Christ’s kingdom may have a small and inauspicious beginning (twelve disciples) but it becomes far greater than any geopolitical empire (such as Nebuchadnezzar’s), as the gospel spreads to the end of the earth, through word and sacrament, in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:8, “none of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Jesus’s kingdom–which uses the same tree imagery as found in the king’s dream–truly shelters the birds and beasts (symbolic of the great expanse of this kingdom), and provides genuine rest and shelter for the people of God.

The New Situation In Babylon
In Daniel chapter 4 we are given remarkable insight into a man who has played a central role in Daniel’s prophecy–the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. In each of the previous chapters of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar exerted his royal power and authority, demonstrated his hot temper and tyrannical nature, while championing the “gods of Babylon.” We have also seen that his “gods” and his Chaldeans (the wise men and court magicians) repeatedly failed to give the king that which he demanded. The great king was even forced to seek help from one of his young Hebrew servants to interpret a troubling dream–which he will do yet again in chapter 4. YHWH has clearly won the battle with the idols of Babylon. Through all of this, it has become clear that YHWH is sovereign over all things, a fact which Nebuchadnezzar has been forced to admit repeatedly when neither his idols nor his Chaldeans could help him. This was also made clear to him in chapter 3 when Nebuchadnezzar witnessed three Hebrew officials (who were friends of Daniel) survive being thrown into a super-heated fiery furnace with the aid of a mysterious fourth man (the pre-incarnate Christ, or an angel of the Lord).
But in Daniel chapter 4 we find that everything has changed. Much time has passed and Nebuchadnezzar is a different man. Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which Daniel must interpret for him–only this dream comes much later in the king’s career, toward the end his life. In this chapter–filled with remarkable contrasts and ironies–we read of a king whose days as a cruel tyrant seem to be in the past. The king greatly enjoys the creature comforts accrued after a long career as ruler of a great empire. Daniel’s report almost makes us feel sorry for Nebuchadnezzar as the pagan king is forced to wrestle with the fact that YHWH is the sovereign Lord, who rules the affairs of men and nations, and of whom Nebuchadnezzar will affirm, “how great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation.”
Another Dream – A Different Outcome
We also learn in this chapter that Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which must be interpreted by Daniel after we read again of the inability of the king’s court magicians to do so. We also learn (in vv. 28-33) that at some point during this period of his life, the great king experiences what used to be described as a “nervous breakdown.” This complete mental and emotional unraveling causes the king to flee his palace and his capital city to live among wild animals, eating grass, and becoming almost unrecognizable in appearance. Chapter 4 ends with Nebuchadnezzar regaining his sanity and affirming YHWH’s greatness, but not making a credible profession of faith.
On the one hand, this is a fascinating story as we witness such a mighty and cruel man come to the brink of faith, then instead fall into madness, only to be restored unto sanity. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar’s inner-struggles are revealed by Daniel to serve as a powerful reminder to the Jewish exiles then living under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in Babylon (those who are the initial recipients of Daniel’s prophecy), that no human king is truly sovereign over the dealings of men and nations–only YHWH is. Kings rule only as YHWH allows them. YHWH can and will protect his people, even as they suffer under a tyrant’s rule, Daniel and his three friends being the proof.
YHWH Rules Over All – Even Pagan Empires
Daniel’s message to the Jewish exiles living in Babylon is that YHWH chose to give this particular kingdom to this man at this time and place–but YHWH forces Nebuchadnezzar to realize that fact. YHWH can easily give Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to another–as we will see with the fall of Babylon to the Persians, shortly before the end of Daniel’s life. YHWH is Nebuchadnezzar’s Lord. YHWH is the one who ultimately determines the fate of the Jewish exiles. Through his prophets, YHWH has revealed to the exiles in Babylon that one day their exile will come to an end, and YHWH’s people will return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and its temple. Nebuchadnezzar cannot stay YHWH’s hand, and in this chapter we are given a glimpse into why this is the case. The great king is but a mere man, with a great many problems, fears, and weaknesses of his own.
