I. DANIEL THE INTERPRETER--Chapters 1-6
     B. The Dream of  the Great Image--2:1-49
          3. The dream's exposure and explanation--vv. 31-45
               a. Its revelation by Daniel--vv. 31-35
                    (I) The overall description
                         (A) A great image
                              (1) "Daniel first declares the king saw 'a great image.'  This must have been immediately most
                                   fascinating to the king as it was evident to him, if  he remembered the dream at all, that Daniel was
                                   on the right track." (Ibid.)
                              (2) A great statue of  human form
                              (3) "It was 'great' in the sense of  being immense or large in form, and by its very size the statue must
                                   have been overwhelming in its implication of  power.  Even Nebuchadnezzar, the absolute ruler,
                                   recognized this as something greater than himself." (Walvoord, 63)
                         (B) An excellent brightness
                              (1) "In addition to the great size of  the statue, it was remarkable for its brilliant appearance.  It
                                   apparently reflected light, indicated by brightness which is described as 'excellent,' or unusual in its
                                   brilliance." (Ibid.; italics are his.)
                              (2) The image itself was enough to attract attention; the brilliance only added to it.
                         (C) A terrible form.
                              (1) Though Nebuchadnezzar was not a person to be normally afraid, he certainly would have been
                                   scared by such an image.
                              (2) "The appearance of  the colossal image was terrible, not only on account of  its greatness; and its
                                   metallic splendour, but because it represented the world power of  fearful import to the people of
                                   God." (Keil, 102)
                    (II) The parts described
                         (A) The parts themselves
                              (1) The head
                                   (a) Made of  fine gold
                                   (b) A united whole
                              (2) The breasts and arms
                                   (a) Made of  silver
                                   (b) Divided
                              (3) The belly and thighs
                                   (a) Made of  brass
                                   (b) Divided
                              (4) The legs and feet
                                   (a) Legs made of  iron
                                   (b) Feet made of  iron mixed with clay
                                   (c) Also divided
                         (B) The decreasing value
                              (l) "The material becomes inferior from the head downward--gold, silver, copper [or brass], iron, clay;
                                   so that, though on the whole metallic; it becomes inferior; and finally terminates in clay, losing itself in
                                   common earthly matter.  Notwithstanding that the material becomes always the harder, till it is iron;
                                   yet then suddenly and at last it becomes weak and brittle clay." (op. cit., 9c:103)
                              (2) "While the materials decrease in weight, they increase in hardness with the notable exception of  the
                                   clay in the feet.  The image is obviously top heavy and weak in its feet." (Walvoord, 63)
                    (III) Stone cut out without hands
                         (A) "As Daniel reveals, the king in his dream saw the stone described as 'cut out without hands' smite the
                              image at its feet, the weakest place in the image, with the result that the feet are broken. Then in rapid
                              succession the disintegration of  the entire image follows, and it breaks into small pieces corresponding
                              to the chaff of  a summer threshingfloor.  Then a wind blows away the chaff until the pieces of  the
                              image totally disappear." (Walvoord, 63-64)
                         (B) This must have been startling indeed!
                         (C) "The destruction of  the statue is so described that the image passes over into the matter of  it.  It is not
                              said of  the parts of  the image, the head, the breast, the belly, and the thighs that they were broken to
                              pieces by the stone, for the forms of  the world-power represented by these parts had long ago
                              passed away when the stone strikes against the last form of  the World-power represented by the feet,
                              but only of  the materials of  which these parts consist, the silver and the gold, is the destruction
                              predicated." (Keil, 104)
                    (IV) It should be obvious, however, that if  the feet are broken up, the rest of  the statue would, as Walvoord
                         states, crumble.
               b. Its interpretation by Daniel--vv. 36-45
                    (I) The head of  gold--vv. 36-38
                         (A) The we
                              (1) "Daniel now makes a clear transition from the dream itself to its interpretation.  Considerable
                                   attention has been focused by commentators on the 'we.'" (Walvoord, 64)
                              (2) God and himself--not very likely
                              (3) Daniel and his three companions--"We will tell, is 'a generalizing form of  expression' (. . .) in
                                   harmony with ver. 30.  Daniel associates himself with his companions in the faith, who worshipped
                                   the same God of  revelation." (Keil, 104; italics is his.)
