Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 4:19

"Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was stricken dumb for a while, and his thoughts troubled him. The king answered and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine adversaries." — Daniel 4:19 (ASV)

Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar - (Daniel 4:8). It has been objected that the mention in this edict of “both” the names by which Daniel was known is an improbable circumstance. A pagan monarch, it is argued, would only have referred to him by the name he was known by in Babylon—the name the king himself had conferred on him in honor of the god (“Belus”) after whom he was called (see the note at Daniel 1:7).

To this it may be replied that although in ordinary interactions with him in Babylon, when addressing him as an officer of state under the Chaldean government, he would undoubtedly be mentioned only by that name, yet, in a proclamation like this, both names by which he was known would be used. One name would identify him among his own countrymen, and the other among the Chaldeans.

This proclamation was designed for people of all classes, ranks, and tongues (Daniel 4:1); it was intended to make known the supremacy of the God worshipped by the Hebrews. Nebuchadnezzar had derived the knowledge of the meaning of his dream from one who was a Hebrew, and it was natural, therefore, so that it might be known by whom the dream had been interpreted, that he should designate him in such a way that it would be understood by all.

Was astonied - Was astonished. The word “astonied,” now gone out of use, occurs several times in the common version (Ezra 9:3; Job 17:8; Job 18:20; Ezekiel 4:17; Daniel 3:24; Daniel 4:19; Daniel 5:9). Daniel was “amazed” and “overwhelmed” at what was manifestly the fearful import of the dream.

For one hour - It is not possible to designate the exact time denoted by the word “hour”—שׁעה shâ‛âh. According to Gesenius (Lexicon), it means a moment of time; properly, a look, a glance, a wink of the eye—in German, “Augenblick.” In Arabic, the word means both a moment and an hour. In Daniel 3:6 and Daniel 3:15, it evidently means immediately.

Here, it would seem to mean a short time. That is, Daniel was fixed in thought and maintained a profound silence until the king addressed him. We are not to suppose that this continued for the space of time we call an hour; rather, he was silent until Nebuchadnezzar addressed him. He seemed unwilling even to speak of such fearful calamities as he saw were coming upon the king.

And his thoughts troubled him - The thoughts that passed through his mind regarding the fearful import of the dream.

The king spoke and said ... - Perceiving that the dream had, as he had probably apprehended, a fearful significance, and that Daniel hesitated about explaining its meaning. Perhaps he supposed that Daniel hesitated because he apprehended danger to himself if he should express his thoughts, and the king therefore assured him of safety and encouraged him to declare the full meaning of the vision, whatever that might be.

Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee - Let such things as are foreboded by the dream happen to your enemies rather than to you. This merely implies that he did not desire that these things should come upon him. It was the language of courtesy and of respect; it showed that he had no desire that any calamity should befall the monarch, and that he had no wish for the success of his enemies.

There is not, in this, anything necessarily implying a hatred of the king’s enemies or any wish that calamity should come upon them; it is the expression of an earnest desire that such an affliction might not come upon him. If it must come upon anyone, such was his respect for the sovereign, and such his desire for his welfare and prosperity, that he preferred it should fall upon those who were his enemies and who hated him.

This language, however, should not be rigidly interpreted. It is the language of an Oriental, language uttered at a court where only words of respect were heard. Expressions similar to this occur not infrequently in ancient writings. Thus Horace, Book 3, Ode 27:

“Hostium uxores puerique caecos
Sentiant motus orientis Austri.”

And Virgil, Georgics 3.513:

“Di meliora piis, erroremque hostibus illum.”

“Such rhetorical embellishments are pointed at no individuals, have nothing in them of malice or ill-will, are used as marks of respect to the ruling powers, and may be presumed to be free from any imputation of a want of charity.” - Wintle, in loc.