Page 78 - Daniel

the gold is much heavier than the silver, the silver than the bronze, the
bronze than the iron, and the clay in the feet is the lightest material.
While the materials decrease in weight, they increase in hardness, with
the notable exception of the clay in the feet. The image was obviously
top-heavy and weak in its feet. 26

Nebuchadnezzar also saw a stone described as “cut out by no human
hand” smite the image at its feet, the weakest place, with the result that

the feet were broken. Then in rapid succession the disintegration of the
entire image followed, as it broke into small pieces that the wind blew
away until the pieces of the image disappeared. The stone that destroyed
the image grew into a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This
stone is stated in Daniel 2:45 to be cut out of a mountain. It struck the
image with terrific force and smashed it.

Daniel’s description was a masterpiece of concise and yet complete
narration. Nebuchadnezzar was so fascinated by the obvious accuracy of
Daniel’s revelation that he did not interpose a word. This permitted

Daniel to proceed immediately to the interpretation.

THE INTERPRETATION: BABYLON THE HEAD OF GOLD (2:36–38)

2:36–38 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its
interpretation. You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of

heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the
glory, and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the
children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens,
making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold.”

As Daniel transitioned from the dream to its interpretation, he used
the plural “we” to describe his answer. Did he mean God and himself, or
his three companions who had joined with him in prayer, or was he
simply using the plural to avoid the more arrogant-sounding “I”? Given

Daniel’s evident modesty, the latter seems the best explanation.
Nebuchadnezzar was addressed as “king of kings,” a position that

Daniel made clear was a gift from God. Critics of Daniel have seized
upon this as an unsuitable reference to the king of Babylon. But it was
quite accurate, for Nebuchadnezzar was actually a supreme monarch