John Calvin Commentary Daniel 2

Daniel here says: King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed in the second year of his reign. This seems contrary to the opinion expressed in the first chapter. For if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, how could Daniel be already counted among the wise men and astrologers, while he was still only a disciple?

Thus, it is easily understood from the context that he and his companions were already brought forward to serve the king. At first glance, these things do not align, because in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, Daniel and his companions were put into training; and in the second, he was in danger of death because he was counted among the Magi.

Some, as we have mentioned elsewhere, count the second year from the capture and destruction of the city, for they say Nebuchadnezzar was called king from the time when he obtained the monarchy in peace. Before he had overthrown the City, Temple, and Nation, his Monarchy could not be considered unified; therefore, they refer this to the capture of the city, as I have said.

But I am more inclined to another, more probable conjecture: that of his reigning with his father. I have shown that when he besieged Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiakim, he was sent by his father. He next returned to Chaldea from the Egyptian expedition because he wished to suppress revolts, if anyone dared to rebel.

In this, therefore, there is nothing out of place. Nebuchadnezzar reigned before the death of his father because he had already shared supreme power with him; then he reigned alone, and the present narrative happened in the second year of his reign. In this explanation, there is nothing forced, and as the history agrees with it, I adopt it as the best.

He says he dreamt dreams, and yet only one dream is recounted; but since many things were involved in this dream, the use of the plural number is not surprising. It is now added, his spirit was contrite, to show us how uncommon the dream really was. For Nebuchadnezzar was not new to dreaming and was not previously so frightened every night as to send for all the Magi.

Therefore, in this dream, there was something extraordinary, which Daniel wished to express in these words.

The clause at the end of the verse, which they usually translate as his sleep was interrupted, does not seem to have this meaning. Another explanation, which our brother D. Antonius gave you, fits it better: namely, his sleep was upon him, meaning he began to sleep again.

The genuine and simple sense of the words seems to me to be his spirit was confused; that is, very great terror had seized his mind. He knew, indeed, that the dream was sent from heaven.

Next, being astonished, he slept again and became like a dead man. When he considered the interpretation of the dream, he became stupefied, returned to sleep, and forgot the vision, as we will see later.

This verse more clearly proves what I have already said: that the dream caused the king to feel God to be its author. Although this was not his first dream, the terror that God impressed on his mind compelled him to summon all the Magi, since he could not rest even by returning to sleep.

He felt, as it were, a sting in his mind, since God did not allow him to rest but wished him to be troubled until he received an interpretation of the dream. Even secular writers very correctly consider dreams connected with divine agency. They express various opinions because they could not know anything with perfect certainty; yet, the conviction was fixed in their minds regarding some divine agency in dreams.

It would be foolish and childish to extend this to all dreams, as we see some people never letting a single dream pass without a conjecture, thus making themselves ridiculous. We know dreams arise from different causes, such as our daily thoughts. If I have meditated on anything during the daytime, something occurs to me at night in a dream, because the mind is not completely buried in slumber but retains some seed of intelligence, although it is suffocated.

Experience also sufficiently teaches us how our daily thoughts recur during sleep, and thus the various states of the mind and body produce many dreams. If anyone goes to bed in sorrow—whether from the death of a friend, any loss, or suffering any injury or adversity—his dreams will reflect the previous state of his mind.

The body itself causes dreams, as we see with those who suffer from fever: when thirst prevails, they imagine fountains, fires, and similar fancies. We also perceive how intemperance disturbs people in their sleep, for drunkards startle and dream in their sleep, as if in a state of frenzy.

As there are many natural causes for dreams, it would be quite inappropriate to seek divine agency or a fixed reason in all of them. On the other hand, it is sufficiently evident that some dreams are under divine regulation. I omit events that have been related in ancient histories, but surely the dream of Calpurnia, Julius Caesar's wife, could not be fictitious. Before he was slain, it was commonly reported, “Caesar has been killed,” just as she had dreamt.

