1

The Question of Authorship and Dating

DANIEL AND HIS FRIENDS OBEY Daniel’s book does not have a superscription that identifies its author and
setting. The long–held assumption was that Daniel wrote the book during
GOD the 6th century b.c. when he was an exile in Babylon. This belief was based
Daniel 1 primarily on the last six chapters of the book, which are 1st person
Opening Thought accounts of visions and revelations that Daniel received. However, the first
1) It is true that hard times not only build character, they also reveal it. six chapters are narrative stories about Daniel and his friends in the royal
How a person handles difficulties says a lot about that person’s character court, and are told in the 3rd person, but were presumed to have been
and beliefs. So, what is the most difficult situation that you have faced? written by Daniel, who also compiled everything into this single book.
How did you handle it? What did it reveal about your faith? With the rise of critical scholarship in the 18th century, many scholars
began to question the tradition of Daniel’s authorship. The result of this
2) What tests or trials are you facing right now? Are you clinging to God suspicion and corresponding inquiry is that most critical scholars today
and continuing to faithfully live as he commands? Are you compromising? think the book was written by an anonymous group of Jews in Palestine
Grade yourself with an A–F and explain why you gave yourself that grade. during tumultuous events of the early 2nd century b.c., events that involved
Antiochus IV Epiphanes [2nd century b.c. Seleucid king], that then led to
the Maccabean revolt. Critical scholars point to “the insightful” [Daniel
Background of the Passage 11:33–35; 12:3] as those who wrote the book, but who they were is
Daniel’s book is one of the best–loved books in the Old Testament, extensively debated. Some scholars suggest they were not Judean Jews,
whether for its memorable characters and engaging stories [Daniel 1–6] or but Diaspora Jews. Although this critical view developed in the 18th
for its startling visions of the future [Daniel 7–12]. The book is often held century, it was actually Porphyry [3rd century Tyrian Neoplatonic
up as a model of godliness, particularly in cultures hostile to the gospel philosopher] who first proposed the 2nd century b.c. date for the book.
message, and Daniel’s visions have been the impetus for many graphic Thus, a variety of factors drove this theory, but the most significant were
charts of the end times. Even some of the language and ideas of Daniel’s supposed historical difficulties in the first half of the book along with the
book have seeped into popular culture, whether Christian or secular. type of prophecy in the second half of the book. In other words, these
Although Daniel’s book is well loved, it is nonetheless difficult to supposed historical difficulties seem to show that the book was not written
understand. The combination of compelling stories and terrifying visions in the 6th century b.c., while at the same time the precision of the
has left many to be uncertain on how the book’s two parts fit together. prophecies conveniently places the book in the 2nd century b.c. period.
Such uncertainty is complicated by other features: it has two distinct Thus, critical scholars propose that the book utilizes a literary device
genres, two different languages, and prophecies unlike anything else in the known as vaticinium ex eventu prophecy [or “speaking after the event”
Old Testament. Thus, scholars naturally ask the following questions: prophecy], which involves a so–called prophet casting history in the form
of a prophecy. So, in the case of Daniel’s book, the purpose of such a
1. Who wrote the book? device would have been to trace God’s hand through history in order to
2. When was it written? encourage a suffering audience that God was also in control of their
3. Why was it written? oppressive present and uncertain future. Thus, the book prophesied history
4. What kind of literature is it? from the time of Persia [later in Daniel 11:2] until some point during the
reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century b.c. Then the book
Answering these questions involves lengthy mind–numbing scholarly supposedly shifts from such quasi–prophesying to genuine prophecy that
research, but the final result is a satisfying understanding of Daniel’s book! predicted the future! This kind of prophecy is necessarily pseudonymous.
 2

So, if history is being cast in the form of a prophecy, then the author acting Furthermore, who are we to argue what genres God would and would not
as a so–called prophet must predate the historical period being surveyed. use? If ex eventu pseudonymous prophecy was an acceptable genre in that
For example, if a 21st century author were to write a prophecy of the entire time and place, then our task as modern readers is to try to understand it,
period of the United States, the author might put the prophecy in the mouth not judge its appropriateness and presume what God’s intentions are.
of a credible well–known figure [like George Washington], who could
have foretold the events, and the so–called prophecy should be spot on Bruce Metzger [20th century biblical scholar] says: “Instead of beginning
until it reaches the pseudonymous author’s own time, when any future with declarations of what is licit and what is illicit, one is likely to make
events would be genuinely predictive and likewise subject to error. Thus, more progress by considering the theological problem from a historical
although this is unusual to us, this genre is known in ancient Near Eastern and literary point of view. It must be acknowledged that the inspiration of
literature, lending support to the theory that a 2nd century b.c. authorship of the scriptures is consistent with any kind of form of literary composition
Daniel’s book could have presented history in this way, and when the that was in keeping with the character and habits of the speaker or writer.
survey reached its own time, the genuine prophecy did not turn out Whatever idiom or mode of expression he would use in ordinary speech
accurately. Unfortunately and uncharitably, this critical view is often must surely be allowed him when moved by the Holy Spirit. Rhetoric,
reduced to the claim that critical scholars do not believe in genuine poetry, drama, allegory, saga, legend, or any other form of serious
predictive prophecy. In other words, it is presumed that they do not think a discourse that would be rightly understood in a merely human production,
6th century b.c. author could have accurately predicted the events of the cannot be excluded on a priori grounds from one divinely inspired. Even
next several centuries. This is certainly the belief of many critical scholars, the most rigorously formulated doctrine of inspiration would admit that
but it is an unfair characterization of all scholars sympathetic to the 2nd the dramatic composition of the book of Job and the Song of Songs
century perspective. Yes, critical scholars who have a high view of ascribes to historical personages discourses not literally uttered by them.”
inspiration and authority disagree on the date of Daniel’s book. A key
issue for late–date scholars is the anomalous nature of the final prophecy James Hamilton [21st century biblical scholar] by contrast sternly retorts:
given in Daniel 11. Unlike other biblical prophecies, Daniel 11 reads like a “The issue now under consideration is the moral and ethical problem
history book without proper nouns. Such uncharacteristic precision and created by the suggestion of a late date for Daniel. Some more evangelical
detail prompt scholars to ask if the chapter would be better understood as interpreters seem to regard questions of date and historicity as matters of
something other than typical biblical prophecy. For these scholars, it is not indifference, but these issues are not morally neutral. Put bluntly, a late
a question of whether God could reveal the future in such a way, but rather date for Daniel demands an author who was a scoundrel of a high order.
would he? What purpose would such extensive detail have served Daniel’s A late date for Daniel requires some later author setting out to deceive his
immediate audience? What meaning would it have held for them? So, audience, creating in them the impression that things he knew had already
scholars who hold the 6th century b.c. date for the book sometimes argue taken place were actually being predicted. His purpose in creating this
that ex eventu prophecy and pseudonymous literature are deceptive and impression was to give himself the moral standing with his audience
incompatible with the nature of God, and inappropriate genres for inspired necessary for him to call them to suffer and die for the cause he
scripture. However, it is not clear from the evidence available to us that the advocated; when he knew all along that his claims were false. Imagine the
genre was, in fact, deceptive; it is possible that everyone understood how it level of cynicism involved in such a project. The author knew he was not
worked and accepted it for what it was. In other words, pseudonymity may giving actual predictions. He knew he was being deceptive. He knew he
have been a way to root the perspective of the literature in a particular was calling people to lose their lives, and he knew he was calling them to
theological tradition. In this case, it would not have been a matter of take on impossible odds in a campaign whose foundation he knew to be
assigning authority to an undeserving or fraudulent text; rather, it was false. This cannot be compared to a situation where authors engage in
placing a text within an accepted theological tradition. fictional projects in which they intend to tell the truth and inspire readers,
 3

along the lines of what J. R. R. Tolkien or J. K. Rowling have their lives for the sake of falsehood, even to the point of having their
accomplished. No one reading those books thinks that this world is babies hanged and whole families put to death (1 Macc. 1:61), then we
Middle–earth or that there really is a Hogwarts out there somewhere. By should regard this book the way we would respond to a book by some
contrast, the book of Daniel is set in the world as we know it. The author WWII era propagandist who encouraged Japanese soldiers that the
gives no indication that his intention is to teach by means of a fictional honour of the emperor mattered more than their lives, so they should fight
presentation. He claims to represent the real world, the world as the bible to the death for the emperor, crying out ‘banzai’ (or ‘may you live 10,000
describes it. Faithfulness to Yahweh was the foundation of the Maccabean years’). We would not venerate such literature but scorn it for its narrow,
resistance (1 Macc. 1:54–63). Old man Maccabee and his sons were benighted, devastating perspective. Its only value would in such a case
willing to die rather than be defiled with the pig flesh of Antiochus (1 derive from the limited, slanted, ultimately false historical information to
Macc. 2:15–38, 50). The author of 1 Maccabees presents father be found in it. Issues of authorship and historicity very much affect the
Mattathias on his deathbed exhorting his sons to remember what God had theological meaning of the book of Daniel.”
done for previous generations of Israelites: Abraham, Joseph, Phineas,
Joshua, Caleb, David, Elijah (1 Macc. 2:51–58), and then appealing to the Thus, scholars like Hamilton demonstrate an either/or view of the book’s
examples found in the book of Daniel: ‘Hananias, Azarias and Misael, authorship: either it was entirely written in the 6th century b.c. by Daniel,
because of their faith, were saved from fire. Daniel, by his simplicity, was or it was entirely written by a “scoundrel” in the 2nd century b.c.
rescued from the mouth of lions’ (1 Macc. 2:59–60). The author of 1 Nevertheless, in actuality, many scholars who hold to the late–date view
Maccabees presents Mattathias as exhorting his sons to risk their lives actually do not think that a 2nd century author composed the exilic stories
the same way that Daniel and his friends did, and for the same reasons: in Daniel 1–6, but instead incorporated much older stories that had been
because Yahweh is more important than life, because Yahweh’s power circulating for some time, which could very well have reflected historical
trumps death. For this argument to work, Mattathias, the author of 1 circumstances. In other words, late–date scholars do not necessarily
Maccabees, and the audience of 1 Maccabees had to believe that Daniel consider the narratives fiction, as Hamilton implies! So, the issue of
and his friends belonged with biblical heroes of the faith and that the book ancient genres is complex, as is that of an ancient book’s composition. We
of Daniel described what really happened. No one risks his life for fables, simply lack sufficient evidence to be able to say with confidence how the
legends and myths, and cruel would be the father who exhorted his sons to biblical books came to be written and assembled into what we read in our
do so. Was it a deception? Did some pseudonymous author successfully bibles today. Much of the evidence behind the process has been lost to us.
deceive everyone from Mattathias, father of Judas Maccabeus, to Jesus of We can only assess the text we have in order to determine its author,
Nazareth? I find it historically implausible, yea impossible, to imagine that original audience, and the thoughts of both. The process is not an exact
someone could so successfully sell such a despicable deception. The science by any means. So, was Daniel a prophet? Yes, if you believe the
proposed pseudonymous author of the supposedly forged and false book of affirmation of Jesus [Matthew 24:15]. Also, did Daniel have to write every
Daniel could never have hoped to have been so wildly successful that not word of the book that bears his name? No. This is not even the standard in
until Porphyry (3rd century) would anyone suspect what he had done, and modern book production! Anonymous editors often tweak, rearrange,
then not until the modern age would it be widely recognized that he had rewrite, and even delete an author’s words.
duped the vast majority of those exposed to his fabrications. This moral
issue has implications that go beyond what we should think of the author Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Because the bible says
who would attempt such a scam to what we should do with his book. Those quite clearly that scripture is ‘God–breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:16), Christians
who conclude that the book of Daniel is a forgery should not print it in the tend to think of inspiration as some sort of otherworldly event. I’ve heard
Protestant canon, esteeming and treasuring it, but should rather repudiate some pretty strange explanations of inspiration—about how God took
it as repugnant. If it is a forgery, a fraud used to compel people to risk control of the hand and mind of the writer, or how the authors slipped into
 4

a heaven–sent trance state, or how the Spirit whispered the precise words biblical book just happened out of the blue. God’s role is no less
into their minds (or maybe just ‘impressed’ them into their consciousness). significant and intentional. God chose a wide range of people and
Frankly, all of that sounds more like an episode of the X–Files than providentially prepared them for the moment he would prompt them, either
biblical theology, and it absolutely doesn’t reflect what we actually find by his Spirit or by someone else’s influence, to write something down for
in scripture about inspiration. There are some transparent examples of the benefit of God’s people (or to collect and edit material from a
why the ‘paranormal event’ view of inspiration makes no sense. There are prophetic figure). God put them in situations that would lead to the need
four gospels in the New Testament. Three of them (Matthew, Mark, and for them to write the message God wanted preserved. He didn’t need to put
Luke) overlap with respect to the events they include about the life of them into a trance and manipulate their fingers. They didn’t need hand–
Jesus, but those events may be dissimilar in the level of detail (Matthew holding (or mind control). They were his instruments, not his puppets. Why
4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13) or arranged in a different sequence (Matthew does any of this matter? Because minimizing (or denying) the humanity
10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–15). Dialogue within shared episodes behind biblical authorship is a surefire way to undermine the doctrine of
also diverges in vocabulary, length of statements, and who speaks when, inspiration. Explaining the bible as something dispensed from a super–
and even when the dialogue appears identical in English, it isn’t. In the intelligent deity from out of the ether is irreconcilable with what we see in
Greek text writers can use different words, verb tenses, noun cases, it. On the other hand, defining inspiration as a long process guided
conjunctions, and so on. If the stories of Jesus were ‘whispered’ to the unfailingly by God’s providence helps account for the phenomena of
writers or downloaded into their semiconscious minds, divergences like scripture. Embracing the humanity of the bible is enormously helpful for
these are the last thing we should expect. Would the Holy Spirit really understanding what’s actually in the bible—in terms of both its
want to yank our theological chains like that? I doubt it. There are a lot of ‘untidiness’ and its artistry.”
other phenomena in the biblical text that tell the careful reader quite
clearly that inspiration wasn’t an event, like signs of editing. For example, Thus, Daniel could have recorded the events that happened to him and
in Ezekiel 1:1–4, here we see that v. 1 uses the 1st person in two instances. passed them on to other faithful followers, who also could have tweaked,
The 1st person language creates the expectation that Ezekiel is writing rearranged, rewrote, and even deleted elements.
about himself. But, in v.3, there is a switch to the 3rd person. Now the
writer is clearly not Ezekiel, but is an anonymous author referring to John Walton [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] also says:
Ezekiel in the 3rd person. Then v. 4 switches back to 1st person again. “Another aspect of prophetic literature that is important to the discussion
These switches are the tell–tale signs of an editor. The Holy Spirit is not of biblical authority is the relationship between prophecy and fulfilment.
suffering from schizophrenia. This material is clearly not dictated or When we read some of the New Testament passages that identify Jesus as
downloaded or automated. While God does speak to people in scripture, the fulfilment of an Old Testament prophecy, it is not uncommon that we
the passages that describe how biblical authors produced their texts never sense a bit of a disconnect concerning how what the prophet said is
cast it in anomalous terms. Scripture is the result of divine influence and related to what the apostle claims. What implications are carried by the
the very normal human activity of speaking and writing (2 Peter 1:16–21). term ‘fulfilment’? Is the claim being made that the prophet knew of Jesus
Writers report events and record feelings. They build arguments. They by virtue of his inspiration? Some believe that Luke 24:27, 44 affirm this
express themselves in poetry. They use sources. They borrow thoughts. view. Are the apostles revealing the true meaning of the prophets’ words?
They (or other hands that follow) rewrite and refine what was written. Is inerrancy threatened if readers conclude that Jesus and the apostles
Authors are sensitive to genre, structure, literary devices, word choice, were teaching the right doctrine from the wrong texts? These are matters
poetic parallelism, and narrative art. There is wordplay, irony, and of great dispute among evangelical scholars. Some are content to believe
premeditated structuring of plot. The biblical books are the result of work that Jesus and the apostles are simply using the hermeneutical methods of
and careful thought. They were not slapped together. No part of any the day that gave significant freedom in associating a prophecy with a
 5

proposed fulfilment. Others insist that Jesus and the apostles are drawing fulfilment. That revelation, like any revelation, cannot be errant or
out the true meaning of the prophets, a meaning that was always there to inerrant—it is what it is: revelation. In contrast to some others, we do not
be seen. Those in the latter group sometimes bring inerrancy into the believe that we can reliably imitate what the apostles are doing because
discussion, suggesting that if what has been identified as a fulfilment is not their task is rooted in their authority (which we do not possess).
what the prophet was talking about, the apostle or Jesus would therefore Consequently, any of our suggestions about fulfilment would be only
be guilty of error. Any discussion of inerrancy related to prophecy and suggestions with no authority. We have now affirmed that both the
fulfilment must be based on a realistic understanding of the roles of the prophets and the apostles are authority figures and that the compilation of
prophet and of the apostle. Prophets were the spokespersons for deity. their prophetic oracles and identifications of fulfilment respectively are
Their messages pertained at times to the past, to the present or to the extensions of their authority. How does inerrancy come into the picture?
future. They were not soothsayers; they proclaimed the plan of God. If Inerrancy would first affirm that the prophets were real people existing in
they were truly speaking words from God, then surely their words carried a real past. Second, it would affirm that the recorded oracles reliably
authority and, to the extent they pertained to the future, would be represent the prophet’s spoken oracles (or those added by his followers
accomplished. It was natural, moreover, to believe that God may have should there be any). Third, it would affirm that these oracles were indeed
more in mind than what had been communicated. At the same time, their God’s revelation through the prophet, not the prophet’s own imagination.
messages were intended to have meaning and significance to their Finally, inerrancy would assert that the oracles gave an accurate
immediate audience. That contemporary message carried authority. To representation of God and his plan. Inerrancy would offer no
use our speech–act terminology, the prophets’ locutions were words given information about ‘authorship’ or about fulfilment. With regard to the
by God. They had particular illocutions associated with those locutions apostles, the inerrancy of their proclamations of fulfilment cannot be
that resulted in perlocutions for their immediate audience. When the falsified. Since we believe that the apostles have authority, we accept their
apostles identify fulfilment of those prophecies, they are introducing a new identification of fulfilment. Inerrancy would not relate to whether the
illocution. It may or may not be tied to the illocutions the prophets had in fulfilment matched what the prophet had originally said because such
their contemporary context, but that does not matter. The apostles have exposition is not the role of the apostle and not necessarily his intention. It
their own recognized authority, and their illocutions are manifestations of is interesting that inerrancy is most often invoked in connection with the
that authority. The apostles are not necessarily trying to shed light on the question of whether a prophet actually gave information about specific
illocutions of the prophets, though at times their illocutions may do so. In people before they were on the scene. Thus, Isaiah’s prophecy concerning
this way of thinking, we can see that fulfilment (identified by the apostles) Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1) and Daniel’s prophecies concerning the
is not the same thing as the message proclaimed by the prophets and Hellenistic period (Daniel 11) have become the main centers of attention.
doesn’t offer itself as being the same. The prophet and the apostle are both Inerrancy is invoked to insist that since Isaiah lived in the 8th century and
authority figures, and their messages are considered to carry authority. Cyrus did not come until the 6th century, we have evidence of God giving
The claim of those identifying fulfilment is related to the locution of the his prophet information far in advance. This is then used to undergird
prophet, which is now being given a different though possibly related theological assertions about the nature of prophecy, the nature of the
illocution. In this understanding, inerrancy does not come into the prophet and even the nature of God (proving his knowledge and control of
discussion. The apostle cannot be in error in his handling of the prophecy the future). All of this is loaded on the back of inerrancy. These
because he has the freedom his authority gives him to break new ground. interconnections, however, are based on the firm belief that the bible
He doesn’t assume anything about what the prophet knew or did not know makes a claim that the 8th century Isaiah had sole responsibility for the
about how his prophecy might unfold. The prophet’s revelation is found biblical book. We have seen that given what we know of literary
in his message, not in the fulfilment of his message. The apostle’s production in the ancient world—of the way that oral communication was
revelation is found in the unfolding of the prophet’s locution into a eventually preserved by scribes in documents that later were combined
 6

into literary compositions—the reference to Isaiah identifies him as the expanded Daniel’s oracle in chapter 10 to include the details in chapter
fountainhead of the oracles whose authority is behind the book. That is a 11? We could not rule it out. Whether the oracle was given two centuries
different sort of claim. Let us be clear: we are not suggesting that the before the events or two months before the events would make little
Cyrus oracles were not the work of 8th century Isaiah. Scepticism is not the difference. The more significant question concerns whether the oracle is
point here. God is able to give specific information to prophets centuries in the category of vaticinu ex eventu (‘speaking after the event’), a genre
in advance should he choose to do so. We firmly believe that he knows the that treats part of the past as if it were still future as a basis for then
future and controls it. Inerrancy, however, is not the way to bolster those making a few statements about what the near future will bring. This is a
beliefs because the bible does not make ‘authorship’ claims as clearly as complex genre question. Remember that genres cannot be true or false,
we thought. We should feel no compulsion to posit the source of the Cyrus errant or inerrant; they are what they are. If such a genre was recognized
oracles as 8th century Isaiah, though he may well have been. It is simply in the ancient world and readers would have understood the nature of that
not an issue for inerrancy to decide. The oracle would have authority, and genre, it would be perfectly legitimate for a communicator to use that
we could even say the authority of Isaiah, even if it was an oracle spoken genre. It would not be considered deceptive if there were a common
by one of his disciples closer to the time of Cyrus. The authority is understanding of how the genre worked. But, the genre question is far
recognized by the community. If they extended the authority of the 8th from settled, and we cannot try to settle it here. We can only say that if by
century prophet to his followers and included them together in one literary virtue of a recognized genre (like vaticinu ex eventu) a book spoke of the
composition, we accept their judgment by faith even as we accept their past as the future, we could not invoke inerrancy to claim otherwise. Much
judgment about the authority of Isaiah himself. We likewise validate the work would still have to be done to make such claims, but the issue itself is
judgment of those who recognized the authoritative status of the eventual not truly in the purview of inerrancy. If vaticinu ex eventu was recognized
compilation of this collection of oracles into the complex literary work we as a legitimate genre, authority would be viewed in light of the
call ‘Isaiah.’ This same approach can be used for the book of Daniel. We conventions of the genre.”
affirm that there was a real Daniel who lived in the 6th century and served
in the courts of kings from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to the time of Nevertheless, the 6th century date for Daniel’s book is nonetheless
Cyrus. We accept that the narratives about his life reflect real events in a plausible in light of extensive scholarship. Here are some examples:
real past, though, as always, reported through the accepted conventions
for narrative in that time. These narratives would likely have existed in 1. The Testimony of Jesus
individual documents for some time before being compiled into the literary There is a statement about a “destructive desolation” that would be
work that we know. We have a different set of claims, however, regarding carried out in the latter days [later in Daniel 12:11]. Jesus in his
the oracles of Daniel than we had with Isaiah. In Daniel 7, the vision is Olivet Discourse referenced this concerning the 70 a.d. destruction
reported by someone else (Daniel 7:2), but is then reported in the 1st of the Temple [Mark 13:14]. But, Jesus emphasises that this was
person. In chapters 8–10 the oracular experiences are presented in the 1st “mentioned by the prophet Daniel” [Matthew 24:15]. Thus, Jesus
person with no recognized outside reporter, though Daniel 10:1 does refer viewed Daniel as the author of these words from the final chapter
to Daniel in the 3rd person. Chapter 11 makes no explicit claims, but of his book, and that this final section of Daniel’s book was not
chapter 12 picks up again with Daniel from v. 4 on. As before, we are not fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century b.c.
trying to sort out which parts should be attributed to whom. We are quite
willing to proceed on faith rather than scepticism with regard to God’s 2. Evidence from Qumran
willingness and ability to give the specific details of the Hellenistic period Portions of Daniel have surfaced among the documents from
to Daniel in the 6th century. The question concerns how clearly that claim Qumran, which suggests a date well before the Maccabean era.
is made. Is it possible that a follower of Daniel some centuries later
 7

R. K. Harrison [20th century biblical scholar] confirms and says: book of Daniel seems to have been in its extant form—whether
“The dating of Daniel can now be settled at least negatively as a from the hand of the author or a slightly later editor—not later
result of manuscript discoveries from the Dead Sea caves. than 450 b.c. There can no longer be any reason for considering
Fragments from 1Q, along with some complete scrolls of Daniel the book as a Maccabean product.”
from other caves, have testified to the popularity of the work at
Qumran. A florilegium recovered from 4Q spoke, like Matthew Although Qumran scholars disagree with Harrison’s dating of the
24:15, of ‘Daniel the prophet,’ furnishing eloquent 2nd century florilegium [4Q174], where paleographically the manuscript is
b.c. testimony to the way in which the book was revered and cited dated early in the 1st century, his point remains concerning the
as scripture. Since all the Qumran fragments and scrolls are other documents found at Qumran. For example, here is 4QDanc
copies, the autograph of Daniel and other Old Testament canonical that is dated to 125 b.c., the oldest Daniel fragment from Qumran:
works must of necessity be advanced well before the Maccabean
period if the proper minimum of time is allowed for the book to be
circulated and accepted as scripture. Precisely how much earlier
than the Maccabean period is, of course, the point at issue. Here
again the Qumran material provides invaluable assistance. When
1Q was excavated, two of the three fragments of Daniel recovered
from the site proved to be related paleographically to the large
Isaiah manuscript (1QIsaa). Since the book of Isaiah comes from a
time several centuries prior to the earliest date to which 1QIsaa can
be assigned on any grounds, it follows that the autograph of
Daniel also must be several centuries in advance of the
Maccabean period. From Cave 4 was also recovered a
fragmentary 2nd century b.c. copy of the Psalter (4QpPs 37), and So, to insist on a late date for Daniel’s book around 165–164 b.c.
this document showed that the collection of canonical psalms had means that it must have been quickly read and approved by the
already been fixed by the Maccabean period. On the basis of this Jewish scribes and priests [where copies were made] and then these
evidence alone, scholars have now assigned to the Persian period copies somehow found their way into the Qumran community
psalms which were once confidently acclaimed as unquestionably where they were also recopied, all by no later than 125 b.c.
Maccabean in origin. It is now clear from the Qumran Furthermore, there is another crucial apocalyptic text at Qumran
manuscripts that no part of the Old Testament canonical literature that further helps us date Daniel’s book. This is 1 Enoch, and
was composed later than the 4th century b.c. This means that scholars conclude that it is a composite work, originally written in
Daniel must of necessity be assigned to some point in the Neo– Aramaic [or possibly partly in Aramaic and partly in Hebrew]. The
Babylonian era (626–539 b.c.), or a somewhat later period. If, Book of the Watchers [1 Enoch 1–36] is one of the oldest portions,
following Near Eastern annalistic practices, the events and visions and scholars have dated it up to the 4th century b.c.
were recorded shortly after their occurrence, the book may well
have been written progressively over a lengthy period of time, James Charlesworth [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] explains:
being finally collated by Daniel in the closing phases of his life, “Quite surprisingly the members of the Enoch Seminar agreed on
and perhaps being rounded out then or a little later by such final the probable date of the earliest composition among the books of
verses as Daniel 1:21; 6:28; and 7:28. However, at the latest the Enoch. The consensus is now that the Book of the Watchers was
 8

composed by the early Hellenistic period and may reflect the Giants (4Q530). The Book of Giants is one of the latest parts of
struggles of the Diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great in Enoch: it deals not with the watchers but with their offspring, now
323 b.c.e. Thus, the writings now called the books of Enoch individualised and named, and no manuscript of it is older than the
originated before 200 b.c.e, and conceivably as early as the end of 1st century b.c. It is not one of the alleged writings of Enoch known
the 4th century b.c.e.” to the author of Jubilees 4:17–24. Very likely, the vision here
depends as much on that in the Book of Watchers as it does on
For example, 1 Enoch 14:18–22 has a direct parallel to Daniel 7:9– that in Daniel 7, and, like the former, it avoids the
10. So, the crucial question is: which came first? Was Daniel anthropomorphic features of Daniel 7. It also greatly reduces the
dependent on 1 Enoch, or was 1 Enoch dependent on Daniel? number of bystanders, whose presence the author perhaps thinks
unnecessary. But, it would be difficult to agree with Stuckenbruck
Roger Beckwith [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] answers: that this late and weak passage is the original on which Daniel 7
“Striking are the links between the vision of God in Daniel 7:9–10 depends, as he argues.”
and that in 1 Enoch 14:18–22, though in the latter passage the
chariot vision of Ezekiel 1 and 10, where the divine throne is of So, if 1 Enoch 14 is a conflation of Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1, then not
crystal and is carried by the cherubim, is also drawn upon. This only were they pre–Maccabean source material, but they must have
passage of Enoch is found in the Qumran Aramaic in three little also pre–dated the composition of 1 Enoch 14 before the 4th
fragments, each containing only one or two words, sufficient to century b.c. Thus, Daniel’s book must contain predictive prophecy!
show that the Aramaic wording is not identical with that of
Daniel, but that the meaning is the same. The anthropomorphisms 3. Evidence of Persian Loanwords
of Daniel are avoided in Enoch: God is not ancient of days, and Daniel’s book contains Old Persian loanwords found in 6th and 5th
does not have hair like pure wool, nor could anyone draw nigh to centuries b.c. inscriptions, meaning the Aramaic is pre–Hellenistic.
minister to him, and Enoch is careful to add the apologetic
observation ‘yet he needed no counsellor.’ These rather Benjamin Noonan [21st century biblical scholar] says: “There are
sophisticated features suggest that the dependence is on the side 23 old Iranian loanwords in Daniel. Phonological evidence
of Enoch. The fact that Enoch draws also upon Ezekiel suggests demonstrates that Daniel’s Iranian loanwords belong typologically
the same thing, and when one considers the general literary and to Old Iranian rather than Middle Iranian. This means that they
spiritual quality of Daniel, as compared with Enoch, the must have been borrowed before the collapse of the Achaemenid
widespread assumption that Daniel took Enoch for a model is Empire (prior to 300 b.c.). It is quite likely that Daniel’s Iranian
seen to be implausible. Rather, Enoch took Daniel for a model, loanwords were borrowed earlier rather than later during the time
and the whole pseudonymous apocalyptic literature which followed of the Achaemenid Empire because the phonological changes took
in the wake of Enoch presupposed the existence of Daniel—a work place over time. One could try to explain the high percentage of
of far greater worth, and a contender for a place in the recognised Old Iranian loans in Daniel as a late literary creation, but it is
Jewish canon of scripture. Enoch was a standard text at Qumran, unlikely that someone writing so long after the fact would be
and was probably part of an interpretative appendix to the national capable of inventing such a literary creation. Much of the Old
canon, recognised by the Qumran school of thought, though not Iranian terminology found in Daniel would have been forgotten
regarded by them as actually scripture or quoted in their literature during the Hellenistic period, as indicated by the fact that the
with the distinctive formulas for scripture. There is another Greek translators of Daniel did not know what to do with many of
parallel in Enoch to the vision in Daniel 7, this time in the Book of the book’s Old Iranian loans.”
 9

4. Acceptance into the Jewish Canon So, notice that Ezekiel highlights three men that were well–known
If Daniel’s book was a 2nd century b.c. work by an author for their righteousness before God: Job, Noah, and Daniel. Thus,
attempting to disguise the book as written in the 6th century b.c., it since Ezekiel was living in Babylonia in 593 b.c., which was ~12
is extremely unlikely that the Jews would have allowed this to slip years after Daniel arrived in 605/604 b.c., obviously Ezekiel was
by unnoticed into the Hebrew canon. Certainly they would have referring to his already famous contemporary in exile.
given it the utmost scrutiny before accepting it as God’s word.
Daniel Block [21st century biblical scholar] confirms and says:
5. Ezekiel’s Mention of Daniel “This interpretation is not as convincing as it appears. The weight
Since Ezekiel’s book is dated by critical scholars to a period much of the orthographic evidence should not be overestimated since
earlier than the 2nd century b.c., it curiously mentions the name dnyʾl and dnʾl are variant spellings of the same name, and the
“Daniel” with a slight variant spelling [Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3], fuller form Da–ni–èl is attested in the 18th century b.c. Mari
but this is no more than a stylistic variation. In Daniel’s book it is Letters. Furthermore, every member of Ezekiel’s audience would
spelled dāniyyēʾ l, while in Ezekiel’s book it is spelled dāniʾēl have known that, even though Noah and Job were not Israelites,
without the yōḏ consonant. Although there are others with the the God they worshiped was Yahweh (Genesis 8; Job 1; 42). Too
name “Daniel” [1 Chronicles 3:1; Ezra 8:2; Nehemiah 10:7], the little is known about the Ugaritic Dan’el to impose him on
spelling is always the same as that in Daniel’s book: dāniyyēʾ l. Ezekiel, and what is known would hardly have fit his definition of
Thus, critical scholars claim that dāniʾēl does not refer to a piety. While the hero of the Aqhat story may have gained a
contemporary of Ezekiel, but to one of the major epic narratives reputation as a just ruler, he is a pagan, worshiping a foreign god,
recovered from ancient Ugarit, the Tale of Aqhat from 1350 b.c. much more at home with the Canaanites and more like Ezekiel’s
Like the Kirta Epic, this legend shows close interactions between audience than the people of Yahweh as the prophet envisions them.
the gods and humans in an ancient primeval setting; like the story To see in him an internationally renowned paragon of virtue and
of Abraham [Genesis 15:2–3]. A man named dnil [Dan’el, Danil, devotion to Yahweh is too large a leap and probably wishful
or Danilu] is given a son aqht [Aqhat] and he becomes the main thinking—a way to avoid having to deal with Ezekiel’s Daniel.”
focus of the story. The patriarchal narratives in Genesis reflect a
similar pattern, where the patriarch’s wife is barren, the patriarch Thus, there was no other Daniel that Ezekiel could have had in
asks God for a child, and God blesses the couple with a child, and mind than the man carefully portrayed in Daniel’s book as a model
the child born from the barren woman becomes the principal of integrity and righteousness. This strongly bears witness to the
character of the ongoing narrative [Genesis 25:21; 30:22–24]. fact that Daniel was well known to Ezekiel as a historical figure,
Furthermore, the legend presents Dan’el as a wise judge who: because they were both exiles in Babylon, and it is this Daniel who
“arose and sat by the entrance to the gate, beneath the trees which was also the author of a book that likewise bore his name.
were by the threshing floor. He tried the case of the widow, he
judged the cause of the orphan” [KTU 1.17]. However, carefully 6. Implications of the Roman Empire in Daniel’s Prophecies
reading the legend also reveals that Ezekiel would not have The Roman Empire is prophetically included in a series of empires
labelled Dan’el as “righteous” since he was involved in vengeful [later in Daniel 2 and 7], which pushes the future scope past the
curses, violent rage, drunkenness, an assassination plot, and was a Maccabean period. But, critical scholars claim that, in the series of
dedicated idol–worshiper occupied with blood sacrifices to El, empires, the 3rd empire is Media and the 4th empire is the
Baal, and other pagan gods for weeks at a time. Furthermore, Hellenistic kingdoms, which obviously excludes the Roman
Dan’el was never understood to be generally wise. Empire. But, traditionally, the 2nd empire was Media with Persia.
 10

This means the 4th empire in the list was the Roman Empire, and it of the king’s staff, the king rewards him/her handsomely. The popularity
did arise after the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, which creates a of this genre in the ancient Near East is evident from the widespread
great difficulty for critical scholars. In other words, by their own distribution of Ahiqar, a folktale that was originally polytheistic. The
reasoning, since they conclude that Daniel’s book was written in earliest fragmentary text, written in Aramaic, was discovered in
165 b.c., this ironically predates the rise to power of the Roman Elephantine [Egypt] and dates to the 5th century b.c. The great diffusion of
Empire. Thus, critical scholars are forced to conclude that Daniel’s Ahiqar is reflected in its many versions, including Syriac, Armenian,
book has predictive prophecy even via the late–date hypothesis! Arabic, and Greek [thought to exist but not yet found]. Ahiqar is composed
of two main parts: the “framework story” and the “sayings of Ahiqar.”
In summary, although late–date proponents situate Daniel’s book in the Scholars believe that the two parts of the book were originally written
Maccabean era, with the earliest possible date being a few years after the around the 7th century b.c when Ahiqar served as one of the senior officers
desolation of the Temple in 167 b.c., based on what late–date proponents in the court of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon.
consider to be erroneous predictions about the career of Antiochus IV Also, there are parallels between Ahiqar and the Old Testament, but this
Epiphanes after his heinous actions against the Jews [later in Daniel does not prove that the biblical writers were familiar with Ahiqar. Instead,
11:40–45], the manuscript evidence found at Qumran indicates that it proves that wisdom themes were common in the ancient Near East:
Daniel’s book was considered sacred as early as the late–2nd century b.c.,
or no more than ~50 years after its proposed completion during the 1. The shared category of court tale [Daniel 1–6].
Maccabean years! In other words, Daniel’s book was revered long before 2. Similar wise sayings [Proverbs 23:13–14; 30:15–19, 21–31].
the Qumran community tucked itself away in the Judean desert. Thus, the 3. A saying about riches [Ahiqar 10:9 and Jeremiah 9:23].
accounts in Daniel’s book reflect events that happened to a real person 4. A common pig–feeding motif [Ahiqar 8:34 and Luke 15:15].
during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century b.c., and that his prophecies 5. A common wolf–as–enemy motif [Ahiqar 2:30 and Isaiah 11:6;
are indeed accurate. However, the question of who compiled the book, 65:25; Matthew 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; Acts 20:29].
what editorial work they might have done in it, and when that happened,
cannot be definitively answered. Initially, scholars believed that Ahiqar had been translated from the
Akkadian into Aramaic, but modern scholars disagree. The main literary
The Question of Genre argument against this theory is the absence of Akkadian or Persian
Daniel’s book looks less like one of God’s prophets and more like the loanwords in the Aramaic text. Likewise, scholars disagree as to whether
model of a biblical wise man navigating the challenges of life in the two parts of Ahiqar come from the same place or region or were
accordance with God’s law! This is especially true in the narrative written in different dialects. While most scholars agree that the
accounts of Daniel and the three Judeans serving with him in the foreign “framework story” was written in Imperial Aramaic [700–300 b.c.], the
court [Daniel 1–6]. These stories are often classified as court stories, and “sayings of Ahiqar” are often assumed to be older. Thus, elsewhere in the
they fit within a storytelling genre of the ancient Near East. In other words, Old Testament are a collection of such court stories:
court stories presented wise and pious captives who were working and
thriving in the courts of foreign kings, and these stories usually follow one 1. Joseph thrives in Pharaoh’s court [Genesis 41–42].
of two plotlines: either they recount a conflict in the royal court [a 2. Esther finds success in the court of Persian Ahasuerus.
situation in which the hero of the story faces danger on account of his 3. Nehemiah attains high rank in Artaxerxes’ court [Nehemiah 1–2].
character or faith], or they detail a contest in the court [an event in which
the hero faces and solves a challenging problem that stumps the royal So, while the stories in Daniel fit within the genre of court stories, they do
experts]. When the captive courtier demonstrates superior wisdom to that so loosely and for good reason.
 11

In similar stories, the wise captives are unjustly accused and then proven stories do not fit the Maccabean context of Palestine in the 160s b.c., since
innocent in the end. However, in Daniel’s book, they are guilty as charged. there was no royal court, and working in a non–Israelite king’s court
In fact, they are guilty of faithfulness to their God and his law, and their would have been considered treasonous among Jews! This has forced
faithfulness is what causes conflict [later in Daniel 3; 6]. Thus, there is a critical scholars to acknowledge that these court stories in Daniel contains
basic conflict, which no happy ending may really resolve. The danger of a material that are older than the book, but simultaneously conjecture that
new crisis of life and death remains a permanent fixture. This perpetual they were then re–edited in the Maccabean period to fit with Daniel 7–12.
sense of danger means that Daniel does not enjoy a successive career However, this is also problematic for the late–date view, because the
under different kings. In other words, as soon as Daniel succeeds under evidence for the literary unity of Daniel’s book [combined with the pre–
one king, a new monarch arises and he has to start over! These plot Maccabean milieu for the court narratives] is a strong argument for the
deviations draw attention away from the wise Daniel and focuses instead pre–Maccabean date and Babylonian/Persian milieu for the whole book.
on God, because God is the central character of Daniel’s book, and these Thus, although the court stories in Daniel exhibit the most textual
stories showcase God’s superiority over all other gods as he works through similarity with the stories of Joseph in Pharaoh’s court, their thematic
the wit and wisdom of these exiles. Thus, court stories would have similarity with post–exilic Esther would also have encouraged Diaspora
fostered nationalism among audiences that shared the ethnicity of Daniel Jews that God was committed to his people’s survival, regardless of the
as the captive hero. In other words, cheering the success and superiority of threats they faced. So, the court stories of the 2nd Temple period reminded
their compatriot, those who were conquered and exiled would have felt beleaguered Jews that even though foreign kings raged around them, the
vicarious pride in Daniel, since he rose to the highest position in Babylon. God of Israel was still on the throne, because human power was only
derived, given, and taken away ultimately by God.
John Collins [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] says: “The tales of foreign
advisers exhibit a ruled ethnic perspective and that their message lies not The Question of Composition and Structure
in the content of the advice but in the exhibition of superior wisdom by a The enigmatic nature of Daniel’s genre is matched by its unique use of
member of the conquered people. They are affirmations of the enduring languages. The book is written in two languages: Hebrew [Daniel 1:1–2:4;
worth, even superiority, of people who have lost political power. To be 8:1–12:13] and Aramaic [Daniel 2:4–7:28]. Hebrew was the language of
sure, this explanation does not fit all court tales (for example, Aḥikar is God’s covenant people, the Jews, whereas Aramaic was the lingua franca
not a member of a subject nation), and the importance of the specific of the Gentile world in Daniel’s day. Thus, it is possible that Aramaic was
content may vary from tale to tale; but there can be no doubt that ethnic used when Daniel focuses on Gentile powers, and Hebrew was used when
pride was a major reason why the stories of Esther and Daniel were Daniel focuses on God’s covenant people and their future. Although some
preserved. At a time when the Jews were subject to foreign powers, scholars initially speculated that Daniel 1 and Daniel 7 are translated texts,
whether in their own land or in the diaspora, they could take vicarious recent scholarship has concluded that neither text is a translation, but both
pride in the figure of an exile who rose to the highest position in the were composed originally in the language in which they now appear.
kingdom. At the same time, these tales express a basically optimistic view
of the world. Ministers who fall into disgrace can be rehabilitated. H. J. M. Van Deventer [21st century biblical scholar] says: “One of the
Monarchs who act impetuously will eventually see the folly of their ways. persistent problems related to the study of the book of Daniel in the
Most fundamentally, the value of wisdom is affirmed. Wise courtiers will Hebrew Bible is explaining the fact that the book is written in two
succeed, even at the court of an alien king.” languages, viz. Hebrew and Aramaic. Thus, the language division is
dissimilar to the division based on literary type. This gave rise to the
Furthermore, these court stories [Daniel 1–6] ironically fits well with an hypothesis that Daniel 1 and/or Daniel 7 might be translated texts. But, no
early date for Daniel, as opposed to a Maccabean date, because court conclusive grounds for proving such a hypothesis have been presented.”
 12

The Aramaic language takes its name from the Aramean people, or the script were still used by Jews from time to time, as in coins produced by
people of Aram. As a place name, Aram is found in Old Akkadian writings the Maccabees and the later rebel leader Bar Kochba as well as some of
at least as early as the middle of the 3rd millennium b.c., referring to the the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Arab tribe known as the Nabateans also used an
region of the Tigris north of Elam and east of Assyria. alphabet that was based on the older letters, as do the Samaritans to the
present day. When Persia, which defeated Babylonia in 539 B.C.E,
Frederick Greenspahn [21st century linguistic scholar] further explains: adopted Aramaic for official administrative purposes, the language’s
“Aramaic is usually divided into several dialects, organized according to importance grew dramatically. Eventually, the Persian empire stretched
chronological and geographic principles. Although several systems have from Egypt to India, ensuring Aramaic’s widespread use and prominence.
been proposed for doing this, each with its own idiosyncrasies, their Official sponsorship also created a kind of standardization, something
general structures are quite similar. Our earliest evidence of Aramaic which did not begin to wane until the encroachment of Greek under
comes from the Aramaic kingdoms just described. These are said to be Alexander the Great and then, many centuries later, Arabic.”
written in ‘Old’ or ‘Ancient’ Aramaic. Among them are several
inscriptions from northern Syria (mostly near the town of Aleppo) that Thus, since Daniel’s book utilizes official Aramaic, it must have been
were written early in the 1st millennium B.C.E. (probably between the 10th composed in the 6th century b.c.
and the 7th centuries). The language of these texts shares a variety of
features with Hebrew, suggesting that the division between the Aramaic R. K. Harrison [20th century biblical scholar] summarizes the details:
and the Canaanite (Hebrew and Phoenician) branches of Northwest “Daniel’s Hebrew is very similar in character to that of Ezekiel, and is
Semitic was relatively recent. The next period of Aramaic is dominated by used when the author deals with God’s people and their destiny in
what is called Official, Imperial, or Standard Literary Aramaic because it subsequent centuries. By contrast, Daniel’s Aramaic is employed chiefly
served as the official administrative language of the Persian empire from for the description of great world empires. Hebrew terms such as malḵûṯ
the 6th to the 4th centuries, although it may have begun to spread somewhat (‘royal power,’ ‘reign’), which were once regarded as evidence of late
earlier, under the Assyrians and Babylonians. This is also the dialect linguistic usage, were actually used in all periods of the Hebrew
found in the bible, although some scholars assign the book of Daniel to a language, and represent a noun pattern found in Akkadian as early as
later category. Several ancient sources document the growing prevalence the 18th century b.c. Again, the expression ’āmar le (‘command to’), which
of Aramaic. The bible reports a request by Judean leaders that the was formerly thought a late literary form, occurs in Deuteronomy 9:25;
Assyrian army, which was besieging Jerusalem near the end of the 8th Joshua 22:33; 1 Samuel 30:6 and elsewhere, as well as in the postexilic
century, use Aramaic so that the people would not understand what they works (Nehemiah 9:15, 22). There is therefore nothing in the Hebrew that
were saying (2 Kings 18:26 = Isaiah 36:11), suggesting that the leaders of would have been foreign to the linguistic experience of a 6th century b.c.
the time were familiar with it. A century later, when a Philistine ruler person such as Daniel, who knew both Hebrew and Aramaic. The
sought assistance from the Egyptian Pharaoh, he wrote in Aramaic, influence of the latter language can be seen clearly in the use of the phrase
demonstrating that the language had already achieved a significant role in ’ašer lāmmâ to mean ‘least’ (Daniel 1:10). The linguistic evidence once
international communication. After Judah fell to the Babylonian emperor offered by 19th century scholars for the late composition of Daniel has
Nebuchadnezzar, the Jews adopted the Aramean form of what had undergone sobering modification as the result of archeological discoveries
originally been the Phoenician alphabet. It is important to distinguish in the Near East, and not least in relation to the development of Aramaic
between a language and a script; one could, for example, theoretically as a language. It is now know that ‘Aramaic’ is a rather general term for a
write English using the Hebrew, Cyrillic or Japanese scripts, or any other group of Semitic dialects related closely to Hebrew and even more so to
alphabet for that matter. Some Aramaic texts were written in Egyptian one another. They have been classified by philologists into four groups:
(demotic) and cuneiform scripts. Interestingly, derivatives of the older Old Aramaic, Official Aramaic, Levantine Aramaic, and Eastern Aramaic.
 13

Old Aramaic occurred in North Syrian inscriptions from the 10th to the 8th to produce Trwš. These and other shifts in spelling and pronunciation
century b.c., while Official Aramaic was employed increasingly by should be sufficient to suggest caution in assuming that there was
Assyrian government officials between 1100 b.c. and 600 b.c., becoming uniformity or constancy in the transmission of the Aramaic portions of
the language of diplomacy in the Persian period, even though royal Daniel. The presence of Akkadian loanwords is, of course, unexceptional
inscriptions were still being inscribed in Old Persian at that time. in a work such as Daniel, considering the cultural milieu from which it
Aramaic in written and spoken form, however, goes back much further emerged. The same is true of the 19 or so words of Persian origin, some of
than Old Aramaic, being represented in the Ugaritic texts of the Amarna which are attested in the Targums. About half of the Persian loan words
Age and the linguistic traditions of the Middle Bronze Age (Genesis occur in Official Aramaic, and in general can be found in 6th to 5th century
31:47). When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, 90% of it b.c. literary sources. It is worth noting that all such Persian terms are Old
can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri Persian in nature, earlier than 300 b.c., a fact which would be consistent
from the 5th century b.c. or earlier. The remaining words have been found with the linguistic situation of pre–Hellenistic Aramaic. In the light of
in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than Daniel 1:4 it is also a distinct possibility that Daniel both spoke and wrote
the 5th century b.c. While it is at least theoretically possible that this small in Neo–Babylonian. Since the 3rd person form is characteristic of Daniel
balance of vocabulary suddenly originated after the 5th century b.c., it is 1–7, it may be that at least some sections were originally transcribed in
equally possible to argue from a 5th century b.c. written form to an Neo–Babylonian, particularly the interviews with Nebuchadrezzar. This
earlier oral one. By far the most probable explanation, however, is that may be even more likely if the individual chapters were in the nature of
the missing 10% represents nothing more serious than a gap in our memoirs compiled by Daniel shortly after the events and visions took
current knowledge of the linguistic situation, which we may confidently place, a procedure that would be thoroughly consistent with ancient
expect to be filled in process of time. The spelling of certain Aramaic annalistic practices. Daniel 4 may indicate the manner in which a 1st
words in Daniel differs somewhat from the usage in Old Aramaic and person narrative written in cuneiform was modified when rendered into
Official Aramaic. Where the latter have z, š, q, and ṣ, Daniel (and Ezra) Aramaic (Daniel 4:19, 28). If this was the case with some of the material
reads d, t, ‘, and ṭ respectively. Because these variations in Daniel (and in Daniel 1–7, it would help to explain why, when the passages were
Ezra) also occur in the later Palmyrene and Nabatean Aramaic, as well as translated into Aramaic and put into the 3rd person, it was necessary for
in the Targums, it might be thought possible on orthographic grounds to glosses (such as those in Daniel 2:26; 4:19; 5:12; and 8:15) to have been
place Daniel’s Aramaic somewhat between the Elephantine papyri (5th inserted. If this supposition is correct, it will indicate that Daniel was
century b.c.) and the 2nd century b.c. Aramaic dialects. This supposition based upon genuine literary sources, not the garbled tales and legends
rests on the assumption that the consonantal Aramaic of Daniel underwent posited by those scholars who have advocated a Maccabean date for the
no changes in spelling whatever after it was first written, a position which book. Neo–Babylonian would certainly have been appropriate for
would be extremely difficult to justify in the light of what is now known recording contemporary historical events, since it was the court language
about the development of the various Aramaic dialects. Not only have of Nebuchadrezzar, and aside from material involving the king himself it
definite orthographic changes been demonstrated from inscriptions and could also have been used for transmitting such matters as the vision of
papyri, but scholars have now become aware of the fact that Aramaic Daniel 7, which occurred rather unexpectedly and was quite probably
orthography and phonetics are apt to be at variance with one another on jotted down immediately after it had taken place. At the same time there
specific occasions, as sometimes happens in English and other languages. are certain other materials, such as prayers, that would probably have
Thus, in the Elephantine papyri, while the letter z was substituted for ḏ, the been written down in Hebrew or Aramaic.”
actual pronunciation was d, as in the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra. Again,
in 5th century b.c. Egypt, a foreign name such as that of Darius was written In summary, the Hebrew/Aramaic terms are characteristic of the 6th
in a way which substituted the traditional hieroglyphic sign ‘t’ for the ‘d’ century b.c., and do not represent a late Maccabean date for Daniel’s book.
 14

Furthermore, critical scholars postulate that Daniel 1 and Daniel 7–12 It was accepted as Holy Scripture. It was quoted and alluded to often at
were originally written in Aramaic and only later translated into Hebrew. Qumran. Ulrich affirms that the Qumran copies also shift from Hebrew to
However, the lack of any supporting Aramaic manuscripts for these Aramaic (2:4b) and from Aramaic back to Hebrew (8:1) and that no
chapters renders such a theory implausible, and it is also significant that variants reflect sectarian biases—in fact, the variants that are present in
four Qumran fragments reflect the same Hebrew/Aramaic sections, which these copies of Daniel indicate virtually nothing of significance. The text
strongly argues that this was the nature of the original autograph. of Daniel was Holy Scripture, not to be changed. As Flint summarizes, this
abundance of Danielic material shows how the content, form, and
Peter Flint [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] says: “The four scrolls that individual readings of these manuscripts reflect Daniel closely and assert
preserve material from the relevant sections (1QDana, 4QDana, 4QDanb, convincingly the important and authoritative status Daniel enjoyed among
and 4QDand) support the same transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic and the Qumran inhabitants. The book of Daniel was regarded as scripture,
back again. Although the reasons for having Hebrew and Aramaic and Daniel was regarded as a prophet. The canon appears to have been
sections in the same book are complex, the scrolls show us that Daniel closed by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Daniel was part of that
existed in this form very early on and was most likely compiled in canon, and none of the so–called additions to Daniel (the Prayer of
Hebrew and Aramaic.” Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the
Dragon) are included in the Danielic materials discovered so far. These
Eugene Ulrich [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] also says: “It may be apocryphal Danielic stories evidently grew up in Egypt alone.”
mentioned that the Qumran manuscripts confirm the ancient Hebrew–
Aramaic language distribution of the book familiar from the masoretic Thus, to determine the message of Daniel’s book, it is necessary to
text. 1QDana preserves the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic at 2:4b, and this understand its structure and unity. Critical scholars argue that Daniel 7–12
is supported by 4QDana, which has a fragment of 1:16–20 in Hebrew and was written after Daniel 1–6 by a Maccabean author, because apparently
its next fragment of 2:9–11 in Aramaic. 4QDana and 4QDanb both display Daniel 7–12 fits an apocalyptic genre that did not arise until after the 6th
the shift from Aramaic back to Hebrew at 8:1. More broadly, all the century b.c. However, not all critical scholars are convinced, and some
fragments of all eight manuscripts display the expected language in all argue that Daniel 8–12 are visions that demonstrate eschatology, while
preserved passages.” others see apocalyptic elements in Daniel 2–7 that comprises a type of
original Aramaic apocalypse dated to the reign of Antiochus III, so that a
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] likewise concludes: Maccabean author used this older apocalypse during the ongoing Jewish
“Peter Flint notes that there is an abundance of material about Daniel in rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes by supplementing it with new
the Dead Sea Scrolls. These finds basically support the Masoretic Text apocalyptic instructions [Daniel 8–12]. Nevertheless, the tendency in early
tradition, but some also witness other traditions closer to the Septuagint or scholarship was to see a major break after Daniel 6, which divided the
Theodotion. Eugene Ulrich lists eight manuscripts of Daniel and material between the court stories [Daniel 1–6] and the visions [Daniel 7–
fragments from seven other manuscripts. All of the chapters of Daniel are 12]. However, some argued that the major break is after Daniel 7 [based
represented in the biblical manuscripts from Qumran except chapter 12, on the concentric arrangement of Daniel 2–7], and others argued that the
which is attested in 4QFlorilegium (Daniel 12:10). Only a few other major break is after Daniel 5 [based on the theory of an intricate
books—the Pentateuch, Psalms, Isaiah, 1 Enoch, and Jubilees—have more paralleling structure between Daniel 2–5 and Daniel 6–12]. So, of these
manuscript copies preserved at Qumran. This situation is impressive—in three views, only the concentric arrangement view coincides with the
fact, amazing if the book were written around 164 b.c.—for given the linguistic division of the book [the Aramaic section in Daniel 2–7 in
size of Daniel, one would not expect the extent of its presence among the contrast to the Hebrew section in Daniel 8–12], and because the linguistic
Dead Sea Scrolls to easily exceed most of the books of the Hebrew Bible. division is a significant factor, this theory is the most convincing.
 15

Nevertheless, recent scholarship has demonstrated that the structure of the Nevertheless, since it functions as a prologue to the entire book, this
book is even more complex. In other words, Daniel 2–7 and Daniel 7–12 explains the presence of Hebrew there. Furthermore, beyond representing
overlap because Daniel 7 is at the center of both major divisions! the life of God’s people among foreigners, the Aramaic chiasm also
furnishes the themes that drive the entire book. While no one who used
chiasm in the ancient world left a manual for its usage, most scholars think
that the center of the chiasm is the focus of the entire structure. Its message
encapsulates the heart of Daniel’s overall message. In the chiasm of Daniel
2–7, the center is shared between Daniel 4–5, two accounts of God
humbling arrogant human kings. Why does God do this to human kings?
Because, as Daniel hammers home for 12 chapters, God alone is
sovereign, and when earthly kings get the wrong idea about their
dominion, God sets them straight. Every human king is subject to God.
The chapters surrounding these central chapters reveal additional truths
about the relationship between the divine and human kings, as well as
illustrating how God’s faithful people should live in the tension that often
exists between the two. In the outer chapters [Daniel 2 and Daniel 7], the
Three reasons support this view of an overlapping structure: scope is cosmic, both temporally and spatially. The dreams of
Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel highlight the history of human kingdoms to
1. It takes into account the linguistic division of the book. their ultimate demise before God’s everlasting kingdom.
2. It recognizes the concentric structure for Daniel 2–7. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream [Daniel 2] focuses on the magnificence and
3. It recognizes that Daniel 7 starts a series of four visions to Daniel. relative strength of human kingdoms, while Daniel’s dream [Daniel 7]
displays their evil and arrogance. The perspective is all–encompassing.
Thus, notice that Daniel 7 is the oddball in this structure, since its genre The chiasm’s middle chapters [Daniel 3 and Daniel 6] provide up–close–
fits with what follows [Daniel 8–12] and not with the narrative accounts and–personal examples of what God’s people might expect from human
[Daniel 1–6]. However, its language matches the preceding chapters, and it rulers in return for their sole devotion to God. Some kings are overtly
clearly closes this six–chapter chiasm. So, Daniel 7 lies at the heart of the hostile to God’s people because of their faith. Others are impotent and find
book, serving as a hinge between its sections and holding them together. themselves trapped by forces greater than their own good intentions. The
This clear compositional structure involving the languages indicates that witness of God’s followers in these two chapters illustrates how to be
they serve a literary purpose and were not just an accident of translational faithful regardless of the national climate and what faithfulness may cost.
history. The Aramaic chapters [Daniel 2–7] focus primarily on events that The central chapters of the chiasm [Daniel 4–5] revisit the relationship
transpired in the royal courts of Babylon and later Persia. Since Aramaic between divine and human kingship, but with specific examples of two
was the language of the court and the broader exilic context, it was used individual kings who overreached their God–ordained authority. God
for the chapters pertaining to life there: the language represented the humbled each of them, but he did so based on their differing attitudes
people’s experience as foreigners [Daniel 7 is the exception]. But, when toward him and the authority he had bestowed on them. Then Daniel’s
the book shifts to the future promise of the Jews back in their own land of book moves into the apocalyptic visions primarily concerned with the
Israel [Daniel 8–12], it also shifts back to Hebrew. According to this suffering of God’s people at the hands of foreign kings. The assault against
pattern, we would expect Daniel 1 [the beginning of their time in exile] to God and his people in these apocalyptic chapters far exceeds the
be Aramaic instead of Hebrew. opposition mounted by the exilic kings.
 16

Although Daniel was able to influence his overlords for good, God’s their own languages. Unable to understand or be understood, they were
faithful people in these apocalyptic chapters can only endure and remain scattered. At some point after this God implemented a new plan for rule in
faithful, knowing they will enjoy everlasting reward while the wicked the world. Moses, in retelling Israel’s early history, says that “when the
suffer everlasting judgment. In spite of their differing emphases, the Most High gave nations as their inheritance, when he separated the human
book’s two sections share the themes set out in the Aramaic chiasm: race, he set boundaries for the people according to the number of the
arrogant human rulers brought low by the sovereign ruler of an everlasting gods. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is his allotted portion”
kingdom and God’s people remaining faithful in the midst of suffering. In [Deuteronomy 32:8–9]. These “gods” were members of God’s divine
other words, sometimes it is possible to be both faithful to one’s principles council and subject to his authority [1 Kings 22:1–18; 2 Chronicles 18:18–
and fully involved in the society. At other times, society can be so hostile 22; Psalm 29:1; 82; 89:6]. However, he reserved one nation for himself.
that the principles are trampled on, and the righteous may be crushed. This Israel was small and unimpressive, but since the story is about God and not
parallels the difference in ethos between Paul’s positive view of the Israel, size and splendour did not matter, as beautifully stated by Yoda:
Roman government [Romans 13] and John’s negative view of it “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?”
[Revelation 13]. Both situations present challenges and temptations to test
the faithfulness of those seeking to remain true to their vision of God.
Thus, Daniel 7 forms the heart and indivisible center of this unique book.
Structurally, it interlocks the two languages and genres. Thematically, it
ties God’s faithfulness in the past to an uncertain and even ominous future.
In its vision of the Son of Man and the future inheritance of God’s
everlasting kingdom, Daniel 7 casts the book’s first vision of what lies
beyond the suffering ahead, and it gives necessary hope to keep reading
until the reward is finally realized in Daniel 12.

Brennan Breed [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Whereas Daniel

1–6 focuses on moral aspects of authority and loyalty, Daniel 7–12
emphasizes the moral dimension of authority as framed by concerns with Thus, at the time God chose his nation, it consisted of just one childless
sanctity and liberation. Both parts of the book of Daniel concern man and his barren wife, but God covenanted with that man to make him
themselves with the sovereignty of Yahweh, but their distinct moral into a great nation. This nation would live in the land God chose and they
frameworks reveal different understandings of the pressing problems would be a blessing to the world. Through this one man and his
facing Yahweh’s sovereignty and the appropriate response of the faithful.” descendants, God was going to reclaim all that the first man, Adam, had
jeopardized by his sin. Humanity would once again rule earth as God’s
Thus, the events of Daniel’s book fell at a critical time in Israel’s history. righteous representatives, but it would take some time. The ragtag group of
The story that began with God’s creation of a place where humanity would people that descended from Abraham eventually grew into a sizeable
rule as his vice regent took a sharp turn when the first human rulers population while living in Egypt. When a paranoid Pharaoh enslaved and
challenged the wisdom and authority of God. In the aftermath of this oppressed Abraham’s descendants to keep from being overrun, God
autonomous act, rebellion reigned until God, grieved that he had created rescued them in an act of covenant faithfulness and brought them into the
humanity at all, wiped the world clean. But, the fresh start with Noah did land he had promised. Positioned at the crossroads of the ancient world,
not last long enough, so God meted out a new kind of judgment: he Israel was to be a shining example of what it meant to live in right
brought an end to humanity’s unfettered rebellion by locking people into relationship with God and in community with each other.
 17

However, the recalcitrant nation proved to be less of a blessing to the The balance of the chapter focuses on four young Hebrew teenagers under
world than an embarrassment to God, who eventually judged them by duress [vv. 8–16]. Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were in a
handing them over to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Exile left God’s strange land far from home. They had been ripped away from their
people with great uncertainty about their future and their place in God’s families, friends, and beloved religious customs, from all that they had
plan. Thus, Daniel’s book speaks into this uncertainty and affirms that God ever known. Suddenly they were among pagans in a land teeming with
was not done with his people. They may have broken the covenant, but in idols and decadence. How would they fare? How would they deal with
his faithfulness God would restore them. In fact, Daniel’s book also emotions like fear and sorrow and anger? Would they keep the faith?
reveals that restoration would be much bigger, much farther away, and far Would they compromise? Would they become bitter? Would they cave in
more complicated than anyone imagined. It would not come apart from to despair? Would they rise to the occasion? Thus, Daniel 1 is an
great suffering, but when it finally did come, it would be more glorious encouraging look at some rare young men of integrity. Here are great
than they had anticipated. This restoration awaited the coming of a human lessons about purity and principle, and here we can learn much about
ruler who could fulfil God’s expectations of creation: a vice regent living standing tall and strong in the midst of great trial, and Daniel 1 closes with
in perfect submission to God and subsequently ruling righteously on earth. these four young men having passed the test. God has honoured their
When this human figure finally did appear, God’s kingdom was faithfulness. They are chosen for royal positions [vv. 17–21]. This will
inaugurated on earth. This figure was Jesus, and he lived his life in perfect give them a platform for future effectiveness and an international impact!
submission to God, which led to his unspeakable suffering, humiliation,
and death, which was not the glorious kingdom his followers anticipated. Bible Passage
His righteous rule over all the earth did not happen. Nevertheless, his Read Daniel 1
resurrection and ascension proved that he was, indeed, the awaited king,
but the waiting was not quite over. Jesus himself tried to help his disciples Hostages of the Babylonian Captivity
understand there was more to come, and he drew from imagery in Daniel 1
In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King
to do so [Mark 13]. God’s awarding of the nations to Jesus as his Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it.
inheritance signified the reclamation of the territories assigned to the other 2
Within a week, the Lord handed King Jehoiakim of Judah over to him,
gods after Babel [Psalm 2:7–8]. However, these unseated authorities along with valuable objects from the house of God. Nebuchadnezzar
would not take defeat lying down. They would claw and fight until the brought them to the temple of his god in the land of Shinar and stored
reigning Son of Man finally opened the scroll once sealed in Daniel them in its treasure house. 3Later, the king ordered Ashpenaz, his chief
[Revelation 5]. So, we wait for that day when God’s rule is a full reality. officer, to bring in some Israelis of royal and noble descent. 4They were to
be young men without physical defect, handsome in appearance, skilled in
In summary, by piecing together evidence from the Old Testament, all wisdom, quick to learn, prudent in how they used knowledge, and
Daniel likely grew up in a God–fearing home, with parents that were capable of serving in the king’s palace. They were to learn the literature
impacted by the spiritual revival and cultural reforms spearheaded by King and language of the Chaldeans. 5The king assigned them fine food and
Josiah. Surely it was disheartening for this prominent Jewish family to choice wine on a daily basis, ordering them to be trained for three years, at
watch as Judah’s brief repentance was snuffed out by the wicked kings the end of which time they would enter the king’s service. 6Included
Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim. Despite faithful prophets like Jeremiah, the among the people of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
nation staggered toward certain judgment. Thus, Daniel 1 describes this 7
The chief officer assigned the name “Belteshazzar” to Daniel, the name
regrettable turn of events: Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem [vv. “Shadrach” to Hananiah, the name “Meshach” to Mishael, and the name
1–2] and his conscription of the most gifted and talented Jews to serve in “Abednego” to Azariah.
the royal court in Babylon [vv. 3–7].
 18

Daniel Chooses God’s Standard

8
Daniel determined within himself not to become defiled by the king’s
menu of rich foods or by the king’s wine, so he requested permission from
the chief officer not to defile himself. 9God granted to Daniel grace and
compassion on the part of the chief officer. 10The chief officer told Daniel,
“I fear his majesty the king, who has determined what you eat and drink. If
he notices that your faces are more pale than the other young men in your
group, I will forfeit my head to the king.” 11But Daniel told the guard
whom the chief officer had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah, 12“Please test your servants for ten days and let us be given
vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13Then compare how we look with the
young men who ate the king’s rich food, and treat your servants in
accordance with what you observe.” 14So he listened to what Daniel said
and tested them for ten days. 15At the end of ten days their appearance was
better and their faces were well–nourished compared to the young men
who ate the king’s rich food. 16So the guard took away their rich food and
wine, giving them vegetables. 17As for these four young men, God gave
them knowledge, aptitude for learning, and wisdom. Daniel also could
understand all kinds of visions and dreams. 18Then at the end of the
training period that the king had established, the chief officer brought them The Assyrian Background
in before Nebuchadnezzar. 19When the king spoke to them, none of them During the Neo–Assyrian Period [900–612 b.c.], Assyria’s expansionist
compared to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, or Azariah as they stood before tendencies were fuelled by the desire to establish vassal states and enact
the king. 20In every matter of wisdom or understanding that the king tribute from them. During this period, outlying areas [like Syria] made
discussed with them, he found them ten times superior to all the repeated attempts to rebel against Assyria. The Babylonians were also
astrologers and enchanters in his entire palace. 21So Daniel remained there suppressed by Assyria during this period, despite attempts to gain their
in service until the first year of King Cyrus. independence. The grip of Assyria was strengthened under the reign of
Tiglath–pileser III [745–727 b.c.], and his forces invaded Israel in 734–
Understanding the Text 732 b.c. [2 Kings 15:29]. He annexed Damascus in 732 b.c. About this
3) Why did God allow the siege of Jerusalem and deportation? (1:1–2) time disturbances arose in Babylonia following the death of Nabû–naṣir
[Nabonassar] in 734 b.c., which led to Tiglath–pileser taking a more direct
First, an extensive preliminary overview of the historical developments is hand in the affairs of Babylon [2 Kings 15:19; 1 Chronicles 5:26]. Then,
required to fully appreciate this succinct summary of vv. 1–2. The under Shalmaneser V [727–722 b.c.], Assyria instigated a 3–year siege
Assyrian period will be examined first, as it sets the stage for Babylon’s against the city of Samaria [capital of the northern kingdom of Israel],
rise to power. During the power struggle between Assyria and Babylon, which resulted in the fall of Samaria in 722 b.c. and the deportation of
the land of Judah was caught in the crossfire, which led to thousands of Israelites. There is some confusion as to whether the actual
Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem in 605 b.c. and the first deportation fall of Samaria took place under Shalmaneser V or his son Sargon II [722–
of Jews to Babylon, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. 705 b.c.], who claimed to have taken the city, but many scholars feel he
may have been simply taking credit for an achievement of his father.
 19

Albert Kirk Grayson [21st century Assyriologist] says: “The most Babylon’s Rise to Power
attractive solution to the problem is that Samaria fell in 722 b.c., the year Under the reign of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal [669–627 b.c.], the
of Shalmaneser V’s death and the accession of Sargon II. Thus, the leading Babylonians unsuccessfully rebelled against Assyria in 651–648 b.c.
of the Israelites into exile by the Assyrians was probably carried out
during the reign of Sargon II (721–705 b.c.). Consequently, references to Joan Louise Oates [21st century archaeologist] says: “Assurbanipal left a
Shalmaneser (Enemessaros) in the book of Tobit (1:2, 13, 15, 16), in further and perhaps more important legacy to the modern world. A
connection with events during the exile of the people of Samaria at library, collected at Nineveh, and discovered there by British excavators in
Nineveh, actually relate to the period of Sargon II.” 1853, has provided modern scholars with undoubtedly the world’s single
most important collection of cuneiform tablets, including the Epic of
So, this marked the collapse of the northern kingdom, predicted by Isaiah, Gilgamesh and the Creation Epic, the ‘Babylonian Genesis.’”
as discipline from God for years of covenant unfaithfulness [Deuteronomy
28–30]. Under the Assyrian king Sennacherib [705–681 b.c.], Nineveh’s However, Assyria was weakening, especially during the reign of
importance rose. Previously, Nineveh shared the splendour of other royal Ashurbanipal’s sons, when Assyria began losing territory. Phraortes the
cities of Assyria: Asshur, Nimrûd [Calah], and Khorsabad. Under Mede attacked the Assyrians, and by 626 b.c., the Chaldean Nabû–apla–
Sennacherib it became the capital of the land and one of the architectural usur [Nabopolassar] had won independence for Babylon and was
wonders of the world. During Sennacherib’s reign the Babylonians again recognized there as king, though not accepted or recognized by Assyria.
attempted to throw off the yoke of Assyria. However, the Babylonian king This is why the Medes were heirs to Elamite power in western Iran.
was defeated along with his allies by Sennacherib near Kish in 703 b.c.
Joan Louise Oates [21st century archaeologist] continues: “They had been
th
Donald Wiseman [20 century Assyriologist] explains the details: welded into a single kingdom by an able ruler, Huvakshatra, known to
“Sennacherib plundered Babylon, deported 208,000 prisoners to Nineveh, Herodotus as Cyaxares. In 614 b.c., Cyaxares marched on Nineveh;
and set up a young friend Bēl–ibni as ruler. He had to move into the Nimrud was sacked, the walls of Assur breached, and that city captured
southern marshes to follow up Marduk–apla–iddina II, who had and looted.”
reappeared in Bīt–Yakin. The latter was this time driven to flee to Elam.
An expedition was mounted with ships built at Nineveh, carried overland Thus, Nabopolassar was important, not only for his eventual conquest of
from Opis on the Tigris, and manned by Phoenicians. It embarked with Nineveh, but also as the father of Nebuchadnezzar [sometimes spelled
troops at Bab–Salimeti; but it was too late, for by then the wily old Nebuchadrezzar], the Babylonian king of Daniel’s book. So, in light of this
Chaldean had died in exile (694 b.c). The Elamites invaded Babylonia, context, Nebuchadnezzar maintained friendly relations with the Medes, as
captured Sippar, and removed the pro–Assyrian Aššur–nadin–šumi from there is little mention of trouble on the eastern frontier. So, under
the throne in Babylon. For 7 years the struggle continued until the Nabopolassar, a new dynasty had begun, generally referred to as the Neo–
Babylonians, again with Elamite auxiliaries, met the Assyrian army at Babylonian or Chaldean Period. Nabopolassar gained further territory
Ḫalule. Though the Arameans and their allies were defeated, Assyrian from the Assyrians, and by 614 b.c., Asshur fell. Then in 612 b.c., the
casualties were heavy. Angered, Sennacherib laid siege to the Chaldeans Medes and Babylonians marched up the Tigris to Nineveh. In fulfilment of
within the sacred city of Babylon for 9 months before he sacked it. The Nahum’s prophecies, Nineveh fell to the combined forces of the Medes,
statue of the god Marduk was carried off to Assyria. Sennacherib took the the Umman–Manda [either the Scythians or Cimmerians], and the
ancient title ‘King of Sumer and Akkad’ and resistance ceased.” Babylonians in 612 b.c. The exact identity of the Umman–Manda is still
debated by scholars, and the term is not necessarily limited to one
This fuelled Babylonia’s hatred for Assyria for another ~80 years! particular people group.
 20

In general, it appears to have been used for the peoples to the east and
northeast of Nineveh, inhabiting the territory of the Medes and even up
through the Caucasus Mountain range. The term Umman–Manda can
either mean “the horde from who knows where” or “the troops of the
distant terrain” and some scholars suggest that the Cimmerians were
designated as Umman–Manda in Assyrian and Babylonian texts due to the
fact that they came from a distant land in the east. So, a remnant of the
Assyrian forces attempted to withdraw west of the Euphrates River,
hoping to be supported by their Egyptian allies under Pharaoh Neco II.
This led to the defeat of the Assyrians and Egyptians at Harran in 609 b.c.,
and of the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 b.c., not by Nabopolassar
himself, but by his son Nebuchadnezzar. This marked the end of Assyria
for good, and these victories established Babylon as the dominant world
power of that day and set the stage for Judah’s exile to Babylon.

However, to appreciate this development, the following chart lists the last
reigning kingships of Judah during this period before the exile.

Name Co–Regent Became King Died

Josiah – September 641 to September 640 July 609
Jehoahaz – July 609 October 609
Jehoiakim – October 609 December 598
Jehoiachin September 608 December 598 to April 597 April 561
Zedekiah – April 597 to August 586 August 586

So, Josiah reigned 31 accession years [2 Kings 22:1; 2 Chronicles 34:1].

The accession–year occurs when the king comes to the throne, and his first
official year is that which begins with the New Year’s Day after his
accession. The chronology of this period is reliable due to extra–biblical
materials and two firm dates:

1. The 2nd of Adar [15th/16th of March] in 597 b.c., when Jehoiachin

was captured and taken as prisoner to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar.

Judah’s Exile to Babylon 2. The 9th of Tammuz [18th of July] in 586 b.c., when Jerusalem fell
In the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory at Carchemish in 605 b.c., in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. However, not all scholars
the kingdom of Judah became a victim in a major international shakeup. support this date, where some prefer the 4th of Tammuz in 587 b.c.
 21

Josiah was considered one of the good kings of Judah. In his 8th year in September/October. Because Jehoahaz’s 3 months spilled over into the
September 633–632 b.c., he began to seek God [2 Chronicles 34:3]. In his next New Year, Jehoiakim had an accession year lasting ~11 months.”
12th year in September 629–628 b.c., he began to purge the land of evil and
idolatry. During his 18th year, the Torah was found, since it was neglected Thus, Jehoiakim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned
during the previous evil reigns of Manasseh and Amon. So, these events 11 accession years [2 Kings 23:36; 2 Chronicles 36:5], from October in
led to a reform effort during his reign to turn the nation back to God, and 609 b.c. to the 9th of December in 598 b.c. He was the 2nd son of Josiah [1
under his reform effort, the southern kingdom of Judah experienced some Chronicles 3:15], and his given name was Eliakim, but he was given the
measure of revival and return to God. Unfortunately, this reform was throne name of Jehoiakim by Pharaoh Necho II. Furthermore, Jehoiakim
somewhat superficial, and more of an outward cleansing, though Josiah was the ruling king of Judah when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem in
did right in the sight of God [2 Kings 22:2], and was credited with 605 b.c., and when Daniel and his friends were taken away into exile in
removing much of the occultic movement in the land and attempting to Babylon. Although he was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho II,
turn the nation back to God [2 Kings 23:24–25]. Furthermore, Jeremiah’s Jehoiakim was made subject to Babylon. In other words, following the
prophetic and preaching ministry was linked with Josiah’s reform capture of Nineveh in 612 b.c. by Nabopolassar [with help from the
movement. But, despite these measures, God’s judgment was already Medes], the Assyrians were forced to retreat to Harran. But, Nabopolassar
settled in light of the nation’s disobedience to the Torah, because of the took Harran, and in 609 b.c. he repelled the Assyrians and their Egyptian
evil reign of Manasseh of Judah. The time was ripe for the southern allies who attempted to recapture Harran, driving them westward across
kingdom to be exiled, as predicted by Moses [Deuteronomy 28:41, 65]. the Euphrates River. Thus, Egypt still held sway over Syro–Palestine from
This would echo what the northern kingdom had earlier experienced in 609 b.c. to 605 b.c., and during this period, Jehoiakim remained subject to
722 b.c., and this judgment was hastened by Josiah’s death along with the Pharaoh Necho II as an Egyptian vassal state, forced to pay heavy tribute.
advent of the international power struggle that enveloped Judah, because Nevertheless, in 605 b.c., Nebuchadnezzar turned to the last remaining
during Josiah’s reign, a fierce competition for control of the Middle East Assyrian stronghold: Carchemish. In that year Nebuchadnezzar defeated
broke out between the three major empires of the day: Egypt, Assyria, and Assyria at Carchemish, and he forced Egypt to withdraw from northern
Babylon. Thus, as Assyria’s domination of the Middle East was nearing an Syria. Nebuchadnezzar then pursued the Egyptian forces toward Egypt,
end, Babylon and Egypt attempted to grab what power they could. and it was at this time that he laid siege to Jerusalem, forced the Jews to
Nineveh had fallen in 612 b.c., marking the virtual demise of Assyria. pay tribute, and took prisoners. So, from 605 b.c. onward, Jerusalem was
However, with a remnant of the Assyrian army still surviving, the struggle subject to Babylon and incorporated into the Babylonian Empire. Tribute
continued on and shifted westward [closer to Judah]. Then, in 609 b.c., that previously went to Egypt now went to Babylon. It was also at this
Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt marched northward through Judah on his way time that his father Nabopolassar died unexpectedly on the 15th/16th of
to Harran [in response to an appeal from Aššur–uballiṭ of Assyria] to August in 605 b.c., and Nebuchadnezzar had to rush back to Babylon by
deliver his ally from an approaching Babylonian military force. However, the 7th of September in 605 b.c. He remained in Babylon until the end of
Josiah intervened against the Egyptians and was killed [2 Kings 23:29]. the year. Thus, for the next 3 years [605–602 b.c.], Jehoiakim remained a
Thus, upon the death of Josiah, Jehoahaz was made king by “the people of loyal subject of Babylon, but then he attempted to rebel [2 Kings 24].
the land” [2 Kings 23:30], but he reigned for only ~3 months in Jerusalem
because of Pharaoh Necho II [2 Kings 23:31; 2 Chronicles 36:2], and then Eugene Merrill [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes the details:
was later exiled in Egypt [2 Kings 23:33; Jeremiah 22:10–12]. “When Nabopolassar died unexpectedly, Nebuchadnezzar left off his
pursuit of Neco to return to Babylon in order to secure his succession. He
Leslie McFall [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The reign of Jehoahaz did so on September 7, 605 BC, and remained in Babylon until the turn of
began in Tammuz (25 June–23 July) of 609 and ended 3 months later in the year, when once more he set his sights on western domination.
 22

Jehoiakim, it will be recalled, was an appointee of Neco of Egypt, who break his alliance with Nebuchadnezzar. The chronicles, in any case,
occupied Palestine and southern Syria between 609 BC and 605 BC. reveal that Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st campaign after succeeding his father was
Jehoiakim, like his brother Jehoahaz, was evil, and for his sin he was in his 1st regnal year (604 BC). At that time he plunged deep into Palestine
visited with the judgment of God. Until Egypt was permanently expelled and took the Philistine city of Ashkelon. In his 4th year (601 BC) he
from Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar after the battle of Carchemish, Judah engaged Neco II in a great battle near the border of Egypt, a conflict that
was an Egyptian vassal state obligated to pay heavy tribute. evidently ended in a draw. Perhaps the Babylonian was not altogether
Nebuchadnezzar not only drove Egypt out of the land, but also unsuccessful, for he may have brought Judah back under his control in the
immediately incorporated Judah into the Babylonian Empire and course of this campaign.”
demanded that the tribute formerly paid to Egypt be given to Babylonia
instead. Careful attention to all the sources indicates that Thus, since Nebuchadnezzar engaged Pharaoh Necho II in a great battle
Nebuchadnezzar penetrated deep into Syria–Palestine after the fall of near the border of Egypt, with both sides incurring heavy losses, this
Carchemish, some of his troops reaching Jerusalem itself. With indecisive outcome tempted Judah to free herself from Babylon and seek
lightning–like action he ridded the land of the Egyptians, made Jehoiakim an alliance with Egypt. This is why Nebuchadnezzar marched into
swear allegiance, and sent a number of Jewish captives back to his capital. northern Syria in his 6th year in 599–598 b.c., but before the Babylonians
All this took place in a matter of a few weeks, for by August 15, 605 BC, could take Jerusalem, Jehoiakim died in December 598 b.c., perhaps in the
Nabopolassar had died and Nebuchadnezzar had to return at once to siege, but certainly before the main Babylonian army arrived. Then
Babylon. As the author of Kings indicates, Jehoiakim remained a loyal Jehoiachin became king at age 18 and reigned 3 months [2 Kings 24:8].
subject to the Babylonians for the next three years (605–602 BC). He then However, 2 Chronicles 36:9 states that he was 8 years old! So, is this a
rebelled for an unknown reason; retribution was swift and sure (2 Kings contradiction? No. This 10–year difference refers to co–regency.
24:1–2). Jehoiakim’s rebellion with the Babylonian conflict with Egypt
was in the winter of 601/600 BC, which is attested to by a letter written in Leslie McFall [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Jehoiachin became
Aramaic from the town of Saqqarah. Nebuchadnezzar sent troops from coregent in September 608 BC and was king from 9 December 598 BC to
Babylonia and from some of his western vassal states such as Aram, 22 April 597 BC. The exact date of Jehoiachin’s kingship can be given
Moab, and Ammon and forced Jehoiakim to submit. Wiseman points out with some degree of accuracy because extra–biblical evidence indicates
that the campaign against Jehoiakim is not mentioned in the Babylonian that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem on 15/16 March, 597 BC.
records (BM 21946, reverse 5–7) because Nebuchadnezzar’s main Jehoiachin was deported to Babylon on 22 April 597 BC, and this day
objective was Egypt and not Judah. This is why ‘Aramean’ should be marked the end of Jehoiachin’s reign of 3 months and 10 days. Working
retained in 2 Kings 24:2 and not replaced with ‘Edomite’ as some scholars back from this day places the commencement of Jehoiachin’s reign in the
argue. The Edomite hostility against Arad described in letters of the period early days of December and consequently Jehoiakim must have died on
could refer as well to 587–586 BC as to 600–598 BC. The Chronicler says or around 9 December 598 BC, which confirms the prophecy of
that Nebuchadnezzar went so far as to bind Jehoiakim with shackles in Jeremiah 36:30 that his dead body would be exposed to the frost of the
order to take him as a prisoner of war to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:6). night. Jehoiachin was released from prison on 2 April 561 BC. His age is
Apparently he relented, but as punishment, stripped the temple of many of given as 18, and so this must involve co–regency.”
its sacred articles and took them to his own pagan temples in Babylon.
Thereafter, until his death in 598 BC, Jehoiakim remained in subservience Thus, in March/April of 597 b.c., Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem from
to the Babylonian overlord. Meanwhile Nebuchadnezzar had undertaken Jehoiachin and set up Zedekiah as king [another son of Josiah]. Jehoiachin,
several western campaigns against Judah’s neighbours. It may have been together with his family, leading state and military officials, craftsmen,
his preoccupation with these states that gave Jehoiakim the courage to and troops, were taken captive to Babylon [the 2nd deportation].
 23

The total number of captives at this time was 10,000 [2 Kings 24:14], and In summary, there were three major deportations of Jews to Babylon:
Ezekiel was also taken in this deportation in 597 b.c. Although Jerusalem
was spared, a heavy tribute was taken, including the treasures from 1. In 605 b.c., this deportation was limited to a number of the nobility
Solomon’s Temple and the royal palace [2 Kings 24:13]. Jehoiachin and leading youths of the city, like Daniel and his companions.
remained a captive in Babylon for many years, but was eventually released
from prison on the 2nd of April in 561 b.c. [2 Kings 25:27–30], but the 2. In 597 b.c., in response to the rebellion of Jehoiakim and
Babylonian Chronicle [which correlates much of these historical events] Jehoiachin, ~10,000 captives were taken to Babylon [Ezekiel 1:1–
breaks off at 594–593 b.c., and does not pick up again until 557–556 b.c. 3; 2 Kings 24:8–20; 2 Chronicles 36:6–10].
So, finally with Jehoiachin deported to Babylon, his uncle Zedekiah was
made king of Judah [2 Kings 24:17–20], and his reign of 11 years 3. In 586 b.c., Zedekiah’s rebellion brought on the final siege, which
culminated in a major rebellion against Babylon. As a result, culminated with the city and Temple being destroyed and many
Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem one final time for 30 months, and Jews being killed. Those who were not killed were deported to
eventually destroyed the city on the 18th of July in 586 b.c. At this point Babylon [2 Kings 25:1–7; Jeremiah 34:1–7; 39:1–7; 52:2–11].
Daniel had been in Babylon for ~19 years and was serving as an important
official in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. Thus, not only was Jerusalem
destroyed, but Solomon’s Temple [built in 960 b.c.] was also destroyed.
As Lamentations makes clear, this was the lowest point in the nation’s
history, and must have come as very disheartening news to Daniel and his
companions in Babylon. In other words, Jeremiah also lived through all
these terrible events in Jerusalem and witnessed its destruction in 586 b.c.

Highlights of the Babylonian Period

The Neo–Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar of Babylon,
reached its zenith under his son, Nebuchadnezzar. His rule began in 605
b.c. and lasted until 562 b.c. He is famous for one of the Seven Wonders of
the Ancient World [the gardens of Babylon] as well as for his destruction
of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. He was succeeded by his son Amēl–Marduk
 24

[Evil–Merodach] in October 562 b.c. Thus, during his reign, Daniel In contrast to Israel’s monotheism, the Assyro–Babylonian religion held to
enjoyed great favour with Nebuchadnezzar, while Jehoiachin [who held a vast pantheon of deities. Furthermore, these deities were often struggling
the claim to David’s throne] was kept in prison at Babylon. Following with one another. There were mythological accounts of both creation and a
Nebuchadnezzar’s death, Jehoiachin was released. Nevertheless, as mighty flood, but creation was not the result of a spoken word by Israel’s God.
as the Neo–Babylonian Empire was, it turned out to be rather short–lived, Furthermore, central to Mesopotamian religious practice was the belief
from Nabopolassar’s rise in 627 b.c. until its defeat by Cyrus of Persia in that man was created in order to serve the gods. The list of their deities is
539 b.c. During the final phase, Nabonidus and Belshazzar served as co– so long that it is simply not possible to list them all here, since there are
rulers. However, Nabonidus remained away from Babylon for much of this ~3,000 deities known from theophoric personal names. Furthermore, many
time. In other words, although Nabonidus came to the throne in 556–539 of their functions and attributes would overlap. Here are their main gods:
b.c., he was an unpopular king, especially with the priests of Marduk, who
hated him for constructing a rival sanctuary to the moon–god Sîn. 1. Anu [or “heaven”] was the father and king of the gods, the heavens
Nabonidus went off on a distant expedition to Tema in Arabia, and after personified. Although in theory he was the supreme deity among
conquering the city, established it as his royal residence. So, here is a the gods, he was in practicality rather passive. His consort was
summary of the successive Babylonian kings for this period: variously Antu or Ishtar, and his chief city was Uruk. Supposedly
the demons derived their origin from him. Here is iconography
depicting Anu from Maltai [northern Iraq], carved into rock:

The Religious Context of the Babylonian Exile

To appreciate the culture into which Daniel and the other Jewish exiles
were placed, one must understand some of the religious aspects of
Babylon. Although Assyria and Babylon existed as political and military
rivals for much of ancient Near Eastern history, the two had much in 2. Enlil [or “lord wind”] represented the atmosphere, wind, and storm.
common in their religion. Much of the Assyro–Babylonian religion was He functioned as the chief deity and possessed the “tablets of
derived from the earlier Sumerian culture. destiny” which determined the future. His city was Nippur.
 25

Here is iconography of Enlil from a relief of a procession of deities 4. Sîn represented the moon. His principal city was Ur, but he was
from Maltai [northern Iraq], carved into rock: also worshiped at Harran in northern Mesopotamia. The last king
of the Neo–Babylonian empire, Nabonidus [father of Belshazzar],
attempted to make Sîn the highest god. Here is iconography of a
relief from ancient Til Barsip that depicts Sîn:

3. Enki was lord of the subterranean sweet–water ocean, and was god
of wisdom, sorcery, arts, crafts, and culture, and the source of all
secret magical knowledge. Here is iconography from a cylinder
seal that depicts Enki enthroned in the Apsû:
5. Šamaš represented the sun and was god of justice and equity, as
well as judge of the gods. Here is iconography from a cylinder seal:
 26

6. Ishtar was the most important female deity, and the functions and 8. Ashur became the national god of Assyria, understood as a deified
characteristics of other goddesses were often assimilated into her. form of the city Aššur. Here is iconography from a relief of a
She was particularly viewed as the goddess of love and fertility, but procession of deities from Maltai [northern Iraq], carved into rock.
also of war. Ishtar was highly popular at Babylon, and one of the
notable archaeological discoveries from the ruins of Babylon has
been the Ishtar Gate [a major gate of the city dedicated to her]. She
later became known as Astarte throughout western Asia. She was
often represented riding on her sacred beast. Here is iconography
from a cylinder seal that depicts Ishtar with her foot on a lion:

9. Marduk is one of the primary deities of interest for Daniel’s

context, for it was Marduk who was chosen as the national god of
Babylonia. As such, he assumed the functions accorded to other
deities and came to have the prominent place of honour in
Babylonia. Marduk’s rise to supremacy over other deities occurred
7. Adad was the god of thunder and rainstorm [Hadad was his
over 1,000 years before Nebuchadnezzar’s reign! Here are two
prominent West Semitic counterpart], and was either beneficent by
iconography, one from a cylinder seal of Marduk on Tiamat’s
enabling life to flourish, or destructive through flooding. Here is a
monster [left] and another of Nabu from an amuletic plaque [right]:
stele of Adad from Arslan Tash [ancient Hadatu]:
 27

Paul Gaebelein Jr. [20th century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: Although temples were erected to other gods at Babylon, Marduk was the
“The chief god of the Babylonian pantheon, whose name in primary god worshiped there. Although the major temple of Babylon was
Sumerograms is dAMAR.UTU, ‘calf of the sun,’ is attested the temple of Marduk situated at the center of the city, other temples
existed for Gula, Shamash, Adad, Belit Nina, and Ishtar of Agade. Here is
syllabically as dMa–ru–du–uk–ku. Upon the political ascendancy
an artistic rendition that shows the sacred area of Babylon as it was rebuilt
of Hammurabi of Babylon (1750 b.c.), Marduk the god of Babylon by Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar. The Euphrates River on
became supreme among the older Sumerian gods as creator and which the most important commodities of Mesopotamia were transported
ruler—a position formerly enjoyed by Enlil but affirmed for is at the front. The ziggurat of the city is on the left. Marduk’s temple [out
Marduk in the Code of Hammurabi and the Creation Epic and of 43 temples] is on the right. Residential areas are at the back.
retained until the end of indigenous Mesopotamian religion (100–
200 a.d.). Jeremiah prophesied that Marduk, also called Bêl,
‘lord,’ would be put to shame (Jeremiah 50:2). The divine name
Marduk can be seen in the royal names Merodach–baladan (2
Kings 20:12; Isaiah 39:1) from the Akkadian Marduk–apal–iddin
(‘Marduk has given a son’) and Evil–merodach (2 Kings 25:27;
Jeremiah 52:31) from the Akkadian amel–Marduk (‘man of
Marduk’), and possibly in the name Mordecai.”

Thus, Marduk serves as the hero in the Enuma Elish, a story that
was recited on the 4th day of the New Year Festival at Babylon, and
as son of Ea, he was the god of magic and incantation. Since
Babylon was his chief city, and his temple [the Esagila] was
located there, Daniel witnessed the worship of Marduk.

10. Nabu who was Marduk’s son, was popularized greatly in the 1st
millennium b.c. as the Babylonian deity of wisdom. In fact, the
name Nebuchadnezzar means “O Nabû, protect my offspring.”

So, not only was Assyro–Babylonian religion polytheistic, but it was

superstitious. Adherents believed that numerous demons attacked people
with distress and diseases. Thus, people felt that it was through Malcolm Horsnell [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The ancient
appeasement of the deities that they could avoid bad fate. In other words, Babylonians believed that kingship came down from heaven and was
service to the deities, divination, and magic were a way of life. bestowed by the gods. Thus, the king ruled by divine sanction. In Sumerian
Furthermore, the promotion of the local religious cult was considered times the king was viewed as divine (indicated by his titles and by the use
important. In the religious cult, the king stood as head of the cult, although of the divine determinative with his name), but he was not worshiped as a
in practice the various functions of the cult were delegated to others. god. In Babylonian times he ceased to be viewed as divine, though he was
 28

considered symbolically son of a god or goddess. He was the head of the praise to Marduk and prays to him: “From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea
cult, the foremost servant of the gods, bearing the ultimate responsibility […] which Marduk, my lord, has entrusted to me, I have made […] the city
for correctly perpetuating the cult and for building and restoring the of Babylon to the foremost among all the countries and every human
temples of his realm. He was commander of his army with military habitation; its name I have made/elevated to the most worthy of praise
functions on behalf of the gods. He was shepherd of his people and as such among the sacred cities. The sanctuaries of my lords Nebo and Marduk as
a channel through whom justice, righteousness, prosperity, blessing, and a wise ruler […] always. At that time, the Lebanon, the Cedar Mountain,
fertility flowed from the gods to his people and land. He was maintainer of the luxurious forest of Marduk, the smell of which is sweet, the high cedars
harmony between society and nature, between society and the gods. The of which, its product, another god has not desired, which no other king has
New Year akītu Festival, especially in the sacred marriage ritual in which felled […] my nâbû Marduk had desired as a fitting adornment for the
he played the role of the deity, constituted an annual demonstration of the palace of the ruler of heaven and earth, this Lebanon over which a foreign
sacred nature of the king’s person as supreme representative of the gods enemy was ruling and robbing it of its riches—its people were scattered,
on behalf of his people and land. Similar views were held in Assyria, but had fled to a far away region. Trusting in the power of my lords Nebo and
there the king was even more closely tied to the cult, playing a more Marduk, I organized my army for an expedition to the Lebanon. I made
prominent priestly role. Probably the Assyrian king’s military functions that country happy by eradicating its enemy everywhere. All its scattered
were emphasized, since Ashur was the god of war. Thus, it may also be inhabitants I led back to their settlements. What no former king had done I
that Assyrian military campaigns, which became an annual enterprise, achieved: I cut through steep mountains, I split rocks, opened passages
were thought of as wars on behalf of the god Ashur to subjugate all and I constructed a straight road for the transport of the cedars. I made
peoples under Ashur’s sovereignty.” the Arahtu float down and carry to Marduk, my king, mighty cedars, high
and strong, of precious beauty and of excellent dark quality, the abundant
Likewise, here is an yield of the Lebanon, as if they be reed stalks carried by the river. Within
inscription that mentions Babylon I stored mulberry wood. I made the inhabitants of the Lebanon
Nebuchadnezzar as a live in safety together and let nobody disturb them. In order that nobody
builder, since kings might do any harm to them I erected there a stela showing me as
intended to make clear everlasting king of this region and built […] I, myself, […] established
that each of them […] people […] to […] towards the entrance to the mountain. Beside my
fulfilled their duties with statue as king […] I wrote an inscription mentioning my name, […] I
regard to the cult erected for posterity. May future kings respect the monuments, remember
buildings for the gods. It the praise of the gods inscribed thereupon. He who respects […] my royal
reads: “I am name, who does not abrogate my statutes and not change my decrees, his
Nebuchadnezzar, the throne shall be secure, his life last long, his dynasty shall continue! Rain
king of Babylon, the from the sky, flood water from the interior of the earth shall be given to
restorer of the temples, him continually as a present! He himself shall rule peacefully and in
the eldest son of abundance. O Marduk, my lord, do remember my deeds favourably as
Nabopolassar, king of good deeds, may these my good deeds be always before your mind so that
Babylon.” my walking in Esagila and Ezida—which I love—may last to old age. May
I remain always your legitimate governor, may I pull your yoke till I am
Thus, Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled his role as king of being the leader of the sated with progeny, may my name be remembered in future days in a good
cult. Likewise, from the Wadi–Brisa inscription, Nebuchadnezzar gives sense, may my offspring rule forever over the black–headed.”
 29

Thus, Mesopotamian religion held that man was created in order to serve Malcolm Horsnell [21st century biblical scholar] continues: “The ordinary
the gods. This is why the image of the god was important, since the deity person could worship the gods and goddesses at various places in ancient
was considered to be present in its image. When the image was carried off Mesopotamia: open–air sanctuaries, chapels in private homes, and small
to war, the deity remained absent until its return. During festival times the chapels in residential parts of town. Temples were the most important
image was carried through the streets in solemn procession. Here is a places of worship, which focused almost entirely on the official cults of the
procession in which animals carry on their backs the Babylonian deities. most important deities on behalf of city or nation. General public
involvement was limited to access to the large outer–temple courtyard,
public events, situations of crisis, and annual festivals, when the god’s
image and the priesthood moved outside the usual isolation of the temple.
A city often had more than one temple, honouring different deities, of
which one was the city’s tutelary deity. A temple estate could amount to
thousands of acres involving thousands of personnel and workers. Typical
of a major temple complex was the ziggurat, a great, man–made, multi–
staged mountain of earth and brick up to 90 m square and 45 m high. On
its top, approached by long stairways like the ladder in Jacob’s dream
(Genesis 28:12), was the ‘high temple.’ At the bottom was the ‘low
temple.’ The significance of the ziggurat is unclear but it may have been
These are gods of the sun, moon, and five planets of which the perceived as a giant altar that provided a link between earth and heaven
Babylonians were aware. Notice the two Babylonian kings, one that faces (Ezkiel 43:13–17). Others have seen it as the throne of the deity (Isaiah
the procession [left], and another that follows it [right]. Isaiah likewise 14:13). A major temple had a large outer courtyard surrounded by rooms
describes these Babylonian idols on the backs of animals [Isaiah 21:9; used as storerooms, workshops, kitchens, lodgings, libraries, stables, and
41:21–24; 46:1]. So, the focal point of religious life in Babylon centered scribal school. Another, smaller courtyard lay beyond and contained an
on the temple of the deity [of which there were several in Babylon], and altar. Here also was the temple itself. The temple comprised a cella (‘holy
Marduk’s temple was the Esagila [or “the temple with its head raised”]. of holies’), with a niche for the statue of the deity, separated by a curtain
from an ante–cella. In Babylonia the latter was entered through one of the
long walls but in later Assyria through the short wall opposite the cella.
The temple was the deity’s dwelling place, where he was present on earth
to provide blessing for city and people and to be approached by the
priesthood and rulers. Here many of the cultic rituals, and especially the
daily service, were carried out. The temple estate played a prominent
economic role in the city’s life but vied with private and royal estates. The
temple estate also had a sociological function, absorbing many otherwise
destitute elements of society, such as widows, the homeless, and captives.
The daily service of the deity, who was represented by an image, provided
for his material needs. The deity was bathed, suitably attired, and
ornamented. At night the deity was escorted to bed. Meals were provided
twice a day, morning and evening, and at some places three or four times.
Provisions were placed before the deity on a table, and a curtain drawn
 30

for privacy as he ate. The various foods could be animals (bulls, goats, of a particular constellation of stars. In the evening the epic of creation,
deer, sheep), fish, poultry, vegetables, fruit, dates, figs, cereals, bread, Enuma Elish, was recited. On the 5th day Marduk’s temple Esagila was
cakes, oil, milk, honey, wine, or beer. Some foods, such as birds, sheep, purified. A sacrificial sheep was decapitated, its bleeding body rubbed
beef, and poultry, were taboo for different deities (Leviticus 11; around the temple walls to take upon itself all uncleanness, and finally the
Deuteronomy 13:3–21). Dishes of food from the deity’s table may on head and body cast into the river which carried away the uncleanness, like
occasion have been sent to the king so that he could share in the blessing the scapegoat ceremony performed on the Israelite Day of Atonement
of the deity. The priests and temple staff shared in many other daily (Leviticus 16:15–22). The god Nabû, Marduk’s son, arrived from
offerings and animal sacrifices that were rendered. The blood of the neighbouring Borsippa. The king of Babylon entered before Marduk and
animal sacrifices had no ritual significance. It is generally assumed, was subjected to a ritual humiliation in which the šešgallu–priest removed
however, that the slaughtered animal’s blood was poured out as a libation his royal insignia and placed them before Marduk. The priest struck the
before the deity. There is no evidence that animal sacrifices were burnt, as king’s face and pulled his ears. The king knelt before Marduk declaring he
they were in Hebrew religion. On special days of the month extra service was innocent of neglecting his duties. The priest struck the king again; it
was accorded the deity (Numbers 28:9). The 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th was considered a favourable omen for the future if this brought tears to his
days were considered dangerous and unlucky, and so special rituals were eyes. His insignia were now returned. The significance of this ceremony
carried out to appease the evil powers. Some have suggested that we see was to show that the king was responsible to Marduk, who renewed his
here the beginning of the 7–day week. The 1st and 15th days (new moon kingship each year. The text does not preserve the ceremonies for the
and full moon) were also days of special service. The new moon was called remaining days; these have been reconstructed from allusions in other
bubbulu (Numbers 10:10; 28:11–16), the full moon šapattu (Hebrew texts. On the 6th day deities from other cities arrived in procession at
šabbāṯ; 2 Kings 4:23; Isaiah 1:13, where ‘new moon’ and ‘sabbath’ are Esagila. Marduk made two determinations of destinies, one on the 8th and
mentioned together, suggesting šabbāṯ may originally have meant ‘full one on the 11th day. On the 10th day the king, ‘taking the hand of Marduk,’
moon’). Also, every local sanctuary had its own special days of service. In led a procession from Esagila, through Babylon, across the Euphrates on
the hot midsummer month of Tammuz the festival of the god Tammuz boats, to the bīt akīti, ‘house of akītu,’ where Marduk’s victory over
(Sumerian Dumuzi) was held. On the 2nd day there was lamentation. On Tiâmat, the primordial chaos monster, was celebrated in cultic drama, the
the 9th, 16th, and 17th days there were torch–lit processions. During the king playing the role of Marduk. A banquet followed. The king and
three last days an image of Tammuz was buried. In this festival Tammuz’s Marduk hastened from the akītu–house back to Esagila, where a sacred
death was lamented and possibly his return to life celebrated. The most marriage ritual was consummated, with the king representing Marduk and
important Assyro–Babylonian festival was the New Year Festival, which is a high priestess the god’s consort, Ṣarpanitu. On the 12th day the festival
attested from early Sumerian to late Babylonian and Assyrian times and ended as the various deities returned to their own cities. The Assyrian
was celebrated in various cities. The form of this festival most notably akītu–festival is not so well attested. It differed from the festival at Babylon
attested (from a fairly detailed, but incompletely preserved, text of in various ways. At Asshur it also occurred in Nisan but lasted 21 days.
Seleucid times) was the akītu (Sumerian zà–mu–uk, ‘beginning of the The Assyrian king took the lead the whole time and was not subjected to a
year,’ or á–ki–ti) festival celebrated annually at Babylon in the spring, cultic humiliation. Instead, his kingship was renewed in a coronation
during the first 11 days of the month Nisan. The 1st day’s ritual is ceremony at which his officials laid down their insignia of office to have
unpreserved. On the 2nd day the šešgallu–priest prayed to Marduk, them restored by the king.”
extolling the god’s victories and seeking his favour for Babylon, its people,
and the temple Esagila. On the 3rd day two images were made of wood, Thus, Babylon relied on supernatural information through occult channels.
gold, and precious stones, and clothed in red, to be used in the 6th day’s One means was through divination by which the Babylonians sought to
rituals. On the 4th day the šešgallu–priest greeted the early morning rising know the will of the gods and destinies they had determined for the people.
 31

Through this information they could hope to avoid disasters and choose receiving an enlightening dream from the deity. The Babylonians
more favourable outcomes. There were various means for the practice of passionately studied astrology, the observation of celestial phenomena, in
divination, and numerous manuals were compiled to assist the specialists. hopes of detecting omens that might affect the nation, and Babylon
became the most celebrated center for divination based on astrology.
Joan Louise Oates [21st century archaeologist] says: “A great variety of
techniques were used in divination, including the observation of animals’ Helmer Ringgren [20th century biblical scholar] says: “In course of time
entrails, oil in water, smoke from incense, the behaviour of birds and other observations of the heavenly bodies are developed to an astrological
animals, and celestial and other natural phenomena. Indeed its senior system. The planets are each connected with a god, and their course in
practitioners were men of influence, held in high esteem in their own heaven is assigned significance for events on earth. The starry sky is
society. They were consulted on all important occasions both by private sometimes called šiṭir šamê (or ‘the book of heaven’), a writing which
individuals and officers of state. The army was accompanied by a diviner.” reveals the intentions of the gods. We do not know for certain when and
where the theory arose that a man’s life depends on the position of the
Divination was also used for interpreting the content of dreams, because stars at the moment of birth, which led to the establishment of the
dreams were highly esteemed, and some were even regarded as revelation horoscope, but there is much to suggest that it was precisely in
from the gods. Archaeologists have recovered a well–preserved cuneiform Babylonia, where the oldest known horoscopes come from 410 b.c.”
baked–clay cylinder on which Nabonidus [555–539 b.c.] has recorded his
famous dream in which he is instructed by the gods to undertake the In fact, from the time of Nabonassar [747–734 b.c.], the Chaldaeans
restoration of the temple of the moon–god in Harran. It reads: “At the accurately recorded the times of the motion of the stars, and the term
beginning of my reign the gods let me see a dream: there stood both “Chaldaean” came to signify “astronomer.” Furthermore, there was the
Marduk the Great Lord, and Sin, the light of heaven and earth.” functioning of an astronomical observatory in Babylon as early as the
reign of Marduk–apla–iddina II [721–710 b.c.]. For example, here is the
transverse motion of the sun across the paths of Enlil, Anu, and Ea,
associated with the fixed stars, as recorded by Babylonian astronomers:

This is why Nebuchadnezzar would summon for his court to interpret his
dreams, and an individual might even sleep in a temple in hopes of
 32

William Lane Craig [21st century analytic philosopher] explains: independent algorithms for calculating the dates and positions of lunar
“According to the Babylonian astronomical texts known as the Astrolabes, and planetary phenomena, known as System A and System B. The first
dating at least to the middle Babylonian period, the stars may be grouped described the phenomena by means of a step function, whereas the second
into three ‘paths’ as they move across the sky, each given the name of a used linear zigzag functions. Though empirically equivalent, both systems
deity. The central or equatorial band was called the path of Anu, the could not be accurate descriptions of physical reality; neither did either
northerly band the path of Enlil, and the southerly band the path of Ea. purport to be such. ‘This theoretical aspect of predictive astronomy seems
The ancient astrologers observed that the planets do not move in tandem to have little or no connection to a cosmology, or spatial framework within
with the fixed stars but wander across the heavens, sometimes standing which to conceive of the planetary or lunar positions,’ Rochberg
still and even undergoing retrograde motion. Babylonian astronomers thus concludes. ‘The coexistence of Systems A and B models further argues
differentiated the planets (bibbu, wild sheep), including, in our against the idea that a physical representation was of any comparative
nomenclature, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, from the fixed value among Babylonian astronomical models.’ Someone might say that
stars (kakkabu). These planets, along with the sun and the moon, all move the mythological texts had a quite different view of the physical cosmos
in a single band of their own across the sky, but this band cuts across the than the scientific, astronomical texts. But this naive bifurcation has been
paths of Anu, Enlil, and Ea due to the tilt of the earth’s axis. As a result, exploded by the re–appreciation on the part of scholars in recent decades
the planets, as well as the sun and the moon, actually transition from the of how fully integrated ancient Mesopotamian religion was with their
path of one deity to another, appearing at certain seasons of the year in science, including observational astronomy, a fact already evident in the
the path of Anu, for example, and at other seasons in the path of Enlil. divine names assigned to the three celestial paths. In the Enuma elish
Historian of science Francesca Rochberg explains that Mesopotamian IV.146 and V.1–46, Marduk organizes the stars, planets, and
astronomy was wholly phenomenal or instrumentalist in character. In constellations according to the same pattern described in the Astrolabes,
contrast to later Greek astronomy, ‘the Babylonian astronomers had no including the paths of Anu, Enlil, and Ea. The traditional celestial omen
models of planetary motion. What they did have were mathematical text Enuma Anu Enlil opens with a mythological introduction about how
schemes for the computation of synodic appearances.’ Thus, she Anu, Enlil, and Ea constructed the heavens so that they can serve as
observes, Babylonian astronomy did not rely or depend on a spherical omens. Ancient Mesopotamians were obsessed with divination, which
cosmological framework, nor did it even make use of geometrical models was a massive and lucrative industry, and the reading and interpretation
of a celestial body in motion around a central Earth. ‘The lack of an of divinatory signs was the foremost concern of literary and scholarly
explicit cosmological model within which Babylonian astronomical theory writings in Babylonia and Assyria. More than half of Ashurbanipal’s
was to fit was of no consequence in view of the fact that the predictions did famous library was devoted to divination, and, of this, 48% concerned
not derive from a geometrical conception that attempted to make causal astrology, 14% extispicy, and about 10% terrestrial omens. Most
sense of the phenomena, but rather depended on period relations whose historians of science now realize that mathematical and observational
purpose was to enable the computation of phenomena either forward or astronomy were just as much a part of Babylonian divination as the
backward in time in an instrumental way.’ More recently Rochberg has examination of the liver of a sacrificial lamb. Rochberg has emphasized
expanded on this theme, arguing that the Babylonians were not that the stellar constellations were analogous to a sort of ‘heavenly
interested in ‘nature’ per se, as opposed to observations of regularities. writing’ by means of which the will of the gods might be discerned. ‘The
‘Babylonian models all shared a common objective to predict and a image of the heavens as a stone surface upon which a god could draw or
disinterest in cosmology or physical explanation. The Babylonians were write, as a scribe would a clay tablet, complements the metaphoric trope
concerned with periodicity. Theirs was a thoroughly quantitative approach of the heavenly writing.’ Rochberg sees the following difference between
and did not depend upon a physical framework.’ One important indication the mythological texts and the astrological texts: whereas Babylonian
of the Babylonians’ indifference to physical cosmology is their use of two cosmogonic myths represent the creation of the cosmos as an allegory
 33

involving personified cosmic elements, such as sea, earth, sky, and wind, Jeremiah told the people exactly what was going to happen and why. God
astronomical and omen texts seek to describe the phenomena themselves. was about to judge them for their idolatry and their failure to listen to his
Even though celestial phenomena were sometimes described in the latter prophets. Furthermore, he was going to use Nebuchadnezzar as his
in metaphorical terms as gods (for example, ‘the moon god mourns’ serves servant, an instrument of judgment against his own people. The nation
as a metaphor for the moon’s being eclipsed), ‘the use of metaphorical would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years before God would also bring
language in the omens has the force of conveying the appearance of judgment on the Babylonians [Jeremiah 25:1–14]. Nevertheless, critical
something observed, or potentially observable, and this constitutes scholars argue that there is a crucial contradiction. In other words,
suggestive evidence for how the ancient Mesopotamians conceptualized Jeremiah equates the 4th year of Jehoiakim with the 1st year of
some natural phenomena as manifestations of the gods.’” Nebuchadnezzar [Jeremiah 25:1], whereas Daniel says that Jerusalem was
besieged by Nebuchadnezzar in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim [v. 1]. But, there
Starting with v. 1, we read: “in the third year of the reign of King is no actual discrepancy, because Jeremiah and Daniel were using different
Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem methods of reckoning the years. This is because calendar systems and
and laid siege to it.” In other words, Jehoiakim came to the throne of methods of dating were different in the ancient Near East [their year did
Judah in October of 609 b.c. following Josiah’s death at the hands of not begin on the 1st of January], and there was no uniform system used
Pharaoh Necho II [610–595 b.c.]. This Pharaoh inherited a rather strong throughout the ancient Near East. Thus, there are two major issues that
and reunited Egypt from his father, and likewise chose to support the have to be taken into account in regard to the dating of ancient kings:
Assyrian Empire that was crumbling due to the assaults of Babylon and
Media. So, shortly after coming to power, Pharaoh Necho II marched in 1. There is the matter of the beginning month of the year, whether
609 b.c. through Syria to help the last Assyrian king, Aššur–uballit, against Nisan in the spring of the year [March–April] or Tishri in the
the Babylonians. However, as he passed through Judah, Josiah opposed autumn of the year [September–October]. So, a regnal year of a
him, and this forced Pharaoh Necho II to fight and kill Josiah [2 Kings king’s reign could be based on Tishri to Tishri, or Nisan to Nisan.
23:29; 2 Chronicles 35:20–24]. Nevertheless, the Egyptian army had been
slowed, and this delay helped the Babylonians to destroy unaided Assyria. 2. For a king’s reign, there is a crucial distinction between an
So, upon his return to Egypt, Pharaoh Necho II replaced Josiah’s son accession year and a non–accession year.
Jehoahaz with another of his sons, Jehoiakim, and he was required to pay
tribute to the Pharaoh as a token of his loyalty to Egypt [2 Kings 23:31–35; Jack Finegan [20th century biblical scholar] says: “In the factual–
2 Chronicles 36:1–4]. Thus, Egypt laid claim to Judah and would hold year system the 1st year of reign begins on the day of the king’s
sovereignty over her, but because Judah remained a vassal state of Egypt, accession to the throne, the 2nd year begins exactly a year later,
with the burden of annual tribute, Nebuchadnezzar attacked in 605 b.c., and so on. In the non–accession–year system the year in which the
defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish, and pursued them southward, ruler comes to the throne is counted as his 1st year regardless of
driving them back to Egypt. This naturally brought the Babylonians to how many days or months remain in that year, and his 2nd year
Judah, where they quickly advanced on the capital at Jerusalem and laid begins with the 1st New Year’s Day (Tishri 1 or Nisan 1) after his
siege to it in the summer of 605 b.c., but before Nabopolassar’s death on accession; this system is also called ante–dating. In the accession
the 15th/16th of August. Their motive in laying siege to Jerusalem was to year system the year in which the king comes to the throne is called
instead make Judah a Babylonian vassal state in order to prevent Egypt his accession year and for the purpose of counting his years of
from pushing northward again. This did not surprise Jeremiah who had reign, his first official year is that which begins with the New
already proclaimed God’s warning against Israel just before Year’s Day after his accession; this system is also called post–
Nebuchadnezzar’s army showed up on their doorstep in 605 b.c. dating.”
 34

So, these factors are key to reconciling the chronological data of the kings Thus, following Josiah’s death, his son Jehoahaz reigned for 3 months.
of the northern kingdom [Israel] with that of the southern kingdom
[Judah]. But, this was complicated by the fact that the counting system Jack Finegan [20th century biblical scholar] continues: “We have dated the
changed over the years, especially for the northern kingdom. death of Josiah at Megiddo in Duzu/Tammuz (June 25–July 23) 609 B.C.
After him the people put on the throne his son Jehoahaz, and the latter
Leslie McFall [21st century biblical scholar] says: “An important factor reigned for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31). The reign of Jehoahaz began in
affecting the form of the biblical report is that two source documents were Tammuz and ended 3 months later in Tishri (September 21–October 19)
used by the writer of Kings. His two sources were the ‘Chronicles of the 609 B.C. The end of the short reign of Jehoahaz came because Pharaoh
Kings of Judah’ and the ‘Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.’ The most Necho deposed him and in his place installed Eliakim, also a son of
significant difference between these two documents was that they used two Josiah, in the kingship, changing his name to Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim
distinct calendars to record each other’s history. Neither side recognized reigned for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36). Because the 3 months of the reign of
the other’s calendar and so each wrote up the other’s history using its own Jehoahaz extended over into Tishri 609, the 1st month of the next new year,
calendar. This is probably the most important factor affecting the Jehoiakim had an accession year of ~11 months in the balance of that year
reconciliation of the apparent discrepancies in the synchronisms of the (609/608), and his first regnal year began on yet the next Tishri 1
Hebrew kings from the division of the kingdom to Jehoram.” (September 10), 608.”

So, since Jeremiah used Tishri years and non–accession reckoning for the So, the next important step is to identify the correct time of
last years of the Judean monarchy [which is consistent with 2 Kings and Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem following the Battle of Carchemish.
Ezekiel], it chronologically aligns with the collapse of Josiah’s reign!
Rodger Young [21st century biblical chronologist] explains: “Let us
Jack Finegan [20th century biblical scholar] continues: “In the western city examine Jeremiah’s synchronisms to see what the data tells us. Two texts
of Haran a remnant of Assyrian empire was maintained a few years longer will be used for the initial sifting. The first is Jeremiah 1:3, which says that
by Ashur–uballit II (611–608 B.C.). British Museum Tablet No. 21901 the inhabitants of Jerusalem were taken to Babylon in the 5th month of the
records that in his 16th year (610/609 B.C.) Nabopolassar drove Ashur– 11th year of Zedekiah. If this is to be consistent with 2 Kings and Ezekiel,
uballit out of Haran; in the next year (609/608) between Duzu (June/July) this date must come out to be in 587n/587t. The second reference is
609 and Ululu (August/September) 609 Ashur–uballit and ‘a large army of Jeremiah 46:2, which says that the Battle of Carchemish occurred in the
Egypt’ tried to reconquer Haran. The ‘army of Egypt’ is surely the 4th year of Jehoiakim. From the Babylonian Chronicles, it is known that
expeditionary force of Pharaoh Necho II (609–595), mentioned also in 2 Jehoiakim was installed by Necho in Tishri of 609, and the Battle of
Kings 23:29 and 2 Chronicles 35:21, which King Josiah tried vainly to Carchemish occurred in the 605n/605t time frame.”
oppose at Megiddo. The purpose of Necho was evidently to assist the
Assyrians and resist the New Babylonians; the intent of Josiah was to keep In other words, 605n and 605t designates that time period between Nisan
help from reaching the Assyrians, the old enemy of Judah. The death of of 605 b.c. and Tishri of 605 b.c. Thus, the Battle of Carchemish occurred
Josiah in his own 31st year, in his ill–fated attempt at Megiddo, is in the summer of 605 b.c., with Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jerusalem
therefore to be dated in the 17th year of Nabopolassar and in the month of coming immediately afterward in August of that year, as he hastily
Duzu/Tammuz (June 25–July 23) 609 B.C. The endeavour of the Egyptians pursued Pharaoh Necho II in his retreat to Egypt. However, since
to assist the Assyrians evidently failed, for the attackers ‘afterwards Nabopolassar died on the 15th of August in 605 b.c., Nebuchadnezzar,
retired from the siege,’ and Ashur–uballit disappeared from the scene. having only recently laid siege to Jerusalem [v. 1], had to return
This event in 609 was the final end of the Assyrian empire.” immediately to Babylon to secure his place as the next king.
 35

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar left his pursuit of Pharaoh Necho II and returned to (Jeremiah 32:1), should have written the year as something like ‘in the 1st
Babylon on the 7th of September in 605 b.c. Curiously, there is a preserved year’ as in Daniel 9:1. Jeremiah could have recorded the date in that way,
account by Josephus [1st century Jewish historian] of Nebuchadnezzar’s but the way he chose is plain enough, and it is questionable what other
return to Babylon derived from the writings of the Babylonian historian method he could have used to refer unambiguously to the year in which
Berossus [C. Ap., 1.135–138]. Furthermore, it is interesting that soon after Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne.”
those events in 605 b.c., Tishri began on the 7th of October.
In summary, both Jeremiah and Daniel reckoned the beginning of the
Jack Finegan [20th century biblical scholar] continues: “We have already New Year from Tishri 1, but Jeremiah [following Judean practice] used
seen that the battle of Carchemish must have taken place in May/June 605 non–accession year dating, while Daniel [following Babylonian practice]
B.C., after which Nebuchadnezzar made conquests in ‘the Hatti–land’ used accession year dating. Here is a summary of the calendar calibration:
(Syria–Palestine), and then went back to Babylon to take the throne on
September 7, 605. Daniel states that in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim Jeremiah Daniel
Event Date
Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and carried off temple treasures Non–Accession Year Accession Year
together with Daniel and others of the tribe of Judah to Babylon. Although Jehoiakim’s Reign Began
this taking of Jerusalem and 1st deportation of some of its people to Tishri 1, 609 b.c. 1st Regnal Year Accession Year
Babylon is otherwise unknown, the event must have taken place in the [September 21]
time soon after the battle of Carchemish, when Nebuchadnezzar Tishri 1, 608 b.c.
accomplished his other victories in Syria–Palestine. Since Daniel uses 2nd Regnal Year 1st Regnal Year
[September 10]
Tishri years, and since in those terms the 3rd year of Jehoiakim extended to Tishri 1, 607 b.c.
the end on October 6, 605, the date in Daniel 1:1 includes correctly the 3rd Regnal Year 2nd Regnal Year
[September 29]
time soon after Carchemish (May/June 605). Since Jeremiah uses Nisan Tishri 1, 606 b.c.
years, the date is stated in Jeremiah 46:2 as the 4th year of Jehoiakim.” [September 19]

Thus, if Jeremiah was using a Tishri system with non–accession year Nebuchadnezzar’s Siege
dating, then Jeremiah was correct that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to 4th Regnal Year 3rd Regnal Year
[August 605 b.c.]
Jerusalem in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign, which means Daniel must
have used accession–year dating for Jehoiakim, because he employed the Nebuchadnezzar’s Coronation
accession–year standard that was used by the Babylonian scribes. [September 605 b.c.]
Tishri 1, 605 b.c.
Rodger Young [21st century biblical chronologist] continues: “In Jeremiah 5th Regnal Year 4th Regnal Year
[October 7]
25:1, the 4th year of Jehoiakim coincided with the 1st year of
Nebuchadnezzar. It refers not to Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st full year, but to his Paul House [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “There are at least
accession year, in keeping with standard Babylonian accession–year three basic problems: (1) how the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st
counting. This was 605n by Nisan reckoning or 606t by Tishri reckoning, year fits Jehoiakim’s 4th year; (2) when and in what way Jehoiakim served
either of which overlaps with the 4th year of Jeremiah’s Tishri, non– Nebuchadnezzar before rebelling; and (3) what sort of military action, if
accession method for Jehoiakim, namely 609t – 3 (acc) = 606t. The only any, Nebuchadnezzar took against Jerusalem in his 1st year (Daniel 1:1).
objection that might be raised to this synchronism is that Jeremiah, in On the first matter, Babylon used a dating system for the beginning of a
keeping with his non–accession treatment of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign
 36

king’s reign that was different from that of Hebrew writers. Baldwin occurs in Daniel 1:1. The word translated ‘besieged’ can mean that, or it
explains that the system in ‘the history books of the Old Testament counts can mean ‘confined’, ‘opposed’ (Esther 8:11), ‘initiated conflict’ or
the months between the king’s accession and the new year as a complete ‘treated as an enemy’. Context must decide. Nebuchadnezzar may have
year, whereas the method most usual in Babylon called those months the achieved his aim without having to lay siege to the place. Given the lack of
accession year and began to count the years of a king’s reign from the first other textual evidence, it seems logical to take the latter set of definitions
new year.’ Similarly, today some cultures count a baby as 1 year old when as reasonable explanations of the post–Carchemish tribute gathering
born, while others do not count babies as 1 year old until their 1st that the Babylonian Chronicles mention. That is, as part of chasing
birthday. By Babylonian reckoning, then, the events took place in Egyptian forces south, Nebuchadnezzar’s army ‘initiated conflict’ with
Jehoiakim’s 3rd year, not his 4th year. By Hebrew reckoning, the events Jehoiakim’s army on account of his alliance with Egypt, or ‘confined’ him
occurred in Jehoiakim’s 4th year. Babylon is the book’s setting, so it is to his capital city. The king’s submission was Nebuchadnezzar’s ultimate
natural for the author to employ that dating system. On the second issue, goal. When Jehoiakim saw Nebuchadnezzar’s power and Egypt’s
Babylonian records contain key dating information. The Babylonian weakness, he agreed to pay tribute rather than risk further consequences.
Chronicles indicate that in spring and summer 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar, This scenario could account for Jehoiakim deciding to serve
Nabopolassar’s co–regent, led Babylon’s armies at Carchemish. He Nebuchadnezzar 3 years, before turning to Egypt again in 601 BC. It could
routed the Egyptians, took at least northern Syria, and forced many kings also alleviate the necessity of explaining a full–blown siege that the Old
to pay tribute. Since Egypt put Jehoiakim in power (2 Kings 23:31–35), he Testament never mentions.”
was probably one of the kings forced to pay tribute. When Nabopolassar
died in August, Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon, and took the throne Finally in v. 2, we read: “within a week, the Lord handed King Jehoiakim
in September. He rejoined his forces shortly, and came home to Babylon in of Judah over to him, along with valuable objects from the house of God.
604 BC. In 601 BC Egypt defeated Babylon in a key contest, so Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar brought them to the temple of his god in the land of
may have withheld tribute then. On the third matter, the typical English Shinar and stored them in its treasure house.”
translation of Daniel 1:1 may be too specific, and unintentionally
misleading. Most have something like ‘Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon Thus, Jerusalem’s fate was not merely a matter of being the victim of an
came to Jerusalem and besieged it.’ There are two basic problems with international power struggle between Babylon and Egypt. God was in
this translation tradition. First, both Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 25:1, which control of this situation, and he purposely allowed the Babylonians to
describe Babylon’s action against Jerusalem in 587 BC, contain the afflict his chosen people. Nebuchadnezzar’s victory was not due to his
Hebrew word translated ‘came/went’. However, there is no Hebrew brilliance or military might. At the time of the 605 b.c. siege,
preposition corresponding to ‘to’ in Daniel 1:1, as there is in 2 Kings Nebuchadnezzar allowed Jehoiakim to remain on the throne of Judah,
25:1. Thus, Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar went towards though as a vassal to Babylon. But, he took the “valuable objects” from
Jerusalem, but does not indicate that he marched all the way there, as a the Temple and “brought them” to Babylon, where he placed them in one
similar phrase in 2 Kings 24:10 makes certain to do. He may have of the treasury rooms of “the temple of his god.” Also, Nebuchadnezzar
achieved his objectives without going all the way to Jerusalem. Second, did not take all of the Temple vessels [2 Kings 24:13; Jeremiah 52:17–23].
‘besieged’ implies a city surrounded by enemy armies building siege In fact, each of the three invasions of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
ramps and machines of war. For example, 2 Kings 25:1–2 reports that resulted in continual removal of the Temple vessels, and the 3rd Temple
during the 587 BC invasion Nebuchadnezzar ‘came with all his army plundering in 586 b.c. dethroned Zedekiah [2 Chronicles 36:18].
against Jerusalem and encamped, and they built siege works all around it, Furthermore, the use of the term “Shinar” is significant. Earlier
and the city came under siege until the 11th year of King Zedekiah’. None scholarship connected it with ancient Sumer, but recent philological
of this gathering of large forces, encamping or building siege works studies have concluded that “Shinar” is a name for Babylonia.
 37

For example, a Hittite source [the Telepinu Proclamation] indicates that placed in the temple of his gods” [Ezra 1:7]. The purpose of stressing
Mursili I made a campaign against Bābili [or “Babylon”], but a Neo– continuity in the use of the same vessels was to demonstrate that the
Hittite document also reports this same campaign by the same king using holiness of Zerubbabel’s Temple was not less than Solomon’s! The
the name uruŠa–an–ḫa–ra [or “Shinar”]. So, God ironically sent rebuilding of the Temple itself was not enough to restore the worship
disobedient Judah to the very place known for wickedness and idolatry, system, because more was needed to re–establish continuity with the past.
because it was at this location that they would learn how repulsive an
idolatrous civilization could be. Thus, upon arrival in Babylon, the Temple Peter Ackroyd [20th century biblical scholar] says: “The restoration of the
vessels from Jerusalem were placed in the Babylonian temple that had Temple includes the bringing back of the vessels, and with them the
been constructed to the honour of pagan deities worshiped by the guarantee that there is a direct link with the earlier worship of the
Babylonians. Placing the Temple vessels from Jerusalem in the temple of community. Thus, across the disaster of the exile, in which the loss of the
Marduk held symbolic significance, for it was the Babylonians’ way of Temple might seem to mark an irreparable breach, there is a continuity
proclaiming that their god was superior to Israel’s God. The Babylonians established which enables the later worshipper to know, through the
attributed their success to their deity, and from their perspective Marduk actual vessels in use, that he stands with his ancestors in the faith.”
was the champion god. Nevertheless, Marduk is obviously no match for
Yahweh, and Israel’s God purposely allowed the Babylonians to do this to In summary, on the historical surface, the events of vv. 1–2 portray the
his covenant people, because he was disciplining them for their sinfulness defeat of the Judean king at the hands of the Babylonian king. In the
and rebellion against him. Furthermore, God did not feel slighted that worldview of the ancient Near East, a king’s military victory signalled the
these impotent Babylonian gods were being credited with superiority over victory of his god over the gods of the conquered people. As a
him, because God knew that he alone is God, and in due time he would representative of his god, a king engaged in battle as a way to expand the
also act to destroy and discredit these insignificant gods [Isaiah 46:1–2]. god’s territory. This way of seeing the world is evident in the account of
Nebuchadnezzar’s success over Jehoiakim: the Babylonian king took
William Dumbrell [21st century biblical scholar] says: “In Daniel 1, vessels from the Temple of Israel’s God and transferred them to the coffers
Nebuchadnezzar’s monochrome policy for his empire of one language, one of his god in Babylon. The king’s military victory mirrored the religious
common culture, one educational base, all emanating from the ‘land of victory of his god over the God of Jerusalem. However, the text
Shinar,’ recalls vividly Genesis 11. The book of Daniel is the account of reinterprets these historical events. Nebuchadnezzar’s victory was, in fact,
the clash of two imperiums, world power structures of one form or no victory at all. Rather, the God whose Temple vessels were on their way
another, and the kingdom of God. We are left in no doubt by the laconic to Babylon had given his king and his vessels into the foreign king’s hand.
conclusion to Daniel 1: ‘Daniel continued until the 1st year of King This was no defeat of Israel’s God, because as he had done centuries
Cyrus.’ In other words, Daniel lived through the entire exile and saw the earlier when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant and put it in
downfall of Babylon, which imperium will prevail.” the temple of Dagon, Israel’s God only appeared to have been defeated [1
Samuel 4–5]. Actually, God was very much in control. Not only does the
Thus, the removal of the Temple vessels by Nebuchadnezzar was a text make clear the real situation behind the events of Jehoiakim’s
temporary allowance by God. The vessels would eventually find their way downfall, but it also foreshadows the demise of mighty Babylon itself. In
back to the post–exilic Temple, allowing Israel’s worship system to be other words, notice that Nebuchadnezzar carried the Temple vessels off to
resumed in continuity with the nation’s past. The importance of this was “Shinar” which was Daniel’s deliberate intent to cause his readers to
also stressed by Ezra: when Sheshbazzar led the returning exiles to Zion, mentally link this with the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:1–9], that there
he “brought out from storage the service instruments from the Temple of was a blurring of lines between gods and humans, causing God to judge.
the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem and had
 38

Thus, Daniel wants to remind his readers about this Genesis story, because
Babylon’s end will happen in a similar fashion! Nebuchadnezzar may
worship his god in his Shinar temple, but the ultimate end of Babylon will
soon happen on a night with Belshazzar, where the mighty kingdom of
Babylon comes to an end because of human pride.

Jerome [4th century] concludes: “It should be noted, by way of a spiritual

interpretation, that the king of Babylon was not able to transport all of the
vessels of God and place them in the idol house that he had built himself,
but only a part of the vessels of God’s house. If you go through all of the
works of the philosophers, you will necessarily find in them some portion
of the vessels of God. For example, you will find in Plato that God is
fashioner of the universe. But, because the philosophers combine truth
with error and corrupt the good of nature with many evils, for that reason
they are recorded to have captured only a portion of the vessels of God’s
house, and not all of them in their completeness and perfection.”

4) Why did Nebuchadnezzar try to reprogram Daniel for his court? (1:3–7)

Starting with vv. 3–4, we read: “later, the king ordered Ashpenaz, his
chief officer, to bring in some Israelis of royal and noble descent. They
were to be young men without physical defect, handsome in appearance,
skilled in all wisdom, quick to learn, prudent in how they used knowledge,
and capable of serving in the king’s palace. They were to learn the
literature and language of the Chaldeans.”

So, shortly following Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem, his father

Nabopolassar [626–605 b.c.] died in Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar hastily Babylon was a city larger, more fortified, and more ornate than anything
returned to secure the throne and be crowned the next Babylonian king. He the Hebrew youths had ever seen. Through the city ran the mighty
brought with him several choice young Hebrew men [Daniel, Hananiah, Euphrates River, the lifeline of Mesopotamia. As they drew closer, there
Mishael, and Azariah], to be trained for diplomatic service in the empire. was a large bridge for them to cross before entering one of the many
Undoubtedly, this was a sad and miserable time for these young Jewish glorious gates of the city. Just imagine how intimidating the scene must
captives. The journey from Jerusalem to Babylon would have amounted to have been for these Hebrew youths! Walking across the bridge that
~1,100 km, if we assume that they marched along one of the northern trade spanned the Euphrates, thousands of Babylonians would have been lining
routes through Damascus that connected to Mari and then down the the city walls. Daniel had not chosen to be here. He was only the victim of
Euphrates River. As they neared the end of their long and arduous journey, circumstances, powerless in himself to change what was happening. From
the glorious spectre of the ancient city of Babylon began to appear on the this point on, his life would never be the same. He was forced to leave
horizon. behind his parents and family, his beloved Jerusalem, and the Hebrew
 39

culture with its focus upon the worship of God at the beautiful Temple of 1. They needed to be “of royal and noble descent.” This fulfils
Solomon. These things he would never see again. For the rest of his life he Isaiah’s prophecy that descendants of Hezekiah would go into exile
would be a resident of Babylon. Probably only a young man of ~15 years as court officials [Isaiah 39:7]. Since they were brought into exile
at the time, he now faced the daunting challenge of remaining faithful and in conjunction with Jehoiakim’s exile [v. 2], Daniel was of royal
true to his God while living in the midst of an idolatrous and pagan descent, so he could potentially play a political role between
civilization. Thus, the main point here is to show how Daniel and his Babylon and its vassal nation Judah. But, Daniel will serve as the
friends were uniquely chosen and put through a regimen of training that king’s supernatural adviser, similar to the diviners [later in v. 20].
would prepare them for governmental service within the Babylonian
Empire. However, their training was meant to strip them of their national 2. They had to be “without physical defect” and “handsome in
and religious affections, and to conform them to the pagan worldview of appearance.” The Hebrew word mᵊʾûm [for “physical defect”] can
the Babylonians. In essence, they were being reprogrammed to think and also mean “moral defect,” but the Babylonians were not scrupulous
act like the world. So, we are introduced to the criteria by which about morality. This word occurs in Leviticus 21:17–23, where
Nebuchadnezzar chose candidates for diplomatic service within his men with physical defects were disqualified for priestly service,
empire. In order to govern such a large diverse empire, Nebuchadnezzar which also ironically precludes them of being eunuchs, since a
saw the practical wisdom of recruiting and training individuals from “crushed testicle” was a “physical defect” [Deuteronomy 23:1].
different ethnic groups of his realm to serve within his state department. They had to be “handsome in appearance,” so a premium was
Such individuals, of course, would have to be loyal to the king and placed upon their looks [any physical handicap was discriminated].
committed to the goals of the empire. This could be achieved by taking
qualified men at an early age, giving them a thorough education in 3. They had to be of superior mental acumen. Three phrases are used
Babylonian ways, and training them in the procedures of court life. The to describe the mental ability required, stressing the importance
choice and preparation of the candidates was entrusted to one of the king’s that was placed on this qualification: the ability to comprehend
confidants, Ashpenaz, whom Daniel describes as “chief officer.” Outdated knowledge because they were intelligent and discerning.
translations like the KJV refer to Ashpenaz as “the master of his eunuchs,”
which might imply that he had been emasculated. But, any association 4. They had to be “capable of serving in the king’s palace.” This
with eunuchs is secondary, going back to the common practice of refers to the proper manner of court behaviour, how to conduct
employing eunuchs in positions of intimate contact with the court, oneself in the king’s presence and to others at the royal court.
especially in caring for wives [Esther 2:3, 14]. Nevertheless, here the
Hebrew term sārîs can mean “court official” without any reference to Those who could meet these qualifications “were to learn the literature
sexual impotence. This is because sārîs comes from the Akkadian ša–reši and language of the Chaldeans.” The Babylonian language was a form of
[or “he who is the head”]. In fact, the same term was used to describe Akkadian known as Neo–Babylonian. This was a language written in
Potiphar, who was a married man [Genesis 37:36; 39:1]. Furthermore, the cuneiform and made up of various combinations of wedge–shaped
LXX renders this term as archietairos [or “chief friend”], and was used to characters that were commonly engraved on wet clay tablets with a stylus:
describe a trusted person [2 Samuel 16:16]. Thus, the translation “eunuch”
is not correct, and there is little reason contextually to assume that either
Ashpenaz or Daniel [and his friends] were literal eunuchs. So, since the
young Hebrew men [along with the men from other ethnic groups] were
needed for Babylonian diplomatic service, Daniel elaborates more about
the required qualifications by which all the candidates were chosen:
 40

The writing system was not alphabetic, like that used to write English, evidence, among the actual school texts, of any training in practical
Hebrew, or Aramaic, but syllabic. A syllable is a combination of a vowel matters; the model contracts, the mathematical exercises, and the
and consonants [such as “ud,” “du,” or “dug”]. Because of the number of Akkadian school letters constitute the only known remnants of such
possible combinations, a syllabic writing system needs many more signs schoolwork. Most of our evidence for administrative instruction comes
than the number of letters used for an alphabet. Thus, ~600 distinct only from idealized descriptions of school work found in the literary
cuneiform signs are known. The syllabic signs used to write Akkadian debates and in the post–Old Babylonian ‘examination’ texts. What, then,
were originally designed by the Sumerians to record their language. The was the purpose of drilling native speakers of various Semitic languages
Sumerians lived in southern Babylonia before the Semitic people who and dialects in the intricacies of the Sumerian language and literature?
spoke Akkadian migrated into the region. Sumerian is not a Semitic The answer, I think, is quite clear. The school was an ideological molder
language and quite different in nature from Akkadian. As a result the of minds, the place where future members of the bureaucracy were
system was not ideal for writing Akkadian. This contributed to its socialized, where they received a common stock of ideas and attitudes
complexity when used to write it. So, they would have studied the which bound them together as a class and in many ways separated them
Akkadian literature that includes a whole range of historical, religious, from their original backgrounds. Seen in this light, the literary texts
magical, economic, and legal texts in Akkadian, much of which remains acquire their proper ideological significance. The royal hymns celebrated
extant today: Laws of Hammurabi [widely copied in Neo–Babylonian the magnificence of the ruler and the myths perpetuated certain concepts
times], the Gilgamesh Epic [which contains a version of the flood story], of eternal cosmic order. I think it will suffice to say that the content of the
Enuma Elish [the Babylonian creation story of how Marduk became king texts is in many ways irrelevant to the main point of my argument. It does
of the gods], and the Babylonian Chronicle [which gives historical data not really matter what they learned as long as they learned it and it made
concerning activities of Babylonian kings]. The curriculum would have them different. The conceptual dimensions of literacy literally made them
also included the omen literature with the expectation that Daniel would different human beings; they knew of matters that others only imagined
have served as a baru [or “seer”], an expert in divination, and could have existed, they even knew what year it was. In such a context the
included various writings about the magical arts [dream books, celestial perpetuation of a dead literary language—Sumerian—has a definite
omen collections, and extispicy manuals]. Since knowledge of Sumerian is function which helped to define membership in an exclusive club—the
helpful in the study of Akkadian, it too was part of the curriculum. world of the bureaucracy.”
Nevertheless, the Torah banned the practice of such occultic techniques
[Deuteronomy 18:10–12; 1 Samuel 28:3–25], but to read and study this Thus, their esteem for scripture protected them during this time of
material was not forbidden. Thus, Daniel and his friends would have indoctrination. Nevertheless, the qualifications presented here may seem at
needed a strong walk with God and a biblical mindset to retain the ability first glance to be rather exemplary. In other words, the king wanted those
to think critically when engaged in this type of study. This is because this of noble extraction who were outstanding physically and mentally.
form of educational process was more than job training. It was an However, deeper reflection on these verses reveals that they do not reflect
enculturation process, a shaping of the mind! God’s value system. Nebuchadnezzar’s qualifications smacked of elitism
and humanistic standards, an environment in which everyone was aspiring
Piotr Michalowski [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: “The to be humanly the best. What was noticeably absent was any esteem for
content of this curriculum has little to do with practical administrative devotion to God and a corresponding moral lifestyle based on his
matters. Starting with basic exercises which were meant to facilitate the standards of righteousness. However, in the sovereignty of God, Daniel
learning of cuneiform signs, the students proceeded to learn royal and and his three friends met Nebuchadnezzar’s criteria and were elevated to
divine hymns, debates, literary letters, myths, epics, and other literary important positions of influence within this realm. This is because their
compositions—all of them, in the south at least, in Sumerian. There is little moral character was sharp, and they knew their own traditions well.
 41

Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “The God of all makes evident Joan Louise Oates [21st century archaeologist] says: “The image was fed,
the foolishness, infirmity, and loathsome ways of the world in order to put in a ceremonial fashion accompanied by music, from offerings and the
to shame its power and wisdom. People who care for bodily things and produce of the temple land and flocks. When the god was ‘eating’, he was,
seek beauty, greatness, and great bodily strength, know nothing of divine at least in later times, hidden from human view, even the priests, by linen
wisdom, but rather only a false and artificial sort of eloquence. This is the curtains surrounding the image and his table. When the god had ‘eaten’,
distance between humanity and God. The false pretence of the king is the dishes from his meal were sent to the king for consumption. What was
shown as he wished not only the other captives be servants, but also that not destined for the table of the main deity, his consort, his children or the
they be descendents from kings. Now all this happened just as Isaiah had servant gods was distributed among the temple administrators and
predicted to Hezekiah: ‘And some of your own sons will become slaves, craftsmen. The quantities of food involved could be enormous.”
yes eunuchs, in the palace of the king of Babylon’ [Isaiah 39:7].”
Also, an exciting discovery of a group of tablets excavated in the southern
Next in v. 5, we read: “the king assigned them fine food and choice wine palace at Babylon show that Jehoiachin and his five sons received rations
on a daily basis, ordering them to be trained for three years, at the end of of oil from the royal stores. These cover the years from 595–560 b.c.
which time they would enter the king’s service.” which matches when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and when
Jehoiachin submitted to him and was taken as a captive [2 Kings 24:12]. It
So, the king specified both their period of training as well as the diet they says: “1.5 sila [a Babylonian unit for oil equivalent to ~0.8 L] for three
were to observe. Their diet would now consist of the same food the king carpenters from Arvad, 0.5 apiece; 11.5 sila for eight woodworkers from
ate, as well as the wine that he drank. This is because the Hebrew word Byblos; 3.5 sila for seven Greek craftsman, 0.5 sila apiece; 0.5 sila to the
paṯ–bag is a loanword from the Old Persian word patibaga, or the Elamite carpenter, Nabuetir; 10 sila to Ia–ku–u–ki–nu, the king of Judah’s son; 2.5
word batibaziš, referring to food for the royal court, which would be of sila for the five sons of the Judean king.”
finest quality. Nevertheless, it does not signify any particular kind of food.
It was often barley and oil, and sometimes meat. Many people were
assigned daily rations from the king’s table: courtiers, officials, artisans,
foreign dignitaries, basically those who were considered to be in some way
part of the king’s household. Those receiving such rations were expected
to show loyalty to the king in return. Thus, his motivation was to ensure
that they had the finest provisions so as to become as strong and healthy as
possible. However, despite what might have been a valid motivation, such
a diet reflected a lifestyle in which godly values were ignored. For the
Hebrew youths, the diet meant defilement [later in v. 8], though we are not
told specifically what the nature of the violation was. Perhaps this involved
a violation of the Old Testament dietary laws [Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy
14:3–21]. Another possibility is that these foods were considered defiled
because they were the product of pagan sacrificial use. God’s people were
forbidden to eat foods that had been sacrificed or offered to pagan deities
or idols [Exodus 34:15], as was the case in Babylon, where food was
served to idols and then later eaten by the king’s court.
 42

Furthermore, the king specified that the period of training be “three years” but also to enculturate them. Babylon became a cosmopolitan home to
which is likewise attested in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. For various ethnic groups, and the Aramaic language was more widely spoken
example, Plato [4th century b.c. Greek philosopher] says that the education than Babylonian by this time. However, Babylonian civilization remained
of Persian youths began in their 14th year [Alcibiades 1:121], and the cultural norm, which is why the Chaldeans [of whom Nebuchadnezzar
Xenophon [4th century b.c. Greek philosopher] mentions the 16th or 17th was one], who had migrated to Babylonia themselves, adopted Babylonian
years as the close [Cyropaedia 1, 2]. Likewise the collection of sacred names in the process of acculturation, as did other ethnic groups besides
texts used by Zoroastrian priests [the Avesta] says that a student for holy the Jews who found themselves living in Babylon. The intent is religious
training should go to a master for 3 years. So, in Daniel’s case, though this indoctrination as well as education. Each Hebrew name refers to the God
pertains to Babylonian culture, it is quite conceivable that the trends would of Israel, whereas the new Babylonian names, though there are
have been similar. This means Daniel was between ~14 year and ~16 years uncertainties in the exact etymologies, refer to Babylonian gods, as
when he was taken to Babylon, and at the end of this 3–year training, he Nebuchadnezzar himself explains for Belteshazzar [later in Daniel 4:8].
was expected to be ready for service to the king! The Babylonians sought to assimilate these Jews into their polytheistic
culture and wean them from their own religion. This was an affront to
Finally in vv. 6–7, we read: “included among the people of Judah were God’s call for his people to be holy and distinct from the nations. Thus,
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The chief officer assigned the Daniel’s Babylonian name Belteshazzar is derived from Akkadian:
name ‘Belteshazzar’ to Daniel, the name ‘Shadrach’ to Hananiah, the
name ‘Meshach’ to Mishael, and the name ‘Abednego’ to Azariah.” 1. The word beletsharuṣṣur [or “may Ishtar protect the king”].
2. The word balaṭsu–uṣṣur [or “may Marduk/Nabu protect his life”].
Since it was common in the ancient Near East to give theophoric names to 3. A garbled form of belshazzar [or “may Bel protect the king”].
one’s children, the names always had a special meaning, usually honouring
God. For example, notice that the Hebrew word ’ēl [or “God”] is suffixed In other words, Daniel’s Babylonian name is the same name as that of a
at the end of Daniel, while the Hebrew verb dîn [from which we get subsequent king, though Daniel’s book garbles this Babylonian name to
“Dan”] means “to judge” [so Daniel = “God is my judge”]. Thus, such distinguish the two men and to obscure the association of Daniel’s name
names were meant to give glory to Israel’s God, and the same was true of with a false god. Likewise, Hananiah is renamed Shadrach, which is either
Daniel’s three friends. Why then were their names changed? The new an intentionally garbled pronunciation of Marduk or derived from
names were based on the names of Babylonian deities, and the young men šaduraku [or šuduraku] that means “I am very much afraid.” Another
had a new identity in relation to the gods of Babylon. But, renaming the proposal is that Shadrach is from šudur–Aku [or “the command of Aku”],
young men was also intended to demonstrate domination over them: but no deity by the name of Aku is known in the Babylonian pantheon,
though it could be a garbled form of Anu. Nevertheless, the noun Aku
Hebrew Name Babylonian Name means “cripple” [or can be spelled akku = “owl”]. Furthermore, the
Daniel “God is my judge” Belteshazzar “May Bel protect his life!” Akkadian noun šudur does not exist, and the meaning of the rare word
Hananiah “Yahweh is gracious” Shadrach “The command of Aku” šudduru [or šunduru] is unknown. Then we see that Mishael is renamed
Mishael “Who is what God is?” Meshach “Who is what Aku is?” Meshach, which is derived from Akkadian mešaku [or “I am
Azariah “Yahweh has helped” Abednego “Servant of Nabu” insignificant”], or mešahu [or “I am forgiven”]. Another proposal is that it
is from mi–sha–Aku [or “who is what Aku is?”]. Finally, Azariah is
So, Daniel and his companions are each given Akkadian–Babylonian renamed Abednego, which is derived from abdi nabu [or “servant of
names, not only to make their names easier for Babylonians to pronounce, Nabu”] in which the divine name Nabu is intentionally garbled to Nego by
replacing the Hebrew letter ‫ ּב‬with the next Hebrew letter ‫ּג‬.
 43

This is then influenced by an Aramaic wordplay on Nabu, which reads: status; Eliakim was renamed by Pharaoh Neco as Jehoiakim (2 Kings
ebed (arad)–negu [or “servant of the shining one” = Nabu]. Thus, these 23:34), and Mattaniah was changed to Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar (2
new names were obviously meant to erase their previous identity and to Kings 24:17). Ashcroft, in The Post–Colonial Studies Reader, has
associate them more closely with Babylonian culture and religion. captured the essence of naming the subject in the act of colonization: ‘One
Babylonian allegiance was expected to follow their new identity and of the most subtle demonstrations of the power of language is the means by
enlightened education. Renaming them was the quintessential attack on which it provides, through the function of naming, a technique for
their heritage and faith. How degrading this must have been for these knowing a colonised place or people. To name the world is to
young men so committed to their true God of Israel! ‘understand’ it, to know it, and to have control over it. To name reality is
therefore to exert power over it, simply because the dominant language
Philip Chia [21st century Intercultural scholar] further explains the details: becomes the way in which it is known. In colonial experience this power is
“Segregation is a common practice of the colonizer’s political strategy, to by no means vague or abstract. A systematic education and indoctrination
divide and rule. Even before the Babylonians, Assyrian imperial policy installed the language and thus the reality on which it was predicated as
practiced the dispersal of captives and dissemination of colonial preeminent.’ The naming of Daniel and his friends in Chaldean language
knowledge for the purpose of control and domination. The selection of the also means the change of their Jewish identity to one of a hybridity. The
best of the best Israelites, even including the ‘royal seed,’ is in fact a form emphasis on identity as doubled, or hybrid, or unstable is one
of neo–colonialism, in that colonized elite are being transformed or re– characteristic of the postcolonial approach to reading literature. By the
educated in order to serve the purpose of the colonizer. Nebuchadnezzar, a change of names, they have been transformed into Chaldeans with
well–seasoned colonizer, has strategy to turn the potential danger around Jewish blood. Yet, they are supposedly to take it as an honour to serve the
for his own advantages, to rule his subjugates with the colonized elite. Babylonian empire with all honesty and loyalty, as any Babylonian would
Neo–colonialism has proven to be an effective strategy in many of the do. From this moment onward, Daniel and friends will have to live with
Commonwealth countries. Through re–education, the culture, religion, a hybrid identity, mentally, socially, and physically. Though this might be
and knowledge of the colonized are transformed in order to serve the some kind of a torture, and not much can be done with regards to the
purpose of the colonizer. Colonialism takes place in Jerusalem and neo– change of their names by their colonizer, yet the narrator continues to use
colonialism takes place in the Babylonian kingdom. The next logical move their Jewish name in the narrative and throughout the book as a means of
for Nebuchadnezzar, the colonizer, is to name their subjugates. The resistance to colonial rule. Such resistance can appear in different forms
Jewish names of the four Judean youths were carefully noted before and in other areas of their lives, as the narrator develops the story,
changing them to Chaldean names, as articulated by the narrator. Daniel increasing the reader’s anticipation. On the naming of Daniel’s Chaldean
is renamed as Belteshazzar, Hananiah renamed as Shadrach, Mishael as name, Fewell suggests that they might be engineered by their colonizer to
Meshach, and Azariah as Abednego. Although scholars do not agree on go through a classic model of a rite of passage, ‘a ritual designed to
the precise meaning of their names, most would think that their new facilitate a person’s passing from one phase of life into another.’ With the
Chaldean names have to do with Babylonian religions and the names of three stages in the classic model of ritual process, Fewell concludes that:
Babylonian deities. The significance of the names, however, lies not so ‘This match between Nebuchadnezzar’s plan and a rite of passage
much in their meaning; rather, it lies in the fact that as strengthens our understanding of the training as not simply professional
subjugator/colonizer, they are being named by their subjugator/colonizer; education. The young men are to learn the Babylonian profession, and
it is done by a power that assumes the authority to make such a change. confess Babylonian allegiance. Such a transformation benefits the king;
The naming of the subject, as in the creation story, carries with it a notion the captives must be made to see that such a transformation benefits them
of domination and lordship over the subject. The naming or re–naming in as well. The narrator, however, leaves the reader two options for judging
biblical literature is also a sign of inferior, subordinate and dependent what is happening to the young Judeans. In one sense their rite of passage
 44

is a promotion from prisoners to professional. But, in another sense, the for his kingdom. Although as Fewell observed, ‘The reader might even be
passage is a demotion from ‘royal seed’ to servanthood.’ There is a tempted to consider Nebuchadnezzar a generous, tolerant monarch with
difference, however, in the cultural anthropological model of Victor worthy aesthetic and intellectual values,’ the narrator seems to have
Turner and that of Nebuchadnezzar’s strategy in Daniel 1. Though there another thought in mind: to carry on his/her scheme of resistance to
may be some resemblance in the two situations, there is a spirit of colonial rule, as the story develops further into Daniel’s resistance to the
resistance, politically and religiously, in Daniel’s case, on the one hand, eating culture of the palace.”
and they were forced to accept the transformation and brainwashing as
prisoners of war, on the other. The model of a rite of passage is, after all, Jerome [4th century] concludes: “It is not only the overseer or master of the
an observed phenomenon in primitive society in transition. Identity and eunuchs (as others have rendered it, the chief eunuch) who changed the
name are very personal belongings; being and existence are rooted in names of saints, but also Pharaoh called Joseph in Egypt Zaphenath–
them. The change of one’s name without one’s consent or by force, not paneah [Genesis 41:45], for neither of them wished to have Jewish names
only is an insult to one’s integrity and dignity, but also a denial of the in the land of captivity. Wherefore the prophet says in the psalm, ‘How
right to ancestry. As pointed out by Samuel Huntington: ‘People define shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?’ [Psalm 137:4]
themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, Furthermore, the Lord himself changes names benignly, and on the basis
customs, and institutions.’ For hundreds of years, the naming of Chinese of events imposes names of special significance, so as to call Abram
people by the westerner has been a painful experience. For instance, the Abraham, and Sarai Sarah [Genesis 17:5, 15]. Also in the Gospel, the
two names, Mao Ze–dong or Deng Xiao–ping, are never required by former Simon received the name of Peter, and the sons of Zebedee are
western media to reverse the order in introducing their names, while it is a called ‘sons of thunder’ [Mark 3:16].”
common practice to reverse the order of the names for all other Chinese
names (almost 25% of the entire world population). If one insisted on 5) How did Daniel resolve not to compromise his faith in God? (1:8–16)
writing one’s Chinese name according to the order of the Chinese
characters, then it will almost certainly be mistaken by a westerner who Starting with vv. 8–10, we read: “Daniel determined within himself not to
will take the last character as the last name or surname. One’s ancestrial become defiled by the king’s menu of rich foods or by the king’s wine, so
tradition is defined by one’s surname. There is a saying in Chinese: he requested permission from the chief officer not to defile himself. God
‘Standing, I don’t change my surname; Sitting, I don’t change my name.’ granted to Daniel grace and compassion on the part of the chief officer.
This means one will stand by one’s own words once uttered. This shows The chief officer told Daniel, ‘I fear his majesty the king, who has
the importance of one’s name in Chinese culture, like many others. Under determined what you eat and drink. If he notices your faces are paler than
the British rule, English education has forced many colonized people to the other young men in your group, I will forfeit my head to the king.’”
change their names and identities. Often, names that reflect the western
religion (Christianity) are taken with little knowledge of it, like that of Nebuchadnezzar had appointed a special food regimen for the young men.
Daniel and friends’ Chaldean names. That the narrator carefully For most of the Gentiles participating in the program, the diet posed no
articulated this element of name changing into the narrative of Daniel special problem. In fact, they considered themselves blessed that they had
under Nebuchadnezzar, the colonizer, is by no means an accident. It is a it so good, because they would be eating well! However, for Daniel and
voice for human integrity and dignity. The voice of dissident is being his friends, the diet was a problem, either because it involved unclean
transmitted in the form of character play, through the action of Daniel foods [according to the Torah] or because the food and drink had
who resisted the temptation of status at the risk of his life, as the story previously been sacrificed to idols. So, although the entire training
develops in the next section. With a new socio–political status for Daniel program was built on humanistic values and a thoroughly pagan
and the youths, king Nebuchadnezzar can expect the best of their service education, the Hebrews could still participate without disobeying God!
 45

But, the food issue would have meant a clear–cut act of disobedience the broader perspective. Daniel was a person whom God greatly used, and
before God. Thus, Daniel and his friends were faced with two decisions: he was a person to whom God revealed marvellous truths. What we must
be careful to see is the relationship between his obedience and the resulting
1. Whether they would be faithful regardless of the consequences. use God made of his life. Daniel is a good model for how we ought to have
2. How they would handle the situation and communicate their beliefs sensitivity to God and a desire to please him in every decision we make.
to their Babylonian superiors. One of the benefits in studying the bible is that it not only teaches us what
is right and wrong, but it lets us see this fleshed out in the lives of men and
So, the main point of this passage is to show how Daniel’s decision to women who were faithful, who had convictions, and they lived by them.
obey God was met by God’s faithfulness to act on his behalf! God made a Godly men and women live with convictions, and they stick by them even
way for Daniel to obey God and yet still remain in the training program, when this puts them at odds with the world and its value system.
because just as God gave Jehoiakim and the Temple treasures into the Convictions are the truths we are committed to live by, regardless of
hands of Nebuchadnezzar, he gave favour and compassion to Daniel. whether others agree with us, and regardless of what price we have to pay
for keeping them. What Daniel had resolved in his heart was one thing;
Bill Arnold [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The irony of the word how he would handle the situation was another. Think for a moment how
play is that the Babylonians think they have changed Daniel’s character, Daniel might have responded:
but the narrator knows otherwise. They succeeded in changing all the
circumstances of his life, and the name change in v. 7 represents Daniel’s 1. He could have planned an escape from Babylon and run away.
complete transformation, at least from the Babylonian perspective. But, 2. He could have acted defiantly and simply told the authorities he
the inner resolve and dedication revealed by the word play in v. 8 is the would not obey their rules.
narrator’s full portrait of Daniel and transcends even the description of
his impressive personal and intellectual skills in v. 3–4. It is his However, v. 8 tells us that he “requested permission from the chief officer
commitment to God that sets Daniel apart, and prepares the reader for the not to defile himself.” Thus, the irony is that he sought permission from a
continued conflict between aggressive world powers and God’s servants.” human in charge not to defile himself. We learn from this that obeying
God is only one side of the coin, for we are also responsible as to how we
Nevertheless, this whole situation might not seem so significant, because obey God before others. Daniel’s obedience toward God was balanced by
what would is so bad about eating the food that the king apportioned? a respect for authority. While we live in this world, we will often be in
Some scholars conclude that this was a ritual issue while others consider it situations where we are placed under the authority of non–believers. God
a moral one. But, there is no specific mention in the text that this was the still expects us to honour them; and we honour God by honouring the lines
issue behind their refusal, and these explanations fail to explain why a of authority that he has permitted to exist [Romans 13:1–7; 1 Timothy 2:1–
vegetarian diet was sufficient to solve the dilemma. Thus, Daniel was far 2; 1 Peter 2:13–15]. Daniel and his friends certainly took a risk in making
more interested in highlighting their concern of obedience to God than on an issue of the king’s diet. They were probably prepared to pay the
what exactly the defilement was. In other words, every decision to obey consequences of their choice! There are times when we must suffer for
God always involves the opportunity to have done otherwise. When we choosing to obey God. So, in this particular case, God honoured their
obey God, we have acted in faith; otherwise it is more convenient or obedience. Then v. 9 says, “God granted to Daniel grace and compassion
enticing not to obey. Thus, Daniel’s decision was a choice of faith, in on the part of the chief officer” [words reflecting a fulfilment of 1 Kings
which obedience to God became more important than what might have 8:50; Psalm 106:46]. One of the wonderful things about being a believer is
been momentarily more convenient or beneficial for him. So, as we reflect that we are never left alone! We cannot see God visibly, but he often
upon Daniel’s decision to obey, we would do well to consider his life from works in his own sovereign and mysterious ways on our behalf.
 46

He can even turn the hearts of unbelievers to do his will and accomplish beseeching the chief eunuch to allow them to be excused from partaking of
his purposes. As Solomon said, “a king’s heart is a water stream that the the king’s food. This pointless objection of the eunuch was cowardly. The
Lord controls; he directs it wherever he pleases” [Proverbs 21:1]. This is eunuch was a man whose spirit did not know grace, but took pleasure in
exactly what God did in the case of the head of the court officials who his own sensuality. Of this man and human morality, take heed as there is
were over Daniel. Rather than being wrathful and vindictive toward the opinion that sumptuous feeding on nutritious foods provides for the
Daniel, God caused him to be favourably disposed toward him; to be body nourishment enough for it to flourish. In fact, it is not with such
sympathetic toward him. Without a doubt, God used Daniel’s indulgence that you should chance your life, for it was with a small
respectfulness as part of the process. The head official’s initial reaction portion and by way of self–control that Daniel and his friends flourished.”
was one of hesitation. In his opinion, the king’s diet would lead to better
health and appearance, but another diet was bound to be less beneficial. He Next in vv. 11–13, we read: “but Daniel told the guard whom the chief
was concerned that the effects would even show up in their countenance: officer had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
“If he notices that your faces are more pale than the other young men in ‘Please test your servants for ten days and let us be given vegetables to eat
your group, I will forfeit my head to the king.” The rare Hebrew word and water to drink. Then compare how we look with the young men who
zā ap [for “more pale”] suggests that the proposed diet would even result ate the king’s rich food, and treat your servants in accordance with what
in a sullen look on their faces [Genesis 40:6]. The head official realized you observe.’”
that such consequences could even mean the loss of his own life, as he
would be held responsible for what had happened. Though Daniel had favour in the eyes of the head official, initially the
response was not so favourable. Often God does not allow answers to
Jerome [4th century] says: “He who was taken into captivity on account of prayer to come so quickly or so easily, as was the case here. Through delay
the sins of his ancestors received an immediate reward for the measure of we learn to persevere in prayer and in faith. However, in just such a time,
his own virtue. For he had purposed in his heart that he would not be God enabled Daniel to come up with some creative thinking: a short–term
defiled by food from the king’s table and preferred humble fare to royal test for 10 days in which the Hebrew young men would eat vegetables and
delicacies; therefore, by the bountiful favour of the Lord, he received water. This proposal was apparently not presented to the head official
favour and compassion in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. By this we directly, but to the “guard” who had been placed over them. Whether or
may understand that if ever under pressing circumstances holy people are not he relayed the proposal to the head official immediately, we do not
loved by unbelievers, it is a matter of the mercy of God, not of the know. Most likely the head of the court officials was involved in
goodness of perverted people.” approving the arrangement at some point [recall v. 9]. The idea of eating
only vegetables and water may not have been as restrictive as one might
Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] concludes: “For those who love God think. The Hebrew word zērōa [for “vegetables”] has the basic idea of
do not seek after the God of all in just one place, but even in the midst of that which grows from zera [or “seed”]. This would include not only
this misfortune they worshiped as if in the house of the Creator. In that vegetables, but fruits, grains, and bread made from grains. In other words,
place there are many wondrous moments to be found. For having been this would have been quite a healthy diet! Thus, the test was simple: if
reared on the teachings of the Jews and having learned the customary after 10 days the Hebrew youths looked fine, they could be allowed to
service to God, they now were dwelling in a foreign land and were being continue the alternative diet. Thus, the important theological ramifications
forced into slavery exactly at the prime of their life. They were forced to here is that every time a meal was served, these exiles from Judah would
abide under the foreign customs. But, having seen the Babylonians offer remember, that although they had no choice but to live in Babylon and
defiled meat to the idols and the polluted libations at the temple, they took absorb its culture, they nonetheless chose to be nourished and cared for by
heed and, neglecting their own safety, rejected the king’s banquet, God, rather than by the king of Babylon!
 47

Leander [6th century Bishop of Seville] says: “A fish is caught by being Starting with v. 17, we read: “as for these four young men, God gave
enticed by a hook. A bird falls into a net while trying to get food. Animals them knowledge, aptitude for learning, and wisdom. Daniel also could
that are tough by nature’s endowment fall into a pit from the desire to eat, understand all kinds of visions and dreams.”
and what nature does not soften, food deceives. Therefore, learn
temperance and parsimony from the prayer and the examples of So, this summarizes God’s blessing and reward upon the Hebrew youths
ancients: from prayer, because the Lord says, ‘Lest your hearts be who were obedient to him. The key thought here is upon what “God” did:
overburdened with self–indulgence and drunkenness’ [Luke 21:34]; from he gave them these special gifts. This should not be taken to mean that the
examples, because David was unwilling to drink the water he wanted, young men did not seriously apply themselves in their studies and training.
since he recognized the danger of being responsible for another’s blood [2 Obviously they did. However, in the final analysis, God gave them their
Samuel 23:14–17]; because Daniel scorned the feasts of kings and lived on success. Thus, God enjoys rewarding his children for their obedience. How
vegetables. What you possess in common with your companions should be God chooses to honour his children is his prerogative [1 Samuel 2:30], and
acceptable to you, and you should not cause others to be intemperate; we should keep in mind that God is the one who rewards, not us, and we
also, do not become a cause for scandal to those to whom you wish to set must learn to accept the gifts that God chooses to give according to his
an example by encouragement and by proof of a good life.” sovereign will. This passage does not mean to imply that obedient
believers will always have earthly success, or that obedience will always
Finally in vv. 14–16, we read: “so he listened to what Daniel said and lead to promotion in school, government, or business. There will be times
tested them for ten days. At the end of ten days their appearance was when we are hopeful of some special attainment, but God may not allow
better and their faces were well–nourished compared to the young men us to have that which we have desired, even if the goal may have been
who ate the king’s rich food. So the guard took away their rich food and good, or if we walk obediently with God. In other words, we can and will
wine, giving them vegetables.” be disappointed at times, but we must respond maturely and realize on
such occasions that God has not ordained such gifts or crowning success
Thus, the guard permitted the test, and after 10 days there was a noticeable for us. God may choose to reward us in this earthly life, or he may choose
outcome. In fact, rather than looking dejected or haggard, their appearance to reward us at the resurrection [1 Corinthians 3:12–15; 4:3–5; 2
was better and their bodies healthier in comparison with the others. Corinthians 5:9–10; Revelation 22:12]. So, we must let God be the judge
Although the basic meaning of the Hebrew word bārîʾ [for “well– of what is best and what fits in most appropriately with his sovereign
nourished”] can mean “fat,” it generally means to describe healthy purposes. In Daniel’s context, notice carefully the nature of the reward that
humans, animals, and vegetation. Thus, in a world where starvation and the young men received. Their reward did not come in the form of being
malnutrition were greater dangers than obesity, fatter [well–fed] was set free or being allowed to return to Jerusalem [things that they might
healthier! In Pharaoh’s dream, the skinny [unhealthy] cows and grain are have wished for]. Their faithfulness to God paid off in ways that really
contrasted with the fat [healthy] cows and grain [Genesis 41:3–7]. mattered: to be equipped for their God–given mission in Babylon.
Likewise, the wealthy are described as “fat” in the sense of well–fed and
healthy [Psalm 73:4]. It is known today that a vegetarian diet, so long as it The Process The Outcome
includes items with enough protein, vitamins, and minerals, can be as God distinguished
healthy as any non–vegetarian diet. Thus, they were allowed to continue Knowing Inner them by granting them
their alternative diet with the guard’s knowledge and authorization. Wise Endurance
what God conviction what they needed to
implementation for ~3 years
desires to obey succeed in his mission
6) Why were their results summa cum laude and then some? (1:17–21) for them
 48

The Hebrew word haśkēl [for “aptitude for learning”] informs us that God types of omens were made. Instruction manuals were written. The reports
gave them a special ability for comprehending the Babylonian literature in of diviners were recorded. Various rituals and prayers related to divination
which they studied. The things that Nebuchadnezzar had desired [wisdom, were written down. Different forms of divination were popular at various
knowledge, understanding; recall v. 4], God gave these four young men. times and places. Then from the 1st millennium b.c. onward, the study of
However, Daniel was singled out for further distinctive honours. He had animal entrails, abnormal births, and astronomical phenomena [the origins
understanding about [or he discerned] every kind of vision, as well as of modern astrology] were particularly popular.
dreams. This statement prepares us for the remainder of the book in which
we see Daniel’s unique role of interpreting dreams and receiving visions. Ernest Lucas [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Dreams played only a
Daniel’s honour must also be seen in light of the emphasis put on dreams secondary role in Mesopotamian divination. They were more important in
and visions in Babylonian culture [later in Daniel 2:1–13]. In Babylon, the reigns of some kings than others, perhaps a reflection of the king’s
great stress was put upon the understanding of dreams and visions, though personal piety. Dreams were thought to be messages from the gods
the techniques used for their discernment were entirely occultic. The brought by a spirit messenger whose Akkadian name was Zaqiqu.
“astrologers and enchanters” [later in v. 20] had a highly developed Basically two types of dream were recognized as communications from the
methodology for interpreting dreams and visions. Thus, Daniel was gifted gods. In message dreams a divine being spoke directly to the dreamer, so
by God for dealing with such phenomena, but he did not have to rely on that interpretation was not needed. A symbolic dream involved the
the occultic methods that the king’s advisors typically did. The dreamer seeing or experiencing something, the meaning of which was not
Mesopotamians believed that the gods communicated messages to them in obvious; thus, interpretation was needed. All known records of this kind
various ways, and it was the diviner’s task to obtain and interpret these of dream come from Sumerian or Babylonian sources rather than Assyrian
messages or omens. There were three types of divinatory practice: ones. Interpretation could be done in one of two ways. Deductive
interpretation relied on consultation of collections of dream omens (called
1. The study of unsolicited omens: observing various forms of natural ‘dream books’), which contained lists of things that might occur in dreams
phenomena, such as astronomical and meteorological events, the and assigned meanings to each one. Intuitive interpretation depended
behaviour of animals, and abnormal births. simply on the wisdom and insight of the interpreter. There is no evidence
of a specific group of professionals who devoted themselves wholly to
2. The obtaining of omens by using various techniques for asking a dream interpretation. Instead, this was done by priests, both male and
question of the gods and obtaining an answer. Some of the female, who were competent in several types of divination. When a dream
techniques used were dropping oil on water and observing the presaged something bad, there were rituals that could be performed to
shapes formed, burning incense and observing the shapes made by prevent this from happening. This is one reason why it was important to
the smoke, and sacrificing an animal and observing its entrails, discover the meaning of a dream as soon as possible.”
especially the liver.
Thus, we should take notice that this special ability for discerning dreams
3. The use of human mediums. Prophecy was not common in and visions was not given to all four young men, but only to Daniel. God
Mesopotamia, being attested mainly from its western fringes, such was very selective in terms of the human instrument he used for this [it
as at Mari. Dream interpretation was more widespread. was not something every believer could do]. We should also keep in mind
Necromancy was also practiced. that although God did on occasion speak through dreams, most dreams
were never intended as revelation from God. As is true today, dreams are
So, from the 2nd millennium b.c. onward, a considerable amount of typically the result of the brain putting together thoughts and images
Akkadian literature developed around omens. Collections of different during one’s sleep.
 49

However, there are several times in the Old Testament where God The 3 years that the king had specified for their education and training
supernaturally interceded with a divinely given dream, even at times with [recall v. 5] had now passed. At this point, Ashpenaz, the commander of
unbelievers [Genesis 41:1–8]. Visions, in contrast, were only given to the officials, formally presented the candidates to the king. Then
believers [usually Old Testament prophets]. The New Testament includes Nebuchadnezzar personally conversed with each of them. Based on his
very few cases of God using dreams [Matthew 1:20–2:22; 27:19]. There personal interviews, it was apparent that these four young men outclassed
are some instances in which God gave visions in the New Testament, but all the others who had gone through the king’s training. At one point, they
after the gospels, these are infrequent and usually limited to one of the faced the possibility of being eliminated from the program, but now we are
apostles [Acts 16:9] or to someone God was using in an exceptional way told that “they stood before the king,” which is a reminder that God was
to advance the gospel. In light of these observations, believers today faithful to see them through. In fact, this phrase can also be translated:
should not be overly occupied with trying to interpret dreams, as though “they entered the king’s personal service.” This is because, although the
they were divinely given, especially for the purpose of seeking divine Hebrew verb āmaḏ followed by lipn simply means to be in one’s
guidance! However, this does not rule out the fact that God might choose presence [as when Moses stood before Pharaoh; Exodus 9:10], it can also
to convey some spiritual insight to unbelievers through a dream. have the connotation of being there to serve [Genesis 41:46; Numbers
Furthermore, visions were limited to extraordinary situations after the day 16:9], or in submission and ready to receive orders [Deuteronomy 4:10].
of Pentecost [usually involving an apostle], which should also caution us Thus, not only did these four successfully complete the program at the top
from seeking or expecting them today. In other words, special care should of their class, but they even excelled over all the others in the realm who
be taken to distinguish dreams and visions from the gift of prophecy in the served as “astrologers and enchanters” [not just the other young trainees].
New Testament, where the latter was a spiritual gift given by God and not Why? It is because they were two classes of dignitaries that officially
limited to the apostles. Thus, God can certainly do this if he chooses to, served in the royal courts of Babylon as advisors to the king. The Hebrew
but our reliance should primarily be upon God’s holy word. word ḥarṭummîm [for “astrologers”] is derived from Egyptian ḫr.tp [or
“chief bearer of the ritual scrolls”]. Thus, familiarity with sacred
Jerome [4th century] says: “Note that God is said to have given the holy documents made one an expert in magic and healing, and among the ritual
youths knowledge and learning in secular literature and ‘grammatical scrolls were Egyptian books on dream interpretation that go back to the 2nd
art,’ implying that they understood everything they read, and by the Spirit millennium b.c. [which means dream interpretation played a greater role in
of God they could make a judgment concerning the lore of the Chaldeans. Egypt than in Mesopotamia]. In fact, the Chester Beatty Dream Book dates
But, Daniel had an outstanding gift over and above the three youths, in to the 19th Dynasty of Egypt, but its composition dates to the 12th Dynasty.
that he could astutely discern the significance of visions and dreams in It is currently the oldest surviving manual of dream interpretation.
which things to come are shown forth by means of certain symbols and
mysteries. Thus, that which others saw only in a shadowy appearance he
could perceive clearly with the eyes of his understanding.”

