What is the Purpose of the Daniel 4 Dream?
The purpose of the 4th-chapter-Daniel dream is reiterated three times to Nebuchadnezzar. Three times! Isn’t there a thing that repetition so many times means it carries great significance?
“that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4:17)
“until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants.” (4:25)
“until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants. (4:32)
And who does God want to give the ”kingdom of mankind to?” For whom does he bend over backwards to ensure that one really comes into his own? Can it really be just the dream’s recipient, Nebuchadnezzar? The man slaughtered Zedekiah’s sons before him, then bored out his eyes, sealing in that last visual memory. (2 Kings 25:7) I mean, he wasn’t that nice of a guy. So God should be obsessed with restoring HIM to power? THAT goal should be the be-all and end-all of the dream? THAT is the lesson he wanted repeated three times? I don’t think so.
In one of those three repetitions, there is even a pointer of whom God ultimately does want to restore it to. It is a pointer that will be meaningful to one who assumes unity of scripture. It is a clue that will be lost on one who who doesn’t—who assumes disunity. “He sets up over it even the lowliest of men,” says 4:17. The overall student of Scripture will recall Jesus’ description, that he is “mild-tempered and lowly in heart.” (Matthew 11:29) He’s not into boring people’s eyes out. He’s into offering them “refreshment for yourselves.” (also 11:29)
But spiritually dull people who do not connect scripture think it IS all about Nebuchadnezzar the eye-gouger. These are the same sort of people who think God is bringing his servant Trump to power, and before him Biden, and before him Trump, and before him Obama.
No. Maybe, just maybe, it IS about something more than the nasty king, who does come around to knuckling under Jehovah’s power (as if he has any choice) but then quickly reneges—just like he did after another tree dream (2nd chapter of Daniel). The lesson learned hadn’t held for too long. Like Assyria depicted at Isaiah 10:15, Nebuchadnezzar is the ax who exalts himself over the chopper. He is just the ax! It isn’t all about him—though modernists think it is! .
The tree that truly has significance, even after being chopped down with its stump bounded for “seven times,” is the tree representing God’s sovereignty. For centuries it was the nation of Israel as represented by its kings. Nebuchadnezzar is the ax that chops it all to an end. But it’s not a permanent end. It is an end that is restored after “seven times pass over it.” The kingdom heir it is restored to is “the Son of Man,” the same as Jesus self-description at Matthew 20:28: “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
He is the lowliest of men, his lowliness repeated many times—not just the aforementioned role of serving and ultimately dying for others, but by his humble birth and upbringing, by his being “despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” (Isaiah 53:3), by his being “made a little lower than the angels” that he might suffer death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9) THAT is who Jehovah is pointing his dream to; he’s not just dead-ending it with Nebuchadnezzar.
One does well to take G. K. Chesterton’s view of scripture. He assumed unity. Modern historical criticism—by far the dominant theology today—assumes division. It’s enough of a difference to make certain conclusions all but incomprehensible to each other.
Chesterton called those “wrong who maintain that the Old Testament is a mere loose library; that it has no consistency or aim. Whether the result was achieved by some supernal spiritual truth, or by a steady national tradition, or merely by an ingenious selection in aftertimes, the books of the Old Testament have a quite perceptible unity. . .” His view is not popular today—higher criticism assumes disunity—but it is the one that works.
Assuming unity over disunity of scripture is as great a paradigm shift as seeing the glass half-full over half empty, and it has just as much consequence. If you assume unity, you can do something with the scriptures. If you assume disunity, you cannot. If you assume unity, you can put the Bible pieces together as though a jigsaw puzzle. Puzzle assembled, completed picture before like on the box cover photo, you are convinced that your unified assumption was correct. You already suspected it was when you purchased the puzzle at the craft store. But your scholastic neighbor, who found his puzzle pieces willy-nilly in the landfill, does not assume unity and his pieces remain scattered.” He figures God’s sole purpose in spilling Daniel 4 print is to restore the eye-gouger to power.
****** The bookstore
Leave a Reply