Intro to Daniel 5: The Decline of the Neo-Babylonian Monarchy

 

B. The Steady Decline of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

 

Following the death of the great Nebuchadnezzar, the Empire rapidly and steadily declined under the administration of lesser men. Babylon’s last two decades are characterized by a rising moral decadence, a lack of unified direction and purpose, religious confusion and controversy, military decline, crumbling international influence, and profound internal divisions and partisan paranoia—which was punctuated by destabilizing political coups.   

 

The decline of Babylon the Great can be illustrated in a brief survey focusing upon the seven rulers who presided over its administration, dating from its rise with the revolt and subsequent coronation of Nabopolssar in 626 BC, unto its fall some 87 years later with the Persian Conquest of Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.

 

1.     Nabopolassar (626-605 BC).

A tough and hardy Chaldean warrior rising from obscurity who was the self-described “son of a nobody,” Nabolpolassar took advantage of the weakness of the crumbling Assyrian Empire and led a revolt against his Assyrian overlords in 626 BC, declaring himself King of a revived Babylon. His leadership marks the Pioneer and early Conquest stages (using Sir John Glubb’s terminology) of the rising Neo-Babylonian Empire. His reign ended gloriously with the stunning defeat of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at Carchemish in 605 BC, led by the generalship of his son, the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar.

 

2.     Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC).

Also known as “Nebuchadnezzar the Great,” he was the brilliant “Head of Gold” whose reign marks the supreme high-point of Neo-Babylonian power, wealth, influence, and cultural achievement. “The Destroyer of Nations” who consolidated and expanded upon his father’s victories, he was also noted for his astonishing building program and for his dominance in international trade. His legendary reign rightly represents the Conquest and Commercial stages of Glubb’s survey outlined in The Fate of Empires. Like our own George Washington, it could truly be said that he was “First in war, First in peace, and First in the hearts of his countrymen.” Let us here remind ourselves that this awesome sovereignty enjoyed by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:37-38, 5:18-19; Jer. 27:5-8; 28:14) was the Lord’s doing: the King of Babylon, like all earthly sovereigns, was God’s chosen instrument for the fulfillment of His own purposes (Hab. 1:5-6).

 

3.     Evil-Merodach (562-60 BC), aka, Amel-Marduk.

Many unanswered questions surround the ascendancy of Nebuchadnezzar’s Crown Prince and appointed heir. It is known, for example, that Evil-Merodach was not Nebuchadnezzar’s eldest son, and that he also seemed to have been at extreme odds with his father at one juncture (attempted usurpation?)—even unto the point of imprisonment! Nonetheless, it was he who ascended to the throne in 562 BC.[1] Little is known of his life and career, other than opposition to his rule rose quickly from within the midst of the Royal Family, resulting in his assassination less than two years after his enthronement. He is best known by Bible students for his kindness towards King Jeconiah of Judah, whom he released from prison and treated with royal dignity and honors. Later Jewish tradition suggests that Evil-Merodach befriended Jeconiah during the time of their common imprisonment by Nebuchadnezzar.

 

2 Kings 25:27-30: Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; and he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon. Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes and had his meals in the king's presence regularly all the days of his life; and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.

 

This act of clemency is the only surviving royal decree of Evil-Merodach, in that the annals of his reign are sparce, and much that survives from antiquity concerning him doubtlessly originates from the hands of his enemies. Let us note, with regard to the decline of Babylon, that we see here the beginnings of a destabilizing political factionalism within the Royal Household.

 

4.     Neriglissar (560-56 BC). Neriglissar (who has been identified by some as the Nergal-sar-ezer mentioned in Jer. 39:3, 13) was a prominent general and immensely wealthy and influential high official who served King Nebuchadnezzar—and who also became the King’s son-in-law when he married Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter Kashshaya. Through this marriage, it has been speculated by some scholars that Neriglissar became aligned to a less legitimate, but nonetheless wealthier and more prominently established Royal faction than that represented by Evil-Merodach. Usurping the throne after orchestrating his brother-in-law’s assassination in 560 BC, Neriglissar is noted for achieving success in his military campaign in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). His triumph was short lived however, in that he died soon afterward, after only serving some 3 ½ years upon the throne.