The same may be said of the physician of Augustus, who had ordered him to leave his tent the day of the battle of Pharsalia. Yet, there was no reason for the physician to order him to be carried out of the tent on a litter, unless he had dreamt it was necessary.

What was the nature of that necessity? It was such that it could not be conjectured by human skill, for the camp of Augustus was taken at that very moment. I do not doubt there are many fabulous accounts, but here I may choose what I shall believe. I am not yet addressing dreams mentioned in God’s word, for I am merely speaking of what secular men were compelled to think on this subject.

Although Aristotle freely rejected all sense of divination, because he was prejudiced in the matter and desired to reduce the nature of Deity within the scope of human ingenuity and to comprehend all things by his acuteness, yet he makes this confession: that all dreams do not happen randomly, but that μαντική (mantikē), that is, “divination,” is the source of some of them.

He disputes, indeed, whether they belong to the intellectual or sensory part of the mind, and concludes they belong to the latter, as far as it is imaginative. Afterward, when inquiring whether they are causes or anything similar, he is inclined to view them only as symptoms or accidents that occur by chance.

Meanwhile, he does not admit that dreams are sent from heaven and adds as his reason that many foolish people dream and manifest the same reasoning in them as the wisest. Next, he notes the animal kingdom, some of which, like elephants, dream. Since animals dream, and wise men dream less often than the most ignorant individuals, Aristotle does not think it probable that dreams are divinely inspired.

Therefore, he denies that they are sent from God, or are divine, but asserts that they spring from the Daimones; that is, he imagines them to be something between the natures of the Deity and the Daimones. We know the sense in which philosophers use that word, which in Scripture usually has a negative connotation.

He says that dreams were caused by those aerial inspirations but are not from God, because, he says, human nature is not divine but inferior; and yet more than earthly, since it is angelic. Cicero discusses this subject at great length in his first book on Divination, although in the second, he refutes all he had said while he was a disciple of the Academy.

For among other arguments proving the existence of deities, he includes dreams. If there is any divination in dreams, it follows that there is a Deity in heaven, for the human mind cannot conceive of any dream without divine inspiration. Cicero’s reasoning is valid: if there is divination in dreams, then there is also a Deity.

The distinction made by Macrobius is noteworthy, although he ignorantly confuses species and genera, being a person of imperfect judgment who compiled whatever he read into rhapsodies without discrimination or arrangement. This, then, should remain established: the opinion concerning the existence of some kind of divine agency in dreams was not randomly implanted in the hearts of all people.

Hence Homer's expression that a dream is from Jupiter. He does not mean this generally and indiscriminately for all dreams, but he notes it when presenting the characters of his heroes, since they were divinely admonished in their sleep.

I now come to Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream. In this, two points are noteworthy. First, all remembrance of its subject was entirely obliterated; and secondly, no interpretation was found for it. Sometimes the remembrance of a dream was not lost while its interpretation was unknown. But here Nebuchadnezzar was not only perplexed at the interpretation of the dream, but even the vision itself had vanished, and thus his perplexity and anxiety were doubled.

Regarding the next point, there is nothing new in Daniel making the interpretation known, for it sometimes, though rarely, happens that a person dreams without a figure or enigma, and with great clarity, without any need for diviners—a name given to interpreters of dreams. This indeed happens seldom, since the usual way with dreams is for God to speak through them allegorically and obscurely. And this occurs with secular people as well as with the servants of God. When Joseph dreamt that he was adored by the sun and moon (Genesis 37:9), he was ignorant of its meaning. When he dreamt of his sheaf being adored by his brothers' sheaves, he did not understand its meaning but related it simply to his brothers. Hence God often speaks in enigmas by dreams, until the interpretation is added. And such was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

We perceive, then, that God reveals His will even to unbelievers, but not clearly; because seeing they do not see, just as if they were gazing at a closed book or sealed letter. As Isaiah says: God speaks to unbelievers in broken accents and with a stammering tongue (Isaiah 28:11 and Isaiah 29:11). God’s will was so revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that he still remained perplexed and was completely astonished.

