“The Most High rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.” - A commentary on Daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4
Part 2 - The dream of the statue is interpreted
![]() Daniel began interpreting the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had: “You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold.” - Daniel 2:37, 38 Daniel informs Nebuchadnezzar II that he is King because the ‘God of Heaven’, the God that the Hebrews worship, has bewstowed such power and position onto him. Therefore, the King should not credit neither Marduk nor Nebo, for it is the God of the Hebrews that ‘gave him the kingdom and made him rule over them all’, in fact causing Nebuchadnezzor to be the “head of gold” of the statue. Daniel continues: “Another kingdom [Aram: malku] inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.” - Daniel 2: 39 Here we arrive to a crucial point in understanding the scope of this prophecy. What exactly is meant here by “kingdom”? A superficial reading may lead to the conclusion that this is a different empire, or “kingdom”, one that would succeed, even replace, the neo-babylonian empire. Therefore, the common interpretation has been that the “kingdom” represented by the silver chest and arms should be the Medo-persian empire, while the “kingdom” represented by the “middle and thighs” of bronze should be the Macedonian empire, or Greece. This point of view stems also from a supposed connection with the vision of Daniel 7, where the three first “beasts” that rise from the sea are identified in succession with Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece. Therefore, by identifying on chapter 2 the head of the statue with the babylonean King, and establishing a paralell with the first beast of chapter 7 as the neo-babylonean empire, most Bible commentators thought that a paralellism between the two visions is warranted. But, think again. First, Daniel makes a personalized interpretation of the identity of the head of the statue. He says: “You [Nebuchadnezzar] are the head of gold”. The King “is” the golden head, personally. If the principal and initial part of the statue, that defines the rest of the object, is therefore so clearly personalized, how can we make the epistemological leap to consider the ensueing parts of the statue as representing something different, not individual people, but kingdoms, even empires? Second, if the statue was meant to represent a succession of empires, what would make Nebuchadnezzar a “gold head”, while all others were represented by increasingly inferior metals? The Neo-babylonean empire, even considering the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nebopolassar, lasted from 626 to 539 BCE, that is, 87 years. If we count only from Nebuchadnezzar’s II reign, then is from 605 to 539 BCE, that is 66 years. This is considerably shorter time than the Medo-Persian (Achaemenid) empire, that lasted from c. 553 to 334 BCE, that is, 219 years. It is also vastly shorter than the Roman empire, that lasted from 27 BCE to 416 CE (Western empire, 442 years total) or to 1453 CE (Eastern empire, 1479 years total). In terms of geographic size, the neo-babylonian empire occupied, at the height of its size with Nebuchadnezzar II, an area of c.500.000 square Kms; the Achaemenid empire peaked at 8 million square Kms; the Macedonian empire under Alexander the Great peaked at 5,2 million square Kms; The Roman empire, under Trajan, had a maximum extension of 6,5 million square Kms. So, neither in area, nor in duration was the Neo-babylonian empire superior in quality to the empires that followed it. Some may argue that Nebuchadnezzar II was the “head of gold” because he had the “honor” (?) to conquer Jerusalem. This is frankly a nonsensical argument. In that case, Rome and the Seleucid Empire would then deserve the same “honor”, for they also conquered Jerusalem and defiled the Temple. Third, consider that hebrew terms allow for a variety of meanings and nuances. This is certainly the case with the aramaic term “malku”, corresponding to the Hebrew term “malkut”. This is commonly translated as “kingdom”; however, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words says that “malkut” denotes: “(1) the territory of the kingdom ... (2) the accession to the throne ... (3) the year of rule (4) anything “royal” or “kingly” ... The Septuagint translations of “malkut” are basileia (kingship, kingdom, royal power) and basileus (king)”. The Ecyclopaedia Britannica says that “Malkut refers primarily not to a geographical area or realm nor to the people inhabiting the realm but, rather, to the activity of the king himself, his exercise of sovereign power. The idea might better be conveyed in English by an expression such as kingship, rule, or sovereignty.” The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon also offers the possibility of “reign” or “royal power”. In other passages of Daniel, the terms “malku” and “malkut” are applied to the “kingship” or “reign” of a particular king - see 1:1; 2:1; 6:28; 8:1. Therefore, it’s perfectly admissible that the idea conveyed by each new section / metal of the statue is of a reign that follows another reign. Nebuchadnezzar is the first personalized “malku”, or reign, followed by anohter, presumably personalized “malku”, or reign. If the statue isn’t meant to represent a succession of empires, but instead, a succession