Chapter 4

1 Nebuchadnezzar confesseth God’s kingdom, 4 maketh relation of his dreams, which the magicians could not interpret. 8 Daniel heareth the dream. 19 He interpreteth it. 28 The story of the event.

1. Unto all people. The narrative of events in ch. 4 is recorded in the form of a royal proclamation. Because they cannot find parallels to such publicly announced conversions, modern scholars declare such an edict historically absurd. But arguments from silence are never conclusive. On the other hand, royal conversion to a new religion or god is attested elsewhere. For example, King Amenhotep IV of Egypt forsook the polytheistic religion of his ancestors and of the nation and made strong efforts to introduce a new monotheistic religion into the realm. He built a new capital, changed his own name, closed the old temples, denounced the old gods, erected new temples to his god, and did everything in his power to promote the new religion

Furthermore, little is known of Nebuchadnezzar’s history from sources outside of the Bible. Hence it is impossible to verify all the events of the king’s reign from contemporary source material. In fact, there are no contemporary non-Biblical sources for Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem, or even for his long campaign against Tyre, though the historicity of these events is not disputed. It is therefore not strange to find no reference in Babylonian records to the king’s mental illness. Such records naturally omit items dealing with the misfortunes of a national hero. The change in this chapter from the first to the third person and back again to the first person (see vs. 2–27; cf. vs. 28–33; 34–37) has been explained by assuming either that Daniel wrote the edict upon the king’s command or that as Nebuchadnezzar’s chief counselor Daniel added certain portions to the edict written by the king himself. The edict reflected the king’s feelings when his full mental powers had been restored. “The once proud monarch had become a humble child of God” (PK 521; cf. EGW, Supplementary Material, on Dan. 4:37).

Peace be multiplied. The introduction to the proclamation contains an expression of good wishes. The edicts later promulgated by Persian kings were similar in form (see Ezra 4:17; 7:12). A typical formula in the Aramaic Elephantine letters of the 5th century b.c. is “The health of—may the God of Heaven seek.”

3. His kingdom. The doxology of the second part of v. 3 occurs again with variations in v. 34; cf. ch. 7:14, 18.

4. At rest. This phrase indicates that the king was now in undisturbed possession of his kingdom. Therefore the events of this chapter belong to the last half of his reign of 42 years. The king was “flourishing” in his palace in Babylon (see the Additional Note at the end of this chapter), and like the foolish rich man in the parable, whose fields had produced abundantly (Luke 12:16–21), forgot his responsibility to the One to whom he owed his greatness.

5. Afraid. The abrupt manner in which the event is here introduced aptly illustrates the unexpected suddenness of the occurrence itself (see ch. 2:1).

6. Decree. Compare the phraseology in ch. 3:29. As in the case of the dream of ch. 2, the wise men were summoned. In this instance, however, the king had not forgotten the contents of the dream. The demand of the king for an interpretation of it was therefore vastly different from that described in ch. 2:5.

7. Magicians. Of the four groups of wise men listed in this verse, two, the magicians and the astrologers, were introduced in ch. 1:20 (see comments there), the third class, the Chaldeans, in ch. 2:2 (see on ch. 1:4), and the fourth class, the soothsayers, in ch. 2:27 (see comments there).

Did not make known. Some have suggested that because these wise men of Babylon were experts in the interpretation of dreams and signs of a supernatural character, they possibly offered some kind of interpretation. In fact the dream was so explicit the king himself sensed that it contained some evil message for him (see PK 516). It was this that alarmed him. However, ancient courtiers customarily flattered their sovereigns and avoided directly telling them anything disagreeable. Hence, even if they understood parts of the dream and had some inkling as to its import, they would not have found the courage to voice their conclusions. If they did offer some sort of explanation, it proved wholly unsatisfactory to the king. They certainly could not give an accurate and detailed interpretation as Daniel later did (see PK 517, 518). Instead of “they did not make known” the RSV reads, “they could not make known.” Some regard the KJV as the better rendering. Nevertheless it is true that “none of the wise men could interpret” the dream (PK 516).

8. Belteshazzar. The narrative introduces Daniel, first by his Jewish name, by which he was known to his countrymen, then by his Babylonian name, given to him in honor of Nebuchadnezzar’s chief god (see on ch. 1:7).

Why Daniel had been kept in the background so long, although he was considered “master of the magicians” (v. 9), is not explained. Some have suggested that Nebuchadnezzar aimed first to find out what the Chaldeans in general had to say about this extremely disconcerting dream, before hearing the full truth, which he suspected was unfavorable (compare the case of King Ahab, 1 Kings 22:8). Only after the other wise men of the caste of occult scientists proved unable to satisfy the king did he call for the man who had, on a previous occasion, demonstrated his superior skill and wisdom with respect to the interpretation of dreams (ch. 2; cf. ch. 1:17, 20).

Of the holy gods. Or, “of the holy God” (see RSV margin). The Aramaic for “gods” is Хelahin, a term used frequently of false gods (see Jer. 10:11; Dan. 2:11, 47; 3:12; 5:4), but which may apply also to the true God (see on Dan. 3:25; cf. Dan 5:11, 14). The expression reveals what it was that had inspired the king with confidence in Daniel’s superior power and understanding. It also reveals that Nebuchadnezzar possessed a conception of the nature of that Deity to whom Daniel owed such power and wisdom. Daniel and his companions had borne witness without hesitation concerning the God they worshiped. The expression, repeated in vs. 9 and 18 of Dan. 4, shows clearly that Nebuchadnezzar had by no means forgotten what he had learned on a previous occasion respecting the eminent prophetic gift of this Jew, and of his intercourse with the only true God.

Instead of “in whom is the spirit of the holy gods,” the Theodotion version reads, “who has in him the holy spirit of God.” The original LXX version entirely omits vs. 5b to 10b.

9. Master of the magicians. This term used by the king is probably synonymous with that used in ch. 2:48, “chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.” The word “master” in ch. 4:9 and “chief” in ch. 2:48 are translations of the same Aramaic word, rab.

Tell me the visions. The king seems to demand that Daniel tell the dream as well as its interpretation, at the same time proceeding at once to narrate the dream (v. 10). The LXX does not have this verse in the extant MSS. It has the narrative of vs. 1–9 in a greatly abbreviated form. Theodotion’s Greek version reads, “Listen to the vision of the dream which I have seen, and tell me its interpretation.” The Syriac translates this passage by a paraphrase, “In the visions of my dream I was seeing a vision of my head, and do thou its interpretation tell.” Some modern expositors (Marti, Torrey, etc.) accept the version of Theodotion as the best solution, while others, like Montgomery, think that the Aramaic word chzwy (originally unpointed), translated “the visions of” (KJV), was originally chzy, “lo,” as demonstrated by the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine. The text would then read, as in the RSV, “Here is the dream which I saw; tell me its interpretation.”

10. Behold a tree. Divine wisdom frequently employs parables and similitudes as vehicles for the transmission of truth. This method is impressive. The imagery tends to enable the recipient to retain the message and its import in his memory longer than if the message had been communicated in any other way. Compare the imagery of Eze. 31:3–14.

The ancients were accustomed to seeing a meaning in every extraordinary dream. Perhaps this is why God employed the agency of a dream on this occasion.

13. A watcher. Aramaic Фir, derived from the verb Фur, “to watch,” and corresponds to the Heb. Фer, which does not signify “keeping watch,” but rather “being watchful,” or “one who is awake” as the marginal annotation to the word in the Codex Alexandrinus explains it. The LXX translates the word by aggelos, “angel,” but Theodotion, instead of translating it, simply transliterates it ir. The Jewish translators Aquila and Symmachus render it egreµgoros, “the watchful one,” a term found in the book of Enoch and other Apocryphal Jewish writings to designate the higher angels, good or bad, who watch and slumber not. As a designation for angels the term “watcher” would be peculiar to this passage in the OT. It has been suggested that angels may have been known to the Chaldeans under this term, though no evidence for this has yet been found. That the watcher is a heavenly messenger is indicated by the further attribute “an holy one,” and the phrase “came down from heaven.” This much is evident: The watcher was recognized as bearing the credentials of the God of heaven (see PK 518).

15. Leave the stump. Compare Job 14:8; Isa. 11:1. The ultimate sprouting of this root-stump (see Job 14:7–9) typified, as appears from a comparison of vs. 26 and 36, the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar from his sickness, and not the continued supremacy of his dynasty, as some commentators have explained it. The whole passage obviously designates an individual and not a nation.

With a band. Many commentators see in this statement a reference to metal bands fastened on a root-stump, probably in order to prevent it from cracking or splitting, although such a practice cannot be demonstrated from ancient sources. The LXX makes no mention of these bands. According to that version v. 15 reads, “And thus he said, Leave one of its roots in the earth, in order that with the beasts of the earth, in the mountains of grass he might feed like an ox.” Theodotion supports the Masoretic text. Since the interpretation of the dream does not call attention to the bands, the interpretation of the figure is left to conjecture. Somewhere in vs. 15, 16 there is a transition from the “stump” to what the stump represented. Some make the transition as early as in the phrase under consideration and see in the bands either physical chains such as would be necessary to bind the king in his maniacal condition (Jerome) or figurative bands, representing the restrictions that would be placed upon the monarch as a result of his illness. However, it appears more natural to apply the bands to the stump itself and to consider them as indicating the care that would be exercised in preserving it.

