And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
Daniel details Nebuchadnezzar's judgment: driven from human society, given beast's heart, dwelling with wild donkeys, eating grass like oxen, body wet with heaven's dew—'till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.' This comprehensive humiliation had a specific purpose clause: 'till he knew'—the judgment was pedagogical, designed to teach divine sovereignty. Once the lesson was learned, restoration followed. This contrasts sharply with Belshazzar's coming judgment: Nebuchadnezzar's was temporary and redemptive; Belshazzar's will be final and terminal (death that very night). The difference? Nebuchadnezzar eventually learned; Belshazzar refused to, despite knowing the example. This teaches that God's discipline, though severe, aims at restoration for those who respond; but continued rebellion leads to final judgment.
Historical Context
Daniel's recounting assumes Belshazzar knew this history—it was royal family knowledge, likely documented in court records. The precise details (wild donkeys, eating grass, dew-wet body) match chapter 4's account, confirming historical continuity. Nebuchadnezzar's restoration after learning the lesson (4:34-37) provided powerful testimony that acknowledging God's sovereignty brings healing. Ancient Near Eastern courts preserved records of kings' reigns, though embarrassing events were typically suppressed. That this humiliation was known suggests either Nebuchadnezzar himself publicized it (as chapter 4's first-person format implies) or it was too dramatic to hide. Either way, Belshazzar had access to this object lesson and ignored it.
Questions for Reflection
How does the purpose clause 'till he knew' demonstrate that God's discipline aims at teaching rather than merely punishing?
What's the difference between temporary pedagogical judgment (Nebuchadnezzar) and final terminal judgment (Belshazzar)?
Why does refusing to learn from available examples compound guilt and invite harsher judgment?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
Daniel details Nebuchadnezzar's judgment: driven from human society, given beast's heart, dwelling with wild donkeys, eating grass like oxen, body wet with heaven's dew—'till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.' This comprehensive humiliation had a specific purpose clause: 'till he knew'—the judgment was pedagogical, designed to teach divine sovereignty. Once the lesson was learned, restoration followed. This contrasts sharply with Belshazzar's coming judgment: Nebuchadnezzar's was temporary and redemptive; Belshazzar's will be final and terminal (death that very night). The difference? Nebuchadnezzar eventually learned; Belshazzar refused to, despite knowing the example. This teaches that God's discipline, though severe, aims at restoration for those who respond; but continued rebellion leads to final judgment.