Next in vv. 18–20, we read: “then at the end of the training period that the
king had established, the chief officer brought them in before
Nebuchadnezzar. When the king spoke to them, none of them compared to
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, or Azariah as they stood before the king. In
every matter of wisdom or understanding that the king discussed with
them, he found them ten times superior to all the astrologers and
enchanters in his entire palace.”
 50

Thus, in the Old Testament, the ḥarṭummîm were Egyptian dream magicians performed serious functions. Supposedly in touch with the
interpreters who try in vain to interpret Pharaoh’s dream [Genesis 41:8, world of the spirits and the gods, these individuals were the advisers to
24]. They also were magicians [Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18–19; 9:11] who the king on virtually every matter. They employed rites and spells
tried to imitate the miracles of Moses by their magical arts. But, later in intended to heal, exorcise demons, or counter an evil spell placed upon the
Neo–Assyrian times, the ḥr.tp became a loan word in Akkadian as ḥartibi sufferer. Omens were studied in order to understand the future, and
[or “interpreter of dreams”], and mantics in Mesopotamia bearing this title astrology played an important part in this activity. Techniques, such as
and having Egyptian names were consulted during or before the time of examining a sheep’s liver (hepatoscopy), also were employed in decision
Assurbanipal [668–627 b.c.]. In fact, one is listed as a prisoner brought making (Ezekiel 21:21). Dream interpretation was another function of
from Egypt at the time of Esarhaddon [681–669 b.c.]. Thus, since these wise men as may be observed from ancient sources and Daniel’s
Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt, these ḥarṭummîm were captured in the book. Primarily the official magicians were protective and benevolent, but
war, and served in the king’s courts. In other words, these are the Egyptian there were unofficial sorcerers who dealt in black magic and were
“astrologers” brought to Nebuchadnezzar from the far reaches of his supposedly in league with evil forces. Daniel’s cohorts, however, were of
empire, or else those who had learned Egyptian magical lore, including the the benevolent variety and sought to protect the king and the kingdom from
art of dream interpretation. the various evils that might arise and to interpret the various messages the
gods might convey. Yet sorcery of any kind is demonic and severely
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] says: “A ḥarṭōm was condemned in scripture (Leviticus 19:26).”
probably a diviner, one who used some sort of inscribed chart or magical
design (possibly imposed on a chart of the stars) in order to arrive at an Thus, both of these officials [the “astrologers and enchanters”] served in
answer to questions put to him. That ḥarṭummîm were diviners using important positions to the king. In the Babylonian culture, determining the
charts assumes the derivation of this term from ḥereṭ (‘stylus’). Another will of the gods or the outcome of certain events was highly significant,
explanation takes note of the fact that ḥarṭummîm are mentioned in and the king relied on these officials to help him in making decisions
Exodus 7–9, where the Egyptian ‘diviners’ confront Moses, and derives through their access to occultic knowledge. However, the point of v. 20 is
the word from the Egyptian ḥry–tp, which allegedly means ‘soothsayer not to restrict the comparison of Daniel and his three friends to these two
priest.’ Although the Egyptian lexicons define it as a general word for particular classes of occultic advisors. Instead, these two are representative
overseer, chieftain, or governor, literally it means ‘he who is over the head of all types of advisors to the king, of which there were other types as well
of,’ and as such could mean a head priest, or someone of that sort.” [later in Daniel 2:2]. Thus, through the wisdom and understanding with
which Daniel and his three friends were able to advise the king, they were
Furthermore, the other Hebrew word ʾaššāpîm [for “enchanters”] is “ten times superior” than all other types of “astrologers and enchanters”
derived from the Akkadian word āšipu [or “diagnostician”], and this acted that were found in the Babylonian realms. In fact, by stating that the
as a physician in connection with medical practice, but by modern Hebrew young men were “ten times superior” may have a subtle allusion
standards as an exorcist or witch doctor. Thus, the ašipu drove away to the 10 plagues by which Moses demonstrated God’s supremacy over the
demons, worms, or bad luck that caused illness or nightmares. In other occult in Egypt [Exodus 7:14–25; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12:29–32]. In other words,
words, with their spells and incantations, they communicated with the notice that the “astrologers and enchanters” sought their wisdom through
unseen realm, and received food offered to deities as priestly personnel. occultic channels, which was vastly inferior to the wisdom that God was
able to give to those who sought him and walked with him [Deuteronomy
Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Today magicians are 18:9–14]. Thus, Daniel will live to exercise his gifts under foreign kings
commonly thought of as persons who do tricks, like pulling rabbits out of until 536 b.c. [later in Daniel 10:1], giving “back to Caesar the things that
hats. Although we may assume trickery often was involved, the Babylonian are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” [Mark 12:17].
 51

Thus, this cuneiform fragment is an example of the Babylonian practice of

slaughtering sheep and studying their organs for portents of the future.

This examination of the liver of a sacrificial animal was a common form of

Mesopotamian divination called hepatoscopy, and clay models of livers
have been found at many archaeological sites, confirming their widespread
use in antiquity. For example, here is a clay model from ancient Mari in
northern Syria, dated to 1900–1600 b.c., with instructions to liver diviners
on the meaning of blemishes that appear on particular parts of the organ:

Likewise, here is a 3rd millennium b.c. ritualized slaughter of a ram to the

Mesopotamian god Shamash in Mari [Syria], and since Shamash was
associated with justice and truth, his devotees sought his omens by
slaughtering sheep and studying their entrails to find so–called secrets:
 52

David Baker [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “God revealed Thus, since Daniel had just been elevated to a position in the personal
himself through his prophets in the form of visions and dreams. He also service of the Babylonian king [recall v. 19], he served in an official
responded to queries through other, less common means, such as casting governmental capacity throughout the reign of Nebuchadnezzar [who died
lots. The latter, using physical, mechanical means to question a god, was in 562 b.c.] and even longer under other Babylonian kings. Eventually, the
common among Israel’s neighbours and is called ‘divination.’ It comes in Babylonian Empire was defeated at the hands of Cyrus the Great, king of
numerous forms and is strongly condemned as unsuitable for Israel, whose Persia, in 539 b.c. In this context, the “first year of King Cyrus” does not
God is not to be so manipulated (Deuteronomy 18:9–14). Three forms of represent the year in which he became the king over the Persians and the
divination are mentioned in Ezekiel 21:21, where, when a Babylonian king Medes, but the year in which his kingship was extended to include
needs to decide which direction to take, ‘he will cast lots with arrows, he Babylon in 539 b.c. Thus, Daniel was still serving the Babylonian Empire
will consult his idols, he will examine the liver.’ Rhabdomancy used when it fell to the Persians in 539 b.c. In fact, Daniel was even living at the
arrows or sticks that were thrown to the ground, and an interpretation was time of the 3rd year of Cyrus in 536 b.c. [later in Daniel 10:1]. Thus,
made depending on how they fell. Idol consultation used a type of Daniel’s life spanned the entire period of the neo–Babylonian empire, in
household god (teraphim) that was somehow expected to speak. Common which he had just gained an official government position. His life span
in Mesopotamia was hepatoscopy or extispicy, the examination of animal also included the early years of the Persian control of Babylon. However,
entrails, especially the liver. They were carefully inspected by trained by that time his age was so advanced that he probably died sometime in
priests who checked for abnormalities, which would communicate a the 530s b.c. So, Daniel not only received an appointment to official
message from the god regarding the future. In keeping Israel from capacity in the king’s personal service, but he also outlasted the
misusing animal livers in this way, part of the liver taken from sacrifices Babylonian Empire by God’s grace! As the rest of the book will reveal,
was to be completely burnt. Other types of divination were also used. In there were many trials, temptations, plots, and intrigues during these many
necromancy one consulted with the dead, such as when Saul consulted years, but God saw him through each one. Thus, Daniel outlived his
Samuel through a medium at Endor (1 Samuel 28:8–19). Mesopotamia Babylonian masters, which means he served in the Babylonian courts for
was also the source for astrology, consultation of the heavenly bodies ~60 years and lived to see the Persian King Cyrus issue the decree
(Isaiah 47:3). In hydromancy, people interpreted the patterns of oil placed permitting the Jews to return to the land [Ezra 1:1–3]. Daniel lived to see
on water in a cup or bowl, much like reading tea leaves today. In a God’s faithfulness with Israel begin to be worked out!
practice not referred to in the bible, Mesopotamian and Canaanite priests
also inferred meaning from abnormal animal and human births. Though In summary, Daniel 1 opened with the startling news that God’s holy
scripture condemns these practices, this is not because they do not work. people and holy Temple had been invaded, in what [at first glance] might
There is supernatural power in the occult, but it is not open to followers of appear to be a defeat for him! Nations of that time had their gods, and God
the true God. Israel is to depend on God’s self–revelation rather than was allowing his ability to serve as Israel’s protector to come into
manipulating nature to find out secrets (Isaiah 7:11–14). On an individual question. Furthermore, the changing of the names of his representatives
level, a reason to know the future was to be able to take action against any marked them as no longer the property of God, but rather of the
evil that might be coming. Incantations and magic charms were used for Babylonian deities. In what might at first seem to be disheartening, the
protection against these. For Israel, the power to protect and heal did not events show that God was all the more superior to the pagan deities! In
lie in magic or in human strength, but in God, who welcomed prayer and fact, recent scholarship has provided a very insightful approach from
was ready to protect and save (Isaiah 35:3–6).” cognitive linguistics to help us conceive the concept of a deity’s sacred–
space, which is to show how God reversed what at first seemed to be his
Finally in v. 21, we read: “so Daniel remained there in service until the defeat, actually into his victory within Marduk’s own camp, which
first year of King Cyrus.” ironically began when the Jews started eating a non–Marduk diet!
 53

In other words, a so–called spatial–hermeneutical frameset is applied, and These sacred–spaces were viewed as extensions of the gods, or as
within this cognitive frameset, the ancient worldview of Daniel 1 can be heavenly space. The interaction that created these spaces, demonstrated
divided broadly into the natural world within which humans live, and the that the earth falls under the authority of the gods. So, in the ancient Near
supernatural world of the gods, which in turn could be divided into the East, each nation had its own deity or pantheon of gods, and it was
heavens above [from where the gods rule over the world] and the believed that a god’s authority and power on earth was confined to the
underworld [as the world of the dead, but which also falls under the national boundaries of the people who worshiped that specific deity. Thus,
heavenly rule of the gods]. Nevertheless, we can distinguish two spaces: each pantheon of gods or deity established its own region of authority on
human–space and sacred–space. If we use the cognitive concept of body as earth. This ancient religious worldview not only formed part of the culture
an embodiment of space, we can describe it as a distinction between a of ancient Israel, but it is also reflected in Deuteronomy 32:8–9, where the
heavenly body and an earthly body. This implies that the heavenly body is peoples of the earth were each given their own territory according to the
the vessel or space within which the gods usually live, and the earthly number of the gods. Thus, each god possessed its own people. Thus, Israel
body designates the vessel or space in which humans live: was seen as the holy or sacred property of God [Exodus 19:5–6], and Zion
was accepted as the holy throne of God [Psalm 48], with Jerusalem as his
holy city. The Temple in Jerusalem represents the cosmological balance
that was created by God when he created the universe. Thus, the Temple
was built to represent the heavenly dwelling of God that he founded over
the ordered chaos as a symbol of his victory over the forces of chaos
[Psalm 29]. Thus, the Temple was considered a symbol of God’s reign
over both heaven and earth, and also formed the boundaries of the deity’s
sacred heavenly space on earth. Likewise the Davidic king is also
described as an earthly extension of God’s rule, because not only is the
Davidic king described as sitting at the right hand of God [Psalm 110], but
he is depicted as the son of God [Psalm 2; 45:8; 89:28]. Thus, the land of
Israel was seen as the Holy Land and the territory beyond its borders was
designated as the outside or profane world. Thus, as the protector of
Jerusalem, God was seen as a powerful warrior who was impervious to the
attacks of any opposing army, and Zion was seen as unconquerable.
Jerusalem and Zion were experienced as the axis mundi between heaven
and earth, or as an environment for humans to live and interact with God.
So, in applying the cognitive frameset of spatial hermeneutics to the text of
Daniel 1, it is important to highlight a few aspects of the narrative:

1. In vv. 1–2, Nebuchadnezzar [the Babylonian king], captures

Thus, interaction between these two spaces is possible through a Jerusalem, and then takes Joachim [the Judean king], to Babylon as
relationship that we can describe cognitively as spaces within human his prisoner. At the same time Nebuchadnezzar plunders God’s
space, or sacred–space within earthly space. These spaces could manifest Temple, and carries off many of the Temple’s objects and exhibits
from something as simple as a tree, river, or mountain to a complex entity these items in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk.
like a constructed building or city, or even the king’s environment.
 54

2. In vv. 3–7, the young men from the Davidic royal family are taken god protect their people against the king of Assyria and his god. Thus,
into the palace of Nebuchadnezzar to be educated as true keeping this in mind, Daniel 1 could be summarised as follows: God’s
Babylonians. Daniel and his friends are given Babylonian names. authority is challenged by an invasion of his sacred–space. The challengers
are the Babylonian gods that were ruled and headed by Marduk [v. 2]. So,
3. In vv. 8–10, Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the king’s food. in Daniel 1, God’s sacred–space is marked by:

4. In vv. 11–17, a period of 10 days is set aside for Daniel and his 1. The holy city of Jerusalem.
friends to prove that their diet of vegetables is healthier than a diet 2. King Joachim and the royal families.
of food taken from the king’s table. At the end of the 10–day test, 3. The Temple.
Daniel and his friends are not only healthier than the other young 4. The land of Judea.
men, they are also shown to be more intelligent. 5. The character of Daniel.

5. In vv. 18–21, at the end of their education, the young men are Thus, by mentioning the royal families and Daniel’s connection to them
brought before Nebuchadnezzar to be tested. Again, Daniel and his [vv. 3, 6], Daniel describes himself as becoming the embodiment of God’s
friends are not only found to be more astute and far wiser than the rule/space [as in the case of the Judean king]. This is because the breach of
rest of the young men, but they also outshine Nebuchadnezzar’s God’s sacred–space is marked by Marduk’s king [Nebuchadnezzar] who
personal counsellors. invades Jerusalem and plunders God’s Temple. Thus, God’s humiliation
and inability to protect his jurisdiction is emphasised strongly in the
So, Daniel 1 can be summarised as the story of four young Judean men narrative. This is done by depicting the scenario in which God’s king and
from the Davidic royal house who struggle to maintain their Judean royal families, as well as his Temple objects are taken to Marduk’s base of
identity and faith within a profane and non–Israelite environment. strength [Babylonian city and temple]. So, in Babylon, Marduk’s
Nevertheless, God provides a positive outcome in answer to their efforts to supremacy over God’s people is accentuated. This dominance is denoted
stay faithful to their Judean identity. But, reading the text from within the by the representation in which Daniel and his friends are to be stripped of
cognitive frameset of space, there actually is much more to the narrative of their culture and identity as God’s people by furnishing them with
Daniel 1 than merely the story of four young men trying to uphold their Babylonian names and providing them with a Babylonian education, and
Judean culture within a hostile foreign environment. Remember, people of with their new names, Daniel and his friends are cognitively inscribed or
the ancient world believed that each deity had its personal region or reproclaimed as vessels of the Babylonian gods! It means that the four
territory over which it exerted its power and authority. In this way, the Judeans are no longer the property of God, but the property of the
gods were bound to certain places, territories, or cities. When nations Babylonian gods! Nevertheless, Daniel 1 takes an interesting turn. God is
waged war, each of them called upon their gods to protect them. If a nation not as powerless within Marduk’s territory as the people of ancient times
lost a battle, it was believed that its gods were not strong enough to protect may have expected. Marduk is suddenly challenged by God from within
it. Thus, it was accepted that these gods and their territories of authority Marduk’s own city! The challenge comes through a cognitive approach via
were subject to the authority of the victorious gods. For example, in Psalm a clash of foods, where Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the food
137, the Israelite exiles are mocked by their Babylonian captors and asked coming from Nebuchadnezzar’s table. Within a cognitive linguistic
to sing songs of Zion [of the throne of God]. However, the Israelites frameset, eating vegetables is a way for Daniel and his friends to set
refused to sing their songs of worship in the land of foreign gods. Likewise themselves apart as vessels through which God can act inside Marduk’s
according to Isaiah 36, the king of Assyria warns Hezekiah not to trust in sacred–space! A perfect analogy of this can be derived from the 2015 film
God, for he could neither protect his city of Samaria nor could any other Avengers: Age of Ultron [where Jarvis = Yahweh and Ultron = Marduk].
 55

Tony Stark says: “Ultron didn’t go after Jarvis because he was angry. He in Marduk’s territory. Despite their new names, Daniel and his friends
attacked him because he was scared of what he can do. So Jarvis went refuse to act as vessels of the Babylonian gods, but continue to act as the
underground. Okay, scattered, dumped his memory, but not his protocols. property of God, and with God’s help, Daniel manages to convince
He didn’t even know he was in there, until I pieced him together.” Ashpenaz [chief of the king’s court officials] to assess the young men over
a period of 10 days. So, will Marduk prevail as supreme ruler of his own
territory? The answer is that, at the end of the 10–day food trial, which
could otherwise be described as a clash of foods, the question of Marduk’s
supremacy is answered. The young men who had eaten from
Nebuchadnezzar’s table are not the healthiest or the most intelligent.
Instead, it was Daniel and his friends, who received their meals apart from
the others. Thus, God is presented as the victor of the battle of the banquet.
God’s capability to undermine Marduk’s authority on his own turf is
emphasised when Ashpenaz decides to provide water and vegetables to all
the young men, and not only to Daniel and his friends [vv. 15–16].
However, this battle of the banquet is only a preparation for a much
tougher trial. At the end of their education, the young men still have to be
tested by Nebuchadnezzar himself [vv. 18–20]. Daniel narrates God’s
Bruce Banner retorts with scepticism: “And you just assume that Jarvis’ capability to operate within Marduk’s sacred–space, seeing that God
operational matrix can beat Ultron’s?” But, Tony Stark responds with the equips Daniel and his friends with Godly wisdom and insight [v. 17].
fact that: “Jarvis has been beating him from inside without knowing it.” Thus, God again is victorious, seeing that [as vessels of God] Daniel and
his friends are found to be wiser and more intelligent, not only than all the
other young men; they are also proven to be wiser and even more astute
than Nebuchadnezzar’s own counsellors of Marduk! Thus, at the end of
Daniel 1, it becomes clear: what started off as an invasion of God’s
sacred–space actually became a clever strategy to invade Marduk’s own
territory, and when all of God’s earthly property was carried off to
Babylon [which was supposed to be a symbol of humiliation and
subjection of God and his entourage to the rule of Marduk], at the end of
the narrative in Daniel 1, the transfer of God’s property to Babylon
ironically turns into a strategic invasion of Marduk’s own sacred–space.
So, by applying a spatial hermeneutical frameset to Daniel 1, the
implication becomes clear: God’s authority and rule is neither restricted to
earthly sacred–spaces, nor subjected to human structures, such as temples
So, by narrating the fact that Daniel and his friends prefer a different diet, and national borders. In narrating his story within a spatial frameset,
Daniel establishes a base of operation for God within Marduk’s sacred– Daniel is demonstrating to his readers that God’s rule is supreme, seeing
space [just as Jarvis did within Ultron’s protocols]. Thus, in the absence of that God can operate within the jurisdiction of other gods, because they are
his Davidic king [not present in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar], God unable to prevent him! In his own way, Daniel is answering any doubts
utilized other members of the royal family to set up his own sacred–space that people may have as to the authority of God.
 56

The Babylonian gods are exposed: they are not stronger than God. If God Summing Up …
can operate in Marduk’s city, he can act everywhere else! Thus, the exiles Starting with vv. 1–7, God gives Jehoiakim, Judah, and these four
should not be afraid to sing God’s praises, even within a profane and intelligent attractive Jewish men into Nebuchadnezzar’s hands.
foreign world as it seems to them according to Psalm 137. To put it even Nebuchadnezzar’s hands have taken their homes, livelihoods, and names.
stronger, if God can operate within the profane world outside of his own They have also provided food, drink, education, and opportunity. As the
original territory of Israel, he can also protect his people within the profane book unfolds, it becomes apparent that these men are God’s gift to this
world. In light of this assurance, God’s chosen people do not have to fear foreign king. The men accept this role, but their losses cannot be
the profane world, neither other nations nor their gods who want to minimized.
challenge God’s rule on earth. The fact that Israel went into exile was not
because of God’s incapability to protect the Israelites. Rather, the exile Next in vv. 8–20, there are several things about suffering and faithfulness:
happened because of God’s own chosen actions towards his people. God
himself delivered his people into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. They were 1. Daniel proved loyal to God when sent away to Babylon.
not defeated because Marduk was victorious over God. This fact Daniel
already emphasises at the beginning of his narration [v. 2]. God has not 2. Daniel’s self–discipline prepared him for future harder tests.
forgotten his people and furthermore is not incapable of being present and
operating in Babylon, as some may have thought at that time [Isaiah 3. Daniel maintained his dignity, identity, and witness while
40:27]. Instead, on the contrary, God is omnipresent, seeing that his accepting his place in Nebuchadnezzar’s service. There were lines
sacred–space is universal. Thus, the lesson of Daniel 1 is that if God can of assimilation he would not cross.
invade Marduk’s own turf and show himself superior there, he can
certainly protect his people because they will have to live out the days of 4. The Judeans and the Babylonians alike learned that physical
their exile in Marduk’s land. beauty, good appearance, and health come from Israel’s God, not
from the king of Babylon.
Joseph J. de Bruyn [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] concludes:
“If a spatial hermeneutical frameset is applied to the narrative of Daniel 1, 5. God’s name was kept pure before a watching world, the reverse of
it reveals a cognitive development in the religious thought of Israel. At what Malachi 1:7–12 describes. This witness will continue.
first Yahweh’s god–space was seen as limited to the tabernacle and the
Ark of the Covenant, and later the Temple. Still later, Mount Zion, the 6. God gave Daniel gifts of wisdom to carry him through difficulty.
Davidic king and Jerusalem became part of Yahweh’s god–space.
According to Daniel 1 the boundaries of Yahweh’s god–space becomes Finally in v. 21, sadly Daniel never went home. But, he lives long enough
universal. Yahweh operates where he chooses and anybody can be a vessel to know that his people will go home [later in Daniel 10:1]. As is true of
or an embodiment of Yahweh’s action. In his own way the author attempts Moses, part of Daniel’s greatness is his willingness to serve God without
to convince his readers that Yahweh’s authority is universal, and not getting what he probably desires most. God gives him what he needs, and
restricted to a particular spatial context. Overall it can be concluded that more, but this verse reveals that the book’s plot includes Daniel spending a
applying some methodological features of cognitive linguistics to the texts lifetime in exile. Thus, his witness of God bestowing gifts in exile will
of the Hebrew Bible can be beneficial when an attempt is made to better remain one of his book’s chief interests, and its most enduring legacy.
understand these texts. Indeed, this also emphasises the important role that
cognitive linguistics can fulfil in the process of exegesis.”
 57

King Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAMS 1
During the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar
Daniel 2 had dreams that troubled him. As a result, he couldn’t sleep. 2So the king
gave orders to summon diviners, enchanters, sorcerers, and Chaldeans to
Opening Thought reveal to the king what he had dreamed. When they came and stood before
1) Think about the subject of dreams for a few minutes by pondering these him, 3the king told them, “I have dreamed a dream and I will remain
questions: Do you find that you dream often? Are you able to remember troubled until I can understand it.” 4The Chaldeans responded to the king
your dreams when you wake in the morning? What recurring dreams or in Aramaic: “May the king live forever. Tell the dream to your servants,
nightmares did you have when you were young? What recurring dreams and we’ll reveal its meaning.” 5In reply the king told the Chaldeans, “Here
do you have now? Why do you think some people have frequent [and is what I have commanded: If you don’t tell me both the dream and its
strange] dreams while others do not seem to dream much? meaning, you’ll be destroyed and your houses will be reduced to rubble.
6
But if you do relate the dream to me as well as its meaning, you’ll receive
Background of the Passage gifts, rewards, and great honour from me. Therefore reveal the dream to
Daniel 2 reveals trouble in the royal palace of Babylon. King me, along with its meaning.” 7They replied again, “Let the king tell his
Nebuchadnezzar was having disturbing dreams that he could not servants the dream, and we’ll disclose its meaning.” 8The king responded,
understand. Summoning his assorted counsellors, the king gave a “I’m convinced that you’re stalling for time because you’re aware of what
disturbing command: supply not only the meaning of the dreams, but also I’ve commanded. 9So if you don’t disclose the dream to me, there will be
their very content! Failure will result in death! The magicians, astrologers, only one sentence for all of you. You have conspired together to present
and sorcerers recognized the impossibility of this task, but Daniel lies and corrupt interpretations until the situation changes. Now tell me the
immediately turned to his sovereign all–knowing God in whom all things dream and I’ll know that you can reveal its true meaning.” 10The
are possible. After prayer the “mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision Chaldeans answered the king directly, “There’s not a single man on earth
later that night” [v. 19], and Daniel revealed that God was giving who can do what the king has commanded. No king, lord, or ruler has ever
Nebuchadnezzar a blueprint for world history, of five successive empires: asked such a thing from any diviner, enchanter, or Chaldean.
11
Furthermore, what the king is asking is so difficult that no one can reveal
1. Babylon. it except the gods—and they don’t live with human beings.” 12At this
2. Medo–Persia. point, the king flew into a rage and issued an order to destroy all the
3. Greece. advisors of Babylon. 13When the order went out to kill the advisors, they
4. Rome. searched for Daniel and his friends to kill them, too.
5. God’s kingdom.
Daniel Requests Time to Answer the King
14
Thus, on a theological level, Daniel 2 is a prophetic outline that can aid in Daniel responded with wisdom and discretion to Arioch, the king’s
understanding God’s sovereign activity in both human history and the yet– executioner, who had gone out to execute the advisors of Babylon. 15He
to–unfold events of the end times. On a personal and practical level, it is a asked him, “Why such a harsh decree from the king?” Then Arioch
wonderful reminder of the power of prayer in a believer’s life. informed Daniel, 16so Daniel went to ask Nebuchadnezzar for an
appointment to see him, and it was granted him so that he could reveal the
Bible Passage meaning to the king. 17Then Daniel went home and told his friends
Read Daniel 2 Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah about the king’s command.
 58
18
Daniel was seeking mercy, in order to ask about this mystery in the Its appearance was terrifying. 32That statue had a head made of pure
presence of the God of heaven, so that Daniel and his friends might not be gold, with its chest and arms made of silver, its abdomen and thighs made
executed along with the rest of the advisors of Babylon. of bronze, 33its legs made of iron, and its feet made partly of iron and
partly of clay. 34“As you were watching, a rock was quarried—but not with
The King’s Dream is Revealed to Daniel human hands—and it struck the iron and clay feet of the statue, breaking
19
When the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision later that night, them to pieces. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the
Daniel blessed the God of heaven 20and said, “May the name of God be gold were broken in pieces together and became like chaff from a summer
blessed forever and ever; wisdom and power are his for evermore. 21It is threshing floor that the breeze carries away without leaving a trace. Then
God who alters the times and seasons, and he removes kings and promotes the rock that struck the statue grew into a huge mountain and filled the
kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. 22He entire earth. 36“This was the dream, and we’ll now relate its meaning to the
reveals what is profoundly mysterious and knows what is in the darkness; king. 37You, your majesty, king of kings—to whom the God of heaven has
with him dwells light. 23To you, God of my ancestors, I give thanks and given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory, 38so that
praise, because you have given me wisdom and power; you have now wherever people, wild animals, or birds of the sky live, he has placed them
revealed to me what we asked of you by making known to us what the under your control, giving you dominion over them all—you’re that head
king commanded.” 24After this, Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had of gold. 39“After you, another kingdom will arise that is inferior to yours,
appointed to execute the advisors of Babylon. He told him, “Don’t destroy and then a third kingdom of bronze will arise to rule all the earth. 40Then
the advisors of Babylon. Bring me before the king and I’ll explain the there will be a fourth kingdom, as strong as iron. Just as all things are
meaning to him.” 25Then Arioch quickly brought Daniel into the king’s broken to pieces and shattered by iron, so it will shatter and crush
presence and informed him: “I’ve found a man from the Judean captives everything. 41“The feet and toes that you saw, made partly of potter’s clay
who will make known the meaning to the king.” and partly of iron, represent a divided kingdom. It will still have the
strength of iron, in that you saw iron mixed with clay. 42Just as their toes
Daniel Reveals the Meaning of the Dream and feet are part iron and part clay, so will the kingdom be both strong and
26
King Nebuchadnezzar replied by saying to Daniel (whose brittle. 43Just as you saw iron mixed with clay, so they will mix themselves
Babylonian name is Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me about the with human offspring. Furthermore, they won’t remain together, just as
dream and its meaning?” 27By way of answer, Daniel addressed the king: iron doesn’t mix with clay. 44“During the reigns of those kings, the God of
“None of the advisors, enchanters, diviners, or astrologers can explain the heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor its
secret that the king has requested to be made known. 28But there is a God sovereignty left in the hands of another people. It will shatter and crush all
in heaven who reveals secrets, and he is making known to King of these kingdoms, and it will stand forever. 45Now, just as you saw that
Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the latter days. “While you were in the stone was cut out of the mountain without human hands—and that it
bed, the dream and the visions that came to your head were as follows: crushed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold to pieces—so also the great
29
Your majesty, when you were in bed, thoughts came to your mind about God has revealed to the king what will take place after this. Your dream
what would happen in the future, and the Revealer of Secrets has made will come true, and its meaning will prove trustworthy.”
known to you what will take place. 30As for me, this secret was made
known to me, not because my own wisdom is greater than anyone else Nebuchadnezzar Promotes Daniel and His Friends
46
alive, but in order that the meaning may be made known to the king, and Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face before Daniel, paid
that you might understand the thoughts of your heart. 31“Your majesty, honour to him, and commanded that an offering and incense be presented
while you were watching, you observed an enormous statue. This on his behalf. 47The king told Daniel, “Truly your God is the God of gods,
magnificent statue stood before you with extraordinary brilliance. the Lord of kings, and the Revealer of Secrets, because you were able to
 59

reveal this mystery.” 48Then the king promoted Daniel to a high position knowledge from such gods. Thus, Israel’s God alone is wise, the one who
and lavished many great gifts on him, including making him ruler over the controls both light and darkness. He knows and reveals hidden secrets
entire province of Babylon and chief administrator over the advisors of [Isaiah 42:16; 45:3; 48:6], the God of gods, and there is none other able to
Babylon. 49Moreover, Daniel requested that the king appoint Shadrach, bestow power and wisdom, to effect and interpret history, since all other
Meshach, and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, gods are helpless. Israel can find refuge in their God’s incomparability.
while Daniel himself remained in the royal court. They can take comfort no matter their circumstances because the rulers of
this world [representatives of these inferior gods] will wither at God’s
Understanding the Text breath and blow away like chaff [Isaiah 40:24], and other nations and
2) Why were the king’s wise men unable to interpret the dream? (2:1–13) kings will bow before God’s servants [Isaiah 49:7, 23; 60:10–14]. So, in
light of this, there are three other texts that provide further context:
First, an extensive preliminary overview of primeval history is required to
fully appreciate the context of this chapter, and there are also two Old 1. The History of Babylonia by Berossus [3rd century b.c. Babylonian
Testament texts that are relevant: one that is narrative [Genesis 41:1–32], priest], who derived traditional Sumerian and Akkadian myths
and the other that is prophetic [Isaiah 40–66]. Thus, Genesis 37–50 about the gods and the history of mankind. He tells the tale of
recounts the story of Joseph, who spent most of his life in Egypt through Oannes, a merman–like monster that came ashore in prehistoric
God’s providence, where Joseph moved from slavery to a posh job with Babylonia, also known as Adapa [or “Wise One”], and was the 1st
Potiphar and then to prison. However, prison was not where Joseph stayed, out of seven such creatures to come ashore. However, Adapa is
because during one night, Pharaoh had a series of bad dreams about fat and identified by scholars as either Utuabzu or Enmeduranki, the 7th
skinny cows and ears of corn. So, when the king awoke, he summoned all among the apkallu, who “ascended to heaven” [like Enoch in
the magicians and wise men of Egypt to interpret the dreams for him. But, Genesis 5]. So, since these seven apkallu had been created by the
Pharaoh’s experts were stymied. However, the king’s cupbearer had an god Ea [also known as Enki, the god of intelligence], he then sent
epiphany and remembered the prisoner Joseph who had interpreted his these demigods as his envoys of knowledge to primitive humans.
own disturbing dreams ~2 years earlier. So, Joseph was summoned by Berossus credits the demigod Oannes with teaching people
Pharaoh, but Joseph refuted the report that he was able to interpret dreams. everything they needed to know to become civilized. He gave mere
Nevertheless, he informed the king that God had revealed to him in his mortals the gift of knowledge in writing, science, architecture, law,
dream what was about to happen in Egypt. God was going to send 7 years mathematics, and agriculture; knowledge that had been the sole
of outrageous plenty and then 7 years of horrific famine. Joseph advised prerogative of the gods until Ea shared it with humans. In fact, this
Pharaoh to appoint a “wise, discerning person” to be in charge of Egypt becomes important in later 2nd Temple tradition, because the
during the years of feast and famine [Genesis 41:33]. Pharaoh knew a apkallu are the equivalent of the “Watchers” in 1 Enoch, who were
good thing when he saw it, and he immediately promoted Joseph to 2nd in the “sons of God” [parents of the Nephilim], and the ones who
command of Egypt [Genesis 41:38]. Then, many years after the events of brought the arts of civilization to humanity. Thus, 1 Enoch has the
Genesis 41, Isaiah offered comfort to the displaced people of God [Isaiah Watchers in the same role as both the Mesopotamian apkallu and
40–66], reminding the people that their God is not like the gods of the the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4. Furthermore, Psalm 82 adds
nations, which are made of silver and gold [Isaiah 40:19; 41:7; 44:12–13]. one more piece to this puzzle, where God addresses the divine
Such gods need to be carried about or nailed down so they do not topple council and reprimands them for their failure to maintain justice. In
[Isaiah 40:20; 41:7; 47:1–7]. They cannot explain the past or reveal the v. 6 these “gods” are referred to as “sons of the Most High,” who
future [Isaiah 44:7], and the true God frustrates those who try to derive will nevertheless die as mortals [bringing to mind Genesis 6:3].
This could feasibly be understood as related to the primordial,
 60

antediluvian era introduced in Genesis 6:1–4. Thus, this four–way human women before the annihilation of the flood preserved pre–
connection between Genesis 6; Psalm 82, the Mesopotamian flood divine knowledge that had been taught to men. This
apkallu, and the 2nd Temple Watchers invites us to use these knowledge was preserved in Babylon, which explained (to the
diverse sources together as mutually informing. Such an Mesopotamian cultures) why their culture was superior to all
interpretation would co–identify the sons of God, the apkallu, and others. Rather than deny the supernatural context of the
the Watchers as the same group! This group intermarries with Mesopotamian material, Genesis hits it head–on. The apkallu were
human women [true of all three groups; since post–flood ummianu not saviours. They were undeserving rivals to Yahweh of Israel
are two–thirds apkallu, indicating that the latter mated with human and deserved to die. After the flood the giant apkallu became
women], and although it is intended to extend order, but instead it enemies of God’s people, the Israelites. Whether we realize it or
initiates an era of corruption and injustice perpetrated by them and not, Genesis 6:1–4 reports the first salvo in the long war against
their offspring. Thus, the apkallu can be seen as connected to the Yahweh and his people. This strange passage that modern readers
gods because they are considered those who direct the plans of keep at arm’s length has hooks into other biblical passages,
heaven and earth [a divine task]. In other words, they are agents of including the New Testament. This new research comes from a
order whose influence eventually brought disorder. So, how is this thorough re–examination of the Sumerian and Akkadian flood
relevant for Daniel in Babylon? Since the major apkallu tradition is epics. The insights were skilfully culled by cuneiform scholar Amar
antediluvian, after the flood there are four apkallu, and each one is Annus in 2010. Annus’ article is the most current study on the
cited for an offense [angering a particular god with no detail Mesopotamian apkallu available anywhere in any form. It
given]. However, the last one is indicted as the one who brought supersedes all preceding work on this subject. It deals a death
Ishtar down from heaven into the sanctuary. The idea that the blow to any non–supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4.”
stairways of the ziggurat were meant for the god to come down is
evidenced in the Mesopotamian myth “Nergal and Ereshkigal,” 2. A text about Enmeduranki. In other words, Ea did not share all
where the messenger of the gods descends from heaven down to knowledge with humanity, because knowledge of the future or
the netherworld by means of a simmiltu [or “stairway”]. The revelation of certain secrets remained with the gods, and was only
connection of this stairway to ziggurats is specified by the ziggurat accessible to humans through a variety of divination techniques,
name at Sippar: “Sacred Place of the Pure Stairway to Heaven.” including reading animal entrails, deciphering astronomical
phenomenon, or interpreting dreams. So, an Akkadian text about an
Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and says: antediluvian king reveals that the gods were also the source of
“Recent scholarly work on Mesopotamian literature associated divination knowledge. In this text, the god Shamash, patron deity
with events before and after the great flood have produced clear, of the city of Sippar, visited the antediluvian king Enmeduranki
unambiguous, point–for–point parallels to what we read in Genesis along with the god Adad. Together, the gods taught the king the
6:1–4. Those parallels demonstrate with no uncertainty that this crafts of oil and liver divination, in addition to how to hold a cedar
biblical passage was specifically written to denigrate rod. Then Enmeduranki summoned men from Nippur, Sippar, and
Mesopotamian ideas of the superiority of their gods and culture. Babylon [three important Mesopotamian cities] so he could teach
In the Mesopotamian material, the divine beings who lived at the them what Shamash and Adad had taught him. While this text
time of the flood were called apkallu. They cohabited with human obviously intended to claim superior divining knowledge for the
women, producing a new generation of apkallu who were not only three cities, it also indicates that diviners believed their methods
divine–human hybrids, but also giants. Mesopotamian religion saw and interpretations came from the gods. They had the serious task
these generations of apkallu as great sages. Their survival via of communicating knowledge from the unseen realm.
 61

3. The Works and Days by Hesiod [8th century b.c. Greek poet], who Daniel appears to have already completed his training from Daniel 1 and to
laid out history in five eras, and four of the eras were characterized have been elevated to the status of a wise man of the realm. So, if the
by different metals: gold, silver, bronze, and iron. The golden era training was to have been ~3 years [recall Daniel 1:5], how could this
was like paradise, but each successive generation was less noble dream take place in only the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar? However, this is
and was characterized by increasing violence and general misery. not a contradiction, because there are at least two possible explanations:
So, Hesiod’s 5th age [an age of Greek heroes], falls between the
bronze and iron ages, and is unrelated to any metals. Similarly, 1. The events of Daniel 2 took place while Daniel was still in his
Ovid [1st century b.c. Roman poet] structured history according to training program. The strength of this position is that it treats the
four ages. He used the same four metals to indicate the decreasing training program as fully lasting 3 years, rather than parts of years.
moral value of the successive ages. However, it would demand that Daniel was not with his three
friends when the king tested them [recall Daniel 1:18–19], since he
Thus, these three texts provide background for the events of Daniel 2. would have already been elevated as “ruler over the entire
province of Babylon and chief administrator over the advisors of
Starting with vv. 1–3, we read: “during the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon” [later in v. 48].
reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams that troubled him. As a result, he
couldn’t sleep. So the king gave orders to summon diviners, enchanters, 2. The events of Daniel 2 occurred after the training program. In this
sorcerers, and Chaldeans to reveal to the king what he had dreamed. case, Daniel 2 follows Daniel 1 chronologically, which is what we
When they came and stood before him, the king told them, ‘I have dreamed would expect apart from evidence to the contrary. Also, it would be
a dream and I will remain troubled until I can understand it.’” extremely unlikely that Daniel would have been made “ruler over
the entire province of Babylon and chief administrator over the
Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd year dates to 603/602 b.c. This is probably a advisors of Babylon” while still in the training program. So, this
flashback during the time Daniel and his friends were still in their 3 years tension of the “2nd year” can be resolved by assuming that
of training [recall Daniel 1:5]. The plural “had dreams” may imply that he accession–year dating is involved and that a part of a year is
dreamed the same dream repeatedly, or perhaps more likely “dreams” is a counted as a year. An accession year [according to Babylonian
plural of majesty or respect for the king’s one really important complex reckoning] is that part of a year from the time a man first becomes
nightmare, in which case it can be translated as “a single dream that had king until the following Nisan [March–April]. In fact, scholars
many detailed parts and extended for a long time.” Notice that plural have confirmed the Babylonian practice of an accession year that
“dreams” is used [v. 2], followed by singular “a dream” [v. 3], and this precedes Nisan.
singular is used in the rest of the chapter. It should be noted that in the
millennium between Joseph and Daniel, only a few other dreams are David Noel Freedman [20th century biblical scholar] says:
recorded in the Old Testament. These include the dream that assured “Nabopolassar died on August 16, 605. On receiving the news,
Gideon of God’s victory over the Midianites [Judges 7:13–15], Solomon’s Nebuchadrezzar hurried back to Babylon to be crowned king on
dream of God that prompted the king to ask for wisdom [1 Kings 3:5–15], Septemner 7, 605. From then until the following April is designated
and Balaam’s conversation with his donkey as a theophanic dream his ‘accession–year.’ Then in April, 604, during the akitu or New
[Numbers 22:20–36]. So, Daniel 2 opens with the announcement that Year’s Festival, the official ‘first year’ of his reign began.”
Nebuchadnezzar had a most unusual dream in the 2nd year of his reign.
Also, critical scholars have questioned the historicity of Daniel’s book Thus, the official regnal years were counted from Nisan to Nisan.
because of this statement.
 62

The following chart shows that it is possible to have completed the training Daniel himself may have studied it along with the rest of Babylonian
program before the end of the king’s 2nd official year: literature [recall Daniel 1:4]. Thus, kings brought divination priests to:

Training King’s Reign Date 1. Report one’s dream to another person.

1st Year Accession September 605 to Nisan 604 b.c. 2. Interpret the meaning of an enigmatic dream.
2nd Year 1st Year Nisan 604–603 b.c. 3. To ward off via magic the ill effects that the dream portends.
3rd Year 2nd Year Nisan 603–602 b.c.
In the 7th year of one of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors [Nabonidus], an
Paul House [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The ‘2nd year’ has led to astrologer reported a dream about the great star [Jupiter], Venus, Siris, the
discussions about the book’s historical accuracy. The Old Greek reads sun, and the moon. The dream was taken to foretell a favourable omen for
‘12th year’, but few scholars accept this as the original reading. The main Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. Nabonidus himself has a dream in
issues is that Daniel 2:1 seems to contradict Daniel 1:5, which says that which he saw Nebuchadnezzar and an attendant standing on a chariot. The
Daniel’s training lasted 3 years. However, this can be reconciled if the attendant told Nebuchadnezzar, “Do speak to Nabonidus so that he can
author is using the Babylonian accession–year method of dating. The report to you the dream he has seen.” Nebuchadnezzar then asked
king’s 2nd year (603–602 b.c.) was a reasonable time for Nebuchadnezzar Nabonidus, “Tell me what good signs you have seen,” followed by
to have dreams that troubled his spirit. He was under considerable Nabonidus, within his dream, describing a dream concerning the great star
pressure. The kingdom his father left him was barely a decade old. He and the moon, with Jupiter [Marduk] calling him by name. Thus, dreams
had defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish and chased them and their and visions were always considered meaningful or significant. So, a dream
allies south just before his father died. He had taken the throne and by God made it all the more perplexing, intriguing, and troubling. Thus,
resumed battle into 604 b.c. After a brief respite, he had to subdue because of the unusual nature of the dream, the king could not sleep and
Ashkelon later that year. Now he faced a western enemy that required consequently summoned the wise men of Babylon to come to his aid,
him to organize a more powerful force, and kept him from pressing where the Hebrew word mᵊḵaššᵊpîm [for “sorcerers”] refers to the
further south towards Egypt.” religious group from the Akkadian cognate verb kašapu [or “to bewitch,
cast an evil spell”]. Also, the kaššapu is the most common Akkadian term
Thus, if the dream was near the end of the 2nd official year, there was ~30 for sorcerers, known for casting evil spells. It occurs more frequently in
months for the training program, which would have met the criteria of ~3 the feminine form kaššaptu. They used herbs, charms, various potions, and
years. So, among many of the Mesopotamian divination techniques was were in league with evil forces. In essence, they practiced witchcraft,
the dream interpretation, because divination played a central role in which was strongly forbidden in the Torah, because it opened one’s life to
Babylonian religion. Incantations were used to drive away evil demons, demonic influence or possession [Exodus 7:11; 22:18; Deuteronomy
sickness, or bad luck. Amulets [an image of a god] were used to keep 18:10; Isaiah 47:9, 12; Jeremiah 27:9]. Likewise, the Hebrew word kaśdîm
demons away. A whole variety of divination techniques were used to [for “Chaldeans”] is a cognate of the Akkadian kaldu, a region in southern
divine the future: liver omens, lecanomancy [oil in water], oneiromancy Babylonia/Mesopotamia, around Nippur, Ur, and Uruk bordering on Elam.
[interpretation of dreams], astrology, libanomancy [smoke from incense], So, Chaldean is a term for a tribal ethnic group that appeared historically
psephomancy [casting lots], cledonomancy [chance remarks of strangers], in southern Babylonia in the mid–9th century b.c. We know of five
necromancy, and dagilissuri [movements of birds]. A work known as the powerful early Chaldean tribes [Bit Yakini, Bit Dakkuri, Bit Ammukani,
Assyrian Dream Book has survived in Neo–Babylonian script, suggesting Bit Shaalli, and Bit Shilani]. The Chaldeans were affiliated with [though
it was studied and used at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. clearly distinct from] Aramean tribes. The names of Chaldean kings of
Babylon are in Akkadian, not Aramaic.
 63

By the mid–700s b.c., Chaldeans were taking leadership roles politically Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] likewise says: “The dream
[King Merodoch–baladan of the Bit Yakini tribe]. Thus, here it has was so disturbing that it caused his sleep to leave him. There is evidence
become by synecdoche a term for diviners of Chaldean descent. that Nebuchadnezzar’s rulership was contested early in his reign and
several times thereafter. He had to constantly deal with the Medes and
Donald Wiseman [20th century Assyriologist] says: “The tribal territory entertained suspicions of their intentions. These concerns fit well with the
covering the southern marshes and coastal plains of ancient Iraq idea that the king could not sleep after his dream. The king, however,
bordering the Persian Gulf was called by outsiders ‘Chaldean land’ (māt wanted his group of Babylonian advisers to tell him the dream itself, and
Kaldu) after the name of the tribes inhabiting the area. This Assyrian– not just to interpret the dream. The alternative translation suggested by
Babylonian name was followed by the Greek, while the Hebrew, with the some—that his sleep returned to him—may therefore have some merit.
common variant of ś for l, probably follows an old dialect form kašdu.” Perhaps he went back to sleep after awakening, highly agitated by the
dream, and forgot the dream itself. That is why he would demand his court
Thus, they had numerous functions, one of which was astrology. However, experts to tell him the dream as well as to interpret it, so that he might
their interest in the celestial bodies was for the purpose of ascertaining the understand it. This interpretation could also imply that he dreamed the
outcome of future events. So, these various religious experts that made up dream again, for in v. 2 he literally calls the experts together to declare to
what was known as the ḥakkîmayyāʾ [or “wise men”] of Babylon. They him ‘his dreams’ (like Pharaoh’s two dreams; Genesis 41:1–7). However,
were not rulers per se, but important court officials who relied upon the his motive for not relating the dream may be intentional (vv. 4–6) rather
occult for information. One of their main purposes was to use this than due to a lack of recall. There are instances of Assyrian kings testing
information to advise the king, and their skills was the interpretation of their dream experts to keep them from deceiving the king. According to
dreams, where records indicate that this had become a highly developed some texts, relating the dream itself could in some instances cause it to
discipline. This would explain why the king summoned these men lose its influence on the person who had the dream. In this instance, it
following his dream, because elaborate dream manuals were composed. seems that if the king in fact remembered the dream, he was taking the
opportunity to test the accuracy of his court professionals. So, v. 2 leaves
Joyce Baldwin [20th century biblical scholar] says: “Chaldeans here the impressive coterie of pagan magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and
denotes experts in magic lore, a non–Babylonian use of the term. astrologers standing in the presence of the king anticipating the king’s
Herodotus (450 b.c.) used the word in this sense. The new slant to the instructions. God had earlier declared Nebuchadnezzar to be his servant
word is easily explained as arising after the intrusion of the new Persian to judge not only Judah, but also Egypt and all the surrounding nations
Empire and religion, when ‘Chaldean’ became a religious designation (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). In Daniel’s time, we see God putting
just as ‘Jew’ became. These experts in dreams worked on the principle dreams into the mind of the greatest king on earth during the time of the
that dreams and their sequel followed an empirical law which, given Exile and using his mind to declare a message of instruction and hope—
sufficient data, could be established. The dream manuals, of which several but also of judgment—to Daniel’s own people and the nations of the
examples have come to light, consist accordingly of historical dreams and world. Nebuchadnezzar could not resist the desire to grasp the
the events that followed them, arranged systematically for easy reference. significance of this great dream, though he did not know its source. In the
Since these books had to try to cover every possible eventuality they ancient Near East, dreams and magic were weapons given to humans to
became inordinately long; only the expert could find his way through protect themselves from evil events, and kings were usually chosen to be
them, and even he had to know the dream to begin with before he could the dream conduits of the gods. So, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to recover the
search for the nearest possible parallel. The unreasonable demands of the dream and know its interpretation. His ultimate source for doing that was
king and the protests of the interpreters in v. 3–11 are in keeping with his to be the God who placed the dream in his mind in the first place, the one
character and the known facts concerning dream books.” who had made Nebuchadnezzar his servant to Israel and the nations.”
 64

Next in vv. 4–6, we read: “the Chaldeans responded to the king in They would receive “gifts” and “rewards” and would also be given “great
Aramaic: ‘May the king live forever. Tell the dream to your servants, and honour” [public recognition and fame]. Thus, this unreasonable test sought
we’ll reveal its meaning.’ In reply the king told the Chaldeans, ‘Here is to confirm whether these diviners had genuine insight into the mysteries.
what I have commanded: If you don’t tell me both the dream and its
meaning, you’ll be destroyed and your houses will be reduced to rubble. Next in vv. 7–9, we read: “they replied again, ‘Let the king tell his
But if you do relate the dream to me as well as its meaning, you’ll receive servants the dream, and we’ll disclose its meaning.’ The king responded,
gifts, rewards, and great honour from me. Therefore reveal the dream to ‘I’m convinced that you’re stalling for time because you’re aware of what
me, along with its meaning.’” I’ve commanded. So if you don’t disclose the dream to me, there will be
only one sentence for all of you. You have conspired together to present
The record of their response indicates that it was “in Aramaic.” This refers lies and corrupt interpretations until the situation changes. Now tell me
not to their immediate response, as though they actually addressed the king the dream and I’ll know that you can reveal its true meaning.’”
in Aramaic, but is used as a signal to Daniel’s reader that the text is
switching to Aramaic [which will continue until Daniel 7:28]. Aramaic Although they were flattered by the honours the king promised, they no
had been used for several centuries prior to the Neo–Babylonian Empire doubt were trembling and in utter fear at the fate that awaited them for
and was used by the Babylonians themselves. So, while it is possible that their failure. However, rather than challenging the king, they simply
the wise men addressed the king in Aramaic, it may simply mean this requested that he tell them the dream. That did not profit them anything,
portion of Daniel’s book preserved for us is in Aramaic, and instead they for the king saw right through their tactics, and accused them of “stalling
actually spoke to the king in a Semitic Babylonian dialect. Thus, the for time.” Perhaps they hoped that, given some time, he would calm down
Chaldeans begin by asking to be told the dream. This was the standard and act more rationally. But, this made him angrier, announcing that there
practice in Babylon: the dream is related and then an interpretation is was only one thing that was going to happen to them. In fact, there was
proclaimed. However, the king did the unexpected: he demanded that they literally no alternative for them other than what the king had already
tell him both the dream and its interpretation! The Aramaic word ʾazdâ decreed would happen to them. Then he accused them of conspiring
[for “here is what I have commanded”] is a Persian loanword that means together against him to lie, but Nebuchadnezzar held to his demand: they
“public knowledge,” but carries the implication that something has been must tell him the dream so that he could be confident they had the ability
“decided” from the king. This is why out–dated translations [like the KJV] to declare the right interpretation. So, what made the king so insistent to
have erroneously translated it as “the thing is gone from me,” because the act this rashly about a mere dream? Probably the dream itself had terrified
translator mistakenly thought that the verb was derived from the root ʾăzal the king and left him fearful. Although he did not understand the details of
[or “to go away”]. Thus, the king knew they could invent an interpretation the dream, the very thought of a stone destroying a statue that he saw in his
if he were to tell them the dream, which suggests he was sceptical of them dream [later in v. 35] may have been regarded by him as a kind of divine
from the outset. In other words, if they really had supernatural abilities, omen that he would be assassinated or his kingdom overthrown. Hence, he
then they ought to be able to also state the contents of the dream itself. wanted to be absolutely certain of the interpretation. Thus, Daniel gives a
Failure to do so would result in being “destroyed.” In fact, the Aramaic hint about the king’s nervousness. The phrase “until the situation changes”
words haddāmîn tiṯ aḇḏûn [for “destroyed”] literally means “limbs you means the time to change kings [later in v. 21], or a euphemistic way of
will be made” [because the Aramaic haddām is a Persian loanword for referring to the king’s demise and replacement by another monarch. So, he
“limb”]. In fact, this whole expression comes from an Old Persian idiom accuses them of not wanting him to be their king, or of conspiring against
for mutilation followed by execution. Furthermore, their “houses will be him, and believes that if they know the dream is negative towards him [or
reduced to rubble.” On the other hand, if they could meet the king’s they wish him off the throne], they might not give him their best advice.
request, they would be amply rewarded. So, he can only trust someone who can perform both tasks.
 65

Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The wise men had no with human beings.’ At this point, the king flew into a rage and issued an
recourse for doing what the king asked. Dreams were always reported to order to destroy all the advisors of Babylon. When the order went out to
diviners. This was as much for the person who dreamed as for the one who kill the advisors, they searched for Daniel and his friends to kill them too.”
interpreted: the simple act of speaking the dream removed any negative
effects it may otherwise have had on the dreamer. The dumbfounded They dared not ask again what the dream was, so now they attempted to
experts of Nebuchadnezzar’s court probably weren’t exaggerating when reason with the king by making three points:
they protested that no king (no matter how big and mighty he was!) had
ever demanded such a thing of his wise men. That simply was not the way 1. They tried to point out the impossibility of what the king was
things worked. Given time, the diviners could have requested from the asking [no man on earth could do this].
gods an oracle, in which the deity would hopefully reveal the contents of
the dream. But, the king was not even willing to give them time to ferret 2. They tried to point out that wise men have never been asked to do
out this information. The text is unclear about Nebuchadnezzar’s motives. such a thing, even by great kings and rulers.
Has he forgotten the dream? Is he just testing his wise men? We may sit in
our 21st century easy chairs and cheer Nebuchadnezzar’s progressive 3. The king’s request was “so difficult” that only the gods [such as
thinking: he had figured out that diviners were a bunch of charlatans. those worshiped by the Babylonians] could do this. But, gods do
Such a perspective reflects Western thinking, which prefers rational not live with humans, so there is no way to know what they think.
explanations for activity that much of the world would assign to the spirit
world. But, in the ancient Near East, the diviners were the academic and Thus, notice that this last point is an amazing confession on the limitation
religious leaders of the day. As Berossus’ History of Babylonia relates, of their arts. The whole point to their magical arts, rituals, and astrology
Mesopotamians believed that the gods had gifted people with knowledge, was to learn the will of the gods and the outcome of earthly events. Now
but they didn’t give them all knowledge. Divine knowledge remained they confess that their system does not work!
inaccessible, except through encoded messages that required the expertise
of diviners. If the account of Enmeduranki can be taken seriously, R. Glenn Wooden [21st century biblical scholar] says: “It was not, then, a
Mesopotamians believed that diviners were only able to decode messages failure of other professionals to have mastered the correct body of
because the gods gave them the interpretations. Undoubtedly there were knowledge and skills; it was a failure of the very professions themselves to
dishonest diviners in Babylon, but without the back story for the events in be able to deliver what was expected.”
Daniel 2, we have no way of knowing if Nebuchadnezzar’s wise men were
some of them. All we know is that the king didn’t trust them. But, frankly, So, this sets the stage for Israel’s God to demonstrate omniscient
I’m not sure we should trust him. His impossible demand here and its knowledge to man, and that he can do what they claim is impossible. Thus,
outrageous consequences suggest he either wanted an excuse to do away notice the limitations of human knowledge, even when aided by occultic
with all of them or he was half out of his head. Whatever reasons there techniques. Humans are insufficient to understand the universe around
may have been, I think the narrator intends to portray a maniacal king.” him, especially the unseen realm. No matter how advanced science
becomes, there will always be a limit to human knowledge, requiring
Finally in vv. 10–13, we read: “the Chaldeans answered the king directly, special revelation from God. But, there is a principle that governs what is
‘There’s not a single man on earth who can do what the king has revealed to us: if we respond positively to the light that has been given to
commanded. No king, lord, or ruler has ever asked such a thing from any us, more light will be given [Matthew 13:10–12, 16–17; Hebrews 5:12–
diviner, enchanter, or Chaldean. Furthermore, what the king is asking is 14]. So, if we do not respond positively to the light that God has given to
so difficult that no one can reveal it except the gods—and they don’t live us, then we have no right to expect God to show us more spiritual truth.
 66

Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Nebuchadnezzar assure the reader that had they been able to recount the dream to
made a demand that was impossible for human beings to fulfil. Since Nebuchadnezzar, they would have done so. But, they could not; they failed
dreams originate with the ‘gods’ and not humans, only a god could do and this cast doubt upon their gods. Perhaps these gods, since they had
what Nebuchadnezzar was asking—or someone in touch with the gods, not generated the dream, really knew nothing about it. Even though they
for the gods do not live among men, but in a heavenly realm (v. 11). We did not give the dream, should they not have been able to discern it since
are not told why the wise men could not meet the king’s challenge, but they were the highest gods? Chaldean astrologers were a feature of
evidently they could not. Ancient Near Eastern kings did not always trust Babylon’s social makeup, even in the time of Alexander the Great, when
their religious subjects. Their system and their gods failed. But, Daniel they warned him to stay away from Babylon, where he eventually died.
had access to his God through prayer, and he would request supernatural Alexander, too, had been beset with dreams. Astrologers, magicians,
wisdom to interpret by direct revelation. He was seeking esoteric wisdom, sorcerers, and enchanters in the ancient Near East had many manuals to
mantic wisdom. Of course, this scenario is exactly what the inspired writer help them interpret dreams, but all these manuals assumed that the dream
wished to convey in order to make it unequivocally clear that the man who was already known. They rightly, in that culture, accused the king of
could meet the king’s demand would show himself to be delivering divine dealing deceitfully with them (v. 10) by demanding such an unusual
wisdom. Daniel’s gifts and abilities to understand and interpret dreams performance from them. According to them, there was literally ‘not a man
and visions (Daniel 1:17) did not expressly include the ability to recall the upon the earth’ who could meet his unreasonable request. Only the ‘gods’
dreams of others in order to interpret them. So, the situation demanded could break into the situation in order for the dilemma to be solved, but
more of Daniel than he was capable of doing, even though God had they do not dwell among humans (according to their theology).”
endowed him with the ‘special ability’ to interpret dreams and with the
ability to learn and understand Akkadian and Aramaic. The dream had Thus, when the wise men gave their final answer, it further incensed the
to be recalled before it could be interpreted. Could the dream be merely king, who smelled insubordination in their insinuation that he was being
the production of a troubled king’s mind? That is, a production of an unfair, so the king’s anger reached a boiling point and began to explode.
especially oppressive set of political, social, military, or economic factors? The Aramaic phrase bᵊnas ûqᵊṣap śaggîʾ [for “flew into a rage”] is a
The false prophets of Jeremiah’s day produced lying dreams from their hendiadys: “became furiously angry.” In fact, he did not even wait to see if
own deceitful minds and hearts (Jeremiah 23:25–26; 27:9). The text will they could come up with the dream; he just ordered “all the advisors of
dispose of this possibility: God is the one who creates the dream, and this Babylon” to be slain. This included all the trainees who were to become
is what gives the dream its integrity. The interpretation of the dream is wise men, since Daniel and his friends were sought out for execution.
vital, for only a sure interpretation of the dream after the dream itself was Nevertheless, his order to execute them telescopes a process that would
recalled would be of any value for knowing the significance of the dream. take time, by first arresting them, and then publicly executing them.
An inspired dream requires an inspired explanation. Thus, the source of
the interpretation must be God himself. A mere human answer would not Jerome [4th century] concludes: “The magi confess, along with the
suffice. Whether the king knew the dream and was merely testing his wise soothsayers—and all secular learning concurs—that foreknowledge of the
men or whether he had actually forgotten it is of little importance as the future lies not in human province but in God’s. By this test it is proved that
story develops, but it does drive home the inability of the great wise men of the prophets who proclaimed things to come spoke by the Spirit of God.”
Babylon to meet this challenge. God will confirm through Daniel that the
dream was from him (v. 28), and God will give its meaning. The 3) What transpired after Daniel’s intercession and prayer? (2:14–23)
astrologers (Chaldeans) had to have the king give them the dream before
they could interpret it, for they had no god who could reveal the dream Starting with vv. 14–16, we read: “Daniel responded with wisdom and
itself to them. The king’s offer of ‘many wonderful gifts and honours’ discretion to Arioch, the king’s executioner, who had gone out to execute
 67

the advisors of Babylon. He asked him, ‘Why such a harsh decree from the Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “In effect, Arioch was the head cook, and as
king?’ Then Arioch informed Daniel, so Daniel went to ask the cook slays all animals and cooks them, so here he has a similar
Nebuchadnezzar for an appointment to see him, and it was granted him so occupation. For the rulers of the world slay people, butchering them like
that he could reveal the meaning to the king.” brute beasts.”

Thus, Daniel and his three friends were caught up in a major crisis within Daniel did not try to defy Arioch or denounce the king. Instead, he spoke
the kingdom. Although these four men were not practitioners of the occult, with “wisdom and discretion,” by tactfully seeking to know why the action
they were nevertheless regarded as wise men of the court, and the king’s was so urgent. This highlights Daniel’s great maturity, by respectfully
decree also affected them. But, in contrast to the king’s violent explosion approaching Arioch to gain from him some cooperation, so that it was
of anger [recall v. 12], Daniel reacts with calmness and rational thinking. possible for Daniel to get a message to the king. However, there is some
This is a mark of a believer who understands God’s sovereignty. Thus, uncertainty if Daniel actually appeared before the king himself, because in
Daniel did not try to lead a coup against the king or incite a rebellion, light of v. 25, that would seem surprising! Thus, some manuscripts [LXXθ
knowing that the king was God’s appointed authority [1 Timothy 2:1–2; and Syriac] omit the words “went to” and say that Daniel sought the king.
Romans 13:1–2]. Instead, Daniel approached “Arioch” [the king’s Nevertheless, Daniel requested of the king time in order that he might
representative], an old Babylonian name [Genesis 14:1]. This means that declare the interpretation of the king’s dream [probably their conversation
v. 14 is 1st person testimony by Daniel! It is derived from Hurrian Arriyuk, implied that he would also declare the dream, as the king demanded].
appearing as Arriwuk in the Mari archives [18th century b.c.], and as Unlike the other Chaldeans, Daniel’s request was not a stall tactic, as
Ariukki in the Nuzi tablets [15th century b.c.]. though he was trying to bargain for time [recall v. 8]. The king must have
already had respect for Daniel as a man of integrity and great wisdom
John Collins [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] says: “Various etymologies [recall Daniel 1:19–20]. Thus, Daniel’s request for time was granted.
have been proposed: Sumerian eri–aku (servant of the moon god) is no
longer accepted. Delcor says it is ‘certainly Hurrian’ because a similar Next in vv. 17–18, we read: “then Daniel went home and told his friends
name, A–ri–wu–uk, is attested at Mari. Recently it has been identified as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah about the king’s command. Daniel was
the Old Persian name Ariyauka, and this is plausible at least for Daniel. seeking mercy, in order to ask about this mystery in the presence of the
An Iranian etymology was proposed by Hitzig, and Grelot argues that even God of heaven, so that Daniel and his friends might not be executed along
the name in Genesis may have a Persian derivation. Zadok accepts the with the rest of the advisors of Babylon.”
Persian etymology for the late texts, but not for Genesis.”
Here we see another wise action on the part of Daniel: he sought the
Also, scholars debate whether Arioch was either in charge of the king’s fellowship of other believers who could pray with him. The use of their
bodyguard, or perhaps the executioners that had been ordered to carry out original Hebrew names reminds us of their godly heritage and
the decree. In other words, he is termed as raḇ–ṭabbāḥayyāʾ [for “the identification with Israel’s God. We now see them acting in a godly and
king’s executioner”], but ṭabbāḥ can mean either “executioner” or mature way, even though they were young men. But, Daniel did not
“bodyguard” and it is difficult to know which nuance is correct in this inform his friends of this news that they might feel sorry for themselves or
instance. The LXX has archimageirōi [or “chief cook”], but Josephus used turn to complaining. He informed them for the purpose that they might
the word sōmatophulax [or “bodyguard”] in his summary [Ant. 10.10.3]. seek God’s compassion upon them. His motive was not to confront his
Nevertheless, “the king’s executioner” is a reasonable translation, and is friends with bad news, but to lead them in the proper way to respond to a
consistent with the LXX and Josephus, and as a raḇ [or “head”], he did not crisis, by prayer. Daniel also recognized that it was not ultimately the
perform the executions himself, but was in charge of those who did. information itself that must be sought, but God’s compassion on them.
 68

It would be the compassionate favour of God that would make possible the The king is in front of Ahura–Mazda, and a fire altar is prepared for a
revelation of the king’s dream. Although the king had found Daniel and cultic ritual that will showcase the ideal relationship that is between them.
his friends “ten times superior” than the Babylonian wise men [recall The peoples of the Persian Empire joyfully support the occasion, and the
Daniel 1:20], not even that made them equal to the challenge now before king’s bow and the foreigners beneath his feet show him as conqueror, and
them. As they turned to God for compassion, they prayed to “the God of the fire altar before which the king stands marks him as cultic officiator.
heaven.” Although this expression had been used on rare occasions The inscription upon the relief indicates his military victory, as he is
[Genesis 24:7], it became a rather common way of referring to God during described as conquering the nations: “If now thou shalt think that ‘How
the exile and the postexilic period [Ezra 1:2; 6:10; 7:12, 21; Nehemiah 1:5; many are the countries which King Darius held?’ look at the sculptures of
2:4; Psalm 136:26]. This expression may have seemed quite appropriate those who bear the throne, then shall it become known to thee: the spear of
for the Jews during this time when they were living among the Gentiles a Persian man has gone forth far; then shall it become known to thee: a
and wanted to distinguish their God from the multitude of deities Persian man has delivered battle far indeed from Persia.”
worshiped by the Gentiles. For example, the title baal–šamēm [or “Baal of
heaven”], is attested in a 10th century b.c. Phoenician inscription in Byblos. Thus, the use of “God of heaven” in Daniel’s book that was completed
But, more relevant for Daniel is Ahura–Mazda, a celestial deity portrayed during the Achaemenid period may reflect influence from Persian usage,
as a sun–disk in the heavens, who was the highest deity of Zoroastrianism. being a way of identifying Yahweh rather than Ahura–Mazda as the true
For example, here is the façade of the tomb of Darius I [522–486 b.c.] at “God of heaven.” In fact, this title suggests that, although God is above
Naqš–i Rustam, depicting the king in cultic action and military violence. and beyond this world, he nevertheless looks down upon his people,
concerned and willing to answer their petitions! Thus, in contrast to the
Babylonian wise men who worshiped the starry heaven and sought to
determine the future by supernatural knowledge through astrological
means, Daniel’s God was the creator of the heavens and the one holding
all the stars and celestial bodies in place. The specific compassion from
God that they sought concerned the rāz [or “mystery”], which is a Persian
loanword meaning “secret,” and is related conceptually to the Hebrew
word sôḏ, which also designates the secret decisions of God in his divine
council, who is able to reveal to his prophets the decisions that are made
there [Amos 3:7; Jeremiah 23:18, 22]. Thus, what had been shown to
Nebuchadnezzar was a secret known only to “the God of heaven,” and no
occultic gimmick could discover what this was. Nevertheless, God could
choose to reveal it, and by knowing this, Daniel and his friends were
prompted to pray, and curiously this is a fact that Ezekiel himself
confirmed about Daniel [Ezekiel 28:3].

Gregory the Great [6th century Pope] says: “What a skilful workman the
Spirit is! There is no question of delay in learning. It no sooner touches
the mind in regard to anything it chooses than it teaches; its very touch is
teaching. It changes a human mind in a moment to enlighten it; suddenly
what it was no longer is, suddenly it is what it was not.”
 69

Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] concludes: “Truly, much that is true W. Sibley Towner [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Not only is the
is found in the midst of the lies. Those who seek God are the friends of situation of the speaker one in which thanksgiving is appropriate; not only
truth, while those who depend on human reason alone are wicked and in does the word ‘thanks’ appear in the prayer; but also it exhibits many of
all they say and do attempt to seduce people. But, the friends of truth the usual formal features of a thanksgiving psalm: the call to praise and
adhere to nothing apart from that which comes from on high. They call extol, the account of the distress from which relief has been obtained, the
on the One who rules over all, taking heed to depend on prayer, standing description of the deliverance obtained, and formulae of praise.”
steadfast, not distressed, not at this moment or in this place, but standing
against the onslaught of human reason, and through the testimony of Such analyses have often been extended to include the study of other
blessed Daniel, we see the beloved youth given straightaway the revelation poems/benedictions [later in Daniel 4:1–3; 4:34–35; 6:25–27], though
concerning the dream, not because of his calculations, but simply because these passages lack the element of thanksgiving found in v. 23. So, critical
it was proper time to hand over to the one who prays. He alone was of scholars tend to see these as later assertions made by a final redactor
great courage, but at the same time his companions jointly took up the attempting to weave together narrative and poetic material [with various
prayer. For none had abandoned the hope.” stereotyped liturgical phrases] with the aim of emphasizing theologically
the eternality of God’s kingdom. Thus, the prayers serve to support
Finally in vv. 19–23, we read: “when the mystery was revealed to Daniel important thematic notions contained in the narratives.
in a vision later that night, Daniel blessed the God of heaven and said,
‘May the name of God be blessed forever and ever; wisdom and power are W. Sibley Towner [21st century biblical scholar] continues: “These three
his for evermore. It is God who alters the times and seasons, and he liturgically formulated passages bear closest resemblance to the hymn
removes kings and promotes kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and Gattung of Israelite religious poetry. In all three poems there is stress on
knowledge to the discerning. He reveals what is profoundly mysterious the world rule of God, praise of him as creator and all–wise, and the
and knows what is in the darkness; with him dwells light. To you, God of hymnic celebration of his eternality. In all four cases, the prayers focus the
my ancestors, I give thanks and praise, because you have given me wisdom point of the narratives roughly as follows: God’s decision to allow evil its
and power; you have now revealed to me what we asked of you by making hour of ascendancy will be vindicated before the eyes of all the nations
known to us what the king commanded.’” when good ultimately triumphs; this vindication will come about because
of God’s own transcendent power and endurance; to this fact the evil
Daniel did not have the ability in himself to figure out what the king had powers of the world will themselves be obliged at last to testify.”
seen, much less to interpret it. Only by a revelation from God “in a vision
later that night” could Daniel know this. The natural human tendency However, there is no need to hold to a redactionary perspective of the
would be to immediately run to Arioch exclaiming that he now had the composition of Daniel’s book to appreciate the role that Daniel’s prayer
answer. But, since Daniel first took time to thank and worship God speaks and the other benedictions play in regard to the narrative development.
volumes of his character. His prayer was uttered in the presence of the Thus, the focus of Daniel’s praise was for God’s “wisdom and power.”
other three, because the use of the plural pronouns in v. 23 indicates that Notice how the prayer is carefully structured around these concepts:
he was not alone. Even if Daniel was not with the others when the night
vision came, he nevertheless gathered them all together, because although A Praise for God who possesses wisdom and power [v. 20].
praise for God can be a private affair, it is especially appropriate when B God’s power: he controls human thrones [v. 21].
uttered in the presence of others [Psalm 22:22–25]. In fact, Daniel’s prayer B′ God’s wisdom: he reveals hidden knowledge [v. 22].
resembles the hymns of thanksgiving that are found in the psalms. A′ Praise for God who dispenses wisdom and power [v. 23].
 70

So, this “wisdom and power” will be seen in regard to the dream and its the action before resolution of the tension has occurred, but at a point
revelation about the future kingdoms [later in vv. 31–45]. Thus, God is in where resolution is expected. The poem’s position is similar to that of
complete control over the events of history. Furthermore, v. 21 indicates other psalms in narrative contexts which relate thanksgiving for healing or
that “it is God who alters the times and seasons, and he removes kings and deliverance at points in the narrative where that outcome has been
promotes kings.” The words iddānayyāʾ [for “times”] and zimnayyāʾ [for indicated, but not yet fulfilled (Isaiah 38; Jonah 2). Because of its
“seasons”] are near synonyms. They look at the appointed times of history location, Daniel’s praise becomes, like these other thanksgivings, an
[when events will occur], as well as the periods or epochs of history [the expression of trust that the expected deliverance will be brought to
stages and duration of things]. In fact, both aspects are illustrated by fruition. Daniel’s praise is the first of four poems with similar themes
Jeremiah and the 70 years of captivity God decreed for Judah [Jeremiah distributed through Daniel 1–6. The others appear in the mouths of
25:11–12], and because God controls the times and eras, he intervenes Nebuchadnezzar and Darius at Daniel 4:3, 4:34–35 and 6:26–27. Unlike
especially in the establishing and deposing of earthly kings. This was often Daniel 2:20–23, they lack the element of thanksgiving, but otherwise they
seen in Israel’s earlier history [from 1 Samuel to 2 Kings], though other parallel the psalm in emphasizing God’s power, eternality and control
civilizations had similar beliefs. Also, on the Cyrus Cylinder, we find the over nature and history. All four passages point to God as the source of
claim that Marduk deposed Nabonidus and instead raised Cyrus as king in Daniel’s miraculous powers. Towner noted that the poems serve a crucial
his place. But, the reality is that God alone has the power to do this. So, role in the narrative’s ‘universalist theodicy’ pattern which aims ‘to
God’s wisdom is seen in his infinite knowledge and understanding of denigrate the power of evil to prevail and to testify in a dramatic and
everything, and by his ability to reveal this to people of his choosing. This convincing way of the superiority of Israel’s Creator–Redeemer over any
is why “with him dwells light” reflects God’s omniscience, his complete king or people on earth.’ Daniel’s praise is devoted to characterizing God
awareness of all that exists, and of all that can happen and will happen. directly, but by appearing in Daniel’s mouth, it indirectly characterizes
God knows the end from the beginning. What would otherwise remain him as well. His first reaction to the revelatory vision is praise and
unknowable and hidden [in the darkness], God has seen fit to reveal to thanksgiving, expressed with complete trust that a positive outcome to his
Daniel, as Job says: “He uncovers the hidden dimensions from darkness, dangerous situation will now be forthcoming. Thus, Daniel is cast as a
bringing what is in deep shadow to light” [Job 12:22]. So, Daniel’s prayer model of piety, which matches the narrative’s depiction of him through his
serves primarily for the characterization of God, for he is the source of prayer (v. 19), witness (vv. 27–28), and self–effacement (v. 30), and in
wisdom and power over both sage and king. However, the prayer which he is also characterized as a model Israelite sage (v. 14). The psalm
characterizes Daniel himself. matches and reinforces the context’s depiction of Daniel in ideal terms.
The psalm’s thematic links with the surrounding prose has shown that
James Washington Watts [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The short characterization of God is central to its narrative role. Niditch and Doran
psalm in the narrative of Daniel 2 shows the influence of the blessing observed that because of the psalm, ‘the role of the hero, the wise man, is
formulas that proliferated in later books of the Hebrew Bible and is closely almost superseded by a more important protagonist, God.’ The prose
connected with other poetic prayers in the book. The psalm nevertheless narrator does not describe God in Daniel 2. Divine characterization is left
contains points of continuity with the older literary tradition of placing for the speeches of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, among which the psalm
psalms in narrative contexts. Daniel’s psalm of praise achieves its contains the first and most extensive depiction. We are forced to depend
narrative role by its position in the plot of Daniel 2, its semantic and upon human revelation to learn anything of divine revelation. We must
thematic links with the proximate and extended contexts, and its trust Daniel’s song of thanksgiving for information concerning God’s
characterization of Daniel and God. Daniel gives praise when his request participation in the story. God is the source of wisdom and power in the
has been answered, though the readers are still in the dark as to the psalm, and has control over sage and king, as both Daniel and
dream’s nature and significance. Thus, the psalm is placed in the middle of Nebuchadnezzar admit in the subsequent account. The psalm’s narrative
 71

role finds its chief expression in God’s characterization in terms of power an appropriate hymn out of traditional liturgical material shows that the
and wisdom, which announces the point towards which the story and book skills of the sage can contribute much to expressions of religious praise.
are driving. This role is established by close semantic and thematic links Goldingay remarked that the psalm in Daniel 2 reverses the usually
with the prose narrative of Daniel 2, with the three other poems in Daniel psalmic progression from specific divine acts of grace to general
1–6, and even with the vision of the 4th beast in Daniel 7. The psalm also characteristics and worship for the sake of dramatic effect, thus giving
reinforces the narrative’s ideal characterization of Daniel through its ‘prominence to the particular experience of God’s power and wisdom
pious contents and especially by its position. Daniel’s praise allows that Daniel himself has been given.’”
Israel’s ideal sage to show his faith by announcing the theme which even
Babylonian and Persian kings will eventually proclaim. The Thus, the statement “he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the
compositional history of the book of Daniel has been the subject of intense discerning” is full of irony. The so–called wise men of Babylon had
debate, and a wide variety of methods have been used to explain the nothing to offer the king, whereas Daniel, who sought God’s wisdom, was
presence of Daniel’s praise in vv. 20–23. This psalm has always had made truly wise. Such is the case for those of us today who know the true
many defenders of its originality in this context. Rowley defended the source of wisdom; a wisdom not of this world [1 Corinthians 1:18–25].
unity of the entire book, although he did not address the psalm specifically.
Steck, on the other hand, assumed a three stage development of the book, In summary, the true character of a person is revealed in a time of crisis.
but considered the psalm to be a theological summary of the message of Notice carefully the admirable qualities that we see in Daniel:
the first stage, the original Daniel stories. Towner in particular has
argued that the psalm and the other poems in Daniel 1–6 were composed 1. He had the grace to guard his speech and refrain from making any
from stereotyped liturgical phrases for this narrative context and were unwise and inappropriate comments [vv. 14–15].
designed by the author ‘to function as theological epitomes of the
significance of that experience of the speaker which is recounted in the 2. He demonstrated great boldness and faith [v. 16]. He had the
narrative context.’ The psalm’s presence in 4QDana is proof that it was boldness to seek an audience with the king and the faith to believe
an integral part of the text by the mid–2nd century BCE. The nature of the that God would do the impossible.
psalm’s (and thus the book’s) emphasis is theocentric—God is the source
of power and wisdom. Through the psalm, the author made certain that the 3. He faced the crisis by seeking fellowship and prayer with other
story pointed first and foremost to God’s actions and control over events, believers [vv. 17–18].
even though God does not appear as a character in the narrative.
Forewarned by the psalm, the reader expects the words and behaviour of 4. Once God revealed the dream to him, he took time to thank and
characters such as Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar to illuminate not only worship God rather than immediately head off to take care of
these characters but also divine action behind the scenes, an expectation business [vv. 19–23].
which is amply fulfilled. Thus, the story is no longer, if it ever was, about
a clever official in the Babylonian court. Its subject is God’s rule over This picture of Daniel is not given that we might merely admire and
both exiled Jews and foreign emperors, and their dependence upon God applaud him. Rather, this is meant for our own edification, that we might
for knowledge of their fates. Although the primary motivation for using a desire to be like him. Daniel is not some Olympic champion whose feats
psalm in this context seems to have been to give the story a theocentric are unattainable. He is an example of what God can do with any person
thrust, psalmody was probably also chosen to make explicit the narrative’s who yields his life to him and seeks after him. Remember, God is not
implicit characterization of Daniel as a model of piety. The court adviser, limited in what he can do with any one of us. It is only our unbelief and
Daniel, illustrates that piety is the source of wisdom. His composition of hardness of heart that limits God!
 72

Joyce Baldwin [20th century biblical scholar] says: “Daniel’s question is thanked God for giving him wisdom and power (v. 23). His gift of wisdom
concerned with the hastiness rather than the severity of the decree: why is obvious—God just revealed the mystery to Daniel. But, how did God
has his majesty issued such a peremptory decree? He asks for time and share with the lowly exile the kind of power about which Daniel has just
promises he will give the interpretation. The ability to keep calm under sung? Once again, the doxology anticipates his exchange with
severe shock and pressure, to think quickly and exercise faith in a Nebuchadnezzar. When Daniel interprets the dream for the king, he is
moment of crisis, these are aspects of prudence and discretion seen in promoted to a high position in the kingdom (v. 48). God may not raise up
Daniel here (Philippians 4:7).” Daniel to be a king, but he does bestow on him significant political
power. Daniel’s magnificent doxology summarizes the primary message of
Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Granted his chapter 2: God alone has wisdom and power, and both are his to give and
request, Daniel recruited his three friends to plead with the God of heaven take. In fact, Daniel’s words capture the most important message of the
for mercy (v. 18). The ‘God of heaven,’ a common title in post–exilic books entire book, a message that began in Daniel 1:2 when God delivered
(1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), occurs four times (vv. 18, 19, 37, 44). Its Jehoiakim into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Throughout the book, God
significance here is that it reminds us of the wise men’s claim that gods do will raise up kings and he will take them down. He will confound the
not dwell among people (v. 11), by which they at least meant their gods ‘wise’ and give wisdom and discernment to his faithful servants. He will
were inaccessible. But, Daniel’s God was about to prove that, although share his wisdom, power, dominion, and even glory with humans, and he
his dwelling was nowhere near Babylon, he was not inaccessible. The will call them to account for what they do with it. But, his kingdom alone is
God of heaven revealed things to people on earth. With little ado in the eternal, and to him alone belong power, dominion, and glory. While all
narrative, God answered the Judeans’ prayer (v. 19). This event brings to God’s people are saying ‘Amen,’ they should also be sighing with relief
mind the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal at Mount that Daniel’s doxology also meant that his life would be spared. He had
Carmel (1 Kings 18), when after a day–long display of ineptitude by the the answer for the king. Given the urgency of the situation so far, we
prophets of a false god, Elijah prayed and God answered, immediately. might expect Daniel to rush to the rescue of the sleepless king, the
True power, the narrative of 1 Kings makes clear, comes from God and condemned wise men, and quite possibly all of Babylon.”
God alone. Daniel 2 makes clear that true wisdom also comes from God
and God alone. It is just that simple. Daniel responded in praise, exalting 4) What happened when Daniel came to Nebuchadnezzar? (2:24–30)
God as the source of wisdom and power. His wisdom is evident in the deep
and dark things he knows, and his power is apparent in his changing of Starting with v. 24, we read: “after this, Daniel went to Arioch, whom the
times and seasons and his raising up and taking down of rulers. But, king had appointed to execute the advisors of Babylon. He told him, ‘Don’t
Daniel did not just praise God for the wisdom and power he possesses; destroy the advisors of Babylon. Bring me before the king and I’ll explain
Daniel exalted God because he shares his wisdom and power with mere the meaning to him.’”
people. He reveals hidden things to the wise and discerning. Wisdom here
is not the empirical, rational wisdom of Proverbs. Instead it is So, Arioch had been given the unpleasant duty of having to slay the wise
supernatural insight that is only received by direct revelation. He bestows men of Babylon, and it must have been something of a relief for Arioch
power on kings, and he takes it away. Daniel’s words anticipate his when Daniel came to him with the good news that he could interpret the
disclosure of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation in vv. 31–45. king’s dream. However, note carefully that Daniel’s first words were not a
That he knows the dream at all will testify that the God of heaven—not boast of being able to tell the dream, but a concern for the pagan wise men
the Babylonian gods—is the true source of wisdom, and the dream’s whose lives were in danger: “don’t destroy the advisors of Babylon.” We
meaning will proclaim that his God is also the true source of power, the do not know how well Daniel personally knew these men or what
only one who raises up and takes down human kings. Daniel also relationship he might have had to them.
 73

Daniel’s likely disdain for their occultic practices and refusal to engage in John Collins [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] further explains: “The
their arts might have aroused their contempt for him, and certainly their etymology is Akkadian: balaṭ–su–uṣur, ‘protect his life,’ or balaṭ–šar–
suspicions. Nevertheless, Daniel had compassion on these men who were uṣur, ‘protect the life of the prince.’ That the Masoretic Text vocalizes so
lost and did not know Israel’s God. Their welfare was of more concern to as to introduce the name of the god Bel and that the allusion is required by
him than his own personal success and reward. Daniel 4:8 suggests that the meaning of the name was lost early.”

Next in vv. 25–26, we read: “then Arioch quickly brought Daniel into the So, the mention of the name Belteshazzar is important because it sets the
king’s presence and informed him: ‘I’ve found a man from the Judean stage for what is about to happen as Daniel honours and glorifies Israel’s
captives who will make known the meaning to the king.’ King God, not Bel/Marduk. The king and all other Babylonians may call him by
Nebuchadnezzar replied by saying to Daniel (whose Babylonian name is the name “Belteshazzar,” but his real identity is with Yahweh, who was
Belteshazzar), ‘Are you able to tell me about the dream and its meaning?’” about to manifest his power before the king, since the name “Daniel”
means “God is my judge.”
So, although Daniel was the real hero in this crucial hour, Arioch took
advantage of the situation to promote himself before the king: “I’ve found Next in vv. 27–28, we read: “by way of answer, Daniel addressed the
a man.” Critical scholars argue that this contradicts v. 16, where Daniel king: ‘None of the advisors, enchanters, diviners, or astrologers can
had previously appeared to the king. However, v. 25 is not insinuating that explain the secret that the king has requested to be made known. But there
Nebuchadnezzar did not know Daniel. Instead, the emphasis here is about is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and he is making known to King
Arioch’s vainglory. Thus, with these words, Arioch attempted to gain the Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the latter days. While you were in
credit for himself, as though the king should be indebted to him. He bed, the dream and the visions that came to your head were as follows.”
wanted to enhance his standing through Daniel’s success and perhaps even
to get some of the reward the king had spoken about [recall v. 6]. Arioch The king was anxious to know if Daniel could indeed tell the dream and its
was a glory grabber, a person out to promote himself, especially taking the interpretation, but Daniel delayed this matter. He knew in this crucial
credit that rightfully belonged to others. As Christians, we must always be moment that he had the king’s attention, and so he used the golden
careful not to let pride control us. Our desire should be fixed on seeing that opportunity to bear witness for God. Notice that his witness had two
the glory goes to God, for whatever God does through us is by his grace, aspects, one negative and the other positive. He first denies the ability of
and not just for our own credit [1 Corinthians 15:9–11]. So, in v. 26, we the Babylonian wise men to accomplish the king’s demand, and then he
see Daniel standing before Nebuchadnezzar with the king putting the affirms that his God is able to do this. There were several occult
crucial question to him: “Are you able to tell me about the dream and its practitioners among the wise men of Babylon. The Aramaic ʾāšᵊpîn [for
meaning?” Notice that the text, at this point, reintroduces Daniel with the “astrologers”] is rendered in the LXX as magōn [or the plural magos],
words “whose Babylonian name is Belteshazzar” [from the Aramaic from which we get the term magi. In the context of Daniel, they were
bēlṭᵊšaʾṣṣar]. Scholars are uncertain about the meaning of bēlṭᵊšaʾṣṣar, occult practitioners who used religious and magical arts, including
although the prefix bēl suggests that the name is meant to honour the god astrology. Simon Magus was one such [Acts 8]. There are four possible
Bel [or Marduk], and one possibility is that the name means [or suggests] source countries for the magi, but it is difficult to know which is correct:
“May Bel protect his life.” So, since we had already been told this in
Daniel 1:7, what need was there for this repetition? The answer is that, to 1. Arabia.
the original readers, it would have been an additional reminder that the 2. Babylon.
famous Jewish ruler in the courts of Babylon, whom they knew as 3. Persia.
Belteshazzar, was Daniel himself [later in Daniel 4:8, 18–19; 5:12; 10:1]. 4. Egypt.
 74

Nevertheless, the Persians were known for divination and astrology. Both of these things will overtake you suddenly on a single day: loss of
Futhermore, the magi of Matthew 2:1 may have come from the regions of children and widowhood. They will come upon you in full measure, despite
Babylonia, and later legends that there were three [from the three gifts] the multitude of your incantations and the great power of your spells. You
and that they were kings, cannot be verified, for Matthew is silent. trusted in your own knowledge. You said, ‘No one sees me.’ Your wisdom
However, from history, they were probably priestly, and from the value of and knowledge have misled you. You said in your heart, ‘I am the one, and
the gifts, they were wealthy, possibly Babylonian court astrologers. there will be none besides me.’ But disaster will come upon you, and you
Nevertheless, for the birth of Jesus, they were well acquainted with Jewish will not know how to charm it away. A calamity will befall you that you
messianic expectations, and all four areas had significant Jewish will not be able to ward off; and devastation will come upon you suddenly,
populations that went back many centuries. Although they were unfamiliar and you won’t anticipate it. But stand up now with your spells and your
with Micah 5:2, they astrologically followed the natural surmise that a many incantations, at which you have laboured from your childhood
king would be born in Israel, specifically on the 11th of September in 3 b.c. until today, according to your multiple schemes. Let them stand up
[Revelation 12:1–2], and so they travelled to Jerusalem. Thus, now Daniel now—those who conjure the heavens and gaze at the stars, predicting at
adds a new category, namely the gāzᵊrîn [for “diviners”], from the the new moons—and save you from what is about to happen to them.
Aramaic verb gᵊzar [or “to cut, determine”], and appears here in Daniel for See, they are just like stubble; fire burns them up. They could not even
the first time. It may be somewhat limiting to translate this as save themselves from the power of the flame. There will be no coals for
“astrologers” [though astrology could be included in their functions], but warming oneself, no fire to sit by. So will they be to you—those with whom
“determiners of fate” may better capture the idea, which would refer to you toiled and did business since your childhood—they wander about,
those who used various forms of divination [including astrology] to each in his own direction; there is not one who can save you.” [Isaiah 47]
determine the outcome of an event or what awaited a person. So,
regardless of their specialty for discerning one’s fate or interpreting Thus, in v. 27, Daniel was denouncing the polytheistic religion of
dreams, they were powerless to do anything. Over a century earlier, Isaiah Babylon. Sometimes before the truth can be seen, false beliefs must first
had announced the downfall of Babylon and the inability of her occult be exposed and discredited. Then in v. 28, Daniel boldly announced the
specialists to do anything to help her: “Come down and sit in the dust, God who was able to help the king, calling him the “God in heaven.” Part
Virgin Daughter of Babylon. Sit on the ground without a chair, Daughter of the reason the king had this dream was for God to make known to him
of the Chaldeans! For no longer will they call you tender and attractive. “what will happen in the latter days.” This phrase deserves careful
Take millstones and grind flour. Remove your veil, strip off your robes, attention. The Aramaic text is bᵊʾaḥărîṯ yômayyāʾ, which is exactly
bare your legs, and wade through the rivers. Your nakedness will be equivalent in meaning to the Hebrew phrase bᵊʾaḥărîṯ hayyāmîm that
exposed, and your disgrace will also be seen. I’ll take vengeance, and I occurs 13 times elsewhere [Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy
will spare no mortal. Our Redeemer—the LORD of the Heavenly Armies is 4:30; 31:29; Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel
his name—is the Holy One of Israel. Sit silent, and enter into the darkness, 38:16; Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1; Daniel 10:14]. Although the phrase can
you daughter of the Chaldeans; for no more will they call you Queen of sometimes be used to refer to an indefinite time in the future
Kingdoms. I was angry with my people, and I desecrated my heritage, and [Deuteronomy 31:29], it primarily refers to the far distant future. In other
gave them into your control. You showed them no mercy; even on the aged words, the noun ʾaḥărîṯ means “after–part” or “end” which means the
you laid your yoke most heavily. You said, ‘I will always continue—Queen phrase literally means “in the end of days.” Thus, this was a phrase
forever!’ You didn’t take these things into your thinking, nor did you think denoting the final period of history as far as the prophet’s perspective
about their consequences. Now hear this, you wanton creature, lounging reaches. In fact, it could also mean the messianic future, as demonstrated
with no cares, and saying to herself: ‘I am the one, and there will be none in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the phrase was used with reference to the
besides me; I won’t live as a widow, nor will I see the loss of children.’ messianic age [1QSa 1:1; 4 QpIsaa 7.3.22; CD 66:11; 4QFlor 1:2, 12].
 75

So, a study of the phrase in the Old Testament shows that it typically refers the Revealer of Secrets has made known to you what will take place. As for
to events still to come. Nevertheless, this phrase should not be confused me, this secret was made known to me, not because my own wisdom is
with what is said in Hebrews 1:2 [that God has spoken to us now “in these greater than anyone else alive, but in order that the meaning may be made
last days” even though the Greek is the same as the LXX for v. 28], known to the king, that you might understand the thoughts of your heart.”
because the emphasis of Hebrews is upon the contrast of the old covenant
[which expired with the death of Jesus] and the inauguration of the new So, before informing the king of the specifics of the dream, Daniel tells
covenant [the old covenant cultic regulations, sacrifices, and priesthood him, “thoughts came to your mind about what would happen in the future.”
are no longer appropriate]. Thus, the contexts of Hebrews 1:2 with v. 28 The words “in the future” refer to the broad sketch of history from
are quite different [since Hebrews primarily has this shift of covenants in Nebuchadnezzar’s time until the inauguration of the messianic age. Also
view], and notice that Hebrews also views God’s future kingdom as notice that Daniel calls God “the Revealer of Secrets” [recall v. 18].
something that is still to arrive [Hebrews 2:5; 12:25–29]. Thus, Isaiah Nebuchadnezzar should meditate upon that virtue of Daniel’s God, for it
says: “it will come about in the last days that the mountain that is the marks him out as unique in contrast to all the powerless Babylonian
Lord’s Temple will be established as the highest of mountains, and will be deities. Nebuchadnezzar’s first need was to consider God as superior to the
raised above the hills; all the nations will stream to it. Many groups of Babylonian deities [later in v. 47]. However, here in v. 30, Daniel clarifies
people will come, commenting, ‘Come! Let’s go up to the Temple of the that the disclosure of the dream and its interpretation [already clear in
God of Jacob, that they may teach us his ways. Then let’s walk in his Daniel’s mind] was not due to any special wisdom found in him. Thus, in
paths.’ Instruction will proceed from Zion, and the word of the Lord from contrast to Nebuchadnezzar in his anger, Daniel was a man who could
Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations, and will render verdicts for react calmly in a crisis; in contrast to self–exalting Arioch, Daniel was a
the benefit of many. They will beat their swords into ploughshares, and man whose first desire was to give God all the credit and glory!
their spears into pruning hooks; nations will not raise swords against
nations, and they will not learn warfare anymore.” [Isaiah 2:2–4] Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes the details:
“Daniel vindicated his colleagues: no human could have done what the
This describes the time of Jerusalem’s restoration in the messianic king demanded (v. 27). But, fortunately for the king (and his wise men),
kingdom, which cannot be said to describe the present age! Many other ‘there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries’ (v. 28). Daniel
Old Testament passages also describe the time when Israel as a nation will announced that this God had revealed such a mystery, albeit in code, to
repent and be regathered to the land to enjoy messianic blessing Nebuchadnezzar: God made known to the king what was going to happen
[Deuteronomy 4:30; Jeremiah 23:5–8, 20; 30:9–10, 24; Hosea 3:5], the in the future. Daniel finally sounds ready to spill the beans: ‘Your dream
time when Gog will invade the land of Israel [Ezekiel 38:16], or the time and the visions that passed through your mind as you were lying in bed are
of the tribulation, antichrist, and resurrection of the saints [later in Daniel these.’ Perhaps the king leaned forward. But, instead of telling the dream,
10–12]. Thus, not everything about the king’s dream will pertain to the Daniel circled back around to talk about the ‘revealer of mysteries’ who
“latter days,” for the events of the dream begin with Nebuchadnezzar and showed the king ‘what is going to happen’ (v. 29). Then he made sure the
stretch to the ending of Gentile powers and setting up of a kingdom by king knew where his information came from and why (v. 30). In this Daniel
Israel’s God [later in vv. 31–45]. However, the climactic part of the king’s sounds like Joseph, who refuted the hearsay from Pharaoh that he could
dream is the latter part of this spectrum [God’s kingdom], and Daniel tells interpret dreams: ‘I cannot do it, but God will give Pharaoh the answer he
him that God has made known what will happen “in the latter days.” desires’ (Gen 41:16). One might hope Nebuchadnezzar had gotten the
point by this time. While his dream was important—after all, the revealer
Finally in vv. 29–30, we read: “your majesty, when you were in bed, of mysteries gave it to him—it was not as important as recognizing the
thoughts came to your mind about what would happen in the future, and supremacy of the God of heaven. One might hope we get the point, too.”
 76

Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] says: “For nothing is Augustine [4th century Bishop of Hippo] beautifully concludes: “The one
so advantageous and so likely to pacify the hearers as to say nothing about who interprets what another has seen is more a prophet than the one who
one’s self of an honourable nature, but on the contrary, to forestall all had seen. Less a prophet is he who sees in spirit only the signs of the
suspicion of wishing to do so. And, in truth, much more did the apostles things signified, and a greater prophet is he who is granted only an
increase their glory by despising glory and showing that what had just understanding of images. But, the greatest prophet is he who is endowed
taken place was not a human act but a divine work; and that it was their with both gifts, namely, that of seeing in spirit the symbolic likeness of
part to join with the beholders in admiration rather than to receive it from corporeal objects and that of understanding them with the vital power of
them. In the same manner also did the ancient fathers, for instance, the mind. Such a one was Daniel. His pre–eminence was tested and
Daniel, say, ‘Not because of any wisdom I have more than all the living established when he not only told the dream he had, but also explained the
has this mystery been revealed to me.’ And again Joseph, ‘Do not meaning of it. For the corporeal images themselves were produced in his
interpretations belong to God?’ [Genesis 40:8]” spirit, and an understanding of them was revealed in his mind. I am using
the word spirit, therefore, in the sense in which Paul uses it, where he
Gregory the Great [6th century Pope] also says: “‘To you, O king, as you distinguishes it from the mind: ‘I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray
lay in bed came thoughts of what would be hereafter, and he who reveals with the mind also’ [1 Corinthians 14:15]. Here he implies that signs of
mysteries made known to you what is to be.’ And a little later, ‘You, O things are formed in the spirit and that an understanding of the signs
king, saw, and behold, a great image.’ Daniel, therefore, in reverently shines forth in the mind.”
indicating that the dream was to be fulfilled and in telling from what
thoughts it arose, shows clearly that dreams often rise from our thoughts 5) What did Daniel say about the dream and its interpretation? (2:31–45)
and from revelation. Seeing, then, that dreams may arise from such a
variety of causes, one ought to be very reluctant to put one’s faith in them, Starting with v. 31, we read: “your majesty, while you were watching, you
since it is hard to tell from what source they come. If the mind is not on observed an enormous statue. This magnificent statue stood before you
its guard against these, it will be entangled in countless vanities by the with extraordinary brilliance. Its appearance was terrifying.”
master of deceit, who is clever enough to foretell many things that are
true in order finally to capture the soul by but one falsehood. This In his dream, the king had seen a large statue, where the Aramaic ṣᵊlēm
happened recently to one of our people who believed strongly in dreams. [for “statue”] is equivalent to the Hebrew ṣelem [or “idol”]. Thus, in this
In one of them he was promised a long life. After collecting a large sum of context, God would not have presented this as an idol to be worshiped!
money to last him for many years, he died suddenly, leaving all of his Furthermore, the image had a bright lustre due to its metallic composition.
wealth behind untouched, without having so much as a single good work
to take with him.” Choon–Leong Seow [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says:
“According to Daniel, the king’s dream is of an enormous ‘statue,’ a word
Hippolytus [3rd century] likewise says: “For the king, on making himself used for images erected to represent the presence of gods and kings.
master of the land of Egypt, and taking hold of Judea and carrying off the Because the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream symbolizes royal power, a
people, thought on his bed what should come after these things. He who royal statue is likely meant. Such images were erected primarily for
knows the secrets of all and searches the thoughts of the hearts revealed to propagandistic reasons, the power and majesty of the king being conveyed
him by means of the image the things that were to be. However, he hid by their typically intimidating size and splendour. Sometimes they were set
from the king the vision, in order that the counsels of God might not be up in conquered territories as reminders of the might of the victorious
interpreted by the wise men of Babylon, but that by the blessed Daniel, as kings and their gods. Moreover, some were composed of different types of
a prophet of God, things kept secret from all might be made manifest.” materials, mostly different metals in combination with alabaster or stone.”
 77

Thus, its appearance caused the king to be alarmed due to its immense size For example, Herodotus described the lavish use of bronze in Babylonia,
and unusual composition of varying materials, because this statue is including the bronze–gated temple of Bel [Hist. 1:181]. Thus, there are
related to various royal statues that were utilized in ancient Mesopotamia. several things that should be observed here:

Eusebius [3rd century Bishop of Caesarea] concludes: “It was fitting that 1. The metals composing the statue are put in order of decreasing
the king, who prized the substances deemed precious among people, gold, value [starting with gold and continuing to the iron/clay mixture].
and silver, and brass and iron, should identify these substances as the
kingdoms that held sovereignty at different times in the life of humankind; 2. The materials are listed in order of increasing hardness [gold is the
but that the prophet should describe these same kingdoms under the most pliable, whereas iron is the strongest]. These qualities will
likeness of beasts, in accordance with the manner of their rule. The king, reflect something about the kingdoms they represent.
who was puffed up, so it appears, in his own conceit, and prided himself
on the power of his ancestors, is shown the vicissitude to which affairs are 3. The 5th and final material is unique in regard to the others. It is not
subject and the end destined for all the kingdoms of the earth. This is done a pure metal, but rather a composite of metal and clay [which do
in order to teach him humility and understand that there is nothing not easily blend or adhere to one another]. Also, it shares the same
lasting among people, but only that which is appointed the end of all metal as the 4th part, namely iron [suggesting a close connection
things—the kingdom of God.” between what is symbolized by the “legs” and the “feet”].

Next in vv. 32–33, we read: “that statue 4. The last stage is made of hard iron and brittle/fragile baked clay.
had a head made of pure gold, with its
chest and arms made of silver, its Ernest Lucas [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The appearance of
abdomen and thighs made of bronze, its colossal figures, often the statue of a deity, is fairly common in dream
legs made of iron, and its feet made reports from the ancient Near East. Pharaoh Merenptah saw a giant
partly of iron and partly of clay.” statue of the god Ptah, who gave him permission to fight the Libyans. The
Sumerian ruler Gudea saw a huge figure in a dream. In one reported in
Daniel’s description of the statue begins the reign of the Assyrian emperor Ashurbanipal, an inscription on the
with the head and then proceeds pedestal of a statue of the god Sin foretold the failure of a rebellion.
downward until it reaches the feet. The Apparently it was not only rulers who had such dreams. One of the motifs
head is of fine gold, whereas the feet are listed in the Babylonian ‘dream book’ is the appearance of a god’s statue.
a mixture of iron and clay. In between are What Nebuchadnezzar sees in his dream differs from these in that the
the chest and arms of silver, the belly and figure represents the course of history. No major statues of gods from 1st
thighs of bronze, and the legs of iron. The millennium b.c. Mesopotamia have yet been discovered, but a number of
Aramaic nᵊḥāš [for “bronze”] can also divine images from the 2nd millennium b.c. have been recovered, and some
mean copper. Outdated translations like are made of a combination of materials. One example from Ras Shamra
the KJV mistakenly translated nᵊḥāš as is a bronze figure of a god, the head of which was covered with gold and
“brass” because it is not attested that the body with silver. Another is made from five materials: electrum, gold,
early in history, whereas bronze [an alloy silver, bronze, and steatite. King Esarhaddon of Assyria boasts of a statue
of copper and tin] was commonly used in of himself made of gold, silver, and copper that was placed before the gods
Daniel’s day and earlier. ‘to constantly request well–being’ for him.”
 78

Now compare this with Hesiod’s imagery for the five ages of humanity: was in no way equal to the silver age, but was terrible and strong. They
loved the lamentable works of Ares and deeds of violence; they ate no
1. A 1st generation golden race. bread, but were hard of heart like adamant, fearful men. Great was their
2. A 2nd generation of silver. strength and unconquerable the arms which grew from their shoulders on
3. A 3rd generation sprung of ash wood. their strong limbs. Their armour was of bronze, and their houses of
4. A 4th generation of god–like heroes. bronze, and of bronze were their implements: there was no black iron.
5. A 5th generation called a race of iron. These were destroyed by their own hands and passed to the dank house of
chill Hades, and left no name: terrible though they were, black Death
It should be noted that Hesiod’s imagery predates Daniel in 603/602 b.c., seized them, and they left the bright light of the sun. But, when earth had
but there is no evidence that Hesiod’s writing influenced Daniel’s imagery: covered this generation also, Zeus the son of Cronos made yet another, the
“First of all the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race fourth, upon the fruitful earth, which was nobler and more righteous, a
of mortal men who lived in the time of Cronos when he was reigning in god–like race of hero–men who are called demi–gods, the race before our
heaven. And they lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free own, throughout the boundless earth. Grim war and dread battle destroyed
from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and a part of them, some in the land of Cadmus at seven–gated Thebes when
arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all they fought for the flocks of Oedipus, and some, when it had brought them
evils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and in ships over the great sea gulf to Troy for rich–haired Helen’s sake: there
they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit death’s end enshrouded a part of them. But, to the others father Zeus the
abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their son of Cronos gave a living and an abode apart from men, and made them
lands with many good things, rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods. dwell at the ends of earth. And they live untouched by sorrow in the
But, after the earth had covered this generation—they are called pure islands of the blessed along the shore of deep–swirling Ocean, happy
spirits dwelling on the earth, and are kindly, delivering from harm, and heroes for whom the grain–giving earth bears honey–sweet fruit
guardians of mortal men; for they roam everywhere over the earth, clothed flourishing thrice a year, far from the deathless gods, and Cronos rules
in mist and keep watch on judgements and cruel deeds, givers of wealth; over them; for the father of men and gods released him from his bonds.
for this royal right also they received; then they who dwell on Olympus And these last equally have honour and glory. And again far–seeing Zeus
made a second generation which was of silver and less noble by far. It was made yet another generation, the fifth, of men who are upon the bounteous
like the golden race neither in body nor in spirit. A child was brought up at earth. Thereafter, would that I were not among the men of the fifth
his good mother’s side a hundred years, an utter simpleton, playing generation, but either had died before or been born afterwards. For now
childishly in his own home. But, when they were full grown and were come truly is a race of iron, and men never rest from labour and sorrow by day,
to the full measure of their prime, they lived only a little time and that in and from perishing by night; and the gods shall lay sore trouble upon
sorrow because of their foolishness, for they could not keep from sinning them. But, notwithstanding, even these shall have some good mingled with
and from wronging one another, nor would they serve the immortals, nor their evils. And Zeus will destroy this race of mortal men also when they
sacrifice on the holy altars of the blessed ones as it is right for men to do come to have grey hair on the temples at their birth [in other words, the
wherever they dwell. Then Zeus the son of Cronos was angry and put them race will be so degenerate that even a new–born child will show the marks
away, because they would not give honour to the blessed gods who live on of old age]. The father will not agree with his children, nor the children
Olympus. But, when earth had covered this generation also—they are with their father, nor guest with his host, nor comrade with comrade; nor
called blessed spirits of the underworld by men, and, though they are of will brother be dear to brother as aforetime. Men will dishonour their
second order, yet honour attends them also—Zeus the Father made a third parents as they grow quickly old, and will carp at them, chiding them with
generation of mortal men, a brazen race, sprung from ash–trees; and it bitter words, hard–hearted they, not knowing the fear of the gods.
 79

They will not repay their aged parents the cost of their nurture, for might
shall be their right: and one man will sack another’s city. There will be no
favour for the man who keeps his oath or for the just or for the good; but
rather men will praise the evil–doer and his violent dealing. Strength will
be right, and reverence will cease to be; and the wicked will hurt the
worthy man, speaking false words against him, and will swear an oath
upon them. Envy, foul–mouthed, delighting in evil, with scowling face, will
go along with wretched men one and all. And then Aidos and Nemesis,
with their sweet forms wrapped in white robes, will go from the wide–
pathed earth and forsake mankind to join the company of the deathless
gods: and bitter sorrows will be left for mortal men, and there will be no
help against evil.”

Next in vv. 34–35, we read: “as you were watching, a rock was quarried—
but not with human hands—and it struck the iron and clay feet of the
statue, breaking them to pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the
silver, and the gold were broken in pieces together and became like chaff
from a summer threshing floor that the breeze carries away without
leaving a trace. Then the rock that struck the statue grew into a huge
mountain and filled the entire earth.” A threshing floor was usually an open area outside a city gate which would
get a good breeze that was freely available to all for threshing wheat. In
Thus, this statue did not last forever, for a “rock” eventually destroyed it. the summer months [the normal time for harvesting the wheat], the wheat
This rock was “quarried” from a mountain [not to be equated with the would be tossed up in the air so that the wind would carry away the
mountain that results from the rock], and this mountain from which the worthless chaff. Thus, with the destruction of the statue we finally see the
rock is “quarried” depicts the sphere of origin for the rock, not its result. true value of what the statue symbolized: the parts were worthless in value
So, not only was the rock “quarried” from a mountain, but this was done before God. That no trace of them was left suggests that they will be
“not with human hands.” In other words, it has an origin from a divine totally done away with, no longer to interfere with God’s plan for history.
source. Thus, notice that the rock struck the statue precisely on its feet. This is a stronger point than saying that the “rock” will simply have
Normally, a deathblow would be rendered to the head or chest, but in this dominion over the statue, because it “grew into a huge mountain and filled
case the point of assault is at the feet. Since the statue represents the entire earth.” Thus, God’s plan for history will culminate in a universal
successive kingdoms, this would imply that it is during the days of the kingdom that stems from the powerful “rock” and this prepares us for the
final kingdom [symbolized by the feet] that the statue is destroyed. interpretation now to be revealed [later in vv. 36–45]. In other words, these
Although the statue speaks of successive kingdoms, there is a sense in kingdoms have one thing in common: they represent the Gentile powers
which they represent one entity, for they are crushed all at the same time. that dominate over Israel, beginning with the Babylonian exile brought on
The deathblow rendered to the “feet” spells the end for the entire entity of by Nebuchadnezzar himself, and Israel’s exile into Babylon is the
kingdoms, all of human rule. The parts of the statue are destroyed beginning of what Jesus later referred to as “the times of the gentiles”
“together,” that is, decisively and completely, not gradually. As a result, [Luke 21:24], a long period of history when Israel would be disciplined
they became like chaff from a summer threshing floor. and subjected to the Gentile nations.
 80

Furthermore, although all scholars agree that the components of the statue four are Nebuchadnezzar and his three dynastic successors [Amil–Marduk,
represent various kingdoms, they do not always agree as to which Nergalsarusur, and Nabunaid], or these are four kings that are mentioned
kingdoms are intended. There are three main interpretative issues at stake: by name in Daniel’s book [Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and
Cyrus]. Nevertheless, it has been traditionally understood that these first
1. Which four primary kingdoms are intended? four kingdoms begin with Babylon and extend to the Roman Empire,
where Josephus affirmed that the 4th kingdom was Rome [Ant. 10.11.7], as
2. How do the “toes” and “feet” relate to the 4th kingdom? Is this a does the Talmud [b. Šebu. 20; b. Abod. Zar. 2b; b. Yoma 77a; Meg. 11a;
separate 5th kingdom? Or is it simply part of the 4th kingdom? Qidd. 72a]. However, the interpretation of the Roman Empire has varied.

3. What kind of kingdom does the God set up and when does it come? John Walton [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] summarizes:
“Three positions are commonly held among evangelicals today, all of
Although there are minor variations concerning the interpretation of the which posit Rome as the 4th empire: (1) The 4th kingdom and the 10 horns
first four kingdoms, the differences boil down to one of two schemes. are all in the past, and God’s kingdom is represented and fulfilled in the
Thus, here is a chart that includes Daniel’s interpretation, the Greek view, church. Fulfilment is viewed as complete. This view is at least as old as
and the Roman view [depending on the interpretation of the 4th kingdom]: Augustine. (2) The 4th kingdom is still in power through the continued
influence (political, religious, cultural, etc.) of the Roman Empire, but the
Dream Interpretation Roman View Greek View 10–horns stage is still future. An early proponent of this view is Jerome,
Gold head Nebuchadnezzar Babylon Babylon and it seems to be the most popular view, historically speaking. But it is
Silver nd
A 2 inferior kingdom held by very few today because of the historical difficulties. (3) The 4th
Medo–Persia Media kingdom is over, and we are now in a prophetic gap that will end when a
torso after Nebuchadnezzar
Bronze A 3rd kingdom rules over 10–nation confederacy reconstitutes the Roman Empire.”
Greece Persia
midsection the whole earth
Greece, beginning Thus, since critical scholars reject the traditional authorship of Daniel’s
A 4th kingdom that crushes Rome, where book, and attribute it to an unknown author/editor in 165 b.c. during the
with Alexander, and
and breaks all the others, the iron–clay Maccabean period, they cannot hold to Rome being the 4th kingdom.
ending with
but it is a divided kingdom toes are an Nevertheless, Rome did not come to power until after 165 b.c., and to
Iron legs intermarriages
[feet/toes], partly strong extension of admit Rome as the 4th kingdom would ironically be to admit that Daniel’s
between dynasties
like iron and partly brittle the Roman book records true prophecy! In other words, whether one dates the Roman
that succeed
like iron mixed with clay Empire Empire from its conquest of Carthage [146 b.c.], from Pompey’s conquest
Alexander
God’s of Syria–Palestine [63 b.c.], or from Octavian being renamed Augustus as
God’s kingdom endures God’s kingdom at the 1st Roman Emperor [27 b.c.], clearly Rome did not become a dominant
kingdom at
Rock forever and destroys all st some point after the world empire until after 165 b.c. Thus, critical scholars [rejecting any
the 1 coming
human kingdoms fall of Greece prophecy about Rome] contend that Greece must be the final 4th kingdom.
of Jesus

So, other than these two major schemes, some critical scholars have Bruce Chilton [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] represents these scholars:
suggested other interpretations for the four kingdoms, but none of these “Critical scholars have long since given up referring to the 4th beast as the
has succeeded in gaining a significant following. For example, either the Roman Empire, for the simple reason that the Roman Empire did not exist
at the time Daniel was written (during the 2nd century B.C.E.).
 81

I can cite the commentaries which all list Babylonia, Media, Persia, and 4. Two animals symbolize Gentile kingdoms, a ram with two horns,
Greece. However, more recently scholars been able to demonstrate that in and a shaggy goat. The latter is identified as Greece [later in Daniel
the Assyrian evidence the lion is associated with governmental power. 8:21], while the ram [as one entity] represents Media and Persia
That suggests the order of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and Greece, the [later in Daniel 8:20]. The shaggy goat [Greece] is characterized by
four global empires with which Israel had to contend at the time Daniel four horns [later in Daniel 8:8], which is parallel to the leopard that
was composed. It would be odd if Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 were a has four heads, representing the four generals of Alexander the
simple repetition of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2.” Great [later in Daniel 7]. Thus, since the 1st beast is Babylon and
the 3rd is Greece, the 2nd must be Medo–Persia [later in Daniel 7].
So, here are four reasons for why the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom:
Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “For the image shown at that time to
1. Historically, there was no independent kingdom of Media that Nebuchadnezzar furnished a type of the whole world. In these times, the
followed Babylon. Instead, Babylon was conquered by the Persian Babylonians were sovereign over all, and these were the golden head of
king Cyrus the Great who ruled over the joint empire of the Medes the image. Then, after the Babylonians, the Persians held the supremacy
and Persians. But, some critical scholars try to build a case that in for 245 years, and they were represented by the silver. Then the Greeks
Greek and Roman historiography Media was recognized as a had the supremacy, beginning with Alexander the Macedonian, for 300
separate empire from Persia, but concede that it never ruled over years, so that they were brass. After the Greeks came the Romans, who
the Jews. Also, both 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–4 testify were the iron. Then we have the toes of clay and iron to signify the
that Cyrus [the conqueror of Babylon] was a Persian king. Thus, democracies that were subsequently to rise.”
there never was an independent Media that ruled between Babylon
and Persia. Thus, other critical scholars admit that, since there was Jerome [4th century] likewise says: “The 1st empire, the Babylonian, is
no independent kingdom of Media between Babylon and Persia, compared with the most precious metal, gold. The 2nd empire, the Medes
the 2nd kingdom is Media, because Media was a dominant and Persians, bears a resemblance to silver, being inferior to the
superpower that followed Nebuchadnezzar as an individual rather preceding empire and superior to that which is to follow. The 3rd empire
than Babylon as a kingdom. Nevertheless, the problem with his signifies the Alexandrian empire, and that of the Macedonians and of
argument is that elsewhere in the kingdom list [later in vv. 37–45], Alexander’s successors. Now this is properly termed brazen, for among all
even though each symbol may represent both the king and the metals, bronze possesses an outstanding resonance and a clear ring,
corresponding kingdom, it does include the kingdom. In other and the blast of a brazen trumpet is heard far and wide, so that it signifies
words, the head of gold does not merely represent not only fame and power of the empire, but also the eloquence of the
Nebuchadnezzar, but also the Neo–Babylonian Empire. Thus, the Greek language. Now the 4th empire, which clearly refers to the Romans,
2nd kingdom must represent the kingdom that follows Babylon, not is the iron empire that breaks in pieces and overcomes all others. But, its
merely Babylon’s 1st king. feet and toes are partly iron and partly of earthenware, a fact clearly
revealed at the present moment. For just as there was at the first nothing
2. Babylon would be given over to the Medes and Persians, not stronger or hardier than the Roman realm, so also in these last days there
merely to the Medes [later in Daniel 5:28]. is nothing feebler, since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes
both in our civil wars and against foreign nations.”
3. The “laws of the Medes and Persians” attest that they were viewed
by Daniel as one empire [later in Daniel 6:8]. Thus, the 1st kingdom is Babylon [with Nebuchadnezzar as its head], and
this would be followed by Medo–Persia, Greece, and the Roman Empire.
 82

Augustine [4th century Bishop of Hippo] concludes: “We know that the
stone cut from the mountain without hands is Christ, who came from the
kingdom of the Jews without human father: the stone that shattered all
the kingdoms of the earth, all the tyrannies of idols and devils; the stone
that grew and became a great mountain and filled the whole world.”

Next in vv. 36–38, we read: “we’ll now relate its meaning to the king. You,
your majesty, king of kings—to whom the God of heaven has given the
kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory, so that wherever people,
wild animals, or birds of the sky live, he has placed them under your
control, giving you dominion over them all—you’re that head of gold.”

Daniel, in similarity to what Joseph had once done in the foreign court of
Pharaoh [Genesis 41], reveals to the king that the head of the statue
symbolizes the Babylonian Empire and its great king, Nebuchadnezzar. In
this dream each part of the statue represents both the kingdom and the king
associated with it, as the king was considered to be the embodiment of the
kingdom. Notice that “another kingdom” arises after this 1st kingdom [later
in v. 39]. So, although Nebuchadnezzar was not the 1st Babylonian king
[his father Nabopolassar founded the Neo–Babylonian Empire and ruled
from 627–605 b.c.], he was by virtue of his lengthy 43–year reign the
greatest of the Babylonian kings. Furthermore, he was the king at the time
of the exile of Judah. So, he is the “head of gold.” Also, Daniel begins by
calling Nebuchadnezzar the “king of kings” [one of the great kings of the
earth]. Likewise Ezekiel gave this same designation to Nebuchadnezzar
[Ezekiel 26:7]. Thus, it was appropriate for Nebuchadnezzar to be
represented as the “head of gold.” However, not only does gold reflect the
quality of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in comparison to the rulers which
followed, but Nebuchadnezzar had a special taste for gold. In the temple to
Marduk in Babylon, the inner shrine was embellished with gold.

Joan Louise Oates [21st century archaeologist] says: “Of this inner cella
Nebuchadnezzar says that he ‘covered its wall with sparkling gold, I
caused it to shine like the sun.’ Here, according to Herodotus, was the
great sitting figure of Marduk, all of gold on a golden throne, supported
on a base of gold, with a golden table standing beside it. I was told by the
Chaldeans that to make all this more than 22 tons of gold were used.
Outside the temple is a golden altar.”
 83

Daniel spoke frankly and boldly to this eminent king by confronting him So, in contrast to Babylon, the next two kingdoms are discussed in only
with the truth that it was not Marduk or any other Babylonian god that this one verse, but they will receive more attention [later in Daniel 7–8].
gave Nebuchadnezzar his kingship. Rather it was ʾelāh šᵊmayyāʾ [for “the Nebuchadnezzar was not told when or how, but he did know that his
God of heaven”]. His kingdom [or sovereignty from the Aramaic kingdom would not last forever. It would be replaced by another kingdom.
malḵûṯāʾ], the power that he exercised, and the resulting honour/glory that Historically, Nebuchadnezzar was blessed by God to rule from 605–562
he enjoyed, had been given to him by Israel’s God. Since it was common b.c. and was followed briefly by his son Amēl–Marduk, then two sons–in–
in the ancient Near East for kings to claim that their gods had given them law, and finally by his grandson Belshazzar [553–539 b.c.]. Nevertheless,
their kingship, archaeologists have unearthed an inscription written by when Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 b.c., by a combined army
Nebuchadnezzar himself in which he attributed his kingship to Marduk: of the Medes and Persians [Isaiah 45:1–4], the Neo–Babylonian Empire
“from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea … which Marduk, my lord, has [made famous by Nebuchadnezzar] came to an end. Thus, at the time of
entrusted to me, I have made … the city of Babylon to the foremost among this dream, Nebuchadnezzar did not know what kingdom or king would
all the countries and every human habitation.” This is from the so–called replace his own kingdom; he only knew that it was to be “inferior” to his
Wadi–Brisa Inscription. The date of this inscription is not given, though it own. In what sense was the Medo–Persian Empire “inferior” to Babylon?
concerned an expedition made into Syria. In another inscription on the It certainly was not in terms of geographical extent or duration [the Persian
Cyrus Cylinder, we read: “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, Empire, as it came to be known, was actually larger and lasted far longer].
legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad … whose rule Scholars think it might be “inferior” in terms of either inner unity, or it
Bel and Nebo love, whom they want as king to please their hearts.” So, the was more corrupt morally. Another option is in regard to the authority by
extent to which Nebuchadnezzar had been given authority and dominion is the king. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar had unfettered power, but
described as “wherever people, wild animals, or birds of the sky live.” The during the Persian Empire the king was restricted in his authority, for he
reference to the beasts and birds has striking parallels to the initial granting could not annul a law once he had made it [later in Daniel 6:8].
of dominion to humanity [Genesis 1:28]. Humans had been assigned the
task of ruling over all things as God’s representative. Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] says: “From
Nebuchadnezzar’s standpoint the restriction on his authority to annul a
Eugene Merrill [21st century biblical scholar] says: “This delegation of law once he made it was less desirable than his own unfettered power.”
dominion has striking parallels to the creation mandate in which God
assigned to man the blessing and task to rule over all things as his own Thus, the 3rd kingdom is that made famous by Alexander the Great of
image or representative (Genesis 1:28). Clearly, Nebuchadnezzar, even Greece when he conquered Darius III [the last of the Persian kings] at
as a fallen and unbelieving pagan king, could enjoy the grace of God Gaugamela in 331 b.c. This was the Hellenistic Empire, and following
who allowed him to participate in the dominion mandate. He may have Alexander’s untimely death in 323 b.c., his kingdom was eventually
been the golden head of an image of human design (Daniel 2:38), but the parcelled out among four of his generals, each of whom spread Hellenistic
image of human government is nonetheless suggestive of mankind created culture and the Greek language to their realms. At the end of v. 39 we are
to be the image of God and to rule for him on the earth.” told that this 3rd kingdom would “rule all the earth.” Up until this time, the
territory conquered by Alexander the Great was the most extensive realm
Thus, being God’s representative ruler as a pagan king did not excuse him under the power of one king, as Alexander ruled over the entire world.
from being accountable to the ultimate sovereign of the universe!
Next in v. 40, we read: “then there will be a fourth kingdom, as strong as
Next in v. 39, we read: “after, another kingdom will arise that is inferior iron. Just as all things are broken to pieces and shattered by iron, so it will
to yours, and then a 3rd kingdom of bronze will arise to rule all the earth.” shatter and crush everything.”
 84

Iron was a fitting metal to be associated with Rome, as the Roman legions and the feet. The latter usually take the position that the “feet” and “toes”
were noted for their ability to crush all resistance with an iron heel. look at a kingdom still to come in the future, though having a connection
Although there are some technical difficulties when translating v. 40, with ancient Rome. But, critical scholars who adhere to the Maccabean
nevertheless the point is that the 4th kingdom will crush and break the other date of Daniel’s book, and who interpret the 4th kingdom as Greece,
kingdoms of the world that exist at that time [later in Daniel 7:23]. Thus, understand the “feet” and “toes” as an extension of Greece. In other words,
Rome virtually took whatever she wanted, and most kingdoms were the iron and clay represent two divisions of Greece, with the iron denoting
powerless to resist her might. However, although Rome ascended in power the stronger Seleucid kingdom, and the clay as denoting the weaker
gradually, Pompey brought Rome’s influence upon Judah in 63 b.c. Ptolemaic kingdom. Nevertheless, within the traditional interpretation,
there are three possibilities for the chronological fulfilment of the feet:
Matthew Bunson [21st century historian] says: “Having carefully nurtured
his political connections, Pompey now vexed the Roman establishment by 1. This kingdom exists during the lifetime of ancient Rome and is
using his popularity to increase his influence. In 67, the lex Gabinia was merely an extension of it. Thus, the fulfilment of the “feet” must
passed, providing him with a rare Imperium to hunt down and destroy the come before the end of the Roman Empire. In other words,
pirates marauding the Mediterranean Sea. Three months later he had historically, the Roman Empire splintered into two parts: the
annihilated their strongholds and had driven the buccaneers from the sea. western lasting until 476 a.d., and the eastern lasting until 1453 a.d.
His imperium was extended to include the East, where he concluded
brilliantly the Mithridatic War. Following the suicide of Mithridates VI 2. This kingdom immediately follows the Roman Empire, and we
of Pontus in 63, Pompey, on his own initiative and without relying upon must look for an historical fulfilment in the past, but also after it.
the Senate’s approval, made his own settlement of the East. He founded
client states, reorganized Judaea, established colonies, and claimed Syria 3. This kingdom does not immediately follow the 4th kingdom, and
for Rome. In large measure, subsequent Roman policy in the East was there is an unspecified gap of time that must be understood
based upon this systematic adjustment.” between the demise of the 4th kingdom [Rome] and the feet/toes.

Next in vv. 41–43, we read: “the feet and toes that you saw, made partly of Thus, to solve this interpretative problem, careful hermeneutical rules are
potter’s clay and partly of iron, represent a divided kingdom. It will still required: to see if the text itself interprets the symbolism, or to look for
have the strength of iron, in that you saw iron mixed with clay. Just as hints from the immediate context, or to look for hints from the broader
their toes and feet are part iron and part clay, so will the kingdom be both biblical context, or to look for the historical context [if there is a historical
strong and brittle. Just as you saw iron mixed with clay, so they will mix correlation]. Thus, since the text does not interpret the symbolism of the
themselves with human offspring. Furthermore, they won’t remain feet/toes, we first need to look for any hints from the immediate context:
together, just as iron doesn’t mix with clay.”
1. The element of iron suggests that the “feet” must have some
So, up until this point, there is general agreement concerning the identity connection to the 4th kingdom [since each metal speaks of a
of the successive kingdoms. However, beginning with v. 41, there is more different kingdom], although the mixed components [iron/clay]
debate. Since the “feet” are said to be made “partly of iron,” the question suggest that this kingdom is distinct from the 4th kingdom of Rome.
arises as to what connection, if any, this part has to the “legs made of iron”
[recall v. 33]. Some scholars think that the legs and feet all refer to the 2. The kingdom represented by the feet/toes is a confederacy of
same kingdom [the Roman Empire]. But, other scholars think that despite nations/kings that might exist simultaneously, since God will set up
the commonality of iron, there is a distinctive difference between the legs his kingdom “during the reigns of those kings” [later in v. 44].
 85

3. When God’s kingdom arrives, the Gentile kingdoms will end, since them were present when the Romans besieged Jerusalem. Perhaps they are
“it will shatter and crush all of these kingdoms” [later in v.44]. envisioned as a simultaneous unit, as the imperial statue of Daniel 2 is a
single unit, though what it represents is spread over centuries. As the
Notice that this 3rd option eliminates the 1st and 2nd options. But, a crucial entire imperial structure from Babylon to Rome was ground to powder at
problem arises about the feet/toes representing the Roman Empire: there the coming of the kingdom of God, so the entire sequence of Roman horns
was no kingdom set up by God that crushed and ended the Gentile is taken as a royal collective to assault the harlot. Odd as this seems, it is
kingdoms. If God’s kingdom was established by Jesus at his 1st coming, consistent with the way John’s visions portray the monsters of Daniel 7.
why did the Roman Empire end in 476 a.d. [west] and 1453 a.d. [east]? The beast that emerges from the sea is a composite of all the beasts, but it
Thus, we must turn to the broader biblical context. If the feet/toes was a behaves like the final beast, trampling and destroying. This beast
confederacy of Roman kings that existed simultaneously [later in v. 44], incorporates Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, but those emperors showed
then how many kings comprise this confederacy? An answer could be favour to Israel, while the beast of Revelation attacks the saints. In the
derived from the number of “toes” of the feet [10 toes = 10 kings]. scarlet beast, we see nothing like Nebuchadnezzar’s humility or of Cyrus’s
However, critical scholars treat this as a round number and argue that it is liberation of the Jews, yet the scarlet beast still has the fallen heads of
not only 10 kings [because a literal number can ruin the symbolism]. Babylon and Persia. The beast’s actions are defined by the actions of the
Nevertheless, notice that Daniel mentions the “toes” twice. So, if Daniel is final beast and the final head. There is a theological point behind this
only concerned with the feet of mixed iron and clay, then why did he visionary style: The beast is what it is in the end; it is what it is
repeatedly refer to the toes? Thus, the repeated reference to the toes argues eschatologically. Revelation applies the same logic to the horns. Only
for literal 10 Roman kings that comprise this confederacy, and since Vespasian strips and burns Jerusalem, but the collection of emperors is
Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are in parallel, we are specifically told the 10 horns what it is in its final manifestation. All are defined by Vespasian’s act of
represent 10 kings that come out of this Roman kingdom [later in Daniel divine vengeance against the harlot who drinks holy blood. Another
7:23–24]. Thus, in 68 a.d., John revealed that “the ten horns that you saw difficulty is that the kings ‘have not yet received a kingdom.’ How can this
are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom. They will receive describe 10 Roman emperors who reigned over a vast empire? Perhaps
authority to rule as kings with the beast for one hour” [Revelation 17:12]. the accent is on the fact that they do not yet have independent authority.
The dragon summons the sea beast and grants him a throne and authority,
Peter Leithart [21st century New Testament scholar] explains the details: turning the beast and, implicitly, its kings against the church. Once the
“The horns are explicitly identified as 10 kings. What kings are included? scarlet beast is eliminated, the kings acquire their own kingdom for their
As the horns of Daniel’s 4th beast, these are kings of Rome, the Roman own purposes. For now, the horns share in the authority of the beast. They
emperors from Julius on. They are the first 10 emperors: Julius Caesar, cede him the authority he gave them by using their authority for the
Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, beast’s purposes. They will not do that forever.”
Vitellius, and Vespasian. From Julius to Vitellius, we are in the Julio–
Claudian line, but Vespasian founds another dynasty, the Flavian, and it is Finally in vv. 44–45, we read: “during the reigns of those kings, the God
under his leadership that Jerusalem is invested by his son Titus. The end of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor its
of the first 10–king dynasty of Rome is a pragmatic marker of the end of sovereignty left in the hands of another people. It will shatter and crush all
Rome’s role as a beast of the oikoumene. Having overseen Israel for a of these kingdoms, and it will stand forever. Now, just as you saw that the
time, having protected the church, having been used to carry out the stone was cut out of the mountain without human hands—and that it
Lord’s vengeance against Babylon, the beast of the oikoumene retires. The crushed the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold to pieces—so also the great
weakness of this suggestion is that the horns act in unison against the God has revealed to the king what will take place after this. Your dream
harlot, while the emperors lived at different times. Obviously, not all of will come true, and its meaning will prove trustworthy.”
 86

Thus, God will eventually set up a kingdom of his own, which served the Babylonian court until the 1st year of King Cyrus [recall Daniel
undoubtedly refers to the same kingdom given to the “son of man” [later in 1:21], which would not be true if a Median kingdom occurred before
Daniel 7:13–14]. This kingdom “will stand forever” and “will never be Cyrus. Thus, Media is not viewed in Daniel’s book as a separate kingdom
destroyed.” The time of this kingdom’s establishment is said to be “during that took Babylon before the Persians [in these prophecies]. Instead, the
the reigns of those kings.” This refers to all four preceding kingdoms, with Medes are one part of a single Medo–Persian empire. Thus, some critical
the 4th one [Rome] representing the others. Thus, God’s kingdom is scholars propose an alternative view that the four kingdoms consist of
established at the time of the Roman Empire [at the 1st coming of Jesus]. Babylon, Medo–Persia, Alexander’s empire, and the successors of
Nevertheless, the bible portrays God’s kingdom as also being established Alexander [the Seleucid Empire], but this is also problematic. No unified
at the 2nd coming of Jesus [Matthew 25:31; Luke 21:27, 31; Revelation empire existed after Alexander, but rather a whole series of broken ones
11:15]. Although there is a sense in which God’s kingdom is now [during grew out of Alexander’s kingdom. There is not enough cultural or political
this church age], there is also emphasis on the formal establishment of distinction between Alexander’s Greek kingdom and the Greek kingdoms
God’s kingdom that will come about at the eschaton in glory. In other that follow to justify representing them as separate kingdoms. The 3rd
words, the present aspect of God’s kingdom is seen in Colossians 1:13 and kingdom of Alexander would be very short–lived [336–323 b.c.] as
Revelation 1:6. This pertains to our citizenship and the function that we compared with the span of the others: Babylon [605–539 b.c.], Persian
have in this world. However, the formal establishment of God’s kingdom [539–331 b.c.], and Seleucid [312–63 b.c.]. Thus, the split up of
awaits the 2nd coming when Jesus conquers the nations and brings them Alexander’s kingdom is seen as four horns coming out of the same beast
into submission. In the meantime, we can speak of “his heavenly kingdom” that represents Alexander’s Greek kingdom [later in Daniel 8:8], not as a
in which Jesus exercises all authority from the right hand of the Father [2 separate entity from a separate beast. So, the traditional view is that
Timothy 4:18]. Thus, it is this paradoxical already–but–not–yet Daniel’s four kingdoms are Babylon, Medo–Persia, Greece, and Rome.
eschatology, in which the blessings of the future age are already ours, but Then, out of the 4th kingdom of Rome comes the “insignificant horn” [later
they become ours fully only at the day of redemption and resurrection. in Daniel 8:9]. Furthermore, both Paul and John apply this language of
Thus, the “stone” that is “cut out of the mountain without human hands” is Daniel to the time of Rome [2 Thessalonians 2; Revelation 13]. Thus,
Jesus [Isaiah 8:11–15; 28:16–17; Zechariah 3:9; Psalm 118:22–23], and he Daniel’s prophecies are not erroneous, for God’s kingdom did not arrive at
is the one who “will shatter and crush all of these kingdoms” as David the downfall of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Even Josephus affirmed that this
himself says: “you will shatter them like pottery” [Psalm 2:9]. concerned Rome’s desolation of Israel and concerning Rome itself being
overthrown by God’s kingdom [Ant. 10.10.4; 10.11.7]. Here is a summary:
In summary, critical scholars argue that Daniel mistakenly thought that
the Medes conquered Babylon before the Persians, resulting in an Symbol Traditional Old Critical Alternative Critical
erroneous order of these four kingdoms [Babylon–Media–Persia–Greece]. [Daniel 2/7] View View View
But, this is not supportable in Daniel’s book, because it is clear that a Head of Gold
Babylon Babylon Babylon
single Medo–Persian Empire is envisioned in the visions [later in Daniel [1st Beast]
8:20]. Furthermore, the prediction of the coming of the Persians is Breast of Silver
Medo–Persia Media Medo–Persia
interpreted as the coming of the Medes–and–the–Persians, as if a single [2nd Beast]
entity [later in Daniel 5:28]. Likewise, Darius the Mede was subject to the Belly of Brass
Greek Empire Persia Alexander’s Empire
irrevocable law of the Medes and Persians [later in Daniel 6:8, 12, 15]. If [3rd Beast]
the Medes were a kingdom separate from the Persians, there would be Legs of Iron
Roman Empire Greek Empire Alexander’s Successors
little reason for Darius to be subject to Persian law. Thus, this makes sense [4th Beast]
if the kingdom of Darius is Medo–Persia, not just Media. Also, Daniel
 87

Nevertheless, there is a key objection to the traditional view: the Roman integrity change the 1st or 4th nation as needed. Fourth, everyone agrees
Empire has come and gone, so how can the antichrist come out of it? Is the that the kingdom vv. 44–45 describes is God’s kingdom. Thus, all conclude
spirit of the Roman Empire somehow still alive? Perhaps it is not simply that it is the most important kingdom, the one that incorporates and ends
Rome which has come and gone, but a still future eschatological kingdom all others. All commentators stress that this is the most important element
that is only Rome–like. Thus, Daniel’s 4th kingdom is Rome–and–beyond. of eschatology. Then v. 39 quickly summarizes two kingdoms that will
follow Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold. The 2nd does not seem to have
Paul House [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes the details: “This the extensive rule of the 1st and 3rd ones. If so, then the two can fit
part of Daniel’s interpretation has long stimulated scholarly and popular Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian descendants during 562–539 b.c., or the
discourse. First, dividing history into three, four, or five eras is an ancient Medes, who rule Babylon briefly (Daniel 5:31; 6:28). Persia likely ruled
literary device. No–one can ascertain its first usage with certainty, but the world that the original readers inhabited. Then vv. 40–43 deal with the
Persian, Greek, and Roman writers all utilized some variety of it. The 4th kingdom, the most controversial one. This kingdom will be like iron.
representation of four metallic ages goes back at least to Hesiod’s Work Prior kingdoms will fall to this one. Like all human kingdoms, however,
and Days of the 7th century b.c. Writing in the 5th century b.c., Herodotus this one has a flaw. Its feet are partly iron, and partly clay. With this
used a three–nation (Assyria, Media, and Persia) scheme, and credited unstable base, it can stand partly strong and partly brittle for some time.
Persian sources for his viewpoint. The Fourth Sibylline Oracle, which But, it cannot stand indefinitely. Unity is impossible and the kingdom is
dates from the 1st century a.d., but includes material that dates to vulnerable because it is seeking to unite elements which will not
Alexander the Great’s era in the 4th century b.c., features a four–nation coalesce. Leaders will try to stabilize the kingdom by mixing the seed of
(Assyria, Media, Persia, and Greece) scheme that ends with Rome as the man, which may refer to intermarriage of royal families (Daniel 11:6) or
5th and greatest land. Thus, Daniel participates in a long and valued relocating people in new lands. Most scholars prefer the intermarriage
tradition. God communicates with Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, and the possibility, and many particularly point to the intermarriage between the
original readers, through a known format. Current readers may not know Seleucids and Ptolemies, the inheritors of Alexander the Great’s empire
this format, but are used to historians dividing history into significant (Daniel 11:17). The relocation possibility derives from the fact that similar
periods of time. Second, the beginning and end of the four–part list matter language occurs in Jeremiah 31:27, where God promises to sow the land
a great deal. Though most schemes began with Assyria, Daniel begins with of Israel and Judah with ‘the seed of man and the seed of beast.’ The
Babylon, thus highlighting its prominence. Most writers end with the most language here is not so specific as to refer to particular intermarriages.
recent nation, probably to signify that nation’s importance. For instance, The expression here is unusual, and its meaning is far from certain. The
the Sibylline Oracle highlights Rome by making it the 5th and finest text does not specify here what sort of mingling takes place. Nonetheless,
kingdom. This strategy corresponds to Daniel 2:44–45, and is a natural it is clear that whatever they try will fail. While these kingdoms exist, God
deduction for someone attempting to include the longest–surviving great will be raising a kingdom that will not be destroyed, that will not be
empires. Interestingly, Babylon routinely gets left out of these ancient handed over to another people. It takes some time for a rock to push
lists, which may underscore its short tenure compared to the others. through the ground and compromise a statue’s base. Still, it makes slow,
Third, experts are divided over whether Greece or Rome constitutes the 4th steady, unrelenting progress. This rock will break all other kingdoms, and
kingdom in Daniel, with most recent scholars choosing the former and bring them to an end. In sharp contrast to them all, even the ones with the
most ancient writers the latter. Daniel mentions Babylon, Media, Persia, greatest longevity, this kingdom will stand for ever. This is the kingdom
and Greece (Daniel 2:38; 5:31; 6:28; 8:21), so those nations are certainly kings and exiles alike must seek. Daniel 7:9–14 explains who will inhabit
in the author’s mind. Nonetheless, this disagreement highlights the fact and who will rule this kingdom, but for now it is enough to look forward to
that the literary scheme can change as history does. The 4th nation the kingdom itself. Daniel closes his speech with a flourish. Just as this
basically stands for the most ‘recent’ empire, so later writers could with mountain will rise by the power of no human hand, so this interpretation
 88

has come to Nebuchadnezzar by divine power, not by human hands. How Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] beautifully concludes:
can he be so sure? Because a large God has made known to the king what “What is interpretation? In this case it involved taking a dream image and
will happen after this, the day in which they live. Daniel knows the king relating it to the realities of the present and the future—the realities of
has seen ‘a large statue,’ and he wishes him to see this ‘God of heaven,’ earthly history and the realities of the meta–historical world, the
who kindly reveals hidden knowledge to a fretful young king.” controlling agencies of the divine realms. And, just as importantly, it
involved Daniel’s giving a divine interpretation of the dream, since his
Thus, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 is straightforward. There interpretation was not his own, but came from his God. The challenge of
are a series of kingdoms, each chronologically following the other, where the church has been to understand the interpretation Daniel presented and
history culminates with God replacing all human kingdoms with his own relate it to (1) the New Testament’s understanding of Daniel, and to (2) a
kingdom. Thus, through this preliminary vision in Daniel 2, we see that the theology of history, and (3) also to specific kings and kingdoms as they
foundation for God’s kingdom plan has been laid, on which further rise and fall (whether secular or divine), while realizing that Daniel is
information will be added in subsequent chapters of Daniel’s book. apocalyptic literature in which fluid and suggestive imagery abounds
that can be applied as representative symbols of actual historical
Craig Blaising [21st century New Testament scholar] says: “There is a realities, but not exhausted by any particular historical entity. Finally,
progression in the complexity of the pattern in Daniel’s visions from the the church has attempted to distil from this revelation truths to live by
relatively simple image of a collision (Daniel 2) to a narrated pattern of under any worldly kingdom. This grandiose chapter is not limited to four
an antagonist who is destroyed by God. The antagonist is gradually shown historical kingdoms or entities, but rather displays a model of the
to be a blasphemer who exalts himself as a god.” kingdoms of this world that attaches to representative historical entities, a
model that is universal in its meaning and scope. John employs this
Thus, Daniel ended his presentation to the king by saying, “Your dream imagery to create a picture of the end that takes up all that Daniel says
will come true, and its meaning will prove trustworthy.” It is inevitable for and interprets it in light of the Christ event as past, present, and future
humans to creatively analyse history and posit theories about the future. (Revelation 13; 20). The reality is that it is not the four kingdoms of this
However, the only correct view of history is the biblical one. What God dream, but the 5th that is the most important in giving meaning to the
revealed to Nebuchadnezzar in this dream was a sketch of where history historical process. Its origin and creation is an act of God, but in spite of
was going, but it was entirely correct in every detail that it provided! its heavenly origin, this kingdom interacts with history and other historical
Through historical hindsight, Christians can take consolation in the fact kingdoms. In this light, the preceding four earthly kingdoms are presented
that the kingdoms symbolized by this statue did come to pass one by one. from a partly meta–historical perspective, for it is clear that God has been
God knew beforehand that Babylon would be succeeded by Medo–Persia, in charge all the time (vv. 24, 37–38, 44). These nations embedded in the
Medo–Persia by Greece, and Greece by the Roman Empire. God even had historical matrix are also connected to the heavenly matrix and operate
the power to reveal this to Nebuchadnezzar, using Daniel as a guide. If within that larger matrix. According to the biblical authors, Babylon was
these aspects of the dream were literally fulfilled, then certainly the the beginning and would be the end of the corrupt, rebellious, and false
prediction about God’s kingdom to be set up “during the reigns of those kingdoms of this world (Genesis 10:10; 11:1–9; Revelation 18). Once the
kings” would also be fulfilled, and that is what happened in Jesus, as Paul head fell, the feet could not be guided, nor could any other part of the
says: “He is far above every ruler, authority, power, dominion, and every body, and if the portion of the body made of gold fails, then how much
name that can be named, not only in the present age, but also in the one to more will the parts of lesser quality come to an end? The kingdom after
come. God has put everything under the Messiah’s feet and has made him Nebuchadnezzar receives short billing—half of a sentence—and it is
the head of everything for the good of the church, which is his body, the basically negative. This kingdom receives its share of attention later in
fullness of the one who fills everything in every way.” [Ephesians 1:21–23] Daniel 6; 7:6; 8; 10; 11. It will be inferior to Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom.
 89

This is recognizable in the image itself in that the silver is less valuable reached. Our defects are unendurable to us—and so are their cures. From
than gold and in that it is below the head, indicating both inferiority and unlimited self–indulgence has come a longing to pursue vicious
the fact that it comes after the Babylonian kingdom. However, the chest extravagance to the point of personal and universal annihilation.’ The
and arms imagery suggests the power and strength of this kingdom. This following key assertions are noted about this kingdom: (1) It is as strong
was evident in the way Cyrus the Great of Persia steamrolled the nations as iron (the 4th kingdom of Daniel 7 has ‘huge iron teeth’). (2) Because of
of the world in his day, as the Lord gave him victory after victory. Yet all its iron–like nature, it will destroy the other nations that came before. It
of his victories, unknown to him, were accomplished for the sake of will be an exceedingly powerful and devastating military machine. (3)
Israel (Isaiah 45:4–8). Persia never achieved the intellectual and However, weakness is discerned in the composition of this kingdom. It is a
religious dominance that had characterized Babylon. Although Alexander composite kingdom whose various components will not, in the end,
the Great was enamoured with Persian splendour, his choice of a capital combine and form a unity. So, it is easily broken and crushed at its most
for his future empire was the city of Babylon. The 3rd nation to arise would vulnerable points—not its Achilles tendon, but a foundation of weak and
rule the world, as was asserted about Babylon. The rulership of this unstable feet. Here again are echoes of a divided Tower of Babel. (4) The
kingdom is the only aspect of its character that is stressed. Greece has unstable aspect of the kingdom at its foundation endangers the entire
often been identified as this kingdom. Given the exploits of Alexander, not image, so that it falls. All the other nations before it teeter, not only
merely the military successes, but even more so the intellectual and because of the military might of this last kingdom, but because the
political ones, this is a strong possibility. Alexander disseminated Greek supports of the world system are defective. This 4th kingdom could not, in
culture, politics, philosophy (especially Aristotle), and religion throughout the end, sustain the weight of the world systems, even though it
the ancient Near East, including Egypt, and not only in the ancient Near contained the strongest metal of the four and should have served as a
East, for while the Romans conquered the Greeks, the religion, secure foundation. Yet the clay indicates inherent weaknesses within these
philosophy, politics, and culture of Greece conquered and seduced the solid iron pylons, and even the iron seems to presage a future when iron
Roman mind. The 4th kingdom, historically associated with Rome, but will be used to pierce the nations (Isaiah 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3). This
signifying still more, is represented by the lower legs of iron of the image kingdom and its related world systems contained the seeds of their own
and the feet made up of clay and iron and is given more attention than the demise. A blow to the feet of the image would place the entire structure
previous kingdoms, including Nebuchadnezzar’s. This is for good reason, in danger. The huge image collapsed, not only by the blow to its feet, but
for with this 4th kingdom the end of earthly man–made history and because it ultimately had no solid foundation upon which to rest. It
rulership comes to a devastating conclusion, as it encounters a kingdom produced division within itself; its own foundation succumbed, crumbled,
whose origin is not with men, but with God himself. This 4th kingdom will and collapsed. Attempts within the world system to create unity fail; it is
not be able to unite and maximize its potential for world dominance. As destined for certain annihilation. It is no accident that the image was
diversity of languages split up the Tower of Babel, so the inability of attacked at its feet, not its head. This 4th kingdom of iron and clay has
cultures within this empire to live in peace dismantles this behemoth of most often been interpreted as the Roman Empire by both ancient and
destruction. Multiculturalism would become tribalism and the social and modern conservative exegetes and historians. However, a sequence of four
political fabric of the empire would not hold. Civil war contributed greatly kingdoms consisting of Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece has been
to the Roman Empire’s eventual dissolution. The great historian Livy argued, though less often, both in antiquity and in modern times. Some
(59/64 b.c. to 12/17 a.d.) observed and lamented Rome’s fall: exegetes have argued that the metals represent four Babylonian kings that
‘Contemporary history displays our nation suicidally eating up its own followed Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed, a staggering number of sequences of
mighty resources. Let it be noted how the moral rot started, how standards kingdoms or kings have been suggested. The first suggested sequence
were gradually sapped, then crumbled more and more ominously, and seems the most convincing when an early date is accepted, and when the
finally began to collapse into utter ruin. This is the state we have now prophetic dimension of the book is recognized. But, the huge statue of the
 90

dream stands not just for four kingdoms, but also for all the kingdoms of for ‘son’ (ben), which created a wordplay that pointed forward to the
this world, all the empires that will arise, for the number 4 may represent Aramaic word for ‘son’ (bar) mentioned in Daniel 7:13. Other rabbinic
completeness, and the related formula 3 + 1 = 4 refers to something sources link these passages by other means and go on to establish a
repeated over and over (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13). These kingdoms messianic reference for the stone and the figure coming with the clouds.
foreshadow what is to come in the unravelling of human destiny. They are Rock imagery is also employed in the New Testament: Jesus became the
more fully presented in Daniel 7. During the reign of the kings and chief cornerstone, even after being a rejected stone (Mark 12:10; Luke
kingdoms of this statue, but especially during the last kingdom, God will 20:18; Matthew 21:42); according to the confession of his divinity, he was
establish his kingdom, as he has done in the case of all the previous the rock upon which the church would be built (Matthew 16:18). In short,
kingdoms. This kingdom is different because it will not end. The 5th the stone imagery in the Old and New Testaments was used to refer to
kingdom is the most important, and its identity is certain. The goal of God, to the Messiah, and here to the Kingdom of God (Genesis 49:24;
history finds its fulfilment in a meta–historical kingdom, yet one that Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 118:22–23; Isaiah 8:14; 28:16; 1 Peter 2:6–8).
breaks into history itself. It is the Kingdom of God—the Eternal Kingdom, In the immediate Jewish setting of Daniel’s book, the stone must represent
whose origin is from God. The monotonous rise–and–fall cycle of world the Kingdom of the holy people—that is, of Israel as it inherits the earth;
kingdoms through the millennia will end; stability will be reached. All the but both here and in Daniel 7, the Kingdom has a universal dimension
previous kingdoms came to an end as they were conquered by other surrounding it in its context—here it replaces all the kingdoms of the
kingdoms. While this one destroys all the previous kingdoms, it is not statue. The rock is not a precious metal or a metal used to shape
destroyed nor does it pass away. The essential difference in the instruments of war and destruction; rather, it is a natural object of
establishment of this kingdom is that it is not created ‘by human hands’ relatively little economic value to men, but here it is cut and shaped
but by God. This Kingdom of God is not something whose origin lies without human agency. Therefore, it is able to crush even the iron legs of
within the creative genius of human beings; its very essence is generated the image, as well as its unstable feet. In contrast to the head of the huge
by the God of heaven. A portion of its people were present in Daniel’s statue, made of luxurious gold that glitters, this 5th kingdom has a small,
time, and others with Daniel will receive their lot within it. Some but divinely orchestrated beginning. It would endure; it would not be
Christians see here symbolism pointing toward the virgin birth of Christ, another Tower of Babel made by human hands to magnify themselves
while others discern a reference to the birth of the church or the Kingdom (Genesis 11:1–9). The rock’s stability and endurance and its origin
of God in the New Testament. Still others see a reference to the creation of guarantee its endurance and dominion. This amazing scenario pertains to
the Kingdom of God at the end of history, or a preliminary millennial the future, but clearly impacts the present, as well, because it is not merely
kingdom. Rock imagery was popular in antiquity. The ancient religion of a dream whose significance appears and vanishes with the dream itself.
Mithraism claimed that Mithras had been born of a rock. In ancient The reality of the dream is the shape of the future. Henceforth, even the
Babylon, a husband could pray for the god Shamash to grant his wife the Babylonian king should know that history is on a mission. Its teleology is
‘stone of childbirth,’ a reference to the ancient practice of using a birthing reached in God’s kingdom, a kingdom of eternal and divine qualities.”
stone. The function of the stone of Daniel 2, as we shall see when we look
at Daniel 7, parallels the ‘Son of Man’ figure (Daniel 7:13). There is a 6) How did Nebuchadnezzar respond to Daniel’s disclosure? (2:46–49)
strong emphasis and agreement presented by the figures of the stone and
the Son of Man, specifically in their emphasis on the heavenly origin of the Starting with vv. 46–47, we read: “then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his
present rule of kingdoms and kings and its current and future submission face before Daniel, paid honour to him, and commanded that an offering
to the plan of God, who will eventually create and inaugurate a heavenly and incense be presented on his behalf. The king told Daniel, ‘Truly your
and eternal kingdom. Some ancient rabbinic sources held that the Aramaic God is the God of gods, the Lord of kings, and the Revealer of Secrets,
word for ‘stone’ used here (’eben) is employed to recall the Hebrew word because you were able to reveal this mystery.’”
 91

Since Daniel gave such a startling and accurate presentation of the dream king. The use, however, of the terms ‘sacrifice’ and ‘incense’ shows that
and its interpretation, this left the king filled with awe, realizing that more is implied.’ Alternatively, the passage in Daniel has been seen as an
Daniel had done something that none of his Babylonian wise men were example of the Hellenistic ‘Benefactor’ Cult in which altars were erected
able to do. Thus, “Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face before Daniel, paid and sacrifices made in honour of someone who had done a noble deed for
honour to him, and commanded that an offering and incense be presented a person or a city not only after death, but even during his lifetime. Others
on his behalf.” Daniel does not tell us who else might have been present have suspected an ironic (even a humorous) note in the description of a
and observing this, because for a Babylonian king to have prostrated Babylonian potentate revering the exiled Jew and his God, prefiguring the
himself before one of the young Jewish captives is almost too remarkable prophecy of the dream itself. Embarrassed by the contradiction of a human
to believe! Furthermore, presenting an offering and burning incense were being, a devout monotheistic Jew, being treated as a divinity, Jerome
acts of veneration given to the gods. However, by Hellenistic times, they himself and others since have supposed that the honours were offered to
were also done for benefactors whose help was thought to merit god–like the deity that Daniel represented, rather than to the man himself. Thus,
veneration, though each could be done for kings as early as Babylonian Hartman and Di Leila commented, ‘One cannot evade the difficulty by
times in a non–worship sense of honour offered by an inferior to a superior supposing that the ‘worship’ (segid) was merely civic homage; the words
[like obeisance, offering a gift, or burning incense/perfume]. The Aramaic ‘sacrifice’ (minḥāh) and ‘incense’ (nîḥōḥîn, literally, ‘pleasant–smelling
verb sᵊgîḏ [for “paid honour”] is used 11 times for the worship of offerings’) are strictly religious terms, borrowed in fact from the Hebrew
Nebuchadnezzar’s statue [later in Daniel 3]. Thus, falling prostrate is a ritual vocabulary—minḥāh and rêaḥ nîḥōaḥ.’ So, Daniel accepted
way of showing respect to kings and gods, and for Nebuchadnezzar to do worship for his God. However, in more recent decades the view has been
this before his subject Daniel was most ironic, though the real purpose gaining ground that the narratives in the first six chapters have a strong
may be to pay homage to Israel’s God by honouring his servant Daniel. Babylonian background. If Nebuchadnezzar’s action is seen in that
This appears blasphemous from a Jewish perspective [Acts 14:8–18]. context, the difficulty it seems to present may disappear. The vocabulary
However, Daniel did not overtly object to the king’s actions, because he and material remains combined suggest a man might receive such
saw it as giving him not divine status, but temporary quasi–royal status. honour without any religious nuances. According to biblical Hebrew
Since images were a sign of divine presence and could be a means of texts, falling prostrate before someone was a gesture of respect that was
revelation, Nebuchadnezzar had no image of Yahweh to worship, so he paid to a prophet, a king, and a benefactor (1 Kings 18:7; 2 Samuel 9:6;
worshiped Yahweh indirectly through honouring his mouthpiece: Daniel. Ruth 2:10) as well as to heavenly beings. In Aramaic fragments of the
Thus, his offering to Daniel was an indirect way of seeking to appease Book of Giants and of the Book of Enoch the phrase also occurs in a
Daniel’s God, who holds people accountable for sin. Had he actually context of respect or fear for heavenly beings or spheres. The verb for
worshiped Daniel, this would have created theological tension for Daniel ‘paid him honour’ is widely used with regard to deities, but it occurs in the
in writing this account. This is why Nebuchadnezzar gives glory to God. Aramaic papyrus of Ahiqar of the 5th century BC at Elephantine, where the
royal official, Ahiqar, relates, ‘I bowed and prostrated myself’ before king
Alan Millard [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] summarizes: Esarhaddon. It should be noted that the narrative part of Ahiqar is set in
“Daniel 2:46 reports how the Babylonian king gave great honours to the context of the Assyrian court and is written in a style of Aramaic which
Daniel for telling him his dream and interpreting it. It is almost is more ‘eastern’ than the language of the proverbs, which has a ‘western’
universally assumed that the king was treating Daniel as a god. Collins, flavour. In the 5th century BC, the historian Herodotus reported that, when
for example, writes, ‘The specifically religious character of the veneration Persians met in the streets, ‘when a man of inferior rank meets one of
is underlined by the mention of sacrifice and incense.’ Likewise Porteous superior rank, the inferior prostrates himself upon the ground and does
writes, ‘Nebuchadnezzar’s payment of homage to Daniel might merely reverence to the other’ (1.134), while the adventurer Xenophon reported
have meant the reversal of the homage a subject was expected to pay to the that all prostrated themselves before the Persian pretender Cyrus (8.3.14).
 92

The rite did not imply that the king was considered a god. Frye,
discussing the status of the Persian kings, wrote ‘it would seem that for the
Achaemenids this did not signify the abject humility before a god, but
rather the sign of respect towards royalty, for the nobility a bow with the
kissing of one’s hands as depicted on reliefs at Persepolis, or with knee
bending, or even, in the case of supplications or requests, full prostration
on the ground, especially for menials. In neither case was god worship
intended.’ The ‘offering’ made to Daniel does not have an exclusively
religious connotation, for it can denote both a sacrifice in a cultic setting
and also, perhaps originally, a gift presented by an inferior to a superior
(Genesis 43:11). It occurs in Aramaic only in texts describing temple
offerings, associated with incense and sacrifice at Elephantine, with
animals and libations in Ezra 7:17, and with sacrifice in the Genesis
Apocryphon. In themselves, therefore, the ‘honour’ and the ‘offering’ do
not demand a cultic interpretation for Nebuchadnezzar’s action.
Nebuchadnezzar’s order that ‘an offering and incense be presented’ to
Daniel uses a verb that in biblical Hebrew commonly means ‘to pour a
libation,’ which Lacocque stressed implies a cultic purpose: ‘The terms
used are those of the sacerdotal vocabulary as, for example, in Leviticus
1–7. The verb properly signifies the pouring out of libations.’ The question
of the incense presented to him demands more attention for this last
honour has been a stumbling–stone to commentators, incense being
considered to belong to religious cult, burnt before a divine presence,
usually in the form of a statue. The word, which is found also in Ezra 6:10,
may be a loan from Hebrew in Aramaic, and all its other occurrences are
in cultic passages. However, the evidence of the lexicon does not stand
alone; other ancient material may expand it. There are two well–known
ancient sculptures which, it is submitted, illustrate Nebuchadnezzar’s The second scene is the reliefs from the Achaemenid palace at Persepolis
intention. The first is the well–known Assyrian relief of the mid–7th century which have long been believed to show Darius I enthroned with his crown
BC from the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, which represents a prince Xerxes beside him, although nowadays there is some debate over
victory celebration. The king reclines on a couch with his queen sitting the identity of the royal figures. Before the king stand two incense burners,
beside him, while in a tree hangs the head of the defeated rebel Elamite perfuming the air between him and those receiving an audience. Each is a
king Te–umman. As the king and queen drink, they are soothed by the tall stand, tapering upward from a flared base to a bowl set above down–
aroma arising from incense burners placed beside them, one at the head of curving leaf mouldings. The bowl is covered by a conical lid, stepped like
the king’s couch, one behind the queen’s throne. We may deduce that there a ziggurat, with arrow–shaped piercings to allow the smoke to escape. The
were others on the other side of the king and queen. The identification of shape of the burners is all but identical to examples in silver unearthed in
these objects is not in doubt, they share the same form as those used in the a Persian period tomb at Usak in Turkey. Those are 28 cm high, with
rituals already described, and it is likely they were made of gold. silver chains attaching the covers to the stands.
 93

many Achaemenid seal designs which show incense burners in cultic

scenes. Olmstead’s use of the term ‘frankincense’ is unsupported. Now
neither in Assyria nor in Babylonia is there any indication that the king
was treated as divine or that individuals were deified in their lifetimes,
nor was it the case in Persia, as the citations given above make clear.
Such concepts would have been alien to the thought of those times.
Therefore, the extravagant honour Nebuchadnezzar paid to Daniel should
be treated as the natural reaction of a relieved and satisfied despot; in
reality it ‘might merely have meant the reversal of the homage a subject
was expected to pay to the king,’ as Porteous expressed it. Verse 48 makes
that clear: ‘Then the king gave Daniel high honours.’ His action should
not be interpreted as directed to Daniel’s deity, nor as offering Daniel
divine status, but as exalting him to a quasi–royal position, in the style
that would be recognized and which was not so very different from the
position Belshazzar offered and gave to him, on the night when Babylon
fell to the forces of Persia.”

