Page 79 - Daniel

who was above all the kings of his generation. Interestingly, Ezekiel 26:7
contains exactly the same title for Nebuchadnezzar.

More significant here was Daniel’s fearless declaration that
Nebuchadnezzar owed all of his power to the God of heaven who had
revealed this secret to Daniel. How different this was from the
subservient respect given by the other wise men. Here was a voice of
truth that even the “king of kings” had to receive with submission.

Daniel’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as “rul[ing] over them all” has
been regarded by some as hyperbole, since Nebuchadnezzar actually did
not control the entire earth’s surface and everything on it. What was
meant, however, is that Nebuchadnezzar was in supreme authority

insofar as any human ruler could be. The king was the head of gold as
the personification and symbol of the Babylonian Empire. 27

Heaton considers the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s authority over
both men and nature to be a reflection of the Babylonian New Year
Festival, “when the reigning king was annually enthroned as the earthly
representative of the god and the Epic of Creation was recited….
Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowls of
the heaven recalls the God-given status of man as it is depicted in Gen.
1:26, which is itself closely related to the Babylonian Epic of

Creation.” At one point in the ceremonies, they recited the Epic of
28
Creation in honor of the creator god, Marduk, whose representative the
king was supposed to be. This and other references in the book of Daniel
suggest that Daniel is the author, for the writer had a good knowledge of
Babylonian and related mythologies stemming from his three years of

study and other intimate contact with Babylonian life.

THE INTERPRETATION: THE SECOND AND THIRD KINGDOMS TO
FOLLOW (2:39)

2:39 “Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a

third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.”

Daniel mentioned only briefly the second and third kingdoms
represented by the upper and lower parts of the image’s body. Brief as
the reference is, critics have lost no time in taking exception to the