 

5.     Labashi-Marduk (556 BC).
The unfortunate son of Neriglissar who inherited his father’s throne as a mere youth (though perhaps after reaching the age of majority), but who was deposed and murdered after only three months upon the throne as the result of a coup orchestrated by a rival faction within the Royal Family. This conspiracy was presumably led by Belshazzar, who then seized and absorbed the young king’s considerable wealth and assets. It is possible that Labashi-Marduk’s mother was not Kashshaya, but another wife of Neriglissar. The possibility that he was not a blood descendent of the great Nebuchadnezzar would potentially have made him vulnerable to claims of regal illegitimacy.

 

6.     Nabonidus (556-39 BC). This enigmatic figure—another son-in-law of King Nebuchadnezzar, who was married to his daughter Nitocris—was apparently a most reluctant inheritor of the Royal Throne. One of his inscription’s flatly states: “I am Nabonidus, the only son, who has nobody. In my mind there was no thought of kingship.” It appears that while the plot against Labashi-Marduk was masterminded by the nobleman Belshazzar, it was nonetheless deemed unseemly by the conspirators to directly offer the throne to Belshazzar while his own father, Nabonidus, was still alive. Thus, the unlikely and rather elderly figure of Nabonidus—military officer, courtier, and scholar—became last full-king of Babylon.

 

Nabonidus is remembered chiefly for his iconoclastic and unconventional religious beliefs which led to his estrangement from the official religious-establishment of Babylon, as well as for his 10-year long absence from the capital city—all of which served to undermine his popularity with the nation.

 

Nabonidus was born the son of an Assyrian Priestess of the Moon god Sin—a deity to which he remained loyal throughout his life—and he thus dedicated much of his efforts the promotion and elevation of this foreign deity. Nabonidus was thus absorbed throughout his reign with temple-building projects—potentially with the aim of displacing Marduk and the traditional national deities of Babylon.

 

This matter of contention with the official establishment of Babylon may have been prominent with regard to his mysterious and self-imposed 10-year exile from the city of Babylon, during which time he resided in Tayma of Arabia. During this period, the capital was under the administration his son and co-regent, Belshazzar.

 

Arrested and deposed by the Persian conqueror Cyrus the Great in 539 BC, it appears from the more reliable sources that Nabonidus was graciously granted a comfortable retirement in exile by Cyrus, living to a most advanced age (possibly outliving both Cyrus and his son Cambyses).

 

Let us carefully note some of the outstanding characteristics of Nabonidus’ reign in this terminal period of Babylon’s history—confusion, disunity, division, and lack of a unified national-purpose. As Nabonidus left the throne, his people appeared in the streets and cheered the entrance of the foreign conqueror from Iran!

 

7.     Belshazzar (co-regency with Nabonidus; 553-539 BC) was the son and co-regent of Nabonidus, as well as the last blood-heir of Nebuchadnezzar to sit upon the throne of Babylon. More of an “establishment man” then his father, his regency during Nabonidus’ 10-year absence saw a return to religious “orthodoxy,” catering to the traditional Babylonian oligarchy. Portrayed in Daniel as irreverent, drunken, dissolute, and debauched, Belshazzar is a fitting symbol for the decadent state of a dying Empire in its last gasps. Perhaps an old warhorse like Nabopolassar or an astonishing genius like Nebuchadnezzar would have been up to the challenge posed by the great Cyrus—but definitely not the discordantly individualistic Nabonidus, nor the self-centered and corrupt Belshazzar!

