Judges 13-16, The Spiritual Fog: Ignorance, Complacency, Apathy

Israel’s spiritual fog

• Israel’s apathy about God’s purposes for Israel (Judges 13:1)
• Samson’s parents’ Ignorance of God’s power (Judges 13:2-3)
• His mother’s apathy about Samson’s purpose
• His father’s ignorance about God’s character (Judges 13:15-20)
• His mother’s ignorance about God’s pre-eminence (Judges 13:24)
• The Judean’s ignorance about their real enemy (Judges 15:9-14)

But God in his mercy acted on their behalf.

Samson’s spiritual fog

• Ignorance or apathy about his purpose
• Complacency about his status as a Nazarite
• Apathy about his gift (Judges 16:4-17)

But God in his mercy answered Samson’s prayers (Judges 15:18-20)

Questions to ponder

• Do you know your God-given given gifts (Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12-14; 1 Peter 4:10-11)?
• Do you know God’s particular calling or purpose for your life?
• Are you deliberately building up the church and the kingdom of God by using your gifts for his purposes? (2 Corinthians 5; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

Introduction

The Book of Proverbs is a delight to ponder, yet it is extremely difficult to preach. You may very well wonder why, in the light of this, I would choose to make Proverbs the topic of study for a number of weeks. The purpose of this message, in part, is to answer that question. I want to suggest some of the contributions the Book of Proverbs can make to your spiritual life. In addition to answering the question, “Why study Proverbs?,” I also want to lay the groundwork for our study by looking at the unique literary form of the Book of Proverbs. Allow me to briefly describe some of the ways we can benefit from a study of Proverbs.

1. PROVERBS IS A BOOK THAT IS CONCERNED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF GODLY CHARACTER. I have just finished a series on the book of 1 Corinthians. In my study of chapter 13 of that epistle I was deeply impressed with the importance of godly character (namely, love). If I understand that passage correctly, character is more important that charisma. The Bible also teaches that a man is measured more by his character than by his creed (cf. I Tim. 3). A godly man is not merely one who professes to believe certain truths, but one who practices them (James 2:14-26). No book in all the Bible is more devoted to the development of godly character than Proverbs. And there is no greater need in the Christian community today than for the kind of character Proverbs extols.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered a commencement address to the graduating class of Harvard University in June 1978. This man, an exile from Russia, did not dwell on the evils of Communism, but rather drew attention to the failures of the West, failures which may signal the demise of the greatest democracy history has ever known. While I would recommend that you read the entire speech, I believe the substance of his message could be summarized by this statement: America is slowly destroying itself by its neglect of godly wisdom and Christian character. Proverbs promises both to those who will diligently seek them (cf. Prov. 1:1-6; 2:lff).¹

Every Christian needs to become a student of character. Let me mention just a few of the reasons why we need to discern character. First, the highest goal of the Christian is to become like Christ (Rom. 8:29 Eph. 4:13). While there are other dimensions of Christlikeness, the most essential is that we be like Him in character. The study of character in Proverbs should instruct the Christian regarding personal and practical holiness. Second, we need to be able to discern the character of others. This is especially important in biblical counseling. In Proverbs we are told, “Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes” (26:5).

If we are to counsel others, we must be able to discern their character because a wise man is counseled differently than a fool. Parents need to be able to recognize the character traits of their children if they are to train up their children “according to their way” (22:6).² A child who has disobeyed because he did not listen carefully to instructions should be disciplined differently from a child who understood directions perfectly, but willfully did what he wanted.

The ability to discern the character of others is essential if we are to give heed to the teaching of Proverbs about our friends and associations. Those who are wicked and violent should be avoided (1:8-19). Those who are dishonest should not be our partners (29:24). Tale-bearers are not good friends (17:9). True friends are faithful (17:17), yet they won’t fail to rebuke you when it is necessary (27:5-6).

Especially important is one’s choice of a life’s mate. There is no more important qualification for marriage than the evidence of godly character. Thus is the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31:10-31 described. An unloved woman will only bring grief to the one she marries (30:23), while a nagging wife is no better (21:9,19). If we are not to associate with a person who cannot control his temper (22:24-25), certainly we should not marry him either. Many battered wives could say “Amen” to this wisdom.

2. PROVERBS DOES AWAY WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SACRED AND THE SECULAR.³ Fallen man will always seek to establish a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, between religious ceremony and practical righteousness. The Old Testament prophets frequently addressed this misconception by warning Israel that religious ritual had no value when divorced from righteous living, such as caring for the poor and oppressed (cf. Isa. 1:10-17; Jer. 20-29). Jesus, likewise, addressed this kind of dualism (cf. Matt. 23:23-24). Later, James had a similar word on this subject (cf. James 1:21-27).

The Book of Proverbs will not allow Christians to linger in the land of the theoretical. We love to keep Christianity on an abstract level, rather than on an applicational one. Our greatest failing as Christians is not that we know too little (while this is often regrettably true), but that we fail to do what we know we should. The emphasis of Proverbs is both on the acquisition of wisdom and the application of it. Seldom do we find ourselves “in church” in this book, but rather in the home, on the job, and dealing with the mundane matters of daily living.

Proverbs forces the reader to translate principles into practice. Often, it was the prophets who proclaimed the principles which Proverbs specifically related to life. For example, Amos wrote: “But let justice roll down like waters, And righteousness like an everflowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

Proverbs instructs us in more specific terms: “Diverse weights and diverse measures, are both alike abominations to the Lord” (Prov. 20:10). The Book of Proverbs commands the butcher to be righteous by taking his thumb off the scales.

3. PROVERBS OFFERS TO TEACH US TO BE WISE. Wisdom is repeatedly personified as a woman crying out to mankind in the marketplace, offering to instruct all so that they may obtain wisdom (cf. 1:20ff.; 8:lff.). Within our generation there has been a virtual explosion of knowledge. Much of this has come in the form of technological advances. While knowledge is increasing rapidly, wisdom is seemingly more and more rare.

The implications of this trend are frightening. We now have the capability of reaching the moon and splitting the atom. Yet without wisdom men will too often utilize knowledge for the purpose of accomplishing evil, rather than doing good. Let me give you an illustration. Through a procedure known as amniocentesis, medical science has made it possible to determine the sex of a fetus while yet in the womb. By withdrawing a small amount of amniotic fluid from the womb of an expectant mother, a doctor cannot only detect the presence of over 70 genetic diseases, but also the sex of the unborn infant. I read of one couple who asked the doctor to perform such a procedure and informed them that their baby was normal. Learning that the sex of their healthy unborn child was not what they desired, they insisted on an abortion, for this reason alone. The technology (knowledge) was not wrong, but it was misused due to a lack of wisdom and character. Proverbs is more interested in making men wise than in making them smart.

Biblical wisdom has several facets. While we will devote much of our attention to these facets in future studies, let me summarize the primary characteristics of the wisdom which Proverbs offers. Wisdom has an intellectual dimension. Wisdom is a keenness of mind which enables us to assimilate and appraise information and to formulate a plan of action. Scott says, “The primary meaning of Hokmah is ‘superior mental ability or special skill’. . . ”⁴ It is important to differentiate between wisdom and intelligence, however. Many who are intellectually brilliant are biblically “fools.” Those whose I.Q. fails to rise above average are not, by this fact alone, excluded from the possibility of being biblically wise. In the first chapter of Proverbs wisdom is described as the ability to know (v. 2), to learn (vv. 2-4) and to understand (v. 6).

Wisdom is also described as the ability to discern (Prov. 1:2; cf. v. 4, “discretion,” which is from the same root). Wisdom has a moral, as well as a mental, dimension. Wisdom discerns truth from error, good from evil, best from good. Wisdom results in righteousness, justice, and equity (1:3). Since wisdom begins with the “fear of the Lord” (1:7), knowing good and doing it results from knowing God (cf. 22:17-21).