                              (4) Editorial we--"Of  the various interpretations, the editorial plural, which would denote more humility
                                   than 'I' seems to be the best explanation." (Walvoord, 64)
                         (B) Nebuchadnezzar, king of  kings
                              (1) The reason--"Nebuchadnezzar is addressed as king of  kings,' which position of  power Daniel
                                   assigns as a gift from 'the God of  heaven'; and therefore his kingdom is one of  power, strength,
                                   and glory." (Ibid.)
                              (2) Critics say this is not suitable title for the king of  Babylon.
                              (3) Though there is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar would be so addressed, nevertheless, there is no
                                   evidence contradicting it.  Here is another example of  critics making a mountain out of  a mole hill.
                         (C) The extent of  his rulership
                              (1) Cf.
                                   (a) Jeremiah 22:6
                                   (b) Jeremiah 28:14
                              (2) "The mention of  the beasts serves only for the strengthening of  the thought that his dominion was
                                   that of  a world kingdom, and as such, the prototype and pattern, the beginning and primary
                                   representation of  all world-powers." (Keil, 104)
                         (D) Nebuchadnezzar is that head of  gold.
                              (1) Daniel does not minimize Nebuchadnezzar's position; rather he states, God "hath made thee ruler
                                   over them all. Thou art the head of  gold."
                              (2) "The identification of  the head of  gold with Nebuchadnezzar is a reference to the empire as
                                   personified in its ruler.  As Young points out, critics have had a field day in attempting to explain this
                                   expression, but there is no solid reason for not taking it in its simplest sense, that is, that the
                                   reference is to the king as the symbol of  the empire." (Walvoord, 65)
                    (II) The upper and lower body parts--v. 39
                         (A) The two are mentioned only briefly.
                         (B) Represent Medo-Persia and Greece
                              (1) "Persia actually had more territory than ancient Babylon, and the Greek Empire was greater than                                        the Persian.  The Roman Empire was greatest of  all in extent.  To infer, however, from the larger
                                   geographic area of  succeeding kingdoms that they were not 'inferior' is to misread both the meaning
                                   of  the dream and Daniel's comment upon it.  Daniel did not say that the head was larger in size than
                                   the body; but the nature of  the metal, gold, was more precious than that of  silver or brass, which
                                   were obviously inferior metals.  History certainly confirms that the Medo-Persian Empire, and the
                                   empire of  Alexander which followed, lacked the central authority and fine organization which
                                   characterized the Babylonian Empire.  The image and Daniel's comment upon it is most accurate.
                                   Daniel himself seems to imply that the inferiority of  the succeeding empires does not prevent them
                                   from wide geographic control, for he specifically states that the 'third kingdom' will 'bear rule over
                                   all the earth.'" (Walvoord, 66)
                              (2) "Ver. 39b treats of  the third world-kingdom, which by the expression . . . , 'another' is plainly
                                   distinguished from the preceding; as to its quality, it is characterized by the predicate 'of  copper,
                                   brazen.'  In this chapter it is said only of  this kingdom that 'it shall rule over the whole earth,' and
                                   thus, be superior in point of  extent and power to the preceding kingdoms.  Cf. vii.6, where it is
                                   distinctly mention that 'power was given unto it.'" (Keil, 106-7)
                         (C) Most Bible commentators equate the third kingdom with Greece under Alexander.
