(19) Night vision.--Not in a dream, but literally in a vision; but that Daniel saw a repetition of the king's dream cannot be inferred from the words. We know from Numbers 12:6 that God was pleased to reveal the truth both by dreams and by visions.

Verse 19. - Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. The Septuagint adds that the secret was revealed "that very night (ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ νυκτι)." This may be held to be implied in the Aramaic, but it is here explicitly stated. Further, the Septuagint speaks of the secret as "the, mystery of the king." At the end of the clause the LXX. adds the word εὐσήμως, "evidently." All these alterations imply additions to the text made by the translator. Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome agree with the Massoretic text There has been considerable discussion as to whether this revelation was made to Daniel by a dream. Hitzig assumes that the night-vision to Daniel was a repetition of that which had appeared to Nebuchadnezzar, and then pro-coeds to brand this as a psychological impossibility. Keil, Kliefoth, Kraniehfeld, and Zockler all declare against the identification of a night-vision with a dream. Keil and Kliefoth say in the same words, "A vision of the night is simply a vision which any one receives during the night whilst he is awake." And Kranichfeld says, "Of a dream of Daniel, in our present case there is not one word." Zockler says, "Not a dream-vision, but an appearance (Gesicht) vision, which appeared during the night." They maintain that, though all "dreams" may be called "night-visions," all "night-visions" are not "dreams." It would be difficult to prove that this is the usage of Scripture. It is quite true that the distinction between a dream and a vision is that in the former the subject is asleep, while in the latter he is awake. It may, however, be doubted whether this distinction is always maintained by the Hebrew and Aramaic writers, even in regard to "visions" and "dreams" generally; and it seems to us impossible to prove it in regard to "visions of the night" and "dreams." In ver. 28 of the chapter before us, there seems no doubt that Daniel uses these words as equivalent to each other; "Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these." While we agree with Hitzig that the revelation was to Daniel in a dream, we do not admit the psychological impossibility, save only in the pedantic sense in which it is said that no two people, however close they may stand to each other, see the same rainbow Dreams are very generally the product of what the subject has experienced during his waking hours. Surely Hitzig never meant to assert that it was a psychological impossibility for two individuals to witness the same event. Certainly the improbability is very great that the sight of the same physical event should meet the eyes of two people in similar states of body, and produce on them precisely the some sort and degree of impression. That, however, is akin to the Hegelian pedantic statement, which asserts that we cannot go twice down the same street. Though it might even be admitted to be an impossibility in the only sense in which it can at all be admitted, yet still it is not self-contradictory. The self-contradictory is the only impossibility we can assert in the presence of the miraculous. Hitzig's objection to this is really that it was a miracle, and all the parade of giving the statement a new face by calling it, not a miracle, but a psychological impossibility, is only throwing dust in the eyes of others, perhaps of himself. Ewald does not see any psychological impossibility, and declares that the author meant to represent this at all events. Up, then, before the mind of Daniel rose the gigantic statue of the monarch's vision, and with the vision came also the divinely given certainty that this was what the king had seen. He needs, however, more than the vision: the interpretation of the vision is vouchsafed to him also. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. The LXX. rendering here joins the first clause of ver. 20 to this, "Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven, and having cried aloud, said." Theodotion, the Peshitta, and Jerome agree with the Massoretic text. As we have said above, Daniel returned thanks to God for his great goodness to him and his friends. Our blessing God does not increase Divine felicity, but it expresses our sense of this felicity, and we recognize it all the more readily when, as in the case of these Jews, it is exhibited in making us partakers of it. Hence blessing God and giving God thanks become in such cases one and the mine thing.

Parallel Commentaries ...


During
אֱדַ֗יִן (’ĕ·ḏa·yin)
Adverb
Strong's 116: Then, thereupon

the night,
לֵילְיָ֖א (lê·lə·yā)
Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 3916: Night

the mystery
רָזָ֣ה (rā·zāh)
Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 7328: To attenuate, hide, a mystery

was revealed
גֲלִ֑י (ḡă·lî)
Verb - Nifal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1541: To denude, to exile, to reveal

to Daniel
לְדָנִיֵּ֛אל (lə·ḏā·nî·yêl)
Preposition-l | Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 1841: Daniel -- 'God is my judge', an Israelite leader in Babylon

in a vision,
בְּחֶזְוָ֥א (bə·ḥez·wā)
Preposition-b | Noun - masculine singular determinate
Strong's 2376: Vision, appearance

and [he]
דָּֽנִיֵּ֔אל (dā·nî·yêl)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 1841: Daniel -- 'God is my judge', an Israelite leader in Babylon

blessed
בָּרִ֖ךְ (bā·riḵ)
Verb - Piel - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1289: To kneel, to bless God, man, to curse

the God
לֶאֱלָ֥הּ (le·’ĕ·lāh)
Preposition-l | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's 426: God

of heaven
שְׁמַיָּֽא׃ (šə·may·yā)
Noun - mdd
Strong's 8065: The sky


Daniel 2:19 NIV
Daniel 2:19 NLT
Daniel 2:19 ESV
Daniel 2:19 NASB
Daniel 2:19 KJV

Daniel 2:19 BibleApps.com
Daniel 2:19 Biblia Paralela
Daniel 2:19 Chinese Bible
Daniel 2:19 French Bible
Daniel 2:19 Catholic Bible

OT Prophets: Daniel 2:19 Then was the secret revealed to Daniel (Dan. Da Dn)