Thus, having greatly esteemed Daniel, the king next turned to

acknowledge Daniel’s God: “your God is the God of gods, the Lord of
kings, and the Revealer of Secrets.” The Aramaic expression ʾĕlāh ʾĕlāhîn
[for “God of gods”] is a Semitic superlative expression equivalent to “the
greatest god of all.” Furthermore, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that he
is the “Lord of kings,” greater than all kings [himself included]. We must
understand that Nebuchadnezzar is not confessing a personal faith in
Daniel’s God alone. As a polytheist, he could say this. While this does
amount to an acknowledgment that Daniel’s God is supreme, it is not the
same as saying that he will worship only Daniel’s God. As a result,
Nebuchadnezzar remained in spiritual darkness. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar
needed to personally know Daniel’s God. Fortunately, Nebuchadnezzar’s
Very similar incense burners are depicted on Achaemenid seals. Somewhat spiritual journey was not over with, and at least he had taken a step in the
similar bronze incense burners have been found in tombs near Shechem right direction, because he is at a point where he begins to give serious
and in Jordan. The presence of incense burners in tombs indicates that consideration to Israel’s God. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar is saying that
they were part of the normal furniture of people of importance in this life, Daniel’s God is supreme over all other gods as well as human kings.
left to accompany them for use in the next life, like the other, clearly Lastly, Nebuchadnezzar mentions the matter that really captured his
secular utensils placed in those tombs. Olmstead deduced from the attention, namely that Daniel’s God is “the Revealer of Secrets.” So, while
Persepolis sculpture that ‘the use of frankincense before the king’s these acknowledgments are remarkable, his humility was temporary,
presence is one more hint that in Persia the monarch was reverenced as because he will soon misapply this lesson about Daniel’s God [later in
something more than human,’ assuming it was a divine prerogative, as in Daniel 3].
 94

Next in v. 48, we read: “then the king promoted Daniel to a high position Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] beautifully concludes:
and lavished many great gifts on him, including making him ruler over the “Stories of Joseph and Daniel bookend the life of God’s people in the land
entire province of Babylon and chief administrator over the advisors.” of Israel: Joseph was in Egypt before Israel possessed the land, and
Daniel was in Babylon after they lost it. In both times and places, God
The king had promised wonderful rewards for the man who could state his reached out to foreign kings through the murky means of revelatory
dream and correctly interpret it [recall v. 6]. Now he fulfils his word. dreams. Longman suggests that God used dreams because it is in dreams
Daniel is elevated to a high position and given great gifts. Although he is ‘that the Babylonian religion and Daniel’s faith come closest, and perhaps
just a young man, he is even allowed to rule the entire province of that is why God chose to speak to Nebuchadnezzar in this way rather than
Babylon. Whatever his title might have been, it is astonishing that a Jew of through the birth of a multiheaded ox.’ Knowing that the collective
the captivity would rise to so prominent a political position. This must be knowledge of the empires’ finest interpreters would prove inadequate, God
attributed to the sovereignty of God. Most likely this would have taken had already positioned his faithful servants to interpret and explain the
place before the 2nd deportation of Jewish exiles in 597 b.c. and certainly dreams. Through his lowly servants, God put the mighty foreign kings on
before the 3rd one following 586 b.c. God tempered his discipline on Judah alert that they were dependent on him for their lives and for their
by actually putting a man of God in a high political position who could kingdoms. While God didn’t appear to have an earthly kingdom at the
bring God’s grace upon these exiles that entered the province of Babylon! time, he demonstrated his superiority over the kings (who found the
In addition to ruling the province of Babylon, Daniel was also elevated dreams inscrutable), all other gods (whose diviners were stymied), and the
over the other wise men of Babylon, that he was made raḇ–signîn [for future. This Yahweh may not have looked like much during the hey–day of
“chief administrator”]. The Aramaic signîn [for “administrator”] is Egypt or Babylon, but in fact, he was Lord of all the earth, and he is a
derived from Akkadian šaknu [or “prefect”]. Thus, Daniel’s authority over Lord who does his work through the lowliest of people. This
the province of Babylon included authority over the wise men themselves! incomparable God is the one Isaiah praised in his Book of Consolation
Nevertheless, Daniel did not join with these wise men in their occultic (Isaiah 40–66). In Daniel 2 the Babylonian wise men faced death because
practices. Why should he? He did not need their tactics to be a good their gods of silver and gold could not help them (Isaiah 40:19–20; 47:1–
counsellor to the king, but they were nonetheless under his authority. 7). But, Daniel’s God revealed hidden secrets to him so that he could
explain the future to the king (Isaiah 42:16; 44:7; 45:3). After
Finally in v. 49, we read: “moreover, Daniel requested that the king Nebuchadnezzar heard that human kingdoms would blow away like chaff,
appoint Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego administrators over the the mighty king bowed before the servant of Yahweh (Isaiah 49:7, 23;
province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained in the royal court.” 60:10–14). In its portrayal of the God of Israel, Daniel 2 corroborates
the message of hope in Isaiah. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar encountered
Daniel was no egotist, selfishly looking after his own skin. Daniel credited the God who outranked his gods in both wisdom and power. While we
Israel’s God for his ability to interpret the king’s dream [recall v. 28]. So, often focus on the meaning of the king’s dream, the main point of the
now he thinks of his three friends, requesting the king to allow them to chapter is that God is the source of true wisdom and power, and he grants
help as administrators of the province he was to govern. The four of them both to people for times and seasons that he determines. He alone is the
had gone through a lot together: they had all been taken as captives in 605 eternal king whose dominion will last forever. We are a people who think
b.c., had braved the ~3 years of training together, faced the recent crisis we can do anything. Since at least the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9), we
together, and had jointly sought God’s compassion in prayer. Daniel was have believed in our collective ability to achieve whatever we put our
not about to be content with his own good fortune, but looked after their minds to. History bears good witness to the soundness of this belief. From
interests as well. Apparently they lived away from the king’s palace, as our speck of dust in the Milky Way, we have put a man on the moon, a
Daniel was at the royal court, being near and having access to the king. robot on Mars, and a spacecraft on the edge of interstellar space.
 95

We have eradicated small pox, and every day we cure illnesses with an Lord?’ Brueggemann observes how this open–ended question resurfaces
array of chemical combinations. When we want to, we can move throughout the bible. The Israelites heard it when they faced formidable
mountains: it just takes some engineering ingenuity, a bottomless budget, foes, certain exile, and improbable restoration (Judges 13:17–25;
and a lot of people who need work. No faith required. The common Jeremiah 32:17, 27). Mary heard it when Gabriel gave his jaw–dropping
language of science and the cyber bond of the Internet have produced a news (Luke 1:37). The 1st century Jews and Gentiles heard it when they
global community out to prove that nothing is impossible (Genesis 11:6). encountered the God–man, Jesus (Matthew 19:26; Mark 9:23).
But, at the foggy periphery of these visions of human grandeur lurks a Brueggemann calls this ‘the fundamental question every human person
reality that we are prone to push away like an irritating alarm clock: not must answer.’ In fact, we must answer it more than once. We answer it
all knowledge is within human reach. If Nebuchadnezzar had given his every time life throws us an impossible curve—in our families, friendships,
wise men all the time in Babylon, they could not have solved the puzzle of jobs, and churches. We answer it every time we turn off the news because
his dream and its meaning—with or without their gods’ help. The dream it is too overwhelming. Whenever we throw up our hands in despair or
came from God and only God knew what it meant. There is a world of laugh at suggestions to insurmountable problems, we answer the question.
knowledge and wisdom that, apart from God’s revelation, is inaccessible But, when Daniel’s Babylonian colleagues said, ‘It can’t be done!’ Daniel
to people. No amount of corporate expertise, self–help psycho–babble, or went home and prayed his way through the impossible with his friends.
even scientific research can reveal these truths. For Daniel, this He knew he could not do it—but he also knew all things are possible with
knowledge was encoded into a revelatory dream about the future. For us, God. So he prayed. God does not do everything we ask, but there is much
it is more likely to be the knowledge of God encoded in the written word of he does not do because we do not ask (James 4:2). While national and
scripture. Christians have long recognized that God has revealed himself global concerns dominate every news source, most of us spend our time in
generally through creation—truth that is accessible to all, and he has the middle of garden–variety concerns that (thankfully) never make the
revealed himself specially through the bible and through Jesus. This headlines. We realize that politicians and power mongers make decisions
revelation is only accessible to us through the testimony of the Spirit, who that affect us, but day in and day out, we deal with lesser rulers whose
convicts us of its truth and then helps us understand and live its counter– actions affect us even more—our bosses, boards, and congregations.
intuitive, counter–cultural message. It says things like we must die to live Although the dream of Daniel 2 plays out on the grand stage of world
and lose to gain. We should rejoice in suffering and pray for those who history, Daniel—like us—lived on a much smaller stage, where his life had
persecute us. In the words of 5th century bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus, not gone quite the way he had planned. The machinations of the
such ‘divine mysteries’ lie beyond the capacity of human wisdom ‘without Babylonian empire had destroyed whatever aspirations Daniel may have
assistance from above.’ And, just as he did with Daniel and Joseph, the had of royal or noble position in Jerusalem. Instead of using his gifts,
Spirit often gives ‘assistance from above’ through us. The things he has training, and natural abilities in the holy city, Daniel found himself far
taught us and is helping us to live, we can teach others. We cannot make away in the service of an idol–worshiping foreign king. Yet when we met
people understand or accept such truth—that task remains with the the young exile in chapter 1, he was resolving to live uprightly in Babylon,
Spirit—but we can speak and teach, befriend and blog, write or paint or to honour his God during feast or fast. God granted him favour in the eyes
act, and we can pray that he will use our varied ways of communicating to of the officials (Daniel 1:9). Knowing Daniel, then, we are not surprised in
reach the minds and hearts of those who do not know his divine mysteries. chapter 2 when he responds to the order of a crazed king with wisdom and
Daniel’s colleagues protested that the king had demanded the impossible. tact, and we are not really surprised that, when he asked the king for time,
He required of them something only ‘the gods’ could do. The theme of he got it. The text does not explicitly say of Daniel that God was with him
impossibility begins in the bible when nonagenarian Sarah laughed at the or that he found favour in his masters’ eyes beyond the overseer of Daniel
promise that she would have a baby (Genesis 18:12). The divine visitor 1:9, but it repeatedly says this of his ancient predecessor, Joseph (Genesis
responded to her laughter with the question, ‘Is anything too hard for the 39:2, 3, 6). Without denying God’s intervention in Joseph’s life, I do not
 96

think this favour was some kind of fairy dust that God sprinkled around shattered the power of the reigning prince. Before he returned to heaven,
everyone who came near Joseph. If you read between the lines, you’ll find he announced to his disciples that all authority was his (Matthew 28:18):
a performance review for the Hebrew slave. Neither Potiphar nor the his rule was underway. But, the earth–filling growth of the kingdom is a
prison guard handed over control of their domains to a sullen, disgruntled painfully slow process of which we are a part until he comes again and
employee. They promoted their most trusted and valued servant. In spite of sets all things right. The kingdom is already here, but it has not yet been
the way his life was turning out, Joseph worked hard and faithfully at jobs fully realized. Many stumble on the supernatural stone because it is not
that neither bolstered his resume nor maximized his potential. Given what they think it should be—and it crushes them (Luke 20:17–18). Others
Nebuchadnezzar’s response to Daniel’s request for time, we might assume put their faith in the supernatural stone, the living stone (1 Peter 2:4), the
the same was true of the Judean exile. Some of us serve lesser rulers who cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16)—and become living stones in a spiritual
treat us well and make it a joy to work for them. Others of us don’t. But, house that will one day fill the whole earth.”
regardless of what the job is and who sits in the corner office, God is the
one in charge. He raises up bosses and takes them down. He assembles Summing Up …
boards and disbands them. He puts congregations together and dissolves When we read Daniel 2, it is easy to get caught up in the details of the
them. We often have little control over our work environment, but—like vision and forget the vision’s main point, which is not the details of the
Daniel and Joseph—we make choices every day about the way we serve course of events in history, but the fact that history is under the control of
God’s appointed authorities. Nebuchadnezzar’s wise men wailed that the God and that it has a purpose, which will be achieved. For the early
gods do not dwell among men, so how could they be expected to do what readers, the four–kingdom scheme transforms a chaotic mass of events
only gods could do and know what only gods could know? Daniel’s involving subjugation and brutal oppression into a logical divinely
success where they failed exposed the inferiority of the gods they served ordained sequence that would result in the redemptive transformation of
and showed his God to be the true source of knowledge and wisdom. Later the world. As a schema, it helped persuade Jews that God had not
in the book, Babylonian royalty will recognize Daniel’s unique abandoned them, and that history was not an inexorable series of
relationship with the divine realm: he was one in whom the ‘spirit of the meaningless brutalities. It can do the same for modern readers who
holy gods’ dwelled (Daniel 4:8–9, 18; 5:11). Thus, it is likely that Daniel’s understand its purpose. Daniel 2 also intended to foster hope, because it
Jewish audience recognized the rule of Yahweh in the supernatural rock of shows that God will triumph, bringing salvation and deliverance to all who
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Their expectations for his reign were grand: he believe in his kingdom. Daniel kept God and his kingdom in mind at all
would smash their enemies, restore his people, and rule over the whole times. This focus guided his speech, for he presents God as the source of
earth with righteousness forever. Jerusalem would be the capital of the all revealed knowledge [vv. 27–30]. Thus, many of today’s exiles,
world. A great day awaited! It is little wonder that centuries later few refugees, and stable believers share these priorities. Ultimately, the
people noticed the lowly birth of a baby to an even lowlier couple. It is not account conveyed then, and imparts now, the need for strength borne by
surprising that they were slow to recognize that the kingdom of Yahweh wisdom. God’s gift of wisdom guided Daniel’s speech, decisions, and
was at hand. They expected a Caesar–smashing messiah. They looked for treatment of others. In other words, God’s gifts made him a good worker
a Herod–halting warrior. What they saw instead was an itinerant teacher in a hard place, one who never forgot that giving witness to God’s
with a group of earthy students. They heard stories about the kingdom of character undergirds all responsibilities. Thus, discipline and hope are
God, but instead of crushing statues and filling the whole earth, this inseparable. Those who neglect the former will not likely find the latter.
kingdom grew like an itty–bitty mustard seed or like invisible yeast in a Only those who integrate discipline and hope have the patience to
loaf of bread (Matthew 13:31–33). Apparently, this kingdom was going to persevere while God’s kingdom slowly rises to shatter the toes of the last
work differently than they thought. The kingdom did break into world oppressive kingdom, bringing that human–made image crashing down!
history with the coming of Jesus, and by his death and resurrection he
 97

They took their places in front of the statue that he had erected. 4Then
THE FIERY FURNACE a herald proclaimed aloud: “People of all nations, and languages, are
Daniel 3 commanded: 5Whenever you hear the sound of the trumpet, the flute, the
lyre, the four–stringed lyre, and the harp, playing together along with
Opening Thought various instruments, you are to fall down and worship the golden statue
1) What are your favourite miracle stories from the bible?
that was set up by King Nebuchadnezzar. 6Anyone who does not fall down
and worship is immediately to be thrown into the blazing fire furnace.”
Background of the Passage 7
Therefore, when all of the people “heard the sound of the trumpet, the
Daniel 3 is one of the best loved of all bible stories. It is the story known flute, the lyre, the four–stringed lyre, and the harp, playing together along
simply as “the fiery furnace.” The facts are familiar to most. Despite with various other instruments,” all the “people, nations, and languages”
Nebuchadnezzar’s previous claim that Daniel’s God “is the God of gods” began to fall down and worship the golden statue that King
and “the Lord of kings” [recall Daniel 2:47], he reverted to heinous Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
idolatry, setting up a giant golden image and demanding that his subjects
worship it alone. When it was reported that Shadrach, Meshach, and Daniel’s Friends are Accused
8
Abednego, that is, the Hebrew captives Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah Just then, certain influential Chaldeans took this opportunity to come
[recall Daniel 1:6–7; 2:17] were violating the new royal decree, forward and denounce the Jews. 9They told King Nebuchadnezzar, “Your
Nebuchadnezzar became outraged and summoned them at once. They majesty, live forever. 10You, your majesty, issued this decree: ‘Every man
were given a final chance to obey the idolatrous edict. However, when the who hears the sound of the trumpet, the flute, the lyre, the four–stringed
young Jewish men steadfastly refused to comply, it was ordered that they lyre, and the harp, playing together along with various other instruments is
be thrown “into the middle of the blazing fire” [v. 15]. Ironically, the great to fall down and worship the golden statue. 11Whoever does not fall down
heat of the furnace killed the executioners, but not the faithful Hebrews. and worship is to be thrown into a blazing fire furnace.’ 12Certain
God miraculously delivered them, prompting Nebuchadnezzar to once influential Jewish men whom you appointed to manage the city of
again note the uniqueness and supremacy of Israel’s God. Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—have neither paid
attention to you, your majesty, nor served your gods. And they won’t
Bible Passage worship the golden statue that you set up.”
Read Daniel 3
The Threat of the Fire Furnace
13
Dedicating the Image to Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar flew into a rage and furiously ordered that
1
Some time later, King Nebuchadnezzar built a golden statue, making Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought before him.
14
it 60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide. He set it up in the Dura Valley within Nebuchadnezzar asked them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and
the province of Babylon. 2Then King Nebuchadnezzar summoned the Abednego, that you don’t worship my gods and that you don’t worship the
regional authorities, governors, deputy governors, advisors, treasurers, golden statue that has been set up? 15Now, if you are ready at this very
judges, magistrates, and all of the other administrators of the provinces, moment to obey ‘the sound of the trumpet, the flute, the lyre, the four–
ordering them to come to the dedication of the statue that he had erected. stringed lyre, and the harp,’ and worship the image that I have made, if
3
So the regional authorities, governors, deputy governors, advisors, you do not so worship, you will immediately have cast yourselves into the
treasurers, judges, magistrates, and all of the other administrators of the middle of the blazing fire, and what god is there who can deliver you from
provinces assembled to dedicate the statue that he had erected. my power?”
 98
29
Daniel’s Friends Answer King Nebuchadnezzar So I decree that people from any nation or language who say
16
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered King Nebuchadnezzar, anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego will be
“It’s not necessary for us to respond in this matter. 17Your majesty, if it be destroyed and their house reduced to rubble, because there is no other god
his will, our God whom we serve can deliver us from the blazing fire who can save like this.” 30Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and
furnace, and he will deliver us from you. 18But if not, rest assured, your Abednego within the province of Babylon.
majesty, that we won’t serve your gods, and we won’t worship the golden
statue that you have set up.” Understanding the Text
2) What was Nebuchadnezzar’s decree about the golden statue? (3:1–7)
The King Orders an Execution
19
Out of control with rage, Nebuchadnezzar’s facial expression
Starting with v. 1, we read: “Some time later, King Nebuchadnezzar built
changed toward Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and he ordered that
a golden statue, making it 60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide. He set it up in
the furnace be heated seven times hotter than usual. 20Then he issued
the Dura Valley within the province of Babylon.”
orders to his elite guard to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with
ropes and throw them into the blazing fire furnace. 21So the elite guard tied
This chapter begins in the middle of Nebuchadnezzar’s journey to faith in
them up fully clothed, still wearing their robes, tunics, and turbans, and
Israel’s God [Daniel 2–4]. However, critical scholars see the purpose of
threw them into the blazing fire furnace, 22because the king’s command
this chapter [supposedly written in Hellenistic times] not as a faithful
was so drastic. Since the furnace was blazing hot, its flames killed those
historical record, but as a court tale to encourage those suffering under the
who threw Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the blazing fire.
23 persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes [2nd century b.c. Seleucid king].
Bound firmly with ropes, these three men Shadrach, Meshach, and
This is because there is supposedly no mention of a specific time when this
Abednego fell into the blazing fire furnace.
event occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. However, the LXX does
provide additional information: “In the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar,
The Fourth Man in the Furnace
24
Astonished, King Nebuchadnezzar stood up in terror, and asked his when he was governing cities and territories and even all the inhabitants
advisors, “Didn’t we throw three men into the fire, bound firmly with on the earth, from India to Ethiopia, he constructed a golden image.”
ropes?” In reply they told the king, “Yes, your majesty.” 25“Look!” he told
them, “I see four men walking untied and unharmed in the middle of the Thus, the LXX translators wanted to indicate that these events occurred at
fire, and the appearance of the fourth resembles a divine being.” 26Then the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple [August 586 b.c.].
Nebuchadnezzar approached the opening of the blazing fire furnace. He But, critical scholars respond that the destruction took place in
shouted out, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year [2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 52:12]. However,
High God, come out and come here!” So Shadrach, Meshach, and they ignore the fact that this ~1 year difference was based on how the
Abednego came out of the fire. 27The regional authorities, viceroys, years were reckoned [whether it was accession years or regnal years].
governors, and royal advisors gazed at those men and saw that the fire had Furthermore, admittedly there are no Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that
no effect on their bodies—not a hair on their head was singed, their clothes include this chronological notice [in the LXX], which means there is no
were not burned, and they did not smell of fire. 28Nebuchadnezzar spoke compelling reason to believe that these events would have occurred in
up and announced: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and conjunction with Jerusalem’s destruction. Nevertheless, recent scholarship
Abednego! He sent his angel to deliver his servants who trusted in him. has persuasively built a case that this scene occurred in either December
They disobeyed the king’s command and were willing to risk their lives in 594 b.c. or January 593 b.c., not August 586 b.c., because Nebuchadnezzar
order not to serve or worship any god except their own God. would not have built this statue to commemorate Jerusalem’s destruction.
 99

Andrew Steinmann [21st century biblical scholar] extensively explains: advised against this rebellion (Jeremiah 27:1–22). In fact, Jeremiah 28:1
“Daniel 3 contains no chronological notice for the setting of the events it dates the false prophet Hananiah’s prophecy to the 5th month (Shebat) of
relates. Both the Old Greek and Theodotion prefix ‘18th year’ to the start the same year as the events recorded in Jeremiah 27. This sequence of
of v. 1 to indicate that the convocation took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s events would yield a date of late December 594 or January 593 for
18th year. However, these words probably are a secondary addition based Zedekiah’s trip to Babylon and his return. The convocation in Daniel 3
on Jeremiah 52:29. So, a careful investigation into Jeremiah and into the is a likely setting for the destination of Zedekiah’s trip, since the trip
surviving chronicles of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign suggests a date of late probably was for the purpose of ensuring his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar.
December 594 BC or January 593 BC for the convocation to dedicate the Zedekiah would have been one of a number of vassals who were brought
golden statue. The specific chronicle is preserved on tablet BM 21946. The to Babylon to demonstrate their loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar by worshiping
identification of the chronological sequence that includes the convocation the huge statue he erected. Most scholars believe that the presupposition
was first proposed by Shea, but more controversial and much less certain in the narrative of Daniel 3 is that willingness to bow down to the golden
is Shea’s identification of three officials of Nebuchadnezzar listed on a image was equated with loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar. Watts summarizes:
clay prism as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The Babylonian ‘The great golden statue they were asked to worship is not named. It could
Chronicle states that a rebellion took place in Babylon from the month of have been one of Marduk, Bel, or Nebo. Whatever its name, it represented
Kislev (December 15, 595 to January 12, 594) to the month of Tebeth Babylon and her king. To worship it meant total and absolute commitment
(January 13 to February 11, 594) in the 10th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s to the imperial government and to the system it represented.
reign. Nebuchadnezzar suppressed the rebellion and also purged his army Nebuchadnezzar’s motivation for setting up the idol was clearly political.
of those he suspected of supporting the uprising. At the end of that year The three Judean men were accused of neither serving Nebuchadnezzar’s
(the Babylonian year ended on April 11, 594), Nebuchadnezzar made a gods nor bowing to the image. The implication was that they were
trip to his western provinces to collect tribute from his vassals. This trip politically unreliable.’ Thus, Zedekiah’s trip to Babylon in late December
was probably to enforce his authority in light of the rebellion that he 594 or January 593 furnishes a possible date for the convocation for the
recently suppressed. Moreover, he returned to those western provinces dedication of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue. Since twice we are told
with his army in the month of Kislev the next year (December 4, 594 to that ‘all the rulers of the provinces’ came for the dedication, we should
January 1, 593). Early in Zedekiah’s 4th year as king of Judah (which infer that it was a carefully designed ceremony to ensure the loyalty of
corresponds to the last 6 months of Nebuchadnezzar’s 11th year and the officials outside of Babylon, as suggested by comparison to events
first 6 months of his 12th year), Zedekiah made a trip to Babylon (Jeremiah recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle. Nebuchadnezzar had already
51:59–64), because official years of Judean kings were reckoned as purged his court of those suspected of treason, and he wanted to make sure
beginning in the fall with the beginning of the month of Tishri. Thus, no disloyal subjects were to be found among his distant subordinates.”
Zedekiah’s 4th year began on 1 Tishri 594 (October 6, 594), or 6 months
after the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s 11th year on 1 Nisan 594 (April Date Chronological Summary of Statue Dedication
12, 594). Thus, Zedekiah’s trip most likely took place upon the return of December 595 to
Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, perhaps in late Kislev 594 (late December Nebuchadnezzar suppresses a revolt in Babylon
January 594
594) or more likely in Tebeth 593 (January 593). Zedekiah probably was March–April 594 Nebuchadnezzar collects tribute from vassals
asked to make this trip to profess his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar. However, December 594 Nebuchadnezzar’s army marches west
it appears to have had the opposite effect, since later that year, before the Late December 594
end of month of Shebat (February 1 to March 1, 593), Zedekiah, having Zedekiah travels to Babylon [Jeremiah 51:59–64]
or
returned to Jerusalem, plotted with emissaries from Edom, Moab, Ammon, for the dedication of the golden image [Daniel 3]
Early January 593
Tyre, and Sidon to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, even though Jeremiah
 100

Also, strangely there is nothing said about Daniel himself, but only his receive some kind of reward: the birth of twins to Tamar (Genesis 38:27–
friends, and scholars have provided numerous suggestions to explain this. 30) and promotion for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Daniel 3:30).
Rabbinic literature views the protagonist’s absence in both of these
Zvi Ron [21st century Orthodox Jewish scholar] provides the best solution: chapters as serving the same purpose—to allow secondary characters to
“Chapter 3 is unique in its being the only chapter in which Daniel is not come into their own. The Midrash teaches that Judah demonstrated his
mentioned at all. In the rest of the book, Daniel is clearly the protagonist leadership qualities by publicly admitting that he was wrong about Tamar
and center of attention. His absence from this chapter is jarring and led to (Genesis 38:26; Exodus Rabbah 30.16, Mekhilta, Beshallaḥ, Va–yehi 5).
rabbinic speculation as to where Daniel was at the time (Sanhedrin 93a). Similarly, the Talmud explains that God manipulated events so that
The absence of the protagonist also parallels Genesis 38. The parallels Daniel would be out of the country during the fiery furnace episode in
between the Daniel and Joseph narratives have long been noted and order to focus on Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, thus showing that
studied: both tell the story of an Israelite taken into captivity in a foreign they inherited a miraculous deliverance even without the help of Daniel
land who rises to power through his ability to interpret the foreign king’s (Sanhedrin 93a). Much like the three men in Daniel 3, Tamar disappears
dreams. The Joseph narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah and after her role in Genesis 38, but in rabbinic literature she is recalled as a
Tamar in Genesis 38, a chapter where Joseph is not mentioned at all, just mother of ‘kings and prophets’ (Nazir 23b, Megillah 10b), her son Perez
as the story of Daniel is interrupted by that of Hananiah, Mishael, and being the Davidic line’s progenitor. Tamar does not appear as a character
Azariah, where Daniel is not mentioned. Both interruptions focus on in any further biblical narratives; however, she is recalled as the mother
characters secondary to the main narrative and describe a rescue from a of Perez in Ruth 4:12. Genesis 38 contains many allusions to places within
fiery death. There are, of course, differences between the narratives: the future territory of the tribe of Judah (Adullam, Timnah, Enaim), and to
Tamar is saved by Judah's intervention, whereas the three youths are people who play a role in the life of King David, (Tamar and Bat–
saved by a miracle—yet both chapters digress from the main storyline Shua/Bathsheba). These associations place the Judah–Tamar episode in a
and tell of salvation from a fiery death. We can now understand that the wider context, that of the Davidic monarchy. This chapter is understood by
story of Daniel not only emphasizes plot elements and utilizes phrases that bible scholars to foreshadow Judah’s future leadership role, not only as an
evoke the story of Joseph, but even has a literary structure that parallels individual, but as the tribe from which King David will emerge. Rabbinic
the form of the Joseph story. In view of the fact that Daniel is not tradition likewise assigns a key role to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in
mentioned in chapter 3, contemporary bible critics regard that chapter as this same context. Whatever happened to the three righteous men? The
an independent story that originally had no connection with the Daniel sages tell us that they moved back to the Land of Israel, married there
cycle of stories. However, it is precisely the absence of Daniel that makes and had children (Sanhedrin 93a). They are identified with the men who
this chapter fit organically within the structure of Daniel’s book as a are a symbol (Zechariah 3:8), those who, along with Joshua the High
parallel to the Joseph narrative. Once this parallel is noted, we can see Priest, are told by an angel that the rebuilding of the Temple will soon be
that Judah and Nebuchadnezzar both follow a similar trajectory of complete. The angel foretells the coming of ‘my servant, the Branch’
character development. They both condemn righteous individuals to death (Zechariah 3:9–10). That phrase recalls the glorious era of King Solomon
by fire on the basis of their proclamations (Genesis 38:24; Daniel 3:6) and (1 Kings 5:5) as well as the messianic future (Micah 4:4). The miracle
later admit their error (Genesis 38:26; Daniel 3:28–29). There is a that they experienced is a sign of more miracles to come; on a mass
parallel between the victims in both narratives—Tamar in the one and scale. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, descendants of Judah, are thus
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the other. The righteous victims in considered in rabbinic literature to have played a role in heralding the
both cases accept their fate, yet make a declaration to the person who reestablishment of Davidic leadership, continuing what Tamar had
condemned them expressing their righteousness (Genesis 38:25, Daniel begun. Recognizing these parallels, the rabbis cast these individuals in
3:17–18). In both cases the righteous are saved and unharmed, and they both narratives as significant figures of the future Davidic monarchy.”
 101

So, the king had seen a huge statue in his dream that was made of various (covered with gold leaf). Actually, there was not enough gold in all
metals [starting with the head being made of gold]. Now we see him Babylonia to make a statue so large of solid gold. The erecting of the
ordering a statue to be made all of gold. The Aramaic term ṣᵊlēm [for golden image undoubtedly reflected the symbolism of the dream–image in
“statue”] is the same, and we can presume that the statue the king had seen which the head of gold represented Babylonia. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar
in his dream became the inspiration for the statue of gold that he made. was motivated by a desire to fulfil the type. As to whom the statue
Thus, his dream of the huge statue was intended to communicate that God represented, it seems doubtful that it was the king himself (as some have
would ultimately judge and destroy the idol–worshiping empires. suggested). We have no evidence that statues of a Mesopotamian ruler
However, the interpretation of the dream by Daniel had revealed were ever worshiped as divine during the ruler’s lifetime. Such practices
Nebuchadnezzar in a rather exalted manner. He was the head of gold and may have been followed in the Egypt of Ramses II (though we have no
the king of kings, and the empires that followed would be inferior to his. decisive proof of this) but hardly in the Sumerian, Babylonian, or Assyrian
Nebuchadnezzar appears to have let his honoured status go to his head, his empires. It is far more likely that the statue represented
pride prompting him to glorify himself. In doing so, he was distorting the Nebuchadnezzar’s patron god, Nabu. Prostration before Nabu would
message that God had intended. Based on the dream of the statue, amount to a pledge of allegiance to his viceroy, Nabu–kudurri–uṣur.”
Nebuchadnezzar decided to make a statue for his subjects to bow down to
and pay homage to. That he made it all of gold suggests that this was an Thus, the requirement to do homage before
egotistical attempt to glorify himself, whereby he took his God–given the statue represented a loyalty check for the
authority and turned to exalting himself, thereby insulting God who had king’s subjects [if he felt any threats against
given him authority and who was to ultimately establish his own kingdom, his rule]. Regarding the composition of this
and intended for the statue to serve as an idol to a Babylonian deity. “golden statue,” it was not made out of solid
gold, but was gold–plated [Isaiah 40:19;
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] says: “Despite Yahweh’s Jeremiah 10:4]. For example, the altar was
warning through the dream and interpretation that he would judge and called “the bronze altar” [Exodus 38:30],
destroy the idol–worshiping empires, Nebuchadnezzar forgot his new but we know that it was overlaid with
religious insights and proceeded to force on all his subjects—even the bronze [Exodus 27:1–2]. Thus, wood/stone
Yahweh–worshiping Jews—the worship of the patron god of the Chaldean would be under the overlaid gold.
government. This not only indicates the superficial nature of his earlier Furthermore, we do not know what the
confession of Yahweh as ‘God of gods and Lord of kings’ (Daniel 2:47), statue looked like. Was it a representation of
but it also suggests an egotism tending toward megalomania. Yet we Nebuchadnezzar? Was it a representation of
cannot be certain why he took this extraordinary step. He may have felt, a Babylonian deity? Nevertheless, what we
like many pagans, that multiple loyalties were permissible in worshiping are told is that its size was “60 cubits high
the gods. He may have seen no more conflict between worshiping several and 6 cubits wide” or ~27.4 m high and
different deities than between serving a local government and the central ~2.74 m wide if we used base–10 [decimal
government. In any event, he laid down no requirement for his subjects to system]. These dimensional proportions are
renounce or to cease private worship of their own personal gods; he obviously quite bizarre and distorted, which
simply demanded complete loyalty to the state, as represented by this indicates that its height represented an
public ceremony of prostration before his patron god (presumably Nabu). obelisk shape as a base on which the statue
Failure to do this would not only amount to impiety and irreligion, it stood. For example, on the left is a figure on
would also be treason. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar had the statue made of gold top of a high pedestal stele from 530 b.c.
 102

Choon–Leong Seow [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: Patrick Mazani [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] concludes:
“These dimensions suggest an extraordinarily lanky edifice that is more “Archaeology has discovered several golden images that can be
like an obelisk than a well–proportioned statue. This odd shape has considered in view of Nebuchadnezzar’s gigantic image set up in the plain
prompted some scholars to suggest that the edifice was not a statue per se, of Dura. The worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s great image has been
but either a monolith that was sculpted only at the top, or a tall pedestal suggested to have taken place in 594/593 BC. At the specified musical
with a statue mounted on it. Striking parallels to both models exist signal, all people, without exception, were supposed to worship the golden
throughout the ancient Near East, as scholars have frequently noted.” image (Daniel 3:5–6). The image might have been that of Nebuchadnezzar
so that all his subjects would bow and swear loyalty when he was away. In
John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] also says: “Setting up the Wadi–Brisa Inscription, Nebuchadnezzar talks about the statue he
statues is a familiar feature of the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek had made with an inscription that mentioned his name. The statue was
Empires. This statue stands higher than most, though not than the Rhodes erected for his personal posterity so that the future kings would respect
Colossus (70 cubits). Perhaps it included a pedestal like statues that are his name and also worship the gods. Whether or not it was all gold is
said to have been located at one of the various Babylonian sites called in difficult to ascertain. Collins is of the opinion that the image was overlaid
Akkadian Dura/Duru/Dur (‘fortification’). This would also account for the with gold. Several gold face–masks have been recovered from the ancient
statue’s odd proportions; compare also inscribed steles with figures at the Near East, including, for example, BM 139535, BM 123894, and BM
top. But, to reduce the statue to something normal is to miss the point 123895. Several golden statues have been recovered. From Susa, a golden
that the statue is extraordinary and monumental, even grotesque. Maybe statue of a man carrying a baby goat, dated about the 12th century BC,
the fact that 60 cubits was the height of the 2nd Temple (Ezra 6:3) implies was recovered from a pavement of a ruined tomb near the temple of
that it is pretentious and begins to hint at its blasphemous nature. On the Inshushinak of the Acropolis. A golden figure of a Persian king in a long
other hand, the repetition of the figure ‘6’ suggests something symbolizing robe was discovered at Takht–I Kuwad on the northern bank of the Oxus
imperfection, even something horrendous (Revelation 13:18). Gold may river. Herodotus reported on the golden image of Zeus sitting at a golden
imply gold plating rather than solid gold (Isaiah 40:19), though table with golden footstool and chair, everything weighing 800 talents of
Herodotus describes a Bel statue made of 800 talents (22 tons) of gold gold. He further reported on the golden statue of solid gold 12 cubits high
(Histories 1.183). The gold also recalls the gold of Solomon’s Temple; the which was there during the time of Cyrus. It is possible that Nechadnezzar
Babylonians had to bring all the gold that had been plundered from may have erected a golden statue with most of the gold coming either
Jerusalem to make its base so that it would not fall over. The statue may from the booty or tribute of the nations he conquered.”
have represented Nebuchadnezzar himself. Assyrian kings set up such
statues as symbols of their dominion, and Hellenistic monarchs were Also, the location of the statue is said to be “in the Dura Valley within the
deified. The association of bowing down before the statue with serving province of Babylon.” The Aramaic dûrāʾ could be a place–name, or it
Nebuchadnezzar’s gods (vv. 12, 14) rather suggests a statue of a divinity, could indicate the type of place in which it was erected. In other words, the
presumably Bel. But, the text’s omitting to clarify what the statue Babylonian term dûru [or “wall”] either refers to an enclosed fortress, or a
represented reflects its concern with the challenge it issued to the three terrain that is enclosed by mountains. The LXX translators were divided:
Judahites and reflects the interwovenness and support of god, king, and
nation. Further, even if it was Nebuchadnezzar’s statue, falling prostrate 1. LXXθ transliterated dûrāʾ as Deira [a place–name].
before it would imply acknowledging his god, as Nebuchadnezzar’s 2. LXXΟ translated dûrāʾ as peribolou [or “encircling”].
falling prostrate before Daniel implied acknowledgment of Daniel’s God
(Daniel 2:46). Conversely, even if it is a statue of a god, it is a kind of Thus, since the Aramaic mᵊḏînaṯ [for “province”] can also mean “city,”
idol of Nebuchadnezzar himself, an extension of his will.” then it can be rendered: “in the plain of the wall in the city of Babylon.”
 103

So, this was probably the defensive wall called Nimit–Enlil, the famous Edward Morgan Cook [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] summarizes:
outer wall of Babylon described by Herodotus [Histories 1.178–181], “This wall spoken of would be Nimit–Enlil, the great outer wall of Babylon
which was near the Processional Way between Marduk’s Esagila temple built by Nebuchadnezzar, famous in antiquity and described in detail by
and the Akitu temple [to the north of the city] that was outside the outer Herodotus (1.178–182). The purpose of this immense outer rampart was to
wall [within the vicinity of the greater outer fortification wall and moat]. allow wartime fugitives from the surrounding area to take shelter; hence,
it is unlikely that the area between Imgur–Enlil, the inner wall, and
Nimit–Enlil was much built up. Thus, this prominent feature of ancient
Babylon forms part of the local colour of the narrative of Daniel; the
author wishes us to imagine representatives of ‘all peoples, nations, and
tongues’ (Daniel 3:4) gathered to worship the golden image in the plain
between the outer wall—the wall par excellence—and the city proper.”

Next in vv. 2–3, we read: “then King Nebuchadnezzar summoned the

regional authorities, governors, deputy governors, advisors, treasurers,
judges, magistrates, and all of the other administrators of the provinces,
ordering them to come to the dedication of the statue that he had erected.
So the regional authorities, governors, deputy governors, advisors,
treasurers, judges, magistrates, and all of the other administrators of the
provinces assembled to dedicate the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had
erected. They took their places in front of the statue that he had erected.”

Nebuchadnezzar decided to have an elaborate dedication ceremony for his

new statue, during which the important officials of his realm would be in
attendance. This long list indicates that every provincial official of any
importance was present. The exact distinctions between these officials are
uncertain, though judging from the syntax it may go from a group of more
important officials to a group of less important officials. Thus, since
several of these terms are Persian in origin, this means Daniel’s book was
written by a 6th century author living at a time when these Persian words
were commonly used, dating the final form of this biographical section
[Daniel 1–6] to the Persian period. Thus, the following officials were:

1. The Aramaic ʾăḥašdarpᵊnayyāʾ [for “regional authorities”],

derived from Old Persian xšaθrapāvan [or “protector of the
empire”], and is also found in Neo–Babylonian cuneiform as
aḫšadrapannu. They were powerful officials who ruled over large
areas. During the reign of Darius I, there were only 20 “regional
authorities” ruling the empire [Herodotus, Histories 3.89–94].
 104

2. The Aramaic signayyāʾ [for “governors”], a loanword from Neo– Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “Our Lord is good and loves
Babylonian Akkadian sagānu which was often used of provincial humankind, so the creator and ruler desires ‘all to be saved and to know
governors [its Hebrew cognate means “official state functionary”]. the truth’ [1 Timothy 2:4] and ‘does not seek the death of the wicked but
Daniel was made a raḇ–signîn [or “chief administrator”] over the that they should turn and live’ [Ezekiel 18:23, 32]. Indeed, for that reason
wise men of Babylon [recall Daniel 2:48]. he died for our salvation. So truly the king acts like a fool; being enslaved
to arrogance, he derives no benefit from the divine remedy, but like the
3. The Aramaic paḥăwāṯāʾ [for “deputy governors”], a Neo–Assyrian one who lives with illness, he rejects the cure from those who practice
and Neo–Babylonian Akkadian loanword shortened from bēl pīḫati medicine. Thus, the awful disease tends to grow day by day. Such a man is
[or “lord of an administrative district”], or a pīḫatu [or “minor this boastful king, who the God of all bestowed on him kindness without
provincial official”]. These were probably the administrators over bounds, applying the cure for countless transgressions and acts of impiety.
smaller regional districts. In the postexilic period, the area of Judah So also God revealed that the bringing of peace is fragile and passing, as
was ruled by a peḥāh [Malachi 1:8]. he held aloft the ones made captive by war and who bore by compulsion
the yoke of slavery. They shined splendidly and steadfastly and were
4. The Aramaic ʾăḏargāzᵊrayyāʾ [for “advisors”], related to Old admired for the wisdom of their prophecy. The God of all was indeed
Persian handarža [or “advice”], a counsellor in the king’s court. confessed to be the true God. But, after a short time, the king came back
into his true nature, just ‘as a dog returns to his vomit’ [Proverbs 26:11].”
5. The Aramaic gᵊḏāḇᵊrayyāʾ [for “treasurers”], a loanword from Old
Persian ganzabara, one who is a supervisor of the treasury. Jerome [4th century] also says: “It is the higher ranks that stand in the
greater peril, and those who occupy the loftier position are the more
6. The Aramaic dᵊṯāḇᵊrayyāʾ [for “judges”], a loanword from Persian sudden in their fall. The princes are assembled to worship the statue in
dātabara [or “lawyer”], one who is a law official. order that through their princes the nations also might be attracted to
error. For those who possess riches and power are all the more easily
7. The Aramaic tiptāyēʾ [for “magistrates”], derived from Persian overthrown because of their apprehension of being bereft of them. But,
tāyupātā [or “rulers of the cities”], which were regional mayors. after the magistrates are led astray, the subject populace perishes through
the evil example of their superiors.”
Notice that this list does not include the palace advisors, which explains
Daniel’s absence [recall Daniel 2:49]. Furthermore, there is a literary Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] concludes: “The enemy
comedic function in which the list repeats in order to belittle the mindless prepares the theatre, and the king himself collects the spectators and
actions of the Babylonians in contrast to the mindset of the Hebrew men. prepares the lists; a theatre too, not of chance persons or of some private
individuals, but of all those who were honourable and in authority, so that
Hector Avalos [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: “The their testimony may be worthy of credit with the multitude. They had come
lengthy list is not meant simply to provide the reader with an accurate summoned for one thing; but they all departed having beheld another
descriptive analysis. The lengthy list emphasizes the mindlessness of the thing. They came in order to worship the image; and they departed,
entire Chaldean bureaucracy. Indeed, the list seems careful not to omit the having derided the image and struck with wonder at the power of God
most minor official. The four mechanical iterations of a lengthy list of through the signs that had taken place with respect to these young men.”
musical instruments mirror the mechanistic behaviour of the pagans
before the image. Indeed, as soon as the instruments sound, the pagans Next in vv. 4–6, we read: “then a herald proclaimed aloud: ‘People of all
genuflect en masse before a lifeless image without a second thought.” nations, and languages are commanded: Whenever you hear the sound of
 105

the trumpet, the flute, the lyre, the four–stringed lyre, and the harp, 1. The Aramaic qeren [for “trumpet”]. In the LXX, this is translated
playing together along with various instruments, you are to fall down and as salpigx [or “horn”], from an animal’s horn [Joshua 6:4–6],
worship the golden statue that was set up by King Nebuchadnezzar. which was hollowed out and used as wind instruments.
Anyone who does not fall down and worship is immediately to be thrown
into the blazing fire furnace.’” 2. The Aramaic mašrôqî [for “flute”]. This refers to some type of pipe
instrument, which might be comparable to the modern flute. The
Once the royal officials were all assembled, the kārôz [for “herald”], term comes from the root sᵊraq [meaning “to play a pipe,”
loudly proclaimed the king’s command that everyone was to obey upon “whistle,” or “hiss”]. In the LXX, this is translated as surigx [or
hearing the music. The Aramaic kārôz is a loanword from Old Persian, and “pipe”], a cylinder tube that was made either out of wood, reed, or
the LXX transliterated it by the Greek word kērux, which argues for an bone, and produced a coarse shrill whistling sound.
early date for Daniel’s book. In other words, if the material was written in
the later Hellenistic period [when Attic Greek was in vogue], then we 3. The Aramaic qayṯᵊrôs [for “lyre”]. This is one type of lyre, and the
would expect the author to have spelled the words in accordance with the term itself is a loanword from Greek kitharis [derived from
phonological characteristics of Attic Greek, but this is not the case! As was kithara] In Homer and Herodotus, the kithara was a triangular
the case with Akkadian loanwords, it is not surprising to find Greek words shaped 7–stringed lyre. So, this “lyre” is an instrument with strings
in Daniel’s book, and this is no indication for a late date of the book. stretched across a soundboard and played with a plectrum or the
fingers, similar to a guitar [following the Greek design].
Benjamin Noonan [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The vocalization of
biblical Aramaic kārôz indicates that it is a loan from Aeolic or Doric 4. The Aramaic śabbᵊḵāʾ [for “four–stringed lyre”]. This term is also
Greek kārux rather than Attic–Ionic kērux. Original ā is preserved in all a Greek loanword, rendered in the LXX as sambukē, which was a
Greek dialects with the exception of Attic–Ionic, in which it becomes ē. 4–stringed triangular shaped lyre [like a 4–stringed harp].
Thus, at least three of the Greek loanwords in Daniel’s book exhibit
phonological characteristics that set them apart as non–Attic. This is 5. The Aramaic pᵊsanṭērîn [for “harp”]. This is a loanword from
strong evidence for a date of borrowing before Alexander the Great Greek psaltērion, which was a stringed instrument, triangular in
because Aramaic speakers should have borrowed the Attic forms if they shape [like a dulcimer harp]. However, it would not have looked
had adopted them during the Hellenistic period. Hence, the evidence like the modern–day harp, since it was of Greek origin/design.
indicates that the Greek loanwords were borrowed earlier rather than
later, and the burden of proof remains on those who argue that they are 6. The Aramaic sûmᵊpōnᵊyâ [for “playing together”]. This is a
insignificant for dating purposes or must have been borrowed late.” loanword from Greek sumphōnia. Scholars are disputed, translating
it either as “bagpipe” [not the modern Scottish bagpipe], or simply
Bruce Waltke [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “One can no as “pipes” [possibly a double–barrelled flute]. But, other scholars
longer echo the dictum that the three Greek words in Daniel 3 demand a have questioned it being an instrument, and instead a musical
date after 330 B.C. Greek words are now attested in the Aramaic notation having the meaning of “musical harmony” [like an
documents of Elephantine dated to the 5th century B.C.” orchestra with all these instruments in one accord]. Furthermore,
critical scholars point out that this term does not occur in extant
So, the sound of musical instruments was the signal to bow before the Greek literature until the time of Plato [370 b.c.]. However, since
image. Three of the instruments are of Greek derivation, probably import we only have ~10% of Greek literature from the classical period,
items that kept their original names. So, here is the list of instruments: we lack sufficient data for dating the precise origin of any
 106

particular word or usage in the development of the Greek language.

Thus, it is also suggested that the term sûmpōnyâ is about another
instrument derived from the Greek tumpanon, which was a
handheld drum [like a tambourine without the jingles], but for the
purpose of keeping rhythm as a complement to the instruments.

So, archaeologists have uncovered extensive artistic and iconographic

depictions of such instruments. For example, on this 5th century b.c.
Etruscan Tomb of the Leopards, in Tarquinia [central Italy], musicians
play a lyre and a double flute [similar to the qayṯᵊrôs and mašrôqî].

Also, on this 8th century b.c. relief from Karatepe in Turkey, are four
marching musicians entertaining unseen guests at a banquet. The scene
shows, from left to right, four instruments: a small handheld drum [or
tambour], two types of lyre, and a flute. If ancient orchestras commonly
included two types of lyre, this accounts for the pᵊsanṭērîn and qayṯᵊrôs in
Nebuchadnezzar’s orchestra, while the tambour is the sûmᵊpōnᵊyâ.

Likewise, on this 3rd century b.c. fresco from a burial cave at Mareshah
[south central Israel], a musician shoulders a harp as he marches behind a
flutist. Thus, harps appear frequently in ancient reliefs and paintings, but
this type of handheld harp has long since disappeared, evolving into the
large standing instrument we know today. So, although outdated
translations like the KJV mistakenly rendered the Aramaic word śabbᵊḵāʾ
as “sackbut” [a kind of trombone because the names are phonetically
similar], the Greek sambukē refers instead to a similar, but small, harp.
 107

Furthermore, in regards to the pᵊsanṭērîn, it was believed that it was a This is because the crack was repaired and the stone slab was restored to
dulcimer because of this relief that was discovered at Nineveh in 1850: show an instrument similar to a modern dulcimer, with strings stretched
over a horizontal sound box and struck with a hammer [left]. However, in
1979, scholars had the 19th century restoration work removed. Then, what
was identified as a rare image of a dulcimer actually turned out to be a
common horizontal harp where the vertical bar ran below the crack [right].
In other words, this vertical bar held the strings taut above the horizontal
baseboard, and harps of this type appear frequently in this type of art.

The supposed dulcimer player is in the middle. But, there is a large crack
in the soft limestone that partially obscures the horizontal instrument.
Nevertheless, inaccurate drawings in the 1870s depicted it as a dulcimer.

So, despite the debate on the precise identification of these instruments,

several of the names are nonetheless Greek loanwords that were spread to
the Orient long before the conquests of Alexander in the 4th century b.c.

Edwin Yamauchi [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Nearly a

decade ago at the end of a similar survey, I had written: ‘we may safely
say that the presence of Greek words in an Old Testament book is not a
proof of Hellenistic date, in view of the abundant opportunities for
 108

contacts between the Aegean and the Near East before Alexander. The oven. Also, Egyptian literary and religious texts, though not historical
evidence which I have presented is but a small fraction, which no doubt texts, envision the binding and throwing of a few men together into a large
will be amplified many times by future discoveries!’ I believe that this furnace for execution. Finally, Jeremiah mentions that false prophets
conclusion is irrefutable. Though current commentaries on Daniel named Zedekiah and Ahab, who fomented rebellion among the Jewish
continue to ignore the evidence, further archaeological evidence will, I exiles, would be punished by Nebuchadnezzar by being roasted. Thus, he
predict, serve but to strengthen it. Hopefully future commentaries will had a propensity toward punishments involving fire [Jeremiah 29:21–23].
come to recognize that the Greek words in Daniel cannot be used to date
the book to the Hellenistic age.” David Falk [21st century Egyptologist] provides an important observation:
“Probably the most common question that I get is, ‘Where is the ark
Thus, since Greek terms like kitharis have been found in Homer’s writings today?’ Or the similar questions: ‘Is the ark in Ethiopia?’ and ‘Wasn’t the
from a very early period, and since we know of Greek mercenaries and ark found under the Temple Mount?’ The answer will likely disappoint
Greeks being sold as slaves before Daniel’s day, then it is reasonable to you. The last recorded sighting of the ark was during the reign of King
suggest that these terms and instruments were imported to the Orient. Josiah (2 Chronicles 35:3). This means that the ark was not whisked away
Thus, when the instruments and music were heard, all the subjects were to Ethiopia during the reign of Solomon. The story of the ark being in
first to “fall down” and then they were to “worship” the statue, from the Ethiopia was concocted in the 13th century to prop up Aksum’s (modern
Aramaic sᵊgid, understood to refer to the act of obeisance [like bowing Ethiopia) failing monarchy and includes an anachronistic mishmash of
before a superior]. But, this type of action was only appropriate for Israel’s famous figures that interact with no respect to real history. This also
God, and to do this before Nebuchadnezzar’s statue would amount to a excludes the possibility that the ark was taken by King Shoshenq I when he
violation of the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:1–6]. Thus, this became a came up against Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 12:9). Even though he took the
serious challenge for the Hebrews in attendance. To make the matter even treasures of the house of the Lord and the palace, these seem to be a
more serious, the king commanded that anyone not obeying his order ransom preventing an Egyptian conquest of Jerusalem, as opposed to an
would be “thrown into the blazing fire furnace.” The Aramaic word ʾattûn actual conquest. The ark’s attestation during the reign of Josiah seems to
[for “furnace”] is a loanword from Akkadian utūnu [or “kiln”], which were indicate that Rehoboam held the ark back from being handed over to
brick furnaces that was used for burning, glass making, pottery, and Shoshenq I, 300 years earlier. When Egyptian King Neco II (610–595 BC)
smelting. Nebuchadnezzar’s extensive building projects required massive marched through Israel to help his ally King Ashur–Uballit II (612–605
kilns. But, executions by fire was not unknown in the Old Testament BC) of Assyria, Josiah tried to interfere in regional politics. He tried to
[Genesis 38:24; Leviticus 20:14; Judges 14:15], in Mesopotamian laws stop Neco II from getting to the Battle of Charchemish. Josiah was killed
[Hammurabi §25, §110, §157], or among the Persians. For example, Cyrus by Neco II’s men, and the Egyptians continued to Charchemish. After the
ordered the execution of King Croesus of Sardis by fire on a pyre of wood, battle, which resulted in the defeat of the combined Assyrian and Egyptian
wanting to see if the gods would save him in view of his piety [Herodotus, armies at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BC) of Babylon, Neco
Histories 1.86–87]. But, execution by being cast into a furnace is unusual. II exacted payback on the kingdom of Judah. The Egyptians deposed
A couple of Akkadian texts indicate that kilns or ovens could be used for Josiah’s successor, Joahaz, and made Eliakim (Jehoiakim) king over
horrific punishments. For example, an Old Babylonian letter records how a Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 36:4). The king of Egypt also imposed
king [Rim–Sin] decreed a talionic punishment for a murderer to be thrown a fine of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold (2 Chronicles 36:3). It
into an utunu [brick kiln] just as he had killed his victim by throwing him is unlikely that the one talent of gold included the ark since the gold of
into a tinuru [oven]. Likewise, there was an edict from the time of Assur– the ark probably easily exceeded one talent (33 kg) of gold. Furthermore,
resa–isi [1132–1115 b.c.] that threatened witnesses who fail to inform on the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the ark ‘will not come to mind nor will
those who are breaking the rules of the harem with being thrown into an they remember it, nor miss it, nor will it be made again’ (Jeremiah 3:16),
 109

which indicates that the ark was either permanently lost or destroyed. If Paul–Alain Beaulieu [21st century Assyriologist] likewise says: “The
the ark makes a visible return, then it would ‘come to mind’ and be evidence indicates that the motif of punishment in the fiery furnace can be
remembered again, contradicting these words of Jeremiah. Josiah died in traced back to a common ancient Near Eastern background, with very
610/609 BC. Jeremiah lived between 650 and 570 BC. Nebuchadnezzar II close parallels in both Egypt and Mesopotamia. Although the hypothesis of
invaded and destroyed Jerusalem in 587/586 BC. This means that the ark Egyptian influence in the elaboration of the motif cannot be discounted,
was most likely taken back to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar II where it the Babylonian setting of the tale induces us to seek preferably
was destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar II burned the temple and destroyed ‘all its Mesopotamian antecedents. Indeed, the recent publication of a
valuable articles’ (2 Chronicles 36:19). This means that the most compelling Babylonian parallel from the same historical period in which
valuable items were destroyed first. Unlike the Egyptian army, the Daniel 3 is set provides one of these rare instances where the point of
Babylonians paid their soldiers in gold, and funding an army the size of origin of a legend can be identified. Death by burning carried important
Babylon’s created a situation where the royal house was continuously symbolic connotations in the ancient Near East. In the final redaction of
cash strapped and gold poor. The Babylonians stole whatever gold they Daniel 3, the motif became a powerful symbol of the travails facing those
could and melted it down. When the Babylonians destroyed the Solomonic faithful to God, and was integrated into a perennial tale of the fall and
temple, they broke apart and destroyed the bronze pillars, stands, and ultimate vindication of the righteous.”
bronze sea (2 Kings 25:13). When King Cyrus II (559–530 BC) of Persia
returned what remained of the temple vessels, the inventory included both John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Scholars
original and duplicated items (Ezra 1:9–10). Essentially, Cyrus II restored usually assume that the furnace was metal and beehive–shaped with an
some of what had been destroyed to begin temple service again, but not opening on the top into which the men were thrown, and a door at the side
everything was restored as it had been before. Large items like the bronze through which the inside could be seen, though a story about Abram in
pillars, bronze sea, and the ark were not replaced. In the case of large Pseudo–Philo 6.15–18 implies it might have been a tunnel–shaped brick
religious furniture like sacred barques and the ark, the Babylonians furnace. The burning of criminals is referred to throughout the
burned these pieces in large furnaces. The Babylonians routinely melted Babylonian, Persian, and Greek periods (Jeremiah 29:22; Herodotus,
down royal gifts for their precious metal content (EA 3, lines 13–22; 7, Histories 1.86; 4.69), but Holm argues that it has a more substantial
lines 63–72; 10, lines 8–24). After the furnace cooled, the gold was swept Egyptian background. Persians might see such an event as trial by fire
up after all the wood was burned away. This is what became of most rather than as punishment, because of the sacredness of fire.”
Egyptian sacred furniture after the Assyrians ransacked Egypt. The ark
and what remained of the temple furniture was possibly burned in the Finally in v. 7, we read: “therefore, when all of the people ‘heard the
same kind of furnace that is used in the attempted execution of sound of the trumpet, the flute, the lyre, the four–stringed lyre, and the
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed–nego (Daniel 3:20). The destruction of harp, playing together along with various other instruments,’ all the
gold–covered furniture for metal recovery gives us a practical reason for a ‘people, nations, and languages’ began to fall down and worship the
furnace large enough for a man to stand in (Daniel 3:25). Thus, the ark golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.”
was most likely burned for its gold and the recovered metal was weighed
out and distributed to soldiers, who exchanged it for food, drink, and the Thus, undoubtedly the music would have heightened and intensified the
necessities of life. Over millennia, this metal was remelted and the gold emotions on this occasion, even deadening one’s ability to think clearly.
repurposed. Some gold was made into jewellery. Some of that gold has Like a mass gathering with thousands in attendance, the dynamic of the
been used in electronics. Where is the ark today? A small piece of it may crowd would have been most compelling, and the masses readily complied
be on your finger.” with the king’s command, but Daniel’s friends did not go along with the
masses [later in v. 12].
 110

Their allegiance to God was not for sale at any price, even martyrdom! and Abednego foreshadowed the anger of future persecutors of God’s
Thus, they were a stark contrast to Nebuchadnezzar’s other subjects. people, whether earthly persons or demonic agents of evil (Daniel 6:5;
7:8, 11, 24–26; 8:9–11, 23–25; 9:26–27; 11:21–45). The deliverance of
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes: “This God’s people in this chapter depicts what God can do for those who trust
chapter is tied to the preceding chapter by the presence of a gold statue, him, yet even death cannot ultimately deter God’s deliverance of his
which featured a head of gold that was symbolic of King Nebuchadnezzar. people (Daniel 12:1–3). These opening verses leave no doubt about who
By his actions it seems clear that the king wants to be more than the head ‘set up’ the image. Six times the Aramaic text asserts that Nebuchadnezzar
of the statue; he wants to be the entire statue. He will enthrone the status ‘set up’ the image, and the first verse reports that he made it. So a perfect
quo with him as the head; he gilded the image to tie it to the head of gold. seven times in seven verses, Nebuchadnezzar’s ownership of this image
He did not want to affirm a scenario of future events that excluded him, is noted. To drive the point home further, the king’s name,
such as Daniel’s interpretation of his dream asserted. He disfigured the Nebuchadnezzar, is used seven times by the author. Such repetition is a
body of the dream statue—no chest, arms, abdomen, legs, feet, or toes are common literary device in ancient Semitic literature. Reminiscent of the
present. He was satisfied to see the gold head extend itself to the base of Tower of Babel story, this story relates an attempt to once again unite the
his image. The words of the text are powerful for what is left out. They whole world, as they would focus and worship—with one language and
create a certain aura about the statue: Was it a god or was it with one common ritual (Genesis 11:1)—the great gods of Babylon on
Nebuchadnezzar or both? It leaves us guessing. The power of the symbolic the plain (the Hebrew word for ‘plain’ in Genesis 11:2 is identical to the
language makes this ambience possible. The proportions of the image are Aramaic word for ‘plain’ in Daniel 3:1). There were images of many gods
odd (if not grotesque), and the lack of specificity achieves its effect well. in Babylonian polytheism. A ‘sun disk’ dating to 839 BC describes the
Was it sitting on a pedestal? If so, it was even more grossly disfigured. making of an image of the sun–god Shamash. The king was directed by a
Was it a stela? This is unlikely, as stelae were not normally referred to as diviner to make a new image of Shamash based on an old one that had
‘statues’. There is difficulty completing the picture of the image. It is been found. Proper materials, choice of craftsmen, and purification rites
difficult to say whether worshiping the image implied worshiping were all prescribed. The king ordered that the mouth of the statue be
Nebuchadnezzar. Some things are clear, others are not. Finally, it should washed, and then he had it placed in its holy place. The process of
be noted that the image stands out as a colossus in Daniel 2–6, and this ‘washing its mouth’ purified the new divine image, thus ‘turning it into a
focus suggests a relationship to the ‘abomination of desolation’ that will living god.’ The image in Daniel 3 is not a mere piece of gilded wood or
be featured in Daniel 8–9 and Daniel 11–12. This chapter also concerns stone. In the worldview of the Babylonians it partook of divinity—and the
the three Hebrew exiles, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who were king knew that. To dishonour it was to dishonour the king; to dishonour
appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon and were mentioned the king was to dishonour the god and his ‘living image.’ All of the
in Daniel 1–2. These Jewish men become the central concern of this musical instruments available were used by the king to create a
chapter, ultimately representing all Jews. More properly, their trust in cosmopolitan milieu of excitement, unity, and common worship before this
their God and God’s amazing deliverance of them are central foci of this image. The event was important, and everyone should be present to enjoy
chapter. These three exiles from Judah defy the king’s person and neurotic the festivities. There was no separation of state, religion, and fine arts
decree commanding them to worship his golden image. Indications of the here. The list of instruments is given twice in these verses; the officials are
hubris revealed in Daniel 4 show up in Nebuchadnezzar’s character in this listed twice as well. All of the heads of state, representing all the races,
chapter as he sets up an image (idol), shows his rage toward God’s nations, and languages, also mentioned twice in these verses, are there for
servants, and wields the power of death. He is the king; he ordered the Nebuchadnezzar’s dedication of his image that he set up, evidently trying
creation of the image, and everyone will bow down to it and worship—or to replicate the entire human image depicted in Daniel 2. The
die. The king’s unholy and white–hot anger against Shadrach, Meshach, heterogeneous mass of religious peoples were called upon to respond to
 111

the ‘enlightened’ tyrant’s instructions to fall down and worship when they case, there is no reason to abandon the meaning the term had in Daniel 2,
hear the cacophonous sounds of the king’s orchestra. But, not all will be namely that of experts/priests in the Babylonian religion. In fact, that
enthralled by the music; some are totally out of sync with the music and makes good sense in this context. In other words, despite the fact that
the occasion. Three present active participles in the original text indicate Daniel and his three friends were their saviours, there was still a lingering
the continuous and ongoing nature of this confused and noisy bunch of resentment toward these foreigners who had been appointed over them.
worshipers. There is a surrounding ambience of confusion created by the Thus, these Chaldeans had been made to look like fools when their
language and setting. There was confusion accompanied by ‘all the occultic tactics could not help them identify the king’s dream and
peoples of the earth,’ reminiscent of that at Babel (Genesis 11:7, 9). interpretation. It is not hard to imagine that they would have been looking
Indeed, here as at Babel (Akkadian, Bab–ili, ‘gate of the gods’), for an opportunity to vengefully reciprocate against these despised
disobedience and false worship give way to confusion. But, in Daniel, an foreigners. Thus, the Aramaic waʾăḵalû qarṣ hôn [for “denounce”]
immediate contrast is presented: The gods of Babylon are to be rejected as literally means “to eat their pieces,” and was derived from the Akkadian
the God of the three Jewish men is to be lifted up. There is a bit of pathetic karṣi akālu [or “unfounded accusation”], or an idiomatic expression that
humour in seeing the leaders of the world’s kingdoms bowing before a can be paraphrased as “maliciously accused.” Thus, although these
gaunt, grotesque, slender image that must have appeared like an obelisk accusations were malicious and self–serving, they were nevertheless true!
rather than a reasonably proportioned well–formed image.” Thus, their attitude toward these Jews resembles that exhibited by Haman,
who sought to destroy all the Jews in the days of Esther and King
Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] concludes: “See how Ahasuerus. He maliciously exclaimed to Ahasuerus: “There is a certain
the struggles are so difficult, how irresistible the snare, how deep is the people scattered and divided among the people throughout the provinces
valley, and a precipice on either hand. But, be not afraid. By whatever of your kingdom. Their laws are different than all the other people, they
means the enemy increases his machinations, so much more does he don’t obey the king’s laws, and it’s not in the king’s best interest to leave
make evident the courage of the young men. For this reason is there this them alone. If the king approves, let it be decreed that they’re to be
symphony of so many musicians; for this reason the burning furnace; in destroyed, and I’ll measure out 10,000 silver talents and bring it to the
order that both pleasure and fear might attack the souls of those gathered. king’s treasury for those who will do the work.” [Esther 3:8–9]
Thus, was fear as well as pleasure present; the one entering to assault the
soul by way of the ears, the other by the eyes. But, the noble character of Next in vv. 9–11, we read: “they told King Nebuchadnezzar, ‘Your
these youths was not by any such means to be conquered.” majesty, live forever. You, your majesty, issued this decree: ‘Every man
who hears the sound of the trumpet, the flute, the lyre, the four–stringed
3) Why wee the Jews accused of defying the king’s orders? (3:8–12) lyre, and the harp, playing together along with various other instruments
is to fall down and worship the golden statue. Whoever does not fall down
Starting with v. 8, we read: “just then, certain influential Chaldeans took and worship is to be thrown into a blazing fire furnace.’”
this opportunity to come forward and denounce the Jews.”
Before stating their specific charges, the accusers first reminded the king
So, Daniel tells us that “certain influential Chaldeans” came forward to of his own edict. They began their address to the king with the standard
accuse the Jews. The Aramaic term kaśdāʾîn [for “Chaldeans”] appeared court protocol, “your majesty, live forever,” a formality no doubt with little
earlier in a list of occult practitioners [recall Daniel 2:2]. In that case, the sincerity behind it, and then the statement in vv. 10–11 were essentially a
term was used in the sense of experts/priests in the Babylonian religion restatement of the king’s address in vv. 5–6. Those who refused to bow
[one of their functions being astrology]. However, some scholars feel that down and prostrate themselves in homage to the statue at the sound of the
the term has an ethnic sense here. While either nuance is possible in this music were to be thrown alive into the furnace of blazing fire.
 112

Finally in v. 12, we read: “certain influential Jewish men whom you attention and did show the highest respect for the king [recall Daniel 2:37,
appointed to manage the city of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach, and 49]. They also sought to be obedient and respectful to others whom the
Abednego—have neither paid attention to you, your majesty, nor served king had appointed over them [recall Daniel 1:8, 12–13]. However, the 2nd
your gods. And they won’t worship the golden statue that you set up.” and 3rd charges were true, but it was a case of obeying God rather than
man [Acts 4:19–20], because this was part of God’s law [Exodus 20:1–5].
The Chaldeans began by identifying the violators of the king’s edict as
“certain influential Jewish men.” Actually, their ethnic makeup was Gregory Goswell [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The expression
immaterial, and did not need to be pointed out. The fact that the Chaldeans ‘they do not serve your gods’ (instead of ‘our gods’) also makes the king
called the king’s attention to this reflects their prejudice against this unique the target of their action; and their different religious affiliation from the
people. The Chaldeans also underscored the fact that these three specific king, like their foreign ethnicity (‘certain Jews’), neither of which is
Jews had been given their positions by the king himself: “whom you normally a problem in the multi–ethnic and multi–religious empire of the
appointed to manage the city of Babylon.” They were probably trying to Babylonians, becomes a further reason to suspect their loyalty. The
stress the fact that the king had been gracious to these Jews, so as to cleverly crafted speech turns political betrayal into personal betrayal.”
malign the three young men as being unappreciative and rebellious. Then
they are categorically named: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.” These Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] says: “Consider along
names have been found [in slightly different form] on an ancient with me the wickedness of those who were their accusers, and how
Babylonian list of officials comprising the court of Nebuchadnezzar! maliciously and bitterly they brought the accusation! They did not merely
mention the nation, but they also bring to mind the Jews’ honourable
Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Although one would positions, that they may inflame the wrath of the king. It is almost as if they
not expect to find a record of even a fraction of the countless numbers of had said, ‘These slaves, these captives, who are without a city, you have
government officials from ancient times, Shea has presented a rather made rulers over us. But, they show contempt for such an honour and treat
strong case for identifying the three Hebrews in this story with names insolently the one who has given them this honour!’ They go on then to
found among more than 50 officials listed on a Babylonian text from the say, ‘The Jews whom you have set over the province of Babylon do not
reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Shea associates Hananiah (Shadrach) with obey or serve your gods.’ The accusation becomes their greatest praise;
Hanunu, designated ‘chief of the royal merchants’; Abednego (Azariah) and the crimes imputed, their encomium; a testimony that is
with Ardi–Nabu, ‘secretary of the crown prince (Amel–Marduk)’; and unassailable as it is brought forward by their enemies.”
Mishael (Meshach) with Mushallim–Marduk, one of the ‘overseers of the
slave girls.’ The last identification is the most tentative, but it is plausible. Romanus Melodus [6th century Byzantine hymnographer] also says:
Hanunu and Hananiah have a clear correspondence and Ardi–Nabu is an “When in Babylon an image had been made, and everyone against his will
exact equivalent of Abed–Nabu (Abednego). Other names in this worshiped the lifeless things as though it were alive, then, as scripture
Babylonian list of officials are also found in the bible: Nabuzeriddinam tells, three youths, having received in their hearts divine guidance, did not
= Nebuzaradan (2 Kings 25:8, 11; Jeremiah 39:9–11, 13; 40:1) and leave the straight path, for they considered the madness of many as a path
Nergalsharusur (Neriglissar) = Nergal–Sharezer (Jeremiah 39:3, 13).” that leads astray, and so the steadfast young men did not follow it. But,
advancing on the straight road, always toward the truth, they mocked the
Then three specific charges are brought against them: these men “have trickery of the Persians, or rather, the sainted boys mourned and
neither paid attention to you, your majesty, nor served your gods” and lamented, for a righteous person does not rejoice over the destruction of
“they won’t worship the golden statue that you set up.” But, the 1st another but with groans prays: ‘Hasten, Merciful One; and in compassion
accusation was false, since Daniel and these three young men did pay come quickly to our aid, since you are able to do what you will.’”
 113

4) What happened in Nebuchadnezzar’s angry interrogation? (3:13–18) would have realized that God was unlike his own deities, which means his
rage was not due to reflection, but a threat from his subconscious fear!
Starting with vv. 13–15, we read: “Nebuchadnezzar flew into a rage and
furiously ordered that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “Behold the Holy Spirit as it is manifest in
before him. Nebuchadnezzar asked them, ‘Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, the martyrs’ eloquent speech, comforting them and consoling them and
and Abednego, that you don’t worship my gods and that you don’t worship encouraging them to disregard death. A person deprived of the Holy
the golden statue that has been set up? Now, if you are ready at this very Spirit would be frightened and hide in fear, taking precautions against
moment to obey ‘the sound of the trumpet, the flute, the lyre, the four– this death. He is terrified as he stands before the blade, panicked at the
stringed lyre, and the harp,’ and worship the image that I have made; if idea of torment and seeing only the world below. This man is consoled
you do not so worship, you will immediately have cast yourselves into the with the life below, as he prefers to have a wife and the love of his children
middle of the blazing fire, and what god is there who can deliver you from and to see only wealth. This man, who does not possess the power of
my power?’” heaven, readily is lost. Thus, whoever is close to the Word hears the
command of the King and Lord of the sky [Matthew 10:38; Luke 14:33].”
This whole scene begins with Nebuchadnezzar in a fit of “rage.” He
certainly is in no frame of mind to think clearly and make rational Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] likewise says: “Then
decisions. His temper is out of control, and he is filled with arrogance. the youths alone are led into the midst; they alone conquering and being
Nebuchadnezzar was in a difficult situation himself. He had given a strict proclaimed victors among so vast a multitude. This courage would not
order and certainly expected no one to defy him. Although he had have been so surprising if they had acted courageously at the outset, when
stipulated that the penalty would be death in the blazing hot furnace, this no one had fallen prostrate. But, the greatest and most astonishing fact
was probably hastily said so as to assert his authority. Now his authority was that the multitude of those who fell down neither made them
was being put to the test. On the other hand, he could not possibly have frightened nor made them weak. They did not say to themselves such
forgotten the three young Jewish men that he had once found so superior things as many often do, ‘If we were first, and the only persons to worship
to his own wise men [recall Daniel 1:19–20] and whom he himself had the image, this would have been a sin; but if we do this with so many
appointed to high positions at Daniel’s request [recall Daniel 2:49]. Rather persons, who will not make allowance? Who will not think us worthy of
than immediately killing them, the king gave them an opportunity to defence?’ But, nothing of this sort did they say or think when they beheld
escape their fate of death. The king asked them if the charges of not the shapes of so many princes. What does the king do at this point? He
serving his gods and doing homage to the statue of gold were true. He also commands that they should be brought into the midst, so that he may make
gave them opportunity to comply by falling down and worshiping the them scared in every way. But, nothing dismayed them, neither the wrath
statue when the music sounded again, once more asserting the penalty of of the king, nor their being left alone in the midst of so many, nor the sight
death by severe burning. However, at the end of v. 15, his arrogance of the fire, nor the sound of the trumpet, nor the whole multitude looking
emerges, “what god is there who can deliver you from my power?” In wrathfully at them; for deriding all these things, as if they were about to be
saying this, he seems to have forgotten the encounter he recently had with cast into a cool fountain of water, they entered the furnace uttering that
Daniel’s God, and Daniel had given the king an opportunity to understand blessed sentence, ‘We will not serve your gods.’ I have told you this
that Israel’s God not only gave the king a symbolic dream, but also history with good reason that you may learn that whether it is the wrath
revealed its interpretation to Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar had certainly of a king, or the violence of soldiers, or the envy of enemies, or captivity,
realized that God had done something more remarkable than what any of or destitution, or fire, or furnace, or 10,000 terrors, nothing will work to
his Babylonian gods could have done, but he obviously did not come to shame or terrify a righteous person. But, I say all this now, and select all
grips with the power of God. In other words, had he paused to reflect, he the histories that contain trials and tribulations and the wrath of kings and
 114

their evil designs, in order that we may fear nothing except offending God. tried to escape the difficulty by emending the text from hēn to hāʾ, the
For then also was there a furnace burning; yet they derided it but feared latter being equivalent to the Hebrew hinnēh [or “behold”]. Thus, it reads:
sin. For they knew that if they were consumed in the fire, they should suffer “behold, our God is able to save us.” However, there is no textual support
nothing that was to be dreaded, but if they were guilty of impiety, they for this, and it faces the same problem of the presence of hēn at the
should undergo the extremes of misery. It is the greatest punishment to beginning of v. 18. So, we must understand this as a true conditional
commit sin, though we may remain unpunished; it is the greatest honour statement. Thus, in solving the problem, we need to examine the
and repose to live virtuously, though we may be punished.” combination of the first two words of v. 17: hēn ʾîṯay. This phrase also
occurs in v. 15 and Ezra 5:17, but not exactly parallel, because it is
Finally in vv. 16–18, we read: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego immediately followed by the particle dî [or “if it be that”]. So, the case in
answered King Nebuchadnezzar, ‘It’s not necessary for us to respond in v. 15 is more helpful, as the pronominal subject on ʾîṯay [namely ʾîṯ ḵôn]
this matter. Your majesty, if it be his will, our God whom we serve can indicates that the subject of the condition follows, and then a subsequent
deliver us from the blazing fire furnace, and he will deliver us from you. word [in this case, an adjective] completes the thought. In other words,
But if not, rest assured, your majesty, that we won’t serve your gods, and “now if you are ready.” This is parallel in structure to v. 17, except that it
we won’t worship the golden statue that you have set up.’” does not have an adjective completing the thought, but rather a participle.
Nevertheless, further help is provided by examining the Hebrew equivalent
The first reaction that “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego” gave to ʾim yēš. In some cases this can be rendered “if there is,” but only when no
Nebuchadnezzar was: “it’s not necessary for us to respond in this matter.” subject of the conditional clause is expressed [Proverbs 23:18; Job 33:23;
So, notice that they did not deny or apologize for their actions. Instead, Jeremiah 5:1; Lamentations 1:12; Psalm 7:4]. But, v. 17 does have an
since they made a brave decision, they were ready to defend themselves expressed subject, and so this is not a suitable parallel. However, we do
even if it meant martyrdom, but their words should not be construed as find ʾim yēš followed by a subject, and then subsequently by a participle in
being disrespectful to the king, as they were simply being frank and firm. the same structure as v. 17 [Genesis 24:42, 49; 43:4; Judges 6:36]. So, in
Furthermore, their reply is aimed at the king’s final statement. In other these cases, yēš serves as an equative verb, where the participle completes
words, they did not feel that they had to defend God’s ability to deliver. the thought, and the subject after ʾim yēš is the one doing the action. This
Nevertheless, v. 17 is extremely difficult to understand and to translate! could lead to the conclusion that v. 17 can be translated: “if our God whom
Here is the consensus literal translation: “if our God, whom we worship, is we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of burning fire and out of
able to save us, he will save us from the furnace of fire and from your your hand, O king, he will deliver us. But if not, let it be known …”
hand, O king.” However, this raises a theological problem. Were the
Jewish youths uncertain of God’s ability to save/deliver them that they However, there are English translations that object to this translation on
would say “if our God ... is able to save us”? The LXX tried to alleviate the basis of the short relative clause [“whom we serve”] standing between
the difficulty by avoiding the conditional element altogether: the verb “is” and the completing construction “able to deliver.”
Nevertheless, the subject itself [“our God”] stands between the two,
1. LXXθ: “For there is a God, whom we serve, able …” revealing that there is no problem! In other words, the relative clause
2. LXXΟ: “For there is a God in heaven, our one Lord, whom we simply modifies “God,” and this is the logical place [in Aramaic grammar]
fear, who is able …” to place it. Thus, the syntactical construction has an emphatic function
here to give prominence to the subject. So, although the separation of ʾîṯay
However, in the Aramaic text, there is a conditional clause initiated by the from the participle is unusual, a comparative study of ʾîṯay reveals that
particle hēn [or “if”], because it is used again at the beginning of v. 18 as while the structure is an unusual one, examples can be found where it is
the alternative condition [or “but if not”]. So, Jerome in his Latin Vulgate separated from its participle by intervening words.
 115

So, in the Aramaic text, notice that the words and syntax used by In summary, it is interesting to see how this story was utilized in the early
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego” echo the words and syntax that had church, especially in the difference in how it was preached before and after
been used by the king in v. 15. In that earlier verse, the king had used hēn Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312 a.d. In other words, prior
ʾîṯay followed by an action [to be “ready”], and had concluded his thought to Constantine’s conversion, imperial intolerance of Christianity had led to
with the verb š ziḇ [or “deliver”] combined with min yᵊḏāy [or “from my massive persecution, including burnings, beheadings, and being thrown to
power”]. Hence, their choice of words was purposely formulated to echo the lions, especially with Septimus’ edict in 202 a.d. outlawing conversion
the king’s own words! Once we recognize this, we realize why they are to Christianity. Thus, representative examples like Hippolytus and Origen
using the words they do in v. 17; we must not try to understand the [before 312 a.d.] developed a martyrdom theology of what it meant to be
statement in isolation, but rather see it in light of the preceding context. faithful under imperial persecution in 235 a.d., when Valerian ordered all
Thus, they are not questioning God’s ability to save/deliver them. It is the Christian clergy to sacrifice to the Roman gods and subsequently issued an
king who thinks there is no one able to deliver them from his power. But, edict that failure to do so would be punishable by death. This all changed
obviously he is greatly mistaken, and “Shadrach, Meshach, and once Christianity became the empire’s official religion. Thus, before 312
Abednego” couch their words in a form similar to his, so that their a.d., preaching focused on political loyalties, disloyalties, and one’s
response parallels the way he had put his demand to them! So, the willingness to die for Jesus, whereas after this date preaching shifted to a
conditional element is only for the purpose of making a fitting response to focus on individual piety and the pursuit of virtue. However, the courage
the king and clarifying that they will not bend the knee to his statue or and bravery of these three young men is not the only lesson we learn from
serve his gods. Thus, the issue in v. 17 is not about God’s existence, or if this episode. We should also reflect on their understanding of God’s will
they will be thrown into the furnace. Instead, it is a conditional statement as they made their decision. They knew that their God could intervene to
about what God is able to do, but we should not think that they were deliver his people, if he chose to do so. The exodus event, when the
questioning God’s power [as though he might lack the power to deliver Hebrews came out of Egypt, supremely demonstrated this. But, they also
them], because the end of v. 17 indicates their affirmation of God’s ability realized that God does not always choose to deliver his people, and even
to deliver them. Thus, their statement, couched in a conditional clause, just when we [as believers] do not know what God might do for us, we must
as the king had done with them [v. 15], was a clear rebuttal to the king’s stand ready to do our part and be faithful to him. The bible consistently
claim. In other words, the king claimed no god could “deliver you from my teaches that God may allow his own precious children to be martyred for
power,” but they bravely asserted that God could “deliver us from you.” his sake, as Jesus said: “So never be afraid of them, because there is
nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not
Peter Coxon [20th century biblical scholar] concludes: “The confession be made known. What I tell you in darkness you must speak in the daylight,
mirrors the faith of the confessors. If their God is able to save, all well and and what is whispered in your ear you must shout from the housetops. Stop
good, but even if it proved impossible for him to intervene on their behalf being afraid of those who kill the body but can’t kill the soul. Instead, be
they would still refuse to commit idolatry. At all costs they intend to afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. Two
respect the commandment against idolatry. There is no implication of sparrows are sold for a penny, aren’t they? Yet not one of them will fall to
doubt here at all. The perilous expression of the three witnesses in vv. 17– the ground without your Father’s permission. Indeed, even the hairs on
18 serves only to underline the lengths to which they are prepared to go in your head have all been counted! So stop being afraid. You are worth
the service of their God and in the defence of their own integrity.” more than a bunch of sparrows.” [Matthew 10:26–31]

Thus, since they did not know what God might do in their case, they went So, God is free in his sovereignty to decide as he pleases, and he is under
on to say that even if God should choose not to deliver them, they would no obligation to prove that to anyone. Whether he chooses to demonstrate
remain faithful to him and not serve Nebuchadnezzar’s gods or his statue. that or not, our role is to be obedient and accept the outcome.
 116

God is love [1 John 4:16], and he knows every possible fact by which to Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] says: “Observe that the
base his decisions, and he will do what is perfectly wise. We might not young men by a special dispensation are ignorant of the future, for if they
understand his ways, but we can trust him by faith. For example, in Acts had foreknown, there would have been nothing wonderful in their doing
12, God allowed James to be slain, but miraculously caused Peter to be what they did. For what marvel is it if, when they had a guarantee of
freed from jail. God could have caused both to be free, but he did not. As safety, they defied all terrors? Then God indeed would have been glorified
we mature in faith, we realize that we will often not know what God is in that he was able to deliver them from the furnace, but they would not
going to do for us, or why he chooses to do what he does. This is maturity! have been wondered at, inasmuch as they would not have cast themselves
into dangers. For this reason, he caused them to be ignorant of the future
Tertullian [2nd century] says: “In terms of the honours due to king or that he might glorify them the more. And as they cautioned the king that he
emperor, we have a clear ruling to be subject in all obedience, according was not to condemn God of weakness though they might be burned, so God
to the apostle’s command, to magistrates and princes and those in accomplished both purposes: manifesting his own power and making even
authority [Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:13], but this obedience must be within more obvious the zeal of the children. And so they entered into the fire;
the bounds of Christian discipline. That is, it is proper so long as we keep manifesting all courage and gentleness and doing nothing for reward or
ourselves free of idolatry. It was for this reason that the familiar example for compensation or return. We also have already our compensation, for
of the three friends occurred before our time. Obedient in other respects to indeed we have it in that we have been given the full knowledge of him,
King Nebuchadnezzar, they most firmly refused to honour his image, and being made members of Christ. The reason why I admire those youths and
by this they proved that to extend the honour proper to a mortal beyond its pronounce them blessed and enviable is not because they trampled on the
due limits until it resembles the grandeur of God is idolatry. Daniel, in the flame and vanquished the force of the fire, but because they were bound
same way, subjected himself to Darius in all points and performed his duty and cast into the furnace and delivered to the fire for the sake of true
as long as it did not imperil his religion. To avoid that, Daniel showed no doctrine. For this was the whole of their triumph, and the wreath of victory
more fear of the king’s lions than they had shown of the king’s fires.” was placed on their brows as soon as they were cast into the furnace. And
yet, even before this momentous event, the wreath was woven for them. It
Augustine [4th century Bishop of Hippo] says: “Examine the divine was from the moment that they uttered those words as they spoke with such
scriptures, and scrutinize them as closely as you can and see whether boldness and forthrightness to the king when they were brought into his
killing oneself was ever done by any of the good and faithful souls, even presence. ‘We have no need to answer you concerning these things.’ After
though they suffered great trials at the hands of those who were trying to the utterance of these words, I proclaimed them conquerors; after these
drive them to eternal destruction, not to eternal life. I have heard that you words, grasping the prize of victory, they hastened on to the glorious
said the apostle Paul meant that this was lawful when he said, ‘If I should crown of martyrdom, following up the confession that they made through
deliver my body to be burned’ [1 Corinthians 13:3]. But, notice carefully their words with the confession made through their deeds.”
and understand in what sense scripture says that anyone should deliver his
body to be burned: not, certainly, that he should jump into the fire when Ambrose [4th century Bishop of Milan] says: “Preserve then, my sons, that
harassed by a pursuing enemy, but that when a choice is offered him of friendship you have begun with your brothers, for nothing in the world is
either doing wrong or suffering wrong, he chooses not to do wrong rather more beautiful than that. It is indeed a comfort in this life to have one to
than not to suffer wrong. In this case, he delivers his body not to the whom you can open your ear, with whom you can share secrets and to
power of the slayer, as those three men did who were being forced to whom you can entrust the secrets of your heart. It is a comfort to have a
adore the golden statue and who were threatened by the one who was trusty person by your side who will rejoice with you in prosperity,
forcing them with the furnace of burning fire if they did not do it. They sympathize in troubles, encourage in persecution. What good friends they
refused to adore the idol, but they did not cast themselves into the fire.” were that the furnace flames did not separate the love of each other!”
 117

Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] concludes: “Far from serving our a slanging match about reverence for the gods, propriety of worship and
Lord for payment, we are motivated by affection and longing, and at the cheap challenging of the rule of law. Nebuchadnezzar’s hermeneutic,
same time we prefer the service of our God to everything. Hence, instead which had begun with a clear understanding of his special role as chosen
of asking for relief from the troubles unconditionally, we embrace the sovereign, had become distorted into the demand for an either/or
Lord’s planning and providence; and without knowledge of what will be of confession involving idolatrous practice for the Jewish exiles. A final twist
benefit, we leave the helm to the pilot, no matter what he wishes, may be seen in the resolution of the story. The Jews win a remarkable
understanding clearly that he is able to free us from the threatened evils. victory on the very grounds of allegiance by which the Chaldaeans had
Whether he wishes to do so, we do not know; but we leave it to him, wise hoped to destroy them. They are vindicated by the king himself, who, as
governor as he is, and accept his verdict, confident that it is to our benefit. God’s servant and judge, has special powers to rescind the old decree and
Whether he rescues us or not, therefore, we shun worship of your statue promulgate a new one which will unequivocally protect the Jews and
and your gods.” their religious practice from Chaldaean machinations.”

5) What happened after Nebuchadnezzar’s angry interrogation? (3:19–23) Nevertheless, his whole facial expression reflected his extreme anger, and
there is an interesting wordplay in the Aramaic text. The word translated
Starting with vv. 19–20, we read: “Out of control with rage, “expression” is the Aramaic ṣᵊlēm [or “statue” and “image”], and it was
Nebuchadnezzar’s facial expression changed toward Shadrach, Meshach, used for the golden statue. So, the three youths would not change their
and Abednego, and he ordered that the furnace be heated seven times mind about worshiping his ṣᵊlēm [statue/image] and as a result the ṣᵊlēm
hotter than usual. Then he issued orders to his elite guard to bind [or “expression”] of Nebuchadnezzar’s face was changed. Thus, this
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with ropes and throw them into the wordplay highlights that Nebuchadnezzar’s image/statue was brilliantly
blazing fire furnace.” golden, but the image of his face was distraught, reflecting his rage within.
So, notice the sequence: Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about one image [recall
We have already seen Nebuchadnezzar as a man prone to anger and often Daniel 2:31], had another erected [v. 1], and changed another [his face].
reacting irrationally [recall Daniel 2:12–13]. He was angry upon hearing of As a result, the king “ordered that the furnace be heated seven times hotter
the insubordination of the three Hebrew youths [v. 13], and now we see his than usual.” This may have been some type of proverbial expression
anger totally out of control over their refusal to serve his gods or give [Proverbs 24:16; 26:16], or an idiomatic expression [“as hot as possible”],
homage to the image. But, some scholars provide a more sympathetic view or simply hyperbole. It cannot be taken literally, because a temperature of
of Nebuchadnezzar as the Babylonian “king of justice” with an obligation that magnitude would be the sun’s surface [5,778 K = 5504.85°C]!
to see that justice prevailed according to the law code of Babylonia. Nevertheless, the furnace was now hot enough to incinerate anyone alive.

Peter Coxon [20th century biblical scholar] says: “In Daniel 3 Finally in vv. 21–23, we read: “the elite guard tied them up fully clothed,
Nebuchadnezzar is inveigled by the clever dispositions of ’certain still wearing their robes, tunics, and turbans, and threw them into the
Chaldaeans’ into the unenviable position of judging Shadrach, Meshach blazing fire furnace, because the king’s command was so drastic. Since the
and Abednego for forthright blasphemy and lèse–majesté. These Jewish furnace was blazing hot, its flames killed those who threw Shadrach,
heroes are put in vulnerable positions. The conniving Chaldaeans had Meshach, and Abednego into the blazing fire. Bound firmly with ropes,
cleverly transmuted the king’s attempt to further his mission as universal Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego fell into the blazing fire furnace.”
king and just ruler by erecting a statue of himself called ‘king of justice’
into the arena of hostile ideological confrontation. What had started out as The “elite guard” that was chosen to carry out the execution were not
a symbol of royal supremacy and legal authority had become the centre of average troops, but were the king’s strongest warriors available.
 118

This is because the Aramaic lᵊguḇrîn gibbār –ḥayil [or “mighty men of Alexander the Great is called a mighty man. Finally, in Daniel 8:15, a
strength”] is equivalent to the Hebrew gibbôr haḥayil [or “mighty men of divine person appears to Daniel as a mighty man. That person is named
valour”], and the LXX Greek andras ischurotatous [or “very strong men”]. Gabri–el, which comes from gibbor–i–’el, or ‘My mighty man is The
Mighty One.’ He also appears in Daniel 9:21. Thus, in Daniel, there is a
James Jordan [21st century biblical scholar] offers a fascinating insight: contest of mighty men. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar’s mighty men include
“As the original tower was built on a plain, so Nebuchadnezzar’s new his counsellors and the strong men of his army. These are all defeated by
tower in Daniel 3 is built on a walled plain in Shinar. While the Joktanite God’s mighty men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Of particular
Hebrews had cooperated with Nimrod, the refusal of the three Jewish interest is the deliberate parallelism of phrasing in vv. 8 and 12. The
men to participate in the new Babel is what destroys the new enterprise. Chaldeans, remember, were the religious leaders, magicians, of the
We see in this the theme, so important in the Restoration Era, of Babylonian religion. They are set in opposition to the leaders of the true
intermarriage. Those who are faithful to God will minister within the religion, the faithful Jews. All of these factors point us to Daniel 3 as a
empire, but will not join with the heathen in their worship. Another strong new Tower of Babel incident. Unlike the first incident, however, there are
link to the original tower of Babel incident is the use of the term ‘mighty faithful Hebrews who refuse to cooperate in the project. The result,
men’ in Daniel 3. There is an opposition between the three Jewish men as therefore, is different this time. Instead of scattering and destroying the
‘mighty men’ and the ‘mighty men’ of Nebuchadnezzar. The Aramaic word project, God chooses to transform it. Yes, like Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar
is gibborin (plural) which is equivalent to the Hebrew gibborim (plural). has to leave off building his tower, but his kingdom is not scattered.
Before the Flood, when the sin of intermarriage was being committed, Instead, the true religion is established in it, forming a true cement for
such ‘mighty men’ were found on the earth. Nimrod is specifically said to the larger culture. The use of ‘mighty man/men’ in Daniel is instructive.
be the heir of such mighty men in Genesis 10:8–9. That text gives us a While the original mighty men in Genesis were political leaders, like
saying, that Nimrod was a mighty man and a hunter before the face of Nimrod—and later on David had his three mighty men—in Daniel God’s
God. This saying sets us up for Esau, who was a hunter. When Isaac came faithful ‘priestly’ agents are the true mighty men. Daniel’s book causes us
to bless Esau, he called him a gibbir, though it was actually Jacob who to rethink what a ‘mighty man’ really is, and to see that the strong and
received that title (Genesis 27:29, 37). This variant spelling only occurs mighty of this world are not what they may appear to be, not what they
here in the bible, and English versions render it as ‘master,’ but it means and others think they are.”
‘mighty one.’ Thus, it is no accident that as he left home, Jacob
encountered a true Tower of Babel in a vision (Genesis 28:10–22). The Thus, it may not have been necessary to have men of this calibre to bind
‘ladder to heaven’ (probably a pyramid or obelisk, which is a long slender and throw the Hebrews into the furnace, but they certainly provide a stark
pyramid) is equivalent to the tower. ‘Gate of heaven’ (v. 17) is the Hebrew contrast in the story: the fire of the furnace does no harm to the Hebrew
equivalent of Bab–el, ‘Gate of God.’ The stone stood up with oil poured on youths who are bound, whereas Babylon’s “mighty men of strength” are
it is a permanent marker of this true Babelic site. In Jacob’s vision it is destroyed by the fire without being bound and without even entering the
God, not man, who sets up the ladder/tower to heaven. Similarly, in furnace! As they went into the blazing furnace, they did so still fully
Daniel it is not Nebuchadnezzar who sets up the true avenue of worship, clothed. The terms for their clothing included their outer attire, headgear,
but it will be the Jews, when they return to Jerusalem, who will set it up. and other articles of clothing, and were derived from Persian loanwords.
The word ‘mighty man’ occurs 12 times in Daniel 3, and only occasionally For example, the Aramaic term sarbāl hôn [for “robes”] may mean either
thereafter. In Daniel 5:11, Daniel is called a mighty man, and he defeats a type of coat, or long baggy oriental trousers [like a type of Persian
Belshazzar’s feast as the three mighty men defeated Nebuchadnezzar’s pantaloon]. The LXXΟ translated it as hupodēmata [a sandal or type of
worship festival in Daniel 3. In Daniel 6, the mighty men of Persia try to boot], while the LXXθ translated it as sarabarois [loose trousers that were
get Daniel killed, and are defeated (vv. 5, 11, 15, 24). In Daniel 11:3, worn by the Scythians].
 119

Likewise, the Aramaic term ḵarbᵊlāṯᵊhôn [for “turbans”] is a loanword Curiously, after v. 23, the LXX add extensive information that is not found
from Akkadian karballatu, but was a form of Persian dress. In Akkadian it in the Aramaic text: “the flame going out from the furnace set on fire the
refers to a piece of linen headgear for soldiers. The LXX translated this men hindering those with Azariah and killed them. But they were
with the Greek word tiara [a particular type of Persian head–dress]. Thus, preserved. In this manner, therefore, Hananiah and Azariah and Mishael
these terms for their clothing seem to have included their outer attire, prayed, and they sang to the Lord when the king commanded them to be
headgear, and other articles of clothing, and such garments would thrown into the furnace. And standing still, Azariah prayed in this manner,
normally have caught fire immediately [to highlight the miraculous nature and when he opened his mouth he acknowledged the Lord together with
of the event]. In fact, this further showcases a type of satirical aspect to the his companions in the middle of the blazing fire, the furnace having been
story, in order to magnify God’s power when delivering his servants. ignited by the Chaldeans very much with fire, and they said, ‘Blessed are
you, O Lord, God of our fathers, and to be praised, and glorious is your
Marius Nel [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The king’s reaction is name into the eternities! For you are righteous concerning all the things
dominated by the references to the fiery furnace, with the fire symbolizing you have done to us, and all your works are true, and your paths are right,
the king’s fury and rage. The furnace is red–hot (vv. 20–21, 23, 26), but and all your judgments are truthful. And you have carried out accurate
the fire does not consume the Jews (vv. 24–27). The clothing of the three judgments according to all the things you have brought upon us, and upon
Jews is described in an alliterative list while the bounding of them is your holy city, the city of our fathers, Jerusalem, because in truth and in
described (vv. 20–21, 23–24) in contrast to their being unbound (v. 25), justice you have done all these things on account of our sins. For we have
indicating that the king’s will is not done even though he tries his very sinned in every way, and acted lawlessly by moving away from you, and
best. The scene creates an atmosphere of absurdity and humour. That the we have done grievous wrong in every way. And we have not listened to
furnace is heated seven times hotter than normal is hyperbolic and the the commandments of your law. Neither have we closely observed nor
consumption of the soldiers who throw the Jews into the furnace is have we acted according to what you commanded to us, in order that it
grotesque. The seven–fold increase in the heat symbolically participates in may go well for us. And now, everything, whatsoever you have brought
the king’s enkindled rage and consuming indignation. These soldiers against us, and everything, whatsoever you have done to us, you have
bowed before the king’s gods and his statue but have to die in carrying out acted in truthful judgment. Now you have given us over into the hands of
their king’s orders, an ironic twist to the tale.” our enemies, lawless and hostile rebels, and to an unrighteous king, even
to the most wicked king in all the earth. And so now it is not permitted for
So, the urgency of the king’s command and the exceedingly hot furnace us to open our mouth. Dishonour and disgrace has come to your servants,
were a dangerous combination. Perhaps in their haste to obey the king’s even those worshiping you. Do not utterly give us over on account of your
urgent command, they did not take proper precautions in approaching the name, and do not turn from your covenant. And do not remove your mercy
furnace. As a result, the men who brought up those to be punished were from us on account of Abraham, the one loved by you, and on account of
actually slain by the flames themselves. Apparently, they had to get very your servant Isaac and your holy one Israel. Just as you told them, saying
close to the furnace door in order to push the Hebrews in [which they that you would multiply their seed as the stars of the heavens in abundance
succeeded in doing], but they underestimated the danger of the flames [not and as the sand along the shore of the sea. For, O Master, we have been
being accustomed to having the furnace heated this hot]. Although we do reduced more than any of the peoples, and we are humbled throughout the
not have a detailed description of the type of furnace that was used, it whole earth today because of our sins. Now there is not at this time a ruler
apparently had some type of door near the top, because Daniel indicates nor a prophet nor a leader nor a whole burnt offering nor any offering nor
that the three Hebrew youths “fell” into the midst of the furnace while still gifts nor an incense sacrifice nor a place to give an offering before you
“bound firmly with ropes,” and when the soldiers opened the upper door and thus to find mercy. Yet, with a soul shattered and a spirit made low,
the flames shot out and killed them as they pushed them into the furnace. we might be accepted, just as though we came with whole burnt offerings
 120

of rams and bulls, and just as though we came with myriads of fat lambs. eternities! Bless, O heavens, the Lord, laud and exalt him exceedingly into
So may our sacrifice be before you today, also to atone behind you, since the eternities! Bless, O waters and all above the heavens, the Lord; praise
there is no shame for those who put confidence in you and completely and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O all the power and
follow you. And now, we follow you earnestly with our whole heart, and hosts of the Lord, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly into the
we fear you, and we seek your face; do not shame us! But have mercy with eternities! Bless, O sun and the moon, the Lord; laud and exalt him
us according to your goodness and according to the abundance of your exceedingly into the ages! Bless, O stars of the heavens, the Lord; praise
compassion. And rescue us in accordance with your wonderful acts, and and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O all storms and dew,
give honour to your name, O Lord. And may they be shamed, all those who the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O all
show forth against your servants their evil acts. And may they be winds, the Lord; praise and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities!
discredited from having any power, and may their authority be shattered! Bless, O fire and scorching heat, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly
Let them know that you alone are the Lord God, and notable and glorious into the eternities! Bless, O shivering cold and cutting cold weather, the
over the whole inhabited world.’ And those who threw them into the Lord; praise and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O gentle
furnace, the servants of the king, those who were stoking the furnace, did dew and swirling snowstorm, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly
not cease. And when they were casting the three at once, into the furnace, into the eternities! Bless, the Lord, O frost and cold, laud and exalt him
and as the furnace was blazing hot in accordance with its increased exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O hoar–frost and snow, the Lord;
sevenfold heat, and when they cast them in, those casting them in were laud and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O night time and
above them, but those who fed the fire were below them with naphtha and day time, the Lord; sing a hymn and exalt him exceedingly into the
flax and pitch and brushwood. Then the flame shot forth high above the eternities! Bless, O light and darkness, the Lord; praise and exalt him
furnace by over 49 cubits. And so it broke out of control and burned those exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O flashing lightning and stirring
it reached from around the furnace from the Chaldeans. But a divine being clouds, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless,
of the Lord descended at the same time to the ones around Azariah, into O earth, the Lord; sing forth and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities!
the furnace, and dispersed the flame of fire from the furnace. Then he Bless, O mountain heights and high places of the hills, the Lord; laud and
made the middle of the furnace like a moist wind gently whistling, so that it exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O everything that springs
did not touch them at all; and the fire did not cause pain and did not forth upon the earth, the Lord; sing a hymn and exalt him exceedingly into
trouble them. And lifting up their voices, the three, as if out of one mouth, the eternities! Bless, O rainstorms and running waters, the Lord; praise
sang praises and extolled and praised and exalted God within the furnace, and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O seas and rivers, the
saying, ‘Blessed are you, O Lord God of our fathers, and praiseworthy Lord; sing a hymn and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O
and to be exalted into the eternities. And blessed is your glorious name, huge creatures of the sea and everything that moves in waters, the Lord;
holy and praiseworthy, and to be exalted exceedingly into all eternities. praise and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O all the
Blessed are you within the temple of your holy glory, and to be highly winged creatures of the heavens, the Lord; sing a hymn and exalt him
exalted and wholly glorious into the eternities! Blessed are you upon the exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O four–footed animals and beasts of
throne of glory of your kingdom, and to be praised and exceedingly the earth, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities!
exalted into the eternities! Blessed are you, the one who sees into the Bless, O sons of humans, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly into the
abyss, who sits upon the cherubim, and are to be praised and magnified eternities! Bless, O Israel, the Lord; sing a hymn and exalt him
into the eternities! Blessed are you in the firmament of the heavens, and to exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O priests, the Lord; praise and exalt
be praised and magnified into the eternities! Bless, O all works of the him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O servants, the Lord; sing a
Lord, the Lord, praise and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, hymn and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O spirits and
O angels of the Lord, the Lord; laud and exalt him exceedingly into the souls of the righteous, the Lord; praise and exalt him exceedingly into the
 121

eternities! Bless, O holy and low ones in your heart, the Lord; sing a hymn and from other possible toxic fumes generated during the combustion
and exalt him exceedingly into the eternities! Bless, O Hananiah, Azariah, process [to further heighten the magnitude of this spectacular miracle].
and Mishael, the Lord; praise and exalt him exceedingly into the One can only imagine the exhilarating feeling that the Hebrew youths must
eternities! For he has taken us out of Hades, and has saved us from the have had as they walked about in the fire without being harmed, for surely
hand of death, and has rescued us from the middle of the raging flame, and they were conscious and aware of what was taking place, not to mention
from the fire he delivered us! Acknowledge and give thanks to the Lord, for any conversation they might have had with the mysterious 4th individual.
he is good, for his mercy continues into the eternities! Bless, all those who So, who was this 4th individual? Obviously he was not an ordinary human,
worship the Lord, God of the gods; sing a hymn and acknowledge him although he may have appeared in human form to them. Outdated English
fully, for his mercy continues into the ages, even into the age of eternities!” translations like the KJV read “the Son of God.” However, recent
scholarship confirms that it should read “a divine being.” This is because
So, while this material is interesting, it should not be regarded as scripture, Nebuchadnezzar would not have recognized this 4th individual as the
being additions that were made subsequent to Daniel’s original text. In preincarnate 2nd Yahweh. In other words, since this is coming from the lips
fact, the oldest copy [1Q Danb] proceeds to v. 24 without these insertions. of a polytheistic pagan king, it is doubtful that Nebuchadnezzar would
have anachronistically asserted Trinitarian theology. Furthermore, the KJV
6) How did God supernaturally protect them in the furnace? (3:24–27) translation “Son of God” is linguistically inaccurate, since “Son of God”
would be Aramaic bar ʾĕlāhāʾ [having the singular form of “god”], but the
Starting with vv. 24–25, we read: “Astonished, King Nebuchadnezzar text has Aramaic bar ʾĕlāhîn [with the plural form “gods”]. In other words,
stood up in terror, and asked his advisors, ‘Didn’t we throw three men into although the Hebrew word ʾĕlōhîm can mean either “God” or “gods,” the
the fire, bound firmly with ropes?’ In reply they told the king, ‘Yes, your same phenomenon does not hold true in Aramaic [especially in Daniel].
majesty.’ ‘Look!’ he told them, ‘I see four men walking untied and Normally in the Aramaic section of Daniel, if “God” is meant, then we
unharmed in the middle of the fire, and the appearance of the fourth find the singular form [later in vv. 26–29]. Thus, the Aramaic should be
resembles a divine being.’” translated “like a son of the gods,” since Nebuchadnezzar took him to be
some kind of divine being without really grasping who or what he was.
Apparently the furnace must have had some type of door at the lower Furthermore, although Nebuchadnezzar calls him a malʾaḵ [or “angel”]
portion [in addition to the upper opening], because the king and his cohorts later in v. 28, this does not prove that the king took him to be one.
were able to see inside. What the king saw was not only amazing, but even Nevertheless, the LXXΟ rendered ḇar ʾĕlāhîn by the Greek angelou theou
frightening, since the Aramaic tᵊwah [for “astonished”] also has the [or “angel of God”], while the LXXθ translated it as homoia huiōi theou
element of fear to it. Not only were the Hebrews alive and unbound, but [or “like the son of God”], both using “God” in the singular.
there were also now four individuals in the blazing fire. To make sure he
had not overlooked something, the king asked his “advisors” to confirm Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] says: “It is not possible to
that only “three men” had been thrown into the fire, and they quickly link either the figure of Daniel 3:24–28 or the angel of Daniel 6:22 with
affirmed this was so. There had been no mistake about the number of men this heavenly man or the angel of Yahweh. Not only does the description of
put into the furnace. With the furnace as hot as it was, one would have the 4th ‘man’ in the fiery furnace come from Nebuchadnezzar—hardly a
expected the bodies to have charred and been consumed rather quickly. source of Israelite thought—the term ‘son of the gods’ aligns quite easily
Instead, the king saw “four men” unbound and even walking about in the with divine ‘sons of God’ terminology used of members of the heavenly
midst of the fire, totally unharmed. However, the miracle was more than host who are not Yahweh. In Daniel 6:22, ‘his angel’ is ambiguous (all
the fact that the fire did not kill them. In other words, they were not only angels are under God’s authority). Both these figures are best understood
saved from the conflagration, but also from asphyxiation, CO poisoning, as ‘normal’ divine agents in God’s service, not the angel of Yahweh.”
 122

Thus, although Jewish tradition interpreted the 4th individual to be an angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons
“angel,” since the Talmud asserts that it was Gabriel [Pes. 118a, b], of God. So much for the story itself. But, as for its typical significance, this
because Gabriel appears in Daniel’s book [later in Daniel 8:16; 9:21], angel of the Son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus Christ, who
Christian tradition instead held that the 4th individual was the 2nd Yahweh descended into the furnace of hell, in which the souls of both sinners
in human form, as evident throughout the Old Testament [Genesis 16:7, and of the righteous are imprisoned, in order that he might without
13; 31:11–13; Exodus 3:2–6; Joshua 5:13–15; Judges 2:1–5; 6:22–24]. suffering any scorching by fire or injury to his person deliver those who
were held imprisoned by chains of death.”
Irenaeus [2nd century Bishop of Lyons] says: “It is manifest in scripture
that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, ‘No one Finally in v. 26–27, we read: “Then Nebuchadnezzar approached the
has seen God at any time’ [John 1:18]. But, his Word, as he willed it and opening of the blazing fire furnace. He shouted out, ‘Shadrach, Meshach,
for the benefit of those who saw, did show the Father’s brightness and and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out and come here!’
explained his will. He appeared to those who saw him not in one figure or So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the fire. The regional
in one character, but according to the reasons and purposes that he authorities, viceroys, governors, and royal advisors gazed at those men
wanted to achieve, as we see written in Daniel. He was seen with those and saw that the fire had no effect on their bodies—not a hair on their
who were around Ananias, Azarias, and Misael as present with them in the head was singed, their clothes were not burned and did not smell of fire.”
furnace of fire, in the burning, and preserving them from the effects of fire:
‘And the appearance of the fourth,’ it is said, ‘was like the Son of God.’ At So, astounded by what he saw, the king moved closer for a better look.
another time he is represented as ‘a stone cut out of the mountain without Then he called out to the three youths to come out, addressing them as
hands’ [Daniel 2:45], and as destroying all temporal kingdoms, and as “servants of the Most High God” where the Aramaic ʾĕlāhāʾ illāyāʾ [for
himself filling all the earth. Then too he is the same being beheld as the “Most High God”] is comparable to the Hebrew ʾēl elyôn [Genesis 14:20].
Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven and drawing near to the Thus, although this was a very honourable way to refer to them [and to
Ancient of Days [Daniel 7:13–14].” their God], this does not mean Nebuchadnezzar had had some type of
conversion, because even the Greeks referred to Zeus as “the Most High.”
Hippolytus [3rd century] likewise says: “Tell me, Nebuchadnezzar, when So, just imagine how it must have appeared to everyone to see the three
did you see the Son of God, that you should confess that this is the Son of Hebrews emerging from this blazing furnace looking quite normal, but
God? And who stirred your heart, that you should utter such a phrase? with smiles on their faces. Nebuchadnezzar was not the only witness to
And with what eyes were you able to look into this light? And why was this this miracle, for the text tells us that the highest rulers and officials of the
manifest to you alone and to none of the satraps around you? Thus, it is empire were there as witnesses. For those who were not there on that day
written, ‘The heart of a king is in the hand of God,’ and of God is here, or who could not have been close enough to observe what happened, they
whereby the Word stirred his heart, so that he might recognize him in the would have received a highly credible report about the miracle, coming as
furnace and glorify him. And this idea of ours is not without good ground; it was from such astute dignitaries. Three crucial observations were noted:
the scripture showed beforehand that the Gentiles would recognize him
incarnate, whom, while not incarnate, Nebuchadnezzar saw and 1. Their bodies had been unharmed and their hair was not singed.
recognized of old in the furnace and acknowledged to be the Son of God.” 2. Their clothing was undamaged.
3. They did not even have the smell of smoke on them.
Jerome [4th century] concludes: “As for the fourth man, which he asserts to
be like the son of God, I do not know how an ungodly king could have Thus, this divine miracle had occurred to showcase Nebuchadnezzar’s
merited a vision of the Son of God. For that reason, we are to think of presumptuousness about his kingdom glory to be deflated by Israel’s God.
 123

Charles Baukal Jr. [21st century combustion engineer] explains the science: that was used in furnaces at that time. Therefore the fuel specified in v. 46
“Since the phrase ‘burning fiery furnace’ appears eight times in Daniel 3, is not likely what was used in the fiery furnace. Rand suggested that
little has been written about the furnace itself, and neither has this miracle bitumen, which was readily available around Babylon and very
been analysed from a scientific perspective. Three elements are required combustible, was the fuel used in the furnace. This is also unlikely, as
for a fire: a fuel, an oxidant (usually air), and an ignition source. This is there is little evidence of the use in any early period of petroleum for
typically referred to as the fire triangle. Once a fire has been started, the heating purposes. The fuel used in the furnace was likely a solid
heat from the flame is normally enough to keep the fire going; that is, the consisting of either some type of biomass or charcoal, which is made by
heat from the fire itself becomes the ignition source. If any leg of the heating biomass until it decomposes into primarily carbon. While other
triangle is missing, the fire is extinguished. One method of extinguishing a fuels were used in antiquity, biomass and charcoal were the most common.
fire is to cool it to a temperature below auto–ignition so that it will no Biomass was commonly used to make pottery, quicklime, and glass, while
longer be self–sustaining. This is often done by spraying liquid water onto charcoal was more commonly used to smelt ores. The most common fuels
the flame because water is inexpensive, usually readily available, and has are hydrocarbons, which contain both hydrogen and carbon. When these
a high heat capacity to absorb energy, which makes it particularly two elements fully react with O2, they form H2O and CO2. Those products
effective for cooling a flame. Another method is to suffocate a fire by are considered to be inerts, compared with fuels and oxidizers. Oxygen is
restricting or eliminating the flow of air into the flame, such as by the most common oxidizer. Normal air consists of ~21% oxygen by
blanketing a flame with foam or carbon dioxide from a fire extinguisher. volume. In addition to H2O and CO2, the largest component in the
Once the flame has been sufficiently starved of oxygen, it goes out. A third products of combustion is N2, which is also an inert gas and the largest
method of flame extinguishment is to eliminate the source of the fuel, such single component by far in air (~79% by volume). Other common
as by shutting off the fuel supply to the burners in a furnace. To prevent components in the products from the combustion of a hydrocarbon include
the flames from being extinguished in the fiery furnace, a continuous some excess O2 and some trace pollutants such as CO and nitrogen oxides
supply of both fuel and air would have been needed. Three basic types of (NOx). When combusting a solid fuel, such as was probably used in the
fuels are solids, liquids, and gases. Examples of solid fuels include wood, fiery furnace, particulates are usually produced as well. These may be
charcoal, and coal (Proverbs 26:20–21). Examples of liquid fuels include composed of a wide range of elements depending on what constituents are
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Examples of gaseous fuels include natural present in the solid fuel that do not burn, such as ash and heavy metals.
gas, methane, and propane. Gaseous fuels are the easiest to burn because Particulates produced during solid fuel combustion normally contain soot,
they are already in the proper form for reaction, whereas liquid fuels must primarily in the form of carbon that is not fully reacted. Unburned
be vaporized to a gas and solid fuels volatilized into a gas so that they can particulates are ejected from the exhaust stack of a furnace in the form of
burn. The fuel used in the fiery furnace was almost assuredly solid. Only smoke and can often be seen for some distance. This was likely the case
two fuels were used in antiquity: biomass (wood, shrubs, straw, and dung) for the fiery furnace, which means the threat of being thrown into the
and charcoal (made by heating biomass under air–starved conditions to furnace would have been very real for the onlookers, who probably saw
produce a solid consisting of mostly carbon). In the LXX, Daniel 3:46 the smoke from the furnace from great distances. Forced draft and
describes the fuel that was added as naphtha, pitch, tow, and brush. natural draft are two general methods of supplying air for combustion to a
Naphtha is a naturally occurring liquid fuel that was probably not used at furnace. Forced draft involves some type of device to force the air into the
the time of the fiery furnace. Pitch is a very viscous naturally occurring combustion process. Today that is done using electrically powered fans
petroleum material that was used as a sealant in antiquity to keep liquids and blowers. Before the advent of electricity, human–powered bellows
inside pottery, but was not used as a fuel. While brush (twigs and were a form of forced draft. The other method for supplying air is by
branches) is a solid fuel, it does not have a high enough heating value to natural draft caused by hot combustion products rising, because they are
use in a furnace, although it could have been used to make the charcoal lighter than air, and then pulling in ambient air. This is how most fossil–
 124

fuel–powered appliances, such as stoves and heaters, work today as they would normally not have enough oxygen to support human life. Another
do not have fans to move the combustion air. In antiquity, furnaces were would have been CO poisoning leading to asphyxiation. Given the less
nearly always natural draft. The normal configuration of a furnace is to than ideal operating conditions for furnaces in antiquity, large amounts of
have the exhaust at the top because hot combustion products naturally rise CO would have been produced because of incomplete combustion, which
due to buoyancy. A so–called natural draft furnace does not use any fans is particularly a problem with solid fuels because of inadequate mixing
or blowers either to supply the air for combustion or to remove the with combustion air. The problem would have been exacerbated in this
products of combustion. Since fans and blowers were not available at the instance as the furnace operators likely used much more fuel than
time of the narrative, an analogous device would have been a bellows. As normal in response to Nebuchadnezzar’s command to heat the furnace
the exhaust gases exit the furnace, air is drawn into the furnace because of seven times hotter. It would have been difficult to supply enough air and
the negative pressure created by the rising hot gases. A natural draft adequately distribute that air to completely burn the fuel. If the fuel
furnace has at least one or more openings on the side and/or the bottom to contained any toxic components such as heavy metals, those exposed to the
provide enough air for combustion. The openings for a properly designed combustion products could also have died from the toxic fumes. The
furnace should be near the fuel so that air can mix with the fuel for Aramaic word translated ‘furnace’ is a loanword from Akkadian utūnu. It
efficient combustion. Unless the fiery furnace was elevated so that air has been understood as referring to an oven used for baking bricks or
could enter from below the fuel, the likely configuration would have been smelting (refining ore) metals, as a smelting and melting or heating
to have openings on the sides in the vicinity of the fuel. The typical furnace, as smelting or making lime, and as a lime–kiln. No firm
products from the combustion of any type of fuel in a furnace do not archaeological knowledge exists that can describe the furnace. The words
normally contain enough oxygen to sustain life. The theoretical amount of ‘furnace’ and ‘kiln’ are commonly used interchangeably today, though a
air to fully combust a fuel is referred to as the stoichiometric amount. In particular term is preferred in a given industry. For example, ‘kiln’ is
actual practice more air than is theoretically needed for complete preferred in cement, lime, and ceramic production, while ‘furnace’ is
combustion is provided because of imperfect mixing between the fuel and preferred in the metallurgical industries. Few details of the furnace are
the air. The most efficient operation is where the least amount of air for given in this narrative. The furnace had an opening in the top through
complete combustion is provided so that the excess O2 level is kept as low which the three Jews were thrown (v. 22). Nebuchadnezzar saw four men
as possible while still fully combusting all the fuel. Using more air than walking around in the furnace (v. 25). He likely would have been looking
necessary reduces the thermal efficiency because the additional air is through openings or doors in the side of the furnace and not on top of the
heated to the exhaust gas temperature and carried out of the exhaust. furnace, particularly after he saw his strongest soldiers killed by getting
This also reduces the flame temperature because the additional air acts too close to that opening. Depending on the type of furnace, there would
like ballast by absorbing heat. In well–operated modern–day furnaces, the have been one or more doors on the side so that workers could
typical level of O2 in the combustion products is ~3% by volume depending conveniently remove finished products. It might be asked, ‘Why was a
on the fuel and operating conditions. Poorly operated furnaces may have furnace there in the first place?’ It is unknown if it was used purely for
more than ~5% excess O2, but not normally more than ~10%. If the excess punishment as a type of crematory or for cremation. While the furnace
O2 level is too high, the flames can become unstable and possibly even be could have been built for the sole purpose of punishing those refusing to
extinguished because the large amount of excess air quenches the flame. bow down to the image, this is unlikely, particularly since it was large
So then, besides the intense heat in the fiery furnace, several other things enough for four men to walk around in, unless Nebuchadnezzar was
could have killed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. One is the lack of expecting many dissenters, which is doubtful. More likely it was an
oxygen necessary for humans to breathe. Typical atmospheric air consists existing furnace built for another purpose. It may have been the furnace
of ~21% oxygen by volume and oxygen concentrations less than ~16% is used to make the metal used in the giant image; this would explain its
immediately dangerous to life and health. The atmosphere in a furnace close proximity to the statue. The production of metals such as bronze
 125

would have required the construction of some type of furnace to achieve fuel is under the grate and the material being heated is on top of the grate.
the temperatures necessary to smelt the ore and produce liquid metal that The altar grating was made of brass. In the fiery furnace it could have
could be cast into shapes. Even if it was not used for any purpose other been made of a metal with a higher melting point such as iron. The grate
than punishment, its construction would likely have been similar to typical would have provided a level surface for the men to walk and would also
kilns and furnaces used at that time. While there are many ways to have allowed flames to come through. Another solution is that the heat for
categorize furnaces, one broad method is based on how the flames and the the process was generated in a separate chamber connected to the main
load (the material being heated) are arranged. In a direct–heating chamber used to process the materials being heated. This would still be
furnace, the flames come in direct contact with the load. There are many considered a direct–fired furnace because the combustion products come
examples of this type of furnace, such as a limekiln, where the limestone in direct contact with the load, even though those products are generated
and fuel are in alternating layers so that the heat is in close proximity to in a separate chamber. Another possibility is that the fiery furnace was
the limestone to refine it into lime. The other broad category of furnaces is heated indirectly, and the combustion gases did not come in contact with
indirect–heating, where the flames are separated from the load, usually to the load at all. The most common configuration for this type of furnace in
prevent contamination of the final product. An example is a heat treating antiquity would have had the flames outside the furnace, rather than
furnace where the products of combustion are separated from the metals inside. That would have provided the space for the four men to walk
being treated because those gases would reduce the product quality. An around inside the furnace. The level floor in an indirect–fired furnace
argument for a direct–fired furnace in this passage is that the text states would have made walking around much easier, compared to a direct–fired
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were walking around in the flames. furnace with a non–uniform and constantly changing floor contour.
If it was a direct–heating furnace, both the flames and the material being However, there are problems with assuming an indirect–fired furnace.
heated would have been inside the furnace. That would mean the fuel One is that the men would not have been literally walking through the
would have been charged into the furnace and replenished with new fuel flames as stated in the text. Those outside the furnace remarked that the
as it was consumed. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were loaded into three did not even smell of smoke after they exited the inferno (v. 27). This
the furnace from the top. While not required, the fuel may also have been would not have been surprising or miraculous if the furnace was indirectly
loaded through the same opening. However, there are some potential heated, as the flames would have been outside the furnace. More
problems in assuming a direct–fired furnace was used here. If the furnace importantly, indirect–fired furnaces were not used in antiquity for the
was made hotter than normal and was direct–fired, it would have been production of materials such as lime, bronze, or iron. Therefore the fiery
loaded with much more fuel than usual. One can imagine the furnace furnace was probably directly heated, but with a separate chamber to
operators using as much fuel as possible to satisfy the tyrant king’s generate the heat that was connected to the chamber with the load. There
command to make the furnace seven times hotter to make sure they were were two primary uses of furnaces in antiquity: to produce metals from
not also thrown into the furnace. If it was a direct–fired furnace, this raw ore and to reheat refined metals to make a final product. Refining
would likely mean there would have been little room for four men to walk metals from ore is typically done in a smelting furnace. One of the earliest
around inside it. Besides that, the floor would have been completely known smelting furnaces was excavated in the southern Sinai region in
covered with fuel in various stages of burning. It would have been difficult Israel in 1965. This ceramic bowl furnace was used to smelt copper and
for the men to walk around on such an uneven surface. In addition, to is dated at approximately 3500 BC. Charcoal was found with the furnace
keep the flames going, fuel would have been continuously added, which and was likely its fuel. Copper ore was placed in a ceramic crucible inside
would have meant dumping fuel on the heads of the three youths if it the furnace. The ore was heated and melted to make impurities rise to the
were a top–loading furnace. One solution to that problem would be that a top, where they could be skimmed off. The purified copper could be
metal grate was present, similar to the grate for the altar used for alloyed with other materials such as tin to make bronze. Then the material
sacrificing to God (Exodus 27:4; 35:16; 38:4, 5, 30; 39:39), where the could be solidified into a bloom or ingot of metal that could be transported
 126

to the point of use, or it could be cast directly into moulds to make specific designed to be punishment by Nebuchadnezzar, as that would have been a
shapes. Similarly, the blooms or ingots could be remelted at the point of defilement of the sacred fire. However, no biblical evidence supports such
use with the same type of furnace. Such a furnace could have been used an interpretation. Some believe the furnace was like a limekiln. The
for the fiery furnace, where the crucible would have been removed to earliest excavated limekiln dates to approximately 2450 BC in
make room for the human ‘load’. Copper is the primary element along Mesopotamia. The temperature in a modern limekiln is ~1150°C. One
with tin to make bronze shapes such as statues. The earliest known argument for a limekiln is that limekilns may have been used by the
examples of tin in the archaeological record are from about 3000 BC Persians for executing criminals. Another argument is that a common
and are from Mesopotamia. The furnace in this narrative could have been geometry for this type of furnace has a large hole at the top for both
a copper smelting furnace used to make a bronze statue that was covered loading materials and for combustion products to escape. This type of
with gold, rather than being made of solid gold. However, smelting limekiln is a shaft (cylindrical) furnace where both the raw materials to
furnaces would normally have been located close to the ore to minimize make the lime and the fuel to achieve the desired temperatures are loaded
transportation. It is therefore unlikely that the fiery furnace was used for from the top and gradually flow toward the bottom. The air for combustion
smelting. Further, smelting furnaces were typically direct–fired with the enters from the bottom and flows toward the top. The air reacts with the
fuel in direct contact with the ore. The other primary use of a furnace was down–flowing fuel to produce combustion products that naturally rise
to re–heat metals that had been previously processed from ores so that because of their elevated temperature and flow out the top of the shaft.
they could be hot–worked into the desired shape, or to melt metals so that This type of furnace does have openings at the bottom both for the
they could be cast into the desired shape. For a project as large as making combustion air to be drafted into the furnace and to extract the final
a gigantic statue, a large furnace probably was built near the job site. This product from the furnace. A consideration is the height of such a shaft
means that metal produced from ore by smelting furnaces could have been furnace. The king wanted the three men to die from the fire and not from
transported to the plain of Dura to be heated and/or remelted into the the fall into the furnace; so the height of the furnace was likely not
desired shapes. In the case of hot working, a metal is heated close to its excessive. Owens wrote, ‘The furnace was a ‘beehive kiln’ fed through a
melting point, where it is more pliable and easily shaped than when it is at perpendicular shaft from the top. There was a side opening near the
ambient temperatures. Sprengling suggested that the furnace was ‘a bottom for extracting the fused lime.’ Owens gave no reference for this
truncated cone of clay hollowed out, a sort of volcanic crater, with a hole supposition. Early limekilns were constructed of stone, often on the side
at the bottom to start the fire and secure a draught’ where the escapees of a hill where fuel and limestone were loaded from the top. This
walked out through the draft hole in the bottom of the furnace. No configuration could explain how the men were loaded into the top by the
explanation was provided for this suggestion and no archaeological soldiers, while the king could have been on the lower level to see them
evidence has been found to support that furnace design. Sanders argued walking around in the kiln. However, the event took place on the ‘plain of
it was not actually a furnace, but a pit used by ritual firewalkers in Dura,’ which implies a flat area. Scaffolding or a ladder could have been
religious ceremonies. Sanders argues this was not intended to be used to make additions to the top of the furnace, although not very
punishment but rather a sacrifice to the gods, as punishment by fire would conveniently, given the quantity and weight of materials that would have
have been blasphemous for someone worshiping certain gods such as been loaded into such a large furnace. Another question is why a limekiln
Moloch and Baal. This seems highly unlikely, given Nebuchadnezzar’s would be located there, unless it was being used to make concrete for
reaction to the disobedience of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Such construction projects. Brick kilns and smelters in ancient Mesopotamia
a trench or depression in the ground would normally have been at a were often large enough for several people and had openings in the top
relatively low temperature because of the high heat losses, absent an where materials could be added and openings in the bottom where finished
insulated enclosure. The temperature could be easily raised by adding products could be removed. Baldwin wrote, ‘Furnaces in Babylon were
pitch, naphtha, and brushwood. Sanders further argued this was not connected with the firing of bricks (Genesis 11:3), which were widely used
 127

in the absence of stone. The fuel was charcoal which, given the needed purpose of the increased heat may have been to try to keep the God of
draught, produced the high temperatures required at the brick–kiln and at Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego at bay. The king may have been even
the ironsmith’s forge (Isaiah 44:12). Some large brick–kilns have been angrier than usual because the three Jews refused to obey his command,
excavated outside Babylon.’ Buchanan held that the furnace was an oven or he may have been simply annoyed at the ingratitude of the three.
like those used for baking. It would have been shaped like a half globe Solomon warned about the consequences of making a king angry
with a flat bottom. The walls for that type of furnace were thick and made (Proverbs 20:2). The reason Nebuchadnezzar requested the loyalty oath
of clay to retain heat. Bakers would heat the furnace and then open a door was in response to a recent rebellion in his empire that had been quelled.
at ground level to put in the loaves for baking. But, this does not seem to If that was the case the rebellion would have been foremost in his mind
be like Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace. The temperature in a baking oven is and failure to be obedient would have evoked a very strong response
much lower than in furnaces used for producing metals. If from the king. Apparently the furnace was already heated and ready to go
Nebuchadnezzar was planning to punish dissenters, he would likely have when Nebuchadnezzar gave the command to heat it even hotter. This may
chosen a much hotter metal production furnace. He obviously thought have been because it was normally used for other things, because it was
about the temperature of the furnace. Why would he have used a lower– kept warm even when not in use to reduce the delay in heating it again
temperature oven? Also his furnace would have to have been abnormally when needed, or because Nebuchadnezzar or his officials thought some
large compared with typical ovens. While this is not impossible, what might disobey the king’s order to bow down to the golden image. A
would have been done with such an oversized oven when it was not being number of things can be done to increase the temperature in a furnace.
used for cremations? Several aspects of the fiery furnace must be One is to use more fuel. Another is to use a fuel with a higher heating
considered here. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tied up and value. In ancient times that might mean replacing a fuel like wood with
thrown like logs into the furnace by King Nebuchadnezzar for failing to charcoal, which burns hotter. In any case the command to heat the
bow down and worship a golden image (vv. 19–27). They were bound in furnace seven times hotter is most likely hyperbole, or a proverbial
their clothes, which would have been another source of fuel that expression (Proverbs 24:16; 26:16) and should not be taken literally.
normally would have made them burn even faster. The three were not Some argue this is an idiomatic way of saying ‘as hot as possible.’
burned, however, and in fact they were not even singed. The soldiers who However, even if this was hyperbolic, the furnace was almost certainly
threw them into the fire were killed by the heat. The irony is that the hotter than normal as it killed the soldiers who threw the victims into the
tormentors experienced the torment planned for their prisoners, who were furnace. Three explanations may be given as to what ‘seven times hotter’
not delivered from the fire but in the fire. The fire burned through the refers to, if it is to be taken literally. The temperature to melt pure copper
ropes that bound the prisoners without burning them. Nebuchadnezzar and and pure gold is 1085°C and 1064°C. In the presence of tin, the melting
his officials were amazed that the three Hebrews did not even smell of fire. point of copper is reduced to ~950°C, where copper alloyed primarily with
Apparently God did not alter the fire, since the soldiers were consumed, tin is used to make bronze. The furnace temperature must be hotter than
but somehow he protected the three conscientious objectors. Did their the required melting temperature because heat transfers only from hotter
bodies and clothes temporarily become flame retardant? How did they materials to colder materials, requiring a furnace operating temperature
even breathe in a hot smoky furnace that would normally not have enough of ~1100°C = 1373K. When comparing temperatures, the absolute
oxygen in it for people to survive? This miracle would have been very temperature (in Kelvins) should be used. As another point of reference,
important to the Babylonians because of the importance of the god of brick kilns from that time period operated at temperatures ~850–950°C.
fire, Iz–bar, in their pantheon of gods. Nebuchadnezzar asked for the Seven times a furnace temperature of 1373K would be 9611K (9338°C),
furnace to be heated seven times hotter than normal. A lower temperature which is much hotter than the sun’s surface temperature and was not
would have been more torturous, while a higher temperature would have possible using technology available at that time. A plasma today can
incinerated the Hebrews as it did the soldiers who bound them. The reach those temperatures. Even if such temperatures had been reached, no
 128

materials were available to make a furnace that would have been able to fuels were not normally used in furnaces at that time and would not likely
withstand those temperatures without being destroyed. Therefore ‘seven have been readily available near the furnace. Therefore it does not seem
times hotter’ cannot be understood literally as referring to temperature. A that seven times more fuel could have been used. Thus, to understand
second possibility is that Nebuchadnezzar referred to seven times more the expression ‘seven times hotter’ as a use of hyperbole seems best.
heat flux. There are three common forms of heat transfer: conduction, Scholars debate whether a furnace was used as a means of punishment in
convection, and radiation. In furnaces the predominant form of heat Babylon before and during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. According to Holm
transfer is thermal radiation. The heat flux by radiation is dependent on the documented use of furnaces for punishment in the Near East during
the 4th power of the absolute temperature of the source. In a furnace the this time period is rare. There are no real parallels to Daniel 3 in Persian
two primary heat sources are the flames and the hot walls. Assume the practices, but the practice of burning people in furnaces was common in
flame and furnace walls are at the above estimated temperature of 1373K Egypt. Beaulieu notes that execution by burning was practiced in
(1100°C). The thermal radiation inside a furnace is a complicated Mesopotamia as punishment for breaking certain laws, with three specific
calculation, but in this case the parameter of interest is the change in documented cases where people were executed by being thrown into a
temperature necessary to produce seven times more heat flux. All other furnace. Alexander showed that based on a letter from ancient Babylon, a
parameters, such as emissivity and the view factor, can be assumed to be Babylonian king 1,200 years before Nebuchadnezzar decreed the
the same and therefore cancel out when calculating the absolute punishment of a slave by burning in a furnace. Of the significance of this
temperature before and after the heat flux is increased seven times. An form of punishment, Edlin wrote, ‘The horror of such a death adds to the
absolute temperature of 2233K (1960°C) would be needed to increase the drama of the story. Aside from the excruciating suffering involved in
radiant heat flux by seven times, assuming all other variables remained being burned alive, death by fire meant no honourable burial. One of the
the same. This is challenging but possible with today’s technology, but greatest fears for ancient people comes true. The body is not properly
would not have been possible with the technology available at the time of interred. Thus, the spirit never finds rest and succeeding generations do
this narrative. This makes the literal ‘seven times’ unlikely. A third not appropriately honour the deceased.’ The furnace was not
possibility refers to the type and/or amount of fuel used. One variant of Nebuchadnezzar’s only form of punishment; he threatened his magicians,
this possibility is that the soldiers could have used seven times more fuel conjurers, and sorcerers with being torn limb from limb if they failed to
than normal. This would not have been a trivial modification to the typical interpret his dream (Daniel 2:2–5), and he threatened in this way anyone
routine because the fuel would have taken up much more room. However, who said anything offensive about the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and
this is the most likely meaning of the phrase ‘seven times hotter’ if it is to Abednego after they came out of the fiery furnace unscathed (v. 29).
be taken literally. This would have increased the energy density (J/m3 of Several biblical passages besides Daniel 3 refer to burning people for
furnace volume) by approximately seven times, as the energy in the form of punishment, but none includes an explicit reference to a furnace. In
heat would have been increased by seven times while the volume of the Genesis 38:24 Judah wanted to burn his daughter–in–law Tamar for
furnace would have remained the same. However, it is unlikely the becoming pregnant through harlotry. According to Leviticus 20:14, if a
existing furnace was constructed to handle seven times the normal man married a woman and her mother, all three of them should be burned.
amount of fuel. Given that the furnace was probably already hot and Leviticus 21:9 decrees that a priest’s daughter who was a harlot should
that Nebuchadnezzar was impatient, there would not have been time to suffer the same fate. According to Jeremiah 29:21–23, God used
modify the furnace to accommodate that much additional fuel. Another Nebuchadnezzar to roast the prophets Ahab and Zedekiah in the fire for
variation of this possibility is that other fuels with more energy density committing adultery with their neighbours’ wives and lying in the name of
could have been used to either supplement or replace the normal fuel, Yahweh. It is unknown if they were burned in a furnace; possibly they
which was probably charcoal. Sanders suggested pitch, naphtha, and were cast into the same furnace as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
brushwood; however, as previously discussed, that is unlikely, as these Hartman believed it is more likely they were burned in a bonfire than in a
 129

furnace. Hammer believed fire would spring out of the furnace when it was open air (with no protection such as a building). This radiation level is at
stoked, which might suggest that the soldiers were accidentally killed when least 434 times more than from the sun on a bright sunny day. Thermal
the operators stoked the furnace. This seems unlikely. Nebuchadnezzar radiation levels of 37.5 kW/m2 would cause a human fatality. As stated
chose some of the strongest men from his army to throw the objectors into earlier, assuming the furnace temperature was ~1100°C = 1373K, the
the furnace. The requirement for strong soldiers was to prevent any human blackbody radiation from the furnace opening would be ~200 kW/m2. A
or divine intervention. The irony is that the soldiers who obeyed the king large volume (the furnace) with a relatively small opening (the exhaust
were killed, whereas the three Jews who disobeyed the king were saved. at the top of the furnace) approximates a blackbody, an entity that
Some believe fire leaped out of the furnace and killed the soldiers. If the absorbs and radiates energy but does not reflect it. That alone would
furnace was loaded with much more fuel than normal and if bellows were have been enough to kill the soldiers. Rand suggested the soldiers were
used to increase the air flow, this could explain flames leaping out of the not killed by fire coming out of the furnace, but by fumes containing
furnace. Scholia wrote, ‘The fire appears intelligent, as if it recognized sulphur and other chemicals from burning bitumen in the furnace. As
and punished the guilty.’ While this is possible, it is unlikely that the previously suggested, besides being very hot, the gases coming out of the
soldiers who threw the three objectors into the furnace were killed furnace would not have sustained human life because of insufficient
directly by a continuous fire, as they would not have knowingly walked oxygen. However, the text specifically states the soldiers were killed by
into flames. Some believe the furnace may have suddenly belched out fire fire; so toxic fumes or asphyxiation was not the likely cause of their
that consumed the soldiers. While this is possible, it is unlikely that would deaths. An important property of controlled fires is that they can be used
have happened naturally because the fuel and air supply to the furnace to incinerate unwanted materials that are combustible (flammable). Waste
would not have changed rapidly enough for a sudden expulsion of fire. materials are commonly put into a refractory–lined high temperature
Possibly there was a pocket or void in the bed of solid fuel that suddenly furnace containing one or more burners. Fuel and air are supplied to the
collapsed, causing fire to temporarily and suddenly rise to greater heights. burners to produce heat to incinerate the load. In many cases the waste
Another possibility is that the soldiers were killed by the intense thermal load itself provides a significant portion of the energy for the process. For
radiation coming from the furnace. The average radiation from the sun example dry paper and wood products burn readily and release heat
reaching the Earth’s atmosphere is 1.35 kW/m2. However, much of this is during the process. Most organic materials containing carbon or hydrogen
absorbed in the Earth’s atmosphere and much also does not reach a given can be incinerated, given sufficient time and temperature. It was
location depending on the angle of incidence and the latitude. customary at that time to remove the clothes of those who were being
Considerable research has been done to investigate the levels of thermal punished, which is why the passage emphasizes that Shadrach, Meshach,
radiation produced by fires and the injuries to humans at various and Abednego still had their clothes on when they were thrown into the
radiation levels. Hymes and others presented a table of incident radiation fire (v. 21). Seow wrote, ‘They are to be executed in the formal attire in
heat fluxes, exposure times, and the consequences to humans. Some which they have come for the occasion.’ These clothes would have been
examples illustrate the data: 16.9 kW/m2 radiation for one minute or 5 highly flammable. Even today’s fire–retardant clothing would not protect
kW/m2 for five minutes will cause 3rd–degree burns, while 21–53 kW/m2 someone thrown into a very hot furnace. Buchanan noted that the only
for one minute will cause clothing to auto–ignite. No exposure times less non–miraculous explanation for the three objectors not being incinerated
than one minute were reported. One may assume the soldiers did not is that they would have to have been wearing special asbestos suits with
expose themselves to such intense radiation for even a minute; so the oxygen tanks. Besides the fact that asbestos is carcinogenic and can no
radiation was likely at an even higher level. Eisenberg and others longer be used, it would not have protected them from the flames either
estimated the radiation from the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and because the heat would have conducted through any suits unless there
Hiroshima in World War II. They estimated that 99% of the population was some means to keep them cool inside the suits such as a portable
was killed when exposed to radiation at 586 kW/m2 for 1.43 seconds in the refrigeration system. Oxygen tanks would have been helpful so that they
 130

would not have had to breathe the oxygen–deficient atmosphere inside Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are not listed in the Hebrews 11 hall of
the furnace. While special protective clothing might provide a shield faith, but they easily could have been. However, many scholars believe
against flames and not be flammable itself, eventually the heat would still ‘quenched the power of fire’ (Hebrews 11:34) is an indirect reference to
cause injury or death. Unless there is something to remove the heat, a the fiery furnace. They were fully prepared to die for their convictions.
person in a furnace will eventually get to the same temperature as the Many believers have been martyred for their faith throughout history,
furnace. The three naysayers were bound and thrown into the top of a including some who like Polycarp were burned by fire. God does not
superheated furnace. While the soldiers who tossed them in were killed, always save the believer from pain and suffering for his sake. This
the three prisoners were not. Whatever was used to bind them, probably narrative is a powerful polemic against idolatry. This narrative is also an
ropes, fell off, and they could walk around unfettered in the bottom of the example of what the apostle Peter wrote, ‘In this you greatly rejoice, even
firestorm. Regarding the rescue, Lucas made the point that the three men though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by
were not saved from the fiery furnace but were kept safe inside it. It is various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than
beyond the laws of physics to explain this miracle based solely on natural gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to
laws. Somehow the three who refused to bow to the king’s statue were result in praise and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ’ (1
protected from the intense heat, the oxygen–deficient atmosphere, CO Peter 1:6–7), and ‘Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among
poisoning, and possibly even from toxic fumes generated during you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing
combustion of the fuel. The 4th being inside the blazing chamber was able were happening to you’ (1 Peter 4:12). The faith of Shadrach, Meshach,
to protect Yahweh’s followers despite the king’s best efforts to destroy and Abednego was literally tested by fire. God could have saved them by
them. Although no timeline is given in the narrative, the three protesters simply keeping them out of the fire, but instead he chose to send a 4th
were seen walking around in the furnace and were certainly in it long person to be with them in the fire. One of his divine angelic servants was
enough to be killed under normal circumstances. While God could have literally in the fire with those willing to die rather than serve a false god.
saved them differently, the method he chose was spectacular. God could Unlike Nebuchadnezzar’s inanimate golden statue, Shadrach, Meshach,
have prevented them from being thrown into the furnace in the first place, and Abednego’s God not only was alive, but also was glorified through
or he could have put out the fire in the furnace if he had wanted to. After this matchless event in biblical history.”
the rescue Nebuchadnezzar threatened death to anyone who spoke
anything against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s God and helped the Tertullian [2nd century] says: “God shall wipe away all tears from their
three heroes to prosper (vv. 29–30). This is the last these three are heard eyes, and there shall be no more death and no more corruption, it being
from in the bible. In conclusion, the furnace most likely refers to a large chased away by incorruption, even as death is by immortality [Revelation
directly fired furnace where the fuel was burned in a separate chamber 21:4]. That the raiment and shoes of the children of Israel remained
and the combustion products flowed into the main heating chamber. This unworn and fresh for the space of 40 years, that the fires of Babylon
type of furnace was probably used to remelt metals such as bronze and injured neither the cloaks nor the trousers of the three young men, that
gold that were used to make the statue in the plain of Dura. Therefore the Jonah was swallowed by the monster of the deep, in whose belly whole
best understanding of ʾattûn appears to be a heating or melting furnace. ships were devoured and after 3 days was vomited out safe and sound—to
The fuel was likely biomass or charcoal. Nebuchadnezzar’s command to what faith do these notable facts bear witness, if not to that which ought
heat the furnace seven times hotter was probably a hyperbole to mean ‘as to inspire in us the belief that they are proofs of our own future integrity
hot as possible.’ Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were not only saved and perfect resurrection? They are written that we may believe both that
from the conflagration, but also from asphyxiation, CO poisoning, and God is more powerful than all natural laws about the body, and that he
possibly from other toxic fumes generated during the combustion process. shows himself the preserver of the flesh the more emphatically, in that
This further heightens the magnitude of this spectacular miracle. he has preserved for the body even its very clothes and shoes.”
 131

Augustine [4th century Bishop of Hippo] concludes: “Human weakness “his angel” to help them, but this is his interpretation of the event. The
uses its acquaintance with things experienced to measure divine works that Aramaic š ziḇ [for “deliver”] is a loanword from Akkadian šūzubu [or
are beyond its experience and thinks it has made a keen observation when “rescue”]. Thus, the king takes notice of their faith, because they “trusted
it says, ‘If there is flame, it is hot; if it is hot, it burns; if it burns, then it in him.” Apparently their faith made an indelible impression upon the
burned the bodies of the three men thrown into the fiery furnace by the king, and he felt compelled to comment upon it. Then the king took note of
wicked king.’ If then even those who might not understand the idea of the courage that stemmed from their faith in Israel’s God. They were
divine works still believe that a miracle was wrought on these three men, willing to defy the king’s edict [even at the point of death], because it was
why should we then not believe that he who prevented those bodies from more important for them to obey God than man [even if that man were the
being consumed by the fire also prevented his body from being consumed most exalted king on earth]. Thus, the king witnessed their dedication.
by fire or famine or disease or old age or any other of the forces by Their worship of Israel’ God was not for sale at any price, and they would
which corruption usually breaks down human bodies? But, if anyone not compromise on this fundamental matter. So, the king was making a
says that incorruption against the fire was not added to the flesh of the tacit admission that he had been wrong when he earlier said, “what god is
three men, but that the power of the destruction was taken away from the there who can deliver you from my power?” This is why he acknowledged
fire itself, why do we fear that he who took away the ability of the fire to his respect for them personally. He did not see them as cowards, but as
destroy, not make flesh that could not be destroyed? The divine power is courageous heroes. Their faith had been severely put to the test, but they
able to remove whatever qualities he wills from that visible and palpable had remained faithful, and they gained the admiration of this pagan king.
nature of bodies, while some qualities remain unchanged; so he is able to
add unwearying strength to mortal members, preserving the characteristic Next in v. 29, we read: “So I decree that people from any nation or
marks of their form, even when they have died because of the corruption of language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and
mortality, so that the mortal appearance is there, but wasting disease is Abednego will be destroyed and their house reduced to rubble, because
absent; motion is there, but fatigue is not; the ability to eat is there, but there is no other god who can save like this.”
the necessity of hunger is not.”
The king even went so far as to issue an edict calling on all the subjects of
7) Why did Nebuchadnezzar decree to honour God? (3:28–30) his empire to respect Israel’s God. In fact, notice that this entire chapter
begins with a decree and then ends with another decree! He did not forbid
Starting with v. 28, we read: “Nebuchadnezzar spoke up and announced: them to worship their Babylonian deities, but they were not allowed to
‘Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego! He sent his utter malicious statements about “the God of Shadrach, Meshach and
angel to deliver his servants who trusted in him. They disobeyed the king’s Abednego.” To do so would bring severe punishment: dismemberment and
command and were willing to risk their lives in order not to serve or loss of home and property. Nebuchadnezzar was beginning to see the
worship any god except their own God.’” uniqueness of Israel’s God, for he even admitted that no other deity could
deliver the way God had done, not even his gods Marduk and Ishtar! Thus,
So, Nebuchadnezzar’s response shows some progress in his own spiritual his edict makes Judaism a legal state–recognized and protected religion
understanding, although it comes short of true faith and personal salvation. despite its monotheism! This similarly happened later when Julius Caesar
First, when he said, “Blessed be the God,” he used the singular form, recognized Judaism as a legitimate religion in the Roman Empire
indicating he understand the biblical concept of God as being monotheistic [Josephus, Ant. 14:190–195]. So, this decree expressed a reversal of his
[although he himself remained a polytheist]. But, he correctly surmises previous opinion by acknowledging God’s ability to save. This echoes an
that it is “the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego,” not his own god. Old Testament theme: God is superior to the gods [Exodus 15:11; 18:11; 1
So, he credits Israel’s God with rescuing the three Hebrews by sending Chronicles 16:25; 2 Chronicles 2:5; Psalm 86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 135:5].
 132

Terry Brensinger [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The contrast due penalties. Therefore, the first part of the king’s reign signified the
between the two pronouncements is significant. In unit one, Shadrach, earlier periods of impious kings, when Christians suffered instead of the
Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship the gods of Nebuchadnezzar, impious, but the latter part of that king’s reign signified the period of later
alluding instead to the primacy of their God (vv. 16–18). In unit two, faithful kings under whom the impious suffered instead of the Christians.”
Nebuchadnezzar elevates the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,
alluding to the inadequacy of his gods (vv. 28–29). As a result, the same Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] concludes: “Blessed be
‘peoples, nations, and tongues’ who were instructed to bow down to the God who has sent his angel. For how can it be otherwise than astonishing
golden statue are now threatened if they utter so much as a word against for the emperor of the world, with so many arms around him, and legions,
the God of these Jews. True to form, Nebuchadnezzar is still giving orders, and generals, and viceroys, and consuls, and land and sea subject to his
but the rules of the game have undergone a thorough reversal.” sway, to be despised by captive children; for the bound to overcome the
binder and conquer all that army? Neither was there any power in the
Finally in v. 30, we read: “Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, king and his company to do what they would, no, not even with the
and Abednego within the province of Babylon.” furnaces for an ally. But, they who were naked, and slaves, and strangers
and few (for what number could be more contemptible than three?),
We finally witness these three young men being rewarded. The Aramaic being in chains, vanquished an innumerable army. For already now was
ṣᵊlaḥ [for “promoted”] can also mean “cause to prosper, make successful.” death despised, since Christ was henceforth about to sojourn in the world,
This would probably have included a promotion in rank, but could also and as when the sun is on the point of rising, even before his rays appear
have meant other forms of prosperity such as material reward. The LXX the light of the day grows bright; so also when the Sun of righteousness
took the liberty to elaborate on this verse, describing them as leaders and was about to come, death henceforth began to withdraw himself. What
rulers. For example, the LXXΟ reads: “and deemed them worthy to be could be more splendid than that theatre? What more conspicuous than
leaders of all the Jews in his kingdom.” Likewise, the LXXθ reads: “and that victory? Contemplate with me how the king at first proclaims the
deemed them worthy to govern all the Judeans who were in his kingdom.” Arbiter of the contest: ‘Blessed be God.’ This he proclaims as regards the
However, there is no support for this addition in the Aramaic text. power of God. He speaks also of the virtue of the combatants: ‘Because
Nevertheless, at the very least, this would have included restoration to the they trusted in him.’ Could anything equal the virtue of this? Before this,
positions they had been given [recall Daniel 2:49]. Perhaps they received when they said, ‘We will not serve your gods,’ he was inflamed more
other rewards in the form of material gain. In any case, they would fiercely than the very furnace; but now, when by their deeds they had
continue as prominent officials in the Babylonian Empire. taught him this, he was so far from being indignant that he praised and
admired them for not having obeyed him! So good a thing is virtue that it
Augustine [4th century Bishop of Hippo] says: “If past events in the has even its enemies themselves to applaud and admire it! These young
prophetic books serve as a figure of future ones, in the king named men had fought and conquered, but the vanquished party gave thanks that
Nebuchadnezzar two periods were foreshadowed: that during the time of the sight of the fire had not terrified them but that the hope in their Lord
the apostles and the present one in which Christ is now living. For in the had comforted them. For this reason he both applauds those who had
times of the apostles and martyrs that part was fulfilled that was despised him, and passing by so many governors, kings and princes, those
foreshadowed when the king forced devout and upright men to adore an who had obeyed him, he stands in admiration of the three captives and
idol and when they refused had them thrown into a fire. Now, however, slaves who derided his tyranny! For they did these things not for the sake
that part is fulfilled that was prefigured in the same king when he was of contention, but for the love of wisdom; not of defiance, but of devotion;
converted to the true God and decreed for his realm that whoever not being puffed up with pride, but on fire with zeal. For great indeed is
blasphemed the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego should suffer the blessing of a hope in God.”
 133

In summary, the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stands at the refusing to sacrifice to Roman idols. Then late in his life the emperor
head of a long tradition of faithful people who suffered and even died for planned a dedication for his new country palace, but he received an
their commitment to God. While the three men survived, many of their unsettling message from his gods: “The widow Symphorosa and her seven
successors did not. History attests several times of intense persecution of sons daily torment us by invoking their God; if they sacrifice to the idols,
God’s people, beginning with the 2nd century b.c. assault against the Jews we promise to be favourable to your vows.” So, intent on sparing himself
by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a megalomaniac who imposed Hellenism on any misfortune by failing to please the gods, Hadrian seized the widow
Jerusalem and attempted to eradicate Judaism in the process. The and her sons and “exhorted them at first in mild terms to sacrifice.” But,
apocryphal books of Maccabees tell harrowing stories of the Jewish when Symphorosa reminded the emperor that her own husband and
struggle for survival during the days leading up to the Maccabean revolt in brother–in–law refused to offer sacrifices and paid the price, the emperor
167–164 b.c. One of the most enduring stories is that of a mother and her understood her perfectly. No more mild terms: “Either sacrifice to the
seven sons, tortured and killed by Antiochus for their refusal to eat pork [2 most powerful gods, with thy sons, or thou thyself shalt be offered up as a
Maccabees 7; 4 Maccabees 8]. While the historicity of this story is sacrifice together with them.” Symphorosa welcomed the opportunity to be
questionable, it likely derived from actual events. Certainly the torture it a sacrifice, but not to Hadrian’s gods: “Your gods cannot receive me as a
describes is known from the ancient world, and after the Crusades and sacrifice; but if I am burnt for the name of Jesus Christ my death will
Holocaust, we have no reason to doubt the terrible inhumanity that the increase the torment which your devils endure in their flames. But can I
author of 2 Maccabees ascribes to those who persecuted the Jews. When hope for so great a happiness as to be offered with my children as a
the devout mother and her sons refused to eat swine’s flesh, one of the sacrifice to the true and living God?”
brothers spoke for the group, declaring to the king that they were
“prepared to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers” [2 Thus, Hadrian responded by having her beaten and hung by her hair in the
Maccabees 7:2]. Much as the bold defiance of Shadrach, Meshach, and temple of Hercules. When that failed to sway her, he had her thrown into
Abednego had impelled an enraged Nebuchadnezzar to crank up the the river with a rock around her neck. Hadrian then summoned her sons
furnace, the son’s confession infuriated Antiochus, who “commanded and “exhorted them to sacrifice and not imitate the obstinacy of their
some to heat pans and cauldrons” [2 Maccabees 7:3]. In the gruesome mother.” But, they had learned commitment well from their mother and
account that follows, Antiochus tortured the sons one by one in front of the were not afraid of the emperor, who tied them to “stakes with engines and
others: scalping and mutilating them, tearing out their tongues, and then pulleys” and pulled their joints apart. If the emperor thought this would
frying them in a pan until they finally died. One after another, the sons change their minds, he could not have been more wrong. Rather, it had the
stood firm, each variously proclaiming confidence in God’s justice, future reverse effect: “far from yielding under the violence of their tortures, the
restoration, resurrection, and the demise of Antiochus [2 Maccabees 7:8–9, young noblemen were encouraged by each other’s example, and seemed
11, 14, 16–19]. In a face–saving act of desperation, Antiochus offered the more eager to suffer than the executioners were to torment.” So, the
last son rewards if he would give up the law of his ancestors. He also emperor ordered their deaths in seven different ways: slashed throat,
implored the mother to convince her 7th son to give in. But, the efforts of stabbed chest, lanced heart, wounded belly, stabbed back, severed sides,
Antiochus were for naught: subjected to even greater torture, the 7th son and “being cleft asunder into two across the chest from the head down.”
remained resolute to death, and finally the bereaved mother was also
killed. The impact of this story seems to have transcended its time and Likewise, a similar fate befell a 3rd devout widow and her seven sons a few
place, and later accounts of martyred Christians took on its shape. Like the years later when Marcus Aurelius was emperor of Rome in 161–180 a.d.
unnamed mother of the 2nd century b.c., the pious widow Symphorosa had The family’s public witness attracted the attention of local priests, who
seven sons, and living during Roman emperor Hadrian’s rule [117–138 were sure their refusal to sacrifice to idols raised the ire of the gods and so
a.d.], Symphorosa was widowed when Hadrian beheaded her husband for endangered the empire.
 134

The complaint of the priests to the emperor prompted him to order Publius sometimes (as at Dor) with more than one at a given site. Some fine
[a prefect of Rome] to make sure the widow Felicitas and her sons offered examples of this type are the sanctuary at Sarepta on the Phoenician coast
sacrifices to appease the offended gods [this is not the same and those at Miẓpe Yammim in the Galilee and at Tel Michal (Makmish) in
Felicitas/Felicity that was martyred with Perpetua in 3rd century Carthage]. the Sharon Plain. (c) Small (1 m2) chapels in which a sacred object stood:
When the verbal attempts by Publius failed to persuade the woman, he an idol or a maẓẓebah (‘stela’) stone, sometimes a few stelae together. It
beat her and summoned her sons, using “many artful speeches, mingling was impossible to enter such a chapel and worshipers remained outside,
promises with threats to induce them to adore the gods.” Like Antiochus leaving their offerings near the entrance. Each of these three types has
and Hadrian before him, Publius dealt with each son in turn, and like their close analogies, in both plan and dimensions, in previous periods. There
predecessors, the seven sons of Felicitas refused to bend the knee to any can be no doubt that they perpetuate older traditions, not only in their
other god. The obstinacy of the sons resulted in their imprisonment and plans but also as regards their contents and cult objects. However, there is
eventual death: the 1st was scourged, the 2nd and 3rd clubbed to death, the one major difference between the Persian–period temples and those of the
4th thrown off a cliff, and the last three beheaded. Then ~4 months later, Assyrian period: this is the surprising homogeneity of the finds. While
Felicitas was beheaded. So, the degree to which these three stories are during the Assyrian period, Phoenician, Philistine, Judean, Edomite, and
history or legend should not give us pause. Such gruesome martyrdom has Ammonite cults are distinguishable because each ethnos had its own
also occurred under the so–called Islamic State. Thus, devoted followers of specific cult objects, during the Persian period this is no longer true. All
Jesus have been suffering and dying gruesome deaths for centuries. finds at all sites throughout the country are nearly similar. It is impossible
Whether the perpetrator was Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus, Hadrian, to say if a certain find comes from Idumaea, Philistia, Galilee, or even
Publius, or ISIS, such sacrifices challenge us to consider what it means to Phoenicia, although the chief deities of each people remained distinct:
bear the name of Jesus. Would we be prepared to die rather than transgress Qos in Idumaea, Ba al in Phoenicia, etc. Another difference is, perhaps,
the laws of God? Does our witness attract anyone’s attention? Would we even more meaningful: since the beginning of the Persian period, in all
go to our deaths with the name of Jesus on our lips? If God does not the territories of Judah and Samaria, there is not a single piece of
deliver us, will we bow down? Idolatry was a besetting sin of God’s evidence for any pagan cults! There are no sanctuaries (except, of course,
people in Canaan. Keeping pace with their Canaanite neighbours, they set for the Jewish one in Jerusalem and the Samaritan one on Mount
up Asherah poles, Baals, and other idols, and then they bowed low before Gerizim), no figurines, and no remains of any other pagan cultic objects.
the objects of wood and metal. God evicted Israel and Judah from their This is in sharp contrast to the late Judean monarchic period. The only
land because they had gone after other gods. But, when captive Shadrach, possible exception is the continuation of apotropaic cults intended to ward
Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow before Nebuchadnezzar’s statue at off evil spirits, bad luck, or disease. However, such cults are found almost
the risk of death, they demonstrated the strong stance against idolatry that uninterruptedly among all ethnic groups in the country in all periods.
would characterize the Jews after the exile. In fact, archaeologists suggest Some pagan motifs are depicted on the coins of Judah and Samaria. But, it
that the post–exilic Jews were cured of their infatuation with idols. is unclear if they had any cultic significance or were merely copies of
motifs borrowed from the coins of neighbouring provinces of the empire.”
Ephraim Stern [21st century Israeli archaeologist] says: “Only a few
complete Persian–period sanctuaries have survived in Palestine or along So, apparently the exile was remarkably effective: idolatry was no longer a
the Phoenician coast. We shall describe most of these here. During this problem for God’s people. Nevertheless, they continued to struggle with
period, as in previous ones, they are divided into three types that are the subtle temptation to replace God, since the indictments by Jesus of his
continuations of old local tradition: (a) Large, central, city temples, the Jewish contemporaries and their outright rejection of him [as the incarnate
most distinctive example of which is the so–called solar shrine at Lachish. 2nd Yahweh] made it clear that idolatry was still a problem, and it remains
(b) Medium–sized sanctuaries that have been uncovered at many sites, a problem for us today.
 135

In many places around the world, people still bow before literal idols and Daniel’s book. Nebuchadnezzar arrogantly commanded all people of
make excruciating sacrifices to please them. However, for most of us, whatever ‘race or nation or language’ not to speak against, mock, or
idolatry is more subtle. Food, technology, fitness, entertainment, none of blaspheme the God of these three Jewish exiles in any way—upon pain of
these things is bad. As reflections of human creativity, they are all part of death. The entire purpose of the king against Shadrach, Meshach, and
God’s good creation and so are God’s gifts to us. It is good for us to enjoy Abednego had ended up topsy–turvy. The nations were made to recognize
what he has made and derive some satisfaction from them. They are not the true God’s deliverance as it was publicized among the officials and
usually the problem. In fact, idolatry is seldom located around us. Rather, rulers under the auspices of the royal government of Babylon. As to the
it lies within us. It is in the desperately wicked human heart, which is ever image? Nothing more is said. There is no decree praising his image or
reaching for something besides God to satisfy fully. So, the most pervasive celebrating the success of the universal worship. The Jews were not
idol is human autonomy: the right to do what we want, how we want, obliged to worship it. We are not further informed about the other races,
when we want, with whomever we want. If something makes us happy, we peoples, languages, and nations. Nebuchadnezzar let the subject drop from
are entitled to it. If something makes us unhappy, we are entitled to get rid his decrees. The authority and force of the image was certainly greatly
of it. Human autonomy is the ultimate god, and we worship it fervently! curtailed, to say the least. The promotion of Shadrach, Meshach, and
Not even to save their skin would Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego Abednego was a clear slap in the face for those who would have demoted
entertain the possibility of replacing God, but we do it for far less. them. These persons could no longer dare speak in a derogatory manner
Ultimately, the point of the story is that God’s presence in torturous times against these Jews, nor their worship of their God—the God who had
has been the hope of persecuted believers throughout history. Walking delivered not only Noah from a flood, Israel from Egypt and the Assyrians,
through the darkest valleys is part of the course, but we have no evil to but even these three men from the furious Babylonian king’s decree.
fear: God is with us, and we have no enemy to fear, because God provides Eventually, their God would deliver them from the fiery ordeals of the
our sustenance in their presence [Psalm 23]. The story of Shadrach, exile itself. Jewish exiles now occupied some high influential positions in
Meshach, and Abednego ends in life. They faced the fire with God, who the upper echelons of the governmental structures of their captors—the
protected them in the flames. But, not every account of persecution ends so mighty Babylonians. The Jews’ God was the God who rescues like no
well. The voices of martyrs from all generations forbid us to say that the other god! No greater message could have been trumpeted to the nations
captives were delivered because of their faith, as if God rewarded them by or to Israel in exile in Babylon, or to the individual servant of the true God
saving them. So, the comfort of this story is not that the prisoners came out who might have to give his life because of commitment to the God of
alive [although their deliverance was cause for praise and thanks], but the Israel. In addition, Nebuchadnezzar openly declared respect and
comfort is that God was with them in the fire. In other words, the Good recognition for the God of Israel. Amazingly, he even praised the three
Shepherd of Psalm 23 faced his own fiery trial when he came to live Jewish exiles for trusting their God and defying his command. This praise
among us and to give his life for the sheep. His willingness to go through and their subsequent promotion certainly sent a powerful message to
that fire alone all the way to death made possible his permanent presence exiled Jews, and potentially for others as well.”
among us through God’s Spirit. Thus, Jesus is with his brothers and sisters:
to death and beyond! In this truth we find the strength to be faithful. Summing Up …
Starting with vv. 1–7, Nebuchadnezzar builds an image he believes will
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “It is no not fall that represents a kingdom that will avoid the pitfalls he saw in his
surprise that Nebuchadnezzar was moved to save face and issued a decree dream [recall Daniel 2:31–45]. He thinks forced unity and worship by his
in praise of this God—rather than foolishly denying the evidence. But, his various peoples will hold his kingdom together. The jealousy that arises in
inward attitude and beliefs about how great he was did not change—at the next segment shows how wrong he is.
least not for long—they only found another outlet. Irony abounds in
 136

Next in vv. 8–12, the accusers of the Jews reveal the king’s purpose for Finally in vv. 25–30, this presence emphasizes God’s unlimited power. He
erecting the stele. It represents his rule over the nations God has given him can protect young trainees in Babylon by giving them wisdom and favour
[recall Daniel 2:38], a gift he still credits to his gods. For an insecure king [recall Daniel 1:3–20]. He can preserve a servant in a foreign court for
trying to circumvent Daniel’s interpretation, this non–compliance is decades [recall Daniel 1:21]. He can reveal things hidden in the sleep of a
extremely unwelcome. It means he does not have the unity he feels he fearful king [recall Daniel 2:24–45], and he can use fire however he
needs. The malicious men’s accusations also remind readers of the wishes [v. 24]. As the God of heaven [recall Daniel 2:19], he can send
continuing harsh realities and hard decisions Jewish exiles faced in heavenly messengers to protect his faithful ones [v. 25]. This whole
Babylon. Religious defilement and potential physical punishment confront chapter stresses the importance of loving witness to enemies. Everything
them [recall Daniel 1:8–16], and the threat of death continues to hang over that has happened has been for Nebuchadnezzar’s benefit! However, he
them here. Faith does not protect them from peril. Martyrdom is certainly does not convert. He recognizes the power of Israel’s God [vv. 28–29], but
possible, though not inevitable. still thinks he controls life and death, and even that he can assign the gods
their places in the world. He thinks God needs his protection [v. 29], so he
Next in vv. 13–18, the three men’s confession matches John’s summary of still has much to learn. The friends have also gone through this ordeal for
the martyrs [Revelation 12:11]. The men’s rejection of Nebuchadnezzar’s the sake of witness to the Chaldeans [their accusers] and for that of the
demands provides the greatest resistance to tyranny believers can make. mass of officials who bowed without question. They are God’s servants,
Nebuchadnezzar can take their home, name, and profession from them, but called upon to love their neighbours, some of whom want them dead. They
he cannot take away their faith in God. He cannot take their witness to show this servant love by trusting God, denying the king’s right to dictate
their God. He cannot remove the wise character they exhibit. Thus, they their worship and giving up their bodies if necessary [v. 28].
testify to the kingdom that rises below all manmade images of gods and
world leaders, and will eventually make them crumble [recall Daniel 2:44–
45]. While types of resistance vary, this one is primary for believers, as
faithful persons have shown throughout the centuries. Those of us who
have not paid this price honour them, and must be prepared to respond as
they have if the necessity arises.