 

 

---

[1] Evil-Merodach’s elevation constitutes an interesting outworking of Divine Providence. Why Nebuchadnezzar—who died a regenerate believer in the God of Israel—was led to elevate this unlikely candidate to the Kingship is unknown—but it definitely served God’s eternal purposes. Evil-Merodach’s favorable disposition towards King Jeconiah of Judah—perhaps an old prison-mate—would ultimately serve as a sign and source of encouragement unto the Hebrew People that God was not finished with the House of David, and that He was still mindful of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7) and its attending Messianic Hope.

The Fate of Empires (Introduction to Daniel 5)

 II. God’s Sovereignty seen in His Control over World Empires (chs. 2-7).

 

Introduction: An Empire on the Brink...

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

Daniel 5 relates the sad last days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire following the death of the great Nebuchadnezzar, which had occurred only some 23 years earlier, and it provides us with some invaluable geo-political insights into the workings of a sovereign God in these present “Times of the Gentiles.”

 

A. The Fate of Empires.

Job 12:23-25: He makes nations great, and He destroys them; He enlarges nations, and leads them away. He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth and makes them wander in a trackless waste. They grope in the dark without light, and He makes them stagger like a drunken man.

 

Distinguished British military officer Sir John Glubb (1897-1986) once wrote a brief but memorable treatise entitled The Fate of Empires (1978) in which he attempts to lay out a generic pattern which characterizes the general life-story of the world’s great empires, following the cyclical pattern of their typical rise and fall. As a career military man who personally participated as an eye-witness to the great events that typified the rise and fall of the British Empire, Glubb was perhaps in an enviable position to author such a study.  

 

Analyzing the histories of eleven selected empires, Glubb concluded that the average lifespan of a great empire is approximately 10 generations, or 250 years (about the current age of the United States—but notably longer than the 87 years of the Neo-Babylonian Empire). In any event, all worldly empires are mortal and eventually collapse—which we might note is in full harmony with the message of Daniel 2 and its Dream of the Great Colossus!

 

Glubb further observes that empires typically pass through a generic life-cycle, or generally predictable series of stages (some of which run concurrent with one another). These stages, or typical pattern of imperial trajectory, include the following:

 

1)    The Age of Pioneers (or “Outburst” Stage).

2)    The Age of Conquests.

3)    The Age of Commerce.

4)    The Age of Affluence.

5)    The Age of Intellect.

6)    The Age of Decadence.

7)    The Age of Decline & Collapse.

 

The general life story of an empire begins with an obscure and underprivileged, but nonetheless hardy band of founding pioneers (Stage 1), who are strengthened by great personal hardship, and who thus achieve key victories over a better-situated and established opposition through their personal bravery and relentless innovation. Eventually overwhelming the opposition and appropriating both their superior technology and assets, the rising nation goes on to conquer and expand, forging a great and vast empire (Stage 2).

 

Vast conquests and a great patriotic vision go hand-in-hand with commercial expansion (Stage 3), which leads to the enrichment and prosperity of the empire.

 

The beginnings of the Age of Commerce are splendid: the empire is now rich and spends its resources on great public works and monuments, patronizing the arts and cultural attainment. At the same time, the empire retains its patriotic and martial spirit, promoting manly virtue and civic duty.

 

But the Age of Commerce becomes the Age of Affluence (Stage 4), in which the attainment of wealth and property becomes the principle societal goal. The love of MONEY (1 Tim. 6:10) eventually overwhelms the public’s sense of honor, courage, and duty.

 

Eventually, both the Empire and its individual citizenry become so obsessed with wealth that they lose the patriotic vision and spirit of personal sacrifice that so remarkably characterized their founders, and they become more-and-more focused upon a defensive policy of retaining their luxuries at all costs. In such a climate, glory and duty become a thing of the past. Likewise, education becomes less about serving the public good and more about acquiring personal wealth and position.

 

Military preparedness also begins to evaporate as the people seek to “buy off” perspective foreign rivals, and then go on to contemptuously denounce military service and vigilance as something “unsophisticated” and barbarically “beneath them.”  