Wisdom is also a practical skillfulness, the ability to do things well. Bezalel, whose task was to design and create the stone and metal for the tabernacle, was “filled with the Spirit and wisdom” (Ex. 35:31) to enable him to accomplish this task. Likewise Oholiab, was skillful at engraving and designing embroidery (Ex. 35:34-35). In Psalm 107:27 the special skills of seamanship seem to be referred to by this same term (Hokmah). Thus wisdom is not just a mental ability or a moral sensitivity, but a practical ability to accomplish a variety of tasks.

Wisdom is also personified in Proverbs. In chapter 7 wisdom is likened to a woman who calls forth to men to fear the Lord, hate evil, and diligently seek her. This is in contrast, I believe, to the adulteress of chapter 7, who by her flattery and seductive ways, seeks to lure the simple to do evil. In chapter 8 wisdom is again personified as being with God at the creation of the world (vv. 22-31). I believe it is safe to say that this implies that ultimately wisdom is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that we cannot possess wisdom without first bowing before Him as Savior and Lord.

4. PROVERBS TEACHES US THAT WHAT IS GOOD IS ALSO WHAT IS RIGHT. In his book, Situation Ethics, Joseph Fletcher refers to an incident in the book, The Rainmaker, by M. Richard Nash. The Rainmaker comes to bring rain to desperate farmers, whose crops and herds are dying. While staying at a particular ranch, the Rainmaker met the proverbial farmer’s daughter. This woman was lonely and desperate, and doubted her femininity. Feeling sorry for her, the Rainmaker made love to her, to reassure her. When her brother discovered what had happened to her, he drew his pistol and was about to shoot the Rainmaker. Her father, however, whom Fletcher referred to as a “wise old rancher,” grabbed the pistol from the brother with the rebuke, “Noah, you’re so full of what’s right you can’t see what’s good.”⁵

Situationalists would have us distinguish between what is right and what is good. Many Freudian psychiatrists would go so far as to say that what is good (i.e., Christian morality and biblical standards) is really evil, something to be overcome, a kind of Victorian hang-over. The underlying premise on which the Book of Proverbs is based is that what is right is also what is good. While there is no guarantee that doing the right thing will always produce a fairy-tale happy ending, doing what is right is always advocated as the best course of action. There is no mere pragmatism in Proverbs.

I know some Christians who think of Proverbs as a sanctified version of How to Win Friends and Influence People. I think they are wrong. While it is true that Proverbs teaches us how to be happy and prosperous, this is not the primary aim of the book. More than anything we are encouraged by Proverbs to be godly and righteous in our conduct. Those who pursue happiness as their goal in life will not find it, but those who seek holiness will find happiness as a pleasant by-product. Proverbs never promises that everyone who works hard will get rich or that honesty always is more profitable than crime. As a rule, this is the case, but there are many exceptions. If I live life wisely, I will not suffer the consequences of folly. If I stay within the speed limit, I will not suffer by paying speeding tickets. If I don’t rob others, I won’t have to worry about going to jail for robbery. But Proverbs hints at what other Scriptures tell us clearly--the righteous will sometimes suffer because they are righteous (cf. II Tim. 3:12).

5. PROVERBS HELPS US TO LOOK AT LIFE REALISTICALLY. In Proverbs ignorance is not bliss and naivet is more a vice than a virtue. While simplicity is not necessarily sin, it can easily lead to it. Our Lord instructed His disciples to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” (Matt. 10:16). Unlike Satan, who invited Eve to attain a “higher” knowledge of good and evil by disobeying God and experiencing sin (Gen. 3:5), Proverbs would instruct us about evil so that we might not fall into temptation (cf. Prov. 7:6ff).

God does not want Christians to look at the world through rose colored glasses. We are to see men as they are, and sin for what it is. Consequently, Proverbs describes life as it is, not necessarily as it should be. While it is wrong to attempt to pervert justice with a bribe (17:23; 29:4), in the world it is often a bribe that gets things accomplished (17:8). Those who have had military experience know this as the “whiskey and cigarette system.” While riches cannot provide a man with real security (11:4,28), some may think so (18:11). Money appears to gain friends (19:4, 6), but only for as long as it lasts (19:7). We can live wisely and righteously only as we view life as it really is. Proverbs is a book of reality.

6. PROVERBS IS AS CONCERNED WITH THE PROCESS OF RIGHT THINKING AS WITH THE PRODUCT OF IT. Christianity is a faith which is based on propositional revelation. While it is important to study the Bible to know what to think, it is just as vital that Christians learn how to think. Most of the Bible was written to convey propositional revelation. Proverbs also has many important truths (propositions, statements, cf. 16:4), but it also seeks to develop a mature process of thinking. The terms employed in Proverbs 1:1-6 inform the reader at the start that it is not a sequence of truths which is being transmitted, but the ability to discern and apply truth.

7. THE METHOD OF TEACHING EMPLOYED IN PROVERBS IS MOST LIKE THE INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD OF OUR LORD. While the vast majority of sound Biblical exposition found today is done chapter by chapter and verse by verse, this was not the case with either our Lord or the apostles. If we were to use one word to describe the teaching method most characteristic of our Lord, I believe that it would have to be parables⁶ (cf. Matt. 13:lff., Mark 4:lff.). Parables were used to conceal the truth from those on the outside, those who had already rejected Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Mark 3:22-30; 4:10ff.), as well as to provoke the disciples of our Lord to thought and inquiry (cf. Mark 4:10-11). In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Greek word parabole was consistently used to translate the Hebrew word mashal (proverb).⁷

8. PROVERBS IS A KEY BOOK FOR OBTAINING DIVINE GUIDANCE. One would not immediately expect to read the Book of Proverbs in order to learn the will of God, but this is one of the purposes of the book stated in Proverbs 1:5: “A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel.”

The expression “wise counsel” is derived from the Hebrew root meaning “rope.” This “rope” was connected to the rudder of a ship, thereby being the means of determining its course. By obtaining wisdom which Proverbs offers to teach us, we are enabled to make right decisions which will set a godly course for our life.

These are some of the benefits which the student of Proverbs can expect to gain. If all Scripture is profitable (II Tim. 3:16), Proverbs is especially so. Let us therefore begin our study of this book with eager expectation. James encourages us to pray for wisdom (James 1:5); Proverbs urges us to seek it by diligent study. Let us pray as we study this book, seeking the wisdom which comes only from God.

Proverbs as Literature

Proverbs were not a Hebrew invention. The use of proverbs was common in ancient civilizations. Documents which archaeologists have discovered from the Ancient Near East record Egyptian, Akkadian, and Babylonian proverbs, some of which are remarkably similar to those in the Book of Proverbs.⁸ Proverbs are also common today. I remember reading a proverb by Mark Twain years ago, which I have not been able to forget. Any school board members please forgive me; it is the only one of his proverbs I can recall:

First God made idiots.
That was for practice.
Then He made school boards.

The Hebrew term rendered “Proverb” (mashal) means “to be like.” The verb form of this word is used, in Psalm 143:7, to refer to a comparison. In the Old Testament this Hebrew word is used for a broad range of literary forms. It can refer to a popular, pithy, saying (Ezek. 18:2f.; cf. Jer. 31:29), a truth gained from personal experience and of general application (I Sam. 24:13), a medium of moral instruction (as in Proverbs 10:26, also Matt. 13:lff., “The Kingdom of Heaven is like . . .”), a riddle or allegory (Ezek. 17:2), or a short didactic essay or sermonette (Prov. 1:10-19; 31:10-31).⁹ Because of the broad use of the term “proverbs,” it is probably best, as Crenshaw suggests, to think of proverbs generally as “sayings.”¹⁰

Several features are common to most of the proverbs we will be studying. The first is brevity. Most of the proverbs are only two lines long:

The righteous is a guide to his neighbor,
But the way of the wicked leads them astray (Prov. 12:26).