Next in vv.19–24, God does not stand aloof from history, and does not
refuse to get involved. Having given Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to
Nebuchadnezzar [recall Daniel 1:1–2], here he protects their witness,
integrity, and dignity, the qualities people like Jehoiakim cast off. These
three men are not saved from the fiery furnace, but are kept safe in it.
Thus, this furnace episode connects with other passages, such as where the
Old Testament compares Israel’s time in Egyptian captivity like living in
an “iron–smelting furnace” [Deuteronomy 4:20; 1 Kings 8:51; Jeremiah
11:4], and where it promises that God will be with them through flood and
fire [Psalm 66:1–12; Isaiah 43:2]. God’s promise is to be with his people
[Exodus 3:12; Joshua 1:1–9; Jeremiah 1:17–19; Matthew 28:18–20].
 137

To the people of all nations and languages who live on earth. Peace
THE HUMILIATION OF A PROUD and prosperity to you! 2It gives me great pleasure to tell about the signs
and wonders that the Most High God has done for me. 3How great are his
KING signs! How powerful are his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom,
Daniel 4 and his dominion lasts from generation to generation.
Opening Thought
1) What government leaders and elected officials would you classify as Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream
4
genuine public servants in the past? Is your list a long one? Why? I, Nebuchadnezzar, was resting in my home and prospering in my
palace. 5I had a dream that made me afraid. The thoughts that went
2) Why is it so common for those with immense God–given talent and through my mind while in bed and the visions in my head terrified me. 6So
those who are able to accomplish great things to forget the One ultimately I gave an order to bring in all of the advisors of Babylon so they would tell
responsible for their success? me the interpretation of the dream. 7Then the diviners, enchanters,
Chaldeans, and astrologers came in, and I told them the dream. But they
could not reveal its interpretation to me. 8Eventually, Daniel appeared
Background of the Passage before me. He is called Belteshazzar, in accordance with the name of my
Daniel 4 continues the fascinating record of Nebuchadnezzar. After god, and the spirit of the holy gods is within him. I told him my dream:
conquering Judah and exiling its most gifted young people to Babylon 9
“Belteshazzar, chief of the diviners, since I know that the spirit of the
[recall Daniel 1], Nebuchadnezzar began having disturbing dreams that holy gods is within you, and no mystery too difficult for you, explain to
could only be interpreted by Daniel, one of his captives [recall Daniel 2]. me the vision of my dream that I saw, along with its interpretation. 10This
The dreams revealed the sovereignty of God over the nations and future is what I saw in the visions of my head while I was in bed: I was looking
world events. But, Nebuchadnezzar was slow to acknowledge the authority and—listen carefully!—I saw a tree in the middle of the earth, the height
and supremacy of Israel’s God, for Daniel 3 records his gross idolatry and of which was very great. 11The tree grew large, became strong, and its top
the refusal of his Hebrew subjects to pay homage to the idol he had reached the sky. It could be seen to the ends of the earth. 12Its foliage was
erected. Even a miraculous deliverance by God produced only a token beautiful, its fruit bountiful, and its food sufficient for everyone. The
expression of praise from Nebuchadnezzar’s lips [recall Daniel 3:28–29]. animals of the field found shade under it, the birds of the sky lived in its
Thus, now Daniel 4 gives the record of God’s very painful and personal branches, and every creature was fed from it. 13Then I saw in the visions of
humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar. Because of his stubborn pride, this world my head while I was in bed—and take careful notice!—I saw a holy
leader was reduced to animal status. In this state he remained until at last observer descend from heaven. 14He called out aloud: ‘Cut down the tree
in humility he lifted his eyes to heaven. So, the message is clear here: since and cut off its branches. Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit. Let the
God is preeminent, he will not give his glory to another [Isaiah 48:11]. animals get out from under it, and let the birds leave its branches.
15
Nevertheless, leave the stump and its roots in the ground, but bind it with
Bible Passage iron and bronze in the field grass. Let him be drenched with dew from the
Read Daniel 4 sky, and let him graze with the animals in the grass of the earth. 16Let his
mind be changed from that of a man, and let him be given the mind of an
Nebuchadnezzar’s Testimonial animal until seven seasons of time pass by for him. 17This order is
1
AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT announced by the observers, and the holy ones declare the verdict, so that
FROM NEBUCHADNEZZAR the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over human
THE KING kingdoms and grants them to whomever he desires, and he places the least
 138

important of men over them.’ 18This is the dream that I, King by my own might and power, for the sake of my majesty.” 31As these
Nebuchadnezzar, saw. Belteshazzar, tell me its meaning, since none of the words were being spoken by the king, a voice came out of heaven: “King
advisors in my kingdom can tell me its interpretation. But you are able to Nebuchadnezzar, this is declared to you: ‘The kingdom has been taken
do so because the spirit of the holy gods is in you.” from you! 32You’re to be driven away from people. You’re to live with the
wild animals of the field. You are to be made to eat grass like cattle, and
Daniel’s Interpretation seven years will pass you by until you realize that the Most High is
19
Then Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar) was greatly troubled for a sovereign over human kingdoms and grants them to whomever he
while and was terrified by his thoughts. The king said, “Belteshazzar, desires.’” 33The decree was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar immediately.
don’t let the dream or its meaning terrify you.” Belteshazzar responded, He was driven away from people to eat grass like cattle, and his body was
“Your majesty, if only the dream were about your enemies and its meaning drenched with dew from the sky, until his hair grew like eagles’ feathers
about those who oppose you! 20The tree that you saw, which grew large and his nails like birds’ claws.
and strong until its top reached the sky and became visible to the whole
earth 21with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit—enough food for The King’s Sanity Returns
34
everyone—and under which wild animals of the field found shelter and the “When that period of time was over, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my
birds of the air had nests in its branches—22it’s you, your majesty! You’ve eyes to heaven and my sanity returned to me. I blessed the Most High,
become great and strong, your greatness has grown to the heavens, and praising and honouring the one who lives forever: For his sovereignty is
your dominion reaches to the distant parts of the earth. 23Your majesty saw eternal, and his kingdom continues from generation to generation. 35All
a holy observer descending from heaven and saying, ‘Cut down the tree who live on the earth are nothing compared to him. He does what he
and destroy it, but leave the stump in the ground, along with its roots, wishes with the heavenly armies and with those who live on earth. No one
bound with iron and bronze in the field grass. Let him be soaked with the can hold back his power or say to him, ‘What did you do?’ 36At that
dew of the sky and live with the wild animals of the field until seven moment I recovered my sanity, and my honour and majesty returned to
seasons pass over him.’ 24This is the meaning, your majesty, and this is the me, for the sake of my kingdom. My advisors and officials sought me out,
decree that the Most High has issued against his majesty, the king: my throne was restored, and even more greatness than I had before was
25
You’ll be driven from people, and you’ll live among wild animals of the added to me. 37In conclusion, I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and give
field. You’ll eat grass like cattle and be soaked with the dew of the sky glory to the King of heaven: For everything he does is true, his ways are
while seven years pass you by—until you realize that the Most High is just, and he is able to humble those who walk in pride.”
sovereign over human kingdoms and grants them to whomever he desires.
26
Just as it was ordered to leave the stump of the tree in the ground along Understanding the Text
with its roots, so your kingdom will be restored to you when you realize 3) How does Nebuchadnezzar begin his decree to his people? (4:1–3)
that Heaven rules over everything. 27Therefore, your majesty, may my
advice be acceptable to you: Stop your sinning, do what’s right, and put a First, an extensive preliminary overview is required to fully appreciate the
stop to your wickedness by showing kindness to the oppressed. Perhaps context of this chapter, which is ultimately a lesson about pride,
your tranquillity will continue.” particularly for those who look at their own accomplishments and give
themselves all the credit, and God uses Nebuchadnezzar as an object
The Dream Comes True lesson. In this case, the story ends happily, for this king actually humbles
28
All of this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29About a year later, himself beneath God. Daniel does not provide a precise date when this
as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30he incident took place in the life of Nebuchadnezzar.
commented to himself, “Isn’t Babylon great? I’ve built a royal palace in it
 139

But, the LXXΟ adds an additional comment at the beginning of v. 1 that pagan.’ The chapter is written from Nebuchadnezzar’s viewpoint.
this took place “in the 18th year of the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar,” Actually, it is the king’s testimony of Yahweh’s operation in his life.
which is a date that would correspond with the fall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. Nebuchadnezzar’s testimony contains phraseology similar to that found
However, this addition is undoubtedly a fabrication and receives no elsewhere in the Old Testament (vv. 3, 37). This may be because Daniel
support from either the LXXθ or the Masoretic Text. Evidently, the penned the decree for the king because of the king’s personal
translators of the LXXΟ sought to connect Nebuchadnezzar’s madness acquaintance with these Hebrew writings or because the monarch
with the destruction of Jerusalem, as though the madness came upon him employed Babylonian terminology similar to that found in scripture.
as a judgment by God for destroying Jerusalem. Instead, it is more likely There are doxologies at the beginning and end of the chapter. A change
that the events of Daniel 4 took place in the latter years of from 1st person (vv. 1–18, 19–27) to 3rd person (vv. 19, 28–33) and then
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, possibly no later than his 34th year in 571 b.c. back to 1st person (vv. 34–37) occurs in the chapter. For the most part the
material written in the 3rd person (except v. 19) describes the king’s
Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and says: madness, to which the king would not have been a sane witness.”
“Daniel did not date the dream and subsequent events described here, but
clues in the text point to the close of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. For However, more challenging than the date itself is the question of the
example, his building operations seem to have been concluded (v. 30), story’s historicity. Critical scholars deny that any such event like this ever
there was peace throughout the empire (v. 4), and possible allusions to the happened to Nebuchadnezzar, since there is no mention of a long mental
king’s illness by Abydenus (2nd century b.c.) and Berosus (3rd century b.c. illness from extra–biblical records, or that he personally came to praise
Babylonian priest) suggest a time late in Nebuchadnezzar’s life. Abydenus’ Israel’s God. Instead, critical scholars appeal to Akkadian literature in
account is preserved by Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelica 9.41.1) and support of a non–literal understanding of Daniel’s account about
Berosus’ account is preserved by Josephus (Against Apion 1.20). The Nebuchadnezzar’s experience. For example, some argue that
king’s illness began a year after the dream (v. 29) and probably lasted 7 Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is modelled on a trope we find in the mythic
years. An interval of time also was needed for Nebuchadnezzar’s reign lore of the ancient Near East, the notion of the wild man with Gilgamesh’s
after his cure (at least 1 year). Thus, this incident must have taken place friend [Enkidu] being a principal example of that trope, and stories of
no later than the 34th year (571 b.c.) of his 43 year reign (605–562 b.c.). those who lived outside civilized urban centers. But, others argue that
At v. 1, the LXX translators added that this episode took place in ‘the 18th Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is best understood in the context of
year’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, a date that would coincide with the fall netherworld imagery, and that the type of animal imagery found in
of Jerusalem (586 b.c.). Evidently the LXX translators attempted to Daniel’s account frequently symbolized those who were afflicted by divine
connect this episode with that event. Nebuchadnezzar’s madness was powers. Thus, the animals function as metaphors, and the animal images
construed as God’s judgment upon him for the destruction of the holy city. express suffering, lending detail and poignancy to Nebuchadnezzar’s
Theodotion does not include this addition, which appears to be a condition. Still others argue that magico–medical Mesopotamian texts
fabrication. Concerning the LXX edition of this chapter generally, in spite known as the dingir.šà.dib.ba [or “appeasing an angry god”] incantations
of some omissions, it is 25% longer than the Masoretic Text. R. H. Charles provide evidence that a primal earthly status results from a curse of a god.
argues that the LXX version of this account is superior to the Masoretic
Text, but few would agree. Thus, probably ~30 years had transpired John Walton [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: “Ancient
between the events of chapter 3 and chapter 4, and Daniel would now Near Eastern literature includes a variety of declarations of innocence.
have been ~50 years of age. This chapter is unusual in a number of ways. Most are fairly brief, with just a few lines listing denied offenses. In
It contains some features similar to those of an epistle. Archer notes that literature from Mesopotamia, the works most frequently cited are the
this ‘is the only chapter in scripture composed under the authority of a dingir.ša.dib.ba incantations and the šurpu incantations. Both texts
 140

address an angry god in an attempt to appease his wrath and bring relief medical literature in illuminating the book of Daniel. The link between
to the person suffering. The dingir.ša.dib.ba incantations contain lines in Mesopotamian magico–medical literature and Daniel is evidenced
which the sufferer claims innocence on certain points: ‘I have not held already in the book of Daniel itself. For example, the Masoretic Text of
back from the deity the sheep in the pen,’ as well as long confessions of Daniel (2:10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, and 15) mentions that Nebuchadnezzar
sins he is willing to admit: ‘I spoke lies, I coveted your abundant property, summoned many types of magico–medical consultants, including the
I raised my hand and desecrated what should not so be treated, I have āšipu, a well–known Mesopotamian ritual specialist who worked with
continually committed iniquities, known and unknown.’ The šurpu incantations. Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that appeal to the
incantations, by contrast, limit their scope to confessions of actual dingir.šà.dib.ba incantations here is not meant to solve any redactional
offenses. Besides the incantations, a negative confession can be found in problems. Rather, such an appeal aims to provide another
ritual texts. In the Babylonian New Year’s festival (Akitu), the king Mesopotamian literary tradition from which the ancient authors/editors
expresses his eligibility for renewed kingship by narrating his care for of Daniel 4 could have drawn inspiration, templates, and pre–combined
Babylon and the temple rites, including proper treatment of subordinates.” elements. Therefore, Hays is correct about the benefits of those prayer
genres when interpreting Daniel. In addition, the dingir.šà.dib.ba
Hector Avalos [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] summarizes: incantations exemplify the potential of the rich and extensive magico–
“The literary sources and socio–historical context for the story of medical literature of Mesopotamia to illuminate biblical texts.”
Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction in Daniel 4 have attracted enough attention to
be the subject of a monograph by Matthias Henze, arguing that However, the lack of such information is not conclusive proof against
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness ‘is modelled on a trope we find in the mythic Daniel’s account. The fact of the matter is that the Babylonian Chronicles
lore of the ancient Near East, the notion of the wild man.’ For Henze, [from which we get much of our historical information] only covers the
Gilgamesh’s friend, Enkidu, would be a principal example of that trope. years 605–594 b.c., and this is followed by a large gap in the records, so
On the other hand, Christopher Hays argues that the passage about the records for most of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar are not extant,
Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction is best understood in the context of especially during the latter part of his reign when this most likely occurred.
netherworld imagery. Hays argues that the collection of animals
mentioned had underworld associations. He also claims that ‘the type of Paul Ferguson [21st century biblical scholar] evaluates the critical studies:
animal imagery found in this passage frequently symbolized those who “As soon as the king uttered his boast he lapsed into a strange kind of
were afflicted by divine powers.’ Overall, Hays believes that the proper mental illness that would last until seven periods of time passed (vv. 25,
context for this story is not in the mythical epics, but in prayer genres 32). Those who proceed with the assumption that there are no
(lament and thanksgiving prayers). According to Hays, ‘in order to show supernatural elements in the narrative have always been quick to brush
that such a text is comparable to Daniel 4:30, it would help to have some aside the possibility of reality in this incident. Louis Hartman confidently
evidence that such a primal status could result from the curse of a deity, states that ‘enough is known of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43 year reign so that it
but that is not the case.’ I argue that a group of magico–medical is impossible to fit in such a period of insanity.’ It has apparently escaped
Mesopotamian texts collected by Wilfred Lambert and known as the the attention of many expositors that there are no definite time markers
dingir.šà.dib.ba incantations do provide clear evidence that a primal associated with the king’s illness. Daniel 4:13 (Aramaic) uses the
earthly status could result from the curse of a deity. Accordingly, Henze indefinite word ʿiddān, which may refer to a month rather than a year.
is probably more correct in situating the context of the story in the motif of The only specific period of time mentioned in the entire chapter is the
an earthly (as opposed to netherwordly) wild man, while Hays is correct in word for ‘month’ in v. 29. Interestingly the literal Aramaic wording for the
seeing that Mesopotamian prayer genres are one key to the interpretation termination point of the king’s malady is ‘at the end of the days.’ Though it
of Daniel 4. In addition, I argue for the utility of Mesopotamian magico– is certainly proper to render these words ‘at the end of this time,’ even 7
 141

days of such a harrowing experience would probably suffice to bring Nevertheless, despite these positive arguments, after the publication of the
about serious attitude adjustments in most of us. Hence it does not appear Nabonidus Chronicle in 1882, critical scholars began to speculate that the
to be necessary to assume that the king’s mental lapse lasted for a period historical incident that had inspired Daniel’s tale of Nebuchadnezzar’s
of 7 years. James Montgomery sagaciously notes that since royal families insanity was instead the 10–year sojourn of Nabonidus in Teima, where he
do not usually make such frailties public, records of the king’s condition suffered from an illness. Nabonidus was the last king of the Neo–
were probably never made. Nevertheless there are certain facts that Babylonian Empire in 556–539 b.c., and the Nabonidus Chronicle was
suggest that something was amiss in the latter part of the king’s reign. finished early in the reign of Cyrus, whose conquest of Babylon is one of
Meticulous historical records are available up to about the 11th year of the last events recorded in this official royal Babylonian archival material.
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, after which the chronicles are practically silent.
Berger only finds three inscriptions specifically dated from the 7th, 12th, Edwin Yamauchi [21st century biblical scholar] says: “We do have some
and 37th years. In 1912, Stephen Langdon published 52 building valuable contemporary inscriptions in the Semitic Akkadian language,
inscriptions belonging to Nebuchadnezzar. Langdon devotes about 140 which was used by the Neo–Babylonians. There are hundreds of
pages to the Babylonian and English texts of these inscriptions. Langdon Mesopotamian economic texts from the period of Cyrus’ reign. Quite
assigns only about four of them to the latter half of Nebuchadnezzar’s invaluable is the Chaldean Chronicle of the Neo–Babylonian king
reign. He notes that this part of the king’s reign is ‘remarkably poor in Nabonidus. The Chronicle is a relatively objective contemporary account.
its number of literary productions.’ Not only does the number of It describes the erratic behaviour of Nabonidus in contrast with the
inscriptions suddenly drop, but also their content radically changes. reverential attitude of Cyrus.”
Earlier preoccupation with religion wanes, and attention is turned to
palaces and politics. Prayers show evidence of being copied from earlier Then, in 1956, the fragmentary Qumran text 4Q242 [which contains a
sources. In reworking one of his closing prayers the king manages to prayer by Nabonidus] was published, and critical scholars were quick to
insert eight of his own royal titles. Flaunting of royal traits before deity assume that this manuscript fragment confirmed the long–suspected
was totally absent in his earlier prayers. Langdon notes that after the year history of the tradition behind Daniel. In fact, it has been labelled as the
590 BC ‘we have scarcely anything but palace inscriptions with little to “missing link” between the Nabonidus Chronicle and Daniel. But,
say about the religious interests of the king.’ This would certainly agree although no one would claim direct literary dependence of Daniel on
with the king’s attitude portrayed in v. 29. In 1975, A. K. Grayson 4Q242, discussions of their relationship in scholarly publications during
published a most intriguing fragment of a tablet. D. J. Wiseman identifies the past ~50 years are nearly unanimous in assuming that it preserves a
Nebuchadnezzar II as the subject of the brief narration, rather than Amel– tradition older than Daniel. So, this text reads: “The words of the prayer of
Marduk as the subject. Inscriptions of Neriglissar and Nabonidus do not Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the great king, when he was smitten with a
mention any son or daughter of Amel–Marduk. For some unspecified severe inflammation at the command of God, in Teiman. I, Nabonidus, was
reason the king becomes extremely disoriented. His orders are smitten with a severe inflammation lasting 7 years. Because I was
contradictory, and he does not even heed the mention of his name. He does changed, becoming like a beast, I prayed to the Most High, and he forgave
not show concern for son or daughter and ceases his care for worship my sins. An exorcist—a Jew, in fact, a member of the community of
centers. Even his own life is of no value to him. The text ends with the exiles—came to me and said, ‘Declare and write down this story, and so
king going to the holy gate and weeping bitterly to the great gods. The text ascribe glory and greatness to the name of God Most High.’ Accordingly, I
is much too small and fragmentary to dogmatically assert that it is the have myself written it down: I was smitten with a severe inflammation
Babylonian version of the account in Daniel 4. It does, however, indicate while in Teiman, by the command of God Most High. Then for 7 years I
that a great deal of caution is in order before dismissing the account of continued praying to the gods made of silver and gold, bronze, iron, wood,
the king’s madness as nothing more than folklore.” stone, and clay, for I used to think that they really were gods.”
 142

Thus, it is obviously noticeable to see that the parallels between Daniel 4 It is spelled ‫[ נבני‬Nabunay] instead of ‫[ נבנד‬from Akkadian Nabû–naʾid],
and 4Q242 are too striking to be coincidental. They seem to demand some which means a scribal confusion of ‫ י‬for ‫ד‬. Thus, if 4Q242 preserves the
type of explanation for their overlapping relationship, as summarized here: earlier Babylonian tradition about Nabonidus, it is obviously clear that it is
a garbled and inaccurate preservation of that tradition!
Daniel 4 Prayer of Nabonidus [4Q242]
st
1 person account by Nebuchadnezzar st
Peter Flint [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] says: “On palaeographical
1 person account by Nabonidus grounds, the script is a type of semicursive which Cross dates to the period
[except vv. 28–33]
Nebuchadnezzar was stricken by God 75–50 BCE. Although the king’s name is given as ‘Nabunay’ (Akkadian
[vv. 29–32]
Nabonidus was stricken by God Nabu–na’id) he is clearly Nabonidus, not least because of the reference to
Teiman = Teima in line 2. Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon (556–539
Nebuchadnezzar was smitten for Nabonidus was smitten for “seven
BCE), absented himself from Babylon for a period of 10 years and made
“seven years” [v. 32] years”
his abode at Teima in Arabia. Much relevant information on his sojourn is
Daniel ministers to Nebuchadnezzar A Judean diviner ministers to documented in the Nabonidus Chronicle, as well as in the Verse Account
[vv. 8–27] Nabonidus of Nabonidus, which is most hostile towards the king (from the viewpoint
Daniel advises Nebuchadnezzar to take A Judean diviner advises of the Babylonian clergy). Nabonidus’ own account has been found in an
actions toward God that will prevent Nabonidus to take action to God inscription from Harran (H2) that was published shortly after Milik’s
his illness [v. 27] that apparently led to his healing publication of 4Q242. The records suggest that his absence from Babylon
was due to opposition from the Babylonian clergy, who resented
However, although there is widespread acceptance that 4Q242 represents Nabonidus’ devotion to the moon–god Sin and his plans to rebuild the
an earlier and more accurate version of the events related in Daniel 4, it is temple of Sin at Harran. The Prayer of Nabonidus does not specifically
nonetheless recognized that 4Q242 is hardly an accurate picture of the mention Daniel, but is related to parts of Daniel. Common themes include:
events of Nabonidus’ reign, based on what we know of it from other a Babylonian king who is afflicted for 7 years, his recovery due to the
ancient sources [like the Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus]. In other intervention of a Jewish exile, a king who speaks in the 1st person, and a
words, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Nabonidus spent 10 years in written proclamation in praise of the true God. Long before the discovery
Teima, whereas 4Q242 mentions 7 years in Teiman. Likewise, there is no of the Prayer among the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars had suggested that
mention of Nabonidus being afflicted with a chronic skin disease in the Nabonidus’ exile at Teima lay behind the legend of Nebuchadnezzar’s
other ancient sources, and the place of Nabonidus’ sojourn in the 4Q242 madness in Daniel 4. To a great degree, Collins observes, ‘the Prayer
text is Teiman, instead of Teima. This might have arisen from confusion supplies the missing link between the Babylonian traditions and the
with Teiman in Edom [Jeremiah 49:20; Obadiah 9], which is more familiar biblical book.’ Yet in many respects the Qumran text differs both from
to a Palestinian Jew, than Teima as a place in Arabia [Isaiah 21:14; the Babylonian accounts and from Daniel 4. The Babylonian records do
Jeremiah 25:23; Job 6:19]. Thus, this confusion makes it possible that the not say that the king suffered from a disease, and make no mention of a
author of 4Q242 was a Palestinian Jew, and some scholars suggest that the Jewish diviner. Moreover, the Verse Account accuses Nabonidus of
“–an” suffix is a local variant. But, other scholars suggest that Teiman is impiety towards the Babylonian gods, whereas in the Prayer of Nabonidus
the older form of Teima, because the LXX always translates it as Qaiman. he is misguidedly devoted to idols. In the Harran Inscription Nabonidus
However, given the problems of establishing the methods of the LXX attributes his deliverance to the moon–god Sin, while the Prayer attributes
translators, it is not sound methodology to rely on the LXX to establish the this to the Most High God, or the God of the Jews. It is clear that
actual form of an Aramaic or Hebrew proper noun. Also, even the name Babylonian source–material has undergone a Jewish transformation,
Nabonidus is spelled in a peculiar manner in the prayer. with Nabonidus’ absence from Babylon being associated with a kind of
 143

sickness, and this sickness becoming an occasion for manifesting of the Perhaps such a Palestinian Jew, upon learning of some facts about the
power of the God of Israel. The precise relationship between the Qumran reign of Nabonidus, composed a narrative roughly based on the plot of
text and Daniel 4 is difficult to determine; indeed, the reconstruction of the Daniel 4. The purpose of this narrative would be to supplement Daniel’s
Prayer is to some degree dependent on this relationship. In the later book and fill in a perceived and embarrassingly wide historical gap in
biblical text the name of the king has been changed to the more familiar Daniel: the era between the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of
Nebuchadnezzar, and a name (Daniel) has been given to the Jewish seer, Babylon to the Persians. In fact, that is the historical gap between the end
who is anonymous in the surviving fragments of the Prayer. It is of Daniel 4 and the beginning of Daniel 5. In fact, this should not be
interesting to note that the polemic against idols that is so prominent in surprising since such supplements to Daniel’s book are evident in the LXX
the Prayer finds its parallel in Daniel 5 rather than in Daniel 4. One [recall Daniel 3]. In the same way, 4Q242 may have been intended by its
final comment: it has been proposed that the preservation of the Prayer at author to offer a history of activity by a wise Jew in order to demonstrate a
Qumran may be due to the interest of the Essenes in healing.” continuity of activity during the years about which Daniel’s text is silent,
but which were described in the author’s other historical sources. Thus, he
Thus, as Flint confirms, the oft–mentioned theory that Nabonidus’ peculiar drew upon Daniel’s Aramaic text in order to compose a narrative that
devotion to the moon–god Sin gave rise to the legend of Nebuchadnezzar’s would appear to fit into the perceived gap between Daniel 4 and Daniel 5.
insanity in Daniel 4 actually requires a radical transformation of the Thus, 4Q242 fits in this gap, both because of its historical setting and
historical occurrences behind the narrative! However, there exists another because of its thematic and verbal similarity to Daniel 4 and Daniel 5.
possibility that critical scholars have not seriously considered or have Furthermore, there are a number of indications that 4Q242 was composed
dismissed as unlikely: that 4Q242 is actually based upon Daniel 4. After in imitation of Daniel, by reemploying similar vocabulary, hyper–
all, the lone fragmentary scroll of 4Q242 is dated to 75–50 b.c., which correcting its theology, and interpreting its prophecies. In other words, the
means it is younger than the earliest known manuscripts of Daniel. So, author of 4Q242 employed vocabulary and motifs from Daniel 2–5 [also
could it be that since scholars had already proposed that a tradition about written in Aramaic], but refrained from using the motifs in Daniel 6,
Nabonidus lay behind Daniel 4, they seized upon the discovery of 4Q242 because it is a narrative concerning a Persian king. So, if no scholar had
as a vindication of that proposal without a critical look at evidence that already posited the theory that Daniel 4 originated from traditions about
points to 4Q242 as younger than Daniel 4 and derivative from it? Given Nabonidus, then 4Q242 [when it was discovered] would have been seen as
the garbled nature of the tradition about Nabonidus in 4Q242, it would be a composition that extended and expanded the Aramaic Daniel narrative,
prudent to examine this other possibility. Nevertheless, the major like the additional material in the LXX [the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of
stumbling block that prevents critical scholars from viewing the prayer as the Three Young Men, and Susanna], which takes place when Daniel was
a composition based on Daniel 4 is the character of Nabonidus himself, by a youth, and are also set in the Neo–Babylonian kingdom that is likewise
assuming that no Palestinian author in the Maccabean era would have concerned with discrediting Babylonian gods. Thus, 4Q242 conforms to
known about Nabonidus [which is why they think that the well–known this tradition from Daniel 2–5 by expanding the condemnation of the
Nebuchadnezzar was substituted for Nabonidus sometime in the pre– Babylonian religion, not the Persian religion. Nevertheless, critical
history of Daniel 4]. However, Nabonidus was not completely forgotten in scholars try to vindicate the theory that Daniel 4 originated from traditions
the centuries after his reign. Scholars have long been aware that Greek about Nabonidus [which is obviously a theory that has little evidence to
historians, including Herodotus, knew of some traditions about Nabonidus, support it], and they quickly seized upon 4Q242 for that purpose. This rush
calling him “Labynetus” [Histories, 1.74.3]. Likewise, Josephus knew of to judgment has blinded them to the distinct possibility that 4Q242 does
Nabonidus through the writings of Berosus [Against Apion, 1.149–153]. not stem from an earlier tradition that predated Daniel 4, but in fact had its
Thus, it is possible that another earlier Palestinian Jew [the one responsible genesis as an adaptation from Daniel 4 as the primary source, where
for authoring 4Q242] knew of Nabonidus through a Greek author! Daniel’s account is not connected to any incident in the life of Nabonidus.
 144

Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: Paul House [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “This chapter’s
“Nebuchadnezzar is in view here in the text, but because no satisfactory literary form is unique in Daniel 1–6. It is a communication from
explanation has yet been put forth concerning Nabonidus’ move to Teima Nebuchadnezzar to his subjects (v. 1). Hartman and Di Lella deem it an
in Arabia for 10 years, some scholars believe the insanity of epistle, stating that the passage has ‘a standard epistolary introduction’
Nebuchadnezzar really happened to Nabonidus and that the author of (vv. 1–3), a ‘body of the letter that gives the account of the king’s dream
Daniel has mistakenly transferred the event to Nebuchadnezzar. But, and its effects’ (vv. 4–36), and ‘finally a conclusion’ (v. 37) which ‘re–
anyone who reads the text of Daniel along with the Prayer of Nabonidus echoes the praises of God that were sounded in the introduction.’ If so, it
(4QprNab) will be struck by the major differences between them. This all is an unusual epistle in that vv. 1–18 and vv. 34–37 are autobiographical,
remains a mere hypothesis, for the difference between the Prayer of but a narrator takes over when Nebuchadnezzar hears from Daniel (vv.
Nabonidus and the biblical text remains unsatisfactorily explained. 19–27) and when the king loses his mind (vv. 28–33). Nebuchadnezzar
Furthermore, the diseases each king suffered are quite different. In fact, resumes speaking when he regains sanity. Furthermore, the chapter
the lives and deaths of the kings of the Chaldean dynasty after includes poetry in v. 3 and vv. 34–35. There is a bit of a contest between
Nebuchadnezzar are all tragic: Evil–merodach (561–560 BC) was Daniel and the other wise men in vv. 4–18. Thus, many scholars conclude
assassinated in a revolution as a hated king at the hands of Neriglissar; that diverse traditions have been woven together in Daniel 4. They also
Neriglissar died under strange circumstances; Labashi–Marduk was conclude that the material does not fit the 2nd century BC time period as
deposed in 9 months and murdered; then Nabonidus became king.” well as it does earlier settings. Despite this agreement, experts have found
it quite difficult to demonstrate how an editor joined the suggested strands
So, granted that this story of Nebuchadnezzar really did take place and is of prose, poetry, autobiography, 3rd person narration and epistle. For
historically reliable, it is nonetheless amazing that he would reveal this example, Wills uses the Old Greek version and relevant non–biblical
publicly. In other words, Assyrian and Babylonian kings exaggerated their stories to try to reconstruct the original sources a proposed editor
greatness and personal achievements rather than calling attention to their possessed, the source material this editor used and discarded, and the
defects and weaknesses. Thus, since it was told in the 1st person by words this editor added. While his work demonstrates careful analysis, it
Nebuchadnezzar, would he not have been embarrassed to recount this? may simply show that Daniel’s author brought together materials in such
a unified manner that it takes extraordinary scholarly knowledge and good
John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] clarifies this crucial context: fortune to sort them out. It seems more likely that the piece has always
“As the book of Daniel combines Hebrew and Aramaic in the manner of been a unified whole, joined, as good literature so often is, by an author
Ezra–Nehemiah, so it combines 1st and 3rd person ways of narrating in the blending genres that can only be separated for purposes of discussion.
manner of Ezra–Nehemiah and Tobit. Daniel 4 does so in a distinctively Since Ezra, Nehemiah, and other exile literature contain similar shifts in
integral fashion. The story is not only that of Nebuchadnezzar: it is also content and narration, Daniel 4 appears to participate in normal literary
about Nebuchadnezzar. Combining a testimony (vv. 1–17, 34–37) with practices of the Babylonian–Persian era. At least three other historical
narrative (vv. 19–33) has a dramatic effect: it enables the chapter to tell matters deserve mention. First, Eusebius (275–339 AD) mentions a
the story from two points of view or perspectives, from the implicit angle tradition that Nebuchadnezzar went to the roof of his palace, predicted the
of the narrator (which the narrator presumably expects us to accept) and coming of a Persian ruler and wished that ruler to become a beast in the
from the explicit angle of Nebuchadnezzar (which the narrator may or field. This account demonstrates that palaces were standard places for a
may not expect us to accept). Indeed, we get three perspectives in the king to be and speak, and that beast imagery was common when
chapter, insofar as it also reports the words of Daniel. In the context of the discussing kings. Second, in the 19th century, scholars discovered
book as a whole, we might assume that we are expected to accept inscriptions about Nabonidus, the last ruler of the Babylonian Empire
Daniel’s angle but to be more suspicious of Nebuchadnezzar’s.” (556–539 BC). These included statements about his son Belshazzar, and
 145

the fact that Nabonidus left Babylon for 10 years to live in Teima. Third, could do to honour God for all that God had done for him. What
the discoveries at Qumran in the mid–20th century included the Prayer of greater honour could he have rendered than to declare his story to
Nabonidus, a document that contains a 1st person account of how God all his subjects and point them [since they were steeped in idolatry]
struck the king with an illness for 7 years while he lived in Teima. God to God? In doing so, he became one of the truly great men of
sent an unnamed Jewish magician, who told him that he was suffering for history: a man rescued by the grace of God.
praying to gods of silver and gold, and urged him to repent. The text
breaks off, but the account likely ended with the king’s acceptance of the Thus, here is a summary of his spiritual journey:
message and his renewed health. This last document has several evident
similarities and differences with Daniel 4. After charting these, Hartman 1. Chapter 2: Daniel’s interpretation of the dream about the great
and Di Lella conclude that ‘there is no literary dependence of one story image. He learned that Israel’s God was all–powerful [controlling
on the other.’ They add that, taken together, the Nabonidus texts preserve all history], all wise, and could reveal mysteries that no other god
more accurately than Daniel 4 the story of a Babylonian king who suffered could make known.
illness and gained health through the intervention of a Jewish wise man.
This is an extraordinary conclusion, given the lack of any attesting or 2. Chapter 3: The deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
competing Nebuchadnezzar stories outside the bible. Thus, it is a much He learned that God was sovereign over nature and history, and
more feasible conclusion that Daniel 4 testifies with other ancient texts could by his miracle–working power override the will of the
to God’s work with Babylon’s kings. Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, and mightiest earthly potentates and deliver his servants from death.
Nehemiah convey the same theme, as do extra–biblical works. Of all these
texts, Daniel alone presents how God worked directly in 3. Chapter 4: His humiliation to the state of a beast of the field.
Nebuchadnezzar’s life. It preserves what is currently unique information, Finally, Nebuchadnezzar really began to understand his weakness
and no known text sets that information aside. The book presents this and folly before God. At last he realized his utter dependence on
episode as one of several for which documentary evidence existed when God for his reason, his power, and his very life. He saw that he was
the author wrote the book.” but an instrument in the hands of God. So, he came to terms with
the primary lesson of the book: the absolute sovereignty of God
Thus, notice that Nebuchadnezzar opens his decree by saying: “it gives me and his faithfulness to his covenant people. Thus, he personally put
great pleasure to tell” [v. 2]. He did not tell this story reluctantly, because his faith and became a worshiper of Israel’s God.
through the process of his humiliation by God, his heart was truly changed.
So, in making this story public, the king accomplished two things: Stating with v. 1, we read: “An Official Statement from Nebuchadnezzar
the King: to the people of all nations and languages who live on earth.
1. He provided a clear explanation to all his subjects why he was Peace and prosperity to you!”
absent from his throne [which over a 7 year period would have
become noticeable to all]. This was typical of decrees uttered by oriental kings, being something of a
standard greeting. It is worded almost exactly the same as that by Darius
2. It was his opportunity to glorify God who had dealt so mercifully [later in Daniel 6:25]. The Aramaic ʾăra [for “earth”] is equivalent to the
with him [despite his immense pride] patiently bringing the king to Hebrew ʾereṣ [or “land”]. So, when we examine the ancient cuneiform
faith and a true heart–felt praise for God. This means documents of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian kings, they regarded
Nebuchadnezzar was an older man and near the end of his reign themselves as kings “of all the earth” because their empires embraced
when his illness ended. He probably thought carefully what he most of the known civilized world and they boasted beyond their measure.
 146

Likewise, the Aramaic šᵊlomḵôn [for “peace and prosperity”] is equivalent Thus, he declares, “His kingdom is an eternal kingdom, and his dominion
to the Hebrew šalōm [or “peace, welfare, health, and prosperity”]. Thus, lasts from generation to generation.” This reflects a proper perspective of
having wished for their good welfare and fortune, Nebuchadnezzar said God’s kingdom and rule. However, this confession about God’s kingdom
that he found it pleasing to declare the signs and wonders that God had is strikingly similar to Psalm 145:10–13. It may be that Nebuchadnezzar
done for him. To tell his story risked a certain embarrassment, especially was familiar with this Davidic psalm and came to appreciate its truth.
for a Babylonian king, but he nonetheless felt compelled to share it. Likewise, v. 3 is strikingly similar to the latter part of v. 31. Thus,
Nebuchadnezzar did not acknowledge this truth until after his illness.
Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] beautifully says: Thus, vv. 1–3 is a summary about Nebuchadnezzar’s conclusions after his
“Observe the piety of the children: they showed no indignation, no anger, humbling experience, and he uses it to introduce his story to tell his
no gainsaying, but they came forth as though they were going forth from readers how he had come to view God’s kingdom this way. It is entirely
heaven itself. And what the prophet says of the sun, that ‘he is as a possible that Daniel had ministered to him somewhere in the process with
bridegroom going out of his chamber’ [Psalm 19:5], so one could also say the words from Psalm 145, and by God’s grace, Nebuchadnezzar came to
such a thing of them. But, though the sun goes forth like the bridegroom, faith and fully trusted in this revelation about God’s kingdom.
yet did they come out with even more glory than he, for he indeed goes
forth to enlighten the world with natural light, they to enlighten the world Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes:
in a different way, I mean, spiritually. For because of them the king “Nebuchadnezzar issued a royal proclamation to the citizens of his vast
immediately issued a decree, ‘The signs and wonders that the most high empire because he had an important message to give them. He wrote to
God has worked for me I am pleased to recount.’ So they went forth, tell them about something God had done for him—or, perhaps more
shedding a yet more glorious radiance, beaming indeed in that very accurately in the context, something God had done to him. His
region, even more so by way of the king’s writings, being diffused over proclamation follows the traditional format of letters of the time,
the world and dispelling the darkness that everywhere prevails.” beginning with something of both a return address and salutation in v. 1.
The use of the royal letter in this context, in which the great
Finally in vv. 2–3, we read: “it gives me great pleasure to tell about the Nebuchadnezzar will acknowledge an authority higher than himself, gives
signs and wonders that the Most High God has done for me. How great his words a special degree of authority. The king addressed his letter to
are his signs! How powerful are his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal those who live in ‘all the world,’ a claim that fits the royal ideology of the
kingdom, and his dominion lasts from generation to generation.” ancient Near East and makes Nebuchadnezzar an epitome of human
kingship in his claim to universal rule. Some scholars doubt that the events
The expression “signs and wonders” will be about the distressing of this chapter happened, and while there is no record of such a
discipline that God had brought upon Nebuchadnezzar, just as it did when proclamation from Nebuchadnezzar in the annals of Babylonian history,
God brought the plagues [also called “signs and wonders”] upon Pharaoh that is not reason enough to discount its historicity. Our knowledge of
to coerce him into yielding to God’s will [Exodus 7:3; Deuteronomy 6:22). Nebuchadnezzar’s later years is minimal, and we might expect the royal
Nebuchadnezzar was about to tell his subjects how he had to be disciplined annals to omit such a humiliating account of the great king. Longman
by God, though in the final analysis it would be a good thing, for he would notes that a ‘king’s reign is not exhaustively documented and this
be a changed man. These signs/wonders were indeed great and mighty, experience is not the type of thing that Nebuchadnezzar may have wanted
because they powerfully brought the king to his knees. Nebuchadnezzar preserved for perpetuity in his royal inscriptions.’ Without such written
had spent a lifetime building one of the world’s great kingdoms, but he had documentation, archaeology can offer little corroboration of the story.
failed to see his kingdom in proper perspective with God’s kingdom. What seems to impress Nebuchadnezzar the most is that the ‘Most High
God’ had done something miraculous for him (v. 2). The first time
 147

Nebuchadnezzar referred to God as the ‘Most High God’ was in Daniel 4) What was the preliminary setting for Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? (4:4–9)
3:26 when he called Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of the fiery
furnace. He knew when he saw the 4th figure in the flames that the Starting with vv. 4–5, we read: “I, Nebuchadnezzar, was resting in my
exiles’ God was more than a god—he was the God of all gods, and in home and prospering in my palace. I had a dream that made me afraid.
Daniel 4, this Most High God has stepped into Nebuchadnezzar’s world The thoughts that went through my mind while in bed and the visions in my
and done something extraordinary for him. The expression ‘signs and head terrified me.”
wonders’ brings to mind the exodus, where God demonstrated his superior
power to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:3; Deuteronomy 6:22; Psalm 135:9). Nearly Nebuchadnezzar begins his testimony by recounting his situation at the
a millennium later, God showed his superior power over the Babylonian time he received this dream from God. The Aramaic šᵊlēh [for “resting”]
king. Notably, false prophets, antichrists, and Satan also have the capacity means “carefree,” since his kingdom was secure, and he was living in a
to perform signs and wonders in the bible (Deuteronomy 13:2; Mark time when he could feel at ease. Likewise, the Aramaic ra ănan [for
13:22; 2 Thessalonians 2:9). While the language of ‘signs and wonders’ “prospering”] means “flourishing,” but this should not be limited to
would likely have been lost on Nebuchadnezzar’s wider audience, the financial prosperity, because the similar adjective Hebrew ra ănān [or
Jewish audience of Daniel would have made the connection between “luxuriant, fresh”] is used of trees and plants [to be “leafy” and thriving].
Nebuchadnezzar’s words and the exodus, and they would have found Thus, “prospering” was not just financial prosperity, but political and
comfort in the fact that God was still in the business of performing military stability as well. In other words, everything was going well for the
miracles for his people, an assurance the Diaspora community needed. king. So, notice the irony: he was flourishing like a “leafy” tree, but then in
Nebuchadnezzar’s doxology is at home in Babylonian and Persian royal the dream he becomes a cut–down tree! The purpose of v. 4 is to bring out
proclamations, in which ancient Near Eastern kings often praised their the king’s false sense of security. This was at a point in his career when he
gods for showing them favour. His account concludes with a similar had succeeded in military conquests, his kingdom had become stable,
doxology (vv. 34–35), forming an inclusio, or literary envelope, around the material riches were flowing into his treasury, and he was enjoying the
dream report. Between the first song and the last, Nebuchadnezzar fruits of his many building projects for which he would become famous
recounts the amazing things the Most High God did for him. But, the [like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon that he built for one of his wives].
doxologies focus the reader’s attention on the central message of the
chapter: a story about two sovereignties; the human rule proves to be
utterly derivative, utterly contingent, and totally dependent upon the
divine will. The king’s acknowledgement of his dependence and God’s
sovereignty is summed up in Job–like language: ‘No one can hold back his
hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’’ (v. 35; cf. Job 9:12; 42:2),
and his assessment of human limitations sounds like Isaiah’s proclamation
that the nations are as nothing, worthless, and less than nothing before
God (v. 35; cf. Isaiah 40:17). Old Testament declarations of God’s eternal
reign and freedom to do what pleases him stand behind Nebuchadnezzar’s
similar acclamations (vv. 3, 34; cf. Psalm 115:3; 135:5; 143:13). We do
not have to assume that Nebuchadnezzar knew the sacred texts of his
captives. Rather, Daniel may have composed the doxologies, wording
them in such a way as to capture the gist of the king’s story in language
that would have resonated with the Jewish audience of the book.”
 148

Paul Ferguson [21st century biblical scholar] explains the context further: So, just when Nebuchadnezzar seemed to have all that his heart longed for,
“In v. 4 the king says he was ‘happy and flourishing’ in his palace. In God sent him a dream that would lead to a shaking up of his little world.
Inscription Number 9 Nebuchadnezzar says, ‘The palace, the seat of my As a result of the visions in his dream, Nebuchadnezzar [who normally
royal authority, a place of union of mighty peoples, abode of joy and would have felt so secure behind the massive walls for which Babylon was
happiness, the place where proud ones are compelled to submit, I rebuilt famous] was left terrified and deeply troubled.
upon the bosom of the wide world. My royal decisions, my imperial
commands, I caused to go forth from it.’ The king proudly asserted that he Jerome [4th century] says: “The narrative is clear indeed and requires little
made his palace to be gazed at in astonishment by everyone. It was interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned
‘bursting with splendor. Luxuriance, dreadfulness, awe, gleaming majesty into a madman and dwelled for 7 years among the brute beasts and fed on
surrounded it.’ He boasted that he made Babylon into a fortress, strong the roots of herbs. Afterwards, by the mercy of God, he was restored to his
like a mountain. He says, ‘I made the dwelling–place of my lordship throne and praised and glorified the King of heaven. But, there are some
glorious.’ These palace inscriptions prompted James Montgomery to who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile
declare that the setting of the king’s ‘self–complacence in his glorious power that the Lord speaks of in the gospel, saying, ‘I behold Satan falling
Babylon are strikingly true to history.’ Robert Pfeiffer, who believed that from heaven like lightning’ [Luke 10:18]. These authorities assert that it
Daniel was written over 300 years later than its traditional date, was was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist
justifiably mystified as to how all this would be known by a Palestinian on hay for 7 years and so dwell among wild beasts for 7 years without
author in the Maccabean era. He resigned himself to the fact that we may being mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial authority could
never know. The inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar are poetic, pious, hymnic, have been kept waiting for a mere madman and how so mighty a kingdom
and prayerful. A moral element is present, but comments about military could have gone without a king for so long a period. And so they pose all
accomplishments are almost always absent. They are written in the 1st of these questions and offer as their reply the proposition that since the
person and stress his building achievements. They seem to betray one episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of
major character flaw. They are egocentric (constantly using the pronouns Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the
‘I’ or ‘my’) and express an inordinate pride about his construction feats. slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in scripture may
In short, they closely parallel the style purportedly used by the king in appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once people
Daniel 4. His inscriptions are much different from Persian and Greek have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence
monuments with which an author living in Maccabean times would be like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions; what is so
familiar. It would have taken a well–read and highly–educated person remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the
who was close to the king to have had enough information to write in a manifestation of God’s power and the humbling of the pride of kings?”
style that the monarch himself regularly employed. Louis Hartman claims
that ‘certain correct historical allusions and the nature of the Aramaic’ Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] likewise says: “Nebuchadnezzar
open the possibility that this story may have begun in oral form at the end was in control of the whole of Asia, had brought Egypt under his control
of the Neo–Babylonian period and found literary expression in the Persian and had subjugated the Ethiopians living near Egypt. Nevertheless he
period. Hartman’s remarks reflect a major trend in liberal biblical treated his subjects very harshly and had reached such a state of
scholarship: to date the narrative portions of the book of Daniel earlier arrogance as to think that he was greater and more powerful than not only
than the Maccabean era. For example, Lacocque holds that Daniel 4 was the so–called gods, but even the true God. But, nothing of what was done
worked out orally before the 2nd century, but put in writing in 164 BC, and by him would have happened without God’s permitting it and wanting to
John Collins is adamant in stating that there is not one single verse in call to account for impiety those who had suffered this from him. Hence
Daniel 1–6 that betrays editorial insertion from Maccabean times.” he was right to add, ‘Surely an axe will not be glorified apart from the one
 149

wielding it? Or the saw exalted apart from the one pulling it? Likewise for Thus, it is not surprising that the king issued a command for the wise men
anyone holding rod or staff.’ As it is impossible, he is saying, for axe or of Babylon to be brought in. No explanation is given as to why he did not
saw or rod to move of itself (each of these operating when someone immediately turn to Daniel for help [rather than calling all the wise men].
chooses to move them by using their hand), so too you did what you did, But, notice that it was about the “interpretation” to be made known, not
when my providence allowed you, on account of the lawlessness of the the dream and the interpretation [recall Daniel 2]. So, in came the wise
victims. So, do not think you achieved this by your own wisdom and power. men, and the king told them the dream [recall Daniel 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27].
If, however, you are not prepared to learn this lesson in a sensible fashion However, the Aramaic verb mᵊhôḏᵊ în [for “could not reveal”] literally
and put an end to your lofty arrogance, you will learn by experience that means “they did not inform me.” The reason why they did not inform the
this is the way things are. So, God struck that arrogant mind that had king could either be because they were not able to interpret the dream or
dreamed of preternatural things with insanity and dementia. Then, when because they chose not to inform him [possibly realizing that the dream
he became wildly enraged, he caused him to be driven out and live in the had a negative message and that disclosing it might be offensive to the
desert for a long time. He next caused him to gain an appreciation of the king]. However, the Aramaic grammar leaves either option possible, and
fate that had befallen him; after all, it was impossible for one who lacked this must be decided contextually. Thus, the Aramaic text can literally be
all sense and feeling to reap any benefit. Thus, after refusing to do so, that translated as: “they did not make its interpretation known to me” [without
fellow acknowledged the rapid changes in his life, wept and wailed for his necessarily commenting on their ability or lack thereof]. So, based on what
own stupidity and confessed God’s kingdom to be without succession, we know of Babylonian dream interpretations, we would have expected
lasting for all ages. Learning this from experience, he once more through them to have rendered a verdict on the meaning of the dream [not to do so
God’s ineffable loving kindness returned to his own kingdom. In the belief, would be a tacit admission that they lacked the skill to do so]. Thus, in this
however, that it would be an injustice to all people if he were to conceal particular case, the king notifies Daniel that “none of the advisors in my
God’s providence, he recounted in a letter to all his subjects throughout kingdom can tell me its interpretation” [later in v. 18], and the Aramaic lāʾ
the world his former prosperity and the misfortune that befell him, then the yōḵlîn [for “none can”] is explicit here. Nevertheless, at the very least, the
repentance by which he won the Lord over. While this is the theme of the king’s opinion is that they were unable to interpret the dream.
letter, then, I developed it at length, in my wish to make clear the care of
the God of all for everyone. It was not without purpose that he cited his Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “He did not give these details
own name: it was to confirm his name in word; since he was very famous casually: it was in parallel so as to make clear to everyone the prophet’s
as having control of everyone throughout Asia, Egypt and Ethiopia, he wisdom by comparison—hence his listing the nationalities of the wise men
cited his name at the beginning as sufficient confirmation of what was of Babylon so as to highlight the fact that whereas they understood
said. He meant, I was at the height of good fortune and surrounded absolutely nothing, Daniel was illuminated by the divine Spirit.”
continually with countless good things.”
Finally in vv. 8–9, we read: “Eventually, Daniel appeared before me. He
Next in vv. 6–7, we read: “So I gave an order to bring in all of the is called Belteshazzar, in accordance with the name of my god, and the
advisors of Babylon so they would tell me the interpretation of the dream. spirit of the holy gods is within him. I told him my dream: ‘Belteshazzar,
Then the diviners, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers came in, and I chief of the diviners, since I know that the spirit of the holy gods is within
told them the dream. But they could not reveal its interpretation to me.” you, and no mystery too difficult for you, explain to me the vision of my
dream that I saw, along with its interpretation.’”
The Babylonians commonly sought interpretations for their dreams, and
the royal court was full of “advisors” who specialized in the interpretation The opening Aramaic words aḏ ʾāḥŏr n [for “eventually”] means Daniel
of dreams [for which dream manuals had been carefully composed]. did not appear before the king at the same time as the other wise men.
 150

This need not imply that he was not called until the king had first spoken qaddîšîn [for “holy”], since we find a similar parallel in Hebrew
to the wise men. Certainly Nebuchadnezzar would not have forgotten his usage. For example, Joshua 24:19 has ʾĕlōhîm qᵊḏōšîm hûʾ [or “he
earlier experience with Daniel. That was too dramatic an event to have is a God of Holiness”]. But, while this is true, when the Hebrew
easily been forgotten, no matter how much time might have passed [recall ʾĕlōhîm is meant to be understood as God, a singular adjective is
Daniel 2]. Thus, a more likely possibility is that all the wise men were used [Nehemiah 8:6; Psalm 7:10]. Thus, it is not sufficient to cite
called at the same time, but Daniel was delayed in coming immediately, Joshua 24:19, since the grammar dictates that a singular adjective
and the delay was possibly purposed by God. In other words, such a is needed if ʾĕlōhîm is intended as “God” rather than “gods.”
delayed appearance of Daniel would give time for the deficiency of the
other wise men to show itself once more, which in turn would make his Thus, what is more persuasive is how the Aramaic singular ʾĕlāh and
true interpretation all the more impressive. So, in recounting the story, the plural ʾĕlāhîn are used in Daniel’s book, and a careful study of their usage
king paused to remind his readers that Daniel had been renamed indicates that ʾĕlāhîn should be taken as a plural in v. 8:
“Belteshazzar, in accordance with the name of my god.” The subjects of
the empire would most likely have known Daniel by this pagan name, and 1. “God” is the singular ʾĕlāh [later in Daniel 5:18, 21–23, 26; 6:22].
this comment was useful to the original readers/hearers [later in Daniel
5:12]. But, by the end of this chapter, the king will realize how unfitting 2. When Nebuchadnezzar referred to God, he used the singular ʾĕlāh,
such a name was for Daniel. Nevertheless, the king points out that there not the plural ʾĕlāhîn [recall Daniel 2:47; 3:26–29; 4:2].
was something unique about Daniel: “the spirit of the holy gods is within
him.” However, some scholars prefer to translate the Aramaic rûaḥ– 3. In all other cases where the plural ʾĕlāhîn is used in Daniel, the
ʾĕlāhîn qaddîŝîn differently: “Spirit of the holy God” [referring to Israel’s translation “gods” is necessary [recall Daniel 2:11; 3:25].
God], and there are various arguments to support this translation:
4. When Belshazzar speaks to Daniel, he uses ʾĕlāhîn in a similar
1. There is evidence of the Aramaic plural ʾĕlāhîn being used for the expression “a spirit of the gods is in you” [later in Daniel 5:14], but
singular “God” in extra–biblical Aramaic papyri [and paralleled in obviously he was not acknowledging Israel’s God.
Akkadian with ilâni]. While this should be considered, it does not
prove that this is how the Aramaic plural ʾĕlāhîn should be 5. Later in Daniel 6:26 is the Aramaic hûʾ ʾĕlāhāʾ ḥayyāʾ [or “he is
understood in v. 8. At best, it only makes it possible. the living God”], and this is an example where adjectives are used
with the singular “God” as the subject, but the adjective here is
2. The LXXθ rendered the phrase pneuma theou hagion [or “the Holy singular and not plural [as in v. 8]. Likewise, a similar case was in
Spirit of God”]. However, Jerome deliberately rejected this Daniel 2:45 with the Aramaic ʾĕlāh raḇ [or “the great God”].
translation in favour of the plural “gods” in his Latin Vulgate.
Thus, the Aramaic plural ʾĕlāhîn [for “gods”] is not equivalent to the
3. The Aramaic ḏî rûaḥ ʾĕlāhîn qaddîšîn bēh is similar to the Hebrew Hebrew plural ʾĕlôhîm [or “God”], since scholars explain this as a “plural
ʾăšer rûaḥ ʾĕlōhîm bô [or “in whom the Spirit of God lives”], which of intensification,” which is to magnify how absolute Israel’s God is, and
was Pharaoh’s statement about Joseph [Genesis 41:38]. But, this to emphasise his sovereign power. So, this linguistic parallel between
cannot be used for this interpretation and translation of v. 8. Aramaic and Hebrew demonstrates that the Aramaic ʾĕlāhîn should not be
rendered in the singular. Instead, it should be translated by the plural
4. It is not a problem to take the Aramaic plural ʾĕlāhîn as a singular “gods” [which also means the Aramaic rûaḥ should be translated “spirit”].
[or “God”], and then followed by the Aramaic plural adjective Furthermore, notice the curious use of the Aramaic qaddîšîn [for “holy”].
 151

The equivalent Hebrew qᵊdôšîm [or “holy”] is applied to Israel’s God of responsibility and authority [to rule the house and subdue it], but at the
[Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:26; 21:8], but the idea that the other gods same time it would not be appropriate for the child to fully assume the role
are called “holy” is unusual in Mesopotamia, especially on the lips of of the parents: taking control of bank accounts and disciplining younger
Nebuchadnezzar, since the term was applied ethically and ritually. siblings. It is necessary for the parents to do these things because they are
the parents, but the child remains a sibling no matter how much temporary
Joe Sprinkle [21st century biblical scholar] says: “We might expect the authority they may have, and it is the nature of those relationships and
gods to be called holy, but that does not occur with any great frequency. statuses that dictates proper actions, not anything inherent in the action
Even where a god is called holy, as with the goddess Inanna, the goddess itself. Thus, notice the absurdity to fully equate divine and human action in
shows no attribute of ethical holiness. Mesopotamian terms for ‘holy’ both directions. In other words, since Leviticus 18:18 says: “You are not to
only rarely are applied to humans. Mesopotamian gods were often not marry a woman and then have sexual relations with her sister as a rival
even considered ‘pure,’ much less ‘holy.’ The Hebrew concept of holiness when your wife is still alive,” it is meaningless to say, “God does not sleep
and the concept of holiness in Mesopotamian religions are different. with his wife’s sister,” because that extrapolates holiness to reflect a kind
Holiness is not usually expected of the gods in the ancient world.” of essential character that motivates God’s actions. It is to interpret
Leviticus as: “This list describes what God would do if God were human.”
Thus, holiness is the underlying principle in the legal/ritual treatise of Thus, holiness, in that way of thinking, becomes fundamentally a character
Leviticus. But, what does it mean to be holy in the cognitive context of the trait, specifically designating a particular moral character. So, the specific
ancient Near East? For example, Peter says: “Instead, be holy in every interpretation of Leviticus 19:2 becomes: “Your moral character should be
aspect of your life, just as the one who called you is holy. For it is written, the same as my moral character.” However, the problem with this
‘You must be holy, because I am holy.’” [1 Peter 1:15–16] interpretation is that the Hebrew root qdš [for “holy”] cannot possibly
mean having a certain moral character. In fact, the Greek telios [or “be
So, this New Testament context is often paraphrased to mean “be moral perfect”] in Matthew 5:48 was never used in the LXX to translate qdš.
because I am moral” and is invoked as the foundation of an ethical theory Thus, the vast majority of things designated as holy are inanimate objects
called imitatio Dei, in which being good consists of being the kind of such as the ark, the altar, and the lamp–stands for the tabernacle. The word
person that God is and doing the kinds of things that God would do. is also applied to places [Mount Sinai; Temple], to time [Sabbath], to
Furthermore, the ensuing content of Leviticus 19–20 [the so–called geopolitical abstractions [land, nation], and to animals [devoted or
holiness code] is then commonly interpreted as a list of commands that sacrificed], and none of these have character or moral agency of any kind!
dictate God’s demands: to meet all of God’s demands in order to conform The only persons [potential moral agents] designated as holy are the
our character to God’s character. However, this is not what is actually priests, but this is never interpreted to imply that the priests are more moral
happening in Leviticus. Humans are humans, and God is God, and what is or have a different moral character from the rest of the assembly. When the
proper and fitting for one may not be proper and fitting for the other. nation or people is identified as holy, it refers to the communal abstraction,
Humans are the image of God, but humans are not like God, acting as God not to all the specific individuals who participate in it. Otherwise,
acts and doing as God does. This indeed is the entire point of Genesis 3. specifying the priests individually as holy would be redundant. This is
The “shining one” promised that Adam and Eve would be like God precisely the mistake made by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram when they
[Genesis 3:5], so they ate the fruit, and they did become like God [Genesis claim, “You have appropriated too much for yourselves from the entire
3:22], but that was the problem! To be as God is and to do as God does is congregation, since all of them are holy, and the LORD is among them,
the prerogative of God alone. It is not within our grasp. In other words, too. Why do you exalt yourselves over the LORD’s assembly?” [Numbers
this can be compared to a situation in which parents have gone out for the 16:3]. The holiness of the social abstraction does not extend to all of its
evening and left their oldest child in charge. That child is given a measure members; only the priests as individual persons are holy.
 152

Likewise, holy cannot refer to a superlative state of cleanliness or ritual Deuteronomic formula, the holy people. In so far as the people are holy to
purity. This interpretation is based on the various forms of Akkadian the Lord their God (Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19), the formula
qadašu, qašdu, quddušu, quššudu, and qadištu, all of which refers in its explains their separation from the practices and cult objects of foreign
verbal form to washing, in a sense of cleansing for ritual use, but also in a religions; not eating what dies of itself; destroying altars, Asherim, and
mundane sense [like laundry]. This getting rid of physical dirt is graven images. Deuteronomy 26:19 declares that through keeping the
sometimes abstracted to removal of impurity, with impurity being further whole law Israel will become a people holy to the Lord.”
extrapolated to account for any given context.
So, since the Hebrew ṭāhôr [or “clean”] does not parallel with the Hebrew
st
Jacobus Naudé [21 century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: “God is qdš [or “holy”], then a clean thing does not become holy by applying a
intrinsically holy and calls his people to be holy, providing for them the more rigorous version of the same process that transitioned it from unclean
standard of obedience whereby that holiness may be maintained (Leviticus to clean. In other words, the transition of unclean → clean, in relation to
19:2). According to Otto, the adjective points to five characteristics of the the transition of common → holy, are actually separate processes, where
human experience of the divine: awe, majesty, vitality, otherness, and the former is performed by humans, and the latter is performed by God.
compelling fascination. Gammie carries these ideas of Otto one step The concept of cleanliness is connected to the idea of suitability for cultic
further, suggesting that the experience of holiness calls for the human ritual use or participation. So, clean [ṭāhôr] cannot mean “moral” for the
response of purity and cleanness. Thus, the priestly tradition requires the same reasons that holy [qdš] cannot, because many unclean actions are not
cleanness of proper ritual and the maintenance of separation; the sinful [like menstruation or attending a funeral], and many unclean things
prophetic tradition demands the cleanness of social justice; the wisdom have no moral agency [like animals, moulds, and locations]. Thus,
tradition stresses the cleanness of inner integrity and individual moral cleanliness is tangentially related to immorality in the sense that sin [as
acts. The adjective typifies not only the mystery of God’s power, but also immorality] is one possible cultic contaminant, but impurity [ṭūmʾâ] and
his character as totally good and entirely without evil. The experience of immorality [ḥaṭṭāʾt] are in no way interchangeable. So, humans can make
God revealing himself as ethically holy calls for the human response to a themselves clean or unclean, but holiness is a status that is conferred by
holiness resembling his own (Leviticus 20:7). But, lay Israelites did not God. It cannot be earned, acquired, or lost through behaviour. Yes, the
share the same holy status as priests. On special occasions, when Israel as verbal form of the root qdš does often take a human subject [commonly
a whole was involved, they attained the broader holiness that was not translated “consecrate”]. However, the verb qdš does not describe the
permanent and ceased as a natural consequence of time. Yet though they process by which a thing acquires the status represented by the adjective
were denied priestly holiness attained through inaugural rites and qādôš. For example, priests are consecrated and priests are also holy, but a
genealogical right, they were charged to achieve another type of holiness: person can be consecrated without either becoming holy or becoming a
that which comes by obedience. Because God is holy, the Israelites could priest [1 Samuel 16:5]. The act of consecrating ritual objects for use in the
not serve him when they persisted in their idolatrous practices (Joshua Temple [Exodus 30:29] actually describes a two–stage process,
24:19). They were to be separate from all that was unholy (Leviticus “consecrate it” and “it will be holy.” There is a similar two–stage process
11:44–45). Stipulations were imposed on them that they might not engage in Jonah 1:12, “throw me into the sea” and “the sea will become calm.”
in practices common to other peoples (Numbers 15:40). Their call to The two events are related, but the one does not mechanically cause the
holiness was based on the fact that they had become God’s possession by other. Thus, humans do the first, and God does the second. This is similar
virtue of his separating them from the nations (Leviticus 20:26). Thus, to the way construction of sacred objects worked throughout the ancient
holiness should characterize Israel in its distinctiveness in relation to the Near East. The final image is the product of both humans and gods. So, the
nations with regard to purity laws (Leviticus 11:44–45) or moral humans build and “consecrated” the statue [from the Sumerian KU3, an
behaviour (Leviticus 19). The same aspect of holiness pertains to the adjective with a similar range of objects to the Hebrew verb qdš].
 153

But, the process by which it becomes holy [from the Sumerian DINGIR], So, a determinative is a grammatical element that indicates a category to
described by the metaphor of birth, is a different process, performed by the which the associated word belongs. For example, in English, the $ symbol
gods. Thus, Leviticus 19:2 bears this out: “you will be holy because I am can function as a determinative by indicating that the number to which it is
holy.” In Deuteronomy 7:14 the same construction is used to say “you will attached belongs to the category of an amount of money. Thus, DINGIR
be blessed” [which clearly does not mean “make yourself blessed”]. indicates that the associated word belongs to the category of a god, and
Likewise in Exodus 19:6, Leviticus 26:12, and 1 Samuel 8:17, these words that are accompanied by the DINGIR determinative include the gods
passages are not saying that the people ought to make themselves and their cultic objects, geographic locations, periods of time, people, and
priests/slaves. So, returning to 1 Peter 1:15, it is an exhortation to a abstract concepts. Here is a summary of cognates with the Hebrew qdš:
particular kind of behavior, as opposed to a declaration of a conferred
status. Furthermore, Peter’s use of the Greek ginesthe [for “be”] is Akkadian
Usage DINGIR/ilu Hebrew qdš Ugaritic qdš
different to the Greek esesthe that the LXX uses in Leviticus 19:2. In other qašdum
words, the LXX form is future indicative of the Greek eimi [or “to be”], “Holy
while Peter’s is present imperative of ginomai [or “to come into being”]. Designation
Divine One/God” Reference
Also, the use of ginesthe again in 1 Peter 1:16 is a common variant, and Definition for El and
Title/Attribute [Isaiah 1:4; to deities
esesthe is better attested, but esesthe cannot be translated as an imperative. Athirat
Joshua 24:19]
Thus, Peter was invoking a contemporary 1st century understanding of Ziggurats Ark
what holiness means, in order to exhort his readers to a particular kind of Cultic
Temples Altar Sanctuary Temples
behavior. In fact, Peter’s exhortation also applies to all Christians beyond Sites/Objects
Cult Objects Holy Place
the original audience of his letter! So, Peter’s appropriation of Leviticus Chaos
19:2 did not constitute a demand for all Christians to read Leviticus 19:2 Creatures Creatures The Divine
as a guide to the particulars of moral behavior. Instead, Peter was Belonging to the [Anzu/Tiamat] Council – –
referencing the LXX for his own purposes, not telling his audience Unseen Realm Demons [Psalm 82]
[ancient or modern] how Leviticus 19:2 ought to be read or what the text [dlemnu]
meant in its original context, which was a declaration that a status was Mountains Zion Baal’s
conferred: Israel will, in fact, be holy! Thus, what does it mean to be holy? Places River
Rivers Jerusalem mountain
In the context of the ancient Near East, it conceptually refers to the essence Sabbath/
of divinity, that which belongs to the sphere of God’s being or activity. Months Jubilee
There is a term from a cognate Semitic language that also refers to the Periods of Time dedicated to [Isaiah 8:3; – –
essence of divinity and also significantly overlaps with the semantic range deities Leviticus
of Hebrew qdš: the determinative Sumerian DINGIR [or Akkadian ilu]. 25:12]
Sumerian signs often serve as logograms [or signs that represent whole Priests
words], and are conventionally represented in transliteration by using Persons Cult
King [Leviticus –
small caps. Some logograms are used in Akkadian as determinatives to [Individual] Officiants
21:7]
graphically indicate the class of objects to which they belong. Thus, Professions Nation/Land
DINGIR is used in this way and in transliteration is represented as a Minerals [Exodus 19:6;
superscript d in front of the word that it classifies [like dMarduk]. So, the Abstractions – –
Abstract Zechariah
logogram AN is equivalent to the Akkadian word šamû [or “heaven”], and Concepts 2:12]
the logogram DINGIR is equivalent to the Akkadian word ilum [or “god”].
 154

The Hebrew language, like English, does not use determinatives, but the more a deity transgresses categories, the more powerful they often are. In
category concept [represented by the determinative] can still be used. For many cases there is often more than one manifestation or aspect of a
example, in English, the semantic equivalent of the Sumerian single deity, each of which appears simultaneously connected and distinct,
determinative MI can be expressed variously by an adjective [female], a and many of which are connected with ‘inanimate’ objects. Thus, it would
noun [woman], a pronoun [she], a stative verb [feminized], or a compound seem that each deity may simultaneously adopt many forms and be in
noun [congresswoman]. Interestingly, there is no Hebrew adjective many places at once. However, unlike in the rest of the ANE, there is little
comparable to English divine. Instead, the adjectival form of the Hebrew evidence of the Mesopotamian deities of the 1st millennium changing
ʾelohîm [for “god”] means “great” and not having the essential properties between their forms (changing from anthropomorphic to animal form).
of a deity, much like English cyclopian [which also incidentally means Instead, while they simultaneously occupy forms at once, each form seems
“large”] as not having the essential properties of a cyclops [only one eye]. to remain unchanging. Nonetheless, each deity also may come to occupy
new forms (a new cult image). Again, narrative conventions typically
Andrew Steinmann [21st century biblical scholar] says: “At times Hebrew present a deity as only occupying one body at a time. For example, most
uses ‘God’ as a way of describing someone or something that is major gods are identified with an anthropomorphically conceived divine
surpassingly great: ‘a very great panic’ (‘a panic of God’; 1 Samuel person, a statue, a number, a semiprecious stone, a mineral, an animal, an
14:15); ‘like mighty mountains’ (‘like mountains of God’; Psalm 36:6); ‘a emblem, a star, a constellation or other celestial entity, and various
very great city’ (‘a great city to God’; Jonah 3:3).” characteristic qualities. Ištar, in particular, is simultaneously identified as
a divine person who dwells in heaven, yet is localized in terrestrial temples
So, despite the lexical differences, the Hebrew qdš has considerable (most prominently Arbela and Nineveh), the planet Venus, the number 15,
semantic overlap with DINGIR and ilu. Thus, while recognizing that the semiprecious stone lapis lazuli, and the mineral lead, and understood
Israel’s overall theology differs from that of the ancient Near East, we can as the embodiment of such qualities as love and war. Ištar may also be
still examine the ideas represented by the various elements to try to better alternatively presented as male and female. Each of these interconnected
understand what idea is represented by the classification of a thing as holy. divine networks composed of many distinct elements may be viewed as a
Thus, DINGIR [as a noun or a determinative] refers to the gods and the divine constellation in which the various elements are connected to a more
various elements that compose their individual identities. or less unified entity and share in its identity. In other words, each major
god consists of a constellation of aspects, which may act and be treated
Michael Hundley [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] explains: semi–independently. Most divine constellations consist of several
“How does one navigate this complex system of deities? How are these connected deified aspects, with an anthropomorphic core that is always
deities connected and distinguished? Whereas Mesopotamian narratives deified and other occasionally deified elements like heavenly bodies,
often portray each individual deity as a single, fully integrated whole, abstract qualities, and metals. Each aspect represents a competency,
other texts like rituals, god lists, and hymns are far more fluid in their whether it means control over a specific natural element or force (a star
presentation. Nonetheless, even within narrative there is some fluidity of or a metal), function (writing), quality (truth), or geographical area
presentation. Deities may adopt elements they did not previously possess (local temples). Like a star cluster, the elements in the network closest to
(most notably Marduk and storm power in Enuma eliš), appear in different the anthropomorphic core are more firmly connected to that core and, as
guises, and be described in different ways all within the same narrative. one moves further out from the center, the core exerts an increasingly
For example, Enuma eliš describes Tiamat alternatively as water, a smaller gravitational pull, giving these elements greater independence.
woman (I:29–34, II:92, 144), a dragon–like creature (IV:97–104), and a Thus, most major deities are made up of several detachable parts that
monstrous lump (IV:136). Indeed, transgressing otherwise discrete may be treated independently or as a unit depending on the context and
empirical categories is a hallmark of the divine even in the narrative. The the interpreter’s perspective and rhetorical purposes. Like LEGO, each
 155

major deity can be taken apart and put back together again. Again, gods anthropomorphized deity belong to the domesticated interior. They are
in narratives typically do not exhibit such fluidity, likely because too much closely affiliated with and often docilely serve the major
of it would make the deities appear nonsensical. Nonetheless, even in the anthropomorphized deity, while rivers and mountains exist on the
context of narratives, while one does not modify deities at will, deities’ periphery and remain wild and untamed. Generally, undomesticated
attributes, names, epithets, and appearances may be modified according to destructive forces on the outside, like demons, monsters, and illnesses, may
the dictates of the context. In fact, the primary aim of Enuma eliš is to infiltrate the interior or alternately may be assimilated into the interior as
creatively modify or rebrand Marduk in such a way that he warrants divine servants.”
being king of the gods. In Mesopotamia, the whole deity is considered the
sum of its parts, and with each newly added part the whole deity becomes So, divine personalities in the ancient Near East were not described by an
greater. Mesopotamians adopt an additive approach: often the more essential definition, but circumscribed by a list, and the purpose of the list
aspects added, the more potent the deity. The addition of (new) aspects [what Michael Hundley calls “divine constellation”] was to establish
was often accomplished through the accumulation of names or epithets by divine identity, specifically in distinction from separate aspects of the
which the aspects were verbally ascribed to a particular deity (Marduk’s same deity [like Ishtar of Arbela versus Ishtar of Nineveh], and from other
accumulation of 50 names served as the accumulation of aspects; or the members of the pantheon. Thus, identity establishes the god’s place in the
accumulation of 15 names by Ninurta in the Anzu myth). As in a communal heavenly bureaucracy, indicating what their responsibilities are, and
human society, the more important functions an individual performs, the when/how their worshipers ought to relate to them. Also, some lesser
more value they have. Nonetheless, they nowhere synthesize all the parts forms of DINGIR [like cult objects co–identified with the greater deity]
into one cohesive whole; rather they amass and juxtapose a representative were occasionally treated as gods in their own right. In other words, they
sample, which always may be increased or expressed differently. To do so, were the object of rituals and presented with offerings to objects as diverse
they would have to subtract ‘conflicting’ elements to make the whole as chariots, instruments, weapons, and beds. This is similar to 2 Samuel 6,
cohesive, at least according to modern Western standards, making the where David tried to transport the Ark of the Covenant [God’s throne or
deity less rather than more. Although a deity’s range may expand or in footstool, a holy object, a lesser DINGIR], and the object is mishandled,
some cases contract, it is not unlimited. A deity generally operates within a and one of the attendants is struck dead. The narrator, who represents the
more or less loosely defined range, determined by its primary attributes. voice of theological orthodoxy, takes care to note that it was God, not the
Even with divine fluidity, certain boundaries are not crossed. For Ark, who struck Uzzah [2 Samiel 6:6], but David himself might not have
example, Sîn is not associated with the sun, Šamaš is not associated with nuanced his understanding in this way, and his reaction gives insight into
the moon, Aššur and Marduk are not the gods of Nippur, Marduk is not the his conception of the event. When he tries to move the Ark again, he offers
god of Assyria, and Aššur is not the god of Babylonia. In addition, several sacrifices every six steps as it moves along [2 Samuel 6:13]. Earlier at the
other classes of deities rest outside of these divine constellations, outside time of Moses when God gives instructions for the Ark’s transport
of the divine collective. Although they are related in some way to the [Numbers 4:4–20], no mention is made of sacrifices, which indicates that
anthropomorphic deity, they are not part of the divine person. Aššur’s whatever David is doing, his inspiration for doing so comes from his
crown is a god, but it is not Aššur. This slightly more peripheral category cognitive environment, not Israelite orthopraxy. To any observer, David’s
includes divine accoutrements that belong to the deity, divine servants who ritual actions would closely resemble those of the Assyrian officials who
serve the major anthropomorphic deities, protective deities, hybrid made “sheep offerings” to the divine bed as they transport it. In fact,
creatures (including so–called demons and monsters), rivers, mountains, David’s sacrifices did not match any of the prescribed offerings to God.
and illnesses. These deities may be subdivided into two broad categories: Thus, his sacrificial offerings to the Ark in the same way the Assyrians
interior and domesticated versus exterior and wild. Family, friends, the offered sacrifices to the divine bed were performed in order to appease it
divine entourage (servants), and the deified objects associated with the on its journey so that no one would be struck dead.
 156

All of this ultimately supports the fact that labelling something as “holy” So, physical rocks or water are sometimes a DINGIR, depending on how
means the same thing as a Mesopotamian labelling an object with a strongly the literary context wants to emphasize co–identification with its
DINGIR determinative. The orthodox narrator of 2 Samuel 6 neither patron. Nonetheless, even if it is a DINGIR, the rocks and water are not
praises nor condemns David’s ritual, which represents an act of considered to have been physically transferred into the divine sphere; they
syncretism, the mixing of religious systems, no matter what it is; the are not holy ground where mortals must tread carefully or die. In this sense
sacrifice is simply reported. The reason for this was that the Ark was part they have more in common with Israel’s holy land, which involves the
of God’s constellation [not a different deity from himself], as opposed to divinization of the abstraction of territory as opposed to the physical
Baal or Chemosh, who have their own distinct constellations. Incidentally, objects [like water and rocks]. Mesopotamia does have a DINGIR
the calf altars at Dan and Bethel [and also the golden calf at Sinai] were counterpart to Israel’s holy ground [and Ugarit’s divine mountain
also intended to be aspects of God. The difference in these cases is that residences] in the form of ziggurats, temples, and the architectural
God [and orthodox Israel] did not recognize the legitimacy of these. In components of temples [like doorways, pipes, and the pedestal on which
other words, God did not declare them holy [as he did with the ark]. the image stands, like a counterpart to Israel’s holy place]. Thus, the
Similarly, the command to make no graven image of God [Exodus 20:4] is DINGIR and the Hebrew qdš emphasizes divine co–identification, so the
given because images fragment the divine identity into separate aspects, designation here marks the area as divine territory because the deity is now
which, while still representing the same deity, are distinct enough that they present in it and manifested through it. The identification of the space,
can even fight each other! So, if Arbela went to war against Nineveh, then building, or ritual object with the god, incorporates it into the unseen
Ištar would be fighting against Ištar! Thus, Israelite orthodoxy could not realm, and this is similar to how a modern embassy co–identifies its
allow God’s identity to be fragmented in this way, and there could not be a buildings and the piece of property it is built on with its sponsoring
“Yahweh of Jerusalem” and “Yahweh of Samaria.” This is why there was country, such that it is considered an extension of its sovereign nation
only one sanctioned Temple [in Jerusalem] and one sanctioned image [the despite its location on another nation’s physical dirt. Thus, these parallels
Ark], and no other image or cult center was tolerated [Deuteronomy 12]. continue in the context of kings in Mesopotamia and priests in Israel.
So, the narrative focus is on David’s respect and deference to the divine, in These deified individuals are not elevated to the status of the pantheon,
contrast with Saul [2 Samuel 6:20–23], and also implicitly with Hophni, because there is no record of DINGIR kings receiving sacrifices, and
Phinehas, and the elders [1 Samuel 4; 8], not on his understanding of the deified images of Assyrian kings never received worship or offerings.
nuances of the definition of divinity. But, Israelite orthodoxy is consistent
with Mesopotamian definitions even while expressing theological Gebhard Selz [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] summarizes:
innovations. For example, in Mesopotamia, the DINGIR that constituted “The deified professions or offices do not simply reflect an intentional and
the heavenly council would be an object of worship in its own right. wilful process of sanctification invented for securing the ruling elite’s
However, in Israel, although God’s divine council is holy, it did not position or to stabilize the structure of society. These items could only be
receive worship! So, entities from the unseen realm that participated in a included in the class of divinities because of an existing prototypical
divine identity were not worshiped; DINGIR like the dlemnu [or “demons”] relation to the divine sphere. In other words, it was the idea, the model or
and chaos creatures [like Anzu/Tiamat] in Mesopotamia. Likewise, the prototype of the classes ‘Seamen,’ the ‘Temple Experts,’ the ‘Brick–
orthodox Israel expanded this category of DINGIR to include every Makers of the Temple,’ the ‘Lords of the Granary,’ the ‘Temple–Cooks of
element of the unseen realm to not be worshiped except God, while also Uruk,’ the ‘Gardeners,’ the ‘Barmaids,’ the ‘Tax Collectors,’ the
retaining the concept of what the Hebrew qdš actually meant. This is why ‘Overseers,’ the ‘Wet–Nurses,’ and so on, which qualified them for
Israel’s sanctifying of locations is comparable to the Mesopotamian inclusion in the group of divinities. It is interesting to see that some of
conception of geography [like a mountain or river] that is in the these prototypical professions are explicitly personalized. As for the
constellation of the divine patron of the feature [who shares its name]. deified items or paraphernalia, the situation has to be judged somewhat
 157

differently. Here it is not the office but the item that stands in a mere ‘attributes’; they were thought to contain ‘ideas’ materially. The
synecdochical way for certain concepts: the ‘Crown,’ the ‘Headband’ or concept of rulership is therefore primarily linked to objects like the sceptre
‘Turban,’ ‘the ‘Princely Ring,’ the ‘Staff of the Leader,’ the ‘Nose–Rope’ and the crown, to the ‘office,’ and only to a lesser degree to the person
do not only allude to the respective offices and are not only an outward holding that office. Here we may simply recall the well–known fact that in
sign for them. Rather, these items were actually thought to contain the Mesopotamia permanence has various positive connotations, as can be
respective powers of the respective offices, and these powers were literally simply demonstrated by the use of the words gi–na // kÏnu(m) ‘firm,
tangible, hence their prototypes qualified also for inclusion in the class permanent’ as opposed to nu–gi–na / lul / lú–im // sarru(m) ‘unreliable;
of deities. Statements such as that the ‘crown’ and the ‘staff,’ the regalia, false, fraudulent.’ The impact of the concept of the sanctification of
existed since time immemorial in the heavens and were before the sky–god rulership is demonstrated by the secondary sanctification processes of the
An, or that ‘kingship was lowered from heaven to earth’ become sensible, Akkade and the Ur III periods. A result of such objectification processes
even logical. One may still judge such statements as metaphorical, but was the sanctification of rulership. At first sight, the fact that the very
they are meaningful and precise, much more than wilful traditional same period can also justly be termed Sumer’s Heroic Age seems
literary plays. It would seem worth following this path and attempting to somewhat to contradict this postulated formalism. All the heroes,
identify the more precise ideas behind such deified items as the ‘Lapis Gilgamesh, Lugalbanda, and Enmerkar were, however, conceptualized
Lazuli Necklace,’ the ‘Stele,’ the ‘Stag–Door’ or the ‘Aurochs–Door,’ the as prototypes of rulership and only to a lesser degree—if at all—as
‘Holy Foundation Peg’ or the ‘Emblem.’ In our context I only remark that, historical individuals. They were regarded as prototype rulers who had
similar to what we observed with the offices, such items were sometimes fulfilled their functions in an exemplary way. Already from around 2500
also personalized, for example, the ‘Lady Sceptre,’ the ‘Lady Birth–Brick BC, there is a votive inscription to the deified Gilgamesh that gives no hint
is a Protective Goddess.’ In much the same way, contemporary and as to how one could functionally distinguish him from other deities of that
slightly later administrative documents focus on officials and offices, not time. Further, the offerings Gilgamesh receives according to the
on the persons holding them. Very much like the iconography of this administrative documents of this period are much the same as those for
period, the beginning of the 3rd millennium, the images seem to other deities. The hero Enmerkar was never written with the divine
concentrate on prototypes rather than on depicting individuals. The determinative and, in contrast to Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh, was never
representations of human beings show a kind of statuary stiffness and venerated. In later literary tradition he was compared with Naram–Sîn
rigidity that is usually underlined by paratactic and hypotactic and similarly ill–famed.”
arrangement of the individual figures on a given monument. Even when
actions are depicted, their ritualization and formalization can hardly be In other words, the individual is the embodiment of the sacred office that
overlooked. The stress lies on the prototypical situation, the model they hold; the office sanctifies the individual, not the other way around.
personality behind which all individuality seems to vanish. The sort of The sacredness of the office, in turn, indicates its origin in the divine realm
deified offices and functions show clear connections with the basic as Gebhard Selz says: “kingship was lowered from heaven to earth.”
Mesopotamian concept of the ‘me’. With this term the Sumerians However, beyond mere origin, Mesopotamian kings were actually thought
designated physical and mental objects alike. Prototype theory here has to belong to the divine realm, serving as mediators between the gods and
the advantage that there is no distinction between a natural sort of the people. In other words, the king was not simply an exalted man, but
category versus artefact as our Aristotelian training inclines us to someone with a place in the divine world, and there was an emphasis on
suppose, and, as indicated above, to the Mesopotamians apparently all the office over the individual [a DINGIR on the king’s image rather than
these functions and concepts were not only represented by, but were also the king’s personal name]. Thus, by being co–identified with a divine
inherent in, these objects: for instance, rulership is inherent and contained office, the individual was effectively incorporated into the divine realm in
in substance in royal insignia. In other words, these objects were not order to then receive the DINGIR determinative.
 158

However, like chaos creatures, they do not receive worship [or ritual “constellation” refers to all the elements that compose this list. So, the
offerings], and were never considered actual members of the pantheon. elements of the “constellation” were sometimes considered to be divine in
Thus, in Israel, the divine office with a mediatory role was held not by the their own right and sometimes not, depending on context and the intimacy
kings, but by the priests! The details of the role differ, but the point of the of their association with the deity. Thus, the Hebrew qdš was to designate
comparison is not to say that Israelite priests are the same as the referent as part of God’s “constellation.” Here is a summary:
Mesopotamian kings. The point is to say that the comparative use of
DINGIR and the Hebrew qdš did not designate the individual as a god 1. The Hebrew qdš was a term used in reference to God to describe
[whether king or priest]. As with the kings, the Israelite priests indicated the full constellation of all that is associated with him, and holiness
that their priestly office had a divine origin; it was instituted by God rather included objects [Ark], places [Temple], time [Sabbath], land
than by the people [Exodus 28:1; 1 Samuel 8]. Although the [Jerusalem], and communities [Israel].
Mesopotamian kings were DINGIR, the Israelite kings were never qdš.
Nevertheless, the priests were part of the divine realm, enabling them to 2. Labelling something “holy” identifies it as one of the spheres of
enter the sanctuary without defiling it or dying. Thus, it appears that the patronage that collectively define God’s identity: “I’ll take you for
Hebrew qdš indicates that it means the same thing as DINGIR and ilu, my own people, and I’ll be your God” [Exodus 6:7]. This is
signifying that the element so designated was part of the divine because the Hebrew qādôš is the semantic equivalent of the
constellation of a particular deity or a participant in a divine office. Akkadian determinative DINGIR, which was also applied to a
similar range of objects and abstractions.
In summary, holiness in the ancient Near East was identifying something
as associated with the realm of deity. Many assume that, by keeping the 3. When a thing becomes holy, whether that thing is the abstract
Torah, Israel would become holy, and that holiness is another word for community of Israel or an object like the Ark or the sanctuary, it
piety or for morality, or that the Torah was intended to tell the Israelites means that whatever that thing is or does in some way identifies
what they ought to do in order to be pious or moral. Likewise, many think something about what God is or does.
that we are to pursue holiness [the same piety and morality] by obeying the
same rules in order to achieve holiness. This is mistaken and misses the 4. Holiness is a status given by God to Israel that makes the nation a
point. Holiness is connected to the objective of the Torah, but the Torah part of his identity by virtue of his making a covenant with them.
does not consist of rules to be obeyed. Thus, its objective is not achieved Israel’s holy status means that God has defined himself as “the God
by obeying rules. It is common for people to believe that holiness is of Israel.” By making the covenant with them and giving them this
something that godly people should aspire to achieve as they attempt to status, he has brought them into his constellation.
imitate God. However, God declares his people holy by election decree. It
is a status that he gives, and it cannot be gained or lost by a person’s 5. Holiness is a status that is conferred; it cannot be earned, acquired,
efforts or failures. Thus, holiness is the word that identifies elements of the or lost by behaviour.
“constellation” that collectively defines divine identity. In other words,
ancient Near Eastern divine personalities were circumscribed by lists of 6. Holiness is not defined by imitating God; rather, God makes the
attributes that collectively served to establish their identities. These people holy by identifying himself through his people.
distinguished between different aspects of the same deity and between
different members of the pantheon, which in turn designated their realm of 7. For the nation of Israel to be holy means that God will identify and
patronage and function within the cosmic bureaucracy and indicated the reveal himself through his interaction with them.
ways in which their worshipers ought to relate to them, and the
 159

8. It is the community of Israel that is holy, not the individual. primarily in the context of ritual literature] refers to. Ruling the
Certainly each individual has a part to play in the identity of the vassal state with wisdom and justice is the means by which to
community, but the focus is on the identity of the group. Only retain God’s favour and blessing; it is not the means by which
priests and prophets as individuals were holy. Israel will achieve holiness.

So, when God made the covenant with the Israelites and declared them to So, holiness is always descriptive of deity, even when the referent of the
be his holy people, he declared himself to be their God and declared that adjective is something else, and holiness does not describe a property of
his identity will be reflected by and through them [their status changes]. Israel; it describes a property of God. In the ancient Near East, identifying
But, what does this mean for them? What significance will this new status an element as part of a divine “constellation” does not say anything about
have for their behaviour? How will this status create a different situation the element; it says something about the deity to whose “constellation” the
for them practically speaking? We assume that holiness correlates to a element belongs. For example, saying that Ares is the “god of war” does
specific moral character, or that it refers to the moral character of God that not tell us anything about war; it tells us something about Ares. So, when
we are supposedly to imitate through obedience to the Torah. Thus, God brings the nation of Israel into his “constellation” by declaring it holy,
reflecting God’s identity entails cultivating a particular moral character by he declares himself to all observers to be the kind of God who would be
means of obeying the Torah [which will reflect God’s moral character]. patron to a nation like Israel. In fact, by doing this, God has no intention of
However, this is not what the Torah is talking about: abandoning Israel, and this is one of the qualities he wishes to project
through his relationship with his people: faithfulness. This is expressed by
1. The stipulations of the Torah were not rules to be obeyed; they are the Hebrew ʾahab [or “love”] and ḥesed [or “loyalty”]. At the same time,
descriptive. The objective of reading them is knowing, and not God does not want to be characterized by indulgence. Instead, his
doing or being. character is expressed in commitment to order, wisdom, and justice. If
Israel characterizes itself by order, wisdom, and justice, then God will be
2. Holiness is a status that is conferred, not earned; Israel is equally pleased with the way the nation reflects on him and will give them blessing
holy whether the nation keeps the covenant or not. Thus, the holy and prosperity so that everyone can see that he is pleased. On the other
status is not an objective to strive for. hand, if Israel characterizes itself by disorder and injustice [as they often
did], then God will demonstrate his own commitment to wisdom, order,
3. In the ancient Near East, people did not aspire to imitate the gods, and justice by inflicting judgment on them so that everyone can see that he
and the gods did not expect their worshipers to imitate them. is angry. As a consequence of God’s judgment, Israel can be perceived as
Humans were humans and gods were gods; they had different a nation whose God is unable to protect it from the enemy armies who
functions and different natures and were evaluated by different conquer his people and destroy his Temple [as in the context of Daniel].
standards. The gods were inscrutable and unaccountable to human This is also demonstrated in the words of Sennacherib [king of Assyria]:
moral standards, and their motives and actions were mysterious and “Sometime later, the king of Assyria sent Tartan, Rab–saris, and Rab–
incomprehensible to humans. Israel would have conceived of God shakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah in Jerusalem, accompanied with a
in the same way; nothing in the Torah provided them with any large army. When they called for the king, Hilkiah’s son Eliakim, who
resource for thinking differently about their God, and because of managed the household, Shebnah the scribe, and Asaph’s son Joah the
God’s role as their king, the Israelites [or at least their leaders] recorder went out to them. Rab–shakeh told them, ‘Tell Hezekiah right
would have aspired to emulate God’s wisdom and justice, just as a now, ‘This is what the great king, the king of Assyria says: ‘Why are you
vassal regent would aspire to emulate the wisdom and justice of the so confident? You’re saying—but they’re only empty words—‘I have
king. However, such emulation is not what holiness [which occurs enough advice and resources to conduct warfare!’ Now who are you
 160

relying on, that you have rebelled against me? Look, you’re trusting on So, how did God respond to this taunt by the Assyrian king? We read:
Egypt to lean on like a staff, but it’s a crushed reed, and if you lean on it, it “Then Amoz’s son Isaiah sent word to Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord,
will collapse and pierce your hand. Pharaoh, king of Egypt, is just like that the God of Israel says: ‘Because you have prayed to me about King
to everyone who relies on him! Of course, you might tell me, ‘We rely on Sennacherib of Assyria, I have listened.’ This is what the Lord has spoken
the Lord our God!’ But isn’t it he whose high places and whose altars against him: ‘She despises and mocks you, this virgin daughter of Zion!
Hezekiah has demolished, all the while telling Jerusalem, ‘You’re to Behind your back she shakes her head, this daughter of Jerusalem! Who
worship in front of this altar in Jerusalem’? Come now, and make a deal are you reproaching and blaspheming? Against whom have you raised
with my master, the king of Assyria, and I’ll give you 2,000 horses, if you your voice? And against whom have you lifted up your eyes in arrogance?
can furnish them with riders. How can you refuse even one official from Against the Holy One of Israel! By your messengers you have insulted the
the least of my master’s servants and rely on Egypt for chariots and Lord. You have claimed, ‘With my many chariots I ascended the heights of
horsemen? Now then, haven’t I come up—apart from the Lord—to attack the mountains, including the remotest regions of Lebanon; I cut down its
and destroy this place? The Lord told me, ‘Go up against this land and tall cedars and the best of its cypress trees. I entered its most remote
destroy it!’ At this, Hilkiah’s son Eliakim, Shebnah, and Joah asked Rab– lodging place and its most fruitful forest. I myself dug for and drank
shakeh, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, because we understand foreign water. With the sole of my foot I dried up all the streams of Egypt!
it, but don’t speak the language of Judah to us within the hearing of the Didn’t you hear? I determined it years ago! I planned this from ancient
people who are on the wall.’ But Rab–shakeh spoke to them, ‘Has my times, and now I’ve brought it to pass, to turn fortified cities into piles of
master sent me to talk about this just to your master and to you, and not ruins while their inhabitants, lacking strength, stand dismayed and
also to the men who are sitting on the wall, who will soon be eating their confused. They were like vegetation out in the fields, and like green
own faeces and drinking their own urine—along with you?’ Then Rab– herbs—just as grass that grows on a housetop dries out before it can grow.
shakeh stood up and cried out loud, ‘Listen to what the great king, the king But when you sit down, when you go out, and when you come in, I’m
of Assyria has to say. This is what the king says: ‘Don’t let Hezekiah aware of it! Because of your rage against me, your complacency has
deceive you, because he will prove to be unable to deliver you from my reached my ears. I’ll put my hook into your nostrils and my bit into your
control. And don’t let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord by telling you, mouth. Then I’ll turn you back on the road by which you came. This will
‘The Lord will certainly deliver us and this city will not be handed over to serve as a sign for you: you’ll eat this year from what grows by itself, in
the king of Assyria.’ Don’t listen to Hezekiah, because this is what the king the second year what grows from that, and in the third year you’ll sow,
of Assyria says: ‘Make peace with me and come out to me! Each of you reap, plant vine–yards, and enjoy their fruit. Those who survive from
will eat from his own vine. Each will eat from his own fig tree. And each of Judah’s household will again put down deep roots and bear fruit
you will drink water from his own cistern until I come and take you away extensively, because a remnant will go out from Jerusalem, and survivors
to a land like your own land, one overflowing with grain and new wine, a from Mount Zion. The zeal of the Lord will bring this about.’ Therefore
land filled with bread and vineyards, with olive trees and honey, so you this is what the Lord says concerning the king of Assyria: ‘Not only will he
may live and not die.’ But don’t listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you not approach this city or shoot an arrow in its direction, he won’t
by saying, ‘The Lord will deliver us!’ Has any of the gods of the nations approach it with so much as a shield, nor will he throw up a siege ramp
delivered his land from control by the king of Assyria? Where are the gods against it. He’ll return on the same route by which he came—he won’t
of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sephar–vaim, of Hena, and come to this city,’ declares the Lord. ‘I will defend this city and preserve
Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria from my control? Who among all the it for my own reasons, and because of my servant David.’ That very
gods of these lands has delivered their land from my control, so that the night, the angel of the Lord went out to the camp of the Assyrian army and
Lord should deliver Jerusalem from me?’” [2 Kings 18:17–35] killed 185,000 men. Early the next morning, when the army of Israel arose,
all 185,000 soldiers were dead. As a result, King Sennacherib of Assyria
 161

left and returned to Nineveh where he lived. Later on, as he was experience the disgrace of famine that occurs in other nations. Then you’ll
worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, Adram–melech and Sharezer remember your lifestyles and practices that were not good. You’ll hate
killed him with a sword and fled into the territory of Ararat. Then yourselves as you look at your own iniquities and loathsome practices. I
Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon became king.” [2 Kings 19:20–37] won’t be doing any of this for your sake,’ declares the Lord God, ‘so keep
that in mind. Be ashamed and frustrated because of your behaviour, you
After the Babylonian exile, a similar accusation is levelled against God, to house of Israel!’” [Ezekiel 36:16–32]
which he responds through Ezekiel with the promise to restore his people:
“This message came to me from the Lord: ‘Son of Man, when the house of Thus, notice that God’s concern is for his “holy reputation” and not for
Israel was living on their own land, they defiled it with their lifestyles and Israel’s moral or social condition. Also notice that the restoration is
behaviour; they were as disqualified to be with me as a menstruating specifically for the sake of God’s reputation and is not prompted by a
woman is to you. So I poured out my anger on them because of all the desire to give anything to Israel. Nevertheless, as their God, Israel’s
bloodshed throughout the land and because they had defiled it with their condition reflects on him, and God does not wish to be seen as defeated by
idolatry. Then I scattered them among the nations, dispersing them to a ruined and dispossessed people. So, all of God’s interactions with Israel
other lands, just as their lifestyles and behaviour deserved. That’s how I was to establish his reputation. In other words, God uses Israel to reveal
judged them. Nevertheless, when they arrived in those nations, they himself! God establishes and projects his identity and reputation before
continued to profane my holy name. It was said about them, ‘These are the both Israel and the surrounding nations. Consequently, God establishes
Lord’s people, even though they’ve left his land.’ I’ve been concerned himself according to the principles of faithfulness, wisdom, order, and
about my holy reputation, which the house of Israel has been defiling justice, because those were the highest values in the ancient Near East.
throughout all of the nations where they’ve gone.’ Therefore tell the house Thus, the understanding of order, justice, and faithfulness is circumscribed
of Israel, this is what the Lord God says: ‘I’m not about to act for your in the legal wisdom and treaty documents of the Torah. However, we
sake, you house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy reputation, which should not assume that God wishes to stamp an endorsement on these
you have been defiling throughout all of the nations where you’ve gone. conceptions for all time, as if all people in all places and all times who
I’m going to affirm my great reputation that has been defiled among the serve God would be expected to reproduce the cultural values of the
nations (that is, that you have defiled in their midst), and those people will ancient Near East. Likewise, we should not assume that we can substitute
learn that I am the Lord,’ declares the Lord God, ‘when I affirm my our own definitions for those words and claim that this is what God
holiness in front of their very eyes. I’m going to remove you from the supports instead. It further does not mean that we can assume that God
nations, gather you from all of the territories, and bring you all back to endorses whatever the highest values of any given society happen to be. In
your own land. I’ll sprinkle pure water on you all, and you’ll be cleansed the modern 21st century context, this would be such things as freedom,
from your impurity and from all of your idols. I’m going to give you a new equality, self–expression, and general human flourishing. Instead, we
heart, and I’m going to give you a new spirit within all of your deepest should understand God’s self–revelation not in terms of absolutes or
parts. I’ll remove that rock–hard heart of yours and replace it with one universals, but rather in terms of contrast. In other words, faithfulness,
that’s sensitive to me. I’ll place my spirit within you, empowering you to order, and justice were not qualities that were normally associated with
live according to my regulations and to keep my just decrees. You’ll live in ancient Near Eastern gods [although they desired that sort of behaviour
the land that I gave to your ancestors, you’ll be my people, and I will be from their worshipers]. God has effectively told the Israelites that he is a
your God. In addition, I’ll deliver you from everything that makes you different kind of deity than their culture would lead them to expect of a
unclean. I’ll call out to the grain you plant, ordering it to produce deity! Thus, because the purpose of God’s self–revelation was not to
abundant yields, and I will never bring famine in your direction. I’ll enable the creation of theology textbooks, the details of God’s character
increase the yields of your fruit trees and crops so that you’ll never again remain elusive.
 162

Israel was supposed to learn that God cares about the human world, takes
responsibility for his creatures, is concerned for their well–being, and is
not merely interested in exploiting them to gain some benefit from them.
Israel was a means to an end for revelation, but the people also gained
benefits in the form of God’s blessing, favour, and presence, which were
highly desired in the ancient Near East. So, unlike their neighbours, the
Israelites knew what they had to do to retain their God’s favour; they had
no reason to fear retribution for random or unknown offenses. Thus, for
Christians, this understanding helps to make sense of the incarnation,
knowing that Jesus is the incarnate 2nd Yahweh and not an ancient Near
Eastern god, a Greco–Roman god, or an abstract philosophical god. In
contrast, most people do not have these assurances about their gods,
especially not in the ancient world, where the gods did not reveal their
expectations, and saw humanity only as a means to an end for serving
themselves. This is why, at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, he
appraised Daniel as being someone special: “the spirit of the holy gods is Although Nebuchadnezzar shared his dream to his wise men [v. 7], now he
within him.” This was similar to his assessment of the 4th person in the relates it to Daniel. The “tree” represents both Nebuchadnezzar and his
furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: “the appearance of the kingdom, since Daniel says: “it’s you, your majesty! You’ve become great
fourth resembles a divine being” [recall Daniel 3:25]. Nebuchadnezzar and strong, your greatness has grown to the heavens, and your dominion
could not correctly explain Daniel’s unique ability, but he was sure that reaches to the distant parts of the earth” [later in v. 22]. However, Daniel
Daniel was spiritual and had divine help, so he asks: “Belteshazzar, chief also says: “it was ordered for you to leave the stump of the tree in the
of the diviners, since I know that the spirit of the holy gods is within you, ground along with its roots, so your kingdom will be restored to you when
and no mystery too difficult for you, explain to me the vision of my dream you realize that Heaven rules over everything” [later in v. 26].
that I saw, along with its interpretation.”

The phrase “no mystery too difficult for you” is also echoed by Ezekiel,
saying to the ruler of Tyre: “Look! You’re wiser than Daniel, aren’t you?
No secret is too mysterious for you!” [Ezekiel 28:3]

5) What was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? (4:10–18)

Starting with vv. 10–12, we read: “This is what I saw in the visions of my
head while in bed: I was looking and—listen carefully!—I saw a tree in the
middle of the earth, the height of which was very great. The tree grew
large, became strong, and its top reached the sky. It could be seen to the
ends of the earth. Its foliage was beautiful, its fruit bountiful, and its food
sufficient for everyone. The animals of the field found shade under it, the
birds of the sky lived in its branches, and every creature was fed from it.”
 163

In other words, the stump indicates that his kingdom was not completely Thus, it is to emphasize the
cut off. As in the case of the parts of the statue [recall Daniel 2], the difference between insignificant
symbolism is fluid enough to pertain to both the king and his kingdom. beginnings and the impressively
The metaphor of a “tree” as representing a kingdom is rooted in Old large end result. The reference to
Testament tradition [Isaiah 2:12–13; Ezekiel 31:3]. For Ezekiel, Assyria the “large branches” alludes to the
was likened to a great cedar in Lebanon: “That’s why it grew taller than imagery of impressive empires, as
any of the trees in the fields. Its boughs flourished. Its branches grew Daniel clarifies [later in v. 21],
luxurious because all the water made it spread out well. The birds in the indicating the future inclusion of
sky made nests in its boughs; all the beasts of the field gave birth under its Gentile nations in God’s kingdom.
branches. All the great nations rested in its shade.” [Ezekiel 31:5–6] So, the ministry of Jesus in Galilee,
however unimpressive its impact on
The point of this imagery in both Daniel and Ezekiel is to portray the Jewish society, and however
extensiveness of a human kingdom and those who are reliant upon and insignificant its political scope, will
benefit from such a kingdom. In comparison, Jesus said: “How can we prove to be of ultimate far–reaching
show what the kingdom of God is like, or what parable can we use to significance! So, the magnificent
describe it? It’s like a mustard seed planted in the ground. Although it’s tree of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
the smallest of all the seeds on earth, when it’s planted it comes up and clarifies Ezekiel’s context about the
becomes larger than all the garden plants. It grows such large branches Davidic dynasty and the Egyptian
that the birds in the sky can nest in its shade.” [Mark 4:30–32] empire, since both feature towering
cedars, where birds live in the
Jesus was obviously alluding to Daniel and Ezekiel, to show that God’s shade and make nests in the
kingdom will not have its branches chopped off. The “mustard” is the sprawling branches. In other words,
brassica nigra [or black mustard], which can grow to a height of ~10 feet. these “birds” were great nations
In the 1st century, “mustard” was used to treat serpent and scorpion bites, that benefitted from Egypt’s wealth and protection, which means the
toothache, indigestion, asthma, epilepsy, constipation, dropsy, lethargy, “birds” of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was also a transparent symbol for
tetanus, leprous sores, and many other illnesses. So, since this “seed” of Gentile nations, because Daniel says that “your dominion reaches to the
the mustard plant was popular, it was described as “the smallest of all the distant parts of the earth” [later in v. 22]. Thus, Jesus incorporated similar
seeds on earth.” In other words, the smallness of the “mustard seed” was imagery into his “mustard seed” parable by showing that, despite its
proverbial [it takes ~750 seeds from the black mustard to make ~1 g]. humble and unpretentious beginnings, God’s kingdom will achieve
Although critical scholars scoff that Jesus needed to use horticultural spectacular growth. Whether the imagery of the nesting birds simply
precision, they ironically ignore the deliberate hyperbolic precision that indicated the size of the tree, or whether it symbolized specific nations, the
Jesus utilizes for his cultural world’s use of language. In other words, it background of sprawling bird–havens in Daniel and Ezekiel reinforces the
would be ludicrous for us to expect Jesus utilizing 21st century lingo in imperial pretensions of God’s kingdom that will override human empires.
order to clarify to 1st century hearers that the “mustard seed ranks in the So, in the 1st century, God’s kingdom did not look very impressive, and
upper 1/10th of 1% of smallness in seed sizes.” Instead, Jesus describes its some questioned whether it existed at all. In fact, it appeared to look like a
hyperbolic growth by asserting that it becomes “larger than all the garden defeated, powerless, ragtag group of followers. But, what is real is not
plants” with reference to “large branches” on which “birds” can “nest” so always obvious. What had begun in the Galilean ministry of Jesus would
that this mustard shrub hyperbolically stands out among the garden plants! one day [by the power of God] prove to be of ultimate significance!
 164

Though its power was hidden, it was not for that reason any less certain,
and its growth was spectacular, as first demonstrated at Pentecost [Acts 2].
The “mustard seed” that was planted through the ministry of Jesus will one
day be in full glorious foliage, and the dominion, glory, and eternal
kingship of Jesus will be evident to all, because it will be ruled by a gentle
and generous king. Unlike the short–lived kingdoms of many human
kings, God’s kingdom will have no end [Revelation 21–22]. The
expectation of such a future kingdom is especially good news to the
powerless, the oppressed, and the persecuted, living under human political
structures that pervert kingdom values [Revelation 17–18].

Peter Chrysologus [5th century Latin archbishop of Ravenna] says: “It is up

to us to sow this mustard seed in our minds and let it grow within us into a
great tree of understanding reaching up to heaven and elevating all our
faculties; then it will spread out branches of knowledge, the pungent
savour of its fruit will make our mouths burn, its fiery kernel will kindle a
blaze within us inflaming our hearts, and the taste of it will dispel our
unenlightened repugnance. Yes, it is true: a mustard seed is indeed an
image of the kingdom of God. Christ is the kingdom of heaven. Sown like a
mustard seed in the garden of the virgin’s womb, he grew up into the
tree of the cross whose branches stretch across the world. Crushed in the
mortar of the passion, its fruit has produced seasoning enough for the
flavouring and preservation of every living creature with which it comes in
contact. As long as a mustard seed remains intact, its properties lie
dormant; but when it is crushed they are exceedingly evident. So it was
with Christ; he chose to have his body crushed, because he would not have
his power concealed. Christ became all things in order to restore all of us
in himself. The man Christ received the mustard seed which represents the
kingdom of God; as man he received it, though as God he had always
possessed it. He sowed it in his garden, that is in his bride, the Church.
The Church is a garden extending over the whole world, tilled by the
plough of the gospel, fenced in by stakes of doctrine and discipline,
cleared of every harmful weed by the labour of the apostles, fragrant and
lovely with perennial flowers: virgins’ lilies and martyrs’ roses set amid
the pleasant verdure of all who bear witness to Christ and the tender
plants of all who have faith in him. Such then is the mustard seed which
Christ sowed in his garden. When he promised a kingdom to the
patriarchs, the seed took root in them; with the prophets it sprang up; with
 165

the apostles it grew tall; in the Church it became a great tree putting forth
innumerable branches laden with gifts. And now you too must take the
wings of the psalmist’s dove, gleaming gold in the rays of divine
sunlight, and fly to rest for ever among those sturdy, fruitful branches.
No snares are set to trap you there; fly off, then, with confidence and dwell
securely in its shelter.”

So, the tree’s location “in the middle of the earth” reflects the belief that
Babylon was situated in the same central geographical location on Earth.
This is depicted on an 8th century b.c. clay tablet [also known as the
Babylonian Map of the World] where the Earth is perceived as a flat
inscribed disk/compass upon which geographies are plotted, and encircling
this disk is an ocean called in Akkadian nar marratu [or “bitter river”],
which Gilgamesh crossed to reach Utnapishtim [or Noah who survived the
flooded Persian Gulf Oasis during the Younger Dryas ~12,000 years ago].

Paul Delnero [21st century Assyriologist] extensively explains the details:

“The Babylonian Map of the World (BM 92687), also known as the mappa
mundi, was first published in 1889 by the German Assyriologist Felix
Peiser, and it has generated an interest unrivalled by almost any other
object from Mesopotamia, inviting countless commentaries and
interpretations. While progress on understanding the map has undoubtedly
been made, and some of the research that has been published about it is
indeed groundbreaking, in many respects it remains, in the words of the
Classical Archaeologist and Historian, James Muhly: ‘one of our most
famous clay maps, a Babylonian map of the world (mappa mundi), a text
about which a great deal has been written, most of it nonsense.’ The map
consists of three distinct parts. On the obverse of the tablet there are 11
lines of a fragmentary inscription, in which various sea monsters and wild
animals are mentioned together with Utanapishtim, the mythological hero
who survived the Babylonian flood, and the rulers Sargon of Agade and
Nur–Dagan of Purushhanda, who are also known from Akkadian literary
legends, and in particular the composition ‘Sargon, King of Battle.’ This
inscription is followed by a drawing depicting Babylonia in the center, and
 166

some neighbouring polities, regions, and topographic features, surrounded from top to bottom as the Euphrates. In contrast to many later interpreters,
by a ring a water, outside of which are five preserved, or partially however, Peiser also argued that the placement of the inscription
preserved triangular regions, all but one of which is labelled with the identifying the rectangle as Babylon in the left corner of the rectangle
Akkadian term nagû, which has been translated variously as ‘island’, instead of in the center, where it might be expected, was not accidental,
‘region’, and even, more recently by Finkel, as ‘mountain’. Inscriptions and was intended, in his view, to indicate to the viewer of the map more
are used throughout the map to identify or describe different places and clearly that the left bank of the Euphrates is located in the East. Although
features. The ring of water separating the inner and outer areas of the map Peiser was not able to decipher all of the labels on the inside of the map,
is identified with the Akkadian word marratu, which means ‘Bitter Water’ he correctly identified Bīt–Yakin, Habban, and the canal (bitqu) and
or ‘Bitter River’, but is often translated ‘Ocean’. In addition to the label swamp (apparu) at the bottom of the circle. Outside the ring of water,
nagû, written inside four of the five preserved triangles outside the ring of which he interpreted as an ‘Ocean’, he noted the presence of five
water, all of the triangles are followed by inscriptions which identify their preserved nagû, a word which he translated as ‘Gebiete regions’, and
distance from one point to another, and the uppermost triangle, near the hypothesized, on the basis of the number of nagû described on the reverse
top of the map, which is the only one not labelled as a nagû, is identified of the tablet, that there were originally eight of these regions. Peiser
instead as ‘Great Wall’ (with the logogram BAD3 GU.LA). Lastly, on the interpreted the text on the obverse as a mythological composition about
reverse of the tablet, there is an inscription divided into 9 or 10 sections, Babylon and animals that once lived there, but cast doubt on the text
all but one or two of which describe the individual nagû in the drawing on having any relation to the map beneath it. He had equally little to say
the obverse. This inscription is followed by a colophon stating that the about the text on the reverse, except that the eight nagû described in it
tablet was copied from an older exemplar by Ea–bēl–ilī, the son of Işşuru. probably correspond to the four–world quarters, which he argued are
Since Bīt–Yakin, one of the territories identified on the obverse of the map, represented in Babylonian and Assyrian cities with eight gates positioned
is first attested in the 9th century, but the inscriptions on the map can be in alignment with the four cardinal compass points. Peiser’s conclusions
dated on paleographic grounds to the 6th century BCE, the content of the about the significance of the map were also modest: he interpreted it as a
map is usually assumed to date to sometime between the 9th and 6th ‘crude, but not incorrect’ depiction of Babylonia sometime around the 9th
centuries BCE. The map, which is in the collection of the British Museum, century, calling the map simply a ‘babylonische Landkarte’, without
was given the same accession number as a large group of tablets from identifying it as a ‘map of the world’, or making any claims about the
Sippar, but because the father of the scribe named in the colophon has the regions outside the ring of water. Almost 25 years later, Ernst Weidner in
same name as the ancestor of a scribe from Borsippa, the tablet is often 1922 put forward a radically new interpretation of the map, which was
thought to come from Borsippa. All of the interpretations of the Map of the much less modest in scope. In contrast to Peiser, who focused most of his
World that have been proposed to date can be grouped according to how attention on the inside of the map, Weidner argued that the text on the
they attempt to answer the following questions: (1) What does the inner obverse was from the previously unknown 2nd tablet of the literary legend
circle of the map on the obverse depict? (2) What do the triangular areas ‘Sargon, King of Battle’, and that the entire map is a visual and textual
outside the ring of water represent, and what is their relation to what is depiction of Sargon’s entire kingdom. In support of this interpretation,
depicted in the inner circle of the map? (3) What does the text on the Weidner claimed that the eight nagû on the map are the eight regions of
obverse describe, and how does the text relate to the map and the text on the Caucuses that Sargon had to travel through to reach Anatolia, and that
the reverse of the tablet? (4) What does the text on the reverse mean and the ‘destroyed gods’ mentioned in the text on the obverse refer to the cities
how does it relate to the map and text on the obverse? (5) What is the Sargon conquered along the way. To address the problem of the placement
significance of the map and accompanying texts as a whole? In the first of the nagû on the other side of a body of water instead of as contiguous
publication of the map, Peiser identified the large rectangle near the top of with Babylonia, as the mountains crossed by Sargon would have been, he
the inside of the map as Babylon, and the parallel lines cutting through it attributed the incorrect location of the nagû to the geographic ignorance
 167

of the scribes who produced the map. And to answer the difficult question however, was that the islands formed a bridge to the ‘heavenly ocean,’
of why Utanapishtim is mentioned in a text about Sargon conquering which he argued was described in the composition on the obverse of the
Purushhanda, he simply removed this figure from the text altogether and tablet, interpreting the animals mentioned in this text as Zodiacal animal
read the signs in his name as two separate words (Šamaš and napištim) constellations, identified as ‘vanished gods’ near the beginning of the text.
connecting Sargon to the Sun God and life. While Weidner’s reading of the
map was called into question almost as soon as it was published and has
since been dismissed, it stands out as one of the only interpretations that
does not assume a conceptual distinction between the nagû and the center
of the map. To my knowledge, the first scholar to propose that the map had
a cosmological and mythological dimension was Bruno Meissner only
three years after Weidner’s article. Situating the map in the context of
other visual depictions of geographic space in Mesopotamia, like the
Kassite map of Nippur, Meissner argued that the map was intended as a
real map of the world (‘Weltkarte’) that was more or less accurate in the
center, but much less so in the mythological regions outside it, as a result
of the strong influence of theology on the Babylonian conceptions of
geography. Meissner may also have been the first to connect the map with
Herodotus’ description of maps with a similar appearance: ‘I am amused
when I see that not one of all the people who have drawn maps of the
world has set it out sensibly. They show Ocean as a river flowing around
the outside of the earth, which is as circular as if it had been drawn with a
pair of compasses, and they make Asia and Europe the same size’
(Herodotus 4.36.2). At no point in his description of the map, however,
does Meissner claim that the city of Babylon is depicted in the center of it,
or make a sharp distinction between the real and mythological regions of
the map, seeing the map instead as a typical product of a scientific
practice that could not free itself from the mythological conceptions
pervading it. The cosmological dimension of the map began to receive
more serious attention a few years later in a series of studies by Eckhard
Unger in 1929, 1931, and 1937. Most notably, Unger claimed that
Babylon was depicted in the center of the map as ‘the hub of the universe,’
and correctly identified most of the cities and regions around it. Unger
also interpreted the ring of water as an ‘Earthly Ocean’ and the nagû as
islands at the end of the ocean, seeing in them the possible origin of the Having connected the earthly areas of the map with the heavens, he
tradition about the lost island of Atlantis: ‘It is just possible that the concluded that the map was not just a map of the world, but a map of the
legend of Atlantis might be explained as a fantastically exaggerated entire cosmos. While this interpretation of the map has not withstood the
reminiscence of the Babylonian cosmos with its seven islands, especially test of time, Unger’s claim that Babylon is shown in the center, as well as
as this legend has a long tradition behind it.’ Unger’s most radical claim, his separation of the map into real and mythological components, have
 168

since become commonplace. Turning to more recent treatments of the on the inside of the map as ‘partly accurate, but by no means always so,’
map, Wayne Horowitz in 1988, and again in 2011, taking into account a Finkel goes on to argue that these features are ‘far less important than the
critical new piece that had been joined to the map by Irving Finkel, offered great ring of water that surrounds everything.’ Finkel interprets the nagû
a new reading of the map that also emphasizes the centrality of Babylon. beyond the ring as ‘giant mountains beyond the rim of the world which are
Horowitz argued that the center of the map must have been drawn from a unimaginably remote,’ likening the triangles on the map representing the
Babylonian (as opposed to an Assyrian) perspective, because: ‘Babylon is eight nagû to ‘an eight–pointed crown’ pointing upward toward the sky.
represented by a large rectangle encompassing almost half the width of His understanding of the nagû as mountains is in sharp contrast to
the central continent, while Assyria is represented as a small oval.’ In previous interpretations of the nagû as islands or regions, but is essential
contrast to the inside of the map, which, in Horowitz’s view, follows to his argument that the 4th nagû described on the reverse of the tablet
Mesopotamian cartographic conventions, with cities represented as refers to the place where Atramhasis’ boat landed after the waters of the
circles, the Euphrates indicated by two parallel lines, and most of the destructive flood had receded. In emphasizing the importance of the nagû
cities and regions in their correct relative locations, he interprets the nagû on the outside of the map and their ‘unimaginably remote’ distance from
outside the ring of water as remote islands. The northernmost of these the well–known cities and territories in the middle, Finkel’s reading of the
islands, identified in the inscriptions associated with it as a ‘Great Wall’ map is the most recent in a long line of interpretations that dichotomize
(BAD3 GU.LA) and a place a–šar dšamaš la innammaru (‘where the Sun the outside and inside of the map into real and mythological places, with a
is not seen’; NU.IGI. LA2), may be connected to literary traditions about liminal body of water in–between. Although many scholars who have
Sargon and Gilgamesh visiting similar regions. Assuming that the text on interpreted the map have come to strikingly different conclusions about its
the obverse contains allusions to Marduk’s conquest of Tiamat and her meaning and significance, previous interpretations of the map have a
monsters in the Babylonian Creation Epic (Enuma Elish), and to Marduk’s number of essential points in common. One is to assume a sharp
creation of the animals on top of the sea in ‘The Bilingual Account of the conceptual distinction between what is depicted on the inside and the
Creation of the World by Marduk,’ and that the text on the reverse outside of the map. With the exception of Weidner, who claims that both
describes the nagû, Horowitz concludes that the purpose of the map ‘was parts of the map were visited by Sargon, all other interpretations
to locate and describe distant regions,’ all of which are more distinguish the interior of the map from the exterior, differing only in
‘mythological’ than the real cities and areas in the map’s center. Lastly, which of the two regions they interpret as being more important to the
Irving Finkel, even more recently, has proposed a similar interpretation of meaning of the map. Peisser is non–committal on this point, but Unger
the map that places even greater emphasis on the centrality of Babylon strongly supports a cosmological interpretation of the map, and Meissner
and the significance of the nagû as remote, semi–mythological regions sees the mythological regions of the map as evidence that Mesopotamian
beyond it. After identifying the join of the critical new piece with the sciences like geography were inseparable from theology. In addition to
upper–most nagû (1995), and producing a brief, descriptive interpretation Horowitz and Finkel, other recent scholars who see a strong core–
of the map for the catalogue to the Babylon exhibition at the British periphery, real–mythological dichotomy in the interior and exterior
Museum (2008), Finkel re–examined the map in more depth in 2014. He regions of the map include Jean–Jacques Glassner (1984), Frans
connects the map with a newly discovered source for the Akkadian epic Wiggermann (1996), Beate Pongratz–Leisten (2001), and Piotr
(Atramhasis), which contains an extended description of the boat Michalowski (2010), who have all made similar observations in their
Atramhasis built to survive the flood. Finkel describes the map as ‘the discussions of the map. In addition to assuming a sharp conceptual
earliest known map of the world’ and notes that Babylon is depicted as distinction between what is depicted on the inside and the outside of the
‘awesomely vast in comparison with the other cities on the map,’ claiming map, one of the most pervasive assumptions that all of the previous
that ‘the map’s content undoubtedly reflects Babylon as the center of the interpretations of the map share is that the map is static and meant to be
world.’ Characterizing the location of the cities and ‘tribal conglomerates’ seen from a single, bird’s–eye perspective. Horowitz lends support to this
 169

view by comparing what is depicted on the map with the description of bank of the Euphrates was
what the mythological ruler Etana sees from the back of an eagle as it flies located in the East. Even if the
him farther and farther away from the surface of the earth. And Finkel exact significance of the
takes this argument a step further in observing that Ea–bēl–ilī, the scribe placement of the inscription
credited with copying the tablet, is identified in the colophon as being the remains uncertain, however, it
son of a man whose name translates as ‘Bird’, stating: ‘After all, the does seem to provide a
whole map is a bird’s–eye view, and the original compiler of this account, frequently overlooked indication
whoever he was, did have a dad called Bird, as we can see from the last that Babylon is not as central on
line of the tablet.’ When looking more closely at the map, however, it the map as is typically assumed.
possesses at least three features that complicate reading it as a static Further evidence against the
depiction of the world, in which Babylon is in the center and the regions centrality of Babylon can be
outside the ring of water are ‘unimaginably remote’ from it: (1) Babylon found in the cities and regions
is not drawn in the center in the map, and there is very little evidence from that are included in the center of
the way the city is represented and labelled that it was intended to be the the map. With the possible
visual and conceptual focal point of the map. (2) The inclusion of cities, exception of Assur, Urartu, Bīt–
regions, and topographic features in the center section of the map whose Yakin, Susa, and less probably
presence is very difficult to explain in an ideological narrative about the Der, the presence of the areas
centrality of Babylon. (3) The occurrence of visual and textual signposting labelled ‘canal’ (bitqu) and
that appears to firmly connect the outer regions of the map with the ‘swamp’ (apparu), which occupy
inhabited center, instead of depicting them as unfathomably remote from more space near the bottom of the map than the rectangle with Babylon
it. With respect to the first point: as others have noted, Babylon is not near the top, are much harder to explain. Furthermore, the presence of
drawn in the center of the map, but instead almost equidistant from the top four circles positioned along the perimeter of the inside edge of the inner
of the inner ring and the round impression in the actual center of the map, ring, two of which are unlabeled and two of which are identified simply as
which may or may not have been created by the compass–like device that ‘city’ (with the cuneiform logogram URU), is also difficult to account for
was used to draw the circular ring of water, as some have claimed. For the in a narrative intended to emphasize the centrality of Babylon in relation
observation that the rings on the map may have been produced with a to other cities. The most conspicuous inclusion in the central section of the
compass, Finkel says: ‘Two concentric circles were drawn in with some map, though, is certainly the region to the immediate west of Babylon
cuneiform precursor of a pair of compasses whose point was actually labelled as ‘Habban’. Label 1 is this proposed starting point of the map,
inserted south of Babylon, perhaps at the city of Nippur, the Bond of with accompanying arrow indicating the direction of the 1st stage of the
Heaven and Earth.’ While the lack of visual centrality may have been proposed itinerary, which, as indicated by the arrows, proceeds counter–
counterbalanced by the relatively large size of the rectangle used to clockwise along the perimeter of the inner circle of the map. Note, in
represent Babylon, the inscription identifying the city is relegated to the particular, how nearly all of the labelled regions and labelled and
far right corner of the rectangle, where the label does not stand out, but unlabeled cities are also located along the same trajectory around the
instead seems to blend in with the cluster of inscriptions identifying perimeter of the inner circle of the map. Label 2 is the term ‘marratu’ with
other places in its immediate vicinity. As noted earlier, the placement of a box indicating the presence of the determinative for river names (‘i7’),
the label identifying Babylon had already struck Peiser, the first editor of which does not occur with any of the other preserved writings of the word
the map, who, in contrast to many later interpreters, argued that the ‘marratu’ inside the ring that separates the inner from the outer regions of
label’s placement was intended to provide a visual indication that the left the map. Note also how the direction of the script in the writing of this
 170

word moves in the same direction as the proposed itinerary through the Babylon’s main rivals until the collapse of Assyria, Habban seems to have
inner circle of the map. Label 3 is the area labelled šadû (‘mountain’), been a minor and insignificant place with no clear geographical or
and the proposed crossing point from the inner circle of the map across political importance. Besides the likelihood that the Habban on the map
the marratu to the outer region of the map where the 2nd stage of the refers to a different place entirely, the question remains: what is it doing
proposed itinerary begins. Label 4 is the nagû or region with the label: on a map that is intended to communicate the centrality of Babylon? The
BAD3.GU.LA 6 bēru ina bi–rit a–šar dšamaš la innammaru (NU.IGI.LA2), last, and perhaps the most decisive point against the conventional
or ‘Great Wall, 6 double–miles between it and the place where the sun is interpretation of the map, however, is the way text and image work
not seen.’ Note the inclusion of the phrase a–šar dšamaš la innammaru, together on the map to provide a clear visual guide to indicate to the
which is omitted in the labels for all of the other preserved nagûs. It is viewer how to read the map. There are three features of the map that seem
being argued that since the presence of this phrase would have been to serve as indications of how the map is supposed to be read: (1) The
inferable in the labels for the remaining nagûs, it was only written with the exceptional inclusion of Habban. (2) The visual orientation of the textual
1st nagû, and that this nagû therefore marks the beginning of the 2nd stage inscriptions in two critical areas of the map. (3) Aspects of the uppermost
of the proposed itinerary. The arrows that follow illustrate the direction of nagû that set it apart from the other nagû on the map. The first point may
the proposed itinerary of the 2nd and final stage of the proposed itinerary, be the most difficult to prove conclusively, but it is probable that the
which proceeds clockwise along the perimeter of the outer ring of the map, absence of any other apparent significance would have made Habban
coming to an end at the nagû directly above the area labelled ‘Habban’ in stand out on the map. Looking at the visual conventions for depicting
the inner circle of the map. Most interpreters of the map identify this place different types of locations on the map, cities are drawn as circles, bodies
with ‘Bīt–Habban’, a tribal area mentioned in at least two late 2nd of water are indicated by two parallel lines, and regions like Urartu and
millennium Kudurrus in association with a family or tribe that seems to Bīt–Yakin are identified by unbounded inscriptions. The label ha–ab–ban
have possessed land in the region of Namar east of the Tigris near the is unbounded like Urartu and Bīt–Yakin, suggesting that it was a region
Zagros Mountains. Brinkman argues that Bīt–Hamban in the Kudurrus is and not a city. Since the region of Habban seems to have been
a designation for a Kassite tribal group, which he localizes to the east of unimportant politically, it may have been included because it was
the Tigris. More recently, Paulus has disputed the identification of Bīt– geographically significant for what is depicted on the map. More
Hamban in the Kudurrus as a province, and like Brinkman, argues that it specifically, it seems likely that Habban is at or near the point where the
is instead a designation for the descendants of the Hamban family, map begins. Another key feature that suggests that the map is not drawn
localizing the land owned by this family in the region of Namar to the east from a bird’s eye perspective is the visual orientation of the inscribed
of the Tigris. So, since a city identified as Hamban and Bīt–Hamban that word mar–ra–tum, which is repeated four times within the ring separating
can be localized to the same area also occurs in Neo–Assyrian royal the inner and outer regions of the map. Instead of writing ‘marratu’ with
inscriptions, it is not improbable that the texts from both periods refer to horizontal alignment from left to right, in the usual orientation of the
the same place. There are at least two difficulties with the occurrence of cuneiform script, in the way other places on the map like Babylon, Bīt–
‘Habban’ on the map, however. One is that if it is in fact the same Yakin and the words bitqu and apparu are written, the direction of the
toponym as the place that occurs in the Kudurrus and Neo–Assyrian texts, script for the word marratu seems to move counter–clockwise around the
it should be in the east of the map, instead of in the west, at a great inside of the ring. Since there would have been enough space at the top
distance from between Assur and Der, where it would be expected. The and bottom of the ring to write the word in the conventional orientation,
other is that even if it is the same Habban, there is little indication in any the writing of marratu four times in a continuous flowing sequence seems
of the textual references to the place outside the map that it had any to have been intentional. Moreover, only one of the four writings of the
notable significance to Babylon. In contrast to Bīt–Yakin, which was a term includes the determinative for bodies of water ‘i7’ (see Label 2),
major tribal area within Babylonia, and Assur, which was one of suggesting that the scribe only wrote the determinative once because its
 171

presence would have been easily inferable in all of the other instances. As from one nagû to the next until one arrives at the last nagû just opposite
the form with ‘i7’ is likely to be the first that was put on the map, and is Habban on the other side of the ring of water. Further evidence that the
also very near Habban, it is not improbable that the inside of the map was drawing on the map was meant to be read by rotating the map counter–
intended to be read by starting at Habban and rotating the map counter– clockwise as one moved from one point to the next on the inside of the
clockwise in the direction of the script inside the ring of water, while map, and then clockwise through the outer regions of the nagû, is provided
moving from one point in the inner circle to the next. If this is done, the in the description of the nagû on the reverse of the tablet, where the 2nd
viewer’s eyes move from Habban along the perimeter of the ring through person, durative form of the verb alāku ‘to go’ is used consistently in the
Bīt–Yakin, the bitqu, Susa, upwards through the swamp, past the channel phrase ana šanû šalšu, rebi, etc., na–gu–u2 a–šar tal–la–ku 7 bēru
branching off the Euphrates, and on through Der, Assur, Urartu, and an DANNA (‘to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., region, to which you go 7 double–miles’),
unnamed city, before arriving at the uppermost region on the inside of the which occurs at the beginning of each of the descriptions of the eight
map, which is labelled as a mountain (šadu). Continuing the visual regions described on the reverse of the tablet, to instruct the viewer to
trajectory northward through the inner circle would bring the viewer past move from one nagû to the next. Moreover, since lists of towns, mountains,
the ring of water to the uppermost triangle in the outer region of the map. and rivers dating to the Early Dynastic Period interpretable as itineraries
The triangle above the mountain has at least two exceptional features that are one of the earliest forms of geographic representation in
suggest it was the next logical stop in the journey through the inside of the Mesopotamia, a map which leads the viewer on a visual (and textual)
map that began at or near Habban and ended at the foot of the šadû (see journey from the closer, more familiar regions of the heartland of
Label 3). One of these features is that it is identified as a ‘great wall’ Mesopotamia to the more distant, and less familiar regions beyond it, is
(BAD3 GU.LA), and is the only triangle not explicitly labelled as a nagû. consistent with this tradition. While many questions may still remain
Since, as Horowitz has argued, the phrase ‘great wall’ may also occur in unanswered, moving away from the conception of the map as a static
the ‘Sargon Birth Legend’, where it is written BAD3 AN.KI GALi and is representation of a real core surrounded by a distant, mythological
used to describe a feature of mountains, it is likely that the phrase periphery, allows for a more dynamic, continuous reading of the map.
connects this region more directly with the mountainous region on the When the map is interpreted (solely) as an ideologically motivated visual
opposite side of the marratu from it. Another indication that this triangle representation of Babylon at the center of an ordered cosmos that becomes
might be the beginning of the next stage of the itinerary depicted on the increasingly more chaotic the further one moves away from it, the
map is that it is the only triangle that receives a full description. While the significance of the other locations on the map becomes unnecessarily
other surviving nagû have only the inscription ‘X number of leagues limited to their respective distances from Babylon. Although there is little
between’ (na–gu–u2 6/8 bēru DANNA ina bi–rit), in the uppermost nagû doubt that Babylon occupies a place of importance on the map, reducing
the phrase ‘six leagues in between’ is followed by the statement ‘where the the significance of the map to the centrality of Babylon makes it difficult to
sun is not seen’ (a–šar dšamaš la innammaru NU.IGI.LA2; see Label 4). read or interpret the map in any other way. But, once the static, core–
Since it is equally likely that the same phrase was omitted with all of the periphery interpretation of the map is abandoned, or the possibility of
other nagû, because like ‘i7’ with marratu, its presence was inferable (so other interpretations is considered, it becomes easier to recognize that the
that the reader would have known to supply the phrase a–šar dšamaš la locations on the map are interconnected points that take the viewer on a
innammaru after na–gu–u2 6/8 bēru DANNA ina bi–rit, to create the label visual journey from one end of the map to the other, revealing a critical
‘region with 6/8 double–miles between it and the place where the sun is aspect of the map that had previously been overlooked. The view
not seen’), this would suggest that the uppermost nagû was inscribed first proposed here nonetheless leaves many essential questions about the map
and marked the beginning of the journey through the outer regions of the unanswered. Most significantly, if the map does in fact depict the proposed
map. Rotating the map in the direction of the inscriptions accompanying itinerary, what is the significance of this itinerary, and how, if at all does it
each nagû would then take the viewer clockwise around the outer ring relate to any known historical, cultural, or mythological events or
 172

conceptions in, or before the period or periods in which the map and its the obverse and reverse go well beyond identifying the names of the
accompanying inscriptions were compiled? One of the strengths of the concrete places and features represented on the map, expanding and
previous, more static reading of the map, is that it allows for the map’s enhancing the meaning of the map in ways that have not yet been fully
textual and iconographic content to be compared to the Babylonian explained, and are otherwise completely unparalleled in all of the other
Creation Story (Enuma Elish) with its cosmogony that situates Babylon known instances of text–image relationships from ancient Mesopotamia.
at the center of a new world and cosmological order, complete with All of the substantial differences between the Map of the World and other
descriptions of vanquished sea monsters that may, or may not, be Mesopotamian maps underscore the uniqueness and exceptionality of this
parallel to the mythological creatures described on the obverse of the artefact, raising the question: why would such an original, innovative,
map. As argued here, however, there are many features of the map that and unparalleled representation be created to communicate a message
this interpretation leaves unexplained, including, but not limited to, the about core–periphery relations, which was already completely familiar,
presence of Habban, which play no known role in Enuma Elish or any and presumably in little need of further elaboration? The view proposed
other mythological account. Furthermore, core–periphery dichotomies are here does not answer the question of the significance of the itinerary
not completely absent (and are indeed often prominent) in Mesopotamian proposed, or fully explain how the content of the accompanying
inscriptions and mythological accounts from different periods and places, inscriptions relate to the map itself, but the previous interpretations of the
and it is not necessary to look any further than the Epic of Gilgamesh with map, which assume a core–periphery dichotomy, do not fully succeed in
its accounts of Gilgamesh encountering, in the course of his wanderings answering these questions either. The purpose of the reading of the map
after the death of his companion Enkidu, increasingly more mythological proposed here is therefore not to provide a definitive interpretation that
entities and figures the further he ventures outward from his home, the city answers all of the questions about the map that have proven to be
of Uruk, for one of many examples of this conception. But, as paradoxical unanswerable, but instead to raise questions that are overlooked in the
as it might seem, it is precisely the familiarity of the core–periphery more static, and conventional interpretation of the map. It is hoped that
dichotomy in ancient Mesopotamia (and cross–culturally) that renders its by calling attention to questions that deserve more attention, addressing
appearance in an object as unique as the Map of the World suspect, and these questions in future studies might ultimately lead to an improved and
invites a reanalysis of the conventional interpretation of the map. One of richer understanding of this extraordinary artefact.”
the great difficulties in arriving at a definitive interpretation of the map,
and why such an interpretation has eluded scholars for over a century is Paul Ferguson [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “The belief that
precisely because there are not close textual or iconographic parallels to Babylon was the center of the world represented a long tradition. A
this, in nearly all respects, exceptional artefact. All of the known maps quarter of a millennium before Nebuchadnezzar an ancient treatise on the
from ancient Mesopotamia depict real places, such as specific fields and topography of Babylon identified the city as the ‘link of heaven and the
the city of Nippur, and not a single one contains a visual representation underworld.’ A. R. George sees this as attributing to the city a position at
of a mythological scene. Furthermore, the relationship between the the middle point of the cosmos. The only known Mesopotamian map of
textual labels and the drawings on the other known maps is immediate and the world probably dates from just a few generations before
apparent, with the textual labels providing additional and more precise Nebuchadnezzar. It depicts Babylon as a large rectangle located near the
information that cannot be inferred from the drawing on the map alone. center of the earth. All the other kingdoms are small circles that revolve
One of the many examples of how textual labels are used in this way is the around it. The entire earth is drawn as a large circle with four to eight
identification of Enlil’s temple, the Ekur, on the map of Nippur, and all of triangles radiating around it. These points (nagû) represented distant,
the other labels which give the names of the gates, canals, temples, and remote regions of the earth. The nagû may be equated with the ‘ends of
other places depicted on the map. While textual labels are also used in this the earth’ (or simply very remote regions). In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
way on the drawing on the Map of the World, the accompanying texts on the tree was seen from the end of the earth (v. 11). In v. 22, Daniel
 173

compares this to the fact that the king’s dominion reached to the end of the So, this description is meant to echo Babel [Genesis 11:4]. Likewise, this
earth. In his building inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar describes his kingdom was a blessing for many, because the “shade” it provided looks at
kingdom as encompassing ‘all the lands, the entire inhabited world, the protection and security it gave to those who submitted to its authority,
kings of far–off mountains and remote nagû.’ The dream goes on to state and in light of Jeremiah 27:6–8, the reference to “animals” refers to the
that in this tree was food for all living creatures and that the beasts of the lesser countries/territories that were brought under Babylon’s dominion.
field found shade under it. In his Inscription Number 9 the king sees his
vast empire as a tree that shades and nourishes all peoples. He says, ‘The Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “By ‘foliage’ he refers to the
produce of the lands, the product of mountains, the wealth of the sea I visible splendour in apparel, throne, palace, warriors bearing shields and
received in her. Under her everlasting shadow I gathered all men in peace. javelins, and foot soldiers, and by ‘fruit’ to the tribute offered from all
Vast heaps of grain beyond measure I stored up within her.’ Interestingly quarters. Barbarians lived a wild life, whereas more reasonable and
the ancient geographical treatise on the topography of Babylon calls it the civilized people, rapid and uplifted in their thinking, continued to pass
city that ‘ensures the life of the land.’ The tree’s height reached to the their life under his authority.”
heavens (v. 11). The king’s father Nabopolassar leaves an inscription
about the restoration of Etemenanki (‘The House of the Foundation of the Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Scholars note
Heavens and the Earth’). He claims that he and his sons made its summit that the passage obviously draws on this concept of the ‘world tree’ or the
in Babylon ‘rival or equal to the heavens’ (Nebuchadnezzar also made ‘cosmic tree.’ You have to think of a giant tree whose boughs reach to the
the same claim). He continually makes the claim that he built the palace heavens—the very heights of the heavens, even beyond the sky. It’s
and city from the abyss to the mountaintops. In the ancient world the king planted on earth, though, so the tree is as tall as the sky is, and then its
and his kingdom were inseparable. An impressive array of data from the roots descend into Sheol to draw up this water. It’s watered by the
Mesopotamian world identifies the king as a tree. For example, a abyss—by the deep. So, this tree is like a pole or a column that runs right
Sumerian royal hymn addressing the king says, ‘O chosen cedar, for thy through the earth. Again, if you’re thinking about Israelite cosmology; to
shadow the country may feel awe.’ Coxon suggests that the metal bands the Israelite and other ancient people, it’s a very typical worldview that
around the trunk in v. 15 are a parallel to Mesopotamian cultic trees.” the earth was a round, flat disc. It’s set on top of pillars. It’s surrounded
by water. Underneath it is water in the underworld. It’s covered by the
Furthermore, this cosmic tree “could be seen to the ends of the earth.” dome that meets the edges of the horizon where light and dark are
However, there is controversy among lexicographers concerning the separated. There are lots of references to this. But, running right through
meaning of the Aramaic ḥăzôṯ [for “seen”], since the word only occurs the center of this is this gigantic, enormous tree whose branches go to the
here. There are two primary views: heavens and whose roots go down to Sheol. That’s something that the
flat–earthers won’t tell you about, will they? They make a big deal about
1. It is derived from ḥzh [or “visibility, appearance”], since the LXXΟ Israelite cosmology: ‘Well, we have to believe that the earth is flat because
translated it as kai hē hopasis autou [or “and his appearance”]. that’s what the bible says.’ Well, the bible talks about the world tree too,
and I don’t know about you, but we are not running into a giant tree
2. It relates to the branches [or the crown of the tree], since the LXXθ whose branches extend to the heavens and whose roots go down to
translated it as kai to kutos autou [or “and its span/extent”]. Sheol. So, the flat–earthers conveniently forget that part of ancient
Israelite cosmology. Believing this in the modern world is as dumb as it
Thus, the 2nd option is preferable, that it means the “span” or “canopy” sounds, but none of them touch this. They just don’t. They’re either
that reached “to the ends of the earth” based on the LXXθ rendering of the ignorant of it, or they just conveniently forget it. But, it’s part of biblical
Aramaic ḥăzôṯ with the Greek kutos, and this fits the context better. cosmology. This is well–known in ancient Near Eastern scholarship.”
 174