 

Somewhat concurrent with this Stage of Affluence runs the Stage of Intellect (Stage 5). The new generation seeks affirmation in academic honors and intellectual pretensions. Such an interest indeed leads to technological advancement—but also plays a mighty role in continued societal rot and self-absorption, as young people increasingly engage in unending, meaningless academic debates (Acts 17:21). Overly confident in its intellectual ability to solve problems, the society loses its general consensus that such old-fashioned virtues as unselfishness and personal sacrifice are necessary ingredients for the empire’s continued well-being and promotion.

 

This new spirit of self-interest and rudderless academic pursuits leads to the widening of divisions within the society. Societal cohesion begins to evaporate.

 

As the empire inevitably advances into its final stages of Decadence and Decline (Stages 6 & 7), Glubb notes that it is characterized by several key aspects:

 

o   a rise in pessimism and ultra-materialism,

o   an unbearable and unsustainable influx of foreigners who do not share the cultural vision or values of the society’s original founders,

o   the expansion of an Entitlement Culture and the Welfare/Nanny State,

o   the weakening of traditional religious concepts and values,

o   the rise of a general spirit of frivolity (1 Cor. 15:32), in which athletes & entertainers increasingly become the popular heroes and focus of society’s attention.   

In short, decline flows from an idle and self-centered community that has been corrupted by prosperity, and which in its final stages even sees its beloved wealth and culture of luxury begin to wane. As the society’s collective wealth continues to dwindle, so too does its collective sense of optimism and unity.

 

Ultimately, the empire descends into its death-throes, typically falling into the hands of a more aggressive, rising people.   

 

Writer G. Michael Hopf, in his post-apocalyptic novel Those Who Remain, offers a relevant quote that underlines the cyclical nature (Eccl. 1:4-11) of the rise and fall of empires: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

 

Remarkably, Glubb’s general thesis seems to universally prevail, despite the differing eras, geographical locations, or cultural climates in which various empires arise. MAN IS ALWAYS MAN!

 

BABYLON had swiftly passed through its appointed stages, and now appears here in Daniel 5 in its final stages of Decadence and Decline.

 

Postscript:

Let us now dare pose a question, dear reader! "What stage has our own beloved United States of America now entered into--at the general age (again, 250 years) when most empires reach the limits of their span?"

In times like these, let God's people LOOK UP (1 Thess. 4:16-18)!--and be joyfully and reverently prepared to receive that eternal and Divine Kingdom that will not be created by human hands (Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45), and which represents a radical discontinuity from the sinful and worldly patterns of the present evil age (Gal. 1:4).

Why do some Christians embrace the Lie of Theistic Evolution?

 

Some Reasons why People embrace the Absurd Falsehood of Theistic Evolution

By Pastor Terry L. Reese, Valley GBC of Armagh, PA; 8/12/22

 

Many professing Christians today believe in the concept of Theistic Evolution, which teaches that God employed the vehicle of naturalistic evolution to create new species—including man! 

Why is this so? Below are seven proposed reasons as to why many who confess Jesus Christ and claim to be His disciples have also allowed themselves to become de facto disciples of Charles Darwin. 

 

1. Many have been deceived into believing that the evidence for the “scientific fact” of Darwinian evolution is simply too strong to ignore. Thus, the Bible must be mistaken, and today’s “brilliant” scientists must be correct. But see 1 Tim. 6:20--warning us of false so-called science! Or Rom. 3:4: “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar!” YES! Let God be true--even if the consequence of that makes every geologist, biologist, astronomer, and cosmologist a liar!

 

2. Some are convinced that evolution is compatible with the teachings of the Bible, rather than contradictory to them. But what of 1 Cor. 15:39--which teaches us that we are not genetically related to brute animals? And what of Gen. 1:21, 24-25, which informs us that the basic species were immediately created and reproduce “after their kind?”