His dream would have been of no use to him, unless, as we shall see, Daniel had been presented to him as its interpreter. For God not only wished to hold the king in suspense, but He thus blotted out the remembrance of the dream from his mind, to increase the power of His sting. Since people are accustomed to neglect dreams they do not remember, God inwardly fastened such a sting in the mind of this unbeliever (as I have already said) that he could not rest but was always wakeful in the midst of his dreaming, because God was drawing him to Himself by secret chains. This is the true reason why God denied him the immediate explanation of his dream, and blotted out the remembrance of it from his mind, until he should receive both from Daniel. We will leave the rest until tomorrow.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since every perfect gift comes from You, and since some excel others in intelligence and talents, yet as no one has anything of his own, but as You deign to distribute to people a measure of Your gracious liberality—Grant that whatever intelligence You do confer upon us, we may apply it to the glory of Your name.

Grant also, that we may acknowledge in humility and modesty what You have committed to our care to be Your own; and may we strive to be restrained by sobriety, to desire nothing superfluous, never to corrupt true and genuine knowledge, and to remain in that simplicity to which You call us. Finally, may we not rest in these earthly things, but learn rather to raise our minds to true wisdom, to acknowledge You to be the true God, and to devote ourselves to the obedience of Your righteousness. May it be our sole object to devote and consecrate ourselves entirely to the glory of Your name throughout our lives, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We yesterday saw the Magi sent for by the king’s edict, not only to explain his dream to him but also to narrate the dream itself which had slipped from his memory. But since four kinds of Magi are mentioned here (or at least three, with their description added in the fourth place), I shall briefly touch upon what seems to me to be their meaning.

הרטמים Hartummim, is usually explained as “soothsayers,” and afterward אשפים, Assaphim, they think, means “physicians.” I am unwilling to contend against the first interpretation, but I see no reason for the second. They interpret it as “physicians” because they judge people’s health by feeling the pulse, but having no better reason than this, I adopt the opinion that it refers to astrologers.

In the third place, מכשפים, Mecasphim, is used, meaning “sorcerers,” though some change the signification and say it means “star-gazers,” who indicate future events and predict unknown ones from the position of the stars. I have nothing more probable to bring forward than this, except for the uncertainty of what the Hebrews meant by the word. For since the matter itself is so buried in oblivion, who can distinguish between words that belong to the profession of an unknown art?

כשדים, Casdim, is doubtless used for a race, for it is the name of a nation. Yet, on account of its excellence, the Magi appropriated it to themselves, as if the nobility and excellence of the whole nation were in their power; and this name is known to be in common use in Greece and Italy.

All who professed their ability to predict future or hidden events from the stars or other conjectures were called Chaldees. With respect to the three other words, I do not doubt their honorable meaning, and for this reason, they called themselves Mathematicians, as if there were no science in the world except with them.

Besides, although their principles were good, they were certainly stuffed with many superstitions, for they were soothsayers and diviners, and we know they gave special attention to augury. Although they were highly esteemed by their fellow countrymen, yet they are condemned by God’s law, for all their pretense to science was complete imposture.

They are generally called Magi, and also Chaldeans, as shortly afterward, when Daniel will repeat what they have spoken before the king, he will not enumerate those three species but will simply call them Chaldees. It is surprising that Daniel and his companions were not called among them, for he ought to have been called among the first, since the king, as we have said, found these four to be ten times better than all the Magi and Diviners throughout his kingdom!

Since their dexterity was not unknown to the king, why does he pass them by completely, while the other Magi are at hand and are called in for such an arduous case? Very probably the king omitted them because he trusted more in the natives or suspected the captives and was unwilling to entrust them with his secrets, as he had not yet sufficiently tried their fidelity and constancy. This might have been the reason, but it is better for us to consider the intention of the Almighty, for I have no doubt that this forgetfulness on the part of the king occurred by God’s providence, as He was unwilling from the first to mingle His servant Daniel and the rest with the Magi and Soothsayers. This accounts for Daniel not being sent for with the rest. From this, as we shall see, his divination would afterward become more illustrious.

