Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 2

And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar - There is an apparent chronological difficulty in this statement which has given some perplexity to expositors. It arises mainly from two sources:

1. That in Jeremiah 25:1, it is said that the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar corresponded with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and as the captivity was in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1), the time here would be the “fourth” year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of the second.
2. That we learn from Daniel 1:5, Daniel 1:18, that Daniel and his three friends had been in Babylon already three years, under a process of training preparatory to their being presented at court. As the whole narrative leads us to suppose that it was “after” this that Daniel was regarded as enrolled among the wise men , on the supposition that the captivity occurred in the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, this would bring the time of the dream into the fourth year of his reign.

This difficulty is somewhat increased from the fact that when Nebuchadnezzar went up to besiege Jerusalem he is called “king,” and it is evident that he did not go as a lieutenant of the reigning monarch or as a general of the Chaldean forces under the direction of another (See 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Kings 24:11). Various solutions of this difficulty have been proposed, but the true one probably is that Nebuchadnezzar reigned some time conjointly with his father, Nabopolassar. Although the title “king” was given to him, the reckoning here is dated from the time when he began to reign alone, and this was the year of his sole occupancy of the throne.

Berosus states that his father, Nabopolassar, was aged and infirm, and that he gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Necho out of Asia. The victorious prince then marched directly to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim surrendered to him; and this was the beginning of the seventy years, captivity. (See “Jahn’s History of the Hebrew Commonwealth,” p. 134.) Nabopolassar probably died about two years after that, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne.

The period of their reigning together was two years, and of course the second year of his single reign would be the fourth of his entire reign; and a reckoning from either would be proper, and would not be misunderstood. Other modes of solution have been adopted, but as this meets the whole difficulty, and is founded on truth, it is unnecessary to refer to them. (Compare Prof. Stuart, on Daniel, Excursus I. and Excursus II. See Barnes’ Appendix I and Appendix II to Daniel).

Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams - The plural is here used, though there is but one dream mentioned, and probably but one is referred to, for Nebuchadnezzar, when speaking of it himself, says, I have dreamed a dream (Daniel 2:3). In the Latin Vulgate, and in the Greek, it is also in the singular. It is probable that this is a popular use of words, as if one should say, “I had strange dreams last night,” though perhaps but a single dream was intended. - Prof. Bush.

Among the methods by which God made known future events in ancient times, that by “dreams” was one of the most common (See the notes at Daniel 1:17; Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7 (2); compare to Genesis 20:3, Genesis 20:6; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 37:5–6; Genesis 40:5; Genesis 41:7, Genesis 41:25; 1 Kings 3:5; Numbers 12:6; Joel 2:28; Job 33:14–16). The belief that the will of heaven was communicated to men by means of dreams was prevalent throughout the world in ancient times.

Hence, the striking expression in Homer, Iliad i. 63 - καὶ γάρ τ ̓ ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστιν (kai gar t' onar ek Dios estin), “the dream is of Jove.” So in the commencement of his second Iliad, he represents the will of Jupiter as conveyed to Agamemnon by Ὄνείρος (Oneiros) — or “the dream.”

So Diogenes Laertius makes mention of a dream of Socrates, by which he foretold his death as to happen in three days. This method of communicating the Divine will was adopted, not only in reference to the prophets, but also to those who were strangers to religion, and even to wicked men, as in the case of Pharaoh, Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, the butler and baker in Egypt, etc. In every such instance, however, it was necessary, as in the case before us, to call in the aid of a true prophet to interpret the dream; and it was only when thus interpreted that it took its place among the certain predictions of the future.

One “object” of communicating the Divine will in this manner seems to have been to fix the attention of the person who had the dream on the subject, and to prepare him to receive the communication which God had chosen to make to him. Thus it cannot be doubted that by the belief in dreams entertained by Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, as disclosing future events, and by the anxiety of mind which they experienced in regard to the dreams, they were better prepared to receive the communications of Joseph and Daniel in reference to the future than they could have been by any other method of making known the Divine will.