 

3. Some maintain that it somehow enhances God’s glory if He created the Universe via certain “grand natural processes” (e.g., the Big Bang & biological evolution), rather than though the “magical” outpouring of miracles (e.g., Pope Francis teaches this--even though he also inconsistently affirms the Virgin Birth!). But what of Heb. 11:3--which teaches us that God created the Universe ex nihlo (i.e., out of no pre-existing material)? Shall we blasphemously debase this Divine miracle as a "magic trick?"

 

4. Some say that it “doesn’t really matter” one way or the other. But what does Jesus say about this (John 3:12)? Why would we trust the Bible’s spiritual claims if we cannot trust its scientific claims? If God's Word has deceived us regarding an earthly matter--e.g., the physical origin of new species--then why should I believe it regarding those spiritual things that I cannot apprehend with the eye of flesh (e.g., the Plan of Salvation through the Blood of Christ)?

 

5. Some foolishly claim that Genesis has not told us precisely how God chose to create man. But what of Gen. 2:7, 22? How should we interpret these specific details regarding human origins?

 

6. PRIDE, and the love of “all things worldly,” play a huge role in this matter. Many are intimidated by the steady stream of evolutionary propaganda promoted by the general culture, the educational establishment, and the popular press. Fear of being viewed as “anti-intellectual” pressures individuals into social-conformity. Supposedly, through the embrace of Theistic Evolution, we can serve two masters and enjoy the applause of the World for our respectable “intellectualism”—and yet, still claim to be “Biblical” in our general worldview and perspective.  But what of 1 Kings 18:21? "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him."

 

7. Cowardice: the desire to avoid controversy. Theistic Evolution is seen as a “way out” from taking a firm—and potentially awkward and divisive—stand for God. But shall we deny Christ (Matt. 26:69-75)? Are we ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16), as well as of the testimony of Christ and the Doctrines of His Word (2 Tim. 1:8)? We are called unto boldness—as well as unto non-conformity (Rom. 12:2) and separation (2 Cor. 6:17-18) from the values of this World!

You will note one reason, however, that is conspicuously absent from this list: namely, the notion that a normal and literal interpretation of the Scripture will actually yield such a teaching. The reason for this is obvious: it DOESN'T!

Dan. 4:34-37: The Testimony of a Redeemed Heart

 11. Epilogue: The King praises God (4:34-37), sealing his testimony.

 

v. 34a: “But at the end of that period…”

o   That is, the period of seven years of irreversibly allotted Divine Judgment; the king is granted no reprieve by the Heavenly Court!

 

v. 34b: “…I, Nebuchadnezzar…

o   Note the resumption of the first-person narrative voice.

 

v. 34c: “…lifted my eyes to heaven…”

o   A gesture typically indicates a heart-attitude of prayer & supplication, seeking the Face of the Lord. Note these Songs of Ascents:

 

Ps. 121:1-2: I lift up my eyes to the hills. From where does my help come? My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.

 

Ps. 123:1-3: To You I lift up my eyes, O You who are enthroned in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till He has mercy upon us. Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us, for we have had more than enough of contempt.

 

o   No longer senseless to the things of Heaven and brutishly fixing his gaze downward towards the earth like some four-footed animal, King Nebuchadnezzar now directs his gaze upwards towards the realm of the mysterious Heavenly Voice that had come down seven years earlier during the moment when madness had descended upon him.

 

o   Clearly, the direction of his gaze indicates a full recognition of the Source of his judgment and calamity.

 

v. 34d: “…and my reason returned to me…”

o   Reiterated in v. 36.

 

o   No longer in the slouching posture of a beast, he stands erect, as a man, with a spiritually renewed mind. Turning in mindful recognition of God is a primary distinction between men, who are created in the image of God, and brute animals. As Feinberg notes:

 

"The ability to recognize God is the fundamental difference between beasts and men. In any age, the glory of man is to recognize God and to take his place relative to the Sovereign of the universe."—Charles Lee Feinberg, Daniel: The Man and his Visions.