                    (III) The legs and feet--vv. 40-43
                         (A) The most important part of  the image
                              (1) Not because of  the material used
                              (2) The amount of  attention Daniel gives to it
                         (B) "Because various schools of  prophetic interpretation have differed more on the fourth kingdom than
                              on the three preceding kingdoms, it is necessary to give particular attention to what Daniel actually
                              says." (Walvoord, 68)
                         (C) The leg of  iron
                              (1) "The first aspect of  interpretation of  the fourth kingdom stresses the strength of  the iron legs and
                                   their power to break in pieces and subdue all that opposes. This, of  course, was precisely what
                                   characterized ancient Rome." (Ibid.)
                              (2) "The description of  Rome is so apt in verse 40 that most conservative commentaries agree that it
                                   represents the Roman Empire.  Critics who accept the late date for Daniel and who proceed on the
                                   principle that prophecy of  the future in detail is impossible offer a discordant note, as previously
                                   indicated, identify the four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia, and the Alexandrian kingdom. By
                                   this means they escape the admission that even a second century date for Daniel would involve
                                   considerable prophecy of  the future.  Those who acknowledge Daniel as sixth century writing by
                                   the prophet Daniel, having already accepted the concept of  the validity, of  predictive prophecy,
                                   have no difficulty in accepting the fourth kingdom as that of  Rome.  Even with this agreement,
                                   however, there is serious disagreement of  the identification of  the feet of  the image and the
                                   destruction of  the whole by the stone cut out without hands." (Walvoord, 69)
                              (3) Upper part of  legs--"The upper part of  the legs represented the twofold stage of  the last period of
                                   the Alexandrian Empire, which especially concerned the Jews, namely, Syria and Egypt.  This was
                                   two-legged because it embraced two continents, or two major geographic areas, the East and the
                                   West.  The Roman Empire continued this twofold division and extended its sway over the entire
                                   Mediterranean area as well as western Asia." (Walvoord, 73)
                              (4) As to the meaning of  the legs, it is geographic rather than pertaining to nations.  The Roman Empire
                                   definitely was composed of  the Eastern section and the Western.
                         (D) The feet and toes
                              (l) Mixed iron and Clay
                              (2) "There has been much discussion on the meaning of  the word divided.  Young feels that this is
                                   simply a reference to composite material.  Here it seems that too much is being made of  too little.
                                   What Daniel implies is simply that the material which forms the feet portion of  the image is not all
                                   one kind but is composed of  iron and pottery, which do not adhere well one to the other.  This is
                                   what Daniel himself brings out in subsequent explanation." (Walvoord, 69)
                              (3) Some take the mixing here to refer to the political marriages of  the princes; they refer to verse 43.
                              (4) Most of  the explanations involving intermarriage, however, are to be rejected,as not in accord with
                                   literal interpretation.
                              (5) "As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent the material of  these
                                   kingdoms, i. e., their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent
                                   the material of  the kingdoms arising out of  the division of  this kingdom, i. e., the national elements
                                   out of  which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them.  If, then, the
                                   'mixing themselves with the seed of  men,' points to marriages, it is only of  the mixing of  different
                                   tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages as a means of  amalgamating
                                   the diversified nationalities." (Keil, 109; italics are his.)
                              (6) "This political and geographic situation continued to the time of  Christ; and if  Daniel's vision ended
                                   here only to pick up the situation again at the end of  the age, it would be understandable that the
                                   two legs would be seen as equal.  The feet portion of  the image representing the final stage will also
                                   include on an equal basis the Eastern and Western areas once possessed by ancient Rome.  In view
                                   of  the fact that there is nothing whatever in the image of  Daniel to portray events from the time of
                                   Christ to the present time, if  the feet stage be considered future, this interpretation makes sense out
                                   of  a symbol which must at least in its major elements correspond to the facts of  history ."
                                   (Walvoord, 73-74)
                    (IV) The destruction of  the image--v. 44
                         (A) "The world-kingdom will be broken to pieces by the kingdom which the God of  heaven well setup.