They had no doubt that some important communication had been made to them respecting the future, and they were anxious to know what it was. They were prepared, therefore, to welcome any explanation which commended itself to them as true, and in this way the servants of the true God had a means of access to their hearts which they could have found in no other way. By what laws it was so regulated that a dream should be “known” to be a prior indication of coming events, we have now no means of ascertaining. That it is “possible” for God to have access to the mind in sleep, and to communicate his will in this manner, no one can doubt.

That it was, so far as employed for that purpose, a safe and certain way, is demonstrated by the results of the predictions thus made in the case of Abimelech (Genesis 20:3, Genesis 20:6); of Joseph and his brothers (Genesis 37:5–6); of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:7, Genesis 41:25); and of the butler and baker (Genesis 40:5). It is not, however, to be inferred that the same reliance, or that any reliance, is now to be placed on dreams; for, if there were no other consideration against such reliance, it would be sufficient that there is no authorized interpreter of the wanderings of the mind in sleep. God now communicates his truth to the souls of men in other ways.

Wherewith his spirit was troubled - Alike by the unusual nature of the dream, and by the impression which he undoubtedly had that it referred to some important truths pertaining to his kingdom and to future times . The Hebrew word here rendered “troubled” (פעם pâ‛am) means, properly, to “strike, to beat, to pound;” then, in Niph., to be moved, or agitated; and also in Hithpa., to be agitated, or troubled. Its proper meaning is that of striking as on an anvil, and then it refers to any severe stroke, or anything which produces agitation.

The “verb” occurs only in the following places: Judges 13:25, where it is rendered “move;” and Psalms 67:4, 5; Genesis 41:8; Daniel 2:1, Daniel 2:3, where it is rendered “troubled.” The “noun” is of frequent occurrence. And his sleep broke from him. Hebrew עליו נהיתה שׁנתו (shenâthô nı̂h^ey^ethâh ‛ālâyv).

Literally, “His sleep was upon him.” The Greek is, “his sleep was from him;” that is, left him. The Vulgate, “his sleep fled (fugit) from him.” But it may be doubted whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. Probably the literal construction is the true one, by which the sense of the Hebrew - על (‛al) “upon” - will be retained. The meaning then would be, that this remarkable representation occurred when he was “in” a profound sleep.

It was a “dream,” and not “an open vision.” It was such a representation as passes before the mind when the senses are locked in repose, and not such as was made to pass before the minds of the prophets when they were permitted to see visions of the future, though awake (Compare to Numbers 24:4, Numbers 24:16).

There is nothing in the words which conveys the idea that there was anything preternatural in the sleep that had come upon Nebuchadnezzar, but the thought is, that all this occurred when he “was” sound asleep. Prof. Stuart, however, renders this, “his sleep failed him,” and so does also Gesenius. Winer renders it, “his sleep went away from him.” But it seems to me that the more natural idea is what occurs in the literal translation of the words, that this occurred as a dream, in a state of profound repose.

Then the king commanded - That is, when he awoke. The particle rendered “then” does not imply that this occurred immediately. When he awoke, his mind was agitated; he was impressed with the belief that he had received an important divine communication, but he could not even recall the dream distinctly. He resolved to summon to his presence those whose business it was to interpret what were regarded as indicators of the future.

The magicians, and the astrologers - These are the same words that occur in Daniel 1:20. See the note on that verse.

And the sorcerers - Hebrew מכשפים (m^ekash^epîm). The Vulgate has malefici (sorcerers); the Greek, φαρμακεύς (pharmakeus); the Syriac, “magician.” The Hebrew word is derived from כשף (kâshaph), meaning, in Piel, to practice magic, to use magic formulas or incantations, or to mutter. It refers to the various arts by which those who engaged in magic practiced their deceptions.

The particular idea in this word seems to be that on such occasions some forms of prayers were used, as the word in Syriac means to offer prayers or to worship. Probably the aid of idol gods was invoked by such persons when they practiced incantations. The word is found only in the following places: once as a verb in 2 Chronicles 33:6, where it is rendered “used witchcraft”; and as a participle, rendered “sorcerers,” in Exodus 7:11, Daniel 2:2, and Malachi 3:5; and “witch,” in Exodus 22:18 (verse 17 in the Hebrew text) and Deuteronomy 18:10.

