5/12/21 – Daniel 4:8-18

 

Daniel 4:8But 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],

 

But at the last – It seems that it could be read as “Until finally …”

 

Belteshazzar – the Chaldean name given to Daniel by the prince of eunuchs (Daniel 1:7), Ashpenaz, the master of the king’s eunuchs (Daniel 1:3).

Cambridge says: “Belteshazzar] i.e. balâṭsu-uṣur, ‘protect his life!’; probably elliptical for Bęl-balâṭsu-uṣur, ‘Bel, protect his life!’”

Barnes says: “"Bel's prince;" that is, he whom Bel favors.

 

Belin Babylonian and Assyrian mythology, Bel was the god of the earth.

“Bel” is considered to be the same as Baal (owner; lord; master), a false god associated with Canaan. Note that one of satan’s names is Beelzebub (Lord of the flies). Note that in Mark 3:22-23 Jesus equates Beelzebub with satan.

The OT names a god of Ekron as Baal-zebub. Ekron was one of the five cities of the Philistines.

2 Kings 1:2And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that [was] in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baal–zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.

where Baal-zebub is said to derive from Baal (lord) and zᵉbuwb (fly).

 

according to the name of my godBel is the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s god (after whom Daniel appears to have been named) although probably only one of many gods the king would have worshipped. When Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel’s God, he probably just added God to the list of other gods, although he did seem to consider Daniel’s God to be superior to the other gods (when it suited him of course). Note that Nebuchadnezzar mentions “the holy gods”, a plural term which would have referred to his pantheon of worshipped gods.

 

the spirit of the holy gods – Literally the wind or breath of the holy gods.

Pharaoh uses a similar phrase in Genesis 41:38And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find [such a one] as this [is], a man in whom the Spirit of God [is]? but with singular “God”, not plural. (“gods” in Vs 8 above is plural)

Nebuchadnezzar accords Daniel with being the mouthpiece or spokesman for God. Note that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16a) where “given by inspiration of God” is theopneustos. This derives from theos (God) and pneo (to breathe; to blow; of breath or wind), thus literally “by the breath of God”.

 

I told the dream – Possibly Daniel also told what the dream was about, noting “tell me the visions of my dream ….and the interpretation thereof” (Vs 9 below)

 

Daniel 4:9O 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.

 

masterrab (Aramaic) (captain; chief; master) Note the Hebrew equivalent rab (captain; chief) is translated “master” in Daniel 1:3. We get the term rabbi (master) from this word.

 

magicianmagician; astrologer; diviner

 

the spirit of the holy gods – This is the same phrase as used in Vs 8 above. Some teach that this should be translated as “the Spirit of Holy God”. However, the word for “gods” (elahh) is plural masculine and therefore would have to logically be translated “gods”.

 

troublethanac (Aramaic) (oppress; compel; constrain) It has the idea of being pushed into doing something. One commentary suggests it’s like a goad that forces you to act.

 

tell me the visions of my dream – tell me what I have seen in my dream. However, as Nebuchadnezzar then proceeds to “tell” his dream (Vs 10-18 below), it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar is wanting Daniel to explain what he has dreamed, to tell him what it means, to put it into words that make sense to Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar knew what he had dreamed, but it made no sense to him. He wanted Daniel to tell him so that it made sense. [It does seem a bit unusual, though, to ask Daniel to tell him the visions of his dream, and then proceed to tell Daniel (in Vs 10-18 below) what he has seen.]

 

 

Nebuchadnezzar is effectively acknowledging that only Daniel (out of all the wise men) is able to say accurately what the dream was about and interpret it. It is likely that Nebuchadnezzar would have known that his wise men wouldn’t be able to give answers like Daniel could. Possibly he wanted to give them a chance to demonstrate their wisdom (if it existed) regarding his dreams, but nothing he says to them suggests that he is confident of any proper answer from them. He finally calls Daniel (whom he acknowledges is able, by his God, to tell dreams and interpret them). He has kept the best until last!

If he had called Daniel first, then he would not have been able to know whether his other wise men could have answered his demands. They were given the opportunity, but couldn’t, so he calls Daniel, expecting him to answer his demands.

 

Daniel 4:10Thus [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.

 

Nebuchadnezzar recounts what he “saw” in his dream.

 

I saw – It came to pass that I saw

 

and behold – and lo!

 

in the midst of the earth – Probably standing out on its own, away from any other trees or forest such that it stood out in the centre of his attention.

 

the height thereof (was) great – It was exceedingly tall. It must have seemed like it reached up to the heavens in Nebuchadnezzar’s mind (“the height ….. reached unto heaven” – Vs 11 below).

 

This tree was one of a kind; there was no other tree like it, standing out and alone, and so big. Nebuchadnezzar’s attention would have been riveted on this sight.