                              'In the days of  these kings,' i. e., of the kings of  the world-kingdom last described; at the time of  the
                              kingdoms denoted by the ten toes of  the feet of  the image into which the fourth world-monarchy
                              extends itself; for the stone (ver. 34) rolling against the feet of  the image, or rather against the toes of
                              the feet, breaks and destroys it.  This kingdom is not founded by the hands of  man, but is erected by
                              the God of  heaven, and shall forever remain immovable, in contrast to the world-kingdoms, the one
                              of  which will be annihilated by the other." (Keil, 109-110; italics are his.)
                         (B) Some tried to make this stone the Christian Church.
                         (C) "The principal difficulty is that as a matter of  fact Christianity was not the decisive force that broke the
                              Roman Empire.  The main reason was its internal decay and the political conditions which surrounded
                              it.  Further, the decay of  the Roman Empire extended for more than a thousand years after the first
                              coming of  Christ.  In other words, the time factor was greater than the period from Nebuchadnezzar to
                              Christ.  To have such a long period of  time described in the symbolism of  a stone striking the feet of
                              the image and the chaff being swept away by wind. simply does not correspond to the facts of  history.
                              In view of  the very accurate portrayal of  preceding history by the image, it is a reasonable and natural
                              conclusion that the feet stage of  the image including destruction by the stone is still future and
                              unfulfilled.  There is certainly no evidence, nineteen hundred years after Christ, that the kingdom of
                              God has conquered the entire world." (Walvoord, 74-75)
                         (D) If  the image represents gentile world powers, then it should be obvious that the image is not yet
                              destroyed.
                         (E) Therefore, this stone must still be future.
                              (1) "Not only is there no scriptural evidence whatever that the first coming of  Christ caused the
                                   downfall of  Gentile world power which is still very much with us today, but express prophecies
                                   relating to the second advent of  Christ picture just such a devastating defeat of  Gentile power."
                                   (Walvoord, 75)
                              (2) Revelation 19:1l-21
                         (F) NOTE:  "'I'he only rule on which prophetic interpretation can be judged is whether the interpretation
                              corresponds to the fulfillment.  Nothing is more evident after nineteen hundred years of  Christianity
                              than that the stone, if  it reflects the church or the spiritual kingdom, which Christ formed at His first
                              coming, is not in any sense of  the term occupying the center of  the stage in which Gentile power has
                              been destroyed.  As a matter of  fact, in the twentieth century the church has been an ebbing tide in the
                              affairs of  the world; and there has been no progress whatever in the church's gaining control of  the
                              world politically.  If  the image represents the political power of  the Gentles, it is very much still
                              standing." (Ibid.)
                         (G) This is true in spite of  the attempts by churches--particularly those which do not really believe the
                              Bible is the Word of  God--to exercise control over the gentile nations.  This may have been true, in
                              part, during the dominance of  the Roman Catholic Church; but their control (though this writer does
                              not doubt for a moment they would exercise it if  they could) has waned to say the least.
                         (H) "The stone is part and parcel of  the sovereignty of  God of  which it is an effective expression.  The
                              symbolism clearly makes this originate in God rather than in men.  The effect is that the fifth kingdom,
                              the kingdom of  God, replaces completely all vestiges of  the preceding kingdoms, which prophecy can
                              only be fulfilled in any literal sense by a reign of  Christ over the earth.  The fact is that the amillennial
                              interpretation, attempting to find fulfillment of  the destruction of  the image in history, does not provide
                              a reasonable explanation of  this passage.  Only the premillennial position, which assigns this event as
                              coinciding with the second advent of  Christ, gives literal fulfillment to the symbolism involved in the
                              destruction of  the image." (Walvoord, 76)
                    (V) Daniel's final comment--v. 45
                         (A) Daniel summarizes with a concluding statement and then affirms that the matter is certain and sure.