Next in vv. 13–17, we read: “Then I saw in the visions of my head while I non–canonical literature. More recent research by Amar Annus leads to
was in bed—and take careful notice!—I saw a holy observer descend from the conclusion that the term does indeed have a connection to Akkadian
heaven. He called out aloud: ‘Cut down the tree and cut off its branches. material—specifically, the supernatural apkallu, the central figures in
Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit. Let the animals get out from under the Babylonian story that is the specific backdrop to the infamous
it, and let the birds leave its branches. Nevertheless, leave the stump and episode in Genesis 6:1–4. Annus writes: ‘Figurines of apkallus were
its roots in the ground, but bind it with iron and bronze in the field grass. buried in boxes as foundation deposits in Mesopotamian buildings in order
Let him be drenched with dew from the sky, and let him graze with the to avert evil from the house. The term maṣṣarē (‘watchers’) is used of
animals in the grass of the earth. Let his mind be changed from that of a these sets of figurines in Akkadian incantations according to ritual texts.
man, and let him be given the mind of an animal until seven seasons of This appellation matches the Aramaic term ʿyryn (‘the wakeful ones’),
time pass by for him. This order is announced by the observers, and the for both good angels and the Watchers.’ As the work of Annus and other
holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most scholars demonstrates, 2nd Temple Jewish literature, particularly 1 Enoch
High is sovereign over human kingdoms and grants them to whomever he and the Book of Giants, draws on Mesopotamian material for its retelling
desires, and he places the least important of men over them.’” of events associated with the flood. ‘Watchers’ is the overwhelming
choice of term for the fallen sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 in this later
Then the mood of the revelation changes from v. 13 onwards. There is a literature; the connection to the Akkadian maṣṣarē provides a secure
shift from blessing to judgment. Inaugurating the revelation of this basis for understanding the meaning of ʿ r to be ‘vigilant watchfulness.’
judgment, Nebuchadnezzar “saw a holy observer descend from heaven,” in This, of course, is consistent with being wakeful and a guardian role.”
order to make an announcement. The Aramaic îr [for “observer”] is
obscure, since it only occurs here in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Thus, since figurines of the apkallu were called in Akkadian maṣṣarē [or
LXXθ transliterated this as ir, whereas the LXXΟ translated this as angelos “watchers”], it is not surprising that Daniel [who was set in Babylon]
[or “angel”]. Nevertheless, it is related to the Hebrew verb ûr [or “to writes an equivalent of the Akkadian term [using the Aramaic r].
awake; to arouse oneself”]. In other words, to be awake meant that one Furthermore, notice that the Aramaic adjective qaddîš [for “holy”] clarifies
was suitable to serve as a “watcher” [specifically in God’s divine council]. that this “watcher” is indeed a member of God’s divine council. In other
words, since the Aramaic qaddîš was used for God’s people [later in
Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and explains: Daniel 7:18, 21], to “descend from heaven” meant that this was no mere
“The Aramaic term r occurs three times in the Old Testament (Daniel human, but specifically a “watcher” from God’s divine council.
4:13, 17, 23). This Aramaic term is found much more frequently in 2nd
Temple Jewish literature. Scholarly understanding of the meaning of r Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] continues: “The Aramaic
depends on the presumed Semitic root from which one presumes it derived. phrase îr wĕqaddîš is translated to mean ‘a watcher, a holy one’ because
Dahood proposed that the term came from Ugaritic ǵyr (‘to protect’). the waw conjunction creates an appositional relationship. In other words,
Murray initially believed that a better option was Akkadian ru (‘be only one heavenly being converses with Daniel in the passage, and when
wakeful’), but changed his mind after Kaufman’s important work on the heavenly figure speaks, singular participles are used by the writer.
Akkadian influences in Aramaic couldn’t find primary source data for The members of God’s heavenly host as the ‘heavenly ones’ are also
the connection. As Collins notes, however: ‘Some biblical precedents for described as ‘holy ones’ (Psalm 89:5–7; Job 15:15). The term qedōš m
the notion of angelic beings as ‘watchful ones,’ but with different may be used to describe people (Psalm 16:3; Daniel 8:24), but it is more
terminology, have been proposed. The most noteworthy is Zechariah 4:10 often used of spirit beings in God’s service (Deuteronomy 33:2–3; Job
which refers to seven ‘eyes of the Lord which range through the whole 5:1; Zechariah 14:5; Daniel 4:17). The instance in Deuteronomy 33:2 is
earth.’ The Watchers, however, never have this function in Daniel or the actually a singular form (qōdeš) that modifies the plural ‘myriads,’ a
 175

different Hebrew lemma. The word in Daniel 4:17 is qadd š n, the obsessed with the cedar mountain. A royal inscription of Naram–Sin,
Aramaic cognate of qedōš m. The designation ‘holy ones’ does not denote Sargon’s grandson, extols his conquering the mountain and personally
some quality of perfection. God does indeed charge his heavenly host with felling cedars there. Nebuchadnezzar speaks of finding one of Naram–
‘error’ (Job 4:17–18). They are not infallible. So, ‘holy ones’ should Sin’s inscriptions and refers to him as an ancestor (abu). Apparently this
therefore be understood in much the same way as earthly ‘holiness’ of type of exploit was considered necessary before a ruler could be classified
people, places, and objects. The nature of holiness has to do with as a great king. In reading the Wadi Brissa inscription, one is made to feel
proximity and association with the presence of God.” that Nebuchadnezzar identified his Lebanon campaign with Gilgamesh’s
expedition to the cedar mountain. This is the longest of his engravings
So, this “watcher” makes a loud proclamation, underscoring the divine (800 lines). He made the gigantic work in duplicate on each side of the
authority with which he speaks. His announcement was that the tree was to pass through which his troops would have marched in Lebanon on their
be cut down and its branches, leaves, and fruit removed. Also, the animals way to the west. A little farther away a partial triplicate is found. It is the
and birds were to flee. This action is would have frightened the king, and only monument of Nebuchadnezzar that commemorates a military
he would have perceived that evil was about to befall him. expedition. It is dated to the time of the final destruction of Jerusalem (586
BC). Part of it is written in ancient archaic script. There are many word–
Paul Ferguson [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The parallels between for–word correspondences with the royal engravings of Hammurapi. The
Daniel 4 and the Gilgamesh epic do not end here. Both these works have mighty cedars are mentioned 20 times, and Nebuchadnezzar calls Lebanon
statements of the glorification of a king’s building accomplishments. Both ‘the lush, green mountain forest of Marduk.’ Twice in the inscription he
are concerned about the mortality of a human king and the consequences boasts that he felled the mighty cedars with his own clean hands. The
of arrogance toward deity. The epic contains unprecedented arrogance inscription depicts the king in a pointed, conical hat like the ones worn by
toward the gods. Each narrative tells of the chopping down of a very Merodach–Baladan and Nabonidus. He is standing before a tree with an
extraordinary tree. In Gilgamesh and Daniel 4 ‘watchers’ have a object in his hand. The deteriorated condition of the relief does not allow
prominent part in the plot. Each piece has a troubling dream or dreams us to make out any more details. In column 4, directly to the left of the
that must be interpreted. Watchers (vv. 13, 17, 23) are important figures in tree, the king states: ‘With my own clean hands I felled the mighty cedars.’
the Gilgamesh epic. Besides the guardian of the cedar there are watchers It seems reasonable, then, to assume that this engraving portrays the
of the night. There are scorpion people who are stationed at the gate king in the very act of chopping down a cedar. Column 5 is written above
through which Gilgamesh must pass to find out about eternal life. The and below the tree. Column 6 is in back of the king. Both columns describe
Babylonians knew of personified night watchers who, alert and never in detail Babylon’s elaborate defence system. The king boasts that he made
sleeping, control destinies on the earth. Deities were in charge of the city into a mountain–high fortress. He goes on to state that he gathered
watching the night while the great gods slept. Gilgamesh is especially all men to its shadow for their well–being, prosperity and blessing. His
proud of his expedition with Enkidu to the cedar mountain in which he kingdom reached the ends of the earth, and he raised the city of Babylon to
killed the guardian and chopped down the sacred cedar. The cedar the summit. In column 9 he tells how he had chased away the enemy that
mountain is the dwelling place of the gods. It has a gate 72 cubits high. had scattered the people and plundered the mountain. He gathered the
The towering cedar ‘uplifted its fullness before the mountain; fair was its people and made them lie down in security. He built a special road
shade and full of delight.’ The cedar on the mountain is in the singular through the mountains to transport the cedars back to Babylon. Among
and the forest is a single world tree. The cedar is protected by a guardian other things he used the cedars to roof his palace built on the bosom (irtu)
appointed by Enlil, the high god. The guardian Huwawa is a watcher who of the wide world. This inscription clearly shows how totally obsessed
never sleeps. Scholars have called attention to many examples of Nebuchadnezzar was with the mighty cedars of Lebanon. It is little
Mesopotamian kings from Sargon I and onward who seemed to have been wonder that he dreamed about them. There would have been no more
 176

vulnerable point for God to speak to Nebuchadnezzar about his pride than Thus, although the tree is chopped down, enough of it remains [the lower
through the metaphor of the great tree. He would have had little problem stump and main root] that life is still left in it! In other words, the tree had
in identifying the sheltering, nourishing tree with his own kingdom. As an the potential to return to its flourishing state once again. As in the case of
informed, educated pagan he would realize that this tree would have a the stump of Isaiah 6:13 and 11:1, a glimpse of hope remained for
divinely–appointed watcher just as everything significant in his world Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom. Also, the purpose of “bind it with iron
did. Imagine his horror and feeling of helplessness when the watcher and bronze” is not clear, but most likely signified some sort of protection
actually announces the decree that the tree is to be cut down (vv. 13–14)! put on the kingdom while the king himself was rendered unfit to rule.
He would have definitely considered this as an unfavourable nightmare
needing the attention of dream professionals. The Babylonian concept of Silviu Bunta [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] summarizes and explains:
interpretation would include not only explaining the meaning of the dream “The scholarship of Daniel 4 has previously noted the connection of the
but also removing its undesirable consequences. Only Daniel could do text to the generic religious symbol of the cosmic tree. However, the
this by telling the king, in effect, that he must become the kind of ruler symbol is an all–embracing umbrella term for concepts of enormous
he had advertised himself to be in the Wadi Brissa inscription (v. 27). He diversity from different cultural and historical environments, concepts far
must be a true shepherd to the people entrusted to him by deity. Both too complex and diverse to submit to such generalization without
Lugalzaggesi and Hammurapi viewed themselves as making their subjects inevitable dilution. The association of the tree of Daniel 4 with this
lie down in green pastures. Nebuchadnezzar takes over this metaphor in generic concept fails to contextualize the biblical narrative. The context
the Wadi Brissa inscription. The king receives this prescription in total for the tree imagery of Daniel 4 might be sought in earlier biblical and
silence, even though it could have neutralized the foreboding evil. He is ancient Near Eastern sources. The most commonly evinced literary
speechless because he has been caught by his own words. Ironically when parallel to Daniel 4 is Ezekiel 31, where vv. 2–14 contains a strikingly
the king makes his fateful boast a year later (vv. 29–30) he is probably similar depiction of a tree, which is associated to the Egyptian pharaoh.
standing on the very cedars he bragged about hewing down in the Wadi Biblical scholarship has also previously noted the connection of Ezekiel to
Brissa inscription. What is the source of all this extraordinary information the Mesopotamian Book of Erra, dated between the 11th and the 8th century
that so vividly displays the intents of the king’s heart? This did not come BCE, with a general preference in current scholarship for a later date
from a 3rd century author living in Palestine who sought to revive within this period. In tablet I of the poem, the god Erra sets out for
interest in Babylonian lore. It came from a God who searches hearts and Babylon, one of the cities he wants to destroy, to enquire Marduk about
who knew the secret rooms in the king’s soul. He is the one who knows the tarnished state of the latter’s statue and to incite the god of Babylon to
best how to reach every one of us.” either abandon his city or to join Erra in destroying it: ‘Erra entered
Esagila, palace of heaven and earth, and stood in front of Marduk. He
So, since we have limited historical records from the latter part of made his voice heard and spoke to the king of gods, ‘Why does the finery,
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, we really do not know what kind of disruption your lordship’s adornment which is full of splendour like the stars of
might have gone on within his kingdom. Was there a rebellion? Was there heaven, grow dirty? Your crown of your lordship which made E–halanki
a famine or other natural disasters? We simply do not know. The text shine like E–temenanki—its surface is tarnished!’’ (Erra I 125–128).
seems to suggest that the kingdom itself [not just Nebuchadnezzar as an Marduk reminds Erra that his previous abandonment of his statue and of
individual] was disrupted or negatively affected. However, v. 15 indicates the city caused a catastrophic flood. His statue suffered damage and he
that the divine judgment would not be complete and irreversible. The had to summon the fire god, Gerra, to refurbish it, before he would resume
stump would be left in the ground. This is because the Aramaic iqqar his residence in it: ‘As for the finery which had been pushed aside by the
šoršôhî [for “the stump and its roots”] indicates that these two words can Flood, its surface dulled: I directed Gerra to make my features radiant,
be combined to have a singular meaning: “main root” or “taproot.” and to cleanse my robes. When he had made the finery bright, and finished
 177

the work, I put on my crown of lordship and went back to my place. My Exodus 34:13; Micah 1:7), smashing it (Ezekiel 6:6; Isaiah 21:9), burning
features were splendid, and my gaze was awesome! As for the people who it (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 23:6; Deuteronomy 7:5, 25; 1 Chronicles
were left from the Flood and saw the result of my action, should I raise my 14:12; Micah 1:7; Isaiah 37:19; 2 Kings 19:18), and scattering its ashes
weapons and destroy the remnant? I made those original craftsmen go (2 Kings 23:6; Exodus 32:20; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3). The mutilation
down to the Apsu, and I said they were not to come back up. I changed the and destruction of the resemblance and of the divine paraphernalia of
location of the mēsu–tree and of the elmešu–stone, and did not reveal it to statues was perceived as the end of their numinous character, of the
anyone. Now, concerning that deed which you have said you will do, presence of the gods within them. The tree of Daniel 4 is mutilated in
Warrior Erra, where is the mēsu–wood, the flesh of the gods, the proper similar terms. The verb qeṣǎṣ (‘cut off’) is particularly significant. It does
insignia of the King of the World, the pure timber, tall youth, who is made not only refer to mutilations of human bodies (Judges 1:6; 2 Samuel 4:12;
into a lord, whose roots reach down into the vast ocean through 100 miles 2 Kings 18:16), but also to the mutilation of cultic objects, particularly to
of water, to the base of Arallu, whose topknot above rests on the heaven of the chopping off of their golden layers (2 Kings 16:17; 18:16). In 2 Kings
Anu?’ (Erra I 140–153). Another similar depiction of the mēsu–tree is 24:13 the term defines the destruction and desecration of the vessels of the
extant in STT 199, a tablet dated to the 7th century BCE: ‘as you come out 1st Temple in 597 BCE. The chopping of the cultic objects in the Temple
in greatness from the forest; as you come out from the pure forest, wood of may reflect the destruction of the central cultic image of YHWH in the holy
the pure forest; as you come from the pure forest of mēsu–trees, wood of of holies. The biblical account seems to suggest the throne was stripped of
the pure forest of mēsu–trees; bright wood, like the spring of a stream, its gold plate already in 597 BCE, and Psalm 74:6–7 mentions the
which is born in the pure heavens, spreads out on the clean earth; your breaking of the ‘carved work’ and the burning of the sanctuary, which
branches grow up to heaven, Enki makes your root drink up pure water might also allude to this disastrous event. In 2 Chronicles 28:24, which is
from the underworld.’ The ensuing text describes the process of the built on 2 Kings 24:14, the verb qeṣǎṣ (‘cut off’) refers to a similar
making of the statue out of the enormous tree. One central feature in the destructive act. That the tree imagery of Daniel 4 has theomorphic and
descriptions of the mēsu–tree is its enormity, which is meant to iconic connotations is also suggested in the opening of the story (v. 1),
accommodate the immense size of the god. Thus, the main common which describes Nebuchadnezzar ‘flourishing in his palace’ or ‘on his
features of the tree of Ezekiel 31 and of the Mesopotamian mēsu–tree throne.’ The term ‘flourishing’ is purposefully deployed in the king’s
appear in the depiction of the tree in Daniel 4. It is enormous. Its top opening speech to signal a subtle connection with the subject of his dream
reaches the clouds of heaven. It has the most conspicuous location in the and that in the literary structure of the chapter it does achieve an effective
middle of the earth. Moreover, the sin of the tree of Daniel 4 is hubris, as double–entendre. The word commonly refers to the freshness and
is the sin of the kings in Ezekiel 28 and 31. The probability that the tree of luxuriousness of trees (Hosea 14:9; Psalm 52:10) and seems to allude in
Daniel 4 is a development of the ancient concept of the mēsu–tree is the context of Daniel 4 to the deuteronomistic reference to idolatry as
further supported by the fact that its destruction reflects mutilations and worship ‘under any green/luxurious tree’ (Deuteronomy 12:2; 1 Kings
desecrations of cultic images. Throughout the ancient Near East, 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10). The term also recalls another main feature of the
including Canaan, statues of gods were built of wood, as the very concept mēsu–tree, the wood meant to supply the statuary flesh of the gods,
of the mēsu–tree suggests (Isaiah 37:19; 2 Kings 19:18). Destructions and namely luxuriousness. The mēsu–tree is commonly portrayed as the most
mutilations of divine statues are therefore commonly depicted in terms of luxurious of all trees. Several conclusions can be safely drawn at the
‘cutting down,’ ‘chopping off,’ ‘stripping off,’ ‘burning,’ and ‘scattering.’ present stage of my research. First, Daniel 4 shares with Ezekiel 31 the
Although extant accounts of destructions of captured divine images from imagery of an enormous tree. Several common features of the trees
the ancient Near East are scarce, the process, more or less homogenous, emerge: they are both enormous, both reach the heavens with their tops,
most often entailed casting the statue to the ground (1 Samuel 5:3), cutting and both have conspicuous and prominent locations. The imagery is most
it off (Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; Isaiah 10:33; 1 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 15:13; probably an appropriation of the Mesopotamian concept of the mēsu–tree,
 178

a tree that exhibits the same characteristics: it is enormous, it feeds on The Aramaic šiḇ â iddānîn [for “seven seasons of time”] is debated
abundant underground waters, its top reaches the clouds of heaven, and it among scholars. The Aramaic iddān [for “time”] can refer to time in
has a conspicuous and prominent location among the other trees. Second, general or to a definite period of time [like a year]. In fact, Daniel will
the mēsu–tree is the iconic tree par excellence; it provides the flesh of the utilize the Aramaic iddān to describe “a time, times, and half a time”
gods, the material of their statues. The contexts of both Daniel 4 and [later in Daniel 7:25], where in that context it is undoubtedly 3.5 years.
Ezekiel 31 suggest that in both texts the enormous trees fulfil a similar Furthermore, although the LXXθ translated it as hepta kairoi [or “seven
iconic function, namely constitute iconic presences of the divine. Third, the times”], the LXXΟ instead translated it as hepta etē [or “seven years”].
image of the iconic tree occurs in both Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 31 in contexts
of concerns with legitimate channels of iconic worship. Like Ezekiel 28– Josephus [1st century Jewish historian] says: “A little while later the king
32, Daniel 2–5 constructs a complex anthropology that identifies saw in his sleep another vision, to the effect that after falling from power
humanity as the only legitimate alternative to idols. Cumulative evidence he would make his life with wild beasts and, after surviving in the desert
leads to the tentative conclusion that already in the exilic period (Ezekiel for seven years he would take power back again. After gazing at this
28 and 31) an anthropology that defined primeval humanity as the cultic dream he again summoned the magi and questioned them closely about it
statue of YHWH emerged in circles of the priestly class. The story of and demanded that they say what it might signify. But, none of the others
Daniel 4 attests to the fact that the Persian period witnessed a was able to discover the import of the dream or to make it known to the
development of these speculations about the iconic value of humanity.” king except for Daniel alone. He interpreted the dream, and just as he
himself predicted to him so it happened. For having spent the
So, since this imagery is about Nebuchadnezzar, his description as a aforementioned period in the desert, when no one dared to take over the
cosmic mēsu–tree now shifts to his description as an animal–like creature, government for the period of seven years, when he asked God permission
and even eating like an animal [vv. 15–16]. The Aramaic ăśaḇ [for to take the kingdom again he was restored to it.”
“grass”] is from the Akkadian verb ešēbu [or “to grow luxuriantly”] which
can also mean other forms of herbage [like “plants”] to indicate that the So, a certain specified period for his punishment was intended, and this
diet was not necessarily limited to mere grass. Furthermore, his mind would have been most likely measured in years. While acknowledging that
would also be changed from that of a man to that of an animal. the Aramaic iddān is sometimes used in a general sense [for “time”], it
can be used of a definite period of time [such as a “year”], and this is the
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] says: “At this point the most likely meaning, because of the dream’s context. Thus, in v. 17, this
symbolism emerges as the angelic watchman declared that the mind of the announcement/decision is by the decree of the “observers” [or “watchers”]
stump was to be changed from that of a man to that of a brute beast. The and “holy ones”; the divine council that stands before God [Genesis 1:26;
word for ‘mind’ is leḇaḇ (or ‘heart’), a term that in scripture refers to the Psalm 82:1; 1 Kings 22:18–23; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6]. In other words, God’s
inner self as the seat of moral reflection, choice of the will, and pattern members in his divine council participated in the making of this decree!
of behaviour. It includes not only the mental processes, but also the
feelings, affections, and emotions, along with all the motivational factors Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Members of the
leading to decisions and responses to life situations. The person this tree heavenly host deliver information from and about God that derive from
stump represented was to be transformed into an animal.” council decisions or direct decrees from the Most High. The point is well
illustrated in Daniel 4. The chapter records the dream of Nebuchadnezzar
Thus, since the king’s “mind” was the very source of his pride, it is in which he saw a stupendously tall tree that reached into the heavens.
ironically there that God touched him, and the length of this divine Part of the dream included a visitation from ‘a watcher, a holy one’ (vv.
punishment is to last “until seven seasons of time pass by for him.” 13, 17, 23). The watcher informed the Babylonian despot that the tree of
 179

his dream would be chopped down, leaving only its stump. The divine This affirms that God does not generally establish humble men as kings,
messenger explained that the tree and its stump were symbolized because history is full of kings who for the most part were self–centered
Nebuchadnezzar and his future fate. The tall tree was emblematic of the and prideful rulers. Instead, God’s future ruler will be the lowliest of men.
king’s greatness, while the stump pictured his destiny. God was judging His name is Jesus [Zechariah 9:9–10; Matthew 11:29; Philippians 2:8].
Nebuchadnezzar for his arrogance; he would suffer temporary insanity
and become like an animal (vv. 13–16). The wordings of vv. 17, 24 in this Jerome [4th century] concludes: “It is not only of Nebuchadnezzar, king of
regard are of special interest. Not only does the watcher deliver the the Chaldeans, but also of all impious people that the prophet says, ‘I
decree of the Most High, but we learn that members of the heavenly host beheld the impious man highly exalted and lifted up like the cedars of
(here called watchers) participated in issuing the sentence upon Lebanon’ [Psalm 37:35]. Such people are lifted up not by the greatness of
Nebuchadnezzar. The passage is clear, however, that input from the their virtues, but by their own pride; and for that reason they are cut down
members of the heavenly host did not impinge on the sovereignty of God and fall into ruin. Therefore it is good to follow the teaching of our Lord:
(vv. 25–26). Despite the participation of the holy ones in v. 17, the text ‘Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart’ [Matthew 11:29].”
affirms that the Most High is sovereign. The wording of v. 25 is clearly
singular. The phrase in v. 26 ‘heaven is sovereign’ is interesting because Finally in v. 18, we read: “This is the dream that I, King Nebuchadnezzar,
the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is saw. Belteshazzar, tell me its meaning, since none of the advisors in my
accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to kingdom can tell me its interpretation. But you are able to do so because
either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any the spirit of the holy gods is in you.”
event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and
Most High earlier in Daniel 4. The council does not act independently of Following his recounting of the dream, Nebuchadnezzar then turned to
its Head. Decisions are made and delivered to those affected when that is Daniel and told him to tell the interpretation. The main lesson of the dream
in concert with God’s will.” in v. 17, which Nebuchadnezzar himself stated, was already apparent and
needed no interpretation. However, the symbolism of the tree and the
So, not only was this heavenly decision merely to punish Nebuchadnezzar, animal–like behaviour did need interpretation. The king admitted before
but both he and many other people might learn a valuable two–part lesson. Daniel that the other wise men of the royal court were not able to declare
The reason it refers to more people than just Nebuchadnezzar is because the interpretation, and then expressed his confidence that Daniel was able
the Aramaic adjective ḥay is in the plural as ḥayyayyāʾ [or “the living”]. to do so, because he had “the spirit of the holy gods” in him. The king’s
Thus, the 1st lesson is that “the Most High is sovereign over human understanding of Daniel’s ability may have been faulty, but he at least
kingdoms and grants them to whomever he desires.” The point was clear to recognized that Daniel had a way of receiving divine help to interpret
Nebuchadnezzar: he needed to humble himself before the one who granted dreams [recall Daniel 2:26]. He recognized that Daniel was different than
him the authority to be king. The 2nd lesson is that “he places the least the other wise men, and he knew the reason was due to Daniel’s God.
important of men over them.” This is not about the most unworthy, but the
most humble! In other words, although the Aramaic šᵊpal ʾănāšîm [for “the 6) What was Daniel’s interpretation of the dream? (4:19–27)
least important of men”] is literally “the basest, worst, and despised of
men,” the Aramaic words are superlative and instead it can be translated: Starting with v. 19, we read: “Then Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar)
“the lowliest of men.” Thus, since God has a special regard for humility was greatly troubled for a while and was terrified by his thoughts. The
[Psalm 138:6], and is never impressed by those who deceive themselves king said, ‘Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream or its meaning terrify you.’
into thinking they are something [Isaiah 57:15], the Aramaic verb yᵊqîm Belteshazzar responded, ‘Your majesty, if only the dream were about your
[for “he places”] can be translated as a future tense: “he will place.” enemies and its meaning about those who oppose you!’”
 180

For a brief moment Daniel stood there, appalled at what he had heard. Was Next in vv. 20–22, we read: “The tree that you saw, which grew large and
he appalled because he did not understand the dream? To be “greatly strong until its top reached the sky and became visible to the whole earth
troubled” might infer that Daniel was confused, but this was not the case. with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit—enough food for everyone—and
The reason for his reaction of shock is clarified by the following words: under which wild animals of the field found shelter and the birds of the air
“terrified by his thoughts.” The Aramaic bᵊhal [for “terrified”] means that had nests in its branches—it’s you, your majesty! You’ve become great
Daniel was frightened by what he had heard, and understood right away and strong, your greatness has grown to the heavens, and your dominion
what the dream signified [the interpretation terrified him]. Thus, this reaches to the distant parts of the earth.”
indicates that Daniel personally cared about the king, and any misfortune
for the king was a real concern to Daniel. Furthermore, Daniel might be Now in his role as prophet rather than court adviser, Daniel identified
greatly concerned about any political repercussions that might eventuate Nebuchadnezzar as the tree of the dream using Jeremiah’s similar imagery
from this and especially for his people who were living in exile in [Jeremiah 27:5–7], because Daniel has read Jeremiah’s book [later in
Babylonia. So, Nebuchadnezzar could sense Daniel’s astonishment and Daniel 9:2]. Thus, although Daniel merely restated the main points of the
emotional reaction of fear and tried to calm Daniel [notice that the king is first part of the dream, beginning in v. 22, he gave the interpretation of
still calling Daniel by his Babylonian name “Belteshazzar”]. We can sense what the tree itself signified. He began by saying, “it’s you, your majesty.”
that the king appreciates Daniel as his faithful servant. Conversely, God had allowed Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to expand, so that
Daniel’s respect for the king was shown in two ways: figuratively it “reached the sky.” This depicts Nebuchadnezzar at the peak
of his political power, dominating the world scene. His authority, his
1. Daniel called him by the Aramaic mārᵊʾî [or “your majesty”]. dominion, the extent of his rule, reached to the ends of the earth [at least
over most of the civilized world]. At this particular time in history,
2. Daniel told the king that he wished the dream and its interpretation Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was the undisputed superpower of its day that
were for the king’s enemies. In saying this, he was giving a word controlled Mesopotamia to Cilicia, Pirindu and Lydia to the northwest, and
of comfort in a critical moment. Even though the king faced a the Levant including Palestine all the way to the border of Egypt to the
difficult future, Daniel was indicating that he stood loyally by him. west. It was God’s sovereign permission that had allowed this kingdom to
come about and for Nebuchadnezzar to be the man to rule over it all.
So, Daniel’s reaction could have been to think that this pagan king was Nevertheless, God reminded him of this so that he would realize what was
merely getting what he deserved, and to be delighted in what was about to being taken away from him, and that God was the one who controlled
happen. However, Daniel did not hastily take delight in God’s discipline human kingdoms and those who ruled over them.
that befell the king and was able to see himself in a nobler role of being a
friend and spiritual witness to the king. Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “Daniel’s wisdom is worth
admiring: he did not say simply, the big tree, but grown to great size and
Jerome [4th century] says: “Daniel silently understood that the dream was strength—in other words, instead of being great from the beginning, you
directed against the king, and he felt sorry for the man who had conferred became great gradually, and instead of having strength from the outset,
on him the greatest of honour. So, to avoid all appearance of taunting the you gradually acquired it. So, he goes further, ‘Because you have grown
king or appearing as an enemy, Daniel only told him what he understood great and strong, your greatness has increased, you reach to heaven and
of the matter after he had begged to be excused. He explained the truth your lordship to the ends of the earth.’ It was very fitting and appropriate
without insulting the king; so as to avoid appearing to charge the king for him to relate these things to heaven and earth: he said his lordship had
with sinful pride, he explains human power as in itself presumptuous.” reached the ends of the earth, that is, his authority, whereas it was not yet
his lordship that had reached to heaven, but his imaginings.”
 181

Next in vv. 23–25, we read: “Your majesty saw a holy observer takes our mind to the whole idea about a template. We are learning
descending from heaven and saying, ‘Cut down the tree and destroy it, but something about how God operates in the supernatural world with his
leave the stump in the ground, along with its roots, bound with iron and divine family, his divine bureaucracy, his divine council, and that’s going
bronze in the field grass. Let him be soaked with the dew of the sky and to help inform us about how God looks at our participation, the things he
live with the wild animals of the field until seven seasons pass over him.’ has tasked us with. So, God doesn’t need a council; he doesn’t need us
This is the meaning, your majesty, and this is the decree that the Most either. This is just how he works. We’re not dealing with idols. They are
High has issued against his majesty, the king: ‘You’ll be driven from objects in which fallen, rebellious, hostile, divine beings were thought to
people, and you’ll live among wild animals of the field. You’ll eat grass reside. God’s council is in the skies; it’s in the heavens. It’s not on earth
like cattle and be soaked with the dew of the sky while seven years pass where idols are, and idols are hostile anyway. Thus, the implication here
you by—until you realize that the Most High is sovereign over human is that we have a participatory relationship between God and the members
kingdoms and grants them to whomever he desires.’” of his family. He allows genuine participation in carrying out his will. A
sub–thought of that is the question: if God is allowing genuine
In this second phase of the interpretation, the same pattern is followed: participation, isn’t everything predestinated? No, that isn’t the case.”
Daniel restates a part of the dream [v. 23] by recalling vv. 13–14, and then
gives the interpretation [vv. 24–25]. But, notice that the Aramaic verb So, this judgment would affect especially the king, for he was to be driven
wᵊḥabbᵊlûhî [for “destroy it”] was not used earlier when Nebuchadnezzar out from human society and dwell among the wild animals [later in v. 33].
recounted the dream. Instead, it was used in regards to God’s kingdom via He would even behave like a wild animal, being fed grass, or perhaps
the Aramaic lāʾ ṯiṯḥabbal [or “never be destroyed”; recall Daniel 2:44]. herbage/vegetation [recall v. 15]. Becoming “soaked with the dew of the
Thus, by this verb in v. 23, Daniel draws a deliberate contrast between sky” probably indicates that he would spend his nights out in the fields and
God’s kingdom [which will not be destroyed] and Nebuchadnezzar’s be covered with dew by morning. He would carry on in this state for
kingdom [which can be destroyed]. Then, in v. 24, Daniel relates the “seven seasons” = 7 years [recall v. 16], until he recognized that God
interpretation of the cutting down of the tree, the metal band, the animal– exercised his authoritative rule over the human realm and had the right to
like behaviour, the seven periods of time, and clarifies that the decision to give it to whomever he wanted. Thus, this punishment was appropriate for
carry all this out came from “the Most High.” However, earlier in v. 17, it Nebuchadnezzar: he lost control of his kingdom because he lost control of
was said to be by decree/decision of the watchers/holy ones. Thus, God himself, and by acting like a beast, he was allowed to live with beasts!
issued the decree, and the divine council affirmed and announced it.
Jason Garrison [21st century biblical scholar] extensively summarizes:
Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] says: “There is no council “Because of the biblical and extra–biblical records of his life,
acting without God’s approval. This is God making a decision and the Nebuchadnezzar II has influenced later cultures on several levels. For
council participates with him to carry out what God wants to happen. This example William Blake’s famous engraving ‘Nebuchadnezzar,’ created in
raises a key question: what does God need with a council? Frankly, God the seventeenth century, provided a haunting semblance of the Babylonian
doesn’t need a council. He doesn’t need anything, but this is what he does, king in his animal–like state. More recently the infamous Iraqi Prime
and this is what he wants. I think a good parallel would be to ask, ‘Why Minister Saddam Hussein idolized Nebuchadnezzar and attended a
does God need us? Why does God need the church? Why does God need cultural festival where he was celebrated as a new Nebuchadnezzar. The
people for evangelism, the Great Commission?’ Well, the short answer is name even appears in popular media. In the motion picture series The
he doesn’t. God could just sort of flip switches on and off about who is Matrix, a kind of hovercraft called the Nebuchadnezzar provided transport
going to believe and not and call it a day, but he doesn’t do that. He has for the main characters. In this vehicle people would awake from their
humans participate with him in something he wants to get done, and this dreams and return to reality. Larry Wachowski, one of the writers and
 182

directors, revealed that the name Nebuchadnezzar related to the biblical not only because of the numerous copies found in Mesopotamia, the
account in Daniel, where the king had dreams and searched for answers. Levant, and Anatolia (Turkey), but also because other compositions in the
Interestingly each of these examples accentuates some form of tragedy. ancient world shared some of its literary features. Scribes regularly used it
Blake’s artwork memorialized the king’s bovine characteristics when he to teach reading and writing on basic and advanced levels. The ancients
was driven from society (Daniel 4). When Saddam Hussein fell from his also used it for cultic and religious purposes. Thus, the Gilgamesh Epic
position of power during America’s war with Iraq and went into hiding, had a strong literary influence in the ancient Near East. The fact that the
soldiers found him in a rudimentary hole in the earth. In the 2nd film Gilgamesh Epic was a key instrument in teaching literacy suggests that
enemies crippled and then destroyed the vehicle in The Matrix. As these Daniel knew it well. Daniel was one of the Jews taken to Babylon in the
examples suggest, the name Nebuchadnezzar represents both power and exile of 605 BC. He lived to see the arrival of the Persian Empire and died
tragedy, even more than 2,000 years after his death. In the Neo– around 535 BC. A youth of royal blood and prestige, Daniel, along with
Babylonian era the name Gilgamesh represented the power and tragedy of others, was chosen by Nebuchadnezzar to receive the training of a
another king who had reigned two millennia earlier. Though the dates of Babylonian royal scribe. The king selected the best of the captives in order
his reign are unknown, the earliest written accounts of Gilgamesh are to give them special training so that they could serve in his court—those of
probably no older than the late 3rd millennium BC. The Gilgamesh Epic the best appearance, greater capacity to learn, and especially those of
was one of the most popular cuneiform texts of the ancient Near East. The royal lineage (Daniel 1:3–4, 6). Providing special training for conquered
standard version of the epic, which existed during the reign of foreign nobility was a common practice in the ancient Near East. This
Nebuchadnezzar II, emphasized both the power and tragedy of Uruk’s gave the king distinctive insight into the royal lives and the thinking of
king. While the Old Babylonian version united the Sumerian texts, and the conquered peoples; and the scribe could serve as an envoy to his own
Middle Babylonian version saw more variation and diffusion of the texts people, thereby minimizing language barriers. Thus, 2 Kings 18
among the ancient Near East, the standard version was the final revision demonstrates the use of such men who were skilled in language.
that ultimately unified the diverse Gilgamesh materials into one Sennacherib sent his envoys with an army to Jerusalem to confront
instructive story of a man’s struggle for power, friendship, and eternal Hezekiah. In v. 17, the writer identified the envoys as the Tartan, the Rab–
life. A king of Uruk in the Sumerian region became the subject of saris, and the Rabshakeh. The best translations for these are ‘commander
numerous literary compositions. John Gardner and John Maier attributed in chief,’ ‘chief eunuch,’ and ‘chief cupbearer.’ The Rabshakeh spoke in
the different spellings of this king’s name to an uncertain reading of the fluent Hebrew and was presumably fluent in Aramaic (vv. 26–28).
cuneiform script in the 1800s. In the early phases of translation, Grayson contended that this envoy was ‘one of the highest officials in
pronunciation of his name varied, but the general consensus of modern Assyria’ and obviously spoke a number of languages fluently. He further
readers is that it is pronounced ‘Gilgamesh.’ Pronunciations included suggested that for one to know the language so well, the Rabshakeh’s
‘Bilgamesh’ and even ‘Izdubar’ and ‘Gishdubar.’ An early translation family might have been one of the Hebrew exiles taken to Assyria from
called the work ‘Nimrodepos,’ believing the hero to be the Nimrod of the Samaria. Nebuchadnezzar may have had similar training in mind for
Bible (1 Chronicles 1:10; Micah 5:6). Andrew George argued that the Daniel and his friends. Daniel learned the languages common to
phonetic distinction between Bilgamesh and Gilgamesh was legitimate— Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign, including Aramaic and the Neo–Babylonian
the former was the Sumerian pronunciation, and the latter was the dialect of Akkadian, the latter written in cuneiform. Scribes used both
Akkadian. After the fall of the Sumerian Empire the Assyrians translated languages in the Neo–Assyrian period, and during Nebuchadnezzar’s later
these Sumerian texts into the Akkadian language (still using cuneiform rule the Neo–Babylonian dialect was of regular use in various archival
characters) and eventually combined them into a single story. More legend documents. Students of these languages made copies of religious texts and
than history, the Gilgamesh Epic remained a popular composition for a other literature including the Gilgamesh Epic. The first stage of literary
millennium and proved useful in several ways. Its popularity is apparent education involved the reading of texts with which the Babylonian youths
 183

grew up, hearing them until they became familiar with basic linguistic colleagues. The literate community in Babylon likely had heard the story
principles of the language. Oral versions of the legends of Gilgameš, of Gilgamesh from childhood and later handled the written Gilgamesh
Sargon, and Nāram–Sîn were probably well known to Babylonian Epic from the beginning until the end of their literary education. Though it
children, and their early exposure to written texts about these fabled was not a formal religious text, Damrosch argued that scribes viewed
heroes of remotest antiquity in the first level of schooling sought to take Tablet 12 as an omen text, which ultimately led to Sennacherib’s founding
advantage of this. They likely heard these stories regularly; so they were of a new Assyrian capital at Nineveh. Sennacherib, the son of Sargon II,
the easiest with which to begin their education. The second stage moved the capital of Assyria from Dur–Sharrakun to Nineveh after his
introduced new portions of many more texts for the sake of sharpening father’s death—an expensive and lengthy process. At the time of Sargon’s
their literary skills and also for developing a Babylonian worldview. demise Nabû–zuqup–kēnu was serving as a scribe and interpreter of
George wrote concerning this second stage: ‘Its purpose, then, was omens, making copies of the 12th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic (the
twofold: to fill the student’s mind with the theological and political colophons bearing his name). On the tablet Enkidu revealed that the souls
ideology current in the capital and to prepare him for an apprenticeship as of the dead whose bodies have been abandoned never find rest in the
a junior āšipu, a position that we know from colophons was held by many netherworld. Since royal scribes tended to interpret omens, Nabû–zuqup–
novice scribes. As far as exposure to literature goes, the storytelling that kēnu likely referenced this tablet, the one whom he had copied just before
characterized the first phase has given way to more serious matters, the the death of the great king, interpreting it as an unfavourable omen. Since
inculcation of a world–view and the acquisition of practical expertise.’ An Sargon’s body had never been recovered, Sennacherib might have feared
āšipu was a Mesopotamian exorcist. The Gilgamesh Epic included his father’s hauntings, leading him to move the capital. This would
segments of texts that were useful for the most basic introductions to suggest that the epic was widely recognized and deeply respected in the
literary education; yet they also bore complexities that gave helpful Mesopotamian world. Clearly the literate community of Babylon would
practice to students nearing the end of their training. Though they did not have recognized imagery from the epic. Illustrative of this is in Daniel 4.
grow up in Babylon and were not as familiar with the oral traditions of the This chapter begins with a pronouncement common to Nebuchadnezzar’s
region, Daniel and the other selected Hebrew youths would probably have era, which was a greeting that followed the formula that one would expect
entered the same training program in Babylon, using the Gilgamesh Epic from the Neo–Babylonian and Persian periods. It parallels Ezra 7:12,
as a primer and becoming familiar with its message and imagery. which was written in a similar time period. Interestingly much of Daniel 4
According to the biblical account Daniel excelled in his abilities as a is written from a 1st person perspective, lapsing into the 3rd person when
scribe, interpreter of dreams, and interpreter of languages (Daniel 1:20; the king was suffering in his state of madness. Nebuchadnezzar was
2:48; 5:24–29), the kind of work expected from Babylonian scribes with probably unable to comprehend the full reality of his madness while it was
the same training. Since Daniel and his friends excelled in their work, one happening. In the middle of his reign while he was ‘at ease in his house’
might expect to find one of their names on the colophon of tablets found in (v. 4) a voice from heaven declared his judgment (v. 31). After the king
late Babylonian period. However, this would be improbable, since the came to his senses, the text switched back to the king’s perspective.
devout Hebrews would likely resist any attempt to store their work in Nebuchadnezzar had a dream that alarmed him (vv. 4–5). Of all the royal
pagan temples where the other tablets were usually kept. On the other servants who tried to interpret the dream, none could tell Nebuchadnezzar
hand William Shea has found evidence of the names Hananiah, its meaning (v. 7). Daniel arrived at last and interpreted the dream
Mishael, and Abednego in documents written during Nebuchadnezzar’s successfully (vv. 8, 19–27). After Daniel gave Nebuchadnezzar the
reign. Further, only a limited number of colophons from this period have interpretation, he appealed to him to change his ways so that he might
remained intact and readable. Nevertheless the standard use of the escape the coming judgment of God (v. 27). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
Gilgamesh Epic for Babylonian scribal education would have made the depicted a large tree that provided shade and food for all the animals that
Hebrew youths just as familiar with it as were their Babylonian took refuge under it. A cosmic tree representing kingdoms or people was a
 184

common image in the ancient Near East. An angel, or more accurately a Dynasty of Uruk, a ruler even revered as a god by some. He was a popular
‘watcher’ (vv. 13, 23), pronounced the destruction of the tree—the king in his day, immortalized through the written records. This, in fact, is
branches cut and the fruit scattered—leaving only the stump with a one of the themes of epics: immortalization through a name written in
curious metal band around it (vv. 14–15). Then the description was no stone. Gilgamesh’s desire in the first portion of the epic was to become a
longer of a tree, but of a man (vv. 15–17). When Daniel heard the famous king whose name would be established forever. His clear desire
description of the dream, he was distressed, and he revealed that the king was for lasting fame. These remarks are most notable just before his
was both the tree and the man of the dream (vv. 20–22). Divine judgment confrontation with the frightening guard of the mysterious Cedar Forest,
would lead to the removal of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and sanity until he Ḫumbaba, where he stated, ‘Him of whom they speak, I, Gilgamesh, would
acknowledged that the Most High is the true Ruler of all (v. 25). After see, at whose name the lands are ever in terror. I will conquer him in the
Daniel encouraged the king to repent and seek the favour of the Most Cedar Forest! How strong is the offspring of Uruk I will cause the land to
High, one year passed and Nebuchadnezzar saw the fulfilment of the hear! My hand I will poise and will fell the cedars, a name that endures I
dream from the time he boasted of his success while atop his palace (vv. will make for me!’ (Gilgamesh Epic, 3.4.1–7). Leaving an inscription of
29–30). Removed from power and living like an animal for some time, he one’s name and story was the best method Gilgamesh could find to achieve
confessed the authority of the Most High and regained his position (vv. a kind of immortality. It was a method validated by the editor of the
31–36). The final segment of the chapter restates the king’s confession, standard version of the epic, Sîn–leqi–unninnī, who called the reader to
which emphasized his new perspective and what the Most High would do consider the wise words written by the king (1.7–10, 26–8). Other
to those with Nebuchadnezzar’s kind of pride (v. 37). The point of the accounts of ancient Akkadian kings who followed this example include
passage is that God confronts pride. God judged Nebuchadnezzar with a Naram–Sîn, who used phrases comparable to those of Gilgamesh. Several
kind of insanity in order to teach him that God alone granted him success other kings adopted similar phraseology to describe themselves. Tigay
and that his success was not merely the result of his own efforts. called these ‘typical of those found in royal hymns and inscriptions of all
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 4 consists of images found in the first periods of Mesopotamian history,’ giving examples from writings of
five tablets of the Gilgamesh Epic. Most of the late Babylonian copies of Hammurapi, Sennacherib, Ashurnasirpal, Ashurnasirpal II, and Tukulti–
the epic found in the Babylonian region were of the first four tablets. Ninurta II. This suggests that the Gilgamesh Epic influenced the royalty
Scholars have discovered 22 sources of Tablets 1–4 and only 8 sources of of the ancient Near East and that various kings used the same
Tablets 5–12. This may suggest greater interest in the content of these first terminology in their inscriptions to compare themselves to Gilgamesh,
tablets during that era. These four tablets told of Gilgamesh’s unmatched the iconic ruler who had seen the deep and was wise in all respects (1.1–
greatness, Enkidu’s creation and civilizing, Gilgamesh’s defeat and 6). Apparently Nebuchadnezzar II was no different. Like Gilgamesh, he
befriending of Enkidu, and Gilgamesh’s voyage with Enkidu to the Cedar sought to make his own name known. Ancient writings clearly exhibit
Forest in an effort to defeat the supernatural guardian Ḫumbaba and Nebuchadnezzar’s pride over his palace, cities, and exploits. Though most
thereby establish lasting fame. Tablet 4 described the voyage to the Cedar of his writings celebrated his building accomplishments, the writings at the
Forest, and along the way Gilgamesh had a series of dreams. In the end of his life concentrate on his military victories and portray him as a
dreams, the ogre Ḫumbaba is represented by some violent and inhuman great warrior. His comments outside the bible strongly parallel Daniel 4,
force that threatens to crush the hero. Though Ḫumbaba’s image indicated including the comments about his greatness because of his building
certain defeat, Enkidu interpreted each dream to show that Gilgamesh accomplishments. Several scholars have noted parallels between Daniel 4
would be victorious. In contrast, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream did not and Nebuchadnezzar’s records of historical events. Ferguson argued for
promise victory, and Daniel, its interpreter, would not interpret it any a historical reading of Daniel 4. He drew several parallels between Daniel
other way. Yet Daniel did encourage the king to repent. The Sumerian 4 and the popular literature in the Neo–Babylonian kingdom. Ferguson
King List includes the historical Gilgamesh as the 5th king of the 1st sought to prove that Daniel 4 is not a work of fiction, but instead reveals
 185

the true emotions and personality of the historical Nebuchadnezzar. One to establish his fame, a trip to the Cedar Forest to confront and kill its
of Ferguson’s major premises was Nebuchadnezzar’s familiarity with the guardian, Ḫumbaba. Though Enkidu tried to dissuade him, Gilgamesh was
Gilgamesh Epic. The royalty, nobility, and commoners of Assyria and determined to kill the guardian and level the trees (Gilgamesh Epic 2:260–
Babylon were well acquainted with the epic. Some kings prided themselves 301). After undertaking a strenuous journey and enduring some
on their literary skills. Ashurbanipal II’s royal library, where Austin foreboding dreams of impending doom (Gilgamesh Epic 4:1–250),
Henry Layard and Hormuzd Rassam discovered the Gilgamesh Epic, Gilgamesh and Enkidu confronted Ḫumbaba and eventually had him at
contained numerous texts written by the king. Ferguson produced a their mercy (Gilgamesh Epic 5:144–155). Though Gilgamesh had second
compelling description that portrayed Nebuchadnezzar standing on his thoughts and Ḫumbaba pleaded repeatedly to be spared, the recently
roof, gazing at the city he ruled. It was a retelling of the climax in Daniel 4 civilized Enkidu continually demanded Ḫumbaba’s execution (Gilgamesh
that included vivid descriptions of the historical setting based on Epic 5:156–259). Compelled by Enkidu’s words, Gilgamesh slew the beast
archaeological finds: ‘He had forgotten that all of the bricks were made of and Ḫumbaba was finished (Gilgamesh Epic 5:258–69). Earlier versions
mud. He had also forgotten the affirmation made at his accession that all of the epic focused mainly on Gilgamesh’s voyage with Enkidu to the
he possessed came from one deity. He had not remembered that his father forest to defeat Ḫumbaba. In Gilgamesh and the Cedar Forest, Enkidu
had represented himself on a monument as the ‘son of nobody,’ helpless actually killed Ḫumbaba instead of Gilgamesh. This early version of the
without his god. He had failed to notice two streets below him called ‘Bow epic also made a vital link between Ḫumbaba and the cedar he guarded,
Down, Proud One’ and ‘May the Arrogant Not Flourish.’ He did not even so that when the tree was cut down, Ḫumbaba fell. Interestingly the same
recall that one of the names of his palace was ‘The Place Where Proud concept is seen in Daniel 4. When the tree fell, Nebuchadnezzar fell, but
Ones Are Compelled to Submit.’ Interestingly Daniel 4 describes not without some mercy from God. The stump with the band around it
Nebuchadnezzar in a similar fashion as one who exhibited great hubris made of bronze and iron is an interesting detail (Daniel 4:15, 23). Perhaps
because of his accomplishments. Nebuchadnezzar sought fame through the best explanation is that the stump was a symbol of the inevitable return
several venues. He, like Gilgamesh, had built notable structures and had of Nebuchadnezzar to power after his time of insanity. The band may have
also sought to have his name inscribed in steles and bricks. Scholars of been present to hold the base of the roots together so that the tree would
ancient literature have recognized the tree mentioned in Nebuchadnezzar’s remain alive and grow again. If this is the case, then the stump was a
dream as an important symbol in Babylonian writing. This symbol was symbol of God’s grace on the king despite his arrogance. The watchers
‘congruous’ with Nebuchadnezzar himself and his kingdom, since Babylon paid special attention to the stump to ensure its survival even after the tree
had long thought of itself as the centre of the world. In fact was cut down. Gilgamesh neglected such thoughts of mercy under
Nebuchadnezzar’s own writings upheld his self–perception as provider Enkidu’s advice. The account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 4
and protector of his kingdom: ‘The produce of the lands, the product of uses a unique term for heavenly beings. The term for these beings is
mountains, the wealth of the sea I received in her. Under her everlasting ‘watcher’ and Daniel 4 has the only occurrences of this word in the Old
shadow I gathered all men in peace. Vast heaps of grain beyond measure I Testament, which leads one to wonder why it was used only in Daniel 4.
stored up within her.’ An ancient treatise about Babylon called the city Several scholars have attempted to explain its use. Collins stated that ‘the
one that ‘ensures the life of the land.’ Also both Nebuchadnezzar and his oldest non–biblical attestations are probably those in the Enochic Book of
father Nabopolassar made several references about the summit of the Watchers dating from sometime in the 3rd century BCE.’ The word is
Etemenanki as being ‘rival or equal to the heavens.’ Mesopotamian kings also in the Qumran scrolls describing the sons of God and Nephilim of
regularly sought to cut down cedars, since they provided the best lumber. Genesis 6. These watchers were evil spirits, but other texts portray similar
Nebuchadnezzar’s compulsion to make a name for himself through his watchers who were not rebellious. Dahood and Murray suggested a very
military victories and building projects drove him to the forest for trees old root of the word in Ugaritic, which meant ‘to guard,’ but Collins
several times. After befriending Enkidu, Gilgamesh decided on a challenge called this proposal ‘inconclusive.’ However, the Akkadian word naṣāru
 186

meant ‘a night watchman.’ Its Hebrew cognate described lookouts and a wild, uncivilized man covered with hair who lived in the forest among
guards of cities (2 Kings 17:9; 18:8; Jeremiah 31:6). Since this Hebrew the animals. Eventually he became a civilized human being and befriended
cognate appears frequently in the Old Testament, Ferguson expounded on Gilgamesh. They began their adventures together until Enkidu became sick
the parallel between these night watchmen and those in the Gilgamesh and died, which led Gilgamesh on a search for immortality. Enkidu
Epic: ‘Watchers are important figures in the Gilgamesh epic. Besides the represented the primordial man of antiquity and was seen in this state as a
guardian of the cedar there are watchers of the night. There are scorpion pitiful character. Gregory Mobley identified the Enkidu character of the
people who are stationed at the gate through which Gilgamesh must pass Old Babylonian and Standard Babylonian versions of the epic as the
to find out about eternal life. The Babylonians knew of personified knight ‘oldest extant literary representative of the wild man.’ The description of
watchers who, alert and never sleeping, control destinies on the earth. Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 compares closely to Enkidu’s pre–civilized
Deities were in charge of watching the night while the great gods slept.’ state. The Enkidu of Sumerian literature was different from that of the
Thus, ‘watcher’ was a special word to describe the divine guards of later Babylonian depictions. Later versions of Enkidu arose from a need to
heaven. Here it may have represented the supernatural guardians transform the character of Enkidu from beloved servant to alter ego and
appointed similar to Ḫumbaba being appointed to watch and guard the may have been original intentions. The Enkidu of the standard version of
Cedar Forest in the Gilgamesh Epic. The Assyrian cognate naṣāru can the Gilgamesh Epic was not a servant, but a counterpart. Also new to this
mean ‘to keep somebody under guard,’ ‘to stand guard,’ ‘to be watchful,’ late version of the epic (existing during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign) was the
and ‘to keep watch for celestial phenomena.’ Furthermore, this applied to manifest hubris of the two companions. Moran has specifically noted
Enkidu as Gilgamesh’s guardian (naṣāru), and the supernatural scorpion Enkidu’s arrogance when he encouraged Gilgamesh to kill Ḫumbaba.
people who guarded the gate on Gilgamesh’s journey after Enkidu’s Though he was aiding Gilgamesh, Enkidu’s arrogance provoked the anger
death. A related word, maṣṣaru, also meant ‘guardian, watchman, watch, of the gods. Moran commented further that ‘the context of the Gilgamesh
garrison,’ and it identified Ḫumbaba as such. Thus, the great guardian of narrative certainly establishes hubris as a quality that makes divine
the Cedar Forest, Ḫumbaba, might have been a parallel to the watcher in retribution inevitable.’ After Gilgamesh and Enkidu defeated the Bull of
Daniel 4, since he too was appointed by a god to watch and guard. Heaven, Enkidu dreamed of the gods’ sentence of death for him, became
Ḫumbaba’s legacy endured into the Hellenized world. Two instances in sick, and died in a matter of days. In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar thought
the Qumran scrolls identify both Gilgamesh and Ḫumbaba as watchers he was ruling in the spirit of Gilgamesh, but he ignored the divine
who were associated with the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6. Ḫumbaba’s warnings given to him and received the pre–civilized condition of Enkidu
presence in these late texts strongly suggests that his position as a watcher as judgment. So, just as the name ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ implies both power
(as perceived in the ancient Mesopotamian and Hellenized worlds) could and tragedy in the modern world, the name ‘Gilgamesh’ represented these
explain the use of ‘watcher’ in Daniel 4. Though Ḫumbaba was a ideas during Nebuchadnezzar’s rule over the Neo–Babylonian Empire. In
guardian of the Cedar Forest appointed by the gods, the watcher in Daniel Daniel 4, the scene from the tree to the animal–like state in the dream
4 was a ‘holy one’ among the many who served the one true God (vv. 13, occurred suddenly (v. 15). There seems to be an abrupt change of subjects
17). After the watcher commanded the fall of the great tree (v. 14), the in this verse. The tree was the topic and then, without warning, someone
stump became the focus, fastened with a band of iron and bronze. The would become like an animal drenched with dew. Though some think
watcher mentioned the grass of the field and a man who would become about redaction as a possibility, another option arises from the Gilgamesh
like a wild animal (vv. 15–16). Daniel revealed that both the tree and the parallels. Perhaps Daniel 4 represented the events and some symbols of
animal were pictures of Nebuchadnezzar’s future, and that he should do Gilgamesh in a reversed order. Henze suggested a similar reversal
good and righteous deeds in order to avoid this terrible fate (v. 27). Some regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s devolution from a kingly status to an
have viewed this scene as a reference to Enkidu, the animal–like man Enkidu–like position. However, he denied that the composer of Daniel 4
created to challenge Gilgamesh’s oppression. At his creation Enkidu was intentionally used Gilgamesh imagery. Nevertheless, in Nebuchadnezzar’s
 187

dream, images from the Gilgamesh Epic appear polemically in an inverted Nebuchadnezzar’s father, a Median king receives such a warning in one of
order. Similar to the depiction of the Babylonian king in Isaiah 14, who Esarhaddon’s treaties. If he does not recognize the authority of his
expected exaltation to the very heavens, but would ultimately go to Sheol, overlord, this king will be condemned to expulsion from gods and men. He
Nebuchadnezzar expected Gilgamesh–like fame, but instead received the must roam the open country like a wild ass or gazelle (Daniel 5:21). All
identity of his pre–civilized counterpart, Enkidu. In the Gilgamesh Epic these parallels closely match the state to which Nebuchadnezzar is
the primeval beginnings of Enkidu and fearful actions of Gilgamesh as an reduced. He is driven out from humans and lives with the wild ass. He
oppressive shepherd subsided when they became friends. Then their first receives the heart of an animal. He lives in the open field and eats grass
great accomplishment came at the Cedar Forest when they killed like an ox. His fingernails become like the claws of an eagle. All this must
Ḫumbaba, the watcher and guardian (maṣṣaru). Daniel 4 reversed these take place until seven periods of time pass over him (Daniel 4:15–17, 29–
actions. The tree image, as a great and stately figure of Nebuchadnezzar’s 32; 5:21). The king in seven periods of time undergoes the reverse
rule, fell at the command of a watcher and guardian, leading not to victory process that Enkidu experiences in seven days. Tragically and ironically
and pride, but to a period of shameful judgment as the Enkidu character. he becomes like the wild oxen and the dragons he repeatedly boasted
The break in v. 15 may have represented a break in the well–known epic, about placing on the gates of Babylon. He is reduced to the lowest state to
revealing two scenes in descending order, leading to shame instead of which a man could descend in the Mesopotamian conception. He is
hubris, and showing that Nebuchadnezzar may have wanted to emulate demoted to the original state of man before he received the civilization of
Gilgamesh, but would suffer like Enkidu at the will of the one true God (v. which Nebuchadnezzar is so proud. The phrasing of Nebuchadnezzar’s
17). Yahweh reversed Nebuchadnezzar’s expectations, using imagery fate according to these parallels seems to be a sterling example of
familiar to his setting.” communication. The king was warned that he would descend from the
most exalted state of humanity to the lowest state of existence a
Paul Ferguson [21st century biblical scholar] likewise summarizes: Mesopotamian mind could conceive of. There would have been no plainer
“Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in Daniel 4 is not unique in ancient Near way to tell an educated Babylonian he would be humbled than to inform
Eastern literature. The portrayal of the king’s humiliation closely him that he was going to become like Enkidu. Schools in
parallels the Mesopotamian picture of the primordial man, Enkidu, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign were still making copies of the Gilgamesh epic.
found in the Gilgamesh epic. His whole body is covered with hair like a Since this epic was one of the most widely circulated pieces of
woman. His locks sprout like grain. He knows nothing about people or Babylonian literature, the king would likely have been familiar with it.”
land. He eats grass with the gazelles, and with the game he drinks at the
water hole. He ranges at large over the open country. When he becomes Next in v. 26, we read: “Just as it was ordered to leave the stump of the
civilized in 7 days he loses his kinship with the animals, and they run from tree in the ground along with its roots, so your kingdom will be restored to
him. One might say he loses the heart of an animal and receives a human you when you realize that Heaven rules over everything.”
heart (Daniel 4:16). Gardner and Maier see Enkidu as a representation
of the low primitive state from which civilized people sprang. The same The words “will be restored” are not actually a verb in the Aramaic text,
picture is found in a Sumerian story that relates a dispute between the but a rendition of the Aramaic adjective qayyāmâ [or “enduring”]. Thus,
cattle and grain deities. In this tale primordial humans knew not the this can be translated: “your kingdom will endure until you recognize.”
wearing of garments. They ate grass with their mouths like sheep. They The point is that his kingdom would stay intact during this time of
drank water from ditches. Berossus describes early men of Babylonia as judgment and be safe–guarded by God. Thus, this was a word of grace, for
devoid of culture and living without laws, just like wild animals (SANE, I, his kingdom would “endure” and stay intact during this time of judgment
155). A king being warned about possible reduction to an animal–like and be safe–guarded by God, allowing the possibility for him to be
state is not unique to Daniel’s book. A generation before the time of restored again to his throne and in his right mind.
 188

In fact, it would be necessary for him to recognize that it is “heaven” that penance before Marduk. Though this appears to describe Amel–Marduk,
rules, before any such restoration could take place. In other words, earlier of whom a daughter Indu, but no son, is named, it could apply to
in vv. 17, 25, the king was to recognize that it is the “Most High” who Nebuchadrezzar in a time of decline.”
rules. Now, in v. 26, Daniel substitutes “Most High” for the Aramaic
šᵊmayin [or “heaven”], referencing God ruling from his heavenly throne. Joe Sprinkle [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Although there is
Thus, who served as the official ruler while Nebuchadnezzar was no unambiguous extra–biblical corroboration of Nebuchadnezzar’s
incapacitated during these 7 years? One possibility would be that his son madness, there is a broken Babylonian cuneiform text describing events
[Amel–Marduk] ruled over the country during this period, allowing the near the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign that might refer to it. It states,
government to continue functioning. In fact, some contracts that were ‘Nebuchadnezzar pondered … his life was of no value to him. To Amel–
signed by Amel–Marduk before Nebuchadnezzar’s death could indicate a Marduk he speaks what was not … he does not heed the mention of his
period of co–regency, but Amel–Marduk nonetheless served as king after name or pronouncement … he does not have in mind any concern for son
Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562–560 b.c. [Jeremiah 52:31–32]. or daughter, for him there is no family and clan does not exist … he prays
to the lord of lords, his hands raised in supplication. He weeps bitterly to
Donald Wiseman [20th century Assyriologist] says: “It has been assumed his god.’ A. K. Grayson, who published this text, took the language as
that, since the last contract dated by Nebuchadrezzar’s 43rd regnal year mostly applying to Amel–Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar’s son and unpopular
was written at Uruk (8 October 562) and the first to be dated by his son successor whom the text mentions. Wiseman, however, argues that it
and successor Amel–Marduk was written that same day, Nebuchadrezzar more likely applies to Nebuchadnezzar. The broken nature of the text
died early in October. However, two contracts dated to the previous precludes certainty, though if it does apply to Nebuchadnezzar it may well
August–September by Amel–Marduk could reflect a period of co– be describing further symptoms of his madness.”
regency, while another dated 15/V/43 (29 August 562), but with an
unusual formula: ‘the goddess of Uruk, king of Babylon,’ if not a scribal Finally in v. 27, we read: “Therefore, your majesty, may my advice be
error, might mean that Nebuchadrezzar died somewhat earlier, and that a acceptable to you: Stop your sinning, do what’s right, and put a stop to
cautious scribe in a time of disturbance following the king's death waited your wickedness by showing kindness to the oppressed. Perhaps your
to see who his successor would be. Later tradition supposed that Amel– tranquillity will continue.”
Marduk acted as regent during his father's illness and that there was
confusion at the time of a handover to a successor. Any hiatus was of This verse is difficult to translate and interpret, and is read two other ways:
short duration, for the same contract datings show that Amel–Marduk was
acknowledged as king in all the major Babylonian cities by mid–October. 1. To: “atone for your sins by good deeds, and for your misdeeds by
He may be identified with the unnamed royal prince conducting business kindness to the poor; then you will have lasting happiness.”
affairs in 570 BC. It seems likely that Nebuchadrezzar would have acted
to continue the process of hereditary succession, and his son is listed in 2. To: “atone for your sins by almsgiving and for your iniquity by
the Uruk king list as reigning for 2 years. Berossus considered Amel– mercy to the poor.”
Marduk to have ‘managed affairs in a lawless and outrageous fashion,’
and for this he was assassinated. A fragmentary historical epic attributed Such translations could easily lead to a theology of salvation by works!
to his reign mentions a Babylonian king who gave arbitrary orders and These ideas of “atoning for sins” and “almsgiving” arise from the LXXθ
refused to listen to the words of a counsellor, whose attention was not that reads: tas hamartias sou en eleēmosunais lutrōsai [either “atone for
devoted towards promoting the welfare of Esagila and Babylon, who your sins by alms” or “redeem your sins by alms”]. But, the LXX
showed no love to son and daughter and in the end undertook an act of translators were not thinking of “atone” like 1st century Christians.
 189

Nevertheless, the Aramaic bᵊṣiḏqâ [for “do what’s right”] can include This fell short of an absolute promise, but it did suggest that this was a
almsgiving and charity. Justification for this arises from the parallelism likely outcome for the king. In fact, the Aramaic šᵊlēwâ [for “tranquillity”]
with the Aramaic bᵊmiḥan ănāyin [or “by showing kindness to the occurs only here in Daniel, but the related Aramaic adjective šᵊlēh was
oppressed”]. In other words, the Aramaic ănāyin [for “oppressed”] can used earlier in v. 4, where it was used to describe the king “resting” in his
also mean “poor,” “needy,” or “miserable.” Thus, there were many in palace prior to the dream. In regard to that flourishing and sense of
Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom that were oppressed and afflicted [and poor as security that he had previously enjoyed, God was quite willing to extend to
a result], and much of this was the fault of Nebuchadnezzar’s harsh him this blessedness in life. But, he could not continue to enjoy that while
policies and overly–ambitious building projects. Thus, Daniel calls for the oppressing his subjects and failing to uphold righteousness in the land.
king to rule over his subjects righteously and fairly [avoiding corruption What he enjoyed [power and a luxurious lifestyle] was not evil in and of
and overly harsh measures]. So, Daniel was advising the king to break itself, but how he obtained it was obnoxious to God. In the same spirit
from his sins [not to atone/redeem his sins], and this aligns with Paul, that whereby God would one day show how much he loved the world by
our salvation from sin is only by grace through faith [Ephesians 2:8–9]. giving Jesus to die on the cross for all humanity [John 3:16], even now he
showed his care and compassion for every one of those poor and oppressed
Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] beautifully concludes: members of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom. Thus, the prolonging of the
“Do you not see that when Daniel gave that excellent advice to king’s prosperity was conditioned upon breaking from his sinful ways of
Nebuchadnezzar, he did not merely consider the poor; but what? Give up oppressing his subjects. Does this mean that God’s judgment could have
your wealth not that others may be fed, but that you may escape been averted if Nebuchadnezzar listened to Daniel’s advice? Scholars are
punishment, and Christ says, ‘Go and sell what you possess, and give it to divided on this issue. Some argue that the judgment would not have been
the poor, and come follow me’ [Matthew 19:21]. Virginity and fasting and averted, but only that the time until the judgment would have been
lying on the ground are more difficult than this, but nothing is so strong delayed. Others argue that Daniel seems to have held out to the king the
and powerful to extinguish the fire of our sins as almsgiving. It is greater genuine possibility of foregoing this judgment, demonstrating God’s
than all other virtues. It places the lover of it by the side of the king, and willingness to forgive. It is hard to be dogmatic on this issue, though the
justly. Almsgiving extends to all and embraces the members of Christ, and fact that judgment does not fall immediately, since it transpired after 1
actions that extend their effects to many are far greater than those that are year [later in v. 29], this may indicate that true repentance might have
confined to one. Almsgiving is the mother of love, of that love which is averted the judgment of God. Of course, God knew exactly what
the characteristic of Christianity, which is greater than all miracles by Nebuchadnezzar would do, and he knew that judgment would indeed
which the disciples of Christ are made plain. It is the medicine of our come. Nevertheless, this question should not distract us from seeing the
sins, the cleansing of the filth of our souls, the ladder fixed to heaven; it main issue of v. 27, namely God’s compassion on the subjects of
binds together the body of Christ.” Nebuchadnezzar and his concern for righteous dealings in his kingdom.

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar, in all his zeal to build massive cities, temples, and In summary, this is a valuable lesson for all of us. Some people use
palaces, had harshly oppressed many people, using them as cheap labour positions of authority to serve their own interests, but a true leader is
and paying only meagre wages. They were oppressed and living in concerned for the needs and interests of those whom he/she represents.
poverty, while he himself enjoyed the luxuries of his palace. Daniel was What about the people around you, and especially those who might be
keenly aware of these social injustices and beckoned the king to change all under your area of responsibility? Do you know their needs, and do you
this by being merciful to his subjects. The advice that Daniel offered the take time to find out how you might be of help to them? It is not enough to
king required a great deal of courage on his part. Thus, if the king were to not oppress others. In fact, it is much more important to see that God wants
heed Daniel’s advice, “perhaps your tranquillity will continue.” us to be men and women of mercy, to really care for people.
 190

God wants us to treasure people more than projects, and human needs caring for the whole world through the fecundity of the Babylonian
more than deadlines. We are to be agents of mercy to those who are Empire. Although trees were a symbol of fertility and a common subject of
hurting in this world. We will never be able to right every wrong in the dreams, worship, and religious symbolism (Isaiah 6:13; Ezekiel 6:13;
whole world, but we can be merciful to those in our own sphere of 17:24; 31:8), and wisdom speculation (Psalm 1:3; Proverbs 3:18; 13:12;
influence. In our fast–paced world, God calls us to take notice of others 15:4), this giant tree and its meaning must be understood primarily from
and help those who are struggling. It is not easy, and there is a fierce its surrounding biblical context. The tree of Ezekiel 17:22 and God’s
temptation to excuse oneself by saying “I just don’t have time.” However, actions toward it foreshadow God’s posture toward the tree in
it is important to God, and he wants us to do the kinds of things that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Nebuchadnezzar had already adumbrated (v. 4)
uphold righteousness, and he delights to see us extending mercy, because what the subject of his dream might be, with his use of the word meaning
he is like that, and it is no wonder that he wants his people to be like that! ‘luxurious’ or ‘prosperous’. The tree’s size, ‘reaching high into the
heavens’ (v. 11), and its location are singled out for special attention,
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] says: “Daniel needed real along with its fruitfulness (v. 12). Babylon’s strategic location on the
courage to inform his royal master that his rule was marred by the sin of eastern side of the Euphrates River placed it at the hub of human
oppression and callousness toward the poor and disadvantaged among his civilization during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The tree’s height, reaching
people. Daniel’s candour might have cost him his high office or even his to the heavens, recalls the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:4, with the tower
life. But, apparently Nebuchadnezzar was so intimidated by the dream as reaching to heaven, and no doubt it also connects that tower to the
to feel that he had better do everything possible to placate the displeasure temple–tower complex in Babylon in Daniel’s day. The main building
of the Almighty. Specifically Daniel urged Nebuchadnezzar to adopt two there bore the name the foundation of heaven and earth. But, more than
new policies: (1) to re–examine his conduct in the light of the moral law just a building, what is in view is the delegated kingship of
(understanding it as binding on him as on his subjects, even though as Nebuchadnezzar that had become so extensive and extraordinary. God is
their sovereign he was immune to prosecution); (2) to show a new interested and concerned about this great kingdom. This time he will not
sensitivity to the plight of the poor in his empire, protecting them instead come down (Genesis 11:5), but will send his holy watcher angel down to
of allowing the rich to exploit and oppress them. Nothing is said about carry out his command (v. 13). Unfortunately, he sees pride and confusion
Nebuchadnezzar’s response; the chapter does not aim to enhance his glory in Babylon repeated (v. 14; Genesis 11:5–7), for it had begun to seek its
but only that of Yahweh. But, the one–year delay in the judgment on him own autonomy again, forgetting the one who gave it sovereignty (Daniel
implies he made some effort to follow Daniel’s recommendation.” 2:28–30). Likening himself to a god in his hubris, Nebuchadnezzar
asserted that he had built this city for his own honour and splendour (v.
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] likewise summarizes: 30). The connection of these words with the tower of Babel in Genesis 11
“The tree that the king saw in his dream was a fitting symbol for himself is palpable. The people built a city to magnify their name (Genesis 11:4).
and his kingdom, both of whom God had blessed in order to give order Here the king locates the power of rulership granted by heaven in
and sustenance to the social structure and peoples of the earth in that day. himself, disavowing that ‘heaven rules’ (v. 26). His building activity is
From the 2nd millennium BC, we have an impressive portrayal of a god as still evident today both in the city of Babylon and many surrounding cities
a cosmic tree that provides sustenance to all living things. That ‘all the and other areas. He built and restored many temples and ancient temple–
world was fed from this tree’ (v. 12) makes the symbolism quite clear, as tower complexes. He was pleased with the external structures he had built,
does the historical and political reality of the situation. In the Garden of but while they pleased him, they did not please God (vv. 27, 30–31;
Eden, it was trees that fed the first couple (Genesis 2:15–17). Much like Genesis 11:5–9). The cutting down of the tree is spoken of in vv. 13–14,
the whole world was fed through Pharaoh’s Egypt in Joseph’s day, and but the fact that its roots and stump are left implies that it may hopefully
just as God had brought that about (Genesis 50:19–21), so now God was become healthy again and will not die. While the horticultural purpose of
 191

the band of iron and bronze (v. 15) is not technically clear, with respect to 22), it would be a clear demonstration to the nations that God alone is the
the symbolism of the dream, it most probably represents God’s sovereign truly sovereign Most High God. (2) They would see that he gives delegated
arrangements to hold together the Babylonian government while the authority to whomever he chooses—even to a Chaldean like
king passed through his time of judgment. This judgment is described as Nebuchadnezzar, who has been humbled and made to recognize his
an event that will teach the king patience and humility. It allows for his helplessness before the Most High and that heaven rules (vv. 27, 34).
renewal and for God’s glorification (vv. 26, 34, 36). The fettering of the Daniel’s interpretation of the dream is reported in vv. 19–27. The first
stump of the tree may also involve a subtle reference to the illness that thing Daniel realized was that the dream was aimed at the king. With tact,
seized the king for this period of time. God evidently provided a he informed the king of this (Daniel 2:14). It is clear that the king showed
supportive group of persons to help keep the rulership of Nebuchadnezzar great respect toward Daniel, even urging him to give the interpretation no
intact (‘surrounded by tender grass’) until he could return. In contrast, matter what it was. So, Daniel did not shrink from telling the king the
after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, the empire went into a time of struggles for truth. By contrast, Alexander the Great had augurs and soothsayers who
the throne under his successors (561–555 BC), who faced many sometimes interpreted his dreams merely to please him, and false
difficulties. Finally, Nabonidus (555–539 BC), who had no immediate prophets in Israel had prophesied smooth words instead of any true word
family ties to the royal family in Babylon, took the throne. But, under him from God (Jeremiah 28:10–11). The tree, the king is informed, is ‘you’ (v.
(and his son, Belshazzar), serious political, religious, and military threats 22). This was both flattering and frightening at the same time. Historically,
arose. The head of gold was gone, and history moved toward a new Nebuchadnezzar was the king who made the Chaldean dynasty (625–539
world order rather quickly after Nebuchadnezzar’s 43–year reign. The BC) of the Neo–Babylonian Empire famous throughout the known world.
stump is more than the core rulership of the Babylonian Empire. It also His reign lasted from 604 to 562 BC, some 43 years. The ancient remains
represents the king himself. The original Aramaic text is shocking in its of Babylon even today, as well as in the time of the Greek historian
expression, for he is to take his place among the beasts, eating the grass of Herodotus (485–425 BC), are largely the work of this unusual king. He
the field. As the grass is drenched with dew in the early morning, so he was a statesman, a general, a politician, a religious leader, a builder, and
will be also. Strikingly, his own identity will be changed from being human a strategist of unusual ability. His popularity with later Babylonian
to that of a beast. According to Genesis, humans were made in God’s generations was well deserved. He is mentioned in nine Old Testament
‘image’ with a heart to follow his righteous and divine ways (Genesis books, over 85 times in total. Even Israel was destined by her own God to
1:26–28). Seven ‘periods of time,’ a somewhat indeterminate amount of bow before him, as God’s servant (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6). But, for all of
time, indicate that a period of time will be given for this judgment so that this, Nebuchadnezzar also fell down before Daniel, the Judean exile
God’s purposes can be accomplished—just as he finished his work of from Jerusalem, to honour him (Daniel 2:46). His life was clearly
creation in 7 days and sent Israel into exile for 70 years (7 × 10). Daniel circumscribed by the sovereign Most High God who both honoured him
suggested a remedy for the king that might save him from this terrifying and humbled him. It was foretold by Jeremiah that God would ‘put
pronouncement (v. 27), though this apparently went unheeded. The everything, even the wild animals, under his control’ (Jeremiah 27:6). The
messengers who delivered the decree to the king are angels (v. 13) who splendour and genius of Babylon was tied to this man by the Most High
are vigilant to watch over God’s people and do his bidding toward them. himself. As he was the head of gold (Daniel 2:38), so he was the great tree.
The word is often translated ‘watchers,’ signifying a group of divine The decree of the Most High through his holy messenger was fixed.
beings who diligently keep watch to see that God’s plans are properly and Nebuchadnezzar was to be judged, and the things spoken concerning him
duly carried out. The term is used of the angel Raphael and the archangels (vv. 13–16) would take place. The stump and the roots, safely bound by the
discussed in 1 Enoch 1–36. In case there were any questions concerning band of iron and bronze and carefully fed, represented his successful
what the dream was about, Daniel spelled it all out (vv. 19–27). The restoration—after he had learned the purpose of all of this (vv. 17, 26).
purpose was twofold: (1) Since the entire world could see this tree (vv. 11, Heaven rules—that is, God rules—not the Babylonian king or any other
 192

human monarch. Any human king is merely his delegated servant. This is righteousness, and had not been merciful to the poor. A king with this
the only place in the Old Testament where ‘heaven’ is a circumlocution for resume would be a candidate for instability, to say the least. His seeming
God himself, for the king was to understand that ‘heaven’ rules (Luke comfort and prosperity was shown to be false. There remains almost no
3:22; 20:4–5; John 17:1). Then v. 27 is surprising, but refreshing. Daniel, historical information about Nebuchadnezzar’s last 30 years (592–562
in his respect and concern for the king, and above all in his respect for the BC). Josephus (Antiquities 10.10.6) records information about him that
moral and ethical laws of his God, gave a strong but tactfully phrased seems to refer to a serious possibility of insanity that may have overtaken
admonition to the king. Although the dream would come true, God might the king for an unknown period of time. There is also a text that records an
honour the king with a longer reign if he were to abolish his sins and illness that befell Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, and his prayer for
show mercy to the poor and oppressed. This social charge to this mighty healing. He was healed from his illness by the help of a Jewish diviner. All
monarch recalls the thundering prophet Amos, who called for social these traditions are later than Daniel, and it is difficult to discern how
righteousness for the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the oppressed much they reflect the illness of Nebuchadnezzar in this chapter.
(Amos 4:1; 5:11–12). Daniel’s tact in presenting his admonition reflects Longman rightly observes that it is not cogent to apply the Nabonidus text
the wisdom of a wise man (Proverbs 15:1), and his mention that the king’s to Nebuchadnezzar on the basis of its content, and that, assuming a 6th
reign might be prolonged applies the principle that God gave his people: century date of Daniel’s book, the other texts were written with the
‘follow my righteous laws, and you will live long in the land I am giving events of Daniel’s book to inform them.”
you’ (Deuteronomy 32:47). This was a principle that was not just for
Israel but for all humanity and especially all human rulers to follow 7) How was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream fulfilled? (4:28–33)
(Exodus 22:21–22; Deuteronomy 24:17). At the ancient city of Ur, kings
Ur–Nammu and Shulgi had been charged to care for the widow, orphan, Starting with vv. 28–30, we read: “All of this happened to King
and poor. The great Hammurabi had been told to protect the weak and the Nebuchadnezzar. About a year later, as the king was walking on the roof
widow. The king’s peace and prosperity could have continued, but of the royal palace of Babylon, he commented to himself, ‘Isn’t Babylon
instead, within a year, a decree from heaven overtook him. There are great? I’ve built a royal palace in it by my own might and power, for the
some hints in this chapter that all was not well with Nebuchadnezzar; sake of my majesty.’”
these can reasonably be connected to his illness, which is often referred to
as zoanthropy. A fragmentary text exists that might refer to a time during This mysterious dream of Nebuchadnezzar was rightfully interpreted by
his reign when he was suffering from a mental disorder; though the Daniel. God had warned the king that he would be humbled and made to
conclusion is not assured, some scholars would apply it to understand “that Heaven rules over everything,” and that God puts men in
Nebuchadnezzar. First of all, his emotional and mental stability is open to places of ruling according to his choosing [vv. 25–26]. Now, what Daniel
question: He was terrified by the dream, which was really a nightmare (v. had foretold is exactly what came to pass [v. 28]. However, it did not
5), he pled abjectly that Daniel help him (vv. 9, 18–19), and the decree happen immediately! Instead, “a year” passed after Daniel’s interpretation
itself indicates that the king was suffering delusions of grandeur, so much of the dream before God began to act [v. 29]. Perhaps the king was
so that he thought he himself was in total control of all the kingdoms of the beginning to think that there was no danger of judgment from God or that
world (v. 17). Daniel’s kindness to the king is addressed as if to a person it had only been a silly meaningless dream. If so, he was wrong, since God
in serious trouble (v. 19), and his warning and admonition to the king is does not forget his word. Daniel had expressed that there was hope for the
instructive (v. 27). He had, by this time, completed his great building king, provided he truly repent [v. 27]. God had given the king “a year” in
campaigns, including, we assume, the famous hanging gardens of which to repent and acknowledge him as the true ruler of humanity.
Babylon. But, he had done all these things while oppressing the poor Unfortunately, the king did not avail himself of God’s grace, and the
(Amos 3:15; 4:1). The king was loaded down with sins, was not practicing opportunity passed him by [vv. 29–30].
 193

Thus, it was a moment of prideful boasting that became the occasion for Berossus [3rd century b.c. Babylonian priest] says: “He magnificently
God’s judgment. One evening he was taking a stroll on the rooftop of his decorated the temple of Bel and other temples with the spoils of war; he
royal palace and started boasting in his heart over the city he had built up also restored the originally existing city and fortified it with another one,
to be the most awe–inspiring city of the world in that day. He asked and, in order that besiegers might no longer be able to divert the course of
himself “isn’t Babylon great?” and then made three prideful claims: the river and direct it against the city, he surrounded the inner city with
three walls and the outer one with three, those of the inner city being of
1. He claimed to have built it himself as his personal “royal palace.” burnt brick and bitumen, while those of the outer city were of brick alone.
The Aramaic h ḵal malḵûṯāʾ [or “the palace of the kingship”] has After walling about the city in this remarkable way and adorning the gate–
the genitive construct, since h ḵal is a loanword from Akkadian towers as befitted their sacred character, he built, where his father’s
ekallu, and from Sumerian e–gal, which can mean either “palace” palace was, another palace adjoining it, of the height of which and its
or “temple.” Thus, from his perspective, Babylon was his dwelling magnificence in other respects it would perhaps be extravagant of me to
place. He saw the city’s purpose primarily for his personal benefit speak, except to say that in spite of its being so great and splendid it was
and luxury rather than seeing himself as a servant to his people. completed in 15 days. In this palace he erected retaining walls of stone, to
which he gave an appearance very like that of mountains, and by planting
2. He claimed to have built it by his “own might and power.” Even on them trees of all kinds, he achieved this effect, and built the so–called
though the city was really built by the sweat of thousands of his hanging garden because his wife, who had been brought up in the region
subjects [probably including slave labour and foreign captives], he of Media, had a desire for her native environment.”
viewed the city as a reflection of his mighty strength and gave
himself the credit for its accomplishment. Although Berossus is the first writer to mention “the so–called hanging
garden” of Babylon, and claims Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for
3. He saw the city’s purpose as being “for the sake of my majesty.” creating these gardens to please his queen of Median descent, scholars
This was self–centered thinking to believe that the architectural argue that this was mistakenly applied to Babylon, and instead the gardens
grandeur of the city was intended for his personal honour. This was were created by Sennacherib of Assyria in Nineveh. This is because no
not only an insult to God, but it even violated his own religious sources contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar have been discovered
beliefs, for as a worshiper of Babylon’s patron deity [Marduk], the mentioning these gardens. Thus, here is a beautiful artistic depiction of the
city was meant to be for Marduk’s honour and glory! From an Nineveh palaces by Austen Henry Layard [19th century Assyriologist].
earlier part of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar wrote [from the Wadi–
Brisa Inscription]: “from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea … which
Marduk, my lord, has entrusted to me, I have made … the city of
Babylon to be the foremost among all the countries and every
human habitation; its name I have made/elevated to the most
worthy of praise among the sacred cities. The sanctuaries of my
lords Nebo and Marduk as a wise ruler … always.”

In another inscription [from the East India House Inscription],

Nebuchadnezzar wrote: “In Babylon, my dear city, which I love,
was the palace, the house of wonder of the people, the bond of the
land, the brilliant place, the abode of majesty in Babylon.”
 194

Likewise, here is a reconstruction of Sennacherib’s garden at Nineveh: a garden at Nineveh, drawn from damaged stone panels of bas–relief,
now lost, which lined the walls of a room in the South–West Palace.

Stephanie Dalley [21st century Assyriologist] summarizes and concludes: The pillared walkway surmounted by trees is shown top right. Despite its
“The Hanging Garden was built at Nineveh, not Babylon, by Sennacherib, recognizable similarity to the Greek descriptions of the Hanging Garden,
not Nebuchadnezzar or Semiramis. At long last specific evidence has there were three main reasons why nobody pursued the possibility that it
come to light to reveal the solution to a complex question. The correct was connected directly with the World Wonder. Josephus had expressly
decipherment of a 7th century BC Assyrian inscription gives a match with claimed that Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon was the builder. Besides, there
the crucial elements in descriptions of later Greek authors. Sennacherib’s was no reason to think that Nineveh was ever known as ‘Babylon’, nor that
palace garden fulfils the criteria for a World Wonder: the whole project is Sennacherib was called ‘Nebuchadnezzar’. Nineveh was supposed to have
magnificent in conception, spectacular in engineering, and brilliant in been utterly destroyed in 612 BC; if that were the case, the palace garden
artistry, from the start at Khinnis through the aqueduct at Jerwan, into the of Sennacherib would have been abandoned and neglected long before it
citadel at Nineveh, the garden itself, and the palace with wall sculptures had a chance to enter into Greek tradition. But, the famous Hanging
showing scenes from the garden. When in 1854 Hormuzd Rassam Garden was said by Q. Curtius Rufus to have been so well built that it
excavated at Nineveh in the North Palace, he uncovered a sculpture flourished for many centuries, and since Babylon was continuously
showing a garden with ‘a bridge having three pointed arches,’ and noted, occupied into the Islamic period, scholars could take his words at face
‘this has been identified by Assyrian scholars as a representation of the value: ‘Although lapse of time gradually undermines and destroys not only
hanging gardens of Babylon.’ He thought that the Nineveh sculpture works made by the hand of man, but also those of Nature herself, this huge
showing the garden was a picture of a scene in Babylon. However, this is structure, although worked upon by the roots of so many trees and loaded
 195

with the weight of so great a forest, endures unchanged.’ For those panels. If several complete and more–or–less undamaged panels showing
reasons many people supposed the match between the Assyrian evidence the garden, both in the South–West Palace and in the North Palace, were
and the Greek descriptions showed that Sennacherib’s garden was a still visible in the time when Philo of Byzantium was writing, and if at that
forerunner to the real Hanging Garden built by Nebuchadnezzar in time the Hanging Garden was no longer tended, one might have expected
Babylon a century and a half later. However, critical arguments in some mention of the fact that it only survived in sculpture, and that one
response to this stem from the better understanding of an original Assyrian could see only ruined remains. Such a theme would have been welcome as
text. The sculptured stone panel from the palace of Ashurbanipal at a romantic topic for Greek and Latin poets, and a remarkable example of
Nineveh, now in the British Museum, displays other elements from those ekphrasis. When the Roman poet Sextus Propertius mused upon the
later descriptions. The drawing made of another panel, now known as transitory nature and deterioration of World Wonders, he did not include
Original Drawing IV 77, displays yet another extraordinary feature in the Hanging Garden. When some of the older World Wonders had been
accord with the Greek authors. With this core of evidence, other apparent superseded by younger marvels, as in the list of Gregory of Nazianz, the
difficulties can be resolved, leaving no doubt that the Assyrian king garden was still included. Suppose, on the other hand, that the garden
Sennacherib built the garden, which he himself proclaimed as a wonder survived the sack of 612 BC, that Nabopolassar was able to prevent the
for all peoples, in his capital city Nineveh. The concept of building a robbing of the screws and damage to their emplacements, that the garden
World Wonder dates from this period, and continued into the following was maintained during the Achaemenid, Seleucid, and early Parthian
rule of the great Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II. In support of the periods with intermittent renovation. The two bas–reliefs in the partially
new understanding comes some evidence for survival at Nineveh, and the ruined palaces would also have been seen by visitors. However, by the
evidence that cities other than Babylon proper could also be known as time of Alexander, people in Assyria could no longer read cuneiform, so
‘Babylon’. Above all, the whole complex of palace, garden, and watering the name of the builder passed into legend. Visitors to Nineveh could
system are self–evidently brilliant enough to qualify as a marvel, as have seen screws in operation, and the roof–top trees, still alive on the
Sennacherib himself described them. Several scenarios could be called up pillared walkway, would have remained a striking feature. In this case
to explain the survival of knowledge and interest for 11 centuries, from eye–witness accounts would have been available for Classical authors. It
around 700 BC when Sennacherib built the garden and wrote his prism remains uncertain whether the machinery that lifted water to the top of the
text, to 40 AD when Philo wrote his description. Supposing the garden was garden could have been kept in working order, or whether it was restored
wrecked completely in 612 BC, the bronze screws melted down and their under Seleucid government. If the cast bronze screws were looted in 612
emplacements smashed, one might posit that all the details of construction BC or shortly afterwards, the top terraces of the garden would have dried
and appearance became known to Alexander’s men in 331 BC by local up, leaving the colonnade with its heavy roofing carrying dead trees. Even
knowledge at Jerwan and Gaugamela, but with legends already if they were not looted, the screws might have corroded, though it is
proliferating over whether an Assyrian king, or Semiramis, or significant to note that the great bronze barrier of the 12th century BC
Nebuchadnezzar, was the builder. Later, during the Seleucid and early found at Susa is still in good condition in the Louvre. If Nabopolassar
Parthian periods when Nineveh was once again a great city and governed managed to restrain major looting—‘an abomination to Marduk’—before
by a stratēgos, the appearance of the garden was still visible on the two the vandals reached the garden, the screw might have persisted for
bas–reliefs in the two partially ruined palaces to maintain public interest centuries with minimal maintenance, until the civic pride of the first
in a vanished marvel. In this case the supposed eye–witness accounts of stratēgos put the garden once again under firm management. Was the
Classical authors are not to be taken literally. However, it is still a sturdy engineering that brought mountain water to the gardens, orchards,
problem that knowledgeable guides would have been needed to explain and fields around Nineveh still functioning, centuries after 700 BC? The
that water was raised invisibly by screws from the aqueduct to the top of Shallalat dam which probably belongs to that system was still in use as
the garden, since presumably they were not to be seen on the sculptured recently as the 20th century, and the Jerwan aqueduct is recognizably in
 196

place today. Even if the enemy in 612 BC had cut down trees and damaged their time. Not every aspect of the matter has yielded to investigation. How
installations, the essential provision of abundant water was still there for the screw was rotated is still unknown. The location of the gardens, while
the environs of the city. Depletion of income to the city through trade, and plausible, rests upon an informed guess. Speculative is the part played by
the tax evasion that inevitably accompanies a breakdown of law and order, either of Sennacherib’s two successive queens, Tashmetusharrat and
would not have stopped the water flowing even if some of the channels Naqia. How much Sennacherib himself was the genius behind the project,
were damaged or obstructed. Some temporary flooding might have whether he (and his father) inspired a genius engineer and architect, is
resulted, but such well–drained land is most unlikely to have been unlikely ever to be revealed by any kind of ancient Mesopotamian source.
degraded over more than a small part, and local labour could have made Research sometimes leads one along unexpected paths. Two
repairs as necessary. Crucial was the state of the aqueduct. If it remained serendipitous discoveries have been Milton’s use of a Greek description of
undamaged or was immediately repaired, it would have ensured that the the garden for the Garden of Eden in book IV of Paradise Lost, and
citadel could still attract elite occupation. The lower part of the garden Ezekiel’s description of Assyria, equating Assyria with the garden and its
with its supply of water by aqueduct would have remained viable, even if channels for watering, a garden so wonderful that it challenged God.
knowledge of the screws was relegated to literary sources and to folk Sennacherib’s hubris in showing himself in the company of the great
memory, available to Strabo and to Philo of Byzantium. My solution gods at Khinnis matches Ezekiel’s accusation. Another satisfying result
essentially began with the unearthing of that Assyrian sculpture at has been to show how advanced Assyrian engineering was by the time
Nineveh in 1854, long before I was born. From detailed articles already Sennacherib came to the throne. We have come a long way since 1877—23
published, the attribution of the Hanging Garden to Sennacherib at years after the discovery of the panel in Ashurbanipal’s palace—when
Nineveh has now been accepted by many scholars. Three linked but Lewis Morgan attributed to Greek and Roman civilization the invention of
individual parts to the ancient wonder have been identified. One is the ‘fire–baked brick ... the aqueduct and sewer ... the arch, the balance scale
garden itself, with its terraces and pavilions, conveniently set beside the ... and alphabetic writing.’ All of those inventions are now generally
palace, and its cunningly integrated, innovative water–raising system. accepted, mainly as a result of archaeological work, to have been common
Another is the complex network of watercourses—aqueducts, canals and in the ancient Near East before the rise of Classical Greek civilization.
sluices, tunnels and dams that brought water from the mountains to the Sennacherib can now take his rightful place alongside the great emperors
garden on the citadel. The third is the sculptured grottoes, rock carvings, of later time: Nero with his Domus Aurea, the Sun–king Louis XIV of
and springs from which waters were drawn, so far distant from their France with Versailles, Frederick the Great of Prussia with Sans Souci,
destination. That the Hanging Garden was built in Babylon by and Henry VIII with Nonsuch (‘unrivalled’), all great builders of palaces
Nebuchadnezzar the Great is a fact learned at school and can be ‘verified’ who created gardens as an integral part of their overall design. Like the
in encyclopaedias and histories of ancient times. To challenge such a other six, this Wonder really existed, and can no longer be written off as
universally accepted truth might seem the height of arrogance, revisionist a figment of the imagination, a legend without historical substance, nor
scholarship at its worst. But, Assyriology is a relatively recent discipline, was the garden at Nineveh merely a precursor of the real thing. To
and a new understanding is necessary in this instance. Of course, the old, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, belongs the credit for creating one of the
displaced facts cannot physically be removed from the encyclopaedias, but seven Wonders of the ancient world.”
even in Assyriology and ancient history, some of the facts that once
seemed secure become redundant. Compendia of knowledge serve a Thus, notice Ezekiel’s accuracy of Sennacherib’s palace garden when he
wonderful purpose in collecting together the received wisdom of one described Assyria as a cedar of Lebanon, with rivers flowing around the
generation, but like archaeological strata, they are superseded by later planting and canals sent to all the other trees of the field, with roots in
levels as time and progress move ahead, to become relics of the past, abundant water [Ezekiel 31]. Sennacherib’s creation was regarded as an
preserving the misguided certainties and unacknowledged assumptions of illustration of excess power, outdoing Eden so as to arouse God’s jealousy.
 197

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar would surely have wanted gardens no less reflection is all he sees. This theological theme of the arrogant greatness of
magnificent than those of the Assyrian kings whose kingdom he had Babylon as a place opposed to God runs throughout the bible. It starts with
finally snuffed out, so the tradition of magnificent gardens in Babylon the tower of Babel [Genesis 11:1–9], whose top, like the tree in the proud
should not be dismissed, because Babylon’s cultural might was apparent. king’s dream, was in the sky [Genesis 11:4]. This theme continues through
the prophets who see Babylon as the instrument of God’s wrath against
Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Babylon was a sinful Judah and the place of their exile [Psalm 137:1; Jeremiah 20:4–5],
rectangularly shaped city surrounded by a broad and deep water–filled but who also look forward to Babylon’s downfall under God’s judgment
moat and then by an intricate system of double walls. The first double– [Isaiah 13:19–23; 14:22–23; 47:1]. The New Testament uses Babylon as a
wall system encompassed the main city. Its inner wall was 21 feet thick metaphor for Rome that similarly opposes God [1 Peter 5:13] and as the
and reinforced with defence towers at 60–foot intervals while the outer label for the immoral capital of the beast that is destined for destruction by
wall was 11 feet in width and also had watchtowers. Later, God’s wrath in the last days [Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2–24].
Nebuchadnezzar added another defensive double–wall system (an outer
wall 25 feet thick and an inner wall 23 feet thick) east of the Euphrates Finally in vv. 31–33, we read: “As these words were being spoken by the
that ran the incredible distance of 17 miles and was wide enough at the top king, a voice came out of heaven: ‘King Nebuchadnezzar, this is declared
for chariots to pass. Herodotus claimed that the city was in the shape of a to you: ‘The kingdom has been taken from you! You’re to be driven away
square, each of its four walls being 14 miles long. He added that the huge from people. You’re to live with the wild animals of the field. You are to be
outer wall was about 85 feet wide and rose to a height of 350 feet made to eat grass like cattle, and seven years will pass you by until you
(Histories 1.178). However, most believe that Herodotus exaggerated realize that the Most High is sovereign over human kingdoms and grants
these dimensions, although he generally was reliable and accurately them to whomever he desires.’’ The decree was fulfilled against
reported about the moat, the double–wall system, and other details. The Nebuchadnezzar immediately. He was driven away from people to eat
height of the walls is not known, but the Ishtar Gate was 40 feet high, and grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with dew from the sky, until
the walls would have approximated this size. A 40–foot wall would have his hair grew like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws.”
been a formidable barrier for enemy soldiers.”
Thus, Nebuchadnezzar supposedly entered into an animalistic state. In one
In summary, the irony is that Nebuchadnezzar’s father left him a palace sense, this state was temporal, but it was also conditional, for it would not
in bad repair, so Nebuchadnezzar built a magnificent palace, complete be lifted until he recognized that God was the true ruler over humanity and
with cedar, cypress, painted stone, and other luxurious features. He walked was the one to bestow the right of ruling on whomever he wished. This
on top of the palace he envisioned and had built, and as he looked out, he discipline upon the king was temporal, lasting for only “seven years” to
saw other projects he had completed or wished to attempt: streets, walls, live and behave like an animal. Thus, interpretations of the king’s
canals, gardens, temples, and a ziggurat. He built constantly, striving to animalistic transformation have tended to fall into three categories:
make Babylon equal or superior to Assyria and other earlier empires. His
workforce included many skilled people taken as prisoners of war. Though 1. Medicalizing
treated well by the standards of the time, they were not volunteers. Instead, Some scholars medicalize the story by diagnosing the king with
they were examples of the afflicted people Daniel warned the king to treat various medical illnesses, like lycanthropy, suggesting that he was
with mercy. Then, in v. 30, he speaks damning, self–praising words with a werewolf. Edward Bouverie Pusey [19th century Anglican cleric]
constant 1st person references, and he takes complete credit for all that has is credited with popularizing it in biblical studies, being inspired by
been done, sharing none with his father, none with his workers, none with Marcellus of Side [2nd century Greek physician], who witnessed
his gods, and none with God. When he looks into his heart, his own people “who imagined themselves changed into wolves” and names
 198

later Greek writers who experienced similar phenomena. Pusey In other words, Enkidu’s story is the inverse of Nebuchadnezzar’s.
also noted that because Nebuchadnezzar’s behaviour and Instead of a civilized man arising out of nature, Nebuchadnezzar
appearance are more cow–like than wolf–like, perhaps boanthropy descends from civilization into nature.
is a better description. Likewise, Robert Dick Wilson [20th century
biblical scholar] believed the lycanthropy diagnosis as accurate, but So, despite many proposals, the vast majority of scholars continue to
loosely interpreted it to include animals other than wolves, and had uncritically employ the medicalizing language, that Nebuchadnezzar’s
difficulty accepting that the condition lasted for 7 years. Thus, animal transformation was a type of mental madness. However, this
James Alan Montgomery [20th century biblical scholar] concluded association of so–called animal madness is problematic, both for the
that Nebuchadnezzar had a mild case of clinical lycanthropy. dangers this animalizing logic poses to real people with mental disabilities,
Recently, André Lacocque [21st century biblical scholar] also and for the anthropocentric hierarchy that this logic assumes, in which
defended boanthropy/lycanthropy. humans are mentally superior to non–human animals. Instead, a more
careful reading reveals that Nebuchadnezzar’s animal transformation is not
Ernest Lucas [21st century biblical scholar] says: “What is said a descent into a medicalized condition of madness. Rather, the king is
about Nebuchadnezzar’s condition here is often related to the transformed into an animal in order to educate him! He receives an animal
psychological illness known as zoanthropy, in which people think mind so that he may know what animals ironically know: God! This is
that they have become an animal and behave accordingly. because the Old Testament is remarkably positive toward non–human
However, the change that happened to Nebuchadnezzar is animals and their intelligence, where the understanding of animals is often
sometimes compared with what is described as happening to the set as an ironic foil to a lack of understanding in humans. For example,
hero in the story of Ahikar: ‘The hair on my head had grown to my Isaiah proclaims: “the ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s
shoulders, and my beard reached my breast; and my body was feeding trough, but Israel doesn’t know, and my people don’t understand”
fouled with dust and my nails were grown like eagles.’ There are [Isaiah 1:3]. Jeremiah has a similar sentiment: “even the stork in the sky
also parallels with what is said of the wild, animal–like creature knows its seasons, and the dove, the swallow, and the crane observe the
Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh. He is described as hairy, time for migration. But my people don’t know the requirements of the
unclothed, and eating grass before he became ‘civilized’ as a Lord” [Jeremiah 8:7]. Here, animals can possess knowledge even when
human being. Therefore, the description of Nebuchadnezzar is humans do not. Likewise, Solomon recognized the intelligence of animals:
intended to present him as an exile from civilized human society.” “four things on earth are small, but they are very, very wise: Ants aren’t a
strong species, yet they prepare their food in the summer. The rock
2. Historicizing badgers aren’t a strong species either, yet they build their dens in the
Some scholars historicize the story by trying to find its real rocks. Locusts have no king, but they all swarm in ranks. Spiders can be
historical kernel, specifically by pointing to Nabonidus [not caught by the hand, yet they’re found in the palaces” [Proverbs 30:24–28].
Nebuchadnezzar] who took a leave of absence for a number of
years, laying a rough historical foundation for the king’s 7–year Even Job was asked by God: “who imparted wisdom to the ibis or gave the
animal sojourn [recorded in the Nabonidus Chronicle]. rooster understanding?” [Job 38:36], since vv. 22–35 focuses on celestial
matters [from snow and rain to the constellations], and v. 37 also speaks of
3. Contextualizing the heavens. Thus, there is a relationship between these birds and heavenly
Some scholars contextualize the story by explaining how its motifs phenomena, because these are birds known for their wisdom or ability to
are paralleled with other ancient Near Eastern literature, where the predict coming storms, and this provides a key bridge between the
most commonly argued parallel is Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic. inanimate [Job 38:4–38] and the animate [Job 38:39–40:20].
 199

August Konkel [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The mention of the supernatural even when Balaam initially did not. Again, in Jonah, when
ibis (tukhoth) and the rooster (sekwi) in v. 36 has been made clearer by the the human inhabitants of Nineveh repent, the non–human animals are
discovery of a seal at Nimrod dating from the 8th century BC. The ibis as commanded to fast and wear sackcloth with them [Jonah 3:7–8], implying
the bird of the Egyptian god Thot is well known as announcing the that animals were also participants in devotion to God. This is why Job
flooding of the Nile. Ancient Jewish and Christian tradition has associated instructs us to “ask the wild animals, and they’ll teach you; the birds of the
the rooster with the announcement of coming rain. This idea has been sky will tell you. Or ask the green plants of the earth and they’ll teach you;
confirmed by an 8th century seal from Calah that has an image of the let the fish in the sea tell you. Who among all of these doesn’t know that
rooster with the water jars of heaven. The ibis and the rooster were the Lord’s hand made them, and that the life of every living thing rests in
believed to have wisdom, for they predicted the coming of the rain. It is his control, along with the breath of every living human being? The ear
still true that the animals have a better sense for when the rain will come scrutinizes speech just as the palate tastes food.” [Job 12:7–10]
than the weather forecaster.”
Thus, Daniel 4 does not constitute an instance of animal madness or
Furthermore, the knowledge of animals does not merely occur with regard stupidity. Instead, the irony is that, due to Nebuchadnezzar’s blind
to intelligence in general. Instead, many creatures have some specific arrogance, he is forced to take on an animal’s mind and see from an
perception of God, as depicted in the nature imagery of Psalm 148: animal’s perspective in order to gain humble knowledge about God.
“Hallelujah! Praise the Lord from heaven; praise him in the highest
places. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his armies! Praise him, Hugh Ross [21st century astrophysicist] says: “Because my home is nestled
sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you heaven of against the San Gabriel Mountains, wild creatures—skunks, opossums,
heavens, and you waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of raccoons, hawks, and owls—sometimes show up in my yard, and many
the Lord, for he himself gave the command that they be created. He set more—deer, coyotes, bears, and bobcats—I see on the trails where I run. I
them in place to last forever and ever; he gave the command and will not wish I had more contact with animals. As you may have noticed, people
rescind it. Praise the Lord, you from the earth, you creatures of the sea who live in close association with animals, domesticated or wild, tend to
and all you depths, fire, hail, snow, fog, and wind storm that carry out his develop a keen awareness of how to relate to them and how to learn from
command, mountains and every hill, fruit trees and cedars, living them. That goes for farmers, ranchers, herdsmen, veterinarians, trainers,
creatures and livestock, insects and flying birds, earthly kings and all villagers, and rural folks. When Job says, ‘Ask the animals and they will
peoples, nobles and all court officials of the earth, young men and young teach you,’ these people don’t scratch their heads and wonder: How?
women alike, along with older people and children. Let them praise the Nonhuman animals speak without words. They teach us by allowing us to
name of the Lord, for his name alone is lifted up; his majesty transcends know them and interact with them. They teach by example and illustration,
earth and heaven. He has raised up a source of strength for his people, an subtly at times, but never with masks. In one sense, Job and his friends
object of praise for all of his holy ones, that is, for the people of Israel who held an advantage over many of us who now read their story. They lived
are near him. Hallelujah!” closer to the nepesh. They depended on the nepesh for their daily
sustenance. They interacted with both tame and wild nepesh, and not with
Likewise, in Joel, the animals cry out to God in their suffering [Joel 1:18, just a few species, but a large and diverse mélange. Today, most of the
20], and the prophet answers them with comfort [Joel 2:22]. This is similar world’s population lives some distance, whether geographically or
to depictions of animals crying to God for food [Psalm 104:21; Job 38:41]. otherwise, from soulish animals. Widespread urbanization has created
In fact, animal knowledge of God appears in narrative texts as well. For concrete jungles where most humans’ contact with nepesh creatures is
example, Balaam’s donkey “saw the angel of the Lord standing in the limited to highly bred domesticated dogs and cats (though some have
way” [Numbers 22:23], so the donkey has an ability to perceive the exotic pets) and a few wild animals on display in regional zoos or
 200

preserves. To Job and his peers, God’s handiwork and divine nature 11:6). As we look to the animals, we see evidence to support both these
seemed voluminously and ubiquitously evident. However, most humans beliefs. The ten nepesh described in Job 38–39 represent just a sampling
today live too far from nature to notice the evidence, to ‘ask the animals’ of the countless ways God expresses his care for humanity through the
or be taught by them. All forms of life, like glorious works of art, provide soulish animals. His love seems apparent both in the degree to which these
insights into the heart of the Artist who created them. Scenes of nature’s creatures are willing and able to serve us and bring us exquisite pleasure,
grandeur viewed through virtually any lens—human eye, camera, and also in the variety of ways they do so. The nepesh testify of God’s
microscope, and telescope—fill us with wonder. However, the response extravagant generosity to us. Because they have no capacity for sin,
that comes from observing and handling nepesh claims a category all its soulish animals can illustrate a purity of devotion we humans long for—
own, an intensely personal one. Beauty and intricacies of design may be both to receive and to give. Tamed animals show a level of trust and
resplendent in flowers and stars, but only nepesh reveal the infinite variety loyalty that makes us want to deserve their faith. When humans invest in
and mystery of behaviours made possible by soulish, relational capacities. the challenges of building such trusting, loyal relationships, God reveals a
We can learn from these creatures in two ways: by observing them in their glimpse of his perfect patience, persistence, and wisdom in building a
natural habitats and relationships, and by interacting with them directly. relationship with each of us. A person who begins to comprehend the
Even the most superficial observation of animals in the wild reveals some power and love of God revealed in the soulish creatures has already taken
insight into God’s character and values. Each soulish species in its own the first crucial step toward accepting God’s offer of relationship. The
unique way nurtures its young and trains them for independent adult life, nepesh show us that whatever ‘wildness’ in us separates us from God, God
whether this process takes a few weeks, as in the case of shrews, or many is powerful enough, patient enough, wise enough, and caring enough to
years, as with elephants and whales. Each is endowed with a specific overcome it. Human ‘wildness’ shows up in our innate tendency to go our
advantage over other species in acquiring its nutritional and other own way, doing what we want or what we deem best rather than what God
survival needs. The cheetah runs faster over short distances; the lemur shows us to be right and good. Soulish animals can help us recognize the
climbs with ease to reach seeds and nuts; the giraffe’s long neck and limits of our ‘taming’ ability, limits that should engender a measure of
tongue allow it to pluck leaves from thorny branches ~20 feet off the humility. Perhaps we humans are not so great and powerful as we often
ground; and the owl’s night vision enables it to hunt under cover of believe ourselves to be. God reminded Job and his friends that no human
darkness. Each has its own reproductive cycles and rituals, and those that can tame either pride or speech. God alone has the power to tame them.
live in herds or social groups possess innate means of establishing order Only God can ‘look at all who are proud and humble them’ (Job 40:12).
and protecting the entire community. Each species also possesses some James in the New Testament said, ‘No human being can tame the tongue.
specific defence mechanism(s) to protect itself from natural predators. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison’ (James 3:8). When we humans
Whether the variety of camouflage patterns, from spots to stripes and from attempt to humble others, we tend to do harm in the process. We humiliate
subtle colours to bold, or the diversity of shapes and sizes, from tiny, in ways that either tear down and destroy a person or propel a person in
flexible frames to massive, sturdy ones—the list of variations seems almost self–defence toward greater expressions of pride or self–exaltation. Only
endless, and each seems fixed at optimal levels to ensure a species’ God has the capacity to cause the precise internal and external
adaptability and longevity apart from human interference. When humans circumstances that will bring a person to appropriate humility. Only God
begin to interact with these creatures, even more wonders come to light. possesses the love and wisdom necessary to deal with human pride in a
Almost immediately we realize how such animals respond to reward. The consistently constructive manner. The same problem crops up in our
more we learn about the rewards they value and enjoy, the closer our efforts to say the right thing. Job’s book makes that point with abundant
relationships with them can grow. From scripture we learn that God clarity. If Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad came to Job for the right reason, to
expects us to see him as our rewarder. Our faith is built on the belief that offer comfort and support, their words accomplished the opposite effect.
God exists and ‘that he rewards those who earnestly seek him’ (Hebrews They accused Job of secret sin and wickedness. They exalted their own
 201

virtue and wisdom over his. They deepened and prolonged Job’s suffering. convention. Monogamy contributes to the productive and peaceable
Where a lack of control does obvious damage, over–control harms people division of labour that makes a high–technology global civilization
more subtly. By clamping down on our own or others’ words, we may fail function at its best. Behind each of God’s moral laws we find practical,
to express or to hear what needs to be communicated. Feelings that need beneficial reasons for obeying. Birds and mammals provide a host of life
to be expressed turn inward, and problems requiring attention get ignored. lessons, by demonstration, to those who take the time to study. The great
The only person ever to speak with perfect timing and words was Jesus horned owl, for example, sacrifices its comfort and ease to ensure that
of Nazareth. He spoke hard words and tender words, whatever the when its hatchlings emerge, it will be able to supply them with adequate
relationship and circumstances called for. He spoke directly as needed food to survive. Canada geese show care for the weak and injured. If one
and in stories as needed, perfectly attuned to his hearers’ hearts and is hurt, another, usually its partner, will protect it from predatory attacks
utterly without guile. No orator the world has ever seen can compare. and provide nourishment until healing is sufficient to continue their
Sadly, we humans have difficulty accepting our powerlessness and utter journey. The river otter provides remarkable lessons for parents and
dependency on God in these areas. Meanwhile, even the proudest animals teachers alike. Because young otters initially fear water, the parent makes
will trust and depend upon us once we have proven ourselves trustworthy. a game of scampering through the woods with the little ones on its back.
Beyond showing us how we’ve run amok, nepesh also offer us valuable Once the offspring get used to this game, the adult begins to slip briefly
lessons in how to live, lessons about serving and delighting each other, into the water. After the little otters grow familiar with the water rides, the
and serving and delighting the One who cares for us and created us in his adult occasionally submerges and lets its young briefly experience
image. Thus, developing a rewarding relationship with a soulish animal, floating. In this step–by–step, fun–filled way, the young otters learn to
one in which the creature comes to us rather than cowers or flees, requires swim. Of the many lessons humanity can learn from soulish creatures, two
sensitivity to that animal’s needs and consistent effort to meet those needs. stand out above the rest. First, we see that sin gets in the way of
In other words, it requires building trust. The same element plays a crucial relationship success. Just as sin diminishes our capacity to fully benefit
role in successful relationships among humans, and so we do not miss this from our relationships with the nepesh, that same sin damages our ability
point, God provides a striking illustration among birds. In a 2010 study of to relate to God. Second, in their example of relating to us, we see in the
267 bird species, four British zoologists discovered a strong correlation nepesh our own capacity for something more, something higher, and
between trust, as exhibited in monogamous relationships, and socially something beyond our own limits. That ‘something’ is not a thing at all,
beneficial cooperation. Although the majority of bird species are thought but a Being, in some way like ourselves, but perfectly good. As much as
to be monogamous, mating behaviour as well as levels of collaboration nepesh appear designed and motivated to respond to us humans and bond
differed greatly among the studied species, from one extreme to the other. with us, likewise we humans appear designed and motivated to respond to
However, a significant pattern emerged. The higher the degree of mating God. In our pride, however, we handle that motivation in strange ways.
fidelity within a species, the greater the efficiency and complexity of We may attempt to tame ourselves through a set of disciplines or rituals to
cooperative behaviour. Conversely, the higher the level of mating make us worthy of God’s care. Or, having seen or experienced examples of
promiscuity, the lower the collaboration level. The zoologists concluded that empty effort, we may decide living by our own wits brings more
that division of labour demands a high degree of trust among the momentary excitement and pleasure than living to serve and please God
community’s individuals, and mating behaviour helps establish that trust. ever could—at least not now. If we allow them, the nepesh can help us
The team made one further observation that deserves mention. The species recognize the folly of attempting to make our own way into God’s good
with higher levels of fidelity and collaboration also displayed higher graces or of finding a temporary substitute for relationship with him.
survival rates and greater quality of life for individuals within the group. Soulish animals shine a spotlight on humanity’s capacity for both
If we look to the birds for instruction, as Job says, we find that God’s plan greatness and wretchedness, a most humbling view if we fully take it in.”
for marriage represents more than some arbitrary moral rule or
 202

Thus, keeping in mind this positive strand of biblical thought on animals, Thus, the king who thinks himself sovereign must learn that only
the king’s transformation includes changes of three types: God is truly in charge. An understanding of the divine is precisely
what the king lacks, and it is only by seeing through animal eyes
1. Social that he will acquire knowledge of God. Thus, living as an animal
Nebuchadnezzar experiences a social relocation, finding a new will teach him to recognize the sovereignty of God, and such
home among “the animals of the field” [v. 12]. Daniel repeats this animality provides access to this divine knowledge. At the end of
prediction as he interprets the dream, adding that he will “be driven Nebuchadnezzar’s time living as an animal, he proclaims, “I lifted
from people” [v. 25]. Later, when the dream is fulfilled, a heavenly my eyes to heaven and my sanity returned to me” [later in v. 34].
voice reinforces this exclusion from other humans using the same Some scholars argue that the Aramaic manda [for “sanity”] is
wording [vv. 31–33]. The reason for this social exclusion is to understood to mean “knowledge,” implying that this is information
make him “realize that the Most High is sovereign over human that he regains. However, other scholars argue that it is about his
kingdoms and grants them to whomever he desires” [v. 25]. faculty of mind/wits/senses. In other words, the 1st person pronoun
here is about a personal rationality. It was his human mind that was
2. Physiological replaced by an animal mind, but he did not lack rationality during
Nebuchadnezzar experiences a physiological change at a general his time as an animal. Instead, he had an animal rationality. Thus,
level, “his hair grew like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ his specific human mind was restored to him, and his time spent in
claws” [v. 33]. Likewise, the king’s diet shifts away from typical animality has served its purpose. In other words, his human mind
human omnivorous practice to “eat grass like cattle” [v. 33]. was taken, and he received an animal mind in order to learn, and as
he looked to heaven, demonstrating that he had in fact learned, his
3. Psychological human mind returned. At no point was he succumbed to madness.
Nebuchadnezzar experiences a psychological change, as he Rather, his animal experience provided him with an understanding
recounts his dream, he tells of hearing the watcher demand: “Let of God he otherwise would not have known!
his mind be changed from that of a man, and let him be given the
mind of an animal” [v. 16]. This verse is almost universally read as In summary, many scholars writing from within a Western cultural
a descent into madness, as a complete loss of rationality. What is context has long associated mental disability with animality, and given the
clear in this verse is that Nebuchadnezzar’s loss of his human mind frequently violent treatment of non–human animals, this association places
does not mean that he is left with no mind at all. Instead, this is a people with mental disabilities in precarious or even dangerous situations.
substitution, not elimination. This is a replacement of one mind for Thus, those without mental disabilities should take care to avoid
another rather than simply a removal of Nebuchadnezzar’s human problematic assumptions that reproduce this dehumanizing rhetoric.
mind. Thus, the animalization here is educative rather than
disparaging. The animal mind he is given is of utmost importance, Sunaura Taylor [21st century disability and animal rights scholar] says:
as it will provide him with a different perspective to correct his “It’s important to point out that when scholars argue that disability is
arrogant human mind. So, Daniel reveals to Nebuchadnezzar the central to structuring categories of difference, they are not arguing that
purpose behind his animal transformation: it is to educate him. He disability trumps such markers of difference as race, gender, or class, but
will remain in an animal state up to the point that he gains the rather that disability is mutually constitutive of various forms of
appropriate knowledge of the divine: “until you realize that the difference. In other words, ideologies of race, class, sexuality, and gender
Most High is sovereign over human kingdoms and grants them to form meanings of disability, just as disability forms meanings about
whomever he desires” [v. 25]. them. These categories have developed alongside one another, shaping,
 203

impacting, and sometimes merging with each other. Disability studies between human and animal. Systems of species classification have relied
scholar Ellen Samuels makes this point well in her discussion of 19th heavily on hierarchies that have placed humans above animals, and these
century anthropologists. She writes, ‘Physicians and anthropologists of the hierarchies have always been entangled with constructions of human
time did not in fact distinguish between characteristics ascribed to race difference. My point here is not only to expose the importance of the figure
and those ascribed to physical and mental ability as we do today.’ She of the animal to histories of categorization and dehumanization, it is also
explains that anthropologists of the day were not analogizing differences to make clear that the animal, and, consequently, the human, are
so much as actually ‘merging them into a flexible category of mental complicated categories, socially determined rather than solely
immaturity and incapacity.’ Samuels’ statement is a powerful reminder biologically. Although such historical analysis is too complex to do justice
that categories that may seem distinct today have at times been to here, it’s important to emphasize that histories of dehumanization
inseparable from each other. Though often overlooked, the category of invariably exposed Western understandings, assumptions, and bigotry;
animal is also crucial to understanding this history and the frameworks understandings that were bound up with racism, ableism, and prejudice
that define us. Who is human versus non–human may seem clear–cut and toward animals (as can be seen in J.P. Lesley’s work). In these constructs
uncomplicated today, but as we know all too well, at different points in animals—a huge, unwieldy category that encompasses creatures as
time various human populations have been identified as bestial, more diverse as mosquitoes, jellyfish, dogs, and orcas—are understood to be
animal than human, or as missing links of evolution—classifications that unquestionably inferior creatures. In this anthropocentric view the world
were inextricably entangled with definitions of inferiority, savagery, exists for ‘man’ with animals existing completely separate from and lesser
sexuality, dependency, ability/disability, physical and mental difference, than this pinnacle of creation. With such histories of animalization and
and so forth. Samuels’ statement is actually in reference to the racist pathologization in mind, it’s no surprise that many people would wish to
anthropology that consigned Native Americans to the status of distance themselves from both disability and animality. As much as I
evolutionary throwbacks, examples of a less advanced stage in human recognize the drive and sometimes even the need for such distancing, I
development. Such assessments operated in tandem with claims that want to challenge such impulses. As disability studies scholar Michelle
intellectually disabled people were examples of a prior stage in human Jarman writes, ‘The very real need to challenge fallacious biological
evolution. Such dehumanization and animalization of race and disability attributes linked to race, gender, sexuality and poverty—such as physical
can be seen in the work of 19th century geologist J.P. Lesley, who argued anomaly, psychological instability, or intellectual inferiority—has often
human evolution was demonstrated not only by the discovery of so–called left stigma around disability unchallenged.’ In many ways a similar thing
primitive or apelike populations (the non–Europeans), but by examining could be said of animality: that there has been an urgent need among
the ‘idiots’ and ‘cretins’ of all societies. Individuals scattered all over the dehumanized populations (including disabled people) to challenge
world, through all the human races, with low foreheads, small brains, long animalization and claim humanity. As urgent and understandable as these
arms, thin legs, projecting, tusk–like teeth, suppressed noses, and other challenges are, it is important to ask how we can reconcile the brutal
marks of arrested development; to say nothing of millions of idiots and reality of human animalization with the concurrent need to challenge the
cretins produced by the same arrest in every generation of mankind, devaluing of animals and even acknowledge our own animality.”
sustain the argument. The century prior, the 1700s, had seen the
development of Linnaean taxonomy, the system of classification of Thus, if the lives and well–being of non–human animals truly matter, then
different species that would lay the groundwork for the scientific any dehumanizing perspective founded upon viewing animals pejoratively
classification system we still use today. This system helped position should lose its rhetorical force. As a result, there is much to be gained from
humans within nature, but it was also embedded in and representative of re–examining how we see non–human animals, and the bible can help us
racialized and gendered debates over the categorization of humans, using with such a re–examination, specifically when Daniel 4 coheres well with
assumptions about human difference to help name the boundaries recent discoveries in non–human animal cognition and behaviour.
 204

Jared Beverly [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “The so–called Furthermore, since explanations of this imagery as a mental illness are
‘madness’ of King Nebuchadnezzar is anything but. This medicalizing unlikely [as well as the unsatisfactory explanation that this imagery
characterization associates mental disability with animality, and conveys a subhuman status], the Achaemenid–era iconographic motif of
considering the ways Western societies often treats animals, this the Heroic Encounter provides vital data from Daniel’s historical context,
association is a dangerous one. Instead, the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s especially if Daniel’s book was written in the 6th century b.c. Thus, there
animal transformation relies on one of the Old Testament’s various are three approaches to interpreting the biblical texts with iconography:
perspectives, the particular one in which non–human animals are
intelligent and have knowledge of the divine. By becoming an animal, 1. The Iconographic–Artistic Approach
Nebuchadnezzar can tap into this knowledge and repair his human This is concerned with interpreting images in their artistic contexts.
arrogance. Perhaps these ancient texts can pose a challenge to us today in Each ancient Near Eastern artistic motif can convey different
our own relations with non–humans.” meanings depending on the contexts in which it is found. This
approach puts an emphasis on the context of an image and its
Thus, this context crucially dovetails into the Achaemenid–era visual multiple interpretations based on its geographic and historical
image of the Heroic Encounter. In other words, this visual motif of setting. In employing this approach for biblical studies, the scholar
Nebuchadnezzar being “driven away from people to eat grass like cattle” begins with ancient Near Eastern images, first describing them
and that “his body was drenched with dew from the sky, until his hair grew chronologically, then linking them to biblical texts based on
like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws” instead depicts a similarities. This brings up the question of influence: how does one
heroic figure controlling or engaging in combat with a variety of animals know whether an Early Bronze image or motif from Egypt was
[including hybrid creatures], and in light of this visual motif from the known by the biblical authors? Here the general principle of
immediate socio–historical context, this image of an animalistic proximity should be considered: the more an image is
Nebuchadnezzar is resistant to aspects of Achaemenid imperial ideology, geographically and historically proximate to Israel, the greater its
that the true hero is ultimately God rather than any Persian king or deity! likelihood of influence. The scholar also cannot avoid discussions
of dating biblical texts, giving preference to images from a similar
era. However, this cannot be applied in a strict way when
considering geographic and historical proximity. In other words,
iconographic approaches must consider that cultural affinity can
sometimes be detected between separated groups, and we should
not exclude the possibility that Israel may have had more cultural
influence from Egypt than Ugarit during some periods [which
would be reflected both in art as well as in the biblical text]. For
example, in Amos 1:2, the Hebrew verb shaʾag [for “roars”] was
typically associated with lions, and here it is applied to God. But, a
modern reader may conclude [based on modern notions of lions]
that God is brave or courageous. However, on studying images of
lions in their ancient Near Eastern context, the ancient hearer
would have judged that God is dangerous and terrifying. Thus, the
iconographic–artistic approach can uncover indigenous categories
of meaning for biblical images or metaphors.
 205

2. The Iconographic–Historical Approach Margaret Cool Root [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] confirms:
This employs iconography for the reconstruction of ancient Near “The last 20 years have witnessed great scholarly advancement of our
Eastern history and cultural phenomena. This approach is valuable knowledge about Achaemenid Persian art in the dynastic heartland of
for those who want to understand the religion of Israel in their southwest Iran. The impact of this art upon the cultures under imperial
ancient context [from 1800 b.c. to 450 b.c.] using iconography. control is, however, largely an undeveloped topic. One overview of the
material evidence provides an indispensible step in the right direction.
3. The Iconographic–Biblical Approach Specifically regarding the impact of Persian rule in Israel, major efforts
This employs iconography for interpreting the bible’s literary now enable us to begin an evaluation of the penetration of Achaemenid
imagery and figurative language. This approach begins with a art. Analytical studies are moving in the direction of seeing far greater
biblical text, metaphor, theme, or word–image, and discusses Persian artistic impact in the provincial regions than was once thought,
iconographic contributions to its interpretation. These contributions and some scholars are making significant advances in correlating
begin with the archaeological record of Israel, and expand to occurrences of strong artistic influence from Persia with specific historical
similar imagery in the wider ancient Near East. events and political climates within the 200–year span of the empire. As
we are told in the book of Esther, decrees of the Persian king were sent out
Joel LeMon [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] summarizes: far and wide, translated into the languages of specific localities. We learn
“Ancient art, or iconography, is an important resource for scholars the same from Darius’ own words at Behistun. The discovery that an
exploring the cultural milieu from which the bible emerged. Indeed, many Aramaic version of the Behistun text from Elephantine in Egypt
scholars consider the images from the ancient world at least as valuable incorporates segments drawn from Darius’ tomb text as well enhances our
for understanding the historical background of the bible as ancient textual appreciation of the availability of material originally created in the
sources. Methods for appropriating such iconographic material within heartland. Now we know that the Behistun relief of Darius was copied
biblical studies have been developing gradually, with the most important for Babylon along with the text. Official Persian art was designed for
advances coming since the 1970s. Today, while scholars generally affirm widespread dissemination and message conveyance, just as the official
the increased attention paid to iconography, there remains a degree of decrees were. From the imperial coinage emblazoned with imagery of the
uncertainty about the best methods for interpreting biblical texts in light king–as–archer to the grandiose metaphorical displays on the
of ancient art. The impulse to use ancient art to illuminate biblical texts is architectural facades of Persepolis, the overarching message is one of a
not new. Beginning in the 19th century, with the rise of the great world under control. The pervasive image of kingship stresses dynastic
archaeological collections in Paris, London, Turin, and Berlin, art from identity rather than personal idiosyncracy. The pervasive image of
the ancient world captivated scholars and laypeople alike. Generally, imperial domain and social hierarchy stresses cooperative—even joyous—
these interpreters assumed that this ancient pictorial material provided service and the virtues of blamelessness.”
illustrations of the bible or other ancient Near Eastern literature, similar
to the ways in which ‘biblical art’ illustrates characters and stories from Thus, bringing this motif of the Heroic Encounter into v. 33 reveals how
the bible. The subjects in both biblical art and ancient iconography were Daniel’s image of an animalistic Nebuchadnezzar utilizes aspects of
thought to be based on texts; or art refers straightforwardly to literature.” Achaemenid imperial iconography, where for the king to become like an
animalistic creature is to become like those the hero typically controls. In
So, recent scholarship adopting these approaches have finally other words, the animalistic imagery in v. 33 conveys Nebuchadnezzar’s
demonstrated how biblical texts from the Persian period [including subordination to God [the true hero]. So, although Nebuchadnezzar
portions of Isaiah, Zechariah, Nehemiah, and Chronicles] either utilized or remains a human during the ordeal, he is nevertheless described with
evoked Achaemenid imperial iconography and art. bovine and avian features, which amounts to a hybrid animalistic creature.
 206

In fact, the mentioning of animals earlier in the passage provides a vital So, when Daniel deploys animalistic imagery again at the point where
clue to deciphering the significance of v. 33. Notice that in God’s control of Nebuchadnezzar appears most tangible, it aligns closely
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the cosmic tree, the “animals of the field with the usage of such imagery earlier in the passage. This means an image
found shade under it, the birds of the sky lived in its branches, and every of an animalistic Nebuchadnezzar conveys his subordination to God, and
creature was fed from it” [v. 12]. The text mentions these animals when is a clear portrayal of God’s sovereignty over all human rulers! In fact, the
the tree is cut down. The living creatures of the field and the birds flee as king echoes this point as he concludes: “no one can hold back his power or
they no longer have safety in the tree [v. 14]. Daniel does not interpret the say to him, ‘what did you do?’” [later in v. 35]. This is because the king
thinly veiled symbolism of these animals, but their significance becomes describes his encounter with God as a hybrid animalistic creature to
clear when he identifies the tree as the king’s mighty and expansive communicate the inescapable power of God’s hand! Furthermore, because
empire: the animals are people and nations subordinate to and dominated of this, the king explains what his experience has taught him about God:
by the king. Thus, the image of a hybrid animalistic king combines “for everything he does is true, his ways are just, and he is able to humble
elements of such naturally occurring animals to form a liminal being. those who walk in pride” [later in v. 37]. As Nebuchadnezzar accounts for
When Nebuchadnezzar himself eats grass like a bull and his hair and nails his time as an animalistic creature, he describes it as one in which he has
appear like birds [v. 33], the passage indicates a point of reference for become cognizant of the extent of God’s control of him and his own
deciphering such imagery. In other words, the text utilizes the term “bird” subordination to God. Thus, appearing and acting like a hybrid animalistic
to describe some of the animals taking refuge in the tree [v. 12], and creature constitutes Nebuchadnezzar’s experiential learning encounter in
Nebuchadnezzar himself [v. 33]. which he becomes aware of the sovereignty of God and of his own
subordination to God. This fits directly into the Heroic Encounter motif in
Choon–Leong Seow [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] says: various forms of Achaemenid–era iconography, because this contains
“Befitting a dream, the sequence defies logic. One moment the subject is a critical evidence from the immediate socio–historical context for
tree (v. 15), but the next moment it is a fettered animal (v. 15), and then it understanding Daniel’s image of a hybrid animalistic king. Scholars
is a human being with the mind of an animal (v. 16). Yet, as in a fantastic describe the first variant of this visual motif as the “control encounter,”
dream, portentous coherence prevails despite the rapid shifting of which depicts a heroic figure dominating two hybrid creatures to his body.
images. The tree that used to provide shade and food for animals of the For example, on this 503/502 b.c. cylinder seal from the Persepolis
field is now no longer able to provide. Instead, it has become a needy Fortification Tablet archive, the hero is depicted as grasping the horns of
animal of the field, pitifully tethered and utterly dependent on others for its two winged–bull creatures, but without any weapons against the creatures.
welfare. Significantly, provision comes not from any earthly source, but
from heaven. Whereas animals had previously found shade under the tree
that seemed at first blush to be a cosmic one, this animal is now amazingly
drenched—the Aramaic means, literally, ‘dipped’—in dew from heaven.
The similarity of the Aramaic words for ‘dew’ (ṭl) and ‘shade’ (ṭll)
ironically underscores the difference in the scenarios in a way that
makes sense only in dreams and fantasies. The tree that had been at the
center of the earth and that provided for animals of the earth is now a
tethered animal that receives its provisions from heaven (v. 15).”

Thus, in the immediate textual context, animals signify political beings,

specifically subordinated peoples in an imperial hierarchy of domination.
 207

However, the second variant of this visual motif is described as the Also, in addition to featuring prominently in monumental imagery, this
“combat encounter,” where the hero stabs a hybrid creature with a motif exists on numerous seals and coinage, which were highly mobile,
weapon. For example, on this 500 b.c. cylinder seal, in addition to and of the 312 seals from Persepolis that feature this Heroic Encounter,
grasping the hybrid creature by its horn, the hero attacks with a weapon. 111 are the “combat encounter” variant. As with monumental examples,
below are seals from Persepolis that depict the hero engaging diverse
creatures in combat, whether it is a lion [top] or a hybrid creature [bottom]
incorporating other diverse animal elements [like wings or a human head].

This motif also occurs in

doorways at Persepolis, where
the hero engages with a hybrid
animalistic creature containing
elements of a bull [horns], a lion
[body, mane, and forelegs], and
a bird [wings, rear legs, feet, and
talons that touch the hero’s
shin]. There are other instances
where the hero contends with
naturally occurring animals [like
bulls and lions], and this
represents notions of triumphant
defence within the practical
world of empire maintenance,
graphically depicting the hero as
violently stabbing when fighting
or subduing the hybrid animal.
 208

Other mobile iconographic forms power. It is possible, furthermore, that there were cultural taboos in the
like stamp seals and coins from Iranian tradition of kingship that inhibited explicit depictions of the king in
the southern Levant [and some of any position of potential vulnerability. It may even be that ideologies of
the bullae from the Samaria Papyri kingship actually inhibited the direct intervention of the Persian king in
found at Wadi Daliyeh], show that dangerous battle situations—not because the king was cowardly, but
this motif was important to the because the king was in a sense a sacred entity that could not be put at
central portions of the Persian risk. This may help explain the importance of rendering the monumental
Empire and is attested within hero figures with ambiguous identity: kingly but not precisely the king and
provinces like Yehud and able to be contemplated as a flexible entity with which every person of
Samaria. Thus, this theme of Persian identification could associate himself. It is important to consider
heroic combat was understood as a that the capacity of an individual to identify with the Persianness of the
powerful visual metaphor for ‘Persian Man’ may not have been limited to those of Persian blood lineage
Achaemenid kingship and Persian in this imperial context. Herein may lie a key to the extraordinary
imperial ideology in Samaria. prevalence of the hero motif in the Achaemenid glyptic repertoire. The
calculated ambiguity of the imagery at the highest levels of monumental
So, what is the hero’s identity? What is the significance of the motif? art may reflect a deliberately exploited mechanism of social incorporation
Some scholars suggest that the hero in monumental iconography should be in an arena where many metaphors for social harmony and cooperative
equated with the Persian king, but other scholars argue that the hero does enterprise were systematically deployed. The very fact of the ancientness
not correspond to the Persian king in a simplistic one–to–one fashion, of the heroic vision in one form or another in western Asia guaranteed its
because the heroes often lack royal features. receptivity, its capacity to capture the imaginations of diverse
constituencies. The opportunity offered by the Achaemenid ideology of
Mark Garrison [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] further explains: the ‘Persian Man’ for broad ownership of the hero role further
“The monumental sculptures do not depict the hero as a king in guaranteed the appeal of the imagery.”
ceremonial regalia, nor do they depict a figure dressed for active battle (in
the Iranian riding habit). The hero in the monumental representations An example of the hero as the visual equivalent of the literary motif of the
never wears a crown, nor does he wear the smooth royal shoes that are a “Persian man” comes from the tomb inscription of Darius I [522–486 b.c.]
consistent feature in explicit sculptural representations of the king in at Naqš–i Rustam: “If now you should think: ‘How many are the countries
ceremonial guise, and although the hero wears a Persian court robe which King Darius held?’ look at the sculptures of those who bear the
(rather than battle garb that might hint at a direct metaphorical link throne, then shall you know, then shall it become known to you: the spear
between heroic combatant and brave warrior), he does bare well–muscled of the Persian man has gone forth far; then shall it become known to you:
arms in a flash of non–hieratic charisma that departs dramatically from the Persian man has delivered battle far indeed from Persia.”
the static visions of explicit kingship monumentally portrayed elsewhere.
Margaret Cool Root has postulated that the heroic combatant of the So, connecting the hero with the literary motif of the Persian man, the hero
official sculptural program represents the specific ideological construct of amounts to a generic figure symbolizing the collective force of Persian
a ‘Persian Man,’ as articulated in several monumental inscriptions power and that the generic quality of the hero provided many people [not
alluding metaphorically to the far–flung military power of the Achaemenid just the king and not just the Persians] with an opportunity to identify with
Empire. In this case, the hero of Achaemenid monumental art could be the hero and the empire, a flexibility that would also account for its
read as a generic figure symbolizing the collective force of Persian ubiquity in the mobile iconographic forms [such as cylinder seals].
 209

Although the control variant lacks the violence of the combat variant, the Persepolis. In other words, out of the 201 images depicting heroic control,
control variant occurs more frequently in the seals from Persepolis [where 22 depict the hero as a hybrid human–animal, and out of the 111 images
201 out of 312 seals utilize the control variant], while also reflecting depicting heroic combat, 14 depict the hero as a hybrid human–animal.
considerable diversity in terms of the type of animalistic creature that the
hero controls. For example, the hero controls naturally occurring animals,
such as a lion/bull, but in other cylinder seals the hero controls an
assortment of hybrid creatures that combine various features [such as a
winged lion/bull with a human head]. Thus, just as in the combat motif,
hybrid creatures are typically what the hero controls.

Mark Garrison [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] continues:

Curiously, while the hero is typically a human figure, there are a few “Themes of heroic control poses the same questions of identity of the hero
instances in which the hero also appears as a hybrid human creature! There (and the beings with which he engages). The control encounter refers to
are 36 instances of a hybrid hero out of the 312 cylinder seals from balanced compositions in which a hero deals with two animals or
 210

creatures; the combat encounter refers to compositions in which a hero’s Thus, notice that the central component of this visual imagery is that
attention is directed toward the stabbing or threatening of one animal or hybrid creatures are typically subordinate to a more powerful being. So,
creature. Generally speaking, the control encounter suggests a hieratic this shows that v. 33 appears simultaneously rooted in and resistant to
equilibrium—a balancing of forces—that is really quite different from Achaemenid imperial ideology attested in the Heroic Encounter motif
the combat encounter, with its suggestion of aggression either held at while pursuing its own agenda of portraying God as sovereign over all.
bay or actively thwarted through the imminent or realized smiting of the This is seen in the fact that the iconographic record provides various
hero’s antagonist. One recent attempt to understand encoded religious examples that depict a hero contending with a hybrid creature composed of
symbolism in the motif of heroic encounter has suggested that the hero elements of the same animals that v. 33 uses to describe Nebuchadnezzar
figure in these images represents the god Bal. This theory has been subject [human, ox/bull, and birds]. Furthermore, the hybrid creatures have
to critique for possibly pressing the limited evidence too far. Yet such combined bovid and avian elements [due to the hair and distinctive feet
interpretive forays, as well as the learned responses they provoke, alert us with talons] which appear similar to Nebuchadnezzar, and the congruence
to important possibilities in this multi–cultural context. The same could be between v. 33 and various instances of the Heroic Encounter motif also
said for Root’s discussion of the possible relation of some Achaemenid extends to the ideological ends to which each utilizes such imagery. In
images of heroic control of wild beasts to the notion of the ‘blameless other words, in the visual syntax and lexicon of the Heroic Encounter
one,’ emphasized as a personal value in Darius’s eloquent tomb motif, the more powerful hero dominates/controls the hybrid creatures. In
inscription at Naqsh–i Rustam nearby Persepolis and reiterated in the this case, animalistic imagery suggests being defeated/controlled, a point
biblical story of Daniel in the Lion’s Den. As the biblical tradition that holds true for both the control variant and the combat variant, even as
transmits it, Daniel’s blamelessness, rectitude, and right–minded attitude each has unique implications for exploring socio–political realities of
toward the Achaemenid king was demonstrated by his miraculous capacity domination and subordination in an Achaemenid imperial landscape. Thus,
to pacify wild beasts. The numinous equilibrium Daniel achieved with the this sort of ideological use of animalistic imagery aligns with the textual
beasts, as described in the biblical passage, is suggestive of the aura of polemics used in Daniel 4, that if Nebuchadnezzar became like a hybrid
many Achaemenid seals of heroic control, where the grasp of the hero is creature, then he became like something dominated/controlled.
more dance–like, more charmed than aggressive. In a similar vein, Nevertheless, even though v. 33 appears rooted in some of the specific
Yahweh’s reference to his interactions with a variety of beasts in the book conventions of the Heroic Encounter motif, there are some important
of Job has been seen as an affirmation that the image of heroic control, or differences that help illumine the significance of Daniel’s imagery. So,
mastery, of beasts had acquired a particular spiritual overlay among Jews. while Daniel 4 shows violent imagery against Nebuchadnezzar, where the
A group of Achaemenid–period seals combining a heroic encounter with a tree is cut down and has its branches lopped off [v. 14], which might
scene of Neo–Babylonian–type worship before an altar presents appear to evoke the combat variant, by the time the text depicts the king as
interesting analytical possibilities that deserve further study in an attempt a hybrid animalistic creature, such violence has dissipated. Notice that God
to fathom possible syncretistic meanings embedded in the motif.” does not hold a weapon to threaten or kill the king. Instead, Daniel
emphasizes God’s dominance over Nebuchadnezzar, rather than killing
Thus, both motifs of the Heroic Encounter depict the hero as dominant, him, which resonates with the control variant of the Heroic Encounter
whether in an explicit act of violence against a creature [as in the combat motif. However, notice that God does not reach out his hand to hold the
motif], or through the hero’s ability to hold the creatures in place [as in the king in place. Instead, God’s decree, delivered through his divine council,
control motif]. Whether to create, defend, or maintain the balance of the and interpreted by Daniel, is equivalent to the hero reaching out his hand
empire, the Heroic Encounter was a visual image of the power of the to control a creature [like the animalistic Nebuchadnezzar]. Thus, the real
Achaemenid Empire. They were significant visual depictions of the hero, from the perspective of Daniel, has such power that controlling a
mastering of chaos and the ordering of the world. mighty king like Nebuchadnezzar need not even require extending a hand!
 211

In other words, that the real hero is God, rather than a Persian man like the to generation. All who live on the earth are nothing compared to him. He
king or his god, v. 33 is deliberately resistant to the very ideology of the does what he wishes with the heavenly armies and with those who live on
Heroic Encounter motif that it simultaneously evokes! Thus, Daniel earth. No one can hold back his power or say to him, ‘What did you do?’
creates a hierarchical ruling structure wherein Nebuchadnezzar’s At that moment I recovered my sanity, and my honour and majesty
sovereignty depends on what God permits in his greater sovereignty. returned to me, for the sake of my kingdom. My advisors and officials
sought me out, my throne was restored, and even more greatness than I
Brian Charles DiPalma [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Scholars had before was added to me.”
have often pointed to instances of biblical texts utilizing or being
influenced by the literary genres or motifs of neighbouring cultures. In her Beginning with v. 34, the account is expressed in the 1st person. Despite
recent commentary on Daniel, Newsom points to precisely this reality to the humiliation he endured and the so–called deranged mind he
explain the complex negotiations at work in the stories: ‘the colonized experienced, Nebuchadnezzar still retained a measure of sanity: “I lifted
often make use of intellectual and literary forms developed by the my eyes to heaven.” The emphasis is not upon the direction of his glance
dominant culture but do not simply appropriate them.’ Thus, the but upon the change of heart by the king. This would imply that he humbly
colonized in Daniel 4 engage not just the literary forms of the dominant sought God, and in light of the stipulations in v. 32, he did indeed
culture, but their visual material as well, a point that iconographic acknowledge God as ruler over human governments and the one who
biblical scholarship continues to advance. Whether the Persian period decides on those who are to rule on earth. Thus, because of this, he says:
will prove unique in relation to other periods of ancient Israelite and “my sanity returned to me.” Consequently, the king’s praise for God is
Judean history (in the extent to which biblical texts from this time period recorded in vv. 34–35. Notice that the text does not merely say he thanked
allude or respond to imperial art) remains to be seen. Indeed, Root’s God. His response is much deeper than that. It tells us that he extolled,
proposal of a connection between the story of Daniel surviving the lion’s praised, and glorified him. These speak of a transformed and redeemed
den (Daniel 6) and the control version of the Heroic Encounter motif heart. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar himself became a true believer in the same
merits reconsideration, though that story emphasizes God’s protection of God as Daniel and will one day stand with Daniel in God’s kingdom that
Daniel rather than Daniel’s ability to protect himself by holding the lions will be given to Jesus. When Nebuchadnezzar said, “his sovereignty is
at bay. By showing how Daniel 4:33 utilizes hybrid animalistic imagery eternal, and his kingdom continues from generation to generation,” he was
attested in the Heroic Encounter motif and the ideological symbolism confessing how temporal his own kingdom was in light of God’s eternal
associated with such imagery in ways that simultaneously resonate with rule. He no longer saw himself as the one having “might and power” who
and challenge Achaemenid imperial ideology, recent scholarship adds acted “for the sake of my majesty” [v. 30]. Rather, he and all inhabitants of
another example of that phenomenon, clarifies the significance of Daniel’s the earth were as nothing in comparison to God [Isaiah 40:17], because
image of an animalistic Nebuchadnezzar, and demonstrates the God is absolutely sovereign. This is true “with the heavenly armies and
methodological fruits of turning to visual imagery from the ancient with those who live on earth.” Furthermore, Nebuchadnezzar confessed
world in seeking to understand biblical literature.” that no one could “hold back his power” or even had the right to question
God in what he does. In a Babylonian document from ~1200 b.c. called
8) What happened when Nebuchadnezzar was restored? (4:34–37) Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi [or “I will praise the Lord of Wisdom” = Marduk], there
is an opening line reminiscent of v. 35: “whose hands the heavens cannot
Starting with vv. 34–36, we read: “When that period of time was over, I, hold back.” Scholars note the remarkable similarities the document has
Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven and my sanity returned to me. I with Daniel 4, suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar [who would have likely
blessed the Most High, praising and honouring the one who lives forever: known about such hymns to his god] might have borrowed from its literary
For his sovereignty is eternal, and his kingdom continues from generation pattern to communicate to his people what he had learned from God.
 212

Paul Ferguson [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Daniel 4 purports to be down ‘Bow Down, Proud One’ saying ‘He who has done wrong let him
the actual words of Nebuchadnezzar except for vv. 28–33. It begins with a learn from me’ (IV.9–10; III.n–p). Like Nebuchadnezzar in v. 2, he wanted
hymn of praise (vv. 1–3) and closes with a hymn of praise (vv. 34–37). Its to make known to all people what his god had done for him. As a well–
opening style is that of an epistle. It is conceded even by critics that the informed worshiper of Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar would have known about
introduction is compatible with that of Neo–Babylonian and later epistles. various hymns written to his god. It is not unthinkable that he might have
Many have found it incredible that the king would issue such a document. borrowed an old, time–honoured pattern to communicate to his
Montgomery says that ‘as an edict the document is historically absurd; it countrymen the testimony of his lesson in divine sovereignty. In one of
has no similar parallels in the history of imperial edicts.’ While it is true his inscriptions he describes himself as causing ‘to exist in the mouths of
that there are no ‘edicts’ like Daniel 4, it is also true that the chapter does men the fear of the great gods.’”
not claim to be an edict. It is, however, incorrect to say that Daniel 4 has
no matching genre in Babylonian literature. There is a Babylonian Thus, in regard to his kingly glory, his majesty and splendour returned to
document called Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi (‘I will praise the Lord of Wisdom’). him [v. 36]. Furthermore, his ministers and nobles began seeking him out
This document shows a good deal of similarity to Daniel 4. The piece had again. During the 7 years that the king was incapacitated, most officials
a broad distribution in the ancient Near East judging from the fact that 25 obviously did not meet with the king to discuss state matters. Now that his
copies and fragments of it have survived. It dates from about 1200 BC. sanity was restored, he could once again meet with them and discuss
Lambert has even found an instance where it is quoted in a Neo– official affairs, and Nebuchadnezzar closes by pointing out that: “even
Babylonian royal inscription. It is often referred to as the ‘Babylonian more greatness than I had before was added to me.” This is reminiscent of
Job.’ Oppenheim and Lambert do not see this work as the same genre as Job’s experience [Job 42:12]. This also teaches us something very
Job but rather as a psalm. The text is a ‘monologue of a well read and important about the grace and the goodness of God. He is incredibly
poetic Babylonian in a high position.’ Lambert conjectures that he may enthusiastic about bestowing grace. Yes, he may discipline us and take us
have been a feudal lord ruling a city. Like Daniel 4 it opens and closes through fiery trials that he deems necessary, but in the end he longs to
with a doxology and confession of the deity’s sovereignty to show mercy or shower us with tokens of his goodness [Psalm 34:8]. Even
judgment. It also contains affirmations of his god’s universal kingship Nebuchadnezzar discovered this truth about God. Although we do not
(I.1–40; IV.33–45). An opening line—‘whose hands the heavens cannot know at what point in his reign these events happened, it is worth pointing
hold back’ (I.9, 11, 27–32)—is reminiscent of v. 35: ‘He does according to out that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years [605–562 b.c.]. He must
his will in the host of heaven; no one can ward off his hand.’ As in Daniel have had quite a few years left after his humbling in order for there to have
4, the speaker announces his intention to provide people with instruction been enough time to have experienced “even more greatness.”
in worship and to present his situation as a public example of his god’s
ability to punish and restore (I.39–40; IV.27–46). The person’s situation is Finally in v. 37, we read: “In conclusion, I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt,
associated with a terrifying dream, as in v. 5. The author repeatedly and give glory to the King of heaven: For everything he does is true, his
stresses that four classes of dream interpreters and omen experts could not ways are just, and he is able to humble those who walk in pride.”
help him (II.7–10, 106–110; cf. vv. 6–7). This unfortunate individual, like
Nebuchadnezzar, used to walk like a proud man constantly prattling. He This last verse is a touching finale to the difficult lesson that the king had
was put out of his house and had to wander outside like a recluse and an to learn. In saying that he praised, exalted, and glorified “the King of
ox. He lost his position of authority and was replaced by someone else heaven,” Nebuchadnezzar made clear that he had learned who the true
(I.50–104; II.21). He was like one who had gone crazy. He was fettered. king was: Yahweh. Furthermore, he confessed that he had learned the
His fingernails grew out. As in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, the same god main lesson: “he is able to humble those who walk in pride.” Daniel does
who struck him down now raised him up. After his restoration he proceeds not simply teach that pride is wrong, but that God humbles the proud.
 213

Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Daniel’s himself in light of the God whom he encountered. He found that God ‘lives
admonition and warning went unheeded. Within a year, disastrous things forever’ and rules forever over an eternal kingdom (vv. 36–37). His own
happened to the Babylonian king. He had built the famous Ishtar Gate, his immortality and the fleeting nature of his rulership and own kingdom
royal palaces, the hanging gardens, and much more, and he was still became a reality to him, for they had been taken from him in a moment of
prospering when he laid claim to it all as a work of his ‘own mighty time, at the height of his arrogance. Although all the peoples of the earth
power,’ and he arrogantly suggested that the city had been built by him to had depended upon the king and his kingdom, they were of little
display his own ‘majestic splendor’ (v. 30). The builders of the tower of significance before the Most High God. The dependence of the nations
Babel, Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar are infamous Old Testament upon the king did not make him a god, nor give him the right to oppress
examples of ‘pride goes before a fall.’ In all cases God judged these the poor, to live in sin, and to pursue iniquity. He learned that the Most
humans and their divine–like claims at the peak of their splendour. In High controls not only those on earth (v. 35), but the angels of heaven as
Nebuchadnezzar’s case, God sent down a watcher who carefully observed well, who do his bidding, serving as his messengers (vv. 13, 17, 23). He
his actions and attitudes and announced God’s rejection of him and his had preferred not to listen to Daniel’s sage advice and admonition,
claims (vv. 13, 23, 31; cf. Genesis 11:1–9). Pharaoh Hophra (589–570 insisting upon his own way (vv. 27–30) and refusing to believe that the
BC) nearly matched Nebuchadnezzar in his arrogant boasting (Ezekiel Most High would or could stop his rulership, even though he was sinning.
29:3, 8–10), declaring that ‘the Nile River is mine; I made it for myself.’ Not only the destructive and disciplinary aspects of God’s prophetic
Accordingly, both rulers fell. Hophra was given over to Babylon (Jeremiah message were fulfilled, but God’s intention to bring back the king and
44:29–30). Then vv. 31–33 reiterate what has already been given (vv. 13– restore his honour and glory and kingdom was duly fulfilled (v. 36). God’s
16, 24–26), where v. 33 adds the ghastly description of the hideous desired effect was reached; Nebuchadnezzar learned that God is in
judgment to which Nebuchadnezzar was subjected. The heart and mind (v. charge. In the end, the king confessed that God’s acts are ‘just and true’
16) of an animal was accompanied by appropriate physical manifestations (v. 37). God could ‘bring low’ those who live in pride: the king was given
of animal physiognomy. This treatment of the head of gold in Daniel 2–3 the mind of an animal, and made to eat grass like the oxen. Human pride
may signal what is coming in Daniel 7 and the true vicious nature of this has no place, even among great kings, before the King of heaven.”
empire. For there, the kingdom of Babylon is represented by a beast,
namely, a lion. But, here the king is given the mind of a beast, and there Summing Up …
the beast is given a human mind (Daniel 7:4) and made to stand up on Nebuchadnezzar praised God for his works [recall Daniel 2:47–48; 3:26–
two legs like a human being. In both descriptions, aquiline features are a 29], but vv. 1–3 demonstrates that now he knows those previous signs and
part of the symbolism. Is the human mind given to the beast (in Daniel 7:4) wonders did not exhaust God’s power. Now he confesses God’s
an indication that Nebuchadnezzar regained his sanity and lived out his everlasting and enduring nature and authority to all the people he rules.
reign as a humble human, ruling over his kingdom with human These verses reveal that something startling has happened to
sensibilities, as v. 37 would seem to indicate? The paean of praise and Nebuchadnezzar. This change comes because he learns what pride does to
confession closing the chapter (vv. 34–37) matches the first three verses of humans. Pride twists the mind, the heart, and the body. It drives
this chapter (vv. 1–3), forming an inclusio. The exact amount of time Nebuchadnezzar to see only his personal dreams and visions, and none of
indicated by ‘seven periods of time’ (vv. 16, 25) is not made more specific the afflicted persons around him. Pride flows from the worst mistake of all,
even at the end of the story, but it is ironic that the king who sent Israel which is putting one’s self in God’s place. Kings are not the only ones to
into exile for 7 × 10 years = 70 years was made to experience his own commit this error. It is a common human failing. So, it is no wonder that
exile from humanity of ‘seven periods’ of time until he was purified from God warns Nebuchadnezzar and every reader about the need to know who
his pride. During this time and after gaining his sanity, the king realized rules the world and assigns duties in every walk of life.
some things about the Most High. He undoubtedly learned much about
 214

Jesus said, “blessed are those who are humble” [Matthew 5:5]; “if anyone
wants to come with me, he must deny himself, pick up his cross every day,
and follow me continually” [Luke 9:23]; and “whoever doesn’t receive the
kingdom of God as a little child will never get into it at all” [Luke 18:17].

So, Nebuchadnezzar learns because God chastens the proud, whoever they
are. God rules monarchs, no less than exiles, wise men, and labourers.
Every character in Daniel’s book lives under God’s scrutiny and care. This
fact transcends racial, national, and financial boundaries. No inhabitant of
the earth can correct or coerce God [v. 35]. Like Nebuchadnezzar, all
persons are dependent on the “Most High” [v. 34]. Confessing this fact of
reality is foundational to biblical faith, and foundational to peace of mind.
God disciplines through supernatural means via beings called “watchers”
who view the earth and act with full authority from God and aid humans
[vv. 13, 17]. Thus, Daniel runs counter to materialistic worldviews and
policies. This passage also shows God’s merciful intentions in disciplining
people. God’s work with Nebuchadnezzar is not merely educative, but also
transformative. It is good for him to learn that he is not God, though it is
terrible that it took such drastic measures for him to learn this basic truth.
Thus, suffering has a kindly role here [John 11:4], and enables the king to
appreciate how frail he is. Having learnt his lesson, he is restored to health
and to his throne. It is impossible to know if he acted like a changed man,
just as it is impossible to know how anyone will react to such a second
chance. Thus, Daniel invites discussion about conversion and worship in
every land, and Nebuchadnezzar finally comes to faith in God [vv. 34–37],
but his beliefs about God are a long step in the right direction. He holds
him as the highest God, the one to whom everyone must answer, and the
only one who can save from a furnace. People who confess these truths
may soon see that if God does all these things, then there is nothing for
other gods to do! Then they may find it easier to hold that God is unique
among the gods [Deuteronomy 6:4–9; 32:39]. Likewise, since we see
witnesses like Daniel who love people they could hate, we may understand
that true discipleship flows from God’s love, and love of one’s neighbour.
 215
3
BELSHAZZAR’S FALL As ordered, they brought in the gold vessels that had been taken from
the sanctuary of God’s Temple in Jerusalem, and the king, his officials, his
Daniel 5 wives, and mistresses drank from them. 4As they drank the wine, they
praised gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.
Opening Thought
1) What are some of the most outrageous, most public challenges to the
The Handwriting on the Wall
reality and holiness of God that you have witnessed in recent years? Is this 5
At that moment, humanlike fingers of a hand appeared near the lamp
kind of anti–God sentiment and behaviour increasing and becoming more stand of the royal palace and wrote on the plaster of the wall. 6While the
brazen, or has sacrilegious activity always been this extreme? king watched the back of the hand as it was writing, his facial expression
changed. Utterly terrified, his legs collapsed and his knees began knocking
Background of the Passage together. 7The king cried out to bring in enchanters, Chaldeans, and
Judah, because of her stubborn sinfulness, had been taken into captivity by astrologers. He announced to the advisors of Babylon, “Whoever can read
the Babylonians [Daniel 1]. Although this turn of events [an evil nation this writing and tell me its meaning will be clothed in purple, have a gold
being used as an instrument of judgment against the wayward people of chain placed around his neck, and will become the third highest ruler in the
God] was troubling and confusing to many Israelites [see Habakkuk], it kingdom.” 8Then all the king’s advisors came in, but they were unable to
only demonstrated God’s sovereignty. Psalm 46:10 declares, “Be in awe read the writing or tell the king what it meant. 9So King Belshazzar
and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations. I will be became even more frightened, and his facial expression showed it. His
exalted throughout the earth.” Thus, in the perfect and unstoppable plan of officials also were thrown into confusion. 10Hearing the voices of the king
God, the day of reckoning eventually arrived for godless Babylon too. and his officials, the queen entered the banquet hall. “Your majesty, live
Now, in Daniel 5, we shall see the debauchery and demise of the empire forever,” the queen said. “Don’t be frightened by your thoughts or allow
under Belshazzar. Just as had happened with Egypt during the time of your facial expression to show it. 11There’s a man in your kingdom in
Moses, God brought low an arrogant man and a proud nation, and in the whom dwells the spirit of the holy gods. During your grandfather’s reign,
process he brought glory to himself through a quiet but powerful servant. he was found to have insight, intelligence, and wisdom, like that of the
The end of Daniel 5 witnesses the appearance of the Medo–Persians on the gods. Your grandfather, King Nebuchadnezzar—your kingly
stage of world history. At that time, Daniel, a model of humility and predecessor—appointed him to be chief administrator over the magicians,
faithfulness during an already lengthy career was in a vital position that enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, 12because he was found to have an
would have an international impact. extraordinary spirit, knowledge, and understanding, along with an ability
to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve difficult problems. His name
Bible Passage is Daniel, whom the king renamed Belteshazzar. Call for Daniel, and he
Read Daniel 5 will reveal the meaning of the writing.”