 

Daniel 4:11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

 

grew – or was great; had grown great

 

was strongtᵉqeph (Aramaic) (grow strong; be hardened; it can mean to become arrogant) Its Hebrew equivalent taqaph means to prevail; overcome. It has the idea of being somewhat invincible.

 

It was so tall that it appeared to reach up to heaven itself, and could be seen from all over the earth.

 

This tree had grown great and was so strong that it could withstand anything; it may even have had the idea of being so strong that it invited anything to come and try to take it down; that is, arrogance in its invincibility. It was so tall and strong that it stood out in the whole earth, right to the ends of the earth. Note that Nebuchadnezzar wrote this addressed to all “that dwell in all the earth” (Daniel 4:1). His idea of the whole earth or “to the end of all the earth” would have been the totality of his kingdom, his empire. Everyone in his kingdom would have seen this tree.

 

Another way of looking at this is that the tree itself spread across the whole earth, from one side to the other. The Brenton LXX (Greek OT) says: “The tree grew large and strong, and its height reached to the sky, and its extent to the extremity of the whole earth:” (There are different LXX translations from the Greek.)

 

Daniel 4:12The 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.

 

fair -or beautiful; attractive-looking. This was a healthy tree with lots of good foliage. Note that word “flourishing” (luxuriant, green or fresh foliage) in Daniel 4:4, a different word but conveying a similar idea.

 

much – This word is translated “great” in Vs 10 above. It means exceeding; great; much; many and indicates a bumper crop of lots of fruit of good size.

 

meatmazown (Aramaic) (food; feed). It is translated “meat” in its 2 occurrences in Daniel, the other in Daniel 4:21. However, it actually refers to food in general, not just meat. Its Hebrew equivalent is mazown (food; sustenance; feed) Here it would mean that the tree provided food for all to eat, probably referring to the fruit growing on it. It was common to call all food “meat”. Even in the NT, the word generally translated “meat” is broma (that which is eaten; food). broma is translated “meat” in all but one use in the NT (where it is translated “victuals” in Matthew 14:15(… send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.) Also, in 1 Corinthians 10:3, the spiritual “meat” refers to the manna they collected to eat in the wilderness, and did not mean flesh of any sort.

 

had shadow”; “dwelt”; “was fed” – All these are imperfect tense which indicates an unfinished action. Thus, “were shaded”, “were dwelling”, and “were being fed”, all on an ongoing basis. This suggests that Nebuchadnezzar “saw” this happening (Vs 10 above) in his dream. The tree provided shade for all beasts of the field (representing protection for all “that dwell in all the earth” (Daniel 4:1). It also provided dwelling places for all its people (represented by the fowls of the air), and sustenance for them all too (represented by all flesh feeding from this tree). In other words, this “tree” was the great provider of all the needs of all the people of this kingdom (which Nebuchadnezzar declared to be “all the earth” – Daniel 4:1).

 

Daniel 4:13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;

 

Nebuchadnezzar continues to watch the visions (appearances) unfold as his dream progresses. After observing the extent of this great tree and its provision for all that depended upon it, he now sees a change in the story-line.

 

a watcherwakeful one; watcher; angel. Derived from a Hebrew word meaning “to be exposed, be bared, be laid bare”, translated as “naked” in the OT in Habakkuk 3:9). Thus one who watches (by staying awake) in order to expose things such as a night attack; a watchman on the wall (see Ezekiel 33:6). Possibly someone like the “watchman” of Psalm 127:1.

“watcher” is only used 3 times in Daniel, once as above, and also in:-

Daniel 4:17This 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.

Daniel 4:23And 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;

The watcher here does appear to act as an angelic messenger from God.

 

Both Ellicott and Barnes suggest that the watcher and holy one are referring to the same single person, that is, a watcher who is a holy one. However, Daniel 4:17 does seem to suggest that there are two separate categories here, watchers and holy ones. However, it doesn’t really matter to the meaning of this passage whether it is a single being or two separate beings.

 

an holy oneqaddiysh (Aramaic) (holy; separated; sacred; a saint) Here it probably refers to an angel sent by God. Twice the word mal’ak is translated “angel” in Daniel (3:28; 6:22), the only 2 occurrences of “angel” in this book.

It is translated “holy” in a number of places in Daniel (4:8, 9 & 18; 5:11). And, translated “saints” 6 times in Daniel 6 where it clearly seems to mean godly people.

Eg Daniel 7:22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Also in Daniel 7:18, 21, 25, & 27.

 

In Vs 13 above it would seem to represent an angel sent by God (having descended from heaven), as is the watcher. These two may or may not be the same being.

 

Daniel 4:14He 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:

 

He – This is a singular masculine verb and therefore does suggest either that only one spoke (which one was it, then?) or that both are the same being.

 

criedto call; read aloud; read out; shout.

aloudstrength; army; power; force. Thus he shouted with force, might or power.