Two Kingdoms in Contrast
As the fourth chapter of Daniel unfolds, we see the sharp contrast between Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom and Christ’s. The Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is mighty, powerful, and fearsome by human standards, yet is puny, weak, and pitiful when considered in the light of Christ’s kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and kingdom will come to an end as foretold in the vision of the metallic statue in chapter 2. Yet not all the kingdoms of this world combined can defeat the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which, conquers not with the sword, but through the gospel. Jesus Christ’s kingdom is a heavenly kingdom, which explains why earthly kingdoms and worldly power cannot contain it. This is the lesson the king is beginning to learn.
We turn our attention to Daniel 4, which recounts the 4th and final incident in the Book of Daniel from the life of Nebuchadnezzar. As is the case with Daniel 2, this passage is also a single literary unit and best covered in one sitting. But the tyranny of space and the span of attention does not allow us to do this with any degree of depth, so I will devote several posts to go through this chapter, precisely because it is so rich in historical, theological, and psychological insights. To hurry through the entire chapter in one blog post, hitting but the high points, will cause us to miss much. So, we will turn our attention to the setting and background of chapter 4 (toward the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign), then take up Nebuchadnezzar’s ascription of praise to YHWH (vv. 1-3), before turning to the king’s second disturbing dream (vv. 4-18).
The theme of God’s sovereignty over all things has been made clear by Daniel from the opening verses of his prophecy which recount Daniel’s capture and forced indoctrination into the ways of the Babylonian court and its pagan religion. Daniel and his three friends actually thrived while under Babylonian control, even as they subversively resisted all attempts to convert them into pagans. In chapter 2, we saw YHWH give the king a dream which troubled Nebuchadnezzar greatly, yet which neither he nor his court magicians could interpret. Only Daniel could do so, since Daniel had been given the dream as well as its interpretation by YHWH.
Then, in chapter 3, we saw YHWH’s power in preserving Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) who refused to bow and worship the king’s golden statue. In chapter 4, God reveals his power over Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, also revealing himself to the king, so that the pagan tyrant, now mellowed with age and illness, acknowledges YHWH as “the king of heaven” in the closing verse of the chapter (v. 37). The change in this man is dramatic, but not necessarily the sign of conversion from a pagan polytheist into a worshiper of the true and living God.
Nebuchadnezzar Grows Old
The historical setting for chapter 4 is important because these events occur well after the scene in chapter 3 (which can be dated about December 594-January 593 BC). This material recounts events much closer to the end of the king’s life than previous chapters. Daniel 4 recounts a time when Nebuchadnezzar is at home in his palace, while, as he puts it, was “at ease and prospering” (v. 4). One year later (vv. 26-29), the king is stricken with a loss of sanity for a period of “seven times,” often interpreted as seven years, but which is much more likely referring to a time of completeness (symbolized by the number 7), i.e., the time it takes the king to acknowledge YHWH’s sovereignty over all things and then regain his sanity.[1]
The historical record enables us to follow Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent career after the construction and erection of the gold statue in chapter 3. We know from Babylonian sources that Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year of his rule was 594 BC. He then laid siege to Jerusalem in 589-587, finally sacking the city and destroying the temple in 587. His motivation was likely the king’s realization that the vassal king of Judah (Zedekiah), had made an alliance with other nations against Nebuchadnezzar. So, whatever acknowledgments Nebuchadnezzar made previously regarding YHWH in the first three chapters of Daniel did not prevent him from destroying YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem.[2]
Next, the king laid siege for thirteen years to the coastal city of Tyre (from 586-573), and he engaged in a battle in Egypt in 568/567 so as to crush another revolt by a vassal state subject to the Babylonian empire. We do know that Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. So, if this chapter depicts a time at least one year prior to the king’s death in 562, one possible time frame for the chapter is somewhere between 573-569, with Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt in 568/67 well enough to lead his troops, being an indication that he had regained his health and sanity.[3]
No official Babylonian records mention the king’s illness (official state records end in 594 BC–about the time the king built his statue), but there are other accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness and recovery which have come down to us in the form of tradition and legend. One Christian writer (Eusebius of Caesarea) recounts a Babylonian tradition that Nebuchadnezzar cried out from the roof of his palace that great misfortune was about to befall his people (a Persian victory). The Jewish historian Josephus cites a similar legend to the effect that the king was felled by a mysterious illness and died in his 43rd year of rule.[4] So, while not ironclad as we would like, there is some external evidence to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar did have some sort of serious mental illness late in his life.
