Daniel 5:18
O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
Original Language Analysis
Historical Context
Nebuchadnezzar's historical greatness was undeniable—his military campaigns, building projects, and administrative reforms created the last great Mesopotamian empire. Daniel doesn't dispute these achievements but reframes them: success came through God's grant, not autonomous power. This challenged Babylonian ideology that attributed imperial success to Marduk and royal competence. For Jewish exiles, this interpretation provided theodicy: Babylon's conquest of Judah occurred not because Yahweh was weak but because He sovereignly granted temporary dominion to Babylon for His purposes. The historical pattern shows God's control over geopolitics, raising and deposing kingdoms according to His redemptive plans.
Questions for Reflection
- How does attributing Nebuchadnezzar's success to divine grant rather than human achievement challenge worldly perspectives on power and success?
- What does God's giving 'kingdom, majesty, glory, and honour' to a pagan king teach about common grace and providence?
- Why does Daniel begin his interpretation with historical theology rather than immediately reading the handwriting?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
Daniel begins his interpretation by recounting Nebuchadnezzar's history: 'O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour.' This establishes fundamental theology: earthly kingdoms come through divine grant, not human achievement. The fourfold description (kingdom, majesty, glory, honour) emphasizes comprehensive dominion—Nebuchadnezzar received everything. The phrase 'the most high God gave' attributes all success to divine providence, not Babylonian power or Marduk's favor. This introduction prepares for the coming contrast: Nebuchadnezzar eventually acknowledged God's sovereignty (4:34-37); Belshazzar has failed to learn this lesson, leading to judgment. Daniel's historical review serves pedagogical purpose: reminding Belshazzar of what he should have known and providing theological framework for interpreting the handwriting.