The same two words are also translated “cried aloud” in Daniel 3:4 (Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages,)

 

shake off – or strip off (its leaves)

 

get away – or flee

 

The watcher cries out like a herald announcing a judgment: Cut down the tree (that great strong invincible tree), cut off its branches (upon which the leaves and fruit grow), strip all its leaves off (its leaves are no longer “fair” – see Vs 12 above), and scatter all its fruit (which was of such size and numbers – see Vs 12 above). Thus, it would no longer provide protection, places of dwelling, and sustenance for its people (see Vs 12 above).

 

Daniel 4:15Nevertheless 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:

 

neverthelessonly; nevertheless; but

 

a bandband; bond; imprisonment. This suggests bondage of some sort, and not just a metal band placed around a stump of a tree.

 

brasscopper; bronze

 

tender grassnew growth vegetation

 

his portion – or his share. Thus he would share the vegetation with the beasts who ate it; his share would be to graze with those beasts.

 

But let the tree stump remain in the ground with a band of iron and bronze among the new growth vegetation in the field. Let it get wet with the dewfall from the sky and let his lot be with the beasts among the herbage (vegetation growing from the ground).

This does seem to be discussing a person rather than an inanimate tree, noting “his portion” (masculine singular) indicates a male person.

(When we get to Daniel 4:19-27 next time, we’ll go further into this.)

 

Daniel 4:16Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.

 

heartmind; heart; soul.

 

Let his heart (or thinking) be changed from a man’s thinking, and let him think like a beast instead.

 

seven times – literally seven periods of duration, often assumed to mean seven years. While it is not clear exactly what time duration is meant here, biblical consistency does suggest years. Daniel 7:25 talks of a time when the antichrist will try to rule the world, where the saints of God will be given over to the antichrist for “a time and times and the dividing of time”, generally interpreted as 3˝ years.

Daniel 7:25And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

When compared with a similar period in Revelation (discussing the rule of the antichrist in the end times), it uses a similar phrase.

 

In Revelation, it talks about Israel (the woman – see Revelation 12:5) who is kept nourished in the wilderness for “a time, and times, and half a time”.

Revelation 12:14And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

 

That same chapter in Revelation also defines that Israel (the woman) will be fed by God in the wilderness for 1260 days. If we assume correctly that the Jewish year had 360 days, then 1260 days is 3˝ years.

Revelation 12:6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

 

Thus, it may be reasonable to assume that “time” here means a year, and therefore “seven times” may mean seven years. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how such an event could occur over a period of seven years without it being noted by secular historians. Some have suggested that it was allegorical and that Nebuchadnezzar endured seven years of spiritual wilderness with the beasts of the field, with perhaps a sabbatical period where someone else took over his administration for this time, something which happened in those days. We’ll look at Belshazzar named as king in Daniel 5, yet history says it was Nabonidus who actually was king. In reality, it was probably Nabonidus who was king, yet Belshazzar (probably his son) who ruled in his place.

 

Or that perhaps “time” does not mean a year here and that another period of time is meant, such as a month or maybe a week. The issue is not really with the length of time during which this occurred, but the actual occurrences and what they mean.

 

Daniel 4:17This 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 matter (word, order or command) is by the decree (which cannot be altered) of the watchers, and by the demand (or request) of the holy ones: to the intent (for the reason or so that) the living (those who are alive) may know that the most High (God) is sovereign over the kingdom of men. God may choose whomever He wishes to rule these kingdoms, even putting in place the basest (lowliest) of men (if He so desires).

 

That is, God rules; He is sovereign. No-one may rule unless God permits him to do so. No-one may assume that he has a God-given right to rule, no matter how high he is born, nor how powerful he is.

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

 

Daniel 4:18This 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.

 

A number of verses in this passage today (the same for much of the Aramaic passages in Daniel) are disputed, with the LXX (Greek text) often adding extra verses, yet leaving out some others. However, the basic meaning of each version is much the same, so I won’t go into these differences here.

 

I – The first person pronoun used to emphasise that it is definitely Nebuchadnezzar who has seen this. Belteshazzar (Daniel) is now required to relate (declare) the interpretation. Up until now Nebuchadnezzar has described what he “saw” in his dream, and now requires Daniel to tell him what it all means.

His wise men (ones appointed by his kingdom) were not able to interpret it, but Nebuchadnezzar assures Daniel that he will be able to do so because “the spirit of the holy gods is in thee”. It is uncertain though whether this is a statement of what Nebuchadnezzar believes to be fact, or if it might be intended to be a form of encouragement to take the pressure of any penalties off Daniel (keeping in mind that to give a wrong answer in the past could have meant losing his head).

 

Next time we’ll look at the interpretation of this in Daniel 4:19-27.

 

To the Daniel page

 

To the New Testament page

 

To the Old Testament page

 

To Messages and Teachings page

 

To Sermons & Messages page

 

To Sermons by Date Index

 

To Calvinist Heresies page

 

To Posts / Blog / News page

 

List of all my posts on this site

 

To Comments page

 

Hoppers Crossing Christian Church homepage