of the attack, some of them had been left open, probably by some within the city who had come to terms with the Persians". But against this we must balance Dan. 6:28: "So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian". Another option is that "the vassal king whom Daniel calls Darius the Mede was Gobryas (or Gubaru), who led the army of Cyrus to Babylon".</p>


text:
<p>Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old- "Darius the Mede" may be another name for Cyrus (so D:J. Wiseman),&nbsp; Cambyses the son of Cyrus (so Boutflower) or Gubaru, whom Cyrus appointed as governor of Babylon immediately the city fell (Whitcomb and several other prominent commentators, although this runs into difficulty at <a href='B:340 9:1'>Dan 9:1</a>). "Darius" may well be a title [meaning ’subduer’] rather than a name. The Medes took Babylon by diverting the flow of the Euphrates and entering the city along the river bed; this is the historical basis for the imagery of the drying up of the Euphrates in the last days, so that Babylon falls(<a href='B:730 16:15-16'>Rev 16:15-16</a>). The "kings of the east" of the last days therefore correspond to the hordes of various Arabian mercenaries who were used by the Medes as soldiers. We can already see the development of such groups in the Middle East today.</p><p>If Darius was indeed Cyrus (see on :30), we recall that Isaiah's prophecies about him set him up as a potential Messiah figure. He could have been an initial fulfilment of the stone of Dan. 2, hitting the image on the feet of the end of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. Which [see on Dan. 2] was the initial possible fulfilment of the image. His kingdom could have morphed into a re-establishment of God's Kingdom in Judah. Indeed he urged the exiles to return and do this. But both Cyrus and the Jews failed in this, and so the kaleidoscope turned again, and other possible pictures of fulfilment came into view. 
</p><p>I suggested above that the mention of 62 connects with the number of shekels implied in mene [60 shekels], tsekel [1 shekel] and upharsin, two half shekels [1 shekel]. But the Rabbis calculate that the moment Darius took the kingdom was 62 years after Nebuchadnezzar had taken Jeconiah into captivity: "They were exiled in the days of Jehoiachin in the seventh year counting from the conquest of Jehoiakim, which is eight years after the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. There remained to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign thirty-seven years, for he reigned forty-five years, and twenty-three of Evil-merodach’s and the two years of Belshazzar that passed, totaling sixty-two". If that is legitimate, we marvel again at the hand of God in human history. Who would have known when Darius was born, a helpless baby, that God had this destiny mapped out for him?
</p>