Why does this matter to us? The tyrannical king played a significant role in Israel’s history, equivalent to that of Pharaoh’s role in the mistreatment of the Jews and then in the Passover/Exodus. The king took Daniel and other Hebrew royals into exile, is the same man who destroyed the city of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple, and who took most of the population of Judah into exile into Babylon in 587. Despite his success in conquest, he proved to be a mere mortal, brought to his knees by YHWH’s mighty hand, his life and his empire now heading toward their inevitable ends. Although the king was repeatedly forced to acknowledge YHWH’s power and rule as superior to his own, he was eventually pushed to despair by this knowledge.
Read More
Related Posts:

Given that history, we would be better served to abandon the desire for winsomeness and all attempts to repurpose it and make it our own, and to instead return to Scripture’s ideas and terms regarding the multi-faceted virtue which is to be exhibited by the followers of Christ. President Kruger is right in his aim and practice, but we could wish he finds a better theory and terminology in which to dress it. For the excellencies of the Spirit-filled life do not fit well in the rhetoric of contemporary American culture.

The debate over the desirability of winsomeness continues. In a recent entry no less eminent and praiseworthy a gentleman than President Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary – Charlotte has come to the defense of winsomeness with a polite but unyielding article asserting that instilling winsomeness is a key part of his institution’s efforts. He maintains that character matters; that it affects how our message is likely to be received; and that the Reformed world is in need of much improvement on this point. Those three points are indisputably true, but it is not clear that they have the close relation to winsomeness that President Kruger maintains.
Central to his argument is his contention that being winsome is simply embodying the fruits of the Spirit in our own lives. Let it be stated very plainly that if to be winsome is to be kind, loving, patient, and all the other fruits of the Spirit, then we are indeed under obligation to be winsome. No believer is permitted to disparage the Spirit’s works or embody the works of the flesh (Rom. 8:13), and if President Kruger’s aim is only to inculcate a Spirit-directed life in his students and audience (comp. Gal. 5:25) it is wholly appropriate, and all Presbyterians ought to wish him Godspeed.
I disagree with his definition, however, and assert that while his ministerial efforts are laudable his scheme of classification is mistaken. The essence of winsomeness does not lie in the sundry fruits of the Spirit or being like Christ. The conception of winsomeness that Kruger and others praise regards winsomeness as something in the person who is deemed winsome. Indeed, Kruger uses winsome as a synonym for virtuous or Spirit-filled.
But winsomeness, like attractiveness, is in the eye of the beholder. Its essence does not lie so much in what one is, but in how he or she is perceived by others. We describe other people as winsome when we regard them as charming, likable, pleasant, polished, and generally enjoyable to listen to or keep company with. Such people tend to be many of the things that Kruger regards as essential, such as kind or peaceable, but their winsomeness does not lie in those things as such, but in how those things lead us to have a positive esteem of them. One can only be deemed likable or charming if his character has charmed others or made him likable to them.
If this be doubted, consider how people talk about others. How often have you heard someone say something like ‘He’s a good guy, nice and easy to get along with, but –‘ followed by some caveat that means that his kindness, peaceableness, gentleness, patience, and goodness notwithstanding, the person in question is not likely to be called winsome. In practice there are many people who are kind, good, pleasant, etc., whom we find only partly likable, at best, and who do not inspire that feeling of fondness and positive impression that leads us to praise them as winsome or to take their position in disputed matters.
Note also the contexts in which winsome appears. I have yet to see someone refer to himself as winsome – which is well, for it would be about the most unwinsome and revolting thing he could do. But I have read Robert Burns use it to praise his wife as a delight (“My Wife’s A Winsome Wee Thing”), and I have read many a book review or profile of a prominent figure whose subject was described as winsome by an admiring author.
