NEW ARTICLE - Commentary on Daniel chapters 2, 3 and 4.

by EdenOne 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  EdenOne

  I’ve just published on my website a commentary on Daniel Chapters 2, 3 and 4, concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams of the statue and the great tree. It’s titled: “The Most High rules over the kingdoms of the world and gives them to anyone he chooses.” (Click the title for link)

  It has the following sections:

  Introduction

  I - Nebuchadnezzar II, King of Babylon

  II - The dream of the statue is interpreted

  III - The godly stone that pulverized the statue

  IV - Nebuchadnezzar challenges Daniel’s interpretation

  V - The haughty king learns a humbling lesson

  I hope you enjoy it. It debunks the notion that the dream of the statue has a messianic interpretation.

  Eden
• 

  Honesty

  WHAT????

  No connection with Jesus' INVISIBLE return??????

  All 8 members of the 'slave' can't be wrong...

  can they???
• 

  flamegrilled

  An intriguing suggestion. The primary problem I have with it is whether that rendering of “elam” (or “olam”) can be sustained given the wider context.

  This portion of Daniel is Aramaic rather than Hebrew. The only other place that I can see in which “elam” is applied to a kingdom is Dan 7:14,18,27. And this is most certainly referring to the messianic kingdom.

  It is tempting to read Daniel 2-4 as a connected sequence of events as you have suggested, but I favor viewing the book overall as a double-chaism as proposed by William H Shea in 1986, although something similar was presented at least 60 years earlier by E.W. Bullinger for the Aramaic section (see “The Companion Bible”).

  If this structure is valid then it makes sense that chapters 2 and 7 would both have messianic kingdom prophecies as their themes. Whereas chapters 4 and 5 would rightly be prophecies restricted to the kings of the time (Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar respectively). Chapters 3 and 6 then are focused on rightful worship, and the trials of God's people.

  Add to that the phrase “all these kingdoms” in Dan 2:44. I am aware here that the words could be passed as “kingships” rather than “kingdoms”, but I cannot find a single Bible translation that has gone this route. (http://biblehub.com/daniel/2-44.htm)

  As far as the material of the stone being lowlier than the gold, I don't think there is a problem. Evidently the gold, silver etc is from a human standpoint - not God's. Jesus was a lowly one - the stone that the builders rejected. It is only when his kingdom becomes a great mountain having fully crushed the image that everyone understands its superior value.

  Similarly the fact that Medo-Persia, Greece etc, might have had more extensive dominions than Babylon is not necessarily important to the image as a whole. From Nebuchadnezzer's standpoint, his form of human government is pure gold. But the whole concept of human government is something that would be shown to have less and less value as the centuries advanced, until finally they are replaced by God's kingdom.

  So whilst your idea is interesting and well presented, I still think that the messianic kingdom is the ultimate theme of chapter 2.

  FG
• 

  Vidqun

  I agree with Flamegrilled. Dan. 2 can only refer to the Messianic kingdom according to the language used in Dan. 2:44, 45. I view the prohecy of Daniel as a unit and interpret it as such. Here also one should keep in mind Daniel's "world view" in connection with God's people. A good example is the formulaic expression be’acharith hayyamim, generally used in the sense “time to come” (e.g., Gen. 49:1), then the “future,” and “the end of time” as we know it (e.g., Dan. 2:28; 10:14; cf. Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Hos. 3:5; Ezek. 38:16). In Dan. 8: 17, 19 it is connected to the end time. See TDOT, vol. VI, pp. 19, 20.
• 

  EdenOne

  Flamegrilled,

  There's another issue that you didn't touch. Since when prophecies concerning the messianic kingdom were given first hand to heathens rather than the prophets? Can you give me another example outside these controversial ones in Daniel? This would amount to consider that, for example, God would reveal the birth of Jesus to the chaldean astrologists. Are you prepared to accept that?

  To give messianic prophecies first hand to a heathen king is contradicting the Scripture: " For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7, Douay-Rheims) What could Nabuchadnezzar possibly benefit from learning about the messianic kingdom, should that be the intent of the vision of the statue?

  Also, why would the first portion of the statue be personalized by Nabuchadnezzar, and the remaining portions of the statue be generically speaking, world powers?

  Eden
• 

  iCeltic

  Even when I was a jw I thought Daniel was stoned and just made it all up. Daniel chapter 2 LSD version.
• 

  flamegrilled

  Hi EdenOne

  I take your points, but in reality the prophecy wasn't really given to the heathen first. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream, but he couldn't even remember what it was. Both the content of the dream and its meaning were both revealed to God's servant.

  As well as being a message of hope of the messianic kingdom to God's people, it is also a message of warning to all human governments that their lifespan is limited. To this extent is it fitting that the warning was given to the heathen king, just as the writing on the wall was given to Belshaazar.

  To be concerned about the fact that Daniel says the head of gold himself is Nebuchadnezzar is a bit of a sidepoint IMO. The king and the kingdom are pretty interchangeable in this context. Again the writing on the wall in chapter 5 was pronounced against an individual, but the fulfillment of the prophecy was against a nation nonetheless.

  FG
• 

  Vidqun

  This is where Daniel's world view comes in. At that stage the issue was rulership of the "inhabited earth" in the vicinity of "the beautiful land," i.e., Israel (cf. Dan. 4:20). This heathen king would be used by God as an instrument to punish his people. If I read the text correctly, God humored him for some reason. Like you said, he was very proud, and an absolute monarch. He is the head of pure gold, ruling as a pure autocrat. The kingdoms after him were less rigid and less autocratic. They had advisors and laws that greatly influenced the king's decisions. Remember also Cyrus the Persian, a pagan, called God's anointed (Is. 45:1).

  So, I don't find it unusual for God revealing secrets to pagans. After all, the Israelites, prophets included, were disobedient and lost their status as a theocracy. If you go through Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel you will see what I mean. Judah and Israel were in God's bad books. I view Amos (3:7) as a statement, not a law. Quite a few Messianic prophecies had been given before Daniel's time. This one would be different because of the detail. Dan. 2:39 makes clear the interpretation. There will be other kingdoms after the Babylonian kingdom.
• 

  flamegrilled

  Vidqun

  Your comments about the absolute autocratic monarchy make me think of something else.

  In the modern day democracy is promoted as the pinnacle of human government, whereas rule by the people is arguably the ultimate outworking of opposition to theocracy.

  So from a theocratic point of view things would deteriorate through these successions of kingdoms whereby the original lie promoted by Satan (I'm talking about a Biblical perspective here, not whether a person believes it or not), that self-rule was better than God-rule, would be held up as the ideal. But in reality it is fragile like iron and clay.

  FG
• 

  Vidqun

  Flamegrilled, I agree. Take it a step further:

  Potter’s art work vs. Democratization: At the formation of the feet and toes of the statue, the first stage would call for iron ingredients to be mixed with wet clay, for these to be moulded into shape . The second phase would call for the image to be kiln-baked or sun dried . Now the clay would be become rock hard, i.e., ceramic. As the image would be growing older, the weight of the image would cause the clay component to become brittle. During the initial stages of the democratization process, (government) structures would be soft, malleable and pliable, like wet clay. After a time of experimentation and implementation, these structures would become established, i.e., the ceramic stage. As these grew older, becoming more liberal and top-heavy, i.e., badly balanced or proportioned, or heavily indebted, these would become brittle.