John Calvin Commentary Daniel 2:46

"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him." — Daniel 2:46 (ASV)

When the king of Babylon fell upon his face, it is partly to be considered as worthy of praise and partly of blame. It was a sign of both piety and modesty when he prostrated himself before God and his Prophet. We know the fierceness and pride of kings; indeed, we see them act like madmen because they do not consider themselves among mortals and become blinded by the splendor of their greatness.

Nebuchadnezzar was truly a very powerful monarch, and it was difficult for him to regulate his mind sufficiently to attribute the glory to God. Thus, the dream Daniel explained could not have been pleasing to him. He saw his monarchy cursed before God and about to perish in ignominy; others, too, which should succeed it, were ordained in heaven. And though he might receive some comfort from the destruction of the other kingdoms, it was very harsh to delicate ears to hear that a kingdom, which appeared most flourishing and which all men thought would be perpetual, was only of short duration and sure to perish.

Therefore, since the king thus prostrated himself before Daniel, it is, as I have said, a sign of piety in reverencing God in this way and in embracing the prophecy, which would otherwise be bitter and distasteful. It was also a sign of modesty because he humbled himself in this manner before God's Prophet. So far, the king of Babylon is worthy of praise, and we will discuss tomorrow the deficiency in his reverence.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You have shown us by so many, such clear, and such solid testimonies, that we can hope for no other Redeemer than Him whom You have set forth; and as You have sanctioned His divine and eternal power by so many miracles, and have sealed it by both the preaching of the Gospel and the seal of Your Spirit in our hearts, and confirm this by daily experience — Grant that we may remain firm and stable in Him. May we never decline from Him; may our faith never waver but withstand all the temptations of Satan, and may we so persevere in the course of Your holy calling, that we may be gathered at last to that eternal blessedness and perpetual rest which has been obtained for us by the blood of Your Son. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We said yesterday that King Nebuchadnezzar was worthy of praise because he prostrated himself before Daniel after he had heard the narration of his dream and the interpretation which was added. For he gave some testimony of piety, since in the person of Daniel he adored the true God, as we shall mention later.

Hence he showed himself teachable, since the prophet might exasperate his mind; because tyrants can hardly ever bear anything that detracts from their power. But he cannot be entirely excused. Although he confesses the God of Israel to be the only God, yet he transfers a part of His worship to a mortal man.

Those who excuse this do not sufficiently remember how profane men mingle heavenly and earthly things; though they occasionally have right dispositions, yet they lapse immediately into their own superstitions. Without doubt, the confession, which we shall encounter shortly, was confined to this single occasion. Nebuchadnezzar was not truly and completely converted to true piety, so as to repent of his errors, but he partially recognized the supreme power to be with the God of Israel.

This reverence, however, did not correct all his idolatries, but by a sudden impulse, as I have said, he confessed Daniel to be a servant of the true God. At the same time, he did not depart from the errors to which he had been accustomed, and he afterwards returned to greater hardness, as we shall find in the next chapter.

So also we see Pharaoh giving glory to God, but only for a moment (Exodus 9:27 and Exodus 10:16); meanwhile, he continued stubbornly proud and cruel, and never put off his original disposition. Our opinion of the king of Babylon should be of the same kind, though different in degree.

King Nebuchadnezzar’s obstinacy was not equal to the pride of Pharaoh. Each, indeed, showed some sign of reverence, but neither was truly and heartily submissive to the God of Israel. Hence he bows before Daniel, not thinking him a God, but mingling and confounding, as profane men do, black and white; and we know that from the beginning even the dullest men had some perception of the only God.

For no one ever denied the existence of a Supreme Deity, but men afterwards fabricated for themselves a multitude of gods and transferred a part of the divine worship to mortals. Since King Nebuchadnezzar was involved in these errors, we are not surprised at his adoring Daniel and at the same time confessing that there is only one God!

To this day, we see how all in the papacy confess this truth, and yet they tear up the name of God, not in word, but in reality; for they so divide the worship of God that each has a share of the spoil and the plunder. Daniel relates what experience even now teaches us.

This adoration was, it is true, commonly accepted among the Chaldeans, since Eastern peoples were always extravagant in their ceremonies, and we know their kings were adored as gods. But since the word for sacrificing is used here, and the word מנחה, mencheh, for “offering” also occurs, it is quite clear that Daniel was worshipped without consideration, as if he had been a demigod who had dropped down from heaven. Therefore, we must conclude that King Nebuchadnezzar did wrong in offering this honor to Daniel.

There should be moderation in our respect for God's Prophets, as we should not extol them beyond their merits; we know the condition on which the Lord calls us forth: that He alone may be exalted, while all His teachers, prophets, and servants should remain in their own position.

A question arises concerning the Prophet himself: Why did he allow himself to be worshipped? For if Nebuchadnezzar sinned, as we have said, the Prophet had no excuse for allowing it. Some commentators labor anxiously to excuse him; but if he passed this by in silence, we must be compelled to confess him in some degree corrupted by the allurements of the court, since it is difficult to be familiar there without immediately being subject to its contagion.

The defense of any man, however perfect, should never interfere with this fixed principle: nothing must be subtracted from the honor of God, and it is a mark of perverseness whenever and however the worship that is unique to God is transferred to creatures. Perhaps Daniel decidedly refused this and so restrained the folly of the king of Babylon; but I leave the point in doubt, as nothing is said about it.

Although it is hardly probable that he took no notice at the time, when he saw the honor of God partly transferred to himself, for this would have been to make himself a partaker of sacrilege and impiety. A holy Prophet could hardly fall into this snare. We know many things are omitted in the narrative, and Daniel does not record what was done, but what the king ordered.

He prostrated himself on his face; but perhaps Daniel showed this to be unlawful. When he ordered sacrifice to be offered, Daniel might have rejected it as a great sin. For Peter properly corrected the error of Cornelius, which was more tolerable, since he wished to adore Peter in the common fashion.

If, therefore, the Apostle did not endure this but boldly rebuked the deed (Acts 10:26), what must be said about the Prophet? But, as I have said, I dare not assert anything on either side, except what conjecture renders probable: that God's servant rejected this preposterous honor. If, indeed, he allowed it, he had no excuse for his sin; but still, as we have said, it is very difficult for those who desire to retain their purity to have extensive dealings with courts without contracting some spots of corruption.

We see this even in the person of Joseph. Although he was completely dedicated to God, yet in his language, as shown by his swearing, he was tainted by the Egyptian custom (Genesis 42:15). And since this was sinful in him, the same may be said of Daniel. Let us go on: