DANIEL 4:18

I attempted an exercise which I hadn't done in some time – choosing a Scripture passage at random and then seeing what I could learn about that verse from commentaries. The above is the Old Testament verse I happened upon.

The first thing I like to do is consider how that verse fits into its immediate biblical context in terms of literary organization. Thus, I developed the analysis below:

                                                     Figure 1: Literary Structure of Daniel 4

A. Praise to the Most High God (vv. 1-3)

        B. “I was living at ease in my palace” (v. 4)

                C. “I had a frightening dream which the wise men could not interpret (vv. 5-7)”

                        D. “Daniel, named Belteshazzar, had a spirit of the holy gods (vv. 8-9)”

                                E. Dream is recounted (vv. 10-17)

                C'. “Belteshazzar, interpret the dream which the wise men could not interpret” (v. 18a)

                        D'. “You are endowed with a spirit of the holy gods” (v. 18b)

                                E'. Dream is interpreted (vv. 19-27)

                                        F. Nebuchadnezzar's Time in Exile (vv. 28-33)

A'. Praise to the Most High (vv. 34-35)

        B'. “My kingdom was restored to me” (v. 36)

A''. Praise to the King of heaven (v. 37)

The center section in bold is written in the third person while the rest of the chapter is a first-hand account. And you can see from this organization that the statement in v. 18 that Daniel possessed the spirit of the holy gods is important enough to be repeated twice (see v. 9). Thus, we need to consider both sections C-D and C'-D' in explaining the meaning. Below are the two parallel passages as rendered by the KJV:

“But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen and the interpretation thereof.” (Daniel 4:8-9)

“This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation: but thou are able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.” (Daniel 4:18)

Bullock notes that “Chapters 1-6 are especially characterized by backward reflections. In 2:48-49 Nebuchadnezzar gives Daniel high honors and sets the three Hebrews over the affairs of the provinces of Babylon. The position of the three Hebrews is recalled by certain Chaldeans in 3:12. Daniel's interpretive gift, first seen in 2:25-45, is recalled by Nebuchadnezzar in 4:18, etc.” Thus, we have an explanation as to why the king sought out Daniel's opinion.

There are several issues brought out by these parallel verses, beginning with the identity of the king in this story.

Freedman explains: “Publication of the 'Prayer of Nabonides' fragment from Qumran Cave 4 [i.e. one of the Dead Sea scrolls] offers the prospect of an early solution, or at least clarification, of several problems connected with the composition of the book of Daniel, on the one hand, and the background and history of the people of Qumran, on the other...It would appear certain that the original story which underlies the present text of Dan. 4 concerned Nabonidus rather than Nebuchadnezzar. The relationship of the text of Daniel to the 4Q fragments is more complex, and we cannot speak of direct literary dependence. Comparison of the two accounts shows, however, that in the basic matter of the identity of the affected king, the Qumran material preserves the more original tradition.”

Hartman and DiLella are not quite as sure as Freedman. They do feel that “Nebuchadnezzar' in the story could possibly have been Nabonidus instead. However, they point to several important differences between Daniel 4 and the Qumran fragment which may cast doubt on this conclusion.

Then we get to Goldingay, who also discusses this issue, concluding: “Scholars have held a wide variety of views on the relationship between these various documents and traditions they represent. Whether or not we can reach any confident conclusions about the historical questions, study of comparative materials may help us to perceive characteristic and distinctive features of the text that concerns us...”

The other scholars cited below appear to take the identity of the king as Nebuchadnezzar as a given.

The next major controversy is introduced by mention of Daniel's two names. According to 1:7, after Daniel had been brought to Babylon under captivity, the palace guard replaced his Hebrew name with one which “probably derives from a Babylonian expression meaning 'guard his life.' The implicit connection to Bel and reference to the holy gods contrasts with the letter's opening praise of 'the Most High God.'” (A.-J. Levine)

And Millard translates it as 'inspired by the holy gods,' noting that “the plural 'gods' is probably correct.”