 

Likewise, these precious and appropriate remarks from Baldwin and Culver:

 

"Sanity begins with a realistic self-appraisal."—Joyce G. Baldwin

 

"Nothing is more insane than human pride. Nothing is more sober and sensible than to praise God."—Robert Duncan Culver

 

o   It is worth noting the metamorphosis of the Babylonian Beast into the shape of reasonable man in the symbolic Beast Vision of Daniel 7. This passage may be well be speaking of Nebuchadnezzar’s spiritual regeneration:

Dan. 7:4: "The first [beast] was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; a human mind also was given to it.”

 

o   Like the Gerasene demoniac, the King’s right mind returned to him, and he praises the One who mercifully healed him (Mark 5:15-20).

 

Mark 5:15, 20: ¹⁵And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid… ²⁰And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.

 

o   This also recalls the experience of the Prodigal Son, who, living like a beast, hungers for the food of the swine with which he kept company, but then at last comes to his senses and resolves to return to his father in a state of repentance (Luke 15:16-19).

 

o   As Culver observes, “Nothing is more reasonable than the Gospel, even though the world in its wisdom does not know it.”

 

1 Cor. 1:18-19: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

 

And yet, men continue to reject the light of the Gospel. The world of unregenerate men is truly a massive insane asylum!

 

v. 34e: “…and I blessed the Most High…

o   Adoration is another fruit of true and genuine regeneration and repentance.

 

v. 34f: “…and praised and honored Him who lives forever…”

o   The Most High is not like the temporal deities of the polytheistic pantheons.

 

v. 34g: “…for His dominion is an everlasting dominion…”

o   At last, a genuine acceptance of the Plan of God as revealed in the Dream of the Colossus in chapter two (cf., Dan. 2:44; Dan. 4:3, 17, 26).

 

v. 35: “…But He does according to His will…”

o   At last, Divine Sovereignty is affirmed—the great theme of Daniel’s Prophecy!

 

v. 36a: “…And my majesty and splendor were restored to me…”

o   God blesses the humble and the contrite…

James 4:6: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” [cf., Prov. 3:34, 1 Pet. 5:5, Matt. 5:5].

 

o   This experience of restoration recalls that of Job:

Job 42:10: The LORD restored the fortunes of Job when he prayed for his friends, and the LORD increased all that Job had twofold.

 

v. 36b: “…and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out…”

o   How the government continued to operate in Nebuchadnezzar’s absence is left mysterious and unexplained. It has been suggested (e.g., the Babylonian Talmud) that Daniel administered the state during this period.

o   This possibility recalls how First Lady Edith Galt Wilson functionally—but discreetly—ran the Executive branch of government during President Wilson’s second term, following his debilitating stroke.

 

o   The role of Nebuchadnezzar’s son and eventual successor, Evil-Merodach (cf., 2 Kings 25:27-28) during this period is unclear.

 

o   Madness was often characterized within pagan antiquity as an ecstatic sign of divine indwelling. Despite his condition, there is no reason to suspect that the King was ill-treated or abused by others during this period.  

o   Whether or not the tradition cited by the ancient Greek Megasthenes (quoted by Eusebius) of an ecstatic prophetic utterance being made by Nebuchadnezzar while on his roof before his disappearance about a conquering “Persian mule” bears any relation to the above is unclear.

 

o   It is nonetheless a marvel that the King remained upon the throne during this period—but this too was a fulfilment of prophecy (4:15, 23, 26).

 

v. 37: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.”

o   The King’s final word of testimony and epitaph! With the conclusion of these words, the world hears its last from this monumental and fascinating historical figure who has figured so prominently in chs. 1-4—as well as within other Biblical narratives (e.g., Jeremiah, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles).

 

o   It is generally believed that the King lived approximately a year beyond the events of this narrative.

 

o   The King has learned his lessons in 1) Humility, 2) Divine sovereignty, and in 3) the Nature of the Divine Character. God’s ways are just!