As a preacher, it makes me very uncomfortable to point out that the book of Proverbs demonstrates the art of the unsaid. Most of us think that great ideas need many words to convey. If a picture is worth a thousand words, so is a proverb.

Brevity is one of the marks of wisdom. It is the fool who wants to speak his whole mind, while the wise never tells all that he knows:

A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly (Prov. 12:23).

The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things (15:28).

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind (18:2).

The wise are marked by an economy of words, while the fool blurts out everything that is on his mind. Proverbs demonstrates this economy of words.

Second, the few words which are spoken are well chosen. McKane comments,

The wise man is the master of compressed, polished, epigrammatic utterance; he gathers his thoughts into memorable forms of expression. The function of the Proverb is to illumine, and not to present a barrier to intelligibility.¹¹

Often there is a note of humor involved, such as when the sluggard convinces himself that he cannot go outside to work because “there is a lion in the road” (26:13). Then too, some descriptions are so graphic they are almost impossible to forget. The beautiful woman without discretion is likened to a pig with a gold ring in its nose (11:22). This skillfullness in portraying truth is consistent with the wisdom of Proverbs. An idea worth communicating is worth communicating clearly and forcefully:

The wise in heart will be called discerning, And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.
The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, And adds persuasiveness to his lips (Prov. 16:21,23).

Those who would convey wisdom by means of a proverb must make their message “short and sweet.”

There is also an element of the enigmatic in Proverbs. Some Bible students have been perplexed by the apparent contradiction in these two Proverbs:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:4-5).

It is not by accident that these two Proverbs are found side by side. The apparent contradiction is by design. It compels the reader to ponder the matter much more seriously than he otherwise would. This element of enigma and mystery is the stimulus for the student to go the extra mile in his study.

To me Proverbs is to other forms of literature what radio is to television. Television supplies us with both verbal and visual data, but it does all the work for US. We become passive in the process of watching TV. Reading Proverbs is like listening to “The Shadow” on old time radio. We are not given all the data, but what is given heightens our interest and our imagination. We are intellectually active as we read, intent on understanding what is being said. That is a part of the genius of the proverb.

The proverb is a form of Hebrew poetry and is different from what most of us are accustomed to reading as poetry today. While our poetry frequently is organized according to the similarity of sounds, Hebrew poetry is based upon the similarity of thoughts arranged in parallel statements. Several types of parallelism are common in Proverbs. It will greatly enhance our study of Proverbs if we understand the major kinds of Hebrew parallelism.

Antithetical parallelism is the contrasting of two ideas. The second line is often introduced by the word “but,” which contrasts the idea of the first line with that in the second:

The fear of the Lord prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened (Prov. 10:27).

A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight (Prov. 11:1).

Synonymous parallelism restates the idea of the first line in a different way. Continuation, not contrast, is the purpose of the second line:

Hear, my son, your father’s instruction, And do not forsake your mother’s teaching (Prov. 1:8).

Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise, And apply your mind to my knowledge (Prov. 22:17).

Synethetic Parallelism expands upon what has been stated in the first line. While synonymous parallelism repeats what has been said in the first line, synthetic takes the thought of the first line farther--it develops the first thought:

He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and not be answered (Prov. 21:13).

Numerical Proverbs use numbers to structure:

Under three things the earth quakes, And under four, it cannot bear up:
Under a slave when he becomes king, And a fool when he is satisfied with food,
Under an unloved woman when she gets a husband, And a maidservant when she supplants her mistress (Prov. 30:21-23).

Proverbs are a form of poetry. We will benefit greatly from studying Proverbs as we better understand the nature of Hebrew poetry and the various forms of parallelism which are employed here.

Lessons from the Life of Solomon

While Solomon did not write all of the Proverbs (cf. 30:1; 31:1), the majority are attributed to him (cf. I Kings 4:32; Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). It is tragic to observe that in spite of all that Solomon wrote concerning women (cf. 5:lff.; 6:24ff.; 7:lff.; 8:lff.), they were the cause of his downfall.

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along the daughter of Pharoah: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord has said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, neither shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in Love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. For it came about when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been (I Kings 11:1-4).

This was not the only instance of Solomon’s failure to heed his own counsel. After all the Proverbs he wrote on child-rearing (cf. 1:8ff.; 4:1-4; 10:1; 13:24; 22:6,15) he failed to raise a son who was wise. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, refused to listen to the counsel of the older and wiser advisors of his father, and, as a result the kingdom was divided (I Kings 12:1-15).

From the failure of Solomon I believe we should learn two lessons. First, we should expect to be put to the test in those areas where we seem to be strongest. As I have observed life for a few years I find that those men who have the most to say about raising children (especially those whose children are not yet grown) will likely be tested in this area. Those who speak about submission to authority, will probably be tested in their willingness to submit to the authority of others. Those who proclaim the doctrine of the sovereignty of God will frequently be placed in circumstances where their faith in God’s sovereignty is put to the test.

Our greatest strengths can become our ruin. The gifted Bible teacher may begin to listen to the praise of others and begin to feel infallible and authoritarian. He may begin to proclaim his insights rather than God’s instructions. The one who is gifted of God to be able to give may begin to do so in such a way as to get the glory for himself. David had a heart for God all the time that Saul sought to kill him, but once David was comfortably enthroned, he became complacent. The man who single-handedly took on Goliath now was so cocky he felt it unnecessary to even go out and fight with his troops. As a result, David fell into sin with another man’s wife (II Sam. ll:lff.). Let us beware of our strengths (cf. I Cor. 10:12).

The second lesson we should learn from Solomon is that knowing the right thing to do is not enough. Wisdom is, first and foremost, a relationship with God. Wisdom is not just the knowledge of certain truths, but the obedient practice of them. I fear that Solomon deceived himself into thinking that he could “beat the system” because he knew so much about women. His knowledge may have inclined him to believe that he could sin and keep it under control. In the final analysis, though, the problem was not in Solomon’s head, but in his heart.

Then he taught me and said to me, “Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live.” Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life (Prov. 4:4,23).

How is your heart, my friend? Have you come to submit your life, your eternal destiny, to the Lord Jesus Christ? He died for your sins, and He offers you His righteousness, which alone will enable you to enter into God’s heaven. Wisdom begins here, with the fear of the Lord (cf. Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33). You will never be wise until you come to know Him “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).

1 Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, St. Croix Review, October, 1978, pp. 9-22.

2 There are various interpretations of this verse. For a more detailed description, see Lesson 14 in this series.

3 I am indebted to Edgar Jones for this insight into the relationship between Proverbs and the Old Testament Prophets. Jones also writes, “Proverbs brings the passion and the vision of the prophets to the humdrum immediate concerns of everyday life. The writers of Proverbs rarely sound a trumpet note but they presuppose that it has been heard.” Edgar Jones, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 47.

4 R. B. Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan Company, 1981), p. 6.

5 As quoted by Franz Ridenour, The Other Side of Morality (Glendale, CA: Regal Books), P. 39.

6 “It has been estimated that roughly one third of the recorded teaching of Jesus consists of parables and parabolic statements.” C. H. Peisker, “Parable, Allegory, Proverb.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), II. P. 743.

7 Ibid., P. 744.

8 Cf. Jones, Pp. 32ff.

9 Ibid., pp. 23-25.

10 James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), P. 67.

11 William McKane, Proverbs (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970), p. 267.

(Here are some bible verses about racism and prejudice for you to study)

Scripture References (Note: some verses are only addressed to Christians. To see God’s Plan for salvation which leads to a personal relationship with God/Jesus click here )

• 1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.

• 1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.