of “reigns”, or individual kings, can history provide an explanation for it? Yes, indeed it can. The vision of the statue is a prophetic vision of the Neo-babylonian empire and its final doom. In this prespective, naturally Nebuchadnezzar is the “gold head”, the most prominent (not to mention the then current) chaldean monarch. He would be followed by another “reign”, of lesser quality, his son Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-Merodach in the Bible - see 2 Kings 25:27), who had a short and unpopular reign of two years, before he was assassinated by his brother-in law, Neriglissar, who became identified by the bronze section of the statue. He extended the Babylonian empire further by invading Anatolia and Cilicia - thus the remark that his “reign” “shall rule over the entire earth”. However, Neriglissar died unexpectedly at his prime age and was replaced in the throne by his infant son Labashi-Marduk. But he wouldn’t last but a few months and he was murdered. Since he didn’t completed even one regnal year, and his role in the babylonian affairs is entirely irrelevant, he’s ignored in the context of the succession of the statue. Daniel continues the interpretation of the dream: “A fourth kingdom will be as strong as iron; for iron crushes and shatters everything, and like iron that smashes, it will crush and smash all the others.” - Daniel 2:40 Nabonidus overthrew and killed Labashi-Marduk, thus ending the royal bloodline that came since Napobolassar. He tried to gain legitimacy by marrying a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, but in fact he was an usurper with no blood connection with the previous royal line. He “crushed and smash all the others”, that is, he brought to a violent end the chaldean dinasty that descended from the “golden head”, Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus was a well-educated son of a priestess of the moon goddess Sîn, and a competent military commander of troops, and was the choice of the Babylonian priesthood to occupy the throne of Babylon, thus becoming the “iron legs” of the statue. For three years he ruled over Babylon alone, but then he took a surprising decision. He decided to retreat to the prosperous oasis at Tayma, leaving his son, the prince Belshazzar ahead of the affairs in Babylon. With this, he inaugurated a co-regency that lasted over ten years (553-543 BCE). The time was come for the fulfillment of the prophecy: “Whereas you saw the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, because you saw the iron mixed with miry clay and that the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly fired clay - part of the kingdom will be strong, and part will be brittle. And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery” - Daniel 2:41-43 The expression “they will combine with one another in the seed of men” may be understood as they (iron and clay) being of the same “seed of men”, that is, family relatives. In the case of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, father and son. The fact that this was a split regency between Nabonidus and Belshazzar fits well with the prophetic utterance that it will be a “divided kingdom”, ‘divided’ used here in the sense of ‘shared kingdom’. The kingdom started out as iron and ended up divided between iron and fired clay; this indicated that from some point on, “part of the kingdom will be strong, and part will be brittle”, meaning that it would start to dangerously show strenghts and weaknesses. This is consistent with the kingdom started out solely in the hands of Nabonidus (the iron part), for the first three years, and ended up divided, or shared, between iron and clay, the latter representing the weaker condition of the kingdom in co-regency with his son Belshazzar. At this point, each ruler is depicted prophetically as contributiong with iron-like qualities to the kingdom and fired clay-like qualities to the kingdom. In fact, both men had strenghts and weaknesses. Nabonidus was a competent militar and an educated scholar with interest in the past of Babylon and its preservation, and a builder. However, it seems that his preference - if not exclusive devotion - for the moon goddess Sîn, soon made him feel uncomfortable in Babylon, dominated by the priesthood of Marduk. This is the likely explanation for his retreat to the oasis of Tayma, where the worship of Sîn was predominant, and where his mother lived and worked as a priestess. This choice in time gave way to tensions, as the priesthood of Marduk became resentful of the dedication that Nabonidus gave to the worship of Sîn, for the King even neglected to attend the “Akitu”, the Marduk-related new year festival, which didn’t take place without the presence of the King. This was a weakness. While not much information is found in secular sources about Belshazzar, other than corroborating his existence and the co-regency with his father, the Bible depicts a frivolous Belshazzar, who does not hesitate to dessacrate the utensils from the Temple of the Jews in a party, to carelessly - and without consulting his father - offer Daniel the third position in the kingdom while in a state of drunkedness, (see Daniel 5:29) and for neglecting to properly organize the defense of the city of Babylon in face of the threat of Cyrus and the persian army. Indeed, Belshazzar was a co-regent with qualities of “clay”. “They