The noun, כשׁף (kashâph) and כשפים (k^eshâpîm), is used in the following places, always with reference to sorcery or witchcraft: Jeremiah 27:9; 2 Kings 9:22; Isaiah 47:9; Micah 5:12 (verse 11 in the Hebrew text); and Nahum 3:4.

It may not be easy to specify the exact sense in which this word is used as distinguished from the others that relate to the same general subject, but it seems that some form of “prayer” or “invocation” was employed. The persons referred to did not profess to interpret indicators of future events by any original skill of their own, but by the aid of the gods.

And the Chaldeans - See the notes on Daniel 1:4. The Chaldeans appear to have been but one of the tribes or nations that made up the community at Babylon (compare the notes on Isaiah 23:13), and it seems that at this time they were particularly devoted to the practice of occult arts and secret sciences. It is not probable that the other persons referred to in this enumeration were Chaldeans. The Magians, if any of these were employed, were Medians (see the notes on Daniel 1:20), and it is not improbable that the other classes of diviners might have been from other nations.

The purpose of Nebuchadnezzar was to assemble at his court whatever was remarkable throughout the world for skill and knowledge (see analysis of Daniel 1:0), and the wise men of the Chaldeans were employed in carrying out that design. The Chaldeans were so much devoted to these secret arts, and became so celebrated for them, that the name came, among Greek and Roman writers, to be used to denote all those who claimed extraordinary powers in this department.

Diodorus Siculus (Book 2) says of the Chaldeans in Babylon that “they sustain the same office there that the priests do in Egypt, for being devoted to the worship of God through their whole lives, they give themselves to philosophy, and seek from astrology their highest glory.” Cicero also remarks (De Divinatione, p. 3) that “the Chaldeans, so named not from their art but their nation, are supposed, by a prolonged observation of the stars, to have developed a science by which it could be predicted what was to happen to every individual, and to what fate he was born.”

Juvenal likewise (Satires, Book 6, lines 552-554) has this passage: “Chaldaeis sed major erit fiducia; quidquid dixerit astrologus, credent a fonte relatum Ammonis.” — But their chief dependence is upon the Chaldeans; whatever an astrologer declares, they will receive as a response of (Jupiter) Ammon. Horace refers to the “Babylonians” as distinguished in his time for the arts of magic or divination:

“nec Babylonios,
tentaris numeros.”
— Horace, Carmina, Book 1, Ode 11.

It is not probable that the whole nation of Chaldeans was devoted to these arts, but as a people they became so celebrated in this kind of knowledge that it was their best-known characteristic abroad. (See also Barnes’ Appendix to Daniel)

For to show the king his dreams - To show him what the dream was and to explain its import. Compare Genesis 41:24, Judges 14:12, and 1 Kings 10:3. That it was common for kings to call in the aid of interpreters to explain the import of dreams appears from Herodotus.

When Astyages ascended the throne, he had a daughter whose name was Mandane. She had a dream that seemed to him so remarkable that he called in the “magi,” whose interpretation, Herodotus remarks, was of such a nature that it “terrified him exceedingly.” He was so much influenced by the dream and the interpretation that it produced an entire change in his determination respecting the marriage of his daughter (Herodotus, Book 1, Section 107).

So again, after the marriage of his daughter, Herodotus says (Book 1, Section 108), “Astyages had another vision. A vine appeared to spring from his daughter which overspread all Asia. On this occasion, also, he consulted his interpreters; the result was that he sent for his daughter from Persia when the time of her delivery approached. On her arrival, he kept a strict watch over her, intending to destroy her child. The magi had declared the vision to indicate that the child of his daughter should supplant him on the throne.”

Astyages, to guard against this, as soon as Cyrus was born, sent for Harpagus, a person in whom he had confidence, and commanded him to take the child to his own house and put him to death. These passages in Herodotus show that what is related here of the king of Babylon, demanding the aid of magicians and astrologers to interpret his dreams, was by no means uncommon.