• 1 Samuel 16:7 But the Lordsaid to Samuel, “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way people do. People look on the outward appearance, but the Lordlooks at the heart.”

• 1 Timothy 5:21 Before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, I solemnly charge you to carry out these commands without prejudice or favoritism of any kind.

• Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live

• Colossians 3:13 bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others

• Colossians 3:25 For the one who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there are no exceptions.

• Ephesians 4:32 Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you

• Exodus 22:21 You must not wrong a resident foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt

• Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus

• James 2:1 My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.

• James 2:4 If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?

• John 7:24 Do not judge according to external appearance, but judge with proper judgment.”

• John 13:34I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

• Proverbs 24:23 These sayings also are from the wise:To show partiality in judgment is terrible:

• Revelation 7:9 After these things I looked, and here was an enormous crowd that no one could count, made up of persons from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb dressed in long white robes, and with palm branches in their hands

• Revelation 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, and he had an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language, and people

• Romans 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.

• Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him

• Mark 12:29-31 Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. 31 The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

• Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

• Philippians 2:3-4 Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. 4Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well.

• Romans 10:12-13 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 13For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

• Leviticus 19:33-34 When a resident foreigner lives with you in your land, you must not oppress him.34The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you; so you must love the foreigner as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lordyour God.

• James 2:8-9 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show prejudice, you are committing sinand are convicted by the law as violators

• Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

• 2 Chronicles 19:6-7 He told the judges, “Be careful what you do, for you are not judging for men, but for the Lord, who will be with you when you make judicial decisions. 7Respect the Lordand make careful decisions, for the Lordour God disapproves of injustice, partiality, and bribery.”

• 1 John 3:15-16 Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 16We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians

• 1 John 4:19-21 We love because he loved us first.20If anyone says “I love God” and yet hates his fellow Christian, he is a liar, because the one who does not love his fellow Christian whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And the commandment we have from him is this: that the one who loves God should love his fellow Christian too.

• Acts 10:34-36 Then Peter started speaking: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, 35but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him. 36You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)

This chapter which occupies such a large portion of the book of Daniel is more than a profound story of how God can bring a proud man low. Undoubtedly, it is the climax of Nebuchadnezzar’s spiritual biography which began with his recognition of the excellence of Daniel and his companions, continued with the interpretation of the dream of the image in chapter 2, and was advanced further by his experience with Daniel’s three companions.

In the background of this account is the obvious concern of Daniel the prophet for the man whom he had served for so many years. Daniel, a man of prayer, undoubtedly prayed for Nebuchadnezzar and eagerly sought some evidence of God’s working in his heart. While the experience of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4 was not what Daniel had anticipated, the outcome must have approximated Daniel’s fondest hope. Although some like Leupold, after Calvin, “doubt whether the king’s experience led to his conversion,”²¹⁰ it may well be that this chapter brings Nebuchadnezzar to the place where he puts his trust in the God of Daniel. Even merely as a lesson in the spiritual progress of a man in the hands of God, this chapter is a literary gem.

In the light of Daniel’s revelation of the broad scope of Gentile power beginning in chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s experience seems to take on the larger meaning of the humbling of Gentile power by God and the bringing of the world into submission to Himself. In the light of other passages in the Bible speaking prophetically of Babylon and its ultimate overthrow, of which Isaiah 13 and 14 may be taken as an example, it becomes clear that the contest between God and Nebuchadnezzar is a broad illustration of God’s dealings with the entire human race and especially the Gentile world in its creaturely pride and failure to recognize the sovereignty of God. The theme of the chapter, as given by Daniel himself in the interpretation of the king’s dream, is God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar “till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (Dan 4:25). Not only is the sovereignty of God demonstrated, but the bankruptcy of Babylonian wisdom forms another motif. It is obviously by design that this chapter precedes the downfall of Babylon itself which follows in chapter 5. To push this to the extreme of making it a particular application to Antiochus Epiphanes in the effort to support a late date of Daniel is, however, without justification. There is nothing whatever to link this passage to the second century B.C. In fact, it is far more applicable to that fateful night in October 539 b.c. when Babylon fell as recorded in Daniel 5.

The content of the chapter is in the form of a decree recording his dream, Daniel’s interpretation, and Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent experience. Whether written by Nebuchadnezzar himself, or more probably by one of his scribes at his dictation, or possibly by Daniel himself at the king’s direction, the inclusion of it here in Daniel is by divine inspiration. Although critics have imagined a series of incredible objections to accepting this chapter as authentic and reasonably accurate, the narrative actually reads very sensibly and the objections seem trivial and unsupported.^{211 212}

Those who reject chapter 4 of Daniel without exception assume that the account is not inspired of the Holy Spirit, that an experience like Nebuchadnezzar’s is essentially incredible, and that it is a myth rather than an authentic historical record. Such objections obviously assume that higher criticism is right in declaring Daniel a forgery of the second century B.C. This conclusion is now subject to question not only because of the fallacious reasoning which supports it, but because it is now challenged by the documentary evidence in the Qumran text of Daniel, which on the basis of the critics’ own criteria would require Daniel to be much older than the second century b.c. (see Introduction). Conservative scholarship has united in declaring this chapter a genuine portion of the Word of God, equally inspired with other sections of Daniel.

Introduction of Nebuchadnezzar’s Proclamation

4:1-3 Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me. How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.

Although it is clear that the opening verses are an introduction to the decree of Nebuchadnezzar, various versions differ in their versification, with the Massoretic beginning the decree at the close of chapter 3. The Septuagint rendering of chapter 4 also differs considerably from the Hebrew-Aramaic text, used for the King James Version translation. Charles summarizes the differences in these words,

In the Massoretic text, which is followed by Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Peshitto, the entire narrative is given in the form of an edict or letter of Nebuchadnezzar to all his subjects. It begins with a greeting to ‘all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth,’ and proceeds to state the king’s desire to make known to them the signs and wonders that the Most High had wrought upon him (1-3). He then recounts a dream which troubled him, and tells how he summoned the magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers to make known its interpretation.²¹³

Charles then contrasts this with the Septuagint,

Turning now to the LXX we observe first of all that there is nothing in it corresponding to the first three verses in the Massoretic, which transform the next thirty-four verses into an edict. The chapter begins simply, in the LXX, with the words: ‘And in the eighteenth year of his reign Nebuchadnezzar said: I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house’: then follows in the same narrative form the next thirty-three verses. At their close comes the edict as a result of the king’s spiritual and psychical experiences, in which are embodied very many of the phrases in iv.1-3. A close study of the texts and versions has forced me to the conclusion that the older order of the text is preserved in the LXX and not in the Aramaic. The complete evidence for this conclusion will be found in my larger Commentary.²¹⁴

Although liberal critics generally unite in a low view of this chapter, not only assigning it to a pseudo-Daniel of the second century but finding the text itself suspect, there is insufficient evidence in favor of the Greek translation of the Septuagint. Even Montgomery, who does not regard this as authentic Scripture, rejects the view that the Septuagint is the older text than the present Aramaic text, although he considers the Aramaic also a revision of an earlier text.²¹⁵ There is actually little justification for all these variations of unbelief. The chapter on the face of it is credible, albeit a record of supernatural revelation. Generally, those who accept the sixth century date for Daniel also accept this chapter more or less as it is.

The first verse of chapter 4 is the natural form for such a decree, beginning with the name of the sender, the people to whom it is sent, and a general greeting. That it should be sent “unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth” is not out of keeping with the extensive character of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire, although he was well aware of the fact that all of the earth’s geography was not under his power. It is similar to the extensive decree of Daniel 3:29 which is addressed to “every people, nation, and language.” Montgomery is obviously prejudiced in his judgment, “As an edict the document is historically absurd; it has no similar in the history of royal conversions nor in ancient imperial edicts.”²¹⁶ The folly of this kind of objection is evident in that if Montgomery had found one example in any other literature his criticism would become invalid, but he feels perfectly free to ignore the parallels in chapter 3 and chapter 6 of Daniel. In this case, as is so often true, the critics argue from alleged silence in the records, although admittedly we possess only fragments of ancient literature. This chapter is no more difficult to believe than any other unusual divine revelation.