Belshazzar’s Feast Daniel Interprets the Handwriting

13
1
King Belshazzar put on a great festival for a thousand of his officials. Then Daniel was brought before the king. The king spoke up and told
He joined all one thousand of them in getting drunk. 2Under the influence Daniel, “So you are Daniel, one of the Judean exiles whom my grandfather
of wine, Belshazzar ordered that the gold and silver vessels his grandfather the king brought from Judah! 14I’ve heard about you, that a spirit of the
Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the Temple in Jerusalem be brought in so gods is in you and that you have insight, discernment, and extraordinary
the king, his officials, his wives, and his mistresses could drink from them. wisdom. 15Take note that the advisors and enchanters were brought before
me to read the writing and explain its meaning, but were unable to do so.
 216
16
However, I’ve heard that you can provide meaning and Understanding the Text
interpretation, and that you can solve difficult problems. If you are able to 2) What insolent actions did Belshazzar do during his feast? (5:1–4)
read the writing and report its meaning, you will be clothed in purple, have
a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will become the third First, a preliminary overview is required to fully appreciate the context of
highest ruler in the kingdom.” 17At this, Daniel answered, speaking Daniel 5. Since the first major section [Daniel 2–7] emphasizes the Gentile
directly to the king, “Let your gifts and rewards be given to someone else. nations under which Israel was being disciplined [and how God exercised
However, I’ll read the writing for the king and tell him its meaning. 18Your his sovereignty over them], this consists of two halves that are arranged in
majesty, the Most High God gave your grandfather Nebuchadnezzar a concentric structure [Daniel 2–4 and Daniel 5–7], and consequently
sovereignty, as well as greatness, glory, and splendour. 19And because of Daniel 4 is parallel to Daniel 5. In other words, Daniel 4 records the divine
the greatness that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages revered humbling of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and this is paralleled in
and feared him. He executed those whom he desired to execute, he spared Daniel 5 with the divine humbling of the Babylonian king Belshazzar.
those whom he wished to spare, he promoted those whom he desired to Thus, Daniel 5 is a turning point in this first major section of the book,
promote, and he humbled those whom he wished to humble. 20But when he both from a literary perspective as well as a historical perspective. Thus,
became arrogant and his spirit hardened, he was removed from his royal Daniel 2–4 dealt with Nebuchadnezzar, but now the narrative jumps
throne and his glory was taken away from him. 21He was driven away from forward ~23 years to the time of Belshazzar [Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson].
human society and given the mind of an animal. He lived with wild
donkeys, ate grass like cattle, and his body was soaked with dew from the
sky until he realized that the Most High God is sovereign over human
kingdoms and places over them whomever he desires. 22But you,
Belshazzar, his grandson, haven’t humbled yourself, even though you
knew all of this. 23You’ve exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven.
You’ve had the vessels from his Temple brought into your presence. And
you, your officials, and your wives and mistresses drank wine from them.
You praised gods of silver, gold, bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which
can’t see, hear, or demonstrate knowledge. But you didn’t honour God,
who holds in his power your very life and all your ways. 24Therefore, the
hand that wrote this inscription was sent from his presence. 25This is the
written inscription:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN
26
These are the meanings of the words: MENE: God has audited your
kingdom—and has ended it. 27TEKEL: You’ve been weighed on the
scales—and you don’t measure up. 28PERES: Your kingdom has been Furthermore, Daniel 4 and Daniel 5 are similar in that both are concerned
divided—and will be given to the Medes and Persians.” 29Then Belshazzar with Babylonian kings whose pride must be humbled before God.
gave orders to clothe Daniel in purple, to place a chain of gold around his However, the nature and extent of the humbling is different. In Daniel 2–4,
neck, and to proclaim him the third highest ruler of the kingdom. 30That God progressively dealt with Nebuchadnezzar, revealing more about
night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was killed, 31and Darius the Mede himself and sovereignly bringing the king to a point of praise to God.
took over the kingdom at the age of 62.
 217

Obviously God could have dealt accordingly with each king by humbling death of Nebuchadrezzar had been years of unrest and violence against
them until they praised him. However, by the end of Daniel 4, the point the crown. Nebuchadrezzar’s son and· successor, Evil–Merodach (2 Kings
was sufficiently made that God truly rules over human affairs. Thus, there 25:27), on whose succession Jehoiachin of Judah was set free (561 B.C.),
is no need to demonstrate this again in the same way. Nevertheless, was assassinated after reigning 2 years. Neriglissar reigned but 3 years.
judgment will fall upon Babylon to advance successive Gentile powers. Nabonidus’ immediate predecessor, a mere child, Labashi–Marduk, was
Thus, the historical context of Daniel 5 is that Belshazzar was not the sole murdered within a year of his accession. Five years after Nabonidus came
ruling king; his father Nabonidus was the primary ruling king. Instead, to the throne, Cyrus overcame Astyages the Mede, whose capital,
Belshazzar served as co–ruler over Babylon in a subordinate position. Ecbatana, he made the capital of his enlarged kingdom (549 B.C.).
Nabonidus reacted to this victory by moving his army into Arabia Felix,
Wilfred Lambert [20th century Assyriologist] says: “Nabonidus was the leaving his son Belshazzar in control of Babylonia and its army. Later be
last king of the Late Babylonian Empire before the Persians put an end to returned to Babylonia and to defeat.”
the succession of local dynasties, and he was certainly the most
individualist ruler of his line. Not only did he espouse religious views Thus, Nabonidu spent several years away from Babylon in both Harran
which made him seem a heretic to most of his contemporaries, but this and Arabia, where he specifically conquered the city of Teima in Arabia
involved him in a withdrawal from Babylonia to an oasis in Arabia, strategically situated at the junction of two important trade routes, then
where he spent a decade. The chronology of his age is fortunately well slaughtered the inhabitants, and then repopulated the city. For reasons that
known. From the framework established by the abundant dated are not entirely clear [although there is evidence that he had offended and
administrative, economic and legal texts, confirmed by astronomical data, alienated himself from the religious priests of Babylon], he spent 10 years
and subject to checks of various kinds, it is known that Nabonidus became away from Babylon living in Teima, during which his son Belshazzar was
undisputed king by the end of June 556 B.C., and that he lost his throne entrusted with the daily administration of Babylon. In fact, religion was
practically when the Persians took Babylon on October 12 539 B.C., but not the only factor that led Nabonidus to take up residence in Teima. He
only theoretically when Cyrus entered the city on October 29 of the same was a player on the world political stage, and his excursion into northern
year. Thus, the reign was of 17 years, as stated by Berossus and the Greek Arabia served to further Babylonian military imperialism in the west and
compilation usually called Ptolemy’s Canon. The only cuneiform list to take control of the important caravan trade routes, thereby gaining control
include him has a damaged year figure, but it can well have been ‘17’ of the vast wealth of the region. Furthermore, we should keep in mind that
when complete.” Daniel had been in Babylon for ~66 years, which means he was in his 80s
at the time of the events in Daniel 5. We also know from extra–biblical
Thomas Fish [20th century Assyriologist] likewise says: “Nabonidus, king sources that it was in 539 b.c. that this feast occurred and Babylon fell to
of Babylon (555–539 B.C.), thought of himself as heir to the mission of two the combined armies of the Medes and Persians under the command of
illustrious predecessors, Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar, and to their Cyrus. During the years leading up to this climactic event, Cyrus had been
armies. His failure was due to his origins and tactlessness and to political leading his armies against the Babylonian Empire. As recorded in the
forces at home and abroad. Nabonidus had ties with far away Harran Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus had already conquered the neighbouring
where his mother became high priestess of the Moon–god. His piety cities to Babylon [Sippar and Akkad], and now his advance had brought
towards his mother and her god partly explains his piety towards both the him within a few kilometres of Babylon itself! Thus, the feast of Daniel 5
city and the god of Harran. He protests his ·devotion to the deities of was no ordinary feast. The Babylonian Empire was in the process of
Akkad, but he offended local susceptibilities by introducing into Babylon crumbling. Belshazzar’s father [Nabonidus] had attempted to lead an
deities who did not belong there. More relevant to his failure was the assault against the Medo–Persian forces of Cyrus, but had been defeated
political situation in his day. Within Babylonia itself the years since the and had to flee to Borsippa [Josephus, C. Ap. 1:20].
 218

At the time of this feast, Babylon was surrounded by the troops of Ugbaru, psalmist voices the only appropriate response: ‘O Lord, our Lord, how
a general under Cyrus, but Belshazzar and the citizens of Babylon felt majestic is your name in all the earth!’ (Psalm 8:9). This majestic Lord
secure behind the massive walls of the city, having enough food and took up residence among the Israelites, first, in the portable tabernacle
provisions to outlast a siege of several years. Nevertheless, God had other and then in the wonder of the world that was Solomon’s temple. The
plans for Belshazzar and Babylon. temple was the nation’s pride and joy, and its eventual destruction at the
hands of Nebuchadnezzar was devastating. The record of this destruction
In summary, the events of Daniel 5 took place in October 539 b.c., the and the slow, painful demise of Jerusalem are found in both 2 Kings and 2
same month/year that Babylon fell to Cyrus of Persia. In other words, Chronicles. The writer of 2 Kings details the Babylonian incursions of 597
Babylon was losing the war, since Cyrus defeated the Babylonians at Opis BC and 587–586 BC and describes the fate of the gold, silver, and bronze
in the north on the Tigris and took the city. Then, on the 10th of October, treasures of the temple. At the end of the 597 BC siege, Nebuchadnezzar
Cyrus took Sippar without a fight, and on the 12th of October, the Persians plundered treasures from the palace and temple. He also took human
that were led by Gubaru/Ugbaru [governor of Gutium] took Babylon. plunder: officers, fighting men, craftsmen, and artisans. A decade later
when Zedekiah rebelled, Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem one last
Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes the details: time, setting fire to the palace, temple, other public buildings, and homes.
“When God’s people were in Egypt, near the end of their first foreign Leaving behind a decimated holy city and the lowest strata of society to
captivity, they cried out from under the ruthless fist of Pharaoh. The God work the land, the Babylonians scooped up the last of the temple’s
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob heard their cry and set in motion his plan to treasures. The Chronicler’s account of the dispersal of the temple vessels
redeem the people. In a relentless display of power to a Pharaoh who takes place in three stages. First, some vessels went to Babylon in the time
boasted that he didn’t know Yahweh, and would not listen to him (Exodus of Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:10). Then the Chronicler recounts in an
5:2), God introduced himself. At Pharaoh’s initial demand for a miracle, abbreviated way the same events that are in 2 Kings 23:29–24:17.
Aaron threw his staff before the king and it slithered away. When Nebuchadnezzar’s haul in 597 BC included Jehoiachin and ‘the articles of
Pharaoh’s magicians duplicated this display, Aaron’s snake swallowed up value from the temple of the Lord’ (2 Chronicles 36:10). In the final siege
their snakes. Pharaoh’s magicians mimicked the first two plagues, but (587–586 BC), the Chronicler records that God handed the people over to
when Aaron struck the dirt and gnats blanketed Egypt, Pharaoh’s Nebuchadnezzar, who also ‘carried to Babylon all the articles from the
magicians confessed that behind this plague was ‘the finger of God’ temple of God, both large and small, and the treasures of the Lord’s
(Exodus 8:19). Pharaoh’s heart, however, remained hard until Egypt was temple and the treasures of the king and his officials’ (2 Chronicles
nearly destroyed (Exodus 10:7). After the final plague and the death 36:18). Those valuable vessels remained in the treasury of
angel’s pass over Israelite homes marked with blood, Pharaoh relented Nebuchadnezzar’s god through the rise and fall of the king’s three
and Moses hurried God’s people out of Egypt. The Israelites travelled to legitimate successors (Amēl–Marduk, Neriglissar, and Labashi–Marduk),
Mount Sinai, where they camped while Moses met with Yahweh atop the as well as his illegitimate successor, the usurper Nabonidus. But,
mountain. At the end of 40 days, ‘the finger of God’ inscribed two stone Nabonidus was no devotee of the supreme Babylonian god, Marduk.
tablets with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10). Rather, the last king of the Babylonian empire favoured the moon god, Sîn,
This unique revelatory text formed the basis of the covenant between the chief god of Harran, Nabonidus’ ancestral homeland in upper
God and Israel. The expression ‘finger of God’ occurs only in these two Mesopotamia. This is likely the same place Abraham’s family settled
contexts, but God’s fingers appear one other time in Psalms, where the after they left Ur (Genesis 11:31; 12:4). In an inscription entitled
psalmist calls the heavens ‘the work of your fingers’ (Psalm 8:3). His Nabonidus and his God, the king claims this allegiance caused problems
contemplation of God’s great natural revelation led to humble between him and his subjects. He recounts how Sîn visited him and told
acknowledgment that God had elevated humans as rulers in his stead. The him to rebuild the moon god’s temple in Harran. However, the rest of
 219

Babylon ‘acted evil, careless and even sinned against’ the divine power of power of a king, but co–regents rarely had such authority. Finally, as
Sîn, bringing down his wrath. Mercifully, Sîn spared Nabonidus from this Gerhard Hasel demonstrates in a masterly article published in 1977, it
divine wrath and sent him away from Babylon for 10 years. The was difficult prior to the last 60 years to determine when Nabonidus was
Nabonidus Chronicle, part of the larger historical archive known as the away from Babylon, but the years 550–549 to 540 BC are now proven to
Babylonian Chronicle, indicates that while the king was 450 miles away be the most likely dates. Though they vary in their details, several ancient
from the royal city in Teima, an oasis in what is today Saudi Arabia, he extra–biblical sources describe the circumstances surrounding Babylon’s
left the crown prince in charge—his eldest son, Belshazzar. But, neither fall, so the event is well–attested. Interestingly, Daniel 5 does not
Nabonidus nor his ruling son appears to have lifted a finger in defence of highlight how the city fell. It focuses on why it fell. Pride (Daniel 4:34–
their empire when Cyrus came with the Persian army in 539 BC. 37) and blasphemy (Daniel 3:26–29) led God to hand Babylon over to
Historical sources closest to the events indicate that the king had fled and Persia. By now, readers will recognize certain continuing plot elements.
the once mighty Babylon gave in with barely a whimper. According to the Babylon has conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1–2; 5:1–4). A king has a vision
Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus’ army first took over nearby Sippar and then that requires interpretation, but his wise men cannot help him (Daniel
entered Babylon without a fight 2 days later. The Cyrus Cylinder, an 2:1–13; 4:1–18; 5:1–9), so he eventually has Daniel appealed (Daniel
inscribed clay cylinder commemorating Cyrus’ building projects in 4:1–18; 5:10–12). Daniel explains the situation (Daniel 2:24–45; 4:19–
Babylon, supports this account: ‘Marduk made Cyrus enter his city 27; 5:13–28), and receives honour (Daniel 2:46–49; 5:29). Thus, there is
Babylon without fighting or battle. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who a bit of a ‘court contest’ here. There are also important new features.
did not revere him, into his hands.’ Later Greek historians Herodotus and Belshazzar shows less respect for God than Nebuchadnezzar did (Daniel
Xenophon report that the city fell while its people feasted in a drunken 5:1–4), and offers no praise of God (Daniel 2:46–49; 3:26–29; 4:1–3, 34–
revelry, but this may be an embellishment of the account.” 37) when Daniel solves his problem. Tellingly, Daniel compares
Belshazzar unfavourably to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:18–23). The
Paul House [21st century biblical scholar] likewise summarizes and says: passage’s tone points towards its purpose, which is to describe why and
“We take a long historical step between Daniel 4:37 and Daniel 5:1, when God’s hand wrote the Babylonian Empire’s death notice.”
because Daniel apparently expected his readers to know Nebuchadnezzar
died in 562 bc, and that three kings succeeded him before Nabonidus took Starting with v. 1, we read: “King Belshazzar put on a great festival for
the throne in 556 bc. Nabonidus was Babylon’s final king, serving until 1,000 of his officials. He joined all 1,000 of them in getting drunk.”
539 bc, when Persia conquered Babylon. Daniel’s readers are also
expected to recall that Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1; 7:1; 8:1) served as co– First, the LXXΟ has a brief preface prefixed to v. 1 that reads: “King
regent in Babylon in his father’s absence, and that he was in residence and Belshazzar made a great reception in the day of the dedication of his
his father was probably out fighting when the city fell. Most of all, they are palace. He invited two thousand men. On that day Belshazzar, excited
expected to recall Daniel 4:37, which stresses God’s power to bring down from the wine and boasting, praised all the gods of the nations that are
the proud, something Belshazzar never learned, at least not until it was too molten and carved in his place. But, to God, the Most High, he did not give
late. Thus, in the context of Daniel 1:21, his readers would not be praise. On the same night fingers like a human came out and wrote upon
surprised to find an elderly Daniel still in service. However, although his the wall of his house upon the plaster opposite the lamps, ‘Mene Phares
first readers likely did know these things, or an approximation of them, it thekel.’ Now the explanation of these words is: ‘Mene: He has been
has taken years for modern scholars to reconstruct many of the events just counted; Phares: He has been removed; Thekel: He has established.’”
summarized. For one thing, until 1854 the bible provided the only
evidence that Belshazzar existed, much less that he ruled in Babylon. Scholars argue that this preface must have derived from a longer
For another, though called a king in Daniel 5:1, he did not have all the independent version of the narrative.
 220

Justin Pannkuk [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes: “Prefixed to the Sin. To me give the gift of long life, and as regards Belshazzar, my first
Old Greek version of Daniel 5 is a brief preface that recounts some of the born son, my dear offspring, put in his heart reverence for thy high
plot lines of the narrative. It is argued that the preface must have derived divinity.” Furthermore, evidence from the Persian Verse Account of
from a longer version of the narrative, because it lacks elements intrinsic Nabonidus shows that Nabonidus had also entrusted the rule of Babylon to
to the Old Greek and Masoretic Text versions. These elements are Belshazzar in his absence: “He freed his hand; he entrusted the kingship to
isolated with the help of the typology of story forms developed in folklore him. Then he himself undertook a distant campaign.” Thus, there is
studies. The unique variants preserved in the preface suggest that it sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the father and son shared a joint–
derives from a third, parallel version of the legend. This third version regime in which Belshazzar occupied the subordinate position. As a result,
lacked a reference to the temple vessels from Jerusalem, which allows us official documents would be dated according to Nabonidus, but Daniel
to appreciate the role of the vessels in the Old Greek and Masoretic Text made reference to Belshazzar, because this was the man in Babylon that
traditions, especially how they integrate this story into a larger discourse the Jews actually had to deal with and whose royal word could affect them.
about the fate of the vessels in post–exilic literature.” Here is a stone relief of Belshazzar shown as the Babylonian crown prince:

Second, notice that the king’s banquet was on “the day of the dedication of
his palace.” This was the New Year akītu festival, to honour the chief
deity of the city, which was held during the first 11 days of Nisan [the time
of Israel’s Passover]. On the 2nd day of the festival, the šešgallu–priest
prayed to Marduk, extolling the god’s victories and seeking his favour for
Babylon, its people, and the temple Esagila. Also during this festival, the
god Nabû [Marduk’s son], would arrive from Borsippa. On the 5th day, it
honoured Marduk through the cleansing of his temple, priestly offerings of
animal sacrifices, prayers, and a recitation of the Enūma Eliš. On the 10th
day, the king of Babylon then “took Marduk by the hand” and would
accompany Marduk [the statue], and lead a grand procession from Esagila
through the streets of Babylon. On their way from the main gate of the
Esagila along Marduk’s processional street and through the Ishtar Gate,
singers, dancers, and musicians would accompany them. After the
procession, the statue was transferred from a horse–pulled jewelled chariot
to a boat, and the statue eventually arrived at the special akītu shrine
outside the city’s walls, where an extravagant feast was prepared before
returning to their usual temple residences. Thus, this would explain why a
banquet was being held at a time when the city was under assault.
Nevertheless, critical scholars have attacked the historicity of this passage
on numerous matters, especially in regard to the naming of Belshazzar as
“king” of Babylon. This is because extra–biblical literature consistently
refers to Nabonidus as the king of Babylon rather than Belshazzar.
However, we do have clear evidence that Belshazzar was the son of
Nabonidus: “O Moon god preserve me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, from
 221

The hosting of great banquets was typical of Persian kings [Esther 1], and been reluctant to give the story much credence. On the other hand,
both Herodotus [Hist. 1.191] and Xenophon [Cyr. 5.15] report that the Assyriologists like Paul Garelli and archaeologists like David Stronach
capture of Babylon was partly aided by the fact that the Babylonians were are prepared to accept the historicity of Belshazzar’s feast. An intriguing
celebrating a festival when “the citizens drink and make merry the whole attempt to give the story some historical plausibility was undertaken by
night long.” So, the idea of a banquet “for 1,000 of his officials” is no William Shea, who argued that the feast in question might have been a
exaggeration at all, especially if this particular banquet took place on the celebration of Belshazzar’s coronation as sole ruler, after the defeat of his
12th of October in 539 b.c., because Babylon fell on the 16th day of Tašritu father Nabonidus. Although this proposal would explain a number of
during the 17th year of Nabonidus [according to the Nabonidus Chronicle]. historical difficulties in the story of Belshazzar, it is not supported by any
explicit contemporary records and remains quite speculative. Instead, the
John Collins [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] says: “According to Ctesias evidence suggests that Belshazzar’s feast is to be understood as an akitu
and Dinon, the Persian king ‘used to dine in company with 15,000 men festival in honour of the Babylonian moon god Sîn. This akitu suggestion
and 400 talents were expended on the dinner’ (Athenaeus Deipnosophistae was first made in 1989 by Paul–Alain Beaulieu in his book The Reign of
4.146e). This fantastic number is due in some part to the custom by which Nabonidus, which is currently the most authoritative account of the reign
bodyguards and other royal troops received food as payment (Athenaeus of Belshazzar’s father, based on a careful study of all the relevant
Deipnosophistae 4.145e). The number ’15,000’ may have its origin in the cuneiform inscriptions. One of the major themes of this book is the
Persian king’s bodyguard of 1,000. The sum of 400 talents is also given by determined attempt made by Nabonidus to replace Marduk as head of
Herodotus (7.118) as the cost of providing a meal for the army of Xerxes the Babylonian pantheon with the moon god Sîn. Part of this
en route to Greece, and this figure may have influenced the later Greek revolutionary religious policy was the restoration of the temple of Sîn in
writers. Even if we allow for exaggeration, the Persian rulers were Harran, a city traditionally devoted to the worship of the moon god. It was
evidently known for lavish entertainments.” in Harran, with which Nabonidus had strong personalities, that there was
an akitu festival of Sîn, apparently celebrated on the 17th of Tašritu. When
So, the king set the tone for the evening by drinking wine before them, Beaulieu comes to his discussion of the fall of Babylon, he brings the
since the durative force of the Aramaic šāṯēh [for “getting drunk”] is above information to bear on the stories of the feast found in Herodotus,
intended to stress the ongoing activity until they reached a state of Xenophon, and Daniel. He writes: ‘The tradition of the festivities might
inebriation. Thus, in light of these historical circumstances, if the armies of reflect historical fact. According to the chronicle, Babylon was taken on
the Medes and Persians had already conquered the neighbouring cities of the 16th of Tašritu. Accepting that Nabonidus imposed new features of the
Sippar and Akkad, and if the Babylonian army led by Nabonidus had cult of Sîn in the capital after his return from Teima, it is conceivable that
already suffered a defeat north of Babylon, why would Belshazzar have festivals linked with the cult of Sîn at Harran were transplanted to
been holding a banquet at this crucial time when the enemy forces were Babylon, perhaps even the akitu festival. This festival started on the 17th of
surrounding them? The answer is that, since Belshazzar’s feast was the Tašritu. As Babylon was captured on the eve of the 17th, the festivities
akītu festival in honour of the Babylonian moon–god Sîn, this also mentioned by Herodotus and Daniel may have been those of the Harran
ironically occurred on the 16th–17th of Tašritu when they were surrounded! akitu festival, as celebrated in the capital by the supporters of Nabonidus.’
By putting Belshazzar’s feast in the context of Nabonidus’ overall program
Albert Wolters [21st century biblical scholar] extensively explains: of promoting the worship of Sîn, Beaulieu can make a plausible case for
“According to Daniel 5, the Neo–Babylonian king Belshazzar was connecting this feast with the akitu festival of Harran, especially since the
celebrating a great feast in the night when Babylon fell and he himself met date of the latter virtually coincides with the date of the former. A similar
his death. Although the Greek writers Herodotus and Xenophon also point was made in 1990 by Lawrence Wills in his book The Jew in the
mention a feast at the time of Babylon’s fall, many biblical scholars have Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. In a discussion
 222

of the relationship of the Old Greek to the Masoretic Text in Daniel 5, simultaneous, it is only in the case of Harvest and Hunter’s Moon that this
Wills makes the following comments: ‘The vague ‘great feast’ in the near simultaneity holds for a longer period. The effect, of course, is that
Masoretic Text occurs at a very specific time in the Old Greek proem: ‘in the moon has the whole night to itself for a number of successive nights.
the day of the consecration festival of his palace,’ most likely the day of Because the Babylonians used a lunar calendar that was periodically
the New Year (akitu) Festival. We see in the Wadi Brissa inscription intercalated to make it match the solar year, the 17th of Tašritu would
mentioned above in regard to Daniel 4, that in the very context of the invariably come right after either the Harvest Moon or the Hunter’s Moon,
renewal of the palace there is a description of the New Year Festival and and would therefore always fall in one of the two periods of near
of the magnificent feast which Nebuchadnezzar set out for his honoured simultaneity that we have described. We find a close parallel in the case
guests.’ Although Wills considers the story of Belshazzar’s feast to be of the Jewish feast of Tabernacles (or Sukkot), which begins on the 15th
fictitious, he argues that it is put in the realistic setting of the great feast of Tishri. Since the Jewish calendar is modelled on the Babylonian one,
that Nebuchadnezzar, according to one inscription, put on at the and Tishri is simply the Jewish equivalent of Babylonian Tašritu, it is
Babylonian akitu festival. Unlike Beaulieu, he does not put this festival in instructive to observe that the first day of Sukkot always falls within a
the context of the Sîn cult; in fact he seems to have in mind only the day or two of either the Harvest Moon or the Hunter’s Moon. In 1991,
familiar akitu festival of Marduk, which was celebrated at the beginning of for example, it coincided with Harvest Moon (September 23), as it did in
the religious New Year in Nisanu. He seems to be unaware that an akitu 1990 (October 4), but in 1989 it fell on the same day as Hunter’s Moon
festival was also celebrated at the beginning of the civil New Year in (October 14). It is clear that the 3rd day of Sukkot, which corresponds to
Tašritu. Nevertheless, it is striking that he too sees in Beishazzar’s feast a the 17th of Tašritu in the Babylonian calendar, would in each case come in
description of this characteristic Babylonian institution. The significance the days immediately following these two special full moons. The upshot of
of his argument is that it gives independent support to one aspect of the these reflections on the lunar calendar is therefore that the 17th of Tašritu
suggestive proposal made by Beaulieu. There are two further arguments always fell during one of the two periods of the year that the moon had an
in support of Beaulieu’s proposal that Belshazzar’s feast represents an unusually prominent place at night. It should also be remembered that the
akitu festival in honour of the moon god Sîn. The first is based on the Harvest Moon and Hunter’s Moon, by a curious trick of perception, are
astronomical facts of the moon’s movements; the second on a recently popularly believed to be unusually large and luminous. It is therefore
deciphered Aramaic manuscript. There is a good astronomical reason why singularly appropriate that the akitu festival in honour of the moon god
a festival in honour of the moon god should be celebrated on the 17th of Sîn should take place on the 17th of Tašritu, when the lunar deity, several
Tašritu and why that date should be one on which, according to days after full moon, retained its sway throughout the night. In light of
Babylonian astrological lore, ‘Sîn is propitious to mankind.’ The reason is this, it is significant that Daniel 5 pictures Belshazzar’s feast as a
that this date always falls in the days immediately following either the nocturnal festivity. Xenophon also explicitly states that the festival in
Harvest Moon or the Hunter’s Moon, the only times during the year question lasted the entire night (Cyropaedia 7.5.15). This is a detail that
when the moon for several days running rises right after sunset and supports Beaulieu’s hypothesis that it was indeed the akitu festival in
shines throughout the night. The phenomenon of Harvest Moon and honour of Sîn that was celebrated in Babylon on that fateful Tašritu night,
Hunter’s Moon has to do with the angle of the ecliptic relative to the since it was only during the night that the moon god showed himself to
horizon and is technically described in terms of the moon’s ‘retardation’ his worshipers in all his splendour. We turn now to the second argument.
in different seasons of the year. The full moon nearest the fall equinox (the Our discussion so far has served to support the hypothesis of an akitu
Harvest Moon) introduces a period of several days when the moon rises festival in honour of the moon god Sîn, which was celebrated during the
right after the sunset, and that the same phenomenon, though less marked, month of Tašritu both in Harran and in Babylon. This hypothesis has
can be observed after the next full moon (the Hunter’s Moon). Although it recently received strong support in a 1991 article by Richard Steiner
is true at every full moon that sunset and moonrise are virtually entitled ‘The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s
 223

Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash,’ and reports celebrated in the month Tašritu. Since Belshazzar’s feast was also a
on the latest results of the attempt to decipher and interpret Papyrus festival celebrated in Tašritu, specifically in the days following the
Amherst 63. This intriguing text, which had earlier yielded a paganized Hunter’s Moon, it is likely that it is a 4th example of this akitu festival of
version of Psalm 20, seems to have belonged to a community of people the moon god. As Beaulieu has seen, this conclusion fits well with what
originally from Rash in Mesopotamia who had first been deported to we know about Nabonidus and his religious policies in the closing years
Bethel in Samaria by the Neo–Assyrians, and had subsequently found their of the Neo–Babylonian Empire. After an absence of 10 years in Teima,
way to Syene in Egypt. The relevance of Steiner’s article to the theme of during which he had left his son Belshazzar in charge of Babylon,
this article is clear from the following quotation: ‘It is now clear that we Nabonidus had returned in 543 BC, timing his return to coincide with
are dealing with the liturgy of a New Year’s festival (IVB/8 rs.š,n.nm) the date of the Harran akitu festival on the 17th of Tašritu. In the final 4
celebrated in Epiph = Tishri (VIlI/13, XV/2), like the Jewish Rosh years of his reign he worked actively to promote the worship of Sîn,
Hashanah holiday, rather than in Nisan, the first month of the Persian– seeking to replace Marduk as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. He
Babylonian calendar. The rituals of the festival, as narrated in the text, are completed the restoration of the two major shrines of the moon god, the
similar to those of the Babylonian Akitu festival.’ It seems, therefore, that Ehulhul of Harran and the ziggurat of Ur. He even attempted to convert
the enigmatic Papyrus Amherst 63 preserves the liturgy of an akitu the great temple of Marduk in Babylon (the Esagil) to the worship of Sîn.
festival that was celebrated in the Jewish month Tishri, that is, the Needless to say, he encountered the fierce resistance of the priests of
Babylonian month Tašritu. This akitu festival also had a connection with Marduk, who were already incensed because the king had for several
the moon god. According to the earlier article on this text, written by years, by his absence, effectively cancelled the great akitu festival in
Steiner together with Charles Nims in 1983, in which they published their honour of Marduk, which was celebrated in the month Nisanu. The
discovery of the paganized version of Psalm 20 in Papyrus Amherst 63, the outrage of the Marduk priests is reflected in the so–called ‘Verse
deity to which the liturgy was dedicated had as one of his names Sahar, Account of Nabonidus,’ which accuses Nabonidus of worshiping the god
the West Semitic name of the moon god. Furthermore, Steiner and Nims ‘Ilteri’—a designation that turns out to be an enigmatic spelling of
deduced from a number of features in the text that the prayer embedded in Sahar, the West Semitic name of the moon god. It would be entirely
the liturgy was recited at night, possibly when the moon was visible. The consonant with the general policy of Nabonidus if, in these final years, he
liturgy apparently goes back to an original setting in Rash (or Arash), a introduced into Babylon that other akitu festival in honour of Sîn that was
region situated between Babylonia and Elam, and to the time of the Neo– celebrated in Tašritu and had his son and co–regent Belshazzar preside
Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. Although Steiner does not mention it, it is over it in his absence. In fact, Beaulieu has recently suggested, in another
also significant that the Rash of the liturgical papyrus was geographically connection, that the king may have organized religious ceremonies for
close to Ur, which was one of the two traditional centers (along with Sîn in Babylon during the last year of his reign. The picture that emerges
Harran) of moon worship in ancient Mesopotamia. What is more, there is is therefore the following. In the final years of the Neo–Babylonian
evidence of an akitu festival in Ur, which was celebrated in the month of Empire, there were two akitu festivals, one in honour of Marduk, which
Tašritu in honour of the god Nanna (Nannar), the other traditional name was celebrated in Nisanu, the other in honour of Sîn, which was celebrated
of the moon god in the cuneiform documents. Taking all these data in Tašritu. Both were New Year festivals, since the cultic year began in
together, it appears that Papyrus Amherst 63 preserves elements of the Nisanu and the civil year began in Tašritu (in fact, the name tašritu means
liturgy of an ancient Mesopotamian nocturnal akitu festival, celebrated ‘beginning’ in Akkadian). We must bear in mind that such a double akitu
in honour of the moon god in the month Tašritu. This of course fits celebration is also attested elsewhere in ancient Mesopotamia. Because
perfectly with the thesis that Belshazzar’s feast represents just such an Nabonidus was fanatically devoted to Sîn at the expense of Marduk, he
akitu festival. To summarize, we can say that there is evidence from boycotted the akitu festival in Nisanu and favoured the akitu festival in
Harran, Rash, and Ur for an akitu festival in honour of the moon god Tašritu. Belshazzar’s feast as recorded in Daniel 5 therefore fits well, not
 224

only with what we know of the akitu festival of the moon god in Harran, God’s Temple in Jerusalem, and the king, his officials, his wives, and
Rash, and Ur, but also with what we know of the overall politics of the mistresses drank from them. As they drank the wine, they praised gods of
last years of Babylon. In conclusion, the festival which ancient sources gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.”
connect with the fall of Babylon in 539 BC may have been an akitu festival
in honour of the moon god Sîn. This can be supported by two additional The Aramaic māʾn [for “vessels”] were a type of silver/gold goblet, since
arguments. First, the dates of the festival (the 16th and 17th of Tagritu) they were used for drinking purposes. If these vessels were taken during
would always have come immediately after the Harvest Moon or Hunter’s the 1st deportation of 605 b.c. [recall Daniel 1:2], then ~66 years had
Moon. Second, a Mesopotamian akitu festival celebrated in Tašritu and passed since they were removed to Babylon. Thus, it is amazing that
dedicated to the moon god appears to be the background of the Aramaic Belshazzar would even know of their existence! Furthermore, what
liturgy preserved in Papyrus Amherst 63. Given the religious politics of prompted him to bring them out for use on this particular night? It suggests
Nabonidus’ last years, in which Sîn was promoted at the expense of that he knew something about the history of the Jewish exiles and the
Marduk, it is likely that a similar akitu festival took place in Babylon at worship of their God, which means he also knew of the events pertaining
the time of its fall.” to his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar and how he had come to a personal
faith in Israel’s God [recall Daniel 4:1–3, 37]. In fact, he knew about
Furthermore, since this was a drunken orgy just before Babylon fell Nebuchadnezzar’s dream that Babylon would be overthrown by another
[Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.15], scholars give three more reasons for this feast: kingdom [recall Daniel 2:39]. Thus, he purposely had them brought out to
make the point that he himself scoffed at these matters, reinforcing the
1. Since Cyrus defeated Nabonidus ~2 days earlier and ~80 km north message that the Medes and Persians were not to be feared. In fact, these
at Sippar, they knew it was over, so it was the height of hedonism. “gold and silver vessels” were formerly used in the worship and service of
God, but now they were used sacrilegiously in his drunken orgy while also
2. The banquet was meant to rally their leaders before the coming exalting the deities and idols of Babylon. This is because the Aramaic
battle. Belshazzar felt confident, given Babylon’s fortified wall, šēgᵊlāṯēh ûlḥēnāṯēh [for “his wives and his mistresses”] could also be
that he could hold out. Israel’s Temple vessels were a reminder of translated “his consorts and his mistresses,” because the Aramaic terms
previous victories. This reminder served to encourage his officials. are foreign loanwords and are difficult to translate with precision. In other
In fact, since the Euphrates River ran through the city for plentiful words, the Aramaic šēgal is a loanword from Akkadian ša ekalli [or
water supply, and they had ample provisions to outlast any siege “queen”], so that the broader lexical meaning can be either “royal wife” or
[Herodotus, Hist. 1.190; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.13], this would have “royal consort.” For example, notice that the queen of Artaxerxes was
also caused them to feel invincible to Cyrus’ attack against them. referred to as a šēgal [Nehemiah 2:6], but the LXXθ translated it as
pallakai [or “young concubine”] from the Greek verb pallakeuō [or “to be
3. Belshazzar used this occasion to declare himself sole king upon the a concubine”]. Likewise, the Aramaic lᵊḥēnāh is a loanword from
defeat of his father. If that were the case, then calling him “king” Akkadian laḥḥinatu, which refers to a woman who has duties in a court
here naturally follows [later in Daniel 7:1]. session [or “concubine”], but the LXXθ translated it as parakoitoi [or “one
who lies beside”]. Thus, Belshazzar had a large harem in typical oriental
Finally in vv. 2–4, we read: “Under the influence of wine, Belshazzar fashion, and these Aramaic terms refer to various members of his harem,
ordered that the gold and silver vessels his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar including some of his concubines, though one may have had a higher
had taken from the Temple in Jerusalem be brought in so the king, his status than the others. So, Belshazzar was not simply making an innocent
officials, his wives, and his mistresses could drink from them. As ordered, mistake. Instead, he was knowingly and openly defying God, and it
they brought in the gold vessels that had been taken from the sanctuary of remained to be seen if God would respond to Belshazzar’s challenge.
 225

Nevertheless, the irony is that God had already answered this challenge incorporated into the Hellenistic form of the tale? Or is the scene simply
~150 years earlier through Isaiah as to what he would do with idolatrous the creation of an imaginative storyteller and devoid of any authentic
Babylon [Isaiah 46:1–2; 47:1–15], and again ~50 years earlier through Mesopotamian connection? If there is resonance with actual practice,
Jeremiah about Babylon’s judgment [Jeremiah 50:1–2, 18; 51:7–8, 11, 41– what might have been the significance of such an action in Mesopotamia,
44, 57–58]. So, all of this was prophesied long before Belshazzar acted and why might this element have been included in the story? We need to
arrogantly and defiantly, presuming that the gods of Babylon [and he as explore this act of drinking from ritual vessels in Daniel 5 against the
their representative] would protect them. So, here is iconography of men backdrop of cultic feasting in Mesopotamian sources. The portrayal of
holding ornamental drinking cups [which the Greeks called “rhytons”] that Belshazzar was rooted in the practice of the royal consumption of the
was common in Persia and Assyria, since these cups held wine/liquids for ‘leftovers’ of sacrifices offered to the gods, attested in Neo–Assyrian and
drinking/libation to a deity. These two functions overlapped their feasts. Neo–Babylonian texts and images, and perhaps signified in the common
artistic motif of ‘the king and the cup.’ Viewed in this light, the nature of
the violation of Belshazzar’s drinking is clarified, and the portrayal of this
practice in the story may be seen as polemic against the notion of a
divine association with kings relevant throughout the various stages of
the story’s formation. The story of Belshazzar’s feast is known in at least
three distinct versions. First, there is the Aramaic version contained in the
Masoretic Text, and represented in fragmentary material from Qumran
(4QDaniela and 4QDanielb, both early–mid 1st century BC manuscripts)
and echoed in Greek Theodotion. Second, we have the Greek version
identified as the Old Greek, represented in Hexaplic editions: the Syro–
Hexapla (7th century AD) and Codex Chisianus (9th–11th centuries AD)
and at least one pre–Hexaplaric papyrus (Papyrus 967, 2nd–3rd centuries
AD). Third, we have the so–called ‘Preface’ (contained in the same texts
witnessing the Old Greek), a duplicate account placed before the longer
Old Greek version, summarizing what was likely a third independent
version of the story. Discussion continues among those prioritizing the Old
Greek, others prioritizing the Masoretic Text (followed by Greek
Theodotion), and yet others seeing the Preface as a summary of the
earliest version of the story, while a growing number of scholars suggest
that each of the traditions stem from a common source or oral tradition.
Such diversity among the versions of this story (and others in Daniel’s
Jonathan Greer [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] summarizes:
book as a whole), along with differing canonical placements and
“Belshazzar receives a message from Yahweh for his act of drinking from
additional Qumran allusions to Danielic literature, suggest that the form
ritual vessels looted from the Jerusalem temple. That such an act was
of the story in Daniel’s book in the Masoretic Text represents a later
considered sacrilegious within the context of the story is clear enough, but
‘crystalized’ stage in its development rather than a standard or ‘final’
the reason for Belshazzar’s original and seemingly odd request for form. However, most situate the origin of the story (whether oral or
temple vessels is not given. Does this portrayal of drinking from ritual
written) in the Persian or early Hellenistic period when it apparently
vessels reflect actual practice from an earlier time period, now
enjoyed some degree of independent circulation in a Hebrew and/or
 226

Aramaic form prior to being incorporated as part of a ‘story collection’ of describe the ‘feeding of the gods.’ While the ways in which sacrifice was
Court Tales represented in Daniel 1–6 (or Daniel 2–6, or Daniel 2–7). conceptualized is not always clear, the texts themselves are unapologetic
While the actual form of the earliest versions of the story of Belshazzar’s and matter–of–fact in their descriptions of the various ‘meals’ provided
feast, or any of the other Court Tales, may now be obscured by the hand of for the deities. Evidence from Assur and elsewhere suggests that meals
the compliers of the story collections, these tellers were no doubt closer to were offered two to four times daily, with extra offerings made during
the Neo–Babylonian and Persian contexts that provide the literary festivals. The table was set, food was prepared and presented before the
setting for the stories we see represented in the later versions. As such, ‘birthed’ image whose mouth had been ‘opened’ through incantations, and
many have recognized the value of Mesopotamian sources for providing the god ate and drank. Still, detailed knowledge of the rituals of sacrifice
background information for a number of the motifs portrayed in these and the ‘meals’ of the gods in 1st millennium BC Mesopotamia was
stories—whether as memories from the Neo–Babylonian or Persian confined to the ministering priests and the king alone, and little is left of
periods, recalled to provide the setting for the literary creations, or as their accounts. The few prescriptive texts that have survived are hardly
contemporary realities of Persian or Hellenistic diaspora communities in comprehensive manuals, perhaps each serving as more of an aide–
Mesopotamia, where certain customs from earlier periods were m moire, and the extant descriptive texts and temple records mostly
maintained. Examples of Mesopotamian ‘colouring’ include historical consist of receipts concerning the transportation of foodstuffs. What does
connections (though sometimes obscured in the apparent merging of seem clear from what is extant in Neo–Assyrian and Neo–Babylonian texts
historical realities from the reigns of Nebuchanezzar II and Nabonidus), is that the complete immolation of a sacrificial victim by fire comparable
as well as institutional and cultural associations. Among the latter, to the ‘burnt offering’ of ancient Israel was only rarely practiced in this
specific connections have been made between the fiery furnace episode in period. Thus, an understanding of what actually happened in a material
Daniel 3 and actual practice known from Mesopotamian sources, as well sense to the food and drink that was presented to, but not physically
as between the lions’ den episode of Daniel 6 and the ‘literalization’ of a consumed by, the deity in the ritual meal remains somewhat clouded. That
literary motif found in texts (transforming the metaphor of a ‘pit of lions’ said, contrary to later polemical assertions that the priests secretly ate the
into a literal description). These examples are in addition to general offerings such as one finds in Bel and Dragon, it seems clear that the
connections concerning settlers from Yehud in the region of Babylon, the Mesopotamian priests understood the transformation from ‘offerings’ to
customs of the Neo–Babylonian and Persian courts, and the incorporation ‘food for the gods’ in a symbolic or multi–dimensional way, and that there
of Akkadian, Aramaic, and Persian vocabulary. Thus, here I aim to add to was no pretending that the offerings had vanished. In fact, certain texts
this growing list of examples of Mesopotamian motifs employed in the contain instructions for ‘clearing the table’ after the god finished his
Court Tales by spelling out a connection between Belshazzar’s drinking meal, implying full recognition of the physical presence of the food and
from the temple vessels in Daniel 5 and examples of similar practices in drink. A number of Neo–Assyrian texts provide details about what came
Mesopotamian sources before exploring their significance. Just as next in their specification that the ‘leftovers’ (rēḫāti) from the offerings to
Belshazzar’s act of drinking occurs within the context of a feast, the gods—all of the food items that were offered—were sent to the king for
Mesopotamian examples of drinking from ritual vessels also come from his banquet (SAA 13, 156:3–10; SAA 15, 218:8–11). Human consumption
descriptions, both literary and iconographic, of feasts. These feasts are of the remains of sacrifices offered to the gods was not unheard of in the
mostly confined to the royal realm and closely related to the ‘feasts’ of the ancient Near East and, in fact, gifts from the ‘king’s table,’ often
gods, namely sacrificial offerings. Indeed, a fundamental aspect of sacrificial remains incorporated into a royal banquet, were at times
‘sacrifice’ in many ancient Near Eastern societies was the belief that redistributed not only to the royal court but also to priests and patrons as
deities, like humans, desired and even required food. Allusions are found gifts to leverage power. In the Neo–Assyrian context, special emphasis
in Egyptian, Hittite, and Ugaritic literature, as well as in biblical texts, but was placed on the person of the king and his primary, if not exclusive,
nowhere is this notion more apparent than in Mesopotamian texts that right to the sacrificial leftovers. When such boundaries were transgressed,
 227

punishment was meted out as one may observe in the demotion of a instances, libations were at least sometimes poured into a vat, and that the
presumptuous priest who consumed sacrificial offerings mentioned in a libated wine in the vats may then have been imbibed by the king, perhaps
certain Neo–Assyrian letter (SAA 13, 18:2–9). Once the king received the paralleling a broader ancient Near Eastern custom. Irene J. Winter has
leftovers and they were incorporated into his royal banquet, the food and further identified an ethnographic parallel with a Vaisnavite
drink would have apparently absorbed some sacred import from their libation/bathing ritual in which liquids are first poured over the image of
original status as an offering to the gods, transforming an episode of a deity, then collected, and finally distributed to devotees for drinking—
feasting into a sacred event. Indeed, the sacred banquet motif and its notably poured into the devotees’ cups from the same vessels that were
connection with royal feasting has a long history in Mesopotamia used to pour the libation over the deity. Indeed, several texts speak of
stretching back well into the 2nd millennium BC, if not before, with ‘libations of the vat’ (maq sǎ hariu), presumably referring to libations
influence that was felt throughout the Mediterranean world in later poured into vats, as well as libations poured into the ‘eating bowl’
periods. Such feasting events were utilized by these ancient monarchs to (mākassu) before the deity (SAA 20, 25, 26). One letter of complaint
create and maintain power structures by associating themselves with the against a certain lamentation priest clearly describes this practice and
deity in order to validate their sovereignty and exercise authority over then makes explicit the connection between the libated wine and the king’s
their subjects. In texts from Assur and in iconographic representations, allotment (SAA 13, 134). In describing this regular custom, the text states,
sacred banquets were often juxtaposed with descriptions of sacrifices in ‘They would fill the wine with the one golden bottle in front of Bel and the
literary and pictorial forms. The details of food type and amount and even one in front of Nabu. They would be decanted. The wine was the palace
the order of presentation of ritual offerings to the gods are parallel to the allotment.’ Such actions apparently were not entirely confined to the royal
same details of food type, amount, and presentation order in the royal realm, as a text describing an initiation rite for the secrets of Ishtar clearly
banquet that follows. Indeed, these details may be seen to confirm that the notes libation of beer into a pithos (SAA 20, 29:7). In another, an official
king in fact feasted on the sacrificial leftovers. Thus, in addition to blesses and gives drink from what may have been libated wine to a master
confirming that the king in fact feasted on the sacrificial leftovers, these of a banquet of Gula (SAA 20, 30:8). A third text (SAA 20, 55) describes
materials provide particular details concerning the types of food—and the distribution of the rēḫāti from a meal before Shamash and details the
drinks—consumed. Though the term rēḫāti (‘leftovers’) is more frequently distribution of the libations to the city scribe. While such texts illustrate
employed for different forms of meat, especially in later periods, the libations into vats and the redistribution of the contents, they
semantic range is broad enough to incorporate liquid offerings as well. In demonstrate that the custom may have expanded beyond the king. It is,
fact, since the Assur texts are best understood as lists of leftovers taken however, important to note that these are not offerings to Ashur, and that
from, rather than offered to, the deity, one observes that wine, beer, and in the case of the rēḫāti, other texts make clear the king’s first right to the
milk were explicitly included in the rēḫāti. Though these texts have often offerings. The royal iconography of the Neo–Assyrian corpus may provide
been understood as describing offerings made to the deity, the language is further graphic illustrations of these practices rooted in the close
quite clear in describing that these are what are afterwards taken from the association between drinking and offering. On the close association
deity’s presence (the ‘divine leftovers’). Indeed, in a few cases they are between drinking and offering, it is interesting to note the difference of
explicitly named rēḫāti sǎpān Asš r (‘leftovers of what was offered before opinion regarding the purpose for Room G of Ashurnasirpal’s palace, the
Ashur’). Thus, divine leftovers consumed by the king, according to these wall of which displays the king in the classic pose seated on his throne
texts, included not only food but also drink. It is also interesting to note with the cup balanced on his finger tips—was it a room for public libation
that manuals describing the tākultu festivals detail the opening toasts and ceremonies or for royal banquets? For example, an examination of the
the invocation of the deity to ‘drink!’ (s t ). But, if libations were poured White Obelisk suggests that libations were at times poured into collection
out before the deity, how could they be consumed later by the king? While vats, as apparently depicted in Register A3, where the king is shown
it is clear that libations were poured out upon the ground in a number of poised with a small bowl in hand over a large rounded vat with a flaring
 228

rim on a stand in front of an incense altar and ritual table before the The vat into which the libation was poured is not evident in the current
temple, along with the caption: ‘B t–natḫi of the city of Nineveh: I perform state of the scenes, but it may have been worn off, since the areas where
the wine libations and sacrifices of the temple of the exalted goddess.’ one might expect it are significantly damaged. Further, this type of vat is
present in many other banquet scenes. Regardless, it is notable that the
same food items shown in the offering depictions are also shown laid out
before the king in the banqueting scenes. It is also interesting that the king
is drinking from a bowl of roughly the same size and shape as the libation
vessel, and it may be logical to assume that the wine he is imbibing came
from the offering vat. Another example may be observed in a pair of scenes
from the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III.

Thus, there can be little doubt that, at least here, the libation was collected
in a vat and not poured onto the ground. From this point, then, one may
suggest that the libations would have been carried along with the other
food to the king for his sacred banquet, as may be illustrated further in the
White Obelisk. The offering scene above flows immediately into several
banquet scenes of participants eating and drinking as depicted in two
registers (B3, C3), and repeated again in parallel portrayals (D7, A7).

In one scene, the king is depicted as poised to pour out his offering into a
bulbous jar placed on a stand before the incense stand, altar, standards,
and the image. Then, in a second scene, the seated monarch is shown
about to drink from a similar bowl, while a stand is shown behind his
attendant with two larger jars that appear similar to the libation jar.
However, the damaged state of the bands as well as the position of the
stand that blocks the view of the base of the vessel in the portrayal of the
offering scene prohibits a close comparison of the vessels. Similar use of
cultic vessels and furniture in both offering and banquet scenes in the
same context may be observed in the palace reliefs of Ashurbanipal.
 229

centering on the king and his banquet. When one traces the origin of the
food from the left, it originates from a priest before passing into the hands
of the captured Elamite nobles and then to the king. From the right, one
traces the origin of the beverage to the type of vat into which libations are
poured, shown here with the same type of carinated bowl suspended above
its rim. Both origins would seem to suggest a connection between the food
and drink of the cultic offering and that of the royal banquet. This
depiction may have further importance as a cultic scene within Elamite
tradition, as seals from the 2nd millennium BC show gods and goddesses
in the same pose. Thus, the iconography of these scenes, and others,
correlates well to the texts considered above. In both corpora, the Neo–
Assyrian kings are described as the recipients of the divine leftovers—both
food and drink—that were to be consumed at ritual banquets. But, what
In this lion libation scene, while the libation is clearly poured on the was the significance of such a practice? In its simplest form, consuming
ground, one also observes a detailed depiction of an offering table, divine leftovers could be understood as inviting the favour of the gods
incense stand, and a distinctly carinated shallow bowl. These very same through a transmuted blessing by contact with food offered to them.
elements—an offering table, incense stand, and the carinated bowl—are Certainly, Neo–Assyrian texts echo this idea of a blessing. An expanded
also displayed in the ‘garden banquet’ scene from the same palace room. understanding would place the god in the role of the king, and the king in
the role of a vassal who received food from the table of his superior. Thus,
a hierarchy was established: the king was blessed by the god in receiving
food from the sacred table, and the king’s underlings as an extension of
him, in turn, were blessed by the king in receiving food from the royal
table. But, there may be more to it than simple privilege in the receipt of
religiously–charged food and drink, and the hierarchy that was
established may not only have been scalar, but may also exhibit a symbolic
homology. Indeed, as many have noted, the role of the king took on
intensified ideological garb during the Neo–Assyrian expansion and
empire. The king described himself not only as a mediator of the gods, but
also as conceived or nurtured by the gods and even taking on his own
divine melammu, the ‘awe–inspiring splendour’ associated with Ashur.
The physical image (s lmu) of the king could even be marked with the
DINGIR sign and sacrifices may have been offered to it. Yet while the king
was in every way the image of god, the king was still human: he served the
gods in the cult, albeit as a sort of high priest, and his personal name was
never written with the DINGIR sign in inscriptions. Indeed, the king in a
Notice that the king and his queen are eating at the same type of ritual sense embodied two souls: one human, as represented in his person, and
table used in the offering scene, and drinking from identical bowls used in one divine, as represented in his office. Viewed from heaven, the king is
the offering scene. Furthermore, in this scene the action is bi–directional, the principal divine emissary to his earthly community; viewed from
 230

earth, he is the principal emissary of his community before the Such mutilation was apparently carried out at the hands of the Medes
pantheon. Such ideology was used to drive the propaganda of the empire, and Babylonians upon the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC. As images were not
and consuming the leftovers of the divine was one metaphor that was merely ‘representations’ but rather manifestations of the ‘real,’ this image
easily incorporated and utilized within this framework. For example, was apparently singled out for destruction as an attack on the divinely
notice how Sargon II described receiving the divine leftovers as validation embodied king himself. A careful examination of the relief shows the
of his sovereignty upon his conquest of Babylon in 710 BC (Annals of efforts to which the iconoclasts went to remove the whole image of the
Sargon II, 311–313), or how the succession of the crown prince bowl. The proposition that the bowl is the object of the destruction, rather
Ashurbanipal was confirmed by his receipt of the divine leftovers that were than the hand may be supported by noting that in the image of
usually reserved for king Esarhaddon alone (SAA 16, 106, r1–8). This Sennacherib receiving booty from Lachish that was subject to this same
sacred consumption, then, came to represent the nexus of human and wave of destruction in Nineveh, only the king’s face is mutilated and his
divine that the king embodied, giving him the right to rule the human right hand, without the bowl, is seemingly left intact.
world as a representative of the gods. In the artistic propaganda of the
reliefs, then, it is suggested here that the image of ‘the king and the cup’—
a ubiquitous depiction of the Assyrian monarch at this time—became a
synecdoche for this larger concept. Though this image certainly implied
the strength of wealth, even justice, of the king, it may more fully describe
the whole process of consuming the divine leftovers, itself an act that
represented the very essence of what it meant to be the embodiment of
the divine. The fact that the motif of the seated king and the cup derives
from images of deities in the very same pose only bolsters the argument in
light of the close connection with the overlap of drinking and offering
observed above. If such ideology is behind this image, it is interesting to
note that in the vandalized relief of Ashurbanipal’s ‘garden banquet,’
the iconoclast not only etched out the king’s face, but also his bowl.

Furthermore, that the iconoclast hacked out the faces of both

Ashurbanipal and his queen Ashur–Sharrat, but only Ashurbanipal’s bowl
and not Ashur–Sharrat’s bowl, may strengthen the suggestion that the
target was the motif of ‘the king and the cup,’ rather than any specific
figure holding a bowl. While these observations are potentially significant
in their own right for Assyriology, we now return to Belshazzar’s feast of
Daniel 5 and note a number of connections. The most obvious point of
general similarity is the occasion of royal dining in Daniel 5 and the
descriptions of the Mesopotamian banquets. Belshazzar makes a ‘great
feast’ for ‘a thousand’ of his lords (or ‘two thousand’ in the Preface, likely
misreading the parallelism of his Semitic Vorlage), reminiscent of the
 231

spectacular feasts boasted about by the Assyrian monarchs, such as in Hebrew (‘allowance’) in 2 Kings 25:30, convincingly derived from
Asš r–nas r–pal II’s well–known banquet stela in which he claims to have Akkadian rēḫtu (singular of the plural rēḫāti) and incorporated into
fed ~70,000 people for 10 days with a lavish spread. That the feast of Hebrew as a loanword in the Neo–Babylonian period. Notice also the
Daniel 5 may have cultic overtones is implied by the praising of the various traditions of Daniel 1:5 describing the food allotments for Daniel
various gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone in the and his friends. These provisions of food and wine are described in the Old
Masoretic Text, or handmade idols in the Old Greek, or gods of the Greek as ‘leftovers from the house of the king’ and in Greek Theodotion as
nations made of metal or wood in the Preface, and its similarity (without daily provisions coming ‘from the table of the king.’ If the custom of the
the polemic) to the invocations of various gods in the Neo–Assyrian texts rē āti was in the mind of the author, it is no wonder Daniel and his
listed earlier, as well as in Neo–Babylonian and Persian examples. As an friends are portrayed as rejecting the provisions. Thus, at least for the
example closer to the versions of Daniel 5, consider the banquet of Cyrus authors of the Old Greek, or more likely for the authors of the Semitic
described by Xenophon, inaugurated with sacrifices and libations. Indeed, Vorlage behind the Old Greek, a connection between Belshazzar’s banquet
it may be argued that all feasting in the ancient world had a ‘religious’ and the receipt of the rēḫāti may be suggested. This connection may stem
component to it and there was no clear division between the sacred and from an historical memory that, in fact, Belshazzar, ruling as crown prince
the profane in the way that such a division is regarded today. Rather, in Babylon, received the sacred rē āti, reserved only for the king. Such
eating events in the ancient world are better plotted on a spectrum based an event would have been memorable in that it was unprecedented and
on the degree to which the sacred aspects of the event are embedded in the only generated by his father Nabonidus’ move to Teima that resulted in the
practices of everyday eating, on the one hand, or emphasized in a division of the rēḫāti between them. Such may suggest an association
specialized meal set apart by its focus on the intersection between the between Belshazzar and kingship. More specific to the close association
human and divine worlds, on the other. Insofar as the Daniel story in all between libation ‘leftovers’ and drinking observed in the Mesopotamian
extant versions identifies the invocation of various deities and that this sources earlier, some have suggested that the ‘praising’ of the gods in the
practice parallels accounts of banquets in Mesopotamian contexts, it various accounts of the Daniel 5 banquet involved libations. While this
seems that the authors emphasized the sacred nature of the banquet. seems likely, as it was a common practice at ancient banquets, a more
Some scholars have suggested a more specific connection between the direct parallel may be observed in the Old Greek version of the story in
banquet described in Daniel 5 and an ak tu festival, especially in the which Belshazzar commands his unspecified attendants (simply ‘they’ in
Preface where it explicitly states that the festival took place ‘on the day of the text) to bring in the sacred vessels taken from Jerusalem ‘to pour wine
the dedication of his palace,’ perhaps even a memory of an historical ak tu into them’ before he and his entourage drink from them. The fact that the
for the moon–god Sin. Such may have been the basis for descriptions in wine is poured into ritual vessels, and then Belshazzar and his entourage
classical sources that describe the fall of Babylon as taking place during a drink from them, suggests a parallel to the examples of this practice in
‘festival’ (Herodotus, Hist. 1.191 and Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.15), or somehow Mesopotamian texts and iconography outlined earlier. The type of vessel
related to Cyrus’ reinstatement of the ak tu upon his victory (COS 2.124) that may have been envisioned for the drinking taking place at
that may have been remembered and incorporated. Regardless of whether Belshazzar’s feast may further connect the acts of libation and drinking, at
or not each of the traditions envisioned the feast specifically as an ak tu least within the Old Greek and Masoretic Text traditions. The Preface
festival, the receipt of rēḫāti to provide some of the fare would fit the lacks any reference to the vessels, and this was not an unintentional or
context of the banquet portrayed in Daniel 5. In fact, the designation of the intentional omission by the authors of the Preface, but rather that the
event in the Old Greek as an (‘feast’) instead of as the more particular focus on the vessels was added to the Masoretic Text and Old
typical δ χή (‘banquet’) used in the Preface and throughout Esther (1:3; Greek versions of the story for theological reasons. In this way, including
5:4, 8, 12, 14), may suggest a more direct connection between the banquet a focus on the vessels served to fill in gaps in the itinerary of the looted
and the sacred leftovers in that this is the same word used by the LXX for temple objects as they were seen to provide continuity with the past during
 232

the 2nd Temple period. While the vessel itself is not named explicitly in allusion to the rēḫāti and libation in the Old Greek and to libation vessels
either tradition, the most suitable vessel for drinking that would have been in the Old Greek and Masoretic Text, a parallel between Belshazzar’s act
among the temple treasures that ‘Nebuchadnezzar had taken from and the proposed custom of drinking libation leftovers may have been
Jerusalem’ (Daniel 5:2) would be a libation bowl, as it would be hard to intended by the authors of these versions. As such, this practice and the
envision banqueters drinking from any of the other vessels looted from image of ‘the king and the cup’ derived from it may be identified as
the temple (shovels, censers, or ash pots). The likelihood that the authors examples of local ‘colouring’ drawn upon by the authors of the Court
of the Court Tales drew primarily on biblical historiographic works to Tales. That said, while there is indeed ample evidence of continuity of
provide the historical framework for their stories, as many scholars have practice between the Neo–Assyrian and Neo–Babylonian periods (as has
noted, may allow for the more specific identification of the vessel used been seen above with the rēḫāti) in particular, and also evidence of
for drinking as a libation bowl used for collecting sacrificial blood. A enduring influence into the Persian and Hellenistic periods, I am not
parallel of Neo–Assyrian kings using plundered temple vessels in sacred suggesting that the crafters of the tale, whether part of a Diaspora
banquets may be suggested in this relief of Sargon II’s sack of Haldi. community in Mesopotamia or not, would have necessarily understood
every detail of the redistribution of sacrificial ‘leftovers,’ or even
consciously sought to portray this as an example of such. Rather, I suggest
that the image, both literary and iconographic, of ‘the king and the cup,’
rooted in these earlier practices, would have endured as a symbol of who
the king was and his relationship to the divine, and that Belshazzar’s
drinking from temple vessels is described in a way that resonated with that
image. If this were the case, why might this image have been
incorporated by the biblical authors? I suggest that the portrayal of
Belshazzar as ‘the king and the cup’ in the Old Greek and Masoretic Text
traditions was intended to depict him not only as guilty of sacrilege—
failing to honour the sacred nature of the temple vessels—but, even more
so, as guilty of blasphemy—rivalling Yahweh himself, the ultimate
banquet host. Notice that the ‘bronze sea’ for Solomon’s temple was
intended to be understood as a drinking bowl (1 Kings 7:26), and if the
temple was fundamentally God’s house, and he had a table and a
Such a proposal derives from the fact that the only vessels described in the menorah, he will of course be lifting a drinking bowl to his lips. But,
list of looted cult objects from the temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:14–15) since God is not depicted in Solomon’s temple, the enormous ‘bronze sea’
that could have been used for drinking and that were made of gold and stands there as if to say that God is the ultimate host, and the ultimate
silver were used in other Greek contexts for drinking and libation. broker of power. Thus, God usurps Belshazzar’s place at the table, and
Furthermore, the act of drinking from such vessels in a sacrilegious in an ironic turn of events, is the true king and host. The banquet scene
manner has a precedent in Amos 6:6, which may have also been recalled represents the epitome of royal hubris: a human king setting himself as the
by the writers, and the bowls likely in view were similar in form and head of the cult, and proclaiming some degree of divine status or
function to the bowls depicted in the reliefs above and identified affiliation in his divine body ratified in the right to sacred leftovers, more
archaeologically. Thus, when the portrayal of Belshazzar and his than a mere slight to the ‘Lord of Heaven’ (Daniel 5:22–23). Whereas
associates drinking from the temple vessels is considered against the kings of this era may have been wont to portray themselves as imbued with
backdrop of Mesopotamian banquet descriptions, buttressed by a possible or sanctioned by the divine, even with or by the god of the conquered
 233

people—notice Cyrus’ affiliation with Marduk after taking Babylon, or of the book, yet another king had come, one claiming as his title
Darius’ affiliation with Atum–Re after defeating Egypt—such a notion is ‘Manifest God’: Antiochus IV. Thus, at each stage, the condemnation of
rejected altogether in Daniel 5. In this depiction then, the critique of the ‘the king and the cup’ resonated with its hearers by making a statement
scribes may extend beyond the person of Belshazzar, as a representative of about the sovereignty of the God of Israel over any king of any earthly
the Neo–Babylonian Empire, to the very notion of divine kingship itself, power who might set himself as or against the ‘Lord of Heaven.’ Yahweh
represented in many of the nations around Israel. The bible as a whole was king, and the dregs of the divine belonged to him alone.”
shows familiarity and interactions with ideas of divine kingship, even
preserving various perspectives on the matter. Still, the earlier notions In summary, “wine” can be a symbol of joy [Psalm 104:15] and as such
portrayed in certain psalms that suggest a close affiliation of Yahweh and was provided by Jesus at a wedding [John 2:3–10]. In fact, wine is even
the king were checked by the prophetic tradition of the 8th–6th centuries BC served by God [Proverb 9:5]. But, excessive wine is unwise, leading to
that launched stinging critiques at their own kings and those of the nations inappropriate actions, words, and outcomes [Proverbs 20:1; 21:17; 23:33–
around them who might have considered the human and divine bodies of 34; 31:4–5], which is why the New Testament condemns drunkenness
the king as closer than their Yahwism would allow. Hamilton summarizes: from wine [Ephesians 5:18]. In Belshazzar’s case, the irony is that
‘In short, the royal body was an icon of Yahweh’s body and therefore monarchs who think of themselves as absolute instead put themselves
revelatory of the divine realm. Religion and royal cult tended to merge, under the drunken command of wine. This serves to diminish human
and the prophets and various biblical narrators took upon themselves the sovereignty in preparation for exalting divine sovereignty. Furthermore,
task of limiting this merger.’ Thus, the crafters of this story, as inheritors Nebuchadnezzar had stolen Temple treasures during the reign of
of the prophetic traditions, condemned Belshazzar in a way that sets this Jehoiakim in 605 b.c. [2 Chronicles 36:7], and again at the beginning of
portrayal apart from the portrayals of other kings in the Court Tales. the reign of his son Jehoiachin [2 Kings 24:13]. He further looted and
Belshazzar does not repent like the powerful Nebuchadnezzar, nor is he destroyed the Temple in 586 b.c. when Jerusalem fell [2 Kings 25:8, 13–
feckless yet ultimately good–hearted like Darius. Rather, he directly faces 16; 2 Chronicles 36:18–19; Jeremiah 52:19], and treated these items as
off against Yahweh—and pays for it with his life and his kingdom. In holy and placed them in his temple. However, Belshazzar arrogantly used
this way, viewed as part of the larger story collection, we see in the them profanely, and according to the Torah, sacrilege involving profaning
judgment of Belshazzar a direct affront to foreign powers that stands a holy thing required a guilt offering [Leviticus 5:14–16]. Also, critical
among the otherwise subversive tales of this block of what has been called scholars argue that Nebuchadnezzar could not be Belshazzar’s
‘resistance literature.’ Whereas the stories of Daniel with Nebuchadnezzar “grandfather” if Nabonidus’ wife was not Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter.
and Darius may even be seen as favourable to foreign rule and
encouraging cultural integration, the story of Belshazzar’s feast ties in Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and explains:
more directly with the apocalyptic imagery of the second part of the book, “Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus (555–539 BC), the last king of
imagery which pulls back the curtain on the cosmic realm to reveal the Babylon, and his reign features two especially unusual developments.
ultimate victory of Yahweh over the foreign powers whose rule is only First, his devotion to the great Babylonian god Marduk waned, so he
temporary. Notwithstanding the context of the hearers of the earliest devoted his energies to honouring and worshiping the moon–god Sin in
version of the story in the Persian or early Hellenistic periods that is Harran. This angered the people of Babylon beyond measure. Second, he
preserved in the Old Greek and Masoretic Text versions, its readers by the placed Belshazzar his son on the throne in Babylon as regent, and he
time it was included as part of the larger story collection of Daniel 1–6 travelled to Teima, a city in northwest Arabia. He stayed there for 10
would have viewed the story in light of another king who had come and years. This strange move, however, explains why Belshazzar can be called
set himself up as the divine incarnate: Alexander the Great. Then by the the de facto king in Babylon, even though his father was king de jure while
time the story collection had fused with the visionary chapters of the rest residing in Teima. Evidently, Nabonidus returned to Babylon and fled the
 234

night it fell (Daniel 5:30–31). He was eventually captured and executed in did not approve of the Babylonians’ worship of idols. At one point in its
Babylon, according to Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5.33). However, history, there were in Babylon 53 temples to honour the major deities, 55
according to Berossus, the Babylonian historian priest, Cyrus spared his smaller shrines to honour the heavenly gods, 180 altars to Ishtar,
life, and according to Cyrus, Marduk delivered Nabonidus into his hands. consort of Marduk; 180 altars to the gods Nergal and Addad, plus altars
At any rate, this dual kingship also explains why Belshazzar offered to to lesser deities. In Nabonidus’ day, the situation was even worse.”
make Daniel third in power in the kingdom, not second (Daniel 5:8, 16).
Nabonidus was a troubled king who experienced many dreams that drove Joe Sprinkle [21st century biblical scholar] likewise concludes and says:
him to do some of the things he did. This implies that God, who certainly “There are plausible solutions to the problem of Nebuchadnezzar being
worked with pagan rulers through dreams, orchestrated this whole called the ‘father’ of Belshazzar. One solution takes ‘father’ and ‘son’ to
affair, setting up the downfall of the city of Babylon. Nabonidus’ reasons mean contextually ‘predecessor’ and ‘successor’ since in the Aramaic Tel
for returning to Babylon are not recorded, but the perilous situation that Dan inscription, Hazael calls his predecessor his ‘father’ even though he
Babylon faced from the Persians was certainly one reason for his return. was not biologically related, and Shalmaneser III in an Akkadian
In 539 BC, it is the day of the New Year Festival in Babylon and the night inscription calls Israel’s King Jehu ‘the son of Omri,’ even though Jehu
of Babylon’s fall (Daniel 5:30), when Cyrus, king of Persia, received was a usurper and biologically unrelated to Omri. The term ‘fathers’
rulership of the world according to the sovereign will of Daniel’s God probably means Sennacherib’s ‘predecessors’ (2 Kings 19:12; Isaiah
(Daniel 5:31). According to Daniel, as well as Herodotus (Histories 37:12; 2 Chronicles 32:14). Alternatively, if ‘father’ and ‘son’ are to be
1.191) and Xenophon (Cyropaedia 7.5.15), wine flowed freely. The taken as biological terms, Belshazzar could be related to Nebuchadnezzar
historical records ascribe sacrilegious acts to Nabonidus toward Marduk through his mother. Hebrew/Aramaic ‫‘( אָ ב‬father’) can denote an ancestor
before and after his return that made him persona non grata in Babylon. (Daniel 2:23; Ezra 4:15; 5:12), not only an immediate father. This is why
Daniel reveals that the crown prince Belshazzar committed unthinkable Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called Israel’s ‘fathers’ (Exodus 3:16).
folly by ordering that the sacred cups that had been used in the Temple Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and Nabonidus was the son of Nabu–
ceremonies at Jerusalem be used in this debauchery. These sacred vessels balaṭsu–iqbi on his father’s side and Adad–guppi on his mother’s side.
were mentioned in Daniel 1:2. In the future, they would be returned to Nabonidus’ mother was a worshiper of the moon god Sin in Harran who
the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem by Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (Ezra left behind an autobiographical inscription in Akkadian that tells her story
1:7–11), after Cyrus had ended Babylonian hegemony and turned it and and that of her son Nabonidus. This at first seems to be bad news for the
the surrounding area into a province he used as an administrative historical accuracy of Daniel. However, the name of Belshazzar’s mother
center. It is worth noting that corruption, idolatrous practices, and or her descent is not documented. One possibility is that Belshazzar’s
sacrilegious disrespect reach a new level in this scene in Daniel. mother was a widow of Nebuchadnezzar who had already borne
Nebuchadnezzar had stored those vessels in the temple of his own god, but Belshazzar before the 2nd marriage to Nabonidus, making Belshazzar a
had not used these vessels in this way. In fact, 30 years earlier he had direct son of Nebuchadnezzar and making Nabonidus Belshazzar’s
‘worshiped the Most High and honoured the one who lives forever’ stepfather. Another, probably better, explanation is that one of
(Daniel 4:34) and declared the righteous character of this King of heaven Nebuchadnezzar’s daughters married Nabonidus, so that Belshazzar was
(Daniel 4:36–37). He would not have thought of desecrating the vessels the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. This woman may be a certain
made to honour God. This king had honoured Daniel because the spirit of legendary queen Nitocris, mentioned by Herodotus (1.185–188), though
the gods was in him (Daniel 4:9). But, now the focus of worship had the reliability of Herodotus for this period is questionable. Nabonidus was
become gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone put into the form of already of high rank in the court of Nebuchadnezzar before he became
‘gods’—idols! According to Isaiah, the use and worship of idols by Israel king, being given the Sumerian title: LU2.LUGAL (‘man of the king’).
had played a major part in sending them into exile. In similar fashion, God Nabonidus’ kinship to Nebuchadnezzar, though indirect through marriage,
 235

would help him legitimize his throne. It should be noted that after This powerful and melodramatic moment has inspired many artists, as
Nebuchadnezzar’s death there was a power struggle with Amel–Marduk, a depicted here by Rembrandt [17th century Dutch painter] portraying an
true son of Nebuchadnezzar, reigning 2 years (562–561 BC), Nergal– astonished Belshazzar rising from his seat during his orgy because of a
šarra–uṣur (Neriglissar) his brother–in–law reigning 3 years (559–556 hand materializing and writing while the gold and silver goblets spill their
BC), and Labashi–Marduk son of Neriglissar reigning 3 months (555 BC), wine. However, a more astonishing depiction by John Martin [19th century
before Nabonidus was made king. In this climate, every claim to English painter] showcases a panoramic spectacle of thunderstorms,
legitimacy would be used by both Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. supernatural light flashing, and masses of people overcome by panic:
The problem with the biological explanations is that we lack the
historical evidence presently to prove or disprove it. Although Nabonidus
is not mentioned explicitly in Daniel, his existence may be implied. The
one who could interpret the ‘handwriting on the wall’ was to be given
‘third highest position’ or made ‘third ruler’ in the kingdom (Daniel 5:7,
16, 29). Why third? If Belshazzar was 2nd rank after Nabonidus, he could
only offer Daniel 3rd rank.”

3) What was Belshazzar’s reaction upon seeing the inscription? (5:5–9)

Starting with vv. 5–6, we read: “At that moment, humanlike fingers of a
hand appeared near the lampstand of the royal palace and wrote on the
plaster of the wall. While the king watched the back of the hand as it was
writing, his facial expression changed. Utterly terrified, his legs collapsed
and his knees began knocking together.”

Notice that there is a dark–robed Daniel with gestures mirroring the statue
of Jupiter behind him [entwined by a serpent], and overlooking beyond the
mile–long dance floor [past the mix of Indian, Egyptian, and Babylonian
architecture] we see gardens, temples, and the infamous Tower of Babel.
Thus, notice how quickly the mood of Belshazzar’s banquet orgy changed!
In a miraculous act, God caused an anthropomorphic hand to appear and
write letters on the wall of the royal palace, where the inscription
“appeared near the lampstand.” The Aramaic neḇraštāʾ [for “lampstand”]
is a loanword from Old Persian nibrāza [or “a brightly burning lamp”].
Thus, these letters appeared on the wall where they could best be seen,
which means the written inscription was not merely something seen in a
vision by the king alone, for it was clearly visible later when the wise men
arrived, and later still when Daniel was brought in.
 236

Nevertheless, some scholars have argued that only Belshazzar saw the Furthermore, the Aramaic verb nᵊpaq [for “appeared”] underscores the
handwriting! In other words, although the narrative implies that everyone irony by use of a subtle wordplay, because the same verb appeared in the
could see the inscription, its message will concern Belshazzar more than Hap’el stem as “taken” [vv. 2–3], but here it is in the Pa’el stem. In other
the people he represents, and the hand [which appeared for the sake of one words, like nouns and adjectives, Aramaic verbs are based on a
man] was visible to him alone! Thus, we are placed in the position of the consonantal root and a pattern, and that pattern includes both a vowel
king, who knows neither where the hand came from nor what the writing pattern and potentially affixed consonants, which can be either prefixed or
says. If Belshazzar alone could see the inscription, it would heighten the suffixed. So, verbal patterns follow three basic stems:
prior parallel narrative where the experts needed to be able to say what
Nebuchadnezzar’s hidden dream was and to interpret it [recall Daniel 2]. 1. Pe’al [the G, or basic, stem].
2. Pa’el [the D stem, which has a range of uses].
Michael Segal [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes: 3. Hap’el [the C, or causative, stem], but the Shaph‘el [an alternate
“Daniel 5 clearly emphasizes that it is specifically the king who sees the causative stem] is most likely a form borrowed from Akkadian.
hand writing, and he is the one who shows the physical and emotional
effects of this terrifying sight. In other words, the king was the only one Bill Arnold [21st century biblical scholar] extensively explains the details:
who saw the vision of the hand and the resulting inscription on the wall. “The opening verses of Daniel 5 tell of Belshazzar’s banquet and his
The text not only records the king’s reaction to the exclusion of the others command to use the sacred vessels from Jerusalem. In the narrator’s
present, but also limits the description of those who saw it to him as well. description of the vessels, we are twice told they were ‘brought forth’
The writing actually took place and the inscription was on the wall, but it (haphel of nĕpaq, vv. 2–3). Then in v. 5, the same verb is employed, this
was a revelation that was visible to the king alone. The message is time in the peal. The qĕr ʾ has npqh. The recently published manuscript of
directed specifically towards Belshazzar, since, as noted at the beginning 4QDana contains this verse. But unfortunately, the surface of the leather is
of Daniel 5, he is the person responsible for the decision to use the Temple lost precisely at the end of this word, and it is impossible to discern
vessels at the feast (vv. 2–3). The notion that the vision was revealed to whether the kĕtîb or qĕr ʾ was used. Ginsberg’s argument is that the the
him alone is also appropriate in light of its contents, which foretell the end waw of the kĕtîb is miswritten for a yod, and that the reconstructed form
of his rule because of this action (although the vision also has implications nĕpahî preserves a feminine plural distinct from the masculine in the
for the Babylonian empire in general). The limitation of the vision to perfect. The subject is now the fingers of a human hand, which wrote a
Belshazzar alone also offers new insight into the emphasis that the divine message of doom. This is an example of subtle polysemantic
spectacle took form ‘on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace wordplay, in which the same word is deliberately used with a calculated,
opposite the lampstand.’ The statement has generally been explained as an ironic nuance. The play is metaphonic, since it depends on the use of a
attempt to emphasize that since the writing was done near a lamp, all verbal root in different derived stems (peal and haphel). Following the
those present could see it. However, in light of the interpretation suggested lead of modern sociolinguistic studies, we may call vv. 1–4 as an
here, this emphasis takes on a very different meaning: it is not to inform ‘orientation’ where the time, place, and persons of the narrative are
the reader that the writing was clearly seen by all those present; rather, identified. These verses display several interesting narrative techniques.
the lamp should have made the vision and the writing visible to all those Belshazzar is unceremoniously introduced with the terse statement that he
present, and yet this was not the case. By situating the writing opposite gave a great feast for his leading heads of state (v. 1). The reference to
the lampstand, the story accomplishes a two–fold task: first, it drinking wine clearly forms an inclusio with the opening word of v. 4,
accentuates the miraculous nature of the writing, since only the king can marking these verses as a literary unit. The most interesting feature in this
see it; second, it increases the bewilderment of all those present at the orientation is the repetition of the basic content of v. 2 in v. 3. Of course,
king’s claims that he has seen a hand writing on the wall.” repetition is a dominant, perhaps the dominant literary technique in
 237

biblical narrative poetics. But as literary critics have long since language based on a verb–subject–object pattern. But the verb is so
understood it, repetition is not redundancy. It often serves an intensifying frequently the second constituent of a clause, he concedes that biblical
role or signals an important concern of the narrator by making an ever so Aramaic is ‘a verb–subject–object language in which verb–initial or verb–
light variation in wording or phraseology in the repeated material. subject clauses are not a majority or plurality.’ In terms of functional
Sometimes the same information is given twice in close proximity. It is grammar, this example in v. 5 is a ‘foregrounded’ construction marking a
not for the benefit of the reader; he would not have forgotten so soon. main event of the story. In summary, the narrator is intentionally using
But it is not redundant, because it signals that an additional point of the wordplay in v. 5 to dramatize divine retribution against human sin,
view is entering the narrative. The principle is the same and applies and the irony is that he uses the same verb, albeit in different derived
directly to vv. 2–3, where the narrator repeats his description of the stems, to denote both sin and punishment. Further evidence that the
vessels from Jerusalem. This is an example of what Alter refers to as narrator is using nĕpaq as a paronym in v. 5 may be adduced from its
‘phrasel repetition,’ in which entire statements are repeated with small but semantic range of meaning. Naturally the range is limited in biblical
important changes in what usually looks at first glance like verbatim Aramaic because of the limited size of the corpus. But also the verb nĕpaq
repetition: ‘Many of the psychological, moral, and dramatic complications only occurs 11 times in biblical Aramaic. This verb is common in extra–
of biblical narrative are produced through this technique.’ Because of the biblical Aramaic and occurs frequently both in peal (‘to go out’) and
verbatim repetition here, the subtle changes in v. 3 are full of meaning. haphel (‘to bring forth’). Five of those occurrences are in the simple active
The narrator carefully omits any details that might overburden the stem (peal) carrying the basic meaning ‘go,’ or ‘come out.’ Five are in the
repetition. Thus, v. 3 omits wĕkaspāʾ (‘and silver’) in its description of the simple causative (haphel) and are used in a phrase similar to v. 2: ‘the
vessels and avoids repeating the name ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ but there is one gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar brought forth from the
addition to v. 3. Three important words are inserted into the narrator’s temple.’ The five peal occurrences are Daniel 2:13–14; 3:26; 7:10, and
description of the Temple. Not only is this the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Daniel 3:26 best illustrates this basic meaning of nĕpaq, in which
Temple which is the house of God (dî–b t ʾĕlāhāʾ) in Jerusalem! Certainly Nebuchadnezzar commands the three Hebrew children to ‘come forth out
the author did not feel there was ambiguity in v. 2. It is inconceivable that of the fiery furnace and come here.’ The haphel occurrences are Ezra
his readers could have confused ‘the Temple in Jerusalem’ with some 5:14; 6:5; Daniel 5:2–3, and all refer to bringing forth vessels of worship
other sacred building. Instead, this is the phrase which gives us the from a temple. The 11th and last occurrence is the peal of Daniel 5:5,
narrator’s point of view and emphasizes his concerns. This ravenous act which is used in a unique way. Whereas all the other occurrences of
of Belshazzar was more than drunken recklessness. It was blasphemy nĕpaq are clearly ‘go/come out,’ here something like ‘appear’ is intended.
against the God of Israel, whose Temple is in Jerusalem. The emphasis on The peal in Daniel 5:5 is atypical, and the occurrences of the haphel in
human rebellion communicated so forcefully through phrasal repetition vv. 2–3 prepare for the distinctive peal in v. 5. Thus, the peal of Daniel
prepares the reader for the play on the term nĕpaq. After its double use in 5:5 is a fashioned and calculated paronym which expands the natural
vv. 2–3, the narrator skilfully turns the tables in v. 5, both literarily and connotations of nĕpaq. The purpose of the wordplay is clear. The two
theologically. The syntax of v. 5 serves to heighten the effect. The word occurrences of the haphel (vv. 2–3) emphasize the arrogant blasphemy of
order itself is not particularly striking. Indeed, word positions are less Nebuchadnezzar. Then the paronym in v. 5 subtly, and without
rigid in biblical Aramaic than in biblical Hebrew. But it is interesting to mentioning God directly, introduces the divine reaction to human
note that the new sentences in vv. 1–2 begin with subject–verb sequence, insolence. This skilful use of nĕpaq uses irony to contrast the arrogance
and v. 6 continues with this order. By contrast, the order is reversed in v. of human rebellion with the omnipotence of God’s response.
5, the verb’s position coming before the subject and immediately after the Nebuchadnezzar may have exercised his royal power in capturing the
emphatic bah–ša atâ (‘at this very moment,’ ‘at once,’ or ‘suddenly’). sacred vessels, but now God exercises his divine prerogative in bringing
Randall John Buth has recently described biblical Aramaic as a post–field the blasphemy to an end. The powerful effect of the divine response in v. 5
 238

is made more riveting by v. 4, which is the orientation’s climax in should desire to localise the scene of Belshazzar’s eventful banquet, he
profanation. While Belshazzar drank from the vessels of Yahweh, he can surely place it with complete accuracy in this immense room.’ Along
praised the worthless deities of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. one of the long walls, as Koldewey described it, was a niche opposite the
The use of nĕpaq in v. 5 demonstrates God’s response both to Belshazzar’s entrance in which Koldewey suggests the king’s throne stood. Larue
mindless sacrilege and to Nebuchadnezzar’s former arrogance in provides a further description of this beautiful room: ‘On the external
‘bringing forth’ the vessels from God’s temple.” facade, against a background of dark blue glazed bricks, were tall
columns of yellow glazed bricks topped with bright blue Ionic capitals with
Furthermore, the “humanlike fingers of a hand” signified a certain irony double volutes linked by palmettos. A frieze of white rosettes ran above the
for the king [later in vv. 23–24]. Belshazzar’s purpose as a king on earth columns and the entire pattern was framed with a border of glazed squares
was to bring glory to God, but God held Belshazzar in his hand! of alternating yellow, black, and white. Other motifs reconstructed by the
Belshazzar was nothing more than a puny king in God’s hand. Thus, in German archaeologists out of the thousands of fragments of shattered tile
this moment of judgment, the Babylonian deities were unable to speak out included scorpions, serpents, panthers, lions, and mythological monsters.
or even raise so much as a finger to help Belshazzar, and since Belshazzar The interior of the throne room appears to have been relatively simple.
did not recognize God in whose hand his life rested, God sent a “hand” to The roof was constructed of cedar and the windowless walls were
spell out the divine judgment for Belshazzar. Also, the Aramaic gîr [for whitewashed. The doorways had thresholds of bronze and traces were
“plaster”] can also mean “whitewash,” suggesting that the walls of the found of cedar doors covered with bronze.’”
palace were coated in a whitewashed plaster, especially since the LXXθ
translated it as koniama [or “stucco, plaster, whitewashing”], from the Thus, because this miraculous “hand” wrote on the “plaster” of the palace,
masculine form koniatēs [or “plasterer, whitewasher”]. In other words, the “his facial expression changed. Utterly terrified, his legs collapsed and his
walls of Babylon, according to archaeological excavations, were covered knees began knocking together.” He was completely unnerved by this
with “plaster” created from white gypsum. spectacle! Nevertheless, the proper translation and interpretation of the
Aramaic qiṭr ḥarṣēh mištārayin [for “his legs collapsed”] is difficult,
Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The surface of the wall specifically because of the hapax word ḥăraṣ [“loins,” “hip,” or “thigh”].
was ‘plaster’ that was composed of chalk or lime. Koldewey, who led a Furthermore, LXXΟ omitted the phrase, but LXXθ rendered it as hoi
number of excavations at Babylon beginning in March 1899, commented sundesmoi tēs osphuos autou dieluonto [or “the bonds/sinews/ligaments of
that the walls of the throne room ‘were washed over with white gypsum.’ his loins were loosening/weakening”]. So, this translation nuance of
Against this white wall any writing (and the moving hand) would have “loins” is clear, despite the ambiguity of the phrase as a whole. But, other
stood out clearly. Archaeologists have been unearthing the ancient ruins scholars argue against the meaning “hip” or “thigh” in favour of a unique
of Babylon for over 100 years, and Koldewey may have discovered the interpretation that he lost control of his sphincter muscles because of four
very room where this event took place. The miraculous encounter manifestations of fear in descending order: face, heart, loins, and knees.
obviously transpired in one of the king’s palaces in Babylon, surely in the Thus, Belshazzar became undone from head to toe as a ripple of fear
principal residence, which was located in the southern citadel and covered traversed his terrified body, and he was unable to control his bodily
approximately 350 yards by 200 yards. Off of the largest of the palace’s wastes. In other words, the Aramaic can be translated: “he soiled himself.”
five courtyards was a huge chamber (170 ft. by 56 ft.) with three entrances
that Koldewey identified as the throne room, and most scholars would Albert Wolters [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and explains:
agree with this identification. Koldewey reports: ‘It is so clearly marked “The Aramaic words wĕqiṭr ḥarṣēh mištārayin literally means ‘the knots
out for this purpose as a throne–room that no reasonable doubt can be felt of his loins were loosened/untied.’ This graphic description of the king’s
as to its having been used as their principal audience chamber. If anyone terror details in descending order four bodily manifestations of fear: the
 239

blanching of the face, the anxiety of the mind (that is, the heart), the meaning of šĕrâ qiṭrîn is so different in the two contexts. Nevertheless, it is
loosening of the loins, and the knocking of the knees. A ripple of fear striking that in this short and carefully constructed narrative the theme of
traverses the terrified king’s body. Three of the elements of this description untying knots occurs three times in rapid succession. Is this mere
are familiar human manifestations of fear. But what are we to make of the accident? I propose a solution to both the problems that I have raised: the
phrase ‘the knots of his loins were untied’? There is little dispute about the meaning of qiṭr ḥarṣēh mištārayin in v. 6 and the apparent echo of this
literal meaning of the three Aramaic words involved: qĕṭar means ‘knot’; phrase in vv. 12, 16. My proposal is that v. 5 refers to the king’s panic–
ḥǎraṣ means ‘loins’ and the hithpaal of šĕrâ means ‘be loosened/untied.’ stricken loss of sphincter control and that vv. 12, 16 are a mocking and
But what do they mean in combination and in context? On this point there ironic allusion to this ignominious incontinence on the king’s part. It is
is great confusion in the versions, lexica, and commentaries. It is a matter of common knowledge that extreme fear can cause a person to
especially the phrase qiṭr ḥarṣēh that poses a problem. What are the lose control over the sphincter muscles of his bladder and anus, which
‘knots of his loins’? Do they refer to the ‘joints of the hip,’ to the lower results in involuntary urination and defecation. In the words of Walter B.
vertebrae, or simply to ‘every limb’? It is perhaps not surprising that a Cannon, ‘The involuntary voiding of the bladder and lower gut at times of
number of versions do not translate this obscure phrase and its verb at all. violent mental stress is well–known.’ The same phenomenon is referred to
The trouble is that the anatomical referent is not clear and that no readily in colourful, if somewhat vulgar, idioms in many languages. I think of
recognizable manifestation of fear is being described. Leaving this expressions like the German ‘die Hosen voll haben,’ the Dutch ‘het van
problem aside for the moment, we should also observe that the untying of angst in de broek doen,’ or the English ‘to be scared shitless.’ All such
knots, expressed by the same Aramaic words, is a theme that recurs twice idioms refer to the well–known physiological effect of great fright. Our
in Daniel 5. After the terrified king has called on his wise men to read and suggestion, therefore, is that the problematic phrase qiṭrê ḥarṣēh in v. 6
interpret the handwriting on the wall, and they have proved unequal to the refers to the sphincter muscles of the bladder and anus. This
task, the queen mother enters and recommends Daniel. She says: ‘an interpretation fits the usual meaning of Aramaic ḥăraṣ (Hebrew
excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, ḥălāṣayim), namely, ‘loins’ (often associated in the bible with the
explain riddles, and solve problems (mĕšār ʾ qiṭrîn) were found in this reproductive organs), and does not require recourse to the otherwise
Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and unattested meanings of ‘hip’ or ‘thigh.’ Furthermore, qĕṭar is an exact
he will show the interpretation’ (v. 12). So the king calls in Daniel and etymological parallel to the word ‘sphincter’ (Greek sphinktēr), since
says to him ‘I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve both are derived from verbs (Aramaic qĕṭar, Greek sphingō) which mean
problems (qiṭrîn lĕmišr ʾ)’ (v. 16). Daniel then proceeds to interpret the ‘tie up,’ ‘bind tight.’ They suggest the action of a knot which can be pulled
handwriting as a divine judgment on the king, and the king is killed that tight in order to constrict and close something off. This is exactly the
very night, paying the penalty for his sacrilege. It is striking that in this action of the sphincter muscles which close off the bladder and the anus.
dramatic story, which is told with a great deal of narrative artistry, there Since the relevant sphincter muscles are under voluntary control and can
are two more cases of the verb šĕrâ (‘loosen, untie’), construed with the therefore be tightened or relaxed at will, they were undoubtedly felt and
noun qiṭrîn (‘knots’). Daniel is twice described as a man who can ‘untie known in the ancient world. Besides, the anal sphincter is directly
knots’ for the king, and in the Aramaic text this is like an echo of the observable, and the anatomy of animal bladders with its sphincter muscle
earlier description of the king having the knots of his loins untied. The would be familiar from their use as handy containers of liquids. It is not
echo is obscured in modern translations, since Daniel’s ability to ‘untie necessary, however, to presuppose a detailed anatomical knowledge of
knots’ is usually understood to have quite a different meaning. The usual the sphincters on the part of the writer of Daniel. In all likelihood he is
interpretation is ‘solve problems’ or the like, though a good case can also here describing the human body in terms drawn from the familiar zĕqāʾ,
be made for ‘unbind spells.’ Most scholars do not remark on the verbal the animal skin or leather bottle used as a container for water or wine
echo, and those that do dismiss it as insignificant on the grounds that the throughout the ancient world, which had knots where the animal’s urinal
 240

and anal orifices had been ‘tied off’ in order to make it watertight. There without a battle, entered Babylon, and on another level be a mocking
are a number of references to this ‘tying off’ of skins in ancient literature allusion to the involuntary opening of the gates of Belshazzar’s body. If
(Apuleius, The Golden Ass 3.17) and the Aramaic word for the resulting this is correct, then our interpretation of v. 6 goes back at least to the time
‘ties’ or ‘knots’ was qiṭrîn (y. Šeqal. 8.50c). Since the function of these of the Peshitta. We turn now to the two further instances in Daniel 5 of the
knots was the retention of fluid and they occurred at the places theme ‘untying knots,’ which in the light of the preceding discussion can
corresponding to the urethra and the anus, it is not surprising that the also be characterized as ‘mocking allusions.’ Of course I do not mean to
same term should be applied to analogous parts of the human anatomy. suggest that the queen mother and Belshazzar, when they speak of
The loss of sphincter control would then be described as the ‘loosening of Daniel’s ability to ‘untie knots,’ should be understood as referring directly
the knots’ situated in the lumbar region or ‘loins.’ It is of interest to note to the king’s incontinence. Rather, the context clearly requires the phrase
further that the Akkadian cognate of Aramaic qĕṭar means ‘knot’ as well, to refer to a skill that a renowned sage might be expected to possess. I
but is also used to refer to anatomical features, which may be identified as personally incline to the view that the skill in question is that of unbinding
the sphincter muscles. The word in question is kiṣrû (in Akkadian q before spells and that the handwriting on the wall is experienced by the king as a
ṣ becomes k, and ṣ is here a reflex of the proto–Semitic unvoiced emphatic magical ‘knot’ or ‘spell.’ A strong argument in its favor is that Aramaic
interdental ṯ, which yields ṭ in Aramaic), which can refer to a ‘feature of qĕṭar is frequently attested in the sense ‘magical knot.’ Whatever the
the extra’ and a ‘stricture in the alimentary canal.’ It is plausible to correct interpretation, however, the point is that in the context of this story
suppose that these descriptions refer specifically to the sphincters of the the physiological meaning also comes into play, a meaning that is
bladder and the anus, respectively. Finally, it is noteworthy that the Syriac unknown to the characters in the story but is obvious to the readers of the
cognate qeṭrâ also means ‘knot’ and that the closely related Syriac noun story. In a word, we here have an example of dramatic irony involving
qaṭûrîtâ is equivalent to Latin inguen, ‘groin.’ It appears that it is not only double entendre, a common device of playwrights. We must look at the
in the Aramaic of v. 6 that the lower abdomen is associated with story from the point of view of an Aramaic–speaking Israelite audience
constricting ‘knots.’ The interpretation we are proposing, therefore, who had suffered much at the hands of the Babylonians. The Babylonian
respects the normal meaning of the Aramaic words in the troublesome king is described as first insulting the Israelite God and then, when the
expression qiṭrê ḥarṣēh, identifies a clear anatomical referent for them, latter responds with the mysterious handwriting on the wall, as being so
and relates the phrase to a well–known physiological response induced frightened that the ‘knots of his loins were untied.’ This ignominious
by fear. As far as I know, this interpretation has not been proposed before, spectacle is enough to elicit hoots of derisive laughter on the part of the
although there may be a veiled reference to it in F. Hitzig’s commentary audience. After the pagan wise men have failed to interpret the riddle, the
on Daniel (1850): ‘Indem die Bande sich lösen, lassen sie, was sie bisher queen mother recommends the Israelite prophet Daniel, whom she
festgehalten haben, los.’ See also A. Rossling, who compares the king’s describes to the king as particularly competent to ‘untie knots’ for him.
reaction to the Kanonenfieber of soldiers before battle (1876). Before The unwitting double entendre evokes more derisive laughter. Finally the
leaving our discussion of v. 6, we should note that our interpretation sheds king himself comes face to face with Daniel—the pagan king named
an unexpected light on the Peshitta of Isaiah 45:1, where the phrase Belshazzar before the Israelite prophet named Belteshazzar—and says, in
‘ungird (literally ‘open’; ʾăpattēaḥ) the loins of kings’ is rendered wḥṣʾ effect, ‘I understand that you can untie my knots for me.’ Again we can
dmlk ʾšrʾ, ‘the loins of a king I will loosen.’ By making ‘king’ singular and imagine the audience’s uproarious laughter as the hapless pagan king
using Syriac phraseology which is closely cognate to the biblical Aramaic unwittingly makes a fool of himself before the prophet of God. We see
of v. 6, the Peshitta translator is here creating a direct allusion to how the story uses burlesque humour to underscore the sovereignty of the
Belshazzar’s feast and the fall of Babylon to the Persian forces under Israelite God, before whom the great kings of the earth can at a moment’s
Cyrus. In that context the reference to the opening of ‘doors’ and ‘gates’ notice be reduced to figures of fun, preparatory to being brought to justice.
may on one level refer to the open gates through which the Persian troops, It is instructive to observe how the biblical storyteller achieves this effect.
 241

In the first occurrence of qiṭrîn with the verb šĕrâ (v. 6), he puts the phrase feared (v. 19). On past occasions Nebuchadnezzar’s distress indicated his
in a series of four expressions describing the physiology of fear, so that the anxiety at having lost control of the situation, and involved a premonition
reader has clear pointers to the physiological interpretation of ‘untying of impending disaster with respect to his own rule. Similarly here
knots’ in this context. In the second occurrence of qiṭrîn with the verb šĕrâ Belshazzar’s distress signals to the now intelligent reader that
(v. 12), he puts the phrase in a series of three expressions describing the Belshazzar’s kingship is in crisis. Perhaps a humorous suggestion lies in
skills of a Babylonian sage, so that the reader has clear pointers to a the story that it is precisely while he is carousing that Belshazzar sees the
different interpretation of ‘untying knots’ in this context. The case is appearance of the human hand. Given that v. 2 may intend us to
similar in the third occurrence of the phrase (v. 16). Thus, the difference in understand that Belshazzar was already intoxicated, maybe his first
context clearly separates the untying of knots in v. 6 from that in vv. 12, thoughts were that he had had too much to drink. First though, his face
16, but the identity of vocabulary binds them together. It is the interplay goes white (literally, ‘his colours changed’). His mind is filled with terror.
between difference and identity that makes the wordplay work. Modern But it is the next expression which is particularly intriguing. In v. 6 we
translations consistently obscure the wordplay because they interpret each read: ‘the knots/joints of his loins were loosened.’ An Akkadian equivalent
instance of the relevant phrase according to its immediate context. The is the example of the goddess Anat’s terrified reaction to ill tidings: ‘Her
result is that qiṭrîn is usually taken to mean ‘joints’ in v. 6, whereas in vv. feet wobble. Behind, her tendons break; above her face sweats. Bent are
12, 16 it is usually taken to mean ‘problems,’ even though these senses are the joints of her sinews; weakened are the tendons of her back.’ We are
attested poorly, if at all, in Aramaic literature elsewhere. The two ancient dealing here with an instance of satirical toilet humour and an attack on
versions that contain these verses—namely, the LXX and the Peshitta— the king’s virility. He is hit exactly in the organs he has employed in his
take the wiser course of preserving the identity of vocabulary and letting orgiastic drinking feast; instead of having sexual intercourse with his
the context suggest the difference in meaning. The LXX has hoi syndesmoi concubines, he becomes impotent; instead of eating and drinking, he
tēs osphyos autou dielyonto in v. 6, and lyōn syndesmous in v. 12, and the loses control and becomes incontinent. Belshazzar has lost control of his
Peshitta has qṭryn ḥṣh ʾštryw in v. 6, and šrʾ qṭryn in v. 12. A modern bodily functions. In his terror, either his bowels evacuated filling his
translation would be well advised to give the literal translation ‘untying ‘pants’ or else his bladder, filled with too much wine, left a puddle at his
knots’ in each case, perhaps with a footnote explaining the different feet. Some have taken this expression to merely mean his ‘knees knocked
specific references. Lastly, my attention was drawn to an Ugaritic together and his legs gave way,’ or that ‘the joints and muscles of his hips
passage in which the god El is described as losing sphincter control and back gave way and his knees smote together,’ or ‘he became limp in
when confronted by a terrifying apparition (KTU 1.114). In addition is every limb and his knees knocked together,’ or ‘his hip joints went slack,
Sennacherib’s Annals 6.31, where fear is associated with incontinence.” and his knees began knocking together,’ or something of the kind. But
such diluted understandings do not fit well with the overall satirical
Michael Wilson [21st century biblical scholar] humorously concludes: thrust of Daniel 1–6. The king who would appear powerful shows himself
“The portrayal of the king’s distress is not only to be expected because of to be weak. His father Nebuchadnezzar imperiously commands sages to be
the frightening spectacle he witnesses, but also because before this, called, and issues a decree that they be brought. Belshazzaar, by contrast,
whenever God had moved to counter Nebuchadnezzar’s gross over– responds in panic—he cries loudly for the sages to be brought. In his
estimation of his greatness through the imparting of dreams, terror he does not behave in a regal and dignified manner. He has lost
Nebuchadnezzar too was cast into a state of great distress. Indeed control of himself. This loosening of his loins is not only highly
recollection of those prior contexts seems to be intended because the same embarrassing for the king, but it also implies impotence. The king’s sexual
words are used here to depict Belshazzar’s consternation as those used in prowess and power is inferred by the presence of many wives and
Daniel 2 and Daniel 4. Yet alongside this there is also an implicit contrast concubines, but this stands in sharp contrast to a king who has had the
between Belshazzar who fears (vv. 6, 9, 10) and Nebuchadnezzar who was contents of his bowels frightened right out of him.”
 242

Finally in vv. 7–9, we read: “The king cried out to bring in enchanters, Thus, if anyone could read and interpret the inscription, the king offered:
Chaldeans, and astrologers. He announced to the advisors of Babylon,
‘Whoever can read this writing and tell me its meaning will be clothed in 1. A reward of being “clothed in purple.” This was the colour of
purple, have a gold chain placed around his neck, and will become the royalty in antiquity and signified a great elevation in the rank and
third highest ruler in the kingdom.’ Then all the king’s advisors came in, status of the person [Esther 8:15].
but they were unable to read the writing or tell the king what it meant. So
King Belshazzar became even more frightened, and his facial expression 2. A reward of having “a gold chain placed around his neck.” The
showed it. His officials also were thrown into confusion.” Aramaic hamnîḵ [for “chain”] is a loanword from the Persian
hamyānak [either “armband,” “neckband,” or “neck ornament”],
Since Belshazzar realized that this situation was beyond his understanding, perhaps denoting a collar on the garment rather than a chain. Thus,
he sought superstitious help from the Babylonian occult system, notably it had some significance of importance in the Babylonian culture.
those who were skilled in dream interpretations and astrology. He believed
that the writing involved an appropriation of Mesopotamian techniques of 3. A reward to “become the third highest ruler in the kingdom.”
mantic writing. But, these diviners will be defeated by their own method! Technically, the Aramaic ṯaltî [for “third”] relates to the noun tᵊlaṯ
[or “a third part”], but ṯaltî lost its numerical significance.
Carol Newsom [21st century biblical scholar] says: “That the king calls for
mantic experts to read and interpret the inscription indicates that he Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “There are
understands it to be an omen, a form of divine writing that communicates three primary views concerning its significance here. First,
the will of the gods in coded fashion. This is quintessentially a Montgomery argues that the term is reminiscent of Akkadian šalšû,
Mesopotamian concept of divine communication. Astronomical omens which was a title meaning ‘Thirdling’ or ‘Triumvir,’ similar to
were referred to as ‘heavenly writing,’ and omen priests would pray that Hebrew šâlîš. The Akkadian term eventually came to designate
the god’s answer to an inquiry would be found ‘written’ on the liver of the simply an official, having lost any numerical sense. Therefore the
sheep they were about to examine. The genre of mukallimtu terms in Daniel may simply represent a high official. A number of
commentaries textualized omens and interpreted them according to a problems are involved with this view. First, the wise men already
variety of sophisticated hermeneutical techniques, some of which are were of high rank, and elevation merely to the position of a high
similar to those used by Daniel. This means of communicating the divine official would not seem significant. Second, the other rewards
will is sharply different from what prevails in pre–exilic Israelite and offered indicated more than the status of high official, the purple
Judean contexts. There the favoured means is the prophetic oracle, which robe even suggesting that the interpreter would be promoted to
is generally not coded, though occasionally symbols may be used (Amos royalty. Third, if Montgomery is correct, Daniel should have used
7:7–9; 8:1–2). That a Jewish author should represent divine the Akkadian loan word for ‘šalšu–officer’ instead of the Aramaic
communication in this fashion suggests the ways in which a Diaspora word for ‘third’. Such is precisely the case in Daniel 3, where loan
people in an imperial setting might appropriate and hybridize aspects of words employed for the various officials are transliterated into
the dominant religion. The assumptions and interpretive techniques that Aramaic. Why would the author not do the same here? In light of
one sees in this narrative are further developed in Jewish scriptural Daniel 6:2, which speaks of three rulers of equal rank (and uses a
interpretation at Qumran and in certain forms of rabbinic exegesis. In similar word, tĕlātāʾ, ‘three’), Lacocque favours a second view,
both cases the scriptures are treated as esoteric communications from God that the term ‘third’ refers to a triumvir who would rule one–third
requiring expert interpretation. The categories of mantic experts called by of the kingdom equally with two other persons, in this case
the king are a subset of those named in Daniel 2:2; 4:7; 5:11.” Belshazzar and another unnamed individual. However, equal rank
 243

in the kingdom could not have been promised, for Belshazzar did Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and says:
not have the authority to confer such a position. He certainly was “This chapter is tied intimately to the preceding chapters of the book, as it
not able to promote the interpreter to a rank equal with his father, sounds the death toll for the Babylonian Empire and its last reigning king,
Nabonidus, even if he could have promised equality with himself. Belshazzar. In addition to the mention of wine, holy vessels from the
The most likely view is that the interpreter was to be promoted to Jerusalem Temple, Nebuchadnezzar’s rape of the holy Temple (Daniel 1),
the 3rd position of authority in the kingdom. Literally the text reads, idols of gold (Daniel 3), the king’s court of astrologers and enchanters,
‘and third in the kingdom he will rule,’ most naturally implying there is a laudatory historical review of Daniel’s position at the royal
‘third one’ in rank. Such a reward was quite reasonable under the court of Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 10–12) by the queen mother and
circumstances. The king had received a divine message from a confirmation of that history by Belshazzar (vv. 13–14). Daniel gave a
deity, surely the God whom he had just blasphemed. The Persian positive review of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and his humble response to
armies were outside the walls, and Babylonian forces already had God’s chastisements, including his insanity (vv. 17–21). So, the preceding
suffered defeats at their hands. He was in desperate straits and chapters are prologues to the tragic demise of the Babylonian king and
would have been willing to give all within his power to anyone who his kingdom in this chapter. The reasons why Belshazzar and the current
could help him. Third position in the kingdom was the highest sacrilegious conditions in the kingdom were to be brought to an end are
honour he could confer. This raises the question of the identity of spelled out in vv. 22–24 (much as the fall of northern Israel is explained in
the 3rd person—other than Belshazzar and the dream interpreter. 2 Kings 17). The worship of idols and the refusal to honour God could not
Montgomery contends that if three rulers were involved, the 3rd be tolerated further. There would be no extension of time for this king and
would be the queen–mother, but there is no evidence that the his authority, as there had been for Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The first
queen–mother ever possessed such authority during the Neo– kingdom of the head of gold is passing away, a momentous event in God’s
Babylonian period. Dougherty argues in light of the known orchestration of history, and the kingdom of Persia under Cyrus is given
historical circumstances the most reasonable view is to identify the temporary rulership of the nations (Daniel 1:21; 6:28; 10:1; 2
the 3rd person as Belshazzar’s father, Nabonidus.” Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1–7; Isaiah 44:28; 45:1–2, 13). The response of
Belshazzar to the handwriting on the wall shows his total emotional and
So, despite these attractive rewards, none of the Babylonian wise men physical trauma from this horrifying event. His reaction is itself shocking
were able to read or interpret the inscription. Why? Three equal reasons: and puzzling. By this time, the rise of the Persians had become a dark
spectre haunting the Babylonian kingdom (the evident references to Persia
1. Even if these were Aramaic words [which they all understood], we in vv. 25, 28). When this blasphemous and unjust ruler was faced with the
do not know what script that it was actually written in. charges and claims of unrighteousness, fear and dread resulted. He was
guilty; there was no way out. In the words of Cyrus the Great,
2. The real issue was the significance of the words, and seeing Nabonidus, and by implication his son, Belshazzar, were persons of no
isolated words without a context would be extremely difficult to account (COS 2.124, lines 9–19). The panic of Belshazzar’s hopeless
interpret since they did not even form a complete sentence [and not condition shows in his pitiful offer to reward anyone of his experts who
having a vowel pointing further complicated the problem]. could do their job. By contrast, Nebuchadnezzar had threatened to kill all
of the wise men if they did not inform him of his dream and its meaning
3. It was a polemic against their system if they could not read or (Daniel 2:5, 8–9, 12–13). This situation reiterates the uselessness and
interpret the writing. In other words, despite all their knowledge vanity of the Babylonian enchanters, astrologers, fortune–tellers, and
derived from their divination texts, Daniel was able to demonstrate other advisers to the king. When God reveals himself, only his chosen
the superiority of Israel’s God over the Babylonian gods. prophets are able to interpret his actions and messages. Daniel’s special
 244

ability in the languages and literature of Babylon (Daniel 1:4, 17) was seemed to take charge. For these reasons most scholars since the time of
observed early in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Now, years later, he Josephus (Ant. 10.11.2) have identified her as the queen–mother, either
would use that gift to honour God by announcing judgment upon Nebuchadnezzar’s wife or Nabonidus’ wife. The mother of Nabonidus died
Belshazzar and the passing of rulership to the Persians, as he had in 547 b.c., or 8 years prior to these events, and she is not an option. If the
described to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:39; 7:4, 17). The nation that had wife of Nebuchadnezzar, she probably was the grandmother of Belshazzar,
destroyed his people would be judged (Isaiah 43–47; Jeremiah 50–51). unless Nabonidus married a widow of Nebuchadnezzar with a child
Although the Babylonian experts could probably read the words of this (Belshazzar) by the former king whom Nabonidus adopted as his own. In
inscription (whether in Babylonian or Aramaic), they could not discern the this case Nebuchadnezzar’s widow (and Nabonidus’ wife) would have
significance of the words for the king. This was perhaps out of fear (Daniel been Belshazzar’s mother. Most likely she was the wife of Nabonidus,
4:19) but also because they were not attuned to spiritual realities. They and a daughter, not a widow, of Nebuchadnezzar. If so, she may have
needed Daniel’s interpretation. From Daniel’s perspective, which was been the famous Nitocris. At any rate, this woman displayed firsthand
already informed by God’s sovereign plans for history based on the events information concerning the affairs of Nebuchadnezzar that would not have
of Daniel 1–4 and Daniel 7–8, the message was a clear judgment from been known by a younger wife of Belshazzar, and she seems to have
God: The nation of Babylon was to be destroyed because it did not observed Daniel’s ministry in Nebuchadnezzar’s court.”
measure up to God’s demands of righteousness and mercy, and of the true
worship of God (Daniel 4:27; 5:22–24).” Thus, upon entering, she gave the king the typical oriental greeting, “your
majesty, live forever,” as a public display of her respect. However, from
4) Why did the queen recommend Daniel? (5:10–12) the perspective of Daniel, this was uttered in irony!

Starting with v. 10, we read: “Hearing the voices of the king and his Next in v. 11, we read: “There’s a man in your kingdom in whom dwells
officials, the queen entered the banquet hall. ‘Your majesty, live forever,’ the spirit of the holy gods. During your grandfather’s reign, he was found
the queen said. ‘Don’t be frightened by your thoughts or allow your facial to have insight, intelligence, and wisdom, like that of the gods. Your
expression to show it.’” grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar—your kingly predecessor—appointed him to
be chief administrator over the magicians, enchanters, and Chaldeans.”
Although the “queen” was not present, news about the scene in the
banquet hall quickly spread throughout the palace. The Aramaic malkᵊṯāʾ The Aramaic rûaḥ ʾĕlāhîn qaddîšîn [for “spirit of the holy gods”] is the
[for “queen”] can also mean “queen mother,” but this generates a crucial same expression found earlier [recall Daniel 4:8], in which the word
question: was she the wife of Nebuchadnezzar and grandmother to ʾĕlāhîn should be understood as a true plural. Furthermore, the Aramaic
Belshazzar, or was she the wife of Nabonidus and mother of Belshazzar? ʾăḇûḵ malkāʾ [for “kingly predecessor”] is unnecessary and missing from
If it is the latter, then she is possibly Nitocris, since Herodotus says that the LXXθ and Syriac, because it originated as a secondary scribal gloss.
she was the last great queen of the Neo–Babylonian Empire [Histories, So, by noticing how shaken and upset the king was, she sought to calm
I:185–188]. But, his description of her also includes legendary material. him by calling to his attention that there was a man in the kingdom who
Nevertheless, Nitocris was Nabonidus’ wife and Belshazzar’s mother. could help him. But, why did he not think to call Daniel earlier, especially
since he had called for others among the wise men [v. 7]? One possible
Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “This queen was not answer is that Daniel had been out of active government service by then,
Belshazzar’s wife, for the text explicitly states that the wives of the king because the year of this scene was 539 b.c., and if Daniel was ~15 years
were already present. Yet she must have been a highly prestigious old in 605 b.c. during Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st deportation, then he would
individual to enter the banquet hall uninvited, and when she arrived, she have been ~81 years old on this night.
 245

Furthermore, since Belshazzar had begun to reign in 553 b.c. as part of a In other words, through Daniel’s competency as a prophet, God was
joint–regime with his father Nabonidus, this means ~52 years had passed mocking Belshazzar’s arrogance and his psychosomatic reaction of fear.
since Daniel’s arrival. Thus, Daniel was ~67 years old when Belshazzar Daniel was already appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as “chief” over the
began to reign, and being this old in 553 b.c., he was never part of occult practitioners in the royal court. So, even though Nebuchadnezzar
Belshazzar’s administration, because Belshazzar was not familiar with gave him the Babylonian name “Belteshazzar,” the queen nevertheless
Daniel [later in vv. 13–14]. Another possible answer is that Belshazzar referred to him first by his true name “Daniel” [or “God is my judge”],
was familiar with Daniel’s role with Nebuchadnezzar, and the queen was because this reflected his relationship to God, since Nebuchadnezzar had
actually rebuking Belshazzar! come to respect Daniel’s original name [recall Daniel 4:8]. Thus, she
advised: “call for Daniel, and he will reveal the meaning of the writing.”
H. J. M. Van Deventer [21st century biblical scholar] says: “It is significant
that the queen mother in Daniel 5 is not named. Her power is derived Michael Wilson [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes:
from her very high social standing, in fact the highest social standing a “It is important to note that the queen comes onto the scene having heard
woman could obtain, albeit through personal ingenuity. As indicated the the commotion. She is not summoned. It is not as though Belshazzar as a
queen mother acts in the narrative world along the lines of the female last resort appeals to her. We are still left with the picture of a Belshazzar
rebuker. It is noteworthy that the narrator chooses the queen mother for who has nowhere to turn. Evidently the queen had not been invited to the
this part. According to the societal set–up she was placed in a role from banquet, or else she deliberately distances herself from it. At any rate her
which rebuke is expected and, indeed, accepted. It is, after all, not one of speech indicates that she sees herself linked to Nebuchadnezzar over and
‘his’ concubines that rebukes the king. The queen mother’s social standing above Belshazzar. If Belshazzar has neglected her then this is consistent
explains her conduct in this court tale.” with the way he has ignored vital historical lessons of the very recent past.
Insofar as the queen is identified with Nebuchadnezzar it appears that just
Finally in v. 12, we read: “because he was found to have an extraordinary as those who threaten Adonijah’s power were not invited to his banquet (1
spirit, knowledge, and understanding, along with an ability to interpret Kings 1), so too here Belshazzar avoids all who were intimately
dreams, explain riddles, and solve difficult problems. His name is Daniel, associated with the rule of his father. He wants to create for himself his
whom the king renamed Belteshazzar. Call for Daniel, and he will reveal own greatness commensurate with that of Nebuchadnezzar. The identity of
the meaning of the writing.” ‘the queen’ is unclear (v. 10). Beginning with Josephus most
commentators have thought her to be the queen mother. Various scholars
The queen believed that Daniel had “the spirit of the holy gods” within have speculated as to her identity, with proposals including Nitocris, wife
him because she referred to the days of Belshazzar’s grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar; the wife of Nabonidus and grandmother of
Nebuchadnezzar when Daniel had “an extraordinary spirit, knowledge, Belshazzar; Adadguppi, wife of Nabonidus and mother of Belshazzar. But,
and understanding, along with an ability to interpret dreams, explain we have already been told that his wives and concubines were present, so
riddles, and solve difficult problems” [recall Daniel 2; 4]. The Aramaic it seems unlikely that she was Belshazzar’s wife. Further she displays an
mᵊšārēʾ qiṭrîn [for “solve difficult problems”] literally means “the intimate knowledge of past events. The freedom she felt to come into the
loosening/untying of knots.” Thus, there is subtle wordplay in the text, banquet hall may also indicate she had a higher station than being merely
since Belshazzar was described earlier in v. 6 with the Aramaic qiṭr the wife of Belshazzar. It was common in the ancient Near East for the
ḥarṣēh mištārayin [or “the knots/joints of his loins were loosening”]. queen mother to be treated as a key political figure. Possibly she is the
However, Daniel is described here in v. 12 as someone who can “loosen wife or daughter of Nebuchadnezzar or the wife of Nabonidus. Herodotus
knots” because both v. 6 and v. 12 have the same words šᵊrāʾ and qᵊṭar, tells the story of Nitocris, a wise and powerful queen who fortified Babylon
and this is an example of dramatic irony involving double entendre. with a canal system. Herodotus believed her to be Nebuchadnezzar’s wife
 246

and Nabonidus’s mother. In Daniel 2 Arioch recommended Daniel to the recognition of this is implicit in Belshazzar’s readiness to give the
king, and in this respect the queen now performs an analogous role. A problem–solver political power of this order. Certainly in the outworking
close look at what the queen says is instructive. Her language is double– of God’s kingdom purposes it is Belteshazzar who is central at this time
edged. While on the one hand, her words speak a message of comfort, on and Belshazzar of absolutely no use whatsoever. So, in v. 12, Daniel is
the other hand, her words function to bring attention to the king’s introduced as one who ‘unties knots.’ Those present have experienced
discomfort. If any of those present have missed the king’s display of fear, divine power at work—a power that has ‘tied knots.’ The concept of gods
she makes sure that they now take note of it. The queen begins by hailing who bind is very common in the ancient world. Indo–European
the king with the words, ‘O king, live forever!’ In context this heightens the mythologies differentiate between warrior gods who fight by military
biting satire of the chapter because in reality Belshazzar’s reign and means and those who wield a different kind of weapon: magic. So, for
indeed his life will run out that very night. The queen then tells him of example, in contrast to the thunderbolt weapon of the warrior god Indra,
Daniel as one who has the ability ‘to solve problems.’ The expression used the weapon of the most invincible of the gods, Varuna, is depicted in the
is very interesting—‘to loosen knots’ (v. 12). This is a common enough form of a noose or knot. Indeed sometimes Indra is represented as
form of words to use with respect to resolving a mystery such as this. But rescuing victims who have been ‘bound’ by Varuna and ‘unloosing’ them.
in this particular context the language is highly suggestive. For the In ancient India, Yama and Nirrti, divinities of death, also make use of the
identical phrase used to describe the king’s panic now reappears. Has the same magic weapon. Similarly in Greek mythology while Zeus fights wars
queen upon entering noticed that Belshazzar’s hip joints have gone Ouranus ‘binds’ his eventual rivals in hell. In Roman mythology, Romulus
slack, or even seen a puddle of urine at his feet? Certainly, this is a ‘binds with all–powerful bonds.’ Iranian mythology especially recognizes
satirical pun that would have caused many a Jewish reader to burst into gods who bind: the demon Astovidhotush and the gods Fredun, Tistrya,
laughter. In addition, given earlier parallels between Daniel and Joseph, Verethragna, and Ahriman. Along the same lines Pauhi is the ancient
we must not miss the parallel implicit here with: ‘Now there arose over Chinese god of the wind and the net. Eliade also notes various Island
Egypt a new king who did not know Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8). History repeats peoples who believe in gods who bind. More relevant still to Daniel 5 is
itself. So, in vv. 1–4, Belshazzar’s attempts to be like Nebuchadnezzar that, in the Semitic world, magic bonds of every kind are a divine (and
seem pathetic by comparison. In this light it is striking to see how the demonic) power that is almost universal. By way of illustration is Enlil and
queen—and Daniel will reinforce this when he speaks—keeps referring his wife Ninkhursay (Ninlil) and En–zu, that is, Sin (the god preferred by
back to Nebuchadnezzar. She pointedly refers to him as King Nabonidus). Perhaps it is significant that Sin, like these other Semitic
Nebuchadnezzar, and as ‘your father the king’ (v. 11), as though implicitly deities, is represented as having a net with which he catches those guilty
she was denying Belshazzar’s right, at least by comparison, to fully own of perjury. Other Semitic gods who bind include Shamash, Nisaba,
such a title. She speaks of Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude towards Daniel—the Tammuz and again, most significantly, Marduk. Bel (Enlil) is addressed in
most crucial part of the history of Nebuchadnezzar, which Belshazzar has this way: ‘Father Bel, who dost hurl thy noose, and every noose is a
completely missed in his attempt at recapitulation. Indeed Belshazzar’s hostile noose.’ Marduk, like Indra, uses the noose and cords as a divine
ignorance of Daniel and his consequent ‘desecration of the temple’ (at champion. In Enuma Elish Ea ‘binds’ the primordial monsters Apsu and
least symbolically) is somewhat reminiscent of Pharaoh’s ignorance of Mummu with magical incantations, prior to killing them. In his fight with
Joseph and his similarly blasphemous disdain for God’s people; a parallel the sea monster, Tiamat, Marduk’s chief weapon is the ‘net’ and Marduk
encouraged by the commonality of the unknown hero idea in both ‘binds’ Tiamat, ‘shackles’ her and then kills her. He then chains up all the
contexts. In stressing that Daniel was called Belteshazzar by gods and demons who aligned themselves with Tiamat. In the ancient
Nebuchadnezzar, the queen may be drawing attention via the almost world, magical bonds were used against human enemies and also to
identical names to the contrast between Belshazzar and Daniel. It is the provide protection against wild animals and against disease, witchcraft,
wisest of men who is most fit to exercise rule over the kingdom, and demons, and death. For example, the cord buried near the house of an
 247

enemy; the cord hidden in a ship to make it capsize; and the use of knots to Belshazzar did not waste any time in summoning Daniel to his presence,
bring about all sorts of ills. The use of knots, strings and cords for and apparently Daniel was not too far away at the time [since he arrived
protection against disaster during the time of childbirth is especially rather quickly]. Although the queen had pointed out the fact of Daniel’s
common. Depending on the context, the act of binding or tying can be promotion to “chief” of the wise men, Belshazzar made no mention of this
either positive or negative. Illness and death are the two elements of the when he addressed Daniel. Instead, since the Aramaic bᵊn gālûṯāʾ [for
magico–religious complex of ‘binding’ which have had the widest “the Judean exiles”] literally means “sons of the deportation,” Belshazzar
currency almost all over the world. It is against this background that pointed out this context of Daniel’s association with them, a fact that the
much biblical language takes on a new edge. Consider, for example, the queen had not mentioned! Thus, it was the recognition of Daniel’s Hebrew
psalmist who cries out: ‘the cords of Sheol entangled me, the snares of name [dāniyyēʾl] which was easily identifiable as a foreign name and
death confronted me’ (Psalm 18:5). Or, again: ‘I will spread my net for connected him with Israel’s God. Thousands of these Jews who had been
him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia’ taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar were still living in their realm, and
(Ezekiel 12:13). In such instances the context is not that of magic. Belshazzar was undoubtedly generally familiar with them. Thus, by
However, in the rest of the ancient world magical connotations acknowledging that Daniel was “from Judah,” the king was certainly
predominate. The Babylonian word markasu (‘link’ or ‘cord’) means in aware that he was now talking face–to–face with a man [renowned for
the mythology, the cosmic principle that unites all things, and also the having “the spirit of the holy gods”] who represented Israel’s God [and the
support and the power and the divine law that hold the universe together. Temple vessels he desecrated]. Thus, Belshazzar must have been highly
With regard to the context of Daniel 5 it is important to recognize that it is anxious at this moment as he waited to hear from God’s representative.
in the sphere of knowledge and wisdom that we encounter the language of
‘tearing away’ the veils of unreality, and ‘untying’ the ‘knots’ of existence. Finally in vv. 14–16, we read: “I’ve heard about you, that a spirit of the
Given all of the above background, the image of Daniel as the untier of gods is in you and that you have insight, discernment, and extraordinary
knots takes on added significance. The worldview of Belshazzar and his wisdom. Take note that the advisors and enchanters were brought before
entourage would lead them to see the mysterious writing or etching on the me to read the writing and explain its meaning, but they were unable to do
wall as an ominous divine act of magical binding. The extreme terror so. However, I’ve heard that you can provide meaning and interpretation,
experienced by Belshazzar may well be attributable to his automatic, and and that you can solve difficult problems. If you are able to read the
now comprehensible association of such ‘binding’ with a sense of writing and report its meaning, you will be clothed in purple, have a gold
imminent death and disaster. But the great untier of knots, Daniel, does chain placed around your neck, and you will become the third highest
not meet magic with magic. Daniel only unravels the cords of mystery, ruler in the kingdom.”
and as so often happens, it may very well serve as a clever double
entendre, whereby the king desired to have the enigmatic code ‘spelled’ Belshazzar continued with his elaboration of what he knew about Daniel.
out, so that his ‘charmed’ existence would remain unharmed; the cords of He acknowledged that Daniel possessed a “spirit of the gods,” curiously
death remain tightly fastened around Belshazzar’s gasping throat.” omitting the word “holy” in regard to gods, although a few manuscript
editions [including the Syriac and Arabic versions] add the word qaddîšîn
5) What was Belshazzar’s reward to Daniel for interpreting? (5:13–16) [or “holy”], but since this is missing from the Masoretic Text, it is more
likely that this addition was due to a harmonization with v. 11.
Starting with v. 13, we read: “Then Daniel was brought before the king. Nevertheless, Belshazzar’s wording of Daniel’s spiritual qualifications
The king spoke up and told Daniel, ‘So you are Daniel, one of the Judean seems to be a summary of what the queen had said to him previously. He
exiles whom my grandfather the king brought from Judah!’” also acknowledged to Daniel that the wise men of the court had seen the
inscription, but had not been able to declare its interpretation.
 248

Although several categories of wise men had been listed in v. 7, the king 6) What was Daniel’s response to Belshazzar? (5:17–28)
only refers to the “advisors and enchanters,” possibly for the sake of
brevity. Finally, in v. 16, Belshazzar acknowledged what he had heard Starting with v. 17, we read: “At this, Daniel answered, speaking directly
about Daniel in regard to his ability to make interpretations and solve to the king, ‘Let your gifts and rewards be given to someone else.
difficult problems. So, curiously notice that Belshazzar extended the same However, I’ll read the writing for the king and tell him its meaning.’”
offer of the three rewards to Daniel that had been offered to the other wise
men. Although Nebuchadnezzar had rewarded Daniel in days past because The Aramaic ûnᵊḇāzᵊbᵊyāṯāḵ [for “your gifts and rewards”] has caused
of how amazingly God had worked through Daniel [recall Daniel 2:48], some confusion, since the LXXθ regarded this as two separate words
this offer of reward came in a very different context: from the lips of a [ûnᵊḇizbāṯ baytāḵ], translating as kai tēn dōrean tēs oikias sou [or “and the
king who deliberately mocked and ridiculed Israel’s God. gift of your house”]. The Qumran 4QDana has nbzbtk [without the yod],
and nᵊḇizbâ is either a Persian or Akkadian loanword. So, Daniel’s tone is
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “The queen’s rude, since Josephus assumed a softer reply: “Then Daniel begged him to
description of Daniel, now a man of ~80 years of age, as one in whom ‘the keep his presents—for, he said, that which was wise and divine could not
spirit of the holy gods’ resided, repeats Nebuchadnezzar’s evaluation of be bought with gifts but freely benefited those who asked for help—and
Daniel’s uniqueness in Babylonian polytheistic terms (Daniel 4:8–9, 18). said that he would explain the writing to him.” [Ant. 10.11.3 §241]
From Daniel’s perspective, it was the Spirit of the living God who was in
him, imparting wisdom, skill, and understanding to him just as the Spirit However, rather than being rude, Daniel was trying to be clear with the
had to Bezalel, Moses, and the prophets. His possession of wisdom like king. He was there only to speak the truth and refused the rewards, so that
that belonging to the gods made some think that ‘a godlike’ man might be he would not be under any obligation that would interfere with him being
among them (Daniel 2:11). But in the world of Daniel, to be ‘like God’ less than truthful. One thing is evident: Daniel was not motivated by such
meant living a righteous, holy, loving, and wise life. The interpretation of earthly treasures! At this stage of his life, he could see the limited value
the writing on the wall, which evidently remained there for all to see and these offered. It takes a man of genuine godly character to pass up the
examine, and which the king sought so diligently, was a devastating glitter of worldly desires, but that is precisely what Daniel did.
announcement and revelation that confirmed the worst fears of Furthermore, for him the rewards were wrong because of the context in
Belshazzar’s anxiety attack. Knowing the significance of the writing would which they were offered [a context of belittling God whom Daniel served].
prove far more disconcerting than the angst of not knowing what it meant.
Daniel, as a true prophet, would tell them what it meant. His prophetic Next in vv. 18–21, we read: “Your majesty, the Most High God gave your
word would, like Jeremiah’s message, bring down a nation (Jeremiah 1:9– grandfather Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty, as well as greatness, glory, and
10). The king recalled the exile of Daniel by Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:1– splendour. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all people,
3). Literarily, this connects this section to the preceding chapters centering nations, and languages revered and feared him. He executed those whom
on Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar’s mention of Nebuchadnezzar enabled he desired to execute, he spared those whom he wished to spare, he
Daniel to present him as the model the current crown prince should have promoted those whom he desired to promote, and he humbled those whom
followed (vv. 17–21). The king’s proposition to Daniel was the same he he wished to humble. But when he became arrogant and his spirit
offered to all of the other wise men. But Daniel did not work for the crown hardened, he was removed from his royal throne and his glory was taken
prince; he served the King of heaven (Daniel 4:37), who revealed his away from him. He was driven away from human society and given the
secrets to his servant (Daniel 2:22–23, 27–29) and gave him all of his mind of an animal. He lived with wild donkeys, ate grass like cattle, and
abilities (Daniel 1:17). Daniel was ready to speak the message of God to his body was soaked with dew from the sky until he realized that the Most
the king because he had been positioned by God to do his will.” High is sovereign over human kingdoms and places whomever he desires.”
 249

Daniel turns Belshazzar’s attention to God’s discipline upon his Jerome [4th century] says: “Thus, Daniel sets forth the example of the
grandfather Nebuchadnezzar. God knew beforehand how he would behave king’s great–grandfather, in order to teach him the justice of God and
as king, but he still allowed him to have a full taste of earthly greatness. In make it clear that his great–grandson too was to suffer similar treatment
other words, God had allowed Nebuchadnezzar to realize “greatness” far because of his pride. Now if Nebuchadnezzar killed whomever he would
beyond what Belshazzar was experiencing, for the Babylonian kingdom and struck to death whomever he wished to; if he set on high those whom
had been eroding for some time, as Cyrus [leading the combined armies of he would and brought low whomever he wished to, there is certainly no
Persia and Media] continued to grow in power. However, in divine providence or scriptural injunction behind these honours and
Nebuchadnezzar’s day, he had enjoyed a much superior and almost slayings, these acts of promotion and humiliation. But rather, such things
unrivalled power [Jeremiah 27:5–7]. God had allowed Nebuchadnezzar to ensue from the will of the people who do the slaying and promoting to
be an absolute monarch over many peoples, nations, and language groups, honour and all the rest. If this is the case, the question arises as to how we
doing virtually whatever he wished. Thus, not surprisingly are to understand the scripture: ‘The heart of a king reposes in the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar was swept away in pride. However, God is sovereign, God; he will incline it in whatever direction he wishes’ [Proverbs 21:1].
and just as he allowed Nebuchadnezzar to have greatness, so he took it all Perhaps we might say that every saint is a king, for sin does not reign in
away from him until he learned his lesson. Thus, v. 21 recounts the period his mortal body, and his heart therefore is kept safe, for he is in God’s
that Nebuchadnezzar had to dwell as an animal and with the animals. The hand. And whatever has once come into the hand of God the Father,
verse even stipulates that his dwelling place was with the “wild donkeys.” according to the gospel, no one is able to take it away. And whoever is
There was no specific reference to these animals [recall Daniel 4:25], only taken away, it is understood that he never was in God’s hand at all.”
that the king dwelt among the “animals of the field.” The wild donkey was
known as being difficult to tame [Job 39:5–8], which would have been Next in vv. 22–24, we read: “But you, Belshazzar, his grandson, haven’t
appropriate in regard to Nebuchadnezzar himself. All men must recognize humbled yourself, even though you knew all of this. You’ve exalted
who the true ruler is and must humbly submit themselves before God. yourself against the Lord of heaven. You’ve had the vessels from his
Nebuchadnezzar was a grand illustration that we cannot escape the Temple brought into your presence. And you, your officials, and your
consequences of pride. As Daniel spoke about Nebuchadnezzar, the wives and mistresses drank wine from them. You praised gods of silver,
implication was apparent that Belshazzar was behaving the same way, and gold, bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which can’t see, hear, or demonstrate
even worse. However, some people learn very little from history, and knowledge. But you didn’t honour God, who holds in his power your very
Belshazzar certainly had not learned much! life and all your ways. Therefore, the hand that wrote this inscription was
sent from his presence.”
Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] beautifully concludes:
“And in the Old Testament it may be found in that grace many times came Daniel had previously referred to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s
on unworthy persons that it might do good to others. Nebuchadnezzar was “grandfather,” but now he called Belshazzar the “grandson” of
very full of iniquity; yet to Daniel revealed what was to follow after many Nebuchadnezzar. Once again, it is the closeness of relationship that is
generations. And again to the son of this last, though surpassing his stressed. Thus, Daniel confronted Belshazzar with the fact that he knew
father in iniquity, he signified the things to come, ordering a marvellous these things about Nebuchadnezzar, and yet did not humble himself.
and great dispensation. Accordingly because then also the beginnings of Belshazzar was not so removed in time from Nebuchadnezzar that these
the gospel were taking place, and it was requisite that the manifestation of things would have escaped his knowledge. So, Belshazzar had no excuse
its power should be abundant, many even of the unworthy used to receive for what he did. He had an advantage over Nebuchadnezzar in that he had
gifts. However, from those miracles no gain accrued to them; rather, the example of Nebuchadnezzar before him. Being a foolish man, this
they are punished even more.” example failed to curb his pride. Thus, there would be no reprieve for him.
 250

Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “How would So, not only was Belshazzar’s very breath in God’s hands [he controlled
Belshazzar have been aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation? Certainly whether Belshazzar lived or died], but so was his “ways” [his whole
the story would have been known, but evidence exists that indicates that destiny]. Thus, Belshazzar’s self–exaltation and sacrilegious defiance had
Belshazzar may have seen these events firsthand. Belshazzar served as caused God to send forth an anthropomorphic hand writing an inscription,
chief officer during the administration of King Neriglissar in 560 b.c. which without doubt were words of judgment against Belshazzar.
according to Babylonian historical texts. This means that the king was old
enough to fill a high position in government only 2 years after Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “He did well to instruct those
Nebuchadnezzar’s death (562 b.c.). Since Nabonidus was an official in present to worship not visible things but their Creator and Lord. At the
Nebuchadnezzar’s administration, Belshazzar would have lived in same time he also convicts the king of conceit and teaches him that the
Babylon and would have observed personally the last years of the great highest heaven has for its creator the unseen God. You, he is saying, made
king’s reign. Thus, Daniel’s rebuke is even more understandable. your heart more elevated not than heaven but than the God of heaven, the
Belshazzar had seen with his own eyes what happened to Nebuchadnezzar, Lord of all creation; if you were not guilty of such awful conceit, you
and yet he had refused to humble himself before the Most High God.” would not have ordered the vessels of his house to be brought in. Now,
Daniel did well and showed much wisdom in putting in parallel the idols
Furthermore, Daniel points out that Belshazzar had not merely exalted and the God of all with a view to the benefit felt by the hearers; after
himself. He exalted himself against “the Lord of heaven.” The word emphasizing that the former neither see nor hear, instead of proceeding to
translated “Lord” is not the personal name of God [Yahweh]. Instead, this say in regard to the God of all that he sees and hears and knows, he cited
is the Aramaic word mārēʾ, which is a term indicating both respect and the more powerful fact of all, your life and your ways are in his hand,
high position of authority. Daniel had used this same term while speaking since providing life to others and in turn removing it at will is more
to Nebuchadnezzar [recall Daniel 4:24], but Nebuchadnezzar was only a important than having life. He brought out, then, that while the idols are
“lord” of the earthly kingdom of Babylon; Daniel’s God is “Lord of deprived of life and all sensation, the Lord God of all is the source of all
heaven” which was a further deliberate insult to the Babylonian deities. In life and both gives it and takes it, governing as he wills. Nevertheless,
other words, Marduk was viewed in the Cyrus Cylinder as: “Marduk, the Daniel is saying, despite his being of this stature, so great, with power of
great lord, a protector of his people/worshipers, beheld with pleasure life and death, appointing kings and removing them, you not only did not
Cyrus’ good deeds and his upright mind and therefore ordered him to sing his praises but rather even persisted in your drunken behaviour,
march against his city Babylon.” making fun of vessels dedicated to him.”

Thus, the use of this phrase underscored the authority of the one he was Finally in vv. 25–28, we read: “This is the written inscription: MENE,
defying and the extent to which he had overstepped his bounds. The MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN. These are the meanings of the words: MENE:
Aramaic hiṯrômamtā [for “exalted yourself”] is the same as that used of the God has audited your kingdom—and has ended it. TEKEL: You’ve been
“king” who exalts and magnifies himself above every god [later in Daniel weighed on the scales—and you don’t measure up. PERES: Your kingdom
11:36], which in that context is a reference to the future antichrist. Thus, has been divided—and will be given to the Medes and Persians.”
Belshazzar did not merely drink wine from some vessels used for religious
purposes. Daniel pointed out that these were the vessels “from his Temple” Scholars have interpreted this in many ways. One theory is that the writing
and Belshazzar’s sin had been extremely offensive. With these vessels, was scratches on the plaster made by a left hand with 4 verticals by the 4
Belshazzar praised the inanimate gods made of various earthly materials fingers and one horizontal made by the thumb crossing the vertical made
[Deuteronomy 4:28; Psalm 115:4–8], and in contrast did not glorify the by the index finger. So, a left hand scratched the wall while simultaneously
God in whose hand was his breath! making a fist, and the resulting cuneiform strokes looked like this: │││┼
 251

These represent the numbers 60, 60, 1, and ½ [the vertical stroke having a ‘Persians’. A break–through in the understanding of this text was made by
double meaning of 60 and 1 depending on the context]. Thus, these Clermont–Ganneau who first suggested that these three words represented
cuneiform symbols for numbers were converted by Daniel into Aramaic weights: Mina (60 shekels), Shekel, and Peresh (a half). The variant
for mina [60 shekels], mina [60 shekels], tekel [1 shekel], and ½. In other spelling of Teqel for Shekel involves a change of sibilant to dental
words, the inscription was a number written in cuneiform, but Daniel pronunciation, which is common in Daniel’s Aramaic, and this spelling
translated it into Aramaic, and then interpreted it. This is why the experts has been found on one papyrus. The term Peresh is used for a half Mina
[who obviously knew Aramaic] did not initially understand the writing. in rabbinic literature (bTaan 21b) and has been found on a Babylonian
half Mina weight. This insight introduced a new difficulty. Babylonian
David Instone–Brewer [21st century biblical scholar] explains this theory: weights and numbers normally occur in the order of highest to lowest, so
“The writing on the wall interpreted by Daniel continues to present the order should be ‘Mina, Mina, Peresh, Shekel.’ This prompted Kraeling
problems, despite much work done in the past. One particular problem is to put forward a totally new interpretation not proffered by Daniel, which
why the Babylonians could not read these Aramaic words when Aramaic also explained the double Mina. He suggested that these weights
was an official court language. I propose that the inscription was a represented the rulers Evil–Merodach and Neriglissar (both a Mina), the
number written in cuneiform, which was translated into Aramaic, and then 8–month rule of the boy king Labashi–Marduk (a Shekel), and Nabonidus
interpreted. This may provide indirect links between the composition of with his co–regent Belshazzar (two Pereshin). This was later adapted for
the narrative and visionary halves of the book (Daniel 1–6 and Daniel 7– the shorter text ‘Mina Shekel Peresh’ by Ginsberg (Nebuchadnezzar, Evil–
12). The exact form of the text is difficult to establish. Theodotion (which Merodach, and Belshazzar) and Freedman (Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus,
became the official Greek text for Daniel) agrees with Josephus and the and Belshazzar). However, these ingenious theories lack support in the
Vulgate in transliterating the text as if it read ‘Mene Teqel Peres,’ and the text, and although these scholars may regard their interpretations as
older LXX appears to read it as ‘Mene Peres Teqel.’ Various theories have self–evident, no exegetes have uncovered them till modern times. The
been put forward to explain why a second Mene should be added and why evidence for ‘Peresh’ as ‘half a Mina’ is convincing, but not enough to
the plural Parsin should occur. Lacocque suggests that the three terms exclude the possibility that it was used generally to mean a ‘half’ measure
were originally ‘Mene Teqel Parsin’ which applied to Nebuchadnezzar, (from Aramaic PRS, or Akkadian parisu, ‘to divide’), and that its precise
Belshazzar, and the plural Medo–Persians, but that a later redactor added meaning depends on the context. Its position in ‘Mina Mina Shekel Peresh’
an extra Mene to make them apply to the four Empires of Daniel. Hans suggests that in Daniel it means a half Shekel. This removes the problem of
Bauer suggested that the original was ‘Mene Teqel Peres Peres’ and that the order of the weights. The problem remains that the Babylonian wise
the final pair became the plural Parsin. However, both these ideas men did not appear to be able to read Aramaic, the lingua franca of the
compound the problem by proposing original text forms which are empire, so most of the people at the banquet would have been able to
different again. By the principle that the most difficult text is the best, the read the individual words. The interpretation of such words would be a
Masoretic Text is probably nearest to the original. The double Mene in small thing for men who were trained to find meaning in meaningless
the text is difficult because this duplication is not referred to in the dreams and visions. They could have interpreted it as the monetary value
interpretation and the plural Parsin is difficult because it is referred to as of a sacrifice to be offered to Nabû, or the weight of gold which each
a singular in the interpretation. The reading ‘Mene Teqel Peres’ is the soldier would capture in battle, or as ‘Numbered and)weighed are the
easiest reading because it is consistent with the interpretation in vv. 26– Persians.’ Given the size of the reward being offered, it seems incredible
28, so it is most likely to be secondary. A possible explanation for the that no–one was willing to proffer a reasonable sounding guess.
plural Parsin has been proposed seemingly independently by Guglielmo However, the text suggests that they could not even read the words, let
and Zimmermann. They suggest that a redactor changed it to a plural to alone interpret them (v. 8). Zimmermann suggests that this means they
emphasise the double interpretation in v. 28 as both ‘divided’ and could not ‘vocalise’ the words, though he does not say why they should
 252

have such difficulty with an official court language. The rabbis and later the first two as ‘60’, or a Mina (60 shekels), and the third as a Shekel,
Jewish commentators thought that perhaps it was written in unfamiliar making the last a half. It would have been quite wrong of an accountant or
characters, or in cipher, or vertically. Calvin simply said that God blinded priest to mix up the sexagesimal and the unitary values in this way, but for
the infidels, while Jeffrey dismissed the problem as a simple assumption by Daniel this opened up fresh possibilities for his interpretation. It did not
the story–teller that the Babylonians were not as clever as Daniel. matter for Daniel’s present interpretation whether he had two Minas or
Lacocque suggested that the words may have been Aramaic two Shekels, so the number of these does not figure in his explanation (vv.
transliterated into cuneiform characters. I will make a similar but 26–28). Later, however, Daniel does explore other possibilities. Having
simpler proposal: that the original writing was cuneiform numerals converted the meaningless marks into words, Daniel could then apply the
which Daniel translated into Aramaic. There is one curious feature of the normal techniques of wordplay. He revocalised the names of the weights
story which has not been explained by any of the theories concerning this as though they were Aramaic words and produced verbal participles. He
writing. The text says that it was written using ‘fingers’ in the plural (v. 5), did not have a written Aramaic source, so it did not matter that he
not ‘a finger’ as one would expect (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10). changed the Aleph in MNA to a He to make MNH (‘numbered’). Shekel, in
This phrase could imply that the hand scratched the wall with its fingers, the dental pronunciation common in Daniel, becomes TQL (‘weighed’).
and that these scratches were interpreted by Daniel as writing. If a left The Peresh is pronounced Peres and becomes PRS (‘divided’ or
hand were to scratch a surface with its fingers while it drew itself into a ‘Persians’). If this understanding of the writing on the wall is correct,
fist, it would leave a series of marks which could be interpreted in Daniel interpreted | | | + as 60, 60, 1, ½ = 121½. This understanding may
cuneiform as numbers. These numbers could be interpreted as ‘Mina, also give an insight into the number system of the visionary chapters in
Mina, Shekel, and a half.’ The marks would be three vertical strokes of the Daniel. These are based largely on the number 3½, which is the numerical
small finger, ring finger, and middle finger, followed by a cross made by basis of the first vision (Daniel 7:25) and the last (Daniel 12:7). The
the vertical of the forefinger being bisected by the horizontal of the thumb. number 3½ is also the simplest interpretation of these marks, each vertical
Cuneiform numerals are fairly straight–forward though sometimes is usually read as ‘1’, so these marks are 1, 1, 1, ½ = 3½. It may be
ambiguous. A simple vertical stroke normally means ‘one’, though it can postulated that the visions based on the number 3½ were meditations on
sometimes mean ‘60’, which is usually discernible by context. Barton this initial revelation. This bold supposition finds some support when one
argues that the marks for ‘l’ and ‘60’ may originally have been different. looks at other numbers in Daniel. In Daniel 9 the value 3½ occurs again,
However by the time of Daniel they were both represented by a single but as part of a much more complex series of numbers. The 70 years of
down stroke. This did not normally cause confusion because the Jeremiah 29:10 (Daniel 9:2) is interpreted as 70 ‘weeks’ of years, and
sexagesimal system was rarely used. A vertical crossed by a horizontal is divided into three groups of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week (Daniel 9:25).
a half, and there are other symbols for 10, 100, 600, and 1,000. Numbers This last week is divided into two periods of 3½ years (Daniel 9:27). The
are built up from left to right, highest to lowest denominations. However, reason for this division is not clear in the text, but one reason may be that
the interpretation of even a very simple cuneiform word or phrase is very the third possible numerical interpretation of | | | + is 60, 1, 1, ½ = 62½.
difficult when separated from its context. The single vertical can mark the Thus, a period of 62 weeks is placed immediately before the first ½ week.
start of a male name, or the ideas of ‘when’ or ‘to’. Barton lists 185 This not only leaves a period of 7 weeks, but also provides a reason for
possible meanings of the vertical crossed by a horizontal. Although these dividing the last week into halves, thereby providing a link with Daniel 7.
meanings were not all current in late–Babylonian texts, one can perhaps This link between the vision of Daniel 5 and the numerical prophesies in
understand the consternation of the wise men of Babylon. Daniel’s stroke later chapters is clearly not contrived by a unifying editor or by a separate
of genius or inspiration seems to have been to convert these marks into author of the later chapters. There is no mention of this link, and no hint
numbers and then into the names of the weights these numbers that the numbers in the later chapters are related in any way to the writing
represent. The first three verticals could either be ‘1’ or ‘60’, so he reads on the wall. This provides indirect evidence that both halves of Daniel’s
 253

book were written by the same person. This person would have to know Noun for a weight and “shekel” is its Hebrew
about the cuneiform original of the writing on the wall, and would have tĕqēl cognate, where [š] sometimes becomes ‫[ ת‬t]
to know how to re–interpret this cuneiform as other numerical values. when words go from Hebrew to Aramaic.
These factors make it likely that the author was Daniel himself. In téqel tĕqal Perfect verb of téqel [“he weighed”].
conclusion, the original writing on the wall may have been the cuneiform tĕqil Perfect passive of téqel [“it is weighted”].
marks | | | + which could be the scratches made by the fingers of a left tāqēl Imperfect verb from qalal [“you are light”].
hand as it curled up into a fist. This could be read as 60, 60, 1, ½, or tĕqal Verb [“he fell” or “stumbled”].
‘Mina, Mina, Shekel, Peresh.’ This supposition would explain why the parsîn/parsayin “Half–shekels” or “two half shekels.”
other wise men could not read the writing and why the text says that it was pĕrisîn Passive participle [“divided” or “separated”].
written with ‘fingers’ and not ‘a finger.’ This may also suggest an origin parsîn
pārĕsîn Active participle [“they divide”].
for most of the numerical values in the visionary chapters, which may be parsîn Persians.
seen as meditations on other possible ways of computing these marks. At
the feast, Daniel explored their value as 121½. The visionary chapters So, based on these options, another solution to solve the riddle is by
(Daniel 7–12) explore the other two possible values of 3½ and 62½. This looking to the earlier context: Belshazzar counted the vessels [v. 3], he
link between the narrative story of Daniel 5 and the visionary chapters stumbled based on his idolatry/sacrilege concerning the vessels [v. 4], and
should be considered when discussing the composite nature of the book.” so the Persians are coming. This interpretation of the riddle is initially
plausible, but Daniel makes no mention of vessels or stumbling.
So, even if the inscription was written in Aramaic, there would still be Nevertheless, scholars still propose three more interpretations of the riddle:
ambiguity, because Aramaic [like Hebrew] was written without vowels, so
the same form can have different meanings depending on which vowels 1. Money: “Is counted a mina, a shekel, and two half shekels.” In
were supplied. Thus, the obvious meaning of the Aramaic words is a other words, the weight adds up to 62 shekels of silver.
message about money: “Is weighed out a mina, a shekel, and two half
shekels.” But, why would God’s message involve counting money? So, the 2. Assessment: “He has reckoned an account. He has assigned the
absurdity of the most obvious reading of the text may be why the court bill. They assessed the value of payment.” In other words, there are
officials were unable to interpret it satisfactorily. This is why scholars three ways that the bill has been assessed.
[apart from Instone–Brewer’s brilliant hypothesis] have proposed more
interpretive options for each word, depending on what vowels were 3. Results: “It is weighed out twice; you are light, and consequently
supplied, or if there were no letter divisions in order to distinguish words! Persians.” In other words, there are not yet silver coins, but silver
grain or nuggets would be weighed on a scale or the balance
Aramaic Transliterations Interpretations against a standard weight to determine the value: if one’s silver
māneʾ A “mina” [weight of 60 shekels]. weighs too little to pay the bill, it will show up as light on the scale,
Perfect passive [“it is weighed,” or “it is for which there would be negative consequences with the Persians.
mĕniʾ
numbered,” or “it is reckoned”].
méneʾ Perfect verb [“he weighed; he counted; he In summary, the words can be explained as either simple noun forms or
mĕnāʾ
numbered”]. passive participle forms: “numbered, numbered, weighed, and divided.”
mānē Active participle [“weighing” or “counting”]. Thus, if it was in the passive participle form, it would have a hîreq–yôḏ
mānʾē Biform of māʾn [“Vessels”; recall vv. 2–3]. infix; we would expect mᵊnîʾ rather than mᵊnēʾ [also for tᵊqēl and pᵊrēs].
 254

However, the syllables are accented in the Masoretic Text, which may Furthermore, this imagery of “scales” has an astronomical connection to
have produced the changed vowels. Thus, if it was in the noun form, then Libra in Babylonian astrology! Notice that Babylon fell on the 16th of
the words are vocalized as nouns after the pattern of the simplest Aramaic Tashritu [September–October], or the 12th/13th of October in 539 b.c., but
noun–form qetēl [the most natural form for Daniel to choose if he wished the banquet took place on the evening of 11th/12th of October. Thus, this
them to be non–committal]. Nevertheless, when Charles Simon Clermont– ironically took place on the annual rising of Libra on the 15th of Tashritu,
Ganneau [19th century French archaeologist] suggested that these three and this would have been well known to the Babylonian astrologers since
terms referred to weights or monetary values, many scholars have used this they sought astronomical linkage between classes of omens to confirm a
to suggest that these terms can mean a mina [Nebuchadnezzar], a shekel message. Thus, this is another polemical dimension to Daniel’s response
[Belshazzar], and half–minas [Media/Persia]. However, this theory of that is anti–astrological in significance, specifically a disclaimer that Libra
monetary weights suffers one significant flaw: Daniel did not interpret it was not the great god of heaven as was thought in Babylonian astrology!
this way to the king! Also, if the words meant “a mina, a mina, a shekel,
and half–shekels,” then the key to their significance lies in the fact that Albert Wolters [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes:
they sound like verbs. In other words, “mina” sounds like the verb mᵊnāh “Every reader of the bible is familiar with the words of the enigmatic
[or “to number”]. For example, here is Thoth [the ibis–headed spokesman handwriting on the wall that appeared at Belshazzar’s feast, which Daniel
of the chief god Ra], weighing a soul in a balance to determine its fate. So, reads as follows: mene, mene, tekel, and parsin (vv. 25–28). The last part
if Daniel referred to a similar concept after interpreting these words, then of the inscription is given in some translations as upharsin, which is in fact
God had weighed Belshazzar in the balance and found him valueless! how the Aramaic original reads. However, it needs to be understood that u
here simply represents the Aramaic word for ‘and,’ which also has the
effect in this context of changing the first letter of the word parsin into ph.
The attentive reader, however, will also notice that Daniel’s explanation
of the handwriting seems to presuppose a somewhat shorter form. He
refers to mene only once, omits the word ‘and,’ and cites parsin in the
form peres, the singular form of parsin. There are good grounds for
believing that the short form, mene tekel peres, is the one actually
written on the wall, while the long form is the one read by Daniel. Apart
from the Masoretic Text there are six independent ancient witnesses to the
original text of the handwriting on the wall (the Old Greek, ‘Theodotion,’
Josephus, the Vulgate, Jerome in his commentary, and the Peshitta. All
but the Peshitta have the short form also in v. 25. Therefore, I will
proceed on the assumption that the actual writing on the wall gave the
short form, not only because of the testimony of the ancient versions, but
also because it best elucidates Daniel’s explanation, which is a kind of
tour de force of riddle interpretation. However, first I need to explain a
few basic facts about the way ancient Aramaic was written. To begin with,
words in an Aramaic text were often written in scriptio continua, which
means that there were no spaces between words. A series of letters could,
therefore, be read in more than one way, depending on how the words
were divided, just as in English ‘Godisnowhere’ could be read as either
 255

‘God is now here’ or ‘God is nowhere.’ Secondly, it is important to bear in meaning, each following from different vowels that are supplied with the
mind that Aramaic, like Hebrew, was written without vowels. That is to consonants. I will refer to these levels as A, B, and C:
say, Aramaic writing consisted exclusively of consonants, and the vowels
needed to be supplied by the reader. Just as an English reader can readily
interpret the abbreviation ‘bldg’ as ‘building,’ so the Aramaic reader
could easily read the consonants TQL as tĕqēl, meaning ‘shekel’ (a unit of
weight). Of course, the difficulty is that sometimes different words could be
read by supplying different vowels. Thus, ‘bldg’ in English could be
plausibly read as ‘bulldog’ in some contexts; for example, in a list that
also included ‘gryhnd’ and ‘cckr spnl.’ In cases where there is no context
to guide the reader, the consonantal writing of Aramaic words could give
rise to significant ambiguity. If we put the fact that ancient Aramaic
writing had no spaces and no vowels together with the evidence that it was
the short form of the riddle that was written on the wall, we come to the
conclusion that the actual inscription that the Babylonians and Daniel
saw on the palace wall was MN’TQLPRS (the apostrophe represents the
Aramaic consonant aleph, and Q is the consonant that corresponds to It is the A–level that is preserved in the traditional biblical text, the
the K of tekel). The reason the Babylonian wise men could not read the Masoretic Text, which does have a system for indicating vowels. Thus,
inscription was not that they could not recognize the letters but that they the A–level interpretation is reflected in the familiar vocalization of our
did not know how to divide this series of letters into words or know what bible translations: MN’ is read as mene (more precisely, mĕnē’), TQL as
vowels to supply. Depending on the various possible combinations, these tekel (tĕqēl), and PRS as peres (pĕrēs). On this level, it turns out that each
nine letters could be interpreted to represent a number of different of the words refers to a unit of weight. The first refers to the mina (~500
Aramaic sentences, including ‘she has counted the voice of Persia’ and grams), the second to the shekel (~8 grams), and the third to the half–mina
‘crush whoever has been peeled!’ Since none of these made much sense (~250 grams). It is sometimes argued that pĕrēs refers to a half–shekel,
and the Aramaic wise men faced severe reprisals if they got it wrong, but this is a mistake. These units should not be regarded as representing
they prudently admitted they could not read the inscription. However, coins or symbolizing a succession of kings, but rather as indicating the
Daniel was enabled by God to read the inscription in a way that weight stones used by merchants to weigh out, on a pair of scales, specific
immediately persuades all those present. He interprets the nine amounts of silver in buying and selling merchandise. Many such weight
consonants, MN’TQLPRS, as consisting of three Aramaic words of three stones have been found in archaeological excavations, some of them
letters each, and he then proceeds to interpret each of the three words on inscribed with the very words of the riddle: MN’, TQL, and PRS. In the
three different levels by supplying different vowels at each level. context of Daniel 5, these standardized weight stones represent God’s
Furthermore, each of these multiple meanings refers to the image of a standards of justice against which human actions are measured. This first
pair of scales—an image that proves very significant to the date on level of meaning is not separately explained by Daniel; it is simply
which Belshazzar’s feast took place. In short, Daniel interprets the indicated by the traditional vocalization of these words. The B–level of
handwriting as an elaborate wordplay consisting of three sets of double interpretation refers to actions on the part of God. By adding a different
puns, all of which point to a pair of scales. Moreover, he does so on a day set of vowels to the consonants of the three words of the riddle, these
when scales had special significance in Babylonian culture. For each of words are transformed into Aramaic verbs, with God as the implied
the three words that Daniel identifies, he distinguishes three levels of subject. For MN’, Daniel explains in v. 26 that it means ‘God has
 256

reckoned (or numbered) your kingdom.’ In this case, the verb translated to carry out his verdict. We can summarize the foregoing discussion by
‘has reckoned’ is mĕnāh, a variant spelling of the word for ‘mina,’ but giving a new and literal translation of the crucial vv. 26–28, indicating in
now revocalized as mĕnā’. In the case of TQL, the B–level meaning is each case the vowels which are explicitly (in the case of level A in the
expressed by Daniel’s words, ‘you have been weighed’ of v. 27. Here Masoretic Text) or implicitly (in the case of levels B and C) given to the
again, a noun designating a weight is transformed into a verb. Underlying three trilateral roots MN’, TQL, and PRS: ‘Mina (mĕnē’): God has
this interpretation is the vocalization tĕqal, which means ‘he has weighed,’ reckoned (mĕnā’) your kingdom, and paid it out (mĕnā’). Shekel (tĕqēl):
with God as the implied subject and Belshazzar as the implied object. As you have been weighed (tĕqal) and found too light (tiqqal). Half–mina
for PRS, Daniel explains in v. 28 that on this level it means ‘your kingdom (pĕrēs): your kingdom has been assessed (pĕras) and given to the Medes
has been assessed,’ assuming the vocalization pĕras, ‘He has assessed.’ It and Persians (pāras).’ Thus, we see that each of the three levels of
should be pointed out that this verb does not mean ‘divide’ in Aramaic, as meaning is thematically unified: three weights on level A, three acts of
many bible translations render it, but rather ‘assess.’ Thus, Daniel gives evaluation on level B, and three references to judgment on level C.
an interpretation that transforms each of the three words of the riddle into Furthermore, the central image of God weighing Babylon in the scales of
verbs describing a divine action of appraisal: he reckoned, he weighed, he his justice ties the various levels together: level A names the weight stones
assessed. The connection with a pair of scales is made explicit in v. 27: that symbolize his standards of justice, level B designates the process of
‘You have been weighed on the scales.’ Finally, on the C–level, Daniel’s weighing that stands for God’s acts of judicial appraisal, and level C
interpretation of the riddle again shows that he is revocalizing the three describes the outcome of that process in the tipping of the scales and the
weight names he started out with. In v. 26, he explains the third meaning payment of the silver weighed out, representing God’s verdict and
of MN’ as ‘he paid it out’ (not ‘brought it to an end’), indicating God as sentence over Babylon. It is the central image of the scales that provides
the subject and Belshazzar’s kingdom as the object. This again us with the connection to the historicity of Daniel’s book. The
presupposes the vocalization mĕnā’ but it now uses the verb in another of connection consists in the remarkable coincidence of the date of
its attested senses. In v. 27, he explains the third meaning of TQL as ‘you Belshazzar’s feast and of the annual rising of the constellation Libra
have been found wanting.’ This presupposes a very ingenious reading in (the Scales). If we take seriously the historical reality of the court of
which TQL takes the Aramaic verbal form tiqqal, meaning ‘you are too Belshazzar on the eve of the Persian conquest as it is depicted in Daniel 5,
light’ (the doubling of the middle consonant would not have been indicated we discover that the reference to a pair of scales takes on unexpected
in the consonantal spelling). To be found too light on the scales is to be significance in connection with the Babylonian astrology of the time. That
found wanting, or not to measure up to God’s standards. The third level of astrology was prominent in Babylonia in Daniel’s day does not need to be
meaning for the third word, PRS, is the most dramatic of all. Daniel argued. This is demonstrated clearly by many cuneiform astrological
explains it in v. 28 as follows: ‘you have been given to the Medes and documents that have been excavated and by the mocking words of Isaiah
Persians.’ He is here alluding to the Aramaic word pāras, which means when he predicted the fall of the neo–Babylonian empire: ‘Let your
‘Persia.’ This is a direct reference to the critical military situation in astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month
which Belshazzar finds himself; namely, that he is under siege by the by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you’ (Isaiah 47:13).
forces of Persia under Cyrus the Great, which were to enter Babylon that It is not surprising, therefore, that Daniel’s book pictures the wise men at
very night and kill him. Daniel mentions both Medes and Persians because the courts of both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as predominately
these were the two constituent ethnic groups of Cyrus’s empire. Thus, each astrologers, especially the group called ‘the Chaldeans’ (Daniel 2:4, 5,
of the C–level meanings refers to the verdict that God pronounces on 10; 5:7, 11). A significant feature of Babylonian astrology was the
Belshazzar and his kingdom. The kingdom will be paid out like silver correlation of terrestrial and celestial signs. There is considerable
given in payment to Cyrus, Belshazzar himself has been found too light evidence that the Babylonian diviners saw heaven and earth as mirror
on the scales of God’s judgment, and Persia will be the means God uses images of each other, so that an omen on earth had its counterpart in
 257

heaven, and vice versa. This belief in a correlation of signs is the basic on the 16th day of Tashritu, the same day as the fall of Babylon. After all,
point of the so–called ‘Diviner’s Manual’ published by Oppenheim in the whole point of the story is that the execution of God’s judgment on
1974. The obvious implication of such a belief for the story of Daniel 5 Babylon followed immediately after its announcement in the handwriting
is, therefore, that astrologers at Belshazzar’s court would expect there to on the wall. The riddle of the scales therefore appeared on that exact
be a celestial counterpart to the ominous portent that had appeared on date. The second date that is relevant for our purposes concerns the
the palace wall. Such a counterpart would be particularly apt in the case annual morning rising of the constellation Libra. In the course of 1 year,
of a written sign, because the astrologers considered the celestial the stars and constellations along the ecliptic (‘the path of the moon’)
phenomena that they studied to be the šitir šam , ‘the writing of heaven.’ It become successively visible on the eastern horizon just before sunrise,
is especially significant, therefore, that the Akkadian name for the each appearing, for all practical purposes, on the same date each year.
constellation Libra is zibānītu, meaning ‘balance’ or ‘scales.’ In other This was the basis of the ancient calendar, in which months and dates
words, the scales that were so prominent in Daniel’s interpretation of the were set according to the annual morning rising of the various stars and
writing on the wall had a counterpart in the scales that belonged to the constellations. These annual morning risings were also significant in
‘writing of heaven,’ namely the constellation Libra. In fact, our name Babylonian astrology. According to a widely used Babylonian astrological
Libra is simply the Latin equivalent, like its counterparts in Greek, handbook called MUL.APIN, the annual morning rising of the
Aramaic, and Hebrew, of the Akkadian zibānītu, which had been the constellation zibānītu (that is, Libra) occurred on the 15th day of Tashritu.
standard name of the constellation in Mesopotamia since the 2nd Modern astronomical calculations show that for the year 539 BC and
millennium BC. Even today the constellation is known as ‘die Waage’ in Babylon’s latitude this date was in fact quite accurate. If we put together
German, ‘la Balance’ in French, and ‘de Weegschaal’ in Dutch. Every these dates, we come to the startling conclusion that the mysterious riddle
astrologer at Belshazzar’s court would have known that ‘the scales,’ of Daniel 5, which alludes on three different levels to the image of a pair
both in Akkadian and Aramaic, was the name of a prominent of scales, appeared just after the annual rising of the constellation called
constellation in the sky. However, what does this constellation have to do ‘the Scales’ (zibānītu). In fact, when Daniel says to Belshazzar in v. 27,
with this story in Daniel? To understand this, we need to take note of two ‘You have been weighed in the scales,’ it could also be understood to mean
significant dates that have emerged from the cuneiform documents which ‘You have been weighed in Libra,’ the constellation which had just risen in
have come to light over the last ~150 years. The first concerns the date of the sky, according to both astrological lore and actual fact, the morning
the fall of Babylon. Belshazzar’s feast as narrated in Daniel 5 takes place before. It now becomes clear that Daniel’s interpretation of the riddle not
on the eve of the fall of Babylon, as the last verse of the chapter clearly only makes fools of the Babylonian wise men in general by deciphering
states. This was a momentous event in world history, marking the the sophisticated Aramaic wordplay of the enigmatic inscription that had
transition from one great empire, the neo–Babylonian, to another, the baffled them, but it also turns the tables specifically on the astrologers by
Persian. We now know from the so–called Nabonidus Chronicle that interpreting a celestial phenomenon in a thoroughly anti–astrological
Babylon fell to the Persians on the 16th day of Tashritu of the 17th year of way. Thus, ‘the Scales’ in the sky do not represent mighty gods who
Nabonidus, the senior partner with Belshazzar in the ‘double kingship’ of determine terrestrial affairs (the Babylonian belief), but they symbolize an
that time. This date works out to October 12th, 539 BC in the calendar we instrument in the hand of Daniel’s God, ‘the Lord of Heaven’ of v. 22. The
use today, and it is quite securely established in the chronology of the message is plain: it is not the stars that determine the fate of nations, but
ancient Near East. Since Babylonian dates were calculated as beginning the God of the Jews, whose temple vessels had just been desecrated by
with nightfall, not midnight, the 16th of Tashritu would have included the Belshazzar in his drunken revelry. The constellation Libra, therefore,
evening preceding October 12th. Consequently Belshazzar’s feast, which becomes a symbol of the sovereign judgment of God, who weighs
took place during the night of October 11th–12th according to our Belshazzar and his empire in the scales of his justice. With exquisite irony,
calendar, would have taken place, according to the Babylonian calendar, Daniel simultaneously alludes to another name that the Babylonian
 258

astrologers applied to Libra, namely kikkab kitti u mišāri, ‘the star of Finally, the term pᵊrēs is explained by the verb pᵊras [or “break in two”].
justice and right,’ and he turns it against the Babylonian king. What This term is distinguished from the first two: it appears in the plural as
bearing does the foregoing argument have on the historicity of Daniel? It parsîn [v. 25], but in the singular as pᵊrēs [v. 28]. The reason for this
would be foolish to claim that it proves the factual accuracy of the story juxtaposition is clear in v. 28 that pᵊrēs is related to the verb pᵊras, but the
told in Daniel 5, but it certainly lends unexpected support to such an plural form parsîn has a connection to the final clause of v. 28: “and will
assumption. It seems a stretch to imagine that the virtual simultaneity of be given to the Medes and Persians [pārās].” Thus, we see the word in two
the rising of Libra and the appearance of the riddle of the scales is different forms because there is a double play–on–words involved. In other
merely a coincidence, especially since the two phenomena match each words, the singular form pᵊrēs [v. 28] is in contrast to the plural form
other so well. In any case, the surprising discovery of the relevance of parsîn [v. 25], and the double wordplay involves the verb pᵊras along with
Libra to Daniel 5 is only one of a number of ways in which this chapter the similar sounding proper noun pārās [or “Persians”]. However,
seems to be based on historical reality. It is now firmly established that curiously the LXXθ has the singular form phares [v. 25] in contrast to the
Belshazzar did in fact exist and that he had been entrusted with the Aramaic plural form parsîn, because the LXXθ was attempting to
kingship by his father Nabonidus. There is no doubt that the prominence of harmonize parsîn [v. 25] with the singular pᵊrēs [v. 28]. Thus, it is possible
astrologers in the story of Belshazzar’s feast reflects the historical reality that the original form in v. 25 was not the plural form parsîn, but a
of the neo–Babylonian court. In fact, Assyriologists have often been singular form [since Daniel’s explanation in v. 28 has the singular], and
impressed by the degree to which Daniel 5 is based on historical fact. that a later copyist recognized the double wordplay and changed it to the
Similarly, the classic critical commentary on Daniel by Montgomery plural form accordingly. Nevertheless, not only was Belshazzar’s kingdom
suggests that the mysterious riddle itself is ‘based on the correct historical to be “divided,” but it was going to be conquered by the “Persians” [the
tradition of Cyrus’ conquest.’ Even the enigmatic Darius the Mede has dominant people of the Medo–Persian army]. In fact, notice that the
recently been rehabilitated as a historical personage. A good case can “Persians” are interpreted as “Medes and Persians” [the combined Medo–
also be made for the plausibility of Belshazzar’s feast as being part of a Persian Empire]. This is ironically contrary to the critical view that
Babylonian akītu festival on this date. As the German critical scholar Daniel’s four kingdoms involve a separate Median kingdom arriving
Klaus Koch puts it, ‘Accordingly, the book of Daniel, or at least its older before Persia [recall Daniel 2]. However, Daniel will symbolize the Medes
part (the Daniel legends), has command of a relatively good knowledge of and Persians with one beast [later in Daniel 8:20]. Yes, it is true that the
Babylonian history in the 6th century.’” Medes once had an empire north of Babylon, but the Medes were
conquered by Cyrus, so that Babylon fell to a Persian–Median empire!
Thus, now turning specifically to Daniel’s interpretation, what is certain is
that each of the terms in v. 25 is taken up and explained in vv. 26–27 by Michael Wilson [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes:
interpreting them in light of their related verb forms. So, the term mᵊnēʾ is “There are many interpretations which mistakenly presuppose that mene,
explained by the verb mᵊnâ [or “count”]. So, the interpretation of mᵊnēʾ is tekel, and parsin are coins. Instone–Brewer takes all three terms to
that “God has audited” Belshazzar’s kingdom [the years of his reign] and describe coinage with ‘tekel’ being the Aramaic spelling of ‘shekel’ and
“has ended it.” Furthermore, the repetition of the word mᵊnēʾ serves to ‘parsin’ probably representing a half ‘mena’. So understood, the
underscore the certainty of the case [Genesis 41:32]; no extension of time proportions of the coins are 60:1:30. A modern equivalent would be a
would be granted to Belshazzar. Likewise, the term tᵊqēl is explained by hand on the wall writing something like, ‘1 dollar, 1 dollar, 2 cents, 50
the verb tᵊqal [or “weigh”]. Thus, God had “weighed” Belshazzar “on the cents.’ Lucas finds the use of coinage to measure the worth of people in a
scales” and Daniel concluded: “you don’t measure up.” The Aramaic Talmud reference, which esteems a certain man as ‘a mina son of a half–
mōʾzanyāʾ [for “scales”] was a commonly shared Semitic term [Ugaritic mina,’ that is, much more worthy than his father. Polaski sees the entire
mznm; Akkadian zibānītu; Egyptian wdn]. mode of revelation as employing key elements associated with the exercise
 259

of imperial authority: the importance of inscriptions; the hand being ‘sent’ Belshazzar. But, this is highly speculative and there is no indication from
like an ambassador; and the listing of coins as an allusion to the royal the text that this is warranted. Notwithstanding that the underlying
treasury. He believes that the following meaning is communicated: ‘An imagery is of weights rather than coins, it remains the case that God in
empire that neither comprehends inscriptions nor attends to careful judgment is assessing the value of Belshazzar and of the Babylonian
accounting is no empire at all.’ Fewell remarks, ‘The image of coinage empire. Fewell explains, ‘The portrayal of Belshazzar as a weak king
and the verbs themselves both suggest that the issue is one of value, and communicates also the irony that the man of inappropriate values is
indeed the problem of value has been the crux of the story. Belshazzar has himself of little value. He is of little value to Daniel; he is of little value to
not valued his father’s example. He has not valued the captured vessels. God. Thus, the images of weights and balances fit comfortably with the
He has not valued his father’s chief sage. He has not valued his father’s images of lifting and lowering: the weak king of little value has tried to lift
God. Instead, he has valued the services of incapable sages. He has himself, that is, to make himself valuable, but to no avail: ‘you have been
valued gods who do not see, who do not hear, and who do not know.’ weighed in the balances and have been found wanting,’ says Daniel.
Wolters points out that treating mene, teqel, and peres as coins is mistaken Weighed against whom? According to this reading—Nebuchadnezzar. If
for the simple reason that there was no such thing as coinage in Nebuchadnezzar is a minah, Belshazzar is only a shekel (a ratio of 60 to 1)
Mesopotamia in Belshazzar’s period of history. Even later there were and while the Medes and Persians (half–minahs) may be less valuable
never coins either in Babylonia or Palestine that weighed as much as a than Nebuchadnezzar, they are a good deal better than Belshazzar.’
mina or half–mina. Instead, mene, teqel, and peres are units of weight. A Instone–Brewer suggests that if they had been able to read the words they
common way of understanding the interpretation of vv. 25–28 is to see may have attempted to provide interpretations (the monetary value of a
each word functioning as a pun. For example, a common rendering is as sacrifice to be offered to Nabu, or the weight of gold soldiers would
follows: MENE is related to the verb MNH (meaning ‘numbered’); TEKEL capture in battle, or numbered and weighed are the Persians). Calvin
is related to the verb TQL (meaning ‘weighed’); PARSIN is related to the interprets v. 8 to mean that God blinded the Chaldeans. Lacocque
verb PRS (meaning ‘divided’ or ‘broken’). However, Wolters has proposed that the words were Aramaic, which had been translated into
persuasively argued that Daniel’s interpretation involves dividing the nine cuneiform characters. Along similar lines Instone–Brewer suggests that
consonants into three units of three letters each. Different ways of the original writing was cuneiform numerals, which Daniel translated into
vocalizing the combinations of these consonants explains how it is possible Aramaic. However, God gave the interpretation to Daniel. If Instone–
to apply a different level of meaning to each unit. Wolters argues that the Brewer’s proposal is correct Daniel interpreted a sequence of three
vocalization involved in all of these three levels always presupposes the vertical strokes and a cross as numbers and then converted them into the
image of a pair of scales, representing God’s judgment. It is additionally names of the weights the numbers represented. Segal notes that Jewish
significant that the annual rise of Libra—symbolized by scales— scholars have proposed differing ways in which these words were coded,
occurred on the very eve of Babylon’s fall to the Persians. When God but remarks, ‘It is unclear why any of these solutions would pose an
enables Daniel to decode an otherwise undecodable series of consonants, insurmountable challenge for the wise men to solve.’ Indeed, Segal goes
he reveals that it is he, not the Babylonian astrologers, who knows the on to argue on the basis of v. 8 that the problem was not that the wise men
future and, indeed, he even controls it. Furthermore, Kraeling, Ginsberg, were unable to interpret the words but that they were not able to read
and Freedman have sought to identify each term with a particular them, implying that only the king actually saw the vision of the hand and
Babylonian king. Kraeling regards Evil–Merodach and Neriglissar as the the inscription. Since the lamp should have made such a vision and
two minas, the 8–month rule of the boy king Labashi–Marduk as the shekel writing visible to all, everybody else, including the Chaldeans, are left
and Nabonidus with his co–regent Belshazzar as two pereshin. Ginsberg bewildered as to what the Belshazzar experienced. Thus, they are placed
suggests Nebuchadnezzar (mina), Evil–Merodach (shekel) and Belshazzar in a position parallel to the Chaldeans of Daniel 2, who were unable to
(peresh). Freedman and Cross go for Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream because they had no access to it, no
 260

experience of it. Segal’s reading is ingenious but I doubt he is correct. He wields the words of life and death as easily as this king wields power
Wolters reasons that it is reasonable to expect that Aramaic words were over life and death (v. 19).’ Such cynicism is unwarranted. In Daniel 4 we
written on the wall, both without vocalization and also without word– noted how Nebuchadnezzar was comparable in some respects with David,
division. Consequently, given the lack of a literary context, ‘it was indeed and Daniel with Nathan. Thus, what we find in Daniel 5 is the same
impossible to read the inscription, that is, to know what vocalization and boldness of a prophet. Revelation is implied rather than explicit. Indeed,
word–division should be supplied for the nine–letter series of consonants as Wooden points out, the visions of both Daniel 7 and 8 predate this
written on the wall. The wise men are being asked to ‘read out’ the climactic event, so that it has already been made plain to Daniel both that
inscription, which could only be done by dividing into words and then the Babylonian Empire will come to an end and that the Persian Empire
vocalizing the consonants of the inscription.’ Wolters persuasively shows would rise to take its place. Wooden reasons, ‘Thus, through the dating
that the Chaldeans were confronted with a highly ambiguous consonantal given to these visionary experiences, Daniel is given the necessary
text, by giving many examples of different ways the nine letters have been revelations—his own visions and guided interpretation—so that by the last
construed by modern scholars. Indeed, if word–division was not indicated day of Belshazzar, the interpreter had sufficient revealed information to
then they ‘did not necessarily represent three words of three letters each,’ make sense of the writing on the wall; with those revelations and his
allowing for divisions yielding many different possible readings: ‘she has superior intellect (Daniel 1:17) and ability to solve riddles (Daniel 5:12,
counted the voice of Persia,’ ‘what shall I weight, a half–mina?’, ‘who has 16), he knows what to make of the words through the use of word plays.’
caused Persia to stumble?’, ‘whoever you are, Persia is insignificant,’ There is no way of knowing to what extent God’s spirit gives Daniel
‘crush whoever has been peeled,’ ‘he has crushed by a sign of a scale.’ immediate insight and to what extent God is merely using Daniel’s long–
Daniel, in prophet–like style, indicts Belshazzar: ‘you did not honour the developed abilities. Returning to the words used in the revelatory event, it
God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways’ (v. 23), which, he seems clear that the climactic word peres (v. 28) plays upon ‘Persian,’ and
adds, immediately explains why God chose to reveal his hand, writing that ominously points ahead to the impending disaster at the hands of the
which demonstrated precisely this reality. It is the same hand that wrote Persians. As Guglielmo argues there is every reason to suppose that a
on the wall which determines Belshazzar’s destiny. Fewell disagrees with double meaning is intended: ‘Prs—your kingdom has been divided
Lacocque’s view that Belshazzar was deliberately issuing a direct (perisath) and has been given to the Medes and Persians (prs).’”
challenge to God. She finds no evidence that Belshazzar even recognized
the existence of God. However, it is more likely that Belshazzar simply 7) What was the outcome of Belshazzar’s feast? (5:29–31)
trivializes this God whom he knows had come to mean a great deal to
Nebuchadnezzar. Fewell goes beyond the evidence in supposing that the Starting with vv. 29–30, we read: “Then Belshazzar gave orders to clothe
value of a king consisted in whether he was a strong king or not: Daniel in purple, to place a chain of gold around his neck, and to proclaim
‘Nebuchadnezzar was valuable enough to God to have been spared in him the third highest ruler of the kingdom. That night Belshazzar, king of
spite of his presumption. His redeeming quality was his strength. Strong the Chaldeans, was killed.”
kings can be successful agents.’ Consequently she sees Belshazzar as
being of no use to God, because he is a weak king, and this serves to So, despite Daniel’s refusal of Belshazzar’s rewards [v. 17], he still
magnify his presumption. But the reason supplied by the text for his demise ordered for Daniel to be honoured, though this was probably in mockery.
is simply his failure to acknowledge that God is sovereign, and this indeed Nevertheless, Belshazzar died that very night. He thought he was secure
has been the consistent contextual stress (Daniel 4:32). Fewell censures behind Babylon’s walls, but that night [12th of October in 539 b.c.], a
Daniel because he ‘never bothers to distinguish between his words and general of Cyrus named Ugbaru [or Gobryas] took the city with hardly a
those of God.’ She speaks of Daniel’s arrogance and resentment: ‘How battle. Belshazzar’s father Nabonidus had already been defeated in a
ironic that Daniel grows ever more like his friend Nebuchadnezzar. previous battle and had sought refuge in the neighbouring city of Borsippa.
 261

However, Berossus claims that Cyrus did not execute Nabonidus, and the battlements that crowned their walls, they insulted and jeered at
instead deported him to Carmania [Josephus, C. Ap. 1.20.153]. There are a Darius and his mighty host. One even shouted to them and said, ‘Why do
number of accounts of Babylon’s fall which differ in some details: you sit there, Persians? Why don’t you go back to your homes? Till mules
foal you will not take our city.’’ This same attitude may have
1. The Cyrus Cylinder says that Cyrus entered Babylon unopposed characterized the defenders in Belshazzar’s day, especially since the city
and captured Nabonidus. had not been stormed by invaders in over 1,000 years. At any rate, these
besieged Babylonians were completely unconcerned about the enemy
2. The Babylonian Chronicle says that Nabonidus fled following a forces encamped outside their walls. Unknown to them, Cyrus’ resourceful
revolt against him in Babylonia and Cyrus’ capture of Sippar commander, Ugbaru (referred to in the Chronicle as governor of Gutium),
without a fight. He was later captured when he returned to had diverted the waters of the Euphrates to an old channel dug by a
Babylon. Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. previous ruler (Queen Nitocris, according to Herodotus 1.184), suddenly
reducing the water level well below the river–gates. Before long the
3. The Dynastic Prophecy says that Cyrus sent Nabonidus into exile. Persian besiegers would come wading in at night and clamber up the
riverbank walls before the guards knew what was happening.”
4. Berossus says that Cyrus captured Babylon while Nabonidus was
besieged in Borsippa. Nabonidus then surrendered and was sent Finally in v. 31, we read: “Darius the Mede took the kingdom at age 62.”
into exile in Carmania.
The identification of “Darius the Mede” has been a perplexing issue, since
5. Herodotus says that Cyrus captured Babylon by temporarily we have no historical record for this person outside Daniel’s book,
diverting the course of the Euphrates when the Babylonians were allowing critical scholars to claim that “Darius the Mede” was either a
feasting and dancing. His troops waded along the river bed where it purely fictitious character, or was confused with Darius I [522–486 b.c.].
passed through the city walls. However, many other scholars do believe that there really was a “Darius”
of Median descent. In other words, Cyrus appointed a high–ranking Mede
6. Xenophon says that the Persians took the city at night and that to rule as viceroy over Babylon while he returned to dwell in one or more
Gobryas, one of Cyrus’ generals, killed the Babylonian king, a of his royal cities in Persia as the ultimate ruler of the Persian Empire.
riotous, indulgent, cruel, and godless young man.
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] continues: “There are
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] explains the details: several indications in Daniel’s text that Darius was not king in his own
“Babylon was considered impregnable because of its magnificent right but had been temporarily appointed to the throne by some higher
fortifications. Herodotus described it as 120 stadia square, surrounded by authority. In Daniel 9:1 it is stated that Darius ‘was made king.’ The
a large moats and defended by a wall 50 royal cubits wide and 200 royal passive stem (hophal) is used in the verb homlaḵ, rather than the usual
cubits high (~330 ft.), with 100 strongly fortified gates. The Persian troops mālaḵ (‘became king’), which would have been used had he obtained the
could breach the walls of the city only by a surprise strategem. Later on, throne by conquest or by inheritance. In Daniel 5:31 we are told that
in the reign of Darius I (522–486 BC), Herodotus said that young Darius Darius ‘received’ (qabbēl) the kingship, as if it had been entrusted to him
was compelled to subdue the Babylonians, who did not recognize his claim by a higher authority. It is also appropriate to point out that subordinate
to the throne. Since Cyrus had never dismantled Babylon’s fortifications, or vassal kings were similarly appointed by Cyrus according to the
the besiegers faced essentially the same problem as in 539 BC: ‘The Behistun Rock inscription set up by Darius I in the late 6th century B.C.
Babylonians, however, cared not a whit for Darius’ siege. Mounting upon Thus Darius’ own forebear, Hystaspes, is said to have been ‘made king’
 262

during the time of Cyrus the Great. As the incumbent of the time– In fact, Xenophon contradicted Herodotus by saying that there was a
honored throne of Babylon, it was only a matter of proper protocol for Median king named Cyaxares II that still ruled over the Medes at the time
Cyrus’ appointee to assume in his official decrees the same titles as had of Babylon’s fall. Thus, here is a summary of all these relationships:
always attached to that title. Thus, the decree of Daniel 6:25 is addressed
to the inhabitants of ‘all the earth’ (ʾar āʾ could also be translated ‘land,’
rather than being as comprehensive as ‘the earth’). Traditional titulary,
going back to the time of Hammurabi (18th century B.C.), was šár kiššati
(‘king of the universe’). Therefore this phrase need not be construed as
implying that Darius was claiming to be king over the entire inhabited
world, including Persia itself, as some critics assumed.”

