Daniel chapter 3
3:1 The motive for setting up the image seems to have been an attempt to unify the kingdom and promote the
authority of the king. Various explanations have been offered for the grotesque dimensions of the image, 90 feet
high and 9 feet wide. It may not have represented Nebuchadnezzar physically, but could have been an obelisk. It
could have been a distorted figure, or the height could have included a pedestal on which the image was set.
3:5 Since some of the names of these musical instruments are Greek some critics have argued that the book could
only have been written after the conquest of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century B.C. However, numerous
contacts between Babylonia and Greece are attested much earlier. The assumption that technical musical
instruments could have been imported and their Greek names retained is not unreasonable.
3:12 The fact that Daniel is not mentioned may be explained in a couple of ways: he may have been busy elsewhere
with administrative affairs, or, as a higher official, may not have been required to attend the meeting.
3:18 If not does not indicate a lapse of faith on the part of the three men. Rather, they recognized that sometimes it
was the will of God for men of God to die ¡°in the line of duty¡± as they served Him. They knew that God was able to
deliver them, but did not know if it was His will.
3.25 The fourth is like the Son of God (literally, ¡°a son of the gods¡±): Nebuchadnezzar had no knowledge of Christ
and was probably saying nothing more than that divine being was protecting the three men. The fourth person may
have been the preincarnate Christ, who often appears in the Old Testament as ¡°the angel of the Lord,¡±
3:29 Nebuchadnezzar¡¯s recognition of the God of the three men does not mean that he converted to their religion. It
was simply an acknowledgment of their God¡¯s power.
Daniel chapter 4
4:1 Apparently some time elapsed between the events of chapter 3 and those of chapter 4. Nebuchadnezzar¡¯s
boast (v.30) would not have been spoken until after many of his massive building operations had been completed.
4:23 Seven times probably means seven years, because the word times refers to years in 7:25, and because seven
days or months would not have been long enough for Nebuchadnezzar¡¯s hair to grow to the length of eagle
feathers, as mentioned in verse 33.
4:33 Two important questions arise from this incident: (1) Could it happen to a man? And (2) Could it have happened
to Nebuchadnezzar? The answer to both questions is Yes. There is a mental illness known as zoanthropy in which a
man things and acts like an animal. It is also called boanthropy, more specifically, when a man thinks of himself as an
ox. In answer to the second question, this illness is not mentioned in Nebuchadnezzar¡¯s annals, but one would not
expect such a humiliating experience to be chronicled. On the other hand, his long reign of 43 years (605-562 B.C.)
is more than long enough to include the lengthy sickness. The years between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar total
only 10, but are filled with murder, intrigue, conspiracy, and political decline. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his
Evil merodach (see 2 King 25:27-30; Jeremiah 52:31-34) who Had reigned for only two years (562-560 B.C.) when he
was murdered by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (called Nergal-sharezer in Jer 39:3, 13). After a brief reign (559-556
B.C.) Neriglissar died, leaving the kingdom in the hands of his son, Labashi-marduk. The latter lasted only two
months before being killed by an assassin and succeeded by Nabonidus. Nabonidus, who was probably the
son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, reigned for some 16 years (555-539 B.C.). Although he left the kingdom in the hands
of his son Belshazzar for much of the time, (553-539 B.C.), Nabonidus was able to restore a measure of glory to
Babylon. Belshazzar ruled as king during the lst years of Babylon. It is not evident until the end of the chapter, but
while Belshazzar considered the city unassailable because of its massive walls, and therefore felt confident to hold a
banquet in the face of military threat.
Daniel chapter 5
The years between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar total only 10, but are filled with murder, intrigue, conspiracy, and
political decline. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his Evil-
merodach (see 2 King 25:27-30; Jeremiah 52:31-34) who Had reigned for only two years (562-560 B.C.) when he
was murdered by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar (called Nergal-sharezer in Jer 39:3, 13). After a brief reign (559-556
B.C.) Neriglissar died, leaving the kingdom in the hands of his son, Labashi-marduk. The latter lasted only two
months before being killed by an assassin and succeeded by Nabonidus. Nabonidus, who was probably the
son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, reigned for some 16 years (555-539 B.C.). Although he left the kingdom in the hands
of his son Belshazzar for much of the time, (553-539 B.C.), Nabonidus was able to restore a measure of glory to
Babylon. Belshazzar ruled as king during the lst years of Babylon. It is not evident until the end of the chapter, but
while Belshazzar considered the city unassailable because of its massive walls, and therefore felt confident to hold a
banquet in the face of military threat.