16. His heart. The transition from the figure of the tree to the actual object symbolized by the tree has now clearly been made (see on v. 15). The term “heart” here seems to indicate nature. The king would take on the nature of a beast.

Seven times. The majority of ancient and modern interpreters explain the AramaicФiddan, “time,” here (also in vs. 23, 25, 32; chs. 7:25; 12:7) to mean “year.” The original LXX reads “seven years.” Among the earlier expositors supporting this view are Josephus (Antiquities x. 10. 6), Jerome, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Jephet. Most modern expositors also agree with this view.

17. Watchers. See on v. 13. The plural presupposes the existence of a heavenly council or assembly (see Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6).

That the living. This sentence reveals the divine purpose in the execution of the order. God’s dealings with Babylon and its king were to be an illustration to other nations and their kings of the results of accepting or rejecting the divine plan with respect to nations.

The most High ruleth. In the affairs of nations God is ever “silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will” (Ed 173). At times, as with the call of Abraham, He ordains a series of events designed to demonstrate the wisdom of His ways. Again, as in the antediluvian world, He permits evil to run its course and provide an example of the folly of opposition to right principles. But eventually, as in the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt, He intervenes lest the forces of evil overcome His agencies for the salvation of the world. Whether God ordains, permits, or intervenes, “the complicated play of human events is under divine control” and an “overruling purpose has manifestly been at work throughout the ages” (PK 536, 535; see Ed 174; Rom. 13:1).

“To every nation … God has assigned a place in His great plan” and has given an opportunity to “fulfil the purpose of ‘the Watcher and the Holy One’” (Ed 178, 177). In the divine economy the function of government is to protect and upbuild the nation, to provide its people with the opportunity of achieving the Creator’s purpose for them, and to permit other nations to do the same (Ed 175)—in order that all men “should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him” (Acts 17:27).

A nation is strong in proportion to the fidelity with which it fulfills God’s purpose for it; its success depends upon its use of the power entrusted to it; its compliance with the divine principles is always the measure of its prosperity; and its destiny is determined by the choices its leaders and people make with respect to these principles (Ed 175, 174, 177, 178; PP 536). God imparts wisdom and power that will keep strong the nations that remain faithful to Him, but abandons those that ascribe their glory to human achievement and act independently of Him (PK 501).

Men “who refuse to submit to the government of God are wholly unfitted to govern themselves” (GC 584). When, instead of being a protector of men, a nation becomes a proud and cruel oppressor, its fall is inevitable (Ed 176). As the nations one after another have rejected God’s principles their glory has faded, their power departed, and their place been occupied by others (Ed 177). “All are by their own choice deciding their destiny,” and in rejecting God’s principles accomplishing their own ruin (Ed 178, 177). “The complicated lay of human events is under divine control. Amidst the strife and tumult of nations, He that sitteth above the cherubim still guides the affairs of earth” and overrules “all for the accomplishment of His purposes” (Ed 178). See on ch. 10:13.

Basest. Aramaic shephal, “low,” “lowly,” “humble.” The verb is translated “humbled” in ch. 5:22 and “abase” in ch. 4:37.

18. Declare the interpretation. See on v. 7.

The holy gods. See on v. 8.

19. Astonied. Aramaic shemam, which, in the form here found, means “to be appalled,” “to be perplexed,” or “to be embarrassed.” The last meaning may be more appropriate here inasmuch as Daniel, understanding immediately the dream and its consequences, must have been extremely embarrassed over the responsibility of disclosing its fearful import to the king (see ch. 2:5).

Hour. Aramaic shaФah. It is impossible to define precisely the period of time indicated by shaФah. It may be a brief moment, or perhaps a longer period of time. Compare the uses of shaФah in chs. 3:6, 15; 4:33; 5:5. Sufficient time must have elapsed for Daniel to have revealed to his royal patron that “his thoughts troubled him [or, alarmed him].” Daniel was obviously searching for suitable words and expressions by which to acquaint the king with the terrible news concerning his future fate.

The king spake. That Nebuchadnezzar now speaks in the third person does not justify the conclusion of critics that either another spoke of him, and that thus the document is not genuine, or that this verse includes a historical notice introduced as an interpolation into the document. Similar changes from the first to the third person and vice versa are found in other books, Biblical (see Ezra 7:13–15; Esther 8:7, 8) and non-Biblical, ancient and modern (see on Ezra 7:28).

The king clearly saw the consternation on Daniel’s face. From the nature of the dream he could hardly have expected to hear anything pleasant. Nevertheless he encouraged his trusted courtier to give him the full truth without fear of incurring royal disfavor.

That hate thee. Although Daniel had been made a captive by the king and had been deported from his homeland to serve strangers, the oppressors of his people, he harbored no ill feelings toward Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, his words testify that he felt the highest personal loyalty toward the king, probably in contrast with many of the Jews of his time. On the other hand, Daniel’s words must not be interpreted as necessarily expressing malice toward the king’s enemies. The answer exhibited simply a courteous reply in true Oriental fashion.