 

o   The King’s new orientation and response to God’s hand of correction is clearly indicative of a new life proceeding from the New Birth—a life characterized by praise, worship, peace, reason, and a deliverance from the stench of pride.

 

o   Though some eminent commentators remain skeptical of Nebuchadnezzar’s regeneration (e.g., Calvin), it is clear that the King’s final word of testimony reaches far beyond the shallow and temporal prior confessions of 2:47 and 3:28-29, in which God is simply acknowledged as great revealer of mysteries and a powerful deliverer. Walvoord’s summation is worth noting:

 

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 Dan. 2:47; Dan. 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.

 

o   We note in closing that this magnificent and unique chapter has embraced an awesome variety of literary genres (e.g., epistle, dream-report, symbolic vision, court-contest-narrative, praise and doxology)!

 

Historical Appendix to Chapter IV

 

I. On Historical corroboration to the Facts of the Narrative.

There is no direct corroborating account of these events found within other surviving official Babylonian court records—which is hardly surprising, given its substance, involving the humiliation of the Babylonian Royal Family and the elevation of the God of a conquered, captive people! Actually, very little of the events of the King’s final years remain preserved unto us, and there is much mystery associated with the entire period. It is worth noting, however, that there are several circumstantial fragments of evidence that may potentially interrelate to the Biblical record. For example, the later Babylonian historian Berosus indicates that during this general time frame King Nebuchadnezzar suffered from an unspecified illness near the end of his life. Also, an unearthed cuneiform tablet in fragmentary condition speaks of a period late in Nebuchadnezzar’s life when “his life appeared of no value to him,” and possibly describes the neglect of his public duties. Unfortunately, the inscription is in such a fragmentary state that little more can be stated, other than a vague and intriguing reference to the King’s son, Evil-Merodach (who perhaps ran the government at this time?). Regardless of the worth of these potential parallels, however, let us be mindful that the text of Daniel chapter 4 itself is a primary document and an official royal proclamation that we have in hand, written by Nebuchadnezzar himself and preserved by the Lord’s own hand (Isa. 40:8), surviving unto God’s glory and for our benefit!

 

II. On the relationship of Daniel 4 to the apocryphal Prayer of Nabonidus.

Liberal critics, presupposing a Maccabean-era pseudonymous “Daniel,” compare the account of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness in Daniel 4 to a somewhat similar story found within a Dead Sea/Qumran document entitled “The Prayer of Nabonidus,” in which a later king (Nabonidus, the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar and father of Belshazzar) is afflicted with a dreadful ulcerous skin-condition and driven to a desolate spot beyond the pale of civilization for a period of seven years until at last he is healed by God and advised by an anonymous Jewish “diviner” or “exorcist” to ascribe glory unto God for his mighty acts of deliverance. Noting the surface similarities between the two accounts has led the destructive higher critics of the Bible to suggest that the Daniel 4 narrative is thus a plagiarism derived from various Nabonidus-traditions of either Babylonian or Jewish origin. However, given the firmly demonstrable 6^th century BC origins of the canonical Book of Daniel (see our Introduction to Daniel), it is clear that if there is in fact a derivative literary relationship between Daniel 4 and The Prayer of Nabonidus, it must involve the latter being copied from the former. Perhaps, as Andrew Steinmann suggests, The Prayer of Nabonidus represents an attempt by a later Palestinian Jewish writer to bridge the historical gap lying between Daniel 4 and 5, employing the genuine historical events of Daniel 4 as a narrative model for his own specious account. On the other hand, it is not beyond the pale of possibility that The Prayer of Nabonidus, though apocryphal and smacking of imaginative folklore, nonetheless does represents some level of historical truth with regard to the personal history of King Nabonidus that stands apart from its suggested literary relationship to Daniel 4. It is known, for example, that King Nabonidus actually did, in fact, desert the city of Babylon for an extended period of time in order to dwell in Teima of modern Saudi Arabia