And the king said to them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream—That is, clearly, to know all about it; to recollect distinctly what it was, and to understand what it meant. He was agitated by so remarkable a dream; he probably had, as Jerome remarks, a shadowy and floating impression of what the dream was—such as we often have of a dream that has agitated our minds, but of which we cannot recall the distinct and full image; and he desired to recall that distinctly, and to know exactly what it meant. See (Daniel 2:1).

Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king – The meaning is, either that the Chaldeans spoke in the name of the entire company of the soothsayers and magicians (see the notes, Daniel 1:20; Daniel 2:2), because they were the most prominent among them, or the name is used to denote the collective body of soothsayers, meaning that this request was made by the entire company.

In Syriac – In the original – ארמית 'ărâmı̂yt – in “Aramean.” Greek, Συριστὶ Suristi – “in Syriac.” So the Vulgate. The Syriac retains the original word. The word means Aramean, and the reference is to that language which is known as East Aramean – a general term embracing the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the languages which were spoken in Mesopotamia. (See the notes at Daniel 1:4). This was the common language of the king and of his subjects, and was that in which the Chaldeans would naturally address him. It is referred to here by the author of this book, perhaps to explain the reason why he himself uses this language in explaining the dream.

The use of this, however, is not confined to the statement of what the magicians said, but is continued to the end of the seventh chapter. (Compare the Introduction, Section IV, III). The language used is what is commonly called Chaldee. It is written in the same character as the Hebrew, and differs from that as one dialect differs from another. It was, doubtless, well understood by the Jews in their captivity, and was probably spoken by them after their return to their homeland.

O king, live forever – This is a form of speech quite common in addressing monarchs. (See 1 Samuel 10:24; 1 Kings 1:25 (margin); Daniel 3:9; Daniel 5:10). The expression is prevalent still, as in the phrases, “Long live the king,” “Vive l’ empereur,” “Vive le roi,” etc. It is founded on the idea that long life is to be regarded as a blessing, and that we can in no way express our good wishes for anyone better than to wish him length of days. Here, it was merely the usual expression of respect and homage, showing their earnest wish for the monarch's welfare.

They were willing to do anything to promote his happiness, and the continuance of his life and reign. It was especially proper for them to use this language, as they were about to make a rather unusual request, which “might” be construed as an act of disrespect, implying that the king had not given them all the means which it was equitable for them to have in explaining the matter, by requiring them to interpret the dream when he had not told them what it was.

Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation – The claim which they made in regard to the future was evidently only that of “explaining” what were regarded as the prognostics of future events. It was not that of being able to recall what is forgotten, or even to “originate” what might be regarded as pre-intimations of what is to happen. This was substantially the claim which was asserted by all the astrologers, augurs, and soothsayers of ancient times. Dreams, the flight of birds, the aspect of the entrails of animals slain for sacrifice, the positions of the stars, meteors, and uncommon appearances in the heavens, were supposed to be intimations made by the gods of what was to occur in the future, and the business of those who claimed the power of divining the future was merely to interpret these things. When the king, therefore, required that they should recall the dream itself to his own mind, it was a claim to something which was not involved in their profession, and which they regarded as unjust.

To that power they made no pretensions.

If it is asked why, as they were mere jugglers and pretenders, they did not “invent” something and state “that” as his dream, since he had forgotten what his dream actually was, we may reply:

1. There is no certain evidence that they were not sincere in what they professed they were able to do—for we are not to suppose that all who claimed to be soothsayers and astrologers were hypocrites and intentional deceivers. It was not at that period of the world certainly determined that nothing could be ascertained respecting the future by dreams, and by the positions of the stars, etc. Dreams “were” among the methods by which the future was made known; and whether the knowledge of what is to come could be obtained from the positions of the stars, etc., was a question which was at that time unsettled. Even Lord Bacon maintained that the science of astrology was not to be “rejected,” but to be “reformed.”