22. It is thou. Without holding the king in suspense for any length of time, Daniel plainly and clearly announced to him—though he no doubt already surmised it—that the tree represented the king himself.

Unto heaven. To some, the terms by which the prophet described Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness may seem exaggerated, but we must bear in mind that Daniel used Oriental court language and idioms, to which both he and the king were accustomed. These terms are remarkably similar to the boastful language of Nebuchadnezzar, exhibited in various of the king’s inscriptions discovered by archeologists. They also resemble the words employed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Assyrian predecessors and other Oriental monarchs.

25. With the beasts. Although the words of the heavenly messenger clearly implied doom of some kind, to ascertain the nature of the judgment was beyond the skill of the magicians. The reason for the king’s expulsion from society is not stated, though probably understood by the king. That the judgment was insanity can be concluded not only from the general remarks of this verse describing his future status but also from the statement that his “understanding returned” (v. 34). The contention of critics that the king was expelled by discontented elements in the government, or as the result of a revolution, is unfounded.

26. Shall be sure. Many have wondered why the insane king was not killed, or why his subjects and ministers of state did not placed someone else on the vacant throne during the time Nebuchadnezzar was incapacitated. The following explanation has been offered: Superstitious ancients thought that all mental disturbances were caused by evil spirits who took control of their victim; that if someone should kill the insane man, the spirit would take hold of the murderer or instigator of the crime; and that if his property should be confiscated or his office filled, a grievous revenge would be inflicted upon those responsible for the injustice. For this reason insane persons were removed from the society of men, but otherwise not molested (see 1 Sam. 21:12 to 1 Sam. 22:1).

27. Break off thy sins. Here a divine principle is communicated to the proud monarch. God’s judgments against men may be averted by repentance and conversion (see Isa. 38:1, 2, 5; Jer. 18:7–10; Jonah 3:1–10). For this reason God announced the impending judgment upon Nebuchadnezzar but gave him a full year in which to repent, and thus avert the threatened calamity (see Dan. 4:29). However, the king did not change his way of life, and accordingly brought upon himself the execution of the judgment. By contrast, the Ninevites, given 40 days of respite, took advantage of the opportunity, and they and their city were spared (Jonah 3:4–10). “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). God forewarns peoples and nations of their impending doom. He sends a message to the world today, warning of its rapidly approaching end. Few may heed such warnings, but because adequate warning has been given them men will be without excuse in the day of calamity.

Shewing mercy. The king was admonished to practice righteousness toward all his subjects and to exercise mercy toward the oppressed, the miserable, and the poor (see Micah 6:8). These virtues are frequently listed together (see Ps. 72:3, 4; Isa. 11:4).

29. In the palace. Literally, “upon the palace.” It is not known from which palace Nebuchadnezzar viewed the city. It was possibly either from the roof of the famous hanging gardens, whose thick and strong foundation walls have been excavated, or from the new Summer Palace in the northern sections of the new city quarters, now the ruined mound known as Babil. For a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon see the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

30. That I have built. Students of ancient Babylonian history are reminded of these proud words when reading the claims the king makes in his inscriptions, which have been preserved amid the dust and debris of Babylon’s ruins. On one of these inscriptions the proud king proclaims, “Then built I the palace, the seat of my royalty, the bond of the race of men, the dwelling of exultation and rejoicing” (E. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, vol. 3, part 2, p. 39). In another text he says, “In Babylon, the city which I prefer, which I love, was the palace, the amazement of the people, the bond of the land, the brilliant palace, the abode of majesty on the ground of Babylon” (Ibid., p. 25). That Nebuchadnezzar had valid reasons to be proud of his marvelous creation, the excavations of R. Koldewey have shown, although they have not in every detail corroborated the exaggerated claims of classical writers about the size of ancient Babylon (see Additional Note at the end of this chapter).

Nebuchadnezzar’s claim to have “built” Babylon must not be interpreted as referring to the founding of the city, which actually took place shortly after the Flood (Gen. 11:1–9; cf. ch. 10:10). The reference is to the great work of rebuilding which his father, Nabopolassar, began, and which Nebuchadnezzar completed. Nebuchadnezzar’s building activities were so extensive as to eclipse all previous accomplishments. It has been said that little could be seen that had not been erected in his time. This was true of the palaces, temples, walls, and even of the residential sections. The size of the city had been more than doubled by the addition of new areas to old Babylon, as suburbs on both sides of the river Euphrates.

31. There fell a voice. Compare Isa. 9:8, where “lighted” is literally, “fell.” The proud utterance is immediately followed by the king’s humiliation. It is not stated whether this voice was heard by the king alone or whether his entourage also heard the heavenly words.