Daniel first relates the great confidence of the Chaldeans, since they dared to promise the interpretation of a dream still unknown to them. The king says he was troubled through desire to understand the dream; by which he signifies that a kind of riddle was divinely set before him.

He confesses his ignorance, while the importance of the matter may be gathered from his words. Since, then, the king testifies to his desire to inquire about a matter obscure and profound, exceeding his comprehension, and since he clearly expresses himself to be contrite in spirit, some kind of fear and anxiety ought to have touched these Chaldeans; yet they confidently promise to offer the very best interpretation of the dream as soon as they understood it.

When they say, O king, live forever, it is not a simple and meaningless prayer, but they rather order the king to be cheerful and in good spirits, as they claim to be able to remove all care and anxiety from his mind, because the explanation of the dream was at hand.

We know how liberal in words those impostors always were; according to the language of an ancient poet, they enriched the ears and emptied the purses of others. And truly, those who curiously court the breeze with their ears deserve to feed upon it and to be taken in by such deceptions. All ages have proved that nothing exceeds the confidence of astrologers, who are not content with true science, but divine everyone’s life and death, conjecture all events, and profess to know everything.

We must generally hold that the art of conjecturing from dreams is rash and foolish. There is, indeed, a certain fixed interpretation of dreams, as we said yesterday; yet, as we will see later, this ought not to be ascribed to a sure science but to God’s singular gift.

Therefore, just as a prophet will not gather what he has to say from fixed reasonings but will explain God’s oracles, so also he who will interpret dreams correctly will not follow certain fixed rules; but if God has explained the meaning of the dream, he will then undertake the office of interpreting it according to his endowment with this gift.

Properly speaking, these two things—general and perpetual science, and special revelation—are opposed to each other and do not mutually agree. Since God claims for Himself this power of revealing, by means of a dream, what He has imprinted on the minds of men, therefore art and science cannot attain it; instead, a revelation from the Spirit must be awaited.

When the Chaldeans thus boldly promise to become good interpreters of the dream, they not only betray their rashness but also reveal themselves as mere impostors, who pretend to be proficient in a science of which they know nothing, as if they could predict by their conjectures the meaning of the king’s dream.

Here the king requires from the Chaldeans more than they claimed to provide him. For although their boasting, as we have said, was foolish in promising to interpret any dream, yet they never claimed the power of narrating anyone's dreams to them. The king, therefore, seems to me to act unjustly in not regarding what they had until now professed, and the limits of their art and skill, if indeed they had any skill!

When he says—the matter or speech had departed from him—the words admit of a twofold sense. For מלתה, millethah, may be taken for an edict, as we will see later; and so it might be read, has flowed away.

But since the same form of expression will be shortly repeated when it seems to be used of the dream (Daniel 2:8), this explanation is suitable enough, as the king says his dream had vanished. So I leave the point undecided.

It is worth noticing again what we said yesterday: terror had so seized the king that it deprived him of rest. And yet, he was not so informed that the slightest trace of the revelation remained. It was just as if an ox, stunned by a severe blow, should toss itself about and roll over and over.

Such is the madness of this wretched king, because God was harassing him with dreadful torments, while all the time the memory of the dream was completely obliterated from his mind. Hence he confesses—his dream had escaped him; and although the Magi had prescribed the limits of their skill, yet because they boasted of being interpreters of the gods, he did not hesitate to demand from them what they had never professed.

This is the just reward of arrogance, when men, puffed up with perverse confidence, assume before others more than they should, and, forgetful of all modesty, wish to be regarded as angelic spirits. Without the slightest doubt, God wished to make a laughingstock of this foolish boasting, which was conspicuous among the Chaldeans, when the king sharply demanded that they relate his dream, as well as offer an interpretation of it.