                         (B) "In concluding, his interpretation, Daniel reaffirms the absolute certainty of  the fulfillment of  the dream,
                              stating again that its interpretation comes from God, that the dream is certain, and the interpretation
                              thereof  is sure. Taken as a whole, it assures the the ultimate rule of  God over the earth to be fulfilled,
                              not only in the millennial kingdom, but in the continued display of the sovereignty of  God in the new
                              heaven and the new earth." (Ibid.)
          4. Nebuchadnezzar prostration and promotion-vv. 46-49
               a. His worship--v. 46
                    (I) He gives honor to Daniel.
                    (II) "The announcement and the interpretation of  the remarkable dream made so powerful an impression on
                         Nebuchadnezzar, that he fell down in supplication before Daniel and ordered sacrifice to be offered to
                         him.  Falling prostrate to the earth is found as a mark of  honour to men, it is true (. . .), but the word here
                         is used only of  divine homage [unless this is the exception] (. . .).  To the Chaldean king, Daniel
                         appeared as a man in whom the gods manifested themselves; therefore he shows to him divine honour
                         such as was shown by Cornelius to the Apostle Peter.and at Lystra was shown to Paul and Barnabas."
                         (Keil, 112; italics are his.)
                    (III) Critics use this against Daniel, but subsequent conversation reveals this is not the case.
               b His reply--v. 47
                    (I) "Even the king understood that Daniel was the ambassador and representative of  God but not deity
                         himself.  It is probably for this reason that Daniel permitted the king to do what he did.  In any case, it
                         hardly would have been proper for Daniel under these circumstances to have interrupted the king with a
                         protest." (Walvoord, 77)
                    (II) Thus, it can observed that the king did not worship Daniel as a god, but pay homage to him as God's
                         spokesman.
                    (III) "In the process of  offering worship to Daniel's God, Nebuchadnezzar actually pays a great tribute to the
                         God of  Daniel.  It is most significant that he does not even mention his own gods which had failed to
                         produce a suitable revelation, except in the statement that.Daniel's God is 'a God of  gods,' that is, Daniel's
                         God is supreme over any other gods commonly worshiped [sic] in a polytheistic system.  Although
                         Nebuchadnezzar was short of  true faith in Daniel's God at this point in his life, the evidence that Daniel's
                         God could reveal a secret and may indeed have been the author of  his dream, impressed Nebuchadnezzar
                         with the fact that no other god could be greater." (Ibid.)
               c. His promoting--vv. 48, 49
                    (I) "In keeping with the king's desire to honor Daniel and also according to his promise, Daniel is now exalted
                         and immediately becomes a great man.  Many valuable gifts are given to him, and he is installed in the
                         exalted position of  ruler over the whole province of  Babylon as well as chief of  the governors over the
                         wise men.  Although critics reprobate this position as objectionable for a Jew, no doubt Daniel found a
                         way to avoid involvement in the usual practices of  divination, heathen rites, and other things that might
                         normally fall to this office." (Ibid.)
                    (II) Thus, the king promotes Daniel to be governor over all governors.
                    (III) He gives him position over all the wise men.
                    (IV) Shares the honors with Daniel's three companions
                         (A) Daniel requests that his three companions be made officers under him.
                         (B) His three friends had labored in prayer with him prior to receiving understanding of  the dream and its
                              interpretation.  Now he unselfishly shares the honors with them.
                         (C) "Having been thus singlely honored by the king, Daniel, in fairness to his three companions who had
                              joined in prayer that the secret might be revealed, requested that they might have a position of  power
                              and influence in the province of  Babylon.  Apparently, although Daniel had great authority, it did not
                              include appointing such officials without the king's permission.  Granting Daniel's request, the king
                              appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to positions of  trust in the government of  the province
                              of  Babylon.  Daniel himself apparently had a position of  honor 'in the gate of  the king,' by which is
                              meant that he served in the court itself." (Walvoord, 78)