33. Fulfilled. Many commentators have identified Nebuchadnezzar’s malady as a form of insanity in which men think themselves animals and imitate the beasts’ manner of life.

An ancient example of such mental maladies has been attested. An unpublished cuneiform tablet in the British Museum mentions a man who ate grass like a cow (F. M. Th. de Liagre Bцhl, Opera Minora [1953], p. 527). It is not necessary to identify Nebuchadnezzar’s malady precisely or to equate it with anything known to medical science today. The experience may have been unique. The narrative is brief, and a precise diagnosis on such meager information is invalid.

Eagles’ feather. The word “feathers” is supplied. Hair, when unkempt and long exposed to the influences of rough weather and to the rays of the sun, becomes hard and unruly.

34. End of the days. That is, the end of the “seven times,” or seven years, predicted for the continuation of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (see on v. 16).

Lifted up mine eyes. It is significant to notice that the return of reason is said to have come to the king with his recognition of the true God. When the humbled king prayerfully looked up to heaven he was elevated from the condition of a brute beast to that of a being bearing the image of God. The one who for years had helplessly lain on the ground in his debasement was once more lifted up to the dignity of manhood which God has granted His creatures formed after His likeness. The essential feature of the miracle that occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s case is still repeated—even if in a less spectacular manner—in the conversion of every sinner.

I blessed the most High. It speaks well for the once proud king, that after his dreadful experience his first desire was to thank God, to praise Him as the everliving One, and to recognize the eternity of His rulership.

35. As nothing. Compare Isa. 40:17. The second half of this verse has a close parallel in Isa. 43:13. Some have suggested the possibility that in his association with Daniel the king had become acquainted with the words of Isaiah, and that they came suddenly back to his mind. The confession was a marvelous one, coming, as it did, from the mouth of the once proud monarch. It is the testimony of a penitent convert, a statement from the heart of a man who had learned by experience to know and to revere God.

36. Returned unto me. With the restoration of his understanding Nebuchadnezzar also regained his royal dignity and his throne. In order to show the close connection between the return of reason and his restoration to sovereignty, this verse restates (see v. 34) the first element of his restoration. The second follows immediately, in the simple manner of Semitic narrative. An English narrator would have said, “When my understanding returned, then also my royal state and glory returned.”

Sought unto me. The word “sought” does not necessarily indicate that during the period of his insanity the king was allowed to wander about in the fields and desert without supervision, but it denotes the seeking of a person with a view to his official position. When it became known that the king’s reason had returned, the regents of state brought him back with all due respect in order that they might restore the government to him again. During his insanity these men had carried on the affairs of government.

37. Praise and extol. This is Nebuchadnezzar’s conclusion to his proclamation, in which, as a converted sinner, he recognized the righteousness of God. His confession that God is “King of heaven” expressed his reverence toward his newfound God. The healed monarch of Babylon had learned well his lesson (see PK 521; EGW, Supplementary Material, on this verse). On the progressive character of Nebuchadnezzar’s understanding of God see chs. 2:47; 3:28 p. 751.

additional note on chapter 4

Under the direction of Robert Koldewey, who worked for the German Orient Society, important excavations were carried out at Babylon between the years 1899 and 1917. These have uncovered some of the most important sections of the large ruined site of ancient Babylon, although wide areas were not touched in these excavations. Babylon had been an important city of Mesopotamia from the dawn of history (Gen. 11 Hammurabi had made it the capital of his dynasty. As the seat of the famous god Marduk, it remained a religious center even during periods when it did not enjoy political supremacy, as, for example, during the time when Assyria was the leading world power. When Nabopolassar regained for Babylonia its independence, the city once more became the metropolis of the world. But it was especially under Nebuchadnezzar, the great builder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, that Babylon became “the glory of kingdoms” and “the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency” Isa. 13:19).

It was Nebuchadnezzar’s city that Koldewey uncovered during the 18 years of the German excavations; practically no remains of the earlier stages of the city were found. For this a double reason has been assigned: (1) The change of the river bed of the Euphrates raised the water table, so that the levels of the earlier cities now lie below the water level, and (2) the destruction of Babylon by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 b.c. was so thorough that little of the old city was left to be discovered and by later generations. Hence, all visible ruins today date from the Neo-Babylonian empire of later times. Even these show unusual desolation and confusion, for two reasons: (1) Large portions of the city were destroyed by King Xerxes of Persia after two short-lived revolts against his rule. (2) The ruins of Babylon were used by Seleucus to build Seleucia about 300 b.c. Most of the buildings in the neighboring villages and in the city of Hilla, as well as the great river dam at Hindiya, were built of bricks from Babylon.

In spite of these handicaps the excavators succeeded in clearing up much of the layout of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon. In this work they were aided by ancient cuneiform documents found during the excavations. These documents contain detailed descriptions of the city, its principal buildings, walls, and city quarters, so that more is known concerning the city plan of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon than of many medieval cities of Europe. Hence we are singularly well informed about the city in whose streets Daniel walked and concerning which Nebuchadnezzar uttered the proud words recorded in Dan. 4:30.

The Size of Ancient Babylon.—Before the spade of the excavator revealed the true size of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon and the Babylon of earlier times, scholars relied on the description of Herodotus. This historian claims to have visited to Mesopotamia in the middle of the 5th century b.c., and therefore his statements have frequently been considered those of an eyewitness. He states (i. 178, 179) that the ground plan of Babylon had the shape of a large square, approximately 14 mi. (22.4 km.) on a side. These measurements would give to the city walls a total length of 55 mi. (88 km.) and to the city itself an area of almost 189 sq. mi. (490 sq. km.). He also claims that its walls were about 85 ft. (26 m.) thick and 340 ft. (104 m.) high.

Before modern excavations revealed the size of ancient Babylon, attempts were made to bring Herodotus’ statement into harmony with its visible ruins. The French Assyriologist Jules Oppert, for example, tried to explain Herodotus’ statement by extending the area of the city of Babylon far enough to include either Birs Nimrud, 12 mi. (19.2 km.) southwest of the ruins of Babylon, or Tell elРOh\eimir, 8 mi. (12.8 km.) east. This explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. Already in Oppert’s day it was known that Birs Nimrud is the site of ancient Borsippa, and Tell elРOh\eimir that of Kish, both famous independent cities with separate protecting walls. Since no wall has ever been found encompassing both Babylon and either Borsippa or Kish, and since such a wall is not mentioned in any of the contemporary documents describing the ancient city, Oppert’s figure for Herodotus’ statement concerning the length of the walls of Babylon cannot be accepted.

Excavations reveal that before Nebuchadnezzar’s time the city was almost square, with walls about one mile long on each side—the Inner City on the map on p. 796. The palaces and administration buildings lay in the northwestern section of the city, and south of them stood the main temple complex called Esagila, dedicated to Babylon’s main god, Marduk. The river Euphrates flowed along Babylon’s western wall.

When Babylon served as the capital of a far-flung empire in the time of Nabopolassar and of Nebuchadnezzar, it was in need of enlargement. A new section was built on the western bank of the Euphrates. Its extent is known, but little excavation has been carried out in that area. What is known about its temples and streets has been gathered from the cuneiform documents describing this quarter. The new section was connected with the old city by a bridge. This bridge rested on eight piers, as excavations at the site have revealed.

Nebuchadnezzar also built a new palace far to the north of the old city, the so-called Summer Palace. A great outer wall was constructed to enclose this palace. The new wall greatly increased the area of the city. There is no evidence of a wall along the river from the Summer Palace to the old palace area. It has therefore been concluded that the river itself was considered a sufficiently strong protection.

The walls, which for the greater part can still be clearly seen as long, high mounds, measure about 13 mi. This measurement is that of the total length of the walls of both the inner and outer cities. The circumference of Nebuchadnezzar’s city, including the river front from the Summer Palace to the old palace area, was about 10 mi.

Modern excavations show that Herodotus’ description needs modification on the dimensions of the walls. The fortifications surrounding the Inner City consisted of double walls—the inner 211/2 and the outer 121/4 ft. thick (6.5 and 3.7 m., respectively), 231/2 ft. (7.2 m.) apart, with a moat outside it. The outer wall was also double, with a rubble fill between and a road on top, according to Herodotus. The widths were: inner, 231/2 ft.; space for fill, 363/4 ft.; outer, 251/2 ft.; plus a sort of buttress wall at its base, 103/4 ft. (respectively 7.1, 11.2, 7.8, and 3.3 m.). This outer fortification’s total width was thus 961/2 ft., or 29.39 m. Of its many towers, 15 have been excavated.

The excavations tell nothing of the height of the walls, since only stumps remain, nowhere higher than 391/2 ft. (12 m.) at the Ishtar Gate. It seems inconceivable that even a double wall with a base width of 95 ft., or 29 m., would have been 340 ft. (103.7 m.) high. No ancient or modern city wall of this sort is known. Hence Herodotus’ statement in regard to the height of Babylon’s city wall must also be discarded.

Euphrates River Valley

The Euphrates is shown in its present bed, having changed its course near Babylon and Borsippa. Lines extending from the river are modern irrigation canals, doubtless similar to ancient canals.

What are the reasons for these inaccuracies? The following explanation has been offered: When Herodotus visited Babylon the city lay largely in ruins, having been destroyed by Xerxes after two serious revolts against his rule. Temples, palaces, and all fortifications were thoroughly demolished. At the time of his visit Herodotus had to depend on oral information regarding the former state of affairs, the appearance of the buildings, and the size of the city and walls. Since he did not speak the Babylonian language, but was dependent on a Greek-speaking guide, he may, owing to translation difficulties, have received certain inaccurate information. Some of his erroneous statements may have been due to a faulty memory.

F. M. Th. [de Liagre] Bцhl recently advanced another explanation. He suggests that Herodotus may have meant the whole fortress of Babylon, including all areas that lay within terrain that could be inundated in times of danger. Bцhl reminds his readers of the fact that it is extremely difficult for a layman to distinguish between the dikes of dry canals and the remnants of the old city walls. The only difference is the lack of potsherds in the dikes. Potsherds are found in profusion near former walls of the city. It must therefore be considered possible that Herodotus took some of the many canal dikes for the remains of city walls (see Ex Oriente Lux, No. 10, 1945–48, p. 498, n. 28).

Although ancient Babylon did not have the fantastic size attributed to it by Herodotus, the city was nevertheless of formidable size at a time when cities were very small according to modern standards. Its circumference of about 11 mi. (17.6 km.) was comparable with the 71/2 mi. (12.5 km.) circumference of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria’s empire; with the walls of imperial Rome, 6 mi. (9.6 km.) in circumference; and with the 4 mi. (6.5 km.) of the walls of Athens at the time of that city’s height in the 5th century b.c. This comparison with other famous cities of antiquity shows that Babylon was, with the possible exception of Egyptian Thebes, then in ruins, the largest and greatest of all ancient capitals, though it was much smaller than classical writers later pictured it. It is understandable why Nebuchadnezzar felt he had a right to boast of having built “this great Babylon … by the might of my power” (Dan. 4:30).

A City of Temples and Palaces.—Because Babylon contained the sanctuary of the god Marduk, considered to be the lord of heaven and earth, the chief of all the gods, the ancient Babylonians considered their city the “navel” of the world. Hence, Babylon was a religious center without rival on earth. A cuneiform tablet of Nebuchadnezzar’s time lists 53 temples dedicated to important gods, 955 small sanctuaries, and 384 street altars—all of them within the city confines. In comparison, Asshur, one of the chief cities of Assyria, with its 34 temples and chapels, made a comparatively poor impression. One can well understand why the Babylonians were proud of their city, saying, “Babylon is the origin and center of all lands.” Their pride is reflected in Nebuchadnezzar’s famous words quoted in the comment on ch. 4:30, and also in an ancient song of praise (as given by E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religio?sen Inhalts, Part I [Leipzig, 1915], No. 8):

“O Babylon, whosoever beholds thee is filled with rejoicing,

Whosoever dwells in Babylon increases his life,

Whosoever speaks evil of Babylon is like one who kills his own mother.

Babylon is like a sweet date palm, whose fruit is lovely to behold.”

The center of Babylon’s glory was the famous temple tower Etemenanki, “the foundation stone of heaven and earth,” 299 ft. (91 m.) square at the base and probably 300 ft. (91.4 m.) high. This edifice was surpassed in height in ancient times only by the two great pyramids at Giza in Egypt. The tower may have been built at the site where the Tower of Babel once stood. The brick structure consisted of seven stages, of which the smallest and uppermost was a shrine dedicated to Marduk, the chief god of Babylon. See further on Gen. 11:9.

A great temple complex, called Esagila, literally, “He who raises the head,” surrounded the tower Etemenanki. Its courts and buildings were the scenes of many religious ceremonies performed in honor of Marduk. Great and colorful processions terminated at this place. With the exception of the great Amen temple at Karnak, Esagila was the largest and most famous of all temples of the ancient Orient. At the time Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne it had already enjoyed a long and glorious history, and the new king entirely rebuilt and beautified extensive sections of the temple complex, including the tower Etemenanki.

In both number and size the palaces of Babylon revealed extraordinary luxury. During his long reign of 43 years Nebuchadnezzar built three large castles or palaces. One of them lay within the Inner City, the others outside it. One was what is known as the Summer Palace, in the northernmost part of the new eastern quarter. The mound that now covers its remains is the highest of those comprising the ruins of old Babylon, and is the only place that still bears the ancient name Babil. However, the thorough destruction of this palace in ancient times and the subsequent looting of the bricks of the structure have not left much for the archeologist to discover. Thus we know little regarding this palace.

Another large palace, which excavators now call the Central Palace, lay immediately outside the northern wall of the Inner City. This, too, was built by Nebuchadnezzar. Modern archeologists found this large building also in a hopelessly desolate condition, with the exception of one part of the palace, the Museum of Antiquities. Here valuable objects of the glorious past of Babylonian’s history, such as old statues, inscriptions, and trophies of war, had been collected and exhibited “for men to behold,” as Nebuchadnezzar expressed it in one of his inscriptions.