The problem with the view of Kruger and others is that they have effectively enshrined winsomeness as the preeminent virtue, the one in which in principle all others are found and from which they flow. What arête was to the ancient Greeks or honor to the antebellum Southerner, so is winsomeness to the contemporary evangelical. Again, Kruger defines it as consisting of a conscious embodiment of the fruits of the Spirit and imitation of Christ.
There is an alternative to winsomeness which I will delineate in a subsequent article. For our purposes here I will mention only three more things. One, the worst people in the world can often be described as winsome. Any time you meet a winsome person you ought to tread carefully, for there is a good chance that person is a deceptive, manipulative fiend with bad intentions, an adulterer, con man, abuser, or some other form of blackguard who is compelled to hide his true nature to accomplish his foul aims (comp. 2 Cor. 11:13-15).
Two, my disagreement with President Kruger et. al., does not concern how we are to behave. We are all agreed that we are to imitate Christ, walk by the Spirit, and embody virtue in all that we are and do. The disagreement is merely over what terms and concepts we should use to describe such a manner of living. If anyone comes away from this article with a poor impression of President Kruger or imagining that we are to be curmudgeonly or uncivil, he has misunderstood me entirely.
Three, winsome is an ancient English word that fell out of use until it was revived by eighteenth century Scottish poets such as the aforementioned Robert Burns (Online Etymology Dictionary). Burns was a fierce critic of the Church of Scotland.[1] Consider the thick irony that we are all running about desperately trying to be winsome, ultimately, because an opponent of our Scottish forebears revived the word. For the whole history of the church people have been talking about the goodness of being merciful, just, loving, virtuous, etc. Only in the last generation or two has the emphasis shifted to being this one thing, winsome, and this has only been possible because a critic of the church re-popularized the term in previous generations.
Given that history, we would be better served to abandon the desire for winsomeness and all attempts to repurpose it and make it our own, and to instead return to Scripture’s ideas and terms regarding the multi-faceted virtue which is to be exhibited by the followers of Christ. President Kruger is right in his aim and practice, but we could wish he finds a better theory and terminology in which to dress it. For the excellencies of the Spirit-filled life do not fit well in the rhetoric of contemporary American culture.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.
[1] It must be noted that the Church of Scotland of Burns’ day was by most accounts unhealthy, however, and in need of reform.
Related Posts:

And so also do some say that such people in our own midst experience this lust unchosen, that it is largely fixed and unlikely to ever dissipate in this life, and that it would be unfair to deprive them of participation in something that others are allowed to experience. You seem to accept this position, or at the least to not think it is one that deserves condemnation, and you put your efforts into opposing those that seek to combat things like Revoice.

Read Part 1 and Part 2
The Dangers of Activism
There is danger in approaching the church as you do. He who engages in denominational politics, regardless of his faction, must heed this danger, for it is easy to become so bogged down with politicking that the common work of ministry is drowned out. In this you do poorly, and I fear the direction and consequences of your labors, that they tend to evil.
Perhaps you will appeal to the example of the Reformers and say that you only follow after their example in the spirit of semper reformanda. But they did not work to change a church that was faithful, but one that was false and in a state of “Babylonian” captivity. You approach the church as though it is a thing that you might fashion according to your own preferences. You seem to forget that the church belongs to Christ, and that he is a jealous king who will not share his glory with another. He is the dread majesty who “is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29) and who “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16).
Those who rule in his church ought always to remember that they should do so in his manner, openly and honorably, and they must never forget that all power and dominion in the church is his alone and that we are not free to do with or in the church as we will, but are mere stewards and servants of him who is the “only Sovereign” (1 Tim. 6:15). Consider the advice of one who was zealous in sundry activities, but who strayed from God in the midst of his doings:
Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. (Ecc. 5:1-2)
The church is God’s house, and they who deal with it should not be hasty in seeking to administer its affairs or in setting her policies and form at the highest levels (Lk. 14:10). Much unintentional harm has been done in this world by those that meant well but who could not see the consequences of their actions. Who can say where this activist spirit will lead, or what others who learn from its example will do? The temper of a thing often lingers after its immediate purpose is forgotten, and it may be that the activist tendency endures long after the present debates in the PCA are relics of the past.