Longman reconciles this seeming incongruity by citing the king's mindset: “That Nebuchadnezzar still really hasn't 'gotten it' is indicated by the parenthetical comment at the end of verse 8. He refers to Daniel by his Babylonian name, which connects him to the king's native god. Moreover, he speaks of Daniel as the one in whom the 'spirit of the holy gods' dwells. Being a polytheist, Nebuchadnezzar has the intellectual framework to subsume Yahweh into his already existing theology.” But as you can see from the following comments by other scholars, these opinions are by no means universally held.

“Nebuchadnezzar recognizes Daniel as one in whom God's spirit dwells. In the OT the presence of God's spirit often implies the activity of God in his dynamic power...; the effect of this on human beings is to make them behave in remarkable ways and perform extraordinary deeds. A person who receives out-of-the-ordinary insights or revelations does so by the work of the divine spirit (Gen 41:38; Num 24:2, 2 Sam 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). Remarkable words are assumed to suggest the breath of God himself...The use of this word [i.e. 'spirit'] reinforces the suggestion of a real presence of God that contrasts with the spurious presence that the statue of chap. 3 claimed to bring.” (Goldingay)

Hartman and DiLella translate the key phrase as “a spirit of holy Deity”. They explain that a similar Hebrew expression appears in Genesis 41:38, “which E.A. Speiser renders well as 'endowed with a divine spirit.'...The author probably wished to show that this divine spirit came from Yahweh...”

And Young says, “This particular phrase may be paraphrased, 'that which pertains to true deity is to be found in Daniel.'”

This divide in opinion is reflected in the various modern Bible translations and paraphrases:

    The Message “the divine Holy Spirit”

    Jerusalem Bible “the spirit of God Most Holy” The footnote to this translation reads “from Theod., and not 'of the most holy gods', the reference here is not to pagan gods.” (Theodotion was a scholar who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek around A.D. 150.)

    The following translations stick with the Hebrew original, which reads 'the spirit of the holy gods': Living Bible, TEV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV. However, to these renderings are footnoted alternative understandings such as “a holy, divine spirit,” “the holy God,” and “Spirit of the Holy God.”

Jeffery rightly concludes, “What 'the spirit of the holy gods' means is quite obscure.”

Finally, in Beale and Gladd's excellent study Hidden But Now Revealed, they utilize Daniel 4:18 as one of the major linchpins in their arguments:

“The English word mystery in Daniel is a translation of an Aramaic noun (raz) that appears a total of nine times in the book (Dan 2:10,19,27-30,47; 4:9)...Each time the word is used, the Greek translations of Daniel consistently render it 'mystery.' Understanding the term mystery requires us to connect it with Daniel's conception of wisdom.”

Concerning the statement in Daniel 4:9 that 'no mystery baffles you [Daniel],' Beale and Gladd say, “It appears that Nebuchadnezzar had some insight into the symbolic meaning of his dream before Daniel discloses the dream's interpretation...On this basis, we will argue that mystery is not a radically new revelation, but a disclosure of something that was largely (but not entirely) hidden.” In support of their thesis, the Old Greek form of 4:18 is cited in which 'entire interpretation' is found in place of 'interpretation.'”

They then apply this understanding to various NT passages, as follows: “The role of the Spirit in the process of revelation may...reveal an intertextual or at least a thematic link between 1 Cor 2:10-13 ('For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God') and Dan 4:9, where Nebuchadnezzar describes Daniel as one who has 'a spirit of the holy gods' and 'no mystery baffles him (cf. Dan 2:11; 4:18; 5:11,14).”

The authors similarly see this two-part revelation process in Daniel 4 as the key to understanding the meaning of 'mystery' in NT passages such as Matthew 13:11; I Corinthians 2:6-16; Ephesians 3:3-5; Colossians 1:26-27; II Thessalonians 2:7; Revelation 1:20; 10:7 and 17:5,7.