Although the benediction, “Peace be multiplied unto you,” is strikingly similar to some of Paul’s greetings in his epistles, it was a common form of expression in the ancient world. A greeting very much like 4:1 is found in Daniel 6:25 where Darius wrote a similar decree with almost the same wording. It is possible that Daniel himself affected the form even if he did not write it as in both places he is in a position of high authority, and the edicts in both cases may have been issued under his particular direction. The decree in any case actually begins with the word peace as that which preceded it was the address.

Nebuchadnezzar then sets the stage for the presentation of his experience by declaring that it was his judgment that the amazing signs and wonders wrought in his life by “the high God” were of such unusual significance that he should share them with his entire realm. The expression signs and wonders is a familiar idiom of Scripture occurring, as Leupold notes, in many passages (Deu 6:22; 7:19; 13:1, 2; 26:8; Neh 9:10; Is 8:18, etc.). Because it is so biblical, it has led to questions by higher critics; but actually there is a great deal of similarity between Babylonian psalms and biblical psalms, and there is nothing technical about this phrase.²¹⁷ The expression “the high God” is another evidence that Nebuchadnezzar regards the God of Israel as exalted; but it is not in itself proof that he is a monotheist, trusting only in the true God.

Nebuchadnezzar’s exclamation of the greatness of God and His signs and wonders is quite accurate and in keeping with his experience. The signs wrought in his life were indeed great, and God’s wonders were indeed mighty. His conclusion that the kingdom is an everlasting kingdom extending from generation to generation is a logical one based on his experience and reveals God in a true light (cf. Ps 145:13).

Wise Men Unable to Interpret Dream

4:4-7 I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace: I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers: and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof.

Nebuchadnezzar’s account of his experience describes his secure and flourishing situation in his palace prior to the dream. In his early reign he was active in military conquest. Now his vast domains had been made secure, and Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilling his heart’s desire by making Babylon one of the most fabulous cities of the ancient world. He was already enjoying his beautiful palace; and at the time of the dream itself he was in bed in his house as indicated in verses 5 and 10. In describing himself as “flourishing in my palace” he used a word meaning “to be green” such as the growth of green leaves on a tree, an evident anticipation of the dream which followed. In this context of security and prosperity surrounded by the monuments of his wealth and power, Nebuchadnezzar had a dream which made him afraid. The sequence in verse 5 that he “saw a dream” and had “thoughts upon my bed” as well as “visions of my head” seems to imply that the dream came first, and then upon awakening from the dream which was also a vision his thoughts troubled him. The expression made me afraid is actually much stronger in the original and indicates extreme terror or fright.

As he contemplated the meaning of his experience, he issued a decree to bring all the wise men of Babylon before him to make known its interpretation. As illustrated in chapter 2 this was a standard procedure, and the wise men of Babylon were supposed to be able to interpret mystical experiences. Upon being told the dream, the wise men, described here in their various categories, as also in Daniel 2:2, did not make known to the king the interpretation. It seems that they not only did not make known the interpretation but were unable to do so, as Leupold translates this expression, “but they could not make known to me the interpretation.”²¹⁸ Even though the dream was adverse and might present a problem in telling Nebuchadnezzar, they probably would have made some attempt to explain it to him, if they had understood it.

Daniel Told the King’s Dream

4:8-18 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: the leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven; he cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation: but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.

For some unexplained reason Daniel was not with the other wise men when the king told his dream. Coming in late, he was immediately addressed personally by Nebuchadnezzar in attempt to have his dream interpreted. Questions have been raised why verse 8 not only calls him Daniel but adds the expression “whose name was Belteshazzar.” In view of the fact that this is part of a record where Daniel is prominent, why the double name?

The answer, however, is quite simple. This decree was going throughout the kingdom where most people would know Daniel by his Babylonian name, Belteshazzar. The king, in recognition of the fact that Daniel’s God is the interpreter of his dream, calls Daniel by his Hebrew name, the last syllable of which refers to Elohim, the God of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar explains that his name Belteshazzar was given “according to the name of my god,” that is, the god Bel. The double name is not unnatural in view of the context and the explanation.

Of Daniel it is said “in whom is the spirit of the holy gods.” It is debatable whether gods is singular or plural, as it could be translated either way. Young, with a wealth of evidence from Montgomery, considers it a singular noun and thus a recognition by the king “that the God of Dan. was different from his own gods.”²¹⁹ This distinction is borne out by the adjective “holy” (4:8, 18; 5:11). The philological evidence supports the singular, although Leupold agrees with Driver that the noun and its adjective are plural and a reflection of the king’s polytheism.²²⁰ Driver notes, “The same expression occurs in the Phoenician inscription of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon (3—4 cent. B.C.), lines 9 and 22.”²²¹ The word holy, according to Young, refers to gods who are divine, rather than specifically having moral purity.²²² The ultimate judgment of the expression depends on how well Nebuchadnezzar comprehended the nature of Daniel’s God. He obviously had high respect for the God of Daniel and may have had a true faith in the God of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar, having justified his singling out Daniel of all the wise men, now records in his decree his conversation with Daniel which includes a restatement of his dream.

Daniel, addressed by his heathen name, is further described as the “master of the magicians.” This was intended by Nebuchadnezzar to be a compliment in recognition of the genius of Daniel. Having already spoken of his intimate contact with God and the indwelling of the Spirit of God in him, he refers to Daniel’s thorough knowledge of the whole field of Babylonian astrology and religion. Leupold suggests that magicians should be translated “scholars” to give the true meaning and avoid the implication of mere magic.²²³

Nebuchadnezzar, on the basis of his previous experience, restates that the Spirit of God is in Daniel and that secrets do not trouble him, that is, he is able to declare their meaning. Of interest is the statement concerning the prince of Tyrus, “Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee” (Eze 28:3). This statement, which the critics work hard to explain, as it confirms a sixth century Daniel, also supports the idea that Daniel’s fame had spread far and wide. By the expression, “tell me the visions of my dream,” Nebuchadnezzar obviously meant that Daniel should interpret the dream which the king was now to relate. Verses 10-12 have been regarded as in poetic form if some alteration of the text were permitted, and verses 14-17 are considered free verse also, but with no metrical evenness.²²⁴ Most conservatives ignore this as requiring too much alteration of the text to conform to the poetic pattern. The ideas are poetic, if the form is not.

In his vision, Nebuchadnezzar saw a tree apparently standing somewhat by itself and dominating the view because of its great height. Porteous notes that Bentzen “refers to a building inscription of Nebuchadnezzar in which Babylon is compared to a spreading tree.”²²⁵ The use of trees in the Bible for symbolic purposes as well as in extrascriptural narratives is found frequently (cf. 2 Ki 14:9; Ps 1:3; 37:35; 52:8; 92:12; Eze 17). An obvious parallel to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is recorded in Ezekiel 31, where the Assyrian as well as the Egyptian Pharaoh are compared to a cedar of Lebanon. Young states, “Among the commentators Haevernick particularly has illustrated the fondness with which the Orientals depicted the rise and fall of human power by means of the symbol of a tree.”²²⁶ In extrabiblical literature, there is the account of Astyages the Mede who had a dream in which a vine grew out of the womb of Mandane his daughter and subsequently covered all Asia. Herodotus interpreted this as referring to Cyrus. Another famous illustration is that of Xerxes, who in a dream was crowned with a branch of an olive tree which extended over the world. According to Haevernick, there are similar allusions in Arabic and Turkish sources.²²⁷ Nebuchadnezzar probably anticipated that the tree represented himself, and this added to his concern.