So, not only was Darius I a Persian, but Darius Hystaspes was young when
he began his rule. Thus, the historical development of the Persian Empire
would easily allow for a viceroy of Median descent, because the Medes
and Persians were closely linked, and although the Medes were initially
the dominant power, eventually the Persians became the dominant power.

Eugene Merrill [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The Median throne
remained vacant from 653–625 BC because of Scythian domination of So, what we do know is that Cyrus II was able to unify several Persian
northwest Iran, but in time Cyaxares (625–585 BC) overthrew the tribes and eventually helped to merge the Medes and Persians. However,
Scythians and the Assyrians, establishing Median control over all of the resulting union was a kingdom in which both the Medes and the
northern Mesopotamia and Iran. He also reduced Persia to submission, Persians played an important part.
setting up Cambyses as governor over that province. Cyaxares was
succeeded by his son Astyages (585–550 BC), whose daughter would be David Clines [21st century biblical scholar] says: “By his conquest of the
the mother of the great Cyrus II.” Median Empire (550 b.c.) Cyrus had in the first place welded Medes and
Persians into a unified nation. Because Cyrus remained respectful of
Thus, the domination of the Medes eventually gave way to the Persians as Median culture, made Median Ecbatana one of his royal residences, and
a result of the rise in power of Cyrus II [the ruler of Anshan], who then often appointed Medes to high positions in his provincial government, his
became conqueror of Babylon in 539 b.c. His genealogy is complicated, kingdom became known as that of the ‘Medes and Persians’ (Daniel 5:28;
but basically he descended from both groups, because his father was 6:8, 15; Esther 10:2). But secondly, his conquest over Media had given
Persian and his mother was Median. In other words, Herodotus says that him rule over its former provinces of Assyria, Mesopotamia, Syria,
since Cyrus II was a descendant of the Median king Astyages, the Armenia, and Cappadocia.”
granddaughter of Astyages [Mandane] married the Persian vassal of her
father [Cambyses I], and to this marriage was born Cyrus II. Nevertheless, Thus, it would not be surprising for Cyrus to appoint as viceroy over the
scholars debate on how and when this shift in power took place. Some newly conquered Babylonian domain a trusted lieutenant who was a
believe that the Medes were conquered and made subservient to Persia Mede! In fact, we know from the Nabonidus Chronicle that the Medes
before Babylon’s fall, while others believe that the Medes continued to be played an active part in the capture of Babylon and that a Mede by the
the dominant partner until after Babylon’s fall. name of Ugbaru/Gubaru/Gobryas was in charge of Cyrus’ forces!
 263

We read: “The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. Daniel calls him “Darius the Mede,” but having a king or ruler of Median
The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of descent should not be surprising. In other words, even though the Medes
Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested are thought to have been conquered by the Persians in 550 b.c., there is
in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield– evidence for a king of the Medes after this date!
carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in
Esagila and its pertinent buildings, the correct time for a ceremony was R. K. Harrison [20th century biblical scholar] says: “It is known that in the
not missed. In the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered 10th year of Nabonidus (546 b.c.), a cuneiform text at Harran referred
Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ was specifically to the ‘king of the Medes,’ thus making it very clear that
imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his ‘Darius the Mede’ was a real historical personage, whatever his identity.”
governor, installed sub–governors in Babylon. From the month of Kislimu
to the month of Addaru, the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had made So, although there is no historical evidence for a person by this name, this
come down to Babylon returned to their sacred cities. In the month of may be an alternative designation or throne name for someone else. In
Arahshamnu, on the night of the 11th day, Gobryas died.” other words, “Darius” may have been an honorific title like “Caesar.”

So, this Median governor “Gobryas” [Xenophon; Cyr. 4.6, 7.5, 26–30] Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] continues: “The name
was also referred to as “Ugbaru” or “Gubaru” and he died soon after the ‘Darius’ may have been a title of honour, somewhat as ‘Caesar’ or
capture of Babylon. Some scholars have linked him to “Darius the Mede” ‘Augustus’ became in the Roman Empire. It is apparently related to ‘dara’
because Cyrus had strong links to the Medes, and they played a significant (‘king’ in Avestan Persian); thus the Old Persian Darayavahush may have
role in the capture of Babylon. Furthermore, Ugbaru/Gubaru was a Mede meant ‘The Royal One.’ It was only natural that this honorific title be
because he had been “governor of Gutium.” The Guti were a mountainous used of the official viceroy of the Medo–Persian Empire in this account,
people of ancient Mesopotamia who lived primarily around Hamadân, rather than his personal name.”
which had been the capital of the Median Empire known as Ecbatana.
Cyrus himself had close connections with Ecbatana and the Guti people. John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes:
“Those who are inclined to take Daniel as historical point out that known
Roy Hayden [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Ecbatana is mentioned history once contained no reference to Belshazzar. Darius might have
in cuneiform inscriptions from Tiglath–pileser I (1100 b.c.) as kar–kassi, been a throne–name for some ruler known to us by another name. Among
(‘Kassite town’). Ctesias attributed the founding of the city to Semiramis the identifications proposed for this ruler are Xerxes or Artaxerxes (Old
(800 b.c.), who built a palace there for herself; but Herodotus claimed the Greek); Cyrus the Persian himself; Cyrus’s son Cambyses, who at some
city was founded or rebuilt by Deioces (Daiaukku) the Mede (700 b.c.) on time was titular king of Babylon; the last Median king Astyages; his son
the site of Elippi, an ancient city of the Mandā. Cyrus captured the city Cyaxares II, referred to only by Xenophon (Cyropaedia 1–8); Cyrus’s
from Astyages (548 b.c.), and later brought Croesus there as captive. general Gobryas (Gubaru/Ugbaru, Old Persian Gaubaruwa) who
Cyrus and other Persian kings used to spend the two summer months captured Babylon for the Persians, ruled there on Cyrus’s behalf for a
there yearly, owing to the comparative coolness of the climate. The period, and as governor of Gutium could be thought of as a Mede; and—
winters, however, are long and severe, with much snow.” on the hypothesis that this Gobryas/Ugbaru died very soon after the fall of
Babylon (so one understanding of the Babylonian Chronicle)—Cyrus’s
Thus, either Cyrus appointed a Mede to be king of Babylon, or he simply governor in Babylon, another Gubaru.”
turned the rule of Babylon over to Cyaxares II [his uncle and Median
king], after conquering it. Nevertheless, we may not be certain as to why Thus, here is an extensive overview of the views that Goldingay listed:
 264

1. Cyrus the Persian Ugbaru, the governor of Guti, who captured Babylon. Second, the
This is based on the conjunction waw as explicative: “in the reign mere mention of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle suggests his
of Darius, that is, Cyrus the Persian” [later in Daniel 6:28]. royalty because of the extreme paucity of non–royal personages in
However, equating Darius with Cyrus is problematic. Cyrus was the Babylonian Chronicles. Finally, the record of Ugbaru’s death
not a Mede [even though his mother was a Mede], and Daniel suggests that he was king because with only one exception, all the
referred to him as “Cyrus, king of Persia” [later in Daniel 10:1]. death dates in the Babylonian Chronicles refer to royalty.”
Furthermore, Cyrus was not 62 years old during the conquest of
Babylon, as there is dispute about the date of his birth. In other In response to Mercer, Ugbaru was indeed the conqueror of
words, most sources give either 600 b.c. or 576/575 b.c. for his Babylon, and his victory was recorded. However, there is a
birth year. Thus, if 576/575 b.c. is correct, then Cyrus would have question as to how long he reigned. The Nabonidus Chronicle
been ~36 years old during the conquest of Babylon. However, if indicates that Ugbaru died on the night of the 11th day of the month
600 b.c. is correct, then Cyrus would have been ~70 years old when Arahshamnu, whereas earlier in the same passage Cyrus is said to
he died in combat in 530 b.c. [against the Massagetae in the have entered Babylon on the 3rd day of Arahshamnu [also spelled
Jaxartes River valley in central Asia]. This old age is very unlikely. Marcheswan]. So, it is not clear from the passage whether Ugbaru
died a few days after Cyrus’ entry [on the 6th of November], or if
2. Ugbaru/Gubaru [appointed by Cyrus to rule over Babylon] he died in the month Arahshamnu a year later. If the former is the
This is based on the fact that Babylon refers to a small portion of case, it is hard to see how the reference to “Darius the Mede” could
the Medo–Persian Empire. In other words, since Ugbaru conquered be equated with Ugbaru, since Daniel speaks of his reign [later in
Babylon on the 12th of October in 539 b.c., Cyrus entered shortly Daniel 6:28; 9:1]. In other words, Ugbaru’s so–called reign was
afterwards on the 29th of October, and Cyrus then appointed only for a few weeks! But, if he died ~1 year later, then that would
Ugbaru to rule in Babylon on his behalf. Thus, “Darius” was be more realistic. Nevertheless, Ugbaru was the governor of
simply another name for Ugbaru. Complicating this theory is that Gutium and it is possible that Xenophon identifies him as Gobryas.
the Nabonidus Chronicle mentions both an Ugbaru and a Gubaru,
and some scholars take these to be variant spellings of the same 3. Gubaru [appointed by Cyrus to rule over Babylon]
name, and that this person is also the same as Gobryas in the Greek In contrast to the 2nd view, Ugbaru and Gubaru were not confused
sources. However, other scholars differentiate Ugbaru and Gubaru. names for the same individual, but were actually two individuals.
Thus, Ugbaru was the governor of Gutium who helped conquer
Mark Mercer [20th century biblical scholar] summarizes this view: Babylon. But, when Cyrus entered the city on the 29th of October,
“The evidence in favour of the identification of Ugbaru as the he appointed another individual named Gubaru to rule, because
vassal king of Babylon can be summarized as follows. First, the Ugbaru either suffered from wounds in battle or had incurred a
change of Cyrus’ titulary from ‘King of Babylon, King of Lands’ to fatal illness and died shortly thereafter on the 6th of November.
simply ‘King of Lands’ and then back to ‘King of Babylon, King of
Lands’ during a 14–month period following the fall of Babylon R. K. Harrison [20th century biblical scholar] confirms and says:
suggests the throne was vacant or that someone else was ‘King of “The Nabonidus Chronicle mentioned two persons connected with
Babylon’ during the interim period in which Cyrus is called simply the fall of Babylon, namely Ugbaru and Gubaru, and faulty
‘King of Lands.’ Assuming that the throne of Babylon would not be translation of the Chronicle since 1882 has tended to confuse
left vacant at such a crucial period in Cyrus’ reign, the most their identities. It was on the basis of this misunderstanding that
logical choice for the position of ‘king of Babylon’ would be scholars such as H. H. Rowley assumed that they were actually one
 265

person, the Gobryas of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, who died after the conqueror of Babylon) held the office until well into Cambyses’s
fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. The translation of the Chronicle by reign and possibly until the first years of Darius I. Although the
Sidney Smith in 1924, however, distinguished between Ugbaru and preserved accounts do not agree and show legendary elements,
Gubaru, and it is now apparent that the former, who was governor Cyrus evidently met his death in a military campaign in 530 BC
of Gutium and an ally of Cyrus, took a prominent part in the and was succeeded by the crown prince Cambyses.”
capture of Babylon and then died shortly afterward, presumably of
wounds sustained in the battle. Whereupon the other victorious 4. Cambyses II [the Son of Cyrus]
leader Gubaru, who with Ugbaru was apparently responsible for In other words, Cambyses II ruled Persia from 530–522 b.c., and
diverting the river Euphrates so that his soldiers could capture the he had connections to Babylon [participating each spring in the
city by infiltrating along the dried–up river bed, was appointed by annual New Year Festival], but he did not live there.
Cyrus as the governor of Babylon. He held this position for 14
years, and was mentioned in a number of cuneiform texts.” Stephen Miller [21st century biblical scholar] says: “A serious
problem with this view is the age of Cambyses. Daniel records that
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] likewise says: “Do Darius the Mede was 62 years old when he began to rule over
we have any inscriptional evidence for this Darius (Dār eyāwēš)? Babylon (v. 31), but Cambyses would have been much younger
Not under that name, perhaps. But we certainly do have frequent than this in 539 b.c. Cambyses also could not be considered of
references to a general named Gubaru (quite distinct from the Median descent because both of his parents were Persians.”
Ugbaru of Gutium who lived only a few weeks after the capture of
Babylon in 539 b.c.). A Gubaru appears as the governor of 5. Cyaxares II [the Median King]
Babylonia and of Ebir–nari (the western domains under Chaldean This is the best theory to date, specifically deriving from the fact
sovereignty) in tablets dated from the 4th to the 8th year of Cyrus that Herodotus and Xenophon have contradictory accounts
(535–532 b.c.) and even as late as the 5th year of Cambyses (525 regarding the accession of Cyrus and the existence of a Median
b.c.). It seems altogether probable that during the transitional king at the time of Babylon’s fall. So, while most scholars have
period of 539–538 he was appointed as viceroy over Babylonia, for relied on Herodotus’ Histories, recent scholarship argues that it is
the purpose of bringing it into full submission and cooperation with actually the account of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia that preserves the
the Medo–Persian Empire, of which it had now become a part.” more accurate record, at least in regard to these matters! For
example, Herodotus claimed that Cyrus overthrew the previous
However, there is no specific evidence which would show that Median king [Astyages] in a coup prior to the conquest of Babylon
Gubaru was a Mede, a descendant of Ahasuerus, or a man who was and indicated that Astyages had no male heir [Histories, 1.109].
~60 years of age! Furthermore, in the records mentioned by This would have made Cyrus king over both the Medes and the
Archer, he is called a “governor” [not a “king”]. Also, the fact that Persians prior to the conquest of Babylon. However, Xenophon
this Gubaru lived considerably longer after Babylon’s fall raises a described the Median king Cyaxares II [omitted by Herodotus],
vital question: why does v. 31 clarify that Darius was already 62 who was the actual head of government at the time Cyrus led the
years old at the time he began to reign? Medo–Persian armies on campaigns of conquest. Thus, Xenophon
has preserved a more reliable account concerning the succession of
Lester Grabbe [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] concludes: “In his Median rulers and their relationship to Cyrus and the fall of
4th year Cyrus made another Gobryas satrap of ‘Babylon and Babylon, and the major witnesses supporting Herodotus consist of
Ebir–nari’; this individual (probably not the same as the cuneiform propaganda texts produced by the government of Cyrus!
 266

So, if the account of Xenophon is given serious consideration, [Histories 1.107]. But, the Cyrus Cylinder instead agrees with
Cyrus did not conquer the Medes and assume rule over their Xenophon, not Herodotus, because Cyrus states that he is “son
kingdom prior to his conquest of Babylon. Instead, Astyages [the of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus,
Median king] had a male heir [Cyaxares II] who actually ruled over great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king,
the Medes and the Persians, while Cyrus did not gain full power king of Anshan, of a family which always exercised kingship.”
until Cyaxares II died sometime after Babylon’s fall. When
Babylon was conquered, the rule of this realm was given to e) The Harran Stele is a document from the court of Nabonidus
Cyaxares II, with “Darius” apparently being his throne name. that gives events in his various regnal years. In the entry for his
Thus, here are the arguments favouring Xenophon’s account: 14th/15th year [542–540 b.c.] Nabonidus speaks of his enemies
as the kings of Egypt, the Medes, and the Arabs. Xenophon
a) Herodotus incorrectly says there was only one king of Babylon presents the king of Media as the senior partner and Cyrus the
at the time that it fell to Cyrus. He calls this king Labynetus king of Persia as the junior or lesser partner until after the
[apparently his version of Nabonidus]. But, Xenophon, without conquest of Babylon. During this time the Medes were stronger
giving the names, correctly states there were two Babylonian than the Persians [Cyropaedia 1.5.2]. This fits with Nabonidus
kings [Cyropaedia 4.6.3, 5.2.27, 5.4.12], a father and a son, and mentioning the king of Media as his enemy, without
it was the son who was in the city when it was captured. mentioning his subordinate, whom Xenophon supplies as
Cyrus, king of Persia. But, according to Herodotus, there was
b) Both Herodotus and Xenophon relate how the forces of Cyrus no independent Median kingdom at this time, Cyrus having
took the city by the stratagem of diverting the Euphrates River conquered the Medes many years previously. Furthermore,
that flowed through the city, and both agree that Babylon was scholars argue that the Harran Stele provides an example of the
observing a festival on the night the city was taken. However, title “king of the Medes” being applied to Cyrus [without him
Xenophon adds a detail that is not found in Herodotus: that the being named]. However, in all the other cuneiform inscriptions
king reigning there was slain the night the city was taken, a from the time of Cyrus [the Verse Account of Nabonidus, the
statement that is corroborated by Daniel [v. 31]. Cyrus Cylinder, and the Nabonidus Chronicle], every reference
to him before the capture of Babylon designates him as either
c) Xenophon has an extensive history of Ugbaru/Gubaru “King of Anshan” or “King of Persia” [never “king of the
[Gobryas], governor of Gutium and leader of Cyrus’ forces in Medes”]. So, the natural understanding would be that the “king
the capture of Babylon. Ugbaru is also known from the of the Medes” mentioned in the Harran Stele was not Cyrus!
Nabonidus Chronicle, where he leads the army that captures
Babylon [in agreement with Cyropaedia]. But, Herodotus never f) Archaeological evidence supports the Xenophon’s picture of
mentions this name, a curious deficiency given the importance relations between the Medes and the Persians. For example,
of Ugbaru in the capture of the city and prior events. according to Herodotus [using the later Persian propaganda of
the Nabonidus Chronicle], Cyrus rose up in rebellion against
d) Xenophon states that Cyrus was the son of a Persian king his grandfather Astyages [king of Media], and conquered the
[Cyropaedia 1.2.1]. Herodotus states that although Cyrus’ Medes, who were then subject to Cyrus from that point on.
mother Mandane was Astyages’ daughter, Astyages gave However, Xenophon presents both kingdoms as partners, with
Mandane in marriage to someone not of “suitable rank,” so that the Medes being the senior partners and equal with the Persians
any son born to Mandane could not claim a royal heritage right up to the death of Cyaxares II [son of Astyages].
 267

This was ~2 years after the conquest of Babylon, and after the So, here is “Darius the Mede” compared between Xenophon and Daniel:
death of Cyaxares the two kingdoms were merged peaceably
under Cyrus. Thus, archaeological evidence, such as the Cyaxares II [Xenophon] “Darius the Mede” [Daniel]
stairway reliefs at Persepolis, shows no distinction in official A contemporary of Cyrus the
rank or status between the Persian and Median nobility. Great A contemporary of Cyrus the Great
Although scholars argue that Cyrus subjugated the Medes, [his uncle]
instead the Medes were honoured equally with Persians, and King of the Medes King of the Medes
were employed in office and chosen to lead Persian armies. [Cyr. 4.5.8] [v. 31]
Had authority over the Persians as Had authority over the Persians after
Thus, by giving priority to Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, the individual late as shortly after the capture of the capture of Babylon in 539 b.c., as
known as “Darius the Mede” in Daniel’s book was Cyaxares II, the Babylon in 539 b.c. evidenced by his decree
son of Astyages and maternal uncle of Cyrus the Great. He was the [Cyr. 8.5.17] [later in Daniel 6:6–9]
heir and rightful king of the Medes, and would have been older Died ~2 years after the capture of Died not long after the capture of
than Cyrus, specifically at 62 years old [v. 31]. He received the Babylon, and succeeded by Cyrus Babylon, and succeeded by Cyrus
kingdom after Cyrus led the armies of the Medes and Persians in [Cyr. 8.6.22] [later in Daniel 10:1, 11:1]
conquest of Babylon [later in Daniel 9:1]. In other words, he turned One name given, but Josephus said Only one name given, although other
over the rule of it to Cyaxares II, and in doing so, honoured him. that Darius “was called by another kings during this time had a given
name among the Greeks.” name as well as a throne name
Jerome [4th century] confirms these details and concludes: [Ant. 10.248/10.11.4] [v. 31]
“Josephus writes in his 10th book of the Jewish Antiquities that Had a “reputation for being violent Had an unreasonable and
when Babylon had been laid under siege by the Medes and and unreasonable.” disproportionate anger
Persians, that is, by Darius and Cyrus, Belshazzar, king of [Cyr. 4.5.9] [later in Daniel 6:24]
Babylon, fell into such forgetfulness of his own situation as to put Vainglorious: He could change his Vainglorious: His counsellors
on his celebrated banquet and drink from the vessels of the temple, actions if offered something that recognized this, persuading him to
and even while he was besieged he found leisure for banqueting. brought him greater praise/wealth issue an edict that would make him
From this circumstance the historical account could arise, that he [Cyr. 4.5.51–53; 5.5.1–2, 38–40; the focus of everyone’s prayers
was captured and slaughtered on the same night, while everyone 8.5.17] [later in Daniel 6:6–9]
was either terrified by fear of the vision and its interpretation or
else taken up with festivity and drunken banqueting. As for the fact Rodger Young [21st century biblical chronologist] concludes and says:
that while Cyrus, king of the Persians, was the victor, and Darius “Stepping back and looking at the issue from a distance, it seems strange
was only king of the Medes, it was Darius who was recorded to that ancient sources give us two individuals, supposedly separate, who
have succeeded to the throne of Babylon; this was an arrangement nevertheless occupied the same place at the same time. More importantly,
occasioned by factors of age, family relationship and the territory these individuals, according to their respective sources, shared a unique
ruled over. By this I mean that Darius was 62 years old and that, characteristic: they were simultaneously, in 539 BC, the supreme authority
according to what we read, the kingdom of the Medes was more over Babylon, the Medes, and the Persians. This in itself indicates they
sizable than that of the Persians, and being Cyrus’ uncle, he were the same person. The alternative is that they were both fictitious. It
naturally had a prior claim and ought to have been accounted as could not be that just one was fictitious (whether Xenophon’s Cyaxares or
successor to the rule of Babylon.”
 268

Daniel’s Darius), because if it is accepted that one was a real person, the [that Astyages had no male heir and Cyrus had conquered and subjected
similarity of characteristics (place, time, authority) guarantees the the Medes prior to the defeat and fall of Babylon]. So, over the past ~50
existence of the other, and that they were the same real person. If both years, some scholars conjectured that “Darius the Mede” was historical,
are assumed fictitious then it should be asked why Xenophon and Daniel but no proposed theory was provable. Thus, critical scholars regarded
independently created imaginary figures that either of their accounts could “Darius the Mede” as a fictional or historically inaccurate character.
do without, and why these two independent authors also gave their However, recent scholarship has called into question Herodotus’ account
supposedly imaginary figures similar characteristics of nationality, royal and even the reliability of existing inscriptions! In other words, the Sippar
status, and temperament. Until those who hold to the non–existence of Cylinder, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Verse Account of Nabonidus, and the
Xenophon’s Cyaxares and the corresponding non–existence of Daniel’s Nabonidus Chronicle have been challenged as propagandistic. Thus, the
Darius find a better explanation, these circumstances are best understood claim that Cyrus overthrew Astyages and became king of Media–Persia
by accepting the reality of the one individual who is the basis of both well before the fall of Babylon [as Herodotus maintained] is inaccurate.
accounts, one written in Greek and the other in Aramaic and Hebrew. Instead, Xenophon’s account is more reliable: Cyrus did not conquer and
Accepting that Cyaxares/Darius was a real person not only makes the best rule the Medes prior to Babylon’s fall, but the two powers combined their
sense of the existing data, but it also affords new understandings of forces for mutual benefit, and the Medes were ruled by Astyages’ son
circumstances related in the Cyropaedia and Daniel’s book. For biblical [Cyaxares II]. So, once Babylon was conquered, the rule of Babylon was
scholars, an example of such an insight is how the idiosyncrasies of entrusted to Cyaxares II, or his throne name “Darius the Mede.” Such
Xenophon’s Cyaxares—his apparent bipolar disorder and need for throne names were common practice. For example, Darius III [336–330
adoration by his subjects—explain why the Darius of Daniel 6 could be b.c.], was originally Artašata and called Codomannus by the Greeks. Thus,
persuaded to issue a self–glorifying edict that could only have negative the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options have serious weaknesses, and are rejected.
consequences. Xenophon’s picture of Cyrus’ subordination to his uncle In other words, Cyrus and his son Cambyses were not likely to be referred
also explains Darius’ authority to issue such a command. For classical to as “Medes” nor were they considered sons of Ahasuerus [later in Daniel
scholars, the obvious independence of Xenophon’s writings about 9:1]. As for Ugbaru/Gubaru, they either did not live long enough to have
Cyaxares II and Daniel’s narrative of Darius the Mede, and yet the had a rule at Babylon, or had no known identity as a Mede or a noble
striking similarities of the two (supposedly distinct) individuals, should standing by which they would have been readily received as king. Thus,
give a new appreciation that Cyrus was in reality the master of this last 5th option is highly probable: “Darius the Mede” was a throne
propaganda that the Cyropaedia claims for him. In van der Spek’s words, name for Cyaxares II, a Median king who continued to rule over Babylon
‘Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography until he died roughly a couple of years after Babylon’s fall in 539 b.c.
is still influenced by it.’ Cyrus’s propaganda is perpetuated to the present
day in scholarship that denies the existence of Cyrus’ uncle as portrayed Steven Anderson [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes:
in the Cyropaedia or of Daniel’s king and friend as portrayed in Daniel’s “This was the view of the majority of Jewish and Christian scholars from
book, despite the obvious affinities between the two portraits and the Josephus and Jerome until Keil in the 1870s, but it was abandoned after
independence of the sources presenting them.” the discovery of cuneiform texts that appeared to support Herodotus’
account of the accession of Cyrus, which does not allow for the existence
In summary, until the mid–19th century, Jerome’s opinion prevailed: that of the Cyaxares II described by Xenophon. Nevertheless, the description of
Darius the Mede was the maternal uncle of Cyrus the Great, the son of the Cyaxares II in the Cyropaedia of Xenophon fits well with the description of
Median king Astyages. This would be Cyaxares II, as identified by Darius the Mede in Daniel’s book. Given that the identifications of Darius
Xenophon. With the discovery of Akkadian inscriptions in the 19th the Mede that are based on Herodotus’ version of the history have many
century, scholarly opinion began to shift in favour of Herodotus’ account problems, the identification of Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II has
 269

returned to the attention of bible scholars. I wrote my 2014 doctoral not a reliable source for the history of Cyrus. Response: This evaluation of
dissertation on the subject of Darius the Mede, advocating for the the Cyropaedia is based on the presupposition that Cyaxares II is fictional.
identification of Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II. Some scholars, such If one accepts the historicity of Cyaxares II, then the Cyropaedia appears
as Kirk MacGregor and Paul Tanner, have subsequently followed my much more reliable. Moreover, Xenophon has been proven more precise
arguments. My argument is that Xenophon describes Cyaxares II as the than Herodotus with respect to his description of the royal upbringing of
last Median king and the uncle of Cyrus. According to Xenophon, Cyrus, the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of Gobryas, and the
Cyaxares II was king of Media and Cyrus was king of Persia, and the two marriage of Cyrus with Cyaxares’ daughter.”
were allied in a single confederated government. This power–sharing
arrangement offers a way to harmonize biblical texts (Isaiah 45:1–3) and J. Paul Tanner [21st century biblical scholar] likewise concludes:
extra–biblical texts which describe Cyrus as the conqueror of kingdoms “Aeschylus was a Greek author of numerous plays who wrote the tragedy
with Daniel’s affirmation that there was a king higher than Cyrus when The Persians (472 BC). Significantly, his work predates that of both
Babylon fell. According to Xenophon, Cyaxares II lived for 2 years after Herodotus and Xenophon, and he wrote independent of either of them.
the fall of Babylon, which is enough time for the events of Daniel 6. Since One of the lines in his play supports the idea that Cyrus did not conquer
Cyaxares had no male heir and Cyrus had married his daughter, Cyrus the rebellious Medes as Herodotus indicated, but rather was preceded by
inherited Cyaxares’ position after his death and united the kingdoms of two Median kings. The line reads, ‘For the Mede was the first leader of
Media and Persia in a single throne. Although Xenophon only uses the our host; and another, his son, completed this work, for his mind directed
name ‘Cyaxares,’ there is evidence from other sources that Cyaxares took his passion. And third from him was Cyrus, a fortunate man; when he
the throne name ‘Darius.’ There is also evidence that Cyaxares’ father, ruled, he established peace for all his own.’ The first Mede referred to
called ‘Astyages’ by the Greek historians, took the throne name cannot be Cyaxares I, for he did not establish a Medo–Persian kingdom.
‘Ahasuerus’ (Xerxes). Xenophon does not give a precise age for Cyaxares, Hence, the two Median kings preceding Cyrus must be Astyages and his
but his affirmation that Cyaxares was older than Cyrus fits with the son, Cyaxares II, thus supporting Xenophon’s account. Also of interest is
affirmation in Daniel 5:31 that Darius the Mede was 62 years old when a statement made by Valerius Harpocration, a 2nd century AD
Babylon fell. In conclusion, the Cyaxares of Xenophon corresponds very lexicographer in regard to the ‘daric’ coin. In his entry for ‘daric,’
closely to the description of Darius the Mede in Daniel’s book. In my Harpocration wrote, ‘But darics are not named as most suppose, after
dissertation, I undertook a detailed study of other extra–biblical sources Darius the father of Xerxes, but after a certain other more ancient king.’
that provide information regarding the issue of Cyrus and Darius the This attests to a king named Darius who predates Darius Hystaspes.”
Mede, and I found strong evidence in support of the existence of Cyaxares
II as Darius the Mede. Objection #1: Babylonian contract texts are dated Thus, in light of this new data, critical scholars will now need to:
to the reign of Cyrus from the fall of Babylon, without an intervening reign
of Darius the Mede. Response: The contract texts also do not mention 1. Be cautious about their reliance on Herodotus’ account of Cyrus.
Belshazzar, whom Daniel identifies correctly as ‘king.’ This is because the 2. Give greater consideration to Xenophon’s account.
contract texts do not always mention all the coregents in a coregency. In 3. Accept the historicity of Cyaxares II [the son of the Median king
the case of the coregency between Cyrus and Darius the Mede, it was Astyages] who can be equated with Daniel’s “Darius the Mede.”
natural to date Babylonian contract texts by the reign of the king who
entered Babylon as its conqueror (Cyrus). Nevertheless, it is possible that So, the Harran Stele of Nabonidus, which dates from the period shortly
there are contract texts dated by the reign of Darius the Mede, since those before the fall of Babylon in 539 b.c., witnesses to the existence of a king
texts would be identified by scholars with the reign of one of the three of the Medes independent of the Persians and that the Medes [not Persia]
Dariuses who reigned later. Objection #2: The Cyropaedia of Xenophon is at this time were the primary threat to Babylonia.
 270

In the inscription, Nabonidus is reported to have stated: “the king of Egypt, harmonize with Xenophon’s account. In fact, according to Xenophon,
the Medes and the land of the Arabs, all the hostile kings, were sending me Cyrus eventually married the daughter of Cyaxares II [Cyr. 8.5.28],
messages of reconciliation and friendship.” This works against the view thereby having a double relationship with the Medes. Thus, the son of
that Cyrus had conquered the Medes long before Babylon’s fall and had Astyages [Cyaxares II] was none other than Daniel’s “Darius the Mede.”
become their king. Furthermore, we have a noteworthy reference by
Josephus that lends weight to the fact that not only did Astyages have a John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “The precision of
son to succeed him as king, but that this son was indeed Darius. For the ‘62’ years relates to the omen. If the mina is the mina comprising 60
source of his information, Josephus relied upon the work of Berossus, sheqels (not the more usual mina comprising 50 sheqels), then a mina, a
whom he held in high esteem and frequently quoted, because Berossus sheqel and two halves of a sheqel come to 62 sheqels. The years
wrote a three–volume work called Babyloniaca between 290–278 b.c. attributed to Darius sum up another aspect of the omen’s meaning: he is
Although it is no longer extant and only fragments remain today, we have the person who brings its fulfilment upon Belshazzar.”
a number of quotations and references to it in both Josephus and Eusebius.
In fact, one section of Babyloniaca that survived in an Armenian Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] likewise concludes:
translation of Eusebius, reads: “Cyrus at first treated Nabonidus kindly, “Babylon’s fall would have come as no real surprise to God’s faithful in
and, giving a residence to him in Carmania, sent him out of Babylonia. Old Testament times. Prophets had long foretold the demise of the great
But, Darius the king took away some of his province for himself.” empire that God had used to judge his own people (Isaiah 13:9; 21:9;
Jeremiah 51:24–58; Habakkuk 2:2–20). But Daniel 5 is not the end of
Thus, notice the mention of “Darius the king” at the time of Babylon’s ‘Babylon’ in the bible. It returns with a vengeance in John’s Revelation,
fall! Furthermore, Josephus says: “This is the end of the posterity of king where one of the driving themes is the destruction of ‘Babylon the great,’
Nebuchadnezzar, as history informs us; but when Babylon was taken by the symbolic antithesis of God’s kingdom (Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5;
Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the 18:2, 10, 21). Belshazzar and his blasphemous arrogance were but faint
dominion of the Babylonians, he was 62 years old. He was the son of shadows of the evil to come. But between the fall of the first great
Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks.” [Ant. 10.11.4] kingdom of Babylon and the last, the indestructible eternal kingdom of
God spoken about in Daniel broke into the world (Daniel 2:44; 4:34;
If Josephus was correct, then Cyrus the Great would have been related to 6:26). Its beginnings were small and unimpressive, but it endures to this
Darius, both being descendants of Astyages, king of Media. In fact, day and its future is bright. The one who inaugurated this kingdom in 1st
Cyaxares II [Darius] would have been Cyrus’ uncle, since Cyrus’ mother century Israel will return to destroy all other rulers and powers, and he
[Mandane] was the sister of Cyaxares II. So, according to Josephus, will present the kingdom in its fullness to God (1 Corinthians 15:23–25).
Astyages was not the last Median king, and in contradiction to Herodotus, The handwriting on Belshazzar’s wall and the subsequent fall of
he did have a son who ruled over Media after him. This assertion was Babylon to Darius the Mede declare God’s sovereignty. The Lord of
confirmed by Jerome: “Darius was 62 years old and that, according to heaven rules all the earth. Kings rise and fall because he raises and fells
what we read, the kingdom of the Medes was more sizable than that of the them. The life and ways of every king are in his hand. It was true for his
Persians, and being Cyrus’ uncle, he naturally had a prior claim and people in exile and it is true for us, wherever we may live and to whomever
ought to have been accounted as successor to the rule of Babylon.” we pay taxes. These kings will not last. These kingdoms will not endure.
The handwriting has been on the wall for thousands of years, and because
Since Astyages was not Cyrus’ uncle, but rather his grandfather, this of the one who would later write in the dirt with his own human finger
statement can only mean that Astyages had a son [Cyrus’ uncle], since his (John 8:6), we can be confident that the message of Daniel 5 has not faded
father had married Astyages’ daughter [Mandane], which would (1 Corinthians 15:20–28).”
 271

Summing Up …
Starting with vv. 1–12, Daniel reinforces Jeremiah’s messages about
Nebuchadnezzar and his lineage [Jeremiah 25:1–12; 27:5–7]. In other
words, Jeremiah stressed that God was working through Nebuchadnezzar
in a particular way for a particular time. His mission is to carry out God’s
punishment on his disobedient people and their monarch [recall Daniel
1:1–2]. His successors must meet God’s standards if they wish to stay in
power. Likewise, Belshazzar’s successor must recognize God’s authority
or face the consequences.

Next in vv. 13–28, Daniel illustrates God’s opposition to arrogance that

leads to idolatry. Thus, the passage agrees with Isaiah that God will judge
kings and nations who exalt themselves as if God had not given them their
power [Isaiah 10:5–11; 14:12–14; 47:10]. An adherent of another religion
should know that he or she is not the world’s creator. In response to
Belshazzar’s pride, Daniel stressed that God is sovereign, holy, just, and
eternal. No idol or emperor has these characteristics, so none deserves
worship. God still reigns, as the exiled Daniel understood. His witness to
Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar makes God’s universal reign more
evident. It affirms that God’s kingdom does not depend on Jerusalem,
Babylon, or any place having a particular political leader on the throne.

Finally in vv. 29–31, Daniel demonstrates once again that empires rise and
fall at God’s command, not at the decrees of human rulers. Monarchs
come and go. Each seemingly receives the kingdom from other humans,
but in fact from God. Daniel’s faithfulness to God gives him a position of
great authority: by surviving while Babylon falls [recall Daniel 1:21].
 272

DANIEL IN THE LION’S DEN one of which was Daniel. The regional authorities reported to these three
administrators, so that the king would experience no losses. 3Daniel
Daniel 6 distinguished himself among all the administrators and regional
authorities, because he was of an extraordinary spirit. Therefore the king
Opening Thought planned to appoint him over the whole kingdom.
1) Who is the most respected Christian in your church? What admiring
qualities does this person possess? How did he/she acquire this reputation?
A Plot to Destroy Daniel
4
Because of this, the administrators and regional authorities tried to
2) Suppose that a group of non–Christian neighbours or colleagues from bring allegations of dereliction of duty in government affairs against
work were sitting around a restaurant table chatting, and your name is Daniel, but they were unable to find any charges of corruption. Daniel was
suddenly tossed into the conversation. What kind of remarks or comments trustworthy, and no evidence of negligence or corruption could be found
do you think might be made about you, your character, and your lifestyle? against him. 5So these men said, “We’ll never find any basis for complaint
against Daniel unless we build it on the requirements of his God.” 6Then
Background of the Passage these administrators and regional authorities went as a group to the king
After being transported from Judah to Babylon as a young man, Daniel and said this, “Your majesty, live forever! 7All of the royal administrators,
spent his entire adult life serving as a high–ranking official for pagan prefects, regional authorities, scribes, and governors have concluded that
kings. This humble, prayerful, and faithful man was God’s spokesman to the king should establish and enforce an edict that anyone who prays to
world leaders from approximately 605 b.c. to 530 b.c. Beginning with any god or man for the next 30 days (except to you, your majesty) is to be
Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, Daniel served with thrown into the lions’ pit. 8Therefore, your majesty, establish the decree
distinction. This loyalty continued into the Medo–Persian dynasty under and sign the written document so it can’t be changed, in accordance with
Darius the Mede [Cyaxares II]. Although Daniel’s career was not without the laws of the Medes and Persians that can’t be repealed.” 9So King
its difficult and dangerous times, he was a favourite of those whom he Darius signed the edict contained in the written document.
served. Daniel possessed experience, wisdom, a sense of history,
leadership ability, a sterling reputation, remarkable people skills, a positive Daniel is Accused
10
attitude, and the benefit of revelation from God. Thus, it is not surprising When Daniel learned that the written document had been signed, he
that Daniel’s excellence and godliness aroused the ire of the godless went to an upstairs room in his house that had windows opened facing
around him. Daniel in the den of lions is a classic example of the evil Jerusalem. Three times a day he would kneel down, pray, and give thanks
intent of humans and the sovereign purposes of God. In summary, Daniel to his God, just as he had previously done. 11The conspirators then went as
demonstrated the evangelistic potential of a godly uncompromising life. a group and found Daniel praying and seeking help before his God. 12So
God received great glory from the life and work of this quiet servant. they approached the king and asked, “Didn’t you sign an edict that for the
next 30 days if anyone prays to any god or man, except to you, your
Bible Passage majesty, he would be thrown into the lions’ pit?” The king responded,
Read Daniel 6 “The decree has been established, in accordance with the laws of the
Medes and Persians that can’t be repealed.” 13Then they told the king,
Daniel’s Service to Darius “Daniel, who is one of the Judean exiles, pays no attention to you, your
1
It pleased Darius to appoint 120 regional authorities over the kingdom majesty, or to the written decree, since he is still praying three times a
throughout the realm, 2along with three chief administrators from them, day.” 14When the king heard this, he was greatly upset, because he was
determined to make every effort to save Daniel before the sun set.
 273
15
But the men who had gone as a group to the king told him, Understanding the Text
“Remember, your majesty, that according to the laws of the Medes and 3) What was the conspiracy against Daniel? (6:1–9)
Persians, any decree or edict that the king establishes cannot be repealed.”
Starting with vv. 1–3, we read: “It pleased Darius to appoint 120
Daniel in the Lions’ Pit regional authorities over the kingdom throughout the realm, along with
16
At this point, the king ordered Daniel brought in and thrown into the three chief administrators from them, one of which was Daniel. The
lions’ pit. The king spoke to Daniel, “Your God, whom you serve regional authorities reported to these three administrators, so that the king
constantly, will deliver you himself.” 17A stone was brought and placed would experience no losses. Daniel distinguished himself among all the
over the opening to the pit, and the king affixed a seal to it with his administrators and regional authorities, because he was of an
personal signet ring and with the signet rings of his officials so that no one extraordinary spirit. The king planned to appoint him over the kingdom.”
would interfere with Daniel’s situation. 18Then the king retired to his
palace to spend the night fasting. He enjoyed no entertainment, and he Although no date is given at the beginning of this chapter, it is most likely
couldn’t sleep. 19The king got up at dawn and went quickly to the lions’ that this took place during the 1st year of Darius the Mede, specifically
pit. 20As he approached where Daniel was in the pit, he cried out to him in when he was establishing the administration for the newly created
a voice filled with anguish, “Daniel, servant of the living God, has your province of Babylonia. Since Cyrus the Great had led the combined armies
God, whom you serve constantly, been able to deliver you from the lions?” of the Medes and Persians in victory against Babylon, Daniel would have
21
Daniel replied to the king, “May your majesty live forever! 22My God witnessed Cyrus’ entrance to Babylon on the 29th of October in 539 b.c.,
sent his angel and sealed the mouths of the lions. They have not harmed and Daniel would have had opportunity to meet Cyrus! Furthermore,
me, proving that I’m innocent before him. Also against you, your majesty, although the governance of Babylonia was entrusted to Darius, Cyrus took
I’ve committed no offense.” 23The king was ecstatic, so he gave orders for over the rule of Babylon after the death of Darius [later in v. 28].
Daniel to be released from the pit. Daniel was taken up from the pit, and Nevertheless, Daniel will demonstrate a step forward in establishing the
no injury was found to have been inflicted on him, because he had primacy and certitude of God’s enduring kingdom. The point is that God is
believed in his God. 24Then the king gave orders to bring those men who free to break into the sacred space of the Medes and Persians to
had tried to have Daniel devoured, and they threw them, their children, and demonstrate his power and proclaim his kingdom intentions, even though
their wives into the lions’ pit. They had not reached the floor of the pit his holy mountain [Jerusalem] continues to exist in ruins.
before the lions had overtaken them and crushed all their bones.
Joseph J. de Bruyn [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] explains:
Darius Exonerates Daniel
25 “Daniel 6 is a construction of written words built–up from the spatial
Afterward, King Darius wrote to all people, nations, and languages
experience of human cognition. The language used by Daniel to construct
who lived throughout his realm: “May great prosperity be yours! 26I
his narrative mirrors certain fundamental properties and design features
hereby decree that in every area of my kingdom men are to fear and
of the human mind. In communicating with his readers, Daniel
tremble before the God of Daniel. For he is the living God, who endures
deliberately employs certain concepts not only to construct his narrative,
forever. His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed, and his dominion
but also to create a specific reality. This is based on a broader new
continues forever. 27He delivers and rescues and performs signs and
development within the methodology of studying language and the way in
wonders in heaven and on earth. He has delivered Daniel from the power
which humans communicate. This new science is known as ‘cognitive
of the lions.” 28Daniel achieved success during the reigns of Darius and
linguistics’ which involves the study of the complex relationship between
Cyrus the Persian.
language and the mind. In this new science it is postulated that texts, as
 274

mediums of communications, are embedded in an author’s cognitive studying texts such as Daniel 6. These ideas can be summarised as
paradigm. This means that Daniel utilises specific concepts, embedded in follows: (1) the human mind produces words as reflections of concepts,
his own cognitive world view, to convey his narrative to his readers. I use and as concepts, words embody human culture and world views; (2) as
a so–called ‘spatial–body frameset’ to analyse Daniel 6. I focus on how humans interact with the world around them they use their bodies as a
Daniel specifically uses spatial concepts (markers) to construct the reality metaphorical framework to make sense of their experience of the world;
of the omnipresence of God. In constructing this ‘presence–of–God’ (3) in making sense of their world, humans create ‘spaces’ to order their
reality, Daniel conveys a message of hope and trust in the authority of God environment. These spaces may be physical spaces such as a room or
to his readers. The analysis of Daniel 6 corresponds to similar research more abstract such as different situations and realities, however both
on Psalms 2, 110 and Daniel 1, 3, and 5. Thus, I differ from previous physical and abstract spaces are experienced as real by human cognition;
research in three ways. Firstly, I use a spatial–body frameset based on (4) language is not merely a reflection or representation of realities,
cognitive linguistics to analyse Daniel 6, and such an approach has not instead reality is also constructed by language, and language can create
been used by biblical scholars before. Secondly, most scholars identify the realities which are in turn experienced as spaces by the human
main characters of the narrative as either Daniel or Darius or his cognition. Linguists are of the opinion that all human behaviour is located
officials. However, I will show that the story known as ‘Daniel in the in space and constructed from it. Through these experienced structural
lion’s den,’ rather should be known as: ‘God and the lions.’ Contrary to ‘spaces’ specific phenomena can be categorised or described, for example
popular belief, Daniel 6 is not just a story about Daniel, but also a ‘below’ the ground, on ‘top’ of a building, ‘inside’ a cave, ‘outside’ a
narrative about God. Thirdly, although Daniel 6 can be treated as an house, ‘under’ a table, and so on. Some environments, such as those of the
individual story, this article uniquely treats it as part of a larger narrative church or temple, are even experienced and treated as holy or sacred
that stretches from Daniel 1–6. This larger narrative can be described as spaces. By cognitively constructing such spaces we sometimes
either a ‘clash of deities or a deity war.’ I postulate that Daniel 6 is a instinctively use our bodies to describe these spaces in an abstract sense.
story about God clashing with Darius and the gods of the Meden and the Three examples follow: the eye of a needle is the space where a thread is
Persian Empire. Not only does Daniel demonstrate to his readers that God put through; the space where a cave is entered is called the mouth of the
can operate outside the land of Israel, but he also shows that God is the cave; a universal serial bus (USB) extension is often described as a male–
supreme ruler of all kingdoms and other god spaces. It is true that other female cable. This means that we as humans give meaning to the spaces
methods could be used to indicate God’s capability to act outside Israel, we live in through our bodies. The creative properties of language can be
but up until recent research Daniel 1–6 is interpreted as stories about explained by two examples: (1) laws, because these are nothing less than
Daniel and his friends maintaining their faith, with God acting on their word–constructed framesets creating realities within which humans
behalf. However, I treat Daniel 1–6 as narratives about God. In addition, I function daily; (2) liturgical phrases, because uttering words in specific
treat these subordinate stories as events that can be linked together into a circumstances creates new realities. Based on these aspects of cognitive
larger and more primary narrative about God as the main character. In linguistics, I postulate that Daniel utilises spatial body concepts to
the different events in Daniel 1–6, the utilization of Daniel and his friends, construct the reality of the omnipresence of God. So, ‘embodied space’ is
the lion’s den, the different temples, cities and locations is to demonstrate the location in which human experience and consciousness materialise.
the ‘spatial markers’ and to construct the reality of God’s supremacy and These embodied spaces can take the form of many different entities. Thus,
omnipresence. Thus, I postulate that Daniel deliberately placed the there are different ways in which spaces can be created by employing
events of these different stories in a specific order to create a larger language and where these spaces can be identified in texts. Spatial
narrative. This different nuance in approaching the text is only possible markers are indications of embodied spaces within a text. These spatial
because of cognitive linguistics. So, in the field of cognitive linguistics four markers can be summarised as follow: ‘the human body’ as a vessel of the
basic ideas can be identified as useful for the exegetical process of ‘self’; ‘body–space,’ which centres around the human body; ‘gendered
 275

spaces’; ‘inscribed spaces’; ‘contested spaces’; ‘trans–national space’;

‘trajector’; ‘landmark’; ‘frame of reference’; ‘region’; ‘path’; ‘direction’
and ‘motion’. Against the world view of the ancient Near East, aspects of
these spatial markers will be combined with sacred space. These sacred
spaces are the materialisation of the religious paradigm of the human
mind. The creation of sacred spaces is the result of people’s interaction
with their environment on a religious level. Sacred spaces may therefore
appear to overlap with other embodied spaces. Buildings are an example
of this. It is only through religious paradigms that a building such as a
temple or church is experienced as sacred and therefore treated differently
to an office building. In the Old Testament the temple was treated
differently for it was the house of Yahweh (Psalm 5:7–8; 79:1; Habakkuk
2:20). Mount Zion was not just experienced as a landmark, but as the holy
mountain of God (Psalm 48). In the ancient Near Eastern world view,
cities and mountains could sometimes be viewed as more than just
geographical landmarks. Sometimes they were viewed as the sacred
spaces of the gods. The same applied regarding temples, altars, and those
statues that served as images of the gods. Even people such as priests or
kings were viewed as special for they were experienced as extensions or
vessels of the gods’ authority and power. These sacred spaces were the Since specific regions, cities, or territories were under the protection of
cognitive manifestation of peoples’ religious experiences of the interaction specific gods, in wartime people called upon their gods for protection. It
between heaven and earth. Sacred spaces were experienced as part of the was believed that the people with the strongest gods would win the war.
personal space of specific deities. The cosmos itself was also experienced When a war was lost, it was believed that the gods were not strong enough
in terms of different spaces, and broadly speaking was divided into the to protect their people. It was believed that the territories of the people
unseen world of the gods and other supernatural forces and the physical and their gods, who lost the war, became subjected to the gods of the
world. The unseen world was again divided into the heavens above and the nation who won the war. The religion of both the kingdoms of Judah and
underworld below. The heavens were experienced as the dwelling places northern Israel reflect this ancient world view. As a nation, Israel was
of the gods whilst the underworld was associated with the dead. In terms viewed as the sacred property of Yahweh (Exodus 19:5–6; Deuteronomy
of space and the ancient Near Eastern world view, the heavens above 14:2). In Israel the presence of Yahweh manifests in different ways. Mount
could be described as god space. The earth below was experienced as the Zion was experienced as the throne of God whilst Jerusalem was viewed
living space of humans, and could therefore be described as human or as his holy city (Psalm 48). The temple in Jerusalem was revered as the
earth space. Sacred spaces formed a type of connection point between the house of Yahweh and the centre of creation (Psalm 29). The Davidic king
unseen world and the physical world. They were also experienced as himself was regarded as an earthly extension of Yahweh’s heavenly god
extensions of the deities’ god–spaces on earth. Sacred spaces also space (Psalm 2; 45; 110). The Arameans assumed that the God of Israel’s
indicated that specific locations, regions, or territories were under the authority was confined to the mountains and not the plains (1 Kings 20:23)
protection and authority of specific deities, and were viewed as the patrons and later the Assyrian king told Hezekiah not to trust in Yahweh for he
of specific cities whilst temples were not only the earthly homes of the could not protect his city of Samaria (Isaiah 36). After the Babylonian
gods, they were also experienced as the public face of a deity’s presence.
 276

exile many Jews in the Diaspora believed, or at least feared, the possibility in the larger narrative is found in Daniel 5. God ultimately defeats
that God did not have the power to operate in lands outside of Israel Marduk and shows his superiority by giving the Babylonian Empire to
(Psalm 137; Isaiah 40). It is possible that Daniel wrote these stories to the Medes, the Persians, and their gods. (5) The narrative culminates with
answer the doubt people could have had about the power, capability, and Daniel showing his readers (by the events in Daniel 6) that not only does
authority of God. This possibility is investigated from the vantage point of the Babylonian Empire belong to the sacred space of Israel’s God, but to
cognitive linguistics. For this investigation a spatial–hermeneutical the Median and Persian Empire as well. We should take into account the
frameset is used on Daniel 6. In other words, as with the stories in Daniel world view of the ancient Near Eastern people. People believed that after
1–5, Daniel creates the reality of the omnipresence of God by utilising the conquest of Jerusalem, God’s sacred space was invaded and his temple
spatial markers such as sacred space and contested space. Thus, Daniel was defiled. He was supposed to be a defeated deity with no power and
1–6 does neither simply relate stories about young men facing persecution authority. In the minds of the people his territory now belonged to Marduk.
because of their faithfulness to God, nor are these chapters merely stories Thus, the Israelite God was not supposed to be able to act inside Marduk’s
about the protection of the faithful. Protection is indeed a major theme in sacred space, much less to defeat him. However, again it must be said, by
these stories, but instead of interpreting protection simply as an act of God carefully employing the events in Daniel 1–6 and linking them together,
on behalf of the faithful (as most scholars do), I postulate that Daniel uses Daniel creates the omnipresence of God by showing his capability to act
the theme of protection to indicate the capability of God to act outside inside the sacred spaces of other deities. In each chapter Daniel shows
the land of Israel. Furthermore, in terms of a body–spatial framework, it how the presence of God manifests through different spatial markers in
could be argued that in each of these stories in Daniel 1–6 protection is order to create his omnipresence. To emphasise the omnipresence of
the consequence of God being victorious after he was challenged by Israel’s God further there may be a hint to a planned type of circle motive
foreign powers outside the land of Israel; or protection is the means by in the larger narrative. The larger narrative starts with the mentioning of
which the author demonstrates the victory of God when challenged by the city of Israel’s God, Jerusalem. The Judean captives and temple
foreign powers. In this way the stories in Daniel 1–6 may be seen as treasures are taken away from Jerusalem to Babylon. In Daniel 6
stories about God as the main character. In addition the different stories Jerusalem is mentioned again. Daniel opens his window towards
in Daniel 1–6 can be linked together as events in a larger, more dominant Jerusalem and prays towards the city. This may be interpreted as a
narrative that can be described as a clash of deities or a deity war. Daniel movement back to Jerusalem. The Medes and the Persians allowed the
6 forms the conclusion to this larger narrative in which the author utilises Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem. In this way Daniel establishes God’s
different forms of sacred space and contesting space to create the presence through time and space: from Jerusalem through the
omnipresence of God. The larger narrative can be described as follows: Babylonian Empire, through the Medes and Persian Empire and back to
(1) In Daniel 1 the sacred space of God is invaded by the Babylonian king Jerusalem again. The events of Daniel 5 flow naturally into a new Medes
and his god who is probably the Babylonian high god Marduk. However, and Persian environment. The events in Daniel 5–6 were linked to Cyrus,
what starts as an invasion of God’s sacred space is turned around into who conquered the Babylonian Empire in 539 BCE. After the Medes and
an invasion of Marduk’s own sacred space. The clash between God and Persians conquered the Babylonian Empire, the sacred space of
Marduk leads to the downfall of Marduk and the Babylonian Empire. (2) Marduk, now belongs to the gods of the Medes and Persians in the
In Daniel 2 it is indicated that God is not bound by the specific sacred minds of the people. Within the new Medes and Persian environments the
spaces. God is the ruler of all empires. (3) In Daniel 3 it is shown that power and authority of God again could be questioned. Was it really God
God cannot only act within Marduk’s sacred space, but defeats him by who gave the Babylonian Empire to the new rulers, or could it be that
protecting the faithful from the fire. (4) In Daniel 4 Marduk cannot stop the Medes and Persian gods were stronger than God? Just as in Daniel
God from humiliating his king. In the previous events Daniel shows that 1–5, Daniel now utilises spatial markers to show that God is not just
Marduk’s king and his sacred space belongs to God. Now the denouement present in the sacred space of the Medes and Persian gods, but also that
 277

he can act within their sacred space without being stopped. There is no and through which God acts within the Medes and Persian sacred space.
mention whatsoever of Medes and Persian gods in the narrative, except for Thus, when Daniel hears about the new decree (v. 11) he decides to
a type of deification of king Darius himself. Thus, the term sacred space is perform his normal routine to worship God. Thus, by doing this, Daniel
still applicable. The Medes and Persian sacred space is set up by the and his God challenges the reality of a deified king Darius. The challenge
following markers: the kingdom of Darius, king Darius, the law of Medes to Darius does not come from outside the Medes and Persian sacred
and Persia, and the lion’s den. Just as in Daniel 1 and in contrast to space, but from within. To make things more interesting the challenge
Daniel 3, the events in Daniel 6 indicate that God also has spatial came from a deity that was supposed to be a subordinate and degraded
markers in the narrative. So, in vv. 1–4, Daniel is given a high place of deity. With this challenge, tension builds up in the narrative. Would God
authority in the government of king Darius. Due to Daniel’s hard–working be capable of following through with his challenge to the authority of the
nature, king Darius wants to elevate him even higher in the Medes and Medes and Persian sacred space? When Daniel hears about the new
Persian government. However, not all government officials are impressed decree, he goes to his room and opens his window towards Jerusalem (v.
by Daniel’s faultless hard work. A plot against him is set into motion (vv. 11). Jerusalem was experienced as the city of God. Praying towards
5–10). As with the events in Daniel 1 and 3, the complot focuses on Jerusalem could mean that Daniel cognitively extended himself to God.
Daniel’s religion. A group of officials go to king Darius with a proposal In 1 Kings 8:35 Solomon requested God to listen to the prayers of the
that for 30 days no one in the kingdom should make a request or prayer to people when praying towards Jerusalem. So, in the narrative in Daniel 6,
any man or god, except to king Darius himself. Darius makes the proposal it could be an allusion to believe that God was confined to Jerusalem and
into a law in Media and Persia. With this law a new reality and sacred that he could not be worshipped outside his sacred space (Psalm 137).
space is created within which the king himself is set up as a deified image However, it could also be that within the larger narrative in Daniel 1–6,
and all other gods are subordinated to the king’s authority. In this newly– the mention made of Jerusalem in Daniel 1 and Daniel 6 form a kind of
found Meden and Persian sacred space it becomes a capital crime to circle motif emphasising the reality of the omnipresence of God. After
honour other deities. Against the world view of the ancient Near Eastern Jerusalem was invaded, there was a movement away from Jerusalem and
people it would have been expected that foreign deities would not have the now at the end of the larger narrative in Daniel 1–6 there is a movement
authority and power within the sacred space of the Medes and Persian back to Jerusalem. In Daniel 5 the sacred space outside the king’s banquet
Empire. Furthermore, in this newly created reality, honouring other hall and the banquet hall itself is bridged by God’s handwriting on the
deities or making requests to them would mean that the authority of the wall. Within a spatial body framework it could be argued that by letting
Medes and Persian Empire and their gods (which in this narrative are Daniel look towards Jerusalem, Daniel is connecting the original sacred
embodied in the image of king Darius) would not be recognised. This new space of God and the Medes and Persian sacred space. By connecting
sacred space or reality, not only challenged the faithful like Daniel, but Daniel to the city of God, Daniel makes it possible for God to manifest
also challenged the authority of God himself in two ways. Firstly, God’s himself through Daniel as he did in Daniel 1. Thus, having Daniel look
worshippers are forbidden to recognise his authority and to honour him. towards Jerusalem is a way for Daniel to make the presence of God
Thus, God is deprived of his honour and authority. Secondly, God’s vessel concrete within the sacred space of the Medes and Persian Empire. This is
in the form of Daniel (the faithful) is confronted with a situation where it a direct challenge to the authority of king Darius. Thus, on a cognitive
can be defiled and killed. Even though it was God who gave the level, it is not so much a case of Daniel extending himself to Jerusalem in
Babylonian Empire to the Medes and Persians, his authority within the a belief that God is only present there; it is in reality Daniel who becomes
new sacred space is not accepted. Thus, two realities are placed in an extension of the presence of the God of Jerusalem inside the sacred
contrast to each other: the reality of God’s authority and presence within space of the Medes and Persian Empire. In the larger narrative in Daniel
foreign god spaces, and the reality of the supreme authority of Darius. 1–6, it was indicated that God could act outside his original sacred space.
However, as with the event in Daniel 1, Daniel again was a platform from By having Daniel look towards Jerusalem in the conclusion of the larger
 278

narrative, Daniel indicates that God is not confined to one sacred space at between God and the Medes and Persian authority is concluded in a
a time. God does not move from sacred space to sacred space. He was in victory for God (vv. 19–25). Daniel is rescued from death. God had the
Jerusalem in Daniel 1 and at the same time he showed that he was mouths of the lions shut by his angelic agent, and other deities could not
present in Babylon. However, he is also present in the Medes and prevent him from doing so. Hereby Daniel shows that God not only has the
Persian Empire, but simultaneously he is still present in Jerusalem. He power to act within a foreign sacred space, but that he indeed is stronger
was and still is present in Jerusalem and at the same time he is present than the Medes and Persian authorities. Just as with the fiery furnace in
wherever there are believers. In this way Daniel establishes the reality of Daniel 3, the lion’s den becomes a spatial marker for the authority of God
God being present through space and time. God is omnipresent. For proclaiming his presence and his supremacy over all sacred spaces. Again
Daniel it means that if God could act outside Jerusalem, he could also act it is not so much the fact that Daniel is rescued that is important, but
within the sacred space of the Medes and Persian Empire. Daniel rather the fact that God has the ability to protect. Thus, protection is once
concludes his larger narrative in Daniel 1–6 with the events around the more the means to victory. In addition it shows God’s capability to act and
lion’s den. As one would expect, the threat to the Medes and Persian to be present in a foreign environment. God is not only in Jerusalem but
sacred space is immediately dealt with (vv. 12–14). When Darius’ officials also in the lion’s den in a foreign sacred space. With these events Daniel
heard about Daniel’s subversive behaviour, they instantly informed the also shows that it were not the Medes and Persian gods who conquered
king. In vv. 15–16, Daniel shows how feeble Darius’ attempt to be a god Babylon, but that it indeed was Israel’s God who gave it to them (Daniel
really is. Darius himself becomes entrapped in the laws of his empire. 5). Now the conspirators of the plot to get rid of Daniel are put to death (v.
According to the narrative, Darius could not change his own laws. Even 25). They themselves are thrown to the lions and none of their gods are
though Darius may be the embodiment of a god, he does not have the able to protect them. Thus, the supremacy of God above other gods is
power to rescue or to protect Daniel within his own sacred space. With emphasised. God’s capability to act in foreign sacred spaces also leads to
this Daniel comments on the limitations of other so–called deities. In Darius’ proclamation that no man may speak disrespectfully of Israel’s
contrast to the limitations of other deities, Daniel goes on to re–emphasise God, because God’s victory over the lions leads to a foreign power
that God has no limitations. The tension in the smaller narrative in Daniel publicly recognising his authority. Thus, the reality of God’s
6 now reaches its height. Darius proclaims that Daniel should be put to omnipresence is proven to be real, whilst the reality of the power and
death by throwing him into a lion’s den (v. 17). On a cognitive level the authority of other gods is proven to be an illusion. Additionally, for all
lion’s den could be described as ‘punishment’ space or ‘execution’ space. Diaspora faithful it means that they should not be afraid of foreign
It is a place where people are sent as punishment for offences against the environments for God is with them everywhere. In other words, God also
Medes and Persian sacred space. Then v. 18 describes how the lion’s den uses the believer to make his presence known in the profane world. This
is inscribed as part of the authority space of Darius. A stone was placed at body–space analysis of Daniel 6 is in accordance with the apocalyptic
the opening of the den and sealed with the signet ring of the king. Even nature of Daniel’s book. Within an apocalyptic world view a distinction is
though the lion’s den is part of Darius’ domain, not even he can save made between the spiritual and natural worlds. These two worlds are in
Daniel. Darius even says that perhaps Daniel’s God could save him. constant battle with each other. The hardships that God’s people may
With these words Darius admits that there are limitations to his power, experience is not because he is incapable of protecting them, but because
and that possibly there may be a god strong enough to rescue Daniel. of the cosmic battle between the forces of God and the forces of evil
Now God is challenged to show his strength and authority in rescuing his which extend to every aspect of human life. Within the apocalyptic genre
spatial vessel. In this way the lion’s den also becomes what can be Daniel deliberately uses colours, numbers, past events, heavenly beings,
described as ‘contested’ space. Thus, the events in and around the lion’s and other concepts to convey a message of hope. Within the larger
den are a contest between the reality of God’s omnipresence and authority narrative in Daniel 1–6, Daniel deliberately uses specific concepts and
and the authority of the Medes and Persian Empire. Overnight, the contest events to narrate a story about the omnipresence of God in which the
 279

believers can trust and hope. Contra to what people may experience or So, two questions arise from this reading of the Nabonidus Chronicle:
believe, in reality God is everywhere and manifests his presence as he
wishes without being confined to sacred spaces as other deities are. 1. Is this information truly reliable, or has it been embellished to
Applying a body–space frameset to the texts of Daniel 6 helps to read the glorify Cyrus and the Persians? Obviously it was propagandistic!
text as a construction of concepts by which the presence of God is created
outside Jerusalem and Israel within non–Israelite environments. 2. What else is said about Gobryas in this same account? A few lines
Furthermore, a spatial frameset shows that the story of Daniel 6 can be earlier, Gobryas is said to have been “the governor of Gutium”
read as a conclusion to a lager narrative that stretches across Daniel 1–6. [Median territory] who entered Babylon with Cyrus. Also, this
In this narrative Daniel utilises spatial concepts to establish the same Gobryas died “on the night of the 11th day” [or a week later].
omnipresence of God. In constructing this presence–of–God reality, Thus, he is obviously not Darius the Mede, but what relationship
Daniel conveys a message of hope and trust in the authority of God. In this did he have to Darius and to Cyrus? In Xenophon’s Cyropaedia,
regard Daniel 6 is not just a story about the character Daniel who is Gobryas was a Median general distinct from Cyaxares, the latter
persecuted for his faith, rather it is a story about God who establishes his being the uncle of Cyrus, and Cyrus was subservient to Cyaxares!
presence and his ability to act through and within space and time.”
So, Gobryas [a Mede], having served as governor of Gutium, died a week
Furthermore, Darius the Mede was a throne name for Cyaxares II after the fall of Babylon. Thus, he cannot be Darius the Mede!
[consistent with Xenophon’s account], and the rule of Babylonia was Furthermore, above the “120 regional authorities” were “three chief
turned over to him following Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in October of administrators” and “one of which was Daniel” [he would have been old].
539 b.c. However, critical scholars object to the idea of the kingdom being The Aramaic sārᵊḵîn [for “chief administrators”] is a loanword from
divided up into “120 regional authorities.” According to Herodotus, the Persian sāraka [or “to stand at the ready”], which means “high official”
Persian Empire was divided into 20 satrapies [Hist. 3.89]. But, notice that and the LXXθ translated it as taktikous [or “fit for arranging in war”].
v. 1 does not state that Darius divided the kingdom into 120 satrapies. Thus, the satraps were organized so that each of them was accountable to
Instead, he only appointed them. In fact, the Aramaic ʾăḥašdarpᵊnayyāʾ one of these “three chief administrators,” so that the king’s interests might
[for “regional authorities”] is a technical term for an official placed in not incur damage. Undoubtedly this would have included the protection of
charge of a region of the empire [or “protector of the kingdom”]. These the financial interests of the king, making sure that taxes and tribute were
satraps were answerable to a supervisor, who in turn answered to Darius. properly channelled to the king. But, it applied to other matters, such as
Thus, satraps could be applied to lower officials, and some of them ensuring the protection of territory due to uprisings. So, why was Daniel
governed geographical territories, while others had administrative duties. chosen for such an exalted position when he was in his 80s? Thus,
So, even if there were 120 satrapies, this should not be considered bringing him out of retirement at this time would have been wise, because:
unreasonable. The Babylonian Empire prior to Cyrus’ conquest had been
quite extensive, and undoubtedly there would have been larger and smaller 1. Daniel had a long experience with the Babylonian government.
satrapies. For example, Esther indicates that Ahasuerus [Xerxes I] reigned 2. Daniel had a reputation for honesty and integrity in service.
over 127 provinces [Esther 1:1]. So, for Darius the Mede to “to appoint 3. Daniel was known to be an interpreter of dreams and visions.
120 regional authorities over the kingdom throughout the realm” suggests 4. Daniel’s successful prediction at Belshazzar’s feast became known
that he wielded great power, which further supports the argument that to Cyrus the Great and Darius the Mede [Cyaxares II].
Darius was not subservient to Cyrus at this time [if Darius the Mede was
Cyaxares II]. In fact, the Nabonidus Chronicle says that after the conquest So, although Daniel was of old age, the participial form of the Aramaic
of Babylon: “Gobryas, his governor, installed sub–governors in Babylon.” verb nᵊṣaḥ [or “distinguish oneself”] has a continual/iterative nuance here.
 280

In other words, Daniel “distinguished himself” continually “because he Their wisdom is poles apart from the magic–oriented and elitist wisdom of
was of an extraordinary spirit.” This phrase was used by the queen [recall their Chaldean peers—a wisdom that has strict limits and does not enable
Daniel 5]. Thus, it did not take Darius very long to observe that Daniel was man to know the mind of ‘the gods.’ By contrast the wisdom of Daniel
unique, and he “planned to appoint him over the whole kingdom.” and his friends is one that is rooted in the fact that God is personally
involved in their lives. In a relatively undramatic way he had already
Michael Wilson [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes: shown this by nourishing their bodies and enhancing their natural
“It is significant that under Persian rule there is no longer any mention of intelligence. But now God demonstrates that while ‘the gods’ do not live
astrologers, magicians, diviners, etc., as if to underscore an emphasis of among the Chaldeans, he himself does live among his people, as
the prior narrative that they were of no use whatsoever. Now there are represented by Daniel and his friends. Of course, it is only the implied
only political offices mentioned. Daniel is one of three administrators reader who understands this. Ironically even the proof that Daniel’s
chosen by Darius to ensure that Darius’ interests are protected. Ensuring wisdom is radically different in nature is assimilated to Babylonian
the king ‘suffers no loss’ presumably implies putting the lid on potential conceptions of deity so that Nebuchadnezzar takes it for granted that
uprisings and ensuring taxes are fully collected. Daniel had not only Daniel’s wisdom is due to the fact that ‘the spirit of the holy gods’ is in
distinguished himself as an interpreter of dreams, but had ruled ‘over the him. God then takes him through a set of experiences which result in
entire province of Babylon’ during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledging the distinctiveness of ‘the Most High
Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. In the years that followed Daniel ceased God’ with whom Daniel is associated, though a close study of the text
to have the same political prominence so that ~23 years later Belshazzar demonstrates that Nebuchadnezzar never succeeds in completely casting
knows Daniel as but ‘one of the exiles’ brought by Nebuchadnezzar from off the moorings of Babylonian religion. The preceding chapter has
Judah. Following the interpretation of the writing on the wall Belshazzar continued to beat the drum of Daniel’s distinctiveness. When Belshazzar
fulfilled his promise by proclaiming Daniel to be the ‘third highest ruler in seeks an explanation of the meaning of the writing on the wall he calls first
the kingdom,’ that is, occupying the position of supreme control next to for the Chaldeans to interpret it. We are now familiar with this pattern of
Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Daniel had no interest in using the situation leaving Daniel till last. Emphasis on this point in the text suggests much
provided by God’s intervention to advance his political career. There is concerning the state of mind of the king in each case. But it is also a skilful
perhaps implicit in Daniel’s refusal an implication that such largesse is literary device used repeatedly in order to keep before the mind of the
worthless. Certainly any claim of Belshazzar to be able to give political reader the distinctiveness of Daniel. So now again at the beginning of yet
power to another proves to be but a balloon which bursts even before the another reign it is time for Daniel’s distinctiveness to be demonstrated
party begins. For Belshazzar was slain on the same night that he gave afresh. This time Daniel’s distinctiveness consists in ‘his exceptional
Daniel such power. Although Daniel only enjoyed such authority for a few qualities’ which are such as to make him stand out before Darius. He is
hours, nevertheless he is given a position of considerable importance. We distinguished among the administrators and satraps to such a degree that
now return to a familiar theme—the distinctiveness of Daniel. In chapter the king plans to entrust all political power and authority to him. Again we
1 Daniel (and his three Jewish friends) maintained their distinctiveness must remember that Belshazzar had actually had this proclaimed. But in
from their Chaldean peers by refusing to be obsequious, servile lackeys to Daniel 5 it is imperative to recognize that ‘the Most High God is sovereign
the king. They did this not through open defiance, but by adopting a over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone he wishes’ (v. 21).
different diet. They were distinguished from their Chaldean peers by the Because Belshazzar had not humbled himself like his father, his kingdom
superior health God gave them, and also by their distinctively superior was given to another and as a consequence Belshazzar did not actually
grasp of Babylonian wisdom, as recognized by Nebuchadnezzar himself. have the ability to give Daniel supreme political authority. Thus, it follows
Central to the thought of Daniel 2 is that the distinctiveness of the wisdom that the authority Darius wants to give Daniel is due to the sovereignty of
of Daniel and his friends is not simply a difference of degree, but of kind. the Most High.”
 281

Next in vv. 4–5, we read: “Because of this, the administrators and Thus, God placed Daniel in this position for a special reason, because not
regional authorities tried to bring allegations of dereliction of duty in only was he a capable administrator, but he was in this high position to
government affairs against Daniel, but they were unable to find any help carry out God’s covenant program. From God’s perspective, this was
charges of corruption. Daniel was trustworthy, and no evidence of a significant time, because during 539–538 b.c., two key events took place:
negligence or corruption could be found against him. So these men said,
‘We’ll never find any basis for complaint against Daniel unless we build it 1. Since Cyrus entered Babylon on the 29th of October in 539 b.c.,
on the requirements of his God.’” Daniel met him and shared with him Isaiah’s astonishing prophecy
about the coming of Cyrus ~150 years before conquering Babylon:
The other two supervisors collaborated with the satraps, but only those “Shout for joy, you heavens, for the Lord has done it! Shout aloud,
closer to Babylon itself, to find a pretext against Daniel. They were you depths of the earth! Burst out with singing, you mountains, you
looking for some motive or cause [even though falsely alleged] that they forest, and all your trees! For the Lord has redeemed Jacob and
could bring against Daniel regarding how he handled the administrative will display his glory in Israel. This is what the Lord says, your
matters of the kingdom. However, as hard as they looked, they could not Redeemer and the one who formed you in the womb: ‘I am the
find any pretext or any evidence of corruption in Daniel. The reason was Lord, who has made everything, who alone stretched out the
simple: “Daniel was trustworthy.” He was a reliable man, one who could heavens, who spread out the earth—who was with me at that
be counted on to do what was right and not stoop to foul play of any kind. time?—who frustrates the omens of idle talkers, and drives diviners
Here was a man of integrity, who because he was first and foremost mad, who turns back the wise, and makes their knowledge foolish;
committed to pleasing God, could be trusted by others to do what was who carries out the words of his servants, and fulfils the
right. In fact, the Aramaic šālû [for “negligence”] is a cognate equivalent predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘It will be
of the Akkadian šillatu [or “improper speech”]. inhabited,’ and of Judah’s cities, ‘They will be rebuilt,’ and of her
ruins, ‘I’ll raise them up’; who says to the watery deep, ‘Be dry—
John Walton [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] also says: I’ll dry up your rivers’; who says about Cyrus, ‘He’s my shepherd,
“Blasphemy is a recognized offense in the ancient Near Eastern way of and he’ll carry out everything that I please: He’ll say of Jerusalem,
thinking. The ‘sins of the tongue’ in Akkadian texts included making ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of my Temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid
frivolous oaths and blasphemy (Akkadian šillatu). The same verb could again.’ This is what the Lord says to his anointed, Cyrus, whose
also be used of slander, insult, and insolence—in short, a wide variety of right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him, as I strip
offensive speech. It was considered a serious offense and sometimes kings of their armour, to open doors before him and gates that
identified as a possible cause of illness in medical diagnostic texts.” cannot keep closed: ‘I myself will go before you, and he will make
the mountains level; I’ll shatter bronze doors and cut through iron
So, although the antagonists of Daniel knew that they could not defame bars. I’ll give you concealed treasures and riches hidden in secret
him, they still planned deviously “on the requirements of his God.” places, so that you’ll know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel,
Everyone was aware that Daniel was religiously different from the who calls you by name. For the sake of Jacob my servant, Israel
Babylonian religion. Thus, if they could somehow bring his religious my chosen, I’ve called you, and he has established you with a
convictions in conflict with the state, their attack would be successful. name, although you have not acknowledged me. I am the Lord, and
Obviously, the resentment toward Daniel was strong. Since Daniel was there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I’m
Jewish, others in the administration who were race conscious resented his strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me, so
elevation in government, especially the idea that he might be promoted to that from the sun’s rising to the west people may know that there
a rank next to the king himself! is none besides me.’” [Isaiah 44:22–45:6]
 282

Josephus [1st century Jewish historian] says: “In the 1st year of the Persian king who will conquer Babylon and who will see to it that
reign of Cyrus, which was the 70th year from the day that our Jerusalem’s temple is rebuilt (Isaiah 28). But, the naming of Cyrus
people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God is only the final act in a long list. Isaiah 44:24–28 comprises a
commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, single sentence consisting of a succession of participles that define
according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, ‘I am the Lord’ in v. 24. Whereas Hebrew infinitives express pure
before the destruction of the city, that after they has served undefined action (‘running’), participles focus on the one
Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone performing the action, the actor (‘one who is running’). Here God
that servitude 70 years, he would restore them again to the land of identifies himself and demonstrates his lordship by what he does.
their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their He is the creator, who ‘made’ everything, stretching out ‘the
ancient prosperity; and these things God did afford them; for he heavens’ and spreading out ‘the earth.’ He is the Lord of history
stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout (vv. 25–26), revealing what he is doing to ‘his servants’ the
all Asia: ‘Thus saith Cyrus the King: Since God Almighty hath prophets and making ‘fools’ of those who try to predict the future
appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is by means of magical continuities. He is the redeemer (vv. 26–28),
that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he who is able to rebuild the ruined ‘Jerusalem’ and its surrounding
foretold my name by the prophets; and that I should build him a towns. It is not clear why the drying up of the ‘deep’ is referred to
house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.’ This was known to in the context of redemption. Many scholars see this as an allusion
Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his to the triumph of the ‘creator’ god over chaos, and that is certainly
prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him a possibility in view of the clear allusions in Isaiah 27:1; 51:9.
in a secret vision: ‘My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed However, there is also the possibility that the Exodus is being
to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to alluded to, and that would make more sense in the context of
their own land, and build my temple.’ This was foretold by Isaiah redemption (Exodus 15:5; Psalm 106:9). Because he is the creator
140 years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when and the Lord of history and the redeemer, he is even able to use a
Cyrus read this, and admired the divine power, an earnest desire pagan emperor to accomplish his purposes. Cyrus now receives
and ambition seized upon him to fulfil what was so written; so he his commission from God. He is specifically said to be God’s
called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon [Daniel], ‘anointed’ or Messiah (Isaiah 45:1). The victories that will come to
and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own him will be gifts from God’s hand (Isaiah 45:2–3). They will not be
country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, and the temple of God, his own accomplishments but will come from God for two
for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the purposes: that Cyrus himself might know that Yahweh, ‘the God of
rulers and governors that were in the neighbourhood of their Israel,’ is ‘the Lord,’ and that his work in history might be done
country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and ‘for the sake of Jacob my servant.’ Twice is it said that God has
silver for the building of the temple, and beasts for sacrifices.” called Cyrus ‘by name.’ This underlines the importance of the
naming of Cyrus as an act of predictive prophecy. Isaiah has
John Oswalt [21st century biblical scholar] likewise summarizes: repeatedly insisted that God alone can tell the future (Isaiah
“The ‘redeemer’ now spells out in the greatest detail yet what his 41:21–24, 26–27; 43:12; 44:7, 26; 45:20–21; 46:10; 48:3), and
redemptive plans are. Here he names the ‘one from the east’ that the attempts to do so by the devotees of the gods only make
(Isaiah 41:2) who will be Israel’s saviour. Furthermore, he them look like ‘fools’ (Isaiah 44:25). His ability to name the
specifies why Jerusalem will have good tidings to share with the deliverer far in advance is the climactic demonstration of this fact.
surrounding towns (Isaiah 40:9). The man’s name is ‘Cyrus,’ the If we deny the obvious predictive claim that Isaiah of Jerusalem is
 283

making and instead posit some unknown person simply declaring 2. The 1st year of Cyaxares II was a time of intensive study and prayer
after the fact that Cyrus was God’s man, we have made this for Daniel [later in Daniel 9:1–3]. He would have realized through
unknown prophet deny the very thing he claims. God has, then, his study of Jeremiah 25:11 that the time was drawing near for God
not named the deliverer in advance and the prophet knows it. That to act again on Israel’s behalf. Thus, of key importance was Cyrus’
is not great theology; it is misrepresentation of the facts. One of the decree made during his 1st year of rule [Ezra 1:1–4]. This decree
evidences of God’s lordship is that he knows the name of one who granted official permission to the Jews to return to their land and to
does not know God’s name (Isaiah 45:4–5). Even if Cyrus has rebuild the Temple. If this decree was made in Cyrus’ 1st regnal
never heard of Yahweh of Israel, Yahweh knows about Cyrus year, then it was proclaimed during March/April of 538 b.c to
even before he is born. It is neither the Persian Ahura–mazda nor March/April of 537 b.c., and most likely after the events recorded
the Babylonian Marduk who rules the world of time and space, but in Daniel 6. Thus, it is highly possible that Daniel, in his position
Yahweh. The statement that Cyrus will recognize this eventually is of authority and influence, counselled Cyrus to make the decree
an interesting one, and depending on how the identity of Darius permitting the return and rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem!
in Daniel’s book is resolved, that book may give evidence of the
realization of the promise (Daniel 6:26–27).” Finally in vv. 6–9, we read: “Then these administrators and regional
authorities went as a group to the king and said this, ‘Your majesty, live
Gleason Archer [20th century biblical scholar] likewise concludes: forever! All of the royal administrators, prefects, regional authorities,
“If the future generation living at the time of the fall of Babylon in scribes, and governors have concluded that the king should establish and
539 B.C. was to have any clear confirmation that the God of enforce an edict that anyone who prays to any god or man for the next 30
Abraham and Moses was still watching over their national destiny, days (except to you, your majesty) is to be thrown into the lions’ pit.
and was ready to do for them a work of restoration that had never Therefore, your majesty, establish the decree and sign the written
been the experience of any other exiled nation, then they needed a document so it can’t be changed, in accordance with the laws of the Medes
very striking and decisive token of his continuing favour and and Persians that can’t be repealed.’ So King Darius signed the edict
care. This could hardly be communicated in any other way so contained in the written document.”
decisively as if God back in Isaiah’s time would actually specify
the name of their liberator. As the discouraged and disheartened Thus, a conspiracy was hatched against Daniel, and as a result the other
exiles could hear of the rise of Cyrus and his successive victories two supervisors and representatives of the satraps came to the king. This is
over the Medes and the Lydians, they would remember Isaiah’s because the Aramaic verb hargišû [for “went as a group”] is a Hapʿel
prophecy concerning this man and would have faith to believe perfect of the root rᵊgaš, which means they approached the king with
that God would really do a new thing on their behalf and would conspiracy in mind. In fact, this is one of the most difficult translation
restore them to their land. The revelation of the very name of the problems in Daniel’s book, because the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac
future liberator is presented as the climax of the entire prophecy in translate the word differently. For example, the LXXθ translated it by the
Isaiah 44 and then continues on with this theme through the first Greek parestēsan [aorist of paristēmi], meaning that they stood by the
portion of Isaiah 45. It cannot be regarded as a later insertion, for king, while the LXXΟ translated it by the Greek prosēlthosan [aorist of
it serves as the capstone of the arch in the structure of the proserchomai], meaning that they came forward/approached the king.
passage in which it occurs. Therefore, we may rest assured that it Thus, both Greek translations say that these officials came to the king
is an authentic prediction of a pivotal event in holy history, without clarifying in what manner or with what motive they did so. So, to
destined to take place over 150 years later than the date of the come tumultuously to the king would suggest that they came making a lot
prophecy itself.” of commotion, but this would be out of keeping with court etiquette.
 284

Thus, despite the tension with the idea of a noisy crowd, the verb could Thus, it seems more reasonable to take malkāʾ as part of the genitive
suggest that a “group” acted by agreement, but with the bustle that a crowd construct with qᵊyām. It is too unnatural as the subject of the infinitive. In
inevitably makes. Nevertheless, although there is no biblical data outside fact, they were only making a proposal to the king, and were not ordering
Daniel 6 for the Aramaic rᵊgaš, we do have the Hebrew verb rāgaš to him what to do, because the correct legal nuance of the Aramaic ṯaqqāpâ
compare! For example, in Psalm 64:2, we have a derivative form of rᵊgaš [for “enforce”] was an interdialectal semantic equivalent of the Assyrian
in parallel with the Hebrew noun sôḏ [or “counsel”], which reads: “hide verb dunnunu [or “make valid and binding”]. So, they presented a proposal
me from the secret plots [missôḏ] of the wicked, from the mob [mērigšaṯ] for a royal edict to be established by the king that would prohibit anyone
of those who practice evil.” So, notice that this parallelism suggests a from praying or making petition to any deity or man other than to the king
meaning more in line with a conspiracy or plotting. Another example is himself for a 30–day period. They also proposed a penalty for violation of
Psalm 2:1, which reads: “why are the nations in an uproar [rāgšû], and the edict: being thrown into a pit of lions, since they were captured for
their people involved in a vain plot [yehgû]?” Thus, in this context we find sport and hunting, as depicted on Assyrian and Babylonian iconography:
rāgaš paralleled with people devising a plot, and both of these biblical
examples exhibit rāgaš in parallel with words suggesting a conspiring plot.

Jerome [4th century] nails it: “It was well said that they ‘went
surreptitiously,’ for they did not come right out with what they were
aiming at, but contrived their plot against a private enemy on the pretext
of honoring the king.”

Furthermore, it is debated whether the Aramaic malkāʾ [for “the king”]

should go with the Aramaic qᵊyām [for “edict”] as a genitive construct, or
whether it should stand independently and serve as the subject of the
infinitive. Thus, some scholars have opted to view it in construct with
qᵊyām and translate it as genitive of attribute: “royal edict” [not “edict of
the king”], while other scholars take “the king” as the subject of the
infinitive lᵊqayyāmâ and translate it as: “the king should establish and
enforce an edict.” Nevertheless, there are two arguments for “royal edict”:

1. It would be a bit unnatural for the subject of the infinitive [in this
case, malkāʾ] to be separated from the infinitive by having the
object [qᵊyām] stand between them.

2. The LXXθ, Vulgate, and Syriac view malkāʾ as part of a genitive Some scholars doubt that the intent of the statute was to prohibit prayer to
construct with qᵊyām. There is some understandable motivation for all gods [given their polytheism] as this would prohibit the religious
taking malkāʾ as the subject of the infinitive, namely that it more practice of every subject and would have risked the wrath of all gods.
clearly specifies the king as the one who issues/establishes the edict Instead, Darius was setting himself up as the sole mediator for prayers for
rather than his officials. Otherwise, it reads: “All the chief ministers a 30–day period, specifically if Darius is connected with Zoroastrianism.
have taken counsel with each other to establish a royal edict.” In other words, he would be honouring Ahura Mazda to all Iranians.
 285

Ernest Lucas [21st century biblical scholar] says: “The content and practice of even a syncretized Zoroastrianism that, even if not practiced by
implications of this decree have caused much debate. There is no evidence Darius the Mede, would have been practiced by a large majority of Medes
that the Persian kings were ever inclined to deify themselves. This leads and Persians.’ Indeed, Daniel’s practice of praying three times a day
some scholars to suggest that the decree simply made the king the sole accorded with pagan Iranian custom. Zoroastrianism involved praying
representative of the deity for the period of 30 days. All prayers to god, or five times a day to Ahura Mazda. Consequently, Walton reasons that ‘for
the gods, would need to be channelled through him. But why would the Darius the Mede to decree even a temporary end to prayer would be
king accept such a suggestion? Walton argues that the decree makes sense unenforceable and politically suicidal, for he would be prohibiting the
in the context of the struggle in Persia between the advocates of pure religious practice of every Iranian.’ Further it was recognized that all
Zoroastrianism and the supporters of the traditional Persian religion who deities had some degree of power. Therefore, tolerance of other religions
advocated a syncretistic form of religion, which the Magi seem to have was typical. It follows, as Walton observes, that: ‘to deprive all other gods
favoured. The decree could be seen as a stand against syncretism, with the of the prayer of their followers was to risk the wrath of all deities, again
king representing Ahura Mazda. Given the Persian rulers’ tolerant making it unlikely that that was the intention.’ A number of scholars do not
attitude to the religion of their subject peoples, Darius probably intended understand v. 8 as meaning that Darius saw himself as a god. Rather, for
the decree to apply to the Persian population alone. Daniel fell foul of it the period of 30 days, Darius acts as the only legitimate representative of
because he was a very senior Persian official.” the gods. Keil and Delitzsch, following Klieforth, believe, ‘The object of
the law was only to bring about the general recognition of the principle
Michael Wilson [21st century biblical scholar] extensively explains: that the king was the living manifestation of all the gods, not only of the
“What’s the force and nature of Darius’ decree? If he was deifying himself Median and Persian, but also of the Babylonian and Lydian, and all the
then we might reason that this served to establish Darius’ kingly authority, gods of the conquered nations. All the nations subjected to the Medo–
on the assumption that in the ancient world the veneration of a king as a Persian kingdom were required not to abandon their own special worship
divine figure made subjects more unwilling to risk divine wrath by rendered to their gods, but in fact to acknowledge that the Medo–Persian
opposing such a person. However, most scholars will not accept that a world–ruler Darius was also the son and representative of their national
Persian king could ever have declared himself to be the only god who gods. For this purpose they must for the space of 30 days present their
could be worshiped for a period of 30 days. The reference to a 30–day petitions to their national gods only in him as their manifestation.’ In 3rd
period may indicate that Daniel’s book belongs to a context in which century AD Persian theology the king was seen as the representative of
dates and times are calculated according to a solar calendar. deity and could even assume the title ‘god’ (bagh). As such he acted as a
Alternatively, as Boccaccini observes, the 30–day period may have no mediator. In v. 8 it may be that the king is banning priestly mediation for
relationship at all with the month. Then again, it may simply refer to the a month while he himself acts as the sole mediator for prayers to all
Mesopotamian calendar used at the king’s court. Presumably, the deities. The developing syncretism of Zarathuštra’s teaching may help
monotheistic worship of Ahura Mazda in pure Zoroastrianism would run explain Darius’ decree. Walton notes that during the time of Xerxes I
counter to self–deification on the part of a king. Even if pure (486–465 BC) the worship of the daivas (deities unacceptable to
Zoroastrianism was not practiced at this time there is no indication that Zarathuštra) was prohibited. As a consequence certain temples of the
Achaemenid kings had any tendency toward self–deification. Petitionary daivas were destroyed as Xerxes acted to suppress syncretism. Walton
prayer was a required and regular aspect of Iranian worship and was an reasons that a decree forbidding the worship of the daivas could well have
essential element of pure Zoroastrianism. Darius the Great prayed not taken the same kind of form as the decree of Darius in Daniel 6. However,
only to Ahura Mazda but to all the gods to keep enemy hordes, famine, and we know of no such injunctions prior to Xerxes. Walton ponders the
the ‘Lie’ away from the empire. Prayer was deemed essential for evil possibility that Darius was acting to counter the development of the kind
forces to be held at bay. Walton comments, ‘It was a requirement in the of Zoroastrian calendar–based worship that arose during the reign of
 286

Xerxes’ successor, Artaxerxes I (465–425 BC). At that time the Magi first time in history that men have acted foolishly and entered upon an ill–
replaced the civil and religious calendars previously employed. In this considered plan of action, only to regret it later.’ Montgomery further
syncretistic calendar each of the 30 days of the month was associated with notes the rhetorical effect of Darius’ so–called divinity: ‘The king with
the name of particular deities called yazatas. Assuming such a despotic power and his formal claims to divine rights was the symbol and
background, Walton proposes that Darius was approached by the summation of the denial of the true God. Hence monarchs like
conspirators ‘with the suggestion that by setting himself up as the only Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, who otherwise are sympathetically treated,
legitimate mediator for prayers for a period of 30 days a stand could be appear as the incarnation of all the forces arrayed against God.’
made for the worship of Ahura Mazda according to the pure teachings of Furthermore, Persian rulers did not require their foreign subjects to adopt
Zarathuštra. While it would certainly not eliminate syncretism nor depose the native religious practice. We have only to think of Cyrus’ decree in 539
the Magi from their powerful position, it would make a statement BC, in which the host government encouraged and funded captives who
concerning the stand of the king, throwing his support to orthodox wanted to return to their lands to re–establish their national religions. The
Zoroastrianism.’ Walton notes that all Persian kings were committed to decree also fits uneasily in the context of Daniel 6. As the chapter unfolds,
the public performance of prayers each day. Cyrus established an elevated Darius is dismayed when Daniel turns up guilty. It stretches the
stand for fire (the most sacred element in Zoroastrianism) for the imagination to think that Darius knew Daniel well enough to make him
performance of the king’s daily ritual. The intention may have been to second–in–command, but he didn’t suspect his deep religious convictions,
exclude the use of images in public worship. Therefore, Darius’ action and his references later in the chapter to the God Daniel served
was possibly aimed at publicly expressing his opposition to syncretism ‘continually’ suggest his awareness of Daniel’s commitment (vv. 16, 20).
and providing a royal model of orthodoxy. For the month concerned as Furthermore, Daniel will claim innocence before the king (v. 22). Would
‘each individual directed his daily prayers to the king as mediator, the he make such a claim if he had defied the king’s order? Compare this with
king in his public ritual would direct those prayers to Ahura Mazda.’” his compatriots’ bold defiance of Nebuchadnezzar’s order to bow down to
the golden image (Daniel 3:16–18). Apparently, whatever the king
Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and concludes: decreed, it did not occur to him that Daniel would turn up guilty for
“Notice that the actual nature of the law proposed by the conspirators is praying to his God. Walton has proposed that Darius’ decree revolved
not as straightforward as it first appears for at least two reasons: the around a conflict in Persia between those who advocated a strict
nature of Medo–Persian religion (Zoroastrianism) and the context of monolatrous version of Zoroastrianism and those who favoured the more
Daniel 6. First, the decree conflicts with what we know about Medo– commonly practiced syncretistic version. The conspirators against Daniel
Persian religious practice. While pure Zoroastrianism was monolatrous in made the case that if Darius served as ‘the only legitimate mediator for
its worship of Ahura Mazda, kings and commoners alike practiced a prayers for a period of 30 days a stand could be made for the worship of
syncretistic form of the religion, worshiping many gods. Since every god Ahura Mazda according to the pure teachings of Zoroaster.’ In this
was believed to have some power, maintaining favour with all of them was scenario, Darius was not acting as a god but only as the priest of the god
important to one’s well–being. Prohibiting prayer to other gods would risk Ahura Mazda. His action would not fix the problem of syncretistic
divine wrath, not to mention it would be unenforceable and politically worship, but it would make a strong political statement in favour of
suicidal for Darius, for he would be prohibiting the religious practice of orthodox Zoroastrianism. Why Darius would have felt compelled to make
every Iranian. Additionally, it would be peculiar for Darius to require that such a statement probably has more to do with the power play being made
people pray to him since Mesopotamian kings did not deify themselves by ‘everyone’ in his government. If everyone was in favour of the decree,
(unlike their Egyptian counterparts). However, as Young observes, ‘Who Darius obviously lacked any political support to oppose it. This brings us
is to say that an oriental despot, yielding to the subtle flattery of such a back to the question of why Daniel was considered guilty of what would
proposal, might not, in a weak moment, have agreed to it? This is not the have been an insiders’ fight. As a foreigner, Daniel had his own God and
 287

was not involved in the Persian cult. However, Darius’ officials could execution had already been carried out. This doctrine of the irrevocable
easily have made the case that anyone who stood to be promoted to nature of decrees or verdicts was based on the assumption that kings make
second–in–command should keep the letter of the law. So, if the king such decisions by divine inspiration [Proverbs 16:10; 21:1], which in
wanted to promote an exile from Judah to such a position, the very least he theory cannot be wrong. Thus, this was a strict policy, that laws once
could require was total allegiance. In this case, Daniel was not enacted could not be changed or annulled, and so the proposal seemed
technically guilty of the offense, but a weak Darius had no choice but to reasonable to the king, and he signed it into law [v. 9]. Furthermore,
bow to the demands of his officials. The conspirators convinced Darius to critical scholars contend that Media stood as a separate empire between
make the decree and then put it in writing, so that it could not be changed Babylonia and Persia. However, notice that by referring to this as “the
or repealed, according to ‘the law of the Medes and Persians’ (v. 8). This laws of the Medes and Persians,” Daniel did not think of a Median Empire
notion of the immutable Medo–Persian law appears in Esther 1:19; 8:8, that was separate from Persia. Instead, he understood that they were a joint
although it is not clearly documented in extra–biblical sources. In Daniel kingdom that was initially ruled by Darius the Mede [Cyaxares II].
6 it contributes to a larger theme of who has the right to rule—that is, who
really is sovereign. The law of the Medes and Persians may have been 4) How was Daniel detected, condemned, and sentenced? (6:10–18)
thought irrevocable, but Darius’ decree ultimately came to nothing—at
least, for Daniel. Even with the power of the Medo–Persian law behind it, Starting with v. 10, we read: “When Daniel learned that the written
the prohibition was unable to accomplish its intended purpose. The power document had been signed, he went to an upstairs room in his house that
the conspirators banked on backfired, landing them in lions’ mouths had windows opened facing Jerusalem. Three times a day he would kneel
instead. By contrast, Daniel cast his lot with the power behind the law of down, pray, and give thanks to his God, just as he had previously done.”
his God, the one who is sovereign over all.”
Thus, the news that the king had signed a new decree prohibiting the
Thus, the king must have noticed Daniel’s absence among these officials, worship of any other god for 30 days quickly reached Daniel, but this was
but he did not suspect that their motive was to entrap Daniel. Nevertheless, like a two–edged sword for Daniel. On the one hand, it represented an
they had actually lied to the king in saying that “all” the chief ministers attack by his fellow pagan officials against his faith in God, and on the
had counselled together to make the proposal, for Daniel had clearly been other hand, it was a divine test to see if Daniel would be faithful in the face
left out. This lie eventually came back to haunt them. According to v. 8, of persecution. So, Daniel had to make a choice on what he would do,
they urged the king to sign the edict [to put his seal to it], making it unable knowing full well what the consequences of disobeying the king’s decree
to be changed or annulled, in keeping with the laws of the Medes and the would mean. Furthermore, keep in mind that Daniel was also in his 80s,
Persians [Esther 1:19; 8:8]. These laws that were irrevocable were not and this was not the first time he had tough choices in light of his faith.
statutory laws, but decrees or verdicts. This custom goes along with Thus, it is not surprising to see Daniel praying, since it gave him strength.
Mesopotamian legal tradition that indicates a judge must not reverse a
verdict once written down; if he does he should be removed from office Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “Note how much this verse
[Laws of Hammurabi §5]. The unchangeable nature of Persian decrees implied in a few words in mentioning the piety and courage of blessed
may be illustrated by Diodorus Siculus [History 17.30.1–7], who indicated Daniel. First, when Daniel learned that the decision has been reached, ‘he
that Darius III of Persia [336–330 b.c.] angrily issued an edict of death on went into his house’—that is, when he got news of the passing of the law,
a certain Charidemus, but “once the king’s passion had cooled he promptly he had great scorn for it and continued openly doing the opposite. It next
regretted his act and reproached himself for having made a serious mentions a further detail that reveals his courage: the windows were open,
mistake, but all his royal power was not able to undo what was done.” it says—in other words, he said his prayers not in secret but openly, with
There is an alternative reading that he could not undo the order because the all watching, not for vainglory but in scorn for the impiety of the law.”
 288

Daniel’s living quarters had an upper room [or roof chamber] that had For Daniel, Yahweh was still his God. Like Shadrach, Meshach, and
ample windows [for the hot environment of the Middle East]. Such an Abednego, he cast himself at the mercy of God, who may or may not
elevated room allowed for better ventilation and comforting breeze [2 deliver him. His God’s house lay in ruins in Jerusalem, but even under the
Samuel 18:33; 1 Kings 17:19], but obviously Daniel could have chosen a threat of death, Daniel did not waver. His predictability may have given
less conspicuous place to pray, for he was quite confident that his enemies his enemies confidence that their plot would succeed, but Daniel’s routine
would be watching him. Nevertheless, he wanted to maintain his testimony gave Diaspora Jews an example of faithfulness to follow, even unto death!
before them; his love and worship of God were not something negotiable.
Furthermore, the upper room windows were opened toward Jerusalem. Jerome [4th century] likewise says: “We must quickly draw from our
The significance of this relates back to Solomon’s prayer at the dedication memory and bring together from all of holy scripture all the passages
of the Jerusalem Temple [1 Kings 8:27–30, 46–50]. In this prayer, where we have read of domata, which means in Latin either ‘walled
Solomon looked ahead to the days when the Jewish people would be taken enclosures’ (menia) or ‘beds’ or ‘sun terraces,’ and also the references to
away into exile because of their sins [Deuteronomy 4:25–31; 28:64–68]. anogaia, that is, ‘upper rooms.’ For after all, our Lord celebrated the
But, if while they were in exile they would humble themselves, repent, and Passover in an upper room [Mark 14:13–25], and the Holy Spirit came on
pray toward the place where their Temple had once stood, God would the 120 souls of believers while they were in an upper room [Acts 2:1–4],
forgive them and restore them from captivity [Deuteronomy 30:1–3]. and so Daniel in this case, despising the king’s commands and reposing
his confidence in God, does not offer his prayers in some obscure spot but
Gregory Goswell [21st century biblical scholar] says: “What Daniel is in a lofty place, and he opens up his windows toward Jerusalem, from
modelling is not the pious practice of daily prayers per se but unbending whence he looked for the peace of God. He prays, moreover, according to
loyalty to God’s kingship and rule, as demonstrated by his earnest concern God’s behest and according to what Solomon had said when he
for the fate of the Jerusalem temple (God’s palace).” admonished the people that they should pray in the direction of the
temple. Furthermore, there are three times in the day when we should bow
So, although the Jerusalem Temple laid in ruins [destroyed by the our knees to God, and the tradition of the church understands them to be
Babylonians in 586 b.c.], Daniel continued this practice in hopes that the 3rd hour [9:00 am], the 6th hour [12:00 pm], and the 9th hour [3:00 pm].
someday his people would be allowed to return and rebuild Jerusalem, and Last, it was at the 3rd hour that the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.
he will soon give us a glimpse of his prayers [later in Daniel 9:1–19]. It was at the 6th hour that Peter, purposing to eat, ascended to the upper
Thus, since Daniel knew that the 70 years of exile had nearly finished room for prayer [Acts 10:9]. It was at the 9th hour that Peter and John
[Jeremiah 29:10, 14], he prayed three times a day [Psalm 55:17]. were on their way to the temple [Acts 3:1].”

In summary, prayer is an important religious obligation. Daniel was Next in vv. 11–15, we read: “The conspirators then went as a group and
confronted with a stark choice: obey “the requirements of his God” [v. 6] found Daniel praying and seeking help before his God. So they
or “the laws of the Medes and Persians that can’t be repealed” [v. 9]. approached the king and asked, ‘Didn’t you sign an edict that for the next
Thus, the choice was: obey God or man. If he chooses the former, it puts 30 days if anyone prays to any god or man, except to you, your majesty, he
his life at risk, but if he chooses the latter, he betrays his God and his own would be thrown into the lions’ pit?’ The king responded, ‘The decree has
spiritual integrity. Thus, the need to show faithfulness, despite putting been established, in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians
oneself at risk, is an important theme in Daniel, and he chose God and that can’t be repealed.’ Then they told the king, ‘Daniel, who is one of the
made no attempt to hide his violation of the decree in an act of civil Judean exiles, pays no attention to you, your majesty, or to the written
disobedience. In other words, when he learned about the law, he carried on decree, since he is still praying three times a day.’ When the king heard
as if nothing had changed, because for him, nothing had changed! this, he was greatly upset, because he was determined to make every effort
 289

to save Daniel before the sun set. But the men who had gone as a group to ‘make a petition’ is a cognate accusative from the root bĕ āʾ (‘seek, ask’),
the king told him, ‘Remember, your majesty, that according to the laws of which was used first in v. 5 when these men were ‘seeking’ to find an
the Medes and Persians, any decree or edict that the king establishes accusation against Daniel. The narrator’s use of bĕ āʾ in this chapter
cannot be repealed.’” stretches its natural semantic range, as becomes clear when one considers
its other uses and the other Aramaic words available for ‘pray’ or ‘make
Thus, Daniel’s antagonists came to his personal quarters looking for him, petition.’ The primary meaning of bĕ āʾ is ‘to search for,’ as is borne out
and their devious plot underlay their visit. This would have come as no in Daniel 2:13, where royal executioners search for the wise men to kill
surprise to Daniel, and the way he handled the situation is exemplary. them. A secondary meaning is to request compassion and grace from a
Notice first that he did not try to retaliate against them with a vindictive deity or king, and this is the meaning in Daniel 2:18; 6:8, 12, 14. The first
spirit. Also, he did not rationalize the situation or attempt to compromise of these two meanings is present in the Akkadian cognate buʾû, which is
his faithful responsibility. It might have been tempting for him to dodge commonly ‘look for, search for.’ In this regard, the Akkadian term can
this difficulty by merely ceasing his prayers for one month, or he could even be used in a similar fashion as bĕ āʾ in Daniel 6:5, that is, ‘to seek’
have found a way to pray privately beyond the eye of any onlookers. That with words referring to evil intentions. For example: RN ana muḫḫi RN2
he did not do these things suggests that his paramount concern was in aḫišu ṣaburta mimma la u–ba–’–a (‘RN must not seek any malicious plots
being a faithful witness to the unsaved, not in being politically correct. He against RN2’). But it does not appear to mean ‘pray’ anywhere in the
could do this because he had no shame in God [Matthew 10:32–33]. Akkadian literature. The narrator’s deliberate use of bĕ āʾ becomes
Observing Daniel, they found him “praying and seeking help before his obvious when one considers the other Aramaic words available for ‘pray’
God.” In fact, the Aramaic verb bᵊ āʾ [for “seeking help”] is used as or ‘make supplication,’ which may have been used in Daniel 6. The verb
wordplay throughout the chapter [including its cognate noun bā û], and mitḥannan (‘make supplication’) was available and was in fact used in v.
this will become clear when Daniel ignores the royal decree. 12. But the author could have chosen it in place of bĕ āʾ in vv. 8, 13–14
just as naturally, if not with more clarity, and the more direct word for
Bill Arnold [21st century biblical scholar] extensively explains the details: ‘pray’ (ṣĕlāʾ) was used only to describe Daniel’s defiant prayer in v. 11.
“In characterizing Daniel’s enemies, the narrator uses the most striking In other words, we are suggesting the narrator has used the primary
literary device in this chapter: the use of bĕ āʾ (‘ask, seek’) and šĕkaḥ meaning of bĕʿāʾ in v. 5 in a deliberate and calculated fashion in order
(‘find’) as Leitwörter. This is a convention of biblical prose in which to create a paronym in vv. 8 and 12–14, where the word is used in its
leading words are repeated as a structuring and focusing device. Through secondary meaning of ‘make petition.’ The point of the wordplay
abundant repetition, the semantic range of the word–root is explored, becomes clear when Daniel ignores the royal decree. After he learned that
different forms of the root are deployed, branching off at times into the decree had been issued, he went home to his upper chamber, where the
phonetic relatives (that is, wordplay), synonymity, and antonymity. After opened windows faced Jerusalem, and as was his custom, he prayed three
the orientation in the first four verses, the author makes an important times, giving thanks to his God. After his enemies found Daniel ‘praying’
opening statement using a high concentration of these verbs. Whereas (or ‘seeking’ his God, v. 12), they reminded the king of his royal decree
Daniel 5 provided an example of ‘phrasal repetition’ in which whole regarding anyone who ‘makes a petition’ (or ‘seeks,’ v. 13) to any god or
statements were repeated, here we have this focusing device in which man for 30 days. In v. 14, they proudly announce that Daniel ‘makes his
leading words are repeated. As the chapter unfolds, the narrator continues petition’ three times a day. Daniel’s enemies find what they are ‘seeking’
to use these verbs repeatedly to contrast Daniel’s character with that of when he defies the royal decree and ‘makes petition’ to his God. Since the
his enemies. Daniel’s enemies recommend a royal decree that no one semantic range for bĕ āʾ is quite broad, and in order to avoid confusion
‘make a petition’ to any god or man except to the king for 30 days (v. 8). while still using the pun, the narrator used the conjunction to tie
Darius, not suspecting collusion, grants their request. The expression mitḥannan (‘make supplication’) to bĕ āʾ in v. 12. It specifies more
 290

precisely the connotation intended by bĕ āʾ when applied to Daniel and actions of God precipitated by that rebellion. In Daniel 5, God takes the
further brings into focus the contrast between Daniel and his enemies. The offensive position by sending a message to Belshazzar, but in Daniel 6 he
verb bĕʿāʾ and its cognate accusative are repeated in v. 14 for emphasis, assumes a defensive position by protecting Daniel from the lions. In both
which heightens the pun. Its recurrence in v. 14 is redundant because v. chapters, aggressive evil individuals are thwarted by God’s intervention.”
13 repeats almost verbatim the phrase of v. 8 without the accusative. The
cognate accusatives may be used in vv. 8 and 14 to emphasize further the Thus, the characterizing wordplay contrasts Daniel with his antagonists,
play on the ‘seeking’ of Daniel as opposed to that of his enemies. Unlike and Daniel’s seeking of God ultimately upends their seeking to frame him!
the metaphonic wordplay of Daniel 5, in which a verbal root is repeated in So, armed with their discovery about Daniel, the antagonists rushed off to
a different derived stem, here the same word is repeated with a slightly inform the king, but before reporting Daniel’s violation of the king’s
different nuance (antanaclasis). In v. 5, bĕ āʾ is clearly ‘seek’ with intent decree, they first prompted the king to acknowledge his own prohibition
to injure, while it means ‘pray’ elsewhere in the chapter. It is not unusual and affirmed that it was impossible to be annulled [being a law of the
in biblical narrative for puns to characterize Leitwörter in this way. The Medes and Persians]. Thus, the trap was now fully set, but first they
other Leitwort used here is šĕkaḥ (‘find’), which is used in vv. 5–6, 12, 23– reminded the king that Daniel was one of the captives from Judah and was
24. In v. 5, Daniel’s enemies seek to ‘find’ a fault in him, and in v. 12 they a foreigner who had been forcibly brought to Babylon against his will
‘find’ him seeking God. So these two verbs (bĕʿāʾ and šĕkaḥ) are used in [implying he was untrustworthy]. However, notice that they fail to say
vv. 5 and 12 in a sort of chiastic irony: Daniel’s enemies are ‘seeking’ to anything about Daniel’s long history of loyal service in the realm of
‘find’ a fault in him (v. 5), but instead they ‘find’ him ‘seeking’ God (v. Babylon [he had already been there ~66 years], and they say nothing of his
12). The recurrences here throw into bold contrast the differences between present position in which he had admirably served. Furthermore, they tried
Daniel’s character and conduct and that of his enemies. The use of to portray Daniel’s disobedience as a personal affront to the king, saying
characterizing wordplay to contrast Daniel and his enemies reaches a that he “pays no attention to you, your majesty.” Then v. 14 reflects that
climax in the chapter’s denouement. In Daniel’s closing speech to Darius, their report was upsetting to the king, but not for the reasons they
he remarks that the lions did not harm him because he was ‘found’ presented. The fact that the king immediately wanted to seek Daniel’s
(hištĕkaḥat) innocent before God and the king (v. 23). So while the rescue indicates that his displeasure was not with Daniel, but with the
enemies of Daniel tried to find fault, God found innocence in Daniel. The other nobles who had accused Daniel. He realized that he was duped into
narrator goes on to state that when Daniel was lifted out of the den, no condemning Daniel, when in reality Daniel was one of the most competent
harm was ‘found’ (hištĕkaḥ) on him, because he had trusted in his God (v. and loyal members in his service. They had not really urged this 30–day
24). As was true of wordplay in Daniel 5, this technique has interesting law to honour the king [or to provide a loyalty check], but only to rid the
theological significance here. In Daniel 6, bĕ āʾ and šĕkaḥ denote the court of a rival they envied. Since the text indicates the king kept seeking a
insidious hatred of Daniel’s enemies in their attempt to gain favour way to rescue Daniel “before the sun set,” this implies that he was
politically. Both parties, Daniel and his enemies, are seeking something. obligated to act that day. Thus, in v. 15, the antagonists came back later in
His enemies are seeking security by finding fault in Daniel, but Daniel is the day to insist on the implementation of the penalty against Daniel.
seeking God, where he will find security as a by–product. This becomes a
central motif in the chapter, when, later on, these same terms ironically Jerome [4th century] concludes: “From this passage we learn that we are
reveal Daniel’s determination and faithfulness to pray only to his God. not to expose ourselves rashly to danger, but so far as it lies in our power,
The irony here is that his enemies think they have found Daniel’s we are to avoid the plots of our enemies, and so in Daniel’s case, he did
weakness, but the narrator knows they have actually found his greatest not contravene the king’s authority in a public square or out in the street,
strength. Indeed, it is his devotion to God that delivers him from the lions. but rather in a private place, in order that he might not neglect the
As in Daniel 5, wordplays are used to contrast human rebellion with the commands of the one true God almighty.”
 291

Finally in vv. 16–18, we read: “At this point, the king ordered Daniel While he still remained a pagan king, his positive assessment of Daniel’s
brought in and thrown into the lions’ pit. The king spoke to Daniel, ‘Your God indicates that he had learned of the miraculous power of Yahweh
God, whom you serve constantly, will deliver you himself.’ A stone was from Daniel himself. Nevertheless, some scholars render the Aramaic verb
brought and placed over the opening to the pit, and the king affixed a seal yᵊš zᵊḇinnāḵ [from the root š ziḇ] as a jussive “may he rescue you”
to it with his personal signet ring and with the signet rings of his officials because they think it is too much for a pagan king to assert outright that
so that no one would interfere with Daniel’s situation. Then the king Daniel’s God would rescue him. However, the presence of the letter nun
retired to his palace to spend the night fasting. He enjoyed no before the suffix makes a jussive unlikely. Thus, as an imperfect verb, it
entertainment, and he couldn’t sleep.” could be classified as a potential imperfect: “your God is able to rescue
you.” Nevertheless, in either case, the king had some regard for Daniel’s
Although it is commonly understood to be a “den,” the Aramaic gôḇ [for God as one who could do such miracles. It is of course possible that Daniel
“pit”] means that it was a special construction for purposes of torture. had witnessed to the king on prior occasions, perhaps even telling him the
story of his three friends who were delivered from the burning furnace. If
so, the king could have had such a confidence in Daniel’s God, even
though he himself worshiped other deities. So, not only was a stone placed
over the opening to the lion pit, but it was marked by both the official seal
of the king and that of his nobles. The seal was made in wax and affixed to
ropes or chains that had been used to secure the stone in place. The
purpose was to make sure that no one tampered with the only way out for
Daniel, and only when they returned in the morning to view the results
could the seals be broken. Thus, waiting was not easy for Darius, as v. 18
indicates that this whole affair had troubled him so much that he cared
nothing for normal entertainment that evening, not even his royal meal. In
fact, the Aramaic wᵊḏaḥăwān [for “no entertainment”] is not only a hapax,
but is also a crux interpretum, because the exact meaning is simply not
able to be determined accurately, because other translations include:
“table,” “food,” “instruments of music,” “dancing girls,” and “perfumes.”
Some amend the hapax to ûlᵊḥēnān [or “concubines”], but this is doubtful,
despite how contextually appropriate such a suggestion might be.
Lions were commonly kept by Assyrian, Babylonian, and Medo–Persian Furthermore, although the LXXΟ omits the clause, the LXXθ translated it
monarchs for sporting purposes. They could also be used for torture, and as edesmata [or “foods”], which would have the same implication as
the thought of live humans becoming a meal for these ferocious hungry “tables.” Nevertheless, the best translation is “no entertainment” because it
lions would have been harrowing. Amazingly, the king sought to console is broad enough to capture the gist of the other translational options.
Daniel by telling him that the God whom he served “constantly” was able
to rescue him, which reflects the king’s acknowledgment that Daniel Jerome [4th century] says: “He sealed the rock by which the opening of the
worshiped this God unceasingly, and no earthly power could deter him pit was shut up, so that Daniel’s enemies might not attempt any harm, for
from that. This admission indicates Daniel’s testimony had not been in he had entrusted Daniel to God’s power. However, although he was not
vain. Furthermore, that the king regarded Daniel’s God as actually able to worried about lions, he was fearful of men, so he had the nobles seal it in
rescue him reflects something of his own understanding about Yahweh. order to avoid all ground for suspicion so far as they were concerned.”
 292

Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] concludes: “Each of these details that is, you were not prevented from worship under pressure of the law.
testifies both to his humanity and to his cowardice: a mark of his The question ‘Was he able to rescue you from the lions’ mouth?’ means,
humanity was his refusing to partake of food or let his eyes rest in sleep, ‘Was it his will to render you impervious against the lions?’ After all, he
instead staying awake in grief for the unjust punishment of Daniel; it was would not have referred to God as powerless after calling him living.”
a mark of cowardice that he was not so affected as to counter the accusers
and invoke his royal authority and power to save the wronged.” Jerome [4th century] likewise says: “By his tears he showed his inner
emotion, and forgetting his royal dignity, the conqueror ran to his captive,
5) How was Daniel saved and what happened to his enemies? (6:19–24) the master to his servant.”

Starting with vv. 19–20, we read: “The king got up at dawn and went Next in vv. 21–23, we read: “Daniel replied to the king, ‘May your
quickly to the lions’ pit. As he approached where Daniel was in the pit, he majesty live forever! My God sent his angel and sealed the mouths of the
cried out to him in a voice filled with anguish, ‘Daniel, servant of the lions. They have not harmed me, proving that I’m innocent before him.
living God, has your God, whom you serve constantly, been able to deliver Also against you, your majesty, I’ve committed no offense.’ The king was
you from the lions?’” ecstatic, so he gave orders for Daniel to be released from the pit. Daniel
was taken up from the pit, and no injury was found to have been inflicted
The king’s actions demonstrates his concern for Daniel’s welfare, because on him, because he had believed in his God.”
he even had a glimmer of hope that Daniel might have survived, though
his “voice filled with anguish” betrays his intuition that this was most Daniel’s calmness in the situation is reflected in his reply with the standard
unlikely. Nevertheless, Daniel was held in high esteem because: greeting of respect for royalty, “may your majesty live forever” [recall
Daniel 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:6]. Then he added that God had “sent his angel” to
1. His coming to the lion pit at the earliest possible moment. protect him during the night. The Aramaic malʾăḵēh [for “his angel”],
2. The haste by which he went there. suggests that it was the same ordinary angel one who protected the three
3. The “voice filled with anguish” by which he spoke. youths in the furnace [recall Daniel 3:25, 28]. Daniel also explained to the
4. His address to Daniel as the “servant of the living God.” king that his survival was nothing less than a divine declaration of his
innocence, because ironically Daniel’s name meant “God is my judge,”
In fact, notice that the expression “servant of the living God” is quite and his deliverance from the pit was his vindication. In other words, it is
remarkable from the lips of Darius in light of the numerous times that God not that Daniel was sinless, but innocent of the trumped–up charges
is described as “the living God” [Joshua 3:10; Deuteronomy 5:26; 1 against him, especially any insinuation that he had insolently paid no
Samuel 17:26, 36; Jeremiah 23:36]. Thus, God is “living” in contrast to the attention to the king’s orders [v. 13]. That the king was “ecstatic” upon
worthless idols that can do nothing for themselves or others [Isaiah 44:9– discovering Daniel’s safety further underscores his high esteem for Daniel.
20]. So, although there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Darius After being lifted from the lion’s den through an opening at the top, there
truly believed in Yahweh alone, his words indicate that he had at least was “no injury” found on him. Such a status was prima facie evidence of
come to a point of esteeming God through Daniel’s life and witness. God’s supernatural working. Darius [and all others] had encountered a
miracle, and this may have drawn him closer to personal faith in Yahweh.
Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “Each of these phrases shows Then the end of v. 23 adds the reason for this miracle: Daniel “had
the religious spirit of the king, who complimented Daniel on his piety: believed in his God.” This reflects back to the moment that Daniel made a
first, he calls him not his own servant but God’s; next, he calls Daniel’s conscious decision to continue his practice of prayer [v. 10], not just the
God ‘living’; then, in praise of his piety, ‘whom you serve with constancy,’ time when he was placed in the lion’s den.
 293

At a crisis moment in his life, he decided to remain faithful to the God who children and less dear than your husband?’ ‘O King,’ she answered, ‘I
rewarded him with a miraculous deliverance, as summarized in Hebrews, may have another husband, if a god is willing, and other children, if I lose
that “through faith” Daniel “shut the mouths of lions” [Hebrews 11:33]. these; but since my father and mother are no longer living, there is no way
that I can have another brother; I said what I did with that in mind.’
Finally in v. 24, we read: “Then the king gave orders to bring those men Darius thought that the woman answered well, and for her sake he
who had tried to have Daniel devoured, and they threw them, their released the one for whom she had asked, and the eldest of her sons as
children, and their wives into the lions’ pit. They had not reached the floor well; he put to death all the rest.” [Hist. 3.119]
of the pit before the lions had overtaken them and crushed all their bones.”
So, the way in which the lions ferociously attacked the bodies of Daniel’s
Darius knew what Daniel’s antagonists had done and how they had accusers is not recorded for the sake of shock, but to once again
attempted to dupe the king himself in the process. Thus, he called for them demonstrate the miraculous nature of what happened. These were hungry
to be brought forth and thrown to the lions. We should not think that every lions, and Daniel’s survival underscores God’s miraculous intervention.
supervisor and satrap of the kingdom was punished. Daniel says that only
“those men who had tried to have Daniel devoured” were punished. In Aphrahat [4th century] beautifully says: “Daniel was persecuted as Jesus
fact, the LXXΟ attempts to soften the implication by limiting the revenge was persecuted. Daniel was cast into the pit of lions, and he was delivered
to hoi duo anthrōpoi ekeinoi [or “those two men”]. Nevertheless, more and came up out of its midst uninjured; and Jesus was sent down into the
startling is the inclusion of the children and wives in the punishment pit of the abode of the dead, and he ascended, and death had not dominion
[Numbers 16:23–33; 2 Chronicles 21:12–15]. However, we should not over him. Concerning Daniel they expected that when he had fallen into
conclude that God commended such stern action in this case. Instead, this the pit he would not come up again; and concerning Jesus they said,
was Darius’ choice and a reflection of Persian custom. In fact, Herodotus ‘Since he has fallen, he shall not rise again’ [Psalm 41:8]. From harming
tells an account of how Intaphernes and his family were subjected to a Daniel the mouths of the ravenous and destructive lions were closed; and
similar fate by the Persian King Darius [not the same Darius in Daniel 6]: from harming Jesus was closed the mouth of death, though ravenous and
“They showed themselves to the king and told him why they had been destructive of living forms. They sealed the pit of Daniel and guarded it
treated so. Darius, fearing that the six had done this by common consent, with diligence; and they guarded the grave of Jesus with diligence, as they
sent for each and asked his opinion, whether they approved what had been said, ‘Set guards to watch at the tomb’ [Matthew 27:64]. When Daniel
done; and being assured that they had no part in it, he seized Intaphrenes came up, his accusers were ashamed; and when Jesus rose, all they who
with his sons and all his household—for he strongly suspected that the had crucified him were ashamed.”
man was plotting a rebellion with his kinsmen—and imprisoned them with
the intention of putting them to death. Then Intaphrenes’ wife began 5) Why did Darius [Cyaxares II] affirm God’s sovereignty? (6:25–28)
coming to the palace gates, weeping and lamenting; and by continuing to
do this same thing she persuaded Darius to pity her; and he sent a Starting with vv. 25–27, we read: “Afterward, King Darius wrote to all
messenger to tell her, ‘Woman, King Darius will allow one of your people, nations, and languages who lived throughout his realm: ‘May
imprisoned relatives to survive, whomever you prefer of them all.’ After great prosperity be yours! I hereby decree that in every area of my
considering she answered, ‘If indeed the king gives me the life of one, I kingdom men are to fear and tremble before the God of Daniel. For he is
chose from them all my brother.’ Darius was astonished when he heard the living God, who endures forever. His kingdom is one that will not be
her answer, and sent someone who asked her: ‘Woman, the king asks you destroyed, and his dominion continues forever. He delivers and rescues
with what in mind you abandon your husband and your children and and performs signs and wonders in heaven and on earth. He has delivered
choose to save the life of your brother, who is less close to you than your Daniel from the power of the lions.’”
 294

Although critical scholars are sceptical of the historicity of this account, if the three chief ministers [or commissioners] to which the 120 satraps
Darius the Mede was Cyaxares II, then he could have espoused this royal reported and was being considered for appointment “over the whole
decree. Notice that its introduction was a stereotypical way for a king to kingdom” [vv. 1–3]. Thus, v. 28 assures us that Daniel, a man at least in
initiate a royal decree, because most of the wording in v. 25 is identical to his 80s by that time, continued to enjoy political success in the new
the introduction in Nebuchadnezzar’s decree [recall Daniel 4:1]. The administration established by the Medes and Persians following the
reverence and fear to be accorded Daniel’s God is similar to the esteem overthrow of Babylon. In fact, he lived to see the 3rd year of Cyrus in
given to Nebuchadnezzar himself [recall Daniel 5:19]. However, the 536/535 b.c. [later in Daniel 10:1]. It is ironic that Belshazzar had offered
reasons are different here. In other words, it is because “he is the living political advancement to Daniel in return for interpreting the writing
God, who endures forever” and Darius adds that this reverence and fear of [recall Daniel 5:16], because Daniel had turned down that reward, since he
Daniel’s God is also because “his kingdom is one that will not be could not accept a reward from someone who had so insulted the honour
destroyed, and his dominion continues forever.” Thus, the issue of God’s and glory of God, but here God nevertheless gave Daniel an extremely
kingdom is a prominent topic in Daniel’s book. For example, God had high political position after Belshazzar was slain!
revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that a series of earthly kingdoms [beginning
with Babylon] would come and go, but “the God of heaven will set up a Summing Up …
kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor its sovereignty left in the hands Daniel 6 completes the narrative section, having thoroughly introduced the
of another people. It will shatter and crush all of these kingdoms, and it setting, visions, interpretations, and prayers for Daniel 7–12. We have
will stand forever” [recall Daniel 2:44]. Thus, God’s kingdom is the goal been taught to understand the exile historically, theologically, and
of history, because the Aramaic lāʾ ṯiṯḥabbal [for “not be destroyed”] is imaginatively, and we have learned that the exile will not end quickly
precisely the same in both passages! Nebuchadnezzar even came to a point [recall Daniel 1:1–2, 21; 2:24–45; 6:28]. Thus, exiles must learn to trust
of confessing that “his kingdom is an eternal kingdom, and his dominion God [recall Daniel 1:8–16; 2:17–19; 3:16–18; 6:16–23] amid personal and
lasts from generation to generation,” which are terms strikingly similar to community peril [recall Daniel 1:8–16; 2:13–19; 3:8–23; 6:10–23]. They
those by Darius in v. 26. Thus, although the emphasis of Daniel 6 has not must learn wisdom [recall Daniel 1:8–16; 2:13–16; 4:19–27; 5:13–28;
been about God’s kingdom, apparently Darius had learned something 6:21–22] through devotion [recall Daniel 1:8–16; 2:17–19; 3:16–18; 6:10–
about this from Daniel’s miraculous rescue from the pit. Notice that 11], divine enablement [recall Daniel 1:9, 17; 2:19; 3:24–25; 4:8, 18, 19–
following Darius’ confession about God’s kingdom and authority in v. 26, 27; 5:13–28; 6:3] and to praise the God who rules, protects, and saves
he refers to God’s signs and wonders in v. 27, particularly Daniel’s rescue. [recall Daniel 1:1–2; 2:20–23; 3:26–29; 4:1–3, 34–37; 6:25–27]. Their
Knowing that God had humbled Nebuchadnezzar to bring him to the point witness will have a positive impact on some people outside their faith
of professing God’s kingdom, Darius also wisely professed this kingdom. [recall Daniel 2:46–49; 3:26–29; 4:1–3, 34–37; 6:25–27], but not on others
[recall Daniel 3:8–12; 5:1–30; 6:3–9]. Regardless, all peoples are welcome
Jerome [4th century] nails it: “The reason why signs are performed amid into God’s kingdom, because the future belongs to God and to those who
barbarian peoples through the agency of God’s servants is that the trust him [recall Daniel 2:24–45; 6:25–27]. Thus, visions that stagger the
worship and religion of the only God may be proclaimed.” minds of their recipients indicate God’s sovereignty, because they show
his power to use symbols to open the minds of people focused on this
Finally in v. 28, we read: “Daniel achieved success during the reigns of world in wrong ways [recall Daniel 2:1–45; 4:4–33; 5:1–12]. The faithful
Darius and Cyrus the Persian.” life has dangers, but it is worth living [recall Daniel 3:16–19]. God’s
kingdom is rising [recall Daniel 2:44], however hard world leaders try to
The Aramaic haṣlaḥ [for “success”] means political success in this context make themselves the centre of the universe [recall Daniel 4:30].
[recall Daniel 3:30]. Darius had already promoted Daniel to being one of
 295

DANIEL’S VISIONS plucked off, it was lifted up off the ground, and it was forced to stand on
two feet like a man. A human soul was imparted to it. 5Then look!—a
Daniel 7 second animal resembling a bear followed it. It was raised up on one side,
with three ribs held between the teeth in its mouth. Therefore people kept
Opening Thought telling it, ‘Get up and devour lots of meat!’ 6After this, I continued to
1) The arrival of our new millennium sparked unusual interest in spiritual
watch—and look!—there was another one, resembling a leopard with four
matters and in questions about the future. What strange ideas, beliefs, and
birds’ wings on its back. The animal also had four heads, and authority
practices have you observed as people discuss the future?
was imparted to it. 7After this, I continued to observe the night visions.
And look!—there was a fourth awe–inspiring, terrifying, and viciously
Background of the Passage strong animal! It had large, iron teeth. It devoured and crushed things, and
Daniel will now reveal the prophetic course of Gentile dominion on the trampled under its feet whatever remained. Different from all of the other
earth. In fact, it is now that God revealed his purposes directly to Daniel previous animals, it had ten horns. 8While I was thinking about the
rather than through a pagan king. However, the symbolism in Daniel’s horns—look—another horn, this time a little one, grew up among them.
dream differs from the imagery in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In other Three of the first horns were yanked up by their roots right in front of it.
words, whereas Nebuchadnezzar saw a giant image or statue, with various Look! It had eyes like those of a human being and a mouth that boasted
parts that represented a series of world empires, Daniel saw a collection of with audacious claims.”
beasts and creatures. His dream moved far beyond his own day to the
coming of Israel’s Messiah/King to end all Gentile kingdoms and to The Vision of the Ancient of Days
9
establish his eternal kingdom. Thus, Daniel 7 is significant because: “I kept on watching until the Ancient of Days was seated. His clothes
were white, like snow, and the hair on his head was like pure wool. His
1. It shows God’s sovereignty over earthly affairs and human history. throne burned with flaming fire, and its wheels burned with fire. 10A river
2. It provides a clear glimpse of the prophetic future. of fire flowed out from before him. Thousands upon thousands were
3. It shows the veracity of God’s word in the prophecies fulfilled. serving him, with millions upon millions waiting before him. The court sat
4. It gives believers a wonderful role model in the person of Daniel, in judgment, and record books were unsealed. 11I continued watching
who lived a life of faithfulness and devotion. because of the audacious words that the horn was speaking. I kept
observing until the animal was killed and its body destroyed and given
Bible Passage over to burning fire. 12Now as to the other animals, their authority was
Read Daniel 7 removed, but they were granted a reprieve from execution for an appointed
period of time.”
The Vision of the Four Beasts
1 The Vision of the Son of Man
In the first year of the reign of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel 13
dreamed a dream, receiving visions in his mind while in bed, after which “I continued to observe the night vision—and look!—someone like
he recorded the dream, relating this summary of events. 2Daniel said, “I the Son of Man was coming, accompanied by heavenly clouds. He
observed the vision during the night. Look! The four winds of the skies approached the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14To him
were stirring up the Mediterranean Sea. 3Four magnificent animals were dominion was bestowed, along with glory and a kingdom, so that all
rising from the sea, each different from the other. 4The first resembled a people, nations, and languages are to serve him. His dominion is an
lion, but it had eagles’ wings. I continued to watch until its wings were everlasting dominion—it will never pass away—and his kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.”
 296

The Vision Interpreted First, an extensive preliminary overview of primeval history is required to
15
“Now as for me, Daniel, I was emotionally troubled, and what I had fully appreciate the context of this passage, because this is the final chapter
seen in the visions kept alarming me. 16So I approached one of those who written in Aramaic while also being a vital hinge to Daniel’s book:
was standing nearby and began to ask the meaning of all of this. He spoke
to me and caused me to understand the interpretation of these things. 17He
said, ‘These four great animals are four kings who will rise to power from
the earth. 18But the saints of the Highest will receive the kingdom forever,
inheriting it forever and ever.’ 19I wanted to learn the precise significance
of the fourth animal that was different from all the others, extremely awe–
inspiring, with iron teeth and bronze claws, and that had devoured and
crushed things, trampling under its feet whatever remained. 20Also, I
wanted to learn the significance of the ten horns on its head and the other
horn that had arisen, before which three of them had fallen—that is, the
horn with eyes and a mouth that uttered magnificent things and which was
greater in appearance than its fellows. 21As I continued to watch, that same
horn waged war against the saints, and was prevailing against them 22until
the Ancient of Days arrived to pass judgment in favour of the saints of the So, although it forms a literary unit with Daniel 2–6, at the same time it
Highest One and the time came for the saints to take possession of the has a vital link to Daniel 8–12, being the first of four visions given directly
kingdom. 23So he said: ‘The fourth animal will be a fourth kingdom on the to Daniel. Furthermore, it appears to be chronologically disordered [since
earth, different from all the kingdoms. It will devour the entire earth, it reverts to the 1st year of Belshazzar], but this can be explained by
trampling it down and crushing it. 24Now as to the ten horns, ten kings will Daniel’s purpose of grouping his four visions. In other words, the 1st vision
rise to power from this kingdom, and another king will rise to power after was given in the 1st year of Belshazzar, and hence it is placed first in the
them. He will be different from the previous kings, and will defeat three sequence. Here is a summary chart explaining the chronological confusion:
kings. 25He’ll speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of
the Highest One. He’ll attempt to alter times and laws, and they’ll be given Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Daniel 9 Daniel 10–12
into his control for a time, times, and half a time. 26Nevertheless, the court 1st vision 2nd vision 3rd vision 4th vision
will convene, and his authority will be removed, annulled, and destroyed 1st year of 3rd year of 1st year of 3rd year of
forever. 27Then the kingdom, authority, and magnificence of all nations of Belshazzar Belshazzar Darius Cyrus
the earth will be given to the people who are the saints of the Highest One. 553 b.c. 550 b.c. 539–538 b.c. 536–535 b.c.
His kingdom will endure forever, and all authorities will serve him and
obey him.’ 28At this point the vision ended. As for me, Daniel, my Thus, since Daniel 7 is a hinge chapter, this is why Daniel 2–6 is carefully
thoughts continued to alarm me, and I lost my natural colour, but I kept arranged in a concentric structure so that Daniel 7 parallels Daniel 2, and
quiet about the matter.” the similarities between these two chapters are rather obvious:

Understanding the Text 1. Both portray a sweep of successive Gentile powers in four stages.
2) What was Daniel’s vision of the four beasts? (7:1–8) 2. Both culminate in kingdoms being replaced by God’s kingdom.
3. Both elaborate more on the 4th kingdom than the first three.
 297

However, in spite of these parallels, there is a key difference of perspective against Jerusalem such as 1 Maccabees 1:29–40 describes, but it does not
between these chapters: the vision of Daniel 2 was seen by a pagan king, refer to the introduction of offensive forms of worship in the temple
which portrayed history from a human point of view [where each empire (contrast Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:31), and it implies that Jewish deliverance
had at least some intrinsic value], but the vision of Daniel 7 was from is still future. Thus, its date is mid–167 BC.”
God’s point of view, revealing the nations of history as they really are
inwardly. In other words, God sees them as wild ferocious beasts, However, a major problem for critical scholars who attempt to interpret
continually fighting and devouring one another. Furthermore, as was the Daniel 7 in light of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean uprising is
case in Daniel 2, the main focus of Daniel 7 falls on the 4th kingdom in the that Antiochus’ defeat did not result in a realization of God’s kingdom!
series, but Daniel 7 adds crucial details in regard to the 4th kingdom not Thus, critical scholars must confess that these statements were mistakes!
found in Daniel 2. For example, Daniel 7 provides revelation about the
“little” horn that arises out of the 4th kingdom and his persecution of God’s John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] continues: “How does
saints. Furthermore, although both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 portray the series imagination operate, how is revelation mediated? The dream’s content
of kingdoms being ultimately replaced by God’s kingdom, it is Daniel 7 hints that it operates through earlier scriptures, through the acts of God
that provides explicit revelation about the “Son of Man” who receives the they reflect, through other traditions and imagery that the visionary is
kingdom. Thus, Daniel 7 becomes the springboard to show how God’s familiar with, and through the kind of experiences previous chapters have
kingdom will be implemented through the intercession of the “Son of described. The point is clearer when we look at the dream in its 2nd
Man,” the ultimate victory over the final earthly opponent to God’s rule century context, which implies that the dream is in part the fruit of
[the “little” horn], and the righteous saints resurrected and rewarded in reflection on events from the 6th to the 2nd centuries. This history has
God’s kingdom. Furthermore, although most scholars agree that the vision become a means of revelation cast in the form of prophecy. Empire after
of beasts in Daniel 7 was intended to portray successive kingdoms, they empire has risen and fallen. If Antiochus rises higher, it will mean he falls
nevertheless differ on the identification of the kingdoms in view. In fact, harder. History did not have to be read that way. The 2nd century crisis
one minority view holds that Daniel 7 is not parallel to Daniel 2 because was unprecedented, and imagination and faith had to undertake a
the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent contemporaneous powers operative at quantum leap in order to express what the vision declares. History
the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In other words, the lion represents becomes revelatory when it is viewed in light of the tradition of what God
Egypt, the bear represents Persia, the leopard represents Rome, and the has said and done in the past and in light of the word he is speaking now,
anonymous beast represents Syria [under the imagery of a trampling war both being suggestive of God’s promise about history which hope is
elephant commonly utilized by Syria]. Nevertheless, most critical scholars invited to grasp despite the extent to which it contrasts with present
view the four beasts as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece, with the experience. It looks in the face the realities of history since the Babylonian
“little” horn representing Antiochus IV Epiphanes [but some view it as period and the darker realities of the 2nd century, but insists on also gazing
representing Ptolemy I Soter in 323–282 b.c., only if Daniel 7 functioned steadily at how the future must be, given who God is. In this sense, the
as a symbolic history of Judean events in the early Hellenistic period]. vision’s perspective is the gift of revelation received by faith, which
accepts the risk of its being the fruit of fantasy received in wishful
John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] adopted this position: thinking. The outrages of the present make it morally necessary for there
“While Daniel 7 presents itself as a dream experienced by Daniel in about to be judgment and reversal in the future: otherwise everything that people
550 BC, the beginning of the co–regency of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, know about God and about Israel’s relationship to him is put in question.
its formal characteristics suggest that it derives from the period on which A crisis can deepen faith in the power of God rather than destroying it.
it focuses and to which it is especially relevant, the time of the king Earlier on, Judahites could hold out under the pressures of living under
symbolized by the small horn. It presupposes actions by Antiochus IV the Babylonians or the Persians or the Greeks. They could see (or
 298

envisage) God acting and making it possible for them to survive and even However, Longman’s view is unconvincing, since the parallel account in
to triumph. They could believe that God’s sovereignty could be working Daniel 2 clearly indicates a linear progression of Babylon and successive
through the sovereignty of gentile monarchs. The pressures of living under kingdoms, which is also indicated by Daniel here [later in vv. 15, 23].
Antiochus were of a different order. The enormity of his acts made it Furthermore, Daniel will build on the vision by identifying two of these
impossible to believe that God’s sovereignty was working through him. It kingdoms [later in Daniel 8:20–22]. Furthermore, scholars have made
required another understanding of the relationship between human extensive headway in attributing the symbolic imagery of Daniel 7 as
sovereignty and divine sovereignty. The former would need to be replaced supposedly borrowing from the mythological literature of the ancient Near
by the latter rather than being the means of implementing the latter.” East, specifically to be found either in the 7th century b.c. Mesopotamian
work Vision of the Underworld, or the Babylonian creation myth Enuma
Nevertheless, conservative scholars argue that the beasts represent Elish, or the Canaanite myths within 14th century b.c. Ugaritic texts.
Babylon, Medo–Persia, Greece, and Rome, with the “little” horn
representing the future antichrist. But, a minority view argues that the four Wendy Widder [21st century biblical scholar] says: “In a mythic battle
kingdoms are Babylon, Media, Medo–Persia, and Greece, because Media Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon, defeated Tiamat (‘the Sea’)
is contemporaneous with the Babylonian Empire. and an army of ghoulish troops she had mustered against Marduk and the
other gods because Marduk’s father, Ea (the god of wisdom), had killed
John Walton [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] holds this view: her consort, Apsu, when he conspired to do away with their noisy
“The 10 horns of the 4th empire would be the 10 independent states that offspring. Tiamat herself had protested Apsu’s plan, but not hard enough
had arisen from Alexander’s empire by the last quarter of the 3rd century to dissuade him. In preparation for battle, Tiamat gave her new consort,
BC. The little horn would represent the Seleucid overlords of Palestine, Qingu, the tablet of destinies, which bestowed on its possessor the right to
dating from the reign of Antiochus the Great and continuing during the rule the world. Marduk faced off against Tiamat, wielding a net made of
time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The three displaced horns would represent the four winds, and with it he captured her and then trampled and split her
the conquests of Antiochus the Great.” in two before seizing the tablet for himself. But even though Marduk had
defeated Tiamat and her forces, the chaotic sea remained a threat. To
However, this minority view also faces problems, because the ram and protect the world against a return to primordial chaos, Lord Marduk
goat [later in Daniel 8], with the horn of the goat replaced by four horns, established boundaries to hold back the watery threat. Tiamat’s throng of
are parallel to the 2nd and 3rd creatures of Daniel 7, and the ram is one monsters thundered through Babylonian mythology, but plenty of animals
entity: “the kings of Media and Persia” [later in Daniel 8:20]. in real life generated anxiety for ancient Mesopotamians, who believed
Furthermore, the 10 horns as independent states do not satisfy Daniel’s that the birth of an abnormal animal signalled a message from the gods—
interpretation of them as “ten kings” [later in v. 24; Revelation 17:12]. and not always a good one. Malformations, missing or misplaced body
Nevertheless, there are still other conservatives that prefer to refrain from parts, and extra body parts were all considered omens. Good omens could
identifying them with any specific kingdoms. mean something like prosperity or the death of an enemy king, while bad
omens might portend famine, rebellion, or betrayal. Priests divined such
Tremper Longman [21st century ancient Near Eastern scholar] argues this: omens using long–established interpretative traditions, such as the
“The best way to view the imagery of Daniel 7 is not in terms of four Shumma izbu collection of texts, a set of 24 tablets detailing abnormalities
specific evil empires, but as four kingdoms symbolically representing the and their corresponding significance. For example, ‘if a ewe gives birth to
fact that evil kingdoms (of an unspecified number) will succeed one a lion and it has two horns on the right—the prince will take the land of
another from the time of the exile to the time of the climax of history, when his enemy,’ but ‘if a ram has only one horn inserted into his forehead like
God will intervene, judge all evil, and bring into existence his kingdom.” a peg—its owner will be killed by force.’ An array of animals is also
 299

present in an oracle against Israel spoken by the prophet Hosea, and As the storm god, Baal controlled weather and thus agricultural fertility.
although not malformed, they signalled disaster for Hosea’s audience in Armed with lightning, he ruled the skies and distributed rain on faithful
the 8th century BC. Through Hosea, God decried the fact that although he worshipers. In the mythology of 15th century Ugarit, a city–state on the
had brought his people out of Egypt and cared for them in the desert, they Syrian coast north of Israel, Baal was the divine hero who had fought
became proud and forgot him. For this, he would fight against them, against the sea, Yam, when attempting to become head of the pantheon.
coming like a lion, lurking like a leopard, attacking like a bear. He would Baal was victorious and won kingship among the gods—a kingship subject
tear them apart like a wild beast (Hosea 13:7–8). The one who had to that of the high god, El, an aged wise figure who acted as judge over the
shepherded them would destroy them. About 150 years later, Ezekiel was divine council. These texts provide background for Daniel 7.”
terrified by a different kind of encounter with God. The prophet–priest was
among the exiles living in Babylon when he had a heart–stopping vision However, there is no need to go to such extreme speculation [especially
that left him stunned for a full week (Ezekiel 1; 3:15). He watched a when verification is virtually impossible], given that symbolic dreams are
windstorm blow in on a fiery cloud, and in the middle of the fire was a not unusual in the Old Testament, like Joseph’s dreams [Genesis 37].
quartet of strange creatures that were human–like and yet very unhuman–
like. They had straight legs like men with calves’ feet. They had human John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] responds and cautions:
hands tucked under four wings. They had human faces with three other “Over the past century scholars have studied parallels between Daniel 7
faces: those of a lion, an ox, and an eagle. Fire sparked between these and material from Egypt, Phoenicia, Iran, Babylon, and Canaan. Egyptian
strange creatures and the creatures themselves flashed about like influence has been seen in the parallels between the relationship of Atum
lightning. Next to them were fiery wheels in wheels, all moving in tandem and Re with that of the one advanced in years and the humanlike figure in
with the four creatures. What all this fire and motion amounted to was a Daniel 7 and in the portrait of Antiochus as foe of godly order, but the
mobile throne for Yahweh, who appeared as another human–like figure at evidence is hardly compelling. Nor is Morgenstern’s hypothesis of the
the center of it all, glowing like metal and blinding everything in his influence of an equivalent Tyrian myth, which even he later abandoned.
vicinity. The four fiery creatures themselves formed a council of divine Nor is the more common belief that there is a connection between Daniel’s
beings around the supreme God. The descriptive details aren’t identical, humanlike figure and Iranian figures who are the embodiment of
but it is not hard to imagine Psalm 97 in light of Ezekiel’s vision: ‘The humanity, who form one root of Near Eastern kingship ideology and thus
Lord reigns! Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and relate to Old Testament ideas of humanity. Daniel’s allusive reference to a
justice are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him and humanlike figure hardly justifies or requires such connections, and neither
consumes his foes on every side. His lightning lights up the world; the do parallels such as the stream of fire; it is in any case a problem that the
earth sees and trembles. The mountains melt like wax before the Lord, Persian material is difficult to date, and parallels are rarely specific to
before the Lord of all the earth. The heavens proclaim his righteousness, Persia. The fourfold historical scheme (Daniel 2) is the most plausible
and all the people see his glory’ (vv. 1–6). Other poetic passages in the instance of Iranian influence on Daniel 7. Parallels between the
Old Testament portray Yahweh from atop the clouds instead of a fiery Babylonian Adapa myth and the humanlike figure are again not
throne. In Psalms 68:4 and Psalm 104:3 the psalmists extol the one who compelling; nor are the incidental parallels between Daniel 7 and an
rides a cloud chariot through his creative domain. In Isaiah 19:1 Yahweh Akkadian dream–vision about hybrid beings. When the Babylonian myth
rides a swift cloud in judgment against Egypt, and similarly, in Nahum the Enuma Elish tells of rebellious monsters born from the primordial ocean,
prophet declares that the guilty will not go unpunished because Yahweh of the destruction of the sea monster, the embodiment of disorder, who is
comes ‘in the whirlwind and the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his burst by the winds, and of the elevation of its destroyer as king and lord of
feet’ (Nahum 1:3). Such imagery is known elsewhere in the ancient Near heaven and earth, the points of connection with Daniel 7 look more than
East, notably in Canaanite depictions of Baal, the Rider of the Clouds. coincidental. They are paralleled in the equivalent Ugaritic combat myth
 300