2. If the astrologers had been disposed to attempt to deceive the king, there is no probability that they could have succeeded in palming an invention of their own on him as his own dream. We may not be able distinctly to recollect a dream, but we have a sufficient impression of it—of its outlines, or of some striking, though disconnected, things in it—to know what it is “not.” We might instantly recognize it if stated to us; we should see at once, if anyone should attempt to deceive us by palming an invented dream on us, that “that” was not what we had dreamed.

The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me — The Vulgate renders this, “Sermo recessit a me” — “The word is departed from me.” So the Greek, Ὁ λόγος ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἀπέστη (Ho logos ap’ emou apestē). Luther, “Es ist mir entfallen” — “It has fallen away from me,” or “has departed from me.”

Coverdale translates, “It is gone from me.” The Chaldee word rendered “the thing” — מִלְּתָה (millethâh) — means, properly, “a word, saying, discourse” — something which is “spoken;” then, like דָּבָר (dâbâr) and the Greek ῥῆμα (rhēma), a “thing.” The reference here is to the matter under consideration, namely, the dream and its meaning.

The fair interpretation is that he had forgotten the dream, and that if he retained any recollection of it, it was only such an imperfect outline as to alarm him. The word rendered “is gone” — אזדא ('azeddâ') — which occurs only here and in Daniel 2:8, is supposed to be the same as אזל ('ăzal) — “to go away, to depart.”

Gesenius renders the whole phrase, “The word has gone out from me; that is, what I have said is ratified, and cannot be recalled.” Professor Bush (on this passage) contends that this is the true interpretation, and this also is the interpretation preferred by John D. Michaelis, and Dathe.

A somewhat similar construction is adopted by Aben Ezra, C. B. Michaelis, Winer, Hengstenberg, and Professor Stuart, meaning, “My decree is firm, or steadfast;” namely, that if they did not furnish an interpretation of the dream, they should be cut off. The question of the true interpretation, then, is between two constructions: whether it means, as in our version, that the dream had departed from him — that is, that he had forgotten it — or, that a decree or command had gone from him, that if they could not interpret the dream they should be destroyed. That the former is the correct interpretation seems evident to me.

1. It is the natural construction and accords best with the meaning of the original words. Thus, no one can doubt that the word מִלָּה (millâh) — and the words דָּבָר (dâbâr) and ῥῆμα (rhēma) — are used in the sense of “thing,” and that the natural and proper meaning of the Chaldee verb אֲזַד ('ăzad) is to “go away, depart.” Compare the Hebrew אזל ('âzal) in Deuteronomy 32:36, “He seeth that their power is gone;” 1 Samuel 9:7, “The bread is spent in our vessels;”Job 14:11, “The waters fail from the sea;” and the Chaldee אזל ('ăzal) in Ezra 4:23, “They went up in haste to Jerusalem;”Ezra 5:8, “We went into the province of Judea;” and Daniel 2:17; Daniel 2:24; Daniel 6:18 (verse 19 in some versions); Daniel 6:19 (verse 20 in some versions).

2. This interpretation is sustained by the Vulgate of Jerome and by the Greek.

3. It does not appear that any such command had at that time gone forth from the king; it was only when they came before him that he promulgated such an order. Even though the word, as Gesenius and Zickler (Chaldaismus Danielis Prophetiae) maintain, is a feminine participle present, instead of a verb in the preterite, it would still apply as well to the “dream” departing from him as to the command or edict. We may suppose the king to say, “The thing leaves me; I cannot recall it.”

4. It was so understood by the magicians, and the king did not attempt to correct their understanding of what he meant. Thus, in Daniel 2:7, they say, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation thereof.” This shows that they understood that the dream had gone from him and that they could not be expected to interpret its meaning until they were apprised of what it was.

5. It is not necessary to suppose that the king retained the memory of the dream himself and meant merely to test them; that is, that he told them a deliberate falsehood to put their ability to the test. Nebuchadnezzar was a cruel and severe monarch, and such an action would not have been entirely inconsistent with his character; however, we should not needlessly charge any man with cruelty and tyranny, nor should we do so unless the evidence is so clear that we cannot avoid it.