As Nebuchadnezzar described his dream, the tree was pictured as growing, becoming very strong and very high until it was visible all over the earth, obviously exceeding the possibilities of any ordinary tree. Abundant foliage characterized the tree, and it bore much fruit so that it provided for both beast and fowl and “all flesh fed of it.” This obviously included all beasts and fowls. Whether or not it was intended to apply literally to men is open to question, but symbolically it included mankind as under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.

As Nebuchadnezzar observed the scene, an actor appears in the form of “a watcher and an holy one” who is described as coming “down from heaven.” This expression has generated a great deal of comment, especially by liberal critics who consider this a vestige of polytheism. Even Keil says, “The conception… is not biblical, but Babylonian heathen.”²²⁸ In the religion of the Babylonians, it was customary to recognize “council deities” who were charged with the special task of watching over the world. The question raised on this passage is whether Nebuchadnezzar uses this heathen concept.

In his detailed note on the subject of watchers, Montgomery refers to the considerable role played by the “watchers” in the intertestamental literature and to a possible occurrence in the Zadokite fragment. He quotes Meinhold as drawing attention in this connection to “the eyes of the Cherubs,” in Ezekiel 1:18, and “‘the seven, which are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth,’ Zech. 4:10,” and goes on to trace the still closer parallel with “‘the Watchers’” ( sho„mÿri‚m) and “‘the Remembrancers of the Lord’” ( hammazkiri‚m áeth-Yahweh) of Isaiah 62:6.²²⁹

In the light of the full revelation of the Word of God, the most natural conclusion is that this person described as “a watcher and an holy one” is an angel sent from God even though the word angel is not used. That angels are watchers, or better translated “vigilant, making a sleepless watch,” is not foreign to the concept of angels in Scripture. The expressions “watchers” and “the holy ones” are mentioned in verse 17 by the messenger himself. Nebuchadnezzar seems to use the term in its heathen connotation as he understood it. He probably would not have understood what was meant by using the term angel in this connection, although he used angel himself in 3:28. The extended discussion of Keil on this point does not clarify the issue too much but probably says all that can be said, even though his conclusions are not entirely satisfactory.²³⁰

The heavenly messenger cries aloud, literally cries “with might.” To the unnamed listeners, he calls for the tree to be cut down, its branches cut off, its leaves to be shaken off, and its fruit to be scattered. The beasts under it and the fowls in its branches were instructed to get away. The record does not say that the command is carried out, but this is implied.

Special instructions, however, are given regarding the stump; and these indicate that the tree will be revived later. The stump is to be bound with a band of iron and brass. The purpose of this is not clear unless in some way it helps preserve it. However, in real life, such a band would not prevent the stump from rotting; and it is probable here that it is symbolic of the madness which would afflict Nebuchadnezzar and hold him symbolically, if not in reality, in chains. The stump is to be surrounded by the tender grass of the field, to be wet with the dew of heaven, and to have its portion with the beasts of the earth. It seems evident that the description goes beyond the symbol of a stump to the actual fulfillment in Nebuchadnezzar’s experience. This becomes more clear in verse 16 where the person in view is given a beast’s heart instead of a man’s heart. This, of course, has no relationship to the characteristics of the stump. The prophecy is concluded with the expression, “let seven times pass over him.” This may refer to seven years or merely to a long period of time. Probably the most common interpretation is to consider it seven years as in the Septuagint. It is certain that the period is specific and not more than seven years.

The messenger then concludes that his decree proceeds from “the watchers” and from “the holy ones.” The purpose is that people living in the world may recognize the true God described as “the most High” and acknowledge Him as the true ruler of men, who has the power to place “the basest of men” over earthly kingdoms. That God can set up in a position of power the lowliest of men is a common truth of Scripture (see 1 Sa 2:7-8; Job 5:11; Ps 113:7-8; Lk 1:52; and the story of Joseph). This statement is a direct confrontation of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride in his own attainments and power.

The major problem of verse 17 is the reference to the watchers and the holy ones who seem to originate the decree. If these are understood as agencies of God, who actually is the source, the problem is alleviated. The verse itself calls our attention to the fact that God as “the most High” is the ultimate sovereign and certainly does not imply that the messengers are in any sense independent of God. The problems created by this text, therefore, are greatly overdrawn by those who see this in conflict with the scriptural doctrine of God.

In concluding his statement concerning the dream, Nebuchadnezzar appeals to Daniel to provide the interpretation. He explains to Daniel that the wise men of Babylon were not able to do this, but he expresses confidence in Daniel, “for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee” (cf. 4:8). The stage is now set for Daniel’s interpretation.

Daniel Interprets the Dream

4:19-27 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake, and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: it is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth. And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him; this is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king: That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule. Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

Keil summarizes the situation facing Daniel with these words, “As Daniel at once understood the interpretation of the dream, he was for a moment so astonished that he could not speak for terror at the thoughts which moved his soul. This amazement seized him because he wished well to the king, and yet he must now announce to him a weighty judgment from God.”²³¹ No doubt, Daniel was not only troubled by the content of the dream but by the need to tell Nebuchadnezzar the interpretation in an appropriate way.

Verse 19 introduces both names of Daniel again, the Hebrew name in recognition that he is acting as a servant of the God of Israel and his Babylonian name by which he was known officially. Daniel’s consternation at the interpretation of the dream is indicated in that he “was astonied for one hour,” to be understood as being in a state of perplexity for a period of time. An accurate translation would be “was stricken dumb for a while” (ASV), or “was perplexed for a moment.”²³² The Revised Standard Version translation, “for a long time,” is probably inaccurate. Probably a full sixty minutes would have been too long for him to have remained silent in these circumstances.

Nebuchadnezzar comes to his rescue in this situation and urges him not to let the dream trouble him. The comment reflects his respect for Daniel as a person as well as an interpreter of the dream, and indirectly this is an assurance that Daniel himself need not fear the king regardless of what he reveals.

With this encouragement, Daniel replies with typical oriental courtesy that the dream be to them that hate Nebuchadnezzar and the interpretation to his enemies. Leupold believes that there is an ethical objection to Daniel’s sinking to mere flattery in this case and avoiding the real import of the dream. He interprets the statement as meaning that the dream would please the king’s enemies.²³³ It would seem more natural, however, to have the expression refer to Daniel’s wishes in the matter. It is hard to see how the expression in any sense would be flattery. Daniel had a high regard for Nebuchadnezzar and undoubtedly wished the interpretation of the dream could be otherwise than it was.

Having begun his interpretation, he now describes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in detail, restating what the king had already told him. With the facts of the dream before him, he then proceeds to the interpretation in verse 22. Daniel immediately identifies the tree as representing Nebuchadnezzar. Just like the tree in the dream, the king had grown and become strong, had grown great and reached unto heaven with his dominion to the end of the earth. After recapitulating the announced destruction of the tree and the other details which the king already had recited, Daniel proceeds to the detailed interpretation in verse 24. It is significant that he mentions here, “this is the decree of the most High,” which is Daniel’s interpretation of the expression in verse 17 “the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones.” Although Nebuchadnezzar’s description did not immediately specify divine agency, it is clear that this is the interpretation according to Daniel in verse 24.

The meaning of the tree being cut down and the attendant circumstances is then defined. Nebuchadnezzar is to be driven from ordinary association with men and will dwell with the beasts of the field. In this condition he will eat grass as the ox and suffer the dew of heaven until he understands that God gives to men the power to rule as He wills. The interpretation of the stump with its bands of iron and brass is that Nebuchadnezzar will retain control of his kingdom and that it will be restored to him after he comes back to his senses. To have had his mind restored without the kingdom would have been a hollow victory. In spite of his pride, Nebuchadnezzar was to know the graciousness of God to him.