5:5 The plaster of the wall of the king's palace: Archaeologists have unearthed a room on the site of ancient Babylon,
located in Iraq, that is plastered and measures 165 feet by 55 feet. It may very well have been Belshazzar's banquet
hall.
5:10 The queen was probably Belshazzar's mother or grandmother, since his wives were at the feast (v.2).
5:25 MENE comes from a verb meaning "to number." TEKEL comes from a verb meaning "to weigh." PHARSIN
comes from a verb meaning "to divide." (The U before Pharsin is simply the word for and.)
5:29 He was called the third ruler in the kingdom because Belshazzar and Nabonidus were already co-rulers. Critics
of the Bible in past times suggested that Daniel erred greatly in portaying Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon, for
ancient secular historians listed Nabonidus as Babylon's final king. However, the finding of several tablets dealing
with Belshazzar has shown that he was assuredly Nabonidus's son, ruling as second ruler in the kingdom.
Accordingly, when Daniel translated and explained the enigmatic words on the wall he could be made but "third ruler."
5:30 Babylon was practically invincible, but, according to extrabiblical records, the Persians were able to divert the
Euphrates River, which ran through the city, and thus walk in through the shallow river bed. The capture of the city is
well attested in ancient records, from both the Babylonian and Persian annals. Though neither mentions the slaying
of Belshazzar, he must have died in a place skirmish. In essence, the city was taken without a fight.
5.31 Darius the Median (or Mede), mentioned here and in the next chapter, has been variously identified. Since
there is not extrabiblical evidence for his existence, critics have charged the book with a historical blunder here.
Others, however, have sought to explain the reference in one of three ways: 1) The name may be another name for
Cyrus. It is possible to translate 6:28 as ¡°In the reign of Darius even [or, that is] in the reign of Cyrus. 2) Others
suggest that Darius may be another name for Ugbaru (Hebrew spelling Gubaru), the governor of Gutium, who
according to Babylonian records led the Persian army in the capture of Babylon. He was subsequently appointed as
ruler of Babylon by Cyrus. 3) Another explanation is that although Ugbaru conquered Babylon, another man, named
Gubaru, was given the rule over Babylon by Cyrus. Gubaru and Darius would be alternate names for the same
person.l Whichever view is correct, there is certainly no need to charge Daniel with historical error. This Darius is not
to be confused with the later Persian king Darius the Great (521-485 B.C.).
Daniel chapter 6
6:10,11 Daniel was past 80 yars of age at this time, yet he was still on his knees thanking God and asking for His
Guidance and help.
6.22 His angel is perhaps the Angel of Yahweh, the preincarnate Christ.
Daniel chapter 7
7.1 In the first year of Belshazzar: Since the death of Belshazzar is reported at the end of chapter 5, the Book of
Daniel is clearly not in chronological order. This is true of many of the Old Testament Prophets. The word dream
indicates that Daniel was asleep; the word visions denotes the successive stages of what he saw in the dream.
7.2 The great sea is the Mediterranean (cf. Num 34:6, 7 Josh. 1:4; 9:1; Ezek 47:10).
7:3 Four great beasts represent four kings or kingdoms (v.17). The beasts seen here in Daniels dream are parallel
to the sections of the image seen in Nebuchadnezzar¡¯s dream in chapter 2.
7.4 The lion represents Babylon and its most famous king, Nebuchadnezzar. The lion symbolizes the strength and
power of the kingdom; the wings symbolize the swiftness of its victories; and the standing up as a man represents the
humanitarian character of Nebuchadnezzar in his later years. The winged lion was the national symbol of Babylon in
the days of Nebuchadnezzar.
7:5 The bear is a picture of Medo-Persia, the empire that succeeded Babylon as the world power. On one side refers
to Persia¡¯s dominance over Media in the kingdom. The three ribs probably indicate three nations conquered by
Medo-Persia in their ascendancy (Babylon, Lydia and Egypt).
7:6 The leopard depicts Greece. Though naturally a swift animal, this leopard had four wings in addition to its native
agility. This speaks of the lightning speed with which Alexander¡¯s kingdom after his death.
7:7,8 The fourth beast is not given a name and therefore must have had the character of an unknown hideous
monster. It foreshadows the Roman Empire. The ten horns are 10 kings (v.24), and the little horn is another king who
will arise after the 10 and be coexistent with them (v.24). This little horn will subdue three other kings (v.24) and will
persecute the saints (v.25). The identification of the 10 horns and the little horn has generated much discussion. The
10 kingdoms represented by the 10 horns may be the nation that will grow out of the old Roman Empire, or they may
be 10 future kings who will rule over some form of a revived Roman Empire. The little horn represents the Antichrist.