Besides, that such a test should be proposed is in the highest degree improbable. There was no need of it, and it was contrary to the established belief in such matters. These men were retained at court, among other reasons, for the very purpose of explaining the prognostics of the future. There was confidence in them, and they were retained “because” there was confidence in them. It does not appear that the Babylonian monarch had had any reason to distrust their ability in what they professed. Why, therefore, should he on this occasion resolve to put them to so unusual and obviously so unjust a trial?

For these reasons, it seems clear to me that our common version has given the correct sense of this passage. The meaning is that the dream had actually departed from him so much that he could not repeat it, though he retained such an impression of its portentous nature and appalling outline as to fill his mind with alarm.

Regarding the objection by Bertholdt to the authenticity of this chapter (derived from this view of the passage) — that it is wholly improbable that any man would be so unreasonable as to doom others to punishment because they could not recall his dream, since it was not part of their profession to be able to do so (Commentary I, p. 192) — it may be remarked that Nebuchadnezzar’s character was such as to make what Daniel states here by no means improbable.

Thus it is said concerning him in 2 Kings 25:7, “And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.” (Compare 2 Kings 25:18–21; Jeremiah 39:5 and following; Jeremiah 52:9–11). See also Daniel 4:17, where he is called “the basest of men.” (Compare Hengstenberg, “Die Authentie des Daniel,” pp. 79-81). On this objection, see Introduction to the chapter, Section I.I.

If ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof — Whatever may be thought regarding the question of whether he had actually forgotten the dream, there can be no doubt that he demanded that they should state what it was and then explain it.

This demand was probably as unusual as it was, in one sense, unreasonable, since it did not fall fairly within their profession. Yet it was not unreasonable in this sense: if they really had communication with the gods and were qualified to explain future events, it might be supposed that they would be enabled to recall this forgotten dream. If the gods gave them power to explain what was to “come,” they could as easily enable them to recall “the past.”

Ye shall be cut in pieces — (Margin: “made.”) The Chaldee is, “You shall be made into pieces,” referring to a mode of punishment that was common to many ancient nations. (Compare 1 Samuel 15:33: “And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.”) Thus, Orpheus is said to have been torn in pieces by the Thracian women, and Bessus was cut in pieces by order of Alexander the Great.

And your houses shall be made a dunghill — (Compare 2 Kings 10:27). This is an expression denoting that their houses, instead of being elegant or comfortable mansions, would be devoted to the vilest uses and subjected to all kinds of dishonor and defilement.

The language used here is in accordance with what is commonly employed by Eastern peoples. They call down all sorts of indignities and abominations on the objects of their dislike, and it is not uncommon for them to smear with filth what is the object of their contempt or abhorrence.

Thus, when the Caliph Omar took Jerusalem at the head of the Saracen army, after ravaging the greater part of the city, he caused dung to be spread over the site of the sanctuary as a token of the abhorrence of all Muslims, and of its being from then on regarded as the refuse and offscouring of all things (Prof. Bush). The Greek renders this, “And your houses shall be plundered,” and the Vulgate, “And your houses shall be confiscated.” These renderings, however, are entirely arbitrary.

This may seem to be a harsh punishment that was threatened. Some may, perhaps, be disposed to say that it is improbable that a monarch would allow himself to use such intemperate language and to make so severe a threat, especially when the magicians had not yet shown any inability to interpret the dream and had given no reasons to suspect that they would be unable to do so. But we are to remember the following:

1. The cruel and arbitrary character of the king (see the references above);

2. The nature of Eastern despotism, in which a monarch is accustomed to require all his commands to be obeyed and his wishes gratified promptly, on pain of death;

3. The fact that his mind was greatly excited by the dream; and

4. That he was certain that something portentous to his kingdom had been prefigured by the dream, and that this was a case in which all the force of threats and all the prospect of splendid reward should be used, so that they might be induced to tax their powers to the utmost and allay the tumults of his mind.