will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery” Apparently, Nabonidus is more clearly associated with the “iron” and Belshazzar more clearly associated with “clay”. The prophecy indicates that they wouldn’t be consistently united. The pressure of Cyrus’ threat caused disagreements and tensions between Belshazzar and Nabonidus, causing the King-father to return from his retreat in Tayma, and stripping Belshazzaar from the command of the Babylonian army, along with other officers, with Nabonidus re-taking personally the commander-in-chief seat of the army again to organize the defense of southern Mespotamia. Before we begin to discuss the destruction of the statue, we should assume the role of observers for a moment, and look at the overall image of the statue. What conceptual idea is conveyed by the transitions from gold to silver, from silver to bronze, from bronze to iron, and from iron to a combination of iron and fired clay? Each material has less value than the previous one. Therefore, the idea conveyed is of a progressive decay in the quality of the leadership of the empire. Extra-biblical evidence corroborates that Nebuchadnezzar prophetically foresaw the ruin of the chadean empire. Abydenus, a Greek hystorian that lived around 200 BCE, in his work History of the Chaldeans and Assyrians, of which some fragments were preserved by Eusebius in his work Praeparatio Evangelica (9.41) recorded that in the last days of Nebuchadnezzar, the king was "possessed by some god or other" while in his palace, and announced the coming of a Persian mule (i.e., Cyrus), who would bring the people into slavery. Then says Abydenus, "He, when he had uttered this prediction, immediately disappeared". Abydenus appears to amalgamate two circumstances described in great detail by the prophet Daniel: The vision of the statue that was given to King Nabuchadnezzar, (Daniel 2:1-3; 31-45) and also the vision of the great tree, which was followed by dementia for seven years, in the final part of his Kingdom - Daniel Let us now focus at the final part of the dream - the destruction of the statue. “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever.” (NET) - Daniel 2:44 “In the days of those kings”, that is, in the days of the kings represented by the iron and the clay, that is, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, “the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom”. This is the point where I ask the reader to remember the previous point made about the term “olam”, which is again used here and translated as “everlasting”. Again, the correct understanding of olam is of something in the timeline that is beyond the time horizon, therefore, “time idefinite”. In any case, it speaks of a kingdom that is “raised up” [from the root word qum, that has the meaning of appoint, establish, raise up, arise up, set up - see Strong’s # 6966] by God’s will. This is a kingdom that “will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. This part of the sentence is subsidiary to the first part, where “olam” sets the duration of the said kingdom. This kingdom would not be destroyed or conquered by another people for “time indefinite”, meaning, for the foreseeable future. It doesn’t necessarily mean ‘forever’. “This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands--a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. "The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy." - Daniel 2:45 Daniel explained plainly that the dream’s purpose was to ‘show the king of Babylon’ what will take place in the future. Specifically, what would be the future developments of the neo-babylonian empire, namely its decline and deterioration that would culminate in its destruction by a kingdom raised by Yahweh. The theme of the vision of the statue is, therefore, not about the Kingdom of God, not does it concern God’s people. When Daniel received the interpretation, he noted that the vision is about God ‘changing times and seasons, removing kings and establishing kings’. (Daniel 2:21) He thanked God for letting him and his companions know “the king’s mystery”. (Daniel 2:23) Yes, this was a mystery that concerned the King of Babylon and his chaldean empire. This didn’t concern God’s people, Israel, nor was it about the heavenly Kingdom of God, or any other Kingdom that originated from his people. This was something of particular interest to the Babylonian King, hence it was to him that the dream was given. This is precisely what Daniel explains to the King: “This mystery has been revealed to me...in order that the interpretation might be made known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind” (Daniel 2:30) This prophetic vision was of special interest to Nabuchadnezzar because it concerned him and his kingship and the chaldean empire after him. Consider this: Would Yahweh give to a pagan king a crucial vision about the establishment of the Kingdom of Heavens, instead of giving such vision to Daniel? Compare this with the announcement of the birth of Jesus Christ. Would God announce the birth of the King of the Heavenly kingdom to babylonian pagan astrologists / priests? Then why do that with a Babylonian King? What, then, is represented by the “stone” that is ‘cut without hands from a mountain’, that hits the statue on its feet, destroying it, and that became ‘a great mountain and filled the whole earth’ ? (Continued ...) by Eden << Back to Part 1 | To Part 3 >> |