Baal, which has more links with Daniel 7 and may be the less indirect though it is not clear that they were more so than others. The notion of a
background to it. Here, similarly, Sea tries to usurp the place of Baal, the succession of world empires appears in Herodotus and Ctesias, and this
son of the highest god, the venerable, gray–headed, and gray–bearded El. feature arguably has more substantial parallels with the substance of the
One of his titles, ’b snm, might mean ‘father of years’ and correspond to four–empire scheme in Daniel than the links in terms of symbolism that
‘one advanced in days.’ Before the assembly of the holy ones, Baal, rider Daniel has in common with Middle Eastern material. The scheme sees
on the clouds, is declared to be destined for an eternal kingship, and he the sequence of empires as Assyria, Media, Persia, and Greece, and in
duly kills Sea (Yam)—later characterized as Leviathan, the seven–headed distinguishing between Media and Persia it corresponds to Daniel’s
dragon. In due course El agrees to a temple being built as a palace for scheme. Tracing the development of ideas and motifs in a text does not in
Baal, where he takes his seat as king over the earth. He is then overcome itself explain their significance there, but it can add to our historical
by Death (Mot), but Death is eventually defeated. In the Old Testament, insight on the development of Israelite faith and thought, enable us to
Yahweh effectively combines the positions of El and Baal, except in perceive more of the meaning and resonances that ideas and motifs had
Daniel 7, where the humanlike figure takes Baal’s position. In for author and audience, and explain tensions or other apparent
recapitulating this old pattern, Daniel 7 may have its own links with these problems in the text. Thus, it is illuminating to imagine the author of
ancient myths, via learned circles in Judaism rather than because they Daniel 7 combining the combat myth as adopted in the Old Testament and
lived on in the worship of the temple. The animals in Daniel 7 have been as known in the learned tradition with the four–regimes scheme and the
likened to Babylonian engravings, sculptures, and reliefs or to the form of the dream from Daniel 2 and developing these in light of 2nd
sphinxes, but the parallels are not close. The same applies to warnings in century experience into a portrayal of Antiochus as the doomed
treaties of attacks by animals; though in any case these documents would embodiment of disorder and rebellion. Yet such pictures are hypothetical,
surely have influenced Daniel only via passages such as Hosea 13:7–8. and it remains difficult to evaluate the significance of parallels identified
Parallels with the animals in the zodiac are also imprecise. in connection with tracing the tradition–history behind Daniel 7. When the
Mesopotamian divination offers more promising background to vv. 4–6. evidence cannot prove a direct link, this shortfall does not mean there was
Divination was interested in anomalous human and animal births that no link. In other cases, the parallels are close enough to make a direct link
might offer portents concerning the future of individuals or the state. The seem likely, but coincidence is not impossible. Even where there are
series Šumma izbu includes sheep born with some resemblance to a wolf, a historical links, it is difficult to know how far the author was aware of the
lion, a fox, a tiger, or a human being, and animals with deformations such material’s original meaning or was influenced by it: we must beware of
as a raised shoulder, lungs in its mouth, extra horns, multiple heads, or reading into Daniel too much of what went before or what came after.
displaced eyes. These portend events such as a royal death, an enemy Even when the author was aware of the material’s background, the picture
attack, conflict among rulers, or a king enjoying a long and peaceful as a whole is not one received from existent sources; it is creative,
reign. Not all details in the omens are interpreted, and not all details in the imaginative, and original. Further, the significance of motifs in Daniel 7 is
interpretations connect with specific aspects of the omen. Also interesting their significance in its context, which may even contradict the
is the custom of describing a king as having characteristics of various significance they brought to it. Investigating the background to the chapter
animals. In the Hellenistic period, on his coins Alexander wears a may chiefly help to draw attention to what is different about Daniel 7
headpiece much like an elephant head, Antiochus III uses the elephant as a itself; this process may enable us to perceive important aspects of the
state emblem, and Hellenistic monarchs generally are often pictured as chapter even if the hypotheses that lead to these perceptions turn out to be
possessing horns, a common Semitic symbol for power: all this may lie mistaken. Thus, the framework of intertextuality may contribute more than
behind the figure of the 4th animal. It is possible to link characteristics of the framework of background and development to the utilization of
individual creatures to those of empires they represent: for instance, the comparisons. The intertextual relationship between Daniel and the Middle
Medes might be seen as fierce and destructive (v. 5; Isaiah 13:17–18), Eastern texts is the kind of relationship that issues from readers putting
 301

texts together that may have had no direct link rather than the kind that Starting with vv. 1–3, we read: “In the first year of the reign of King
issued from one author directly relating to the work of another. For us as Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel dreamed a dream, receiving visions in his
readers, putting the texts alongside each other helps us to see the mind while in bed, after which he recorded the dream, relating this
significance of the texts. Thus, in Enuma Elish, the winds restrain the sea summary of events. Daniel said, ‘I observed the vision during the night.
and its monsters; here they churn it up and generate the sea monsters. In The four winds of the skies were stirring up the Mediterranean Sea, and
Ezekiel 1 the animals support God’s throne and serve his kingship; here four magnificent animals rose from the sea, each different from the other.”
they serve themselves and are judged. In Psalm 2 the one enthroned is an
actual king, whose people are unmentioned; here the bestowing of God’s The vision given to Daniel is dated to the 1st year of King Belshazzar.
rule is projected onto the future, and the one on whom it is bestowed Although Belshazzar’s historicity was questioned by earlier scholars, the
explicitly represents a people; the dethronement of evil belongs not to the discovery of documents about Nabonidus has confirmed that Belshazzar
beginning or to ever–repeated events in history but to the End. was his first–born son [recall Daniel 5:1]. Furthermore, the so–called
Nevertheless, the sea and the animals stand here not for otherworldly Verse Account of Nabonidus [first made available in 1924] provided firm
cosmic or cosmogonic forces of disorder but for historical ones; yet the evidence that Nabonidus appointed Belshazzar as his co–regent: “when the
animals stand not for forces ruling through all history, as in 1 Enoch, but 3rd year was about to begin—he [Nabonidus] entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his
only for the rulers of the 2nd Temple period. Whereas Marduk fought and oldest son, the first–born [Belshazzar], the troops everywhere in the
killed the beasts, as does the humanlike figure in 2 Esdras, here there is no country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted
battle—all is determined by the word of God; the difference compares with the kingship to him and, himself, he started out for a long journey.”
that between Genesis 1 and earlier myths. The humanlike figure has no
explicit connection with creation, nor does he undergo suffering, or Thus, since Nabonidus began to rule in 556 b.c., his 3rd year was 553 b.c.,
enter into conflict with the senior figure, or die, as Baal is commonly which was also the 1st year of Belshazzar’s reign, and God chose the outset
held to have done. Despite the presence of the temple theme in Enuma of Belshazzar’s reign to grant the vision to Daniel, since it would be at the
Elish, it is striking that Daniel 7 makes no mention of the temple.” end of his reign that the predicted judgment upon Babylon would fall, and
the Medo–Persian Empire would take its place. Notice that the visions
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] likewise concludes: “The appeared to Daniel at night in his dreams seeing “the four winds of the
overall ambience of the imagery in this chapter is best considered as skies were stirring up the Mediterranean Sea.” These “four winds of the
arising from the imagery of the Old Testament, although a polemical note skies” represent the various points of the compass, and the agitation of the
is sounded here, for Daniel’s God overcomes, controls, and destroys the sea also comes from all directions [Jeremiah 49:36; Ezekiel 37:9;
beasts produced by the great sea (Tiamat) and the winds that created Zechariah 2:6]. However, the Aramaic rûḥ [for “winds”] can also mean
them. The implication for the origin of Daniel 7 is that the images likely “spirits.” So, although the imagery is indeed of “four winds,” the
arose from a Jew in the eastern dispersion of Mesopotamia (COS flexibility of the term itself indicates that angelic beings are behind this
2.122A:309), rather than in the Hellenistic culture of Palestine. agitation of the sea [notice the use of rûḥôṯ in Zechariah 6:5]. Furthermore,
Whatever extra–biblical sources may have been drawn on was made to the Aramaic yammāʾ rabbāʾ [for “Mediterranean Sea”] is equivalent to the
serve the purposes of the author. The Mischwesen (composite beings in art Hebrew hayyāmmâ haggāḏôl for that sea [Numbers 34:6; Joshua 15:12].
and architecture and misshapen births depicted in the Summa Izbu omen Thus, the proximity of the “Mediterranean Sea” to Israel suggests that the
texts) present another ancient parallel to the images in Daniel 7. Through troubled waters are impacting the covenant nation! However, some
this powerful culturally relevant imagery of the ancient Near East, God scholars argue that this is unlikely since it is obvious that three kingdoms
communicated through Daniel, tying his new revelation to the unfolding associated with the beasts are not located near the “Mediterranean Sea.”
revelation of the Old Testament.”
 302

Heather Macumber [21st century biblical scholar] says: “Ancient writers waters that is found throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 65:8; 89:10).
also saw the edges of the world as dangerous and rife with creatures that Moreover, the reference in this fragment to the books of wisdom being
threaten humanity. In the Gilgamesh Epic, Gilgamesh travels from his opened and the people’s inability to understand them suggest an
home in Uruk to the distant land of Utnapištim. On this journey he must apocalyptic setting as is found in Daniel 7. Thus, the use of ‘great sea’ in
cross Mount Mašu inhabited by the scorpion men. The 9th century BCE 4Q541 7.3 provides an example comparable to Daniel 7 where the
Babylonian Map of the World describes the various monsters that inhabit cosmic sea is in mind rather than the Mediterranean Sea. In the ancient
the ocean encircling the known world. These include among other beasts: world, the earth was commonly portrayed as a disc surrounded and
‘ruined gods’ (line 4), bašmu ‘viper’ and mušhuššu rab ‘great sea– supported by a cosmic sea that constitutes the boundary of the known
serpent’ (lines 5–9). Monsters in ancient Greek myths typically were world (Genesis 1:9–10; Psalm 72:8; Proverbs 8:27; Job 26:10). It is a
driven out or withdrew to more removed locations such as caves, place where humans rarely frequent and where cosmic activity occurs. In
mountains, seas, and rivers. This theme is not relegated to the ancient both Mesopotamian and Greek traditions, sea monsters were said to
Near Eastern or Greek traditions as one also finds it among the Cherokee. inhabitant these waters and are pictured in chaotic terms that must be
They describe a snake–like creature with horns called the uktena that lives conquered for the proper ordering of the universe. This image of a chaotic
in the mountains and in the deepest rivers on the edge of the Cherokee sea is found in numerous places in the Old Testament and is likely
world. A similar theme is present in the biblical material which features Ugaritic in origin. The author of Daniel 7 immediately establishes the
its own share of monsters relegated to peripheral locations. In Daniel 7, natural abode of the beasts as belonging to the marginal and chaotic
it is the chaotic sea where the dragon is found, but elsewhere it is the spaces outside Jerusalem. The narrative of Daniel 7 is made even more
wilderness or desert that harbours beasts and monsters. The primordial or terrifying when the reader realizes that the beasts are not relegated to the
chaotic sea on the outskirts of the land is the habitation of various chaos cosmic sea, but have taken control over not only the city but the temple.”
monsters known as Leviathan, Rahab, or the serpent (Psalm 74:13–14;
89:9–10; Isaiah 27:1; 51:9–10). In other peripheral locations like the John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “Talk of four
wilderness one finds references to wild and threatening beasts winds, heaving sea, and huge animals calls to mind mythic material from
(Deuteronomy 8:15; Isaiah 13:21; 34:14; Jeremiah 50:39; Psalm 74:14). Babylon and Canaan reflected in earlier parts of the Old Testament. For
Demons and harmful spirits are also located in the wilderness removed the mythic Sea, the Old Testament elsewhere uses the more general term
from human society (Leviticus 16:8–28; Isaiah 13:21; 34:14). This sense ‘the sea’ (Isaiah 5:30; 27:1; Jeremiah 51:42; Psalm 74:13; 89:9; Job
of unfamiliar and liminal space is at work in Daniel’s vision of the strange 26:12; Revelation 21:1) or ‘the Great Deep’ (Genesis 7:11; Isaiah 51:10;
beasts rising from a chaotic sea. It is not always clear if these visions are Amos 7:4). The ‘Great Sea’ is a standard title for the Mediterranean, but
in fact located on an earthly sphere or in a liminal cosmic boundary. A this vision trades on both possible significances: the Mediterranean
curious mixture of earthly and cosmic elements are combined which gives becomes a symbol for the tumultuous mythic sea.”
the sense of an otherworldly nature. In Daniel 7 the sea is stirred by the
great winds from which emerge strange beasts. The only description we Furthermore, the agitation of the sea reflects the turmoil going on among
have of this sea is that it is the ‘great sea.’ Although this term might be the nations [Isaiah 17:12–13; Jeremiah 46:7–8]. Thus, this imagery
interpreted as the Mediterranean Sea, this is unlikely since three of the suggests God’s providential action through his divine council members
four kingdoms associated with the beasts are not located near it. Andrew arousing the chaotic nations of the world in such a way as to impact Israel
Angel has pointed to the existence of the same term in the Qumran [Revelation 7:1; 9:14–15]. So, four beasts are said to arise from this “sea”
fragment 4Q541 7.3 that refers to the cosmic sea rather than the but are also said to arise “from the earth” [later in v. 17]. In other words,
Mediterranean. He points out that the description in 4Q541 of this sea the sea merely depicts the chaotic scene from which these Gentile nations
being silenced is a reference to the divine warrior that conquers the chaos arise, but the truth is that they are clearly earthly empires.
 303

Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “Up to these words the blessed to the Persians. And when the Macedonians in turn obtained the sceptre,
Daniel has written his prophecy more in the style of a historian. First, all brought to them twice the usual tribute, except for those to whom they
remember at the beginning he related what happened to those captured in had been previously obedient. And when the Romans acquired command
war, and he adds how God, the author of all, was greatly concerned about over all nations, everyone rushed to the west and thought nothing of the
these matters. Then he tells how Nebuchadnezzar paid the penalty for his Macedonians. And the Macedonians themselves were counted now as one
cruelty and arrogance and then how Belshazzar suffered for his of the conquered nations. Quite appropriately then he compares the
disrespectful use of the sacred vessels. Once the latter had been killed by a changes of the wind with the changes of regimes, since the winds drive
divine blow and his empire handed over to the Medes, Daniel went on to sailors now this way, now that way. Therefore, he mentioned the four
write those things that happened to himself and to Darius and explained winds, since there were four successions of kingdoms. But he teaches us
how it was that Darius favoured him, what sorts of plots Daniel had to in what manner the beasts differ among themselves. But the prophet, full of
endure at the hands of the generals and satraps, and how he was delivered disdain for these various metals, sees ‘four’ beasts. From those four beasts
from their hands by divine aid. Having expounded these things in a he understands that those four formidable kingdoms, which will strike fear
historian’s fashion, now Daniel begins to expound those predictions that into all people, will at last have an end, but there will be only one
he had learned through revelations. First he sets forth the revelation of the kingdom that will remain for all time without any end, namely, the
four beasts, quite similar to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. However, kingdom that God has prepared for his saints [Daniel 2:44].”
Daniel sees the fourfold content manifested in only one image, while
Nebuchadnezzar saw four beasts ascending from the one sea. But lest John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] concludes: “The use of
anyone think that we are forced to say the same things again, let us turn to animal symbols already suggests that it is the history of nations that
interpret the individual elements of the prophecy, where this truth will be unfolds before us; specifically, the animals signify the kings who rule the
openly demonstrated. For his part, Nebuchadnezzar sees the image, nations (v. 17). Israelite clans were symbolized by animals such as ox,
drawing a lesson in the futility of things of this life and the fact that they lion, and wolf (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33), modern nations are
are appearances, as the divine apostle asserts, and not realities, there is symbolized by eagle, bear, bull, and springbok, and modern tribal
nothing lasting or stable in them, everything fluid and failing and fading societies use the same symbolism. None of this symbolism implies there is
[1 Corinthians 7:31]. Daniel, by contrast, is gazing at a sea, gaining a anything ‘bestial’ about the nations’ character or behaviour. But the
lesson in the haze of the present life. After all, when a prisoner of war is unfolding vision will picture something higher than the animal as the
compelled to see a foreign land, he fittingly learns to recognize the storms nations’ destiny, aspiration, and successor (vv. 4, 8, 13). If the animals
and tempests of life. And since the king too was haughty because of his stand for the totality of the nations, their origin both in the initiative of the
silver, bronze, and iron, he is given the mysteries concerning the kingdoms heavens and in the turmoil of the deep suggests something of their
through a statue composed of the very same materials [Daniel 2:31–45]. ambiguity. It is they that embody the disorder of the formless deep, its
In this way he perceives the successions of kings and is admonished lest he energy uncontrolled by any desire to serve God or humanity. Evil is not a
be removed because of a kingdom liable to swift and sudden change. He unity. Modern nations symbolized by animals, such as the ones listed
calls life ‘the sea’ since it has those countless and great storms; he calls above, also stand under both these signs, as do international entities
the changes of regimes ‘winds,’ since they act against the very onslaught. such as the European Community, the United Nations, and NATO.”
For just as the streams rush to the north whenever the south wind blows
and the wind is driven southward again when the north wind stirs up the Next in v. 4, we read: “The first resembled a lion, but it had eagle’s wings.
sea, so when the Assyrians obtained dominion over the whole world, they I continued to watch until its wings were plucked off, it was lifted up off the
drew all their conquered people to their land; but when the kingdom was ground, and it was forced to stand on two feet like a man. A human soul
handed over to the Persians, there was also a confluence of their subjects was imparted to it.”
 304

and there is a fragmentary cuneiform text [BM 33041] that indicates he did
around 568 b.c., although the fragmentary nature of this text means
conclusions must be tentative, because although some scholars believe that
BM 33041 does refer to Babylon’s invasion of Egypt, other scholars argue
that BM 33041 speaks of foreign mercenaries and has nothing to do with
an invasion of Egypt in 568 b.c. Nevertheless, Nebuchadnezzar carved out
a kingdom that stretched from Egypt in the south–west through Syro–
Palestine to Cilicia, Pirindu, and Lydia in the north–west and extended
southeast to Elam. However, despite its grandeur and majesty, what
follows is God’s judgment on Nebuchadnezzar, and God’s sovereign
working in Babylonian history, and God’s grace in view of
Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance. Thus, its “wings were plucked off,”
Since each beast represented a king/kingdom [later in vv. 17, 23], we need symbolizing Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation and falling into madness
to parallel these four beasts with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a statue laid [recall Daniel 4:16], not Babylon’s defeat by Medo–Persia, because Daniel
with four successive materials representing four successive kingdoms says that “it was lifted up off the ground” after the plucking. In other
[recall Daniel 2]. Thus, by comparing the statue’s head of gold [recall words, his hair grew like eagle’s feathers and his nails grew like bird’s
Daniel 2:37–38], this 1st beast “resembled a lion” with “eagle’s wings,” claws [recall Daniel 4:33], but God humbled Nebuchadnezzar when he
features that also symbolized the Neo–Babylonian Empire, especially the “was forced to stand on two feet like a man” and then “a human soul was
processional way [after entering the Ishtar Gate] that was ornamented with imparted” into him. This depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration, once he
~120 lions in glazed–brick iconography [symbols of the goddess Ishtar]. recognized that heaven rules [recall Daniel 4:34–37]. He went from being
So, this lion–eagle imagery represented Nebuchadnezzar and his predatory animal–like to human–like, because he rightly saw himself as a mere
fierceness, and Babylon was symbolized with these features elsewhere as a human, and correctly understood that it was God’s kingdom that eternally
lion [Jeremiah 4:7; 49:19, 22; 50:17, 44] and an eagle [Deuteronomy mattered, not his own kingdom. Also, notice that this vision was after
28:49; 2 Samuel 1:23; Jeremiah 4:13; 48:40; 49:22; Lamentations 4:19; Nebuchadnezzar’s death by portraying history, not predicting the future.
Ezekiel 17:2–3, 12; Habakkuk 1:8]. This is because Nebuchadnezzar’s
eagle–like conquests include his routing of the Egyptian army at Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “Now since these things, spoken as they are
Carchemish in 605 b.c. just before he was declared king. This led with a mystical meaning, may seem to some hard to understand, we shall
immediately to Babylon’s seizing the region of Hamath, Riblah, and the keep back nothing fitted to impart an intelligent apprehension of them to
conquest of Syro–Palestine, an event that resulted in Daniel and his those who are possessed of a sound mind. He said, then, that a ‘lioness
companions going into exile [recall Daniel 1:1–6]. Nebuchadnezzar also came up from the sea,’ and by that he meant the kingdom of the
besieged Tyre for 13 years that began as early as 603 b.c., and by Babylonians in the world, which also was the head of gold on the image.
Nebuchadnezzar’s 40th year, Tyre had a Babylonian governor. In saying that it ‘had wings as of an eagle,’ he meant that Nebuchadnezzar
Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem two more times, once in 598/597 b.c., the king was lifted up and was exalted against God. Then he says ‘the
at which time Jehoiachin was taken into Babylonian exile [2 Kings 24:16], wings were plucked,’ that is to say, his glory was destroyed; for he was
and again in 588 b.c. [2 Kings 25:1], leading to the destruction of driven out of his kingdom. And the words ‘a man’s heart was given to it,
Jerusalem and the end of its monarchy in August of 587/586 b.c. and it was made to stand on the feet as a man,’ refer to the fact that he
Nebuchadnezzar also controlled Que [Cilicia] by 585 b.c. Jeremiah repented and recognized himself to be a man and gave the glory to God.”
predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would strike Egypt [Jeremiah 43:8–13],
 305

Jerome [4th century] likewise says: “The kingdom of the Babylonians was This bear–like creature refers to the Syrian brown bear, and most critical
not called a lion but a lioness, on account of its brutality and cruelty, or scholars argue that this 2nd beast symbolized the Medes as distinct from the
else because of its luxurious, lust–serving manner of life. For writers on Persians. However, historically the Medes did not conquer Babylon or in
the natural history of beasts assert that lionesses are fiercer than lions, any sense succeed Babylon. In fact, Daniel treats Medo–Persia as a single
especially if they are nursing their cubs, and constantly are passionate in entity. Thus, this bear–like creature symbolized the strength and fierceness
their desire for sexual relations. And as for the fact that she possessed of Medo–Persia that under Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 b.c. and took
eagle’s wings, this indicates the pride of the all–powerful kingdom, the over its kingdom. Also, for it to be “raised up on one side,” while a
ruler of which declares in Isaiah, ‘Above the stars of heaven I will place threatening posture, was probably like the two–horned ram in which one
my throne, and I shall be like unto the Most High’ [Isaiah 14:13]. horn was longer than the other [later in Daniel 8:3], and in both cases the
Therefore he is told, ‘Though you are borne on high like an eagle, from united Media and Persia empire is portrayed in a way showing Persia as
there I will drag you down’ [Obadiah 4]. Moreover, just as the lion the more prominent partner over Media [later in Daniel 8:20].
occupies kingly rank among beasts, so also the eagle among the birds. But Furthermore, for it to “devour lots of meat” indicates the predatory nature
it should also be said that the eagle enjoys a long span of life and that the of this beast. The “three ribs” could represent no more than the various
kingdom of Assyrians had held sway for many generations. And as for the victims of Persia’s insatiable appetite for conquest, although some scholars
fact that the wings of the lioness or eagle were torn away, this signifies the look for three specific conquests, either as a reference to Cyrus conquering
other kingdoms over which it had ruled and soared about in the world.” the Persians, the Medes, and the Babylonians; or a reference to Persia
[east], Egypt by Cambyses [south], and the Scythians [north]; or three
Ephrem the Syrian [4th century] concludes: “This beast obviously specific conquests of Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt, because of:
represents the kingdom of the Babylonians. The present vision of Daniel
perfectly fits in with the already mentioned dream of Nebuchadnezzar, who 1. Cyrus’ conquest of Lydia and its wealthy king Croesus in Asia
saw a statue, and it forms a single and same prophecy with it. Indeed, as Minor [546 b.c.] was an event that sent a shockwave throughout
the Babylonian kingdom, in that dream, was compared with gold, which is the ancient Near East, equivalent to the fall of Nineveh in 614 b.c.
the noblest among metals, here it is described as a lion, which is the
strongest of all beasts, and an eagle, which is of the highest 2. Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon [539 b.c.] was a key event for Jews.
perniciousness among birds.”
3. Cambyses’ conquest of Egypt [525–522 b.c.] was the last of
Next in v. 5, we read: “Then look!—a second animal resembling a bear Persia’s major conquests.
followed it. It was raised up on one side, with three ribs held between the
teeth in its mouth. People kept telling it, ‘Get up and devour lots of meat!’” Thus, eating “lots of meat” symbolizes Medo–Persia’s swallowing up
various peoples, and Persia was given divine permission for its conquest of
Babylon [Isaiah 13:17–19; 43:1–3; Jeremiah 51:11, 28]. Thus, unlike the
4th beast, this 2nd beast was under God’s control, because God allowed the
Babylonian Empire to be ruled by foreign kings after Nebuchadnezzar,
until finally she was conquered in 539 b.c. by the combined forces of the
Medes and Persians. Thus, this bear–like creature was Medo–Persia,
despite critical scholars denying this interpretation, preferring to interpret
this 2nd beast as only Media, with the 3rd beast representing Persia.
 306

Nevertheless, the evidence extensively favours the Medo–Persian view: Thus, the “three ribs held between the teeth in its mouth” signified three
crucial conquests that helped solidify the power of the Medo–Persian
1. Daniel predicted that Babylon would be replaced by the Medes and kingdom, and the “three ribs” are clearly identified specifically as Lydia in
the Persians, not merely the Medes [recall Daniel 5:28]. western Asia Minor [546 b.c.], Babylon [539 b.c.], and Egypt by
Cambyses [525 b.c.]. Thus, since Lydia at that time controlled western
2. The reference to the “laws of the Medes and Persians” [recall Asia Minor [including significant cities like Ephesus and Sardis], it had
Daniel 6:8, 12, 15] views these two peoples as forming one empire. abundant gold reserves, and this formed a natural buffer with the Greek
and Macedonian realms, which was obviously a strategic position
3. Media and Persia was viewed as one power under the figure of a militarily for the Medes and Persians.
two–horned ram [later in Daniel 8:3, 20].
Jerome [4th century] says: “The 2nd beast resembling a bear is the same as
4. The kingdom that followed Medo–Persia was Greece as a goat that of which we read in the vision of the statue, ‘His chest and arms were
[later in Daniel 8], and its four horns paralleled the four heads of of silver’ [Daniel 2:32]. In the former case the comparison was based on
the 3rd beast, confirming that the goat was Greece, not Persia. the hardness of the metal, in this case on the ferocity of the bear. For the
Persian kingdom followed a rigorous and frugal manner of life after the
5. Critical scholars leave Rome out of the interpretation so that they manner of the Spartans, and that too to such an extent that they used to
do not need to admit predictive prophecy! Nevertheless, they face use salt and nasturtium cress in their relish.”
the dilemma that Rome “will destroy both the city and the
Sanctuary” [later in Daniel 9:26], which was Jerusalem in 70 a.d. Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] likewise says: “Here he indicates
the Persian kingdom, which he states to have been like a bear because of
6. Since Darius was a Mede [recall Daniel 5:31], this does not the cruelty and savageness of the punishments it meted out. For the
establish that the empire that follows Babylon was only Media, Persians were the cruellest of all the barbarians when it came to
because the Medes and the Persians had combined their armies in punishing. They would rip out the very hearts of offenders, or they would
several military endeavours prior to and including that of 539 b.c. contrive long tortures in which they would sever the guilty limb by limb.
They were always inflicting a harsh death on whomever they punished.
7. The details of Daniel 7 do not favour the critical scholars, because The Persians ruled three parts of the world: the east, the north, and the
the fact that the 3rd beast is a leopard [later in v. 6], it implies south. Cyrus brought into submission all the east, as far as the Hellespont.
swiftness, and this characterizes the campaign of Alexander the His son subdued Egypt and made the Ethiopians subject to him. Darius
Great more than Persia. Likewise the 10 horns connected with the acquired the realm of the nomadic Scythians, to whom it had been destined
4th beast are difficult to reconcile with the political leaders to inhabit the northern realms, and Xerxes the son of Darius tried to join
following Alexander or with the Seleucid dynasty. Europe under his rule. But he was defeated by the Athenians in a naval
battle and had to return home in shame. He realized that the defeat had
In summary, notice that Medo–Persia was not depicted literally as a bear. been caused by his insatiable greed. Therefore Daniel says, ‘Three wings
Instead, this 2nd beast had the function of “resembling” a bear by were in its mouth.’ Some manuscripts read ‘ribs,’ but it really does not
highlighting its appetite. In other words, this 2nd beast was powerful and make any difference. Whether three ribs or three wings are placed in its
ferocious like a bear [Isaiah 13:17–18], but was less majestic, less swift, mouth, it teaches that the Persian Empire harvested the fruits of three
and less glorious. The Persian Empire was never content with its huge parts of the world and took tribute from everywhere, and he rightly stated
domain, and its appetite for conquest led her into conflicts with Greece. ‘in its mouth’ to show the tribute that would be paid by all to it.”
 307

Next in v. 6, we read: “After this, I continued to watch—and look!—there Still others see the “four heads” as a symbol of universal totality, or as
was another one, resembling a leopard with four birds’ wings on its back. looking in all four directions to attack. Nevertheless, that “authority was
The animal also had four heads, and authority was imparted to it.” imparted to it” implies God allowed this beast’s sovereignty for a time.

This 3rd beast is like a In summary, in contrast to Babylon, the Medo–Persian Empire lasted
“leopard” [or a much longer [just over ~200 years]. This 3rd beast represents the Grecian
“panther”], known for empire founded by Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic kingdoms that
its spots [Jeremiah resulted from the breakup of his empire. The animosity between Greece
13:23], hill country and Persia had been fomenting for many years. As early as the reign of
and mountainous Darius the Great [522–486 b.c.], trouble between the two erupted. The
habitat [Songs 4:8], cities of Ionia [present–day western Turkey] revolted against Persia, and
predatory stalking and this was thought to be at the encouragement and participation of the
ripping of its prey Athenians. This in turn led to Persian expeditions against Greece in 492
[Hosea 13:7; Jeremiah b.c. and again in 490 b.c. The latter resulted in the Battle of Marathon in
5:6], and fast speed 490 b.c., in which a much smaller Athenian army routed the Persian
[Habakkuk 1:8]. Thus, forces. Following the death of Darius in 486 b.c., his son Xerxes [the
this 3rd beast biblical Ahasuerus] came to the throne [485–465 b.c.]. Then in the early
represents the Greek fall of 480 b.c., Xerxes brought a huge army and naval force against
kingdom of Alexander Greece to avenge the humiliation suffered earlier at Marathon. Although
the Great, who the invasion brought extensive suffering and misery to Greece, it was not a
conquered the Medo– Persian victory at all, even though the Persians burned and destroyed
Persian Empire in Athens itself in 480 b.c. The navy of Xerxes was smashed before his very
334–331 b.c. Notice eyes at Salamis [west of Athens]. Likewise, his army was blocked by the
that the “four wings” Spartans at the pass of Thermopylae and then was defeated in 479 b.c. at
represents his rapid Plataea [northwest of Athens]. Although Xerxes was able to keep his army
speed of conquest. In intact, he returned home without the victory he set out to achieve. As a
other words, in 335– result of these hostilities, the Greeks never forgave the Persians. This
323 b.c., he conquered Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Persia, and invaded long–standing animosity helped provoke Alexander the Great to invade
India! Likewise its “four heads” has been taken to refer to the breakup of Persia many years later. Thus, because this 3rd beast was seen as
his kingdom among his generals, their sons, and/or his other colleagues. “resembling a leopard with four birds’ wings on its back,” this
There is more than one interpretation of exactly how to apply this emphatically underscores the tremendous speed by which Alexander
approach. Some scholars take the four divisions to be among Ptolemy, carried out his conquest of the Persian Empire. In 336 b.c., at 20 years old,
Selecus, Philip Arridaeusan [Alexander’s illegitimate brother who was he took the throne of Macedon. In 334 b.c., he set out to conquer Persia.
proclaimed king upon Alexander’s death but never exercised genuine Following an initial defeat of the Persian army at the Battle of Issus in 333
power], and Antigonus [who preceded Selucus in ruling the eastern part of b.c., Alexander was able to advance southward and lay claim to Egypt. By
Alexander’s empire]. Other scholars see the “four heads” as the eventual 331 b.c., he achieved a decisive victory over the Persians at the Battle of
division of Alexander’s kingdom into roughly four parts after a Arbela. In the aftermath, he burned Persepolis in retaliation for the
complicated period of civil war. Persians having burned Athens in 480 b.c.
 308

Thus, this map demonstrates how Alexander had conquered all of Persia in So, in 323 b.c., these were the chief provinces of his empire:
~4 years, which was an empire that had taken centuries to build:

Then, in 311 b.c., these were the principal territories of his empire:
1. Crossing into Asia; conquest of western Asia Minor in 334 b.c.
2. Battle of Issus; conquest of Syria in 333 b.c.
3. Submission of Palestine; conquest of Egypt in 332 b.c.
4. Battle of Arbela; conquest of Babylon, Susa, Persepolis in 331 b.c.
5. Pursuit of Darius; advance through Parthia toward Aria in 332 b.c.
6. Advance north through Bactria and to the Jaxartes in 329 b.c.
7. Campaigns to subdue Sogdiana in 328 b.c.
8. Marriage to Roxana in Sogdiana; advance to India in 327 b.c.
9. Crossing of Indus and conquest of northwest India in 326 b.c.
10. Journey to Indus delta and Indian Ocean in 325 b.c.
11. Return to Susa; attempts at organization in 324 b.c.
12. Return to Babylon; death of Alexander at 33 years old in 323 b.c.

So, since this 3rd beast is said to have had “four heads,” this looks at the
division of Alexander’s kingdom into four parts following his untimely
death in Babylon, which means his taste of victory was short–lived. Thus,
a long struggle ensued as to who would reign in Alexander’s place.
 309

During this time his infant son was murdered, which led to rivalry for Then the Seleucids lost everything except Syria, and prior to the time of
power, and after Cassander’s overthrow of Antigonus at the Battle of Ipsus Jesus, these three Hellenistic kingdoms [Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt]
in 301 b.c., Alexander’s kingdom was distributed to four of his generals: each successively became a Roman province:

1. Lysimachus: Thrace and Bithynia [much of Asia Minor].

2. Cassander: Macedonia and Greece.
3. Seleucus: Syria, Babylonia, and the lands to the east.
4. Ptolemy: Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea.

Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “In mentioning the leopard, he means the
kingdom of the Greeks, over whom Alexander of Macedon was king, and
he likened them to a leopard, because they were quick and inventive in
Then, finally in 280 b.c., there were three principal kingdoms of his thought and bitter in heart, just as that animal is many–coloured in
empire. In other words, after Seleucus defeated and killed Lysimachus in appearance and quick in wounding and in drinking human blood.”
281 b.c., there remained three great Hellenistic kingdoms dominating the
ancient Near East: Macedonia, the Seleucid empire [Syria], and Egypt. Jerome [4th century] concludes: “It had ‘four’ wings. There was never,
Macedonia, previously taken by Lysimachus, did not fall to Seleucus; he after all, any victory won more quickly than Alexander’s, for he traversed
was killed in 280 b.c. before he could take it over. But it soon afterward all the way from Illyricum and the Adriatic Sea to the Indian Ocean and
fell to Antigonus, son of Demetrius, and then was held by the Antigonid the Ganges River, not merely fighting battles but winning decisive
line of kings. For some years large parts of Asia Minor were ruled by the victories; and in 6 years he subjugated to his rule a portion of Europe
Seleucid kings, although immediately after the death of Lysimachus, the and all of Asia. Thus, by the ‘four heads’ reference is made to his
invading Gauls overran part of it, and other fragments fell away, and the generals: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus, and ‘power was given
territory of Lysimachus eventually became a welter of small states, to it’ shows that the empire did not result from Alexander’s bravery but
including Pergamum. from the will of God.”
 310

Finally in vv. 7–8, we read: “After this, I continued to observe the night iron teeth” connects this 4th beast with the 4th kingdom in
visions. And look!—there was a fourth awe–inspiring, terrifying, and Nebuchadnezzar’s dream represented by iron legs with feet of iron mixed
viciously strong animal! It had large, iron teeth. It devoured and crushed with clay [recall Daniel 2:33, 40–43]. There iron symbolized strength and
things, and trampled under its feet whatever remained. Different from all destructive power, but here the iron–teeth imagery suggests fierce
of the other previous animals, it had ten horns. While I was thinking about predatory behaviour, as was the case in Rome’s conquests, gladiator fights,
the horns—look—another horn, this time a little one, grew up among them. and crucifixion practices. Rome was, to be sure, a dominant power that
Three of the first horns were yanked up by their roots right in front of it. ripped, pulverized, and smashed the world. So, while each beast is unique
Look! It had eyes like those of a human being and a mouth that boasted [v. 3], this 4th beast was “different” in that it is not likened to a known
with audacious claims.” beast [lion, bear, or leopard]. It is beyond earthly analogy, incomparably
fiercer than the previous beasts, and less subject to God’s control than they
are. So, the fact that it is “different” is one reason not to identify this 4th
beast as only about Rome, since Rome was not significantly different from
previous empires to justify putting it in a category of its own. Instead, it is
best to see it as Rome–and–beyond kingdom in the eschatological future.

This final 4th beast is obviously the most prominent and dreadful of all.
Since Rome succeeded Greece as the power over Palestine, Rome was
traditionally the preliminary identification of this 4th beast. However,
critical scholars have attempted to make the 4th kingdom the successors of
Alexander, but that their kingdoms are merely fragmented continuations of
Alexander’s Greek kingdom and cannot count as a new kingdom on par
with those of Babylon, Medo–Persia, or Alexander. They also argue that
identification with Rome is problematic because the destruction of this 4th
beast is eschatological [later in v. 13], and obviously the Roman Empire
has long since ceased to exist! Furthermore, it makes no sense to say that
the Roman culture lives in Western Culture or continued in the Austrian
Hapsburg’s Holy Roman Empire [which was neither holy nor Roman].
Likewise, although John uses Roman imagery in conjunction with this 4th
beast [Revelation 17:9], this mostly reflects his cultural setting and
audience. So, to speak of a future revived Roman Empire is special
pleading. Nevertheless, this problem can be resolved by understanding this Also, the “ten horns” are called kings [later in v. 24], and horns on animals
4th beast to be something more than Rome. In other words, it is a future were often used aggressively against perceived enemies, metaphorically
eschatological kingdom that resembles Rome. This is why John used representing power and conquest [Deuteronomy 33:17; Zechariah 1:19],
Roman imagery for it, which means Rome was a prototype of what this while broken–off horns represented weakness and defeat [Jeremiah 48:25].
terrifying eschatological kingdom will be like. So, this 4th beast can be So, the “little” horn is identified as another king who will subdue 3 out of
viewed as a type of Rome–and–beyond, because the mention of “large, 10 kings [later in v. 24]. It is called “little” to denigrate this king.
 311

In summary, this 4th beast was the Roman Empire, especially since the from one of them” [later in Daniel 8:9], because this involved
Jewish midrashim lists the four kingdoms as Babylon, Persia, Greece, and an extensive time lapse between Seleucus I in 312–280 b.c.,
Rome. In contrast to Greece, which acquired its power rapidly under and Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 175–164 b.c. [identified as the
Alexander, the Roman Empire acquired dominion gradually, from Rome’s “insignificant horn”]. Another time gap is in the 70 weeks
victory over Carthage in 241 b.c., until the height of its power in 117 a.d. prophecy [later in Daniel 9:24–27], that the 1st and 2nd coming
Alexander conquered by the rapidity of his troop movements, whereas of Jesus involves an unknown period of time [Isaiah 61:1–2].
Rome conquered by the ruthless crushing of other peoples: “it devoured
and crushed things, and trampled under its feet whatever remained.” d) Despite the fact that this 4th beast has the additional features of
Furthermore, in 64/63 b.c., Pompey conquered Syria and Palestine, the 10 horns and the “little” horn [with a time gap involved],
bringing these biblical lands into the folds of Rome. Thus, several there is a strong connection between the historic Roman
important observations should be made concerning this 4th beast: Empire and the eventual fulfilment in the tribulation. This is
because Daniel refers to this as one beast [vv. 3, 17], and the 10
1. This kingdom is differentiated from the previous three since it is kings arise “from this kingdom” [v. 24], which indicates the
not likened to any specific animal, but is simply described as being geopolitical realm as the source from which the 10 kings arise.
“awe–inspiring, terrifying, and viciously strong.” There is no This means the future phase of this 4th beast [involving the 10
animal fierce enough to portray this kingdom. Also, its uniqueness kings and the “little” horn] will arise out of the territories
calls attention to the emphatic role it plays here, since this final and/or political spheres that once constituted the Roman
beast stands out due to its lack of name and specific corporality that Empire. Since the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem in 70 a.d.,
hinders one’s abilities to classify and identify it. the “coming commander” [later in Daniel 9:26] arises from
Rome [meaning the “little” horn = the “coming commander”].
2. This kingdom comes successively since its 10 horns arise after the
4th beast, and the “little” horn arises after the horns [later in v. 24]. Furthermore, what intrigued Daniel about this 4th beast were the horns that
made this 4th beast different from the preceding three beasts. A “horn” was
3. This kingdom had both a past and a future fulfilment: seen to be symbolic of power [1 Kings 22:11; Zechariah 1:18–21],
particularly the power of a reigning ruler [Psalm 132:17; Ezekiel 29:21].
a) It was the historic Roman Empire of the past through Thus, since the horns are clearly symbolic of kings [later in v. 24], there
paralleling the 4th part of the image in Daniel 2. For example, was a “little” horn that came up from among the 10 horns, but “three of the
notice that the element of iron is common to the 4th part of the first horns were yanked up by their roots right in front of it.” This imagery
image in Daniel 2 with this 4th beast that had large iron teeth. of uprooting denotes violent militaristic overthrow [Zephaniah 2:4]. So,
although the latter horn is described as “little,” this is not a true indication
b) John says that the 10 horns along with the “little” horn will of its power, or perhaps it was only applicable initially. Nevertheless, it
arise, being reserved for the tribulation [Revelation 13; 17; 19]. was “greater in appearance than its fellows” [later in v. 20]. So, this
“little” horn appears to be a symbol of the future antichrist that will arise in
c) Since the symbolism of this 4th beast has its fulfilment over a the tribulation prior to the return of Jesus in glory [later in vv. 19–25].
vast period of time, this means that there is a gap of time Although critical scholars view this “little” horn as a reference to
between the initial entry of this 4th beast and the final aspects Antiochus IV Epiphanes, traditionally it was understood to be the Roman
represented by the 10 horns and the “little” horn. This can be general Titus who destroyed the Temple in 70 a.d. Nevertheless,
compared to the 3rd beast’s “insignificant horn” that “emerged interpreting the 10 horns is affected by the perspective of the “little” horn.
 312

So, although some scholars take the 10 horns as 10 successive kings who about speed, we introduce the figure of the winds. Daniel says that the
ruled during the Seleucid period, this interpretation breaks down, since we winds rushed on the sea and the beasts emerged from the sea, for our
must make Antiochus IV Epiphanes both the “little” horn and the last of leaders partake of our nature. So he often calls a king ‘a lion,’ wishing to
the 10 horns! In other words, obviously Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not show its royal dignity and yet its feral nature. Or he does so because that
responsible for uprooting three other kings. Likewise, other scholars differ wind is an easterly one, this wind is a northerly one, and yet another is a
by taking the number 10 as a symbol of completeness, and they conclude southerly one. It is as if someone had said, ‘He overturns the sea; the
that it represents any number of kingdoms after the Roman Empire for an winds from the sky have stirred it up.’ Then he tells that the 4th beast
unknown duration of time before the 2nd coming of Jesus. Nevertheless, its would arrive in all sorts of different ways and nothing could be compared
“eyes like those of a human being” reflects not its mental ability, but the with it, it was so different. But at last it conquered all the other kingdoms.
prideful attitude that drives its actions [Isaiah 2:11; 5:15]. This parallels its The other empires all got their strength from the speed by which they
“mouth that boasted with audacious claims,” because Daniel will contrast conquered, but this beast would have its strength in its teeth, made of
this with the 2nd Power/Yahweh, because “his eyes were like flaming iron. ‘And he trampled the rest with his feet.’ He understands many wars.
torches” [later in Daniel 10:6; Revelation 1:14; 2:18] so that he is able to Who are the 10 kings? What is the little horn? I say that the antichrist will
see into the souls of men and rightfully judge them. So, despite having appear among a certain number of kings. ‘And in that horn were eyes like
enormous power and satanic energizing, the antichrist is really nothing the eyes of a human and a mouth boasting great things.’ What greater
more than a mere creature, and he will never be an equal match for Jesus, boast can be said with that mouth than this thing that is said, ‘He will
regardless if it has a mouth that speaks arrogant things [later in v. 11], or place himself above everything that is called God or divine, so much so
claims of divinity and demanding worship [later in Daniel 11:36; 2 that he will sit in the temple of God’ [2 Thessalonians 2:4]? Do not
Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 13:3–4]. marvel if he has the eyes of a human, even if he speaks such things. He
is a person. Why does the horn appear to be little and not big in the
Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] says: “When scripture beginning? It will grow after this time and will rule kingdoms. Why? No
wishes to expound on the kingdoms, it uses the metaphor of beasts. A kingdom will conquer this king, but God will abolish and destroy him.”
kingdom is an incorporeal object; therefore, some type of body has to be
ascribed to it, and was it not fitting to describe kingdoms as beasts? Most Jerome [4th century] likewise says: “The 4th empire is the Roman Empire,
certainly! For since the qualities of those kingdoms exist chiefly in those which now occupies the entire world. The Hebrews believe that the beast
beasts, so he found them useful. He wished to show fierce arrogance and that is here not named is the one spoken of in the Psalms: ‘A boar from the
luxury, and he made use of a lioness. He wished to show slowness, and he forest laid her waste, and a strange wild animal consumed her’ [Psalm
made use of a bear. He wished to show speed and briskness and such as 80:13]. Instead of this the Hebrews read, ‘All the beasts of the field have
would overthrow all empires by its wars; thus he introduced a leopard. torn her.’ While they are all included in the one empire of the Romans, we
Look how earlier he had seen a beautiful sea, which represented the whole recognize at the same time those kingdoms that were previously separate,
earth. For the world is filled with so many tumults and is stirred up in the and as for the next statement, ‘devouring and crushing and pounding all
same way that the sea is stirred up, although the sea is filled with fish, not the rest to pieces under his feet,’ this signifies that all nations have either
humans. Christ even declares this to be the case, namely, that the present been slain by the Romans or else have been subjected to tribute and
life is the sea, when he says, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet servitude. Porphyry assigned the last two beasts, that of the Macedonians
thrown into the sea, which brings together fish of every kind’ [Matthew and that of the Romans, to the one realm of the Macedonians and divided
13:47]. ‘And behold,’ Daniel says, ‘the four winds of the heavens rushed them up as follows. He claimed that the leopard was Alexander himself
on the great sea.’ He declares that those beasts then went forth from there, and that the beast that was dissimilar to the others represented the four
and so he shows the swiftness of divine providence. For when we talk successors of Alexander, and then he enumerates 10 kings up to the time of
 313

Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, and who were very cruel, and he did not Aphrahat [4th century] concludes: “Now the 4th beast has swallowed up the
assign the kings themselves to separate kingdoms, for example, Macedon, 3rd beast, and this 3rd beast consists of the children of Japhet, and the 4th
Syria, Asia, or Egypt, but rather he made out the various kingdoms a beast consists of the children of Shem, for they are the children of Esau.
single realm consisting of a series. This he did of course in order that the When Daniel saw the vision of the four beasts, he saw first the children of
words which were written: ‘a mouth uttering overweening boasts’ might Ham, the seed of Nimrod, which the Babylonians are; and second, the
be considered as spoken about Antiochus instead of about antichrist. We Persians and Medes, who are the children of Japhet; and third, the
should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the Greeks, the brothers of the Medes; and fourth, the children of Shem, which
commentators of the Christian church, that at the end of the world, when the children of Esau are. For a confederacy was formed between the
the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be 10 kings who will children of Japhet and the children of Shem. Then the government was
partition the Roman world among themselves. Then an insignificant 11th taken away from the children of Japhet, the younger, and was given to
king will arise, who will overcome 3 of the 10 kings, that is, the king of Shem, the elder; and to this day it continues and will continue forever. But
Egypt, the king of North Africa, and the king of Ethiopia. Then, after they when the time of the consummation of the dominion of the children of
have been slain, the 7 other kings also will bow their necks to the victor. Shem shall have come, the ruler, who came forth from the children of
‘And behold,’ he continues, ‘there were eyes similar to human eyes in that Judah, shall receive the kingdom, when he comes in his second advent.”
horn.’ Let us not follow the opinion of some commentators and suppose
him to be either the devil or some demon, but rather, one of the human 3) What was Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of Days? (7:9–14)
race, in whom Satan will wholly take up his residence in bodily form,
‘and a mouth uttering overweening boasts.’ For this is the man of sin, the Starting with vv. 9–10, we read: “I kept on watching until the Ancient of
son of perdition, and that also to such a degree that he dares to sit in the Days was seated. His clothes were white, like snow, and the hair on his
temple of God, making himself out to be like God.” head was like pure wool. His throne burned with flaming fire, and its
wheels burned with fire. A river of fire flowed out from before him.
Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] also says: “He calls the Roman Thousands upon thousands were serving him, with millions upon millions
Empire ‘the 4th beast,’ but he does not give it a name because the Roman waiting before him. The court sat in judgment, and books were unsealed.”
state was forged together from very many nations and so acquired
mastery over the whole world. First it was governed by kings, then by the The description of the night visions seen by Daniel now shifts to a
people, then by the aristocracy, and at last it returned to the first mode of heavenly setting where “the Ancient of Days was seated” in order to
government, monarchy. He states that this beast is ‘fearsome and very administer judgment. The Aramaic attîq yômîn [for “Ancient of Days”]
awe–inspiring,’ because this was the mightiest kingdom of all the other acts as a title, and this contrasts with Psalm 55:20, which refers to God as
kingdoms, and in the statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw, he put down the the one “who is enthroned from long ago.”
4th metal as iron. Just as iron crushes and breaks everything, so this
empire would crush and break everything. Then he alludes to the Ronald Allen [21st century biblical scholar] says: “This root is used
antichrist, who arises among the 10 horns, and he states that the antichrist infrequently in Hebrew of spatial motion and temporal aging. Its Akkadian
will pluck out root and all 3 horns before himself. This means that he will cognate etēqu is a common verb meaning ‘to pass along, advance.’
overpower 3 kings of the 10 who would reign at that time, and he calls it a Cognates are found also in Arabic ataqa (‘to precede, grow old’),
‘little’ horn, as it was born from the little tribe of the Jews. However, he Ugaritic tq (‘to pass’), and Aramaic ʾattîq (‘old’).”
also calls it ‘eminent’ since he would be noble. By its ‘eyes’ he refers to its
prudence and astuteness, by which he will deceive many, and yet he speaks Thus, this communicates God’s exceptionally advanced age to showcase
of its ‘mouth speaking great things,’ or its arrogance and haughtiness.” his eternality and wisdom so that he can judge wisely [Sirach 25:3–5].
 314

Ernest Lucas [21st century biblical scholar] says: “In Canaanite mythology Thus, the imagery is designed to depict the Ancient of Days acting in
the head of the pantheon is El, who is depicted as an aged person. Among judgment, and his heavenly court participates as witnesses. In the context
his titles are ‘judge,’ ‘father,’ and ʾab šnm (‘father of years’).” of Trinitarian theology, the “Ancient of Days” is the 1st Power/Yahweh
[the Father], while the “Son of Man” is the 2nd Power/Yahweh [the Son].
Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] likewise says: “Deuteronomy
32:7 references the ‘ages past’ and ‘the years of many generations’ which Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “The Ancient of Days is, for Daniel, nothing
correspond, respectively, to El’s description (ʿlm) and title ʾab šnm more than the Lord, God and Master of all, the Father of Christ himself.”
(‘father of years’; KTU 1.3 v:2, 25; 1.4 v:4; 1.18 i:12) at Ugarit.”
Jerome [4th century] likewise says: “And so the many thrones that Daniel
Furthermore, there are key similarities between vv. 9–14 and other later saw seem to me to be what John called the 24 thrones. And the Ancient of
2nd Temple texts [1 Enoch 14:18–25 and 4Q530], because of their Days is the one who, according to John, sits alone on his throne.
dependence on Daniel’s book. In other words, since 1 Enoch 14:18–25 Likewise the Son of Man, who came to the Ancient of Days, is the same as
utilizes vv. 9–10, this demonstrates an early date for Daniel’s book, he who, according to John, is called the lion of the tribe of Judah
because 1 Enoch 12–16 dates between 300–250 b.c. Furthermore, the [Revelation 5:5], the root of David and the titles of that sort. I imagine that
judgment is first negative [against the “little” horn of the 4th beast], and these thrones are the ones of which the apostle Paul says, ‘Whether
then positive [in favour of the “Son of Man” figure]. This scene also thrones or dominions’ [Colossians 1:16]. And in the gospel we read, ‘You
consists of multiple thrones in a heavenly setting, with the focus of yourselves shall sit upon 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel’
attention placed upon the Ancient of Days who sits as the supreme judge. [Matthew 19:28]. God is called the one who sits and who is the Ancient of
However, not all scholars are convinced that the scene is a heavenly one, Days, in order that his character as eternal judge might be indicated.”
especially if this represents a final theophany in which the Ancient of Days
comes to earth for judgment in order to establish his divine throne–room. Ambrose [4th century Bishop of Milan] concludes: “Let him then be
But, other scholars conclude [from Qumranic literature] that the divine standing for you that you may not be afraid of him sitting; for when sitting
“Son of Man” appears within a heavenly divine council sanctuary, and is he judges, as Daniel says, ‘the thrones were placed, and the books were
characterized as an individual who is equal to the Ancient of Days! opened, and the Ancient of Days did sit.’ But it is written, ‘God stood in
the congregation of gods and decides among the gods’ [Psalm 82:1]. So
John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] says: “A number of then when he sits he judges, when he stands he decides, and he judges
descriptions of God on his throne of fire surrounded by numerous concerning the imperfect but decides among the gods. Let him stand for
attendants locate the scene in the heavens (1 Kings 22:19–22; Psalm 82; 1 you as a defender, as a good shepherd, lest the fierce wolves assault you.”
Enoch 14:18–22; 40:1; 60:1–2; 71; 91:15–16; Revelation 4–5). However,
where it is specifically a matter of God judging, the scene is normally on Furthermore, his white vesture and hair like wool also stresses his
earth (Jeremiah 49:38; Joel 3:1–2, 12; Zechariah 14:1–5; Psalm 50; eternality and holiness [Isaiah 43:13; 57:15; Revelation 16:15], also as this
96:10–13; 1 Enoch 1:3–9; 25:3; 90:20–27). Here Daniel has been 2nd Temple text asserts: “There I saw one who had a head of days, and his
watching a scene on earth, and the account gives no indication that the head was like white wool, and with him was another, whose face was like
scene has changed. Rather, the opening phrase of v. 9 implies a continuity the appearance of a man; and his face was full of graciousness like one
of perspective: Daniel continues to look in the direction he had been of the holy angels.” [1 Enoch 46:1]
looking. Setting up the thrones suggests an earthly location (in the
heavens they are already set up), as does the later talk of the one Thus, notice the contrast. The antichrist is blaspheming God [vv. 7–8], but
advanced in years coming (v. 22).” God is shown sitting upon his throne preparing for judgment [vv. 9–10].
 315

The remainder of v. 9 describes the throne itself. It is aflame with fire,

including the “wheels” on which it is positioned, and since fire is
associated with God’s presence [Exodus 3:2; 19:16–18; Deuteronomy
33:2], notice the striking resemblance with the divine throne seen in
Ezekiel’s vision, since it also had wheels [Ezekiel 1:15–20; 10:9–17], and
had fire and lightning associated with it [Ezekiel 1:13, 27; 10:2, 6].
However, Daniel does not identify these other members of the heavenly
court, although elsewhere they are clearly divine beings who surround
God’s heavenly throne [1 Kings 22:19–22; Psalm 82:1]. In fact, the plural
pronouns in Genesis 1:26 is also a reference to this heavenly court. But,
the day will come when these same thrones will be occupied by Christians
[Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 3:21; 20:4].
This is possible because there is a hierarchy within God’s heavenly court.
In other words, all Mesopotamian religions knew of a tiered council of Michael Heiser [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes this flowchart:
divine beings with various responsibilities. For example, at Ugarit, the 1st “In Israel’s divine council, the highest tier is different from the
top–tier god was El [an aged god with a gray beard]. The 2nd tier involved Canaanites’ conception. Instead of El and Baal, his vice–regent, Yahweh
El’s son Baal [the cloud–rider storm god] who served as his vice–regent. occupied both slots in a sort of binitarian godhead. Yahweh is described
The 3rd and 4th tiers included craftsmen gods and servants, as seen here: by means of titles and abilities that both El and Baal have in Canaanite
literature—these two were conceptually fused in Yahweh. This literary
and theological device shows Yahweh superior to the two main divine
authority figures in wider Canaanite religion. The way Yahweh filled the
positions both of supreme ruler and vice–regent is also shown by his
occasional visible appearances. For example, the Angel of Yahweh is
sometimes indistinguishable from Yahweh (Exodus 3:1–14). The Angel is
said to have Yahweh’s ‘Name’ in him (Exodus 23:20–23). Scholars have
long noted the presence of this ‘name’ theology where the name is
another way of referring to Yahweh himself. Thus, Yahweh was in the
Angel, and yet Yahweh and the Angel could be simultaneously present
(Judges 6). Both the God of Israel and the Angel are said to have brought
Israel out of Egypt (Judges 2:1–3; 1 Samuel 8:8; Micah 6:4)—an
observation that makes Deuteronomy 4:37 an important consideration for
binitarianism, since that verse tells us the ‘presence’ of Yahweh was
In contrast, Israel’s divine council had a hierarchy of an upper tier of responsible for the deliverance from Egypt. The divine presence must be
beings [those seated in the council], a servant class of heavenly beings, and understood as Yahweh himself, his ‘essence’ as it were. The angel (as co–
a vice–regent who was given authority over the earth and over all the sons regent) fills Baal’s role as El’s warrior. It is the angel who led Israel to
of God who rule the earth [Psalm 82:1, 6; Deuteronomy 4:19–20; 32:8–9]. the promised land as the captain of the Lord’s host, ‘sword drawn in his
However, notice that Israel’s divine council did not have a tier of hand,’ a precise description found in only two other places, and both of
craftsmen gods. Instead, the Two Powers sat as the head of all the deities: which describe the angel of Yahweh (Numbers 22:23; 1 Chronicles 21:16).
 316

The result is that, while orthodox Yahwism could not accommodate cosmic delivered their countries out of my hand that the Lord should deliver
rule being shared by two separate and distinct deities (El and Baal), it Jerusalem out of my hand?’ (2 Kings 18:35 = Isaiah 36:20). Detailed
could tolerate Yahweh in two personages. That the angel had the discussions of the evidence for the hierarchal structure within the divine
presence/name/essence of Yahweh in him, but was a distinct personage, council may be found elsewhere. Most scholars see four tiers in the
meant he was but wasn’t Yahweh. Furthermore, many scholars have council of Ugarit but note that evidence for a 4th tier in Israel is quite
pointed out that there is a discernible hierarchy within the divine council. weak. ‘Sons of God’ is familial language. ‘Angel’ is the English
All council members, including Yahweh, are heavenly spirit beings (rûḥôṯ; translation of Hebrew malʾak (‘messenger’). This language is intentional.
šamayim; ʾelōh m). The hierarchy referred to here is not to be Sonship language in the context of royal ideology conveyed the notion of
superimposed on theological terms like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. high–ranking administration. The children of the king were not mere
Since all members of the Trinity are of the same essence, the godhead messengers; they outranked messengers. The sons of the king were an
forms and occupies the highest tier of the council. However, a careful elite level of authority; they were extensions of kingly authority, granted
comparison of the council terminology sketched here with texts from that status by the king himself. The king’s governance would include
ancient Canaan, particularly Ugarit, and the terms ‘sons of God’ (ben hundreds, and even thousands, of individuals, but authority was tiered.
haʾelōh m/ʾēl m) and ‘angel’ (malʾāk), allows one to discern three tiers Family members (immediate and extended) had high ranking. The
within the council. The term ‘prince’ (sar) is also relevant for hierarchy. hierarchy of the divine council is illustrated by the functional terminology
Not all members of the heavenly host bear this title. The ‘princes’ of the for the members of God’s heavenly host. Thus, one of the more explicit
supernatural realm are to be identified with the ‘sons of God’ assigned to divine council texts in the Old Testament is in Daniel 7, and there are
the nations of the world in divine judgment by the Most High multiple thrones in this heavenly scene, along with the single throne
(Deuteronomy 32:8–9). The sons of God allotted to the nations, the divine occupied by the Ancient of Days, the God of Israel. In fact, Daniel 7 was
princes of Daniel, are the conceptual point of origin for Paul’s a crucial passage for the Two Powers doctrine in 2nd Temple Judaism
terminology of geographical rulership in the New Testament (terms such prior to Christianity. Judaism eventually declared the Two Powers
as ‘principalities,’ ‘powers,’ ‘rulers,’ ‘thrones,’ ‘dominions,’ and doctrine heretical as it was a useful apologetic for the Christian belief in
‘authorities’). These are the ‘princes’ over nations that oppose Yahweh Jesus as God. Consequently, rabbis tried to argue that there were only two
and his people (Daniel 10:13, 20). These sons of the Most High are later thrones in Daniel 7, one for God and one for King David. This idea fails
judged for corruption and rebellion in Psalm 82, thereby defecting from for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the 2nd figure that
Yahweh’s service. Divine beings in a hostile adversarial relationship to is specifically named in the scene (the ‘Son of Man’) neither takes a seat
Yahweh are by definition no longer in his service. While still being part of nor has one offered to him when he approaches the Ancient of Days, and
the spiritual world, membership in Yahweh’s council means obedient Daniel 7 actually follows literarily a divine council scene in the Ugaritic
service to him. Divine beings such as Satan and the fallen sons of God of Baal Cycle. It also cannot be argued that the plural seats are for human
Genesis 6:1–4 and Deuteronomy 32:8 are now under judgment and no Jewish elders, since the court/council in Daniel 7 is clearly in heaven
longer part of how God administers his sovereign oversight. More and is making a decision for the human holy people at the time when the
positively, the princely terminology is used to describe the ‘commander kingdom of the Son of Man is established (v. 22). There is a clear
(sar) of the army of the Lord’ (Joshua 5:14). The term ‘chief princes’ reference to the council—the word translated ‘court’ here refers to a
obviously suggests tiered authority. Michael, the ‘prince’ of Israel (Daniel judicial body, and the seated Ancient of Days (v. 9) is obviously the leader
10:21; 12:1) is one of the ‘chief princes’ (Daniel 10:13). The origin of of the council. But ‘thrones’ are set in place for at least some members of
this ‘prince’ idea is to be sought in the ancient Near Eastern concept of the council (v. 10). Multitudes of the host are also said to be standing (v.
the divine council. The existence of national deities is assumed in the 10). Thus, the plural thrones are not, as Jewish tradition wants to argue,
Rabshakeh’s taunt: ‘Who among all the gods of the countries have for the messianic Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. While the latter is
 317

seated, at no point does the Son of Man sit. There is clearly a council in Then v. 10 begins by describing a “river” of flowing fire associated with
session and multiple thrones, not merely two and one unoccupied! The the Ancient of Days, and this is imagery unique to Daniel’s book in the
council members occupying the other thrones are part of the decision– Old Testament, either coming from him or flowing before him. Its purpose
making process. This is quite evident from v. 26: ‘But the court shall sit in is for bringing punishment on those whom he judges [Psalm 50:3; 97:3].
judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and Fire is used elsewhere as a symbol of God’s judgment, as though
destroyed to the end.’ The verdict on the 4th beast is connected to the destroying everything in its path [Isaiah 66:15–16; Jeremiah 21:12;
court sitting in judgment. The seated council in vv. 9–10 is therefore not Ezekiel 21:31; Revelation 19:20; 20:10]. Thus, the Ancient of Days is
just window dressing. In ancient Israelite thought, the party (or parties) surrounded by “thousands” who serve him and “millions” who wait upon
seated in an assembled meeting had decision–making authority. However, him [Revelation 5:11]. This awesome army of holy divine beings is there
some scholars have used Old Testament ‘standing’ vocabulary to Psalm to serve God who sits upon his throne. Furthermore, they witness the
82 to argue that the psalm is proof of Israelite polytheism. The argument judgment he renders and the “books” that are opened, or the record of the
can be summarized as follows: The ‘God’ (ʾelōh m) who ‘stands’ (niṣṣāb) works and ungodly acts of unbelievers, which they will be confronted with
in the divine council ( adat ʾēl) is not the ‘Most High’ (ʾēl– elyōn) of v. 6. at the eschaton. In fact, 2nd Temple texts make reference to books that
Elyon was, so the argument goes, an epithet of El, and so the deity of v. 1 record the deeds of men during their time on earth as well as the good
bringing accusation is not the one who ran the council. The unnamed deity things and honour in store for those who died in righteousness [1 Enoch
of v. 1 who ‘stands’ is Yahweh. He is bringing accusation against the ‘sons 81; 93:1–3; 103:2]. They stand as something of a counterpart to the “scroll
of the Most High’ who are corrupt (vv. 2–5). The judge of the council is of remembrance” [Malachi 3:16] that has the names of those who feared
El–Elyon. Consequently, Yahweh and El–Elyon are not the same, and God and esteemed his name. So, the records in these “books” present the
Israelite religion had a higher god than Yahweh. The argument is based evidence that they do not measure up to God’s righteousness. Those who
on several assumptions: (1) That Elyon is seated as judge in the council reject the atoning sacrifice of Jesus are essentially placing their hope in
and the ‘standing’ Yahweh is acting as prosecutor in the divine council; their own deficient righteousness. Jesus has indeed paid the price for the
(2) in legal settings, judges always sit; (3) Yahweh could not be both sins of all men, even of those who reject him [1 John 2:2], but their
prosecutor and judge in the divine council. The data marshalled to create unrighteousness remains on record.
the picture is actually not consistent. God is depicted as standing to judge
(Isaiah 3:13; Amos 7:7–9; 9:1–4). Elsewhere, Yahweh is a seated judge John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] continues: “The thousands
(Psalm 7:6; 9:19; 94:2), and so it is possible to see Yahweh as both the and myriads of courtiers attend upon the one advanced in years
standing deity (ʾelōh m) of v. 1 and the deity asked to rise up (which (Deuteronomy 33:2; 1 Kings 22:19; Psalm 68:17). It is not they who are to
requires a seated position) in v. 8. The approach advocated here lets the be judged (1 Enoch 1:9). They are God’s heavenly army, though their
text stand as it is, in the context of the wider Old Testament. The biblical military role is not in focus here. The notion of books being consulted
writers explicitly identify Yahweh and El (2 Samuel 22:31–32; Psalm again has its background in the life of the royal court, which necessarily
10:12; 18:2; 31:5; 50:1; 118:27). Why would someone read Psalm 82 in keeps records of events and decisions (Ezra 4:15; Esther 6:1). This feature
a way that avoids these other passages and this explicit identification? of court practice is naturally included when the royal–court image is used
The answer is that the idea of an evolution from polytheism to monotheism to picture the workings of heaven. God’s books sometimes record God’s
is presumed and brought to the passage. That is, texts are read through the purposes regarding the final issues of history or regarding particular
filter of this assumption, not in the wider canonical context. The segments of history (Daniel 8:26; 9:24; 10:21; 12:4, 9). They sometimes
evolutionary presumption itself is based on circular reasoning. Thus, the record God’s expectations of human conduct and his intentions regarding
seated posture of the council expresses a participatory role. The council the judgment of humanity in light of how far they fulfil these expectations,
neither acts alone nor without a head. They are not autonomous.” or fail to do so (1 Enoch 81; 93:1–3; 103:2). Any of these significances
 318

might be relevant in the present context; the idea of books that contain a earth,’ and if ‘he erected the mountains,’ and if ‘all the nations are
citizen list, a list of the people who belong to God (Daniel 12:1), or that reckoned as spittle in his sight’ and if ‘all things are as dust before him’
record people’s deeds and afflictions seems less relevant here. The people [Isaiah 40:12, 15], as he himself says, what place would be able to enclose
whose names would be in God’s book have not yet come into focus in the him altogether at one time? What shall we say? The state of affairs cannot
vision, while the deeds that are to be judged are the ones before our eyes be exactly as it is described; God is not confined to a throne. If he was
in the vision, not ones recorded in books. The scene is not a great assize wearing clothing, how would fire not consume it? And why is that one
when judgment is passed on all human beings individually.” called the Ancient of Days, when he existed before all ages? In what way
can he even be said to be ancient, since the scripture says, ‘You are
Theodoret [5th century Bishop of Cyr] says: “It is fitting for us to know that always the same’ [Psalm 102:27]. Why then is he called ancient, when it is
God is incorporeal, simple and without form and that he admits of no written, ‘And your years will not come to an end?’ And what would be the
circumscription. Although it pertains to his nature not to be able to be garment to be cast around a boundless and incorporeal being? For it says,
circumscribed, very often to help us he makes use of visions, whenever ‘There is no end to his greatness’ [Psalm 145:3]. And again, ‘If I ascend
he wills. And one can see that he appears to Abraham in one way, to into heaven, you are there; if I descend into hell, you are there’ [Psalm
Moses in another and to Isaiah in yet another; likewise, he showed Ezekiel 139:8]. How then can he be restrained by human clothing and yet not
still a different appearance. Therefore, whenever you see the variety of consume it? But truly the prophet was able to see and read many other
revelation, do not think that God has many forms, but rather listen to things of this type. How were his hairs not burned with fire? Let us strive
God as he speaks through the prophet Hosea: ‘I multiplied the visions, and with our minds to understand, beloved, for it is no small matter that we are
I was proclaimed in parables in the warnings of the prophets’ [Hosea discussing. He says, ‘Thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days was
12:10]. He said, ‘I adopted likenesses,’ not ‘I appeared.’ He fashions in a seated.’ Who is he? When you heard about a bear, you did not think about
vision however it suits him. So too blessed Ezekiel, when he had at length a bear; when you heard about a lioness, you did not perceive that animal
pondered on him whom he had seen to consist of gold and fire, added as but rather kingdoms; and when you heard about the sea, you did not
he narrated the vision, ‘These things are an image of the glory of the Lord’ perceive a sea but rather the world. Each time you thought of something
[Ezekiel 1:28]. And he did not say that he had seen the Lord or even the else as being present in those images. That is also the case now. What is
Lord’s glory but rather something resembling the glory of the Lord. an Ancient of Days? He is similar to an old man. Now this old man takes
Through the throne, wheels, and river, God’s nature is revealed as secure shape for the purposes for which he appears. And here he shows that old
and liable to no reproach; and through the word ‘ancient’ his eternity, men must be entrusted with rendering judgment. For just as when you hear
wisdom, and clemency are told. Therefore, he affixed the rest of the time the word ‘throne,’ you do not understand it to mean a mere chair—for who
to be a time of judgment, and he unfolded the memory of all the deeds done would lay hold of such a base and vulgar meaning, when God seems fully
by each and every person. He calls the memory about each person ‘the armed here and bloodthirsty there? So he wishes this to mean that it is a
books.’ This refers to the promise of the Lord made to his apostles, time for judgment. ‘His clothing was white as snow.’ Why? It is not only a
‘Twelve thrones will be placed, and you will sit down and judge the time of judgment but also retribution. All those must stand before him
twelve tribes of Israel’ [Matthew 19:28].” because ‘his judgment will go forth like the light’ [Hosea 6:5].”

Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] concludes: “Are they Next in vv. 11–12, we read: “I continued watching because of the
not the thrones concerning which our Lord said, ‘You will sit on twelve audacious words that the horn was speaking. I kept observing until the
thrones’ [Matthew 19:28]? Beloved, do not imagine God as having animal was killed and its body destroyed and given over to burning fire.
anything like a body, and do not think that God, who is boundless, can Now as to the other animals, their authority was removed, but they were
be confined to a throne. For if ‘in his hands are the boundaries of the granted a reprieve from execution for an appointed period of time.”
 319

Now Daniel shifts back to the 4th beast focusing on the judgment that is philosophy of the Babylonian and Persian Empires similarly infiltrated the
rendered due to the arrogance and boastful words of the “little” horn [v. 8]. Roman Empire, influencing the remaining civilizations even after the
Notice that Daniel says “I kept observing until the animal was killed and ‘eternal’ city’s empire was defunct. But this symbolic kingdom suggests
its body destroyed and given over to burning fire.” Since this beast is further a final kingdom beyond Rome; yet, much like Rome, it comes
differentiated from the first three [v. 12], this means the “little” horn is the under the dominance of the last little horn (Daniel 8:9–14; 9:25–27;
final manifestation of the 4th beast [the Roman Empire], and this would 11:21–45; 12:1–7). The symbol of the little horn of v. 8 appears at the end
imply that the 4th beast is not finished until the “little” horn is killed and of the 4th kingdom—that is, at the end of the apocalyptic eschatological
destroyed at the 2nd coming of Jesus. So, having mentioned the demise of historical process. Although in Daniel’s book it is presented first, it has
the 4th beast in v. 11, the fate of the first three beasts receives comment in forerunners that precede it historically. The little horn of Daniel 8,
v. 12 as something of a parenthetical remark. In each case, these kingdoms symbolizing Antiochus Epiphanes (175–163 BC), is one such forerunner
came to a point where they lost their dominion or authority [like Babylon (Daniel 11:40–45; 12:11–12). Daniel 9:26–27 describes a powerful
in 539 b.c. when it was conquered by Cyrus the Great of Medo–Persia]. person of evil who ushers in horrible devastation; he seems to come after
However, despite the loss of authority, these kingdoms “were granted a Antiochus and yet also serves as a forerunner to the little horn of v. 8. It
reprieve from execution for an appointed period of time.” In other words, should be noted that the figure of Daniel 9:26–27 and Daniel 11:36–45 is
except for the 4th kingdom that has an abrupt end when the antichrist is opposed by Michael, the archangel, who ushers in the end (Daniel 10:13;
killed, the other three kingdoms experience an extension of life. Although 12:1) with an unprecedented time of violence that concludes with the
their authority to rule is removed, the people and culture of each kingdom resurrection of the dead. So the little horn of v. 8 is foreshadowed in
is absorbed into the next empire for some duration of time by God’s grace, historical circumstances in the person described in Daniel 8:9–14 and in
bowing and serving the “Son of Man” in his final kingdom [later in v. 27]. Daniel 11:21–35 (and possibly in the person described in Daniel 9:26–27,
but this person seems further to foreshadow an event in the future). There
Eugene Carpenter [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes the details: seem to be historical events and persons of the Roman Empire who also
“Ancient historians emphasized the ways that the Roman Empire foreshadow the little horn of v. 8 but do not exhaust the realities behind
surpassed all other kingdoms in dominion, splendour of achievements, its image; these, too, qualify as forerunners of the final appearance of
length of reign, and brutality. The successful Greek army with its the abominable little horn (vv. 8, 19–28). The historical empire of Rome
phalanxes and its strategies was effective in its day, but when the was archetypal, pointing to something beyond itself. The Roman poet
disciplined and highly equipped Roman legions appeared, all enemies Virgil has the chief god Jupiter declare regarding Rome, ‘I set no bounds
succumbed to them. Rome ruled every country in the civilized world; on in space or time; but have given empire without end’ (Aeneid 1.278–279).
land and sea, Rome was supreme. Even though the Romans conquered the Cicero had hoped that the Roman republic would ‘live forever and our
other kingdoms, especially Greece, the Greeks reciprocated by conquering empire to be without end.’ John’s book appropriates and develops the
the Romans culturally and philosophically—even religiously, to a great imagery concerning the beasts. Indeed, the beast introduced in Revelation
extent, a process that was aided by the Romans’ avid accommodation to 13:1 is a composite of the beasts of Daniel 7 and more, for it asserts that
the influential Greeks in the time of Augustus. The Roman Empire arose the beast was empowered by the dragon (Revelation 12:9; 13:2, 4; 20:10).
farther west than the other empires, making it significantly different. The beast in Revelation 13 embodies all of the evil spiritual forces that
Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote that Rome was the greatest empire and energized the horrific beasts and arrogant little horn of Daniel 7.”
military machine the world had ever experienced (Roman Antiquities 1.2–
5). Few, if any, would challenge this assessment. Greece has been shown Jerome [4th century] concludes: “In the one empire of the Romans, all the
to have had significant contact with the eastern kingdoms (especially kingdoms at once are to be destroyed, because of the blasphemy of the
Egypt), resulting in reciprocal lines of influence. The culture, religion, and antichrist, and the succeeding empire is simply the abode of the saints.”
 320

Finally in vv. 13–14, we read: “I continued to observe the night vision— 5. There is no conclusive evidence that the phrase “Son of Man” was
and look!—someone like the Son of Man was coming, accompanied by understood in 2nd Temple Judaism to be a messianic title.
heavenly clouds. He approached the Ancient of Days and was presented
before him. To him dominion was bestowed, along with glory and a So, at the heart of this scholarly debate is the question of whether or not
kingdom, so that all people, nations, and languages are to serve him. His there was a stable and generally accepted set of beliefs regarding
dominion is an everlasting dominion—it will never pass away—and his messianism during the 2nd Temple period, and to what extent this “Son of
kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” Man” was associated with this hope. However, this is not to say that there
is no evidence of the expression “Son of Man” being used messianically
Following the slaying of the “little” horn [the antichrist], the positive prior to the ministry of Jesus, as demonstrated in these 2nd Temple texts:
aspect of the judgment scene emerges when a certain individual called the
“Son of Man” is exalted to receive a kingdom. The Aramaic kᵊḇar ʾĕnāš 1. The Aramaic Apocalypse [4Q246]
[for “someone like the Son of Man”] is functionally equivalent to the This Qumran fragment from Cave 4 and possibly dates to 25 b.c.,
Hebrew ben ʾĕnôš [Psalm 144:3] and ben ʾāḏām [or “son of man”], which but its language closely matches Daniel 7, which means this text
basically means “human” [Numbers 23:19; Psalm 8:4; Isaiah 51:12; 56:2]. did not originate from the Qumran sectarian community.
In fact, Daniel will be addressed as “son of man” [later in Daniel 8:17], but
scholars debate if this referent here is an individual [in a messianic way].
In other words, critical scholars attempt to make a point of the preceding
comparative kᵊ [for “like”], insisting that this figure was symbolic, like the
animal figures introduced earlier with kᵊ [vv. 4, 6]. However, the particle kᵊ
can mean that he is “like” a human, but significantly different to humans.
Thus, after extensive scholarly debate on the identity of the “Son of Man,”
most have concluded that an individual was in view, specifically because
this phrase was the primary self–designation that Jesus gave himself!
Nevertheless, here is a summary as to why this is a complicated issue:

1. The phrase “Son of Man” in v. 13 is anarthrous, whereas Jesus

spoke of himself as “the Son of Man,” and critical scholars have
questioned whether Jesus even intended a connection to vv. 13–14.

2. Daniel wrote vv. 13–14 in Aramaic, and although Jesus spoke in

Aramaic in Mark 14:62 [his clearest allusion to vv. 13–14], the
phrase “the Son of Man” in the New Testament is written in Greek.
The fragment contains references to one who is “son of God” and
3. The phrase “son of man” was a commonly used expression in the “son of the Most High,” possibly referring to a messianic figure!
Old Testament for a human [Psalm 8:4] or a prophet [Ezekiel 2:1]. The fragment also speaks of a period of tribulation followed by an
eschatological period in which God will establish an eternal
4. There is tension between v. 14 [the “Son of Man” will be given a kingdom and will support his people. Furthermore, the fragment
kingdom], and v. 18 [the “saints” will receive the kingdom]. consists of two columns.
 321

The 1st column is damaged, but the endings of lines 1–9 survived: 6 the earth in truth and all will do/make peace. The sword will
end/cease from the earth,
Column I 7 and all the cities will worship him/them. The great God is
1 […] settled upon him. He fell before the throne. his/their strength;
2 […] the eternal King. Rage is coming and your years. 8 he himself will wage war for him/them. He will give nations in
3 […] your vision, and everything will come for eternity. his/their hand and
4 […] wars; oppression will come over/upon the earth. 9 cast them all down before him/them. His/their dominion shall be
5 […] and great slaughter in the cities. an everlasting dominion, and all the deeps of […]
6 […] kings of Assyria and Egypt.
7 […] will be great over/upon the earth. So, the 1st line speaks of the figure from the 1st column, referring to
8 […] they will serve and everything will obey. him as the “son of God” and the “son of the Most High.” The
9 […] the great, will he call himself and by his name he shall following lines shift to the plural, describing the time of great
designate himself. distress referenced in the 1st column [lines 2–3]. Then the scribe
leaves a vacat [an intentional space] before line 4 that appears to
So, although very little can be said of its larger context, in the indicate a transition in topic. Then the contents of lines 4–9 seem to
opening lines, a Daniel–like figure [who remains unnamed in the be hinged on the appearance of the “people of God” who
extant manuscript] falls before a throne in order to interpret a correspond to Daniel’s mention of “the people who are the saints
king’s vision [lines 1–3; recall Daniel 2; 4–5]. The subsequent of the Highest One” [later in v. 27]. In fact, scholars points to two
interpretation speaks of a time of “great slaughter” and additional clearer points of reference between Daniel and 4Q246:
“oppression” [lines 4–5]. Then line 6 introduces the “kings of
Assyria and Egypt” [representing the Seleucid and Ptolemaic a) The statement “his/their kingdom shall be an everlasting
empires]. Then the final lines speak of an individual who will arise kingdom” [line 5] mirrors Daniel 4:3.
and be “great over/upon the earth” [lines 7–8]. This figure will be
known as “great” and designated by “his name” [line 9]. Thus, b) The statement “his/their dominion shall be an everlasting
next is the 2nd column that is undamaged, also involving lines 1–9: dominion” [line 9] corresponds with Daniel 4:34; 7:14.

Column II Thus, lines 5–9 deals with the eschatological period in which God
1 He shall be appointed the son of God, they shall call him son of will make peace and war on behalf of his people. Nevertheless, the
the Most High. Like the meteors correct interpretation of this Qumran text is debated, and scholars
2 which you saw, so shall their kingdom be. For some years they have provided six difficulties for interpreting the text:
shall be kings over
3 the earth and trample everything down: people shall trample a) Who is the speaker, and whom does he address?
down people, and cities shall trample down cities.
vacat b) Are the “kings of Assyria and Egypt” and its plurals allusions to
4 Until the people of God shall rise and everything shall rest from historical figures, or are they symbolic names for enemies?
the sword.
5 His/their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all c) If they are to be taken in an apocalyptic sense, can one say to
his/their paths in truth, and he/they shall judge whom they refer?
 322

d) Who is the person who will arise and given those titles? Thus, those who hold to a negative identification argue that he is a
historical figure [a son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes], or the future
e) Is this person to be understood in a positive sense [as a Jewish antichrist [who proclaims himself to be worshiped as a god].
king] or a negative sense [an enemy who arrogates such titles]?
Karl Allen Kuhn [21st century New Testament scholar] explains:
f) To whom does the 3rd singular masculine in lines 5–9 refer? Is “Most scholars investigating the fragment have noted the
it the person in line 9 of the 1st column, or the “people of God” similarities between the Aramaic Apocalypse and Daniel 7, and
in line 4 of the 2nd column? have explained the shared features of these two texts as stemming
from the influence of the canonical book on 4Q246. For instance,
So, scholars ultimately focus on the identity of the “son of God” Collins states concerning 4Q246 that ‘a relationship to Daniel’s
and whether this individual is a positive or negative figure. In other book is apparent at a number of points’ and he dates it to the early
words, those who hold to a positive identification argue that he is a 2nd century b.c. Milik, Puech, and Fitzmyer agree that on
coming messianic figure/king who is either a descendant of the paleographic grounds the extant fragment to be dated to the last
enthroned king [from the throne of David], or an eschatological third of the 1st century BCE. However, fewer have gone on to
liberator in relation to Melchizedek [11Q13] and the “Son of Man” propose that the Son of God figure of the Aramaic Apocalypse
[vv. 13–14]. Although the phrases “son of God” and “son of the should be regarded as an interpretation of Daniel’s ‘one like a son
Most High” parallel the identification of Jesus [Luke 1:32–35], the of man.’ For example, Collins concludes, as I do here, that ‘we feel
messianic identification in this text is not explicit, because the stimulated both by the language and the content of the text to see it
phrase “son of God” was commonly used for kings early in the as a new interpretation and application of Daniel 7 in the
Hellenistic period. Furthermore, even if the “son of God” is a apocalyptic sense’ and accordingly sees ‘Son of the Most High’
positive figure, it remains unclear how Luke’s gospel is related, and ‘Son of God’ as referring to the heavenly ‘one like a son of
since the larger context of 4Q246 is missing, as seen in this chart: man’ in Daniel 7. Nonetheless, a close look at the two texts
reveals such an extensive degree of verbal, thematic, and
structural correspondence that it is difficult to imagine that the
writer of 4Q246 did not intend the figure it designates as the ‘Son
of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ to be recasting Daniel's ‘one
like a son of man.’ The most striking verbal parallels between
Daniel 7 and the Apocalypse consist of the two phrases, ‘whose
dominion is an everlasting dominion’ (v. 14; 4Q246 2:9) and
‘his/its kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom’ (v. 27; 4Q246
2:5). The forms of these statements are exactly the same in both
texts. Although each occurs elsewhere in Daniel 4:3, 34, the
several additional correspondences between the Aramaic
Apocalypse and Daniel 7 confirm that this later chapter of Daniel
is the text that stands in the background. Outside of Daniel, neither
of these constructions appears as it does in 4Q246, with the
exception of Psalm 145:13. The psalm provides nearly an exact
parallel to v. 27 and 4Q246 2:5b. It reads: ‘Your kingdom is an
 323

everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all God’s victory over evil. Puech states, ‘I have emphasized over and
generations.’ However, there are no additional parallels between over again the difficulty of introducing a positive figure or
the psalm and 4Q246, making it a far less likely candidate than character in the well–planned paratactic structure before the two
Daniel 7 to be the source for the Dead Sea text. The verb intervals of 2:4 by which the scribe had intentionally indicated
‘trampling’ supplements these two verbal correspondences (v. 23; some important changes.’ Hence, everything prior to that point is
4Q246 2:3), as do a host of close thematic parallels. These consist speaking of the reigns of the kings of Egypt and Assyria, including
of the destruction wrought by God’s enemies, the sudden Antiochus and his predecessors, who blasphemously refer to
appearance of an eschatological redeemer, the subjugation of themselves as ‘Son of God’ or ‘Son of the Most High’ (2:1). It is
God’s people for a time, the rising of the people of God, and the they who rule the earth and trample all (2:2–3) until ‘the people of
homage of the nations. In addition to these verbal and thematic God arise’ (2:4). Puech adds, ‘This way of understanding the
parallels, the apocalypses unfold in a markedly similar manner, general structure and interpreting the contents is the only
beginning with an introduction of the apocalyptist followed by a acceptable one, excluding any messianic or positive interpretation
series of three accounts, each of which depicts the overthrow of the in the middle of a negative presentation.’ However, Puech’s
beasts/provinces and the giving of dominion to an individual figure assertion rests on the assumption that the apocalypse must unfold
and/or the people of God. First, following the prologue, both begin in a strictly linear fashion, with the turning point in the fortunes of
with a description of distress and destruction resolved by God’s God’s people announced beginning only in 2:4. This need not be
intervention and the coming of God’s agent: in Daniel, the ‘one the case. As Zimmermann points out, ‘if a correct temporal
like a son of man,’ and in 4Q246, the ‘Son of God, Son of the Most sequence was involved, we would not expect to find, after the
High’ (vv. 4–14; 4Q246 1:4–2:1). Second, the first account is description of the rule of peace in 11:4–7 (which encompasses the
followed by a second, again depicting the dominion of the evil establishment of peace for all and the ‘removal of the sword’) the
beasts/peoples until the people of God arise and gain possession of subject of wars and subjugation being brought up again, as is the
the kingdom (vv. 15–22; 4Q246 2:1–7). Third, both texts conclude case in 11:7–8.’ Indeed, the close structural parallels between
with still another rehearsal of the overthrow of the beasts/peoples Daniel 7 and the fragment (presenting a series of accounts
who oppose God’s people (vv. 23–28; 4Q246 2:7– 9). Admittedly, depicting the overthrow of God’s enemies) indicate otherwise.
it is possible that 4Q246 2:7–9 merely continues the description of The nature and extent of the correspondences between these two
the preceding lines and does not offer yet another recapitulation of texts indicate that the writer of the Aramaic Apocalypse intended to
the overthrow of God’s enemies. However, it seems that lines 6–7, recast Daniel’s ‘one like a son of man’ as a figure to be known by
ending with ‘the sword will vanish from the land and all provinces the titles ‘Son of the Most High’ and ‘Son of God.’ Such a
shall pay him/them homage,’ have a note of finality from which the recasting suggests two significant developments in the portrayal of
subsequent description of God’s ‘waging war for them/him’ does this eschatological redeemer. First, these titles present him in the
not directly follow. Thus, the parallel triadic rehearsal of the royal tradition of the Davidic kingship. That the royal tradition is
defeat of God’s enemies shared by Daniel 7 and 4Q246 gives here in view is also argued by Fitzmyer, Kim, Collins, Cross, and
further warrant to the claim argued here that 4Q246 offers a Zimmermann. The latter four scholars all consider the character to
recasting of Daniel’s ‘one like a son of man.’ It also speaks be presented as a Davidic and messianic redeemer by virtue of the
strongly against interpretations that see the figure designated as title ‘Son of God,’ which they take as an allusion to 2 Samuel 7:14,
‘Son of God’ as an enemy of God and God’s people. In contrast, Psalm 2:7–8, and Psalm 89:26–27. Collins also cites parallels
Puech argues that it is only with the interval signalled by the from the Florilegium (4Q174), in which an exposition of 2
vacats enveloping 2:4 that the apocalypse shifts to announcing Samuel 7:14 identifies the figure referred to as ‘my son’ as the
 324

‘Branch of David,’ and the Patriarchal Blessings (4Q252), in fact, 4Q246 appears to belong to a trajectory of Jewish apocalyptic
which the ‘Branch’ is called the ‘Messiah of Righteousness.’ tradition that presents Daniel’s ‘one like a son of man’ as
Fitzmyer, while rejecting the messianic interpretation, concludes possessing quasi–divine characteristics. The Dead Sea fragment
that this apocalyptic text speaks ‘positively of a coming Jewish shares with these other texts a host of details concerning the
ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who will be a character of the awaited figure, recasting Daniel’s eschatological
successor to the Davidic throne.’ A second element introduced by agent of salvation in starkly exalted terms. Although the
4Q246 in its recasting of the Danielic figure (and the one more conceptions of pre–existence and object of worship are not explicit
crucial to the present discussion) also resides in the author’s use of in its fragmentary remains, 4Q246 reveals its affinity to these
the titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High.’ In adopting the other instances of the tradition of ‘one like a son of man’ by
language of these earlier royal traditions and forming it into a similarly containing references to Daniel’s redeemer as
pair of titles, ‘he shall be called ... he will be named’ (2:1), the vindicator, messiah, judge, universal king, and one who
author has focused attention on the divine sonship of the overthrows evil powers. The correspondences of 4Q246 to these
redeemer figure as a central feature of his personhood. This traditions emphasizing the transcendent and exalted character of
raises the question of what exactly such expressions of ‘divine the redeemer it proclaims provide additional credence to what may
sonship’ were meant to convey. Collins argues that the titles simply be discerned by the use of the titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the
continue to present the ‘adoptionist sonship’ presented in 2 Samuel Most High’ in 4Q246, that is, the author’s interest in drawing out
7, Psalm 2, and Psalm 89, while implying a special relationship to the uniquely exalted aspects of the redeemer’s character by
the deity. Yet the titular use of these expressions suggests that identifying him as the peerless and powerful divine son whose
something other than adoptionist divine sonship may be in view. dominion will last forever. If so, the significance of this observation
Beyond connecting Daniel’s transcendent ‘one like a son of man’ is worth noting. It is here in the Aramaic Apocalypse that we first
to the royal Davidic tradition, the titular form of these designations find in extant sources the complex combination of Daniel’s
may also be meant to emphasize the exalted and unique character heavenly redeemer wrapped in the mantle of Davidic (messianic)
of the awaited redeemer. He is to be seen not merely as the royal tradition and uniquely transcendent divine sonship.”
adopted son of Yahweh as the other kings before him, but as the
unique and transcendent divine Son, through whom God’s Thus, even more fascinating is that this clear identification of the
salvation is finally to achieve victory among God’s people. Two “Son of Man” with the 2nd Power/Yahweh has forced other scholars
additional factors commend this way of regarding the function of to conclude that Daniel has reused language and themes from
the titles in 4Q246. First, the transcendence of the figure portrayed Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and Psalm 82! In other words, within the
in 4Q246 is suggested already by the fact that the fragment is context of the Two Powers motif, all three passages [Deuteronomy
recasting the heavenly (transcendent) personage of Daniel 7. The 32, Psalm 82, and Daniel 7] share a theological–cosmological
figure himself appears to be in command of his transport and is picture of a senior deity with a junior deity [or in later Trinitarian
said to be coming ‘with clouds of heaven’ rather than ‘up to’ theology: the Father with the Son]. In other words, notice that
heaven. The author of the fragment further signals the wish to Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes God’s disinheritance of the nations,
maintain this sense by also attributing to the redeemer of 4Q246 an where the “sons of God” were assigned a nation and land as their
eternal kingdom. Second, the portrayal of an eschatological apportioned allotment and inheritance. Then Psalm 82 describes a
redeemer as uniquely transcendent, and even as possessing subsequent heavenly courtroom scene in which the “sons of God”
characteristics that are normally assigned only to God in Hebrew were chastised due to their misbehaviour, and condemned by the
tradition, is not out of character for Jewish writings of this era. In senior deity to die like mortals.
 325

The psalm ends with the dramatic pronouncement that God instead Kenneth Atkinson [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] concludes:
will inherit and rule over all of the nations. Then Daniel builds on “The description of a figure called the ‘Son of God’ is nearly
these descriptions by describing the conviction of the heavenly identical to the militant messiah of Ps. Sol. 17, and because its
representatives of the nations, and the transfer of the dominion over apparent messianic theology is identical to Ps. Sol. 17, I accept
the entire earth to “someone like the Son of Man” arriving on a Collins’ view that the ‘Son of God’ in 4Q246 is a warrior who
cloud [Psalm 68:5; 104:3; Isaiah 19:1], and the language employed was also expected to subdue the Gentiles. These five documents
to describe the subservience of the nations to him, point to the (4Q161; 4Q285; 4Q246; 4Q252; 4Q174) have all been dated to
radical notion that this figure is in fact a reflection of God himself! the Herodian period between 37 BCE and 70 CE. Thus, they are
Thus, here in Daniel 7, as in Psalm 82, following the conviction contemporary with Ps. Sol. 17’s composition and reflect the likely
and punishment/destruction of the other subordinate divine figures, period during which the entire corpus of the Psalms of Solomon
exactly like the four beasts [each representing a kingdom], the was collected and redacted. 4Q246 uses scripture to fashion a
inheritance of and dominion over all of the nations will be passed violent eschatological king who is like the Branch of David.
on to the Two Powers in heaven! This is an extremely complex 4Q246 begins by describing an individual who fell before the
hermeneutical manoeuvre, in which intricate allusions invoke a throne (col. 1.1) and addressed a king (col. 1.2), who was
matrix of biblical texts, and only a close reading that pays careful apparently disturbed by a vision of great carnage (col. 1.2–6). The
attention to these interpretive aspects allows us to untangle the web remaining lines are of uncertain meaning and likely continue a
of sources employed by Daniel here. Thus, what confirms the description of this revelation. The text then records the actions of
identification of this “Son of Man” within this interpretive matrix is the kings of Assyria and Egypt (col. 1.6–7), followed by the
ironically via the Qumran fragment 4Q246, because that text appearance of someone who the text states: ‘will also be great
combines the themes of Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, and Daniel 7! upon the earth’ (col. 1.7). The remainder of this column apparently
states, ‘and they will all serve him’ (col. 1.8), and proceeds to list
Michael Segal [21st century biblical scholar] summarizes and says: various titles by which this figure will be known, which include the
“Scholars have suggested either that this character is a human appellation ‘Son of God’ (col. 1.9–2.1). The following lines of col.
sovereign with divine pretensions or that he is a divine messianic 2 then recount the short–lived reign of the enemy, presumably the
figure. The current study posits a new identification of this figure kings of Assyria and Egypt from the proceeding column, which will
based upon the analysis of the biblical texts underlying this last ‘until the people of God arises’ (col. 2.4). The remainder of
Qumran scroll: in addition to its dependence upon Daniel 7 (which 4Q246 continues to describe the anticipated activities of this Son of
has been previously recognized), 4Q246 also contains a hitherto God, who will represent the people of God as their king (col. 2.2–
overlooked allusion to Psalm 82. In light of the relationship to 9). Although the 3rd person masculine suffixes in the following lines
these biblical passages, it is proposed that the character described could refer back to an individual (the ‘Son of God’) or to the
as ‘son of God/the Most High’ should be taken as the heavenly people, the antecedent is almost certainly the people. The people,
representative of the penultimate kingdom in Daniel 7. The however, is an awkward antecedent for the statement that ‘he will
identification of the allusion to Psalm 82 within 4Q246 also judge the earth with truth’ (col. 2.5–6). Thus, the ‘Son of God’ in
enriches our analysis of Daniel 7 itself, since the Qumran scroll these lines must represent the people of God as their king or
demonstrates that early readers of the apocalyptic vision posited a representative, and the everlasting kingdom belonged to both.
literary–theological connection between Daniel 7 and Psalm 82. 4Q246’s author used holy war language, such as ‘give into his
These texts together formed a cluster of related biblical passages hands’ and ‘cast down before him,’ to describe the military
that were read and interpreted in concert by ancient authors.” activities of this ‘Son of God,’ who will fight and prevail over his
 326

enemies, presumably the kings of Assyria and Egypt, to inaugurate represent the alliance between the Romans and the Hasmonean or
God’s everlasting kingdom. Although the Qumran texts reflect Herodian kings. A similar pairing of the Romans and Herod the
some exegetical variation, a remarkable degree of consistency Great may also be reflected in Ps. Sol. 17:28. It should also be
remains in the manner in which messianic titles are combined. noted that Puech’s study alluded to these connections, for he also
Collins comments, concerning 4Q246: ‘If the ‘Son of God’ text is believed that Ps. Sol. 17 referred to Herod the Great. Despite the
read as messianic, it fits nicely with everything we have seen about identities of these adversaries, it is clear that the Davidic messiah
the Davidic/royal messiah in the scrolls. He functions as a warrior of 4Q246 was expected to destroy his opponents in battle. Given
to subdue the Gentiles: God will make war on his behalf and cast the Herodian date of 4Q246, its militant Davidic messiah is
peoples down before him.’ Thus, the presence of the word presumably expected to overthrow either Herod or one of the
‘messiah’ must not be considered a causa sine qua non for a latter Hasmoneans in a violent campaign. Given the militaristic
messianic interpretation. Collins also states: ‘It is important to context of this document, its author envisioned a Davidic Messiah
recognize, however, that messiahs can be referred to by titles who would overthrow the unlawful non–Davidic king in battle.”
other than mašiaḥ. So, for example, the Branch of David is
simply another way of referring to the Davidic messiah, even 2. The Parables of Enoch
when the word mašiaḥ is not used.’ Because different epithets and Even more fascinating is the material found in 1 Enoch 37–71,
titles are applied to the same figure, the equation of the ‘Branch of because the earliest Jewish interpretation of vv. 13–14 is found in
David’ with the ‘Son of God,’ provided by 4Q174’s citation of 2 this 2nd Temple text. Although the phrase “Son of Man” occurs
Samuel 7:14, demonstrates that this figure in 4Q246 is a Davidic repeatedly in 1 Enoch 37–71 as one who appears at the end of
messiah. 4Q246 clearly portrays this ‘Son of God’ as a warrior, history to punish the wicked and vindicate the righteous, the dating
who will cast down his enemies before assuming the throne (col. of this text is greatly debated, because no fragment has been found
2.8–9) for an eternal kingdom (col. 2.9). The militant nature of this at Qumran. Thus, scholars initially argued that 1 Enoch 37–71 was
latter phrase is particularly clear, for 4Q252 also states that written after the time of Jesus’ ministry in 33 a.d., but prior to the
Davidic dominion will be achieved following the annihilation of the Jewish revolt in 66–70 a.d., so possibly in the late 40s a.d.
messiah’s enemies. The role of the ‘Son of God’ in 4Q246 is However, recent scholarship has argued for an earlier 50s b.c. date!
similar to the messiah of Ps. Sol. 17, for both will successfully fight
to overthrow their opponents and establish the kingdom of God. Leslie Baynes [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] explains:
This Son of God’s power, like that of the Davidic messiah of the “Determining the date of the Book of Parables is difficult for a
Psalms of Solomon, does not emanate from within himself, but God number of reasons. At present it is extant only in late Ethiopic
is his strength (col. 2.7). God also sustained the warrior messiah in manuscripts (15th century and later). Patristic authors do not
both 4Q161 (line 18) and Ps. Sol. 17:34. Because 4Q246 has been directly quote it, but they may allude to it. The attempt to argue a
dated to 25 BCE, the enthroned king could represent one of the date from the fact that it does not appear among the discoveries at
latter Hasmoneans, who were considered legitimate kings, or Qumran holds no water. For these reasons, internal clues are
possibly even Herod the Great. This figure could even be particularly important for dating the book. Most scholars have
Aristobulus II at the time of Pompey’s intervention. It is also understood this passage as a reflection of a historical event, but
possible that it may have referred to Hyrcanus II, whom Josephus they differ as to exactly which event it is. Gillian Bampfylde and
recorded reigned as high priest and king from Babylon to the Daniel Olson, for example, argue for the 1st Parthian incursion
Euphrates before his murder by Herod in 30 BCE (Ant. 15.2.2 into Roman territory (Syria) in 51–50 BCE. Many others, however,
§§14–15). It is conceivable that the kings of Assyria and Egypt including Paolo Sacchi, Gabriele Boccaccini, Jonas Greenfield,
 327

Michael Stone, Adela Yarbro Collins, John Collins, and Pierluigi James Charlesworth [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] also says:
Piovanelli, believe that the passage more likely reflects the “Six reasons disclose the most probable date for the Parables of
Parthian invasion of Judea in 40 BCE, which was an integral part Enoch. First, it is insignificant that no fragment of this document
of the civil war between the two Hasmoneans Antigonus and has been identified among the fragments found in the Qumran
Hyrcanus (1 Enoch 56:7). This conflict led directly to the caves. Second, the Parables of Enoch is clearly the latest
enthronement of Herod the Great, which leads us in turn to the 2nd composition within 1 Enoch, and there are reasons to conclude it
conjunction of the angels with the adventures of the kings and would not have had sufficient time to make its way to Qumran.
mighty: namely, their propensity to land in hot water (1 Enoch Third, the document was not composed at Qumran and contains
67:4–9, 12). Thus, in terms of dating the Parables, both the concepts and perceptions that would not have been acceptable at
sojourn in the hot springs and the lust attributed to the kings and Qumran. Fourth, the reference to a Parthian invasion makes best
the mighty in 1 Enoch 67 can be associated with the life and sense in light of what is known, from Josephus and archaeological
death of Herod the Great. According to Josephus (Ant. 17.168– research, about the invasion of 40 BCE. Fifth, the multitudinous
172; War 1.656–658), at the end of his life Herod, suffering from curses on the landowners and those who monopolize the ‘dry land’
great physical affliction, repaired to the hot springs of Callirrhoe make best sense during the period of the land–grabbing by Herod
to attempt a healing. No healing ensued, and he died shortly and the Herodians. Sixth, the early Christians may have avoided
thereafter (4 BCE). Darrell Hannah remarks that ‘scholars are the Parables of Enoch because it lauds Enoch as the celestial Son
usually cautious about concluding that we have here an actual of Man and eschatological Judge. Such a claim undermines the
allusion to Herod and his unsuccessful treatment at Callirrhoe,’ kerygma. Cumulatively then, dating the Parables of Enoch to the
but he overcomes that caution with the strength of his argument in time of Herod the Great and the Herodians has become
favour of just that. Hannah observes that ‘the one sin of ‘the kings conclusive. I note that this conclusion was shared by almost every
and the mighty ones’ singled out in the text of 1 Enoch 67:8–13 is leading specialist on 1 Enoch or 2nd Temple Judaism. The
that of lust. This distinguishes it from all the others concerning the Parables of Enoch appears to be a Jewish work that antedates
kings and mighty ones in the Parables.’ Herod and his family, Jesus, and the author seems to imagine a connection among the
moreover, ‘were infamous for their uncontrolled passions,’ and Messiah, the Righteous One, and the Son of Man. The work most
David Ladouceur has argued that Josephus’ description of Herod’s likely took shape in Galilee, not far from where Jesus centered his
final illness implies that the author considers it commensurate ministry. Thus, he could have been influenced by this writing or the
divine punishment for his licentiousness. Indeed, some of Herod’s traditions preserved in the Parables of Enoch. In this case, his own
afflictions do not make for good family reading. In light of the self–understanding may have been shaped by the relationship
growing scholarly consensus identifying the Parthian conflict in 1 between the Son of Man and the Messiah that is found only in the
Enoch 56 and the watering hole incident in 1 Enoch 67 with the Parables of Enoch. If those in the Enoch group were known as the
beginning and the end of Herod’s career, respectively, Paolo great scholars who had special and secret knowledge, and if they
Sacchi in his summation of the 2005 meeting of the Enoch lived in Galilee, then Jesus would most likely have had an
Seminar devoted to the Parables proclaimed that the ‘burden of opportunity to learn firsthand about their teachings through
proof has shifted to those who disagree with the Herodian date’ discussions and debates. Some of the Bultmannians (notably
of the Parables of Enoch. Herod the Great and his retainers, Conzelmann) claimed that the ‘Son of Man’ is a term and title that
therefore, emerge as strong candidates for ‘the kings and the originates only in the post–Easter community. Conzelmann argued
mighty of the earth’ who persecute the righteous in the book, and that all the Son of Man sayings in the words of Jesus are
from whom do they receive their power? From the wicked angels.” suspicious. They seem to be the creation of Jesus’ post–Easter
 328

followers. The Son of Man Christology is not linked to Jesus; it of the old faith. My research indicates one example where such
originated in the church, which (in my estimation) should be careful attention may lead to a reconfiguration of a long–held
renamed (in order to avoid anachronisms) ‘the Early Palestinian debate. The starting point for such discussion is the strong
Jesus Movement.’ According to Conzelmann, in the early church, likelihood that the Parables of Enoch are Jewish and most likely
the term Son of Man first appeared as a title and celebrated the were composed prior to the work of Jesus of Nazareth or
earthly life and celestial origin of Jesus of Nazareth. The title contemporaneous with his Galilean ministry. Seven reasons
reveals nothing about Judaism or the historical Jesus. It ushers support this starting point: (1) A variety of points urge us not to
us into the world after Jesus when Christianity begins to separate expect to find the Parables of Enoch at Qumran: it was a late
from regnant Judaism. Many specialists are now seeing more addition to the books of Enoch; it held to a different calendar than
clearly that New Testament Christology flows from Jesus’ words the Qumran community; the Righteous Teacher is more important
and self–understanding. Conzelmann’s professor, Bultmann, to the community than Enoch, so it would not welcome a document
stressed that ‘the message of Jesus is a presupposition for the in which Enoch becomes the key eschatological figure. (2) The best
theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology date for the Parthian invasion discussed in 1 Enoch 56 is 40 BCE.
itself.’ These scholars, Bultmann and Conzelmann, were primarily Although this connection is not certain, it seems the best candidate,
trained in Greek and in the New Testament; they were not experts especially given the nature of pattern fulfilment in eschatological
in 2nd Temple Judaism and they should not be judged in terms of texts and the lack of connection to an enemy like Rome in this
improved data and methodologies. If the preceding reflections are material. One thing can be said. If the invasion is stereotyped, it is
valid, then speaking personally, I would recast Bultmann’s famous not foreseen as coming from Rome and the West but from older
and influential dictum. He claimed that Jesus is the presupposition historical opponents that lie to the East. This is part of the
of New Testament theology. Far more likely, Jewish apocalyptic rationale for seeing a historic backdrop that takes the reference to
and eschatological reflections on the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Parthians as concrete and not merely stereotypical. (3) One
God’s kingdom, and the coming Day of Judgment are the should not expect to see the Parables of Enoch cited by Christians
presuppositions of Jesus’ mind.” because Jesus is the Son of Man for them, not Enoch. (4) The
relegation of Jews behind the Parables of Enoch best fits the
Darrell Bock [21st century New Testament scholar] concludes: Herodian period with potential allusions to Calirrhoe. (5) The
“What is needed is not only a careful study of Jesus’ milieu, but a making of Jews into ‘tenant farmers’ on what was their land and
tighter focus on that milieu. Most New Testament scholars access the reference to being pushed off of dry land makes sense only after
the Jewish milieu, if they do at all, through later Jewish texts like Herod the Great. (6) The Wirkungsgechichte of the Parables of
the Mishnah or the Midrashim (if not through the potentially Enoch helps fit the time of 4 Ezra which as Stone has shown has
anachronistic Talmud). A better appreciation of the role of 2nd pre–70 traditions in it, as does 2 Baruch. (7) The Parables of
Temple reflections on the Tanach will be more helpful in applying Enoch does not mention the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of
the Jewish milieu to the historical quest. Since 2nd Temple studies the Temple in 70 CE which makes best sense if this text predates
has become a discipline on its own, and rightly so, it and New this event. These reflections powerfully show the value of 2nd
Testament scholars have lost regular contact with each other. Temple Jewish study and Jesus research working more closely side
This is most unfortunate, because the findings of both of these by side, rather than as isolated disciplines. In an era that often
disciplines are very much related to each other, especially as the demands increasing specialization because of the size of each of
early Palestinian Jesus movement is becoming more appreciated in these key disciplines, scholars in each area must not lose sight of
its earliest phases as an attempt to be a Jewish–oriented expression the benefit of staying aware of and in touch with one another.”
 329

Thus, since this dating of 1 Enoch 37–71 in the 50s–40s b.c. proves the righteous that had been shed, and the prayer of the righteous,
true, there is no doubt that it uses Daniel’s book, as in these verses: that it might not be in vain in the presence of the Lord of Spirits;
that judgment might be executed for them, and endurance might
“There I saw one who had a head of days, and his head was like not be their lot forever. In those days I saw the Head of Days as
white wool. And with him was another, whose face was like the he took his seat on the throne of his glory, and the books of the
appearance of a man; and his face was full of graciousness like living were opened in his presence, and all his host, which was in
one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel of peace, who went the heights of heaven, and his court, were standing in his presence.
with me and showed me all the hidden things, about that son of And the hearts of the holy ones were filled with joy, for the number
man—who he was and whence he was and why he went with the of the righteous was at hand; and the prayer of the righteous had
Head of Days. And he answered me and said to me, ‘This is the son been heard, and a reckoning of the blood of the righteous one had
of man who has righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him. been required in the presence of the Lord of Spirits.” [1 Enoch 47]
And all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal; for the Lord
of Spirits has chosen him, and his lot has prevailed through truth “In that place I saw the spring of righteousness, and it was
in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever. And this son of man inexhaustible, and many springs of wisdom surrounded it; and all
whom you have seen—he will raise the kings and the mighty from the thirsty drank from them and were filled with wisdom; and their
their couches, and the strong from their thrones. He will loosen the dwelling places were with the righteous and the holy and the
reins of the strong, and he will crush the teeth of the sinners. He chosen. And in that hour that son of man was named in the
will overturn the kings from their thrones and their kingdoms, presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name, before the Head of
because they do not exalt him or praise him, or humbly Days. Even before the sun and the constellations were created,
acknowledge whence the kingdom was given to them. The face of before the stars of heaven were made, his name was named
the strong he will turn aside, and he will fill them with shame. before the Lord of Spirits. He will be a staff for the righteous, that
Darkness will be their dwelling, and worms will be their couch. they may lean on him and not fall; he will be the light of the
And they will have no hope to rise from their couches, because they nations, and he will be a hope for those who grieve in their
do not exalt the name of the Lord of Spirits. These are they who hearts. All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship
judge the stars of heaven, and raise their hands against the Most before him, and they will glorify and bless and sing hymns to the
High, and tread upon the earth and dwell on it. All their deeds name of the Lord of Spirits. For this reason he was chosen and
manifest unrighteousness, and their power rests upon their wealth. hidden in his presence, before the world was created and forever.
Their faith is in the gods they have made with their hands, and they And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits has revealed him to the holy
deny the name of the Lord of Spirits. And they persecute the houses and the righteous; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous. For
of his congregation, and the faithful who depend on the name of the they have hated and despised this age of unrighteousness; indeed,
Lord of Spirits.” [1 Enoch 46] all its deeds and its ways they have hated in the name of the Lord
of Spirits. For in his name they are saved, and he is the vindicator
“In those days, there had arisen the prayer of the righteous, and of their lives. In those days, downcast will be the faces of the kings
the blood of the righteous one, from the earth into the presence of of the earth, and the strong who possess the land, because of the
the Lord of Spirits. In these days the holy ones who dwell in the deeds of their hands. For on the day of their tribulation and
heights of heaven were uniting with one voice, and they were distress they will not save themselves; and into the hand of my
glorifying and praising and blessing the name of the Lord of chosen ones I shall throw them. As straw in the fire and as lead in
Spirits, and were interceding and praying in behalf of the blood of the water, thus they will burn before the face of the holy, and they
 330

will sink before the face of the righteous; and no trace of them will For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the
be found. And on the day of their distress there will be rest on the Most High preserved him in the presence of his might, and he
earth, and before them they will fall and not rise, and there will be revealed him to the chosen. And the congregation of the chosen
no one to take them with his hand and raise them. For they have and holy will be sown; and all the chosen will stand in his presence
denied the Lord of Spirits and his Anointed One. Blessed be the on that day. And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and
name of the Lord of Spirits.” [1 Enoch 48] those who rule the land will fall on their faces in his presence; and
they will worship and set their hope on that Son of Man, and they
“For wisdom has been poured out like water, and glory will not fail will supplicate and petition for mercy from him. But the Lord of
in his presence forever and ever. For he is mighty in all the secrets Spirits himself will press them, so that they will hasten to depart
of righteousness; and unrighteousness will vanish like a shadow, from his presence; and their faces will be filled with shame, and
and will have no place to stand. For the Chosen One has taken his the darkness will grow deeper on their faces. And he will deliver
stand in the presence of the Lord of Spirits; and his glory is them to the angels for punishment, so that they may exact
forever and ever, and his might, to all generations. And in him retribution from them for the iniquity that they did to his children
dwell the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of insight, and the spirit of and his chosen ones. And they will be a spectacle for the righteous
instruction and might, and the spirit of those who have fallen and for his chosen ones; and they will rejoice over them, because
asleep in righteousness. And he will judge the things that are the wrath of the Lord of Spirits rests upon them, and his sword is
secret, and a lying word none will be able to speak in his presence; drunk with them. And the righteous and the chosen will be saved on
for he is the Chosen One in the presence of the Lord of Spirits that day; and the faces of the sinners and the unrighteous they will
according to his good pleasure.” [1 Enoch 49] henceforth not see. And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them,
and with that Son of Man they will eat, and they will lie down and
“And the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the rise up forever and ever. And the righteous and chosen will have
exalted and those who possess the land, and he said, ‘Open your arisen from the earth, and have ceased to cast down their faces,
eyes and lift up your horns, if you are able to recognize the Chosen and have put on the garment of glory. And this will be your
One.’ And the Lord of Spirits seated him upon the throne of his garment, the garment of life from the Lord of Spirits; and your
glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured upon him. And garments will not wear out, and your glory will not fade in the
the word of his mouth will slay all the sinners, and all the presence of the Lord of Spirits.” [1 Enoch 62]
unrighteous will perish from his presence. And there will stand up
on that day all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those “In those days, the mighty and the kings who possess the land will
who possess the land. And they will see and recognize that he sits implore the angels of his punishment, to whom they have been
on the throne of his glory; and righteousness is judged in his delivered, to give them a little respite that they might fall down and
presence, and no lying word is spoken in his presence. And pain worship in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and that they might
will come upon them as upon a woman in labour, when the child confess their sins in his presence. They will bless and glorify the
enters the mouth of the womb, and she has difficulty in giving birth. Lord of Spirits and say, ‘Blessed is the Lord of Spirits and the Lord
And one group of them will look at the other; and they will be of kings, and the Lord of the mighty and the Lord of the rich, and
terrified and will cast down their faces, and pain will seize them the Lord of glory and the Lord of wisdom. Your power is splendid
when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory. in every secret thing for all generations, and your glory, forever
And the kings and the mighty and all who possess the land will and ever. Deep are all your secrets and without number, and your
bless and glorify and exalt him who rules over all, who was hidden. righteousness is beyond reckoning. Now we know that we should
 331

glorify and bless the Lord of the kings, and him who reigns over all “And after this, while he was living, his name was lifted up into
kings.’ And they will say, ‘Would that we might be given respite, the presence of that Son of Man and into the presence of the
that we might glorify and praise and make confession in the Lord of Spirits from among those who dwell on the earth. He was
presence of your glory. Now we desire a little respite and do not lifted up on the chariots of the wind, and his name departed from
find it, we pursue it and do not lay hold of it. And light has among them. And from that day, I was not reckoned among them;
vanished from our presence, and darkness is our dwelling forever and he set me between two winds, between the North and the West,
and ever. For in his presence we did not make confession, nor did where the angels took cords to measure for me the place of the
we glorify the name of the Lord of the kings; our hope was on the chosen and the righteous. And there I saw the first fathers and the
sceptre of our kingdom and throne of our glory. But on the day of righteous dwelling in that place from of old.” [1 Enoch 70]
our affliction and tribulation it does not save us, nor do we find
respite to make confession, that our Lord is faithful in all his deeds “And after that, my spirit was taken away, and it ascended to
and his judgment and his justice, and his judgments have no heaven. And I saw the sons of the holy angels, and they were
respect for persons. And we vanish from his presence because of stepping on flames of fire; and their garments were white, as were
our deeds, and all our sins are reckoned in righteousness.’ Now their tunics, and the light of their faces was like snow. And I saw
they will say to themselves, ‘Our lives are full of ill–gotten wealth, two rivers of fire, and the light of that fire shone like hyacinth, and
but it does not prevent us from descending into the flame of the I fell on my face before the Lord of Spirits. And the angel
torment of Sheol.’ And after that their faces will be filled with Michael, one of the archangels, took me by my right hand and
darkness and shame in the presence of that Son of Man; and from raised me up, and he brought me out to all the secrets; and he
his presence they will be driven, and a sword will abide before showed me all the secrets of mercy, and he showed me all the
him in their midst. Thus says the Lord of Spirits, ‘This is the law secrets of righteousness. And he showed me all the secrets of the
and the judgment of the mighty and the kings and the exalted and ends of heaven and all the treasuries of the stars, and all the
those who possess the land in the presence of the Lord of Spirits.’” luminaries go forth from there before the holy ones. And he took
[1 Enoch 63] my spirit—even me, Enoch—to the heaven of heavens, and I saw
there, as it were, a house built of hailstones, and between those
“And they had great joy, and they blessed and glorified and stones were tongues of living fire. And my spirit saw in that light a
exalted, because the name of that Son of Man had been revealed circle that encircled that house of fire, from the four sides of that
to them. And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the whole house came rivers full of living fire, and they encircled that house.
judgment was given to the Son of Man, and he will make sinners And around it were Seraphin and Cherubin, and Ophannin, and
vanish and perish from the face of the earth. And those who led the those who sleep not, but guard the throne of his glory. And I saw
world astray will be bound in chains, and in the assembly place of angels that could not be counted, thousands of thousands and ten
their destruction they will be shut up; and all their works will thousand times ten thousand; they were surrounding that house.
vanish from the face of the earth, and from then on there will be And Michael and Raphael and Gabriel and Phanuel, and the holy
nothing that is corruptible; for that Son of Man has appeared. angels who are in the heights of heaven, were going in and out in
And he has sat down on the throne of his glory, and all evil will that house. And there came out of that house Michael and Raphael
vanish from his presence. And the word of that Son of Man will go and Gabriel and Phanuel and many holy angels without number.
forth and will prevail in the presence of the Lord of Spirits. This And with them was the Head of Days, and his head was white and
is the third parable of Enoch.” [1 Enoch 69:26–29] pure as wool, and his garments were indescribable. And I fell on
my face, and all my flesh melted, and my spirit was transformed.
 332

And I cried out with a loud voice, with a spirit of power, and I Delbert Burkett [21st century New Testament scholar] concludes:
blessed and praised and exalted. And those blessings that went “The main part of 1 Enoch 37–70 presents a pre–existent Messiah.
forth from my mouth were acceptable in the presence of that This figure combines the attributes and functions of ‘the one like a
Head of Days. And that Head of Days came with Michael and Son of Man’ in Daniel 7:13, the Davidic Messiah of Isaiah 11 and
Raphael and Gabriel and Phanuel, and thousands and tens of Psalm 2, the servant of the Lord in Isaiah, and Yahweh as
thousands of angels without number. And he came to me and eschatological judge. The Similitudes explicitly identify the figure
greeted me with his voice and said to me, ‘You are that Son of as the Messiah (1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4). From a servant passage, his
Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells primary title is ‘the Chosen One’ (Isaiah 42:1). God chose him and
on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not hid him in heaven before the world was created (1 Enoch 48:3, 6;
forsake you.’ And he said to me, ‘He proclaims peace to you in the 62:7). At the final judgment, he will sit on God’s throne of glory
name of the age that is to be, for from there peace has proceeded and execute judgment for the righteous against the rebellious
from the creation of the age, and thus you will have it forever and angels and sinners, especially the kings and rulers of earth.”
forever and ever. And all will walk on your path since
righteousness will never forsake you; with you will be their In summary, although this “Son of Man” figure was seen as an unknown
dwelling and with you, their lot, and from you they will not be exalted messiah in later rabbinical texts [b. Sanh. 98a; Num. Rab. 13.14;
separated forever and forever and ever. And thus there will be ʾAg. Ber. 23.1; Midr. Haggadol Gen. 49.10; Midr. Ps. 21.5; Tanchuma
length of days with that Son of Man, and there will be peace for the Toledoth 20; Midr. Ps. 2.9; ʾAg. Ber. 14.3; Gen. Rab. 13.11–12], numerous
righteous, and the path of truth for the righteous, in the name of the alternative interpretations have been advanced within four categories:
Lord of Spirits forever and ever.’” [1 Enoch 71]
1. The Human View
Thus, why is the “Son of Man” here equated to be Enoch himself? The Aramaic bar ʾĕnāš [or “son of man”] simply means “human”
and is equivalent to the Hebrew ben ʾāḏām [Psalm 8:4]. Thus,
Darrell Bock [21st century New Testament scholar] summarizes: critical scholars argue that this was in reference to Judas
“An argument can be made for the presence of an inner–dynamic Maccabeus, due to their Maccabean dating of Daniel’s book. In
within the early Enochic traditions that made the antediluvian’s other words, apparently after Antiochus IV Epiphanes [the “little”
identification with the ‘Son of Man’ conceivable. The horn] was killed, Judas Maccabeus [the “Son of Man”] was given a
unpreparedness of 1 Enoch 71:14 might be supported by a majority kingdom, and although he was not a king, he was nevertheless like
reading for 1 Enoch 70:1 in which one textual tradition has the a king. However, the 4th beast is clearly about the Roman Empire!
following: ‘Afterwards it happened that his immortal name was
exalted before that Son of Man and the Lord of Spirits above all John Goldingay [21st century biblical scholar] responds to this:
those who live on the earth.’ This reference to Enoch’s exaltation “The figure has been identified as Israel’s actual leader whose rule
is clear, but he remains distinct from ‘that Son of Man.’” followed that of Antiochus, Judas Maccabeus; the vision would
mark God’s approval of the Maccabean victory. But this view
So, although no mention is made of the “Son of Man” specifically presupposes that Daniel was written after the temple restoration;
“accompanied by heavenly clouds” in 1 Enoch 37–71, nevertheless and there are no specific pointers to Judas, while in general the
Enoch refers to the throne on which the “Son of Man” will sit [1 book’s sympathies within loyal Judaism are usually thought to be
Enoch 51:3], especially in the context of his existence before the more with the strand that was looking for God to act than with the
sun, stars, and heavens were made [1 Enoch 48:3]. active resistance of the Maccabees.”
 333

John Collins [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] likewise responds: In so doing, he created a striking and deliberate contrast between
“Another interpretation identifies the ‘one like a human being’ as the four immense beasts which emerge from the great sea (vv. 2–3),
Judas Maccabee. Jerome thought this identification was implied in symbol of chaos and nothingness in the Urzeit (Genesis 1:1–2),
Porphyry’s attempt to interpret the vision with reference to the and the ‘one in human likeness’ who in the Endzeit comes ‘with the
Jews under Epiphanes, and it has also found occasional defenders clouds of heaven,’ clouds being one of the usual accompaniments
in modern times. The argument for this view is that Judas was the of a theophany (Exodus 13:21; 19:16; 20:21; Deuteronomy 5:22; 1
ruler who actually followed the 4th beast. The argument fails for Kings 8:10). As Moses, ‘whom the Lord knew face to face’
lack of support in the rest of the book. In Daniel 11:34 we are told (Deuteronomy 34:10), ‘passed into the midst of the cloud’ (Exodus
that the maskîlîm in the time of persecution will receive ‘little 24:18), so too the ‘one in human likeness,’ the Israel of faith,
help’; this has long been taken as a slighting reference to the comes ‘with the clouds of the heavens’ and arrives at the throne of
Maccabees. In fact, it is far from clear that Daniel’s book the Ancient One. Then the ‘one in human likeness’ is brought into
supports the militant action of the Maccabees at all. Nowhere else the presence of the Ancient One (v. 13). The Aramaic words here,
in the book do we find even a possible reference to Judas.” qedāmôhî haqrebûhî (‘he was brought into his presence’) are the
same ones used in the Aramaic Story of Ahiqar, col. 4, line 50,
2. The Collective/Personification View qrbtk qdm snḥʾryb mlkʾ (‘I brought you into the presence of King
This interprets the “Son of Man” not as an individual, but a Sennacherib’). As Montgomery points out, ‘The idea is that of a
collective representation or personification for a group of people royal audience.’ Thus, the ‘one in human likeness’ did not descend
on the basis of midrashic interpretations [Midr. Ps. 21, 5; Tanch. or come from God as if he had been an angel in the divine
Tol. 20], which are hardly convincing in light of the internal presence, but rather he ascended or came to God and was brought
problems found in those documents [or the rabbinic gymnastics into his presence. In effect, the author is saying that ‘the holy ones
that are involved in their formulations]. The exegesis of vv. 13–14 of the Most High,’ faithful Israel responsive to the demands of the
in its own context must be primary. Nevertheless, in this reign of God even in the face of their present humiliation and
interpretation, this group are faithful Jews gaining God’s kingdom. suffering, will come into the divine presence in order to receive
everlasting dominion in holiness, nobility, and grandeur, and so
Louis Hartman [20th century biblical scholar] defended this view: will replace the depraved, brutal, and vile kingdoms of the pagan
“It should be stated that the interpretation proposed here of the world which were opposed to the reign of God and to his people.”
‘one in human likeness’ and ‘the holy ones of the Most High’ is the
most natural and obvious one, and seems to do greatest justice to Scholars have also argued that the equivalence of the “Son of Man”
the genius of the author of Daniel 7 who, though quite at home in [vv. 13–14] with the “saints of the Highest One” [later in v. 27]
the Old Testament, displayed great originality and ability in his includes a fulfilment in Jesus as the highest example of vindication.
selection and use of traditional materials. Montgomery aptly
observes: ‘We must allow the chapter its own originality and do Francis Moloney [21st century New Testament scholar] explains:
justice to the simply but finely limned features of the drama without “The expression ‘one like a son of man,’ used to describe the holy
thinking that every detail is a painful borrowing on the part of a ones in Israel in Daniel 7, becomes ‘the Son of Man’ in the person
second–hand littérateur.’ Indeed, since he chose four horrifying of Jesus. The nation of holy ones, prepared to obey the God of
and monstrous beasts as symbols of the four world–empires, Israel in the conviction that in the end—despite all apparent human
doubtless he thought it most appropriate to symbolize the members wisdom and appearances—God would have the last word, is
of the kingdom of God by the figure of ‘the one in human likeness.’ assumed by Jesus as an individual, ‘the Son of Man.’”
 334

Nevertheless, this collective view stiff suffers from this problem in words “coming with the clouds of heaven,” which revealed that he
v. 14: “that all peoples, nations, and languages are to serve him.” saw himself as that kingly figure in vv. 13–14. He had revealed this
In other words, the Aramaic yiplᵊḥûn [for “to serve”] from the earlier to his disciples [Matthew 24:30], but now he was stating it
Akkadian cognate palāḥu [or “to fear, respect, venerate”] is always publicly with the religious leaders. So, if the “Son of Man” was
used with the idea of service or worship of a deity, and any other ambiguous, Jesus removed all ambiguity and claimed to be him!
than Yahweh would be tantamount to idolatry [recall Daniel 3:12]. Furthermore, his clarification that he would be “seated at the right
This is why the LXXΟ has translated it with the Greek verb latreuō hand of the Power” clarified the question he raised to the religious
[or “to serve the gods with prayers and sacrifices”]. leaders a few days earlier [Mark 12:35–37] about Psalm 110, and
now he was able to answer his paradoxical question [“David
3. The Angelic View himself calls him ‘Lord,’ so how can he be his son?”]. Thus, the
Other scholars have taken the collective view and modified it to answer is that Jesus is David’s “Lord” [the 2nd Power/Yahweh]
interpret this group as angels! Defenders of this view have pointed who will sit at the right hand of God [the 1st Power/Yahweh]!
out that it is customary in visions to have multiple angels appearing Thus, Jesus neatly tied together vv. 13–14 with Psalm 110:1 and
in human semblance [or that a specific angel is in view]. In other has shown that the Davidic covenant promise of eternal kingship
words, the Aramaic qadîš elyônîn [or “saints of the Highest”] are and the kingship promise in vv. 13–14 find their fulfilment in him!
said to receive the kingdom [v. 18], and the equivalent Hebrew
term qᵊdôšîm commonly refers to angels. However, the major Darrell Bock [21st century New Testament scholar] summarizes:
weakness to this view is that these “saints” will suffer and will be “At the exchange between Jesus and the high priest, Jesus was
subsequently defeated [later in vv. 21, 25]. Furthermore, since all asked to explain who he was. His reply invoked Psalm 110:1 and
the nations “serve him,” this is hardly fitting for an angelic figure! Daniel 7:13. This was the crux of this scene. One could make a
strong case for both citations being linked by Jesus originally,
4. The Messianic View given the likelihood that both texts appeared to have mattered to
The earliest interpretation is the messianic one [b. Sanh. 98a; Num. him (Mark 12:35–37; 13:26; Matthew 22:41–45; 24:27, 30; Luke
Rab. 13:14; and ʾAggadat Bĕrʾēšît 14:3; 23:1]. There was already 20:41–44; 21:22, 24, 27). The way in which Psalm 110:1 is posed
evidence of this in the intertestamental literature as attested by the as a riddle and is stated theoretically not confessionally does not
repeated connection in 1 Enoch between the “Son of Man” and the reflect the clarity of an early–church creation and suggests
messiah [1 Enoch 46:1–6; 48:1–7], and Jesus made reference to authenticity. Jesus’ self–designation as Son of Man, which is as
himself as this “Son of Man” [it occurs ~84 times in the gospels]. multi–attested as any title tied to him points to the likelihood that
Of particular importance is the reference in Mark 14:62, where he reflected on this phrase. The likelihood he did so without
Jesus made a direct allusion to vv. 13–14. His response became the considering its scriptural roots is very hard to accept. I actually
basis of the charge of blasphemy levelled against him. Thus, his think it is likely he alluded to both texts. However, as a matter of
appeal to vv. 13–14 cannot be seen in isolation, as though this was historical Jesus debate, all one needed to trigger the offense was
a post–Easter manoeuvre by the early church to put words back that Jesus alluded to one of these two texts. The high priest could
into his mouth, portraying him as claiming something he never have responded with a blasphemy claim had either text been
really believed about himself [as critical scholars have suggested]. noted. The appeal to Psalm 110:1 with its reference to being seated
Jesus had consistently and frequently used the expression “Son of at the right hand of God meant that Jesus anticipated divine
Man” of himself throughout his public ministry, and at the end he vindication and expected to be ushered into God’s very presence,
ramped up the significance of this self–identification by adding the in some way sharing God’s presence and glory, a thought that was
 335

controversial to Jews, some of whom entertained the possibility of receive authority, the sequence in Jesus’ reply sees a coming from
something similar for a few potential figures, while other Jews heaven to exercise this authority. So, Jesus is developing Daniel,
thought that such an exaltation was unthinkable. The Exagoge of in all likelihood because of the vindication that he anticipated and
Ezekiel 68–82 entertains the possibility of Moses seated on the expressed through Psalm 110:1. Luke cites the Danielic title and
‘thrones’ of God (note the plural for thrones, an allusion to Daniel Psalm 110:1 because in one sense it is the key text that establishes
7:9). This text is not eschatological, but is a midrash on Exodus the motif of a presence with God in heaven. Jesus’ language here
7:1, which reads literally in the Hebrew, ‘I will make you god to is laid out in a manner that makes it clear he is not reading this
Pharaoh.’ So, in this text, Moses is portrayed in a dream as text in a metaphorical way that points to his role on earth, but to
sharing God’s authority when he acts in announcing the plagues. a vindication and position in heaven. In any of these three
This is not the same as a direct exaltation, but moves in that scenarios (Psalm 110:1 alone, Daniel 7:13–14 alone, or both texts
direction. 1 Enoch and its portrait of the Son of Man sees a 2nd together), Jesus’ reply claimed an equality with God that the
power in heaven who shares final judgment with God in lines leadership would have judged as slander against God’s unique
developed from Daniel 7:9–14. This authority seems to be very glory. With a Danielic allusion, the challenge to the leadership was
much like what Jesus affirmed at the trial. Two passages are of more direct, as Jesus (although he is a defendant now) claimed that
note here. One is 3 Enoch where the angel Metatron escorts Enoch one day he would be the judge of the leadership. This also could
and claims to be ‘little Yahweh’ only to be punished for the claim have been seen as blasphemous in light of Exodus 22:28. A way
later as having offended the uniqueness of God. So, this text shows to contextualize this reply is to think of it as worse than a defendant
a rejection of the sharing–glory–with–God idea. The second text is claiming to be able to live in the temple’s Holy of Holies, the
a famous exchange involving Rabbi Akiba, who upon positing the earthly symbol of God’s presence in heaven. Part of what made
possibility of a figure seated by God is challenged by other rabbis the remark so offensive to the leadership was its suggested locale
with the rebuke ‘Akiba, how long will you profane the Shekinah?’ in heaven. Jesus invoked not the symbol of God’s presence but his
The writers of these texts would have been offended by a reply own presence next to the very real glory of God. The regarding of
like Jesus’ whether he appealed to Psalm 110:1 or to Daniel 7:13. Jesus’ response as blasphemy was not a charge the leadership
So, for the Jewish leadership, a Galilean teacher like Jesus did not could have brought to Rome. However what it permitted them to do
qualify for such a claim, not having the credentials of greatness was raise the issue of Jesus being disruptive to the Pax Romana in
that the other candidates had, that is, if they even accepted such a Judea. If he had claimed to be a figure who bears independent
possibility. If Jesus had only appealed to Daniel 7:13–14, with its authority apart from Rome, that claim could have been taken to
image of the Son of Man riding the clouds, then the high priest Pilate and presented as a disruptive presence in the province. To
also would have reacted because such riding of the clouds was translate that as a claim to be a king independent of Rome was all
something only the deity did in the Old Testament. The that was needed to merit Pilate’s consideration. So, the leaders
implication in such a reply was that Jesus would return as the Son believed they had good reason to go to Pilate and raise a charge of
of Man to exercise judgment. The implication would have sedition to which Pilate acted as Caesar’s representative.”
included the idea that one day Jesus would judge his current
opponents! So this again would be seen as a claim to share divine Furthermore, there is a striking inter–textual feature that argues for
prerogatives, as well as a direct challenge to the leadership. If this messianic interpretation. In other words, in regards to the
Jesus uttered both sayings, then the point was that one day he “latter days” [recall Daniel 2:28], Israel’s hope was based upon a
would sit in God’s presence and exercise such judgment authority. future king who will appear at this time [Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah
Although Daniel 7:9–14 foreshadows a coming to heaven to 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16; Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1].
 336

Michael Shepherd [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] summarizes: ‘like a son of man’ in Daniel 7:13. The frequent use of ‘son of
“The canonical consciousness of Daniel’s book can be man’ in address to the prophet and the appearance of one ‘like
demonstrated in a number of ways. The character Daniel, like the appearance of a man’ in Ezekiel 1:26 seem to be strong links
Esther, is cast as a Joseph–like figure (Genesis 37–50) who is to Daniel 7:13. Pierson Parker has even gone so far as to say that
raised to prominence among foreign royalty in order to be an Jesus’ title in the New Testament indicated ‘prophetic leadership’
instrument for the purposes of God among the nations. From and that Jesus ‘marked himself not as messiah but as one who, in
another perspective, the ‘decree’ of Daniel 9:25 has been said to the line of Enoch, Daniel, and Ezekiel, envisaged the kingdom.’
point to the decree of Cyrus that closes the Hebrew canon in However, it must be said that Daniel 7:14 indicates that the one
expectation of the Messiah (2 Chronicles 36:23). But perhaps the ‘like a son of man’ in Daniel 7:13 is much more than a prophetic
most striking inter–textual feature of Daniel is the earlier– figure. Moreover, the one ‘like the appearance of a man’ in Ezekiel
mentioned Hebraism ‘at the end of the days’ in Daniel 2:28. The 1:26 is surrounded by fire and radiance (Ezekiel 1:27)—an
actual Hebrew phrase occurs in Daniel 10:14. The uniqueness of appearance called the ‘likeness of the glory of the Lord’ (Ezekiel
the phrase can be seen in its sparse use within the Pentateuch—it 1:28). Although this description bears a striking resemblance to
occurs four times (Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, the focus is on ‘the glory of the Lord’ (Ezekiel
4:30; 31:29)—and in its key role in the compositional strategy of 3:12, 23; 8:2–4; 9:3; 10:4; 43:2–5; 44:4).”
the Pentateuch. John Sailhamer has demonstrated that three of
the occurrences of the phrase within the Pentateuch (Genesis Thus, when all the views are considered, the 4th messianic view is the best
49:1; Numbers 24:14; Deuteronomy 31:29) stand at the option, because Daniel sees this “Son of Man” approaching the “Ancient of
beginning of major poetic seams in which a major character from Days” with “heavenly clouds,” and he will be given “dominion” over the
the preceding narrative proclaims a coming king from Judah ‘at entire world. Since God also “rides on a swift cloud” [Isaiah 19:1], this
the end of the days.’ The phrase falls into disuse in the former means that the heavenly “Son of Man” is the 2nd Power/Yahweh, a fitting
prophets. Although the hope of a messiah (1 Samuel 2:10; 2 description for Jesus [as the incarnate 2nd Power], since he is both divine
Samuel 22:51; 23:1) and an everlasting kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12– and human, and will establish God’s kingdom on earth [Mark 1:15].
13) is expressed, the fulfilment is not. Each successive king is
marked by failure to some degree. The phrase then re–emerges Robert Rowe [20th century New Testament scholar] says: “To summarize
(Isaiah 2:2; Jeremiah 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezekiel 38:16; our consideration of messianic kingship in Israel, we have seen that in the
Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1). Once again, the hope is a future king context of worship, the Davidic king was closely associated with the
(Hosea 3:5). The two final occurrences of the phrase come in kingship of Yahweh, was sometimes represented as suffering, and also
Daniel; thus, it has an important function in each division of the played the role of ‘representative man’ (analogous to the 1st man) in
Old Testament. The use of ‘at the end of the days’ in Daniel links relation to God; here he acted out, in his person and on behalf of his
the eschatology of the book to that of the rest of the canon. Thus, people Israel, on the one hand the frailty and humiliation of mankind, and
the coming king from Judah is the most likely candidate for the on the other the kingly authority and exaltation of mankind. In that role he
head of the everlasting kingdom in Daniel 2:44; 3:33; 4:31; 6:27; was known as ben ʾāḏām. The enthronement of God (Daniel 7:9) followed
7:14, 18, 27. God is the ruler of the kingdom, and he gives it to by the granting of kingship to ‘one like a son of man’ (Daniel 7:13) is
whomever he pleases (Daniel 4:14, 22, 29). His choice is the reminiscent of the coronation of the Davidic king in Psalm 2. The structure
coming king from Judah—the one ‘like a son of man’ in Daniel of the dream reflects the celebration of Yahweh’s kingship, which we have
7:13. Others who have looked to the larger canonical context have seen in the psalms is associated with the Davidic messianic king. It is
concluded that Ezekiel’s book is the key to understanding the one difficult to conceive of the ‘saints of the Most High’ without a leader.
 337

Having received the kingship, he shares it with the saints, by virtue of his Thus, in light of the storm–god Baal as a “rider of the clouds” in Canaanite
close identification with them. If ‘one like a son of man’ who comes ‘with mythology, it is not without significance that Jesus is also said to appear
the clouds of heaven’ is a heavenly being, although he may represent the this way, since clouds are frequently connected with God in the Old
saints, he cannot be merely a symbol for them. It is the heavenly origin of Testament [Exodus 16:10; 19:9; Leviticus 16:2; Deuteronomy 1:33; 1
the ‘one like a son of man’ which finally proves his individuality, and Kings 8:10; Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1]. Thus, this is about the deity of the
taken with other indications in the chapter, his messianic role.” messiah in v. 13. In fact, rather than “he approached the Ancient of Days,”
the LXXΟ says “he came like the Ancient of Days,” which is clearly
Matthias Albani [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] likewise concludes: presenting the messianic “Son of Man” figure as the 2nd Power/Yahweh.
“This is the eschatological fulfilment of the promises still open for the
Davidic dynasty (Psalm 2; 89; 110). Although in Daniel’s book the ‘one Bogdan Bucur [21st century patristic scholar] summarizes and concludes:
like a son of man’ is never expressis verbis identified with the messiah, his “Two main strands can be discerned in the Wirkungsgeschichte of Daniel
function in the eschatological hope of Daniel 7 runs parallel to the role 7. A first exegetical strand distinguishes the visionary characters of the
of the royal messiah in messianic expectations.” Ancient of Days and Son of Man and interprets them as references to the
Father and the Son. The second understands the two characters as two
Thus, the 3rd angelic view is unlikely because this would have the “little” aspects of Christ in a way that scholarship has started to term
horn fighting and defeating the angels. Furthermore, the Aramaic qaddîšîn ‘polymorphic Christology.’ These two exegetical avenues are equally
and Hebrew qᵊdôšîm [for “saints”] is not an exclusive term for “angels,” ancient and well–represented in the Christian writings of the 1st
and there is nothing in the context of Daniel 7 to suggest the “saints” millennium. Nevertheless, since the Christological interpretation of the
should be understood as angels. Why would the “Son of Man” refer to Ancient of Days (as part of a Christological polymorphism that also sees
angels, when the angels had already been depicted in v. 10 as those who the Son of Man as Christ) has such a robust presence in Byzantine festal
stood before the Ancient of Days and attended him? Likewise, the 1st hymnography, it very likely was the more popular interpretation.
human view is insufficient in light of the worship that the “Son of Man” is Paradoxically, Christian advocacy of the full divinity of Christ finds
given in v. 14, since the Aramaic word pᵊlaḥ [for “serve”] is always used itself in agreement with Rabbinic polemics against ‘two–power’ theology
with the idea of service or worship of a deity [implying idolatry when not on this point: for the rabbinic texts investigated by Segal, the one and
used of God]. In fact, this same argument would militate against the 3rd same God is ‘the one of the sea’ (a young warrior) and ‘the one of Sinai’
angelic view. Thus, the “Son of Man” refers to and finds its fulfilment in (the aged judge), and the two thrones in Daniel’s visions are for the two
Jesus! When properly understood, “Son of Man” does represent a human aspects of God, justice and mercy; for Christians, it is the one and same
[as it customarily does in the Old Testament], but since he also receives a Christ who is ‘the one Lord, both ancient and new,’ as Romanos
kingdom “like” a human, it means he has a paradoxical connection with expresses it, both Son of Man and Ancient of Days, newborn child and
humanity. In other words, vv. 13–14 communicates that the messiah is eternal God. The iconographic exegesis of Daniel 7 seems to have started
both human and divine! That is exactly what the virgin birth of Jesus of by embracing the Christological interpretation, often by inserting visual
Nazareth provides: he was born of a virgin woman and yet conceived by elements associated with the Ancient of Days into the iconography of
the Holy Spirit. In the consciousness of Jesus, it was an easy transition Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1. The coexistence in the same worship space of
from his pre–incarnate 2nd Power position as “someone like the Son of images of Christ as Pantokrator and Christ as the Ancient of Days led to
Man” to his incarnation as the “Son of Man” during his ~3.5 year ministry. the reinterpretation of the white–haired Christ as an image of the Father,
Furthermore, it is interesting that the Aramaic ănān [for “clouds”] was and this in turn forced the additional depiction of the Spirit as a dove. In
also associated with the messiah in later rabbinic tradition [Tanḥuma conclusion, Christological polymorphism gradually gave way to
Toledoth 20 and Tg. 1 Chron 3:24]. Trinitarian symbolism.”
 338

In other words, although the New Testament writers assigned the epithets, Ancient of Days. The Old Greek portrait of the son of man figure also
relevant passages, and imagery associated with the 2nd Yahweh to Jesus suggests that the ‘one like a son of man’ has a messianic nature. This is
[when interchanging him with the Father], they likewise also interchanged most clearly seen in the kingly authority that the figure receives. Other
the Spirit and Jesus, and this resulted in orthodox Trinitarianism: indications include his kingdom that will not pass away and his distinction
from the holy ones of the Most High. It is possible, then, that the
interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’ in the Old Greek may have
provided a basis for the more openly messianic and heavenly
interpretations of this figure that are found in later Jewish apocalyptic
literature such as the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra.”

Thus, since the authority and kingdom given to the “Son of Man” follows
the destruction of the “little” horn of the 4th beast, this means Daniel 7 is
parallel to Daniel 2, which means the manner and timing of its fulfilment
are quite complex. In other words, if Jesus will be seated at the right hand
of God when he arrives on the clouds [Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62], why
is it also true that Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of God,
waiting for his enemies to be made a footstool for his feet [Hebrew 1:13]?
Likewise why did Jesus declare after his resurrection “all authority has
been given to me in heaven and on earth” [Matthew 28:18]? The answer is
that the coronation of Jesus as king has been inaugurated with his
resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand, and for this reason,
Luke associates the fulfilment of Psalm 2:7 with the resurrection of Jesus
[Acts 13:33]. Thus, v. 13 does have a connection with both the
resurrection and the ascension of Jesus, because he has been given
kingdom authority, and yet he also waits for his enemies to be made a
footstool for his feet, such that the complete fulfilment of vv. 13–14 is
found in his 2nd coming. Nevertheless, not until then will we find all
peoples and nations serving him! So, to be escorted into the presence of
Benjamin Reynolds [21st century 2nd Temple scholar] also concludes: the Ancient of Days means Jesus is given a royal audience with the Father.
“Examining the portrait of the ‘one like a son of man’ in the Old Greek In other words, the Aramaic verb haqrᵊḇûhî [for “presented”] means he is
has indicated some unique characteristics of the ‘son of man’ figure. This escorted by an angelic entourage as he approaches God’s throne! Thus,
figure is more closely aligned with the Ancient of Days. He is described before his incarnation, Jesus was with the Father [John 7:29; 16:28; 17:5],
as having arrived like the Ancient of Days, appearing with the clouds, but v. 13 is about his reunion with the Father after accomplishing his work
receiving service due a divine figure, and having those standing before the on earth! So, as a result of his successful completion of the Father’s will,
Ancient of Days approach him. While the ‘one like a son of man’ is similar Jesus is appropriately given an inheritance fitting for an obedient son,
to the Ancient of Days, there is no indication of equivalency or because he was “appointed to be the heir of everything” [Hebrews 1:2],
identification. In fact the giving of authority to the ‘one like a son of man’ utilizing Psalm 2:8. The original divine intention for man to have
implies that the son of man figure’s status is different from that of the dominion over all creation [Genesis 1:26] is now entrusted to Jesus!
 339

Thus, v. 14 clarifies that this inheritance for Jesus consists of authority for among humankind and was called from the beginning the Son of Man on
ruling, glory appropriate to such an honour, and a kingdom over which to account of what he was to be, although he was not yet man, as Daniel
rule. However, unlike the powerful kingdoms of old depicted in vv. 1–8, testifies when he says, ‘one like the Son of Man came on the clouds of
this kingdom will be the most extensive of all; it will be universal. In this heaven.’ Rightly, then, did he say that he who was in heaven was called
culminating kingdom of history, all peoples, nations, and individuals of from the beginning by this name, the Word of God, as being that from
every language group will “serve” him, in the sense of worship to God. the beginning. The Father, having put all things in subjection to his own
This argues strongly for the deity of Jesus. Nevertheless, in the meantime, Son, in heaven and on earth, showed him forth by all as the first–begotten
preparation is being made for this future kingdom as various peoples from of God, in order that, along with the Father, he might be approved the
all nations continually place their faith in Jesus, are redeemed, and are Son of God before angels and be manifested as the Lord also of angels.”
transferred “into the kingdom of the Son whom he loves” [Colossians 1:13],
being made citizens for this eternal kingdom [recall Daniel 2:44]. Jerome [4th century] says: “He who was described in the dream of
Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a
Justin Martyr [2nd century] says: “If such power is shown to have large mountain and smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the
accompanied and still now accompanies his passion, just think how great silver, and the gold, is now introduced as the very person of the Son of
shall be his power at his glorious advent! For, as Daniel foretold, he shall Man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how he took on
come on the clouds as the Son of man, accompanied by his angels. Does himself human flesh. This is according to the statement: ‘You men of
not Daniel allude to this very truth when he says that he who received the Galilee, why do you stand gazing up toward heaven? This Jesus who has
eternal kingdom is ‘as a Son of Man’? The words ‘as a Son of Man’ been taken up from you into heaven shall so come in the same way as you
indicate that he would become man and appear as such but that he have seen him going into heaven’ [Acts 1:11]. All that is said here
would not be born of a human seed. Daniel states the same truth concerning his being brought before almighty God and receiving authority
figuratively when he call Christ ‘a stone cut out without hands’ [recall and honour and royal power is to be understood in the light of the
Daniel 2:34], for, to affirm that he was cut out without hands signifies that apostle’s statement: ‘Who, although he was in the form of God, thought it
he was not the product of human activity but of the will of God, the not robbery to be equal with God; but he emptied himself, taking the form
Father of all, who brought him forth.” of a servant, being made in the likeness of humankind, and was found in
his condition to be as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto
Hippolytus [3rd century] says: “For as two advents of our Lord and death, even to the death of the cross’ [Philippians 2:6–8]. And if the sect
Saviour are indicated in the scriptures, the one being his 1st advent in the of the Arians were willing to give heed to all scripture with a reverent
flesh, which took place without honour by reason of his being made mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the denigration
nothing, as Isaiah spoke of him previously, saying, ‘We saw him, and he that he is not on equality with God. Let Porphyry answer the query of
had no form or beauty’ [Isaiah 53:2]. But his 2nd advent is announced as whom out of all humankind this language might apply to, or who this
glorious, when he shall come from heaven with the host of angels and the person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the
glory of his Father, as the prophet said, ‘You shall see the King in glory’ little horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies that the
[Isaiah 33:17], and, ‘I saw one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds princes of Antiochus were defeated by Judas Maccabeus, then he must
of heaven; and he came to the Ancient of Days’ and he was brought to explain how Judas could be said to come with the clouds of heaven like
him. And there were given him dominion and honour and glory. Who was to the Son of Man and to be brought to the Ancient of Days, and how it
in heaven but the Word unincarnate, who was dispatched to show that he could be said that authority and royal power were bestowed on him, and
was on earth and was also in heaven? For he was Word, he was Spirit, he that all peoples and tribes and language groups served him and that his
was Power. The same took to himself the name common and current power is eternal and not terminated by any conclusion.”
 340

Hilary [4th century Bishop of Poitiers] says: “Glance over the whole course all unseen like dew on a fleece, and a second time still future and manifest.
of time, and realize in what guise he appeared to Joshua the son of Nun, a When first he came, he was swaddled in a manger. When next he comes,
prophet bearing his name, or to Isaiah, who relates that he saw him, as the he will ‘clothe himself with light as with a garment’ [Psalm 104:2]. At his
gospel also bears witness, or to Ezekiel, who was admitted even to first coming ‘he endured the cross, despising the shame’ [Hebrews 12:2];
knowledge of the resurrection, or to Daniel, who confesses the Son of Man at his second, he comes surrounded with glory and escorted by hosts of
in the eternal kingdom of the ages, or to all the rest to whom he presented angels. We do not therefore simply rest on Christ’s first coming, by itself,
himself in the form of various created beings, for the ways of God and for but let us look forward also to his second. The Saviour comes again, but
the works of God, that is to say, to teach us to know God and to profit our not to be judged again, for he will pass judgment on those who passed
eternal state. Why does this method, expressly designed for human judgment on him, and he who previously kept silence as they judged him
salvation, bring about at the present time such an impious attack on his now reminds those lawless people who did their outrageous deeds to him
eternal birth? The creation, of which you speak, dates from the on the cross and says, ‘these things you have done, and I kept silent’
commencement of the ages; but his birth is without end and before the [Psalm 50:21]. He adapted himself when he came then and taught
ages. Maintain this by all means: we are doing violence to words, if a humankind by persuasion, but this time it is they who will be forced to
prophet, or the Lord, or an apostle, or any oracle whatever has described bow to his rule, whether they will or not.”
by the name of creation the birth of his eternal divinity. In all these
manifestations God, who is a consuming fire, is present, as created, in Chrysostom [4th century Bishop of Constantinople] concludes: “What, I
such a manner that he could lay aside the created form by the same power ask, is more obvious than these words? ‘And all the peoples, tribes and
by which he assumed it, being able to destroy again that which had come tongues will serve him.’ See how he embraced every nation of the world.
into existence merely that it might be looked on.” See how he took the judge’s seat and power. Lest you should think that
this is temporary, he says, ‘These things will not pass away, and his
Cyril [4th century Bishop of Jerusalem] says: “He is called Christ, not for kingdom will not perish’ but will stay and remain. But if you doubt, you
any unction from human hands but from the Father’s, as having been can be persuaded by considering the matter. Do you see the equality of
anointed for eternal high priesthood on behalf of humanity. He is called honour he has with the Father? Since the Son appeared after the Father,
the dead, not as having gone to ‘join the majority,’ like all souls in Hades, he says that the Son came with the clouds. But it is clear from the very
but as the one ‘free among the dead’ [Psalm 88:5; Revelation 1:18]. He is clouds that he had existed before then, if indeed he came on them. ‘And
called Son of Man, not as it is said of each one of us that we sprang from honour was conferred on him,’ namely, the power that he had. ‘And the
earth, but in the context of his ‘coming in the clouds of heaven’ to judge peoples, tribes and tongues will serve him.’ Indeed, he had dominion
both the living and the dead [John 5:25–27]. He is called Lord, not in the previously, but then he will take that dominion that he had obtained. For
catachrestic sense in which the title is given to people, but as possessing just as you understand the hair of the Father and the other aspects of the
lordship by right of nature and forever. He is called Jesus because the vision, so you must understand this part of the vision. When you hear ‘it
name fits him, and he has that appellation in view of the saving medicine was given’ and other similar things, you will not think in human terms
he brings. He is called Son, not meaning that God promoted him to that about the Son or think lowly of him. For though you saw an old man, you
dignity but that he was naturally begotten as Son. What we proclaim is not did not think that he was an old man, so also you must think about the
one single coming of Christ but a second as well, much fairer than the other things. Do not seek crystal clarity among the prophets, where you
first. For the first presented a demonstration of longsuffering, but the will find instead shadows and riddles, just as you do not seek constant
second wears the crown of God’s kingdom. Most things about our Lord light in a thunderbolt. Instead, it suffices if light appears for just a bit.”
Jesus Christ are twofold. His birth is twofold, once of God before the ages,
and once of the Virgin in the end of the ages. Twice he comes down, once
 341

Summing Up …
This tremendous passage has inspired hundreds of books, articles,
sermons, lectures and media presentations. It has been treated both
honourably and unethically, as most symbol–heavy biblical passages have
been. Thus, one ought to be cautious when drawing conclusions from it:

1. Daniel 7 does not specifically name the nations in the four–

kingdom scheme it utilizes. In other words, since Daniel 2:24–45
begins with Babylon and ends with God’s kingdom rising as the
successor to the 4th kingdom, likewise vv. 9–27 also makes God’s
kingdom the final one. It promises persecution for God’s people
before that victory, without stating all the specific aspects or timing
of that suffering. It leaves previous kingdoms existing even after
God removes the “little” horn [v. 12], so it does not equate its death
with the final judgment day [vv. 21, 25]. Thus, the passage warns
Daniel that many hard days remain for God’s people. They must
persevere, knowing God’s kingdom will belong to them. Jesus
teaches his followers the same principle. He tells them that the
“Son of Man” will come after Jerusalem and the Temple have been
destroyed, and after much persecution [Luke 21:1–28]. Thus, his
disciples will need watchful perseverance [Luke 21:29–36].

2. Recent scholarship has extensively demonstrated that the New

Testament links the ministry of Jesus to vv. 13–14, specifically that
Jesus is the 2nd Power/Yahweh “Son of Man” figure [Mark 10:45;
13:26; 14:62; Luke 22:69–70; John 3:13–15].

3. It is wise for every generation of believers to examine the nature of

rulers and their kingdoms as Daniel has demonstrated [recall
Daniel 1–6]. In other words, we see that when rulers devour, break
down, persecute, and oppress anyone, they become twisted
humans. Nebuchadnezzar discovered this principle [recall Daniel
4], but Belshazzar and the beasts do not [vv. 1–8]. They remind us
that regimes are often brutal. The “little” horn reminds us that
oppressive regimes may oppose God, and often kill his people.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego recognized this possibility
[recall Daniel 3:16–18]. Nevertheless, God’s kingdom still grows.