The Southern Palace lay in the northwestern corner of the Inner City and contained, among other structures, the famous hanging gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. A large vaulted building was surmounted with a roof garden irrigated by a system of pipes through which water was pumped up. According to Diodorus, Nebuchadnezzar built this marvelous edifice for his Median wife in order to give to her, in the midst of level and treeless Babylonia, a substitute for the wooded hills of her native land, which she missed. In the vaults underneath the roof gardens provisions of grain, oil, fruit, and spices were stored for the needs of the court and court dependents. Excavators found administrative documents in these rooms, some of which mention King Jehoiachin of Judah as the recipient of royal rations.

Adjoining the hanging gardens was an extensive complex of buildings, halls, and rooms that had replaced the smaller palace of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar. This Southern Palace was more or less the official residence of the king, the place for all ceremonies of state. In the center was a large throne room, 56 by 171 ft. (17 by 52 m.), and possibly 60 ft. (18 m.) high. This immense hall was probably the place where Belshazzar banqueted during the last night of his life, because no other hall in the palace was large enough to accommodate a thousand guests (see Dan. 5:1).

One of that city’s colorful structures was the famous Ishtar Gate which adjoined the Southern Palace and formed one of the northern entrances to the Inner City. This was the most beautiful of all Babylonian gates, for through it passed the Procession Street, leading from the various royal palaces to the temple Esagila. Fortunately, this gate was less completely destroyed than any other structure in Babylon and is now the most impressive of all extant ruins of the city. It still rises to a height of about 39 ft. (12 m.).

The interior structures of the city walls and gates, the palaces and temples, were of unbaked bricks. The outer coats consisted of baked and, in some instances, of glazed bricks. The outer bricks of the city walls were yellow in color, those of the gates sky blue, those of the palaces rose, and those of the temples white. The Ishtar Gate was a double structure, because of double walls. It was 165 ft. (50 m.) long and consisted of four tower-like structures of varying thickness and height. The walls were of bricks whose glazed surfaces formed raised figures of animals. There were at least 575 of these. There were bulls in yellow, with decorative rows of blue hair, and green hoofs and horns. These alternated with mythological beasts in yellow, called sirrush, which had serpents’ heads and tails, scaled bodies, and eagles’ and cats’ feet (for an illustration see facing p. 864 and SDA Bible Dictionary, fig. 137).

The approach to the Ishtar Gate (see illustration facing p. 864) was lined on both sides of the street with defensive walls. On these walls were glazed-brick lions in relief, either white with yellow manes or yellow with red manes (now turned green) on a blue background.

Such was this colorful and mighty city that King Nebuchadnezzar had built—the marvel of all nations. His pride in it is reflected in inscriptions he left to posterity. One of them, now in the Berlin Museum, reads as follows:

“I have made Babylon, the holy city, the glory of the great gods, more prominent than before, and have promoted its rebuilding. I have caused the sanctuaries of gods and goddesses to lighten up like the day. No king among all kings has ever created, no earlier king has ever built, what I have magnificently built for Marduk. I have furthered to the utmost the equipment ofEsagila, and the renovation of Babylon more than had ever been done before. All my valuable works, the beautification of the sanctuaries of the great gods, which I undertook more than my royal ancestors, I wrote in a document and put it down for coming generations. All my deeds, which I have written in this document, shall those read who know [how to read] and remember the glory of the great gods. May the way of my life be long, may I rejoice in offspring; may my offspring rule over the black-headed people into all eternity, and may the mentioning of my name be proclaimed for good at all future times.”

Ellen G. White comments

1-25PP 45-51

1 DA 769

1-3GC 455; PK 180; PP 47, 336; 9T 212

2 GC 453; ML 140

2, 3 EW 217; GC 52; MM 215; PP 111; SR 145; 8T 197

3 DA 281; MB 99; 4T 147, 247

4 PP 112

6 PP 96; SR 66

7 MH 415; PP 56; 2T 300; 8T 264

8 AH 27; ML 136; PP 46; SR 58; 3T 77, 153

8, 9 Ed 20

8-17MYP 364

9 AH 27; Ed 23; PP 47, 48, 84; 6T 368; 8T 288

15 AH 27; CD 396; CT 147; Ed 21; FE 314, 327, 419, 512; LS 355;MH 261; ML 112; PP 47, 50; SR 24; 1T 568; 3T 77, 153; 4T 410

16 3T 50

16, 17 CH 108; Ed 23; 3T 72; 4T 11

17 CS 65; CT 12; EW 125, 147; GC 532; MH 449; PP 48, 53, 60; SR 24; 2T 561; 5T 365; 6T 386

18 AH 25; PP 56

18-20PP 46

19, 20 PP 51

21-23PP 56

22 AH 99; 3T 484

23 MB 99

23-25COL 310; FE 141

24 AH 25, 341; MB 99; PP 46

25 PP 445; SR 38