The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy transpired long ago, and yet the same spirit that reorganized Princeton Seminary is still at work in the PCUSA, albeit yet more faithless, and it leads her to follow the culture at every step, even into her own oblivion. Can you be sure that this activist spirit that you embody will not break free of restraint and lead you or others in bad directions? Is it not perhaps better to forego such a tendency and do the work of an elder in simplicity, giving little heed to politicking and instead keeping the faith as it has been delivered to us?
A Contemporary Failing
There is concern also in your position regarding Revoice. You believe that homosexual lust does not disqualify one from office and that the church would effectively wrong those that manifest it by refusing to ordain them. Does office exist for those that desire it? Is it not rather a position of service that places those that hold it in subjection to the needs of the sheep? No one has any right to office, and the denomination wrongs no one if it determines that the nature of someone’s lust prevents him from serving effectively or makes him morally unfit. In this you think along worldly lines, regarding the individual as possessing absolute rights to do as he wishes, and regarding it as unfair if others object or attempt to assert their own rights in turn. “This is the age in which thin and theoretic minorities can cover and conquer unconscious and untheoretic majorities” (G.K. Chesterton). It is an age in which the individual is everything and the corporate body nothing, in which a radical individualism prevails and says that the individual’s personal fulfillment is everything and that collective bodies have no rights of their own and exist only to assist individuals in finding their own career fulfillment or emotional acceptance (by self and others), or other such notions of personal wellbeing (or “flourishing”).
You upset the proper relation of things and seem to regard the church as existing to give the individual an occasion to labor, not the office holder as existing to feed the sheep (comp. Mk. 10:42-45; Jn. 21:15-17; Eph. 4:11-14). How else can we explain your horror that the PCA might refuse to ordain men who experience persistent homosexual lust or even remove them from office? In this two things are especially concerning.
One is that you have sworn to your acceptance of our form of government as part of your ordination, a form of government which says “every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and the qualifications of its ministers and members” and that even if it errs in doing this “it does not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only makes an improper use of its own.” You like Preliminary Principle I, because you think it elevates individual conscience above corporate conscience, the minister over the denomination that ordains, invests, and supervises him. But you seem to ignore Principle II, which qualifies principle I and establishes the practical rights of the corporate church body.
It is further concerning that the basic argument that some in our midst use is the same as that which was successfully used to normalize immorality in society. It was repeated ad nauseam that homosexuals are such because of an orientation that is immutable and unchosen, and that it was wrong to deprive them of things that others could experience because they did not choose this orientation. It was felt to be unfair for society to determine the nature and qualifications of its most basic institution of marriage.
And so also do some say that such people in our own midst experience this lust unchosen, that it is largely fixed and unlikely to ever dissipate in this life, and that it would be unfair to deprive them of participation in something that others are allowed to experience. You seem to accept this position, or at the least to not think it is one that deserves condemnation, and you put your efforts into opposing those that seek to combat things like Revoice. Thus do you participate, for all intents and purposes, in a contemporary movement to normalize homosexuality in the church. God says this is an abomination that should not be tolerated or even mentioned (Eph. 5:3), and that he has delivered men from it (1 Cor. 6:9), but you say it does not unfit one for office and that those who think it does are the ones who act unreasonably and unfairly.
Thus, do you effectively excuse what God condemns; and if you elsewhere teach an orthodox position you ought to consider that such an inconsistency cannot long exist (Matt. 6:24; 12:25) and that one of the principles must eventually win out to the utter exclusion of the other. You cannot espouse an orthodox view of sexuality and marriage on the one hand and then accept the concept of homosexual identity and put great energies into asserting a “right” for self-professed homosexuals to lead in the church on the other, especially when the basic argument that is used to normalize such lust and the basic conception of those that experience it is invading our denomination’s public discourse from the wider culture and is not gleaned from God’s word. We are only having this debate because the culture has already done so, and if it had not done so we would not be doing so now, for the impetus for it comes from culture and not from Scripture.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.