The expression, that the heavens do rule, is of particular interest for it is the only time in the Old Testament where the word heaven is substituted for God. This usage became prominent in later literature as in 1 Maccabees and in the New Testament in Matthew where the term kingdom of heaven is similar to kingdom of God. Daniel, in using the expression the heavens do rule, is not accepting the Babylonian deification of heavenly bodies, as he makes clear in 4:25 that “the most High” is a person. He is probably only contrasting divine or heavenly rule to earthly rule such as Nebuchadnezzar exercised, with the implication that Nebuchadnezzar’s sovereignty was much less than that of “the heavens.”

With the interpretation of the dream now clearly presented to Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, as a prophet of God, gives a word of solemn exhortation to the king. With utmost courtesy, he urges the king to replace his sins with righteousness and his iniquities with showing mercy to the poor, if perchance God would lengthen the period of his tranquillity. Nebuchadnezzar undoubtedly had been morally wicked and cruel to those whom he ruled. His concern had been to build a magnificent city as a monument to his name rather than to alleviating the suffering of the poor. All of this was quite clear to Daniel as it was to God, and the exhortation is faithfully reproduced in this decree going to Nebuchadnezzar’s entire realm.

This passage has created some controversy because of a mistranslation in the Vulgate which reads in translation, “Cancel thy sins by deeds of charity and thine iniquities by deeds of kindness to the poor.” This, of course, is not what is recorded in the book of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar is not promised forgiveness on the ground of good works or alms to the poor; but rather the issue is that, if he is a wise and benevolent king, he would alleviate the necessity of God’s intervening with immediate judgment because of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride.²³⁴

The Dream Fulfilled

4:28-33 All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.

Although fulfillment of the dream was not immediate, the decree sums it up concisely, “All this came upon king Nebuchadnezzar.” Twelve months later as he walked in the palace in Babylon, one of his crowning architectural triumphs, and looked out upon the great city of Babylon, his pride reached a new peak as he asked the question “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” From the flat roof of the palace, he undoubtedly had a great perspective. This statement contradicts any notion of some critics that he was not actually in Babylon at that time. Everything points to the contrary. What he surveyed was indeed impressive. There are frequent mentions of the great buildings of Babylon in ancient literature.²³⁵

Montgomery finds this description of Nebuchadnezzar precisely fitting the historical context: “The setting of the scene and the king’s self-complaisance in his glorious Babylon are strikingly true to history. Every student of Babylonia recalls these proud words in reading Neb.’s own records of his creation of the new Babylon; for instance (Grotefend Cylinder, KB iii, 2, p. 39): ‘Then built I the palace the seat of my royalty ( e‚kallu mu‚sŒa‚b sŒarru‚ti‚a), the bond of the race of men, the dwelling of joy and rejoicing’; and (East India House Inscr., vii, 34, KB ib., p. 25): 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.’ The very language of the story is reminiscent of the Akkadian. The glory of Babylon, ‘that great city’ (Rev. 18), remained long to conjure the imagination of raconteurs. For the city’s grandeur as revealed to the eye of the archaeologist we may refer to R. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, 1913 (Eng. tr. Excavations at Babylon, 1915), with its revelation of Neb.’s palace, the temples, etc.”²³⁶

The building of Babylon was one of Nebuchadnezzar’s principal occupations. Inscriptions for about fifty building projects have been found, usually made of brick and sometimes of stone. Among the wonders of Nebuchadnezzar’s creation were the gardens of Semiramis, the famous “hanging gardens” regarded as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The gardens were planted on top of a building and served both to beautify and to keep the building cool from the heat of summer. They probably were in view of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace. Although his palaces which he constructed were all in Babylon, there were numerous temples built in other cities. The city of Babylon itself, however, was regarded as the symbol of his power and majesty; and he spared no expense or effort to make it the most beautiful city of the world. If the construction of a great city, magnificent in size, architecture, parks, and armaments, was a proper basis for pride, Nebuchadnezzar was justified. What he had forgotten was that none of this would be possible apart from God’s sovereign will.

No sooner were the words expressing his pride out of his mouth than he heard a voice from heaven, “O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.” The voice goes on to state how Nebuchadnezzar will be driven from men and fulfill the prophecy of living the life of a beast until the proper time had been fulfilled and he was willing to recognize the most high God. His transition from sanity to insanity was immediate, and so was the reaction as he was driven from the palace to begin his period of trial. Added in verse 33 is that which had not been previously mentioned—that his hair would grow like the feathers of an eagle, completely neglected and matted, and his nails would grow like birds’ claws. How quickly God can reduce a man at the acme of power and majesty to the level of a beast. The brilliant mind of Nebuchadnezzar, like the kingdom which he ruled, was his only by the sovereign will of God.

Scripture draws a veil over most of the details of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of trial. It is probable that Nebuchadnezzar was kept in the palace gardens away from abuse by common people.²³⁷ Although given no care, he was protected; and in his absence his counsellors, possibly led by Daniel himself, continued to operate the kingdom efficiently. Although Scripture does not tell us, it is reasonable to assume that Daniel himself had much to do with the kind treatment and protection of Nebuchadnezzar. He, no doubt, informed the counsellors of what the outcome of the dream would be and that Nebuchadnezzar would return to sanity. In this, God must have inclined the hearts of Nebuchadnezzar’s counsellors to cooperate, quite in contrast to what is often the case in ancient governments when at the slightest sign of weakness rulers were cruelly murdered. Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been highly respected as a brilliant king by those who worked with him, and this helped set the stage for his recovery.

Although his insanity was supernaturally imposed, it is not to be regarded as much different in its result from what might be expected if it had been produced by natural causes. The form of insanity in which men think of themselves as beasts and imitate the behavior of a beast is not without precedent. Keil designates the malady as insania zoanthropica.^{238 239}

Young in his treatment of this designates the disease as Boanthropy, i.e., he thought himself to be an ox, and cites Pusey as having collected considerable data on the subject. A person in this stage of insanity in his inner consciousness remains somewhat unchanged, but his outer behavior is irrational. Young states, “Pusey adduces the remarkable case of Pere Surin, who believed himself to be possessed, yet maintained communion with God. It is true to fact, then, that Neb., although under the influence of this strange malady, could lift up his eyes unto heaven.”²⁴⁰ In any case, the malady supernaturally imposed by God was supernaturally relieved at the proper time.

Raymond Harrison recites a personal experience with a modern case similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar, which he observed in a British mental institution in 1946. Harrison writes,

A great many doctors spend an entire, busy professional career without once encountering an instance of the kind of monomania described in the book of Daniel. The present writer, therefore, considers himself particularly fortunate to have actually observed a clinical case of boanthropy in a British mental institution in 1946. The patient was in his early 20’s, who reportedly had been hospitalized for about five years. His symptoms were well-developed on admission, and diagnosis was immediate and conclusive. He was of average height and weight with good physique, and was in excellent bodily health. His mental symptoms included pronounced anti-social tendencies, and because of this he spent the entire day from dawn to dusk outdoors, in the grounds of the institution … His daily routine consisted of wandering around the magnificent lawns with which the otherwise dingy hospital situation was graced, and it was his custom to pluck up and eat handfuls of the grass as he went along. On observation he was seen to discriminate carefully between grass and weeds, and on inquiry from the attendant the writer was told the diet of this patient consisted exclusively of grass from hospital lawns. He never ate institutional food with the other inmates, and his only drink was water… The writer was able to examine him cursorily, and the only physical abnormality noted consisted of a lengthening of the hair and a coarse, thickened condition of the finger-nails. Without institutional care, the patient would have manifested precisely the same physical conditions as those mentioned in Daniel 4:33… From the foregoing it seems evident that the author of the fourth chapter of Daniel was describing accurately an attestable, if rather rare, mental affliction.²⁴¹