The parallels between this forth beast and the beast in Revelation 13 are unavoidable. The description of the beast
(i.e., the Antichrist) in that passage is clearly intended to depict the same individual as in Daniel¡¯s portrayal (v.25).
Thus, Daniel gives a foreview of the work of the Antichrist in the Tribulation period, and states that he will emerge
from the remnants, or revival, of the Roman Empire.
7:9 The Ancient of days is God Himself. The whiteness of His garments and hair is a picture of His holiness.
7:13 The Son of man who came to the Ancient of days is the Son of God approaching God the Father. Evidently
Jesus took the title Son of Man, which was His favorite way of referring to Himself in the Gospels, from this passage.
7:14 The commencement of Christ¡¯s everlasting dominion will take place at His second coming (cf. Matt 24:30;
25:31; Rev 11:15).
7:23 The fourth beast, according to some critics, is not Rome but Greece. This interpretation, based on an attempt to
eliminate any supernatural prediction here, must make the second and third beast Media and Persia. However, we
see from passages like 6:8 that Daniel considered the Medes and Persians as one empire.
7:25 A time and times and the dividing of time (or ¡°a time and times and half a time¡±) is an expression used in
Daniel and in revelation to refer to three-and-a-half years, or 1,260 days, or 42 months (12:7; Rev. 11:2; 12:6, 14;
13:5)
Daniel chapter 8
8:1 With chapter 8 the text begins again in Hebrew. This is appropriate since the rest of the book is concerned with
God¡¯s program for Israel. The vision of chapter 8 came two years after that of chapter 7.
8:2 Shushan or Susa was a Persian royal city about two hundred miles east of Babylon where Daniel was at the time.
8:3 The ram with two horns represents the kingdom of Medo-Persia (v.20). Its two horns represent the two
constituent parts of the kingdom, with the higher horn portraying the dominance of Persia over Media (as did the
raised bear in 7:5).
8:5 The he goat is clearly the ¡°king of Grecia,¡± with the notable horn representing the first king, Alexander (v. 21).
The fact that the goat¡¯s feet did not touch the ground symbolizes the swiftness of Alexander¡¯s conquest, as did the
wings on the leopard in the previous chapter (7:6)
8:7 In a series of battles over the period of 334-330 B.C., Alexander the Great decisively destroyed Persian power
and became the master of the ancient Near Eastern world.
8:8 For notable ones (or horns) refers to the four generals who by 301 B.C. ruled Alexander¡¯s empire (v. 22):
Cassander ruled in Macedonia and most of Greece; Lysimachus ruled in the various parts of Thrace and parts of
Asia Minor; Seleucus held most of Syria, Israel, and Mesopotamia; and Ptolemy was ruler in Egypt and parts of
southern Syria. The ensuing years saw continuous power struggles in this area of the world from the successors of
these generals.
8:9 A little horn came out of one of the four horns. Most agree that this little horn can only refer to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler over Syria and Israel (175-163 B.C.), and for a short time over Egypt. In 167 B.C.
Antichus outlawed the Jewish religion, burned Jerusalem, killed multitudes of Jews, and forbade circumcision and
other Jewish observances. On December 16, 167 B.C., he offered a sow on the altar outsie the temple, the ultimate
sarcrilege to a Jew. This began the period known as the Maccabean revolt. After three years of fighting, the Jews
were able to restore temple worship in late 164 B.C. This rededication of the temple is still commemorated today in
the eight-day Jewish holiday known as Hanukkah. Antiochus¡¯s atrocities are accurately predicted in verses 10-14
and 23-25.
8:14 Two thousand and three hundred days is literally ¡°2,300 evenings and mornings¡± which could very easily refer
to the evening and morning sacrifices or 1,150 days. This figure would encompass the time when the temple was
desolated from December 16, 167 B.C., until early 163 B.C. when all the Jewish sacrifices were restored. The latter
event took place shortly after the recapture of the temple in late 164 B.C. Since the exact date of the reinstitution of
sacrifices is unknown, this is certainly a reasonable interpretation.
8:25 He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes: many believe that the description here transcends that of
Antiochus alone, and uses him as a type of the Antichrist who will oppose Christ during the Great Tribulation.
Certainly the devious work of Antiochus and of the Antichrist is of the same heinous character.
Daniel page 3