He afterwards adds threats, clearly tyrannical. Unless they interpret the dream, their life is in danger. No common punishment is threatened; instead, he says they would become “pieces”—if we take the meaning of the word to signify pieces. If we think it means “blood,” the sense will be the same.

This wrath of the king is clearly furious; indeed, Nebuchadnezzar in this respect surpassed the cruelty of all wild beasts. What fault could be imputed to the Chaldeans if they did not know the king’s dream? Surely, they had never professed this, as we will see later; and no king had ever demanded what was beyond human capability.

We perceive how the king manifested a brutal rage when he pronounced death and every cruel torture upon the Magi and sorcerers. Tyrants, indeed, often give free rein to their lust, and think everything is lawful for themselves; from which also come these words of the tragedian: "Whatever he wishes is lawful."

And Sophocles says, with evident truth, that anyone entering a tyrant’s threshold must cast away his liberty; but if we were to collect all examples, we would scarcely find one like this. It follows, then, that the king’s mind was impelled by diabolical fury, urging him to punish the Chaldeans who, with respect to him, were innocent enough.

We know them to have been impostors, and the world to have been deluded by their deceptions, which made them deserving of death, since by the precepts of the Law it was a capital crime for anyone to pretend to the power of prophecy by magic arts (Leviticus 20:6). But, as far as the king was concerned, they could not be charged with any crime.

Why, then, did he threaten them with death? Because the Lord wished to show the miracle which we will see later.

For if the king had allowed the Chaldeans to depart, he could have immediately buried that anxiety which tortured and excruciated his mind. The matter, too, would have been less noticed by the people. Therefore, God tortured the king’s mind until he rushed headlong in his fury, as we have said.

Thus, this atrocious and cruel denunciation must have aroused all men; for there is no doubt that the greatest and the least trembled together when they heard of such vehemence in the monarch’s wrath. This, therefore, is the complete meaning, and we must note the purpose of God’s providence in thus allowing the king’s anger to burn without restraint.

Here the king, on the other hand, desires to entice them with the hope of gain, to apply themselves to narrating his dream. He had already attempted to strike terror into them, so that even if they were unwilling, he might wrest the dream's narration from them, as well as its interpretation.

Meanwhile, if they could be persuaded by flattery, he tries this argument on them; for he promises a gift, and reward, and honor, that is, he promises a large remuneration if they narrated his dream and were faithful interpreters. From this we gather, as all history declares, that the Magi profited from their predictions and guesses.

The wise men of India, being frugal and austere in their way of life, were not entirely devoted to gain; for they are known to have lived without needing money, furniture, or anything else. They were content with roots, needed no clothing, slept on the ground, and were thus free from avarice.

But the Chaldeans, we know, ran here and there to obtain money from the simple and credulous. Therefore, the king here speaks according to custom when he promises a large reward. We must note here how the Chaldeans scattered their prophecies for the sake of gain; and when knowledge is made saleable, it is sure to be adulterated with many faults.

As when Paul speaks of corruptors of the Gospel, he says—they trafficked in it (2 Corinthians 2:7), because when a profit is made, as we have said before, even honorable teachers will inevitably degenerate and pervert all sincerity with their lying. For where avarice reigns, there is flattery, fawning servility, and all kinds of cunning, while truth is utterly extinguished.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the Chaldeans were so inclined to deceit, as it became natural to them through the pursuit of gain and the lust for wealth. Some honest teachers may receive support from the public treasury; but, as we have said, when anyone is drawn aside by profit, that person will inevitably pervert and corrupt all purity of doctrine. And from this passage we further gather the king's anxiety, as he had no wish to spare expense, if by this means he could obtain the interpretation of his dream from the Chaldeans; all the while he is furiously angry with them because he does not obtain what the offered reward should have procured.