The experience of Nebuchadnezzar has been compared by liberal critics to the “Prayer of Nabonidus,” in Cave IV Document of the Qumran literature. The prayer is introduced as, “The words of the prayer which Nabonidus, King of Assyria and Babylon, the great king, prayed…” The prayer describes Nabonidus as being afflicted with a “dread disease by the decree of the Most High God,” which required his segregation at the Arabian oasis of Teima for a period of seven years. An unnamed Jewish seer is said to have advised Nabonidus to repent and give glory to God instead of the idols he formerly worshiped. Because of the parallelism between this account and that of Nebuchadnezzar, liberal scholars who consider the book of Daniel as written in the second century have concluded that the account of Nabonidus is the original account, and that what we have in Daniel 4 is a tradition about it which substituted the name of Nebuchadnezzar for that of Nabonidus. As Frank M. Cross has expressed it,

There is every reason to believe that the new document [the Prayer of Nabonidus] preserves a more primitive form of the tale [Daniel 4]. It is well known that Nabonidus gave over the regency of his realm to his son Belshazzar in order to spend long periods of time in Teima; while Nebuchadnezzar, to judge from extrabiblical data, did not give up his throne. Moreover, in the following legend of Belshazzar’s feast, the substitution of Nebuchadnezzar for Nabonidus as the father of Belshazzar (Dan. 5:2) is most suggestive. Evidently in an older stage of tradition, the cycle included the stories of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan. 1-3), Nabonidus (Dan. 4), and Belshazzar (Dan. 5).²⁴²

Conservative scholars, who recognize the genuineness of the book of Daniel as a sixth century b.c. writing, see no conflict in accepting both Daniel 4 as it is written and the “Prayer of Nabonidus” as having some elements of truth, although apocryphal. In fact, as the discussion of Daniel 5 brings out, the fact that Nabonidus lived at Teima for extended periods, well attested in tradition, gives a plausible explanation as to why Belshazzar was in charge in Babylon in Daniel 5. It is not necessary to impugn the record of Daniel in order to recognize the uninspired story relating to Nabonidus.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Restoration

4:34-37 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Although the previous narrative had been couched in the third person, Nebuchadnezzar now returns to first person narrative. He records how he lifted up his eyes to heaven and his understanding returned. Whether this was simultaneous or causal is not stated, but looking to the heavens possibly was the first step in his recognition of the God of heaven and gaining sane perspective on the total situation. Nebuchadnezzar’s immediate reaction was to express praise to God, whom he recognizes as “the most High.” What effect this had on his belief in other deities is not stated, but it at least opens the door to the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar had placed true faith in the God of Israel.

In praising and honoring God, he attributes to Him the quality of living forever, of having an everlasting dominion, and of directing a kingdom which is from generation to generation. These qualities of eternity and sovereignty are far greater than those attributed to Babylonian deities. Because of His sovereignty, God can consider all the inhabitants of the earth as nothing. He is able to do as He wills whether in heaven or in earth, and no one can stay his hand or ask, “What doest thou?” Even as these words of praise were uttered to God, his reason returned to him. No doubt his counsellors had maintained some sort of a watch upon him, and upon the sudden change the report was given. They immediately sought his return to his former position of honor. Apparently the transition was almost immediate, and Nebuchadnezzar was once more established in his kingdom. It is in this role that he is able to issue the decree and make the public confession that is involved.

Nebuchadnezzar concludes with praise and worship for the “King of heaven,” whom he describes in conclusion, “all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.” Nebuchadnezzar’s experience brings the obvious spiritual lesson that even the greatest of earthly sovereigns is completely subject to the sovereign power of God. Montgomery summarizes the chapter concisely, “Neb. holds his fief from Him who is King in heaven and in the kingdom of man.”²⁴³

The debate as to whether Nebuchadnezzar was actually saved in a spiritual sense remains unsettled. Such worthies as Calvin, Hengstenberg, Pusey, and Keil believe the evidence is insufficient.²⁴⁴ As Young and others point out, however, there is considerable evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s spiritual progress of which chapter 4 is the climax (cf. 2:47; 3:28; 4:34-35). There can be little question that he acknowledges Daniel’s God as the omnipotent eternal sovereign of the universe (4:34, 35, 37). His issuance of a decree somewhat humiliating to his pride and an abject recognition of the power of God whom he identifies as “King of heaven” (4:37) would give us some basis for believing that Nebuchadnezzar had a true conversion. Inasmuch as in all ages some men are saved without gaining completely the perspective of faith or being entirely correct in the content of their beliefs, it is entirely possible that Nebuchadnezzar will be numbered among the saints.

In chapter 4 Nebuchadnezzar reaches a new spiritual perspicacity. Prior to his experience of insanity, his confessions were those of a pagan whose polytheism permitted the addition of new gods, as illustrated in Daniel 2:47 and 3:28-29. Now Nebuchadnezzar apparently worships the King of heaven only. For this reason, his autobiography is truly remarkable and reflects the fruitfulness of Daniel’s influence upon him and probably of Daniel’s daily prayers for him. Certainly God is no respecter of persons and can save the high and mighty in this world as well as the lowly.

²¹⁰ H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, p. 204.

²¹¹ For the relation of the Qumran document designated the “Prayer of Nabonidus,” see later discussion on Daniel 4:28-33.

²¹² Cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Daniel, p. 39; and J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 220-23; 247-49.

²¹³ Charles, p. 37.

²¹⁴ Ibid.

²¹⁵ Montgomery, pp. 247-49.

²¹⁶ Ibid., p. 222.

²¹⁷ Cf. Leupold, pp. 170-71.

²¹⁸ Ibid., p. 173.

²¹⁹ E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 99; Montgomery, pp. 225-26.

²²⁰ Leupold, p. 176; S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, p. 48.

²²¹ Driver, p. 48, citing his “Hebrew Authority,” in Authority and Archeology, pp. 137-38.

²²² Young, p. 99; cf. Driver, p. 48.

²²³ Leupold, p. 178.

²²⁴ Montgomery, pp. 229-30.

²²⁵ Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 68.

²²⁶ Young, p. 101.

²²⁷ Cf. ibid., pp. 101-2; Leupold, p. 180; and Montgomery, pp. 228-30.

²²⁸ C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 150.

²²⁹ Montgomery, pp. 231-32.

²³⁰ Keil, pp. 148-51.

²³¹ Ibid., p. 154.

²³² Young, p. 106.

²³³ Leupold, p. 190.

²³⁴ For further discussion of this, see Leupold, pp. 194-96.

²³⁵ Keil mentions the statements of Berosus in Josephi Ant. x. 11, 1, and con. Ap. i. 19, and of Abydenus in Eusebii praepar. evang. ix. 41, and Chron. i. p. 59; also the delineation of these buildings in Duncker’s Gesch. des Alterth. i. p. 854 ff. (Keil, p. 159). See also the excellent description by Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pp. 66-67.

²³⁶ Montgomery, pp. 243-44.

²³⁷ Leupold, p. 201.

²³⁸ *Keil notes that historical documents on this form of madness have been collected by Trusen in his Sitten, Gebr. u. Krank. der alten Hebräer, p. 205 f., 2d ed., and by Friedreich in Zur Bibel, i. p. 308 f. (Keil, p. 160).

²³⁹ Keil, p. 159.

²⁴⁰ Young, p. 112.

²⁴¹ Raymond Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 1116-17.

²⁴² Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, pp. 123-24; cf. Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 400, and David N. Freedman, “The Prayer of Nabonidus,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145:31-32. For a conservative evaluation, see Raymond K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 1117-21.

²⁴³ Montgomery, p. 245.

²⁴⁴ Young, p. 113.